Author Topic: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?  (Read 6152 times)

Ryjak

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 143
  • Number of Times Thanked: 2
    • View Profile
    • Ops Center
Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« on: January 17, 2017, 05:12:38 am »
Read this on a blog while not sleeping:

"Halo is too simplified. I’m not interested in teaching gamers how to play checkers with minis. It doesn’t have a fun factor, unless you are very young or really love Halo. Spartan made their money and dropped support for the game Microsoft wanted. They [Spartan Games] aren’t allowed to make more money on it because Microsoft won’t make more."

I'm curious for all the HALO players... how fun is the game, and why?  And more importantly, it certainly seems HALO did kill Dystopian Wars and Firestorm, which are the primary games from Spartan... or were.  Before the DW Kickstarter, when was the last time anything came out?  I can't recall the last substantive release for Firestorm. (Announcing a narrative online campaign five months doesn't count.)

I looked it up: the Omnidyne release, which was in July 2016.  It added some new ships, and updated models.  Before that was April 2016, when they released the Core Six Fleet Guides consolidating the System Wars and Task Force stats into one PDF... Task Force was released shortly before that, and is the last time anything was released for Planetfall.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 05:31:33 am by Ryjak »

Ruckdog

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3066
  • Number of Times Thanked: 189
  • Dive! Dive!
    • View Profile
    • Man Battlestations!
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2017, 12:51:19 pm »
Do you have a link to the original post? I'd be interested in reading it in the full context. Anyway...

I'm curious for all the HALO players... how fun is the game, and why? 

Greg and Quickdraw are probably best suited to answer this one, but my own limited experience with the game has been positive. And, from what I've seen, the game has generally been well received. I haven't any comments on it as negative as the one you quoted above.

Quote
And more importantly, it certainly seems HALO did kill Dystopian Wars and Firestorm, which are the primary games from Spartan... or were.  Before the DW Kickstarter, when was the last time anything came out?  I can't recall the last substantive release for Firestorm. (Announcing a narrative online campaign five months doesn't count.)

Here's the thing; Spartan has always operated on a very Feast or Famine cycle when it comes to their games. Uncharted Seas came out in 2008. Then, FSA 1.0 came out in 2009, and there was very little US for a while. Then Dystopian Wars came out, and there was very little FSA or US for a while. Then FSA 2.0 came out, and there was very little DW for a while, and US went direct only....and so on. In the last year and a half or so, what we have seen is Spartan focusing on Halo FB, then the major waves of Planetfall, then Halo Dirt Fight, with a smattering of FSA and DW releases mixed in. I'm not defending or attacking Spartan here...these are just the facts of how the company has operated. My theory is that the explosion of popularity for FSA 2.0 that started back in 2014  brought a lot of gamers into the Spartan fold that may not have realized how the company tends to operate, and are now (understandably) disappointed with the lack of updates/new releases for certain games.

Dakkar

  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
  • Number of Times Thanked: 25
  • Mobilis in Mobili
    • View Profile
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2017, 01:24:31 pm »
"Halo is too simplified. I’m not interested in teaching gamers how to play checkers with minis. It doesn’t have a fun factor, unless you are very young or really love Halo."

I strongly disagree. HALO is the first successful implementation I've seen in ages (if ever) of having really LARGE fleets on table, with whole squadron elements on a single base.
-- I drastically prefer that solution for Frigates over the individual management of FSA (possibly the largest time-waster in FSA).
-- Also, it allows for Escort mechanics that feel FAR more natural than FSA.
--Maneuver is easier to understand, but also less forgiving  - no hexagon 180's or snaking or dreadnought 180's here. I think that's more "space-like" to acknowledge the God Momentum. It could only be better if they'd allow flip-and-burn maneuvers. (Allow the 180 for anyone, but they can't move at all next turn). And there's tons of design space for more maneuverable ships.
-- I really like their Fighter/Bomber system, and how they keep it completely separate from Boarding craft. Plus there's no separation between Boarding actions and Boarding Craft - I mean how does FSA work if boarding without SRS? Do they shove guys out airlocks?

Simplification does not mean simple, though it may seem so with only two factions, limited model variety, and attendant limited weapons and "MARs". In ways, it reminds me of Age of Sigmar: an unforgiveable dumbing down at first glance, but later realizing the massive design depth available, simply through special rules by units versus in core rules.

If you gave me a few weeks and paid me, I could convert every Firestorm fleet to HALO mechanics, and you'd love it more than any FSA edition.

About the only skewed HALO mechanic is boarding, which is massively more destructive/dramatic than any firepower crits, but that's a deliberate choice to highlight the Spartans, and could be removed/tweaked for any adaptation.

Overall, I have MORE fun playing HALO than FSA, I just miss the variety and background that comes with FSA.

Quote
And more importantly, it certainly seems HALO did kill Dystopian Wars and Firestorm, which are the primary games from Spartan... or were.

This is the tragedy. HALO could have been the vanguard for an FSA renaissance. But Spartan has mistakenly thought they can do business as usual and ignore their "O&M" (as we say in IT). It's definitely cost them a massive amount of market penetration, and if they can recover remains in serious doubt.
"History is-a made at night. Character is what you are in the dark!"
-- Lord John Whorfin, Red Lectroid Leader

McKInstry

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • Number of Times Thanked: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2017, 02:02:07 pm »
I would agree that the Halo fleet rules are innovative and truly do open up 'big battles' but suffer from being stuck in a Scifi universe with only binary opponents. FSA (or Trek among others) with a wealth of opponents/factions/flavors would be much better served by that rule set which suffers, in addition, from being a table setter to the 15mm ground game that most console fans will recognize more readily.

DW with its' vast set of factions and story arc isn't dead but Kickstarter or no, is dependent on Spartan not succumbing to their historic ADD and chasing new and shiny to the detriment of supporting what they have already. :(

Ryjak

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 143
  • Number of Times Thanked: 2
    • View Profile
    • Ops Center
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2017, 04:15:01 pm »
 I'm sorry, but I cannot find the original source of the quote;  it is somewhere on this blog:

http://yesthetruthhurts.com

 The author is always hyper critical, but he is what turned me onto FSA in the first place. Sadly, he seems to have stopped playing this game... or any game.

Ruckdog

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3066
  • Number of Times Thanked: 189
  • Dive! Dive!
    • View Profile
    • Man Battlestations!
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2017, 04:52:29 pm »
Ahhh...I've heard of this blog before. I don't think I've read it since my 40k hey-days backnin 5th ed though. I found the quote; it's in the comments for this post:

http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2017/01/request-fixing-randomization-example/

EDIT: Ohhhh...I remember this now. The author of this blog, Stelek, is rather infamous in 40k circles. Googling "Stelek" will get you his amusing (and NSFW) urban dictionary entry.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 05:08:00 pm by Ruckdog »

Ryjak

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 143
  • Number of Times Thanked: 2
    • View Profile
    • Ops Center
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2017, 05:25:37 pm »
I strongly disagree. HALO is the first successful implementation I've seen in ages (if ever) of having really LARGE fleets on table, with whole squadron elements on a single base.

What is your definition of a LARGE fleet?  If you're going by distinct models, where HFB has 2-4 models per base, then sure, but what really matters is how many Bases are on the table.  A 1000 point fleet in FSA can easily hit 20 bases per side, sometimes 30.  How many bases are on the table in an 'average-sized' HFB game?

Quote
-- I drastically prefer that solution for Frigates over the individual management of FSA (possibly the largest time-waster in FSA).
  Sure, if one player insists on moving every single model precisely... which I have never seen except in a few cases where space is tight.

Quote
-- Also, it allows for Escort mechanics that feel FAR more natural than FSA.
Of course, as it's built in.  Not hard to build into FSA either.

Quote
--Maneuver is easier to understand, but also less forgiving  - no hexagon 180's or snaking or dreadnought 180's here. I think that's more "space-like" to acknowledge the God Momentum. It could only be better if they'd allow flip-and-burn maneuvers. (Allow the 180 for anyone, but they can't move at all next turn). And there's tons of design space for more maneuverable ships.
Both systems feel more like a naval game than a space game, due to the lack of momentum mechanics.

Quote
-- I really like their Fighter/Bomber system, and how they keep it completely separate from Boarding craft. Plus there's no separation between Boarding actions and Boarding Craft - I mean how does FSA work if boarding without SRS? Do they shove guys out airlocks?
No one really likes how FSA handles either system.

Quote
Simplification does not mean simple, though it may seem so with only two factions, limited model variety, and attendant limited weapons and "MARs". In ways, it reminds me of Age of Sigmar: an unforgiveable dumbing down at first glance, but later realizing the massive design depth available, simply through special rules by units versus in core rules.
I have no idea why he equates it to checkers, particularly since he's not a checkers Grand Master.  Simple can be very deep.

Quote
If you gave me a few weeks and paid me, I could convert every Firestorm fleet to HALO mechanics, and you'd love it more than any FSA edition.
That could be fun...

Quote
About the only skewed HALO mechanic is boarding, which is massively more destructive/dramatic than any firepower crits, but that's a deliberate choice to highlight the Spartans, and could be removed/tweaked for any adaptation.
I absolutely agree on all points, and this one mechanic is why I don't play.  To me, it actually breaks from the HALO theme.

Quote
Overall, I have MORE fun playing HALO than FSA, I just miss the variety and background that comes with FSA.
maybe Ruckdog will teach me the game after Adepticon Training.

Landlubber

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Number of Times Thanked: 64
    • View Profile
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2017, 09:37:09 pm »
I'll pitch in my $0.02 here, since I'm a big fan of the miniatures games (both Fleet Battles and Ground Command) and because I'm a big fan of the background/fluff/lore.

A lot of this is subjective. What one gamer considers simple, others may consider complex. And not all games appeal to all gamers. GW and Privateer Press products are sold in almost every single game store I've ever been in--sometimes in multiple stores in the same town--and they have fans worldwide, but they don't appeal to everybody. So saying that a game is too simplified and doesn't have a "fun factor" is entirely an opinion. To which, of course, everyone is entitled, but it is mere opinion.

I can tell you why I think both the Halo miniatures games are fun, but again it is just my opinion. I like Fleet Battles because the models are cool and the mechanics just *work* for me, and because I really like the background. Ryjak, you talk about the boarding mechanic kind of being a dealbreaker for you; but for me, I think that it is highly cinematic and fits with the background of the game. (On a side note: I don't keep statistics, but I would bet that about 75% of the boarding actions that have occurred on both sides in my Fleet Battles games do not end up in a critical core breach. It is not a guaranteed outcome. If anything, the boarding actions tend to drag on for a few turns, which again I think is very cinematic and fitting.) I also like Fleet Battles because the ships tend to  be less fiddly to move (Dale hit the nail on the head about FA frigates). And, to me, it just looks sweet on the table. There are other things I like about it, but I won't go into all that here.

It's understandable, however, why some people don't like it; probably for some of the same reasons I don't like Star Trek: Attack Wing or Malifaux. They just don't work for me, and Fleet Battles just doesn't work for some people. No harm, no foul. McKinstry, your point about the game only having two factions is well taken; there is room to flesh it out and include other factions (I can think of at least three possibilities--the Flood, the Sangheili, and human insurrectionists), which is something I hope Spartan does soon.

I like Ground Command because I was a huge fan of the console games and I believe that Spartan Games has faithfully recreated the characters and vehicles from the source material, and has recreated the feel of combat in the Halo universe--as much as you can do that when you translate an electronic game into a physical tabletop game. Much like Fleet Battles, gameplay is fast and vicious, again replicating the console games. I don't play many infantry-based games, and the other two I do play are DeepWars and (very rarely) Dystopian Legions, so I don't really have anything to compare it to. But for me, again, it just *works*.

Something else that really works for me is the  "alternating activation" mechanic that Spartan uses in all their games. I much prefer that to the "you go, I go" system that GW (and other) games use (I think that's what it's called).

