Demo Review

[ironviking]

running vista with no problems

[CoolColJ]

Wouldn't be hard to mod the demo, missions are XML files

I might try not putting my infantry I trenches, kinda too obvious....for arty strikes...

[GI Jas]

I wasn't going to post anything but it's clear that Crazy Legs has never played any of the Combat Mission games at all. LOS is the standard in those games and I like it much more than the "fog of war" of COH and speaking about COH, that is purely a action oriented RTS. How is command points, fuel depots, ammo depots realistic?

I mean, my Grandfather slugged a M14 on his back clear across North Africa chasing someone named "Jerry" that was on the run and never came across these marvelous places no, nothing but sand and more sand. Maybe a occasional camel here and there but no depots? What the heck?

OK, now that's out of the way I have to say I haven't laughed so hard in my life reading his review. Truely, a work of art and when he said whole armies were appearing and disappearing into thin air I almost lost it, almost.

I thought, "man he's never played Barbarossa to Berlin has he?" Wow, truely amazing. That was really great stuff Crazy. No pun intended though.

I just think that the mainstream "gamers" won't like this game one bit. Why, it's like nothing they have ever played and they can't win by mearly rushing a bunch of men and tanks at the enemy? No, they won't like it one bit, I'm sure of that.

For the rest of us that have experienced similar games, this will be a dream come true. Hey, it beats just watching the battle for a minute at a time..........now were apart of it in real time.

[gunnersman]

Sounds like a hatchet job.

[MikoyanPT]

Originally posted by Hpt. Lisse:

Are you running the latest Omega drivers?

Don´t think so, they are at least one month old, and running fine, it depends on the specific videocard you have, my ATI X1950pro is a beauty, and cheap too.

And amen to the last post.

[BFCElvis]

gunnersman, I was wondering if you were gonna show up at this party.

[gunnersman]

Playing catch up.

[BFCElvis]

Hpt. Lisse,

I multiplayer each player gets to choose their icon color.

Love,

Elvis

[Guest Panzer Boxb]

But can you do that in SP? Having icons that blend into the terrain by default can cause some frustration.

[BFCElvis]

No. Or at least I ampretty sure no. I never had a problem with the color though. I am sure some modder type person will have some sort of way to change it.

[Hpt. Lisse]

Not a deal-breaker, Elvis, just a detail. Perhaps after a month of TOW those green icons would stand out clear as day. Now those gun hits, that's gonna need some attention.

[crazylegsmurphy]

OK, now that's out of the way I have to say I haven't laughed so hard in my life reading his review. Truely, a work of art and when he said whole armies were appearing and disappearing into thin air I almost lost it, almost.

I thought, "man he's never played Barbarossa to Berlin has he?" Wow, truely amazing. That was really great stuff Crazy. No pun intended though

Oh crap, I'm sorry, did I miss the sign up sheet for the elite gamers club on the way in? Don't talk down to me like I am some kind of moron that can't have an opinion because I haven't played the same games as you.

To assume I am simply a "button masher" is a pretty poor response. No offense, I don't care what your grandpa did, as it has no relevance to this post or topic.

I knew there would be one person who eventually had to go off on CoH rant.

This person however has lit enough of a fire under my ass to allow me to say what I want straight out without sugar coating it because as I can see now, there are a lot of people here that are simply not going to listen, or care.

Simply, this game is not fun. It's dated, it looks, and sounds dated. It's built on an outdated engine and as a result it looks old right out of the box. The camera controls defy common sense and to someone who has experience working in 3D software will find them cumbersome and awkward.

The tanks look really good, but the men look horrid. The animation should have been done by animators and not by off the shelf software. Some of the sounds (such as planes & MG's) are laughable. The explosions are ugly, the tanks don't have any "presence", the vehicles are jerky and unpredictable and you need to "button mash" just to retreat, use the road, turn left, start, stop, get hit...you think CoH is a button masher...it takes less effort to drive a truck in real life than it does in ToW.

People can call me stupid because I don't spend the time navigating my trucks down the road 10 feet at a time or using the, "Don't be stupid, use the road not a tree" button for making them go, but the simple fact is in my opinion this is simply lazy AI programming. There is NO reason why a truck should attempt to knock over a tree and simply not drive around.

As for the LOS, it's simply incomplete in my opinion. Give me one reason why the troops don't have a LOS circle that is nicely laid along the ground, and shows where the troop can, and can't see. The reason is the same reason for the ugly arrows that point awkwardly at stuff...not a care enough to go the extra mile to fix it.

And finally, this review is not because I am some jerkstore who can't figure out a computer game, it's because I'm NOT one of you fanboys of CM, or whatever games you played in the past. I'm a potential customer who will gladly put his money into a game he feels is worthy of it.

This game has "unfinished" written all over it, and from MY experience in games, that leads to nothing but frustration and resentment. When you have posts popping up that say, "cool demo, is it moddable?" you know something isn't right. You know when people are already wondering if someone can mod the camera, or the sounds, or the animation that the game was simply launched because any more delay and it would have been too hard to push.

So there, you go. To the point. Don't worry, I'll go back to my CoH now, mash some more buttons and actually have some fun.

Have fun!

[InvaderCanuck]

Graphics while important, are far less important than any other aspect of a game.

People who complain about games based on "Oh gawd it looks 2 years old" are silly.

[Gen Schmaeterling]

Okay now, crazy. You've made your views clear. You don't like this game. Thank you for your time.

Some people will like the game.

For some people, the "dated" look is not important, not are any of the issues you mention. For others, such as yourself, they will be deal breakers.

Now, I think we all know how you feel. Thank you for your review, but I get it already. Meanwhile, I'd like to hear what other people have to say.

So, if you don't mind, how about keeping it down.

You could've written a novel already with how much you've been posting = )

[Stug Downunder]

Originally posted by Gen Schmaeterling:

Okay now, crazy. You've made your views clear. You don't like this game. Thank you for your time.

Some people will like the game.

For some people, the "dated" look is not important, not are any of the issues you mention. For others, such as yourself, they will be deal breakers.

Now, I think we all know how you feel. Thank you for your review, but I get it already. Meanwhile, I'd like to hear what other people have to say.

So, if you don't mind, how about keeping it down.

You could've written a novel already with how much you've been posting = )

Sorry I think its been three reviews.

[Webwing]

I don't think it is a problem to have people like crazylegsmurphy come here and write in detail all the things he does not like about the game.

The thing that really puzzles me is why would someone spend so much time writing about games he does not like! One post would be enough, I guess. Then go on to some other forum talk about games you do like.

Imagine if I decided to go to all sites of games I dislike to write "reviews" and then posts and more posts about them! I'd do nothing more of my life.

That's why I stick to sites of games I gave a good chance of liking. And luckily, most of the time, I do like them.

I have to say though that crazylegsmurphy judges this game from a perspective different from most people here - wargamers. He's not wrong from where he stands but he is obviously not the target market for this type of game.

-

[Madmatt]

Okay guys, everyone has been pretty even tempered and I appreciate that, but the man has a right to his opinion, even if you don't agree with it.

Of course, he also has an obligation to defend his opinions in the light of public scrutiny.

So everyone please continue to be respectful of one another and carry on.

Madmatt

[liuzg150181]

Originally posted by crazylegsmurphy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />OK, now that's out of the way I have to say I haven't laughed so hard in my life reading his review. Truely, a work of art and when he said whole armies were appearing and disappearing into thin air I almost lost it, almost.

I thought, "man he's never played Barbarossa to Berlin has he?" Wow, truely amazing. That was really great stuff Crazy. No pun intended though

Oh crap, I'm sorry, did I miss the sign up sheet for the elite gamers club on the way in? Don't talk down to me like I am some kind of moron that can't have an opinion because I haven't played the same games as you.

To assume I am simply a "button masher" is a pretty poor response. No offense, I don't care what your grandpa did, as it has no relevance to this post or topic.

I knew there would be one person who eventually had to go off on CoH rant.

This person however has lit enough of a fire under my ass to allow me to say what I want straight out without sugar coating it because as I can see now, there are a lot of people here that are simply not going to listen, or care.</font>

[z1812]

Hi All,

I have Windows 2000 Pro with an AMD 64 3500 and 1g ram. Graphics are an asus 6600 256 mb nvidia card. Yes it runs fine so far under Winpro2000.

I have all the previous CM games and bought them as they were released. They are all still on my harddrive and played often although it is mostly CMAK these days. Just finished ToW Basic Training and really enjoyed it. Graphics crisp and smooth. Looking forward to White Wine and More Tutorials tomorrow.

Also I wanted to mention how tasteful the artwork is for the different menu items. Someone did a very good job of design and arrangement

Regards John

[DrD]

Originally posted by Titan:

One thing that shocked me was how easy my Jagdpanther's got killed my long range soviet fire and my King tiger at long range was dispacthed by soviets from across the river, one would have thought a threesome like that would cause some serious problems.Get the feeling the Phyisics are abit suspect.

Well, 1C is a Russian company after all.

Probably gave the Soviets a wee little handicap, eh?

