Join the Light Side! Popularity Analysis

+
Blood Wine Expansion is very light and bright. Yet, has more appealing than the original game.
Some of the reasons is because it is more colorful without lost the dread and grim side of the Witcher Universe. The game can have a color scheme more polished and bright without lost his meaning, his darkness and identity.
As for me, I don't like oversaturated graphics. And I don't like childish graphics too. I just want the game to be lighter, more neat, more official, more fanfare and royal as it initially was. And as it was in W3. U must understand, that W3 is the parent of the Gwent. I think all design ideas must be taken from W3 and made more beautiful and various. That'll be a good evolution of the game.
Bright colors and clean design might attract mostly younger people, have you thought about that for instance?
And they are the target audience of the most games.
U also said, that some people mess some colors and some of them are even daltonic. BUT - every of them can distinguish the dark and the light design - that is what I am talking. This thing is universal. Ligth or dark - that is the simple, but very important choice, which determines the future of the project.
Post automatically merged:

View attachment 11031956

Incidentally, The Shawshank Redemption and The Godfather aren't light either. :shrug:

(Sorry, I just had to ninja post this)
Ok, but look at the description: all films are DRAMA. Drama is dark, of course. But the Gwent is made for fun and rest, so the dark theme isn't good here! Almost all games are made for fun, except horrors and another dramatic ones. Some games are the mix.
 
Last edited:
Here we are again with the "tavern game" thing. It simply does not apply to GWENT; the game is literally described as a battle between two armies, with you as the commander.
And the whole "fun side thing" argument is flawed because this standalone is not a minigame or a side activity in an RPG. The card game is literally all there is to GWENT.

Besides, the main point of the thread is that the dark scheme is the reason that the game has issues. Which just isn't true and doesn't even make sense.


We would agree that a simple solution (as always has a simple solution... that won't be heard or considered) would be the function to choose between a Day/Light Scheme or a Dark/Night Scheme in the configuration menu.
People would choose play a more Easy Sight game or a Hard Tenebrous environment.
 
the game is literally described as a battle between two armies, with you as the commander.
No, initially Gwent was a funny and gambling CARD game. Armies was just a pictures on the cards. And this cards was collectiblle. Now we have an imitation of a real army in a real world, but not a deck. This new idea has come from the Thronebreaker, but I don't like it (as many people too). It's a mistake and a mismatch with initial lore (as the whole HC is inside of itself), when Gwent was a card game in the Witcher 3 universe. And I think that this idea of W3 card game should be continued.
 
Not simple. A lot of work for the developers, work that would be better done on something that actually matters. Balancing the game, fixing bugs, that sort of thing.

Yep, sure!
Because every time the developers try to"Balancing the game, fixing bugs" the game has become better or we have a new surprise, auto milling, new reward trees (but was stated that old tree could be back as we paused spending on them)... Developers are sooooo into make the game better for the players.
 
This new idea has come from the Thronebreaker
GWENT is a lot older than Thronebreaker. That argument makes no sense.

It's a mistake and a mismatch with initial lore
No, it's not. The standalone is not supposed to be a multiplayer version of the minigame. And as for "lore", in the actual lore (books) the game that gwent is based on is played on the road.
GWENT is very much a card game in the Witcher universe, just like it always has been. You can't possibly claim it's not in-universe.

Because every time the developers try to"Balancing the game, fixing bugs" the game has become better or we have a new surprise, auto milling, new reward trees (but was stated that old tree could be back as we paused spending on them)... Developers are sooooo into make the game better for the players.
Your opinion, and irrelevant to the argument.
If the developers spent time and effort on adding visual options that many if not most players wouldn't care about, instead of actually working on the game, the situation would not be better than it is now. Quite the opposite. Not to mention there would probably be more work every time new elements (cards, boards, even Leader skins) got added... which would be an enormous waste of time.
 
Balancing the game, fixing bugs, that sort of thing.

Do they hire artists to do that? At a minimum they are supposed to have a technical team for what you mention, and that team can work perfectly (or should) even if the board was empty.

Even so, I still believe that there is no visual improvement that helps the game if gameplay is the problem.

In my tastes I would have preferred a board with smaller elements, I think that of HS with those small buildings is great, I imagined we could have something like that.
And with better lighting you could take advantage of the darkness at the same time since there is much more space to develop shadows.

We must also highlight something, the current boards were widely approved by the community, we were all delighted with them, what made the people go away was the gameplay and from that moment until now a growing feeling of distrust towards the developers since we do not have guarantees about our collections. That is not fixed with light.
 
Do they hire artists to do that? At a minimum they are supposed to have a technical team for what you mention, and that team can work perfectly (or should) even if the board was empty.
It's still extra time spent on developing the game, hence extra work for developers. Besides, there are visual bugs (including issues with art) as well as gameplay ones.
 
There another proof of my correctness appeared in the game world. It's Fall Guys. Mega popular FUNNY game!

fall-guys-ultimate-knockout-3.jpg


fall-guys-ultimate-knockout-2.jpg


fall-guys-ultimate-knockout.jpg


Why is it popular? Because it is LIGHT, it is FUN, it is SIMPLE and it is CLEAR! Four principles of success, that I was talking about. Let's see at Gwent again: it's DARK, it's BORING, it's COMPLICATED and it's DIRTY... That's why at this time Fall Guys has around 160 000 viewers, Hearthstone, which uses the same principles still have a big number of around 30000 viewers and the Gwent has just around 2000 viewers.
I don't want Gwent to be like Fall Guys, but why not use this principles a little more? Why not make Gwent lighter, simpler (without orders and coins), clearer without all this dirty fields, which cards don't like, ragged borders? Why not make Gwent funnier without all this precise and boring balance and lots of math? Why even beta Gwent was much more interesting? It was funnier, it was lighter, clearer and simpler.

All u do is inverse to success. Use light principles just a little more.
Darkness is oblivion, and u bring this game to it. What about me. I went back to Hearthstone. And I remembered a good times I have with this game before. Light is remembrance. Light is fun and good.
 
There another proof of my correctness appeared in the game world. It's Fall Guys. Mega popular FUNNY game!

View attachment 11056199

View attachment 11056196

View attachment 11056193

Why is it popular? Because it is LIGHT, it is FUN, it is SIMPLE and it is CLEAR! Four principles of success, that I was talking about. Let's see at Gwent again: it's DARK, it's BORING, it's COMPLICATED and it's DIRTY... That's why at this time Fall Guys has around 160 000 viewers, Hearthstone, which uses the same principles still have a big number of around 30000 viewers and the Gwent has just around 2000 viewers.
I don't want Gwent to be like Fall Guys, but why not use this principles a little more? Why not make Gwent lighter, simpler (without orders and coins), clearer without all this dirty fields, which cards don't like, ragged borders? Why not make Gwent funnier without all this precise and boring balance and lots of math? Why even beta Gwent was much more interesting? It was funnier, it was lighter, clearer and simpler.

All u do is inverse to success. Use light principles just a little more.
Darkness is oblivion, and u bring this game to it. What about me. I went back to Hearthstone. And I remembered a good times I have with this game before. Light is remembrance. Light is fun and good.
If you want Gwent to become an entirely different game maybe it's just not the game for you.
I might sound like a complete edgelord here but I'm sick of every competitive game needing to be as witty and colorful as possible for mass appeal.
If Gwent becomes just another Hearthstone what's even the point? There was a point in the beta where they sort of tried this by removing cursing and gore and simplifying names but at that point the entire game lost it's appeal and flavor.
When I turn on Witcher I don't expect it to look like Super Mario.
Witcher was never a game for children so why should Gwent be?
Now I do think the boards themselves could pop a bit more and that the 3D leaders could look a bit better but that's about it.
This got me thinking how fun a Land of a Thousand Fables board could be.
 
I don't want Gwent to be simple, I like it dark and dirty too, it has 1000000% more personality than fall guys will ever have. Gwent is an acquired taste as with all live's greatest things.
 
If Gwent becomes just another Hearthstone what's even the point?
Is "Fall Guys" another Hearthstone?

Witcher was never a game for children so why should Gwent be?
Do only children play HS? What about famous poker player LifeCoach? Is he a child? And the same people? Am I a child - 36 years old man? HS is good because it's clear. Principle of clearness is a principle of success, Apple uses it, for example. Is Apple a childish company? No, and it is the most successful company in IT. Because it uses the same principles. All companies that uses principles of light, simplicity and clearness are successful. As for me, the only games I play now (and most other time before) are Blizzard's Overwatch and Hearthstone. They are simple, light, clear and very fun. They give positive emotions. They give fun. What does Gwent give? Headache because of math, darkness for eyes, depression because of complications, disgust because of dirtiness. Who may like it? Just around 2000 viewers. All other people are watching and playing clear, understandable and fun games.
I don't want Gwent to look like Fall Guys, I say again. Just to use these principles a bit more. Remove unneeded complications like these terrible orders and coins, make it more neat, simpler and fun like it was in Beta.
 
Comparing apples and oranges here. Fall Guys and GWENT have exactly one thing in common: multiplayer. One is a battle royale, the other is a CCG. Very different genres, very different target audiences.

Do only children play HS?
No one claimed that. But it is suitable for children, unlike GWENT, when looking at age ratings (PEGI 7 vs. PEGI 16).

Who may like it? Just around 2000 viewers.
Are you seriously only looking at Twitch viewers, completely disregarding the fact that not nearly everyone uses Twitch and that people may be playing instead of watching streams?

Fall Guys is brand new and doesn't even have an age rating other than being suitable for everyone. Not to mention it's so new that it's popular due to that alone, plus a battle royale is much simpler and more accessible than a CCG by its very nature.
HS is the #1 (digital) CCG, has been probably since 2014, but so what? The Warcraft universe is much older and more popular than the Witcher universe, so it's only logical that its CCG is also more popular. Especially when said CCG looks like a kids' game and is indeed suitable for kids as well as adults. (And Fall Guys is suitable for all ages).

Visuals are not the main reason why HS or Fall Guys is popular. Never have been, never will be.
GWENT would be ruined if it had ridiculous cartoon graphics; such a downgrade would NOT improve the game like you claim it would. Well, it would for you, but you do not represent the entire, or even the majority of the, playerbase.
 
No one claimed that. But it is suitable for children, unlike GWENT, when looking at age ratings (PEGI 7 vs. PEGI 16).
A pity, but Gwent is suitable for noone cause it's boring.
Are you seriously only looking at Twitch viewers, completely disregarding the fact that not nearly everyone uses Twitch and that people may be playing instead of watching streams?
Yes. Popular games are popular on Twitch, cause streamers want as much people as the can attract. What can attract better then a popular game?
Visuals are not the main reason why HS or Fall Guys is popular. Never have been, never will be.
All thing are connected. If visuals are bad, they make bad influence to everything and for developers themselves. And what are u talking about? U say that disgusting visuals are ok for the game?
GWENT would be ruined if it had ridiculous cartoon graphics
Again, I don't say Gwent to have cartoon graphics. But why must it be disgusting???? Are cartoon and ugly - the only options? Why cannot it be just clear, neat and beautiful like a book of rewards? I like Book of rewards - it's beautiful and not cartoonish. It has the best style in Gwent.
book-of-rewards.jpg
 
There another proof of my correctness appeared in the game world. It's Fall Guys.

Yes, make things as vibrant and light as possible. Then Gwent's actual problems will surely fade away, mostly because everyone will be blinded.

Every game has its own style. Some work better being light and cute, like Fall Guys, others work better being dark and gritty, like A Plague Tale.
 
Every game has its own style. Some work better being light and cute, like Fall Guys, others work better being dark and gritty, like A Plague Tale.
Noone plays Plague Tale every day. It's one-time-journey. Cause it's too dark and negative.
Normal people cannot play gloomy games every day. Most of them cannot ever play it at all. U will never get many people with negative things. Yes someone like this, but it's just about 10% of unhealthy people, not more.
Some days ago I found an article of one autist girl, who moved to a room with dark wallpaper. There is a link (if u understand or translate russian):
She's something like sensitive like other autists. And she says that she became sad because of this wallpaper. She sees like this every day experience of dark things makes people's aura sicky. Dark colors in aura mean sickness. Every sensitive can say this. And even interior designers say the same things: never use dark colors in interior, cause they bring depression.
U can play dark games for one time, but u cannot play them every day. It's too sicky and sadly. U cannot go to such games to have a rest. Everyday games must bring good emotions, they must bring rest or they will never be popular.
 
Last edited:
Holdup waitaminute.

Isn't Dark Souls, one of the most depressing, unaccesible, cryptic, dark, gritty and foul games out there, and an indisputable king of sales?

With around 25 Mill of copies sold(for the series).

I rest my case.
 
Top Bottom