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.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
What we find attractive in a mate is often linked with viability of offspring or connected with a variety of neurological factors. If you can modify genetics enough to change appearances, you can modify what people find attractive by genetically changing the brain.

it's also possible that the first generation of a given changed group didn't have a choice and then after the change, they'd think back on how they were as ugly or lesser as their brain was changed as part of the process.

This is a repulsive idea that exists only to justify making ugly models. What's wrong with a game that does justice to transhumanism, instead of turning it into institutionalised date rape?

Alex, I think it might be time to accept that this particular fictional universe isn't going to turn out how you would like it to. Where you see background that doesn't make sense, other people have no problem with it. I hope it takes the dark route like the explanation I suggested, even if you happen to find it repulsive.

I like dark sci-fi far, far more than happy shiney optimistic transhumanism. This game is going to be set in a universe with conflict, not one where everyone's problems get solved with technology.

The boromites are definitely growing on me the more I see them. They're unusual, but I no longer consider them ugly. And the Algoryn renders look excellent. No ugly to justify there at all.

After neoBSG and Stargate Universe, I have to say that dark sci fi is overrated. Also, every bit as corny and cheesy as the light stuff, but with a higher chance of making you feel depressed.

What we really need is New Wave French sci fi. How about a setting with no plot, characters who may or may not be figments of their own imaginations, and belligerent orifices who expound for whole chapters on the pointless minutia of punctuation to apathetic, be-mammaried space crustaceans?


EDIT: Wait, damn. I think we're back to furries again? But post-irony furries with no humor about their crotchless condition.

Oh, I don't think I'm going to get my dark sci-fi fix from this game universe. I just don't think it's going to be what Alex is looking for either. It's probably going to have a bit of a kitchen sink approach with a lot of different elements.

I happen to really liked SG:U and the remake of BSG. Different people have different tastes, but I don't think we're going to see GoA satisfy Alex's critiques.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Oh, I don't think I'm going to get my dark sci-fi fix from this game universe. I just don't think it's going to be what Alex is looking for either. It's probably going to have a bit of a kitchen sink approach with a lot of different elements.

I happen to really liked SG:U and the remake of BSG. Different people have different tastes, but I don't think we're going to see GoA satisfy Alex's critiques.

There were two problems with SG:U - the first was that they cancelled SG:A to make it, then essentially remade the same show but all emo'd up, which was a kick in the teeth to fans of SG:A; the second was that it was a demonstrably bad show for most of the first season(most of the acting swung wildly between wooden and overwrought, the pacing was awful, a lot of the stories were petty soap-opera fodder), and by the time it picked up and started to get interesting they'd already shed too many viewers. BSG went the opposite way, it was fantastic at first, then dove headfirst into the spiritualist mumbo-jumbo and disappeared up its own backside.

Regardless, neither of them were really "dark" sci-fi; there's a difference between "dark" and "angsty". I hope we see some of the former and much, much less of the latter in GoA. If you want really dark sci-fi, read the Revelation Space series.

Let's please not get into discussions about what "dark sci-fi" or "hard sci-fi" mean, or whether or not the Gates of Antares universe fits either of those terms. Let's just accept that those terms mean different things to different people, and move on.

Also, it's fine for you to like or not like whatever you want, but please don't try to justify your like or dislike of a thing by saying it's because the thing is/isn't "hard sci-fi", or is/isn't "realistic". And certainly don't try to act like something is objectively good or bad because you think it is or isn't "realistic". Debating what is realistic in this completely fictional universe is pretty pointless. If you don't like it, that's fine. But that's not because it isn't realistic, it just isn't your thing. Just say that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an example, the notion of a computer program as we understand it becoming self-aware is completely absurd in reality. I can still watch and enjoy The Terminator, I just accept that in that world it is a possibility and I'm fine with it. If I didn't like the concept of a movie about self-aware artificial intelligence, I wouldn't like The Terminator. But I wouldn't go on and on about how the movie is silly because the premise is unrealistic. It's a movie.

Albino Squirrel wrote:
Let's please not get into discussions about what "dark sci-fi" or "hard sci-fi" mean, or whether or not the Gates of Antares universe fits either of those terms. Let's just accept that those terms mean different things to different people, and move on.

Also, it's fine for you to like or not like whatever you want, but please don't try to justify your like or dislike of a thing by saying it's because the thing is/isn't "hard sci-fi", or is/isn't "realistic". And certainly don't try to act like something is objectively good or bad because you think it is or isn't "realistic". Debating what is realistic in this completely fictional universe is pretty pointless. If you don't like it, that's fine. But that's not because it isn't realistic, it just isn't your thing. Just say that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an example, the notion of a computer program as we understand it becoming self-aware is completely absurd in reality. I can still watch and enjoy The Terminator, I just accept that in that world it is a possibility and I'm fine with it. If I didn't like the concept of a movie about self-aware artificial intelligence, I wouldn't like The Terminator. But I wouldn't go on and on about how the movie is silly because the premise is unrealistic. It's a movie.

Whether or not people are capable of enjoying a thing in spite of its flaws does not make the objective presence of those flaws any less so. I love Stargate SG:1 and Atlantis to bits, that doesn't change the fact they're cheesy, deus-ex-machina-crammed popcorn stories.

I thought the definition of hard sci fi was always, the less science magic we need for things to happen by our today's assumptions of all science fields the harder it is.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
[
I disagree with this idea, generic rulesets are just that, generic, deprived from flavor and direction, or on the other side of the coin arcane monstrosities of rules to cover all the possibilities, likewise, miniature lines without a background in mind are plain, maybe good, but its obvious they are generic.

A complete ecosystem benefits both the rules and the miniatures line and both are shaped by the background.

Yeah, you've missed my point entirely. So simply put: What you wrote is irrelevant. Sorry.

 Azazelx wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
[
I disagree with this idea, generic rulesets are just that, generic, deprived from flavor and direction, or on the other side of the coin arcane monstrosities of rules to cover all the possibilities, likewise, miniature lines without a background in mind are plain, maybe good, but its obvious they are generic.

A complete ecosystem benefits both the rules and the miniatures line and both are shaped by the background.

Yeah, you've missed my point entirely. So simply put: What you wrote is irrelevant. Sorry.

To elaborate: the Codex/bestiary should be different for each game, but the actual core rules should be the same. You don't need twenty different ways to depict someone firing a rifle.

I'll agree not to dive any further into the dark sci-fi topic any further except to say that if GoA ends up being a kitchen sink setting, there will be room for it and the opinions presented of the early episodes of SG:U and later episodes of BSG are pretty much what I think as well.

I finally got around to truly reading the rules related blog post and I like what I'm hearing. I've already played sci-fi using Bolt Action + home made army lists with a handful of house rules and GoA sounds like it'll be even better. Things like the firefight reaction sound great to me. A good way to have guys exchanging fire without going quite as far as Tommorow's War did.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
After neoBSG and Stargate Universe, I have to say that dark sci fi is overrated. Also, every bit as corny and cheesy as the light stuff, but with a higher chance of making you feel depressed.

What we really need is New Wave French sci fi. How about a setting with no plot, characters who may or may not be figments of their own imaginations, and belligerent orifices who expound for whole chapters on the pointless minutia of punctuation to apathetic, be-mammaried space crustaceans?


EDIT: Wait, damn. I think we're back to furries again? But post-irony furries with no humor about their crotchless condition.

Bob...you are hilarious. Reading little gems like these from you makes Dakka a better place. If I could be bothered to figure out how to put a quote in my sig, I would sig this.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
[
I disagree with this idea, generic rulesets are just that, generic, deprived from flavor and direction, or on the other side of the coin arcane monstrosities of rules to cover all the possibilities, likewise, miniature lines without a background in mind are plain, maybe good, but its obvious they are generic.

A complete ecosystem benefits both the rules and the miniatures line and both are shaped by the background.

Yeah, you've missed my point entirely. So simply put: What you wrote is irrelevant. Sorry.

To elaborate: the Codex/bestiary should be different for each game, but the actual core rules should be the same. You don't need twenty different ways to depict someone firing a rifle.

Yes, didn't miss the point at all.

I have behind me a few of those systems, collecting wargame rules is a hobby for me and all are as I describe them and all have the same issues I described.

You cannot make core rules that will fit everything and everybody will use them, because each play experience is tailor made and each manufacturer wants to give something else, all the attempts for such a system will produce a system that will be plain and bloated to broaden the possibilities of its use.

 Gallahad wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
After neoBSG and Stargate Universe, I have to say that dark sci fi is overrated. Also, every bit as corny and cheesy as the light stuff, but with a higher chance of making you feel depressed.

What we really need is New Wave French sci fi. How about a setting with no plot, characters who may or may not be figments of their own imaginations, and belligerent orifices who expound for whole chapters on the pointless minutia of punctuation to apathetic, be-mammaried space crustaceans?


EDIT: Wait, damn. I think we're back to furries again? But post-irony furries with no humor about their crotchless condition.

Bob...you are hilarious. Reading little gems like these from you makes Dakka a better place. If I could be bothered to figure out how to put a quote in my sig, I would sig this.

Thank you. I really appreciate your kind words. For me, Dakka is such a wonderful place because it lets all aspects of our love (hate?) for the hobby flourish. Maybe that's why I spend more time on here than I do painting...


