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.

I don't think a computer game would give the same kind of emotional connection that you have with an army and terrain set up you chose and built yourself. There is also the satisfaction of using your craft skills and so on.

As well as that, there are no bragging rights in buying a computer game.

I'm not against computer games. I just think it is a different kind of experience.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
Not an error. I agree that the hobby has broader appeal than playing a game to a lot of people.

I said being able to do that (play what/when you wanted) would be valuable to people in those situations.

Your error was attributing it to anybody in that situation. Again, not true at all and completely subjective.

I would think anyone in that situation could see the value of being able to get a game of what you want when you want...

Again, no. For the same reason I don't play pick up games with random people at the store. I play with my group, because they're all people I know well. Family, and friends I've known for nearly 20 years. The value of the game comes from spending time with those people. Getting a game at 8pm on a worknight with some random person halfway across the world who I don't know and my only form of communication is a headset? I'll save that for Counter Strike where I can put a virtual bullet between their eyes and I don't need conversation.

Wait so you can't see the value in something while not necessarily it being your thing personally? Sounds a bit short sighted to me. I can see the value in a lot of things I myself am not necessarily interested in or care about

And to quote what I said earlier...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Either way I think we're wasting vastly too much reading too deeply in to a sentence that probably only had minimum consideration when it was written

Poor thought out doesn't mean it wasn't posted. I can see the value but I don't myself see it as a worthwhile alternative, but it's not for everyone even if they're busy people, which was inferred by statement that anyone who is busy would find it valuable.

I would still countinue playing TT. IMO there is nothing like the reward you get when you finish an army or a long time goal, sitting back and seeing how your painting skills have improved. Not only finishing an army, also watching it build up ever so slightly every time you finish a model. Not to mention the whole social side of TT, meeting up with your friends and battling it out while having a laugh (and the odd rule related argument...).
Would a computer game give me all of this? No.

 -Loki- wrote:
Poor thought out doesn't mean it wasn't posted. I can see the value but I don't myself see it as a worthwhile alternative, but it's not for everyone even if they're busy people, which was inferred by statement that anyone who is busy would find it valuable.

The statement implies, you are the one who infers Maybe we should spend less time inferring things that aren't actually written. He said anyone who is busy would find it valuable to be able to play when they wanted, not anyone who is busy would find it more valuable to play a video game than play a TT game which is what you seem to have inferred.

Being able to play whenever you want is valuable to people who are busy. I think that's a pretty true statement. Do you disagree? It doesn't have to mean it's more valuable than other things you might value in TT gaming.

More than anything I think it's stupid to waste so much time picking apart a simple statement with what we might infer from it.

 RivenSkull wrote:
I'd be yelling at the computer too much blaming the programming for the dice rolls

Of course, for anyone who has played the computerised version of Blood Bowl, they would have plenty of reason to do that!

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The statement implies, you are the one who infers Maybe we should spend less time inferring things that aren't actually written. He said anyone who is busy would find it valuable to be able to play when they wanted, not anyone who is busy would find it more valuable to play a video game than play a TT game which is what you seem to have inferred.

I never inferred that he meant it would be more valuable to everyone, just that everyone who is busy would find it valuable. I can easily see the value that it would offer, but it simply doesn't offer it to me. I have a whole group that would disagree with it due to the social limitations of playing a video game, even online, versus playing it on a table with your opponent right in front of you.

Which is what I was arguing - his broad statement that anyone who is busy would find value in it. It's not true. You are the one that jumped on stating I said something that I didn't.

Let's just agree to disagree because this conversation is so incredibly pointless and I have no desire to pick apart this discussion any further.

I don't agree to that.

I was actually being sarcastic there.

 filbert wrote:
You might as well ask why, if there are perfect digital books, people still buy physical printed media; the advent of digital books hasn't killed real books off - the two can co-exist in the same space as they appeal to difference groups.

People do ask that question, though. And when you try to explain why you prefer printed media over digital they just dismiss you entirely as some kind of backwards caveman who simply refuses to "get with the times".

So, I suppose the same could be said then for people who prefer miniature tabletop gaming instead of digital. It's possible to recreate 1:1 the exact experience of playing a tabletop game in a digital format, probably even better as the rules could be more strictly enforced by the devs, and you get added cinematic effects like actual gunfire, music, atmospheric sounds or terrain, etc. It's easier to find opponents as you can be matched up with anyone in the world at any time, it's far, far cheaper, requires much less time and storage space, eliminates a lot of the problems of tabletop gaming (like unpainted models, cheating, unpleasant opponents could simply be muted and blocked and you wouldn't have awkward situations sparking countless threads about "How do I deal with Ass McDouche at my local store?", etc.), timely updates, better tournament/competitive scene and an environment that would allow both competitive and "casual" types to co-exist...

People who cling to tabletop gaming and insist that it's somehow superior to electronic gaming because you have a physical product in your hands, or because of the "artistry" or the outdated concept of "socializing" (which was already replaced years ago by Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, YouTube, etc.), just need to wake up and get with the times. Stop living in denial and accept the clearly superior format already, because you're holding the rest of us back.



In all seriousness though, the tabletop game couldn't ever really be "replaced" by a computer game. There are obviously things you get from one that you can't get from the other (like building and painting models). I don't think the existence of a computer game would really be a bad thing though, might even help GW make a little bit of royalty money from people who are interested in the game and universe but can't afford their insane prices for the actual models, or lack the skill, time, or interest in learning how to model and paint anyway.

 Jimsolo wrote:
It would suffer from one huge flaw: in a game like 40k, you'd be stuck with the dev's interpretation of the rules.

Better than having to have the same argument with everyone you meet about how the game is "supposed" to work or what GW "intended", and either being forced to accept someone else's interpretation anyway by losing a dice roll or just not being able to play the game period.

That's exactly what 40k needs, honestly; someone to take charge and exert a little bit of authority over the rule set, and force everyone to play by the same rules. No more "On a 4+ I get to cheat.", or "Where I come from we played it like this...", or "But that makes no sense, it should work like this instead!", etc.

I could play MtG online if I wanted, I'm told it's very close to the real thing in terms of game play, but I like sitting down in person to do so and physically owning the cards. Similarly, I prefer playing miniature games with miniatures because of the flexibility. We can decide how certain things should be done on the spot, use house rules, etc. I doubt any computer game would be that flexible, also it would just be on a screen like every other computer game. Unless you only enjoy playing the game itself, you are missing the appeal of painting miniatures and playing them on a table.

Yes.

I think that the people drawn to these games play these games BECAUSE of the social and physical aspects of the game. Even if a player doesn't paint much (or at all), there is still something about being at the table that gets people interested... people don't play 40k because it has awesome rules, so a VG would defeat the purpose.

 Pacific wrote:

 RivenSkull wrote:
I'd be yelling at the computer too much blaming the programming for the dice rolls

Of course, for anyone who has played the computerised version of Blood Bowl, they would have plenty of reason to do that!

Yea, I don't think the dice roller in those games is actually random. If the code says it is, mine must have some kind of gremlin.

How would you be able to make a 1:1 experience with a tabletop game without allowing for actual customization?

As far as Space Hulk is concerned, I'd be more inclined, if I had a mate round, to play the tabletop version (despite it being almost entirely unpainted), than for both of us to get our computers together and play Space Hulk there.

It's weird, but, even though it rationally takes longer to set up a tabletop game, I'd get the feeling of, "well, if we're going to the effort to set up a pc game of Space Hulk, we might as well just play Sins of a Solar Empire or Company of Heroes instead."

Whereas, getting the tabletop game up wouldn't have longer than a thought or two about the time.

I imagine that it'd be a case of, you'd be more inclined to play online, if you're separate by any real distance, however if a mate is over at your house anyway, you'd might as well be inclined to play the tabletop game

The issue is the lack of social experience. Sure you could be in vent talking or typing in chat but that is a much different experience then being in the local game store, hanging out at a friends house playing or playing at a club. A lot of miniatures games don't have simultaneous moves, which means I'd be bored out of my mind waiting for my opponent to make their moves. It isn't longer than a normal person makes a move, but because you aren't there socializing in person it feels a lot longer. I've dealt with this back when I played Magic and World of Warcraft TCG, there were online versions which were great to practice deck builds but the games were so boring. Sometimes you would get that opponent that would take 5-10 minutes to make a 1 minute move, when they only have one card in their hand (there are so many options a person can do). Let alone trying to run a tournament online is such a pain.

I understand there are gamers who don't like to paint but the gaming category is pretty broad. There are a lot of gamers who like to paint, collect and kitbash. Yes the miniatures can be expensive but honestly if you aren't playing competitively, you are just playing to have fun (which is what it sounds like when you talk about digial games) then you don't have to buy every miniature or every latest version.

I'd play both,

probably eating into my 'wasting times on forums' time to do so

the computer game could not provide a way to satisfy my modeling/converting/painting urges,

and is far less likely to provide decent social interaction

on the other hand it would probably let me do loads more actual gaming, as opposed to thinking about and planning to game that seems to be my mainstay now

I suppose the closest I've come to this is when Rome Total War came out about 10 years ago. I played the hell out of it and yet I still played tabletop miniature games, because as much as I loved the game it didn't scratch the itch of playing with a real life person in the same room.

 LuciusAR wrote:
I suppose the closest I've come to this is when Rome Total War came out about 10 years ago. I played the hell out of it and yet I still played tabletop miniature games, because as much as I loved the game it didn't scratch the itch of playing with a real life person in the same room.

This for me, but it was Shogun: Total War.

I love miniatures.

-

If there was a perfect 1:1 version of Necromunda, I'd play that. That's about it.

Granted, Blood Bowl is pretty much a 1:1 translation of the tabletop game, frustrations and all.

When I was playing XCOM, all I could think about was how perfectly it could replicate Necromunda. Plus, I'd get to play it on my ipad while pooping, double bonus!

 Ozymandias wrote:
When I was playing XCOM, all I could think about was how perfectly it could replicate Necromunda. Plus, I'd get to play it on my ipad while pooping, double bonus!

We could totally play Necromunda in your bathroom if you're interested...

No question, for me it's a YES.

-A computer game will never give the same interpersonal experience as a tabletop wargame enjoyed in-person with friends, which is one of the main reasons I wargame.

-A Computer game offers me no chance to engage in terrain building, which is tied with the above for my favorite part of the hobby.

-A computer game gives me no chance to collect and paint miniatures, my other close-third favorite part of the hobby.

Even the perfect computer game version would still only elicit a medium amount of interest because nothing that the computer game offers me are the reasons I became engaged in TT wargaming. It's alot like my brief foray into RPG's in middle school. They were interesting, but in the end, I was left thinking "Where are the fun toys?"

The only way I'd even be considerably excited about a TT-copy computer game would be if for some reason I was forced to move away from my gaming friends and the game allowed me to keep some contact with them. However, it wouldn't have to be a TT-copy game for that to happen anyway.

Well... happily played Dawn of War and the ipad version of Space Hulk and Warhammer Quest, but if anything this just increases my interest in getting the models.

As others have said, modelling and painting is the big draw that computer games can't compete with (assuming of course that you're into modelling and painting which a LOT of people aren't).

 Ozymandias wrote:
When I was playing XCOM, all I could think about was how perfectly it could replicate Necromunda.

I'm sure a lot of us thought that as well. Increase the squad-size to, say, 12, change base-management to territory management, and add in multiple Gang types (with unique skill trees + generic skills), and you'd have an amazing game.

Obviously you wouldn't need to shoot down UFO's. That might be a bit strange in the context of Necromunda.

Would I still play the TT?

Yes. I'm not a videogamer.

I don't play videogames. I play TT because of the 3d models - the assembly and hands-on part of it is the greater part for me.

I find videogames tedious for the most part.

I would play a 100% perfect digital version of KD:M.
To try tactics, mess with Settlement ideas, etc
Any game/app that could be played, updated and saved on the go, without the hassle of set-up and the ability to just go on a really random tangent and save on the fly would be amazing (child + dog + cat = no permanently safe table top area in my house).

But, that would be a disservice to the sculptors, concept artists and the game designer(s) that created the beautiful miniatures.
The corporeal, physical, mini-in-hand feeling cannot be replaced by a video game.
There's something lacking in our current technology-addicted societies--so many screens fighting for time with our eyes--and there's a complete appeal for me to get further from the back-lit screens.
Handling the minis when you're moving them, watching them die, pulling them from the board, etc. You can't replicate that with a video game.

You can emulate it. You can "copy" it. But you can't recreate that experience.


Yes, I'd play a video game version of TT's -- Just to try out random stuff on the fly! It would be a welcome tool to teach others, play away from home, game with others the world over, etc...
But breaking out the minis would be necessary. Playing on the tabletop, rolling the dice, moving the models… It's vital to the experience, IMHO.

Yeah, the miniatures are what make miniatures games different to other types of games. So until the days of solid holograms arrive, there is never going to be a 'perfect 1:1' version of any miniatures game on a computer.