11–20 of 64 posts
Artifact was just not fun at all.
I've been playing a ton of MTG, HS, Gwent, MTGA, bought Artifact, played 5 hours, never touched the game again.
It's overengineered, unnecessary complex, too slow, too long, too random and at the end exhausting, frustrating and not that interesting.
Most people played one or two games of Artifact a day then moved too something else.
We're all waiting for a '3' of any of their franchises.
Nobody asked for a Valve card game. We're all waiting for a '3' of any of their franchises.
I mean, this is exactly how card games work. People don't seem to have an issue buying into expensive Magic decks. You don't NEED to have the best though, no shame in drafting and pauper decks.
People are a lot more willing to dump money on a physical good that they provably own (because it's literally in their possession in their home) than on digital goods. Artifact uses the microtransaction model to the very extreme, to the point where it costs real money to play a ranked game (not even to get new stuff, just to play a game). This has understandably turned off a huge number of people. With AAA games that…
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/4by4e4/pol...
I'd say not capitalising on one of their greatest games is another huge failure as well..(HL3)
Not to defend them at all, but the longer it took to plan HL3, the longer it became a sounder business decision to just not do it for risk of not living up to the hype.
I'd say not capitalising on one of their greatest games is another huge failure as well..(HL3)
Not to defend them at all, but the longer it took to plan HL3, the longer it became a sounder business decision to just not do it for risk of not living up to the hype.
But Black Mesa is a counterexample; they still haven't released Xen last time I checked, but everything they have released far exceeds expectations. Maybe Valve should pay that group to finish the HL series.
I'd say not capitalising on one of their greatest games is another huge failure as well..(HL3)
I mean, this is exactly how card games work. People don't seem to have an issue buying into expensive Magic decks. You don't NEED to have the best though, no shame in drafting and pauper decks.
People are a lot more willing to dump money on a physical good that they provably own (because it's literally in their possession in their home) than on digital goods. Artifact uses the microtransaction model to the very extreme, to the point where it costs real money to play a ranked game (not even to get new stuff, just to play a game). This has understandably turned off a huge number of people. With AAA games that…
I have two opinions on why the game failed. First, while it was a truly satisfying game and wonderfully complex the random elements where both anti Dota and truly fuck you rng where a flip of a coin decides most high level games. Now, the same could be said about most competitive card games but in Artifact it was so visible, felt terrible, and had no ways to play around it. Hearthstone has learned that good rng is about having a range of bad medium to good results. In Artifact it was as either game losing or game winning, every time. Terrible design and in my opinion the game could of removed all rng entirely and it would of been an amazing niche competitive game. The problem though is, the ranking system, tournaments, and pay to play economy made competitive play boring with no rewards. I am not exaggerating when I say the game would of not been a failure if it had a solid visible Elo ranking system.
Second opinion: the entire design philosophy was a failure from day one. Dota has over 100 heros. Imagine a hearthstone style game were on day one you had 100 heroes to choose from, each with their own cards added to your deck and having four skills (like hero powers in hearthstone). Games remain fast while still being complex and keeping the spirit of Dota (100s of options). I believe valve has no clue what their audience wants.