A Primer on Fan made Card Creation in CCGs.

Popular card games capture the imagination of their player base. In fact, many people prefer the creative element of making their own fan made cards to the actual playing of the game itself. Almost every major card game going has a rich subculture of card creators to go with it.

I've decided to identify a few (but not all) basic categories of fan card and the kind of fan card creator that makes them. After reading this you'll probably have a better grounding for making your own cards if this kind of thing is for you.

Even if creativity isn't your thing, understanding why particular fan creations are good or bad can help you deepen your understanding of the game that you are playing. Let's have a look at some common archetypes.

"Reality Gem" cards -- (based on IPs from other Universes)

This kind of creator is happy to use a familiar and robust rule set to express characters from other universes. I'm personally working on a set of Hearthstone cards featuring some of my friends. Here, the content and visual appeal of the cards is usually more important than actually playing with the card in a real game. That being said, many card creators of this type still strive to make their cards 'balanced' and fit in with the existing cards in the game. 

http://www.pokecard.net 

"Superfan Designer" cards (that are (mostly) well thought out cards that could possibly work!)
Some people, "really go for it", when they make their fan made cards. They find consistent reference artwork, develop all kinds of experimental mechanics and work hard to cost and balance their cards appropriately. Almost to the point where it's sad that these cards will never be playable in the digital CCGs and unlikely to see publication in the physical games. Taverns of Time is just the tip of the iceberg with regards to this kind of epic level card creation tomfoolery.

"Screw You" cards -- (cards which hardcounter a particular play style)

The example given here is actually one of the more reasonable variants on the theme of countering a popular play style in the current metagame by dreaming up cards which would thoroughly counter that particular deck archetype.

In Hearthstone, there is always a particular brand of aggressive deck that dominates in popularity and is often referred to as the 'cancer' deck (I disapprove of that name, personally) and one of those decks was the Mech Mage deck. Rather than finding a way to cope with the existence of such a play style, many players would rather see it eradicated completely.

http://www.hearthcards.net/





"Ones that make it" (some fan cards actually make it into published games!)

Some publishers generate a lot of hype around getting fans to submit their own ideas for cards. In the case of Yu-Gi-Oh! they let children submit drawings of cards that they wanted to see and then got their pro artists to actually produce them. Additionally, Fantasy Flight allowed 2012 Netrunner champion Jeremy Zwirn to design a card to be put into a future expansion of cards.


(pictured) Actual Netrunner card designed by a skilled fan.

"Sonic the Hedgehog" cards 

Just... what.
I mean....
Every single trading card game...
Every single anything...
There's just weird Sonic the Hedgehog fans...
Plz.
http://mtgcardsmith.com/

Why don't you try it yourself at home? Because you're more of a reader than a doer aren't you? Well here's some more CCG related stuff to read./watch.

Gaming Netiquette in Hearthstone

103% and Watchiit Play Hearthstone

Smash Bros. Comparison: Wii U vs Brawl vs Melee

So everyone has had a few months to play the new Smash Bros game(s), and with reviewers throwing around some truly insane scores it might be hard to understand where the differences are, and which Smash Bros game, if any, could be considered the best.

Metacritic is often used as a credible yardstick for reviewing anything in popular culture, as it creates a unique score out of 100 based on an average score from other reviewers. Given that Nintendo itself seems happy to be endorsed by Metacritic scores it seems reasonable to use this as a starting point for comparing the games; and it’s a pretty close run contest, with the games scoring thusly:

·         Super Smash Bros. (N64)- 79

·         Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS- 85

·         Super Smash Bros. Melee- 92

·         Super Smash Bros. for Wii U- 92

·         Super Smash Bros. Brawl- 93

So as we can see there is not a lot between the top 3 games, with Brawl emerging with a very slight lead. In this article I am mainly going to compare these top 3 games. This is for a few reasons; firstly, comparing the 3DS and Wii U games as separate entities seems slightly redundant one is effectively a port of the other, albeit with some minor technical and content tweaks. Secondly, as the above scores suggest, Melee, Brawl and Wii U are generally accepted to be of a notably higher standard than 64 or 3DS; and thirdly, I feel these games are what people picture most when they imagine a Smash Bros. game.

So, which is the stronger game? Well, let’s do a direct comparison.

