It's very different. A lot faster for starters. And you get to build your deck during the game, not before. In the end, you don't battle your opponent (for life points or something), but you both use the same pool of cards, trying to snatch the better ones while gaining honor along the way. You really should try the lite, as it is a genre in itself (or maybe you played Dominion and you already know everything about the genre).
thanks thevagrant and Talbs for confirming. At first i thought colored red in nick signifies they have bad lag but further thinking revealed that this is a asynchronous games, why would there be any lag issue? LOL.. silly me.. and the little light bulb thing is just as i've imagined, whether they're in game or not? thanks for confirming that as well and kudos to the dev for adding that in for us... now come to the point of replying my own game till the very end, i hope that's being patched to show you a pop up message whenever your opponent forfeited a game so that the remaining players would know as well, especially useful for those playing 1vs1 game session, but as for now, i would be more than happy to just forfeit as well seeing that no tracking or whatsoever are made. more games before i head to bed later... ^^ good times... good times...
This. As a experienced Magic: The Gathering player, I can vouch for this app's addictiveness. There's something about building your deck DURING the game that makes it really fun. I only wish they had more cards. Hopefully they'll add in the expansion that was already added in the actual real-life version of the game soon.
I was pleasantly surprised to find this on the app store the other day, as I had just picked up the physical game a couple months ago. It's tough to find folks to play with "in the real world", so I had the opportunity to play my physical copy maybe a handful of times. I'll have to say that this is a great realization of the physical game. The AI does what it sets out to do (though I'm looking forward to the next difficulty rank) and the tutorial is very well done, especially for new players. It has become one of my favorite board games on the app store, with a level of polish similar to Carcassone, Neuroshima Hex, and Ticket to Ride. I generally play on the iPad for the larger screen, but I was very surprised at how playable it is on an iPhone 4/retina device. Wishlist - A Win/Loss ratio or some sort of online/offline games ranking/progress system; Game Center achievements; and the big one - The Return of the Fallen expansion pack. Great value for $5. I play fairly often, so feel free to add me to your Friend's Lists - GC name is WakeOfPoseidon.
Hrm, I'm still getting crashes whenever I launch the online component of this game. However, it's been a while since I've added GC friends, added a few of you, if you don't see an invite from me (drelbs) feel free to add me (drelbs) in case I ever manage to get it to work so you can kick my butt (have only played a few games so far...)
Great game indeed! I've just played through the tutorial and it is awesome! Can't wait to try online battles!
The review on the front page for this game was pretty good except for the fact that it was a little too subjective. Art may be bad, but my dad likes it. And luck doesn't play the whole game, and it can be fought.. Still, the review is fine.
Hey, so I've been playing the free version and love it. I just read parts of the review on the front page, and Eli said multiplayer matches are difficult to get into, especially ones that play all the way through. Is this other people's experience? And is playing with more than 1 opponent much different? Basically I'm trying to decide whether I need to get the full version - I've been pretty satisfied with the free one so far. I do tend to agree with Eli though that it seems difficult to be able to set up a strategy since games can change so abruptly. Am I missing something? Or do you simply have to be flexible and go with the flow?
I'm not in the mood to talk about Eli's flaws with believing every review should be subjective instead of accurate. So I'll keep it shorter. In order to experiment with different strategies, after playing and understanding the basics of the game, you should check out the list of cards in the menu and get familiar with what they do. This will give you an idea of which cards to mix. Just try them out with the computer. Bottom line. It's pretty easy to get into a game and playing with more than 1 opponent only makes you wish you got the cards some people got.
Reviews are subjective dude. I'm not sure how you've got a "review" mixed up with a "product description" but you should figure that one out.
