bittah.com!~ Warhammer 40k MMO - Page 2
Tribes 1, Tribes 2 and Midair gaming hub for the Australia and New Zealand communities.
We don't mention vengeance or ascend.
Moderator: Super Moderators
- Recent Topics
- Bittah all time greatest moments
- Starsiege: Tribes turns 20 years old today.
- Westworld (HBO)
- My Midair movie / montage - "Don't do it for the views"
- Tribes Ascend Modding
I personally didn't mind Relic's Space Marine either, except the writing was weak, it had quicktime events as part of the boss battles, and limited depth of gameplay due to somewhat repetitive combat - but i did enjoy it. It's multiplayer was surprisingly good - simple, but really worked - BUT it didnt have dedicated servers. It worked like console matchmaking and no matter what i did, even in the prime of its release, i could never play it with more than 1-2 bars of latency (of 5). It would consistently match you with overseas players, which completely fucked it and put it in the don't play pile.
The recent Space Hulk remake is likewise pretty good fun - although obviously low budget, but for a remake of the earlier game, it's done a pretty good job.
Beyond that, there's not a lot else i'd reccomend. The few fantasy based RTS have been crap, and the plethora of cheap titles like the recent tower defense style game, likewise blech.
I really can't see this MMO being good - much like the failed attempt before it simply bit off more than it could chew. Making an MMO is different from the above games, there's infinitely more variables at play, and in order to make a game that players will actually play requires serious money investments and time. I don't think any big companies would be taking a punt on 40k - or even fantasy, based on its previous lack of success (although Dawn of War 1 & 2 were definite successes).
The games coming up with potential IMO are the Creative Assembly's Warhammer Fantasy - hopefully Total War style but Warhammer fantasy - this might be awesome - but given Rome 2's shitty release, who knows. The other looking interesting is Deathwatch - the multiplayer Left 4 Dead style game (i believe), which could likewise be either amazing or crapola.
Anyway, I live in hope. I'm really hoping there's a Dawn of War 3 being worked on behind the scenes. It was initially mentioned that it was being made, but then there was the whole THQ incident with Relic being sold off (to SEGA) etc.
Everytime I see discussions about Dow 2, I see these same type of comments about base building, it seriously makes me sigh and facepalm. In DOW1 you built 3 main structures: Barracks (infantry production), vehicle pad (vehicle production) and armoury (tech upgrades). The former of which was practically mandatory to build before anything else. Dow 2 merged those 3 structures into the HQ building. They're still have the tier strucutre via the HQ tier upgrades. So the only flavour\strategy\whatever you want to crap on about they removed was clicking "build structure" 3 times over an entire match. Why the hell do people cry over this so much, seriously?Dawn of War & Dawn of War 2 both were fantastic games IMO - of course it's subjective, but both of them were high quality. Probably 1 more than 2 - 2 by dropping base building took away a lot of the flavour that 1 had. I had hundreds of hours in each and consider them both excellent games.
For a start - DoW2 felt like a cut budget release compared to say CoH which came out between them. CoH had so much more depth than DoW2 across the board. From the complex base building and commander trees down to the way units behaved. I mean ffs - you'd see tanks not only take out each others treads, but you would actually see deflected shells ping off the armour. In DoW2, the Predator tanks couldn't have been more basic. They did improve them with time, but the ingame combat was definitely on a more simplistic level than CoH. The game was also lacking all the higher budget rendered cinematics (with the CoH engine), replaced by low budget 'artistic' variants.
Anyway DoW2 was more about the on field combat. They took the focus away from the base building side of things, drastically reducing micromanagement, and placing the micro on maneuvering individual (and smaller) units, rather than combining it with the base. I dont disagree here that it was inferior to 1. I appreciated the emphasis on combat, particularly when you had badass hero units like the Force Commander on the field. Not being knee-capped by the base free'd you up to really go to down with guys like him.
But on the other hand - by removing the base building, I honestly feel like they took away the soul of what made the first game so special. 40k games thrive on fluff - the more the merrier. The first game had more races - hell - Dark Eldar, Necrons, Tau, Sisters of Battle - so many good factions, all with their unique sets of buildings that matched the look of their races. These buildings not only looked sweet, but had varied construction animations and particulars that gave those factions more of an overall feel than they ever achieved in DoW2.
And secondly - while base building can be a pain in the ass from a micro point of view (as in, you're constantly looking back at your base and not the on field action) - they're immensely satisfying to destroy. That to me is the key. I used to love shelling the shit out of enemy bases in both CoH and DoW1. It actually felt like you were stamping on the player, really driving in the final nails. In DoW2 - you could take out the base yes, but once you'd overpowered the super beefed up heavy bolter turrets defending it, then just hammered on the one, super strong structure. It just didnt have the same appeal.
And there were more buildings than what you listed. Yes those were the core, but once you added things in like power, all the specialty buildings etc - you had yourself a fair sized base going on back home - something that was ripe to pummel the shit out of.
It's arguable whether having the bases adds or subtracts to the overall gameplay - both have positives and negatives - but if you ask me, i would have preferred they found a middle ground. What they did with power in DoW2 for example - was meh compared to the first game where you upgraded listening posts - but on the flip side, it encouraged players to be more aggressive, while 1 catered more to turtles.
But anyway, it neither here nor there. I just hope with 3 there IS more of that fluff element, as it's the fluff which makes 40k so awesome. (on top of good gameplay of course).
This MMO is basically supposed to be in the vein of space marine but persistent world, closest approximation would be PS2 in the war hammer world which is fine by me
Who knows if it will work but to me that is a great base for the game to work from, if tribes universe (!) was like that it would own
Dow 2 with the expansions has 6 races, which is still far more than most RTS, and managed to do a decent job of balancing them IMO. Personally I prefer the unit focused style of DOW 2 rather than base micro or macro management.
I would definately love to see more cool rendereded cutscenes in the next DOW game (DOW 1 intro cutscene made by Blur studios is still one of my favorites)
The other structures I didn't list are still present in Dow 2 (power generators, turrets, teleporters, listening posts etc).
The changes to vehicles in DOW 2 compared to CoH made vehicles feel more powerful and less fragile. In COH it was so easy to imobilise a tank and then swarm it with infantry.
In both DOW games I mainly played ranked 1v1. Games were predominantly won or lost based on control of victory points, I rarely saw players win by shooting a base to death. Personally I find base stomping rather dull, as it usually only happens if you're winning by a landslide and totally crushing the other player. I much prefer close matches that are back and forth battles over map control.
See i reckon this is why the lack of bases doesnt affect you - in 1v1 it's a centre of the map game - or an intense race to hold the key points - not assault a base.In both DOW games I mainly played ranked 1v1..
Power to you for playing 1v1 - i'll admit it, im chickenshit when it comes to 1v1. I queue up then chicken out. Why? I've never been able to work that out as I've played gazillions of hours of RTS over the years - my favourite genre possibly, yet when it comes to 1v1? Even though i'm pretty good at it - i just turn yella.
But in saying that - my preference is 2v2 or 3v3 (although 3v3 always borders on spam). And in these larger games, that is where i think a base is more relevant. Dont get me wrong, i loved DoW2 to bits - but i always felt like something was missing. Victories never felt so satisfying. There was a mode that ended when you took out the opponents base, but it was so ridiciulously bolstered (to ward off early attacks) and only the one main building, it just never felt satisfying.
In DoW1 though - you went in there, and an attack may have failed - but you took out half the pricks base assets - severely crippling their economy and unit output - and it just felt satisfying. When you finally got them - they'd usually drop, but there was a reason why most players would stick around and destroy every last building - it was bloody satisfying.
I'd love to see a modern game build on that concept - where the bases look freakin amazing - but matched by amazing in the field gameplay. Dow1 & 2 had different strengths here.
Re: tanks - The Predator to me just felt floaty and unsatisfying in the initial DOW2. I believe from memory they changed its physics at one point which fixed it - but it never felt as heavy or beastial as DoW1. But DoW2 had auto cannons mounted on them - particularly on the Dreadnaughts, and they were absolute sex. And the Baneblade that came later - oh fucking yes sir!