Extra Crispy | 02 Sep 2016 5:03 p.m. PST |
Just curious – how important is the aesthetic appearance of the game to you? For me it's the raison d'etre of the hobby. Otherwise boardgames make infinitely more sense. But I see gamers who use felt or masking tape for roads, cardboard boxes for buildings, and so on. Budget is not the issue – there are just too, too many free/cheap options for most if not all of these issues. Clearly, the "look" is not important to everyone. How about you? Why? Why not? |
John Armatys | 02 Sep 2016 5:07 p.m. PST |
Guilty as charged. The important thing is the game – my imagination does the rest. |
Rrobbyrobot | 02 Sep 2016 5:37 p.m. PST |
I do most of my gaming in a game store. So, although I would very much like the table to look as good as possible, I am limited as to resources at hand. |
D6 Junkie | 02 Sep 2016 5:48 p.m. PST |
I'm with you Crispy, it's all about the look! My goal is for the terrain to be on par with the minis. |
wrgmr1 | 02 Sep 2016 5:49 p.m. PST |
The Look, is the entire reason for gaming with miniatures. Otherwise, I agree with you that board gaming makes more sense. |
Ragbones | 02 Sep 2016 5:52 p.m. PST |
The look is very important. I'll never be able to achieve the kind of appearance that the "big boys" do but I'll try hard to do the best I can. |
Dynaman8789 | 02 Sep 2016 5:53 p.m. PST |
The game is the thing. Unpainted minis are a bit too far, and a building that is just a cardboard box is too but felt roads and terrain is fine. |
45thdiv | 02 Sep 2016 6:01 p.m. PST |
It has taking me a long time to build up good looking terrain. The visual impact is what I enjoy most from gaming. I like history, but I have a poor head for facts and not all history books are well written. So the image of the era is what draws me to a period to game. Painting and building are the aspects I enjoy a lot about the hobby. When I play miniatures, I want it to look good. I have used chalk and tape for games, and sometimes I still use tape for roads, though I am working on something better. I like board games too, and those I use for the quick play. When I set up a miniature game, I like to look at the set up for a while, even after the battle. My friends are very nice and want to help me clean up, but I always say no. It is very much a visual hobby for me. Matthew |
Extrabio1947 | 02 Sep 2016 6:02 p.m. PST |
Even a game with tremendous scenery and well painted miniatures loses the aesthetic when the table is littered with papers, tape measures, beverage cans, and other flotsam. IMHO, at that point it doesn't make much difference if the roads are very well done or made of masking tape. |
Pictors Studio | 02 Sep 2016 6:05 p.m. PST |
I want it to be as good looking as possible as well. It wasn't for me about 20 years ago but now it is the most important thing. |
79thPA | 02 Sep 2016 6:10 p.m. PST |
I am perfectly fine gaming with tape roads and felt forests. I find markers, chits and dice used as markers to be much more unsightly than felt and masking tape. The miniatures part in miniatures gaming is what is most important to me; the terrain is very secondary. |
robert piepenbrink | 02 Sep 2016 6:18 p.m. PST |
The look has to reach a minimum, and be consistent. But I do try to stop short of the look actually impeding the game. Minimum and consistent. I can live with fairly abstract scenery when necessary--pine cone woods and cardboard buildings, for instance--but the pine cones had best be painted green and the houses properly painted with doors and windows. And there had best not be a Woodland Scenics tree or an MBA building or on the board. When ALL the trees are pine cones, after a turn or so, they're the forest. Add better trees, and the illusion goes away. Impeding the game. Good-looking roads are nice--and streams and buildings and hills. But it's essential that we can all tell whether the troops are in or out of the woods or have or do not have cover or elevation. So the aesthetic ideal has to yield to clarity of situation where the two conflict. I play games. I'm not building a diorama. And I don't mean to spend my battle time in petty arguments. |
IanKHemm | 02 Sep 2016 6:21 p.m. PST |
I'm with you too. The "look" is s huge part of the game. I'd much rather play a great looking game with poor rules than a crappy looking game with great rules. |
