|
Post by droopingpuppy on Jul 8, 2019 18:10:35 GMT
What I want to say is, isn't the concept resembles that? I think that it seems better to simply make an entirely new world. I don't think that they are not able to do that, but why? It is hard to avoid individual ideas on the competitior, and it is almost impossible to make a brand new idea that is not written on the history of mankind. But it seems somewhat confused. I agree that the concept does resemble 40K. Although, I was under the impression that the world of 40K was not actually the future of the world of WFB? But still, yeah, my first impression was that the idea seemed like a copy of 40K. On the one hand it might indeed be better to just write a new story, but on the other hand there is something interesting about the idea of exploring the future of a world we already familiar with. You already start off with a rich backstory and a greater sense of investment, right? While I suspect it's primarily business reasons for deciding to use the existing world rather than trying to create a new one (in that you have an existing IP with an existing customer base, like how hollywood is always making sequels, remakes, reboots, and adaptations rather than entirely new properties because it's safer), I do wonder if the writers prefer it this way as this allows them to flesh out a world that they are already invested in and already care about, rather than trying to create new storylines for a world that they don't actually have any emotional investment in (at least not yet)? Anyway, my point is that you're not wrong, I just feel like you're coming at this from a pessimistic starting point. It sounds like that's because of issues you have with the existing state of WMH. That's understandable, I often feel the same way myself, but ultimately we just don't know yet if the new game will be any good or not. I think it has potential, and I feel like "WMH but without the bloat and baggage" is itself something that interests me, so I feel mildly optimistic. But I'm not letting myself get too invested either way yet; if it falls down I won't be too bothered, and if it does well I'll consider buying in. I can only suggest that you're better off holding a neutral stance at this early stage, rather than a negative one. Perhaps. My recent feeling against PP may result that. I am a human with many bias, so maybe you are right. But, still... I think that they can do better than that. They already launched some games that have no connection with Immoren - say, Monsterpocalypse and Level 7. Then why not to simply make a whole new world? They are able to do the challenge, but they didn't. Simply borrow the name and says 'it is a far future of one of your game' seems only weird and confused. And, I wonder it actually does or not personally, but perhaps seal the fate of Immoren and announce its inevitable death sentence can be a reason to fuel my anger.
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Jul 9, 2019 5:27:19 GMT
Perhaps. My recent feeling against PP may result that. I am a human with many bias, so maybe you are right. But, still... I think that they can do better than that. They already launched some games that have no connection with Immoren - say, Monsterpocalypse and Level 7. Then why not to simply make a whole new world? They are able to do the challenge, but they didn't. Simply borrow the name and says 'it is a far future of one of your game' seems only weird and confused. Perhaps Monsterpocalypse and/or Level 7 have not performed well enough for them to feel comfortable taking the risk on a new world rather than building on an existing one with an existing player base? I don't know, in a way it does feel like they tried to take the "safe" route, doesn't it? I agree that creating a new world rather than trying to shoehorn the Iron Kingdoms into something they were never meant to be sounds like the "right" way to do things. But I'm just thinking: fictional sci-fi worlds are a dime a dozen (even just when it comes to wargaming I could name a bunch off the top of my head), so perhaps this unholy amalgamation of the already-messy Iron Kingdoms into a future setting will actually produce something novel and unique? Of course it could just produce an unhappy mess, but in a way I feel like this might actually be the riskier path, with a potentially more rewarding result? And, I wonder it actually does or not personally, but perhaps seal the fate of Immoren and announce its inevitable death sentence can be a reason to fuel my anger. Yes, saying "the world you guys have been playing in for over a decade now is all gone" is certainly a harsh blow. I do understand your anger and disappointment, and share it to a certain extent. It's just that, personally, I don't like stories that go on for ever without changing. They get stale. Making big changes is risky, and it can be uncomfortable to the audience, but it's the only way to keep things fresh an interesting. And sometimes you just need to end the story. So if PP has decided that this chapter is over, that it's ending the book and it's going to start writing a new one, then I guess I can understand that. Personally I think that it doesn't feel like a great ending because right now it feels like there's too many unresolved plotlines, but that's just the nature of a wargame: no-one can ever really win or lose as long as the game is active, because it would invalidate people's armies. I think this might be part of what causing this feeling of anger? The ending feels rushed, it feels like a cop-out. Is that fair?
|
|
shmeep
Junior Strategist
Posts: 742
|
Post by shmeep on Jul 9, 2019 6:58:01 GMT
I agree that the concept does resemble 40K. Although, I was under the impression that the world of 40K was not actually the future of the world of WFB? But still, yeah, my first impression was that the idea seemed like a copy of 40K. On the one hand it might indeed be better to just write a new story, but on the other hand there is something interesting about the idea of exploring the future of a world we already familiar with. You already start off with a rich backstory and a greater sense of investment, right? While I suspect it's primarily business reasons for deciding to use the existing world rather than trying to create a new one (in that you have an existing IP with an existing customer base, like how hollywood is always making sequels, remakes, reboots, and adaptations rather than entirely new properties because it's safer), I do wonder if the writers prefer it this way as this allows them to flesh out a world that they are already invested in and already care about, rather than trying to create new storylines for a world that they don't actually have any emotional investment in (at least not yet)? Anyway, my point is that you're not wrong, I just feel like you're coming at this from a pessimistic starting point. It sounds like that's because of issues you have with the existing state of WMH. That's understandable, I often feel the same way myself, but ultimately we just don't know yet if the new game will be any good or not. I think it has potential, and I feel like "WMH but without the bloat and baggage" is itself something that interests me, so I feel mildly optimistic. But I'm not letting myself get too invested either way yet; if it falls down I won't be too bothered, and if it does well I'll consider buying in. I can only suggest that you're better off holding a neutral stance at this early stage, rather than a negative one. Perhaps. My recent feeling against PP may result that. I am a human with many bias, so maybe you are right. But, still... I think that they can do better than that. They already launched some games that have no connection with Immoren - say, Monsterpocalypse and Level 7. Then why not to simply make a whole new world? They are able to do the challenge, but they didn't. Simply borrow the name and says 'it is a far future of one of your game' seems only weird and confused. And, I wonder it actually does or not personally, but perhaps seal the fate of Immoren and announce its inevitable death sentence can be a reason to fuel my anger. Agreed on the last part, I think PP made a mistake in that regard. If Immoren's phucked anyway, why should we care? If 5K isn't canon, why should we care? I disagree that "future WMH" is inherently a mistake, though. While Monsterpocalypse is cute, you can't compare the depth of character and how unique the setting is between the two. MPC is extremely generic, and that serves its purpose well enough. I-can't-believe-its-not-Gojira works because it build on existing IPs and cultural ideas. That's where it gets its depth and appeal. If you make your own IP and don't just copy existung ideas (WHFB!) it better be as deep as the dogganm marianna trench. I'm still curious where 5K will go. I dislike riot quest a lot, it really dilutes WMH's identity. 5K needs to be familiar enough to justify the WMH tag, but distinct enough to maintain its own identity. One thing I'll say for GW is they'vd managed to carve out a distinct visual identity over time, despite their roots. When you see 40k, you understand it's WHFB in space. Hopefully that'll be true for 5K.
|
|
|
Post by beardmonk on Jul 9, 2019 7:46:16 GMT
If Immoren's phucked anyway, why should we care? If 5K isn't canon, why should we care? Honestly though, how many people are playing WM/H for the fluff and the canon thereof? Would the community as a whole care if a setting is "canon" or not. Like most people, I'm waiting to see the models, rules and cost in ££ for the game.
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Jul 9, 2019 8:32:44 GMT
[quote source="/post/135365/thread" author=" shmeep " timestamp="1562655481" If Immoren's phucked anyway, why should we care? If 5K isn't canon, why should we care? Honestly though, how many people are playing WM/H for the fluff and the canon thereof? Would the community as a whole care if a setting is "canon" or not.
Like most people, I'm waiting to see the models, rules and cost in ££ for the game.[/quote] PP ignoring fluff and canon is one of the reasons why their non core games have typically failed. Contrast with GW. Lore and fluff sells tie-ins. PP's printing of the oblivion book shows that they kinda recognise that.
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Jul 9, 2019 8:48:49 GMT
Honestly though, how many people are playing WM/H for the fluff and the canon thereof? Would the community as a whole care if a setting is "canon" or not. Just speaking personally I don't play FOR the fluff, but the fluff does influence my gaming experience. Overall I think your position is correct (if I've understood your position correctly: that generally speaking WMH players care more about the gameplay than the fluff), so I think it can work to have "non-canon" elements (like the alternate history casters) as long as they receive enough support on the gaming side. I still think that having both gameplay and fluff be of a high level, and having them work together, is advantageous overall, which makes it worth caring about. My concern is that things could get messy when you're supporting multiple conflicting canons at the same time; I don't know if that's what's going to happen here?
|
|
|
Post by beardmonk on Jul 9, 2019 8:50:16 GMT
PP ignoring fluff and canon is one of the reasons why their non core games have typically failed. Contrast with GW. Lore and fluff sells tie-ins. PP's printing of the oblivion book shows that they kinda recognise that. Iv never really considered that to be a factor tbh. I thought that PP's side games "failed" as the rules were clunky and the games were poorly advertised and then not supported after release. But if the fluff element affects peoples decision to buy in or no, fair play to them. PP fluff is not a factor to me. Which is odd because if I ever played 40K, I would make very fluff based armies with unique painting and basing. Not sure if that says a lot about me or WM/H
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Jul 9, 2019 9:42:29 GMT
High Command in theory is based on the same stories as the main game, and it flopped possibly the hardest of any of their side games. I think it may have had more expansions than players.
