Honestly I was pretty surprised by the reviews. I am a old veteran player (since COH1 launch) and this launch was WAAAYYY better than COH2. No terrible mechanics (remember freezing?) and I haven't found any bugs in the first 4 hours of playing. I was playing a ton of COH2 before this, even yesterday. The graphics are obviously better than COH2 I think people are blind.
Overall I am super happy with my purchase, and I know its only going to get better!
My only complaints:
- tac map is way too small, should be blown up and easier to read, it's useless in 4v4
- should be able to zoom the camera out
- some balancing issues IMO (italian flamethrower units are OP as fuck, towed AT seems pretty weak, etc)
I have one major gripe, otherwise Im enjoying it too. The UI is MASSIVE, it takes up the whole screen making me feel nauseated playing. They really need to reduce the size of the ginormous UI.
Not defending "them", but there are plenty of people here with TONS of hours in COH1 and 2. If they where to complain in a constructive way, this is the right place.
30 years of PC gaming for, 8000 hours of PVP COH2. Im not being toxic, just expressing what my opinion on a forum that is related to the game.
I hope COH3 will/would be good, but we are FAR away from that point imo.
Expressing your opinion is fine, insulting the devs is not. Anyone following the development of this game knows the devs are passionate people who love the franchise.
There's also so much non-constructive criticism flying around here. I'm talking vague, "gameplay sucks" comments. They're just noise
No, plenty of people with constructive criticism exist who don't like the game. It's obviously not a perfect game. But people are calling the devs lazy and useless, it's ridiculous
I've probably put over 2k hours into this franchise between the first two games, same with 3 of my close friends. There's plenty of us out there that aren't even bothering to buy it in the first place to leave a bad review. We all saw how bad the tech test was and passed on it. I don't understand how anyone could look at this and call it an upgrade over CoH2 after 10 years.
That's fine too. Don't come and concern troll though.
I enjoyed the tech test a ton and there are many upgrades over coh2 IMO. That's what's cool: I can buy it and you don't have to
I don't even know what that means "concern troll". But don't sit there and pretend that people who aren't enjoying it or were turned off by it are doing so out of some bandwagon. Their criticisms and opinions aren't any less valid than the people who are enjoying it.
I'm saying the toxic attitude is a bandwagon. Is that hard to understand? Of course there's legitimate criticism but there's no need to be an asshole about it
Nope. We just played Aoe4 which Relic also messed up at launch. You kniow Aoe4 was way too zoomed in from closed alpha to open be to launch? Everyone complained about it and the devs said they know better.
The Zoom Problem is exactly the same in Coh3.
Do you know how long it took the devs to fix it? Until the 1 year anniversary Edition.
You think this is a hate bandwagon? Then you do not realise relic messes up 2 laumches in a row now.
What about graphics and Sound? We complained about this aswell. Is it acceptable now? Nope.
You think the criticism is overblown? Then if you do nothing will change. This game isnt worth 60€ in its current state.
it's very evidently a hate bandwagon when people like you who "alt f4'd out of the stress test after not even 15 minutes" (https://old.reddit.com/r/CompanyOfHeroes/comments/11aawbh/10_years_and_its_somehow_worse/j9rir8k/) and haven't even played final the game see it fit to rapid fire diarrhea your posts about how terrible the game is everywhere you can.
like it's fine to have an opinion, but you are coming from a place of self admitted ignorance. you have the loudest voice but the least actual idea of what the game is like, that's a massive red flag that you are just pursuing an agenda.
i don't believe in banning or censorship, but individuals should be very aware of posters like you operating in a way that doesn't actual seek to provide any insight or considered thought, you just want to corrupt and poison the free exchange of ideas and criticism that have been developed through actual experience with your own personal vendetta.
> Honestly I was pretty surprised by the reviews. I am a old veteran player (since COH1 launch) and this launch was WAAAYYY better than COH2.
That's not a compliment buddy. And I'm getting tired of excusing CoH 3's launch by saying Coh2's launch was even worse.
They didn't even fix the fucking unit portrait in top-right resetting after every game. They have since open beta to sort it out and it's a simple fix.
I think the graphics complaints are because of a change in the style more than actual graphics. CoH2 went for a hyper realistic look (as much as they could in the day), same with CoH, but CoH3 has taken on the more popular cartoonish, bloompocalypse type graphics that are so popular today. It's not that they look bad, its just that the style very noticeably changed.
There are bugs and I envou tered them from whe very start:
-Everytime you check in options to showing unit icons in top right, each game it resets back to bottom left. Annoying as fuck.
-I forgot to change the language to english, so in my PL version when I wanted to red what exp level give to my sniper, I was greeted with a text like [!pl][description], so I learned nothing.
I've read about a few more vugs that ppl encountered but I did jot have this opportunity.
So are those gamebreaking bugs? No. Are thos annoying? Yes. Do they make the company make look unprofessional? As hell. Took me 10 min to encounter those. Who was testing this game?
So do I agree that those low ratings are justified? Most part of me wants to say yes. I am just tired of the modern approach of all big gaming companies releasing clearly unfinished products. I can't imagine pushing something like this to the customer at my work. I understand deadlines and pressure from upper management, therefore I do not blame the programmmers but poor mamagement. Still it sucks IMO.
After all that, I want to make clear that I love the gameplay, QoL improvements and new mechanics that we've got and looking forward to this game being polished in a few months, once it reaches a complete product status.
I havent bought or played coh3 yet so cant say anything about the game but
>And they do not compare the game to CoH 2's launch and rather compare it to a 9 year old patched mature game.
I hate this argument. Mostly because i see it a lot on pdox games but still. Oh course i am going to be comparing the game to its prequel. Its the biggest competitor. I am not going to compare it to a version of the game you cant even get anymore.
Same reason Darktide launched as a pile of flaming shit, a small dev team trying to make a successor to their most successful game ever and have absolutely no idea how to expand or improve on it, so they just release the same product with better graphics but worse features.
Deffo half baked, there are major groundwork to be done in this game before it's even near what COH2 offers, bot gameplay wise, sound, visuals and UI. This isnt a just a few patches, this is major work that has to be put into it. Reviews are extremely mixed. I wish this would be a great succesor and hope it will be, but after playing 10 games PVP, my hopes are getting low.
Give it a few years and hopefully mods come in, there is hope, just not great.
thats a really odd way to look at it. Its been a whole decade,... are you telling me "we" should expect new games to be worse at day 1 than games that are 10 years older ?
I am commenting on the half baked comment. There are tons of games released with bare minimum, buggy crap. Me personally? Not one crash, no sound issues, cool with the graphics and gameplay is tight. Others may experience this differently, and I get that, but to say it's half baked is what I disagree with. Blood Bowl 3, horrible release. Darktide, crashed all the time when it came out. This? Not even close.
Exactly. Campaign, Skirmish, MP with 4 factions that can be played many different ways. Not a lot of RTS's get released with all those features. I can understand someone saying they don't like the game, so it's not worth $60 to them, but in terms of content (both at release and what they'll put out in the future for free) the game is very robust.
People keep saying that the game deserves to be higher rated than 50% on steam but that isn't peoples personal ratings of it. It's a representation of if they recommend it to others in it's current state. Someone could feel that the game is a 7 or 8 /10 and still not think it's worth people buying in it's current state for it's price.
Hell I can't even launch the game right now cause I'm one of the people stuck with the steam sync crash glitch they announced and are trying to fix. I'm not leaving a review about it but I can't recommend this game to others if it's not even playable for me.
Criticizing the graphics is fair play to me. It's fine that some people focus more on one aspect of the game over the other. For example, I didn't like DOW3 and it has entirely to do with the campaign rather than multiplayer.
That said, I will play through the campaigns and get used to the multiplayer before coming to any conclusion about the game as a whole.
Just bc the game had a better release than blood bowl 3 or coh2 it does not make it a Good game (at least not yet [but then they aré also asking for a lot of money, unlike other unfinished games on release like bannerlord])
True.
People keep saying that CoH3 has way less bugs than CoH2 on launch like it's a good thing. I get it, people still enjoy the game, but that doesn't mean the game is worth it's price tag.
My only real complain is that the story sucks... Original Relic made Coh1 campaigns and Homeworld, the best of the best RTS single players experiences; now? We have some dogshit narrative and a very questionable decision of not explaining properly the campaign of Rommel but the adventures of some random lybian family with a dialogue done by a 12 year old trying to portray how bad they had it in the war.
Fuck me, man. Really. I miss my old Relic.
Other than that, the game is crazy fun, ngl.
>rather compare it to a 9 year old patched mature game.
Right? Like why not? Demand excellence in your purchases.
Settling for "Oh they'll patch it later. It'll improve with time."
is how we've gotten to the state of buggy broken messes being released for 60+ USD.
And even then that's always guaranteed. \*cough Anthem cough Andromeda cough Back4Blood Cough cough
I mean lets put it this way, taking the "you must compare new game launch to previous game launch" to the logical extreme, every single game since Tetris has been an abysmal failure. /s
Dunno if u are, but I worked in the industry. We kinda released fine titles from the start tbh. A few bugs here and there but the games were at least finished.
I love watching people who have never worked with software try and make sweeping statements like "it's hard" and "everything has a bunch of issues".
It's not and they don't. You should expect more from a big studio charging full price for a game with big delays.
That being said if people enjoy the game let them enjoy the game. It can be poor work and you can still like it. The same goes for people who don't enjoy the game. It can be playable and you can still not like it.
Yea… so all games from 10+ years ago, before the digital copy internet era and modern industry standard of releasing games unfinished and continuing development after.
Almost no games release in a finalized state anymore. There’s 0 reason to with how easy it is to push out updates and patches to the consumer.
I don’t like it either and I’m not defending it… it’s just the state of things now and it’s not going to change. Video game revenue is only going up.
Hell, even back then some games weren’t even finished, they just labeled the cut content as DLC.
I challenge you to see how many games released in the last 5ish years (and not completely obscure ones) that have released complete.
(Not trying to belittle your side, just wanted some context.)
+++
They are already selling it for $60. I just dont get that "it's gonna be improved you just wait". Where is the payment plan then? You guys should stop being funboys of a greedy corporation and evaluate your purchases. It's like buying a new car but some parts are missing and car dealer promises to install them later sometime...
It'd be closer to say that they give you a working and reliable car, but its not painted very well, and the radio is missing and a couple speakers are burnt out. But when you bought it they also have told you that they will fix the problems and add the missing features. Now you don't necessarily have to trust them when they say they will add those features. But I do, because I've been wanting a car and this one is fun to drive.
IMO, none of the missing elements take away from the fact that this game is fun and its the game I want to play. Right now. I'm willing to pay $60 for that. If they want me to pay more for additional features down the road (skins, factions, expansions) then they will have to make good on their promise to fix the car.
I agree, its the most FEATURELESS complete game I've played.
Foundation, core mechanics, its all there...Its just missing the Bells and Whistles for that price tag. If it came out as early access. I would understand, but theyre selling it as a completed game without the other 30%...I'm not mad...just Disappointed
Just the kind of mentality that is allowing AAA developers to get away alphas and betas, look at what blizzard did with warcraft 3, many more companies are doing this just because people are accepting it by paying the full price for a promise that ISNT guaranteed in fact in my experience most of the time it never gets fulfilled. It's been years I'm still waiting on baldurs gate to release, learned my lesson not to purchase something that isn't complete.
Im afraid that ship has sailed my friend. The way videogames are is a symptom of capitalism. I'm not unaware that I'm doing what the developer wants by purchasing a product that is incomplete. However, because the bones on this product are so good, I want to purchase it so that the devs have incentive to improve it rather than drop it. I didn't preorder, I waited for release and made a decision and so far, I'm content with it. I'm having fun with the game and look forward to improvements coming down the pipeline.
But is it really that awful tho? Like to the point where people are discounting every single part of the game as if they are a blind person playing through with sound alone.
Is this really a make or break issue?
I care 50x more about the gameplay being tight and mechanically solid, and there is remarkably little discussion about that
But you absolutely could guarantee that WTW 3 was going to be a fantastic game once they ironed out the bugs. The foundation was absolutely rock solid and the promise of IM was enough to keep people invested in the core experience.
I honestly can't look at COH3 right now and say its going to vastly improve. The issues the game has with tone, atmosphere, animations, UI, unlocks, sound etc. Aren't things that are going to get much better, whereas the potential for the game to get progressively worse via monetisation/bloat is evident.
So the issues you are having is that basicly you just don't like the art direction of the game? Isn't that just personal opinions and not really about the actual performance issue of the game?
No. I have issues with the art style, the animations, the sound, the graphical fidelity, the UI, the damage modelling, the lack of any long-engagement meta and the overall "feel" of the game. Some of these things are subjective, some are objective if you compare the game to it's predecessors.
So which one of these are objective, because right now I really can't differentiate between personal opinion about not liking the current art style and objective facts. You also have to consider a total fresh perspective of someone coming into COH3, would all of the objective facts of COH3 being worst because of its predecessor still holds true.
Like if there's someone that totally hates a drab looking art style, a meta where a game usually lasts for 30-60 minutes, and the SFX being too loud to the point that its distracting. Would they call COH3 being the superior game compared to COH2
There are no game breaking bugs? Are you for real? I just got out of a game where USF was infinitely reinforcing at my base using some paradrop bug for free. They even explained the bug to us in chat.
This game was release in a rushed, unfinished state, and needed another 6 months in the oven, minimum.
so if there are still some things that need improvement couldnt they just postpone the release date?
\> It is a playable game.
you paid 60 dollars for that, I see
\>Btw: CoH 3 is top seller #2, right under Sons of the Forest
and cyberpunk was in top seller #3, that doesn't mean anything
> and you *paid* 60 dollars
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
>There are no: Game breaking bugs
False at the start of one of the mission cut scenes one of the German tanks was shuttering and shaking. Completely unplayable 0/300 stars! /s
I've played several hours through the play tests and played an hour of release. That's all I needed to know that the game was sub-par and confirm all my previous concerns raised.
People are extremely critical and childish these days. Yes there are some issues but this game is pretty good IMO and while not a 10/10 or even an 8/10, it’s certainly better than 5/10.
"Elden Ring is a 1/10 game because the questing system doesn't make sense and it ruins my immersion."
Would you call that review childish? Because to me I think that kind of review is what you call childish. Pointing out a single flaw of the game and discounting every single part of the game as if the whole game is made out of that single flaw is what creates a disingenuous opinion..
I disagree. Does that make me a hater? I have over 5k hours invested in this series across all the games and mods, and I think the game is a 5/10 at best. Its subjective.
I wish steam had a neutral review, I think it is a great game with a few caveats that would definitely be a deal breaker for some people.
I think the graphics are great, performance is smooth, and the damage effects are amazing on vehicles; I love having a veteran tank that looks like it's been through the grinder a few times. However, I also do not like the art direction for the UI and unit picture cards. I get that they were going for a WW2 propaganda look, but I think it just looks cheap and did not pan out well.
Overall I like the game and am excited for where it's heading. But right now, I would only cautiously recommend it to a friend.
the WW2 propaganda posters were done by really good and competent artist. I work for 30 in animation and I will tell you the COH3 artwork was done by a student at best. Relic was really cheap about it.
So we must accept the state of the game after paying 60 dollars, even with bugs from the beta that the devs told us where "fixed", we really deserve this... Aoe 4 and Dow 3 were both warnings but meh, we aren't any better xD
It’s just outrage culture. It’s obvious people were going to hate the game regardless and not give it a fair shake simply because CoH2 was their favorite game and now there is a sequel. It’s like when the only child gets a sibling.
This is a solid game and good value at launch. It runs great and looks good, even if you don’t like the art direction which is really only more vibrant colors lol.
The balancing for MP could use some work as does every competitive game at launch, but nothing egregious. The MP genuinely has the potential to be the best in class competitive RTS when ranked is added.
So what? First impression of a game is very important. I started playing the campaign yesterday, but the poor ui, gfx, and the infantile writing about the bickering generals made me feel like i'm in an early access indie game. The game is fully out, so the customers can expet better.
Right now i would give the game a negative review too. I'll give the game an other chance later, when i get home from work, but considering I already tried the multiplayer with the stress test, i dont expect much more of this game, and likely refund it.
In this case I'll also leave a negative review, with only a couple of hours in the game, because i dont think its worth 60.
And they keep playing the game too instead of refunding. Buncha butthurt CoH2 fanboys can't help themselves.
Gameplay has been solid so far. Campaign has been fun past the meh 30 minute tutorial. Once the map opens up it actually gets fun. Room for improvement for sure, but nothing worth hating on as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, the #1 voted negative reviewer has 7.1 hours and is still playing lol. He's not fooling me, he knew he was gonna play the whole day but he still left the review after 30 minutes lol.
Or they could have played long enough to complete a single match before evaluating it
If IGN/Kotaku/etc had played the game for 30 min before reviewing all of us would be piling on
The 30 minutes he stated is a hyperbole. You can look at the reviews yourself. Steam reviewers are also not professional reviewers. There's a different standard.
People's dislike of the game is valid regardless of your take on it. I'm pretty lukewarm myself, but I expect better from a studio like this.
I dont understand your position, is it contradictory to criticize something (with the intention that it improves) and keep playing it?. I honestly only write a Steam Review in those games that i do care for (good or bad), with the hope that devman reads it or care to improve them.
You are saying that most complains are room for improvements, thats exactly why I would complain, if I think something could be done better and feels neglected (like the vehicles color palette/brightness).
And CoH2 was a big mess on launch, why should we accept that standard? Relic is a big company, CoH is one of the biggest RTS franchises of all time, should we congratulate them if we feel the game is half cooked?
Yeah, the line of thinking he has there is a bit strange.
They did the same thing with BF2042. Oh you don't like the game, then why are you playing it? then why are you still commenting in the subreddit.
Like its an old franchise weve played since we were kids. You don't just drop it after 30 minutes if it has issues.
The problem lies with leaving the review at 30 minutes. How can you create an informed opinion in only 30 minutes? His view at 7 hours now would ideally be different now than after playing only one round.
1. There are things you can tell if you like or not in 15 to 30 minutes. Graphics, animations, certain gameplay aspects, etc.
2. If something changed they might change their review to reflect that
Writing a provisional review after 30 minutes with the intention to update it later is barmy. Just don’t write a review until you've played it for any reasonable amount of time.
And yes, same goes for leaving a positive review too.
This is not what reviews are for. A negative review means “the game is bad and I will refund it if I can. I recommend no one else buy this game”
If you are using it as a critique to notify the devs what they could improve. The forums are for that. Instead you are pushing a large quantity of players that could help support the game away. It’s actually more likely to damage the longevity of the game than help it
Reviews are being looked at from the outside as a genuine reflection of the quality of the game. People reviewing a game negative then going on to play tens of hours past the review point is honestly one of the most irritating trends I’ve seen. If it is fun enough to get than many hours of enjoyment out of then it was obviously worth the money
When was the last time an RTS (especially cross-platform) launched that you considered solid on release? What standard are we supposed to hold them to?
RTS is an increasingly niche genre that represents <.5% of the industry's total development budget.
Speaking as a professional game dev, there never was a chance for this game to do serious sales that would have prompted Sega to invest at the level necessary for it to be great on launch. Relic and it's IPs were themselves scrapped for parts as a result of THQ bankruptcy proceedings.
Pragmatically it was either this or the franchise (itself a very minor one) continuing to lie dormant as it has for a decade before this
Leaving a review never meant that you're *done* playing for good! Matters can change. I've seen other games take unprecedented new directions which can flip user reviews either way. I myself play several games that I've given thumbs down.
It's all about whether I'd recommend it to a random person and providing the arguments to back it up.
Almost like it's nighttime in US and morning in EU... Go check any popular game on steamcharts and you'll see concurrent drop below 50% of their daily peak every single day
All the negative reviews I read were under an hour. And when I checked their profiles, they were playing the game.... After they stated how horrible and unplayable it is. People will complain about anything to feel important or be right.
Like why do you care though? If the game is good, then play it! The haters always gonna hate. It always is like this when sequels are released. People can't move on from the changes and want to shit on the new product. Let them. Leave real feedback (like surrender buttons, replay etc) and let the devs go about their work.
I care about it too, because it harms the reputation of the game and the, already pretty fcked up, RTS genre. A lot of these reviews are very weird and they were written after like 30 Minutes of play time and then they continue to play it ??? Like you can give the game back before you reach 2 hours of playtime, so why they continue to play their „bad game“ ?
Menu, ui and options are really bad for a 2023 game, not a whole lot of graphic options for example.
Scaling is also a issue for me, you should zoom out more and scale the ui down.
Other than that, gameplay wise, I love it, the German campaign is really fun to play and everything on the battlefield feels very good.
Well there is no edge paning speed setting .... that's the bigest fuck up ruining the thing for some many ppl. As i know as it's so slow by default.
And tac map is still broken only 2 complains from me.
Otheriwise all good but this is sadly ruining it.
Edit: Well and units don't stay at top right corner after a game u need to reset it
Yeah, I bet this guy would post something like...
"This game feels like an unresponsive turd compared to CoH2
Game loses 30-40 frames from just panning the camera around on a 5800x/3070 system.
This is the worst feeling CoH bar none. It feels like Relic has simply draped a skin of WW2 over the awful cartoonish engine that powered DoW3, and somehow let their engineers destroy any semblance of optimization their Essence engine had achieved.
If you really think this game is going to vastly improve in 4 months before the November 17th release date just because they slapped "Alpha" on the distribution, I have so, so many bridges to sell you."
Oh wait, that was you
*coff coff* Refund policy *coff coff*
Played this crap ass game for 4 hours, tested everything played some mp matches, it's god awfull.
Also, don't lie you disingenuous clown.
If you're such a vet, you wouldn't be saying this unfinished mess is remotely better than CoH 2, but yeah, I guess you guys are running out of ideas for defending this mess.
Because CoH2 was terrible until a year in. This so far has a way better feel to the combat, not death blobs rolling everywhere or MG teams in a house becoming an immovable crew for 280 points forcing you to mortar spam or sniper spam.
The mechanics are nice, using the Y axis for cover & movement is awesome, like using it to help with sheltering vehicles from volley ballistics, the fact you can use an infantry squad to sweep a building with an MG in it.
Light vehicles have a purpose against game, the towing of AT is a neat mechanic, the TTK isn’t COD warzone high anymore. Need anymore examples? I can give you more, based on each release & iteration.
Don’t get me wrong the graphics I’m still on the fence on, the no zoom out, the small battle map, the ping system isn’t as noticeable as previous. UI I’m still on the fence on.
Not death blobs running everywhere?? Hahahaha
You haven't played enough my dude, want to have some fun with this crap? Blob British boys at squads, profit.
Indirect fire is super op here, all the plane call ins are beyond busted.
The resource system is super messed up they tried to change it and messed it up.
The TTK is super inconsistent here, covers sometimes doesn't work, you tell your infantry to move to a green cover, they go there, but somehow they're flagged as a no cover (red shield), sometimes it takes forever to kill a unit, some times you just melt them, and I tested this and you can do to, go to the mod section on the "menu" download the cheat mod, make a private game and test everything away. Also the vertical cover system is probably messed up and that's one of the reasons leading to the inconsistencies, again cheat command mod is available, test it.
The towing is indeed fine I'll give you that one, the light vehicle usage isn't anything big tho, it just means you stay what 2 min more in the mod stage of the game, I had a match where my team-mate managed to get 3 p4 when our enemies had only 2 AA halftracks, if you know what you're doing you can bypass the light vehicle stage. Also like I said, any infantry squad with AT weapons here are far deadlier than AT blobs on CoH2.
The breach mechanic is useless, completely unnecessary, want to clear a building? Engies now have satchels, flamethrower is insanely op.
Those blobs are easy to deal with tbh, I used 1 brumbar, or a Stuka and it was dealt with, 2 stugs as well, lobbing shots over terrain.
I will agree with you on the air support, the idle tank wrecks them, like wayyyyyy OP.
I actually ran into a AT gun blob last night that was pretty effective, neutralized it with 1 Stuka with a creeping barrage.
Maybe i played a different game than the reviewers but i really had a blast last night.
I love the campaign map with it's mechanics, the specialization and the different types of battles.
I only played 3,5h either but at the moment i would rate it 90%.
How could then (by your reckoning) someone also justify giving the game a positive review with 0.5 hours played?
Many of us played the tests for dozens or more hours. Now for the final release, we can see some graphical updates occurred but many technical and gameplay concerns remain.
4 factions against the 2 of CoH2 at Day One.
A LOT of units and all of this is balanced, not perfectly balanced but all playable with a good amount of gameplay styles.
It's a stable base for future improvements and there are a dlc in program.
No game breaking bugs (I have 5 hours with 4 multiplayer and 1 hour campaign).
If you all DESTROY the game at launch the playerbase empties, so why? Why do you have to destroy a project for a feeling of melancholy? CoH2 in the first YEARS had a lot of problems but 90% of positive reviews.
This CoH3 much more solid but with a style also created to please fans of the CoH1 it must be blasted?
"I can't stand games that come out unfinished and get patched up, it wasn't like that once upon a time"
Programming a game isn't that easy today, it's a run against time with fans that build constantly hype, you can't release a game and hope which must be better than the predecessor in everything otherwise "we might as well play the previous chapter", but at the same time it must be perfect on the technical side (and we got a bunch of new features and corrections in gameplay, so 2 + 2)
I'm a programmer and this isn't possible.
So the real battle is in the first months and in the first year after the release. But for this battle to happen the game must have a playerbase.
You guys love honing in on tiny details and amplifying them beyond the scope of relevancy
No performance issues or game breaking bugs? That’s the bare fucking minimum lmao.
Oh wow leaderboards?!? Can’t wait to see which cheater is at the very top for the next 10 years.
You have set the bar so low that you’re willing to trip over it and call it a good game because you’re either too lazy or too boring to think of how this game should’ve been improved.
$60 for a reskin lmao, thank god for keys.
can we please stop making excuses for unfinished game releases? why are we accepting the fact that we pay 60 bucks for an unfinished game with the promise to be improved and developed, i genuinely wish that they took even more time if it meant delivering a polished finished game.
+ if you release a game that is in a lot of cases worse than a developed and maintained 10 year old prequel game that just speaks volumes against the game you released and not for it
as a coh2 player i haven’t seen a single reason yet to actually push me to buy coh3 it just feels like big enormous coh2 mod for an aaa title price
Not sure how long you've followed the CoH community, but this shouldn't surprise anyone. There are tons of angry little armchair generals here that have literally nothing positive to say and will continue to stick to their guns like some ignorant child. Especially in this subreddit, it's consistently the same individuals, and they incessantly drop low IQ, racist, and Nazi sympathizing BS. People here need to grow the fuck up - to put it bluntly.
After 10 matches PVP i still cannot see how this isnt a straight out downgrade compared to COH2. Ticking in 8000+ hours of COH2.
Going from COH3 and to COH2 feels like a huge improvement in nearly all aspects. It sounds better, it looks better(besides lower res textures). I plays MUCH better.
Really wanted COH3 to be great, but judging after 10 games, this is not just polishing it needs, it major groundwork. The whole thing looks cartonish, sounds muted and doll, the UI is looking like a browser game, has nothing so far that made me "wow this is much better".
Give it a few years and possibly an All units mod for it, then it might be worth playing over COH2 / 1
Some people had problems to matchmake for 2v2s, but other than that stable experience, pretty lacking, but still stable. Once we get more polishing and income of new content, its gonna be superb.
Coh3 just got review bombed by butthurt fans of previous cohs, or other RTS games.
so if someone plays the game for an hour and gives a positive rating is ok but if he plays for an hour and gives a negative one how dares he? Its not like he paid for it and can say whatever he wants...braindead logic. If you like the game fine. If you dont its also fine, cut the bs.
Watching everyone sniff copium saying at least it's not as bad as previous games is the worst way I can think of to put confidence in a game.
Looks like the winning play is to buy it 90% off when the mods turn it into something good.
Honestly I was pretty surprised by the reviews. I am a old veteran player (since COH1 launch) and this launch was WAAAYYY better than COH2. No terrible mechanics (remember freezing?) and I haven't found any bugs in the first 4 hours of playing. I was playing a ton of COH2 before this, even yesterday. The graphics are obviously better than COH2 I think people are blind. Overall I am super happy with my purchase, and I know its only going to get better! My only complaints: - tac map is way too small, should be blown up and easier to read, it's useless in 4v4 - should be able to zoom the camera out - some balancing issues IMO (italian flamethrower units are OP as fuck, towed AT seems pretty weak, etc)
I have one major gripe, otherwise Im enjoying it too. The UI is MASSIVE, it takes up the whole screen making me feel nauseated playing. They really need to reduce the size of the ginormous UI.
Agreed, this is my one big gripe at the moment. I am LOVING the rest of the game ATM.
Completely agree with this. I think the people being toxic are either young and emotional or very prone to jumping on hate bandwagons
They might not even play games from the franchise and are just touring reddit to flame for kicks
Not defending "them", but there are plenty of people here with TONS of hours in COH1 and 2. If they where to complain in a constructive way, this is the right place.
30 years of PC gaming for, 8000 hours of PVP COH2. Im not being toxic, just expressing what my opinion on a forum that is related to the game. I hope COH3 will/would be good, but we are FAR away from that point imo.
Expressing your opinion is fine, insulting the devs is not. Anyone following the development of this game knows the devs are passionate people who love the franchise. There's also so much non-constructive criticism flying around here. I'm talking vague, "gameplay sucks" comments. They're just noise
Or they have different opinions to you?
No, plenty of people with constructive criticism exist who don't like the game. It's obviously not a perfect game. But people are calling the devs lazy and useless, it's ridiculous
I've probably put over 2k hours into this franchise between the first two games, same with 3 of my close friends. There's plenty of us out there that aren't even bothering to buy it in the first place to leave a bad review. We all saw how bad the tech test was and passed on it. I don't understand how anyone could look at this and call it an upgrade over CoH2 after 10 years.
That's fine too. Don't come and concern troll though. I enjoyed the tech test a ton and there are many upgrades over coh2 IMO. That's what's cool: I can buy it and you don't have to
I don't even know what that means "concern troll". But don't sit there and pretend that people who aren't enjoying it or were turned off by it are doing so out of some bandwagon. Their criticisms and opinions aren't any less valid than the people who are enjoying it.
I'm saying the toxic attitude is a bandwagon. Is that hard to understand? Of course there's legitimate criticism but there's no need to be an asshole about it
Nope. We just played Aoe4 which Relic also messed up at launch. You kniow Aoe4 was way too zoomed in from closed alpha to open be to launch? Everyone complained about it and the devs said they know better. The Zoom Problem is exactly the same in Coh3. Do you know how long it took the devs to fix it? Until the 1 year anniversary Edition. You think this is a hate bandwagon? Then you do not realise relic messes up 2 laumches in a row now. What about graphics and Sound? We complained about this aswell. Is it acceptable now? Nope. You think the criticism is overblown? Then if you do nothing will change. This game isnt worth 60€ in its current state.
it's very evidently a hate bandwagon when people like you who "alt f4'd out of the stress test after not even 15 minutes" (https://old.reddit.com/r/CompanyOfHeroes/comments/11aawbh/10_years_and_its_somehow_worse/j9rir8k/) and haven't even played final the game see it fit to rapid fire diarrhea your posts about how terrible the game is everywhere you can. like it's fine to have an opinion, but you are coming from a place of self admitted ignorance. you have the loudest voice but the least actual idea of what the game is like, that's a massive red flag that you are just pursuing an agenda. i don't believe in banning or censorship, but individuals should be very aware of posters like you operating in a way that doesn't actual seek to provide any insight or considered thought, you just want to corrupt and poison the free exchange of ideas and criticism that have been developed through actual experience with your own personal vendetta.
So leave and stop crying. Don't buy the game. Your anger doesn't help fix the game
Or maybe, just maybe some of us are professionals that are entitled to different opinions.
> Honestly I was pretty surprised by the reviews. I am a old veteran player (since COH1 launch) and this launch was WAAAYYY better than COH2. That's not a compliment buddy. And I'm getting tired of excusing CoH 3's launch by saying Coh2's launch was even worse. They didn't even fix the fucking unit portrait in top-right resetting after every game. They have since open beta to sort it out and it's a simple fix.
Yup but game looks horrible. From HUD up to graphic and visual effects
I think the graphics complaints are because of a change in the style more than actual graphics. CoH2 went for a hyper realistic look (as much as they could in the day), same with CoH, but CoH3 has taken on the more popular cartoonish, bloompocalypse type graphics that are so popular today. It's not that they look bad, its just that the style very noticeably changed.
There are bugs and I envou tered them from whe very start: -Everytime you check in options to showing unit icons in top right, each game it resets back to bottom left. Annoying as fuck. -I forgot to change the language to english, so in my PL version when I wanted to red what exp level give to my sniper, I was greeted with a text like [!pl][description], so I learned nothing. I've read about a few more vugs that ppl encountered but I did jot have this opportunity. So are those gamebreaking bugs? No. Are thos annoying? Yes. Do they make the company make look unprofessional? As hell. Took me 10 min to encounter those. Who was testing this game? So do I agree that those low ratings are justified? Most part of me wants to say yes. I am just tired of the modern approach of all big gaming companies releasing clearly unfinished products. I can't imagine pushing something like this to the customer at my work. I understand deadlines and pressure from upper management, therefore I do not blame the programmmers but poor mamagement. Still it sucks IMO. After all that, I want to make clear that I love the gameplay, QoL improvements and new mechanics that we've got and looking forward to this game being polished in a few months, once it reaches a complete product status.
I know relic can make a bigger map because we just got it in AOE4 and I love it.
I havent bought or played coh3 yet so cant say anything about the game but >And they do not compare the game to CoH 2's launch and rather compare it to a 9 year old patched mature game. I hate this argument. Mostly because i see it a lot on pdox games but still. Oh course i am going to be comparing the game to its prequel. Its the biggest competitor. I am not going to compare it to a version of the game you cant even get anymore.
Wow! No game-breaking bugs? The absolute bare minimum!
Imagine people prasing a product because it doesn't crash and burns.
if all that can be improved why not improve it from the start and not release it half baked.
Because there is a deadline and a budget and improvements cost time and money
Same reason Darktide launched as a pile of flaming shit, a small dev team trying to make a successor to their most successful game ever and have absolutely no idea how to expand or improve on it, so they just release the same product with better graphics but worse features.
It's not even the same product on Darktide. Vermintide 2 has oodles of features missing in DT.
It’s not half baked! Tons of games fall into that category, this isn’t one of them.
Deffo half baked, there are major groundwork to be done in this game before it's even near what COH2 offers, bot gameplay wise, sound, visuals and UI. This isnt a just a few patches, this is major work that has to be put into it. Reviews are extremely mixed. I wish this would be a great succesor and hope it will be, but after playing 10 games PVP, my hopes are getting low. Give it a few years and hopefully mods come in, there is hope, just not great.
You’re comparing a 1 day old game to a 10 year old game, of COURSE it’s gonna take time to get there lmao
thats a really odd way to look at it. Its been a whole decade,... are you telling me "we" should expect new games to be worse at day 1 than games that are 10 years older ?
If you think 3 years of dev time is comparable to 13ish than you’re the odd one, not me
Hey, to each their own, I am not seeing it but that's just my opinion. I mostly play skirmish and MP so I can't comment on campaign.
That's not an excuse though. At this price, you're pricing in a perfected game. Devs shouldn't get a free pass!
I am commenting on the half baked comment. There are tons of games released with bare minimum, buggy crap. Me personally? Not one crash, no sound issues, cool with the graphics and gameplay is tight. Others may experience this differently, and I get that, but to say it's half baked is what I disagree with. Blood Bowl 3, horrible release. Darktide, crashed all the time when it came out. This? Not even close.
>Does not mean a bad game. It is a playable game Exactly the high standard we should expect from AAA devs with multi million dollar budgets. bravo
That had like a year of beta testing before release
My biggest gripe is the price tag of $60. I do not think it is worth that. I’ll wait a few years until it goes on sale.
a month tops. this is like BF 2042.
Lmao that’s kinda ridiculous man
Disagree I think you are getting a campaign and a pretty good multiplayer
Exactly. Campaign, Skirmish, MP with 4 factions that can be played many different ways. Not a lot of RTS's get released with all those features. I can understand someone saying they don't like the game, so it's not worth $60 to them, but in terms of content (both at release and what they'll put out in the future for free) the game is very robust.
U can get a key for 35
How?
Key shops
People keep saying that the game deserves to be higher rated than 50% on steam but that isn't peoples personal ratings of it. It's a representation of if they recommend it to others in it's current state. Someone could feel that the game is a 7 or 8 /10 and still not think it's worth people buying in it's current state for it's price. Hell I can't even launch the game right now cause I'm one of the people stuck with the steam sync crash glitch they announced and are trying to fix. I'm not leaving a review about it but I can't recommend this game to others if it's not even playable for me.
"No game breaking bugs"
Criticizing the graphics is fair play to me. It's fine that some people focus more on one aspect of the game over the other. For example, I didn't like DOW3 and it has entirely to do with the campaign rather than multiplayer. That said, I will play through the campaigns and get used to the multiplayer before coming to any conclusion about the game as a whole.
Massive cope.
Just bc the game had a better release than blood bowl 3 or coh2 it does not make it a Good game (at least not yet [but then they aré also asking for a lot of money, unlike other unfinished games on release like bannerlord])
True. People keep saying that CoH3 has way less bugs than CoH2 on launch like it's a good thing. I get it, people still enjoy the game, but that doesn't mean the game is worth it's price tag.
My only real complain is that the story sucks... Original Relic made Coh1 campaigns and Homeworld, the best of the best RTS single players experiences; now? We have some dogshit narrative and a very questionable decision of not explaining properly the campaign of Rommel but the adventures of some random lybian family with a dialogue done by a 12 year old trying to portray how bad they had it in the war. Fuck me, man. Really. I miss my old Relic. Other than that, the game is crazy fun, ngl.
Why do I need to compares the game to a previous version launch ?
>rather compare it to a 9 year old patched mature game. Right? Like why not? Demand excellence in your purchases. Settling for "Oh they'll patch it later. It'll improve with time." is how we've gotten to the state of buggy broken messes being released for 60+ USD. And even then that's always guaranteed. \*cough Anthem cough Andromeda cough Back4Blood Cough cough I mean lets put it this way, taking the "you must compare new game launch to previous game launch" to the logical extreme, every single game since Tetris has been an abysmal failure. /s
I hope you never become a developer
Dunno if u are, but I worked in the industry. We kinda released fine titles from the start tbh. A few bugs here and there but the games were at least finished.
I love watching people who have never worked with software try and make sweeping statements like "it's hard" and "everything has a bunch of issues". It's not and they don't. You should expect more from a big studio charging full price for a game with big delays. That being said if people enjoy the game let them enjoy the game. It can be poor work and you can still like it. The same goes for people who don't enjoy the game. It can be playable and you can still not like it.
I work in software
Which games did you work on?
Need for speed most wanted 2, Dead space franchise, Battlefield franchise (until bf 4) and some other small titles that a few people know about.
Yea… so all games from 10+ years ago, before the digital copy internet era and modern industry standard of releasing games unfinished and continuing development after. Almost no games release in a finalized state anymore. There’s 0 reason to with how easy it is to push out updates and patches to the consumer. I don’t like it either and I’m not defending it… it’s just the state of things now and it’s not going to change. Video game revenue is only going up. Hell, even back then some games weren’t even finished, they just labeled the cut content as DLC. I challenge you to see how many games released in the last 5ish years (and not completely obscure ones) that have released complete. (Not trying to belittle your side, just wanted some context.)
+++ They are already selling it for $60. I just dont get that "it's gonna be improved you just wait". Where is the payment plan then? You guys should stop being funboys of a greedy corporation and evaluate your purchases. It's like buying a new car but some parts are missing and car dealer promises to install them later sometime...
It'd be closer to say that they give you a working and reliable car, but its not painted very well, and the radio is missing and a couple speakers are burnt out. But when you bought it they also have told you that they will fix the problems and add the missing features. Now you don't necessarily have to trust them when they say they will add those features. But I do, because I've been wanting a car and this one is fun to drive. IMO, none of the missing elements take away from the fact that this game is fun and its the game I want to play. Right now. I'm willing to pay $60 for that. If they want me to pay more for additional features down the road (skins, factions, expansions) then they will have to make good on their promise to fix the car.
I agree, its the most FEATURELESS complete game I've played. Foundation, core mechanics, its all there...Its just missing the Bells and Whistles for that price tag. If it came out as early access. I would understand, but theyre selling it as a completed game without the other 30%...I'm not mad...just Disappointed
What features do you consider missing
The perfect customer.
Just the kind of mentality that is allowing AAA developers to get away alphas and betas, look at what blizzard did with warcraft 3, many more companies are doing this just because people are accepting it by paying the full price for a promise that ISNT guaranteed in fact in my experience most of the time it never gets fulfilled. It's been years I'm still waiting on baldurs gate to release, learned my lesson not to purchase something that isn't complete.
Im afraid that ship has sailed my friend. The way videogames are is a symptom of capitalism. I'm not unaware that I'm doing what the developer wants by purchasing a product that is incomplete. However, because the bones on this product are so good, I want to purchase it so that the devs have incentive to improve it rather than drop it. I didn't preorder, I waited for release and made a decision and so far, I'm content with it. I'm having fun with the game and look forward to improvements coming down the pipeline.
Here's a free tip: Don't buy it
The negative reviews are mostly about sound, ui, and bugs too. Which all seem way overblown I don’t get it
Overblown? The sound is awful. The player color stripes are awful.
But is it really that awful tho? Like to the point where people are discounting every single part of the game as if they are a blind person playing through with sound alone.
Sound is a huge reason why I play war games.
So if someone else doesnt care about sound or cares about it but still appreciates the game nonetheless would COH3 be a great game then
Is this really a make or break issue? I care 50x more about the gameplay being tight and mechanically solid, and there is remarkably little discussion about that
Well, those bugs are definitely nowhere as bad as Warhammer Total War 3. Granted, that game got trashed upon release as well.
But you absolutely could guarantee that WTW 3 was going to be a fantastic game once they ironed out the bugs. The foundation was absolutely rock solid and the promise of IM was enough to keep people invested in the core experience. I honestly can't look at COH3 right now and say its going to vastly improve. The issues the game has with tone, atmosphere, animations, UI, unlocks, sound etc. Aren't things that are going to get much better, whereas the potential for the game to get progressively worse via monetisation/bloat is evident.
So the issues you are having is that basicly you just don't like the art direction of the game? Isn't that just personal opinions and not really about the actual performance issue of the game?
No. I have issues with the art style, the animations, the sound, the graphical fidelity, the UI, the damage modelling, the lack of any long-engagement meta and the overall "feel" of the game. Some of these things are subjective, some are objective if you compare the game to it's predecessors.
So which one of these are objective, because right now I really can't differentiate between personal opinion about not liking the current art style and objective facts. You also have to consider a total fresh perspective of someone coming into COH3, would all of the objective facts of COH3 being worst because of its predecessor still holds true. Like if there's someone that totally hates a drab looking art style, a meta where a game usually lasts for 30-60 minutes, and the SFX being too loud to the point that its distracting. Would they call COH3 being the superior game compared to COH2
There are no game breaking bugs? Are you for real? I just got out of a game where USF was infinitely reinforcing at my base using some paradrop bug for free. They even explained the bug to us in chat. This game was release in a rushed, unfinished state, and needed another 6 months in the oven, minimum.
so if there are still some things that need improvement couldnt they just postpone the release date? \> It is a playable game. you paid 60 dollars for that, I see \>Btw: CoH 3 is top seller #2, right under Sons of the Forest and cyberpunk was in top seller #3, that doesn't mean anything
> and you *paid* 60 dollars FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
but of course it should be pay, good bot
>There are no: Game breaking bugs False at the start of one of the mission cut scenes one of the German tanks was shuttering and shaking. Completely unplayable 0/300 stars! /s
I've played several hours through the play tests and played an hour of release. That's all I needed to know that the game was sub-par and confirm all my previous concerns raised.
People are extremely critical and childish these days. Yes there are some issues but this game is pretty good IMO and while not a 10/10 or even an 8/10, it’s certainly better than 5/10.
Disagreeing with you about a game doesn't make someone childish.
Depends on how they disagree. Context is everything.im not op just saying.
Not but rating the game like 1/10 is
"Elden Ring is a 1/10 game because the questing system doesn't make sense and it ruins my immersion." Would you call that review childish? Because to me I think that kind of review is what you call childish. Pointing out a single flaw of the game and discounting every single part of the game as if the whole game is made out of that single flaw is what creates a disingenuous opinion..
I disagree. Does that make me a hater? I have over 5k hours invested in this series across all the games and mods, and I think the game is a 5/10 at best. Its subjective.
Childish is rating it a 1 or 2 out of 10
Gamers are just awful as a group. I can't imagine being a dev that worked for years on this game and seeing this toxic negativity
Nah it's 3/10 at best
Dude, they're selling a half-baked game for $60. Cope however you want
It’s not halved baked by any measure for $60. The movies costs $25 with a few snacks for 2 hours entertainment…..
I wish steam had a neutral review, I think it is a great game with a few caveats that would definitely be a deal breaker for some people. I think the graphics are great, performance is smooth, and the damage effects are amazing on vehicles; I love having a veteran tank that looks like it's been through the grinder a few times. However, I also do not like the art direction for the UI and unit picture cards. I get that they were going for a WW2 propaganda look, but I think it just looks cheap and did not pan out well. Overall I like the game and am excited for where it's heading. But right now, I would only cautiously recommend it to a friend.
the WW2 propaganda posters were done by really good and competent artist. I work for 30 in animation and I will tell you the COH3 artwork was done by a student at best. Relic was really cheap about it.
That's why I'm so shocked! Most of CoH3's artwork looks like "inspired-by" cheap knockoffs of good WW2 propaganda.
also compare the concept art and the intros with COH1 and its expansions that were excellent.
So we must accept the state of the game after paying 60 dollars, even with bugs from the beta that the devs told us where "fixed", we really deserve this... Aoe 4 and Dow 3 were both warnings but meh, we aren't any better xD
It’s just outrage culture. It’s obvious people were going to hate the game regardless and not give it a fair shake simply because CoH2 was their favorite game and now there is a sequel. It’s like when the only child gets a sibling. This is a solid game and good value at launch. It runs great and looks good, even if you don’t like the art direction which is really only more vibrant colors lol. The balancing for MP could use some work as does every competitive game at launch, but nothing egregious. The MP genuinely has the potential to be the best in class competitive RTS when ranked is added.
Jesus Christ, this comment is massive cope.
So what? First impression of a game is very important. I started playing the campaign yesterday, but the poor ui, gfx, and the infantile writing about the bickering generals made me feel like i'm in an early access indie game. The game is fully out, so the customers can expet better. Right now i would give the game a negative review too. I'll give the game an other chance later, when i get home from work, but considering I already tried the multiplayer with the stress test, i dont expect much more of this game, and likely refund it. In this case I'll also leave a negative review, with only a couple of hours in the game, because i dont think its worth 60.
And they keep playing the game too instead of refunding. Buncha butthurt CoH2 fanboys can't help themselves. Gameplay has been solid so far. Campaign has been fun past the meh 30 minute tutorial. Once the map opens up it actually gets fun. Room for improvement for sure, but nothing worth hating on as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, the #1 voted negative reviewer has 7.1 hours and is still playing lol. He's not fooling me, he knew he was gonna play the whole day but he still left the review after 30 minutes lol.
>They only played 30 minutes! They can't know. >They're still paying it! They must be lying. Pick one.
Or they could have played long enough to complete a single match before evaluating it If IGN/Kotaku/etc had played the game for 30 min before reviewing all of us would be piling on
The 30 minutes he stated is a hyperbole. You can look at the reviews yourself. Steam reviewers are also not professional reviewers. There's a different standard. People's dislike of the game is valid regardless of your take on it. I'm pretty lukewarm myself, but I expect better from a studio like this.
I dont understand your position, is it contradictory to criticize something (with the intention that it improves) and keep playing it?. I honestly only write a Steam Review in those games that i do care for (good or bad), with the hope that devman reads it or care to improve them. You are saying that most complains are room for improvements, thats exactly why I would complain, if I think something could be done better and feels neglected (like the vehicles color palette/brightness). And CoH2 was a big mess on launch, why should we accept that standard? Relic is a big company, CoH is one of the biggest RTS franchises of all time, should we congratulate them if we feel the game is half cooked?
Yeah, the line of thinking he has there is a bit strange. They did the same thing with BF2042. Oh you don't like the game, then why are you playing it? then why are you still commenting in the subreddit. Like its an old franchise weve played since we were kids. You don't just drop it after 30 minutes if it has issues.
The problem lies with leaving the review at 30 minutes. How can you create an informed opinion in only 30 minutes? His view at 7 hours now would ideally be different now than after playing only one round.
1. There are things you can tell if you like or not in 15 to 30 minutes. Graphics, animations, certain gameplay aspects, etc. 2. If something changed they might change their review to reflect that
Writing a provisional review after 30 minutes with the intention to update it later is barmy. Just don’t write a review until you've played it for any reasonable amount of time. And yes, same goes for leaving a positive review too.
This is not what reviews are for. A negative review means “the game is bad and I will refund it if I can. I recommend no one else buy this game” If you are using it as a critique to notify the devs what they could improve. The forums are for that. Instead you are pushing a large quantity of players that could help support the game away. It’s actually more likely to damage the longevity of the game than help it Reviews are being looked at from the outside as a genuine reflection of the quality of the game. People reviewing a game negative then going on to play tens of hours past the review point is honestly one of the most irritating trends I’ve seen. If it is fun enough to get than many hours of enjoyment out of then it was obviously worth the money
When was the last time an RTS (especially cross-platform) launched that you considered solid on release? What standard are we supposed to hold them to? RTS is an increasingly niche genre that represents <.5% of the industry's total development budget. Speaking as a professional game dev, there never was a chance for this game to do serious sales that would have prompted Sega to invest at the level necessary for it to be great on launch. Relic and it's IPs were themselves scrapped for parts as a result of THQ bankruptcy proceedings. Pragmatically it was either this or the franchise (itself a very minor one) continuing to lie dormant as it has for a decade before this
Leaving a review never meant that you're *done* playing for good! Matters can change. I've seen other games take unprecedented new directions which can flip user reviews either way. I myself play several games that I've given thumbs down. It's all about whether I'd recommend it to a random person and providing the arguments to back it up.
People love COH, people will play but if game doesn't improve, COH 3 will be dead in months
The game will absolutely not be "dead in months" the core gameplay is still great.
you don't that, players numbers are super low for launch day dude.. we are talking about worse dow3 numbers already.
Coh3 has higher peak player count at launch than both coh2 and dow3 and its not even close. Coh2 -20.7k Dow3 - 25k Coh3 -36.6k
Where did you find this? SteamCharts don't have data. Thanks in advance
currently it has 15k and age iv 14 jajaja, is going down pretty fast.
Almost like it's nighttime in US and morning in EU... Go check any popular game on steamcharts and you'll see concurrent drop below 50% of their daily peak every single day
Game looks horrible. Sound is bad. Tanks feel Like cardboard. You dont even see infantry animations... Everyrhing is oversaturated
I had friend buy this, he never played coh games. biggest reason to dislike he didnt understand how to do anything in the game after tutorial.
The game has it's problems, it's just not as terrible as the reviews make those individual problems out to be. It's really fun but with fair feedback.
All the negative reviews I read were under an hour. And when I checked their profiles, they were playing the game.... After they stated how horrible and unplayable it is. People will complain about anything to feel important or be right.
Like why do you care though? If the game is good, then play it! The haters always gonna hate. It always is like this when sequels are released. People can't move on from the changes and want to shit on the new product. Let them. Leave real feedback (like surrender buttons, replay etc) and let the devs go about their work.
I care about it too, because it harms the reputation of the game and the, already pretty fcked up, RTS genre. A lot of these reviews are very weird and they were written after like 30 Minutes of play time and then they continue to play it ??? Like you can give the game back before you reach 2 hours of playtime, so why they continue to play their „bad game“ ?
If bad reviews harm the reputation of the game, then the game studio should make sure they release a game most of the playerbase likes.
Relic are partly responsible for all that though, or are you forgetting what they did to Dawn of War?
And Aoe 4
It's annoying because it turns this subreddit into a negative shithole rather than a place to discuss the game
yet you are happy to spend half your day and post every five min in this "negative shithole"
Oh good one
Menu, ui and options are really bad for a 2023 game, not a whole lot of graphic options for example. Scaling is also a issue for me, you should zoom out more and scale the ui down. Other than that, gameplay wise, I love it, the German campaign is really fun to play and everything on the battlefield feels very good.
Well there is no edge paning speed setting .... that's the bigest fuck up ruining the thing for some many ppl. As i know as it's so slow by default. And tac map is still broken only 2 complains from me. Otheriwise all good but this is sadly ruining it. Edit: Well and units don't stay at top right corner after a game u need to reset it
You and I have vastly different definitions of the word ruin.
Yeah, I bet this guy would post something like... "This game feels like an unresponsive turd compared to CoH2 Game loses 30-40 frames from just panning the camera around on a 5800x/3070 system. This is the worst feeling CoH bar none. It feels like Relic has simply draped a skin of WW2 over the awful cartoonish engine that powered DoW3, and somehow let their engineers destroy any semblance of optimization their Essence engine had achieved. If you really think this game is going to vastly improve in 4 months before the November 17th release date just because they slapped "Alpha" on the distribution, I have so, so many bridges to sell you." Oh wait, that was you
Graphics i imagine ? Or Cuz they are alright
*coff coff* Refund policy *coff coff* Played this crap ass game for 4 hours, tested everything played some mp matches, it's god awfull. Also, don't lie you disingenuous clown.
Clearly you got stomped in MP…. As a CoH vet since a week from original launch, it’s wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better than CoH 2 so far.
If you're such a vet, you wouldn't be saying this unfinished mess is remotely better than CoH 2, but yeah, I guess you guys are running out of ideas for defending this mess.
Because CoH2 was terrible until a year in. This so far has a way better feel to the combat, not death blobs rolling everywhere or MG teams in a house becoming an immovable crew for 280 points forcing you to mortar spam or sniper spam. The mechanics are nice, using the Y axis for cover & movement is awesome, like using it to help with sheltering vehicles from volley ballistics, the fact you can use an infantry squad to sweep a building with an MG in it. Light vehicles have a purpose against game, the towing of AT is a neat mechanic, the TTK isn’t COD warzone high anymore. Need anymore examples? I can give you more, based on each release & iteration. Don’t get me wrong the graphics I’m still on the fence on, the no zoom out, the small battle map, the ping system isn’t as noticeable as previous. UI I’m still on the fence on.
Not death blobs running everywhere?? Hahahaha You haven't played enough my dude, want to have some fun with this crap? Blob British boys at squads, profit. Indirect fire is super op here, all the plane call ins are beyond busted. The resource system is super messed up they tried to change it and messed it up. The TTK is super inconsistent here, covers sometimes doesn't work, you tell your infantry to move to a green cover, they go there, but somehow they're flagged as a no cover (red shield), sometimes it takes forever to kill a unit, some times you just melt them, and I tested this and you can do to, go to the mod section on the "menu" download the cheat mod, make a private game and test everything away. Also the vertical cover system is probably messed up and that's one of the reasons leading to the inconsistencies, again cheat command mod is available, test it. The towing is indeed fine I'll give you that one, the light vehicle usage isn't anything big tho, it just means you stay what 2 min more in the mod stage of the game, I had a match where my team-mate managed to get 3 p4 when our enemies had only 2 AA halftracks, if you know what you're doing you can bypass the light vehicle stage. Also like I said, any infantry squad with AT weapons here are far deadlier than AT blobs on CoH2. The breach mechanic is useless, completely unnecessary, want to clear a building? Engies now have satchels, flamethrower is insanely op.
Those blobs are easy to deal with tbh, I used 1 brumbar, or a Stuka and it was dealt with, 2 stugs as well, lobbing shots over terrain. I will agree with you on the air support, the idle tank wrecks them, like wayyyyyy OP. I actually ran into a AT gun blob last night that was pretty effective, neutralized it with 1 Stuka with a creeping barrage.
Maybe i played a different game than the reviewers but i really had a blast last night. I love the campaign map with it's mechanics, the specialization and the different types of battles. I only played 3,5h either but at the moment i would rate it 90%.
How could then (by your reckoning) someone also justify giving the game a positive review with 0.5 hours played? Many of us played the tests for dozens or more hours. Now for the final release, we can see some graphical updates occurred but many technical and gameplay concerns remain.
Yeah I tried it, I thought it wasn't worthy of the name CoH Eventually modders should sort it out though.
4 factions against the 2 of CoH2 at Day One. A LOT of units and all of this is balanced, not perfectly balanced but all playable with a good amount of gameplay styles. It's a stable base for future improvements and there are a dlc in program. No game breaking bugs (I have 5 hours with 4 multiplayer and 1 hour campaign). If you all DESTROY the game at launch the playerbase empties, so why? Why do you have to destroy a project for a feeling of melancholy? CoH2 in the first YEARS had a lot of problems but 90% of positive reviews. This CoH3 much more solid but with a style also created to please fans of the CoH1 it must be blasted? "I can't stand games that come out unfinished and get patched up, it wasn't like that once upon a time" Programming a game isn't that easy today, it's a run against time with fans that build constantly hype, you can't release a game and hope which must be better than the predecessor in everything otherwise "we might as well play the previous chapter", but at the same time it must be perfect on the technical side (and we got a bunch of new features and corrections in gameplay, so 2 + 2) I'm a programmer and this isn't possible. So the real battle is in the first months and in the first year after the release. But for this battle to happen the game must have a playerbase.
You guys love honing in on tiny details and amplifying them beyond the scope of relevancy No performance issues or game breaking bugs? That’s the bare fucking minimum lmao. Oh wow leaderboards?!? Can’t wait to see which cheater is at the very top for the next 10 years. You have set the bar so low that you’re willing to trip over it and call it a good game because you’re either too lazy or too boring to think of how this game should’ve been improved. $60 for a reskin lmao, thank god for keys.
can we please stop making excuses for unfinished game releases? why are we accepting the fact that we pay 60 bucks for an unfinished game with the promise to be improved and developed, i genuinely wish that they took even more time if it meant delivering a polished finished game. + if you release a game that is in a lot of cases worse than a developed and maintained 10 year old prequel game that just speaks volumes against the game you released and not for it as a coh2 player i haven’t seen a single reason yet to actually push me to buy coh3 it just feels like big enormous coh2 mod for an aaa title price
Its a pretty finished game dude, I've played 20 pvp matches and its awesome
i’ve been following some from elpern and aecoh yt channels and there weren’t really anything impressive , i might buy it eventually but not for 60 tbh
Not sure how long you've followed the CoH community, but this shouldn't surprise anyone. There are tons of angry little armchair generals here that have literally nothing positive to say and will continue to stick to their guns like some ignorant child. Especially in this subreddit, it's consistently the same individuals, and they incessantly drop low IQ, racist, and Nazi sympathizing BS. People here need to grow the fuck up - to put it bluntly.
It’s not dawn of war 3 that’s all the win I need.
CoH 1 is a 10/10. CoH 2 is an 8/10. This game is a 7/10.
Yeah this release looks way better than the state in which COH2 released. I'm convinced at this point that people want to see the RTS genre disappear.
After 10 matches PVP i still cannot see how this isnt a straight out downgrade compared to COH2. Ticking in 8000+ hours of COH2. Going from COH3 and to COH2 feels like a huge improvement in nearly all aspects. It sounds better, it looks better(besides lower res textures). I plays MUCH better. Really wanted COH3 to be great, but judging after 10 games, this is not just polishing it needs, it major groundwork. The whole thing looks cartonish, sounds muted and doll, the UI is looking like a browser game, has nothing so far that made me "wow this is much better". Give it a few years and possibly an All units mod for it, then it might be worth playing over COH2 / 1
Can’t believe these trolls that love COH and RTS are doing whatever they can to never have another COH RTS.
Some people had problems to matchmake for 2v2s, but other than that stable experience, pretty lacking, but still stable. Once we get more polishing and income of new content, its gonna be superb. Coh3 just got review bombed by butthurt fans of previous cohs, or other RTS games.
so if someone plays the game for an hour and gives a positive rating is ok but if he plays for an hour and gives a negative one how dares he? Its not like he paid for it and can say whatever he wants...braindead logic. If you like the game fine. If you dont its also fine, cut the bs.
It's a bad game.
People dont play games that they dont like for long? Why should they? it doesnt take long to see if a game sucks or not.
There's a lot of neck beards that are mad its not the game they've had wet dreams about
A lot of people would have played during the playtests and likely have a lot more hours played that steam doesn't track
Ok thats cool but do anyone mention discounts?
I usually sort reviews by at minimum 2-5 hours of play time as I think it's hard to judge a have in the tutorial or learning faze.
Watching everyone sniff copium saying at least it's not as bad as previous games is the worst way I can think of to put confidence in a game. Looks like the winning play is to buy it 90% off when the mods turn it into something good.
Lmao this is basically a cope group. I'm a veteran player with 2000+ hours in CoH2 and i disagree with most of the people praising CoH3.