BTCTerrainman | 02 Sep 2016 7:08 p.m. PST |
For me the "look" is everything. It is one of the main reasons I game. But I also like to build a field for each game that very closely matches the terrain of the battle being played. Long sloping hills and ridges as well as little rolls in the surface can create a lot of tactical challenges and helps me understand the decisions leaders had to make. Nothing is better than to walk the fields you are gaming (or at least areas to understand the typical terrain features for a region/area). |
John Treadaway | 02 Sep 2016 7:13 p.m. PST |
I can take a simple game if it all looks brilliant or a more challenging game that is slightly scappy. I just won't bother playing a game that looks dreadful. I'd rather play a good board game. Or read a book… John T |
Ottoathome | 02 Sep 2016 7:27 p.m. PST |
To each his own. To me the look is critical. It's personal preference. |
kallman | 02 Sep 2016 8:12 p.m. PST |
The look is extremely important to me. I do not understand the miniature players who want a minimalist table. As was the case in a recent game I played of Flames of War. Of course part of my opponents cunning plan was for to have as little to hide behind as possible. That is another issue. I strive for well painted minis and as pleasing a game table as possible. If I am running a game at a convention then I going to bring the best I can do. If you are playing with felt with no trees and masking tape roads then why are you not playing a board game? I guess each to their own. |
Mako11 | 02 Sep 2016 8:27 p.m. PST |
Yes, it is all about the look to me, though sometimes that needs to be modified a bit to adjust to the realities at hand. More, now than in the past, sadly. Ideally, I'd like the terrain to look like a diorama, or model railroading table, but that is now more difficult to do, expense-wise. |
snurl1 | 02 Sep 2016 8:55 p.m. PST |
The look is the reason I play miniature games. Years ago I made-do with what was available. Nowdays, I finally have enough stuff to do it right. |
basileus66 | 02 Sep 2016 10:25 p.m. PST |
Very important. Like Snurl1 it is the reason why I started playing miniature games. |
McKinstry | 02 Sep 2016 10:46 p.m. PST |
The look is everything. Otherwise why not just boardgame or use the PC. |
Bashytubits | 02 Sep 2016 10:51 p.m. PST |
|
attilathepun47 | 02 Sep 2016 11:00 p.m. PST |
I disagree with most of you. Although I can appreciate a nice looking table, my attitude is that if you want a diorama, then build dioramas. My priority is the competition with rules that do a decent job of simulating whatever era may be involved. Getting too fussy about appearance distracts from the game. Also, I will point out that board games and computer games are very different in nature from miniatures games. Both have their place, but in my experience neither are much good for games where tactical formations have a critical bearing on outcome. |
docfin | 03 Sep 2016 1:54 a.m. PST |
I do like a good looking table, but if you have to carry all your stuff to the venue each week simple portable robust terrain is what's needed. Now if I had a large games room then that's a different ball game. |
Sho Boki | 03 Sep 2016 2:06 a.m. PST |
What is wrong with fine felt roads on felt gametable surface? Too big and massive? What is this cheap and better option to present 2mm wide roads? Cutted and painted pieces from thin metal sheets? |
warwell | 03 Sep 2016 2:42 a.m. PST |
The play's the thing The look is just icing |
ZULUPAUL | 03 Sep 2016 3:04 a.m. PST |
I like a decent look to the table but really the game & friendship is more important. |
Lucius | 03 Sep 2016 3:38 a.m. PST |
Even when I was a broke kid, I hated masking tape road games. Now I'm an old guy who is no longer broke. The little free time that I do have will be spent at a great table with great miniatures. |
ACWBill | 03 Sep 2016 4:39 a.m. PST |
McKinstry has is right. I have board games galore so if I want to game without the visual sensory appeal of a great looking table, I can do so. I paint my figures carefully, so I want terrain that matches their quality. |
Flashman14 | 03 Sep 2016 5:24 a.m. PST |
|
Hobhood4 | 03 Sep 2016 5:24 a.m. PST |
