I know I've done this once before in the past but some of this stuff I find quite entertaining. On and off I peruse the relicnews forums since I played DoW and CoH a bit awhile back and I'm generally interested in keeping tabs on where the games are going and such. Every so often I stumble upon threads like this:

http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=186907

While the OP may not be terribly interesting, scrolling through a few of the replies are pretty funny. Funny to see what some people value in an RTS. One guy literally said he could just watch 2-3 CoH reps a day and be thoroughly entertained indefinitely.

Also of note is that there community isn't entirely without reason. There are quite a few people there putting in a good word for Starcraft.

ahrara_

Afghanistan1715 Posts

March 27 2008 07:58 GMT

Never played CoH, but is it anything like World in Conflict? Judging by IGN's video review, it's very very similar.

These are games that have a different appeal than starcraft. They're focused on tactics and micromanagement and pretty graphics and

How many other RTS's have your men screaming out on a consistent basis "Schiesse I'm hit!" or "Aw fuck that almost hit me!" or who could forget "Eat lead motherfucker!"

None of 'em, dammit!

, whereas starcraft is more cerebral.

Physician

United States4146 Posts

March 27 2008 08:16 GMT

hum.. pass

Hurricane

United States3939 Posts

March 27 2008 08:46 GMT

I love how at least half of those posts mention how it is the best game ever because it has awesome graphics.

XCetron

5226 Posts

March 27 2008 10:53 GMT

"CoH best RTS. simply cause you have to micro everything. it's something i like. in Starcraft etc. micro istn't that important. in CoH, if you misplace an mg or an AT gun, it could make you lose a fight."

You hear that boxer? better switch to CoH.

Slayer91

Ireland23335 Posts

March 27 2008 11:25 GMT

In fairness to these guys a lot of them aren't just saying CoH is the best rts ever, whereas pretty much every one here would say SC: BW is.

Oh: IMO CoH is the third best RTS next to BW and WC3.

Gokey

United States2722 Posts

March 27 2008 11:26 GMT

On March 27 2008 19:53 XCetron wrote:
"CoH best RTS. simply cause you have to micro everything. it's something i like. in Starcraft etc. micro istn't that important. in CoH, if you misplace an mg or an AT gun, it could make you lose a fight."

You hear that boxer? better switch to CoH.

People who say shit like that are obviously retarded and haven't played SC on a competitive level

The thing is, for most of us here, our whole approach to RTS games has changed once going through the pro scene and emulating our favorite pro players... for the "average" gamer, they don't have the concept of multitasking to the degree that competitive gaming requires

That said, CoH is an amazing game. It is not in the same genre as Starcraft, as it is more of a smaller-squad tactical RTS... The game played at a high level is amazingly beautiful and just as majestic as its amazing graphics and sounds... There is a surprising amount of things to do in the game, with a constant tug-of-war of skirmishes and positioning.

The people in this thread who have played the game only superficially are just as guilty at bashing CoH as the referenced "noobs" in the CoH site bashing Starcraft. Both games are amazing and have competitive potential, and IMO are the two best RTS games in the past decade.

Coulthard

Greece3359 Posts

March 27 2008 12:12 GMT

It has many simularities to sc/bw, most of all on micromanagement but it lacks on other things.

lololol

5198 Posts

March 27 2008 14:40 GMT

On March 27 2008 16:58 ahrara_ wrote:
Never played CoH, but is it anything like World in Conflict? Judging by IGN's video review, it's very very similar.

These are games that have a different appeal than starcraft. They're focused on tactics and micromanagement and pretty graphics and

Show nested quote +

, whereas starcraft is more cerebral.

CoH doesn't have anything in common with that piece of crap in a box called WiC.

SayaSP

Laos5494 Posts

March 27 2008 15:11 GMT

#10

Hahahahahaha micro isnt that important

Gokey

United States2722 Posts

March 27 2008 15:36 GMT

#11

On March 27 2008 23:40 lololol wrote:

Show nested quote +

CoH doesn't have anything in common with that piece of crap in a box called WiC.

Yeah, WiC sucked balls

ahrara_

Afghanistan1715 Posts

March 27 2008 16:22 GMT

#12

I thought it was awesome. What sucked about it?

karelen

Sweden2407 Posts

March 27 2008 17:10 GMT

#13

WiC crashed like once every 15 min for me, sure they might have patched it up by now (have they..?) but it pisses me off when companies crank out half finished games. so i pretty much lost interest because of that

Woyn

United Kingdom1628 Posts

March 27 2008 17:11 GMT

#14

On March 27 2008 20:25 Slayer91 wrote:
In fairness to these guys a lot of them aren't just saying CoH is the best rts ever, whereas pretty much every one here would say SC: BW is.

Oh: IMO CoH is the third best RTS next to BW and WC3.

Id say Armies of Exigo, unpatched and abandoned, is still better than all other RTS and would be 3rd imo. Had it been supported fully we might have had a rival for 2nd who knows

ahrara_

Afghanistan1715 Posts

March 27 2008 17:44 GMT

#15

On March 28 2008 02:10 karelen wrote:
WiC crashed like once every 15 min for me, sure they might have patched it up by now (have they..?) but it pisses me off when companies crank out half finished games. so i pretty much lost interest because of that

It must've been just you. I played an unpatched version that never crashed. WiC was hardly unpolished. It wasn't cranked out by any means. If your isolated crash experience is all you're judging it by, then I have to say you're missing out.

The_Yango

United States16 Posts

March 27 2008 18:09 GMT

#16

CoH was pretty good, IMO. It's no Starcraft by a long shot, but I think it was worth the price of admission. It had a couple of fairly interesting new mechanics that are decent steps forward in an RTS (directional armor for vehicles, and damaged units being less effective than fresh ones), and a couple mechanics that aren't new, but were used quite well (cover and unit promotions).

Now after 1.5 years I am still playing COH. There must be something in it !!!

I lol'd when i read this, seeing as I've been playing Starcraft on and off for 8 years now.

Phyre

United States1288 Posts

March 27 2008 20:08 GMT

#17

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed playing both CoH and DoW as I thought both were good games. CoH in particular I applaud for really taking some risks with the RTS genre and doing some really cool things with their innovations like the directional damage, fields of fire, etc. The level of detail and graphics I found amazing as well. Relic can be a bit more liberal with it's risks than Blizzard as Blizz has some ridiculous shoes to fill whenever it creates a new game in any of it's existing franchises. The expectations are so high and as has been shown many times on TL, many people want more of the same and change isn't accepted easily. So while my allegiance is clearly to Starcraft, much respect to CoH as well.

I just find the reasonings behind some of the assertions in the thread I linked to are laughable. Simply saying any game is the best without any firm reasoning behind it is folly. If I said "Starcraft is obviously the best RTS because I can make critters explode by clicking on them a lot" I'm fairly certain you'd all assume I'm retarded.

I may find SC:BW to be the best RTS of all time but as there is no true quantitative measure to determine the "best" it falls to opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I'm going to laugh my ass off if you tell me an RTS is the best ever because replays are entertaining alone.

ahrara_

Afghanistan1715 Posts

March 27 2008 20:25 GMT

#18

I think a good comparison between games like CoH and SC is the quake series and counterstrike. Quake is very fast paced and unrealistic. Counterstrike is slow. Both require strategy, but gameplay is very different. For the same reason I loved Q3 (and hate counterstrike to this day with a passion), I prefer SC:BW. Realism games are fun until the sense of immersion wears off from playing it too much. In SC, after you're bored of going 200/200 carriers a few times in newbie games, you can still keep playing because there's so much depth of strategy and room for innovation.

Tropics

United Kingdom1132 Posts

March 27 2008 21:01 GMT

#19

I used to play CoH for a few months when it first came out, long before I discovered SC. It was good but it had so little variety. There were only 4 1v1 maps for the ladder and 2 races that are near identical. Also, it was really easy, more about playing games than actual skill if you wanted to get to the top of the ladder. Not to mention the balance was pretty bad and out of your 3 special skill paths only 1 was really viable for each faction. Not sure what it's like now but I had a lot of fun with it. Of course, after playing SC it's slow as hell. You can play at 20 apm and win games.

The micro in it was a lot of fun though. There's not much funnier than circling and killing 3 stugs in a row with your sherman while only taking 1 or 2 hits. I'd probably be playing the expansion right now if I hadn't discovered Starcraft. Definitely a damn fine game and one I wouldn't mind getting back into someday.

nofAcedAgent

United States952 Posts

March 27 2008 21:21 GMT

#20

Its a fun game, the maps offer a ton of tactical possibilties. I had a great time with it for a few weeks.. the guys at relic make quality products IMO

1 2 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Live Events Refresh