Export thread

See, this is what the vanilla campaign should have been from the start (with or without the corruption mechanic).

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy...rising/video/6239666?hd=1&tag=topslot;thumb;1

And they need to do a Last Stand style Space Hulk mode too, where each player customizes his Termy, especially since they already have SH maps...

gamespot is blocked at work, can you copy paste please?

No, it's a video... here's a thread discussing it: http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=237373

To sum it up: genestealers, lascannons, lightning claws, librarian, tyrant guards and other neat stuff... plus a campaign without 90% repeating missions.

hell yeah !

Now all they need to do is deliver...

am I the only one who loved DoW2 that much?

i could play this game non stop

I tried getting into DoW2, I really did. I thought the 'tactics' aspect of it was interesting. I just couldn't really get into it for some reason.

Math242 said:

am I the only one who loved DoW2 that much?

i could play this game non stop

Click to expand...

I watched it's development too closely, and had played Company of Heroes before... it could have been so much more imo.

And the SP had too few Angel Gate type missions and way too many defend/bossfight stuff.

And the MP maps could use some bigger maps, while imo it was a mistake giving turrets only to the Techmarine/Mekboy(and why isn't he a BigMek anyway?), instead they should have been universal (with 6 per side, not player) and at tier 2/3 upgradable to missile turrets, with the Tech and Mek getting a Thunderfire and a Shokk Attack Platform, respectively. That way point capping back and forth would be a bit harder and you'd get more battles over the ones not protected.

I hated DoW 2, the movement away from the traditional RTS format really grated on me.

Bowielee said:

I hated DoW 2, the movement away from the traditional RTS format really grated on me.

Click to expand...

I never got this... if i wanted to play a traditional RTS i would just play one... more variation is better.

That said, DoW2 needed more polish gameplaywise, hopefully the inevitable expansions will add that...

@Li3n;297396][quote=Bowielee said:

I hated DoW 2, the movement away from the traditional RTS format really grated on me.

Click to expand...

I never got this... if i wanted to play a traditional RTS i would just play one... more variation is better.

That said, DoW2 needed more polish gameplaywise, hopefully the inevitable expansions will add that...[/QUOTE]

See, the thing is that now some of the major franchises are starting to move towards this, for example C&C 4 is going to move away from resources and base building, but that's one of my favorite parts of RTS's. It also doesn't help that DoW2 hand atrocious tech support, and many, many issues, including LAN gaming issues. I understand that they wanted to take it in a new direction, but it's not what I was looking for. I just don't like the DoTA version of gameplay. Of course, that's just my personal preference, and if you like it, all the power to ya. It's just not my cup of tea. Thank god they kept the same style of play on SC2, or I'd be pissed.

Dude, if they had changed SC2 Blizzard would fall to a koreean rush in 5 seconds...

And i said i prefer more variation within the genre (which is why i was glad WC3 took a different route), not that i want all games to go that way... C&C needs Tiberium harvesting dammit...


Also, Universe at War had some interesting factions... too bad GfWL killed it... and then they stopped charging for Gold subscriptions... GATESSSS...

Bowielee;297454][quote=@Li3n;297396][quote=Bowielee said:

I hated DoW 2, the movement away from the traditional RTS format really grated on me.

Click to expand...

I never got this... if i wanted to play a traditional RTS i would just play one... more variation is better.

That said, DoW2 needed more polish gameplaywise, hopefully the inevitable expansions will add that...[/QUOTE]

See, the thing is that now some of the major franchises are starting to move towards this, for example C&C 4 is going to move away from resources and base building, but that's one of my favorite parts of RTS's. It also doesn't help that DoW2 hand atrocious tech support, and many, many issues, including LAN gaming issues. I understand that they wanted to take it in a new direction, but it's not what I was looking for. I just don't like the DoTA version of gameplay. Of course, that's just my personal preference, and if you like it, all the power to ya. It's just not my cup of tea. Thank god they kept the same style of play on SC2, or I'd be pissed.[/QUOTE]

While I like the direction some of the RTS games are heading in I don't hate base building with a passion and I thought DoW1 had enough base building to adhere to what people expect of an RTS while not being to burdened by it for fans like me who may like the baseless RTS games.



However on the topic of DoW2, I like it but as Lien has stated it could have been more robust as it lacks in some departments where RTS like it should shine. However I think DoW2 needed to go this road or at least not the road DoW1 took despite it being a good game. Ignoring the trend that may be affecting the genre, DoW2 was released not released ages after the last DoW1 expansion pack.

I think if DoW2 had of tried to be just be DoW1 with better graphics then at best the game would be viewed as mediocore or at worst be a sales flop. Not so much for gameplay but because Relic has just made a game that had three expansions each giving new factions to play and variably updates to game mechanics.

How many people do you think would be pleased if Relic tried to sell us DoW2 that was basically DoW1 but cut back the factions so they could sell more expansions in the future? I think to release a game within the time frame they wanted they had to diverge from DoW1 gameplay. Starcraft 2 will be fine playing closer to its predacessor because there has been a large amount of time between the two games of the series that a graphical update alone would probably be worth the time to play it.


I know that does not make you like DoW2 mechanics anymore and I am not trying to get you to like them. Just putting in my two cents why I think they diverged on the the DoW1 mechanics hehe.


I hope the Chaos rising campaign is better, I did not mind the DoW2's campaign but it was a little to Diabloesque for me not so much the loot but felt like I was dungeon crawling to much without tactics.

@Li3n said:

Dude, if they had changed SC2 Blizzard would fall to a koreean rush in 5 seconds...

And i said i prefer more variation within the genre (which is why i was glad WC3 took a different route), not that i want all games to go that way... C&C needs Tiberium harvesting dammit...


Also, Universe at War had some interesting factions... too bad GfWL killed it... and then they stopped charging for Gold subscriptions... GATESSSS...

Click to expand...

I loved UaW, it really did have some great ideas going on. Especially with the Masari, As usual with RTS games, I tend to chose the factions that are hard to master, but devastating when you do as opposed to the sledgehammer type of factions. The Novus were a bit OP, IMO, but overall, it had some fresh takes on traditional RTS mechanics, without turning it into a completely different genre.

Starcraft 2 will be fine playing closer to its predacessor because there has been a large amount of time between the two games of the series that a graphical update alone would probably be worth the time to play it.

Click to expand...

You totally underestimate how much the people that actually still play SC hate change... every damn new mechanic was denounced with fervour for months after it was announced... With SC2 Blizzard has their hands tied concerning how much new stuff they can do.

But SC2's SP will definitely be a new experience.

I still maintain that games don't have to be "innovative" to be good. My basic problem with DoW2 was that they took most of what I loved about the first game and gutted it for the sake of "innovation". There are many games that have come out recently that prove that they can be just as good by relying on what was done well in the past. For example, Torchlight, Punch Out, hell, even Prototype was basically Spider Man Web of Shadows with a different IP slapped over the top of it. I as your sig says alien, "this is new, and therefore better" isn't always the case.

I know in the age of ADD gaming, base building and tech trees may seem tiresome, but for me, without those aspects, it really isn't an RTS.

Bowielee said:

I still maintain that games don't have to be "innovative" to be good. My basic problem with DoW2 was that they took most of what I loved about the first game and gutted it for the sake of "innovation". There are many games that have come out recently that prove that they can be just as good by relying on what was done well in the past. For example, Torchlight, Punch Out, hell, even Prototype was basically Spider Man Web of Shadows with a different IP slapped over the top of it. I as your sig says alien, "this is new, and therefore better" isn't always the case.

I know in the age of ADD gaming, base building and tech trees may seem tiresome, but for me, without those aspects, it really isn't an RTS.

Click to expand...

^This^

I've been playing DoW: Dark Crusade and I gotta say I love it. DoW2 was crap by comparison.

AshburnerX;297930][quote=Bowielee said:

I still maintain that games don't have to be "innovative" to be good. My basic problem with DoW2 was that they took most of what I loved about the first game and gutted it for the sake of "innovation". There are many games that have come out recently that prove that they can be just as good by relying on what was done well in the past. For example, Torchlight, Punch Out, hell, even Prototype was basically Spider Man Web of Shadows with a different IP slapped over the top of it. I as your sig says alien, "this is new, and therefore better" isn't always the case.

I know in the age of ADD gaming, base building and tech trees may seem tiresome, but for me, without those aspects, it really isn't an RTS.

Click to expand...

^This^

I've been playing DoW: Dark Crusade and I gotta say I love it. DoW2 was crap by comparison.[/QUOTE]

I play Dark Crusade because Soul Storm sucks CPU power and something else.

I tried the DoW2 demo and couldn't get into it, though I appreciated that Relic tried to do something different. I didn't give it further chance with a purchase because of Relic's abysmal patch support of the Dawn of War expansions. I hear they've done better with DoW2 patches, but it's too little, too late.

I like DotA-style gameplay, but I'm mystified as to why, when they have the massive 40k universe to play in, they made the SP campaign for DoW2 even less linear (and shorter) than the previous games and expansions, which were already pretty short.

Bowielee said:

I still maintain that games don't have to be "innovative" to be good. My basic problem with DoW2 was that they took most of what I loved about the first game and gutted it for the sake of "innovation". There are many games that have come out recently that prove that they can be just as good by relying on what was done well in the past. For example, Torchlight, Punch Out, hell, even Prototype was basically Spider Man Web of Shadows with a different IP slapped over the top of it. I as your sig says alien, "this is new, and therefore better" isn't always the case.

Click to expand...

Well i wasn't saying being innovative is better, more like "if i wanted to play one like SC i would just play SC, or the million other RTS's like it"... seeing how we already have those it seems to me that it's better to find ways to make DoW2 better within it's current paradigm, giving people more choices within the RTS genre.

And innovation might not be necessary for one game, but it certainly is for the industry...

I know in the age of ADD gaming, base building and tech trees may seem tiresome, but for me, without those aspects, it really isn't an RTS.

Click to expand...

Them not using a tech tree like the ones in CoH was a real shame... but Space Marines building barracks and stuff isn't very fluffy... instead they should have done it like they did in CoH with the British, and have them build all sorts of defensive structures to hold ground etc...


@TeKeo

Same reason they cut the Ork campaign, and didn't release extra campaigns for the Eldar and Orks like they said they would when the game came out...

@Li3n said:

Same reason they cut the Ork campaign, and didn't release extra campaigns for the Eldar and Orks like they said they would when the game came out...

Click to expand...

:sigh:

It was one thing when CoH was short (but not as short as DoW); you only have so much room to play with concerning major WW2 battles that have been played in some form or fashion in other games for years already.

But there's so much potential story material in 40k, it's kind of unfathomable to me that you wouldn't spend more time crafting a story for the single-player campaign.

Hell, you could be lazy and make trigger-based campaign maps for the popular books. I know there were Gaunt's Ghosts race mods, but wouldn't it be cool to play story missions about the Sabbat worlds campaign?

Last Relic game that had a really good campaign was HW1... it sure would be nice if they put more effort into SP (CoH was ok, you at least got to spend more time on a map).

New trailer, with some nice Great Unclean One action: http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/dawn-of-war-ii-chaos-rising-factions-trailer

I still like DOW1 with Dark Crusade better than DOW2.

Khorne lover...

@Li3n said:

Khorne lover...

Click to expand...

Nah, we had a thread about this - I'm definitely in Tzeench's corner.

But I, too, don't much care for the change from RTS to RTT. Plus, my biggest disappointment was the paltry selection of armies, after I got used to picking from 9 in Soulstorm. I also liked the "map" dynamic in Dark Crusade's campaign mode better.

It's not a RTT if it has you battle for your resources... lets call it a hybrid or something.

And the 9 races thing is something expansions will fix, and it's crazy to expect them to put them all in from the get-go.

But i prefer a SP campaign with a well told story, so i dind't much care for DC and SS's "map" thing... would have been better as an alternative game mode then a campaign imo. (One of the newer C&C had something like that i believe).

And there's no way you're subtle enough for the Changer of Ways...

Kane's Wrath had the alt mode, I can't recall what it's called.
I have started getting some use out of DoW2 recently, though, via the Last Stand mode. I actually find that more fun than the regular multiplayer.

@Li3n said:

It's not a RTT if it has you battle for your resources... lets call it a hybrid or something.

Click to expand...

If I have to specifically tell a soldier when to throw a grenade, it's tactics, not strategy. If there's no base building, it's tactics, not strategy. If there's no tech tree, it's tactics, not strategy. Resource gathering alone is not enough.

And the 9 races thing is something expansions will fix, and it's crazy to expect them to put them all in from the get-go.

Click to expand...

Then maybe I'll like it better then. I refuse to like it better now on the promise of what might come in future years. That's like buying a car without all the seats in it and being glad about how much room for seats it has.

But i prefer a SP campaign with a well told story, so i dind't much care for DC and SS's \\"map\\" thing... would have been better as an alternative game mode then a campaign imo. (One of the newer C&C had something like that i believe).

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Kane's Wrath expansion had it (they called it "global conquest", but I wasn't much of a fan of it there. This part is just personal preference I guess, and I can agree to disagree.

And there's no way you're subtle enough for the Changer of Ways...

Click to expand...

Tzeench isn't about subtlety, he's about strength through intelligence, adaptation, innovation and using chaos and confusion to one's own advantage. I'd say that's right up my alley.

GasBandit said:

If I have to specifically tell a soldier when to throw a grenade, it's tactics, not strategy.

Click to expand...

Remind me what the last RTS where units used special abilities on their own was?!

If there's no base building, it's tactics, not strategy.

Click to expand...

So i guess none of the battles of the ancient world where they didn't build a fort beforehand where devoid of strategy?

If there's no tech tree, it's tactics, not strategy.

Click to expand...

There's a pretty stripped down one for the units, but as before, there where early RTS's that had no tech trees...

Resource gathering alone is not enough.

Click to expand...

That's why i said hybrid... having to worry about income and other macro stuff take it beyond what a classic RTT is.

IMO a RTT needs to be like chess, you get a limited number of pieces you need to move to defeat the enemy.


Sure, they went a little too far, would have been better if they allowed everyone to have turrets (and given Thunderfire cannons and equivalents to the engineer commanders ) and made the beacon things be able to created troops (via drops) and other stuff to make it give you more strategic options.

CoH did it better with the minimal buildings but plenty of defensive options (at least for the brits).

Then maybe I'll like it better then. I refuse to like it better now on the promise of what might come in future years. That's like buying a car without all the seats in it and being glad about how much room for seats it has.

Click to expand...

I was simply questioning your unrealistic expectations...

Tzeench isn't about subtlety, he's about strength through intelligence, adaptation, innovation and using chaos and confusion to one's own advantage. I'd say that's right up my alley.

Click to expand...

I guess we could always use more Chaos Spawn...

@Li3n;338530][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

If I have to specifically tell a soldier when to throw a grenade, it's tactics, not strategy.

Click to expand...

Remind me what the last RTS where units used special abilities on their own was?! [/QUOTE]
Supreme motherfuckin Commander. Never did I have to tell my spiderwalker when to use its uberlaser as opposed to its turrets. Never did I have to tell my fatboy to use its AA guns in addition to its artillery. In fact, I could just put engineers on patrol, and they would automaticall repair, assist with building, and gather mass resources automatically depending upon what was most needed in the situation.

Also, to belabor the obvious - Warcraft 3 had many special abilities you could put on autocast, such as the healer's healing spells. Some other RTSes have done the same.

If there's no base building, it's tactics, not strategy.

Click to expand...

So i guess none of the battles of the ancient world where they didn't build a fort beforehand where devoid of strategy?

Click to expand...

What happens during the battle is tactics. What happens before the battle, the preparation that alters the battle before it even starts - that's strategy.

The Definition of Strategy said:

Strategy is distinct from tactics. In military terms, tactics is concerned with the conduct of an engagement while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. In other words, how a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: the terms that it is fought on and whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy. Military strategy is the overarching, long-term plan of operations that will achieve the political objectives of the nation. It is part of the four levels of warfare: political goals, strategy, operations, and tactics.

Click to expand...

If there's no tech tree, it's tactics, not strategy.

Click to expand...

There's a pretty stripped down one for the units, but as before, there where early RTS's that had no tech trees...

Click to expand...

they had them in the form of build trees. Not just "here's your guys, and all you can do is reinforce them with more of the same guys." That kinda sounds close to your chesspiece definition, doesn't it?

Sure, they went a little too far, would have been better if they allowed everyone to have turrets (and given Thunderfire cannons and equivalents to the engineer commanders ) and made the beacon things be able to created troops (via drops) and other stuff to make it give you more strategic options.

Click to expand...

If they put in base/emplacement building, it would go a long way, I'll say that.

CoH did it better with the minimal buildings but plenty of defensive options (at least for the brits).

Click to expand...

COH was kind of its own beast unto itself. I think it's closer to the hybrid definition you were aiming for.

Tzeench isn't about subtlety, he's about strength through intelligence, adaptation, innovation and using chaos and confusion to one's own advantage. I'd say that's right up my alley.

Click to expand...

I guess we could always use more Chaos Spawn...

Click to expand...

Don't be jealous the raven god favors me more than you. Don't playa hate, appreciate.

Dude, you can't separate strategy and tactics... that's why no on in their right mind would say that chess has no strategy.

But in game terms i see RTT's as being more stripped down of any macro mechanics like resource management on the BF etc.

And yeah, CoH too was a hybrid, though more closer to the core RTS then DoW2...

Supreme motherfuckin Commander.

Click to expand...

Yup... a recent one trying to lessen micro-management (which was prevalent from Dune II itelf) in favour of larger scale stuff...

they had them in the form of build trees. Not just \\"here's your guys, and all you can do is reinforce them with more of the same guys.\\" That kinda sounds close to your chesspiece definition, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

They have tiers that cost resources to unlock, being in the same building isn't enough to say it's absent. It's not like it hasn't been done before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Colony http://4xscope.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/the-golden-age-rts-series-dark-colony/

I think you're also concentrating more on the skirmish/multiplayer aspect, whereas I was looking more at the single player campaign. The skirmish mode isn't quite as bad, but it's still not great.

And you completely skipped over Warcraft 3, etc. Also, I've read that there will be a lot of autocasted abilities in starcraft 2... apparently there have been some problems in beta with all-SCV armies for those playing terrans, because they autocast repair on each other, so it's still being ironed out.

Oh, if you meant SP then yeah, it's RTT... sorry, i had way too many arguments about this stuff and i simply assumed you where on about the MP.


But switch-able autocast doesn't count as much as you can control it yourself if you want and it's usually the better choice...

But let's not get started with auto cast in SC2... i still have bad memoeries from when people started screaming that it's gonna ruin the game because you don't have to cick as much and other crap...