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.

I'm sure this will get a lot of people angry, but I'd like to add some fairly level criticism of what we've seen so far, and dull down the ridiculous hype surrounding this game right now.

I'm aware that there has only been one gameplay trailer for the game. But if you're going to release that to the public and claim it as almost finished gameplay, then you can't blame me for assuming that's what the game is going to be like.

Point 1: The Business model. We've now dropped another faction since Dawn of War 2 releasing with 4 races. That was pretty bad but now this is worse; one less faction means less diverse multiplayer at launch and a greater chance for repetitive games.

Point 2: The Campaign. As quoted by PC Gamer, the campaign for this instalment will not be separate for the Orks, Eldar, and Space Marines; instead it will move between the 3 races between missions. This could be an interesting move or a terrible one. I'm hinging on terrible as allowing for multiple endings in that format sounds impossible.

Point 3: Hero Units. I don't have a problem with the mechanic itself, but lore wise I have a problem with it because, so far, the hero units have been blown up in terms of scale so that they tower over other units - Gabriel Angelos looks like a giant compared to a typical Space Marine. And did I mention he can jump across chasms in Terminator Armour?

Point 4: Voice Acting. So far we've only seen 2 voices, one of which is decent, the other one being a crap rendition of Gabriel Angelos from the previous games. Guess which one it belongs to? I have no idea why Relic didn't call back the actor for Angelos, but I wish they had.

Point 5: Base Building. This is the worst sin by far in what we've seen of the game. This is also the most subjective of my points but hear me out on this one. Ask yourself if you've ever said this statement "X strategy game is amazing - the base building carries it all the way!"; base building is imo an obnoxious mechanic that takes you away from the battles going on in the game for the sake of going through red tape to build your units to fight. I didn't like DOW2's system till I played Ground Control 2 (a game I highly recommend to any strategy gamer), where battles are fought over drop zones across the map which are used to carry more units into the fight via a controllable dropship. This meant that time spent clicking for units was kept at a minimum while introducing an interesting dynamic where you could call in units to land in the middle of the map, and not controlling any landing zones meant you had to quickly capture one from your opponent before you ran out of units and lost subsequently. Does that sound like a way better mechanic that is way more fitting of the 40k universe than base building? It does to me.

Point 6: Relic is not what it used to be. Relic entertainment went bankrupt sometime in 2011 or 2012, with Space Marine being one of their last games (another great 40k game I recommend to all readers). Since then Sega has bought all their intellectual property (including Company of Heroes, the game that formed the template for DOW2). Anybody remember Company of Heroes 2 that came out a year or so ago? I don't cos it was a lazy cash in that failed to change anything significant to COH1, in fact lowering the diversity of the original game by removing (you guessed it) another faction at launch. Fact of the matter is Sega is a pretty terrible publisher that has no respect for a lot of the IPs it owns, and DOW3 is set to be its next target.



These are just some of the things I could come up with. I will be very pleased if this game becomes the opposite of what I think it is now. Regardless I'd love to hear anyone's opinion on this and whether you agree or disagree with the points I made.

And remember, play nice!

G.A

I'm not sure I understand your point 1. How was DoW2 releasing with 4 races 'pretty bad'? DoW1 also released with 4 races. No DoW game has released with more than 4.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your point 1. How was DoW2 releasing with 4 races 'pretty bad'? DoW1 also released with 4 races. No DoW game has released with more than 4.

In technicality it was 5 as the IG featured in the campaign, however they wouldn't become playable until the Winter Assault expansion; Dawn of War 1 was the exception to me as the lack of diversity in the factions was made up with the diversity of units that each faction had to offer.

G.A

Base-building was part of the original game, and in Soulstorm, as well. Kinda missed that aspect in the other games.

 General Annoyance wrote:
Ask yourself if you've ever said this statement "X strategy game is amazing - the base building carries it all the way!"

Actually, yes. Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander I could say this about. But they're a dramatically different type of base building than you're used to, from your described experience.

The Stronghold series also comes to mind; a castle-building sim where base building its pretty much the core of the game.

I will grant you that the Starcraft variation on base building is lame and a detriment to the games that have it in them, but not all base building is like that.

Psienesis wrote:Base-building was part of the original game, and in Soulstorm, as well. Kinda missed that aspect in the other games.

You missed it for what reason exactly? I for one thought it made sense at the time in terms of the continuous campaigns in Dark Crusade and Soulstorm, ad whatever you built each match would remain if you captured that territory, but other than that was pretty tedious.

Melissia wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
Ask yourself if you've ever said this statement "X strategy game is amazing - the base building carries it all the way!"

Actually, yes. Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander I could say this about. But they're a dramatically different type of base building than you're used to, from your described experience.

The Stronghold series also comes to mind; a castle-building sim where base building its pretty much the core of the game.

I will grant you that the Starcraft variation on base building is lame and a detriment to the games that have it in them, but not all base building is like that.

Out of those games I have played Supreme Commander; I can understand the base building mechanic in that as the large "superweapon" style units and buildings needed to take time and effort in order to construct in order to balance the game out. Makes sense in a castle building game for obvious reasons too.

But we're talking about Dawn of War here. If I were to make a comparison, I'd compare the current DOW games most closely to the Command and Conquer series, specifically Tiberium Wars as this kinda had a squad system in its infantry units (DOW2 is a bit of a weird hybrid that I've never really seen before). As much as I love C&C, base building in those games is even worse than in DOW because of the existence of superweapons. If your game needs something to break a stalemate because one player has turtled and created a nearly impenetrable base, then I'd consider that a flaw honestly.

G.A

You asked the question, you know, and I answered. The problem is, you asked the wrong question.

 Melissia wrote:
You asked the question, you know, and I answered. The problem is, you asked the wrong question.

Yes you did answer the question, very well in fact. I stand corrected on that one.

Still, does it apply to what I'm saying about the DOW franchise? I don't think it does

G.A

A campaign which moves between factions allows for better pacing and acceleration of the story, however it also makes the story seem pointless as any progress by one faction is undone by the victories of the next.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
You asked the question, you know, and I answered. The problem is, you asked the wrong question.

Yes you did answer the question, very well in fact. I stand corrected on that one.

Still, does it apply to what I'm saying about the DOW franchise? I don't think it does

G.A

Thus the last part of my sentence. The point of my post was that base building can be done well, even though it usually isn't because so many games are starcrapped clones.

I'm not sure we need an entirely new thread about DoW 3, but whatever - people gon' complain.

Point 1 - Where is it written that four races are a must in order for a game to succeed? For most games of the strategy variety getting more than two generally means you have to pay more for Day 1 release content. Which, given how the market has been progressing, is probably what you'll see - 3 launch races and if you pre-order you'll get Chaos or some other race for free.

Additionally, as you've been told by others, DoW2 released with 4 races, as did 1. And no, the Imperial Guard don't count given that they weren't available for multiplayer.


Point 2 - You said it yourself, they're releasing the game with three races - and the chances of having 3, 12 or more mission campaigns are almost non-existent. There's nothing inherently bad about a campaign that follows three different races, I'd like an example of where this didn't work out before I change my mind.


Point 3 - This is a fluff argument, if you prefer I can list the number of fluff errors available throughout the franchise that would have made every game terrible. Is the terminator-leaping Angelos silly? Yes, and I love ever second he's on screen.


Point 4 - This is a personal opinion and can, in no reasonable way, be used to measure the quality of a game that hasn't even been released yet. But I get what you're saying, the original voice actor for Angelos was amazing.


Point 5 - I think if they wanted to include base building, they should up the scale of the game. Dawn of War it made sense given the enormity of the fighting taking place, DoW2 less so (and why it was scrapped I think), given the small surgical strikes you were tasked with making. Now, DoW3 seems to be a mixture of 1 and 2, I can't say that basebuilding ISN'T necessary, but the scope of battle so far presented doesn't make a good argument FOR a base building mechanic. Also, cover looks stupid.

Additionally, yes I can name several games where the base building MADE the game - but again, their scale was meant to showcase a massive fight over a huge area of operation.


Point 6 - CoH 1 and 2 were amazing games. The competitive scene for 1 moved onto CoH 2 quite easily and is STILL played - the diversity among the armies is actually pretty intense given the generals you can choose. And Sega doesn't need to respect anything - they're a publisher of videogames, they'll make what sells and that's it.

 General Annoyance wrote:
words

Sounds like your taste in games is entirely different from mine. Luckily you are in the minority, and DoW3 will not cater to your tastes.

Without base-building, an RTS game is not a game at all. When all you have to do is kite the enemy into safe zones and kill them like in DoW2, there is no strategy. There are no tactics. All you need to win is patience. Even Company of Heroes required you to manage resources and build things.

The voice acting in DoW (and all RTS games) has always been campy and terrible, on par with low-caliber Saturday morning cartoons at best. I enjoy the camp and the awfulness, so no issues there. I'm not expecting Shakespeare here.

Space Marine is one of the worst games ever made. Some critics have compared it to Gears of War, but it doesn't hold a candle. It's really trying more to be God of War, but it doesn't come close to that either. It's a cheap arcade game along the lines of Final Fight or Double Dragon, really. Those games were fun in their era but ultimately shallow and empty without friends, and Space Marine has no co-op multiplayer.

As for factions, the fewer the better. An RTS should have three factions at most, but two is preferable. More factions means wasting development resources so none of the factions are as good as they could be, and balance becomes unattainable so the weakest factions will simply never get played. Waste of time and money. The shifting-perspective campaign sounds like a hassle, but it worked in DoW: Winter Assault.

Maybe DoW3 will be an abysmal failure like CoH2, or maybe it will be the renaissance that brings Relic back from the dead. All I know is that they need to stay as far away from DoW2 as possible unless they're trying to make an RPG or an online-only MOBA.

 Frankenberry wrote:
I'm not sure we need an entirely new thread about DoW 3, but whatever - people gon' complain.

Point 1 - Where is it written that four races are a must in order for a game to succeed? For most games of the strategy variety getting more than two generally means you have to pay more for Day 1 release content. Which, given how the market has been progressing, is probably what you'll see - 3 launch races and if you pre-order you'll get Chaos or some other race for free.

Additionally, as you've been told by others, DoW2 released with 4 races, as did 1. And no, the Imperial Guard don't count given that they weren't available for multiplayer.


Point 2 - You said it yourself, they're releasing the game with three races - and the chances of having 3, 12 or more mission campaigns are almost non-existent. There's nothing inherently bad about a campaign that follows three different races, I'd like an example of where this didn't work out before I change my mind.


Point 3 - This is a fluff argument, if you prefer I can list the number of fluff errors available throughout the franchise that would have made every game terrible. Is the terminator-leaping Angelos silly? Yes, and I love ever second he's on screen.


Point 4 - This is a personal opinion and can, in no reasonable way, be used to measure the quality of a game that hasn't even been released yet. But I get what you're saying, the original voice actor for Angelos was amazing.


Point 5 - I think if they wanted to include base building, they should up the scale of the game. Dawn of War it made sense given the enormity of the fighting taking place, DoW2 less so (and why it was scrapped I think), given the small surgical strikes you were tasked with making. Now, DoW3 seems to be a mixture of 1 and 2, I can't say that basebuilding ISN'T necessary, but the scope of battle so far presented doesn't make a good argument FOR a base building mechanic. Also, cover looks stupid.

Additionally, yes I can name several games where the base building MADE the game - but again, their scale was meant to showcase a massive fight over a huge area of operation.


Point 6 - CoH 1 and 2 were amazing games. The competitive scene for 1 moved onto CoH 2 quite easily and is STILL played - the diversity among the armies is actually pretty intense given the generals you can choose. And Sega doesn't need to respect anything - they're a publisher of videogames, they'll make what sells and that's it.

Apologies for the new thread - I have only just returned to the forums and wanted to start a thread that wasn't already 10 pages in about this already.

One of my favourite strategy franchises is the Command and Conquer franchise, which at most only had 3 factions in any game at any time in the series. The difference between them and the DOW factions is that the Global Defence Initiative, the Brotherhood of Nod, Scrin, USA, China etc. all had a very large roster of units that made up for any lack of diversity created by a small number of factions. The DOW games imo (especially DOW2) do not have that, and thus rely on more factions to make up for it.

I'm praying to the lord that there is not a preorder bonus faction like in Total War: Warhammer - that would break my heart

No there isn't anything inherently wrong about this campaign system, apart from the limited scope of potential to make branching endings; sounds like this campaign will only have one ending, and if it doesn't end with the Blood Ravens being victorious, then I'll eat my shoes.

A fluff argument it is indeed, however I feel this is far more important in games tied to the Warhammer 40k universe than a modern IP due to its very long and detailed history. They can make errors that you would probably miss, a captain jumping across the screen in Terminator armour is a bit hard to pass by.

Again this is also fairly subjective of me, as most of these things are, but I feel like DOW2 made up for the poor acting in DOW1 immensely; hell I still quote lines in my head about it to this day. It just sucks that the previous actor did not return, as he has voiced Angelos for all the games so far.

As discussed before, I realise base building has its place, just not here in a game that owes its heritage to a tabletop game that doesn't have anything like base building - just epic army clashes.

COH1 was brilliant, as was 2, but only because 2 is a carbon copy of 1 with a different skin over it and some fairly disposable mechanics like weather and weapon drops; I didn't bother picking it up for that reason, instead playing it at a friends house. And of course a publisher's first intent is to make money, but a lot of them do (or at least used to) care about the product they're making

G.A


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Real News wrote:


Sounds like your taste in games is entirely different from mine. Luckily you are in the minority, and DoW3 will not cater to your tastes.

Without base-building, an RTS game is not a game at all. When all you have to do is kite the enemy into safe zones and kill them like in DoW2, there is no strategy. There are no tactics. All you need to win is patience. Even Company of Heroes required you to manage resources and build things.

The voice acting in DoW (and all RTS games) has always been campy and terrible, on par with low-caliber Saturday morning cartoons at best. I enjoy the camp and the awfulness, so no issues there. I'm not expecting Shakespeare here.

Space Marine is one of the worst games ever made. Some critics have compared it to Gears of War, but it doesn't hold a candle. It's really trying more to be God of War, but it doesn't come close to that either. It's a cheap arcade game along the lines of Final Fight or Double Dragon, really. Those games were fun in their era but ultimately shallow and empty without friends, and Space Marine has no co-op multiplayer.

As for factions, the fewer the better. An RTS should have three factions at most, but two is preferable. More factions means wasting development resources so none of the factions are as good as they could be, and balance becomes unattainable so the weakest factions will simply never get played. Waste of time and money. The shifting-perspective campaign sounds like a hassle, but it worked in DoW: Winter Assault.

Maybe DoW3 will be an abysmal failure like CoH2, or maybe it will be the renaissance that brings Relic back from the dead. All I know is that they need to stay as far away from DoW2 as possible unless they're trying to make an RPG or an online-only MOBA.

I've always been in the gaming minority - seems like I'm a typical contrarian when it comes to these types of discussions.

Your first point makes no sense; go out and play Ground Control 1 and 2, Wargame and any of the Total Wars, then come back and say games without base building lack any strategy. DOW2 shifted strategy to a tactical focus, one which received mixed approval - to me it better suited the manner of many skirmishes that take place in the 40k universe, considering that only prolonged campaigns in this universe build FOBs to fight in the conflicts.

Some "critics" have compared Space Marine to Gears of War cos they are ignorant of 40k's history and how 40k is responsible for the design of games like GOW and even the Terran Marines from Starcraft. You also have not mentioned anything wrong with the game other than making weird comparisons to games that aren't really anything like it; Space Marine was not God of War because God of War is a spectacle fighter - Space Marine is better described as a fighter hybrid that punishes you hard on the harder difficulties for button mashing (unlike the other games you mentioned) and rewards precision and timed combos. The game also featured a co-op mode called Exterminatus (not the campaign if that was what you were getting at). Either way, saying things like it being "one of the worst games ever made" and "shallow and empty without friends" are ironically shallow arguments with no actual evidence to back them.

Multiple factions work in a game if they are well thought out - there's no difference in my mind between making 2 or 3 factions with huge rosters and 6 or 7 factions with smaller rosters. Again multiple factions is a pretty major reason why many play DOW - they want to play the race they know and love if they can. They will arrive I'm sure, but I'm talking about the game at launch, not later

G.A

I'm personally super excited for DoW 3. Sure the backflipping terminators are a bit silly, but I'm still looking forward to the game. They have plenty of time left to tweak the game

 War Kitten wrote:
I'm personally super excited for DoW 3. Sure the backflipping terminators are a bit silly, but I'm still looking forward to the game. They have plenty of time left to tweak the game

Believe me I'd love to be proven wrong on this - DOW2 was a game I played for hours on end. DOW1 not so much, but still something I enjoyed.

The game is scheduled for 2017, so they could make drastic changes. However looking at it the game looks mostly complete (despite being in alpha state rn) - I don't think any major changes to mechanics such a base building will occur, especially when they're promoting it as a key feature.

G.A

Why "insert game" could be utter Garbage.

Opinions.



Joking aside. I don't see the point to this, any game release should be considered garbage until proven otherwise.

 Soladrin wrote:
Why "insert game" could be utter Garbage.

Opinions.



