Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War 2

I can't wait to try the multiplayer beta out, and I do own Soulstorm (oddly enough, it was the first War 40k game I bought after seeing a few people play it at a LAN Party) and the Plat Collection.

I thought the Soul Storm campaign was terrible and loved the campaign in DoW and Winter Assault.

I personally enjoyed the Risk-style campaigns they had in the last two expansions. While I wasn't a big fan of the flyers, I loved being able to play as Tau and Sisters of Battle. Necrons were an interesting choice too. Never even bothered trying the Dark Eldar beyond the demo for Soulstorm.

Edwin wrote:

I thought the Soul Storm campaign was terrible and loved the campaign in DoW and Winter Assault.

I'm with Edwin. I much prefered the campagin in the DoW and Winter Assault of the Dark Crusade and Soulstorm. I didn't get any sense of story from the Risk style campaigns. And that is why I play the single player campaigns, for a story. If I didn't get that, I'm just playing random battles. At which point, why am I not just playing a multiplayer match?

Strewth wrote:

I personally enjoyed the Risk-style campaigns they had in the last two expansions. While I wasn't a big fan of the flyers, I loved being able to play as Tau and Sisters of Battle. Necrons were an interesting choice too. Never even bothered trying the Dark Eldar beyond the demo for Soulstorm.

Tkyl wrote:
Edwin wrote:

I thought the Soul Storm campaign was terrible and loved the campaign in DoW and Winter Assault.

I'm with Edwin. I much prefered the campagin in the DoW and Winter Assault of the Dark Crusade and Soulstorm. I didn't get any sense of story from the Risk style campaigns. And that is why I play the single player campaigns, for a story. If I didn't get that, I'm just playing random battles. At which point, why am I not just playing a multiplayer match?

Tkyl mentioned one of my issues with the meta campaign they had in Dark Crusade. I really missed the story from the base game and Winter Assault. My other problem was that I was sick of recapping a map territory repeatedly because the AI was able to take it back from me. The constant harassment of territories into turned the campaign into nothing but skirmishes that were boring as hell.

Haakon7 wrote:

Also, you not being able to play for the month of February makes me sad.

Thanks for the sympathy kind sir. Let's hope we can go on a righteous bug hunt when I finish up at the end of March

The PC Gamer UK review was also out Friday - not quite as enthusiastic as the one in the Sweden mag mentioned above I think, 82% overall

There's a lot in the review but Ill list a few quick points...

Single Player Campaign

- The RPG elements are definately the most dominant and is really good fun.

- Sounds like you need to use proper strategy rather than "select all and right-click", almost sounds like you need to treat it more like a World of Warcraft instance run.

- The campaign is "enormous" BUT also *very* repetitive (a couple of mission types - boss fights and "defend the shrine" missions are apparently "repeated to the point of insanity"). All the maps are also pretty similar to one another, as are the missions on offer.

- The sense of progress through the game seems more along the lines of the way it is in a standard action RPG (i.e the focus is on upgrading your characters rather than anything else). However it also sounds like they've fallen into the trap whereby you get a lot of options for upgrading your team BUT there is really only the one path though the skill-tree, etc that you can take to make your team effective at later levels.

Co-op

- Sounds like the co-op is fun and works well but you only play using the host's squads (split 2 each per player) so you aren't leveling up your own if your playing someone else's game.

Multiplayer

- Sounds much the same as the previous game but a good deal faster (matches lasting around 15min on average). I assume that's faster anyway - never really played the original in multiplayer. Overall it is "wholly enjoyable madness", and apparently the Tyranids work well and are in dire need of a campaign of their own.

Overall

- The overall feel for the game in the review was : a whole lot of really neat ideas (satisfying action-RPG, good co-op, great multiplayer/skirmish game) but none of the elements are particularily outstanding. One line from the review sums it up : "Relic started with a classic game and have made a merely great one out of it".

Edwin wrote:
Strewth wrote:

I personally enjoyed the Risk-style campaigns they had in the last two expansions. While I wasn't a big fan of the flyers, I loved being able to play as Tau and Sisters of Battle. Necrons were an interesting choice too. Never even bothered trying the Dark Eldar beyond the demo for Soulstorm.

Tkyl wrote:
Edwin wrote:

I thought the Soul Storm campaign was terrible and loved the campaign in DoW and Winter Assault.

I'm with Edwin. I much prefered the campagin in the DoW and Winter Assault of the Dark Crusade and Soulstorm. I didn't get any sense of story from the Risk style campaigns. And that is why I play the single player campaigns, for a story. If I didn't get that, I'm just playing random battles. At which point, why am I not just playing a multiplayer match?

Tkyl mentioned one of my issues with the meta campaign they had in Dark Crusade. I really missed the story from the base game and Winter Assault. My other problem was that I was sick of recapping a map territory repeatedly because the AI was able to take it back from me. The constant harassment of territories into turned the campaign into nothing but skirmishes that were boring as hell.

Personally, I'm on the fence. What I loved about the Risk style campaigns from Dark Crusade, I did enjoy the campaign from DoW and Winter Assault. However, only having one race to do them with was a huge letdown.

What I really liked about the Risk campaigns was how it brought back the tabletop campaigns that I played in the stores years ago when I lived in Maryland. World domination may be somewhat boring and lacking, but there was a sort of visceral pleasure there in it to me.

That's where we differ. I never touched anything tabletop related and are more used to traditional RTS stuff.

From reading the review I don't think EITHER of those two descriptions (risk style game or more traditional RTS) come even close to what this game is like in campaign mode. I think you do choose from a selection of missions on a particular planet (a "main quest" and various side missions) but it sounds like it's gone so far down the action RPG route that each mission is more like a little mini wow-instance (with agro ranges, tanks, bosses, loot drops, etc) with the big focus on levelling and upgrading your squads gear.

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just..different.

stevenmack wrote:

From reading the review I don't think EITHER of those two descriptions (risk style game or more traditional RTS) come even close to what this game is like in campaign mode. I think you do choose from a selection of missions on a particular planet (a "main quest" and various side missions) but it sounds like it's gone so far down the action RPG route that each mission is more like a little mini wow-instance (with agro ranges, tanks, bosses, loot drops, etc) with the big focus on levelling and upgrading your squads gear.

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just..different.

Um.. yeah..... so how about that upcoming Company of Heroes expansion? They are going to keep to RTS formula right.. right? At least it appears they didn't mess with the multiplayer too much. I guess I just expected the co-op to be more like Red Alert 2 (but better) not WOW.

Holy Moly is this true?!?!

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/12/wa...

I am wholly unprepared. But then again I also didn't pick up Soulstorm.... sniffle.

Can someone try justifying pre-closed-beta state game reviews? What's the sense in reviewing a game that is (hopefully) bound to undergo bug fixes and balance changes?

Follow-up self-corrective post:

'parently I'm way behind the curve. I don't know what makes me sadder: lack of a beta key, or the fact that my aging gaming radar is indicative of my aging brain.

*double sniffle*

stevenmack wrote:

From reading the review I don't think EITHER of those two descriptions (risk style game or more traditional RTS) come even close to what this game is like in campaign mode. I think you do choose from a selection of missions on a particular planet (a "main quest" and various side missions) but it sounds like it's gone so far down the action RPG route that each mission is more like a little mini wow-instance (with agro ranges, tanks, bosses, loot drops, etc) with the big focus on levelling and upgrading your squads gear.

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just..different.

Everything I've seen so far of the game has put the old Bungie Myth series in my head. Those games brought in a lot of RPG elements to real-time strategy - you never gather resources or build new soldiers, you gain experience and level up your units, and everything is based around using the special abilities of each class correctly. I would be really worried about the RPG elements diluting the strategic play if those games hadn't proved that it could be done very well and still feel like an RTS.

fieldsurgeon wrote:

Holy Moly is this true?!?!

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/12/wa...

I am wholly unprepared. But then again I also didn't pick up Soulstorm.... sniffle.

Can someone try justifying pre-closed-beta state game reviews? What's the sense in reviewing a game that is (hopefully) bound to undergo bug fixes and balance changes?

Yes, you're now the third person to link that.

edit - Not trying to be mean here or anything, there's been a lot of post skimming ITT, it seems.. Welcome to GWJ, btw

Oh my god, have you guys seen this story on Joystiq? Here's a lin...
No, I just can't make myself do it.

At any rate, I am bravely staying out of the beta and waiting for a finished game.

I think this beta is more likely along the lines of Valve's beta of Left for Dead. The engine is based on Company of Heroes, so it's not entirely new. Time will tell.

What? No Squats?

Crouton wrote:

What? No Squats?

Squats didn't make the 3rd edition cut did they?

In fact i dont remember them being used after Epic Warhammer was released.

Edit: after reading the article it mentions they were discontinued.

They always seemed kind of silly to me. Back when I used to play Epic (fka Space Marine) I had a friend who had a huge squat army who tenaciously cleaved to the strange assertion that squats weren't space dwarves.

Crouton wrote:

They always seemed kind of silly to me. Back when I used to play Epic (fka Space Marine) I had a friend who had a huge squat army who tenaciously cleaved to the strange assertion that squats weren't space dwarves.

Yeah, and Eldar aren't space elves.

They're Protoss.

Or Space Marines aren't space knights.

Or Orks aren't... orcs.

Crouton wrote:

They always seemed kind of silly to me. Back when I used to play Epic (fka Space Marine) I had a friend who had a huge squat army who tenaciously cleaved to the strange assertion that squats weren't space dwarves.

I miss playing Epic...

LobsterMobster wrote:
Crouton wrote:

They always seemed kind of silly to me. Back when I used to play Epic (fka Space Marine) I had a friend who had a huge squat army who tenaciously cleaved to the strange assertion that squats weren't space dwarves.

Yeah, and Eldar aren't space elves.

They're Protoss. :D

Tykl, that is much more creative and hilarious than Admiral Ackbar.

Hmmm those points about the single player don't sound so good (the repetitiveness), however, DoW1 and expansions are one of my favorite games ofall time, and I never touched the singleplayer past the first 2 missions or so.

As long is the multiplayer is good, i am going to be very happy.

Crouton wrote:

What? No Squats?

Oh, that article takes me back. The first miniatures I ever bought were Squats, and the first army I ever fielded was a 500 Squat force with the thin black 2nd edition army lists (with loads of wargear and awesome armor because I didn't have many miniatures.)

Good times.

ranalin wrote:
Crouton wrote:

They always seemed kind of silly to me. Back when I used to play Epic (fka Space Marine) I had a friend who had a huge squat army who tenaciously cleaved to the strange assertion that squats weren't space dwarves.

I miss playing Epic... :(

GW rerelased epic rules in Rogue Trader a few years ago. Brought em up to date and everything, so it might be worth looking into considering that Forge World makes(or at least used to make) resin epic minis. Plus you can still get them backorder through GW Mail Order

On Squats, you'd have to be out of your head to like those crazy space dwarves in golfball power armor.

AnimeJ wrote:

On Squats, you'd have to be out of your head to like those crazy space dwarves in golfball power armor. :P

Dwarves <--- Worst race ever.
Squats (Space Dwarves) <--- I was wrong. This is the worst race ever.

Tkyl wrote:
AnimeJ wrote:

On Squats, you'd have to be out of your head to like those crazy space dwarves in golfball power armor. :P

Dwarves <--- Worst race ever.
Squats (Space Dwarves) <--- I was wrong. This is the worst race ever.

You're both out of your heads on what I can only assume is pure, uncut wrong, with a combined street value of 4¢.