The main reason I was put off DoWIII in retrospect

Psychodrake

I was quite an avid defender of the game after the first screenshots were shown, and only really became critical when we knew the game was coming with one major game mode - Before release, this was my big peeve. Even DoW2 could have benefitted from more fun game modes than the two it was given (Three including the brilliant TLS).

In retrospect, it was the sheer lack of races. Buying Dawn of War and having 4 major races was brilliant, and all 4 were fresh and new because it was the first of the series. Every addition was a straight buy because of how well the first 4 were handled. Dow2 introduced my favourite faction and came with 3 of the 4 races from the previous game, which I was fine with as Tyranids threw a big new gameplay mix in, and we eventually received Chaos and IG back and they both played in a very fun and different way to DoW1.

DoW3 having just 3 races, and the 3 safest races in the entire 40k universe, was a huge disappointment. Many players have paid a LOT of money over time on the series and when each iteration requires even the thought of having to buy our favourite races AGAIN, it puts people off before they are even interested. On top of that the races were fairly similar in play, with the elites taking the spotlight and the regular soldier becoming somewhat of a grinder fodder unit.

I feel like just introducing one new race, or an old favourite, would have been a huge boon to the games release. Space Marines, Orks and Eldar are done to death, and each are fairly similar to the fantasy races they're based on - Obviously anyone who is a big 40k buff knows how great these races are, but to the outside eye, races such as Chaos, Necrons, Tyranids and Tau have more of an edge. Imperial Guard are one of the most popular races in 40k because of their human vs insanely powerful aliens and bring in the insane cavalry theme.

There's a lot that could have been done "better", but the same could be said with DoW2 as well, there are reasons people stuck with it and it succeeded. The thought of buying and unlocking elites didn't have the same excitement to it as using whole other races. A lesson that CA seems to have nailed with TWW and its wide supply of unique races.

Socite

Personally I was able to make do with my disappointment and I enjoy the game but would've loved to see one more race. I would've wanted to start with Chaos in the game, with any potential expansion adding either Necrons, IG or Tau.

Dullahan

I think Relic really should have pushed for fourth race, but the 3 they did make are so awesomely designed that I think being able to focus on fewer races really improved things that way. But quantity is more important than quality with 40K.

Amoc

Nobody can tell you what your reasons are for being put off by the game, but the "not enough races" isn't a good argument for why the game didn't do well. The idea that a 4th race would have magically multiplied the player base is a exercise in fantasy.

Ifitmovesnukeit

Well, until you define "magically multiplied", we can't really discuss that, but I've seen enough community sentiment about "only 3 races" to suggest it was important to some to have more.

I would agree that there would have been no silver bullet solution, though.

Dandalus

Completely agree with original post, well said.

McNash

Using Dawn of War 2 with all the already implemented stuff to make Dawn of War 3 would have been an interesting way to go, Eugen Systems did this with Wargame and adding more and more content, currently Wargame: Red Dragon is one of the strategy games with more content I have ever seen, I mean, tell me about a game which has the armies of the following nations:

• United States
• France
• United Kingdom
• West Germany
• Canada
• Denmark
• Norway
• Sweden
• Japan
• South Korea
• ANZAC (Australia • New Zealand)
• Netherlands
• Israel
• Soviet Union
• East Germany
• Poland
• Czechoslovakia
• China
• North Korea
• Yugoslavia
• Finland

If Eugen Systems ever decided to extend the timeline to the 21st century it would mean F22 raptors, Comanches, Pumas, Armatas and a lot of other military hardware as well as new nations such as Italy and India.

That's why I have been insisting in a remastering of Dawn of War 1, you already have most of the races implemented along with the gameplay, you just need to improve the graphics and tweak the bugs to have a great game with 9 factions, I believe that's a high enough number to please everyone and the chance to add more units created up to the 8th edition of 40k tabletop, anyone wants Mechanicus, Custodes or Thousand Sons?

