|
To shift my discussion here: There are a bunch of things you could do with apps for tabletop gaming, like a real-time board game (these do exist already but there's always room for more), more complex behind-the-scenes math and stuff like that. But ultimately the biggest hurdle is communication between the tabletop game pieces and the software, and the only thing communicating between both is the player. And as I said in the kickstarter thread, making the player do data entry so that a game works is usually a non-starter if you're looking to make something popular. Ideally, the game pieces would communicate what needs to be communicated on their own to the device, but that of course invokes the spectre of "why is this a board game at all". But then you have games like Betrayal on the House on the Hill which might benefit from stuff like more randomized hidden scenarios that don't require booklets. The ability to store, contain, crunch and apply a lot more information than a board game normally could would be an interesting way to go in design, so long as it doesn't involve the player just entering a bunch of play data to inform the game of exactly where all the pieces are. You could easily make digital-only products for RPG gaming to do all kinds of interesting stuff; the one prominent example I remember are a bunch of shareware items from the late nineties that basically generated random encounters and weather effects for every day of travel in a hexcrawl style game, essentially streamlining an already complex process. Ultimately the idea of a half-digital game is really cool so people don't let go of it, but people need to stop thinking in terms of just playing your average game and then just entering data into a computer during play. It basically doesn't have any kind of comfortable niche that people have found yet.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:I can see it being useful as a game aid for games with unwieldy mechanics; the Arkham Horror app comes to mind. A vehicle design and vehicle sheet app for games like Star Fleet Battles or Car Wars would be another example. Really if there's a strength of technology, it would be in handling complex mechanics. One of the things you could do with an app or the like would be to have resolution mechanics involving math that would never function for players to process, but a machine could efficiently do. Another possibility is doing simultaneous turn resolution, blind or double-blind mechanics with devices. The problem is that a lot of games try and use apps to solve problems that don't exist (I don't need an app to roll to-hit or for me in most circumstances), when they should be looking to do things we can't already do with dice, pen, and paper. If a game is sufficiently rules dense/complex/chunky that it's best handled digitally then I'm not sure why I'd want to pair that with the physical tabletop side of things. Complex games tend to be involved on the setup and tablespace side of things too. You mention Arkham Horror which is a huge pain in the rear end but not just mechanically, it's a pain simply getting started as you have to unpack and set up the board, dole out character sheets and cards and tokens and pick an Old One and god forbid you start bringing expansions into the mix. Better hope nobody hits the table with their leg by accident either, or your cat doesn't jump up onto the board, etc. etc. My own inexpert assessment of tabletop miniatures gaming is that a not-insignificant percentage of people involved in that hobby derive more enjoyment out of the modeling and painting side of things than actually playing the games themselves, which is totally cool mind you but that right there is a compelling reason for the physical tabletop side of things to exist, because that in and of itself is the hobby to those folks. But if you're just talking in terms of gameplay then all the physical set-up of a game like that is more of a barrier to getting started than anything else (along with "how does this rule work, time to look it up in my collection of books and errata and then argue about it because the writers were unclear"), and since the Kickstarter in question is going with pre-assembled and pre-painted figures to begin with it feels like the tabletop aspect is kind of superficial here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
I think one thing to consider is the tabletop as an interface in and of itself, and it has some advantages you can't get through software (yet). It's shared, reliable, and visceral. I wouldn't underestimate that last part; there's something satisfying about the physical quality of tabletop games. Laying down tiles in Carcassonne is more enjoyable than thumbing with my xbox controller to me, and I can't explain why per se. But on the other hand, letting the xbox work out the scoring is a lifesaver. If the technology was at a point where I could just point my phone at the board and have it recognize the tiles and meeples and auto-score for me, that would be the best of both worlds. Puzzle Strike has a robust online version that works very well, but shaking up a bag of chips in the physical version is just fun to do, and it misses out on that. A lot of the complexity I refer happens before or after the game; for Car Wars I wouldn't require aids during the game, but during scenario setup it could really help, the Arkham Horror