The thing is, 1.0 was unique. It filled a niche other card games ignored. Deep, competitive, demanding and rewarding - it was card game chess, instead of checkers.

I saw it as a deeply flawed game, but that core was really captivating. The scope, the complexity, the variety in playstyle and approach.

I totally got why Valve wanted to make that game, and I totally got why they didn't just give up on it.

Long-term, it's something people will want - it's more interesting than card games where one or both players solve their sudokus, and then someone wins.

My concern is that 2.0 maintained the depth, the competitiveness and most of the demand, but became less rewarding as the scope narrowed.

I think it's really fun when games are hard to win (or lose). Whatever the result, it feels earned. Reading the game and learning to play different positions becomes important. Your experience is valued.

It can be easy to get an advantage, like taking a chess piece, but the checkmate requires setup

That complexity redefines what an advantage is - is that board position more valuable than this piece? Does this trade actually favour me, because it better suits my positioning? All sorts of interesting questions pop up.

When games are hard to win, players get to spend more time at the extremes of

That niche was really interesting. I'd love to see someone explore it more.

I wish 2.0 all the best,