CANNED_F3TUS

@McNash said:
Using Dawn of War 2 with all the already implemented stuff to make Dawn of War 3 would have been an interesting way to go, Eugen Systems did this with Wargame and adding more and more content, currently Wargame: Red Dragon is one of the strategy games with more content I have ever seen, I mean, tell me about a game which has the armies of the following nations:

• United States
• France
• United Kingdom
• West Germany
• Canada
• Denmark
• Norway
• Sweden
• Japan
• South Korea
• ANZAC (Australia • New Zealand)
• Netherlands
• Israel
• Soviet Union
• East Germany
• Poland
• Czechoslovakia
• China
• North Korea
• Yugoslavia
• Finland

If Eugen Systems ever decided to extend the timeline to the 21st century it would mean F22 raptors, Comanches, Pumas, Armatas and a lot of other military hardware as well as new nations such as Italy and India.

That's why I have been insisting in a remastering of Dawn of War 1, you already have most of the races implemented along with the gameplay, you just need to improve the graphics and tweak the bugs to have a great game with 9 factions, I believe that's a high enough number to please everyone and the chance to add more units created up to the 8th edition of 40k tabletop, anyone wants Mechanicus, Custodes or Thousand Sons?

Remasters are not that great really. A remake of DoW 1 would have been better. It would effectively be a whole new game but with an improved formula and that would make it feel fresh.

TokyoDream

When I heard DOW3 was in development, I took it for granted that TLS would be there at launch. It seemed like such a no-brainer to expand upon something that was so popular. Instead we got nothing. That's a recurring theme with DOW3. Before launch I wondered what Relic was going to do with all of the promising ideas they had in other DOW games. It feels like most of those ideas were thrown out and replaced with nothing. Especially in the campaign.

Psychodrake

@TokyoDream said:
When I heard DOW3 was in development, I took it for granted that TLS would be there at launch. It seemed like such a no-brainer to expand upon something that was so popular. Instead we got nothing. That's a recurring theme with DOW3. Before launch I wondered what Relic was going to do with all of the promising ideas they had in other DOW games. It feels like most of those ideas were thrown out and replaced with nothing. Especially in the campaign.

This is part of the problem I tried to highlight in my post, the game was simply barebones compared to what DoW2 and 1 had. When people buy a sequel, be it story or multiplayer, they often expect MORE, not less. While we'll never know if they wanted to sell us a bunch of elites/paint colours etc. there was definitely a voice in the back of my head that saw the huge, risky business decision made to give us even less and get us to buy even more, and I doubt I was the only one. It didn't end up that way, but only because the base game didn't succeed - I think we would have been seeing quite a few microtransactions by now if the game sold more copies.

And to top it off and continue my original post, was it Sega or Relic? Publishers often push for a release date and it was clear DoW3 was not finished to the usual Relic standard - Not to say it wasn't polished, but there is often more reasons to play the campaign over and more variety of races available to keep the game fresh, while the 3 races we got weren't different enough like they were in previous games.

It's sad because we all know Relics potential.

Draconix

@Psychodrake said:

@TokyoDream said:
When I heard DOW3 was in development, I took it for granted that TLS would be there at launch. It seemed like such a no-brainer to expand upon something that was so popular. Instead we got nothing. That's a recurring theme with DOW3. Before launch I wondered what Relic was going to do with all of the promising ideas they had in other DOW games. It feels like most of those ideas were thrown out and replaced with nothing. Especially in the campaign.

This is part of the problem I tried to highlight in my post, the game was simply barebones compared to what DoW2 and 1 had. When people buy a sequel, be it story or multiplayer, they often expect MORE, not less. While we'll never know if they wanted to sell us a bunch of elites/paint colours etc. there was definitely a voice in the back of my head that saw the huge, risky business decision made to give us even less and get us to buy even more, and I doubt I was the only one. It didn't end up that way, but only because the base game didn't succeed - I think we would have been seeing quite a few microtransactions by now if the game sold more copies.

And to top it off and continue my original post, was it Sega or Relic? Publishers often push for a release date and it was clear DoW3 was not finished to the usual Relic standard - Not to say it wasn't polished, but there is often more reasons to play the campaign over and more variety of races available to keep the game fresh, while the 3 races we got weren't different enough like they were in previous games.

It's sad because we all know Relics potential.

Setbacks, as I know happens, even to the best.

But I think TokyoDream is correct about one thing. It was Sega who set a release date in pursuit to earn quickly. If they could delay the release, then Relic maybe could implement more content and polish the game, but well.