Not at all. Although it would be nice if the online lobby had some sort of chat or messaging system, even if it was primitive. Still, I've never had to wait around for a game. There's GameCenter invites; that's probably the best way to match up with someone you "know," at least online. But even just joining a game works pretty well provided the guy/gal who started the game hasn't wandered off to do other things. Or try starting a game yourself. I've never had to wait too long for an opponent; usually, someone jumps in right away. I guess a lot of people want to play, but can't be bothered to actually set up a game. Be flexible. Adapt, innovate, and overcome, as the man said in the movie. Ascension is less of a spreadsheet than Dominion or Race for the Galaxy are, much to its credit. You can't just set up a perfect engine and win. Why some people insist on thinking that is the same thing as "random" or "luck" is a mystery to me. I suppose it helps them excuse all their losses or something. Ascension rewards repeated plays and getting to know the cards well. But, yes, definitely be prepared to switch horses often. Knowing when and how to do so has far more to do with skill than luck.
I wouldn't say the art is necessarily bad. It doesn't have the same level of polish maybe that Magic's art has, but it seems almost more like a style than quality. Afterall, Magic's very early cards were kinda similar looking to Ascension's.
Read the review, understand his points, but keep on playing anyway. I watch this game since it started in the "upcoming" forum and being amazed. I don't think it is far to compare it to MtG, or even Orions, cause they are pretty different beasts. The port here does a great job porting much of the printed materials here for reference: rules, list of cards, glossary, and so on. As suggested above, if you want to get into the game, spend some time reading all the cards and learn about them (it is just 53 in there, okay?) It helps to make the "right" choice during actual play. I don't think "randomness" or "luck" intervenes too much in this game, unlike some other you-know-which, cause there are a number of strategies you can pick, and the choice you make always have foreseeable effect on the endgame (even though most game are pretty short and seldom goes beyond 14-15 rounds) E.g. I notice the AI is likely to keep a list of cards to pick from the center line, with order of preference. If it does not find any cards it can use, it would pick the cards from the corner instead, to avoid drawing card which may favorable to the next player! Also, if anyone has problem finding random people to play (I doubt it), look for friends at GC instead (YMMV though), you can setup games specific with them. My ID is griffin611, btw. My $0.02
Actually, subjective analysis is the basis for any entertainment product review, in almost all forms of journalism. It is one of the basic truths of written media coverage. Any attempts at "objective accuracy" in an analysis of any work of art/entertainment product is most probably either an illusion consciously projected by the publication in question, or the product of a grave lack of self-awareness on the part of the journalist.
Reviews are indeed subjective. But imagine (hypothetically) if some popular reviewer all sudden thought a certain game ran only on the Mac, when really it only works on Windows. You'd get a different audience coming to the product soon to be disappointed, with the other audience split up into different decisions. They either walk away or look it up some more. The ones who walk away could have been potential customers. And that's what I'm getting at. Although what we're looking at here is only a minor mistake based on someone's experience that didn't look at the game hard enough. Thus, he explains that luck is probably a factor in this card game like other card games, when really it's not as bad as the other card games (luck is there, but it can be fought). Not many people would care and would just check it out anyways, but nonetheless, there's that missed percentage that could've gotten the game because they believed not to go for another card game based on luck. I don't want to make this a huge deal, but if people don't get what I'm saying, my message won't get out. Not that I should care, but I'm only posting because as of this moment, I've got nothing else to do for awhile. I don't really want anyone responding rashly back at me as I'm just ranting at misinformation in general.
There's some very conflicting messages here. Do you want an honest review of the game or do you want me to lie because my opinion might have an impact on the sales of Ascension?
For the most part, it's not your fault, and then again, it is. What could be added to your review would be to say that, for example, "The game may or may not be based on luck, but as I experienced it, it seems there might be a chance of the former." Saying that could confuse less people. Not only are you still being honest, the readers can still see that the factor may not be there. But honestly, I'm only angry and ranting about this because I have nothing else to do. Don't go bored.
IMO a review should. Give someone some idea on the game mechanics, whether it is polished or not, the basic features such as mp, A.I., etc.., and then cover the subjective stuff. I felt you did that, but could have used a little less, " I have played mtg like a pro forever and therefore I'm hardcore" attitude and also a little less hyperbole as in the art being laughable. Just my 2 cents, all in all a nice review. I agree with some of it disagree with some of it.
