Dawn of war 2 or Dawn of war 1

Should i get the 1st or 2nd dawn of war?

The first is $15 dollars and the second is $25.

Should i get the 1st or 2nd dawn of war?

The first is $15 dollars and the second is $25.

pureskill165

the first game is crap, the second is great

but well I am biased

Disregard what Enosh said :P I prefer 1 over 2.. big time. Just make sure you can get the first one with all the Extra content and you'll have endless amounts of fun.

Original series has more content to it, but thats about it really. Dawn of War II's a lot better in almost every other way.

depends what you like in an rts. both are great for what they are. Dawn of War I is a great semi-traditional rts with base building and army-amassing in tune with traditional rts conventions, but recource gathering in the same vein as company of heroes (so conrol point based).

Dawn of War II is one of the finest action rts's available, with no base building, steamlined recource collection (same as first game), and frequent, intense, and micro-management heavy action.

I personally prefer II, but its simply a matter of opinion, neither game is neccesarily better than the other.

1 is much better in many way also u are getting it for $10 less which u can save for the good new games which are releasing in few months...

Dawn Of War 1 has more races, more content, is faster in gameplay and you have more ways to deploy your units and chose different tactics in online battles. Also, the multiplayer is still much more populated than the DoW II, and you don't need to deal with GFWL crap.

I bought DoW + Exp. and was a successful experience: more than 600 hours of fun, mainly in online or line, the first campaign is good -the expansion ones meh-. I bought DoW II and was a disgust: I don't like the new mp mechanics and the matchmakig from GFWL is 10 times worse than the Gamespy one in DoW; the campaign is decent, but not at the level of Starcraft or Warcraft III.

Original series has more content to it, but thats about it really. Dawn of War II's a lot better in almost every other way.

aliblabla2007

Agreed here.

DOW1 isn't as amazing as people say, though it's still good.

the multiplayer is still much more populated than the DoW II,

and you don't need to deal with GFWL crap.

Ondoval

no it's not

GFWL>>>>gamespy in every possible way

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

the multiplayer is still much more populated than the DoW II,

and you don't need to deal with GFWL crap.

Enosh88

no it's not

GFWL>>>>gamespy in every possible way

It depends, DoW 1 is a classic build your base etc RTS while the second is based on small squads and combat and cover etc. Personally I prefer the first over the second as I much prefer that style of RTS. So it depends on what your style is.

I prefer DOW1, it has alot of very different factions, different kinds of tactics, way more maps, overall more impressive and cool dialogues, and unit responses, and it has some of the big bad units, which DOW2 seems not to have.

After the latest patch DOW2 has become alot better, and I think of it about a highly as dow1 MP, but it still pretty much only have 3 tactics worth knowing.

DOW2 is also very confined, there is not really things like artillery, because the baps are so small it wont do much good.

If you liked CoH tho, I think youll like DOW2 they are very similar, where dow1 resembles more of a starcraft kinda thing.

Oh god get a clue mate GFWL is terrible! GS was bad but i dont even play DOW 2 online because of GFWL and variouse other silly issues. DOW 2 is a great game none the less i just need to give it a second chance and do it justice online. Personally i consider the timeless original and its expansions to be the better games if not some of the best games in recent years. jwsoul

please explain what exactly is so bad with gfwl?

connection? no problems here from my side, didn't get a DC from it so far

matchmaking? is actualy quite good atleast on par with gamespy usualy better

I think you are another one of those hating on gfwl beacose it is from microsoft, beacose so far I had only positive expiriance with it

"here is not really things like artillery"

well that is if you ignore the plasma devs, zoahtropes and d-canons

well in dow 1 artillery was ARTILLERY, it would waste huge areas, and bombart armys at a time, in DOW2 the "artillery" is pretty much just heavyweapons, a 40kfan would never call the plasma cannon for an artillery piece :S

Small spalh damage, and not very damaging... good to wreck cover, and force people back a bit.

About what someone said aboutGFWL kinda puzzles me... the dow players have been bi*ching about gamespy (with good reason) for 5 years, GFWL is pretty good, it might feel a bit heavy, but it does what it is supposed to, no disconnects, no mismatch, no paring3 new players upagainst 3 lvl20 players.

I kinda like GFWL ^^

Dawn of War II

it´s more tactical and great fun!

[QUOTE="jwsoul"]Oh god get a clue mate GFWL is terrible! GS was bad but i dont even play DOW 2 online because of GFWL and variouse other silly issues. DOW 2 is a great game none the less i just need to give it a second chance and do it justice online. Personally i consider the timeless original and its expansions to be the better games if not some of the best games in recent years. Enosh88

please explain what exactly is so bad with gfwl?

connection? no problems here from my side, didn't get a DC from it so far

matchmaking? is actualy quite good atleast on par with gamespy usualy better

I think you are another one of those hating on gfwl beacose it is from microsoft, beacose so far I had only positive expiriance with it

"here is not really things like artillery"

well that is if you ignore the plasma devs, zoahtropes and d-canons

People was whinning about how bad the design of the Unreeal Tournament III HUD and match browser interface was, with his dowgraded options and consolized, simplified and underfeaturing info display, but after deal with the GFWL interface in DoW II multiplayer imo this case is much, much worse.

Honestly, is the best example of how a company that has no idea about PC gaming -Microsoft, not Relic- can destroy a game trying to aply solutions from his consoles to the PC platform. As examples:

-When you enter into GFWL in DoW II for a mp match, the proccess is slower and requires more ticks (buton pressing) than in DoW 1 Gamespy service.

-When you enter in GFWL to play DoW II mp, you can see pop ups about trophys and irrelevant info about "friends" that aren't usually related with DoW II itself. All these info is a waste and unneccesary if your only interest is to play a match.

-The browser is TERRIBLE: it only displays 8 slots of public matches at once! Whereas DoW 1 displays more than 20 slots at time! Eight slots? Are you kidding? Eight slots can be fine to a iPhone, DS or some of these sub-720p platformas knowned as Xbox 360 or PS3 -I have both-, but to a PC rts is a absolute crap. The HUD in GFWL DoW II multiplayer is not designed towards PC gamers standards, its more as if the nerfed console versions of C&C 3 browser came to wreck the not-so-good Gamespy DoW 1 to turn it into a absolute crap. Also, you could chat at the same page of the browser while you search for a game. In DoW II GFWL, you can't.

Yes, Gamespy service was far from perfect, but at least it works as you expect from a PC match browser. If you can't see how GFWL is a clear step back in DoW II compared to the system used in DoW 1 then you must be blind. To date, GFWL gives nothing to PC players, it's no need to be a "hater" to reach the conclusion.

A simple wiew:

Both are great but I prefer the original.

"When you enter into GFWL in DoW II for a mp match, the proccess is slower and requires more ticks (buton pressing) than in DoW 1 Gamespy service." (this quoting here is retarded)

all you need to do is 1. click the game icon, 2. click multiplayer 3. click ranked, 4. click search, I don't see how this is slow, especialy given that you don't even need to do anything whatsoever with GfWL to play ranked, well if you don't have "register upon startup" checked in GfWL that realy isn't their problem is it? They give you the option to do it and it is your choice if you want to always manualy register or if you want to register automaticly upon starting the game

-When you enter in GFWL to play DoW II mp, you can see pop ups about trophys and irrelevant info about "friends" that aren't usually related with DoW II itself. All these info is a waste and unneccesary if your only interest is to play a match.Ondoval

-The browser is TERRIBLE: it only displays 8 slots of public matches at once! Whereas DoW 1 displays more than 20 slots at time! Eight slots? Are you kidding? Eight slots can be fine to a iPhone, DS or some of these sub-720p platformas knowned as Xbox 360 or PS3 -I have both-, but to a PC rts is a absolute crap. The HUD in GFWL DoW II multiplayer is not designed towards PC gamers standards, its more as if the nerfed console versions of C&C 3 browser came to wreck the not-so-good Gamespy DoW 1 to turn it into a absolute crap. Also, you could chat at the same page of the browser while you search for a game. In DoW II GFWL, you can't.Ondoval

Yes, Gamespy service was far from perfect, but at least it works as you expect from a PC match browser. If you can't see how GFWL is a clear step back in DoW II compared to the system used in DoW 1 then you must be blind. To date, GFWL gives nothing to PC players, it's no need to be a "hater" to reach the conclusion.Ondoval

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

the multiplayer is still much more populated than the DoW II,

and you don't need to deal with GFWL crap.

Enosh88

no it's not

GFWL>>>>gamespy in every possible way

Anyway i am probably pretty biased here since i've only played the DOW II demo (mp and sp) and i liked DOW I more. I'm not much of a fan of no base building and DOW I has more races (will pick up DOW II if they add the Tau). But from what i got the SP of DOW II was better. It felt a lot more involved and a lot more polished than the 1st games. I can't comment on MP much because i am not a fan of skirmish only, which is why i only play Blizzard RTSs online (yay for Use Map Settings). I think i played one game online in DOW I and like 3 online in DOW II.

I would say DOW II seems to have more polish, but for cost plus amount of content you can't go wrong with DOW I.

There are 6700 people playing Dawn of War 2 online. I don't understand how you can gt the amount of people playing based on a screenshot. I doubt Dawn of War 1 will have that many players. Dawn of War 2 is great and plenty fun,I could never get into the first one because the multiplayer is has many issues. It also looks really ugly if that matters to you. If I had to chose between the 2 I would definitely get Dawn of War 2.

[QUOTE="Enosh88"]

[QUOTE="jwsoul"]Oh god get a clue mate GFWL is terrible! GS was bad but i dont even play DOW 2 online because of GFWL and variouse other silly issues. DOW 2 is a great game none the less i just need to give it a second chance and do it justice online. Personally i consider the timeless original and its expansions to be the better games if not some of the best games in recent years. Ondoval

please explain what exactly is so bad with gfwl?

connection? no problems here from my side, didn't get a DC from it so far

matchmaking? is actualy quite good atleast on par with gamespy usualy better

I think you are another one of those hating on gfwl beacose it is from microsoft, beacose so far I had only positive expiriance with it

"here is not really things like artillery"

well that is if you ignore the plasma devs, zoahtropes and d-canons

People was whinning about how bad the design of the Unreeal Tournament III HUD and match browser interface was, with his dowgraded options and consolized, simplified and underfeaturing info display, but after deal with the GFWL interface in DoW II multiplayer imo this case is much, much worse.

Honestly, is the best example of how a company that has no idea about PC gaming -Microsoft, not Relic- can destroy a game trying to aply solutions from his consoles to the PC platform. As examples:

-When you enter into GFWL in DoW II for a mp match, the proccess is slower and requires more ticks (buton pressing) than in DoW 1 Gamespy service.

-When you enter in GFWL to play DoW II mp, you can see pop ups about trophys and irrelevant info about "friends" that aren't usually related with DoW II itself. All these info is a waste and unneccesary if your only interest is to play a match.

-The browser is TERRIBLE: it only displays 8 slots of public matches at once! Whereas DoW 1 displays more than 20 slots at time! Eight slots? Are you kidding? Eight slots can be fine to a iPhone, DS or some of these sub-720p platformas knowned as Xbox 360 or PS3 -I have both-, but to a PC rts is a absolute crap. The HUD in GFWL DoW II multiplayer is not designed towards PC gamers standards, its more as if the nerfed console versions of C&C 3 browser came to wreck the not-so-good Gamespy DoW 1 to turn it into a absolute crap. Also, you could chat at the same page of the browser while you search for a game. In DoW II GFWL, you can't.

Yes, Gamespy service was far from perfect, but at least it works as you expect from a PC match browser. If you can't see how GFWL is a clear step back in DoW II compared to the system used in DoW 1 then you must be blind. To date, GFWL gives nothing to PC players, it's no need to be a "hater" to reach the conclusion.

Well said...I agree. I get the sense that MS and SONY both are trying to expand the consoler's abilities to be more in-line with that of the PC...but MS's Games for Windows concept seems to create more of a console feel while playing a PC game...that's not where I want to go.

I was so looking forward to DoW II and although I did find it interesting, in the end I was very disappointed on many fronts...The smallish tactical scale..ala CoH...just didn't suit me. I found it to be confining and highly repetitive with little immersion offered up by the game-play and story...Now I have to say I did find the on-line play to be entertaining, but was still not enough over what the original Dow and the entire expansions brought to me.....I prefer the larger scale and more strategic aspect of an RTS...the style of game-play in Dow II just felt to dumbed down for me and just didn't offer enough to get really engrossed and excited over.... It felt more in line with other's such as CoH's..WiC....and C&C3...kind of mindless IMO

DoW I and all expansions will still reign as some of the best offerings in the RTS genre for me....DoW II...decent game, but sadly is sitting on the shelf gathering dust....:(

*+