example aids setup and breakdown, largely. That's a lot different as an aid from Golem Arcana, where the electronic aspect seems constantly intrusive, and it might be better as just a videogame instead. I'd love to be able to actually try it and give it a shot. Still, efforts like Eye of Judgement are impressive efforts and are at least on to something, and there's got to be a sweet spot where bridging the two interfaces seems worth it. Saying it can't work because VHS "interactive videos" were hokey affairs just strikes me as grandpa talk. Another advantage is that tabletop allows for more social interaction between players, and you can't discount that. Playing poker online and playing it face-to-face end up being rather different games just because of that simple factor. Even if you're in the same room, you don't get the same impact playing with multiple tablets or laptops. What I'm trying to say is that the tabletop is a interface all its own with its own strengths and weaknesses, and interfaces are never just superficial. They, in fact, can be the prime determining factor in the success or failure of a game. See also: Dread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Tech can also be used to monitor things like timing that tend to get forgotten if players are getting overly immersed in their game. Space Alert is probably the best example of that
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
As a personal anecdote, I used to be really into videogames when I was younger but now I'm almost entirely playing boardgames on my free time. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that I find it a more sociable experience, but mostly, as has been stated, the physical quality of a board game is very important: being able to move pieces and interact with the board directly is a big draw for me. The only time I have ever used an app during a game was for two reasons: as an aid to scoring in Agricola (there are several iOS apps which truly make it easier to find the final scores and be able to double-check them) as well as a mission randomizer for Space Alert (a game which uses a soundtrack: using the randomizer allows you to get new soundtracks which can be adjusted for difficulty/number of players). I think there are several reasons why apps might not necessarily work in a board gaming environment except for the above reason: first of all, there is the issue of accessibility. If you have a game in which everyone has to have a version of the app running, people that don't have the platform will not be able to play. Even if you require only one person to have the app running, you still need to either provide the platform in-box (skyrocketing the cost of the game) or require the player to have the platform in order to play the game. One of the major draws of board games is that they provide all the required materials to play within the box, thus allowing anyone to play the game without requiring any sort of pre-preparation or tools outside those provided by the game itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
We've used tablets and phones as character sheet replacements to great effect in D&D 4e. If you're using DDI, you save a ton of paper that way since you don't have to reprint (at minimum) every time you level up. But yeah, that Golem Arcana thing looks pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
I'm throwing VHS games in with the lot because they epitomize the awkward, stilted lengths to which people have gone to force tabletop and tech together. I don't think there's anything at all wrong with tech game-aids (ie: interactive character-sheets, army/character builders, rules references, score-keepers) and there is a role for them because they make playing the tabletop game easier. With a "digital referee," we're making a videogame harder to play because it's married to its physical components. The hybrid model falls flat when forced digital complicates the tabletop experience, or vice versa. If I'm moving my units and then inputting my moves to watch an animation of them moving, fighting, and dying digitally - then removing my physical models from the physical table - Why am I even doing that? I'm essentially playing a digital game and moving superfluous props. I've lost the convenience, fast play, portability, and smooth experience of a videogame. Digital game aides will certainly get better, and may organically develop into fun hybrid games in the future. But the model where we're playing the same game twice (moving physical pieces, inputting our moves into the 'real' digital game) is redundant and gimmicky. But until it goes hands-off, we're stuck doing that and it's never been fun for very long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
I think the new game Harebrained is kickstarting is horribly clunky, particularly for the dubious benefit that the software and stylus provides. I'm not dead set against app-based game tracking as an optional approach and add-on-- what I'd love to see, and I admit that it would be hilariously expensive if it was even technically feasible, is near-field inductive battlemats. I think my biggest issue is that I'm not seeing much game involved with these schemes, but just a lot of expensive gimmickry. It's just as easy to count moves and track damage by hand as it is to have a computer do it-- requiring the computer to do it is putting the cart in front of the horse, it's the old Monopoly die-roller or Electronic Battleship in a modern package. Complex systems are a different animal. A friend of mine used to run a horrifying monstrosity of a game that incorporated elements of GURPS with unnecessarily complex starship building and tactical combat; he coded ship CAD software and crew trackers, and damage trackers, and this was the kind of scenario that really demanded companion computers... when it wasn't begging to be taken out behind the shed. Interactive systems monitors and power allocation apps would be ideal for Starfleet Battles and its jaw-dropping reams of rules, though we'll never see it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Golem Arcana seems like you're doing twice the work while the fun is getting lost somewhere in a cumbersome novelty. It would have been great if it had a planned aid support rather than being an integral part of the experience. For example, a Warmahordes aid that lets me tick off damage boxes or a Mage Wars that could use something to keep track of various effects and basically be a better glossary. Even something as fundamental as calculating the odds of success (and its varying degrees) and present those as percentages would be pretty cool. Not essential by any stretch of the imagination, but cool. But God do I not want to tap a figure and tap another figure then tap a bunch of things and goddamn when do I get to have fun? Which is a shame, since the figures do look cool, and I've enjoyed Weisman's minis games in the past. But hell, if they just made it Skylandersesque where the figures that you buy in real life to be played in real life can be registered online and played online in an electronic version, then I imagine a lot of people would be behind this. I'm sure plenty of MTGO players would have loved something like that for their addiction of choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
I could totally see a "limited information" style game like Starfleet Battles be digitized. You could even calculate moves on your pad, move as instructed on the board and keep all your information private, leaving your opponent with nothing but a physical piece to look at and plan around. It could keep track of cloaked vessels without the need for elaborate rules: just remove the ship from the board. Scanning a hostile ship would involve rolls made behind the scenes by the two pads. Attacking would be accompanied by sound effects, and captains could handle complex power distribution without having to track it on paper. Of course, that runs into "why is this a boardgame" and so on. I mean, they already made a videogame series from Starfleet Battles. It's called Starfleet Command. In a game like this, there would have to be a balance between resolving things on your computer and having that integrate seamlessly with what's going on at the table. Not have it be two halves of a game, but one single game. The classic mistake is to have the player do data-entry between the two and do everything twice, but you don't want to overemphasize one portion of the game to the point where the other one feels pointless. Basically, treat the pad as another game component, just like dice or cards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
moths posted:This is a better thread than the KS one for this discussion: First off, of course: Space Alert. You can't do the same thing with cards. You could have a player read things out in a timed way, sure, but then they can't play. Yes, you could do it entirely digitally, but I don't think it feels "saddled" with physical components. Second: I played a lot of the technologized board games in their first run. One fun example of this was Stop Thief. You get clues each turn for where the hidden criminal is going, in the form of specific sounds. Footsteps (or two, or three), a door opening, that sort of thing, each coinciding with a board location. You had to listen closely and then deduce where on the board this was. Edited so that it made a lick of sense. homullus fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
The way the industry can go forward is by using cool stuff like dicepl.us , tablets, and AR with things like phone cameras or google glass (which is only going to get cheaper and more commonplace). You have stuff like http://youtu.be/Lfp8id6bpDU where suddenly war hammer can be played with all kinds of super cool terrain and options that are kept track of, but still in a social setting and not online. You have stuff like http://youtu.be/HN2DMqpdIUU which is using cards and movement while everything tedious is done in the background. And this was a university project done on the cheap. How much more of a market do you think warmachine or warhammer would get if the models were AR/QR cards that actually animated, shot, showed explosions, fog effects, etc? That'd be really cool. Now imagine having the equivalent of an endless dungeon with dwarven forge done digitally, traps springing up in animated real time, etc. All possible with today's tech but not being utilized. People love what maptools or open20 does, why not translate that to a table? Edit: hell, now that Ubi exists there's no reason NOT to use that if you can get a cheap pico projector to go with a second hand kinect for in person tabletop games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
