TimW

82% (for reference, dawn of war got 91%)

I'm tired and shit, so I'm not going to give any kind of complete summery at this time, but the gist of it was that the single player is fun, and rpg like, but that many of the side missions are repetetive and you sometimes end up doing a bunch waiting for a plot mission to crop up.

Multiplayer was said to be fun, but the reviewer found it over too quickly and rather confusing. They seem only to have played 3v3. And there are only five maps, 3 3v3 and 2 1v1. :s - hope they release a bunch as downloadable content.

I hope another subscriber will be able to give a more detailed summery soon, that's the best you're gonna get out of me for a while.

saibot

In a way this seems kind of depressing but we'll see soon enough what other magazines think.

scoiatollo

Looks promising...^^

Since I'm not really interested in SP, I'd be more interested in the MP part.

And I really hope that the day0 patch will contain more maps

warlock00

Yikes that's not the best score.

I actually found that RedAlert3's (multiplayer) fast n short games caused the game to get old rather quickly. Hope I don't get that feeling with DoW2.

Supernaut

I'd like to say how scores don't mean shit when it comes to you actually playing it -because I've found that mostly these days my opinion of a game differs vastly from the reviewers and their 7-10 or (70%-100% if you like) score sheet.

But then again I'm not too good with words ;p

Demo > Review any day of the week.

warlock00

Relic are really trying hard to pull in more people to the genre. I hope to see Relic rewarded for their efforts by receiving some good reviews which help pull in more people to the genre.

FooF

Interesting how Sweden PC Gamer gives a 90% but UK gives an 82%.

To each his own, I guess.

One strike against DoW2 is that CoH already did a lot of the technical breakthroughs (cover, destroyable terrain, etc.) and DoW2 is building on it so you're not going to have the same "originality" score. It's not a novelty anymore.

5 maps is disappointing. Relic tried to explain that 5 good maps are better than 20 mediocre ones where only 5 get played, but that really doesn't justify only 5. I hope DLC takes care of that one quickly because reviewers are going to rip that to shreds. This probably means that the 5 beta maps we'll be playing are the same as the retail maps. At least we'll be able to judge quality. I don't feel the game was rushed but the 5 maps part does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I don't know how long it takes to make a good map but 3-4 or more would have probably satisfied me. I don't need 30, but I would like at least 8-10.

theM

"the reviewer found it over too quickly and rather confusing"

Rather confusing... Where just about everyone else that's commented on the multiplayer so far seemed to jump right in without any problems. Somehow, I'm sure he never won a game.

Energizer Bunny

PCG has been hyping this game for months. Its had two front covers. 82% for a game like that = major disappointment in their eyes, I'll speculate

I also have the review, so will post a few choice elements. The pro's and con's sections are organized into what the game is, and what the game isnt. These read as follows

IT'S
-Fast
-Gorgeous
-Repetitive

IT'S NOT
-Short
-Epic
-Dawn of War

Some quotes

"This is what happens when strategy game developers play too much WoW while they're working on the sequel"

"there's an urgent need for swift micro management which means this certainly isnt the dumbing down some will inevitably call it.... select all>Right click is never viable, and that's DoW II's biggest change and greatest strength"

"It's an enourmous campaign... but there arent 50 missions. In fact, there are only about ten, of 15 minutes each. It's just that two of those - kill the boss and defend the shrine - are repeated to the point of insanity. To the point where you start to wonder if you did something wrong in a previous life"

"MP is different. Suddenly bases are back. Suddenly resources are back. Suddenly the four unit limit is gone, the simplicity is gone. Weirdly, the only two modes of play are one on one and three on three. About the only simple thing about it is that there are only five maps"

"no single part of this is better than the original game. Relic started with a classic game and have made merely a great one out of it"

82% might sound like a good score, the but the tone of the review is relentlessly downbeat. I have obviously cherrypicked the above quotes, but I feel I've given a fair representation of the overall article.

DNA61289

Only five maps doesn't really bother me, cause in coh I only play 3-5 maps. But i hope they do include more maps that are equally good through DLC.

Weavern

EB that review saddens me It however confirms many of my fears.

Energizer Bunny

And mine Weavern. And mine.

The sad thing is that I actually trust Tom Francis' opinion. He's a decent writer who knows strategy games well. If he says its not a classic, it probably isnt sadly.

NoneSuch

When is 80 percent a bad score? I don't really understand scoring systems anymore. It's like if it's not 90 percent it's not good in peoples eyes.

Pocktio

The repetetivity of the mission concerns me, I expected missions to be vaguely similar but the emphasis he puts on it by the phrase 'insanity' makes me worry. I just hope the maps, layout and features give some replay value otherwise I shall quickly tire. I also hope the 'plot missions' give some variety. Then again what else can you do in an RTS but 'search and destroy' the enemy.

I'm going to love it but it's saddening to see it not get 90%+ score....

thudmeizer

When DoW1 got 90% and now its sequel get 82%, I fear.

Surrealitycheck

Because the high scores have been devalued by being splashed all over games for the wrong reasons. The whole scoring system doesn't really hold together any more :<

Consider the score far cry 2 got, for example - and it was merely an efficient game, worthy perhaps of a mid-80s score.

Energizer Bunny

When a game is anticipated to score >80%, <=80% is a bad score. I would have been wholly unsurprised to open PCG to see DoW II geting 93% or even more (I believe CoH got roughly that from the same reviewer. When I saw 82% I thought.... oh shit.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Thud

Corsix

That a new game with new(ish) engine, etc. only beats its predecessor's 2nd expansion by 2% is poor.

FooF

I've been hearing the "kill the boss" missions are way too prevalent for most people's tastes. I'm sure it has to do with the randomization of missions. Relic wanted to make each SP campaign run-through different but the only way they could do it is have generic missions. If the "core" story is really only 10 missions long, that is truly disappointing. Basically the boss and defend missions are just "grinding" for XP and gear.

Grimreapo

Well being a long time reader I can say that PCG has gone down hill as like many gaming magizine thier trying to be like 'Edge' rather than being unique and for those who never heard of Edge its a magizine that known for being harsh but fair. They fellatio games like GTA IV (92%) and Far Cry 2 (94%) dispite the MASSIVE errors which anyone can see and then nitpick on games like this and World at War (They moan about the fact that players with higher levels get better guns in mutiplayer :\ ). Also what he said about skirmish and mutiplayer sounds different from the fan based previews we got a few weeks ago about matches last around 15min...

TBH guys, I know some people will overreact to this review but I think its best taken with a pinch of salt as of the last 2 years PCG has been way off the mark on loads of game.

scoiatollo

I knew it.... I always thought that these RPG elements will "ruin" the game.

Anyway I still like to try the beta, maybe it's better than it's review (wouldn't be the first time) especially if you don't care about the SP part.

Frankie7508

This really has confirmed many of my fears as well. Relic has touted the game as the next major evolution and I think every DOW player has dreamed about the release of DOW2 well before it was even announced. I hope that perhaps some expansions can fix some of the issues that the reviewer mentioned. I feel as if there was a lot of opportunities that were missed when it comes to game modes, unit selection, maps, and some of the mechanics. Why not add a game mode where you hold of endless waves of Nids, something, anything, different than the standard VP and Annihilation victory conditions. Biomass, Waagh etc. could have provided some unique gameplay mechanics that would have really differentiated the races, but instead they all function the same way. Who am I kidding though? I will probably be buying the game the first day its out as well as playing the beta.

NoneSuch

To be honest I feel sad if people are going to decide that they don't like a game because a magazine didn't give it a high enough score. It's much like people who refuse to listen to music as it's not popular enough for them.

80 percent is in no way a bad score. Some of my favourite games like Supreme commander got 8/10

Wait for the beta and find out if you like it or not. I personally suspect the game got only 80 percent due to the singleplayer being bad. As I don't care for singleplayer I don't mind.

FooF

However, Grimreapo, 5 maps and tons of generic SP missions are reasonable concerns. Saying that the magazine has gone downhill doesn't undercut legitimate flaws in the game. Now, one could always cry conspiracy if the same complaints are leveled against a different game and it gets a 90+%. Some games' reputation precedes them and the hype and the money that went into advertising makes a reviewer buy into the idea of the game instead of the game itself. It happens all the time.

Still, if this reviewer didn't like what he saw, he's entitled to that opinion. If another reviewer thought it was the best thing since sliced bread and gave the game 95%, that's theirs. The only thing that 82% does is drop the meta-score, should the rest of the reviews be positive. If that's the case, than the score is a mulligan and people will disregard it. We just have to wait and see what other people think then, and most importantly, play the game ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

Noble

It seems like this review focused almost entirely on single player, with the multi-player portion being an afterthought.

Weavern

My concern with this review, isnt so much what the numerical score was. It was some of the things that were brought about by EB in the review article. I would really like to believe the game's better then that, but it does highlight many areas of concern.

scoiatollo

I think noone here will not try the beta, but the point stands, that the review seems to confirm a lot of fears people had when they heard what was changed compared to DoW. Ie I always thought that this RPG concept invading every game at the moment was a big mistake. Or a while back I posted a German prieview where they criticised pretty much every negativ concept that we know from this review.

So yeah I won't base my final decission if I'm going to buy that game on this review, but tbh a lot of my enthusiasm is gone simply because many of my worst fears seem to be true=(

Grimreapo

Fair enough but if a friend who loves Dragon War said that The Dark Knight sucked then you would take his view with a pinch of salt, would you not? If alot of reviews come in with the same score then thats okay, heck I dont even care about the score but the content of the review itself and the bulk of it well... seemed nit picky. I dont know if you play your RPG games but they gave the Witcher something like 66% when it first came out and it was one the best non-Bioware RPGs in the last few years...

Energizer Bunny

As opposed to taking the level of the score as an indication of the quality of the game? You seem to be suggesting that a shit game with a high score might be preferred to a good one with a low score, simply because the former would be seen as 'cool'. That sort of herd mentality doesnt exist in the games industry in my experience. At least I don't think it does.



Yes that's correct Noble. Probably the last 1/4 looks at multiplayer.

FooF

To be fair, Noble, the press for the game (which seems to be purposeful by Relic) was SP-first (and only) for quite some time. Relic was touting it as the next step in the genre. If that's what they hype was about, the reviewer focused on what the apparent strength of the game was.

If I was the reviewer, and I was skeptical of this so-called evolutionary step, I, too would focus on that, to the detriment of being holistic in my review approach. Not covering the MP is not good, agreed, but MP was only revealed a month ago in a very long press cycle. From that standpoint, MP was an afterthought.

Noble

Then there is hope EB (placing me firmly on the first step on the road to disappointment)! It seems like the reviewers main gripes were the repetition of the mission objectives and the RPG elements in single player. Since both of those things are absent from the multiplayer component, that allays some of my fears.

@FooF: Oh most definitely. It's just that for me personally, the multiplayer is what I'm interested in. Hell, I don't think I've ever completed a single player campaign in an RTS.

scoiatollo

Still only 5maps Noble, and in CoH we learned how long it can take to get new maps (literally ages...).

NoneSuch

I'm not sure you got my point.

What I'm saying is that a game which doesn't get 98 percent doesn't mean it's bad. People shouldn't decide if a game is good or not from a score they've read. Yea if all reviews give a game a crap score avoid it like a plague. But 80 percent is in no way a bad score and we've hardly seen any reviews.



On automatch in CoH we're stuck with playing only 5 maps ( or less) anyway. Most of them are sucky and poorley balanced so I'm not that bothered. With any luck these maps will be really good

Surrealitycheck

He didn't understand the multiplayer by his own admission - so he consequently missed out on everything that is awesome about it :/

Tyrian

The lack of a 2v2 mode though is simply baffling to me....as much as I want to I can't think of an excuse or game play reason for excluding it....

*help

scoiatollo

82% is also not even near as awesome as Relic made the game sound like. If DoW2 was supposed to revolutionise the RTS genre it seems like at least the SP part failed miserably.

edit: You mean 5 1v1 maps, not 5maps total.

Cleaver

Well no 2v2 = FAIL. Hopefully they will realize that soon.

NoneSuch

You call 82 percent failed miserably? *rolls eyes*

Edit - On the subject of 2v2 it is a little baffling. I can't even think of a worthwhile excuse for not including it. The game clearly can be played as 1v1 so why not 2v2?

scoiatollo

Yes I call it that way, cause if it would have been as awesome as they made it look like, it would have gotten a score beyond the 82%. Again I'm talking about the SP part not the MP part.

Surrealitycheck

The game is designed around 3v3 - the mechanics are tuned for it, so are the maps. If they offered 2v2 I think they feel that people would mainly play 2v2 instead of 3v3, thus not getting the full point of their design decisions.

That's one hypothesis.

The other point is that you CAN do 2v2s - but you have to do them on 3v3 sized maps, so I'm not sure how well they will play (I didn't try any at the event, merely tested that you could close the spots).

Energizer Bunny

I'll provide a couple of MP quotes

"It is, for your first few games, utter chaos.... And before you know what you're doing, it's over - matches only last about 15 minutes. Relic said they wanted to make MP DoW more accessible, I have no idea how this was supposed to relate to that"

"It's wholly enjoyable madness though. Here you get to amass proper armies and play as the ravenously anticipated tyranids. They're a truly horrible bunch... Their mechanics are obtuse and fascinating, which only makes me more desperate for a Tyranid campaign, one where individual units mean something"

"There's definately virtue to a multiplayer strategy game that's over in a coffee break, but it doesn't mix well with the enormous complexity here. Even when I'd learned to play effectively, I never felt like I had a good overview of what was going on.... The match can turn around in a minute without you knowing why. Neither victory nor defeat feels entirely yours"

To be fair, much of the above could be down to the reviewer being a noob. It was bloody ages before I got the hang of DoW MP.

FooF

According to one persion, scoiatollo. The Swedish review loved the game.

You can't please everyone. This reviewer, and I suspect you, were not pleased with the direction Relic was going in for the SP. It would be very difficult to overcome pre-conceived notions. You came in looking for flaws. The opposite holds true for fanboys who thing that it is a good idea to go in the direction Relic was going in. They'll look at the SP through rose-colored glasses.

There's no such thing as an objective opinion. Yay, post-modernism...

@EB
Right, you can't account for a reviewer being a MP noob.

However, had he understood it, and enjoyed it, how much does that affect his opinion? It's impossible to tell. If MP immediately blew him away, all of sudden the MP can counter-act the SP flaws and you have a "classic."

Civik

I got rid of pc gamer in the US a long time ago... something like 5-7 years I think. It has been going downhill for a long time and I realized that they don't think like me as a gamer.

I think that you should take anything that any reviewer says with a grain of salt. I plan on buying anyway. After all, if it sucks, there will be mods... and as long as the support is there, there are enough people fanatical enough about 40k to make it a better game.

Noble

scoiatollo: If any game was as awesome as the company making it says it is, all games would be rated at %100. In the words of Flava Flav, don't believe the hype.

Pocktio

Far Cry 2's 94% was the biggest mistake review PCG ever replayed. It occupied the cesspit console pool of averageness. I doubt it will 'not' attain epic status due to a slightly negative review, but hmmm we'll see. At least it doesn't have the EA fellating PCzone has :S

NoneSuch

I also wonder how long did he play it for? A week, 3 days or less? I always find it slightly suspicious when these reviews come out before the game is launched. They probably only just got the copy, completed it as soon as they could and stuck a review up so they could be "one of the first to review the game" style things.

Tyrian

Ah ok, well that at least makes some sense... Thanks for the insight there Surreality. As long as its not impossible to do I'll have no complaints. After playing so much 2v2 in coh over the years it would be a harsh blow to not be able to play that way. 3v3 is always great fun but it gets harder and harder to get your team together regularly the more people you need.

Viz79

Firstly to be completely honest with you, I haven't been a fan of PC Gamer from 'years' back when they decided to give Day of the Tentacle a higher score than Sam & Max (lol). But the review itself seems strange.

1/ Press afterthought on MP or not, truth of the matter is, the vast majority of this game is MP or skirmish. This whole section of the game with bases etc which will comprise most of the game's (life) seems not to have reviewed. Thats a bit like reviewing DoW and expansion campaigns but not the skirmish/online games. How far does that take you? Saying its confusnig and over too quickly doesn't sound like much playtime went into it. Pretty unprofessional when the reviewer should know where the main core of this genre lies (and its hardly SP campaigns, regardless of what the hype behind this game said).

2/ The tone of the review seems to be constantly downbeat which contradicts the score of 82% which in truth is respectable for any decent game in truth - which brings me to point 3:

3/ The original quote at the top of this post says this is a GREAT game. Yes the refer to the original as a 'Classic' but this is supposed to be 'Great'. A Great game with a constant downbeat review with almost all focus on the SP campaign. Sounds like a complete mess.

Take a pinch of sale with all of this and if you want to take anything away from this review, you can still remember 'this is a Great game' quote because it sounds like the review wanted DoW 1 in DoW 2 and was upset there was a significant change to what they expected!

scoiatollo

Noble I know that, but than again, they shouldn't have shouted all over the internet how lame the present RTS are and that they are going to bring back the fun for everyone in RTS games. That's why I say they seem to have failed miserably at that.

@Esrfoof: I couldn't care less about the SP part, as Noble I think the last RTS I finished was DC (once) and before that RA2. If I wouldn't have been bored that specific day I wouldn't even have touched the SP of DC.