|
Post by dogganmguest on Oct 17, 2019 14:25:39 GMT
I love how self-aware you aren't, while spraying your assumptions around. I didn't post a million detractions about that game on a forum somewhere, I only suffered it as a player. I didn't even read reviews of the game before I picked it up, I remember being pleased that it was in the bundle. This was in July 2015, around 9 months after it was released. Even if it was forced into release early, that's a long time to still be in the state it was when I played it. Looking back at reviews now, there were people in March that same year claiming it was much improved, and the negative reviews before that weren't to be believed.
In July, it had a clumsy and non-intuitive interface, broken camera handling, weak performance, and bad writing and cutscenes. There was an in-game scene where the camera just pointed at a brick wall instead of what I was supposed to see. I didn't expect Ghost of Tsushima here, but I expected more than it offered. Blaming this failure on the community is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in a while, and I've heard a lot of stupid things lately.
|
|
|
Post by charlzheimer on Oct 17, 2019 14:30:24 GMT
I love how self-aware you aren't, while spraying your assumptions around. I didn't post a million detractions about that game on a forum somewhere, I only suffered it as a player. I didn't even read reviews of the game before I picked it up, I remember being pleased that it was in the bundle. This was in July 2015, around 9 months after it was released. Even if it was forced into release early, that's a long time to still be in the state it was when I played it. Looking back at reviews now, there were people in March that same year claiming it was much improved, and the negative reviews before that weren't to be believed. In July, it had a clumsy and non-intuitive interface, broken camera handling, weak performance, and bad writing and cutscenes. There was an in-game scene where the camera just pointed at a brick wall instead of what I was supposed to see. I didn't expect Ghost of Tsushima here, but I expected more than it offered. Blaming this failure on the community is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in a while, and I've heard a lot of stupid things lately. but he does make a point. if players STUCK to the game then perhaps it could have been fixed over time. again look at no man sky and for honor. (the latter one suffering truely from a toxic player base and it managed to safe itself from death regardless due to players sticking around)
|
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on Oct 17, 2019 15:16:27 GMT
I picked up Tactics as part of the humble bundle. To be honest, I think the problems were pretty fundamental to the game. It felt like it directly ported a bunch of tabletop mechanics to the digital world, which resulted in the game feeling kind of clunky by video game standards.
To be honest, if someone were to make a WMH video game, I think they would do good to read all the fluff and none of the rules And start fresh..
|
|
|
Post by charlzheimer on Oct 17, 2019 15:22:32 GMT
I picked up Tactics as part of the humble bundle. To be honest, I think the problems were pretty fundamental to the game. It felt like it directly ported a bunch of tabletop mechanics to the digital world, which resulted in the game feeling kind of clunky by video game standards. To be honest, if someone were to make a WMH video game, I think they would do good to read all the fluff and none of the rules And start fresh.. oh i agree. i fully agree. heck would have been cool if we got a total war warmachine game.
|
|
privvy
Junior Strategist
Formerly The Nomad on PP's forums
Posts: 317
|
Post by privvy on Oct 17, 2019 15:33:25 GMT
There's only so much sticking you can do. I was in every tournament and every event that they had, I have all the skins from streams, I was one of the people trying to build up the community. But WMD couldn't keep up with their projected updates and some things in the game just don't work or are still bugged, like ragdoll physics smearing across the screen. Then they dropped the project.
PP really doesn't advertise and it causes their projects to fail. They've seemed to learn and that's why MonPoc isn't dead (or a second time), and why RQ is going to be alright. Still, their biggest consumers of advertisements are the WMH community anyway.
Do they even do CoI tournaments? Just pushing cards out really isn't the support that game needs. How about the Bodgers games? Grind? IK Adventure boardgame? IKRPG? Level 7? If you weren't directly involved in WMH, you didn't see anything about any of those games.
The worst part is that almost all of their products have really good scores on BGG and other game rating sites. If they release their old stuff now with the lesson they learned and acted on with MonPoc and RQ, it would do so much better, but who knows.
|
|
snap
10 Point Advantage
Posts: 78
|
Post by snap on Oct 17, 2019 15:44:04 GMT
I picked up Tactics as part of the humble bundle. To be honest, I think the problems were pretty fundamental to the game. It felt like it directly ported a bunch of tabletop mechanics to the digital world, which resulted in the game feeling kind of clunky by video game standards. To be honest, if someone were to make a WMH video game, I think they would do good to read all the fluff and none of the rules And start fresh.. oh i agree. i fully agree. heck would have been cool if we got a total war warmachine game. Yep totally. Even if it's just total war warhammer but with PP bits. Also different maps.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 17, 2019 16:16:39 GMT
I picked up Tactics as part of the humble bundle. To be honest, I think the problems were pretty fundamental to the game. It felt like it directly ported a bunch of tabletop mechanics to the digital world, which resulted in the game feeling kind of clunky by video game standards. To be honest, if someone were to make a WMH video game, I think they would do good to read all the fluff and none of the rules And start fresh.. I don’t disagree with that, but I would still argue: Tactics was the game we got, and only its success would have allowed us to get another game in the future. A lot of people didn’t realize that while they were moaning about how terrible it was and driving new players away on the game’s own forum. Oh well! I too would have liked something different than a straight translation of tabletop rules, but they were pretty forthcoming about the type of game during the Kickstarter. Shrug. It is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 17, 2019 16:22:11 GMT
.... Do they even do CoI tournaments? Just pushing cards out really isn't the support that game needs. How about the Bodgers games? Grind? IK Adventure boardgame? IKRPG? Level 7? If you weren't directly involved in WMH, you didn't see anything about any of those games. The worst part is that almost all of their products have really good scores on BGG and other game rating sites. If they release their old stuff now with the lesson they learned and acted on with MonPoc and RQ, it would do so much better, but who knows. Company of Iron is intentionally non-competitive. There is no such thing as a “Company of Iron tournament.” Bodgers, Grind, and the other card games did their thing. They weren’t intended for perpetual existence. Do they need continued support? Were they ever designed with it in mind? Were they successful enough to warrant it? Are the people who created them even still at Privateer anymore? Level 7 just got a reprint, what, last year? The original Grind was a flop, though it returned as a side game in one of the 2017/2018 No Quarter Prime issues. Were those games targeted at the same audience as Warmachine and Hordes? If not, why would one expect to hear about them?
|
|
privvy
Junior Strategist
Formerly The Nomad on PP's forums
Posts: 317
|
Post by privvy on Oct 17, 2019 16:48:23 GMT
Were those games targeted at the same audience as Warmachine and Hordes? If not, why would one expect to hear about them? That's exactly the point. I'm optimistic now that they have reached outside of their own back yard much more than in the past, which is going to hopefully make MonPoc and RQ gateway games. It makes me optimistic that they will be taking their advertising lessons that they learned when they re-released MonPoc and using that lesson to get a larger player base. They hopefully wouldn't be releasing a game a year if there wasn't something good happening in the offices. I'm also prepared for the worst case scenario, in that if RQ doesn't work out for whatever reason and NeoMechanica flops, it's really not going to be good for PP's future endeavors.
|
|
Juris
Junior Strategist
Posts: 578
|
Post by Juris on Oct 17, 2019 23:03:52 GMT
I picked up Tactics as part of the humble bundle. To be honest, I think the problems were pretty fundamental to the game. It felt like it directly ported a bunch of tabletop mechanics to the digital world, which resulted in the game feeling kind of clunky by video game standards. To be honest, if someone were to make a WMH video game, I think they would do good to read all the fluff and none of the rules And start fresh.. oh i agree. i fully agree. heck would have been cool if we got a total war warmachine game. That would be amazing.
|
|
|
Post by P'tit Nico on Oct 18, 2019 7:44:12 GMT
I don’t disagree with that, but I would still argue: Tactics was the game we got, and only its success would have allowed us to get another game in the future. A lot of people didn’t realize that while they were moaning about how terrible it was and driving new players away on the game’s own forum. Sorry, but no. The game was inherently bad. It was not just because of the bugs, the weak performance or the broken camera. The design and the mechanics were not good. Sticking to it at all costs would only have encouraged them to keep doing a bad game.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 18, 2019 11:38:43 GMT
I don’t disagree with that, but I would still argue: Tactics was the game we got, and only its success would have allowed us to get another game in the future. A lot of people didn’t realize that while they were moaning about how terrible it was and driving new players away on the game’s own forum. Sorry, but no. The game was inherently bad. It was not just because of the bugs, the weak performance or the broken camera. The design and the mechanics were not good. Sticking to it at all costs would only have encouraged them to keep doing a bad game. As I have repeatedly said, and others have said too: there was always the option of improving the game if people had stuck with it. Operating under the assumption that WMD/Privateer would have totally ignored all feedback from people who wanted something different is folly. Post-release iteration is simply part of the industry trend now. There are numerous examples out there. They’re not very likely to ever launch another video game ever again after Tactics. Why would they? Explain why any rational business would say “Well that was a huge flop.... Let’s take that risk again.”
|
|
|
Post by coolguyclay on Oct 18, 2019 13:42:47 GMT
They’re not very likely to ever launch another video game ever again after Tactics. Why would they? Explain why any rational business would say “Well that was a huge flop.... Let’s take that risk again.” Kickstarter and the like gives some potential. I'm not in marketing, but I could imagine it's tricky to measure interest, especially interest that would actually pay, for most anything. Unsure how much $$$ PP put into the game beyond the Kickstarter, but if a studio could convince PP "I have an idea and the talent, share IP?" - the Kickstarter model could alleviate the risk (or some of it) and measure the fan-base (without a novel concept for general gamers, I'd guess the majority would be fans interested in the setting). Of course, there's the risk of having your name on bad video games. That's something else! I've seen a LOT of GW video games recently. I have not played them all, and cannot say if they were flops or stars, but I guess GW found some profit models of just licensing their IP. Why not?!! (I get it's symbiotic, as a large fan-base helps someone else want their IP in the first place, because they know more fans are invested in the story/setting day 1 ...)
|
|
privvy
Junior Strategist
Formerly The Nomad on PP's forums
Posts: 317
|
Post by privvy on Oct 18, 2019 15:50:49 GMT
I've seen a LOT of GW video games recently. I have not played them all, and cannot say if they were flops or stars, but I guess GW found some profit models of just licensing their IP. Why not?!! (I get it's symbiotic, as a large fan-base helps someone else want their IP in the first place, because they know more fans are invested in the story/setting day 1 ...) A little of both. Most of their games start really highly rated and some of them slowly get less and less positive ratings as the hype dies down. Every game of theirs also has something that someone that has never been in the tabletop side will like. Tactics had none of that, the WMH community was pretty much the sole investors in the idea because advertising outside of the community didn't happen and that was PP's flaw. A big part of it is that GW used to just throw their IP to anybody. If you asked nicely about making a Warhammer game, they would give you a direction and characters to use and some funding. Look at the various companies that have rights to make videogames for GW: Cyanide, Sega, Creative Assembly, Fatshark, Relic Entertainment, and quite a few more. A really big part of it is also that there is almost 30 years of time between GW and PP being founded, so there's 30 years of fans and growth. Price is also a factor. GW is more expensive and once you're $2000 deep in an army, it's hard to get out and not go even deeper in. There really was no hype for Tactics outside of the people that already played the tabletop. It's another instance of if PP took what they learned for MonPoc and RQ and could do it all over again, Tactics would probably be pretty highly rated and do well enough on the Kickstarter to be something. Right now, it's just a poorly made reskin of XCom.
|
|
|
Post by challenger on Oct 20, 2019 10:53:31 GMT
I've seen a LOT of GW video games recently. I have not played them all, and cannot say if they were flops or stars, but I guess GW found some profit models of just licensing their IP. Why not?!! (I get it's symbiotic, as a large fan-base helps someone else want their IP in the first place, because they know more fans are invested in the story/setting day 1 ...) There really was no hype for Tactics outside of the people that already played the tabletop. It's another instance of if PP took what they learned for MonPoc and RQ and could do it all over again, Tactics would probably be pretty highly rated and do well enough on the Kickstarter to be something. Right now, it's just a poorly made reskin of XCom. A poorly made reskin of xcom would've done infinitely better.
xcom is not anywhere near as clunky and boring as WM:tactics is. It's not a case of money (5 mill is a huge amount of money to make a respectable indie project btw), and it's not a case of it being too close to board game mechanics as some other posters suggested. A digital, perfectly ported version of Warmachine (or any board game) would've been great for people who struggle to find metas, or who prefer the gameplay over the modelling. After all, other popular tabletop games have gone digital. you can buy a digital copy of Scythe right now on steam. it has a 76% positive review rating. you can directly port board games and have them succeed.
It's just that the developers sucked, and made an awful product. the trailers for the game were really poor too - which is standard PP even to this day. just rewatch that god awful Riot quest (riooooooooooot queeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeest) trailer. I really don't think PP could have another crack at it and have it be better, not after their constant bleeding of key creative staff.
/warmachine tactics talk
I think in the end, PP got lucky with the right formula at the right moment in time with Warmachine. But they haven't stayed competitive in an extremely competitive skirmish game environment. As much as people want to bag out GW, GW has stayed relevant and continues to do so. Just look at the starter set for WarCry - Another skirmish game that comes with amazing quality minis and a completely self contained, playable experience including 3d terrain right out of the box.
PP's starter products remain some of the worst in the industry. Bring up the flat ONE PLAYER riot quest box:
and the warmachine battlebox:
and place it side by side an infinity operation box
a two player shadespire box (take notes riot quest!)
, a WarCry box
heck, even this random chinese mech game:
Let the images speak for themselves.
Then on top of this, PP isn't distinguishing itself rules-wise at all. It's not doing anything innovative or new. it's just power creeping warmachine releases.
Unless PP can really make the experience of warcaster 40k a positive one, with high quality starters, interesting rules and good gameplay, it will flop. But i think it will flop just because a sci fi skirmish game is entering the ring with Infinity, 40k, Kill Team, Battletech and more. Good luck to them.
|
|