Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Warhammer: MoC Impressions and Dev Interview at Gamespot

Astromarine

Erudite
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
2,213
Location
Switzerland
<strong>[ Game -> Preview ]</strong>

<p>Gamespot has put up a small "<a href="http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/warhammer/news.html?sid=6145679" target="_self" title="Linkage">Exclusive Impressions</a>" article about this games, where they talk a bit about the campaign and reveal possible multiplayer aspects. Also on the same page is a bit with developer Chris Wren where he says some of the same things over some gameplay footage. Gamespot apparently reached the same conclusion by playing the game that I did by watching that footage: </p><blockquote><p>In fact, you can't help looking at Mark of Chaos and thinking of
Creative Assembly's acclaimed Total War historical battle games, and in
many ways, there are similarities between the two. Mark of Chaos looks
a lot like Total War, only with fantasy units such as giants, eagles,
ratlike skaven, and more.</p></blockquote><p> I liked a lot of the aspects they mentioned, like the fully-customizable army look (hey, it *is* warhammer) and the possibility of a multiplayer "campaign" of some sort. It looks like the game will be good, especially for a Warhammer bitch like me, and the GS guy liked it as well, despite being completely unfamiliar with WH. (Seriously. "Scaven"? "the chaos are once again pushing south"? Forget knowing about Warhammer, that's not even English.)</p><p>[edit] I've added the link. Now you know why I thought I shouln't post because I was sick. Guh. </p><p>Spotted @ <a href="http://www.gamespot.com">Gamespot</a></p>
 

LlamaGod

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
3,095
Location
Yes
I posted something about this game when our site first opened, it looks and sounds like complete and utter shit.

It's basically Battle for Middle Earth 2 with Warhammer units
 

Ryuken

Liturgist
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
606
Location
Belgium
Well, in any case Black Hole Games can't sink lower than their first game (Armies of Exigo, which looked and played more like a second WarCraft III addon).
 
Oarfish

Oarfish

Prophet
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,511
The tabletop fanstasy game sucked after they butchered the rules for the 4th edition.
 

LlamaGod

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
3,095
Location
Yes
Astromarine said:
what brought you to the BFME comparison? The combat at least looks tactical, in a TW vein, so what's up?
Click to expand...

It isnt. It's just a 'make a bunch of dudes and smash them into each other' sort of game.
 

Astromarine

Erudite
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
2,213
Location
Switzerland
hehe as opposed to the "buy and paint a bunch of dudes, and smash them into each other" license it's based upon? ;)

I got that the game will be pretty combat intensive, but I never expected otherwise. I'm just hoping it will be good combat. TBH, from a Warhammer game, it's all I ask. 40K was different, the game itself is a lot simpler and needs a lot of "atmosphere" to be fun, even on tabletop. The port managed to convey that, and I was happy. A Warhammer RPG would also depend on the setting being grim, dark, emo, however you want to call it. But the army game, as long as there's tactics involved, I'm there.
 

LlamaGod

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
3,095
Location
Yes
hehe as opposed to the "buy and paint a bunch of dudes, and smash them into each other" license it's based upon?
Click to expand...

I dont play the tabletop games and now you've just given me another reason not to.
 
Oarfish

Oarfish

Prophet
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,511
You can equip heroes with all sorts of weapons and equipment to make them even more powerful, and you can assign them to lead battalions into combat. Doing so can give a battalion bonuses, like morale bonuses, which ensure they'll fight to the death rather than run if things look bad.
Click to expand...

That's reasonably promising, having a morale system might go a long way to making it not suck. Thats one of my major gripes with RTS's, well that and the idiotic crystal/wood/magic bean collecting. Why on earth don't people take a leaf out of CA's book and separate resource aquisition and combat?
 

Astromarine

Erudite
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
2,213
Location
Switzerland
Morale, leadership, and psychology in general is arguably one of the more important concepts of the WH combat system. I'll be majorly pissed off if the game doesn't reflect that.
 
Oarfish

Oarfish

Prophet
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
2,511
orale, leadership, and psychology in general is arguably one of the more important concepts of the WH combat system.
Click to expand...

I used to have an undead army (back in the days of the 3rd edition rules), the morale system was kind of handy :). Not played for ages, mainly because I discovered beer and sex, but I remember the 4th edition rules sucking arse - nerfing all the formation advatages, pole arms and sticking in the fuckwitted card based magic system. I hear they dropped that crap for the new edition, but have they still carried on streamlining it?

God knows why you would want to try and mainstream the thing, it's like the nerdiest hobby bar LARPing, throwing less dice isn't going to make it cool.
 

Astromarine

Erudite
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
2,213
Location
Switzerland
well, the magic system got rid of the fucking cards, yes. 6th edition is *in general* considered a very good system, probably one of the best. Characters are quite toned down, etc. If anything, there's a slight imbalance towards light cavalry. 6th has a few problems, but it's the only edition I played in any depth (played the game a bt during 5th, but not really studying the rules). In any case, we're a couple months away from 7th, which will come out as a very good box in the summer: dwarfs and goblins, huge number of minis, rulebook, scenery, and so on. IF you're interested, I'd wait until then.

As for the nerdiness of the game: yes. Very much so. From what I've read, the usual progression is: get into it at 14, play until you "discover beer and sex", drop it, then pick it up again at 25 or so because:
1) You are in a relationship, so stopped drinking and partying so much
2) Need a hobby that you can practice at home while the wife watches American Idol
3) Are mature enough to stop thinking you might be considered gay if you are seen with plastic monsters playing a battle
4) Happen to read a White Dwarf at the magazine stand or something and started missing all the drunken games you used to have with your friends. Shouting "waagh" ad throwing dice in their face, and such.
 

LlamaGod

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
3,095
Location
Yes
I was too poor to get involved with them and figured out they're as retarded as Magic The Gathering ANYWAYS.

I'm a PnP nerd, I guess, but I don't buy like a million books. I've given up D&D because its pretty meh, VICTORIANA IS THE FUTURE!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom