Warhammer: Mark of Chaos

[-Snakebite-]

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/671/671803p1.html

Looks pretty good...

[UN17]

It looks better than the space version by Relic. But the developer's first game doesn't look all that good: Armies of Exigo. Hopefully they learned a lot from that project and will make a good fantasy game to compare with the Total War series.

[yurch]

It's a shame that all warhammer games are doomed to mediocrity. (or often; total faliure) :(

[Crowze]

I would hardly call Dawn of War mediocre or a failure, but then it was developed by Relic. Strange decision having Namco develop this one...

[UN17]

Namco is the money, Black Hole Games is the brains. They're a Budapest based development team. I don't know about the gameplay, but their graphics are already doing better than Relic's DOW. More units on screen, more debris, longer view distances, use of hardware T&L. I kind of wonder why Relic's DOW doesn't use any modern effects... Every single explosion or s/fx in the game is simply a sprite. The models are extremely low poly and have only basic texturing applied. No reflectivity or mirroring or anything else HW T&L can do these days. And the fog is so dense you can't see past 100 yards when you lower the camera.

THQ owns the 40,000 license while Namco owns the fantasy license. So far, THQ has one bomb and one so-so game (Fire Warrior / Dawn of War). I believe this Mark of Chaos is Namco's first project using the license.

[yurch]

DoW has nice artwork, but it lies in WC3 purgatory. Designed to attract those players, it doesn't quite do so because it isn't made by blizzard. Gameplay is standard clickyfest, and from what I understand, rather poor in balance, especially with the latest expansion.

It doesn't take much to piss me off in an RTS though. I don't have much respect for any game trying to increase micromanagement.

[JaFO]

increase micromanagement ? I guess you've already played RTS's that had infantry spawn in squads and such, but at least compared to C&C it's better.
At least the singleplayer-campaign was managable (is that a word) by someone that wasn't too experienced in the RTS-genre.

[Harrm]

Designed to attract those players, it doesn't quite do so because it isn't made by blizzard.

Actually, Warcraft was supposed to be an incarnation of Warhammer Fantasy for computers. Only Blizzard never got the liscense and the game was already a work in-progress, so a whole bunch of stuff got ripped off. But yeah, blind Blizzard loyalty definately factors in, since most people were exposed to Warcraft before Warhammer.

I would hardly call Dawn of War mediocre or a failure, but then it was developed by Relic.

Relic puts out all of my favorite RTS games. Also, didn't DoW finish its' sale season at the top of its' list?

I'm not too big on the Namco game myself. I already own enough total-war style games where anything like it with a couple bells and whistles added in would just seem played out. I'm probably going to end up waiting until the next WH40k game comes out, whatever/whenever that is.

--Harrm

[yurch]

increase micromanagement ? I guess you've already played RTS's that had infantry spawn in squads and such, but at least compared to C&C it's better.
Fleet of foot AND Grav boosters must be toggled constantly for every unit using it. Leaving it on on any unit incurs firing penalties, even when standing still. Leaving it off is effectively a movement penalty.

Overwatch turning off by itself.

Throwing grenades/other abilities have no autocast, which some WC3 abilities had.

WC3 unit queue system, which is the worst ****ing buy system since C&C1 where you had to buy units one at a time.

Unit upgrades need to be constantly purchased and are quite unintuitive. Some of them are downgrades due to mistakes by relic.

Units never choose proper targets on thier own.

Tier based unit progression.

The manuvers used in the high level CQB/shooting balance are referred to as 'dancing'.

The list goes on. I was in the open beta for the game, and I really wanted to like it. Relic doesn't get much sympathy from me, thier previous game Homeworld 2 (which was very very nice for multi, especially when compared how some things in HW1 worked), had very little of the above problems. They literally took a step back with DOW to please the mentality that thinks micro == skill.

Squads do little to help.

[Keganator]

While you can't tell soldiers to concentrate fire on a single unit in a squad, I don't find this to be a negative aspect. Indeed, I feel it more accurately reflects how a group of soldiers would work together: not having everyone fight one person, but having one group fight another. It helps protect important units and allows a squad to survive even if even one person lives.

While the 'dancing' aspect of the combat is annoying, it's been a powerful tactic in all RTS's since... Uh... Well, prettymuch every RTS except TA.

The squad interface makes managing large numbers of troops relatively easy. I can manage all of my infantry with a single control group, my vehicles with another. While that's not anything really new, the ability to individually access certain groups of them makes it much simpler to use the features that each group has, in an intuitive way.

Tier based unit progression? That's prettymuch a concept from every single RTS in history. Even TA ;) If you could build every single unit straight from the getgo...yeah. Then you'd be playing Moonbase Commander. (I really should find my MBC cds...)

No resource gathering. That's probably one of my favorite features of the game. You improve your control by...taking control points. You get more power by...building power plants. Building two construction units...and that's all you need is awesome.

I do miss the inability to win the defensive war...but that's something that most RTS's frown upon.

God I hope Supreme Commander comes out soon.

[yurch]

While you can't tell soldiers to concentrate fire on a single unit in a squad, I don't find this to be a negative aspect.The "improper target" comment is from the soldier's annoying tendancy to fire rockets at infantry and machineguns at tanks... since they finish thier target and go to the next unit, they always end up spending large amounts of time firing ineffectively at the targets they can't kill. This means your units will never even shoot properly in a mixed target enviroment without your guidance. Homeworld 2 did not have this problem.

While the 'dancing' aspect of the combat is annoying, it's been a powerful tactic in all RTS's since... Uh... Well, prettymuch every RTS except TA.Yeah, "kiting" has always been there, but they're actually balancing for it, and thusly in a sense, encouraging it. This stems from the stupidly short firing range units in these types of RTS games have.

The squad interface makes managing large numbers of troops relatively easy. I can manage all of my infantry with a single control group, my vehicles with another. While that's not anything really new, the ability to individually access certain groups of them makes it much simpler to use the features that each group has, in an intuitive way.That whole ctrl+numberkey thing isn't new, no. Squads in DOW are effectively a way of keeping controllable entities down, which is good if they encouraged it. Too bad the more effective/competitive way to play the game is to have as many squads as possible, as the way close combat, squad abilities, control point capturing, 'dancing' and special unit/weapon capacity all reward having as many small squads as possible.

Tier based unit progression? That's prettymuch a concept from every single RTS in history. Even TA ;) If you could build every single unit straight from the getgo...yeah. Then you'd be playing Moonbase Commander. (I really should find my MBC cds...)No. Tier as in that damnedable HQ upgrade and others; a very specific event that changes many things about the entire army. Weapons become availible, new units are availible, which makes some sense. The problem is, new abilities suddenly become active, and units unintuitively gain power even while fighting 'just because'. While not exactly micro intensive on it's own, it's terribly stupid. The micro comes from having to constantly buy the goddamned things every game with the relentlessly annoying buy system.

No resource gathering. That's probably one of my favorite features of the game. You improve your control by...taking control points. You get more power by...building power plants. Building two construction units...and that's all you need is awesome.Yeah, you have to take the point, get a builder over, then upgrade it twice, for every point. It's no less intensive than any other game, with the exception that the points don't go wandering off to get themselves killed. Don't forget universal resource upgrades.

I do miss the inability to win the defensive war...but that's something that most RTS's frown upon.Yeah, the xenophobic hatred of 'turrents' (why can't any of them spell that?) among the hardcore is rather funny. Although, you can't really blame them, considering the majority of units can't attack it in any fashion but standing in front of it getting shot.

God I hope Supreme Commander comes out soon.Damned right. If you haven't noticed, I'm becoming increasingly bitter about the state of RTS games nowadays. HW2 wasn't bad in multi, but the single is terrible. What they did to Ground control 2 was criminal compared to what it could have been. C&C series is as stale as ever, and blizzard poisons everything. Rome total war isn't bad, it's great even, if not a little repetitive after a while.

If supcom sucks, I think I'm giving up on the genre entirely.

[ravens_hawk]

Hear, Hear.

Also what is dancing?

[yurch]

Many units in that game are far better in hand to hand than others. Send those at an enemy squad, and that squad must either move away or face annihilation.

Squad members cannot fire backwards. A way around this is to move your forces at angles to the enemy in order to shoot on the move. As long as the units are moving, they take very little damage from the otherwise effective close combat units that would otherwise outclass them heavily.

In DOW, any unit can fire 'through' any other unit (Even while fighting in hand to hand, albiet with a damage reduction for the firing unit), so proximity to your forces or friendly fire is not a factor. Some of the better weapons must be stationary while firing, so the player either tries to free them from being chased, or just keeps them 'screened' in the back.

To recap, some squads uselessly chase other units around at 90 degree angles while unengaged units shoot into the fray. The resultant mess is called "dancing".

[Arethusa]

I swear, two Che themed avatars is just too confusing.

[tomcat ha]

Supreme commander will hopefully be the first really good RTS in ages. There have been reasonably good rts lately but what was the last real good one?

[yurch]

I swear, two Che themed avatars is just too confusing.
Join usssssssssssss

[Arethusa]

No.

[ravens_hawk]

Is that Gary Oldman?

[JaFO]

Fleet of foot AND Grav boosters must be toggled constantly for every unit using it. Leaving it on on any unit incurs firing penalties, even when standing still. Leaving it off is effectively a movement penalty.

Overwatch turning off by itself.

Throwing grenades/other abilities have no autocast, which some WC3 abilities had.

Ah ... I've only played as the spacemarines (rarely using their assault-unittype) and haven't had to deal with the eldar yet. Those things are definitely not that userfriendly in design.


WC3 unit queue system, which is the worst ****ing buy system since C&C1 where you had to buy units one at a time.

In theory you could build multiple barracks and whatever produces your units, but in reality that needlessly increases the management required. I've found it's damned annoying for the Imperial Guards as they get multiple squad-types per outpost (or whatever it's called).


Unit upgrades need to be constantly purchased and are quite unintuitive.

That is extremely annoying indeed. I'd wish 'healing' squads didn't require you to buy every ff-ing upgrade over and over.


Some of them are downgrades due to mistakes by relic.

Examples ?

[yurch]

In theory you could build multiple barracks and whatever produces your units, but in reality that needlessly increases the management required. I've found it's damned annoying for the Imperial Guards as they get multiple squad-types per outpost (or whatever it's called).Ordinarily, yes, but the problem is with the buy system is that you need the cash up front to queue anything. In a competitive game, saving a 'buffer' of cash like that will mean you'll get steamrolled by a guy who immediately gets his units instead of queueing them up. I much prefer the gradual build, pay as you go system of most other games.

Examples ?I know at the moment with the current expansion/patch that powerfists are a downgrade from powerswords in terms of damage output. In the previous patch, plasma pistols were a downgrade, and the powersword upgrade made the marine FC lose his far superior "daemonhammer". Orks have historically had problems with thier upgrades in the past, leader powerclaw upgrade being the most notable.

[Arethusa]

Is that Gary Oldman?
No, it's Ricky Gervais.