I've played both and think its not fair to compare Company of Heroes to World in Conflict. Both RTSs' yes but thats where similarities end. World in Conflict is a very fast paced game that screams at you for teamwork. (multiplayer) A lot of options but the game has a quick learning curve. No sitting back and building up huge armies....if you don't go out and fight, the enemies helos will come to you. It's a great game and you wont regret buying it.
I enjoyed this one more than COH, love the graphics and gameplay, but just like what dberthiaum e555 said, if there is no teamwork on multiplayer than you're screwed. Have yet to try out single player campain though.
Yeah, the campaign is good stuff. Some silly character-based cut scenes here and there. But hey, Alec Baldwin is narrating the game, so Massive gets points for that
This is one intense RTS. It's not perfect, but it's got great action and it's pretty challenging. The Soviet attacks are pretty relentless in the U.S. theater -- I got a cooked a few times in Seattle/Pine Valley before I got the hang of things -- and you have to rely on reaction time and quick thinking more than actual combat strategy in many situations. But it's still awesome so far. Can't wait for the action to move to Europe....
Finished it this afternoon. The game isn't bad, but it's not going to lit the world on fire either. It's kind of like C&C3, but a bit better.
That said, on a sort of RTS scale of the year, Supreme Commander > Company of Heroes > World in Conflict > Command & Conquer 3. I think it's a little bit overhyped.
I didn't like supreme commander that much... I'm not a big fan of it when each faction has the exact same units (with different looks)... I like the variety found in Starcraft and Warcraft and such... very different units, but very balanced.
Gamespot gave it a 9.5. I've seen a lot higher, and the score is especially meaningless since they've changed their scoring method to a very generic rounded score system for retards so you only get scores in increments of .5 points. So while it got a 9.5 with the new system, it may have gotten a 9.2 with the old system like Burning Crusade, or Burning Crusade may have gotten a 9.5. But Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Soul Calibur for Dreamcast have gotten perfect 10s, unless you're just counting PC games, but then you may as well count only RTS games.
But I'll have to check it out. I'm kind of sick of RTSes. I haven't really liked an RTS since Myth 2 and that was because it focused on fighting instead of tedious building and resource management.
I didn't like supreme commander that much... I'm not a big fan of it when each faction has the exact same units (with different looks)... I like the variety found in Starcraft and Warcraft and such... very different units, but very balanced.
If you'd have played Supreme Commander more than 10 minutes, you'd see how the factions are different. They all have little ups and downs.
And I'm eagerly waiting for SC2, I'm not a supcom fanboy or anything, it's just that the game is the best RTS this year, by far.
smokedyou911, it's vista only if you want DX10, you can play on DX9 on XP.
The only differences I noticed in the races was in their T4 (experimental) stages... which was lame. That's just my opinion on the game, I'm glad that so many people like it, it's just not for me.
See, that's what noobs think about the game. "The only difference is at T4!".
If you read the forums, you'd be aware that Cybrans are overpowered on ground and Aeons have a OMGWTFBBQ air unit that wins almost every games. It's not faction diversity like Starcraft, it's more like units fit the same role in every factions, but they act differently.
Message edited by kiwik on 09-23-2007 at 06:27:25 PM
Nice debate. I think COH was just an awesome game. Half the fun in RTS games is in managing resources and trying to slowly bleed the enemy by cuttting off supply lines and controlling key points. Nothing like fighting it out to the death to control that oil refinery. So many decisions to make on the fly and losing one point could crush you. Thats why COH did it for me.
C&C3 was a joke. I did play on easy level though (big negative), but still, it was useless. I finished it in 4 days. Biggest hype ever. No RTS game has been the same for me since Red Alert 2 (even though I look back now and the graphics are horrid). I still remember 8 man MP network evenings with all my buddies. It was such fun. They havent made a good RTS game since Dune 2 (my all time favorite) and RA2.
Anyway, if people are playing this game, PLZ POST comments here. I wanna see what the consensus is before dropping hard earned $$$ on a game and regretting it (like C&C3).
If a friend of yours bought the game, he can give you a 10 days trial key for internet play (and I think you have access to the single player campaign too). I think it's a pretty good way to get a feel of the game.
I bought the game last night. It is fast like other folks have said but it is fun. I am not sure how great the lack of resource gathering is, but it makes skirmish missions different. I enjoy doing skirmish missions in C&C3 but this ones doesn't have that available. Instead, there are types of multiplayer missions like assault and domination. Hopefully the multiplayer component works better than C&C3 since that is a joke.
.