ok lackeyccg, so I guess we can use that, I'll look into it when the time comes
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but... who's SBW? =(
Spinballwizard, aka Spearow. He lives in a volcano.
I'm actually torn about this one. I think for certain sets, like based on linear platformers, the board will be very linear. But for other games, like Metroidvania-esque ones, the board could be maze-like. And of course, if one player is playing a Mario deck and the other a Metroid deck... there's going to be rules on how those boards can be and it will most likely be odd. But neat, I'd hope.
ok I gave this a lot of thought actually... so I guess there would be two kinds of stages.. action stages, and adventure stages. Action stages would be in a line, but adventure stages can be placed adjacent to another stage and create branching paths. I've pretty much figured this part out, but then damn me I thought of a third type of stage I think should be in the game, and now I'm confused. I was thinking of "hub stage" cards which would be like Peach's Castle or Station Square. These may not even be worth any points, basically they are not missions, but the idea was that they would allow action stages to be placed adjacent to them.
Also, as for attachment cards, you can attach "warp zones" onto a level, which lets characters skip spaces.
Also, some kind of combat system that could work with multiple styles of games. Something not too simple but not too complex, so that Mario can fight a Goomba as well as so Ryu can fight Ken.
Ok so characters have to be able to fight each other too. Makes sense... ok that's something to think about.
maybe if, rules-wise, characters counted as pseudo stage cards if two of them fight. If characters can work the same was as stages, then that's already an elegant way to handle character vs. character combat.
Anyone think it would be worthwhile to start brainstorming important characters and genres from gaming history?
Yea... sounds good to me. That way we can decide on a gameplay system that suits them all.
Here's what I'm thinking: Mario, Sonic, Zelda, Metroid, Final Fantasy (for all intents and purposes: FF7), Street Fighter, Halo, Metal Gear, Star Fox.
..that covers platformer, adventure, JRPG, fighting, shooter, and RTS... and with those by extension you have rules that apply to action games, Western RPG's, and turn-based strategy games.
Metal Gear is a crucial series because it will be how we decide to handle stealth.
Star Fox or something is also important because it will be how he handle flight... in other words, vehicles.
I initially listed Command & Conquer, but I took it off, because we might not need that either, since it is not really character based, and I take it this is more like "Smash Bros TCG". But let me know.
I doubt this CCG needs to cover racers, puzzle games, and music games... though racing and puzzle COULD work if we really want them in there. (Tetris would make the sweetest "joke" faction)
You wanted different characters to have life/death systems that represent their genre.
So that would mean:
Sonic would have 1 Hp and have some sort of regrowable 1-time defense because of rings. Sonic would use 1-ups.
Mario for the sake of development will be oldschool and have 1 Hp but can get one-time shields that also increase his abilities. Shouldn't be hard to implement.
Ryu and Ken would have HP and their continues would have a cost. (example: discard 1 card)
Cloud would have HP and rely on save points, same with Samus. Link however doesn't need save points, and has free continues. If damage isn't permanent in this game, then Master Chief would work just like Link. But besides permanent damage, there is the question of a growth system. (i.e. Link/Samus/Cloud able to increase their health capacity. Sounds like it's really complicating the game, but in all honesty it would be kind of cool, if we figure out a way to pull it off)
Solid Snake would work like Link I guess.
genus named Pheonix Wright, which is a great idea... and completely unconventional