I have to VERY strongly disagree on the set design. It's a bit un-fair that Emrakul is the only card you pulled up, when the rest of the revealed cards have (what I consider) much better mechanical theming. Effects like emerge, meld, and transformation are much more connected to the eldritch horror theme of things becoming twisted and horrible, while in hearthstone... well the cards buff c'thune. While hearthstone's main baddie might be more fearsome, magic's entire set has several times more flavor.
yes but it is true that magic in general put less effort in the set design and presentation than hearthstone does, I miss the good ol' days when we had some lore indications and stuff when you had a new set. I think magic should invest in side projects to devellop their universe, like games (not card games, actual action games), movies and/or series to create a myth around the card game and appeal to more people.
+Nyundaa The truth is new emrakul is disapointing, as it is quite a lot worse than the original which if played against you GG. I tend to agree with most you said but I only feel intimidated by N'Zoth, C'Thun is usually slow and isnt all that great, I dont mind yogg cause he's cool and y'sharj isnt played (for a good reason)
I have to say, that since the only way to play hearthstone is online, the player base is much more measurable. Paper magic has a large sum of casual players who have never been to an official event in their lives (such as me). Thus very unmeasurable.
magic sayd to be having aorund 20million players worldwide... blizzards real cards couldnt hold any playerbase for long rofl.. shows wich one is the better game.. p.s ive never played magic or collected cards.. played some hearthstone in beta.. got tired of it really quickly... have palyed HS,duelyst,spellweaver,hex.. didnt like any of those.. currently fell in love with Eternal... but this new mtg arena closed beta seems interesting, i think it's the only digital one from wotc wich actually doesn't look complete garbage... i know it's about the gameplay.. but if there's literally 0 "oommph" when u play attack or play cards... it gets really booring at computer screen haha... golden middleway is def Eternal Eternal = MtG ruleset, HS aesthetics (but less cartoony/childish) , + Truely free to play. Very generous with getting cards and chests imho + the stream of Gold is linear/constant... Hs is def pay 2 win.. my friend has apid like 1000€ on Hearthstone that's crazy... one flaw of digital tcg's imho is the non-existent lasting value, u never know when the game will be dead... unlilke real cards.. you can collect em just for the art sake :P
Love this comment I’ve never been to a tourney been playing for about 8 years now lol hearthstone is way more easily accessible that’s all it has on magic nothing else
So it was good but in the set design, if you're going to use other cards with Hearthstone but not Magic I don't think its fair. Sure the card of Emrakul is not very spooky but her effects on the others cards is what is more scary. Seeing an 2 angles melded together in the name of Emrakul, that's creepy.
I agree. I actually just unsubscribed from "GG" Degree. Bringing in outside games isn't what I signed up for. Love the ambition GG Degree but I think you screwed up with your change in content.
Yup because kids cant be bothered to build decks that make them think (now I realize that not all magic the gathering decks make you think, but I had to think harder with a mono red aggro in magic then I did with a wizardry deck in hearthstone. Thats some bull right there.)
Hearthstone actually requires more thought in many aspects, you have a limited amount of mana which requires more thought in terms of 'tempo' and playing 'on curve'. Hearthstone also has a limit of 30 cards per deck, which may seem as a simpler version of MTG's 60 card limit, however it makes the player think more about what cards are important for the deck they are building, while in magic you essentially have more room to work with.
I think the reason why Hearthstone is a lot more popular is because it's advertised a lot more and it's a lot easier to get access to it, you don't even need to go anywhere. It's also published by a popular gaming company, the creators of very popular games such as World of Warcraft and Overwatch. Everyone who plays these two games is going to see Heathstone in the Blizzards app (which you go to every time you run one of these games) and give it a try. This is basically how I got into hearthstone. I've heard of Hearthstone a lot before that, but I never actually played it. After a while of playing Overwatch and seeing the Hearthstone logo on the Blizzards app, I decided to give it a try since it was free (there's nothing to loose except a little bit of time). I enjoyed it and have spend a few hundred dollars on it. I didn't enjoy Hearthstone as much as I do Magic. One thing I liked about Hearthstone is the mana system. But the overall game is simpler and there isn't as much strategy to it. I don't like the fact that you attack the player directly, and there are instants, so you can't play any cards during your opponents turn. There are secrets, but you can't choose when yo activate them, they automatically activate when an event happens. And since you have to play secrets first, you can't do bluffs and hold a card in your hand and making your opponent think you have a certain instant in order to make them play more cautiously. I also hate the fact that in Hearthstone you can only use certain cards with a certain hero.
I would like to compliment you on your deep analysis of each game, admitting the pros and cons to each game, and not letting your personal feelings interfere with your comparison of the two games (at least on a noticeable scale)
I disagree about the top-down set design being a problem with magic. Wizards has been nailing sets from a flavour/story/design perspective for years and years, with only a few misses. Pointing out one example in Magic doesn't just suddenly mean that Magic looses (and honestly, Emrakul is enormously flavourful when it comes to the story. How isn't this good top-down design?). Eldritch Moon wasn't about horror exactly - Wizards did that already in the first block Innistrad block. This was about corruption and madness with the dark horror thrown in. Honestly, the only bad top-down block I can really remember was RtR block. Great power, crappy story/flavour compared to everything else.
An important point I think you missed, is that at the end of turn in magic all creatures heal. (All damage is removed) but in HS, the damage sticks. So in HS you don't necessarily have to have enough damage to kill a creature in one turn, you may just have to soften it up for next turn. I just think it's a pretty different mechanic worth mentioning.
As a player of both games, I can 100% agree with what you are suggesting. Making a system more simplified to people in a game where the goal is competition is never a bad thing. MTG, in my experience, is clearly a better game when it comes to community experience. Anyone who has played Hearthstone knows that the "friend system" is really only used for the spectate quest and watching good irl friends play the game. In paper MTG the physical element allows for a much better system of gathering a making friends. Both companies can learn from each other. If Wizards would stop making their system of comparison (In a game about competition of course) like navigating the labyrinth, then it could open up many doors that were previously closed. Similarly, Blizzard could learn about community from MTG as the "Fireside Gathering" that it sponsors are not really sanctioned or advertised at all. If blizzard got some community managers in card stores some neat prizes, a set of guidelines for the general rules, and sanctioned shops to sell Blizzard Cards or even codes for packs (Something game stores could get into) then maybe the "Fireside Gathering" could be somethinf bigger and not something a few places do for fun.
if my lgs started doing fireside gatherings I would go every week to kick some ass, but how many people would actually go is the question? not only that, but running a hearthstone tournament is a little bit more difficult than mtg and stores might shy away from it because of the effort required to keep everything organized. but there's hope that blizzard thinks like the wizards and starts promoting fireside gatherings
Seriously? You can't compare Emrakul to a suite of cards and call that a fair comparison. Not to mention the concept of taking control of a player's turn is unbelievably Eldritch in flavor.
The more I think about whether you're right or wrong, the more I find it hard to compare to two games. The fact that Magic has 2 decades on Heathstone, alone makes them hard to compare. Overall, I just think that Hearthstone is a much easier game to pick up and play, by both accessibility and pricepoint standards but MTG offers infinitely more options with deck building and gameplay. I played Heartstone first and spent a decent amount of money on it but eventually got bored and quit. I started playing Magic and I plan on playing it for a long time.
My main difference between the two games is that one you MUST spend money to acquire cards.... as where the other can be played by not spending a single penny. So naturally in todays age, Hearthstone is going to do much better and have more people playing due to the fact that it is a free game.
Do you know why hearthstone has more registered than MTG? Its because not everyone in the fucking world has a game store around em. But everyone has atleast a pc/phone/ipad and its free to play too.
A few things about your points. First off, the google search thing. Many mtg players just call mtg "magic", so that should be included too if you'd want to determine the results properly. Of course, you can't include it, because you'd get way too many results that have nothing to do with mtg. However, you should have mentioned this, instead of just stating the results like they were proper anyway. Then about the playerbase. Hearthstone's 50 million is inflated as hell. Those are registered accounts, not active accounts. I have 2 hearthstone accounts (while I don't play anymore), and I know people with up to 7 inactive accounts. I'd be surprised if even half of those 50 million are active, especially considering the fact that you can have multiple accounts. Also, about the hero abilities, magic has its equivalent in many cards. There are loads of cards that have overpriced small effects so that you can utilize left-over mana. Also, picking out eldritch moon for comparison and not picking shadows over innistrad with it is like ripping a book in half and then comparing the second half to another book. Not to mention that Eldritch moon has madness and corruption as themes, with horror as a MINOR theme, while shadows over Innistrad had classic gothic horror as a theme. Also, only comparing the big bads is honestly idiotic. Look at Brisela, voice of nightmares. Or the Writhing township. What about it that rides as one? If you wanted to specifically target the horror aspect of eldritch moon, then those would all have been better options (at least I think they're a lot spookier). Not to mention that if you're gonna pick out Emrakul, then you should pick out the cards that form the rest of the story too. Like declaration in stone, coax from the blind eternities, descend upon the sinful and nahiri's machinations. Also, the thing about "what if you're a new player and you don't know about mindslaver" is an absolutely ridiculous argument. The entire eldritch moon set features scores and scores of corrupted creatures, and there loads and loads of hints in the cards alone that Emrakul is the source of all the corruption. You don't need to know mindslaver to conclude that the mind control ability (as it almost literally states on the card "you control target player in his next turn") is due to Emrakul's corruption. Eldritch moon is full of eldritch horror, but if you're gonna look at one card (and if you're go discount his improved delirium effect, his mind control effect that any idiot could see and his clearly eldritch art (which are all the themes that classic lovecraftian horror has by the way, madness, corruption and deep sea creatures)) and look at it badly, then of course you won't get a good result. And really? You're not going to include cards that go alongside Emrakul, but you are going to include C'Thun's cult? I could make a list of about 100 eldritch moon cards that fit alongside Emrakul (all the werewolves, abolisher of bloodlines, decimator of the provinces, especially the cards I've named previously in this comment, elder deep fiend, wretched gryff (especially when you compare it to normal gryff cards. the list goes on and on)). I'm sorry but this section of your video is some of the most biased stuff I've seen in months. The only thing hearthstone accomplishes with its eldritch horror set is to get some good synergy to go along with its legendary, besides that it hardly has any horror-worthy art and the lack of flavor text makes it almost impossible for the game to tell minor stories in the cards itself. Lastly, while magic may have less of a competitive scene for the general playerbase, hearthstone's casual scene isn't all that great. Hell, the casual mode is pretty much completely useless, since it's full of the exact same meta decks ranked play has. Sure, you've got tavern brawl, but that repeats a bunch, not to mention that some of the brawls are just straight up really bad. End of rant, I guess.
Some points I'd like to bring up in defence of hearthstone, is that the idea of interacting with your opponents turn is somewhat a feature, while not available to all classes. You mentioned secrets, which make play order something extremely important. Also, buy allowing the defending play to decide what blocks, it prevents token decks from being able to just block giant threats over and over again.
4:57 Just a correction here: MTG decks are not 60 cards since roughly the 40% of them are lands which leaves approximatelly 24 actual cards in the deck unless the owner puts 30 cards, thus reducing the amount of lands, which will lead to him, getting mana screw much more often.
For me, I guess it comes down to the lack of physical objects to collect and hold and my dislike of the cartoonish, WOW artwork. MTG looks fantastic, esoteric, and cryptic. Hearthstone looks like a kids game.
2 years later and Magic Arena is now a thing! It's still in beta as of now but everyone in the beta was given 5 keys to give to friends (that was a couple of weeks ago).. Let's see how far this goes
I was thinking about this same thing the other day. The thought that stood out for me, was that most HS players would go straight into Green or Red because of their creature similarities to most in HS. By that I mean, either a large stat line, or cheap and fast.
I seriously enjoy this video! as a player of both you addressed the pros and cons of each. As kind of a philosophical thinker myself, I think in 10 years a better comparison will be made. Is Chess or Go the better game? Perhaps a concrete "yes" or "no" isn't easy to ascertain due to cultural differences. The reason that the Hearthstone v magic comes up so much here on the internets and in my town is that the player base of both games have a very similar culture.
Hearthstone is just like every other blizzard game made. They are casual friendly games that are easy to pick up and play, but ultimately they lack complexity. Hearthstone reignited my interest in card games but i stopped playing for magic and other more complex card games.
If you take a bell-curve on complexity vs popularity magic is somewhere on the far right and hearthstone is somewhere on the left of the curve, where being on the left its more popular than complex and vise versa
[Magic] Creates a mechanic where you need to reveal a dragon from your hand for bonus effects. [Hearthstone] Creates a mechanic where cards get bonus effects when you're holding a dragon. [Magic] Does Clash, where the costs of two top cards from each deck are compared (done it 7 years ago)(also, it was considered a failure). [Hearthstone] Does a mechanic, where the costs of two random minion cards from each deck are compared (also a failure). [Magic] Does Eldritch Horror. [Hearthstone] Does Eldritch Horror. [Magic] Has Ponder, Divination and Lightning Bolt. [Hearthstone] Has Tracking, Arcane Intellect and... Lightning Bolt.
Well... He is a MTG channel, so I guess he wanted to appear unbiased and went over the top with it, so that now he appears to be biased against MTG. :D
Also, in hearthstone, even for Nzoth cards never leave the grave. The old cards stay in the list of dead minions and when the new versions die, they are added again.
That Emrakul to Cathun comparison feels a bit unfair. Emerakuls set is filled with cards that transform into eldritch horrors as well as eldrazi to ramp you so you can cast emrakul. Emerakuls influence slowly takes warps your board and when she arrives, even your opponent falls under the control of emerakul.
i think if depends on what you want from the game. if you want a quick, easy and fun game then i'd say hearthstone is great but if you want to get really deep into the game and start dedicating money and time into it then magic wins hands down , its been around too long to not have a serious community and a great history
I have a number of issues on how many of your comparisons were done, and this is from the perspective of someone who has played both games (though I rarely play Hearthstone anymore). 1. with the google search results, any result that comes up for the full name of hearthstone, will also come up when you search just hearthstone, the same is not true for MTG and magic the gathering, while there will be a large amount of overlap, it will not be 100% of one going into the other. 2. Hasbro is not the only one making money off of MTG, because the cards are able to be traded and sold, many other third-party sellers also make profits off of Magic. Hasbro also sees 0% of the money from singles sales (ok, maybe a little from the booster it was cracked from, but many get sold around so much for large amounts that it boils down to very little). 3. You compared the big baddies of the sets, but only included the supporting cast for one of the games, sure, Emrakul's minions don't directly help her, but Eldrazi are scary ass creatures. 4. Playerbase: sure Hearthstone has a large number of registered accounts, but who knows how many of those are active, and finding numbers for a physical card game can be difficult because there are a decent number of people who have never competed in any form of official tournament and only do kitchen table play.
As a player of both games I agree with your assessment, but you didn't mention the biggest pro HS has when compared to MTG, and that is that HS can be played completely for free.
As a relative beginner to both games, Hearthstone is so, SO much better. Magic's mechanics are complicated at every turn, cards are expensive, and I never feel satisfied after a win or loss because I feel like the player who collects better cards always wins in Magic. In Hearthstone, you can see WHY you win or lose; the game mechanics are simple enough a noob can watch pros playing online and understand what makes their combos so powerful. Watching professional Magic games is just a blur of dumping mana cards on a table and clearing the field of monsters. Some players want complexity, some players want simplicity and transparency. The numbers don't lie: more players prefer Hearthstone in two years than Magic has accumulated in over twenty.
Hearthstone is the sesame street of trading card games while Magic is the antiques roadshow. It really comes down to player investment and how far you are going to dig into each title to get something out of it.
I don't know, Emrakul has a lot of eldritch flavor to it. The ability she has of invading the mind of the player and forcing them to do your bidding is very much in theme, especially if you chain combo it like you can in Edh and take the opponent's turns until you effectively burn them into the ground and destroy their allies and other players in the process. Granted it's not a simple process but it's very much doable, especially with pro-instants.
Yes, because controlling a player's turn (Essentially mind control) is only eldritch if you know of the card Mindslaver? I didn't quite understand that line.
Your analysis for search results is wrong for Hearthstone, as the exact terms overlap. that means Hearthstone has 33 million hits while Magic had no overlap in search terms, so you are MILLIONS of hits off for Magic. Also, Hearthstone uses psychologically addictive and clearly cheaper to produce products when compared to Magic, so pure profit margin is not a good comparison. You can't effectively compare the profit margins of a free-to-play a video game that generates ad revenue to a physical card game.
there is a problem in the stas, people registered in Heartstone is not the same has active player if we are counting the number of accounts in HS then we should see the number of DCI's + casual players
I find it odd that you didn't even mention the fact that Hearthstone is completely free to play, with purchasing card packs being completely optional. I would consider that the main reason Hearthstone got so big so fast. If Hearthstone came with an initial cost and you had to buy packs with no possibility of getting them with in game currency, the game would be nowhere near as large as it is.
3:50 However, one may argue that Magic have had many more players that have just stopped playing after a while, while Hearthstone have not been around for so long that many people would stop playing yet. It may just be me being nitpicky and it may not even matter, but I think it is worth to consider at least
This was really well done. I think MTG could benefit from a dual-deck system. You go into a match with two decks that total to at least 60 cards between them. Newer players would probably put all their spells in one deck and all their lands in another, which is a good and valid strategy. More experienced players would more likely divide the decks in a more tactical manner depending on what deck they're playing: Small/large cards, reactive/proactive cards, etc. Then you would have more dual-color decks because you could put all swamps in proactive and all islands in reactive, for example.
first of all magic is KING of top down design! you can compare a set the has a few cards spoiled to a set that has been out and playable for weeks! if we compare original Innistrad to this new set from harthstone it's not even close. also there is an immeasurable amount of MTG players that are not active tournament players or aren't a member of the DCI so the player base is a difficult thing to compare as well. although MTG is struggling on the digital front I think it has more to do with cost than UI hearthstone is FREE that is huge when you compare the two. you cant even get a mtgo account without dropping 10 bucks!
I couldn't agree more. Yet... The biggest problem with Magic is availability. There is just no way for a new player to enter a competetive stage for Legacy, Vintage or Modern cost effectively. Even standard can be very expensive at times. Looking at you Jace, looking at you. And sometimes it's just impossible to find the cards at all. But what's the point of complaining without offering a solution: Hearthstone solves this problem perfectly by allowing the players to request "reprints" of the cards they need, but at a high exchange rate. If Wizards allowed players to request card reprints at their local game store with exchange rates similar to hearthstone, x amount of commons traded in for y amount of common reprints, z amount of uncommons etc, where the traded in cards are sent for sanctioned destruction and the players then got their requested reprints with a special set symbol that signifies that it's a reprint, for a small handling fee, that would both increase availability for players and it would increase sales of boosters since every card in the booster pack have a minimum useful value regardless. The store collects all the cards each month or so, sends them in for burning at a Wizards sanctioned card burning facility where they can be sure nobody gets to them. Wizard sends out the reprints to the store along with other product that the store gets anyways. Everybody wins. Players get availability. Wizard gets more sales. Collectors are not devalued since the reprints are specifically marked as such and will never become valuable for a collector, only the originals will. It will also be a status symbol to have a deck with no reprints to play with. It won't "save magic" by itself but it would be a big step towards making the game more available and thus more popular. It's a great game, I want to play it, but I don't have a way to get the cards I want without paying a ton of bucks. Rather spend that money on other stuff that keeps me entertained for longer.
the pay-to-win aspect of magic is monstrous. it doesn't matter how good you are if you don't have the bankroll, and if you want to get really serious you'd best be prepared to sell your firstborn. this is why i prefer the non-trading card games; you can't buy a power advantage so everyone is on even footing.
Daemonworks I get what you mean with pay to win. But I would call it more pay to play rather than pay to win. At least the money that you give to Wizards. I'm fine with that though, as long as it's affordable and I have some guarantee of what I get somehow (which I currently don't have). The problem is that I'm having to pay thousands of dollars to some bloodsucker in the second hand market that's holding on to the cards that I need in order to play the game. If it worked similar to hearthstone, then it could very well be affordable. And I would pay the company, hopefully improving their product, instead of paying bloodsuckers and none of that money goes into the production of the game. And I would have a guaranteed way of getting the cards I need. Trading would still exist and may very well be cheaper than getting a reprint. But it would be capped in price from a player's point of view and bloodsucking would be left to the collectors. And well.. that's why I'm doing like you and am not playing Magic, even though I'd very much like to. Sadly Magic isn't about the game, it's about the wallet. And I wish it was about the game.
+Miku Chan er... all tabletop card games are pay to play. somebody has to buy the game. the problem is that MTG (and other games to varying extents) allow people with more real-world money to purchase an advantage over others without the resources to do so. the ccg model is entirely based around doing just that. any game in which a player's strength is determined by his bankroll is flatly unfair. a fair game has it's players starting on an even footing relating to outside influences. two people sit down to chess, go, poker, dominion or whatever and rich or poor, the only things that determine victory are personal skill and maybe some rng.
Daemonworks Nah, they're buy to play most of the time. CCGs would be pay to play as they need continuous investment. And it's not really buy to win since you can't buy an advantage from Wizards. You can't pay Wizards 1000 bucks for a black lotus. You can only buy your boosters, like everyone else. You have to go to the second hand market for "pay to win" and then you're doing business outside of what Wizards has control over and the money does not go to Wizards. All you can buy from Wizards is random product. Sure, the more you buy, the more likely you are to get something good. It is technically pay to win, since you need the cards to be able to win, sure, but it's not that bad. Or at least it wouldn't be that bad if you could trade with the company and guarantee that every x cards you get could become any one card of your choosing. Wizards themselves are entirely fair in their product though. You can't pay more to get a booster with only mythics, only available to premium subscribers. You can only pay on the same level as anyone else to receive the same product as anyone else. And once you have the same deck as the opponent, there is nothing you can do with your wallet to win that match. In that sense, there's no pay to win. In drafts or sealed games, there's no pay to win at all. There you can't do anthing with your wallet at all other than entering the game. That's why I'm reluctant to call it pay to win. I'd rather say pay to play. The only thing you're paying for is inventory, which you will have permanently until traded away. Once you have the inventory, the only things that matters are, as you say, personal skill and some rng. This goes for any game. You need the inventory to win. It's just that MTG is more of a subscription-based inventory rather than a one-time payment. However the problem is that the inventory costs way too much to get because of poor business practices that don't benefit the company that does them. If the inventory was cheaper and more accessible, it would be all fine.
You'd have a good point, if Magic was as complex as Hearthstone is. But that's not true. A magic player with an inferior deck can still have a higher win percentage than a player with an expensive deck, just because of skill. Not to mention that there are loads of formats with pretty low entry-costs. The problem with hearthstone is that skill plays less of a factor, due to the lower complexity. Yeah, skill still matters, but to a much lesser extent. This is why, in my opinion, Hearthstone is more pay to win than magic, since a deck with the right epics and legendaries is just way better than a deck that tries to do the same stuff without those cards, and because skill matters less it's way harder for the player with the cheap deck to make a difference. I remember when I still played hearthstone, I went up against my friend using my control warrior deck (I had a bunch of legendaries from buying a bunch of packs that worked well in control warrior), and I beat him 6/6 times, and he even switched decks multiple times. He had no legendaries, but I play magic with him as well, and I can tell you that he's definitely not much worse than me at TCG's.
Getting rid of Pro Points for Planeswalker Points is a great idea! As long as you keep the benefits and things like Silver-Platinum Pro levels there would be no downside!
I think the biggest difference is that HS is merely a game which exists solely in 'cyber space'. It's not a 'card game' in its essential form. It is a piece of gaming software. Unlike MTG which can be played outside of the internet or even a computer access and is a real CARD GAME.
Magic is a better game. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. However, Magic is way too expensive. Standard is supposed to be the most accessible constructed format for new players. FNM is the event designed for those new players. Printing blatantly overpowered mythic rares allows retailers to spike these cards in price to a nonsense amount of money that no one can afford. Why do I have to have a $300 tier 1 competitive standard deck to win a few booster packs at FNM each week?
