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.
Tell me, who made you arbiter of objectively "good" and "bad" storytelling?
Breaking an established setting, just for the sake of selling more merch and invalidating the models made by 3ed party companies, is definitly bad though. You don't need to have a major in literature or be an established critique to know that.
That's got nothing to do with bad literature, and you know it. Give me actual *objective* proof that it's bad storytelling - I doubt you can, because art criticism is notoriously subjective. You can say as much as you like how you don't like it, but that's just on you.
Would it be too much to ask to change the subject from whether Primaris are "objectively bad" or not, whatever that means? Obviously people have subjective opinions; if not, there would be nothing for us to argue about on internet forums. The entire point of this sort of discussion is for people to try and sway each other to their side of a subjective argument, or at least to elucidate their perspective to others in something resembling a constructive fashion. Hiding behind the shield of "all our opinions are equal, man" doesn't really advance the conversation in any interesting way.
Personally, I feel that the Primaris lore is bad because it's an excruciatingly obvious band-aid used by GW to disguise the fact that what they really wanted to do is revamp their flagship model line to fit more with modern design aesthetics. That's why the lore is so hamfisted and relies on two characters who haven't been present in any meaningful way, either in-universe or in-game, for any amount of time in non-HH Warhammer. That's my subjective opinion, and I personally think it would be nice to argue over points such as these instead of whatever's been going on in this thread for the last three pages.
Flipsiders wrote:Would it be too much to ask to change the subject from whether Primaris are "objectively bad" or not, whatever that means?
Well, that's what I'm trying to say! Folks are making these claims that Primaris are "objectively bad", that it's some kind of fact - which, clearly, as I'm sure you agree, is ridiculous. I'm asking that people stop making those claims.
Obviously people have subjective opinions; if not, there would be nothing for us to argue about on internet forums. The entire point of this sort of discussion is for people to try and sway each other to their side of a subjective argument, or at least to elucidate their perspective to others in something resembling a constructive fashion. Hiding behind the shield of "all our opinions are equal, man" doesn't really advance the conversation in any interesting way.
At the same time, claiming "I'm objectively right" is equally counterproductive, not to mention false. I'm not trying to advance the conversation beyond "stop calling things objectively bad because you don't like it", that's all.
Besides, I'm not here to convince anyone. I know far too well that nothing I say will change anyone's minds, because their minds are already set in their opinions - and that's okay! I have no interest in changing anyone's mind, it's got nothing to do with me.
I'm literally only here because folks are making comments like "Primaris are objectively bad" - which is just flat out mistaken.
That's my subjective opinion, and I personally think it would be nice to argue over points such as these instead of whatever's been going on in this thread for the last three pages.
I totally respect your opinion! I'd like to hope that you'd respect my opinions that are pro-Primaris, instead of, you know, implying that I'm "shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased".
I totally agree, I'd love to change the subject beyond "Primaris are objectively bad", but until people stop saying it, you're trying to convince the wrong person here.
That's not what happens at all. Things like the Redeemer, Ares, and Razorback are explicitly *new* creations, developed as a response to battlefield situations, and tacitly accepted by the AdMech if politically expedient.
no those are battlefield modifications, which then wait for a long time for Mars to approve that there is in deed an STC design that allows you to put a stormbolter on the right hatch of the rhino too. When mars can't find the STC for a specific design, and those are marine things which is already very indepenended as far as imperium goes, you get the BA situation. Where Baals and different type of engines are considered heretical by the adeptus.
That's simply not the case though, is it?
No STC was found that "approved" the Redeemer, Crusader, and Ares, and yet those tanks are widespread. The reason that Baal Predators are considered "heretical" is because the Blood Angels don't share their secrets. It's as simple as that - a political game.
The Blood Angels horde their own creation, and because they don't disseminate it, the Mechanicum cry "heresy" over it. However, good luck accusing a First Founding Chapter, especially one as well loved as the Blood Angels, of heresy.
As I've said - where's this STC that approve the various xenotech the Grey Knights use?
Give me actual *objective* proof that it's bad storytelling - I doubt you can, because art criticism is notoriously subjective.
Intreducing Cawl, and spinning a story about how he build a whole legion of new marines, and weapons for them, and ships to fare them around, and that he somehow took part in every big project ever done by the empire, makes as much sense storytelling wise, as the changes done to SW or dr Who lore. With the difference that SW and dr Who are a bit older then w40k lore.
Absolutely none of that was objectively *bad* though. You say it's bad, sure, but that's not a fact.
Also, you point to SW and Doctor Who like they're not massively popular/influential pieces of pop culture. Tell how they're "objectively bad", please?
Could stuff like primaris be intreduced and make sense? Of course. Lets say Constantine Valdor returns, and opens the gene vaults that exist under the imperial palace. The primaris aren't space marines, but are a stop gap between a custodes and a human. The project is something the gene smiths of the custodes know, and the custodes themselfs are one of the few organisations(probably only, aside for the admecha) that could commander a legion size fleet.
Normal marines die out after 200 years of fighting, and the new primaris take over their place. Which then explains why their "fathers" have to leave Terra.
Valdor returning and just HAPPENING to have Marines in the gene vaults? OBJECTIVELY BAD WRITING ALERT!!!
Sorry, but I don't see how that's any better than "secret scientist entrusted by the highest Imperial authority who personally worked on the Space Marine project toils for 10,000 years to make them slightly taller and with slightly better gear". Of course, that's my subjective taste, but I hope you see my point - just because you think that your Valdor idea is better doesn't make it objectively so, and I think it makes even less sense than Cawl.
Insectum7 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Exactly what I claimed - and as I've told you, that's totally fine. Everyone has their own vision of the setting. Yours differs from mine. But both our views are subjective.
You say ham-fisted, I say perfectly acceptable. I hate to be snappy, but deal with it. Your opinion isn't the only one.
Opinions can be shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased.
Yes, they can. Perhaps yours fit that just as much as mine.
They can simply be kool-aid induced or towing the company line.
They can also be based from a fear of seeing anything new and clinging to your own perceived values and notions of what "should" be.
I reserve the right to express why I believe my opinion is better than yours, and provide argument/evidence as to why this is the case.
Excellent - you admit it's your opinion!
I don't care if you think it's better than mine, it's frankly got nothing to do with me - but I'm glad you've said it - it's just your opinion.
The more troubling thing is why you feel the compulsive need to batter down someone else's opinion - like, seriously? Is your own opinion so fragile you feel the *need* to slap others down?
Seriously, let it go. I don't care that you dislike Primaris. I care that you seem unable to let anyone like them.
Your continued cries about subjectivity aren't bringing any substance, just a deflection for a lack of argument with merit.
Lying about subjective opinions being "objective facts" is equally insubstanial.
Your arguments can been summed up as "this doesn't fit my perceived notion of how things should be". That's literally all you've brought to the table. Let people enjoy things.
You'll find that a hallmark of good writing is the setup and payoff. Primaris is definitely not that. The fact that their lore is so contentious is good evidence for the storytelling being lackluster.
Throwing away a story before the payoff isn't good reading either. Primaris existing currently *is* the setup.
And again, I'd disagree that the only "good" writing is in the setup and payoff - in fact, that's such an incredibly reductive view of literature I'm not sure where to start.
The magnitude of the break is greater than ever.
If that bothers you, that's got nothing to do with me.
The lore has followed distinct trends. Primaris diverge from many of those trends. They also diverge from game design trends.
"Many" - you mean the trends that you choose to hold most important?
As I re-iterate, you have chosen what things you feel should be sacrosanct, and to what degree. You aren't the only person making those choices though.
"Oh well they just would have made more Space marines anyways." is a fundamentally lazy argument.
Before Primaris were made, what army was GW's flagship faction again?
GW isn't fated to concentrate on Space Marines to the degree it has been, they can make different decisions.
Oh, sure, they *can*. But do you honestly believe they would?
Hell, according to your logic, GW love Space Marines so much they created the Primaris. I guess that answered that question.
TL;DR - Other people have different opinions than you. Get over it.
^A long post spending a lot of effort to tell me I shouldn't express an opinion backed by observable facts on a forum about the subject. Perhaps internet forums are not the place for you.
A long post which never once said you shouldn't express an opinion. Only that, when you claim your opinion to be fact, in order to attempt to discredit and belittle the opinions of others, that's more than a bit problematic.
If you can't respect other people's opinions without needing to imply that they're "shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased", perhaps you need a take a break. Because honestly, it sounds like me liking Primaris is winding you up all the wrong ways, as if you can't accept that someone has different tastes than you.
I'm not asking at all that you change your opinion, it doesn't affect me. What I'm saying is that you've claimed that your opinions are fact, and that's just not cool.
Opinions are based on observations, insinuations, biases and facts. I am merely pointing out facts that support my opinion. You appear to be so uncomfortable with these facts that you claim them to be subjective, even though they are not.
I am alao comfortable with you liking your Primaris. I can understand why people like them. However, that doesn't mean I can't point out why I dislike them and use facts to back up that opinion.
Furthermore, opinions really can be shallow and misinformed. The more you know about something, the more information you have with which to evolve your opinion. This is natural.
But straight up denying facts it a problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/29 02:23:52
Well based on the fact one of the reasons is completely based on you never having put together one of the kits, you're completely unreasonable with your opinion.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Well based on the fact one of the reasons is completely based on you never having put together one of the kits, you're completely unreasonable with your opinion.
Heh. Recent history notwithstanding, it is at least physically possible to make different decisions. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I'm pretty certain profitability could have been achieved without Primaris. I'd argue that the overall health of the game would have been better if they'd done more significant releases for other factions. If we took the 40ish-kit-count that Primaris has thrown on the heap, and instead spread those kits around exciting releases for certain other factions things would be better.
You're overthinking that.
What I meant was that the guys making the rules, the minis, & the marketing teams {might} have specific marching orders on the subject. They can't make a different decision. Even if "But the Eldar..." would've made for a better game
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If you can't respect other people's opinions without needing to imply that they're "shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased", perhaps you need a take a break. Because honestly, it sounds like me liking Primaris is winding you up all the wrong ways, as if you can't accept that someone has different tastes than you.
I'm not asking at all that you change your opinion, it doesn't affect me. What I'm saying is that you've claimed that your opinions are fact, and that's just not cool.
Opinions are based on observations, insinuations, biases and facts. I am merely pointing out facts that support my opinion. You appear to be so uncomfortable with these facts that you claim them to be subjective, even though they are not.
You are pointing out some facts, this is true. You are also ignoring other facts that contradict what you say and suggest, as well as pointing at artistic decisions and features, and claiming that they have a higher importance than what I subscribe to them. You are choosing which facts to adhere to and place weight on, which is something you are welcome to do!
My point is that, by selecting which facts you choose to put weight on, you are acting subjectively.
I am alao comfortable with you liking your Primaris. I can understand why people like them. However, that doesn't mean I can't point out why I dislike them and use facts to back up that opinion.
But are those all facts? Things like "that's bad writing" just outright *isn't* factual, it's entirely opinionated. Sure, you can give your reasons, but it's still not factual. You can talk about how there's never been a release on this scale out-of-universe, but if that doesn't matter for my enjoyment, is it really a relevant "fact", or something you've chosen to put subjective weight on?
You've pointed out why you dislike them, and you've said on what grounds. Just remember that not everyone has the same grounds you do.
Furthermore, opinions really can be shallow and misinformed.
Yes, they absolutely can. But that can apply to both of us just as easily.
The more you know about something, the more information you have with which to evolve your opinion. This is natural.
But straight up denying facts it a problem.
Similarly, taking subjective points of importance and expecting everyone to hold them in equally high regard is a problem too.
For example, someone might well hate the Ultramarines because they're blue. It's factual that the Ultramarines are blue - but not everyone cares if they are or not. That's what I'm getting at. Sure, you can say how this is "unprecedented" or "they have hover vehicles" or "they had a second wound" - which are all facts - but the subjective part came in when you were saying that they were bad *because* of those things, when that's entirely down to personal preference. Or, for another example, two people eating a chocolate cake. It objectively tastes of chocolate. One person eats it, and says "I hate it because it tastes of chocolate". The other person eats it, and says "I love it, because it tastes of chocolate". They've both recognised the "fact", that it tastes of chocolate, but they have different preferences on how much tasting like chocolate actually matters to them. Does this make sense?
You can state facts all you like, but you weren't *just* stating facts. You were tying personal preferences and importance onto those facts, essentially dictating what someone should and should not hold valuable. Yes, Cawl (and GW) unveiled the Primaris all in one fell swoop (even after 10,000 years). That is a fact. The subjective part is saying that's a bad thing.
Either way, I'm not exactly sure if we need to carry this on. I'm just tired.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/29 11:39:01
Heh. Recent history notwithstanding, it is at least physically possible to make different decisions. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I'm pretty certain profitability could have been achieved without Primaris. I'd argue that the overall health of the game would have been better if they'd done more significant releases for other factions. If we took the 40ish-kit-count that Primaris has thrown on the heap, and instead spread those kits around exciting releases for certain other factions things would be better.
You're overthinking that.
What I meant was that the guys making the rules, the minis, & the marketing teams {might} have specific marching orders on the subject. They can't make a different decision. Even if "But the Eldar..." would've made for a better game
Fair enough. This is why I tend to not blame the individual designers for the irritations I have with GW. I consider upper management to still be part of the decision making GW-entity who could also have given different marching orders. That's all I mean.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If you can't respect other people's opinions without needing to imply that they're "shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased", perhaps you need a take a break. Because honestly, it sounds like me liking Primaris is winding you up all the wrong ways, as if you can't accept that someone has different tastes than you.
I'm not asking at all that you change your opinion, it doesn't affect me. What I'm saying is that you've claimed that your opinions are fact, and that's just not cool.
Opinions are based on observations, insinuations, biases and facts. I am merely pointing out facts that support my opinion. You appear to be so uncomfortable with these facts that you claim them to be subjective, even though they are not.
You are pointing out some facts, this is true. You are also ignoring other facts that contradict what you say and suggest, as well as pointing at artistic decisions and features, and claiming that they have a higher importance than what I subscribe to them. You are choosing which facts to adhere to and place weight on, which is something you are welcome to do!
My point is that, by selecting which facts you choose to put weight on, you are acting subjectively.
I am alao comfortable with you liking your Primaris. I can understand why people like them. However, that doesn't mean I can't point out why I dislike them and use facts to back up that opinion.
But are those all facts? Things like "that's bad writing" just outright *isn't* factual, it's entirely opinionated. Sure, you can give your reasons, but it's still not factual. You can talk about how there's never been a release on this scale out-of-universe, but if that doesn't matter for my enjoyment, is it really a relevant "fact", or something you've chosen to put subjective weight on?
You've pointed out why you dislike them, and you've said on what grounds. Just remember that not everyone has the same grounds you do.
Furthermore, opinions really can be shallow and misinformed.
Yes, they absolutely can. But that can apply to both of us just as easily.
The more you know about something, the more information you have with which to evolve your opinion. This is natural.
But straight up denying facts it a problem.
Similarly, taking subjective points of importance and expecting everyone to hold them in equally high regard is a problem too.
