DoW2, WTF?

[theultimateend]

The problem that I see is that people are comparing it to other RTS games.

It's -different-.

It's much more action-adventure with RPG/RTS elements. It's hard to explain, but to be real? It feels way more like diablo than a competitive RTS.

See I tried saying its not really an RTS in the conventional sense on another thread here.

I'm pretty sure had they had access to me, some wood, and a few nails, I'd have ended up getting crucified.

Sucks that people are intolerant.

It's a different kind of game. Will traditional RTS players like it? Maybe not. Do you want a large scale game like SupCom, TA, or Sins of a Solar Empire? This isn't it.

Do you want a micro-intensive RTS? This seems like it could develop into one, but not on the same scale as Starcraft, say.

Do you want an RTS-style game where each troop matters, and you can upgrade each one, and they can take different roles? This seems like that's what it's going to be. (maybe like Original War?)

However, it seems more "combat-oriented" instead of economy or anything.

I just feel they should have just made a sequal to DoWI and then added a simple toggle to turn off base construction to this more streamlined fit.

Anyone who thinks that's 'too much work' should look at the last expansion for Galactic Civilization II and repent .

 

[kingcom]

Really? I disagree, im a traditional RTS player and i loved this game. I hated SupCom, loved Total Annihilation, loved Sins of a Solar Empire, and i'll say it again, i loved DoW2.

 

[gamegod25]

Yeah that's why I didn't include it. And I didn't count DoW2 because I was looking for past examples.

Technically you build in DoW2 as well.

The point, though, is that it isn't the dominant feature as is found in most RTS.

Yeah. I just wanted to point out that it's not unprecedented.

 

[kingcom]

The problem that I see is that people are comparing it to other RTS games.

It's -different-.

It's much more action-adventure with RPG/RTS elements. It's hard to explain, but to be real? It feels way more like diablo than a competitive RTS.

See I tried saying its not really an RTS in the conventional sense on another thread here.

I'm pretty sure had they had access to me, some wood, and a few nails, I'd have ended up getting crucified.

Sucks that people are intolerant.

It's a different kind of game. Will traditional RTS players like it? Maybe not. Do you want a large scale game like SupCom, TA, or Sins of a Solar Empire? This isn't it.

Do you want a micro-intensive RTS? This seems like it could develop into one, but not on the same scale as Starcraft, say.

Do you want an RTS-style game where each troop matters, and you can upgrade each one, and they can take different roles? This seems like that's what it's going to be. (maybe like Original War?)

However, it seems more "combat-oriented" instead of economy or anything.

I just feel they should have just made a sequal to DoWI and then added a simple toggle to turn off base construction to this more streamlined fit.

Anyone who thinks that's 'too much work' should look at the last expansion for Galactic Civilization II and repent .

No that would have been ridiculously simple to do, are you refering to someone ultimate?

 

[theultimateend]

The problem that I see is that people are comparing it to other RTS games.

It's -different-.

It's much more action-adventure with RPG/RTS elements. It's hard to explain, but to be real? It feels way more like diablo than a competitive RTS.

See I tried saying its not really an RTS in the conventional sense on another thread here.

I'm pretty sure had they had access to me, some wood, and a few nails, I'd have ended up getting crucified.

Sucks that people are intolerant.

It's a different kind of game. Will traditional RTS players like it? Maybe not. Do you want a large scale game like SupCom, TA, or Sins of a Solar Empire? This isn't it.

Do you want a micro-intensive RTS? This seems like it could develop into one, but not on the same scale as Starcraft, say.

Do you want an RTS-style game where each troop matters, and you can upgrade each one, and they can take different roles? This seems like that's what it's going to be. (maybe like Original War?)

However, it seems more "combat-oriented" instead of economy or anything.

I just feel they should have just made a sequal to DoWI and then added a simple toggle to turn off base construction to this more streamlined fit.

Anyone who thinks that's 'too much work' should look at the last expansion for Galactic Civilization II and repent .

No that would have been ridiculously simple to do, are you refering to someone ultimate?

No just anyone who would think that a toggle-able option for base building would have been a lot of work.

The latest expansion for Galactic Civ II I think should be the mark of excellence for all further 'sequals' or expansions. Once you look at all they did you kinda want to go hug everyone who worked on it...after they take a shower of course.

 

[Credge]

In MOST RTS games you do NOT find base building?

If that was actually what I wrote, then sure. The problem is that I didn't write that.

Well you can do the same in almost any RTS game if the other guy doesn't know what he's doing.

And in CoH all you >needMOST< RTS games.

 

[kingcom]

For a "Beat Writer" you seem to do a lot more nitpicking than actual commentary ultimate.

Dow2 is a unique game not everyone will like but please dont listen to people on forums and try it now, for free!

 

[theultimateend]

In MOST RTS games you do NOT find base building?

If that was actually what I wrote, then sure. The problem is that I didn't write that.

Well you can do the same in almost any RTS game if the other guy doesn't know what he's doing.

And in CoH all you >needMOST< RTS games.

So of all the RTS games out there can you provide me 51% or more that did not have base building being an important part of the battle?

I'll accept CoH (Even though plenty of times I saw people building more than one building when I played multiplayer).

But as it stands I think 10 games (or less) is hardly 'most' RTS games.

That was my point. When you say MOST you are making a bold bold statement. Base building was such an important part of most RTS's that rushing was developed to help circumvent its powerful effects.

For a "Beat Writer" you seem to do a lot more nitpicking than actual commentary ultimate.

Dow2 is a unique game not everyone will like but please dont listen to people on forums and try it now, for free!

You do realize those titles are automatic right?

I just don't like when people make bold statements.

I never said people here shouldn't like the game, but anytime I discuss what >I< feel is flimsy about it I get attacked for being wrong. So I get nitpicky to point out that certain reasons that I am wrong are ridiculous.

Like saying that 5-10 games can be accurately called "MOST" of the RTS gaming world.

 

[kingcom]

sorrry, second comment wasn't directed at you, and yes, like all forums acrosss the internet, the titles are automatic but why does it matter if CoH can be considered base building?

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

I know the original only had 4, but what im saying is why build it up to 9 races, when they are just going to chop 5 straight out from under us.

I loved the Necron, Tau and Dark Eldar (despite their lack of turrets)

Well seeing as the only properly balanced races were the original four I don't think its too much of a bad move; imperial guard fit in okay till they get overwhelming numbers and then it can be impossible to break their lines on medium+ or multiplayer (but then thats what guard are like so maybe thats intentional).

As for Necrons? Horribly balanced and the only tactic to win against them is rush while they build (as they are slower set ups) Tau have the smae problem as imperial guard with massive firepower being almost unbeatable when micromanaged okay and as for sisters of battle and dark elder...did the testers even play them?

 

[Pigeon_Grenade]

i watched footage For Dawn of war 2, and was Already disappointed, there is 5 squads, you dont have any choice in what the squads do, so its going to end up a rinse and Repeat cycle on how to get through the game, and the same ways of breaking the enemy's Cover

 

[kingcom]

I know the original only had 4, but what im saying is why build it up to 9 races, when they are just going to chop 5 straight out from under us.

I loved the Necron, Tau and Dark Eldar (despite their lack of turrets)

Well seeing as the only properly balanced races were the original four I don't think its too much of a bad move; imperial guard fit in okay till they get overwhelming numbers and then it can be impossible to break their lines on medium+ or multiplayer (but then thats what guard are like so maybe thats intentional).

As for Necrons? Horribly balanced and the only tactic to win against them is rush while they build (as they are slower set ups) Tau have the smae problem as imperial guard with massive firepower being almost unbeatable when micromanaged okay and as for sisters of battle and dark elder...did the testers even play them?

No they didnt i suspect, would take too long, and they had a game to sell and switch full production to dow2.

i watched footage For Dawn of war 2, and was Already disappointed, there is 5 squads, you dont have any choice in what the squads do, so its going to end up a rinse and Repeat cycle on how to get through the game, and the same ways of breaking the enemy's Cover

Sorry what? After playing the gme you have complete control over the squads, from what gear they have, to movement, there are not 5 squads, they are dependent on what you build. If you are talking single player, it is more relatable to an RPG, as you level up squads, gain new gear etc. Each mission, is truly objective based (atleast according to those who went to the UK demosntration). Each race/commander, requires a different approached to defeating, maybe breaking cover is the same but the units behind the cover will be radically different.

 

[Abedeus]

Okay, I see a lot of blasphemy.

The less races, the easier it is to balance the game. 9 classes either guarantee one or two are repeated, or one is stronger and one weaker (or even more).

No base management - more actual game. If you like building that much, go play SimCities or something like that, you'll be happy.

Lesser groups - more tactics. You can no longer create 70 orks or necrons and swarm enemy while he tries to move somewhere. Okay, the lizards can, but they are weaker than regular units.

Also, there are already 2 threads about DoW 2.

 

[theultimateend]

I know the original only had 4, but what im saying is why build it up to 9 races, when they are just going to chop 5 straight out from under us.

I loved the Necron, Tau and Dark Eldar (despite their lack of turrets)

Well seeing as the only properly balanced races were the original four I don't think its too much of a bad move; imperial guard fit in okay till they get overwhelming numbers and then it can be impossible to break their lines on medium+ or multiplayer (but then thats what guard are like so maybe thats intentional).

As for Necrons? Horribly balanced and the only tactic to win against them is rush while they build (as they are slower set ups) Tau have the smae problem as imperial guard with massive firepower being almost unbeatable when micromanaged okay and as for sisters of battle and dark elder...did the testers even play them?

I never really played DoWI to 'win'. For me it was me and a bunch of people who had become friends playing races we had fallen in love with from the tabletop in high speed insanity .

I liked it because it was a mixture of expansion and utterly endless conflicts that to me embodied the pure lovely spirit of the Warhammer universe (so much so that it inspired me to start working out my own vision for a future different game genre's take on the universe).

Which I think might be why I was so downtrodden by the new game. Maybe I'm missing the speed setting or something but I've never had a match in multiplayer that would equate to anything I would call 'fast paced'. Then again it might be like DDR, back when I first saw people playing Drop out it looked like light speed flashes of light with no pattern then as I got better the entire song seemed to slow down and now its quite doable.

I do feel the unfortunate side effect to limiting a gamers options is that after a very short time the only people playing (I feel) will be those who are incredibly competitive. Everyone else will have milked all the possible options. I hate to fall back on it as my whipping boy but SPORE was similar, it stripped out many of its proposed options for simplicity and because of it the amount of people playing dropped off a cliff after about 3-4 weeks. There just wasn't enough variables to keep many there (some still play it religiously).

I think I just expect too much from major companies, while I understand indie developers producing things for small groups of people (which I absolutely love given the cost) major developers doing it confuses me.

Then again had this not been the official sequal for DoW II and been another title that would get its own development along side a new sequal for DoW II you'd see me in here with the rest of these folks defending it to death because I feel its nice to experiment. I am just disheartened to see something I love die (be it a friend, a pet, a story, or a game).

Plus I get really antsy when the response to "I don't like this game" is "You are a goddamn retard and have no understanding of quality." As if suddenly these people are the sole authority on what is right in the world. That's why I get all nitpicky .

Example below:

No base management - more actual game. If you like building that much, go play SimCities or something like that, you'll be happy.

I don't know if you were trying to sound rude but if you were you accomplished it . If you weren't blame text I suppose.

SimCity and RTS games are entirely different things. Just because they both have building doesn't mean they are interchangeable.

That said I love Sim City, but I'd have to be a raving lunatic to say its the same experience as Red Alert 2.

 

[kingcom]

For me it was me and a bunch of people who had become friends playing races we had fallen in love with from the tabletop in high speed insanity .

I liked it because it was a mixture of expansion and utterly endless conflicts that to me embodied the pure lovely spirit of the Warhammer universe (so much so that it inspired me to start working out my own vision for a future different game genre's take on the universe).

Which I think might be why I was so downtrodden by the new game. Maybe I'm missing the speed setting or something but I've never had a match in multiplayer that would equate to anything I would call 'fast paced'. Then again it might be like DDR, back when I first saw people playing Drop out it looked like light speed flashes of light with no pattern then as I got better the entire song seemed to slow down and now its quite doable.

I do feel the unfortunate side effect to limiting a gamers options is that after a very short time the only people playing (I feel) will be those who are incredibly competitive. Everyone else will have milked all the possible options. I hate to fall back on it as my whipping boy but SPORE was similar, it stripped out many of its proposed options for simplicity and because of it the amount of people playing dropped off a cliff after about 3-4 weeks. There just wasn't enough variables to keep many there (some still play it religiously).

Hmm, heres were i differ almost at the polar opposite, i found dow 1 incredibly slow paced and dull, and was too limited in its options to maintain my interest for very long. I found most games had a few short skirmishes to begin with and then eventually a big battle where one team was effectively the victor for that game.

Dow2 on the other hand, I felt was an incredibly fast paced game with expansion and endless conflict which to me "embodied the pure lovely spirit of the Warhammer universe", though i have not yet planned a game of my own...

From the beta i have established a group of friends who we play reguarly together, each having found races and commanders we enjoy (since there are no guardsmen yet, i will have to settle with the tyranids).

I felt DoW1 was sluggish and slow, though DoW2's intense, fighting/retreat/flank/pin/retreat/push gameplay has me hooked.

I am hoping wargear offers the flexibility of play, which can prolong the non-competitive (such as myself after i get over much of the early intensity) players. Expansions should be coming relatively quickly i suspect, so more should allow prolonged gameplay.

EDIT:

Also, gaming boards have a tendency to attract the kind of imbelicles who make comments like that ultimate, if you nit pick, you give them fodder, intelligent people already recognise their worthlessness, and nit picking is only an attempted to convince intelligent, rational people, effectively it is an exercise in futility.


P.S: DoW2 is more like a new child brought into the world, to...this metaphore really doesnt work..

 

[jamesworkshop]

Base build was hardly a selling point in DoW did you people really find it that interesting after a few games the build order becomes a to do list with no actual strategy involved or did people love DoW instead for the brutal action orientated viseral combat which got tons of praise.

 

[kingcom]

They later james, buildings could not be used as an effective weapon ala Starcraft, so they served no purpose, combined with the resource system.

 

[Wolvaroo]

It makes perfect sense to cut out races. It'd be very difficult to give more than those 4 races their own distinct feel to them.

Either way I prefer the Original...

 

[kingcom]

In DoWI you were competing for the most important points in the entire goddamn universe. The entire point of building bases was to create a safe drop point.

Unless we are willing to argue that there are no bases at all anywhere in the LORE of warhammer 40k.

Last time I checked every major location had a base of some kind. Except for the emperor, he's just chillin out in the rain on a merry-go-round.

The thing with overly-comparing DoW to its tabletop origin is that the tabletop doesn't have reinforcements. Ok, some armies have a reinforcements rule, but basically each side is the same number of points worth of dudes, then you duke it out in the rules set by your codex. Dawn of War has resource points, which allow the player to increase his army size, thus eliminating any pretense that you're playing a digital form of tabletop 40K. If DoW2 has you start with your entire army, no additional units to be added, no upgrades mid-game, and pits you against a force with similar restrictions, then fine, I'm all good with removing bases etc.

But so long as things are resource-driven, I (and a good number of others) expect bases, like a proper RTS would have. Bases, defensive turrets, vehicles (ground and air, sea isn't ever part of 40K), AND my army of uberdudes.

Sigh, now i know how you feel ultimate, i didnt know it was this bad on this forum...

By your logic: you must have sea, this RTS is not 40K TT, 40K TT doesnt have sea, therfore, this game must have sea.

This game is ristricted with base building. This game is about your units (im not sure if you have played or not so i cant comment). It has nothing to do with bases, there is no unwritten law about RTS being forced to have bases. All an RTS must have is real-time and strategy. This has both, it is different to many base building RTS titles, so how can you compare it?

I understand my hypocracy by stating what i said but i had to say it.