Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:54 am Post subject:
Hey guys. I know some of you are unhappy with certain posts here, but I'll be removing or editing flaming content here. This is just a damn game. Even if you are not happy with the direction that the C&C franchise is taking, it is not a reason to start a flame war. QUICK_EDIT
Should've mentioned this early regarding people who are concerned with all play and no story.
E.g Team Fortress 2 is just a game where you play one of the 9 classes and fight your other coloured clones repeatly. Just shoot to kill and thats all, there's no story other than that. But the game has crap tons of tie-ins which seems to reveal something big with every update.
So you don't really need some sort of a single player campaign to actually have a story. Even Generals didn't have a concrete plot. Of course, provided that you have a damn good story writer who can relate the lore with the seemingly plotless game. _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
Hey guys. I know some of you are unhappy with certain posts here, but I'll be removing or editing flaming content here. This is just a damn game. Even if you are not happy with the direction that the C&C franchise is taking, it is not a reason to start a flame war.
Maybe I've been going to *chan sites too long, but I think this discussion is perfectly polite. QUICK_EDIT
well i guess i mixed up feelings into some parts of the discussion, but meh, won't happen again, i should've known that something is not how, atleast i hoped. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
Although I do see the downside of this F2P thing (especially after Blubb's video in which the guy in charge appear to be fully intending to go with the "play to win" strategy (or at least to sell advantages), but won't that be fine as long as the overall price won't be any higher than the overall price stays below €50? Provided that they'll at least offer the same amount content as a full commercial game while overall still staying below the price of one. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
well if they update the game countinuously they make the player pay countinuously, or otherwise it won't work out in the long run, wich means players may have to charge even more just to have the playing experience in it's fullest, thats not to deny if they go on with this idea as planned. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
I like how in this discussion we have two professional gaming titles being used to compare to a non-professional series. League of Legends is proof F2P is a perfectly fine model to use. Unlocks for everything can be earned through playing, except for cosmetic skins. Players willing to spend the money to unlock characters or rune slots are given that option, but it presents no actual change in balance. Starcraft 2 on the otherhand, is a traditional RTS game balanced fairly well (Thors are still incredibly OP, anyone who actually plays the game in the quickmatch ladder can tell you that much) that shows how to successfully evolve throughout the years by leaving out gimmicky features (camera rotation anyone?) and clunky mechanics.
I won't be expecting much, but I will say that EA could easily make a F2P traditional RTS and it could be a smashing success. It all depends on how they handle execution. Honestly, having 3 sides on start and adding in subfactions could be tons of fun, ala ZH style. QUICK_EDIT
I like how in this discussion we have two professional gaming titles being used to compare to a non-professional series. League of Legends is proof F2P is a perfectly fine model to use. Unlocks for everything can be earned through playing, except for cosmetic skins. Players willing to spend the money to unlock characters or rune slots are given that option, but it presents no actual change in balance. Starcraft 2 on the otherhand, is a traditional RTS game balanced fairly well (Thors are still incredibly OP, anyone who actually plays the game in the quickmatch ladder can tell you that much) that shows how to successfully evolve throughout the years by leaving out gimmicky features (camera rotation anyone?) and clunky mechanics.
I won't be expecting much, but I will say that EA could easily make a F2P traditional RTS and it could be a smashing success. It all depends on how they handle execution. Honestly, having 3 sides on start and adding in subfactions could be tons of fun, ala ZH style.
everyone who plays against terran will say "terran OP" but *not* because of thors, but because of MMM (marine, medivac, marauder), and that is still not true, in quick ladder you meet all kinds of cheese players or casual gamers, especially in the bronze league, yet all those 3 sides with their *very* different playstyle aren't easy to balance at all, and there are still small issues that might be right, but nothing someone can't overcome with logic, players of starcraft are used to adapt and evolve strategies to every kind of patch, fix, and situation they've come upon, zerg for example lived through hundrets of possible "for any situation that comes up" strategies for a quick and effective early game and build, and many many strategies and combinations of units, drones per hatch etc to balance out what might be unbalanced, so the argument "thor" is unbalanced as any other thing like "MMM" can be overcome whereas CNC used to be rather static. for pro gamers and frequent online gamers starcraft has become like a chess game with a lot of timing and math involved, that is what makes it so hard to master against really really good players, everyone will say that to you. they tried that formula to an "extend" with TW but it didn't really worked out well, because it feels clunky and still too static, and "squad control" infantry does not help in that regard at all. in short, in SC2 everything that is or might be unbalanced, there is a way to deflect it with good player machanics, good macro/micro, timing and good timed scouting or harrassing.
