Warhammer 40K's story, how is it even remotely appealing?
- Thread starter Saviordd1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not any of the videogame stories no.Saviordd1 said:
But the original Workshop game's meta-story and lore?
Its appealing because its a vicious parody of exactly the kind of dark and dreary and bloody sort of story you're talking about.
It's a humorous statement meant to point out the often disconnect between the world of academia and the world outside of the school setting.Bara_no_Hime said:
I'll also throw out the old adage ?it?s a poor score keeper who can?t win a game?.
I?m simply posing the question why such rules are needed, besides rating higher on a technical English level what separates literature from sclock.Bara_no_Hime said:
I'm not trying to be negative about literature, I?m just interested in how you defend the merits of the art form above the common porn mags and Alien novels (of course we?re not talking about Playboy here, those early issues had some quality writing).
Sure it may not be for everyone but same goes for every other thing out there.
However ...
How can anyone not like green glowing, sentient, silent death legions guided by entities, who have existed pretty much since the first stars flickered into life.
However ...
How can anyone not like green glowing, sentient, silent death legions guided by entities, who have existed pretty much since the first stars flickered into life.
i like the art direction and little snippets of the story, but i don't really know enough about the story to conclusively say whether or not it is very well written
The Appeal to me is the fact that its set SO far in the future, they can pull off alot of different things. Alot of the lore is based of historical events, armies, and figures, but in this very grim setting that can get away with things like 500 year nuclear bombardment.
The story of Warhammer 40K exists for two reasons, to pad out the rule books so they can claim they are worth $50, and to give a semi-valid reason that any faction can face off against any other or the same faction. "Everyone is fighting, so this makes sense" is as good an explanation as any.
I've never found a lot of stories that have gripped me in the 40k universe, with the notable exception of The Last Chancers, the Space Wolf Omnibuses, and Fifteen Hours. I do love the background that the universe gives you so you can make your own stories, or campaigns for Dark Heresy or Rogue Trader however.
I'm one of those rare people that like the setting better than the game. And I really like the game.
I've been playing since 1992, and it remains, to this day, my favourite SF setting, bar none. It's very hard to pinpoint exactly why that is, but even after more than two decades playing it, I am in love with it. It's very much like the Dune series, or Lexx: you either like or... you don't.
In fact, I have an Imperial aquila tattooed on the back of my neck.
I've been playing since 1992, and it remains, to this day, my favourite SF setting, bar none. It's very hard to pinpoint exactly why that is, but even after more than two decades playing it, I am in love with it. It's very much like the Dune series, or Lexx: you either like or... you don't.
In fact, I have an Imperial aquila tattooed on the back of my neck.
Blood Angels player here. And I've been playing since Matt Ward was a toddler, so I'm not in it for the cheese.Hazy said:So, what is everyone's favorite chapter of the glorious Imperium of Man?
Heretics and xenos need not apply.
Actually I meant video porn. With rare exceptions, that is generally not good quality storytelling.NiPah said:
As for these rules - what rules? The OP quoted TV Tropes. Tropes are a collection of storytelling techniques that authors use as shorthand ways to convey information to the audience, but they are not rules. Tropes can be used or inverted, or subverted, or averted - that is, used normally, reversed, made fun of, or ignored. Shlock is just as likely to include tropes as literature, although shlock is more likely to use a trope straight whereas literature is more likely to invert, subvert, or avert a trope.
From a literary theory point of view, there are guidelines to how to write a good story, but those guidelines are just that. A true literary master knows how to bend or ignore the "rules" because they know what those rules are meant to ensure and can accomplish the same goals in other ways.
Good literature typically has a unifying theme, deep characters, good foreshadowing, and excellent prose.
Shlock, typically, is a collection of tropes and flat characters thrown together without any attention to literary theory beyond possibly a some sort of story charting.
And, to paraphrase Movie Bob, you can create good literature out of anything. Jim Butcher took the concept of Pokemon meets the Lost Roman Legion meets Aliens and turned it into a best selling novel series that uses every old cliche he could think up to throw in. But, because he wrote it well, with a unifying theme, deep characters, skillful foreshadowing, and beautiful prose, he made it into literature.
I have rearranged your post so it is easier to reply to.
