Basilone

At release I would have rated this a 4. Poor hit detection made game unplayable. Now it is more or less an extension of BF3. There are some balance issues but Dice still patches game and delivers free content to make up for the **** launch state. I will give them a pass on this one since they did do the players right and get the game in a good state, but I will not be as forgiving if taking 6-12 months to glue and duct tape their game becomes the norm.

There are a couple of things I don't like about the game, but a 4.7 user is definitely undeserved. The major complaint is the skill systems and linear story. The skill increases at level up is gone and has been replaced with a Skyrim-like talent system which combines some distinctly Fallout perks in to a skill tree. The main story (disclaimer I haven't beaten it) is supposedly linear, but that has been the case in every Bethesda game except for New Vegas. And there is a lot of hate about the graphics, but I don't have a problem with them. Its not setting a new standard for sure, but it is satisfactory and my 970 handles the game pretty well except for one or two locations that have stuttered a bit. Gameplay is great. Bullets actually go where you are aiming instead of sometimes going off on a tangent because of your skill. I prefer the new VATs system slow mo, stealth seems more viable than in previous Fallouts (it feels like Skyrim, you can even take people out with guns from a good location without being instantly detected). Your pip boy can be used as a flashlight, sprinting is a welcomed feature, preserving your power armor fusion cores is a nice mechanic, and exploring is fun as always. The bad: early bugs typical of every Bethesda game, NPCs getting annoying in doorways. I won't dock the game any points for those, since those have also been issues in every other Bethesda game I loved, but its disappointing it wasn't improved on. The areas where I feel like the game really regressed is the 4 choice dialogue and no faction reputation system. People like or dislike you on an individual basis, which isn't very well explained how that works. IMO everyone except for maybe a half dozen super characters should be killable, and it seems like this game doesn't let you RP the evil guy as much as before. Another problem is the settlements aren't very well explained. I have built up sanctuary a bit so that I can have a good place to stow my gear and have some merchants there, but the game doesn't try to tell you why it is important to maintain the other settlements.

The framerate dips a little more than I would like or this would be a 10. Haven't even played the presequel yet but already got around 50 hours of play time on BL2 and the more you play the better the game gets unlike other games where you run out of content this game just gets better with more loot and higher levels making it easy to power level even more characters if you are playing with a friend. Really good value for the money.

I tried to go back to playing this game recently, and the ballistics is terrible. I'm not complaining because there is no bullet drop, but the bullets simply do not hit where you are aiming most the time. Instead of recoiling your shots just radiate further and further away from your aim point. So I tired using the semi auto fire modes often and even though it is more accurate they still don't always hit where you are aiming which is very frustrating. Otherwise a great game, but the gun play is lackluster.

Multiplayer: I've had fun in my 400+ matches played so far, but there are some questionable design choices. Blizzards mechanics are unrealistic and terrible for multiplayer. The Commander system has really degraded from the depth and uniqueness of the original. There are these things called "Intel Bulletins" which can be unlocked and work similar to perks in a CoD title by buffing certain units. Most of these bulletins are absolutely useless, everybody good is using the same 10 which is really stale and pointless. But aside from that, the core gameplay is pretty good. Campaign: This is why the game has a 1.6 user score. Though the missions are pretty fun to play, the plot is just terrible. It should be called Company of War Criminals, because rather than focus on the heroism of the soldiers (there are some instances but few and far between) the whole purpose of the story is to demonize the Soviets. I know the Soviets did some bad things, but even the Russians wouldn't go burning down farm houses with their own citizens inside still inside to "deny the enemy". This franchise is not about war crimes, but if they were going to go that direction they should have showed both sides of the coin. A Russian commentator made a video exposing the campaign for the piece of crap it is, and after it went viral the user score plummeted in hours. ****/watch?v=2m4SCUaBHS8 Theater of War: Missions you can play cooperatively or singleplayer. I was skeptical at first but they are quite fun, they are like a full campaign minus the propaganda. Patches: They are actively patching the game and have really been listening to feedback. Audio: Great, as usual for Relic games. Grahpics: The textures haven't improved that much since the original, but they did add a ton of detail to the particle effects. DLC: $100 worth of DLC just 2 months after release, with much more to come. And I thought EA/Activision were pirates.... #dafuqwereyouthinking If I were to take in to account the horrid campaign, CoH2 would get a 4/10. But since multiplayer is what makes or breaks this game, I give it a 7/10. Two steps forward and three steps backward from the original, but luckily CoH1 was the highest rated RTS of all time so we are left with a "decent" game.