Company of Heroes 2 looks pretty disappointing...

  • 63 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by JangoWuzHere (17720 posts) -

Nothing they have shown about this game looks all that exciting to me. I haven't seen anything that feels fresh and new in Company of Heroes 2. Besides the change in environment, the visuals and animations look like they are from the original Company of Heroes. The ground textures look muddy, the animations are choppy, the explosions aren't incredibly detailed, etc. It just seems lazy and sad that they couldn't massively improve the visuals 6 years later. I honestly think the graphics look kinda bad, DX11 isn't going to fix everything up and make it look modern. The gameplay looks okay. I'm sure it will be fine, but again nothing really all that cool or innovative. It still looks like the original game with a few cool new features here and there. Also...why haven't we seen any single player campaign stuff yet?

Company of Heroes 2 looks more like a big expansion pack instead of a sequel to a 6 year old game. I think everyone had very high expectations for a Company of Heroes sequel. However, I feel like they aren't meeting any of my expectations or blowing me away like they should. Creative Assembly makes new total war games every 2 years, and they all look AMAZING. I don't understand why Relic can't do the same thing.

What do you guys think? Does this seem like a worthy sequel to you?

#2 Posted by FelipeInside (26580 posts) -
You really can't do much more in RTS that hasn't been done before. Company of Heroes 1 brought a lot of new things to the table, mainly the well done cover system. Maybe CoH2 just improves and optimizes things. Why do people think a sequel always has to bring new things and revolutionize everything? Look at Monkey Island 2, one of the best sequels of all time and it plays exactly like part 1.
#3 Posted by Sharpie125 (3904 posts) -

I completely agree, but I'm still excited for it. If they only fix up or tweak misteps from the first game, I'll still consider it worth it. The original game still holds up incredibly well to this day, and if they're focusing on nifty environmental features and other extra bits but leaving the core gameplay untouched, I don't have a problem with that. It's only if they take backwards steps ("they did this better in the first game," for instance) then I'll start to get nervous. I'm not a huge fan of Saints Row 3 for that very reason. They gutted what was good and stripped it down far too much, and I'm really hoping that's not the case with COH.

But the price point at $60 might be a bit of a gamble. If they somewhat manage to capture the sheer brutality and weight of the ostfront, that'll be enough for me to support Relic.

#4 Posted by Lach0121 (10022 posts) -

One thing I am hopeful for over the previous game (& expansions) is better optimization. You could have a beast rig, and if you set the camera down to the horizon to see the whole map (if its not a tiny map with nothing going on) then you will see some chugging.

Even if the graphics are only a tiny step above the previous game. (it looked good)

#5 Posted by JangoWuzHere (17720 posts) -

You really can't do much more in RTS that hasn't been done before. Company of Heroes 1 brought a lot of new things to the table, mainly the well done cover system. Maybe CoH2 just improves and optimizes things. Why do people think a sequel always has to bring new things and revolutionize everything? Look at Monkey Island 2, one of the best sequels of all time and it plays exactly like part 1.FelipeInside

"You really can't do much more in RTS that hasn't been done before."

That's a bunch of crap. The RTS genre will always have new ideas and innovations.

"Monkey Island 2, one of the best sequels of all time and it plays exactly like part 1."

Monkey Island 2 came out only a year after the first Monkey Island. Company of Heroes 2 is coming out 7 years later. Also this comparison doesn't make much sense considering that we are talking about modern games and RTS games.

#6 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
Have to agree that it looks like an expansion. I'm looking forward to it nonetheless though, really liked the CoH games a damn bunch.
#7 Posted by with_teeth26 (6324 posts) -

All I've heard about the campaign is that it will span the entire war and have missions in both summer and winter. The campaign was probably the most enjoyable part of CoH 1 for me so I'm really anxious/excited to learn more about it.

The lack of a visual upgrade is a bit of a let down but the original game still looks better than most RTS games so its not exactly a deal breaaker. The snow/lighting effects are significantly improved and the snow deformation is kinda neat but the textures and shadows leave much to be desired.

I don't doubt that it will be at least competent, but I don't think it will be the breakthrough CoH 1 was. A bit surprising given Relic's predisposition towards really changing things around with sequels, just look at DoW 2. However given the direction they took that franchise in, it might be for the best that they aren't changing too much.

#8 Posted by wis3boi (32070 posts) -

I'm glad they aren't changing a lot. I enjoy DoW2, for example, but the change of gameplay style from DoW1 (which plays like CoH) was underwhelming. I'm happy they are sticking to their guns. The simple small things like accumulating snow, breaking ice, keeping soldiers warm, stealing tanks, etc are enough changes that can radically alter how battles play out. I don't need them to reinvent the wheel.

#9 Posted by mAArdman (1612 posts) -

Look at Monkey Island 2, one of the best sequels of all time and it plays exactly like part 1.FelipeInside


Irrelevant. Not the same series, not the same genre, not the same situation. The sequel to Monkey Island came out a year after the original. Here we're talking about roughly seven years between the first and second game.

#10 Posted by Ragingbear505 (819 posts) -

Looks a little gimmicky and not all that innovative. I mean breaking ice was in Men of War and having to watch your soldier's temperature just seems like pointless micromanagement. Beyond that its more of the same it looks like, in 7 years I'd expect a lot more.

#11 Posted by klusps (10385 posts) -

I'm still excited for it but I wish the graphics and animations are slight better.

#12 Posted by 04dcarraher (20713 posts) -

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]You really can't do much more in RTS that hasn't been done before. Company of Heroes 1 brought a lot of new things to the table, mainly the well done cover system. Maybe CoH2 just improves and optimizes things. Why do people think a sequel always has to bring new things and revolutionize everything? Look at Monkey Island 2, one of the best sequels of all time and it plays exactly like part 1.JangoWuzHere

"You really can't do much more in RTS that hasn't been done before."

That's a bunch of crap. The RTS genre will always have new ideas and innovations.

Looks ar C&C 4 :?:

#13 Posted by Elann2008 (33028 posts) -
Company of Heroes was already innovative in its time. Like others have said, I don't think they will bring anything significantly new to the table. It'll be like Starcraft series where they don't change much of the formula, if any at all.
#14 Posted by James161324 (8315 posts) -

The problem with the RTS is once you got it, you can't change much, just like the FPS. Look at total war, basically its the same game since RTW, just more polished.

#15 Posted by wis3boi (32070 posts) -

The problem with the RTS is once you got it, you can't change much, just like the FPS. Look at total war, basically its the same game since RTW, just more polished.

James161324

Indeed, and CoH and TW are both damn fine games from the start. It's all about the little things they can tweak that snowball into bigger changes down the line.

#16 Posted by FelipeInside (26580 posts) -

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] Look at Monkey Island 2, one of the best sequels of all time and it plays exactly like part 1.mAArdman



Irrelevant. Not the same series, not the same genre, not the same situation. The sequel to Monkey Island came out a year after the original. Here we're talking about roughly seven years between the first and second game.

Guess you both totally missed my point.
#17 Posted by Postal_Guy (2643 posts) -

I dont even want em to change it to much, look what happened to CNC 4. They could just take CoH and slap on commie skins and it would still be awesome

#18 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

Pray that Sega has different priorities than THQ, otherwise you'll be hit by two f2p Warhammer 40k strategies relatively close to each other.

Or maybe you'd like that?

Anyway COH2 was supposed to be Relic's last retail RTS.

#19 Posted by mAArdman (1612 posts) -

[QUOTE="mAArdman"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] Look at Monkey Island 2, one of the best sequels of all time and it plays exactly like part 1.FelipeInside



Irrelevant. Not the same series, not the same genre, not the same situation. The sequel to Monkey Island came out a year after the original. Here we're talking about roughly seven years between the first and second game.

Guess you both totally missed my point.



So what was your point, then?

#20 Posted by FelipeInside (26580 posts) -

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="mAArdman"]

Irrelevant. Not the same series, not the same genre, not the same situation. The sequel to Monkey Island came out a year after the original. Here we're talking about roughly seven years between the first and second game.

mAArdman

Guess you both totally missed my point.



So what was your point, then?

