Dawn of War 2

[nonamermcgee]

The multiplayer beta was cool and all. I love the classic Relic RTS like anyone does, and I'm not a huge RTS person. I wasn't blow away by the beta, but I thought it was good.

Then I tried the SP after getting it off Steam. DAMN, this is cool! I really like the RPG elements. Not for everyone I'm sure, but this is the first RTS to really capture my interest in keeping my unique units alive. I never got into WC3, I know it had hero units. I never play a lot of RTS Campaigns as they always lose my interest very fast. Company of Heroes was the first one I really played through without dropping out after a few missions.

Very cool idea done well.

What is the opinion of DOW2 around here?

[Chris]

I played the beta for many, many, many hours. I can't wait to get home and play the single-player--I've already downloaded it via Steam by logging into my home PC remotely--but I'm stuck at this stupid airport in Las Vegas with a delayed flight.

[Nappi]

I'm interested in buying this game because the space marines are so badass, because I loved Company of Heroes (although this game will probably be very different) and because Nick praised the single player campaign in the latest podcast.

I only had time to play one skirmish match against a computer in DoW2 beta, and took a severe beating. This probably had a lot to do with me not knowing the gameplay mechanics and the units, and I would probably do a lot more better after some tutorials and practise. However, one aspect that worried me was how hectic the game was. I know it sounds stupid and holds true for skirmish in most RTS games, but I rarely enjoy micromanaging units in four fronts in a terrible hurry without being able to pause the game.

That's why I would be interested to know how is the single player campaign in that front (because that is what I would be playing anyway). Are you constantly in hurry or do you have time to plan your attacks carefully? How often do you have to spread your units all over the map? What proportion of the missions have to do with controlling victory points? And so on..

I guess I would really like to know how it compares to Company of Heroes in that front. That games had the perfect speed for me and I really felt like I was able to use every unit's special abilities to their full potential. It was one of the few RTS games I have played that I was really felt able to strategize as much as I wanted. At least after I found a way to remap the pause button..

Also: "Oh Yeah!"

[Nachimir]

They had that parked outside the Eurogamer Expo last year:

http://flickr.com/photos/pixellabphotos/tags/rhino/

[Scrobbs]

I have a wargear GfWL key available if anyone wants it?

[nonamermcgee]

Gah the campaign system setup is so simple and a small effort, yet works so well and is addicting. Kudos whoever thought that up.

This makes me want to play Diablo2. I feel like I'm playing the love child of Dawn of War and Diablo2.

Anyhow, great game, I haven't even touched the MP yet and I sunk a lot of hours into this weekend.

[DanJW]

Ah yes. Timaste you reminded me of something that occurred to me during whilst listening to week's podcast.

You see, action RPG's (and maybe even all isometric RPGs) are actually derived from RTS. We classify them as two separate genres now and so the idea seems absurd. But think about where they came from - for instance the first Diablo game grew out of the Warcraft engine. In all their mechanics they have so much in common. Even turn based RPG's have much in common with turn-based Strategy games. The only difference is the scale and the subject, and the level design, if you will.

This has been my theory for a while but people tend to just stare at me like I'm mad when I bring it up.

[brkl]

Controlling a single character seems like a drastically different proposition to controlling groups, even if parts of the gameplay was similar. If C&C was entirely made up of the commando levels, it would not have been called an RTS, even if the engine was exactly the same.

Turn based RPGs certainly have a whole lot in common with turn based strategy games, so much so that many early RPGs would fit the latter category much more neatly.

(Ehm, I don't think I've ever played those missions. I think I saw it played once. You only control a single unit, right? Well, I'm sure you get my point...)

EDIT:

Oh, oh! Don't forget roguelikes! There's more to Diablo than RTS ancestry.

[nonamermcgee]

Both really good point

[kuddles]

So what's with this dichotomy with opinions on this thing? While I wasn't crazy about DoW, I love both action-RPGs and RTS titles without dirt farming, and adored both World in Conflict and Company of Heroes.

I'm just nervous about taking the jump because I'm not much of a multiplayer fan, and it seems that every person is talking about how amazing the single player campaign is, even though almost every review talks about how weak it is.

Anyone want to push me over the edge?

[DanJW]

*push*

[brkl]

Even I feel like buying this, and I've had a deep dislike of RTS games (Total War not included) for years.

[Scrobbs]

Even I feel like buying this, and I've had a deep dislike of RTS games (Total War not included) for years.

Empire is out in 5 days, so I'd wait if that's the case.

[brkl]

I can't buy either, I don't have a computer that could run them.

[Nachimir]

The Angry Marines are a /tg/ homebrew chapter of the Space Marines. They are angry for the Emprah. All the time. Angry Marine tactics focus on getting into melee as quickly as possible, and proceeding to open up several crates of FUCK YOU in the direction of the enemies of the Imperium. There is even a Codex: ANGRY MARINES detailing the special rules required to adequately represent their rage.

The Angry Marines employ a variety of weapons notably different to the standard Space Marine arsenal. This includes dual powerfists, powerfeet, powerbats, powerwrenches, and even the Predator Angrinator, a modified version of the Predator Whirlwind artillery tank that fires the Angry Marines themselves directly into the enemy ranks. These items are detailed in Codex: ANGRY MARINES.

Angry Marines.

[mkenyon]

Necro thread.

1.8 patch came out today. The new last stand mode is a blast, but I suspect it'll be quite frustrating with randoms. The best way for me to explain it would be an MMO-esque encounter, with each hero needing to use specific skills at certain times, as well as getting the right mix of hero types in there.

The leveling system makes it really addictive, as you level up you gain access to new wargear which gives new abilities and stats.

Also, the MP balancing patch was quite nice. Fixed a ton of problems, but unfortunately, the Nids still suck.

[Scrobbs]

If only Relic had used games for windows or steam instead of their own half baked netcode based on Quazal. Company Of Heroes would still be the game to beat.

[mkenyon]

CoH > DoW 2 for me as well, at least in multiplayer.

Nobody in my gaming group plays CoH though, so I'm stuck with DoW2.

[Scrobbs]

CoH beat everything RTS. No contest - it took them about a year to rebalance after Opposing Fronts, plus the matching system wasn't too hot.

[Coldkill]

I don't really like DoW2, I felt it was very repetitive and well... rubbish.

[mkenyon]

Did you play any of the MP? That's where the meat and potatoes are, IMO. The campaign can be fun when you want a little co-op action.

[Garple]

I like KFC, but not as much as BK. I prefer NBC but will settle for ABC once in a while.

[Coldkill]

I did play MP, I felt that's where the repetitiveness came out. Really it played like ring around the roses in that you would just go around the map recapturing control points, until someone threw a spanner in the works and decided to defend a point once.

[Patters]

Already mentioned it to a few of you, but damn this game is good, I mean really good. I really enjoy only having a few squads over a ton, making coordinating an attack is both simpler, but also more challenging.

[Sleepdance]

I've been playing single player for last month and I loved every minut of it...until I found level limit at 20.