Just so we're clear, most of the reviews are actually really positive, average is likely 8/10 but most are in-progress so unscored

[Nightmarian]

I know there's two posts here saying otherwise, but both were quickly and maliciously abandoned by their OPs after rather clearly indicating they never had interest in the game or have less than genuine motives (for some reason...?).

Both also cherrypicked a single outlier review from PC Gamer without actually reading it (which was made clearly evident by their follow up posts), as much of the negative aspects of PC Gamer's review focused on simply not liking the complexity of combat despite it being way more streamlined than Pathfinder (bugs too which is completely valid).

I'm not an Owlcat stan, in fact I'm actually pretty critical of them and generally want them to push to become a better studio, but I wanted anyone driving by to realize that as of time of writing most of the reviews for the game are quite positive. The game will likely sit at low to mid 80s judging by the trend, but rather than worrying about aggregates I would suggest you actually go READ and DIGEST the reviews as you should always do.

Summary of most seems to be great game marred by bugs, the bugs again being the largest complaint and for us probably worth a sigh and an eyeroll (Come on Owlcat...). Some had an issue with pacing/combat but most were generally positive reviews so far.

Anyway, here are just a few of the reviews I've seen so far:

• https://wccftech.com/review/warhammer-40000-rogue-trader-charting-a-new-course/
• https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/warhammer-40000-rogue-trader-review-pc/
  
• https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/rogue-trader-is-the-first-warhammer-40k-game-ive-played-that-feels-genuinely-epic
  
• https://screenrant.com/warhammer-40k-rogue-trader-pc-review/
  
• https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/warhammer-40000-rogue-trader-test-steam-review,3404923.html
  
• https://www.ign.com/articles/warhammer-40000-rogue-trader-review
  
• https://www.pcgamer.com/warhammer-40000-rogue-trader-review/

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guTGVnpurXM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7ZpxakG9Fk


Happy gaming. Unless you're a heretic. In that case, I hope your fingers break.

[Schmime]

Its a good game but it would have been 10x better if they didn't waste time on coop.

[WastingSanity]

Originally posted by Schmime:

Its a good game but it would have been 10x better if they didn't waste time on coop.

True, polish should have been priority over coop. That could have come later.

[Grahor]

Originally posted by WastingSanity:

Originally posted by Schmime:

Its a good game but it would have been 10x better if they didn't waste time on coop.

True, polish should have been priority over coop. That could have come later.

You don't add a new huge feature after polish. It's not how programming works.

[WastingSanity]

Originally posted by Grahor:

You don't add a new huge feature after polish. It's not how programming works.

Apparently Stardew Valley, Ghost of Tsushima, and Untitled Goose Game wouldn't agree with you there.

[Nightmarian]

Originally posted by Grahor:

Originally posted by WastingSanity:

True, polish should have been priority over coop. That could have come later.

You don't add a new huge feature after polish. It's not how programming works.

I think people are exaggerating the whole coop thing but I agree with them in that for a huge, narrative, "choose your own path" coop is probably incredibly niche, everyone wants to be the MC, everyone wants their choices to matter, everyone has their favorite companions, etc.

Heck, I remember in a big discussion about it for BG3 (tying back to DOS 1/2), even fans of COOP admitted it was mostly because they had more fun with the chaotic party game 99% of coop sessions inevitably devolve into as gaming personalities collide.

That was the case with me too. I was trying to take the story serious, meanwhile one of my friends was murdering someone who insulted him because she deserved it and he thought it was funny, while another kept telling us to stay out of melee so he could use pyramid stone cheese to one shot encounters.

These games really aren't made for MP in mind, it's like writing a novel together with everyone inputting at the same time, it just doesn't make sense nor work.

But hey, in BG3's case, it was fine, if you didn't care, you ignored it.

For Owlcat, I do think it was kind of pointless, especially in lieu of using that engineering resource for adding more content or polish.

[Morgian]

I think that coop modes are irrelevant for 95% of all players. It turns out that nobody who started will play at the same time and for the same length after one session, and everyone returns to solo play. As Nightmarian said, there is also the problem that everyone has an opinion on how to proceed.
It works in MMOs, which are perpetual repeating combat events where it does not matter who is present, and the only goal is to kill dragon X. They are made to have fun online and it won't matter if you miss a session or two. In a RPG with a story that doesn't go well.

On the other hand, why should I start a war because they built a coop mode in? I won't ever use it, but it doesn't hurt me being there. The technical people who make online modes work would not create game content anyway, except in smaller teams.

[Black Hammer]

Co-op was a smart move, since it's one of the easiest ways to sell more copies of the game. Adding five more hours of quests or more gear weren't going to move the needle on sales. Now, 40k fans who were buying the game anyway can drag friends into it and get them to buy more copies.

Plus, at some point, Owlcat needed to get off their butts and learn how multiplayer works.

[Nightmarian]

Originally posted by Morgian:

I think that coop modes are irrelevant for 95% of all players. It turns out that nobody who started will play at the same time and for the same length after one session, and everyone returns to solo play. As Nightmarian said, there is also the problem that everyone has an opinion on how to proceed.
It works in MMOs, which are perpetual repeating combat events where it does not matter who is present, and the only goal is to kill dragon X. They are made to have fun online and it won't matter if you miss a session or two. In a RPG with a story that doesn't go well.

On the other hand, why should I start a war because they built a coop mode in? I won't ever use it, but it doesn't hurt me being there. The technical people who make online modes work would not create game content anyway, except in smaller teams.

Well, for CRPG fans, yes. Games that draw a more casual audience outside of the fandom, like Divinity Original Sin 1/2 and BG3, probably benefit it to some degree because it lets people treat them like sandbox party games intstead, which may be more to their tastes.

And yeah, coop just goes against the narrative nature of these games. I do want to point out though that the only reason it works in MMORPGs is because MMORPGs literally consider you the MC and just ignore everyone else is even there. For instance, YOU are the commander in Guild Wars 2, even though technically players in your party are THE commander too...

The games typically are on rails though so it's all about when you watch the story less than about when you play it compared to others, which isn't the case for RPGs like this.

You'll never have to worry about companions or narrative choices in 99% of MMORPGs.