![\"In](\"http:\/\/greywolfe.co.za\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/hearthstone_box.png\")
<\/a>There\u2019s no doubt that the presentation isn\u2019t fantastic, because it is: each card comes into play with \u2013 sometimes \u2013 a little animation but usually they\u2019re all accompanied by a sound bite. The animations are artfully done, with crowds making \u201cooh\u201d and \u201caah\u201d noises, should you do a significant amount of damage to your opponent. The \u201cbox\u201d model that they\u2019re using is wonderfully evocative, too, with that hint of finery given the choices of gold and wood they\u2019ve splashed all over everything.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s also quite easy to control with just the mouse \u2013 with the exception of the deck builder. That\u2019s a minor nitpick of mine, but it\u2019s only very minor. I do wish more of these card games would bind keyboard controls to everything, because sometimes, that\u2019s just faster.<\/p>\n Speaking of the deck builder, here\u2019s another rather large annoyance I have with Hearthstone. Remember how I kept calling it a collectible card game and not a trading card game? Well, that\u2019s because you can\u2019t trade. Again: this is a design choice made because of the payment model that Blizzard are using [free to play with optional payments in the form of buying card packs] which is OK, but makes the game feel overly simplistic again. Certainly, you can craft the cards you desire, and that kind of takes the sting out of having no trading, but once more \u2013 the payment model sort of hobbles this feature by forcing you to spend exorbitant amounts of dust to craft any of the cards that aren\u2019t common.<\/p>\n But my biggest problem with Hearthstone is the deck building constraints. In Magic, for the most part, you can have four of a card in any given deck and the deck size is sixty cards. Blizzard doesn\u2019t want that. It\u2019s complicated. And the watch-word with Hearthstone is \u201cmake it simple.\u201d So, we\u2019ve effectively traded simplicity for [as the maths folks would have it] diversity. But herein lies the problem: Hearthstone\u2019s primary objective is \u201cuse guys to kill your opponent.\u201d \u2013 so 99% of every deck you ever see a) uses the same base and b) is a collection of small, cheap-to-cast units that kill you quickly unless you can find a response to the horde.<\/p>\n It\u2019s just not very fun to play against [or to pilot.]<\/p>\n So, ultimately? Hearthstone isn\u2019t bad. It lacks complexity, but has little hints of depth every now and then through some of it\u2019s design \u201cquirks\u201d\/constraints. All it\u2019s done, though, is make me wish \u2013 as I\u2019ve mentioned \u2013 that Hasboro and Wizards of the Coast could get their butts into gear to make a non-terrible version of their Magic: Online client. Better yet? I\u2019d \/love\/ a new, proper Microprose-like Shandalar. Not the silly yearly releases that are nothing but a collection of \u201cfixed battles.\u201d<\/p>\n If you\u2019re new to CCG\u2019s and interested, Hearthstone is well-presented, but somewhat lacking in depth. If you\u2019ve been around the block a time or two, Hearthstone is one of the best-looking card games around, but you, like me, might end up wishing for a decent Magic experience after playing this.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/a>