End of War 1945

Single player review. very simple. Bots are better than you think. Most maps work if you have around 10-14 bots on the map. You will lose if you have the same enemies to teammate bots. I didn't find anyone on online servers and i mostly play single player games. You should have more friendly troops to foes if you want a good time.

Not sure how this will go as a PVP title, but as a single player WWII arena shooter it has a lot of promise It runs well, has a decent roster of weapons and the maps have some nice variety. I've heard it was a team of 3 who made this game and that's pretty solid. The price may raise some eyebrows, but this one is worth taking a look at. It's got a long way to go, but it runs decent and doesn't feel like a rip off

THis is a really fun WW2 FPS game at a really low price. I already played a couple singleplayer matches and I really enjoyed them. The gameplay is nice, and I really liked the graphics. Also, there are different game modes, so this game will be great for you wether you enjoy team deathmatch or being a lonely wolf. If you played DoD, you will probably find this game really fun. The only problem I currently see in the game is the lack of people in the multiplayer (Which is understandable because the game launched today) but I hope after some time this game will gain popularity (I will try to help with that, because the game really deserves to be noticed). Totally recommended.

really fun game, excellent controls and graphics etc. A few niggly slow down moments but sure that will be ironed out with patches etc. Lots of guns, different environments and a real wwII feel. Improvements: Sadly I found nobody online, only played against the bots. advertising/promotion? A little more music here and there to create a bit of atmosphere. more explosives!!! maybe gun emplacements you can camp in during team battles. otherwise I wish you every success, this is a very fun game and the gun sounds are amazing

There's a great potential in this WWII game.

They specifically made a version for Germans where everything is censored, the games animations are very bad, you have 2 magazines of ammo and can't refill them, picking up enemy weapons isn't an option aswell because the pickups hitbox suck. The bots run to one plays, stand still and shoot at eachother while standing still, no players there so you have to play with these terrible bots.

This game shows a lot of promise, with well designed and varied levels, good (while still historically accurate) weapon selection, and bots which are sometimes deceptively intelligent. I've only played single player modes at the time of review, but there is a lot of potential for good multiplayer gameplay here.

This game though the graphics aren't the best (can't blame him because its made by one guy), But its really detailed and histrionically accurate. I played it on multiplayer and single-player, both have good game play. I like how they put a lot of effort in the physics of the guns. It almost makes me cry of how good they are 10/10 for me!

