Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

TWW3 needs to be less sandbox, more campaign driven

2

Comments

  • Buzzinfr0gBuzzinfr0g Registered Users Posts: 25
    edited February 27
    Blaeys said:

    Absolutely not. What we need is a huge sandbox that allows the players to tell their own stories..

    It’s crazy to me that people play this - or any other TW title - without developing/recording a story in their head as they go. I understand that people approach the game in all kinds of ways, but I would be bored to tears with a imaginatively sterile approach, where I was thinking about my campaign in terms of the gameplay mechanics and using phrases like ‘stacks’, ‘building chains,’ etc.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,870
    Sorry, but what does "sandbox" in TWWH even mean? Paint the map in a different order? Sorry, but that's not much of a sandbox then. TWWH isn't detailed enough to allow a sandbox experience that goes beyond that.

  • John_KimbleJohn_Kimble Registered Users Posts: 905
    I really hope that game3's ME campaign is more campaign driven than the current 100% sandbox experience of ME with absolutely horrendous and generic victory conditions i have never once completed in 5k hrs of gameplay.

    Vortex is a great example of a narrative campaign and a sandbox meshed together. Its up to the player to decide which way to go. Im confident CA can make the two even less intertwined and free from each other in game 3 if they want.

    At the very least, they must revamp the entire Victory conditions most ME factions currently have, which are absolutely generic. Victory conditions should be the ones that drive the narrative campaign if you choose to go that way. They should be thematic, race/faction specific and flavourful.
    They shouldn't be "sandbox-styled" victory conditions (i.e. conquer the entire map). Sandbox shouldnt have victory conditions, because its a ...sandbox. I don't need the game to tell me to conquer the entire map if thats what im obviously going for if i want to play that way.

    And please port all the victory conditions, epic final battles, end game bonuses and mechanics, cinematics of very immersive Vortex campaigns to ME.
    The base Vortex race im ok could even do without the ritual race. But all the DLC's have really great and immersive Vortex campaign, amazing final battle maps, that are completely lost in ME, and i really hope they wont get left behind and forgotten when game3 arrives.
    And im sure game 3 only campaign will also have an epic buildup to a Daemon Invasion of some kind and i really hope that gets ported over to the Immortal Empires map, so that Daemons wont just be a random Turn X invasion event or something.

  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,870

    Blaeys said:

    Absolutely not. What we need is a huge sandbox that allows the players to tell their own stories..

    It’s crazy to me that people play this - or any other TW title - without developing/recording a story in their head as they go. I understand that people approach the game in all kinds of ways, but I would be bored to tears with a imaginatively sterile approach, where I was thinking about my campaign in terms of the gameplay mechanics and using phrases like ‘stacks’, ‘building chains,’ etc.
    Yeah, and I could also imagine all those awesome battles in my head and ditch playing the game altogether. Hey, maybe CA should do just that, sell nothing at a high price and just tell people to develop a game in their head.

  • BayesBayes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,256

    Sorry, but what does "sandbox" in TWWH even mean? Paint the map in a different order? Sorry, but that's not much of a sandbox then. TWWH isn't detailed enough to allow a sandbox experience that goes beyond that.

    I think sandbox just means no scenario/campaign objectives or no railroading etc. Kind of like a paradox game.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,870
    edited February 27
    Bayes said:

    Sorry, but what does "sandbox" in TWWH even mean? Paint the map in a different order? Sorry, but that's not much of a sandbox then. TWWH isn't detailed enough to allow a sandbox experience that goes beyond that.

    I think sandbox just means no scenario/campaign objectives or no railroading etc. Kind of like a paradox game.
    PDX games are more detailed than TWWH. Heck the TW games before and after TWWH are more detailed. TWWH simply has no stories to tell other than "I painted the map in this order this time". The sole exception is the Empire campaign since that has an embryonic empire management system attached to it.

  • BayesBayes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,256
    edited February 27

    Bayes said:

    Sorry, but what does "sandbox" in TWWH even mean? Paint the map in a different order? Sorry, but that's not much of a sandbox then. TWWH isn't detailed enough to allow a sandbox experience that goes beyond that.

    I think sandbox just means no scenario/campaign objectives or no railroading etc. Kind of like a paradox game.
    PDX games are more detailed than TWWH. Heck the TW games before and after TWWH are more detailed. TWWH simply has no stories to tell other than "I painted the map in this order this time". The sole exception is the Empire campaign since that has an embryonic empire management system attached to it.
    Personally I think TWW makes much better stories than pdx games probably because it has much better immersive aspects. Also I think the complexity of those games make the game less about story telling and more about just mechanics, expection to that being crusader kings ofc.

    Anyway, I don’t think railroading the player is going to solve anything about tww.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 4,852
    I like the fact that people think the addition of narrative and campaign goals apparently is mutually exclusive with the Sandbox idea... Even after we ahve been recieving both in game 2 since launch of the game... People aren't smart...
  • Fraxure022Fraxure022 Registered Users Posts: 103
    I would like to see each faction given a set of story driven objectives that they could choose to pursue over the paint the map objectives. Completing either would result in a victory. The game shouldn’t push the player to prioritize one over the other.
  • DrNoDrNo Registered Users Posts: 18
    Yes there should be a Wh3 campaign separate from the sandbox experience. That means unit stats upgrades, lord skills etc.. should be different so the campaign is highly tuned experience.

    The sandbox needs to have much greater tuneable options for players, as per the many suggestions. This will allow the player to seek their own game balance.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,281
    I don't really understand what people mean when they talk about "sandbox". Minecraft is a sandbox. SimCity with infinite money. Ultimate epic battle simulator. Warhammer isn't a sandbox, it's just a standard grand strategy game. It's not really that different from Hearts of Iron 4: you've a map and can influence the geopolitical situation. That's basically all the "sandbox". You can't recruit units from other races, you can't convert to Sigmar as Skaven, can't found new cities... it's actually quite restricted. So it's just about how much geopolitics are pre-determined by a narrative, really. Like WWII being always the story of the Allies fighting the Axis, or not.
  • BayesBayes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,256

    I like the fact that people think the addition of narrative and campaign goals apparently is mutually exclusive with the Sandbox idea... Even after we ahve been recieving both in game 2 since launch of the game... People aren't smart...

    You are misunderstanding on purpose right? There is a difference between ME and Vortex for example.
  • RockNRolla92RockNRolla92 Registered Users Posts: 1,770
    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't really understand what people mean when they talk about "sandbox". Minecraft is a sandbox. SimCity with infinite money. Ultimate epic battle simulator. Warhammer isn't a sandbox, it's just a standard grand strategy game. It's not really that different from Hearts of Iron 4: you've a map and can influence the geopolitical situation. That's basically all the "sandbox". You can't recruit units from other races, you can't convert to Sigmar as Skaven, can't found new cities... it's actually quite restricted. So it's just about how much geopolitics are pre-determined by a narrative, really. Like WWII being always the story of the Allies fighting the Axis, or not.

    Quite frankly I think it got refered to as a sandbox as en excuse to provide no narrative or direction.

    Since Warhammer CA has for sure went more in the narrative direction. You can see it with 3K and Troy and even ToB
  • DrNoDrNo Registered Users Posts: 18
    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't really understand what people mean when they talk about "sandbox". Minecraft is a sandbox. SimCity with infinite money. Ultimate epic battle simulator. Warhammer isn't a sandbox, it's just a standard grand strategy game. It's not really that different from Hearts of Iron 4: you've a map and can influence the geopolitical situation. That's basically all the "sandbox". You can't recruit units from other races, you can't convert to Sigmar as Skaven, can't found new cities... it's actually quite restricted. So it's just about how much geopolitics are pre-determined by a narrative, really. Like WWII being always the story of the Allies fighting the Axis, or not.

    Well that’s exactly the type of options people are asking for, options to recruit other race units would be great, there are the mixed armies that roam and provide a good challenge to fight. I have always wanted Total War battles to merge with era specific Civ type campaign and gain the best of both worlds. We need options to allow your race to go in whatever direction in terms of alliances and likeability with other races. Option to share units with allianced factions etc.. unit stats to be customisable if we want to so we can make large monsters a real handful and so on...
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,281
    DrNo said:

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't really understand what people mean when they talk about "sandbox". Minecraft is a sandbox. SimCity with infinite money. Ultimate epic battle simulator. Warhammer isn't a sandbox, it's just a standard grand strategy game. It's not really that different from Hearts of Iron 4: you've a map and can influence the geopolitical situation. That's basically all the "sandbox". You can't recruit units from other races, you can't convert to Sigmar as Skaven, can't found new cities... it's actually quite restricted. So it's just about how much geopolitics are pre-determined by a narrative, really. Like WWII being always the story of the Allies fighting the Axis, or not.

    Well that’s exactly the type of options people are asking for, options to recruit other race units would be great, there are the mixed armies that roam and provide a good challenge to fight. I have always wanted Total War battles to merge with era specific Civ type campaign and gain the best of both worlds. We need options to allow your race to go in whatever direction in terms of alliances and likeability with other races. Option to share units with allianced factions etc.. unit stats to be customisable if we want to so we can make large monsters a real handful and so on...
    Well, more power to you then. I honestly wouldn't even play without the loreful diplomacy mod. I like alternative history as much as the next guy, but it must make some sense.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 4,852
    DrNo said:

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't really understand what people mean when they talk about "sandbox". Minecraft is a sandbox. SimCity with infinite money. Ultimate epic battle simulator. Warhammer isn't a sandbox, it's just a standard grand strategy game. It's not really that different from Hearts of Iron 4: you've a map and can influence the geopolitical situation. That's basically all the "sandbox". You can't recruit units from other races, you can't convert to Sigmar as Skaven, can't found new cities... it's actually quite restricted. So it's just about how much geopolitics are pre-determined by a narrative, really. Like WWII being always the story of the Allies fighting the Axis, or not.

    Well that’s exactly the type of options people are asking for, options to recruit other race units would be great, there are the mixed armies that roam and provide a good challenge to fight. I have always wanted Total War battles to merge with era specific Civ type campaign and gain the best of both worlds. We need options to allow your race to go in whatever direction in terms of alliances and likeability with other races. Option to share units with allianced factions etc.. unit stats to be customisable if we want to so we can make large monsters a real handful and so on...
    No we don't need any of that.... This is a Warhammer game... It needs to represent Warhammer.. This isn't the local Warhammer shop where you can play with whatever rules you manage to scrounge up for fun variation. This is an official Warhammer game and needs to present the Warhammer World as truthfully as possible.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,870
    Bayes said:

    Bayes said:

    Sorry, but what does "sandbox" in TWWH even mean? Paint the map in a different order? Sorry, but that's not much of a sandbox then. TWWH isn't detailed enough to allow a sandbox experience that goes beyond that.

    I think sandbox just means no scenario/campaign objectives or no railroading etc. Kind of like a paradox game.
    PDX games are more detailed than TWWH. Heck the TW games before and after TWWH are more detailed. TWWH simply has no stories to tell other than "I painted the map in this order this time". The sole exception is the Empire campaign since that has an embryonic empire management system attached to it.
    Personally I think TWW makes much better stories than pdx games probably because it has much better immersive aspects. Also I think the complexity of those games make the game less about story telling and more about just mechanics, expection to that being crusader kings ofc.

    Anyway, I don’t think railroading the player is going to solve anything about tww.
    What stories? "I painted this part of the map before I painted that part of the map"? Seriously, WHAT STORIES? The game's been left so pefunctory and barebones, there's just no story to tell. Take the loyalty feature of DE and Skaven for example. That could make for some interesting character interactions if only CA had fleshed it out and hadn't fallen into their old bad habit of rendering the entire mechanic trivial and irrelevant by bad balancing.

    Also, what you call "railroading" I call giving the player something to aim at. Something more involved than "paint this part of the map". Some of the DLC campaigns have this in spades. Throt's campaign to go around and weaken Ariel's defenses before attacking her directly is great in concept, it's only too short and also wrecked by balancing mishaps. The whole Grom vs Eltharion thing could have been great, but you just end up spinning your wheels and then fighting a battle that's largely unrelated to what you've been doing in the turns before. It's like CA had a good idea but then never deigned to playtest what they put in. It's just so absolutely infuriating!

  • BayesBayes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,256

    Bayes said:

    Bayes said:

    Sorry, but what does "sandbox" in TWWH even mean? Paint the map in a different order? Sorry, but that's not much of a sandbox then. TWWH isn't detailed enough to allow a sandbox experience that goes beyond that.

