Suggestion from a Good Negative Feedback of Steam

Well i love the game but somedays ago i was reading teh feedback on steam and i found this:

i think this person make good points that can make the game better. what do you think?

the user is http://steamcommunity.com/id/tartrazine/



The idea of only 1 shop with a better dinamic is cool. and a better way to organize your chacrters, when u have a lot is horribel to found them

 

Huh. That's the opposite of the feedback I've seen on it.

In game. Hover over an item, drag the item above an existing item.
I'm not sure what more is being asked for, other than the removal of the standard doll-slot interface, which is kinda core to RPG aesthetics.

Decent idea.

Dramatic overreaction is dramatic.

So complain about interface and sorting, but then hate that the game sorts items into easy to sort and access subsets when shopping.
You SURE this is a useful review?

I don't actually know what this is referring to, I see the cards instantly. Perhaps it's a setting or lag on their end?

The irony is, this indicates they still need the lock on selling.

Elementary school math is hard.

I don't even get this. Icons would be way harder for me to comprehend.
Is reading difficult for this person, do they need picture books?

Keeping in mind reading is literally painful for me in excess, so if I can manage it with ease, it seems a profoundly silly claim.

Piercing: Definition, SEEMING to make its way through something [whether it actually does or not] Also a basic damage type in most games.
Penetrating: Definition, ABLE to pass through something. [implied, with ease]

Nevermind other RPGs have used similar.
And what the heck is their issue with clearly distinct words?

Some feedback on WHY it's an issue and HOW it could be better would be nice, instead of 'WORDS HARD' nonstop.

They just don't get the game. Or probably chess, at that. Checkers? Probably not.

Deck building is hard.

VALID point! WOO!
Yeah, I dislike this, especially how you can't read it when a move card is active.

Yes, because this happens in tabletop miniatures ALL THE TIME.
Nevermind most games on PCs have this feature.
Yep, we're the minority here.

Numbers are hard.

Gaming is hard.

 

@DunDunDun
Thanks for replying to this review(so I can sit here in ease), but you can switch easily between decks(store/retrieve parties)

 

The quoted review looks like a haters one. There is no way an objective person would wrote something like that.

Especially:

Its not a BUG its a FEATURE.

Well I just noticed that CHESS has similar big problem. As after you play, your opponent gets to play, leading you to infuriation situations that you cannot deploy all your strategy without opponent interfering.

Thats most uber nonsence I've read in a while, its either (and probably) anti-CH post, or guy is a hater/troller or he's just 10 years old and with bad tempter.

 

Given that that line is ALWAYS used sarcastically, namely in regards to games with long-standing unfixed bugs, I'm a bit confused by your use of it.

Yeah, I wanted to follow up with a 'why would you even waste my time with this' comment, but I held ba-
Crap.

For future reference, a point isn't 'good' unless it's objective and constructive.

Listening to someone gripe about core features, things general to the genre, basic gaming concepts, etc, isn't an objective or constructive read: it's just listening to someone vent about how they can't take time to learn things.

There were some decent points in there, but they ended up being included all-but-on-accident, and they were few and minor.

 

So... This guy/gal thinks that if a game doesn't cater to his/her whims, it deserves a review that quite frankly makes me laugh, cringe, and want to pummel this fool, all at the same time. (Is that a thing? Because if it isn't, I'm going to make it a thing.)

Honestly, I love that CH is expanding and the steam release certainly helped with the exposure and quantity of players, but my fear of the average quality of the playerbase is proving to be true with people like this guy.

 

Also, because this is bugging me more and more:
How is using two words that are not only not damage types, but more vague AND synonymous in meaning, AND used in card names, AND less appropriate descriptors of the weapon attacks, going to help at all?

Nrrrggl.

I call it 'gffrglgrrk'.
That might just be me literally choking on my frustrations, though.

