That's what they've been saying at Penny Arcade.
1-21
Consuming threads related to Dawn of War II, I began to absorb a sense of betrayal on the part of its community as well. There's a doctrinal shift in the sequel, but far more fundamental than other ones I've described. The second Dawn of War doesn't model the base building,"home front" element the way most Real-Time Strategy games do, in that there really isn't much base building at all. Buildings are constructed at the capture points, shifting the focus toward battlefield tactics and force composition.
I can't say if that makes for a good multiplayer game, I'll grab the beta today and see for myself. But there's a strong contingent that believes the product to be irrevocably flawed on that basis alone, which is a position that preempts huge swaths of strategic experiences. I'm not immune to this force, so this isn't me simply hurling scorn from my palanquin. My own reaction to Final Fantasy XII's notorious heresies - acts of villainy that dramatically expanded its audience - show me to be perfectly capable of hard-line conservatism when the virtues I prize are under assault. So, take it as an apology then, noble Dawn of War community. They changed the game to appeal to people like me, and it worked.
And From 1-28
I think we're going to start interleaving Gears nights with the Dawn of War II beta. I'm not especially savvy at RTS games, which (as I suggested earlier) might be what draws me to it - it's made breaks with tradition that also, happily, bring it closer to the source material. I should establish that the less like an RTS a game is the more I tend to like it, so please take that into account when considering my advice. Tactical games are my passion, and so a game that minimizes domestic "housekeeping" tasks puts it in my wheelhouse. If you look at the ones I like the most: Myth, Ground Control, and World in Conflict, they're all games that yank that shit out by the root.
|