StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2012-12-06 06:09am**

December 6, 2012
SEGA AND CREATIVE ASSEMBLY ANNOUNCE PARTNERSHIP WITH GAMES WORKSHOP TO CREATE WARHAMMER GAMES

SAN FRANCISCO & LONDON – 11AM GMT, December 6, 2012 – SEGA® of America, Inc. and SEGA® Europe Ltd. today announced that Creative Assembly™, award-winning creator of the Total War™ series, and SEGA® Group have entered into a multi-title licensing deal with Games Workshop® to create videogames based in the Warhammer® universe of fantasy battles.
A new high-calibre development team has been set up at Creative Assembly’s UK studio to work alongside the existing Total War, Alien™ IP and Mobile teams on the first Warhammer title in the deal, scheduled to launch from beyond 2013.

“With this year being our 25th anniversary”, said Tim Heaton, Studio Director at Creative Assembly, “it seems fitting for us to embark on such a dream project with such a well-established partner. The incredibly rich and detailed Warhammer world is something we grew up with, and has left an indelible imprint on us as both designers and gamers.”
“We’ll be doing the Warhammer universe justice in a way that has never been attempted before. We’re bringing those 25 years of experience and expertise in extremely high-scoring games to bear, delivering a Warhammer experience that videogamers will absolutely love.”

“We have enormous respect for SEGA and Creative Assembly and have felt for a long time that the combination of the enormously rich setting of the Warhammer world, and their stunning development talent is a match with huge potential,” said Jon Gillard, Games Workshop’s Head of Licensing. “Now that we’ve managed to bring these two giants of gaming together it is safe to say that some truly amazing products are going to be unleashed as a result. We are excited at the possibilities, and are enthusiastically working with the team at Creative Assembly already.”
This first Warhammer game joins the eagerly-awaited Total War™: Rome II and the untitled Alien IP as one of five projects currently in production at Creative Assembly, now one of the largest developers in Europe.

For future updates and career opportunities please visit www.creative-assembly.com.

Possibly good news

Relic never had the WHFB licence did they?

Posted: **2012-12-06 06:56am**

No. The Warhammer Fantasy license has bounced around quite a bit. THQ/Relic has only had the 40k license.

Looking forward to this. I liked Mark of Chaos, but it struggled in a lot of aspects. A Total War-style game could be great.

Posted: **2012-12-06 07:04am**

Oh man one of the most incompetent developers around and one of the least successful licences around together at last! What would be funnier: re skinned total war or an entirely original kludge of bugs, shit AI and features from 2005?

It's kind of sad when the only thing such licences bring to a game is huge piles of game-useless fluff. Tangible benefit of Warhammer licence beyond automatic sales to brandslaves ... ?

Posted: **2012-12-06 07:09am**

Wasn't mark of chaos already a reskinned total war but with most of the units stripped out and the strategic turn based part entirely removed?

Posted: **2012-12-06 07:32am**

Alkaloid wrote:Wasn't mark of chaos already a reskinned total war but with most of the units stripped out and the strategic turn based part entirely removed?

Not really. There were similarities in the same way there are similarities between Starcraft and Command & Conquer, but Mark of Chaos really had more in common with its Warhammer Fantasy predecessors, Dark Omen and Shadow of the Horned Rat.

Posted: **2012-12-06 08:43am**

Stark wrote:Oh man one of the most incompetent developers around and one of the least successful licences around together at last! What would be funnier: re skinned total war or an entirely original kludge of bugs, shit AI and features from 2005?

It's kind of sad when the only thing such licences bring to a game is huge piles of game-useless fluff. Tangible benefit of Warhammer licence beyond automatic sales to brandslaves ... ?

Well, it is still going to help Games Workshop in promoting their Warhammer Fantasy series. Moreover, even if Creative Assembly is not the most competent developers around, no other game developer came close to depicting warfare on a scale comparable to the Total war series.

The lord of the Rings RTS games certainly failed to build a game that actually makes the battles seems epic. Same can be said regarding Mark of Chaos.

Based on some of the Mark of Chaos video I've seen on youtube, it seems to me that an army of 100 men is considered big by that game's standard.

Posted: **2012-12-06 10:37am**

The only thing that matters is that Creative Assembly delivers a product that elicits a strong visceral response and satisfaction, really. You can explain the deficiencies in a game that fails to deliver on any technical merit, or sales target, or AI response, because those are objective things. You can't comfortably explain why you like a game containing an experience such as a thousand orks swarming the battlements of an enemy city in a deluge of blood and fire, despite the aforementioned objective problems, because brains aren't good at converting feelings into words without just making shit up.