The ideal solution, to me, involves just... not using the digital aspect to track movement. Make everything it tracks independent of placement on the board. The rest of this post will be theoretical examples. It could be used to simulate/replace Arkham Horror's 10 million cards with a single app that lists all the different decks, and when you need a card you just click which deck you draw it from, with an Inventory for each player to hold on to cards you keep. If you wanted to make a game with a ton of cards to represent things, having a database app that lets you randomize between them would be a huge boon. You could use it to replace the cards and command boards in Space Alert. The app would have a touchscreen with your 13 action slots on the bottom and your hand of cards on top, and you'd just drag and drop your cards onto the action slots. This would let your hand of cards remain hidden from everyone else without requiring you to put your own cards face down, making the game clearer for the user while increasing obfuscation between team mates. If you keyed it to the game's 10 minute timer, it could also 'lock in' various portions of the board for you, as you move on through the phases, and then 'reveal' all your cards when you reach the end of the round, for playback. The only downside I can see is that this would prevent trading cards, but that is a small loss and if the game were designed with the app from the get go, something could be done about that (like removing Data Transfers entirely and keeping Incoming Data only). And that is only a Space Alert-specific drawback - if someone else made a real-time board game, an app like this would be ideal. As for a minis game, I'm going to use Malifaux as an example. In Malifaux, I'd want a digital companion to keep track of: Keyword abilities, rulestext references, activation order, strategies and schemes, victory points, soulstone pools, and a game setup walkthrough. The keywords and rulestext would be simple enough - a searchable glossary would do the trick. The rest would be during-play aids. Keeping track of Soulstones (preferably with a quick reminder on everything they can be used for listed under the number) would be marginally useful, since all it takes is a die to do that in the real world, but it'd be nice to have along with the other stuff. A setup guide would be convenient, to just walk you through all the steps of setting up a game, and in order, and the guide would end with you inputting your Strategy, Schemes, and Crew, so it could then keep track of everything you have for the round. The big one I'd want would be Activation Order - a list of all the units you hired, input by you during the setup phase. When you activate them, you'd mark a checkbox, and they would grey out and be unable to be activated until the end of the turn. The boxes with your team wouldn't even need any stats other than their HP - the rest is already on convenient stat cards that come with your models - because I'd only want it to keep track of HP and conditions on the model, like whether it is Fast, Slow, or Burning this turn. Then, when the turn ends, the app would go into a "between turns" mode, where it would ask you whether or not you triggered your schemes/strategies and keep track of victory points accrued. Basically, all the upkeep stuff and hard to keep track of stuff would be useful to digitize, in a modern minis game. Digitizing movement and gameplay would be pointless because of the double-tracking thing people have mentioned, and if you're going that far I honestly WOULD rather just have a video game. Gosh I would love a tabletop minis-type wargame for the PC, why hasn't someone made one that isn't RTS yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Maybe not digitizing movement, but an app that showed a radius around a piece for legal movement could be useful. Like, you focus your camera on the board, and the screen shows a colored circle around the piece. Especially if it could detect terrain that affects movement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
The AR stuff has a lot of potential that just isn't getting used. It would be rad to slide AR cards around on a modeled battlefield while viewing them on my smartphone as fully rendered armies of hundreds of samurai. It would also be infinitely more practical than having hundreds of samurai models to paint, break, and lose to my cat's hatred of soldiers. But is anyone doing that sort of thing? homullus posted:It doesn't always fail! The times when technology enhances play are times when information needs to be processed real-time, or given and then taken away. I was unaware of these and am corrected!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
