Dawn of War 3 in development, will be more “MMO-like” says THQ boss
THQ core games boss Danny Bilson has told Eurogamer that development on Dawn of War 3 is well underway at Relic. Eurogamer understand that the third game in the series will take elements from the first and second games and "add something new." Bilson previously told EG that Dawn of War 3 will "have a much larger strategic component to it, more of a global battle going on with little tactical things, sort of MMO-like."
Bilson gave a rough estimate for a release date, too, saying the game will likely ship sometime between August 2012 and February 2013. Yesterday, Bilson teased a big new Relic RTS announcement for this year's Gamescom. "This one's built to announce at that place," he said. "I feel like an ass saying it's fantastic, but it is. And we're going to do something with it you haven't seen before."
Bilson originally said that Dawn of War 3 might end up being "a more digital free-to-play experience," depending on the success of Company of Heroes Online. CoHO closed down earlier this year, suggesting the new Dawn of War game won't be free to play, but we could still see features cross over from Relic's Company of Heroes experiment.
CoHO featured persistent hero units that could be levelled up between multiplayer encounters, unlocking new battlefield abilities in the process. The game also featured a player avatar that could be upgraded to unlock powerful, limited use battlefield abilities like air-strikes. It will be interesting to see if Relic bring any of these multiplayer RPG elements into Dawn of War 3's multiplayer mode to make it a more "MMO-like" experience.
Relic might also be looking closely at the success of the Last Stand mode, which replaces Dawn of War's armies with a single hero. Last Stand was released as a standalone game on Steam earlier this year.
Either way, another Dawn of War game is cause for excitement. We'll know more when the reveal happens at Gamescom in August.
The "global battle" thing sounds interesting. I wonder if that means players from all over the world contesting over a huge map? Sort of like the single-player campaign from DoW1, just online and with a persistent progression, i.e. you log off, another player might try to liberate the area you just captured, but one of your allies may attempt to defend it. With some zones so important that they'd be defended by multiple players, so you have to co-ordinate with allies of your faction to even risk an assault...
Well, the company has to make money, the project has to be profitable. Considering the big license (and the price tag that comes with it), I'd be sceptical towards an F2P plan. If it really does end up to be F2P, it would doubtlessly come with a "shop" where people could purchase certain benefits, resulting in some sort of inequality between the players based solely on their income (or rather how much they are willing to spend on it).
Based on that, I'd much favour a one-time fee for buying the game, including unlimited access to that global server - though I suppose it wouldn't hurt if they would offer the individual armies as individual purchases.
But it's much too early to make speculations about their pricing plans, I guess.
I never understood the problem with SoulStorm. Had lots of fun with it, both new factions were nicely done ... and on top of that, it sparked a number of hilarious memes.
To be honest, Retribution was a massive let down, but at the time I already knew that it was just a half-assed job to reap quick profits in before working on a new line of DoW games.
But this MMO business.. I don't buy it. A game's either an FPS, RTS or MMO. End of.
Lynata wrote:I never understood the problem with SoulStorm. Had lots of fun with it, both new factions were nicely done ... and on top of that, it sparked a number of hilarious memes.
The Campaign was boring and lacked any enemy interaction like Dark Crusade and the crappy character voices caused loads of terrible Memes. They were funny a few years ago, not today.
Wishing for more DOW 1 vs the fairly lackluster dow 2 play.
I think an updated GFX engine and larger armies is what most people would be happy with of a new game based on DOW 1.
blood reaper wrote:The Campaign was boring and lacked any enemy interaction like Dark Crusade and the crappy character voices caused loads of terrible Memes. They were funny a few years ago, not today.
Why was the campaign boring, though? The principle was the same as in Dark Crusade. I do agree that I'd have loved the enemy interaction (which was likely scrapped due to time constriants / publisher pressure) to make a reoccurrence there, but I don't recall anything else being different.
I think the best campaign would have been something like in Final Liberation - a dynamic map with provinces and lacking any linear progression, yet still some "story missions" thrown in here and there with cool cinematics and scripted stuff.
That said, I'd also love something like Final Liberation with a modern engine as opposed to the small-scale warfare of DoW. I had a lot of fun rushing some ork-held city with 3 Regiments of PDF on foot backed up by three squadrons of Basilisks. Only the turns took quite a while to complete. At least at first.
Dawn of War is what introduced the 40k universe to me. I had seen it before at the hobby store when I was younger, but never knew what it was. I wish I would have known then...
Sarpedon_702 wrote:Dawn of War is what introduced the 40k universe to me. I had seen it before at the hobby store when I was younger, but never knew what it was. I wish I would have known then...
It's never too late. Of course I am now a devotee of the Imperial Cult and his shining light guides me through the darkness of uncertainty and fear...being an Atheist my fascination with a completely theocratic fascist society is a paradox.
Darkvoidof40k wrote:Psht. They already have. *glares at Retribution*
I agree the campaign wasn't exactly amazing... CR was so much better in that regard.
I still enjoy the multiplayer though
I never see you playing it on Steam, I assume you're a late night/early morning gamer?
Sarpedon_702 wrote:It's never too late. Of course I am now a devotee of the Imperial Cult and his shining light guides me through the darkness of uncertainty and fear...being an Atheist my fascination with a completely theocratic fascist society is a paradox.
Sarpedon_702 wrote:It's never too late. Of course I am now a devotee of the Imperial Cult and his shining light guides me through the darkness of uncertainty and fear...being an Atheist my fascination with a completely theocratic fascist society is a paradox.
You get the campagin map like in normal Total War, you select your army (certain units avaliable depending on level) and then you move to another area. It then searches for players in that area of simular level and you fight it out.
The way it handles upgrades and xp is very MMO/RPG like so I wonder if Relic plan to do something simular
"Enter a boundless universe where players from across the globe struggle for control of the galaxy, one sector at a time. A continuous online matching system reflects the current state of the campaign as 8 races battle for dominance."
How awesome that would be. True strategic warfare in addition to the battles you fight in the core game. Now you not only have to win your small DoW skirmishes, you have to think where to commit your resources, which sector to reinforce and whom to assist:
Will you spend your turn moving your Marines into enemy territory to try and capture the city, or will you rather help that poor player's Imperial Guard Regiment on the left flank that just got reduced to half strength? There's a Chaos warband closing in fast ... will they attack him or you?
I had a lot of fun with a similar concept in the "Pirates of the Burning Sea" MMO where the Spanish Armada triumphed over the British Navy despite being outnumbered. Superior teamwork prevailed, with the Spanish side ending up dominating the most ports on the map...
Oh! Total War with 40K.....drool...Come on THQ License that Engine! Also Starfleet Command like structure would be pretty Awesome as well. Incorporate Space Battles as well as the traditional RTS. I likes it!
I was referring more to the "online campaign" style with other players' movements and actions directly influencing the map you see on your own client. Not sure if Total War did the same - it sounded more like human opponents temporarily replacing the AI with both players still playing a different campaign?
That said, some sort of Battlefleet Gothic Online would be fun, too, of course.
The idea of 40k with the Total War engine totally made me picture waves upon waves of little Guardsmen doing volley-fire against hundreds of little charging Orks, by the way. And THQ can call it ... Total Warhammer.
Total Warhammer...I wonder if they made a developers kit for that engine the community could easily remake new models to match... Relic did that with most of the tyranid models. I had several mods which the community made the Tyranids a playable race, and they worked well!.
Though that was possibly the best of the new Star Wars movies...that particular part was just well...hmmm it was[Mod Edit - Please do not use that word as an insult here on Dakka Dakka - thanks!] is what it was. But that is another story...that belongs on an entirely different website.
Sarpedon_702 wrote:Though that was possibly the best of the new Star Wars movies...that particular part was just well...hmmm it was gay is what it was. But that is another story...that belongs on an entirely different website.
You used gay as a negative adjective. Your argument is invalid.
Sarpedon_702 wrote:Though that was possibly the best of the new Star Wars movies...that particular part was just well...hmmm it was gay is what it was. But that is another story...that belongs on an entirely different website.
You used gay as a negative adjective. Your argument is invalid.
Okay then I choose terrible. That part was terrible. Absolutely awful! I meant no offense, I just couldn't conjure up something good enough to qualify, so as with all bad habits that just won my mental tug of war.
Sarpedon_702 wrote:Total Warhammer...I wonder if they made a developers kit for that engine the community could easily remake new models to match... Relic did that with most of the tyranid models. I had several mods which the community made the Tyranids a playable race, and they worked well!.
They did a fantasy mod for Medieval 2 total war but it got pulled due to GW not liking it too much
IF it ends up going free to play (doubtful as some posters have pointed out given the big licensing fees involved) then I hope it ends up like Team Fortress 2, IMO the only F2P game where you don't pay to win. The buyable stuff in game is either:
1. WORSE than regular stuff, but fun to mess around with / collect, i.e. weapon sets
2. DOES NOTHING, but looks cool / is a status symbol i.e. hats, glowy effects
3. SUPPORTS THE MOD COMMUNITY, i.e. those stamps you can buy where 100% of proceeds go to the devs 4. BETTER than the regular stuff, but with some significant drawback so that at the end of the day player skill still matters more, (i.e. Scattergun vs Force--Nature, or Flamethrower vs Backburner) Its not like if you find the purple shotgun you will suddenly wtfpwn the server
TBH I'm pretty shocked that people would spend 12.99 on a hat that has zero effect on the game aside from looking cool. I guess Valve had some super customer insight that gamers would actually pay money to stick moose antlers on their helmets but I'm not complaining. It keeps the game profitable so the company can keep supporting it thru development and further releases, so I'm all for it.
Meh, as long as paying for stuff is just cosmetic or means nothing I'm fine with it. And that's the current trend for most games lately who have purchasable items.
MMO like doesn't necessarily mean what you guys think, just implies a larger community and more active engagements... I've heard CoH was fantastic, so I'm looking forward to seeing what they have to offer this time.
What free to play means is like diablo. You buy the game, but you play it like an MMO character you level up for free.
I haven't played CoH but I presume it was this same general principle?
I mean TLS is 'mmo-like' in that respect so maybe they'll just expand that a little.
It should be fun though. I do hope there is some building, just not so twitch based like Star/Warcraft is. And more involved than the current DOW2 MP where you just zerg things and hit X when things get bad would be nice too.
Nvs wrote:What free to play means is like diablo. You buy the game, but you play it like an MMO character you level up for free.
Free to Play generally means paying nothing at all, that is an important difference. Nobody would say that Battlefield 2 or Master of Orion 2 are "free to play" just because they come with a free online component, for example.
Yet, given that a company still has to make a profit, money has to be made "elsewhere" -> item shops.
As to the DOW? All I ever wanted were more expansion campaigns with maybe a new unit or faction here or there. The "DOW2" didn't realy make the grade on that account.
I can dig specialized squads, but running around gthe map trying to play 5-6 differnt caracters, while doing all of the econ stuff really gets old after the first two or three times.
Retribution was ok. Great looking artwork, but they could have done a solid and just kept the same DOW 1 style of play.
The Last Stand and MMO quotes leads me to believe they may make squads where every squad member is controlled by a player.
I wonder how they'll pick the Sgt?
Eisenhorn wrote:The Last Stand and MMO quotes leads me to believe they may make squads where every squad member is controlled by a player.
I wonder how they'll pick the Sgt?
Thats the thing.
Players are more likely to BE the Sergeant, or officer, then the minions are the followers that you pick up along the way. You'll more or less probibly be able to give them basic orders, and buffs and let them do thier thing.
I already do that with other games, so it isn't out of the question. after a while though, I can see this being more taxing then fun. You get done giving over 300 guys basic commands your going to be TIRED of them pretty fast. I remember the guys from Diablo. THOSE guys were the suck. Just imagine doing that with Space Marines.
That won't even be DOW anymore.
Thats going to end up DIABLO... in SPAAACCEE!
( wonder if they'll add some thunder cat machines?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rabidaskal wrote:IF it ends up going free to play (doubtful as some posters have pointed out given the big licensing fees involved) then I hope it ends up like Team Fortress 2, IMO the only F2P game where you don't pay to win. The buyable stuff in game is either:
1. WORSE than regular stuff, but fun to mess around with / collect, i.e. weapon sets
2. DOES NOTHING, but looks cool / is a status symbol i.e. hats, glowy effects
3. SUPPORTS THE MOD COMMUNITY, i.e. those stamps you can buy where 100% of proceeds go to the devs 4. BETTER than the regular stuff, but with some significant drawback so that at the end of the day player skill still matters more, (i.e. Scattergun vs Force--Nature, or Flamethrower vs Backburner) Its not like if you find the purple shotgun you will suddenly wtfpwn the server
TBH I'm pretty shocked that people would spend 12.99 on a hat that has zero effect on the game aside from looking cool. I guess Valve had some super customer insight that gamers would actually pay money to stick moose antlers on their helmets but I'm not complaining. It keeps the game profitable so the company can keep supporting it thru development and further releases, so I'm all for it.
Rabidskal hit it pretty much on the head. I couldn't have added a truer post there.
The real non-MMO CoH is still available, of course. And it is quite fun to play - if one isn't too averse towards playing a WW2 game, I would recommend it.
Also, any F2P item shop better has pauldrons in addition to hats.
rabidaskal wrote:IF it ends up going free to play (doubtful as some posters have pointed out given the big licensing fees involved) then I hope it ends up like Team Fortress 2, IMO the only F2P game where you don't pay to win.
Well technically to get the FULL EXPERIENCE (find random items, trade, craft) you must buy a $1 upgrade fee or something
but the smallest transaction is $5 so if you want to have the full game its $5. Still they got $1 intro packs that get you weapons and hats so its not a bad deal
But then again I payed $20 for TF2 back then, and it was worth every penny
kenshin620 wrote:But then again I payed $20 for TF2 back then, and it was worth every penny
As did I, and I don't regret it. I'd like a game where its free to play, and the only things you buy are cosmetics and such. Heck, I'd buy a had for my Engineer's Dispenser if I could, and I'd definitely buy a hat for my squad sgt.
I'm gonna play wait and see with this one. It could be good ... and maybe they'll have Chaos in the basic game again. I mean, who cares about Nids? Dirty Xenos lovers - that's who!
I think the biggest issue I've consistently heard about the DOW games, that I think is valid isn't that it fails as a game, but that it fails to deliver a complete "40k" experience by representing a larger number of factions. While I know a lot of people don't like the business model of free to play, pay for content or add-ons.... the one good thing is that business model will better support additional releases to cover other factions and the diversity that can bring.
aka_mythos wrote:I think the biggest issue I've consistently heard about the DOW games, that I think is valid isn't that it fails as a game, but that it fails to deliver a complete "40k" experience by representing a larger number of factions.
You mean DoW2, right? DoW1 featured almost everyone, sans 'nids.
In fact, that was even one of the things it was criticized for - how so many different armies could gather in a single system. Though personally I think the explanation was "good enough" (a bit far-fetched, but I've read much crazier stuff in Codex fluff).
carabine wrote:Now if only they'd start supporting on board graphics like every other developer in this day and age I'd actually get to play.
... Like which, actually? I can't think of a single PC AAA title that did support integrated graphics in the last few years, other then maybe WoW. Seems strange to spend developer time on a market segment that explicitly indicated they were not interested in gaming by their choice in hardware purchases.
I disliked the removal of base building and the implementation of resource points being evenly spread across the entire map and being absolutely crucial to victory.
Every player who liked to play defensively or turtle(hide then send a giant wave (usually of high tier troops) late game, or win through means other than annihilation, Got completely screwed.
The player now has to be constantly building units, losing units, recapturing points, moving units, attacking with units and capturing points.
It killed a playstlyle. And its one of the reasons why DOW2 was disappointing to a lot of DOW 1 players.
Played Last stand alot however.
I realize that base building doesn't constitute the removal of that playstyle, But the removal of free effective turret building and the inability to do much with in base resources does.
ALSO THAT IS AN AWESOME MOD! Thanks!
A separate thread should be opened to spread awareness of such awesome
I disliked the removal of base building and the implementation of resource points being evenly spread across the entire map and being absolutely crucial to victory.
Every player who liked to play defensively or turtle(hide then send a giant wave (usually of high tier troops) late game, or win through means other than annihilation, Got completely screwed.
The player now has to be constantly building units, losing units, recapturing points, moving units, attacking with units and capturing points.
It killed a playstlyle. And its one of the reasons why DOW2 was disappointing to a lot of DOW 1 players.
Played Last stand alot however.
I realize that base building doesn't constitute the removal of that playstyle, But the removal of free effective turret building and the inability to do much with in base resources does.
ALSO THAT IS AN AWESOME MOD! Thanks!
A separate thread should be opened to spread awareness of such awesome
Agree totally
In fact my friends and I did that very same tactic, turtle the game because we liked large battles and we liked playing defensively
In DoW 2 I'm forced to send my units to capture points constantly, only to find them taken back two seconds later and it boils down to a game of tag, constantly having to take back points and never really attacking properly because its all to spread out
It gets so frustrating
Plus the bloody AI NEVER respond to a threat like they did in DoW1, they just stand there until i give the command to attack
I just want it to go back to Dow 1's style honestly, I have fond memories of it and even playing it today its still fun because it appeals to me
I can't knock the campaign though for Dow2, its much better than any of the first games
In DoW 2 I'm forced to send my units to capture points constantly, only to find them taken back two seconds later and it boils down to a game of tag, constantly having to take back points and never really attacking properly because its all to spread out
It gets so frustrating
I like the "turtle, build up, giant brawl" thing too. I haven't been all that tempted by DoW 2 once I found out it didn't let me do that. I understand why people find base building repetative though.
Base building can be a bit boring but DoW lets you build bases which are shot out of a Battle Barge in orbit and dug out of the crater by servitors. That is the opposite of boring.
The time you invest on a MMO could get you into a few table-game, talk face to face with a real person, get drunk together and have some real fun.
The mmo market is saturated with Free-to-play model now, which in reality is the masking of micro-transaction. It's like crack, the first hit is always free that's how the developers earn their money. MMO is also a high-risk business model due to the demand of the hardware service (servers, bandwidth, customer support...)compare to traditional method.
Still, if DAW3's gameplay is like what the Civ series is (play through email or web by turn), I might get hook.
I disliked the removal of base building and the implementation of resource points being evenly spread across the entire map and being absolutely crucial to victory.
Every player who liked to play defensively or turtle(hide then send a giant wave (usually of high tier troops) late game, or win through means other than annihilation, Got completely screwed.
The player now has to be constantly building units, losing units, recapturing points, moving units, attacking with units and capturing points.
It killed a playstlyle. And its one of the reasons why DOW2 was disappointing to a lot of DOW 1 players.
Played Last stand alot however.
I realize that base building doesn't constitute the removal of that playstyle, But the removal of free effective turret building and the inability to do much with in base resources does.
ALSO THAT IS AN AWESOME MOD! Thanks!
A separate thread should be opened to spread awareness of such awesome
Agree totally
In fact my friends and I did that very same tactic, turtle the game because we liked large battles and we liked playing defensively
In DoW 2 I'm forced to send my units to capture points constantly, only to find them taken back two seconds later and it boils down to a game of tag, constantly having to take back points and never really attacking properly because its all to spread out
It gets so frustrating
Plus the bloody AI NEVER respond to a threat like they did in DoW1, they just stand there until i give the command to attack
I just want it to go back to Dow 1's style honestly, I have fond memories of it and even playing it today its still fun because it appeals to me
I can't knock the campaign though for Dow2, its much better than any of the first games
I know what you mean, Multi-player is horrible and is boring without upgrading large units and creating bases. I don't want to constantly take the same point because 5 Squads and 3 turrets takes up my entire army. Campaigns OK and the Last-stand is great but all together the Multi-player is terrible.
I disliked the removal of base building and the implementation of resource points being evenly spread across the entire map and being absolutely crucial to victory.
Every player who liked to play defensively or turtle(hide then send a giant wave (usually of high tier troops) late game, or win through means other than annihilation, Got completely screwed.
The player now has to be constantly building units, losing units, recapturing points, moving units, attacking with units and capturing points.
It killed a playstlyle. And its one of the reasons why DOW2 was disappointing to a lot of DOW 1 players.
Played Last stand alot however.
I realize that base building doesn't constitute the removal of that playstyle, But the removal of free effective turret building and the inability to do much with in base resources does.
ALSO THAT IS AN AWESOME MOD! Thanks!
A separate thread should be opened to spread awareness of such awesome
Agree totally
In fact my friends and I did that very same tactic, turtle the game because we liked large battles and we liked playing defensively
In DoW 2 I'm forced to send my units to capture points constantly, only to find them taken back two seconds later and it boils down to a game of tag, constantly having to take back points and never really attacking properly because its all to spread out
It gets so frustrating
Plus the bloody AI NEVER respond to a threat like they did in DoW1, they just stand there until i give the command to attack
I just want it to go back to Dow 1's style honestly, I have fond memories of it and even playing it today its still fun because it appeals to me
I can't knock the campaign though for Dow2, its much better than any of the first games
Your problem is playing against the AI. It rarely does anything but cap and decap.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alkasyn wrote:
Asuron wrote:
ChocolateGork wrote:Exact opposite here.
I disliked the removal of base building and the implementation of resource points being evenly spread across the entire map and being absolutely crucial to victory.
Every player who liked to play defensively or turtle(hide then send a giant wave (usually of high tier troops) late game, or win through means other than annihilation, Got completely screwed.
The player now has to be constantly building units, losing units, recapturing points, moving units, attacking with units and capturing points.
It killed a playstlyle. And its one of the reasons why DOW2 was disappointing to a lot of DOW 1 players.
Played Last stand alot however.
I realize that base building doesn't constitute the removal of that playstyle, But the removal of free effective turret building and the inability to do much with in base resources does.
ALSO THAT IS AN AWESOME MOD! Thanks!
A separate thread should be opened to spread awareness of such awesome
Agree totally
In fact my friends and I did that very same tactic, turtle the game because we liked large battles and we liked playing defensively
In DoW 2 I'm forced to send my units to capture points constantly, only to find them taken back two seconds later and it boils down to a game of tag, constantly having to take back points and never really attacking properly because its all to spread out
It gets so frustrating
Plus the bloody AI NEVER respond to a threat like they did in DoW1, they just stand there until i give the command to attack
I just want it to go back to Dow 1's style honestly, I have fond memories of it and even playing it today its still fun because it appeals to me
I can't knock the campaign though for Dow2, its much better than any of the first games
Your problem is playing against the AI. It rarely does anything but cap and decap.
blood reaper wrote:
I know what you mean, Multi-player is horrible and is boring without upgrading large units and creating bases. I don't want to constantly take the same point because 5 Squads and 3 turrets takes up my entire army. Campaigns OK and the Last-stand is great but all together the Multi-player is terrible.
This is simply not a game for you. It's definitely not horrible.
Da Boss wrote:I like the "turtle, build up, giant brawl" thing too. I haven't been all that tempted by DoW 2 once I found out it didn't let me do that. I understand why people find base building repetative though.
Plenty of other games do that. The thing with Dawn of War 1 though, is turtling didn't work outside of easy skirmishes either. It was incredibly easy to deny resources to someone who turtled and take the majority, leaving them with nothing to build replacements with.
Reading early design diaries about Dawn of War 1 ages ago, they were trying to get rid of base building then as well, and had it down to as minimal as possible. It was obvious they were going to move to removing bases even further in DoW 2 from those early diaries. They started with resource collection in DoW 1, forcing players out of their base to capture resource points. Dawn of War 2 was the next logical step, focusing it even further on the action rather than the base.
I wouldn't be surprised to even see home bases gone in Dawn of War 3.
I am willing to concede that DOW2, and the removal of base-building, is slightly more analogous to tabletop 40K then base-building DOW1 was. That being said, it wasn't as fun to me. I don't play hardcore flight sims because they aren't fun, even if they are more accurate then say, Ace Combat. I don't mind that DOW1 was a 40K based RTS because it was fun as hell. DOW2 was very much an RTT and I just didn't enjoy it as much :/
What would be a real step forward would be to literally do it just like the tabletop: go all in. Start off with 500pts and basic troop units and transports, do it as a turn based game (like the Blood Bowl PC game) and then as you conquer areas, increase the points cost to 2k games with unlocked everything. Sounds... kinda fun. Not very dynamic, but Vassal with an AI might be alright with good voice acting and such.
Also, make it so the computer is constantly trying to nudge models on your turn, misinterprets rules, or leaves mid-game, and have randomly generated arguments, and then it would be totally realistic. Oops, now it's totally realistic and much less fun.
In DoW 2 I'm forced to send my units to capture points constantly, only to find them taken back two seconds later and it boils down to a game of tag, constantly having to take back points and never really attacking properly because its all to spread out
It gets so frustrating
..."proper"? Oh, jeez...
Yes proper, as in I didnt like spreading out my units in a way which never let me properly attack
They are normally too spread out to ever effectively deal with a problem in force which irritates me
Sidstyler wrote:Then I think Alkasyn had it right, maybe these types of games aren't really for you if you don't like how the game works.
Strange considering how I liked the first game and reguarly play other RTS, playing everything from Supreme Commander to Battle for Middle Earth, to Warcraft 3
Its only the multiplayer in this which i have a problem
Honestly I bought DoW2 expecting a more refined version of DoW1, instead I got a completely different game.
Finally made an account to add my opinion to all this.
Anyway, i think that's exactly why some people do not like DoW2, because they expected DoW1. instead Relic decided they wanted to try something new, and people bit them in the backside because it wasn't a shinier DoW1. dont get me wrong, DoW1 was great (soulstorm not included) but I'm glad they decided a new direction for it, rather than just tarting up the same game. because that's what activision does.
i personally like DoW2 because the smaller unit limit makes you care a little more about each unit and allows for more specific and directed tactics, which is why the cover mechanic from CoH was implemented.
Anyway, back on topic.
the first impressions from DoW3 are tbh, mixed. i like the concept of a persistent online multiplayer. if anyone has played chromehounds MP (RIP man, it was a good game) that's kinda what they are aiming for. i hope that last stand makes another appearance but obviously abit more refined this time. and hopefully tied into the persistent multiplayer. i always thought a RB6: Vegas style terrorist hunt with your individually units could be pretty cool if done right and would definitely add to the persistent world.
my major concern is this "a more digital free-to-play experience". does that mean that there is going to be more DLC/micro transactions? if so, is it only going to be shiny skins and alternative weapon skins? or are they going to kill the game before release by pulling out the powerful gear for paying customers?
we'll have to wait till august until these questions are answered.
I love both games for what they are BUT I always had more fun on MP with DoW 1.
I remember the days of me and my friend playing against the hardest AI and just having battles for ages and ages. It was fun but it wasn't new. It was just cool because it was 40k.
DoW 2 is brilliant in the fact you have to micro-manage a lot but we both never really got on with MP that much. The campaign was great though and that trumped DoW 1 easily.
It's a tough call when it comes to MP and RTS games. I think sometimes the simple ones shine through...or maybe I'm just getting old?
Sidstyler wrote:Then I think Alkasyn had it right, maybe these types of games aren't really for you if you don't like how the game works.
Strange considering how I liked the first game and reguarly play other RTS, playing everything from Supreme Commander to Battle for Middle Earth, to Warcraft 3
Its only the multiplayer in this which i have a problem
Honestly I bought DoW2 expecting a more refined version of DoW1, instead I got a completely different game.
Sidstyler wrote:Then I think Alkasyn had it right, maybe these types of games aren't really for you if you don't like how the game works.
Again, Asuron, DoW 2 is not a game for you. It's not a regular RTS like the titles you mentioned. That is all.
Ouze wrote:What would be a real step forward would be to literally do it just like the tabletop: go all in. Start off with 500pts and basic troop units and transports, do it as a turn based game (like the Blood Bowl PC game) and then as you conquer areas, increase the points cost to 2k games with unlocked everything.
carabine wrote:Now if only they'd start supporting on board graphics like every other developer in this day and age I'd actually get to play.
... Like which, actually? I can't think of a single PC AAA title that did support integrated graphics in the last few years, other then maybe WoW. Seems strange to spend developer time on a market segment that explicitly indicated they were not interested in gaming by their choice in hardware purchases.
Blizzard has been supporting on board graphics for years, also DOW 1 could run on onboard, EVE online can even run with an onboard chipset and that game goes nuts with graphics.
Fact is that onboard graphics are becomming more and more common and developers are starting to notice. I only got this laptop because it specs were technically all around better than my last and with most games I play it shows. DOW 2 simply does not support onboard and therefore I can't even get out of the gate.
Ouze wrote:What would be a real step forward would be to literally do it just like the tabletop: go all in. Start off with 500pts and basic troop units and transports, do it as a turn based game (like the Blood Bowl PC game) and then as you conquer areas, increase the points cost to 2k games with unlocked everything.
Yes, exactly! That sounds pretty nice, and I bet would look amazing with an updated graphics engine. They could use the DOW2 engine, but give it a different banner name and keep DOW for the RTT line.
It's so odd to me that so many of you dislike DoWII for being exactly what it was meant to be. It was never supposed to be like DoWI. It never promised to be. You can't turtleblitz in DoWII because the developers know that that is a stupid, unrealistic way to win a battle, and it involves very little intelligence or quick thinking. People who don't like intelligence and quick thinking in their RTS games are not going to like DoWII.
I'll be the first to admit, I was skeptical about DoWII at first, and I didn't like the smaller scale of the battles. But once I got used to the rhythm of how to use which troops in DoWII, all other RTS games have felt so clunky and laden with unnecessary management which waters down the fun with inane, boggy arbitrations. If you like watered-down fun and inane, boggy arbitrations, you probably won't like DoWII. It is too pure an RTS for some people. I think it separates the strategically-minded from the sluggish.
On topic: I'm excited that we're finally getting some word about DoWIII. I hope it's as different from II as II was from I. I have no use for a sequel that tries to mimic its ancestors. Too much of that going on these days...
It's a little more harsh than I'd put it, but I agree with Archonate. If you like more traditional kinds of RTS, play DoW. If you prefer the small-scale skirmishes, play DoW2. If you prefer whatever DoW3 turns into, then play that.
Archonate wrote:If you like watered-down fun and inane, boggy arbitrations, you probably won't like DoWII. It is too pure an RTS for some people. I think it separates the strategically-minded from the sluggish.
I think people who don't apparently know the difference between a real-time tactical game and a real-time strategy game perhaps should not be so insulting.
In my opinion, it was not unrealistic to expect the sequel to Dawn of War to also be in the same genre of game.
I think their press material and advertisements made the distinctions in games and genre clear.
The whole RTS vs RTT distinction, is really just distinction for the sake of distinction; what I mean by that is when the term RTS was first used it was used in a larger way that encompassed a broader category gaming experiance... that as a result of certain games' strong success the characterization of the genre was made more concrete. Thus games that previously would have been categorized as RTS had to call themselves something different... some ended up branding themselves as RTT as an emphasis of the smaller scope.
While fun for being 40k... DoW was a pretty unoriginal RTS.
What I didn't like about DoW2 was the awkard button mapping of skills to units. It just made effectively using the skills of my all units in sync a nightmare
I couldn't get excited about this even if I tried; because I know my race will not make it in; like how it didnt make it in DoW2. Mod support will probably be as bad as DoW2 again; so meh.
I like one and two. Yes I miss things from the first game but there are plenty of other good details not in the first edition. One is a strategical game while the other is tactical.
For 3 I think they should stick to the tactical model for campaigns and bring back the skirmish/MP play of the first game. That would be perfect in my mind.
And I also have limited excitement due to knowing my Tau will not be represented.
Archonate wrote:It's so odd to me that so many of you dislike DoWII for being exactly what it was meant to be. It was never supposed to be like DoWI. It never promised to be. You can't turtleblitz in DoWII because the developers know that that is a stupid, unrealistic way to win a battle, and it involves very little intelligence or quick thinking. People who don't like intelligence and quick thinking in their RTS games are not going to like DoWII.
I'll be the first to admit, I was skeptical about DoWII at first, and I didn't like the smaller scale of the battles. But once I got used to the rhythm of how to use which troops in DoWII, all other RTS games have felt so clunky and laden with unnecessary management which waters down the fun with inane, boggy arbitrations. If you like watered-down fun and inane, boggy arbitrations, you probably won't like DoWII. It is too pure an RTS for some people. I think it separates the strategically-minded from the sluggish.
On topic: I'm excited that we're finally getting some word about DoWIII. I hope it's as different from II as II was from I. I have no use for a sequel that tries to mimic its ancestors. Too much of that going on these days...
I like this guy, defending something you like should always end with you insulting everyone who doesn't agree with you
By the way I like your comment on "realism" there.
I wasn't aware running around the map capturing resource nodes and power nodes was realistic and how armies won battles.
Nor that building your army with resources and the best equipment before you attack wasn't intelligent
Archonate wrote:It's so odd to me that so many of you dislike DoWII for being exactly what it was meant to be. It was never supposed to be like DoWI. It never promised to be.
Ignoring the bits of your post that are more inflammatory, as an avid DoW 1 fan who really doesn't play much of DoW2 at all in spite of owning each title in the series, I think that this exactly is the whole problem with DoW2 vs DoW1.
Why even call it DoW2 if it is nothing like the original save for using GW artwork? It's like making a movie called Captain America: Origins Unbound, where Cap is a Jewish boy living in the Third Reich in the late 1930s, and he has powers over magnetism that he discovers when his family is taken from the ghetto to a death camp, skewing his outlook for life.
It's not a bad origins story at all, but the question is WTF does Captain America have to do with any of it?
That's how I felt going from DoW1 to DoW2. It was just a giant 'WTF'? If you're building a restaurant called 'McDonald's', complete with golden arches, but it sells high-end vegan nouveau cuisine at $30 a plate, then I don't care if it's the best damned nouveau vegan cuisine in the world, I'm going to be pissed off when I can't find a dollar cheeseburger.
sourclams wrote:Why even call it DoW2 if it is nothing like the original save for using GW artwork?
...
I thought the transition made perfect sense. It follows after the events of the previous games, using the same protagonist chapter as they deal with the repercussions of their participation in those previous conflicts. The in game justification for the emphasis tactical combat is because, the chapter supposedly lost more than half its numbers, and had to distribute its forces more thinly. This was a big jab at the first game where players could and would sacrifice hundreds of marines over the course of the campaign.
By emphasizing tactical combat it brought the scope of the game down to a level where the protagonists were able to shine and actually come closer to representing what they're suppose to be. Does that diminish the flexibility of the game to represent other factions?-Yes. Does it mean moving away from the bureaucratic game play of yesteryear?-Yes.
You can justify the transition via narrative, but I could also call the narrative unjustified. For example, what happened to Gorgutz? And in this small-squad tactical sim, how do I field the same 100+ Boyz that I wuz allus' footsloggin' wiv' in the original game? I was up to my eyeballs in Necrons, Tau, and Dark Eldar all through DC and Soulstorm; where did those all go to?
Ultimately the product being sold isn't the narrative, although the whole DoW narrative is pretty good, it's a video game. And in that light, they really do pull a 180 on the gameplay. Mechwarrior, for example, made significant changes between Mechwarrior 4: Vengeance and MW4: Mercs, but they didn't fundamentally change that you are the pilot of a giant war robot. It never went from a FPS/Simulator to RTS or leveling-based MMO, and thank goodness for it.
sourclams wrote:You can justify the transition via narrative, but I could also call the narrative unjustified. For example, what happened to Gorgutz? And in this small-squad tactical sim, how do I field the same 100+ Boyz that I wuz allus' footsloggin' wiv' in the original game? I was up to my eyeballs in Necrons, Tau, and Dark Eldar all through DC and Soulstorm; where did those all go to?
Ultimately the product being sold isn't the narrative, although the whole DoW narrative is pretty good, it's a video game. And in that light, they really do pull a 180 on the gameplay...
They weren't satisfied with how DoW turned out, they failed to make the game they set out to make. So while it was financially successful, from the game developers side they failed. I think its fair to say DoW2 is closer to what they imagined DoW would be.
sourclams wrote:... Mechwarrior, for example, made significant changes between Mechwarrior 4: Vengeance and MW4: Mercs, but they didn't fundamentally change that you are the pilot of a giant war robot. It never went from a FPS/Simulator to RTS or leveling-based MMO, and thank goodness for it.
Those are expansions to a single game... DoW1's expansions never changed game fundamentals either. Using Mechwarrior as an example, the inclusion of third person view in all the games following the first one, though I realize that is not as drastic because of it being optional, its the fairer analogy. View, is as much a fundamental for FPS and Simulators as it comes and breaking from that, in the strictest sense, should have moved it out of that category.
DoW2 is a more unique experiance than DoW1... it was more original and for me more interesting... it forced strategic thinking in an unorthodox way that broke from the stale vestigal conventions that were so much a part of RTS games. Maybe that makes it a bad RTS, but that just forces me to question if RTS games really have anything new to offer or have they matured to such a degree that we are only offered token game features and occaisionally upgraded graphics? I'm glad Relic isn't a company that chooses to rest on its laurals.... we might have had to wait 10 years for what's fundamentally the same game.
gicks30 wrote:Let's face it. You're all going to get DoW3 anyway just because you like watching your 40k armies come to life
Who doesn't like sync kills
This is probably true, for me. I think DoW has been on a pretty steep downward curve - I liked Retribution the least of the series, which I know is an unpopular sentiment - but to be honest, I'd still likely buy the next game sight unseen, unless I hear rumblings it's a Duke-Nukem level epic turd.
Ouze wrote:This is probably true, for me. I think DoW has been on a pretty steep downward curve - I liked Retribution the least of the series, which I know is an unpopular sentiment - but to be honest, I'd still likely buy the next game sight unseen, unless I hear rumblings it's a Duke-Nukem level epic turd.
Retribution had a poor single player campaign (well, it's fun once) but the multiplayer is far better. The Guard are a really fun and interesting race to play as. Chaos Rising is the peak of DoWII for me though, and I'd hardly say the DoW series is on a "steep downward curve" because the most recent expansion pack wasn't so great to some folks.
aka_mythos wrote:They weren't satisfied with how DoW turned out, they failed to make the game they set out to make. So while it was financially successful, from the game developers side they failed. I think its fair to say DoW2 is closer to what they imagined DoW would be.
yeah, I'm going to want a citation on that.
Brother SRM wrote:Retribution had a poor single player campaign (well, it's fun once) but the multiplayer is far better.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. I personally enjoy single player campaigns more then multi, but am aware many people go the other way. I have played it in multi quite a bit and it's not bad, I mostly found the SP campaign to be unrepeatable and a little buggy.
bhsman wrote:I'm going to buy Retribution solely on the premise of the Ork campaign. And I don't even play Orkz.
This is a good decision. I played the campaign as Marines first because I sorta care about the Blood Ravens' story, but the Ork campaign is just so much more fun on account of the dialogue and, well, Orks.
I've played the campaign through for 2 of the factions, but the repetition is starting to get to me, I wish they'd varied a few of the missions for each faction.
LavuranGuard wrote:I've played the campaign through for 2 of the factions, but the repetition is starting to get to me, I wish they'd varied a few of the missions for each faction.
I played through as Marines once and really enjoyed it, but playing through it again as Guard is a real slog. Not so much because they're bad missions, they just get very repetitive. The multiplayer, however, I've dumped a dozen+ hours into.
LavuranGuard wrote:I've played the campaign through for 2 of the factions, but the repetition is starting to get to me, I wish they'd varied a few of the missions for each faction.
I played through as Marines once and really enjoyed it, but playing through it again as Guard is a real slog. Not so much because they're bad missions, they just get very repetitive. The multiplayer, however, I've dumped a dozen+ hours into.
I did the opposite, Guard first then Marines (on the last mission for them now) and in between I did a few of the Eldar missions. MP is good though, even though I suck completely but I'd taken to playing Last stand which I really like too.
Honestly the Retribution campaign bores me a great deal. I thought I would super love DoW2:R what with Imperial Guard, which indeed are very well done and cool, but the campaign is just generic for me. I liked the first 2 DoW2 campaigns where you had your personalized squads of dudes, and no goons that you just hired from a convenient outpost.
Basically I played DoW2 campaign for the soap opera/characters.
I played DOW2, Chaos Rising, Retribution (Chaos, Guard, Tyranids) with a friend in co-op. I think we clocked about 100h total with all three games. Good times
I played DOW1 back then and I liked it. DOW is a bit different, but cool nevertheless. I recently replayed Soulstorm and the Dark Crusade, both were fun
So year, any game where I can send Space Marines into combat is a good one
juraigamer wrote:DOW 3? I hope they mean a real DOW 2, because the current DOW 2 isnt' dawn of war, it's dawn of squad command.
Either way, I won't think much of this unless I play a demo.
Oh stuff it, just because it's different doesn't mean it's not Dawn of War 2. Please don't be like one of those No Mutants Allowed folks who claim Fallout 3 isn't a real Fallout game simply because it wasn't exactly like the first two.
I played DOW2 before I played DOW and when i did, i disliked it. Maybe because i was fresh and diddent know how to conduct the units.
I think this arguement goes along the same lines as favoratism due to what you play first. Maybe im wrong but i would think that a lot of older players that enjoyed the first DOW but players that experence the second first would fell the oposite.
I can think of some examples. Need for speed got a lot of hate when underground came out because it wasent a arcade style racer anymore. Younger people i talk to about NFS will allways talk about underground but look scepticly at the older games and the much newer Hot persuit 3, which was designed to bring back the magic for older players.
If you ask a sad old pokemon geek about what generation they like best it will almost always be the one they gre up with. Bit sad really.
Possibly. It's what leads people to go "BACK IN MY DAYS <rantrantrant>"
I've already fallen prey to that as well.
Though it's hard to guess if it's really just favoritism or simply a shift in gamer culture. Each game is (one should assume) tailored to the current target audience, after all. I know that I deem many older titles as more enjoyable than current "top hits", even if I only get my hands on them recently, many years after their original release.
Same goes for movies, too.
Where a title is substantially different in its principles than a predecessor, it should at least be considered that it really is a matter of personal preferences rather than just the order in which one has experienced them. I wouldn't outright dismiss your theory, though.
This link is potentially disturbing. It looks like one of the things the consider most successful about DoW2 was the DLC. I did not like the DLC, or the general concept of taking what used to be a complete game and shaving away features so they can be sold as addons. I'm aware many people will say "well, if you don't like DLC, you don't have to buy it" - but technically, that's a response to a statement no one made. I don't hate the concept of DLC. As a matter of fact, I really like the idea of, 3 or 4 months after release, being able to pay a little money and get more missions and units. The problem I have is launch day DLC, which is where clearly they spent development time they could have been using on the core game to nickel-and-dime you after the game is released.
I could definitely see this strategy being used in DoW, and I hope they don't go that route. I just want to pay a fair price for a complete game, I don't want to "catch em all". I don't want to get rolled in multiplayer because my opponent spent an extra $10 and has battlewagons and I don't (for example). When the game starts to be about competing with other people over who can be successful and buying the best stuff, then I don't enjoy that because I already play that game every day (real life, worst game ever). I prefer to escape that when I play games.
This link is potentially disturbing. It looks like one of the things the consider most successful about DoW2 was the DLC. I did not like the DLC, or the general concept of taking what used to be a complete game and shaving away features so they can be sold as addons. I'm aware many people will say "well, if you don't like DLC, you don't have to buy it" - but technically, that's a response to a statement no one made. I don't hate the concept of DLC. As a matter of fact, I really like the idea of, 3 or 4 months after release, being able to pay a little money and get more missions and units. The problem I have is launch day DLC, which is where clearly they spent development time they could have been using on the core game to nickel-and-dime you after the game is released.
I could definitely see this strategy being used in DoW, and I hope they don't go that route. I just want to pay a fair price for a complete game, I don't want to "catch em all". I don't want to get rolled in multiplayer because my opponent spent an extra $10 and has battlewagons and I don't (for example). When the game starts to be about competing with other people over who can be successful and buying the best stuff, then I don't enjoy that because I already play that game every day (real life, worst game ever). I prefer to escape that when I play games.
I think you're drawing a lot of extreme conclusions
DLC in almost all games only has decorative stuff, or side-grades at the worst. Relic being the company that the are, I highly doubt they could make some Free-2-Play MMO-RTS where you purchase better units and upgrades with money, it would be god awful.
Disarray wrote:Relic being the company that the are, I highly doubt they could make some Free-2-Play MMO-RTS where you purchase better units and upgrades with money
Wasn't that exactly how Company of Heroes Online was supposed to work?
Disarray wrote:Relic being the company that the are, I highly doubt they could make some Free-2-Play MMO-RTS where you purchase better units and upgrades with money
Wasn't that exactly how Company of Heroes Online was supposed to work?
And that's why they're not doing that. CoHO wasn't terribly successful.
Ouze wrote:
This link is potentially disturbing. It looks like one of the things the consider most successful about DoW2 was the DLC. I did not like the DLC, or the general concept of taking what used to be a complete game and shaving away features so they can be sold as addons. I'm aware many people will say "well, if you don't like DLC, you don't have to buy it" - but technically, that's a response to a statement no one made....
I think another way to consider it is that with this type of DLC they've stripped away features to bring a basic version of the game in at a lower price. They want to make on average "X" dollars per person... they can either charge everyone "X" dollars or they can sell the game for "Y" dollars (Y<X) and DLC for "Z". Its an alternative pricing scheme to avoid having to raise the price of the basic game to meet the desired profit margins.
>
I don't mind DLC much, though what really bothers me is DLC that comes out on day one, stuff that was obviously left out of the game just to be sold as extras on release day. That gak's annoying and makes me feel like I'm being ripped off.
If any of you have Steam, check DoW 2 Retribution, the news section. They mention DoW 3 will FULL army customization, and mega armies. There's alot of good info.
Phhh, such a tease. I want to know if it'll contain SoB again - that alone would greatly increase my interest.
Though Guard is cool, too, and that one is hopefully(!) a given. I wonder if extended customization would mean you can play other regiments than Cadia, or even get to scratch-build your own one out of parts of the others?
Sarpedon_702 wrote:Oh! Total War with 40K.....drool...Come on THQ License that Engine! Also Starfleet Command like structure would be pretty Awesome as well. Incorporate Space Battles as well as the traditional RTS. I likes it!
That. would. be. AWESOME! It would require some different strategies since you have to think 3D for space battles.
I also think it's kind of interesting that they're going to a customizable army as opposed to the small skirmish force that you get in DoW 2. I can see this possibly being their most successful one yet.
TechMarine1 wrote:It would require some different strategies since you have to think 3D for space battles.
Would likely end up too complicated and - perhaps more importantly - not look as nice, though. Yeah, it'd be more realistic, but formations exchanging broadsides on the same plane just looks way more majestic than a bunch of cruisers hanging all around the map in weird angles or flying "upside down". In this one case, I prefer the "less logical" approach that almost all of SciFi takes when it comes to fleets of starships duking it out.
I'd love a Battlefleet Gothic computer game, now that you say it, though.
The gameplay and interface of the Starfleet Command games would be perfect. Considering that the SFC RTS were a computer port of a tabletop wargame as well, it should be assumed that a BFG port would be equally fun.
When they say sort of like an MMO, they could just mean that they are stepping closer to multiplayer online play than campaining. Maybe more so than with DOW2.
TobyDog wrote: I think an updated GFX engine and larger armies is what most people would be happy with of a new game based on DOW 1.
I concur. A buddy of mine and myself were saying the same thing when DOW 2 was coming out.
Hopefully not. DoW1's gameplay was pretty aged even when it was released...
Larger armies sure, I'd like that myself. But if all you want is DoW1 with better graphics, go ask a DoW1 mod team... frankly DoW1 was sort of already aged when it was released, with mostly the focus on capture points saving it from being yet another starcrapped clone.
Such a blending of genres is nothing new with new games. Prior to Warcraft 3 RTS and RPGs rarely blended if ever and then Blizzard cemented the connection forever with their RPG-esque hero characters anchoring Warcraft 3's traditional RTS armies. DoW3 blending RTS and MMO style is just another attempt to evolve the RTS; something that Relic has done before and one of the main reasons that they have had so much success. You all are right to be concerned if you enjoy the current DoW mechanics but don't fear progress, DoW is in good hands.
Brother SRM wrote:Considering Relic made the Homeworld series before Dawn of War, I think they could handle space combat just fine.
No doubts about it, and Homeworld was cool - but I seriously doubt it could replicate the 40k/BFG style.
It's a question of franchise, not of studio quality/ideas, imo. 3D space combat simply doesn't fit to everything. There was also a Star Wars mod for Homeworld and despite looking cool it totally didn't "feel" like it.
Suppose it's a matter of personal preferences, but given that BFG is played on one plane too I'd prefer a "sticking to the roots" approach.
I enjoyed DoW2 a lot more than DoW1.. Better story, more interactive and cooler characters. Also great quotes!
Id love a dawn of war mixed with Shogun style gameplay and campaign.. Base building is outdated and only reason its popular is because of Starcraft 2 (which also didnt bother to try anything new)
More MMO I agree with Darth Vader on this one NOOOOOO!!! MMO's get dull and boring... just make what the DoW2 was like but with larger maps and bigger Vehicle and I'll be happy! what was so bad about Retribution?
The campaigh was really short and didn't change for each of the factions. I also think that the second mission was kinda unfair, what with the baneblade able to incapacitate your characters with one shot. Otherwise, I think it was kinda a step in the right direction though
I didnt like the campaign as much because I wanted to play more DoW2 not DOW 1.5.. It was cool and all, but the storyline was no near as good due to focusing on too many races
Because it's not an MMO at all? There is a separate MMO coming out in like a year or two. I'm assuming the "more MMO-like" quality they're talking about has something to do with the more customizable armies, considering how distinctive you can make your character in any given MMO.
MMO like means people will be playing online it realtime with other players, and will probably feature micro transactions, e.g. want a Dark Angels skin for your army? 99c please. This is the way all games seem to be going as they sell, personally it's not my idea of good but as an industry insider I can tell you you will be seeing more of this.
Brother SRM wrote:I'm assuming the "more MMO-like" quality they're talking about has something to do with the more customizable armies, considering how distinctive you can make your character in any given MMO.
I'd actually be happy if "more MMO-like" would mean more players fighting with or against each other on the same map. Be it just a campaign map with hundreds of players influencing it by wins and losses, or even a big battle map with combat larger than just 4v4 (example: 20v20, each player controlling a single small company and having to co-ordinate with his allies).
I'm going to assume that they mean "MMO-like" as they applied it to CoHO, though, with one's army unlocking new "talents" and "skills" as they "level" through "experience" won via battles.
For me, DoWII is beginning to get that stale feeling which DoW started to get around its last expansion. I think Soulstorm was a great expansion, it just felt tired because at the end of the day, we were still just playing DoW. I feel like Retribution suffers similarly. It's not a bad expansion, it's just more of what we've already had enough of.
It sounds like Relic is on to this pattern. DoWIII sounds like something entirely different than what we've seen. Hopefully with plenty of variety to keep it alive through years of expansions.
LavuranGuard wrote:MMO like means people will be playing online it realtime with other players, and will probably feature micro transactions, e.g. want a Dark Angels skin for your army? 99c please. This is the way all games seem to be going as they sell, personally it's not my idea of good but as an industry insider I can tell you you will be seeing more of this.
Most MMOs aren't built around microtransactions, at least the free to play ones aren't. However, Relic has shown some success with the DLC packs for Dawn of War, or else they wouldn't have just released the Eldar one. Playing it online realtime with other players is just multiplayer gaming in general.
Brother SRM wrote:
Most MMOs aren't built around microtransactions, at least the free to play ones aren't. However, Relic has shown some success with the DLC packs for Dawn of War, or else they wouldn't have just released the Eldar one. Playing it online realtime with other players is just multiplayer gaming in general.
Existing ones no, but going forward yes they will be. Free to play but you will have to pay for more stuff to use in game, and this of course is a divisive issue - look at BF3 announcing you'd be able to purchase a better gun as a microtransaction.
Expect more of this kind of stuff as more content providers are looking at selling things digitally, and they are only to keen to get you to hand over real cash for bits and bytes to use in game - it's very easy money for them.
Aye, there's some truth to that. Many MMOs have been switching from subscription to F2P + microtransaction, and more have been talked about being released as such. It does seem to be a sort of trend.
Still curious to see what Relic plans in that regard. Paying again and again for the same stuff like in CoHO would suck, but I'd be perfectly fine with one-time-investments (a la DLC) that could incorporate such diverse things like wargear, characters, units, customization features, special map packs, or entire armies to unlock. Lots of potential in here.
That's how most popular F2P MMOs seem to be financed as well, anyhow. Seems to work just fine.