Bloody hell, do people even read complete posts these days? It's right there on the post you quoted me on.
#21 Posted by mAArdman (1612 posts) -

[QUOTE="mAArdman"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] Guess you both totally missed my point.FelipeInside



So what was your point, then?

Bloody hell, do people even read complete posts these days? It's right there on the post you quoted me on.



I read your complete post, don't worry, but you said I missed your point. You might want to articulate it a bit better instead of lashing out, mister ranger.

#22 Posted by FelipeInside (26580 posts) -

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="mAArdman"]

So what was your point, then?

mAArdman

Bloody hell, do people even read complete posts these days? It's right there on the post you quoted me on.



I read your complete post, don't worry, but you said I missed your point. You might want to articulate it a bit better instead of lashing out, mister ranger.

I'm not lashing out, it might seem that way in text form.

I said that a sequel doesn't need to bring new things to the table or revolutionize part 1 to be good. Sometimes change can make a sequel worse. Look at StarCraft 2... new graphics engine and a few tweaks and improvements here and there but basically it's the same game as SC1, yet it plays good, fluid and got great reviews.

I don't mind developers bringing in new things, but new doesn't always mean better.

I used the Monkey Island as an example, regardless of era or time between parts. Monkey Island 2 could have come out 5 years after part 1 and still be good.

#23 Posted by mAArdman (1612 posts) -

[QUOTE="mAArdman"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] Bloody hell, do people even read complete posts these days? It's right there on the post you quoted me on.FelipeInside



I read your complete post, don't worry, but you said I missed your point. You might want to articulate it a bit better instead of lashing out, mister ranger.

I'm not lashing out, it might seem that way in text form.

I said that a sequel doesn't need to bring new things to the table or revolutionize part 1 to be good. Sometimes change can make a sequel worse. Look at StarCraft 2... new graphics engine and a few tweaks and improvements here and there but basically it's the same game as SC1, yet it plays good, fluid and got great reviews.

I don't mind developers bringing in new things, but new doesn't always mean better.

I used the Monkey Island as an example, regardless of era or time between parts. Monkey Island 2 could have come out 5 years after part 1 and still be good.



Right, well I agree with every thing you said, except the Monkey Island example you provided which I feel doesn't properly reflect the situation that is being discussed here.
In CoH's case there still is some room left for improvement, and the during the time it took for them to complete the sequel they could either have polished the hell out of the game, or implemented new features. Not that they should have added them just for the sake of it.
Maybe the game is very well designed and there's nothing to worry about.
In Monkey Island's case, it was done much quicker and at that time I'm not sure they could have improved or polished the game even if they wanted to; 5 years later it might have been a better game, or worse, we don't know.
Anyway, we'll see how the game turns out.

#24 Posted by James161324 (8315 posts) -

[QUOTE="James161324"]

The problem with the RTS is once you got it, you can't change much, just like the FPS. Look at total war, basically its the same game since RTW, just more polished.

wis3boi

Indeed, and CoH and TW are both damn fine games from the start. It's all about the little things they can tweak that snowball into bigger changes down the line.

Exactly you can't reinvent the wheel, when you already have the wheel

#25 Posted by Starshine_M2A2 (4104 posts) -

It's one of few AAA games thats till take place in WWII and fewer still in the RTS genre.

I think 'if it's not broke, don't fix it' applies here.

#26 Posted by Nikalai_88 (1755 posts) -

I always hated how by the end of the game there was barely any cover. The most important strategic feature is removed for explosions. They could have done something different, like having the environment change from warfare. Some of it becomes worse, some of it turns into ruble that stops tank movement etc...

#27 Posted by JangoWuzHere (17720 posts) -

Company of Heroes was already innovative in its time. Like others have said, I don't think they will bring anything significantly new to the table. It'll be like Starcraft series where they don't change much of the formula, if any at all. Elann2008

Okay, maybe the gameplay is fine and doesn't need much changing. However, I do find the dated visuals inexcusable. Company of Heroes was a technical masterpiece when it came out. I find it very weird that they decided to use the same graphics and animations from a 7 year old game for the sequel.Starcraft 1 and 2 are kinda similar in terms of gameplay, but they both look dramatically different in terms of visuals and art.