Joking aside. I don't see the point to this, any game release should be considered garbage until proven otherwise.

Yeah I probably do need to work on my titles a bit

The point of this is that there is proof about the game in the form of their gameplay trailer. I'm not directing this next bit at you, but if anyone puts forward the argument "well it's just alpha footage" or "the footage is staged to make the game look better" - 1. Yes it's alpha footage, but if they're going to release it then they should expect anyone to be able to show legitimate criticism of it, and 2. If the footage is staged, then that doesn't exactly help my opinion when I already have problems with it.

And yes most of my argument is pretty subjective, as are most people's opinions on videogames in various aspects

G.A

Honestly it doesn't look great. Looks like a cheap cash in on the name.

I was very excited until I saw the base building and the cover mechanic: the way how it seems only certain specific areas can provide cover is such a step-back from the amazing fights we had in DoW2 with your squads setting up behind rubble, rocks, or other kinds of cover.

Now the Knight, the Knight was a thing of beauty. Loved how beautiful the units looked and game looked, very colourful, very bright but still GrimDark.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
I was very excited until I saw the base building and the cover mechanic: the way how it seems only certain specific areas can provide cover is such a step-back from the amazing fights we had in DoW2 with your squads setting up behind rubble, rocks, or other kinds of cover.

Now the Knight, the Knight was a thing of beauty. Loved how beautiful the units looked and game looked, very colourful, very bright but still GrimDark.

Not going to deny the graphical fidelity of the game - it has some amazing visuals, in particular the effects from Eldar Shuriken Catapults; I hope they still have that weird noise they had in DOW2. By the looks of it cover can be placed down for your troops, but I agree it looks less interesting than the environmental features in DOW2

Does this thread has a terrible click-bait-y title? Click here to find out. What happens next will leave you speechless.
Nah seriously, it will be utter garbage: no SoB in it :⋅D.

Nope, no click bait to see here

In all seriousness, those were just the first words that came to my mind when thinking about how to describe the game so far.

DoW2 did good:

Model quality
Sound and effect quality (weapon sounds etc, wraithcannons! With the exception of bolters)
Cover
Tactical combat
Commander implementation
Absence of base building

DoW2 did bad:

Lore balance (Catachan punches hit harder than Big Choppa nobz and their shotguns hit harder than Warp Spider weapons).
Model scale (Guardsmen are taller than Marines in PA)

DoW1 was hardly better in these regards though.

Ie, DoW2 with the right mods is mostly the perfect game for me.

But the same might yet go for DoW3. We will see.

 Ashiraya wrote:
DoW2 did good:

Model quality
Sound and effect quality (weapon sounds etc, wraithcannons! With the exception of bolters)
Cover
Tactical combat
Commander implementation
Absence of base building

DoW2 did bad:

Lore balance (Catachan punches hit harder than Big Choppa nobz and their shotguns hit harder than Warp Spider weapons).
Model scale (Guardsmen are taller than Marines in PA)

DoW1 was hardly better in these regards though.

Ie, DoW2 with the right mods is mostly the perfect game for me.

But the same might yet go for DoW3. We will see.

Would agree with you on all of that, except you forgot that amazing soundtrack DOW2 came with. Still listening to it to this day!

We haven't really heard any of the new DOW's OST, so I guess that is something I can look forward to (hopefully)

I include that in the sound quality but you are of course correct.

Thought you meant sound as in weapons and environment - my bad!

I think the soundtrack in that game (in combination with the voice acting) was so good to me because for me it encapsulated from that point onward how I think of the races featured in the game in my head; I think they did a great job of realising the 40k universe in that regard, far better than what they did in the first instalment

I'll be honest, I preferred Dawn of War I to Dawn of War II. The basebulding and larger force sizes felt more 40k to me. Not to mention I didn't particularly like the format and general feel of DoW II.

I have to agree with Sgt Smudge. The sheer scale and spectacle of DOW was amazing. DOW 2 felt much more like an action RPG that wouldn't commit.

I have no idea how anyone can honestly claim that base building is a 40k thing.

Scale is debatable, but honestly, that's not. Calling down turrets or cover, yes. Base building with research and production on-site? no. The way Dawn of War 2 handled it was as fluffy as you can get while having proper RTS-style bases.

The basebulding and larger force sizes felt more 40k to me.

What? Where has there ever been base building in 40k?

Base building is a relic left over from previous RTS games. In 40k it has only the most niche of places, and should not exist at all as a Space Marine player.