Anyone else but me that remembers how much hate DOW2 got? :D

[ForrestFox]

After seeing so much hate from so many regarding DOW3 I felt I should remind people that DOW2 had its share of hate, and that game turned out pretty nice after all.
Dont be a minion jumping on the hatetrain just because others do it, give the game a chanse and remember that the game will have updates, balancing and DLC/expansions, so even if "your" army is not in the game right now it may verry well be sooner or later.

Anyhow, to give people something to remember and muse about, here are a few posts made about Dawn Of War 2 that can be found on google:

7 March 2009 by Sturryz
"I hate Dawn Of War 2, it's just a Company of Heroes Mod that dumbs down the gameplay.
it offers nothing new compared to the Slightly older WW2, infact it removes some of the cooler aspects of Company Of Heroes.

It is nothing but a Company Of Heroes ripoff with less of the good stuff that the Company Of Heroes games offered up.

I don't understand Relics Logic, make a reasonably good RTS with a lot of nice unique things (Dawn of War 1) make a RTS that changes how the RTS genre works entirely. then throw out a game that dumbs down the entire experience, being stuck between Dawn of War 1 and Company of Heroes. But it ain't as good as either of those games.

If you own Company of Heroes, there is no reason to even consider bothering with Dawn Of War 2. it's an exact copy of the experience but much worse gameplay and even less content.

The most sickening part is the map count, it's god awful and embarrassing by any standard.

The fact that the game REQUIRES both Steam and Games For Windows Live to just play reasonably is even worse. you almost feel the distrust that relic has towards you.

God, i just hate this friggin game so much. just please... avoid it. it's not worth considering. the fact they didn't put in a way to use maps or mods is terrible, your stuck only getting whatever material they put out (when they stop making stuff for the game, what are we going to do?)

There, i said it. say what you want but thats how i feel about it."


OrangeTreat posted the following 7 years, 3 months ago:
"I have a list of reasons why DoW2 sucks badly.
1. No buildings? (Silly little Power buildings erect when you capture a point)
2. Campaign is boring.
3. Menu is lame.
4. Not much difference between Dawn of War except for better graphics and some replaced units.
5. Many units and squads are too overpowering like the Eldar Avatar and the Shuriken Cannon team...
6. DoW2 should have loads more units and squads etc...
7. A squad contains very little."

17 July 2015 by AcidPotato
"This Game Sucks
Its nothing like the first Dawn of War, the RTS features are nothing alike. Or did I miss something?"

Jan 10 2010 AndrewM
"Good quality campaign mode, it was accurate to how space marines would do things, not giant assaults out of nowhere. However, I was appalled at the lack of detail in multiplayer and single player scenarios. All the races were almost exaclty the same as the ones next to it and the playstyle was far from how they are supposed to be played, orks dont use tactics, they rely on numbers as do tyranids (although they probably use more than orks). Furthermore being forced to get a windows live account to play the game is a huge waste of time if you will almost never use it."

Mar 5 2009 fdfsdadsad
"I was completly disapointed by DoW 2. If you loved DoW 1 you will be really disapointed by this second part. First thing, you don't even have a builder, you can't make any buildings, you just train squads to join the battle. Second thing, you can't micro at all, the only thing you can do is make your squad ''fall back'' an auto fast running that brings your squad back to your only building. Compare this to DoW 1 and its pure crap. The only good thing are the graphics. This game is not worth paying 50$ for, not at all."

May 10 2011, McMeepers
"Don't get me wrong, the game has some things I like about it, specifically a unique blend of RPG and RTS, not to mention that it has the name of Warhammer 40,000. But like many of the other people who expressed frustration with this game, I felt like it just barely missed being exceptional with a few short-sighted mistakes (including lackluster AI, early-launch bugs, and unbalanced play). The fatal blow to the game in my mind was the repetition. Did they really launch a game with only a handful of maps (campaign) and then expect you to play each one until you can recreate it in your head down to the very last pixel? This is one of the few times that I've been very disappointed with the professional critics because I think they missed the mark in a major way. I understand that they want to support a company who tries something new (i.e. blend multiple genres), but the game simply doesn't rate as well as the critics claimed (which is evident in the fact that, for once, the professional critics have a higher rating than the users)."

Dec 10 2011, RexG
"For completely unknown reasons there are game designers who think you can never have enough generic 'zerg the world' games: And it seems they all worked on DoW2.
There is no strategy in this game; there are barely any tactics in this game; but if you're a 6 year old moron and can be entertained for hours on the strength of pretty colours and sparkly lights then you'll find plenty in DoW 2 to love.
A massive step backwards for the franchise and seriously damaging to the entire GW brand."

Jun 16 2012 Skizapper
"Hugely dissapointed, They took away everything that was great about DOW1 and pretty much screwed it up. The battles aren't epic, the lack of base building isn't fun, and the races are all the same and boring. I had really high hopes for this game, I seriously wish I could return this."

Feb 21 2009 SilverPotato
"Dawn of war 2 is the WORST game I have ever played! It's not even like the old Dawn of War. Where did all the buildings go?! Its just alot of waiting for resources to make squads with worthless upgrades. I feel like I'm playing diablo or something. I :swearing: hate Dawn of War 2 with a passion."

[Born A Beast]

Good post op.

[Frostie Gigas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_QBkq1uMs4

DOW2 didint get thumbs down like this

[VonFIDDE]

Dow2 didn't get that much hate, however i did disslike some changes from beta to release but atleast we had a solid singleplayer campaign then.

[Starmender]

How can they remember?
All these people complaining about DoW3 were like 3 years old when DoW2 came out.

[theedge6342000]

Originally posted by Apoc:

Originally posted by Imnuktam Evil Inc:

Walking that tight rope of building an army and teching up/building all the right buildings at the right time is what made DOW I great and what made DOW II & III dumbed dumb for the masses that didnt buy this game because it was bland and dumbed down.

The same exact strategy is in DoW 2 and 3! If you manange to tech up to T2 with your weak early game and rush something like a Bloodcrusher out, you were in a significant advantage at that point in the game.

Just because the game is focused on skirmishes and not on base-building, doesn't make the game dumbed down.

Very true. But I would say one signifigant advantage for DoW 1 over either of the next 2 installments was it's roster asymmetry. The only 2 factions that were at all alike were Space Marines, and understandably Chaos Space Marines.

DoW 2... and even more so, DoW 3.. are pretty much all about symmetrical rosters, and letting your heroes provide the difference. It's easier to balance this way, but far less creative. And far less representative of the 40k IP.

For any flaw that DoW 1 had. It adhered to one of the most fundamental rules of having a good, long lasting RTS. Different factions felt wildly different. To this day, I'm still one of the worst Necron players ever... but just dominate with Eldar.

In DoW 1:

Eldar were represented perfectly IMO - Aspect Warriors were EXTREMELY specialized, and were overwhelmingly efficient in their roles... but nearly useles outside of their designated role. Rangers for breaking morale, Reapers for heavy infantry.. or just infantry in general. Banshees for shock troops and tying up units diving your shooters so you could reposition, but not for tying up units in front.. they didn't have the health for that. Vehicles were mostly kittable to fulfil a role. Even Fire Prism's had the ability to act as infantry support, rather than a direct heavy armor counter. FoF ensured that Eldar were always the fastest army on the field.. and they needed it because they were squishy as hell.

Space Marines - Tactical Squads were the bread and butter throughout the game. Kittable for anything, tough as nails, and scaled extremely well throughout the game. Terminators were nice late game... Space Marines were represented very well in the first game. The whole roster was built on versatility and flexibility. Nearly every SM unit was kittable. Predators/Dreadnoughts/Terminators/SM Squad/Scouts... everything. Everything was kittable, and they adapted very well within the flow of the game to an situation. Very good representation.

Imperial Guard - Perfect again. Mass units... terrible morale, early game was just pumping out weak guardsman units with commisars and executing one every fight to keep morale up. Garrisoning buildings for a more defensive playstyle was a genius move as well. IG really didn't stand up well early at all. Once you get a heavy weapons squad, things start to even out a bit. By the end, with a baneblade, artillary, and Leman Russ tanks.. IG get brutal to play against. Also grenade launcher spam was key to surviving early/mid game. I think I would normally go 2 GL, and 3 Plasmas. Like SM, upgrades are just awesome and really befitting. When you hit tier 2, your squads god from like 8 men, to 11 men. Tons of morale upgrades, and a sargeant/veteran was key to keeping squad morale up. Again DoW 1 did an absolutely impeccable job representing the mass disposable infantry, with top notch supporting weapons, tanks, and artillary.

