Reviews

[Imperial Dane]

Was that in the singleplayer campaign or in multiplayer you pulled that off if i may ask ? And i have to say, that must be one of the most dull strategies to pull off in a singleplayer game nonetheless, and if it is all that you do, then sure it is going to be boring, but then, it is your own fault Though to be honest, i have a hard time seeing mortars and off map artillery only being a viable winning strategy.

But i cannot imagine that working in multiplayer, especially not against any competent opponent..

If the above is not a description of arcade game then I don't know what is. In contrast to this ammo is limited in MOW, I am in the fifth mission of Soviet side and I am yet to encounter mortars. Every thing seems vulnerable. You have to take care of every soldier you have and every weapon you. Nothing can be built up like a production line. You have limited ammo

.

How about one where you take direct control of your units And to be honest, that sounds more like Commandos than any RTS game, if anything, more an RTT.

If you cannot see the difference between the two, then obviously Men of War is not the game for you. You should try Age of Empires, you will enjoy that more than COH.

How would you know ? Since you seem unable to tell the difference between CoH and Age of Empires, two very different games ,yet both good, and never said Men of War was bad Yet you seem so determined to say that CoH is trash while Men of war is pure gold, and the way you seem to talk down to me.. Well if Men of War is so great, should it not be obvious to me and you should not have to act all arrogant towards me ?

[Evilsausage]

Played alot rated CoH. And yes its much more of an arcade game then MoW is. When it comes to realism MoW is light years ahead.
But CoH is still alot more realistic then the average RTS game out there and arcade isnt always a bad thing.'

I like both CoH and MoW in different ways. Even tho CoH could need some fixes *cough* british faction *cough*.


As for the whole mortar/arty spam thing Donjas think hes King of.
That just sux in CoH and is only good fighting noobs on maps that are pretty much made for that.
If you really think your so good try to play some rated 1vs1 and not fighting noobs/computers on BS maps.

[donjas]

I was talking about single player but if you are so interested in multiplayer then they are plenty of games that focus better on multiplayer. Warhammer is a good example. And Dawn of War.

I can't take a game seriously where you can produce human beings off a production line. A world where ammunation is unlimited. And that is what COH is.

You talked about my artillery usage, but why shouldn't I when it gets me easy victories.
I think we two belong in two differerent gaming universes. You belong to the camp of which of which warcraft and Age Of Empires are the prime examples, I of which Myth 2 Soulblighter is the prime example.

We both have our tastes and each of us is right on our own way.

[donjas]

I was talking about single player but if you are so interested in multiplayer then they are plenty of games that focus better on multiplayer. Warhammer is a good example. And Dawn of War.

I can't take a game seriously where you can produce human beings off a production line. A world where ammunition is unlimited. And that is what COH is.

You talked about my artillery usage, but why shouldn't I when it gets me easy victories.
I think we two belong in two different gaming universes. You belong to the camp of which of which warcraft and Age Of Empires are the prime examples, I of which Myth 2 Soulblighter is the prime example.

We both have our tastes and each of us is right on our own way.

[Evilsausage]

I think you belong in an own universe all together.

Learn to read, i play both MoW and CoH. Thats why i said both games are good in thier own way.
You know people can like several games even if they are different.


"I can't take a game seriously where you can produce human beings off a production line"

Dawn of war dose the exact same thing. And DoW is bassicly a more simple version of CoH. Its even made by the same company.


"You talked about my artillery usage, but why shouldn't I when it gets me easy victories."

Yes like you said, you play single player. CoH is not good in SP and never has been and if you only play it in single player your arguments mean nothing.

Seriously your free to think and talk shit about any game out there, but atleast have some ******* VALID ARGUMENTS!



Case closed.

[donjas]

Originally Posted by Evilsausage

Seriously your free to think and talk shit about any game out there, but atleast have some ******* VALID ARGUMENTS!



Case closed.

I think you are talking nonsense. When did I say in my original post that I was talking about multiplayer. You assumed erroneously.

There are a multitude of good multiplayer games out there, many of them much better than COH because they make no false pretenses of being single player experiences.

Dawn of War and Warhammer are much better than COH on any day, because their main focus is never on single player, and they work fine online without having a shred of realism between the two of them.

If you cannot see that, you are living in cuckoo land.

Case Reopened

[Evilsausage]

Originally Posted by donjas

I think you are talking nonsense. When did I say in my original post that I was talking about multiplayer. You assumed erroneously.

There are a multitude of good multiplayer games out there, many of them much better than COH because they make no false pretenses of being single player experiences.

Dawn of War and Warhammer are much better than COH on any day, because their main focus is never on single player, and they work fine online without having a shred of realism between the two of them.

If you cannot see that, you are living in cuckoo land.

Case Reopened

Okey so heres the deal...

1. You can't judge a game by only its singleplayer(like you did). And CoH has never made "false pretenses of being single player experiences."

2. You can't compare CoHs multiplayer to other games in MP if you havent even played CoH in MP.

3. Warhammer? What game is that? Warhammer online? Warhammer mark of chaos? Warhammer 40k? or warhammer dark omen?

4. You can't really talk smack about CoH and love DoW. Since they are basicallly the same game. Its like saying Counterstrike source is a Shitty game...but original counterstrike is 10 times better!

[donjas]

Originally Posted by Evilsausage

Okey so heres the deal...

1. You can't judge a game by only its singleplayer(like you did). And CoH has never made "false pretenses of being single player experiences."

2. You can't compare CoHs multiplayer to other games in MP if you havent even played CoH in MP.

3. Warhammer? What game is that? Warhammer online? Warhammer mark of chaos? Warhammer 40k? or warhammer dark omen?

4. You can't really talk smack about CoH and love DoW. Since they are basicallly the same game. Its like saying Counterstrike source is a Shitty game...but original counterstrike is 10 times better!

Answers-
1. Any game which has a large single player campaign, justifies being judged on how good that campaign is. COH qualifies on that count and fails in my book.
2. I never said I have never played COH online, only rarely. I just think the fun factor is more in games like Dawn of War and Warhammer 40k where the design focus is clearly on the multiplayer component of the game.
3. Warhammer 40k.
4. If that logic was there, we would never need a new improved game, because they are all basically the same, from the time the first Warcraft game came to the rts scene and maybe earlier.

I can appreciate your point of view though. I have been playing computer games for nearly 13 years now. I used to like arcade games like COH before, was totally bowled over by their flashy graphics, but not any more.

I need content, I need strategic options in my games so that I can put my mind to work.

[Imperial Dane]

I need content, I need strategic options in my games so that I can put my mind to work.

It doesn't sound like that in the way you post and the way you talk to people.

I never said I have never played COH online, only rarely. I just think the fun factor is more in games like Dawn of War and Warhammer 40k where the design focus is clearly on the multiplayer component of the game

.

And it isn't in CoH ? Because it sounds like you never bothered to play mutliplayer alot, or what ? Can the two never be seperate experiences ?

[Evilsausage]

"I never said I have never played COH online, only rarely."

Well true but you judged it only by its single player. Why? Cuz it has a campaign?

I mean seriously take Starcraft for example. It had a really complex campaign for its time. But starcraft isnt exactly known for that now is it?


"4. If that logic was there, we would never need a new improved game, because they are all basically the same, from the time the first Warcraft game came to the rts scene and maybe earlier."

That was not the point i was trying to make. Theres a hugh different between that and a game that is made almost exactly as CoH.

And you don't even have any real arguments on why CoH is bad. Except that it isnt good in single player. Which we already know!


"I need content, I need strategic options in my games so that I can put my mind to work."

Good because in answering threads you don't really seam to "put your mind to work".