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

Was Daniel a mistake ?

13

Comments

  • GeorgeTrumanGeorgeTruman Registered Users Posts: 639
    I don't think his campaign was worth the effort it probably took.
  • Xenos777Xenos777 Registered Users Posts: 8,038
    I enjoyed playing as him. Probably wouldn't try again, but I mean, there are a million LL, Daniel is nice for what it is.
  • DTAPPSNZ#5477DTAPPSNZ#5477 Registered Users Posts: 2,356
    If Daniel is the reason DoC got bastardised. Then yes he and his stupid mechanics were a mistake.
  • kaiki_utokyo#9006kaiki_utokyo#9006 Registered Users Posts: 442
    Daniel is a little bit interesting, but still a mistake.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 10,096
    Xenos7777 said:

    I enjoyed playing as him. Probably wouldn't try again, but I mean, there are a million LL, Daniel is nice for what it is.

    Sure... but if @GeorgeTruman is correct in the notion that it was significantly more expensive than many other campaigns. Was it Memorable enough to justify the cost or was it just another Legendary Lord.

    I don't think his campaign was worth the effort it probably took.

  • Jo_Proulx#5293Jo_Proulx#5293 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,712
    OdTengri said:

    Xenos7777 said:

    I enjoyed playing as him. Probably wouldn't try again, but I mean, there are a million LL, Daniel is nice for what it is.

    Sure... but if @GeorgeTruman is correct in the notion that it was significantly more expensive than many other campaigns. Was it Memorable enough to justify the cost or was it just another Legendary Lord.

    I don't think his campaign was worth the effort it probably took.

    If anything, the codes are done, and can be reused to make custom characters in the future, even if its only through mods, it will still have been worth it to me, the potential is there, and for me mods are part of the game longevity.

    Its a proof of concept, and I feel all total war generic lords and heroes should have this level of customization, like RPGs, it really add to the immersion IMO.
    "Fear me mortals, for I am the Anointed, the favored Son of Chaos, the Scourge of the World. The armies of the gods rally behind me, and it is by my will and by my sword that your weakling nations shall fall."

    ~ Archaon, Lord of the End Times
  • LabriaLabria Registered Users Posts: 2,233
    Yes. Daniel is just huge waste of resource. I will be more happy if we got proper monogods races with 2nd legendary lords and unique models for units like Tzeentch Warriors at launch instead of 50 unique models and own special race for single made up character.

    I think CA should make only WoC and DoC or four monogods races and WoC with only Chaos Undivided characters like Kholek and Archaon.
  • #804681#804681 Registered Users Posts: 30
    Somebody on the forums doesn´t like Daniel. It is therefore confirmed, that CA made a huge mistake and should deletee his campaign from the game.
    Honestly, if you don´t like him don´t play him. It´s literally that easy.
  • toskyruntoskyrun Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 644
    on the contrary, I had fun with him not once, but 5 times. i started 5 campaigns just to get it to maximum glory for god, but i only finished the campaign in undivided version
  • ladymissfitladymissfit Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,480
    edited July 6
    Daniel wasn't a mistake because they used too many resources, they're a mistake because they're at unfinished. The daemon prince is touted and held up as a player self-insert and fully customizable lord but until you give them proper gender options that simply isn't true. They aren't a possible self-insert for a sizeable portion of the playerbase. The lord is just half-done and the fact that they were shipped like this with that much fanfare is a travesty and in many ways a spit in the face to people like me who wanted something like this since before game 1 was released. That's the mistake.


    Now putting that aside, the system of a customizable LL in concept is great and should've been the approach from the beginning. Warhammer was always at its best when you could make your own stuff, be it your own heroes and lords or army painting. It is the biggest part of the franchise by far and the decision to focus on specific, named characters exclusively instead of giving us more-daniel like mechanics earlier will forever be the true mistake of the trilogy.

    Warhammer was always an outlet for creativity and while daniel is one for some, me (and many others) are still being denied it.
    Chaos lords should be women

    Army painter plox
  • Ninaran#8122Ninaran#8122 Registered Users Posts: 534
    That character's journey in the tutorial and eventual fall was such a nice story and already more than Cathay ever had. Kind of a shame he was abandoned so much in the actual campaign. But no he was not a mistake.
  • Bayes#3307Bayes#3307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,985
    I am going to be a little harsh here, I think Daniel was just a gimmick to impress, especially the gaming journalists, this is exactly the kind of thing they are looking for and they would have given the game a worse score if they did not find a way to innovate in the next game in the series. From what I have heard it was very resource intensive(just the demon prince had the same art budget as a whole faction) and it does not live up to the amount of investment they put in it.

    Now this is just my opinion no holding back, I am sure a lot of people love him, was it worth it for the game as a whole or not I cannot say.
  • Fingolfin_the-Golden#2157Fingolfin_the-Golden#2157 Registered Users Posts: 6,527
    Bayes said:

    I am going to be a little harsh here, I think Daniel was just a gimmick to impress, especially the gaming journalists, this is exactly the kind of thing they are looking for and they would have given the game a worse score if they did not find a way to innovate in the next game in the series. From what I have heard it was very resource intensive(just the demon prince had the same art budget as a whole faction) and it does not live up to the amount of investment they put in it.

    Now this is just my opinion no holding back, I am sure a lot of people love him, was it worth it for the game as a whole or not I cannot say.

    I’ve always felt this.
    As others have said in the thread it is arguable if CA would have done the works for only Belakor.
    But it has left us all in a strange position.


    On another note I will just add that liking bears and wanting pandas has nothing to do with thinking Daniel was a mistake. I will leave it at that.
    BEARS, Beets, Battlestar Galactica 🧝‍♀️ Pandas too please CA!
  • Bereaver#4201Bereaver#4201 Registered Users Posts: 967
    I've really enjoyed Daemon Prince Legendary campaign, it was my first one in TW WH III.

    I like customisation options, ability to go Monogod or Undivided and some silly things like free Greater Daemon stack.

    But there were/are some mistakes made by CA which made me feel that DoC are bit undercooked. These being are abysmal replenishment, no meaningful post-battle options after maxing out alignment, bad stats for Daemon Prince at launch, most of his items still have trash stats.

    Also, the worst thing going on for DoC is Doomkeep start. It being very long 4-settlement province makes for very tedious gameplay. I've felt that I'm playing Thorgrim all over again, building T3 walls everywhere for first 30 turns.

    That's what hurting DoC the most, make Daemon Prince's start more fun and people will enjoy him much more.

    Overall, I'm happy that they added him, but he still can use some improvements.
  • GloatingSwine#8098GloatingSwine#8098 Registered Users Posts: 2,319

    His only redeeming factor is his customization system. Genuinely great and basically all generic lords should have a similar system to tweak them. But beyond that he’s a complete waste of resources. Why bother with Daniel, a self insert character with no actual lore, when we could have just had Belekor with customizable demon princes.

    Having customisation on every lord would be fiddly and annoying.

    I think the idea of the system is fun, it doesn't quite meet its potential due to some bad decisions made in implementation (making everything too weak), and it is best to only have one of it in a faction.

    So I think having a build-a-bear lord is a good thing.
  • PTreePTree Registered Users Posts: 966
    For me, naming him Daniel was a prime example of how the people at CA never really got Warhammer. They got it from a gamer point of view, but not a fan of the tabletop. And I know this might sound funny, but I mean that because they never took it seriously. Yeah yeah, I know, taking a game like Warhammer seriously, blah blah etc...

    But for a lot of the fans, we grew up with the game. Whilst many of our friends were extremely tribal, and still are, about football, even to the point of violence, we loved Warhammer. I wish CA had honoured that a bit more and stopped messing with the names.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 7,551
    PTree said:

    For me, naming him Daniel was a prime example of how the people at CA never really got Warhammer. They got it from a gamer point of view, but not a fan of the tabletop. And I know this might sound funny, but I mean that because they never took it seriously. Yeah yeah, I know, taking a game like Warhammer seriously, blah blah etc...

    But for a lot of the fans, we grew up with the game. Whilst many of our friends were extremely tribal, and still are, about football, even to the point of violence, we loved Warhammer. I wish CA had honoured that a bit more and stopped messing with the names.