Orks - Like Imperial Guard.. their niche was mass disposable infantry. Unlike IG, they could swarm the ♥♥♥♥ out of you. They were fairly tough, or tough enough individually.. and man, Ork boy squads backed with shootas was just so overwhelming in numbers early. Later the squad size was just unbelievable. If Orks got a tiny advantage, their numbers were just plain overhelming. Great representation. The Waaaaggh mechanic was also completely different than anything done by any other race.

Necrons - Whelp.. I sucked at Necrons.. the entire resource system they used was completely different. Necron Warriors... and all Necrons were as slow as dirt, and tough as nails. Perfectly represented as a slow tide of doom sweeping the battlefield. Balance was off with them in Dark Crusade... Looking at you morale sapping, non-morale having Flayed-Ones. I hate those guys.. and they could deep strike too. Again, just a completely different feel and for these guys than anyone else.

Tau - Massive firepower. You had the interesting choose your final path mechanic. Where you could bring more firepower, or you could get that huge range upgrade and have a tanky frontline with the Kroot based path. Again... I thought they were very well done. I believe by Dark Crusade thte Tau were the only faction with a main line unit with setup times, with Fire Warriors. Who of course made up for that with great damage at great range.

Chaos Space Marines - Never really played much with or against them. They were farly similar too SM if I remember correctly, with a heavier emphasis on melee. Can't speak much to them.



In DoW 3. There are some distinctions between races... but mainly all the line units feel somewhat ecquivelant.

Tactical SM = Dire Avengers = Shoota Boyz
Howling Banshees = Assault Marines = Choppa Boyz
Dark Reapers = Loota Boyz = Devastator Squad
Shadow Spectres = Las Cannon Devastators = Rokkit boyz

I mean the list goes on and on. Everything's got an extremely similar equivelant. And most of the equivelant units share extremely similar abilities, or mechanics. Everyone in the first group gets a grenade. Everyone in the second group gets a gap closer, and some CC. Everyone in the 3rd groups got almost the same range, and very similar damage output. The 4th group as well. With Las-Devastators and Spectres even sharing the "heating up" mechanic. Everything is just so symmetrical, a lot of the novelty of playing as a different race is left up to wierdly inaccurate and forced mechanics... like battle focus... and Protoss shields. Vehicles aren't really kittable for anyone outside of the SM Land Speeder.

Of all the things that DoW 1 had.. the assymetry it showed was just brilliant. Each race was designed with a whole set of individually overarching mechanics, and they were almost always without fail very lore appropriate.


Edit: I know youy might be thinking.. well their was symmetry in unit roles in DoW 1 also. Every team had units that could plausibly fulfill similar roles. Well, this is sort of true, but it never really worked out like that.

For example, Fire Dragons were incredible anit-vehiclers, they did massive damage.. but had extremely short range. Stealth suits had stealth, and required a large investment in kitting to be effecitve anti vehicle units. But hey got stealth and jump... if you researched everything. Space Marine squads had exceptionally range for anti vehilce capabilities, but were definitely outpoutting less damage, even when fully spec'd. Ork heavy shooters were a 3rd tier unit, they didn't get much heavy weapon support early in DoW 1. Melee units were filled with interesting variations. Banshees were great as shock troops... not so great at tying units up out front of the ranged portion of the army. Their low health, and morale breaking howl, made sure that they weren't the same all-around melee force of a large squad of boyz, or assault marines. Necrons did massive damage but could be outranged, and out maneuvered with ease. Flayed-Ones were basically unbeatable in melee until they were balanced. But they also got the unique knockback. IG heavy weapons squads were crazy effective, and grenade launchers could keep ranged squads cc'd permanantly if you engaged right... but they dropped like flies and their morale broke the moment anything went wrong. Even the ranges were vastly different for similar roled units in different factions.

[Lazarus]

DoW2 was just such a drastic change from DoW1. It was not really a sequal, it would have been better off labled a new game branch.

It had good mechanics. The unit cover system like Company of Heros, but it lacked the RTS base building aspect that people liked from DoW1.

[Avenger93]

Ah yes, DOW 2 was so hated. Let's take the pulse of the one rating system that did exist at the time like I did in another thread:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-ii/user-reviews?sort-by=date&num_items=100

Go read the pages of user reviews (some ~300 reviews overall) and look at the dates. 2/3rds of those reviews are from the release year and they still are positive. Very positive in fact. Overall you have some 1515 ratings of the game from users with 1153 beeing in the positive category and 172 neutral.

Metacritic is an imperfect system that does not rely on ownership of the game for reviews and votes. In many ways, metacritc is far, FAR more susceptible to bandwagon hate from people who don't even own the game, yet somehow the "ZOMG HATED" DoW 2 is overwhelmingly positive.

DoW 3 on steam where ONLY buyers can post reviews and rate the game is mixed in reception. Use your brains and THINK before you screech bandwagon hate.

And before you mention "troll reviews" with only 2 hours or less game time like idiots, ask yourselves this small queation: What was so bad about this game that this person after spending money on it decided to not stick around for more than 2 hours and used the steam policy to get a refund? What could have drive them away so fast? Instead of caling peole who did not risk it and decided it's not worth spending this much money on the off-chance the game might get good later "trolls" because you want to feel better about yourselves, try to act like adults for once? You and I both know the argument "it gets better later" is a non-argument, if the first impression of the game is bad or abhorent. I don't pay for "it gets better later" or "it will be good after x pathces and DLCs" I pay premium fee for quality now. So what is so bad about the first impression of DoW 3 that drives these people away?

But that would mean not beeing rabid fanboys.

See, this is the problem with people trying to defend DoW 3. You use anecdotal evidence and small sample sizes of what you can remeber, and not the general consesus at the time and any sort of large sample sizes.

DoW 2 was truly hated by a minority of die-hard base builders but it was geniune good game and overall positively received if the metrics of the time are to be believed.

DoW 3 ... less so. If we consider agregate review scores as representative of overall fan reaction based on large sample sizes, DoW 2 by the metrics of the time did good. DoW 3 did not especialy when it comes to fan reviews.

[General T.Montana Tropic Thunder]

DoW3: A lot of metacritic user ratings are either 0 stars or 10 stars

[Coliform]

lol just look at the metacritic reviews for both games. Obviously metacritic is a system with many flaws, but it's obvious af the hate for DoW 2 at release was NOWHERE NEAR what DoW 3 has produced. A lot of the hate stems from having had to use Steam and GWFL for DoW 2, not even the game itself.

[Raviel]

Originally posted by Avenger93:

Ah yes, DOW 2 was so hated. Let's take the pulse of the one rating system that did exist at the time like I did in another thread:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-ii/user-reviews?sort-by=date&num_items=100

Go read the pages of user reviews (some ~300 reviews overall) and look at the dates. 2/3rds of those reviews are from the release year and they still are positive. Very positive in fact. Overall you have some 1515 ratings of the game from users with 1153 beeing in the positive category and 172 neutral.

Metacritic is an imperfect system that does not rely on ownership of the game for reviews and votes. In many ways, metacritc is far, FAR more susceptible to bandwagon hate from people who don't even own the game, yet somehow the "ZOMG HATED" DoW 2 is overwhelmingly positive.

DoW 3 on steam where ONLY buyers can post reviews and rate the game is mixed in reception. Use your brains and THINK before you screech bandwagon hate.

And before you mention "troll reviews" with only 2 hours or less game time like idiots, ask yourselves this small queation: What was so bad about this game that this person after spending money on it decided to not stick around for more than 2 hours and used the steam policy to get a refund? What could have drive them away so fast? Instead of caling peole who did not risk it and decided it's not worth spending this much money on the off-chance the game might get good later "trolls" because you want to feel better about yourselves, try to act like adults for once? You and I both know the argument "it gets better later" is a non-argument, if the first impression of the game is bad or abhorent. I don't pay for "it gets better later" or "it will be good after x pathces and DLCs" I pay premium fee for quality now. So what is so bad about the first impression of DoW 3 that drives these people away?

But that would mean not beeing rabid fanboys.

See, this is the problem with people trying to defend DoW 3. You use anecdotal evidence and small sample sizes of what you can remeber, and not the general consesus at the time and any sort of large sample sizes.

DoW 2 was truly hated by a minority of die-hard base builders but it was geniune good game and overall positively received if the metrics of the time are to be believed.

DoW 3 ... less so. If we consider agregate review scores as representative of overall fan reaction based on large sample sizes, DoW 2 by the metrics of the time did good. DoW 3 did not especialy when it comes to fan reviews.

it's​ just popular to hate on things now.
At the time of DoW2 release i and my friends didn't like it much, they just quit. I still played casually on the week ends.
No one of us left a negative review and there was way more reasons to leave bad reviews for DoW2 than DoW3.
All the cheese and dumbed down mechanics with free "get out of jail" card in retreat mechanic that ended up being abused by tyranids to get kills for free at some point. The cover that was quite useless and squads would never fit in properly unless they were space marines.
The chaos faction when it was released was ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Chaos lord could insta gib squads with his flamer and let the galaxy burn was like press one button kill 3 squads that weren't marines. Heretics that were the cheapest melee in game yet beat every other melee in 1 on 1. Even years later after nerfs heretics still feel very op. Chaos lord still gibs squads but the abilities seem to do less damage and harder to hit.

In terms of balance DoW 3 seems plain better. There doesn't seem to be something nearly as broken as you had in DoW2.

It isn't perfect sure, but it has a good foundation for later growth.

On the first sight if you just spam a few squads and don't try to use faction specific mechanics, sophisticated unit / elite combinations sure it feels too simple and dull. That's exactly why I have very hard time accepting negative reviews from people who haven't even played 2 hours.. that's about 2-3 games. No way you can master or even grasp the different mechanics/how they work and are supposed to be played with or against in 3 games.

Complaints about lack of single player content for the price, maybe.
lore problems sure. You don't need to play the game to see contradictions to the lore.
However calling it dull or too dumbed down whichout even learning to play 1 faction, is just trolling. Especially if they claim DoW2 had more deph.

[theedge6342000]

Originally posted by Raviel:

Originally posted by Avenger93:

Ah yes, DOW 2 was so hated. Let's take the pulse of the one rating system that did exist at the time like I did in another thread:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-ii/user-reviews?sort-by=date&num_items=100

Go read the pages of user reviews (some ~300 reviews overall) and look at the dates. 2/3rds of those reviews are from the release year and they still are positive. Very positive in fact. Overall you have some 1515 ratings of the game from users with 1153 beeing in the positive category and 172 neutral.

Metacritic is an imperfect system that does not rely on ownership of the game for reviews and votes. In many ways, metacritc is far, FAR more susceptible to bandwagon hate from people who don't even own the game, yet somehow the "ZOMG HATED" DoW 2 is overwhelmingly positive.

DoW 3 on steam where ONLY buyers can post reviews and rate the game is mixed in reception. Use your brains and THINK before you screech bandwagon hate.

And before you mention "troll reviews" with only 2 hours or less game time like idiots, ask yourselves this small queation: What was so bad about this game that this person after spending money on it decided to not stick around for more than 2 hours and used the steam policy to get a refund? What could have drive them away so fast? Instead of caling peole who did not risk it and decided it's not worth spending this much money on the off-chance the game might get good later "trolls" because you want to feel better about yourselves, try to act like adults for once? You and I both know the argument "it gets better later" is a non-argument, if the first impression of the game is bad or abhorent. I don't pay for "it gets better later" or "it will be good after x pathces and DLCs" I pay premium fee for quality now. So what is so bad about the first impression of DoW 3 that drives these people away?

But that would mean not beeing rabid fanboys.

See, this is the problem with people trying to defend DoW 3. You use anecdotal evidence and small sample sizes of what you can remeber, and not the general consesus at the time and any sort of large sample sizes.

DoW 2 was truly hated by a minority of die-hard base builders but it was geniune good game and overall positively received if the metrics of the time are to be believed.

DoW 3 ... less so. If we consider agregate review scores as representative of overall fan reaction based on large sample sizes, DoW 2 by the metrics of the time did good. DoW 3 did not especialy when it comes to fan reviews.

it's​ just popular to hate on things now.
At the time of DoW2 release i and my friends didn't like it much, they just quit. I still played casually on the week ends.
No one of us left a negative review and there was way more reasons to leave bad reviews for DoW2 than DoW3.
All the cheese and dumbed down mechanics with free "get out of jail" card in retreat mechanic that ended up being abused by tyranids to get kills for free at some point. The cover that was quite useless and squads would never fit in properly unless they were space marines.
The chaos faction when it was released was ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Chaos lord could insta gib squads with his flamer and let the galaxy burn was like press one button kill 3 squads that weren't marines. Heretics that were the cheapest melee in game yet beat every other melee in 1 on 1. Even years later after nerfs heretics still feel very op. Chaos lord still gibs squads but the abilities seem to do less damage and harder to hit.

In terms of balance DoW 3 seems plain better. There doesn't seem to be something nearly as broken as you had in DoW2.

It isn't perfect sure, but it has a good foundation for later growth.

On the first sight if you just spam a few squads and don't try to use faction specific mechanics, sophisticated unit / elite combinations sure it feels too simple and dull. That's exactly why I have very hard time accepting negative reviews from people who haven't even played 2 hours.. that's about 2-3 games. No way you can master or even grasp the different mechanics/how they work and are supposed to be played with or against in 3 games.

Complaints about lack of single player content for the price, maybe.
lore problems sure. You don't need to play the game to see contradictions to the lore.
However calling it dull or too dumbed down whichout even learning to play 1 faction, is just trolling. Especially if they claim DoW2 had more deph.

Yea.. I don't like the dumbed down arguments per se. It is low on classic Relic RTS tactical acumen. But I can deal with that.

The 3 things I REALLY don't like, that will probably keep me away from really getting into this game are the gating rosters through elites, the power of elites, and the survivability of line units.

There are a ton of other things that I feel are clear downgrades... but I can live with them. The things that I mentioned above are the type of issues that firmly place this game in the Starcraft 2 feell... rather than Relic RTS feel. The disposibility of line units is something I can't ever remember being in a Relic RTS... it doesn't feel like something that belongs in a Relic title. The gating of units like Terminators, Striking Scorpions, Warp Spiders, Stormboyz, Mega Noba, Wraithlords... it all feels unnessecary. Titans, the old super units, heroes... THOSE are proper elite choices. But I don't like having to choose between Striking Scorpions and a Farseer. It just doesn't make sense... and it's actually just plain unnecessary. If line units were less Starcraftian, and less disposable, many of the elites that are basically regular roster units could eaily find their niche. Unfortunately it really feels like the whole elite system was formed on the basis of having an avenue to stream in $5-$10 DLCs on a regular. Much has been made about the overall power of elites and their overwhelming importance.

Even many of the critic reviews find their overwhelming importance just turns line units into trashmobs... and in many ways once a Wraithlord hits the field, it can really feel like you're playing a MOBA where you control the minions. It's more nuanced than that for sure... but many critic reviewers have pointed out that it hasn't quite hit the mark with the elites vs the line units. I've stated before that the Power Core mode, and the whole idea of elites and the way they're setup in this game feels like the ABSOLUTELY PERFECT modern age DOTA to Warcraft 3. If Relic could somehow go through the trouble of setting up a traditional mode, with traditional Relic RTS elements for an expansion, then the game might really get some life and some legs. It's a tall task to ask for. But the game will likely need something more traditional to get a large enough playerbase to make it into the competetive e-sport scene. Right now there's just not enough reason to watch it over watching LoL or Starcraft 2, if you want your fix for competetive e-sports titles. Unless you love the game of course, and unfortunately, not enough people love the game to make it a viable e-sports game.

[ForrestFox]

Originally posted by Mr Eos:

My only complaint is the Lack of new Last Stand Heroes and Maps to play on. That's a Legitimate complaint.

Just a reminder, DOW2 did not have Last Stand at the start, and only a small number of maps. DOW3 will probably get something similar soon enough :)

[ForrestFox]

Originally posted by Starmender:

How can they remember?
All these people complaining about DoW3 were like 3 years old when DoW2 came out.

haha, that may actually be true :D

[Insight of Olostromus]

Originally posted by ForrestFox*RTF*:

Originally posted by Mr Eos:

My only complaint is the Lack of new Last Stand Heroes and Maps to play on. That's a Legitimate complaint.

Just a reminder, DOW2 did not have Last Stand at the start, and only a small number of maps. DOW3 will probably get something similar soon enough :)

I thik DoW 3 will be better than the 2. If not for the Last stand mode, i seriously quitted long ago from that game. After a couple a skirmish i couldn't handle anymore.

[theedge6342000]

Originally posted by ForrestFox*RTF*:

Originally posted by Starmender:

How can they remember?
All these people complaining about DoW3 were like 3 years old when DoW2 came out.

haha, that may actually be true :D

Nah... I began strategy gaming in the late 90s. I remember playing Starcraft in the middle school computer room with veritable ton of kids on LAN. I remember wanting Myth: The Fallen Lords after seeing it previewed in a magazine. It's a real shame that Bungie ended up discontinuing the Myth franchise. Those 2 games were probably the most innovative RTT games of all time. Not to mention 2 of the best games ever made. Myth, and Myth 2.. were downright incredible. With one of the best multiplayer experiences ever as well.