I die quickly.ģ:03 P.M: My first match has finished. I have no idea what to do, so I do what I always do: follow someone who looks like they know where they're going. Nice touch.Ģ:45 P.M: OK, I'm in the game. Savage 2 doesn't like this, and calls me a pansy.
Instead of Alt-Tabbing, I decide to exit the game to start writing this.
#SPECTROMANCER END GATHERING UPDATE#
Apparently the game needs to update itself first. And now, the thrilling conclusion.Ģ:30 P.M: Following the advice of a comment posted last week (thanks Tex), I've decided to forgo the tutorial, and jump straight online. So the game remains Savage 2, and the format remains the same. Still, if you have the means, I highly recommend giving the game a try, just make sure you've got the next few hours cleared.Īs I promised in last week's post, this week's post is going to continue the theme introduced in said post. Unlike most of the games offered through Greenhouse, it's only available for Windows, and I couldn't get it to run using the copy of Crossover Games I acquired when they were giving it away a while ago. Spectromancer is only a 20 meg download, and I would definitely recommend trying it out. Thus does add variety to the game, but I can see how it would turn certain people (especially those who enjoy deck building) off. The only way to avoid the aforementioned situation is to expect it, and get used to making due with what you have. This is going to happen more often if your strategies often count on a single card or group of cards. Now the game isn't perfect: your deck is randomly drawn at the beginning of each match, so you'll occasionally find yourself in the middle of losing a match, thinking that you'd be doing much better if you just had a certain card. The game is simple enough to play that it doesn't have a tutorial, and doesn't need one, but underneath this simplicity lies a strategic depth that will gradually unfold the longer your play the game, and that's exactly what makes it so addictive. You also have spell cards, which are not placed in slots - they simply have an effect when used, such as healing your life points, hurting your opponent, or raising your stats. The goal is to reduce your opponent's life points to zero. If there is a creature in that slot, the creature will take damage, if the slot is empty your opponent will take the damage directly instead. Spectromancer seems simple at first, and in a way it is: You and your opponent both have six slots in which to place cards, usually creatures or structures, which can do a wide variety of things, but usually attack the opposing slot each turn. Playing through the campaign will grant you additional cards to use during the campaign, but those same cards are available to anyone who bought the game. The cards you use are the ones included with the game, because they're the only ones that exist. Spectromancer ditches the collectible aspect entirely. You end up with a similar problem to microtransaction-based MMORPGs - whenever you lose a match, you can't be sure if it was your strategy that lost the match, or if it was just that your opponent had spent more money. Now, collectible card games have always intrigued me, but I'm consistently put off by the investment required. Six hours later, I realized I should probably go to bed.
/pic1421862.jpg "spectromancer end gathering")
An hour later, I purchased Spectromancer.
So, I figured, I'd reboot into Windows, quickly check out the demo, then reboot back into Linux to pick up the game I'd initially planned to buy. It seemed interesting, but was only available for Windows. One game in particular caught my eye: Spectromancer, a card based strategy game partly designed by Richard Garfield, creator of Magic: The Gathering. My plan was to grab On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness, Episode Two from Greenhouse, and I was about to do just that, when I decided to take a quick look at the other games available through the service. I was expecting to return from the holiday induced posting hiatus last week, and initially, that was exactly what I started to do.
0 kommentar(er)
