Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II

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

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1628 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1,230 out of 1628
  2. Mixed: 200 out of 1628
  3. Negative: 198 out of 1628
Buy Now
Buy on

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
view
per page
  1. syrik
    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. 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
  3. Coldspyros
    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
  4. wordy_actions
    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. G_Mackzy
    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. DMalenfant1
    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. Bongo_clive
    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
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

16
#16 Best PC Game of 2009
9
#9 Most Discussed PC Game of 2009
19
#19 Most Shared PC Game of 2009

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
85

Generally favorable reviews - based on 67 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 64 out of 67
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 67
  3. Negative: 0 out of 67
  1. PALGN
    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.
    Read full review
  2. YouGamers
    89
    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.
    Read full review
  3. GameShark
    83
    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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »