Talk:Collectible card game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 History Section 2 Magic as the First 3 Verification of TCG Origins; Reasons for WotC Acquisiton of TSR 4 Says who? 5 Wikiproject 6 Magic, Baseball, or what?

[edit] History Section

This page could really use a == History == section... any takers? -- Netoholic 05:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Magic as the First

It should be noted that Richard Garfield invented this style of games with Magic: The Gathering. Not that it was just "the first widely known."

Magic: the Gathering was not the first CCG. TSR published a game called Spellfire, based on Dungeons & Dragons, before MTG. Some believe that TSR was bought by Wizards so that Wizards could have a valid patent claim. --12.106.111.10 13:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A quick Google search turns up many sites with the same story that Spellfire came out later, with no mention of an earlier invention. Do you have evidence of some kind to back this up?

Spellfire did come out later and was in direct response to Magic. - 24.10.95.220 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verification of TCG Origins; Reasons for WotC Acquisiton of TSR

Comments on three distinct but related points: First, accurately stated Dr. Garfield "re-invented" trading card games after approximately a 90 year hiatus from the Allegheny Card Game (a baseball TCG of 1904) since neither he, nor anyone else at the time knew of the earlier trading card game.

Second, Spellfire was release in third quarter 1994, almost exactly one year after commercial release of Magic: The Gathering at GenCon 1993. Source material includes GenCon catalogues (which were of course printed by TSR) for both 1993 and 1994.

Third, Spellfire was already well dead as a commercially viable product in 1997 when TSR was bought by WotC. It is believed that WotC's valuation was twofold: the latent value of the Dungeons & Dragons brand, and ruminations that leverage obligations to State Street Bank and a poorly negotiated deal with Random House Publishing were on the verge of sending the D&D brand into bankruptcy hell from which the it may never have emerged as a socially relevant product. One of the great upshots of the WotC buyout is that it enabled David Arneson, who had long been estranged from the D&D game that he created by persons of influence within TSR, was able to re-establish a positive relationship with D&D fans and the game he helped invent.

[edit] Says who?

"According to top ten lists, Magic: The Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh! are the two most popular CCGs around." I've removed the above comment, from the introduction of the article, on several grounds. Firstly it's unsourced; what 'Top Ten Lists'? Secondly, popular in what sense; favourite game or best selling? Thirdly, if going on 'favourite' for question two, who was polled; if it was just a number of 'industry experts' or even Scrye readers then that can hardly be said to be representative of all CCG players. Fourthly, timing issues; even if this comment was true in every way when first added in how do we know it still is in a field as fluid as CCGs? etc. --Stenun 06:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject

A Collectible Card Game Wikiproject needs to be created. There are many, many articles about CCGs, and most of them do not meet standards and are not good articles. If no one else would like to start it, I will, but I will not be able to contribute a huge amount of content to the subject, because I am not particularly knowledgeable about CCGs other than Magic: The Gathering, which I used to play avidly. Anyways, I am willing to start the wikiproject if there is some support among the wiki community; if others are willing to help with such a project, I do not mind leading it. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

What, you don't like my writing?! :) Seriously, though, many of the existing pages are relatively good in terms of summarizing key game details. I agree there are a few pages (primarily for the games popular with younger audiences) where the page is nothing more than a card list, but for the most part, we have decent first stabs at things. There's always more detail which can be added by experts about a given game, true, but we don't want to simply duplicate the rulebook to "add more information". What sort of information do you feel is missing from the existing pages? - Slordak 20:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying the pages don't have enough information. Many of them have to much information. For example, I recently ran across the Pokemon CCG article. It had a list of major tournaments, who won those tournaments, where they were located, etc. That kind of info doesn't need to be on the main page of the CCG.

Also, a lot of the information that is there is not very well organized. Many games post wholesale descriptions of the rules, instead of giving a description that doesn't go into too many details, but helps users who do not know anything about CCGs and do not care to spend an hour to find out. Maybe a general description of basic concepts of the game; not a rules list.

Formatting issues factor in, also. The same tournament information I was just talking about should have been in a table form, or at least bulleted, but it was not. I changed that, but standards need to be set so that the articles at least have some semblance of cohesiveness and integrity; so it doesn't look like wikipedia hosts several CCG fansites. A main article should not go into every detail of the subject, but give an overview of important information and themes that the subject relates to. Many CCG articles currently are just jumbles of facts and information, as opposed to articles, and I think starting a Wikiproject would help reverse that tendency.

Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

The problem is that everyone has their own idea about what is an appropriate level of detail. An explanation of the game system and what players do during their turns helps to explain what type of game it is, and how it differs from its peers. Do you have an example of a page which you think is well written or does contain information at the appropriate level of detail? For example, how about the page Dark Millennium? It contains a variety of information, and does have some data appropriately formatted in tables. -- Slordak 14:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I still have some minor problems with that article (for example, there is nothing saying why that card game is important, or what makes it stand out from any other sci-fi/space CCG), but overall, it is a well-written article. The gameplay is clearly and relatively concisely laid out, and there is not too much random information about leagues and tournaments lying around (maybe there are no leagues or tournaments; that's what I'd guess based on the article, I don't really know). The main gripe that I have is that it's all about how to play the game. There is nothing in the article that explains why the game exists, why it's popular, or even how popular it is. That kind of statistics may not be available, but there should at least be a figure somewhere stating how many units this particular game has sold.

Actually, though, I think that it would take a wikiproject to get all CCG articles at least up to the level of that Dark Millennium. Even sticking with CCGs popular enough to have their own categories, there is a lot of room for improvement. I am sure those that do not have enough related articles to deserve categories have even more problems than ones with categories.

Looking only at games that have enough attention to have their own subcategories within Category: Collectible card games, I found disturbing patterns. None of them managed to keep the description of gameplay concise enough to fit in my browser window, only Magic: The Gathering had anything that mentioned controversy outside of the gameplaying community, and only Magic: The Gathering described why the game was important, or what significance it had, or the game's relation to anything other than the game.

I think that a wikiproject could solve all of these issues, and also allow us to create standards by which articles that recieve even less attention could be rewritten to create a category that would be easy to understand, and to bring across to people why CCGs are so popular.

Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs P.S. It seems like I'm speaking a lot in favor of the Magic article, but I have problems with it, too; just some different problems that some of the other articles.

Well, until a Collectible Card Game WikiProject is created, be aware that Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games has been, with the intention of including in its scope all card games other than Poker and Bridge (and, I suspect we'll quickly decide, Magic: The Gathering specifically). No intention to step on any toes, mind you, but feel free to participate. Stellmach 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic, Baseball, or what?

I see this was discussed above, but it seems perhaps no consensus has been reached on the evidence. In its current state the page makes contradictory claims as to whether Magic: The Gathering or The Base Ball Card Game was the first CCG. Stellmach 11:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)