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.

Nucflash as semi-part of this "New Generation"(I've been online daily and almost constantly since '91) you're talking about, you really sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.

 Nucflash wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I really don't think it's a cultural thing, as IIRC Malifaux was written by americans, and I think that Infinity was originally written in Spanish, by a company from Spain?

Also, games like Hell Dorado along with Malifaux and Infinity have reasonably tight written rules (using 40k and WHFB as benchmarks) but they, IMO, do not have the same competitive aesthetic that a game like Warmahordes does.


I think that Rick Priestly's ideals were intended not to cover up some poorly written rules, but rather a mechanic to say, "we're mates having fun playing a game, let's not ruin the whole thing, or slow down a flow of imaginary cinematic action by squabbling over rules disputes" Even in friendly matches, a rules dispute can carry over multiple games, accusations of cheating, rules lawyering, etc. can significantly damage an otherwise brilliant friendship, and RP viewed the games that he wrote as social events, as they should be.

. Heck Warmachine itself is a social even for us, we probably spend more time talking about the game than actually playing it...

Yes if you are Old and gray and like to sit on a bench swapping old warstories with your mates. The kidds of today dont want Social events.. they are bombarded by the social media.. they do not need a Table-top wargame to have a reason to socialize... THE WORLD HAS CHANGED... I'ts hard to understand this as you get old I know.. But please try and understand that "social event" was valid reason back in the day.. before the internet, mobilphones, social media, reality shows and all the other things that have totaly changed the world we live in the past 2 decades...

There isn't anyone in my gaming who is even 30, and more than a few in their early 20s. If we qualify as "Old & Grey" then you've got a fairly extreme idea of what constitutes old. We all still play RPGs, Board Games, Eat dinner together & tell stories. All manner of face-to-face social interaction, and shocker: We all manage to do this while still owning smart phones & having social media accounts.

I've got cousins who are still in the high school school range and they still do face to face social events. Granted more mainstream things like Basketball, school newspaper and shopping, but still. I'm fairly sure this world where anyone who isn't old only enjoys cell phones and reality TV with no desire to interact with other people, doesn't exist anywhere but in the minds of people who complain about such things.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Nucflash as semi-part of this "New Generation"(I've been online daily and almost constantly since '91) you're talking about, you really sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.

We might have diffrent views, but the mentality of gamers have changed.. if you choose not to belive me then that is up to you... And you have been online since 91?? that puts you in the Old School category as you must be pushing 30 or even older... And then you are not part of the "new generation".. I'm talking about the kidds born in the 90- and later...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I really don't think it's a cultural thing, as IIRC Malifaux was written by americans, and I think that Infinity was originally written in Spanish, by a company from Spain?

Also, games like Hell Dorado along with Malifaux and Infinity have reasonably tight written rules (using 40k and WHFB as benchmarks) but they, IMO, do not have the same competitive aesthetic that a game like Warmahordes does.


I think that Rick Priestly's ideals were intended not to cover up some poorly written rules, but rather a mechanic to say, "we're mates having fun playing a game, let's not ruin the whole thing, or slow down a flow of imaginary cinematic action by squabbling over rules disputes" Even in friendly matches, a rules dispute can carry over multiple games, accusations of cheating, rules lawyering, etc. can significantly damage an otherwise brilliant friendship, and RP viewed the games that he wrote as social events, as they should be.

. Heck Warmachine itself is a social even for us, we probably spend more time talking about the game than actually playing it...

Yes if you are Old and gray and like to sit on a bench swapping old warstories with your mates. The kidds of today dont want Social events.. they are bombarded by the social media.. they do not need a Table-top wargame to have a reason to socialize... THE WORLD HAS CHANGED... I'ts hard to understand this as you get old I know.. But please try and understand that "social event" was valid reason back in the day.. before the internet, mobilphones, social media, reality shows and all the other things that have totaly changed the world we live in the past 2 decades...

There isn't anyone in my gaming who is even 30, and more than a few in their early 20s. If we qualify as "Old & Grey" then you've got a fairly extreme idea of what constitutes old. We all still play RPGs, Board Games, Eat dinner together & tell stories. All manner of face-to-face social interaction, and shocker: We all manage to do this while still owning smart phones & having social media accounts.

I've got cousins who are still in the high school school range and they still do face to face social events. Granted more mainstream things like Basketball, school newspaper and shopping, but still. I'm fairly sure this world where anyone who isn't old only enjoys cell phones and reality TV with no desire to interact with other people, doesn't exist anywhere but in the minds of people who complain about such things.

Dude you missed the point.. There will always be people who play the old school games.. I still play RPGs.. My point was that alot more people these days are crying out for balance and competitive gamplay then back in the 90s... The Old school gamers were much more focused on the "social aspect" and fun part of games.. But there has been a push in the computer industry the last few years to make gaming into an E-sport. And I know for a fact that people who like video games, can make the transition to Table-top/board/RPG games.. but for this to happen, and I mean getting alot of them to do it.. The game designers of these games have to adopt the mentality of the computer game makers.. That means Better balance and more competitive play... and less Bears and pretzels...

The world has changed quite a lot, but I do not think it has in the way you imagine it to have, especially in such absolute way.

What "the Internet" has done is connect a widely scattered community of like minded individuals and this as a result made a segmented body united, expectations of quality has been risen, this does not mean the reasons one would wargame would change, but the expectations have.

The mentioned "Pristley approach" is one of a sandbox, give a basic frame spend more time on the background and let the players build their own stuff, its not an invalid approach today it was not in the past and will not be in the future, not my preferred one as I view it as a "here are the ingredients now make your own food", but its key selling point is the background and the freedom it gives to players, because of this flexibility, the rules should be extra tight and playtested, the fact that some products reach the market without having tight rules or been properly playtested, does not mean the approach is invalid or a relic f the past, indifferent to modern audience.

The main problem with these games is when they are presented as a complete system, which they are not.

The other approach, my preferred one, is a complete wargame product, it has tight rules a defined background and balanced forces, players do not have much more to do than collect the miniatures and play the game and that is its key selling point its a finished product.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The world has changed quite a lot, but I do not think it has in the way you imagine it to have, especially in such absolute way.

What "the Internet" has done is connect a widely scattered community of like minded individuals and this as a result made a segmented body united, expectations of quality has been risen, this does not mean the reasons one would wargame would change, but the expectations have.

The mentioned "Pristley approach" is one of a sandbox, give a basic frame spend more time on the background and let the players build their own stuff, its not an invalid approach today it was not in the past and will not be in the future, not my preferred one as I view it as a "here are the ingredients now make your own food", but its key selling point is the background and the freedom it gives to players, because of this flexibility, the rules should be extra tight and playtested, the fact that some products reach the market without having tight rules or been properly playtested, does not mean the approach is invalid or a relic f the past, indifferent to modern audience.

The main problem with these games is when they are presented as a complete system, which they are not.

The other approach, my preferred one, is a complete wargame product, it has tight rules a defined background and balanced forces, players do not have much more to do than collect the miniatures and play the game and that is its key selling point its a finished product.

I like your post .. I would like to say something about hte "sanbox" thing.. MMORPGs of the past were also called sanboxes because the makers of these games grew up with the pen and papper RPGs .. I really liked them alot. But the Themepark MMOS have in the past decade sweept these games away. Today its much more about instant FUN and joyrides..

I also had a look at another thread and I saw that X-wing (fantasy flight game) had sold alot of copies the past year.. This is an out of the BOX, ready to play type of game.. slick package and based on a well established IP "Star Wars". Living Card games like Magic the Gathering and others are also the main GO to game for the younger generation of gamers in "our Hobby".. This is also an out of the Box, ready to play type of game...

Now when I walked into my local store today it was full of little kidds playing cardgames.. When I went to a Table-top game tournament a few weeks back there was ONE kidd that was younger then 20 years old of more then 50 participants... Now I feel something is wrong here.. back in the 90s it used to be the other way around... 80% kidds and 20% adults... There is little regrowth in the Table-top hobby and I blame that on stale "out of date" game design. That hasent changed with the times and fail to attract a new audiance to the hobby...

 Nucflash wrote:

I also had a look at another thread and I saw that X-wing (fantasy flight game) had sold alot of copies the past year.. This is an out of the BOX, ready to play type of game.. slick package and based on a well established IP "Star Wars". Living Card games like Magic the Gathering and others are also the main GO to game for the younger generation of gamers in "our Hobby".. This is also an out of the Box, ready to play type of game...

While both can be played that way, neither really make it a selling point and the majority of players don't play it that way(especially Magic players, but then Magic isn't an LCG, it's a CCG).

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:

I also had a look at another thread and I saw that X-wing (fantasy flight game) had sold alot of copies the past year.. This is an out of the BOX, ready to play type of game.. slick package and based on a well established IP "Star Wars". Living Card games like Magic the Gathering and others are also the main GO to game for the younger generation of gamers in "our Hobby".. This is also an out of the Box, ready to play type of game...

While both can be played that way, neither really make it a selling point and the majority of players don't play it that way(especially Magic players, but then Magic isn't an LCG, it's a CCG).

Dont really care about how they are played.. I care that people buy them more then they buy Table-top games.. And that I'm starting to feel like a dinosaur.. that is about to die out haha.... As I pointed out the regrowth of our preferd hobby is really poor, the same goes for me and my buddies who play the MMORPG Sandbox game "EVE online"... Times are changing and the movers and the shackers of the industry are not keeping up with the times... Soon I feel I will go to conventions and Tournaments and all I will see is a bunch of gray haired dudes.. getting rolled in, in wheelchairs.. And we will be sitting around talking about the good old days....

For better or worse the industry needs a change or this is the future of our hobby..

I might be portraying a dark and sad future here but I do not think I'm totaly off the mark in my predictions.. and I blame the Bear and pretzels approche, It is just not exiting enough to get a wider audience into the hobby... Even if some of you really love it..

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:

I also had a look at another thread and I saw that X-wing (fantasy flight game) had sold alot of copies the past year.. This is an out of the BOX, ready to play type of game.. slick package and based on a well established IP "Star Wars". Living Card games like Magic the Gathering and others are also the main GO to game for the younger generation of gamers in "our Hobby".. This is also an out of the Box, ready to play type of game...

While both can be played that way, neither really make it a selling point and the majority of players don't play it that way(especially Magic players, but then Magic isn't an LCG, it's a CCG).

The bolded part, CCG are not LCG. One you know what in the "pack" the other you buy "packs" until you hopefully get what you want.

Noir wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:

I also had a look at another thread and I saw that X-wing (fantasy flight game) had sold alot of copies the past year.. This is an out of the BOX, ready to play type of game.. slick package and based on a well established IP "Star Wars". Living Card games like Magic the Gathering and others are also the main GO to game for the younger generation of gamers in "our Hobby".. This is also an out of the Box, ready to play type of game...

While both can be played that way, neither really make it a selling point and the majority of players don't play it that way(especially Magic players, but then Magic isn't an LCG, it's a CCG).

The bolded part, CCG are not LCG. One you know what in the "pack" the other you buy "packs" until you hopefully get what you want.

And it still do not mather Noir.. Card games can be Whatever.. little kidds are buying them more then they are buying Table-top Wargames.. Little kidds are also buying more video games then Table Top Wargames.. All this is not good for our hobby.. and RPG games have been in a free fall for the last decade. I personaly like Table-top wargames and RPGs more then living Card games(Buy a pig in a poke, hope I got that experssion right in translation hehe) and Video games...

But if we dont stop this bear and pretzels approche to RULE making.. my prediction is that we will soon only play RPG/table top games in the "Old Folks home". We need to get with the times, more competitive rules, more out of the BOX.. readdy to play.. Like the starter sets for both Warmachine and Malifaux for example.... These companies are trying to change with the times.. Other companies are still living in the past... "cinematic gamplay" give me a break please...

I would never call EVE online a sandbox.

A sandbox is an area clearly defined were you can create your own stuff with the tools provided, I do not really see sandbox style wargames die out, I can see demand for better quality sandbox wargames with finer quality sand, I can see them loose some ground, but not get extinct or be marginalized to old people.

I do however see an increased demand for complete product wargames of high quality.

Well Nucflash, you may want to hear my input then.

I was born in the late 90s. I'm going to guess and say that I'm younger than you are. I've lived in many countries. I picked up the hobby nearly six years ago with the Lord of the Rings game.

The about Warmachine that I and several other gamers that I know don't like is that it feels too competitive. With 40k or Fantasy, we can laugh about our bad luck. I play Wood Elves, and we joke about how gak my army is, look at that Eternal Guard unit struggling against some Orcs, I'm going to get kicked out of Elven heaven for the defeat of my Glade Guard against some Goblins, let's hope I don't get kicked out of tree heaven when my Dryads and treemen lose etc. With Warmachine, everything is so much more competitive and it loses part of the fun.

The people I play with generally are younger than me. They're the kind of people who are the so-called future of wargaming, as you say. They don't want to play with such clearly defined rulesets. They want to play a game where they can roll a few dice, chat about what's coming up, push some cool soldiers that they can customise incredibly easy around a green table and hopefully win a game. But really, to them, a win is a secondary concern. They're more interested in seeing good looking armies on the table. Sure, there's the rules arguments, but that's part of the fun of the game.

Not only that, but many of them like the look of games such as Hail Caesar or the Rick Priestly games. They like the sound of rolling to see where the Dreadnought hull lands after it's blown up. They don't like the overly rigid structure of Warmachine.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I would never call EVE online a sandbox.

A sandbox is an area clearly defined were you can create your own stuff with the tools provided, I do not really see sandbox style wargames die out, I can see demand for better quality sandbox wargames with finer quality sand, I can see them loose some ground, but not get extinct or be marginalized to old people.

I do however see an increased demand for complete product wargames of high quality.

Dude you might want to take a closer look at the MMO EVE online the computer game that is what I was talking about..... Its one of the last Sanbox MMOS still around.. And yes it is "A sandbox is an area clearly defined were you can create your own stuff with the tools provided", that is what it is all about... look it up...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Well Nucflash, you may want to hear my input then.

I was born in the late 90s. I'm going to guess and say that I'm younger than you are. I've lived in many countries. I picked up the hobby nearly six years ago with the Lord of the Rings game.

The about Warmachine that I and several other gamers that I know don't like is that it feels too competitive. With 40k or Fantasy, we can laugh about our bad luck. I play Wood Elves, and we joke about how gak my army is, look at that Eternal Guard unit struggling against some Orcs, I'm going to get kicked out of Elven heaven for the defeat of my Glade Guard against some Goblins, let's hope I don't get kicked out of tree heaven when my Dryads and treemen lose etc. With Warmachine, everything is so much more competitive and it loses part of the fun.

The people I play with generally are younger than me. They're the kind of people who are the so-called future of wargaming, as you say. They don't want to play with such clearly defined rulesets. They want to play a game where they can roll a few dice, chat about what's coming up, push some cool soldiers that they can customise incredibly easy around a green table and hopefully win a game. But really, to them, a win is a secondary concern. They're more interested in seeing good looking armies on the table. Sure, there's the rules arguments, but that's part of the fun of the game.