you may wanna watch Day9, he gives perfect strategy guides for every situation. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:46 pm Post subject:
What to say about this discussion: typical /PPM drama
As for my thoughts on this: I hoped for something good, but my hope was in vain. I guess I'll stick to the existing C&C games, and move on to other series. Borderlands 2 looks funny QUICK_EDIT
As for my thoughts on this: I hoped for something good, but my hope was in vain.
Why? We've barely seen anything of the game yet. People are just arguing whether a certain payment model (F2P) will make a game bad or not. It was obvious G2 modding would be nonexistent, and the lack of singleplayer on release doesn't mean it won't come afterwards in one form or another.
It does stink a bit like a modern "all graphics, no content" title, which everything from dem big companies tends to be these days. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
I didn't think the Generals SP was all that terrible. It wasn't a grand spectacle of storytelling greatness but it was a fun little romp. Very arcade style fun.
eh, whatever, some of you expect 600 hours of gameplay from every game. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
eh, whatever, some of you expect 600 hours of gameplay from every game.
that would be good since most of the cnc community is and older generation but what they do is leaning cnc towards a younger generation, with it's shorther lengh, and experimenting. not that we'd expect that from every game, but since the old games lasted that long for the majority of people, we're simply used to it, everything else feels half hearted. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
I've been playing games since the 1980s. I've seen the industry rise and fall, more than a majority of the members here ever have. Back when I started gaming, there were no "hours" to measure a game by. Hell, we didn't even measure the experience in hours after the Atari and ColecoVision era. Simply put, measuring a game's merit in hours is a more recent invention. You're trying to quantify entertainment instead of letting the games do the entertaining. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
not really but by todays standarts , some video games, especially EA's branches from FPS to RTS sequels are produced like mediocre tasting food you'd buy every week. do you even know how much need for speed titles are on the marked right now? i don't even think the developers know that. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
It's not about quantity. There are far more Mario and Zelda game titles out and those are great just about every single time. Amount of titles in a franchise is entirely irrelevant as long as the games are decent. Even EA, with all its miserable bullshit, has a penchant for releasing some good games. Not every game needs to be a "ten" to be any good. I find that any game leaving me with a satisfied feeling at the end of it was worth my time to buy. The game can be six hours or sixty hours; it doesn't matter if the experience was immersive and entertaining. If you ignore a game because "it's not long enough," you're doing yourself a disservice. However, that's not my call so if you want to do that, you're free to do so. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
It's not about quantity. There are far more Mario and Zelda game titles out and those are great just about every single time. Amount of titles in a franchise is entirely irrelevant as long as the games are decent. Even EA, with all its miserable bullshit, has a penchant for releasing some good games. Not every game needs to be a "ten" to be any good. I find that any game leaving me with a satisfied feeling at the end of it was worth my time to buy. The game can be six hours or sixty hours; it doesn't matter if the experience was immersive and entertaining. If you ignore a game because "it's not long enough," you're doing yourself a disservice. However, that's not my call so if you want to do that, you're free to do so.
hmmm not entirely, i enjoyed short games also, but those had replay value.
yeah well , point is, i never wished myself that command & conquer how i knew it and saw it grow, becoming facebook war commander in frostbyte engine. well you are right if you say "you haven't even seen it" but after all what happened i think it's ok with being overly sceptical, and when beta testing begins , its probably too late to tell the developers "guys, you're doing everything wrong again" if they do. but meh, what happens, that happens now.
and what i meant with the quantity is , the fact that they develope a "series" in such a short time, trowing out sequel after sequel, especially with their FPS stuff and sports branch. Crysis 3 ? i don't think it's revolutionary, but its a safe bet because of the name. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
Crysis 3 ? i don't think it's revolutionary, but its a safe bet because of the name.
Actually, Crysis 3 is going to be revolutionary. Probably. It's going to be free-roam again, new graphic shit, gameplay changes... I even think they made Crysis 2 just to cash in fat and to get some support of their publisher to get a carte blanche on Crysis 3. QUICK_EDIT
Crysis 3 ? i don't think it's revolutionary, but its a safe bet because of the name.
Actually, Crysis 3 is going to be revolutionary. Probably. It's going to be free-roam again, new graphic shit, gameplay changes... I even think they made Crysis 2 just to cash in fat and to get some support of their publisher to get a carte blanche on Crysis 3.
hum well you think so? i didn't see much ways to free roam in the trailer gameplay, but meh that means not that it's not there, it looked pretty linear to me, more like MW gameplay, and it looks like they simplified the "abilities" again...
atleast you can shoot bulletholes through a metal door now and hit enemies with it.
(the only thing that was good in crysis 2 was hans zimmer) _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:01 pm Post subject:
Oh yeah sure, now lets all bash Generals for it's campaign. Like the RA3 campaign was that great But hey, I forgot this is PPM, where most people only care about TS and RA2, and dislike everything newer. /sarcasm QUICK_EDIT
Oh yeah sure, now lets all bash Generals for it's campaign. Like the RA3 campaign was that great But hey, I forgot this is PPM, where most people only care about TS and RA2, and dislike everything newer. /sarcasm
RA3 campaign was rubbish, and they went overboard with the wackyness.....RA2 was wacky as hell , but RA 3 was plain....well....has anyone seen the movie idiocracy? _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
hmmm not entirely, i enjoyed short games also, but those had replay value.
yeah well , point is, i never wished myself that command & conquer how i knew it and saw it grow, becoming facebook war commander in frostbyte engine. well you are right if you say "you haven't even seen it" but after all what happened i think it's ok with being overly sceptical, and when beta testing begins , its probably too late to tell the developers "guys, you're doing everything wrong again" if they do. but meh, what happens, that happens now.
The thing is that game franchises have to evolve to stay relevant. Producers aren't releasing games to pander to anyone; they're in it to make money and if a certain method isn't going to make any money then they're not going to do it. They have to pay their employees somehow and catering to a select group isn't going to do that.
I've seen my favorite franchises change from sprites to 3D models and I've seen them run the gamut of ideas. If you're unwilling to accept change, continue playing what you already have. No series is going to be the same forever. C&C has to change or it actually will die.
Quote:
and what i meant with the quantity is , the fact that they develope a "series" in such a short time, trowing out sequel after sequel, especially with their FPS stuff and sports branch. Crysis 3 ? i don't think it's revolutionary, but its a safe bet because of the name.
A name is important. You're more likely to see "blockbuster" titles than anything else. It makes business sense to go with what will actually sell versus what may or may not. If you don't like that idea, buy indie games or create your own. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
hmmm not entirely, i enjoyed short games also, but those had replay value.
yeah well , point is, i never wished myself that command & conquer how i knew it and saw it grow, becoming facebook war commander in frostbyte engine. well you are right if you say "you haven't even seen it" but after all what happened i think it's ok with being overly sceptical, and when beta testing begins , its probably too late to tell the developers "guys, you're doing everything wrong again" if they do. but meh, what happens, that happens now.
The thing is that game franchises have to evolve to stay relevant. Producers aren't releasing games to pander to anyone; they're in it to make money and if a certain method isn't going to make any money then they're not going to do it. They have to pay their employees somehow and catering to a select group isn't going to do that.
I've seen my favorite franchises change from sprites to 3D models and I've seen them run the gamut of ideas. If you're unwilling to accept change, continue playing what you already have. No series is going to be the same forever. C&C has to change or it actually will die.
Quote:
and what i meant with the quantity is , the fact that they develope a "series" in such a short time, trowing out sequel after sequel, especially with their FPS stuff and sports branch. Crysis 3 ? i don't think it's revolutionary, but its a safe bet because of the name.
A name is important. You're more likely to see "blockbuster" titles than anything else. It makes business sense to go with what will actually sell versus what may or may not. If you don't like that idea, buy indie games or create your own.
Blizzard can do it, and they have their own convention, evolving is good, but smearing franchise fans dirt in the face isn't the way to go, surely you must see that the same way.
it's like the soccer scandal we have over here at this moment with the team called "werder bremen" they have a new sponsor, a butchering company wich is widely known and scandalous, loads of tapes filmed from their farms, loads of animal cruelty filmed and brought to light. now what do you think werder bremen fans think? right, it's a shitstorm, their favorite team has a sponsor like that.
And yeah that is why "good movies are rare and unpopular" , atleast from hollywood, doing the same thing again and again and again, just adding candy, bubblegum and GFX.
I tend more to watch smaller budget or Foreign films, and there's a reason for that, something about those make them stand out more.
the one of the last really good films i saw coming from hollywood was Black Swan, but gems like this are really sparse. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
I can't be bothered reading what is just solid EA bashing and (weirdly) solid EA defending. All "Command and Conquer" is these day is a recogniseable title that will sell purely through the name alone despite the quality of gameplay, the fact they're still actually using the "Command and Conquer" name after CnC 4 is surprising really, but hey people recognise it and that means $$$. Would WestWood have done a better job if they were still with us? They'd have probably made a game with a bit more quirkiness and character to it, but it doesn't mean it would have played great.
Whilst I found what CnC 4 did with the gameplay pretty unbelievably dumb, I can admire that after 100+ games and expansions they decided to take a risk and try something new, it's a process that's required, it's just a shame the gameplay mechanic seemed more like an alternative multiplayer mode that a full solid game in itself. When you think (or at least when I think) of CnC gameplay it's hard to imagine it without the classic mechanics of base building and resource harvesting, so without that to most people the game is no longer CnC. Honestly, Command and Conquer has had its time in the sun, we're not going to see any title come out that will meet the impossible myriad of expectations from the community which sadly now seems pointlessly broken between Old (WW) and New (EA). Enjoy the games you like and let others enjoy theirs, let CnC die peacefully without everyone at each others throats. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
C&C 4 and their experimenting, altough you might admire that, is similar to...for example having a good foundation like a "chessgame" , EA just decidet to turn "chess" into "ludo" (wich i'm not entirely sure if it's either spelled correctly or has the correct meaning, in germany we call that game "mensch ärgere dich nicht" and it is a fairly simple game), instead into an evolution like "battle chess". _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
I never said I admired the change they made because it was bloody stupid, just the fact they did take the initial risk at least was surprising. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:45 pm Post subject:
Well, it's a well known fact C&C4 was initially an experiment for the Asian market, but was suddenly promoted to the next (and last) episode in the Tiberium series by management for quick cash (which backfired horribly). QUICK_EDIT
C&C3 and RA3 were fine, but this... this is shit. Now EA_CIRE will sit there and try to downplay this with his head jammed so far up his ass and distant from reality as to what the fanbase REALLY feels.
Just say it. Say you don't give a ztype about the original franchise and be on with it. Stop tarnishing the C&C name you horse-fuckers. You've turned C&C into a joke with Tiberium Twilight, there is no respectable legacy for C&C, the original developers have all moved on and are either gone or ignored.
Westwood is shit, but, damn, at least Westwood was conservative in some ways. _________________ Victory! QUICK_EDIT
Well, it's a well known fact C&C4 was initially an experiment for the Asian market, but was suddenly promoted to the next (and last) episode in the Tiberium series by management for quick cash (which backfired horribly).
so you say Tiberium Twilight once was this weird thing called "Command & Conquer Arena" ? .....lol for the asian marked....it's dominated by blizzard, that was not even "taking a high risk" or "a brave endeavour", it was a plain stupid move. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:33 pm Post subject:
blubb wrote:
Dutchygamer wrote:
Well, it's a well known fact C&C4 was initially an experiment for the Asian market, but was suddenly promoted to the next (and last) episode in the Tiberium series by management for quick cash (which backfired horribly).
so you say Tiberium Twilight once was this weird thing called "Command & Conquer Arena" ? .....lol for the asian marked....it's dominated by blizzard, that was not even "taking a high risk" or "a brave endeavour", it was a plain stupid move.
Correct. Although in the single promo video available it used TW units, not completely new ones. QUICK_EDIT
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
But hey, I forgot this is PPM, where most people only care about TS and RA2, and dislike everything newer. /sarcasm
.....lol for the asian marked....it's dominated by blizzard, that was not even "taking a high risk" or "a brave endeavour", it was a plain stupid move.
