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.
2016/07/26 11:26:10
Subject: Re:Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
Ashiraya wrote: Every 40k game so far has had a too low TTK. Look at what happens you give a CS TTK to a 40k shooter. You get Eternal Crusade, an utter disaster.
Haven't played it. Have played Space Marine- the combat system didn't lend itself to a high ttk there either. Still, you could tank a few boltershells every now and then without being the worse for wear.
You could take a tonne of bolter shells in Space Marine Multiplayer - at least half a magazine - before you fell down.
Bolters with Kraken Rounds on the other hand... I earned many a killstreak in that game with Kraken Rounds and a Tactical Readout.
Compared to EC, Space Marines were far more durable, and subsequently more true to the universe. However, the time to kill in EC is faster mainly due to the need for game balance between SM, CSM and Eldar
G.A - Should've called myself Ghost Ark
Makeup Whiskers? This is War Paint!
2016/07/26 11:57:21
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
In DoW1, Space Marines were ridiculously weak. Fire Warriors were considerably more expensive and powerful. They made Space Marines weaker than their tabletop incarnation. That is not fluffy, that is downright embarrassing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/26 12:00:41
Havent read the whole thread so apologies if this has been posted before but there was this reddit post about a 4th race that is currently being kept a secret by the devs. It's an awesome theory.
As for the game itself, I just hope the custom games will be good. I love messing around in skirmishes in DoW1 and 2, I liked DoW1's campaign system too.
Hope Rides Alone.
2016/07/28 18:20:10
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
TBH, it'd be interesting if Orks were the looming threat, the tidal wave of greenskin technobarbarians threatening to overwhelm everyone, instead of them being basically treated as obnoxious natives needing to be put down.
Still thinking of ways which base building could be made more interesting.
Use the Essence 2 Engine still, but model base building on CoH2.
Orks of course get Russian style base building, they build their structures on the spot because that's how Orks roll-- quickly built ramshackle buildings that are tougher than they appear. Imperial Guard gets British style bases, with built in artillery on each building as it's activated, in to their faction support powers; most of the buildings are pre-built, save for one mobile base building that can produce or reinforce infantry on the spot and provide a secondary retreat point. Space Marines get American style base building, a bunker surrounded by ferrocrete barricades wherein they land drop pods and ready the pods' cargo, with the base being upgraded to be able to deploy more advanced units as time goes on. And so on and so forth-- make each one's base building unique, and don't make the faction construct their base on the spot unless it fits with the faction in question (Orks, Tyranids, Eldar). Other factions should either have a single hardened structure (marines, necrons), or a group of preconstructed buildings that they commandeer one at a time for their purposes (Guard, Chaos, Sisters, Tau), or some other variation that makes them stand out as more unique.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/07/29 00:17:34
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2016/07/29 03:47:13
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
I don't think Space Marines should have base building at all. At most they could garrison existing local defenses (preferably with Guard) and set up Thunderfire Cannons in response to an expected attack. Instead of cities, they would operate out of an upgradable strike cruiser, XCOM style.
They would be the equivalent to Horde factions from other TW games.
It wouldn't be too easy to just move them all over the map though, due to the risk of transport interception and similar - you can easily have a system where you can attack and move fast via air transport but AA defenses can make that impossible (unless part of a combined arms assault).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/29 03:49:29
Unless we're combining all Imperial units in to one Imperium of Man army, I don't think Space Marines should have any Guard units at all.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2016/07/30 04:27:39
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
In that case I'd argue your point is very marine-centric and, rather, the main forces of the Imperium should be, as in the fluff, based around Imperial Guardgrunts, with Marines and Sororitas being elites. Shouldn't even be able to get marines at the equivalent of "tier 1" in however they're designing their system.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/30 05:47:34
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2016/07/30 06:49:27
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
While DoW1 certainly had a flawed base building system, I preferred the game overall to DoW2 and would prefer DoW3 to go back to the concept of DoW1 and improve on it.
It would be interesting to see a poll of how many people prefer the idea of base building in an RTS to not. I've never been a huge RTS player, but of the RTS games I like most of them had base building involved.
When you take away the base building I think for the most part I prefer TBS rather than RTS.
2016/07/30 12:14:02
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
Melissia wrote: In that case I'd argue your point is very marine-centric and, rather, the main forces of the Imperium should be, as in the fluff, based around Imperial Guardgrunts, with Marines and Sororitas being elites. Shouldn't even be able to get marines at the equivalent of "tier 1" in however they're designing their system.
That sounds OK to me. The concept of increasing tech and stronger units that we have in each RTS could easily be lore justified with war escalation.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I've never been a huge RTS player, but of the RTS games I like most of them had base building involved.
