You really underestimate how many people play on 10+ year old PCs and blame everything except their hardware for low performance.
Just go to reviews of any game that does not have pixel art graphics and you'll notice the exact same comments on negative reviews, irrelevant hardware, windows 7 and rant how game is "badly optimized" or has "bad graphics".
That's assumptions on your side. As an outsider it is impossible to know which computer and game settings the players run.
I think it is reasonable to demand that a new game should be decently playable on a 5 year old machine with low-medium settings. And often enough even new hardware has performance issues, sometimes tied to specific pieces of hardware, sometimes to combinations thereof. That's all fair criticism.
Katukov if you wanna know how a garbage launch and pay2win trash for years looks like, you should have been here in 2013-16 for CoH2, but I know for a matter of fact you're some random who picked up the game for free in 2018.
CoH3's launch is infinitely better in every single regard.
But yeah, feel free to stick with dead CoH2 bro, 3v3 is somehow gonna be even more dead than before now so maybe you achieve something like 3 digit ranks now
This comparison does not make any sense. The fact that CoH2 was bad at launch does not excuse for CoH3 having the same issues at launch. It proves that Relic misplanned their development schedule and that features are missing from the game. Games are consciously or subconsciously rated by comparing them to competitors in the market. CoH2 is a competitor to CoH3. If there are features missing, that's Relic's fault with no excuse.
If your first child hits its head on the floor after birth, you don't call the second birth a success because the child hit its head on a slightly softer rubber surface and is now just half as disabled as the first child was back then.
they become valid the moment you notice that the 3d models of the tanks are reused from coh2, a game from 10 years ago. there is no possible excuse for that and it shows incredible carelessness
The question is not if the models have been reused, but if the reused models are outdated. Could they have higher polygon counts and neater corners/edges with 10 more years of graphics development? Sure. But it does not always make sense to improve the complexity of your models, especially if you're not going to see it once you're zoomed out. At this point you'll just increase power consumption on the hardware for no benefit. On zoom-in, you'll probably see some of the rougher edges, but there is good reason for the developer to prioritize performance over that last 10% visual fidelity. You personally might weight that differently and not recommend the game with good reason as well, but that's not the only way.
I would have also expected an overall larger graphics leap, but I don't find the graphics particularly bad. For me it was more the overall art design that was slightly off and did not yield this great immersion that CoH2 had, but this has to do with more than just graphics. I have to say that I did not play the release version and that the data that Relic has put out since then looked promising on the graphics side at least.
I find it quite annoying though that many just jump on one single issue and downvote the game because of that. I don't believe that the e.g. graphic issues are so large that THAT many people find it game breaking. The game is more than just graphics or a couple of models ported from CoH2. They just expected better or something different and downvote in pure defiance.
It's pretty much the same what was criticized before release: graphics, effects, sound.
These are fair points, but sometimes mixed with disappointment that it is just different. Doesn't makw them invalid though
I seen way to many these "gamer" journalists, not even understand the game, much less in Multi-player and even less to gaming community and culture.
Quite a broad topic, but I agree. I did not say that there is no bad gaming outlet, but given the circumstances (needing to review multiple games a week, follow on current games news etc) and cases of actual misconduct aside, many reviews are okay. Obviously, no gaming journalist will beat a really dedicated hardcore fan that spend the last 10 years playing CoH2. Some people just assume that every journalist should be able to sink 200+ hours into the same game while having played the predecessors for even longer, but that's straight up impossible.
My point is that the final score is very weird. You need to know that this journalist cares about similar things as you do. Reading the text gives you insight if that is actually the case or if he is complaining about things that you don't care about or praising things that will annoy you personally.
Thank you to Janne, AE, and Relic(?). Coh without CheatCommands is a waste of time.
You took a weird engagement in a game? Test it out.
You are making a map or a mod? Test it out.
Are these units good close, med, or far? Test it out.
It should have been built right into the game by now. Just another example of Relic not knowing what they have in their hands. They need to hire someone who actually plays the game outside of competitive modes.
Mostly players that want to play competitively will check how different units perform and if your observation was an outlier.
More casual players either just move on or don't play enough to really sbe able to tell apart what is weird and what is normal.
I thought most people here care about multiplayer? That part cannot be reviewed yet.
Many 'professional' games media are okay, but people care too much about scores and too little about the text and then are wondering why the games are not as expected...
It takes 8 mins to win game if you have 3VPs, what is this 8 mins? You basically have like chance to attack 2-3 times, if you failed you've lost the game. On top of the already much faster gameplay, this is an over-kill.
It's more realistically an additional 3-5 minutes at minimum, due to the game startup.
The game seems also to be less about wiping squads so there might be less occasions to screw up majorly and lose the game because of one bad move.
I'm currently willing to have a look first to see how it works out, but skeptical about the change overall. It might actually defeat the point of the emphasis on clever maneuvering, since late game might be even more about running into VPs than in CoH2. But I've made my points in the thread I opened about it already.
...
The more recent event seems to be another screenshot that was taken on a separate server, yet still a private one, and appears to be an edgy joke that I made that was taken, again, out of context and sent as a complaint.
It goes without saying that this whole thing stinks, I should be able to make jokes or say what I want in a private setting without the anxiety of knowing that anything I say can be used against me and hurt me. It's also quite concerning how Relic didn't even bother to verify the claims, if they did they would have known the screenshot in question was deliberately taken out of context. It's even more concerning to know that anybody that uses my profile picture and my name on Discord will automatically be considered me. Meaning that literally anyone can falsify screenshots and Relic will simply not verify.
...
Depending on what you said/wrote, I think it is okay if Relic can decide to end your contract depending on the severity of the case and potential damage to them. I personally also would not automatically call any chat private because all the users were invited. If it was one of the 200+ users discord servers where you don't even know everyone, it is kind of public as well. If it was a private chat with 2-3 friends its a different case obviously, because the damage to Relic severely decreases the less people there are and also the "more private" the chat is.
I fully agree that Relic should have done more verification checks. It is a business agreement after all, also for Relic, and they should handle it seriously. Obviously they have the WAY larger leverage so they can act like this in the sense that they don't need to care neither from a reputation point nor sales, income, publicity or whatever. They're just the bigger shot. Nevertheless it shows shitty behaviour and code of conduct from their side. If they don't want to invest that work, they should not offer the contract to streamers that are "too small".
I can tell from my own experience here as a mod that it is sometimes very difficult to judge if something crosses a red line or not. Due to time, context etc constraints you just have to make your best guess based on what you can see. Sometimes you'll just get it wrong, no doubt about that. But this ties in to the point above: I am doing this for free in my spare time, and while I still try to make a fair decision, there's naturally restrictions to how much time I can invest. Relic did a business agreement, and they should take it way more seriously. It sounds pretty believable that they did not invest much time into verification of users and the overall claim. If I were you, I'd write John about it, but probably there's not a high chance of response and more in-depth review due to the release of CoH3 in a few days.
I didn't sign an NDA and I did not talk about confidential content about coh3 simply because I didn't know anything lol. The discord servers that I'm part of are huge, more than 200 people, obviously not all of them are friends.
Calling a 200+ people discord server where you probably know the vast majority vaguely at best "private" is utter nonsense. Relic might have still made a mistake, but pretty sure AceHiro is leaving out crucial info.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
