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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The "unexpected and arbitrary death" trope is so often used in fiction I'm surprised you hadn't encountered it before.

That it should provoke such a strong reaction in someone is, shall we say, a statistical outlier?

This was beyond egregious though.

This was like if you had a war movie, and near the end you had a big battle. Then you had a ten second scene after that battle, where the squad is traveling to the next part of the city to fight in, where a bridge gives way and kills five people in the squad. The survivors then carry on like nothing happened. Then immediately afterward you had another big battle.

This was like that middle scene.

I'm not seeing the issue with it. Especially in the context of war, death happens anywhere, at anytime, for any number of reasons.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm not seeing the issue with it. Especially in the context of war, death happens anywhere, at anytime, for any number of reasons.

The problem is that I was reading that book for entertainment, not for a lesson on the certainty of death.

Also, the fact you don't see the problem with such a scene happening in a movie tells me you don't watch a lot of movies. No good movie ever made would have created a scene like that. Instead, they would've tied those soldiers' deaths into something in the following battle to make the movie seem consistent.

When Kelly's Heroes had a traveling scene where a guy stepped on a mine and died pretty much randomly, the following battle scene took place because the explosion from that alerted a nearby German outpost, who sent troops to investigate. There was tension between the random death and the battle because it means the squad knew they were in a minefield and now had to get out of it without dying before the German troops showed up. So that random death wasn't pointless for the movie, since it created the conditions for the following battle to take place, and caused something interesting with the manner of death.

Did the elevator's floor dropping out create the conditions for the next battle in Faith and Fire to happen? Nope. It would've happened anyways.

Did the elevator's floor dropping out impede the survivors in any way? No, they just spend one sentence telling you they held on until the ride was done.

It wouldn't have even been an issue for me if the elevator's floor dropping out had caused a problem for the survivors. Like if they had to figure out how to get off the elevator once it arrived at its destination without having a floor, or had to struggle with gripping parts of a crumbly old elevator that were in danger of breaking off and sending more people to their deaths. But it didn't. The book basically just said that the trip was the same, just they had to hold onto something instead of standing on the floor, which was never presented as even having been difficult for them to do.

It added NOTHING to the story.

Pouncey, stay hell away from Game of Thrones.

I am a relatively new joiner to this hobby, and it was that background that drew me in initially, over the other war games

 Crimson wrote:
Pouncey, stay hell away from Game of Thrones.

I already decided to do that very early on in that one episode where a guy had molten gold poured over his head.

Also, I didn't have any issue with the characters being killed. I already said it would've been fine if those same characters died in the previous battle scene, so I would've been fine if they were already dead before that elevator thing happened.

I have an issue with character death that is so incredibly pointless that there is no reason, at all for that to have been written, since doing so didn't add anything to the story, at all.

Maybe you don't understand the level of pointlessness that scene had in being written. 0. There was 0 reason to write it, EVEN just to kill the characters off.

"You disagree with me, so therefore your level of understanding on this topic must be inferior to mine" is getting to be a bit of a theme with you lad.

Maybe take a breath and consider that people understand the point quite well and just don't think you're correct?

 Azreal13 wrote:
"You disagree with me, so therefore your level of understanding on this topic must be inferior to mine" is getting to be a bit of a theme with you lad.

Maybe take a breath and consider that people understand the point quite well and just don't think you're correct?

Well, I mean, it's not like I'm not used to trying to convince people of things that are true, but they insist I'm wrong about.

Happens every time I try to explain the amount of anxiety I feel about Wow raiding to people who don't get it. Usually ends up with the usual result too, giving up and saying, "You don't know. You can't know."

And all I'm really saying is that the ending of Faith and Fire ruined reading for me, personally. I never even tried to say that everyone should stop reading books. I don't even think that most people would be bothered by the thing I read in Faith and Fire.

But I was. I was so strongly bothered by that ending I decided to never read a book again after reading it. Everything I said applies to how I, personally, responded to it. And you are questioning whether my response was even reasonable like it means there's even a reason you should be trying to prove to me it wasn't reasonable.

And, I mean, frankly, I don't really think I'm unique. I don't think I'm the only one who would respond to the ending that way.

What if someone who is bothered by that as much as I was, ends up reading it in that library, because that guy suggested that book should be in there? For one person, every book they would've read after that for the rest of their life, is now one they will never read.

That's if just one person responds to it the same way I did after reading it in a library. Not everyone. Just one person.

Your reaction is not in doubt. The scale of that reaction in comparison to how most other people would likely react is markedly larger. Consequently most people will see an argument based in the reaction you felt to that scene and not see it as logical because they don't see your reaction as logical.

This doesn't invalidate your feelings, but most people will see them as highly unusually strong in reaction to a relatively minor thing, and, yes, unusual to the point they could be unique.

Having a strong reaction to media is not unusual, having such a strong reaction to it that one never participates in that form again is... not?

Especially when the scope of that media is so wide. There's a lot of books where you can be certain nothing of the sort of events that so upset you will occur.

TLDR Your reaction was not logical, therefore any arguments you make supported by that reaction are not logical.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Your reaction is not in doubt. The scale of that reaction in comparison to how most other people would likely react is markedly larger. Consequently most people will see an argument based in the reaction you felt to that scene and not see it as logical because they don't see your reaction as logical.

This doesn't invalidate your feelings, but most people will see them as highly unusually strong in reaction to a relatively minor thing, and, yes, unusual to the point they could be unique.

Having a strong reaction to media is not unusual, having such a strong reaction to it that one never participates in that form again is... not?

Especially when the scope of that media is so wide. There's a lot of books where you can be certain nothing of the sort of events that so upset you will occur.

TLDR Your reaction was not logical, therefore any arguments you make supported by that reaction are not logical.

Yeah, and all that applies to my anxiety problems about raiding in WoW. Like, if you just imagine you're talking about anxiety and raiding there instead of the actual thing, it's pretty much word-for word the same.

And I still believe my decision to stop doing normal raids in WoW due to the amount of anxiety I felt was the right one, despite arguing constantly with people who were telling me that my reaction wasn't logical.

And every single one of those arguments ended with me saying, "You don't know. You can't know." because I was unable to convince them of the scope of the anxiety problem.

Recently I managed to make someone understand the amount of anxiety I felt about raiding in WoW, so I'll just copy/paste it here for you to read how much you're probably misunderstanding my reaction.

"You wanna see a movie scene with a guy who's feeling so much anxiety he can't stop shaking to a degree other people easily notice?

Go watch Gladiator. That scene where Maximus is about to enter his first gladiatorial match has a guy who's shaking from anxiety roughly similar to what raiding normal raids gives me on the first night where I'm doing a new raid. You may also remember him as the guy who was so scared he pissed himself because he was about to die horribly in a gladiatorial arena for the amusement of the crowd. I have better bladder control than that guy apparently. I wouldn't have pissed myself if I were him.

Is feeling that much anxiety completely unreasonable when you're doing a raid in a video game? Absolutely, and the fact that it's unreasonable is exactly why it's an anxiety disorder at all. If it were totally justified, it would be normal and most people would feel that much anxiety from raiding."

Just pretend this conversation was about you not understanding my anxiety about raiding causing me to stop raiding, instead of the way I felt about a book that caused me to stop reading.

I totally understand the raiding thing. Whilst the anxiety you felt is probably unusually high, raiding can be high-stress situation. I don't raid myself any more, though mostly due not wanting to commit the time and effort required. In any case, I totally get that it is a sort of thing that can cause stress, and it is perfectly reasonable not to want endure such a stress over a thing that is supposed to be a leisure activity.

I also get why you think that scene in that book was horrible. It sounds really stupid and would certainly ruin a book. I don't touch BL books. 90% times when someone on the forums comes up with some mind-bogglingly stupid piece of 40K fluff, turns out it was from BL books (of 5% of time it was from the RPGs and of 5% it was from Ward.) But these sort of game-related books are usually low quality. I don't touch WoW books either. There are more good books in the world than I ever have time to read, so I won't waste my time on trash.

But deciding to not to read books at all because a stupid thing in one low quality book is just silly and it is also really sad. There are mountains of good books you could enjoy. There are classics and award winners that are guaranteed to be pretty good. And you can read reviews of the book beforehand if you're sceptical.

 Crimson wrote:
I totally understand the raiding thing. Whilst the anxiety you felt is probably unusually high, raiding can be high-stress situation. I don't raid myself any more, though mostly due not wanting to commit the time and effort required. In any case, I totally get that it is a sort of thing that can cause stress, and it is perfectly reasonable not to want endure such a stress over a thing that is supposed to be a leisure activity.

I also get why you think that scene in that book was horrible. It sounds really stupid and would certainly ruin a book. I don't touch BL books. 90% times when someone on the forums comes up with some mind-bogglingly stupid piece of 40K fluff, turns out it was from BL books (of 5% of time it was from the RPGs and of 5% it was from Ward.) But these sort of game-related books are usually low quality. I don't touch WoW books either. There are more good books in the world than I ever have time to read, so I won't waste my time on trash.

