So since the two games that were compared before the latter WAS EVEN OUT, have been released. Which game do you think is better?
I haven't played either yet so I can't say anything about either one.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
CoH : ]
haven't played SC2 to be honest, but i already know what kind of gameplay it has, so i know it's not my cup of tea.
I'll tell you this, I wasn't a fan of SC, but SC2 has sucked me in like no other RTS has, I urge you to atleast give it a shot.CoH : ]
haven't played SC2 to be honest, but i already know what kind of gameplay it has, so i know it's not my cup of tea.
groowagon
SC2 edges DoW2 out for me. DoW2 is a good game, but nearly all of the missions are "Go here, kill this" with the odd "Hold this point" mission - before Chaos Rising that was particularly true.
SC2 has a good mix of missions - It has a broad mix of mission styles, some that have a base, some that don't and tells a story very well.
They are very different games, though. SC2 is a traditional RTS with some RPG elements on the side, while DoW2 is more of an RTS/RPG hybrid. I like both games, but I also like to build a base once in a while and have a "proper" army.
Well well. Not again.
Dow 2 is great and Chaos Rising is even better.
Idea wise, Dow 2 is the future but as a game and a product Sc2 is much much better.
[QUOTE="groowagon"]I'll tell you this, I wasn't a fan of SC, but SC2 has sucked me in like no other RTS has, I urge you to atleast give it a shot.CoH : ]
haven't played SC2 to be honest, but i already know what kind of gameplay it has, so i know it's not my cup of tea.
Im_single
I agree with this 100%. I didnt think SC1 was all that great and usually RTS games fail to hold my interest at all, but SC2 is one of the most entertaining games I have ever played.
[QUOTE="Ragingbear505"]
Dawn of War 2 since I detest base building.
Base building IS a part of RTSs. The RTSs that don't have base building are in the minority.
No, and RTS is a game where you make tacical desicions in real time while commanding units. Thats it. Even Hearts of Iron 3 counts as a RTS because its fully real time, but the TW series does not fall into this catagory as the majority of the game is set in a turnbased mode. Back ontopic: DoW2, i enjoyed its SP camapign alot, and i never liked SCThat's sort of like comparing World in Conflict to Supreme Commander and asking which makes a better game.
The approaches are incredibly different... but the difference is that Starcraft 2 uses high production values to outperform other RTSs, whereas Dawn of War 2 competes by attempting to expand the market and fortify its new territory.
[QUOTE="Ragingbear505"]
Dawn of War 2 since I detest base building.
Base building IS a part of RTSs. The RTSs that don't have base building are in the minority.
No, and RTS is a game where you make tacical desicions in real time while commanding units. Thats it. Even Hearts of Iron 3 counts as a RTS because its fully real time, but the TW series does not fall into this catagory as the majority of the game is set in a turnbased mode. Back ontopic: DoW2, i enjoyed its SP camapign alot, and i never liked SC Actually, strategy is different than tactics. DoW2 should be considered a RTT, real time tactics instead of strategy (I am talking about the SP portion, not the MP.) Strategy is on a longer scale taking into account economy, supplies, and employing tactics to achieve a victory. The SP portion of DoW2 only has the player performing tactical acts without a need for strategy.[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="giant11"]No, and RTS is a game where you make tacical desicions in real time while commanding units. Thats it. Even Hearts of Iron 3 counts as a RTS because its fully real time, but the TW series does not fall into this catagory as the majority of the game is set in a turnbased mode. Back ontopic: DoW2, i enjoyed its SP camapign alot, and i never liked SC Actually, strategy is different than tactics. DoW2 should be considered a RTT, real time tactics instead of strategy (I am talking about the SP portion, not the MP.) Strategy is on a longer scale taking into account economy, supplies, and employing tactics to achieve a victory. The SP portion of DoW2 only has the player performing tactical acts without a need for strategy. Fair point, however DoW2 single player Campaign is more of an RPG becasue you have your guys leveling up (i know i will get mauled for that be lets behonest), its would be like how ME2 is an RPG (even though the "RPG" elements are almost nonexistant). Its a very touchy thing, as RTT dosn't really hold any ground as Tactics and Strategy are essentionly the same thing (imo, but i can understand where they differ). But you hold a fair point as Tactics and strategy can be used to explain the subtle differences that Commanders of varying ranks have to consider, like a squad captian has to worry about his squads oblectives, while a general has to worry about the overall plan.Base building IS a part of RTSs. The RTSs that don't have base building are in the minority.
subyman
You are dead on about DoW2 SP being an RPG, I totally agree. It's like Dungeon Siege with cover haha. I enjoyed DoW1's style of play more than DoW2's. Having to manage a base is something that I enjoy and DoW did that wonderfully but also forced the player to explore early on to secure the resources which made the player engage the enemy quickly. It was the perfect blend of economy and war. However, I feel they focused too much on action in DoW2. I was pretty bummed out when I first played DoW2 and found it was nothing like DoW1.
Ok, I'll acknowledge that a game does not need to have base-building in order to be an RTS, but I will say that base building & RTSs are just a perfect match. That's what I think of when someone says RTS.
That's not to say that RTSs w/o the base building are necessarily bad, but they're more like an action game than a strategy one, IMO.
You can't compare game-play, but you can compare story. I liked Dawn of War 2's story better than StarCraft 2.
Really? I thought Dawn of War 2's story was pretty generic WH40k stuff to get all the races together for a fight. Starcraft 2's story has a grand purpose with interesting characters. I wish they would make a Horus Heresy game...You can't compare game-play, but you can compare story. I liked Dawn of War 2's story better than StarCraft 2.
airshocker
I wish they would make a Horus Heresy game...subyman
Only problem with that is that it would put SC2 to shame by being split into a bazillion separate games :P . Certainly doable if they used Star Wars: Empire at War as a model, but improving the planetary combat substantially...
(And what do you mean I can't virus bomb every planet in my way?)
[QUOTE="subyman"]
I wish they would make a Horus Heresy game...LordRork
Only problem with that is that it would put SC2 to shame by being split into a bazillion separate games :P . Certainly doable if they used Star Wars: Empire at War as a model, but improving the planetary combat substantially...
(And what do you mean I can't virus bomb every planet in my way?)
You mean Exterminatus, yes?[QUOTE="subyman"]
I wish they would make a Horus Heresy game...LordRork
Only problem with that is that it would put SC2 to shame by being split into a bazillion separate games :P .
You mean like DoW and DoW2? :PReally? I thought Dawn of War 2's story was pretty generic WH40k stuff to get all the races together for a fight. Starcraft 2's story has a grand purpose with interesting characters. I wish they would make a Horus Heresy game...subyman
I'm just more partial to W40K then I am StarCraft. And I would absolutely like to see a Horus Heresy campaign.
SC2. I played DoW2 for a while and found it really boring, it's like an RTS without the whole economy and base building thing, so the only real strategy involved is microing your troops. Kinda pointless if you ask me. SC2 is also quite simple yet strategical and fun.
You mean Exterminatus, yes?ExESGO
Not exactly, although it amounts to the same thing. Exterminatus usually relies on nuclear-style weapons that ignite the atmosphere, so could affect daemons/necrons/titans. Virus weapons only work on biological matter.
(And to be really pedantic, the heretics couldn't unleash Exterminatus as such, since it has be sanctioned by particular individuals...and if you're not working for the Imperium, you're just blowing stuff up because you can :P )
Correction, DoW2: RPG...............:PDawn of war 2 = RTT
Starcraft 2 = RTS
since I prefer RTS, I'll take Dawn of War and Starcraft over Dawn of War 2 any day. Also GFWL is fail.R4gn4r0k
Correction, DoW2: RPG...............:P RPG/RTT hybrid, it's not a pure RPG, it's like a genre related to MOBA and I love them :P.[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]
Dawn of war 2 = RTT
Starcraft 2 = RTS
since I prefer RTS, I'll take Dawn of War and Starcraft over Dawn of War 2 any day. Also GFWL is fail.lordreaven
I guess it's similar if you only play the multiplayer...But even then everything is completely modern-ified and cleaned up. Things like there being no unit cap for groups, the pathing being phenomenally good, the great matchmaking and the smart social features make it significantly better than the first game. And then the single players aren't even comparable. SC2's campaign is completely different from the first game's and also much much better. It's more comparable to DoW2, but even then it has much more depth than DoW2 did, and far less repitition.dow2 cuz sc2 isnt enough different from sc1 for me to like it
edinsftw
[QUOTE="edinsftw"]I guess it's similar if you only play the multiplayer...But even then everything is completely modern-ified and cleaned up. Things like there being no unit cap for groups, the pathing being phenomenally good, the great matchmaking and the smart social features make it significantly better than the first game. And then the single players aren't even comparable. SC2's campaign is completely different from the first game's and also much much better. It's more comparable to DoW2, but even then it has much more depth than DoW2 did, and far less repitition.dow2 cuz sc2 isnt enough different from sc1 for me to like it
kieranb2000
I agree. The people saying it is the exact same game have probably not played it yet and are only going off of the spec sheet. I wasn't super pumped about the game, but bought it because I expected a good campaign from blizzard but ended up being blown away by how great the SP is.
[QUOTE="edinsftw"]I guess it's similar if you only play the multiplayer...But even then everything is completely modern-ified and cleaned up. Things like there being no unit cap for groups, the pathing being phenomenally good, the great matchmaking and the smart social features make it significantly better than the first game. And then the single players aren't even comparable. SC2's campaign is completely different from the first game's and also much much better. It's more comparable to DoW2, but even then it has much more depth than DoW2 did, and far less repitition.dow2 cuz sc2 isnt enough different from sc1 for me to like it
kieranb2000
yea...the multiplayer is what most people will buy it for, but i think we can both agree they would be even better if they were steam integrated lol
yea...the multiplayer is what most people will buy it for, but i think we can both agree they would be even better if they were steam integrated lol
edinsftw
Steam and the poorly designed browser from DoW II are the reasons behind I didn't bought Chaos Rising, despite I bought DoW and the 3 expansions in the past. I liked the Relic choice and courage of doing a new DoW different from the first one, but they removed I the things I liked from DoW. At the beginning O blame Blizzard for being too conservative with the Starcraft II gameplay, but after DoW II I came to the conclusion that if some thing works, better not try to fix it.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment