Company of Heroes (Gamespot Review)

[Ronin Storm]

Gamespot have done their Company of Heroes review.

You can find a link below:

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/companyofheroes/review.html?page=1

Alternatively, their summary reads:

While intimidating, this visceral real-time strategy reenactment of World War II's Western Front showcases just how far RTS game design and presentation quality have come.

The Good: Amazing, cutting-edge graphics and remarkable audio bring the battlefield to life; complex, inventive gameplay gives you a ton of interesting things to do; fully interactive, destructible maps add depth and variety; slick online player-matching system makes it easy to get into a multiplayer match.

The Bad: Long loading times; only two different factions.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Nice, thanks for the heads-up RS. If a healthy number of THN members purchase the game, and actively participate in games, then Ill follow suit.

 

[pHatBambi]

Well I've already organised the first event for THN so if you get it you have people to play against.

 

[BiG D]

hah, "only two different factions." They must of really been grasping at straws there...

 

[Ronin Storm]

In a market where more is allegedly better, a tight focus in a game can be perceived as a disadvantage.

 

[BiG D]

Of course. But it sounds to me like something you would say after seeing the game on paper, but before actually playing it. :s Based on my gameplay experience, there is no way that is an issue...

 

[Ronin Storm]

Well, you play Combat Mission dontcha? In a sense, two sides is old hat for you.

 

[thatbloke]

heh... how do you make more than 2 factions in a WORLD WAR 2-based game???

 

[Ronin Storm]

Some might stretch the game to Germans and Japanese versus British, Americans and Russians, in a Axis & Allies stylee. Others might add the Italians on the Axis side.

But if one did that would these other factions actually be interesting in their own right? I'm not so sure they would actually be significantly different and remain relatively balanced.

 

[pHatBambi]

Well if you had to you could have the Germans, Japanese, American, British and Russian forces.

Although the only really viable option would be the Russians. It opens up a whole new area of the war and the Russian fighting styles would lend themselves to the Tech tree system. That might be one for an expansion pack? Who knows.

*Edit* Damn you Ronin for getting in first.

 

[BiG D]

Actually, speaking of Combat Mission, Barbarossa to Berlin did have all those "factions" you just listed. The main difference was unit cost and experience, for the most part. But that was less about choosing your favourite faction, and more about historical accuracy of the battles.

 

[PsiSoldier]

IMO Axis Allies and Soviet are all you need, other factions just come under those main groups.

 

[Gibsonfire]

''Only two different factions''

In some ways I do agree with this and in some ways I dont. I would have liked to have maybe seen the British/Canadian forces as well as the storyline is set in the Normandy campaign, however Since there were only two factions it meant that relic could fully concentrate on them and make them different. I have played previous WW2 rts games and sometimes it seems that all the allied and all the axis armies play exactly the same except look different. Like Bambi said it would be good to see some factions/fronts added in expansion packs.

 

[pHatBambi]

I think what they could have done for the single player campaign would have been to add special units like the British commandos for example.

These could have been mission specific and would only be playable for that mission (much like the imperial guard in some of the DOW missions) that way there would still be a multinational presence. That would only be a wish though and most of the battles are ones that American forces fought.

Ho-hum it's still bloody awesome.

 

[Nanor]

Don't fret, I'm betting they're will be plenty of expansion packs!

I was hoping for something along the lines of controllable airfields.. Working like control points, but if you control this you can orchestrate strafing/bombing runs or paratrooping..

 

[Ronin Storm]

I was hoping for something along the lines of controllable airfields..

Take a look at Joint Task Force. Not WWII, but it incorporates some similar techniques.

 

[PsiSoldier]

Expansion packs are an excuse to make you pay more for what they could have put in the original.

Airfield control points would be great.

Showing how petty Relic is, on the back of the Jeep, the number plate says 345ux5 or something along those lines, EA Sux ? I'll try dig up a link to the image.

 

[HotStuff]

I'm not a big fan of RTS, I only tend to only play the exceptional ones like C&C Generals. This game is clearly a cut above the rest, I have pre-ordered it from play.com.

The fact that there is only 2 factions makes the game simply to get the hang of and reduces the number of counter defensive and attacking permutations to be considered when developing your own tactics. One of the things that annoyed me about C&C generals and the 3 factions was I could never get to grips with the GLA weapons and how to counteract them. I always went USA and ended up losing every game I played against GLA.

I am glad, for the moment there are only 2 factions.

 

[PsiSoldier]

Sorry, but C&C Generals was a flop.
It's a well established fact in the RTS community

 

[elDiablo]

Sorry, but C&C:G:Zero Hour was amazingly fun to play MP. Friends and I play it all the time. It's a good game, and if anyone says anything like "But EA made, and it sucks, and it's not like the other games" I'll hit them. It's fun