Talk:Company of Heroes 2/Archive 1

Help! This page needs to be updated with the new news!!

 * The Company of Heroes page already mentions this sequel. Since it has not yet been released, it is probably not notable enough for its own article yet.  Perhaps when there is more information.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been following the game rather closely, and as yet there is nothing else to really say in the article.
 * SilvestertheCat (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Resources

 * http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/05/22/company-of-heroes-2-video-interview/
 * http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-05-22-company-of-heroes-2-preview-russian-attack
 * http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-05-22-company-of-heroes-2-will-avoid-sensitive-issues-of-eastern-front-relic
 * http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/05/22/first-look-company-of-heroes-2/
 * http://www.videogamer.com/pc/company_of_heroes_2/preview-3327.html
 * http://www.thisisfakediy.co.uk/articles/games/preview-company-of-heroes-2/
 * http://www.shacknews.com/article/73897/e3-2012-company-of-heroes-2
 * http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/companyofheroes2/previews.html
 * http://kotaku.com/5912519/i-was-impressed-by--company-of-heroes-2s-fire-and-snow
 * http://www.computerandvideogames.com/348591/previews/company-of-heroes-2-the-rts-never-looked-so-good/?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=CVG-General-RSS
 * http://asia.gamespot.com/company-of-heroes-2/previews/surviving-the-frozen-heart-of-mother-russia-6378021/
 * http://www.destructoid.com/preview-to-the-eastern-front-in-company-of-heroes-2-227725.phtml
 * http://mkgaming.com/pc/first-look-preview-company-of-heroes-2/
 * http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/company-of-heroes-2/1224808p1.html
 * http://beefjack.com/features/company-of-heroes-2-preview-pc/
 * http://www.shadowlocked.com/201205222629/reviews/preview-company-of-heroes-2.html
 * http://www.bigredbarrel.com/2012/05/preview-company-of-heroes-2/
 * http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/news/a382915/company-of-heroes-2-first-look-preview-moving-to-the-eastern-front.html
 * http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/05/22/company-of-heroes-2-small-changes-big-differences — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.144.75 (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No DirectX 9?
"Company of Heroes 2 will take advantage of DirectX 11 but will also support DirectX 9." This doesn't seem right. The game so far (Alpha) doesn't support DX9 at all and it looks like it won't ever. The source for that seems to say: "For those with DirectX 11-compatible machines, Company of Heroes 2 will take advantage of that technology for some added visual improvements. However, our demo was still using DX9, and you will have the option to choose between the two in the final game." It seems weird that the choice is between the two, DX9 and DX11, what DX10 will not be a choice? It seems more likely he misspoke. The official game site says it doesn't support Windows XP and need DX10 (at least for the Alpha). 79.167.96.75 (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Post-release expansion
I think this article needs to be expanded much more now it is released. I'm adding bits and pieces from what videos I've been watching but perhaps people who actually played in can be bolder? Thanks! --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Article protected
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"try to generate talk page discussion"? This discussion was started long ago. But users, who deleted information about criticism of negative national stereotypes in CoH2 never bother themselves to write anything there! Well, lets start it again, why all information about criticism of negative national stereotypes in CoH2 were deleted? Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? There is a real controversy, which was properly (facts, no hate) discussed in this article. The points of view were well argumented (as far as I could see), had good English language/style and contained appropriate links. There were a few times, that the whole section was deleted by anonymous or passive wiki-users, without adding any proper information of their own, which is obviously a sign of vandalism. But what do you (administrators) do to such vandalism? You participate in it, you also delete the whole section and lock the article. Why would you do that kind of nonsense? Thus far I have only two versions: you are biased (working for the developer, received bribes, or similar) or you are incompetent. Do you want to discuss this topic instead?.. I personally don't. The thing you did is so blatantly wrong, that there is nothing really to discuss neither about the decision nor about your motivation to react this way. mixer (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mixer. It's a fact that the game has drawn considerable criticism from an audience of people who are personally attached to the events of WW2 (even if it wasn't justified, but here it isn't the case). I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. --CrazyArcher (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Despite "flourishing discussion" here, debates are leaking into the press! Was published probably first article on this topic from big news agency. In article quoted short (but typical) review posted to Metacritic: “Thank you. Hitler would have played this game with pleasure.”. Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Do we really need full page protection? I think this is going overboard. Semi-protection is adequate enough, as any disruptive editing would mainly come from IPs and new user accounts. That said, if people don't want a giant section dedicated to the topic, a small paragraph/sentence mention of it can be used instead. I'd suggest adding something like this to the "reception" section:

The game has recieved negative reception in Russia and other CIS states, due to allegations that the game negatively portrays Soviet forces within the Eastern Front based on fictional Hollywood tropes.
 * 2013-07-27, Colin Campbell, Why gaming's latest take on war is so offensive to Russians, Polygon
 * Regards, --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 11:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Despite the controversy, there are two points that I take issue with as it currently stands. First, the critical (IE professional reviewers) reception has not been "mixed", rather generally positive. Secondly, unless reported on by more than one source, user scores are not considered reliable (this issue comes up for a lot of game yet is not notable). Although the reception section is only basic and in need of an expansion anyway. As a side note, semi-protection would have also be fine. This article isn't really being flooded by disruptive edits so far. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy
Just add a part called "Historical Accuracy" with a single word as content: "Missing" and "Alternative history" to a game description. This is a only chance for publisher in Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:579:DA00:1946:216E:E7A:73F0 (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of negative national stereotypes in the game
It is important, that game is criticized in Russia not for it skepticism about Stalinism (what was mentioned by 'Bad Comedian' - not real problems were shown, but Russophobic fantasies), but for its racism towards Russians who were shown in this game as brutal animals. It is also main thesis in current petition against game. Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian game developer and blogger Sergey Galyonkin from Nival company criticizes the game: Why Company of Heroes 2 is wrong.--Юе Артеміс (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that Anti-Sovietism is more correct than Russophobia here. Also, Goebbels propaganda-based story is more accurate than antiseptic "historically incorrect". The latter may be interpreted like "good Red Army" --Javalenok (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that situation much more complicated then just Anti-Sovietism, the way Russians and other nations of former USSR shown there - it is not political criticism. Because Valve portrayed all Russians in one bad light - from cowards-conscripts, who is ready to kill civilian without any reason, but will not fight the enemy, to NKVD officers. In fact, NKVD officers look even better then others, they not a cowards after all, and professionals (professional butchers).


 * The worst moment, is that developers justify Nazi crimes in USSR. This fact just make me numb. What kind of Anti-Sovietism is that? Probably developers knew, that Grossman, who is now used by them as a kind of escape-goat, was one of main sources about Nazi crimes in Russian, Ukranian, and Belarus soil?


 * Of course, it is not only Russophobia, there are other nations, who insulted by Velve.Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Stalin worse than Hitler, communism is worse than fascism. This is typical liberal-conservative burgeose anticommunist agenda, "which must be taught in schools". Yes, the problem that this is not taught in russians schools, according to the same agenda and official game forum moderators. So, might be anticommunism, antisovetism and russophobia is just the same thing. Sovietism is just an intersection of communism and russian way. --Javalenok (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * With all respect, I have to mention, that to be Russian does not mean to be a communist, and not only since 1991. If the game were just political criticism (even so full of lie in style of Goebbels) it will be minor issue, just one of thousands of video game with stereotypical agenda. But they did much more then political criticism.