Not only that, but many of them like the look of games such as Hail Caesar or the Rick Priestly games. They like the sound of rolling to see where the Dreadnought hull lands after it's blown up. They don't like the overly rigid structure of Warmachine.

The problem is that there are to few of you in the general population.. or we would see alot more kidds around.. Now for me personaly I dont want to play with little kidds.. But they are important for the growth and health of the hobby... Now as I said before there are a few that pick up these games... But if you compare with other recreational hobbys in the same general genre, more are playing other things like computer games and card games... This will become a problem sooner or later... And instead of sticking with my guns, saying that cinematic gamplay and bear and pretzels games is the only way forward and digging my head in the sand. I do understand that the Table-top industry needs to change to bring back the masses..

It never had the masses, and it probably never will. It's always been a fairly small niche. I'd hazard a guess that the UK has the highest proportion of wargamers in the population of anywhere, and that's almost entirely down to the ubiquitousness of GW. It'd be almost impossible to grow up in the UK without at least hearing of Warhammer, which I doubt is the case anywhere else. That doesn't change the fact that it isn't mainstream, and probably never will be.

The UK had the highest proportion of wargamers before GW existed.

Wargaming used to be mainstream enough to feature as a serious plot element in spy dramas, and for respectful TV documentaries to be made about it.

I played EVE, I went to their fanfests, I quit playing EVE, don't think I will go back.

What CCP defines as "sandbox" is a weak excuse to not work on a proper game system, I personally do not view EVE as a sandbox, you cannot do whatever you want as CCP and EVE supporters proclaim, you can scum people retaliation free though.

For me a sandbox is just that a sandbox, a place were you can with the tools available to you create your own stuff, the games designer job should be twofold, giving you enough tools to create what you may imagine and make sure you will not disrupt everybody else plans or everybody else disrupt yours.

EVE provides tools to hurt and disturb other people without consequences, in my opinion its a badly designed game that is trapped in this stage held hostage to its current player base.

Going more on topic, I am surprised to read what ExNoctemNacimur wrote, people preferring to play an obviously faulted game system over a better written and balanced system because it forces them to be... competitive?

In my opinion a tight balanced rule system does not forces you to be competitive or deprives you from the "beer and pretzels" enjoyment of a game, yes it does deprive you from the excuse that if you loose its the systems fault and its inherit imbalance, but if this is a reason to go hardcore competitive and not enjoy the game, its not a fault of the system.

Again in my opinion the Industry needs not abandon any of the two design philosophies nor one is es valid from the other, but the industry must significantly up its product value and quality, the "Priestly" approach is not an excuse for a bad game system, nor is for imbalanced forces.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK had the highest proportion of wargamers before GW existed.

No doubt - HG Wells' Little Wars was a uniquely British creation, and was the first widely available published wargame, but I'd be willing to bet that a minimum of 80% of Brits under the age of 35 who are into wargaming entered through GW and playing one of Rick's games.

The German game Kriegsspiel was widely available earlier than Little Wars, and represents the simulation end of the specrurm, being designed as a staff training aid rather than a game. Both titles are still available.

My point was that wargaming was big in the UK and had a mainstream awareness long before GW. Younger people don't know if they haven't read up on it.

I do agree that most people probably enter through GW these days.

The last wargaming things I remember on TV were the Total War recreations of some historical battles, using a computer game, and the episode of New Tricks that featured a wargames club.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK had the highest proportion of wargamers before GW existed......

But the HHHobby didn't exist before GW came in to being or so I've been told.

This is one of those time/space paradox thingys isn't it?

 Nucflash wrote:

We might have diffrent views, but the mentality of gamers have changed.. if you choose not to belive me then that is up to you... And you have been online since 91?? that puts you in the Old School category as you must be pushing 30 or even older... And then you are not part of the "new generation".. I'm talking about the kidds born in the 90- and later...
.

and what about them?