    Do I really need to highlight Slambo exists?
  • GloatingSwine#8098GloatingSwine#8098 Registered Users Posts: 2,319
    PTree said:

    For me, naming him Daniel was a prime example of how the people at CA never really got Warhammer. They got it from a gamer point of view, but not a fan of the tabletop. And I know this might sound funny, but I mean that because they never took it seriously. Yeah yeah, I know, taking a game like Warhammer seriously, blah blah etc...

    Have you *seen* what the Lizardman characters are named?

    (Also, he was only called Daniel on the prerelease stream *to demonstrate that you name him yourself*).
  • christimchristim Registered Users Posts: 62
    PTree said:

    For me, naming him Daniel was a prime example of how the people at CA never really got Warhammer. They got it from a gamer point of view, but not a fan of the tabletop. And I know this might sound funny, but I mean that because they never took it seriously. Yeah yeah, I know, taking a game like Warhammer seriously, blah blah etc...

    But for a lot of the fans, we grew up with the game. Whilst many of our friends were extremely tribal, and still are, about football, even to the point of violence, we loved Warhammer. I wish CA had honoured that a bit more and stopped messing with the names.

    We have a dead frog named Kroak.... Daniel wouldn't make the top 20 silly warhammer names from a tabletop perspective. Chaos has generally been the most customisable faction in fantasy/40k. 40k has had plenty of times you could mix and match to make your own demon prince. Fantasy has had mishes and mashes of different rosters.

    Indeed all of warhammer has had customisable characters and while special characters have been around my experience of tabletop is that people generally take their own generic lord and name them for their armies. Frequently with backstories to explain the equipment or modelling choices. That was largely the issue with the video game that to have voice lines they did focus on special characters which is a bit of a departure from the tabletop experience but one needed for the video game.


    I think the main mistake was calling the faction Demons of Chaos. Then WoC could have been Chaos undivided explaining Be'lakor being with them and the different lords get different focuses and different levels of access to demons. Demon purists can then simply limit the amount of mortals they have and mortal purists can do the opposite with the same faction.



  • Xenos777Xenos777 Registered Users Posts: 8,038
    OdTengri said:

    Xenos7777 said:

    I enjoyed playing as him. Probably wouldn't try again, but I mean, there are a million LL, Daniel is nice for what it is.

    Sure... but if @GeorgeTruman is correct in the notion that it was significantly more expensive than many other campaigns. Was it Memorable enough to justify the cost or was it just another Legendary Lord.

    I don't think his campaign was worth the effort it probably took.

    well, but the system is there, it can be reused. Maybe for DoW, because customising lords and units equipment seems their thing.
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 14,927
    edited July 6
    You know my opinion. It hasn't changed since the start.

    A wasted LL, a wasted race, a wasted campaign, a wasted mechanic, a waste of development time.
    Furthermore, I consider that Daemon Prince must be removed.
  • GloatingSwine#8098GloatingSwine#8098 Registered Users Posts: 2,319
    christim said:


    Indeed all of warhammer has had customisable characters and while special characters have been around my experience of tabletop is that people generally take their own generic lord and name them for their armies. Frequently with backstories to explain the equipment or modelling choices.

    In Warhammer Fantasy this was mostly because named characters were horribly overpriced in points terms, and offered very little above what a generic lord would.

    (I had a friend who legit ran a skeleton spam army on TT. As many cheap level 1 necromancers as possible and just cast raise dead with all of them every turn, frequently ended the game with more models on the table than he started with).
  • RheingoldRheingold Registered Users Posts: 1,499

    Yes, Daniel was a mistake. Actually the whole realms of chaos campaign was a mistake.

    They should have put all ressurces in one awesome Immortal Empires world map. Now RoC will always drag IE down, which is not ideal.

    This.
    To spend so much time and effort on a minor character is absurd and cost the 3rd game dearly. They could easily spend the time on Nagash when he comes without negatively impacting the game and setting it back months if not years for nothing.
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 14,927
    edited July 6
    Xenos7777 said:

    OdTengri said:

    Xenos7777 said:

    I enjoyed playing as him. Probably wouldn't try again, but I mean, there are a million LL, Daniel is nice for what it is.

