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.

 Ailaros wrote:

But if it were better, it wouldn't be so obscure.

"if something is good it's popular, if something is bad then it's unpopular!

No, Ailaros. Lil' B and Michael Bay laugh at your fallacy here.

And your example of "What Does the Fox Say" supports my point. What is Youtube, compared to something like Vassal? Youtube is a platform that is used by hundreds of millions of people all over the world. Even something that's stupid and idiotic like that video can be exposed to many people simply by virtue of how popular the platform it's uploaded on is. If that artist had created that video and uploaded it to a community forum with 10 members on it, it absolutely would not have gotten the exposure it did. It would be a fart in the wind of the internet, like Vassal is.

Which doesn't help, of course. If I've learned anything from minecraft or FTL, though, it's that a video game doesn't rise and fall on its graphics, or even necessarily its UI.

Meanwhile, flashy graphics and lots of power won't fix a bad game.

Sure, but if you're going to develop a game in 2014 where the aesthetic style of the game is half of the fun, using Super Nintendo graphics isn't going to help you sell it. Production quality isn't everything in a product, but it's a large part of it.

That's sort of my point, though.

The problem is that a "good" video game isn't just a product of effort and marketing. The movie John Carter had a huge amount of effort and money put into it, but that didn't make it sell tickets either, while the blair witch project brought in a huge amount of cash.

One of the things necessary to a good video game is that it makes use of its medium as a video game to do those things well that only video games can do well. Porting a board game directly into a video game isn't going to work very well at all. Just like any time you try and copy things from one medium to another without taking that change into consideration.

History disagrees with your assertion. There is a huge amount of hype for Warmachine: Tactics. There is a huge amount of hype for MechWarrior: Tactics, which is an adaptation of a card game. 40K is not just a "board game", like LIFE or Scrabble. It's a wargame, and the mechanics within the game lend themselves just fine to video games.

You don't seem to be very in touch with modern gaming, to be honest. Games like X-COM, MechWarrior Tactics, Advance Wars, Skulls of the Shogun and other turn-based wargames with mechanics similar to 40K's are popular franchises. It can, and has been done.

*huge* - in the very small circle of people who already play wh40K ? Because I haven't heard of Warmachine outside of this circle

MechWarrior has been a videogame for almost 20 years, I don't think it counts anymore.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
If that artist had created that video and uploaded it to a community forum with 10 members on it, it absolutely would not have gotten the exposure it did. It would be a fart in the wind of the internet, like Vassal is.

But that's not what has happened with Vassal. It's been mentioned on every major wargaming forum, and most people who have a strong interest in the hobby have probably at least heard of it. The problem with Vassal isn't obscurity, it's the fact that most of us have heard of it and decided that it isn't appealing at all.

History disagrees with your assertion. There is a huge amount of hype for Warmachine: Tactics. There is a huge amount of hype for MechWarrior: Tactics, which is an adaptation of a card game. 40K is not just a "board game", like LIFE or Scrabble.

Sure, but Warmachine: Tactics is a game coming from a company that has a reputation for making good games, which means that a lot of Warmachine fans have good reasons to eagerly anticipate it. A video game clone of 40k would be a new game coming from a company that has a reputation for publishing overpriced garbage that barely deserves the title "game". Vassal is nothing more than that game with an inferior interface and bad graphics. So it's no surprise that a Warmachine game gets a lot of attention, while Vassal 40k is completely ignored.

It's a wargame, and the mechanics within the game lend themselves just fine to video games.

Yes, but it's a bad wargame. Making a video game with wargame-style mechanics has lots of potential, and can clearly produce a good and popular game. The problem is that 40k's mechanics are completely broken, and only the fluff/models/popularity cover up this fact in the tabletop world. Take away all of those factors and you're left with terrible mechanics that no sane game designer would ever want to deal with.

Games like X-COM, MechWarrior Tactics, Advance Wars and other turn-based wargames with mechanics similar to 40K's are very popular franchises. It can, and has been done.

Which is an argument for making a brand new game in the 40k universe, not trying to translate a horrible game into digital form in the desperate hope that a new platform will somehow make it suck a bit less. A 40k-IP video game could be successful. A 40k clone can't.

MechWarrior as it plays in the franchise that's been around for awhile is completely different from MechWarrior tactics.

They aren't comparable.

 Peregrine wrote:
The problem with Vassal isn't obscurity, it's the fact that most of us have heard of it and decided that it isn't appealing at all.

According to what? Linux is widely considered by many to be vastly superior to Apple OS's and Microsoft, and it's been "mentioned" quite often over the years; that hasn't stopped it from being an incredibly obscure OS, though.

This notion of "if something is popular than it's a good product, if it's unpopular than it's because it's bad" needs to stop. It's very poor logic.

I'm not going to get sucked into an argument with you about 40K's crappy rules. Yeah, 40K's rules are crap. You and I have been on the same page on that front for years.But so what? We're discussing a hypothetical situation here. It's not unfounded to assume that this adaptation would be based off of 40K rules that aren't garbage. That's not an outlandish possibility considering that 40K at its core is not a terrible game. Despite the antiquity of its IGOUGO system, a dedicated group of people who actually care about the game and balance could fix the majority of its glaring problems in a very short amount of time.

morgoth wrote:
If DoW was a good game - it was decent - then DoW3 would not have been put on hold, and the company making those games would be rich, not poor.

I know of one company that used to consistently make good games until they were acquired, and those guys made tons of money (Blizzard). Now they make shittier games but they still make tons of money.

DoW had a lot more success than I anticipated, but it's still very obscure.

Except..That's not how it worked At All, the issue with dawn of war 3 was the collapse of the parent company (THQ) which failed as a result of stupid business practices, overestimating a singular product (The UDraw Tablet) and as a result the company that produced Dawn Of War (Relic), had to be sold as assets due to it, and since at the time 40k's license only extended to THQ Relic will have to reacquire another license to continue such Dawn Of War 3.

I think it's a great game on tabletop and on vassal. The only problem is that learning the interface is a little daunting.

Also, if this new game is playable cross platforms, for example on apple and google store, it would be really popular.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
According to what? Linux is widely considered by many to be vastly superior to Apple OS's and Microsoft, and it's been "mentioned" quite often over the years; that hasn't stopped it from being an incredibly obscure OS, though.

Again, no. Linux isn't at all obscure among people who choose their OS based on more than "what I use at work" or "what my computer came with". Pretty much everyone who uses their computer for more than email and facebook knows that Linux exists. But most of us have decided that we don't want to use it. You're once again confusing ignorance with a choice that a product doesn't offer anything we want.

It's not unfounded to assume that this adaptation would be based off of 40K rules that aren't garbage.

Of course it is, because there is no plausible situation in which 40k's rules stop being garbage in the foreseeable future. If there is ever a 40k clone video game it will be a copy of the game as it is now. There's no point in discussing a hypothetical video game based on a hypothetical version of 40k that, if it ever exists, will look nothing like the one we have now. Aside from the obvious "why bother" question you just aren't going to have any useful discussion of such an unknown product. The answer to "would this be a good game" depends entirely on how 40k changes in the distant future, and we have no idea if/how it will change.

That's not an outlandish possibility considering that 40K at its core is not a terrible game. Despite the antiquity of its IGOUGO system, a dedicated group of people who actually care about the game and balance could fix the majority of its glaring problems in a very short amount of time.

Only because the glaring problems are so unbelievably bad that they prevent you from really looking at all the other problems. But the problem with 40k isn't a few simple things that can be FAQed away in an afternoon, it's that the entire rulebook is terrible. The core mechanics are awful, and the rest of the game is just as bad as you'd expect from having a bunch of lazy and/or incompetent "game designers" add random changes every edition without any overall design goals or effort invested in playtesting. Fixing 40k would mean deleting the entire rulebook and starting over with a brand new game set in the same universe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 milkboy wrote:
I think it's a great game on tabletop and on vassal.