To be honest, I think AR games won't be big unless Google Glass and similar HUD devices work out. But if they do, I could easily see them becoming very popular. The difference between having to use your phone or tablet to view an AR tableau versus just seeing is a big one to me. Something like Eye of Judgement becomes a lot less clunky in that sort of situation. One thing I think tablets and smartphones would work very well for is simulating a true fog of war situation. In most video games, fog of war refers to something that blocks your view/restricts your information at the start of a match, and is gradually reduced or made inconsequential. Historically, fog of war refers to the opposite effect. A general knew the most information before a battle started - where their own units were, the condition of those units, the lay of the field - and as the battle progressed the amount of accurate information decreased, initially mostly because events shifted too quickly for courier communications to keep things up to date, and then when guns started to be common on battlefields, due to the smoke obscuring what was happening. A more "accurate" war game would use a smart device to keep track of the real condition and position of units, while the players would have to figure out what to do with steadily more out of date information. You could have a similar effect with the Starfleet Battles idea RBH mentioned, but have the smart device represent a game resource - the ship's computer. If it gets damaged, you lose access to more and more data, and have to rely on what you can literally see on the board. The trick is balancing the informational content for each phase of the game. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Has anyone else seen the videos of Microsoft Surface (now called pixelsense) gaming? It was a smallish table and the entire surface was a touchscreen, and an optical reader. If you placed a game piece on the table it sensed it's location and could see the bottom of the piece, so if you rolled dice, it could read them and record the results, or if you placed scrabble tiles it would automatically tally the score for you. I would love to see this kind of exploration of tabletop gaming, the technology augmenting and streamlining gameplay instead of replacing it. With LCD displays getting cheaper and cheaper having an entire tabletop that's one big display doesn't seem too far off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Bucnasti posted:Has anyone else seen the videos of Microsoft Surface (now called pixelsense) gaming? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fVL6GOCGi8 It's pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
It's going to be years before that sort of thing is commonplace, but yeah, once it is, I think it will definitely be useful for gaming. To what extent... Well, that remains to be seen. But I can definitely think of games that would benefit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
That's what UBI is, but everywhere and better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dMpjBeY4z0 Basically it uses a kinect and pretty cheap software to make any surface a touchscreen. moths posted:The AR stuff has a lot of potential that just isn't getting used. It would be rad to slide AR cards around on a modeled battlefield while viewing them on my smartphone as fully rendered armies of hundreds of samurai. It would also be infinitely more practical than having hundreds of samurai models to paint, break, and lose to my cat's hatred of soldiers. But is anyone doing that sort of thing? As far as I've seen no one has done that (as cool as it is), and I'll be the first to admit it's probably a good 5-10 years off at best in a forward thinking industry, we're probably looking at 15-20 for the tabletop industry 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
I like the probably-untrue story that militaries assess new gear in part by giving it to soldiers and just seeing if they want to ditch it during maneuvers as a guide to how to integrate technology. When something gets in the way, a good group drops it. When it helps, they go after it. With RPGs, this also gives us a sense of what exactly people like doing. There tends to be too much emphasis on procedure as a means instead of an end, which I think manifests in the fact that as far as I can see (after querying almost a hundred people about it over the past couple of years) that folks generally avoid technology when it takes over certain procedures completely. They want virtual dice, but not necessarily a system that, say, automates all D&D combat procedures. (Part of the reason is that this also removes pauses for fudging and house rulings--it doesn't have to make those things go away,but procedures inform the rhythm of play.) Plus, players often just plain enjoy being the bridge between discrete procedures and the outcome. I've seen this in the way that people use Dicenomicon. I'm sure people are out there doing it, but I've never seen folks employ the more robust tools in the app. I myself dropped it for a much simpler app some time ago. What I *would* like to see is automation being used to manage the extremely complex systems that arose in the 1980s,like Phoenix Command (in fact, the only person I know who ever used it coded a utility for it himself). These are games that are a pain in the rear end to manage without a computer and represent fertile ground for original game design, even if those designs have objectives that aren't that popular nowadays. I think interface design,such as it is, is a bit on the artless side, partly due to lack of resources,and partly due to a lack of imagination. We're less than a decade away from being able to turn any image with perspective into an animated 3D doohickey anyway. I wonder what things would be like with a more chess-like aesthetic, partly to class up my nerdery,and partly because it would address the common complaint that representations the table force you to do a double take and remind yourself that this week, the ogre is actually an elemental with the same size.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 11:04
