Menu
Bland maps
DonDimon
Hello! I like almost everything the game has to offer currently (pity it's 3 races only though), except for the maps. Multiplayer maps look like generic MOBA arenas, they are bland and plain boring. Even in MOBAs maps look more interesting - let's take HOTS with it lush landscapes and amount of detail. Or let's take DOW2 - its maps have some terrain, at least, not the sterile, nominal textures as in DOW3. Where are the cities, deserts, whatever? It looks very schematic, killing all the immersion.
Campaign maps, from what I've seen, has some grass, okay, but look also very bland - and cartoonish, yes (I'm pretty fine with units' art style).
Another point - looks like all the action goes at night. I know it's a grim darkness of the far future, but will we play during day hours, sometime?
Best regards.
Comments
aWildUPSMan
I'm sorry but have you seen the DoW 1 maps? They were blander than Tofu. The maps we've seen so far have a good amount of detail. Signum the recent 3v3 map from the closed beta pits you on a platform hovering above what looks like a Warp Storm and is covered in glowing runes while magical space rocks float about on the outskirts.
If that isn't detailed then I don't know what is. Definitely not Tofu that's for sure.
Jelly
They've said the game will launch with a map editor. Maybe they trust the players to make better maps than them?
Historically that's been the case with RTS games. But if your gripe is with all the tilesets available community mapmakers won't be able to solve that.
grndmrshlgando
if you think these maps look bland, especially compared to dawn of war 1 and even dawn of war 2, then you need to have another look friend
Johnbonne
HotS' art style is very different to that of Dawn of War III, not to mention it didn't have much variety at launch. Blackheart Bay was the only distinct map for a while as the rest were either in gardens or dustbowls. Plus, with maps as small as that you could focus on the finer details. In DoW 1 & 2 the graphical fidelity and an art style befitting 40K was chosen, not to mention there weren't many RTS games that went above and beyond with the creativity we see nowadays to stand out. Considering the higher resolution of models and the amount we have on screen at any given time, I'm OK (at best) with the locations we're going to.
Now does this mean I'm impressed with the current style? No. Far from it. I've only seen glimpses but so far I don't feel any of the maps grabbing me, no matter how flashy they are objectively. Even as a huge fan of ice levels I'm not overly fond of the tutorial stage, so I'm not sure how much I'll enjoy it when I come to play it in multiplayer. I can't wait to see what the designers do with jungles and cities though given how rich in detail they were in DoW2. Next to Eisenhorn: Xenos they're probably my favourite iteration of them in a 40K video game.
Let's consider what we've seen so far: shards of the campaign and three of the eight multiplayer maps. We've got a fair bit more to see, not including whatever DLC is in the pipeline.
aWildUPSMan
Newsflash: Dow 3 is a completely different art style from DoW 2 and is not shooting for the realism effect. That has been said and re-iterated countless times since the game was first announced.
Gorb
Sure, but that has nothing to do with the technical quality of the art on display, or the settings chosen for the maps (which include things like terrain features, artificial environments, and all the things the OP claimed was missing from the maps in DoW III).
In short, your point isn't relevant to the thread at large. You've stated your objections time and time again, it has no bearing here.
aWildUPSMan
It also doesn't change the fact that your opinion on it being "dumb-looking" and "cartoony" is entirely subjective and holds no real weight as a criticism.
Larkis
Please make some screenshots to compare.
Larkis
I played closed beta. I have enoigh footage from dow3. Bit if you want to compare dow2 and dow3 it would be nice to have some pictures what you mean in special. Without examples its hard to discuss.
aWildUPSMan
Still subjective. You're boiling the game down in most threads I see you in to nothing but "Looks too cartoony and silly". That is the style Relic have chosen to take it in. Is it a little polished and clean? Sure but the gameplay is what matters here.
Lot's of people also love the look of the game. So what's the point your trying to make other than still whining two weeks prior to release about the art style? What is constructive about it? We understand you don't like it but you're not offering anything constructive that the devs could look at in the future and draw from.
aWildUPSMan
No but a discussion needs to have two sides. You're repeatedly given your view of the art style but add nothing more to it than just that.
Also the Indrid Video was pretty positive, what was your point with it?
KommandantKavu
Hilarious, the textures in DOW2 are not very high fidelity, the textures in DOW3 are very high fidelity, this is a simple matter of direct comparison of existing assets.
40 mins in and the map looks heavily pocked and charred with pools of blood, gibbed body parts, and husks of buildings:
I really find it hard to take such criticisms so seriously.
It's been discussed to death that DOW2 has had mesh deforming tech in place, but 30 mins in on this:
and I would say the way they conveyed environmental damage is not nearly as clean or visible. DOW3 seems to keep every impact from a rock or downed vehicle, DOW 2 seems to have craggy flat textures.
