Dawn of War III is set to get another small performance improvement with RadeonSI

Loosely related: Relic just announced they were making an Age of Empires game. I realise it's a Microsoft-tainted franchise, but so so good. Would be nice if a Linux port could happen.

Loosely related: Relic just announced they were making an Age of Empires game. I realise it's a Microsoft-tainted franchise, but so so good. Would be nice if a Linux port could happen.

I'm afraid this is no good news for Dawn of War III... Hopefully they will release an expansion pack or two like they promised.

Loosely related: Relic just announced they were making an Age of Empires game. I realise it's a Microsoft-tainted franchise, but so so good. Would be nice if a Linux port could happen.

I'm afraid this is no good news for Dawn of War III... Hopefully they will release an expansion pack or two like they promised.

I'm sure they have more than one team working on more than one thing at a time.

'We'll see an expansion' for Dawn of War 3 says Relic
Nothing set in stone, but devs leaning towards free gameplay updates and some paid cosmetics

http://www.pcgamer.com/well-see-an-expansion-for-dawn-of-war-3-says-relic/

'We'll see an expansion' for Dawn of War 3 says Relic
Nothing set in stone, but devs leaning towards free gameplay updates and some paid cosmetics

http://www.pcgamer.com/well-see-an-expansion-for-dawn-of-war-3-says-relic/

This is article is from march... That is to say, before people starting to troll the game and disappointing sales.

'We'll see an expansion' for Dawn of War 3 says Relic
Nothing set in stone, but devs leaning towards free gameplay updates and some paid cosmetics

http://www.pcgamer.com/well-see-an-expansion-for-dawn-of-war-3-says-relic/

This is article is from march... That is to say, before people starting to troll the game and disappointing sales.

All of which is deserved. A good game does not see such a nosedive in player base shortly after release, especially not a game that wants to be MP focused.

They just developed a game that nobody wanted to have. Instead of targeting one specific group, they tried to appease all somewhat and - as always happens when you try to appease many instead of focusing on "few" - the result just disappoints pretty much everyone.
I wouldn't even call it lack of vision. Just a completely wrong vision.

'We'll see an expansion' for Dawn of War 3 says Relic
Nothing set in stone, but devs leaning towards free gameplay updates and some paid cosmetics

http://www.pcgamer.com/well-see-an-expansion-for-dawn-of-war-3-says-relic/

This is article is from march... That is to say, before people starting to troll the game and disappointing sales.

All of which is deserved. A good game does not see such a nosedive in player base shortly after release, especially not a game that wants to be MP focused.

They just developed a game that nobody wanted to have. Instead of targeting one specific group, they tried to appease all somewhat and - as always happens when you try to appease many instead of focusing on "few" - the result just disappoints pretty much everyone.
I wouldn't even call it lack of vision. Just a completely wrong vision.

Allow me to disagree.
I am still trying to understand all the hate around this game but I still don't get it. Seriously, I hardly ever listen to players reception before buying, and most of the time, I do it afterward.

This time around I was really surprised by what I read. If the game was that bad, why would people even lie about its features? I mean, playing a bad game is enough to complain about, theoretically, there's no need to alter reality. But players keep complaining about things such as the campaign's length - which is longer than DaW I's, but nobody seems to remember - or the lack of Tactical Squad customization, a feature the game still has, but complemented with Devastators, and results in a more balanced game.

I won't talk about people comparing elites to MOBA heroes and crap like that, as it seems they simply didn't play the game. Elites play pretty much the way they did in DoW I, it's just that you need enough elite points to spawn them, which needs you to control the center of the map as much as possible.

I could carry on like this for long, but I don't think anyone wants this. It's just that when I play some new game I build my own impressions by myself, and having played the whole series now I can tell you I love DaW III. Is it the game I wanted? I don't know. But what does the community want? Nobody knows either.

http://www.pcgamer.com/well-see-an-expansion-for-dawn-of-war-3-says-relic/

This is article is from march... That is to say, before people starting to troll the game and disappointing sales.

All of which is deserved. A good game does not see such a nosedive in player base shortly after release, especially not a game that wants to be MP focused.

They just developed a game that nobody wanted to have. Instead of targeting one specific group, they tried to appease all somewhat and - as always happens when you try to appease many instead of focusing on "few" - the result just disappoints pretty much everyone.
I wouldn't even call it lack of vision. Just a completely wrong vision.

snip

The problems with DoW 3 are many.

To start with, there is the "story", which is just a joke. But it's Warhammer, so that would be forgivable. Story was never the strong point of the setting ;)
Far worse is that the campaign is jumping from army to army, completely removing the possibility of even somewhat identifying with any characters. One mission from this side, next mission from this side, etc.
This has been done by no strategy game, ever, and for a reason. It doesn't work.
Also compare the pretty great leveling and equipment system DoW 2 had in its campaign (well, for an RTS game, that is). It has been replaced with something totally flat and uninspired in DoW 3.

Then is that super weird requirement to grind for elites and skulls to unlock armies/units. That is BS straight from browser game territory - so being compared to MOBA is ironically relatively harmless.

The core of the problem is that DoW I was a really great RTS game with proper base building. Certainly one of my favourites.
Which got completely scrapped for DoW II in favor of a sci-fi clone of Company Of Heroes. Really not my thing, but the campaign was fun. And it was clearly a choice to take the series in that direction. And at least it had some depth to it with the cover and building mechanics.

The complaints about that must have been pretty big.
So they tried something in-between with DoW III. A bit of base building, a bit of small squad-focused CoH game. The base building is just plain bad when compared to DoW 1 or other RTS games. No depth at all, barely any choices. Seriously, although preferring RTS games with base building, I'd rather have no base building at all than something like this. And the small squad-focused gameplay is also worse at what it does than DoW II. They even dumbed down the cover mechanics to those ridiculous zones.

So all-in-all the game gives off the impression of an extremely light RTS game, no matter from what perspective you look at it. And extremely light RTS game = MOBA, at least I guess that is the reasoning behind those claims (I don't really agree with that, but I see where it is coming from). That there are MOBA-style towers in many maps preventing rushes was just drop of water to a full barrel I guess.

They should have decided to continue the DoW I or DoW II route, but they screwed both ideas up by trying to mix them. Compromise being once again the death of quality.

To fully mess things up, they tried going for competitive players, competing with StarCraft 1 & 2.
Which is just futile since the gameplay of DoW III doesn't even come close to those.
Instead of trying something interesting with online co-op campaigns, a great level editor ala StarCraft 2 or something else. There would have been many other ways than aiming at esports.

I am really glad I stayed under 2h of playing before I had a look around at some other experiences and then refunded the thing.

Obviously, I didn't stay long enough to get to the MP balancing, but I haven't heard anything great about it, either.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 22 August 2017 at 4:03 pm UTC

Loosely related: Relic just announced they were making an Age of Empires game. I realise it's a Microsoft-tainted franchise, but so so good. Would be nice if a Linux port could happen.

Unfortunately I don't think there is any chance whatsoever of a Linux version, its only available for Windows 10, not even Win 7 or 8, and is being used by Microsoft as another lever to push people towards Win10 / UWP / Store.

Thank you for your very complete answer. I think you pretty much summed up all the things players seem to dislike about DoW III. Still, I don't agree with most of them. Let me comment on some of the points you make:

To start with, there is the "story", which is just a joke. But it's Warhammer, so that would be forgivable. Story was never the strong point of the setting ;)
Far worse is that the campaign is jumping from army to army, completely removing the possibility of even somewhat identifying with any characters. One mission from this side, next mission from this side, etc.
This has been done by no strategy game, ever, and for a reason. It doesn't work.

About the story, you said it yourself: that's WH40k! Let's compare it to, say, DoW I or Winter Assault, honestly, it's way better than both. And I don't even mention Dark Crusade or Soulstorm...
About the campaign, let me clarify a thing right here and now.
As much as I love Warhammer 40,000, anyone who identifies with a character from Warhammer should check his/her mental health right now. No, really, I don't think anyone wants to identify with a brain-washed Space Marine, a fanatic Eldar or a (mostly) brainless Ork. On the contrary, I think the fact that the campaign switches from faction to faction brings some dynamics in it. It is in fact an aspect I greatly appreciated.

Also compare the pretty great leveling and equipment system DoW 2 had in its campaign (well, for an RTS game, that is). It has been replaced with something totally flat and uninspired in DoW 3.

Then is that super weird requirement to grind for elites and skulls to unlock armies/units. That is BS straight from browser game territory - so being compared to MOBA is ironically relatively harmless.

In fact, it has not been replaced at all, leveling only gives Doctrines, Skins or Skulls and has no influence on stats. I agree that unlocking with XP is not the best system around, but playing through the campaign on normal I unlocked all Ork and Space Marines units, so I think playing a bit more Skirmish or trying the campaign in Hard mode pretty much unlocks everything the game has to offer.

The complaints about that must have been pretty big.

Indeed, in fact, DoW II got pretty much the same reception from players as DoW III is getting now.

So they tried something in-between with DoW III. A bit of base building, a bit of small squad-focused CoH game. The base building is just plain bad when compared to DoW 1 or other RTS games. No depth at all, barely any choices. Seriously, although preferring RTS games with base building, I'd rather have no base building at all than something like this. And the small squad-focused gameplay is also worse at what it does than DoW II. They even dumbed down the cover mechanics to those ridiculous zones.

That's where I don't understand you any longer. As far as Space Marines are concerned (because that's pretty much all I play,) base-building is not so different from DoW I. A bit simplified, that's true, but it works pretty much the way it always did in RTS. Can you be a bit more specific about this?
Also, I'd like to deal with what you say about squad-based gameplay. DoW has always been squad-based. In DoW I, you had to manage morale while bashing the reinforcement button. In DoW III, they abandoned morale and made reinforcing only possible in your base, so that there's a real dynamic or attacking/retreating, like in DoW II. Also I see a lot of people complain about micro-management, and it's true that it's quite a thing to get used to, considering how big armies can get. But on the other hand, apart from Elites, most if not all units have only got 1 ability to use. But it's also why I'm surprised that you're saying it's "small squad-based", because it isn't small by any means. In fact, you can handle way more units than ever before.

So all-in-all the game gives off the impression of an extremely light RTS game, no matter from what perspective you look at it.

I don't know, did we talk about the resource-collecting that needs generators that the enemy can spam at will? About capturing while retaliating, which brings in more dynamics in-game? About the system infantry/heavy infantry/vehicles, which forces you to make, well, base-building choices? About early-game combos like Trukk/Weirdboy and the ways you counter it? About the strategy brought by picking Elites and Doctrines in pre-game lobby?

OK I'll stop here, just bringing some of my thoughts to the table. I think I might take some time to write a full review on Steam when I've got the time, as I think this game's situation badly deserves it.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss it here anyway.