#28 Posted by wis3boi (32070 posts) -

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]Company of Heroes was already innovative in its time. Like others have said, I don't think they will bring anything significantly new to the table. It'll be like Starcraft series where they don't change much of the formula, if any at all. JangoWuzHere

Okay, maybe the gameplay is fine and doesn't need much changing. However, I do find the dated visuals inexcusable. Company of Heroes was a technical masterpiece when it came out. I find it very weird that they decided to use the same graphics and animations from a 7 year old game for the sequel.Starcraft 1 and 2 are kinda similar in terms of gameplay, but they both look dramatically different in terms of visuals and art.

Perhaps, but I still think it's sufficient for an RTS. I just hope it runs better than the first game. 4v4 matches can near slideshows. Anyhow, to this day I'm still amazed that CoH can pull off the detail that it has in game of its type 6+ years ago

0085D58B8A95AE25F53A862FCF47E5687945DC31

A1FD9D2FAE0595D65663543CA426FFF3B0B3134A

8697A9BB2C783B7229BE7BB30B70A372D540D163

#29 Posted by with_teeth26 (6324 posts) -

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]Company of Heroes was already innovative in its time. Like others have said, I don't think they will bring anything significantly new to the table. It'll be like Starcraft series where they don't change much of the formula, if any at all. wis3boi

Okay, maybe the gameplay is fine and doesn't need much changing. However, I do find the dated visuals inexcusable. Company of Heroes was a technical masterpiece when it came out. I find it very weird that they decided to use the same graphics and animations from a 7 year old game for the sequel.Starcraft 1 and 2 are kinda similar in terms of gameplay, but they both look dramatically different in terms of visuals and art.

Perhaps, but I still think it's sufficient for an RTS. I just hope it runs better than the first game. 4v4 matches can near slideshows. Anyhow, to this day I'm still amazed that CoH can pull off the detail that it has in game of its type 6+ years ago

The way CoH and DoW 2's multiplayer netcode works is that if one person has a sh*tty PC and has a tanking frame rate, everyone in the game will lag. 4v4 matches see the most action but also have the highest probability that someone will have a crappy computer and will lag the game as a result. Sadly CoH 2 will use the same netcode and will suffer from the same problem.

CoH was crazy ahead of its time for how good it looked in 2006, still holds up quite well today.

#30 Posted by kozzy1234 (35373 posts) -

Ill have to wait till I play the game to be honest.

If its more COH then thats fine by me, the first was great.

#31 Posted by MrYaotubo (2798 posts) -

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]You really can't do much more in RTS that hasn't been done before. Company of Heroes 1 brought a lot of new things to the table, mainly the well done cover system. Maybe CoH2 just improves and optimizes things. Why do people think a sequel always has to bring new things and revolutionize everything? Look at Monkey Island 2, one of the best sequels of all time and it plays exactly like part 1.JangoWuzHere

"You really can't do much more in RTS that hasn't been done before."

That's a bunch of crap. The RTS genre will always have new ideas and innovations.

"Monkey Island 2, one of the best sequels of all time and it plays exactly like part 1."

Monkey Island 2 came out only a year after the first Monkey Island. Company of Heroes 2 is coming out 7 years later. Also this comparison doesn't make much sense considering that we are talking about modern games and RTS games.

Well,it took Starcraft 2 much longer to come out than CoH 2 and it still generally plays the same as the original did,and still got critically acclaimed and a great seller,a great game regardless of being similar to the original.
#32 Posted by cain006 (8625 posts) -

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]Company of Heroes was already innovative in its time. Like others have said, I don't think they will bring anything significantly new to the table. It'll be like Starcraft series where they don't change much of the formula, if any at all. JangoWuzHere

Okay, maybe the gameplay is fine and doesn't need much changing. However, I do find the dated visuals inexcusable. Company of Heroes was a technical masterpiece when it came out. I find it very weird that they decided to use the same graphics and animations from a 7 year old game for the sequel.Starcraft 1 and 2 are kinda similar in terms of gameplay, but they both look dramatically different in terms of visuals and art.

My guess is because of the situation THQ was in they had a small budget.

#33 Posted by PernicioEnigma (5498 posts) -
I just hope they make it a bit more realistic. It would be a dream come true if this game turned out to be MoW with better graphics and more polish, but I doubt that.
#34 Posted by PernicioEnigma (5498 posts) -

It's one of few AAA games thats till take place in WWII and fewer still in the RTS genre.

I think 'if it's not broke, don't fix it' applies here.

Starshine_M2A2
Nobodies saying it was broken and should be fixed, we're just saying it would be nice if the graphics were more improved over the 6 year old original, not matter how good it looked for its time, hardware has still advanced a whole lot since then.
#35 Posted by 04dcarraher (20713 posts) -

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]Company of Heroes was already innovative in its time. Like others have said, I don't think they will bring anything significantly new to the table. It'll be like Starcraft series where they don't change much of the formula, if any at all. wis3boi

Okay, maybe the gameplay is fine and doesn't need much changing. However, I do find the dated visuals inexcusable. Company of Heroes was a technical masterpiece when it came out. I find it very weird that they decided to use the same graphics and animations from a 7 year old game for the sequel.Starcraft 1 and 2 are kinda similar in terms of gameplay, but they both look dramatically different in terms of visuals and art.

0085D58B8A95AE25F53A862FCF47E5687945DC31

A1FD9D2FAE0595D65663543CA426FFF3B0B3134A

8697A9BB2C783B7229BE7BB30B70A372D540D163

Is it a bad thing to know all those armored vehicles in those screens :?

#36 Posted by iorya (26 posts) -

Its looks more like a mod rather than a proper sequel. THQ hit these guys really bad, but now they are at SEGA so things might get better.

#37 Posted by Cloud567kar (2656 posts) -

Its a sequeal to an RTS that was already really good. Why change what people already like? Look at SC2, it plays just like SC1, with some tweaks here and there.

#38 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18430 posts) -
I actually got to play COH2 last year for a few hours. I played a single player campaign mission and a skirmish mission. It had a few bugs which they were working on but basically if you enjoyed COH you'll love COH2. The explosions have a lot more detail, fire looks incredible. I found the winter effects actually pretty annoying. I understand why and it adds more tactical depth. A blizzard will happen and your infantry will die if they aren't in a building or if they don't have a camp fire setup.. makes sense. Not sure if it was just the build I was playing or if they will have a timer you can change, but blizzards were happening to frequently which was making infantry combat pretty difficult. Also not sure I like choosing what resources you get from each point you capture. I loved having to fight extra hard for a fuel point because thats what I needed. Now you have to think about selecting which one.. each new feature adds to the strategy which all makes sense. The game is amazing and a day 1 buy for me. The version I played was an early version which had known issues. I still managed to try out the who making tanks sink in ice. I attacked, had to pull back because of overwhelming enemy forces. We pulled back across the river. I had setup an AT gun, sniper and MG to cover my retreat. The enemy advanced with several tanks and infantry. I thought I was doomed as they had a heavy tank. Thankfully the heavy tank was too heavy for the ice and after a couple rounds it went through. I held the line and cut them down on the ice before pushing forward and claiming victory. The game might not look like a lot has changed but when you start playing you see all the finer details. Oh and arty is just as terrifying as it always was. tldr version: You like COH? You'll love COH2.
#39 Posted by SKaREO (3161 posts) -

Ill have to wait till I play the game to be honest.

If its more COH then thats fine by me, the first was great.

kozzy1234
It's in open Beta right now on Steam, check it out. I'm gonna try it out and get an impression on it.
#40 Posted by MirkoS77 (8603 posts) -

If Company of Heroes 2 is nearly as good as 1, I don't care how similar it is.  I LOVED 1, and they don't need to reinvent the wheel.  The weather mechanic has me kind of worried, but from what others have said it looks like it won't become a nuisance.  I just want a new campaign using the same game.  This looks to fulfill that need perfectly.

#41 Posted by pawq4 (448 posts) -

This thread is 5 months old...

#42 Posted by Shatilov (4120 posts) -
:s
#43 Posted by alan_carter (1404 posts) -

Why change when it's already good, that example mentioned of monkey island 2 explains it all.

