Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I was posting this in the 'Anyone still playing Space Marine' thread, but I figured it might stand for discussion on its own.


I think Space Marine made a few mistakes. That's not to say it is a bad game, because I enjoyed it, but I don't find I agree with some of their design decisions.

4 player co-op campaign they showed initially probably would have had tremendous amounts of re-playability compared to the campaign we got that has no coop, and in my opinion, very few 'notable' locations. While I understand for story reasons it took place on a Forge World, it would have been way better to see more locations that exist in 40k; like Dawn of War did with several planets.

Multiplayer 8v8... with no vehicles, and tiny corridor maps; is this 40k? Is this the kind of visceral, Imperium vs Chaos battles we always imagined? It certainly wasn't for me.

Perhaps this was all due to technical limitations, but if so, I would have preferred a drop in visual quality to get larger battlefields, with vehicles and perhaps 10v10, instead of what we recieved; which is basically an arena shooter. I enjoy arena shooters, but that isn't what 40k is, and it isn't what 8 Space Marines going against 8 Chaos marines would do.

I am super happy the Dark Millennium online is no longer 'online' as an MMO. I hope it is a proper sequel, to some degree, to Space Marine, which brings us multiplayer campaign coop/missions in a wide variety of locations, and larger battlefields with vehicles.

The underlying mechanics of Space Marine are enjoyable to me (although I'd like to move a little faster when scoping in... or have no slowdown at all), its just the wrapping around that which makes me sad. The guns, Space Marines, orks, voices, etc; are all quite top notch in their presentation.

Pushed out the door to some degree? Kinda seems like it especially considering the fact we didn't get Exterminatus/Horde mode till after a month out. Game probably should have been delayed, not to mention Gears 3 came out like a week later.

I still like the game, but I feel like this was really a missed opportunity, and because they missed it, we might not get anything like this again. Not to mention, THQ isn't exactly doing great right now; the 40k license might be up for grabs again soon.

Oh and sadly, almost the entire dev team of Space Marine AND Dawn of War was laid off during THQs latest meltdown; so the fate of any new Space Marine games, or even any new Dawn of War games, is unknown.

Dawn of war 3 is still being made, but i agree SM 2 may not be, they should just make a guard on guard game and call it "call of warhammer 40k" so all the COD players buy it (even though it would be utter utter crap) and use the moneez to make a decent game.

I think the complete lack of voice acting was what killed multiplayer for me; I can play a CoD clone... I like CoD.

But the total lack of 'LOYALISTS!' and 'DIE HERETIC SCUM!' made the game uncharacterful... DoW's flavour stemmed, in a large part, from its voice acting if you ask me.

Instead all we get is 'UHHHH' and 'UUURRGH'

THQ/relic announced sometime ago that it is "rather unlikely that SM will get a sequel".

Henners91 wrote:I think the complete lack of voice acting was what killed multiplayer for me; I can play a CoD clone... I like CoD.

But the total lack of 'LOYALISTS!' and 'DIE HERETIC SCUM!' made the game uncharacterful... DoW's flavour stemmed, in a large part, from its voice acting if you ask me.

Instead all we get is 'UHHHH' and 'UUURRGH'

Oh I know, totally. I loved all of the call-outs in Dawn of War 2. First time I played multiplayer I was wondering why the hell all I heard was a bunch of grunting.

Daemonhammer wrote:THQ/relic announced sometime ago that it is "rather unlikely that SM will get a sequel".

Sad

I was bitterly disappoited in this game but not at all suprised. It was pathetically cartoonish and the guns had about as much impact as a handfull of wet spagetti as far as I was concerned. It played okay for about half an hour, but I didn't feel like a powerful space marine at all. Lame...

For the life of me I can't understand why they wouldn't try harder with video games. There is a massive amount of potential, but aside from the Dawn of War games, they seem to be going down the star wars route of banality!

Publishers don't give enough funds to make a truly great game.

EA constantly rushes their games (I know SM was published by THQ) and they always turn out like gak.

Warhammer Online is probably the one people here will be most familiar with - that game was rushed and underfunded to death by EA...you can see why it was so poor.

Jihadnik wrote:I was bitterly disappoited in this game but not at all suprised. It was pathetically cartoonish and the guns had about as much impact as a handfull of wet spagetti as far as I was concerned. It played okay for about half an hour, but I didn't feel like a powerful space marine at all. Lame...

For the life of me I can't understand why they wouldn't try harder with video games. There is a massive amount of potential, but aside from the Dawn of War games, they seem to be going down the star wars route of banality!

I actually quite liked their treatment of most of the weapons in Space Marine, and the way the Space Marines were actually portrayed in their fighting against orks. I'm not really sure what they could do to make you more powerful without making the game an absolute cake-walk, which it pretty much already was even on hard-mode.

As for the trying part, I'm sure the designers at Relic busted their ass on Space Marine as much as possible; I'm not really appreciative of your disrespect to the amount of work they put into the game, this thread is for discussing where they faltered on the game's design. The people at Relic are as big of fans of 40k as we are here in dakka, if not moreso; the way the game panned out was probably due more to budgetary constraints than anything else. You can be sure they tried their best with the resources they had.

Karon wrote:Publishers don't give enough funds to make a truly great game.

EA constantly rushes their games (I know SM was published by THQ) and they always turn out like gak.

Warhammer Online is probably the one people here will be most familiar with - that game was rushed and underfunded to death by EA...you can see why it was so poor.

This is probably one of the main points for some of the grievances I listed above, you can be sure we would have seen more wild environments, more enemy types, more weapons, more armor... if there was a bigger budget.

I enjoyed it for a long time, but finally..... The lag got to me and graduated to TF2.

The online mode should have taken a leaf out of the Battlefield online modes book. If the online had 16 v 16 with destructible and interactive terrain and vehicles... Jeeez would have been so good.

TH3FALL3N wrote:The online mode should have taken a leaf out of the Battlefield online modes book. If the online had 16 v 16 with destructible and interactive terrain and vehicles... Jeeez would have been so good.

You hit the nail on the head! That Would have been so epic. Too bad they did not release mod software for it.

TH3FALL3N wrote:The online mode should have taken a leaf out of the Battlefield online modes book. If the online had 16 v 16 with destructible and interactive terrain and vehicles... Jeeez would have been so good.

Agreed, which is pretty much what I posted in the OP.

40k is a lot more than 8 Space Marines fighting 8 Chaos Marines, where are the crazy vehicles and apocalyptic battlefields?

I agree, Spacemarine had me hooked for a few months after release. But you hit the nail on the head, the battles just didn't feel...epic enough, or dark enough. I always imagined any battle in the 40k universe to completely lay waste to where it took place.

I'm hoping the battles will feel more epic with Dreadnoughts, so I'm downloading the Dreadnought assault dlc!

See you guys on xbox, maybe.

First time ever I managed to see full lists on both sides in Seize Ground. Some of the matches had the epic feel I would think of an Astartes battle, well at least of the part of the game where you join with the Blood Ravens on the bridge.

Was great fun. Can't remember which side won but it was a hard fought for one for whoever did.

Much of its gameplay is DoW expressed 3ps

Yep since i DID play Space marines. the game still founds the lacking of many,

1. Stormbolter doesn't replace bolter once picked up. (not using Bolter's slot) but takes up 'special weapons' instead
2. no Terminator armor
3. no combat against tanks!. y'know. Orks and Chaos do field tanks. in addition where's Chaos defiler?

TT-contradictions.

1. IG doesn't attach plasma cannon as heavy weapons choice of ANY Infantry platoon. Lascannon should be in this place instead
2. Likewise. there's no Lascannon emplacement found anywhere in game. yep we know that Marines mount this weapon on shoulder so it takes 4th slot instead. (i can't really remember whether did Bazooka really exists in that videogame too? if so. shoulder mounted Lascannon sould be dropped entirely!)

The weapons were just fine, quit bitching for more marinewank.

My main complaint was that co-op wasn't in the campaign, mostly. Oh, and that we were forced to play space marines, but given the name of the game that was pretty much expected.

We need an Imperial Guard game. Can include a much wider variety of weapons.

Melissia wrote:The weapons were just fine, quit bitching for more marinewank.

My main complaint was that co-op wasn't in the campaign, mostly. Oh, and that we were forced to play space marines, but given the name of the game that was pretty much expected.

We need an Imperial Guard game. Can include a much wider variety of weapons.

You know I disagree but yet I agree with you on this one. As others have said I hoped for a more grim dark game, or something else than chaos & Orks. And as for a IG game.... Well I suppose playing as cannon fodder must be fun, but if they let us play as storm troops or Karskins that may have been a fun game. Although find it it hard imagining it as anything else than COD/ Bf3 set 40.000 years in the future

I enjoyed it thoroughly. My only main problem was the multi-player lag-fest.

Also some better objective based MP with allied guard/traitors would have been pretty cool.

A sequel where Titus joins the deathwatch or something would be cool

Lone Cat wrote:1. IG doesn't attach plasma cannon as heavy weapons choice of ANY Infantry platoon. Lascannon should be in this place instead

This is nothing more than idiotic nonsense. The Imperial Guard wields a staggeringly wide variety of weapons. There is no reason to believe that, upon finding a plasma cannon in a forge world, they'd say "sorry guys, can't use that, we'll just have to use our basic lasguns".

They are not stupid, unlike your objection.

Lone Cat wrote:2. Likewise. there's no Lascannon emplacement found anywhere in game. yep we know that Marines mount this weapon on shoulder so it takes 4th slot instead. (i can't really remember whether did Bazooka really exists in that videogame too? if so. shoulder mounted Lascannon sould be dropped entirely!)

What the hell are you smoking?

Melissia wrote:The weapons were just fine, quit bitching for more marinewank.

My main complaint was that co-op wasn't in the campaign, mostly. Oh, and that we were forced to play space marines, but given the name of the game that was pretty much expected.

We need an Imperial Guard game. Can include a much wider variety of weapons.

Maybe if it was a bit like Battlefield/Battlefront and you respawned as nameless faces... if you were an actual Guard CHARACTER the only thing you could conceivably massacare (as one often does in FPS') is Traitor guardsmen... pretty much every other enemy in the Imperium would, in a fluffy sense, take you out after you kill 2-3 of them at the most.

We don't want another Fire Warrior; where Shas killed a bloomin' Greater Daemon of Tzeentch singlehandedly...

Or Orks, or Tyranids, or Tau, or even Eldar to some extent (Eldar guardians are not particularly talented, even if they are fast).

I would like to see a game made for Eldar, where you choose a certain path for the campaign, eg a fire dragon or dark reaper. With different missions depending on your aspect. It would probably give a game great re-playability. I never played SM, it was the multi-player turned me off from the start really.

I want BioWare to make a Mass Effect style game wherein you end up being an Inquisitorial Acolyte... but it'll never happen :(

I really enjoyed it, but I must admit that it does have it's faults. I liked the campaign, but would have been definitely a lot better in co-op. It also lacked variety and could have done with a few more vehicles/different combat style encounters.

The online was fun, just not perfect. I would have preferred powerful weapons to be scattered around the map, with each class starting with basic equipment. I agree about the small/poor maps and no vehicles bit too.

My biggest gripe though was the lag. Oh dear god was that game awful for lag. Headshots were almost impossible and flukey if you did hit, and combat could have been improved a lot.

TH3FALL3N wrote:The online mode should have taken a leaf out of the Battlefield online modes book. If the online had 16 v 16 with destructible and interactive terrain and vehicles... Jeeez would have been so good.

It would be great if it was a completely different game that would have involved millions of dollars of resources and new models, programming, and game mechanics!

I really liked Space Marine, but I think it should have at least had a 2 player co-op campaign. Aside from the lame quick time event final boss battle, everything in there would have been easy to do with two players. Just double up the enemy spawns (lord knows the engine can handle it!) and you'd be good to go. I personally enjoyed the multiplayer a lot, but I concur that it is missing that spirit that Dawn of War has with the voice acting. Hearing all the overwrought and 40k as hell dialogue that comes out in the DoW games is great fun, and I didn't realize how much I missed it until the Space Marine multiplayer. Instead, the Space Marine multiplayer just sounds like Megatron having sex with a chainsaw. Lots of grunting, crushing, and buzzing, but no coherent dialogue.

I've been playing a bit more multiplayer and enjoying the game to a certain extent, but a problem I've run into is that there is literally NO ONE playing Dreadnought Assault, which I really wanted to try out.



Having a Dreadnought on the field makes it seem quite a bit more epic.

I think a good squad based Guard game would really help. It could ground the whole thing a bit. The campaign would have to be more 'smart' fighting than running and gunning - turrets, arty strikes, cover, sniping and what have you to make up for being a guardsman; but I think that would be for the best.

maybe a commando type team (Vets or stormtroopers etc) co-op it to allow 5-6 players max and let the team equip for the missions, maybe allow them to pick 2-3 weapons and ammo amounts with weight limit so they have to smart think up how to all gear and what ammo to bring.

Add in mecic / heavy support / commander with some perks (As well as soldier who gets some perks to keep it even) and you could have for a interesting game, though I'd say limitiing the other class options to keep from 12 commanders appearing in game would be needed.

The game itself feels half finished, I do enjoy it online though. Lots of parts from the trailer are missing.But lately the lag has been a major issue on both PS3 and Xbox. It get's quite frustrating when you have an enemy in your sights, close enough to spit on, only for them to teleport behind you and Meltagun the back of your head. It's annoying when lag plays a hand in victory or defeat.

If I get a game with all green bars, very rare indeed, then it's fast paced, clean, wholesome fun. When the ugly lag monster rears it head it is rage inducing.

I think another patch and the game could be great, there's certain things that I would like to see get amended in relation to the perks and weapons and maybe roll out the additional mappacks for free, I am very bored of playing on the original 4 or 5, but can't get a game on the Dreadnought assault ones without having the Dreadnought.

Edit: OOh, one thing I would like to add is that the pathing, I think that is what it is called, could be changed. So many times I am trying to run up a step that is maybe an inch high, or around a pipe, and can't go anywhere. I have died so many times because my guy can't seem to either move around a pipe or lift his foot up.

TH3FALL3N wrote:The online mode should have taken a leaf out of the Battlefield online modes book. If the online had 16 v 16 with destructible and interactive terrain and vehicles... Jeeez would have been so good.

This would indeed have been a great idea, but I can only imagine what it would be like playing like in its current lag encrusted form.