Eye Of Judgement

[crazygambit]

Well yes, but at the same time so is your opponent. You both can rely on having the exact cards you want when you want them, which is something deck-games 'suffer' from. You can come up with an awesome idea for a deck, only to find to happen to draw 5 energies in a row and no monsters, and get wipped. The whole-deck solution would elliminate the chance aspect, and come down exactly to what cards you have and when you play them.

If there was a limit to the number of cards in the deck, I think that'd work. It'd be a different experience to real card duels, but I think a game it'd work. Just like if you play any multiplayer game, both teams get to slect from the array of weapons etc. It's not like at the beginning of a Halo multiplayer match, you get dealt one random weapon and another random weapon every five minutes! You don't find you're getting cut down by snipers with no means to retaliate because all you've drawn so far are pistols and grenades! It starts with a level playing field.
The only trouble I can obviously see is someone could just have every card imaginable, and pick all the counter-elementals and traps and whatnot they want. Part of the challenge is working with a limited set of options. In some games that's a finite deck size. In others is limited by what you've drawn, and throwing every card into the deck just dilutes your chances of getting that particular card.

I'm not quite sure I know what you mean. In regular TCG your access to good cards is only limited by money. If you have enough money you can buy every card out there, no skill involved. Choosing among those cards to make a deck requires skill. I don't know the deck size in this particular game, but in Magic TG it was 60+. There is a huge drawback to making a deck with more than 60 cards though, since you can only have any one card at most 4 times in a deck, if your deck is bigger you have less chances of drawing it. This meant that in practice no one went for decks over 60. I suspect in this game the deck size is gonna be 30, since that is what it comes with, and there should be a restriction on how many identical cards you can have, just like any other TGC.

If your "awesome" deck consistently draws 5 energies in a row then it's not so awesome to begin with. You can calculate the exact probability of such an event happening when you're building the deck and needless to say it should be low enough that it happens very sparringly. That's the challenge of building a proper deck, finding the right balance. The fun in playing is that even with the right balance sometimes you just draw crap. Sometimes your deck works like a charm and sometimes it doesn't, you have to adapt.

So I disagree when you say the challenge is working with a limited set of options, sure it's fun to create a competitive deck with lesser cards, but even if you have access to all of them, it's still challenging and as long as the game is properly balanced it shouldn't matter that much if someone has access to all the cards.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm not quite sure I know what you mean...There is a huge drawback to making a deck with more than 60 cards though...So I disagree when you say the challenge is working with a limited set of options.

By 'limited set of options' I was talking about the cards at you disposal for each turn. This is always a hand of cards. If you didn't have that limit, there'd be no fun.

Imagine if in MTG you could see every card in your deck and pick them whenever you wanted; there is no limit to what cards you have available. You wouldn't have the problem of a diluted deck, and you would always have the card you wanted (and spent lots of money on). The fun in MTG from building a deck comes from only having a limited number of cards in your hand at a time. You don't have access to all of them - only what chance sends your way. And if you're unlucky, you get gimped by chance dealing you a hand of useless cards, and lose not through skill but through bad fortune! But without the limit, it's 'whoever spends most wins'.

Now if instead of a limit to whatever size hand you have from an unlimited deck, you had a limit to 30 cards in total in your deck and could pick from any of those 30 cards at any point, chance would no longer be an issue in what cards you can play. Instead it'd be down to you to create a 30 card selection that gave you the tools and tactics needed to win. There's still a limit to your options. You have to pick and choose from the cards to have in your deck, and have to build a deck that works well. Without any card limits, either in deck size or hand size, deck building is irrelevant.

 

[crazygambit]

I see what you mean now, I totally agree. But like I said I feel this can be controlled by simply letting me see my opponent. I don't think that many people are gonna have the nerve to blatantly cheat while you're looking at them. If they do cheat I'll simply never play with them again, no big deal in my oppinion.

 

[slider]

Sorry...

A whole lotta bump for not much info...

http://www.eurogamer.net/tv_video.php?playlist_id=3452&s=l

The only reason I posted this was to ask, anyone care to speculate on why/where this vid has come form/popped up now? The presentation (esp soundtrack) is awful and unfortunately, for those looking for an augmented reality fix, there is pitifully little interaction between human and PS3.

Sorry.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Looks like a TV ad. I don't recall having seen it before. And yes the music does suck, but unfortunately that's the ingame soundtrack.

 

[Arwin]

there is pitifully little interaction between human and PS3.
Sorry.

Yeah? Well I thought the dragon trying to bite the player's finger at the end was a nice touch, really enjoyed that.

 

[slider]

Yeah? Well I thought the dragon trying to bite the player's finger at the end was a nice touch, really enjoyed that.

I thought that was a nice touch too! But for a clip that long, IMO it wasn't enough. Ok, ok... maybe I shouldn't have posted the damn thing!

Those Gamespot vids from a while back were much better.

 

[crazygambit]

Wait, what? a new video? I'm at work so I can't watch it, some of you promply describe it to me, I command you

Anyway, this is still one of my most anticipated games, I'm a geek what can I say? I'd love to get more info on it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Wait, what? a new video? I'm at work so I can't watch it, some of you promply describe it to me, I command you

Lots of clips of gameplay, with a few cheesy closeups of someone holding a hand of cards. Nothing we haven't seen before. The Augmented Reality clip in the last second looked like it was taken straight from the first E3 showing!

As for geekiness, I hope Sony haven't missed the boat here. They could have really done with a virtual pet application. The card-game is cool, but a virtual character that walks around your table and can be fed virtual grub would have a huge amount of appeal for certain sectors. They could have combined the two. Hopefully they'll unvail something similar. Like NeoPets, but in Virtuo3D.

 

[morlock]

This game, with another name, and more of the stuff showed at E3 and the things like the biting after the finger thingy in that video interaction + less mature fantasy and more "childish"-desgin of the creatures and Sony have theire very own pokemon in the hands.

 

[crazygambit]

This game, with another name, and more of the stuff showed at E3 and the things like the biting after the finger thingy in that video interaction + less mature fantasy and more "childish"-desgin of the creatures and Sony have theire very own pokemon in the hands.

Well I actually see this game as a sort of test of the technology. If it works out ok I definetely see crap like Yu-Gi-Oh (or whatever the hell you spell that) turning up and kids eating it up. A pokemon game with this tech would do very well I would think, but I believe it's exclusive to Nintendo right?

 

[slider]

http://threespeech.com/blog/?p=447

Autumn release apparently. Whatever that means. I haven't been following this closely so it's news to me. But I guess that means the new Eyetoy will be launched around the same time.

Edit: As I'm here thought I'd check out the US Blog:

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2007/06/28/inside-the-developers-studio-felice-standifer/

 

[Eteric]

This is the only game I want for the PS3 at the moment.

God I wish they'd drop the price. I might consider picking up one with this game, then. :|

 

[crazygambit]

This is a little old, but I didn't see it posted here.

The contents of the box have been revealed here

What's interesting is that it comes with a stand for the PSEye and it's without the microphone thing. But then there's another picture with the mic here.

This leads me to believe the microphone array is detachable, which is really nice as it seemed a little bulky with it.

Also the contents of the game look hot, I really can't wait to get my hand on this.

 

[Arwin]

This is the only game I want for the PS3 at the moment.

God I wish they'd drop the price. I might consider picking up one with this game, then. :|

Heh. They listened ...

 

[rabidrabbit]

This is a little old, but I didn't see it posted here.

The contents of the box have been revealed here

What's interesting is that it comes with a stand for the PSEye and it's without the microphone thing. But then there's another picture with the mic here.

This leads me to believe the microphone array is detachable, which is really nice as it seemed a little bulky with it.

Also the contents of the game look hot, I really can't wait to get my hand on this.

To me it looks like both of your links feature a camera with the mic on it.
The first pic is photographed from such an angle that the mic is not so obvious.

 

[Gradthrawn]

Looks like Penny Arcade has the details about the online system, specifically, how cheating is prevented:

Online play, if you're curious, involves registering a legal thirty card deck to the system. When playing a distant opponent, the game knows your deck and "draws" your hand virtually, telling you what valid cards to pull. That's their system, and it's a little weird, but playing cards against someone you can't see in another country might be the ultimate cheating scenario. Desperate measures, and so forth. If the cards are registered and the draw is virtual, it sort of obviates the cards - right? - unless you're enforcing card ownership, which they most certainly are. It's a little weird, but they're trying to manage a pretty unique scenario.

Simply enough. Could slow things down, though (having to hunt for the right card).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't imagine it's much of an issue if you've ordered them. Beast by element type, spell cards, etc. Arrange them into staggered piles with the names all visible and you'll find the card in a glance.

 

[Fox5]

Also, this game getting no attention, I've realized it's actually a totally different take on gaming. It seems the game is played using image recognition. There's a 3x3 grid on which cards are placed, and from this battles are created and shown on PS3. As a revenue stream, the possibility of selling more cards Pokemon style is phenominal. This is a tech Nintendo could real do with!

Graphically it's not wowing anyone, so I guess that' why no-one cares, but this is certainly something new I rate amongst the more exciting showings. MGS looked incredible, FFXIII looked too incredible, but this is new tech!

Nintendo had the chance to do video card games with the ereader but they didn't.

The concept for this game is neat, but honestly it doesn't look like the camera/ps3 adds anything to the game beyond animations. I guess it's a step up over current video card games that don't let you use your current deck, but in that case this really needs to get licensed with magic or pokemon or yu gi oh or something. Problem is that it requires cards designed for use with it, but card companies love reprinting the same old cards in new editions!

As for the graphics...well, Nintendo hasn't made their pokemon battle games good looking since the n64 (may be able to argue for the wii version, but come on, it's the wii, and the gamecube ones were pitiful), it's probably not an issue with the target demographic.

It'd be neat if this game allowed for custom rulesets, btw. Some of the funnest games I've had of magic have involved more than 2 people with very non-standard rules.

 

[cthellis42]

Well, that's the only way I could realistically see it being done, so at least it's GOT such a system...

It could probably gain some refinements to speed things up a bit (like telling you your draw during your opponent's turn, if you can't do anything ANYway... I'm not positive of that yet, of course) but it's at least comforting to know that they're keeping it in mind. Else online play would simply be bullshit.