I like a good looking table and reasonably well painted minis even in small games like DBA. I also dislike anything on the table which is not part of the action – rulers, dice, markers if possible. But there are different aesthetic preferences. I can also see the appeal of bright, unshaded, gloss varnished figures on a flat green surface with contoured hills. It was the look I grew up with. It all depends on the extent of the players imagination. Getting stuff on the table being played with is just as important as visual stimulus.How much do we notice when we are in the thick of a game? |
Cardinal Ximenez | 03 Sep 2016 5:24 a.m. PST |
Very important. For me at least it's the difference between miniature and board wargaming. |
Doug MSC | 03 Sep 2016 5:48 a.m. PST |
I love the look of the game table. To me, setting up the table terrain for a game is like painting a picture. It is so much fun. Then I must also have figures that are painted to a high quality too. Putting these two together, pulls me into the period I am gaming. To me it makes playing the game all the more fun. |
Dschebe | 03 Sep 2016 5:53 a.m. PST |
Oh! Please play with your pretty toys in a pretty table, in a pretty house in a pretty life in a pretty world. I'd rather play with whatever I can afford. I appreciate those pretty things when possible, but I'll manage in any case. If you need all these perfect to play miniatures, it's your own limits. I'm not changing to boardgames because of others do not like my nice felt roads. Have a nice and pretty looking game. Enric. |
etotheipi | 03 Sep 2016 6:08 a.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 03 Sep 2016 7:16 a.m. PST |
The appeal of mini gaming is the minis, including terrain. Otherwise using the standard counters like in board games from the old AH, SPI, etc., games does make much more sense … Quick & easy, etc., … |
Big Red | 03 Sep 2016 8:19 a.m. PST |
etotheipi hit the bulls eye. |
dampfpanzerwagon | 03 Sep 2016 8:32 a.m. PST |
I think 'the look' is everything. Tony |
Timmo uk | 03 Sep 2016 9:09 a.m. PST |
Can only concur with the the fact that the aesthetics are what makes the hobby so interesting and enjoyable. Board gaming makes masses of sense to me and I've enjoyed hundreds of hours playing them but nothing is quite as enjoyable as seeing the game realised with miniatures. I'm not at all set on what scale or styles look the best, all have their place. Generally speaking I tend to find the games with the most natural looking rolling terrain the most pleasing. I'm actually more interested in the creative part of the hobby than I am the history. I dip into history books to find out specific things to help my modelling but I'm not really into sitting and reading history book for the sake of it. That might be a bit heinous to a dyed in the wool historical wargamer but there hits a point when we're not really being that accurate with our figures – e.g. Napoleonics all in dress uniforms etc so my own approach is a bit more like the film director. I aim to get it looking good enough overall and to me that means the terrain, which is the single biggest element, is the most important part of all. Beyond that as long as the figures look reasonable that makes for a great looking set-up. I've long thought that we tend to put so much effort into the figures that the terrain often comes a distant second and as a result it is often over stylised, which is shame to me. YMMV. |
Ottoathome | 03 Sep 2016 9:18 a.m. PST |
I started thinking about this and I realized it is not so simple as one might think. "The Look" can be different things to different people. I recently, at "The Weekend" saw a game that some would scream in horror at. It was a miniaturization of "The Creature That Ate Sheboygen" which used simple squares of cardboard and paper to represent building to skyscrapes and crude representatios of terrain. The tanks and the monsters were impeccable though. The game WORKED and everyone had a lot of fun, but the "Look" was not as jarring as you might think. The tanks and men were real (being his WWII tanks) and the monsters were cute and good enough. However the abstraction of the terrain did not in fact create a jarring effect any more than a Shagall set of backdroms harmed "The Magic Flute" at the Met. No, I don't mean the game was itself THAT good, but a "look" is something a person strives for. For example, for my American Civil War game, I use the old "Woodens" from "Windcatcher Graphics " (now defunct.) They are two dimensional flats, but the printing on these flats is excellent and the paint job has been carried over the 1/8" diameter basswood in the proper colors so they LOOK a little three dimensional. Instead of standard terrain I made for this my own terrain in imitation out of foam core, where say the cornfield is a little raised platform with slots that small strips of "corn rows" slide into and are painted over the top and, like the figures is "looks" ALMOST three dimensional. Houses are made like egg-crates which slide in together on slots to form a "cross" from above and put into a slotted base. Thus you can always tell whose in the house and whose not. The "Look" of the game is great." There are many styles of putting on a game to achieve a "look" and not all of them look like something filched from a model railroad scenic how to do book. |
Dye4minis | 03 Sep 2016 10:49 a.m. PST |
For me, the look now is everything! I have found myself even putting together little stories for all to see while waiting their turn. But my passion has been focused on the 1/300th scale. It's about as close as you can reasonably get to 1:1 scale on a tabletop and still…well, look for yourself:
I cannot say enough good things about Total Battle buildings in this scale! (Not affilliated- just a Happy customer)..The quality is better than I can do justice to. I have always liked the smaller scales because of their potential for something higher than skirmish level. (But I also have up to 28mm now, also.) This "look" is what I have been working towards for years-in my mind's image, that is. Hope you enjoy! More here (shameless blog promo): link |
Cardinal Ximenez | 03 Sep 2016 11:23 a.m. PST |
Oh! Please play with your pretty toys in a pretty table, in a pretty house in a pretty life in a pretty world. Yep…and loving every minute of it. |
furgie | 03 Sep 2016 12:03 p.m. PST |
I am the world's worst painter and hate almost every moment I spend with a brush in my hand. I often play with unpainted mini's and terrain. For me it's about the game – the rules, actions, tactics, the story. That's not to say I wouldn't give my right arm for a decent set of painted terrain and minis!! Furgie |
Garryowen | 03 Sep 2016 12:19 p.m. PST |
The look is more important to me than the game. So I would rather play a mediocre game on a really good looking table with really good looking figures than a great set of rules on a crappy looking table. However, if the game is bad enough to play, then all you can do with the beautiful terrain and figures is look at it for a while and march on to the next one. There is one exceedingly popular set of WWII rules like that for me. Usually the tables look very good, but I can't stand the game. So I look and keep walking. Tom |
Lucius | 03 Sep 2016 12:41 p.m. PST |
Oh! Please play with your pretty toys in a pretty table, in a pretty house in a pretty life in a pretty world. You forgot pretty wife and pretty children . . . :-) |
Dschebe | 03 Sep 2016 1:29 p.m. PST |
Yes Lucius, you are right, I forgot about that. And I'm glad you Don Manster enjoy playing with your nice toys… me too. But please, lads, do not invite to leave (for playing boardgames) to all those of us who think there are many reasons to play with our miniatures apart from their nice look. And really, enjoy everybody. Enric. |
ACWBill | 03 Sep 2016 2:36 p.m. PST |
@Lucius, why do I keep getting flashbacks of a Talking Heads video? Perhaps it is all the David Byrne lyrics. |
Lucius | 03 Sep 2016 3:09 p.m. PST |
ACWBill – LOL. As long as I'm sure we are talking about "Once in a Lifetime" and not "Psycho Killer" . . . |
Russ Lockwood | 03 Sep 2016 6:48 p.m. PST |
Game, then terrain, but better if both are fantastic. :) |
Cardinal Ximenez | 04 Sep 2016 7:59 a.m. PST |
Dschebe wrote: But please, lads, do not invite to leave (for playing boardgames) to all those of us who think there are many reasons to play with our miniatures apart from their nice look. Huh? I wrote: For me at least it's the difference between miniature and board wargaming. What part of "For me at least" pertains to anyone else in the gaming community? Take a pill brother. And for Lucius:
|