|
Lets start from that: Game isn't worth for 19.95 USD - there are more enjoyable games for that money.
But there must be something catching, whyfor I keep playing.
Actually, I kept playing it, until restricted version of game didn't let me play even in a single duel mode. So sad, so sad.
So, lower that price a bit and give us something more to play with - for example, I would like to see an option, where I can preset my card deck in full game. Also, I want more cards!
And U guys shouldn't be so rough with these restrictions - cropping Illusionist was painful enough. Do U want more players and buyers, or not?
Might be worth playing, but still not worth paying for it.
regards,
rip
| Sabotai2 | 2009-03-23 22:51:57 |
Why would they want more players who don't pay?
Personally I found I kept playing the game, so I bought it. I think its well worth the money. But to each their own.
| garcia1000 | 2009-03-24 09:12:20 |
I think if the goal was "get players who don't play" then that is not a profitable company imo
| Echodork | 2009-03-24 13:41:32 |
I thought the game was worth purchasing very early on, and I've been thrilled with it so far. I've gotten a lot of play out of my $19.95, more than a lot of XBox games I've bought :)
I bought the other classes for $10 off steam, it was worth playing. I still play Holy half the time, though.
Why would they want more players who don't pay?
Personally I found I kept playing the game, so I bought it. I think its well worth the money. But to each their own.
- They might want many more players, because these players are
potential buyers. U were potential buyer, until U bought game, right?
Actually a player, who havent still bought the game, might be much more
important, than a player, who already paid for game - U probably will
not give any more money for developers, but I might ;-) I think if the goal was "get players who don't play" then that is not a profitable company imo
Well that might be a situation, we are living right now - after restricted game stopped working I stopped playing new version at all. There might be many others, like me. At other side. If U dont find enough playmates from online, your investment in Spectromancer full game might someday be useless. Actually, I'm playing an earlier version of Spectromancer with my friends, on lan. That playable demo version didn't have so much shortsighted restrictions. And this isn't good for Spectromancer community nor for developers. | Cooler | 2009-03-24 16:24:47 |
They might want many more players, because these players arepotential buyers. U were potential buyer, until U bought game, right?Actually a player, who havent still bought the game, might be much moreimportant, than a player, who already paid for game - U probably willnot give any more money for developers, but I might ;-)
A player who bought the game is a potential buyer for add-on or next game  Other players might pay in future, but 99% of them won't. ... A player who bought the game is a potential buyer for add-on or next game Other players might pay in future, but 99% of them won't.
OK, I will wait for add-on then :-) Can U give a hint, when new add-on is coming? rofl. Are U a developer? Or just player? If U are a developer, and your sellable add-on story had a little truth inside - it would be really unfair against earlier buyers (like Sabotai2, Garcia1000, and all others). If U are a player, then U should think about it and wish for free add-ons, because of unreasonably high price, U already paid for simple game. regards, rip | garcia1000 | 2009-03-24 17:23:36 |
Well, I think $20 is very cheap and not an "unreasonably high price"
It's people like you that make it hard to be an indie developer. I mean, you play an older version on a private server, and go through all those hoops for $20? wat.
Saying it's a simple game is a great disservice I think, compared to Magic the Gathering where you spend hundreds of dollars every year to get nothing much
| Torkath | 2009-03-24 17:57:11 |
I think that 19.95 is tooooo mcuh for this game, it just dosnt worth that much, however, i will buy it today from Steam for 9.90, wich i think is the right price for a cards game that has less than 100 cards and that dosnt let you build yer own decks on single player mode.
Its kinda obvious why it isnt possible to build decks on multiplayer (allmost everyone will have the same deck), but i just cant understand why you cant create yer own deck at single player mode.
| Echodork | 2009-03-24 18:00:33 |
There'd be no challenge in the single player game if you could build your own decks :)
$20
test$20
| dplynx | 2009-03-24 22:03:34 |
I think it is worth $20. It's just a surprisingly good game, one that I've gotten a lot of great play out of. At first I didn't feel like it was worth it, when I got the demo. But I found myself playing it more and more. There's a depth there, an elegance. A well-thought-out design and great balance. My only current concern with the game are the cards that tend to prolong games--just today I had to surrender a game just because I had a meeting and I do wish the game had more definable expectations of how long a typical game will be. Most games are less than 10 minutes and the rest are usually less than 15--and that's awesome. Drain souls is the main culprit in the creation of annoyingly slow and long games but some of the life gaining cards can be responsible as well.
However, even having to surrender the occasional game for being to boringly long, I still think it's worth $20.
| Waterd103 | 2009-03-25 00:08:43 |
I have a wii, that i paid 600 u$s (because i'm in argentina), i have almost every game that's called good in wii. I also had a PS2, who piad 300 u$s, and alos had almost every game. I paid 20 dollars for spectromancer, and got more fun of it, that all games on WII and PS2 togheter. 20 dollars is hte cost of a good RARE in magic. here you have all the cards and all the game, with a server that works very well, and a good ranking system. And you say that 20 dollars is too much? Tell me one game that has a better price/quality relationship than this game plz. | BeastofBurden | 2009-03-25 06:44:11 |
Hmm 20 bux for a cool game or 20 bux of weed to get high? help | Echodork | 2009-03-25 13:55:02 |
When you come down and you're out of chips, you'll still have Spectromancer.
| FinalSlayer | 2009-03-25 14:04:22 |
It's an awesome value for twenty dollars. I hate spending money on any form of entertainment, but this one is well worth it. I'm not sure how one can complain about the price considering it's cheaper than a PSP or DS game, both of which are portable systems, let alone next gen consoles...
Tell me one game that has a better price/quality relationship than this game plz.
10$ is cheap for Civilization IV Complete (includes Warlords and beyond the sword) 10$ is cheap for Rise of Nations Gold Edition 10$ is cheap for Chessmaster 11 30$ is cheap for Unreal Tournament III 40$ is cheap for Heroes of Might and Magic V Gold Edition Spectromancer is simple and small game, compared to games mentioned above. sry, Chessmaster is 15$
| dplynx | 2009-03-25 16:34:40 |
By the way, I think this would make a great iPhone game--there is already a sort of similar (rip-off?) of this game on there, called I think something of Orions, but IMO it's a much inferior game--no multiplayer, and a tedious "strategic" element. Spectromancer could do very well on that platform--something to consider.
| Waterd | 2009-03-25 17:26:37 |
I don't know where you get those games for such a prize, i looked around and those were not even close the prizes i found, if you could those civilization and rise of the nation packages for that prizes, that's really cheap. But i looked a lot around and coulnd't find such a prizes. except for heroes of might and magic V where i found cheaper prizes. In any case i played civilization rise of the nations and heroes 5, and played a lot less on those games than spectromancer because they have horrible multiplayer options. Spectromancer Value comes from the point that's is one of the best multiplayer games around imo. (and i played hundreds). from 3 three games you named, when it comes to multiplayer value, they are VASTLY inferior. They are very poorly designed. I have a personal grudge against heroes 5, since i was a beta tester and i couldn't believe how the developers refuse to take the right path, they did mistake over mistake, and now they have a game with wonderfull graphics and a shitty multiplayer game. | FinalSlayer | 2009-03-25 18:23:18 |
ChessMaster is a pretty awful deal for any price. If you're going to
bring up chess software, at least mention the latest edition of the
Fritz and ChessBase package, or the MasterChess 2+ million game and
program bundle.
And Civ 4 and Heroes 5 are very primitive in terms of strategy compared
to Spectro, even though I'm a fan of the first two as well.
Waterd, FinalSlayer, and some others.. Can I join your cult and worship Spectromancer? | Echodork | 2009-03-25 20:26:32 |
You can join my cult if you want. To join, you have to cast Lightning Cloud every time he appears in your deck. Then we'll mail you a membership card and a hat with our secret logo on it.
| Cooler | 2009-03-25 20:41:33 |
10$ is cheap for Civilization IV Complete (includes Warlords and beyond the sword)
10$ is cheap for Rise of Nations Gold Edition
10$ is cheap for Chessmaster 11
30$ is cheap for Unreal Tournament III
40$ is cheap for Heroes of Might and Magic V Gold Edition
I guess these prices are discounted :-) These games were released, sold, and then sold again with discount. I'm not familiar with these games, so can't estimate :-) Some games (like F.E.A.R.) feature great value, but you play them for 15-30 hours and forget about them. Other games dont feature great content, but high replayability. BTW, does Chessmaster XI contain much content? ;-) | Waterd | 2009-03-25 20:49:59 |
i don't think spectromancer is that great of a game. IT's just that games in general sucks so much, they are obvius Games to consume product that rely more on production values than actual game design. IMO Game design is worth more than any production value. Spectromancer is one of the few games, that rely on Game design, to be fun, than on production value. And is more interesting than all those named games with a lot of production value and copied, unoriginal and plan bad game design. I can tell like hundreds of games likeheroes 5. It's worth more heroes 5 because it has 3d gorgeus USELESS graphics?  Tell me what heroes 5 bring to the table that's worth my money? It's unoriginal, IT's badly done, it's unplayable on multiplayer level. It's not a matter of cult, it's a matter of pointing out that Some people are more willing to play for actual game design than production value. Again i don't think Spectromancer is flawless, But i would be willingly to pay 1000 for a flawless game. Spectromancer for a 20 bucks is a lot original, interesting , fun, and has a lot more multiplayer value than most of the games i see lately. Again i don't think spectromancer is that good, i just think that 20 bucks is more than fine for a DECENT GAME. I see few decent games this cheap, and to be honest, i see few decent games at all. Of course that's under my vision of what's decent and what not. In spectromnacer i spended almost 100 hours alredy. that's 20 cents the hour, i think it's fine. | rglloyd | 2009-03-26 06:31:36 |
I just bought Spectromancer and I think its an awesome game. Â Very original in just about every way. Â I love the game mechanics and the randomness is really refreshing. Â I thought it could be cool to 'lock' a couple of favorite spells into place after reaching a certain fame lvl, but its fine just being random. Â I really dont think you could compare this game to Magic The Gathering. Â It doesnt fit into the CCG genre, and there isnt any deck building to speak of. Â It is very unique in gameplay and design, while building on known CCG elements, the developers have gone beyond the basic mold of a CCG and into some untested waters. Â Bravo!
Im a game collector who has about 150 games or so, Ive lost count, but I have played hundreds since I was 3 years old. Â My first games were DIG DUG, DROLL, D-Day, Carmen Sandiego, and Kings Quest 1 back in 1985. Â I loved them so much that I decided to learn some programming languages, graphics engines, 3D modeling, and story crafting so I could create my own. Â I have been working on my own games including an RPG with a 3D random terrain generator and realtime generated particle rivers that follow gravity physics. Â However sometimes it becomes discouraging because it's hard to find good talented designers to work with me that will stick with the project throughout the years of developement. Â When I get discouraged I look for inspiring games to get me pumped up and back on track doing what I love. Â This is one of those games. | rglloyd | 2009-03-26 06:44:53 |
... 10$ is cheap for Civilization IV Complete (includes Warlords and beyond the sword)
10$ is cheap for Rise of Nations Gold Edition
10$ is cheap for Chessmaster 11
30$ is cheap for Unreal Tournament III
40$ is cheap for Heroes of Might and Magic V Gold Edition
Spectromancer is simple and small game, compared to games mentioned above.
