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.

Hey dakka,

I was just thinking about this the other day, but (in serious business thought) do you think the advent of better looking and more in depth video games has taken away from some of the novel aspects of 40k?

Sure, I am young, new to the hobby, and raised with video games. I still find lots of fun things about the hobby (painting and collecting, mathhammering it out with friends, playing the game is like playing chess on steroids ) but I wonder if some of the more novel aspects in the mid to late 90's (detailed and fantastic looking battlefields and soldiers, in depth strategic thought) have been dulled by more modern games that do look really awesome and do require a good amount of strategy and thinking to win (company of heroes, for example).

What do you think?

It's the sense of community which comes with a hobby like 40k which can never be replicated by a computer game.

I have yet to find a video game which can last more than few weeks without becoming boring where as 40k is different each time you play.

Not to mention the fact that you have to spend a lot more money before you can even start playing video games (purchasing the latest computer/games console) where as for the price of a single video game you can get one of the starter sets to start playing.

As for dulling down 40k, how many video games have an indepth history and narative as good as 40k.

Models and dice beat a mouse and screen every time in my opinion. Models are right there in front of you, you can paint them, move them, kill them, and you actually wind up interacting with someone in person whilst using them.

Zed wrote:Models and dice beat a mouse and screen every time in my opinion. Models are right there in front of you, you can paint them, move them, kill them, and you actually wind up interacting with someone in person whilst using them.

He couldn't have said it better.

Exactly.

Tabletop gaming involves a serious emotional investment from the player so you get a reward on the basis of "the more effort you put in the more enjoyment you get out."

Also the community aspect, etc.

How many computer game shows are there compared to how many wargame shows?

PAX is probably the biggest and includes traditional RPGs as well as computer games.

I'll throw in my two pence since I'm a wargamergamer who was first brought over by video gaming.

I'd say that Warhammer isn't the most accessible of hobbies for your "everyman"... For new gamers to arrive, in my opinion, it usually takes a friend to do a *lot* of pushing to justify the costs, get a mate into the shop and get him playing with a borrowed army against others.

First off I'll say that I played a little bit of 40k when I was about 7-10 years old (I can't remember exactly when)... Suffice to say, I got bored of the painting and was never even taught the rules by anyone (should have bought the rulebook, arguably, but I never spent more than £30 on Warhammer in the end). But the hobby within me was dead by Secondary School.

I'd say the most successful 40k game series is Dawn of War and I'll write about how that influenced me. In my opinion, the coolest aspect of 40k is the fluff, the background, the gothic grimdark setting. DoW, I believe, provides a window into this, though obviously at an expense (you never see chanting adepts, swinging censers, or the death of thousands to feed the energy of the Astronomican), nevertheless it gave you an insight and an introduction to the Imperium whilst still keeping the story open and unintimidating enough to attract "normal" people (that is, normal video gamers, and ultimately GW wants a new market). Dawn of War showed you screaming Space Marines, Chainswords, awesome Daemons, blood, gore, all of that generated interest from me. For a period of a few years, I read about 40k, I was pretty well-versed in the fluff, but I never showed the tabletop any real interest.

Anyway, about 9 months ago I get a call from my friend saying he's going back to GW to play with his old Chaos army, I say I'll come along and bring my terribly painted 'Goldmarines'... I get there, I have a *lot* of fun and I buy some Mechrite Red, Bleached Bone and Red Gore... within a few days my one tactical squad and few bikes are repainted as Blood Ravens (DoW-inspired ofc) and I'm back in the store

And I'd blame DoW, after all, want to know what one of my motivators was? When playing DoW II I used to think to myself "Damn, I wish I could have some DoW action figures..."

I'll close by showing two clips that imo demonstrate why DoW could leave an impression on an open-minded gamer:

DoW Voice Acting:


DoW Mission 1:




Oh and on another point:
Debating whether video games are "better" than or accurately simulate tabletop is a silly discussion to have... The OP was asking about how gaming affects 40k, not about how they compare, I take that as meaning "Do Video games impact favourably on 40k?" Beyond a transferrance of players (for the better) I'd say that the two are self-contained... one is GW's sphere, the other is THQ's and Relic's.

