An Unpredictable Day With A Company Of Heroes
- Thread starter robwright
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Amazon Classifieds Hot Deals Paypal
DPolkowski
Distinguished
- Mar 9, 2006
- 51
- 0
- 18,630
I have an inquiry into Nvidia about this. Can you describe the details of your experience with the game?
PartyChief
Distinguished
- Dec 13, 2005
- 74
- 0
- 18,630
Looks amazing, graphics are great, play control is good ... didnt hold my attention for that long. I have only played Beta ...
sledgehammer70
Distinguished
- Oct 11, 2005
- 47
- 0
- 18,530
CoH is by far Relic's chuck of Gold in the huge gaming industry, and by far one of the most intense games on the market, the game draws you in with the sounds and game play the entire time from start to finish. The only let down if any is that the game lacks the support of mirror matches….
http://www.cohtournaments.com - "had to do it " lol
http://www.cohtournaments.com - "had to do it " lol
This game seems structually flawed - what is the point? Build your base, buy units?
Warfare at this level (tactical) is about achieving your objective with the resources at hand - you don't get to "design your force". This not WWII gaming - it is pure fantasy.
Arrgh! Were are the old Talonsoft wargames!
Warfare at this level (tactical) is about achieving your objective with the resources at hand - you don't get to "design your force". This not WWII gaming - it is pure fantasy.
Arrgh! Were are the old Talonsoft wargames!
Aaron McKenna
Distinguished
- Dec 31, 2007
- 953
- 0
- 18,980
“It is not a wargame. It is a totally different genre of game... accept it for what it is.”
Hmmm, the game set in a historical period, the players manipulate military units, and the action involves the application of organized violence by a state to achieve objectives (a fundamental definition of warfare), and yet it is not a war game … right. :roll:
I do accept that the game is succeeding brilliantly at not being a very good war game. But still does not address why the designers would create a game like this and put it in the context of WWII; only to not go to the logical next step of either using historical scenarios, or at least plausible scenarios.
MxM, you are correct, and that is, in my opinion, a fundamental failure of RTS games when inserted into a historical context.
Hmmm, the game set in a historical period, the players manipulate military units, and the action involves the application of organized violence by a state to achieve objectives (a fundamental definition of warfare), and yet it is not a war game … right. :roll:
I do accept that the game is succeeding brilliantly at not being a very good war game. But still does not address why the designers would create a game like this and put it in the context of WWII; only to not go to the logical next step of either using historical scenarios, or at least plausible scenarios.
MxM, you are correct, and that is, in my opinion, a fundamental failure of RTS games when inserted into a historical context.
Aaron McKenna
Distinguished
- Dec 31, 2007
- 953
- 0
- 18,980
When I say wargame, I'm talking about the real deal – hex and all. Games like Company of Heroes are RTS's. Yes they have a historical background, but you have to have some frame for the game – essentially however, it doesn't matter if it's WW2, modern or futuristic, it's the mechanics that work, and the WW2 setting is for flavour.
Not every WW2 game must be related to Combat Mission or have the approval of Tiller. Mainstream consumers want arcade games with the twist, and that's why it's developed. This idea of full realism being a MUST if you dare to make a game about WW2, or any other conflict, is simply stupid. Hardcore wargaming is a niche area because consumers don't want that in the whole – Company of Heroes would not be a popular game if it were a grog wargame. I enjoy grog wargames – I used to write for The Wargamer, in times gone by – but it's stupid to assert that because a game is based on WW2 it should be realistic.
RTS base building games like CoH are not realistic. They're fun, with a contextual setting. If that doesn't float your boat then don't buy it… personally I bought a big hard drive so that I can fit CM and CoH, among others, on the same hard drive; same as Operation Flashpoint sits beside Call of Duty and so on…
Not every WW2 game must be related to Combat Mission or have the approval of Tiller. Mainstream consumers want arcade games with the twist, and that's why it's developed. This idea of full realism being a MUST if you dare to make a game about WW2, or any other conflict, is simply stupid. Hardcore wargaming is a niche area because consumers don't want that in the whole – Company of Heroes would not be a popular game if it were a grog wargame. I enjoy grog wargames – I used to write for The Wargamer, in times gone by – but it's stupid to assert that because a game is based on WW2 it should be realistic.
RTS base building games like CoH are not realistic. They're fun, with a contextual setting. If that doesn't float your boat then don't buy it… personally I bought a big hard drive so that I can fit CM and CoH, among others, on the same hard drive; same as Operation Flashpoint sits beside Call of Duty and so on…
"This idea of full realism being a MUST if you dare to make a game about WW2, or any other conflict, is simply stupid. Hardcore wargaming is a niche area because consumers don't want that in the whole …"
I find your assertions ludicrous. You imply that consumers don’t want realism. I think that consumers have no problem with realism; they just don’t want tedious, difficult play game mechanics that are also slow paced. Technology and good game design should take care of this. Further, just because you wrote for some rag does not mean that your definition of historical wargame, let alone a good one, are correct. There are plenty of wargames that are not about translating hexes and other artifacts of old board games into computer code. Chess being the classic example, or the table top miniature rules by H.G. Wells. I totally accept the concept of a beer and pretzels game in the same vein that not all music must be serious to be well made and enjoyable.
I believe that if you are going to treat a period with respect, you should attempt to remain somewhat faithful to the subject. Otherwise the game could be grand theft auto XXX with the various gangs set in WWII uniforms. What is the point in that? It is a form of mental laziness. In the past, realism often meant sacrificing game playability at some level. Now, computers can build “realism” into the game by transparently taking care of the minute details, and speeding up play that made “traditional” board games such a chore. A game can have reasonably realistic concepts, simple play mechanics, AND be very enjoyable. These things are not mutually exclusive. Various air to air combat simulations, which can be both fun to play and very realistic are cases in point.
I have no problem not buying this game. I find it very sad that manufacturers focus so much on graphics, and so little on the substance of their product. Manufactures have largely failed to create and market games that are both enjoyable to play, and not having silly contrivances built into the mechanics. The assumption is that if the graphics are state of the art, all else follows. If that does not work, add some sex. It reflects mainstream media focus on form over function/substance.
I find your assertions ludicrous. You imply that consumers don’t want realism. I think that consumers have no problem with realism; they just don’t want tedious, difficult play game mechanics that are also slow paced. Technology and good game design should take care of this. Further, just because you wrote for some rag does not mean that your definition of historical wargame, let alone a good one, are correct. There are plenty of wargames that are not about translating hexes and other artifacts of old board games into computer code. Chess being the classic example, or the table top miniature rules by H.G. Wells. I totally accept the concept of a beer and pretzels game in the same vein that not all music must be serious to be well made and enjoyable.
I believe that if you are going to treat a period with respect, you should attempt to remain somewhat faithful to the subject. Otherwise the game could be grand theft auto XXX with the various gangs set in WWII uniforms. What is the point in that? It is a form of mental laziness. In the past, realism often meant sacrificing game playability at some level. Now, computers can build “realism” into the game by transparently taking care of the minute details, and speeding up play that made “traditional” board games such a chore. A game can have reasonably realistic concepts, simple play mechanics, AND be very enjoyable. These things are not mutually exclusive. Various air to air combat simulations, which can be both fun to play and very realistic are cases in point.
I have no problem not buying this game. I find it very sad that manufacturers focus so much on graphics, and so little on the substance of their product. Manufactures have largely failed to create and market games that are both enjoyable to play, and not having silly contrivances built into the mechanics. The assumption is that if the graphics are state of the art, all else follows. If that does not work, add some sex. It reflects mainstream media focus on form over function/substance.
Aaron McKenna
Distinguished
- Dec 31, 2007
- 953
- 0
- 18,980
Publishers release games that sell. It's not a case of either or either, but the fact of the matter is that CoH will shift a lot more copies than, say, Combat Mission. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't make realistic games, I'm saying that to argue that we shouldn't make arcadey type games is a tad silly.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram