That's right, sports fans, it's been more than a month since last I blessed you with my writings. Miss me? Yup, that's a trick question, you're not reading this! Don't worry, noone else is. I can't justify the drought, but by way of reparation, accept this!
Been playing a bit of Dawn of War: Dark Crusade lately. I posted previously about Dawn of War 2, which is still wonderful, but thanks to some madman in Relics patching department, I am denied playing it by what seems to be an overheating issue. So, I turn to its younger brother, Dark Crusade.
There were many who complained about Dawn Of War 2's radical change in gameplay from its predecessor. The combat focus, with the complete elimination of basebuilding and the reduced scale of the strategy threw some DOW fans, as well as many RTS veterans. However, playing the first game, I can't help but wonder if this was the approach Relic wanted all along. Comparing Dawn of War to other RTS games before it, we see... well, reduction in scale and simplification of basebuilding. Although Dawn of War retains the same basic system of workers, structures and technology research as its forebears, there are certainly signs of the combat focus creeping in. Though the traditional elements are all there, they serve no higher purpose than cogs in the machine of killing the other blokes troops. There are worker units, sure, but there is none of this girly resource harvesting we get from Age of Empires and the like- no, these guys build places for soldiers to come out of. Or turrets to shoot other soldiers. Or places to research bigger guns for your soldiers. Looking at it this way, it seems hopelessly convoluted when compared to Dawn of War 2, which removes all the frippery and leaves the pure combat. Playing Dark Crusade, I feel that it craves this purity.
On a further note of 40K, I have begun reading the Black Library's Horus Heresy series of novels. These are, by my reckoning, bloody good. I suspect and fear that a fanboy like myself simply CANNOT report objectively in these matters, but the quality of the literature itself seems to be at the very least sturdy. The Horus Heresy, for the uninitiated, is the broad term for the events surrounding the cataclysmic civil war that nearly destroyed humanity. The books tell the considerable saga of how the the Emperor (of Mankind)'s favourite son and commander of the Great Crusade into the galaxy, Horus, falls to the dark powers of Chaos, and turns against his father. It would be madness for anyone into 40K not to give these a look, but I would reccomend them to anyone interested in sci-fi.
What else? Ah yes, a little more before they haul me back to the padded cell. Upon finding my rather dusty Game Boy Advance SP and discovering it had a miraculously high level of battery charge, I began playing Pokémon Ruby. It amazes me how good the Pokémon series remains. It is still hugely entertaining to capture, train and battle the creatures, even in a world of PSP-3000s, DSis and, though it pains me to say it, iPod/Phones. My faithful Combusken is now level 27, and kicks quite a lot of ass. I have a half-formed plan to buy a DS Lite or, possibly, DSi once my exams are dispensed with and get stuck in to the upcoming Platinum Version. Whatever happens, I will no doubt write of it, but know this- Pokémon rules now and always.
That article makes me ill.
ReplyDeleteDawn of War 2 barely deserves its recognition as an RTS, the only reason it is called an RTS is that there is no genre known as pish-poor.
Dark Crusade is a fantastic game and it isn't a patch on epics like Age of Empires. I do believe that you gather resources in the exact same way in Dawn of War 2 as in Dark Crusade. However, far from the epic combat that you state the game involves, combat tends to be small scale and involves a lot of running away. What kind of 40K fanboy runs their bloody Space Marines - the cream of the crop of humanities fighting force - out of combat.
Also, have you ever played age of empires?
All RTS games apart from settlers have a combat focus. That is how you win!
Though the traditional elements are all there, they serve no higher purpose than cogs in the machine of killing the other blokes troops.
What higher purpose does a barracks play in Age of Empires except spamming troops to attack the other player?
There are worker units, sure, but there is none of this girly resource harvesting we get from Age of Empires and the like- no, these guys build places for soldiers to come out of.
This comment is correct. However what major difference is there between building 10 villagers in age of empires and clicking on some trees and building a squad of scouts and capturing a point - which you then have to build a listenning post on - which you then have to upgrade twice - which you then have 2 upgrade it twice by researching. That's right i hear you say in Dawn of War it takes longer, which in turn delays combat. Nice point alan, please - do try and play the games you compare :)
it seems hopelessly convoluted when compared to Dawn of War 2, which removes all the frippery and leaves the pure combat. Playing Dark Crusade, I feel that it craves this purity.
Alan i think you fall in to category 1. You are trying to make the game sound bad because you suck at it. Dawn of War 2 removes the strategy involved in resource collecting, it removes the mass combat you get from other RTS games, in other words it reduces the scope of the genre.
RTS games should involve strategic resource gathering, strategic building and most of all strategic combat. But who strategic is combat in Dawn of War 2? Advance to tier 3 as fast as possible and then spam carnifexes. Nice strategy game there.
Ach, the taint of Thomas's madness is here too. This is tiresome. However! I shall do battle with the same fervour as before!
ReplyDeleteThe resource system is similar in both Dawn of War games, but there are numerous differences. Also, at no point have I claimed that Dawn of War 2's combat is "epic". As for your belief that Space Marines are the cream of the crop- yes they are. And they know it. Ergo, they know that dying in vain- trying to fight a Carnifex for example- is a foolish waste. When they run away, as in the game, it is only to reinforce so they can get back into the fight. If a Space Marine backs off, it is indeed only to get a runup for kicking you.
All RTS games are NOT combat focused like Dawn of War is. Combat may be how you gain ultimate victory, but it is not usually the mainstay. Dawn of War as a franchise is ALL about the combat in a way that other games are not.
I have indeed played Age of Empires, perhaps not as much as I should have, but I am at least vaguely familiar. The barracks in the games are comparable in their function- ie, producing soldiers. But Age of Empires places a much greater emphasis on other components- it is about empires, and empires are not wholly about war. Dawn of War IS all about the fight.
The major difference in what you describe is the fact that the Strategic Point in Dawn of War is a battlefield objective. Soldier units capture it, and it is fortified to stop the enemy soldiers from taking it. This is not the same as having builders collect from a forest. It does not delay combat, as while you are researching the upgrades, that same scout squad that captured it is probably off somewhere shooting people.
I fear you have misinterpreted me with your next comment- I am not saying Dark Crusade is bad, merely that as a combat game, it seems unnecessarily complicated compared to the purity of the newer title. Although I would be the first to admit that my Dark Crusade skill is lacking, this does not reduce my enjoyment or appreciation. My point was that Dawn of War 2 seems a progression from the ideas of the original, which is a good thing for the franchise.
Finally, your comment about Carnifex spam is, I suspect, a reference to the game we just played together, where you did just that. What I think is important to realise is that had I been playing better, you would have been denied the oppurtunity TO spam. That is where the strategy lies. As for what you feel RTS games should involve, I ask you- is it so wrong to attempt a change in the formula? If every game was a typical example of the genre, then the games industry would be an exceptionally dull place.
Now cease!