    I think sandbox just means no scenario/campaign objectives or no railroading etc. Kind of like a paradox game.
    PDX games are more detailed than TWWH. Heck the TW games before and after TWWH are more detailed. TWWH simply has no stories to tell other than "I painted the map in this order this time". The sole exception is the Empire campaign since that has an embryonic empire management system attached to it.
    Personally I think TWW makes much better stories than pdx games probably because it has much better immersive aspects. Also I think the complexity of those games make the game less about story telling and more about just mechanics, expection to that being crusader kings ofc.

    Anyway, I don’t think railroading the player is going to solve anything about tww.
    What stories? "I painted this part of the map before I painted that part of the map"? Seriously, WHAT STORIES? The game's been left so pefunctory and barebones, there's just no story to tell. Take the loyalty feature of DE and Skaven for example. That could make for some interesting character interactions if only CA had fleshed it out and hadn't fallen into their old bad habit of rendering the entire mechanic trivial and irrelevant by bad balancing.

    Also, what you call "railroading" I call giving the player something to aim at. Something more involved than "paint this part of the map". Some of the DLC campaigns have this in spades. Throt's campaign to go around and weaken Ariel's defenses before attacking her directly is great in concept, it's only too short and also wrecked by balancing mishaps. The whole Grom vs Eltharion thing could have been great, but you just end up spinning your wheels and then fighting a battle that's largely unrelated to what you've been doing in the turns before. It's like CA had a good idea but then never deigned to playtest what they put in. It's just so absolutely infuriating!
    You are being so reductive. Complexity doesn't matter, in the end you could say the same about every other "sandbox" grand strategy game likes this, there are just more buttons to press until you get there. Don't get me wrong I would love for the game to be more complex, but it wouldn't help with that aspect. If you can't make stories for this game with such well developed immersive aspects then that is on you. You want the game to tell you a story, and that is different.

    There is nothing bad about railroading, there is a place for it. In the Vortex campaign, or game 3s equivalent of it. That is why ME doesn't have the Throt campaign objectives.

    Imo they should just remove the "victory conditions" all together for the big map, it is just confusing for players and gives them the wrong impression which it seems to have happened to you.
  • Buzzinfr0gBuzzinfr0g Registered Users Posts: 25

    Yeah, and I could also imagine all those awesome battles in my head and ditch playing the game altogether. Hey, maybe CA should do just that, sell nothing at a high price and just tell people to develop a game in their head.

    Oh, ok. Your asinine logic can likewise be applied to those seeking a tight narrative experience - read a book.

    As for the imagination part, I was talking about the contextual framing of the battles. CA provides and should continue to improve the spectacle.

  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,260
    It's utterly pointless equating a Paradox Game and a TW game, the effort by each company goes into totally different aspects as the games are totally different.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,332
    Stop the personal comments in the posts or the thread will be closed.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,787
    Ulthuan campaigns desperately need scripted invasions or random army spawns. This was something I knew would be needed and was asking for since before Game 1 was even released. Without the loreful addition of constant DE, Norscan, and Chaos attacks, any campaign as Tyrion or Alarielle is a complete and utter snooze fest (I haven’t played Eltharion yet but imagine this is true for him as well).

    In this case the sandbox formula lets the player down completely.
  • DrNoDrNo Registered Users Posts: 18
    edited February 28
    Yes it should represent warhammer, but we are talking options here so a player can choose. Keep it vanilla if you want, or make some tweaks to help find a balance and adjust the challenge level to suit your style. Or at the extreme break all the rules , go all out to have some fun in a different way.

    Whatever way the game is tuned on release never pleases everyone, because of different skill levels and self imposed rules on spamming units etc.. so options are the only way to get close.
    Maybe they could implement campaign lab as a third option, actually make that fourth option as the third is playing battles online.

    Which does raise one of the current problems, balancing units for online play should really be kept separate from campaign settings to allow the fine tuning in all environments as required.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,870
    edited February 28
    Bayes said:

    Bayes said:

    Bayes said:

    Sorry, but what does "sandbox" in TWWH even mean? Paint the map in a different order? Sorry, but that's not much of a sandbox then. TWWH isn't detailed enough to allow a sandbox experience that goes beyond that.

    I think sandbox just means no scenario/campaign objectives or no railroading etc. Kind of like a paradox game.
    PDX games are more detailed than TWWH. Heck the TW games before and after TWWH are more detailed. TWWH simply has no stories to tell other than "I painted the map in this order this time". The sole exception is the Empire campaign since that has an embryonic empire management system attached to it.
    Personally I think TWW makes much better stories than pdx games probably because it has much better immersive aspects. Also I think the complexity of those games make the game less about story telling and more about just mechanics, expection to that being crusader kings ofc.

    Anyway, I don’t think railroading the player is going to solve anything about tww.
    What stories? "I painted this part of the map before I painted that part of the map"? Seriously, WHAT STORIES? The game's been left so pefunctory and barebones, there's just no story to tell. Take the loyalty feature of DE and Skaven for example. That could make for some interesting character interactions if only CA had fleshed it out and hadn't fallen into their old bad habit of rendering the entire mechanic trivial and irrelevant by bad balancing.

    Also, what you call "railroading" I call giving the player something to aim at. Something more involved than "paint this part of the map". Some of the DLC campaigns have this in spades. Throt's campaign to go around and weaken Ariel's defenses before attacking her directly is great in concept, it's only too short and also wrecked by balancing mishaps. The whole Grom vs Eltharion thing could have been great, but you just end up spinning your wheels and then fighting a battle that's largely unrelated to what you've been doing in the turns before. It's like CA had a good idea but then never deigned to playtest what they put in. It's just so absolutely infuriating!
    You are being so reductive. Complexity doesn't matter, in the end you could say the same about every other "sandbox" grand strategy game likes this, there are just more buttons to press until you get there. Don't get me wrong I would love for the game to be more complex, but it wouldn't help with that aspect. If you can't make stories for this game with such well developed immersive aspects then that is on you. You want the game to tell you a story, and that is different.

    There is nothing bad about railroading, there is a place for it. In the Vortex campaign, or game 3s equivalent of it. That is why ME doesn't have the Throt campaign objectives.

    Imo they should just remove the "victory conditions" all together for the big map, it is just confusing for players and gives them the wrong impression which it seems to have happened to you.
    OK, you don't get it. Say I play a Malekith campaign and end up gobbling up both Morathi and Hellebron. Now in the lore those two can't stand each other. In the game however this won't be a factor in any way. I can have both operate side by side without any fuss, they won't even have loyalty meters because confederated LLs for whatever reason are presumed eternally loyal. So any story I could come up with is being mechanically sabotaged by the game lacking detail and finesse.

    That's why I don't care coming up with "narratives", the game doesn't want me to.

    3K BTW can have such tension because if you put officers together that hate each other, one could turn traitor or outright leave you over it.

  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,787

    Bayes said:

    Bayes said:

    Bayes said:

    Sorry, but what does "sandbox" in TWWH even mean? Paint the map in a different order? Sorry, but that's not much of a sandbox then. TWWH isn't detailed enough to allow a sandbox experience that goes beyond that.

    I think sandbox just means no scenario/campaign objectives or no railroading etc. Kind of like a paradox game.
    PDX games are more detailed than TWWH. Heck the TW games before and after TWWH are more detailed. TWWH simply has no stories to tell other than "I painted the map in this order this time". The sole exception is the Empire campaign since that has an embryonic empire management system attached to it.
    Personally I think TWW makes much better stories than pdx games probably because it has much better immersive aspects. Also I think the complexity of those games make the game less about story telling and more about just mechanics, expection to that being crusader kings ofc.

    Anyway, I don’t think railroading the player is going to solve anything about tww.
    What stories? "I painted this part of the map before I painted that part of the map"? Seriously, WHAT STORIES? The game's been left so pefunctory and barebones, there's just no story to tell. Take the loyalty feature of DE and Skaven for example. That could make for some interesting character interactions if only CA had fleshed it out and hadn't fallen into their old bad habit of rendering the entire mechanic trivial and irrelevant by bad balancing.

    Also, what you call "railroading" I call giving the player something to aim at. Something more involved than "paint this part of the map". Some of the DLC campaigns have this in spades. Throt's campaign to go around and weaken Ariel's defenses before attacking her directly is great in concept, it's only too short and also wrecked by balancing mishaps. The whole Grom vs Eltharion thing could have been great, but you just end up spinning your wheels and then fighting a battle that's largely unrelated to what you've been doing in the turns before. It's like CA had a good idea but then never deigned to playtest what they put in. It's just so absolutely infuriating!
    You are being so reductive. Complexity doesn't matter, in the end you could say the same about every other "sandbox" grand strategy game likes this, there are just more buttons to press until you get there. Don't get me wrong I would love for the game to be more complex, but it wouldn't help with that aspect. If you can't make stories for this game with such well developed immersive aspects then that is on you. You want the game to tell you a story, and that is different.

    There is nothing bad about railroading, there is a place for it. In the Vortex campaign, or game 3s equivalent of it. That is why ME doesn't have the Throt campaign objectives.

    Imo they should just remove the "victory conditions" all together for the big map, it is just confusing for players and gives them the wrong impression which it seems to have happened to you.
    OK, you don't get it. Say I play a Malekith campaign and end up gobbling up both Morathi and Hellebron. Now in the lore those two can't stand each other. In the game however this won't be a factor in any way. I can have both operate side by side without any fuss, they won't even have loyalty meters because confederated LLs for whatever reason are presumed eternally loyal. So any story I could come up with is being mechanically sabotaged by the game lacking detail and finesse.

    That's why I don't care coming up with "narratives", the game doesn't want me to.

    3K BTW can have such tension because if you put officers together that hate each other, one could turn traitor or outright leave you over it.
    That’s on you then for sabotaging any attempt at a narrative campaign; if you care about such a thing just don’t put Hellebron and Morathi together.

    However there are sure to be circumstances where the stakes are high enough for Malekith to order them to join forces or he’ll give them something worse to worry about than each other.
  • HisShadowBGHisShadowBG Registered Users Posts: 3,053

    Bayes said:

    Bayes said:

    Bayes said:

    Sorry, but what does "sandbox" in TWWH even mean? Paint the map in a different order? Sorry, but that's not much of a sandbox then. TWWH isn't detailed enough to allow a sandbox experience that goes beyond that.

    I think sandbox just means no scenario/campaign objectives or no railroading etc. Kind of like a paradox game.
    PDX games are more detailed than TWWH. Heck the TW games before and after TWWH are more detailed. TWWH simply has no stories to tell other than "I painted the map in this order this time". The sole exception is the Empire campaign since that has an embryonic empire management system attached to it.
    Personally I think TWW makes much better stories than pdx games probably because it has much better immersive aspects. Also I think the complexity of those games make the game less about story telling and more about just mechanics, expection to that being crusader kings ofc.

    Anyway, I don’t think railroading the player is going to solve anything about tww.
    What stories? "I painted this part of the map before I painted that part of the map"? Seriously, WHAT STORIES? The game's been left so pefunctory and barebones, there's just no story to tell. Take the loyalty feature of DE and Skaven for example. That could make for some interesting character interactions if only CA had fleshed it out and hadn't fallen into their old bad habit of rendering the entire mechanic trivial and irrelevant by bad balancing.

    Also, what you call "railroading" I call giving the player something to aim at. Something more involved than "paint this part of the map". Some of the DLC campaigns have this in spades. Throt's campaign to go around and weaken Ariel's defenses before attacking her directly is great in concept, it's only too short and also wrecked by balancing mishaps. The whole Grom vs Eltharion thing could have been great, but you just end up spinning your wheels and then fighting a battle that's largely unrelated to what you've been doing in the turns before. It's like CA had a good idea but then never deigned to playtest what they put in. It's just so absolutely infuriating!
    You are being so reductive. Complexity doesn't matter, in the end you could say the same about every other "sandbox" grand strategy game likes this, there are just more buttons to press until you get there. Don't get me wrong I would love for the game to be more complex, but it wouldn't help with that aspect. If you can't make stories for this game with such well developed immersive aspects then that is on you. You want the game to tell you a story, and that is different.

    There is nothing bad about railroading, there is a place for it. In the Vortex campaign, or game 3s equivalent of it. That is why ME doesn't have the Throt campaign objectives.

    Imo they should just remove the "victory conditions" all together for the big map, it is just confusing for players and gives them the wrong impression which it seems to have happened to you.
    OK, you don't get it. Say I play a Malekith campaign and end up gobbling up both Morathi and Hellebron. Now in the lore those two can't stand each other. In the game however this won't be a factor in any way. I can have both operate side by side without any fuss, they won't even have loyalty meters because confederated LLs for whatever reason are presumed eternally loyal. So any story I could come up with is being mechanically sabotaged by the game lacking detail and finesse.

    That's why I don't care coming up with "narratives", the game doesn't want me to.

