Haha holy hell, amazing game.
I can't believe how cocky and lazy pier got. Too many indirect fire pieces and too much just sitting around with valuable units
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Company of Heroes 2 |OT| The Motherland is Calling - [Western Front Armies out now]
- Thread starter Dawg
- Start date
Haha holy hell, amazing game.
Druz
Member
Ehhh...
My bad, I just picked a few names out of the 48 total reviews. To be honest though, good strategy game reviewer or not, 1/5 is a pretty shitty score for a game like CoH2.
Also, I didn't really knew their site, their score kinda seemed like clickbait tbh..
Yeah don't bother adding him, because he wants to be a bit controversial and get some clicks, 1/5 would mean the game didn't even work pretty much. Just because you have a website and write some numbers doesn't make you relevant and everything you say goes. He didn't even make any effort writing it.
Lol @ using CoH 2 to drive traffic. Give me a break.
Just because you don't like the score doesn't mean the review was without merit. I agree the score was lower than I would have gone but none of his points are terribly controversial. I think the Destructoid review (again, the text not the score) was far more ridiculous.
Just because you don't like the score doesn't mean the review was without merit. I agree the score was lower than I would have gone but none of his points are terribly controversial. I think the Destructoid review (again, the text not the score) was far more ridiculous.
Sending out a review with an abysmal score will have people clicking. People who bought the game, people who's thinking of buying it and just people to see such a low score which is also a lot.
The fact that you call him a good reviewer says it all.
Can agree with that, the Destructoid is also a bit much. However Tom Chick's review is just a bad review and his score is a big knee jerk reaction. Like he's mad that the game didn't blow him away and had to let off some steam.
Now now, no need to get upset because we aren't liking his review.
When I make my thread of official game threads I am leaving this one out!
Druz
Member
CoH2 is no where near the original but Tom Chicks review was knee jerk and lazy. He can give it a 0 if he was willing to give real constructive reasons why.
Yeah I agree, CoH 2 doesn't deserve 10/10s or universal praise because it does have a whiff of expansion about it - Fair enough, the 7-8/10 seems spot-on. I'd even agree on a 6/10 if someone got hit with the performance issues bad. However rating one of the best RTS games 1/5 because he felt like throwing a fit is pathetic. It's still the same fantastic gameplay, it's still one of the best looking RTS games on the market and the game works fine outside of the performance issues but 1/5, no. That is just attention whoring and knee-jerk reactions, which is apparent when actually reading his so-called review. Looks like a paper handed in by a 16 year old.
Excessive grinding, repetitive (rather than iterative) and poor use of the setting seem like pretty constructive criticisms to me. If he had written the exact same review and given it a 3 no one would be bemoaning it as lazy.
Pasting this again re: use of setting. Also, EZnark are you actually playing this game?
"Yes, there is snow. Snow is apparently the fundamental gameplay fact of the Eastern Front. The snow doesnt always happen. It only happens on certain maps. On those maps, your guys will take damage if you dont put them in houses or near fires. You know the micromanagement you save by not having to actively capture flags? So much for that. Sometimes the snow slows down your dudes unless you manually path them along a road. Sometimes theres a blizzard and you cant see very far. Sometimes a tank falls through the ice on a frozen river. Theres a reason most micromanagement intensive RTSs like Company of Heroes dont bother with variable weather. Its the same reason Command & Conquer stopped having random lightning strikes destroying your units."
Sure, snow doesn't always happen. Snow falls only on winter maps. Go figure. Northern hemisphere seasonality and history aside, the design decision signals that when fighting in winter you should expect snow. Sometimes you might take your chances, and choose to strike hard and fast, hoping to chase your opponent out of territory before a blizzard arrives. You can snuff as many fire pits as possible to ensure he falls back when the storm hits. Sometimes you plan for the blizzard phase with a slow start, and hope to capitalize on your unprepared opponent. Suddenly halftracks, underutilized in COH, have their place, carting flamethrower crews around to burn Germans out of their winter garrisons. Point is, the mechanic encourages us to make meaningful choices that strawman arguments won't acknowledge.
Same for "Sometimes a tank falls through the ice on a frozen river." Sure, sometimes you choose to accept the risk of crossing a frozen river's cracked ice with a 60-ton tank in a blizzard blitzkrieg, and sometimes you choose to target the same ice with artillery (or preemptively set explosive charges) to deliberately drop that tank, but that's far from "tanks sometimes fall through ice," no matter how determined you are to use the language of randomness when dismissing it as irrelevant.
And is the revision to capture point area actually about reducing micro? Don't you need to direct a unit to the area whether the destination is the flagpole itself or the area around it? And how does this new rule set not encourage competent players to micro even more -- laying mines, seeking strong cover, patching up halftracks, placing mgs, etc -- as they cap?
And since the storm predictably puts emphasis on all-weather units, isn't it freeing up player RAM to focus on effective units during that period while the rest sit inside, around fires, or retreat? We all know reviews are unavoidably subjective and anything else is dishonesty. While I appreciate the winter map mechanics, I'd personally prefer fewer storms per match. But there's a big difference between dressing up the fact that you aren't having fun, and examining and explaining why.
It's not like I left out that review on purpose btw. I just picked a few familiar review sites, the rest can be viewed from the metacritic link. Many OT's do this.
There's a bunch of 80%+ reviews I left out for example, I just didn't want to post a carbon copy of the metacritic page.
There's a bunch of 80%+ reviews I left out for example, I just didn't want to post a carbon copy of the metacritic page.
Yeah but mostly just skirmishes right now so I have no opinion on the use of setting yet. I wasn't agreeing with his criticisms, just saying they seemed constructive and not terribly "lazy." I think he does sort of struggle to say exactly why this game is less appealing to him than Wargame (which he loved and which I imagine colors his review here).
I guess my point in raising what I didn't think would be a controversial opinion (that QT3's review should be listed) is that it's rare as fuck that any reviewer tackles the vast majority of PC strategy games that come out, so his reviews are valuable. If you think his opinions are always terrible, that's useful too. Consistency is more useful than 10/10 would play again!
As I've said in most of my posts I am really enjoying the game (I generally dislike when developers change a good thing just to change it...though after Dawn of War II I wouldn't have minded Relic going a bit more radical here since I trust them to do so well). My only real complaint is that I kind of expected it to look better.
The Frontline Network World Championships Day 3 cast will be starting in about 40 mins
http://www.twitch.tv/thefrontlinenetwork
http://www.twitch.tv/thefrontlinenetwork
"It also feels like a petty game. You have slots to equip bonuses that you unlock by grinding away. And I mean grinding. Serious grinding. You level up to unlock the bonus. But you also have to fill an achievement bar to enable it. You’ll play entire games just so you can get specific kills of specific units with specific weapons. Eventually, you’ll kill 80 half-tracks with a panzerfaust or whatever. For your time, you’ll be able to slot a 5% faster reloading time or a 10% range bonus. The sort of stuff that Relic used to carefully balance is now in the hands of players willing to grind away at bonuses. Not since Age of Empires Online has a supposedly serious RTS been so thoroughly undermined by pointless grinding. To the catasser go the spoils!"
This supposes that the design intent is to encourage players to engage in stupid tasks that they aren't actually interested in for the purpose of unlocking strictly superior perks. And it supposes that players will deliberately grind to get those perks. I'd argue that the design attempts to address the fact that people played COH for countless hours. The thinking here is not that you will attempt to "kill 80 half-tracks with a panzerfaust" as though it were a homework assignment, but rather that when you inevitably roast your 80th half-track, the game will acknowledge that fact and reward you for it. And since the game tracks so many such milestones, players will continue to gain access to new perks years later, long after launch. For players -- those who actually play the game vs those who are content to conduct thought experiments on what that might be like in the longterm -- bulletin access is a bonus that happens over time, we don't grind for the goal. What's petty and hyperbolic is not explaining that players are only able to equip a maximum of three bulletin bonuses at a time, and that that creates an opportunity cost: Sure you can slot in a 5% reload speed on AT unit, but every perk you choose comes at the cost of the hundreds of others that you cannot equip at the same time. Nor are bonuses unlocked after hundreds of hours of play always strictly superior to those that are available in the first week. Anyhow let's bother to examine the person that this writer summons into being for the sake of his hyperbole, the catasser with the spoils as he says. If your opponent has had a thousand hours of play time, the one thing you won't need to worry about is his 5% modifier. You probably shouldn't be playing that person in the first place. And if you have comparable experience, in that case both of you must choose which three bulletins you're bringing to battle, face the opportunity cost of the hundreds you have to neglect in their place, consider which units you'll likely build and how they'll benefit, be concerned that you're revealing too much about your intended strat due to an obvious concentration of bulletins of a specific type...
This supposes that the design intent is to encourage players to engage in stupid tasks that they aren't actually interested in for the purpose of unlocking strictly superior perks. And it supposes that players will deliberately grind to get those perks. I'd argue that the design attempts to address the fact that people played COH for countless hours. The thinking here is not that you will attempt to "kill 80 half-tracks with a panzerfaust" as though it were a homework assignment, but rather that when you inevitably roast your 80th half-track, the game will acknowledge that fact and reward you for it. And since the game tracks so many such milestones, players will continue to gain access to new perks years later, long after launch. For players -- those who actually play the game vs those who are content to conduct thought experiments on what that might be like in the longterm -- bulletin access is a bonus that happens over time, we don't grind for the goal. What's petty and hyperbolic is not explaining that players are only able to equip a maximum of three bulletin bonuses at a time, and that that creates an opportunity cost: Sure you can slot in a 5% reload speed on AT unit, but every perk you choose comes at the cost of the hundreds of others that you cannot equip at the same time. Nor are bonuses unlocked after hundreds of hours of play always strictly superior to those that are available in the first week. Anyhow let's bother to examine the person that this writer summons into being for the sake of his hyperbole, the catasser with the spoils as he says. If your opponent has had a thousand hours of play time, the one thing you won't need to worry about is his 5% modifier. You probably shouldn't be playing that person in the first place. And if you have comparable experience, in that case both of you must choose which three bulletins you're bringing to battle, face the opportunity cost of the hundreds you have to neglect in their place, consider which units you'll likely build and how they'll benefit, be concerned that you're revealing too much about your intended strat due to an obvious concentration of bulletins of a specific type...
Awesome. I've was a huge fan of watching COH shoutcasts and these tournaments are even more exciting now that twitch.tv type broadcasting is around.
What specifically did you expect to look better?
For the most part, I think the game looks great. The only things I'm not thrilled with visually are the vehicle and infantry skins. They look a bit too "cartoonish" to me.(especially with the team color and insignia on the vehicles) Hopefully Relic allows mods to be enabled soon. Some are already working on stuff that looks promising.
Grenadiers:
Relic
vs
Mod
Winter Relic
vs
Mod
Aimstrong is a really solid player, he was a monster in CoH1 however marcus is also a great player.
In the other bracket Symbiosis and Sepha are two great players. Sepha being famous in the CoH1 beta for developing the four rifleman strat.
Bracket Link
Stream Link
In the other bracket Symbiosis and Sepha are two great players. Sepha being famous in the CoH1 beta for developing the four rifleman strat.
Bracket Link
Stream Link
MaritalWheat
Member
Thanks for the heads up, tuning in.
Peter Qumsieh, one of the balance developers is casting on the stream right now
www.twitch.tv/thefrontlinenetwork
www.twitch.tv/thefrontlinenetwork
Ah that's great news, can't wait to see what they come up with in the future. On the YT stream recording I saw earlier, they mentioned the whiteboard with ideas and plans to support the game that goes well into like 2015.
MaritalWheat
Member
Lol, the two casting the Sepha match right now are completely different styles...super languid chill guy and excitable dude talking 100 mph. Pretty hilarious.
A few community members got invited to Relic just before launch to have a tour of the studio, have a talk with the devs and just hang out. Unfortunately all of them had to sign NDAs but they said there's a lot of content (free and paid) planned for a very long time.
They did reveal the observer mode, which is going to be great!
MaritalWheat
Member
What's observer mode? Allowing spectators in match or something?
Yea, so you can do live casting of a match.
We also know a ToW addon is in the works, because it's going out for free to people who pre-ordered or bought the Collector's Edition (can't remember which), and obviously ToW has room to go through to the end of the war with its year system, meaning at least 3 or 4 addons.
exactly that
TaroYamada
Member
Just noticed the font apertures in the logo banner in the original post aren't transparent so it looks like this when using the dark theme:
It's not a big deal since it's readable but I thought I'd just point it out since we're on the topic of pedants.
Damn you, dark theme!
I'll fix it tomorrow
Damn you, dark theme!
I'll fix it tomorrow
Fixed it for ye'
EDIT 2: Removed - Eh it sucks.
I think
EDIT: GAWD, first I spot some extra white spots, then I do a black background to find them, then I forget to remove that. I hate my life.
MaritalWheat
Member
You'll love it. Lots of the small things you always wanted in the original are here, and implemented intelligently (climbing over stuff, vehicle reverse). For me, every change that's been gameplay related has been an improvement. Visuals and audio are amped up, even more intense than the original. The UI will throw you off at first, but you'll quickly grow used to it.
TaroYamada
Member
I don't completely understand the outrage surrounding the UI, it's like less than 5% larger than the first games. The most confounding complaint I've seen around though is that the campaign is too hollywood, when folks say that I wonder if they remember the first game's campaign very well.
To be quite honest I think the game is harmed by not being yearly in the sense that people have decided the original game is something it's not because it came out so long ago, so when they see cinematics in their gritty & realistic WWII sim they get their panties in a bunch. One of the first game's chief influences was Saving Private Ryan and having played through CoH's campaign within the past six months, the cut scenes are pretty cornbally in a number of areas.
To be quite honest I think the game is harmed by not being yearly in the sense that people have decided the original game is something it's not because it came out so long ago, so when they see cinematics in their gritty & realistic WWII sim they get their panties in a bunch. One of the first game's chief influences was Saving Private Ryan and having played through CoH's campaign within the past six months, the cut scenes are pretty cornbally in a number of areas.
Coolio! Thanks, Sethos
Eh, don't bother using it. It was a rush-job and now that I see it in the white, I can see where I erased some of the text to remove the white. I'm an amateur when tired
better do it yourself.Thanks!
Eh, don't bother using it. It was a rush-job and now that I see it in the white, I can see where I erased some of the text to remove the white. I'm an amateur when tired
Hah, I'm not on my Photoshop pc so I don't have the original atm. I'm also too lazy/tired (1:30 am) to boot up my second pc
Welp, it'll be for tomorrow morning
MaritalWheat
Member
For the UI, I think it's more of a case that it's so different. It definitely came as a shock to me at first, and seemed very offensive; having played for a while now though, I've come to appreciate it. I actually really like all the info you get about your squads, and the constant updates about where you need to pay attention. My only real complaint anymore is about the middle portion of the bottom part of the UI, just seems like misused space. Also, I don't like the font
As for the cinematics, are people arguing they're a step back? Personally, I just didn't like them in CoH and simply still don't like them!
Regardless, neither of those points really impact the quality of the play experience.