    Sure... but if @GeorgeTruman is correct in the notion that it was significantly more expensive than many other campaigns. Was it Memorable enough to justify the cost or was it just another Legendary Lord.

    I don't think his campaign was worth the effort it probably took.

    well, but the system is there, it can be reused. Maybe for DoW, because customising lords and units equipment seems their thing.
    It is everyone's thing. Literally every generic character should have this. Even the generic Daemon Princes, who I'm not sure will even exist now that the Mary Sue exists. And if you do, in fact, make it so, what is there left that's unique to the Mary Sue? Nothing. Nothing but an overbloated mess of a roster.

    The mechanic could've existed without him. In the entire thing, he was completely superfluous to the existence of this mechanic. There was no reason for him to exist.
    Furthermore, I consider that Daemon Prince must be removed.
  • Walkabout#1505Walkabout#1505 Member Registered Users Posts: 2,883
    Djau said:

    Yes, Daniel was a mistake. Actually the whole realms of chaos campaign was a mistake.

    They should have put all ressurces in one awesome Immortal Empires world map. Now RoC will always drag IE down, which is not ideal.

    People with just WH3 wouldn't be able to play the game then, since CA needs all three games together.
    Or they just made IE available for those who bought WH3 but that Ark has sailed.
    Live your life and try to do no harm.

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  • PassthechipsPassthechips Registered Users Posts: 1,083
    For what it’s worth, the Daemon Prince has the second most campaign completed achievements following Cathay. It’s certainly not an unpopular addition to the game.
  • Chronoid#8775Chronoid#8775 Registered Users Posts: 333
    Unpopular opinion: If it turns out the next DLC/FLC LL we get for each race is a customizable one, I would be really happy. Yes, that means I'd take a build-a-general over Elspeth von Drachen/Marius Leitdorf. I'd take a build-a-Skaven-Warlord over Thanquol. I'd even take build-a-Vampire over Neferata, and she's one of my most wanted LL for game 3.

    But for me That is what Warhammer was really about. Sure, you had Archaon, Karl Franz and co. around, but to me the true stars were always the generic guys. Coming up with them, their backstories finding or converting a miniature to properly represent them....

    So yeah I would love to have customizable characters in the game. Give us options in character selection / as a dilema when starting to set thing inherent to the character (Gender-when aplicable-, thing like vampiric bloodline for VC and VCoast, Clan of origin for Skaven, Choice of savage/plain/black orc, stuff like that) and give us a good array of cosmetically diferent options, smoe of them afecting stats (like weapons), some others not (Like faces).

  • GeorgeTrumanGeorgeTruman Registered Users Posts: 639

    For what it’s worth, the Daemon Prince has the second most campaign completed achievements following Cathay. It’s certainly not an unpopular addition to the game.

    Where are you getting those numbers? When I look here: https://steamcommunity.com/stats/1142710/achievements I am seeing Kislev as #1, Cathay as #2, Khorne as #3, and DoC as #4.
  • PassthechipsPassthechips Registered Users Posts: 1,083

    For what it’s worth, the Daemon Prince has the second most campaign completed achievements following Cathay. It’s certainly not an unpopular addition to the game.

    Where are you getting those numbers? When I look here: https://steamcommunity.com/stats/1142710/achievements I am seeing Kislev as #1, Cathay as #2, Khorne as #3, and DoC as #4.
    Never mind, I was completely off-base here, my bad. Maybe I was remembering old numbers.

    If I’m allowed to move the goal posts, it does seem like a lot of people have at least tried the Daemon Prince, given the amount who have some sort of achievement related to him.

    To add to the conversation, I don’t really think the Daemon Prince took away from the game and I do think a lot of people (on this forum) are looking for a scapegoat as to why they can’t have an accurate to the TT DoC faction.
  • Pocman#6295Pocman#6295 Registered Users Posts: 5,681
    Yes, yes he was.


    The mechanic itself would have been much more interesting as a way to customize standard lords, adding it with the chaos dlcs for the monos.


    But the problem is not the mechanic, which does have some problems, but the poor design for the race itself.

Sign In or Register to comment.