It seems clear (at least to me ) that Card Hunter will be made/sold/divided in "modules" (or adventures or choose your name), each of them is made of several "battles". There will be some replayability feature? I mean, like playing the module the first time with "easy" level unlocks an "hard" level and so on, maybe with better rewards and so on? Or, even better, unlock "secret" battles... Only throwing in an idea...
I got the impression that modules are graded by "level" as per the old D&D modules. The re-playability for those would be to use different mixes of adventurers for a new spin through, trying to 'level up', I think.
I do like the idea of having different challenges for adding replayability--adding extra monsters for a hard mode, hidden rooms, or different good & evil endings. Nevertheless, even without that, I figure you can always mix up your party composition and deck construction for unique challenges (Can I beat this with a 50% drawback deck? How about with only wizards? Can I pull off crazy combos for every kill?).
Most replayability i would assume comes in the form of collecting new cards like in most CCG's, but this may be a special case. I would hope that there is an adjustible difficulty or perhaps many different adventures. Other methods that would be nice would be that the AI reacts differently each campaign or get better quality of cards the better quality that you have.
Perhaps a set of thematically linked modules that get harder as you progress through them, a la the G1-3 / Drow classics from olde AD&D?
A randomly generated "grinding" dungeon would be nice, although I imagine that's out of the scope of the current project.
Two things. First, "replayability" means something different to me. "Replayability" means it's worth it to play this thing again. Chess has high replayability because of how good the mechanics are in the first place. All of the initial suggestions here are ways to add "replayability" by adding more content, which is wholly valid but is not the sole definition of the term. I hope that this game is good enough, in every way, that people would play it again no matter their expectations. Second, I agree with all of the above ideas/suggestions from everyone. They sound like fun ways to add more in.
I think that a well designed module will allow for multiple plays. There's always the nagging idea that you might not have found that secret passage which you just know should be down that bit of corridor, etc.
I think replayability should ideally be based on forcing you to rethink your tactics, not just grinding the same content. My intention is to have several levels of achievement for each adventure. Each level will impose additional restrictions on you - forcing you to find new ways of beating it. A great example is the way that Plant vs Zombies does the second adventure playthrough - it picks 3 plants for you each time, forcing you to use different tactics than you might otherwise.
I like the idea that PvZ had with that, but I never really felt restricted by it. Most of the builds I liked could be carried out even with the restrictions. So I ended up placing my own restrictions... like not using any plants that shot/threw stuff.
Agreed, they probably should have locked down four or five plants instead of three. But the idea is good, I think.
That was just a way to vastly increase difficulty and elongate the game for players looking for a challenge through multiple failures. Speaking of failures, what do you suppose is the failure rate you shoot for? Are you trying to make a game where its easy for anyone to make it through each adventure with mild troubles or are you going to add some difficulty where maybe say one in seven matches you will fail at making you rethink your deck or strategy?
All I can say is that "actually losing" had better be on the radar. This stuff has been preying on my mind a lot, moreso now because I'm finally playing Plants vs. Zombies after months and months of knowing about the game. If there's no chance of losing, then you might as well turn the game into a "click to advance" movie and stop calling it a game. Many games are like this already: it's particularly common in videogame RPG's, where at least there's a likelihood you'll enjoy the story as it scrolls by. I'm currently about to finish the fog/pool levels on my first playthrough of Plants vs. Zombies, and I've basically shrugged to get here. My enjoyment of the game has consisted of reading the text in the Almanac and watching the small bits of animated artistry that go with each new plant or foe. In other words, I'm reading a book or watching a "click to advance" movie. And aside from Crazy Dave, there's almost no story, which would have been the saving grace in an RPG. The main problem is that tower defense games are often formulaic. The creators have to choose: do the first enemies show up before you are physically capable of creating defenses, or after? "Before," and you lose. "After," and you win. Well, the enemies had better show up "after," then! Same decision for everything in every wave. In an RPG, random elements (i.e., random fights) and careful character management make the Us vs. Them battle more variable, so everything cannot be laid down beforehand. The player may over-prepare or under-prepare, and enhance or diminish the chances of winning. For Card Hunter, I want to see my level of preparation matter, and I want to lose when I deserve to. Losing is Fun. (Dwarf Fortress is a discussion for another time.)
