|
Arcsquad12 posted:I actually prefer Inon Zur's music for the expansion packs over Jeremy Soule's OG soundtrack. Jeremy Soule can only sound like Jeremy Soule, while Zur's music is more chaotic and diverse. Plus, Imperial Guard themes. He can keep sounding like himself as long as it's that good. I'm probably biased since DoW1 was my introduction to 40k but I don't think there's any piece of music that captures the feel of 40k more than DoW1's main menu.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Senjuro posted:He can keep sounding like himself as long as it's that good. I'm probably biased since DoW1 was my introduction to 40k but I don't think there's any piece of music that encapsulates the feel of 40k more than DoW1's main menu. The DOW 1 theme is good, but I like DOW 2's main theme better. Doyle W. Donehoo IS 40K music. Jeremy Soule is fine, but he's got an obsession with brass and cymbals that borders on Hans Zimmer levels. In fact most 40K games have amazing soundtracks. Shame that the only good music in DOW 3 are the techno Ork tracks. Arc Hammer fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Oct 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
IG in DoW1 was the best if only for the psyker. I went on the internet to find tools to extract files from the game so I could have WITNESS YOUR DOOM on demand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
I'LL SPLIT YER THOUGHTS OPEN. Scott McNeil brought about every voice in his arsenal sans Dinobot to voice the Imperial Guard and it is wonderful. They're all just slightly unhinged. And all the commissars are voiced by M. BISON. Arc Hammer fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Oct 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
This game needs to cut a lot of units and abilities, each roster is bloated. They want massive armies but still have squad level stuff and I think those things just work against each other to make a bad mess of a game. I like the elites and doctrine system too but I feel like that stuff would work better at a DoW2 level not whatever this is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:I think the game is flawed, but I don't think it's the disaster a lot of folks are making it out to be. I enjoy booting up DoW3 over 2 or 1 because it plays out faster and the elite/doctrine system helps even the same race play very differently from one game to the next. This is all insightful commentary, but I disagree that competitive multiplayer/skirmish is the primary driver of revisiting RTS games. Admittedly, my sample size (me and my friends) is small, but we never did much competitive multiplayer. Playing DoW 2 co-op campaigns, though, we did routinely. Trying out different builds, emphasizing different wargear setups, etc. was endlessly entertaining for us, and I've got the 100+ hours of time sunk into DoW 2 and its expansions to show it. I also played way too many Dark Crusade campaigns, did each race at least once and revisited with my favorites. DoW 3 doesn't seem to offer anything nearly as compelling for that single player/co-op experience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Diogenes of Sinope posted:This is all insightful commentary, but I disagree that competitive multiplayer/skirmish is the primary driver of revisiting RTS games. Admittedly, my sample size (me and my friends) is small, but we never did much competitive multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Comrayn posted:I am also pissed the RTS I purchased was focused on building an army then using it to fight the army my enemy built. I guess you need to play more coh/dow2 instead of ra3? RTS can be more than building and moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Also the question mostly comes down to which will sell more games. A person who would buy the game and play the single player campaign once or twice would pay just as much money as an MLG pro playing a thousand multiplayer games. It's probably just that making a game with a fun and engaging single player game is hard work, where as making GBS threads out a generic multiplayer RTS is fairly straight-forward. Personally, I fall more in the single-player and co-op camp, but I'm also one of the people who loved Dawn of War 2 (and Chaos Rising) single player campaign and thought it was fun. So they didn't get my money for that, but I own all the other DOW content for 1 and 2. If the expansion for DoW3 ends up saving it (which I doubt, but hey), they might get my money during a sale. Or if they get around to making Last Stand. Until then, I'm perfectly content with not being hardcore enough to buy their particular brand of multiplayer RTS. I've got other games to play if I'm down for multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Diogenes of Sinope posted:This is all insightful commentary, but I disagree that competitive multiplayer/skirmish is the primary driver of revisiting RTS games. Admittedly, my sample size (me and my friends) is small, but we never did much competitive multiplayer. Playing DoW 2 co-op campaigns, though, we did routinely. Trying out different builds, emphasizing different wargear setups, etc. was endlessly entertaining for us, and I've got the 100+ hours of time sunk into DoW 2 and its expansions to show it. I also played way too many Dark Crusade campaigns, did each race at least once and revisited with my favorites. DoW 3 doesn't seem to offer anything nearly as compelling for that single player/co-op experience. To be fair, I lump comp stomps and skirmishes into MP since they're all accessed from the MP menu in DoW3. Nevertheless, I can understand the confusion (since I likely didn't explain it all that well/forgot to clarify it) Basically, anything that's not the campaign falls into the MP category for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:To be fair, I lump comp stomps and skirmishes into MP since they're all accessed from the MP menu in DoW3. Nevertheless, I can understand the confusion (since I likely didn't explain it all that well/forgot to clarify it) Basically, anything that's not the campaign falls into the MP category for me. That's fair. Most people consider multi-player to be something which involves multiple players.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:That's fair. Which "comp stomp"s do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
KingEup posted:It isn't. It really isn't. How did I not know about this already, holy poo poo that's amazing. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
I love the steampunk looking Urbanmech.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:How did I not know about this already, holy poo poo that's amazing. It does look great but It says that it's also coming out for consoles, can't imagine it won't be simplified to make that possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 11:12
|
|
|
KingEup posted:It isn't. It really isn't. I want to live inside of a gif of that one mech ramming the other mech through a brick wall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:I think the game is flawed, but I don't think it's the disaster a lot of folks are making it out to be. I enjoy booting up DoW3 over 2 or 1 because it plays out faster and the elite/doctrine system helps even the same race play very differently from one game to the next. I don't think that DoW3 really plays out markedly faster than DoW2 did. An average 3v3 in DoW2 was around 20-30 minutes, which is about right for a DoW3 3v3(in both cases assuming neither team is markedly worse than the other or makes dumb mistakes). I think a lot of the "THEY MADE IT LIKE SC2" stuff is in part a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that DoW3 slaughtered a lot of sacred cows of the DoW series. There's no more morale system, there's no more retreating, there's no more sync kills, there's no more cover system, there's no more victory points, and so on; this dramatically changes the core feel of the game on almost every level and I can easily see long time DoW fans feeling disgruntled by finally getting a new game and it feels nothing like the games they already know and love. Add that to things like the game's extremely brutal initial balance(micro your guys out of this incoming AoE perfectly in seconds or all of them instantly die like a baneling just rolled into your marine blob in SC2!) and you've got people looking for something to blame, and SC2 is basically the only other RTS that still exists. I don't know about the multiplayer vs singleplayer analysis re: the DoW series. I know a fair number of people who never touched the multiplayer in any DoW game but have hundreds of hours of DoW1 and DoW2 under their belts. gently caress, I played hundreds of hours of DoW1 and DoW2 multiplayer and I still have a shitload of campaign runthroughs in both games. Dark Crusade and the DoW2 games are uniquely beloved specifically for content unrelated to the standard multiplayer game mode; DoW2's risk board campaign concept and DoW2's RTS/RPG hybrid campaign and Last Stand modes were both wildly popular. Hell, I reinstalled DoW2 Retribution a few months ago and was able to get into a Last Stand game in like a minute, so people STILL play that. DoW3 does have some very solid visual work put into it. The giant robot class units are uniformly rad as gently caress and many of the units have a lot of time and care put into their models and animations. The problem I had with the game is that it lost a lot of the visceral feel of earlier games. When artillery slammed home in an older DoW game, the battlefield turned into a cratered, pockmarked hellscape with troops flying around like leaves in a hurricane. When artillery slams home in DoW3, my troops either lose HP, fall down dead, or gib. Similarly, it's really disappointing to watch two big robots smack away at each other without really reacting to each others' attacks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
Det_no posted:Now DoW III got blasted for having 3, regardless of the fact that the game has more units than ever before or that modern assets are harder to make. The whole argument is stupid. The only reason DoW 3 has more units per faction (and I doubt that is even true in the first place) is because instead of having cool customizable units everything is its own every-model-the-same squad. Marine Dev squads? Two units just because the weapon switches. Predator with AC and predator with lascannon? Two units just because the main gun is switched. Customizable adaptable units are another hallmark of the DoW series that DoW 3 completely butchered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:The only reason DoW 3 has more units per faction (and I doubt that is even true in the first place) is because instead of having cool customizable units everything is its own every-model-the-same squad. Marine Dev squads? Two units just because the weapon switches. Predator with AC and predator with lascannon? Two units just because the main gun is switched. So making a squad or tank and then clicking the upgrade to las cannon button is better why? You just picked the upgrade when you built the unit instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
It does make it look like there are more units than there really are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
It's me, I'm the guy that will defend DoW 2 to death, even when the balance was particularly loathsome (and I say this as a primarily ork player, who were consistently poo poo tiered for a long, long time). I loved that there wasn't any base building because that put the focus toward the middle of the map, capping territory and getting in scraps. I loved that you dealt with about 10 units max and the fact that even your t1 lovely chaff could gain experience and level up to stay relevant into the mid/late game and encourage you to not needlessly throw your units away. I loved that if left unattended, your guys would dive for cover and generally behave like they had even minimal agency rather than the starcraft style "plant feet in ground and shoot until death happens, my own or otherwise". I went back and tried Dawn of War 1 a few months ago and that really has not aged well in hindsight. Honestly though, I hope that if they ever do another 40k RTS, they do something completely different like Epic Armageddon in the style of Eugen's Wargame series. Something so large scale that your space marine battle barbies are tiny fleas skittering around a titan legion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:It's me, I'm the guy that will defend DoW 2 to death, even when the balance was particularly loathsome (and I say this as a primarily ork player, who were consistently poo poo tiered for a long, long time). I loved that there wasn't any base building because that put the focus toward the middle of the map, capping territory and getting in scraps. I loved that you dealt with about 10 units max and the fact that even your t1 lovely chaff could gain experience and level up to stay relevant into the mid/late game and encourage you to not needlessly throw your units away. I loved that if left unattended, your guys would dive for cover and generally behave like they had even minimal agency rather than the starcraft style "plant feet in ground and shoot until death happens, my own or otherwise". I went back and tried Dawn of War 1 a few months ago and that really has not aged well in hindsight. I'm with you in the defending DOW 2 to the death. God drat I liked that game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Comrayn posted:So making a squad or tank and then clicking the upgrade to las cannon button is better why? You just picked the upgrade when you built the unit instead. Because then you can make actually distinct units instead of filling the roster with...well filler. And because it means there are decisions to make. A heavy weapon team might start out as anti-infantry (or crowd control) and gives you the option to switch to anti-armor when vehicles show up. Units that can freely switch between weapons are incredibly flexible, while upgrade-and-done units give you one-time flexibility but open up gaps in your roster. And even beyond all that, it's one of the core things about Warhammer 40k. A few base chassis have tons of variants and upgrades. Except for the new Super-Space-Marines very few heavy weapon options are carried in squads where every single member has them. Squad Leaders are also a huge deal that DoW3 completely eliminates to it's detriment because it's more complex that Starcraft so it has to go. Of course all of that works better when you don't dumb down your game to literally 3 damage types and 2 armor types. It just seems like whoever is making Dawn of War 3 has no idea why the previous games worked the way they did. For example last patch they've upgraded the toughness of infantry in the early game massively, so they're not almost as tough as DoW 1 units - but there's nothing for them to do during fights. Current-Relic is just trying to cargo-cult their way into a good RTS and failing. Yes your units are as tough as DoW 1 units, but the reason they were that tough back in DoW 1 is because there were tons of subsystems they interacted with other than straight up dps races (morale, in-field reinforce, etc.). But dps and health are the only mechnanics DoW 3 has, so just cranking up one of them in an effort to copy previous games doesn't solve anything. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Oct 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Exmond posted:I'm with you in the defending DOW 2 to the death. God drat I liked that game.  i just feel like it made decisions that were more coherent and when taken together it made for a single more deliberate, unified experience; you can for sure still dislike it on the grounds that you didn't like its vision but you can't really call it a directionless imitator either for example more controversial choices like random sych kills, random crits & knockdowns, chain knockdowns, reduced damage shooting into melee, increased damage on retreat, etc all sold the idea that cqc was a powerful tool albeit messy and unpredictable, an idea which you can for sure dislike on its own grounds since a vision of imperfect, sloppy melee fighting has consequences on player strategy given that it's key for cornering and eliminating units (ideally you'd manage your fights to be melee picking on ranged since you can't bet on a single outcome for melee vs melee) as well as consequences on overall competitiveness but i was personally alright with those effects, dow2 was pretty fun
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Those things were also only somewhat problematic (but less than the no random ever crowd would claim - see CoH 1) but loving awesome in singleplayer. And when you have to choose between feature that is great for singleplayer and slightly less good for multiplayer it's a no-brainer choice to choose the singleplayer options. That's where most of the players are. Also since it came up before - the whole "but multiplayer is where your longevity is" is utterly stupid. Longevity doesn't matter. The 95% of your playerbase that buy your game and never play multiplayer, dropping the game after 10 hours played provide you with the same money per copy bought as the 5% that play multiplayer for 100 hours. Crippling your game to retain those 5% is simply dumb. You can make a bad multiplayer focused RTS, sell your copies and have 95% of your initial customers not buy any DLC or expansions because your game is only lovely multiplayer. Or you can make a fantastic singleplayer RTS, and have everybody who "only" played it for 10 hours buy all your expansions because they like your game. Hours played of RTS game does not equate to enjoyed RTS game more. Hours played of RTS game does not equate to more income for publishers. RTS players aren't paying a subscription so why the gently caress do you care about retaining players continously? DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Oct 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Those random elements are what make Relic RTS' so good! Homeworld, DoW, CoH, they all have that element of things running out of the players' hands and into chance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
I think games are better with a bit of randomness to them anyway. People say it takes skill out of it, but risk assessment and managing randomness is a skill in its own right. It won't always go in your favor, but gently caress it, nothing does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
It makes for a more *cinematic* experience! When I play strategy games, I just want to shake the bag and see what comes out. Preparation is fine, but turning everything into a spreadsheet should be a sin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
i'm just saying that while i personally enjoyed that aspect, for example, and i feel like those elements made dow2 unique i can see the argument against those elements and why some people didn't like the game even tho i did, i can see how someone might loathe sending in their banshees against hormagaunts, depending on the patch, since that outcome doesn't translate well into something that can be committed into a spreadsheet or a snap-of-the-moment if opponent does x, i respond with y reaction decision common to most RTSes (and a skill honed by most RTS players) - if you have to send your 'shees in you need to monitor that fight very carefully because it could go south in an instant and become a wipe whereas in other RTSes you can even reliably divert your attention to other micro since that outcome is effectively set, that sort of changed pacing gives gameplay a different feel and whose reception will change depending on personal taste personally i think if all that were communicated as a feature, not a bug, in the games' own balance of unpredictable but decisive melee vs reliable but unlikely to wipe ranged, that this brutal over-the-top cqc is a valid depiction of 40k combat, and that situational assessment is itself a worthy RTS skill that you could make a better sell of it rather than being quiet on the matter but it's also not to say that it was perfect as it was in dow2 since dumb pathing and lag were issues that could shift an already precarious balance in an unsatisfying way
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Donnerberg posted:I want to live inside of a gif of that one mech ramming the other mech through a brick wall. If there is one thing that highlights the squandered potential of DoW3 it is this precise moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Those things were also only somewhat problematic (but less than the no random ever crowd would claim - see CoH 1) but loving awesome in singleplayer. And when you have to choose between feature that is great for singleplayer and slightly less good for multiplayer it's a no-brainer choice to choose the singleplayer options. That's where most of the players are. I'm not 100 percent certain what is "utterly stupid" about my point. Most of the thread has come out and said they spend their time doing things other than the single player campaign - which as I clarified earlier, I lump in with the whole 'multiplayer' aspect because it's fundamentally the same thing, just with bots instead of humans. I can only speak from my own experiences, as can other people. Granted, it's hard to spend a lot of time in SP because (as many others note) the SP campaign in DoW3 is bad. In terms of 'hours played does not equate to enjoyment' - I don't know about you, but I tend to stop playing games that I don't enjoy. Maybe I'm completely devoid of masochist tendencies, but I do know that if I enjoy a game then I will play the living hell out of it. And that usually winds up equating to more hours played. I will tell you what is "utterly stupid" though: using numbers and percentages as a way to make your point sound ironclad without a single bit of evidence. That aside - in a vacuum, your point ('Longevity doesn't matter') holds true. The game costs the same whether or not you play it for 1 hour or 1000 hours. But we don't buy games in a vacuum. We buy games based on a multitude of different factors. Some of the common ones I know I use are:
-Multiplayer: Will my friends play this? If I know I can get some of my friends together to play it, then whatever the cost investment is doesn't seem so bad. Plus, if I play it with them then I can probably get a much better cost-to-hours ratio out of it... Curiously, a game kind of needs multiplayer for this to really be effective. If I can't play it with friends, then I'm much less likely to drop any amount of money on it. -Reviews: Is it reviewed well? If it isn't, are the reviews mainly internet edgelords who have only owned the game for 2 hours trying to flood Steam reviews with poo poo? Curiously, I pay a lot of attention to reviews written by people with 100+ hours, especially if they're insightfully written - in other words, if they're able to write a nuanced review without resorting to pithy arguments like 'it's like StarCraft 2 lol'. Obviously there are more considerations - especially in the case of DoW3 "Do you like Warhammer 40k y/n" is a pretty big one but apparently "make this 100% like the old game that I have in my head" was the most important. But in the three factors I listed above, longevity matters. If I can keep playing a game and enjoy it for a long period of time, then I'll be happy to spend the money on it. If I can get my friends to play with me - via that dreaded multiplayer option - then I'll dump some cash on it. Finally, if I'm going to do my research and read reviews, the reviews written by long-term players matter much more to me than bandwagoners posting 'they made it dumb like starcraft 2, -1/10'. A few insightful reviews written by long-term players is usually enough to convince me to open up the wallet, even if those reviews are negative - if they're nuanced then I can usually tell if I'm going to like the thing they hated, hate the thing they liked, and so on. Going back to the "make this like the old game I have in my head" - there's no way Relic was going to win on this one. Making it like DoW1 would basically be rehashing the debacle of Company of Heroes 2 all over again - they were lambasted (and rightfully so) for turning out something that didn't feel any different from CoH1. Making it like DoW2 would just incense the DoW2 haters (although for the record I will defend DoW2's honor, even if I find it a little difficult to go back to these days).
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
The thing is, you're almost guaranteed to already be in the tiny multiplayer playing minority just by virtue of even posting about the game on a forum. Most people simply don't. You can tell just from comparing player counts (which is to say, people that bought the game, played it and were done, not people that continue to play for hundreds of hours) to people on forums. People on forums are also far more likely to care about multiplayer (from this thread it's what, about 50/50 on the split?) which absolutely does not reflect the actual numbers (we knows this from every single time a developer releases those numbers) - which again, proves that people on forums aren't the actual target demographic. If anything they're the opposite of the target demographic - they are the tiny fraction, explicitly who you should not design your RTS for if doing so in any way even slightly hurts the singleplayer/skirmish/coop demographic. The most striking example is Blizzard, who've recently revealed their numbers. Blizzard, the ultimate outlyer, the king of esport pvp rts bullshit only has a 20% player retention rate, and they've said it was much lower before they had a coop mode. Most of their retained players play coop exclusively, and the vast majority of their players went through the campaign, had fun and were done. And that's Blizzard - if you're anybody else those numbers are even more skewed in the singleplayer/coop direction. Once upon a time someone at Relic knew this, or they wouldn't have spun off Last Stand as it's own product, and focused so much on campaign play, good UI, smart units, interesting skirmish and story. Lumping in singleplayer comp stomps under multiplayer doesn't make it multiplayer. It gets around the problem that developers and publishers don't want to have to admit to - which is "the overwhelming majority of your players never even clicked our multiplayer button once and never signed up for our special proprietary account system" (see also, Demigod, a loving MOBA where exactly this happened because they had a singleplayer) - but doesn't make skirmish a "multiplayer feature". vvvLook up any RTS or RTS related developers stats. The Demigod stuff is a good starting point, but also Relic, Blizzard, Petroglyph, Gaspowered Games, Ensemble, are there more RTS developers left? Similarily, compare owners on steam (this is much easier now, thanks to Steam being a thing) with the population count of official forums to get an idea of how much of the playerbase actually posts on there. Calling Starcraft 2 "casual" is hilarious. It's the most PvP focused, grognard thing Blizzard has ever made - it's a ridiculously crippled game because it's a replica of Starcraft 1 and 90s conservative RTS design to a fault. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Oct 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Do you like, have anything at all to go off of or are you just going to keep shouting "people don't care about multiplayer! people don't care about multiplayer!" as you slowly transform into a corn cob? Also coop is multiplayer hope this helps. e: I also find Blizzard data unconvincing. Blizzard's core audience is explicitly people who want the most casual babby stuff on the market, because that's all they produce. That those people aren't attracted to pvp is not surprising. Meme Poker Party fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Oct 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
I would enjoy this pedantic argument a lot more if it had 9 sides and was wildly unbalanced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Billzasilver posted:I would enjoy this pedantic argument a lot more if it had 9 sides and was wildly unbalanced. And then Soulstorm added two more sides but it was somehow bland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Do you like, have anything at all to go off of or are you just going to keep shouting "people don't care about multiplayer! people don't care about multiplayer!" as you slowly transform into a corn cob? "Do you have anything to go off of?" *Blizzard numbers* "That doesn't count!!!!" I, too, find data from the largest developer still making games in a genre that has dwindled to almost nothing to be unconvincing when it doesn't fit my preconceived perceptions. Blizzard hits a wider audience with a fart than most remaining RTS developers hit with their biggest games and they move a lot of copies of games to a huge number of demographics due to their popularity, so it's pretty safe to use their numbers as a reasonable example of people interested in a particular genre.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
turboraton posted:And then Soulstorm added two more sides but it was somehow bland. While the death of THQ was sad for many reasons, I could never forgive them for ruining DoW 1's track record of excellece and killing Iron Lore Studios in one money-saving move. Soulstorm was such a train wreck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Soulstorm was so bad it made Cyrus turn traitor out of sheer disgust at its incompetence in Chaos Rising. I enjoyed that being his rationale if you make him the Chaos mole in the group.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Relic used Cyrus to admit that Soulstorm was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
I own Soulstorm but haven't played it in ages. I still go back to Dark Crusade if I want to play DoW1. Soulstorm doesn't exist (I don't like the Sisters or Dark Eldar in the first place...)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 21:10
|
|