Mhm, I'm still a big fan of the digital fun 40k lore is my main reason for the hobby, the game is fun but I don't want to play it too much. And im a lazy bum when it comes to painting :3

World of Warcraft was the only game that had some sort of style close to 40k I think. Mainly due to some of the armour in the game.

Man, I remember when all the WOW freaks started accusing GW of copying Blizzards art style. How people can state that without a little research amazes me. GW have been around for decades. But lets not get into that.

Ok, clearly some people have vendettas towards videogames so I'd like to clear up a few things...

OoieGoie wrote:World of Warcraft was the only game that had some sort of style close to 40k I think. Mainly due to some of the armour in the game.

Man, I remember when all the WOW freaks started accusing GW of copying Blizzards art style. How people can state that without a little research amazes me. GW have been around for decades. But lets not get into that.

I would say that DOW, MOC (Mark of Chaos, the Warhammer Fantasy RTS), Darksiders (You basically play as a Chaos Space Marine, Spoiler alert, the company that made Darksiders is making the 40k MMO) Starcraft, Mechwarrior, Unreal, Gears of War, and a whole list of C-List games more accurately portray to 40k (Either in Art style ((DoW, Darksiders, Gears, Unreal, Mechwarrior.)) Concept ((Mechwarrior, Starcraft, DoW, Gears of War)) and actually gameplay (DoW and MoC. MoC is the one realtime strategy game that I have played that ever truely felt like I was playing a high-end graphics/Digital version of a GW Tabletop Wargame))) I did not list Firewarrior because it sucked... eitherway WoW doesn't feel like 40k to me at all, it feels like DoTA on a very high scale.

On the topic of Warcraft and starcraft however, you should tell your WOW freak friends to look up the "rumor" about how Blizzard was originally the game designer going for the license to make RTSs based off of GW IPs but GW felt the games were too "cartoonish" to fit the universes (Fantasy and 40k) of their IPs. Now, this may just be a rumor but then again, so was the rumor that Sony was contracted by nintendo to make a CD version of the SNES to counter the Sega CD before Nintendo pulled out at the last minute stating they wanted to stick with Cartridges for their next gen system (n64), which gave birth to the console that killed Sega, the Sony playstation. (This is confirmed)

Back on topic.

Justicar Alaric wrote:It's the sense of community which comes with a hobby like 40k which can never be replicated by a computer game.

With the surprising amount of people running Online Campaigns with various software, eventually the community of Wargaming could take a digital turn (very possible, espeically if GW ever found a way to charge for Digital Models...Like Wizards of the Coast did with Digital playing cards...)

Justicar Alaric wrote:
I have yet to find a video game which can last more than few weeks without becoming boring where as 40k is different each time you play.

Dawn of War online. You face as diverse an opposition as you would in a 40k gaming store, yet you arent limited by people who live in your area. Online gaming (player vs player) has the same variation, if not more, then 40k. Also, in order to field different lists each time you play you would be totally negating the next point of....

Justicar Alaric wrote:
Not to mention the fact that you have to spend a lot more money before you can even start playing video games (purchasing the latest computer/games console) where as for the price of a single video game you can get one of the starter sets to start playing.

....Warhammer is an inexpensive hobby? I can buy Halo 3 right now, pre-owned, for 20$. A preowned 360 runs me 100-150$. Xbox Live runs me 50$ a year. 220$ for a great single player experience, unlimited multiplayer encounters on my timeframe, and a system that will continue playing games which range from 20-60$ for a long while.

