Rather see COH 3 fail and they continue development on COH1 or COH2 instead
Right now my friend and I were discussing this. He is in many CoH communities, and he says that out of his 70 CoH friends, only one has pre-ordered the game. People don't like where the series is going. |
Alright for the "listening the community part", And why are we the part of the community they should listen to? ,but please define authenticity. We are talking about a GAME, not a book, a film, a documentary, not a piece of Hisotory. WW2 was an horrible period people died in millions, genocide took place, all sort of horrors were commited; if the game is fun it will never be authentic nor historic. And as someone pointed that he has a PHD i'm a university student in XXe History focusing on armies and war.
Let's point by point:
- listen to the community, everyone here can agree without explanation that Relic likes to assert but not to fulfill
- Authenticity, so far nothing in the game goes beyond the authenticity of the Second World War: weapons, tanks, planes, all this was in the war at that time. Of course the infantry skins are far from 100% authentic, but that could be fixed in the CoH2 life cycle if Relic gave modding tools.
- Historic, oh no. For the phrases of generals Malinovsky or Chuyokovsky taken out of context or invented alone, Relik should be sued for libel. For this I have criticized and will continue to criticize Relic. |
Alright, some people don't like the idea of fictionnal tank/prototype. I get it, but why should relic listen to you? What is your legitimity on this topic. We're talking about this subject for weeks now but we are a small part of the community. Like it or not, our opinion is irrelevant. When relic is selling their product it's selling to the people that know the game but don't play a lot, WW2 interested people, strategy enjoyers. But not us the diehard fans. Why? because we're so small that we buying the game or not won't change. So my take on this topic is who cares about historical accuracy? Why? And in the end no one cares outside of us about this debate. Altought it's fun to read those.
Then it's time for Relic to stop stating again and again that they care about history, authenticity, and that they listen to the community. They already said it when they did CoH2 and shit in their pants. And again they said the same thing when they develop CoH3 and again violate their own words again and again. That's legitimacy for you. |
I don't know who made it, but the quality of this trailer is very much lower than the US and OKW fractions trailer in CoH2. |
Being completed while the war was going on works for me... I rly shouldnt have to explain the difference between 1945 and the 1970s, i would hope thats relatively obvious
But answer my question? Where do u draw the line for authenticity?
Its okay for tanks to be portrayed completely innacurately, as long as the models were real? Their speed and handling can be on par with modern cars, the battles they are fighting in can be completely fabricated, they can be reliably lazered from the sky by planes, they can be spotted by a flare launched from a mortar, but as long as the names and appearance are correct its still considered "authentic"?
That makes zero sense to me. The BP breaks immersion for u, but how the hell were u ever immersed in the first place???
Well, if the 1945 prototype is in fine. I think we have no problems if the USSR has a T-54 which was tested in April 1945. |
Cuz they didnt even start physically building one until the 70s.... Of course BP is a stretch and unrealistic. Its just singificantly less unrealistic than an abrams....
Lol u a moderator now? Thats funny
Let's finally get the hell out of what's okay and what's not okay:
- A BP who has never been to the War is okay
- M1 Abrams whose appearance is as realistic as a BP in a war is not okay
- If the IS-7, which was produced in 1946, was added to the game, would it be okay?
- Or ARL-44 for Free France. The number 44 which means that the tank was designed in 1944 but started being produced in 1948 and has a World War I design, is that okay?
Where do we draw the line which tanks that were not in the war are OK and which are not. |
You can be obstinate to the point a few people are trying to express you if you wish, but relic have essentially admitted they know that their IP contains a lot of fiction. Such as the rarity of the KT and Jagdtiger however to improve gameplay and make a fun product they are a franchise staple of common appearance. They go on to state that this chapter isn't any different.
I mean id love to see the drone b17 bombers that were meant to blow up targets remotely, they did poorly but since they were used once it meets the threshold for inclusion that some are making. Since its ok to fictionalize the units performance it would be above the mark, even though they never once hit a target.
Just as there is very poor performance on the tactical history of the strumtiger but it was used in that role poorly or not and its been given a fantastic gameplay place, regardless of being highly fictional.
That is the point I find funny, if we can fictionalize units operational lives to the point of reinforcing myth and this is the camels back broken in two, its funny.
Exactly. These guys look at: 1, 2, 3 it and think: -What the hell is this? This a fiction, there were no such tanks in the war! Let's add our fictional Black Prince then!
|
They were referring to all the questionable vehicle they've added when they used the term toys. I mean its there to watch and listen so you can understand their reasoning. But if you want to tailor their statement go ahead its there to watch. They have added questionable units across the franchise to improve gameplay and make an attractive IP. German toys and allied ones alike. Not really earth shattering news.
What? Questionable tanks? Does anyone have doubts that the King Tiger participated in the war? Or JagdTiger or SturmTiger? It's that mythical tanks, which everyone is talking about and not finding evidence of participation in the archives? these statements are so absurd. Any tank presented in the game was, was at war. Which is questionable. Or maybe I don’t know something and it’s time to doubt that the T-34 or Sherman was also in the war? |
Since at a point it was mentioned that the BP wasn't about gameplay. Or that this is not authentic. Thought id see what Relics thoughts on the subject were. North Afrika Recap 32 minutes in. Just some excerpts from it below but obviously listen to understand their take on the product.
"We also have to make some choices about representation of units that you know, there are things may be from a timeline perspective you feel, do we want to emphasize gameplay over like pure authenticity? And people can im sure can remember this from uhhh earlier games with the Kingtiger Jagdtiger or units vehicles that in the real world were extremely rare. We want to include that stuff in the game but we have to be a bit careful about it and decide, is it worth it for the gameplay to do this?"
Sacha Narine
"We think about authenticity vs accuracy a bit differently."
John Tabbernor
"Company of Heroes the whole franchise and legacy is that we do, were not just concrete on historical accuracy. We do kind of blend into this world of like you know these are just cool toys and at the end of the day wed like to just get them into the game for players to make use of. Uhhh you know Sacha has already eluded to some of the previous games and this series its no different, without a clear and precise answer - why is there a prototype in the game.
Matt Philip
So they have mentioned the liberties on the Kingtiger and the Jagdtiger were done for Gameplay, and look its the same intent for the Black Prince. I didn't see pitchforks about Stock KTs though. Again, numbers and specific history never mattered to relic. Invincible stukas in abilities, pin point accurate STs are just the beginning of a list that shows how a suspension of belief was already present in the game.
They make alot of mention of toys in the toolbox, and admit they don't think it saw deployment, but are quick to mention that they weren't shy to over represent units that are now franchise hallmarks despite rarity.
Absurd and ridiculous excuses. There are no pitchforks against the King Tiger and Against the JagdTiger because these tanks were and were used in the war. All excuses about the Black Prince came down to cool toys. |
So im starting to think we agree on more than we disagree
I guess where u lose me is i dont understand the surprise (for lack of abetter word) Or why this is enough to make u not buy coh3
Is BP the straw that broke the camels back then? Cuz my opinion is that the back was broken a long time ago, but the core of the gameplay is still great imo so i still enjoy it
In general, this is a set of solutions:
- The choice of the Italian theater of war and not making Italy a separate playable faction at the start, which just ruined my interest. I'm not interested in playing the same factions a third time
- Single player campaigns. Again, having taken Italy, we do not have an Italian Campaign. What is the meaning of this theatre? A dynamic campaign is an extremely boring and lazy choice.
- The Black Prince, which ruins the authenticity for me quite a lot and opens the way to paper factions and units.
All this just devalues the gameplay. |