PDA

View Full Version : Games Workshop Make Games For Kids.



YorkNecromancer
08-02-2015, 08:34 AM
Games Workshop Make Games For Kids.

So I heard from everyone – everyone – that ‘Infinity’ is easily the most exciting skirmish game on the tabletop right now. And when I say ‘everyone’, I just want to be clear: I’m not talking about the kind of hipster gamers who think they gain cool points bragging about only playing eurogames centred on the cutthroat politics of sheep farming in preindustrial Norway. I’m talking about people whose opinion is actually worth listening to. People who play everything from 40K to even more obscure games about the merciless politics of grass herding in preindustrial Livonia, and all purely for the love of dice and cards with friends.

So, ‘Infinity’ then. I downloaded a copy of the rulebook, and the moment I started reading, my bottom promptly fell off. I’m not even kidding: one minute I was sat reading a book of colourful rules for simulating gunfire, the next ‘CLONK’ and there were my buttocks, just sat on the floor, looking up at me with a wretched expression at my horrid betrayal.

Or at least that’s how it felt.

I mean, I tried. I really, really did. But looking through page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page

Dear sweet mercy, what kind of madness was this? Two hundred and fifty six pages? Two hundred and fifty six? How is that even possible?! Page after page of rules, tables, charts, examples, cross-references, keywords, more charts, more tables, detailed rules for blind fire and aaaaAAAAAAGGGGGGHHH!!!

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/tumblr_ljh5xfm6iq1qixleeo1_500.gif
Pictured: please don’t make me read it again. Please…

Oh my actual Glob, I’m just sat here thinking about it, and I feel like my intestines are going to unspool from inside me and fall into a wet puddle of bloody ruin between my legs.

*Inhale. Count to four. Exhale.*

Okay, now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that ‘Infinity’ is a bad game. I’ve never played, but I know it’s fun, because as I say, people whose opinions I seriously respect have assured me it is. And if I’d had a free moment when they hold their gaming nights, I’m sure they’d be able to hold my hand and shepherd me through my first few games until I was as enthused for it as it as they are. Alas, our job schedules conflict, and the only thing I have to guide me is a rulebook that’s easily more intimidating than the current AQA GCSE English exam curriculum.

http://orig11.deviantart.net/096d/f/2015/211/d/f/aqa_exam_spec_by_yorknecromancer-d93foyf.png
At least I get paid to read this.

Also, it’s worth clarifying, I read complicated things all the time, for both work and private enjoyment. There’s aforementioned AQA exam spec, and you don’t know true boredom until you’ve had to read one of those horrors from cover to cover. There’s GCSE mark schemes, which somehow manage to be even more boring than the exam spec. Then there’s works of Alan Moore, which are pretty easy to follow… Until you get to his crazy stuff about magick and weirdness. Even Warren Ellis can’t handle that. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS0r3VNdV_k)

My point is, I like to think I’m good with words. I’m educated to a postgraduate level, and I like complex things.

But sweet mercy, I just couldn’t face the ‘Infinity’ rulebook. I don’t care how good the game is; unless someone shows me how to play, I ain’t learning. Life is just too short for that much maths.

Now: does this mean I hate complicated games?

No.

Yes.

Kind of.

My personal taste for gaming has always been for short, sweet games that last under an hour. I like them quick and tactical. My gaming sweet spot? It’s probably ‘Blood Bowl’. GW have made a lot of fun games, but ‘Blood Bowl’ is pure perfection in boardgame form. That’s followed very closely by games like ‘Smash Up’, ‘Space Hulk’ and probably 40K Kill Team. All are games that you can blaze through quickly; if you want more, you can play again, and if not? Well, they’ve not outstayed their welcome.

But if you listen to a certain type of gamer, I’m wrong. I should be playing Apocalypse at 50,000,000,000x1010 points or I’m Doing It Wrong. I mean, they won’t necessarily say it that baldly; most of the time, it’ll be sideways passive-aggression. Humblebrags about how they play at ‘a different level’, the inference being that if you like smaller, simpler thing? You’re the person ruining gaming for everyone else.

And there’s a real belief that people like me, who like things simple? We’re poison. We bring the hobby down. It’s related to the ‘fluffy vs WAAC’ gamer debate, but it’s not that. See, it’s not about competitive levels, or listbuilding or any of that. That would be forgivable. No, we’re a problem because we want The Worst Thing Imaginable.

We want games to be simple.And that’s not simple as in just ‘clean, well-written’; that’s ‘simple’ as in short. As in concise. Succinct.

Say, maybe four pages long.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/f6c787feb78f29ae6ec92be416bb294d/tumblr_ml3g6eNTXF1r8oyaho1_500.gif
Pictured: a large percentage of previous WHFB gamers on reading that statement.

Now, I can literally hear the ‘Age of Sigmar’ haters cracking their knuckles in anticipation of giving me a thorough murdering, and I imagine some will just skip the rest of my argument and go straight to posting angrily in the comments. If so, fair play to you.

However, the ‘Age of Sigmar’ controversy has kind of crystallised what I’ve always felt: that there’s a toxic assumption which underlies a lot of the thinking regarding what makes a ‘good wargame’. It’s a simple kind of equation, and it appeals to a certain type of gamer in the same way that breaking the internet appeals to Kim Kardashian, or casual racism appeals to Donald Trump. And it’s this:

more complexity = better.

And you can kind of see the thinking. After all, the more rules there are to cover every kind of situation, the wider the range of units, characters, species, strategems, and tactics available. If the rules are broad enough, then you can have robots with phased plasma weaponry in the 40watt range going toe-to-toe with Neanderthal shaman who’ve summoned the ghostly spirits of their ancestors to help. It’s a logical assumption.

But does that actually make it true? Does more complicated actually = better?

See, I don’t think so, and over the course of this article, I hope to have elucidated my views on this somewhat.

Why The Ice King Disproves A Flawed Assumption

Obviously, the key thing which has inspired this article is the release of ‘Age of Sigmar’. (Full disclosure – I’ve never had the slightest interest in collecting WHFB. I found the sheer density of the rule book off-putting, the rules for manoeuvring units obnoxious, the propensity towards Epic Heroism tedious, and I’ve already got fourteen or so 40K armies, so, yeah. WHFB wasn’t for me. That’s not to bash WHFB – I get the appeal of the old system. That’s simply me stating: I have no investment in praising it or burying it. It just wasn’t for me.)

When ‘Age of Sigmar’ came out (and the internet lost its collective mind) I basically read through the rules and thought ‘Wow. This looks fun. Really, really fun. Just a nice, simple, pick-up-and-play system that I don’t need to paint 40,000 wound counters to play. I might get into this.’ It’s an understatement to say that other people disagreed with me, and I get why people are angry. There were nearly 40 years of attachment to that game, and as someone who’s still angry that ‘Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles’ got cancelled after only two years, sister? I feel your pain.

http://wwwcdn.channel5.com/assets/images/000/033/527/full_left_column_shirleymanson-terminator.jpg?1349781527
Just like in real life, Shirley Manson was a Terminator. It was the greatest series ever.

But the thing that got my back up was the almost immediate sneering that began rearing its ugly head:

http://orig14.deviantart.net/24a2/f/2015/214/7/5/warhammer_age_of_kidmar_by_yorknecromancer-d93uc68.png

‘Well, it looks like GW are just trying to appeal to the kiddies.’
‘This isn’t Warhammer; it’s a kid’s game.’
‘This is just designed to suck the pennies off kids. It’s so simple, it can only be for kids.’

I read a lot of comments like that. A lot. And every time I read something like that, I thought the same thing.

What a disappointing failure of imagination.

See, I get hating on a game because it’s unbalanced. I get hating on a game because it’s incomplete. I get hating on a game because it’s not what you personally want. I get hating on a game because it’s got a lack of diversity and equal representation. I get hating on a game because a D6 doesn’t afford the same level of randomisation as a D10 or a D20.

What I don’t get, is hating on a game because it’s intended for a young audience.

When I first got into 40K, it was back in 1989. I was eleven, and still very much a child. My first GW model was an Xmas present: one of the old Furioso dreadnoughts that came in a blister pack for £3.99. It weighed what felt like five kilos, and was not recommended for people younger than fourteen. Apparently, this was in case we had been eating lead all our lives and so a.) now had a taste for it so b.) were therefore stupid enough to assume this sharp collection of metal pieces was food.

http://pre00.deviantart.net/8901/th/pre/f/2015/164/1/0/2015_05_31_16_20_34_by_yorknecromancer-d8x4y8h.jpg
Pictured: NOM NOM NOM

My first actual GW purchase was a box of RTB01 marines and the ‘Terminators and Tyranids’ boxed set. And before I went and bought them with the money I got from my grandparents, I remember actually having a conversation with my mum about it.

“Am I childish for wanting to play this game? Because it’s playing with toys, and I’m eleven now. Should I stop? I don’t want to, because this is basically the coolest thing I’ve ever seen, but I don’t feel like I should get involved.”

I actually asked her that. At age eleven, I felt ashamed of liking 40K, because I was now old enough that I should have stopped playing with toys. Everyone else at school was into… I don’t really know what. Football, probably. Nike Air trainers. Dreaming of being old enough to shave. They weren’t still into toys and action figures and shiny, brightly coloured plastic figures.

Of course I felt ashamed.

‘It’s for kids.’

It’s a truth often unacknowledged that we can only see in others what we recognise in ourselves. I suspect every gamer has had that same fear; that, for all the ‘grown-ups’ who play wargames, our hobby is still, at the end of the day, ‘for kids’. I suspect many of us are, in some ways, a little ashamed of ourselves for loving this hobby so much. Throne knows, mainstream culture says we should; even with geek culture in ascendancy, wargames are still something people feel okay turning their nose up at. Having your sitcom character admit he likes 'Warhammer' might as well be shorthand for 'this one's dying a virgin'... Never mind the spectacular, prolific and borderline heroic acts of naked intimacy many of us wargamers have been a part of with their wives, husbands, and sexy friend/s. After all, why let truth get in the way of a tired, depressing stereotype?

So I would hazard a guess that any gamer who talks about GW making things ‘for kids’, well. I think they recognise that little bit of shame they feel in themselves… And they want to use it. To ‘weaponise’ it, if you will. They use it to try and shame people into compliance. At the moment, they’re attacking ‘Age of Sigmar’, but I’ve seen the same strategy used to attack everything from 40K to FFG releases, and they use it because it works.

At its core, it’s easy: just convince everyone this isn’t appropriate for you. You are an adult, and you embarrass yourself by liking something for children. Shame is a powerful tool of social control.

That sense of shame though? That sense of shame and the whole attitude that encourages it? It’s bollocks.

See, anyone is allowed to like whatever they like. Some men like to play football. Some like to play darts. Some like gay sex. Some like sunbathing. Some like to roll dice. Some like ice cream. Some like to kiss girls. As I’ve said before, as long as what you’re doing is safe, sane and consensual (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/04/40k-safe-sane-and-consensual-or-the-arrogance-of-unacknowledged-playstyles.html), go for it. Like whatever you like: no-one can tell you not to like what you like.

At the heart of it’s a kids’ game’ is the incorrect assumption that ‘childish = stupid’, and, by extension, ‘adult = intelligent’. That childish fun is lesser than ‘mature’ content.

This is absolute bollocks. There are many proofs that art intended for children can be emotionally and intellectually engaging, but I want to focus on one: the television series ‘Adventure Time’ and its character, The Ice King.

To summarise: ‘Adventure Time’ is a children’s show aimed at children. The Ice King is the primary villain for the first series; he’s a crazy old wizard with ice magic, and he’s obsessed with kidnapping princesses. That’s his thing. And for the first season or so, he’s played pretty much for laughs. He’s just this funny, crazy villain, who’s a pain, but not too much of a problem for the heroes to defeat.

Then it turns out that SPOILER: The Ice King used to be a human called Simon Petrikov. He found a cursed crown that contained the powers of immortality and ice magic, but which condemns the user to tortured insanity. He didn’t want to wear it, because when he did, his lunatic ravings drove his beloved ‘princess’ of a wife, Betty, from him… But the crown meant he had no idea what he’d done. Swearing never to wear the infernal thing again, Simon was forced to put it on to use the ice magic to defend a young girl, Marceline, whom he loved like a daughter. He did this knowing that each and every time he did so, the crown’s power grew, driving him further and further into madness and horror.

In the era ‘Adventure Time’ is set, Simon is gone completely, mentally ravaged to the point where there’s almost nothing of him left… Except his vague memory that he once loved a princess, so now he needs a new one.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DXn69yDHxW4/UWyXdmvsB4I/AAAAAAAAAJM/Q6JJCQovTgM/s1600/Marcy_Simon.png

The Ice King is tragedy personified. He’s lost everything, and the show makes it very clear: this is awful. Marceline, his adopted daughter, is still around, but she refuses to see him because to do so hurts too much. She misses Simon, but Simon’s gone.

And yes, this is all in a show designed for children. ‘Adventure Time’ is a kids’ show, and the creator has openly said that’s never going to change. It’s never going to get darker and edgier, because he wants it to be something for children to watch with their parents and enjoy. He wants it to be whimsical and fun, with its candy people and silly jokes.

It also has moments like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJlZUv9gj7M
And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgCcMv4xnwA

Now, those are some pretty intense scenes… but ‘Adventure Time’ is for kids. See, the truth is that 'dark and edgier' does not equal more mature. Take something like DC comics; they’re always trying to seem more ‘grown up’ than Marvel, more gritty and grim… But Marvel actually does mature content already. By ‘Iron Man 3’, the film’s key plot is that Tony Stark is suffering from PTSD. He’s become a recluse, hiding in his Hall of Armours, spending the GDP of a European nation on suits of armour just so he has an excuse to stay inside and avoid having a panic attack. That’s quite a realistic, mature approach to superheroism – the idea that actions have consequences. Yeah, it’s not handled realistically, and he’s ‘cured’ by the end of the film, but the fact it’s there at all is quite significant.

See, just because something is for children, that doesn’t mean it has nothing to offer to adults.

It’s just people feel insecure liking ‘childish’ things, so they start throwing around the word ‘childish’ like a pejorative. And that’s a mistake.

‘Easy to pick up, difficult to master’ shall be the whole of the law.

Returning to the issue of wargaming, one of the notable things to come out of the run-up to ‘Age of Sigmar’’s release was the number of people who claimed they were going to jump ship to Mantic’s ‘Kings of War’ game.

Now, for those of you that don’t know, Mantic Games (http://www.manticgames.com/home.html) are a miniature and gaming company who position themselves as a cheaper alternative to GW. The only game of theirs I have played is ‘Mars Attacks’, and I can confirm, it’s really fun. ‘Kings of War’ is their WHFB analogue, and when the sky fell and it was clear that many, many people were unhappy with WHFB, there were all sorts of players clamouring to jump ship.

I read more than one commenter protesting ‘Warhammer: Kiddie Edition’ saying how they were leaving such an overly-simplified system for a complex, grown up alternative.

Now, I think it’s worth pointing out that ‘Kings of War’ is sold on Mantic's blog with the following words: "It’s simple to learn but difficult to master. Easy to learn, deep rules set allows for players to focus more on tactics and strategy"

Huh. Would you look at that:

‘simple to learn but difficult to master’.

A further comment from Mantic game designer Tuomas Pirinen (previously Design Supervisor at Games Workshop at the turn of the Millennium, and was the game designer of Warhammer Fantasy Battle 6th Edition and Mordheim): does he believe in stat-heavy, overly complex games? Well, his words on the topic are as follows:

'Easy-to-pick-up, difficult-to-master is the Holy Grail of the game design'

Huh.

You know what? I agree with him completely. And I’d be willing to bet that the majority of gamers do too. Complexity for its own sake appeals to the kind of person who loves systems more than games, and despite the loudness of their voices, they’re not going to be the majority. Loving systems over games means you're kind of the gaming equivalent of a jazz fan; you love the mechanics of the art more than the art itself, which is absolutely fine. But there are more fans of music than there are of jazz, just as there are more fans of art than there are of abstract painting, and so on. Loving the mechanisms and techniques for themselves is ultimately only one way to experience an art form, and it cannot and should not be the metric by which a successful game is measured.

I honestly think that easy-to-pick-up, difficult-to-master should be the only metric to successful game design, be it wargame, tabletop RPG, computer game, whatever.

Simple doesn’t mean lacking in complexity.

Go is one of the simplest board games in the world. You just place counters, trying to surround a larger total area of the board with your stones than your opponent does by the end of the game. Simple idea, but with massive strategic complexity: it has 10761 possible games, compared to only 10120 in Chess. This is a game so complex, it was considered one of the four essential arts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_arts ) of a cultured Chinese scholar in antiquity.

I wonder how many people decried it as a kiddie game on release?

A more modern example might be the free flow combat system in the various ‘Arkham’ Batman games. See, I love combat games; I’ve played 'Street Fighter' since 2 came out on the SNES, and I own literally every iteration of the game that’s been released. I bought a Dreamcast specifically to own the original 'SoulCalibur', as well as 'SNK vs Capcom'.

SNK’s brawlers have four buttons to choose from and a huge number of special moves. ‘Street Fighter’ players have six attack buttons, a varied of combination, and more special moves than you can shake a sizable joystick at.

‘Arkham’ uses two buttons.

Two.

And I cannot get enough of the combat in the ‘Arkham’ games. It’s so perfect: press X to cave in someone’s skull, press Y when they try to cave in yours. That’s it.

Except it’s not. You have to keep track of where multiple opponents are in real time, calculate where the next blow is going to land, who is vulnerable to the next attack, which guys are wearing body armour and so will cost you your combo…

It’s magnificent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z7CfYaEX1E
Pictured: the god*mned Batman. Also, I wish I was this good.

Two buttons. A kid could play it. And it’s got Batman. It’s for kids. Isn’t it? I wonder how many excuses people might come up with to claim that it’s not. That it’s for adult because of x, y, and z. They’ll say I’ve not covered batarangs, that I’ve left out special moves and gadget quickmoves, all of which use additional buttons. That the story features horror elements and violence and mutilation and Harley Quinn’s awful, awful outfit.

All true… But you can win almost every fight with those two buttons and a single takedown combo press. A kid could do it. And I know that many kids have; the ‘Arkham’ games are massively popular at our school.

See, I believe that if you’re going to add layers of complexity to a game, well: you need to be improving some aspect of the game. What does that extra button add? What does that extra dice roll do to make the game more fun? What does that extra statistic do to make the game better?

And if the answer is a nebulous sense of 'realism' - well, why is simulationist better than escapist? Compare the fun people have playing ‘Call of Duty’ deathmatches to the fun they used to have playing ‘Quake’. Rocket jumping meant ‘Quake’ was never remotely realistic, but it was a skilful thing to be able to pull off, and loads of fun to do.

If realism were the main thing a game should aspire towards, Microsoft Flight Simulator would be the greatest gameplay achievement in the history of the world. And I’d rather play literally anything else than Microsoft Flight Simulator.

http://cdn3-www.craveonline.com/assets/uploads/2014/10/12.jpg
Pictured: a game that is arguably more fun than Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Which Is Worse: Enjoying Children’s Games, or Thinking Insecurity Is Something To Take Pride In?

I was travelling on the train to Sheffield the first time I saw this nonsense:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSW3vKVhHFvG2mnswHNvuQPtOJ6Kak7v xl57RstS_w7A7wHpN8ZIw

Some grey haired, middle aged man in a suit was nose deep in a children’s book about a young female wizard constantly saving her scarred friend and his idiot mate through hard work, determination and pluck. The middle aged chap was chortling as he read, and over the course of a two hour journey, he didn’t look up once. He was completely lost in enjoyment… But he couldn’t have admitted that enjoyment came from a story intended for children. He had to hide his reading material behind a ‘grown-up’ cover.

He was insecure in admitting what he liked. And that’s wrong. The Harry Potter books are great fun. Great fun. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to like them?

See, I think this nonsense argument, this reflexive cry that one game ‘is for kids!’, while the writer’s preferred game is not… I think it’s all a sham. A cover for a place of deep personal insecurity and shame. I think some gamers still feel ashamed for liking this hobby, and so have a desperate need to define the hobby as 'mature'. Anything that challenges that perceived ‘maturity’, be it a decrease in complexity, a new line of models that are somehow less ‘realistic’, any change that could be interpreted as making the game less ‘grown-up’… And well. That’s a step towards admitting they still like playing, just like a child does. So these changes get fought in the ugliest way possible, driven by a deep personal fear that someone’s going to shame them first. They’re so scared of this shaming, they seize the initiative and get in first.

They’re basically this guy.

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/41c21ad71efe325f0365dc20d331209535ffb1e8/c=551-22-1458-698&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/02/24//1393218205000-Ferrell-lego.jpg

For those of you who haven’t seen 'The Lego Movie' WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? IT’S AMAZING. GO SEE IT.

Ahem.

As I was saying, in ‘The Lego Movie’, this character, The Father, sees himself as a gatekeeper. Lego is his hobby. He is in charge of it… At least, that’s what he feels, and so he is forced to make absurd claims that Lego is for adults. The film quietly ridicules him for this notion, pointing out that it’s not for adults or children: it’s for everyone.

The Father is so terrified of social censure, it’s reached the point where he goes through the most convoluted mental gymnastics to deny that he likes playing with toys - but why should he? What's wrong with being an adult who plays with toys? Why is play a negative thing? What is so superior about things being 'for adults'?

It's all just a nebulous fear of social censure, and it's ridiculous.

In the staffroom the other day, a group of women and men, all parents, were sat around discussion how much fun it was to have kids. Why? Was it just that kids were adorable bundles of fun? Well, yes. But, as one woman said:

“Well, because you’re allowed to play with toys again, aren’t you? Without feeling stupid, I mean.”

Secretly, she loved to play with toys. Not just with her child, but because toys are fun. Maybe not in the same way as when she was a child herself, but still fun. And because I have learned how better to fit in with Normal People, I didn’t say what I wanted to, which was this:

Finally allowed to play with toys again? Well, maybe you are, love. But I never stopped; I was always allowed to play with toys. Not by my mum, or the people around me… But because I don’t need anyone to give me permission to like what I like.

And you shouldn’t either.

I didn’t say that. But I thought it very loudly. Because as long as it’s safe, sane and consensual, no-one can tell you what you’re allowed to like. Anyone who tells you that what you like is childish? Well, that says more about them than you. That’s them telling you that they’re insecure. That they’re scared of judgement, and they think you should be too. Why? Because then they get confirmation; then, they finally get to say they were right to be scared, right to have stopped doing things they enjoyed, right to have shut themselves up in a little box made of their own anxieties and worries about what other people might say.

The thing is, there will always be people who call you childish for liking things designed for children. You can argue as hard as you want, point out the qualities of the art, explore why you love it, but they won’t listen because they don’t want to. So the trick is to ignore them. Give yourself permission to like what you like, without offering the slightest apology.

You’re allowed to.

Path Walker
08-02-2015, 08:52 AM
Just reading though this and I am totally on board with everything you've said, well done York my man, great work.

Lhorgrim
08-02-2015, 09:37 AM
A very interesting read. You made some very compelling arguments, and did so in a positive tone. I appreciate when people take the time to clearly explain their point of view.

Mr Mystery
08-02-2015, 12:24 PM
+twelfty. Preach it brother!

It's a hobby. It should be fun. And being a social hobby (because we need opponents), it should be accessible to anyone who fancies playing it.

And that goes beyond war gaming. Anything we do outside of our professional lives should be fun. Well, except maybe house keeping - but then I do kind of enjoying a proper spring clean of Mystery Towers.

Consider films. There are many, many childish films. Some are aimed expressly at kids (Winnie the Pooh type fare), others aimed at families (Disney musicals), and others intended for older audiences (Horror). Yet each of these can be equal parts mature or childish.

Even the cutesiet Disney sing-along-a film can have mature themes threaded through it. Many horror films are inherently childish, relying on gory effects and daft murders to prop up a threadbare script. Good example? I'm watching Squirm. Right now. Killer Worms savage a small town populace. Glorious film. Some fun effects, terribad acting, very supremely daft premise. Doesn't stop it being enjoyable.

And if I might be bold....I think, on occasion, it goes beyond the fear of being seen to enjoy childish things and becomes a fear of being bested by a kid.... We've all had it happen, despite sometimes decades of experience playing the game, we get our arses handed to us by some jumped up uppity sprog. How dare they! How very dare they. Then comes the plea bargaining rationale. They only won because their parents bought them all the best units and they had a cheesey army and the dice weren't right and that rule that meant one of your units got walloped is clearly stupid and wrong and it's the game and the parents and the dice's fault....

I too don't enjoy overly complex games. I want to roll buckets of dice. I want carnage on a grand scale. But most of all, I want it to be well paced and fun.

I don't want to be looking up table after table of effects and rules. I don't want my turn's cunning plan ruined by some obscure rule on page 234 of 3759, which says unless I have at least 2 months actual military combat experience in a specific theatre of war against a certain foe with exactly the right combat kit to be historically accurate my gambit fails.

And the same goes for TTRPGS. My friends and I tend to stick to White Wolf and 40k by FFG, because of the background. The actual games we play? Barely recognisable from the core rules we have. We take that, give it a good read, then rip out the clunk and replace it with the cool. Some rule sets insist that unless you have at least a point/dot/rating in a given task, you can't even attempt it. So in a rush/need to escape and someone has left their car running, doors open and roof down? You can't even attempt to jump in a drive off. Not in our games. Driving a car is a relatively simple affair, especially if the game is in the U.S. where most cars are automatics, so we say 'go for it'.....on the proviso that whilst driving is straight forward (right foot go fasta, left foot go slowa, turny wheel turns) driving safely and driving competently aren't.

Why remove needless complexity and clunk? Because they get in the way of the story, and the playing of the game.

Try it. Embrace it.

Asymmetrical Xeno
08-02-2015, 01:28 PM
Thankyou. This article is awesome.

At the risk of being judged ; I have learning and memorisation disabilities, so wargames like 40k and infinity have never been things I could do or get into sadly (I wish I could) and it's made even worse when people treat you like an idiot because of it and put down anything "simple" as childish or "stupid" as you explain. I can't read or take in rulebooks - I have to learn things practically too, which makes it difficult and it takes a lot longer for me to learn things than most others too so because of that I've never bothered to play in the stores or hunted out gaming groups out of fear of being treated like an idiot, having to explain my disabilities and be judged for it (and I live in Tory britain where the general populace thinks people like me are lazy, useless or "scroungers") or worse, ruining their own fun because I'm "slow" to pick things up. Hell, I am afraid of even asking questions or such on forums like this out of fear ill be flamed for asking "stupid" questions ect.

Anyhow, I am looking forward to AoS and I think it might be a game for me and I've even found a few other disabled guys that seem up for trying it too (fingers crossed)

grimmas
08-02-2015, 01:47 PM
It's TOY soldiers for crying out loud iof course it for kids 😉. Another enjoyable read Yorkie although where you dind the time I have no idea, summer holidays I guess. For me my job is very serious (life and death sometimes believe it or not) or Wargaming is what I do as a release and god damn it I like to waaaagh!!

YorkNecromancer
08-02-2015, 01:51 PM
At the risk of being judged ; I have learning and memorisation disabilities, so wargames like 40k and infinity have never been things I could do or get into sadly (I wish I could) and it's made even worse when people treat you like an idiot because of it and put down anything "simple" as childish or "stupid" as you explain. I can't read or take in rulebooks - I have to learn things practically too, which makes it difficult and it takes a lot longer for me to learn things than most others too so because of that I've never bothered to play in the stores or hunted out gaming groups out of fear of being treated like an idiot, having to explain my disabilities and be judged for it.

My best friend growing up was a guy named Mike. He suffered from Spinal Muscular Atrophy, was wheelchair-bound and angry as all hell about it. Because honestly? Being disabled is a pain in the hole.

But.

His home has been specially modified. All the kitchen surfaces are two and a half feet high, so he can use them. He has a robotic winch to get him into and out of bed. His car is a gigantic van, modified for his personal use. He can drive himself about, get himself out of bed, make his dinner, all because the environment he lives in isn't disabling.

He can't go into the local FLGS without help, because there are three steps.

A lot of able-bodied people are completely unaware that a lot of disabilities aren't actually as disabling as the enviroment, and other people's attitudes. We wanted to see a film. We were refused because the cinema was behind on legally required modifications for disabled people, and at that point, didn't have space for a wheelchair; I could have physically lifted Mike out of his chair and plopped him in the seats, but then, he'd be legally classified as a fire risk. The enviroment was disabling.

No-one can judge you for having a disability that renders you unable to memorise rulebooks. If it takes you longer? They need to deal with that, because the issue isn't your disability; it's their assumption that you don't need allowances made. Our society is absolutely disgusted by disabled people; you can tell that because they're never on TV (apart from the one woman on CBBC with the one arm who received complaints because a parent wrote in saying how scary it was she only had one arm (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/feb/21/tv-presenter-cerrie-burnell)), and when they are, it's so they can inspire the able-bodied.

Who are, by and large, the ones responsible for disabled people's actual problems. Yes, there are things disabled people can't do. Mike can't walk. But he can do everything he needs to when the correct adaptions have been made.

A really good talk on the topic is this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9Gg164Bsw

I totally get what you're on about, and anyone who judges you for learning at a different speed/ needing to go over 'obvious' rules? They're a d!ck.


where you dind the time I have no idea

Five hours on a Friday night. :)

DarkLink
08-02-2015, 02:10 PM
The core infinity rules are actually extremely simple. You could fit the "essence" of infinity on about 2-3 pages, and statlines are much more simple than 40k. There are just a massive number of options, accessory rules, campaign rules, etc (which, yes, could be thinned out a bit). It's better to learn from an experienced player, they can teach you 90% of the game in about 5-10 minutes.

Denzark
08-02-2015, 02:12 PM
The only problem with this is the question: 'why is simulationist better than escapist?'

Because that is entirely subjective.

I have always thought it would be amusing to have a conversation with GW that goes:

GW: 'Above all, it’s important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey...'(from the BRB)

Me: 'Right I'll enjoy the journey more if you provide me tighter rules then'.

On that basis, some people enjoy their journey more with a little extra complexity. So complexity in and of itself isn't a bad thing.

Kirsten
08-02-2015, 02:44 PM
honestly I never understood the idea that Warhammer is complicated. I learned it at 12, and taught my brother when he was seven. Infinity has a lot going on, but it is actually quite straight forward, the rules are there to simulate realistic methods/responses and do so very elegantly in my opinion.

Still, that is by the by.

It is true that simple is not bad, I quite enjoy a short, fast game too.

YorkNecromancer
08-02-2015, 02:52 PM
The core infinity rules are actually extremely simple. You could fit the "essence" of infinity on about 2-3 pages, and statlines are much more simple than 40k. There are just a massive number of options, accessory rules, campaign rules, etc (which, yes, could be thinned out a bit). It's better to learn from an experienced player, they can teach you 90% of the game in about 5-10 minutes.

This is basically how it seemed to me.

I just can't face that disgusting rulebook, and, like I say, the people who could show me have conflicting work schedules to mine. :(

And it sounds like such a great game...

Path Walker
08-02-2015, 03:06 PM
This is basically how it seemed to me.

I just can't face that disgusting rulebook, and, like I say, the people who could show me have conflicting work schedules to mine. :(

And it sounds like such a great game...

It took me a while to get my head around Infinity, the layout is a pig but I really like it. Unfortunately, it's such a ballache that none of my friends can be bothered to learn. We're all really fired up about 2 games right now, Age of Sigmar and Frostgrave, both are rules LGBT and have tons of potential as campaign games.
Does that make them lesser games? Depends what you define a game as but to me, no. I love a cool mechanic and Infinity has them in buckets but honestly, it's a bit like RT to me. Loads of cool ideas for mechanics but too many that means they don't gel together as a cohesive and intuitive whole

daboarder
08-02-2015, 07:33 PM
The layout of the rulebook makes complete sense once you comprehend how the game is designed.

EVERYTHING your troops can do is its own self contained action or "Order" even movement.

As such the book is divided into Common skills, which anyone can do, and in alphabetical order for ease of reference

Special Skills, which require the troop in question to have the associated rule in their profile, Again, alphabetical

Equipment, same as above only you need to appropriate piece of technology to use the skill.

Then you have the weapons, command tokens, the states your trooper can be in and the hacking programs again each of these sections is organized alphabetically.

finally at the back you get the index and the quick reference guide.


hardly what I'd call complicated rules layout.

Lets run with an example. Want to know how to use Aerial Deployment?

Find the Associated rule under the Special rules (its right at the start with the whole A thing)
Look at the LvL your trooper has and read the rule.

THATS IT

EDIT: OH, and it does all this with well thought out examples for all possible resolutions of the rule in question to make it easy for people

Alaric
08-02-2015, 07:41 PM
Enjoyable read York.

terminus
08-02-2015, 07:47 PM
honestly I never understood the idea that Warhammer is complicated. I learned it at 12, and taught my brother when he was seven. Infinity has a lot going on, but it is actually quite straight forward, the rules are there to simulate realistic methods/responses and do so very elegantly in my opinion.

Still, that is by the by.

It is true that simple is not bad, I quite enjoy a short, fast game too.

It's not complicated, it's convoluted.

vonDietdrich
08-02-2015, 11:58 PM
This is basically how it seemed to me.

I just can't face that disgusting rulebook, and, like I say, the people who could show me have conflicting work schedules to mine. :(

And it sounds like such a great game...

The easiest way to learn Infinity is to watch some of the game tutorial videos on Youtube. Operation Icestorm also has some really great 'learning scenarios' that walk you slowly up to more complex games.

Individual units are really simple, there's just a potential for a lot of customization.

EDIT: These are a bit old but pretty much accurate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNe1P6jLLLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaT-pu5Ro68

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaT-pu5Ro68

The game really doesn't get too much more complicated than this unless you delve into Hacking heavily. You really only have to keep track of the rules for the models you're playing with, which CB makes pretty easy to do because you can assemble and print out a list with all the relevant stuff using the Army Builder that's on their website.

Most units really aren't more complicated than keeping track of the stats and range on their weapons, the model's stat profile, any special rules on that profile and what they do, what cover does, and where you're aiming their Line of Sight (so you can remember to activate them for reaction orders). Beyond that, understanding the basic mechanics of how the stats interact and what sort of dice rolls you're looking at, there isn't much to know. Once you're familiar with your army list, it's rare to need to refer to the rulebook for anything.

daboarder
08-03-2015, 12:54 AM
The easiest way to learn Infinity is to watch some of the game tutorial videos on Youtube. Operation Icestorm also has some really great 'learning scenarios' that walk you slowly up to more complex games.

