Project Perfect Mod Forums
:: Home :: Get Hosted :: PPM FAQ :: Forum FAQ :: Privacy Policy :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Register :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in ::


The time now is Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:39 pm
All times are UTC + 0
What is Command & Conquer for you?
Moderators: Global Moderators
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [98 Posts] Mark the topic unread ::  View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Author Message
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam)
Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:13 am    Post subject:  What is Command & Conquer for you?
Subject description: Rumour: Next C&C will have a new storyline or universe!
Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

If you've browsed APOC's Twiter or the C&C Official Forums, watching for APOC's posts, you'll notice that he is already preparing the terrain for upcoming C&C games. First, when he released the BattleCast Primetime, he has admitted that the studio was not happy with the direction that C&C was taking and he started to talk about a 'restart'. Here's his words:


APOC, about the end of BattleCast Primetime wrote:
Our current C&C development team is not a completely new team, we do have some new folks, but for the most part, its a core group we have right now and without delving in to things I cannot discuss, this team is really looking back at all the things that have made C&C great up until now. Now isn't the time for me to build your hopes beyond max capacity, or throw some unjustified words of wisdom out at you, i'll just say, we'll get this train back on the rails.

Restarting small, not really a bad thing, its been building a lot of camaraderie and great ideas. From where I sit, I can see just about every member on the dev team, and vice versa, this new kind of open air type feeling, so we're all yelling across floor at each other and sharing ideas easily. Everyone is replaying all of the past games once again to rejuvenate and refresh ourselves about what has made C&C great."



The bold part of the text gives me an impression that they are not worried about making an expansion for C&C4, although it is a little bit early to take any conclusions.

As APOC said, the C&C team crew and himself started playing old C&C games to figure out what made them so great. APOC took a weird path focusing on Generals, which is a game that some hardcore fans still reject the C&C label placed on it and even APOC agreed with some at some point in the past. Here's his quick review of the game:


APOC reviews Generals wrote:
I'm doing my own little bit of digging in to the past to discover what was enjoyed the most about all of our past C&C games. I decided to start that out with Generals. Just beat the USA campaign and forgot how incredibly short it was. I am not an RTS pro, so I usually like to play on Normal, which I did, and found it generally pretty easy to get through.

I won't lie, I died a bunch of times on Mission 5 trying to stop the GLA Scud Attack, lets just say, I am not a rusher and usually when I get to the point where I have the upperhand, I often get flustered and end up falling back.

Replaying the USA Generals campaign reminded me how "ARCADEY" fun Generals is. By far my favorite USA tactic is just building 6-8 Comanches and micro-ing them around the map trying to avoid GLA rocket soldiers (not always easy).

I really enjoyed replaying the 7 mission campaign and am going to tackle the GLA right now.

I will say, was extremely disappointed with the story presentation, the ending cinematic, but I personally didn't care about that because the gameplay was just outright fun. The missions were generally not that unique, but there was something about it that just made me feel like I was at the arcade popping quarters in to stay alive, and that addiction is something I always loved.



At this review, I agree with him on many points, including the good gameplay of Generals, short campaign, awful presentation, etc. The exception is his commanche tactic, but honestly... that's up to each player.

Sonic has tracked this review earlier and reported on his site, CNCNZ.com, which APOC visits and replies back. After a couple of replies, APOC has posted trying to sell Command & Conquer as a style of play and tried to sell Generals as Command & Conquer because of this style of play.


APOC wrote:
When Command & Conquer branched off in to the Red Alert universe many moons ago, that is when "Command & Conquer" became a style of RTS play, a universe in which a certain type of RTS gameplay was expected, a franchise.

Even though there were attempts or proclamations back in the mid-90's that the Red Alert and Tiberian universes were meant to be canonically connected by their stories, that never saw a successful light. Sure Joe Kucan made a cameo in Red Alert, but looking back that was a parody that caused a lot of confusion. Nowhere since has there been any strong storied connection THAT EVERYONE GETS between the Red Alert and Tiberian universe.

And yet, both carry the franchise name "Command & Conquer".

When Westwood created Red Alert 2, Tiberian Sun, they furthered the separation of those two universes, solidifying their storylines, and further emphasizing "Command & Conquer" as a universe, a "style of RTS gameplay" that would forever be known for traditional resource gathering rock em sock tank rush in your face aggressive arcade like action.

And why is Renegade not chided the way Generals was? =) That was a clear departure from "Command & Conquer", even though it vaguely connected stories in the Tiberian universe as an off-shoot.

So which brings me to my point yet again, Command & Conquer: Generals/Zero Hour went on to sell millions, and while its story/fiction was not even even close to that of Tiberian/Red Alert with hardly any memorable storied characters (unless you count units), GENERALS was a COMMAND & CONQUER "style of game" set in a completely different modern warfare universe.

Arguably and I think justifiably, Westwood/EA Games capitalized on the current world events situation at the time, and made a true Command & Conquer game in the sense of gameplay and general over-the-top themes, tone, unit actions, etc.

Generals was created as a new C&C Universe in the same exact way and manner as Red Alert, and even Renegade.

I think it's time to look at "Command & Conquer" as a universe/style of play, not as a Tiberian/Red Alert only franchise. Even though those two C&C universes have had the most games made under them.

The fact that the hardcore loved the Generals Multiplayer (as you said) further strengthens the argument/fact that "Command & Conquer" is a style of RTS and one could almost create new universes under the name, as long as it carries/maintains the style of gameplay/themes, etc that you've come to know and love since 1995.

-APOC




Why would he post this? He wants to make the public accept that, if they create a new universe and label it with Command & Conquer, like what they did with Generals, it will be accepted as a Command & Conquer game and get the sales that the Command & Conquer franchise attracts for its games.

But if we consider C&C as a style of play with resource gathering and major tank rush, we'll get some funny results:

1) Command & Conquer 4 is not a C&C game because it lacks resource gathering. I must admit that I agree with this conclusion.

2) Dune 2000 and Emperor: Battle for Dune are also Command & Conquer games, afterall it also has resource gathering and tank rush. Weird heh?

3) And the same would apply to Starcraft, Age of Empires, Battle for Middle Earth series and other RTS games. Perhaps some of them do not have tank rush, but they can have zergling rush, cavalier rush, etc.


Let's be honest, a completely flawed opinion, isn't it?


So, he decided to collect fan opinions on this matter. What is a Command & Conquer for you? Here's APOC's official post on this matter:



APOC wrote:
Hey guys,

*PLEASE DO NOT WRITE A LONG ESSAY* =)

Before you answer this thread, let me be frank. I want to ask you questions in the coming weeks and months, I want to research your passions for C&C, but not at the expense of our forums being flame-hate filled. So I kindly ask, in threads like this, please reply with constructive answers and respect your community peers. I''ve seen all the "Westwood / dislike C&C 4" comments, etc. You've been heard and understood. Right now, I'm taking a step back and digging in to specific topics for awhile.

I posed this question on our C&C Facebook page, a lot of great short constructive answers. Let's see how we do here with the real hardcore fans.

What does "Command & Conquer" mean to you? You see those words, that name, when you see it, what do you immediately think, and expect as a game?

There is no right or wrong answer here, just looking to understand what Command & Conquer means to you. I'll leave it at that.

Thanks!
APOC







If I had to answer this question, I'd look at the words 'Command' and 'Conquer'. Command your forces and conquer your enemies, isn't it? And the conquer factor is the coolest thing. Almost every C&C game brought the cool engineer, which allowed us to conquer the enemy. C&C4's engineer is the only engineer that doesn't take enemy buildings. Age of Empires and Blizzard games doesn't have it. They may one or few units that may control enemy buildings, like the priests, monks, etc. But honestly, engineer is the coolest thing. I loved the older C&C games for making the base become more valuable and a sort of territory where you have to defend. Of course they do allow expansion to other locations, but it happens slowly and only when the enemy is not attacking. Differently from Generals and newer games where buildings are made of paper and you change your location faster than the time you take to breath.

But that's just my opinion. You can post yours at this topic and reply to this news as well. So, let's end this news with the following question:


-> What is Command & Conquer for you?

Last edited by Banshee on Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:09 am; edited 1 time in total

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
OmegaBolt
President


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Location: York, England

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Well I posted.

Quote:
I'd like to say I'm not an EA(LA) hater, and I did enjoy the C&C3 campaign and RA3 multiplayer.

- The sidebar and MCV/Con Yard system are so important to C&C IMO, its what sets it apart from other RTS series... every other uses the boring command bar and "builder" build system.

- There is also of course resource gathering, something on the field to fight over. But this is all gameplay logics, which are obvious.

- An inspired, original storyline without that "trying to be what its not" feeling. The feeling I've got from all EALA C&Cs is that they're trying be everything else around them... pulling stuff from other media thats "cool", but not having their own personality. Personality and style make something recognisable, individual and allows people to make their own connections instead of having things thrown in their faces, as if the dev team is desperately trying to make the connection themselves.

- Can't appeal to everyone. Of course back in 95 there wasnt much of an expectation regarding gameplay etc, though even now the games shouldnt try and fit into current standards. The games should do what they want to do, and not get dragged down trying to appeal to everyone.

- Style then fun. WW always managed to mix the two, but the style was always at the forefront. The "fun" behind the games only became apparent after a lot of play, then you notice little in-jokes and how ludicrous some of the units are. But they blend perfectly. Rather than shouting "lol im ridiculous" they set their own standards.

- Depth and detail, in the lore and in game. If the games are shallow then they wont last long.

- Balance shouldnt be so formulaic. For example a faction could have an artillery, while the other's counter is a stealth tank. Factions dont have to be carbon copies, and a little faction inbalance is a good thing. Look at TD or RA1, completely different factions.

Basically C&C is individuality, personality and focus. It's not just about having a riot until youve played for a while and then realise how awesome and insane it really is.


I think what EALA fail to grasp is that C&C is not about the guns, explosions and "arcade" gameplay. That's such a simple view that would make anyone think C&C is in the wrong hands.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DeeZire
Cyborg Engineer


Joined: 20 Nov 2006

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

What Command & Conquer was is the more pertinent question.

It was cool bespoke installers EVA style that immersed you into the game universe as soon as you put the disc in the drive rather than some shoddy DRM driven mess that kicks you out as soon as you fart and punishes long term fans whilst allowing the pirates to enjoy the game fully without penalty.

It was great balanced gameplay in a game that worked out of the box without needing a series of patches as soon as it was released before you could get real enjoyment out of it.

It was an innovative original storyline supplemented with well produced FMV that added value instead of trying to be a Hollywood showpiece.

It was playable for beginners and experts alike with a learning curve that was just right - easy to play but still challenging to master. Only after a number of years in the wild did boring strategies arise that killed online play (a side effect of it's incredible lastabililty) yet these now prevail from day one.

It was good fun - harvesting Ore/Tiberium, building up great bases, being able to turtle or rush, having a wide selection of exciting maps, Engineer attacks, Tesla Coils - fun outrageous yet believable stuff instead of psychic schoolgirls and second rate porn actresses poorly justified with 'alternate universe' used as an excuse to get away with any old crap.

I could go on but he is asking the wrong question. People have been making it clear what Command & Conquer is for ages - it's nothing it used to be, the bastard son of profit centric thinking that's ignored what it's fans have been saying for years.

Sounds more like he's asking 'we firked up, how do we get the fans to buy this stuff again?'

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaFool
Defense Minister


Joined: 07 Nov 2006

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

How about you stop looking for the secret formula of the perfect game and make something new from the heart?

_________________
Please, read the signature rules of the forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orac
President


Joined: 11 Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Command and Conquer for me is everything before Renegade.

I only have one piece of advice for EA's next C&C: Don't.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Petras_Kolnas
Vehicle Driver


Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Location: The Kremlin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

DeeZire wrote:
What Command & Conquer was is the more pertinent question.

It was cool bespoke installers EVA style that immersed you into the game universe as soon as you put the disc in the drive rather than some shoddy DRM driven mess that kicks you out as soon as you fart and punishes long term fans whilst allowing the pirates to enjoy the game fully without penalty.

It was great balanced gameplay in a game that worked out of the box without needing a series of patches as soon as it was released before you could get real enjoyment out of it.

It was an innovative original storyline supplemented with well produced FMV that added value instead of trying to be a Hollywood showpiece.

It was playable for beginners and experts alike with a learning curve that was just right - easy to play but still challenging to master. Only after a number of years in the wild did boring strategies arise that killed online play (a side effect of it's incredible lastabililty) yet these now prevail from day one.

It was good fun - harvesting Ore/Tiberium, building up great bases, being able to turtle or rush, having a wide selection of exciting maps, Engineer attacks, Tesla Coils - fun outrageous yet believable stuff instead of psychic schoolgirls and second rate porn actresses poorly justified with 'alternate universe' used as an excuse to get away with any old crap.

I could go on but he is asking the wrong question. People have been making it clear what Command & Conquer is for ages - it's nothing it used to be, the bastard son of profit centric thinking that's ignored what it's fans have been saying for years.

Sounds more like he's asking 'we firked up, how do we get the fans to buy this stuff again?'


I couldn't have said it better myself.

I agree with APOC on the statement that Generals (ZH) can be great fun, from a completely straight-forward gameplay perspective. In short, the story of the campaign or the battle mode have absolutely no reward, but the plotless conflict of skirmish mode can be very entertaining.

As for its supposed relation to the C&C universe, and its supposed 'storyline', Generals marks the total end of C&C being a wonderfully unique story, and the beginning of C&C being just a cheap label to bring in more buyers. There is NO plot connection, NO mechanical similarities, and NO artistic/conceptual similarities (unless you count very generic, stretched connections like bomb trucks = demo trucks or Overlord Tanks = Mammoth Tanks, etc).

...the addition of 'Red Alert 3' is just another manipulation of the unforgettable C&C legacy. As with Generals, there are No C&C mechanics, concepts, etc. It's just ridiculous. (I will say that I was really glad that RA3 included some authentic Russian themes, titles, and most of all, MUSIC! This was always a drawback to RA2, as it had little Russian culture added into it.)

To me, the Command & Conquer universe was not simply a game title, but a very unique and interwoven universe. APOC’s reference to the RA1 ‘gimmick’ in which Kane appeared in a ‘cameo’ was much more than that. If he had bothered to pay attention to the plot of the story, he would have known that the culmination of RA1 was the universe-splitting events that brought about RA2 and Tiberian Dawn. This incredible connection of two seemingly different stories makes for an incredible multi-level universe. The fans loved this concept. And when EA got their slimy claws around the series, they thought “oh, well everybody loved this alternate universe idea in the original games! Let’s use it over and over again without presenting any of the realistic consequences that occurred in the earlier games!”
…and so, we get the same once-great concept used again and again until it has no more originality. First with Yuri’s Revenge, in which time travel was presented as simple and easy, barely changing anything in the ‘present’ day. Same goes for RA3, in which they kill Einstein prior to WWII. WTF!?! If Einstein was dead, how could he have killed Hitler in the first place!? How would the whole frking thing have started in the first place!?!
…so much for C&C’s essential ‘butterfly effect’ moral. The whole idea that a small action would change the entire course of human history is now scrapped, along with everything else that made the C&C games so great. The ONLY, I repeat, the ONLY thing that remains, is the title ‘Command & Conquer’ on every mass-produced EA RTS ripoff.

_________________
"...when the people do not get their rice... They become riceless!"

-Fiodor Kievski

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkstorm
Commander


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Things that define a C&C game to me:

- An MCV or MCV type vehicle that deploys into the hub of a base. This implies a specific point that is your heart, disabling with a swift strike kills the player.

- A selection of structures that have different purposes.

- A verticle sidebar...

- Some resource to fight over, this implies use in domination of area. If this isn't there, what is the purpose in taking control of any piece of land.

Generals was a good game, and executed alot of points well, but it isn't the ideal C&C game.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ModDB Profile ID
Sedistix
Cyborg Engineer


Joined: 27 Mar 2010

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

DeeZire hit the best points on the head.

Though i've often wondered why AI, pathfinding, and simple waypoints have never made ANY advances.

Anyone here ever played or heard a RTS game called Dark Reign? It's an old game, but it has one of the best waypoint AI systems I've ever seen in a RTS game.

Check out this Wiki Excerpt:

Dark Reign featured a number of new concepts that altered the gameplay and flavour of the title. It possessed a complex fog-of-war where line of sight was affected by everything from terrain height and shape to trees and rocks.

The player could place any number of paths, each with any number of points, and save each one with a unique name. Units on a path could be assigned to patrol it, loop, or travel it once, and units would automatically carry out behaviours at each point - for example, a resource collector could be given a path to take it around an enemy base to a water deposit and it would treat this route as its standard resource gathering path.

Separate from waypoints, units could be given individual orders such as "search and destroy", "harass", or "scout", allowing them to choose their own targets, engaging and occupying the enemy while freeing up the player to work on more significant strategies / development. These tactics could be controlled further with the use of individually customisable AI settings for every unit, allowing the player to set unit pursuit range, damage tolerance (how quickly the unit will seek healing / repairs and flee combat), and independence (how far the unit will stray from orders in order to engage attackers or targets of opportunity). These could be set individually for every unit, and the default setting could be changed, eliminating the need to change every unit if a unified strategy called for particular settings.

Dark Reign was released in '97, yet included incredible and intuitive mechanics. What the hell happened along the way with RTS games?

Graphics, particles and FMV's are great but come on. One can shine a 86 Volvo too, but it'll still be a 86 Volvo in the end.

Hell, we're lucky we even get an area guard mode, or aggressive stance.

_________________
Why worry about snakes in the garden when there's spiders in your bed.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

DeeZire wrote:
What Command & Conquer was is the more pertinent question.


Indeed.

C&C was never something that was rigidly set in stone, especially in the area of setting/theme. The very fact that it spun off into Red Alert and Generals and Renegade kinda already shows how subject it is to change. At the very most, one can say that for the most part of the franchise, the gameplay was distinctly rooted in the use of MCVs, as well as Engineers that can inflict a one-hit soft-kill on enemy buildings. Beyond that anything else goes. MCVs are the strongest symbols of C&C, sort of like how the image of a command post with workers scurrying back and forth hauling resource is a stereotypical image of a Starcraft/Warcraft faction.

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Morpher
General


Joined: 28 Jan 2005

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Command and Conquer is a style of game, atmosphere and attitude. I played Red Alert Retalliation first, and I learnt how the game was played and worked through that. When I came to play TS and TD I knew what to expect when it came to how the game worked, how it was presented and layed out and what kind of humour to expect (gameplay + style first, humour last). There was a particular charm that came from the early CnC games and I guess Tiberian Sun as well but with the more EA-ish titles it seemed to get lost and muddled up.

I didn't mind Generals as a game, but just becuase it features similar gameplay mechanics to earlier CnC games doesn't mean it deserves the CnC title. All I see here is another sort of "let's make the community feel involved again for some new project $$ etc". Let CnC die, if you want to make a new RTS then make a new universe and a new series or something.

_________________


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crimsonum
Seth


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Location: Fineland

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I wouldn't mind Generals 2. Actually, I'd look forward for it. As long as it would feature similar or the same worker system, base construction, supply gathering (from immovable posts that do not necessarily regenerate), two to three factions that are not carbon copies of each other (Generals did this well, of course there was a MBT for each faction, a worker unit and other similarities, but otherwise the factions were quite different yet balanced), with possible subfactions and the Generals-points-system, and a fictional story where the player is either already a general or a commander (who ranks up towards the end of the campaign, similar to RA), it deserves the Generals title.

What's also important is the music. I enjoy how the tune changes in Generals according to what's happening. Whether you're winning or loosing, attacking or just building, you hear a different theme.

_________________


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orac
President


Joined: 11 Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Yeah, a Generals 2 would actually be a fair change of pace.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Same here. I had the most enjoyment from Generals than I did from any C&C game after it. generals had the most unconventional gameplay features inside, from the ejecting pilots to the firestorms.



Morpher wrote:
just becuase it features similar gameplay mechanics to earlier CnC games doesn't mean it deserves the CnC title.


it's hardly new. Sole Survivor and Renegade had mechanics practically so detached from C&C that it would seem miraculously incredible they ended up having the C&C title to begin with.

And yet they have the title.

The thing is, whether or not something is labelled as C&C has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it "deserves" the title. Even among the community, opinions are varied as to what does or doesn't "deserve" the title in the first place.

Ultimately it is still the developers decision. To put it simply, if they wanna make something a part of the C&C franchise, the product will have the C&C title. Red Alert and Generals are proof that you don't need to be 100% into the Tiberian lore just to have the C&C title. In fact, C&C and the Tiberian universe are no longer synonymous with each other. Rather, the latter is now a subset of the former.

tbh, given how C&C has been changing so much, every time a new C&C game came out from TS onwards I always get that "this isn't the C&C as I once knew it" feeling. Eventually I realised that C&C just wasn't made out for consistency, at least not beyond the stuff like MCVs and Engineers that capture stuff in a single move. Even trying to formulate a rigid checklist of mechanics, you'd run into counter-examples everywhere, for instance

...if you say it's got to have MCVs, Generals didn't have them. Renegade's MCVs don't count either as you don't build bases with them.

...if you talk about harvestable resources, one could argue that it's too general, as nearly every RTS has harvestable resources.

etc.

Thus it'd be better to look at C&C in the broader sense. It's about GDI vs Nod. It's the Chronosphere and Dr Thrax and Kane and everything else uniquely inherent within the universe. It's not 100% about the genre of the game, even though the franchise was rooted in RTS.

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepzi
Plasma Trooper


Joined: 26 Nov 2004
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

The stupid thing is that nearly all fictional elements that gave that sense of atmosphere and feel of C&C aswell as the continuity in story and design style have been fully ignored post-TS.


Quote:
Thus it'd be better to look at C&C in the broader sense. It's about GDI vs Nod. It's the Chronosphere and Dr Thrax and Kane and everything else uniquely inherent within the universe.


No, Dr Thrax has nothing to do with C&C, he is just a loony bi-product of EA incompetence. Here's another thing, they whored out Kane and actually put him on the box cover where a pilot with reflective visors should be, in the style we have seen in C&C1, RA1, and TS/FS.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dutchygamer
President


Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Wait what? I thought C&C was dead after TT? Or are they finally going to make Generals 2...

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Account
Aro
Alcohol Fueled


Joined: 10 Sep 2006

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

No, just the end of the Tiberium Saga. I'm sure that's been stated 10,000 times on every damn C&C site in existence.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lin Kuei Ominae
Seth


Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Sedistix wrote:
Though i've often wondered why AI, pathfinding, and simple waypoints have never made ANY advances.

Anyone here ever played or heard a RTS game called Dark Reign? It's an old game, but it has one of the best waypoint AI systems I've ever seen in a RTS game.

Damn right.
Dark Reign has shown some incredibly advanced gameplay logics which i've never seen again.

And C&C was one of the few RTS games and the first one to introduce such great logics too, like unlimited army sizes, click and drag a rectangle around a big group of units, easy interface and control over units, great story and atmosphere, deformable terrain (why was this never used again?).

The statement "we don't make the AI better because the harvester has to be stupid" is no excuse imo.

Anyone remember the game Z by bitmap brothers? This game even had different intelligent robots and you where able to let your most intelligent snipers enter an abandoned vehicle. Thus in a fight between your intelligent medium tank and the enemy stupid medium tank, yours would always be the winner.

But a game that gets rid of most of the inventive things of a TD, RA1, TS and RA2 is no C&C.

