Jump to content

John Constantine

Members
  • Content Count

    2,094
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John Constantine

  1. It doesn't compete in a gameplay, it does compete as a digital card game for people with limited time. LotR offers small gameplay time and it's pay to play now, HS offers all of it's PvE content for free gated only by your progress within it, and it rewards you if you do it. It's fine to ignore their PvP aspect. It's not fine to ignore their existance. Why tabletop LotR succeeded? It offered a possibility to play a card game alone, without the need for a human opponent. Digital card games eradicated the requirement of a physical human opponent due to internet, there is not much need for a game like digital LotR like there was/is a need for game like tabletop LotR. LotR's super bad tabletop core set experience worked because there was no alternative. This won't happen with the digital version. People who play digital have too much free alternatives that are free, offer much more game time and replayability. And most outsiders will just shrug the game off as "yet another HS clone", like I keep seeing in the comments. Not to mention the divide within the tabletop fans. Steam numbers don't lie. The players you think it is supposed to cater to barely exist.
  2. It's not reasonable when you take into account what market the game is breaking into, and who, justified or not, gonna be it's competitors. And competitors are gonna be other digital card games, which have a lot more cards (both on release and especially currently), and infinite replayability (live opponents), not to mention some games have pve as well (Hearthstone, Shadowverse, TES Legends, etc). You're not gonna get far by trying to compare the game to it's tabletop counterpart. It's two different markets.
  3. I had it made as an OCTGN quest originally, that's how we with Seastan tested it in the first place: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nfjps1806syxg4p/Undead Quest.rar?dl=0
  4. You shouldn't be comparing it to the tabletop game, there is no point, it doesn't competes with the tabletop version. What you should be comparing it to is other digital card games on release.
  5. I once did a small undead quest, I think it was mainly to challenge myself on doing a quest almost completely consisting off MtG art. Needless to say it's pretty lore-hostile, despite me trying to use stuff that was actually in the lore (at least mentioned). I think we tried it once with the Seastan and it proven to be too hard and punishing. Here's the cards if anybody cares to look: https://imgur.com/a/51HvklA
  6. It would be practically possible, but tideous. There are plenty of steps to reduce tideousness tho.
  7. 1:1 port would be silly. The game, especially in it's early stages, had a lot of flaws. Porting the core gameplay and improving the outdated flawed stuff - now that would be a real treat. As of "repurchasing entire game" - digital is much less pricier since it takes no effort and resources to "produce" after the content is done, there is no shipping involved, etc. Plus, the art already exists, so that's a large chunk of investment they've already skipping.
  8. No. Just no. If tabletop cardgame was just released alognside it, then it might've been an interesting business strategy. But considering circumstances, by allowing players import their physical collection they would be setting themselves up for an investment with no return, and no sane person does that. Releasing newer packs with codes that give you goods in digital game might've work in current circumstances, since it would entice physical card game players to try out the digital version, and provoke digital players to buy physical stuff. But just giving everything away immediately on release would just spell financial disaster.
  9. Game being full of bugs is a result of bad QA, inexperienced team, and questionable development strategy. Game can be complex and still run fine. Looking at LotR LCG Digital right now, I see little to no reason to play it instead of logging into Hearthstone and knocking a few of the PvE thingies for free. And I don't even like Heartstone, and a long time tabletop LotR LCG fan.
  10. I, unfortunately, don't see any positive outcomes of the current situation. The most likely one: the game fails. And with it, the possibility of other FFG card game ports, along with the only shot to see a good LotR LCG digital adaptation (which is already come ot pass, due to game not being anything like the tabletop version). The less likely one: the game succeeds. And with it, the thought that watering down their games is the way to go reinforces. And istead of stuff like Android Netrunner or Call of Cthulhu card games, we'll see empty husks, resembling their tabletop counterparts in the name and the art.
  11. It's early access. Beta's, especially private ones, don't usually charge for playing but send out limited amounts of invites instead.
  12. His posts are posted in a quick succession, within a single hour. I don't see any good reason to not just update the last post in this case.
  13. Fun fact: you can edit your old posts if you want to add something, instead of flooding the thread with new ones.
  14. It feels like to not be a "win more" card, it shud have been more like a trap card. You play it, it sits in the staging area until an eligible card comes out, it attaches to it, and then you can claim it by dispatching that encounter card.
  15. Can anybody remind me how player Guarded keyword works? You attach the card to something that already exists, or god forbid draw something new?
  16. https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/8/24/the-woodland-realm/ Alt art Eowyn spotted.
  17. He was actually discuessed helluva lot on these forums prior to the saga box release which contained that boon which represents him becoming the white (Beyond All Hope or something, don't quite remember the name). There were all kind of crazy theories, but the main consensus was that they're not gonna release a Gandalf hero by a different name.
×
×
  • Create New...