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
The graphics are good and clear, the gameplay fast, and I love the base building part of sneaking behind enemy lines with an engineer and setting up a structure to produce units behind them. Oh, and the scaling of each units is good, as it really gives the impression of huge lurking avatars walking over battlefield, towering high above the infantry.
That's hardly a ringing endorsement of a game that said buyers could easily have picked up for $5 US, though (if not free). At the sale prices that frequently pop up around here, I think most people, myself included, would probably say 'it's fine'. Even then though, most of the buyers throughout the game's lifespan didn't stick around for long and a relative handful of people saying 'it's fine' before moving on in a week wasn't enough to sustain Sega/Relic's support. Especially for a game that was clearly intended to be a long-term, multiplayer-centric affair.
If it makes people feel better to blame the audience for the game's fate, go nuts but despite the constant whining that happens on almost every Steam forum, games that most buyers actually enjoy playing for long periods of time tend to do better in the reviews without half of the positives feeling the need to preface each one with some version of 'ignore the haters!'. Just by way of example, Vermintide 2 is still in the 80+% territory despite years of people screeching on the forums, an abysmal first expansion, and their own team practically making an art form of strange decisions and poor communication. At the end of the day, they still made a game that most buyers fundamentally enjoyed playing and the reviews still reflect that.
And for the record, I agree that the game wasn't that far off of being something I would have actually liked after a few more updates but ultimately, Sega/Relic's decision to end support and the reasons leading to it are nobody's fault but their own.
It's just too bad, because the voiceovers were good, some of the ideas like the rocking out WAAAGH towers were great, and the unit models and animations were pretty good.
what, exactly, is the common thing between dawn of war 1 on release, and dawn of war 2 on release? based on how people talk about this game, dawn of war 2 should have been a MASSIVE failure: it was a FAR departure from dawn of war one, in fact it was WILDLY different. This game, if anything, is CONSISTENT, as in its a huge change up of gameplay from the previous, JUST LIKE DAWN OF WAR 2 WAS FROM DAWN OF WAR ONE. The Core capture game mode was fun, but i can understand not enjoying it, but they had a full ass roadmap of differnet game modes, and instantly released deathmatch mode...
how can you be a fan of "dawn of war" but not liek this game AT ALL? you arent a true fan then, you only like SOME aspect of SOME of the dawn of war series, and if that specific ascect wasnt in this game....ITS NOT A DAWN OF WAR GAME HUR DUR.
how could they please you? have base building, but also squads like dow2, but also huge armies like dow 1, but also small focus with heroes and wargear upgrades, but also NO basebuildign because we liked the resource nodes, but also NOT THESE heroes, and also 10 races (despite no other game haveing that on release) but also a RPG campaign, but also a DOW1 RTS grand campaign, but also no resource nodes becuase we liked some other thing, and ON and ON, this game was different, and thats not a bad thing.
I'd say the thing that mattered the most, that most overlook is simply depth, or complexity, or variety, what ever you want to call it.. DoW1 has a large variety of armies with a large variety of unit's that could be upgraded in many way's, each game something new could be attempted by the player against something likely different, likewise with DoW2 just in a different fashion and set up on a different styled board with different mechanic's but much the same variety or depth. In Dow3s case there was a lack of these things, building one of three line unit's from one of three armies and having them get killed by one of three over powered "elites" after upgrading or not upgrading them with their single upgrade on one of three maps got old fast.
Many critics cited the MOBA-like-esque-inspired gameplay element's as well, a large difference between 1/2/3 was 3 lent far more towards MOBA features than 1/2 (strong elites, weak line units, power core/turret win condition's) if player's wanted that they would play League of legends or Dota.. 1/2 offered a unique experience or at least a novelty experience that wasn't found else where well 3 offered the same experience as well established titles with less depth than the earlier titles.
As a concept this game was dead on arrival and well beyond saving by updates or additional content - something relic obviously realised and thus abandoned the game.
Would more people play this had it been expanded versions of Dow1/2? probably. Did making Dow3 different to earlier instalments and more akin to already established massive multiplayer games doom it? yeah, probably.