My conclusion: Stop making hollywood games, but spend time and money to enhance the engine and improve the logics that made a C&C like TS something special.

Last edited by Lin Kuei Ominae on Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:54 am; edited 2 times in total

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Pepzi wrote:
Dr Thrax has nothing to do with C&C, he is just a loony bi-product of EA incompetence.


That's like saying Romanov's turtle was a byproduct of Westwood trying to turn RA2 into a big fat joke... Everything that is put into C&C stays in C&C, like it or not. The universe wasn't built to only accommodate the stuff you see fit to put inside. That's the dev's job.

Everyone is free to like or dislike whatever he pleases. But ultimately the title of "C&C" is just a brand name. If a new game comes out should it be judged first and foremost on the quality of the content, or the trivialities of whether or not it's title is suitable enough? Marketing-wise, obviously making a new universe with the C&C title is quite a dumb business decision, but IMO if one is so wrapped up in the delimma over the brand name, he loses sight of what really matters most in the game, which is the gameplay content.



Pepzi wrote:
Here's another thing, they whored out Kane and actually put him on the box cover where a pilot with reflective visors should be, in the style we have seen in C&C1, RA1, and TS/FS.


I thought this thread was about discussion, not about trying to bash whatever we don't like at the slightest window of opportunity.

Also, RA1 didn't have reflective visor crap. It was a helicopter attacking a Mammoth Tank.

And the guy on the boxart wasn't a pilot.



Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
a game that gets rid of most of the inventive things of a TD, RA1, TS and RA2 is no C&C.

My conclusion: Stop making hollywood games, but spend time and money to enhance the engine and improve the logics that made a C&C like TS something special.


Well firstly what defines "inventive"? And to what extent does a feature need to be so absolutely crucial that any game wanting to have the title can't do without it? Is DOW not fit to have the WH40K title because it doesn't have the key ingredient of being played on a tabletop, which is how the WH40K games have been enjoyed for generations?

Secondly wtf was so special about TS? AFAIK it's got some icing on the cake (like tunnels and destroyable cliffs) but the only real gameplay element I found new and great were the permanent waypoints.

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pd
Laser Commando


Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Location: Gone

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

DeeZire wrote:
What Command & Conquer was is the more pertinent question.

It was cool bespoke installers EVA style that immersed you into the game universe as soon as you put the disc in the drive rather than some shoddy DRM driven mess that kicks you out as soon as you fart and punishes long term fans whilst allowing the pirates to enjoy the game fully without penalty.

It was great balanced gameplay in a game that worked out of the box without needing a series of patches as soon as it was released before you could get real enjoyment out of it.

It was an innovative original storyline supplemented with well produced FMV that added value instead of trying to be a Hollywood showpiece.

It was playable for beginners and experts alike with a learning curve that was just right - easy to play but still challenging to master. Only after a number of years in the wild did boring strategies arise that killed online play (a side effect of it's incredible lastabililty) yet these now prevail from day one.

It was good fun - harvesting Ore/Tiberium, building up great bases, being able to turtle or rush, having a wide selection of exciting maps, Engineer attacks, Tesla Coils - fun outrageous yet believable stuff instead of psychic schoolgirls and second rate porn actresses poorly justified with 'alternate universe' used as an excuse to get away with any old crap.

I could go on but he is asking the wrong question. People have been making it clear what Command & Conquer is for ages - it's nothing it used to be, the bastard son of profit centric thinking that's ignored what it's fans have been saying for years.

Sounds more like he's asking 'we firked up, how do we get the fans to buy this stuff again?'

this

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nikademis Von Hisson
General


Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Location: Wilkes Barre PA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:31 pm    Post subject: What is C&C for you Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I skimmed some of the posts, but really haven't read any of them in depth. But C&C to me is a game, nothing more. It is something to occupy the time when I am hanging with my friends are not here or my loved ones are doing other things. I have seen the evolution of the game and have to say that the style or RA2/Yuri play is the best, but the newer versions of the 3d vehicle and infantry looks are better. I am not a fan of the way you play Generals/Zero Hour. The whole bulldozer to build sucks, I like the idea of click on the sidebar build and place. The game has come a long way. We should never forget its a game and nothing more.

_________________
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

http://www.ppmsite.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27714

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Account
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:41 pm    Post subject: Re: What is C&C for you Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Nikademis Von Hisson wrote:
The whole bulldozer to build sucks


A lot of RTS employ that build mechanic though. Hopefully your dislike for that system isn't so strong that you miss out on other potentially interesting RTS titles.

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepzi
Plasma Trooper


Joined: 26 Nov 2004
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Quote:
That's like saying Romanov's turtle was a byproduct of Westwood trying to turn RA2 into a big fat joke... Everything that is put into C&C stays in C&C, like it or not. The universe wasn't built to only accommodate the stuff you see fit to put inside. That's the dev's job.


This statement is erroneus from the ground up because of the fact that EA made Ra2 in the first place. Just look at the credits in the manual.

Quote:
Pepzi wrote:
Here's another thing, they whored out Kane and actually put him on the box cover where a pilot with reflective visors should be, in the style we have seen in C&C1, RA1, and TS/FS.


I thought this thread was about discussion, not about trying to bash whatever we don't like at the slightest window of opportunity.

Also, RA1 didn't have reflective visor crap. It was a helicopter attacking a Mammoth Tank.

And the guy on the boxart wasn't a pilot.


Yeah Pilot/driver, I know it's a tank driver, it doesn't matter as the term pilot can be applied to a tank driver aswell, and it DID have the reflective visor in the form of a lense, how else would you have known that there is a helicopter attacking a mammoth tank?
The tradition of having an anonymous soldiers face with reflective visor is broken when it was replaced by Kane himself on the cover just like that.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Pepzi wrote:

This statement is erroneus from the ground up because of the fact that EA made Ra2 in the first place. Just look at the credits in the manual.


RA2 was published by EA. If it were made by EA we wouldn't be seeing the Westwood logo anywhere on the game.

Plus it's not like Westwood were 100% flawless either. IIRC McNeil's character had lots of criticism for starters.



Pepzi wrote:

it DID have the reflective visor in the form of a lense, how else would you have known that there is a helicopter attacking a mammoth tank?


"because it was drawn on the goddam box" a good enough explanation to you?





Pepzi wrote:

The tradition of having an anonymous soldiers face with reflective visor is broken when it was replaced by Kane himself on the cover just like that.


Be that as it may, it's a really trivial thing to be complaining about. If you were perhaps describing something like the breaking of gameplay tradition in Generals by eschewing the MCV I might be more in agreement, but damn this is the friggin box art! Have you seriously run out of things to find fault with to have to go harping on the box design?

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nikademis Von Hisson
General


Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Location: Wilkes Barre PA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:29 pm    Post subject: Re: What is C&C for you Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Valdez wrote:
Nikademis Von Hisson wrote:
The whole bulldozer to build sucks


A lot of RTS employ that build mechanic though. Hopefully your dislike for that system isn't so strong that you miss out on other potentially interesting RTS titles.


well, the only game I really play on the computer is C&C, Real War (on occasion), Baulder's Gate and Diablo. I have played the Star Wars:Battleground Galactica (think thats the name) and Age of Empires. Other than that its C&C

The bulldozer is nice because you can build more than one thing at a time, but not big on the maps they have in gen/ZH. The world builder doesn't work for me, I loaded it once and since then it has failed to work for me again. And since I mod Yuri's I see no real point in making maps for those games. But everyone has their own opinion which game they like best.

_________________
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

http://www.ppmsite.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27714

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Account
Crimsonum
Seth


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Location: Fineland

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Valdez, I've only had and seen Red Alert boxes with this cover:



As you can see, it has the same 'anonymous-guy-in-foreground' theme C&C1, TS, RA2, and even Generals had. Well, yeah, that's another small thing that seems to be consistent among C&C games.

And hey, don't turn this topic into JUST another EA-bash topic.

Quote:
RA2 was published by EA. If it were made by EA we wouldn't be seeing the Westwood logo anywhere on the game.


Like he said, it has been stated for a million times that EA only published RA2 and YR and even Renegade, and Generals was the first C&C game they developed. The games from RA2 to Renegade were developed by Westwood Pacific, and despite not the same (Vegas) studio that developed C&C1-FS, it was a second studio under Westwood authority.

_________________


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepzi
Plasma Trooper


Joined: 26 Nov 2004
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Quote:
[quote="Valdez"]
Pepzi wrote:

This statement is erroneus from the ground up because of the fact that EA made Ra2 in the first place. Just look at the credits in the manual.


RA2 was published by EA. If it were made by EA we wouldn't be seeing the Westwood logo anywhere on the game.

Plus it's not like Westwood were 100% flawless either. IIRC McNeil's character had lots of criticism for starters.


Ra2 was developed by an entirely different team called Westwood Pacific, later to be known as EA pacific, the "real" Westwood being the Las Vegas one. So it makes no difference if the game was published with the Westwood logo or not. It wasn't the actual WW guys that made it, nor did they have any say in the matter. Compare the names in the credits on the older games with the Ra2 credits.

And by the way, this is the box cover that I'm reffering to:


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
inzane krazy
General


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Location: Sketchpad

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

This could be interesting, hopefully it'll be done right and have our rightful tib fields :3

_________________
Please, I DON'T read the signature rules of the forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Fair enough it was made by WWP. Still WWP was managed by Westwood Studios, so at some point or another, the so-called original Westwood guys greenlighted the piece of lulz that would become RA2.