None of us has any insight into the inner workings of Spartan Games, so I think it's a little premature to say that the Halo games have "killed" Dystopian Wars and Firestorm Armada. Indeed, fundraising for the Dystopian Wars Kickstarter went very well; whether or not they deliver on time remains to be seen, but that sort of thing doesn't bother me too much--this is a hobby, after all, and I certainly have plenty of other ships to paint/game with while I wait on my pledge rewards. I think Andy's statement above about how Spartan does business is spot-on; they have pretty much always been feast-or-famine. Not all gamers are used to that, and not all gamers like it, but that's how they are. Spartan's business model has been dissected, discussed, hashed, and re-hashed ad nauseum on countless forums and in countless gamer conversations. It is what it is, and if that's not your particular cup of Earl Gray (I'm speaking of the general "you" in this case, not you personally, Ryjak), well then there are plenty of other game companies out there with which you may find more enjoyment. I'm a big fan of Spartan's products, and even I get a little annoyed at how they do things sometimes, but it has never diminished my enjoyment in playing their games. But...again, that's just me, and I'm willing to put up with it. Some people are, some people aren't, and there's no right or wrong in either opinion.

Happy to further discuss any of the points above.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 09:41:26 pm by Landlubber »
"Sometimes, you gotta roll the hard six."--Commander Adama

Ruckdog

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3066
  • Number of Times Thanked: 189
  • Dive! Dive!
    • View Profile
    • Man Battlestations!
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2017, 12:10:49 am »
I strongly disagree. HALO is the first successful implementation I've seen in ages (if ever) of having really LARGE fleets on table, with whole squadron elements on a single base.

What is your definition of a LARGE fleet?  If you're going by distinct models, where HFB has 2-4 models per base, then sure, but what really matters is how many Bases are on the table.  A 1000 point fleet in FSA can easily hit 20 bases per side, sometimes 30.  How many bases are on the table in an 'average-sized' HFB game?


Not sure what qualifies as an "average"-sized game, but I'd offer that when I played my game of HFB at E&E a few months back, I had 14 stands of ships on the table as UNSC, and my opponent had 10 stands for his Covenant fleet, in a 1200 point game. However, I'd offer that you missing Dale's point somewhat by emphasizing the number of bases over the number of models. That's what he means, I think, of HFB being a good implementation of having large fleets on the table. Having more models but fewer bases is a technique HFB uses to represent grander scale engagements and keep play time to a reasonable length, sort of like how infantry come several troops to a stand in 10mm and 15mm games, but 28mm games usually have their infantry on individual bases.  If I play a game that uses 12 stands of infantry to represent a full company, and another game that uses 20 figures on individual bases to represent two squads, I would say that the company-sized game represents a "larger" battle.

Dakkar

  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
  • Number of Times Thanked: 25
  • Mobilis in Mobili
    • View Profile
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2017, 11:21:11 am »
HFB being a good implementation of having large fleets on the table.

Just so. It *feels* like a larger fleet action, but takes far less time. (Certainly speedier and better play than the Task Force option)
"History is-a made at night. Character is what you are in the dark!"
-- Lord John Whorfin, Red Lectroid Leader

zorper

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 163
  • Number of Times Thanked: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2017, 02:25:49 pm »
For the game mechanics, I think that it comes down to the old, old, argument:  Does complexity = good?  If you want your games to be more complex, DW will be better.  If not, HFB.  A great example is how dice are computed for units firing together.  In DW, you take the lead and then add half of the others.  In HFB, you add.  How many shots happen in a game?  Multiply shots in a game by the extra time it takes to figure out the dice and that you are starting to see how much longer a DW game will be.  Is that time worth it?  It depends on who you ask.  For me, no.  Someone else, yes.

Familiarity is also a factor.  I showed my 14 year old son our Dirt Fight game.  Without playing, he already knows what every unit is and basically what it can do.  Planetfall, not so much.  Here I actually like the fact that Planetfall has all these weird, obscure factions.  Does someone else?  Maybe not.  This is a hobby, not a job, and a lot of people are not interested having to train for their down time.

All miniature wargaming environments are inherently unstable.  GW handles this by constantly changing rules.  Very annoying to me, but they have been doing it for 30+ years now and are still in business (although their fanboys keep saying they are doomed.  Every. Single. Year.)  Spartan handles instability by chasing the next shiny.  That is also annoying, but I suspect that they make more money in getting new customers instead of trying to please the ones they have.