[crazylegsmurphy]

I regret to say that you have simply looked for the wrong game when you downloaded the demo. And if you had already paid for the pre-order,I regret to say that you had purchased the wrong game.

One of my philosophy of game is "one man's meat is another man's poison",everyone has their specific taste in game,and some to certain genre,therefore usually I dont jump onto the bandwagon in buying popular mainstream games(like C&C3). Some people really like to fly around playing Flight Simulator X,though some would find it silly. It is all up to personal preference and I wont criticize those who have gaming taste contrary to mine.

Whoever's playing games like CM series and ToW are basically wargaming,and thus games in this category are known as wargames-games that try to depict military conflicts as realistic as possible. People who play such games are usually the same people who have vested interest in military history and doctrines,and can memorize military literature like "Sun Tzu's Art of War",Karl von Clausewitz's "On War",Guderian's "Achtung Panzer" and all the military equipment specification like assiduous students to their schoolworks. In all such interest is really a niche interest,and the same could be said to such games.

Oh for sure, I totally agree. Different strokes for different folks for sure. I am actually a big fan of a lot of different types of games, particularly WWII based ones. I am very much into everything WWII, I have two awesome winter jackets that are genuine, I collect 1930's and 40's suits, I drive a 1948 Pontiac Silver Streak (when the thing runs).

You noticed I never once reviews the realism in this game, it seems totally real...the parts that aren't realistic such as the way the AI reacts is what makes it hard for me to get into the game.

Herein lies the problem:you judge the quality of a game mainly(or even soley) on visual effect? It is like judging whether a food is delicious solely based on its layout......if that were the case tastebuds would be redundant.

No,i dont mean visual effect is not integral to gaming,good visual representation can improve the immersion and enhance the gameplay,but the gist is still in the gaming mechanism. To quote an aphorism from another old-time gamer:"A bad gameplay with excellent graphics is akin to sprinkling sugar to dog poo: it doesnt make the dog poo taste any better."

Yes, I do. I am a graphic artist by trade so I put a huge emphasis on graphics and how they add to the game. And like your analogy, most restarants spend a LOT of time working out how things appear to the person eating it because as visual creatures we often judge things with all our senses.

The point I was trying to make before in my "review" is that of course good gameplay should come before all graphics, but with ToW it seems almost like they threw darts at a graphics quality chart and where ever the darts landed they decided to design that way.

For example, the tanks/vehicles look awesome, but the men look so odd. When I asked before why the arrows looked so ugly, I was told that they agreed, but there simply wasn't time or resources to change them. To me, this doesn't make any sense, why would you spend so much time making sure one thing looks awesome, but then neglect the things that are actually crucial to the gameplay? Sure the water looks really cool, but what does that matter if the menus are jammed together and the text is almost unreadable at anything above 1024x768?

I dont find the arrow ugly,and so long it does not obstruct the gameplay i am happy with it.

Though with regards to LOS I think it could do good to use shading to indicate the level of LOS.

That's all I'm saying as a non-pro RTS wargamer, I think that adding in a visual cue to the units so I can tell what they are looking at would greatly improve the visual jarring of the enemy units popping in and out of view. It's basically like saying, there is a action, reaction going on where if I move tank X in to position A, I can see where he is looking so I know that he can't see behind that tree, and that stone, and that blade of grass.

This would then make sense when the enemy pops into view because I could say, "Oh, ok, my tank couldn't see behind that tree, and when the enemey ran out from behind it, it totally makes sense why it's now there.

I dont know why questions on moddability of a game would instantly means that there's problem with it. Either you have an internet connection too slow to download mods,or you are really an old pcgamers who has lost track of progression of pc-gaming culture throughout the decades.

Nowadays mainstream games provide a certain level of moddability so that gamers could mod games to their own preferences,and at the same time gratify their ego. Example? Battlefield series. Some even modify to such great extent that it even became a totally different game altogether-like RTS mod for Armed Assault. Moreover the avaliability of mods certainly increases the longevity of the game and thus make such purchase moreworthwhile.

Oh for sure, most games are modded, but I feel there is a big difference from people modding a game because instead of a green tank, they want a tan one...but when you see people on a forum, before the game even comes out say, "The sound sucks, hope we can mod it." It's basically like saying, "Spend your money on this game, and then hope someone fixes it!"

I don't have any issue with mods, but why expect me to pay $45 US for a game that I already know needs mods before it'll be totally enjoyable?

Point to note:you are driving tanks 60 years back in warfront,not a contemporary civilian truck. To this would any military historian,amateur or professional,would like to enlighten us on it?

And finally, like I said, I drive a 48' Silver Streak, and the thing handles like a barn...but I can still avoid trees!

