Results 41 to 60 of 67
31-08-2013, 06:19 PM #41
What you apparently want is a game as strategically deep as a game which focuses entirely on that one element, with all if the bells and whistles and spectacle of the TW series, and you're never going to get that because no studio has time to create that. Basically you're expectations are totally unrealistic. I'm not the only person who has suggested that either so I won't labour the point any more.
01-09-2013, 02:26 AM #42
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
- Newcastle Upon Tyne
Getting back to the original point of the thread; I'm not sure what I want to see from a WHFB TW game. In fact I flip-flop more than a LibDem MP on whether I really want one. I'm not sure whether the traditional TW model fits the Warhammer universe for many of the races. Take The Empire, how does the standard 'Take n provinces including x,y & z by Year ????' fit something that's crumbling from within and more about survival than conquest (unless you consider reclaiming Drakwald et'al)? Why do the Wood Elves need to take province in Araby when all they want are for people to leave them the fuck alone in Athel Loren and what do Chaos need with the taxes generated in the Reik Basin?
Anyway, I guess we'll see. Regardless, I hope they choose the art direction more in-keeping with the source material than Relic did with the 40k license (I'm thinking most specifically of Space Marine here).
Though as an aside I think that a CK2 game set in the Empire would actually be pretty cool. I hear there's a mod in the works but I'm not sure the model would work so well for any factions other than The Empire and Bretonnia especially considering how long lived the older races are.
01-09-2013, 10:52 AM #43
01-09-2013, 11:29 AM #44
I am going to try out warhammer mod for medieval 2 called "Rage Of Dark Gods" to get the feeling how would TW warhammer game play out iuiuiui :3
01-09-2013, 12:37 PM #45
I'd hope they went down the Mighty Empires route and left out the actual Warhammer World for an open ended campaign.
I suppose the other, and probably more likely option is specific scenarios e.g. Chaos incursions, war of elves & dwarfs etc etc.
01-09-2013, 12:56 PM #46
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
01-09-2013, 04:12 PM #47
01-09-2013, 05:14 PM #48
But having only battles on battlefield can become dull quite quickly :/
Rage Of Dark Gods (Warhammer mod for Medieval 2) is really hard as Fenix said above. Fought my first battle against beastmen,armies were big about 2500 on both sides. When enemies marched at us i thought to myself this is it,this is the end of our proud empire. Then somehow we won at the end with big casaulties. So for the thread,this is how warhammer would look like i guess,only in better version because this is a mod. Still pretty good one.
01-09-2013, 06:52 PM #49
01-09-2013, 10:01 PM #50
02-09-2013, 08:03 AM #51
02-09-2013, 08:53 AM #52
What I want from them is just that. What they currently do but in a Warhammer Fantasy setting. Hell, they could just reskin one of the older games and I'd probably be happy."Halo is designed to make the player think "I look like that, I am macho sitting in my undies with my xbox""
02-09-2013, 09:58 AM #53
Basically you stopped being the Empire and just became generic magical fantasy army like all the other generic magic fantasy armies you were fighting. Which, to be fair is pretty indicative of where Warhammer was at with 5th edition, but it doesn’t make it a good game. So no, it wasn’t hard for those reasons, if like I said you cheesed it. I’d be impressed if you told me you won it without those magic items, and through combined strength of arms alone, but I also probably wouldn’t believe you because I think it’s impossible. Every unit you face with the exception of Night Goblins is at least as strong as your units, most of them have no morale and require complete grinding to defeat, and there were always 3 x as many of them as you at least.
If it had had a generic fantasy license instead of a Warhammer one no-one would remember that game at all.
Mark of Chaos is for all intents and purposes Dark Omen in a more TW like engine I would say, and it was distinctly average. Better than DO though because it at least reflected the make up of the armies involved in a way which felt better.
02-09-2013, 10:59 AM #54
To be honest there probably are some nostalgic goggles involved, but I have no idea why the first thing most people mention is Dark Omen. Shadow of the Horned Rat was so memorable, my first experience with Warhammer, and really tried to immerse the player in this dark fantasy world. Remember those cutscenes? So cheesy, and yet so awesome.
Last edited by Drake Sigar; 02-09-2013 at 11:31 AM.
02-09-2013, 11:02 AM #55
This looks very warhammer mody,i expect something similar in Rome 2 engine.
But i saw somewhere that they have new aquired studio in UK which will handle Warhammer title,can anyone confirm this ? ?
02-09-2013, 11:41 AM #56
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
I was one of the two first designers on Dark Omen and thought I would add a little here.
As a sequel to Shadow of the Horned Rat we were very much constrained by the original framework in making Dark Omen which clearly limited what we could do. We had also compiled a thorough product post mortem of SotHR (which was definitely the more rogue-like of the 2 games).
I think one of the reasons Dark Omen is still held fondly in some peoples memories is that we really made an attempt to tell a story that a warhammer fantasy fan (and also a warhammer fantasy roleplay RPG fan) would appreciate and sprinkle nods to this throughout the story mode. I came from a pen and paper RPG background myself and wanted the campiagn game to capture some of the feel of what Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay had been like.
