Sign in to follow this  
Rob Zacny

Episode 224: Stopped at the Gates of Moscow

Recommended Posts

Tom Chick joins Rob to talk about their feelings toward Company of Heroes, and why they both feel a bit disappointed. Tom thinks the game's economy is broken and it's become too armor driven, while Rob is really depressed by the faction design. And yet Rob still likes it, while Tom finds it ultimately pointless.

 

Listen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I jumped into CoH2 without playing the original, I was definitely mystified by Tom's review when I read it. This detailed discussion helped clarify a bunch of things I didn't really understand at the time. I see that CoH with all its expansions is available on Steam now for really cheap, so I'm definitely going to grab that.

 

By the way, I totally buy Rob's explanation of LoS rules from board games because I've been playing a lot of the Combat Commander board games lately, and what I've primarily been enjoying about CoH2 is how well it translates into a RTS version of that game, LoS, infantry tactics, and all.

 

Tom seems dismissive of reviews from newcomers to a genre, and I totally disagree with him. I believe that the greater range of perspectives we see in reviews, the better. As long as a review comes from an honest and thoughtful place I have no problem with the person's level of expertise. A SC2 review coming from the perspective of someone that is deeply involved in the competitive e-sports review isn't going to be of much use to someone that's simply interested in playing a single player campaign, and vice versa, but neither of those is necessarily a more valuable form of review. This puts strategy games in an awkward spot. Obviously we want them to be deeply engaging, and full of intricacies such that you need to spend a lot of time with them to truly appreciate what the game is "really" about. Those nuances are likely at risk of getting overlooked by the neophyte reviewer. That's okay though because initial impressions have to matter, and if your game play can't attract new players that can be just as big of a problem as failing to meet the expectations of someone familiar with the last iteration of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't necessarily being a newcomer to a genre.  The problem is having a lack of context, which is an unfortunate quality of many newcomers.  

 

Now you're absolutely right about a range of perspectives.  I'll review fighting games even though I don't play them competitively.  But I make it clear when I write about them that my perspective is that of a guy who plays single-player and enjoys local multiplayer with buddies.  That can be a valuable perspective for a lot of people who play fighting games, and it's going to be a very different perspective from a hardcore fighting game player who competes in tournaments.  That's where your point about range of perspectives is well taken.

 

But a range of perspectives isn't the same thing as *all* perspectives.  A review of Company of Heroes 2 written by someone who hasn't played many RTSs isn't going to mean much to me, so naturally I'm going to be dismissive of it.  I expect reviews to have some sort of critical insight, and naturally that involves some appreciation for and awareness of the state of the genre.  Someone who's never seen the squad system in Company of Heroes, or the infantry/armor balance, or the Hollywood-ized production values, is naturally going to go ga-ga over the sequel, just as someone who's never seen a movie is naturally going to lose his mind with utter delight watching a Michael Bay Transformers movie.  That's not the kind of person I want writing reviews.

 

    -Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

First I wanted to say I agree with some of the discussion on the game, especially about the game being so similar to COH 1. COH 2 is not the perfect sequel I was hoping for and it probably won't have the same lifespan as COH 1 did for me. 

 

However, I don't want to focus on all the stuff I agree with you about, that wouldn't be any fun :)

 

 There are a few things I like:

  • I do feel the graphics and engine improvements are nice, but maybe a bit too subtle to be appreciated.
  • You can cap points without being directly attached to the strategic point. 
  • The twitch.tv integration is awesome so you can watch people playing, even though this is not gameplay related.
  • I like the ability to customize the commander abilities, even though this leans more to people trying to create the perfect deck.
 

It was a bit frustrating listening to you discuss the game balance when you admit to not having played many online matches.  I've been playing a lot of online matches and watching the tournaments and good players on twitch.tv. Based on what I have seen and experienced most of your points about the game balance for online are just wrong.

