I've played Magic since Tempest Block, and Vs. since it's inception, I would say that Magic is the more complex game, however I would also say that complex doesn't necessarily equate to difficult. That sounds odd, but let me explain. Games of Magic have a much larger luck factor than games of Vs, largely due to having only one type of card(more or less) that produces mana, which can lead to mana screw/flood, but also due to drawing only 1 card during the draw step. The larger luck factor allows players who are less skilled to make more mistakes and still win games, if you can make several play mistakes in a game, and still be victorious than I wouldn't label that game difficult. On the flip side, Vs. is much less complicated we don't have to deal with as much resource management or the luck factor as much, for the most part we build a deck and that deck functions the way its supposed to every game...this allows the player a greater control over the game. Rarely have I seen a game of Vs. where a player who makes several play mistakes wins the game. Your decisions and your level of skill directly affect the outcome of a game of Vs. I'm not saying that Magic is completely luck, I'm just saying that it, more so than Vs. fails to always punish bad decisions, and reward good ones. And a game where every decision you make can win or lose you the game is more difficult than a game that does not.

You play a game of Vs. your deck does not

no, people have told you you've just rejected it. Also lack of search doesn't make the game harder just more draw dependent.

That would only be true if I was the only one who feels this way.

Clearly, I am not.

Also, draw dependance makes deck building harder.

Try building a deck where the team itself has no tutors and no generic tutors and play against a deck that runs both, and see which hit more often. Search makes deck building easy.

5 colors doesn't = more options in every deck. It means more ####ty cards that you should never put in your deck.

-Mike

There is a disconnect there though.

How does hitting more often in game indicate how it's easier to build? It may be easier to build a deck that hits more often when you have search cards available. However, when you have search, especially enough search where you go beyond enough for just consistency, you then add more options, and instead of packing as many copies of the "obvious" character as possible to make sure you hit it, you start packing 1-ofs that can come in handy depending on the situation.

You also increase the in game complexity as instead of "either you have it or you don't" situation, with search you again have options. The search card can get you ANY character, so not only do you have to choose about which character you grab, but also about whether to use the search now, and risk not having it when you need it later.

I was with you 100% until this post. You are comparing two different things here: the consistency of a deck and the complexity of building decks. Search does not make deck building easier, it makes decks more consistent. The type of search you intend or do add to the deck makes the choices when deck building much more complex. There isn't only character search; there is also: equipment search, location search and plot twist search. Each one of them making deck building a bit more complex on its own. Lets take Character Search for example sakes.

When you build a deck without any form of character search you simply compensate by adding in more characters to smooth out the curve and you play less character specific (Legendary) support to avoid having a full hand of dead cards just in case the drop doesn't come along. Relatively simple concept here.

Now the whole thing changes when you add search to the deck. Now you have to cut a certain number of characters to fit the search. The thing is this might not be as easy as you might think in all cases because you have to acknowledge the strategy of the deck in order to make and inform decision on what to cut. It would be irresponsible for me to say that I can cut later drops in order to make space for the search cards if the whole point of the deck was to stall for the later drops.

I think the decision of adding more characters for lack of search is much more easier than knowing how many characters are really needed on each drop to avoid using the search while still having the search available if needed.

I hate statements like this. Do people ever realize that playing constructed is not the only format in the game, any game? Cards that seem or are sh!tty in constructed can be bombs when playing sealed, draft, teams and so forth. However a great card in constructed might be worth squat in other formats.

Probably... but I've seen many cases where this was not true.

If both players know that they are running fast/aggro/beatdown decks, you will see attacks planned differently and much more math calculations. Since they both know a turn 4 loss is inevitable, they will try to maximize endurance loss every single turn whether they are on or off initiative. Sometimes this thinking takes up more time than the game itself because unlike Magic where zero means death... negative endurance means nothing if you can get your opponent more negative by 1.

I think the whole math experience is one thing that many people overlook when it comes to examining the complexity of VS. But maybe that's because I'm bad at it.

I just started playing VS. I have played a few games out there. Yugi-oh a few years ago and currently alot of Heroclix. I find that the engine for Vs. isn't really that tough...the hard part for me are the subtleties of formation and knowing who to attack with which character. The other hard part is all the different cards and what they do. In Heroclix, because I read alot of comics I basically know what to expect when a figure or group of figures is set on the table but with VS. if someone says they are playing Doom or whatever else it may be...I don't have a clue and that is what leads to mistakes and/or losses.

What Eric said.

Basically I think the end result is VS is the more complicated game because mistakes in calculation cost you FAR more in this game. The formation and "eeking" the most endurance loss is what seperates players in this game. Magic is much more forgiving in this regard; a slight miscalculation on an attack phase doesn't cost the game.

As to searching, VS gives you the tools (in constructed) to get the cards in hand you need when you need them. So it becomes a guessing and "toolboxing" game of making certain you can beat out every strategy, given that you know what cards you'll draw and your opponent does the same. There is some element of draw luck, but the search dampens it; and that is exciting (though much of the "search for anything" aspect has gone away in Modern, it's still more prevalent than any other game I've played).

Deckbuilding is fairly difficult in both; balance of resources vs balance of curve. Both games have long debates on the precise amount of land / number of a given drop one should play.

So overall, I think VS is the more "thinking" game, because math plays a much larger role in victory than Magic. Magic, on the other hand, is a much better game for newer players, since mana issues can assure victories for players (it sucks playing a new game and losing over and over). The latter sadly means that Magic will always prevail over VS (it also had that "first to market" thing, though even more luck-based games have appealed to the general public more and overcome that issue).

I think the Wii vs XBox360 / PS3 fight proves that appealing to casuals > appealing to hardcores, thus tying back to the original point of this thread :).