You're wrong.

Yeah nah, without the models its a bit pointless for me sorry.

morgoth wrote:
If DoW was a good game - it was decent - then DoW3 would not have been put on hold, and the company making those games would be rich, not poor.

I know of one company that used to consistently make good games until they were acquired, and those guys made tons of money (Blizzard). Now they make shittier games but they still make tons of money.

DoW had a lot more success than I anticipated, but it's still very obscure.

Zebio explained why no DoW3, but I'll address DoW1+2 - they've repeatedly topped the Steam best sellers lists during sales over the years. Even today DoW2 has 500+ people playing it at any time that I've checked (I'm playing them all again) - the games are far from obscure.

I'll also address Blizzard - they have complete autonomy. Starcraft 2 is a huge success with a large tournament scene. D3 had it's problems sure, but the expansion has made the game a lot better. WoW... love it or hate it, it's still hugely popular and on an objective level is far superior to what it used to be feature and graphics wise. I *may* have been pet battling my little heart out today ; p The new expansion is also looking really good. A setting most people should enjoy rather than panda land, plus player housing in the form of garrisons with NPC followers you can assign tasks or quests, big class revamps again which are looking great and so on. Not to mention the release of two great free to play games in Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm - both very casual oriented, but really good games for those that like such things.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
According to what? Linux is widely considered by many to be vastly superior to Apple OS's and Microsoft, and it's been "mentioned" quite often over the years; that hasn't stopped it from being an incredibly obscure OS, though.

Again, no. Linux isn't at all obscure among people who choose their OS based on more than "what I use at work" or "what my computer came with". Pretty much everyone who uses their computer for more than email and facebook knows that Linux exists. But most of us have decided that we don't want to use it. You're once again confusing ignorance with a choice that a product doesn't offer anything we want.

I think he's got it right though. Most people don't know about Linux, or know of Linux as an incredibly obscure OS.
Hell, most Ubuntu users don't know about Linux, and find the shell obscure.

Not as a replacement to 40k, but I don't get to play often. It would be nice to be able to play without having to meet up, especially for friends in the US.

If it was well-represented graphically, it would be pretty enjoyable. It would also be cool to play against AI - again, not as a replacement for standard 40k, but just for the experience itself. Especially if it allowed for custom game scenarios and whatnot. Being able to set up your miniature collection as a digital army and putting them into some narrative battle could be pretty cool, as would the ability to set up quick simulations so you can try things out. And hey, the Space Hulk game is decent, even if the sound effects and animations get really repetitive after a while.

The reason I don't play Vassal is because it's ugly.

 Yonan wrote:

morgoth wrote:
If DoW was a good game - it was decent - then DoW3 would not have been put on hold, and the company making those games would be rich, not poor.

I know of one company that used to consistently make good games until they were acquired, and those guys made tons of money (Blizzard). Now they make shittier games but they still make tons of money.

DoW had a lot more success than I anticipated, but it's still very obscure.

Zebio explained why no DoW3, but I'll address DoW1+2 - they've repeatedly topped the Steam best sellers lists during sales over the years. Even today DoW2 has 500+ people playing it at any time that I've checked (I'm playing them all again) - the games are far from obscure.

I'll also address Blizzard - they have complete autonomy. Starcraft 2 is a huge success with a large tournament scene. D3 had it's problems sure, but the expansion has made the game a lot better. WoW... love it or hate it, it's still hugely popular and on an objective level is far superior to what it used to be feature and graphics wise. I *may* have been pet battling my little heart out today ; p The new expansion is also looking really good. A setting most people should enjoy rather than panda land, plus player housing in the form of garrisons with NPC followers you can assign tasks or quests, big class revamps again which are looking great and so on. Not to mention the release of two great free to play games in Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm - both very casual oriented, but really good games for those that like such things.

Alright I'll bite

SC2 is a huge success, with a large tournament scene mostly ported from Broodwar (fans and players), it is incredibly awesome in its awesomeness and everything.
But, when you compare it to C&C Generals, it's just a modern copy of an outdated RTS.
That's because Blizzard had to strike between Broodwar and "Next Gen", and decided on a compromise with some usability improvements but not too many (can't spread your troops, no formations, etc.).
SC2 is a very good update of SC1, I love it. It's not a new game though.

Diablo3 was horrible at launch (not DH ? roll DH !), horrible after that, some more horrible after, and yes RoS was much better, but it's still very much horrible.
Compared to Diablo2, the game is less fun, has less players in one game (4 instead of 8 ?), more RnG based, etc.
Hell, it takes hundreds of hours to even find one BiS that's properly rolled. How fun is that farm ? loving it ? good. I'd rather play.
It's clearly surfing on the D2 popularity, and nowhere near as good a game by itself.

WoW very clearly was an awesome game back in Vanilla. And I have to say they had even struck an insane balance, because gamers could play it (as long as they stuck with other gamers), and non-gamers did as well, which made a lot of money for Blizz.
Since Vanilla, the game has never recovered any kind of PvP balance, stats have been shifting around to try and fix the problem of iLvL creep, raids have become increasingly easy, partly because of the smaller raid size, partly because they all get nerfed so hard so fast.
Hell, ICC Hero one month after was easier than ICC Normal @ launch.
DK... Worgens... Pandas ... I guess the next one will be themed "Rise of the Unicorndogs".

I'd like them to turn back, but I think Blizzard has been running EA-Style for a while now.

morgoth wrote:
WoW very clearly was an awesome game back in Vanilla. And I have to say they had even struck an insane balance, because gamers could play it (as long as they stuck with other gamers), and non-gamers did as well, which made a lot of money for Blizz.
Since Vanilla, the game has never recovered any kind of PvP balance, stats have been shifting around to try and fix the problem of iLvL creep, raids have become increasingly easy, partly because of the smaller raid size, partly because they all get nerfed so hard so fast.
Hell, ICC Hero one month after was easier than ICC Normal @ launch.
DK... Worgens... Pandas ... I guess the next one will be themed "Rise of the Unicorndogs".

I'd like them to turn back, but I think Blizzard has been running EA-Style for a while now.

I ... think? we agree about SC2 being good?
Won't deny the launch of D3 was horrible - RMAH screwing the entire game due to crippling item drop mechanics and so on. The tiered difficulties was /facepalm too. It is *much* better now - even without the expansion, many changes went live without it. Liking D2 more is understandable if you prefer it, but D3 is not a bad game anymore.
PvP balance is very subjective and I cbf with it when there are better games for it - always have been.
Raids are only easier if you choose the easier difficulty levels - the introduction of these easier difficulties was a *good thing* for the main playerbase of WoW - casuals who had been asking to see end game content since vanilla and has nothing to do with Activision. If activision had a hand in WoW it would have nose dived like WAR and SWTOR did for EA. Only 2.5% at last count of players have the heroic siege of orgrimmar achievement, and only ... 10%? of players have killed heroic Garrosh, the final raid boss of the expansion. There is still ample difficulty there for people that want it.
DK, worgens and pandas are all subjective tastes. I think DKs and Worgens fit great, but I like very little about the styling of the current expansion, including Pandas - which is why I skipped it until recently starting again.

*cough* tie in to topic *cough* I ahhh... hope Eternal Crusade (the 30k MMO) has learned a lot from the MMO market and doesn't go for a straight WoW copy but rather goes for a more dynamic experience like GW2, with epic PvP like DAoC/WAR/GW2 and so on. That said, it *will* be held up to the level of polish and content that WoW has so they'd want to make sure they launch well so they don't fizzle out like so many other MMOs.

edit: Happy to discuss it more in PMs so we don't derail the topic further if you want Morgoth.

Hell yeah. Playing when noone else can or with others in other countries whenever we want, testing new strategies, doing awesome math etc. I'd buy two.

Vassal is incredibly clunky and un-intutitive to use so anything that's more user-friendly - yes, please.

 Peregrine wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
I think it's a great game on tabletop and on vassal.

You're wrong.

How can someone's opinion be wrong?

milkboy thinks the game is great. You disagree with his opinion that is fine. I wouldn't say he is wrong.

morgoth wrote:
Diablo3 was horrible at launch (not DH ? roll DH !), horrible after that, some more horrible after, and yes RoS was much better, but it's still very much horrible.
Compared to Diablo2, the game is less fun, has less players in one game (4 instead of 8 ?), more RnG based, etc.
Hell, it takes hundreds of hours to even find one BiS that's properly rolled. How fun is that farm ? loving it ? good. I'd rather play.
It's clearly surfing on the D2 popularity, and nowhere near as good a game by itself.

Kind of a tangent, but let's not idealize the past here. D2 had horrible balance, and the only reason everyone had all that high-end gear so easily was the ridiculous amount of botting and duping. Remove the cow level and illegitimate items and you'll find that getting endgame gear is just as hard as in D3, and you're probably going to have a lot less fun getting to max level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
How can someone's opinion be wrong?

milkboy thinks the game is great. You disagree with his opinion that is fine. I wouldn't say he is wrong.

Because the game is full of objectively bad design. The only way to believe that 40k is a good game is to not understand how good game design works and/or not be familiar with any better games. It's like asking how someone's opinion that rotting food with shards of broken glass in it is tasty can be wrong, sometimes opinions are just wrong.

Exactly replicated? Hell no, that would be the horror that is 40k but without all the things that make it fun like the miniatures and interaction with friends.
I would definitely play a new 40k game like Dawn of War or Space Marine though.

 Peregrine wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Diablo3 was horrible at launch (not DH ? roll DH !), horrible after that, some more horrible after, and yes RoS was much better, but it's still very much horrible.
Compared to Diablo2, the game is less fun, has less players in one game (4 instead of 8 ?), more RnG based, etc.
Hell, it takes hundreds of hours to even find one BiS that's properly rolled. How fun is that farm ? loving it ? good. I'd rather play.
It's clearly surfing on the D2 popularity, and nowhere near as good a game by itself.

Kind of a tangent, but let's not idealize the past here. D2 had horrible balance, and the only reason everyone had all that high-end gear so easily was the ridiculous amount of botting and duping. Remove the cow level and illegitimate items and you'll find that getting endgame gear is just as hard as in D3, and you're probably going to have a lot less fun getting to max level.

It had horrible balance, that much is true, but you could still play all characters to the end-game, which was impossible with D3 on release, unless you were DH.
About the high-end gear, it was easy enough to farm it with a Frozen Orb Sorceress that I got most of my stuff out of just spamming <1minute Andariel runs.
Yes, I did not get every BiS that way, but come on... that was much easier than D3 where rolling a perfect Thunderfury is near impossible, even with the stat reroll.

Because the game is full of objectively bad design. The only way to believe that 40k is a good game is to not understand how good game design works and/or not be familiar with any better games. It's like asking how someone's opinion that rotting food with shards of broken glass in it is tasty can be wrong, sometimes opinions are just wrong.

Except that's not how proving an opinion wrong works.

First off is there possible better games? Yes.

But that's not a fact that can be proven wrong, people may enjoy it better then said objectively better games.

Though out of curiosity why are you even here if that's the case, there's games with better models and rules, why are you here?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Though out of curiosity why are you even here if that's the case, there's games with better models and rules, why are you here?

We love 40k, we just hate GW and their rules.

Which is why Dawn of War and the 40k RPGs, both with rules designed by people other than GW are a lot of fun.

 Yonan wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Though out of curiosity why are you even here if that's the case, there's games with better models and rules, why are you here?

We love 40k, we just hate GW and their rules.

Which is why Dawn of War and the 40k RPGs, both with rules designed by people other than GW are a lot of fun.

Not you, he said that objective fact is that 40k is a terrible game and that every other opinion about it is 'wrong', thus I want to know why he continues to play a game he "knows" is objectively terrible when there are games with better models and rules.

Sure. It would be pretty cool to have an entire 3D battlefield rendered in high-definition so I could zoom and swoop among it, getting a "model's eye view" of the battlefield.

 Peregrine wrote:
Hell no. The only thing even remotely enjoyable about 40k is the models, take that away and you're left with a painfully bad game with no redeeming qualities. And why waste time playing bad video games when there are good ones to play instead?

Why are you even playing 40k again?

I love to see that kind of argument.

Everybody thinks the rules could be better.
Everybody thinks the models and painting are a great part of the hobby.

Yet you manage to disagree because of the wording

Either way, 40K rules and balance (i.e. the game) have room for improvement.

In terms of models however, I don't know any model range that is objectively better considering detail, range, availability and things like that.

It's very clear that in terms of "games", including anything from Tetris to Diablo 3, there are much more enjoyable options out there, with better rules, balance, dynamics, etc.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Because the game is full of objectively bad design. The only way to believe that 40k is a good game is to not understand how good game design works and/or not be familiar with any better games. It's like asking how someone's opinion that rotting food with shards of broken glass in it is tasty can be wrong, sometimes opinions are just wrong.

Except that's not how proving an opinion wrong works.

First off is there possible better games? Yes.

But that's not a fact that can be proven wrong, people may enjoy it better then said objectively better games.

Someone saying they enjoy the game and someone saying that the game is great are not the same thing. Saying a game is great implies quality in the game, not just enjoyment levels.

I've enjoyed many individual games of 40k despite the game not being very good.

Oh yes, I'd play the heck of it. The best part is the possibility of CLEAR rules, so what happens in the game can be used in the tabletop.

I'd still give preference to the physical game; the online one would be nice in those days you don't want to go out, it's raining/snowing a lot, you don't have much time to set a game, etc.

GW could launch a simpler game: max 750p, being able to field 1-2 HQ, 2-4 Troops, 0-1 Elites, 0-1 Fast Attack, 0-1 Heavy Support, 0-1 Fortifications. No dataslates/supplements/formations. It would be a introduction to the game and sales promotion as well (direct links to the store). It could generate glorious terrain and suggestions of how to replicate it (materials, paints, assembling steps), conversion setups, paint tutorials, a living FAQ, virtual model painter and other support stuff like that.
More than "40k Online"; an "Online Hobby Center"

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Hell no. The only thing even remotely enjoyable about 40k is the models, take that away and you're left with a painfully bad game with no redeeming qualities. And why waste time playing bad video games when there are good ones to play instead?

Why are you even playing 40k again?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Because the game is full of objectively bad design. The only way to believe that 40k is a good game is to not understand how good game design works and/or not be familiar with any better games. It's like asking how someone's opinion that rotting food with shards of broken glass in it is tasty can be wrong, sometimes opinions are just wrong.

Though out of curiosity why are you even here if that's the case, there's games with better models and rules, why are you here?

He already explained this on the previous page:

 Peregrine wrote:
I love gaming in general, and I like the story and being able to play games with the models I've made. I even enjoy what little strategy there is in 40k. But if I didn't care about the models and just wanted to play a tabletop wargame I wouldn't even consider 40k when there are much better alternatives.

He already explained this on the previous page:

Except as said, there are better games with better models then 40k. By his logic he should be dumping 40k and just playing them.

Yep, it's just an opinion. I'm not going to force it on anyone. I think saying something is great is ok as well.

For example, I said to a friend, White Castle is great! But he wouldn't even try the sliders. So....does that mean White Castle is not great and I was wrong? Well, to me it is! But that's not a statement of fact, just that I enjoyed it.It's just not great to him.

Anyway, on topic, With old games on PC like Curse of the Horned Rat (not too sure if I got the name correct), it's not implausible to expect something like that again. Hope is a good thing.

 milkboy wrote:
Hope is a good thing.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment ; p