 

Well, he's obviously very opinionated. Me too.
I didn't find any of his opinions I agree with, nor did he give any supporting rationale. CAPITAL LETTERS may emphasize, but do not qualify as logic. Nor are personal tastes laws of nature.

About the Shops (And please correct me if I'm wrong):
The shops on the campaign map become available individually a player progresses.
I've read multiplayer was added late in the game (so to speak), and the multiplayer side needed all the shops from the outset. Therefore, all the shops are available in multiplayer immediately. This circumvents the whole 'unlocking' thing for those who notice it. I didn't play multiplayer, so I ended up unlocking the Goblin Bazaar on the campaign side before I ever realized it had actually been available all along. Still, the campaign is the reason for the separate shops.
As a sidenote, this occurred back when the shops didn't sell items all the way up to level 18, so you couldn't buy Bejeweled Shortswords, you had to find them. It wasn't that long ago, but if you remember it, you probably qualify as some type of CH Post-Beta Geezer.
No, I don't expect CH Post-Beta Geezer to become a Steam Achievement.

 

I wanted to say that "You can't move unless you have a card that specifically lets you" is not a flaw or something, it was made such by design so you can move only with move cards.
Imho, its pointless specifying that as a negative, either you like it or not.

Its like I say negative side of basketball is that you can only make 2 steps while holding the ball .. nonsence.

(but ok, yes, english is not my native language, looks like I used the phrase incorrectly)

 

Ah. No, by basic word use, you were fine; and I did understand your point regardless.

The problem is the exact phrasing you used was basically an idiom; it's come to mean, over several buggy games (especially MMOs), exactly the opposite of what it sounds like.

It's not even something you for sure would have known if English was your native language!

It's just something I personally wasn't used to being read as-written, and so I wanted to clarify that you did in fact, mean it that way.

 

Agreed. It would be a very different game if you could just move at any time (or convert any card into a move). The fact is that most new players don't realize that you can use passing as a strategy. They always want to play every card possible -- but there isn't much of a reason to... outside of getting down to 2 cards (so you don't discard any). Even then it is fine discarding a card or two if they are really bad and useless to your strategy. Pass early, pass often, pass for life.

I've read about 20 or 30 negative reviews on Steam and they all boil down into people either hating the server (it was laggy on the first few days), people thinking it is a pay 2 win that begs for money (lol?), or it is an RPG (it is much more a CCG as you aren't really leveling characters and designing heroes, you're just leveling things that hold slots for groups of cards). The only valid negative criticism I've seen is the poor UI / resolution aspects, which is definitely a valid concern if you're on a low resolution computer. Almost no one brings up the negatives that I pointed out in my review -- that the game has a lot of luck involved and frustrating imbalanced elements. I'll see it sometimes in comments to single player, but I don't think a lot of people who review the game have put any decent time into the game, especially not multiplayer.

 

Not always. It's also frequently used as a sarcastic way of saying, "Yes, that's exactly how it's supposed to work, and we did it on purpose."

Not everyone considers luck in a game a bad thing, and imbalanced elements are only frustratng if you fail to use them to your advantage.

 

Wild swings of luck that is outside of control is something most people consider bad in a competitive game. In a casual game that is fine (look at Yahtzee and such), but imagine if you had to roll a die when fighting in Chess to see if you killed a piece or not.

And imbalanced doesn't just mean overpowered. It is things that lead the game to being stale and binary in decision making. If X card is an almost auto win but is countered by Y card then everyone is running some combination of the two in fear of not having either. That results in a forced choice which is the worse thing you can do in a game. Games are about creating interesting decisions that let's players choose things and engage with them. If you remove choice then you're ultimately harming the game.