 * Actually, it is a common moment in Aesthetics. Aristotle's stated, that poetry is about universals, and it still have sense in theory of art. So, "Merchant of Venice" is Anti-Semitism (Anti-Judaism), because it had a Jewish anti-hero, and Shakespeare did not just stated that Shylock is bad, but he shown all Jewish through Shylock in a bad light. Because art is about universals. And it does not matter, that it is also criticism of moneylenders - because Shylock has nationality. It is not even important here, that there is a negative stereotype, which put this profession and nation together. Because art is about universals, fictional individual representatives of a nation expressed views of their creators about that nation. Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To all of you appearing in this talk page; this is a discussion about whether the section in question should be included. Azarov, you've done nothing but lace this page with forum talk masquerading as your attempts at being a scholar - and you had to go my talk page to do that. No different from those people who are already guilty of improper edit summaries.


 * Keep your history discussions to yourself and make your case for inclusion here. If you can't and push this issue - you don't want to know what's going to happen. --Eaglestorm (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Eaglestorm! You probably should take a look in rules of Wikipedia. It is not your first personal attack here. Please, if your know a forum with discussion about Aristotle - inform me! Discussion about whether the section in question should be included you can found below.
 * If you did not mentioned - question here is formulation of this section's name as well Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Ass-arov, I didn't understand half of what you said - its nothing more than your effort to circumvent WP:FORUM to prove some points and wow, you bring up other issues such as my editing patterns to attract attention away from you. Nice try, zhmurik! --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a Valve game. The game is developed by Relic Entertainment and published by SEGA. Valve's involvement is solely as a retailer. — Gmt2001 (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I do think that the issues brought up elsewhere should be added, however as it stands, there is far to much written derived from the video. We link to such pieces in the article, not having the need to go into detail. The standard article would mention a couple of example in quotes to get the general point of the video across, not take up a quarter of the page. Basically it needs a trim while retaining the general point. Like all good reception sections, it should be a sub header within the reception. Stabby Joe (talk)

Yes, thank you, it is definitely should be a sub header.Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional info about the low Metacritic score
The last sentence of the 'critical reception' part can be expanded upon. Many of the negative user reviews were made by russian people after a negative review video of the game was uploaded by 'Bad Comedian'. The video is in russian (no subtitles) and thus is mainly watched by russians. The article is rather general saying 'many people' were complaining.

The article further states there are 'many people complaining about the historically incorrect portayal of the Red Army and the NKVD'. It is not proven wronjg nor is it proven right that the portayal of Red Army/NKVD is wrong/right. The sentence should be neutral, I suggest to write 'many people claim that the portayal of the Red Army and the NKVD is incorrect'. Pauly91 (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is an English version of same video available now here. Not that you would actually care about it or about making the article more objective (which would most likely go against your own specific agenda)... 173.68.110.16 (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say that "it can't be proven either right or wrong"? The whole issue is that it is wrong. There's a plenty of material on blocking troops, NKVD units during the war and other topics, based on real documents. The main problem here is feasibility to cite it all in the article. However, length of analysis shouldn't cause distortion of the text. CrazyArcher (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am reading the metacritic reviews and quite many of them criticize the game and gameplay shallowness, not just the negative Russian depiction. if we were to cite that... anon, 14:46 27 Aug 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.88 (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Another blatant example of Russophobia and nationalism on Wikipedia?
If you would look at the article about Dragon Age 2 game here, you would find the explicit information about the Metacritic's "User Reviews" being mostly negative. However, when I attempted to add similar info to this article - it was promptly removed. Why is it "ok" to mention "User Reviews" (which were also written by live people who have no financial interest in rating the game positively, unlike paid reviews from "official" magazines) for a certain game but not for the game based on history of certain nation? Is it because some Wikipedia editors have a personal prejudice against people of certain nationality/origin and, therefore, don't want them (or the history of their nation) to be portrayed in an objective, non-stereotypical way? Or perhaps there are Relic Entertainment representatives monitoring this article? Surprise me with your "reasons", people. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with user scores as a reliable measurement or legitimate indication of critical thinking is that they are very vulnerable to "review bombing", which are a reaction to a negative aspect about said game, film, show etc, regardless to whether said user has even played the game or not, thus making it difficult to near impossible to truly know how much is a rational, objective look at a game (which can still be negative) or simply a part of the backlash/protest. Even if you have personal issues with certain critics, I would not mark it against review sites and critics in general, mostly for the same reasons and being personal opinions. User scores can however be mentioned if an external reliable source mentions it in an article or news piece due to valid context. These typically are writing about said negative aspect that has caused controversy. Dragon Age II, as it currently stands, is actually not a good example of this, nor does the article itself have a good standard as it simply mentions it without context. Portal 2 however does mention a low user score as it is in regards to issues of its own and the mention of it is fine within a highly rated article because it provides context. To narrow it down, it's whether there is a good enough reason to mention it to surpass its unreliable nature. This article, while in infancy, does however mention the low user reviews in the context of the controversy. Not long ago there was edit warring and article protection, but now there is a valid reason to mention the user score as part of the backlash, so you initial concerns are valid. Prejudices are not tolerated on this site, Wikipedia must always appear neutral. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is BS explanation on your part. In the comment above you wrote "unless reported on by more than one source, user scores are not considered reliable". Then I added another good and reliable source (and was ready to add even more information if needed). You saw it and decided to change your mind/behavior and delete the "user score" section altogether. I categorize your actions as a vandalism. mixer (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Vandalism indicates malicious intent, intention to disrupt. I removed the Metacritic source that was given as it was just that, a link to Metacritic. As for the other source, while in Russian link appears to be similar to Metacritic in the sense it just provided a user score. As I previously explained, the user score needs to be notable, even news worthy. Your links are valid if for example linking to the Metacritic critics average, what I am referring to a news stories, "hence why I stated "reported". Following this, news had appeared allowing sources to report on the subject, allowing said user score to be included in the article (and it still is). Wanting to improve a reference isn't done to spite the subject matter. If you wish to discuss further how to improve the section and/or the entire article to avoid further conflicts due to the how sensitive the subject is to some, I welcome it but I would not be quick to assume ill intentions from fellow editors. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As a side, I am glad you provided an English-language version of the BC video. Otherwise, yes, it would limit a side of the discussion to readers of this version Wikipedia. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha-ha..lolpussia, who cares your opinion, if pussians don't buy games. --Kurlandlegionar (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Full protection
I have fully protected the article to stop the edit warring. Please discuss the matter here. Note that my protection of the current version is in no way an endorsement of it; I'm sure it must be the WP:WRONGVERSION. So both sides need to come here and start discussion; any further problems or refusal to discuss will result in blocks rather than protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Pay to Win
Someone removed the section on Pay to Win with the statement.

"The former entry was created as an instrument of provocation and to spread false information"

This is simply not true. The pay to win elements of the game are plain and simple.

If you pay more you get powerful unique abilities and commanders that are not part of the full priced game.

Rather than removing sections for spurious reasons please discuss the point here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.8.48 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So far the most blatant pay to win elements are.

CoH 2 - German Commander: Elite Troops Doctrine Released: Nov 12, 2013 - $3.99

GERMAN COMMANDER: Elite Troops Doctrine Utilize Germany's most elite companies using stronger base troops with added abilities. Tiger Ace High command sends in the remaining available support in the form of a legendary Tiger ace.

CoH 2 - Soviet Commander: Soviet Industry Tactics Released: Nov 12, 2013 - $3.99

SOVIET COMMANDER: Soviet Industry Tactics Using the built up Soviet industry, make use of more and stronger vehicle units at the cost of infantry numbers. KV-2 Heavy Assault Tank A KV-2 Heavy Assault Tank can be ordered in to the battlefield.

These commanders allow you to filed unique, powerful troops that are not part of the full priced game - clearly giving an unfair advantage to the owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.8.48 (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Company of Heroes 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131009054853/http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/26/company-of-heroes-2-review.html to http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/26/company-of-heroes-2-review.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131005010957/http://www.gamespot.com/company-of-heroes-2/reviews/company-of-heroes-2-review-6410716/.html to http://www.gamespot.com/company-of-heroes-2/reviews/company-of-heroes-2-review-6410716/.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)