http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/13/dawn-of-war-3-will-let-you-build-your-own-custom-mega-army/
Sounds pretty awesome to me...and guard are in the screenshot, too!
Seems like they learned their lessons from the abortion of Dawn of War 2.

Methinks you're being deliberately absolutist about a subject that is well-known to have polarised the fanbase

Company of Heroes: 40k Edition had its own merits. Certainly wasn't a spiritual successor to DoW I, but I personally racked up more hours on it.

But that discussion aside... I'll go read this link.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That screeny's DoW 2: Retribution, dawg... the Inquisitor and Lord General are blatantly visible like!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And that was just a spammage of marketing crap... sigh... like reading any interview about Space Marine :-/

There's nothing in there guaranteeing scale. It's just interpreting flash-phrases.

DOW 2 sucked, this is universally acknowledged.
Seems the scale for DOW3 will be a whole lot bigger.

DOW 2 sucked, this is universally acknowledged.

What?

Sure Retbribution didnt live up to standards (still kinda fun) but vanilla and Chaos Rising were thouroughly enjoyable.

Universally acknowledged by who exactly? Industry writers, DoW1 diehards, forum trolls? Please.

Again, being absolutist about a game sucking that I am pretty sure Joey knows actually divided the community

Yep. DoW2 was so bad and everyone hated it. That's why it got two expansions.

Yes I suppose a pinch of salt is needed with some posters.

Annnnnnnnnyways, look forward to more info on DoW3, not much around currently.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yep. DoW2 was so bad and everyone hated it. That's why it got two expansions.

When Dawn of war 1 got 3....including Necrons, Tau and the sisterhood.....Winter Assault, Dark Crusade and the crapfest 3rd

DOW 1 got all convoluted when the Soulstorm came out, Winter Assault was by far my favorite.

Dow 2: Chaos rising is my tops. I love playing nids.

Doctadeth wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yep. DoW2 was so bad and everyone hated it. That's why it got two expansions.

When Dawn of war 1 got 3....including Necrons, Tau and the sisterhood.....Winter Assault, Dark Crusade and the crapfest 3rd

I'd rather have no expansion than get Soulstorm

Henners91 wrote:

Doctadeth wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yep. DoW2 was so bad and everyone hated it. That's why it got two expansions.

When Dawn of war 1 got 3....including Necrons, Tau and the sisterhood.....Winter Assault, Dark Crusade and the crapfest 3rd

I'd rather have no expansion than get Soulstorm

Agreed, they should have stopped at Dark Crusade.

I do like the Dark Eldar in Soulstorm but the game itself is pretty ... bad.

Curse you IronLore!

I have to admit, I never played Soulstorm. I have it, but for some reasons it kept overheating my video card and causing the computer to freeze; no other game ever did that. So I never really got a chance to play it for very long.

What was so bad about it, other than the fact that the Risk-style campaign map wasn't all that different to Dark Crusade's one?

H.B.M.C. wrote:I have to admit, I never played Soulstorm. I have it, but for some reasons it kept overheating my video card and causing the computer to freeze; no other game ever did that. So I never really got a chance to play it for very long.

What was so bad about it, other than the fact that the Risk-style campaign map wasn't all that different to Dark Crusade's one?

It just blew, the flyers weren't flyers, the campaign was poor, the Tau in MP are broke.

It's just gak.

My Fav was the first one for sure, but the most balanced probably has been Dark Crusade.

Ah yes! I do remember the planes now, and how they just hung there in mid-air. Those were daft.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ah yes! I do remember the planes now, and how they just hung there in mid-air. Those were daft.

They were just the same as Falcons or Landspeeders, they could have had a cool straffing run, or a formation of bombers yyyeeeeooooww in, it was just such wasted potential.

The whole game was wasted potential, it really did the series in for me, until DoW2 came along and that made Soulstorm look awesome

Seeing a Marauder Bomber hover just murdered my eyes...

Pilau Rice wrote:They were just the same as Falcons or Landspeeders, they could have had a cool straffing run, or a formation of bombers yyyeeeeooooww in, it was just such wasted potential.

I remember that the Marauder could do a bombing run... and then it would come to a dead halt at the end. D'oh!!!!

Joey wrote:DOW 2 sucked, this is universally acknowledged.

You are not your own universe. Keep your arrogance where you keep your arse.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Pilau Rice wrote:They were just the same as Falcons or Landspeeders, they could have had a cool straffing run, or a formation of bombers yyyeeeeooooww in, it was just such wasted potential.

I remember that the Marauder could do a bombing run... and then it would come to a dead halt at the end. D'oh!!!!

Oh yeah

When they announced fliers, I was thinking that they would whiz in like the Imperial Guard ships do when they drop the buildings down and then whiz off again. That would have been grand, but no, we have floaty things.

Something else that bugged me was the Deciever and his special ability. 3 Necron Monoliths in one game from one player 3!! Only one was real but the hologram ones still had the disrupt ability and you could repair the bloody things. Not quite as bad as being able to load Necrons into a Hologram one but still.

Soulstorm's only real problem was the fliers, aside from that it really wasn't any worse than dark crusade. I still haven't figured out why people nerdgasm over DC, it was kinda boring switching to that "bunch of skirmish" campaign type when before you had actual storylines.

