Company of Heroes 2 looks pretty disappointing...

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?

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

[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 :?:

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.

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.

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

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

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.

[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

[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

[QUOTE="mAArdman"]

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

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

So what was your point, then?

mAArdman

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.

[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'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.

[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

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.

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...

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.

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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

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.

This thread is 5 months old...

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 -.-

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

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. 

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

[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

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

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.