Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That said, the idea behind the project was for community involvement

That was actually what put me off almost as much as the general lack of content. Design by committee is a sure fire way of producing homogenised drivel when said committee numbers in the thousands.

Same here. I'm glad I'm not the only one that had this opinion. I can understand wanting the community input AFTER you have a base product, but as an integral piece to developing your entire game? Puhleese. To me it always seemed like a "get free labor and ideas from the unwashed internet masses so we don't have to do the work" than anything else.

Bossk_Hogg wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Comparing it to games like Zombicide, KD, and SW is a bit unrealistic because those are board games and not table top miniature games.

The main selling point of Kingdom Death and Sedition Wars were the minis. They might not be a "pure" wargame in your opinion, but they are soundly in the minis wargame camp (moving minis around the play area, rolling dice, killing other units). Letters to Whitechapel they aint.

You left out the part of my post where I said, " They attracted different demographics. Yes, we looked at them as games with great figs, the board game aspect exposed it to different people who wouldn't have given it a second look if they hadn't been board games. We may think them only as sources for figs, but board game players see them as adding to the aesthetic of the game. The biggest amount of forum talk during the KD KS was over at Board Game Geeks and most of it was regarding play mechanics.

Talking with someone who discussed SW with Mike McVey in person. McVey stressed the reason he went with a board game instead of a table top mini game was because it wouldn't have done as well. It was planned as a mini game originally. There are dozens of mini games trying to establish themselves right now and most people pass on them because they are already invested in the bigger ones. Boardgames are viewed differently because they are seen as being self contained. No worries about a new book coming out and forcing you how you play your game or invalidate your army build.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That said, the idea behind the project was for community involvement

That was actually what put me off almost as much as the general lack of content. Design by committee is a sure fire way of producing homogenised drivel when said committee numbers in the thousands.

Same here. I'm glad I'm not the only one that had this opinion. I can understand wanting the community input AFTER you have a base product, but as an integral piece to developing your entire game? Puhleese. To me it always seemed like a "get free labor and ideas from the unwashed internet masses so we don't have to do the work" than anything else.

Having played the Legend of the Five rings CCG for a too long time (looks at the tote full of useless card in the corner of his room), I can say design/influence by committee can be a bad thing. The story and design elements that popped up in L5R due to numbers of people playing a faction or winning a tournament led to some serious WTF storylines.

I followed this thread and tried to be interested in this project/game, its seems they were just trying to hard. Not sure how to describe it.

silent25 wrote:

Bossk_Hogg wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Comparing it to games like Zombicide, KD, and SW is a bit unrealistic because those are board games and not table top miniature games.

The main selling point of Kingdom Death and Sedition Wars were the minis. They might not be a "pure" wargame in your opinion, but they are soundly in the minis wargame camp (moving minis around the play area, rolling dice, killing other units). Letters to Whitechapel they aint.

You left out the part of my post where I said, " They attracted different demographics. Yes, we looked at them as games with great figs, the board game aspect exposed it to different people who wouldn't have given it a second look if they hadn't been board games. We may think them only as sources for figs, but board game players see them as adding to the aesthetic of the game. The biggest amount of forum talk during the KD KS was over at Board Game Geeks and most of it was regarding play mechanics.

Talking with someone who discussed SW with Mike McVey in person. McVey stressed the reason he went with a board game instead of a table top mini game was because it wouldn't have done as well. It was planned as a mini game originally. There are dozens of mini games trying to establish themselves right now and most people pass on them because they are already invested in the bigger ones. Boardgames are viewed differently because they are seen as being self contained. No worries about a new book coming out and forcing you how you play your game or invalidate your army build.

It may have some boardgame crossover, but they are pretty soundly minis combat games. SW and KD are hardly self contained, with the expansions, new units, etc. Sedition Wars is about as much a boardgame as Mordheim. Naturally BGG focuses on mechanics, they arent painters primarily. Theres is lots of mechanics discussion here and on other minis combat boards, for that matter. Sure, it can get labeled many ways, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but the salesman tells you its really a chicken. I'm going to go with my gut and call it a duck.

 cincydooley wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That said, the idea behind the project was for community involvement

That was actually what put me off almost as much as the general lack of content. Design by committee is a sure fire way of producing homogenised drivel when said committee numbers in the thousands.

Same here. I'm glad I'm not the only one that had this opinion. I can understand wanting the community input AFTER you have a base product, but as an integral piece to developing your entire game? Puhleese. To me it always seemed like a "get free labor and ideas from the unwashed internet masses so we don't have to do the work" than anything else.

I've also had largely the same opinion since the start, but "free labour"? You're kidding, right? It'd take far more work to sift through all the rubbish for the occasional good idea than to come up with the core concepts yourself and allow some feedback from the public.

 Azazelx wrote:

I've also had largely the same opinion since the start, but "free labour"? You're kidding, right? It'd take far more work to sift through all the rubbish for the occasional good idea than to come up with the core concepts yourself and allow some feedback from the public.

Completely agreed there

I'd hate to be the poor sap who had to read through the sexism topic, all 20 some odd pages of it

Okay, I think this topic is pretty well covered at this point, so I'm locking the thread.

Obviously, if/when GoA news breaks in the future, feel free to start a new thread to discuss it.