I treat all my miniature games as that one party when I was a kid.  It wasn't planned, but everyone showed up anyway and all had a blast.  When we tried to do it again, it bombed.  I learned to be happy with the good times I've had and will be having for a little while longer.

Dakkar

  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
  • Number of Times Thanked: 25
  • Mobilis in Mobili
    • View Profile
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2017, 04:16:38 pm »
their fanboys keep saying they are doomed.  Every. Single. Year.

GW, every year for a decade: "Good night, fanboys. We'll probably destroy all you love and hold dear in the morning. Sleep well, Westly!"


Quote
Spartan handles instability by chasing the next shiny.  That is also annoying, but I suspect that they make more money in getting new customers instead of trying to please the ones they have.

Also the Mongoose "strategy". The problem is when the potential new customers notice NO ONE is playing their games at the LGS, and there's no one left to promote. We're long past the days when folks would completely bank a huge purchase on the new shiny, just cause it looked cool. You need the full Kickstarter-style sales pitch, whether an actual KS or not.

"History is-a made at night. Character is what you are in the dark!"
-- Lord John Whorfin, Red Lectroid Leader

Ryjak

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 143
  • Number of Times Thanked: 2
    • View Profile
    • Ops Center
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2017, 05:52:37 am »
For the game mechanics, I think that it comes down to the old, old, argument:  Does complexity = good?
In Engineering and Gaming, when has anyone ever made that arguement?  Complexity doesn't make something good, it just makes it complex.  In Engineering, complexity leads to more points of failure.  In Gaming, fun is whatever someone is looking for.  There are seven identified kind of "fun" stimulus; a fun game is one that hits the stimulus you want, a great game hits multiple stimulus types.

Quote
All miniature wargaming environments are inherently unstable.[/quote
No they aren't, but almost all game companies have adopted a business model that requires them to constantly change things. Chess is still around, and it hasn't changed in 1,000 years... but no one is trying to defend the Chess IP either, or keep the Chess player base engaged by constantly releasing new rules or pieces.

Battlefleet Gothic is still around too, and it's now in the same situation as Chess, except for one thing; someone will still fight to defend the IP, so no one makes BFG gaming sets.

Quickdraw

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 638
  • Number of Times Thanked: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2017, 10:26:28 am »
I guess I'm late to the party on this one but I'll jump in.

As to your quote from the blogger, it's an opinion pure and simple. Comparing Halo to checkers is a drastic under representation of the game. The tactical decision making in Halo is actually very complex, I would argue more then Firestorm. The weapon systems, the ranges, the small damage tracks, the special abilities of commanders, the board/counter board/tactical withdrawal, and the firepower rating mechanic all make for a very fulfilling game. It is ultra important to understand where to press your advantages and where to get the heck out. Plus they did all of this with a much more user friendly ruleset. I think a lot of people that criticize Halo as being too simple are confusing user friendly with dumbed down.

As to the death of Dystopian Wars and Firestorm... I don't understand why everyone is surprised when Spartan doesn't touch a game for months. They have always done this, since the beginning. They have a focus issue. We saw some releases for Firestorm in the form of OmniDyne, Syndicate, and Xelocians. I imagine in another year Halo will be forgotten and Firestorm and Dystopian Wars are going to get all the love.

zorper

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 163
  • Number of Times Thanked: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Did HALO kill Spartan Games?
« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2017, 12:24:48 pm »
For the game mechanics, I think that it comes down to the old, old, argument:  Does complexity = good?
In Engineering and Gaming, when has anyone ever made that arguement?

Interesting to see that statement.  In my 20+ years as an engineer, Sales overselling complex, hard to maintain solutions has probably been my biggest headache.  Customer needs a small Honda, Sales convinces them they need a huge Hummer.  We wind up supporting the Hummer, with the support budget of the Honda.  (Note: I design VoIP networks, not cars.)

As for games, take Stratego vs. War in the East.  I think that someone who selects War in the East is doing so because it is a more complex game, and therefor 'better' for that player.