Content

One of the key reasons for omitting Smash 64 is that, whilst it hits all the right notes in terms of basic gameplay, it is somewhat lacking in content. The presence of a large pool of content has been a key feature of the series since Melee; this usually consists of unlockable characters, stages, gameplay modes, trophies and, more recently, stickers, CDs and customisations. Since Brawl, Smash Bros is also one of the few Nintendo series that embraces the meta-gaming idea of “achievements”, with recent games featuring a challenge wall that contains various unlockables as specific challenges are beaten.

The "Brawl Wall", as literally only I call it.

In terms of miscellaneous content Wii U not only comes pre-packed with huge amounts of trophies, CDs and customisations to unlock but also has limitless potential to expand through DLC. As you play Wii U you always feel as if you are building up your treasure hoard and giving yourself new avenues to explore. First point goes to Smash Bros Wii U.

Characters

In terms of character count, Melee comes in at 26, Brawl comes in at 39, and Wii U has 51 characters (with 1 being DLC), meaning in 3 instalments the roster for the series has basically doubled. Obviously this gives general weighting toward Wii U, as having a bigger roster automatically means more variety and more combinations of characters. Moreover, whilst I feel both Wii U and Melee are fairly balanced, Brawl has some real issues with balancing. There is the infamous ban of Metaknight at tournaments, but even at a basic level the core stats and functionality of characters varies too widely, and this is only made worse with the introduction of the Final Smashes. These vary wildly in usefulness, with some, like Fox’s, being an almost guaranteed win for a skilled, whereas others, like Peach’s, being practically useless even for a veteran player.

All 3 games are guilty of character clones, whereby a character is effectively re-skinned and given some slightly different special moves and gameplay attributes. Whilst I have no problem with this, it does somewhat diminish the number of truly distinct characters that can be attributed to the above roster counts. That being said, I would say that again Smash Bros Wii U does the best job at making the clones it has inherited from previous games as distinct from each other as possible whilst also making them play like their previous versions. Furthermore, it does not introduce any more clones to the series. In terms of characters, Wii U definitely comes out on top.

Levels

The level count between the games is a little closer than the character counts, with Melee counting 29 stages, Brawl 41, and Wii U 47, again allowing for DLC with the latter, and excluding custom levels for Brawl or Wii U. The important factor with level counts is that there are enough for variety, but not too many so that they are impossible to remember or learn. I would say Melee had about the right number of levels, as a prolonged session on Melee meant you would probably see each level every couple of hours, which meant you had just grown eager to play it again when the random level select throws you a wonderfully chaotic “Big Blue”.

For even more chaos, try Chin Mode

For the levels themselves, I am personally against levels that are too big or complex. Even the original “Hyrule Castle” is too big for my tastes, as it can turn matches into a war of attrition, whilst also taking the most important ingredient, pacing, out of Smash Bros. Both Brawl and Wii U are particularly guilty of this, with “75m”, “New Pork City” and “The Great Cave Offensive” being some of the worst offenders. There are some excellent gimmicks in both of these games, with “WarioWare Inc.” in Brawl being a particular favourite. Overall, however, I feel the level design in Melee has a huge amount of variety, simultaneously being challenging and interesting whilst also being fair to all players. For levels, it has to be Melee.

Modes

Of course, when anyone thinks of a Smash Bros game they think of the frenetic multiplayer, which I will leave as a section unto itself. Outside of this, there are the single player modes themselves, which for the dedicated Smash players can provide almost as much mileage. Wii U once again is certainly ahead in terms of sheer numbers, with some interesting mix ups to the formula. Crazy Orders is a great risk/reward system, but doesn’t have much variety or depth, whereas Smash Tour seems like a good idea but feels too unpredictable to be reliably enjoyable. Crucially, however, Wii U lacks a solid “campaign” mode, which Melee had in the form of Adventure mode and Brawl built on with the Subspace Emissary. Between Adventure and Subspace Emissary is a matter of preference, and although I have a huge amount of love for Adventure mode I have to admit Subspace Emissary does an excellent job at introducing a player to the entire roster and to get used to the variety the game has to offer. Melee is a solid entry, but Brawl just takes it.

Multiplayer

Now, this is where the strength of having a large character roster can start to backfire, as competitive multiplayer becomes a lot more random as greater numbers of characters, stages and items are thrown into the mix. When there are over 50 characters it is very difficult to remember how each character plays and thus what to expect when fighting them. This is fine during single player, when one is changing characters every few minutes. When trying to master a character in competitive play however it becomes frustrating having to keep track of such a large amount of information. It also requires a much greater time investment to test all the characters, which will put off company who are down with Smash Bros but don’t have the game themselves.

"I literally only own Waverace and one controller"

This leads to me the conclusion that Melee has the best multiplayer. It is well-balanced between all characters and stages, with items never being too sporadic or over-powered. Moreover, for new players it is easy to recommend characters to start out with (Link as an all rounder, Samus as sniper, Jigglypuff for someone who wants to focus on surviving) whilst giving experienced players a huge number of options. Seriously, of the dozen or so serious Smash Bros players I know there is practically no overlap of character usage in Melee, which is a testament to how well-balanced and interesting the multiplayer is.

Gameplay

This may well be the most important to factor in, and probably the most intangible and difficult to describe. Obviously the core gameplay is the same between all 3 games; what I want to work out is which game gets closest to the perfect blend of platforming, fighting, and that unique Smash Bros element.

This element is composed of at least 14% "ohshitaPokeballgettingitisthemostimportantthingever"

I have already discussed balancing between characters, which I feel falls in favour of Melee. In more technical terms, Brawl has been widely criticised for some of its more random elements, such as tripping, and I feel this criticism is generally justified. Whilst not a bad game but any stretch, the core gameplay can often feel too unpredictable, and has massive variance depending on the character chosen. I also felt this when first playing Wii u, but soon discovered this variance is deliberate to give the single player experience more variety and fairness, and that when I played the multiplayer I found a very solidly built engine which strips back a lot of the crazier factors in Brawl for a very solid and fair system, much in the style of Melee.

That being said, Wii U is very close to Melee, but it does not beat it. Melee has the perfect pace, being relentlessly quick whilst also giving perfect control to everyone; if you die, it is your fault. It also allows for almost limitless depth (feel free to Google wave-dashing and other pro techniques for detailed examples), and although there have been criticisms of it not being welcoming to new players, a few runs through Adventure mode will set a novice on the right path.

Summary

So, with 3 points to Melee, 2 to Wii U and 1 to Brawl, with a clear winner. I have put close to a thousand hours into Melee and will likely do so twice over in the years to come. They are excellent games, but Melee, in my opinion, comes out as the cream of the crop.

In summary? Shut up Metacritic. Just shut up.

Should pre-rendered backgrounds make a comeback? by Lee Morris

With the Resident Evil and Grim Fandango remakes being released early this year for PS4 and Steam, I thought it'd be a good opportunity to discuss a long forgotten tract of video games, the lost art-form of pre-rendered backgrounds.

Just a reminder then. A staple of the mid to late 90's and a hallmark of the PS1 era, games were often presented with pre-rendered backgrounds, in which moving 3D polygonal character models were embedded into static 2D pre-rendered landscapes. Notable games in the style include monster-hits like Final Fantasy VII and mega-smashes like the early Resident Evil entries. The style was very common on the Playstation as it was less capable of rendering full 3D environments than its 64-bit N64 cousin. The pre-rendered style was also prominent in the point-and-click genre of PC adventure games in titles such as Broken Sword and The Curse of Monkey Island. Since the Resident Evil remake on the Gamecube in 2002 though, the pre-rendered background style has all but vanished. It didn't make an appearance at all last generation.

Neither did Gex. But I think we're all fine with that.

I say 'style'; was it a style as such though? Or was it just a product of its time which arose due to technical limitations and was rightfully omitted from the medium once full 3D rendering could properly take over? Was it a style through necessity like Mario's moustache? Or is it a unique stylised way to present a video game which could possibly make a comeback?

I personally would love to see it back. I'm biased really. I loved FFVII VIII and IX, Dino Crisis, Parasite Eve and all the PS1 hits that made it special. I don't know if it's just the nostalgia talking but I think these games still look gorgeous. I mean, they look horrible, they do, they actually do, the characters look like idiots... but the backgrounds still look the part I think.

I think games with pre-rendered backgrounds look rather filmic, more so than some of their 3D rendered cut-scene laden counterparts perhaps. As much as I love roaming round in a 3D environment, I still appreciate the simplistic minimalist static-cam feel of PS1 era games and the calm sense of tranquillity they engender. The environments appear like a series of stunning photographs, the art director being more capable of accurately lining up their shot and framing the setting accordingly with the atmosphere they wished to create. They can also do the often gorgeous concept art justice.

Survival Horrollers Alone in the Dark and many of the early Resident Evil games occasionally used a particular static-cam shot known to film-makers as 'the Dutch Angle' in which the image is shot from near the ground and framed tilted to the side to create an unsettling feeling. Can't really use this effect in over-the-shoulder cam horror games as implementing it mid-action would probably feel like a camera glitch. Pre-rendered backgrounds allowed for these natural variations of shot choice without seeming jarring.

Japanese film-maker Yasujirō Ozu actually used static cam shots exclusively in his films. This was his signature style and gave his films a unique mood with a static sort of feel (I haven't seen a single one of his films to be honest but thought I'd throw his name in the hat here). The shots being a fixed camera act like a sort of security camera, giving a fly-on-the-wall effect. If it can be a style choice in cinema then I think it could be a style choice for new video games.

Now I'm not suggesting that the likes of Dead Space and The Last of Us would have benefited from static shots and pre-rendered backgrounds; that wouldn't work, though it would be funny to see a hilarious PS1 demake of them or something. I think only RPG's, adventure games and old school survival horror games with puzzle elements tend to suit it really. It'd be nice to see some new IPs adopting the pre-rendered style though, especially with today's 1080p (and soon eventually 4K) graphics allowing for some incredibly detailed backgrounds. It would be great also to see some series' return to their pre-rendered roots, chiefly Resident Evil and Final Fantasy of course which have wandered off the tracks a bit since turning fully 3D. 

Of course, in some ways Final Fantasy XIII should have gone off the tracks more.

I do love Resident Evil 4 and bits of 5 and 6, but Final Fantasy has bit the dust in my view since going full 3D in FFXII. Final Fantasy X and Resident Evil Outbreak on the PS2 hit a sort of middle ground with fixed cameras that would pivot, this worked well, but in full 3D they became very different games. Resident Evil just became more of an action game which is OK but FFXII and FFXIII just felt very plain and empty compared to previous entries.

Capcom revisited the original mansion from Resident Evil 1 in full over-the-shoulder 3D in a piece of Resident Evil 5 DLC, albeit with a slightly altered layout. It was novel to see it but I couldn't imagine the original game working with that camera. The mansion felt smaller, though not having to wait 10 seconds to transition through each door might have had something to do with that.

"Stop it! Don't open that door!"

As far as a Final Fantasy VII remake goes, I don't think it would work in full 3D. Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core showed that to me as even locations I had a lot of fond memories of appeared flat and mundane when transported into 3D. Midgar felt like a regular mundane typical city in Crisis Core. When it was framed a certain way in Final Fantasy VII it seemed more colourful and interesting. Not being able to look around certain corners and under certain rocks was what gave these settings their mystique. We could only assimilate what being in these environments would be like through the limited number of viewing angles given, and that 'less is more' element is perhaps what made them work. I hope that if Square Enix do remake the game eventually they would redo the 2D environments and make them look stunning.

Square Enix recently returned to pre-rendered backgrounds with Bravely Default on the 3DS. The game, almost a reboot of the original Final Fantasy games of sorts, looks fantastic due to its presentation. Even though Final Fantasy XV looks absolutely out-of-this-world phenomenal, hopefully they still have room in their hearts for the static background look and might consider it for FFXVI.

I've not heard much on the immediate horizon about any new games with fixed camera perspectives or pre-rendered environments coming soon... but hopefully the Grim Fandango and Resident Evil (Gamecube version) remakes coming soon will remind developers and players how effective they can be.

There are however, some tinkerings going on within the indie circuit. There's a nice little project under development called 'The Black Tower' being worked on by three French developers. It is an homage to Final Fantasy VII in pretty much every way and the developers are quite open about that. There's a video on their website of a prototype demo they've created for it. It's being created using pre-rendered backgrounds and the Unity3D engine for the character models. It looks fantastic. I hope they can get it finished as it looks as though they've taken on quite a big task on their hands here. I'm not promoting it or anything but the vid can be viewed here.

So, aside from remakes and homages then, the style really has dissolved and is perhaps considered nothing more than a throwback these days. Would be nice to see it again though as I think there's some new mileage to get out of it in certain genres. Am I alone in this, or do other people miss this 90’s standard?

- Lee Morris