I don't think the story is so important that a lack of it causes games to flop, but I do think it's an important thing to have. I'm no longer interested in the warmalore, but it was definitely a big part of what attracted me in the beginning. The promise of a large, detailed world full of interesting stories and characters. Factions with a rich "history" to learn about. After reading some of it, the dream crumbled because it's frankly not nearly as good or as deep as is implied, but I would never have started the game without the pleasing lie.
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Jul 9, 2019 10:41:40 GMT
High Command in theory is based on the same stories as the main game, and it flopped possibly the hardest of any of their side games. I think it may have had more expansions than players. Slightly off-topic, but personally I was turned off from High Command when I realized it was a card game using only predominantly old artwork. Compared to MTG, this was a huge let down. That might not have been fair of me I suppose, but still.
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Jul 9, 2019 11:25:23 GMT
I'm a big fan of deck-building games, and I bought the Hordes box thinking it could be a lot of fun. To date, I haven't found anyone willing to play the bloody thing. I found some rules online to play it as a solitaire challenge, but most of the time it just sits in the cupboard and weeps quietly.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Jul 9, 2019 11:27:29 GMT
I'm a big fan of deck-building games, and I bought the Hordes box thinking it could be a lot of fun. To date, I haven't found anyone willing to play the bloody thing. I found some rules online to play it as a solitaire challenge, but most of the time it just sits in the cupboard and weeps quietly. I played it a couple of times after it released. It's actually not bad as a deck builder. But afterwards it has also fallen by the wayside.
|
|
|
Post by NephMakes on Jul 9, 2019 12:06:55 GMT
If Immoren's phucked anyway, why should we care? If 5K isn't canon, why should we care? Say what? That's like saying it's not worth reading William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar because we already know he gets stabbed in the end. Why would the only important part of a story be how it concludes?
|
|
shmeep
Junior Strategist
Posts: 742
|
Post by shmeep on Jul 9, 2019 13:27:27 GMT
If Immoren's phucked anyway, why should we care? If 5K isn't canon, why should we care? Say what? That's like saying it's not worth reading William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar because we already know he gets stabbed in the end. Why would the only important part of a story be how it concludes?
Might come down to taste, then. It doesn't appeal to me in the same way End Times didn't appeal to me. AFAIK that got massive backlash, so it's not just me. I'll admit my post was a kneejerk reaction, I wrote it on the bus without putting a ton of thought into it. Another caveat is that I don't think the lore itself is why people buy models - they do because they look good or becauae the rules are good - but the lore helps tie everything together and adds consistency.
|
|
|
Post by marxlives on Jul 9, 2019 16:16:58 GMT
I think that it seems no more than an inferior imitation of Warhammer 40k. I mean, there's definite parallels, but at the end of the day there's only a few different genres of wargame: fantasy, sci-fi, and modern/historical. They've done fantasy*, and modern/historical tends to have a slightly different target demographic, so sci-fi is kind of the most obvious bet for a different setting that will appeal to their current player base - which is probably safer than trying to chase a market sector where no-one really knows you so you would have a hard time getting market penetration, and probably have a hard time standing out. How many other wargame companies have both a fantasy and a sci-fi wargame? GW obviously, and of course Fantasy Flight have a bunch of games (though those are all licensed properties so the "genre" is arguably slightly less significant that the IP). Right now any time a company does both they are going to be compared to GW just like how some games are called "GTA clones" and that sort of thing; sometimes things feel derivative at first, and to be honest they usually are, but that's fine: initially more "GTA clones" means more variations of gameplay to satisfy people with slightly different tastes in games, and ultimately it leads to more innovation and choice, right? So right now "we have a fantasy game and we're making a related sci-fi game" feels derivative of GW, but the similar development path doesn't make the game itself an actual imitation, and it doesn't mean it can't work well and provide a good product to the customer. As far as "inferior" goes: I'd rather wait and see what happens than judge the game based on some minimalistic dev talks. I much prefer the basic gameplay mechanics of Warmachine to those of 40K myself, so a sci-fi game that's closer to Warmachine sounds good to me. *I mean, I know Warmachine is kind of marketed as steampunk, but really: it's fantasy with a light veneer of steampunk. Hordes (and even Cephalyx) pretty much do away with the steampunk completely and it changes almost nothing. Hell, Warmachine even has a lot of historical (Winter Guard, Trenchers) and sci-fi (Retribution, Convergence) flavour already. But at the end of the day it's primarily a fantasy setting what with all the magic and soul stuff happening. That is like saying Infinity is just an inferior imitation of 40k. It really matters what PP does with it.
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Jul 9, 2019 18:35:06 GMT
That is like saying Infinity is just an inferior imitation of 40k. It really matters what PP does with it. If you're responding to my comment (which you quoted), then I don't really understand. If you're responding to the quote from Droopingpuppy, then there's a lot more parallels between what we've heard of the new Warmachine and 40K, than there is between Infinity and 40K. But I agree that what matters is what PP does with it.
|
|