CCG Card Layouts

Sorry for the lack of a posting yesterday, I was feeling awful and stayed home from work. However, I think this will make up for it:

Today I?d like to talk about CCG Card Layouts, and the differences in each. Through these examples, you can then learn what makes or breaks a card game in the aesthetics department.

Please note, I haven?t played most of these games, and I?ve tried to just get a nice selection to view. Also, I tried to pick characters from each CCG so we can focus on one area.

Magic

The defacto standard, here is the general breakdown before we begin to look at other CCGs:

• Name in the top left.
• Resource requirements in the top right.
• In the center you have the card type (ie, Creature), and then character type (Cleric?which will soon be Human Cleric when 9th edition is released).
• Power and toughness on the bottom. Not necessarily on the bottom-right.

There is also an expansion symbol, but I wasn?t going to put it down as defacto, because the expansion symbol is sometimes left off of some CCGs (when a basic set is released), or simply aren?t used at all (VS. System uses set names as expansion symbols).

Also, Power and Toughness are listed in that order on almost every other card game, or top to bottom. Players have almost universally adapted to this system.

VS System

I like this layout. It doesn?t get too symbol-happy (limited to just the Flight and Range symbols on the left represented by wings and the aiming circle), and the power and toughness conforms to the top-bottom standard. Resource cost is moved to the top left, but that?s okay because there is nothing on the top right to confuse players. It also looks better when you have a grip full of cards to be able to quickly see (and arrange) cards by resource cost. Character type is moved to the left, but is done so in a classy way.

The only thing wrong with this one is the lack of Mechanic explanation. Allow me to say that sometimes Mechanics are never explained when in ?Expert? expansions, but for any game that has less circulation than Pokemon or Magic, you really need to explain your mechanics, regardless of how often they show up in sets.

Star Trek TCG

Ah, refreshing. An awful card layout. Firstly, I don?t recall if Star Trek actually has a resource system in place. I?m sure if did it would still shit all over this one. Let?s see here. We have a ton of icons (particularly those around the V.I.P. Flavor box), we have even more in the abilities and attributes box. The only thing I really like about this card is the affiliation marker and name position. Otherwise, this is just too busy and a little ridiculous.

Cyberpunk 2020

Ah Cyberpunk, how sad art thou. First, the good things?er, thing: I like the Money cost of the card on the left, as it is easy to see and arrange cards by cost when in hand. And?that?s about it. We have 4 different stats, with defense and power reversed from the accepted standard, and SR and LR (whatever those mean), along with POW/DEF values all in small font and hard to read (and all over the card). Oh, and that cost in the bottom right? What the hell is that? Beats me?

Doom Trooper CCG

You just have no idea how hard it was to find this DoomTrooper CCG card image. A now-defunct CCG (revived to play on CCGWorkshop), there are a few things I like about this one: First, the factions at the top of the card. While I don?t like two differing factions, as it tends to muddle a card?s uniqueness, I do like the fact that you can mix and match to create a diverse amount of characters.

Otherwise, the problems on this one is that CAPS are used instead of altered font and/or positioned keywords that should be bolded or simply better formatted. With attack and defense values in the right top-down order but seperated by a ?bullet value? (whatever that icon stands for), along with some sort of Magic value at the bottom, this one has a lot of problems that could be solved with just a few differing layout options.

Legend of the 5 Rings

Ah, Legend of the 5 Rings. I can?t believe this thing is still around after a decade, yet absolutely no one in my area plays it. L5R has always been the Thinking Man?s CCG, which basically amounts to it being quite a bit more complex than most. First, what I like: The Force and Chi values at the top, flanking the name. This provides an easy to compare context. I also like the Gold cost in the center. This is the generic cost for all cards, not just characters.

What I don?t like: The flanking values next to the Gold amount. I can?t recall which is which, but one is honor and the other is?how many followers the person can have? Anyway, is Soul of Hida Tsuneo really necessary there guys? In the character type? I understand the Crab Clan, and Unique, but defining his mystical origin really doesn?t add anything to the game/character itself.

A Game of Thrones

This is from A Game of Thrones CCG. Let?s see if we can decode this one: Well, it costs 4 Gold, it has 3?banner, allegience, influence? (who knows.) It has an axe icon and a crown icon, and that has to mean some sort of loyalty?to the king? Anyway, he?s a Lord we see, and has Stealth. What is stealth? Who knows, this mechanic isn?t explained. Oh, and all of your Army characters gain stealth (Whatever this is) while attacking during axe challenges. Uh?huh.

Cthuhlu CCG

Here is a character card from the Call of Cthuhlu CCG. As a lot of this game is ?investigating stories,? it has a lot of sleuth-minded attributes for each character. Based on what little I?ve read, characters have a Sanity Value or quotient or something, and I can immediately assign the ?3? over the pages in the middle-left of the card as this value. The other 3 in the top left is its cost, and on the far left we see a magnifying glass and an open book, surely more attributes for ?stories? that must be investigated. I like this layout quite a bit, as the character type is easy to find and the Artifact search text is easy to understand.

Neopets CCG

Okay, hold on to your seats, we?re getting wacky. This is a Neopets CCG character, and all that that implies. Firstly, I haven?t the slightest idea what those stats on the right are. Mag may be Magic, and I believe the red/blue coded numbers are attack and defense, but their 3?character pseudonyms are nothing closely resembling either basic statistic.

What I do like: The character name and types, and I like the fact that the text box still lets you see the rest of the art.

Pokemon

Just when you thought it was safe to finish reading, here comes the Pokemon card! This thing is all over the place. First: Character name -below- character type? Stupid. VS System pulls this off because superheroes have alter egos and vice versa. Here it looks shoddy because of the font positioning. Secondly, having the health points of the character in the top right may be the default layout, but I still feel its bad form. The top half of a card should almost exclusively be reserved for name, cost, and perhaps type/faction icons.

The font fluxuation is jarring, the ?weakness / resistance / retreat cost? nearly hidden by its small font layout?Bleh. Oh, and what does Dark Thunder do? I have no idea. But apparently Apocalypse was important enough to actually explain.

Battletech

Ah, Battletech, that other Richard Garfield game that tanked. I remember playing this game and thinking it was an interesting concept but ultimately too simple to really play on a competitive basis. The ability to have Monster Mechs to Smash Face is always intriguing, and all things considered, they could?ve done a worse job.

First, the cost (2) and power/toughness look just fine. It?s when we get to the bottom where things get iffy. Do you know what that 1?>5 is? Or that 1 in the bottom right hand corner? Me neither. Perhaps a small blurb (ie, 3?letter description) or some sort of image to clue you into to their use would?ve improved its chances of survival.

Netrunner

Though I tried my best to select Character cards for each CCG I speak of, I simply couldn?t find one for Netrunner (I?m not sure right now if there even are character cards in Netrunner). Hell, it?s a miracle I found this one, period. Anyway, I like the layout of this one, very simple and easy to understand. Though the ?Playing double prep cards for two consecutive actions this turn instead of one.? is a bit odd in its placement (is it reminder text or rules text?), the rest is very acceptable and I love the flavorful layout.

And that wraps up my glimpse into card layouts in various ccgs. I hope we?ve all learned something. Class dismissed.