| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (8)

Posted: Nov 16th 2006 1:43PM Lorben said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
“Lacking any sort of base-building or resource-gathering, Mark of Chaos has to get by on the RTS combat that makes up the majority of the gameplay”

Someone doesn’t know what Warhammer 40K is.
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2006 1:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Lorben, that may be true, but people expect certain gameplay elements in an RTS. D&D has never been about base-building and resource gathering, but Dragonshard was somewhat successful in bringing those elements to the first D&D RTS.
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2006 2:21PM Lorben said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
People may expect base building in an RTS game, but is this supposed to be a Warhammer game or an RTS game first? If the creators want to deviate from the original game style like in Dragonshard that’s ok, but they shouldn’t be penalized if they don’t.

It’s like when 1UP got on Never Winter Nights 2 for using the D&D ruleset.
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2006 2:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have to agree with Lorben here. While the other two reviews bring up some valid points, saying in essence, "I don't like the lack of resources" is kind of off topic. Besides the fact that quite a few similar games used no resources (Myth, anyone?), it's essentially trying to compare the mechanics of one type of game with another that differs in a profound manner, however minor.

Sort of like trying to compare Prince of Persia or other 3d platformers with first person games. There's quite a difference in the style of play, though the essence can be quite similar.
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2006 4:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, the demo gave me a rather strong Myth vibe. This game is more Real Time Tactical then strategy.

Games Workshops been doing well in their push into gaming, DoW was excellent, now this little bugger.
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2006 5:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Although the game has some flaws that prevent it from being truly great (like DoW is), some of these reviews are pretty unfair. On top of ignoring some of the real problems that exist within the game (like horribly inefficient code, item-swapping bugs and unit cohesion bugs), some of these reviews mark MoC down for things that many gamers and Warhammer fans would find fun. In this way, I find some of the reviews actually misleading. I think it speaks to a general lack of education/sense of purpose within the gaming journalism industry.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2006 1:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree that this game doesn't need the base building element in fact i think it would take away from the extremely well detailed warhammer feel the game has. however the item swapping bug is annoying. This game is, in my opinion, clearly better than dawn of war which feels slow and small because of the base buling element.
Reply

Posted: Dec 25th 2006 6:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Game Informer wasn't claiming that lack of base building was a con; it merely pointed out that removing it meant that the only way for Mark of Chaos to distinguish itself would be with the combat itself.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

WRUP: All the Reckoning

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 11:45PM

Xbox Live Indie Gems: Nyan Cat Adventure

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 10:15PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW