I'm boycotting CoH because...

C

Chams

Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
533
There are too many WWII games and they need to die. :mad:

NO.MORE.WAR.GAMES!

Feel free to flame/agree. :p
 
There would be minimal difference in the game if it took place in Korea. Boycotting a game because of its setting is kind of dumb, look at the gameplay instead.
 
Chams said:
NO.MORE.WAR.GAMES!
Click to expand...

What are they supposed to do with realtime strategy? Harvest pollen from flowers and when two units meet they play texas holdum and the who loses has to leave the battelfield?
 
ok, so i was pretty sick of WWII games, but i havent played a WWII RTS...ever....and when i played the demo it completely blew me away, seriously if you havent at least tried the game and are boycoting it it'll be your loss...
 
ScYcS said:
What are they supposed to do with realtime strategy? Harvest pollen from flowers and when two units meet they play texas holdum and the who loses has to leave the battelfield?
Click to expand...

to say no more "war" games makes no sense, he has got to mean no more ww2 / US-European Military based games. What game developers CAN do is use that seldomly used thing that humans have called an imagination and come up with something NEW, something ORIGINAL, there are an infinite number of possibilities... publishers are just too afraid to fund games that are different, and a larger number of gamers actually like the WW2 rehash.. it sure is sad, maybe things will change in the future
 
Techx said:
to say no more "war" games makes no sense, he has got to mean no more ww2 / US-European Military based games. What game developers CAN do is use that seldomly used thing that humans have called an imagination and come up with something NEW, something ORIGINAL, there are an infinite number of possibilities... publishers are just too afraid to fund games that are different, and a larger number of gamers actually like the WW2 rehash.. it sure is sad, maybe things will change in the future
Click to expand...


As for the discussion about the WW2 setting.....i disagree with you about the infinite number of possibilities. Let's take into consideration for a moment that we're strictly talking about wargames here. There have been attempts to recreate wargames in different settings and really only 2 (!!) settings seem viable. The two settings viable is near future or ww2. Why is this?

Because it's not fun to have a wargame set in WorldWar One for example. It was trench warfare. It's static battlefields. That's no fun.
Same as it's hard to recreate a even earlier period of time. Imagine something like a setting in the 1850'ies... The standard was to move in closed cohorts. No camouflage, no individual movements. That might work for a strategy game, but not for any FPS for example.

Let's go into modern times. Laser guided missiles, smart weapons. The individual is reduced to the high tech items he has available to him. Once you launch the laser guided missile, it usually hits it's target. Not much fun.

Back to WW2: It was the dawn of modern weaponry (well, technically WW1 was but it wasn't used efficiently enough there to make a big difference in the outcome of the war). However, the individual still had to operate the machinery to manually aim and avoid being aimed at. This is a "working" setting for a computer game.

Sure, there are tons of fictional battle situations like a post WW3 setup or something similar. WildWest would work to an extend.

However, it still stands that for a historical game setting, the WW2 era is just almost perfect to re-create due to it's limited and yet still advanced weaponry.
 
Besdies WWII games appeal to all sorts of people ...
ie at first the germans were winning and then the allies.

One thing I wonder is why they dont have alot of WWII games with japan and the us; mostly its the germans and the british/us/russians
 
The review on gamespot had alot of good things to say about this game, emphasizing that it stood out amoungst almost all other WWII games. I cant wait for this game, myself.
 
as aweful as it sounds, I'm still waiting for the SimConcentrationcamp :doh:

:D

I agree, they are beating the topic to death (although I Guess that goes with the WW2 theme quite well).
 
Chams said:
There are too many WWII games and they need to die. :mad:

NO.MORE.WAR.GAMES!

Feel free to flame/agree. :p
Click to expand...
Heh, at first I thought you meant "City of Heroes", and I was all "WTF?"
 
I realize CoH is a RTS, but on the topic of FPS....

Why not an afghanistan/russian conflict ? It would be great if you could be on either side , would make for an amazing FPS IMHO , different scenery (desert/moutains) , very different weapons on either side , sneaky tactics on the side of taliban , special units "CIA agents" with US weapons...

I think that's why I love Battlefield vietnam so much , the weapons differ greatly (more than in other FPS games), scenery is different, maps aren't always made 100% equal but mimic more real world possibilities

and WW1 could be awesome FPS too , flying like red baron dropping bombs by hand into trenches, basic artillery, trench warfare could be fun too

Why not a middle ages RTS ? crossbows, bows, swords, castles, catapults, cavalry instead of jeeps, archers

or a pirate game! different scenarios of defending an island , ship vs. ship , you can shoot cannons , guns or try to board the other ship if you get close enough ...

it can all be done, only if developers would want to. There is no need to milk WW2 anymore IMHO, I love WW2 games, but lately there has been too many of them
 
Well I have to say I hate RTS games but I purchased CoH yesterday and I was up to 2 last night playing it and this is probably one of the best games I've ever played. I mean it's up there with GoW and HL:2 and at 1920x1200 it's also one of the best looking games I've ever seen and absolutely the best explosions I've seen in a game. So if they develop anymore WW2 themed games that are anywhere near this calibur then you can sign my ass up. :D
 
I love war games

but im still waiting for a good Revolutionary, Civil or WWI FPS

i still think one of the coolest mods i've played was The Battlegrounds for HL/HL2

WWII is getting old, i agree, but i'd also like to see a game from Germany's point of view. Where you play as a german solider or the german side. No Nazi/SS/Deathcamp type stuff, just regular german army,luftwaffe (airforce), and kriegsmarine (navy). now that would be awesome.
 
Chams said:
There are too many WWII games and they need to die. :mad:

NO.MORE.WAR.GAMES!

Feel free to flame/agree. :p
Click to expand...

I assume you haven't played it then...
 
After playing through some of the demo, I REALLY like the game. totaly worth the download.

If you've played WarHammer: Dawn of War. it plays like that, only better.

Explosions are FUN! :D
 
I'm russian myself, 9.5 years in there while it was still USSR. A chechen vs. russian BF2 style setup would be very unique, same with afghan vs. russian. All of you should look up the August Storm Soviet operation that drove the Japanese from Manchuria durring WW2 as the US dropped its first nuclear bomb, and was cited by Japanese historians as a bigger reason Japan surrendered than the nuclear bombs themselves, because it had cut Japan off from all of its metal production, refining facilities and stockpiles. As well as the Soviet elimination of the Japanese bases on on the Chinese / Korean side that was to play as the stage for the Normandy-style allied US-Soviet invasion of the Japanese mainland incase Japan didnt surrender after the first bomb, then Manchuria, then the second bomb.

Operation wise this would be something neat to re-play. But the main question here is how would ppl in the US regard themselves in these games and if there would be any interest since there is no 'american' side to either of those except the canceled land invasion.

In either case I would hope someone other than EA picks up these projects, because I abhort the way they executed BF2.
 
This is an RTS man. Not another FPS cookie cutter style game.

This game is actually fun. I just played the demo.
 
Iria,

You ever play red orchestra? IMO a really good fps shooter with germans and russians (kind of rare to have it strictly those 2).

The game play is basically team based combat where you pick your classes based on availability ie sniper/machine gunner/assult rifle/rifle/semi auto rifle/engineer etc ...
And they way its set up is that you can only pick from what was typical for that period or engagement ie if your an assulting for there are like 5 assult rifles 5 rifles 2 engineers 1 squad leader 2 machines gunners etc ... or if on defense theres more rifles less assult ...

They also try to use realistic game play;

I enjoyed americas army alot and this game is alot of fun for me also ... I never got into BF2 (just seemed too 'fakey' and I never; like the infinite spawning ... although red orchestrea has alot of spawning but it wears out your reinforcements so if your team dies too much then you lose).

I should state that Red orchestra is a multiplayer FPS; not much of a single player version (I think you can play vs bots thou).
 
I dont care how fun it is. It's a WWII game therefore I'm not touching it. :mad:
 
they wanted me to pay more for Red Orchestra... I play HL2 and I know what you're talking about... but Red Orchestra is basicaly a mod that they wanted to sell for $$, and I didnt want to spend money on a mod.
 
ya I think it started out as a mod ie now it is its own game etc ...

ya I dont know ... 25$ for it; I dont regret it
 
Its made by Relic, its based on DOW, it looks fantastic, you can upgrade just about anything realistically, and most of all... it was made by Relic.

I have yet to be impressed by a Relic game.

Relic is quickly becoming like Blizzard used to be, imo.
 
Dulak said:
You ever play red orchestra?...

They also try to use realistic game play;
Click to expand...

Um... Played the demo, and not so much on that statement.

The game was actually hyper-unrealistic as far as I could tell. One of the most prominent things was that you ran about a bazillion miles per hour. In any game not involving superheroes if you can run faster than in counterstrike the game isn't realistic. Its also not realistic in any game (including counterstrike) if you can shoot on the run and hit anything more than about 20 "feet" away.
 
Chams said:
I dont care how fun it is. It's a WWII game therefore I'm not touching it. :mad:
Click to expand...

Ha, your loss. You would quickly reverse that stance if you actually played the game.
 
Chams said:
I dont care how fun it is. It's a WWII game therefore I'm not touching it. :mad:
Click to expand...

You speak like a little child. Try the game before you say no. Company of Heroes is one of the best RTS games I have ever played. You want to exclude it just because it is a World War Two game, then you are an idiot.
 
FighterAce124 said:
You speak like a little child. Try the game before you say no. Company of Heroes is one of the best RTS games I have ever played. You want to exclude it just because it is a World War Two game, then you are an idiot.
Click to expand...

Agree. Besides starcraft, this is the most fun I have had with an RTS.
 
i really really want to play a wwii fps from the axis perspective. the thing that has gotten old for me is always the same perspective.
 
Since you're boycotting WW2 games why not boycott fantasy games and Modern shooter games? There are just as many - if not less WW2 games as there are modern combat and fantasy games. Get over it.
 
I am not saying CoH is a good game or a bad game because I have not played it. It does looks interesting.

However, I am getting tired of WWII. One of the best FPS games I have played ever, IMHO, was Vietcong. It had an excellent feel. The guns felt balanced, but powerful in their own way. Everything felt belanced and RIGHT. It just plain worked.

The multiplayer was amazing. One of the nice features was that certain classes, like the sniper, were limited to 1 or 2 people, and it was first-come, first-serve, not ranks that are based off of how many hours you put into the game. People were known by their screenname, not their rank. It was nice to be able to recognize someone who you had played with and against.

The single played campaign also was not bad. The Quick Fights were a nice feature. Also, the game was in a unique setting, and it really felt different and fun to be fighting in dense jungle rather than in forests or in war-torn cities. Overall, and amazing game.

The expansion pack was nice, and it worked with the original on multiplayer. I played the original, though, because it ran slightly faster.

Too bad Vietcong 2 sucked...

If someone were to replicate feel of the original Vietcong exactly on the crysis engine, I would dish over $50 or maybe even $60 in a heartbeat. Maybe a mod for crysis...

Anyways, the point is that different settings CAN work, they just require patience, imagination and dedication.
 
House Julii said:
I am not saying CoH is a good game or a bad game because I have not played it. It does looks interesting.

However, I am getting tired of WWII.
........
Anyways, the point is that different settings CAN work, they just require patience, imagination and dedication.
Click to expand...

But its not what the game is about, its how it was portrayed. Gamespot touched on this very specifically. Its one of the best RTS games in a very long time, and one of the best WWII games of all time. From what I've read, its incredible to play. I'm picking it up tomorrow for myself. If you're getting tired of WWII games, then so be it. But if a game comes out, give it a chance to try it yourself (or at least read into alot of reviews). You JUST might be blown away (like so many here have been after playing CoH).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top