Antares is exciting now because it has so many ideas, like a new hire who hasn't run head-first into reality yet. I'm pretty excited to find out where they will eventually plant their post-optimism rut.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
[
I disagree with this idea, generic rulesets are just that, generic, deprived from flavor and direction, or on the other side of the coin arcane monstrosities of rules to cover all the possibilities, likewise, miniature lines without a background in mind are plain, maybe good, but its obvious they are generic.

A complete ecosystem benefits both the rules and the miniatures line and both are shaped by the background.

Yeah, you've missed my point entirely. So simply put: What you wrote is irrelevant. Sorry.

To elaborate: the Codex/bestiary should be different for each game, but the actual core rules should be the same. You don't need twenty different ways to depict someone firing a rifle.

That, to an extent. Just sharing a core ruleset and then each game can have their own special rules, points system, whatever. But as you said, no need for 20 ways to resolve basic shooting.
More specifically what I was talking about here is that both Mark and Vic have shown interest in collaboration with others, so there's potential space for both manufacturer's kits and fluff to be part of the same universe and game - directly.

Marc has already his fluff and it is more logical than GOA at least so far, I cannot see how it can fit in GOA.

I also think that both the style of Mark and Vic wouldn't fit in with what's going on here.

Ah, well, for the last several posts where I've been getting specific I was thinking more of Vic's stuff joining Mark's stuff in his game - rather than either having anything to do with GoA anymore. I apologise if that was unclear. And yes, I guess rather tangental to the GoA topic, but it was an organic aspect to the conversation.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I thought the definition of hard sci fi was always, the less science magic we need for things to happen by our today's assumptions of all science fields the harder it is.

My impression from the internet was "Like soft SF, but everything is justified by nanotech and god-AI's."

Isn't GURP's relatively popular in the RPG circles?

 Elemental wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I thought the definition of hard sci fi was always, the less science magic we need for things to happen by our today's assumptions of all science fields the harder it is.

My impression from the internet was "Like soft SF, but everything is justified by nanotech and god-AI's."

Soft sci-fi: what humanity can do with crazy made-up tech
Hard sci-fi: what crazy made-up tech does to humanity

In a nutshell.

 silent25 wrote:

 paulson games wrote:
Pure speculation here, but somebody just sold over a million shares of GW stock. Maybe a former GW cornerstone employee dumped his stock in the company to fund GOA?

Think more a former GW cornerstone employee dumping his stock because he realizes it might become worthless soon

Having more faith in GoA with these figs. The initial figs had a 80's vibe in a bad way. The line feels like an old rock act trying to make it back onto stage with new stuff trying to stay relevant. Some stuff seems dated, but still able to do some wow.

Wish I had a million GW shares to dump! I'm not complaining - I was paid well by GW - but not that well I'm sorry to say!

With the GoA models we started work on four of the races/factions at the same time - but in some cases the sculptors weren't up to it, and in others we were never happy with the concepts, in the meantime we employed a new sculptor who is bringing his expertise to bear. It just happened the Boromites got done first. It's not a cunning plan or anything. It's just how it panned out.

Any idea when we'll start seeing some models becoming available to buy?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Gallahad wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
After neoBSG and Stargate Universe, I have to say that dark sci fi is overrated. Also, every bit as corny and cheesy as the light stuff, but with a higher chance of making you feel depressed.

What we really need is New Wave French sci fi. How about a setting with no plot, characters who may or may not be figments of their own imaginations, and belligerent orifices who expound for whole chapters on the pointless minutia of punctuation to apathetic, be-mammaried space crustaceans?


EDIT: Wait, damn. I think we're back to furries again? But post-irony furries with no humor about their crotchless condition.

Bob...you are hilarious. Reading little gems like these from you makes Dakka a better place. If I could be bothered to figure out how to put a quote in my sig, I would sig this.

Thank you. I really appreciate your kind words. For me, Dakka is such a wonderful place because it lets all aspects of our love (hate?) for the hobby flourish. Maybe that's why I spend more time on here than I do painting...


Antares is exciting now because it has so many ideas, like a new hire who hasn't run head-first into reality yet. I'm pretty excited to find out where they will eventually plant their post-optimism rut.

You weren't watching Red Dwarf recently were you?

When I see this stuff, I am reminded of Firefly/ Space:1999 types of shows. Sort of like a darker edged Star Trek. Not "we come in peace, set phasers to kill", but more " Hey, we need to survive, and make some scratch to keep this heap running, so we're going to keep exploring and taking these jobs till we can hit the big time. because if we just sit around here, we're going to be snatched up as next weeks leftovers..."


The figures are ok. Not show stoppers, but they really are not that bad. I'm really reminded of the old school game from Heritage miniatures, Galacta. In that game you could scratch together a few figures, and fight it out, expanding the crew into other avenues, such as RPG's, or even adding other figures to the line. It was sort of like Star Wars around the same time as star wars got out to the public, but before it became as big as it did.

Here's a better discussion of that one, but the similarities are there, and a hell of alot better fleshed out.

http://www.goingfaster.com/heritage.html

No, Gates isn't pretty so far, but damn does it have some fresh leeway to play a scifi game with. And the amount that you can do for yourself without some clownass telling you you have to do this or that is really refreshing.

Bit of a mix of the old and new, with room to expand as you'd see fit. A true sandbox game at its core.

Myself? I can throw in a few different scifi figures from other ranges, and come up with a few cool things to throw around.

A ship crew, where you can take them to different places, and adventure on tabletop with material from other games thrown in. New races, that you can make for your self, ( Vor tried it, but died on the vine.)

Come up with the ship/ ships. As you progress, you keep one ship going, add in a couple more with a few extra crews and expand the exploration game to include new planets, systems.

Any word on a space ship/ exploration system?

Any word on developing your own new weapons/ technology?

Any word on the "Make your own race" that was alluded to during the KS project?


Eve on the tabletop is a good description of what I'm seeing here. Tell the truth, Stargate was a little too liberal left wing gak to me. ( Army/ military= bad, Free spirited, weak defeatest thinking hippy liberal civilian who cares more about him/ herself then his/ her mates= good.) that show universe was good to go at first, but evolved into dragging udder crap from behind the cow...

 Rick Priestley wrote:

Wish I had a million GW shares to dump! I'm not complaining - I was paid well by GW - but not that well I'm sorry to say!

With the GoA models we started work on four of the races/factions at the same time - but in some cases the sculptors weren't up to it, and in others we were never happy with the concepts, in the meantime we employed a new sculptor who is bringing his expertise to bear. It just happened the Boromites got done first. It's not a cunning plan or anything. It's just how it panned out.

I kinda wish you had too, those would be money well earned and well spend.

You will probably hear some harsh criticism from me from time to time, I really love what you try to achieve from GOA, Rogue trader was the thing that initiated me into wargaming at 10, I would really love to see the concept of that universe come back to life and not the mutated husk that 40k has become, but I would really love to see it evolved, it has been more than two decades and some ideas need some readjustment to fit a more modern pallet, I respectfully want to see such an old storyteller, whose base story has captured my imagination in the past and upon whose foundations an empire has been build to evolve in a modern storyteller.

I love the concept of GOA saga, I quite like the overall ideas, the details sometimes though leave me desiring for something more, modern.

The recent dichotomy is a nice example, gene modding good concept, millennia? em not so good timescale something vastly shorter would not be bad, Boromites, like they came from the 80's, Algoryn look far far better and in line with modern expectations.

In any case keep up the good work sir.

Why is the timeline having some space in it such a problem? Millions of years of background gives the universe space for torch ships, trans-humans, post-humans, degenerate humans, uplifted species, servitor races, rebellions, true enlightenment into energy squids, and time for the energy squids to restock the galaxy with Humans Classic for the retro charm. Boromites make more sense if you have millions of years of sociological forces diverging on millions of worlds than if you only have a few centuries and a sensibly smaller human space to work with.


@Theophany, I haven't seen Red Dwarf in a decade, ever since I loaned my DVDs to a friend.

And did someone just call Stargate, a.k.a. The USAF Blows Up UnChristian God-Aliens, a liberal left-wing gak-show?

Because a million years is an unimaginably long time, millions is way too much.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

And did someone just call Stargate, a.k.a. The USAF Blows Up UnChristian God-Aliens, a liberal left-wing gak-show?

I think he was referring to the film.

But yeah, Stargate SG-1 was probably one of the most heavily supported action tv shows from the US military. You quite often had assorted US Generals appearing on the show, including their Chief of Staff, General John P Jumper. Don S Davis, who played General Hammond in the show, was an army Captain in Vietnam.

One of my favourite stories was Richard Dean Anderson asking one of the Generals who came onto the show. "Do you ever have real colonels who act the way I do." The reply? "Yes. And worse."

Looking forward to getting those boromites, and please rick don't make this game too serious, leave some room for fun and invention, the reason ive lost some love for warhammer is it is becoming far too serious

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Because a million years is an unimaginably long time, millions is way too much.

I don't see how the second part follows from the first. Yes, it is an unimaginably long time. Which is good for a setting that involves godlike transcendant AI, nanotech, transhumans, posthumans, etc., etc.. A few hundreds of years is just not enough time for mankind to colonize very many planets, give each of them a "thing" for their background, create multiple subspecies with enough "oomph" to be playable races, and enough tech to make a dent in any kind of FTL Grand Central Station's worth of worlds. If there is a series of Fargates to every place worth visiting, why would there be battles for resources in just a few hundred years? Or even a few thousand?


In what way does having a vast period to fill with background qualify as "too much"?