|
|
|
MalcolmSheppard posted:I like the probably-untrue story that militaries assess new gear in part by giving it to soldiers and just seeing if they want to ditch it during maneuvers as a guide to how to integrate technology. When something gets in the way, a good group drops it. When it helps, they go after it. With RPGs, this also gives us a sense of what exactly people like doing. I've never tried it, but I imagine blowing things up with rockets is something most people would quite enjoy doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 12:07
|
|
|
MalcolmSheppard posted:I like the probably-untrue story that militaries assess new gear in part by giving it to soldiers and just seeing if they want to ditch it during maneuvers as a guide to how to integrate technology. When something gets in the way, a good group drops it. When it helps, they go after it. With RPGs, this also gives us a sense of what exactly people like doing. There tends to be too much emphasis on procedure as a means instead of an end, which I think manifests in the fact that as far as I can see (after querying almost a hundred people about it over the past couple of years) that folks generally avoid technology when it takes over certain procedures completely. They want virtual dice, but not necessarily a system that, say, automates all D&D combat procedures. Part of this is that automating all D&D combat procedures is taking away choice. I'm happy to pick a power and have that resolved automatically in 4e - but I decide what I do. I decide which spell I'm going to cast and who I'm going to attack and where I'm going to move. The computer can get the output, but anywhere I should have input I want that input. I don't want the computer to take my control of my character away from me (although I'm happy to let it roll the attack and damage). I want input every time there is a meaningful choice to be made - but am more than happy to fast forward through to the next decision point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Interesting post on What worked/What didn't work on Kickstarter. http://paperdragonpress.blogspot.com/2013/08/steampunk-abc-one-year-later.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Part of this is that automating all D&D combat procedures is taking away choice. I'm happy to pick a power and have that resolved automatically in 4e - but I decide what I do. I decide which spell I'm going to cast and who I'm going to attack and where I'm going to move. The computer can get the output, but anywhere I should have input I want that input. I don't want the computer to take my control of my character away from me (although I'm happy to let it roll the attack and damage). I want input every time there is a meaningful choice to be made - but am more than happy to fast forward through to the next decision point. I'd kind of like to see a game embrace the ridiculous complexity of character creation from games like Hero System or Traveller, and crank it up past 11 to the extent that you just have to use a computer app to work out all the calculations. But once you've got your character sheet, keep the actual gameplay rules as simple as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
I'd much rather see RPG design embrace the idea that you don't need to learn most of the game's rules before even making a character and instead the ruleset grows more complex during play. Really, the classic example here is Traveller. It has a cool chargen system which you can even play as a kind of minigame on its own, rolling life paths and interesting backgrounds and cool randomly generated planets to come from. The actual gameplay by comparison is simple to the point of being immensely boring and doesn't generate those cool results much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
To be honest, that often drives me up-the-wall loving crazy. Don't try to walk me through character creation before I know what any of the numbers I'm writing down mean, or how I'm going to use them to generate anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
 It was actually pretty cool. And yes, you could die during character creation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:I'd much rather see RPG design embrace the idea that you don't need to learn most of the game's rules before even making a character and instead the ruleset grows more complex during play. DriveThru has the Starter Edition for free too... http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/80190/CT-ST-Starter-Traveller
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Let's talk Wrath of Kings. Im backing this KS, and Im grabbing two starters, Hadross the Undersea faction and Nasier the Masked warrior group. Now I really love the Nasier base line trooper the ashman but their secondary troop the Pelgarth has some issues. I'll give it CMON who running the project for having them actually be a real body type, but I just dont get why they have the loving band aids on their nipples. The fluff excuse for the nudity is that they have armor-hard skin so they dont need it, which is fine I guess, but why the pasties, thigh boots and thong then? It cheapens what they could have gone with to make a really great looking berserker model. I don't know, this poo poo isnt anything new for TG, and the fact they dont look like cheerleaders is a step forward but the fact I'm calling any part of this a step forward really shows how far the industry needs to go
