Reviews

[donjas]

Originally Posted by Evilsausage

"I never said I have never played COH online, only rarely."

Well true but you judged it only by its single player. Why? Cuz it has a campaign?

I mean seriously take Starcraft for example. It had a really complex campaign for its time. But starcraft isnt exactly known for that now is it?


"4. If that logic was there, we would never need a new improved game, because they are all basically the same, from the time the first Warcraft game came to the rts scene and maybe earlier."

That was not the point i was trying to make. Theres a hugh different between that and a game that is made almost exactly as CoH.

And you don't even have any real arguments on why CoH is bad. Except that it isnt good in single player. Which we already know!


"I need content, I need strategic options in my games so that I can put my mind to work."

Good because in answering threads you don't really seam to "put your mind to work".

Like a stuck record you simply don't get it. So let me repeat for the umpteenth time.
1.I play mostly single player and in that COH is simply not realistic enough for me. When I play multiplayer I play games like Dawn of war and Warhammer because they were designed mainly for multiplayer. They have several little nuances that make them perfect for multiplayer. But I don't play multiplayer that often so I am not a good judge of it.
2. I never said COH was bad, it is simply an arcade game and I am tired of those games. Is calling a game an arcade game an insult? If so there are many other games that fall into that category.
3. I don't consider COH a leap in improvement over the original Warcraft. It is basically the same game, but flashier graphics. But that does not mean I am calling COH a bad game, Warcraft was one my favorite games.
4. Are you some personal representative of COH that you are taking it so personally. If you like arcade games, well and good, what is wrong with that.

[DMS|Instinct]

This topic is not about which game is better, so stick on the topic and leave that discussion.

Men of War and Company of Heroes aren't even in the same sub-genre, so it's pretty much useless to compare them.

Thanks!

[Evilsausage]

Sigh this disscution was never about which game was better. Like i posted like 5 treads before.

I like both game in thier own way.

"Like a stuck record you simply don't get it."

If you would read your own damn post maybe you would figure out why.

If you could have had some valid reasons in the first post why you didn't like the game instead of a load of BS. I would't have had to waste so much time on this thread.
This forum is for MoW and not CoH after all.

[donjas]

The review is short, hardly a paragraph, but it captures all the imagery of why this game is so good.

Read it yourself-http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/games-review-men-of-war-1638956.html

[AceWombat]

This will hopefully end the CoH vs MoW rant (if it's still going): MoW focuses more on realism (except for voice acting), whereas games like CoH, DoW and StarCraft place priority on fun over realism.

I rest my case.

[donjas]

I thought the review was pretty fair-http://thereticule.com/2009/03/men-of-war-the-verdict/

[donjas]

A mini review-http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/17/men-of-war-pc.

As you can see, generally positive. And since it is read by so many people, newspapers reviews by big newspapers like these are more likely to influence opinion of a game than an internet gaming site.

[Nike-it]

Men of War got "Impressive" raiting and scored 8/10 in the recent review on IGN!
Tha author says: "Men of War...is one of the most enjoyable and challenging tactical games we've played in a long time."
Full review here!