Fantasy Trumps Sci-Fi For MMOs

simoniker writes "Mythic's Mark Jacobs, whose MMO company is being acquired by EA, has commented in detail on why fantasy MMOs sell better as part of an extended interview. He suggests of MMOs: 'Fantasy is easier than sci-fi. Want to know why? It's simple. A gun. What's a gun? A gun is impersonal. A gun can shoot somebody from across the room... Part of the challenge we found with Imperator is how do you make a combat system based on lasers and energy weapons, compelling to an RPG audience. The other challenge with a sci-fi game is that fantasy is very well defined in our minds ... I also think there's something I can't explain, which is that people are more willing to play a fantasy game that's not as good online, than they are willing to play a sci-fi game that's not as good online. And I'm not sure why that is.' Suggestions?"

Other weapons

[suso]

So then use Klingon pain sticks or something. Sci-Fi doesn't have to be with a gun. Or limit the range of the gun.

Factor of Copyright Restrictions?

[eldavojohn]

I don't buy this argument. In fact, I think that copyright restrictions and forced creative direction are what destroys an MMO. Look at Star Wars Galaxies, too many copyright restrictions and attempts at intervention from LucasArts as to how the game experience should feel. Look at Middle Earth Online. Actually, it doesn't exist and is some pretty famous vapor ware.

Now look at games that are completely original to the developing companies like World of Warcraft, lineage I & II, Runescape (fantasy games), Eve Online (a sci-fi game). You might point out that there are more successful fantasy games but I think it's just the fact that sci-fi is often spurred from novels or movies. Rarely do you hear of an original sci-fi game. Therefore, your players have this pre-conceived notion of what the game should be like and if it misses the mark, they are disappointed. I'd like to think the correlation of success comes with creative and artistic control as well as originality. I don't really buy the argument that projectile weapons make a game difficult to design.

Roles

[HugePedlar]

I wonder if it's the races and roles that people find easier to identify with in a fantasy MMO. Typical RPG characters like Human, Elf, Dwarf, Wizard and so on are pretty well defined. Give someone Human, Alien, Other Alien etc. and they don't know how to associate with the role.

Just a thought.

Set and setting and slicing

[spyrochaete]

I think it's largely an issue of art style. Sci-Fi MMOs are either immaculte buiness sims (like EVE) or ugly dystopian battlegrounds (like Auto Assault) while fantasy MMOs are lush forests and towns nestled in mountains and meadows. My guess is that people would rather frolic "outside" than in claustrophobic corridors which they see enough at work.

Another issue is the familiarity with the weapons, as mention in TFA. A 3-foot sword has a 3-foot range, but a 2-foot gun has an arbitrary range that takes practise and familiarity to recognize by sight. It's quicker and easier to cut a guy with a kitchen utensil then to hone a masterwork of alien engineering.

Game Design All

[realisticradical]

World of Warcraft has guns. But more than that I think all fantasy MMOs have some sort of ranged characters, just look at spellcasters.

The reason some online games do well and others don't is because of a game design. A design that creates community and has fun and engaging play will do better than one that doesn't. I also think advertising and general appeal helps to pull in those people who wouldn't otherwise jump over the fence that seperates MMOs from other games.

Re:Other weapons

[theStorminMormon]

That's exactly why sci-fi isn't doing very well as an RPG. Most efforts to make sci-fi based on hand-to-hand combat come across as very contrived. It works sometimes for movies and books (see Dune for a classic) but in takes a great deal of originality to explain how people can travel from star-to-star but still have to wack eachother with sticks in combat.

And in any case, by the time you've reduced it to hand-to-hand combat you practically have fantasy anyway.

I think one reason that fantasy does better is that it's easier. The constraints on believability are much, much more lax for fantasy. Magic isn't supposed to really make sense. You don't really tend to say "fireball? in this humidity? yeah right!" On the other hand with sci-fi you allways have crowds of people asking "how does artifiial gravity really work?" and "You're saying I have a fighter ship than can travel hundreds or thousands of miles an hour, spin on a time, and I'm not reduced to mush inside the cockpit, how?"

Sci-fi involves some level of scientific rigor. If you don't have to explain anything (or if you don't bother to even try) than sci-fi itself becomes fantasy (that's why Star Wars is considered fantasy by most people that care about fantasy). Sci-fi demands some exercise in explanation. Fantasy does not. This means fantasy is easier.

-stormin

Re:Hmmm...

[FooAtWFU]

I disagree - there is something different, but it's not in the effect itself. Rather, consider: the fantasy premise of "You have awesome destructive powers" is different from the scifi premise of "You have equipment with awesome destructive powers". Or, take some sort of fantasy healer: "You heal your wounded comrade with the energies of Nature and the purity of your own soul" versus the scifi: "You heal your wounded comrade with the medpack, the tricorder, and the powers of Science".

These are two different mindsets, and they really do make all the difference for a role-playing game. The sci in scifi, the idea that it's Scienc and technology and such, is really different from the more spiritually-mystically-oriented realms of fantasy.

Magic = More eyecandy

[smbarbour]

Part of it, is that magic looks cooler than tech. It is not about guns being a long-range attack (most spells are long-range, as are arrows and throwing stars). A real issue with sci-fi RPGs is that there really isn't a fighter-type class since there are very few melee weapons in a sci-fi universe. They just to be more creative (perhaps even a hybrid).

What I would really like to see, though, is a game that completely eliminates the classes/jobs and provides every skill a la carte (and preferably using the Korean MMO model... free to play with premium real money items). Perhaps one already exists but I just don't know about it yet.

Scifi as an RPG

[Rob T Firefly]

As someone who runs pen-and-paper RPGs in fantasy and scifi environments, I've learned that for Scifi to work on the same playability and fun levels as a fantasy RPG, many tweaks need to be made.

There is the gun issue from TFA, but if done right it's not anywhere near as big an issue. For something immersive like an RPG, the game must be crafted with things like this in mind. In the "Dr Who," "Star Trek," "Star Wars," and general scifi RPGs I've done, the story has to be crafted in such a way as to make things interesting for the players without just being a shoot-em-up. There are scifi concepts galore, but they have to do far more than just "shoot bad guy X to get item Y." In these particular Universes, the "tank" type of character tends to be the absolute least interesting to play. Storyline, brain-requiring quests, and interesting puzzles make all the difference in something immersive.

In any case, I really think the best stories can't be cold computer-generated grind quests, they need to be crafted around the players talents and shortcomings.

To be fair, my love of truly immersive interactive RPGs is part of why the whole MMO deal never did it for me. A game world full of people going "lol" and "a/s/l" and "omg nd heal pls" really kicks the crap out of suspension of disbelief.

I digress, but I do believe that immersion and feeling like part of an imaginary world is doubly important to scifi fans in such an environment. Hardcore scifi nuts, the types who read Gibson or Heinlein or Asimov or Douglas Adams or whoever else, tend to want to use a brain more than they want to just shoot everyone. It just takes a lot more effort on the part of the game creators to get it right. Think of the best scifi games you ever played. What was interesting about them which you don't see in modern MMOs?

Take the Hitchhiker's game from Infocom, for instance.. I've played very few games that I've ever felt more immersed in. I was totally Arthur Dent for most of my time in front of that monochrome screen. (Except for the parts where I wasn't..) And how many times in that game does the player shoot or kill anyone?

correction:

[theStorminMormon]

or if you don't bother to even try) than sci-fi itself becomes fantasy (that's why Star Wars is considered fantasy by most people that care about fantasy

should be

or if you don't bother to even try) than sci-fi itself becomes fantasy (that's why Star Wars is considered fantasy by most people that care about sci-fi

Three Words:

[Yusaku Godai]

World. Of. Starcraft.

May just be wishful thinking on my part, but if Blizzard ever decides to do it, it would probably invalidate this article. I'm not a WoW fan at all, and ever since I quit RO I've placed a moratorium on MMOs for myself. But I don't think I could resist something like this, assuming it's done well.

Not that other sci-fi themed MMOs can't be great. I'm just going off of Blizzard's track record here...

Re:Factor of Copyright Restrictions?

[radarjd]

I don't buy this argument. In fact, I think that copyright restrictions and forced creative direction are what destroys an MMO. Look at Star Wars Galaxies, too many copyright restrictions and attempts at intervention from LucasArts as to how the game experience should feel.

Perhaps I'm being overly technical, but it doesn't seem like "copyright restrictions" are really the issue so much as creative control, or perhaps "continuity restrictions". SWG (I'm was in from Beta 2 until a year and a half after launch) suffered from a muddied vision of what the game should be, and from an overly ambitious release schedule. Further, there have always been anecdotal reports that LucasArts exerted a great deal of oversight over SOE. The designers originally had Jedi as an ultra-rare mystical thing, and then people discovered it was simply a profession grind for a class which wasn't necessarily well thought out. I maintain to this day that Jedi should have been chosen by special GM's hired just to find Jedi, but that's a topic for another day.

Saying "copyright restrictions" cause problems is misleading I think. Many parts of the Warcraft universe are protected by copyright, whether the embodiments may be as a game, a novel, or even a manual (IAAL, a copyright lawyer, in fact). Again, I think you really mean "continuity restrictions" or even "creative control from an outside agency". Copyright has little to do with it, other than copyright gives the outside agency some of its control (though trademark is as powerful a protection in this context IMO).

Indeed, without continuity, what makes "Star Wars" Star Wars? Noise in outer space? Fantastic alien creatures? Existence of the Force? Without some of those elements, the name alone is useless. I would say that LucasArts' insistence on keeping Star Wars "Star Wars" maintains the integrity of that universe. They may not know anything about MMO design, and perhaps their mistake was trying to exert too much creative control over something they knew nothing about.

Or maybe the article writer is right, and guns are really hard to implement in an MMO...

Re:Other weapons

[Gabrill]

There is one more great big difference between the two type of stories. Fantasy plots generally are limited in their geography. Even if you did know about the far away land, getting there is prohibitive, and the stars are simply unthinkable. Sci-Fi plots almost universally have expanded to multiple planet scenarios up to the point of having so much to explore that no one could possibly hope to even see it all on film, much less in person. If I were a game developer, I'd feel much more comfortable producing, and even coding a world that has reasonable and well defined borders and limits.

Bingo! Crunchy Bits.

[Valdrax]

I agree. There's a big difference between, "I blast things with my tool," and "*I* blast things."

In addition, I'd like to note that having the powers be personal means that it's easier to distinguish between character types without BS restrictions. In a world of magic, you can have necromancers, elementalists, healers, summoners, etc. each with wildly different abilities that makes them more differentiated and gives a greater feeling of being somehow special.

In a world of technology, anyone can use a gun, a laser, a medpack, cybernetics, nanotechnology, etc. You can be more skilled at it than someone else, but there's no reason for strong differentiation between ability types. Your character isn't necessarily Special. Any artificial restrictions on access to tools and powers become more blatantly arbitrary than in a fantasy setting.

SF for writing, Fantasy for games

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

That's my rule anyway. In a game you want freedom to do stuff - that's the whole point of escapism. Science fiction is simply too straitjacketed and fantasy is so much more colorful.

But in fiction you need structure. Fantasy (at least of the sword and sorcery variety) is one of the worst genres of writing simply because people just make stuff up for hundreds of pages at a time. This kind of arbitrariness can kill dramatic tension because any kind of deus ex machina can appear at any time.

Re:Other weapons

[C0rinthian]

Star Wars is fantasy but it's a refreshing change from the usual swords, magic, dragons and orcs you get in 97% of all fantasy settings

Instead you get Lightsabers, The Force, Rancors, and Stormtroopers. ;)

What a non-answer!

[bobocopy]

His answer to, "Why is fantasy so hot?" is basically, "Because with fantasy, we don't have to be original." Listen, this is about a much larger "problem" that's been slowly cropping up recently within in geek fiction: readers (and gamers) believe they're willing to try something new, but they really aren't. So, when you pick up a hundred fantasy novels off the shelf in your local bookstore*, you'll find that most of them have similar themes ("We have to save the world!"), have the exact same types of settings (similar to medieval Europe), have the exact same types of action (swordfights with wizards) and have the exact same type of fantasy beasts (dragons, zombies, dragonzombies, zombodragonoids). Likewise for fantasy games. Why is fantasy so limited? It should really only be limited by the author's/ designer's imagination. But too often, designers and authors (rightfully) believe that their audiences just want more of the same. That they don't want a completely new type of world, a completely different definition of "magic," a completely different set of creatures unique to the world. We end up with more of the same becuase that's what sells. And since it sells, producers/ publishers are unwilling to take risks. The sad truth is, the self-important fantasy crowd lives in an adolescent power-fantasy. They know how they like their superheroes, and they know how they like their fantasy. Sci-fi is too challenging to them becuase from one universe to the next, the rules are completely different. (This could be the case for fantasy too, but too often we're just force-fed more of the same). What Mr. Jacobs' answer should have been was, "Because it's easier to force-feed our users more of the same." *(a pre-Amazon phenomenon)

Re:Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with it

[ItMustBeEsoteric]

I would have thought that if people wanted to escape technology, they would perhaps go to a park, read a book, pen-and-paper RP, do one of those sport things, or the like. Not play a video game using technology.

However, this is Slashdot, after all.

Re:Other weapons

[SpecTheIntro]

Sci-fi demands some exercise in explanation. Fantasy does not. This means fantasy is easier.

Perhaps, but I would say advanced particle physics and quantum mechanics are difficult enough sciences that most people will accept any explanation given at face value, which essentially makes the distinction somewhat meaningless.

I would say the real reason why sci-fi is more difficult to pull off than fantasy is because science fiction removes the human element altogether. The driving force behind any MMO is to make your avatar more powerful. But in a true sci-fi world, individual people become powerful through the tools they use and the things they own, and not through personal growth. A laser shot from a ship piloted by a level 1 captain shouldn't do any more damage than one shot from the same ship piloted by a level 20 captain--so clearly the traditional method of "leveling" would need significant tweaking. This is akin to the same "explanation" you quoted earlier, but I'd rather label it as "internal consistency." A sci-fi world could not be internally consistent while operating under the same basic system as, say, WoW. This doesn't make it more difficult than a fantasy MMO, it just requires a different take on it--and we all know how successful video game companies are at breaking free of traditional formulae.

It's Classes

[MuNansen]

Fantasy has several established archetypes so there's enough variety in character choice. Warrior, Rogue, Ranger, Mage, Healer, and some variation in between. Sci-fi's got guns. That's it. If you're Star Wars you've got guns and lightsabers, but Jedi are supposed to be rare.

Balancing melee weapons with guns (a la SWG) is pretty much impossible because it breaks the laws of physics and along with the basics of latency, ruins the fun for either the melee classes because they can't get close enough (realistic) or the ranged classes are so gimped that the melee can trash them against all logic and reason.

Trying to create enough classes with guns just needlessly restricts the player. Why shouldn't a guy that's an expert with a rifle be able to shoot a carbine? That makes no sense.

At least that's the answer I can take from SWG. Star Wars really isn't a good universe for an MMORPG. An MMOFPS, though, now that would be a different story. Anarchy Online, I think, just wasn't all that attractive of a universe. Very odd. And had a very rough start. If there was a Sci Fi game with the polish and pazazz of WoW, I'm sure it'd do just fine, if they could solve the class problem.

Re:I'm not so sure the guns are the issue.

[Hoi Polloi]

Very interesting point about the idea of classes. One problem with the sci-fi model is the egalitarian nature of technology. If you have some sort of "super-duper body analyzer/healer" that just requires a scan and a few clicks to use then what is the point of having, say, a "medic" class? Anyone could use it with with a few skill points. Same goes for weapons, even a child can pull a trigger on a machine gun (with ugly proof of this in Africa today). Since RPGs generally revolve around personal combat and interaction the skills that required years of training in swords & sorcery rpgs, like archery, are gone in a world where anyone can learn to shoot reasonably well in a few weeks. That is why we can have armies of conscripts today.

Pretty much anyone can be a jack-of-all-trades in sci-fi. The only place classes would show up is in advanced professions but then how interesting would it be to play the "chemical plant manager"?

As Arthur C Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

Re:Other weapons

[theStorminMormon]

That's just retarded. It's also called science fiction. If we're going to judge it stricly based on the name of the genre, the ONLY identifying characteristic of the genre would be science.

The battle over defining sci-fi is long running and never ending, but the consensus is growing that the type of fiction you like (science fiction minus the science) is better termed as "speculative fiction". If the story you are telling can be told without any of the sci-fi trappings (e.g. if you're writing a mystery story with lasers) then it's arguably not really sci-fi.

-stormin

No No No

[rucs_hack]

The reason that MMO's with a fantasy element are 'better' is principally down to Tolkein. He spent years of his life creating a beleivable fantasy world which people enjoy, and will do for many years to come.

From him we get the rich depth that so many MMO's rely on. I love his work, it populated my imagination when I was a child.

There has been no equivilent story world in the conventional or sci-fi world. The Dune universe, which I enjoy more than Tolkeins work, almost gets there, but it's never been tried as an MMO. Even Dune uses an analogue to magic (melange and it's associated effects), so probably doesn't count.
Star wars doesn't count as sci-fi different from fantasy, because it *is* fantasy of a sort, and has magic, albeit by a different name.

everyone uses the crutch of magic these days. It speaks not of originality, but of unwillingness to venture beyond what is known to sell.

Where, I ask, are the risk takers, prepared to move in a new direction with an MMO?

The problem is it would take years of work to create a new rich 'motherlode' story. The potential for such stories exist, but the games industry is scared to venture into any field that might reduce their precious profit margin.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain resistance to a gun or laser weapon

A bullet-proof vest? Clothing manufactured with the right refractive index to mitigate some of the effects of a direct by breaking up the focus of the laser beam? A "laser shield" consisting of a big lens that scatters the laser beam apart again?

Just be creative. You don't even have to have a good explanation: make one that sounds even vaguely plausible, and people will buy into it, and treat it like gospel. It worked for Star Trek. :-)

On top of that, Sci-Fi often pretty much has the requirement that those characters that are engaged in the story have a level of knowledge that fits the world around them. You will never find players that fit that, the world would be as much a fantasy as a real fantasy game.

Fantasy games drop a level of realism for playability. For example, Why do "evil" races keep doing evil things the same stupid way? Why don't they learn better? Why don't some of them reform, or at least, pretend to in order to throw the good guys off? Answer: it makes the game world simpler if there are "good guys"(TM) and "bad guys"(TM). Do the same thing with sci-fi, and you'll have a success.

Remember, the more complicated and realistic the game, the smarter people will have to be to appreciate it. The market consisting of really smart people who can appreciate a complex and nuanced ame is really small compared to people who just want some simple, light hearted fun with a sci-fi feel. Stop trying to do the impossible, and instead just give the masses what they want... cute alien girls, and an otherworldly setting.

Re:hey now...

[arth1]

What about those of us who don't want to engage in player-vs-player and team-vs-team? Those of us who would like to mine asteroids, esplore star systems and do transportation, while honing our piloting skills, without being killed every five minutes or bullied to join a faction?
Those of us who would see a challenge in things like plotting the most efficient course from A to B, without running out of fuel or taking excessive time, or do difficult docking and low-g landing maneuvers? To enjoy the loneliness of space when you want to?
Who would like to become a good pilot with a good vessel before launching into areas where there's risk of people shooting at you.

Why does killing and us vs. them have to be mandatory? I'm not against it being available, but why mandatory? And why isn't it permanent? IMHO, that's the biggest hinder to credibility -- you resurrect with minor if any penalties, instead of avoiding death like, erm, death, because you'll lose everything.

The same holds true for fantasy games too, and lately, the trend has been to force people into groups with the sole purpose of killing other groups, after which you pop back to life again. Why? Because that's what the 15 year olds want, and it's them who constitute the majority of the players, despite the M18+ age limits on the boxes?

Sorry, I just have questions, it seems, and no answers.

Regards,
--
*Art

Grrrr! Stop that!

[Om]

I was going to spend the time in this thread just using up moderation points since this is a very interesting topic for me. Instead, I see this post which is nothing but troll fodder because Anarchy Online needs to be defended, by God.

You see, I have always wondered why fantasy is so damn pervasive amongst the MMOs out there. I mean, I've been playing MUDs since 1992 (started on BatMUD). I can say, with all the certainty that is possible to muster on a message board, that I have killed my fair share of freaking Orcs. I have cast my share of magic missiles and fireballs. I have weilded my share of Vorpal swords, and +4 str clubs, and +2 Dex daggers. I have won every kind of God damned armor you can think of. Banded mail. Chain Mail. Plate Mail. Mithril Mail. Leather. Padded Leather. Cloth. Weave. Hemp. Whatever... If clothes can be made from a material, I will tell you that I've worn it in an online video game. I have see every kind of vista imaginable. I have delved into every kind of dungeon, or crypt, or hole in the ground. Walked through every sort of Elvin city, or Dwarven caverns, or...

I think you get my point...

I have done it all! There is absolutely nothing new you can bring to the table concerning a fantasy setting that I haven't seen before! I challenege you, in the name of all that is Holy to give me something new in this genre.

Then there is Anarchy Online. I am not going to defend their pathetic launch, or the state of the game back then. What I am going to defend is the ingenuity of it _now_. First of all, when it came out, it overestimated the intelligence of the average gamer. I'm not saying that to insult anyone, I'm saying that that's what it did. It attempted to explain, in scientific theory WHY things happened.

Let me give you a few examples. They would describe spell effects as "clouds of nanites.". For those unfamiliar, just picture millions of tiny robots working in unison that appear as a cloud to the naked eye. These nanites would be programed to do various things. Want to heal someone? The 'Doctor' would control these nanites to enter the bloodstream, and increase platelette generation which would help close wounds, etc. Paralyzation? Same deal. The nanites would enter the pores of the skin and arrest the nervous system until their charge expired (think: length of paralyzation). The list goes on and on. This was the problem with the game. It was hard for people to grasp! The "spells" were cryptic with this sort of language, and there were hundreds of them. This game was freaking hard. Top it off with a skill-based system with 200 levels, and you have yourself an unbelievably complicated game.

Tradeskills were the same way. You had to gather materials, and literally read tons of manuals (which you bought) which described creating weapons and armor in very scientific theoretical ways. It wasn't like, 'Get 3 copper and make bars and hit this button, and you'll get a copper vest.'. It was more like 'Get this plasma coil and connect it with this sort of metal, and this particular paste, and blah blah blah'.

Not to mention...

1) They were the first game to introduce instanced dungeons. 2) First game to have linkable items. 3) First game to have random quest generators. 4) First sci-fi MMO (already mentioned that) 5) First game to be truly skill based

So... next time you start slamming Anarchy Online, you have to understand that Funcom had balls. Too big of balls, in fact. That the game hard to figure out, didn't spoonfeed it's audience, and had a horrible launch, Anarchy Online (and Funcom) got the most unfair rap imaginable. Since that time, they have 'dumbed up' the game. The descriptions on the "spells" are now "This heals for +n points of damage" and stuff. They took out all the scientific dialogue and made the game easier to digest. Players who play it currently can probably help me out here. All I know is that it's much easier to get into now, and the bugs are fixed.

I look forward to their newest game Age of Conan with glee, because I know they will take chances, and bring something new to the table. Trust me on this!

++Om

Re:Mark Jacobs, and his rein of utter destruction.

[OptR1]

I have to agree with nerfbot04 100%. If Mark Jacobs knows anything about MMORPS it's how to get people to stop playing them. I played DAOC for 3+ years before I gave up. I endured every torcherous patch/release/etc and sent feedback, protested some changes, and offered better solutions to poorly thought out changes all efforts were pointless. DAoC early on 1st-2nd year peaked at 30+ thousand players at peak time...every patch, change, release, etc they shoved down our throats was one more step in forcing players out of the game...it now hovers around 10-13k players at peak time. At one time I had 10 people I worked with all playing DAoC and we all enjoyed it...I finally left when not only all my friends left but my entire guild and alliance eventually disolved. In contrast, Eve has been around for pretty much the same amount of time, I've played it for 3years probably also. They are very responsive on support issues and continually upgrade with no cost upgrade/releases. Not only that but when I started playing Eve they were a solid 7k peak time strong in a SINGLE persistent universe(unlike DAoC's divided server set up at the time). NOW Eve is creeping up on 30k concurrent peak users in a single persistent environment. Now you decide who business model would you rather have your money in. Jacobs who drove his business into the ground by rash short sighted often obviously bad decisions from the top down and eventually had to yard sale it to EA Games to squeeze the last few pennies out of it. Eve who has systematically and slowly made good decisions while keeping the cost and flash to a minimum is now after many years of operation GROWING bigger than it has ever been and is positioned to continue profiting for many years to come. I know which one I still send a check to every month, I have to say even to this day I like DAoC better but at some point you just give up hope that mythic/jacobs would ever get there head out of there a$$.

Re:Other weapons

[Maserati]

Try the demo. I can only conclude that everyone you know who loves 40K either hates RTS games, don't have their favorite army available, or are idiots. Dawn of War is a very nice RTS and is done by people who obviously have large painted 40K armies. They might not, but the animators for DoW really captured the feel of the setting nicely.