Soldiers: Heroes of WW2/Faces of War vs. CoH? - by EvaUnit02
EvaUnit02 on 6/1/2009 at 19:59
How do Soldiers: Heroes of WW2 and its sequel Faces of War compare to Company of Heroes? Better or worse in your opinion, or are they apple and oranges?
I've read that CoH borrowed some gameplay mechanics from the aforementioned Ukrainian series.
TBH, they should create one concrete international name for the series that's owned by the developer, rather than the foreign publisher. It would save a lot of headaches and confusion.
Trance on 6/1/2009 at 20:28
It's like comparing ArmA to BF2. One is far more realistic and involved than the other, but by yourself or with a few others that more realistic depiction falls short due to pacing issues. Company of Heroes sacrifices some realism in order to support a quick-paced, balanced RTS. With Soldiers: Heroes of WW2 it's quite easy to become bogged down in the complicated gameplay. Thankfully the game keeps the force size limited to a single tank or squad, or you'd really be in trouble then.
The American dialogue in HOWW2 is balls, by the way. "I could use a beer right now" WHAT IN THE MIDDLE OF COMBAT STFU
What gameplay mechanics did CoH borrow, exactly?
EvaUnit02 on 6/1/2009 at 21:07
Quote Posted by Trance
What gameplay mechanics did CoH borrow, exactly?
I don't recall all of them, but CoH: Tales of Valor's direct fire mechanic is apparently lifted from Faces of War.
Trance on 6/1/2009 at 21:21
Okay, you mean comparing ToV with HOWW2. Yes, Tales of Valor from the previews does seem to be a lot closer to HOWW2. There's not a whole lot of information but from what I've read they're shifting the gameplay dramatically from the main game and its SP campaigns.
The direct-fire mechanism doesn't actually have enough information out right now for anyone to be justified in calling it plagiarism, but then again there's not much else about ToV that has a lot of information anyway. It does seem on paper to have more in common with HOWW2 now. I doubt they're ripping anything off though, and it will probably end up a lot different from how people are picturing it.
entertainer on 7/1/2009 at 07:33
coh is RTS, Soldiers franchise is RTT. And yes, it's like comparing ArmA with Cod. One is very immersive and is just fantastic to play coop with a friend. Not to mention the ease of modding and map/mission making.
While the other is just... well.. regular arcade rts.
The reason it seems they're also copying direct control is cause they already copyied the cover system.
The last part of franchise - Men of War should be released in first quarter and it still looks too similar to FoW wich was a failure because it was too arcade, plus the missions were kind of linear, not Soldiers style.
You can find out more about Men of War plus developer diaries here:
(
http://digitalmindsoft.eu/forums/viewforum.php?f=109)
Trance on 7/1/2009 at 13:11
A couple of in-game videos will highlight some of the differences in the pacing and gameplay.
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFp-suGeVd8) Company of Heroes
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2NGg3KwKNA) Men of War
I hadn't seen Men of War before this, the singleplayer looks like a blast. CoH's singleplayer is found wanting, sadly. The multiplayer excuses it, because nobody plays CoH for the singleplayer.
If you're making a decision on a purchase, though, just take a look at those two videos and see which one you'd prefer to play.
Koki on 7/1/2009 at 13:54
MoW looks much more like a tactical game.
I like it.
gunsmoke on 7/1/2009 at 16:25
What is ArmA? Haven't heard of it.
gunsmoke on 7/1/2009 at 17:08
Ah, thanks. THAT I have heard of :thumb:
