RelicNews Forums - [sp] Can you ever "lose" a planet to tyranids?

Buguba

12th Mar 09, 1:44 PM

How would losing a planet to infestation be fun? Now you've just lost 4 or 5 maps out of the 15 or so available. Urgency or not, it's pretty harsh to lose a third of the playing field. Not to mention that it would be a domino effect; the more planets you lose, the less shrines you have, the more likely you are to lose another planet.

Infestation increases the tyranid presence per mission, as a matter of fact. Just observe the difference. When infestation is more than halfway, the atmosphere changes. Also, you'll notice a lot more capillary towers as Tyranid buildings when infestation is higher. Capillary towers extend bonuses to nearby Nid troops, making them tougher than normal. Likewise, the increase in Brood Nests and buildings means a lot more Nids for you to deal with than normal.

You said so yourself that you lost the mission. I'm assuming you lost because the Nids simply overwhelmed you in a swarm of VCs, adrenal glands, Carnifexes, and gaunts. There wouldn't have been nearly as many Nids if your infestation was lower. They wouldn't have been as tough either.

The incentive to keep the infestation low is so that you don't lose missions and, by consequence, points.

Dark Angel N00b

12th Mar 09, 2:09 PM

I did find the final mission much easier after clearing out the infestation rating on the planet it was on, so it does benefit you in battles, but I dont think the game can ever end, it really hurts your score to let it grow though.

temprus

12th Mar 09, 3:39 PM

You can not lose the game except to quit playing. Even if you get to the second stage of "The Last Stand" or farther and fail the mission, it causes a magic reset button and you are somehow alive and back on the ship, just like when you lose any other mission.

Troubleshooter

12th Mar 09, 4:38 PM

@Bugaba : Since you need all the planets to finish the game, I was under the assumption that if you let one get over run, the game was over...

As it turns out... you can kick back and have a piña colada while you cruise around the system picking off missions at will, the nids just never become a real threat.

BTW, the mission I lost was vs. orks :p

KOKO

12th Mar 09, 6:01 PM

Next Game : I´m a Looser . Goal : How can i become the best Looser ?
Dont understood the motivation to ask so silly questions.
This is a game. A story about the famous super heros of the imperator.
A chapter called the blood ravens, created by relic . You have to defend the home of the blood ravens, their future and so on. Just do it ^^
Why you thinking that real efforts are a task to this story ? Do you think WH40k is a real world ?
I´ve lost 3 missions about 120 ,because i´m not care....^^ Just watch the dynamic graphics^^

Ceorl

12th Mar 09, 7:50 PM

Still, this totally saps the sense of urgency out of the game.

I know, I was really enjoying the campaign until I realized things were little more than a loot grind so I could tackle the next scripted mission.

Saias

12th Mar 09, 8:14 PM

KOKO - um...what?

KOKO

13th Mar 09, 3:03 AM

???
This game is build for everyone ( especial for 12 years old ones ) , so there is only success allowed ^^
If you compair your real thougts within the game, you got in trouble. This happends to the last year new games since GfWL is in. Consumer happiness . It s a straigth one way game ^^ Or do you believe the Blood Ravens and the Imperator could fail ?
Death to the heretics :jump:
edit : and cheers to all modder

Rook

13th Mar 09, 4:21 AM

Are you saying this game was designed for 12 year olds? The blood ravens have lost before (soul storm) and all the other Meta maps have had multiple endings depending on who you played. The canon story has never really been affected if you loose the campaign or not.

And who is the imperator?

There should be more of a penalty for allowing infestation to reach higher levels. it would be nice if you were "booted off" the planet and then only having the option to form a beachhead in one region and retake all the objectives. I have noticed the higher the infestation the more nids are on the map.

KOKO

13th Mar 09, 12:51 PM

Could it be that you take this GAME as serious ?
Do you remember that SS includes 9 races whom all have an scripted final win ?
Do you realize that this game we talk about is different to DoW - WA - DC -SS ?
Someone is disapoined about "no care what happend " ? Maybe someone at relic spend another month with 2 or 3 people to change this.

Imperator : german word to Emperor , sry for my fault.(http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Emperor_of_Mankind

Dont misunderstood me-i like the stuff, but i didnt take it seriously ,like Star Wars too.
It s just an story in the future with some fiction .
And..i´ve played all Dow games, and win with every race on ss and dc.
DoW was first,and there is also only one race campaign.
WA change to IG AND Eldar OR Chaos AND Ork.
DC change it to a planet with 7 races and no single race campaign. Each race has scripted .
SS is the same with 2 moore races and a new planet system.#
This takes 4 years.
DoW 2 beguns like DoW with a single race campaign -seems that they are willing to put moore in via CDL, so wait a year and look them.

Troubleshooter

13th Mar 09, 1:25 PM

Could it be that you take this GAME as serious ?
I'm an old school gamer. Yes, I expect that a game that sells itself as having "hard choices" and "consequences" would actually provide exactly that.

The game is rated mature, yet there is no evidence that beyond some violence there is little to no real mature content in the game.

For example, why have a rigid save-game mechanic that makes you live with consequences of your failures without actually having a mechanic that produces consequences beyond moving the day-count forward by one and having one or two optional missions expire.

There is no permanent damage done to any region on any world, and no world will ever be consumed by the hive fleet no matter how inept you are at stopping them.

Playing through the first time I felt like I had to protect the system and did a fine job of it, even felt good about keeping infestation below half for most of the game until the end. Second time through I wanted to see what happened when the Nids won... I literally lost all interest in single player for a game that has been sold as having "high re-playability"... yes, thats serious.

I played Dark Crusade through from start to finish about 20 times. DoW2 gets only 3 out of me, tops. That's an epic-fail IMO.

CommissarRezail

13th Mar 09, 1:44 PM

I know what trouble shootermean. I played some Rts, you lose that super weapon, then you f out and have to fight with out it. Like Earth 2150, you loose the alliance with lc then the rest of your days on planet earth wil be harsh fighting a constant three way battle.

Lossing a planet seem to be reasonable, or making the planet melt after awhile XD. It keep you on your toes. Like in earth 2150 again ;p you had what 168 game days to beat the campaign XD or you die with the planet.

frankenstein

13th Mar 09, 2:24 PM

I'm reminded of older games where, if you didn't keep on top of things, you could lose in epic fashion.

X:Com: If the alien infestation gets too much, you are treated of a few splash screens showing Earth totally terraformed into a weird alien landscape, with humans basically lobotomized and wandering the puffy landscape as slaves to the Sectoids.

Star Control II: If you wait too long, the "evil" Ur'Quan who want to kill every sentient race in the galaxy basically end up doing this. Their "sphere of influence" on the star map starts moving and it eats the "good" Ur'Quan, all of the other alien races on the map, and eventually, Earth. Once this starts, you have about a few months of game time to watch in horror, basically powerless to stop them.

Having no "game over, you suck" for DOW II is kind of par for the course for this game, it being friendlier to the consumer and newbie. However, the tense storyline and visual effects of the Tyrranoformation of my planets were enough to make me care about keeping the infestation down.

Rook

13th Mar 09, 5:11 PM

Could it be that you take this GAME as serious ?

no i dont think so, but i think your logic of we cant lose because "but their space marines lol" is pretty poor.

and i dont understand where you think scripting some failure screens would take months, where did you get that figure?

duffbeer

13th Mar 09, 5:50 PM

100% agree with troubleshooter, I feel like it's a bloody xbox game

CommissarRezail

13th Mar 09, 5:57 PM

It feels like a console game period XD. Not just X box most games now have no gameover scenario you just keep trying and trying and pop you win. Conngrattulattions.

HiveMind

13th Mar 09, 6:22 PM

Why do you want to be able to get a game over? It's not like it does anything other than force you to reload from where you last saved (which can be several hours ago...).

Robert Frazer

13th Mar 09, 6:31 PM

It feels like a console game period XD. Not just X box most games now have no gameover scenario you just keep trying and trying and pop you win. Conngrattulattions.

How quickly you forget about your quicksave hotkey... :rolleyes:

Troubleshooter

13th Mar 09, 10:07 PM

Why do you want to be able to get a game over?

No pressure, no fun. Saved games help prevent a player from losing a ton of work invested into a session, but taking out the threat of failure does sort of defeat the point of getting the player invested in the first place.

If nothing else, I want a graphical treat for failure :)

As someone else pointed out... great games like X-com had this possibility... why are we using training wheels here?

temprus

13th Mar 09, 10:17 PM

The reason there is not a normal save game function is that you can not lose this game. Worse that happens if you fail a mission is that it adds another day to your day count and that might expire some defend missions and up your Tyranid infestation score a few boxes.

van Uber

14th Mar 09, 1:25 AM

The Campaign is there for the vast majority of the consumers: the casual gamer.

If you want to feel pressure and risk losing, play multiplayer.

An1m4L

14th Mar 09, 2:27 AM

The Campaign is there for the vast majority of the consumers: the casual gamer. If you want to feel pressure and risk losing, play multiplayer.

Aye, 1v1 :awesome:

No, but reallly, I understand the OP and I think an option for "Hardcore" mode or something like that, where you would loose a planet if infestation reached max, and loose the game if all planets got infested would be a nice thing to have and make everyone happy.

Promythyus

14th Mar 09, 3:17 AM

The whole game exists for the vast majority of consumers; the casual gamer. Us "gamers" and other people who are actually into the Backstory, or just want a good game, got totally forgotten.

Thanks Relic.

Dragnarr

14th Mar 09, 4:36 AM

Indeed, but that's been the trend for a while now. Casual gamers get treated, hardcore gamers get forgotten.

Troubleshooter

14th Mar 09, 6:29 AM

I don't think you need to be "hard core" to appreciate the concepts of victory and defeat.

What ever the reason the game is the way it is, its just shallow. The only "hard choices" are what bits of war gear you want to gather up first.

If you want to feel pressure and risk losing, play multiplayer.
I started playing 1v1 at the same time I started this thread. I'm no stranger to MP.

I don't see why the defense of a shallow game is to "go play MP"... Relic SP games are usually great fun. While this game is fun, its not great without some down side to failure.

Heck, I even give relic a pass on the worst rated aspect - mission repetition and few maps didn't bother me this much. :(

Zinras

14th Mar 09, 6:38 AM

The Campaign is there for the vast majority of the consumers: the casual gamer.
I'm a casual gamer and I want to be able to lose the game. You're confusing "casual" with "baby". Casual simply means you don't have 5 billion hours of free time every day, not "you don't want a challenge". Having a no loss scenario caters to a group of people that even 12 year olds will be insulted to be compared to (as they actually have the time to play it over and over) and while I do like the game, it removes all sense of urgency that you cannot lose or be negatively impacted by infestation and loss.

Tbh, I had a great "oh shi-" feeling when the nids starting raining down on the planets but by the time I figured out there was no consequence besides a few extra and slightly tougher nids, I didn't even bother with the other planets outside hunting for gear. Really, for the final mission it's only the beacons and such on that planet that counts, so if you make sure the planet is reasonably safe, the rest can pretty much go to hell since there's 0 consequences for "losing" them. So unless you really obsess about your score, there's absolutely no reason to go kick ass on the other two planets after the final mission becomes available.

Ap0k

14th Mar 09, 9:18 AM

Moving to singleplayer discussions :)

Rook

14th Mar 09, 10:23 AM

If you want to feel pressure and risk losing, play multiplayer.

and by that logic games like gears of war should give gamers in single player unlimited health and ammo so theres no risk of losing.

van Uber

14th Mar 09, 5:38 PM

I'm a casual gamer and I want to be able to lose the game. You're confusing "casual" with "baby". Casual simply means you don't have 5 billion hours of free time every day, not "you don't want a challenge". Having a no loss scenario caters to a group of people that even 12 year olds will be insulted to be compared to (as they actually have the time to play it over and over) and while I do like the game, it removes all sense of urgency that you cannot lose or be negatively impacted by infestation and loss.

You can still lose missions in the campaign. What you do not have to do is start over and that is an example of a feature that is greatly appreciated by the group "Not 5 billion hours of free time".

As a side note, casual gamers are a lot of things, limited time is just one aspect of it.

and by that logic games like gears of war should give gamers in single player unlimited health and ammo so theres no risk of losing.

Apples and oranges. But I bet there is a "load" option in Gears...

Rook

14th Mar 09, 7:01 PM

Thats kind of the point, in dow2 there is no need for a load option because there’s no real negative effect if you lose. Look at empire total war, if you lose a large battle or key region it can really set you back. Yes there is a load function but not everyone will use it.

van Uber

15th Mar 09, 1:57 AM

What the point of a load option if it negates any negative effects (or rather the point of a negative effect if it is negated by a load/save option)?

Some people argue that a quick load/quick save feature is the bane of any single player experience, since it upends any "balance" the game designer has created.

At least in this campaign you can actually lose a map and there is nothing you can do to stop its negative impact on your score (short of terminating the process, but that is cheating).

Rook

15th Mar 09, 4:09 AM

:P i understand what your saying, but as you say a load function is an option not every one will load a save game if they lose something. i think we are starting to stray from the OP point now :)

van Uber

15th Mar 09, 4:30 AM

Nah, this is just getting interesting. :)

While a load function is an option, there is indications that players feel compelled to use a quick load/save function and would not ordinarily save as often if it were not for that specific function.

Also, I would argue that winning or losing is NOT an option, just an outcome. So that you can lose specific missions but not the campaign is just an adaptation to the modern utilization of the load/save function. One might also argue that to load the campaign in the middle of a session is breaking the immersion and therefore this is a step towards a more compelling portray of the story.

Rook

15th Mar 09, 5:02 AM

yes loading would break the immersion, but dont you think the fact there is a huge panic about the nids in the campaign yet now matter what action you take nothing actually comes of the nid attacks. we worry the entire sector will fall, yet the worst thing that happens in the nids redecorate the place.

van Uber

15th Mar 09, 6:15 AM

Yes, this is the core of the problem. You will break immersion when you lose and are forced to load and also when you realize that you will never lose the entire planet. The designers have come to the conclusion that the latter is the lesser evil and I have to agree. Loading is a very definite break in immersion, but never losing the entire planet, while disappointing, could be explained and thus do not have as deep an impact on the immersion as the former.

This all boils down to how you tell the story. Prince of Persia had the prince as a storyteller and every time you failed, the game went back to the last checkpoint and the narrator told you "Thats not what happend". Also you could reverse time to an extent so it seldom came to the narrator stepping in and telling you he "mispoke". So you could fail and the story suffered very little from it.

DoW2 is not read to us by a narrator, it is here and now, so the loading or "Thats not what happend" approach is breaking the pace of the story. However, "losing" a planet to Tyranid infestation is not without consequences even if the entire campaign does not come to a complete halt.

Lor

15th Mar 09, 9:13 AM

While the Tyranid infestation levels not affecting the overall game hasn't lowered the replayability of the SP campaign for me, I do find the abscence of this as a feature to be a little puzzling. As Trouble said, the lack of pressure does lessen the fun a little.

Zinras

15th Mar 09, 10:50 AM

If loading a game breaks immersion for you, then the game doesn't do a very good job of telling the story or sucking you into the action, unless you're the type that goes "holy shit, I missed that item way back on the first floor" and loads the game to get it.

And no one says anything about starting over, especially since the game autosaves all the damn time. All you'd have to do is warp to a planet, perform a single mission well enough to earn an extra deployment (usually easy enough to do) and then travel to the next planet on the same day to prevent complete takeover there.

Tbh, you can spend 2 in-game days doing this and you'll have knocked the infestion down long enough that it'll take a while to get all the way back up. Risk-free gaming when it comes to a strategy game with a "living" map (ie. supposedly constantly changing, in this case with infestion) defeats the entire point of having an infestation to begin with.

It's like postponing cleaning your room or house for a day because you'd rather do something else and the only consequence of your actions is that it may get slightly dirtier and take a little longer to clean up. Likewise, the only consequence for a high infestation is that it will take slightly longer to clear out the nids and hell, you might even get more or better items with more to shoot at. Remember that by the point in the campaign where you can actually affect the infestation and the infestation flows freely, you've already unlocked the final mission or are pretty damn close to doing so.

THIS is when urgency could play a part in the campaign, where you'd actually have to choose between doing optional missions and finishing the game. You don't want to "waste" time hunting for gear or level up as a more-than-casual gamer? Then go finish up. You'll get the same cinematics and such, it's only that you're a bit less overpowered than if you're having 4 guys in termie armor with giant assault cannons, power fists, flamers or whatever you prefer to use. Also, remember that the game has difficulty levels.. Ultra easy and easy with no infestation change could be for the super-casuals whereas normal and up could have a loss scenario and such that would only get harder as difficulty level increases.

Saying that games should be stupidly easy because a minority group within your target demographic might not want to play it is silly (remember that DoW is based on a niche game within a slightly larger niche of gaming in general. There's a fair chance that no one has actually heard of it if they haven't heard about the tabletop or previous DoW.. I know none of my friends knew there was a DoW II and they're even gamers :O)

Troubleshooter

15th Mar 09, 11:13 AM

You know what else breaks immersion? Losing a battle that was to reduce the infestation count by 2 or three when its one pip away from full, thinking this is a do-or-die situation... playing your ass off and unfortunately failing, then seeing that the meter is now maxed out and you can just try again, and again, and again... because the nids are not ALLOWED to win.... ever.... period.

The next time you are in that situation (as in, the next mission you play) you realize there is no pressure to succeed at all, except to save yourself the grief of investing 30 minutes of your life into a mission only to get bushwhacked by the BOSS battle and wind up back at the start again.

Theres another really, REALLY good reason to have a save/load function... I'd really like to be able to skip the first 5 or so missions that are on rails when I start a new campaign. Every single campaign will play out identically until you have the option to change out your squads, so really I'd just like to have a save-game that lets me pick up the game there and play it out.

It would also be nice to have a "try before you buy" feature to see what wargear and traits do before you commit your campaign to their use with no way to go back and undo a trait-purchase or wargear trade-in.

Ultimately, the lack of a save/load feature is a mistake. If the game has not down side for failure, and thus no reason for a save/load feature, then it also has no teeth and will fail to captivate players for very long. What we have now is a single player punishment scheme with only up sides... it makes no sense.

van Uber

16th Mar 09, 6:56 AM

If loading a game breaks immersion for you, then the game doesn't do a very good job of telling the story or sucking you into the action, unless you're the type that goes "holy shit, I missed that item way back on the first floor" and loads the game to get it.

It does a very good job of telling the story. The essence of drama is change and progression. Reloading would mean the very opposite of this.

Theres another really, REALLY good reason to have a save/load function... I'd really like to be able to skip the first 5 or so missions that are on rails when I start a new campaign. Every single campaign will play out identically until you have the option to change out your squads, so really I'd just like to have a save-game that lets me pick up the game there and play it out.

Perhaps not a reason for a save/load function, but for an option to start any subsequent campaigns at a later stage?

Ultimately, the lack of a save/load feature is a mistake. If the game has not down side for failure, and thus no reason for a save/load feature, then it also has no teeth and will fail to captivate players for very long. What we have now is a single player punishment scheme with only up sides... it makes no sense.

I think this is taking one aspect of the game out of proportion. The campaign is there to tell a compelling story (as compelling you can get from a computer game) and to introduce the player to the game mechanics and universe. Its primary function is not to be played repetitively, that is the job of the multiplayer segment. A RTS does not stand or fall by its replayability in the campaign, but in its competetive multiplay, that is what grants longevity to a RTS.

I'm aware that there is thousands upon thousands of things and features that could be improved. But developing has a finite time frame and considering this I think Relic has done a good job prioritizing their features.

Troubleshooter

16th Mar 09, 2:51 PM

I'm aware that there is thousands upon thousands of things and features that could be improved. But developing has a finite time frame and considering this I think Relic has done a good job prioritizing their features.
I seriously doubt that a save game function would be all that hard to impliment, given that the campaign already saves and loads just fine now. In other words, the functionality is there, its simply not available to the player.

Anyway, this thread is about the notion that the single player game is impossible to lose. You don't know that until you screw up pretty badly and expect it to end, or you are trying to see how bad, bad can get. Either way, realizing that there is no "failed" state for anything in the game destroys the immersion factor for me, and makes what ever compelling story being told irrelevant.

van Uber

16th Mar 09, 3:57 PM

I seriously doubt that a save game function would be all that hard to impliment, given that the campaign already saves and loads just fine now.

A save game function would not be hard to implement. The devs have just chosen to not do it, since they obviously believe that it goes against their storytelling.

Anyway, this thread is about the notion that the single player game is impossible to lose.

Yes, and I firmly believe that it is due to "not being able to lose" is less of a break in the immersion, than to go back in time and do it again.

Temstar

16th Mar 09, 7:24 PM

Taking feature away from players for the sake of immersion is rarely a good idea. It's not the gamer's job to sit there and read/watch/play out your story, you're suppose to be there entertaining the player. And if the player wants a certain feature and you don't give it to them they will hate you for it.

Me myself, I sometimes feel compelled to get those two extra deployment to loot that piece of awesome wargear, so recently I've become friends with the Task Manager and the "My Documents\My Games\DoW2\Saved Game\" folder.

van Uber

17th Mar 09, 2:28 AM

I understand that "campaign power gamers" hate this missing feature. I also believe that "campaign power gamers" are a minority compared to those who run the campaign once, enters multiplay and never look back. This group play the campaign for the story or to get the introduction.

Again, I get that there is a lot of things that could have bin done different, but loading in the campaign is not one of them. You make a decision and most certainly not all will agree with it. But I'm convinced that in this way, the majority will be pleased and have experienced a good story with good drama and not have had any needles iterations.

This is just another way of telling a story. You might not like it, but that does not mean it is without merit.

konfeta

17th Mar 09, 2:32 AM

The issue here, van uber, is that to many people, i.e. other than you, a game that doesn't give you an option of failure is an equal or greater break in immersion than being able to reload. Especially in a WH40k setting.

Which makes lack of saves a worthless hassle that adds absolutely nothing but frustration to the game.

van Uber

17th Mar 09, 6:11 AM

While I may sound like a broken record, "many people" is really less than a handful judging by this thread. And those that do have a problem with it are not casual gamers, the group who make up the vast majority.

I get it that power gamers get frustrated by this, but there is an upside to it and that upside favours casual gamers.

If this was such a horrible experience, why do we not see the forum shelled with complaints?

konfeta

17th Mar 09, 9:34 AM

That's because they don't give a damn. They played countless RTS games before, which told a great story, and didn't get it ruined via "immersion breaking of save-reload." They play the campaign once on an easy difficulty, get the story, and get out to another game or multiplayer. To them it's a design decision that doesn't impact them in any significant way. The question here is, thus, how it impacts other kinds of players that you seem to be so happily writing off as irrelevant.

Notice, it's a mechanic that has been used in games considered to have some of the best stories out there in the genre, hell, all video game genres - Deus Ex, Starcraft, Half Life, Homeworld, Planescape, etc. etc. etc. Nobody complained about it's existence before.

Now Relic went ahead and removed it with the idea of introducing a more persistent campaign world. Noble idea, but they failed. Because they didn't follow up with anything of value. There is no persistence. You can lose as many missions as you'd like without actually losing the game, i.e. the equivalent of having save-reload. The result for immersion in the gameplay is the same - no ability to fail. It is, however, a net loss in campaign quality.

Again, tell me, how is that more successful story telling or gameplay design? Or rather, what advantage does DoW 2 campaign, in its current iteration, have over a hypothetical DoW 2 campaign with a standard save-reload function? Besides annoying people who have a valid use for such a function that is not save-scumming? Immersion? Sorry, no. As evident by countless games with engrossing story telling and fun gameplay that utilized save-reload.

Or, let me phrase it this way - what actually stopped Relic from doing the following:

1. Have a save-reload function as a toggle. Unchecking it grants you higher campaign score.
2. Have a "hardcore" setting (take another page out of Diablo). Checking it induces hard penalties for failure, and possibility to fail campaign as a whole. Playing this grants you a higher campaign score.

The casual are still happy. They are here for the pretty explosions and the story with fun gameplay thrown in.

Now the players who are looking for more depth in their campaign playthroughs are happy as well. Because they can dick around in various missions, experimenting with different squad set ups, etc. Because they can play a campaign that doesn't suffer a break in gameplay immersion in form of "LULZ YOU CANNOT FAIL CUZ EMPRAH WATCHES OVER YOU."

It does a very good job of telling the story. The essence of drama is change and progression. Reloading would mean the very opposite of this.

A story playthrough occurs exactly once. Save-Reload does not damage the player's immersion in it in any significant way because players learn to separate their immersion in the story from gameplay mechanics.

A gameplay playthrough can occur multiple times. Lack of save-reload and/or consequence for failure damages the gameplay immersion in significant way. A player cannot help but feel annoyed that in order to try out 3-4 different set ups to kill the Avatar he has to mess around in the game's folder or replay the campaign 3-4 time in exact same manner praying for identical wargear drops. A player cannot help but feel annoyed that, ultimately, the sense of urgency and challenge is eroded by the fact that conquering the challenge on his first try with high scores is irrelevant because he can keep going at it as many times as he likes. And no, telling us to go play multiplayer is a shitty answer because the campaign and multiplayer are fundamentally different things that present vastly different experiences even one of the things, challenge, we are looking for is present in both.

TLDR SUMMARY:
What I am trying to get you to see is that the design decision of the current campaign does nothing of value for the story and detracts from the replayable gameplay aspect. This is why we are complaining about this. This is why it sucks for us that any mission can be done with a battering ram of repetition or that replaying a particular mission/mission sequence requires absurd luck on part of drops in addition to starting over the whole campaign. We got screwed over for no real benefit (what you call upside is actually irrelevant to the experience of a casual gamer) of the supposed target audience.

van Uber

17th Mar 09, 2:47 PM

I get it why it sucks for you. You have my sympathies. I also see possible reasons why the feature is removed, and those reasons do not lack merit, even if it still sucks for you.

I guess we have to agree to disagree about the essence of drama. I still stand that if you go back in the time line and alter the earlier result, then it is a larger breach in immersion than if you would exclude possible endings. Some of the examples you mention like Deus Ex and Half-Life have some very influential lead designers that have complained about the impact of the quick load/save format on storytelling (iirc both Warren Spector and Gabe Neville have commented on this).

Troubleshooter

18th Mar 09, 5:04 PM

Some of the examples you mention like Deus Ex and Half-Life have some very influential lead designers that have complained about the impact of the quick load/save format on storytelling (iirc both Warren Spector and Gabe Neville have commented on this).Design rule : if you have do-or-die jumping puzzles in your game, not putting in a quick-save/load function = -10% on your reviews as reviewers despise this.

Devs can whine about players not "seeing" the story unfold because they keep going back and taking the "optimal" all they want... the fact is that the players experience is going to be what that player wants it to be. Loss of immersion or depth due to players side stepping obstacles or getting picky about plot twists is totally understandable... in that we agree... but what you fail to understand is that in this case... there is NO effort by relic to thwart any such thing!!!

Again, if there were a quick save, you would be able to keep the calendar from every ticking off a day if you didn't like the outcome of a mission... you could have perfect scores every time... but the STORY would unfold identically to someone who played through with abysmal performance.

The problem isn't even about save/load man... read the thread! The problem is that the story is on rails, and all outcomes are good ones... all missions are fated to be won unless they are optional side missions with no impact on the story at all - they are grind/loot missions.

So, why remove the save/load function when it does not impact the story? One reason - bragging rights. Relic thinks it can produce a casual-gamer hook by making campaign score a generically accurate depiction of how well someone navigates the single player game. That is literally the only reason for its absence, and its totally thwarted by players who back up their save game file and micro-manage the game to produce perfect results regardless.

So I ask again, if there is no down side for failure now, then what justification is there for a lack of save/load options?!?

Or lets flip it around - because there is no save/load function, would you not expect to have alternate outcomes of missions based on performance, or branching story arcs, or simply a single alternate anything to explain its absence?

Mordeinn

20th Mar 09, 9:36 AM

Like I just posted in anothere thread after completing the campaign once I realised that it was more like Diablo with a twist and some W40K characters. It kicked me off the mood completly knowing that I didnt had to save anything at all. I can choose between a few missions thats about it. That wont make my day.

Powergamers are often a reference for the casual ones. I would be more carefull about calling them second class customers.

Sometimes things can get out of control amazingly fast (ho those darn SeerCouncil..). A save/load button would compensate for some balance problem and a few bugs in the game.

My quick note in the subject for the rest this debate was very interesting.

Arkandea

20th Mar 09, 4:54 PM

The very fact that it is impossible to lose in the Campaign makes all the urgency and seriousness displayed in the character dialogue and plot redundant. I was at first very immersed in the game, thinking it was a good purchase and worth the wait... then surprise surprise I realise I'm being babied, all my falls are being softened by cushions, and the game holds my hand as I get back up.

If I didn't want to lose, I'd have bought Dora the explorer and the magic princesses :(

BrianGeneral

25th Mar 09, 1:06 AM

In my case the infestations never went pass 2/3 mark even at the worst cases. If it's too high, I do Bugs Missions first and lowers the mark.

That said, if it's like "100% infested->lost one critical stuff before you finish securing 3->Game Over" then it'll certainly put some pressure on players..

dissembly

3rd Apr 09, 9:58 PM

Regarding the whole debate about the lack of a proper save/load function, i think we're missing an important point here; save/load doesn't just exist so you can cheat or do "practise runs" of levels etc - that isn't the point of it!

The MAJOR problem i've had with Dawn of War II is that you have to basically sit down and commit to a level.

I don't think this is an insult to gamers who happen to like manipulating save/load function as much as it's an insult to gamers who have jobs, homework, girl/boyfriends and, generally, lives.

Sometimes i want to just play for fifteen minutes, or incrementally work through missions rather than doing them all in one shot.

Let's not forget that save/load options are always optional.

Does Monopoly come with a little electronic box that zaps you every time you bend the rules for fun's sake? Come on. Gamers aren't idiots. We don't need game designers wasting their time making them "cheat-proof".

It's a game, not a tax return.

oh_hai

8th Apr 09, 5:17 AM

Quick save/load during a mission isn't bad, and I would very much prefer that over the way DoW2 is designed.
Sometimes there are situations when you really like how far you've come and how well you've performed, but suddenly you have to abandon a mission due to real-life interruptions for example. In DoW2, that means you have to redo the whole mission from the start, which can be very annoying.

However, quick save/load should be limited so that you can't abuse it by saving after every 5 minutes. I'd say 2 quick saves during each mission is enough - then you could, for example, save your progress after every 33%, making it less annoying if you have to retry something. Hell, even just 1 quick save could already make things much more pleasant.

Backing up savegames is cheating of course, so I won't go into that here.

Now to the "hard mode" discussion:
The highest difficulty should be designed for hardcore gamers in mind, who want a real challenge. That means if you lack the skill, you will lose the campaign.
This is important to have, also when considering replayability - everyone starts out as a noob but after x replays everyone will be pretty good and expect a challenge, and no more hand-holding. But game developers seem to be a bit short-sighted.
The lower difficulties can be as easy as necessary for all the casual gamers, but a game absolutely must have one difficulty setting which is intended for hardcore gamers only.
I don't get why game developers don't get that, since probably most of the game devs are or were hardcore gamers themselves at one point in their lives...
Does the publisher put so much pressure on them to make it casual friendly? If yes, why can't they at least make the highest difficulty really hardcore without guaranteed success?

antihippy

9th Apr 09, 3:23 AM

I hadn't noticed the complaints about the lack of a game save function - so had assumed it was just me who got annoyed by it.

The MAJOR problem i've had with Dawn of War II is that you have to basically sit down and commit to a level.

I have to agree with this sentiment.

VidiVici

9th Apr 09, 7:45 AM

van Uber:

As a casual gamer and old time DoW player I would like to add my 2 cents.

Both the sense of urgency and the prospect of losing is what makes thing exciting to me.
Both facets go down the drain as the campaign enters its final stages.
You should imho only be allowed a certain amount of time to finish the campaign and be able to lose.

By the end of the game I just get increasingly frustrated by the fact that I found myself in a limbo only to gain "experience" and get "epic" gear.
I don't have hard choices to make, I don't see any story unfold... I'm just left wasting time.

There is no challenge in sinking hours in a game just to get a weapon with "über-destructor of doom" written in blue letters.
It does however become appealing when you add a risk v reward element to it. Taking time to get the good gear should make the final objective harder to accomplish if you fail.

On the issue of being able to "save" the game it appears that you can replay the final mission one you have reached it once this should also be the case of all chapter ending missions. Doing so overwrites your 1 autosaved game-in-progress.

Finally I would like to add that I really missed a "retrain" option.
I would suggest that it would work as follows. You select the retrain option, select 4 points you are willing to sacrifice and fall back a level (e.g. lvl 16 +x% -> lvl 15 +x%). Doing this grants you 2 points you can relocate (As if you didn't spend your points in lvl 15)

To restate my point: A casual gamer doesn't mind losing a campaign but does mind losing TIME grinding for futile rewards or excessively strict tweaking options. Basically everything that makes WoW such a time-sink.