 

All of these points relate to 1v1 since that is all I play:

 

Rush to fuel: in online competitive play building a fuel point is extremely rare and usually costs more manpower than it is worth unless you are extremely ahead or far behind.  The online maps only have 2 Fuel points and they are absolutely crucial areas of control for the online matches.  

 

About the Russia vs. German balance. Russia has the edge in this game.  The last tournament was dominated by the Russian army. Players had to play both to move through the tournament, but when playing Russian they were practically undefeated and when given the choice for final matches they all chose Russian.

 

German armor is strong, but is not overpowered at all.  In fact the Russians have so many tricks under thier sleeves and can counter anything the germans throw at them. Russians also get thier tank destroyer SU-85's out at the same time as the PIV shows up and the PIV is toast. Russian AT guns are better. Russians AT nades are devastating since they cause engine damage and leave you a sitting duck for the SU-85 tank destroyer.

 

The game still needs plenty of balancing patches before it will be fully competitive and I certainly wish it brought more to the table, but in the end I enjoy playing 1vs1 online.  Sadly with Relic's history of patches and balancing it could be years before we get the best game experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I largely agreed with your extensive discussion and your disappointment with CoH2 (though I have still played a lot of it over the last few weeks). A few minor points:

  • Relic deserves praise for releasing a AAA title that does not automatically require you to have close to the latest hardware - I have a 3 year Macbook Pro with very basic graphic acceleration and the game runs without excessive lag.
  • The KV-I does 'exist' but only in the 1941 time period
  • Why can't you elect to play multiplayer in a given year? It would allow for more diversity in play styles
  • That said, as far as I can see the balance for 1941 is completely messed up - Russian T-34s and KV-I's once built are almost unstoppable when the Germans don't have 'proper' Pz-IVs or Pzfaust/shreks. This is realistic-ish (for a change) but frustrating!

Can you provide a link to whatever it is you mentioned in passing that Bruce Geryk said about CoH2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listened to the podcast twice now.

 

You have the sort of ivory tower discussion, which is pretty common in a profession that is still trying hard to justify its own existence, beyond being a "holiday issue" recommendation, or a technical review ("does it run on my machine?").

 

Twenty years ago, I used to translate contemporary French philosophers and was maybe one of not more than five people, at one time, who really understood the subject, the author was talking about in that country. Even academics, not to mention students, did not grasp how 'wrong' they were about their popular believes and misinterpretations of the most fundamental ideas of this persons work. They read his work, but did not read the work that author had read. The very reason why he wrote and why it was novel.

 

What am I trying to say? Scholars - true scholars - are a lonely bunch. The conversation is limited.

 

I would have agreed for several decades, that any 'video game critic' would have to study hard and know all the games, that came before. He (or she), would have to know, how to think at least "three moves ahead", know board games, war games, political theory, engineering, know mechanics, concepts, math(!), and history (the general kind, which ever so often drops into the conversations, I gladly listen to on 3MA).

 

In short: context, context, context.

 

But these days, this is a very solitary and tedious conversation to have? I can see how someone who loves and enjoys Strategy Games for a living(!), would feel a certain way. I also would understand, how strategy game fans of the earlier games, would not appreciate the latest incarnation of their beloved franchise, which seems to have been prey to ... economical decisions and circumstances of multi-million dollar developments, trying to reach costumers, in a ever tighter and more competetive market? Again, context?

 

It is nice to have a fireplace kind of conversation, dissecting the subtleties of Flaubert's "Madame Bovary", understanding why that novel was different during its time period. The historical significance of it. The importance for later writers, etc, etc ...

 

I myself enjoyed the conversation on the podcast, I have heard, completely aware of its 'special status', while "in the wild" out there, illiterate kids write reviews for free on websites, just to get their foot, into the "video game industry" (at least, they think they do) and more literate ones, write utter nonsense pretty much every hour of every day, writing with their "guts" instead their brains, because they are so limited in their intellectual range. "Video games" - it is still a playing field for 'young' people? Thus, the conversations around video games will remain boring, unless one knows where to look and what to read (or listen) to?

 

And Company of Heroes 2? Depends?

 

In ONE point, I would strongly disagree with Mr. Chick: "Expectations".

 

You play (and review!) the game at hand, not the one you want it to be?* How is it helpful to me, when you judge a game by the level of your expectations and disappointment of it? It becomes a matter of your mind, in which I cannot see. That is the tipping point, I think, in which a personal conversation starts to ascend and becomes really interesting, while a "video game review" (or a conversation with strangers on the Internet) reaches its limit? I stop right here, before this turns into a real philosophical debate. Apologies.

 

 

 

*) "It is nice to want things" - Shane Bettenhausen, ca. 2005.

Edited by Alex Covic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, all. Enjoyed the podcast very much.

Imagine if we lived in a world where all game critics judged games harshly but fairly. Or even if we had an organization which certifies reviewers for all game genres, i.e. expert in strategy games, expert in role playing games, etc. In this world company of heroes 2 would get 20% expert rating on metacritic. Would it be a failed game? In this world every other game would be judged harshly, so it depends. Or even more extreme: imagine if game reviewers had even more narrow specializations. Some reviewers would be UI experts, some of them would be historical experts, graphics experts, strategy design experts. Do you want to make a strategy game in this world? Read 1000 of pages on UI usability, history, strategy design for the last 20 years to make an interesting game for every harsh critic. In this world gamers would carefully deconstruct design decisions, take out history books to compare events, compare in-game models to real world military design and when they spot a difference or bad design decision they would be able to get a refund. In this world only selected few companies would make strategy games because it would cost so much money. These companies would be corporate giants like Microsoft or Oracle and it would be impossible to get into this market. A new strategy game would come out once every 5 years, and would cost $500. Although this world is different and interesting and I would like game critics and gamers to be more serious about games I find it very hard to imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the desire to keep the job of game critic open to everyone, but I have seen what Tom's seeing with some Company of Heroes 2 reviews many times myself. Sometimes I read a review and realize that the reviewer is blown away (IGN.com) by something that most people (or at least most gamers) would consider superficial. One Civilization V review at release, I can't recall which, was almost entirely about how insane it was that a game modeled all of human history. The reviewer was so impressed by the concept, regardless of its execution, that you could tell the game had earned a perfect score in his head from the first turn, no matter how the rest played out.

 

I don't think all reviewers have to be old hands in their given genre; a lot of unhelpful reviews come from critics who've just been in the shit too long and can no longer see the forest for the trees. But I expect reviewers to be informed, at least more so than my pothead friend James who thinks explosions are dope, and that implies some degree of perspective, however they go about getting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex, thanks for the thoughtful post.  What a great read.  Although you might be too cerebral to play video games. :)

 

As for your point about divorcing expectations from criticism, there's no way you can do that if you also want context.  Part of the context of Company of Heroes 2 is that it was made by Relic, a company who has consistently created kick-ass video games that I really like.  That's one type of expectation and it's entirely reasonable in a critical discussion.  That's very different from expectations such as "I should be able to go outside the map borders!" or "I think the Russian should be able to shoot laser beams from their eyes!"  The former relates very powerfully to the "game at hand", as you say.  The latter doesn't.

 

Furthermore, if you read a review expecting anything other than a subjective expression of the writer's experience -- hopefully it's an experience informed by context and insight -- then you're not terribly different from the types of angry blog post comments who demand that any objective review of Halo 4 would give it at least a 90%.  A review is not an objective statement of a game's inherent value or worth, and I would furthermore argue that there is no such perspective on entertainment, whether it's video games, movies, or books.

 

    -Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think all reviewers have to be old hands in their given genre; a lot of unhelpful reviews come from critics who've just been in the shit too long and can no longer see the forest for the trees. But I expect reviewers to be informed, at least more so than my pothead friend James who thinks explosions are dope, and that implies some degree of perspective, however they go about getting it.

 

Well, to be fair, James does have a point.

 

   -Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you provide a link to whatever it is you mentioned in passing that Bruce Geryk said about CoH2?

 

Derbius, I don't recall the reference, but I'm not sure Bruce Geryk even knows that Company of Heroes 2 exists.

 

    -Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derbius, I don't recall the reference, but I'm not sure Bruce Geryk even knows that Company of Heroes 2 exists.

 

    -Tom

 

I don't really like shooters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such an interesting show because it evokes discussion on review theory. I saw Tom's score on Quarter to 3 and was very surprised. And then I saw his review score breakdown (1 star = I hated it) and it got me thinking of two different types of review and reader expectation of reviews.

 

One reviewer will review the product largely in isolation except possibly for basic reflections on graphics and gameplay. Example, RTS's these days allow the setting of groups so if a new RTS didn't have this it would be remarked upon given its pretty much the standard. A downside of this style is that game polish can heavily skew the reviews score while substance/evolution don't. The big reviewers largely fit into this catagory, eg IGN and Gamespot.

 

Another reviewer talks about how they found the game as an experience. This idea of experience can be based on almost anything (eg., context or fun) and thus equal examples are Tom's review of CoH2 or any Tom, Dick or Harry doing a user review on Metacritic. A negative of this is fanboi response.

 

I think people expect professional reviewers to be more like the former (and hope they don't have the negative aspects of this style) than the latter. But in this they miss the advantages that the second style of review can bring. I like Toms reviews, he must be regarded by some in the industry as an asshole (I'm sure some of the feedback he gets is done by companies paid to talk up games online in the context of "the average person") but then he does back up his scores with opinion. And as an example, Toms score of Civ V (vanilla) = "C". He is one of four reviewers out of seventy that gave it less than 80% and lo and behold he was spot on as most players agree upon. Polycast certainly do :)

 

And for the record, I believe 2 stars for Brave New World is wrong, I'd give it by his scoring 4 stars. Early game lack of gold thus poor rushes needs to be patched but it rounds out Civ V well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might also have mentioned the fact that the first mission in the campaign was weirdly and inappropriately a clone of the first mission of the American campaign. Charging up the beach to Stalingrad?! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for the record, I believe 2 stars for Brave New World is wrong, I'd give it by his scoring 4 stars. Early game lack of gold thus poor rushes needs to be patched but it rounds out Civ V well.

 

Good post, Snooze, but this last bit undermines what you've said.  So the rating is wrong?  I'm wrong when I use the rating that indicates "I didn't like it"?

 

Just because you have a different opinion about something doesn't make either of us wrong.  You can tell me I'm wrong if I say something like "Venice isn't one of the new playable civilizations" or "Brave New World doesn't have trade routes" or "The AI is competent".  But when it comes to whether each of us liked or didn't like the game -- the actual rating, in other words -- neither of us can be wrong.

 

That said, I'm glad to hear you "really like" Brave New World.  It's *always* a good thing when someone enjoys a game.

 

    -Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when it comes to whether each of us liked or didn't like the game -- the actual rating, in other words -- neither of us can be wrong.

So when talking about a game in a review you're trying to be objective - you list valid points such that everyone can agree or disagree and point out where you were wrong. But then you give subjective score which just states that you as an individual liked/disliked a game. Any other person might like a given game and would give it 5 stars and would be completely correct because it's just a matter of taste.

I think that most people look at review score of a game critic as objective thing, not subjective. Most people look at game score and think whether they would like it based on the score. I do it and I hate it, but I do it nonetheless. The score gives immediate information about the game quality. It's a fact that game industry pays attention to scores. And based on your score as objective  thing nobody should play CoH2.

subjective: "I hate it"

objective: "You will hate it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, Snooze, but this last bit undermines what you've said.  So the rating is wrong?  I'm wrong when I use the rating that indicates "I didn't like it"?

 

Just because you have a different opinion about something doesn't make either of us wrong.  You can tell me I'm wrong if I say something like "Venice isn't one of the new playable civilizations" or "Brave New World doesn't have trade routes" or "The AI is competent".  But when it comes to whether each of us liked or didn't like the game -- the actual rating, in other words -- neither of us can be wrong.

 

That said, I'm glad to hear you "really like" Brave New World.  It's *always* a good thing when someone enjoys a game.

 

    -Tom

 

I agree, neither of us are wrong because ultimately its all subjective. A poor choice of words on my behalf. I put the last part in to show that despite showing how you do provide a positive discussion in an industry somewhat lacking in ethics (ie sites reviewing games that pay advertising giving generic 80-90% scores) I do disagree with what you say sometimes.

 

 

So when talking about a game in a review you're trying to be objective - you list valid points such that everyone can agree or disagree and point out where you were wrong. But then you give subjective score which just states that you as an individual liked/disliked a game. Any other person might like a given game and would give it 5 stars and would be completely correct because it's just a matter of taste.

I think that most people look at review score of a game critic as objective thing, not subjective. Most people look at game score and think whether they would like it based on the score. I do it and I hate it, but I do it nonetheless. The score gives immediate information about the game quality. It's a fact that game industry pays attention to scores. And based on your score as objective  thing nobody should play CoH2.

subjective: "I hate it"

objective: "You will hate it"

 

Everyone is a critic, you just need to find a critic with similar tastes to you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when talking about a game in a review you're trying to be objective - you list valid points such that everyone can agree or disagree and point out where you were wrong. But then you give subjective score which just states that you as an individual liked/disliked a game. Any other person might like a given game and would give it 5 stars and would be completely correct because it's just a matter of taste.

I think that most people look at review score of a game critic as objective thing, not subjective. Most people look at game score and think whether they would like it based on the score. I do it and I hate it, but I do it nonetheless. The score gives immediate information about the game quality. It's a fact that game industry pays attention to scores. And based on your score as objective  thing nobody should play CoH2.

subjective: "I hate it"

objective: "You will hate it"

I think this idea of reviewer objectivity is a tempting trap and a huge mistake. I think it's impossible to ask any reviewer to transform into the mythical everyman, able to speak for everyone. In practice, I think it typically results in badly written reviews, that are ultimately not very useful. The primary way a lot of reviewers try to square the circle is by doing basically what you describe- breaking down the game into a list of things they reckon they can analyse. So you get: the graphics are good. The sound is good. The voice acting is OK. The plot is confusing. Well, OK, sure. But what's the game like to play?

 

So, any game is a more or less complex mix of tons of different things. I make some input and the game systems respond in some carefully tuned way displaying sights and sounds which change according to what I do. I am a laughably complicated mix of biology, memories, cultural conditioning, mental strengths and deficiencies, reflexes and personality. The game causes all sorts of bizarre and interesting things to happen in my brain. Somehow, in some mind-bogglingly chaotic yet somehow consistent fashion, I will have an impression of pleasure or worth, or the lack thereof, from my time interacting with the game. You have a similar process, but all the factors that make up me are slightly or completely different for you, and your reaction may, or may not be, different. We often make the hilariously oversimplified reduction of this unimaginable process and call it 'taste'.

 

I don't want a reviewer to try and tell me whether I'll like a game. The concept is absurd- demonstrably so. I'm sure any gamer out there could talk about games that most other players had loved that they had just hated. Likewise, there are games that most people who have played them do not like, which you happen to really enjoy. One interacts with your hyper-complex you-ness in a bad way, one in a good way. Neither outcome could have been easily or reliably predicted. 

 

I want a reviewer to tell me about their personal experience playing a game. Do I want them to talk about the graphics, or the UI, or any other specific element? Sure, but only in the context of telling me about how the game felt for them. If they are a good enough writer, and I read their review carefully I have the best possible shot at translating their subjective, yet well described experience to predicting what my own will be like. If you remove the element of the personal from the review process I have no hope of making this leap.

 

Here is what I think should be the gold standard for a reviewer. You can read a review of a game that they really liked, and know that it isn't for you and that you shouldn't buy it. Vice versa, you an read a review of a game they didn't like, and know that you'll have a good time with it. Good writers can make this happen. Your 'objective' buyers guide analysis? Almost never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people complain about objectivity in reviews, what they are really saying is, "why can't other people see things the same way I see things?" That's such a boring desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoyed the discussion about the game.

 

I was surprised by how little desire to play the game I had after buying it and playing it very little. I was really looking forward to blowing off work a bit and crushing the eastern front. After a couple of the maps, I was left super bummed and just left the game behind.

 

I don't know if the game is good or bad. But there are too many good games out there for me to dig deep into this game. Both my wallet and psyche are bummed about this game quite a bit.

 

I think I'm going to play more Kohan or Rising Storm (best strategy game talked about on 3MA this month :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was surprised by how little desire to play the game I had after buying it and playing it very little. I was really looking forward to blowing off work a bit and crushing the eastern front. After a couple of the maps, I was left super bummed and just left the game behind.

 

I don't know if the game is good or bad. But there are too many good games out there for me to dig deep into this game. Both my wallet and psyche are bummed about this game quite a bit.

 

I have similar feelings about games these days. I can still get excited for new releases but am aware that often the experience does not live up to the hype. I'm not sure if this is because I am becoming a more discerning gamer or gaming itself is not what I'm as much into. If its the latter, believe me I am resisting the change :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have similar feelings about games these days. I can still get excited for new releases but am aware that often the experience does not live up to the hype. I'm not sure if this is because I am becoming a more discerning gamer or gaming itself is not what I'm as much into. If its the latter, believe me I am resisting the change :)

 

For me, I get this feeling a lot with most AAA games (not exactly a the most amazing revelation ever). XCOM and Skyrim are like the only big budget games in the last couple of years I remember really loving. Though I bet I really liked some other AAA that I have since forgotten existed. I think AAA games just sting me more because of the cost.

 

If I drop 10 bucks on a game that doesn't wow me, I don't get too upset. When COH2 is 60 bucks and I'm not thrilled with it, it stings so much worse. (though COH2 probably extra stings because I wanted it to be amazing. If Rome 2 isn't great, this could be my least favorite gaming year ever).

 

The games industry is in a much more diverse place than in the past too. You can be more discerning and still have so much to do. When I was a kid if I didn't like certain big games, I was out of games to play instantly. Now, there are so many games and genres that we get to be discerning and still not have enough time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I drop 10 bucks on a game that doesn't wow me, I don't get too upset. When COH2 is 60 bucks and I'm not thrilled with it, it stings so much worse. (though COH2 probably extra stings because I wanted it to be amazing. If Rome 2 isn't great, this could be my least favorite gaming year ever).

 

The games industry is in a much more diverse place than in the past too. You can be more discerning and still have so much to do. When I was a kid if I didn't like certain big games, I was out of games to play instantly. Now, there are so many games and genres that we get to be discerning and still not have enough time. 

 

I'm expecting Rome 2 to be visually exciting but due to the combat ultimately dull. Heavy infantry in centre, check. Cavalry on flanks, check. Skirmishers running around giving me headaches, check. I'm expecting a severe case of "been there, done that".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to put this here, the local games show "Good Game" reviewed Wargame: Airland Battle. Given the previous discussion on review styles there is so much that could be said of their review, positive and negative.

 

What are the positives?  Also, can I have those five minutes of my life back.  

 

   -Tom

 

"There are a lot of typos in this game."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this