Small article I've written. Not exactly a review, per se, but more an examination if you will (hence the title). Not entirely happy with it, but deciding to move on and just post it for now. Hope you get an enjoyable read, at the least.
***
I like strategy. It's always run through my veins even in the days before my first PC. Although back then it existed as little more sticks and stones placed in the mud by a young child; one to whom it represented the soldiers and tanks of a fictional army fighting the kind of scenarios that only the long, hot hours the Indian summer could conjure up in one's imagination.
It's stuck with me since then; now affording me a set of tools to analyze, poke and prod at the very foundations and innards of some of the games I play today. It is akin to a fairly morbid coroner's examination of sorts; but one that yields a bit of perspective regardless. The subject of this examination today is that of the Dawn of War series - and in particular, Dawn of War II.
That said, this isn't really a review - the time for those have long past. Instead, consider this an insight and a few thoughts, if you will, on just where it fits in the strategy genre in general.
One of these interesting things is really how it mixes the traditional formula we've come to expect from the RTS genre as of late. Even the original Dawn of War and Winter Assault refused to play by the rules of C&C and Starcraft; instead choosing to skirt that thin, thin line between strategy and tactics. But even as it tried to sway from the norm like Homeworld did it was still familiar.
Even as the economic system changed to focus more on tactics, the application of that economy vis-à-vis base and unit building remained. The need for micro of your units remained too; albeit becoming far more concentrated on what few units you had and their abilities. It was a dangerously fun combination for the time; even if it was horribly plagued by balance issues.
The combination was changed significantly when Dark Crusade came out and a piece never seen in relic games before was added: turn based strategy. Even though it added a layer to the entire thing, it was a layer that was still connected to the underlying one. Your actions resonated between the two scales of provincial control and the ground situation through its various facets, such as the honor guard for example.
This sense of connectivity lent an added dimension to Dark Crusade. It's a dimension that's just seen a resurfacing, having existed before in a multitude of other games including X-Com and Sword of the Stars. Although in Dark Crusade's case, combat eventually became boring and repetitive. I think Relic sensed this as well and decided to fiddle around with the scales a fair bit, bringing us what we have in Dawn of War II.
While DoW II sadly didn't solve many of the repetitious problems, what it did do right was drive that connectivity home by adding the RPG element. This served to create persistent characters throughout the experience - and with it, persistent effects directly connected to your decisions. It reminded me of Homeworld slightly; the degree of persistence throughout the campaign just seemed so appropriate for some reason.
However, I need to remind myself this isn't Homeworld. There is no RTS element anymore, making each mission about pure tactics. There are no units (enemy or otherwise) you can acquire over the course of the game, apart from the squads in the start, nor is there a story that is even similar in quality.
Still, even with the removal of the RTS element, Strategy continues to exist in DoW II with the overarching map. The feedback on your decisions at this level and scale were suddenly very obvious, especially on harder difficulties, where getting 3 deployments a day was never guaranteed. The strategic choices and plans of actions - while lacking variety - were still there, allowing it to keep its origins as a strategy game.
But in many ways Dawn of War II represented something else for Relic - a way to come full circle with their original purpose. The single player had gone down to basics; becoming a combination of pure action and tactics mixed with a measure of RPG that brought out the fun in a fast and furious manner. It directly rewarded the actions and strategic choices - as limited as they were - of the player in the development of the 6 squads. The turned based strategy element on top of all that was simply icing on the cake.
But it isn't entirely without fault ? what was a near-perfect combination of the three elements was marred by flaws in execution; namely that of pacing and diversity. The inclusion of the RPG element, while fitting easily with the tactics, was not actually used to its fullest potential within the various missions. While the dynamics between the ground tactics and upper-layer situation is significant, it could have been developed further than just the "Get additional deployments" or "Get wargear I don't need" relationship that existed now.
To toss out an example; all the assassination and defensive missions were one-off attention grabbers that never went far; making them little more than tedious things you did to grind to level 20 or get 2 deployments for the rest of the day. The additional deployments, while interesting, simply limited your options too much, while the same missions would sometimes recycle themselves upon play.
But what if in the orbital menu instead of choosing between various missions, you chose between mission series? After selecting one, the others would disappear, but now you would be having an additional mini-campaign running alongside the main story missions, with the regular system of deployments to finish it all depending on not just the performance in-game, but your choices as well.