Yes those games are cheap, however not one of them is ORIGINAL. Â They all follow the same molds that have been set for years. Â Civilization IV kept my interest for 3 days. Â Rise of Nations made me snore, Chessmaster 11 is inferior to my glass chess set and a good friend, Unreal Tournament wasn't anything more special than every other FPS, and the Heroes of Might and Magic series is played out already... let it freakin die in piece!!
Spectromancer is ORIGINAL, and I dare say it "Unique." Â Its exciting to me because I havnt played anything like it in the last 23 years of my over jaded gaming life. Â Searching for a game that doesnt bore the life out of me has become my own personal little hell. | Torkath | 2009-03-26 20:21:28 |
If we are talking of original games, i must say this game is mostly
original, however a cards game should have more than 96 cards, just
think that MTG on each new edition release about 160-240 new cards.
Thats why i think that 10US its a great price for it (and the reason i
buyed it from steam. maybe the game should have 6 basic elements (and
you choose 4), and 10 houses, then we could make some nice strategies
without loosing the randomness.
| dplynx | 2009-03-26 20:41:17 |
If we are talking of original games, i must say this game is mostlyoriginal, however a cards game should have more than 96 cards, justthink that MTG on each new edition release about 160-240 new cards.
Thats why i think that 10US its a great price for it (and the reason ibuyed it from steam. maybe the game should have 6 basic elements (andyou choose 4), and 10 houses, then we could make some nice strategieswithout loosing the randomness. While I don't dismiss your idea, don't you think M:TG is a poor basis for price/value comparisons? IMO, Spectromancer blows Magic out of the water on sheer value for the money. $20 of Magic cards is what? Not even really enough to play at a decent level. Would you even get 96 cards and the what is essentially unlimited sealed deck play? And don't forget that the more individual cards, the more exponentially difficult balancing them becomes. Still, maybe your ideas are a good basis for an expansion pack. BTW, even Richard Garfield himself said he was embarassed by how Magic plays online and that Spectromancer was designed to be (and I must say, is) much more elegant for online play. | Torkath | 2009-03-27 02:45:52 |
I bought in england a few years ago the game Magic the gathering (shandalar world V 4.0) for around 15US, and it has over 2000 cards, plus it had a multiplayer system very advanced for its time, and 15US from those times are about 20US from now, so if you are truying to make a comparison beteewn MTG the cards game, with spectromancer, i think your wrong, if we are going to compare, lets compare with a game similar to this one, where you had a campaign mode and a multiplayer system.
1600 against 96 cards makes the difference to me.
I know this game is great, but however i think there should be some changes like the ones i did say on my last post.
| Torkath | 2009-03-27 02:46:26 |
did check it has around 1600 only
| garcia1000 | 2009-03-27 03:38:45 |
I could make spectromancer with 100,000 cards easily
e.g. For Fire 1, you would have 1,000 cards to choose from!
- Goblin berserker, 4/16, does 2 damage to surrounding creatures
- Goblin loser, 3/16, does 4 damage to surrounding
- Goblin weakling, 2/10, does 5 damage to surrounding
- Goblin idiot, 1/1, kills surrounding creatures
- 500 other goblin cards
- Despair, reduces all of your other mana by 1
- Really despair, reduces all of your other mana by 2
- Wounding, reduces your HP by 20
- Suicide, reduces your Hp to 0
etc. etc.
Then you could choose which of these 1,000 cards you wanted in your fire 1 slot
| garcia1000 | 2009-03-27 03:39:47 |
(Magic does this, there are many cards which are strictly worse than others)
| JohnnyScott | 2009-03-27 14:03:43 |
I'm sure there will be more cards added as the game progresses. Remember, this is only the iniital launch. If this game is successful, I'm betting more cards will be added down the road.
Also, regarding the OP's concern the $19.95 is too expensive for this game, I beg to differ. In this day and age of $50 video games and monthly charges, $19.95 for a game that is this enjoyable is a bargain! All hail Spectromancer!
Ultimate graphics!
Incredible Strategy!
Amazing magic!
Unbelievebly good multiplayer support!
All hail Spectromancer!
| rglloyd | 2009-03-29 10:51:48 |
Its not a card game. Card games have decks that you build. Card games have cards that you collect. Comparing it to magic is pointless. There are no crossovers to compare other than creature types, and thats stretching it. Theres only creatures and spells. No enchantments or equipment just damage and healing. Its an extremely simple combat game with strict rule sets. You have to attack every round, play only one creature or spell per round, gain only one point of energy in each disciplin per round. Theres no control over the game other than what you cast each round and the master disciplin you choose.
This is a game unique of itself, NOT a CCG. Calling it a CCG is a falsehood. If its a CCG then it sucks as a CCG. If its a standalone spare time killing strategy game, then its a huge success.
CCG = Collectable Card Game
Collectable: No, there is nothing to collect. The creatures and spells are there at the beginning. There is no "EARNING" tiles outside the scope of the single player game, then once you win, all of your tiles and achievements (pet, bonus life, etc.) die with the end of the game, and thus are not collected.
