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. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Ben
    Oct 24, 2009
    7
    This is a good game, but the story ends too quick in my opinion.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Arshad_S
    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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. AlexWindia
    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.
  19. golemgac
    Mar 13, 2017
    7
    On the first thought, that game was a huge disappointment, but after many hours I must admit it was fun though. Although too many elements of RTS's genre were taken away, there're a few changes (crossover with RPG structure) that made game more enjoyable, It's also good to see Tyranids in not that bad story with interesting characters and side threads, even if the silent protagonist wasn'tOn the first thought, that game was a huge disappointment, but after many hours I must admit it was fun though. Although too many elements of RTS's genre were taken away, there're a few changes (crossover with RPG structure) that made game more enjoyable, It's also good to see Tyranids in not that bad story with interesting characters and side threads, even if the silent protagonist wasn't exactly the bullseye. Main campaign has some good moments but it becomes predictable and monotonous after a while, specially side missions. I think every fan of DoW should give it a try.… Expand
  20. Yulduz
    Jan 3, 2020
    7
    -I would almost say that Dawn of War II is an ActionRPG (although handling 4 characters at a time) disguised as RTS (without resource management).
    Very worked in the graphic aspect.
    Maybe something repetitive to go forward during missions if we except the final boss. -Casi diría que Dawn of War II es un ActionRPG (aunque manejando a 4 personajes a la vez) disfrazado de RTS (sin    -I would almost say that Dawn of War II is an ActionRPG (although handling 4 characters at a time) disguised as RTS (without resource management).
    Very worked in the graphic aspect.
    Maybe something repetitive to go forward during missions if we except the final boss.

    -Casi diría que Dawn of War II es un ActionRPG (aunque manejando a 4 personajes a la vez) disfrazado de RTS (sin gestión de recursos).
    Muy trabajado en el aspecto grafico.
    Quizá algo repetitivo el ir avanzando durante misiones si exceptuamos el jefe final.    … Expand
  21. Babutto
    Jan 5, 2022
    7
    It's a solid game.

    Pros.:
    - Unlike Dawn of War, there is a strong story.
    - Emphasis on different squads.
    - RPG element (very simple).
    - Need to plan strats with the squads.
    - Chaos rising raises the quality.

    Cons.:
    - Same maps. Same ****
    - The twists could be done better, more developed and complicated.
    - Map design is one of the weakest points.
  22. nw2010
    Jan 12, 2021
    7
    Once you get used to the main change from DoW (no base building) and read up a bit about what's going on (no tutorial) this is an enjoyable game.

    Graphics are very good considering the age (although cut scene graphical quality is poor).

    Very much enjoyed playing through this and look forward to playing Chaos Rising.
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
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 »