But doesn't mean I have to hate Relic for such a one setback since I liked Dow3 after all, even if it didn't do well. Maybe their next project will have more lucky future I don't know. But I might take a interest in Coh3 if it will be announced.

TokyoDream

@Psychodrake said:

While we'll never know if they wanted to sell us a bunch of elites/paint colours etc. there was definitely a voice in the back of my head that saw the huge, risky business decision made to give >us even less and get us to buy even more, and I doubt I was the only one. It didn't end up that way, but only because the base game didn't succeed - I think we would have been seeing quite a >few microtransactions by now if the game sold more copies.

I wouldn't have a problem with micro-transactions if it feels like you're getting something extra, not something you should already have. Locking away units, doctrines and even colors is crossing the line even if you don't have to pay for it. If there was a lot of cosmetic content that could be payed for with skulls or money, I'd be fine with that. That would be a great motivator for people to play more and skulls could be rewards for events and tournaments. It just feels like another part of DOW3 that was unfinished. There wasn't any optional content to lock so they locked down fundamental parts of the game.

Amoc

@Ifitmovesnukeit said:
Well, until you define "magically multiplied", we can't really discuss that, but I've seen enough community sentiment about "only 3 races" to suggest it was important to some to have more.

There's nothing to define. When I say "magically" I mean that there's no basis to suggest it would. Could adding Chaos have increased the player base? No doubt it would have, but it would have be an proportional increase (and thus negligible) rather than some inexplicable multiplication of the entire player base back to healthy levels.

Gorb

@Psychodrake said:

@TokyoDream said:
When I heard DOW3 was in development, I took it for granted that TLS would be there at launch. It seemed like such a no-brainer to expand upon something that was so popular. Instead we got nothing. That's a recurring theme with DOW3. Before launch I wondered what Relic was going to do with all of the promising ideas they had in other DOW games. It feels like most of those ideas were thrown out and replaced with nothing. Especially in the campaign.

This is part of the problem I tried to highlight in my post, the game was simply barebones compared to what DoW2 and 1 had. When people buy a sequel, be it story or multiplayer, they often expect MORE, not less. While we'll never know if they wanted to sell us a bunch of elites/paint colours etc. there was definitely a voice in the back of my head that saw the huge, risky business decision made to give us even less and get us to buy even more, and I doubt I was the only one. It didn't end up that way, but only because the base game didn't succeed - I think we would have been seeing quite a few microtransactions by now if the game sold more copies.

And to top it off and continue my original post, was it Sega or Relic? Publishers often push for a release date and it was clear DoW3 was not finished to the usual Relic standard - Not to say it wasn't polished, but there is often more reasons to play the campaign over and more variety of races available to keep the game fresh, while the 3 races we got weren't different enough like they were in previous games.

It's sad because we all know Relics potential.

The sad thing for me is that people keep repeating these things, and then they're treated as accepted fact. I'm fine with having people having their expectations not met, or not enjoying the base design, or thinking the game needs more content. Or any combination of those! But this revisionist opinion is precisely why people started getting frustrated at attempts to criticise DoW III, and a large part of certainly why on here and on Steam people grouped themselves into "factions".

• vDoW was solid at launch. It didn't have as much content variety as people remember it for, but hey. What it lacked, however, was racial variety. SM and CSM on launch were more similar than I think anyone remembers. CSM squads were literally the same as SM Tacticals, with the same kind of weapons options.
• DoW II was not great at launch. It did not have content variety at launch. However, it had racial variety. Especially prior to TioW, races had a lot of "flavour" (TioW massively helped the game carry on in terms of engaging design, but players often lamented the lack of "feel" that the races had thereafter - particularly Tyranids).
• DoW III was solid at launch. The main issues were ones that had been a thing prior to the open beta, prior to the game's launch. A lot of the open beta impressions were actually positive. MP map content was greater than DoW II. The campaign was a greater length than vDoW's. For an initial offering, on a brand new engine version, it's comparable. Most importantly, racial variety was massive compared to previous offerings. Not only did you have three Elites per faction, offering more diversification than DoW II's Commander system, but the racial mechanics were a lot tighter-designed (Drop Pods per Tier alone is something DoW II could only wish to have, and vDoW never had anything like that. And don't get me started on Waaagh!) and better-integrated into the ingame UI.