40k I can get AOBR (an EXTREMELY BASIC) army for 75$. If I want to expand the info about my army im dropping 30$ for the codex. Lets say I chose space marines... well, I want to get 2 rhinos and 2 drop pods (depending on my game type) will be another 120$ Another dreadnought will run me another 41.25$ A landraider for my termies and leader to ride in will run another 57.75$. Paint and glue for my models will run me another 40$ (VERY LOW estimate) and lets say I go with a cheap tackle-box to transport them... 20$. All and all my 2(min str) troops 3 Elite, 1 Heavysupport, 1HQ list with 4 transport options is running me.... 384$ Lets say I want more customisation out of my army... Im probably spending close to 650$. Well, my friends who have been playing 40k forever want me to play Apoc with them, we are playing a low point game(3000 pts) so now with the additions ~900$ with more customisation ~1200$. Oh, btw, the new Tyranid codex just came out, and I want to try to play Zerglings soo lets add another 400$ so I can field ~1k points effectively. ~1400$ (~1500$ with the new paints I would need, ~1700$ if I get a Sabol Division case

So my money in 40K over the course of about a year would be ~1700$

Lets say I got a new 360 elite (250$) instead of preowned, this comes with PGR and Halo ODST. Assuming by "a few weeks" you mean ~3 weeks. I would need a new 50$ game every 3 weeks so, 18-2 (comes with two games) 16 X 50 = 800$ + 250 = 1050 +50 = 1100$ for 18 games over a years time (Btw, these are DIFFERENT games each times, as opposed to those space marines who will be THE SAME for about 8-10 months, 2 months with the nids) and the ability to play online whenever I want.

1700 > 1100

Now, lets go another route.

Instead of buying new console games every 3weeks (kinda irresponsible TBH, unless you are totally ADD a single game should last you at least a month or two) I decide to join the 11 million players on World of warcraft. 70$ initial investment (for the game and the expasion) and 14.50 a month. With 11 months (first one is free) I'm paying 230$ for an online environment thats constantly being patched and the playerbase is ever evolving (people join/move servers/quit all the time) with hundreds of hours of gametime just to fufil basic requirements. (I think the record for doing EVERYTHING in BASE WoW alone was like, 16 straight days of /played. 230 < 1700

I would not use money as a "Defense of 40k" argument. 40k, and wargaming in general, is an expensive hobby. We don't do it to save money, it is a total sponge of disposeable income.

Justicar Alaric wrote:
As for dulling down 40k, how many video games have an indepth history and narative as good as 40k.

Saying that there are plenty of 40k games out there... I don't think this requires much attention. But just in case...

Halo, Gears of War, Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, God of War, Darksiders, Fable, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Warcraft, Starcraft, Borderlands, Everquest, Planetside, Prototype, Prince of Persia, Assassin's Creed, Star wars KOTOR, Perfect Dark, Xenogears (hell "Japanese RPG". The list goes on and on and on and on.

Now for what is easily agreeable...

Henners91 wrote:I'll throw in my two pence since I'm a wargamergamer who was first brought over by video gaming.

I'd say that Warhammer isn't the most accessible of hobbies for your "everyman"... For new gamers to arrive, in my opinion, it usually takes a friend to do a *lot* of pushing to justify the costs, get a mate into the shop and get him playing with a borrowed army against others.

sometimes it even takes a friend to buy the new guy some base troops so they have at least a starter force to work with.

Henners91 wrote:
I'd say the most successful 40k game series is Dawn of War and I'll write about how that influenced me. In my opinion, the coolest aspect of 40k is the fluff, the background, the gothic grimdark setting. DoW, I believe, provides a window into this, though obviously at an expense (you never see chanting adepts, swinging censers, or the death of thousands to feed the energy of the Astronomican), nevertheless it gave you an insight and an introduction to the Imperium whilst still keeping the story open and unintimidating enough to attract "normal" people (that is, normal video gamers, and ultimately GW wants a new market). Dawn of War showed you screaming Space Marines, Chainswords, awesome Daemons, blood, gore, all of that generated interest from me. For a period of a few years, I read about 40k, I was pretty well-versed in the fluff, but I never showed the tabletop any real interest.

Anyway, about 9 months ago I get a call from my friend saying he's going back to GW to play with his old Chaos army, I say I'll come along and bring my terribly painted 'Goldmarines'... I get there, I have a *lot* of fun and I buy some Mechrite Red, Bleached Bone and Red Gore... within a few days my one tactical squad and few bikes are repainted as Blood Ravens (DoW-inspired ofc) and I'm back in the store

And I'd blame DoW, after all, want to know what one of my motivators was? When playing DoW II I used to think to myself "Damn, I wish I could have some DoW action figures..."