Individual units are really simple, there's just a potential for a lot of customization.

Id say "combination" over customization, there is no picking and choosing each item of equopment as you would expect in a GW game, but the way you pick the units themselves means they should work together as a whole force much more dynamically than most 40k armies

vonDietdrich
08-03-2015, 12:58 AM
Id say "combination" over customization, there is no picking and choosing as you would expect in a GW game, but the way you pick the units themselves means they should work together as a whole force much more dynamically than most 40k armies

I enjoy Infinity's list-building. It's elegant and challenging with a wide variety of different options. As far as 'safe' recommendations, having some armor-piercing bullets and a MSV (for people who don't play Infinity: multispectral visor, it lets you counter camouflaged models) is pretty much all that's "mandatory" for 200+ point games, and even that's negotiable depending on your list.

That being said, there is a great degree of customization in the sense that there are typically multiple equipment loadouts and sometimes even different special rules for many models. Each profile is itself simple, however.

Cutter
08-03-2015, 01:36 AM
Funny.

Nice dreadnought.

If you think Infinity is complex, you've clearly never encountered the naval-simulator-disguised-as-trek-fandom that is Star Fleet Battles.

Glorious.

daboarder
08-03-2015, 01:44 AM
I enjoy Infinity's list-building. It's elegant and challenging with a wide variety of different options. As far as 'safe' recommendations, having some armor-piercing bullets and a MSV (for people who don't play Infinity: multispectral visor, it lets you counter camouflaged models) is pretty much all that's "mandatory" for 200+ point games, and even that's negotiable depending on your list.

That being said, there is a great degree of customization in the sense that there are typically multiple equipment loadouts and sometimes even different special rules for many models. Each profile is itself simple, however.

yup, I just meant you cant for example say, I want a Hacking device and Multi rifle on my fatherknight, no to get hte HD you sacrifice the MR for a regular combi rifle.

Another point worth noting is that 230 or so page tome York was tearing up about......that and a few paged of PDFs (all available online as both downloads and an easy to search wiki) That is all the rules, for EVERY SINGLE FACTION AND UNIT IN THE GAME.

How many books is 40k at now? 24? give or take? PLUS the BRB? each one with its own special snowflake iteration of the same rule because GW cant get its **** together?

Sure york, INFINITY is the game with the convoluted rules, whatever you say man :rolleyes:

Cutter
08-03-2015, 02:06 AM
yup, I just meant you cant for example say, I want a Hacking device and Multi rifle on my fatherknight, no to get hte HD you sacrifice the MR for a regular combi rifle.

Another point worth noting is that 230 or so page tome York was tearing up about......that and a few paged of PDFs (all available online as both downloads and an easy to search wiki) That is all the rules, for EVERY SINGLE FACTION AND UNIT IN THE GAME.

How many books is 40k at now? 24? give or take? PLUS the BRB? each one with its own special snowflake iteration of the same rule because GW cant get its **** together?

Sure york, INFINITY is the game with the convoluted rules, whatever you say man :rolleyes:

+1

Oh, and probably worth mentioning that it's free,

http://infinitythegame.com/archive.php

grimmas
08-03-2015, 02:29 AM
Hmmmm lots of Infinty apologists springing out of the woodwork.

Hehe sorry couldn't resist.

The article clearly wasn't an attempt to knife Infinty. It was a discussion piece on why some like a simpler/concise set of rules. Infinty is famously complicated that's why I believe it was mentioned. If you like your games more complicated say why, what does it add for you, what nuances can it bring? It's not the front page let's have some proper discussion rather than the ususl flag waving for whatever system people are playing at the moment.

GW is no stranger to complexity, remember inquisitor anyone, iit had for me one of the most realistic feeling h2h mechanics that I've ever encountered, but boy did it go on a bit when playing.

I've said it on the front page (in another identity) that I'd like to see 40K go more like Space Marine with the rules (not just the formations) as that provided a much better mass combat game, with a good flow rather than getting bogged down in very long IgoUgo turns. Less convoluted rules as you scale the size upwards helps quite a lot in my experience.

Fueldrop
08-03-2015, 02:33 AM
Interesting point:

About 2 years ago we had a huge Infinity following at our local gaming store. Bigger than Warhammer 40,000.
After about 6 months Infinity was dead. We have a wall of the stuff with a permanent discount just to try and shift the stock.

Warhammer? Still going strong. Not sure what it is about warhammer, but the game has staying power.

Kirsten
08-03-2015, 03:37 AM
you don't know complicated until you try to play Escape From Colditz

Cutter
08-03-2015, 03:43 AM
you don't know complicated until you try to play Escape From Colditz

My brother had that when I was a very small boy.

Fantastic cover, never got played :-)

Alas, it went away.

Kirsten
08-03-2015, 03:53 AM
I was given it when I was probably about ten. tried it a few years later with my mum, we didn't understand any of it. my brother plays a big cold war game as well where you can try and destabilise various countries and it takes hours.

grimmas
08-03-2015, 03:53 AM
[removed]

I was actually taking off Daboarder when he's giving us GW shills a bit of stick

Yes Yorknecromancer can be a little verbose but what can I say I like my rules uncomplicated and discussions complex.

I'm not sure Star Fleet Battles being more complicated than Infinity stops it being complicated itself. Am I right to infer that you do think there is a point where a rule set can be too complicated?

Cutter
08-03-2015, 04:19 AM
I'm not sure Star Fleet Battles being more complicated than Infinity stops it being complicated itself. Am I right to infer that you do think there is a point where a rule set can be too complicated?

You know I'm honestly not sure. The games of SFB I played in my youth would be more complicated than I would be bothered with now, but when I was invested in it it didn't phase me in the slightest. If you're into it, you can cope with a lot, if you're not into it, eyes glaze.

In SFB, understanding the intricacies and interaction of the rules was a tremendous force multiplier. Knowing how to get the best out of your ships would make a huge difference and at the time we took a huge pleasure in figuring out how to leverage maximum advantage out of the rules.

To use terminology Mister Mr. E enjoys, I was an enormous dripping tramp's bell end, but I was playing in a community of dripping tramps, and we all had fun. And with that background the idea that someone could find infinity complex is, well, quaint and charming. But my frame of reference is wholly different from Yorkies.

I think some of us enjoy the puzzle solving aspect of working out how a given system works and in turn how to work the system.

Kirsten
08-03-2015, 04:33 AM
personally I don't want the game mechanics to be a puzzle, the game mechanics are there to give life to the battle, which is what we are there to play and enjoy.

it is tricky to make something intuitive. I have been writing my own game for a while, just as something fun for myself, and keeping it fairly straightforward but deep is tricky. I started creating before reading Infinity and I found a lot of similarities, which is reassuring. I definitely encourage people to have a crack at making something, it is an interesting experience.

daboarder
08-03-2015, 05:56 AM
Hmmmm lots of Infinty apologists springing out of the woodwork.

Hehe sorry couldn't resist.

The article clearly wasn't an attempt to knife Infinty. It was a discussion piece on why some like a simpler/concise set of rules. Infinty is famously complicated that's why I believe it was mentioned. If you like your games more complicated say why, what does it add for you, what nuances can it bring? It's not the front page let's have some proper discussion rather than the ususl flag waving for whatever system people are playing at the moment.

GW is no stranger to complexity, remember inquisitor anyone, iit had for me one of the most realistic feeling h2h mechanics that I've ever encountered, but boy did it go on a bit when playing.

I've said it on the front page (in another identity) that I'd like to see 40K go more like Space Marine with the rules (not just the formations) as that provided a much better mass combat game, with a good flow rather than getting bogged down in very long IgoUgo turns. Less convoluted rules as you scale the size upwards helps quite a lot in my experience.

Joking aside :p

I noticed the apparent point of the article, my reply was more a response to the following posts and the tone of the article over its content.

I wasnt addressing complexity versus simplicity, they are both fallible game design, ELEGANCE comes from finding the correct balance of the two and that should be rather apparent to any wargamer.

I was addressing the idea that the Infinity rules were apparently convoluted and therefore off putting, which, relative to GW is blatantly ridiculous, thats not to say that GW is a mess, I have no problem with the games current myriad options (other than the balance between them), but its silly to call it anything but what it is especially in a game whose rules will soon exist in a maximum of two books.

Mr Mystery
08-03-2015, 06:15 AM
you don't know complicated until you try to play Escape From Colditz

DISP rules we have to follow at work....moving onto a new project, which relates to some of them.

Tried reading them. More than once I've tried.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/b7/b7fc029207afd5f9013bae8745ce496f3dc5868d8e6a46dfc6 152b818d5925ab.jpg

That pretty much sums it up.

But hey, if complexity and minutiae float your boat, go for it.

Me, I'll stick with the rules I know (40k does have a convoluted rules set, but I've pretty grown up with them, so it's been incremental).

Psyfer
08-03-2015, 08:17 AM
As much as I can see the 'simple' argument for the core mechanics behind WH and WH40k, there's a couple of issues that GW refuses to deal with that ends up making both systems complicated:

The core dice mechanic isn't that flexible, and the turn structure is open to exploitation.

A d6 doesn't give you much variance, so as a result the difference between trait values tends to be a bit 'chunky'. The more numbers on the dice, the more options you have, so the smoother the gradation. If you roll multiple dice (like in Warmahordes or Battletech) you get interesting things like probability distribution curves as well which give you extra levels of nuance and variation. GW's attempts to work around this issue have been on the whole a bit ham-fisted and tend to break the game. It's also one of the reasons why WH40k is prone to 'deathstars' and other silliness, there's only so many degrees of quality that you can use when you have 6 possible roll outcomes.

The maintenance of the 'I do everything, then you do everything' turn structure in both games is a problem because it means that the events of one turn can determine the results of a game without the other party having a chance to respond, which let's face it, is not much fun if you're the one getting the beating. Infinity's ARO mechanic is a novel way around it, but even the old stand-by of alternating unit activation (which oddly enough was a part of GW's specialist games like Epic, Warmaster and BFG) mitigates that issue a lot.

What it boils down to isn't that the GW rules are simple or complex, it that they're limited and inflexible. As a result it requires a lot of trial and error to put anything really novel in them, with a high risk of the novel rule breaking the game, being useless or otherwise not working as intended.

They're bad rules, and need a serious overhaul.

Chris*ta
08-03-2015, 08:43 AM
Great initial post. I feel like I could make a fairly good argument that the best games are those with simple rules, and where the fun comes from, e.g. the challenge of playing against other players -- I'd say Poker is a pretty good exemplar. And bonus points for the reference to Terminator 1, Yorkie, I got it, even if nobody else did. Also, Shirley Manson was in Sarah Connor Chronicles, and you're only telling me this now?

At Asymetrical Xeno: You certainly should try to find some people who are willing to help you learn to play games that you want to, I think you'd find people are generally more willing to help than you'd expect, and a lot of gamers are generally more generous with this kind of thing, as they've had experiences of being judged by other people for their own eccentricities. Also, as Yorkie suggested, you should look up Stella Young if you're not familiar with her work, she's said some really important stuff about disability.

Regarding disability more generally. One of the people in the dojo, where I train martial arts is semi-paralysed down one side, and blind in that eye. While he modifies some techniques, and there is some stuff he can't do, he's just as capable of learning the art, and, well, hurting people, as anyone.

Specifically regarding asking rules questions on here. Go right ahead. I've never seen anything on here turn personal, and even if it does, someone insulting you on the internet is hardly the worst thing that could happen. Once I've seen a rules question on here get ... out of hand; Which was the argument on whether Commander Dante's Axe Mortalis should count as a power axe or not, and, well, that was certainly an event. No, really, look that one up, it's impressive in terms of internet forum wackery.

As for Adventure Time. It's a fantastic show, and anyone who wants to attack it should watch the episode Thank You (http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/Thank_You). That is, hands down, one of the best pieces of TV I've seen.

I may be just kind of stream-of-consciousnessing this answer; I'm not sure. Core take away: Excellent initial post.

Auticus
08-03-2015, 09:10 AM
Ironically a lot of people that I hear slamming Age of Sigmar for being for babies love games like XWing which are also very simple rules, and FFG has said in their promotional material that its geared for all audiences to include children.

Infinity is one of those thorns in my side. I think as a game its pretty cool, but for the scale that it plays at I'd prefer playing an RPG, because that just seems to be what it is in essence. I know technically its not, before someone comes in to split hairs with me, I'm saying that that is the overall feel I get from it.

What it does offer that is causing my community to fracture (which is good or bad depending on your point of view, I'm going to say that i'm stating this in a neutral tone):

1) you only need a handful of models so its cheap.

2) its fairly complicated so gamer-gamers have the crunch they want

3) its not GW so the satisfaction of getting people off of the GW teat is there

4) the Infinity community doesn't have regular trolling threads of articles about how Infinity or their makers or their fans are horrible people that deserve horrible things to happen to them. The lack of toxic content in the threads is something quite a few guys I know considered when dumping 40k for Infinity because a lot of people want to feel that they are in a community where everyone is having fun, not where half of its player base is at the other half's throat all the time.

grimmas
08-03-2015, 09:53 AM
I think my problem comes when a game seems to be more about manipulating the rules rather than utilising them to play the game and the more complicated games just seem to be more of an exercise in rules lawyering. May be I'm just getting old.

Of course Other companies do produce simple but deep games Saga being an example very simple rules but the battle board mechanic gives great tactical depth.

YorkNecromancer
08-03-2015, 10:25 AM
Shirley Manson was in Sarah Connor Chronicles, and you're only telling me this now?

There are exactly three things in the 'Terminator' franchise worth caring about. 'Terminator'; 'Terminator 2: Judgement Day' (director's cut - contains a far more developed story and is utterly superior to the original); and 'Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles''. Everything else is basically turd.

'T:TSCC' is incredibly slow moving. It was done by a former writer for the X-Files, and my goodness does it show.

But.

But.

It's really good. The acting is superb, the characterisation is amazing, and the series actually explores the whole idea of AI that the later films ignore. My favourite thing is that the series takes the reveal that Skynet doesn't turn on standard Terminator learning abilities, because it wants them as slaves, and runs with it. So in the future timeline there's a faction of Terminators that want to be free from Skynet. They're not friendly, because humans hate machines. But the negotiations between future!John Connor and this faction of free Terminators are a big part of the later half of season 2.

It's so much more intelligent and well-acted than it had any right to be, and Lena Headey is amazing as Sarah Connor.

If you've not seen it, though, just be aware: season 2 ends on an EPIC cliffhanger that's never, ever going to be resolved. :(

Man, I miss that show.

Like, when they didn't have the budget to do a massive Terminator vs FBI shootout, they did this instead:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjDa6k-K20U

Amazing.

Lexington
08-03-2015, 10:33 AM
Y'know, contra the other Infinity fans here, I'll happily admit that the game is a pain in the *** to learn on one's own. There's unintuitive mechanics (cover, simultaneous Order/ARO sequencing), an extraordinary number of states, weapon types, deployment options and special miscellanea to learn, many of which only make sense in context of other special rules and states, etc. etc., and on top of that, you've got to try and get your tongue around the pronunciations of unit names that take their inspiration from seemingly every language family on the freaking planet. Taking all of that in, abstractly, then putting it to use on the tabletop as an organic whole is exceedingly difficult.

It's also, having now gone through that process, the most rewarding set of miniature wargame rules I've ever encountered.

(also, sidebar, I'll take a little issue with the idea of Infinity's rules being so complex vs. AoS simple four-pager, as the latter simply offloads its special rule tonnage onto the individual unit profiles. Infinity's on the other side of that divide, with every single special rule contained in the core book, even those that apply exclusively to a single army, or even a single miniature, leaving their unit profiles as comparatively spartan lists of stats, equipment and keywords)

Obviously, tho, that's just an introductory component of your main piece, one that I agree on in a general way. Kids' entertainment can be just fine. Adventure Time is great. Star Wars is kids' fare, and there's two solid movies in there. I mean, hell, one can make your whole argument with a single word - "Pixar."

Still, tho, just as attempting to be "adult" is no guarantee of quality (hello, increasingly ugly-looking DC movies), being kid-friendly doesn't keep projects from crashing and burning, and I think this is where your article's lacking - there's a lot of talk about "simple to learn, difficult to master," and how seeming simplicity can hide a depth of experience, but there's no connection of that concept to the actual mechanics of AoS that you started out with.

Simplicity can be great in a game - see Saga, as grimmas just mentioned - but I don't think the old "simple to learn, difficult to master" saying really applies to AoS. I don't think it's usefully possible to master AoS, to be honest, since It lacks the basic balance mechanism of points, or any limiting factor outside of the models you own. Alternatively, I guess one could say that mastering AoS is really easy, since all it takes is putting down, say, Fateweaver and the Screaming Bell, declare you're done deploying, and almost guarantee a win by Sudden Death. This sort of non-balance is intentional, as GW apparently see balance mechanisms as a threat to sales (http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/311584-rumours-rules-for-free-codices-are-going-to-vanish/), but it also makes AoS less of a game than a series of business decisions that are marketed as a game.

Mr Mystery
08-03-2015, 10:44 AM
M
There are exactly three things in the 'Terminator' franchise worth caring about. 'Terminator'; 'Terminator 2: Judgement Day' (director's cut - contains a far more developed story and is utterly superior to the original); and 'Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles''. Everything else is basically turd.

'T:TSCC' is incredibly slow moving. It was done by a former writer for the X-Files, and my goodness does it show.

But.

But.

It's really good. The acting is superb, the characterisation is amazing, and the series actually explores the whole idea of AI that the later films ignore. My favourite thing is that the series takes the reveal that Skynet doesn't turn on standard Terminator learning abilities, because it wants them as slaves, and runs with it. So in the future timeline there's a faction of Terminators that want to be free from Skynet. They're not friendly, because humans hate machines. But the negotiations between future!John Connor and this faction of free Terminators are a big part of the later half of season 2.

It's so much more intelligent and well-acted than it had any right to be, and Lena Headey is amazing as Sarah Connor.

If you've not seen it, though, just be aware: season 2 ends on an EPIC cliffhanger that's never, ever going to be resolved. :(

Man, I miss that show.

Like, when they didn't have the budget to do a massive Terminator vs FBI shootout, they did this instead:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjDa6k-K20U

Amazing.

It is ace!

Though I'm going to stick up for Terminator Genisys. Saw it, loved it.

darklament
08-03-2015, 10:44 AM
*Sigh* - Look, for me it's not about simple or complex rules. That didn't chase me way from AoS. I really like easy rules, ones that don't get in the way of fun. It's all about the fact that I already have plenty of skirmish games that I play. PLENTY - 40k, WMHordes, Saga, etc. WHFB was my massed rank&file fantasy game - the one i turned to when I wanted that ranked up awesomeness. Now Kings of War fulfills my need. So don't say all of us leaving WH in the dust is about the rules complexity, tourneys, competition - it's about taking away the way I loved playing pure pseudo-historical fantasy battles. If GW is out of that business, good for them. I hope they do well & that their fans are happy - but it is no longer a Warhammer World I want to play in.

P.S. Adventure Time is my favorite show :) & I don't have kids or ever plan to.

Katharon
08-03-2015, 11:53 AM
Ironically a lot of people that I hear slamming Age of Sigmar for being for babies love games like XWing which are also very simple rules, and FFG has said in their promotional material that its geared for all audiences to include children.

Except that X-Wing has *tactics*. You don't just move your fighters and ships around willy-nilly. You have to plan several moves ahead. I'd even equate it to Chess; a game that is open to all ages.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, my beef with AoS is not it's target audience; but rather the fact that it replaced a game that took a certain level of rudimentary tactics to play. AoS is great for entry-level players and it's a nice beer & pretzel game for veteran GW-gamers. I myself stick with 8th edition or Oldhammer now since 8th has now joined the ranks of the older editions as well.

Mr Mystery
08-03-2015, 11:58 AM
AoS has similar considerations though.

Not being safe in combat, charging not always being the default option. Even Battleshock has changed how games are won - no more hoping to Steadfast your way to victory, the more casualties you suffer, the more run away.

Stuff has changed, that's not the same as losing stuff.

And the whole planning advance thing in X-Wing is easily derailed by my own 'fly it like you stole it' play style. If I have no plan and if I'm honest, no idea what I'm doing, second guessing me becomes really, really hard and more a matter of luck than judgement :)

spiralingcadaver
08-03-2015, 12:21 PM
To start off, I think there's nothing wrong with simple games. In fact, I'd say that the games I've been most impressed with are ones that streamline the process. X-wing and Infinity are both smart, relatively simple (despite the OP's complaints) games, that very lightweight gamers I've played with have learned quickly. Also, my favorite game is probably Malifaux, but I think its biggest failing is overcomplexity.

In that regard, I agree that AoS's rules (minus the "dance around" or "be a man" varieties) were a big step in the right direction... Except then there's that bit on structure.

I think the OP's argument is flawed, in that they weren't looking at the real problem, in my opinion, which isn't simplicity but that there's no balancing element, therefore it isn't a game. Without any system of measuring balance (points even down to 1 point per unit; 2 points per strong unit; video game lives; RPG challenge levels, cards you start with the same volume and rotate positions; etc.) there's no way of measuring the game, and when one person can take 50 times the power of the other force. The counterargument is "don't play with jerks. But my response to that is GW's core balancing mechanic consists of "make up your own... game?"

It's like, I could roll around some toy soldiers with someone else and say "pew pew! those guys die on a 4+-- they do!" and then he says "but I've got a tank! kablooie! your guys can't kill my tank unless you roll 2 6's!" and then that gets old when I can't kill his tank, so we agree I get two tanks!

Which is perfectly fine if you're 6 or something and want to pretend you're playing a game and have grasped that chance is fun instead of things automatically succeeding, but it's like GW is giving you the stats for you to play with their toy soldiers without just hitting them with each other, not like they're making a real game.

I'm not talking about perception "of GW is for kids, I play cool games!" --I play 40k as my go-to casual game, and I consider casual a perfectly valid mindset mindset because I don't always want mind-straining decisions when pushing around toy soldiers. But, seriously, I don't see how it's a game. It feels like a pastime. My complaint isn't the age or target audience perception, but the lack of a core mechanic basically every game has.

Path Walker
08-03-2015, 12:26 PM
Except that X-Wing has *tactics*. You don't just move your fighters and ships around willy-nilly. You have to plan several moves ahead. I'd even equate it to Chess; a game that is open to all ages.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, my beef with AoS is not it's target audience; but rather the fact that it replaced a game that took a certain level of rudimentary tactics to play. AoS is great for entry-level players and it's a nice beer & pretzel game for veteran GW-gamers. I myself stick with 8th edition or Oldhammer now since 8th has now joined the ranks of the older editions as well.

You have to plan ahead in Age of Sigmar too. Just dismissing a part of the game because its different to another game is daft.

There are tactics in Age of Sigmar, you just haven't played to find them.

- - - Updated - - -


To start off, I think there's nothing wrong with simple games. In fact, I'd say that the games I've been most impressed with are ones that streamline the process. X-wing and Infinity are both smart, relatively simple (despite the OP's complaints) games, that very lightweight gamers I've played with have learned quickly. Also, my favorite game is probably Malifaux, but I think its biggest failing is overcomplexity.

In that regard, I agree that AoS's rules (minus the "dance around" or "be a man" varieties) were a big step in the right direction... Except then there's that bit on structure.

I think the OP's argument is flawed, in that they weren't looking at the real problem, in my opinion, which isn't simplicity but that there's no balancing element, therefore it isn't a game. Without any system of measuring balance (points even down to 1 point per unit; 2 points per strong unit; video game lives; RPG challenge levels, cards you start with the same volume and rotate positions; etc.) there's no way of measuring the game, and when one person can take 50 times the power of the other force. The counterargument is "don't play with jerks. But my response to that is GW's core balancing mechanic consists of "make up your own... game?"

It's like, I could roll around some toy soldiers with someone else and say "pew pew! those guys die on a 4+-- they do!" and then he says "but I've got a tank! kablooie! your guys can't kill my tank unless you roll 2 6's!" and then that gets old when I can't kill his tank, so we agree I get two tanks!

Which is perfectly fine if you're 6 or something and want to pretend you're playing a game and have grasped that chance is fun instead of things automatically succeeding, but it's like GW is giving you the stats for you to play with their toy soldiers without just hitting them with each other, not like they're making a real game.

I'm not talking about perception "of GW is for kids, I play cool games!" --I play 40k as my go-to casual game, and I consider casual a perfectly valid mindset mindset because I don't always want mind-straining decisions when pushing around toy soldiers. But, seriously, I don't see how it's a game. It feels like a pastime. My complaint isn't the age or target audience perception, but the lack of a core mechanic basically every game has.

Not every game has points, it relies on the social construct of opponents respecting each other, like most games. A game is not always a competitve experience, if you think CRs in RPGs were for that, thats a real shame because you're obviously playing against a GM rather than with them.

spiralingcadaver
08-03-2015, 12:39 PM
I didn't say that. Balance doesn't necessarily mean competitive balance, I'm referring to it as, "this is approximately the right level for characters to take on."

I'm saying, there's no measure of approximate power to approximate power in AoS. (And to clarify, I consider RPGs collaborative- no- I'm not fighting the DM. There are games for that, too, but I don't like them. But, there are challenge ratings so DM's can gauge at a glance that level 3 players are probably going to get wrecked by a dragon without it being fun, or that 5 giant rats won't create a very intense fight for level 8 players... or that a cr 8 encounter for level 6 players is actually probably too hard, rather than a close battle.)

I've thought hard, and maybe I'm missing something, but can't think of a single game that doesn't use some sort of basic composition/recommended equality/balance mechanic, even if it's stuff like "this scenario is going to be unbalanced b/c it's a last stand" or "player 3 gets a handicap since he lost last game" or "this round, everyone is against player 2" or "everyone reveal their guess on '...scissors' !"

Auticus
08-03-2015, 12:52 PM
Except that X-Wing has *tactics*. You don't just move your fighters and ships around willy-nilly. You have to plan several moves ahead. I'd even equate it to Chess; a game that is open to all ages.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, my beef with AoS is not it's target audience; but rather the fact that it replaced a game that took a certain level of rudimentary tactics to play. AoS is great for entry-level players and it's a nice beer & pretzel game for veteran GW-gamers. I myself stick with 8th edition or Oldhammer now since 8th has now joined the ranks of the older editions as well.


I have played both. I played X Wing competitively. I played it casually. I will say that "tactics" in xwing are essentially a small handful of things:
1) your list building ability / creating your combos
2) target priority
3) getting lucky with the dice

In Age of Sigmar I also do not move my models around willy-nilly. Its definitely not some super deep tactical simulation, but neither is it throwing models forward however you want while guzzling mountain dew and cheetos and making pew pew noises. In fact, the people that DO play like that typically lose because Age of Sigmar is more about positioning for the charge and target priority (and getting lucky with the dice) and knowing what combos to include and pop off.

bubbles15
08-03-2015, 01:10 PM
Just to say thank you to the original poster. As we get older life grabs us and we stop having fun. We stop living, frightened that sitting on a play mat and bashing cars together is somehow wrong.

For me, just about all my hobbies were disapproved of by my mother and so at a young age I wasn't allowed to spend my earned money on anything I enjoyed. Even my books were packed away in the attic. When my mother last visited she actively disapproved of two rooms of my house being filled with books.

With all the angst and fear - and it is fear - surrounding having fun we have all forgotten why we play. All the 'tournament' 'competitive' wafflers just use games to boost their ego. Complicated doesn't mean good and good doesn't mean complicated. My thanks.

Kirsten
08-03-2015, 01:31 PM
yeah my mum for years asked 'aren't you too old for this now?' when it went on my birthday list. she seems to have got the hint now though, after 18 years of collecting, I am just getting warmed up :p

Path Walker
08-03-2015, 01:42 PM
I didn't say that. Balance doesn't necessarily mean competitive balance, I'm referring to it as, "this is approximately the right level for characters to take on."

I'm saying, there's no measure of approximate power to approximate power in AoS. (And to clarify, I consider RPGs collaborative- no- I'm not fighting the DM. There are games for that, too, but I don't like them. But, there are challenge ratings so DM's can gauge at a glance that level 3 players are probably going to get wrecked by a dragon without it being fun, or that 5 giant rats won't create a very intense fight for level 8 players... or that a cr 8 encounter for level 6 players is actually probably too hard, rather than a close battle.)

I've thought hard, and maybe I'm missing something, but can't think of a single game that doesn't use some sort of basic composition/recommended equality/balance mechanic, even if it's stuff like "this scenario is going to be unbalanced b/c it's a last stand" or "player 3 gets a handicap since he lost last game" or "this round, everyone is against player 2" or "everyone reveal their guess on '...scissors' !"

Thats why they use model count as an approximate measure of worth, its quick and easy, you're thinking of it wrong.

Try it first.

grimmas
08-03-2015, 03:34 PM
Thats why they use model count as an approximate measure of worth, its quick and easy, you're thinking of it wrong.

Try it first.

I've been thinking how about we think like GW and just total the cost of the forces using the current prices on the website and use that as "points". Obviously use the same currency. It's a pretty common complaint that they price elite units higher than rank and file ones I think we could make it work for us.

Denzark
08-03-2015, 03:37 PM
I think the OP's argument is flawed, in that they weren't looking at the real problem, in my opinion, which isn't simplicity but that there's no balancing element, therefore it isn't a game.

British Bulldog isn't balanced, but it is simple and it is a game.

YorkNecromancer
08-03-2015, 05:43 PM
I think the OP's argument is flawed, in that they weren't looking at the real problem, in my opinion, which isn't simplicity but that there's no balancing element.

I'm replying as a point of information. To be clear, my core argument were these:


People who insult things they don't like by using the argument 'it's for children' are using an argument that is invalid (and, in my opinion, an argument that is so worthless as to be beneath consideration).
The target audience for a game is irrelevant when considering that game's merits.

daboarder
08-03-2015, 05:50 PM
I'm replying as a point of information. To be clear, my core argument were these:


People who insult things they don't like by using the argument 'it's for children' are using an argument that is invalid (and, in my opinion, an argument that is so worthless as to be beneath consideration).
The target audience for a game is irrelevant when considering that game's merits.


hmmm, interesting take, would that also include those who get upset at others for wanting a serious wargame? few people around here that should take note of that then

Katharon
08-03-2015, 09:27 PM
I have played both. I played X Wing competitively. I played it casually. I will say that "tactics" in xwing are essentially a small handful of things:
1) your list building ability / creating your combos
2) target priority
3) getting lucky with the dice

In Age of Sigmar I also do not move my models around willy-nilly. Its definitely not some super deep tactical simulation, but neither is it throwing models forward however you want while guzzling mountain dew and cheetos and making pew pew noises. In fact, the people that DO play like that typically lose because Age of Sigmar is more about positioning for the charge and target priority (and getting lucky with the dice) and knowing what combos to include and pop off.

You can do all the list building you want, but if you get outmaneuvered, you're dead in space. Target priority does matter, but again, learning how to properly get yourself in a position to actually do that is more important. Luck, I won't even touch upon because it's not a quantifiable variable in this situation.

Again, there are more tactics in X-Wing than there is in AoS. AoS doesn't require you to worry about placement except in terms of distance (only line of sight mattering in terms of shooting; magic can still have a dispel attempt if within 18"). Flanks don't matter, unit placement in terms of which units might support each other better in a battle-line don't matter, because there is no such thing as a battle-line in AoS. It's 40K's shadow with swords, spears, HAMMERS, and magic.

Gamgee
08-03-2015, 09:44 PM
I like complex games because it gives me more to think about.

That's really it.

Now there are people that like more complex games and less complex than me. I know and love 40k for its more complex systems. I would be sad if there wasn't an answer for that level of complexity. I see other games offer it but they don't have the cool over the top grimderp setting of 40k.

That's about it. That's why I don't want 40k sigmarred.

Do I want it simplified? I wouldn't mind a little, but remember. Make things as simple as possible, without making them simpler. ~ Albert Einstein

Xaric
08-03-2015, 11:49 PM
Less complexity in the core rules equals more freedom with less restriction equals more complexity in general.

Gamgee
08-03-2015, 11:57 PM
Look at FFG as an example.

X-Wing is its entry level in price and complexity, then we have Imperial Assault, and finally at the highest price point and depth is Armada. All of those games remain simple, but offer different levels of complexity. I know this might come as a shocker. Really, but some people like more complicated systems. My shelf is chock full of rule books for DnD 3.5, 5th, Numenera, Cypher System, Super Hero RPG's, World of Darkness New and Old, table top battle games, 40k RPG's, and countless other one of printings of RPG's. Some of these are as simple as rolling a single dice for almost everything to massive tomes of rules to simulate insanity and severed limbs and the effects there of. I've seen my players enjoy pretty much all of them. I've read almost all of them sometimes many times and have no interest in playing the system. I enjoy it. I also can enjoy childish things. I have a few more simple for children themed and styled RPG's like this one about everyone being in school and having real imaginary friends and the adventures there of.

They make games that appeal to niches and support those niche communities. Some are larger than other but all are liked and apprenticed.

All I get from 40k fans is this very black and white. A or B approach to things. FFG is poised to overtake and maybe someday devour GW. For two years now they've been making more cash than GW and they are on a meteoric rise.

Chris*ta
08-04-2015, 01:09 AM
There are exactly three things in the 'Terminator' franchise worth caring about. 'Terminator'; 'Terminator 2: Judgement Day' (director's cut - contains a far more developed story and is utterly superior to the original); and 'Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles''. Everything else is basically turd.

'T:TSCC' is incredibly slow moving. It was done by a former writer for the X-Files, and my goodness does it show.

But.

But.

It's really good. The acting is superb, the characterisation is amazing, and the series actually explores the whole idea of AI that the later films ignore. My favourite thing is that the series takes the reveal that Skynet doesn't turn on standard Terminator learning abilities, because it wants them as slaves, and runs with it. So in the future timeline there's a faction of Terminators that want to be free from Skynet. They're not friendly, because humans hate machines. But the negotiations between future!John Connor and this faction of free Terminators are a big part of the later half of season 2.

It's so much more intelligent and well-acted than it had any right to be, and Lena Headey is amazing as Sarah Connor.

If you've not seen it, though, just be aware: season 2 ends on an EPIC cliffhanger that's never, ever going to be resolved. :(

Man, I miss that show.

Like, when they didn't have the budget to do a massive Terminator vs FBI shootout, they did this instead:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjDa6k-K20U

Amazing.

I have a friend who's been trying to convince me to watch it for ages, but I saw the first four or so episodes when it was on TV and didn't get into it. I know I'm supposed to give it more of a chance than that, but my favourite shows are all half an hour or fifteen minutes an episode, and watching that much of a show before it gets good seems like hard work to me.

I do love the first two Terminator films though. And I saw 3 on TV recently and, well, it was a lot less bad than I remember.

Denzark
08-04-2015, 01:49 AM
hmmm, interesting take, would that also include those who get upset at others for wanting a serious wargame? few people around here that should take note of that then

I'm sure I alluded to this on page 1 of these comments...

Mr Mystery
08-04-2015, 02:00 AM
Wanting a serious wargame = no problem.

Expecting every wargame to be a serious wargame = unreasonable expectation.

Making out Company A is run by morons because they've chosen not to produce a serious wargame = well, let's just leave that one there.

daboarder
08-04-2015, 03:08 AM
I'm sure I alluded to this on page 1 of these comments...

sorry Den, I only jumped in like page 2 or 3

Yeah I think Youve made the point more eloquently than I have.

Perhaps this works better.

Regardless of the simplicity or complexity of the design, neither are an excuse to poor execution and bad balance?

Few people round here dont seem to get that

YorkNecromancer
08-04-2015, 05:12 AM
I have a friend who's been trying to convince me to watch it for ages, but I saw the first four or so episodes when it was on TV and didn't get into it. I know I'm supposed to give it more of a chance than that, but my favourite shows are all half an hour or fifteen minutes an episode, and watching that much of a show before it gets good seems like hard work to me.

It is definitely clunky at the start, and, like I say, it's very slow. I think that's because a lot of the best moments are all character-based stuff that takes ages to set up. If you like your entertainment short and sweet, then probably not for you. :) Which is quite a good thing I suppose, because THAT CLIFFHANGER. :mad: And they're never going to explain where they were going with it! :mad:

Season 2 was definitely better than season 1.

Xaric
08-04-2015, 07:37 AM
Look at FFG as an example.

X-Wing is its entry level in price and complexity, then we have Imperial Assault, and finally at the highest price point and depth is Armada. All of those games remain simple, but offer different levels of complexity. I know this might come as a shocker. Really, but some people like more complicated systems. My shelf is chock full of rule books for DnD 3.5, 5th, Numenera, Cypher System, Super Hero RPG's, World of Darkness New and Old, table top battle games, 40k RPG's, and countless other one of printings of RPG's. Some of these are as simple as rolling a single dice for almost everything to massive tomes of rules to simulate insanity and severed limbs and the effects there of. I've seen my players enjoy pretty much all of them. I've read almost all of them sometimes many times and have no interest in playing the system. I enjoy it. I also can enjoy childish things. I have a few more simple for children themed and styled RPG's like this one about everyone being in school and having real imaginary friends and the adventures there of.

They make games that appeal to niches and support those niche communities. Some are larger than other but all are liked and apprenticed.

All I get from 40k fans is this very black and white. A or B approach to things. FFG is poised to overtake and maybe someday devour GW. For two years now they've been making more cash than GW and they are on a meteoric rise.

people I also know hate games that have too much complexity that ends up being arguments over rules or making the gametime spend more time reading the damn rules rather then play the game as it was intended.

Now the thing you fail to look at with games like age of sigmar the complexity is scaled rather then it staying the same for instance a newbie game with 5 units that's 10 warscrolls top and 4 page's of core rules and a 4ft by 6ft table that will possibly last a good 30m to 1h of gameplay easy for anyone to play now lets improve the complexity 4ft by 12ft table with 20 units each that can be up to 40 warscrolls worth of rules also I did not mention the terrain in the game also.

So that's like 44 page's of rules + terrain rules that is added to the game of rules but if you want to add more add a campaign from the big book like fire lands rules giving a new spell to every wizard that can melt high model count units welcome to your more complex game and I did not even add house rules to the game try looking deeper into something rather then just viewing its outer crust.

Erik Setzer
08-04-2015, 08:30 AM
Ah well, I'll join the discussion...

First off, I'm disappointed. You quote Tuomas to try to defend AoS's simplicity, but leave out another quote in his post:

"I also hazard a guess that there will be a more advanced ruleset for more tactical and strategic players who have outgrown the 4-page rules. I especially think we will see supplements for magic. Without any further rules development, I am not sure about the longevity of the game. Easy-to-pick-up, difficult-to-master is the Holy Grail of the game design, and I am not quite sure these rules are there yet. To keep customers returning, games need long-term engagement, and that requires more depth to delve into. I think we will see this in the coming months."

See, the line right before the one you quoted is very key. Right there, he comments that the game is so simple it might not have lasting power. And he has a point there.

I don't think simple is "for kids." Heck, I've been picking up quite a few simple games lately. Cards Against Humanity, Exploding Kittens, Munchkin, Superfight, even put in an order for a couple of starters of the Dice Masters game. But there's a key thing to all of those game. All of them are under $40, most of them $25 and under. You can get everything you need to play, with lots of replay value, for less than $100, counting all kinds of expansions or boosters (I'm only talking one line with the Dice Masters... they're all compatible, yes, but better to consider them different games, as only madmen like me would mix DC vs. Yu-Gi-Oh).

GW games should be aimed at kids some, in order to attract new blood to the hobby, and it's always been a bit of a fight to get the older gamers to accept that, not just in GW games. But GW games aren't really aimed at kids. And that's got nothing to do with the background, which, while being "grimdark," is "grimdark" in a not-that-serious manner, much like modern comics. (That's not to say that's a bad thing, just that there's not really any moral issues or anything to make you really think.) No, the reason GW games aren't aimed at kids is because the sticker shock is worse on parents than the rest of use. We have jobs, we can choose to drop $35 on a single infantry model. But a parent has to look at the fact that they have to spend hundreds of dollars on the models, plus buy all the tools and paints and paintbrushes, and then they have to oversea little Timmy as he works with dangerous tools to clip off the models, clean them, and assemble them, a process that has gotten harder as time goes on. People can scoff at simpler models, but they have their place in the hobby.

The problem, really, is that Games Workshop more and more is trying to avoid being a games workshop. They want to pretend they're in the serious modeling business, acting ignorant to the fact that their models sales rely on games. There's not really that much business out there for really nice specific IP models to sit on a shelf. Heck, even Star Wars doesn't have that many model kits available right now, and a lot of the actual model kits I see on Amazon are older kits (I actually recognize some from my own youth). But you also spot another trend: Simple to assemble kits aimed at younger audiences, like the "SnapFit" models. They aren't bad models, but they are simpler, to help kids assemble them.

Kids are necessary to grow the hobby (and thus provide sales growth for the company as well). Rules are not as much of an issue for them as people think. I've seen a lot of younger players handle rules that are as complex as Infinity... like 40K's own current rules, which actually are as complex as, if not more than, 2nd edition's rules. If you're going to use Infinity as an example, though, let's be honest about it. The rulebook includes not just the basic rules (including a quick start guide), but also advanced rules (pretty much optional), weapon stats, basic army stats, appendices with things like scenarios, etc. The pages are also arranged to include less text per page than the 40K rulebook, and have a lot of illustrations to help with game play.

Really, it's comparable to Necromunda, if you mashed both books together into one. It's a skirmish level game with more detail, but isn't really that hard to figure out. Might not be everyone's cup of tea, but seriously, if you buckle under those rules, you better stay away from Necromunda, Mordheim, even current 40K, or even Dungeons & Dragons. Funny enough, I've seen kids play all of those games.

But kids do need help on the modeling aspect of things. Assuming they find the game interesting enough to get into, they then have to talk their parents into buying stuff, and these novice modelers have to deal with the game pieces being designed for advanced modelers because, rather than the game pieces they really are, the game company thinks it's a model company designing models for the most discerning of people.

So, really, Games Workshop doesn't make games for kids. (They'd prefer not to make games for anyone, but that's a different matter.) Their products aren't particularly kid-friendly. The fluff certainly is, but the products aren't.

Thankfully, for kids who like the Warhammer and 40K worlds and want kid-friendly games, there's plenty of video games, PC games, and all the games FFG is putting out (Conquest, Forbidden Stars, Warhammer Quest, Chaos in the Old World, etc.).

- - - Updated - - -


Making out Company A is run by morons because they've chosen not to produce a serious wargame = well, let's just leave that one there.

I make out that they're run by morons because they're called Games Workshop and are desperately trying to avoid making games. Worse, they suddenly realize they have issues with sales and getting new people, but they want to further push the company into a niche that doesn't really exist, something that runs counter to their goal of sales growth. You can only cut costs for so long to keep profit going before you run out of things to cut and have to admit that your strategy isn't really working no matter how much you try to raise prices.

When they get back to remembering they're a games workshop, maybe the games will tighten back up, and they'll remember kids are a good way to get new customers and keep them on, so will get back to making some products that are "kid-friendly" (if not snap-fit models, at least ones that are simpler to assemble).

Wolfshade
08-04-2015, 08:48 AM
I did like it when they used to make their other games.

The board ones like the battle for armageddon and their HH one. Then branching out Fury of Dracula, still mone of my favourite games.

I don't think that their games needs to be particuallarly kid friendly though I will not ethat a lot of us seem to have got into it while we were mere younglings. We are quite lucky to be living in a time that the board games seems to be having a resurgence so their is a latent demand for such games.

Erik Setzer
08-04-2015, 09:03 AM
Grab kids early, you have long-term customers. They're good for business. Every game should be "kid-friendly." But I can't think of any off the top of my head that aren't, in terms of rules.

Heck, they even note that it's who their typical customer is at GW:

"Our customers tend to be teenage boys and male adults with some spare money to spend and time to enjoy hobbies."

And most of those male adults started the hobby as kids.

I love games like MageKnight and HeroClix for that reason... They're really, really kid-friendly (no need to assemble or paint models, just jump right in), and once you get them hooked on playing miniatures games, you work them up to the more advanced stuff. Right now, to get a step between that kind of stuff (which now can include X-Wing and Armada, but those are different styles of miniature game than infantry-based games), you have to go to someone other than GW, because the "premium miniatures" thing means they aren't really friendly to new modelers. To that end, someone like Mantic would be a good middle ground, also being cheaper. But if GW could get that middle-ground themselves, they'd do themselves a big favor. Sadly, the elitism pervading the culture of the company and its community means that any such middle-ground would be scoffed at, because those models couldn't be "the best miniatures on the planet" (though there's no reason for them to not look good... look at recent starter boxes), and people doing snap-fit or Tactical Marines who aren't twelve pieces are looked on as "not good enough."

None of this is going to change soon, though, and the realization that pointing out such issues is likely to draw more ire than it's worth is just... depressing, really. But eh, other companies will be around once the pro-GW crowd gets done trying to destroy GW. I just hope someone will pick up Warhammer and 40K so I can keep playing in those universes.

Gamgee
08-04-2015, 11:45 AM
people I also know hate games that have too much complexity that ends up being arguments over rules or making the gametime spend more time reading the damn rules rather then play the game as it was intended.

Now the thing you fail to look at with games like age of sigmar the complexity is scaled rather then it staying the same for instance a newbie game with 5 units that's 10 warscrolls top and 4 page's of core rules and a 4ft by 6ft table that will possibly last a good 30m to 1h of gameplay easy for anyone to play now lets improve the complexity 4ft by 12ft table with 20 units each that can be up to 40 warscrolls worth of rules also I did not mention the terrain in the game also.

So that's like 44 page's of rules + terrain rules that is added to the game of rules but if you want to add more add a campaign from the big book like fire lands rules giving a new spell to every wizard that can melt high model count units welcome to your more complex game and I did not even add house rules to the game try looking deeper into something rather then just viewing its outer crust.

Your pretty insecure you know? I didn't even say anything bad about AoS other than I don't like it and that I like complex and simple games.

Now here is the problem with people that want everything simple. They might end up becoming too simple. If every video game out there was to be made as simple as possible all we would have left is angry birds. There would be no area for strategy games. That is why I said make everything as simple as possible to use, but not simple. Sometimes certain things can't be dumbed down without losing it's core aspects. So instead of removing features and abilities they should be made as easy to use as possible.

If they removed the grand campaign map from Total War games to make the game simpler they are killing off what makes that game great all to appeal to someone who would not normally like that game. Sometimes complexity is inherent in a system because it needs to be. You can't make physics simpler or take short cuts building a bridge because people will ****ing die, but you can make it as efficient and easy to build as possible without sacrificing its safety. That's a real life example but sometimes in the world of art the same thing applies. And to video games. an RTS game wouldn't be an RTS game if there wasn't a wide selection of units. Just make the game as easy to use as possible.

Tiberian Sun vs Star Craft user interface and menus. TS is extremely old for its time even and didn't have the easiest way to navigate the game and its user interface. Star Craft still had complexity but made that complexity as simple to learn and use as possible.

I'm not afraid of childish things because they're simpler. I'm afraid of over simplification because it can dumb down an entire society. They take up the mantra of simplification and start cutting out and removing critical things. Now does this mean there is no such thing as too complicated? No.

FATAL is waaaaay too complicated for me, but there might be the occasional masochist that enjoys it.

Or you can continue on your crusade. If you feel I'm being completely unreasonable.

Balance. Is the key word. I don't mind if some people like simple games, medium games, or complex games. Just make sure everyone is being offered something they like, or is people enjoying things you don't too much to comprehend?

Mr Mystery
08-04-2015, 12:10 PM
On the subject of developing rules as you go along, if there's one flaw to GW's previous approach, it's the following...

The game evolved beyond the relatively straight forward basic rules, but didn't keep said relatively straight forward basic rules.

As I touched on earlier, people talk about rules creep in 40k, and used to about Warhammer.

This isn't something I've ever really agreed with. Yet stepping back from my own limited perspective, that may be because I've very much grown up alongside the games. Whilst some of the dice rolls have changed, 2nd Ed 40k onwards, and Warhammer up to 8th Ed have barely changed for me. As the rules developed and expanded, so did I as a gamer.

AoS though? All very stripped back, and I hope they keep the current basic rules, and as suggested above, use expansions to introduce additional, optional rules.

The Girl
08-04-2015, 12:33 PM
//start announcement; sorry to intrude//

Hi... there's a trend in my inbox of the same people reporting the same people over and over again even though there aren't any commenting rules violations. If you find someone generally annoying, please take advantage of the ignore feature.

To add users to your ignore list: go to your User Settings and in the left nav panel under My Account, select [Edit Ignore List], type the username you wish to ignore in the Ignore List blank and click [Okay]

The mod staff is here to deal with instances of direct personal attacks (observing general community behavior is NOT a personal attack), racism/homophobia/general bigotry, thread derailment, and things that have simply gotten out of hand. We are not here to delete posts you simply don't like and/or don't agree with, or punish other users because you don't like them for whatever reason. If you need a refresher you can find the TOS here. (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/faq.php?faq=termsmaster#faq_termsuse)

If this cycle continues I'm going to start issuing 24 hour bans for wasting my time.

//end announcement; return to your regularly scheduled thread//

spiralingcadaver
08-04-2015, 03:39 PM
Your pretty insecure you know?
(...)
I'm not afraid of childish things because they're simpler. I'm afraid of over simplification because it can dumb down an entire society. They take up the mantra of simplification and start cutting out and removing critical things. Now does this mean there is no such thing as too complicated? No.
(...)
Balance. Is the key word. I don't mind if some people like simple games, medium games, or complex games. Just make sure everyone is being offered something they like, or is people enjoying things you don't too much to comprehend?
+1.

I feel like you really hit the major points regarding criticism of the new edition/responding to peoples' defense of it.

Xaric
08-04-2015, 04:52 PM
Your pretty insecure you know? I didn't even say anything bad about AoS other than I don't like it and that I like complex and simple games.

Now here is the problem with people that want everything simple. They might end up becoming too simple. If every video game out there was to be made as simple as possible all we would have left is angry birds. There would be no area for strategy games. That is why I said make everything as simple as possible to use, but not simple. Sometimes certain things can't be dumbed down without losing it's core aspects. So instead of removing features and abilities they should be made as easy to use as possible.

If they removed the grand campaign map from Total War games to make the game simpler they are killing off what makes that game great all to appeal to someone who would not normally like that game. Sometimes complexity is inherent in a system because it needs to be. You can't make physics simpler or take short cuts building a bridge because people will ****ing die, but you can make it as efficient and easy to build as possible without sacrificing its safety. That's a real life example but sometimes in the world of art the same thing applies. And to video games. an RTS game wouldn't be an RTS game if there wasn't a wide selection of units. Just make the game as easy to use as possible.

Tiberian Sun vs Star Craft user interface and menus. TS is extremely old for its time even and didn't have the easiest way to navigate the game and its user interface. Star Craft still had complexity but made that complexity as simple to learn and use as possible.

I'm not afraid of childish things because they're simpler. I'm afraid of over simplification because it can dumb down an entire society. They take up the mantra of simplification and start cutting out and removing critical things. Now does this mean there is no such thing as too complicated? No.

FATAL is waaaaay too complicated for me, but there might be the occasional masochist that enjoys it.

Or you can continue on your crusade. If you feel I'm being completely unreasonable.

Balance. Is the key word. I don't mind if some people like simple games, medium games, or complex games. Just make sure everyone is being offered something they like, or is people enjoying things you don't too much to comprehend?

I never said anything about you hating AoS I was using age of sigmar as a example to not go off topic I was mostly talking about complexity in general to a game and also to put your viewpoint in another viewpoint? does others having a optional over your optional really bother you that much that you make assumptions that I am telling you what to like or hate? maybe you should view yourself when you say others are insecure because you sound like that right now I am putting my personal optional out as a reverse to yours its called a topical discussion remember kid's there cant be a negative without a positive or it would fail to exists.

I wouldn't say your being unreasonable about the core topic sure if you harbour a dislike for a game keep the topic on rails please but don't resort to calling others insecure or some sort of crusade because by that wording your comment looses all credibility and you just turn out to be a person who hates something for the sake of hating and believes that saying these two things justify a point.

I personally hunt down comments that are negative for the sake of negativity and try to work on the mind-set of why people feel this way because I grow tired of seeing games or idea's get shot down because of a dislike that makes no sense with information that really comes off as whining because of lack of skill or thinking outside the box to deal with it for instance look at world of Warcraft community someone said to demand nurfing druids because his warrior could not solo 2 of them without any information over the context of the battle.

Also in any game that is designed with random dice in mind can never be balanced period that is something that people have yet to even grasp at the same to take in the factor warhammer has 10+ armys all with there own designed play style and to go deeper every model has its own set of rules that make it different from other units no amount of house ruling or points can balance that out because it was never designed for balance to begin with and in fact adding house rules might unbalance another army unfairly because the house rule destroys something that army might need to work.

The meaning of balance is two things are of equal in games that indicates both side have a equal chance of winning by throwing in to many random stat lines between each side throws balance completely out the window in warhammer its not balance that makes the game fun its dealing with unbalanced odds and coming out on top if you roll horrible for the first 2 turns and loose like 25% of your models then all of a sudden your rolling good and it turns the game that is not balance that is just luck as with 1 d6 you have a 1 in 6 chance to get the number you want or the number you don't want and adding more dice change's that variable to insane amounts of odd.

grimmas
08-05-2015, 12:30 AM
I'd say Balance has very little/nothing to do with the complexity of a core rule set. Balance, in the competitive sense, is about the relative power levels of factions within a system. For example despite very simple rules chess wouldn't be very balanced if white pawns could move an extra square.

Of course as a bit of a counterpoint may be that is the "complexity" of AoS right there, the rules are simple but the real depth is creating equally enjoyable scenarios for both players (because, being a fun experience for both players is the real balance). The game is coming from a company that prides itself on "forging the narative" would that really be a surprise.

It's all well and good drawing comparisons to computer games but remember WoW and others are fixed systems you can only play the way Blizzard or whomever lets you play. Wargames are not fixed the rules are only guidelines you can actually alter them however you like. It's very telling that all Tournaments come with an extra set of rules for play, I believe the PP one weighs in at 14 pages at the moment.

In fact I think this ties in with the Infinty example which has complex rules but rather simple army list mechanics. So tricky to learn but easy to balance which is good for more serious/competitive gamers. AoS is very easy to learn but more complex to balance so not so good for the competitive crowd but rather good for gamers who just want to play, younger player for examples who in the early years of their time (in Wargaming) won't even have a concept of "balance" in the competitive sense.

Xaric
08-05-2015, 01:42 AM
Less conflicting rules less restrictions equal more freedom on how you play the game rules like points restrict a number of units because you wish to be point efficient less rules such as a force org means you can deploy a full flushed out themed army that stands a chance vs. dare I say it power gamers and also the key point here finding out who's the wolf amongst us the guy who is a bad sport when he brings models that are just there to ruin the enjoyment for everyone I am not talking about those who bring nagash I am talking about those who bring 2 nagash lol

Path Walker
08-05-2015, 02:22 AM
Thats the idea I like about this, people will always break the game and take powerful combinations or units and be more likely to win a game, in Age of Sigmar though, you can do that but at least you can't try and pretend you're being fair.

daboarder
08-05-2015, 02:36 AM
I'd love to see you lot actually try to deal with someone doing that in your store in a way that didnt involve you chucking a tantrum just because you got beat. Because in real life the dangerous imbalance isnt the double nagash kind its more subtle than that.

I can see it now
Player A brings his awesome lovingly painted army, creams you with it, and suddenly the chairs are flying the table is flipped and its not your fault, your the narrative gamer after all. Nor is it GWs fault, they after all are writing a narrative game.

No, its the WAAC doshnozel you just played's fault for playing the game with the army he choose, and I bet you he doesnt even LIKE that army, hes just trying to be THAT GUY and hes such and ******* and should be socially shunned. Because he hasnt taken into account your fun and hasnt jumped through hoops backwards to ensure he changes HIS gameplay so it matches YOUR perception of fun.

seriously I'd put money on that being a rough approximation of the situation.

Denzark
08-05-2015, 04:48 AM
I make out that they're run by morons because they're called Games Workshop and are desperately trying to avoid making games. When they get back to remembering they're a games workshop, maybe the games will tighten back up, and they'll remember kids are a good way to get new customers and keep them on, so will get back to making some products that are "kid-friendly" (if not snap-fit models, at least ones that are simpler to assemble).

Seriously.

Just because a company sticks to a historical name for historical and branding purposes, does not make them morons.

MacDonalds probably isn't owned by a Mr or Mrs Macdonald anymore (if it is I bet I can find a blue chip company named after founders who no longer own it).

Virgin doesn't flog virgins. Its staff are not virgin, its services are not new and exclusive enough to be called virgin.

Apple doesn't sell apples etc.

There are a thousand and one examples of businesses whose name doesn't reflect their business.

Not reflecting your business output with your name is not moronic. It may be for any one of many reasons all perfectly non-moronic.

Mr Mystery
08-05-2015, 05:04 AM
Privateer Press don't in fact offer flattened Privateers in some kind of collected volume.

Path Walker
08-05-2015, 05:06 AM
Using the historical reason for being called Games Workshop (incorrectly, they were called that before they ever made their own games anyway) and then saying that a move back towards more casual less tight rules is bad is so jarring. Age of Sigmar has more in common with early Warhammer than anything late 90s onwards, its a better modern reimagining of 3rd edition WFB than anything else we've had in years.

So, its essentially saying they need to remember their roots and forget them at the same time.

- - - Updated - - -

Spartan, until this month, didn't sell any miniature Spartans.

While it might not seem it when you try and read the rulebook, games of Infinity do actually end.

Denzark
08-05-2015, 06:07 AM
Spartan, until this month, didn't sell any miniature Spartans.

While it might not seem it when you try and read the rulebook, games of Infinity do actually end.

lol

Path Walker
08-05-2015, 06:14 AM
And as far as I'm aware, Corvus Belli have little to do with crow based warfare.

Kirsten
08-05-2015, 06:27 AM
And as far as I'm aware, Corvus Belli have little to do with crow based warfare.

it is their major failing as a company

Path Walker
08-05-2015, 06:54 AM
it is their major failing as a company

Sadly, as far as I know, only Guild Ball has crow based attacks these days. (Also: Steamforged Games don't forge anything using steam)

Denzark
08-05-2015, 07:03 AM
I'm sure Njal Stormcaller has a Psyber-Raven and no-one outside zoologists and fetishists can tell the difference between crows and ravens.

Mr Mystery
08-05-2015, 07:05 AM
Nah.

It's now a Psyber-Chaffinch, because Mat Ward

Path Walker
08-05-2015, 07:11 AM
a WOLF CLAW Psyber-Chaddinch

Alaric
08-05-2015, 09:02 AM
I'm sure Njal Stormcaller has a Psyber-Raven and no-one outside zoologists and fetishists can tell the difference between crows and ravens.

Fetish + crow made me think of Shadowrun for some reason.

Erik Setzer
08-05-2015, 10:05 AM
Just because a company sticks to a historical name for historical and branding purposes, does not make them morons.

Yeah, in this case, it does.

They also have the brand "Citadel Miniatures." They could easily go with that. They're renaming stores to "Warhammer."

Keeping the name "Games Workshop" when you treat games as poison that should be avoided where possible is ridiculous. The company might well keep the title for investor purposes and such so as to avoid legal costs, but could easily change to slapping the Citadel Miniatures brand on everything. Sort of like how they have a book titled "How to Paint Citadel Miniatures," but then people might be confused as they call them "Games Workshop miniatures."

"Citadel" was the term they used for hobby products, and it's well known for that. Ditto the miniatures. If they're serious about pushing that side of their business, they could rebrand as Citadel Miniatures. Instead, they keep the name Games Workshop. And when that brand was used to promote games, which Citadel Miniatures were meant to supplement, then yes, it's wrong to continue using it as the primary name when they're trying to get away from the games.

But more than any of that, they're idiots for not recognizing that the games are what sell the miniatures. People don't buy the games to have something to do with the figures. They buy the figures to play the games. But then, they seem to actually recognize that, even as they lie about it, because they'll put rules in the game to encourage the sales of miniatures, which shouldn't work if the miniatures sold themselves and the games came second, not the other way around. Similarly, why throw out an entire gaming system and replace it if the games aren't the main driver?

But if they keep wrecking the games to try to sell more figures in the short-term, they'll drive more people out of the games, which will lead to a further decrease in sales.

Sadly, it seems like those of us who love the worlds and all have to hope for a more rapid collapse, so that it might slap the current board awake, or they'll sell to someone who gets the freaking him that you're not going to sell expensive miniatures with junk games, and you're not going to expand your customer base without having more newbie-friendly products (simpler to assemble line of miniatures, built-in rules for smaller games of 40K, less emphasis on massive battles, etc.).

Denzark
08-05-2015, 10:43 AM
If according to you: '[they] treat games like a poison that should be avoided where possible...'

And then they: 'throw out an entire gaming system and replace it'

How is replacing said gaming system with ... a gaming system... consistent with treating games like poison?

And just what SMART benefits are to be had from a re-branding? It won't increase profits, it won't increase sales, it won't increase customer satisfaction, beyond a small bitter and twisted conclave who for unfathomable reasons seem to think a company's name should reflect its business despite masses of evidence of global industry leading companies whose names have sweet fanny adams to do with their product.

There is a vast difference between changing a few shop fronts to stop parents looking for 'Game' wandering in, and changing all your paperwork, corporate identity, stock exchange listing, etc. The latter may actually lose sales for a period where proxy buyers (parents etc) lose sight of what's what.

There is no logical reason to approach one's shareholders and say 'Mr Erik Setzer of Number 1 BoLS Street, the Internet, thinks we have lost the right to call ourselves Games Workshop because we now only have 3 games systems and there for we are calling ourselves something else'

Alaric
08-05-2015, 12:44 PM
There is no logical reason to approach one's shareholders and say 'Mr Erik Setzer of Number 1 BoLS Street, the Internet, thinks we have lost the right to call ourselves Games Workshop because we now only have 3 games systems and there for we are calling ourselves something else'

Awesome. Also, I can hear the laughter across the ocean.

Wolfshade
08-05-2015, 12:53 PM
I'm sure Njal Stormcaller has a Psyber-Raven and no-one outside zoologists and fetishists can tell the difference between crows and ravens.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Crow_vs_Raven

You're welcome

Mr Mystery
08-05-2015, 01:02 PM
Crow

http://images.amcnetworks.com/ifc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/the-crow.jpg
Raven

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/programmeimages/episode/b008y0mv_640_360.jpg

You're weclome.

Denzark
08-05-2015, 03:32 PM
Messrs Wolfy and MM - proving every day is indeed a school day... Thank you Gentlemen!

Mr Mystery
08-05-2015, 03:34 PM
And detention for you.

Nobody likes a suck up :p

CoffeeGrunt
08-06-2015, 07:57 AM
Bit late on account of having just got access to my account back...*ahem.*

Very fair point and I had to skip the last ten pages of comments due to time, so I imagine I'm just reiterating what's gone before. On the note of, "for kids," that's something that's incredibly prevalent in our culture. My sister, for example, frigging loves movies she watched as a kid, even now. She's the only person I know to have a DVD library almost entirely made up of the likes of Matilda or Elf. People mock her for it all the time, but really, many of those kinds of childish movies can be really entertaining. I'd much rather watch Matilda than Jumpscare 3: The Hallowe'en Season Cash-In. Occasionally horror movies are more, "adult," I wouldn't take a kid to watch The Babdook, for example, because that was a genuinely clever and psychological foray into the overstressed mind of a single mother.

Trashy 90s horror movies like Scream or I Know What You Did Last Summer? I watched them as a kid, and they're so hilariously difficult to believe that they seem pretty unthreatening.

Then you get movies like Pixar make. Everyone I know loves Pixar, from Toy Story, to Finding Nemo. Their newest movie, Inside Out, is by most reviews considered to be extremely good. Intrigued, I looked it up because a lot of people were accusing it of being far too childish, amusingly noting they were fans of much more mature movies, like Toy Story...a movie about toys.

The movie itself is very clever, and while not scientifically-grounded, the analogies they use for how the mind works are very smart, as is the Pixar way. Visually, it's imaginative, the story does a lot with the lowest stakes I've seen in a movie for a while, especially in this Superhero age with Doctor Who struggling to find bigger baddies to blow up bigger things, getting to Everything Everywhere in Time in Every Parallel Dimension and starting to get stupid, the stakes in this are so much closer to home. Riley moves across the States to a new home, struggles to fit in, and slumps into a depression that causes her to try and run away. The story inside her head is what moves the plot forward, and what makes the movie very special.

The rest of this might get spoilery for those interested in seeing the movie. You should as well, trust me.

My favourite quote recently from a review of this movie is, "growing up is both the greatest triumph and the greatest tragedy." Inside Out, this kid's movie, is about how growing up will tear up the things you loved and tinge them with sadness. You'll remember playing with friends or your old soccer team, and those memories won't be happy, they'll be sad.

And that's fine. That's how it should be, the movie shows us.

We live in a society where Happy is the default and anything else is a problem. We suppress sadness wherever we can. We tell people with depression to, "cheer up." We bully and oppress people who don't listen to upbeat pop music and instead listen to "emo" music. We suppress Sadness despite it being an emotion as important and as necessary to be a functioning, healthy human being as Joy.

That's a lesson a lot of people can learn from, in a kid's movie. Parents, I don't doubt, could learn how to communicate feelings with a kid better because of it. Child psychologists are giving it the thumbs-up, because it gives kids a vocabulary that they can use to describe how they feel, something they're already learning to clam up on.

The representation of depression especially is clever. Riley isn't overcome with Sadness. She shuts down, her control center starts locking her emotions out until they have absolutely no say in what she does as she continues on the bad path they accidentally send her on. She doesn't start weeping, she just goes dead. It's terrifying because they never say specifically what the phenomenon is, but you get it. If you've ever felt or dealt with depression, you get it.

A kids' movie has the most accurate, and most horrible representation of depression I've seen in film. Yet, it's a kid's movie. That stigma's still there. Too colourful, too childish, not grounded in science! I have friends who've talked to me about their depression, past and present. I like to think we're all pretty much able to discuss that thing without much stigma, but this movie, there's still the fear that you'll be treated as a simpleton for enjoying the message. That you're an underdeveloped moron for learning a little something about how to deal with emotions from it.

Amusingly, a lot of guys online are reporting that it's pretty eye-opening, which probably has much to do with guys pretty much being forbidden from any sadness above single-tear-rolling-down-cheek-stoic-sadness. Here's a movie that points out how Sadness works. It's not a nuisance, a party-pooper. It's a signal for help, it's a signal that holy crap things are really bad right now, and I need my friends to gather round and help me out.

Yet, even that's childish. Asking for help, especially for men? Pff, what a loser, right?

If only we stopped trying to pigeon hole everything as adult/childish, gay/straight, feminine/masculine, and just let people do what they want provided it doesn't hurt anyone or anything and is all consensual, then we might get past all these issues and have a more healthy population.

I just hope that Star Trek is wrong in that we'll probably have to nuke ourselves first to get there...

Erik Setzer
08-06-2015, 08:59 AM
I ordered a couple of the Dice Masters starter sets on Amazon because they were $13 each, I love dice, they seem like fun quick games to play on the side, and I've been enjoying superhero stuff lately. When I told my brother, he scoffed at the idea of getting such games, almost suggesting they were childish. I felt like noting that he spends his hobby hours either playing with toy soldiers or playing make-believe with friends, so maybe there's not much ground to stand on for mocking other games.

And let's be clear, that's what the Games Workshop hobby is: Playing games with toy soldiers. Call them whatever you want, claim they're premium collectibles, whatever. They're toys that you play games with. The only time you call them anything else is when you need the insurance company to not screw you over with depreciation (especially as the price to replace your toy soldiers if they're lost or destroyed keeps increasing over time, not decreasing).

At the end of the day, you're either playing with cards, playing with game pieces on a board, playing with toy soldiers, or playing make-believe (possibly even dressed up in costume). It doesn't matter how "adult" you think the games you play are, the part of society that looks down on games in general will toss 40K in with Candyland.

And that's fine, because seriously, who needs that kind of people playing games anyway? They'd just bring down those of us who enjoy everything from Killer Bunnies to 40K, Exploding Kittens, Warhammer, Munchkin, Magic: The Gathering, Dice Masters, PC games, Wii games, X-Box games, Twilight Imperium...

And if you're the kind of person who puts down another kind of game and scoffs at it, then you're no better than those fun-suckers.

spiralingcadaver
08-08-2015, 02:13 PM
Coffegrunt, what are you saying? You have a huge analogy about liking movies "for kids," but I'm not understanding how that wraps around to the thread. I don't see the conclusion.

Wolfshade
08-08-2015, 02:32 PM
Maybe it is like the Simpsons.

You know, while obviously it is aimed at an older audience but can be enjoyed by the younglings.

Mr Mystery
08-08-2015, 03:50 PM
Or it's akin to Regular Show...

Ostensibly a kid's cartoon, but so much more for persons of a certain vintage?

CoffeeGrunt
08-08-2015, 04:57 PM
Coffegrunt, what are you saying? You have a huge analogy about liking movies "for kids," but I'm not understanding how that wraps around to the thread. I don't see the conclusion.

I rambled as I was writing it a bit at a time in between doing jobs.

Basically society as a whole writes a lot of very good things off as childish, and treats anyone who enjoys them as emotionally stunted. This actually means that, amusingly, they can miss out on stuff that teaches adults a thing or two. Inside Out's a good example of something that I defy a parent not to come away from with a slightly different mindset, and I imagine most adult viewers would take something away from it.

It was following on from Yorkie's point about the likes of Adventure Time, or indeed Animation in general being considered childish, when actually they explore some deep, dark themes. Steven Universe handles the concepts of gender and sexuality better via analogues than 90% of 'adult' media, and the Avatar series manages to be a damn good story for a few seasons, unlike adult shows such as Walking Dead.

Doug Walker does a pretty cool lookup on how said "kids" stuff is improving:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXpWAO0F7ck

In a nutshell, Wargaming gets lumped in with lots of other stuff society relegates to kids, even though you need knives, superglue and tools to do most of it which kids can't even buy, because the things society claims are for kids have no actual correlation to the quality of those things.

Mr Mystery
08-10-2015, 06:30 AM
You take back what you said about Walking Dead. Right now young person! Right this very instant! I think it's great!

But otherwise solid points well made.

Kids does not mean 'worthless'.

If we're talking about some god awful rubbish from the past, such as Pocket Dragon Adventures which featured an overabundance of idiotic sound effects, then fair enough.

But we're not. The majority of people who create 'kids stuff' know perfectly well there's an adult somewhere holding the purse strings, and they're much more likely to loosen said purse strings if they enjoy the product on some level as well. And not just toys. If like me you're into Regular Show, but unlike me watch it with your kid, you might just pick up that Mug you just clocked in HMV, because it has Mordecai and Rigby on it...

CoffeeGrunt
08-10-2015, 07:25 AM
Not to mention that it's a bit crap that we're so willing to give kids any old crap, just because they're kids. In a society that's increasingly paranoid about what medicine, food and toiletries to use on their children, we seem quite happy to make some pretty awful TV and movies to keep them busy rather than actually teach them. It doesn't need to be a dull educational video, the best kids' stuff integrates learning stuff into a solid narrative. They also manage to make stuff that parents can watch with their kids and actually enjoy, something the Smurfs reboot utterly failed at among many other movies. That sort of shared bonding experience is the whole point of having kids, IMO. It won't last forever. They'll get to an age where sitting with mom and pops to watch the new Disney movie is really cramping on their style.

Mr Mystery
08-10-2015, 07:32 AM
Yep.

Plus, further thoughts on the purse string theory (lol, I did that myself. Aren't I clevers!)....

Some Kids TV remains pretty dire - such as the hideously over-acted Disney fare....now, parent sits down with kid....enjoys Show A and B, cannot stand C, D or E - kid seems to enjoy all five....

Parent then buys tie ins to A and B, in the hope they can persuade kid to only watch those....moar munneh!

Erik Setzer
08-10-2015, 08:42 AM
If I have kids, the kind of "kids shows" I'll subject them to include things like Doctor Who.

Path Walker
08-10-2015, 08:49 AM
Doctor Who is a kids show, well done.

Do Americans think Doctor Who is supposed to be serious hard sci fi?

CoffeeGrunt
08-10-2015, 09:02 AM
Doctor Who is a kids show, well done.

Do Americans think Doctor Who is supposed to be serious hard sci fi?

Tumblr does, at least. They roll it together with Sherlock and Supernatural, at least, despite it not being nearly as adult as the previous two. Then again, the only reason I see them as adult is because one is bloody and has sex, and the other is something I've never watched but assume has violence and bloody scenes, not to mention psychological stuff.

Doctor Who had some excellent stuff in it during the Tennant era IMO, looking into what it is to be human, but it's all a bit basic and shallow, really. Not hard sci-fi, but if people enjoy it and take something from it, then well, who am I to judge?

Hell, I'm currently filling out equipment testing spreadsheets while listening to Babymetal.

Path Walker
08-10-2015, 09:40 AM
Wasn't dissing the show in any way, I've watched the Doctor since I was a lad, I was gutted when Paul McGann didn't stay on and do more TV stuff as the Doctor, as he was a friend of the family and that would have been cool as heck.

Still, it has always been a kids show, doesn't detract from it in any way, it's just another example of adult nerds claiming kids things as their own. Which, given the premise of the original post, is right on theme.

Morgrim
08-10-2015, 09:46 AM
Supernatural is definitely not kids fare, it manages to park itself very firmly in the horror genre at times, even ignoring the laundry list of adult themes involved.

I'm not sure I'd count the modern Doctor Who as kids fare either though. The older series was firmly in the family territory but from what I've seen of the new show they're no longer alluding to a lot of the more mature stuff, they're aiming at it head on (and occasionally rubbing the audience's face in it in a 'ooh aren't we clever' way. Why yes, I DO prefer the original series...) It's still 'popcorn' television though; sort of like the scifi equivalent of an action movie.

Path Walker
08-10-2015, 10:05 AM
Its still a family show (broadcast at prime time for family viewing), its gotten more complex and less subtle but that's a reaction to the changing attitudes of the younger audience than the show being for a mature audience, the end goal is that its a show kids like like and can watch with their parents, that's always been the aim.

grimmas
08-10-2015, 10:17 AM
There were plenty of adult themes in the old Doctor Who, Tom Baker agonising other the implications of committing the genocide of the Daleks springs to mind. Still that was the point it was meant for all the family so it possessed many levels. I suspect to stop parents getting too bored. The same goes for lots of stuff, the Simpsons, Shrek, how to Train your Dragon and Disney's Hercules are some of my favourites. Doesn't stop them being directed at children. "For children" and childish are very much not the same thing.

I remember then GW made games for adults and it wasn't anything like as much fun as when they realised us Kids (then) were the ones buying Rogue Trader in large amounts and started changing their focus. Of course there was a point during the Red period when it all became a bit childish and things started going wrong but they sorted that out.

YorkNecromancer
08-10-2015, 01:48 PM
Sweet mercy, The Red Period. :(

Thank Glob that's all over and done with. I don't care what anyone says, that was GW's lowest point...

CoffeeGrunt
08-10-2015, 02:18 PM
Red...Period? I wasn't around for...whatever that was.

grimmas
08-11-2015, 12:09 AM
You don't know cos you weren't there man!!!!!

Carefully google it and wear sunglasses you'll need them.

I'd link something but I can't go back too many bad memories 😳

In all seriousness though I think is does show how making something too childish can also damage its appeal to children.

It wasn't just all the red(and boy there was a lot) it was the time satire became slapstick and the Grimdark was actually pretty bright.

CoffeeGrunt
08-11-2015, 01:12 AM
I Googled it and all I could find were threads like this saying how bad it was, but not speaking about it directly. It's a bit like Voldemort's reign of terror in that regard. :P

Mr Mystery
08-11-2015, 01:57 AM
Overstated nonsense :)

Red Era was, effectively, 2nd Edition.

And it was great.

Boo. Boo to you hobby hipsters and you're attempt to non-red wash history with you revisionist drivel! MY RAZORBACK TURRETS ARE RED. RED AND PROUD!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! BOO I SAY!

Path Walker
08-11-2015, 02:45 AM
"Red Period" was peak GW, that was the GW that gave us Necromunda, painting was bright because that stood out on the battlefield and looked glorious, better than the 3rd edtion when everything was black, brown and grey!

Its pre Grim Dark (as in Grim Dark the meme where its exaggerated to the point of ridiculousness that we have now) and the satire was always very heavy handed

CoffeeGrunt
08-11-2015, 03:03 AM
Ah...I didn't like that stuff either. Too goofy for my taste.

Mr Mystery
08-11-2015, 06:37 AM
Oh yeah?

Well see that?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ovoy2vd_SO4/T_EQR4hocsI/AAAAAAAAlLw/4xF10gmSFII/s1600/hipster.jpg

That's you, that is.

CoffeeGrunt
08-11-2015, 06:50 AM
Not a hipster, just a young'un. :P

Another note with regards to, "stuff for kids is bad," is how it dovetails with, "things for women are bad," to make, "things for girls are so horrendous that no-one should ever watch them." The sad thing is, there's so little effort spent on the latter category that it's normally true...

YorkNecromancer
08-11-2015, 07:35 AM
I just hated the Red Period for the following reasons:

Goofily disproportionate sculpts; everything had massive hands and heads, even by the already crazy standards of heroic scale.
Note, for example, that here, the hands are the same size as their head. Madness.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uQdE2IbKPAY/U4j-SseEKcI/AAAAAAAAFq4/Qv8nJnD9TH0/s1600/kh2+001.JPG


Everything was red, which sounds okay, until you realise that it was only one shade of red: a brilliant crimson. This was frequently paired with a bright green, even/especially if this went against the fluff. Hence, the first Khorne Berzekers (that came after the single Jes Goodwin marine sculpt) having crimson armour with bright green piping. They looked like chainaxe-wielding Christmas Elves.

http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t379/Ulmer-Glas/IMG_1803.jpg

Contrasting colours on everything. Hence the Ultramarines from that era look like Happy Meal toys: bright blue armour, bright red guns, bright yellow bandings/aquilas. All primary colours, all the time.
http://belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/marines-2-lo-res.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I5t58ab_nCQ/Ub-ISehDAoI/AAAAAAAAEYk/FDXHqut4tpA/s1600/IMG_5975.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PxUNgVilK7k/Ub-IPDY1hPI/AAAAAAAAEYI/WIC3wSD4J_k/s1600/IMG_5971.jpg


And if you were an alien species, you got it worst of all. The Tyranid army has more colours than a Pride parade.

http://heresyandheroes.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/68916_sm-2nd-edition-copyright-games-workshop-tyranids.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N_ShIyAlDxc/Ub-IKxJu1QI/AAAAAAAAEXw/Lc5k8jCGVlI/s1600/IMG_5968.jpg
http://heresyandheroes.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/screenshot-06012014-1338.jpeg

And a kind of comedic look to everything. All the early metal Tyranids were from that era, and they just looked stoopid. They were supposed to have terrifying fanged maws, but basically looked more like Beavis and Butthead laughing at a fart joke.

http://kofler.dot.at/40k/units/Tyranid_Carnifex_2.gif
http://kofler.dot.at/40k/units/Tyranid_Zoanthrope_1.gif

Basically, it was a low-point for the company aesthetically, both in terms of sculpting, and in terms of colour choices.

Mr Mystery
08-11-2015, 08:07 AM
Ooooh! Revisionist Hipster :p

Wasn't a low point in contemporary terms - their models continued to improve throughout that period :p

Though the second metal Carnifex was bobbins.

YorkNecromancer
08-11-2015, 08:18 AM
Wasn't a low point in contemporary terms - their models continued to improve throughout that period :p

I don't necessarily think 'improve' is the right term. The strange proportions seemed like a very deliberate stylistic choice. Not to mention, Gary 'Original Flavour Nagash' Morley was doing loads of work for them then. I know some people love his work, but I think I've hated literally every model he's ever done. That he was responsible for like, 90% of the Necromunda miniatures is a good reason I haven't sought them out.

For me, the 'line in the sand' that kind of marks the end of that goofy aesthetic and the move towards the new, relatively more credible one, is the plastic Carnifex kit. That was actually the model that got me back into 40K after a decade away from it. Just an astonishing sculpt, and just so far removed from those horrible old Tyranids that it might as have come from an entirely different army. Much closer to Jes Goodwin's original designs as well.

Mr Mystery
08-11-2015, 08:29 AM
There has been a massive upsurge in quality since they went with the plastic push.

But you have to look at what came before the Red Era.....man there were some truly shonky sculpts!

YorkNecromancer
08-11-2015, 08:51 AM
True. But there were some lovely ones too. The old plastic scouts, the original Tyranid warrior, the RTB01 kit, Commissar Yarrick, the Devastator boxed set with the shoulder mounted heavy bolters, anything by Jes Goodwin...

Erik Setzer
08-11-2015, 09:07 AM
Hmm. I actually like a lot of that older stuff. And the bright colors made for interesting looking armies. Too many armies now end up looking dingy and dirty and drab and, well, boring. I get that it's easier to paint, but man, it's depressing.

The old models were good for their time. And while I loved some of the stuff like the RTB01 Marines, they weren't really that detailed or anything. I'd still gladly use them, but objectively newer stuff was better (not counting the 2nd edition boxed set squads). Funny thing is, a lot of people like to pretend these kind of models never existed or something, because they don't want to consider that a company getting into producing miniatures might not throw out awesome museum pieces with their first efforts... see Mantic, for example.

I also have to stick up for Morley a bit here. There's a tale that goes around that he was told to make the Nagash model look something like how it ended up, and he exaggerated it for effect. But the funny thing about the model is, if you replace the head, it looks good. A decent paint job won't entirely salvage the head, but could still make it look decent. I showed my old Nagash to some people, and they couldn't understand the hate for it, and these were people who've only known modern GW sculpts. Necromunda had a lot of good stuff, the only models I can remember not liking were the plastic Goliath models. Other Goliath models weren't bad, and the other gangs - Orlocks, Van Saars, Redemptionists, Ratskins, etc. - looked pretty good. I have some old Necromunda models I'm using in my Rogue Trader army, they easily match anything being put out right now.

And speaking of stuff being put out right now... We have a whole new faction with over the top shiny armor, with shoulder pads to try to make Warmachine or World of Warcraft jealous, with some having literal wings of light, halos all over the place, and hands as big as their heads. We have Chaos guys dual-wielding weapons that have chain weapons attached to them. We have a guy carrying an axe too big for him to use. We have "flyers" that are boxed with engines and pointless "wings" attached to them. Blood Angels have nipple armor everywhere. We have Space Wolves riding literal wolves, and a hover-chariot pulled on the ground by wolves (think about that for a moment). There are examples of silly, pointless, over-the-top stuff in the range still. We're playing with toy soldiers in fantasy settings, you have to expect some crazy stuff. That doesn't mean it's bad.

grimmas
08-11-2015, 09:33 AM
Red guns and no Landraiders. That should be enough on it own to condemn the red period

The games were still fun though

Oh let's not forget the fetish Goliath models, really really stupid

Path Walker
08-11-2015, 10:18 AM
Goliath models look silly now but in the context they were great, they were directly referencing a vision of post apocalyptic gangs that was very much in style when Confrontation and later Necromunda were being fleshed out. The plastics were shoddy but all the plastics of the era were, especially when trying to make humans.

At the time, the models of the "Red Period" was very popular, there were lots of red models because almost all bases and tables were green, so to stand out in photos, red was the go to colour. The Eavy Metal team at the time was rightly seen as containing some of the best and most innovative model painters in the world.

The models were seen as some of the best in the hobby, especially the metal models.

Morley wasn't to everyones taste but he gets lumped in with that Nagash model too often as if it represents his entire career, he did a lot of great work in his time, the 3rd edition Blood Bowl miniatures, which I am sure he did most of, were great, for example.

Its hard to look back on pop culture from 20-30 years ago and judge it fairly because today's tastes and technology change so much

Gotthammer
08-11-2015, 10:38 AM
Also the red period gave us the Escher gang, Vyper Jetbikes, Bjorn & Furioso dreads, the original skaven Doomwheel, Screaming Bell, Rat Ogres, Warhammer Quest, and the mass of IG vehicles that are still kicking today.

YorkNecromancer
08-11-2015, 10:39 AM
Goliath models look silly now but in the context they were great, they were directly referencing a vision of post apocalyptic gangs that was very much in style when Confrontation and later Necromunda were being fleshed out.

True.

That said, they did get a little Tom of Finland after a bit, especially when you had the absurd muscles of the Catachan guardsmen at the same time. I know it's all to do with the macho source materials they're drawing from, but there was a definite Hard Gay aesthetic to quite a few of the models back then.


Morley wasn't to everyones taste but he gets lumped in with that Nagash model too often as if it represents his entire career, he did a lot of great work in his time, the 3rd edition Blood Bowl miniatures, which I am sure he did most of, were great, for example.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say they were great. They were definitely his best work, and there are some really lovely models there (most of the Undead models, quite a few of the Orks, almost all the humans)... But they're still goofy as hell. And the quality was very erratic. Even given the times, the Elf miniatures in particular were just horrible.


Also the red period gave us the Escher gang, Vyper Jetbikes, Bjorn & Furioso dreads, the original skaven Doomwheel, Screaming Bell, Rat Ogres, Warhammer Quest, and the mass of IG vehicles that are still kicking today.

As I say, the Jes Goodwin stuff is universally brilliant, even by modern standards. Skaven were very much his baby, as were the Eschers, the Eldar, and the dreadnoughts. Not sure who designed the old Leman Russ, but that was an undeniably lovely kit. I was very disappointed when I discovered they'd dropped the old gothic-style searchlight and rectangular box HK missile.

grimmas
08-11-2015, 01:30 PM
Nope the plastic goliaths were crap for the time as well in fact most of the plastic single miniatures of the period were worse than their predecessors. The High Elves from the 4th Ed WFB were pretty good though, monopose but nicely done. The red period only stretched for the first half of 2nd Ed 40K/4th Ed WFB a lot of the good stuff that's been mentioned was actually post the period in question. Still plenty of good metal minis during it though.

Still I don't think the sculpting was the problem. Or really all the red it was just a symptom of an attempt to make the Games appealable to an audience that was just a little too young and it lost something in the process. It got it back though but I distinctly remember thinking things were just a little bit too young in GW stores for bit.

Erik Setzer
08-11-2015, 01:42 PM
The metal Guardsmen regiments were pretty awesome. The plastic Cadians look nice, but I loved the variety and the detail was great on those models. There's a lot of older models I'd gladly pull out and run alongside modern models, both in 40K and WFB.

CoffeeGrunt
08-11-2015, 04:09 PM
Hmm. I actually like a lot of that older stuff. And the bright colors made for interesting looking armies. Too many armies now end up looking dingy and dirty and drab and, well, boring. I get that it's easier to paint, but man, it's depressing.

I'd say the opposite. I could crank out bright, shiny tanks in a day, piece of cake. Making them look dusty, drab and beaten up extends that to a week, and I wouldn't have them any other way. I don't see how painted a drab scheme is any easier than painting in nothing but bright colours...

Though on the note of Necromunda, I have a few of the dudes with long trenchcoats and specs, and man those guys look excellent.

Charon
08-11-2015, 11:43 PM
Though on the note of Necromunda, I have a few of the dudes with long trenchcoats and specs, and man those guys look excellent.

House Delaque

Erik Setzer
08-12-2015, 08:11 AM
I'd say the opposite. I could crank out bright, shiny tanks in a day, piece of cake. Making them look dusty, drab and beaten up extends that to a week, and I wouldn't have them any other way. I don't see how painted a drab scheme is any easier than painting in nothing but bright colours...

I take it you're actually doing chipped paint, applying specific areas of rust, stuff like that? If so, yeah, that takes some time.

But one trick that's caught on, because it's quick and easy and works rather well, is just painting a basecoat and then hitting the model with a coat of Agrax Earthshade. It takes hardly any time at all. The local GW manager will do that with display models when he needs to paint them fast, and I had a guy trying to tell me that some of the models in the 40K demo setup couldn't have been done that way because they looked too good, until the manager confirmed they were. Try it out some time, you'll see. And if you want a dirty look, it's easy enough to let some of the Agrax Earthshade sit on higher areas.

Want a dirty tank without all the extra hassle, but will look find? Well, for chipping you can take a brush, get some Leadbelcher on it, wipe off most of the paint, and then lightly brush edges in a random fashion in places, before applying the Earthshade wash. Rush? Either the rust effects GW puts out, or even use some chestnut ink or wash (like Reikland Fleshshade, IIRC). Spots of oil? Nuln Oil. Mud splashes? I forget the modern color (used to use Scorched Brown), but you can "spatter" some brown on in places, and even quickly dab off a lot of it, leaving just a thin layer.

You can scoff at it as a purist, and I'll admit it won't win you a Golden Demon, but it actually comes out looking rather nice in a short time. I'll probably use tricks like that when I get around to painting my Imperial Guard.

Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of people who paint a kind of sloppy first coat, then slather the Earthshade (or Nuln Oil) without paying much attention to making sure it goes where it needs to, and then they have models that look a lot dirtier and dingier than they need to. They try to speed up the process a bit too much. Still... at least they're putting in some effort. So I've no problem playing against them, because I see way too many unpainted armies out there.

CoffeeGrunt
08-12-2015, 10:36 AM
Erik, what you're describing still takes far more time and effort, and is still leagues better than those pictures of the Red Period. They look like someone slapped poster paint on them then didn't bother following it up with anything.

Path Walker
08-12-2015, 10:48 AM
Getting clean, crisp bright colours with feathered highlights isn't easy and does take a lot of skill, its not the fashion now but it was very much that back then, you still had people doing the more realistic and grimey stuff and that was more in vogue pre-Red Period, but it was just a style thing, it was thought to be the best way to show off the models and the painters skill.

Erik Setzer
08-12-2015, 11:58 AM
Erik, what you're describing still takes far more time and effort, and is still leagues better than those pictures of the Red Period. They look like someone slapped poster paint on them then didn't bother following it up with anything.

A lot of those paint jobs were pretty basic, yeah, but that's not to say bright is bad. I love my multi-colored Orks I painted during 3rd edition... even if people who thought Orks are bland green-skinned lemmings were confused by them.

I don't think you're giving the effort enough credit, though. You might dislike the paint jobs, and it's fair to feel that way, but they had paint guides for some of those schemes, and they did have shading, highlighting, stuff like that. Not the thirty steps for a basic Space Marine that modern painting articles have, but it was still more than "paint on a layer... aaaaaannnd you're done." If they put the same effort into a more toned-down scheme, I think you'd probably accept the effort.

Again, though, I totally get that a lot of people didn't like bright stuff or multiple colors.

odinsgrandson
08-12-2015, 04:45 PM
A lot of those paint jobs were pretty basic, yeah, but that's not to say bright is bad...

Well, "bright" actually wasn't the problem. Bright is fine.

The problem was the abundance of different primary colors with no unifying element. Those high elves back then had red/orange, blue and yellow on them- and none of those were the main color that was supposed to define them.

Also, there have been a lot of actual advancements in miniatures painting art since those days- things like OSL, NMM, Zenithal Lighting and using "something other than green gravel" for your bases have brought a lot of competition painters to a level not dreamed of in those days.

Now, I don't want to say that the old painters were bad- I happen to know that Mike McVey is fantastic (and his wife Ali is even better).

YorkNecromancer
08-12-2015, 08:41 PM
Well, "bright" actually wasn't the problem. Bright is fine.

The problem was the abundance of different primary colors with no unifying element. Those high elves back then had red/orange, blue and yellow on them- and none of those were the main color that was supposed to define them.

This. All the this.

I remember the old White Dwarf pictures of the early 90's Golden Demon winners, and almost without exception, everything was a frickin' rainbow. It was like, 'how many colours can we get onto one model at a time?' seemed to be the height of the art. And everything was just vomitous as a result.

Then there was this one guy, and he'd just painted a single Marine captain in two colours, red and white I think. It was so simple and elegant compared to everything else, that for years, that one model was kind of my personal core inspiration - no more than two main colours on any model, not including black or metal (unless the metal 'counts as' one of the two colours). I still try to stick by that even now, hence why my Deathwatch army doesn't have any chapter pad coloured; I don't need an army that looks like a bowl of f**king fruity pebbles, fluff be damned.

There's a kind of charm to the brightness at times, but yeah, when there's no unifying theme to them, then gah. Horrible.

grimmas
08-12-2015, 11:49 PM
Odinsgrandson has really hit it. The issue was the creative choices not the level of skill on show.

CoffeeGrunt
08-13-2015, 05:33 AM
Yeah, it's the aesthetic, not the skill. As others have said, Golden Daemon these days are leagues ahead of the ones back in the old days. Still, the one that stuck with me when I was growing up was this piece here:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x238/pez5767/IMAG0680_zpsvwj4fz6v.jpg (http://s180.photobucket.com/user/pez5767/media/IMAG0680_zpsvwj4fz6v.jpg.html)

The OSL, the atmosphere, the fact that it had an unspoken story behind it that you immediately understoof. You can practically hear the Auspex in the Guardsman's hand chiming like the motion tracker from Aliens, while he's taking a breather, staunching his wound, wary of the predator stalking him but completely unaware that it's right on top of him.

It just oozes atmosphere, it was what inspired me to start back at 40K again after I stumbled across it years after I stopped collecting in middle school. :)

odinsgrandson
08-13-2015, 08:36 AM
Well, Coffeegrunt, can get an age from you with that comment, and it turns out I'm older than you. To most painters during the green gravel days, that diorama was completely inconceivable.

Miniatures painting was forever changed by the internet, and especially by the contributions of Coolminiornot.com.

These days, people get to see top painted pieces even if they aren't entered into a competition that gets printed in a magazine. So, when Victoria Lamb paints up a piece with cool atmospheric lighting, we all get to have a look at it, and dissect the technique.

Miniatures painting is still a young art- we're still figuring out new ways to use the medium. The top competitive painters are all of the time looking at one another's paintjobs and figuring out how one artist achieved such a cool effect.

This is still going on- from reports I've heard, most of the competitions this year have seen a decline in entries, but a much higher overall quality (I saw this firsthand at Gencon, and I've heard it was true of other conventions this year).

The art is ever moving forward.

CoffeeGrunt
08-13-2015, 08:59 AM
Oh yeah, it's almost guaranteed that you're older than me if you actually remember the Red Period. Judging by the dates thrown around, it occurred shortly after my birth...hmmm...

"And lo, did the thunder roll in the abyss of the Warp, as child heathen was brought into this world, all was turned to green gravel and garish primary colours."

Erik Setzer
08-13-2015, 02:46 PM
Blimey, I feel old again. Bad enough I can say "I have dice in this bag older than you... never mind my minis" to a guy I game with (and go to a cigar bar with, even). But yeah, I remember the early days of GW. It's why I'm okay with basic paint jobs, models that aren't covered to every last mm with "detail," etc. I'm used to that stuff, and it was considered pretty good back then. It's amazing that stuff that 15-20 years ago was considered good is now barely acceptable. And we'll not talk about older than that...

CoffeeGrunt
08-13-2015, 03:45 PM
It's amazing that stuff that 15-20 years ago was considered good is now barely acceptable. And we'll not talk about older than that...

Same applies to video games, and most movies/tv shows. :P

Wolfshade
08-13-2015, 04:54 PM
I feel old :(

Denzark
08-13-2015, 05:16 PM
You're one of THEM Wolfy - profile picture of you younger...:)

Erik Setzer
08-14-2015, 08:09 AM
Same applies to video games, and most movies/tv shows. :P

Oh, I know... and I feel like smacking people with my cane when they say I'm wrong for enjoying classic games or classic figures. When I remember to set the money aside for it, I plan on getting an NES and Super NES, or maybe just one of the Retro-N systems that plays both, and making a trek to the local retro game store.

As for movies getting better, well... I beg forgiveness in advance for uttering these words: Fantastic Four.

CoffeeGrunt
08-14-2015, 08:20 AM
As for movies getting better, well... I beg forgiveness in advance for uttering these words: Fantastic Four.

You're remembering the few classics and comparing them to the tripe of today. It's easy to pick up F4 and claim all movies today are worse, but cast your mind back and you'll find there's some shoddy movies released every year.

Not to mention that many TV shows these days have far more compelling stories and much better execution than back in the day. Game of Thrones is the stand-out example, nothing came close to that level of quality outside of cinema. The 80s and 90s was mostly a flood of cheap sitcoms, no-one committed the cash needed to fund a decent fantasy TV show, and sci-fi ones were a bit ropey, though classics like Battlestar, V, and Star Trek exist.

For example, stuff for kids is leagues ahead of where it was 30 years ago, not to mention video games being more capable of having a complex narrative and rich world to pull you into.

Mr Mystery
08-14-2015, 08:35 AM
Space: Above and Beyond.

I think you'll find I win the thread.

Well, I would if we were discussing brilliant sci-fi nobody remembers :p

grimmas
08-14-2015, 10:55 AM
I remember it.

Actually I thought the 80s fantasy/SciFi was pretty good (I remember one about a Stellar War or something) TV wise Robin of Sherwood springs to mind immediately and Doctor Who. Because they couldn't hide behind CGI they actually need decent plot lines which was nice.

Erik Setzer
08-14-2015, 12:55 PM
You're remembering the few classics and comparing them to the tripe of today. It's easy to pick up F4 and claim all movies today are worse, but cast your mind back and you'll find there's some shoddy movies released every year.

Not to mention that many TV shows these days have far more compelling stories and much better execution than back in the day. Game of Thrones is the stand-out example, nothing came close to that level of quality outside of cinema. The 80s and 90s was mostly a flood of cheap sitcoms, no-one committed the cash needed to fund a decent fantasy TV show, and sci-fi ones were a bit ropey, though classics like Battlestar, V, and Star Trek exist.

For example, stuff for kids is leagues ahead of where it was 30 years ago, not to mention video games being more capable of having a complex narrative and rich world to pull you into.


I wasn't saying "old movies are better," just reminding that even today, some utter garbage can be churned out by a major motion picture company. Even some of the stuff I enjoy will be hammered by critics, at least a bit (like Jurassic World, which had issues but was still fun). The funny thing is, who's going to actually remember a lot of today's movies in 20-30 years? I don't really know the quality of stuff that far back because the "classics" are all that remain over time. Audiences do tend to want more story now and fewer spoilers (though that still doesn't stop some of the trailer makers), so for a movie to grip people today it has to be good, or it has to be tailored to the LCD (see practically everything Adam Sandler makes, or, for an example that isn't as brain-rotting, the Transformers movies).

Game of Thrones isn't fair to us with TV shows, it's adapting a book series and that usually goes well if they're even partially faithful.

I think a good example to contrast TV is with Doctor Who, which still isn't a massively funded program, but objectively is so much better with visual effects and story and all. I remember the episodes I grew up with fondly (and have a POP vinyl of the Fourth Doctor on my desk as he's "my" Doctor), but if you took and remade those episodes with the same quality (not exact same methods, just the same quality) today, people would lose their mind.

Shows I like to look to are ones like Jericho and Firefly, but then those are bad examples because both were great shows the networks canceled. Babylon 5 was great for sci-fi, and Deep Space 9 was, IMO, much better than the original Star Treks.

But again, there's a lot of junk that just sticks around forever. Lots of sitcoms that don't even really make an effort, and we have multiple versions of CSI, Law & Order, NCIS, or really any show that becomes popular these days on a basic network. That's another point with GoT... it's made on a more independent channel that doesn't have to deal with the same kind of stuff basic channels do. HBO can afford to take more chances, as can Starz and Showtime, so we get shows like The Tudors and The Borgias and Deadwood, which would never work if we had to rely on CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. (BBC actually churns out some good stuff, though). To that end, we can see also how competition has improved things. "Back in the day," there weren't as many networks to choose from, so you couldn't just find something better to watch. Same with major movie studios. There's a lot more competition now. Heck, Netflix is jumping into the fray, and have a score or more shows lined up already, and some of them are pretty darn good... before you even get into the coup of them getting exclusive deals to do Marvel and Star Wars series. You want someone's attention and their dollars or the dollars of advertisers? Better put out some quality stuff.

Mr Mystery
08-14-2015, 01:05 PM
Story telling in Old Who was vastly superior to anything RTD managed to pen. I'll always be thankful to him for resurrecting it, but jeez he wrote some absolute drivel.

Erik Setzer
08-14-2015, 02:19 PM
Yeah, he did have some doozies... And I'm still not fond of the forced relationship with Rose and the crazy way they tried to make the fans happy. Still, other people were writing some episodes even during his time.

I also want to make sure no one thinks I have a problem with the zaniness of Classic Who. I loved it! It was fun, and I'm quite happy seeing some of it show up again. I like them letting Capaldi be serious *and* a bit crazy (in a good way). I'd also like to see them bring back Gallifrey finally, because trying to make Doctor Who dark and edgy with that story line has been played out by now... I like some scary stories in the show, I like some serious, but making things *that* dark just seems weird. It's a freaking family-friendly show. Did we really need the main hero to commit genocide? (Worse, genocide of the Time Lords and Daleks, also known as the Doctor's own species and his top enemy, who are both kind of important to the series, hence why the Daleks keep being brought back. It's like trying to bring back Star Trek with the Federation and Klingons having wiped themselves out, but at least Kirk's still alive! Again. Or something.)

40kGamer
08-14-2015, 06:49 PM
Space: Above and Beyond.

I think you'll find I win the thread.

Well, I would if we were discussing brilliant sci-fi nobody remembers :p

Hey I remember that show! Wish it had lasted longer!!! :p

Lexington
08-14-2015, 10:00 PM
I'd also like to see them bring back Gallifrey finally, because trying to make Doctor Who dark and edgy with that story line has been played out by now...
Bleh. It'd be ridiculously hard to compile a ranked list of Moffat's failures during his tenure as Top Whomaker, what with the breadth and depths of material to sift through, but resurrecting Gallifrey is easily #1. Torpedoed the whole rebooted series' rationale.

Mr Mystery
08-15-2015, 12:09 AM
It was a silly rationale.

The Doctor needs Gallifrey. The Time Lords periodic meddling was fun to watch.