I like the realism of the game, but if you are going to expect me to ACTUALLY drive the truck, then at least let me drive it. I mean, if my only job in a war was to drive a truck around trees, I think I may be able to handle it, but because I have 67 other things I have to do, I don't have time to select the unit, click a bunch of buttons (the drive on the road button) then babysit it so it's not taking out every tree on the map, stopping and becoming a visual target for everything in a 40 mile radius.

I want to order my truck from A to B and have it be smart enough to say, if we hit all those trees, we'll be a sitting duck.

[InvaderCanuck]

There is a perfectly good explanation as to why the individual soldier is rendered with such a low polygon count.

You don't play the game zoomed in close enough to tell.

Sure, you CAN zoom in that close, but then you are playing the game at a severe handicap.

I occasionally hit 'enter' to get a soldiers eye view to check very basic LOS. Beyond that, why would anyone spend much time zoomed in.

It is a trade-off. Do you invest massive resources on pimping out soldiers which may be present in the hundreds at any given time when the player is rarely if ever going to actually look at them in close detail?

I think the answer is no, you do not invest the resources. Not because you are lazy, but because it is wasteful.

This is not Company of Heroes where you ARE that close to the action, and half the game is watching the combat animations for the "oooo that was cool" factor.

This is a strategic war game, where realistic penetration and distances is important. The game needs to be functional above and beyond anything else. If having low detail soldiers means higher playability, then have lower detail soldiers for FFS.

It is like Supreme Commander.

Nobody plays the game zoomed in close enough to marvel at the detail of each individual unit. Everyone is playing zoomed out to the point that you are moving triangles and squares around. Yet the game suffers terribly in larger games because they put so much effort into the details.

[Sneaksie]

Originally posted by DrD:

Well, 1C is a Russian company after all.

Probably gave the Soviets a wee little handicap, eh?

Well, i think it's not that TOW overpowers Soviet tanks, it's other wargames underpowers them. I play CC series like 3 years, but still think that a miracles of german tanks surviving 122-152mm hits are far too common:)

[theBrit]

Crazylegsmurphy,

I am Graphic Designer too, but I am also a wargamer. Have you thought we (designers) may look at things in TOO MUCH graphic detail...?

In my opinion yes the graphics could be better, but they are still good and functional, functional being the word here. Wargamers will be drunk on this vision of the battlefield, where as your average RTS player will be disappointed. You pushing the GFX point is a waste of your and our time here, as most wargamers (probably 70%+ of these boards) will be more than happy with the look.

Youre really fighting your corner here....I can see that but I think at this stage its quite obvious to all (you included) this game is not for you... So why are you still labouring the point, why are you still trying to convince the majority that this game is poor, when the overwhelming concensus is a big thumbs up?

[crazylegsmurphy]

Nobody plays the game zoomed in close enough to marvel at the detail of each individual unit. Everyone is playing zoomed out to the point that you are moving triangles and squares around. Yet the game suffers terribly in larger games because they put so much effort into the details.

Ummm, I'm not entirely sure how to address this, nor am I sure you're actually making sense....no offence.

Why would a game, spend time rendering grass effects, guys loading AT guns, men climbing in tanks, a free floating camera that can zoom to eye level, leaves on trees, rocks on the ground, if the intention was to hover 100 feet above the ground and move "triangles" around?

To me your reasoning seems odd, you're saying that I am out of line because if I zoom in to far it's my own fault for doing so?

I understand what you are saying though, but if you want to use CoH as an example. There are some pretty fair sized maps in that game 4 vs. 4 maps to be exact. And they were able to add so much visual candy that you CAN zoom right in and the troops have 5 o'clock shadows on their faces. Yes I realize that the back end doesn't have the same dynamics as ToW, but I find it hard to believe that CoH can pump out the graphics, the gameplay, 4 vs. 4 multiplayer, and a rotate able camera, and I can still bust out 56 FPS average on FULL settings, yet ToW can't even get half that?

They are releasing a DX10 patch soon that will add dynamic lighting, grass, etc.

Then you have ToW, where while the maps are huge, you have seemingly less units, less map destruction, low poly models, 2D animation, etc. Maybe I am totally out to lunch, but it feels like because this was built on an old game engine, the game is struggling to keep up with the graphics requirements.

Sure some people are getting good frame rates, and like I said, this may be my PC alone, but to me, if people are getting such amazing frame rates, why didn't they spend a little more time cleaning up the graphics and sound?

Wasteful to me, is having the ability to make something awesome, but settling for less for whatever reason. The sad fact is that slick graphics is what helps sell games.

[ April 19, 2007, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: crazylegsmurphy ]