Fuck you
Why aren't you back at IGN or Destructoid? Those barely literate retards aren't going to jerk themselves off! Well, they are, but you could still help!
Easy way to gain clicks. These type of cheap and moron sites keeps popping up.
Fuck u, dumbass.
I just saw all the review score by this d u m b a s s. This moron is a nintendo kid who plays mario all day. Not surprising.
Lets not argue with cave dwellers who lives in their mom's garage. Let him be what he is.
If you genuinely believe that CoH 2 is worth 20/100, then something is seriously wrong within your brain.
This review is shit and the author is a dick. Hellpurge this fucker if you want to save this site. And get some proper editors to look over this junk, Jesus Fucking Crist.
Wont do any good. This b a s t a r d is desperate for clicks. At least that is working for them.
I have no problem with mr. Chick giving this game a 1/5. I have no problem with him making value judgements about it as a whole or even on its discrete components. What I do have a problem with is how terribly the ideas expressed in this review flow into each other, sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph. This is just bad writing, plain and simple. Allow me to illustrate:
Tom starts by stating that "Company of Heroes is a classic real time strategy game". Later on he says, "In terms of gameplay, this is Company of Heroes 1 all over again". Then he goes on to list all of the small improvements they have made and that he likes, but he doesn't believe they add much to the gameplay. He spends the rest of the review laying out his three main complaints about the game, which boil down to some of the maps having blizzard mechanics that he doesn't like, that there are 5% and 10% unit stat bonuses and they take too long to get and ruin the game balance, and that he suspects there will be too much single player payed dlc. He concludes by calling the game a "boondoggle".
So what can we surmise from this? 1) "in terms of gameplay" Company of Heroes 2 is identical to a "classic real time strategy game" minus some optional blizzard mechanics. 2) They have made a few helpful improvements to the gameplay, so as long as you don't play the blizzard maps, it's technically even better than a "classic real time strategy game"! 3) 5% and 10% bonuses may undermine Relic's ability to fine tune the game balance, how that game balance even works or how it might be thrown off is left a mystery, as is why Relic shouldn't be able to fine tune the balance through changing the bonuses themselves - but don't worry, as long as you've played some other game called Age of Empires Online, you'll know the answers to all these questions, and if you haven't then too bad because Tom couldn't be bothered to explain it himself. 4) There will probably be DLC, and if it was payed then that would suck, but he doesn't actually know 5) All of these things add up to a "boondoggle"
Also consider that Tom did not even mention one of the biggest gameplay changes from COH1 (the completely retooled and original new line of sight system that oh, I don't know, lets you do stuff like hide units behind buildings and other obstacles for ambushes and screen movement in emergent new ways), or that he completely misrepresented the snow system ("on those [snow] maps, your guys will take damage if you don't put them in houses or near fires" - this is incorrect, units will only take damage for a short period of time during periodic blizzards, and if units took damage all the time, yeah that would be pretty annoying and I'm sorry that people who read your review might think that's how it works)
Notice that at no point have I actually made a value judgement on the actual game that Tom is reviewing here, because that isn't the problem. The problem is that the conclusions he reaches do not logically stem from their arguments. Not only that, but some of his major arguments are based on objectively incorrect information.
Shit man, seems your review is a goddamn "boondoggle", HEYYYY-OOOHHH!
The reviewer- and, by extension, the site that supports him- is a joke, so yes.
Its about putting effort into the writing, upholding certain standards and making sure to inform the audience properly, all with the necessary respect that the work of others your about to review deserves.
And if you think that Tom is unbiased by the livelihood or origin of a game you should listen to his podcast or read his ariticles for games where gets access to interviews with the developers.
He is directly stating what he is "letting slide" because its indie this, or small game that.
The argument works both ways, and its ALWAYS personal with Tom Chick, dont fool yourself. He really cant tell the difference between an argument and an opinion. Because he is unable to have a discussion on common terms. Thats why he likes to interrupt people and "set the scene" for what they are about to say.
It really shouldnt be that hard for you people to see that...
Exactly that. He is a liar. Listen to 3MA where his friend Rob is stating "Tom is lying to you in EVERY game you play with him". And Tom snickers totally thinking its a positive comment.
He indulges in making passionate people miserable, as he states on his movie podcast constantly.
And still, his moronic verbose bantering matters for the metascore.
Don't hurt my lovely restage WW2 game yap yap yap.
It's very relaxing, unique, and just marvelous how the little bad guys go to hell. That's why I'm yapping about it in the forums, and complain about myself for doing so.
This is capitalism, and if I had any imagination or ambition in my brains I wouldn't have obeyed, so I wouldn't have the buck to create nice little WW2 game remakes anyway.
You better play it now, or I start callling you names and you will find yourself on the game grid, you miserably commie.
Well I sent 1 comment ,I hardly care. YOU SHOULD get over it replying to everybody to defend him like Tom Chick is your secret lover....Fuck You and get a life
Sure and I agree with quite a few complaints he has on the game. But the score is dishonest and doesn't represent the quality of the game at all.
Much of what's said here isn't indefensible, but it's also not consistent with the rating or the conclusion. A lack of novelty over a brilliant RTS with slightly inferior interface and a total of one glaringly bad decision - the changes to the commander system (hardly constitute a "not very good RTS" or warrant a 1 rather than 4 star review. As to the commanders, I suspect this owes more to efforts to accelerate game speed than DLC-greed. The latter might explain the lack of options per commander, but not the wasted command points and multiple unlocks per command point that are the core of what's wrong with the system). While they're badly-done, I wouldn't say that the game feels "incomplete". While comparing the Soviet army with the USA suggests a drastic lack of attention to detail - the Soviets have a limited, specialised unit roster while the Americans were heavily generalised; the Americans could defend well, while the Soviets really, really can't. I suspect the reviewer took one look and decided "Americans in CoH are numerous, Soviets in CoH2 are numerous, therefore Americans = Soviets", not least because it would fit the superficiality of the rest of the review.
The reward system is actually somewhat ingenious, and the fact that tasks other than 'levelling up' (which just requires grinding) are required to unlock most (minor) upgrades, and that some of these are quite specialised ("Destroy 15 X with each of 15 Y") makes them less grinding- and more planning-dependent than suggested here. The bonuses are minor and you're limited to three per game (as you are with commander unlocks). I suspect anyone with some unlocks will have an advantage over someone with just the basic abilities, but if both players have a selection to choose from they may well prove to be balanced.
I don't particularly begrudge them for excluding Theater of War from the main release - it's more than the Tales of Valour expansion provided, and will undoubtedly cost less. I haven't played far enough to tell whether the reviewer is correct that years after 1941 are missing (you progress through the year by completing missions, so it may be that 1942 unlocks automatically when you complete 1941). I do agree that the CoH 2 approach to DLC is disheartening to say the least - at present individual commanders from the pre-order are retailing for $2 each, and the "Deluxe Edition" promises unlocks for the "first dozen" commanders available after release, which gives early warning of how heavily they're going to milk this. This certainly isn't a game that feels incomplete without DLC, unless by "incomplete" you just mean "there are a lot of empty spaces in the commander roster".
"Quality" is subjective, not objective. What determines quality is different for each individual. If you asked everyone on this board, both the people defending the review and those telling Tom to kill himself, to simultaneously give you the three factors that make a game a "quality" game you'd end up with a list of dozens of options.
Yeah but still 20% you be for an utter garbage game and no one can say that of this game, except someone who doesn't like RTS which make his/her opinion irrelevant review wise....This isn't a broken game by any mean
No, I wrote it from my T-34 tank with radio.