• Publisher: THQ
  • Release Date: Feb 18, 2009
User Score
8.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1447 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 3, 2011
    7
    This is a new approach at the RTS where you have control of stronger units than the typical RTS but you don't make new ones. Gone is the base building and resource management and you only focus on the combat. For me, that's fun but I can see where some people were let down. Since I only cared about the combat and paying attention to how much of this or that I have never appealed to meThis is a new approach at the RTS where you have control of stronger units than the typical RTS but you don't make new ones. Gone is the base building and resource management and you only focus on the combat. For me, that's fun but I can see where some people were let down. Since I only cared about the combat and paying attention to how much of this or that I have never appealed to me this game works really well. Other than that fundamental change its very much a RTS where you control each of your units from a top down perspective and each has a few unique abilities. This game adds a slight RPG element in that you collect loot as armor and weapons and customize your squads. You also spend points on very simple talent trees which adds a little extra to the game. Want your giant mech walker to kill from range or do you want him to squish units in melee range? You decide. It's got decent voiced story parts and the graphics are not bad either. Points taken off are for awkward keybinding which you can't change and missing graphical elements such as Vsync. These things can be modified if you want to go into the files and feel comfortable editing code and game files, something I think the devs should just put the stupid button in the game. Expand
  2. Mar 11, 2011
    6
    I think the best thing (in my eyes) of this game is the graphics. The graphics are a huge improvement over DOW I and any other RTS I've ever played (and I've played most of the major ones, SC2, Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander I and II, etc etc).
    That's the main good thing I liked. That and how the gameplay revolves more around combat rather than resource gathering. And, of course, the
    I think the best thing (in my eyes) of this game is the graphics. The graphics are a huge improvement over DOW I and any other RTS I've ever played (and I've played most of the major ones, SC2, Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander I and II, etc etc).
    That's the main good thing I liked. That and how the gameplay revolves more around combat rather than resource gathering. And, of course, the fact that it features the Imperium.

    The thing that I didn't like about this game was that it had very small army sizes, and VERY small battles. This is a step down from DOW I, where you could actually command armies. In DOW II, you get a few squads, and that's it, you're stuck with them. No building squads, no calling in reinforcement squads, nothing. You choose four for each mission and you're stuck with them. This needs a serious fix in the next game.
    Second, the campaign is more of an RTS/RPG hybrid rather than a true RTS. You choose equipment for each character, and decide what each character brings. In regular RTS's, you don't get to do that, each squad has a specialty, and you know their abilities. So it's not a true RTS, but rather an RTS/RPG hybrid.

    Hopefully the next game will be better.
    Expand
  3. JamesW
    Jan 22, 2010
    6
    Due to the overwhelming positive review and the good experience from the first Dawn of War, I bought this game without much hesitance. After having tried the single player and multiplayer mode, I am hugely disappointed. Frist of, the single player campaign is boring. It is the first time in my life that I fell a sleep while playing an RTS (literally). All you do is just looking at your Due to the overwhelming positive review and the good experience from the first Dawn of War, I bought this game without much hesitance. After having tried the single player and multiplayer mode, I am hugely disappointed. Frist of, the single player campaign is boring. It is the first time in my life that I fell a sleep while playing an RTS (literally). All you do is just looking at your same tiny Squad, moving them around the map, setup a good position, let them do automatic shooting, heal, then occasionally use their special ability, and repeat that throughout the game. Multiplayer is almost unplayable. Most of the time the match will be disconnected due to somebody's slow internet or computer. However, the new mode, The Last Stand, was pretty fun to play once in a while. I really try to like Dawn of War II, I have install and uninstall the game more than 4 times, but every time I started playing, it bores me. It is great that Relic try new approach on DOW2, but it lost a lot of the charm from the first game while doing so. Expand
  4. Aug 12, 2011
    7
    Impressive and plenty of fun, with some noticeable flaws. The biggest flaw I'd say is the lack of responsive units. Nearly every unit feels slow and uncoordinated. With that said, the tactical aspects of the game are very fun. Setting up your units behind cover and watching them obliterate the landscape (along with any Ork in the way) is satisfying. I miss the large army/base-buildingImpressive and plenty of fun, with some noticeable flaws. The biggest flaw I'd say is the lack of responsive units. Nearly every unit feels slow and uncoordinated. With that said, the tactical aspects of the game are very fun. Setting up your units behind cover and watching them obliterate the landscape (along with any Ork in the way) is satisfying. I miss the large army/base-building gameplay from the first Dawn of War, but they've done a good job with this one. Expand
  5. STARSBarry
    Feb 19, 2009
    6
    Dawn of War 2 is one of those games that trys to reinvent the genre, and bombs itself down with stupid marketing, poor ideas and a lackluster play style, an easy example will be the removal of base building, as stated constantly in a boring monolog that spews from relic base building isent needed, infact this is 4th RTS game relic have made without it (the first 3 being homeworld 1 & 2 + Dawn of War 2 is one of those games that trys to reinvent the genre, and bombs itself down with stupid marketing, poor ideas and a lackluster play style, an easy example will be the removal of base building, as stated constantly in a boring monolog that spews from relic base building isent needed, infact this is 4th RTS game relic have made without it (the first 3 being homeworld 1 & 2 + its spinoff) however it fails to take into account that for everything you take away you must give something back. What this turns into is bassicaly an RTS for the console, there is no defence just attack attack attack, there is no base building just attack attack attack, indeed while attacking is the key focus of this game i find it so slow and repetative that i get board watching my heavy bolter team waddle slowly towards some cover, while my oponants attempt to slowly waddle towards my position only to be instantly supressed and for there commander to hit the recall button for them to return to base. The multiplayer matches last a max of 15 mins each if you have played C&C 3 multiplayer before and im assuming that you have, and have probebly stopped playing it along with everyone else becouse it gets boring FAST! this game gets boring FAST! I got board of it in the Beta thats how fast you get board. Over all as far as RTS go the multiplayer and skirmish is not fun, if you on the otherhand have ever thought hey I wish RTS got rid of all that boring base building and got strait onto fighting, but you wished the fighting involved eldely men who will die at any second of high colestrol and can only amble around the battlefeild at walking pace while screaming about the good old days of Halo 2 when games lasted only 3 minutes this is the game for you, infact I emplore you to buy it becouse you will buy the craptastic DLC relic will spew from its anus every 2 weeks for live points. All in All its probebly becouse im a turtler in RTS which is a valid tac in team games, however this game removes all defence style strats, so you cant really do that... therefore alienating half of all RTS players in one go, if you play defence in RTS's you will HATE this game dont even bother, go play company of heroes as the brits and artillary people from the otherside of the map behind you massive stronghold of AT guns and morters. SINGLEPLAYER!! yea this is the big thing... well not according to relic its not but it is.. bassicaly this plays like one of those standard issue C&C or starcraft or infact any RTS game mission where you dont have a base, theres multiple objectives with multiple paths and you have to decide, theres also loot so bassicaly your playing world of warcraft except less fun as a group of slow waddling old people in armor, this is what saves the game for me, yes its repetative, yes the gameplay gets boring quickly as with the rest of the entire game, but the storyline drives you along, you really want to see what happens to this group of eldely "BURN THE HERETIC" marines on there slow quest to collect there pensions. So pretty much, if you liked dawn of war you probebly wont like this, if you liked company of heroes you probebly wont like this, if you liked homeworld you probebly wont like this, however if you enjoy smashing your face into an xbox controler while screaming FAG over the microphone to a bunch of 13 year old mexicans on a game of GTA4 this will be the RTS for you, infact its not really an RTS its more of a QTE becouse you just mash the build devasator squad and then mash the move to commander button over and over till you win/lose it wont really matter eitherway becouse itl be 10 minutes over and then you will go off and play some TF2 or subcom or a game that takes more tactical thinking like pong! over all 6/10 I was gonna give it a 7 but found out I coudent make space marine chapters with a dick or nazi symbol or a middle finger on there shoulders, this is largly down to relic releasing these 3 chapters in the "community pack" later this year for 599 microsoft points, there will also be adding realtime weapon change while there at it. Expand
  6. Dec 6, 2011
    6
    In dire need of a real time strategy game I got this for a steal on Steam. It's a nice game and I must stress as someone who had no clue what Warhammer was until this YOU DON"T NEED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE SERIES TO LIKE THIS GAME.
  7. Oct 20, 2011
    5
    There is a lot of pros and cons to this game.
    The pros:
    -A lot of the controls is just like Company of Heroes where you you take your squad of heavy gunners and point them in a direction, throwing grenades, providing health to the rest of the squads. - There are neat talents that each squad has such as the scouts can go invisible, There is an assault marine group that jumps on the enemy
    There is a lot of pros and cons to this game.
    The pros:
    -A lot of the controls is just like Company of Heroes where you you take your squad of heavy gunners and point them in a direction, throwing grenades, providing health to the rest of the squads.
    - There are neat talents that each squad has such as the scouts can go invisible, There is an assault marine group that jumps on the enemy and things of that nature.
    - As the game progresses, your squads gains experience, levels up, and you use that experience to upgrade either range attack, melee attack, health, talent., and in each one of them if you upgrade enough, you get to enhance your squads talents. - As for your squads being upgraded, so does your enemies units so when you face off the same type of enemy, they usually have a new trick up their sleeve that keeps the game new and fun.

    Cons:
    - The game has to be signed into windows live
    - There is no point to the save feature on this game because it SAVES everything anyways, so if you make a mistake on a mission, you can't even alt+ctrl+del out of the game to redo it as if nothing happened, IT SAVES IT ANYWAYS.
    - For the con above, it maybe great for a "gamer" but there is us who treat a video game as just that, a video game, something to let go, have a little fun because we already go through real life which really doesn't have redo.
    -No tutorial on how to play the game, and even though most games are self explanatory, It would be nice to have something tells you how to build up your squads levels because as you progress through the game, you will have to fail the mission just to build up your squads strength because the enemy is just too powerful and you are feeling a bit discouraged the first time you realize this.
    - Even though the game upgrades the enemies level, the game can get monotonous from having to die just to gain experience and acquire both structures from each mission.
    - Some characters in this game are really annoying in a nerdy way such as the scout, when one of the syndicates in his squad makes a kill, he will say " good kill syndicate, but you still have not earned your place". If I didn't need his squad in the game, I would never bring them on missions.
    Expand
  8. Jun 15, 2013
    5
    I've spent an afternoon with the campaign mode, so it is slightly engaging, but only having a few squads to deal with isn't very exciting and doesn't leave much for tactical scope. It's basically stand and fire and wait for the power ups to refresh, a bit like what I imagine WoW to be.

    I am a big fan of the first game, but really haven't had much fun with this one.
  9. AndyP
    Mar 4, 2009
    7
    As a lover of both DOW & COH I was delighted to see a move to the tactical aspect and the arrival of tyranids, but limited options to play skirkishes means I will be watching for the mods and patches that will hopefully come along, though the annoying way everything is tied into a windows live and steam account may preclude people with greater vision from helping us poor saps who just loveAs a lover of both DOW & COH I was delighted to see a move to the tactical aspect and the arrival of tyranids, but limited options to play skirkishes means I will be watching for the mods and patches that will hopefully come along, though the annoying way everything is tied into a windows live and steam account may preclude people with greater vision from helping us poor saps who just love to play. A resounding "well its OK", but worth £35? - I will definitely think twice before rushing to buy the next update ...... for now, I'll go back to DOW 1 and COH. Expand
  10. JedL
    Mar 21, 2009
    5
    By itself, DOW 2 is a competent and reasonably well-polished RTT with nice visuals and fx, but a bit underwhelming in terms of SP and even MP gameplay. As a successor to DoW, it is a total failure that never does deliver on the promises of picking up where it's predecessor left off and bringing the series closer to Warhammer 40K fluff and TT. Much of the strategy and gameplay options By itself, DOW 2 is a competent and reasonably well-polished RTT with nice visuals and fx, but a bit underwhelming in terms of SP and even MP gameplay. As a successor to DoW, it is a total failure that never does deliver on the promises of picking up where it's predecessor left off and bringing the series closer to Warhammer 40K fluff and TT. Much of the strategy and gameplay options that were present in Dawn of War and Company of Heroes are sorely missing here and much of the game seems rushed and contrived. Not a keeper in my collection...I'll stick with DOW and COH thank you very much. Expand
  11. Squid
    Mar 2, 2009
    7
    I did not expect the game that I recieved, I expected a very statergy based game, tied to the tabletop game with maybe the flare of a multi-layered combat system we found in DoW1 and its expansions. Very pretty game, although I do have to put a big thumbs down at the linear gameplay. Pinning an opponent is great, but what about morale? What about the other 15-20 units that failed to be I did not expect the game that I recieved, I expected a very statergy based game, tied to the tabletop game with maybe the flare of a multi-layered combat system we found in DoW1 and its expansions. Very pretty game, although I do have to put a big thumbs down at the linear gameplay. Pinning an opponent is great, but what about morale? What about the other 15-20 units that failed to be featured? I understand they plan on expansion-ing in the future (who woulndn't) but I would of liked to see more units, or failing that, better units such as actually having more than ONE ranger/devastator with a weapon....anyway, 7/10. Expand
  12. TheoS
    Mar 5, 2009
    6
    Nothing new to see here in the way of RTS games. Good graphics, but thin on Multi-Player content and possessing a redundant Single Player. No support for game modifications and no mention of a map editor in the future, combined with an aggravating setup that requires both a Windows LIVE account and a Steam account, it comes off as very unfriendly for the unsavy. The requirement to locate Nothing new to see here in the way of RTS games. Good graphics, but thin on Multi-Player content and possessing a redundant Single Player. No support for game modifications and no mention of a map editor in the future, combined with an aggravating setup that requires both a Windows LIVE account and a Steam account, it comes off as very unfriendly for the unsavy. The requirement to locate and download another unassociated program just to redeem pre-order and promotional keys is another flaw worth mentioning. Not like the first Dawn of War in any way shape or form except for core material on which they're both based on. The core material calls for squads, objectives, Space Marines, and aliens, and that's the beginning and the end of the comparisons between the two Dawn of War titles. Users will also find the Army Painter has has it's options reduced down to only a sparse selection of the paints you can buy from a Games Workshop retailer; there is no RGB palette, and the importing of custom insignia and banners is no longer a feature. There are many people who state this game is a reinventing of the RTS genre, but the features are all present in titles we've seen in the past. Cover systems, setting up and taking down heavy weaponry, and unit leveling are hardly new and can be seen across a huge number of titles and settings ranging from the historic to science fiction. Straight off the bat I can name Ground Control and Blitzkrieg as boasting most of the systems present in the game, however, both of those titles have many features Dawn of War II simply does not. As for the Single Player game mode's RPG elements, they have been done in Namco Bandai's Warhammer: Mark of Chaos title, with the difference being the RPG elements in Mark of Chaos were also available for online play. The RPG elements in Dawn of War 2 are simply not present in it's Multi-Player component. For the sake of originality when compared to the RTS genre as a whole, this game lacks absolutely all of it. Many of the systems are seen used in Relic's other RTS Company of Heroes, so if you did enjoy that title you may enjoy this one. It does not break any ground in any field except for what the Dawn of War series has offered thus far, while many players feel it is taking a few steps backwards in the process. Expand
  13. JamesA
    Jul 1, 2009
    7
    i'd like to first get my criticism out of the way. the campaign is somewhat bland on the normal difficulty with the warboss and the avatar bosses unimaginably powerfull. the muiltiplayer has two blade dulling flaws 1. the skill matching system (or whatever its called). it simply doesn't work. it doesn't match players in ability. you'll find yourself fighting many i'd like to first get my criticism out of the way. the campaign is somewhat bland on the normal difficulty with the warboss and the avatar bosses unimaginably powerfull. the muiltiplayer has two blade dulling flaws 1. the skill matching system (or whatever its called). it simply doesn't work. it doesn't match players in ability. you'll find yourself fighting many skilled opponents but often with little or no chance of winning. 2. the lack of character balance and strategy. this sounds wierd about such a series but the issue is that in 45 games, at least 38 games simply wound down to building one type of unit en masse and then steamrolling through the map. it is a strategy, but the only one ever used. no unit is overpowered, but many are underpowered, like the banshies, the rangers and the sm scouts. all of this needs to be addressed before i can give it a better score. that aside the game is beautifull, inovative and is a suitable successor to its predessessor, if just needs a bit of balance team TLC (but quite a bit to be honest). Expand
  14. AngusM
    Feb 19, 2009
    7
    Beta was really entertaining and if the single player campaign employs the same gameplay with the promised (and largely confirmed) RPG mechanics, I think this title will be a joy to play through with mates.
  15. FredA.
    Feb 21, 2009
    6
    Single player campaign like going down a well decorated corridor. Nice but ultimately, a corridor. I can not even begin do describe the level of frustration, nay, hate I feel when it comes to being forced to be logged in to save my game. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but then I will stop buying games that do the same, definitely.
  16. EbenizinK
    Feb 21, 2009
    6
    I gave 6 because an effort was made for this game. Otherwise I would give it 3.I think this game is very simplified and dumbed dumb down, for whatever reason I don't know. But it is definitely a disappointment for me. This is not a RTS, it's more like the good old commandos games, only lot worse and shallow(commandos was very good indeed). No real tactical thinking is required I gave 6 because an effort was made for this game. Otherwise I would give it 3.I think this game is very simplified and dumbed dumb down, for whatever reason I don't know. But it is definitely a disappointment for me. This is not a RTS, it's more like the good old commandos games, only lot worse and shallow(commandos was very good indeed). No real tactical thinking is required to play, just the basic knowledge will do (like: spearman on front, archers behind them). You have undying characters at your disposal, no base or unit building, maps and missions are easy and same, all have end map bosses which adds more to sameness. I advise people who are looking for a real RTS to play medieval total war II or dawn of war I again. (This not about the game: I also advise people who think roleplaying games means/consist only of developing character stats to look wikipedia for a definition or play fallout I) I 'm a true gaming fan but I'm very dissapointed over the last couple of years because the games that are being produced are getting worse and worse. Mostly because simplifications of them. Last word: I advise King's Bounty over this one. Expand
  17. RamzaB
    Feb 22, 2009
    6
    Too easy, too slow, boring, lack of multiplayer maps. Campaign dull and repetitive. Lack of units, no base building, races way too similar. Annoying multiplayer bugs, requires Steam and Games for Windows which are more often than not a big problem rather than a help or improvment for the user. Saving grace? Graphics, that's it.
  18. AndreiP
    Feb 24, 2009
    6
    Three steps forward, ten steps back. This is more or less what Relic achieved with their newest title. First of all I'd like to state I have nothing against the lack of base building nor the squad-like mechanics. I simply dislike how this game not only failed to improve upon what was poor in the first, but utterly ignored the specific issues completely. The story is a cliche and the Three steps forward, ten steps back. This is more or less what Relic achieved with their newest title. First of all I'd like to state I have nothing against the lack of base building nor the squad-like mechanics. I simply dislike how this game not only failed to improve upon what was poor in the first, but utterly ignored the specific issues completely. The story is a cliche and the way it's told by audio briefings doesn't help in any way. Cutscenes or any other noteworthy methods of storytelling are nowhere to be found in Relic's title. The plot is predictable, the characters are stereotypical and the writing is simply dull. It's like they didn't even try - a shame, for the IP is great. The singleplayer is a borefest to normal players. People which enjoy grinding for XP and Items on the same maps time and time again, might enjoy it though. After playing the same maps over and over, either defending or seeking a boss, you'll start wondering why you bought a 50 Euro game rather than downloading a Korean MMO for free. The gameplay, is not particularly bad, but for those that played Company of Heroes, it's nothing new either. However, I personally found DoW 2 more enjoyable than the first game in this respect, so Relic's idea was commendable. The only problem that plagues both the singleplayer and the multiplayer are the mildly unresponsive units. When you're seeking to destroy your Eldar friend and your 3 tanks get stuck without any means of getting them out, it's slightly irritating. Dawn of War 2 had great potential, yet it feels like a rushed and unfinished product. The interface, is rather uncomfortable and has a grotesque 90's look. Matchmaking is a pain, despite the use of Live. There are very few maps to be having fun in multiplayer, most of which you'll already be sick of after finishing the campaign. Ultimately, the game doesn't deserve anything above an 8 even if you're completely uninterested in story elements. If you're expecting an epic, engaging and sentimental tale in DoW 2 and value storylines a great deal, this is a 5-6 grade game, and that's being polite. I Expand
  19. JamesD
    Feb 27, 2009
    6
    Other than the tedious STEAM installation process and forcing of update game that does not even support resume, this is by far not worth to purchase. No internet, and you can't play this game. I'll give a 6 for this, installation to make users feel comfortable to install should be top priority instead of going through heaven and hell get this game running.
  20. JamesM
    Feb 20, 2009
    7
    Microsoft live is the cheapest lazy way for them to do multiplayer, has tons of complications when you try to start a game and get in with friends. Either the routers dont work togethor or the 3v3 constantly lags because of people with crummy computers that have there settings to high. DEDICATED MULTIPLAYER SERVERS and i would give the game a 12.
  21. KenM
    Mar 1, 2009
    5
    Like most games, there is a challenge to recreate an experience that is enjoyable regardless the operating system. Both XP and Vista have extremem issue with the way this product uses system resources. It should be unnecessary to strip startup apps and other system features to enjoy a product as purchased. Also this idea that I must run a started client for Steam to obtain patches and Like most games, there is a challenge to recreate an experience that is enjoyable regardless the operating system. Both XP and Vista have extremem issue with the way this product uses system resources. It should be unnecessary to strip startup apps and other system features to enjoy a product as purchased. Also this idea that I must run a started client for Steam to obtain patches and enjoy the experience is simply outrageous. I see this product coming off the shelves as soon as Starcraft 2 is released. Expand
  22. GuyWalbe
    Mar 21, 2009
    5
    This game is only marginally an RTS and should not have been marketed as one. It is more akin to Real time tactical/RPG the likes of Mechcommander or the Commandos series of games. It is neither as fun as the original Dawn of War series, nor as polished as the Company of Heroes series, which it takes most of its ideas from. It is an inferior RTS game and would not be worth mentioningThis game is only marginally an RTS and should not have been marketed as one. It is more akin to Real time tactical/RPG the likes of Mechcommander or the Commandos series of games. It is neither as fun as the original Dawn of War series, nor as polished as the Company of Heroes series, which it takes most of its ideas from. It is an inferior RTS game and would not be worth mentioning were it not for the -short- Singleplayer. Expand
  23. Fenon
    Mar 2, 2009
    5
    I found the graphics for this game to be undesirable, all that shine just doesn't look right on the battle hardened damaged space marines. And you can't help but compare it unfavourably to DoW, it's much less of a game and while I played DoW for months without getting bored, I was bored of DoW2 within the first day. We were told that the reason DoW didn't have Tyranids I found the graphics for this game to be undesirable, all that shine just doesn't look right on the battle hardened damaged space marines. And you can't help but compare it unfavourably to DoW, it's much less of a game and while I played DoW for months without getting bored, I was bored of DoW2 within the first day. We were told that the reason DoW didn't have Tyranids was because they couldn't do them justice on the old engine, but I fail to see how DoW2 has done anything at all any justice. There are only two saving graces for DoW2, the excellent cover system and it's modding community who I'm hoping will undo all the damage that has been done to the DoW series. If you are looking for a Warhammer 40K game get the first Dawn of War game and it's expansions, it's vastly better, you won't easily get bored of it and hopefully by the time you do, those wonderful modders will have worked their magic to make DoW2 a playable game deserving of it's name. Expand
  24. AdamJ
    Mar 3, 2009
    6
    Fatal flaw in the pop cap double counting whenever I am reinforcing error. Get it fixed Relic. I spent $50 on this and I don't want to have to work around bugs like this when I spend so much for a game. And if you can't release a game without jeopardizing the quality of your other games (IE COH), then dont release a game until then.
  25. JohnCerril
    May 20, 2009
    6
    Great campaign, great multiplayer gameplay... if evenly matched. The TrueSkill in this game is so broken that I am quitting until they remove it from the system. It's a game I like to have fun in, and fun for me is not getting blasted by Rank 52 TrueSkill 36 people. Replay value plays heavily into my rating of all games, seeing as longevity is key in purchases.
  26. WilC
    May 6, 2009
    6
    While the game is visually impressive and fast paced, it may be too much so for anyone who was expecting something similar to the previous incarnations of the franchise. Base building is all but gone and the scale of combat has become small and squad-centric; somewhat like a bird's eye view of a first-person shooter playing out below.
  27. FrankieE
    Aug 3, 2009
    6
    Ok where do it start!? As a hardcore 40K fan and a massive fan of the previous DOW titles i can say that i am disspointed with this game. Whilst i understand that relic wanted to change and go somewhere new, they have in fact gone backwards... allot. Multiplayers is not worthwhile, we have lost a major aspect of the game. You can no longer build buildings which has removed a massive side Ok where do it start!? As a hardcore 40K fan and a massive fan of the previous DOW titles i can say that i am disspointed with this game. Whilst i understand that relic wanted to change and go somewhere new, they have in fact gone backwards... allot. Multiplayers is not worthwhile, we have lost a major aspect of the game. You can no longer build buildings which has removed a massive side of the game, you no longer have to build to gain new equipment and you cant attack/defend these postions which gave the previous titles an edge. Also you cannot build massive armys which removes the whole "War" aspect. Add to this list the fact you only have 4 races to play with. On a more positive side, single player is very addictive and i like the customize the squad feature, its a shame you can use these players in multiplayer. Also the introduction of the tyranids is a godsend. Expand
  28. STeveSteve
    Sep 17, 2009
    5
    The over hyped campaign was lame. The biggest screwup was creating a dump mp. There is nothing inherently wrong with no base building. The flaw is that the MP is treated like its a base building game which totally ruined the game.
  29. FrankL
    Sep 9, 2009
    5
    Major disappointment. I awaited this title with much anticipation. I have been a Games Workshop enthusiast for 18 years and am a great fan of the first Dawn of War. First, before I go into how much of a waste this game is... I would like to say I really liked the Tyranids. The makers totally screwed this game up. Everything you loved about the first Dawn of War has been removed. Their is Major disappointment. I awaited this title with much anticipation. I have been a Games Workshop enthusiast for 18 years and am a great fan of the first Dawn of War. First, before I go into how much of a waste this game is... I would like to say I really liked the Tyranids. The makers totally screwed this game up. Everything you loved about the first Dawn of War has been removed. Their is no longer a feeling of large battles. The multiplayer aspect of the game is so bland that makes you want to shoot yourself in the head. You cant shake the feeling that this game is under cooked. All your strategic options have vanished and to make things worse the maps are much smaller than the original. Space Marines with 3 man squads made me want to shove this game up the programmers rear end. How can you fail at making a game with the War Hammer 40k title behind it? These people did. Expand
  30. JohnL
    Dec 13, 2009
    7
    Rated 7 because of the effort in creating the game. But really, how disappointing! Anyone who has experienced the original 40K would almost certainly want that model back, along with the enhanced gfx and sound of this version. I
  31. DavidR
    Feb 21, 2009
    5
    When I learned about this game I was truly exicted about the prospect of it & the dirction was just like chaos gate from SSI another 40k game all tho that was turn based. After playing it, it falls way short on game play & intrest. Atleast it looks shiny ..lol if thats all a real game takes to sell they may do well but it dosent, shiny is all glamor but no game, DOWII fits that bill muti When I learned about this game I was truly exicted about the prospect of it & the dirction was just like chaos gate from SSI another 40k game all tho that was turn based. After playing it, it falls way short on game play & intrest. Atleast it looks shiny ..lol if thats all a real game takes to sell they may do well but it dosent, shiny is all glamor but no game, DOWII fits that bill muti player needs a bit O' balance but that mite be the only part of this game to look at, as muti player dosent take much to fix & make for a huge selling pt sry to say I dont care for its muti player, Ill head to the hobbly store pull out my guard army & slug it out for 1-2hr over an 4-8 table with friends. This just dosent cut it, disruption is back in too many forms & supprersion is just another form of it that just adds more disruption, o yea 5-6 squades & all of them cant do any thing but run from disruption & suppresion. I gave it a 5 as it looks to be a really good muti player where 1on1 or 2on2 will be fair but as single player is 1/2 the game it gets a 5. Expand
  32. JohnC
    Feb 21, 2009
    6
    Its a good game but you whether you want to or not you have to install and update the online component before it will even let you play the single player campaign. The graphics and story line are good, not a whole to lot base building, you build up your squads and go bust heads that's about it, a must for any 40K fan.
  33. BritonT
    Feb 21, 2009
    6
    What I Liked: 1.) Visually Stunning 2.) Emphasis more towards a Company of Heroes style game play 3.) At times alot of fun My complains 1.) Unbalanced (not for the newer rts player) 2.) no base building (cant i at least build a barracks please!) 3.) Control and interface set up(not the easiers) 4.) this isn't relative to the game but ( no beta tutorial? someone might want that).
  34. TelJ
    Feb 28, 2009
    6
    Game seems fun, but chokes and dies on XP64. Other games (Supreme Commander, World in Conflict, etc) run just fine at my monitor native res and in Supreme Commander's case, across multiple monitors... but fire up DoW2 and both cores are instantly pegged at 100%, stuttering during the opening cinematic, and an all-out lock within 20 minutes of playing. What I played of it was fun, Game seems fun, but chokes and dies on XP64. Other games (Supreme Commander, World in Conflict, etc) run just fine at my monitor native res and in Supreme Commander's case, across multiple monitors... but fire up DoW2 and both cores are instantly pegged at 100%, stuttering during the opening cinematic, and an all-out lock within 20 minutes of playing. What I played of it was fun, don't get me wrong... I'd just tlike to play more of it. I did notice that if I logged out of GfWL, that processor usage dropped to where I'd expect... of course, you can't play logged out. As soon as I logged back into GfWL, bam, 100%, both cores. Very irritating. Expand
  35. BrandonS
    Feb 28, 2009
    7
    Dawn of War II is one of those games where you admire it for a few days/weeks of playing and then it just becomes soggy. Sure Relic brought the graphics bar up in this game, but they forgot one important aspect of the game: multiplyer. The campaign was fun and the story is great (I wont spoil it for those who want to finish it) and the wargear makes it further interesting, deciding which Dawn of War II is one of those games where you admire it for a few days/weeks of playing and then it just becomes soggy. Sure Relic brought the graphics bar up in this game, but they forgot one important aspect of the game: multiplyer. The campaign was fun and the story is great (I wont spoil it for those who want to finish it) and the wargear makes it further interesting, deciding which squads and what gear to take in each mission. I was thoughroughly dissapointed when they didn't release Co-op to LAN- I really would like to play with my friends in the same building. Multiplayer was a bit of a dissapointment, making the only buildings HQs gens, and turrets, took away the some of aspect of building your army. Having different unit building structues in the right spots meant faster deployment and more stratagy. Sometimes there are so many effects on the field you cant even tll which units are yours and most people love to play this game on a DOS because 8/10 times someone is lagging the game. There are still some big balance issues: some units were overpowered, such as the tyranid carnifex, which could take 8 rockets before going down and are immune to anti vehicle abilities. I gave this a 7 out of 10 - great concept, but they still need to improve on the MP - usually campaigns aren't the spotlight of an RTS, its the Multiplayer. Expand
  36. JohnCarpenter
    Mar 1, 2009
    5
    I got the beta, and because of that horrible windows live connection thing, I'm not going to buy the game. I couldn't get my tag to work, so I couldn't play multiplayer, and a friend of mine said that you can't save your single player unless you're signed in. I downloaded it on Steam and if I was going to buy it, I'd have bought it on steam. USE FRICKENI got the beta, and because of that horrible windows live connection thing, I'm not going to buy the game. I couldn't get my tag to work, so I couldn't play multiplayer, and a friend of mine said that you can't save your single player unless you're signed in. I downloaded it on Steam and if I was going to buy it, I'd have bought it on steam. USE FRICKEN STEAM. Leave microsoft and their buggy windows junk out of it. Please game developers, i know it's hard, but refuse the money from microsoft and don't use their crappy service. You're just going to lose more of us. Expand
  37. ToBeN
    Mar 14, 2009
    5
    After loving the first dawn of war I, with many other DOW fanatics, anticipated the release of the second version. With high hopes that it would be the same game that we all knew and loved except better graphics and better single-player campaign. I also waited for the release of the tyranids, that blood-sucking planet eating race that we all love. I bought the game first day it came out. After loving the first dawn of war I, with many other DOW fanatics, anticipated the release of the second version. With high hopes that it would be the same game that we all knew and loved except better graphics and better single-player campaign. I also waited for the release of the tyranids, that blood-sucking planet eating race that we all love. I bought the game first day it came out. I first started by going through the long process of creating an offline account on windows live, and then tried to enter single player. Up pops up a warning that i need an online account for achievements. This is my first major downside. It reminds you every time you enter single player, as if you were too ignorant to remember the first time. I finally entered single player, and loved it. It appeared to be all i had hoped for. Key word...appeared. Went through the intro campaign battling through orks in an epic high def battle experience. Did not mind at all that you only got to be space marines. Got through, only to find out that these would be your ONLY characters except for some later units coming in. Second major downside... No creation of supporting units. What you get is what you stick with. Another downside is that you could not use them all in one deployment. This started to get annoying with the arrival of a fifth unit, when there were only four deployment slots available. I bared with it and went on through the long and almost never-ending battles. Finally got through to the last battle and was surprised to see that i could use all my units. Though it was a miracle i finally got to use them all, the whole story went down with a splat. No bang, not even a worthy opponent. The game is over...no problem. Time to navigate through the extremely small menu to to the multi-player skirmish mode. ...well, i can't build buildings. Isn't that what RTS games are for? Well, hopefully the DOW community will come out with some add-ons to recoup for the many lost fans of the DOW series. Expand
  38. DougH
    Mar 17, 2009
    7
    Good, but not great. As others have noted, Steam and GFW are a pain (GFW never worked for me), but the real problem is that the whole experience is very predictable. In DOW 40K you have individual upgrades for your Space Marine squads, while here the squaddies are just semi-pointless addons to your heroes that die faster. No player vehicles, no laser cannons, 'terminators' Good, but not great. As others have noted, Steam and GFW are a pain (GFW never worked for me), but the real problem is that the whole experience is very predictable. In DOW 40K you have individual upgrades for your Space Marine squads, while here the squaddies are just semi-pointless addons to your heroes that die faster. No player vehicles, no laser cannons, 'terminators' without the feel of them actually being *Terminators*. I like the hero skill and weapon upgrade system, even though it can make for a gear grind: Dreadnought autocannon, anyone? Good, just shallow: limited tactical & strategic planning and you'll never get that "ZOMG it's a Squigoth!" feeling. I suppose that's a consequence of the constantly falling 'mass market' player IQ. Expand
  39. DanielL.H.
    Mar 2, 2009
    6
    First of this is impossibly long(argh just put pasted in a org document, just around 2.5 pages), so if you're not interested in my personal erm..*cough*rantings*cough* just skip to the end(about halfway through that is) and you'll find a score based evaluation. Otherwise if you want the full story I suggest you get a cup of coffee and adjust the lighting. Wow...I waited sooo First of this is impossibly long(argh just put pasted in a org document, just around 2.5 pages), so if you're not interested in my personal erm..*cough*rantings*cough* just skip to the end(about halfway through that is) and you'll find a score based evaluation. Otherwise if you want the full story I suggest you get a cup of coffee and adjust the lighting. Wow...I waited sooo long for this! After having played all the previous games in the series to the point where I actucally broke a cd and had to go buy a new copy words couldn't express how much I wanted this game: New graphics, updated gameplay, and the Icing, they FINALLY included the tyranids. Baring the untold various types of IG armies, the tyranids were the only thing missing from the games. So off to pre-order as soon as it was announced I ended up standing in line at a midnight sale, not giving much thought that I had to go to work in the morning. bought the games, rushed home ready to play....aaand thats where I lost all my excitement. First of all I had to install STEAM(which I hate for entirely different reasons but lets not get into that here)...which it wouldn't allow me as I didn't have an internet connection(had switched ISP so had almost two weeks with no net) so i went of to bed after hours of trying, royally pissed of. I Finally secured a internet connection two days later(loaned a friends pc at school to registrate) Installed the game, ready to put of a ring of turrets around my Webway and then storm my Enigmatic Eldar off to war. but alas they removed the building concept! and from that point it only got worse. The singleplayer campaign is just tank'n'spank all the way, repetetive as a clockwork machine. and wth are with the boss fights? most of all they seem to serve as a nuisciensce when you think you've completed a level. Next came all the individuel skills and the restrictions of these. Now these are things that work GREAT in the original board game of 40k, it's turnbased and you have more than enough time to go through about 25 special abilities during a ranged or hand to hand combat phase. this, however simply does not work in a RTS game. If you play the game at the speed you're supposed to, there are far too many submenues you have to troll through, jumping from squad to squad anything between 3 and 15 times per second or so. James G said this to be a "true TACTICAL wargame" and he's half right. All the basics are there for this to be a tactical game, but none of them are properly incorporated. Being a former soldier with structure to structure experience I can say that there is no need for any real world tactics to win this game. the only tactical "trick" in this game is to position your devastatorsquad correctly and you've more or less flat out won. Hell, I let my 7yo nephew play and he just made his marines walk from one end of the field to the other, stopping everytime he had to fight, not neccesarily taking cover as he did(this on normal mode btw) The only challenge I got for myself was simply not to use any heavy weapons during the single player campaign. as for the multiplayer... Fastpaced as it may be, I have yet to meet a person who have been able to manage all his squads at the same time(leveling, changing to the correct wargear for the correct type of enemy etc.) in the short amount of time a multiplayer match usually takes. You have so many squads and so many enemy sqauds in such a confined place that half the time your squads will be dead before you have the time to properly use their abilities. Again, the abilites is an aspect that works great in the boardgame(read: turnbased) as you have the time and overlook it takes, but utterly fails in the rts version as there is just too much going on at the same time. This(i believe) is the main reason why I have yet to see anything other than rush tactics in multiplayer. I wholeheartedly belive that trying to use all the different abilities at once is too much for alot fo the people out there and som in order to compensate they just amass the maximum amount of squads and overwhelm the enemy with strenght in numbers. I'm all for making a computerised version of, well pretty much all the GW line of games, but some aspects simply cannot be converted from turnbased to rts. SCORE. Graphics: 9/10 Overall the graphics is great, if you have the comp for it. Bear in mind that even the low settings required a fairly new machine. So stunnign graphics if you jave the comp for it, and crap for the rest of you. To be honest, the game is hardly worth playing in the low setting. Albiet a minus I won't let it drag down the score as it has to be based on a system that actually has the specs to run it. Sounds: 9/10 pretty much the same as graphics. Plot: 6/10 It's compelling it urges you and yet something seems to be missing, at least for a warhammer lore nerd as myself. it also annoys me that they walk you through all the little things in the game. I KNOW what a bolter is, I KNOW how a howling banshee's warcry and powersword work and what they are. I mean, c'mon is it really too much to ask the newbs that have never heard of warhammer before, to read up a little? As an experienced gamer I find it triffling and at times almost insulting that they are trying to teach me everything as if I knew nothing. But to be fair, I can see how this would work well for Relic, as they that way have a chance of picking up new gamers. The dialogue is fair and the voice acting is pulled of with succes for the most cases. Though at times it can be hard to follow some of the dececions of the various characters as they guide you through the campaign. There are too many Expand
  40. LanceB
    Mar 22, 2009
    5
    Big disappointment. Despite the fact this game was released nearly 2 years after Relic's Company of Heroes, DoW II introduces no new RTS concepts & lacks many of the features that made CoH arguably the best RTS ever made. The single player campaign was redundant & boss the 30 minute boss fights made DoW II feel like a World of Warcraft RTS raid. Would not recommend buying in this Big disappointment. Despite the fact this game was released nearly 2 years after Relic's Company of Heroes, DoW II introduces no new RTS concepts & lacks many of the features that made CoH arguably the best RTS ever made. The single player campaign was redundant & boss the 30 minute boss fights made DoW II feel like a World of Warcraft RTS raid. Would not recommend buying in this economy. Much better games out there. Expand
  41. Dan
    Mar 22, 2009
    5
    Its good graphics, but I can play many other games to get good graphics, and good graphics dont always make it a good game. The single player campaign on DOW2 is very good, I enjoyed playing it with my friend. That is basically the only reason it gets a 5. The mutliplayer aspect, which was DOW's main feature after WA, seen as the campaigns turned shockingly bad, has been completely Its good graphics, but I can play many other games to get good graphics, and good graphics dont always make it a good game. The single player campaign on DOW2 is very good, I enjoyed playing it with my friend. That is basically the only reason it gets a 5. The mutliplayer aspect, which was DOW's main feature after WA, seen as the campaigns turned shockingly bad, has been completely ruined in DOW2. There arent enough units to be playing around with, the battles are either too short or too long. And most games turn into spamming the biggest and strongest unit over and over. As an RTS single player its good, but as its essentailly marketed as a multiplayer its bad. 5 out of 10. Expand
  42. AnonymousMC
    Mar 23, 2009
    6
    A month from release date and the game is riddled with bugs and cheating online. What could have been a great game is tarnished by it's lack of quick support from the developer who did not leave the game in beta long enough to fix bugs known for quite awhile.
  43. AnonymousMC
    Mar 23, 2009
    5
    It's not bad... but it's certainly not great either. Lots of people praise Relic's innovation here, but the game presents little that is new and just comes across as a rehash of Company of Heroes with a (small) roster of Warhammer 40k units, albeit with some poorly conceived RPG elements sprinkled on top. It feels like the elements "borrowed" from other games were chosen byIt's not bad... but it's certainly not great either. Lots of people praise Relic's innovation here, but the game presents little that is new and just comes across as a rehash of Company of Heroes with a (small) roster of Warhammer 40k units, albeit with some poorly conceived RPG elements sprinkled on top. It feels like the elements "borrowed" from other games were chosen by someone who had no real understanding of what made those games good in the first place. Expand
  44. JimP
    Mar 31, 2009
    5
    Single player was boring. I mean really boring. It felt like playing Dungeon Siege in a Warhammer universe. I will miss the strategy series that was Warhammer 40k. Up until now I have bought every Relic title made because I always know they'll be great games. That won't be happening anymore. Also the idea that I need a windows live account and a connection to the internet to Single player was boring. I mean really boring. It felt like playing Dungeon Siege in a Warhammer universe. I will miss the strategy series that was Warhammer 40k. Up until now I have bought every Relic title made because I always know they'll be great games. That won't be happening anymore. Also the idea that I need a windows live account and a connection to the internet to play a single player game is ridiculous. I can ALMOST understand it for multiplayer, but even then it's much more annoying, bug ridden, and clunky then the way it was in DOW 1. Why not keep a system that worked great for single and multiplayer? If I purchase a game I want to be guaranteed it will work with or without some third party service hosted in another country. Expand
  45. TeroS
    May 18, 2009
    6
    This would be a good game, if it weren't so riddled with bugs. From time to time you lose control of your units, my camera sometimes pans endlessly for no reason, teammates sometimes are switched to the opposite team at the games start, occassional you will play as Space Marines when you picked a different race, and the game crashes often enough to be a problem. When it works its This would be a good game, if it weren't so riddled with bugs. From time to time you lose control of your units, my camera sometimes pans endlessly for no reason, teammates sometimes are switched to the opposite team at the games start, occassional you will play as Space Marines when you picked a different race, and the game crashes often enough to be a problem. When it works its very fun, challenging, and fairly balanced between the races. However I will not be playing this much at all until I find these issues resolved. Expand
  46. JoostL
    Jun 1, 2009
    6
    I love 40k, I loved DoW. In a way we should be glad that they took a different approach on this game rather then just putting a "2" behind this the first part and not changing anything else. However, the single player turns out to be quite dull, to easy and the non-linear campaign style makes it feel like playing random skirmish missions rather then a storyline. The multiplayer is a tad I love 40k, I loved DoW. In a way we should be glad that they took a different approach on this game rather then just putting a "2" behind this the first part and not changing anything else. However, the single player turns out to be quite dull, to easy and the non-linear campaign style makes it feel like playing random skirmish missions rather then a storyline. The multiplayer is a tad better, but the "trueskill" system that is used is weak and it feels to much like a Company of Heroes copy with less options and less controll. Expand
  47. VegeM
    Jun 7, 2009
    6
    Nice graphics and GUI but the game is too shallow for my liking. Never been a big fan of the standard RTS game so thought this one I might enjoy more because it claimed to be different from all the rest. Sure, the difference is that it is even less shallow than other RTS games because all there is to the game is simple sheep herding and finding cover. Boring!
  48. MirasBukharbayev
    Jul 30, 2009
    5
    for me this is not better part of Dawn of War. 3 soldiers in group?! - it's like our idiots in fights. now battles don't make sense, it was better to see a huge army crashed by one Avatar maybe - it was Awesome!!! so ... I more like old Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War - it's BEST
  49. JakobR
    Nov 11, 2009
    7
    Relic has really improved this game since they made the first dawn of war. They have added a much more tactical based game, which brings the players right into the action. The multi player has some really nice features, such as the cover which were also seen in the first dawn of war, and the newly added thing, with no base building. This really brings players much more into the action and Relic has really improved this game since they made the first dawn of war. They have added a much more tactical based game, which brings the players right into the action. The multi player has some really nice features, such as the cover which were also seen in the first dawn of war, and the newly added thing, with no base building. This really brings players much more into the action and make them enjoy the game more. The single player campaign is impressive. It is probably the closest an RTS game has ever been to make you feel like you are there! The graphics has been greatly improved since dawn of war 1, and the sounds is really good, but the game is not only great. After some time it does get boring, i dropped it after a month myself, but i guess some people like it better. The game is probably more for warhammer fans, and people which really like the tactical aspects of a game, but for the more general RTS players, it might get boring after a while, and they want to get back to the more usual RTS style of gameplay. Expand
  50. IgorT
    Nov 15, 2009
    7
    Well, compared to DoW I, of course graphics, sounds and physics are better. But it isn't Dawn of War anymore. This is something between RTS and B-class hack'n'slash. Less units, less maps, smaller maps, no place for battles. Campaign is just a bunch of missions like "get through all bad-guys on the map and then kill their boss" or "defend some point" just few were a bit non Well, compared to DoW I, of course graphics, sounds and physics are better. But it isn't Dawn of War anymore. This is something between RTS and B-class hack'n'slash. Less units, less maps, smaller maps, no place for battles. Campaign is just a bunch of missions like "get through all bad-guys on the map and then kill their boss" or "defend some point" just few were a bit non linear, but even these were predictable. Expand
  51. StiabhD.
    Nov 17, 2009
    6
    Hugely disappointing. Firstly, I resent having to be online to install and activate a game I intend to play offline. Secondly, Windows Live is a total copout on the part of Relic. Thirdly, this game is based on Company Of Heroes. You can call it 'inspired by' that game but I say it's nothing more than a derivative copy of that (better) game's mechanics. Fourthly, Where Hugely disappointing. Firstly, I resent having to be online to install and activate a game I intend to play offline. Secondly, Windows Live is a total copout on the part of Relic. Thirdly, this game is based on Company Of Heroes. You can call it 'inspired by' that game but I say it's nothing more than a derivative copy of that (better) game's mechanics. Fourthly, Where Are The Troops??? Where are the other five types of Eldar Aspect warrior and why so many damn limits on squad size? I want hordes of Orks. Not just a posse. Hordes! If Relic are expecting us to queue up meekly and pay for new troop types with each expansion (as happened with DoW) they can guess again. Fifthly, where's my control? I want total control over placement of defensive guns, support structures, resource structures, everything. Instead I'm playing battles against an annoying mapmaker. Lastly, this is NOT Warhammer 40K. Like Dawn of War, it's just a bog standard wargame using Games Workshop's (un)original IP. Why do so many reviewers fail to see that while they're drooling over the pretty graphics and 'splosions. Expand
  52. HeinL
    Oct 18, 2009
    7
    Really disappointing, the missions are boring, the character management part isn't exciting either. the mission goals are always the same, you will kill the same and same troops over again, with the same tactic till you reach a kind of miniboss, which has some special abilities, like AOE dmg or a charge. I rated this game with 7, because it's a mediorce game, with an uncreative Really disappointing, the missions are boring, the character management part isn't exciting either. the mission goals are always the same, you will kill the same and same troops over again, with the same tactic till you reach a kind of miniboss, which has some special abilities, like AOE dmg or a charge. I rated this game with 7, because it's a mediorce game, with an uncreative story, but the first hours are fun. Expand
  53. Ben
    Oct 24, 2009
    7
    This is a good game, but the story ends too quick in my opinion.
  54. KyleD.
    Feb 21, 2009
    6
    This game was rushed out the door. THQ wanted to beat Blizzard and Creative Assembly [Starcraft 2 and Empire Total War, respectively] and decided that releasing sooner, even with an unfinished game was better than releasing later with a polished one. And it shows, it shows in the hacked together singleplayer, and it shows in the beta-level multiplayer. Singleplayer itself is extremely This game was rushed out the door. THQ wanted to beat Blizzard and Creative Assembly [Starcraft 2 and Empire Total War, respectively] and decided that releasing sooner, even with an unfinished game was better than releasing later with a polished one. And it shows, it shows in the hacked together singleplayer, and it shows in the beta-level multiplayer. Singleplayer itself is extremely repetitive, and lacks any sort of interesting design once you've played it for more than three hours. Multiplayer suffers from lack of content and gameplay direction. Relic, even now, is still patching in new elements that change the fundamental way mutliplayer is played - and not for the better. The game only released with 7 multiplayer maps too, giving an indication of just how rushed this really was. Further, Relic has opted to go with Steam for their DRM, which caused countless problems for people buying the game - as Steam didn't validate it until the 20th, but it was on sale since the 17th. Then the Steam servers went down on the 20th, for maintenance, too. What a horrible DRM system, they should've released through Stardock. Expand
  55. MasterO
    Feb 22, 2009
    6
    Gameplay is a bit lacklustre. Strategy (whilst it is there) seems to be dummed down 'for the masses'. The units feel 'clunky' and overall playing the game lacks finesse. I was expecting something a bit like a meccano set and all I ended up with was Duplo. Kudos for trying something dfferent with the genre
  56. ThomasL
    Feb 23, 2009
    6
    Brought this game with high hopes dispite the dissapointing beta. In a way I'm glad I did as the campaign section of the game is very well executed and finished off with well designed maps (even though you are sometimes forced to play the same map several times) that give a good sense of balance to games and allow for many different tactics to be used, the storyline is good and on Brought this game with high hopes dispite the dissapointing beta. In a way I'm glad I did as the campaign section of the game is very well executed and finished off with well designed maps (even though you are sometimes forced to play the same map several times) that give a good sense of balance to games and allow for many different tactics to be used, the storyline is good and on the whole it and the gameplay fit along well with the tabletop version, this seems to go slightly out the window on the highest difficulty settings however as even the weedy tyranid gaunts seem to bulk up there armour tenfold whereas every unit in your army seems to gain un unhealthy weakness to bullets which can be aggrevating. On the subject of aggrevating the boss fights on harder difficulties are also worth a mention as the producers in their wisdom decided to create bosses that have huge ammounts of health (some upwards of 150,000), usualy 1 hit kill your units and summon more weaker units just when you start to hurt them. Oh and they regenerate health as well. Despite these moans this does make for a challenging fight that requires tactics. If the game only included campaign then I would have given it a 9 but horrid multiplayer drags it down for me. Yes I know the producers told us that there would be much less base building, but they neglegted to tell us that your base consists of a nigh on indestructable base building. And the whole cover thing doesent work online as most people online resort to spamming so many orks or tyranids that your units are swarmed before they can do anything. I know that many people will like these changes but I'm going to play campaign some more then move back to soulstorm. Expand
  57. SteveM
    Mar 15, 2009
    5
    Relic totally missed the ball in all ways in my opinion. The strategic depth in this game is extremely shallow. This is like a dumbed down version of Company of Heroes with Warhammer 40k skins. Add terrible unit pathing and even worse faction balance and that's Dow2 for you. Big fan of Relic for a long time but there's no excuse for this bastardized strategy/RPG disaster. Relic totally missed the ball in all ways in my opinion. The strategic depth in this game is extremely shallow. This is like a dumbed down version of Company of Heroes with Warhammer 40k skins. Add terrible unit pathing and even worse faction balance and that's Dow2 for you. Big fan of Relic for a long time but there's no excuse for this bastardized strategy/RPG disaster. Don't get me started on the single player campaign. It was a short, cheesy and half-baked affair put together as more of an afterthought than anything, Expand
  58. BenT
    Mar 21, 2009
    7
    Fairly solid Multiplayer Gameplay. However, the games aesthetics (especially physics/camera/sound) are inferior to their COH, which came out nearly three years ago.
  59. WaltD
    Mar 23, 2009
    5
    A huge step back from the original and for what? Prettier graphics? Too bad there is less of everything else( units, maps,sp ai,fun, etc ). Relic/THQ will NOT be seeing any more of my gaming dollars. This game is an insult. I did enjoy the campaign though. Unfortunately I finished that in a week and haven't touched DOW2 since.
  60. RyanC
    Mar 29, 2009
    5
    I must say I was disappointed with this one. I got bored of it within the first hour, and I can't play more than one mission at a time now. Basically all that is required is that you can left click and right click, and then have enough patience to wait and see how long it takes for your guys to kill the enemy. Boring.
  61. BrianJ
    Jun 22, 2009
    7
    Overall a very fun game. Graphics and visuals are very well done and sounds are good as well. Multiplayer is very fun with a bit of replay value, but there are some problems with balancing. Singleplayer is fairly boring and repetitive, but not so much as to make me lose interest. As said before, a very good game overall.
  62. Sep 16, 2010
    7
    Pluses: Graphics, story maybe, and BEING UR OWN SPACE MARINE COMMANDER!...sort of. Though to actually see damage taken to units her compared to 40k DC. The different voices where a thumbs up. The equipment feature was really cool. I still like DC the best tho. Still have to try this out ONLINE. AND WHERE THE HELL HAS MY LANDRAIDER GONE! I really expected more units here! maybe even aPluses: Graphics, story maybe, and BEING UR OWN SPACE MARINE COMMANDER!...sort of. Though to actually see damage taken to units her compared to 40k DC. The different voices where a thumbs up. The equipment feature was really cool. I still like DC the best tho. Still have to try this out ONLINE. AND WHERE THE HELL HAS MY LANDRAIDER GONE! I really expected more units here! maybe even a titan...maybe its too early 4 that :? too little units is the minus. Game is OVERPRICED! These these guys i tell u... sell expansion after expansion with like one or two new races, same feel campaign and a new box cover u love. more cud have bin done here. 7/10 Expand
  63. Dec 11, 2012
    5
    The original DOW and it's expansions are superior. This is basically a reskinned Company of Heroes but with no base management. The campaign is fun co-op but it's isometric RPG-lite and you've probably played better before. If you're looking for a Warhammer 40k game, check out the original DOW (best single player campaign of the original series) and/or it's expansion Dark Crusade (bestThe original DOW and it's expansions are superior. This is basically a reskinned Company of Heroes but with no base management. The campaign is fun co-op but it's isometric RPG-lite and you've probably played better before. If you're looking for a Warhammer 40k game, check out the original DOW (best single player campaign of the original series) and/or it's expansion Dark Crusade (best multiplayer of the original series) instead. Expand
  64. May 28, 2014
    7
    To put it simply, Dawn of War II had really enjoyable campaign and co-op modes, but the multiplayer competitive play? I'd give that a miss, though the new mechanics introduced and abolition of base construction made for a unique campaign experience, in multiplayer it just feels awkward and dull.
  65. Mar 5, 2014
    5
    I think it's a joke, that you can't build "normal" buildings like in the first Dawn of War. This means the campaign and the normal battles aren't really interesting. I don't like that the Imperial Army and the Chaos Space Marines aren't playable in this version.
Metascore
85

Generally favorable reviews - based on 67 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 64 out of 67
  2. Negative: 0 out of 67
  1. 85
    The single-player mash-up of RTS and RPG elements works really well, and the multiplayer is fast and exciting. Relic's reinvention of the Dawn of War brand is a breath of fresh (or possibly fetid, Tyranid infested) air.
  2. Dawn of War II is a highly innovative twist on the usual RTS formula that dares to think outside the box while staying true to the WH40k source material. Campaign co-op play is a great addition to the already superb single player game but the head-to-head multiplayer skirmish is a bit of a disappointment.
  3. Dawn of War was a finely tuned game with huge battles and many disposable troops. Dawn of War II is faster, lighter, smaller, in some ways more interesting and in other ways somewhat lacking in its execution. But taken as a whole it’s impossible to not recommend the game to 40K fans and to those who are willing to accept that this is not a linear sequel to an aging franchise.