Dota 2: A Crutch for Artifact Game?

Let’s not beat around the bush. If you visit this website of  Artifact Game, you’ve probably thought a lot about Artifact recently. Although a lot of us are looking forward to the release with bright-eyed expectations, others, like myself, are beginning to see a bit of cloudiness in the forecast.

Not a thunderstorm, but we have questions. In particular, I’ve been a bit fascinated with the idea of Artifact being inspired by Dota. I’ve turned that idea a few times in my head, and I ultimately come out wondering, “What exactly does that mean?” Well, Artifact has heroes and villains that battle it out in lanes and rectangles, but that just makes it a card game inspired by massive online battle arenas, not a Dota-inspired game in particular. What relationship does Artifact actually have to Dota, above and beyond character-crossovers? Luckily, a recent interview with Artifact programmers Bruno Carlucci and Jeep Barnett tackled this topic.

Although Carlucci and Barnett have been a part of the team for around two years, Artifact Game has been in development for around four. The primary motivation behind Artifact is to create a digital, as opposed to a physical, card game. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. With computers, you can turn what you can only imagine with a physical card game into something you can see and hear. That being said, some may assume that the founders added the Dota element simply for name recognition. However, Carlucci counters that the team views the situation differently. The artifact does not use Dota as a crutch. Contrarily, Artifact is a vehicle with which to explore Dota.

Carlucci points out that types of games have their own unique ways of telling stories. “Dota is a fast-paced multiplayer action game. Here, as a turn-based game, there’s a lot more time to absorb the dialogue.” Carlotta continues by emphasizing that, although you hear about some of the backgrounds of the characters in Dota, such as their acquaintances and hometowns, you never really get to learn too much about these topics due to the pace of that game. By contrast, Artifact would be able to immerse players more into these characterizations and, in the process of doing so, introduce some new characters as well.

Now, let me be clear. I get all that. I totally get it. You can follow a narrative much more easily during an Artifact Card Game than a live-action massive multiplayer game. Still, I am a bit skeptical of this suggestion by Carlucci that Artifact can offer something – add – to the Dota universe. In my experience, card games have more lore than the story. There may be tribes, themes, canon, or even a few favorite characters, but it is almost always a backdrop – an ornament that embellishes but is not essential, to the scenery. The story itself does not affect the actual process of playing the game, so it is regularly ignored by most players.

Which things having been said, there are some things in Artifact that should keep players from feeling bored. For example, Artifact will introduce some new characters, which, most importantly for some people, may come to Dota 2 Card Game. Valve has been secretive as to how much of Artifact’s content would cross over to Dota 2, but even a bit of novelty content in Artifact would pique the interests of so many players. In addition, from my perspective, the developers do not intend Artifact to be clean cut as expansions come out. Expansions in most card games are in essence self-contained, but Artifact seeks to build continually on a core storyline.

“As you play, you’ll see how it plays out, especially in the dialogue,” Barnett said. There are mechanisms built into the game to flush out this characterization. For example, if two characters operate within the same line, they insult each other if they are enemies or say positive things towards each other if they are friends. The designers thought of every combination of these interactions, so the more you explore the game by playing different characters, the more you learn about this world into which you are invited.

However, what exactly is the backdrop to all of the action? Barnett explains this quite well. Essentially, there is a conflict between three military factions: the Bronze Legion, which can already be found in Dota, the Red Mist, and the Vhoul people. The Legion Commander leads the Bronze Legion, and she wants to protect her hometown of Stonehall, which the Red Mist plans to besiege under Soria Khan after trashing the rural areas.

Now, saving Stonehall involves occupying a Vhoul city, which is commanded by a person known as Rix, who happens to be a friend of the Legion Commander and a completely new character as well. However, as occupations usually go, the Vhoul people are not thrilled with their new neighbors and begin to rebel. Rix seizes the opportunity and tries to evict the Bronze Legion. Altogether, you should begin to see the makeup of at least an interesting conflict develop between these three factions.

Frankly, this is not such a bad idea. I like the idea of a power struggle that conceptually makes sense. It is simple, it is direct, and it compels me to root for the Bronze Legion – or the two other teams if you insist. However, can you really root for any side without a discrete story mode? When I tested out Artifact, I fought against the computer, and certain AI modes could theoretically advance the story without formally being in a story mode.

Interestingly enough, Carlucci compared Artifact’s story to that of Left 4 Dead. You are kind of thrown into the middle of things with Left 4 Dead, but the more you play. the more you understand what exactly is going on around there. Will Artifact have similar success with this method, or will its story be a pretty ornament that merely subsists?/p>

You will have to wait later this year to find out.

  This Content is taken from :

 https://artifact.game/news/dota-2-a-crutch-for-artifact