Company of Heroes 3?
#1
5 years ago
Daardu
Posts: 1
Is this a taboo subject or something?! I'm literally freaking out because I've looked everywhere and can't even find a mere discussion about it. Nothing appears and when I google it, it just shows like I googled CoH 2. can someone just please write the Word "Company of Heroes 3" because it doesn't seem to exist anywhere else on the internet.
Comments
Huh? This current engine is pretty damn capable. Miles ahead of other RTS's like SC2. You can mouse look around, go right down to ground level and actually watch your squads or tanks over their shoulder, which is really cool. Animations are great as well. I'm sure as the engine ages over the next few years they may patch in a few new bells and whistles. They did a DX10 patch for COH1 even through it was designed for DX9. A DX12 patch down the road seems likely, but I doubt it would make any noticeable difference in looks. Perhaps just a frame rate improvement which would be welcome by all.
and yet THQ had an earlier release date then SEGA. SEGA spent more money and gave Relic more time. So trying to say it's SEGAs fault is just stupid. Most games art work looks amazing and is much better then what can be made in game.
You could do the same thing 15 years ago in Dark Reign 2 (not sure if someone had it before that game).
Have a link by chance?
While I liked the campaign of DOW2, I was very disappointed in the general formula of tiny force size for matchmaking. It felt nothing like DOW1 which evolved into COH1. DOW2 didn't replace matchmaking for me at all and I continued to play COH1. I'm glad COH2 didn't go all hero commander style with few units but lots of cooldown skills on the heroes. That's not the kind of micro I like. Hence, I don't play MOBA's either for that reason. In a similar vain, I was very disapointed in Blizzard for making Warcraft3 hero centric as well. I was actually hoping for WC2 with much better graphics. Instead, they changed the whole formula and the game suffered for it. They decided not to make the same mistake for SC2 and stuck with an old school RTS formula that worked. Sometimes all some of us gamers ever ask for is just an update in graphics and a bit of other polish. That's what COH2 does and now I have no reason to play COH1 anymore. Of coarse this games UI got no polish, but that's another topic. It really has no effect on in game play.
Or "Operation Unthinkable" - Allies with the remnants of the Wehrmacht attacked the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc (which as the remaining number of German weapons and equipment).
I wouldn't call that a fair assessment on two grounds:
1. Firstly, Dawn of War 2 was a major step down from Company of Heroes, and the expansion campaigns were each worse than the last. So if there really has been a decline it started with Tales of Valor (if not Opposing Fronts, with its inferior single-player campaigns and poorly-realised factions), not Retribution (which was itself the nadir of Dawn of War 2)
2. Secondly, while this trend has generally been downwards, CoH 2 was substantially superior to any Dawn of War 2 title; until the big series of post-Ardennes Assault balancing patches it was a major step down over Company of Heroes 1, but that was not the immediately preceding game. DoW 2 vanilla had a better single-player campaign, but that's all that can really be said for it.
DoW 2 vanilla, perhaps, had more "heart" - the no-content, second-rate campaign expansions felt like Tales of Valor-level cash-ins (new factions in DoW 2 are irrelevant, since all are basically reskins of one another save for the tanks and minor differences in special abilities). It seems hard to argue it was a superior game, with its simplified maps and terrain, copy-paste factions and execrable hero units. And, as mentioned, it completely lost the feel of 40k (and not just because an average 40k map is more complex) beyond the skins; constant efforts at balancing that completely eschewed the background and theme of the units being balanced (Falcons being the slowest tanks) only made matters worse. The resulting predictable hero-and-minion 'laning' to objectives along simple maps, and the sheer ease of heading straight to and destroying enemy bases compared with contesting territory (all your units ran back to base? Sure, I'll park a D-Cannon right outside), made the whole feel like a second-rate MOBA that lacked the strategic component of an RTS or the immersion of the 40k setting.
Creative Assembly suffered a major, public failure with Rome 2 - while Attila may not have been financially successful (I don't know whether this is actually the case, and development of DLC appears to be ongoing) it was much better-received, and Alien Isolation was highly commended (no idea whether it's actually any good, since I don't like those kinds of game).
By the metrics developers and their publishers care about, CA's in fairly good shape and Rome 2's relaunch as 'Emperor Edition' was widely considered a success, and Relic only suffered with CoH 2 from overblown complaints about its campaign (which suffered more from being mediocre gameplay-wise and with a Hollywood-ised storyline than the elements the Russians got worked up about); there's no reason for Sega to drop its newfound status as a strategy game developer.
Based on Steam figures for most-played games a year or so back, Rome 2 was somewhat more heavily-played than Shogun 2 at the time. There's not going to be a Total War Medieval III under that name, as CA has ruled out making a "III" title for the foreseeable future, but Total War: Warhammer will certainly trade heavily on its brand name, and on the fact that it's the only one of the licences GW is desperately selling off to the lowest bidder in an effort to stay afloat as miniatures sales stall that promises to capture the basic gameplay of a major GW title.
Sega always had a lot of sources of income; if that was the basis for its decision-making it wouldn't have bought a strategy game developer in the first place, let alone two. Sega's only a publisher - as long as the developers under its umbrella turn a profit, it will keep them. Sega execs know as well as anyone else that the only strategy game developer that can compete with FPS games and their ilk for profitability is Firaxis: Civilization V was among the 5-10 most-played games on Steam for at least four years following its release, and X-COM was the only strategy game to make a serious commercial showing on consoles (though was more successful on PC) since another Firaxis title, the original Civilization Revolutions. Even so, Total War games consistently do very well judged by numbers of players on Steam.