Wasn't the first game just kind of bad? I recall spending half an hour on it and just missing every jump in the tutorial because the ledge area for long jumps was absolutely tiny. I think I gave up on the second level because the game wasn't very compelling at all. First person precision jumping just isn't very fun when you can't see your feet.

Streamlining a game system so it can appeal to a broader user base isn't always a bad thing.

Innovation = Removal of base-building?

In Fenixp's little world: gutting features = INAVASHUN!

Hah, 2 replies! I was wondering how long it'll take you to start with insults. It was 2 replies. Good!

And no, there is no other RTS as DoW 2. In my entire life, I have never seen a combination of tactical RTS and an action RPG. I'm fairly sure coming forward with something quite new is called innovation.

That's a subjective matter, but I'd say no.

True enough, but I have all faith in EA fucking it up. Not because I'm on Roman's side in particular, but because EA has a tendency to fuck things up in general.

That's entirely possible. Thing is: we don't know. Nobody does. Not me, not you, Roman5, Crosmando... hell, probably none at EA can say for sure.
And once again, though I'll repeat myself, judging from one general statement coming from a standard marketing speech, is about as far away from "objective" as it gets.

Assumptions != facts.

They don't make games like Space Dude anymore...

I still need to try DoW 2. I did not like DoW, and it turned me off. I found it very boring.

But speaking of RTS and RPG mix, is it something like Spellforce games? I liked those, though the base building tends to be just create as many troops as possible and choke the enemy with numbers, which is a bit boring. I would not mind a game like SPellforce, but without the base building.

Nah, not really. There literally is nothing like DoW II. See, in SpellForce, you have 2 parts - RPG and RTS. They get mixed and matched over the course of the game, but rarely actually combine.

DoW 2 on the other hand combines both quite seemlessly, tho it is more in the 'ARPG' land than SpellForce. You kill stuff, you get loot (color-coded, even) and by your performance, at the end of each mission, you get experience points - very much an old-school 'points' system, where your score goes up for speed / killing / not losing squads. You use those to build your 6 squads (you can only use 4 in any given mission) in a way that they supplement each other. DoW 2 is fast, it's very tactical on higher difficulties, and forces you into making a lot of small, fast decisions. It's a very smart and skill-based game. Then again, if you're not looking for that, you won't like DoW II - there's not much of a story to speak of (unless you're a major WH40k buff), characters are, while pretty good, not very deep, and ... Well, DoW 2 is all about gameplay, really.

You lost me at "fast" and "speed" :)

I like my games to be slow and considerate. So I guess it is not a series for me. Thanks for explaining.

Actually, that's a bit of a reason for me to use those words - there's absolutely no point in buying something you won't enjoy, and I figured SpellForce games are fairly slow. I guess that would be the reason why you didn't enjoy the original as well, it was a lot about speed.

Yes, you are right. I do not handle stress induced by speed and time limits in games very well. I just stopped playing "Thomas was alone" at the level where the wave is following the two blocks, just can't get past it...

Spellforce games are very slow overall, which is why it is one of the few RTS's I can get along with.And I guess speed is in the nature of the genre. I like strategy, tactics and the theory behind RTs's games, I just can't play them because of this.

Removing base building allowed for some wonderful ideas to shine through. In fact, the base building of the first game often overshadowed what made the setting so great, and didn't serve to differentiate the game from other RTS games.

I'd go so far as to call the scaled-down armies and focus on tactics an innovation for the genre, yes. Well, I suppose I was bad by definition since I failed utterly at it. I brought it up since it was the most frequent complaint against the game that I recalled. The ledge physics were poor, and the slightest deviation from the intended vector when aiming a long jump meant hearing the surprisingly disturbing *crunch* of Faith landing and having to start over the entire section preceding that. As with any game, you get used to it after a while, but there's no denying the sweet spot of jumping was often too small.

Shit, excrement, feces, you name it.

Crosmando never ceases to amaze me.

I just finished Mirror's Edge and I must say that this game is not that good. It is enjoyable, it has cool moments, but overall it's quite bland and repeatable.

I think that making this franchise open-world may help it, because linear game about free running doesn't feel right.