My point is that you need to compare CoH3 now to what is on the market right now as well, not to what was on the market 10 years ago. You're argumenting against someone who claimed that Relic will instantly drop CoH3 or that it is screwed up beyond repair, but most people don't claim that.
CoH3 was clearly rushed and could have used another couple of months for implementing basic features and polish that you could expect if a) the predecessor already has it and b) Relic markets so much as developing stuff for and with the community.
They cut those features because they did not want another delay. That's their fucked up management and nothing to excuse.
Yes, CoH3 will very likely improve with patches. But a bad launch state of CoH2 does not excuse that CoH3 launches with missing features and still some screwed up designs from what I saw on gameplay videos. If that weren't the case, their road map wouldn't include 'fixing the game and delivering basic features' for the first months. We know it could have used more time, Relic knows it could have used more time, no need to arguethat this were not the case.
I definetely not in the camp of people that say CoH3 were a failure, I've always written that I expect it to surpass CoH2 in quality within half a year or so, depending on how committed Relic really is. But I am tired of that mind boggling tribalism that players will defend unfinished games, just because launching broken shit has become the norm over the last decade.
You're right. Just because the second game was bad at launch, it doesn't excuse any issues the third has at launch as well. The game should ideally be polished as much as possible so we can all hold it to a higher standard.
But c'mon, he's being disengenious by suggesting that coh 2 is somehow vastly superior when we all know it wasn't. It was much more of a mess than 3 currently is.
I mean it's hard to make a discussion out of this thread since there is no point to discuss about. It's pretty much a shit thread, nothing more.
CoH3 (me speaking only from the January tech test) had very good improvements over CoH2, but Relic has to deliver in the next couple of months to really add some sorely missing features as well as overall atmosphere and gameplay improvements.
I'm pretty confident that Relic will commit to that despite them dodging DoW3 so early, because first they committed to AoE4 and second they probably don't have much of a choice financially than making CoH3 a success.
You really underestimate how many people play on 10+ year old PCs and blame everything except their hardware for low performance.
Just go to reviews of any game that does not have pixel art graphics and you'll notice the exact same comments on negative reviews, irrelevant hardware, windows 7 and rant how game is "badly optimized" or has "bad graphics".
That's assumptions on your side. As an outsider it is impossible to know which computer and game settings the players run.
I think it is reasonable to demand that a new game should be decently playable on a 5 year old machine with low-medium settings. And often enough even new hardware has performance issues, sometimes tied to specific pieces of hardware, sometimes to combinations thereof. That's all fair criticism.
Katukov if you wanna know how a garbage launch and pay2win trash for years looks like, you should have been here in 2013-16 for CoH2, but I know for a matter of fact you're some random who picked up the game for free in 2018.
CoH3's launch is infinitely better in every single regard.
But yeah, feel free to stick with dead CoH2 bro, 3v3 is somehow gonna be even more dead than before now so maybe you achieve something like 3 digit ranks now
This comparison does not make any sense. The fact that CoH2 was bad at launch does not excuse for CoH3 having the same issues at launch. It proves that Relic misplanned their development schedule and that features are missing from the game. Games are consciously or subconsciously rated by comparing them to competitors in the market. CoH2 is a competitor to CoH3. If there are features missing, that's Relic's fault with no excuse.
If your first child hits its head on the floor after birth, you don't call the second birth a success because the child hit its head on a slightly softer rubber surface and is now just half as disabled as the first child was back then.
they become valid the moment you notice that the 3d models of the tanks are reused from coh2, a game from 10 years ago. there is no possible excuse for that and it shows incredible carelessness
The question is not if the models have been reused, but if the reused models are outdated. Could they have higher polygon counts and neater corners/edges with 10 more years of graphics development? Sure. But it does not always make sense to improve the complexity of your models, especially if you're not going to see it once you're zoomed out. At this point you'll just increase power consumption on the hardware for no benefit. On zoom-in, you'll probably see some of the rougher edges, but there is good reason for the developer to prioritize performance over that last 10% visual fidelity. You personally might weight that differently and not recommend the game with good reason as well, but that's not the only way.
I would have also expected an overall larger graphics leap, but I don't find the graphics particularly bad. For me it was more the overall art design that was slightly off and did not yield this great immersion that CoH2 had, but this has to do with more than just graphics. I have to say that I did not play the release version and that the data that Relic has put out since then looked promising on the graphics side at least.
I find it quite annoying though that many just jump on one single issue and downvote the game because of that. I don't believe that the e.g. graphic issues are so large that THAT many people find it game breaking. The game is more than just graphics or a couple of models ported from CoH2. They just expected better or something different and downvote in pure defiance.
It's pretty much the same what was criticized before release: graphics, effects, sound.
These are fair points, but sometimes mixed with disappointment that it is just different. Doesn't makw them invalid though
I seen way to many these "gamer" journalists, not even understand the game, much less in Multi-player and even less to gaming community and culture.
Quite a broad topic, but I agree. I did not say that there is no bad gaming outlet, but given the circumstances (needing to review multiple games a week, follow on current games news etc) and cases of actual misconduct aside, many reviews are okay. Obviously, no gaming journalist will beat a really dedicated hardcore fan that spend the last 10 years playing CoH2. Some people just assume that every journalist should be able to sink 200+ hours into the same game while having played the predecessors for even longer, but that's straight up impossible.
My point is that the final score is very weird. You need to know that this journalist cares about similar things as you do. Reading the text gives you insight if that is actually the case or if he is complaining about things that you don't care about or praising things that will annoy you personally.
Thank you to Janne, AE, and Relic(?). Coh without CheatCommands is a waste of time.
You took a weird engagement in a game? Test it out.
You are making a map or a mod? Test it out.
Are these units good close, med, or far? Test it out.
It should have been built right into the game by now. Just another example of Relic not knowing what they have in their hands. They need to hire someone who actually plays the game outside of competitive modes.
Mostly players that want to play competitively will check how different units perform and if your observation was an outlier.
More casual players either just move on or don't play enough to really sbe able to tell apart what is weird and what is normal.
I thought most people here care about multiplayer? That part cannot be reviewed yet.
Many 'professional' games media are okay, but people care too much about scores and too little about the text and then are wondering why the games are not as expected...
It takes 8 mins to win game if you have 3VPs, what is this 8 mins? You basically have like chance to attack 2-3 times, if you failed you've lost the game. On top of the already much faster gameplay, this is an over-kill.
It's more realistically an additional 3-5 minutes at minimum, due to the game startup.
The game seems also to be less about wiping squads so there might be less occasions to screw up majorly and lose the game because of one bad move.
I'm currently willing to have a look first to see how it works out, but skeptical about the change overall. It might actually defeat the point of the emphasis on clever maneuvering, since late game might be even more about running into VPs than in CoH2. But I've made my points in the thread I opened about it already.