SCE

elotar wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

"world is suffering"

Dude

TwoRazorReign wrote:

it's really hard to understand what your point is

My English is not so good, so I'm totally fine, if somebody do not understand me. But it seems very strange why than those who do not understand what I've written is trying to argue with me.

Yes, it is super strange that someone would try to have a discussion on a discussion forum.

I would really like to understand what you are trying to say, but it seems you'd rather brush off my attempts understand you at this stage. I think your English is fine, I just misinterpreted the sarcasm.

Offtopic:
Sarcasm is generally lost in the internet, because there is no face-to-face contact (Doesn't prevent people from trying). If you would say these things in person, we could probably read from your voice, facial and body expressions that you are not serious. This is not possible in an internet forum, and thus such posts create more confusion than comedy. I did not find the posts funny, and was ready to assume that you have some real life issues, but so far chose to keep quiet.

Out of respectfulness to other people, I always assume that the other person is serious at first unless I have some pressing evidence otherwise. Internet connects everyone and there's a great deal of different people out there. Many things are less incredible than you might think.
/offtopic

LivesByProxy wrote:

I'm not so sure. I wonder just how much popularity and appeal VTES could garner if it were presented differently. Better art, better graphics, cleaner rules, etc.

This goes for every game ever, so its simply something we should strive toward.

There are several instances in modern history where the idea of a product had to be sold to the people first. Deodorant was one that comes to mind. As I recall, the sellers of the product didn't have any buyers, so they went on a campaign to raise awareness about how awesome their product was (ads that convinced women that they didn't want to smell bad for their men), and it worked. It wasn't just them advertising the product existed, it was pointing out a need that they created in the minds of the masses.

Obviously this isn't a direct parallel, but WW is trying to revive Vampire, and get Vampire Netflix shows and video games and movies and whatnot. VTES would benefit from that, but I have to wonder if Vampire (like VTES) suffers from too much baggage that makes it hard to consume, on top of presenting itself... not ideally.

I still think that one problem of VTES in addition to those mentioned before, is that it goes against people's expectations what a collectible card game means these days. It is a multiplayer only game, whereas most CCGs that I know of (basically all?), can be played starting at 2 players. VTES needs 4-5 to have a meaningful game.

Because of this limitation, I still maintain the opinion that it would serve VTES better to be marketed as a board game. Then it would be easier to sell the idea that you need minimum 4 players and ~2 hours to play a game of VTES. Game itself wouldn't have to change, just the way it is marketed.

Being able to play a 2 player game makes it much easier for a random person to "sell" the game to his friends. Its much easier for a person to find ONE friend to play the game with, rather than three(feel free to test this claim). I think this is an important aspect of any CCG's success. I don't know if we can come up with a 2-person version of the game without changing VTES significantly, but at least we could change what people expect from VTES.

Related to above: we should also try to lower the barrier of entry to VTES. You shouldn't need a group of experienced VTES players to teach you the game.This is where simplifying rules and cleaning up rulebook comes into play. Imagine that a person who has never played VTES before, finds couple starter boxes at a store. Thinks "this is interesting!" Then he goes through the rulebook in an attempt to learn the game. Then he tries to teach it to his couple friends. Do you think this is a likely scenario? Do you think these people could actually play a game of VTES without misunderstanding how the game works at some point? I think not. An important aspect of this is also cards actually explaining what they do in a clear way. To play a game, you shouldn't keep looking at rulebook constantly what a card does.

elotar wrote:

thelonius wrote:

I don't understand why (at least in the title) you didn't spell "strike: combat ends" properly.

I've written like essay length text about interesting (for me) events at the very beginning of the VtES history, and this is all you have to comment on this?

After 9+ pages , I still think this is a pointless discussion with a wrong spelled title XD

thelonius wrote:

elotar wrote:

thelonius wrote:

I don't understand why (at least in the title) you didn't spell "strike: combat ends" properly.

I've written like essay length text about interesting (for me) events at the very beginning of the VtES history, and this is all you have to comment on this?

After 9+ pages , I still think this is a pointless discussion with a wrong spelled title XD

You comments are brilliant, thou! Totally worth to write 10 pages just to read so much insight!