19 replies to this topic

[Stecchino]

I can't download the demo until next week or so, just wondering if anyone's tried it yet.

Company of Heroes

I've got a 1.83 Core Duo iMac with the x1600 and can post my experience next week.

[Tomatocow]

I'm rather interested in purchasing this game.

[Lord Heavy]

I have played the demo, but only on my Macbook, so I've admittedly had to turn the graphics right down.

A lot is going to depend on what you want from the game: if you like RTS-style games (ie, build faster than the opposition) then fine: this is just one of those games with a WWII texture overlay. If you want a more approachable version of Battlefront's Combat Mission series or an update on the old Close Combat franchise I think you'll be disappointed.

It doesn't appear to have the approach of a Total War or Imperial Glory game, where the 'building' is extraneous to the fighting.

Machine specs aside, the amazing looking rich graphical environment that you're able to zoom right into is useless in a playing situation. The game moves too quickly to be able to take advantage of it, and I found myself pretty much always zoomed out to the max, constantly clicking the default view key to get the camera reorientated.

Maybe I'm being too purist (and anti- this kind of RTS ), but I really didn't get the marketing pitch that suggests it's an RTS version of, for instance Call Of Duty 2. However, I know I'm just reacting badly to particular elements, like the rather too literal visual of capture points being marked with poles you have to hoist flags up on.

Every hill an Iwo Jima, every building the Reichstag...

The realism claims are also a little over-stated. Sure, troops occupying a house looks pretty good, and building a sandbag wall I could cope with. But rifle fire appears to have little or no effect. Tanks take a crazy number of shots to destroy, whatever the game's nod to period projectiles and armour.

I un-installed the demo the minute my two Shermans started playing a combination of kiss chase and bumper cars with a couple of JagdPanzers.

And a 1.7gb demo?! Yikes.  

I'm sticking with the afore-mentioned games for the time-being...

[Stecchino]

Wow, thanks for your input on the gameplay.  So you were actually able to play it on your a MacBook, even though settings were obviously turned down?  If that's the case, that gives me hope for my iMac Core Duo w/ 128 MB x1600.

[Lord Heavy]

Stecchino, on September 25th 2006, 03:08 PM, said:

Wow, thanks for your input on the gameplay.  So you were actually able to play it on your a MacBook, even though settings were obviously turned down?  If that's the case, that gives me hope for my iMac Core Duo w/ 128 MB x1600.

Yes, it was very playable with the graphics turned down, so the iMac should be significantly better. Good luck!

[Stecchino]

A thorough review of Company of Heroes performance and video settings.

It's a gorgeous-looking game and you'll need top hardware (by today's standards) to run it at the highest settings.  Interestingly, it still looks pretty incredible at medium settings which is probably what my iMac will be working at when I download the demo.  Although I don't see myself buying any $50 game at this point in the pre-Christmas year, I'm looking forward to downloading the demo.

[yellow#5]

Most settings on medium, resolution @ 1280x720, it runs at a consistent 30-45 FPS on my MBP, 2GHz, x1600 256.

I've not played any RTS games in a long time, so I'm basically doing terribly (the CPU smokes me on easy in skirmishes), but it is a whole lotta fun. So far I've had the most fun playing against my other unskilled friends.

[teamturbo_2000]

I played the demo with my 24" Core 2 iMac with max resolution & topped off graphics and it worked like a charm.  I was getting 80 ish FPS.  Personally, the I think the Mac Book Pro is weak in the game spectrum.  The X1600 graphics card sucks.  I don't understand why Apple settles for less with the graphics card.  That's in every computer except the Mac Pro.  I'm running the Nvida 7600GT and I still think Apple could of done better.

Oh well.

[Stecchino]

yellow#5, on October 1st 2006, 01:02 PM, said:

Most settings on medium, resolution @ 1280x720, it runs at a consistent 30-45 FPS on my MBP, 2GHz, x1600 256.

teamturbo_2000, on October 1st 2006, 01:28 PM, said:

I played the demo with my 24" Core 2 iMac with max resolution & topped off graphics and it worked like a charm.  I was getting 80 ish FPS.

Thanks for the info!

[yellow#5]

teamturbo_2000, on October 1st 2006, 02:28 PM, said:

I played the demo with my 24" Core 2 iMac with max resolution & topped off graphics and it worked like a charm.  I was getting 80 ish FPS.  Personally, the I think the Mac Book Pro is weak in the game spectrum.  The X1600 graphics card sucks.  I don't understand why Apple settles for less with the graphics card.  That's in every computer except the Mac Pro.  I'm running the Nvida 7600GT and I still think Apple could of done better.

Oh well.

There are substantially better video card options for a laptop?

[acegraphics]

teamturbo_2000, on October 1st 2006, 12:28 PM, said:

I played the demo with my 24" Core 2 iMac with max resolution & topped off graphics and it worked like a charm.  I was getting 80 ish FPS.  Personally, the I think the Mac Book Pro is weak in the game spectrum.  The X1600 graphics card sucks.  I don't understand why Apple settles for less with the graphics card.  That's in every computer except the Mac Pro.  I'm running the Nvida 7600GT and I still think Apple could of done better.

