Company of Heroes - Am I missing something?

[skanky]

Can't beleive you said that such a game should be historically accurate and then go onto quote DoD and RTCW.

wait a minute, RTCW wasnt historically accurate?!
thats my whole belief system out the window!

 

[eekfek]

Company of Heroes - Am I missing something? .

i would say fo'sure yes, this is the best RTS ive played for many a year and a definate purchase if you like your war games, altho from reading this thread it seems maybe, you should go and buy a history dvd instead. if you had tried the training missions you might have actually understood how the game worked which in return would have made the initial impression somewhat diff, but seriously 'its a GAME' thats all, a damn fine one that any rts fan should own

 

[FirebarUK]

I will have a look for that at the computer shop.

Soldiers : Heroes of WWII can be had for around £10 on highstreet stores. Don't let that fool you though, its a brilliant game (with multiplayer co-op too!).

 

[sniffy]

Or have I just completely missed something here?

Yes. You expected a game to be ultra-realistic when it never claimed to be. You also played a skirmish which are well-known for its style of play. You will not find a certain side with an advantage in any skirmish so I don't know why you expected that. Perhaps you should have tried the campaign if you want that (I thought everyone fired this up when playing a new game).

I would recommend some good games but I doubt they'd meet your stupidly high standards. I can understand people enjoy different games but branding CoH a "RTS clickfest" is just silly. You shouldn't expect anything from a game or you'll ultimately always be disapointed. "OMG the allies don't have thompson SMGs. This game sucks....OMG only 3 men push around the AT gun. WTF is that about?! This game sucks....INSERT RANDOM EXPECTATION. This game sucks".

 

[Weebull]

Oh I don't know Weebull, I think its asking a bit much to demand that kind of realism from a game and posting such a thread on a gaming forum was just begging for "lol" & "rofl" comments.

He never asked for a fantastically realistic level of detail though, and thats what all the twits on here seem to think he did. All he asked for was some vague idea of accuracy on the map he played, because he didn't realise it wasn't supposed to be like that in that game mode. And it took all of 5 minutes to say "that game mode isn't like that", "oh ok". It didn't need everyone being a **** and jumping on him for asking for something a bit different.

As for realistic games, I take it you've never played say, Operation Flashpoint then? There are many ultra-realistic games out there, and while they're mostly a niche market, they still exist, so it's hardly like he's asking for something impossible. That's irrelevant anyway, because he wasn't asking for ultra-realism ffs.

 

[Hedge]

I think its a shame you didnt give it a chance to be honest. Ignoring the historical accuracy of it, would leave you with a game that is the best in its genre. I never played rts for years then i had a blast on this a few months back and i think its the best ive played.

The campaigns are interesting and fun. Skirmishes are essentially a multiplayer game so advantages for certain sides would be unfair