Talk:Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Not a MOBA
Please take a look at MOBA before altering the article. DoW3 lacks the 3 main gameplay mechanics of a MOBA: 1. You control multiple units (both Elites and standard troops), not just one. There are no AI-lane mobs/creeps etc. 2. No gold/whatever shop buying mechanic for your elites. 3. Base/structure building, DoW has it. MOBA's do not.

The only similarity in multiplayer to a MOBA is the stepped goals for winning, kill the shield, kill the turret, kill the core. Its largely redundant however as the goal for almost all RTS multiplayer is 'raze the enemy base/get highest score in time'. Given to kill the core you will almost certainly have razed the enemy base on your way to it, the entire MOBA-like goal is largely redundant. This is one aspect of the multiplayer game only. Everything else is standard RTS fare. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * your input here is requested. clpo13(talk) 18:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

DoW3 is a MOBA or RTS/MOBA hybrid
Single player probably is a RTS but Multiplayer is a MOBA. Official Interview n°1: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-03-06-dawn-of-war-3s-multiplayer-reveals-moba-influence Official interview n°2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lrn3BZRf3w

This game is an hybrid RTS/MOBA, but not a RTS for sure.
 * Its not even remotely a moba, nor is it a hybrid. Firstly there is one aspect of the multiplayer game that resembles a MOBA, which is the turret-shield-core mechanic. The rest of the multiplayer game is entirely standard RTS fare. Base-building depending on construction build-orders, no creeps, no AI-controlled lane units. No shops selling upgrades. Secondly the multiplayer game is again, one aspect of a game which contains a large single-player campaign, standard RTS fare. It is categorized as an RTS for review and in online stores. There are plenty of reviews that discuss the MOBA aspect of the multiplayer, but it doesnt make it a MOBA game. The user backlash complaining about the MOBA goals in multiplayer is largely responsible for this. They dont want it listed as an RTS because they are unhappy with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Budget
I have removed this link that claims to give information about budget for the game (at "page 7", supposedly) http://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/ir/library/pdf/printing_annual/2016/2.%20ar2016_e.pdf

However, I cannot find any such information there. It's also likely from the wrong fiscal year as to be of any relevance to the game, regardless. If anyone can find actual reliable information about the game's budget, it would be very welcome and interesting to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:F704:849E:A62:66FF:FE99:6A71 (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This user on Steam goes into more detail on why the assumption made from the given link is blatantly incorrect. I'd also like to add that 3.5M is a very unrealistic of budget for any big title in 2017. Games released 20 years ago had budgets many times bigger than that and DoW3 is state-of-the-art when it comes to technology, and not a small indie title. http://steamcommunity.com/app/285190/discussions/0/1471967529576021157/?tscn=1501776992#c1471967615840528888 2804:431:F704:849E:A62:66FF:FE99:6A71 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just asked a primary source and he laughed at the 3.5m figure. Even assuming a studio of only 50 people, on very low salaries of 60k a year, working for 2 years, would be nearly double that budget. Its a ridiculous amount. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

User reviews
Someone has removed the paragraph about user reviews in trying to enforce WP:VG/USERREVIEW. However he failed to note that this very guideline states user reviews are not welcome on Wikipedia "unless called to attention in a secondary source, wherein the secondary source would be cited" - which is definitely the case here, as the user reception is notable and cited to a FORBES magazine link, which is reputable. 2804:431:F705:B68B:A62:66FF:FE99:6A71 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually (and you can check WP:RSN archives if you need confirmation) Forbes/sites is a self-submitted blog. Its self-published opinion and not a reliable source. Its not a Forbes editor piece. So the rules on self-published opinion apply. Is this person's opinion notable? The author of the piece in question has nothing in his biography at Forbes to indicate he would be covered under the expert opinion exemptions for self-published blogs. Forbes/sites does not have editorial control or any other of the criteria required to pass as a WP:RS so it is entirely dependent on the author. I have (if you check the archives at RSN) argued in favour of some Forbes/sites contributors because they are clearly experts who have been previously published by reliable sources, either as journalists or otherwise. This guy is not even close to passing that bar. If you need confirmation, I am happy to link and raise this at WP:RSN but I assure you the consensus for forbes/sites is quite clear. (See here for one example, there are many others) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Igromir 2016 (29944325951).jpg