Oh well.

I guess the fact that I can play Dark Messiah at medium settings 1024 x 768 at about 25-35 fps means nothing.

Considering the imac core duo with the x1600 card can seemingly run every current game (except 1 or 2 very top end ones) pretty damn smooth i wouldn't say it sucks by no means.

[bobbob]

yellow#5, on October 1st 2006, 07:33 PM, said:

There are substantially better video card options for a laptop?

Go 7600 GT? Still cool and quiet, much better than a mobility X1600. Go 7800s are a step further, too. Go 7950s are the best available, but only a non-laptop desktop replacement such as the 17" MacBook is expected to have one or two of those.

[Gmoney12534]

[quote name='Lord Heavy' date='September 25th 2006, 06:39 AM' post='284002']
I have played the demo, but only on my Macbook, so I've admittedly had to turn the graphics right down.

A lot is going to depend on what you want from the game: if you like RTS-style games (ie, build faster than the opposition) then fine: this is just one of those games with a WWII texture overlay. If you want a more approachable version of Battlefront's Combat Mission series or an update on the old Close Combat franchise I think you'll be disappointed.

It doesn't appear to have the approach of a Total War or Imperial Glory game, where the 'building' is extraneous to the fighting.

Machine specs aside, the amazing looking rich graphical environment that you're able to zoom right into is useless in a playing situation. The game moves too quickly to be able to take advantage of it, and I found myself pretty much always zoomed out to the max, constantly clicking the default view key to get the camera reorientated.

Maybe I'm being too purist (and anti- this kind of RTS ), but I really didn't get the marketing pitch that suggests it's an RTS version of, for instance Call Of Duty 2. However, I know I'm just reacting badly to particular elements, like the rather too literal visual of capture points being marked with poles you have to hoist flags up on.

Every hill an Iwo Jima, every building the Reichstag...

The realism claims are also a little over-stated. Sure, troops occupying a house looks pretty good, and building a sandbag wall I could cope with. But rifle fire appears to have little or no effect. Tanks take a crazy number of shots to destroy, whatever the game's nod to period projectiles and armour.

I un-installed the demo the minute my two Shermans started playing a combination of kiss chase and bumper cars with a couple of JagdPanzers.

And a 1.7gb demo?! Yikes.  

I'm sticking with the afore-mentioned games for the time-being...
[Yeah some things in this game are really unrealistic but if youre looking for realism you should get Soldiers: Heroes of World War 2 thats probably the most realistic world war 2 game i ever played but its a hard game so idk you might get frustrated. But yeah i can play this on high on my macbook pro with a respectable framerate]

[Quicksilver]

I can play the game with almost everything maxed out at 1440x900.

[bobbob]

If anyone still has problems playing it, Dawn of War is the older game using the same engine and it's quite fun, too.

[The Liberator]

teamturbo_2000, on October 2nd 2006, 04:28 AM, said:

I played the demo with my 24" Core 2 iMac with max resolution & topped off graphics and it worked like a charm.  I was getting 80 ish FPS.  Personally, the I think the Mac Book Pro is weak in the game spectrum.  The X1600 graphics card sucks.  I don't understand why Apple settles for less with the graphics card.  That's in every computer except the Mac Pro.  I'm running the Nvida 7600GT and I still think Apple could of done better.

Oh well.

That is because it is a laptop, not a desktop. Unless you want a 4 kg clunky, bulky brick, you will have to stick to the slightly worse GPU's in the smaller (mid range) laptops. Only really Alien Ware sells laptops with top range GPU's in the, but as I said, they are really heavy, really bulky, and clunky. It will feel like yo are carrying bricks in your bag, not a few thousand dollar computer. I know that Apple's choice of GPU isn't always the best, but there are only two options...

By the way, the current Mac Book Pro is absolutely fine, just like Quicksilver said.

Liberator.

[Quicksilver]

Apple could easily add a 8700M GT to the MacBook Pro with no reconfiguration necessary, and the performance boost is fairly significant.  The 8800M GT can also fit, but it's probably a bit too hot.

The moral of the story is that there are always multiple options.

[The Liberator]

Oh well, sorry about that, I didn't know. I take all of that back teamturbo.

Liberator.

[frog]

got a question-
I tried to load cofh on my macbook pro. I use fusion and xp. Got an error that said I didn't have enough of shader model. Says I need 1.1 and I have none. What do I do?

[Tesseract]

frog, on August 24th 2008, 10:06 AM, said:

got a question-
I tried to load cofh on my macbook pro. I use fusion and xp. Got an error that said I didn't have enough of shader model. Says I need 1.1 and I have none. What do I do?

It seems that Fusion doesn't provide the needed graphics features, so I guess you're left with Boot Camp.