| Title | Company of Heroes 2 is a real snow job |
| Author | Tom Chick |
| Posted in | Game reviews |
| When | June 24, 2013 |
Company of Heroes is a classic real time strategy game for a reason. It brought design innovation and Hollywood kick to the genre, and it did it with a stultifyingly familiar setting..
Read the full articleIn before the first 'FAGGOT!' or 'TROLL!!' epithet. Thanks for the review.
The game's so expensive that I was going to wait for (hopefully) a Christmas sale, but now I don't think I'll bother. What a disappointment. So many disappointing games this year.
ur just mad because you can't play as america. terrible review
Why don't you discuss Trusight at all? The new fog of war system is what I was most looking forward to.
"One tank might as well be like any other tank..."
Being a veteran of World of Tanks helps out a bit here.
I do have to ask if its 1 star score is in part due to its likeness to its predecessor? How would it score to a person completely new to the series?
I've watched some Lets Play footage CoH2 and it just doesn't look like a 1 star game.
1 step forward 2 steps back seems to be an unfortunate theme of the game, and ironically the part I find the most egregious is the fact that the Russian's have a retreat button. To me it represents all the unfortunate parts of CoH and CoH 2 where the gameplay is compressed to the point where they can't effectively capture the boldest personality trait of their real world counterparts.
They've mercifully allowed you to see what veterancy means per unit but have removed other relevant unit information. Removed the hots spots of death around capture points only to replace them with troops huddled around fires during blizzards.
The commanders for me are actually a slight step up, I don't think talent trees have any place in a reasonably fast paced RTS, they're hidden information, they're a completely different UI that completely obscures your view and the way they were being used was to hold off choosing your commander until your opponent has revealed his.
Unfortunately in streamlining them they haven't been replaced with more interesting in-game strategies and have instead been replaced with grindy unlocks that are even more vague and impossible to discerne in the game.
At least they've finally allowed mirror match ups and mixed German/Russian team games.
"Not a step back" indeed, just not really a step forward either.
That's a good question, Mr. Hound. If you didn't know any better, you might enjoy Company of Heroes 2. But I think you're better off buying the original game instead, which I imagine is a lot cheaper and will run on a much wider range of computers.
As for whether it "looks like a 1 star game", are you assuming production values should make a game immune from me hating it? :) Because that's all the rating means. Check the ratings policy link at the bottom of the page for specifics.
I would actually go with COH 2 if money/system requirements are no obstacle. The graphics are slightly better, the mechanics very slightly refined (Except maybe for the generals, but honestly the originals' generals were unbalanced anyway), and most importantly, the community is more active. As someone who loved the original, I am disappointed with COH 2 from what I played during the beta, but that is entirely due to the sense of familiarity. COH 1 is the best RTS I've ever played.
Yeah, fair enough.
I'm getting flashbacks. Homeworld 2 kinda broke my heart when it came out, since it had none of the amazing originality of the first one (even though it was a great game on it's own right). Too bad the same seems to be happening to Company of Heroes.
I guess Dawn of War 2 and that will remain as the sole time that Relic didn't forget to be Relic on the sequel.
Thank you, great review!
Bums me out. The Dawn of War games + CoH had these guys on an absurd RTS hot streak. It's surprising that guys who so boldly (and successfully) went in a different direction when crafting a Dawn of War sequel would make such a huge blunder here.
Holy hate storm, incoming!
I appreciate the fearless honesty.
Your one of those fatherless sods that never got taught how to actually endure through something hard to benefit from the joy of mastering it huh?
It's like my dad always said: "No pain, no pain."
After playing much of the open beta, appreciating all the fine tuning and nuances that the game has to offer, both visually and mechanically, how on earth could you give this game a score of something akin to Kane and Lynch?
What is this, some kind of ploy for attention?
I think 1 star is pretty low Mr Chick... I'd of been ok with 3 stars, as yes its not the COH2 we wanted or deserved after so many years of waiting, but it is the COH2 we were given. I myself feel the multiplayer (at least in beta) is a solid 4 out of 5 stars, as a huge fan of the first game up till the 1.71 patch. I felt Relic did a 1 step forward 2 steps back with the Opposing Fronts expansion and they kept that pace and way of thinking all the way through DOW2 and its expansions, finally shrugging it off with COH2. Sure there aren't huge leaps of innovation, more like baby steps forward, and a small wobble backwards here and there.
Yes the game feels like Relic played it safe, but sometimes that is the better path to take. I mean look at the difference between CnC3 and CnC4, that kind of change was in no way for the betterment of that franchise. And it left a horrible taste in every CnC fan's mouth. With COH2 I feel the stress of the THQ mess in the game, the current DLC, the ridiculously priced collectors edition (for freaking skins!), and the easily seeable swath of future DLC. Little cracks in the shell of this game that I wish weren't there, but I am thankful SEGA took the risk of grabbing a PC RTS developer when it was on the table, for a game that doesn't have a huge market base to sell to.
Your gripes with Win7 being required seem strange, it is 2013, the OS is already a generation behind the current one, and I believe Win 7 has the largest install base share right now. Makes sense to me to support what the majority is running.
As for the snow dynamics of the game, I feel they are fantastic, and add a depth of strategy that I personally haven't seen in a RTS. They are also optional, as in the beta most maps had a snow free version of the same map. I will agree at times the Russians do feel like the Americans from COH1, but again is that a bad thing? I'd rather have this, than them feeling like the the Brits from Opposing Fronts (I hated the Brits playstyle). You also brought up the lack of unit information, I know in COH1 they had the unit numbers to give a general idea if unit X was good vs unit Y. But they really weren't all that accurate, the common sense text in COH2 easily wins over the numbers in COH1 in my book. Bullets shouldn't hurt a tank, I don't need numbers to tell me that.
I will agree that the units could use more descriptiveness of what they are carrying and the pros and cons of the upgrades you can give them. I also agree the new commander system is a giant leap backwards, and I miss being able to pick what I wanted unlocked in the order I preferred. And yes the addition of bulletins and commanders packs, feels unwanted.
To me this is COH 1.5 - Eastern Front Edition w/Snow!
I think I covered most of what I am thinking, I am not great at commenting or summing up my thoughts in text, but I gave it a shot. So yeah, 4 out of 5 stars for me! Hope spell check didn't fail me. :)
I amazed it took 3 hours to get to the first "ploy for attention" counter argument to this review.