User Reviews (81 - 91 of 119)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Horrible Vehicle AI; Poor weapons balance.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 1 / 10
Date: November 07, 2006
Author: Amazon User

They really should reduce the cost of allied tanks; up the lethality of Axis tanks. Improve AI for both tanks, so that they don't point their rear ends toward the enemy. Then improve the accuracy of shooting by tanks, they will repeatedly shoot into the ground and never change elevation or move to a better firing position. It would be great if you could set formations for the vehicles as well.

since none of these things are done - its a pretty weak game. Though the graphics are great when you zoom into to see the little dudes fighting.

See ya,

Jim

VERY DISAPPOINTED

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 5 / 100
Date: November 20, 2006
Author: Amazon User

For those of us who like FPS games such as Call Of Duty, you will be VERY disappointed at this game. It is played in the "third person" mode. You tell groups of squads what to do, then you sit back and watch them do it. You have no control after that. Same with tanks, planes, etc. The soldiers are so small you can hardly see them on your screen. No real interactive playing like Call of Duty. When you choose weapons, they are so small, the soldiers could be holding a baseball bat and you would never know it. If you HAVE to buy this game, at least wait until it goes on sale, or you are throwing your money away! This game is so bad, I'm giving it to the first person who will take it.

Language - gratuitous and no turn off option; historical excuse for language is hypocritical

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 1 / 14
Date: October 16, 2006
Author: Amazon User

This game is really outstanding for what it is - and really cool for WWII game fans - but in my opinion the language is offensive and gratuitous. To defend the language with piety saying "That's historically accurate!" is hypocritical. The decision to make the language prominent was a calculated one all about money. A company would never institute a feature that would cost their company profits in order to improve historicity. War does not follow the rules of a conventional real time strategy game anyway - which this game basically is. The makers of COH made this game follow conventional real-time-strategy rules - and not historic reality - because they thought it would sell better. So defending the language because its historically accurate is hypocrical. If they wanted to make a historically accurate game, the language is the least of the designers concerns.

As for the language, these soldiers in real life probably did curse somewhat - but "hello!" - they are getting shot at! How many times have we cursed when we have narrowly missed being killed by a car accident or accidently hammered our fingers. Would we want to record and play back that curse word for our children? No. Even if it was "historically accurate." I believe many of the veterans of WWII are the same way. They were shot at, many of them died and they probably cursed a little on the way. But why romanticize and aggrandize this aspect of their behaviour?

If THQ makes the excuse that they want to create the real feeling of what it was like to fight in these wars - and thats why they include the language - they should create a sense of loss of the casualties. Who died in the battle? What were their names? Where did they live? Who did they leave behind? There is no sense of loss in these games. You simply push the "reinforce" button to replace nameless men. Justifying the language to create an accurate "feel" of war is as feeble as the justification for language for historicity sake. The designers of the game dropped historicity in many ways to make the game more accessible to players - and sell more - and they dropped the most important feeling of war - having real people, real friends get killed. The language was included not for those outward reasons, but rather, they thought it would sell more copies. I can understand a profit driven motivation, but why not include the option to turn the language off??

I Fought In The Gamespot Tournament.

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 1 / 17
Date: November 13, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Company Of Heroes is a great war game It has alot of blood. gore. bad language. violence. and destruction in it. I wanted the game badly so I fought in the gamespot tournament to get it. The Grand Prize and the only prize if you won the tournament is this. a trip with 4 friends to a real Military Base. there you will receive your own copy of Company Of Heroes. but not only that but you also get to Watch A Real Military Combat Drill. and also get to Command a Tank. a Fighter Jet. a Bomber. and other Military Veicles. and also get to hold and shoot a Rifle. a Machine Gun. a Rocket Launcher. a Granade Launcher. and other Military Weapons. but I lost the tournament but mayby next time I will win.

RIP OFF

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 2 / 79
Date: September 23, 2006
Author: Amazon User

THIS GAME IS A WASTE OF MONEY. I'VE READ THE OTHER REVIEWS ON AMAZON. I CAN'T BELIEVE THE REVIEWS. THE DECEPTIVE ADVERTISMENT ON TV OF THIS GAME IS UNREAL. THE GRAPHICS ARE TERRIBLE (YOU BUILD A STRUCTURE AND IT SHOWS UP AS A WALLED DIRT MOUND), THE MEN YOU CONTROL ARE JUST BLUE AND RED CIRCLES. I'M USE TO GAMES LIKE (LORD OF THE RINGS) WHERE YOU CAN AT LEAST SEE THE MEN YOU CONTROL AND WHAT THEIR DOING. I'VE BOUGHT MY LAST GAME FROM (THQ/RELIC). I'LL ADMIT THAT I DON'T HAVE TOP OF THE LINE EQUIPMENT FOR GAMING BUT IT WORKS GREAT FOR THE GAME I'VE TRIED. I'LL STICK WITH ACITVISION AND EA GAMES.

A great game.

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: September 17, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Company of Heroes is massive step forward, while not a revolutionary step forward, in the now massive WWII sub-genre of strategy games.

The game features mechanics and concepts seen in many previous titles, such as Codename Panzers, Lord of the Rings Battle for Middle Earth II, and various other RTS games. However, where Company of Heroes shines and makes itself known from among the rest is simply by way of it's excellent graphics, real time physics, and presentation.

While being a cut and dry RTS by any standards,Company of Heroes presents itself with awe inspiring physics, meaning objects of all kinds, from houses and crates, to bridges and lamp posts, can get run over, blown up, or shot to pieces, in a very true to life fashion. Soldiers react in a realisitc maner with hundreds of animations. If they come under fire, they will jump and scramble for cover, and immediatly begin returning fire in the process. But this is essentially where Company of Heroes ends it's differences with many other RTS games.

The controls nonetheless consist of nothing more than selecting units, moving them, and ordered them to attack, take territory or retreat, there is simply nothing new here. No new RTS concenpts, no new game mechanics, simple cut and dry RTS management, plus physics.

Company of Heroes not only adds nothing new to the concept of RTS gaming, as I mentioned above the controls, and troop concepts are the same as they were 5 years ago in the game Dawn of the Modern World, it also lacks in depth, and content. There are no more than twelve skirmish and multiplayer maps, and only two sides, Axis, and Allies. Add to this the fact that there is no random map generator, and you have a game that wont keep your attention for more than three weeks, unless you play the same maps over and over again once the campaigne game is done.

In the end, I feel more and more as play that all this has been done before, minus the graphics and physics. Because once the "Shock and Awe" effect of the graphics and phyics wears off, I begin to realize that have stormed the beaches of Normandy in many previous games, that I have fought and crushed the Axis in various other games, and I cant help but feeling that all this has been done time and time again. Had there been more content, I might feel differently.

Nonetheless, this is an excellent game.

To sum up,

Pros,
1) Great Graphics.
2) Great animations,
3) Great sound,
4) Voice Acting.

Cons,
1) No new concepts for RTS gaming.
2) Drab content, (only two sides, and only 15 skirmish maps.)
3)It's all been done before, minus the graphics and physics.

A real let down....

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 3
Date: September 12, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Considering the big buck promos this game turned out to be an arena war set that has very weak AI and is more frustrating than fun. After just four 1 on 1 arena multiplayer battles I was worn out. The promos imply a larger scale [much smarter] computer enemy. After doing single player for a while it got boring. The computer throws single tanks or a small squad at you and this is just annoying, instead of fearsome. It requires some strategy to control the resource points but it's a very limited scope of gameplay. I feel deceived by the movie promos, no, I feel lied to.

sucks

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 0 / 11
Date: January 08, 2007
Author: Amazon User

Don't get caught up in the hype. It's a loser's version of warhammer 40,000. Only two army's to choose from and AI that predictable. The game increases the enemy's abilities to beat you. Including speed, fire power and resources. Not much fun. Stupid game.

Too Complicated

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 0 / 5
Date: January 09, 2007
Author: Amazon User

This is a strategy game not a shooter game. One has to accomplish tasks to continue to move to the next level. There is no saving the game where you are at. If you fail to accomplish the task, you have to start over at the level. I am stuck at a level that is about one-half way through the game. I have tried to accomplish the task 5 or 6 times and can't seem to do it. Frankly, it seems impossible without some "trick", which I don't know. But, what is the point of that? I thought this would just be "fun". This game is not fun.

war game

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 0 / 2
Date: January 10, 2007
Author: Amazon User

delivered fast - a game that my husband requested and he is pleased with it

Review Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next 

Actions