 

Overly competitive people deserve to feel forced, and thrive on being pressured.
So it comes down to the hardcore competitive versus the casual. Melvin versus Karen.
If you don't want to roll dice, play chess. If you do, play DnD. Cardhunter is both and neither.
Counter premise: Games are about having an excuse to waste time in order to avoid doing something productive. To succeed, the player must consider the game to be more fun than the productive effort avoided.
(There's a sliding scale to measure this precisely, but at this point it's imaginary. Therefore no graphic will be posted.)
** Dammit, I hope the server comes up soon. **

 

Pressure from the opponent and from forces that they can control. Randomness does not simply mean it is "fun" though. Randomness creates innate highs and lows and helps balance the playing field when used correctly, but is just frustrating when not.

Take a look at one of the most popular games in the world: League of Legends. They removed more and more random elements (Dodge, random procs, varying cast times, etc) and yet still remain fun with a few random elements (critical hits) to create high points.

I'm not saying Card Hunter should be more like Chess over D&D. I'm just saying that having *too* much randomness alienates more people than it brings in. The most popular game in the world wouldn't be removing random aspects if it angered more people than it placated.

 

well you are all right guys the comment is really ahtefull, but was seeying the parts that can be taken into account for making the game better

or improve teh shops. thats all. Hope u dont hate me guys (i rlly love this game ) just i was reading all the garbage of the negative feedback on steam and this guy have a lot of comments that i think we can debate.

 

In defense of the steam's reviewer, I'll agree on the point the UI's usability is not where it could be.

That's not meant as a Bash for the devs. Clearly, the level of polish we've come to expect from the average videogaming experience is oftentimes achieved by putting tens (if not hundreds!) of people at work for months/years. Something BM just can't afford, so in that regard it's rather brilliant how good a product our champions managed to hammer together, given how small the dev team was.

Still, the UI (especially in a few areas) probably is one of the weakest areas which could help some additional love. We go from the obvious stuff people has been lamenting for quite a long time (move cards not being cancel-able immediately comes to mind), to the less prominent but still important stuff. Things like the deck editor not doing the best possible job, modifying your party being quite clunky and the store/load functionality not being as prominently accessible as it should.

The fact the UI is functional (in the sense that you can accomplish what you want, assuming you do know how to do it) isn't always enough, given it should be as easily usable as possible by veteran and newer/casual players alike. Seriously, I've been playing videogames for as long as I can remember (and I'm far from being a kid anymore ), and it still took me a damn long time to realize how some parts of the UI were supposed to be used properly.

TL;DR; It's true, the UI's usability/affordance could certainly be improved, no question there.

Aside from that, I can see how the steam user put some of its thoughts in a not-that-kind way. Also, we don't need to pretend CH is a game bound to appeal to every person on planet heart, so I take some of his stances as a consequence of the fact the guy genuinely doesn't like some aspects of the game. But these are secondary thoughts, I think opinions like these are well worth being taken into consideration if we want to help CH reach a broader audience.

 

Check my review of Card Hunter: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Stexe/recommended/293260

I tried to explain as much as possible and really delve into who it is and who it isn't for... but apparently people don't find it useful. Instead they find a "review" that says "this is a miniature game where you use cards to move your dudes around" as useful... Oh well, what can you do...

 

Not at all, juaner! We're Cardhuntrian compatriots, and discussions and friendly disagreements help keep the thought processes going. Thanks for clarifying which ideas you liked.
I think much of the character display (as well as the rest of the display) has to do with compensating for variation in screen sizes. I usually play on a laptop, and everyting is crammed in tight. On the CRT of my old desktop, it's even tighter. I've see CH on a very large monitor and everything is HUGE! There are differences for smaller resolutions, such as a "Set" button (base, aota, ettsc) in the deck builder which I don't have. There may be others, but they're not here to look at, so I don't remember them. If BM had a big production team, they could probably build more designs for different resolutions. I hope they get there, even if mine won't change much.
Truth be told, I don't have a problem with the characther display or the shops. (I actually like them as they are.) If you think they'd be better if changed, thanks for speaking up!

Brevity can be beautiful, and the world is plagued by Philistenes like me who care nothing about game theory, but much about whether we enjoy the game.

 

That's why there is a "tl;dr" section.