希望可以出中文,画面还是有点不好

End of War 1945 is a long-in-early-access FPS arena shooter with a strong multiplayer focus. Gameplay consists of routine PvP arena FPS shooting on smallish maps with an array of WW2 weapons. The game failed, with a peak player count of only 12, 2 years ago. Ouch. The game is buggy and unstable, and performed a CTD on launch. This late in the early access phase (the developer indicated early access would be complete roughly 1.5 years after entering early access), that's a very bad sign. There's no players, but you can do botmatching, if you can get the game to run. Developers must learn that other players are not an acceptable substitute for content. Very few PvP only games "go viral" and succeed despite not having any content. Releasing a PvP only game with no content in Early Access almost always results in failure as players don't stick around to see if it gets any better, as is certainly the case here. Now we get onto the real issues with this game (apart from it being dead, buggy/unlaunchable and multiplayer only). Given the shoddy state of the game despite it imminently reaching the developers commitment to leave early access around the time of this review, it seems clear there's no definite path to publication/completion, so it's on the border of being in development hell. Despite this, the developer took the unethical route of selling keys to this incomplete game so it can be sold in IndieGala bundles as a complete game. That's a distinctly unethical action as it misleads gamers, and time and time again, I have seen this used as an exit strategy from developers who know they will never finish a game, so they want to extract as much as they can before abandoning it, taking the money, and running for the hills. That may or may not be the case here, as the game did get a recent, rather shallow patch. The way the game was sold as a complete game to bundle sellers, as well as the other problems, should be enough of a warning to deter anyone from buying this. If you do really want to play a WW2 multiplayer FPS... the developer has priced this unplayable wreck at [i]a higher price[/i] than you can get Battlefield V for. [quote][url=https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/reviews]Developer Response![/url][/quote] The developer has weighed in to inform everyone they didn't read the [url=https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/reviews]Developer Usage Rules[/url] for Steam "partners", or they deliberately ignored the part where Valve says: [quote]Though it may be tempting, not every review needs to be responded to. A developer response will frequently draw more attention than the original statement, potentially turning a small issue into a much larger community discussion. It's also not a good idea to use this feature to refute customer opinions. Your direct attention can be seen as validation or a defensive attempt to silence your customers.[/quote] The developer had posted an angry, ranting tirade, which I've archived for future reference, although out of respect to a developer who quite simply does not deserve respect after insulting me in an attempt to quash a valid, informative review, I won't link it here, and I've removed my somewhat lengthy response, yet it remains completely unacceptable for developers to try to silence reviews with dishonest rants. The developer now accuses me of trolling after he sold keys for his dead game to IndieGala as a cash grab. With over 5,000 reviews, I don't troll. My reviews are to inform gamers, which my review here accomplishes. It's true many reviews are negative, but in every single case I explain clearly why those games aren't good enough for gamers who deserve only the best. And when I do find a game that is truly exceptional, that should be played by people who would enjoy it, I give that game my recommendation. The developer claims I'm trolling, baiting developers to get community awards and "likes". This is absurd, why would members of the community award trolls? With the sheer number of reviews I've written to inform gamers about the thousands of games on Steam, it's preposterous to suggest my reviews aren't genuine. Accusing people of trolling is insulting and disrespectful, but as the developers previous tirade shows, respect for paying customers is not a priority. The developer simply cannot seem to grasp the truth, End of War 1945 is an objectively bad, dead game, that at its very height, reached only 12 simultaneous players... enough to fill one map. It's dead before it even had a chance to leave early access. It's not healthy to become angry when confronted with the truth, but that is what has happened here. It's absolutely unethical to sell game keys for an incomplete, dead game to game bundle sellers with full knowledge it will be sold as a complete game. Misleading gamers and acting in bad faith is the epitome of unethical behaviour, and it's absolutely taken place here. The developer does not deny that the game is in Early Access, and in fact acknowledged there are no players, and this fact is supported by SteamDB. End of War 1945 is a multiplayer game with no players. Therefore, it is dead. The developer also doesn't deny knowing this and yet persisted in selling keys to IndieGala as if this was a complete game. Sure, IndieGala are also to blame for placing those keys into game bundles, but they wouldn't do this if the developer had taken the ethical route of not selling off those keys as a greedy cash grab. The developer once more claims my review contains false information. It does not. The developer is angry about me informing gamers that End of War 1945 contains no content, which is true. Other players aren't content, and even if they were, there aren't any here. That leaves a few game assets including 9 empty maps, none of which count as compelling interactive content that gamers can progress through. Nothing in my review is "false" or misleading, and everything can be backed up with factual reference. It doesn't take more that 0.1 of an hour to determine a multiplayer game has no players, and no genuine single player mode apart from botmatching, as I mentioned in my review. Does the developer think reviewers should sit in an empty lobby for four hours before making that determination? It's immediately obvious. The developer asks people to judge this game by other reviews... some of which are harsher than my own, more neutral and factual review. There's a few participation trophy reviews, but these are not informative or accurate about the state of the game, and some contain falsehoods about the game... the same thing the developer accuses me of, but for real! One of them gives the game a thumbs up, despite complaining that there's no players in the game! How valuable is that review? Not at all. No wonder the developer wants people to use those misleading reviews. My review stands by the factual information contained therein. Angry rants and tirades from an unethical developer do nothing to change the fact that this dead game simply cannot be recommended to anyone.