    3K BTW can have such tension because if you put officers together that hate each other, one could turn traitor or outright leave you over it.
    Hellebron can't stand Morathi. Morathi on other hand doesn't really view Hellebron as anything more than an entertaining distraction

    It was ironic. Out of the whole self-satisfied race, only one really had been so unique, and Aenarion had not needed to prove it or boast about it. He had been respected, loved and feared as their son tried so hard to be and never would.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,254
    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't really understand what people mean when they talk about "sandbox". Minecraft is a sandbox. SimCity with infinite money. Ultimate epic battle simulator. Warhammer isn't a sandbox, it's just a standard grand strategy game. It's not really that different from Hearts of Iron 4: you've a map and can influence the geopolitical situation. That's basically all the "sandbox". You can't recruit units from other races, you can't convert to Sigmar as Skaven, can't found new cities... it's actually quite restricted. So it's just about how much geopolitics are pre-determined by a narrative, really. Like WWII being always the story of the Allies fighting the Axis, or not.

    I miss the days when things made sense.

    However, someone decided for whatever reason that fantasy = low-effort fiction genre where nothing needs to make sense or to be explained, because 'lol magic and monsters exist', and so WH2 is miles-wide and puddle-deep in terms of design integrity and how it fits together thematically.
  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,787

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't really understand what people mean when they talk about "sandbox". Minecraft is a sandbox. SimCity with infinite money. Ultimate epic battle simulator. Warhammer isn't a sandbox, it's just a standard grand strategy game. It's not really that different from Hearts of Iron 4: you've a map and can influence the geopolitical situation. That's basically all the "sandbox". You can't recruit units from other races, you can't convert to Sigmar as Skaven, can't found new cities... it's actually quite restricted. So it's just about how much geopolitics are pre-determined by a narrative, really. Like WWII being always the story of the Allies fighting the Axis, or not.

    I miss the days when things made sense.

    However, someone decided for whatever reason that fantasy = low-effort fiction genre where nothing needs to make sense or to be explained, because 'lol magic and monsters exist', and so WH2 is miles-wide and puddle-deep in terms of design integrity and how it fits together thematically.
    I disagree. I always thought Warhammer was at its best when the stage was set by the company and the players decided their own narratives. ME campaigns are exactly this
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,870
    edited February 28



    However there are sure to be circumstances where the stakes are high enough for Malekith to order them to join forces or he’ll give them something worse to worry about than each other.

    Nope. You forget that being selfish and petty at the expense of any greater goal is a prime DE thing, much like it is a Skaven thing. There being absolutely no friction between underlings in either race makes both feel half-baked.

    And no, I'm not sabotaging myself, there simply isn't anything there to turn into a narrative because the game's shallow as a puddle.



    Hellebron can't stand Morathi. Morathi on other hand doesn't really view Hellebron as anything more than an entertaining distraction

    Irrelevant distinction, really.

  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,254

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't really understand what people mean when they talk about "sandbox". Minecraft is a sandbox. SimCity with infinite money. Ultimate epic battle simulator. Warhammer isn't a sandbox, it's just a standard grand strategy game. It's not really that different from Hearts of Iron 4: you've a map and can influence the geopolitical situation. That's basically all the "sandbox". You can't recruit units from other races, you can't convert to Sigmar as Skaven, can't found new cities... it's actually quite restricted. So it's just about how much geopolitics are pre-determined by a narrative, really. Like WWII being always the story of the Allies fighting the Axis, or not.

    I miss the days when things made sense.

    However, someone decided for whatever reason that fantasy = low-effort fiction genre where nothing needs to make sense or to be explained, because 'lol magic and monsters exist', and so WH2 is miles-wide and puddle-deep in terms of design integrity and how it fits together thematically.
    I disagree. I always thought Warhammer was at its best when the stage was set by the company and the players decided their own narratives. ME campaigns are exactly this
    Game of Thrones seasons 6-8 is what happens when writers who think 'fantasy = low effort fiction' are able to create their own narrative, without guidance. There is no actual narrative happening without actions causing reactions, and those reactions having a determinative effect on what future actions become possible or not possible. See also the Star Wars sequel trilogy.

    'Things just happen because' ruins story-telling and in a game that is substantially 'sandbox', what stories a campaign can create is up to how the gameplay mechanics work by themselves and with each other. That is where WH though is puddle-deep and it never had to be.
Sign In or Register to comment.