Rick Priestley on GW's current position

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.

**PhantomViper**

RunicFIN wrote:
And good aspects of a game can subjectively make a game ( or whatever product ) a good game for a person, even if it is lackluster in some areas.

A videogame can be considered a good game despite it lacking in some areas, be it graphics, bugs and the like. It can have good critic and/or user ratings despite being lackluster in some areas, making it a good game on average according to it's rating, or a bad one. And that's just the general consesus, not taking into account the individual subjective views ( which in turn, might change the supposed general consesus as a tiny fraction of critics/people actually rate games, pertaining to this very example in this case. ) Better just accept this fact and move on. Alternatively:

You do know that just because you say something is a fact doesn't actually make it so?

Yes, a good game can have some bad aspects and still be considered a good game. Its only when the flaws outnumber the good aspects that it turns from a good or middling game into a bad one.

In GW's games the bad aspects outnumber the "good" ones by a fairly large amount, therefore they are bad games.

But just because they are bad games, doesn't mean that people can't still have fun playing them anyway.

**Wayniac**

PhantomViper wrote:
RunicFIN wrote:
And good aspects of a game can subjectively make a game ( or whatever product ) a good game for a person, even if it is lackluster in some areas.

A videogame can be considered a good game despite it lacking in some areas, be it graphics, bugs and the like. It can have good critic and/or user ratings despite being lackluster in some areas, making it a good game on average according to it's rating, or a bad one. And that's just the general consesus, not taking into account the individual subjective views ( which in turn, might change the supposed general consesus as a tiny fraction of critics/people actually rate games, pertaining to this very example in this case. ) Better just accept this fact and move on. Alternatively:

You do know that just because you say something is a fact doesn't actually make it so?

Yes, a good game can have some bad aspects and still be considered a good game. Its only when the flaws outnumber the good aspects that it turns from a good or middling game into a bad one.

In GW's games the bad aspects outnumber the "good" ones by a fairly large amount, therefore they are bad games.

But just because they are bad games, doesn't mean that people can't still have fun playing them anyway.

This. There seems to be the idea that someone who has fun with 40k like Runic invalidates someone who thinks the game is gak like Peregrine. That's incorrect. 40k rules are objectively bad, that doesn't mean that you can't still find it fun. But the argument "I find it fun, so the rules are good" is wrong when used in the context of the quality of the game.

**Runic**

PhantomViper wrote:

Yes, a good game can have some bad aspects and still be considered a good game. Its only when the flaws outnumber the good aspects that it turns from a good or middling game into a bad one.

In GW's games the bad aspects outnumber the "good" ones by a fairly large amount, therefore they are bad games.

And this exactly, is your subjective view. For others the good outweigh the bad, making it a good game for them, just like the bad outweighing the good makes it a bad game for you. Thank you for deadlocking this.

No comment for Wayne since I don't think the way you describe atleast. Either party doesn't invalidate the other afaic.

**PhantomViper**

RunicFIN wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

Yes, a good game can have some bad aspects and still be considered a good game. Its only when the flaws outnumber the good aspects that it turns from a good or middling game into a bad one.

In GW's games the bad aspects outnumber the "good" ones by a fairly large amount, therefore they are bad games.

And this exactly, is your subjective view. For others the good outweigh the bad, making it a good game for them. Thank you for deadlocking this.

Good:
- It has nice models if you like that look;
- It has a nice background;

Bad:
- Rules are too bloated;
- Rules are too complicated;
- Rules are imprecisely or even badly written;
- The game is too random;
- The game is unbalanced;
- The game is tactically shallow;
- It lacks support after the product buy stage (FAQs take way too long to be released and most of the time don't actually answer what needs to be clarified);
- It takes way too long to finish for such a simple game;
...

**Azreal13**

Threads in Warmachine YMDC = 590, 4300 posts
Threads in 40K YMDC = 36000, 523000 posts.

Even allowing for the disparity in the size of player base, it's easy to infer that even assuming 100% resolution (which frequently doesn't happen in 40K IME) it takes a great deal more debate to arrive at a conclusion for 40K than it does for WMH.

I can't think of a more plausible reason to explain this than the 40K rules are less clear and more open to interpretation, and, for what is essentially a set of instructions, this should surely be considered objectively worse even if what you consider "bad" is slightly different for each person.

**Runic**

PhantomViper wrote:
RunicFIN wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

Yes, a good game can have some bad aspects and still be considered a good game. Its only when the flaws outnumber the good aspects that it turns from a good or middling game into a bad one.

In GW's games the bad aspects outnumber the "good" ones by a fairly large amount, therefore they are bad games.

And this exactly, is your subjective view. For others the good outweigh the bad, making it a good game for them. Thank you for deadlocking this.

Good:
- It has nice models if you like that look; opinion
- It has a nice background; opinion

Bad:
- Rules are too bloated; opinion
- Rules are too complicated; opinion
- Rules are imprecisely or even badly written; true
- The game is too random; opinion
- The game is unbalanced; true
- The game is tactically shallow; opinion
- It lacks support after the product buy stage (FAQs take way too long to be released and most of the time don't actually answer what needs to be clarified); hard to say if this is simply true or an opinion
- It takes way too long to finish for such a simple game; opinion
...

And after that I could make a similiar meaningless list which includes 9 positive things and 4 bad ones to crush this example even further, but I already know it would actually lead nowhere ( except you/someone else basically doing what I am now doing, hence, leading nowhere. ) Keep believing a product can't be good to some and bad to some if you wish ( a good game, in this instance ) it's a delusion in the end and not really off my purse. I've pretty much said everything there is to say about the matter and am not interested in continuing further.

Azreal, nothing unclear about 40K's rules aspect ( an aspect of a game as a whole ) causing more difficulties than WM/H's for me atleast.

**PhantomViper**

RunicFIN wrote:

And after that I could make a similiar meaningless list which includes 9 positive things and 4 bad ones to crush this example even further, but I already know it would actually lead nowhere ( except you/someone else basically doing what I am now doing, hence, leading nowhere. ) Keep believing a product can't be good to some and bad to some if you wish, it's a delusion in the end and not really off my purse. I've pretty much said everything there is to say about the matter and am not interested in continuing further.

Ok, so you don't even know what facts and opinions are, your argument has been completely disproved so you'll just leave the thread?

I guess that works as well, I'll happily take your concession.

**Runic**

PhantomViper wrote:
RunicFIN wrote:

And after that I could make a similiar meaningless list which includes 9 positive things and 4 bad ones to crush this example even further, but I already know it would actually lead nowhere ( except you/someone else basically doing what I am now doing, hence, leading nowhere. ) Keep believing a product can't be good to some and bad to some if you wish, it's a delusion in the end and not really off my purse. I've pretty much said everything there is to say about the matter and am not interested in continuing further.

Ok, so you don't even know what facts and opinions are, your argument has been completely disproved so you'll just leave the thread?

I guess that works as well, I'll happily take your concession.

I wonder if you could get any more childish. In any case, I was right to beginwith regarding the argument I made, and yours has been completely obliterated, partially thanks to yourself when you basically said the exact thing that I was saying. Reread what I wrote, as that is exactly what I mean. To understand differently is to have reading comprehension difficulty. That is all.

**PhantomViper**

RunicFIN wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
RunicFIN wrote:

And after that I could make a similiar meaningless list which includes 9 positive things and 4 bad ones to crush this example even further, but I already know it would actually lead nowhere ( except you/someone else basically doing what I am now doing, hence, leading nowhere. ) Keep believing a product can't be good to some and bad to some if you wish, it's a delusion in the end and not really off my purse. I've pretty much said everything there is to say about the matter and am not interested in continuing further.

Ok, so you don't even know what facts and opinions are, your argument has been completely disproved so you'll just leave the thread?

I guess that works as well, I'll happily take your concession.

I wonder if you could get any more childish. In any case, I was right to beginwith regarding the argument I made, and yours has been completely obliterated, partially thanks to yourself when you basically said the exact thing that I was saying. Reread what I wrote, as that is exactly what I mean. To understand differently is to have reading comprehension difficulty. That is all.

Again, just you stating something doesn't actually making it a fact, just like you saying that something is "opinion" doesn't make it so. You've also failed to contradict anything that I said.

And you keep saying "that is all" and "am not interested in continuing further", yet you are still here... You really should make up your mind and stick with it.

**reds8n**

Actually that's pretty much all everyone has been doing for the last few pages.

So it's best we leave it here.