Because they're popular, and they're super easy to slap together (graphically at least. In theory, you could make a completely text based deck builder and it would function identically to one with fancy graphics).

This is the equivilant of zombie games in the shooter genre. Why program complex ai when you could make braindead (pun intended) bots walk in a straight line at the player and deal damage when they touch them.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

It's even easier than that. Both of these genres have design features that require minimal balancing, making for an even faster dev cycle.

Roguelikes side-step the need for traditional game balance by providing meta progression and building inevitable-death-by-impossible-odds into the core game. For Roguelikes that actually have an ending, all the developer needs to do is provide enough meta progression perks to overcome the game's peak difficulty, for even the worst of players. Everyone else gets bragging rights for beating the game faster than that. Either way, the lack of balance and "fairness" in the core design are features, not flaws.

Deck builders follow in Magic The Gathering's footsteps: you never need to fully balance it. Ever. The random draw mechanisms, combined with a deep inventory of resource and item/creature/action cards, make it unlikely that a player gets an overpowered hand all the time. Pepper a few ridiculously overpowered cards in there, and it just feels more fun. Plus, if you keep the gravy train going with regular add-ons, the lack of balance is even further masked by all the possible choices. And yes, some player will min/max a deck at great personal expense and wipe the floor with their opponents because it was never fair in the first place, and doing so is a feature.

[–] BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

zombie shooters peaked with i maed a gam3 w1th z0mb1es 1n it!!!1