KommandantKavu
DOW3's aesthetics grow on you, other players have commented on this, take a look at Cataclaw's twitch for his Eldar play and you'll hear the same sentiments. I actually really like the visuals now, and I believe, as someone experienced with 3D and animations pretty much everything in the game is visually more refined than previous titles.. I mean the 'quality' strictly based on tech implemented and fidelity of the textures and particle effects are demonstrably improved..
Clear examples of such..
Plasma canon DOW2:
Plasma canon DOW3:
Artillery DOW2 (manitcore):
Artillery DOW3 (whirlwind):
ValKor01
@TripSin
DoW2 maps were a lot more complex and confined, the perspective of the player more zoomed in, so having a lot of detail on the map was encouraged. I am guessing it is the rocks, trees and other assets on the map that make them better in your opinion.
This is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, they do look better from that perspective, I had a lot of fun making detailed maps even if they weren't very good, Kasyr Lutien I went overboard making a massive map with lots of detail hoping there would be an Apocalypse style mod to take advantage of it but it never really came because the game was just so different from DoW1. I had a ton of fun making Fangbreaka Falls sticking in waterfalls, a downed Thunderhawk with a little base and landingbay nearby with some corpses dotted around so I know where you are coming from.
But DoW3 is mechanically different, larger armies need more open space and less obstructions, the player is more zoomed out to take in the larger number of units and details are stripped back from the map so its a lot easier to identify units and control them with less obstructions in the way to hamper pathing. So instead details are pushed elsewhere like outside the map where on one level youve got this apparent warpstorm going on, on other levels you had Eldar Ruins visible under ice, that large eldar statue we've seen, the moving floating block structures etc.
There is no way you can have the scale of DoW3 while having the attention to detail DoW2 had without sacrificing gameplay for pathing issues, difficulty in identifying units, maps being harder to make for the average user. These less cluttered maps might sacrifice precise detail but we'll hopefully have more map makers due to not having to place down all that cover and other assets to make maps look more interesting. I do hope we get more assets to play with so we can make slightly more detailed maps, like cityscapes to fight in but we will just have to see.
Shardex
My opinion is better than yours! And that is a fact!
Gorb
The reality where:
a) "cartoony and dumb-looking" isn't constructive, nor does it focus on any actual details beyond a broad distaste for the chosen art direction, and
b) something can be cartoony-styled and not be bland. The criticism is separate, or rather; it should be.
Czevak
"Cartoony and bland" comes from the maps not having a lot of detail. Sure they are colorful and there may be "stuff" floating around beyond the map's boundaries, but that its different from the playing field itself being detailed and what not. In DoW2 there was more detail in the maps. Im not saying it made the maps better, but they were more interesting to look at and play on. Stuff like random clutter, vehicle husks, and blown out buildings made them a little more interesting. Was also neat when one half of the map was more industrial and the other half was desert/forest (Like the calderis refinery 2v2 map) and the two tilesets seamlessly "blended" together or transitioned from one to the other.
I do hope that map makers in the community can make some cool stuff in the map editor though.
EDIT: Couldnt fit the quote in due to the character limit
aWildUPSMan
I'm just going to do a broad address in my post here as I keep seeing so many comments in most threads relating to the aesthetic or mechanics of the game as "Not being DoW 2".
It's not DoW 2. Yes I agree it would be cool to see some husks but as someone wrote earlier, these maps were created to support huge armies. Factor in the non existence of a cover system it equates to no need for minute details on the map. DoW 2's maps were small in comparison to three. It focused on small armies fighting in small skirmishes across different points of the map. The game allowed for highly detailed units and maps.
I'm being presumptuous for a moment but assuming you have played DoW 1 which most of the fan base on here have, the maps in the first iteration were pretty ++heresy redacted++ bland. The reality though is that providing the tech was available at the time, you would not have been able to have the scale of battles witnessed in DoW 1 on a DoW 2 map or aesthetic. Just wouldn't happen.
aWildUPSMan
PART 2:
I'll also draw your attention for a moment to the fact that when vehicles are destroyed in three they still leave a skeleton just like they did in two.
We have a certain expectation as fans for the third installment of a series to be just like the previous two. DoW 2 was nothing remotely like DoW 1. I don't see how the third game which has elements of both (but far closer to one) could be questioned so much on design and art choices when it is returning to roots in all honesty and distancing itself from the game that a lot of the fan base despised (two). Now a lot of those people are praising two as if it was the second coming when Retribution only get around 600-700 players on a good day; simply because it has that '40K aesthetic' that they all picture in books and the TT, negating the fact that people could make an entire army of bright metallic shiny pink Space Marines if they wanted to.
Apologies if that came off as a rant it wasn't particularly my intention but this want for another DoW 2 by many is insanity from a business standpoint for SEGA. It wouldn't sell well and judging by the end of THQ and Retribution's lifecycle, would only have a small hardcore dedicated following. There's no money to be made from that. It's also many of these fans repeating history. So many people bashed DoW 2 because let's be honest, it wasn't what someone's idea of 40K was either. Small scale battles, three man tactical squads...etc. The list goes on. Now these same people praise the second installment in the franchise while forgetting what they hated about it just to bash the new kid on the block (three).
Look I loved DoW 2, far more than one but times change. I don't want what I've already had. Just the same as I wouldn't want a complete remake of DoW 1 either.
Johnbonne
Y'know I think this is exactly my problem. I've just seen some quality footage for DoW3, and things look pretty good! The animation's a mixed bag with some things being too animate, and others being obviously symmetrical, but generally the maps are OK and the details are astonishing. With DoW 2 there was significantly less on screen, even counting Retribution's multiplayer scene compared to the first and upcoming third game, hence why it could afford to (and needed to) have those environmental details. The maps here have a lot of stuff on them compared to DoW 2 and while I criticise them for being clean, the weather effects are a lot more apparent. The sound design is what made the games feel like Warhammer though, so as long as this one gets the weapon sounds right, I think I can live with an aesthetic I'm not overly fond of.
DonDimon
We are not talking DoW 2 here, actually.
Let's take any strategy. Okay, Wargame. It has huuuge maps, effortlessly depicting all the real life landscape details. Omg how can huge armies traverse the terrain?! Man, come on.
Total War. Huge maps, lots of details and landscape elements. Come on, even DoW 1 had debris, rocks, hills and grass. Yea, those maps were a bit barren. But they wasn't sterile as DoW3's.
Why you guys justify those bland MOBA arenas DoW3 currently has? You really think map elements will distract you? Maybe you'd prefer a simple chess board?
I am sure it's possible to have large scale maps with adequate amount of details. Just a matter of budget, time, and loving hands of level artists.
I consider maps as an important feature in RTS games, so would be great if out beloved franchise had beautiful, rich maps to fight on.
ValKor01
You appear to be having trouble understanding what type of game this is, DoW3 is nothing like the games you bring up here.
It's not about it "being possible", its about what type of gameplay the devs want, Total War isn't a traditional RTS, Sieging city's is expected, realistic landscapes for armies to fight on are expected, Army formations are expected for that type of game.
DoW3 is clearly a more traditional RTS, players get annoyed when units don't move the way they want because of pathing issues or slow responsiveness, that is why the maps are the way they are. DoW3 is a faster paced game than a Total War game so it doesn't make sense to clutter the battlefield with objects that will cause units to move differently to what a player wants or expects, that adds to the feeling of randomness in a battle.
You ignore the benefits of less cluttered maps, it means player made maps will be quicker to make, in my opinion the number of assets required for a DoW2 map put a lot of people off making maps, there was so much to think about in regards to cover as well as how you wanted a map to look. I don't believe map making for any total war game has been as popular as map making for more traditional RTS games like DoW1 for example.
There is still the potential for more natural looking maps from player made maps as long as the objects are there and we get a few more tilesets, 2 out of the 3 I have seen so far are deliberately artificial in look due to them being based on man/xeno made structures and the other tileset is a barren ice/rock/lava tileset.
ValKor01
Cont...
Split into 2 posts due to char restriction:
MOBA arenas are crafted with a lot of details, I wouldn't call them bland.
I find it ironic that you compare maps from Total War to DoW3, ignoring the mechanical differences of the two games and then you propose people that like DoW3 maps maybe want a chess board which is from a drastically different type of game mechanically and visually.
CleanAndClear
I'm not really sure we have played the same DoW1...
Larkis
Are you serious?
Wargame has no collision detection. Tanks easily drive trough trees, traktors snd other "environment stuff". There are detsils but they have no impact on the gameplay and it only works cause you play so much zoomed out that you command symbols. Nothing more.
And Total War Warhammer Maps has huuuuge spaces. Look at a town siege Map. The streets are bog enough that 30 men could easily stand side by side with nothing there which could confuse path finding.
These examples work against your arguments.
ValKor01
In what way do they work against my argument that the games are mechanically different, are intended to play differently? Because that was the point I was making...
Edit: I'd like to add, the discussion was on objects on the map and you use an example of "huuuuuge spaces" to argue for objects on the map? either the huge space has objects to add to the visuals that cause units to go around them or they don't at which point I do not know what we are talking about any more.
Larkis
It was agsinst Dondimon. Sorry dont saw your post on mobile.
ValKor01
ah ok, I think next time you should tag a user, that way it saves confusion, I just assumed because I was the last person to go over that same subject that you were replying to me, my bad for making an assumption.
mauritos
about maps
1 is terain/objects destructable like in dow 2
2 will we see any normal map,i mean map with tress,desert map like in dow 1/2