^THIS

DoW has made our gaming group go from 5 members to 12. It shaped the way our group picked their armies. (One of my close friends went Chaos instead of Tau due to his DOW experiences)

My girlfriend had little interest in playing 40k Tabletop (she likes RPs so its not as much as a stretch as you would think) but after playing DOW she cant wait to start building, painting and playing an army of her own (I'm letting her use my Dark Eldar as a starter army because I believe strong curves make better players in the long run). DoW was probably one of the best things to happen to 40k as it introduced two amazing aspects to the franchise. #1 it gave people who like videogames/RTS a reason to try out the Wargame (thank god I don't have to say "Its like turn based Starcraft" anymore) and #2 it gave wargamers a chance to try an RTS (and a game in general) that did the 40k universe justice. DoW is the first real RTS breath of fresh air I have had since Starcraft and its from a Franchise I love, if games like these continue (hell WAR, the Fantasy based MMO: Collectors edition came with an Ork Warboss) then the synergy between the Wargame and the videogames will drive 40k to heights it could have never imagined (perhaps televised Games Days on ESPN 8: the Ocho) with larger player bases, markets and model ranges.

So to answer the original topic... in my opinion videogames have had mostly postive influences on Warhammer 40000 and that if synergised, they could build off each other to take the franchise to new levels of success. As far as any one game that has influenced the game the most, I would say Dawn of War (original series, not DOWII which was pretty fail TBH) has had the most impact.

/soapbox

-DAR

Kilkrazy wrote:PAX is probably the biggest and includes traditional RPGs as well as computer games.

Doesn't PAX also have WarmaHordes tournaments?

One thing ive noticied over the years is 40K is what inspires Videogames not the other way around 40k came first ive seen and played so many videogames that have characters that have SM styled armor its crazy but I would much rather paint and build my models then have a computer generate them for me you can customize them however you want

One thing i enjoy about the table top aspect is your opponent is right there, you get to talk to him/her...

With online games especially you get the e-peen stroking internet toughguys. They talk loads of crap, insult everyone, think they are amazing, and every other word is the F-bomb or another 4 letter word. Do that when you dont have a computer screen to hide behind and odds are you will be taken out back and have the crap beat out of you.

Friendlier environment is what im getting at i think!

Zed wrote:Models and dice beat a mouse and screen every time in my opinion. Models are right there in front of you, you can paint them, move them, kill them, and you actually wind up interacting with someone in person whilst using them.

This! The TT version of 40K is multihobbies in one. Building, painting, gaming, and collecting. You don't get that in a video game.

DoW rocked. I'm still playing it. It is no substitute for the real deal though.

I would LOVE to see a digital version of the TT game.

I'm sorry I dont agree that there are video games with fluff as indepth ad Warhammer. No way! There are countless of books, codex's, and magazine articles that have been in print before nintendo was even released.

People who build communities behind pc screens are not the same as people who build communities in stores.

Justicar Alaric wrote:It's the sense of community which comes with a hobby like 40k which can never be replicated by a computer game.

Many video games do have extremely tight-knit communities, on a comparable level of 40k.

Justicar Alaric wrote:I have yet to find a video game which can last more than few weeks without becoming boring where as 40k is different each time you play.

Many people play one video game for months, even years. There are still people playing starcraft, which came out over 10 years ago. I also disagree with the notion that "40k is different each time you play", it's still just 40k. I could make the argument that Starcraft is different each time you play.

Justicar Alaric wrote:Not to mention the fact that you have to spend a lot more money before you can even start playing video games (purchasing the latest computer/games console) where as for the price of a single video game you can get one of the starter sets to start playing.

An Xbox 360 + Halo 3 is only about $360, while making a large warhammer army can cost in the thousands.

Justicar Alaric wrote:As for dulling down 40k, how many video games have an indepth history and narative as good as 40k.

Again, a highly debatable point. One could argue that many video games have narratives that are just as expansive, or indepth.

I actually read through all of Daemon-Archon Ren's post, and I have to agree with every word. There are lots of games that can remain very different over several months of play (Try Champions Online - it has a nearly limitless number of costumes that can be created for your superheroes, and almost total customization over your powerset, down to what color your moves look like) and depending on your FLGS/group of friends/people you play with, games of 40k can actually become very samey. Especially if there are older armies in your group, which can only field one or two effective lists.

I have to say that I kind of (Only kind of) see Justicar Alaric's point - yes, the starter set for 40k is fairly inexpensive and yes, buying a new console + games can be pretty expensive. But like Daemon said, in order to become even remotely immersed in 40k, you're going to have to buy more models at some point. Add in transport costs, modeling supplies, painting supplies, and the time required to build/paint, it's way more expensive to become a competitive player. Even with MMOs today, all it costs to become competitive is a lot of invested time and a monthly fee (Usually $15) to keep playing. Plus, you can pretty easily decide to try something new without needing to buy or borrow anything.

Although I will say, in Justicar's defense, that very few games have such a dense history and narrative as 40k does. Think of it this way: 40k has 16 playable races, all including a huge fluff section (Even the Marine codices each have their own differences and fluff sections that make them unique). In addition, it has a lot of information on the non-playable stuff, or expansion games (Battlefleet Gothic, Necromunda, Gorkamorka, Epic, Apocalypse, Cities of Death, etc.) plus a huge library of novels that detail various alien races (the Horus Heresy novels) and the ultra-elite humans in the Custodes, as well as the Titans of Mars and Terra.

On the other hand, virtually all of your examples (Warcraft, Mass Effect, Final Fantasy to a degree, Everquest and Star Wars were the exceptions) are very, very limited to a single world with only a small number of races/factions. While some might be better or worse than 40k, you have to admit that 40k will, in almost all cases, trump the others by sheer density of history and narrative.

On one last note, I'd like to agree with Henners91 and say that I, too was drawn into the tabletop and fluff of 40k by playing Dawn of War - I have played all of the DoW games, and even played a couple of mods (Firestorm over Kronus is incredible). On the topic at hand, I'd have to say that video games are not killing 40k - quite the opposite, in fact. The video games are actually drawing people in, people who had previously never heard of 40k before. Personally, I had only heard brief mention of 40k until I was drawn into the universe by playing Dawn of War.

Well i will tell my opinion about that.... some people say that this is an inexpensive hobby... inexpensive, sure? here in Spain if you have the rulebook (50 Euros) the codex (between 22-25 Euros) and a basic force (i mean that boxes of 80 Euros that carries a bit of nearly everything) it comes nearly 155 Euros.... maybe it is not too expensive, anyone who has a job (as myself) can purchase it...but.... if you have to pay more important things? such as taxes? receipts? i agree that the hobby maybe is not truly expensive, but all depends in the way that you have to admin your bucks, and even more if my pay is a...

about videogames.... well i agree that a game will never be so extent as the hobby, but... i think is a good way of "publishing" Warhammer and Warhammer 40k was well known time ago, but i have seen how videogames boosted the interest of the hobby, good game? bad game? its always good to give a good impression, but good or bad, still being a form of "publishing"...

In depth narratives in video games huh...

Halo, Diablo, Warcraft, Starcraft, Fallout are just some of the big names, I'm not even gonna start on the rest that's out there.

Money wise, it is cheaper then wargaming, hands down, I've been playing Warcraft 3 and Unreal Tournament since their release, now those 30 to 60 bucks aren't that much anymore are they?

And I agree with Ren on the point that DoW has actually added to Warhammer 40k instead of... somehow.. dulling it down (which I can't even think of an example for...)

Platuan4th wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:PAX is probably the biggest and includes traditional RPGs as well as computer games.

Doesn't PAX also have WarmaHordes tournaments?

I don't know what that is.

It doesn't matter, the key point is that there are many more wargaming events than pure computer gaming events. AFAIK.

This demonstrates the social side of the hobby.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:PAX is probably the biggest and includes traditional RPGs as well as computer games.

Doesn't PAX also have WarmaHordes tournaments?

I don't know what that is.

It doesn't matter, the key point is that there are many more wargaming events than pure computer gaming events. AFAIK.

This demonstrates the social side of the hobby.

I don't think it does. As background, I'm a long-time serious video gamer, previous serious Magic card player and current getting-serious Warhammer player. My video game experiences are consistently more social than my tabletop experiences... just because it is a lot easier to be social with regard to video games. Tabletops need conventions to run any type of tournament. With video games, it takes 2 seconds to log on and be talking to/playing with your buddies. With tabletop, you have a lot more coordination. And if you don't live in a major area, forget it about it. Why do you think Dash is so happy about Vassal?

My point isn't that one is clearly more social than the other (although it is for me). My point is that conventions by themselves do not prove the point that tabletop is more social than video games. If anything, they can show the difficulties of social engagement in tabletop.

Yeah, social engagement is hard when you have to actually be in the same room as real people...

Video games will never replace the Table top game, they can fix certain problems with it, local player base for example, and I know that my brother's entire playgroup was brought about by DoW.

Locclo wrote:I actually read through all of Daemon-Archon Ren's post, and I have to agree with every word. There are lots of games that can remain very different over several months of play (Try Champions Online - it has a nearly limitless number of costumes that can be created for your superheroes, and almost total customization over your powerset, down to what color your moves look like) and depending on your FLGS/group of friends/people you play with, games of 40k can actually become very samey. Especially if there are older armies in your group, which can only field one or two effective lists.

For starters, Thanks for reading the entire post. I typically just throw text walls up at people and let them read till they get annoyed enough, quote the part they don't like, then ignore the rest. its nice to see someone read the whole thing for once.

Locclo wrote:
Although I will say, in Justicar's defense, that very few games have such a dense history and narrative as 40k does. Think of it this way: 40k has 16 playable races, all including a huge fluff section (Even the Marine codices each have their own differences and fluff sections that make them unique). In addition, it has a lot of information on the non-playable stuff, or expansion games (Battlefleet Gothic, Necromunda, Gorkamorka, Epic, Apocalypse, Cities of Death, etc.) plus a huge library of novels that detail various alien races (the Horus Heresy novels) and the ultra-elite humans in the Custodes, as well as the Titans of Mars and Terra.

Warcraft also has a huge range of Novels, as well as an extensive collection of game history. Halo has a fun collection of novels and even a miniseries of movies based on its history. And then there are the games that have a surprising amount of back-story that you really wouldnt expect... Pokemon, Sonic the Hedgehog, Banjo Kazooie/Conker, Perfect Dark, Dead Space, Megaman. And while they may not be as narrative as one would think, remember, 40k only has its novels, codices, and magazine articles to portray the story. In most videogames you PLAY the story. I would argue that the script of Final Fantasy 7, including the cut scenes (if they were turned narritive) would amount to a good few omnibuses

Locclo wrote:
On the other hand, virtually all of your examples (Warcraft, Mass Effect, Final Fantasy to a degree, Everquest and Star Wars were the exceptions) are very, very limited to a single world with only a small number of races/factions. While some might be better or worse than 40k, you have to admit that 40k will, in almost all cases, trump the others by sheer density of history and narrative.

God of War - All Greece-mythological races are present in the game. No
Gears of War - Kinda a two race scenario, while there are sub-races of Locust yes 40k has more background, however keep in mind franchise age. Yes
Darksiders- Brand new IP, based on the Apocalypse. Yes
Dragon Age - Doubtful, Dragonage has a TON of races with more back story then should be required. Bioware really overdoes this kind of stuff. No
Borderlands/Planetside/Prototype/AC/PD - All games in a reality where basically only humans exist, only mention other races on a rare basis, while many of them do have large amounts of storyline to base off of, they are more limited then the warhammer universe so... Yes
Japanese RPGs - No, not even Star Wars can compare to the ungodly amount of source material provided for a successful Japanese Franchise... but then again, its not really fair to compare Warhammer stuff to something so unforgivingly saturated with fan-service that is Japanese Culture..... be afraid...

Mark1130 wrote:

No way! There are countless of books, codex's, and magazine articles that have been in print before nintendo was even released.

I'm sorry but I felt compelled to notify you of this...

Rogue Trader, the first version of what we call Warhammer 40000 came out in 1987

Nintendo Co., Ltd. (任天堂株式会社 Nintendō Kabushiki gaisha?) is a multinational corporation located in Kyoto, Japan. Founded on September 23, 1889

In 1974, Nintendo secured the rights to distribute the Magnavox Odyssey home video game console in Japan

In 1983, Nintendo launched the Family Computer (commonly called by its shortened name "Famicom" home video game console in Japan alongside ports of its most popular arcade titles In 1985, the console launched in North America as the Nintendo Entertainment System, and was accompanied by Super Mario Bros.

Nintendo has been around longer then 40000k, no matter how you slice it

ShivanAngel wrote:One thing i enjoy about the table top aspect is your opponent is right there, you get to talk to him/her...

With online games especially you get the e-peen stroking internet toughguys. They talk loads of crap, insult everyone, think they are amazing, and every other word is the F-bomb or another 4 letter word. Do that when you dont have a computer screen to hide behind and odds are you will be taken out back and have the crap beat out of you.

Friendlier environment is what im getting at i think!

Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't know what that is.

It doesn't matter, the key point is that there are many more wargaming events than pure computer gaming events. AFAIK.

This demonstrates the social side of the hobby.

Mark1130 wrote:
People who build communities behind pc screens are not the same as people who build communities in stores.

Nurglitch wrote:Yeah, social engagement is hard when you have to actually be in the same room as real people...

In short... No. Lan/Split screen is a huge factor of Computer Gaming. There are probably 5 Video Gaming convention/events for every 1 Warhammer one. I have seen more Lan centers then I have LGS/GWs. I play video games in person with more people then that I do with the Wargaming hobby.

Again, as stated in the last post, turning this discussion into which is better, Warhammer 40000 or Video Games would be entirely unfair to the hobby. Video games are a billion dollar industry that has been around, has multiple waves of competition, and has been mainstreme for the last 8 years (which has led to massive and rapid advancements.) As much as I love it, Warhammer, and wargamining in general, is a small niche market. You would be hard pressed to find 50 people in 50 miles who play warhammer, an easy task to do the same with video games. You can set up a Lan, or multiple split screen consoles and take up significantly less space per head then that of a war-game.

Yes Video Gaming can be anti-social, but so can any hobby. It depends on the players, the game, and the community as to how it pans out.

To be fair, I would again like to try and shift the discussion more towards how videogames have effected 40k and away from the unfair argument that 40k>Video Games.

I loved the first DoW just because it was cool to see my models move and fight as if they were real. That said, I have some issues with all the Warhammer (40k or fantasy) games I've played. It's usually a pretty watered down version of the tabletop game. Even DoW 2 is very limited in scope to small scale engagements, and troop selection has taken a large hit since the first DoW.
Ultimately, nothing will beat building and painting your own models. Video games are fun, but they don't account for custom rules, campaigns or any of that fun stuff that you find with the hobby.
Maybe an online game of DoW 2 beats a pickup game at a FLGS. The virtual impossibility of cheating on DoW 2 gives it a slight edge, but it's still nice to meet new people.

Killjoy00 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:PAX is probably the biggest and includes traditional RPGs as well as computer games.

Doesn't PAX also have WarmaHordes tournaments?

I don't know what that is.

It doesn't matter, the key point is that there are many more wargaming events than pure computer gaming events. AFAIK.

This demonstrates the social side of the hobby.

I don't think it does. As background, I'm a long-time serious video gamer, previous serious Magic card player and current getting-serious Warhammer player. My video game experiences are consistently more social than my tabletop experiences... just because it is a lot easier to be social with regard to video games. Tabletops need conventions to run any type of tournament. With video games, it takes 2 seconds to log on and be talking to/playing with your buddies. With tabletop, you have a lot more coordination. And if you don't live in a major area, forget it about it. Why do you think Dash is so happy about Vassal?

