Some sad conclusion after longer contact with game
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:35 am
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 ).
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.
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.