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.

 Talizvar wrote:


I have accepted what has been handed down because there is no means to bring about change except house rules or fluff that the OP has disallowed (which we have compensated in slight ways that make it acceptable).

And this ^^ is way GW will never change. Thinking like that, when the truth is being change is easy. I fact you don't have to do anything. Hell you can even play the game and still get the point across. The answer, is.... money. Stop giving it to them, you already have every thing you need to play. Any other money you give GW should be earned, not be couse of GW feel it there entitlement.

As the original poster of the thread that got locked that this one is based on; I feel it's high time that I commented.

Believe it or not I don't have an agenda. You see despite being involved with the Games Workshop hobbies and models for over 10 years, I have only actually played a small handful of games (coached ones at that) and I truly do not know how to play the game.

The purpose for the parameters that I originally created and that are repeated here is to force you to look at the game in an objective light upon its on merits. I'm often seeing people recommending the game for things that have little if any basis on whether or not the game in and of itself is any good.

And I have to admit I'm very surprised by the responses to both my thread and this one. The overwhelming consensus appears to be that no, the main games themselves are not very good. There have been numerous examples cited as to why the rules are inferior, with nobody actually being able to defend the rules on their own merits. The best I have seen so far is that " well my friends and I have fun with them". This is a disturbingly low standard.

I'm going to editorialize for a little bit as to why I think this appears to be so. The main games have been going on for quite some time now and as with anything begin to take a life of their own. Things that works at one time do not appear to work anymore. One thing that I have noticed is that the army sizes continue to grow. You don't have to be a professional game designer to realize that this can start creating problems. Another is that the original designers have left, bringing in a new crew of folks who may have their own design ideas and goals which are constrained to work within the vision of another artist. Of course the smartest thing to do would be to start from scratch, but that isn't without risk either. In addition to it being costly, you have to worry about how it would be received.

And if you look at this just from a mercenary standpoint there's really no reason whatsoever for Games Workshop to even bother trying to improve their rules. I mean on 20 plus pages here on this forum as to the quality of their rules nobody has been able to cite objectively what is good about them, yet still they are the most popular without question! So from Games Workshop's perspective clearly something is going right and why fix what's not broken. Obviously no matter what they publish people are going to buy it, playtested and clear or not. Hell I'm guilty of it as well. I bought myself a Tomb Kings codex, because I like them and the book is full of them. I haven't even played them in a bloody game, and I still bought it.

How can you argue with that kind of success?

 Phobos wrote:
SNIP

Several people who have claimed to be former GW staff have said that GW's main sales don't come from regulars, but those who buy starter sets and a few box sets, and not getting anything else. Going on this, it appears GW simply doesn't care about the complaints of those who are regulars because if they leave, people new to the hobby will replace.

Again, this is all conjecture.

Again - no-one is arguing against their success or popularity, without question they are the giants of the fantasy/sci-fi wargaming market.

But, in the same way as other markets, best selling does not automatically mean best in class. Look at some of the no.1 films that have come out, or music.

In the same way that music aficionados wouldn't club together and nod sagely about the artistic merit of the new One Direction CD, GWs games are popular because of their tremendous imagery (with big shoulder pads and grim future taking the place of large, physics-challenging hair dos) and their prior establishment. If you're seriously into wargames, you spend a lot of time playing them, 40k especially (I have a lot more time for WFB) runs out of mileage pretty fast and doesn't compare well to other systems that are out there for multiple reasons.

It makes sense from one point of view, which is how many armies does a player need before he is done?

Once you've got all the models, you only need new rules editions and codexes and a few supplementary models. For instance, if you are a long term Tau player, you probably only want the Riptide out of the new range for 6th edition.

The crazy thing is that GW could easily have their cake and eat it, too.

Writing quality rules would not discourage impulse buyers. Having easily understood rules that have minimal gray area would not discourage younger customers from entering the hobby. It would, however, encourage people who enter the hobby to continue to be customers in the future.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It makes sense from one point of view, which is how many armies does a player need before he is done?

14.

Once you've got all the models, you only need new rules editions and codexes and a few supplementary models. For instance, if you are a long term Tau player, you probably only want the Riptide out of the new range for 6th edition.

This is where supplements come in. But in the form of campaign books, rather than short lived army list off-shoots. Campaigns can add in specialised missions, which encourage players to add units to their army that they otherwise might not have bothered with, or can encourage them to start a new army or allied detachment specifically to play in that campaign, or buy new models to represent campaign advancements and veteran status and the like.

And unlike the army list supplements, a cleverly written campaign book doesn't suddenly become obsolete when a codex or the core rules are redone, because it's not reliant on the core rules... it just adds new missions and extras on top of the existing rules, whatever they happen to be at the time.

 Phobos wrote:
As the original poster of the thread that got locked that this one is based on; I feel it's high time that I commented.

Believe it or not I don't have an agenda. You see despite being involved with the Games Workshop hobbies and models for over 10 years, I have only actually played a small handful of games (coached ones at that) and I truly do not know how to play the game.

The purpose for the parameters that I originally created and that are repeated here is to force you to look at the game in an objective light upon its on merits. I'm often seeing people recommending the game for things that have little if any basis on whether or not the game in and of itself is any good.

And I have to admit I'm very surprised by the responses to both my thread and this one. The overwhelming consensus appears to be that no, the main games themselves are not very good. There have been numerous examples cited as to why the rules are inferior, with nobody actually being able to defend the rules on their own merits. The best I have seen so far is that " well my friends and I have fun with them". This is a disturbingly low standard.

I'm going to editorialize for a little bit as to why I think this appears to be so. The main games have been going on for quite some time now and as with anything begin to take a life of their own. Things that works at one time do not appear to work anymore. One thing that I have noticed is that the army sizes continue to grow. You don't have to be a professional game designer to realize that this can start creating problems. Another is that the original designers have left, bringing in a new crew of folks who may have their own design ideas and goals which are constrained to work within the vision of another artist. Of course the smartest thing to do would be to start from scratch, but that isn't without risk either. In addition to it being costly, you have to worry about how it would be received.

And if you look at this just from a mercenary standpoint there's really no reason whatsoever for Games Workshop to even bother trying to improve their rules. I mean on 20 plus pages here on this forum as to the quality of their rules nobody has been able to cite objectively what is good about them, yet still they are the most popular without question! So from Games Workshop's perspective clearly something is going right and why fix what's not broken. Obviously no matter what they publish people are going to buy it, playtested and clear or not. Hell I'm guilty of it as well. I bought myself a Tomb Kings codex, because I like them and the book is full of them. I haven't even played them in a bloody game, and I still bought it.

How can you argue with that kind of success?

I think the problem is that at this point, they are simply too big and have too many fans expecting their product to bewhat it already is to risk a massive overhaul of their rules. Where there is a lot of money at stake, especially combined with a large user base that is accustomed to things working a certain way, change comes very gradually. This is applicable to many things, not just GW.

Andy Chambers apparently envisaged it for 4th edition - complete overhaul, but it would have meant major reinvestment as all of the currently released material would have been useless. Obviously it was deemed too much of a risk, and so what we got was a version 3.2, with small incremental changes ever since.

He then left the company, check out the Starship Troopers game (sadly now defunct) which then used the rules instead, to check out what it might have been like.

Might have been somewhat like Dust Warfare, which he co-wrote more recently. I haven't played Starship Troopers, but from what I have read Dust Warfare was somewhat of a progression from those rules.

 Starfarer wrote:
I think the problem is that at this point, they are simply too big and have too many fans expecting their product to bewhat it already is to risk a massive overhaul of their rules.

I don't think that this is too much of a problem. GW's biggest customer groups are kids who buy a bunch of space marines and probably never even play the game, and self-titled "casual" players who brag obnoxiously about how much they don't care about the rules. The only people who would really be upset about a major rule change are the competitive players, and they're the ones who are most in favor of a major overhaul.

I think the bigger issue is that GW just doesn't want to take any risks at all. GW management is content to make a modest profit every year for a while longer until they retire. Like advertising rewriting the rules would cost money (have to pay for new game developers once you fire the incompetents they have right now) and not guarantee more short-term profit.