ya i wanted to keep playing PvZ but because the difficulty is just ******ed easy i kinda stopped playing. Though some of the zombie types are kinda creative, it just wasnt enough to keep my intrest when all im using is sunflowers and triple shot pea plants. or im just laying down a ton of regular pea plants and watchin them win
I like the premise too, but also recognize that the game was not designed for me. ~ PvZ is "easy" because it's tower defense for casual players. It's what PopCap does really well - makes things accessible that might not otherwise be.
Yep, losing is an integral part of this game, because only by losing a battle will you be motivated to go back and tweak your deck. The core loop of this game is playing battles and then deck building. If you always win the battles, the deck building becomes pretty irrelevant. You guys will get that and enjoy it, I think. One of our big challenges though is introducing that notion to players who are used to just winning everything. We need to make sure that they don't think they've screwed up and just reload every time they lose. I see the loss of this notion of losing and trying again as a pretty big problem with current-gen gaming. Most of my favourite games are quite punishing and really make you care about loss. Demon's Souls is a great example of one of the few modern games that dares to do this. We won't be anywhere near that difficulty level, but we'll probably be somewhat harder than PvZ, for example.
I think a lot of the difference in how players view losing, is how the game punishes you for it. In most games it means you restart at your last checkpoint or save, so losing means you just wasted 15 minutes or so of your time. Demon's Souls, while certainly eager to kill you, is very forgiving after you do. You restart at the last archstone, but you keep any items you got, and can reclaim any souls you lost, so dying can even serve a purpose at times. Or Dead Rising, where dying (early on anyway) forces you to restart, but now you're stronger than you were, and with a better idea of what to do next time. Then there's games like Fable II, where death is a minor trifle, and that allows players to act with reckless abandon, and basically negates any difficulty the game might present. I don't know what sort of penalties you guys have in mind, but keeping that in mind its probably a good idea to let players keep whatever cards they gained in a quest if they failed it. That will help people view dying as part of the gameplay cycle, rather than an interruption of it. Maybe you could add in quest/event specific Losing Screens as well? E.G. If I fail in my quest to stop the Lich King Al Davis from raiding the town of Oakshire, a still (I'm assuming based on the presentation any story will be presented with a drawing + text) showing him standing triumphant over the burning town, with a description of the miserable fates of its residents. For larger quests, perhaps multiple ones could be prepared based on when you die, which would even give people an incentive to try dying to see what happens, which certainly takes the sting out of it when it happens on accident.
Now, profroche, you pretty much covered the entire speech I was going to give on the subject. As I see it, if you haven't lost a game, then you're not done playing the game. How can you be? You haven't seen the losing screen, you haven't heard the losing music, it's like you just skipped a cutscene or something for no good reason. When you talk about varying approaches to difficulty and punishment, the only thing I'd add would be Roguelikes. "Losing is Fun" is the motto of Dwarf Fortress, and this is pretty darn important. When you lose, you learn something about this very complicated and interesting game. And not only that, but a truly spectacular loss can itself be a glory to behold. Losing my entire party to one burst of dragon breath? Wow, that'll be a story to share on the forum. And I'll never cluster up my troops like that again.
Dwarf Fortress is just a case of 'when' you lose, not if. Another game that enforces that ethos is Realm of the Mad God.
Probably on of the best ways to introduce this is through the difficulty curve, perhaps you can introduce some easy adventures early, some that perhaps you could rarely lose and gradually make them more difficult, till bout 1/4-1/2 through the adventures you really have to think about the cards you have and strategy where you have adjusted the difficulty where you want. Though im sure you already know this, just posting in case you didnt ^.^ Also maybe a warning label on the adventures "Easy difficultly adventure" "Medium difficultly adventure" "Impossible Blowing your Socks Off! difficultly adventure" something that is easy to recognize so we know the game is starting to get harder.
