So lets talk about Warhammer...

[Lugotorix]

If every fantasy cliche I was adverse to was stylistically represented- it would be Warhammer- This will be the first TW game I won't be buying on release. There are things I like about it, but I've taken a long hiatus from fantasy settings, so much so that it's hard to get back into even a gem like Skyrim. At the end of the day I suppose there's nothing wrong with giving WH for TW a chance.

[Dewy]

I will wait and see. I didn't really know a lot about japanese or napoleonic history either before the games came out, but was interested in them before release anyways.
Not the case with Warhammer, from the research I've done I came to the conclusion that it is not the kind of fantasy I could get used to, me enjoying rather historical settings. However, I enjoy fantasy settings such as LOTR or Westeros

That doesn't make much sense to me. You have LOTR which is high fantasy good vs evil where good wins because (actually there is a lot of bad writing in Tolkein where the reason for something is "because plot hole filler"). Then you have Asoiaf where basically everyone is bad (except for a lot of the Starks), there's not a lot of magic (there's more in the books than the show) and it's much more realistic. And then you have Warhammer which is a high fantasy where everyone is bad, it's more realistic than LOTR (but less than asoiaf) but it's also a hyperbolic dark ages setting.

So basically you like Lotr and asoiaf but the "middle ground" between those extremes you don't like? To me that's a bit strange, but I'm fine with your personal taste even if you only like extremes.

I don't take the Elder Scrolls seriously, and while Bethesda's commercial fantasy product hasn't been around as long as Game Workshop's it sure looks a hell of a lot better as a video game. As far as fantasy worlds go., I've actually heard people on this forum claim WH fantasy is much deeper than Tolkien.

That depends on what you mean by deep. Lotr and the hobbit is about as deep as the puddle I will make if I piss on the bathroom floor. Silmarillion deepens the lore quite a bit I've heard but I've never read it myself. Warhammer lore gets quite deep when you start reading Black Library books and in regards to published literature on the two universes Warhammer towers over LOTR, so in that case Warhammer is quite a bit deeper. If you ever wanted to read a story about say a Reiksguard knight rather than some big fancy hero you can. But with Tolkien and a random Rohan rider? No you can't. That's what gives the Warhammer lore depth, you can actually learn and experience the Warhammer world from the point of view of a nobody. LOTR isn't even remotely fleshed out like that.

Yeah, a guy once said this to me. I didn't even bother lol

Having played all WH games, read online encylopedias and wikis and reading the Tolkein books (LOTR/Silmarillion/Hobbit), it's very easy to see which is more superior

All the Warhammer games, so like Shadow of the Horned Rat and um... it's sequel? Next you'll be claiming that reading a wikipedia article on the general theory of relativity is a good substitute for a physics degree.

I think he is referring to "seriousness" in terms of a certain level of realistic feeling underlying the fantasy lore. Like, hey there might be dragons and some magic, but the people and building actually look like taken out from the middle ages, or something along that line.

Some people, like myself and from what I can see Huberto included, just can't take art styles as seen in Warhammer seriously. The armor is too big. The soldiers look like they skipped leg day way too often. The weapons are too massive. It may be fantasy, but to us it just looks ridiculous, frankly cartoony.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I agree they look totally unrealistic. Oh wait sorry I meant they look like landsknechts and completely realistic.

This is however a matter of personal tastes, and it obviously divides the community. IMHO though there could have been more fitting fantasy settings suitable for total war.

Like? To be honest I can't think of any. The whole set up for Warhammer seems like it was originally made for Total War.

I don't want to expand on the possibilities of the Westeros setting and the potential links to TW mechanics, but the style of the ASOIAF Lore is just completely different to Warhammer if you look at it from a serious/realistic standpoint.

Unnecessary GoT spoiler removed.
Do not do that again.

~~Påsan.

Both

Lotr hasn't even had any good games, so it's a bit of a stretch to say Lotr makes better games. In regards to a Total War game Lotr wouldn't make a better game, it doesn't have the necessary set up of a Total War due to the whole good vs bad cliche dichotomy--which was a boring literary device by the time the bible did it .

the content in terms of lore, map, units, etc. is there

The lore is not there. I'm positive one of the CA producers/employees talked about this many many years ago now. The setting for a Total War game needs many factions which all could conceivably conquer the map. Lotr doesn't have that, due to the whole good vs evil storyline and the fact that the good factions are lazier than me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhamm..._%28setting%29
This is where I got it from. Anyway, it's fantasy designed and developed in the first instance for sale. Hence the ® mark everytime you see the word Warhammer.

Or you know there is the Registered Trademark symbol there because of trademark laws. I know it's out of the box thinking, but you know it could be a possibility.

Oh and what fantasy setting wasn't made to sell? Other than fantasy settings kids come up with with their friends.



I should point out that I do not and have not collected Warhammer nor bought any novel about Warhammer nor am I a Warhammer fanboy in any way share or form.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Middle Earth, while I would love it personally, would not really make a good Total War game. Either it would go completely away from lore, or it would basically be two sides every single time.

A Song of Ice and Fire would, on paper, make a great Total War game. The entirety of Westeros, hopefully even the important parts of Essos as well. Maybe the Summer Islands? Multiple factions in Westeros, perhaps even implementing a new system to represent vassals and liege lords and banner lords. But I doubt Total War could do the politics well enough, which are at least as important as the actual warfare in that world.

Warhammer is perfect for Total War. It's simplistic, everybody is only looking after themselves, there's tons of different factions, units, and a huge variety of playstyles. It's not that indepth compared to, say, Middle Earth of ASoIaF, but it's got enough interesting lore to fill a Total War game easily.

Wheel of Time would be great too, as I've already said. Plenty of factions, a rather unique world, and while it does have the whole "Good vs. Evil" thing going on, the world itself has far more freedom than Middle Earth. It would be similar to Fall of the Samurai, where your "imperium" level slowly rises as your faction becomes more and more powerful, until finally you trigger the invasion of trollocs. The bloodshed would just... Just be ridiculous. Dozens upon dozens of stacks. It would be great.

The Malazan Book of the Fallen would make a pretty good Total War game as well, though mages and Ascendants may be too overpowered for this type of game. When you have literal gods battling on the field, your legions tend to look less impressive...

There are just so many wonderful fantasy worlds (WoT. WoT. WoT. HINT HINT CA.) I am glad Creative Assembly is making a foray into this new frontier. Hopefully they don't stop after Warhammer, and continue to make games based in other worlds. Hyrule Total War could be silly and fun, and also Wheel of Time. Did I mention Wheel of Time?

Perhaps even making their own fantasy would could be interesting. For being the Creative Assembly, they've never actually done any unique settings, since it's all just been historical. It would be nice to have an original fantasy world.

[Tullaris]

Warhammer is way better suited for Total war than any historical setting. The historical settings have always suffered from a break in immersion due to the poor diplomacy AI.

In Warhammer, little diplomacy is needed. It's all going to be about the brutal battles and conquests.

Each faction is so different in terms of design and strategy.


Undead crumble to dust if you kill their general, which is always going to be some extremely powerful necromancer or vampire lord. This opens up a whole different kind of cat and mouse game.

Greenskins, well let me just say WAAAAAGHHHHH!!! Dakka dakka!! Letz ghet 'um boyz! Undisciplined they will come at you with high risk and powerful attacks.

Well what the Empire lacks in brute power it makes up for in versatility. Cannons, Steamtanks, Knights, Mages.

Dwarves... well they are just tough sanavabic'es that pack a whole lot of explosive and crafty gadgets.

and the non playable:
Look at the Skaven. The rats are only great in numbers. Once you break them they will flee. 'He who runs away lives to fight another day'. You'll lose a war of attrition against the Skaven, but you'll win a gamble which breaks their morale.

Anything can go wrong for the chaos player...

I can go on and on and on. Replayability for this game will be huge.

[Bust Nak]

Having played all WH games, read online encylopedias and wikis and reading the Tolkein books (LOTR/Silmarillion/Hobbit), it's very easy to see which is more superior

It's warhammer, isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhamm..._%28setting%29
This is where I got it from. Anyway, it's fantasy designed and developed in the first instance for sale. Hence the ® mark everytime you see the word Warhammer.

Which is why Warhammer is a better fit to total war than any of the other fantasy setting mentioned here. Warhammer is designed and developed in the first instance for selling war games.

[Humble Warrior]

Warhammer is way better suited for Total war than any historical setting. The historical settings have always suffered from a break in immersion due to the poor diplomacy AI.

In Warhammer, little diplomacy is needed. It's all going to be about the brutal battles and conquests.

I think CA chose warhammer so they wouldn`t have to bother with making any realistic AI, as long as it attacks and fights, that`s all it`ll need. I think it suits CA. Probably be like a small holiday for them making this.

[Tullaris]

Which is why Warhammer is a better fit to total war than any of the other fantasy setting mentioned here. Warhammer is designed and developed in the first instance for selling war games.

Exactly. The Warhammer universe is set up for one thing only: epic battles and wars between fantasy races. Perfect for Total war.

[Huberto]

Which is why Warhammer is a better fit to total war than any of the other fantasy setting mentioned here. Warhammer is designed and developed in the first instance for selling war games.

I'm not arguing that about whether fantasy "fits" TW. Fantasy can fit anything, and indeed, is so prevalent in video games that it's become a cliche and a reason for some people avoid playing them all together.

What has made the series unique isn't "brutal battles and conquests" either. What's unique (up to now, that is) is the pre-20th C military historical settings and the combo of historically themed TB strategy and historically themed/authentic -- take your pick -- RT battles.

So yes, I'm arguing that TW:WH looks like just another video game and should not be taken any more seriously than TeS or Dragon Age, in fact less, judging from appearances. Historically themed games should always be taken more seriously, and there's a message in this, kids:

TW was never, ever about special effects, kewl armor, lot's of special abilities, and blowing things up.

But it might be now.

[Tango12345]

The topic at hand here is Total War: Warhammer, not arguing about how people are commenting. Remember that.

[Tullaris]

I'm not arguing that about whether fantasy "fits" TW. Fantasy can fit anything, and indeed, is so prevalent in video games that it's become a cliche and a reason for some people avoid playing them all together.

What has made the series unique isn't "brutal battles and conquests" either. What's unique (up to now, that is) is the pre-20th C military historical settings and the combo of historically themed TB strategy and historically themed/authentic -- take your pick -- RT battles.

So yes, I'm arguing that TW:WH looks like just another video game and should not be taken any more seriously than TeS or Dragon Age, in fact less, judging from appearances. Historically themed games should always be taken more seriously, and there's a message in this, kids:

TW was never, ever about special effects, kewl armor, lot's of special abilities, and blowing things up.

But it might be now.

All games should be taken equally seriously. You do not gain any historical knowledge based on the quasi-historical fluff TW serves you than you would out of say watching Gladiator the movie. Should Gladiator be taken more seriously than... Lord of the Rings? Its all entertainment. Its all backdrop for a story, a war, a battle. Its context...

And historical context has been hard for TW games to implement. Diplomacy AI can't act logically which breaks immersion. Not enough troops can be rendered on the screen which breaks immersion. Warhammer allows TW to drop the straightjacket of historical plausability and go for the true epic total war which suits the games model: providing larger strategical context for epic battles.

I always get annoyed by people who boldly state they do not like sci-fi or fantasy movies or games, because 'it's just not realistic'. That's not what these movies and games are about. In the end all of it is just context for stories about humanity. I can't count the number of people I know that don't like fantasy but do like Game of Thrones. Maybe they just didn't like some -t-y fantasy movie, and they thought all fantasy was going to be like that.

[Bust Nak]

I'm not arguing that about whether fantasy "fits" TW.

Great, so you don't disagree with me that warhammer fits better than say LotR?

Fantasy can fit anything, and indeed, is so prevalent in video games that it's become a cliche and a reason for some people avoid playing them all together.

Sure, that's a matter of taste.

What has made the series unique isn't "brutal battles and conquests" either. What's unique (up to now, that is) is the pre-20th C military historical settings and the combo of historically themed TB strategy and historically themed/authentic -- take your pick -- RT battles.

Well, there was Imperial Glory.

So yes, I'm arguing that TW:WH looks like just another video game and should not be taken any more seriously than TeS or Dragon Age, in fact less, judging from appearances. Historically themed games should always be taken more seriously...

Should they? Sounds like you are making it something more than a matter of taste.

and there's a message in this, kids:

TW was never, ever about special effects, kewl armor, lot's of special abilities, and blowing things up.

But it might be now.

I'd argue against the last point. TW have always been about blowing things up Hollywood style. It's always epic this and epic that.

[xjlxking]

That doesn't make much sense to me. You have LOTR which is high fantasy good vs evil where good wins because (actually there is a lot of bad writing in Tolkein where the reason for something is "because plot hole filler"). Then you have Asoiaf where basically everyone is bad (except for a lot of the Starks), there's not a lot of magic (there's more in the books than the show) and it's much more realistic. And then you have Warhammer which is a high fantasy where everyone is bad, it's more realistic than LOTR (but less than asoiaf) but it's also a hyperbolic dark ages setting.

So basically you like Lotr and asoiaf but the "middle ground" between those extremes you don't like? To me that's a bit strange, but I'm fine with your personal taste even if you only like extremes.




That depends on what you mean by deep. Lotr and the hobbit is about as deep as the puddle I will make if I piss on the bathroom floor. Silmarillion deepens the lore quite a bit I've heard but I've never read it myself. Warhammer lore gets quite deep when you start reading Black Library books and in regards to published literature on the two universes Warhammer towers over LOTR, so in that case Warhammer is quite a bit deeper. If you ever wanted to read a story about say a Reiksguard knight rather than some big fancy hero you can. But with Tolkien and a random Rohan rider? No you can't. That's what gives the Warhammer lore depth, you can actually learn and experience the Warhammer world from the point of view of a nobody. LOTR isn't even remotely fleshed out like that.



All the Warhammer games, so like Shadow of the Horned Rat and um... it's sequel? Next you'll be claiming that reading a wikipedia article on the general theory of relativity is a good substitute for a physics degree.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I agree they look totally unrealistic. Oh wait sorry I meant they look like landsknechts and completely realistic.

Like? To be honest I can't think of any. The whole set up for Warhammer seems like it was originally made for Total War.



Unnecessary GoT spoiler removed.
Do not do that again.

~~Påsan.



Lotr hasn't even had any good games, so it's a bit of a stretch to say Lotr makes better games. In regards to a Total War game Lotr wouldn't make a better game, it doesn't have the necessary set up of a Total War due to the whole good vs bad cliche dichotomy--which was a boring literary device by the time the bible did it .

The lore is not there. I'm positive one of the CA producers/employees talked about this many many years ago now. The setting for a Total War game needs many factions which all could conceivably conquer the map. Lotr doesn't have that, due to the whole good vs evil storyline and the fact that the good factions are lazier than me.



Or you know there is the Registered Trademark symbol there because of trademark laws. I know it's out of the box thinking, but you know it could be a possibility.

Oh and what fantasy setting wasn't made to sell? Other than fantasy settings kids come up with with their friends.



I should point out that I do not and have not collected Warhammer nor bought any novel about Warhammer nor am I a Warhammer fanboy in any way share or form.

you "clearly" haven't read any Tolkien books. The fact that you see there is not enough lore. Keep in my Shogun 2 is a game where nearly all factions are identical to themselves

id say most lord of the rings games have sold and have done wel. Middle earth 2, their MMO, shadow of mordor.. Etc

just because CAsaid that there isn't enough faction doesn't mean much. They made a samurai game based on one same culture.

Its funny you say that reading wiki online is bad. I agree but it's laughable. I said I played the game and read online wikis, I think I have enough knowledge to come to conclusion which is better.


And and for the record saying it's good vs evil is dumb. If you knew the history of middle earth, you'd know it's quite relative. Legs fought men, men sides with morgoth, there were plenty of faction. The fact that bFME2 gave players 7 factions that were so different is more than enough proof.

[Dewy]

you "clearly" haven't read any Tolkien books. The fact that you see there is not enough lore. Keep in my Shogun 2 is a game where nearly all factions are identical to themselves

I find it highly dubious that it's a fact I said "there is not enough lore" when I never said that. Last I checked strawman and fact weren't synonyms. I'm not sure what Shogun 2 has to do with this.

id say most lord of the rings games have sold and have done wel. Middle earth 2, their MMO, shadow of mordor.. Etc

I said good games which has nothing to do with units sold, otherwise CoD would be the greatest piece of art ever. I completely forgot about SoM, I heard that's good however I've never played it. So I'll give you that.

just because CAsaid that there isn't enough faction doesn't mean much. They made a samurai game based on one same culture.

Ok? What does this have to do with my post?

Its funny you say that reading wiki online is bad. I agree but it's laughable. I said I played the game and read online wikis, I think I have enough knowledge to come to conclusion which is better.

Actually I specifically mentioned video games not online wikis. And no that doesn't give you enough knowledge at all, hence the statement about a physics degree.

And and for the record saying it's good vs evil is dumb. If you knew the history of middle earth, you'd know it's quite relative. Legs fought men, men sides with morgoth, there were plenty of faction. The fact that bFME2 gave players 7 factions that were so different is more than enough proof.

People were talking about Lotr so I assumed they meant the third age which is what the lotr books are about rather than the history of middle earth. And yes Lotr is all about good vs evil there's really no point in arguing otherwise.

[Bramborough]

I'd agree that there is little historical value in TW games themselves. For me (and I'd think at least a few others), however, TW games have served to pique some interest in historical periods about which I'd previously known little. Not too many years ago, I had a general idea that: Rome existed a couple thousand years ago and had this Colosseum thing, had a big empire which covered most of Europe and some of Africa, fought a war with some even-less-familiar power called Carthage (who had this guy Hannibal and some elephants), Roman legions had tough infantry and built roads, and Julius Caesar/Augustus were famous Roman leaders (although I couldn't really articulate why). Oh, and then the bit about Pontius Pilate and the crucifixion, and of course Pompeii. And that was about it (and even then was probably more than many adult Americans know. But that's another (relatively depressing) topic..).

RTW, however, prompted me to read more, and I'd like to think that I'm now much better informed about the period...from actual history books, not from playing TW. Attila, likewise, has shifted my reading toward the late Roman period more, lately...folks like Belisarius, Alaric, and Aetius are now as familiar to me as Cicero, Sulla, and Mithridates. NTW, while not "opening up" Napoleonic history to me (I'd read quite a bit in the past), did re-kindle it somewhat and I re-read some of my library on that period as well. Perhaps if I ever got around to playing Shogun, maybe I'd delve into medieval and Meiji Japan.

I guess my point is that while it would be silly to claim that TW games themselves have much historical value, I do think that they can sometimes serve as a stimulus to pursuing actual history; that can't be a bad thing. Hard to see how TW:Warhammer would have such an effect.

[xjlxking]

Good vs evil is relative. The haradrim weren't evil people, the disliked the west and sided with their neighbor(more of less). It's much like saying, the huns are evil in this game. It's relative
You are happy to call sauron evil but the people in history who enslaved and killed hundreds of thousands you idolize right? Caesar committed genocide as well as Alexander

and I said I played most wh games that I know. I'm sure not all but most. I think I know more than your average gamer on it and most definitely a normal person.

you are also talking about lore ? There isn't enough lore, care to explain. In terms of what ? My understanding is you meant factions

I'm on phone i cannot quote sentences sorry

[Charerg]

To add my 2cents regarding the "realism" debate:

In a similar sense as science fictions are divided into "soft" and "hard" science fictions based on how strictly they stick to real science, you can also categorize fantasy based on how great an extent they stick to the "real world". Take LotR, for example. While the settign is very much fantasy, things like armour and weapons seen in the LotR movies are largely based on reality. The settings approach is to invent a fantasy style (of armour, for example), but keep it practical (and often heavily inspired by history). Even the armour of the Orcs looks fairly good, and fits their theme. More importantly, it looks practical enough to be actually useful. Same can be said of their weaponry.