For example, someone might well hate the Ultramarines because they're blue. It's factual that the Ultramarines are blue - but not everyone cares if they are or not. That's what I'm getting at. Sure, you can say how this is "unprecedented" or "they have hover vehicles" or "they had a second wound" - which are all facts - but the subjective part came in when you were saying that they were bad *because* of those things, when that's entirely down to personal preference. Or, for another example, two people eating a chocolate cake. It objectively tastes of chocolate. One person eats it, and says "I hate it because it tastes of chocolate". The other person eats it, and says "I love it, because it tastes of chocolate". They've both recognised the "fact", that it tastes of chocolate, but they have different preferences on how much tasting like chocolate actually matters to them. Does this make sense?
You can state facts all you like, but you weren't *just* stating facts. You were tying personal preferences and importance onto those facts, essentially dictating what someone should and should not hold valuable. Yes, Cawl (and GW) unveiled the Primaris all in one fell swoop (even after 10,000 years). That is a fact. The subjective part is saying that's a bad thing.
Either way, I'm not exactly sure if we need to carry this on. I'm just tired.
That's correct, I am using facts to bolster my argument about my opinion. That's pretty much the foundation of any discussion/debate. Unfortunately there are times when when it appears you refuse to accept even facts as facts, or the most elementary reasoning built upon their foundation. And instead of countering with a different reasonable argument built upon the set of facts you attribute weight to, you go straight to "that's subjective, man." even when it is plainly not.
For example, it's not subjective that the influx in Primaris units represents the biggest influx of Space Marine units ever. You can say that this fact isn't important to you, subjectively, but what you can't say is that it isn't objectively true. However, you have tried:
All of which is more newness at a much greater pace than has ever occurred in the setting/collection before. New units being slowly introduced over the years is radically different than an entirely new army springing up out of the blue, both in universe and in RL.
Razorbacks being introduced five millennia ago is a far cry from the massive Primaris rollout.
Again, all you've just made there are claims that "this is radically different!" and "this is a far cry away!" - if so, show me objectively! You're saying that you believe there to be a difference, but can you objectively prove it? Can you put it in numbers? Can you distill it into something irrefutable?.
This isn't a statement questioning whether the differences matter, this is a statement questioning if those differences even exist. A refutation of a plain fact. It literally could be put into numbers.
*I don't believe I ever claimed it to be objectively bad storytelling. I just argued that the "deus ex tada!" was generally considered bad form.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/30 08:31:45
Personally, I feel that the Primaris lore is bad because it's an excruciatingly obvious band-aid used by GW to disguise the fact that what they really wanted to do is revamp their flagship model line to fit more with modern design aesthetics. That's why the lore is so hamfisted and relies on two characters who haven't been present in any meaningful way, either in-universe or in-game, for any amount of time in non-HH Warhammer. That's my subjective opinion, and I personally think it would be nice to argue over points such as these instead of whatever's been going on in this thread for the last three pages.
But it is not a subjective thing. The is a big difference between adding something, like lets say write about what company of chapter X did in 36 milenium, even if we never heard about the characters or maybe even the entire chapter, and someone deciding that to subvert the expectation they are going to rewrite the lore in a such a way that it makes no sense, contradicts or retcons old lore on purpose. And as I said it is GW IP , they can do with it what ever they want. But telling people that this is the new lore deal with it isn't going to make them more accepting of the new stuff. Just look at Star Wars or Dr Who, core elements not just rewriten, but changed to a point where the whole world functions in a different way. People don't seem to like it much. Better yet, if we were to follow the example of Mandalorian, they seem to like the old school way of writing and dealing with lore, and characters.
The why companies do it, seems secondary to me. I mean does it matter if we have primaris, because GW wanted to reset w40k, but then got scared to not do it, or just because they wanted to make every marine player rebuy their collections sooner or later, or maybe something else? The effect is the thing that matters. The models are in general nice. Specially the newer ones, the rules in general make people want to play with primaris, and not just one or two units, but a large chunk of entier model line. The lore on the other hand is the way it is. Thankfuly if someone just plays the game, the lore doesn't matter as much. But I don't envy someone who waited 30 years for a scyths of the emperor book, and then go the primaris one. As good as getting jack skywalker.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
I think Smudge will happily shut up if people didn't directly mock other gamers taste when expressing their dislike for Primaris. Given rule #1 on this forum it shouldn't be that difficult really.
Beyond stepping on other factions design as to what they are good at, they are also the parade exemple of "BUY EXCACTLY THIS OFFICIAL MODEL AND DON'T YOU DARE MODIFYING IT OR ELSE WE PUNISH YOU VIA RULES" type of deal. heck look at the new incentive to shovel a bladeguard leutnant down DA players mouth...
That and the lore is a bit lackluster.
Other than that, the range is , for 40k , often not gothic enough, that beeing said, there's a lot of worse models in production by GW, stuff like mutilators, finecrap, etc. so you get atleast decentish looking overpriced plastic...
i will make one exception though, the tanks of the primaris line just look as if a techpriest has gone full ork and stuck too much dakka on it, also the floating is nonsense in regards to the supposed technical stagnation, that said, stick threads on it and apply a bit of twinlinking stubbers, etc, and most of the tanks look good and fitting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/30 09:33:27
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Insectum7 wrote:That's correct, I am using facts to bolster my argument about my opinion. That's pretty much the foundation of any discussion/debate. Unfortunately there are times when when it appears you refuse to accept even facts as facts, or the most elementary reasoning built upon their foundation. And instead of countering with a different reasonable argument built upon the set of facts you attribute weight to, you go straight to "that's subjective, man." even when it is plainly not.
For example, it's not subjective that the influx in Primaris units represents the biggest influx of Space Marine units ever. You can say that this fact isn't important to you, subjectively, but what you can't say is that it isn't objectively true. However, you have tried:
All of which is more newness at a much greater pace than has ever occurred in the setting/collection before. New units being slowly introduced over the years is radically different than an entirely new army springing up out of the blue, both in universe and in RL.
Razorbacks being introduced five millennia ago is a far cry from the massive Primaris rollout.
Again, all you've just made there are claims that "this is radically different!" and "this is a far cry away!" - if so, show me objectively! You're saying that you believe there to be a difference, but can you objectively prove it? Can you put it in numbers? Can you distill it into something irrefutable?.
This isn't a statement questioning whether the differences matter, this is a statement questioning if those differences even exist. A refutation of a plain fact. It literally could be put into numbers.
I never questioned those difference existed, I questioned the qualifiers you put on them - things like "a far cry away" is a pretty subjective way of seeing it.
You weren't just "stating facts" - you were stating a fact, and then immediately sticking a subjective take into how you described that fact. For example, you say that the new releases are a "far cry" from the old stuff. Is it different? Yes. Is it "a far cry" different? That's the subjective part. For example, while it may be the biggest release change, is it really big enough to be a concern? You believe it is. I don't. So, my apologies for the confusion, I'm sure I'm permitted one slip of phrase, as opposed to mistaking what is objective and subjective, but my point stands:
Yes, there are facts, but the interpretation, weight and even severity of those facts are down to personal subjectivity.
I'm not here to counter your argument, because I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm not here to tell you that Primaris are great and you should give them another look, because clearly you won't be interested, and it's got nothing to do with me what you like. What I *do* have an issue with is you acting like your preferences and angle you view the facts present is objective.
Hope that clarified.
*I don't believe I ever claimed it to be objectively bad storytelling.
I don't believe you did, no, but some folks here did.
I just argued that the "deus ex tada!" was generally considered bad form.
Generally doesn't make the rule though. There's plenty of Deus-Ex moments in some pretty iconic literature (and I'm obviously not claiming that GW's work is iconic literature on a scale of, say, Tolkien), so again, I think it's not enough to say that it's an objective wrong.
Do you dislike Deus-Ex? Maybe you only dislike it in certain contexts, and this is one. I know I'm happy to criticise it, but, in certain contexts, I'm fine with it - and this is one of those contexts, because 40k's full of moments like that.
Dai wrote:I think Smudge will happily shut up if people didn't directly mock other gamers taste when expressing their dislike for Primaris. Given rule #1 on this forum it shouldn't be that difficult really.
Yeah, that's pretty much the vibe.
If you don't like them, cool, good for you. Just stop with the implications that if you like Primaris, you're a child, or you never like the setting in the first place, or that your sense of taste is impaired, or whatever other backhanded insult you have ready.
Because that's really the issue with claiming subjective things as objective fact: it *does* call into question people's personal tastes and opinion in an indirect way.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/30 10:16:12
If you don't like them, cool, good for you. Just stop with the implications that if you like Primaris, you're a child, or you never like the setting in the first place, or that your sense of taste is impaired, or whatever other backhanded insult you have ready.
I am not sure how this is suppose to be an insult, unless somehow being a child is insulting. Which confuses me to no end, if true.
Generally doesn't make the rule though. There's plenty of Deus-Ex moments in some pretty iconic literature (and I'm obviously not claiming that GW's work is iconic literature on a scale of, say, Tolkien), so again, I think it's not enough to say that it's an objective wrong.
Do you dislike Deus-Ex? Maybe you only dislike it in certain contexts, and this is one. I know I'm happy to criticise it, but, in certain contexts, I'm fine with it - and this is one of those contexts, because 40k's full of moments like that.
The thing is, this is a strange kind of an excuse. GW exists and makes lore for longer then Tolkien wrote his books. GW also made more books, and generated more lore. So the iconic scale is very much there, just by virtue of book numbers. It is exactly the same as the new SW lore and droping of the old books and comics, and claims that the new movies didn't have enough material to be build on, as it was said by kathleen kennedy.
There is a big difference between some story having something , maybe contradicting canon or old lore, and rewriting lore to fit in new lore. Especially when it is not done rarelly, but practicaly in every book with new lore.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
If you don't like them, cool, good for you. Just stop with the implications that if you like Primaris, you're a child, or you never like the setting in the first place, or that your sense of taste is impaired, or whatever other backhanded insult you have ready.
I am not sure how this is suppose to be an insult, unless somehow being a child is insulting. Which confuses me to no end, if true.
It is implying that someone is immature, or incapable of "adult" reasoning.
It *shouldn't* be an insult, being youthful and having an openness and joy to the world around you is something I wish more people embraced, but it is used as an insult by many.
The thing is, this is a strange kind of an excuse. GW exists and makes lore for longer then Tolkien wrote his books. GW also made more books, and generated more lore. So the iconic scale is very much there, just by virtue of book numbers.
... that's not how iconic works.
A single book can be more iconic than any series. GW having produced "more" work doesn't mean they're more iconic or should be expected to be as iconic.
It is exactly the same as the new SW lore and droping of the old books and comics, and claims that the new movies didn't have enough material to be build on, as it was said by kathleen kennedy.
And some of the lore they dropped was, in my opinion, for the better. I'm no fan of Kennedy, but I'm not going to pretend like everything that was dropped was "good" either.
There is a big difference between some story having something , maybe contradicting canon or old lore, and rewriting lore to fit in new lore.
What was "rewritten" or contradicted?
Cawl being written retroactively into the background doesn't invalidate it. Guilliman being revived doesn't change what happened between M31 and M41. The only things I think you can claim to be "rewritten" are things like the Emperor not being as hands-on on the Astartes project as some may have believed, but considering that we never had concrete answers for that period of time anyways, it's only contradicting previous *perceptions*.
Which brings me very nicely to my main point - sure, there *are* some objective facts out there, which I'm not denying. What I must call into question is the importance of the facts in one's personal interpretation of the setting.
For some people, they might find Dreadnights to be an integral piece of GK lore and design. Others might not. It's a constant case of people accepting what they choose to accept as the most important facets of the setting, and it always has been.
Deus ex Ad machina... yeah, no... not for me. Corrupted bloated bureaucracy makes mythic advances while the empire rots from the inside? That is not a miracle, and it is not storytelling, it is incoherent.
Self consistency is a virtue in histories. What remains constant between say marines in RT and numarines now? What remains constant between OG marines from 2nd onward and numarines, now? IMHO, numarines are not marines... crossing the ridikulocon indeed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/30 21:09:42
Insectum7 wrote:That's correct, I am using facts to bolster my argument about my opinion. That's pretty much the foundation of any discussion/debate. Unfortunately there are times when when it appears you refuse to accept even facts as facts, or the most elementary reasoning built upon their foundation. And instead of countering with a different reasonable argument built upon the set of facts you attribute weight to, you go straight to "that's subjective, man." even when it is plainly not.
For example, it's not subjective that the influx in Primaris units represents the biggest influx of Space Marine units ever. You can say that this fact isn't important to you, subjectively, but what you can't say is that it isn't objectively true. However, you have tried:
All of which is more newness at a much greater pace than has ever occurred in the setting/collection before. New units being slowly introduced over the years is radically different than an entirely new army springing up out of the blue, both in universe and in RL.
Razorbacks being introduced five millennia ago is a far cry from the massive Primaris rollout.
Again, all you've just made there are claims that "this is radically different!" and "this is a far cry away!" - if so, show me objectively! You're saying that you believe there to be a difference, but can you objectively prove it? Can you put it in numbers? Can you distill it into something irrefutable?.
This isn't a statement questioning whether the differences matter, this is a statement questioning if those differences even exist. A refutation of a plain fact. It literally could be put into numbers.
I never questioned those difference existed, I questioned the qualifiers you put on them - things like "a far cry away" is a pretty subjective way of seeing it.
You weren't just "stating facts" - you were stating a fact, and then immediately sticking a subjective take into how you described that fact. For example, you say that the new releases are a "far cry" from the old stuff. Is it different? Yes. Is it "a far cry" different? That's the subjective part. For example, while it may be the biggest release change, is it really big enough to be a concern? You believe it is. I don't. So, my apologies for the confusion, I'm sure I'm permitted one slip of phrase, as opposed to mistaking what is objective and subjective, but my point stands:
Yes, there are facts, but the interpretation, weight and even severity of those facts are down to personal subjectivity.
I'm not here to counter your argument, because I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm not here to tell you that Primaris are great and you should give them another look, because clearly you won't be interested, and it's got nothing to do with me what you like. What I *do* have an issue with is you acting like your preferences and angle you view the facts present is objective.
Hope that clarified.
I don't claim that the way I view the facts is objective, but I can make objective claims about how they compare to other facts. I can say X and Y are different, and demonstrate objectively why they are so. It is well within your right to say you don't care about the difference between X and Y, but denying clear differences is denying reality. Now, you can choose to ignore information in the formation of your opinion, but beware, pointedly ignoring information on the way to your opinion is going to leave you with an unmodified/unevolved model of your opinion, and you can find your opinion to be much "wronger" than you'd think.
An opinion backed up by facts and good reasoning are more worthwhile than opinions that aren't, and ignoring facts is a pretty good way of developing shallow or wildly incorrect opinions. Is it all subjective? Actually no . . . because without the right information, or by incorrectly assimilating information someone can be truly wrong.
The argument of "it's all subjective" is fundamentally lazy and tends to be the refuge of people who don't want to examine their own opinions.
*I don't believe I ever claimed it to be objectively bad storytelling.
I don't believe you did, no, but some folks here did.
I just argued that the "deus ex tada!" was generally considered bad form.
Generally doesn't make the rule though. There's plenty of Deus-Ex moments in some pretty iconic literature (and I'm obviously not claiming that GW's work is iconic literature on a scale of, say, Tolkien), so again, I think it's not enough to say that it's an objective wrong.
Do you dislike Deus-Ex? Maybe you only dislike it in certain contexts, and this is one. I know I'm happy to criticise it, but, in certain contexts, I'm fine with it - and this is one of those contexts, because 40k's full of moments like that.
Dai wrote:I think Smudge will happily shut up if people didn't directly mock other gamers taste when expressing their dislike for Primaris. Given rule #1 on this forum it shouldn't be that difficult really.
Yeah, that's pretty much the vibe.
If you don't like them, cool, good for you. Just stop with the implications that if you like Primaris, you're a child, or you never like the setting in the first place, or that your sense of taste is impaired, or whatever other backhanded insult you have ready.
Because that's really the issue with claiming subjective things as objective fact: it *does* call into question people's personal tastes and opinion in an indirect way.
Here's the thing, opinions can actually be bad, uninformed, shallow and all the rest. Now, I'm not saying that you're required to have a non-shallow opinion. If you're in it for the lulz and all, be my guest. But it should be obvious that opinions can be tiered, some surface-level, some deeper.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Tell me, who made you arbiter of objectively "good" and "bad" storytelling?
Because, uh, otherwise, that's just your opinion. You're more than entitled to it, but I wouldn't go waving it around like fact. Talk about bad faith arguing, yikes.
The idea that fantastical worlds (like 40k) should be internally consistent or else they fall flat and lose the stakes is pretty common. GRRM talk about it, Brandon Sanderson talks about it, and also no successful fantasist promotes the other viewpoint. So it's not me, it's people who create fantastical fiction.
The main thing for me is that 40k is at it's core, a fairy tale. The Imperium is not a thing that could realistically exist, it's a fairy-tale version of an Evil empire, even more so than Star Wars one. The fairy tale that GW told us was that the imperium is decaying,rotting, and clings to past glory, while things fall apart around it.
Primarines are direct contradiction of that theme and tone. An sure, you can have a sudden pivot like that, but it requires a FULL pivot to be believable. Girlyman should see the work of his father debased and destroyed by idiots and cultists, and use the primarines to force a complete change, not just...fit into the mess snugly to not upset the status quo tooo much or else the gamers might be upset.
If you make a fairy tale, you must commit to the conventions of it fully or it falls flat.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/01 11:18:43
Cronch wrote: The main thing for me is that 40k is at it's core, a fairy tale. The Imperium is not a thing that could realistically exist, it's a fairy-tale version of an Evil empire, even more so than Star Wars one. The fairy tale that GW told us was that the imperium is decaying,rotting, and clings to past glory, while things fall apart around it.
Primarines are direct contradiction of that theme and tone. An sure, you can have a sudden pivot like that, but it requires a FULL pivot to be believable. Girlyman should see the work of his father debased and destroyed by idiots and cultists, and use the primarines to force a complete change, not just...fit into the mess snugly to not upset the status quo tooo much or else the gamers might be upset.
If you make a fairy tale, you must commit to the conventions of it fully or it falls flat.
Exactly. But GW wants to have its cake and eat it too.
Cronch wrote: The main thing for me is that 40k is at it's core, a fairy tale. The Imperium is not a thing that could realistically exist, it's a fairy-tale version of an Evil empire, even more so than Star Wars one. The fairy tale that GW told us was that the imperium is decaying,rotting, and clings to past glory, while things fall apart around it.
Primarines are direct contradiction of that theme and tone. An sure, you can have a sudden pivot like that, but it requires a FULL pivot to be believable. Girlyman should see the work of his father debased and destroyed by idiots and cultists, and use the primarines to force a complete change, not just...fit into the mess snugly to not upset the status quo tooo much or else the gamers might be upset.
If you make a fairy tale, you must commit to the conventions of it fully or it falls flat.
To me, it's not a sudden pivot or direct contradiction of them and tone. The primaris were in stasis for 10,000 years, not being used while the empire rotted around them. Then a guy shows up and says "oh hey, I've got these SUPER super soldiers! and also woke up a primarch!".
That's like the same kind of joke as tech priests doing their 10 minute incantation of "awakening the en-djinn" when the only part they need to do is press the "on" button.
The Imperium still rots away, even with Guilliman and the primaris. All Primaris do is give them more effective soldiers for waging war, which is decidedly not how to rebuild the Imperium.
Oh, the empire is crumbling? It's an unmaintainable mess where we spend more time and resources re-subjugating rebels than those rebels' planets are worth? Obviously the solution is to increase the military budget! Social spending, allowing more autonomy of subjects? Bah! How would those ever help? Quick, enslave the populace of 8 more planets to manufacture bolt shells, surely that will keep the people in line! Send the children who fight back to the space marines, maybe we'll be able to make a dozen neophytes.
Of course everyone keeps missing the point that the Imperium was never a good idea and the only functional difference between the 30k and 40k versions are that one wears its religious fanaticism openly rather than hiding behind the "Imperial Truth."
"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"
If you took a battle barge, filled it with straw, then took another battle barge, did the same thing, then rammed them together you'd still have less straw than this picture - and it would be less of a flaming wreck too
It's funny how SM lore already has all the elements the picture whines about - development of mk 7, 8, 9, tampering with geneseed in multiple foundings (especially cursed one), manufacture of new vehicles (hello? 20+ tanks that didn't exist in HH ring a bell?) and weapons (whole grav line is new, HH had gravitons) but as soon as primaris do it, it's somehow doubleunplusbadwrong [insert incoherent screeching]. Invention of storm bolter good, bolt rifle bad. Etc, etc. This in nutshell, except with double dose of whine.
If you took a battle barge, filled it with straw, then took another battle barge, did the same thing, then rammed them together you'd still have less straw than this picture - and it would be less of a flaming wreck too
It's funny how SM lore already has all the elements the picture whines about - development of mk 7, 8, 9, tampering with geneseed in multiple foundings (especially cursed one), manufacture of new vehicles (hello? 20+ tanks that didn't exist in HH ring a bell?) and weapons (whole grav line is new, HH had gravitons) but as soon as primaris do it, it's somehow doubleunplusbadwrong [insert incoherent screeching]. Invention of storm bolter good, bolt rifle bad. Etc, etc. This in nutshell, except with double dose of whine.
One could argue that Frank Miller did in fact create a bigger Batman.
It's funny how SM lore already has all the elements the picture whines about - development of mk 7, 8, 9, tampering with geneseed in multiple foundings (especially cursed one), manufacture of new vehicles (hello? 20+ tanks that didn't exist in HH ring a bell?) and weapons (whole grav line is new, HH had gravitons) but as soon as primaris do it, it's somehow doubleunplusbadwrong [insert incoherent screeching]. Invention of storm bolter good, bolt rifle bad. Etc, etc. This in nutshell, except with double dose of whine.
It's not at all the same thing.
Development of Space Marine armour happened over a couple of thousand years. Tampering with the geneseed generally didn't end well. New vehicles, like armour, came over the course of 'natural' (for the Imperium) technological progression as STCs were recovered or battlefield needs forced innovation. And grav weapons have always been in the background, they just disappeared from the game for a few editions.
In the technologically stagnant Imperium, invention of the Storm Bolter is fine. The introduction of a dozen new weapons, a dozen new vehicles, a new mark of armour and bigger, better geneseed is just too much all at once. The fact that they wedged in some fluff explaining that all of this stuff was developed in secret over 10000 years goes some way towards mitigating this... but is spoilt by the fact that it's still all being introduced more or less at once.
To use the Batman analogy further, it's the difference between Golden Age Batman gradually morphing into the Batman of today, replacing the odd piece of gear here with something better, upgrading the Batmobile a while later, eventually improving the suit, taking a sabbatical to train in a new technique... and Bigger Batman just walking into the Batcave one day with all his new and better gear and taking over.
If you took a battle barge, filled it with straw, then took another battle barge, did the same thing, then rammed them together you'd still have less straw than this picture - and it would be less of a flaming wreck too
Ironic, because that's an utterly perfect description of what you've done here. Abbadon the Despoiler stares blankly at his Blackstone Fortress with straw spilling out of every port and wonders A) what he did to piss off Tzeentch this hard and B) what the hell to do with it.
Leaving aside this... bizarre tangent about Horus Heresy era equipment that I don't fully understand because that's never been the baseline of Warhammer 40K, most of what you described were essentially cosmetic changes. Real Batman has gotten redesigned over time, and had changes to his outfit and adjustments to the look of his gear - In those cases, he has not been replaced by Bigger Batman. Same with the vehicles - or in this case, the Batmobile - which has had redesigns without fundamentally altering the character or what's awesome about him. These have all been facelifts made possible by advances in art and technology, and changes in fashionable aesthetics. Bruce Wayne is still Bruce Wayne.
Not so in 40K these days.
Primaris Marines look cool, and their guns look cool, and this is the beginning and end of what I like about them, because there's no reason that it couldn't have merely been a cosmetic redesign other than the need to sell more Marines to Marine players.
"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"
If you took a battle barge, filled it with straw, then took another battle barge, did the same thing, then rammed them together you'd still have less straw than this picture - and it would be less of a flaming wreck too
It's funny how SM lore already has all the elements the picture whines about - development of mk 7, 8, 9, tampering with geneseed in multiple foundings (especially cursed one), manufacture of new vehicles (hello? 20+ tanks that didn't exist in HH ring a bell?) and weapons (whole grav line is new, HH had gravitons) but as soon as primaris do it, it's somehow doubleunplusbadwrong [insert incoherent screeching]. Invention of storm bolter good, bolt rifle bad. Etc, etc. This in nutshell, except with double dose of whine.
One could argue that Frank Miller did in fact create a bigger Batman.
no, he broke the original bat and BW came back as Batman v1.1, not 2.0 as primaris. Batman 2.0 would be Batman Beyond but that's just getting out of the context of this, cuz ya know, not Bruce Wayne.
Primaris could've been v1.1 if they'd been teased in the background for more than 1 week.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/05 03:48:05
10,000 years to secretly do X is the lowest form of verisimilitude.
Any faction can pull that out at any time and the imperium could do that forever.
Oh would you look at that, the eldar are no longer scared of slannesh because Belesariel Cor spent 10,000 years in the black library techfapping until he solved it!
Hey the Tau have a secret earth caste scientist Bel'isar C'arr who spent 2 thousand years developing immortal jacked fire warrior super caste that are also spliced with psychic genes.
When your justification is that bad, it's a justification only in the most technical sense and if that's all that mattered then technical justifications would be everywhere.