Im part of the first generation that really views "video games" as normal, growing up as i did with mega drives, and playstations. Just because kids play slightly different games with slightly different toys doesnt mean our whole culture is changing radically, with "old" stuff consigned to the garbage heap of history, and the "new" stuff being the wave of the future.

New things come and go that make the older ones amongst us scratch their heads. fir me it was kids playing pokemon. for the older ones, me and my generaltion was playing and viewing video games as normal. back in my moms day, it was "radical" to listen to bands like status quo.

but old stuff sticks around. and new stuff finds its place. the new, well it doesnt have to, nor will it ever completely replace the old. and whilst some toys are never and shinier, kids do plenty of the things i did when i was the same age - soccer, climbing trees, biking somewhere etc.

I think the mistake youre looking at is a blanket assumption that what kids play now is different to what we did when we were their age, and thats what they'll want forever, not wanting our cool toys/likes in the process. and i think thats a short sighted view. people might like their stuff now. but they're kids. theyre gonna grow up. and as you grow up, your attitudes change. things that i wanted as a kid - i dont want them now. things that were meaningless to me as a kid - well they mean something to me now.

and the next generation will follow in my footsteps. they'll stop being teenagers, and hit their twenties. theyll get cars and fiances, and houses with mortgages. they will fully mature mentally, and the things that they see as important, and the things they'll want to spend their time on, and more importantly, how theyll want to spend their time - likewise. they'll see the same things as being important in their 20s as i do. sure, there is a time and a place for frenetic online gaming with instant gratification, but there is also a time and a place for having your mates over, having the tv on in the background, rolling some dice casually, and so on. basically, what im saying is this: you want different things at different stages in your life. and strangely, the next generation of currently-playing-x-stations-and-playcubes-online will be tomorrows twenty-somethings, and ill almost guarantee you that they will find themselves curiously agreeing with me when its their turn to hit 28. as they say "the more things change, the more things stay the same".

edit: god, im old :(

 notprop wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK had the highest proportion of wargamers before GW existed......

But the HHHobby didn't exist before GW came in to being or so I've been told.

This is one of those time/space paradox thingys isn't it?

Well, the HHHobby certainly didn't exist... but the hobby did.

My impression from reading Peterson's "Playing at the world" (asides from the impression that he has not learned that minute detail is best left in the footnotes rather than cluttering up the narrative) is that US miniatures gaming easily was the equal in size to UK miniatures gaming in the 60s. The other impression, which I also get from my early 90s/late 80s flirtation with historicals, is that the approach to rules design and the proposed "tight" rulesets preceding the "Rick Priestley approach" is that they were anything but, and that the americans were as whimsical with their rules (and everything else) as early GW was.

And here I was thinking that they wanted to achieve the same thing, for you to have fun...how silly of me.

@Nucflash-

I think you and I will have to disagree. Rick himself talked about this very issue once here:

http://fightingfantasist.blogspot.com/2011/06/rick-priestley-talks-wisely-on-subject.html

...for a certain section of teenagers, the fact that you had wargames rules was part of your social life, because you’ve got no ability to have any other kind of social life. You don’t have the soft skills. So when mid teenage boys interact with one another, the fact that they can do it with a set of rules, enables them to have a conversation, and do something together. It gives some common ground. But the rules become really important. For a more mature kind of individual, and, ironically, for a much younger individual, the rules can be quite soft. Because when you’re very young, you know how to play, and when you’re much older, you feel faintly embarrassed that you might have taken this or that much too seriously.

Right now this "new" generation of gamers is anythign but "new" they are still pretty much the same as the generations before them. They just aren't old enough to realize it yet.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ProtoClone wrote:
And here I was thinking that they wanted to achieve the same thing, for you to have fun...how silly of me.

They do. Of course, the interesting thing is that their philosophy to how you achieve fun is different. Why would that be the case?

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:
My impression from reading Peterson's "Playing at the world" (asides from the impression that he has not learned that minute detail is best left in the footnotes rather than cluttering up the narrative) is that US miniatures gaming easily was the equal in size to UK miniatures gaming in the 60s. The other impression, which I also get from my early 90s/late 80s flirtation with historicals, is that the approach to rules design and the proposed "tight" rulesets preceding the "Rick Priestley approach" is that they were anything but, and that the americans were as whimsical with their rules (and everything else) as early GW was.

The US scene was big and there was a significant amount of communication between the "big guys" over there and in the UK.

 Easy E wrote:
@Nucflash-Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ProtoClone wrote:
And here I was thinking that they wanted to achieve the same thing, for you to have fun...how silly of me.

They do. Of course, the interesting thing is that their philosophy to how you achieve fun is different. Why would that be the case?

Because they each wanted something different and specific from their game. Why insert a reason when there doesn't appear, or need, to be one?

 ProtoClone wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
@Nucflash-Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ProtoClone wrote:
And here I was thinking that they wanted to achieve the same thing, for you to have fun...how silly of me.

They do. Of course, the interesting thing is that their philosophy to how you achieve fun is different. Why would that be the case?

Because they each wanted something different and specific from their game. Why insert a reason when there doesn't appear, or need, to be one?

So how did the philosophy they chose to follow lead them to make the rules choices they make?

 Easy E wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
@Nucflash-Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ProtoClone wrote:
And here I was thinking that they wanted to achieve the same thing, for you to have fun...how silly of me.

They do. Of course, the interesting thing is that their philosophy to how you achieve fun is different. Why would that be the case?

Because they each wanted something different and specific from their game. Why insert a reason when there doesn't appear, or need, to be one?

So how did the philosophy they chose to follow lead them to make the rules choices they make?

They probably wanted something specific in their game. Like how TSR wanted something specific for D&D, then Palladium felt the need to do it differently then TSR because they wanted something specific for their game.

I know almost everyone has said "If I had made Game-A I would have done X differently because it doesn't feel right/I don't like it as is".

Answer: Opinion and preference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I played EVE, I went to their fanfests, I quit playing EVE, don't think I will go back.

What CCP defines as "sandbox" is a weak excuse to not work on a proper game system, I personally do not view EVE as a sandbox, you cannot do whatever you want as CCP and EVE supporters proclaim, you can scum people retaliation free though.

For me a sandbox is just that a sandbox, a place were you can with the tools available to you create your own stuff, the games designer job should be twofold, giving you enough tools to create what you may imagine and make sure you will not disrupt everybody else plans or everybody else disrupt yours.

EVE provides tools to hurt and disturb other people without consequences, in my opinion its a badly designed game that is trapped in this stage held hostage to its current player base.

I am going to be starting a thread in the Video Games section with this as the topic.

 Nucflash wrote:
We need to get with the times, more competitive rules, more out of the BOX.. readdy to play.. Like the starter sets for both Warmachine and Malifaux for example...

I think you're mistaking effect for cause. In all of the examples you list, you're assuming that it's the rules driving the adoption rate. However, that mistakes the primary difference in the 'newer' generation of games - cost. It's far more accurate to say that games that are aggressively pursing lower costs for their entry-level offerings are doing significantly better than games that do not. The phenomena you are describing can very easily be ascribed as much to the lower cost of entry for both Warmachine and Malifaux as it can their rulesets.

It's the same reason that clicky games and 'boxed' wargames like X-Wing do so well on the open market. Very low barriers to entry; simple rules, cheap to pickup; all very easily adopted. Contrast with a traditional wargame where you have significantly higher startup costs coupled with the time factor, making for a less favorable product for the younger generation.

People used to play 40k in their teens because it was cheap and there weren't many other competitors. Most game stores today have plenty of offerings designed to catch the 'marginal' input customers, and you're seeing fewer people willing to put in the (rather significant) cost for the larger games.

IMO, at least.

Yeah I think you're right on point there.