Page 1 of 1

Some sad conclusion after longer contact with game

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:35 am
by MartiusR
I admit that I've got veery long history of playing in Warhammer 40k: Armageddon. Initially I've bought it near release date and I was discouraged with long and tiring tutorial. Fortunately, after some time I gave game second chance (and I've learned how to buy units, somehow I've missed that during my first gameplay :P).

It took me a long time to beat the main 3 campaigns about 2nd War for Armageddon. While I admit that it was quite satisfactory experience, after some time (partially due to reading about other player's impressions, but not only), that game has some serious lacks. And fact that it's created by small team is no excuse - I'm sorry for telling this, but if someone is selling his game for money (and Armageddon isn't surely the cheapest game, or even "medium-priced"), players have right to expect decent quality of product.

Which is not the case for Warhammer 40k: Armageddon.

First thing - it's natural for me that in every strategy game I'm free to play with all sides of conflict. I can understand if I have campaign only for one/two/etc, but skirmish mode and multiplayer mode should allow to play with any faction*. And it's not the case for Warhammer 40k: Armageddon. "Scenario" mode is simply offering missions from campaign. And I can play in them ONLY with Imperium (in those where I'm fighting with other imperium faction I can only play as "the loyal one"). And there are NO maps for some "skirmish" mode. Not only that, but skirmish mode DOESN"T EXIST AT ALL. This is really discouraging for strategy game made in 2015. I can tell that it was disappointment even for games made years before WH40k: Armageddon, such as S.W.I.N.E. or Original War (these were RTS, but it's the similar case).

And no, making separate game where you can play ONLY as Orks (Da Orks expansion) is not the solution, because it has exactly the same issues.

*DISCLAIMER - of course I'm excluding cases when we're fighting in campaign with some "minor" factions, which wouldn't be playable in normal game, quite good example are Murlocs from Warcraft III: Frozen Throne)

Now ,someone could say that there is multiplayer mode. Well, there is, but I've never had opportunity to test it, since the only way is using obsolete and uncomfortable PBEM system which is putting me off the game. And it's only available option. No LAN, no Hot-Seat, no Direct Connect option... Seriously? I've only noticed how few maps there are included for this mode.

I'm not even mentioning about such things as AI, because it was already criticized by many players. I'm starting to wonder - maybe we don't have skirmish mode because AI is simply incapable of dealing with player on "equal" terms (usually that's the idea of skirmish mode). Even such games as DIsciples II or Fantasy Wars had very good solution with "semi-skirmish" mode (rather "quests" than skirmish mode per se, but in both you could choose any race/side of conflict present on the map).

Plus some minor things, as lack of any animations (game in 2015 and it's all about moving tokens, one-man companies who made such games as Telepath Tactics or Drums of War, had animations of units for both movement and attack).

So yeah, I'm not going to forget about good time I had with campaign, but on the other hand, I finally saw how crippled and underdeveloped product I've received. It's sad, because I don't have such impression during playing in other Slitherine's WH40k games, such as Sanctus Reach or Gladius. (SR has multiplayer only via PBEM, but that's its only lack).

Maybe someone would consider that it's not worth to throw bile after so much time, but I'm simply tired with reading "answers" on similar opinions like mine with tone "they're small team, why are you so demanding..." etc. Sorry, but one more time I need to repeat - small team, lack of time/money/etc is no excuse for providing underdeveloped (in basic aspects) game. Assuming that it's supposed to be sold.

Re: Some sad conclusion after longer contact with game

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:08 am
by Chris 'o war
I felt exactly the same you know :)

Spend many hours pounding my nitwitt brain about the how and why of the pricing. i do have to be honest, i'm sure to have spend atleast 30 hours on the game and for a dollar per hour of legitimate fun i can only say that the pricing does seem to be right numberswise, atleast for me. The first time i finished the campaign on normal ( in a rush i don't experience a lot .. must play next level ... ) and since then i've played the campaign a couple of times more. There's lots of variation to be found in the different army setups one can use and the sort of campaign dynamics ... and on harder levels this game is absolute brutal. The other campaign additions do seem to deliver too though i have problems with keeping interested which might have to do more with personal surroundings then a disfunctional game ( i have trouble with playing gladius too atm ) . All in all this game has more the feel of a multiplayer game, and certainly with the other race mods that are available out there... in my humblest of opinions that is. The other point is ofcourse this being a dedicated singeplayer game where the story campaign and level setup decreased all their funds ;)

I'm still meshmerized by the a.i. on another note... Orcs letting them self willingly killed off for example because the targets are outside there vision range but thats ofcourse where the timecounter comes in... or the sudden rushes that indeed try to envision orc attack styles and tactics.. again in my head

Atleast game does not come with a sort of mandatory mod that fixes all the faults the studio left when releasing this game. Last wkend i delved into the world of MOO and Endless legend 2 .. not to talk about TW WH 2.... The description of those mods that are available on, namely a.i. behaviour is both shaming and hilarious at the same time!

Anyway i'm following this post because out of curiousity for other comments

Re: Some sad conclusion after longer contact with game

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:50 pm
by CaptainSpire
I'm actually a huge fan on PBEM, I'm sorry it isn't your cup of tea. It lets me run as many games as I want at the same time, and play whenever I want to. I don't need to sit down and carve out an hour to play a game. In fairness to your comments though I have not finished the campaign yet so maybe I will agree with you by the end of it. I have had a lot of fun for now however.

Re: Some sad conclusion after longer contact with game

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:00 pm
by MartiusR
Thanks a lot for you Chris o'war and for you CaptainSpire for sharing with me your thoughts.

@CaptainSpire - Normally I wouldn't complain if it wasn't the only possible MP option. I can understand why it's appealing for some players, maybe it would be reasonable if turn of every player would take noticeable amount of time... But in Armageddon we don't have so much on our hands, turns are rather short, so it seems to be well suitable to more common type of multiplayer, where both players are connected and spending some (longer or shorter) time until one of them will win (eventually they're able to stop and return to game, some turn-based games have such thing like MP save.

Well, with campaign is the "problem", that it seems that it was the main and only effort, and after that there is not too much left for other modes - lack of skirmish mode, the laziest excuse for single scenarios (you're launching scenarios from campign(s), that's it!) and multiplayer only through PBEM. Oh, and don't forget that you're not even able to freely choose sides.

In my case, I missed that thing initially, because I was so occupied with main campaign (very long). But when I've finally finished and "look around" - there wasn't too much left.