Company of heroes and World in Conflict are RTS games. So this is a fair poll.

COH is 2006 PC game of the year.

WIC is 2007 RTS game of the year.

WiC = a game with no strategy. it's simply one long "put your unlimited supply of troops in the circle until it turns green and keep them there until I tell you to move them to another circle or until I say you've won". It's nothing more than a guided tutorial for the entire game.

CoH = actual use of strategy and WAY better map controls.

WiC cause they have big booms!!!

CoH for gameplay though...

Company of heroes and World in Conflict are RTS games. So this is a fair poll.

COH is 2006 PC game of the year.

WIC is 2007 RTS game of the year.

gogators4life

WiC may have won RTS of the year awards, but it only had one real competitor. It was a slow year for the genre, and it won by default just by being pretty good. If it had been released in 2006, it would've been 6th best if it was lucky.

WiC = a game with no strategy. it's simply one long "put your unlimited supply of troops in the circle until it turns green and keep them there until I tell you to move them to another circle or until I say you've won". It's nothing more than a guided tutorial for the entire game.

aschuhart

Newsflash, WIC won best strategy game for its MP not the SP that you described.

But anyways, I prefer the fast paced action of WIC better. The whole team has to be working together to see it in all its glory in MP. CoH has more of an emphasis on personal skill rather than the ability to coordinate with your team. If you dont have that in WIC you wont have a fun time.

WiC = a game with no strategy. it's simply one long "put your unlimited supply of troops in the circle until it turns green and keep them there until I tell you to move them to another circle or until I say you've won". It's nothing more than a guided tutorial for the entire game.

CoH = actual use of strategy and WAY better map controls.

aschuhart

CoH = A stupid game that is just a farm fest, horrible blocky graphics, and stupid AI.

See I can make comleatly idiotic statements on games I never played too!

WiC had a good single player campaign, but that was allRattlesnake_8

lol no the SP is ok but the main attraction of the game was the multiplayer, it is the reason the game recieves praise. Read any review and it talks about the great MP over the SP.

[QUOTE="gogators4life"]

Company of heroes and World in Conflict are RTS games. So this is a fair poll.

COH is 2006 PC game of the year.

WIC is 2007 RTS game of the year.

mfsa

WiC may have won RTS of the year awards, but it only had one real competitor. It was a slow year for the genre, and it won by default just by being pretty good. If it had been released in 2006, it would've been 6th best if it was lucky.

This man speaks the truth. ^^

COH IS AN rts, wic is not. This is the undeniable truth.NEOSPARKING

What do you define as an RTS than? Mindless base building and gathering resources?

[QUOTE="NEOSPARKING"]COH IS AN rts, wic is not. This is the undeniable truth.Penguin_dragon

What do you define as an RTS than? Mindless base building and gathering resources?

LOL! Mindless base building? I'll let you off free with that mindless comment.

[QUOTE="aschuhart"]

WiC = a game with no strategy. it's simply one long "put your unlimited supply of troops in the circle until it turns green and keep them there until I tell you to move them to another circle or until I say you've won". It's nothing more than a guided tutorial for the entire game.

bignice12

Newsflash, WIC won best strategy game for its MP not the SP that you described.

But anyways, I prefer the fast paced action of WIC better. The whole team has to be working together to see it in all its glory in MP. CoH has more of an emphasis on personal skill rather than the ability to coordinate with your team. If you dont have that in WIC you wont have a fun time.

yeah that's awesome. but i don't judge a game for it's multiplayer because eventually no one will play online and then what? your stuck with single player. playing against another human can make nearly ANY game good (depending on the person or persons). a truely good game doesn't need other players to be good.

[QUOTE="aschuhart"]

WiC = a game with no strategy. it's simply one long "put your unlimited supply of troops in the circle until it turns green and keep them there until I tell you to move them to another circle or until I say you've won". It's nothing more than a guided tutorial for the entire game.

CoH = actual use of strategy and WAY better map controls.

Penguin_dragon

CoH = A stupid game that is just a farm fest, horrible blocky graphics, and stupid AI.

See I can make comleatly idiotic statements on games I never played too!

yes you can. how awesome you are. except i have played WiC...all the way through...

yeah that's awesome. but i don't judge a game for it's multiplayer because eventually no one will play online and then what? your stuck with single player. playing against another human can make nearly ANY game good (depending on the person or persons). a truely good game doesn't need other players to be good.

aschuhart

You should when the primary games focus is the multiplayer. That is like judging Counter strikes or Battlefields SP bot matches and claiming it is a sub par game because you dont judge the MP, when the game is designed specifically for MP. Also it is the MP that gives most game their longevity not the SP, SP in WIC will last you ~6 hours while MP will last years(people still play the MP in a lot of RTS games years after it is released). People will be playing WIC for quite some time.

[QUOTE="aschuhart"]

yeah that's awesome. but i don't judge a game for it's multiplayer because eventually no one will play online and then what? your stuck with single player. playing against another human can make nearly ANY game good (depending on the person or persons). a truely good game doesn't need other players to be good.

bignice12

You should when the primary games focus is the multiplayer. That is like judging Counter strikes or Battlefields SP bot matches and claiming it is a sub par game because you dont judge the MP, when the game is designed specifically for MP. Also it is the MP that gives most game their longevity not the SP, SP in WIC will last you ~6 hours while MP will last years(people still play the MP in a lot of RTS games years after it is released). People will be playing WIC for quite some time.

CS and Battlefields are primarily multiplayer games though. WiC is a single player RTS with a multiplayer option. Not a multiplayer game with bot matches.

Company of Heroes ftw!

CS and Battlefields though are primely multi player games though. WiC is a single player RTS with a multi player option. Not a multi player game with bot matches.

aschuhart

Actually I would reverse that as WIC is a MP RTS with a single player option. It was built from the ground up with multiplayer in mind(ever wonder why they advertised it as being an ESL game or the fact they put a lot of effort and features into the massgate system?). A lot of people that play the game skip the SP entirely. After it was released the main reason it got its praise was the MP action. The fact is ignoring the MP is ignoring a big part of the game.

[QUOTE="aschuhart"]

CS and Battlefields though are primely multi player games though. WiC is a single player RTS with a multi player option. Not a multi player game with bot matches.

bignice12

Actually I would reverse that as WIC is a MP RTS with a single player option. It was built from the ground up with multiplayer in mind(ever wonder why they advertised it as being an ESL game or the fact they put a lot of effort and features into the massgate system?). A lot of people that play the game skip the SP entirely. After it was released the main reason it got its praise was the MP action. The fact is ignoring the MP is ignoring a big part of the game.

For me, I consider any game with a single player campaign, a single player game with multiplayer options. I know others see it differently, but that's just me. While I was in the military, there were plenty of times were I didn't have internet access and could only play single player games and that's just what I would always base my thoughts and feelings of the game off of and well...old habits die hard. For me, a developer should spend just as much time making the single player aspect of a game just as good as the multiplayer. I didn't like WiC for reasons stated and that's what I stand by. I understand plenty like WiC for it's multiplayer and that's fine. The multiplayer part of the game is the only part where strategy DOES come into play.

WIC, probably because I like the more realistic RTS games.... also it had nice booms :P

and it has a fantastic MP! INFANTRY FTW!

okay

WiC. 'Nuff said.

[QUOTE="Penguin_dragon"][QUOTE="aschuhart"]

WiC = a game with no strategy. it's simply one long "put your unlimited supply of troops in the circle until it turns green and keep them there until I tell you to move them to another circle or until I say you've won". It's nothing more than a guided tutorial for the entire game.

CoH = actual use of strategy and WAY better map controls.

aschuhart

CoH = A stupid game that is just a farm fest, horrible blocky graphics, and stupid AI.

See I can make comleatly idiotic statements on games I never played too!

yes you can. how awesome you are. except i have played WiC...all the way through...

The reason it felt like a tutorial is probably because that is what you were playing....

If you really did play past the first couple of levels, you would at least know that there is an actual cap on your numbers so its not "unlimited", and later in the game your assigned small troop forces without reinformence unless you earn the right to get them.

What exactly do you want the game to do instead of giving you a place to go? Im sure your CoH games has you going from point A to point B in the end, so whats the difference? Do you have some phobia of circles?

As for strategy theres tons of it if you actually try to play, the reason it feels like there isn't any is because the game doesnt end just because YOU suck, it instead continues while you are standing there wondering why the enemy is raping you. If you dont play the game correctly of course your not going to see the strategy in it.

better visualsRattlesnake_8

I disagree, have you seen a nuke go off in WIC?