Oh yes, I've waited ages to being able to use this (very bad) pun. The time is now! Okay, enough joking around and onward to a very serious topic.
Note: I write this as a player and it's just my opinion.
What went wrong with Gwent? It's a difficult question to answer in one thread. So, I want to focus on only one aspect and maybe make another thread later about the other issues. Lastly, I won't be discussing superficial issues, but rather go straight to the root of the problems.
What Gwent Wrong Part 1: Adapting the Game to Become a CCG
Gwent was never built from the ground up with the idea to become an online CCG. That's why certain (design) decisions of the original game, which, ironically, contributed to making the game unique, became an issue for the new Gwent. Because the design space was too limited, the game wasn't able to grow. Well, one of the most important aspects of a CCG is the ability to stay invested by releasing expansions to keep the meta influx (ever-changing) and that was Gwent's greatest challenge with its original design.
The solution was to remove all mechanics that held the game back. Let's take a quick look at some of the most prominent discarded mechanics:
- Passive faction abilities
- Gold immunity
- Weather (in its original form)
- Card advantage spies
- Bronze/silver/gold tier (instead of provisions)
- Various gameplay mechanics (e.g. Strengthening, Resilience, etc)
The most important mechanic that changed Gwent completely, I haven't yet mentioned. The one that was scrapped at the start of Homecoming. The one I want to focus on here. The biggest difference between beta and now is that beta only had one action per turn. There were no orders, no double card plays with leader ability. No, you could only play one card and let the board resolve. That's it.
One action per turn was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it set the pace and focus of the game, which was one of its defining features. On the other hand, this limited the amount of interaction. In traditional CCG, you could play multiple cards per turn and take multiple actions. This allows for more complex strategies, in theory. Because Gwent was never about managing your turn, it was about managing the round and plan ahead precisely because you knew that the opponent and you could only take one action per turn. This increased the tactical aspect of the game, instead of decreasing it. It made the game easier to balance (arguably), but more difficult to expand. And in the latter lies the issue.
I have to applaud the devs for having the balls to essentially scrap Gwent and start over. However, I feel they have made the same mistake, still being bounded by maintaining a likeness to the original Gwent. With Homecoming, Gwent 2.0, I believe the devs didn't go far enough or, ironically, went too far. Gwent tried to separate itself from its competitors. Yet, at the same time, the game took many steps that would do the opposite (i.e. reduce its uniqueness) because the devs also realized the original Gwent was to difficult to maintain.
Now, the game is stuck in limbo, between a rock and a hard place, if you will, between the original Gwent and what it wants to become or maybe even what it needs to become, in order to flourish. At the moment, I feel we don't have either. That is, the the uniqueness of the original Gwent or the full potential of the new Gwent, even if it's in a different shape.
Adapting the game to make it a successful CCG was probably CDPR's greatest challenge and it walked a path that required many sacrifices along the way. Gwent Beta wasn't perfect either by any means. For example, the balancing was all over the place. However, back then, the game, at least, felt original and fresh. It felt like... actual Gwent. It could have been salvaged, maybe. But that time has come to pass. The old Gwent is no more. So, let's look ahead and see if Gwent can make it out of limbo and rise yet again.
---
On a somewhat related note, the things that do still set Gwent apart from the rest:
1. Best of 3 rounds
2. Provisions, instead of mana
3. High consistency (10 cards opening hand, small deck size of 25)
Points 2 and 3 have a great impact on balancing the game, which is probably my next topic in this series.
Note: I write this as a player and it's just my opinion.
What went wrong with Gwent? It's a difficult question to answer in one thread. So, I want to focus on only one aspect and maybe make another thread later about the other issues. Lastly, I won't be discussing superficial issues, but rather go straight to the root of the problems.
What Gwent Wrong Part 1: Adapting the Game to Become a CCG
Gwent was never built from the ground up with the idea to become an online CCG. That's why certain (design) decisions of the original game, which, ironically, contributed to making the game unique, became an issue for the new Gwent. Because the design space was too limited, the game wasn't able to grow. Well, one of the most important aspects of a CCG is the ability to stay invested by releasing expansions to keep the meta influx (ever-changing) and that was Gwent's greatest challenge with its original design.
The solution was to remove all mechanics that held the game back. Let's take a quick look at some of the most prominent discarded mechanics:
- Passive faction abilities
- Gold immunity
- Weather (in its original form)
- Card advantage spies
- Bronze/silver/gold tier (instead of provisions)
- Various gameplay mechanics (e.g. Strengthening, Resilience, etc)
The most important mechanic that changed Gwent completely, I haven't yet mentioned. The one that was scrapped at the start of Homecoming. The one I want to focus on here. The biggest difference between beta and now is that beta only had one action per turn. There were no orders, no double card plays with leader ability. No, you could only play one card and let the board resolve. That's it.
One action per turn was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it set the pace and focus of the game, which was one of its defining features. On the other hand, this limited the amount of interaction. In traditional CCG, you could play multiple cards per turn and take multiple actions. This allows for more complex strategies, in theory. Because Gwent was never about managing your turn, it was about managing the round and plan ahead precisely because you knew that the opponent and you could only take one action per turn. This increased the tactical aspect of the game, instead of decreasing it. It made the game easier to balance (arguably), but more difficult to expand. And in the latter lies the issue.
I have to applaud the devs for having the balls to essentially scrap Gwent and start over. However, I feel they have made the same mistake, still being bounded by maintaining a likeness to the original Gwent. With Homecoming, Gwent 2.0, I believe the devs didn't go far enough or, ironically, went too far. Gwent tried to separate itself from its competitors. Yet, at the same time, the game took many steps that would do the opposite (i.e. reduce its uniqueness) because the devs also realized the original Gwent was to difficult to maintain.
Now, the game is stuck in limbo, between a rock and a hard place, if you will, between the original Gwent and what it wants to become or maybe even what it needs to become, in order to flourish. At the moment, I feel we don't have either. That is, the the uniqueness of the original Gwent or the full potential of the new Gwent, even if it's in a different shape.
Adapting the game to make it a successful CCG was probably CDPR's greatest challenge and it walked a path that required many sacrifices along the way. Gwent Beta wasn't perfect either by any means. For example, the balancing was all over the place. However, back then, the game, at least, felt original and fresh. It felt like... actual Gwent. It could have been salvaged, maybe. But that time has come to pass. The old Gwent is no more. So, let's look ahead and see if Gwent can make it out of limbo and rise yet again.
---
On a somewhat related note, the things that do still set Gwent apart from the rest:
1. Best of 3 rounds
2. Provisions, instead of mana
3. High consistency (10 cards opening hand, small deck size of 25)
Points 2 and 3 have a great impact on balancing the game, which is probably my next topic in this series.
Last edited: