by

The Engine Was Just Sitting There!

Bioware Mythic announces Warhammer Online: Wrath of Heroes, which was originally titled Warhammer Online: Battlegrounds And That’s It Because You Gits Have The Attention Span Of A Tsetse Fly And We Added A Third Side Because DAOC Battlegrounds Were Pretty Fun That Way And This Title Is Really Long We Should Change It.

So if you played Warhammer Online and thought “you know, I really liked the battlegrounds, but not enough to pay a monthly sub, but maybe enough to pay extra for a +4 Sword Of Swordening”, this is your thing.

My fervent hope is that the all-important “kill the dude with the thing” gameplay remains intact.

  • theothershoe

    Interesting way to make your failing game f2p,  carry it over part by part.

  • Gasbandit

    Three Factions.  Hell. Yes.  This is what I’ve been saying from the start, way back in beta.  That they tried to do RvR with only two factions was a mistake of epic proportions.  Of course, it’s less important in the battlegrounds and moreso in open RvR in the persistent world, but it’s a start.  

  • I would not at all be shocked if this hurts WAR far more then helps it, as Mythic would like some to believe. Three sided combat, being no longer based off level, gear, or renown rank and mostly skill… Things players of WAR have been asking for since BETA.

    Pity instead of actually trying to fix their game with these items, Mythic decided just to ride the LoL/DotA popularity train.

  • Looks more like Spellbinder than WAR.

  • “kill the dude with the thing” link was broken for me.  Found it here though:

    http://www.gamespy.com/pc/warhammer-online/913667p1.html

  • Riprend

    Nothing really pertinent to say here, but I absolutely love Fansy the Bard in the redesign.

    • Calelari

      The gnome orgy, on the other hand – scared for life.

  • Gasbandit

    After looking into it a little more closely, it looks kind of like League of Legends/DOTA/Heroes of Newerth but in the Warhammer engine and with 3 teams instead of 2…  I’ve heard many a worse idea.  I’d like to check it out, so I signed up.

  • JuJutsu

    sweet tractor

  • Aufero

    If they’d just called it Warhammer: Kill the Dude with the Thing, their marketing campaign would have been far more successful.

  • I’m wondering why they bothered branding it. Warhammer Online is only a millstone around its neck. If they’d called it Blood and Slaying Online and gone with a slightly altered art look they would probably get more customers as well as not having to pay a licence fee.

  • Hearding

    This looks like it could be fun.  The battlegrounds were my favorite part of WAR.

  • Wrecquiem

    This is cool. I played the game in beta and hated it, but always said I’d go back if it ever went free. It can’t hurt to try again!

  • gx1080

    Can’t make up much on that video, but the third faction looks like….Vampire Counts? If so, cool.

  • dartwick

    You know whats weird.

    “World of Tanks” has basically 2 controls
    Drive
    Shoot

    Yet the there is infinitely more depth to the PVP in WOT battle grounds than in avatar based based battle grounds despite them having 100s of attack skills, spells, buffs and heals..

  • Vetarnias

    Hmm, that just might work, but I don’t think it bodes well for what is left of the original WAR we all knew and ignored.

    As for World of Tanks, amazing how some used to mock the premise, but it seems to be doing quite allright, unlike 90% of AAA MMO’s on the market now.

    • dartwick

      I called it from the start.  🙂

  • gx1080

    WoT is ok, if a little simplistic (and the name sucks).

    Gonna go in a wild and say that either GW or, most likely, EA said no to the idea of making WAR F2P. *I* would play it again if they did so, I mean, I’m playing Champions Online (Archetypes are limited, but the game is so much more engaging than WoW).

    Also, developing content for a third faction is a massive stretch.

  • dartwick

    You think WOT game play is more simplistic that “kill the guy with the thing.”

    I played WAR – we didnt spend much time on tactics or thinking out our next move – we attacked “the guy with the thing” if we wanted to win.

    WOT requires requires ythat you process a huge amount of cenerios and plan and adjust non-stop. And it massively rewards advanced team work.

    • Whatev

      You want to know why?  No healing, no respawns.  Whenever you get shot, that is health you will NEVER* get back.

      *until the round ends and you can repair your tank.

  • MiniShrike

    I wish these clowns would just get on with DAOC2.

  • gx1080

    I’m always skeptic of people that claim that their pet game requieres a lot of “tactics” and “strategy”.

    But then, what I have heard of WoT is that you can just snipe things like a boss and ignore most other stuff, just like an FPS.

    • dartwick

      Try the game rather using the “stuff you heard” I mean try it enough that you learn the game.

      But then I would have to say BF 2142 and especially Planetside have way more tactics than any MMO if you are actually trying to win a map as opposed to just getting a high kill count.

      If you play for personal stats You can remove the tactics from most games. If you play for team victories – thats when you can compare the level of tactics required.

  • Zimster

    Awesome Fansy? reference  – go go RIP Sullen Zek server

  • jiduthie

    Does Lum change the layout more than he posts?

    • JuJutsu

      Affirmative

  • Rasputin

    hell yes, planetside.