Melissia wrote:Soulstorm's only real problem was the fliers, aside from that it really wasn't any worse than dark crusade. I still haven't figured out why people nerdgasm over DC, it was kinda boring switching to that "bunch of skirmish" campaign type when before you had actual storylines.

The first one was awesome, would have been better if it had stayed this way in my opinion.

But Dark Crusade did the transaction to the new style pretty well and the new races were pretty well executed, not to many issues if I recall.

Soulstorm was a buggy crapfest from the start.

Weren't sisters bugged? If you cancelled an upgrade on a shrine it gave you back more requisition than you had spent?

Henners91 wrote:Weren't sisters bugged? If you cancelled an upgrade on a shrine it gave you back more requisition than you had spent?

Yeah, it was something to do with the upgrade on the listening posts I think, to make increase faith points, that golden beam shizzle shining out of them, you cancelled the upgrade and it gave you double the resource back, like you say. They also had the AOE on their flaming hand grenades that didn't extinguish.

Tau on MP are just

Those bugs were fixed in patching, so it's rather irrelevant now.

That's like complaining about how V:TM Bloodlines was so buggy it was unplayable at release, despite the fact that with patches it becomes the best FPSRPG ever made.

I liked DoW2, It didn't really feel like a Sequel to DoW but was a fine game in it's own right.

I'd be pretty happy with DoW3 being like either one.

Melissia wrote:Those bugs were fixed in patching, so it's rather irrelevant now.

Yeah, but it wasn't irrelevant and the patch was proper delayed whereas the others were on the ball with stuff like that. The game is still the worst of the bunch and there are still bugs that were never resolved that should have been.

Melissia wrote:That's like complaining about how V:TM Bloodlines was so buggy it was unplayable at release, despite the fact that with patches it becomes the best FPSRPG ever made.

The who and what now?

Yeah my friend who told me this is into his competitive MP on games like CoH 'n' DoW... practically lives on gamereplays. He claimed that the MP was broken for yonks by that exploit.

As for VTM... I'll agree that it's one of the best games EVUR but FPSRPG? It's gotta be tied with S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in my book Both made utterly believable and massively immersive universes and appealed to rather different parts of my soul.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and if Elder Scrolls games count as FPSRPGs... (I'm getting off-topic now)

Joey wrote:http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/13/dawn-of-war-3-will-let-you-build-your-own-custom-mega-army/
Sounds pretty awesome to me...and guard are in the screenshot, too!
Seems like they learned their lessons from the abortion of Dawn of War 2.

And will all of those army available in DoW 3 follows the sets of rules dictated by the official codica ??

Pilau Rice wrote:The who and what now?

VTM Bloodlines was a first person shooter slash RPG based on White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade game setting (the old one, not the new one which is Vampire: The Requiem). Its story is very well told, its skill progression is fairly well balanced, you only get xp for completing missions and not for killing enemies so you can complete them in any way you want (there's usually a way to talk your way through a mission for example, through intimidation and such, there's the stealthy way, and finally there's always the guns blazing way as a fallback. Only a few missions absolutely require lots of combat).

However, it was quite literally unplayable on release, basically released as a beta. It had nasty crashes, missions which wouldn't end or couldnt' be accepted, ahd features missing even though they were in the code, and just all around was monstrously unstable and buggy. Soulstorm looked downright perfect by example.

But with the patches? It was gold. Hell it was gold-engraved platinum on a silver chain. Studded with diamonds.

Lone Cat wrote:And will all of those army available in DoW 3 follows the sets of rules dictated by the official codica ??

I hope not.

I'm still not sure why, exactly, Soulstorm gets as much hate as it does. I mean, the fliers are a disappointment, but it's not like the game crams them down your throat and forces you to use them. I've completed the campaign about 4 different times without touching a single flier.

Hell, I actually prefer Soulstorm over Dark Crusade. In Dark Crusade, the computer outright cheats in the campaign. Plus, the game becomes nigh-impossible to finish late-game because you enter every map with just an honor guard and no base, while your opponent has two fully upgraded bases. By the time I hit the last few missions in Dark Crusade, I almost had to give up because I would get swamped with enemy units within the first 2 minutes, and no way to counter them. Soulstorm got rid of the persistent bases and balanced the whole mess out.

I played 40k for 11 years

Then dawn of war crusade came out and I stopped playing the table top game for 5 years

Im only just getting back into it now - turns out I missed 2 editions of the game or somethign lol as 6E is coming out soon

I liked Dawn Of War 2, and did not miss the basebuilding. And that interwie was notting but hot air.

sumi808 wrote:I played 40k for 11 years

Then dawn of war crusade came out and I stopped playing the table top game for 5 years

Im only just getting back into it now - turns out I missed 2 editions of the game or somethign lol as 6E is coming out soon

Same.
Also me and 5 people I know irl hated DOW2. The only people I've ever met who like it were on the internet. That is...telling.
Anyway I hope Basilisks with Earthshakers make it back in. "See those 20 terminators? Not any more!". Was great for "accidental" friendly fire in MP.

Joey wrote:Also me and 5 people I know irl hated DOW2. The only people I've ever met who like it were on the internet. That is...telling.

Yeah, it means that you don't know many people.

I don't know anyone IRL that enjoys DoW1, while I know a dozen people who like DoW2. DoW1 must suck.

That was another thing I remember about Soulstorm - non-persistent maps! Dark Crusade may have been mostly skirmish maps, but it remembered where you put everything. Soulstorm was endless skirmish as every battle started in the same way.

It was cool the first couple of times, until I realised how often the AI likes to attack you.
The fliers did suck though. It's a shame when there's so many units they could have put in.

The DoW 2 campaign is by far the best campaign out of the series, but I vastly prefer the multiplayer of Dark Crusade as it is balanced, has barely any bugs and tactics are actually involved

DOW2 campaigns were far superior to DOW1 campaigns.

That is the only thing DOW2 did better than DOW1.

Karon wrote:DOW2 campaigns were far superior to DOW1 campaigns.

That is the only thing DOW2 did better than DOW1.

Well, aside from superior gameplay, superior graphics, superior audio, superior controls, superior unit AI... you nkow, aside from all of that its campaigns were the only thing superior!

Melissia wrote:

Karon wrote:DOW2 campaigns were far superior to DOW1 campaigns.

That is the only thing DOW2 did better than DOW1.

Well, aside from superior gameplay, superior graphics, superior audio, superior controls, superior unit AI... you nkow, aside from all of that its campaigns were the only thing superior!

I agree on superior graphics, audio and AI, but that comes as no surprise as this is standard for the 2nd generation of any modern game. But gameplay in DoW 2 is a whole lot more stagnant and repetitive than its predecessor. Sure there might be gimmicky unit animations that make it seem like a whole lot has changed, but in reality you are getting less than the original.

I hated DoW2. I'm hoping they revert somewhat back to DoW1 while keeping some of the DoW2 game play improvements. Increase squad sizes, rebalance the map resources, and please I hope they fix some of the unit balance.

I'd love a DoW game that is more like CoH (not that DoW2 was all that different to start). I've really come to like the way CoH was built and I'd like a return to it.

The custom armies has my interest but I could see that easily becoming a half-assed feature that's just used for a blurb on the back of the box. Hope they really make good use of it.

Shooms wrote:But gameplay in DoW 2 is a whole lot more stagnant and repetitive than its predecessor

By more, of course, I think you meant less.

DoW1 was extremely stagnant and repetitive, bordering on starcraft even. Starcraft with squads and capture points essentially, with all the boring monotony that all 'craft games bring (aside from the entirely unaffiliated minecraft).

Melissia wrote:Well, aside from superior gameplay, superior graphics, superior audio, superior controls, superior unit AI... you nkow, aside from all of that its campaigns were the only thing superior!

The irony of course is that a page ago you were telling people off for stating their own opinions as fact. I guess that doesn't apply to you though?


How about a slightly different point of view:

Dawn of War was an RTS ala Command & Conquer, Total Annihilation and so on.
Dawn of War II was an RTT (at least in the single-player) ala MechCommander, Ground Control and so on.

This makes comparisons not quite as simple, as both games were attempting to achieve different types of game play.

I disliked DoW2, but for my own reasons. I just preferred DoW1's base building and mods, since I got to wage epic wars of killyness that, when mixed with certain mods, permenant bodies, and large unit caps, slowed down the game to the point where the game timer told me i'd spend an hour and a half in the fight, but about 3 hours had passed IRL.

DoW2 was a different gametype and had a different style of play that I just couldn't get in to.

I want DoW3 to bring back base building and epic army fights, but a lot of people don't, and that's why i'm not overly hyped, because it's either going to be great to me, or a disappointment to me, depending on which way they go with gameplay.

Melissia wrote:DoW1 was extremely stagnant and repetitive, bordering on starcraft even. Starcraft with squads and capture points essentially, with all the boring monotony that all 'craft games bring (aside from the entirely unaffiliated minecraft).

All video games are repetitive. After all, once players find the best way to do things, why bother doing anything else?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Melissia wrote:Well, aside from superior gameplay, superior graphics, superior audio, superior controls, superior unit AI... you nkow, aside from all of that its campaigns were the only thing superior!

The irony of course is that a page ago you were telling people off for stating their own opinions as fact.

I don't know if you noticed (what with you never actually bothering to read anything you respond to) but if you would go back and read the quoted section of my post, maybe, just maybe, if you comprehend English, you mgiht understand that I was only speaking for my own beliefs, not for the beliefs of anyone else.

But that's crazy talk I suppose; that'd require you to think.

Melissia wrote:

Shooms wrote:But gameplay in DoW 2 is a whole lot more stagnant and repetitive than its predecessor

By more, of course, I think you meant less.

DoW1 was extremely stagnant and repetitive, bordering on starcraft even. Starcraft with squads and capture points essentially, with all the boring monotony that all 'craft games bring (aside from the entirely unaffiliated minecraft).

Nope, I definitely meant less when I said less. You're pretty much saying I can't have my own opinion if it doesn't mimic your own? Nice one.

The original Dawn of War was taking major elements from Starcraft, the most proven game of all time, and adding to it. If you're saying that DoW 1 and Starcraft are both boring and monotonous, you clearly have the minority point of view.

p.s - Interesting how this thread has veered a little of topic and is now a DoW1 vs DoW2 thread.

This was announced back in June of last year.

So much buttrage for the series, why can't people just accept that you don't have to like one or the other? For all of you who think 1 was better than 2, or 2 was better than 1, there are plenty who think both sucked and plenty who think both were great.

I played DoW for the base building and meat grinder aspect.

I played DoW2 because it was far more tactical and I got to micromanage squads.

I liked them both.

Because both of them got at least 2 expansions, and people are still playing both of them, I think it's safe to say that both were solid titles.

Necroshea wrote:
I played DoW2 because it was far more tactical

Uh, no. Having to do something that the AI used to do for you is not tactics, in the same way that picking up a chess peice is not tactics.
It's amazing how many people think that "I'm being shot at -> better take cover" amounts to a Manstein-esque tactical coup de grace.

Even so, DOW2 had actual tactics. DOW1 wound up being "build ALL the units!" and rush the enemy base. Do that in DOW2, and you'll get slaughtered. There's not a whole lot of tactical expertise required in 'build units, upgrade to full strength, attack-move at enemy.'

Locclo wrote:Even so, DOW2 had actual tactics. DOW1 wound up being "build ALL the units!" and rush the enemy base. Do that in DOW2, and you'll get slaughtered. There's not a whole lot of tactical expertise required in 'build units, upgrade to full strength, attack-move at enemy.'

I honestly couldn't tell you what was different in DOW2 other than that there were far fewer units and it took a lot longer to play. DOW2 played like a beta of DOW1.

Joey wrote:I honestly couldn't tell you what was different in DOW2

...I doubt that you've even actually played it tbh.

Joey wrote:

Necroshea wrote:
I played DoW2 because it was far more tactical

Uh, no. Having to do something that the AI used to do for you is not tactics, in the same way that picking up a chess peice is not tactics.
It's amazing how many people think that "I'm being shot at -> better take cover" amounts to a Manstein-esque tactical coup de grace.

See, I think I have discovered the issue here:
you are terrible at DOW2

DOW2 units do not "automatically find cover" like DOW1 units, because all cover in DOW2 is directional, this is /huge/

A vast majority of Multiplayer gameplay is flanking heavy weapons/cover, denying your enemy cover, strategically removing cover and otherwise messing with LOS with taller peices of cover to get the jump on people and prevent units from surviving fallback, it is extremely involved and playing tactically you can pick away at a players economy until you have an upperhand. There is minimal focus on build orders, screwing around with bases/turrets/ect. and turtling.

DOW1 is largely whoever survives the first rush, and then whomever has the biggest deathstar, Its pretty simple and always has been, if its your flavor than thats great, but stop dragging every thread that even remotely mentions DOW into a crapshoot because you are bad at DOW2.

I think the main reason why DOW2 is hated by people whom prefer DOW1 is simply because of how involved it is.

In DoW1, you were fully able to just grab your guys and push Attack Click towards the enemy base, and "Skilled" players were fully capable of jumping from unit to unit, throwing grenades, using abilities and such. In DoW2, there is no Easy Mode way of playing, you HAVE to be able to position each unit on the fly. Not good or bad, but does raise the skill floor a bit, making it a little less accessible.

I don't know how 2 is now, but when I stopped playing, there were a few cheap tactics that just ruined the game for me (Wraithguard spam, for instance. No, I have never thought myself very good at the game).


Couple the fact that Chaos wasn't included from the beginning, and it was kind of over for me. Not that I minded Chaos not being in it right off the bat, but suddenly having twenty people in a ten person game playing Chaos because it's THE SHINIES! is bloody annoying.

You mean just like how everyone was playing guard, or everyone was playing tau/necrons, or everyone was playing sisters/dark eldar after those expansions to DoW1? Yeah, that was annoying . But in the end that's just people trying something new out. IT's been a while and taht craze has died down.

Melissia wrote:

Pilau Rice wrote:The who and what now?

VTM Bloodlines was a first person shooter slash RPG based on White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade game setting (the old one, not the new one which is Vampire: The Requiem). Its story is very well told, its skill progression is fairly well balanced, you only get xp for completing missions and not for killing enemies so you can complete them in any way you want (there's usually a way to talk your way through a mission for example, through intimidation and such, there's the stealthy way, and finally there's always the guns blazing way as a fallback. Only the latter third of the missions toward the end of the game where the developers got lazy require lots of combat).

Fixed that for you

And that's the only flaw the game really has in my eyes...

Melissia wrote:I doubt that you've even actually played it tbh.

Lies.

Grundz wrote:

Joey wrote:

Necroshea wrote:
I played DoW2 because it was far more tactical

Uh, no. Having to do something that the AI used to do for you is not tactics, in the same way that picking up a chess peice is not tactics.
It's amazing how many people think that "I'm being shot at -> better take cover" amounts to a Manstein-esque tactical coup de grace.

See, I think I have discovered the issue here:
you are terrible at DOW2

DOW2 units do not "automatically find cover" like DOW1 units, because all cover in DOW2 is directional, this is /huge/

A vast majority of Multiplayer gameplay is flanking heavy weapons/cover, denying your enemy cover, strategically removing cover and otherwise messing with LOS with taller peices of cover to get the jump on people and prevent units from surviving fallback, it is extremely involved and playing tactically you can pick away at a players economy until you have an upperhand. There is minimal focus on build orders, screwing around with bases/turrets/ect. and turtling.

DOW1 is largely whoever survives the first rush, and then whomever has the biggest deathstar, Its pretty simple and always has been, if its your flavor than thats great, but stop dragging every thread that even remotely mentions DOW into a crapshoot because you are bad at DOW2.

How am I bad at DOW2 when the campaign bored me by how easy it is. Making a system more complicated in no way makes it more difficult to understand. I played and enjoyed Company of Heroes where it was kind of cool positioning your units to defend against a certain path, having over-lapping fields of fire supported by long-range artillery to win the day, that's some awesome gak.
DOW 2 is just lame. It's too small to be interesting. Reminds me somewhat of Fallout Tactics, actually.

If you want to just look at the campaign, DoW1 was far easier anyway, so what's your point (assuming you have any)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henners91 wrote:Fixed that for you

And that's the only flaw the game really has in my eyes...

Dunno if "latter third" really is accurate, as quite a bit of chinatown didn't require fighting, for instance.

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:I doubt that you've even actually played it tbh.

Lies.

Grundz wrote:

Joey wrote:

Necroshea wrote:
I played DoW2 because it was far more tactical

Uh, no. Having to do something that the AI used to do for you is not tactics, in the same way that picking up a chess peice is not tactics.
It's amazing how many people think that "I'm being shot at -> better take cover" amounts to a Manstein-esque tactical coup de grace.

See, I think I have discovered the issue here:
you are terrible at DOW2

DOW2 units do not "automatically find cover" like DOW1 units, because all cover in DOW2 is directional, this is /huge/

A vast majority of Multiplayer gameplay is flanking heavy weapons/cover, denying your enemy cover, strategically removing cover and otherwise messing with LOS with taller peices of cover to get the jump on people and prevent units from surviving fallback, it is extremely involved and playing tactically you can pick away at a players economy until you have an upperhand. There is minimal focus on build orders, screwing around with bases/turrets/ect. and turtling.

DOW1 is largely whoever survives the first rush, and then whomever has the biggest deathstar, Its pretty simple and always has been, if its your flavor than thats great, but stop dragging every thread that even remotely mentions DOW into a crapshoot because you are bad at DOW2.

How am I bad at DOW2 when the campaign bored me by how easy it is. Making a system more complicated in no way makes it more difficult to understand. I played and enjoyed Company of Heroes where it was kind of cool positioning your units to defend against a certain path, having over-lapping fields of fire supported by long-range artillery to win the day, that's some awesome gak.
DOW 2 is just lame. It's too small to be interesting. Reminds me somewhat of Fallout Tactics, actually.

I believe the multiplayer is what's being referred to. Frankly I didn't enjoy the campaign massively, but the mplayer is definitely where the game shined. Unfortunately, just like CoH, any game that records my stats tends to get me stressed (I don't know why, I'm just a fool...). I'm getting better at dealing with failure lately, so maybe I will go back to it... but few other games will have you on the edge of your seat the way they do. DoW 2 gets you into the action quickly, slices out all the base building and resource management nonsense and just focuses on tactics. And ranked gameplay is *very* competitive. It's not at all easy and requires a bit more brainpower than 'LOLBLOB' (DoW 1)

Melissia wrote:You mean just like how everyone was playing guard, or everyone was playing tau/necrons, or everyone was playing sisters/dark eldar after those expansions to DoW1? Yeah, that was annoying . But in the end that's just people trying something new out. IT's been a while and taht craze has died down.

Sweet, maybe I'll have to grit my teeth and try to figure out how to play it again.

Joey wrote:DOW 2 sucked, this is universally acknowledged.
Seems the scale for DOW3 will be a whole lot bigger.

Sounds like you are just the guy that sucks at DoW2.


Everyone I know prefers DoW2 to DoW1, and the greater they are a 40k fan the more vehemently they prefer the sequel.

Face it: DoW1 is a comedic derp fest with no semblance of decent plot, and a cookie cutter campaign where you do the same build-base-destroy-enemy-base every game.

The "fact" that DoW1 is preferred to DoW2 is an Internet Opinion.

DoW2 blows DoW1 out of the water in gameplay depth, voice acting, environments, campaign, multiplayer competitiveness, graphic direction, and every other area that does not concern "but I want to auto-reinforce my blob of 70 guardsmen for 4 minutes while they exchange fire with my enemy's blob of 50 space marines who have 5 heavy bolters per squad"

EDIT: The one advantage that DoW1 had over DoW2 is the base building, which I find extremely fun in any game. But it's not the key factor in a strategy game.

I think DoW 1 is the go-to for 'epic battles' at a company-scale where one can just marvel at the sheer spectacle of it all... it's fun to watch.

DoW 2 feels more like the tabletop, with limited gameplay and a more 'real' feel.

ph34r wrote:

Joey wrote:DOW 2 sucked, this is universally acknowledged.
Seems the scale for DOW3 will be a whole lot bigger.

Sounds like you are just the guy that sucks at DoW2.


Everyone I know prefers DoW2 to DoW1, and the greater they are a 40k fan the more vehemently they prefer the sequel.

Face it: DoW1 is a comedic derp fest with no semblance of decent plot, and a cookie cutter campaign where you do the same build-base-destroy-enemy-base every game.

The "fact" that DoW1 is preferred to DoW2 is an Internet Opinion.

DoW2 blows DoW1 out of the water in gameplay depth, voice acting, environments, campaign, multiplayer competitiveness, graphic direction, and every other area that does not concern "but I want to auto-reinforce my blob of 70 guardsmen for 4 minutes while they exchange fire with my enemy's blob of 50 space marines who have 5 heavy bolters per squad"

EDIT: The one advantage that DoW1 had over DoW2 is the base building, which I find extremely fun in any game. But it's not the key factor in a strategy game.

But I play 40k desktop...and DOW1. And everyone I know who plays TT prefers DOW1 because DOW2 is terminally dull.
I think this is like the history nerds hating Rome Total War thing. You clearly take your hobbies really seriously so you rage out at the thought of NO DEMOLISHERS OMG or WHY INFANTRY SQUADS HAVE NO FLAMERS RAHGHHGH.
If you actually look at DOW as a *game* rather than a tapletop replica of a tabletop game (which it is not) it's hard to objectively place it over DOW1.

The two are too different to fairly compare. It's going to come down to personal preferences. I don't think one can objectively be ranked above the other.

DoW 1 is for relative traditionalists (though the resource system isn't incredibly deep, I suppose... but the emphasis on research/tech trees, etc. still remains).

DoW 2 is more about getting units out into the action quickly with no fuss; the fact that all your base functions can be accessed with just one key stroke, without your view even leaving the battlefield, testifies to this. It's more fast-paced and focused on reactions and tactics. Yet the lack of base building, resource juggling 'n' worker units might offend some.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and ofc DoW 1 literally has you chewing through *companies* of Space Marines... DoW 2 is on a more believable scale... well, until you play as Tyranids or Orks, the former definitely does not seem to be the massive horde it should be.

Henners91 wrote:The two are too different to fairly compare.

This cannot be stressed enough, but from the looks of things it sure can be ignored.

DoW 2 and DoW 1 are not even in the same sub-genre.


DoW 2: Retribution is not in the same sub-genre as the above as well. Were talking not just apples and oranges here people, were talking apples and cars.

Lets get back to discussing DoW 3! Were all WH40k fans here, lets come up with awesome and crazy speculation about DoW 3 shall we?

Joey wrote:But I play 40k desktop...and DOW1. And everyone I know who plays TT prefers DOW1 because DOW2 is terminally dull.
I think this is like the history nerds hating Rome Total War thing. You clearly take your hobbies really seriously so you rage out at the thought of NO DEMOLISHERS OMG or WHY INFANTRY SQUADS HAVE NO FLAMERS RAHGHHGH.
If you actually look at DOW as a *game* rather than a tapletop replica of a tabletop game (which it is not) it's hard to objectively place it over DOW1.

Hahahaha what the hell? You just made my argument for me; thanks.

DoW2 is indeed vastly superior as a *game*.

Also, the whole "You hate DoW1 because YOU RAGE AT THE FLUFF RARWWRWRW" strawman was priceless. Keep it up

Melissia wrote:I don't know if you noticed (what with you never actually bothering to read anything you respond to) but if you would go back and read the quoted section of my post, maybe, just maybe, if you comprehend English, you mgiht understand that I was only speaking for my own beliefs, not for the beliefs of anyone else.

But that's crazy talk I suppose; that'd require you to think.

You are such a hilariously dopey person, decrying people for having the temerity to question you on what you think. You also glossed over what I said about the two games being utterly different in style.

Melissia wrote:
>Yeah, it means that you don't know many people.

>By more, of course, I think you meant less.

>I don't know if you noticed (what with you never actually bothering to read anything you respond to) but if you would go back and read the quoted section of my post, maybe, just maybe, if you comprehend English, you mgiht understand that I was only speaking for my own beliefs, not for the beliefs of anyone else.

But that's crazy talk I suppose; that'd require you to think.

>...I doubt that you've even actually played it tbh.

>so what's your point (assuming you have any)?

Melissia, you've really got to stop trying to belittle people when you're in a discussion with them, Its just making you look really bad. Just have a back-and-forth without the added insults.

But what would the internet be without NERD RAEG?

I probably do suck at DoW2, the reason being the game bored me to tears and I never could get into it. If I could have got into, and stuck with the game, then I would hope that I would be as good as I am at DoW, which is probably above average, or used to be as I don't play as much as I used to.

DoW2 just never grabbed me the same way as the first did, it just seemed slow. I liked aspects of it, the cover set up, the retreat feature - stuff like that and yeah the graphics were much better. But it had lost everything that made the original games great.

What other posters are saying is true, that they are different genres and shouldn't be compared, I guess that's what should be gone with. I for one would be happy for a return to the glory days of the original game.

More than likely though I will need to buy a new PC.

DoW2 is frustrating and lags/game slows down if your computer is not up to standards. The most fun and engaging part for me in DoW2 is the campaign; gearing up your squads of Blood Angels and experiencing their journey through the story is cool.

DoW1 is more direct and tangible with "make units" "assemble giant blob of units" "now your giant blob fights their giant blob" with millions of lasers and bolts flying across the screen. That definitely appeals to some people, and it appealed to me, I just grew a bit tired of that. DoW2 is fresh, has a high amount of attention to detail, and is pretty fun.

DoW 2 is actually a more compressed and advanced version of the Warcraft 3 genre. Hero centered and unit supported combat.

I love DoW and DoW 2 both. Retribution got me hooked on Warhammer 40k in the first place.

ph34r wrote:DoW2 is frustrating and lags/game slows down if your computer is not up to standards. The most fun and engaging part for me in DoW2 is the campaign; gearing up your squads of Blood Angels and experiencing their journey through the story is cool.

See, I didn't feel it at all. The first game, that was a decent storyline, DoW2 to just doesn't feel anywhere near as awesome to me. Yeah, it's got a better campaign/story to it than say Soulstorm or Dark Crusade but the first game just was better imo.

ph34r wrote:DoW1 is more direct and tangible with "make units" "assemble giant blob of units" "now your giant blob fights their giant blob" with millions of lasers and bolts flying across the screen. That definitely appeals to some people, and it appealed to me, I just grew a bit tired of that. DoW2 is fresh, has a high amount of attention to detail, and is pretty fun.

For a long game, for sure, but for a 1v1, it can be over with only a few units easy enough. Nothing quite like those full army uber battles though. No turrets mind, I hate turret spam.

Alexzandvar wrote:DoW 2 is actually a more compressed and advanced version of the Warcraft 3 genre.

No.


WC3 didn't even come up with the "hero led army", but still, no.

I liked Warcraft 3. I think people confuse it with WOW and it suffers as a result, it's a damn good video game with a damn good storyline.
DOW is nothing like it. It was pretty groundbreaking when it came along. Everything before it was basically a Age of Empires clone. Harvest resources, do boring gak, yada yada yada.
Suddenly you had actual squads and they actually engaged each other during melée.

That wandered around in perfect marching order in little cubes of soldier.

The average computer in 2005 wouldn't have been able to handle 200+ little models all calculating the best place to stand. The pathfinding is bad enough as it is.

Indeed, there were many, many problems with DoW1.

DOW 1 was a great rts. The campaign became complete crap later on in the expansions, and the net code for the game was terrible.

DOW2 is a different genre, and should have never of carried the DOW name, but it did for marketing, and it worked, sort of.

I hope DOW3, when released, is a real successor to DOW1.

Why shouldn't it have carried the DoW name? It was a Warhammer 40,000 RTS made by Relic... that's pretty much what I think when I hear 'DoW'.

Henners91 wrote:Why shouldn't it have carried the DoW name? It was a Warhammer 40,000 RTS made by Relic... that's pretty much what I think when I hear 'DoW'.

DOW2 is not an RTS. RTS involves building bases by conventional definition. DOW2 is a different genre than DOW is. This isn't really that big of a deal in and of itself, and I personally am not bothered by dow2 being called dow2, but...

Many fans of the first game expected the follow up to be a building based game, and when it wasn't, there was a back lash.

The backlash could have been avoided by simply calling the game something - anything else.

Now, I am sure the response will be "it is an rts, and rts can be defined by many things". And I would say you are missing the point. Fans of DOW got used to building bases as a hallmark of an rts game, so when dow2 came out, labeled as an rts, most were disappointed when the game was vastly different than the original. That is all.

I feel the game could have better serviced by divorcing itself from DOW.

BuFFo wrote:DOW2 is not an RTS.

Yes it is.

BuFFo wrote: RTS involves building bases

Only according to your bizarre and arbitrary (see also irrelevant and pointless) alternate definition of the term.

BuFFo wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Why shouldn't it have carried the DoW name? It was a Warhammer 40,000 RTS made by Relic... that's pretty much what I think when I hear 'DoW'.

DOW2 is not an RTS. RTS involves building bases by conventional definition. DOW2 is a different genre than DOW is. This isn't really that big of a deal in and of itself, and I personally am not bothered by dow2 being called dow2, but...

Many fans of the first game expected the follow up to be a building based game, and when it wasn't, there was a back lash.

The backlash could have been avoided by simply calling the game something - anything else.

Now, I am sure the response will be "it is an rts, and rts can be defined by many things". And I would say you are missing the point. Fans of DOW got used to building bases as a hallmark of an rts game, so when dow2 came out, labeled as an rts, most were disappointed when the game was vastly different than the original. That is all.

I feel the game could have better serviced by divorcing itself from DOW.

That's a good point. If DOW2 had been more clear what it was I wouldn't have been bothered by it. Like Space Marine, cool there's another 40k game, but not for me.
DOW2 was closer to Fallout Tactics than DOW1, in my opinion.

Melissia wrote:

BuFFo wrote:DOW2 is not an RTS.

Yes it is.

BuFFo wrote: RTS involves building bases

Only according to your bizarre and arbitrary (see also irrelevant and pointless) alternate definition of the term.

While I'm not a fan of your particular language, I have to agree with you. DoW2 is, strictly speaking, an RTS game. I quote:

Wikipedia wrote:In a RTS, as in other wargames, the participants position and maneuver units and structures under their control to secure areas of the map and/or destroy their opponents' assets. In a typical RTS, it is possible to create additional units and structures during the course of a game.
...
More specifically, the typical game of the RTS genre features resource gathering, base building, in-game technological development and indirect control of units.

DoW2 requires you to position and maneuver units and structures (building turrets, and setting their facings) to secure areas of the map (taking control points) and/or destroy your opponents' assets (destroying their HQ building in an Annihilation game). DoW2 features resource gathering and in-game technological development. Just because it lacks base-building doesn't mean it's not an RTS. Just a slightly atypical one.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Let me first state that my preferances lie directly with DoW1, and not DoW2, but I would like to give my two cents here; DoW2 is possibly the only real RTS I've played. RTS stands for Real Time Strategy, but most RTS' don't involve any strategy at all. Starcraft/Starcraft II, for insance, are basically "See what your opponent is building and then build it's direct counter". Warcraft III, during my time playing it, was nothing more than "Build one unit type that can attack anything and get a master clusterfeth in the middle, whomever has more upgrades wins".

Now you look at DoW2, and it's much more "Ok, we move this guy here and there, our heavy support is getting flanked, get them behind cover and jump our hoppy toads over to negate that threat, our guys in the bunker are getting grenaded, get them out of there, they destroyed our cover, move them to another set. GRENADE OUT! Supress their fire support, move up secure objective, drop our deep strikers behind them to sandvich them between our forces." You actually have to be able to react and strategize in real time, unlike almost every other RTS where you mash units together and then try to figure out what went wrong afterward during the Force Building Phase again.


Brutal Legend is still the best, though. METAL!

Just throwing it out there, I loved Dawn of War 1, I still play it... Dawn of War 2... it does nothing for me... It looks nice, the character customization is fun, but the gameplay itself is not my cup of tea.

If we want to get real anal about this, we might start throwing around 'RTT'... that's how WiC marketed itself... a game wherein base building is eliminated and it's all about seizing ground with units that are rapidly called in... DoW is certainly on the tactical scale, there's no 'strategy' to it; that word implies a macro focus. The only real 'strategy' games are grand strategies or any game that deals with war at the operational level

As for 'Space Marine' being a success 'n' all... well, if games nowdays are anything to go by, you if you're releasing similar games within one genre, you want them to have the same name for selling reasons. To THQ, DoW is a leading product; hell, it's probably one of their few brands that actually made them a profit. Ergo, they like to have the games under a 'family' so they can plug 'em out. It's a worrying trend: Assassin's Creed Revelations, Mass Effect, Call of Duty: Cranking games out like a production line to keep farming fans for money. Admittedly ME isn't quite as bad as the other two as it doesn't literally suspend the story to justify another cheap game 'plugging the gap' ala AC: Brotherhood... Though I would argue that ME2 sorta did, but I think I can only accuse games of unnecessary spammage once they pass the trilogy mark.

Why are you guys fighting about who is better DoW 1 or DoW 2?
Both games are awesome in their own ways.

Dawn of War 1 is good game and it seems to me that I am one of the rare ones that actually like Soulstorm ( sure, it is buggy sometimes and it's campaign was worst one in the series. But I love it because of Sisters [ they are awesome army to play ] and the fact that you have 9 army's to choose to fight, and that is majority in 40k universe [ no Nids and Inquisition ] ). I like the graphic, it looks nice even in 2012. Gameplay was good most of the time and I like the modding support that this game offers. I have only few things to add to this like some units being OTT powerful [ FW squad, Eldar Banshee ] and the fact that melee units are very weak ( like GK squad being gunned down by 2 Guardsmen squads ).

Dawn of War II have better graphic, gameplay, RPG elements and campaign ( you must love all those cutscenes and how they did certain characters ). The only thing I don't like in DoW II is size of your army. I understand for Space Marines who are elite and small but for Tyranids, Guard and Orks? To yield that number of troops with one of those factions is insulting.

The one awesome thing both games have in common is music. Both DoW 1 and DoW 2 have incredible music, with Imperial Guard being my favorite in both games

Brother Coa wrote:Why are you guys fighting about who is better DoW 1 or DoW 2?

I imagine it something along the lines of not understanding why people like what they don't like, and vice versa.

More like I'm just annoyed by people bashing anything that provides new ideas to an otherwise stagnant genre of games...

Dawn of War 2 massively polarized the gaming community, that's why people fight about it. Dawn of War 2 was such a hell of a gear change that it wound up creating three big "factions" of gamers - those who absolutely despise what DoW2 did to the Dawn of War name, those who absolutely applaud DoW2 for changing it up and making the game closer to the tabletop (requiring actual tactics to win games), and those who think that both games are good in their own right.

Honestly, I like 'em both. I definitely prefer the original to DoW2, but I bought all three DoW2 games and played 'em through to the end. My main problem is that DoW2 requires actual tactics and a lot of micromanagement, neither of which I'm actually good at. I prefer DoW1 because I can win games (against computer opponents, I'll be honest here) by amassing a huge army and running it head-on into the enemy base. It's more fun for me to not have to think about where I'm going to position each unit, how they're going to be facing, where I'm going to stick a turret - just build the army, put listening posts on points to defend themselves, and have fun running a hundred guys at the enemy forces.

Just my two cents.

Yes but WiC had no bases to speak of, only deployment zones, much like mark of chaos. DoW ll has bases and you can lose your base, and taking the correct hero let's you further build buildings.

But I will agree it plays much like WiC and I much enjoyed it...


So I'm excited to see what happens to DoW3 hopefully it turns out like Savage!