What happened to Relic between DoW 1 and DoW 2?
- Thread starter XUnsafeNormalX
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Note to those spamming "What is DoW?" or other similar questions:
DoW = Dawn of War
CoH = Company of Heroes
HW = Homeworld
------------------------------------
Nothing happened to Relic.
They decided "You know what guys, I think we should do something a little different. Single player where you're basically playing a skirmish against a computer over and over, but with special objectives/events...let's take that away, and start something fresh. Let's make it more like a real campaign. Control a persistent group of characters, the player does missions, and is rewarded with persistent light RPG elements. And multiplayer...well, everyone's been doing the same base building > mass up army > attack all the time, let's try something a bit different. We've got our Essence Engine from CoH, we can amp it up so players are more focused on the field instead of home base. Cover, suppression, flanking, victory points, etc."
I'll be honest, I never played DoW 2 yet, but back before the system requirements were announced, I was really anticipating it and keeping up with the news the entire time before release. It feels like an amped up version of CoH, and I was looking forward to that. Besides, Tyranids were there.
I enjoyed DoW 1 a lot, although it eventually just fell down due to poor support.
In an interview, a developer said that CoH's building structures (not counting emplacements) were used mainly as a pacing mechanism, and not so much anything else. So basically, in DoW 2, they just decided to implement the pacing mechanism in a different way, rather than using buildings and builder units.
What I don't understand is why people want Dawn of War to stay the same. Let's think carefully guys - Their competition is BLIZZARD. They have this game called STARCRAFT 2. If they want to compete, they need to do something different.
If Dawn of War 2 was made without drastically changing things and was really just another clone, business would be terrible. People would go "DoW 2 looks interesting, but it's the same as Starcraft 2. I know Blizzard is bigger and better, so I'll go with SC2".
Seriously guys, they can't compete against Blizzard by making Starcraft clones. Perhaps this is why games like Supreme Commander or World in Conflict also went different routes?
So there you have it. A few reasons why Relic went a different route. Is it bad? Not necessarily, because it still succeeded and if people don't like it, it's not like all other game companies are doing the same thing.
P.S: Kind of getting tired of the whole "dumbing down/casual this, casual that" saying. You guys sound paranoid of change or something. Besides, I don't think they necessarily did this to gain a broader audience.
DoW = Dawn of War
CoH = Company of Heroes
HW = Homeworld
------------------------------------
Nothing happened to Relic.
They decided "You know what guys, I think we should do something a little different. Single player where you're basically playing a skirmish against a computer over and over, but with special objectives/events...let's take that away, and start something fresh. Let's make it more like a real campaign. Control a persistent group of characters, the player does missions, and is rewarded with persistent light RPG elements. And multiplayer...well, everyone's been doing the same base building > mass up army > attack all the time, let's try something a bit different. We've got our Essence Engine from CoH, we can amp it up so players are more focused on the field instead of home base. Cover, suppression, flanking, victory points, etc."
I'll be honest, I never played DoW 2 yet, but back before the system requirements were announced, I was really anticipating it and keeping up with the news the entire time before release. It feels like an amped up version of CoH, and I was looking forward to that. Besides, Tyranids were there.
I enjoyed DoW 1 a lot, although it eventually just fell down due to poor support.
In an interview, a developer said that CoH's building structures (not counting emplacements) were used mainly as a pacing mechanism, and not so much anything else. So basically, in DoW 2, they just decided to implement the pacing mechanism in a different way, rather than using buildings and builder units.
What I don't understand is why people want Dawn of War to stay the same. Let's think carefully guys - Their competition is BLIZZARD. They have this game called STARCRAFT 2. If they want to compete, they need to do something different.
If Dawn of War 2 was made without drastically changing things and was really just another clone, business would be terrible. People would go "DoW 2 looks interesting, but it's the same as Starcraft 2. I know Blizzard is bigger and better, so I'll go with SC2".
Seriously guys, they can't compete against Blizzard by making Starcraft clones. Perhaps this is why games like Supreme Commander or World in Conflict also went different routes?
So there you have it. A few reasons why Relic went a different route. Is it bad? Not necessarily, because it still succeeded and if people don't like it, it's not like all other game companies are doing the same thing.
P.S: Kind of getting tired of the whole "dumbing down/casual this, casual that" saying. You guys sound paranoid of change or something. Besides, I don't think they necessarily did this to gain a broader audience.
Eh I never said change was bad, I said oversimplification of gameplay was bad. Way to hyperbolize my entire post, and then ironically end up criticizing the same game I did by pointing out "it needed more units and maps." Lack of variation = oversimplification.The Madman said:
TFC was also a much better game than TF2. It has nothing to do with being older, it has to do with the fact that it was just better, the gameplay mechanics were more fun. Newcomers tended not to like it because they weren't instantly amazing at it. Conc jumping was an amazing mechanic, grenade tossing in general, the classes, the maps, just about everything was better in TFC. I defy you to find my a TFC player that prefers TF2.
The only people who think TF2 was a better game are people who have never played TFC, or played it for a few seconds after having played TF2 and were immediately turned off by the dated graphics, or because they were getting their asses handed to them by people who have been playing the game for 9 years.
As for the trend oversimplification of games, it's very real and not just the dying frustration of the last wave of gamers. The market is much larger than it ever was and developers have started simplifying their games to appeal to a wider range of consumer to make a larger profit. Thus they're less willing to take risks or make games with high learning curves for fear that they won't sell as well.
Dawn of war 2 wasn't a damn fine game, it was a damn mediocre game. It was an RTS made for people who weren't RTS fans. That's my logic, your free to twist it in whatever way you want to fit your post, as you did with my last post.
By comparison to DoW it was brilliant in the storytelling, please a librarian turning to choas randomly...I think not.avykins said:
I didn't mind DoW, but DoW2 is a far superior game, had they bothered including a mapeditor and decent multiplayer maps I'd be playing it right now. I also would've liked a release tha wasn't crippled by numerous game crippling bugs, but it's still a good game when it works.
Umm, I'm going to go ahead and assume you've not played the game. It's all about micro managment, y'know, kind the opposote of how console RTS games are about globing troops together and foregoing strategy. Different units have vastly different strengths, abilities and weaknesses and you are expected to effectly use cover. Coupled with the almost complete lack of AI it would be all but impossible to play on a console. Starcraft two, on the other hand, looks to be clunky and indirect comparison (with no real cover system and unit AI that allows them to move sensibly with less than 30,000 actions per minute), far more guilty of having console RTS traits. Your criticism confuses me, as their is by no stretch of the imagination a shortage of legitimate criticisms to pick out of DoW2, being console 'tarded is one of the few that isn't applicable.Crash486 said:
But that's the thing, it's more of a squad based strategy game like rainbow six than it is an RTS.Crash486 said:
I most certainly shall now that I have your permission, thank you!Crash486 said:
Now... I know this is gonna blow your mind but... I disagree. But rather than write a massive ten sentence post which will inevitably be ignored anyway, I'm just going to pose a relatively simple question; How is Dawn of War 2 a simplification of the rts genre?
In the 'traditional rts' the key to victory is the classic building queue, rock paper scissors units, and hotkeys. Essentially whoever builds the best units the fastest will likely win and the only way to perhaps turn it around is to build the paper to his rock. Therein lies the strategy pretty much because often the paper isn't nearly as tough as the rock except against the rock, which really makes no sense when you think about it but that's how rts work. So what units do you build and when? That's the strategy. Similarly battles are simplistic affairs where again everything comes down to the rock paper shotgun game mechanics.
You build your base, you collect as many resources as quickly as you can, then you roll the dice & attack, hoping the enemy hasn't build the yen to your yang. Rinse. Repeat.
Dawn of War 2 however while eliminating the base mechanic adds a tactical element to the gameplay which eliminates the more clear-cut gameplay from above. My rock can beat your paper even though it's outnumbered because my rock is in a more strategic location and better managed... wait what? Why. Well because cover and flanking are taken into consideration now as well for example. My Rock was behind heavy cover and suppressed your paper, forcing the paper to retreat. The rock paper scissors mechanic is still there, but with all the added elements it's, if anything, more complex than ever before turning it into a perverse game of Rock ambushes paper but is flanked by scissors. Similarly resource gathering is still key, they simply eliminated the middle man in exchange for forcing the player to become more aggressive in their gathering, which in turn adds yet another layer of strategy as you're forced to weigh the risks of extending your troops for more resources vs the guaranteed safety of holding the few necessary ones.
So aside from the building of bases, everything else about the game is more complex than ever. The unit cap is smaller, but that's a necessity in order to try and make sure the game doesn't become overwhelming. We're not all crazed Koreans after all capable of hotkey-commanding everything via the mini-map after all.
So what exactly is such a step down in Dawn of War 2? What's oversimplified? As far as I can tell, it's not oversimplified so much as *different* and you just don't like that.
That seems to be the case with alot of new games.
To be quite honest, DoW2 IS dumbed down. It's not just because it's different, it's because it took elements from CoH and simplified them.
The tactical model from CoH allowed for several degrees of cover, pinning, directional vehicle damage, etc. These and other features have been quite simply ripped out with nothing to replace them. This means there are fewer variables in play and the overall game is simpler. Add to this the focus on fewer units and you get an overall simplified game.
I thought DoW2 was a game with unrealized potential. Relic revolutionized the RTS genre over and over again before. 3D movement in Homeworld, resource system in DoW along with squad-based gameplay, detailed tactical mechanics in CoH. DoW2 doesn't bring anything new, it steps back.
Yes, it is different, but different isn't always better. The tactical model from CoH should have been preserved or reworked a bit, not gutted. Unit counts should not be so pathetic. Seriously, Eldar got THREE platforms (basically the same unit)! That's just lazy on the part of the devs.
I don't have a problem with the no base thing, or the small squad focus or any of those things. I have a problem with it being done in the wrong way.
The tactical model from CoH allowed for several degrees of cover, pinning, directional vehicle damage, etc. These and other features have been quite simply ripped out with nothing to replace them. This means there are fewer variables in play and the overall game is simpler. Add to this the focus on fewer units and you get an overall simplified game.
I thought DoW2 was a game with unrealized potential. Relic revolutionized the RTS genre over and over again before. 3D movement in Homeworld, resource system in DoW along with squad-based gameplay, detailed tactical mechanics in CoH. DoW2 doesn't bring anything new, it steps back.
Yes, it is different, but different isn't always better. The tactical model from CoH should have been preserved or reworked a bit, not gutted. Unit counts should not be so pathetic. Seriously, Eldar got THREE platforms (basically the same unit)! That's just lazy on the part of the devs.
I don't have a problem with the no base thing, or the small squad focus or any of those things. I have a problem with it being done in the wrong way.
I really like DoW2. yeah sure if you approach the game as a pure RTS you will obviously not like it but if you approach it as more of a tactical RPG then you will enjoy it more. Like most RPGs it doesnt get interesting until you find a few items to customise your soldiers with.
But most gamers are really hypocritical. They complain if developers try something new yet in the next breath complain that every game is a clone of another.
Oh and its a Windows Live game so thats two thumbs down in that area. I still find that service slow and painful to log into each time you want to play.
But most gamers are really hypocritical. They complain if developers try something new yet in the next breath complain that every game is a clone of another.
Oh and its a Windows Live game so thats two thumbs down in that area. I still find that service slow and painful to log into each time you want to play.
The concept of DoW2 is great. CoH is an amazing game and it fits VERY well with the 40K universe (or Warhammer in generally, actually).
The problem with it is that they simply ruined the balance of some things. Plasma, as an example. It's SUPPOSED to be an anti-vehicle weapon but it decimates infantry. Or did. I'm unsure if they've changed it as I lost interest.
They also took some things too literally when translating the individual unit rules from the TT to the game without actually implementing the important stats that made that unit special.
That's mainly what happened. The concept is fine and fits. The implementation of it was terrible.
The problem with it is that they simply ruined the balance of some things. Plasma, as an example. It's SUPPOSED to be an anti-vehicle weapon but it decimates infantry. Or did. I'm unsure if they've changed it as I lost interest.
They also took some things too literally when translating the individual unit rules from the TT to the game without actually implementing the important stats that made that unit special.
That's mainly what happened. The concept is fine and fits. The implementation of it was terrible.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I *AM* just going to point out that you're comparing DoW2 not to the original, but to Company of Heroes. A different series in a different setting only made by the same developer.Jandau said:
Similarly the reason many of those elements were removed is simple: Company of Heroes does not have melee. There is no melee combat! By adding that there's a whole new element to Company of Heroes gameplay... or has that been overlooked? My Banshee is useless at a range, but vicious in melee. How do I get her into melee range? See, a whole new element to the basic gameplay. So not oversimplified, not really, so much as diversified.
And where does the original Dawn of War fit into this equation? What about the many who just wanted a copy of the original with better graphics? Wouldn't that have been an even worse step back then had Relic listened to them? You know, if you're going to compare CoH to DoW.
I like DoW II because now I will still play the original, the new one, and CoH. All 3 are different games!
Also - stop fitting so many tropes people! [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks]
like you would have been happy the other way around [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitlezx89c5u5txaj?from=Main.ItsTheSameNowItSucks] too.
Also - stop fitting so many tropes people! [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks]
like you would have been happy the other way around [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitlezx89c5u5txaj?from=Main.ItsTheSameNowItSucks] too.
Comparing CoH to DoW is more than fair. CoH built upon the legacy of DoW1 using many of its gameplay mechanics such as the strategic point resource system (reworked of course) and squad based combat. In turn, DoW2 also follows the same legacy while at the same time taking from CoH. The thing is, I don't see any reason for the simplification of the tactical model. Can you give me one good reason for the removal of directional vehicle damage? One single reason that explains how this change enriches the game? Didn't think so.The Madman said:
Melee is a factor, I'll grant you that. And it would be great addition to the CoH tactical model if other aspects weren't dumbed down.
As for the many who just wanted DoW1 with better graphics, I couldn't care less about them. As I said, I have nothing against progress and change, and I agree that a DoW1.5 would have been a bad idea, but that doesn't change the fact that I think DoW2 could have been a far superior game and that the devs failed to realize its potential.
Granted, I haven't played in a while. Might have to check it out again and see if it's changed. However, I didn't like the random balancing each patch that marked late beta and early release. Every week I had to throw everything I knew about the game out the window and start again. It was annoying...
While I think the DOW II single-player was decent, it suffered from one major issue above all else. Everything else could be easily forgiven or was nicely done, but for this:
Low map variability.
The maps were cool and nice looking, the themes fit, most of the environment you could demolish and use to your advantage, application of tactics was made possible.
But once you played the same map for the umpteenth time with the same assasination mission (final opponent might have changed in between) and almost identical squad layout (optimization reared it's ugly head) you got bored with it. I might have played the campaing more than once just to try different tactics and squad layouts, but grinding through the same maps again and again? No thanks.
Multiplayer was just bad. Poorly designed maps, low variability even there, poorly balanced units and sluggish control systems. Oh, and the single player and multi-player had nothing in common except for the factions. The playing mechanics and style required for victory were almost complete opposites.
But again, many of the improvements were good, such as choosing your starting hero and the lack of base constructions was an interesting addition, even if it got botched a bit in the execution phase.
All in all, Dow II was a decent single-player game for the first playthrough, some repeatability value but greatly reduced due to repeating maps. Multiplayer suffered from bad execution and lack of properly balanced units. It tried some nice new things, some panned out, others didn't. Shame that.
Low map variability.
The maps were cool and nice looking, the themes fit, most of the environment you could demolish and use to your advantage, application of tactics was made possible.
But once you played the same map for the umpteenth time with the same assasination mission (final opponent might have changed in between) and almost identical squad layout (optimization reared it's ugly head) you got bored with it. I might have played the campaing more than once just to try different tactics and squad layouts, but grinding through the same maps again and again? No thanks.
Multiplayer was just bad. Poorly designed maps, low variability even there, poorly balanced units and sluggish control systems. Oh, and the single player and multi-player had nothing in common except for the factions. The playing mechanics and style required for victory were almost complete opposites.
But again, many of the improvements were good, such as choosing your starting hero and the lack of base constructions was an interesting addition, even if it got botched a bit in the execution phase.
All in all, Dow II was a decent single-player game for the first playthrough, some repeatability value but greatly reduced due to repeating maps. Multiplayer suffered from bad execution and lack of properly balanced units. It tried some nice new things, some panned out, others didn't. Shame that.
Directional damage is in Dawn of War 2 actually, it just doesn't play nearly as large a role in the DoW series as it did in CoH. Why? Because infantry and 'pseudo infantry' like Dreadnoughts play a much, much heavier role than in CoH. But it's still there. Armor piercing isn't, you know, like when shells would constantly bounce of the Tiger Tank causing you to swear the other player was cheating or that god himself was cursing your match to failure. But considering we're a couple thousand years into the future and often using lazers, methinks that's a suitable change.Jandau said:
And again: Melee. For Orkz the Nob Squad is their 'ultimate' unit in most cases. Heavily armored slow moving melee characters intend on beating the shit out of their opponents. And the Eldar's most powerful unit isn't a tank at all but a giant 'infantry' unit more or less. You can't really apply rear damage mechanics to them... well you could butt that would be awkward. (Hur Hur!)
You're asking for features that really have no place in that setting to be implemented even though they make no real sense in the context of that setting.
And again, I cant stress this enough: YOU might not have wanted a DOW 1.5, but I'll wager the vast majority of the people complaining about DoW2 did.
Too different and the game is damned, too similar and the game is damned. It's a lose/lose situation here, but frankly I think Relic did the right thing in going with change, as do you obviously (Your complaints are often that there's not enough change from the original, go figure.). Inevitably if they'd stayed too much the same like it or not the obvious Starcraft comparisons would have been even worse and more plentiful, which not only could have harmed the marketing but also limited the games lasting power since what reason would there be for anyone to keep playing once THE Starcraft was finally released (in 2011).
I guess you've never played starcraft because that's simply not the case. It's not just unit rock paper scissors, the best armies have a good assortment or at least complimentary units that cover each other's weaknesses. Aside from that, the removal of base building removes a huge strategy element.The Madman said:
Base expansion, secondary bases, constructing choke holds at strategic parts on the map, defense of said strategic location or likewise assault. Your description of the "classic" rts is not accurrate at all. Strategies are not simplified down to unit type, its the whole style of play of the race you choose.
For example, in the original dawn of war, each race had a different strategy, orks = massive armies and swarming, space marines = heavy on tech. In DoWII, there really isn't so much strategy as there is, who can take all the strategic points the fastest and chase each other around the map reclaiming ones you've lost. In a way it feels like a needlessly complicated version of DOTA, so no its not really innovative.
The removal of structure oriented tech trees, reduction of different unit types, removal of base expansion and setting up choke points is what i mean by oversimplification. I have a feeling you're just not a big fan of the RTS genre, or that you just don't have too much RTS experience prior to DoWII. You blow off base constructrion like its a small element they removed from the game. Having structural tech trees greatly increased the number of different strategy combinations you could choose to go down. When they stripped out that option, they stripped out a whole wealth of strategies that go along with having those buildings in the game.
Sure the units in DoWII have more abilities than most units in other RTS, but i noticed as i was playing it that it was more like playing a multi-unit action rpg than it was a strategy game.
But anyway, as with most discussions on internet forums, this is a waste of time because you're not going to change my opinion and i'm not going to change yours.
Well my compy is fucked up and I can't play games currently, so I missed out on DoW 2 for the most part.
I played it at a friend's house for like a half hour and from what I could tell there were not enough units. The one building base thing is retarded. I like the idea of upgrading and equipping squads and commanders and don't know why the hell they haven't added that to skirmish or multiplayer. There were too few maps.
Also I felt Company of Heroes offered many features that could have made DoW2 an epic win. The vehicle damage in CoH would have been an awesome feature for a Warhammer game, as would garrisonable buildings. The ability to build trench works and stuff was cool.
I think DoW was awesome when it came out but CoH was an evolution and was just a better all around game. Dow evolved into CoH and all the good points from CoH (of which there are tons) should have flowed into DoW2. Instead the game was kind of stripped down and remade in a manner I didn't care for nearly as much. It's a good game, but not great.
I played it at a friend's house for like a half hour and from what I could tell there were not enough units. The one building base thing is retarded. I like the idea of upgrading and equipping squads and commanders and don't know why the hell they haven't added that to skirmish or multiplayer. There were too few maps.
Also I felt Company of Heroes offered many features that could have made DoW2 an epic win. The vehicle damage in CoH would have been an awesome feature for a Warhammer game, as would garrisonable buildings. The ability to build trench works and stuff was cool.
I think DoW was awesome when it came out but CoH was an evolution and was just a better all around game. Dow evolved into CoH and all the good points from CoH (of which there are tons) should have flowed into DoW2. Instead the game was kind of stripped down and remade in a manner I didn't care for nearly as much. It's a good game, but not great.