But deciding to not to read books at all because a stupid thing in one low quality book is just silly and it is also really sad. There are mountains of good books you could enjoy. There are classics and award winners that are guaranteed to be pretty good. And you can read reviews of the book beforehand if you're sceptical.

Stating it as "unusually high" is putting it delicately.

My social anxiety about being in a room full of strangers is strong enough to qualify me for medical disability. I've been in a crowded shopping mall at Christmas time and didn't start shaking at all.

My performance anxiety about raiding in WoW is way, WAY stronger than that.

Yeah, and then it makes a perfect sense not to do it. But WoW raiding is a very specific thing, unlike, you know, books. Analogous situation would be if you stopped playing computer games altogether because your bad experiences with raiding.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm not seeing the issue with it. Especially in the context of war, death happens anywhere, at anytime, for any number of reasons.

The problem is that I was reading that book for entertainment, not for a lesson on the certainty of death.

Also, the fact you don't see the problem with such a scene happening in a movie tells me you don't watch a lot of movies. No good movie ever made would have created a scene like that. Instead, they would've tied those soldiers' deaths into something in the following battle to make the movie seem consistent.

When Kelly's Heroes had a traveling scene where a guy stepped on a mine and died pretty much randomly, the following battle scene took place because the explosion from that alerted a nearby German outpost, who sent troops to investigate. There was tension between the random death and the battle because it means the squad knew they were in a minefield and now had to get out of it without dying before the German troops showed up. So that random death wasn't pointless for the movie, since it created the conditions for the following battle to take place, and caused something interesting with the manner of death.

Did the elevator's floor dropping out create the conditions for the next battle in Faith and Fire to happen? Nope. It would've happened anyways.

Did the elevator's floor dropping out impede the survivors in any way? No, they just spend one sentence telling you they held on until the ride was done.

It wouldn't have even been an issue for me if the elevator's floor dropping out had caused a problem for the survivors. Like if they had to figure out how to get off the elevator once it arrived at its destination without having a floor, or had to struggle with gripping parts of a crumbly old elevator that were in danger of breaking off and sending more people to their deaths. But it didn't. The book basically just said that the trip was the same, just they had to hold onto something instead of standing on the floor, which was never presented as even having been difficult for them to do.

It added NOTHING to the story.

Except certain scenes don't exist just to draw a reaction/cause an effect from other characters. In war, death does happen anywhere. Lone Survivor (true story) in Afghanistan: 4 SEALs are in a firefight for survival and a support helicopter loaded up with 8 more SEALs and aircrew fly to their aid. They just so happen to come to a hover over an enemy bunker. A lucky insurgent looks outside, grabs an RPG, and doesn't miss. Boom, those 8 SEALs and 8 aircrew are dead a few seconds later. The 4 SEALs' situation on the ground doesn't change. They have to keep fighting like they were a minute before. It's unfortunate, but it happens in war. The last 2 aircraft we lost from my base in combat zones were due to crashes coming back to base. Again, a pointless waste of life. They're there to fight the enemy and they die by putting their jets into a mountainside and the desert floor. The squadron had to keep moving forward and fighting. Pointless losses of life happens in war, whether from the enemy or accidents.

That being said, don't let WH40k books (which are essentially action porn) ruin all books for you. I'm an avid reader and switch back and forth between serious books for my masters to whatever catches my eye to 40k novels.

If one instance of junk can shut off an entire avenue of experiences to you, make sure you are open to getting help with things, because life is full of far, far crappier experiences than that, and in ways that actually matter more than fiction and WoW raids. Eventually you will end up as a shut-in if you can't outweigh bad things with good.

The most normal facet of books based on popular culture items like movies and games is that 25% of them will be complete and unadulterated crap, so condemning not only a genre, but a complete form of experience and expression is a bit naive (please don't take that as a nasty insult- read further).

Push through, and once you get theough some of the far, far better stuff (like the amazing Eisenhorn Trilogy, sticking to in-universe examples), you will probably realize that you are suddenly looking back on things with more of a level perspective on the last statement's naivete. The crap is how you judge the good, not the reason to hide away completely.

A crappy miniatures game does not make me completely swear off miniatures games. Believe me, in 20 years I have seen some Gozilla-sized turds in this hobby. I was a Sedition Wars backer, for God's sake!

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, and then it makes a perfect sense not to do it. But WoW raiding is a very specific thing, unlike, you know, books. Analogous situation would be if you stopped playing computer games altogether because your bad experiences with raiding.

I'm gonna skip to the end of this conversation,

You don't know. You can't know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
If one instance of junk can shut off an entire avenue of experiences to you, make sure you are open to getting help with things, because life is full of far, far crappier experiences than that, and in ways that actually matter more than fiction and WoW raids. Eventually you will end up as a shut-in if you can't outweigh bad things with good.

The most normal facet of books based on popular culture items like movies and games is that 25% of them will be complete and unadulterated crap, so condemning not only a genre, but a complete form of experience and expression is a bit naive (please don't take that as a nasty insult- read further).

Push through, and once you get theough some of the far, far better stuff (like the amazing Eisenhorn Trilogy, sticking to in-universe examples), you will probably realize that you are suddenly looking back on things with more of a level perspective on the last statement's naivete. The crap is how you judge the good, not the reason to hide away completely.

A crappy miniatures game does not make me completely swear off miniatures games. Believe me, in 20 years I have seen some Gozilla-sized turds in this hobby. I was a Sedition Wars backer, for God's sake!

Erm... I'm already a shut-in. Been one for years. So what do you mean "eventually"? That already happened.

Also, I'm fine without reading books. Stop trying to convince me to do something I don't want to do and don't need to do.

Then posting in this thread past the first time seems counterintuitive. Some of us totally get your point and mean you no insult and give genuine counter-points that you then take umbridge with.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Then posting in this thread past the first time seems counterintuitive.

Why?

Because as argumentative as some of us are being, you are being just as demanding that we see things only your way, when your way is pretty extreme to a lot of viewpoints.

In far more on topic themes- 40k did it's most growth in popularity when the Heresy was just a mythical setpiece for the 40k setting. Many editions successfully passed with just the basic outline of what happened, and where which Legions simply were listed as either loyalist or traitor. Even the Index Astartes of 4th edition only gave the legions' motivations and their primarchs' basic origin stories.

If anything, 90% of the 30k and 40k settings are the same, save for the primarchs (and traitor legion characters), and the Imperial religion existing or not in either case. Everything else performs much the same, which is really the whole point of the Grimdark facet of the setting.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Because as argumentative as some of us are being, you are being just as demanding that we see things only your way, when your way is pretty extreme to a lot of viewpoints.

You mean, after I stated how I felt and you started trying to convince me I was wrong for making the decision I did, that I didn't say anyone else should follow?

Given I've read exactly zero Black Library books I'm going to go with No, not really

Unless you are a rabid fluffy bunny all you really need to know is the Heresy was basically a civil war that ended a Golden Age and plunged the IoM into its current grimdark state

Hi, guys, new here... go easy on me... Just wanted to throw in my two cents: I think the genius of 40K originally lay in 1) its ripping off every single sci-fi trope and mashing them together into one universe (like an All-Star team, if you will); and 2) its political satire. Things have changed a lot since then. But I would argue that the core of the popularity has more to do with James Cameron, Robert Heinlein, and Ed Neumeier than with Graham McNeil or even Dan Abnett. That genius was people like Rick Priestly and Andy Chambers's postmodern, Tarantino-style pulp remix. And that's why it's ironic than GW is so jealous of its "IP".

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Draco wrote:
30K is better than 40K in fluff IMO.

Errr, its all the same timeline.

Yes, but different times. 30K was less grimdark

I didn't even read this thread, but the answer is simple: yes.

40K gained its market in RT and 2nd edition...when the Horus Heresy was a couple paragraphs in most books, and the occasional free board game in White Dwarf. The Horus Heresy and 30K really wasn't a huge deal back then. It was only mentioned off-hand.

Has 30K been a brilliant approach to branching out and opening up more streams of revenue? Absolutely...but it had very little to do with the original success of the game.

LightKing wrote:
my friend and I kind of were talking about it....

He has never been too fond of the Horus Heresy era, the Primarchs etc. because he felt they focused too much on these "superheroes" than the common man.

I argue that 40k would of been no where near as popular if it wasn't for the Horus Heresy era.... And I think most fans like the Primarchs then those that don't.

What do you think, would it still be as popular as it was if not for the Horus Heresy background

No, it wouldn't have. The underlying story here has a similarity to other stories, namely the iconic "hostile brothers" (Think Loki and Thor) this same story is told over and over because there is a base truth to it. Not the kind of truth you find in a Chemistry or Physics book, but the kind of truths you would find in other great literature. The bible has Cain and Able, as another example. This idea of brother killing brother is not new and usually the moral of the story is no matter how angry you get you need to control yourself because allowing your animal instincts to overtake you will lead to endless suffering and destruction for both sides.