Command & Conquer dev: 'We need to wash the stain of C&C 4 away'
52 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Thom12255;40596346]Getting back to their roots by making a F2P MP only C&C game, mhmhmhmh[/QUOTE]
Publisher isn't willing to take the risk of funding a fully fledged C&C game, this is the best we could have hoped for in terms of a F2P C&C game. I'd rather have this then another Tib game that continues on with the fucked up story/tech they developed in Tib Twilight.
Why is everyone acting like the CnC games were so special? I mean, yeah, they were fun games (especially RA2 imo) but the ones that EA had made hardly sullied what was already an outdated and obsolete franchise.
[QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;40612703]Why is everyone acting like the CnC games were so special? I mean, yeah, they were fun games (especially RA2 imo) but the ones that EA had made hardly sullied what was already an outdated and obsolete franchise.[/QUOTE]
Because they were special until EA smeared their hands all over them. While the Tiberian universe never had like REALLY FUCKING AMAZING stories, CNC4 was just fucking atrocious. The ending, just what the fuck.
[QUOTE=The_Marine;40599097]Generals isn't C&C.
Fun RTS, but it isn't C&C.[/QUOTE]
And yet many consider it to be the best CnC in terms of gameplay.
[QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;40612703]Why is everyone acting like the CnC games were so special? I mean, yeah, they were fun games (especially RA2 imo) but the ones that EA had made hardly sullied what was already an outdated and obsolete franchise.[/QUOTE]
It depends really.
EA cncs - Generals - loved by many - Zero hour was a huge improvement
TibSun3 - generally well received in both art style and gameplay - KW was generally really well received as well
RA3 - awfull art style, rotten campaign really really good MP - Uprising was considered to have a nice campaign.
Cnc4 - we do not speak of it.
From the way I look at it, they did more right than wrong.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;40614968]And yet many consider it to be the best CnC in terms of gameplay.[/QUOTE]
I have to agree that Generals has very smooth gameplay and plays really well, especially in multiplayer (beside of the retarded pathfinding). But I think for most fans the CnC stands for an atmospheric RTS with awesome missions that takes places in a cool universe. Also the story was kind of neat compared to other RTS games. Also base building played a larger role.
The new games play a lot faster and neglect the stuff that people like.
From what I've read, this game is not "Pay 2 Win"
Only game play effecting item they're going to sell are generals, but those can also be unlocked by levelling up.
They're said all the generals are balanced to each other, so if someone buys a general they won't have a great advantage.
Most items in the store is going to be cosmetic items. different unit skin etc, and I think things like XP boosts.
Every unit, building and map is going to unlocked at the very start.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;40614968]And yet many consider it to be the best CnC in terms of gameplay.
[/QUOTE]
And yet many consider Twilight to be the end all beat all vampire medium.
No, but seriously.
I'm not denying that it was smooth and played really well, I just wish it wasn't linked with C&C as it shares very little in common with the series and gives people the wrong impression if they were to try earlier games in the series.
Also, in regards to C&C3, it will forever be a peeve of mine that they turned Tiberium into a boring rock(mineral, jesus christ marie xdxdxd) instead of the intriguing organic material it originally was.
[QUOTE=junker|154;40615064]I have to agree that Generals has very smooth gameplay and plays really well, especially in multiplayer (beside of the retarded pathfinding). But I think for most fans the CnC stands for an atmospheric RTS with awesome missions that takes places in a cool universe. Also the story was kind of neat compared to other RTS games. Also base building played a larger role.
The new games play a lot faster and neglect the stuff that people like.[/QUOTE]
The early Command & Conquer and Red Alert games are just as fast-paced, if not more fast-paced than the newer games, in my opinion.
I like how f2p games are following tf2's path to success. Everythinf is obtainable free, only thing you pay for is cosmetics
[QUOTE=Lefter;40615520]I like how f2p games are following tf2's path to success. Everythinf is obtainable free, only thing you pay for is cosmetics[/QUOTE]
Honestly the first good game to do this was Vindictus. I, or you, might not like it but it is a quality game for free and has no "PAY 2 WIN" shit in it. And after vindictus a lot more F2P games did the same thing, not just TF2.
One of the reasons I love Command and Conquer is the amazing modding community.
EA should just forget CnC4 ever existed and make a proper sequel to CnC3.
CnC4 didn't even properly continue from the ending of Kane's Wrath.
If I had a Euro for every time a dev promised to restore a franchise to its former glory and then doing the exact opposite while still telling you they are making it better with a shit eating grin on their face... Well I'd probably be able to buy the C&C franchise.
[QUOTE=WarRocker32;40615619]One of the reasons I love Command and Conquer is the amazing modding community.[/QUOTE]
since its F2P i doubt it'll have ANY modding capabilities and probably will be hosted from EA's personal servers
[QUOTE=junker|154;40615064]I have to agree that Generals has very smooth gameplay and plays really well, especially in multiplayer (beside of the retarded pathfinding). But I think for most fans the CnC stands for an atmospheric RTS with awesome missions that takes places in a cool universe. Also the story was kind of neat compared to other RTS games. Also base building played a larger role.
The new games play a lot faster and neglect the stuff that people like.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I'd say Generals has base building that plays a bigger role than Tibsun or RA. The main difference is, that generals is in well general faster, so a lot of players have actually issues in following up with it.
As opposed to the relatively slow speed you have in both RA and Tibsun which allows you to react somewhat better.
[QUOTE=The_Marine;40615395]And yet many consider Twilight to be the end all beat all vampire medium.
No, but seriously.
I'm not denying that it was smooth and played really well, I just wish it wasn't linked with C&C as it shares very little in common with the series and gives people the wrong impression if they were to try earlier games in the series.
Also, in regards to C&C3, it will forever be a peeve of mine that they turned Tiberium into a boring rock(mineral, jesus christ marie xdxdxd) instead of the intriguing organic material it originally was.[/QUOTE]
You can blame westwood for that though. Since during their tenure tiberium was becoming more and more a growing rock more than anything else.
Not really. Since the last game in the Tiberium saga made by Westwood was Tiberian Sun and in that game it was still implied to have consisted of organic materials unknown to scanners.
[QUOTE=lintz;40626919]Not really. Since the last game in the Tiberium saga made by Westwood was Tiberian Sun and in that game it was still implied to have consisted of organic materials unknown to scanners.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and Tib3 tiberium was also considered to be semi organic. At least in a number of forms. But for all intents and purposes tibsun tiberium was quasi crystallic in appearance.
Wasn't it like that since the first game though?
[QUOTE=lintz;40626919]Not really. Since the last game in the Tiberium saga made by Westwood was Tiberian Sun and in that game it was still implied to have consisted of organic materials unknown to scanners.[/QUOTE]
As far as I know Tiberium is a crystal with deep veins that extract earth's minerals to the surface into the crystals. Thus causing major egological damage, the crystal itself is toxic in some way and causes mutations and other ugly stuff to happen.
I'm mostly going for the appearance of it, it looked plant like in the original games and then in C&C3 they turned it entirely into standard crystals.
[QUOTE=The_Marine;40627229]I'm mostly going for the appearance of it, it looked plant like in the original games and then in C&C3 they turned it entirely into standard crystals.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't it sort of a plant with crystal all around it? With the crystal being generally referred to as tiberium?
And then renegade and others gave us more volatile forms like liquid and gaseous
[QUOTE=Bloodshot12;40599440]I hate how the C&C series has fallen so far. I loved so many of them, but then once generals came out I all but completely lost interest
When I think of C&C series, these are the three main songs that pop in my head.
[video=youtube;wVNubbPiZAU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVNubbPiZAU[/video]
[video=youtube;qkxbbfIg8uQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkxbbfIg8uQ[/video]
[video=youtube;9WqwFhX6Cqg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WqwFhX6Cqg[/video][/QUOTE]
It's sad to me how Frank Klepacki as far as I'm concerned consistently make some of the best OST's for games but gets hardly recognized for it.
I mean, no other game out there had (or still has) the level of musical bad-assery and cool that the C&C sound tracks had.
I mean, listen to this shit:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxq1n1mUKgs[/media]
The C&C game's even had a "playlist" feature where you could skip music/play whatever song you wanted. The music was as much of a feature/asset to the game as the graphics and the gameplay was, while most music used in games today (and yesterday) is simply used to enhance or be the slave to something else in the game rather than be as important, iconic, and memorable to the experience as the graphics are.
[editline]13th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=wraithcat;40614968]And yet many consider it to be the best CnC in terms of gameplay.
It depends really.
EA cncs - Generals - loved by many - Zero hour was a huge improvement
TibSun3 - generally well received in both art style and gameplay - KW was generally really well received as well
RA3 - awfull art style, rotten campaign really really good MP - Uprising was considered to have a nice campaign.
Cnc4 - we do not speak of it.
From the way I look at it, they did more right than wrong.[/QUOTE]
I hated C&C3 honestly. Which kind of sucks because I thought the atmosphere was pretty cool (it needed to be darker though considering it took place after TibSun which is a really, really dark "otherwordly" atmosphere to it).
My biggest problem with C&C3 was that they pretty much looked at the "most effective" competitive strategies for the older games then decided that the way to play C&C3 was to re-inforce that single style of play. AKA tank rush and spamming. The other C&C games didn't really revolve entirely around tank rushing or anything like that, but yet it was simply a popular and easy strategy (one that I never cared for). The super high micro was something that starcraft had that they felt C&C needed more of too which I loathe. Sure micro was present in older C&C as well but mostly because of a lack of development in the RTS genre's design tropes rather than an actual feature that is well designed.
I'm not saying they should have made C&C3 supcom or anything like that, but it's like they took the worst aspects of the C&C strategy spectrum and decided to focus the entire design of the game to reinforce that. TibSun was awesome in the options you had, in the speed of the game, etc. Yeah, tank rushing and fast play as an aspect of TibSun but so was building walls and going all high-tech with covert ops. C&C3? No walls, no any really special/unusual strategies, nothing really beyond rushing, etc. I bet they wouldn't of even had included Obelisks of Light if it wasn't such an iconic structure.
Basically, I wanted the same level of depth/options and the speed of gameplay introduced in TibSun to be seriously expanded on, and instead we pretty much got a game that wanted fast paced tank rushing all the time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.