I have same opinion and that’s why I refuse to say GoW is a strategy game…
Using same definition i’d exclude deck bulding games from strategy genre also…
Looks like I’m more strict on definition, than you
Oh, please, this is all meaningless in GoW… well, maybe in very early levels it has an impact on your gameplay, but in longterm… sooner or later you come out with your daily routine and it comes down to farming this or that… a bit similiar to endgame WoW playing experience or even such classics as D2 → sooner or later you end up on farming routine. That’s neither challenging or has any strategy into it…
Sarcasm, sarcasm everywhere!
I stand on my opinion. Gems is a match3 game, with some flavour added that gives it elements of deck-building/character development (IMO-> improving your kingdom levels serves same purpose as sending an RPG character to train a skill under supervision of highly paid in-game NPC trainer), which makes it unique and standing out from a crowd of Candy-Crush games.
But core gameplay stays same - it’s a match3 game… no marketing spells or giving extra emphasis on deck-building/development aspects will change it’s core.
And randomness is a big part of Match3 genre, whether you like it or not.
As I said earlier → Lyncanthropy doesn’t change much in it. It just adds another layer
Well, that is certainly what everyone does these days. I would cheerfully change mine. Unfortunately, I find your arguments completely unconvincing. That’s ok. We will agree to disagree.
But I’m dying to ask you this. You equate GoW to Candy crush because of the gem matching. Would you also equate DND to Yahtzee or craps because they all use dice?
I’m honestly curious about how you square that circle, without even talking about the mechanic that I shall not name.
To give my perspective, I look at the gem matching as I would the die. The thing that determines the THING. I’ve never met a person in GoW who plays it because they just love moving gems around. But maybe that’s a thing!
Maybe this game is a different thing to different people? Anyway this isn’t some weirdo trap. I’m honestly interested in why you think the matching part is paramount, while I think it’s the equal of dice in the cup.
Matching is a core part of this game. Board size, gem spawn and gem placement on the board are essential for any action. All your planning and tactics can get thrown out if you get a bad board. And there’s almost no way to counter it. That’s why I compare GoW to Candy Crush. Because in the end, all that extra flavour that’s added to the game is stipped off by it’s core mechanism and is reduced to match3 game. People in this topic have been complaining how Lycanthropy is throwing away all strategy/tactics from this game…
My whole point is: that it does not. Because of how much this game is RNG dependent.
I agree, that “I just love moving gems arround” is probably not the main reason people (including me) are playing GoW, but people need to understand, that on base level it’s match3 game…
If you don’t like moving gems arround, you probably won’t play GoW. I wouldn’t play GoW, if i didn’t like match3 games. Why even touch it, if you don’t like such mechanic?
As for DND- it’s kind of different story. In DND, the most important role is Game Master. He’s the one who tells the story and a lot of players perception depends whether they have a good GM or not. Dices are just tools. It’s not even an obligatory tool- in many situations GM might decide to skip rolling dices - either he loves player idea and allows it to go, or it’s convenient for the story telling or rolling dices would just be a formality.
I’ve played different boardgames with different mechanics. To name a few:
dice rolling
worker placement
deck building
card drafting
action drafting
modular board, which is build from scratch each game, while playing
etc.
Each of these mechanics has it pros and cons, and usualy great games don’t rely on one of them, but implement a few - with main idea being that you can use a combination of few mechanics to workarraound bad luck. f.e. if you roll low numbers on dice, you can use action card which benefits most from low rolls etc.
GoW doesn’t have any extra option outside of gem matching. It cannot be skipped at all like in DND and bad board cannot be skipped with use of any other mechanic. That’s why I say, that in the end it’s a match3 game. And I’ll point it again - Lycanthropy doesn’t change a thing in the core issue. It’s just adding another layer of RNG into the game, which is hugely depending on RNG even without Lycanthropy… that’s my point
First, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I really do enjoy discussions about this sort of thing because it’s interesting how different people approach even the idea of games, in general.
Anyway, I rather agree that the random factor of the boards can, at times, pretty much negate everything else in the game. I can’t think of any digital game that doesn’t have a rng based fly in the ointment, somewhere. However, I can think of many where that fly is never catastrophic. So yes, the rng is too prominent.
I still do not personally define a game’s genre, based on its design flaws or weaknesses. I base it on the big picture intent. Sorry, I can’t find a decent way to articulate what I mean. It doesn’t really matter because we just have different criteria and I think there is no right or wrong way to look at it. Just different and interesting ways.
My issue with the mechanic of lycanthropy is that since I don’t define the game by it’s weakness (too much rng), I don’t support new mechanics that amplify what I see is already a flaw. I advocate for new mechanics that mitigate that flaw.
Now if you are coming at it from the perspective of the rng not being a weakness or flaw, but in fact the game itself? I can understand how you could be fine with it.
and it comes down to farming this or that… a bit similiar to endgame WoW playing experience or even such classics as D2 → sooner or later you end up on farming routine. That’s neither challenging or has any strategy into it…