So for example, I've chosen a mini-campaign to cut down on a major hive incursion. You start off in the first mission being to assault a stronghold to retake strategic points. But here's where the twist lies - there are two strongholds. Assault one and you get a second deployment for the day, absolutely free of your performance otherwise. Assault the other and the enemies in the second mission become weaker and easier to deal with.
The second mission would be holding your point against the enemy assault; the difficulty of which could be dependent on the earlier mission. But at the same time again there are dynamic choices here through events in the mission - a band of Orkz could be in the area for instance and you had the choice of either driving them (either by artillery barrage or otherwise) into the advancing Tyranids or just leaving them alone. Do the former and you've weakened the assault greatly in this mission. Do the latter and you have an Ork NPC that (while still hostile to you) distracts a large majority of the Tyranids in the next.
And then finally culminate the entire thing into an assassination mission to take out the head of the hive, much like we have now, with more choices there that in turn affect the main campaign, either directly or by better wargear.
Just this one example frustrates me of the unfulfilled potential in Dawn of War II. They had a chance to make something as epic as Homeworld 1 ? all it needed was a little more time, a little more integration between its various elements, maybe a touch more sideways thinking.
Still, such a line of thought is unfair - at the end of the day, I'm just a nameless voice on the internet, while these are professionals. They have the talent and expertise and I'm pretty sure I couldn't have done half as well when in their shoes. So I'll leave it at this instead: what matters most is that even though its implementation may have been questionable, Relic's done something that may just revive the RPG/Strategy hybrids of yore, as opposed to the monotonous stream of RTS games we've seen as of late.
They've also made a base for themselves, setting up a system and engine for something potentially better in the future - something that may or may not rock the proverbial socks off.
So yah, here's to hoping that they do.
Regards,
Singh / Alternate22
(The astute gamer will note however, that I'm not completely right. Other games have explored similar styles of play as Dawn of War II, and reached similar levels of success. An example of this is King's Bounty, which uses the same basic ingredients as DoW II. Other cross-genre strategy games can be Battlezone I and II, Sword of the Stars, X-Com, etc.)
***
I like strategy. It's always run through my veins even in the days before my first PC. Although back then it existed as little more sticks and stones placed in the mud by a young child; one to whom it represented the soldiers and tanks of a fictional army fighting the kind of scenarios that only the long, hot hours the Indian summer could conjure up in one's imagination.
It's stuck with me since then; now affording me a set of tools to analyze, poke and prod at the very foundations and innards of some of the games I play today. It is akin to a fairly morbid coroner's examination of sorts; but one that yields a bit of perspective regardless. The subject of this examination today is that of the Dawn of War series - and in particular, Dawn of War II.
That said, this isn't really a review - the time for those have long past. Instead, consider this an insight and a few thoughts, if you will, on just where it fits in the strategy genre in general.
One of these interesting things is really how it mixes the traditional formula we've come to expect from the RTS genre as of late. Even the original Dawn of War and Winter Assault refused to play by the rules of C&C and Starcraft; instead choosing to skirt that thin, thin line between strategy and tactics. But even as it tried to sway from the norm like Homeworld did it was still familiar.
Even as the economic system changed to focus more on tactics, the application of that economy vis-à-vis base and unit building remained. The need for micro of your units remained too; albeit becoming far more concentrated on what few units you had and their abilities. It was a dangerously fun combination for the time; even if it was horribly plagued by balance issues.
The combination was changed significantly when Dark Crusade came out and a piece never seen in relic games before was added: turn based strategy. Even though it added a layer to the entire thing, it was a layer that was still connected to the underlying one. Your actions resonated between the two scales of provincial control and the ground situation through its various facets, such as the honor guard for example.
This sense of connectivity lent an added dimension to Dark Crusade. It's a dimension that's just seen a resurfacing, having existed before in a multitude of other games including X-Com and Sword of the Stars. Although in Dark Crusade's case, combat eventually became boring and repetitive. I think Relic sensed this as well and decided to fiddle around with the scales a fair bit, bringing us what we have in Dawn of War II.
While DoW II sadly didn't solve many of the repetitious problems, what it did do right was drive that connectivity home by adding the RPG element. This served to create persistent characters throughout the experience - and with it, persistent effects directly connected to your decisions. It reminded me of Homeworld slightly; the degree of persistence throughout the campaign just seemed so appropriate for some reason.
However, I need to remind myself this isn't Homeworld. There is no RTS element anymore, making each mission about pure tactics. There are no units (enemy or otherwise) you can acquire over the course of the game, apart from the squads in the start, nor is there a story that is even similar in quality.
Still, even with the removal of the RTS element, Strategy continues to exist in DoW II with the overarching map. The feedback on your decisions at this level and scale were suddenly very obvious, especially on harder difficulties, where getting 3 deployments a day was never guaranteed. The strategic choices and plans of actions - while lacking variety - were still there, allowing it to keep its origins as a strategy game.
But in many ways Dawn of War II represented something else for Relic - a way to come full circle with their original purpose. The single player had gone down to basics; becoming a combination of pure action and tactics mixed with a measure of RPG that brought out the fun in a fast and furious manner. It directly rewarded the actions and strategic choices - as limited as they were - of the player in the development of the 6 squads. The turned based strategy element on top of all that was simply icing on the cake.
But it isn't entirely without fault ? what was a near-perfect combination of the three elements was marred by flaws in execution; namely that of pacing and diversity. The inclusion of the RPG element, while fitting easily with the tactics, was not actually used to its fullest potential within the various missions. While the dynamics between the ground tactics and upper-layer situation is significant, it could have been developed further than just the "Get additional deployments" or "Get wargear I don't need" relationship that existed now.
To toss out an example; all the assassination and defensive missions were one-off attention grabbers that never went far; making them little more than tedious things you did to grind to level 20 or get 2 deployments for the rest of the day. The additional deployments, while interesting, simply limited your options too much, while the same missions would sometimes recycle themselves upon play.
But what if in the orbital menu instead of choosing between various missions, you chose between mission series? After selecting one, the others would disappear, but now you would be having an additional mini-campaign running alongside the main story missions, with the regular system of deployments to finish it all depending on not just the performance in-game, but your choices as well.
So for example, I've chosen a mini-campaign to cut down on a major hive incursion. You start off in the first mission being to assault a stronghold to retake strategic points. But here's where the twist lies - there are two strongholds. Assault one and you get a second deployment for the day, absolutely free of your performance otherwise. Assault the other and the enemies in the second mission become weaker and easier to deal with.
The second mission would be holding your point against the enemy assault; the difficulty of which could be dependent on the earlier mission. But at the same time again there are dynamic choices here through events in the mission - a band of Orkz could be in the area for instance and you had the choice of either driving them (either by artillery barrage or otherwise) into the advancing Tyranids or just leaving them alone. Do the former and you've weakened the assault greatly in this mission. Do the latter and you have an Ork NPC that (while still hostile to you) distracts a large majority of the Tyranids in the next.
And then finally culminate the entire thing into an assassination mission to take out the head of the hive, much like we have now, with more choices there that in turn affect the main campaign, either directly or by better wargear.
Just this one example frustrates me of the unfulfilled potential in Dawn of War II. They had a chance to make something as epic as Homeworld 1 ? all it needed was a little more time, a little more integration between its various elements, maybe a touch more sideways thinking.
Still, such a line of thought is unfair - at the end of the day, I'm just a nameless voice on the internet, while these are professionals. They have the talent and expertise and I'm pretty sure I couldn't have done half as well when in their shoes. So I'll leave it at this instead: what matters most is that even though its implementation may have been questionable, Relic's done something that may just revive the RPG/Strategy hybrids of yore, as opposed to the monotonous stream of RTS games we've seen as of late.
They've also made a base for themselves, setting up a system and engine for something potentially better in the future - something that may or may not rock the proverbial socks off.
So yah, here's to hoping that they do.
Regards,
Singh / Alternate22
(The astute gamer will note however, that I'm not completely right. Other games have explored similar styles of play as Dawn of War II, and reached similar levels of success. An example of this is King's Bounty, which uses the same basic ingredients as DoW II. Other cross-genre strategy games can be Battlezone I and II, Sword of the Stars, X-Com, etc.)