 

People just want to complain, if they introduce some new features they say they'll break the game, if they stay true to the original they complain for not innovating -.-

#44 Posted by SKaREO (3161 posts) -
I took a look at the in-game tutorial videos and the interface, I'm going to play a few bot matches today, then try my luck online. My first impression is really good, though. I'm going to look into your concerns with the gameplay to see if I can find the flaws, but at the moment Sega has provided a really smooth Beta for absolutely free, and that is a huge plus in my books since I don't have to wait for a pirated release to see if I like it. I'm probably going to pre purchase this game unless the multiplayer shows serious flaws, this has a lot of potential to be a great PC exclusive, maybe even GOTY.
#45 Posted by Sweetbackhair (1926 posts) -
I took a look at the in-game tutorial videos and the interface, I'm going to play a few bot matches today, then try my luck online. My first impression is really good, though. I'm going to look into your concerns with the gameplay to see if I can find the flaws, but at the moment Sega has provided a really smooth Beta for absolutely free, and that is a huge plus in my books since I don't have to wait for a pirated release to see if I like it. I'm probably going to pre purchase this game unless the multiplayer shows serious flaws, this has a lot of potential to be a great PC exclusive, maybe even GOTY.SKaREO
The multiplayer in my opinion seems really good (I'm not good at the game, but I do enjoy playing it).
#46 Posted by with_teeth26 (6324 posts) -

I took a look at the in-game tutorial videos and the interface, I'm going to play a few bot matches today, then try my luck online. My first impression is really good, though. I'm going to look into your concerns with the gameplay to see if I can find the flaws, but at the moment Sega has provided a really smooth Beta for absolutely free, and that is a huge plus in my books since I don't have to wait for a pirated release to see if I like it. I'm probably going to pre purchase this game unless the multiplayer shows serious flaws, this has a lot of potential to be a great PC exclusive, maybe even GOTY.SKaREO

you know a game is good when even Skareo likes it. I was expecting a flood of negativity. 

My only real concern is with the balance, after playing both the closed beta and the open one, German armor is too easy to win with. The Soviets just aren't equipped to deal with it. 

me and a friend spent like 30 hours in the closed beta, when we played as the Germans we won 3/4 of the time, when we played as the Soviets we won maybe 1/4 of the time. I haven't spent enough time in the open beta to tell if they changed things much, but I played as the Germans for 2 games and won both of them because my team built a bunch of Panthers that the Soviets couldn't deal with. 

#47 Posted by kozzy1234 (35373 posts) -

Fun game so far, going to have to pick this up when it drops :D

#48 Posted by wis3boi (32070 posts) -

[QUOTE="SKaREO"]I took a look at the in-game tutorial videos and the interface, I'm going to play a few bot matches today, then try my luck online. My first impression is really good, though. I'm going to look into your concerns with the gameplay to see if I can find the flaws, but at the moment Sega has provided a really smooth Beta for absolutely free, and that is a huge plus in my books since I don't have to wait for a pirated release to see if I like it. I'm probably going to pre purchase this game unless the multiplayer shows serious flaws, this has a lot of potential to be a great PC exclusive, maybe even GOTY.with_teeth26

you know a game is good when even Skareo likes it. I was expecting a flood of negativity. 

My only real concern is with the balance, after playing both the closed beta and the open one, German armor is too easy to win with. The Soviets just aren't equipped to deal with it. 

me and a friend spent like 30 hours in the closed beta, when we played as the Germans we won 3/4 of the time, when we played as the Soviets we won maybe 1/4 of the time. I haven't spent enough time in the open beta to tell if they changed things much, but I played as the Germans for 2 games and won both of them because my team built a bunch of Panthers that the Soviets couldn't deal with. 

they only way to stop a panther/panzer spam is to get the soviet commander with the IS-2 tank, which is a pain in the ass to build

#49 Posted by MacBoomStick (1822 posts) -

Anyone else get terrible performance? I ran the performance test on lowest graphics settings and my max fps was 57. lol.

#50 Posted by Lach0121 (10022 posts) -

Anyone else get terrible performance? I ran the performance test on lowest graphics settings and my max fps was 57. lol.

MacBoomStick

Lets hope some optimization is gonna happen soon, and some good drivers for it too.