Cortyn thinks Artifact has low chances of success. But that is not due to the game, but to the viewers.
Valve is stepping into the market of major card games and trying something new with Artifact. Instead of just playing on a game board, Artifact takes place in “3 Lanes” simultaneously, somewhat reminiscent of a MOBA. However, I believe this approach is detrimental to the longevity of a card game.
For the comparison, I will also talk a bit about Blizzard’s Hearthstone. Simply because Hearthstone is currently the undisputed leader in this genre and can serve as a good reference.
Excitement in Artifact is hard
In Hearthstone, getting excited is easy. Even if you don’t play Hearthstone, after a few minutes of watching a stream, you understand what’s going on. You grasp the processes, see a clear flow, and are immediately in the thick of the action.
Sure: In Artifact, you will eventually find your way into the game and understand what is going on as a viewer. But the entry hurdle is significantly higher. It takes a while to understand why Artifact is played on 3 different game boards at the same time and how they relate to each other.
Then you also have to keep up with all these processes. While cards are placed and buffed on Lane 3, you still have to keep in mind what is happening on Lanes 1 and 2.
In Hearthstone, you tune into a stream. You see the only game board and the cards in the player’s hand. You know faster what’s going on. You quickly have a clear overview of the game state, see whether the player shown is currently in a strong or weak position. You can soon get excited and speculate on what they will do next.
A card game like Artifact or Hearthstone relies not just on gameplay enjoyment, but also on how much fun it is to watch. It needs to be easy to understand and reveal the current status at a glance. Unfortunately, Artifact does not manage that – at least not yet.
Artifact has already had its first scandal – it was about “black heroes” and whippings.
Depth of gameplay sacrifices dynamics
I don’t think anyone would argue that Artifact offers more tactical depth than Hearthstone and therefore is two to three levels more complex. The question, however, is whether complexity alone is a good thing, especially when other aspects of the game are sacrificed for it.
Because every reaction in Artifact can only provoke a counter-reaction, individual turns can sometimes drag on. This not only makes the game slower for players but also less interesting for viewers. If you’re not particularly fond of mathematics, then the countless “X buffs Y” and “A weakens B when C is in the epicenter of D during an active lunar eclipse” effects aren’t particularly thrilling.
I wish Artifact to become a very successful game. Because then Hearthstone would finally have a serious competitor and would have to come up with new ideas. The developers would no longer be able to get away with simply removing the tournament mode. For Hearthstone to receive new impulses, a successful competitor would be the best thing that could happen.
It’s actually a pretty sad view when I say: “I hope Artifact is good, so Hearthstone can grow from it” – but unfortunately, that’s all I currently attribute to the game.
We will know more certainly by the end of November. Then Artifact should be released, and we will surely take a closer look inside.
What is your opinion on Artifact? Are you looking forward to Valve’s card game? Or is it not really your area of interest?
