CCG vs Chess or other similar strategy games

[CCGer]

Do you guys prefer to play CCGs or board games like chess, GO and other similar games?
Compare those games in terms of strategies, tactics, excitement, aesthetic and others.
Tell us you reasons why do you like that selected game.

[Tokimo]

They're different. I think I enjoy the act of playing a board game better, but they are more skill based so it's difficult to play with people you're better/worse than and get close games. I enjoy either game the most when it's a close game. I enjoy deck construction which is a pleasure exclusive to CCGs.

[aardvark]

Argh, I don't think I can answer that. My brain would fry before coming up with a decision.

I like pure strategy/tactics games like chess, shogi and go because skill is the primary deciding factor. These can take a while to play, however.

customizable cgs, on the other hand, can be played relatively quickly and have the bit o' chance thrown in. Strategy and tactics will also play a strong role if one takes the time to create a deck based on them.

So...

Stalemate, dammit. I like 'em both, just not sure which one.

[europeanmatt]

CCGs take the prize as far as I'm concerned. The infinite possiblities, the way chance plays it's part in presenting you with new puzzles every time you shuffle up, the deckbuilding, the multiplayer variants... most of what I'm saying is about magic, but it can apply to almost any half decent ccg.

It's unfortunate that they're expensive, but I take the position that you buy a couple of precons or a chunk of boosters with each set and leave it at that. I only play casual anyway and I've never even made top 50% of a prerelease tourney. Lackey makes it easty of course...

I'm sure purists will prefer the simplicity and elegance of the classic board games like chess, backgammon, go and so on, but I just can't think of anything more amazing than the range of applications for cardboard technology. I can fly my starship, battle with wizards, fight zombie hordes, travel through time... all with a few pieces of paper.

Okay, so you can get a star trek themed chess set, but that's just changing the shape of the statue, it doesn't resonate with flavour the way a cool mechanic does. Doesn't blow your mind. Maybe it did back in the day when they fought their wars on horseback and chess was the latest thing. I don't know, I wasn't there and never want to be!

[Ripplez]

i view games as a combination of two things - attributes and rules. thats it. and in a pinch, one can make the other slide. a system based on a series of values and yes/no questions and rules to manipulate that. every card game that i know of boils down to this, mostly because it sounds so generic. but its one of the main reasons i like tcgs, the only real limititation is the physical presence of the card (which is why yuo cant play them like board games, moving the card is tricky). with computer programs like lackey, even this is minimised

the end result is that ccgs have alot in common with most other games in my mind, one of the differences being position (since its limited by the presence of the card, cards arent conducive for intensive moving around, although you can always get around it with some imagination). where chess has options available by virtue of position at its face, it still boils down to a collection of attributes (board position attribute, movement rules). a tcg has a different option pool, based on the hand options, field presence and so on. but again, attributes and rules. this is why i dont think of tcgs as having to have "something" to be a tcg, even the cards themselves

which is why i think one of the most important rules in tcgs is actually magic's golden rule. on the face of it, it seems like restating the obvious - yeah i made a card that reverses the phases, we know this, were telling you were not idiots and we knew its against the rules. just follow them already.
i can easily imagine a scenario where someone argued that you coudnt play time warp because your opponent is supposed to get a turn after you.

thats not why the rule is so good though. the golden rule, "Whenever a card's text directly contradicts the rules, the card takes precedence.", shows that the game is not static, its dynamic. the concept of the core system of rules being directly overwritten by player actions is pretty much a defining characteristic of a game. it shows that you can expect not just differences in cards but differences in the core system of the game itself, that it need not even play the same way

but even that is secondary. my response would be, i see no difference between chess and a tcg

also, sorry for rambling :S. and also, i got the golden rule text from wikipedia, sorry if it isnt exact but you should have some idea of the effect of the golden rule, if you dont already

[CCGer]

Do anyone still have opinions on this topic or still want to vote?

One more thing is that people always say that a pro in chess and GO are intelligent people, how about a pro in a CCG like MTG ?

[Tokimo]

I assume a pro in MTG is partially lucky. The number of games I've lost to having my land walk out on me is frankly absolutely frustrating (this being the same decks that then turn around a bury me in land next game). Sure they're skilled, but how many times does the same player win multiple Pro Tours (the answer is only seven players have won more than one Pro Tour).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Tour_(Magic:_The_Gathering)

Now, there is a lot of mastery to magic. Let's play a game where you show us card art. Jon Finkel vs Me. Jon Finkel will be able to tell you what every card does. I'll be able to tell you want about 200-400 cards do. Okay, now let's play a game where you call which deck the opponent is playing as soon as you can. Kai Budde vs Me. Kai will reliably call a greater portion of the decklist sooner than me. Another game, predict what's in your oponent's hand in the 10th turn. Me vs Aaron Nicastri. Aaron will reliably guess what's in his opponent's hand on the 10th turn better than I will. Okay, last game. Me vs Mark Rosewater. Show both of us a new card neither of have seen before. Have us both write down all the game winning combos we can with other existing cards. Mark will find more combos and they'll be more deadly on average than mine.

That being said: Two Pro Tour top 8s sit down to play, if one of them draws 2 lands, 5 spells, and then doesn't draw another land during the game it's going to be really hard for him to win. Regardless of how good he is.

[aardvark]

Ok, I've changed me mind. Strategy and tactics win. While I think that luck of the draw/chance/what have you has its place in a game. It's definitely not my favorite thing. It can be really really frustrating when you seem to have a load of "bad" luck. Whereas if you screw up in chess, well you screwed up.

[CCGer]

Well said guys. But the thing is that, Magic might be the most popular CCG out there, but it is definitely not the only one, and of course there are many other CCGs out there that have better mechanics than MTG.

For example, Duel Masters have no mana screw and I find it very tactical as well. The only down side of this game is the shield triger. There is also VS System which is said to be one of the most complicated CCG in terms of tactics.

And of course, while tactics and strategies are interesting elements in the game, they doesn't always make a game FUN. How fun a game can be must depend on various game mechanics that the game has to offer.

Chess and GO basically lacks a catch up mechanic in them unlike many CCGs out there. When I play chess and GO, one mistake can easily cost me the whole game. I also heard that in a professional chess tournament, the loss of just one pawn is enough to make a pro player surrender. (I'm no sure wether is that true, but I heard about it before) It seems that in chess, one careless mistake even during early game may ruin your chance of victory completely. In GO, an even match between a skill player and a not so skilled player almost never end properly. The skill player will dominate his opponent so bad that the lesser skill player will admit defeat even before the game reaches mid game.

I know that situation like this can also happen in CCGs especially MTG when you get mana screwed. But I don't think this happens often in other well designed CCGs. In Duel Masters, even without shield trigers, the winner cannot be decided until the game really ended. You may have all 5 shields while your opponent is completely open without any shields, but still, if you let your guard down, he can easily make a come back. Even if he can't, he can at least put up a good fight, unlike in chess and GO where you will just be demolished and can't do much. Even though the loss in chess and GO is due to your lack of skills, but with such a loss described above, the feeling of being helpless is not fun to me, in fact it is also very discouraging. It is just like a loss in a mana screw, or sometimes even worst because you have no excuse to back you up. (Luck can be a good excuse, sometimes) 

I have also asked you guys to check out Battle Spirits TCG by Bandai, which is a perfected version of Duel Masters. It has no shield trigers, and no screws except for a potential "spirit-screw" (spirits are creatures of the game) which also happen very rerely since in this game, out of a 40 cards deck, you will have about 35 spirits and only 5 spells or others.

Personally, I will prefer a CCG because I like the fact that everyone can create a deck of their own. I love to think of creative combos and I often use rogue decks in tournaments. I also like facing the unknown, which is my oppening hand and my draws because it makes every game so different. Even when I use the same deck and play with another deck over and over again without changing mine or my opponents deck, the game can still be fun and interesting. It also teaches me to think of ways to solve problems even if I do not have the resources (which are my key cards)
The thing I dislike about CCG is those whatever screw and overly dependant on luck. If there is a CCG that fix this, it will be great.

[Cyrus]

Responding mostly to Tokimo, and on behalf of MTG, saying that good players are mostly lucky is just plain wrong. Sure luck can be a part of it, it almost has to be, but you can swing that luck greatly in your favor by building your deck to perfection, and knowing the amount of cards left in your deck and what possible outcomes any drawn card will offer you. Also, lots of tournament winning decks often have ways to make every mana draw important in some way to reduce the amount that a mana-flood could effect you. If you're a pro and you open a hand of 2 lands and 5 other cards, you instantly know whether or not you should mulligan that hand based on the average cost of cards in your deck and the probability that you will draw a land within 2 turns or so.
Also, I think a good way to start thinking of luck in magic differently is to think differently about mana screw. When you play a mana screwed game, instead of thinking "dang magic is so poorly designed, why can't they fix mana screw!?" you should be thinking "what could i change about my deck to make it get mana screwed less often" because, honestly, when I play, especially for serious testing, I'll play 20+ games with the same deck, against the same deck, and maaaybe be mana screwed once that I can say was purely luck based, and even then I can usually look back and say yeah, I should have taken a mulligan on that hand.