Card: No, cards go in decks, these are more like tiles which do not go in decks. Tiles can be laid out in front of the player and then chosen one by one, not drawn randomely from a deck of hidden cards. Astral Masters (by the same creators of Spectromancer) was a CCG in that you earned cards and built decks. this is not. Some of the creatures are the same but the similarities end there.
Game: yes, this is a game. I think its rather unique and worth playing. If your too stingy to pay 20$ measely dollars for a lot of hard work and balanced quality design. Then get it for $10 off of Steam. Its not a card game. Card games have decks that you build. Card games have cards that you collect.
Perhaps it's better to say that, like poker or hearts or something, Spectromancer is a card game, but it's not a collectible card game. There are many good, even great card games that are not collectible. This is one of them. In 99+% of card games, the core mechanic is that you have a deck of playing cards that are dealt out randomly to the players. It's interesting how the concept of a CCG was new and different when they first came out, and now when you see a game with fantasy creatures on the cards, it immediately gets associated with "deckbuilding." Somehow the CCG became the default viewpoint for this sort of game. I do suppose it has something to do with a lot of people looking into Spectromancer because of Richard Garfield's association, or because of their prior enjoyment of Magic, though, so people get a bit of a jolt to their assumptions. | fotjon | 2009-03-31 18:46:03 |
I would like to remeber that as many of us know, there is already a game called Astral Tournament which I and many others here have played extensivly. This seems to me like v.2 of the old good AT. Apart from the impruvements I think that the card style and colors is somehow eyestraing compared to AT or even AM. I would like to remeber that as many of us know, there is already a game called Astral Tournament which I and many others here have played extensivly. This seems to me like v.2 of the old good AT. Apart from the impruvements I think that the card style and colors is somehow eyestraing compared to AT or even AM.
Alexey wrote both games. I believe Spectromancer was even called Astral Tournament 2 at one point in development. | Cooler | 2009-04-01 09:39:18 |
I believe Spectromancer was even called Astral Tournament 2 at one point in development.
Yes, that's true | Squirry | 2009-04-02 16:22:14 |
I found 20 bucks to be a completely reasonable price. I paid it without even hesitating after doing a little internet play with the cleric.
| AgraveiN | 2009-04-03 08:52:21 |
sure!
game is awesome!
A.//
| Forgin | 2009-04-03 14:59:01 |
I bought it on a bored friday evening, and never had any regrets.
I had regrets after buying Empire TW, DoW 2 and Sins of a Solar empire, but I've been playing Spectromancer everyday since I bought it a few weeks ago.
Well worth the $20.
| Wavelength | 2009-04-08 04:43:09 |
I've probably sunk over 200 hours into the game already. $20 for 200 hours is about ten cents for each hour that I've gotten to play all six mage types.
How is that NOT worth it? IMO, internet Spades (card came, comes with XP) matches Spectromancer.
but Spades is free ;-)
| LazerBrain | 2009-04-15 19:50:51 |
dude thats awesome! I'm glad you get so much enjoyment out of a game that came with you're OS. I think the games industry would be very different if that were true more often though.
| LazerBrain | 2009-04-15 19:51:40 |
Imagine minesweeper as an ea sports franchise!
| MGagnon | 2009-04-15 22:00:50 |
I enjoy this game as much as the next guy that's into this niche... but like anybody else I leech what I can for free unless I really don't have a choice (aka Xbox live games, etc.).
However I felt compelled to sink my $20 into this because of the indie nature of it all. I'm a graduating software developer right now heading into the field, and I hope to be able to do work like this myself until the point I can quit my day job. Anyone dedicating their personal spare time (even if in the form as a business venture investment) to creating entertainment deserves all the support they can get in my book. But that's more of a personal call to action, I suppose... Imagine minesweeper as an ea sports franchise!
It would be my all-time most-played ea sports title. | LazerBrain | 2009-04-15 23:06:12 |
Anyone dedicating their personal spare time (even if in the form as a business venture investment) to creating entertainment deserves all the support they can get in my book. But that's more of a personal call to action, I suppose...
I started to realize there are more people in this world that deserve all the support they can get than there is money in my pocket book, so now I try not to let myself get too obsessive about how I spend on my entertainment and save my zeal for bigger stuff. Its not that I don't want to support game designers or that they don't provide a valuable service, I just don't see em as heroes. The people volunteerign at the local library on nights and weekends won't ever see monetary returns, but someone making boardgames might, which means off-hours game designers are a leg up anyway. So I buy what games I like, and if they're indie ones, well, good for them that they made a game I'd pay for. I will accept a few more bugs and the like from games I know come from small development environment, and I'll be slightly more likely to purchase a foreign product I'm interested in on a hunch instead of with a demo or other direct evidence of quality since I know they had to jump through a few hoops just to get it on my shelf, but thats the extent of my bias. I want to add that the game is still only $9,99 on Steam now. That's totally worth it even if you had doubts about $20. So what are you waiting for? I know a lot of you who totally play the heck out of the very generous free version of the game, so think about the entertainment hours per dollar there. You can open up the other houses and support a great game, go get it!
| Squirry | 2009-04-19 21:09:41 |
If nothing else then as charity for us poor souls that are tired of only playing against holy ;)
not worth playing more than 2 hours in multiplayer and couple of hours in campaign mode - boring.
definetly not worth buying.
| Forgin | 2009-06-23 13:00:54 |
not worth playing more than 2 hours in multiplayer and couple of hours in campaign mode - boring.
definetly not worth buying. I've spend more hours on Spectromancer than I have on many big budget games. According to my steam stats I've spend 20 hours playing Spectromancer in the last 2 weeks, more than any other steam game I have. Modified by Forgin on 2009-06-23 13:04:13 | Squirry | 2009-06-23 18:07:31 |
not worth playing more than 2 hours in multiplayer and couple of hours in campaign mode - boring.
definetly not worth buying. Since you didnt even bother to log in with your game account we can only suppose that you don't plan to answer, but still i'd like to ask: What makes the game boring? Because if I am to believe that you have played a couple hour in multiplayer and a couple hours in campaign then you obviously am still very bad at the game. How can that be boring? I'd understand "Not my taste", "Ugly graphics", "I found a spelling error on the home page, I HATE SPELLING ERRORS!!!!1", "There's no time-traveling robot-mage class" or "To hell with phoenix!", but stating the game is boring after 4 hours of play just does not go over here without further explanation. Sounds a hell of a lot like you dislike the genre and/or got your rear handed to you in multiplayer and suffer from a severe case of SLS (Sore Loser Syndrome). All that's fair and square, but unless you have proper reasons then don't force your crap on other people.
| Lovecraft | 2009-06-28 23:16:17 |
Well i think the game is too expensive, Astral Master cost 9.95 usd, this one 10.95usd, the game are both similar, too similar.
But i dont dislake the game, here where i live 19.95 its more than the double for 9.95, im paying about 76$ in my country.
| LazerBrain | 2009-06-29 02:28:50 |
If, after local cost of living adjustments, it cost 75$ I'd have a tough time convincing myself to buy it too.
| WindStrider | 2009-07-02 00:46:25 |
Even without considering the cost of other TCGs, Spectromancer is a steal. And letting people play the game with Holy is a sacrifice most game companies wouldn't take! I say bravo!
| Squirry | 2009-07-05 13:03:47 |
If, after local cost of living adjustments, it cost 75$ I'd have a tough time convincing myself to buy it too. I would not even buy food if it was priced at 75$  Not unless I already had eaten my shoes AND my poor old mother. Still that does not change the fact that Spectromancer is cheaper than most other games, and unless you dislike the genre it will offer at least the same amount of playtime as most major titles. While i sure as hell feel sorry for anyone living in a country where living expenses and economy is so screwed up it hardly makes the game "too expensive". I mean, would'nt the big titles cost about the same as a new kidney then?
| CannibalBob | 2009-07-09 02:12:19 |
I bought this on Steam for $8 (it was on sale when it arrived on steam). It's now currently $10 on steam. I was tempted in buying it on playgreenhouse when it was released and was $20, but passed and decided to wait for it to show up somewhere else.
All I need now is to wait for Eschalon to become cheap :D
| BabyLeech | 2009-07-15 18:15:54 |
I find it an odd statement that game made by independent developer is not worth $20. Game is very nicely drawn. It has interesting design. It is unique. It is very playable, contains huge single player mode and very well-made multi. Bugs seem to be a rare thing, developers still work on the game, community exists.
I think that people forget that if a game is developed by independent developer money from the game goes directly to the developers (which I consider as kind of support for them). This is not major gaming where (in most cases) developers are nowhere near the guys responsible for what will happen with the game, nor they will see these bucks you pay.
Truly odd. It is like you would like to claim that PC World is better than your local game store because prices there are lower. Think why.
| devore | 2009-07-15 21:29:56 |
I think $20 is a fair price. Considering the hours that went into making this game and the limited appeal of this genre to the market I think they'll find it hard to make much money. My interest is that the price is set so that the developers make enough money to keep making games in this genre and enough people buy the game that there is a good community. I think Spectromancer has achieved this.
Whomever said this:
10$ is cheap for Civilization IV Complete (includes Warlords and beyond the sword)
10$ is cheap for Rise of Nations Gold Edition
Is being extremely naieve neither game was initially retailed at $10, that is a terrible comparison to make. | soprof | 2009-08-01 18:50:31 |
By the way, I think this would make a great iPhone game--there is already a sort of similar (rip-off?) of this game on there, called I think something of Orions, but IMO it's a much inferior game--no multiplayer, and a tedious "strategic" element. Spectromancer could do very well on that platform--something to consider.
Well, actually Orions is much more major, interesting and complecated game them Spectromancer is. ( my imho, cos i tried both )
+ You can modify cards right on the device.
If there was online ORIONS - i would pay any cash for major multiplayer.
Playing it in the uni all the time. We got our own balanced deck and we are free to modify it. $20.00 I find it a bit high priced, but surely a winner at $9.90
I bought the Xbox 360 Magic TG arcade live game for $10.00 and I'd have to say that it's quite likely that I'll get more replay value out of spectromancer than I will out of the MTG xbox 360 game, I believe it's from the randomness of the decks we are dealt which helps to keep it a bit fresh. In the 360 MTG game I was bored silly playing the same deck after 3 or 4 times. Whether that will happen with this game after enough times will remain to be seen I suppose.
| Squirry | 2009-08-10 07:27:19 |
When i bought the game it was 20$ and i have not one single time thought that it was a too step price. Spectromancer is the only game, apart from ultima online back in the days, that has managed to hold my interest for this long. I've played plenty CCGs and even more MMOs and in the end i always tire of them.
For me computer games come and go but i will keep logging in to spectromancer and play a couple games here and there. Had i known how much "bang" i actually got for those 20 bucks i would have paid even more back then.
| Ayayayay | 2009-08-13 04:37:31 |
Spectromancer is definitively worth US$ 20, and you can get it even cheaper at steam.
I paid my US 20 because I didn't want steam filling my computer of spyware, and I am very glad with the game
| Grimmer | 2009-08-29 20:24:03 |
I bought it on the Impulse sale for 10$ and is one of my best deals ever. Totally worth it.
| garcia1000 | 2009-09-02 17:12:22 |
I've noticed a lot more people on the server. Did Spectromancer get a wider distribution or marketing or something?
This is a wonderful thing, btw
| gkaralunas | 2009-09-30 22:33:09 |
Well after reviewing the Game play, I believe it's a good 'Starter Game" for those who have never been into Card Centric games. The Graphics are excellenent & their is a well thought-out plot. Is it worth $25.00 US is for others to decide.
Please note I'm a old D&D & AD&D roll the dice player, so my opinion is a bit slanted. And as a Dungeon Master (DM) I require that Magic Users act out their spells.
| LazerBrain | 2009-10-01 04:00:43 |
that'd lead to an interesting slant I think. Honestly, I haven't even played through the campaign so I can't speak to the story at all. It is encouraging to hear that a classic dungeon romper feels at home in it though. and I guess it means this game may have a wider appeal than I thought. EDIT: My first edition of dnd was in fact AD&D 2nd Ed. So I think I may've missed out on some of the fun you've had haha. Modified by LazerBrain on 2009-10-01 04:01:58 | teekay | 2009-10-02 03:59:40 |
I don't know that I'd say the plot is well thought out exactly. It's pretty rudimentary. Aside from a minor twist at the end that's pretty much alluded to earlier in the game, there's not much there in terms of storyline events beyond "Well, you just encountered another magic user. Better fight them!"
That's not really a game flaw though. This isn't a game where the story should be anything beyond a minor context for the gameplay.
| soldat12 | 2009-11-13 13:32:14 |
im going to buy a game when addon will be realised, but i feel scary when i imagine i will hae to play other classes than holy :D (even though i finished expert campaing for all classes)
| TurinTuramba | 2009-11-18 16:56:15 |
Posting that you pirated the game on the official forums is pretty smart.
| soldat12 | 2009-11-18 18:57:17 |
i think admins fully aware of that fact that 90% of russian players using pirate game. thats a pretty pity fact but there is no "culture" of buying soft and to change it its need decades of years..
| andrewhind1 | 2009-11-29 17:57:56 |
Why would they want more players who don't pay?
Personally I found I kept playing the game, so I bought it. I think its well worth the money. But to each their own.
HI MAN AVE GUST GOIND
| Foxglove | 2009-12-19 07:53:55 |
Downloaded the game a few days ago and have paid for the full game....Well worth it.
Great game. I`m just hoping I get to meet some of you in online play 
| Ereius | 2009-12-23 09:37:12 |
In any case i played civilization rise of the nations and heroes 5, and played a lot less on those games than spectromancer because they have horrible multiplayer options. Spectromancer Value comes from the point that's is one of the best multiplayer games around imo. (and i played hundreds). from 3 three games you named, when it comes to multiplayer value, they are VASTLY inferior. They are very poorly designed. I have a personal grudge against heroes 5, since i was a beta tester and i couldn't believe how the developers refuse to take the right path, they did mistake over mistake, and now they have a game with wonderfull graphics and a shitty multiplayer game. You played more spectromancer than heroes V? ru kidding me? Heroes has band multilplayer options? man ru on crack or ru just naturaly dumb
| wiggin | 2009-12-23 09:45:53 |
Lol. The heroes series are a great strategy series, but they don't work so well in multiplayer. The problem is, there is pretty much only one viable strategy, which is to gather all your strongest units in one hero. The two strong heroes will meet and fight, and that decides the whole game.
| SORCERER | 2009-12-27 10:41:34 |
Ereius when you will get a little bit older you will see that you'll be bored with games like Heroes ...
| Tobias | 2009-12-27 15:07:57 |
Sorceror, when you get a bit older you should try to learn to respect other people's taste. Ain't nothing wrong with liking HOMM at the age of 80. | frustrated | 2010-01-01 08:27:04 |
why it cant connect to server??? happens all the timeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
| walkindude | 2010-01-01 14:27:51 |
before spectromancer, i played a lot of pox nora. i may continue to play that game, but the devs are in the process of implementing sweeping changes to the game, and i'm not at all convinced they'll be for the better. it seems that the elements they want to change are exactly the ones that hooked me on the game to begin with.
anyway, that's how i came to find spectromancer: browsing the internet for a replacement for pox nora.
by contrast, i find spectro to be less frustrating to play, vastly less expensive (i don't know an exact amount, but i'm sure i have at least a couple hundred USD in pox over three years), the games are quicker, the single player mode is more enjoyable, and i really like the novelty of this forum software. also, while i enjoy the deck-building aspect of pox, i find that not having to worry about "keeping up with the meta" is pretty liberating.
finally, $20 for a game with great replay value, the ability to play for a short time then stop (if you want to), and an online component that is reliable and doesn't require additional expenditure is, imo, fantastic.
Considering how much I have played Spectromancer, I have gotten far more than my $20 worth out of it. It's a great game.
EDIT: Okay, I'll add a caveat. The one thing about the online game is that the learning curve is ridiculously shallow if you've played the campaign. Also, with game lasting 3 to 10 minutes, it really doesn't take tremendously long to play through most of the randomly generated decks. I hate the meta-game of most CCGs, but Spectromancer has basically eliminated it without giving a sufficient replacement. Modified by scyld on 2010-01-04 03:33:48 | Tobias | 2010-01-04 09:46:07 |
scyld: "I hate the meta-game of most CCGs, but Spectromancer has basically eliminated it without giving a sufficient replacement."
What meta-game are you talking about? | garcia1000 | 2010-01-04 09:53:16 |
EDIT: Okay, I'll add a caveat. The one thing about the online game is that the learning curve is ridiculously shallow if you've played the campaign.
What do you mean by learning curve? Do you mean "time it takes to learn the game"
I thought a shallow learning curve was a good thing ?
Modified by garcia1000 on 2010-01-04 09:53:32 | Zannoland | 2010-01-04 14:21:19 |
The learning curve to this game starts off really simple then begins to get a lot steeper when you start to play against players who will project more than a single turn ahead. Learning when to properly summon "weak" cards like troll and bargul is also really complicated and are almost never used by new players, likewise, most new players never recognize when they no longer need to block the opponent's creatures win - the two concepts put together are called the "beatings" game by garcia, and it's one of the more advanced tactics of the game.
$20.... Definitly worth it. I have played most of the original classes to completion in campaigan mode. Then a few games online. Let's say a very conservative 35 hours. That's less than a $1 on hour for entertainment, and I'm not through playing it. I have spent many a $45 - $55 on a game and dumped it in 4 hours when it didn't live up to the hype. I miss the days when EB or Gamespot would take a game back or in store credit because it was a $hit game. I almost never buy any game out the door any more and love the steals on Steam.
In the past 2 months
Plants vrs Zombies $5 (stupid addicting)
MOH Airborne $10
Torchlight $10
Defense Grid $10
$35 for the group above and prolly a conservative 100 plus hours. Good bang for the buck IMO.
| wiggin | 2010-01-30 09:06:51 |
Plants vs Zombies was fun, but it was so, so easy.
| panderson | 2010-04-28 15:19:06 |
20$ are well worth for a game who is IMHO as deep or maybe deeper than chess
| MystiqueII | 2010-05-13 06:59:07 |
I personally was searching for an online trading card game, which has strategic depth and a good Idea behind it, in which you dont have to buy Cards, which is still played, and very important: Which has a Ranking (!!!), for a very long Time. Still, i didnt find anything which satisfied me in the past, why i used to play Yugi-Gi-Oh over Game Ranger, which is definitely alright, but still just a decent Alternative. And then, finally i found spectromancer on some "1000 Mini-Games" or such Site, and didnt expect anything from the game, which changed very fast after playing a few Rounds... Let me tell you honestly, that i like this game! Its made so professional, everything works just fine, its simple and complex at the same Time, it is still played a lot, and like i guess, has its best times still to come, still got Potential to improve, has a Ranking... So, I personally payd the 20 Bucks with a Smile. I finally found what i was looking for, and i gladly support this game, knowing how unique it is!!! Modified by MystiqueII on 2010-05-13 19:52:01 | Dominant | 2010-05-23 20:49:23 |
20$ are well worth for a game who is IMHO as deep or maybe deeper than chess
dont make me laugh, you surly dont have any/lame clue about chess | Yaksha | 2010-05-23 23:42:49 |
Would you like to elaborate dominant?
Because people on public forums making one-liners about others not having a clue regarding <insert some thing here> is what I call trolling, and really immature trolling at best.
| Wavelength | 2010-05-23 23:52:03 |
Dominant: he said it was "in his humble opinion". So seriously, don't be so harsh. Besides, the two games are deep in completely different ways. I don't know how anyone could compare how "deep" the two are. As an aside, I've always considered "Civilization" (particularly 3 & 4) the deepest strategy game(s) ever created, from the perspective of the number of strategic options available to you at any time.
Modified by Wavelength on 2010-05-23 23:52:21 | panderson | 2010-05-24 05:17:27 |
Probably i know more than you dude. ...
dont make me laugh, you surly dont have any/lame clue about chess
| Dominant | 2010-05-25 00:17:46 |
deep blue (computer made to play chess by Intel with kasprow big mother...er) hardly won with kasprow world champion (only becosue it was made specialy vs his style of play, it would loose probobly to kaprow now to compare saleta would loose to 2 x pentium 4 :) but seriusly i play chees when i want a brain sweating game, i play spectro to relax that brain so it makes me laugh i playd few tournaments won whith few profesional chess players and i think i know more then you pandre but maby im wrong Modified by Dominant on 2010-05-25 00:26:13 | HeadphonesGirl | 2010-05-25 02:14:53 |
The level of computer someone would or would not lose to has nothing to do with the depth of the game as far as I can see.
| Dominant | 2010-05-25 09:31:28 |
......
but seriusly i ..... too bad you did miss that one
| Wavelength | 2010-05-25 14:14:54 |
The level of computer someone would or would not lose to has nothing to do with the depth of the game as far as I can see. That.
| panderson | 2010-05-26 11:58:33 |
Well, if you played with professional level players I'm under you in chess, but I know the tactics the openings the endings etc... The rationale of my statement is that is it true that the chessboard is 8x8 vs spectro 6x2, but you have 50 types of different unit in spectro vs 6 in chess. and there is the mana system too. I don't know how to compute the difference in complexity but I would say they don't differ in order of magnitude. Regards deep blue (computer made to play chess by Intel with kasprow big mother...er) hardly won with kasprow world champion (only becosue it was made specialy vs his style of play,
it would loose probobly to kaprow
now to compare
saleta would loose to 2 x pentium 4 :)
but seriusly i play chees when i want a brain sweating game, i play spectro to relax that brain
so it makes me laugh
i playd few tournaments won whith few profesional chess players and i think i know more then you pandre but maby im wrong | Yaksha | 2010-05-27 02:17:11 |
A computer AI to play spectromancer, using a similar idea to deep blue, would probably be harder to make, and I don't see why it would obviously require less computing power. Chess is a complicated game, but it's also a game where both sides have identical 'resources' and there is complete transparency of information. Although at any one turn, the number of possible moves in chess would probably be higher (basically count the number of possible moves for each piece, do it for all pieces on one side), but at the same time it is possible to see all the options open to the opponent. Look at it this way, with a theoritical computer with infinite computing capacity, it is possible to map out every possible move in chess, followed by every possible opponent move, all the way to the end of the game and pick the best move. With games like Spectromancer this is not possible because when mapping out opponent moves you cannot know for sure which are plausible and which are not.
Either way, the amount of computing power needed to theoritically create an AI to beat a person playing is not particularly relavant to how 'hard' or complex the game is. Computer AIs in games aren't just computer 'versions' of people playing. There are some things that the human mind does that it's easy to program a computer to do, and some things that are very easy for us to do but require vast amounts of computing power. And games require different types of thinking.
That aside, comparing any two games for complexity based on antedocal experience is really not that useful, regardless of what experience you have with them.
| panderson | 2010-05-27 04:35:42 |
that's not difficult: the ai would compute all the opponent possible cards till they are revealed. So instead of 50 cards, we would have 50+k cards where k decreases anytime an opponent card is revealed (taking in account that the two players cannot have the same cards of course) A computer AI to play spectromancer, using a similar idea to deep blue, would probably be harder to make, and I don't see why it would obviously require less computing power. Chess is a complicated game, but it's also a game where both sides have identical 'resources' and there is complete transparency of information. Although at any one turn, the number of possible moves in chess would probably be higher (basically count the number of possible moves for each piece, do it for all pieces on one side), but at the same time it is possible to see all the options open to the opponent. Look at it this way, with a theoritical computer with infinite computing capacity, it is possible to map out every possible move in chess, followed by every possible opponent move, all the way to the end of the game and pick the best move. With games like Spectromancer this is not possible because when mapping out opponent moves you cannot know for sure which are plausible and which are not. Either way, the amount of computing power needed to theoritically create an AI to beat a person playing is not particularly relavant to how 'hard' or complex the game is. Computer AIs in games aren't just computer 'versions' of people playing. There are some things that the human mind does that it's easy to program a computer to do, and some things that are very easy for us to do but require vast amounts of computing power. And games require different types of thinking. That aside, comparing any two games for complexity based on antedocal experience is really not that useful, regardless of what experience you have with them.
| Dominant | 2010-05-31 19:33:43 |
in chess there are like zilions of move combinations before the game
ends in spectro thousends
in spectro we have 8 places of board to move on to (not a big diferance between them exept hydra and air 9 and some others one
we use so i'll tkae it down to 6) and max 20 posible moves 6*20=120 120x2(players) =240
in chess we have 16 pieceses with around 18 moves at the beggining to around 60 posible moves in the mid game 16x35 = 560 x2 (players) = 1120
and chess are more complicated in mid game whe you get up to a 1000-2000
posibielites in every 2 moves
in spectro its max 100 posiebielietes in 2 moves
spectro is at least 5 times less deep then chess or more
ps.
you know endings in chess ? thats interesting how come ? :)
Modified by Dominant on 2010-05-31 19:35:27 | wiggin | 2010-05-31 20:48:23 |
You cannot calculate "deepness" this way. For instance, imagine tic-tac-toe played on an infinitely large board.
| Dominant | 2010-06-02 17:13:47 |
i know its juat to show a bit of combinations
and chess cobinations multiple a lot every move spectro not much
so its like 1 to 30-50 in deepness probobly
| HeadphonesGirl | 2010-06-03 17:48:29 |
Well, consider the fact that Spectromancer has more dragons.
I know that doesn't make Spectromancer deeper, but I was just saying it to show a bit of dragons. | BUY NOW | 2010-06-16 22:01:02 |
IMHO This game is a well worth buying. Lots of fun and you will easy spend 20+ hrs as a noob. Lots of entertainment for a low price.
Great game!
| Icarus | 2010-06-20 16:54:55 |
I played the demo for about an hour in the campaign and spent half an hour playing as Illusion online. I easily recognized that this is a great casual game that would last me a long time playing against others online. So far I've logged 26 hours ingame in two weeks. This is one of the best casual games out there along with the likes of Peggle, Zuma, Critter Crunch etc.
This game is great so much better than Magic the Gathering (that got very greedy) I hope to see more cards at a average price...
| tracha | 2010-07-25 16:40:28 |
Spectromancer is based on an old game - Astral Tournament, where I bought an activation code... sadly you can't play Astral online anymore and I won't pay twice for 'the same' game... $20 is too much... maybe $5 - $10 would be a proper price.
Great game anyway, both of them... I'll be online from time to time without additoional cards
Spectromancer is based on an old game - Astral Tournament, where I bought an activation code... sadly you can't play Astral online anymore and I won't pay twice for 'the same' game... $20 is too much... maybe $5 - $10 would be a proper price.
Great game anyway, both of them... I'll be online from time to time without additoional cards Based off of /= the same game...
You aren't paying twice for the same game. Spectromancer is incredibly different, in my opinion. Infinitely more balanced, no deck building, different mana system, Class system, etc.
They're comparable, certainly, but still vastly different. | ImDoneItsOver | 2010-09-06 02:45:42 |
If we are talking price I must say that for what the game IS it is a bit pricy. I like it but Not $20 worth (not yet anyways) maybe some sort of "add on" would boost my interest
| 
