View Full Version : Company Of Heros!!!!! Omg!
Travh20
09-06-2006, 04:33 PM
Listen up, and listen good! If you have ingnored every other post I have made, and I am sure many of you have, dont ignore this one!
GO OUT AND BUY COMPANY OF HEROS WHEN IT COMES OUT!!!! You must! If you like RTS games, or action games of any kind, and are a WW2 fanatic or even mildly interested, GO GET IT! I am in the BETA and I am here to tell you, it is the greatest game I have ever played on any system, and I am an avid gamer who goes back to the Atari 2600 days.
You can possibly get into the open multipayer beta still through fileplanet, or you can download the single player demo at gamespot.com (might take a while), or, you can wait until next week and just go buy it. If you buy it and dont like it I will pay you the cost of the game! Its that good! (OK, maybe I will pay you in apologys)
here is a link to a site with good info on it, check it out!
http://planetcoh.gamespy.com/
Vilepagan
09-24-2006, 01:41 PM
Well Trav, I took your advice. I downloaded one of the demos, I ran the PC analyzer to make sure my computer could handle it and everything came out fine.
Cool looking game btw, on the demo.
So, I went out and slapped down $50.00 for a copy this morning. Loaded fine. I sat down to play the tutorials and went through them just fine with one, teeny, tiny, little problem. None of the units, Axis or Allied, are visible. I can select the units, give them orders, and see the destruction I have wrought, but I can't see the people or things actually doing the shooting. Oddly enough, I can see the clouds of dust raised by passing vehicles and even the little puffs of dust made by the troops themselves as they scurry about dodging bullets.
After about 5 minutes of looking I found this on one of the gamesite forums.
http://www.forumplanet.com/planetcompanyofheroes/topic.asp?fid=19918&tid=1952583
It would seem my video card is good enough to run most of the game.
::goes off to sulk::
Evakian
09-24-2006, 03:34 PM
Owned, VP.
I find your claims specious Trav, for this to be the best game ever, much less the best RTS ever, it would have to beat Starcraft.
To say an RTS is better than Starcraft, is blasphemy (until '08. As a decade will have passed, and someone else can take it's place).
LionelHutz
09-24-2006, 09:50 PM
I can see the clouds of dust raised by passing vehicles and even the little puffs of dust made by the troops themselves as they scurry about dodging bullets.
Maybe you can pretend that your armies have the Romulan cloaking device.
Frogger
09-24-2006, 10:00 PM
I have no intererst in playing computer games. If I want to play games I will play them on my kitchen table with my family. I am more into Scrabble, Mexican Train, Boggle, and games like that. Computer games hold very little interest for me.
Travh20
09-26-2006, 02:21 PM
Well pagan, I hate to hear that. Did you try turning all your graphics sliders all the way down? what card do you have? There are some pretty inexpensive cards out now that will run the game pretty well. My older 256 meg AGP ATI X800 card died just before the retail game came out and I had to switch back to my crappy 128 meg card. To get it to run I had to turn everything all the way down. It doesnt look great and the framerate blows, but it does run. I am buying an whole new system now though. Its time for an upgrade anyway is it not?
I would like to play you. I will be the axis and roll over you with a stug assault :D
and please, starcraft was good, but saying it is better then company of heros is just ignorant. Have you even played Company of Heros Evakian?
Evakian
09-26-2006, 03:09 PM
Anyone who challenges the supremacy of StarCraft among RTS games is a blasphemer.
Travh20
09-26-2006, 03:56 PM
I challenge it right here and right now. Are you calling me an infidel??
Blibblob
09-26-2006, 11:42 PM
To say an RTS is better than Starcraft, is blasphemy (until '08. As a decade will have passed, and someone else can take it's place).
Fuck Starcraft. I still play C&C95. And C&C Red Alert. I don't play AOE and AOE2 anymore since AOE3, but I prefered those to Starcraft as well.
Travh20
09-27-2006, 05:03 PM
Science fiction games blow chuncks
Vilepagan
09-27-2006, 05:25 PM
[FONT=Helv][SIZE=2]Well pagan, I hate to hear that. Did you try turning all your graphics sliders all the way down?
No, I didn't.
what card do you have?
An ATI Radeon 9200 series.
There are some pretty inexpensive cards out now that will run the game pretty well. My older 256 meg AGP ATI X800 card died just before the retail game came out and I had to switch back to my crappy 128 meg card. To get it to run I had to turn everything all the way down. It doesnt look great and the framerate blows, but it does run. I am buying an whole new system now though. Its time for an upgrade anyway is it not?
I was looking at some cards at Best Buy when I went to return the game :), but I'll probably get one from Tiger Direct or some other internet source.
I'll likely end up dumping a couple hundred to get a halfway decent card that won't be obsolete in six months...I hope.
I would like to play you. I will be the axis and roll over you with a stug assault :D
That would be cool. Any idea if there's an Eastern Front version in the works?
Evakian
09-27-2006, 07:28 PM
Fuck Starcraft. I still play C&C95. And C&C Red Alert. I don't play AOE and AOE2 anymore since AOE3, but I prefered those to Starcraft as well.
Those are all good titles. Still, not as good as...
Science fiction games blow chuncks
Silence you little devil, go and wank to your repetitive and boring military simulations.
Besides, you like fantasy games, but not SF? You're a madman.
Blibblob
09-27-2006, 08:16 PM
Those are all good titles. Still, not as good as...
Starcraft was stupid. A game for n00bs with no sense of strategy. We wouldn't have that retarded concept of "rushing" if it wasn't for Starcraft. The game was popular. But it was crap. I put it on the same level as Final Fantasy. Easy to pick up, easy to follow, easy to play, hard(but not complicated) enough to continue. However, both of them lacked depth and real challenge. But whatever, debates about likes, dislikes and opinion in a rational sense always fail. So, U R TEH R3T4RD!
:D
Evakian
09-27-2006, 08:42 PM
Those are all good titles. Still, not as good as...
Starcraft was stupid. A game for n00bs with no sense of strategy.
I am not debating that, as I have most assuredly spent more time with Red Alert and AOE2 and appreciate their styles more than Blizzard's engine. But, I have more fond memories, and had a better experience playing StarCraft. It was a solid title, just because other games are better than it doesn't mean it is "stupid" or "crap."
I'm not one to let my critical eye get in the way of my enjoyment.
Travh20
09-28-2006, 09:08 AM
damnit, just go buy Company of Heros and you will forget all about starcraft, especially if you got a kick ass rig
WindWip
09-30-2006, 02:33 PM
Anyone who challenges the supremacy of StarCraft among RTS games is a blasphemer.
Starcraft revolutionized strategy games - the huge differences in the races, and the strategies involved surpass any games that have come out since. Warcraft and TFT may have added the new element of heros, but starcraft still has the most open ended options for strategies.
The races in starcraft have the massing & speed of the zerg / the strong set-up of the terran, though incredibly weak when moving or when in small numbers / the strength of the protoss, and the essential use of micromanagement because of the fast recharge of shields and psi storms - no other game is as balanced with anywhere near all these elements.
Blibblob
09-30-2006, 03:29 PM
Bullshit. Starcraft revolutionized nothing. Everything Starcraft did had been done before, you just never heard of those games because most of them just sucked more than Starcraft. War Wind was the first RTS with extremely noticable differences in races. I also think they did it better. You didn't need 20-some-odd patches to fix the balance issues. That game was dull though, no challenge. Then again, Starcraft didn't really require any "strategy" either. Play the zerg, and then rush. Tada, beat the computer any time. What's strategy is watching your forces get completely annialated at the hands of well placed fortifications. Sending constant swarms of troops is not really ever going to take down a fortified base, but it worked in Starcraft. Fuck any sense of strategy or tact, numbers, that's all that matters. Pick up C&C Red Alert, Mammoth Tanks supported by light infantry and a few grenaders could take a small fortified base... if done correctly. Send in the engineers and they were done for. Only worked if you actually knew how to use the strengths, and protect the weaknesses, of your troops. 50 heavy tanks could still get completely demolished when they got to the walls. I think Age of Empires did it even better. AOE2 is the what I consider to be the pinnacle of strategy game design. Don't hold Starcraft up to such high esteem because a bunch of asians still play it. It was a crap game then and even after 20 patches, it still sucks. Popularity does not equate to quality and especially not ingenuity.
Evakian
09-30-2006, 07:44 PM
Starcraft revolutionized nothing. Everything Starcraft did had been done before, you just never heard of those games because most of them just sucked more than Starcraft.
A revolution can't happen unless people show up to revolt. The style of WarCraft/StarCraft strategy games may have been done before, but were not nearly as popular. You don't hear RTS makers being influenced by "War Wind", they point to StarCraft.
We didn't secede from Britain when a drunk in Philadelphia claimed we should, it happened by colonials signing the Declaration of Independence.
To "revolutionize" anything you need a degree of popularity.
AOE2 is the what I consider to be the pinnacle of strategy game design.
I like AOE and AOE2, but when I play them I don't feel like I am playing a polished game. There are bugs, the civilizations are not poignant save a few military units or economic bonuses, and the combat styles in the game utilized by both other players (in my experience) as well as the computer follow in the steps of a WarCraft "rush the fortress" mentality. And on top of all that, the campaigns were far too short and the game, while good, needed more variety.
While that game may be a "pinnacle" of the genre, the genre itself needs a great deal of work.
WindWip
10-01-2006, 06:25 PM
Starcraft didn't really require any "strategy" either. Play the zerg, and then rush. Tada, beat the computer any time. What's strategy is watching your forces get completely annialated at the hands of well placed fortifications. Sending constant swarms of troops is not really ever going to take down a fortified base, but it worked in Starcraft. Fuck any sense of strategy or tact, numbers, that's all that matters.
hahaha, I bet you didn't win very many games online. If you try sending in constant swarms of guys, you'll lose pretty quickly. Ling rushes only work on newbs - they can be an annoyance to people and force them to stay in their base, but they don't win games against good players. 2 marines and SCVs can take on 6 lings easily, without losing a marine too if they have good micro.
A couple tanks and a bunker of marines can take on most assaults - 8 mutalisks can wreak havok on an unsecured base - one early lurker can win a game - a reaver drop can destroy all of a players miners in a couple seconds - a series of well placed mines can stall an army for awhile, or simply destroy it. Those are all strategies that use only a few units.
Pick up C&C Red Alert, Mammoth Tanks supported by light infantry and a few grenaders could take a small fortified base... if done correctly. Send in the engineers and they were done for. Only worked if you actually knew how to use the strengths, and protect the weaknesses, of your troops. 50 heavy tanks could still get completely demolished when they got to the walls. I think Age of Empires did it even better. AOE2 is the what I consider to be the pinnacle of strategy game design. Don't hold Starcraft up to such high esteem because a bunch of asians still play it. It was a crap game then and even after 20 patches, it still sucks. Popularity does not equate to quality and especially not ingenuity.
Hahaha, well I will give you Red Alert. They did a decent job on that, and it does compare to SC, but the variety of strategies in any of those games doesn't begin to compare to what you could do in SC.
Come on - your complaining about a game having patches? No game comes out completely balanced and free of bugs. Not one.
AOE was just basic rock paper scissors strategy. Got really boring really quickly - just mass out the counter to their units.