Petrus58 Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 For anyone interested, PC Gamer (UK) has reviewed ToW in its July edition. It gave it a reasonably fair, thumbs down 60%, partly for the well-discussed issues most of us have with ToW, but also for not being CoH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Originally posted by Petrus58: ....... but also for not being CoH. [/QB]Oh God, yes! A most unspeakable crime in the eyes of the whore-bent gaming press. They are a big part of the reason PC Gaming is in the state it is now. Shills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrabas Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 What is CoH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Company of Heroes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankbuster Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 also known as ....Completely over Hyped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Originally posted by Tankbuster: also known as ....Completely over Hyped Ha Ha. Yep, I was really looking forward to that one. Until I got a gander at the demo and found out the game was not at all what I thought it was going to be based on the lead-up to release. They did a pretty good job of covering up the fact it was another resource-building game with hit-point allocated armor and out of scale maps. Still, based on the way the gaming media sluts unhinged their jaws for it, you would have thought it was the second coming of Jeebus. They make the automotive magazines look like a font of integrity and impartiality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapaho Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 I liked CoH, but it lasted about 3 weeks and wore off very quickly. For resource based RTS games there are soooo many better ones. The only draw was the ww2 setting. Its nice to see that PC Gamer reviewed it tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilot37 Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 I have a high regard for PC Gamer. I am a subscriber because I rate their overall balance. They protect mr average against duff games and, it has to be said,they brought the excellent Combat Mission to my attention. Over time one becomes tuned PC Gamers bias for "games" over "simulations" and speed over substance. They particularly love first person shooters (eg half life). These always bore me after 5 hours. They love Real Time Strategy (but unrealistic gamey ones where a tank has a health bar that can be recharged!). Sadly, to Mr Average, TOW is a duff game. So PC Gamer got that right. What they miss is that TOW is a step forward for wargaming. Shame on PC Gamer for missing that because they normally applaud a new way! To Combat Mission lovers...well might I suggest that we are all a bit bored and we do need a new way? First I loved the long slog of History Line on the Amiga. Then Combat Mission which I played by email for 2 years! Less CM2, then almost not at all on CM3... no real progression...same game with small tweaks. Theatre of War however shows some real promise. Its a bit more personal, more gritty and we have a promised improvement and mission editor, soon? Develop it to the limit Battlefront and then move to a new graphics engine allowing deformable terrain etc. This is the future of WW2 wargaming. I am not Mr Average gamer. I want a long tactical game, I want to get to know my troops, I want to be genuinely concerned when I throw them forward. I want to have to bring supplies to them, fuel and ammo and food. I want to be able to watch them dig in etc....In short I want an experience that goes beyond a short tactical challenge which has to be replayed to get it right. I want to loose engagements and fall back to fight another day. Get going battlefront, you have a big opportunity and an army of Combat Mission customers waiting for such a product.Keep up the interest by developing TOW to its limit (we will pay for it)and get moving on Theatre of War 2. Supplies you can leave to TOW3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gautrek Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Originally posted by Pilot37: First I loved the long slog of History Line on the Amiga. I remember days and days spent playing this game against my mate.What fun that was. You must be as old as me mate. Don't you find now though that PC games are a bit of let down after playing them for 20 odd years.I know for the kids its all wow stunning graphics and such but for me as on old fart then i just can't get as worked up for new games.I have become a very much sort a get bored fairly quickly with most games sort of guy. I think the novelty has worn off unfortunatly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeezgob Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Too much emphasis on the graphics and presentation and not enough emphasis on complex gameplay. That said, Steel Beasts Pro makes a refreshing change to the current trend of pretty but vapid simulation and strategy titles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drawde79 Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 PC Gamer (UK) seem to generally be harsh on "ambitious but flawed/buggy" games, a category which TOW mostly fits into (pre-patch anyway) so I wouldn't expect a high score from them. Like you say, they mainly seem to be interested in titles with "mass appeal" to the average gamer, rather than niche games. 60% does seem a bit harsh though even for PCG - I'd have expected 70% or so. Most game reviewers (both print and online) also generally have a policy of ignoring patches and reviewing the game "out of the box" (in any case, the TOW patch, whatever fixes and improvements it will include, is not out yet) which is also bad news for games like TOW. (To be honest, as so many games nowadays - Silent Hunter 4, for example - are being released in an unpolished, buggy state and never being patched properly, this is probably a sensible policy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kudos Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 Well COH copied Soldiers heroes of World war 2 and faces of war which is inherantly more difficult. But Theatre Of War has problems, and they need to be address Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muletears Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 For anyone interested, PC Gamer (UK) has reviewed ToW in its July edition. It gave it a reasonably fair, thumbs down 60%, partly for the well-discussed issues most of us have with ToW, but also for not being CoH.There are two small references to CoH in the review. One points out how fundamentally dissimilar the two games are: "ToW is a pure skirmish wargame (no CoH-style base-building or in-mission recruitment.)" The other is within a concluding paragraph that also briefly compares ToW to CC, CM and FoW. Full review here ToW didn't lose any marks for 'not being CoH' Regards, A shill/gaming media slut/whore-bent gaming pressman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrus58 Posted June 11, 2007 Author Share Posted June 11, 2007 Muletears, Fair point, I was a bit sloppy in my post. I think I let the whole 'CoH-is-god' thing get the better of my critical judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowmonkey Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Um...CoH is NOT what this game IS!!! Total strategy! I can see where some parts need to be addressed like the sniping tank gunner on the AI side! ToW is a 'thinking man's game' in an RTS package!! I have been gaming for MANY YEARS: RTS, Simulations, RPg's, Strategy...and this is the game I have been waiting for! Don't set your mind on reviews...like any review of ANYTHING...you need to get 5 or more reviews to get a true score for a review....and even at that, it is up to the individual if they like the game or not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTorpedo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 This review is quite short but on the spot, for the negative aspects. It should extend a bit more on the good points.. by reading it i don´t know how he came to 60%. One thing is certain, by the screens on the article the reviwer was probaly expecting some CoH or FoW play..! Tank duels at a couple of meters a part! [ June 11, 2007, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: TTorpedo ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 COH is huge fun head to head with a friend though. TOW's lifespan without decent multiplayer was sadly around 10-15 days. At least in COH the game design and philosophy is crystal clear and the result is a well build game, not a realistic one but a fun and complete one. TOW shines at first but it clearly shows that the developers werent sure about what their goal was. It is like a simulation of remote controlled miniatures. Realism is not enough sometimes for a satisfying gaming experience. I'm waiting for the patches for the final verdict though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainBly Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I'm always impressed with the PCgamer UK reviewer he always hits the nail on the head and puts many a game in the coffin that deserves it. You can bet when he does give a high score that the game is near perfect. He's one of the few quality reviewers left around. This is one of the few times I think he was a bit generous on the score of this game, but, 60% is at least putting it in its place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts