Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

wh3 has mostly negative reviews on steam

2

Comments

  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 15,216
    1v0 said:

    With the release of the roadmap, most people probably took off to do other things until IE comes out and aren't hanging around being angry. Thus, the number of people hanging out being angry appears to increase.

    Not saying being upset isn't justified, but continues to explain why most topics seem to be so repetitively negative.

    It's more likely, to put it in few words - people expected better and sooner.
    Yeah, seriously the patching pace is awfully slow. Rome 2 was a catastrophic launch and yet in a full month the game received 3 patches and one patch in beta. Warhammer 3 only received two hotfixes that didn't do much a month after release.

    And now CA is leaving the game to the DLC team, they'll have to figure out whatever the main team has done and fix this mess, this is going to take some time. Sadly it's too common in the industry to remove the main team from a game once it's released and replace it with another team, the main team should still be working on the game, helping the DLC team to fix the mess they've made.

  • SultschiemSultschiem Registered Users Posts: 3,362
    Neodeinos said:

    1v0 said:

    With the release of the roadmap, most people probably took off to do other things until IE comes out and aren't hanging around being angry. Thus, the number of people hanging out being angry appears to increase.

    Not saying being upset isn't justified, but continues to explain why most topics seem to be so repetitively negative.

    It's more likely, to put it in few words - people expected better and sooner.
    Yeah, seriously the patching pace is awfully slow. Rome 2 was a catastrophic launch and yet in a full month the game received 3 patches and one patch in beta. Warhammer 3 only received two hotfixes that didn't do much a month after release.

    And now CA is leaving the game to the DLC team, they'll have to figure out whatever the main team has done and fix this mess, this is going to take some time. Sadly it's too common in the industry to remove the main team from a game once it's released and replace it with another team, the main team should still be working on the game, helping the DLC team to fix the mess they've made.
    Because Rome 2 did not have the biggest ever Total War campaign being worked on in paralel with 15 factions and over 60 start positions needing being updated for it?

    Which is also a free update, not a paid dlc?
  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 15,216

    Neodeinos said:

    1v0 said:

    With the release of the roadmap, most people probably took off to do other things until IE comes out and aren't hanging around being angry. Thus, the number of people hanging out being angry appears to increase.

    Not saying being upset isn't justified, but continues to explain why most topics seem to be so repetitively negative.

    It's more likely, to put it in few words - people expected better and sooner.
    Yeah, seriously the patching pace is awfully slow. Rome 2 was a catastrophic launch and yet in a full month the game received 3 patches and one patch in beta. Warhammer 3 only received two hotfixes that didn't do much a month after release.

    And now CA is leaving the game to the DLC team, they'll have to figure out whatever the main team has done and fix this mess, this is going to take some time. Sadly it's too common in the industry to remove the main team from a game once it's released and replace it with another team, the main team should still be working on the game, helping the DLC team to fix the mess they've made.
    Because Rome 2 did not have the biggest ever Total War campaign being worked on in paralel with 15 factions and over 60 start positions needing being updated for it?

    Which is also a free update, not a paid dlc?
    So ? They've delayed post launch content to focus on fixing the main game.

  • Pappa_FraPappa_Fra Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 307


    Which is also a free update, not a paid dlc?

    Can we please stop calling IE a free update? It's always been a major, advertised part of the game which I'm sure has generated a lot of additional sales in terms of previous games and their DLC. I personally know several people who bought game 1 and its DLC just to play in game 2 in ME.

    Calling it a "free update" is incredibly disingenuous. If CA really believe that themselves then I think that's a large part of the problem!
  • cabans33cabans33 Registered Users Posts: 1,198
    edited May 7
    Image containing profanity removed.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • cabans33cabans33 Registered Users Posts: 1,198
    CA deserves it for being so slow.

    My review is positive as I'm into modding and have spent over 200 hours already, dont feel ok if after enjoying the game Ibgive a negative review, but the Vanilla varsion is bad, very bad
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 20,476
    1v0 said:

    bread said:

    Mostly it's mixed :).

    You're thinking of "recent review" "All reviews" is the total.

    So... it's getting worse.
    The game got positive bombed at launch (I will get disagrees because of it - but it's a fact).
    Now the game is better than on launch.

    But I think most people expected fixes and launch day Update 2.0 to be a bit closer... I for 1 though the big update is just around the corner... But nop it's not.

    The game went from 64 (almost 65) after the first week to now 58% positive reviews (overall reviews) if it passes below 40% it's overall reviews will get to mostly negative too, but that is far away... I don't think that will happen.
    Recent reviews are 38% positive (that means - 62% negative) = mostly negative (below 40% positives).

    EDIT:Here the top comment (most "helpful") on steam: NOTE:This comment is posted before the roadmap.

    It's true isn't it ?!?

    Anyway I'm dont with this(player numbers/reviews) I had my fun (as did some other people I hope). Now I will just wait for the game to be hopefully fixed.
    Yeah, that’s BS. When a lot of people leave positive reviews you need a little more info to suggest they are doing it beyond how much they actually like the game. That isn’t fact at all. There was the whole Chinese negative review bombing so, there’s no advantage either way.

    The game will most likely recover as a long term project, it just needs IE, the version most want to play.
  • boosykesboosykes Registered Users Posts: 139
    cabal133 said:

    I will not change my negative review, ever. This is what deserve CA has.

    If they dont get something for fixing it then why fix it? They already have your money.
    Game is not nearly as bad as people are making it seem its decent not great but still fun.
    Immortal empires should fix most of the complaints it is however taking to long. they should have delayed the game again until immortal empires was in at launch, that would have fixed 90% of the problems.
  • boosykesboosykes Registered Users Posts: 139
    SusaVile said:

    So, there is something I do not get, just have this line of thought of complaining about a game:

    - Game launches;
    - It has some bugs and mechanics that some players do not agree with;
    - Those players take to the forums, reddit, facebook, discord, to complaint about the game, claiming it is to "improve it";
    - Game gets fixes, and even announced fixes;
    - Players still continue to complain about the game, claiming it is to "improve it";
    - It forces the company to conduct more fixes to the detriment of getting new content out;
    - Players keep complaining because its new content comes later than they anticipated, claiming it is to "improve it";
    - New players that would obtain the game start not purchasing it based on negative reviews, and the constant complaining they see in every platform;
    - Players complain that there are very few new players coming in, without realizing their own part in that happening, claiming that it is to "improve it";
    - Game ultimately gets less content than it should have because of constant negativity;

    Am I the only one who sees our part in all of this? I thought players WANTED the game to succeed, but I guess I am the only one? If you keep focusing on the negative no matter what the subject is, it is going to impact its success. Show me one game that got better because of constant criticism and that got even more players than at launch. Go on.

    Right now, it is like you want it to fail, to go "told you so".

    Worst part, is that the more vocal people (and you can see by the number of negative posts from the same people in the forums that complain every day about the same things) are probably NEVER going to admit when the game actually reaches a point where they WOULD play it. And those people are probably going to move on to another game, and do the same thing for that other game that somehow does not fill the void they need to fill.

    And even further, most people are not complaining about the game itself. They are complaining about the company's general lack of communication, or the lack of transparency. Some are complaining after literally having played EVERY single campaign it has to offer already.

    My opinion, the game is absolutely fine. It certainly does not deserve even near the level of negativism and criticism it has endured. For any player that does not have 8+ hours a day to play, certainly there are still plenty of campaigns and experiences to have on the game before IE launches. And if you have 8 hours a day to play, good for you, but do not expect the game to be rushed like that by everyone.

    Tl:dr: stop complaining and doomsaying the game so much; it ends up achieving the very same thing you are claiming to be trying to avoid.

    Yes this is honestly some of the people's goal they want the game to fail for some morbid reason there is a topic on steam forums that the title is why we want the game to fail or something like that with a large number of comments. There reasoning is something like to teach CA a lesson. I guess that lesson is for CA to get into the first person shooter's as thay are more forgiving and leave strategy in the past. Bit short sighted if you ask me but honestly I hate corporations they are ruining the world. not specifically this one but most of the big ones. I just wish they would try and ruin amazon or something and leave RTS alone for awhile there are already so few options these days. (yes I know total war is not strictly an RTS)
  • SchubSchub Registered Users Posts: 1,401
    Neodeinos said:

    1v0 said:

    With the release of the roadmap, most people probably took off to do other things until IE comes out and aren't hanging around being angry. Thus, the number of people hanging out being angry appears to increase.

    Not saying being upset isn't justified, but continues to explain why most topics seem to be so repetitively negative.

    It's more likely, to put it in few words - people expected better and sooner.
    Yeah, seriously the patching pace is awfully slow. Rome 2 was a catastrophic launch and yet in a full month the game received 3 patches and one patch in beta. Warhammer 3 only received two hotfixes that didn't do much a month after release.

    And now CA is leaving the game to the DLC team, they'll have to figure out whatever the main team has done and fix this mess, this is going to take some time. Sadly it's too common in the industry to remove the main team from a game once it's released and replace it with another team, the main team should still be working on the game, helping the DLC team to fix the mess they've made.
    I can imagine "we" lost at least two weeks because the main team had to introduce the DLC team to all the coding the main team had done. During that time there was not much time for bug fixing or creating new content.
    Sigmar protect us all...


  • Surge_2Surge_2 Registered Users Posts: 10,457
    They earned this that's for sure.
    Glory matters not.

  • boosykesboosykes Registered Users Posts: 139
    Pappa_Fra said:


    Which is also a free update, not a paid dlc?

    Can we please stop calling IE a free update? It's always been a major, advertised part of the game which I'm sure has generated a lot of additional sales in terms of previous games and their DLC. I personally know several people who bought game 1 and its DLC just to play in game 2 in ME.

    Calling it a "free update" is incredibly disingenuous. If CA really believe that themselves then I think that's a large part of the problem!
    Yes this should stop it is the reason most of us bought every dlc. Most of us would have skipped a few if not for immortal empires but we want the full experience. honestly people need to realize its similar but not the same as TWW2 so dont expect it to be the same that was a stopgap and is never coming back so if you want the Grand immortal empires then get on board the train of change. There is a lot to like in this game if you give it an honest chance. otherwise go play 2 and stop ruining 3.
  • DragantisDragantis PolandRegistered Users Posts: 756
    People are terribly impatient and I have no idea why they think that if they scream and cry something will be done faster.
    Blood for the Bloo... Blood DLC in Q3?! Khorne hate CA!
  • CosmikNoiseCosmikNoise Registered Users Posts: 137
    Not good news, especially for hardcore WH fans as myself.
    Hope CA keep delivering updates and DLC's as this game is still a dream come true, I'm afraid TW:WH may go to the bin earlier than I expect.

    Game is fine and gives a different experience than the second part. Every race feels pretty unique.

    I only agree with the doombringers that the whole thing feels a bit rushed and was clearly released in a not polished version. Someone in CA failed when pushing an earlier release and this is the outcome.

    Surely after several updates and patches the game will be even better. And more people will enjoy the game.
    Patience.
  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 15,216
    Dragantis said:

    People are terribly impatient and I have no idea why they think that if they scream and cry something will be done faster.

    Ah yes the usual, people bad people impatient, generic answer.

  • XxXScorpionXxXXxXScorpionXxX Registered Users Posts: 5,493
    How are you a multimillion dollar company and **** up this bad. Id say this is something I'd expect from a small Indy dev but I'm wondering if a small Indy dev wouldn't do better.

    Did CA not anticipate the sheer hype the 3rd game was building up to? Why didn't they have literally everyone on their staff working on this and this alone. This could have been their grand theft auto 5. Their flagship game that sold so stupidly well they could coast on Remake and remaster money for the next 20 years.

    I really do have faith that rich and the dlc team can turn it around but the rest of the company should be ashamed of themselves
    Request scorched body textures, poisoned dying animations for infantry's skeletons, a blood slider that allows us to control how much blood appears in battle and make proper death animations for all ethereal units so they vanish for Blood for the Blood God 3.
  • UagrimUagrim Registered Users Posts: 2,026
    Neodeinos said:

    1v0 said:

    With the release of the roadmap, most people probably took off to do other things until IE comes out and aren't hanging around being angry. Thus, the number of people hanging out being angry appears to increase.

    Not saying being upset isn't justified, but continues to explain why most topics seem to be so repetitively negative.

    It's more likely, to put it in few words - people expected better and sooner.
    Yeah, seriously the patching pace is awfully slow. Rome 2 was a catastrophic launch and yet in a full month the game received 3 patches and one patch in beta. Warhammer 3 only received two hotfixes that didn't do much a month after release.

    And now CA is leaving the game to the DLC team, they'll have to figure out whatever the main team has done and fix this mess, this is going to take some time. Sadly it's too common in the industry to remove the main team from a game once it's released and replace it with another team, the main team should still be working on the game, helping the DLC team to fix the mess they've made.
    Patches are awefully slow?

    Have you even paid attention to Warhammer 2s patch cycle? We got a patch pretty much only with the release of a DLC with a followup patch coming on the beta branch because patching Warhammer 2 was that bad on the user. If they stick with the roadmap we get more patches for Warhammer 3 this year then we got in the same timeframe for warhammer 2.

    If they managed to improve the patchability of warhammer 3 enough for us to get quarterly patches regardless of new releases, I honestly take it as a win.

  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 15,216
    Uagrim said:

    Neodeinos said:

    1v0 said:

    With the release of the roadmap, most people probably took off to do other things until IE comes out and aren't hanging around being angry. Thus, the number of people hanging out being angry appears to increase.

    Not saying being upset isn't justified, but continues to explain why most topics seem to be so repetitively negative.

    It's more likely, to put it in few words - people expected better and sooner.
    Yeah, seriously the patching pace is awfully slow. Rome 2 was a catastrophic launch and yet in a full month the game received 3 patches and one patch in beta. Warhammer 3 only received two hotfixes that didn't do much a month after release.

    And now CA is leaving the game to the DLC team, they'll have to figure out whatever the main team has done and fix this mess, this is going to take some time. Sadly it's too common in the industry to remove the main team from a game once it's released and replace it with another team, the main team should still be working on the game, helping the DLC team to fix the mess they've made.
    Patches are awefully slow?

    Have you even paid attention to Warhammer 2s patch cycle? We got a patch pretty much only with the release of a DLC with a followup patch coming on the beta branch because patching Warhammer 2 was that bad on the user. If they stick with the roadmap we get more patches for Warhammer 3 this year then we got in the same timeframe for warhammer 2.

    If they managed to improve the patchability of warhammer 3 enough for us to get quarterly patches regardless of new releases, I honestly take it as a win.

    If one patch almost two months after release isn't slow for you then I don't even want to know what you would consider slow.

  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,339

    Thank the real world cathayans. This is it when you open one global market instead of few separated cultural markets (West, Russia, China, India, South America etc.).

    Like Winnie the Pooh is banned there.

    Lol wtf are you talking about
    Uagrim said:

    Neodeinos said:

    1v0 said:

    With the release of the roadmap, most people probably took off to do other things until IE comes out and aren't hanging around being angry. Thus, the number of people hanging out being angry appears to increase.

    Not saying being upset isn't justified, but continues to explain why most topics seem to be so repetitively negative.

    It's more likely, to put it in few words - people expected better and sooner.
    Yeah, seriously the patching pace is awfully slow. Rome 2 was a catastrophic launch and yet in a full month the game received 3 patches and one patch in beta. Warhammer 3 only received two hotfixes that didn't do much a month after release.

    And now CA is leaving the game to the DLC team, they'll have to figure out whatever the main team has done and fix this mess, this is going to take some time. Sadly it's too common in the industry to remove the main team from a game once it's released and replace it with another team, the main team should still be working on the game, helping the DLC team to fix the mess they've made.
    Patches are awefully slow?

    Have you even paid attention to Warhammer 2s patch cycle? We got a patch pretty much only with the release of a DLC with a followup patch coming on the beta branch because patching Warhammer 2 was that bad on the user. If they stick with the roadmap we get more patches for Warhammer 3 this year then we got in the same timeframe for warhammer 2.

    If they managed to improve the patchability of warhammer 3 enough for us to get quarterly patches regardless of new releases, I honestly take it as a win.

    Dude, TWW2 wasn’t desperately in need of a multitude of fixes to the degree game 3 was/is. That’s a bad comparison
  • gekjgekj Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 402
    meanwhile at CA


  • 1v01v0 Registered Users Posts: 2,034
    edited May 6
    I'm starting to feel sorry about the DLC team... having to clear up somebody else mess. The game deserves it, but not the team that is NOW working on it.
    Question:Presumably you’ve needed to create a huge number of new Daemon units to properly flesh them out and give them their own armies?
    Answer:IR: What you’ve just said is so true,
  • VeldrinarVeldrinar Registered Users Posts: 518
    It'll be a good game eventually. The problem is that ''eventually'' wasn't what people bought when they got the game.

    Calling the game an early access version isn't insulting it, it's practically stating a fact. It's unfinished and buggy as all hell, yet people paid full price for it. They have a right to be angry.
  • LegendaryArticunoLegendaryArticuno Registered Users Posts: 501
    Good, this is a good warning to any potential buyers.

    Hopefully CA kicks it into high gear and new content comes out quick.
  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 5,613
    SusaVile said:

    So, there is something I do not get, just have this line of thought of complaining about a game:

    - Game launches;
    - It has some bugs and mechanics that some players do not agree with;
    - Those players take to the forums, reddit, facebook, discord, to complaint about the game, claiming it is to "improve it";
    - Game gets fixes, and even announced fixes;
    - Players still continue to complain about the game, claiming it is to "improve it";
    - It forces the company to conduct more fixes to the detriment of getting new content out;
    - Players keep complaining because its new content comes later than they anticipated, claiming it is to "improve it";
    - New players that would obtain the game start not purchasing it based on negative reviews, and the constant complaining they see in every platform;
    - Players complain that there are very few new players coming in, without realizing their own part in that happening, claiming that it is to "improve it";
    - Game ultimately gets less content than it should have because of constant negativity;

    Am I the only one who sees our part in all of this? I thought players WANTED the game to succeed, but I guess I am the only one? If you keep focusing on the negative no matter what the subject is, it is going to impact its success. Show me one game that got better because of constant criticism and that got even more players than at launch. Go on.

    Right now, it is like you want it to fail, to go "told you so".

    Worst part, is that the more vocal people (and you can see by the number of negative posts from the same people in the forums that complain every day about the same things) are probably NEVER going to admit when the game actually reaches a point where they WOULD play it. And those people are probably going to move on to another game, and do the same thing for that other game that somehow does not fill the void they need to fill.

    And even further, most people are not complaining about the game itself. They are complaining about the company's general lack of communication, or the lack of transparency. Some are complaining after literally having played EVERY single campaign it has to offer already.

    My opinion, the game is absolutely fine. It certainly does not deserve even near the level of negativism and criticism it has endured. For any player that does not have 8+ hours a day to play, certainly there are still plenty of campaigns and experiences to have on the game before IE launches. And if you have 8 hours a day to play, good for you, but do not expect the game to be rushed like that by everyone.

    Tl:dr: stop complaining and doomsaying the game so much; it ends up achieving the very same thing you are claiming to be trying to avoid.

    That's not how reality works at all.
  • RikisRikis Registered Users Posts: 1,682
    I just hope the backlash (which I believe is somewhat deserved) doesn't cut the game's lifecycle short. Like it or not, DLC's may have a cool trailer but I have been turned off of buying a game when you see its a "mostly negative" average review. This can have a death spiral to get a game die sooner rather then later.
  • NinaranNinaran Registered Users Posts: 517
    Well deserved. Should've marked the game as Early Access.
  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,339
    Rikis said:

    I just hope the backlash (which I believe is somewhat deserved) doesn't cut the game's lifecycle short. Like it or not, DLC's may have a cool trailer but I have been turned off of buying a game when you see its a "mostly negative" average review. This can have a death spiral to get a game die sooner rather then later.

    And that would be a damn shame. But the blame falls on CAs shoulders, not the fans who are complaining.
  • boosykesboosykes Registered Users Posts: 139

    Good, this is a good warning to any potential buyers.

    Hopefully CA kicks it into high gear and new content comes out quick.

    I dont think capitalism works the way you think it works.
    Pocman said:

    SusaVile said:

    So, there is something I do not get, just have this line of thought of complaining about a game:

    - Game launches;
    - It has some bugs and mechanics that some players do not agree with;
    - Those players take to the forums, reddit, facebook, discord, to complaint about the game, claiming it is to "improve it";
    - Game gets fixes, and even announced fixes;
    - Players still continue to complain about the game, claiming it is to "improve it";
    - It forces the company to conduct more fixes to the detriment of getting new content out;
    - Players keep complaining because its new content comes later than they anticipated, claiming it is to "improve it";
    - New players that would obtain the game start not purchasing it based on negative reviews, and the constant complaining they see in every platform;
    - Players complain that there are very few new players coming in, without realizing their own part in that happening, claiming that it is to "improve it";
    - Game ultimately gets less content than it should have because of constant negativity;

    Am I the only one who sees our part in all of this? I thought players WANTED the game to succeed, but I guess I am the only one? If you keep focusing on the negative no matter what the subject is, it is going to impact its success. Show me one game that got better because of constant criticism and that got even more players than at launch. Go on.

    Right now, it is like you want it to fail, to go "told you so".

    Worst part, is that the more vocal people (and you can see by the number of negative posts from the same people in the forums that complain every day about the same things) are probably NEVER going to admit when the game actually reaches a point where they WOULD play it. And those people are probably going to move on to another game, and do the same thing for that other game that somehow does not fill the void they need to fill.

    And even further, most people are not complaining about the game itself. They are complaining about the company's general lack of communication, or the lack of transparency. Some are complaining after literally having played EVERY single campaign it has to offer already.

    My opinion, the game is absolutely fine. It certainly does not deserve even near the level of negativism and criticism it has endured. For any player that does not have 8+ hours a day to play, certainly there are still plenty of campaigns and experiences to have on the game before IE launches. And if you have 8 hours a day to play, good for you, but do not expect the game to be rushed like that by everyone.

    Tl:dr: stop complaining and doomsaying the game so much; it ends up achieving the very same thing you are claiming to be trying to avoid.

    That's not how reality works at all.
    yes it is if the negative reviews stay and people are scared off from buying dlc then you wont see many dlc.
  • ZeromusZeromus Registered Users Posts: 28
    Rightfully so...

    The game needed at least 1 more year of development before release.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 37,351
    bread said:

    Mostly it's mixed :).

    You're thinking of "recent review" "All reviews" is the total.

    So... it's getting worse.
    The game? No. The game is going from strength to strength. People are just whining harder.

    Hopefully these non genuine reviews will be cleaned out in a few years.
    "It's no fun fighting people weaker than you." - The Beast

    "There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - The descendant of Guanyin

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector,

This discussion has been closed.