Just my .02

[Ripplez]

to just add a little more -

"Sure they're skilled, but how many times does the same player win multiple Pro Tours (the answer is only seven players have won more than one Pro Tour)." : this doesnt add or detract anything from the point you were trying to make. the reason that a top level player doesnt always win the pro tour is because there are many top level players vying for the same spot. they are all equally skilled, it not just a matter of getting lucky. sometimes you picked the wrong deck type. sometimes you made the wrong read or the opponent outplayed you. sometimes you just made a mistake (this does happen). and sometimes yes, you drew the wrong card at the wrong time. but when you get up to that level of playing, with that many people around who are also good, it is not correct to say one person lost because of luck. sometimes your just outplayed

and to add to cyrus' point, its not just enough to have cards in your hand. you also have to know the deck properly too. the ability to set yourself up for a future draw is pretty important. i might understand your going to play a big drop and that i need to do something about your creature to live. but iv got nothing to deal with it now. however if from my deck i can estimate the likelihood of getting a spell to kill your drop, then i can act as if i know the spell is coming and when it does, finish you off (im not good enough to give more on this example. i did it like once ever. i know enough that there were a couple of guys who excelled at this, i think one being kai budde). thats why some people will swear that making a deck yourself is important - its because you will have a general idea of what your going to expect at any given time, what its mana flow will be like and so on, rather than having to sit and do some heavy analysis just to start playing

skill isnt just what to do when everything goes your way. knowing how to play when the chips are not just down but in the gutter is just as important, which is why pro tour wins and losses just have way too many factors to say flat-out luck is responsible for a lack of winning streaks, just by going over the records

[sneaselx]

I think that as games, traditional strategy games like chess are superior. They have a simplicity of rule design, and the strategy comes from the rules, not the pieces. CCG's just can't do this, without straying significantly from the precedent of MTG. To make a customizable deck, you need many cards, and each one has to be unique. This leads to a massive amount of different rules, and complex timing systems for when each rule is used. ("Rules" is used abstractly here as card effects.) If you go by a fun per complexity ratio, CCG's actually are pathetic. Games like chess provide massive amounts of variety in strategy for only a few rules. The best example is Go. Think if you had a selection of go pieces, and each one did something entirely different. At any one point, you would have to decide which ones you can use, what they all do, and how they would interact with every other piece. And that's not even including what your opponent will do, and how your choices are affected by your opponent's.
   In addition, the abstract nature of chess and go will outlast any ccg with blatant themes. Like Shakespeare vs. Star Wars, the timeless all-encompassing theme will always be better than the game/story written for a specific audience, that will eventually end.
magic, star wars, yugioh, pokemon, they have been around a short while in the grand scheme of humanity, and not because people didn't know how to move cards around. Playing cards have been around since 800 AD. Only the culture has recently changed enough, allowing these games to flourish. And the culture will change again, and these games will die. But chess will remain, because it can relate to any culture that values strategic thinking.

However, CCG's are more fun to make.

[CCGer]

I think that as games, traditional strategy games like chess are superior. They have a simplicity of rule design, and the strategy comes from the rules, not the pieces. CCG's just can't do this, without straying significantly from the precedent of MTG. To make a customizable deck, you need many cards, and each one has to be unique. This leads to a massive amount of different rules, and complex timing systems for when each rule is used. ("Rules" is used abstractly here as card effects.) If you go by a fun per complexity ratio, CCG's actually are pathetic. Games like chess provide massive amounts of variety in strategy for only a few rules. The best example is Go. Think if you had a selection of go pieces, and each one did something entirely different. At any one point, you would have to decide which ones you can use, what they all do, and how they would interact with every other piece. And that's not even including what your opponent will do, and how your choices are affected by your opponent's.
   In addition, the abstract nature of chess and go will outlast any ccg with blatant themes. Like Shakespeare vs. Star Wars, the timeless all-encompassing theme will always be better than the game/story written for a specific audience, that will eventually end.
magic, star wars, yugioh, pokemon, they have been around a short while in the grand scheme of humanity, and not because people didn't know how to move cards around. Playing cards have been around since 800 AD. Only the culture has recently changed enough, allowing these games to flourish. And the culture will change again, and these games will die. But chess will remain, because it can relate to any culture that values strategic thinking.

However, CCG's are more fun to make.

Actually, I think it is hard to say that chess and GO is more superior than CCGs.

First of all, the most basic question is, how to we define a game that is "superior"?
A superior game can mean, a game than is more fun to play, a game that is more strategically complex, a game that has more diversity, a game that is more balanced and many more. It actually depends on what to we mean by superior.
Traditional strategy games (Chess, GO, shogi, etc) may have greater strategy complexity if compared to most CCGs out there, but it does not always make them more fun than CCGs.
Speaking of diversity, in chess and GO, every player have the same stuff in their arsenal. Whereas in a well designed CCG, there will be plenty of decks around and each deck is very different. This actually encourage creativity and this can be a heaven for some people who always wish to create something different, and to turn a card that seems weak into a great weapon, to make combos and such. In fact, this feature of CCG also encourages discussion on wether which card is more effective in a certain deck and things like that.
In this case, perhaps a CCG will seem to be more "superior" than traditional strategy games. Chess is over analysed these days, and the computer can even play better than grandmasters. Perhaps if a chess beginner study how a computer play chess, he can easily becomes better. We usually can't become better at CCGs by just playing them with the AI, right? By looking at things this way, chess might even seem "pathetic".
As for GO, even though the game is still not overly analysed like in chess, but this game has issues of their own. For example, many play test has shown that in GO, the player who starts first will get tremendous advantage over the second starter. In chess, there are also sayings where the white player has advantage over the black player, but there are also sayings that the only advantage white has over black is the options to win, and this advantage in chess is only significant in professional tournaments among grand masters. In GO, it is not just about the first starter having more options to win, but the first starter is already closer to victory from the start! And this not only happens among grand master games but also on beginer levels or even casual plays. There are attempts to solve this by giving the second starter some extra "moku", but the amount of extra moku given varies between countries, I think in China it was 8 and a half moku but in Japan it is 5 and a half. This means that there is still no definite way to balance GO even now. In this case, it is shown that GO does have some serious balance issues.

By the way, speaking on themes, I do agree that chess and GO will last forever. But, I'll tell you that a CCG with a theme like MTG can also last as long as chess and GO if the game is well designed and no problems happen to the publishing company. Magic and monsters have existed in humman's imagination since the ancient times and even now, there are people who believe or even practise magical rituals. I think this believe will carry on to the future.
Do you ever wander why most popular CCGs out there like MTG, Yugioh, Duel Masters and some others have magical themes? As in summoning monsters and casting spells? It is because this theme is already in our immagination since the time of our ancesstors.
CCG with themes like this will last munch longer or even as long as chess if compared to CCGs with a Starwars theme or SWAT theme and such.

[Tokimo]

Responding mostly to Tokimo, and on behalf of MTG, saying that good players are mostly lucky is just plain wrong.

I didn't say that though. Responding to that statement is just plain wrong, because no one made it.

Also, I think a good way to start thinking of luck in magic differently is to think differently about mana screw. When you play a mana screwed game, instead of thinking "dang magic is so poorly designed, why can't they fix mana screw!?" you should be thinking "what could i change about my deck to make it get mana screwed less often" because, honestly, when I play, especially for serious testing, I'll play 20+ games with the same deck, against the same deck, and maaaybe be mana screwed once that I can say was purely luck based, and even then I can usually look back and say yeah, I should have taken a mulligan on that hand.

Here's a likely possibility: You and I have vastly different tolerances for mana screw. 5% is too often for me. If I lose because my luck gave into the statistically inevitability that I didn't draw any land, I pack up and stop playing magic for two weeks. Meanwhile, You analyze it and try to explain it (oh, I should have taken a mulligan, my mistake). I've pondered playing in magic tournaments and I ultimately decided I didn't want to deal with bad draws in a competitive environment.

"Sure they're skilled, but how many times does the same player win multiple Pro Tours (the answer is only seven players have won more than one Pro Tour)." : this doesnt add or detract anything from the point you were trying to make. the reason that a top level player doesnt always win the pro tour is because there are many top level players vying for the same spot. they are all equally skilled, it not just a matter of getting lucky. sometimes you picked the wrong deck type. sometimes you made the wrong read or the opponent outplayed you. sometimes you just made a mistake (this does happen). and sometimes yes, you drew the wrong card at the wrong time. but when you get up to that level of playing, with that many people around who are also good, it is not correct to say one person lost because of luck. sometimes your just outplayed

I should have contrasted "How many people win two Pro Tours" with chess more directly (I assumed that the comparison was obvious, my mistake). In case you're not aware, in professional chess it is not unusual for the same player to actually win multiple World Chess Championships in a row. It's significantly more unusual for a chess player to win, then not win, and then win again (than it is for a magic player to).

and to add to cyrus' point, its not just enough to have cards in your hand. you also have to know the deck properly too. the ability to set yourself up for a future draw is pretty important. i might understand your going to play a big drop and that i need to do something about your creature to live. but iv got nothing to deal with it now. however if from my deck i can estimate the likelihood of getting a spell to kill your drop, then i can act as if i know the spell is coming and when it does, finish you off (im not good enough to give more on this example. i did it like once ever. i know enough that there were a couple of guys who excelled at this, i think one being kai budde). thats why some people will swear that making a deck yourself is important - its because you will have a general idea of what your going to expect at any given time, what its mana flow will be like and so on, rather than having to sit and do some heavy analysis just to start playing

We could add more mini-games that pro tour players can beat me in. What threat can your next card take care of. Me vs Kai Budde. Kai will be significantly more likely to identify the threats he's about to draw solutions to. Kai Budde is a flat out better player than me and would knock me around something fierce while he was drawing badly. He knows the rules better, he can build better decks, he can play better. I think skill matters. Please stop acting like I said it doesn't.

skill isnt just what to do when everything goes your way. knowing how to play when the chips are not just down but in the gutter is just as important, which is why pro tour wins and losses just have way too many factors to say flat-out luck is responsible for a lack of winning streaks, just by going over the records

But luck is the reason for the lack of consistent performance. I think it's pretty clear that some top magic players are a class better than other top magic players (Jon Finkel vs all the people who made only a single top 8 perhaps?), but at the height of their careers Jon Finkel lost more than Garry Kasparov.

[Ripplez]

umm..... i never acted like you didnt think skill mattered. i said that analysing the win record wont tell you if luck is a factor (ill clarify now, luck during the game) at pro tour. then i went on to give the reasons why it isnt as well as how it is mitigated (in case you didnt know, so that youd know as much as me about how they prepare for bad luck ina tournament setting). i didnt say you didnt think skill mattered, just that there are way more variables at work than just luck

i dont know the actual events/formats (sealed, draft, preconstructed in t2, t1.5 or whatnot) at pro tour and whether or not so i cant tell whether the events themselves introduce any reason (for example, drafting a set that hasnt been released yet or something). there might be hidden information that someone didnt take into account or something, i wouldnt know

theres the fact that not every deck is the same and that there IS some level of advantage-disadvantage between the decks. you might play a very nice midrange deck (roughly aiming to play big drop creatures) but if your going up against good control, you have your work cut out for you. were not even talking about the relative skill level here, its just the deck your facing doesnt favour you. this is another factor

sometimes your just outplayed. pros make mistakes, it seems to be one of the most heavily guarded secrets of the competitive gaming world :S i know at least in my other gaming circle, if a pro makes a blatant mistake, people will blame anything from poor controls, mind games that dont exist to the sun being in his eyes.... indoors. im not saying that you are doing it now but if your going to count win-draw-loss records, remember that sometimes people just mess up. finkel might be awesome but hes also human

garry kasparov and jon finkel dont play the same game, even on a fundamental level. chess is deeply strategic but all the pieces are known. the meta-game will not come back to bite you (well it will with developments in chess theory but i dont knw enough to know how much of an issue that is). in m:tg the pieces are usually different. a clash of decks might sound comparable to a clash in playing styles but in m:tg your options are truly different whereas even if you normally dont play in a certain fashion, those options are there. and they are derivable by your opponent as well. you know all this, i know but the point im making is that you cant compare the success of garry kasparov and finkel, the difference in the games doesnt allow it because of how facing a different opponent can work

"
and to add to cyrus' point, its not just enough to have cards in your hand. you also have to know the deck properly too. the ability to set yourself up for a future draw is pretty important. i might understand your going to play a big drop and that i need to do something about your creature to live. but iv got nothing to deal with it now. however if from my deck i can estimate the likelihood of getting a spell to kill your drop, then i can act as if i know the spell is coming and when it does, finish you off (im not good enough to give more on this example. i did it like once ever. i know enough that there were a couple of guys who excelled at this, i think one being kai budde). thats why some people will swear that making a deck yourself is important - its because you will have a general idea of what your going to expect at any given time, what its mana flow will be like and so on, rather than having to sit and do some heavy analysis just to start playing

skill isnt just what to do when everything goes your way. knowing how to play when the chips are not just down but in the gutter is just as important, which is why pro tour wins and losses just have way too many factors to say flat-out luck is responsible for a lack of winning streaks, just by going over the records" - this was directed to YOU. i felt you were feeling off about this aspect of the game, similar to how you felt bad about how control decks worked. but i gave examples of how you could beat permission there and thats why i gave this advice here too. sorry if you felt like it was an attack on you, it wasnt