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
I will say it's a vast improvement over Kingdom Death (which made Relic Knights look classy). I just want to facepalm at it rather than stand under a shower and scrub myself clean for having looked at that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:I will say it's a vast improvement over Kingdom Death (which made Relic Knights look classy). I just want to facepalm at it rather than stand under a shower and scrub myself clean for having looked at that stuff. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
She just looks so disappointed in the whole sordid affair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
MisterShine posted:Let's talk Wrath of Kings. Im backing this KS, and Im grabbing two starters, Hadross the Undersea faction and Nasier the Masked warrior group. Now I really love the Nasier base line trooper the ashman but their secondary troop the Pelgarth has some issues. They're wearing minimum clothing because they don't have the balls to just make naked soldiers and say they don't wear clothes because they have armor skin. And/or people would give them just as much or more poo poo if they did that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:They're wearing minimum clothing because they don't have the balls to just make naked soldiers and say they don't wear clothes because they have armor skin. And/or people would give them just as much or more poo poo if they did that. Honestly I would probably have a lot more respect if they were like "here are some sculpted tits, we heard you guys like those". It's wanting to pretend what they're doing is anything other than that... is just so tiresome, wanting to have their SERIOUS FANTASY cake and gently caress it, too. I know Kickstarter bans a lot of porny content (in a very dodgy sort of way), but the forced justifications to dance around the sleazy aspects have just become just tiresome and dishonest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
If I had armor skin I would still wear clothes because, you know, I would have no need for armor to wear over my clothes. Maybe if my skin looked like jeans and covered up my genitals then it would make sense for me to go around naked. It's a dumb explanation and it doesn't explain why all the other minis in that kickstarter have their tits out too. Does every female in this fantasy world have armored tits? Why bother explaining it? Who are they trying to fool? Would kickstarter cut their project if they were honest and just said that they wanted sexy minis?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
Is this where I get to talk about how I'm still waiting on my copy of TechNoir that I ordered on August 8th? I've filed a Paypal dispute with the guy but he doesn't seem to give a poo poo anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
The "they have armored skin thing" is utter bullshit. The reason is because the decision to have them have armor skin was voluntary. They did not need to pick that one particular thing for that race. It's not that different from back in the day when you go to play D&D and someone decides their character needs to kill your character because "that's what my guy would do given his background and personality." It's like, OK, sure, you're being consistent with the rear end in a top hat character you made, but it was still completely up to you to decide your character was going to be an rear end in a top hat in the first place. You did that because you either didn't understand that this was a team game, or you didn't care that this was a team game and you just wanted an outlet for your antisocial fantasies. In this case, the company doesn't care that it's misogyny, they just wrote an excuse for it into their setting. Moreover, it is a stupid excuse for them to be mostly naked, because "they have armored skin" is not exactly a new idea in fantasy. Plenty of other fantasy worlds have creatures, including humans, with armored skin, and there's no need for them to be naked. I mean, why doesn't Superman just hang around in his underwear all the time? It's not like he's going to freeze to death or get sunburned. Oh, right, it's because Superman isn't "intended for a more mature audience."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
Frankly I'm surprised they decided to help themselves to some miniature ta-tas but drew the line at making them unrealistic. "No, no, we have standards, our softcore topless warriors are going to have real bodies!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
Well they have other female figures in other factions, apparently (going by a 2-minute skim of the kickstarter page), and most of those are the typical supermodel figure. With exposed cleavage, for no reason except to expose cleavage. So the naked thong armor skin ladies are the exception. e. Christ, I'm not a prude, but I'm really coming off that way! I like looking at naked women. I just don't think it's appropriate for a tabletop game, and I think if you're going to make naked models, you should market them for what they are - 3d erotica - and not pretend that your tabletop wargame is just being "more mature".
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 08:20
|
|