Isn't DoW 2 Basically an RTS MOBA?

[Crazy Alchemy]

I mean basically a MOBA where you control the creep waves with really small maps with lanes?

I mean compared to Dark Crusade which had some big maps and let you build bases and manage armies instead of fixed bases and less armies on small maps.

It may be a good game in it's own right but it's more action oriented and has pretty much all of the RTS elements gutted, it's not really a proper sequel because it's a completely different sort of game from Dark Crusade.

[Deus]

No it`s realtime strategi with linestory.

[molul]

Campaign is more like a mix of RPG and RTS without base building. I liked that Relic went for a different thing.

[molul]

Action-RPG with some RTS elements sounds fair. But RTS means just "Real Time Strategy", and well, the strategy is on the squads you select for a mission, on the equipment you give them, and on when and where is it best to use a certain squad. Not the standard strategy we're used to, but there is.

It would definitely be better if there were more missions types. I think I remember that Retribution, while short, had unique missions, like every mission had its own mechanics. In vanilla and Chaos Rising, there's too much "go from A to B killing everything on the way, and kill the boss if there's any". Still, it was very fun for me. I felt much involved on the battle.



PS: MoH = Medal of Honor?

[molul]

And yet, that risk Relic took is much appreciated by some people.

[Crazy Alchemy]

They could have made the game as a seperate title, and carried on the legacy of the blood ravens under a different name. Calling it Dawn of War 2 is the problem, a good sequel keeps all the core mechanics that people love and improves and expands on them, a game that takes out or changes the core mechanics may be a good game but it's a terrible sequel because it has betrayed many of it's fans and the formula that made the game what it is.

So Dawn of War 2 may be a good game for what it is, taken as a stand alone product, but it's a terrible sequel to Dawn of War, it betrayed many fans of Dark Crusade and alienated many core gamers, it may have passed in the metascores but there was a lot of flack and backlash and for THQ it was technically a failure.

Add to that, that it launched with Games for Windows Live DRM, which was inexcusably bad, and completely ineffective at stopping piracy. That's where I played it, I felt the game was incredibly dumbed down and streamlined personally, but that's because I was viewing it as a sequel, if I had viewed it as a stand alone game I might have had a blast despite GFWL.

[molul]

Well GFWL wasn't a good movement, we all know that. And fortunately it will be removed very soon (it is already removed in the open beta).

But about the game, I must say I tried DOW and DOW2 demos in Steam a few times. I couldn't enjoy DOW, as I found it a bit aged in terms of control (perhaps because I was comparing it to Starcraft 2). But DOW2, at first I said "This is not RTS!", then someone adviced me to play it as if I knew nothing about RTS or previous DOW. And then I found a very fun and original game. Not deep RTS, but a brand new thing built from that. And yes, maybe closer to MOBAs than to pure RTSs, but much more fun than MOBAs (which I'm a bit tired of, honestly).

It's not the typical sequel, as it removes a lot of the previous game and its expansions, but I applaud Relic for having the balls of trying something new when they could have just built from DOW. They seem to have left pure base building RTS for COH games, which is not a bad move IMO. Making the same kind of game for both IPs would result in self-competition, while having a "classic" RTS and some kind of "modern" RTS, opens your company to broader audiences. I can see many non RTS fans enjoying DOW2, while not enjoying DOW, COH or Starcraft, to name a few of classics.

Seeing what they did with DOW2, I'm so hyped about what they could do for DOW3. At least I hope they let people play with different factions with their different campaigns, and not only the Blood Ravens (or other races with the same missions, as in Retribution).

[Crazy Alchemy]

A good sequel takes the core mechanics and improves them, adding features and improving controls sometimes streamlining them but never at the cost of core content.

Dawn of War 2 isn't a proper sequel, it's a completely different kind of game, and it should have never been called a sequel. Calling it a sequel is a big reason why it got so many negative reactions.

[molul]

Originally posted by Communist Gamer:

A good sequel takes the core mechanics and improves them, adding features and improving controls sometimes streamlining them but never at the cost of core content.

Not neccesarily. In fact, Starcraft 2 is very criticized for doing that (and I also like SC2 as it is).

Originally posted by Communist Gamer:

Dawn of War 2 isn't a proper sequel, it's a completely different kind of game, and it should have never been called a sequel. Calling it a sequel is a big reason why it got so many negative reactions.

Well, for some people it's just "Do I like the game? Then it doesn't matter wether it's a sequel or a new IP".

But I get it: you don't like the game ;)

[Crazy Alchemy]

Originally posted by molul:

Originally posted by Communist Gamer:

A good sequel takes the core mechanics and improves them, adding features and improving controls sometimes streamlining them but never at the cost of core content.

Not neccesarily. In fact, Starcraft 2 is very criticized for doing that (and I also like SC2 as it is).

That's not what it's really criticized for. People have a lot of criticisms of Starcraft 2, being an RTS game with enhanced core mechanics isn't one I've ever seen or heard.

Originally posted by molul:

Well, for some people it's just "Do I like the game? Then it doesn't matter wether it's a sequel or a new IP".

But I get it: you don't like the game ;)

It matters whether it's a sequel or not because sequels have a legacy to hold up to, even if it's a good game by itself it's a bad sequel because it's not even the same sort of game. It could have just been called something else, besides Dawn of War "2".

And it's not about whether I like the game, it's about whether it's a proper sequel. It isn't, it's a completely different kind of game, it doesn't even have base building mechanics it's not a sequel at all and should have never been called a sequel.

[molul]

Well it isn't a sequel for your conception of what a good sequel should be, that's for sure :) I don't mind if they want to surprise me, specially when the surprise is pleasant.

[DarkChaplain]

Personally, I believe DoWII's gameplay mechanics to be vastly superior to those from the first series. They're also much more true to the actual 40k lore, which the first Dawn of Wars clashed with.

...and I'm really glad they made away with the base building. That's not how Space Marines, Orks or Eldar operate, not at all.

[Crazy Alchemy]

Originally posted by DarkChaplain:

Personally, I believe DoWII's gameplay mechanics to be vastly superior to those from the first series.

But whether it's superior or not, it throws out core mechanics that many people loved.

Also, base building makes sense in the context of the Dark Crusade, remember the bases they built were drop down or warp in support structures, temporary bases of operation.

[Gorbles]

Strategy is strategy. RTS games often also offer tactical choices, however the prevailing mechanic is real-time strategy. What squads to build, when to build them and in what order. The same goes for their upgrades and abilities (though ability management is micro/tactical, whereby build order is macro/strategic).

You're free to be disappointed by the game, and it's a shame that it doesn't grab you in the way others have, however I think you're painting the game in a very negative light and basing your argument about "strategy" on semantics.

It throws out core mechanics, and introduces other mechanics. This is how innovation occurs in gaming. To keep everything the same forever means that nothing would ever change. And no, the classic RTS model is not perfect, and has plenty of room for improvement. This is a genre that has barely changed since Starcraft and the early Warcraft games in the late 90s. Why? Because people like you seem to be resistant to change, instead of letting it happen and simply choosing not to play the games that change too much for your liking.

[molul]

Originally posted by Communist Gamer:

Originally posted by DarkChaplain:

Personally, I believe DoWII's gameplay mechanics to be vastly superior to those from the first series.

But whether it's superior or not, it throws out core mechanics that many people loved.

And brought in new mechanics that many people loved as well.

Pleasing all players is impossible. Developers tend to do what you say: evolve from an initial idea. That's comfortable for them and for some fans, while others demand some innovation. But innovation will be rejected by many fans as well, so... Personally, I appreciate that developers take risks like Relic with DOW2. It's not an easy thing to do, you need some balls to do it.

[Crazy Alchemy]

Originally posted by Dolt Gorb:

Strategy is strategy.

If DoW2 counts as a strategy game at all it's an extremely minimalist one and only by the most liberal definition. Your interpretation of what makes a strategy game could be applied to games across all genres, even JRPG's could be strategy games on the basis of who you choose to have in your active party.

Whether DoW 2 is a good game or not is a separate issue from whether it's a good sequel. It's not, it's a terrible sequel because it's practically nothing like the game it claims to be a sequel to. It's a completely different sort of game.