TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Gaming Forum
-- Dawn of War 2
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Dawn of War 2

just announced recently that there will be a wh40k: dawn of war 2. not much info really about at the moment but they reckon there will be a non linear single player campaign and a co-op multi player campaign as well. if you buy the new soulstorm expansion for dawn of war 1 you can get an invite to a multiplayer beta further down the track. there is a short teaser but it doesnt show any gameplay, just some marine captain smacking an ork boss. running on an updated version of the company of heroes engine so looks pretty sweet! only 3 screens so far but i think they look nice. should be good!!



http://thq.vo.llnwd.net/o10/marketing/dawnofwar/screenshots/enlarged_view/Assault_Battle.jpg?height=600&width=800

http://thq.vo.llnwd.net/o10/marketing/dawnofwar/screenshots/enlarged_view/Orbital.jpg?height=600&width=800

http://thq.vo.llnwd.net/o10/marketing/dawnofwar/screenshots/high_resolution/Assault_jump.jpg?height=600&width=800

http://www.dawnofwar2.com/us/home

but why would you play this instead of forged alliance?

am looking forward to some actual gameplay vids though.

Graphics look great - too bad DOW was lame as hell.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but why would you play this instead of forged alliance?

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000

haha, im not kidding! DoW2 would have to be something truly special to get me to play it instead of the greatest RTS of all time.

RTS games that dont utilise calculated ballistics just feel cheap to me now.

why don't you stick your copy of FA up your ass. i mean you're gay for it enough you might actually like it.

give it a try.

quote:

Originally posted by BTG why don't you stick your copy of FA up your ass. i mean you're gay for it enough you might actually like it. give it a try.

Hey, don't be jealous your taste in gaming is shitty and uneducated! oh, and how does one be "gay for it" with a computer game?

enough about forged alliance already

quote:

Originally posted by Project-K Graphics look great - too bad DOW was lame as hell.

!
*falls off chair

why do you think it was lame? it was a great game, tried something a bit different in terms of resources, great background from 40k, interesting story, ongoing support from the developer for years, i thought it played great!

quote:

Originally posted by Philby interesting story!

Lol?

Story and dialogue felt like something a 5 year old would've come up with. I had to cringe my way through the SP campaign just because it was so terrible.

quote:

Originally posted by Project-K Lol? Story and dialogue felt like something a 5 year old would've come up with. I had to cringe my way through the SP campaign just because it was so terrible.

who plays RTS's for the campaign?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN who plays RTS's for the campaign?

this guy.
I like a good story.

though Dark Crusade and the latest expansion has terrible story

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN who plays RTS's for the campaign?

What about starcraft... or warcraft 3? Though I must admit... I'll probably end up actually having a look at SC once I get a new CPU.

the warcraft 3 campaign was ok, mostly only due to the cool cut scenes. but the overall plot didn't interest me for a second.

never played the SC campaign. i only played multiplayer.

The SC campaign was fantastic for it's time. Of course nowadays it feels a bit lame because the AI doesn't actually do anything, they just randomly suicide units into your defense one by one until you decide to mass up a large force and wipe the map clean. The story itself is easily one of the best I've seen in any video game.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the warcraft 3 campaign was ok, mostly only due to the cool cut scenes. but the overall plot didn't interest me for a second. never played the SC campaign. i only played multiplayer.

The WC3 plot wasn't anything new or special. I mean, it was well done, but you didn't miss anything.

I really wish they'd stuck with the awesome warcraft 2 style scrolling text briefings and kept the uber-cheesy 3d in game cutscenes to a minimum.

quote:

Originally posted by Project-K I really wish they'd stuck with the awesome warcraft 2 style scrolling text briefings and kept the uber-cheesy 3d in game cutscenes to a minimum.

Warcraft 2 had an awesome atmosphere. Everything from the music... to the look of things.

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter Warcraft 2 had an awesome atmosphere. Everything from the music... to the look of things.

Not only is Warcraft 2 my favorite RTS of all time, but its waaaaaaaay more fun than Warcraft 3 if you ask me.

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 Not only is Warcraft 2 my favorite RTS of all time, but its waaaaaaaay more fun than Warcraft 3 if you ask me.

the only thing better is walls and water units. otherwise, the depth is better and having heroes is way cooler

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the only thing better is walls and water units. otherwise, the depth is better and having heroes is way cooler

Theres tons of other things that are better!

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter Theres tons of other things that are better!

Agreed. Warcraft 3 would've had great potential if only they hadn't completely changed the presentation style and turned it into kiddy cartoons with magic and unicorns. Warcraft 2 had such a better feel overall. The briefings, the music, the concepts, the art.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the only thing better is walls and water units. otherwise, the depth is better and having heroes is way cooler

The heroes were indeed awesome, a very cool aspect that was a very welcome addition to the Warcraft universe.

That being said, there were a couple things that hindered WC3's fun.

For one, upkeep. In principle, it makes sense, you need to continuously spend money to maintain your army and base, etc. But, with upkeep, if you had too big of an army, building an even bigger army was simply impossible. You could only have a certain amount of units before getting MORE units was a straight up bad idea because you would accumulate resources so slow that rebuilding an army if your previous one got killed/destroyed would be impossible. (poorly written sentence but you know what I mean)

In Warcraft 2, it was standard for someone to have multiple bases and multiple gold mines. In Warcraft 3, I wish you good luck with that, it was near impossible to have even just TWO bases, because you couldn't build an army big enough to defend both, and town halls were so god damn expensive that expanding your army (unless your first gold mine became depleted) was pointless unless you absolutely had to.

Basically, WC3 games were quick and fast. Thats fine, but I liked the longer, drawn out battles of WC2 better. Sure, you could die a quick death in WC2 as well if someone rushes you properly, but if you survive it, its entirely possible a long game will ensue. Very little did this happen in WC3.

Now, I am NO Warcraft elitist. I can kick some serious ass in 2, but I wasn't anywhere near the best at 3. Maybe that's part of the reason why I share the opinion that I do, but I played a lot of 3, and yet, I could never have the same amount of fun that I had with 2.

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 The heroes were indeed awesome, a very cool aspect that was a very welcome addition to the Warcraft universe. That being said, there were a couple things that hindered WC3's fun. For one, upkeep. In principle, it makes sense, you need to continuously spend money to maintain your army and base, etc. But, with upkeep, if you had too big of an army, building an even bigger army was simply impossible. You could only have a certain amount of units before getting MORE units was a straight up bad idea because you would accumulate resources so slow that rebuilding an army if your previous one got killed/destroyed would be impossible. (poorly written sentence but you know what I mean) In Warcraft 2, it was standard for someone to have multiple bases and multiple gold mines. In Warcraft 3, I wish you good luck with that, it was near impossible to have even just TWO bases, because you couldn't build an army big enough to defend both, and town halls were so god damn expensive that expanding your army (unless your first gold mine became depleted) was pointless unless you absolutely had to. Basically, WC3 games were quick and fast. Thats fine, but I liked the longer, drawn out battles of WC2 better. Sure, you could die a quick death in WC2 as well if someone rushes you properly, but if you survive it, its entirely possible a long game will ensue. Very little did this happen in WC3. Now, I am NO Warcraft elitist. I can kick some serious ass in 2, but I wasn't anywhere near the best at 3. Maybe that's part of the reason why I share the opinion that I do, but I played a lot of 3, and yet, I could never have the same amount of fun that I had with 2.

All good points, I hardly ever played WC2 multiplayer though which is why I never missed some of these things. Upkeep was a great way of balancing the game for multiplay action. Unfortunate, but necessary to avoid the "slippery slope" mechanic.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN All good points, I hardly ever played WC2 multiplayer though which is why I never missed some of these things. Upkeep was a great way of balancing the game for multiplay action. Unfortunate, but necessary to avoid the "slippery slope" mechanic.

I'll admit that the upkeep feature was a cool little twist. If WC3 was just an addition of heroes and not much else, it would just be WC2 with different graphics. Sequels have to evolve past their predecessor, and Blizzard was only adding a little new challenge to the mix. I only feel that it decreased the amount of workable strategies as a result. Again, I'm not very good, I'll bet there are plenty of ways to win for each race that I've never even thought about, so this little 'fact' I'm throwing around may as well be considered an opinion instead. .

I had a blast with 3, but 2 is my preferred out of each.

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 I'll admit that the upkeep feature was a cool little twist. If WC3 was just an addition of heroes and not much else, it would just be WC2 with different graphics. Sequels have to evolve past their predecessor, and Blizzard was only adding a little new challenge to the mix. I only feel that it decreased the amount of workable strategies as a result. Again, I'm not very good, I'll bet there are plenty of ways to win for each race that I've never even thought about, so this little 'fact' I'm throwing around may as well be considered an opinion instead. . I had a blast with 3, but 2 is my preferred out of each.

the other thing that TFT (and when i speak of WC3 i really mean TFT) did over its predecessor was introduce proper diversity. the orcs and humans in 2 were practically identical units, just with different sprites.

but i agree, wc3 always felt a little restrictive strategy-wise. especially if you've been lucky enough to gorge upon the majesty that is FA on a high end machine

supcom is coming to the 360 champ, pick it up!!!!!!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.