Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
It's a great game (which in the long term will probably ask for some investment), with some flaws, sure.
The game got review bombed over a low quality DLC.
EDIT: They also made some pretty bad PR statements.
They have responded to the backlash of this however and have put out some good DLC/updates following this.
3 is new, was more expensive, a DLC with less content and higher price led to fury.
Have posted before, but: I would advise 2 &1 play mortal empires in 2 gives you a map with all races you have access to. Having 1 gives you races and lords from 1.
If you like those, then you can buy DLC or WH3 and play more races / different modes / maps.
The game engine is updated in 3, but 2 will give you an idea of the gameplay, and any lords you can play in 2, you will have access to in 3.
2 and 3 each have a victory mode (vortex / whatever) and a campaign mode (mortal / immortal empires). Any lord you have due to owning 2 or 1 or DLC becomes available in the campaign modes in 2 or 3.
Each race is very different. Some have Magic, some have no ranged etc, so playing different races is almost a different game.
3 give a lot of lords with what I consider less traditional and more difficult gameplay - Chaos / plague / demons etc. If you like that, go for it. I like the traditional races (elf, Dwarf, Human, Greenskin).
Also 2 just about works on an HDD, 3 is much slower on my computer.
With incredible amount content.
But CA and Sega tend do quistionable bussiness decisions sometimes.
You can have 1000s hours of fun in this game, specially if you are a Warhammer fan.
And this is not a RTS game.
It’s turned based 4x game with realtime tactical battles.
A lot of people gave reviews when the game was in a much worse spot.
The company itself did attack the player-base, including releasing statements that are borderline insane and tyrannical. Stirring the pot.
What they did overall, the community itself being angry by many years of neglecting the project and creators on YouTube heating things up (in a good way, this was needed) resulted in a huge flame war. The company instead of cooling things down went to war on the Steam Forums, super heavy-handed on moderation, deleting/merging topics and overstepping their banning of users. Which was later overturned by Steam.
That's why it's mixed, and I think it should remain mixed. Now it's better, but CA is like a high functioning alcoholic. You never know what will happen when you will stop controlling him.
The mixed all-time reviews are a remnant from the review bombing that took place as a reaction to DLCs increasing in price some time back.
Chinese review bombed it at launch due to influencers getting a copy before customers.
People gave negative reviews because a feature that was not promised at launch, was not present at launch.
The RoC campaign was not really fun.
Overhaul for settlement battles which was not fun for many.
The Ai went crazy aggressive during launch, game was too hard.
Western influencer smelling that they'd get more clicks for being negative started being negative, even though at launch and prior they praised the game to the high heavens.
Game went upwards in reviews once the combined map was released. But then the same bad actors got angry because it was "beta".
Slow patching in the 3.0 cycle got people annoyed.
SoC launched, a dlc that had a quite hefty price increase. People lost their minds over this. Gave negative reviews to many of the Total Warhammer games and dlc.
Bad actors claim that it had less then previous dlc, yet it had the exact same number of unit's, lord types / heroes, regiment of reknown as prior lord pack dlc.
The then CEO made a tonedeaf reply to the community, same bad actors claim CA was now threatening the userbase.
A certain youtuber saw his chances, rallied his rabid fanbase. The forums were flooded with people hurling insults to CA and anyone playing it, even outright saying "BAN ME CA DADDY". Then played victim "ca banned me".
CA pulled their hands away from the forums, removed all permanent bans (sadly) yet still the bad actors persisted.
Eventually it all calmed down when SoC got "free" new content. Making it so you get more then any previous lord pack dlc ever. People were content.
ToD was announced and the bad actors were desperate to get the flow of negativity again. Pretending there were leaks etc, which all got debunked quite soon after the launch.
But mostly, most people will not make their review positive because they simply cannot be arsed too. Being angry is a hell of a motivator, being content is not.
Edit:
My opinion, this game is the best of the 3 games (got 4k hours in game2) and is a solid 7.5 currently. At launch it was barely a 6.
This
gameplay looks better but is worse than tww 2's and it was much worse on release. They patched quite a bit, but if you are hoping for long campaigns 2 would be the better fit. This one tends to have you dicisively win or lose around turn 20-30 with general gameplay turning into a steam roll around turn 40. For reference: You won't be half way through your unit recruitment tree until it is basically over.
The stand alone map needed to deactivate most of its unique mechanics to become "fun" and it shows how much of a bandaid that is. (The ideas are decent, the execution isn't)
The price tag of a few DLCs did not spark joy among the community compared to what you got out of them.
Several DLCs feel like cut out content added back in by drip feed to complete certain factions.
Legacy bugs which had been patched in TWW 1 and 2, in some cases even rome 2 reappeared in TWW 3 because why would you implement fixes your support teams have already whiped up 1 2 3 times (or more) before.
There is more, but bottom line:
Decent game, bit expensive and overshadowed by TWW 2, but not a burning dumbster fire. The upper quarter of "Mixed" is probably the place it should be.
-Preorder gave Ogre Kingdoms, which they then charged $12 for later (so this was a BS scam to get more money out of people)
-The game was buggy as hell
-Sieges were disgustingly painful to play and still aren't fun to play to this day
-The promised Immortal Empires (big map) was pushed back by many months and people were left with the crappy Realms of Chaos experience
-Realms of Chaos was basically Warhammer 2's worst campaign (Huntsmarshal Expedition) but on a grander scale. It was not fun to play, with a large part of that being random armies spawning in your territories with the only counterplay being heroes/armies having to camp your areas to stop them from spawning or killing the armies.
-The factions from all previous games would be present in Immortal Empires, but that wasn’t available yet so only Warhammer 3’s races were playable. Being able to play the other game’s DLCs was a huge selling point of Warhammer 3, which is why this not being available on launch was a huge issue.
-Their build-a-demon faction (“Daniel”, as he is nicknamed) was absolute garbage and bare-bones.
-No Regiments of Renown
Later on, more problems came up:
-DLC costing like 2-3x the price of Warhammer 2’s, but with less content. For example, Warhammer 3’s Shadows of Change DLC comes with 3 factions at $25 but each faction had less content than Warhammer 2’s which came with 2 factions at $10. And now they’re charging $9 for a single faction in Warhammer 3 when it used to only cost $5. A lot of the units were just re-skins and re-hashed mechanics.
-No more FLC (up until recently, in which this changed). The FLC that was always offered alongside a released DLC in Warhammer 2 was now being added into the DLCs for Warhammer 3 and players were being charged for it.
-A lot of bugs or quality of life issues were not addressed for many months. Even now, some incredibly simple bugs that should be fixed in less than hour are still not fixed. Less than an hour in the sense that some bugs are literally that simple and easily known and reproducible, while also having a noticeable impact on gameplay.
-Creative Assembly had a huge PR issue when they were degrading their consumers and their now-fired (Chief Financial Officer?) had released a statement basically telling consumers to “Shut up and buy it or we won’t make anything else”.
With all those negatives put forth, you can understand better as to why there are so many negative reviews. That said, the game has certainly come a long way from release. Major points:
-FLC being released again
-Faction reworks coming out that make substantial improvements to outdated designs
-More content was stuffed into the lackluster DLC Shadows of Change, after the fact
-Tons of bugs being fixed
-Sieges are more bearable
-Creative Assembly seems to be taking a more respectable turn from a PR perspective (Still sus, but a step in the right direction)
There are plenty of content creators showing stuff, so just take a look and if you think it’s fun, you can get stuff when it’s on sale. No need to own everything. Just get what you think you’d enjoy. I would say Warhammer 3 is the more complete experience at this point, despite being rated lower than Warhammer 2.
You mean like Norsca for game 2? (which wasn't playable for a whole year)
At launch the game was more stable then game 2 at launch.
The combined map was never promised to be playable at launch. They even repeatedly stated it would come later.
Game 2 however DID promise the combined map at launch and didn't give it.
You made the same point twice, it's still a faulty position. Because the combined map was not promised at launch.
?!?
Game 1 had no regiments until the first dlc.
Game 2 had no regiments until the first dlc.
Why is only a thing to make a negative review for game 3?
Can we stop propagating this lie that SoC gave less content? It had the same amount of unit's, lords etc as prior. It simply costed more.
Yes, the dlc now cost more, but you also get MORE then prior dlc.
Let's count the FLC since launch shall we?
- Regiments of renown 1 for 6 races
- Regiments of renown 2 for 6 races. (remember game 1 and 2 these were locked behind dlc, not flc)
-Immortal Empires.
-Marked variants of chaos warriors for Nurgle, Tzeentch and Slaanesh (khorne already had it)
-Belakor.
-Regiments of renown 3 for 6 races.
-Ulrika Magdova
-Mirror of madness (aka, new outfit for Daniel)
-Regiments of renown 4 for 6 races.
-Harald hammerstorm
-Aekold Hellbrass
-Epidemius
-Karanak.
But sure, game 3 has no flc.
I do not understand why you're condemning game 3 for things which happened in game 1 and 2.