Aside from DoW2, which ones have you played that you consider not to have it then? Because it sounds like you really haven't played many to begin with. And personally, I'd argue DoW2 does have base building, just streamlined. If you really want a game completely without base building, I'd look at the Wargame series (a game which also mimics how an apocalypse-scale DoW game would function).
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/07/30 17:53:29
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2016/07/31 19:12:41
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I've never been a huge RTS player, but of the RTS games I like most of them had base building involved.
Aside from DoW2, which ones have you played that you consider not to have it then? Because it sounds like you really haven't played many to begin with. And personally, I'd argue DoW2 does have base building, just streamlined. If you really want a game completely without base building, I'd look at the Wargame series (a game which also mimics how an apocalypse-scale DoW game would function).
I was thinking DoW2, World in Conflict, Warhammer Mark of Chaos and Total War games. I haven't played Wargame, but watching videos I don't particularly want to either.
I'm not in any way saying base building games are better, it just seems in the context of RTS, it's what I prefer and I'd be interested to see what the wider population prefers. I don't consider myself an RTS fan even though there's a few RTS's I've played extensively I won't play a game solely because it's an RTS, it will have to be set in a world I find interesting enough to want to get involved with. If you take away my base building I'd rather just swap to TBS so I simultaneously have time to consider my actions more but also spend less time waiting for things to play out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/31 19:13:45
2016/08/04 18:45:35
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
Melissia wrote: TBH, it'd be interesting if Orks were the looming threat, the tidal wave of greenskin technobarbarians threatening to overwhelm everyone, instead of them being basically treated as obnoxious natives needing to be put down.
Orks were like that in the original Dawn of War. Sure, you'd assassinate a warboss here, stall them there; they still overwhelmed everything and as soon as you beat Sindri the Space Marines evacuate as the Orks conquer the planet. Still remember those loading screens with the red dots signifying Orks getting larger and larger despite your small scale successes.
In that case I'd argue your point is very marine-centric and, rather, the main forces of the Imperium should be, as in the fluff, based around Imperial Guardgrunts, with Marines and Sororitas being elites. Shouldn't even be able to get marines at the equivalent of "tier 1" in however they're designing their system.
I think that'd be great. Would work well with any Chaos faction they add too.
Could potentially do it doctrine style like in the first Company of Heroes. Choose between Sisters of Battle, Space Marines or Adeptus Mechanicus support (as examples).
I'm not looking forward to Dawn of War III really. Will definitely wait for reviews.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/04 18:46:19
2016/08/04 20:18:07
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
Actually that's a cool idea-- a doctrine style like in CoH2, or perhaps like subfactions in CnC3:Kane's Wrath. That'd be a great way to make all factions more interesting and varied in gameplay.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/04 20:18:29
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2016/08/17 23:12:46
Subject: Re:Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
So Gamescon yielded some actual gameplay footage of DOW3 that I thought I'd share here. First a bit of coverage from IGN:
If what they say is true, this game will be a lot of fun at least on the battle side; not lore friendly at all, but for an RTS, a solid game indeed. However this is IGN, and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.
Next is some raw gameplay featuring the Eldar Wraithknight, which proves that whoever wrote the reveal article for PC Gamer is a bumbling moron who doesn't fact check. Skip to 1:30 for commentary free footage:
Nice to see these almost "mega" units implemented into the core experience, whereas prior something like this in the last two games would come only from unendorsed mods. They seem to play an important role in game as your trump cards to turn the tide of the battle; shame they can just be mashed by whatever that orbital strike thingy is.
So what does everyone else think of these?
G.A
G.A - Should've called myself Ghost Ark
Makeup Whiskers? This is War Paint!
2016/08/17 23:45:32
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
thanks for the vids, I can say I wont be buying this game, its gone in a direction that I as a customer don't like, so I will not be spending any money on it.
hope others enjoy It though.
2016/08/17 23:46:27
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
Looks like it is completely without depth, even moreso than DoW1 was .
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2016/08/18 08:28:51
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
Ashiraya wrote:Yeah, this confirms my impression so far; we are back to the zergmarines of DoW1...
Though there are also issues I can't fix with mods, like animations and the removal of a cover system. That I disapprove of.
Yup, lore friendliness is out the window with this game
What makes you disapprove of the cover system? I found it to be pretty cool in DOW2, apart from not being very noticeable game wise; if they made it more important then I'd like it a lot.
Melissia wrote:Looks like it is completely without depth, even moreso than DoW1 was .