Things like: Kramer & Krell, Bogenhafen, von Liebowtiz etc. We were also very lucky to have a very good working relationship with Games Workshop who essentially took the time to just kick around ideas and most importantly actually enjoy the creative process with us. Thus is many ways Dark Omen was a tour of old favourites and inclusion of as much varied content as we could cram into the story itself, every twist and turn was approved by GW and having such a good working knowledge of the Warhammer Fantasy background helped us greatly.
We felt SotHR was a bit dry (fighting dwarves again? etc) so we brought as much variety to the battlefield as we could.
We also tried to create some non-linearity into the campaign game allowing the choice of the 3 middle chapters to be played in any order with decision trees branching further within them. Not all of that made it into the final cut due to the usual management feature cutting that goes on, but I think a little of that flavour remains. The idea was that if you consistently made the wrong decisions then when you got to the final battle you would very little chance of success. However there were also non-critical decisions where you could forego a little time (making the end battle force stronger) in order to gather up some extra units or reinforcements.
The dialog scenes (also a little cut from original plans) were also there to provide some fun moments rather than the usual clickthru kind of stuff (again intended to be with more options). Although fairly a simple mechanic it did alot to raise the game from SotHR and were generally well received especially the differences that were included via decision options. We had a hard time getting these approved by mgt because so much would effectively be unseen by the player on a single playthrough.
The video sequences were also pretty drastically cut down by management due to the usual time saving etc (I think we took a 40% hit) but we really wanted them to assist the storytelling with the 'talking heads' mode.
Anyway I just thought I would add my thoughts about it, GW told us for a long time afterwards that Dark Omen remained their most successful game (I think that was probably pre-Dawn of War 'Dark' Crusade though). The One thing we could never decide on was the name for Dark Omen as we had about 20 short listed, eventually we ran round every department (Marketing etc) to get a vote and Dark Omen won.
Sadly Marketing turned down our deal of getting Christopher Lee to narrate the game as when presented with this replied to us 'Who is Christopher Lee?'
I believe that despite the cuts to the game features that enough of the fun we had in the design of the game shines through in enough places to be remembered fondly by those that played it. Of course very much a product of its time and restricted by SotHR technologically. I personally look back at those design meetings and GW approval sessions (where we even snuck a few things past them) with a big smile on my face.
Going forward I hope the new game will be more than 'Total Warhammer' - CA relationship with GW will be key of course and I can only say it really pays to get an excellent working dynamic together with designers and GW liaison. I am a firm believer with regards to the computer games biz 'if it's fun making the game, it's fun playing the game'.
02-09-2013, 01:25 PM #57
"the idea was that if you consistently made the wrong decisions then when you got to the final battle you would very little chance of success."
Neatly underlines my point on it being as much a roguelike in approach as anything else. The problem was, unlike other roguelikes, which see you die a the point your game becomes futile, Dark Omen allowed you to postpone that for tens of hours, but with the same result, instant death, and while you could save the point at which you would have to track back would be a matter of many hours rather than a save or two.
There was also little narrative pay off to the decision. I'm quite happy to play a game I lose-many of my best experiences have come from that scenario in fact-but if they're just a case of "You're ok, you're ok, you're ok, you're ok oh now you're dead", as was the case here, and little more then there is little, if any virtue in crafting the game like that in my experience.
I could be wrong but I feel like you were scratching around for an idea that wasn't actual straight tabletop strategy. There are as many elements in there that speak of something like a cross between RPG and strategy, as with DOW2 onwards, such as the massive over reliance on characters and spells and magic abilities. Being honest at that time (and sadly 7th edition onwards) Warhammer was a game about troops as a delivery system for fantastically OP individuals anyway. In that sense it was a very faithful representation of the tabletop game, but the tabletop game is the worse thing about Warhammer. The lore and narrative stuff came across far stronger. So it was this weird cross between default war game strategy, the mechanics of which happened to be totally neutered by the really OP elements of warhammer rules.
Nonetheless you had limits imposed as stated above, and I still played it several times, and as you know a thing you made led to a lot of happiness for a lot of people, so please don't take my comments as an insult. Also, I'm just a dick in general so don't worry. Also, it remains along with the Witcher one of the few games in existence to use "regional" accents for which it deserves mountains of praise anyway.
02-09-2013, 01:42 PM #58
02-09-2013, 01:43 PM #59
02-09-2013, 02:19 PM #60
Its a shame that more of the branching story missions couldn't have been implemented, in fact a Dark Omen 2 with the same design philosophy and a decent budget would be very interesting. With GW's sudden interest in licensing games this may even happen.
I would like to see a Warhammer:Total War but in addition I would also like to see some games that are more nuanced and on a much smaller scale.
I'm not sure if CA have set up another studio for their Warhammer game but I did read several months ago that there is a dedicated design team in place with little or no crossover with other CA projects. This was on a forum though so....