Dawn of War II: Golly gee willikers!

[OneHP]

I guess I'm one of the minority that like base building....

 

[SquirrelPants]

You have entered the one website with a pretty substantial amount of people who will fight you to the death over how superior this design is.

he's right. in real war, you don't start with one guy who can build a building that can then magically summon units. you start with an army, and you try to crush your enemies' armies, and THEN you start building things.

I agree. It adds the need for long-term consideration and unit-management. DoW2 is more tactical, more varied strategically. Despite some juvenile comments on the lines of 'if it was real we wouldn't have aliens', combat is the same between all combatants and this design lends itself to the creation of a more viable tactical experience.

Better in terms of game time.
Better in terms of strategy.
Eliminates static plays.
Heightens the need to use the resources available.

You can go back to you base-building rituals if you wish, but RTS has always been about strategy and innovation on the fly. If you turn that down when it comes in such a pretty package then you can hardly call yourself an RTS fan.

To clarify I'm only really aggrivated they said its a sequal to DoW.

Had they called it something different like Warhammer: Something catchy here, I'd be perfectly cool with it.

I mean how pissed would you have been if they had called Firewarrior DoWIII or something. I know that's a WAY more extreme example but when you start making HUGE changes it isn't a sequal anymore its a new game with similar themes.

lolno
Dawn of War was supposed to be a game of the tabletop game. It was completely different, however.
Dawn of War 2 is going back to the basic principles of the original game, and therefore IS still part of the 40K series. Because it IS 40K, it's more like the original one than Dawn of War is.

 

[PersianLlama]

I guess I'm one of the minority that like base building....

I guess I am too.

 

[theultimateend]

I guess I'm one of the minority that like base building....

I guess I am too.

You have entered the one website with a pretty substantial amount of people who will fight you to the death over how superior this design is.

he's right. in real war, you don't start with one guy who can build a building that can then magically summon units. you start with an army, and you try to crush your enemies' armies, and THEN you start building things.

I agree. It adds the need for long-term consideration and unit-management. DoW2 is more tactical, more varied strategically. Despite some juvenile comments on the lines of 'if it was real we wouldn't have aliens', combat is the same between all combatants and this design lends itself to the creation of a more viable tactical experience.

Better in terms of game time.
Better in terms of strategy.
Eliminates static plays.
Heightens the need to use the resources available.

You can go back to you base-building rituals if you wish, but RTS has always been about strategy and innovation on the fly. If you turn that down when it comes in such a pretty package then you can hardly call yourself an RTS fan.

To clarify I'm only really aggrivated they said its a sequal to DoW.

Had they called it something different like Warhammer: Something catchy here, I'd be perfectly cool with it.

I mean how pissed would you have been if they had called Firewarrior DoWIII or something. I know that's a WAY more extreme example but when you start making HUGE changes it isn't a sequal anymore its a new game with similar themes.

lolno
Dawn of War was supposed to be a game of the tabletop game. It was completely different, however.
Dawn of War 2 is going back to the basic principles of the original game, and therefore IS still part of the 40K series. Because it IS 40K, it's more like the original one than Dawn of War is.

Don't get me wrong. They SHOULD have it about 40k but not call it Dawn of War II. It's extremely misleading. Go play Master of Orion II and then try (I'd say play but its not a game) Master of Orion III.

The former is an upgrade of its predecessor (MooI) and its utterly amazing, MooIII was a 'revolutionary' take on it and it felt nothing like the Moo series. Consequently it also tanked so hard that it went from 50 bucks to 9.99 in about 30 days.

Basically what I'm getting at is there is a difference between a sequel and a new game. This is a new game and not a sequel. Period.

I guess I'm one of the minority that like base building....

I guess I am too.

Nah escapist just has odd ratios of people. You go on the DoWII forums or even most irc networks and you'll find a dramatically different take on the matter haha.

 

[rogueshadows]

I guess I'm one of the minority that like base building....

I guess I am too.

ahh, but you two are not screaming about DoWII having no strategy.

 

[SquirrelPants]

I guess I'm one of the minority that like base building....

I guess I am too.

You have entered the one website with a pretty substantial amount of people who will fight you to the death over how superior this design is.

he's right. in real war, you don't start with one guy who can build a building that can then magically summon units. you start with an army, and you try to crush your enemies' armies, and THEN you start building things.

I agree. It adds the need for long-term consideration and unit-management. DoW2 is more tactical, more varied strategically. Despite some juvenile comments on the lines of 'if it was real we wouldn't have aliens', combat is the same between all combatants and this design lends itself to the creation of a more viable tactical experience.

Better in terms of game time.
Better in terms of strategy.
Eliminates static plays.
Heightens the need to use the resources available.

You can go back to you base-building rituals if you wish, but RTS has always been about strategy and innovation on the fly. If you turn that down when it comes in such a pretty package then you can hardly call yourself an RTS fan.

To clarify I'm only really aggrivated they said its a sequal to DoW.

Had they called it something different like Warhammer: Something catchy here, I'd be perfectly cool with it.

I mean how pissed would you have been if they had called Firewarrior DoWIII or something. I know that's a WAY more extreme example but when you start making HUGE changes it isn't a sequal anymore its a new game with similar themes.

lolno
Dawn of War was supposed to be a game of the tabletop game. It was completely different, however.
Dawn of War 2 is going back to the basic principles of the original game, and therefore IS still part of the 40K series. Because it IS 40K, it's more like the original one than Dawn of War is.

Don't get me wrong. They SHOULD have it about 40k but not call it Dawn of War II. It's extremely misleading. Go play Master of Orion II and then try (I'd say play but its not a game) Master of Orion III.

The former is an upgrade of its predecessor (MooI) and its utterly amazing, MooIII was a 'revolutionary' take on it and it felt nothing like the Moo series. Consequently it also tanked so hard that it went from 50 bucks to 9.99 in about 30 days.

Basically what I'm getting at is there is a difference between a sequel and a new game. This is a new game and not a sequel. Period.

But...Dawn of War II is called Dawn of War II because it's a 40K game that follows the "Dawn of War" campaign! I honestly don't see how that's misleading at all!
I will admit that next-gen versions of games are really screwy, but this isn't going next-gen on us, it's going LAST-gen to give the tabletop fans something that they can still say relates to their interests.

 

[theultimateend]

I guess I'm one of the minority that like base building....

I guess I am too.

You have entered the one website with a pretty substantial amount of people who will fight you to the death over how superior this design is.

he's right. in real war, you don't start with one guy who can build a building that can then magically summon units. you start with an army, and you try to crush your enemies' armies, and THEN you start building things.

I agree. It adds the need for long-term consideration and unit-management. DoW2 is more tactical, more varied strategically. Despite some juvenile comments on the lines of 'if it was real we wouldn't have aliens', combat is the same between all combatants and this design lends itself to the creation of a more viable tactical experience.

Better in terms of game time.
Better in terms of strategy.
Eliminates static plays.
Heightens the need to use the resources available.

You can go back to you base-building rituals if you wish, but RTS has always been about strategy and innovation on the fly. If you turn that down when it comes in such a pretty package then you can hardly call yourself an RTS fan.

To clarify I'm only really aggrivated they said its a sequal to DoW.

Had they called it something different like Warhammer: Something catchy here, I'd be perfectly cool with it.

I mean how pissed would you have been if they had called Firewarrior DoWIII or something. I know that's a WAY more extreme example but when you start making HUGE changes it isn't a sequal anymore its a new game with similar themes.

lolno
Dawn of War was supposed to be a game of the tabletop game. It was completely different, however.
Dawn of War 2 is going back to the basic principles of the original game, and therefore IS still part of the 40K series. Because it IS 40K, it's more like the original one than Dawn of War is.

Don't get me wrong. They SHOULD have it about 40k but not call it Dawn of War II. It's extremely misleading. Go play Master of Orion II and then try (I'd say play but its not a game) Master of Orion III.

The former is an upgrade of its predecessor (MooI) and its utterly amazing, MooIII was a 'revolutionary' take on it and it felt nothing like the Moo series. Consequently it also tanked so hard that it went from 50 bucks to 9.99 in about 30 days.

Basically what I'm getting at is there is a difference between a sequel and a new game. This is a new game and not a sequel. Period.

But...Dawn of War II is called Dawn of War II because it's a 40K game that follows the "Dawn of War" campaign! I honestly don't see how that's misleading at all!
I will admit that next-gen versions of games are really screwy, but this isn't going next-gen on us, it's going LAST-gen to give the tabletop fans something that they can still say relates to their interests.

Frankly I didn't even notice that the DoW series was going on a coherent campaign story. It just seemed like they were jumping all over the place.

That said this is a complaint that even Relic has been acknowledging on their website. People expect some level of consistency between sequels.

I don't care that they made this game, some people will absolutely love, what I don't like is that its the 'official' sequal to DoW. That means that all those people who were playing the DoWI series religiously have basically been given a good sized middle finger about seeing any sort of update to their game (like Tyranids which was what so many people were waiting for...tons of people bought soulstorm on steam for the soul purpose of playing Tyranids in the demo).

Plus what the hell. Tyranids and Orks work by flooding their opponent, domination in numbers, it just doesn't feel right to have tiny groups of them battling equally tiny groups of space marines.

I dunno I always visualized both races as these overwhelming super destructive forces that frankly nothing but Necrons would ever have a reasonable means of defeating. They kind of feel like glorified retextures now.

That's all personal feelings of course. Unlike other people in this thread (and others) assaulting others for having an opinion. I understand other people like this game. I just feel the name was a poor choice.

 

[theultimateend]

I just realized, why the hell is it called Dawn of War anyway? It's Warhammer 40k, the Great Crusade has been going on for ten thousand years! And the Horus Heresy and all that were pretty big wars too! Hell, the Necrons were killin' off the galaxy hundreds of thousands of years before that too? Is it a pun?

It's catchy.

Had they called it

Baddies Abound Deviously Delivering Instant Extermination in Space

It wouldn't of had that same aura...

Plus it's acronym would have bene BADDIES which would have been SO cliche.

 

[darkless]

:sigh: why do people insist that what DOWII is doing is revolutionary? Myth did it 10 years ago fer crying out loud!

Yeah but very few people knew or cared about it then even though it was awesome it didnt get the media attention and so it died.

As for DOW II I like that bases where removed with the bases i could just keep churning out men and it wasn't fun if i have a limited amount of soldiers to complete the objective with that's awesome it means i really gotta think about what I'm doing.

I agree with you, but I have to ask, do you really not use any pauses in your sentences or anything?

Sorry about that spelling and punctuation aren't my strong suits, I have to go back through my posts a couple of times in order to catch all the mistakes because this spellchecker i got sucks, so sometimes my own spelling irritates me so much i skip the punctuation part and pray nobody notices, looks like you caught me.

 

[linchowlewy]

I'm really looking forward to this game even if my computer won't play it.

but with base building i like it if it's deep, but if it feels like just a method to get troops onto the field i dislike it. i am one of those strange people that love tech trees.

however i also can't get enough of real-time tactics. i have spent so long playing Rome: Total War recently and just love the tactics and on the fly thinking it provides. it also adds greater emotional levels to gameplay because you can't just churn out these units on an infinite machine. in a regular RTS you can easily sacrifice units as a distraction or just send infinite hordes of cheap enemies attacking. but in a Real Time Tactics you must preserve every unit you have.

think of chess. if in chess you could create an unlimited number of units would it be fun?

 

[Dealin Burgers]

I'd have to agree. I think real-time tactics fits better than real-time strategy. It's more about the skirmishes, about thinking on your feet and trying to out-think and out-maneuver the enemy. I much prefer this over the typical RTS base-building formula.

Why not call base building RTS's Real Time Economy? Makes just as much sense, no?

Same reason people act like HAlo was revolutionary for FPS's .

"Hey did I play this years ago on the N64 a few times?" "Yeah but it didn't have Master Chief!"

I remember a kid telling me Halo invented dual wielding .

Not to get off topic, but while halo certainly didn't invent dual weilding it was the first game to do it correctly.

 

[Simriel]

Dow2 Is a real time tactical, Not a real time strategy

 

[vid20]

This game is so much more tactical then DoW 1. It is about efficiently employing each and every single unit you have in your army, just like the real 40k board game. I despised DoW 1, but I absolutely enjoyed the DoW 2 Beta, and am quite happily looking forward too the full game. My only grievance with it is Windows Live.

 

[Archaon6044]

i'm getting mixed messages here, and i'm rather conflicted.

on the one hand, i played the tabletop game of 40k, and i like the idea of creating a game close to that experience, and hving to be clever about what i do,

but on the other hand, i did quite like DOW1, and i can see why people say it's more of new game, than a sequel.

i always thought of myself as an RTSer (they're my preferred genre), but i don't really do competative multi with them, as i tend to get stomped before i get anywhere

so i want to kow, do you guys reckon it'll be worth getting? even if only for the 'novalty' of having it (i heard of myth, but never played it)

 

[Ultrajoe]

All else, i'm getting it to play as my beloved Tyranids.

Fear of God? I'm going eat your god, eh? Where is your god now!?

In mah bellah!