"Playing against a C'thun deck, it's a scramble to remove these cards and win before C'thun hits the battlefield." This is essentially exactly the case with Emrakul as well. I'm sure I don't need to explain this to you, given that this is a MTG channel, but watch Pro Tour Eldritch Moon (or really any online footage of play against Emrakul decks) and you will see this is the case. It is a scramble to gain card advantage and deliver lethal damage to your opponent before they can summon Emrakul, which in most cases will inevitably end the game in a few turns (sometimes one). I played Hearthstone for a while and enjoyed it for what it is, but I feel like this video seems to willfully misrepresent the ways that Hearthstone is "better" when some of the arguments used are illustrative of how they are more similar than different. And as far as flavor is concerned, I respect your opinion that Hearthstone did it better but I don't understand how anyone could look at the name "C'thun" and think for one second that it is more creative or original design than Emrakul. It's literally taken directly from Lovecraft's C'thulhu, as is the name Old Gods which comes from Lovecraft's Old Ones (...who were also known as Outer Gods. See what they did there?). Like most everything Blizzard does these days, it reads like a tired pop culture reference coming from people too lazy to create their own mythologies. At least WotC were imaginative enough to use Lovecraft purely as inspiration when designing the Eldrazi. Sure, the source is obvious in both cases, but I'll take inspiration over imitation any day. Just put a tiny bit of effort in next time, won't you Blizzard? As a final bit of conjecture, I don't know the exact timelines for when each of these expansions went into R&D, but given Blizzard's track record as shameless IP copycats (Games Workshop says hello) I wouldn't be at all surprised if the impetus behind Whispers of The Old Gods was to rip off WotC's design with Shadows Over Innistrad in an effort to "me too!" and reduce the flavor advantage that Magic would have otherwise had during this time period. Overall, I think this video was correct in how it outlines the differences between the two games, and I do appreciate and enjoy this channel, but due to the concerns raised above I have regretfully rated this video a thumbs down.
Emrakul the promised end fits perfectly in flavor. Her main thing is that she can take over your body and mind permanently if you aren't protected and then will morph you into a hideous eldrazi. This is how she takes your turn.
It is my understanding, that Magic uses the ELO System, so a "progression" can be found. Just like in chess (which uses the Elo System as well) one can look up his current points and compare where he or she stands. That being said, in all my years of reading about magic and it's top players, never have I stumbeled upon their Elo-Rating, whereas in chess, one can easily identify a good, or top player.
casual play is the keyword here i dont got time for 40 min game when i'm waiting at the doctor office or in class hearthstone is also very easy to get into, reading the card text on mtg alone and understanding it can take me around 20 minutes if not maybe more. but i do love mtg, its a very complex and deep game.
Planeswalker points is still a flawed system because it will essentially say that the person who has played the most is the best. If you are a new player and consistently beat someone with much more points than you, then that says that you are a better player, but the planeswalker points do not
I believe hearthstone is way easier to get into as well. It's very fun but I prefer magic because it is way more complex and the social involvement it requires to play it. I love seeing and talking to my opponent.
I would also like to add how much more content MTG has over hearthstone. Hearthstone has 1/12 of the number of unique cards. Additionally, Hearthstone has seen 3 expansions since its 2014 release. In those 2 years MTG would release 8, one every 3 months. This means new MTG content comes out with higher frequency
There is a thing that you should've thought a bit better, comparing Whispers of the old gods, a fully released set with all it's cards and interactions already known with Eldrich moon, a set still being spoiled to the community and that lacks a massive amount of info is kind of a bad idea, just cause both use "eldrich horrors" as a theme doesn't mean the comparison works, MTG uses a very large portion of the set to build around key cards, like how everything is now twisted and literally insane since Emrakul appeared, she morphed the plane from a hellish world to a literal nightmare with her presence, you can see her influence in the set by looking at the cards around her, her card alone is a good point to it, she has the power to control your opponent, arguably it doesn't sound so bad, but, when you're in a game like magic, where a single turn missed can lose you the game, the idea of having your opponent drop a massive creature to take over your turn and use all your best spells against you, and you only get 1 extra draw and turn before that beast comes your way, it's terrifying to a player, so, mechanically, C'thun seems a bit stronger, with his cult theme, but lore wise, Emrakul is a much more terrifying thing both in the way her concept warped her setting and in her in game mechanics, since there's VERY few ways to kill a 13/13 unless you play black mana :P
If you want to bring up the cult of C'thun, but not even touch cards spoiled in Eldrich Moon like Brusela, or Chittering Host, or the Gavony monster. That's absolutely unfair, especially when cards like Brusela REALLY show off the eldrich horror of the set.
+ravenwda007 it would be much better if everypack we buy come with digital code just like pokemon. this will allow us to play both has many card in physical and digital format
"Over 50 million players world wide* yeah, that's under the total amount of HEARTH STONE players worldwide since it was stated in the article *50 million registered players*, that's under the total number of people playing magic of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if more people played magic, the reason a monster that takes damage heals if it doesnt die is to make it more challenging without babying you at first, the graveyard helps players by putting cards in your deck that could be summond back for a while, if you have a planeswalkers deck, you have the same kind of spells in hearth stone, sort of, with Emrakul it cost one less mana to cost with each different type of card in your graveyard, meaning it could well get down to only 5 mana cost to summon and thee gaining control part of his ability means that the turn your opponent has after you summon him you control his axtions to hurt him or otherwise, then he has a turn to control himself, but hey, that's just my thing, good vid m8.
Failed to comment on the major thing Magic has over Hearthstone. Value. The ability to buy, sell, trade your cards to other players. Where Hearthstone, you are restricted to spending money hoping to get what you want, if you dont, you spend an ungodly amount of dust. You get a quarter of its value when you dust the cards, where you can sell a Magic card for $25+ to either buy more packs, or more singles. Blizzard's way is 100% money profit, where Magic is controlled by a secondary market.
In regards to the numbers of hearthstone I would compare it to games like clash of clans where it gains a massive following for a little bit and it falls a little bit
It's funny that you mentioned top down design because the original innistrad block was one of the best flavor wise and very fun to draft. seeing how magic is also a paper game it probably has a greater amount of players that can't be measured. if haspro was willing to invest money into MTGO online I think it could explode like hearthstone.
hearthstone is not a bad game but it just doesnt keep me interested for long because you have so many random cards like: summon random moster with 4,get random monster into your hand,random dmg to a monster,copy random cards etc etc. If you play hearthstone you know what im talking about
A nice video but you missed a great point in that you compared a single card, Emrakul, from a set not yet fully spoiled to multiple cards from a set that is well known. For a fair comparison you should compare "Emrakul" to only "C'thun" or "Eldritch Moon" to "Whispers of the old gods".
Good video, but the google search thing is even more flawed than normally using google search results as anything that says "hearthstone: heros of warcraft" is counted twice, and there are many articles that just say magic
Haven't played much Hearthstone, but I gotta say, that C'thun design does sound really terrifying in a good way. That said, with Eldritch Moon spoilers not even finished yet, I'd say it's premature and unfair to say that WotC is failing at top-down design in that set.
note hearthstone is online making rankings much easier. If hearthstone was paper would not have that kind of ladder ranking. Magic can not change right now as its been established for a while you cant but ladder rankings in a paper game it dosnt work blowing one of your points away you need to consider them from the same angle.
I thought that this video was going to be about, literally, Hearthstone vs. Magic. As in, one player taps lands for mana, and the other player uses mana crystals. That kind of thing.
Only one problem, how do you get the number of magic players, for hearthstone it's easy. How can you get to 20 million? I mean, nobody counted me at least :))))) do they register the DCI numbers? Beacuse i am sure that there are many more players than are DCIs plus the fact that in hearthstone many players have a secound account on another region or with another set of cards, All in all, i think magic has more than 20 million players, and i am very suspicious about how they came out with that number, but hey, it's just me
BlyatGaming01 i was playing for years before i got a dci card and so have some of my friends. i guarantee that a huge number of players unaccounted for
I've tried hearthstone. I like the idea of how cards are restricted by turns instead of resources but the cards themselves are kind of boring and they don't have a physical card game. Beyond that I don't think hearthstone is a bad game it's just not my thing.
Interesting but in practise, MTG is a physical TCG / HS a digital card game. If WotC wanted to compete directly with HS, they would go with a new digital game base on MTG universe. But they don't have software industry resources (MTGO is a bad joke). That's why they try some projects like PS Duel or now the little game with PuzzleQuest. In few years, you will see a new digital game, Magic : The Digital Gathering, but they're so slow... Hasbro / WotC needs some kicks.
Yeah, Hearthstone definitely wins fluff-wise. Just ignore all those tiny hints on possible Emrakul's presence which you could find on some cards from SOI (Thraben Inspector, Incorrible Youth, Grotesque Mutation, Ashmouth Stallion etc) and horrors happening with Innistrad's inhabitants like humans melding with animals, creatures mutating into tentacled monstrosities and people fusing together with the very town they live in.
I have to disagree with you about the new Emrakul, since it sounded (to me, at least) like you were biased towads Hearthstone in that section. The horror is there - you are always waiting in fear for of Emrakul being cast, and you try to finish the deal before the graveyard is full. Each type in the graveyard makes you feel the horror closing in on you, and you know that when she is cast, something terrible is going to happen. To me it just seems like C'thun's growing strength is similar to Emrakul's cost reduction, but other than that C'thun doesn't offer anything for the horror theme while Emrakul gives you another turn, but as your opponent, which makes them even more fearful of Emrakul. Also, 13/13 for *13*, with "Flample" and pro instants, which is super big, kills in 2 hits, and is one of the biggest creatures in the whole game.
Magic is great, both from a casual and competitive standpoint. There's just something magical about playing cards like Yogg that you simply cannot do in Magic! Both are good games, but I have to give the edge to Magic. The complexity, sheer number of possible interactions, varied formats and the nature of a face-to-face card game are all great. I would also posit that skill is a greater factor in deciding games, due to the complexity and comparative lack of random effects. I have had quite a bit of success playing both games, and while I had played Yugioh at a very high level for years before playing Magic, it was still difficult to get as good as I have. That is a positive aspect in my opinion, as the game rewards greater player involvement. If you want to play casually, it may be a different experience for you. I like to master difficult to play decks- usually value decks, control decks and combo decks like Bloom (RIP) and 4c Gifts Ungiven. Compared to these decks, the hardest ones in Hearthstone are quite straightforward, and the only deck I have yet to master is probably patron warrior, although I am close. Costwise hearth is cheaper at a competitive level, but mtg has the advantage of a market on which you can exchange cards to potentially recoup some of the costs of playing, or if you are lucky, make a return on investment. Both games are awesome, don't get me wrong. These are just my observations. Whatever you do, enjoy it and play how you want to.
If you don't think, that 'mrakul including her abilities is like the perfect fit to the set, I am afraid that you should consider changing your channelname to hearthstone degree
I agree with many points you make, and ESPECIALLY of the planeswalker points idea. However, I do disagree with the idea of set design. You simply cannot look at each set by it's "chase rare". If you look at shadows over innistrad, or even OG innistrad, you can see that the entire set is based around horror / lovecraftian horror. That being said, I still think hearthstone does this better in half of their sets, the adventure ones. For those unaware, you can buy an adventure in hearthstone that will put you through a set of expertly crafted and fun PvE challenges that reward you with cards if you beat them. They have all been things the community has loved because of how the game itself immerses you in the world they put together in the sets. People might say that these are just money grabbing tactics, but I would disagree. For it to be a simple tactic, that implys that they do not deliever on the product they are selling. Blizzard however have many years of imersive story telling experiences, and it is to no ones surprise that they put these to good use. Magic has tryed doing something like this at prereleases, but if your lgss are anything like mine, they say "You can do all these achievement stuff if you want, but here, just take the free pack". In which basically destroys the immersiveness they try to put out. TLDR: Good video! Disagree on set design point, but do think hearthstone does it better through emersive story telling in adventures.
I find it frustrating that you dismiss the eldritch horror of shadows over innistrad in such a nonchalant manner. Firstly, the "control your opponent" effect on emrakul is just as clearly a good ability to a new player who has never seen mindslaver before as it is to tournament veterans. Also, where hearthstone forces you to play a deck built around C'thun to get the eldritch horror in your games, magic has the same thematic aspects spread out across multiple strategies, giving flavour that is much more universally present.
If tentacle werewolves are terrifying idk what is. C'thun isn't the product of the terror and the end result. Emrakul is the source of the terror and causes all these other monstrous horrors. So feel the fear of what Emrakul means one must look into the lore and the other cards to truly understand what Emrakul is. To compare these two cards is to two different things with different goals.
I feel like you could've gone more in-depth on the "better game(play)" segment. Don't get me wrong, as I'm neither a diehard Magic or Hearthstone fan; but does a more complex game necessarily make it a *better* game? I'd love to see a video elaborating your analysis on the subject.
Good review, but I don't think it is a fair comparison since Hearthstone is digital and playable whenever you want, unlike paper magic. Also, Hearthstone is free to start, MTG is not (not including welcome packs).
In my opinion magic is a much better game than hearthstone mainly for the reason of how random hearthstone is, yes magic has an element of random chance to it that hearthstone doesn't which is how many lands you play rather than just gaining 1 mana crystal per turn but in my opinion this makes deck consrustion even more interesting as you have to decide the correct land to spell ratio to consistantlydraw both your spells and the correct amount of land to play them. But hearthstone has cards that are entirely random for example, cabalists tome which gives you 3 random spells from the mage class, sure this isn't that extreme but when we go to the other spectrum with yogg saron which casts a random spell with random targets for each spelled played that game its a bit ridiculous, especially when a very large amount of cards have some sort of random effect. In my opinion I would prefer losing a game of magic where my opponent top decks a board wipe because that is something that even though it could have been a low chance isn't as bad as losing to a card that gives you a random creature that happens to be a perfect counter to what is currently happenning on board, it just feals like so much more of hearthstone is left to blind chance
As a person who plays both games casually I think a lot if comments on this video are very one sided. Side note: people complaining about only compareing one card from MTG In set catagory, firstly he compared most important cards in the sets theme ,secondly he compared one card from both sets so it was fair. Thank you for readying my rant! :)
Those cards actually mechanically work with C'thun. The angels and eldrazi do not synergize with Emrakul on the basis of mechanics. The tie between them is just art, names, and flavor text.
I started playing Magic about two years ago and wanted to play online since it's hard for me to find time to get to a local game store. But I'm a Mac owner so I couldn't get MTGO without either buying a new computer or buying Windows and Parallels to run MTGO on a Mac. I decided to check out Hearthstone, but I did not find it of interest. The silly noises and animations on the screen turned me off as it seemed made for kids, and I found the game play kinda slow. Yes, I wasn't as familiar with Hearthstone as I am Magic and I probably did not spend enough time truly learning how the game works, but I didn't like it much from what I saw and ultimately ended up buying a cheap PC laptop so I can play MTGO. With that said, I am still mind blown that Hasbro/Wizards is not working to make their digital Magic product better and also make it compatible with all platforms. That is just silly in this day and age. The Magic Duels app works quite well and provides a good intro for learning how to play Magic, but it's like playing limited. I'd really like to see Hasbro/Wizards make MTGO more like Magic Duels but with all the cards and resources available in MTGO. Yeah, it will take a lot of money and time to redesign their online product, but you'd think by seeing the success of Hearthstone that they'd want to get on board by offering a better online Magic experience for all players. It's pathetic that Hasbro/Wizards doesn't seem interested in doing this. Anyway, thanks for the video. It helps to confirm that my feelings on Hearthstone game play were mostly accurate and that, at least for me, I made the right choice by going with MTGO even though I had to buy a separate computer to play it (thanks for that, Wizards! Sheesh!).
Uhm, you cannot judge heartstone as the stronger brand based on number of players. First of all, those numbers count the total accounts made, not the total accounts actively playing unless I am mistaken. Secondly, being free to play means that anyone of any age with access to a computer can make an account. Accesability is a big factor here, especially when you consider that it can be played on your phone, whereas card magic requires you to have access to real life opponents in order to play, and you always need to invest some amount of money into it. There is no doubt that, as a digital free game, heartstone is way easier to access, but that does not neccesarily translate to the players being subsequentely active, or the strenght of the brand as such, which is a lot harder to measure. Also; WOOOOW! You really failed flavour class didnt you? Emrakul links into the delirium mechanic, which means that the more insane you go, the closer emrakul comes, and when she comes, you become a slave to her will as she drives you into crazy and irrational actions damaging yourself. In addition, you look into the cards supporting C'thun, but fail to do the same for emrakul, ignoring completely the set around it. Also, seriously? You are saying that people mutating into unspeakable horrors or being melded with other creatures, or going insane, or taking control of your actions and making you question reality, is LESS eldricht horror than a bunch of dudes chanting to a god which simply comes down as a big dumb beater than does damage and not even drives the others crazy? You really have no clue about horror and are just artificially trying to make heartstone win arent you?
It's really difficult to compare these games, as a lot of it amounts to preference. If you despise missing land drops or land flooding, you may feel like Hearthstone is a breath of fresh air and don't find yourself getting frustrated for that reason. But of course, the reverse is true too. Basically, you take a player and ask them what are their top 3 pet peeves in a card game, and they will probably like the game that features less or none of these problems more, even if that game has problems - at least they decided that they can live with them. Neither game is perfect. As far as I am concerned, it's kind of a joke question seeing as even professional players have only slightly better win rates than just flipping a coin in either game - the whole point is just moot.
I couldn't get into magic bc I had no one to play with or alot of money for basic cards. Hearthstone solved both problems! I could play against anyone in the world online and you can earn a pack of cards everyday if your good enough. Or at least every couple of days.
When Athene has a 100% win rate with a deck he used from the lowest tier in ranked to number 1 tier, this Magic vs Hearthstone shouldn't be a thing. The game is unbalanced.
I haven't played MTG in at least a decade and I started playing Hearthstone in 2016: Magic just isn't good for digital play. Wizards should create a spinoff of Magic with modified rules to make it easy for mobile.
The main problem is that though they look similar they are very different games and intended from inception to be so. Magic is closer to game theory while hearthstone is closer to hello kitty island adventures. Both can be fun to play on their own merits but to say that they complete with each other any more than each competes with a really good FPS seems wrong to me. Changing magic to be more like hearthstone or any other game will cause it to fail, or at the very least not what it was intended to be. I know the subject is pretty deep but honestly blizzard simply did with hearthstone what it did with WOW. it took someone else's game, made it super flashy with lots of great hooks and dumbed it down so that nearly anyone can get in and play most of the content without much difficulty other than the obligatory time sink (grinding).
Don't aren't props to be used on a set. Other animals aren't toys to be dressed up and posed for your amusement, or tools for you to use as you please. Leave other animals alone. Humans have a serious lack of empathy when it comes to other animals. They're not mindless machines. Their emotions aren't muted. Human ego is disgusting. There are far too many animals in orphanages, many kill orphanages, some gas chamber orphanages, to justify breeding/buying from breeders. They're not property to be bought/sold. Adopt. They'll show you how full of love life is. Save their life, and they'll save yours. It's not euthanasia. It's not done for their benefit. It's murder. Imagine the outrage if humans who weren't being adopted were killed. It's no different for other animals. Other animals don't have "vets". They have doctors. Just like humans. There's no distinction. There'd be outrage if different humans had different doctors and terms depending on their race. It's no different for other animals. That's speciesism. People spend money on war rather than helping other animals. Medical care should be socialised, like humans have. Other animals don't belong in the entertainment industry. Not only is it extremely stressful for them, and wild animals are abused until they submit to human will, but how dare you deprive them of their life. Elephants that do tricks and give rides aren't happy. They do it out of fear of what happens if they refuse. Swimming with dolphins isn't a good activity. It's extremely stressful for them, and leads to them catching diseases. They're viewed as tools for profit, nothing else. Other apes, monkeys, and horses used on cards smiling because they're happy. Other apes and monkeys do what's called a "fear grimace", while horses smile in submission. They're not happy, they're abused. Experimenting on other animals is vile. How dare you cause such immense suffering and murder. You're birthing them to torture them. What a miserable existence. That constant, unending torture is unimaginable for most people. Fireworks and other explosions are horrible. Other animals, like cats, dogs, and birds, get absolutely terrified by fireworks. Causing such intense, unending fear is unjustifiable. Oreos and Doritos use #ConflictPalmOil, leading to extinction of countless species, such as orangutans. 25 orangutans are murdered every day for unsustainable palm oil production. www.ran.org/publications/conflict_palm_oil_the_human_cost_of_conflict_palm_oil/ Leather's disgusting. Other animals, especially cows, suffer tremendously for leather production. It's not just a by-product of the meat industry. www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/leather-is-more-than-a-by-product-of-the-meat-industry/ www.care2.com/causes/the-shocking-truth-about-leather-no-its-not-a-meat-byproduct.html amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/27/ethicalfashion.leather Fur and down are the result of immense torture and horrific murder. relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/08/wildlife-china-fur-farming-welfare www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fur-farms-animal-welfare-cruelty-cannibalism-mink-foxes-coat-jacket-a8647616.html?amp www.furfreealliance.com/severe-animal-cruelty-polish-fur-farms-revealed/ www.thedodo.com/amphtml/fur-farms-stop-the-cruelty-1527692086.html www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/here-are-the-innocent-faces-of-the-cruel-fur-industry/ www.onegreenplanet.org/news/top-brands-using-fur-from-monster-foxes/ Wool is a product of abuse, just like fur, angora, and mohair, not just in the East, but western nations like America, the UK, and Australia, too. www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-wool-jumper-is-just-as-cruel-as-a-mink-coat-9610133.html?amp Dogs and wolves don't have a strict hierarchy with an alpha. Treating them like they do is just cruel and confusing. io9.gizmodo.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629 Canada and Trudeau still let baby seals have their skulls smashed to bits with clubs. www.hsi.org/assets/pdfs/myths_and_facts_seal_hunt.pdf relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2017/04/wildlife-watch-canada-harp-seal-hunt www.thedodo.com/amphtml/canada-seal-hunt-2333758471.html m.ua-cam.com/video/XCYf9q9t9bo/v-deo.html Don't feed birds bread, or cats cows' milk or cheese. Bread has no nutritional value for birds, it just stops them from eating useful food, and cats are lactose intolerant. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1953493/Royal-Society-for-the-Protection-of-Birds-RSPB-says-to-ban-bread-as-bird-food.html www.sciencefocus.com/nature/why-cant-cats-drink-milk-plus-6-other-feline-myths/ pets.webmd.com/cats/ss/slideshow-foods-your-cat-should-never-eat Littering's disgusting. Other animals have to walk on that floor, and right next to your rubbish. They don't want to do that. Don't be a selfish cunt. Glitter, sequins, and microbeads don't decompose. They stay in the environment, and end up being swallowed by other animals. Everything humans do is by definition animalistic, because humans are animals. There's no distinction. It's specifically because you're an animal that you can be a human. Being an animal isn't an insult. It's awesome. It's what lets you be you. You can't own another living thing. They're not consumer goods to be bought and sold. They're not property. They're above monetary value. They're not toys for your amusement, or tools for you to use as you please. We're not their owners, we're their parents. Pet isn't an insult. That's horrible. A pet is an animal of another species, in your family, that you care for. They're your children, and brothers, and sisters, and cousins, not some ornament to have around for novelty, that you only pay attention to when you're bored. Species is irrelevant to family. Stone Cold Steve Austin, Shawn Michaels, Brock Lesnar, Goldust, and Ted DiBiase Jr. are abusers. Fishing and other hunting is murder. Other animals' lives aren't your playthings. Leave other animals alone. You wouldn't do it to humans, so don't do it to other animals. It's that simple. No one has the right to make fun of, or hurt, or abuse, or exploit, or murder, any other animal, for any reason. Do what is right, not what is easy. Humans are animals, and no more special than any other creature. #AnimalCruelty #AnimalAbuse #AnimalWelfare #AnimalRights #AdoptDontShop #OptToAdopt
I have to VERY strongly disagree on the set design. It's a bit un-fair that Emrakul is the only card you pulled up, when the rest of the revealed cards have (what I consider) much better mechanical theming. Effects like emerge, meld, and transformation are much more connected to the eldritch horror theme of things becoming twisted and horrible, while in hearthstone... well the cards buff c'thune. While hearthstone's main baddie might be more fearsome, magic's entire set has several times more flavor.
yes but it is true that magic in general put less effort in the set design and presentation than hearthstone does, I miss the good ol' days when we had some lore indications and stuff when you had a new set. I think magic should invest in side projects to devellop their universe, like games (not card games, actual action games), movies and/or series to create a myth around the card game and appeal to more people.
+Nyundaa so.. Ulamog turn five doesn't feel like a race?
+Nyundaa The truth is new emrakul is disapointing, as it is quite a lot worse than the original which if played against you GG. I tend to agree with most you said but I only feel intimidated by N'Zoth, C'Thun is usually slow and isnt all that great, I dont mind yogg cause he's cool and y'sharj isnt played (for a good reason)
Nyundaa that's true, but kithkin can beat emrakul
do you read magic fiction?
I have to say, that since the only way to play hearthstone is online, the player base is much more measurable.
Paper magic has a large sum of casual players who have never been to an official event in their lives (such as me).
Thus very unmeasurable.
Market research firms are generally good at estimating casual player numbers, I think you folk are included in the number :)
magic sayd to be having aorund 20million players worldwide... blizzards real cards couldnt hold any playerbase for long rofl.. shows wich one is the better game.. p.s ive never played magic or collected cards.. played some hearthstone in beta.. got tired of it really quickly... have palyed HS,duelyst,spellweaver,hex.. didnt like any of those..
currently fell in love with Eternal...
but this new mtg arena closed beta seems interesting, i think it's the only digital one from wotc wich actually doesn't look complete garbage...
i know it's about the gameplay.. but if there's literally 0 "oommph" when u play attack or play cards... it gets really booring at computer screen haha...
golden middleway is def Eternal
Eternal = MtG ruleset, HS aesthetics (but less cartoony/childish) , + Truely free to play. Very generous with getting cards and chests imho + the stream of Gold is linear/constant...
Hs is def pay 2 win.. my friend has apid like 1000€ on Hearthstone that's crazy... one flaw of digital tcg's imho is the non-existent lasting value, u never know when the game will be dead... unlilke real cards.. you can collect em just for the art sake :P
Love this comment I’ve never been to a tourney been playing for about 8 years now lol hearthstone is way more easily accessible that’s all it has on magic nothing else
You research makes high school book reports look like academic peer reviewed journals by comparison...
Nice Himouto sleeves :)
??? Does being a creeper authenticate your work, or make you look petty?
he is just being nice.
Don't be silly David, the internet is about insulting others and outrage. No-one is just "nice" pfffff :p
its youtube, dont like it, make a bwtter version of it including more info if you want. don't have to be rude about.
So it was good but in the set design, if you're going to use other cards with Hearthstone but not Magic I don't think its fair. Sure the card of Emrakul is not very spooky but her effects on the others cards is what is more scary. Seeing an 2 angles melded together in the name of Emrakul, that's creepy.
True ! big fail for GG :D
I think the new emrakul is very flavorful. It uses innistrad and its mechanics to be summoned, then when it comes, it corrupts all who oppose it.
I agree. I actually just unsubscribed from "GG" Degree. Bringing in outside games isn't what I signed up for. Love the ambition GG Degree but I think you screwed up with your change in content.
Also, the mindslaver effect is truely horrifying. It doesn't get much more scary in a card game than the idea of another person taking control of you.
I get chills when I see two _angles_ meld together.
Math is scary.
TL;DR = Hearthstone is dumbed down magic but people like it.
correct
u get 1 free internet cookie.
Yup because kids cant be bothered to build decks that make them think (now I realize that not all magic the gathering decks make you think, but I had to think harder with a mono red aggro in magic then I did with a wizardry deck in hearthstone. Thats some bull right there.)
***** In which way?
+Lenny deigdeig hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hearthstone actually requires more thought in many aspects, you have a limited amount of mana which requires more thought in terms of 'tempo' and playing 'on curve'. Hearthstone also has a limit of 30 cards per deck, which may seem as a simpler version of MTG's 60 card limit, however it makes the player think more about what cards are important for the deck they are building, while in magic you essentially have more room to work with.
I think the reason why Hearthstone is a lot more popular is because it's advertised a lot more and it's a lot easier to get access to it, you don't even need to go anywhere. It's also published by a popular gaming company, the creators of very popular games such as World of Warcraft and Overwatch. Everyone who plays these two games is going to see Heathstone in the Blizzards app (which you go to every time you run one of these games) and give it a try. This is basically how I got into hearthstone. I've heard of Hearthstone a lot before that, but I never actually played it. After a while of playing Overwatch and seeing the Hearthstone logo on the Blizzards app, I decided to give it a try since it was free (there's nothing to loose except a little bit of time). I enjoyed it and have spend a few hundred dollars on it.
I didn't enjoy Hearthstone as much as I do Magic. One thing I liked about Hearthstone is the mana system. But the overall game is simpler and there isn't as much strategy to it. I don't like the fact that you attack the player directly, and there are instants, so you can't play any cards during your opponents turn. There are secrets, but you can't choose when yo activate them, they automatically activate when an event happens. And since you have to play secrets first, you can't do bluffs and hold a card in your hand and making your opponent think you have a certain instant in order to make them play more cautiously. I also hate the fact that in Hearthstone you can only use certain cards with a certain hero.
I would like to compliment you on your deep analysis of each game, admitting the pros and cons to each game, and not letting your personal feelings interfere with your comparison of the two games (at least on a noticeable scale)
Thank you, much appreciated! :D
I disagree about the top-down set design being a problem with magic. Wizards has been nailing sets from a flavour/story/design perspective for years and years, with only a few misses. Pointing out one example in Magic doesn't just suddenly mean that Magic looses (and honestly, Emrakul is enormously flavourful when it comes to the story. How isn't this good top-down design?). Eldritch Moon wasn't about horror exactly - Wizards did that already in the first block Innistrad block. This was about corruption and madness with the dark horror thrown in. Honestly, the only bad top-down block I can really remember was RtR block. Great power, crappy story/flavour compared to everything else.
An important point I think you missed, is that at the end of turn in magic all creatures heal. (All damage is removed) but in HS, the damage sticks. So in HS you don't necessarily have to have enough damage to kill a creature in one turn, you may just have to soften it up for next turn. I just think it's a pretty different mechanic worth mentioning.
As a player of both games, I can 100% agree with what you are suggesting. Making a system more simplified to people in a game where the goal is competition is never a bad thing. MTG, in my experience, is clearly a better game when it comes to community experience. Anyone who has played Hearthstone knows that the "friend system" is really only used for the spectate quest and watching good irl friends play the game. In paper MTG the physical element allows for a much better system of gathering a making friends. Both companies can learn from each other. If Wizards would stop making their system of comparison (In a game about competition of course) like navigating the labyrinth, then it could open up many doors that were previously closed. Similarly, Blizzard could learn about community from MTG as the "Fireside Gathering" that it sponsors are not really sanctioned or advertised at all. If blizzard got some community managers in card stores some neat prizes, a set of guidelines for the general rules, and sanctioned shops to sell Blizzard Cards or even codes for packs (Something game stores could get into) then maybe the "Fireside Gathering" could be somethinf bigger and not something a few places do for fun.
if my lgs started doing fireside gatherings I would go every week to kick some ass, but how many people would actually go is the question? not only that, but running a hearthstone tournament is a little bit more difficult than mtg and stores might shy away from it because of the effort required to keep everything organized. but there's hope that blizzard thinks like the wizards and starts promoting fireside gatherings
Seriously? You can't compare Emrakul to a suite of cards and call that a fair comparison. Not to mention the concept of taking control of a player's turn is unbelievably Eldritch in flavor.
The more I think about whether you're right or wrong, the more I find it hard to compare to two games. The fact that Magic has 2 decades on Heathstone, alone makes them hard to compare.
Overall, I just think that Hearthstone is a much easier game to pick up and play, by both accessibility and pricepoint standards but MTG offers infinitely more options with deck building and gameplay.
I played Heartstone first and spent a decent amount of money on it but eventually got bored and quit.
I started playing Magic and I plan on playing it for a long time.
My main difference between the two games is that one you MUST spend money to acquire cards.... as where the other can be played by not spending a single penny.
So naturally in todays age, Hearthstone is going to do much better and have more people playing due to the fact that it is a free game.
Do you know why hearthstone has more registered than MTG? Its because not everyone in the fucking world has a game store around em. But everyone has atleast a pc/phone/ipad and its free to play too.
A few things about your points. First off, the google search thing. Many mtg players just call mtg "magic", so that should be included too if you'd want to determine the results properly. Of course, you can't include it, because you'd get way too many results that have nothing to do with mtg. However, you should have mentioned this, instead of just stating the results like they were proper anyway.
Then about the playerbase. Hearthstone's 50 million is inflated as hell. Those are registered accounts, not active accounts. I have 2 hearthstone accounts (while I don't play anymore), and I know people with up to 7 inactive accounts. I'd be surprised if even half of those 50 million are active, especially considering the fact that you can have multiple accounts.
Also, about the hero abilities, magic has its equivalent in many cards. There are loads of cards that have overpriced small effects so that you can utilize left-over mana.
Also, picking out eldritch moon for comparison and not picking shadows over innistrad with it is like ripping a book in half and then comparing the second half to another book.
Not to mention that Eldritch moon has madness and corruption as themes, with horror as a MINOR theme, while shadows over Innistrad had classic gothic horror as a theme.
Also, only comparing the big bads is honestly idiotic. Look at Brisela, voice of nightmares. Or the Writhing township. What about it that rides as one? If you wanted to specifically target the horror aspect of eldritch moon, then those would all have been better options (at least I think they're a lot spookier).
Not to mention that if you're gonna pick out Emrakul, then you should pick out the cards that form the rest of the story too. Like declaration in stone, coax from the blind eternities, descend upon the sinful and nahiri's machinations.
Also, the thing about "what if you're a new player and you don't know about mindslaver" is an absolutely ridiculous argument. The entire eldritch moon set features scores and scores of corrupted creatures, and there loads and loads of hints in the cards alone that Emrakul is the source of all the corruption. You don't need to know mindslaver to conclude that the mind control ability (as it almost literally states on the card "you control target player in his next turn") is due to Emrakul's corruption.
Eldritch moon is full of eldritch horror, but if you're gonna look at one card (and if you're go discount his improved delirium effect, his mind control effect that any idiot could see and his clearly eldritch art (which are all the themes that classic lovecraftian horror has by the way, madness, corruption and deep sea creatures)) and look at it badly, then of course you won't get a good result.
And really? You're not going to include cards that go alongside Emrakul, but you are going to include C'Thun's cult?
I could make a list of about 100 eldritch moon cards that fit alongside Emrakul (all the werewolves, abolisher of bloodlines, decimator of the provinces, especially the cards I've named previously in this comment, elder deep fiend, wretched gryff (especially when you compare it to normal gryff cards. the list goes on and on)).
I'm sorry but this section of your video is some of the most biased stuff I've seen in months.
The only thing hearthstone accomplishes with its eldritch horror set is to get some good synergy to go along with its legendary, besides that it hardly has any horror-worthy art and the lack of flavor text makes it almost impossible for the game to tell minor stories in the cards itself.
Lastly, while magic may have less of a competitive scene for the general playerbase, hearthstone's casual scene isn't all that great. Hell, the casual mode is pretty much completely useless, since it's full of the exact same meta decks ranked play has. Sure, you've got tavern brawl, but that repeats a bunch, not to mention that some of the brawls are just straight up really bad.
End of rant, I guess.
You are so right about everything here. I'd like to move your comment to the top.
Some points I'd like to bring up in defence of hearthstone, is that the idea of interacting with your opponents turn is somewhat a feature, while not available to all classes. You mentioned secrets, which make play order something extremely important. Also, buy allowing the defending play to decide what blocks, it prevents token decks from being able to just block giant threats over and over again.
Nice comparison video! Well thought out, lots of details. Stay FUNKY!
Will do :D
+GG Degree could you please do a Pokemon vs MTG please
Batman 772003
One day :)
+GG Degree cheers
4:57 Just a correction here: MTG decks are not 60 cards since roughly the 40% of them are lands which leaves approximatelly 24 actual cards in the deck unless the owner puts 30 cards, thus reducing the amount of lands, which will lead to him, getting mana screw much more often.
For me, I guess it comes down to the lack of physical objects to collect and hold and my dislike of the cartoonish, WOW artwork. MTG looks fantastic, esoteric, and cryptic. Hearthstone looks like a kids game.
2 years later and Magic Arena is now a thing! It's still in beta as of now but everyone in the beta was given 5 keys to give to friends (that was a couple of weeks ago).. Let's see how far this goes
I was thinking about this same thing the other day. The thought that stood out for me, was that most HS players would go straight into Green or Red because of their creature similarities to most in HS. By that I mean, either a large stat line, or cheap and fast.
I seriously enjoy this video! as a player of both you addressed the pros and cons of each. As kind of a philosophical thinker myself, I think in 10 years a better comparison will be made. Is Chess or Go the better game? Perhaps a concrete "yes" or "no" isn't easy to ascertain due to cultural differences. The reason that the Hearthstone v magic comes up so much here on the internets and in my town is that the player base of both games have a very similar culture.
I still remember the days, where you had like 200-500 views per video. :O
Holy hell, you grew a lot! Good job! :)
Thanks :D
Hearthstone is just like every other blizzard game made. They are casual friendly games that are easy to pick up and play, but ultimately they lack complexity.
Hearthstone reignited my interest in card games but i stopped playing for magic and other more complex card games.
If you take a bell-curve on complexity vs popularity magic is somewhere on the far right and hearthstone is somewhere on the left of the curve, where being on the left its more popular than complex and vise versa
Lacks complexity? Broodwar and Starcraft 2 says hello.
Try wow arena or overwatch. Both of them will drive you crazy.
[Magic] Creates a mechanic where you need to reveal a dragon from your hand for bonus effects.
[Hearthstone] Creates a mechanic where cards get bonus effects when you're holding a dragon.
[Magic] Does Clash, where the costs of two top cards from each deck are compared (done it 7 years ago)(also, it was considered a failure).
[Hearthstone] Does a mechanic, where the costs of two random minion cards from each deck are compared (also a failure).
[Magic] Does Eldritch Horror.
[Hearthstone] Does Eldritch Horror.
[Magic] Has Ponder, Divination and Lightning Bolt.
[Hearthstone] Has Tracking, Arcane Intellect and... Lightning Bolt.
y only mention 1 card from mtg yet use multiple cards form hearthstone? seems baised
Well... He is a MTG channel, so I guess he wanted to appear unbiased and went over the top with it, so that now he appears to be biased against MTG. :D
Also, in hearthstone, even for Nzoth cards never leave the grave. The old cards stay in the list of dead minions and when the new versions die, they are added again.
That Emrakul to Cathun comparison feels a bit unfair. Emerakuls set is filled with cards that transform into eldritch horrors as well as eldrazi to ramp you so you can cast emrakul. Emerakuls influence slowly takes warps your board and when she arrives, even your opponent falls under the control of emerakul.
i think if depends on what you want from the game. if you want a quick, easy and fun game then i'd say hearthstone is great but if you want to get really deep into the game and start dedicating money and time into it then magic wins hands down , its been around too long to not have a serious community and a great history
I have a number of issues on how many of your comparisons were done, and this is from the perspective of someone who has played both games (though I rarely play Hearthstone anymore).
1. with the google search results, any result that comes up for the full name of hearthstone, will also come up when you search just hearthstone, the same is not true for MTG and magic the gathering, while there will be a large amount of overlap, it will not be 100% of one going into the other.
2. Hasbro is not the only one making money off of MTG, because the cards are able to be traded and sold, many other third-party sellers also make profits off of Magic. Hasbro also sees 0% of the money from singles sales (ok, maybe a little from the booster it was cracked from, but many get sold around so much for large amounts that it boils down to very little).
3. You compared the big baddies of the sets, but only included the supporting cast for one of the games, sure, Emrakul's minions don't directly help her, but Eldrazi are scary ass creatures.
4. Playerbase: sure Hearthstone has a large number of registered accounts, but who knows how many of those are active, and finding numbers for a physical card game can be difficult because there are a decent number of people who have never competed in any form of official tournament and only do kitchen table play.
Mtg is more complex, everything Hearthstone does Magic does better
MTGO is shit tho
@@johnnys.3465 arenas good though
As a player of both games I agree with your assessment, but you didn't mention the biggest pro HS has when compared to MTG, and that is that HS can be played completely for free.
As a relative beginner to both games, Hearthstone is so, SO much better. Magic's mechanics are complicated at every turn, cards are expensive, and I never feel satisfied after a win or loss because I feel like the player who collects better cards always wins in Magic. In Hearthstone, you can see WHY you win or lose; the game mechanics are simple enough a noob can watch pros playing online and understand what makes their combos so powerful. Watching professional Magic games is just a blur of dumping mana cards on a table and clearing the field of monsters. Some players want complexity, some players want simplicity and transparency. The numbers don't lie: more players prefer Hearthstone in two years than Magic has accumulated in over twenty.
Hearthstone is the sesame street of trading card games while Magic is the antiques roadshow. It really comes down to player investment and how far you are going to dig into each title to get something out of it.
I don't know, Emrakul has a lot of eldritch flavor to it. The ability she has of invading the mind of the player and forcing them to do your bidding is very much in theme, especially if you chain combo it like you can in Edh and take the opponent's turns until you effectively burn them into the ground and destroy their allies and other players in the process. Granted it's not a simple process but it's very much doable, especially with pro-instants.
Emrakul taking over the opponent's mind struck me as EXTREMELY flavorful - it feels strange to hear it described as "random mechanics"
Yes, because controlling a player's turn (Essentially mind control) is only eldritch if you know of the card Mindslaver? I didn't quite understand that line.
Your analysis for search results is wrong for Hearthstone, as the exact terms overlap. that means Hearthstone has 33 million hits while Magic had no overlap in search terms, so you are MILLIONS of hits off for Magic. Also, Hearthstone uses psychologically addictive and clearly cheaper to produce products when compared to Magic, so pure profit margin is not a good comparison. You can't effectively compare the profit margins of a free-to-play a video game that generates ad revenue to a physical card game.
there is a problem in the stas, people registered in Heartstone is not the same has active player if we are counting the number of accounts in HS then we should see the number of DCI's + casual players
I find it odd that you didn't even mention the fact that Hearthstone is completely free to play, with purchasing card packs being completely optional. I would consider that the main reason Hearthstone got so big so fast. If Hearthstone came with an initial cost and you had to buy packs with no possibility of getting them with in game currency, the game would be nowhere near as large as it is.
3:50 However, one may argue that Magic have had many more players that have just stopped playing after a while, while Hearthstone have not been around for so long that many people would stop playing yet. It may just be me being nitpicky and it may not even matter, but I think it is worth to consider at least
This was really well done.
I think MTG could benefit from a dual-deck system. You go into a match with two decks that total to at least 60 cards between them. Newer players would probably put all their spells in one deck and all their lands in another, which is a good and valid strategy. More experienced players would more likely divide the decks in a more tactical manner depending on what deck they're playing: Small/large cards, reactive/proactive cards, etc. Then you would have more dual-color decks because you could put all swamps in proactive and all islands in reactive, for example.
first of all magic is KING of top down design! you can compare a set the has a few cards spoiled to a set that has been out and playable for weeks! if we compare original Innistrad to this new set from harthstone it's not even close. also there is an immeasurable amount of MTG players that are not active tournament players or aren't a member of the DCI so the player base is a difficult thing to compare as well. although MTG is struggling on the digital front I think it has more to do with cost than UI hearthstone is FREE that is huge when you compare the two. you cant even get a mtgo account without dropping 10 bucks!
Dante Rodrigues but now we got MTGA which will be free to play.
I couldn't agree more.
Yet...
The biggest problem with Magic is availability.
There is just no way for a new player to enter a competetive stage for Legacy, Vintage or Modern cost effectively. Even standard can be very expensive at times. Looking at you Jace, looking at you.
And sometimes it's just impossible to find the cards at all.
But what's the point of complaining without offering a solution:
Hearthstone solves this problem perfectly by allowing the players to request "reprints" of the cards they need, but at a high exchange rate.
If Wizards allowed players to request card reprints at their local game store with exchange rates similar to hearthstone, x amount of commons traded in for y amount of common reprints, z amount of uncommons etc, where the traded in cards are sent for sanctioned destruction and the players then got their requested reprints with a special set symbol that signifies that it's a reprint, for a small handling fee, that would both increase availability for players and it would increase sales of boosters since every card in the booster pack have a minimum useful value regardless.
The store collects all the cards each month or so, sends them in for burning at a Wizards sanctioned card burning facility where they can be sure nobody gets to them. Wizard sends out the reprints to the store along with other product that the store gets anyways.
Everybody wins.
Players get availability.
Wizard gets more sales.
Collectors are not devalued since the reprints are specifically marked as such and will never become valuable for a collector, only the originals will. It will also be a status symbol to have a deck with no reprints to play with.
It won't "save magic" by itself but it would be a big step towards making the game more available and thus more popular.
It's a great game, I want to play it, but I don't have a way to get the cards I want without paying a ton of bucks.
Rather spend that money on other stuff that keeps me entertained for longer.
the pay-to-win aspect of magic is monstrous. it doesn't matter how good you are if you don't have the bankroll, and if you want to get really serious you'd best be prepared to sell your firstborn.
this is why i prefer the non-trading card games; you can't buy a power advantage so everyone is on even footing.
Daemonworks I get what you mean with pay to win. But I would call it more pay to play rather than pay to win. At least the money that you give to Wizards.
I'm fine with that though, as long as it's affordable and I have some guarantee of what I get somehow (which I currently don't have).
The problem is that I'm having to pay thousands of dollars to some bloodsucker in the second hand market that's holding on to the cards that I need in order to play the game.
If it worked similar to hearthstone, then it could very well be affordable. And I would pay the company, hopefully improving their product, instead of paying bloodsuckers and none of that money goes into the production of the game. And I would have a guaranteed way of getting the cards I need. Trading would still exist and may very well be cheaper than getting a reprint. But it would be capped in price from a player's point of view and bloodsucking would be left to the collectors.
And well.. that's why I'm doing like you and am not playing Magic, even though I'd very much like to.
Sadly Magic isn't about the game, it's about the wallet. And I wish it was about the game.
+Miku Chan er... all tabletop card games are pay to play. somebody has to buy the game.
the problem is that MTG (and other games to varying extents) allow people with more real-world money to purchase an advantage over others without the resources to do so. the ccg model is entirely based around doing just that.
any game in which a player's strength is determined by his bankroll is flatly unfair.
a fair game has it's players starting on an even footing relating to outside influences. two people sit down to chess, go, poker, dominion or whatever and rich or poor, the only things that determine victory are personal skill and maybe some rng.
Daemonworks Nah, they're buy to play most of the time. CCGs would be pay to play as they need continuous investment. And it's not really buy to win since you can't buy an advantage from Wizards. You can't pay Wizards 1000 bucks for a black lotus. You can only buy your boosters, like everyone else.
You have to go to the second hand market for "pay to win" and then you're doing business outside of what Wizards has control over and the money does not go to Wizards.
All you can buy from Wizards is random product. Sure, the more you buy, the more likely you are to get something good. It is technically pay to win, since you need the cards to be able to win, sure, but it's not that bad. Or at least it wouldn't be that bad if you could trade with the company and guarantee that every x cards you get could become any one card of your choosing.
Wizards themselves are entirely fair in their product though. You can't pay more to get a booster with only mythics, only available to premium subscribers. You can only pay on the same level as anyone else to receive the same product as anyone else.
And once you have the same deck as the opponent, there is nothing you can do with your wallet to win that match. In that sense, there's no pay to win. In drafts or sealed games, there's no pay to win at all. There you can't do anthing with your wallet at all other than entering the game.
That's why I'm reluctant to call it pay to win. I'd rather say pay to play.
The only thing you're paying for is inventory, which you will have permanently until traded away. Once you have the inventory, the only things that matters are, as you say, personal skill and some rng. This goes for any game. You need the inventory to win. It's just that MTG is more of a subscription-based inventory rather than a one-time payment. However the problem is that the inventory costs way too much to get because of poor business practices that don't benefit the company that does them.
If the inventory was cheaper and more accessible, it would be all fine.
You'd have a good point, if Magic was as complex as Hearthstone is. But that's not true. A magic player with an inferior deck can still have a higher win percentage than a player with an expensive deck, just because of skill. Not to mention that there are loads of formats with pretty low entry-costs.
The problem with hearthstone is that skill plays less of a factor, due to the lower complexity. Yeah, skill still matters, but to a much lesser extent. This is why, in my opinion, Hearthstone is more pay to win than magic, since a deck with the right epics and legendaries is just way better than a deck that tries to do the same stuff without those cards, and because skill matters less it's way harder for the player with the cheap deck to make a difference.
I remember when I still played hearthstone, I went up against my friend using my control warrior deck (I had a bunch of legendaries from buying a bunch of packs that worked well in control warrior), and I beat him 6/6 times, and he even switched decks multiple times. He had no legendaries, but I play magic with him as well, and I can tell you that he's definitely not much worse than me at TCG's.
Getting rid of Pro Points for Planeswalker Points is a great idea! As long as you keep the benefits and things like Silver-Platinum Pro levels there would be no downside!
I think the biggest difference is that HS is merely a game which exists solely in 'cyber space'. It's not a 'card game' in its essential form. It is a piece of gaming software. Unlike MTG which can be played outside of the internet or even a computer access and is a real CARD GAME.
Magic is a better game. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. However, Magic is way too expensive. Standard is supposed to be the most accessible constructed format for new players. FNM is the event designed for those new players. Printing blatantly overpowered mythic rares allows retailers to spike these cards in price to a nonsense amount of money that no one can afford. Why do I have to have a $300 tier 1 competitive standard deck to win a few booster packs at FNM each week?
"Playing against a C'thun deck, it's a scramble to remove these cards and win before C'thun hits the battlefield."
This is essentially exactly the case with Emrakul as well. I'm sure I don't need to explain this to you, given that this is a MTG channel, but watch Pro Tour Eldritch Moon (or really any online footage of play against Emrakul decks) and you will see this is the case. It is a scramble to gain card advantage and deliver lethal damage to your opponent before they can summon Emrakul, which in most cases will inevitably end the game in a few turns (sometimes one). I played Hearthstone for a while and enjoyed it for what it is, but I feel like this video seems to willfully misrepresent the ways that Hearthstone is "better" when some of the arguments used are illustrative of how they are more similar than different.
And as far as flavor is concerned, I respect your opinion that Hearthstone did it better but I don't understand how anyone could look at the name "C'thun" and think for one second that it is more creative or original design than Emrakul. It's literally taken directly from Lovecraft's C'thulhu, as is the name Old Gods which comes from Lovecraft's Old Ones (...who were also known as Outer Gods. See what they did there?). Like most everything Blizzard does these days, it reads like a tired pop culture reference coming from people too lazy to create their own mythologies. At least WotC were imaginative enough to use Lovecraft purely as inspiration when designing the Eldrazi. Sure, the source is obvious in both cases, but I'll take inspiration over imitation any day. Just put a tiny bit of effort in next time, won't you Blizzard?
As a final bit of conjecture, I don't know the exact timelines for when each of these expansions went into R&D, but given Blizzard's track record as shameless IP copycats (Games Workshop says hello) I wouldn't be at all surprised if the impetus behind Whispers of The Old Gods was to rip off WotC's design with Shadows Over Innistrad in an effort to "me too!" and reduce the flavor advantage that Magic would have otherwise had during this time period.
Overall, I think this video was correct in how it outlines the differences between the two games, and I do appreciate and enjoy this channel, but due to the concerns raised above I have regretfully rated this video a thumbs down.
the rating system that they used to have sounds like what fits what you are talking about comparing players.
4 + years later and Magic the Gathering's search results have quintupled. Hearthstone's search results have stagnated if not gone down...
Hearthstone is to Magic as Dumbledore is to Gandalf. "Because Magic, Harry, because magic..."
Emrakul the promised end fits perfectly in flavor. Her main thing is that she can take over your body and mind permanently if you aren't protected and then will morph you into a hideous eldrazi. This is how she takes your turn.
It is my understanding, that Magic uses the ELO System, so a "progression" can be found. Just like in chess (which uses the Elo System as well) one can look up his current points and compare where he or she stands.
That being said, in all my years of reading about magic and it's top players, never have I stumbeled upon their Elo-Rating, whereas in chess, one can easily identify a good, or top player.
They've done away with the ELO rating years ago and replaced it with planeswalker points.
casual play is the keyword here
i dont got time for 40 min game when i'm waiting at the doctor office or in class
hearthstone is also very easy to get into, reading the card text on mtg alone and understanding it can take me around 20 minutes if not maybe more.
but i do love mtg, its a very complex and deep game.
Watching this in 2019 thinking someone from WOTC saw this and took notes...now we have Arena!
Planeswalker points is still a flawed system because it will essentially say that the person who has played the most is the best. If you are a new player and consistently beat someone with much more points than you, then that says that you are a better player, but the planeswalker points do not
I believe hearthstone is way easier to get into as well. It's very fun but I prefer magic because it is way more complex and the social involvement it requires to play it. I love seeing and talking to my opponent.
I would also like to add how much more content MTG has over hearthstone. Hearthstone has 1/12 of the number of unique cards. Additionally, Hearthstone has seen 3 expansions since its 2014 release. In those 2 years MTG would release 8, one every 3 months. This means new MTG content comes out with higher frequency
There is a thing that you should've thought a bit better, comparing Whispers of the old gods, a fully released set with all it's cards and interactions already known with Eldrich moon, a set still being spoiled to the community and that lacks a massive amount of info is kind of a bad idea, just cause both use "eldrich horrors" as a theme doesn't mean the comparison works, MTG uses a very large portion of the set to build around key cards, like how everything is now twisted and literally insane since Emrakul appeared, she morphed the plane from a hellish world to a literal nightmare with her presence, you can see her influence in the set by looking at the cards around her, her card alone is a good point to it, she has the power to control your opponent, arguably it doesn't sound so bad, but, when you're in a game like magic, where a single turn missed can lose you the game, the idea of having your opponent drop a massive creature to take over your turn and use all your best spells against you, and you only get 1 extra draw and turn before that beast comes your way, it's terrifying to a player, so, mechanically, C'thun seems a bit stronger, with his cult theme, but lore wise, Emrakul is a much more terrifying thing both in the way her concept warped her setting and in her in game mechanics, since there's VERY few ways to kill a 13/13 unless you play black mana :P
If you want to bring up the cult of C'thun, but not even touch cards spoiled in Eldrich Moon like Brusela, or Chittering Host, or the Gavony monster. That's absolutely unfair, especially when cards like Brusela REALLY show off the eldrich horror of the set.
magic costs you as much as an cocain addiction and the online versions are terrible. that is the only reason why i play hearthstone
Magic Duels is much better imo. It's free too.
+ravenwda007 it would be much better if everypack we buy come with digital code just like pokemon. this will allow us to play both has many card in physical and digital format
hanif halim
Theres just one problem. The game is free so you'll be getting booster packs for free. Wizards doesn't want that.
But can you make money from Hearthstone? Without the professional circuit?
Magic duels lit
Mindslaver is pretty terrifying. What's fundamentally more scary? I'm gonna hit you with damage or I'm about to take your turn for you.
"Over 50 million players world wide* yeah, that's under the total amount of HEARTH STONE players worldwide since it was stated in the article *50 million registered players*, that's under the total number of people playing magic of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if more people played magic, the reason a monster that takes damage heals if it doesnt die is to make it more challenging without babying you at first, the graveyard helps players by putting cards in your deck that could be summond back for a while, if you have a planeswalkers deck, you have the same kind of spells in hearth stone, sort of, with Emrakul it cost one less mana to cost with each different type of card in your graveyard, meaning it could well get down to only 5 mana cost to summon and thee gaining control part of his ability means that the turn your opponent has after you summon him you control his axtions to hurt him or otherwise, then he has a turn to control himself, but hey, that's just my thing, good vid m8.
Failed to comment on the major thing Magic has over Hearthstone. Value. The ability to buy, sell, trade your cards to other players. Where Hearthstone, you are restricted to spending money hoping to get what you want, if you dont, you spend an ungodly amount of dust. You get a quarter of its value when you dust the cards, where you can sell a Magic card for $25+ to either buy more packs, or more singles. Blizzard's way is 100% money profit, where Magic is controlled by a secondary market.
Magic used to have 20 millions players, but now only 2 millions left.
In regards to the numbers of hearthstone I would compare it to games like clash of clans where it gains a massive following for a little bit and it falls a little bit
It's funny that you mentioned top down design because the original innistrad block was one of the best flavor wise and very fun to draft. seeing how magic is also a paper game it probably has a greater amount of players that can't be measured. if haspro was willing to invest money into MTGO online I think it could explode like hearthstone.
hearthstone is not a bad game but it just doesnt keep me interested for long because you have so many random cards like: summon random moster with 4,get random monster into your hand,random dmg to a monster,copy random cards etc etc. If you play hearthstone you know what im talking about
A nice video but you missed a great point in that you compared a single card, Emrakul, from a set not yet fully spoiled to multiple cards from a set that is well known. For a fair comparison you should compare "Emrakul" to only "C'thun" or "Eldritch Moon" to "Whispers of the old gods".
Good video, but the google search thing is even more flawed than normally using google search results as anything that says "hearthstone: heros of warcraft" is counted twice, and there are many articles that just say magic
Haven't played much Hearthstone, but I gotta say, that C'thun design does sound really terrifying in a good way. That said, with Eldritch Moon spoilers not even finished yet, I'd say it's premature and unfair to say that WotC is failing at top-down design in that set.
note hearthstone is online making rankings much easier. If hearthstone was paper would not have that kind of ladder ranking. Magic can not change right now as its been established for a while you cant but ladder rankings in a paper game it dosnt work blowing one of your points away you need to consider them from the same angle.
I thought that this video was going to be about, literally, Hearthstone vs. Magic. As in, one player taps lands for mana, and the other player uses mana crystals. That kind of thing.
When hearthstone sticks around 25 years, then it can be a contender
I began playing Hearthstone after Modern Masters 2015 was launched.
Only one problem, how do you get the number of magic players, for hearthstone it's easy. How can you get to 20 million? I mean, nobody counted me at least :))))) do they register the DCI numbers? Beacuse i am sure that there are many more players than are DCIs plus the fact that in hearthstone many players have a secound account on another region or with another set of cards, All in all, i think magic has more than 20 million players, and i am very suspicious about how they came out with that number, but hey, it's just me
BlyatGaming01 i was playing for years before i got a dci card and so have some of my friends. i guarantee that a huge number of players unaccounted for
I've tried hearthstone. I like the idea of how cards are restricted by turns instead of resources but the cards themselves are kind of boring and they don't have a physical card game. Beyond that I don't think hearthstone is a bad game it's just not my thing.
Interesting but in practise, MTG is a physical TCG / HS a digital card game. If WotC wanted to compete directly with HS, they would go with a new digital game base on MTG universe. But they don't have software industry resources (MTGO is a bad joke). That's why they try some projects like PS Duel or now the little game with PuzzleQuest. In few years, you will see a new digital game, Magic : The Digital Gathering, but they're so slow... Hasbro / WotC needs some kicks.
Yeah, Hearthstone definitely wins fluff-wise. Just ignore all those tiny hints on possible Emrakul's presence which you could find on some cards from SOI (Thraben Inspector, Incorrible Youth, Grotesque Mutation, Ashmouth Stallion etc) and horrors happening with Innistrad's inhabitants like humans melding with animals, creatures mutating into tentacled monstrosities and people fusing together with the very town they live in.
I have to disagree with you about the new Emrakul, since it sounded (to me, at least) like you were biased towads Hearthstone in that section. The horror is there - you are always waiting in fear for of Emrakul being cast, and you try to finish the deal before the graveyard is full. Each type in the graveyard makes you feel the horror closing in on you, and you know that when she is cast, something terrible is going to happen. To me it just seems like C'thun's growing strength is similar to Emrakul's cost reduction, but other than that C'thun doesn't offer anything for the horror theme while Emrakul gives you another turn, but as your opponent, which makes them even more fearful of Emrakul. Also, 13/13 for *13*, with "Flample" and pro instants, which is super big, kills in 2 hits, and is one of the biggest creatures in the whole game.
I think you should have included the transforming eldrazi for the elements of emarkuls horror.
Magic is great, both from a casual and competitive standpoint. There's just something magical about playing cards like Yogg that you simply cannot do in Magic! Both are good games, but I have to give the edge to Magic. The complexity, sheer number of possible interactions, varied formats and the nature of a face-to-face card game are all great. I would also posit that skill is a greater factor in deciding games, due to the complexity and comparative lack of random effects.
I have had quite a bit of success playing both games, and while I had played Yugioh at a very high level for years before playing Magic, it was still difficult to get as good as I have. That is a positive aspect in my opinion, as the game rewards greater player involvement. If you want to play casually, it may be a different experience for you. I like to master difficult to play decks- usually value decks, control decks and combo decks like Bloom (RIP) and 4c Gifts Ungiven. Compared to these decks, the hardest ones in Hearthstone are quite straightforward, and the only deck I have yet to master is probably patron warrior, although I am close.
Costwise hearth is cheaper at a competitive level, but mtg has the advantage of a market on which you can exchange cards to potentially recoup some of the costs of playing, or if you are lucky, make a return on investment.
Both games are awesome, don't get me wrong. These are just my observations. Whatever you do, enjoy it and play how you want to.
If you don't think, that 'mrakul including her abilities is like the perfect fit to the set, I am afraid that you should consider changing your channelname to hearthstone degree
I agree with many points you make, and ESPECIALLY of the planeswalker points idea. However, I do disagree with the idea of set design. You simply cannot look at each set by it's "chase rare". If you look at shadows over innistrad, or even OG innistrad, you can see that the entire set is based around horror / lovecraftian horror. That being said, I still think hearthstone does this better in half of their sets, the adventure ones. For those unaware, you can buy an adventure in hearthstone that will put you through a set of expertly crafted and fun PvE challenges that reward you with cards if you beat them. They have all been things the community has loved because of how the game itself immerses you in the world they put together in the sets. People might say that these are just money grabbing tactics, but I would disagree. For it to be a simple tactic, that implys that they do not deliever on the product they are selling. Blizzard however have many years of imersive story telling experiences, and it is to no ones surprise that they put these to good use. Magic has tryed doing something like this at prereleases, but if your lgss are anything like mine, they say "You can do all these achievement stuff if you want, but here, just take the free pack". In which basically destroys the immersiveness they try to put out.
TLDR: Good video! Disagree on set design point, but do think hearthstone does it better through emersive story telling in adventures.
I find it frustrating that you dismiss the eldritch horror of shadows over innistrad in such a nonchalant manner. Firstly, the "control your opponent" effect on emrakul is just as clearly a good ability to a new player who has never seen mindslaver before as it is to tournament veterans. Also, where hearthstone forces you to play a deck built around C'thun to get the eldritch horror in your games, magic has the same thematic aspects spread out across multiple strategies, giving flavour that is much more universally present.
If tentacle werewolves are terrifying idk what is. C'thun isn't the product of the terror and the end result. Emrakul is the source of the terror and causes all these other monstrous horrors. So feel the fear of what Emrakul means one must look into the lore and the other cards to truly understand what Emrakul is. To compare these two cards is to two different things with different goals.
I feel like you could've gone more in-depth on the "better game(play)" segment.
Don't get me wrong, as I'm neither a diehard Magic or Hearthstone fan; but does a more complex game necessarily make it a *better* game? I'd love to see a video elaborating your analysis on the subject.
Good review, but I don't think it is a fair comparison since Hearthstone is digital and playable whenever you want, unlike paper magic. Also, Hearthstone is free to start, MTG is not (not including welcome packs).
In my opinion magic is a much better game than hearthstone mainly for the reason of how random hearthstone is, yes magic has an element of random chance to it that hearthstone doesn't which is how many lands you play rather than just gaining 1 mana crystal per turn but in my opinion this makes deck consrustion even more interesting as you have to decide the correct land to spell ratio to consistantlydraw both your spells and the correct amount of land to play them. But hearthstone has cards that are entirely random for example, cabalists tome which gives you 3 random spells from the mage class, sure this isn't that extreme but when we go to the other spectrum with yogg saron which casts a random spell with random targets for each spelled played that game its a bit ridiculous, especially when a very large amount of cards have some sort of random effect. In my opinion I would prefer losing a game of magic where my opponent top decks a board wipe because that is something that even though it could have been a low chance isn't as bad as losing to a card that gives you a random creature that happens to be a perfect counter to what is currently happenning on board, it just feals like so much more of hearthstone is left to blind chance
As a person who plays both games casually I think a lot if comments on this video are very one sided. Side note: people complaining about only compareing one card from MTG In set catagory, firstly he compared most important cards in the sets theme ,secondly he compared one card from both sets so it was fair. Thank you for readying my rant! :)
Ummm no he compared a bunch of cthun cult cards. He should have also shown Brisela and a bunch of eldrazi flip cards
Those cards actually mechanically work with C'thun. The angels and eldrazi do not synergize with Emrakul on the basis of mechanics. The tie between them is just art, names, and flavor text.
thank you GG degree for telling him stuff i should tell him myself.
Your da best!!
This is the video I've been waiting to see!
I started playing Magic about two years ago and wanted to play online since it's hard for me to find time to get to a local game store. But I'm a Mac owner so I couldn't get MTGO without either buying a new computer or buying Windows and Parallels to run MTGO on a Mac. I decided to check out Hearthstone, but I did not find it of interest. The silly noises and animations on the screen turned me off as it seemed made for kids, and I found the game play kinda slow. Yes, I wasn't as familiar with Hearthstone as I am Magic and I probably did not spend enough time truly learning how the game works, but I didn't like it much from what I saw and ultimately ended up buying a cheap PC laptop so I can play MTGO.
With that said, I am still mind blown that Hasbro/Wizards is not working to make their digital Magic product better and also make it compatible with all platforms. That is just silly in this day and age. The Magic Duels app works quite well and provides a good intro for learning how to play Magic, but it's like playing limited. I'd really like to see Hasbro/Wizards make MTGO more like Magic Duels but with all the cards and resources available in MTGO. Yeah, it will take a lot of money and time to redesign their online product, but you'd think by seeing the success of Hearthstone that they'd want to get on board by offering a better online Magic experience for all players. It's pathetic that Hasbro/Wizards doesn't seem interested in doing this.
Anyway, thanks for the video. It helps to confirm that my feelings on Hearthstone game play were mostly accurate and that, at least for me, I made the right choice by going with MTGO even though I had to buy a separate computer to play it (thanks for that, Wizards! Sheesh!).
Uhm, you cannot judge heartstone as the stronger brand based on number of players. First of all, those numbers count the total accounts made, not the total accounts actively playing unless I am mistaken.
Secondly, being free to play means that anyone of any age with access to a computer can make an account. Accesability is a big factor here, especially when you consider that it can be played on your phone, whereas card magic requires you to have access to real life opponents in order to play, and you always need to invest some amount of money into it. There is no doubt that, as a digital free game, heartstone is way easier to access, but that does not neccesarily translate to the players being subsequentely active, or the strenght of the brand as such, which is a lot harder to measure.
Also; WOOOOW! You really failed flavour class didnt you?
Emrakul links into the delirium mechanic, which means that the more insane you go, the closer emrakul comes, and when she comes, you become a slave to her will as she drives you into crazy and irrational actions damaging yourself.
In addition, you look into the cards supporting C'thun, but fail to do the same for emrakul, ignoring completely the set around it.
Also, seriously? You are saying that people mutating into unspeakable horrors or being melded with other creatures, or going insane, or taking control of your actions and making you question reality, is LESS eldricht horror than a bunch of dudes chanting to a god which simply comes down as a big dumb beater than does damage and not even drives the others crazy? You really have no clue about horror and are just artificially trying to make heartstone win arent you?
It's really difficult to compare these games, as a lot of it amounts to preference. If you despise missing land drops or land flooding, you may feel like Hearthstone is a breath of fresh air and don't find yourself getting frustrated for that reason. But of course, the reverse is true too. Basically, you take a player and ask them what are their top 3 pet peeves in a card game, and they will probably like the game that features less or none of these problems more, even if that game has problems - at least they decided that they can live with them. Neither game is perfect. As far as I am concerned, it's kind of a joke question seeing as even professional players have only slightly better win rates than just flipping a coin in either game - the whole point is just moot.
I couldn't get into magic bc I had no one to play with or alot of money for basic cards.
Hearthstone solved both problems!
I could play against anyone in the world online and you can earn a pack of cards everyday if your good enough. Or at least every couple of days.
When Athene has a 100% win rate with a deck he used from the lowest tier in ranked to number 1 tier, this Magic vs Hearthstone shouldn't be a thing. The game is unbalanced.
I haven't played MTG in at least a decade and I started playing Hearthstone in 2016: Magic just isn't good for digital play. Wizards should create a spinoff of Magic with modified rules to make it easy for mobile.
Magic vs Duel Masters please
Hey Deadpool??
Are you on Amino?
Mtg Snapcast maybe no?
Why compare. They're both made by the same company .
WTF xDDD
The main problem is that though they look similar they are very different games and intended from inception to be so. Magic is closer to game theory while hearthstone is closer to hello kitty island adventures. Both can be fun to play on their own merits but to say that they complete with each other any more than each competes with a really good FPS seems wrong to me. Changing magic to be more like hearthstone or any other game will cause it to fail, or at the very least not what it was intended to be. I know the subject is pretty deep but honestly blizzard simply did with hearthstone what it did with WOW. it took someone else's game, made it super flashy with lots of great hooks and dumbed it down so that nearly anyone can get in and play most of the content without much difficulty other than the obligatory time sink (grinding).
Don't aren't props to be used on a set. Other animals aren't toys to be dressed up and posed for your amusement, or tools for you to use as you please. Leave other animals alone. Humans have a serious lack of empathy when it comes to other animals. They're not mindless machines. Their emotions aren't muted. Human ego is disgusting.
There are far too many animals in orphanages, many kill orphanages, some gas chamber orphanages, to justify breeding/buying from breeders. They're not property to be bought/sold. Adopt. They'll show you how full of love life is. Save their life, and they'll save yours.
It's not euthanasia. It's not done for their benefit. It's murder. Imagine the outrage if humans who weren't being adopted were killed. It's no different for other animals.
Other animals don't have "vets". They have doctors. Just like humans. There's no distinction. There'd be outrage if different humans had different doctors and terms depending on their race. It's no different for other animals. That's speciesism.
People spend money on war rather than helping other animals. Medical care should be socialised, like humans have.
Other animals don't belong in the entertainment industry. Not only is it extremely stressful for them, and wild animals are abused until they submit to human will, but how dare you deprive them of their life. Elephants that do tricks and give rides aren't happy. They do it out of fear of what happens if they refuse. Swimming with dolphins isn't a good activity. It's extremely stressful for them, and leads to them catching diseases. They're viewed as tools for profit, nothing else.
Other apes, monkeys, and horses used on cards smiling because they're happy. Other apes and monkeys do what's called a "fear grimace", while horses smile in submission. They're not happy, they're abused.
Experimenting on other animals is vile. How dare you cause such immense suffering and murder. You're birthing them to torture them. What a miserable existence. That constant, unending torture is unimaginable for most people.
Fireworks and other explosions are horrible. Other animals, like cats, dogs, and birds, get absolutely terrified by fireworks. Causing such intense, unending fear is unjustifiable.
Oreos and Doritos use #ConflictPalmOil, leading to extinction of countless species, such as orangutans. 25 orangutans are murdered every day for unsustainable palm oil production.
www.ran.org/publications/conflict_palm_oil_the_human_cost_of_conflict_palm_oil/
Leather's disgusting. Other animals, especially cows, suffer tremendously for leather production. It's not just a by-product of the meat industry.
www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/leather-is-more-than-a-by-product-of-the-meat-industry/
www.care2.com/causes/the-shocking-truth-about-leather-no-its-not-a-meat-byproduct.html
amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/27/ethicalfashion.leather
Fur and down are the result of immense torture and horrific murder.
relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/08/wildlife-china-fur-farming-welfare
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fur-farms-animal-welfare-cruelty-cannibalism-mink-foxes-coat-jacket-a8647616.html?amp
www.furfreealliance.com/severe-animal-cruelty-polish-fur-farms-revealed/
www.thedodo.com/amphtml/fur-farms-stop-the-cruelty-1527692086.html
www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/here-are-the-innocent-faces-of-the-cruel-fur-industry/
www.onegreenplanet.org/news/top-brands-using-fur-from-monster-foxes/
Wool is a product of abuse, just like fur, angora, and mohair, not just in the East, but western nations like America, the UK, and Australia, too.
www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-wool-jumper-is-just-as-cruel-as-a-mink-coat-9610133.html?amp
Dogs and wolves don't have a strict hierarchy with an alpha. Treating them like they do is just cruel and confusing.
io9.gizmodo.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629
Canada and Trudeau still let baby seals have their skulls smashed to bits with clubs.
www.hsi.org/assets/pdfs/myths_and_facts_seal_hunt.pdf
relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2017/04/wildlife-watch-canada-harp-seal-hunt
www.thedodo.com/amphtml/canada-seal-hunt-2333758471.html
m.ua-cam.com/video/XCYf9q9t9bo/v-deo.html
Don't feed birds bread, or cats cows' milk or cheese. Bread has no nutritional value for birds, it just stops them from eating useful food, and cats are lactose intolerant.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1953493/Royal-Society-for-the-Protection-of-Birds-RSPB-says-to-ban-bread-as-bird-food.html
www.sciencefocus.com/nature/why-cant-cats-drink-milk-plus-6-other-feline-myths/
pets.webmd.com/cats/ss/slideshow-foods-your-cat-should-never-eat
Littering's disgusting. Other animals have to walk on that floor, and right next to your rubbish. They don't want to do that. Don't be a selfish cunt.
Glitter, sequins, and microbeads don't decompose. They stay in the environment, and end up being swallowed by other animals.
Everything humans do is by definition animalistic, because humans are animals. There's no distinction. It's specifically because you're an animal that you can be a human. Being an animal isn't an insult. It's awesome. It's what lets you be you.
You can't own another living thing. They're not consumer goods to be bought and sold. They're not property. They're above monetary value. They're not toys for your amusement, or tools for you to use as you please. We're not their owners, we're their parents.
Pet isn't an insult. That's horrible. A pet is an animal of another species, in your family, that you care for. They're your children, and brothers, and sisters, and cousins, not some ornament to have around for novelty, that you only pay attention to when you're bored. Species is irrelevant to family.
Stone Cold Steve Austin, Shawn Michaels, Brock Lesnar, Goldust, and Ted DiBiase Jr. are abusers. Fishing and other hunting is murder. Other animals' lives aren't your playthings. Leave other animals alone.
You wouldn't do it to humans, so don't do it to other animals. It's that simple.
No one has the right to make fun of, or hurt, or abuse, or exploit, or murder, any other animal, for any reason.
Do what is right, not what is easy.
Humans are animals, and no more special than any other creature.
#AnimalCruelty #AnimalAbuse #AnimalWelfare #AnimalRights #AdoptDontShop #OptToAdopt