I don't quite understand what you mean by this; looking at IGN's coverage (assuming its accurate, which it very well might not be), the game seems to feature a lot of mechanics that add depth to abilities, special units and, most importantly, scale of combat - unmodded this game can supposedly hold many more units on the screen at any one time compared to the previous titles.
G.A - Should've called myself Ghost Ark
Makeup Whiskers? This is War Paint!
2016/08/18 09:01:45
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
Ashiraya wrote:Yeah, this confirms my impression so far; we are back to the zergmarines of DoW1...
Though there are also issues I can't fix with mods, like animations and the removal of a cover system. That I disapprove of.
Yup, lore friendliness is out the window with this game
What makes you disapprove of the cover system? I found it to be pretty cool in DOW2, apart from not being very noticeable game wise; if they made it more important then I'd like it a lot.
Melissia wrote:Looks like it is completely without depth, even moreso than DoW1 was .
I don't quite understand what you mean by this; looking at IGN's coverage (assuming its accurate, which it very well might not be), the game seems to feature a lot of mechanics that add depth to abilities, special units and, most importantly, scale of combat - unmodded this game can supposedly hold many more units on the screen at any one time compared to the previous titles.
The vibe i'm getting from the IGN video is that Dow3 SM has become what Dow1 Necrons were; overwatch (build automatically until you hit the cap) the specific hard counter unit to whatever your opponent is using, and jump/drop them where ever your opponent isn't ready to handle them with little to no actual human intelligence required beyond timing the buildup. Add in a genuine supper unit as opposed to the rather underwhelming land raider and the comparisons just keep coming. Stylistically excellent and entirely keeping with space marine fluff sure, but anyone who played DoW1 back when Necrons were the biznitch will know this is not a recipe for a fun or involving game, especially when SM wil be the go-to mirror match faction.
What DoW1 had was a requirement for a lot more control. For 7/9 of the factions, because the delays in outfitting your multi purpose or general purpose units (IG,SM,CSM before DC,SoB etc) meant you had to not only have a good idea what you were facing, but have the timing down to the second for it to be effective. Conversely, Necrons and Eldar would just spam Dark Reapers/Flayed Ones and eventually Warp Spiders/Immortals with Fire Dragons/Pariahs for flavor, since the former just killed infantry with no recourse, and the latter killed everything, also with no recourse.
Since this is from Relic of "Yeah the Eldar super unit just gives you 25% more hard cap than anyone and removes the fear mechanic from your guys, and also 5 guardsmen will cost only 20% less than 4 space marines and take just as long to deploy" faction balance fame, I'm inclined to see this coming product as more of a multimedia entertainment product than a competition quality game.Hopefully i'm wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/18 09:03:11
Some people find the idea that other people can be happy offensive, and will prefer causing harm to self improvement.
2016/08/18 20:30:49
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
That's a lot better response than I was going to give
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2016/08/18 21:06:18
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
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
Point #1: I agree that starting off with less factions is not great: you alienate those who's favorite army may not be there. I want as many as possible from the get-go.
Point #2: Usually a consistent story that is not jumping around is ideal. What is the benefit of the other viewpoint in a campaign plotline? It would be kind of funny say the SM's smash an Ork outpost and your next game is to rebuild it. Could get you all upset with yourself.
Point #3: Depends on how the hero is presented. He could have some scripted bits where he cannot be directly controlled by the player. Or you get a taste of greatness to get you through a particular hurdle and then "I see more of our kin besieged by the evil Xenos! gotta go, see ya!!!!". You know, handle it as a one-shot summoning with a time limit or more like a cameo where he carves a swath of destruction across the map and leaves barely noticing you are there and leaving you with "cleanup".
Point #4: Remains to be seen what happens there. For the cut-scenes (if they have them) the acting will need to be quite good. I go not notice is as much when I am playing the characters on the board (Unless I hear "Have At Thee!!!!" for the 100th time just moving the guy).
Point #5: I happen to like base building. It is nice to have something to fall back to of your own design if things go south or to act as the anvil to your hammer.
What you suggest is promoting a very much "run and gun" method of play which is ideal for marines, maybe not so much for other races. I suppose making use of structures in the field and applying "enhancements" would be less arduous and more true to the tabletop experience. Imagine what a bone weaver, big mech or techmarine can do when asked to touch-up a bunker.
Point #6: What you point out can pretty much happen with any publisher depending on what folks you put at the development helm and what budget you give them. We may have to wait and see on that.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
2016/09/01 05:31:33
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
General Annoyance wrote: 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
Point 1: Did they legit say they are only having 3 races or will there be a big faction reveal like they did with sisters of battle during the making of soulstorm or anything really. Also as others have said guardsmen were NPC's in Dawn of War 1 and that doesn't count. It also doesn't count that you counted DoW 2 with 4 factions in your logic because guard were NPC's there as well.
Point 2: I think it's fine how they've got it going actually. It could be bad but it could portray a full story where the tide of battle gets pushed back and forth with the player at all the pivotal parts. It also provides interesting different takes on it. In some ways they probably did similar in Winter Assault. Remember how you could switch back from eldar and imperial guard in one mission and the missions were all one faction or another. It was more of a good guy campaign (guard and eldar) vs the bad guy campaign (orks and chaos). It worked fairly well but my issue with it was the lack of depth of any one faction and the lack of missions overall if i recall right. Chances are your favorite faction or one you wish to play as will get at most 6 missions if that.
Point 3: Kinda goes with the cartoony theme and to be honest DoW 1 though not super cartoony was definitely over-the-top in a big way. I mean do you expect an avatar of khaine to knock back guys 50+ feet high only to fall on the ground and come back up like they fell out of bed. Keep in mind this included guardsmen and fire warriors as well as cultists. Not too thrilled about the chasm jumps and the size but it fits their new cartoony look.
Point 4: That's a total nothing issue actually. A lot of Triple A games don't have the main voices during production. I've seen 'the witcher' series, starcraft 2, Hitman absolution and maybe a couple others do it (splinter cell?). Even if the DoW 1 gabriel angelos voice actor doesn't come back like he didn't in DoW 2 vanilla he still might come back for the expansions. I'd like to add he's the main character again this time and if you're going to have him as the focus because he was so beloved why wouldn't you keep the voice actor.
Point 5: I liked base building and that's personal preference. I just believe you need a base. I think star wars: empire at war did it best. You have a base of one building of each type (light factory, barracks, tech building, heavy factory, etc.) and each one you lost effected what you could build and reinforce with. The only things you capture are reinforcement points to increase population cap, small defensive buildings and income with mining. It's a shame that game never got a sequel and has become mostly forgotten. It was made by the old Command and Conquer team you know.
Point 6: Yeah and Sega was the publisher (not developer) for Total War: Warhammer which has done better than most Total Wars in years. The DLC spam will happen though. I can see DLC for everything in sight from Sega.
----
My only real issue is how cartoony it looks but perhaps that'd fit the over-the-top feel i got from DoW 1. Back then how cheesy it was and over-the-top made me fall in love with the game. The cover system could also use a bit of a tweak though i suppose they're going for more bunker style cover than anything. I kinda wished they did a mixture of the cover system from DoW 1 and 2. Basically some terrain slows units and others makes them easier to kill. Perhaps they could even pop a cooldown on a negative effect like in wargame when a unit gets detracked for a time and it takes a handful of seconds to fix.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/01 05:37:10
malamis wrote: I'm inclined to see this coming product as more of a multimedia entertainment product than a competition quality game.Hopefully i'm wrong.
This is what I currently feel about this game. Looks nice enough for a campaign play and it will be made well enough to be stable, however for a long term PvP games, I feel it will go the way the previous two serious.
2016/09/23 21:41:19
Subject: Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
A few interesting things here, but the biggest one that a lot of people might miss is that the other hero character shown for the Eldar seems to be Jain Zar.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/23 21:59:11
2016/09/23 21:52:47
Subject: Re:Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
Interesting that Farseer Macha has returned into the DOW mix - I'm sure she and Angelos will have a score to settle in this game...
I'm all for this hero system much like the DOW2 system (especially if that is Jain Zar in that demo), but that animation and scaling is still grinding my gears. I am starting to see why people are attributing the animation styling to Starcraft.
G.A
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/23 21:53:36
G.A - Should've called myself Ghost Ark
Makeup Whiskers? This is War Paint!
2016/09/23 22:21:52
Subject: Re:Why Dawn of War III *could* be utter garbage
General Annoyance wrote: Interesting that Farseer Macha has returned into the DOW mix - I'm sure she and Angelos will have a score to settle in this game...
I'm all for this hero system much like the DOW2 system (especially if that is Jain Zar in that demo), but that animation and scaling is still grinding my gears. I am starting to see why people are attributing the animation styling to Starcraft.
G.A
I'm more interested in the fact that Taldeer and maybe brother are piloting the Wraithknight (Driven by one dead/living twin!)
It's funny though, people are saying its looking too much like SC2 and too much like Moba.. which is funny because they've always had strong hero powers in dawn of war, getting locked down by a Chaos sorcerer and getting beatdown by a Daemon Prince is always an.. interesting experience.
Either way, I'm looking forward to it so long as it doesn't play like gak.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/23 22:22:21