Where there is a lot of money at stake, especially combined with a large user base that is accustomed to things working a certain way, change comes very gradually. This is applicable to many things, not just GW.

The problem with this idea is that GW doesn't seem to have any long-term plan they're working towards. New rules change stuff without any apparent reason besides "this is what the author thought would be cool".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Starfarer wrote:


Where there is a lot of money at stake, especially combined with a large user base that is accustomed to things working a certain way, change comes very gradually. This is applicable to many things, not just GW.

The problem with this idea is that GW doesn't seem to have any long-term plan they're working towards. New rules change stuff without any apparent reason besides "this is what the author thought would be cool".

Then you have WHFB, which apparently had a long term plan from 6th ed., with Tuomas Pirinen (or however it was spelt) being the head designer. Then GW got rid of him halfway through 6th ed's. life. IIRC Gav Thorpe said there were certain things that they had to guess on when designing army books after he left as they had no clue on author intent on some things.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Starfarer wrote:
I think the problem is that at this point, they are simply too big and have too many fans expecting their product to be what it already is to risk a massive overhaul of their rules.

I don't think that this is too much of a problem. GW's biggest customer groups are kids who buy a bunch of space marines and probably never even play the game, and self-titled "casual" players who brag obnoxiously about how much they don't care about the rules. The only people who would really be upset about a major rule change are the competitive players, and they're the ones who are most in favor of a major overhaul.

You are being absolutely disingenuous if you don't think a complete overhaul of GW's core games would cause an uproar. It did from 2nd to 3rd, and it certainly would now. People are critical of every last minutia of GW's policies or releases. People throw tantrums and rage quit over rumors of rules changes.

This reality really isn't so much about GW as it is about people. People fear change and value certainty.

 Starfarer wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Starfarer wrote:
I think the problem is that at this point, they are simply too big and have too many fans expecting their product to be what it already is to risk a massive overhaul of their rules.

I don't think that this is too much of a problem. GW's biggest customer groups are kids who buy a bunch of space marines and probably never even play the game, and self-titled "casual" players who brag obnoxiously about how much they don't care about the rules. The only people who would really be upset about a major rule change are the competitive players, and they're the ones who are most in favor of a major overhaul.

You are being absolutely disingenuous if you don't think a complete overhaul of GW's core games would cause an uproar. It did from 2nd to 3rd, and it certainly would now. People are critical of every last minutia of GW's policies or releases. People throw tantrums and rage quit or rumors of rules changes.

This reality really isn't so much about GW as it is about people. People fear change and value certainty.

Yep.

I was one of those who threw their toys out of the pram when 3rd landed, quit, sold my models (in theory, long story) and stopped taking an interest in GW at all.

Took me years to realise I'd been wrong.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It makes sense from one point of view, which is how many armies does a player need before he is done?

Once you've got all the models, you only need new rules editions and codexes and a few supplementary models. For instance, if you are a long term Tau player, you probably only want the Riptide out of the new range for 6th edition.

As a counterpoint - back in the day, most of the Warhammer/40K players that I knew had more than one army - Heck, I can field most of the warbands in Mordheim myself. (And do... I often end up fighting my own warband because I have loaned it to another player.*)

But then most of the players that I knew back then (Nineties to the Oughts) were also role players - the fantasy miniatures would end up being used for a lot of games.

The Auld Grump

* Last time I played Necromunda I had my arse handed to me on toast by one of my own gangs.... Serves me right for not playing in three years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Palindrome wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
But I don't see why that should detract from my opinion of 40k

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but when it has been formed in a near vaccum it is worth far, far less than the opinion of someone who is knowledgable about the subject at hand.

Read the Epic:Armaggedon rules. They were a GW publication (although you may well have to resort to piratebay and the like now that Specalist games have finally been killed off) which are tightly written and concise. Ideally play a few games as well.
Once you have done so contrast them with the 40K rules and you will see just how bloated and imprecise they are.

And, in a round about way, this addresses what I consider the key problem -

GW can produce good games, and has produced good games, but isn't currently producing good games.

The excuse of 'beer and pretzels' does not work - I love Mordheim which was beer & pretzels game and a good game. Bloodbowl is a game that I hated - but it was a good game as well as a beer & pretzels game. (I don't have to like it for it to be a good game.) Warhammer Quest was all about the beer and the pretzels! (Literally - one group that I played with turned it into a drinking game. )

It is worse when a company that can produce such good games is instead selling schlock.

No one expects a gem from the writer of F.A.T.A.L..... He can get away with making more schlock....

The Auld Grump

 Starfarer wrote:
Might have been somewhat like Dust Warfare, which he co-wrote more recently. I haven't played Starship Troopers, but from what I have read Dust Warfare was somewhat of a progression from those rules.

And that is the dumbed down final version of Warfare, after someone else took over and FFG it. Board and card game FFG is great, but they never really been good at the miniature table top games. I really looking forward to the new version on Warfare.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


No one expects a gem from the writer of F.A.T.A.L..... He can get away with making more schlock....

Are you implying that FATAL isn't a gem?

I'm not sure what has already been said since I don't feel particularly motivated to wade through 11 pages of commentary, but I will still throw in my input.

I have little to no experience with Fantasy, so I will focus on 40k. Compared to other games I have either played or know players of, from a rules standpoint only 40k is well below average in terms of their rules. Even if we ignore issues of balance and some of the poorer design choices made, the rules are poorly written. There are numerous conflicts with rules within editions and even within the same book, and the exact wording of many rules seems to be a spot inconsistent. Worst of all, these inconsistencies seem to be, at least while I still followed 40k closely, poorly resolved. FAQs and Erratas were infrequent in their publication, and many of the most glaring issues are often left unresolved, or the proposed 'fixes' only complicate the rules further. To compare this, my two other gaming alternatives, Warmachine/Hordes and M:tG, use rules terminology that is consistent and the few uncertain issues are generally addressed fairly promptly (ie, judges at Wizards Events and Infernals on Privateer Presses forum). To put it simply, compared to many other games, fewer questions have clear answers in 40k than in many other gaming systems.

That being said, despite the fact that 40ks rules are flawed, I would say they are damaged rather than destroyed. They game is for the most part functional and tends to be enjoyable enough in most circumstances. I personally feel that GW could stand to look at its competitors, who are growing increasingly successful, particularly Warmahordes, Infinity, etc, and apply the lessons learned from their competitors to their own product. In the real world those who do not learn from their opponents will be overtaken by them. In every industry from industrial machinery to home appliances, whenever a company releases a new product the first batch is generally bought up by their competitors so that they can at least learn what a company is doing, if not use their designs or ideas as a base for improving their own. It is surprising that GW appears to be failing to look at what is making their competitors successful, and I hope that they start to adapt and look outside of their enclosed biosphere before they run themselves into the ground (particularly since according to their last earnings report they were merely profit neutral despite an overall improvement in the economy and significant increases in their margins on all products).

 Starfarer wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Starfarer wrote:
I think the problem is that at this point, they are simply too big and have too many fans expecting their product to be what it already is to risk a massive overhaul of their rules.

I don't think that this is too much of a problem. GW's biggest customer groups are kids who buy a bunch of space marines and probably never even play the game, and self-titled "casual" players who brag obnoxiously about how much they don't care about the rules. The only people who would really be upset about a major rule change are the competitive players, and they're the ones who are most in favor of a major overhaul.

You are being absolutely disingenuous if you don't think a complete overhaul of GW's core games would cause an uproar. It did from 2nd to 3rd, and it certainly would now. People are critical of every last minutia of GW's policies or releases. People throw tantrums and rage quit over rumors of rules changes.

Absolutely.. I remember the 'uproar' when marines changed from T3 to T4 at the tail end of 1st edition, it certainly wasn't popular with a lot of people (well.. at least the groups of people that I knew that played the game - obviously no internet to talk about back then!)

GW won't do this but they certainly have the capability to create an entirely new ruleset using the same models, while keeping the current 6th edition in print.

Call it 40K Advanced or something and write a new system from the ground up, taking account of 30 years of advances in wargames. 40K is at core the same game as original WHFB released in 1983.

(I'm sorry for ignoring Fantasy, it's just that I haven't played it since 2nd edition.)

I think Fantasy is in a similar boat - both rulesets are a product of evolution rather than revolution.

 Starfarer wrote:
You are being absolutely disingenuous if you don't think a complete overhaul of GW's core games would cause an uproar. It did from 2nd to 3rd, and it certainly would now.

It might cause an uproar among the small minority of GW's customers that post on forums, but that's hardly the end of the world. Just look at it by customer group:

The kids who buy a couple boxes of space marines and give up before finishing them don't care about the rules at all.

The people who play for the fluff and models might be a bit annoyed at having to learn new rules, but will be happy in the end since they can keep using their cool models.

The "beer and pretzels" players might care but won't ever admit it to anyone because they're terrified of being WAAC TFGs who care about the rules or winning.

The competitive players will celebrate because they'll finally have a proper competitive wargame to play.

People are critical of every last minutia of GW's policies or releases.

That's because GW's actions deserve criticism. People aren't complaining just because things are changing, they're complaining because GW is putting out questionable products and enforcing absolutely idiotic policies. If GW announced a comprehensive re-write of the game and the rumors suggested that it really would be a step up in quality most of the GW critics would probably be happy.

People throw tantrums and rage quit over rumors of rules changes.

Yes, but those people are a tiny and irrelevant minority. They make a lot of noise, but even if all of them actually quit instead of just threatening it to get attention (which will never happen of course) they would not cause a meaningful decrease in sales. In fact their loss would probably be more than offset by the increase in sales from having better rules.

Someone mentioned PP vs GW on rules generation. I seem to remember that when PP was updating the V2 rules, the posted the rules on their forums as a beta and allowed players to play them and provide feedback. This resulted in them having many, many players playing the rules and finding scenarios where rules would break that they wouldn't have known about until post publish.

GW's approach: here it is, be glad it is less than $100, we'll put up a couple page pdf in a couple weeks to address FAQs. BTW, the FAQ may be just as ambiguous because our intern will take care of it.

In order to have clear and concise rules, it has to be volume tested with people who like to abuse the rules. They can't be tested in low volume with "let's have fun" players. Let's have fun and rule's abusers are not mutually exclusive.

I'm one of GWs biggest detractors (that I know of) when it comes to the quality of their rules. I would praise a rewrite from the ground up from now till eternity if they did it well. I would forgive all of the past mistakes with poorly worded FAQs and shoddy wording, the fact that they ignore issues for multiple editions without an FAQ let along changing the wording in the rules...

Noir wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

I have accepted what has been handed down because there is no means to bring about change except house rules or fluff that the OP has disallowed (which we have compensated in slight ways that make it acceptable).

And this ^^ is way GW will never change. Thinking like that, when the truth is being change is easy. I fact you don't have to do anything. Hell you can even play the game and still get the point across. The answer, is.... money. Stop giving it to them, you already have every thing you need to play. Any other money you give GW should be earned, not be couse of GW feel it there entitlement.

Hey! now you are forcing me to quote myself, read a little further before you get on your soap box ... I had also said:

GW has more than adequately shown they are not interested in receiving our feedback or demands to better improve the game.
Only reducing their sales to a point they cannot juggle the books enough to show profit will they hunt around for a reason why.

Right now GW is not interested in our opinion as long as they can still manage to show profit even though after a little digging it is clear they have lost market share and actual sales are down.

Only after maybe a couple more rounds of putting out codexes, various silly e-pub stuff and new batches of models and them not getting the big financial boost they are hoping for will they be more willing to look at rules because nothing makes more money than a 7th edition 40k non-optional book we all have to purchase.

Getting more on topic: the rules have many opportunities for improvement, we only have to create the opportunity or wait until they are more receptive for change.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
The problem with this idea is that GW doesn't seem to have any long-term plan they're working towards. New rules change stuff without any apparent reason besides "this is what the author thought would be cool".

At the present moment the only plan is to ensure short term profitability, so dividends can be given to line the pockets of those in charge.
Increased infrastructure and R&D cost are contrary to that goal.
We may see a new renaissance when Kirby decides he wants to retire which would only be when the quarterly report stops showing a profit.

It has been said a few times that an idea from the art department turns into a model which then the rules are made for it.
A codex is typically made and written with an eye of what models were made, not possibly dictating the need for new models in certain elements of the army (shortage, balancing)

Usually, crafting rules involves defining the overall role of the army and creating the elements to support that role.
I think they are leaning on the "force choice slots" to maintain the balance of the army and not caring if they overload the "Fast", "Hvy", "Troop", etc. choices.
They also are happy to allow multiple units that do not take up any of these slots so many balance regulating elements of the rules are trumped.
As the various force choices get congested, the more powerful and versatile models are chosen and the rest never see the light of day.
If everything had it's place and had a more "rock-paper-scissors" element, tactical choice would be more difficult and tactics on the field become more interesting.

Again, pointless exercise with no venue for being heard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
The "beer and pretzels" players might care but won't ever admit it to anyone because they're terrified of being WAAC TFGs who care about the rules or winning.

I must remember never to bring up "beer and pretzels" again.

No "terror" here; caring about the rules is core to playing a game.
Having parameters for winning is the focus of a game however, so if you lose sight of that, you might as well go play in some real or virtual sandbox where "everybody wins!!!, hugs all around!".

If you do not follow the rules, you are no longer playing a "game".
It all just devolves into who, can B.S. who, the best.
The rules for 40k as they stand is a huge draw for those who live in the "gray zone" and know that every rule they do not like has a 50% chance to go their way.
I really fail to see any reason to get all up in arms about the fine points of the game when a basic rule like this exists, so we have some common ground here.

Chess has always been the game of choice for slapping your ego on a table, no luck to blame, no uneven rules for your army, just plain old direct competition.
There are examples of games with tight rule sets that allow excellent competitive opportunities, you will just have to wait and see if GW feels like making FB or 40k that way again; the business decision appears to be to keep rules "loose" as they are.

That's because GW's actions deserve criticism. People aren't complaining just because things are changing, they're complaining because GW is putting out questionable products and enforcing absolutely idiotic policies. If GW announced a comprehensive re-write of the game and the rumors suggested that it really would be a step up in quality most of the GW critics would probably be happy.

Again, agreeable statement but your opinion on this does not matter that would bring about meaningful change.
Buy a meaningful number of shares in the company and then you would be heard.

The "Allies" rule is IMO intended to compensate for unbalanced codexes by allowing an army to paper over the cracks with a different army's units.

Unfortunately, it creates more imbalances as well by allowing strong armies to double up or paper over their minor cracks.

I'm prepared to excuse the allies rule on the grounds of the modelling and painting options it opens up, and I while I enjoy playing, I probably rate the creative side slightly higher (it certainly takes up far more of my hobby hours than gaming.)

There's no reason why we couldn't have our cake and eat it though, balanced codexes where the allies rule existed solely to provide interest and flavour to armies, and wasn't a necessary evil to try and add balance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW won't do this but they certainly have the capability to create an entirely new ruleset using the same models, while keeping the current 6th edition in print.

Call it 40K Advanced or something and write a new system from the ground up, taking account of 30 years of advances in wargames. 40K is at core the same game as original WHFB released in 1983.

(I'm sorry for ignoring Fantasy, it's just that I haven't played it since 2nd edition.)

Actually, I remember hearing rumours some time ago, prior to the release of Apocalypse, that there was going to be a '40k advanced' release. Sadly, what we got instead was the most hilarious version of 'The Emperor's new clothes' in the form of 'put all your minis on the table and play a game' (Apocalypse), something that pretty much every 40k fan ever had been doing since the age of 10 anyway.

BOTTOM TIER OMG!!!!!
how can they be as bad as that?
all GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome!!!

deal with it really, theyre too fun


Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the emperor

 blood ravens addiction wrote:
BOTTOM TIER OMG!!!!!
how can they be as bad as that?
all GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome!!!

deal with it really, theyre too fun


Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the emperor

You truly put forth a lot of thought into this answer.

How does the quality of the rules relate to fun for you? Please give us more of your insight from years as a seasoned game designer.