So why do people pretend that it wasn't? This is a hard question to answer, and I'm not going to single out you here Psychodrake. There are a lot of potential factors, and while they're definitely understandable all I want to do is show that despite these factors, the actual content the game shipped with was fine. Where we've got to now, here, is people trying to explain to themselves why the game didn't do as well as they thought it would. I've been doing a lot of reading, and less posting (barring moderation), to analyse this.

Generalising, the following are common factors:

1. The campaign wasn't like DoW II's. Fair enough, it's not. But people complained that DoW II was too repetitive, used "bullet sponge" bosses, and wasn't multi-faction like in WA, DC or SS.
2. The campaign wasn't like vDoW's. This is a bit of a harder one to parse, because what people commonly say is "vDoW" or "DoW" or "DoW 1" and what they actually mean is DC (or SS). They're comparing a product with a minimum of two years of support to a new product at launch. Eh.
3. The campaign was too short. Now, the design of DoW campaigns from DC onwards makes this a bit hard to judge. To take ones with an established story and no (major) repeatable farmable content, we look to vDoW, WA, Chaos Rising and maybe Retribution. vDoW had 11. WA had 10. CR had 15, including optionals. Retribution had 15, including optionals. DoW III has 17. They're all fully-scripted, with voice work in and out of missions, and a few cutscenes thrown in for good measure. I think people are simply letting their like or dislike of the missions themselves influence their arguments here. I definitely agree the economic pacing feels too drawn-out, there's often too much time where you're not doing much. But when the missions are being played they're decent, and they last up to a good hour each (at least by what I've played).
4. The multiplayer was a MOBA. Yeah, not touching this one this time
5. Power Core is unrealistic. Well, so were Victory Points. So are the capturable locations in vDoW that were not only some kind of unique technology that allowed all races to interface with them equally, but they were identical across every single planet, star system and technology base featured in the vDoW map pool. Again. It's fine to dislike it. But this criticism is not unique to DoW III, nor is it a unique failing of DoW III.
6. The defensive bubbles are unrealistic. More agreeable the complaints solely about Power Core. The best argument here is clarity of gameplay before lore, and I fully understand that folks would find that a less valid counterargument.
7. Sync kills. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but more people had problems with these in DoW II than people seem to remember. I can understand both "sides" of the argument, and personally I think the gameplay is better off for their loss. There are a lot more problems in doing them "right" that can be allocated to other systems.
8. TLS. Specifically "why did they not include TLS at launch". Because TLS was never included at launch. It doesn't matter if TLS was massively popular (it was). What matters is what development time the game was allotted. We're not going to know this. We're never going to know this. However, again, we've already established the base assets are comparable to the base assets for either of the previous iterations, and the game technically was rock-solid on top of that. The UI needed work, and work was done to it, but let's not pretend there still aren't issues in vDoW or DoW II in that regard. So why do people raise TLS? Because they personally prefer it compared to other parts of the game. That's all there is to it. It sucks, but Relic aren't going to be able to please everyone. They made the decision that an SP campaign and a core MP set would satisfy the most customers (and this is typically true).

This expectation that sequels should do everything better every time is rooted in idealism at best. At worst, it comes down to unrealistic expectations and yes, at times, entitlement (again, not singling folks out here, just analysing trends). However, I can understand it. I empathise with it. It's harder and harder to justify spending money on a market that is getting literally swamped in titles with each passing year. Peoples' situations are different to nine years ago. It certainly is for me! Dropped £40 or more on a brand-new game that you're not even guaranteed to get 20 hours of out? I get that.

What I don't agree with is this constant attempt at painting vDoW and DoW II as better than they were received. It bugs me, because there are posters who have been in this community for as long as I have, and they were around at the start of the DoW II version of these official forums. I defended DoW II. To this day it's still my favourite DoW game, and especially for the SP Campaign. But these views of DOW II weren't around then. They might have been more popular by the time Retribution rolled around, but that's still an unfair comparison. Compare DoW II at launch to DoW III, be as critical as you want, sure. But don't hold up vDoW or DoW II after two expansions and claim DoW III at launch should somehow have a fuller feature set. That's unrealistic. You cannot cram five years of development into three years (assuming an average three-year cycle for the base game / engine work). It's a false equivalence, and I'm very tired of it being used this way.

---

If you got this far, I appreciate it. Walls of texts aren't often that fun, and this post, if read, is bound to evoke a bit of a strong reaction from some.

Opinion post.

TokyoDream

@Gorb
I wouldn't say the content was "fine" at launch. A lot of people didn't like the content. That's a big reason people wanted more content. Myself included. If DOW3 had excelled in SP or MP at launch it would be a different story. DOW3 needed something fun to do with these awesome armies. Annihilation was a step in the right direction but, as r_benb said, many players were quitting after a few campaign missions. MP is a tough sell without a good campaign. I really think that campaign killed DOW3.

PS I like the bubbles.

Gorb

@TokyoDream said:
@Gorb
I wouldn't say the content was "fine" at launch. A lot of people didn't like the content. That's a big reason people wanted more content. Myself included. If DOW3 had excelled in SP or MP at launch it would be a different story. DOW3 needed something fun to do with these awesome armies. Annihilation was a step in the right direction but, as r_benb said, many players were quitting after a few campaign missions. MP is a tough sell without a good campaign. I really think that campaign killed DOW3.

PS I like the bubbles.

I covered this before, so I'm sorry for the repetition, but you not liking the content doesn't mean the content did not take the time to make, compared to any previous title. Do you still like the vDoW campaign? It's literally exactly the same, with the same telegraphed story beats, the same campaign structure of slowly giving you access to the tech tree, and generally being a tutorial for multiplayer.

If you don't, that doesn't mean that vDoW suddenly wasn't worth it on launch, right?

I don't think there's a person here that can't empathise with wanting more content. Well, maybe a couple. But you not personally liking the content doesn't mean the content was not worth it. It might not have been the right content for the game to succeed, but that's a separate argument. I'm comparing it to the amount of content delivered in previous games. Specifically with DoW II, because people are really forgetting how shaky that launch was. I'm forever grateful that Relic were allowed to keep supporting the product, as it's my favourite iteration to date. DoW III comes in second, but had the potential to be top.

Amoc

I have to agree with Gorb on this. Relatively speaking, the game had plenty of content for a new release. The fact that the Power Core mode wasn't appreciated and the campaign didn't impress people are reasonable criticisms, but mainly in the sense that folks didn't like them.

I don't agree that you need a good SP campaign is a prerequisite for MP take-up either. It can help perhaps, but CoH 2's SP campaign was nothing to write home about and the SP offering is generally pretty bare. The game survived and thrived mainly off of MP alone. The issue here is that neither of DoW III's SP or MP really resonated.

TokyoDream

@Gorb
All I said was that a lot of people didn't like the content at launch which appears to be supported by Relic's own data. I don't think that's a controversial statement.

I didn't say anything about the amount of content. Ultimately that doesn't really matter. It's the amount of content that customers want to play that matters. vDOW1 had great MP at launch and DOW2 had a really impressive campaign at launch. If DOW3 had either of these things, I don't think people would be fixating on a lot of the criticisms that you mentioned.

Amoc

You're right about there not being enough that people wanted to play, but that's a bit of a truism isn't it? Folks didn't like the game because there wasn't enough stuff they liked...

Gorb

@TokyoDream said:
@Gorb
All I said was that a lot of people didn't like the content at launch which appears to be supported by Relic's own data. I don't think that's a controversial statement.

I didn't say anything about the amount of content. Ultimately that doesn't really matter. It's the amount of content that customers want to play that matters. vDOW1 had great MP at launch and DOW2 had a really impressive campaign at launch. If DOW3 had either of these things, I don't think people would be fixating on a lot of the criticisms that you mentioned.

I never said it was a controversial statement.

DoW II's campaign was marred by many of the same things that marred DoW II at launch. The campaign wasn't the saving grace at the time that people seem to think it is, now. That's where I started in this specific community; helping out in technical support. Error 183, and a fatal SCaR error on Angel Forge (the campaign mission, prevented all further progression in the campaign). This is why I made the huge post that I did, about people remembering things after the fact. People remember the campaign as being good because they remember it as working. or maybe it worked for them! Certainly, it worked for me. The worst I had was a couple of error 183s on my original GPU / RAM combo, and some achievements not firing (very common throughout DoW II's lifetime).

