I have too noticed the discrepancy between professional and user reviews, and I think I can explain why it exists.Ĭomments by the game developer seem to indicate that the game was optimized for high professional review scores:ĭawn of War III was meant to reunite our Dawn of War and Dawn of War II fans with a bombastic, action-RTS packed with incredible heroes, giant space lasers, and whole, new planets made of things that go BOOM. So tl dr game reviews are garbage in most cases, use youtube reviews as those aren't paid for by the developers. Afterwards just about every youtube review (ignoring people like arch who is heavily invested in warhammer) was a lot more critical like TB. PC gamer and other major websites which used to be your go to site for information and good reviews about games gave this game a 9+ at launch and that just shows that they are either as retarded as /u/ARX_Arbalest or that they were paid to give reviews like that. Most of the reviews that I found at launch were 9 or higher and the rest was 8+ with only one giving the game a 6.5. It had a AAA price tag, but no where near the content to back it up, a very tedious and mediocre campaign and very little in the way of multiplayer experience. However, by also being objective there is no fucking way anyone could give this game a 9 at launch. That's reserved for games that have major design flaws and no potential whatsoever. It's not what fans wanted, but if you look objectively at the game, it's a decent RTS with several flaws, but nothing so major to make it a 4 out of 10 score.

Does DOW 3 deserve something like a 4.5/10? No, most definitely not. You can hardly take 'professional' reviews serious at this point.

Dawn of war 2 review ign youtube