Considering almost nothing is original anymore, taking inspiration from an existing piece of media and/or literature is hardly a heinous sin. The same stories have been re-told through different settings and different mediums for quite some time now, including the story of a 'band of brothers.' Through this, we have gotten some truly kickass films, books and t.v. shows. I love experiencing the same story over and over again as long as the setting, the characters and themes are somewhat different. It's somewhat lazy, yes, but using the same premise requires a unique effort by the creators to differentiate enough to make it stand on its own. As I said before, what the 'successor' does different from its 'predecessor' is what matters to me. The fact that they picked and chose from the public domain, assuming they did, doesn't turn me off at all as long as they do something new with it. Same applies for using the same setting, themes and messages and characters. Is it different enough?
It's a case by case thing considering there are many times it does not work, such as Avatar. The setting and some of the characters were new and amazing but that wasn't enough to cover up the story. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't work, I detest it but that doesn't mean the rest of the inspired media and literature have to be in the same category. I suppose it is very subjective as to what does it well and what doesn't but that's my general view of things.
Sort of rambled on there, sorry >.>.
But the latter is inspiration and ultimately, it ends up with the same result. Dan Abnett obviously put more thought into writing the books than 'what was Sharpe like?' The different things the 'successor' does is what makes the 'successor' good.Politeia said:
Why?Politeia said:
Considering almost nothing is original anymore, taking inspiration from an existing piece of media and/or literature is hardly a heinous sin. The same stories have been re-told through different settings and different mediums for quite some time now, including the story of a 'band of brothers.' Through this, we have gotten some truly kickass films, books and t.v. shows. I love experiencing the same story over and over again as long as the setting, the characters and themes are somewhat different. It's somewhat lazy, yes, but using the same premise requires a unique effort by the creators to differentiate enough to make it stand on its own. As I said before, what the 'successor' does different from its 'predecessor' is what matters to me. The fact that they picked and chose from the public domain, assuming they did, doesn't turn me off at all as long as they do something new with it. Same applies for using the same setting, themes and messages and characters. Is it different enough?
It's a case by case thing considering there are many times it does not work, such as Avatar. The setting and some of the characters were new and amazing but that wasn't enough to cover up the story. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't work, I detest it but that doesn't mean the rest of the inspired media and literature have to be in the same category. I suppose it is very subjective as to what does it well and what doesn't but that's my general view of things.
Sort of rambled on there, sorry >.>.
My apologies, I misinterpreted your post.Politeia said:
Don't forget how the Knights of the Blazing Sun and Knights Panther were killed for worshiping the goddess Myrmidia. The Raven Knights and the Knights of Morr killed for worshiping the god of death, and the killing off of many priests of Morr.GunsmithKitten said:
I personally don't care for the human fluff, basically it shows a race devolved into a bunch of religious nuts.
But the Ork codex is a pretty entertaining read, at least. And most of the novels are fantastic. But I agree with you that most of the Codex and Rulebook fluff is pretty dull.
I think the idea behind the humans being such asshats is that Warhammer 40k is trying to present a scenario in which there is no clear 'good guy', so that no one has any reservations about playing a certain army.
A few examples.
Humans are well, humans, and we naturally empathize with them. But, the Imperium of Man is extremely zealous and obsessed with manifest destiny. It's not even clear that their Emperor is still even doing anything for them.
I personally really want to be able to like the Eldar. I think it's sort of implied that humans and Eldar are on relatively friendly terms (they don't outright try to murder each other. Usually). But the Eldar are obsessed with destroying everything even remotely tied to Chaos, and the humans could ally with them, but consistently choose not to, and I think this is meant to show both 1.) how big of a bunch of dicks the humans are and 2.) how obsessive and manipulative the Eldar can be.
The Necrons (in the new fluff) just want their lives back. Their ultimate goal is to reverse the biotransference, which is certainly understandable.
And Tao are dirty commies. Actually, they really do seem to be the only non-absolute-dick race in the story.
But the Ork codex is a pretty entertaining read, at least. And most of the novels are fantastic. But I agree with you that most of the Codex and Rulebook fluff is pretty dull.
I think the idea behind the humans being such asshats is that Warhammer 40k is trying to present a scenario in which there is no clear 'good guy', so that no one has any reservations about playing a certain army.
A few examples.
Humans are well, humans, and we naturally empathize with them. But, the Imperium of Man is extremely zealous and obsessed with manifest destiny. It's not even clear that their Emperor is still even doing anything for them.
I personally really want to be able to like the Eldar. I think it's sort of implied that humans and Eldar are on relatively friendly terms (they don't outright try to murder each other. Usually). But the Eldar are obsessed with destroying everything even remotely tied to Chaos, and the humans could ally with them, but consistently choose not to, and I think this is meant to show both 1.) how big of a bunch of dicks the humans are and 2.) how obsessive and manipulative the Eldar can be.
The Necrons (in the new fluff) just want their lives back. Their ultimate goal is to reverse the biotransference, which is certainly understandable.
And Tao are dirty commies. Actually, they really do seem to be the only non-absolute-dick race in the story.
Warhammer 40k is a series made by and for socially autistic man-child sperglords. It has performed well catering to this niche.
I enjoy the lore because of how it begs various questions, while letting the audience go hog wild with the source material. Even in the, up to eleven, sense, it still engages me in a rather profound philosphical sense when I consider the motivations of the characters and the impact and reactions to their actions.
Take for example the Thousand Sons. Why was the Emperor so intent on preventing his sons from gaining knowledge of Chaos? Why wasn't he just honest with them? Was he truly going to stick Magnus in the Golden Throne to power the thing? Why didn't the Emperor actually listen to the message Magnus sent instead of sending Russ after him? Why was Russ so quick to jump on the chance to kill Magnus ordered by Horus; which contradicted his orders from the Emperor? Is Ahriman still seeking away to reverse the Rubric? How did he feel at the time when he realized what he did?
Even with the power of what amounts to gods, they had the emotional failings of high schoolers and sibblings rivalring for the attentions of their father. Their pride and personal vendettas doomed the Empire and brought about the deaths of untold innocents.
The thing that really strikes me as intriguing is the amount of failure and loss in the setting. Now granted, they can replace most things, but I enjoy watching characters fuck up so monumentally the consequences are beyond all comprehension. I like the fallible nature of the universe and the constant struggle for people to make the decision to stand for what they believe in, in the face of universal and unending opposition. I like the lines between good and evil blurred so much it comes down to a personal choice the character makes.
With any fiction, what you put into it is often what you get out of it. Some people love it for rocket propelled chainsaws. Some people love it because an Ork strategy involves throwing big rocks at their enemy (which surprisingly affective results). Some people love it because of the heroic deeds of a handfull of soldiers fending off an tide of aliens intend on devouring everything in their path. Some people love it because an Ork travelled back in time to kill himself so he could have a spare of his favorite gun.
It's a universal of endless possibilities, where the outcome of one story may or may not have any bearing on the setting of another. Where the stakes are determined by the storyteller, but the setting continues to propell the interest of others. It's a universe of thousands of stories and characters waiting to be used by the readers and players for whatever purpose they want; political intrigue, war torn battle fields, ethical dilemmas, satiritical illustrations of complex concepts, or jsut plain old goofy fun with mechs that stop entire towns into dust.
And of course, because I find myself sympathising with the more honest "villains" of the settings, because the "heroes" are real pricks.
Take for example the Thousand Sons. Why was the Emperor so intent on preventing his sons from gaining knowledge of Chaos? Why wasn't he just honest with them? Was he truly going to stick Magnus in the Golden Throne to power the thing? Why didn't the Emperor actually listen to the message Magnus sent instead of sending Russ after him? Why was Russ so quick to jump on the chance to kill Magnus ordered by Horus; which contradicted his orders from the Emperor? Is Ahriman still seeking away to reverse the Rubric? How did he feel at the time when he realized what he did?
Even with the power of what amounts to gods, they had the emotional failings of high schoolers and sibblings rivalring for the attentions of their father. Their pride and personal vendettas doomed the Empire and brought about the deaths of untold innocents.
The thing that really strikes me as intriguing is the amount of failure and loss in the setting. Now granted, they can replace most things, but I enjoy watching characters fuck up so monumentally the consequences are beyond all comprehension. I like the fallible nature of the universe and the constant struggle for people to make the decision to stand for what they believe in, in the face of universal and unending opposition. I like the lines between good and evil blurred so much it comes down to a personal choice the character makes.
With any fiction, what you put into it is often what you get out of it. Some people love it for rocket propelled chainsaws. Some people love it because an Ork strategy involves throwing big rocks at their enemy (which surprisingly affective results). Some people love it because of the heroic deeds of a handfull of soldiers fending off an tide of aliens intend on devouring everything in their path. Some people love it because an Ork travelled back in time to kill himself so he could have a spare of his favorite gun.
It's a universal of endless possibilities, where the outcome of one story may or may not have any bearing on the setting of another. Where the stakes are determined by the storyteller, but the setting continues to propell the interest of others. It's a universe of thousands of stories and characters waiting to be used by the readers and players for whatever purpose they want; political intrigue, war torn battle fields, ethical dilemmas, satiritical illustrations of complex concepts, or jsut plain old goofy fun with mechs that stop entire towns into dust.
And of course, because I find myself sympathising with the more honest "villains" of the settings, because the "heroes" are real pricks.
I'll admit, I don't tend to think of Mass Effect in context of Warhammer, but Dragon Age still looks suspiciously like the Fantasy Warhammer setting with the serial numbers filed off...Saviordd1 said:
Mages get their power from
It's not all 1:1 like this, obviously, but Dragon Age always left me with a serious Warhammer Fantasy Battles vibe.
That said, 40k does play into a specific kind of over the top. Sort of like what you'd get if you took Dune and let it off it's meds. If you're looking at it and saying it looks "edgy", even in a 13 year old's context, then you might just be missing the point. For me, at least, the setting has always played more like a kind of parody of a serious settings.
You're actually hitting on the point of both WFB and 40k obliquely here. Both settings are built around the table top game. That's where the actual money for Games Workshop is. Dawn of War, the Black Library, Space Marine, those are all side items, and if I took all the 40k purchases I've ever made and pooled them together, I've spent less than it would cost me to put together a pair of 2k point armies for tabletop.Saviordd1 said:
The tabletop game is the main point, first and foremost. The factions aren't built around "here's a good faction, and here's an evil one", it's built around "how can we make this faction fun to play? How can we make it attractive for you to buy?"
When you actually get into the tabletop's army codices every single one starts with a line like "you should build an army of if you like , , or you like feeling like a badass". I'm paraphrasing a bit obviously, and they don't all literally say "feeling like a badass", but, the Marine Codex says (something along the lines of) "if you like fielding powerful units," Dark Eldar is "enjoy hitting and running with brutal precision", and so on.
The reason the setting is what it is, is because it's trying to sell you an army for any given faction. That said, it does boast some of the best tie in fiction I've seen. Some gawdawful tie in fiction as well, but, given most tie in fiction is borderline unreadable, it's nice to see some actually good writing.
The setting itself actually ends up better on a feminist critique than most mass media. (I still remember someone dubbing Space Marine as surprisingly the most feminist game of 2011.) Women, and men appear in positions of authority pretty frequently, and there isn't a lot of gender bias, at least in the imperial factions outside of the Astartes and Sororitas. The tabletop should probably get dinged for not having female guardsmen units available (to my knowledge, again I don't play tabletop), and a number of the games including Dawn of War sort of skim over that in the interest of not requiring more units, but for the most part, in an IG regiment, any position could potentially be filled by a member of either gender, and the same goes for most inquisitional retinue members.
That said, Orks don't have gender, neither do the Necrons or the Tyranids. The Tau do, and IIRC they actually field mixed units, but their genders aren't visibly different. (I could be remembering this wrong.)
The Eldar in both vanilla and emo have genders, though they might be the only ones where gender does lock them in. That said, I seem to recall that a person's actual gender isn't as important as the gender they adopt when they take on that role. Which means, yes, there are dark Eldar in drag... be very afraid.
Chaos fields both genders... for some things. Cultists mostly. Some daemons are gender locked based on what their unit is. Chaos Space Marines are all male... or something...
Still, a lot of the fluff focuses on the Imperium, and as a result we have a better view of that, then most of the setting.