5punk

Ignore the lore disparities, is it fun?

Hehulk wrote:Ignore the lore disparities, is it fun?

It would be more fun if they got it right, as opposed to sititng here swearing at it and thinking grrrrrr, thats wrong, thats wrong, thats wrong

But yeah, it seems alright, plays very differently I find, I can see the games being VERY short.

The beta has thusfar bored me

I tried a Spehs Mehreen vs Ork game, and a Eldar vs Tyranid game.
Although the captains are fun to use, and the visuals are shiny, they've removed practically everything I love about RTS games (See; Base building, resource gathering, turtling, big armies)

It seems to me that the general game plan is that you get a base where you call units down, then you capture and hold points of the map to gather resources. The only building you can make is a power generator. Dull dull dull

However, yeah the visuals are awesome. The tyranids look threatening, the warp spiders zip and zap across the map, the Space Marine tech dude shot up some ork bitches in a stylish manner, and the dreadnaught fucked some shit up. It's rather pretty, but I can see games becoming extremely repetative and short without the ability to permenantly expand your base to other parts of the map.

Makes it sound even more like it should have been a MMONG to me.

They have basically dropped a bunch of the conventions of the RTS. But personally, I don't think that necessarily a bad thing.

Ive yet to play enough of it to decide if its good or not, but ive enjoyed it so far.

I get confused with more than 4 types of building, sounds interesting to me.

its a lot more focused on the tactics behind fighting, rather than the "base build, get loads o men, rush the enemy" that RTS's normally have. Basically, instead of having a load of mens that are of little importance, its more about a couple of squads of mens who have a lot more detail behind them.

Its a lot more thinky, where normal RTS's tend to be reduced to one thing to think about: "do I have more mans?"

Grimmie wrote:Werds

So, you don't really like the game so far, because instead of having to manage a base, you have to manage the army and control ground properly

Grimmie wrote:It seems to me that the general game plan is that you get a base where you call units down, then you capture and hold points of the map to gather resources. The only building you can make is a power generator. Dull dull dull

Is this why you don't like World in Conflict?

deject wrote:Is this why you don't like World in Conflict?

WoC wasn't that good though, so that's not really fair.

what. it's really good.

Hehulk wrote:So, you don't really like the game so far, because instead of having to manage a base, you have to manage the army and control ground properly

Yes, pretty much.
If you don't think there's a different between a bloke with a gun, and a barracks/research academy/resource operation/base expansion, then there's something wrong.

I think blokes with guns are more fun than buildings. Bases are always a means to an end, and while in most RTSs I will sit there and attempt to turtle like mad I do have a huge soft spot for games that give you armies not bases to play with (See Ground Control 1).

It rewards you more for being agressive than by knowing how to tech quickly which all too often these days becomes the I win mechanic in RTSs

But you can still do the "KILL EVERYTHING WITH MEN" thing alongside buildings.
I like shooting stuff up, it just feels to me that they've simplified it by removing a massive chunk of gameplay.

Grimmie wrote:I like shooting stuff up, it just feels to me that they've simplified it by removing a massive chunk of gameplay.

I certainly don't agree with that. They have taken out a massive chunk of the gameplay, yes. But then the bit that they have left they have added shitloads to.

I don't think its really a matter of "better" or "worse" just "different". Personally, I like it, so far. Time will tell which I prefer, but I'm certainly not going to write it off just because its doing things differently.

narf, the whole base building thing has always got on my tits a little, for a number of reasons. Like Hehulk says, a lot of the time in traditional RTS's, the winner is the person who can build bases the fastest, and get the world ending uber-tech. C&C Generals was the worst for that: in most games units were almost irrelevant, and games were won by whoever got their superweapon up fastest.

Also, from a more story based point of view: base building is a little ridiculous. Who the hell builds a base within spitting distance of their enemies, and then throws nukes at it?

Most RTS games are meant to be played with an equal balance of attacks and base building, it just happens that most 5punkers prefer to build up instead of rush - that's why we usually get stuck on late-tech weapons. I'm not saying DOWII is worse or better, just that I don't enjoy the direction it's taken.

Last nights game decided a couple of things for me:

1)it doesn't make the game that much shorter if you are reasonably similar in skill level. If you are not, it totally does.

2)I don't miss the base building part at all, as the fighty is so good.

3)I don't think its any better a way of doing things than before.

4)I don't think its any worse either. Its better in some ways and less good in others, and personally, they balance out exactly.

http://uk.pc.ign.com/dor/objects/142435 ... 11509.html

Sums it up for me pretty well.
I'm a traditionalist, I guess.

Grimmie wrote:I'm a traditionalist, I guess.

Old man syndrome

Killavodka wrote:
Old man syndrome

Eeeh, when I were a lad all this were buildings. Not a field in sight.