Posted: **2012-12-06 02:02pm**

Stark wrote:Tangible benefit of Warhammer licence beyond automatic sales to brandslaves ... ?

Factions that don't result in yellow samurai vs blue samurai or red musketeers vs blue musketeers or red knights vs yellow knights? Original IP is hard to get publishers to look at so if everything goes well, this'll let/force CA do a total war game with really distinctive factions, which given CA's track record is going to result in a better game than they'd make otherwise.

Posted: **2012-12-06 02:50pm**

Lagmonster wrote:The only thing that matters is that Creative Assembly delivers a product that elicits a strong visceral response and satisfaction, really. You can explain the deficiencies in a game that fails to deliver on any technical merit, or sales target, or AI response, because those are objective things. You can't comfortably explain why you like a game containing an experience such as a thousand orks swarming the battlements of an enemy city in a deluge of blood and fire,

Actually I already mentioned brand loyalty, so ... mystery solved?

Lagmonster wrote:despite the aforementioned objective problems, because brains aren't good at converting feelings into words without just making shit up.

Maybe YOUR brain.

xthetenth wrote:Factions that don't result in yellow samurai vs blue samurai or red musketeers vs blue musketeers or red knights vs yellow knights? Original IP is hard to get publishers to look at so if everything goes well, this'll let/force CA do a total war game with really distinctive factions, which given CA's track record is going to result in a better game than they'd make otherwise.

Thats actually a good point - and the setting not being 'historical' should avoid CA's bizarre relationship with 'historical' 'accuracy'. No middle kingdom skaven fighting the three houses of altmark should at least mean the terrible campaign/story mode will be less terrible. I absolutely shudder for game balance, however, especially for those who might expect the unit balance to reflect WH. At least WH already HAS numbers.

It was pointed out to me that with the small market for strategy games of this type, there's almost nobody else you could get to make this kind of game at a premium level. I mean, maybe Paradox, lol. Thats pretty unfortunate.

Posted: **2012-12-06 04:07pm**

Stark wrote:Thats actually a good point - and the setting not being 'historical' should avoid CA's bizarre relationship with 'historical' 'accuracy'. No middle kingdom skaven fighting the three houses of altmark should at least mean the terrible campaign/story mode will be less terrible. I absolutely shudder for game balance, however, especially for those who might expect the unit balance to reflect WH. At least WH already HAS numbers.

If they just take the unit relationships as a general guide it might be more interesting than their "historical" unit lineups, where they tend to forget to make most units worthwhile or distinctive. And yes, hopefully they won't decide to screw gameplay for "history" reasons.

It was pointed out to me that with the small market for strategy games of this type, there's almost nobody else you could get to make this kind of game at a premium level. I mean, maybe Paradox, lol. Thats pretty unfortunate.

Too true. I wound up with a free copy of King Arthur. It was like a mystical realm in which total war games had good UI. At least in total war games if you get used to the weird mindset of the controls you can mostly control your men unless you're doing something fiddly.

Posted: **2012-12-07 02:10am**

Stark wrote:Tangible benefit of Warhammer licence beyond automatic sales to brandslaves ... ?

It's not Warhammer 40,000????

Posted: **2012-12-07 04:47am**

Stark wrote:It was pointed out to me that with the small market for strategy games of this type, there's almost nobody else you could get to make this kind of game at a premium level. I mean, maybe Paradox, lol. Thats pretty unfortunate.

Are the lack of better Total War-esque games simply due to a small market demand? Most Total war clones are either a pale imitation of games produced by Creative Assembly, or lacking the marketing firepower to break into the mainstream market.

Posted: **2012-12-07 07:13am**

Stark wrote:
Lagmonster wrote:The only thing that matters is that Creative Assembly delivers a product that elicits a strong visceral response and satisfaction, really. You can explain the deficiencies in a game that fails to deliver on any technical merit, or sales target, or AI response, because those are objective things. You can't comfortably explain why you like a game containing an experience such as a thousand orks swarming the battlements of an enemy city in a deluge of blood and fire,
Actually I already mentioned brand loyalty, so ... mystery solved?

Possibly. I don't know much about the brand, but if they're thinking Total War style gameplay, I think I'd appreciate the catharsis of narrating a battle between ten thousand rampaging monsters. I guess I was betting that as long as Creative Assembly doesn't allow an impassable technical glitch in between the player and said battle, the product won't piss off the contended majority.

Frankly, I think they're more than capable of delivering that base-feeding "you killed fucking everybody hyuk hyuk" experience - the battles in Viking: Battle for Asgard for the XBOX360 remain one of my favourite experiences within a game, even if it was nowhere near the best game I've ever played.

Lagmonster wrote:despite the aforementioned objective problems, because brains aren't good at converting feelings into words without just making shit up.
Maybe YOUR brain.

*chuckle* I was thinking more of the impact of the introspection illusion than I was secretly admitting to be mentally retarded.

Posted: **2012-12-17 09:05am**

Meh, sounds like the game will have to rely on the quality of its implementation to sell, I don't see how the IP will help.

WHFB is, at its core, unashamedly derivative and on the surface, does not differ from all the other Tolkien-inspired clones in any meaningful ways.
Only hardcore fans would appreciate the difference because they'd have delved deeper into the lore. Or, more cynically, only hardcore fans would appreciate the difference because they're hardcore fans.

It's certainly not the insane mishmash blend of genres that the 40k IP is, something which is easily presented to even a casual gamer whose first exposure to the franchise is from a 40k video game.

As has been already mentioned here, I wonder if they'll stick close (too close) to the tabletop game it's based on and only have small unit action. The tabletop has an excuse because at the 28mm scale, you can't have armies of thousands, and a computer game has no reason to stick to those limits.

Posted: **2012-12-17 09:24am**

Cykeisme wrote:WHFB is, at its core, unashamedly derivative and on the surface, does not differ from all the other Tolkien-inspired clones in any meaningful ways.
Only hardcore fans would appreciate the difference because they'd have delved deeper into the lore. Or, more cynically, only hardcore fans would appreciate the difference because they're hardcore fans.

I would argue this. I'm only a casual fan of WHFB (as opposed to 40k), and I think there is definite appeal.

What you say is true to only a limited extent, I think: Yeah, it's very Lord of the Rings on many levels, but I'd argue that's a little more exceptional than people give it credit for. Aside from the resurgence of LotR itself thanks to the Jackson movies, Tolkien-style fantasy really isn't very popular these days. The Warcraft/Warmachine model of goofy-looking cartoon wannabe-not-really-steampunk fantasy definitely rules the roost right now, and in that environment the Gothic aesthetic of WHFB (or the more Nordic aesthetic of Tolkien) is a pretty sharp contrast.

And that's the other thing: Tolkien has a very Nordic thing going; very Saxon Old English. Warhammer on the other hand is Gothic out the ears which gives it a much more blatantly "Renaissance German" look and feel. It's a subtle difference, true, since both are Germanic, but it's definitely there for more than just "hardcore fans."

Edit: Plus, Orcs. WHFB Orcs are literally just 40K Orks minus the shootaz and fighta-bommaz, so their low-tech cousins have to improvise with Big Stabby Wotsits.

Posted: **2012-12-17 09:32am**

ray245 wrote:
Stark wrote:Oh man one of the most incompetent developers around and one of the least successful licences around together at last! What would be funnier: re skinned total war or an entirely original kludge of bugs, shit AI and features from 2005?

It's kind of sad when the only thing such licences bring to a game is huge piles of game-useless fluff. Tangible benefit of Warhammer licence beyond automatic sales to brandslaves ... ?
Well, it is still going to help Games Workshop in promoting their Warhammer Fantasy series. Moreover, even if Creative Assembly is not the most competent developers around, no other game developer came close to depicting warfare on a scale comparable to the Total war series.

The lord of the Rings RTS games certainly failed to build a game that actually makes the battles seems epic. Same can be said regarding Mark of Chaos.

Based on some of the Mark of Chaos video I've seen on youtube, it seems to me that an army of 100 men is considered big by that game's standard.

I suspect it will only be successful at promotion until people walk into a GW store, see the prices and walk back out again. GW doesn’t have a visibility problem, they have a business problem. Namely that the products are priced too high compared to things like the Mantic equivalent.

Hell at ten my son decided to drop WH40K because it took to long for him to save for a pack of Chaos Marines. Damn near shit himself when he was looking for a Titan.

Posted: **2012-12-18 03:23pm**

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:I would argue this. I'm only a casual fan of WHFB (as opposed to 40k), and I think there is definite appeal.

I'm in precisely the same category as you: a huge 40k fan, with some interest in WHFB.

For me, most of my interest in WHFB due to its ties to 40k in terms of (now defunct) in-universe backstory, as well as being from the same design studio in real life. The most interesting things I find in WHFB are Chaos (and the Immaterium), and the Orks because they're Orks. Until the recent series of WHFB novels worked toward dispelling the old connection, in my personal head-canon I always believed that Sigmar was one of the two missing Primarchs, and interest in the Empire stemmed from there.

Thus, even my middling level of interest in WHFB is almost solely due to its connection to 40k, and perhaps I'm over-correcting when attempting to imagine what the first impression will be for casual gamers/readers who are completely uninitiated to both Fantasy and 40k.
So I may be wrong, and WHFB might be able to garner a good mass appeal following from the uninitiated, even independent from 40k.. if presented correctly.

I still stand by my observation that WHFB has very little to grab attention and sell itself in the gamut of Tolkien-inspired fiction, on the surface at least. The unique and crazy awesome stuff it has is buried significantly deeper past the "first impressions" level.

Posted: **2012-12-18 09:03pm**

Cykeisme wrote:WHFB is, at its core, unashamedly derivative and on the surface, does not differ from all the other Tolkien-inspired clones in any meaningful ways.
Only hardcore fans would appreciate the difference because they'd have delved deeper into the lore. Or, more cynically, only hardcore fans would appreciate the difference because they're hardcore fans.

WHFB is more HRE than Tolkeinish really. Which I kinda like.

But I'm a historical old grongard.

Posted: **2012-12-18 09:11pm**

Shouldn't that result in you sneering at the terrible ripjob the 'creators' at GW executed? There are interesting ideas in WHF, but every time the bland as shit stuff is connected it just becomes yet more generica.

But hey, a crappy RTS raised the profile of GW's other brand, so why not here as well? I mean, aside from the genre being dead.

Posted: **2012-12-19 01:09am**

Stark wrote:But hey, a crappy RTS raised the profile of GW's other brand, so why not here as well? I mean, aside from the genre being dead.

Tell that to Blizzard. Oh, and EA too, since they're making a sequel to C&C Generals.

Posted: **2012-12-19 03:24am**

Yeah, two games which are rehashes of existing properties makes a genre. RTS games now easily outnumbered by MOBAs; pretty funny.

WHF MOBA probably more accessible anyway. Nobody has to care about their tragic lore and can just chop/zap the enemy mans.

Posted: **2012-12-19 06:12pm**

Okay, I'll grant we're not getting much in the way of new IPs outside the indie scene. My beloved space sims have the same problem; about the only folks who were doing anything with it for a while there were CCP and EGOSOFT.

Posted: **2012-12-20 07:21am**

Cykeisme wrote:Meh, sounds like the game will have to rely on the quality of its implementation to sell, I don't see how the IP will help.

WHFB is, at its core, unashamedly derivative and on the surface, does not differ from all the other Tolkien-inspired clones in any meaningful ways.
Only hardcore fans would appreciate the difference because they'd have delved deeper into the lore. Or, more cynically, only hardcore fans would appreciate the difference because they're hardcore fans.

It's certainly not the insane mishmash blend of genres that the 40k IP is, something which is easily presented to even a casual gamer whose first exposure to the franchise is from a 40k video game.

As has been already mentioned here, I wonder if they'll stick close (too close) to the tabletop game it's based on and only have small unit action. The tabletop has an excuse because at the 28mm scale, you can't have armies of thousands, and a computer game has no reason to stick to those limits.

The problem with WHFB computer games is that it hasn't evolved. Hell, in many ways, it actually deteriorated. It was essentially let's insert a story mode and heroes to the tabletop, port it to a computer and play.
Hell, Shadow of the Horned Rat was actually more innovative than Mark of Chaos because it actually incorporated "old" mechanics in a new way, what with the way it structured reinforcements, gold and mercenaries. Or how it handled the Winds of Magic/hero button and button mashing. All old mechanisc, but it changed the tabletop game slightly and made it different, while presenting the game as an easier version of the tabletop.

Mark of Chaos on the other hand............ pretended to have an RPG element by giving magic items and the heroes....which was even more restrictive than Shadow of the Horned rat and gave no actual game difficulty..... And comparing it to its competitors, such as Lord of the Ring made it even more abysmal. Thank god I borrowed it from the library....

Now, that doesn't mean the game lore can't be nice. I submit that Warhammer Online was superior to Age of Conan based entirely on the achievements/story lore/comedy that they inserted. And Gatehammer Online problem ranged from playerbase shift after Lich King and some crippling endgame bugs...... as well as the problem of endgame content.....

If they can actually implement this comedy into the RTS, something along Shadow of the Horned Rat or some of the absurdity in Dawn of War, it might make it playable but otherwise...... the game mechanics have to give something else entirely outside of Total War.

Posted: **2012-12-23 06:33am**

Zinegata wrote:WHFB is more HRE than Tolkeinish really. Which I kinda like.

Hrm, what's HRE?

Posted: **2012-12-23 07:58am**

Holy Roman Empire.

Humans in WHFB are either the HRE, Russia, or France.

Plus you have the whole monster mash business of tomb kings and vampire counts.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.

Re: Creative Assembly making Warhammer game.