Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
If you liked Winter Assault then you'll like Dawn of War III's campaign.
The game is probably not worth getting for the multiplayer though because automatch will never work due to the condition of the current playerbase and you need Discord in order to setup custom games.
You can't blame the community for this man. It doesn't matter how much people complain or write bad reviews, the game speaks for it's self. Even the people who were willing to ignore all of the negative comments have abandoned the game, and it didn't take long for them to do so. If this game was actually really good, that wouldn't have happened. The people giving the game a chance would have had better player retention, more people would have piled up in the community that enjoyed the game, and naturally more positive reviews and comments would have existed.
That didn't happen because the game released in a state that disappoints both old fans of Dawn of War as a series, and new potential fans who are interested in RTS games. That's on Relic and Sega for releasing a game that needs fixing in the first place. Whether it was intended or not, it's their mistake, not the community's. It lacks the singleplayer features that people know DoW most for, and it lacks the multiplayer design to make it competitive with more popular titles like Starcraft. Basically DoW III only went halfway in two very different directions, making it fall short in either category.
If the game had more consumer support it would have gotten more software support, that's true. However that consumer support wasn't met because the product didn't warrant it to begin with. That's all due to the flaws with the product and the state it was released in. I mean games shouldn't even require needing to be fixed at release in the first place.
Game was never bad. Community is. Whatever Relic was doing all was reacted in negative way.
Bases - bad, No bases - bad(for example).
Game had future even necrons race was planned. But reaction of community make game looks like it don't have future at all. Sega closed project probably aganist will of relic.
Only thing that was bad about game it's blood ravens and grumpyel angelos.
What was that accessible content is forums filled to the edges with spite and petty whining, negative reviews with unsubstantial claims impossible to confirm, and Youtube videos designed specifically to drive the game into an early grave without a mention of its positive features.
No, it didn't happen because "old fans" of DoW had made everything in their power to portray it as game that isn't worth buying, and new potential fans have followed the narrative. The game didn't needed that much fixing - it just needed more content, which cannot be done if the players won't let the game stand up and go thorugh the growing pains of adjusting to the needs of large-scale multiplayer experience, which is unavailable during the initial development.
One has to be hopelessly retarded not to notice, that with the modern technological standards releasing a complete and refined game out of the gates (that isn't an art project for 12 hours of gameplay) is practically impossible and was not a thing in the industry for a while now.
Who the hell gives a ♥♥♥♥ about what DoW is known for? DoW3 had to be judged on its own merit, and it was good in that merit to someone who looked at it this way.
It have not went in two different directions - it went in its own direction, and a horde of halfwits who expected it to go in either of those two directions have repeatedly stabbed it into the back, simply because it did not.
It did warrant it. I'd bet my butt that if "fans" of the series kept their opinions private and would allow the game to grow, it would still be alive and could meet their needs.
But, noooo, the game needs fixin, even though when you ask people what does need fixing, it's always content and balance and a single ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ terminator-armor hero, that should not be able to jump, because who the ♥♥♥♥ cares about an entire game project if a terminator armor can jump, right?
They wanted a competitive RTS and yet they designed the game with anti-competitive features. Trying to avoid micro gameplay just lowers the skill ceiling and makes the game far less interesting for competitive players.
Casual Multiplayer RTSes don't sell well, it's that competitive scene that drives interest and sales. That's clear looking at any Multiplayer RTSes that fail to eek out their competitive side, even previous Dawn of War games which had very similar RTS multiplayer that not many people played in comparison to the singleplayer.
The custom maps scene is also not offering anything of interest. Starcraft for example has quite a sandbox of new game modes designed by players.
Then on top of that the singleplayer content is very short and lacking any of the interesting features that were in previous games. You say who cares about the previous games, but when the game fails to do anything to evolve or add to the previous games and their design, then those old fans are all you have left. They couldn't bring in many new fans and they didn't keep old fans happy. It's a failure on all fronts.
It's like they only took half measures in multiple directions. The result is a mediocre product that people criticize heavily and complain about.
There's very little merit to Dawn of War 3, it's hard to find things to compliment it for. Video Games don't exist in a bubble, and they compete with other releases. Dawn of War 3 isn't competing with games 10 or more years older than it while trying to chase their coat tails. It's "own" direction was just to focus on multiplayer instead of singleplayer, unlike every previous release. Except they didn't go far enough. This is not a high quality Multiplayer RTS experience. Dawn of War 3 was a step backwards in every facet except Graphics.
No game can cut its own corner of the market when a large faction within "fanbase" prevents it to acquire minimum necessary RoI to feed the development crew.
Previous DoW have never been adapted for competitive multiplayer. Many features of those games played in direct contrast for that to happen. Which is partly why a lot of complains about the DoW3 was the lack of single-player features and design choices made to adapt it for multiplayer competition. Sadly, in a mind of the generic DoW "fanbase" member, multiplayer is limited to ordering one hero around in an arena against bot waves.
And what time do you think it takes for the variety of these game modes to emerge?
DoW3 was designed for multiplayer. I frankly didn't care about campaign and saw it as a good introduction to different factions and their mechanics. I don't really remember anything interesting about previous campaigns, period.
Everything the game done contrary to other games of the series was intended to make it a multiplayer experience - fewer factions to better establish the balance model, visual design for in-game clarity, MOBA elements to maintain comeback potential and prevent early-outs, etc. It was a working model, and all it really needed is new factions, maps and game modes to enrich that model while building up on top of the balance structure refined through real players experience.
What it have got is a mob of morons, who think that any game they don't like for any most insignificant and petty reason is a piece of garbage, and they have to use all public channels available to tell everyone about it and support each-other in this campaign.
It's like they only took half measures in multiple directions. The result is a mediocre product that people criticize heavily and complain about.
League of Legends was not a high-quality multiplayer experience on its release either. The difference is, LoL always was a F2P game, allowing everyone to see for themselves, and it had no open channels for people to criticize it for its obvious flaws and clunkiness, and it had no preestablished fanbase, that would compare it to a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ custom map in another game. It was given more than enough time to grow and adapt and improve and to become one of the largest cyber-sport arenas in history.
Company of Heroes, for an even better example, fared perfectly fine, despite being a very similar game but in a different setting. So what made the difference then? That's right - predefined expectations of some people rather than other people.
If anything, Relic was wrong to release DoW3 on Steam, that is filled with self-entitled, spoiled douchebags, who never learned how to look at things critically and at face value. This is not a platform that should be provided for WH40k fanbase at any time in any circumstances.
Just because you cannot find things to compliment DoW3 for, doesn't mean there's nothing. For me, it was highly optimized, very clear-cut, innovative approach to RTS genre with manageable skill ramp (unlike SC2), polished design choices, ability for expression of personal style and tactics, relatively good balance for the factions this conceptually different, unpredictive match resolutions and cooperative turn-arounds and general technical stability and reliability. I had a blast playing every hour that I did. The only negative experience I had with it is all the hatred and outright lies on the forums and in reviews.
So yeah, I think that initial community's inflamed reaction to the game have caused its sales to fail and made it unviable to continue to work on. It's your right to disagree and keep writing this endless, empty polemic about how the game did not do this or didn't went there. The fact simply is - it was not something many people expected and they were so butthurt about it, that they made a concentrated effort to kill it for everyone. Whatever the game could do later, they did not let it do it either. Thanks to them, there probably won't be another DoW game ever, because nobody will take a risk of dealing with that kind of public.
I wasted enough time trying to defend the game back then, and I'm not gonna waste any more doing it now. If you cannot see the underlying problem with your argumentation while you reading it, I don't care. Agree to disagree, and perhaps you'll figure it out later.
I honestly don't think the community was the root of DoW3's problems. If it was a good game, it would speak for it's self.
Like just to touch on your bringing up Company of Heroes, not only does it have a much more substantial singleplayer experience that is almost identical to Dawn of War 2's singleplayer experience, but they basically took an already successful game and tried to flesh out it's multiplayer after it's initial release. It wasn't pre-defined expectations, quite the opposite. They fell back onto it after Dawn of War 3 was clearly failing and they needed to do something quickly to keep revenue flow going.
In short, that support you wanted so badly for DoW3 was instead dumped into CoH2 with their campaign to monetize the multiplayer more and use it as a testing bed for multiplayer features because the game was already successful.
I see Denuvo, I refuse to purchase.
But a game needing to "be given a chance" (i.e. fans accepting whatever is thrown at them) so that it can get the content it needs? Totally cart before the horse and something more befitting Early Access apologetics. It is also a completely naive sentiment, because it assumes that the devs/pubs would suddenly do it all right, when it is more likely they would have taken the "better reception" as a sign that everything was okay and so it's perfectly fine to continue on the stupid and self-destructive course with the franchise.
Except that this isn't Early Access, so there shouldn't have been any reason why they couldn't properly continue the franchise. It's not like people went in like "Hey, I love this series and suddenly just hate it." It was because the formula was changed too drastically in a chase for money and LoL/Dota 2/etc. numbers, and that hubris and greed spectacularly and deservingly backfired into less than Cyanide numbers.
Relic/SEGA can either Hello Games/Sony their way out of this CNC4-style shazbot or bother to try at all next time, because they ruined 25k CCU launch peak in no time at all.[steamcharts.com]
Point is, DoW3 failed because it was BAD, simple as that. It tried to please DoW1 fans, DoW2 fans, MOBA fans, Starcraft fans, and ended up with a hodge-podge of ideas that pleased no one. If a game is good and the community bad, you get Dota. If a game is bad and the publishers aren't held accountable, you get Fallout 76. If the game is fun but flawed, and the publishers ARE held accountable, you get revivals like FFXIV. Point is, when DoW3 released in a such a state, the publishers had a choice to either abandon the game (the easy choice), or rebuild the game (the hard, but rewarding, choice). They chose the former, instead plowing resources into the more tactically-sound CoH2.
The big-budget Warhammer RTS isn't dead, as Total War Warhammer 2 beautifully proves. But the age of the RTS as the hit tournament game is over.