The trouble with settings like Warhammer Fantasy and Warcraft is the "cartoonish" overall style. No, I'm not talking about the Empire here, or Bretonnia. There are of course historically inspired factions within the Warhammer universe that look pretty good. However, as has been pointed out, Warhammer is a very extensive setting and one of the downsides of its massive bulk is that it suffers from inconsistency within the setting. While the Empire soldiers may look realistic, factions like the Orcs wear armour that is basically thick slabs of iron studded with spikes. And to the eyes of someone accustomed to seeing historical pieces of armour they look somewhat ridiculous...and lets be frank, they ARE extremely impractical. Orcs are largely a comedy faction within Warhammer, and it's pretty hard to take them seriously as a result.

Essentially, I think Warhammer TW will probably divide TW Fans somewhat. While some will be ok with the less "realism-based" approach, Warhammer is at the end of the day a relatively "soft" fantasy and this can cause problems for those who like a more "realistic" approach. It can be hard to take a game seriously and feel invested in the setting, if some dudes are running around wearing 200 kg of slab iron like it weights nothing. For me personally, I feel much more invested in a fantasy setting if basic rules of physics like gravity apply to everyone (despite the presence of magic and other fantasy elements).

Then there are of course other aspects like "super hero" style characters mowing their way through armies. A big point about a fantasy setting like aSoIaF is the concept of "anyone can be killed", there are no Super-Mans running around clad in invincible plot armour. This is a major factor that makes the aSoIaF setting feel a "real" world with "real" people. The same is true to LotR to a lesser extent, though the movies tend to depict the main characters (Legolas) as some super-powered killing machines mowing their way through faceless mobs of mooks (that is one aspect where the movies kinda fail imo). It can be fairly immersion breaking to watch this happen....suddenly you realise that this character is wearing 1000 kgs of plot armour and is never going to die no matter what. In a game context, this raises the question, "why is this fellow somehow 100 times tougher than the rest of his race".

The above is likely to be another point which is going to divide opinions. Some people like "epic" characters, others prefer an approach where the character is developed more in the sense of "personality" (compare to old TWs and traits like "bloodthirsty" and such that are acquired through a characters actions rather than picked from a skill tree).

[Huberto]

Should they? Sounds like you are making it something more than a matter of taste.


I'd argue against the last point. TW have always been about blowing things up Hollywood style. It's always epic this and epic that.

Human history is more serious than fantasy, even in video games. Now Total War is just another video game series. You can argue it always was, and it seems that the folks at CA these days would agree with you.

To add my 2cents regarding the "realism" debate:

Outstanding post!

[Gromovnik]

Charerg, Huberto, you've said it all. I have no intention of buying this game, and the more I learn about Warhammer universe, the less I like it.

[xjlxking]

I don't think people should make that decision now. Quite honestly, I do believe CA will make the graphics a lot like WoW or cartoonish. I do think it will have cool new elements that just might be good for the series like flying units and fantasy units. I'm also happy it will have magic and most likely a diverse faction list despite however short it is.

quite honestly, I don't trust CA to this. They have a nack for removing and adding feature every game; they don't keep features, they try to reinvent them and it always ends up buggy. In fact, I'm quite worried that they might even shave the game of a lot of content to keep it streamlined much like they did with Rome 2 a game they quite honestly had plenty to take from previous games.

Its also one of the reason why I perfer middle earth tw or ASOINF

[Fredrin]

Re number of TW players who are excited about Warhammer or not, see the top graph in the results below. About 2,500 people responded to this part of the survey: