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.

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.

Yea I agree, multiplayer Ret was really fun. Loved all the IG voice lines

LOL!

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.

I'm going to buy Retribution solely on the premise of the Ork campaign. And I don't even play Orkz.

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.

Brother SRM wrote:

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.

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.

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

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/13/dawn-of-war-3-will-let-you-build-your-own-custom-mega-army/

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.

Honestly, I'd kill for an Empire:Total War-esque Warhammer 40k game.

Where you'd already have an army of guys and then you and your opponent would fight.

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.

Disarray wrote:http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/13/dawn-of-war-3-will-let-you-build-your-own-custom-mega-army/

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.

Ouze wrote:

Disarray wrote:http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/13/dawn-of-war-3-will-let-you-build-your-own-custom-mega-army/

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

Maybe, sure. I hope so, no question. It's way to early to tell yet.

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?

Lynata wrote:

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.

Or how about DLC that isn't really down-loadable-content?-where its already on the disc and you're just getting the unlock key.