My point isn't that one is clearly more social than the other (although it is for me). My point is that conventions by themselves do not prove the point that tabletop is more social than video games. If anything, they can show the difficulties of social engagement in tabletop.

Au contraire! The fact that there are so many wargame conventions shows that people are deeply committed to the hobby or they would not make the effort to put on and attend such events.

It takes a few seconds to log on and order Dominos PIzza, but it isn't the same as planning and cooking a real dinner party.

Kilkrazy wrote:
It doesn't matter, the key point is that there are many more wargaming events than pure computer gaming events. AFAIK.

Ahem, nooooooooooooooooooo.

There are not.

Also, do you see a country with wargaming as a national sport? I do see that with gaming.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:

I don't think it does. As background, I'm a long-time serious video gamer, previous serious Magic card player and current getting-serious Warhammer player. My video game experiences are consistently more social than my tabletop experiences... just because it is a lot easier to be social with regard to video games. Tabletops need conventions to run any type of tournament. With video games, it takes 2 seconds to log on and be talking to/playing with your buddies. With tabletop, you have a lot more coordination. And if you don't live in a major area, forget it about it. Why do you think Dash is so happy about Vassal?

My point isn't that one is clearly more social than the other (although it is for me). My point is that conventions by themselves do not prove the point that tabletop is more social than video games. If anything, they can show the difficulties of social engagement in tabletop.

Au contraire! The fact that there are so many wargame conventions shows that people are deeply committed to the hobby or they would not make the effort to put on and attend such events.

It takes a few seconds to log on and order Dominos PIzza, but it isn't the same as planning and cooking a real dinner party.

I'm not debating whether tabletoppers are committed. I would easily grant that they are more committed, on average, than the video gamer. That's not the point you were making though. Your point was that conventions show they are more social. And that's not true at all.

People that order from dominos probably eat more than those who only eat at real dinner parties.

They put a lot less effort into it though, and spend a lot more time hiding from the rest of humanity.

Zed wrote:They put a lot less effort into it though, and spend a lot more time hiding from the rest of humanity.

Eh. I know lots of committed video gamers. Know anyone who plays WoW? I don't think those people can be described as putting a "lot less" effort. I did concede the on average, most tabletoppers will be more committed than most video gamers.

As for hiding from humanity, that is just silly. As I've pointed out, video games are extremely social, and have easier, more accessible social features than most of my other hobbies.

Justicar Alaric wrote:

Not to mention the fact that you have to spend a lot more money before you can even start playing video games

I was with you up until this part.

You're serious?

Killjoy00 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:

I don't think it does. As background, I'm a long-time serious video gamer, previous serious Magic card player and current getting-serious Warhammer player. My video game experiences are consistently more social than my tabletop experiences... just because it is a lot easier to be social with regard to video games. Tabletops need conventions to run any type of tournament. With video games, it takes 2 seconds to log on and be talking to/playing with your buddies. With tabletop, you have a lot more coordination. And if you don't live in a major area, forget it about it. Why do you think Dash is so happy about Vassal?

My point isn't that one is clearly more social than the other (although it is for me). My point is that conventions by themselves do not prove the point that tabletop is more social than video games. If anything, they can show the difficulties of social engagement in tabletop.

Au contraire! The fact that there are so many wargame conventions shows that people are deeply committed to the hobby or they would not make the effort to put on and attend such events.

It takes a few seconds to log on and order Dominos PIzza, but it isn't the same as planning and cooking a real dinner party.

I'm not debating whether tabletoppers are committed. I would easily grant that they are more committed, on average, than the video gamer. That's not the point you were making though. Your point was that conventions show they are more social. And that's not true at all.

...

I didn't say that. I said it demonstrates the social side of the hobby. Wargamers ring each other up and go on forums, the same as video gamers.

There is also quite an overlap between them. Being a wargamer doesn't stop you playing video games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
It doesn't matter, the key point is that there are many more wargaming events than pure computer gaming events. AFAIK.

Ahem, nooooooooooooooooooo.

There are not.

Also, do you see a country with wargaming as a national sport? I do see that with gaming.