Dawn of War 2

[Malakili]

The Beta is over now, and the game is going live tomorrow on steam.

Anyone else here picking it up?

[Trippy]

The Beta is over now, and the game is going live tomorrow on steam.

Anyone else here picking it up?

I probably will just to play the single-player game.

[Delmania]

Sign me up!

[Azazel]

I'll no doubt get it when it's cheap/discounted or steam-weekended. Mostly for the 40k licence aspect, sicne I still haven't played through any of the original DoW expensions yet.

[kildorn]

The campaign is actually a lot of fun. It's arcade-y though, and does not play like the multiplayer units at all (heavy weapons squads deploy once and can sweep their arcs automagically, your grenades explode instantly and gib everything, etc)

[Trippy]

WTF?

[kildorn]

Essentially the campaign is supposed to be a branching thing with more "raaar, here are the FUCKING SPACE MARINES BITCHES" thing than the multiplayer balance.

So your units are far and away more powerful than they should be (and you customize them with shit you pick up in missions), and set against stupid odds. Also: Boss fights with overpowered named characters.

It's very over the top action RPGish with RTS controls in the single player.

[Trippy]

That's just bizarre. I can understand minor changes like "hero" units that are only in the single-player game but I can't be the only person that "practices" MP RTS skills in the single-player game. By making the game totally different in single-player mode nothing I learn there transfers over to the MP game beyond the basic controls.

[kildorn]

Pretty much. CPU skirmishes allow you to practice, but in the actual single player, everything you control is a Hero unit.

You have a tac marine squad, but really it's a few tac marines following a hero sergeant with abilities you couldn't get in the real game. The scout squad you get is two scouts and a hero scout, etc. You pick four of them and drop into a mission instead of building units per a normal RTS single player.

It doesn't do anything to help you learn the multiplayer (I'd argue it HURTS you trying to learn the MP, since you'd think tac marines get grenades, and heavy weapons don't require setup time to change facing), but it's actually a lot of fun as it's own side thing.

[Trippy]

Oh well. I was hoping for a DoW that had a more tactical feel like their Company of Heroes series.

[kildorn]

The single player is far closer to a Diablo feel with RTS units. Multiplayer is CoH with shittier tanks and space elves.

[Rishathra]

Oh well. I was hoping for a DoW that had a more tactical feel like their Company of Heroes series.

It does have a more tactical feel, just not in the campaign.

[Delmania]

Freaking DRM crap.  I have the DVD, why do I need to go through Steam to play the game?

[Trippy]

Oh well. I was hoping for a DoW that had a more tactical feel like their Company of Heroes series.

It does have a more tactical feel, just not in the campaign.

I posted my MP thoughts near the top.

[gryeyes]

naively i purchased this game already having played the multiplayer portion. Relic pumped the campaign intensely. Such a disappointment. First off the multiplayer and single player are completely different. Units behave differently have different abilities etc. So while playing the campaign you are not learning how to actually play the online portion. The AI is non-existent. You engage little groups of enemies. While battling one spawn of guys the remainder of the maps forces stand still and wait for your approach. They do not adapt to what you are doing in any way. Also, you can reinforce your lost troops quickly and for free while the enemies forces will just remain in their static location. So any battle you can not just attack-move to victory you can return in 10 moments completely healed with the enemy forces are still decimated.

Through one playthrough of the campaign you will have played every map in the game 20 times. There are a VERY limited amount of mission types with a vast majority being. Defend this/kill that guy. The bosses sit stationary waiting till their army is killed in the middle of an arena with a large arcade style health bar over his head. The bosses also just repeat the same short sequence of attacks and also do not change their behavior regardless of difficulty setting. In fact there is no AI difference between an easy level AI or expert. You just receive more damage. Which for a game based on strategy seems hugely half assed.

The plot is generic and the RPG aspects are so shallow that they dont make up for having to play the same map/mission for the 20th time to complete the game. You also have no control of saving. There is an autosave that overwrites itself so you can not go back to any previous battles on your campaign. You have to replay the campaign to change any choices beyond the current autosave. But that doesn't matter because the other choices are the same limited choices of map/objective. The enemies on a given map really dont matter because they all behave the same and have damn near the same characteristics.

The game just seems unfinished.

[Morfiend]

I am going to have to agree. The game is just "shallow". The monster AI is HORRIBLE for the campaign. And the big star on the map showing where the end boss is just feels cheesy.

I like how they did cover and made it more small scale, but other than that, there are a lot of things that just feel dumbed down and what not.

On review gave the game a 9, saying that all the changes are for the "advancement of the genra", but I dont buy that. It just feels dumbed down.

[Malakili]

The single player campaign is somewhat uninspired, I'll admit.  However, the multiplayer is easily the most fun I've had in an RTS in a decade.  The fast pace, and the face that even extremely close games tend to last something like 30 minutes at max means that I don't have devote 2 hours to lpaying just in case a game turns into some epic 9 hour stuggle like in some other RTS games I've played (which to be fair, is hella fun sometimes, but i don't hve 9 hours to devote all the time).

In any event, the multiplayer is just what the doctor ordered for me

[Malakili]

Incidentaly, if anyone wants a team mate for co-op campaign or 3v3 games, poke me and I'll give you my windows live id.

[Delmania]

Incidentaly, if anyone wants a team mate for co-op campaign or 3v3 games, poke me and I'll give you my windows live id.

Samee here. 

[Riggswolfe]

Is anyone playing it? What do you think? I bought it but I'm waiting on a fix for the crashes before I play it much. From the little I played it combines space marines, loot, and some RPGish elements with Soulstorm type gameplay from DOW1. I also enjoy the fact that I don't have to build a damned base!

[kildorn]

I like it, but there's more opinions in the Steam subforum on it, it seems most of f13 didn't enjoy the single player at all.

[Morfiend]

The singleplayer is very lackluster. The multiplayer is much more fun, although kind of intimidating at first if you are not a big RTS multiplayer person.

[Riggswolfe]

Duh. I had totally blocked out the fact that it is connected to Steam in my mind. Don't know why. Probably because I'm playing single player and it is very iffy on my ever playing MP at all beyond possible skirmishes with friends. Maybe.

[Rishathra]

My roommate and I are having a lot of fun with the co-op campaign.  Solo, you're controlling four squads, but with a partner you each control two, as opposed to two full teams of four, which was what I was expecting.  It makes for a very tight, fun experience.

I'm also digging the plot.  Not so much for its merits, it's the standard "fight the bad guys and the Eldar too because they're dicks, even though you share the same enemy" story, but it is well presented and the voice acting is entertaining.  Thule in particular was done well.  Sounds a lot like Optimus Prime, which is a vast improvement over the jackass they used for him in the previous games.  When he

it's a very  moment.

Even the loot descriptions are entertaining.  Each piece has it's own little story.  My favorite was a jump pack where the original crafter inscribed "Truth Conquers All" on one exhaust nozzle.  Then a later custodian put "Victory Over Truth" on the other.

[Hindenburg]

Anyone having random slowdowns? Game runs fine for a few minutes, then slows to a crawl for 30 sec, then resumes at the normal pace. Tried restarting, running without background apps, no dice.

[Zzulo]

That's odd, I found the singleplayer to be pretty good.

It was both entertaining and challenging, and I expected the SP campaign to be shit, like every other DoW campaign in the series. But, it was suprisingly good. Made even better by the fact that you could co-op it with a friend if you wanted to.

[Zzulo]

I disagree with the guys before me. First of all, some guy said that "your units are way more powerful than they should be" and that the game lacks tactical depth. Seriously guy, play it on captain or primarch and tell me you can survive without tactics. Your space marines die horribly if someone just looks at them harshly and you have to actually be tactical and careful with how you play around with your little soldiers.

As for "playing the same maps over and over", yeah that's almost true. However, the maps change drastically depending on infestation which I personally thought was really neat. Overall I thought the campaign was great, much better than I expected. It's probably the most fun single player RTS game I've played since starcraft.

This is most definitely a step forward for the RTS genre in my opinion 

[Morfiend]

I think a lot of the gripes with the singleplayer have to do with the very lackluster npc AI. I mean, it amounts to "Span here, wait until aggroed, fight until dead".

[Zzulo]

Not sure I understand what else could be done?

I mean you had stationary spawns, ambushes or enemies that sought you out actively.

Not sure what people were expecting beyond that.

[Morfiend]

It's probably the most fun single player RTS game I've played since starcraft.

This is most definitely a step forward for the RTS genre in my opinion 

I disagree. I don't think it can be considered a step forward. Its a step sideways in to a different type of game, not an advancement of the RTS style.

[Hindenburg]

That'd be Halo Wars.

I kid, but Halo Wars sure as hell is a kickass console rts, and has just the perfect mouseless interface.
The fact that it's also fun (and the only halo game i liked since halo 1) helps. Shame ensemble died.

[gryeyes]

I disagree with the guys before me. First of all, some guy said that "your units are way more powerful than they should be" and that the game lacks tactical depth. Seriously guy, play it on captain or primarch and tell me you can survive without tactics. Your space marines die horribly if someone just looks at them harshly and you have to actually be tactical and careful with how you play around with your little soldiers.

As for "playing the same maps over and over", yeah that's almost true. However, the maps change drastically depending on infestation which I personally thought was really neat. Overall I thought the campaign was great, much better than I expected. It's probably the most fun single player RTS game I've played since starcraft.

This is most definitely a step forward for the RTS genre in my opinion 

See while i consider myself fairly pragmatic and open minded i just CANT understand where people are coming from. The single player campaign has absolutely 0 AI. Now i am not being dramatic when i say it has no AI. It actually contains NONE the enemy units wont even fucking move let alone respond in an intelligent way. There sole response is to "aggro" when you approach. How can a campaign where your enemies do absolutely nothing in response to you be considered "tactical". I beat the single player campaign on captain testing my theories. You can move-attack,retreat-reinforce using no special abilities and win...EVERY time.

Tactical depth?!?! Where for the love of god is this depth? Oh you find the fact that the maps are repeated with different types of generic enemy that do nothing but stand there and wait to die? Or that every map consists of you walking your little squads as a group down the same path for the 20th time? To engage the same enemies with the same exact lack of response from them?

How exactly is a map "changed drastically" when its populated by non-responsive fodder regardless of faction? And THQ must be some wizards to spin an obviously unfinished skeleton of a campaign as "revolutionizing" the genre.

Its fun to slaughter bad guys with wild abandon but havent you stopped and noticed the bad guys do absolutely dick but let you kill them?

[Hindenburg]

You know you could've just said that this game is as much of an RTS as diablo is an RPG.

Fuck, this game is Diablo.

[gryeyes]

Not sure I understand what else could be done?

I mean you had stationary spawns, ambushes or enemies that sought you out actively.

Not sure what people were expecting beyond that.

I expect an enemy that has options beyond "rush forward when aggressed" or "rush forward". The spawns behaviors are scripted individually they have no cohesive strategy. And while entirely scripted battles is not a negative per se. It becomes pretty bad when the only scripted behaviors are "charge when we see them" and "charge" none of the different units have different behaviors or AI to take advantage of their particular skills beyond "throw grenade randomly".

The AI is just utterly unresponsive to what is occurring in the game beyond their extremely limited scripted behaviors.

[gryeyes]

You know you could've just said that this game is as much of an RTS as diablo is an RPG.

Fuck, this game is Diablo.

That would do a disservice to both RPG's and RTS's.