Joined: 28 Sep 2005 Location: Mixing psilocybin in your drinks.
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:48 am Post subject:
Atari2600 wrote:
Now, what, may I ask, will C&C4 be missing? All of that? Well then that's a sign it will not be worth my time.
They make the game MORE intuitive with more useful command and control features and you say it's a sign that it's not worth your time? Wow. No comment is low or vulgar enough to address that. _________________
[quote="DCoder"]There is no sanity left in this thread.[/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Location: Less than 10 minutes from the internet
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 5:14 am Post subject:
Valdez wrote:
Atari2600 wrote:
1 unit at a time? Fine by me.
1 building at a time? No problem
1 construction yard queue, with control that is accessible anywhere on the map? Pure genius.
Those stuff may be "fine by you" but really though, they're superficial in nature. I doubt many people out there would argue that a true and proper C&C style game needs to exactly stick to those 1-at-a-time restrictions.
What I mean by that is, I went back to see where we came from, and the simplicity, and ease of game play that went along with the era of those things is what will be gone (I guess I didn't convey that so well, my apologies). No, I don't mind having multiple units building at once, infact it makes life alot easier. The original C&C was something where if you were new, nothing was ridiculously hard to grasp the concepts of game play. Sure, you had to learn what units did what, and combos that worked, and how to best control your units for maximum success, but it all worked.
For example, I have a friend who is a big fan of Supreme Commander, and that's the only RTS he has ever played other than Homeworld. One day I decided to play some original C&C with him over LAN, and he picked it up in a heartbeat. It was easy to understand, and he enjoyed it. On the other hand, another day, he decided to play a skirmish in RA3 against an easy enemy, and what happened? Nothing seemed intuitive to him nearly the same as when he played C&C95.
I guess what Im going for here is that its starting to get... gimmicky. The support powers that have been in use since C&C3 seem like that to me. Too much confusing things that some see as adding another facet to game play, but I see it as a gimmick to show up and detract and distract from the real game play. This new mobile base mess is also looking like the next gimmick to me.
However, I am glad to see the Mammoth tank make a comeback, as well as the good ol' Titan. If I see unit caps and online-only gameplay, that will really put a damper on my interest. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Location: Netherlands! Banned: 3 times
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 5:33 am Post subject:
Sir Modsalot wrote:
Atari2600 wrote:
Now, what, may I ask, will C&C4 be missing? All of that? Well then that's a sign it will not be worth my time.
They make the game MORE intuitive with more useful command and control features and you say it's a sign that it's not worth your time? Wow. No comment is low or vulgar enough to address that.
Actually I'm supporting population caps, it'll stop turning the game to spam wars, this is what I was supporting even at C&C3 but why remove base building? Now that's bad, Dawn of War 2 made me really upset when I compared it to the previous DoW games. Making the game tactical is good but they shouldn't go too far. Also they shouldn't end the series here, this alone makes me a bit nervous. QUICK_EDIT
They're not ending C&C just the Kane story. If that's what you meant then yes, it makes me nervous too... to end the timeline with such daring and potentially fail gameplay. I bet they won't even focus on story as much... they already have to make all missions co-op, which is limiting. If the campaigns are the length of RA3's it'll be a load of bollocks. QUICK_EDIT
I guess what Im going for here is that its starting to get... gimmicky.
Many games are like that sadly. Especially modern ones. Even older games like TS had a lot of gimmicks that never made it into the final build, and it had some which did made it in and were not entirely welcomed (eg, taking time to pave a base, or upgrade a component tower), etc.
Usually most innovative features in a game end up as gimmicky because the devs somehow didnt implement the features well enough so either there's bugs, etc or the features are more hindrance than help. _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
A question regarding C&C4: Will there be any Tiberium flora and fauna this time? Or have even visceroids become extinct? I bet the latter. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
And frankly ever since the tiberium evolved into its new stage I felt that mutations dont really fit the new tiberium anymore... the new Tiberium essentually just breaks you down at the atomic level on contact... how's mutation gonna help against that? Mutate a force field around your very skin? _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Seeing everything, and I mean everything, to turn into a bunch of crystals is just blunt. At least we had those cool palm-trees in Firestorm... _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Seeing everything, and I mean everything, to turn into a bunch of crystals is just blunt.
Therein lies the fail of EA's Tiberium really. It is theoretically unstoppable, even sonic power shouldn't really defeat it since it acts on a subatomic level. of course the loremaster dareth not intrude into this topic for it be too complex and sensitive. I am 99% certain Sam Bass won't explain further the cause of Tiberium's overhaul in C&C 4. _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Location: National Reference Laboratory for IPNV
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:14 pm Post subject:
Well there was beauty in the original tiberium, and FYI, sonic weapons damaging tiberium weren't stupid, and actually made some sense.
One method of separating different components in a solution is sonication (ultrasound, mostly), used in lab processes to separate different proteins by their weight.
Inside the mitochondrial membrane there are several proteins, that maintain a delicate balance of pH, which is linked to ATP synthesis (which acts as fuel for most cellular processes). The actual protein that synthesizes the ATP, is a Hydrogen-ATPase pump (a protein that transports hydrogen, consuming ATP in the process), however it acts in the inverse direction, it's composed of 2 subunits, which can be separated by sonication. After the sonication the protein is inert, as it requires both subunits to be together to work, which would cause the cell's death in a short time.
This could work wonderfully for tiberium, if it was an organic system, as sonication could destroy/dissociate complex protein like structures, making it inert. However this wouldn't work on the new tiberium, which acts at an atomic level, as Valdez said, instead of a molecular level, like sound does. QUICK_EDIT
You cannot 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
