You can hardly please everyone. As seen in this topic, people have so many different opinions. Best option would be striving for a compromise.
Quote:
-MCVs
-Base Building
I don't really know whether I want MCV or workers, but obviously base building must come back.
Quote:
-Campaign, stretched out to 12, like in RA2
This. I miss long campaigns, not even WiC+SA had enough missions for me (finished it in two days I think) :/ Heck, even C&C1 had 15 missions for one side
Quote:
-Jukebox
This, unless the music is done like I suggested before: dynamic soundtrack that changes the track that plays according to the "mood" of the game (idle, battle, win, loose). For best solution, there should be an option whether to use dynamic soundtrack or manually select music to play in order or randomly from the jukebox.
Quote:
-Epic Hell March invasion intro. RA2 anyone?
In my opinion RA3 had a pretty well done intro. Though I agree with people who mentioned this before: the post-FS games seriously lacked the short but cool CGI-action videos at the end of each mission.
Quote:
-Interactive Installation
This. Everybody loved the old installers. They simply were magnificent.
Quote:
-customizable UI - Just like in Window's tasksbar, where you can drag it to the side, the UI can be dragged or via settings so players can either have a sidebar (Classic C&C) or a bottom bar (Other RTS)
A good idea for a compromise. Players could select from game options whether to use a bottom- or a sidebar. They should naturally function similarily to avoid confusion/extra work.
Quote:
-Webcam support for LAN and online - Seriously. Wouldn't it be epic if you can taunt other players and relay strategies to your team mates via Radar just like Kane, Eva and Yuri.
Microphones (not sure about the need of camera) are a good idea, but a mute option for sure is necessary (to avoid some retard people shouting constantly in the mic).
Quote:
-Tiberium and Red Alert timeline merging - I know how Westwood failed to do this. But the only way I see connecting both universe is by an appearance of Yuri in an upcoming C&C game (like Scrin experimenting on humans by merging a human psychic with the Scrin Masterminds ability) then sending him back in time AFTER RA1 and BEFORE TD, making RA2 fit in more.
The two universes have grown so far away from each other that forcing a strong connection would only ruin the story of the possible upcoming game. A short, cameo appearance of Yuri could be done, but only in the background of some FMV (something like, Scrin explaining how they experiment with humans, and Yuri among other victims is shown). No need to explain how he ended up back in time, it's either self-evident or adds a bit of mystery
Quote:
- Reduce those dozens of secondary and tertiary "super-weapons", support weapons, special abilities etc. Keep this kind of stuff at a minimum. 1 super weapon + 2 or 3 support abilities per side are enough.
Zero Hour had a good amount of support abilities (accessed via the General's points), and you had to tactically select only a bunch to use. You couldn't have them all in one game.
Quote:
- Tone down or completely remove veterancy.
I disagree with completely removing veterancy. It's one of the things I think C&C1 and RA would've needed.
Quote:
- reduce the number and significance or even completely remove upgrades.
I didn't mind the amount of upgrades that were in Generals, ZH and C&C3. There were however little tactical input in them. Everybody could access them from the same building X, and even if that building is lost, the upgrades stay.
Quote:
- Make an engine that allows to zoom out further than SAGE currently does.
I agree, and I have noticed that several modified/fan-made maps in ZH have the zoom level set farther than normal. However, the engine still recognizes the limit, for if you even accidently whirl the wheel, it returns to the normal zoom level, and you cannot scroll back farther.
Quote:
- Multiple multiplayer/skirmish modes: Sole Survivor, Capture the flag, Defend the hill, special Co-Op maps etc. You ge the point.
Indeed, these would be interesting and fun. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Remove the f-ing bloat. Take a step back on everything. Sometimes less can be more!