But that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that there's a very different point to be made between "I didn't like the content on launch" and "the game didn't have much content on launch". One is a direct reason, something that Relic can use. The other is a) not supported by available data and b) doesn't give any concrete reasoning to support why people might feel that way. This isn't just semantics, this is important to figuring out how Relic could improve this or any future such products.

Amoc

He just said that he's not arguing about the amount of content (at least not anymore). He's arguing about the amount of content that people wanted to play. That to me sounds like it's just another way of saying folks didn't like the game, but from previous discussions he and I differ on why.

In Tokyo's case, he seems to believe that the game is good on a fundamental level, but that the campaign and MP game-modes were sub-par and that's where the game floundered. Thus by content he's saying that a more interesting/robust campaign and more traditional (or better) MP game modes would have solved DoW III's woes.

Obviously I don't agree with that in the slightest, but that seems to be where his reasoning is coming from.

Gorb

In that case they fundamentally misunderstood what I meant by my content argument, which they first responded to. Fair enough.

TokyoDream

@Amoc said:
He just said that he's not arguing about the amount of content (at least not anymore). He's arguing about the amount of content that people wanted to play. That to me sounds like it's just another way of saying folks didn't like the game, but from previous discussions he and I differ on why.

In Tokyo's case, he seems to believe that the game is good on a fundamental level, but that the campaign and MP game-modes were sub-par and that's where the game floundered. Thus by content he's saying that a more interesting/robust campaign and more traditional (or better) MP game modes would have solved DoW III's woes.

Obviously I don't agree with that in the slightest, but that seems to be where his reasoning is coming from.

Yeah, that's pretty much spot on.

Amoc

Earlier in the thread it was pretty clear they were arguing about a lack of content so I get what you're saying. Tokyo seems to have adjusted or clarified his criticism since then, however.

Lack of content is not a good argument, as you said. Complaints about what that content was, or what would have been better content are what we should be discussing.

CANNED_F3TUS

@Psychodrake said:

@TokyoDream said:
When I heard DOW3 was in development, I took it for granted that TLS would be there at launch. It seemed like such a no-brainer to expand upon something that was so popular. Instead we got nothing. That's a recurring theme with DOW3. Before launch I wondered what Relic was going to do with all of the promising ideas they had in other DOW games. It feels like most of those ideas were thrown out and replaced with nothing. Especially in the campaign.

This is part of the problem I tried to highlight in my post, the game was simply barebones compared to what DoW2 and 1 had. When people buy a sequel, be it story or multiplayer, they often expect MORE, not less. While we'll never know if they wanted to sell us a bunch of elites/paint colours etc. there was definitely a voice in the back of my head that saw the huge, risky business decision made to give us even less and get us to buy even more, and I doubt I was the only one. It didn't end up that way, but only because the base game didn't succeed - I think we would have been seeing quite a few microtransactions by now if the game sold more copies.

And to top it off and continue my original post, was it Sega or Relic? Publishers often push for a release date and it was clear DoW3 was not finished to the usual Relic standard - Not to say it wasn't polished, but there is often more reasons to play the campaign over and more variety of races available to keep the game fresh, while the 3 races we got weren't different enough like they were in previous games.

It's sad because we all know Relics potential.

DoW 2 started off pretty bare bones imo. It started with similiar levels of content as DoW 3. Took a year to add last stand. And each expansion only brought in 1 additional race.

ShadowNet

Aside from the somewhat lacking campaign compared to the previous installment (no co-op, rpg elements, mission choice), I think the change to a faster pace and sky-high lethality made DoW 3 unpopular. For many coming from the slow-ish DoW 1 and "streamlined CoH" DoW 2, it simply didn't feel fun to play. Maybe they should've focused on team games to keep more of the casual players, like they did with vDoW 2's 3v3 mode, and build up from there.

Amoc

I agree with you 100% on that. I've been arguing since the game released that the primary issue has been gameplay.