It's not that simple. You step back too much and you end up dumbing down the gameplay. The amount of content a game has needs to be sufficient to suit the spirit of the gameplay. For instance a game like C&C 3 is fine without navy, but take out the naval element from say, RA3 and it's 1/3 of the gameplay gone. _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Location: Less than 10 minutes from the internet
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:23 pm Post subject:
Valdez wrote:
The amount of content a game has needs to be sufficient to suit the spirit of the gameplay. For instance a game like C&C 3 is fine without navy, but take out the naval element from say, RA3 and it's 1/3 of the gameplay gone.
I think you are missing the point...
I think the multi-role, weapon switching went a bit overboard in RA3. Stuff like that just seems unnecessarily complex. I think I would prefer multiple unit types like in RA1 with the navy, rather than multi-taskers that get confusing, yet still suck. Lets take a look at the allied navy from RA1, 2, &3
RA1: landing craft, gunboat, destroyer, and cruiser.
Required a bit of maneuvering to get them to kick-ass, but your effectiveness relied on how well you controlled them. They were bare bones, and bad-ass.
RA2: landing craft, destroyer, dolphin, aegis cruiser, aircraft carrier.
You could rush the enemy with a crap-ton of units, or you could actually use some strategy, either way it was easy to do. Everything felt self explanatory except for the dolphin... that was a gag.
RA3: ACV, dolphin, hydrofoil, assault destroyer, aircraft carrier.
Alright, the dolphin is a joke... the assault destroyer felt insanely weak, and useless, and the aircraft carrier felt like a hassle. The ACV was too complex for its own good, as was the hydrofoil.
I guess I just like the simplicity of the units in this case... _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Units that suck do so because of crappy balancing. You could have a game without the multirole, weapon switching stuff, and if the gameplay balance isn't done correctly you'd still end up with things like the Dolphin either way.
RA3 probably suffered from having too much units rather than too much abilities (each unit had only 1 ability), C&C 4 suffers the same issue. _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Location: Tiberium Research Center N27
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:21 am Post subject:
Actually, Red Alert 3 was relatively simple unit wise:
There was a tank for tanks, for infantry, and for AA. There was infantry for infantry, tanks and AA. There was AA and anti-ground air units. Then add artillery, and a few side-specific units.
And then you throw everything out in favor of Twinblades. _________________ DUNK! QUICK_EDIT
Hee hee those were funny. I still recall the beta days when I'd use Twinblades to eco-harass. Sometimes it all went down to my twins vs the enemy twins to see who could kill the other guy's eco more quickly. _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:46 am Post subject:
C&C
pd wrote:
I want Generals 2, in 2D.
thats not bad idea _________________ I am authorized to send out the TMP Studio, PM ME IF YOU WANT IT And check this out, these were sent to me for help with terrain and zdata help along with TMP Studio/Builder
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:47 pm Post subject:
CnC to me...means...tanks.
Not a couple of tanks like CNC4. A field of tanks. An ocean of tanks. A GALAXY OF TANKS, EVERYWHERE.
Tanks everywhere.
The tanks are either gold, blue or red. They either sound like Americans or Russkies and they swarm about like Zerglings. Except its effective and is the absolutely dominant strategy.
oh and while your tanks are busy being tanks, you have a couple of funny truck-like vehicles scooping up tons of some resource that just happens to be sitting in this once busy downtown urban area. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 19 May 2008 Location: Scotland, starting a Revolution Cameo: metricon. Posts:???
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:16 pm Post subject:
As much as i agree with OmegaBolt's comment
I think Generals 2 in 2D would be stupid, i could understand people saying the 3rd Red Alert or Tiberium should have been 2D but unless you game's evolve using newer better graphics it is stupid making one 3D then one 2D imo stick to 2D or 3D
The only exception being the game's evolve from 2D to 3D or if the 2D puts the 3D to shame
However yes if the work is put in 2D games often have a better feel and can do things 3D ones cant etc
Part of the problem is 2D RTS isnt as highly regarded as 3D (partly bacause of FPS games and 2D/3D differances) so it isnt as profitable to make a 2D game any more (that and its a lot more effort required in converting that 3D model to 2D than that 3D model into something the 3D game can use _________________ Creator of TS:BoB and some other things that might be good when finnished. QUICK_EDIT
I think Generals 2 in 2D would be stupid, i could understand people saying the 3rd Red Alert or Tiberium should have been 2D but unless you game's evolve using newer better graphics it is stupid making one 3D then one 2D imo stick to 2D or 3D
Not me. Command & Conquer works best with a 2D engine, not this fancy 3D bullshit. If you look at the most beloved of the franchise, they are 2D; incidentally, these are the reason no one will properly enjoy the new ones. In any event, Generals 2 would make an amazing 2D RTS.
The thing C&C needs is a new engine, right from the ground up, to be in 2D. More features, more functionality, classic systems, familiar control and nothing useless like rotating the goddamn camera. Head back to 2D where the RTS genre belongs.
Quote:
What about cel shaded? Kinda gives you a 2d-3d feel.
This might work for a new 2D Red Alert game, but I'd like to see Red Alert take itself a little more seriously again like the first one did. That would make an interesting contrast. A deep, dark, serious story but with bright, colorful graphics like Red Alert 2 and 3 have. _________________ Because Banshee saw fit to ban my other account for no reason, this is my new one. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Location: Less than 10 minutes from the internet
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:16 am Post subject:
High Templar X wrote:
The thing C&C needs is a new engine, right from the ground up, to be in 2D. More features, more functionality, classic systems, familiar control and nothing useless like rotating the goddamn camera. Head back to 2D where the RTS genre belongs.
Agreed!
When you limit your graphics, and have them set in something everyone appreciates, then you have absolutely no excuse to work out every single little thing that makes the gameplay good. You can focus on the parts of the game that real gamers give a ztype about, and produce a product that will be appreciated for a long time, rather than a glitter-fest. Glitter is just that- glitter. Sure it looks nice, but where are the hard core underlying components that contribute to the game being playable and fun.
Therefore the important things would be perfected,balancing and control would be exactly how you want it. The sidebar would be easy to access, the AI wouldn't be retarded, the missions would be in-depth. Skirmishes would be simple for a beginners to pick up, but hard to master. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
f you look at the most beloved of the franchise, they are 2D; incidentally, these are the reason no one will properly enjoy the new ones.
If the transition from 2D to 3D alone is enough to put you off, maybe you never really liked the franchise as much as you thought you did, after all your so-called "likes" only happen to correspond to a bunch of extremely specific elements coming together in precisely the exact combination. Which means what you really liked was a specific game title, not the franchise containing the game.
Looking at all of EA's C&C titles, I have my likes and my dislikes, but never ever have I cited the 3D graphics as a reason for like/dislike. I mean, take C&C 4, a game I didn't like. EA could have very easily made it 2D, while keeping everything else unchanged from the C&C 4 we know of. And the 2D nature of it all wouldn't sway my opinion on the game an inch.
High Templar X wrote:
Head back to 2D where the RTS genre belongs..
...
The entire history of computer games began in 2D, are you implying that all genres belong in 2D as well? besides on what basis do you argue that 3D just doesn't suit RTS? SCII is 3D, nobody complained, WCIII was 3D, nobody complained. As far as I can tell every single RTS that came out recently in 3D didn't receive any extreme negative backlash over having a 3D environment. I think based on that alone I can infer that the whole 2D issue is really just something more of your own minority opinion, not a serious issue stemming from the thousands of other RTS players worldwide.
And I wouldn't be surprised honestly. Most RTS players I know of choose to judge the game first and foremost on its gameplay, not the graphics.
Atari2600 wrote:
When you limit your graphics, and have them set in something everyone appreciates, then you have absolutely no excuse to work out every single little thing that makes the gameplay good.
In that case how do you explain TS. Took 4.5 years to polish, it did. And wasn't even in tiptop condition when it was released.
I think the problem here is that you think as long as the graphics take a step backwards, it is automatically a sign that the devs are choosing to devote more attention to the gameplay. DO NOT MAKE THIS ASSUMPTION. Most game developers have separate personnel to handle gameplay and graphics. The graphics are handled by the art department, these guys have no business with the gameplay crafting.
It's not like they have one rigid team who has to juggle both gameplay and graphics. That's a naive impression of how games are developed. _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Location: Less than 10 minutes from the internet
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:23 am Post subject:
Valdez wrote:
It's not like they have one rigid team who has to juggle both gameplay and graphics. That's a naive impression of how games are developed.
No, but it seems that those in charge of when the game is scheduled to be "done" choose to release when the graphics people are done as their first priority, not the gameplay mechanics. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
The only reason it looks like that to you is because the graphics always seem to be done first.
But that's obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense. You can't balance the gameplay until the game is in a playable state, that includes all graphical elements to be done.
How can you test the balance of a tank if the unit model of the tank isn't even made yet, or if any of the other enemy tanks aren't done yet? or do you expect the testers to do gameplay balancing with a bunch of cuboids acting as placeholder models? How would you feel if you had to beta test a game like that?
And if your argument is simply that the devs lack enough time to balance the game I assure you time has nothing to do with it. Look at C&C 3, the devs continued on even after the game came out, patch after patch after patch, it was just going around in circles, fixing one problem only to create new problems. So yeah, give 'em all the time in the world by all means and the game isn't really going to get better by that much, IMO the real issue lies in the methodology of how they balance the gamplay, not the amount of time they have.
Also even if your argument was valid then the real provblem still does not lie in the time issue, but rather the management issue. So hypothetically speaking if you cut back on the graphics, that same management team will just be like "Oh now less effort is needed for the graphics, so we can release the game even earlier" _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Location: Tiberium Research Center N27
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:30 am Post subject:
Valdez wrote:
or do you expect the testers to do gameplay balancing with a bunch of cuboids acting as placeholder models? How would you feel if you had to beta test a game like that?
There is just something thinking about that "Red Square" is more powerful than "Green Circle", that makes me cringe. But I do believe that while cuboid themselves cannot be used for that, incomplete models may serve for that purpose.
But no, reverting to 2D graphics would just alienate the consumer. And the consumer kids, is important, because gaming is business, and despite our hate for EA and Activision, they simply follow a business plan.
Anyone remembers SunAge? How they revered the "Good Ol'" graphics that would allow them, to work on more important things?
Oh yeah, the thing flopped, and despite the studios best attempts, it is still boring. And guess what, if you want to keep on making the same thing, over and over again, with a few more features added, go find a good 2D engine and keep on moding it. 2D is done. Dead. There is no need to waste time on creating thousands of frames for single infantry unit. Just make a model, texture it, make a nice skeleton and animate it. And it all can be done by Graphic department, while the rest of the guys make something good. _________________ DUNK! QUICK_EDIT
There a lot of congruent thoughts on what was C&C for me. While the storyline and the ideas it presented me as a wee lil' sporeling was The borderland mystery technology, the speculation of "What-if" feeding into that essence of fancy that is science fiction.
I will say that what I do miss was the easy access modding. I felt it was simple enough to get hook on and really feel the game's guts in your hands, tinkering away and wanting to learn more. I felt a flow that I never had with any other game at that time and continuing on with eagerness on the next title's advancement, sure its nostalgia but I am sure those who have been there as I was, remember modding RA1 then moving onto TS and how that felt.
While recent titles that feeling has indeed dwindled, complexity has risen to a point that flow had stopped, sure its just natural order of advancement. While no doubt learning as is with anything is just a matter of studying and patience. _________________ Delirium.. QUICK_EDIT
Really, modding games from Generals, over TW, and RA3 is not hard. You are just grown accustomed to modding the earlier games.
I started with Generals and both, Generals and TW were both really really easy to get. The learning curve is in no way steep as most stuff is self-explanatory. I then tried and looked at RA2 and earlier stuff but it wasn't my thing as it was different. Just as TW is for you. You can say its different, but you can't say its harder. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:06 pm Post subject:
I'd strongly disagree. Modding in CNC-3 and RA3 especially is a pain in the ass.
I like to make incremental changes, so I can test things and make sure they work every step of the way.
In CNC-3/RA3, I have to spend over a minute watching it compile only a relative few files. My very small RA3 minimod took about 3 minutes to compile. Then I have to go through a complicated process to boot the mod, wait for all the loading to finish, and then maybe another 2-3 minutes later, I am reading to test my changes.
And since neither CNC-3 or RA3 gives you meaningful error output, you're left to repeating the process of reverting/readding changes to see what triggers it, unless you already have a clear understanding of the gamecode; but in that case, you shouldn't have made the error in the first place.
Oh, and as an added bonus, the game throws in a corrupted replay file that requires you delete it before doing anything else.
Compare this to RA2:
You make your changes. You click save, run the game. It's loaded in under a minute. You're ingame and testing within another 30-45 seconds, and changes to artmd.ini and other inis are loaded when the map loads. (the map itself is also reloaded, meaning you can put rules.ini changes within the map to test them)
Further compare this to Quake:
1- Make your changes. (X minutes)
2- Compile. (<10 seconds)
3- Run a shortcut to Quake with -game moddirectory, Quake loads (<5 seconds)
4- Type in map yourfavoritemap, map loads (<3 seconds)
If you get an error, Quake will usually crash to the console (not to the desktop), spit out lots of informative data about it. It'll tell you what .QC (gamecode) files were involved, what functions were involved and even tell you the statement(s) #s that were involved.
And you don't need to leave the game to recompile everything. You simply alt-tab, fix the error, recompile and load the map again.
But, if you want a tl;dr version:
Making Incremental Changes
RA3/CNC-3: ~5 minutes, + time to get to the change (IE tech up, etc)
RA2: ~2 minutes, + time to get to the change (easily controllable), can make some changes with the game running.
Quake: ~30 seconds, can make any code related changes with the game running.
Fixing an error
RA3/CNC-3: Crash to desktop, no error output, tons of guess-work.
RA2: Crash to desktop, error output that can be interpreted by a few people, very little guess-work.
Quake: Crash to console, very easy to understand error output, almost no guess work. Can make the fix and test it without restarting the game.
RA3/CNC3 = slow, frustrating, limited _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
[...]In CNC-3/RA3, I have to spend over a minute watching it compile only a relative few files. My very small RA3 minimod took about 3 minutes to compile. Then I have to go through a complicated process to boot the mod, wait for all the loading to finish, and then maybe another 2-3 minutes later, I am reading to test my changes.
Then you are doing something really stupid. Even TSR does compile in <1 minute.
EVA-251 wrote:
And since neither CNC-3 or RA3 gives you meaningful error output, you're left to repeating the process of reverting/readding changes to see what triggers it, unless you already have a clear understanding of the gamecode; but in that case, you shouldn't have made the error in the first place.
Only got game crashes with code that isn't properly implemented. Sure that is based on the game, but hasn't anything to do with how difficult modding is. And if it crashes while using valid code I really have no idea what you doing, but I can say it never happened to me.
EVA-251 wrote:
Oh, and as an added bonus, the game throws in a corrupted replay file that requires you delete it before doing anything else.
Never heared of that.
EVA-251 wrote:
[...]You're ingame and testing within another 30-45 seconds, and changes to artmd.ini and other inis are loaded when the map loads. (the map itself is also reloaded, meaning you can put rules.ini changes within the map to test them)
You can also apply your changes only to maps to test them. This saves you the whole start the game stuff, that btw is also possible through a shortcut.
I can test changes in under 1 min @ TW, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. Also most errors are detected by the compiler so you don't even have to start the game, so sometimes you can fix errors in under 10 seconds. Try that in RA2. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:25 pm Post subject:
Ju-Jin wrote:
Then you are doing something really stupid. Even TSR does compile in <1 minute.
Pretty sure I did nothing wrong, and have been running stock tools. Maybe its my CPU speed. However, I don't see a little XML compiler needing 2.4Ghz (one of two cores) to compile a game.
Ju-Jin wrote:
Only got game crashes with code that isn't properly implemented. Sure that is based on the game, but hasn't anything to do with how difficult modding is. And if it crashes while using valid code I really have no idea what you doing, but I can say it never happened to me.
Difficulty? I never once mentioned "difficulty". I said it was a "pain in the ass", which traditionally implies a frustrating or annoying experience, not necessarily a difficult one.
A nice example of crashing with valid code is editing the AI in RA3. Every single tweak I made, to increasing Zhana's Twinblades or encouraging more strategies involving Shogun Battleships and Apocalypse Tanks for the Japs and Russkies resulted in a crash, with no logical reason why. Changing a few numbers shouldn't cause crashes.
Ju-Jin wrote:
Never heared of that.
Happens in Red Alert 3 when the game crashes. If you leave the replay in there, the Game Browser goes BOOM.
Ju-Jin wrote:
You can also apply your changes only to maps to test them. This saves you the whole start the game stuff, that btw is also possible through a shortcut.
Hah, well, the more you know.
Ju-Jin wrote:
I can test changes in under 1 min @ TW, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. Also most errors are detected by the compiler so you don't even have to start the game, so sometimes you can fix errors in under 10 seconds. Try that in RA2.
The job of a compiler isn't necessarily to detect game-logic errors (due to sheer number of possibilities and causes) but to detect coding syntax errors. In all my limited experience modding RA3, it never once picked up a game-logic error when compiling. It only found syntax errors, and I know I made plenty of game-logic errors.
To say you can test your changes in 1 minute is TW, however, is an exaggerated claim. You're saying you compile, load, run and are at the appropriate position to test a new feature within 1 minute? Perhaps it's a difference in hardware and software, as I sure as hell never could do that, even with a blank mod package.
And no I can't try that in RA2. Fortunately I am a Quake modder at heart, and well, I can do that and much more there. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
If the transition from 2D to 3D alone is enough to put you off, maybe you never really liked the franchise as much as you thought you did, after all your so-called "likes" only happen to correspond to a bunch of extremely specific elements coming together in precisely the exact combination. Which means what you really liked was a specific game title, not the franchise containing the game.
Except that I own everything but Sole Survivor and C&C4 so your entire point was moot. I enjoyed the 3D offerings, but I didn't feel that they were everything they could have been. Not based on specific elements like Tiberium or whatever the hell else everyone bitches about but because 3D just turned the games into eyecandy instead of focusing harder on gameplay. What puts me off of the new ones is the hand wringing done to appease ONLY the multiplayer crowd, which now buttfucks the SP/skirmish crowd such as myself. Why the hell would I play a game if the gameplay isn't up to snuff? ztype that.
Quote:
Looking at all of EA's C&C titles, I have my likes and my dislikes, but never ever have I cited the 3D graphics as a reason for like/dislike. I mean, take C&C 4, a game I didn't like. EA could have very easily made it 2D, while keeping everything else unchanged from the C&C 4 we know of. And the 2D nature of it all wouldn't sway my opinion on the game an inch.
3D used to be low on my list but it's starting to climb higher within the RTS genre because it just seems like everyone uses it as an excuse to use flashy graphics or to add extraneous bullshit no one needs, or elements that make the game unnecessarily complex. I'll cite TW as an example - the support powers. Only one game before that had it, which was ZH and even those were limited. Why did TW need it? It didn't. ztype camera angles, ztype zooming in, ztype camera rotation. Give me a fixed view and my army; that's all I need.
Quote:
The entire history of computer games began in 2D, are you implying that all genres belong in 2D as well? besides on what basis do you argue that 3D just doesn't suit RTS? SCII is 3D, nobody complained, WCIII was 3D, nobody complained. As far as I can tell every single RTS that came out recently in 3D didn't receive any extreme negative backlash over having a 3D environment. I think based on that alone I can infer that the whole 2D issue is really just something more of your own minority opinion, not a serious issue stemming from the thousands of other RTS players worldwide.
I am not saying that since numerous genres (eg; everything else) transitioned to 3D without any problems at all. It just feels like the RTS genre just became complicated and dull when it switched to 3D. Not to say all games are that way, but the ones I've played just didn't do much for me, with a few exceptions like C&C3, RA3, Zero Hour and StarCraft 2.
Quote:
And I wouldn't be surprised honestly. Most RTS players I know of choose to judge the game first and foremost on its gameplay, not the graphics.
I judge games based upon their own merits and the 3D RTS games I've played just haven't really hooked me like the previous generation. I don't mean this is limited to Command & Conquer, but to most RTS' I've played.
But the thing you're missing is that you've never said exactly why 3D is necessary or makes the games better. Is it because no one has an answer to that and it's just a sham? Seems to me that would be a likely conclusion. _________________ Because Banshee saw fit to ban my other account for no reason, this is my new one. QUICK_EDIT
I'm not a EA-C&C modder; can they (Gen, C&C3, RA3) read game files from the root folder? I've always found it easier when modding earlier games.
Edit - save - test - repeat.
Generals Can. Just have the proper folders set up in your directory (Data, Art, etc).
3D games are better are representing the world than 2d games because they relfect the new dimension. The offer a superior way to view the world, zooming and camera rotation, and when done right (see supcom) you can increase your level of control to the whole map or a single battle. The goal of the 2d games has always seemed to be 3d, as represented by pre-rendered graphics. As graphics have improved the ability to represent the actual model instead of the pre-render has become possible (of course, take this with a grain of salt, I need not talk about poly counts and everything). With the measure of value being realism, the newer 3d games simply look better.
So you argue that you can have a 3d environment with a 2d look, like TS or RA2. But isn't this inhirently limited? Your just taking a 3d environment and putting all the constraints of a 2d game. Zoom and rotation, perspective, everything is limited by having 1 angle for the camera, or if you do throw in another angel, you have to have renders for the new angles. It's simpler and more realistic to do 3d. If you argue (why does it have to look realistic) then why have all the 2d games done their best to do that? SHPs are 3d renders, voxels are 3d, only thing limiting them to not do 3d was because they physically couldn't. As soon as the game makers could, they did. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
And no I can't try that in RA2. Fortunately I am a Quake modder at heart, and well, I can do that and much more there.
Then don't compare it with RA2.
Also, have you ever thought of the compile speed of quake stuff years ago where this engine was new? Some compilations took about a day. Sure its a matter of seconds now, but the engine is from the stone age of 3D engines. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 4:26 pm Post subject:
Actually, it was pretty slow on the STOCK compiler.
Fortunately, ID released the source to the stock compiler, and community innovation took hold; compilers became faster and more capable.
I modded Quake on a 266Mhz at one point, and my compile times were never more than 15 seconds, even with my hugely bloated and inefficient code.
To quote the proqcc 1.60 manual:
"This is probably the fastest quakec compiler out. Just as a benchmark, I compiled the standard v1.01 code using both normal qcc and proqcc. The normal qcc took 10 seconds on my P200, 32 Meg RAM, Win95 and took 3 seconds using ProQCC." (June 1997)
Now I'd like a link to your source if you honestly expect me to believe ANY mod could take a DAY to compile. Maybe you're referring to the VIS portion of compiling maps.
(and while the engine may from the stone age, its open source and is being constantly updated and expanded)- see DarkPlaces _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
To me C&C is RA thru YR, the game style and game play of these is what I like the most and the moddability. I cant really comment on the newer style C&C games other than RA3 which to me was a disgrace to even bear the name RedAlert. IMO it had absolutly nothing to do with the series, EA totally went south on that one. In fact I remember when RA3 was first being developed, I was like "Sweet, RA2 game style in a 3D environment, boy was I wrong. _________________
The enemy shall be injected with toxic poison - Venom QUICK_EDIT
okay, I just recently discovered maybe as to why C&C3 and C&C4 are altogether so boring, they're stupidly balanced, everything is just way too balanced, the diversification of the sides don't really matter, because in a sense, there's always a direct counter to each unit. Think about it, every C&C3 game you play is boring because of the balance and the rock-paper-scissor system that EA oh so used too much. C&C4 requires that you have as much spam with other people asap, and most of the units are useless because it's all redundant, which is a poor excuse for balance and tier-units. _________________ Please, I DON'T read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
If C&C 4 was so balanced why is it that it was plagued by imba spammable units like scorpions and strikers throughout the beta days IIRC (dunno about final release).
Ditto for C&C 3 (predspam anyone?) _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
That was on beta, I still remember those days, but now, afaik, its the same issue with C&C3
and yeah, C&C3 was so balanced, that the only way to break the damn stalemates was with a huge massive force of a certain unit, either a venom, PAC, Mammoths, Preds, and whatnot would do.
I mean come on, SERIOUSLY, Spamming Pitbulls, THE GDI'S LIGHTEST VEHICLE, WOULD WORK TO DESTROY ALMOST ANYTHING...to counter this, you'd need some cheap boring Super weapon while having some counter-spam, just make sure your spam is bigger. _________________ Please, I DON'T read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
in the final product, balance was probably the only thing they got right, I'll give them that. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
I was thinking that with only 5 damage types and 4 armour types, balancing it would be a piece of cake. Guess not... _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
It's over balanced, that's the problem, hell, someone needs to make a plain re-balance mod. _________________ Please, I DON'T read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 5:28 pm Post subject:
Krazy, what I think you are trying to get at is that CNC-4 is too bland, right? _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
No, but what I meant was that over-balance causes boredom
The new art style could have set in, just that the gameplay ruined both games. _________________ Please, I DON'T read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
If you compare TT with the other C&C games, it is quite balanced. And I mean REALLY balanced. I guess this is a good thing, with the game's emphasis on multiplayer. I think what Alec misses is the epic spam (Apocs, Prism Tanks, Floating Disk, Initiate, Mammoths, Venoms, Stealth Tank, RA3 Mirage Tanks, Rocket Angels, Twin ztyping Blades). Unit spam is kinda ok for me as long as the enemy spams too. Who doesn't want to see scraps and explosions? QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 7:40 pm Post subject:
There is no such thing as "over-balanced". Your issue is that you dislike the symmetry between the sides (atleast to me).
GDI Unit is named Eagle
Nod Unit is named Scorpion
they look different, but are used the same way, have near (if not matching) stats and ultimately are the same shit.
which may work for World in Conflict, but was NEVER what CNC was about. CNC has always been about highly asymmetrical balance. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Location: Less than 10 minutes from the internet
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 4:43 am Post subject:
I guess, in the early days, a good way to describe it is ground-breaking gameplay, a serious story that you could take seriously (with all of the sci-fi elements intact), with some sweet CGI to really make it work well. Two unique sides with only a few basic units in common, and long campaigns that gave you options for where you fought next, with some sweet tracks from Frank Klepacki in the background for atmosphere. Plus, challenging missions, where learning the idiosyncrasies of units was crucial, coupled with crap-tons of explosions. Hows that for C&C? _________________ 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