And all this comparison between developers is irrelevant anyway. There's no telling how Westwood wouldn've done it. FYI Westwood's track record includes taking 4.5 years to develop a game (TS) that came out far from polished and quickly overshadowed by Starcraft. Renegade and Sole Survivor wasn't exactly a hit either. The only really good thing Westwood did was pioneer the RTS formula to pave the way for subsequent RTS titles. Everything just sort of went downhill after RA1, it's just that because the decline wasn't as steep as what EA's doing right now, people tended to give WW the benefit of the doubt. WW's liquidation by EA further provided fans an excuse to depict WW in a "victim's spotlight", hence the anti-EA sentiments now.

If you wanna say EA's games suck, by all means. But it'd be best to not draw comparisons to Westwood because Westwood really wasn't all that great either. There's plenty other more successful stories out there from the likes of Blizzard (Starcraft), Relic (CoH), etc. Westwood only looks great with a pair of rose tinted glasses on.

Regarding boxart I'm amazed you acknowledged it as a "small thing that's been consistent" because from the way you were describing it earlier it seemed almost like a Very Serious Issue.

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deformat
Defense Minister


Joined: 17 Sep 2007

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Well,I opened this thread and saw walls of text.Walls in which the same problem of if EA/WW sucks or not.Honestly,I was a bit into this discussion before;I dare to say that EA/WW.Therefore,I feel a bit obligated to say the next:

What happened 'til RA3 including RA3 was pretty good.

Renegade was "meh",but it was okay-ish.CNC3 was quite awesome to me.RA3 wasn't what I expected,but maybe that's just a personal problem;Its at least a pretty modable thing.

Also,what I want in the future:

Quote:

-Games that still have the sidebar,the MCV,the basic resource systems.
-Games that will have good modability support.And here I can also mean releasing some unreleased stuff(hell,what is it going to do to the community?!
-We all love style.RA1,TD,TS,RA2-YR had style.Renegade wasn't that good.Generals had its own style too.Same for CNC3 and hell,with a bit of exaggeration,RA3 had something similar.
-I'd love to see EA supporting modding communities.Paradox Interactive created with the help of Hearts of Iron 2 modders a new game with increased modability:Arsenal of Democracy.And hell,they did it damn good.This doesn't mean that we should do something like a new YR or a new TS - no.This means that EA could work on some new bloody tools and patches,or help out guys like those from Ares.
-I'd love to see the gameplay to be as simple and maybe as basic as it once used to be - I'm kinda sick of this "Let's do it like Call of Duty X for the fun" and simply making a simple game complex.
-I'd love to see EA going backwards,not only forward in the CNC game history.(and here I mean:Why not do prequels,or whatnot.Everybody thought of a prequel of RA1?Although not very original,its probably the most easiest stuff to do.
-I don't want uber-realism.I want fun.Hell,these are games,not sex simulators.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ju-Jin
Cyborg Firebomber


Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:28 pm    Post subject: Re: What is Command & Conquer for you? Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Banshee wrote:
I loved the older C&C games for making the base become more valuable and a sort of territory where you have to defend. Of course they do allow expansion to other locations, but it happens slowly and only when the enemy is not attacking. Differently from Generals and newer games where buildings are made of paper

This is sooo untrue. If you look at TD to RA2 where you can just rip through a base with light infantry and then look at Gen/TW/RA3 there it just gets slaughtered by turrets and say this again I will call you a liar. Just think of it how much damage a well placed GI Drop in RA2 could have done. It often killed 1-2 buildings even before the enemy was able to kill one GI. Or a TD Mammoth can be killed with 10 light infantry units if not crushed, without loosing half of them.

The only thing it didn't feel that fast was the cash flow. A harvester in newer games loads, drives to the refineries, and unloads in the time a older harvester just unloads (not RA but they moved slower then newer harvesters, so cash flow is much less too). So less units in the same amount of time, less force to destroy a base. And also less cash to expand.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam)
Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Quote:
This is sooo untrue. If you look at TD to RA2 where you can just rip through a base with light infantry and then look at Gen/TW/RA3 there it just gets slaughtered by turrets and say this again I will call you a liar


Honestly, depending on the amount of infantry you bring, you can wipe entire bases with their turrets with light infantry, although I must admit that in RA2 the light infantry (specially GI) was really damn strong against buildings, specially when deployed.

But that wasn't the context I was talking about. When you destroy a building on Generals, it is much easier to repair the damage than in an older game, because you have multiples dozers/workers that can build stuff, these units costs less than an old MCV, and the GLA workers could be built from refineries, which are also much cheaper than a MCV. For this reason, the buildings were more valuable to repair, because even the action of loosing a warfactory would leave the base more vulnerable in a game like Tiberian Sun than in Generals.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Pepzi
Plasma Trooper


Joined: 26 Nov 2004
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Quote:
Fair enough it was made by WWP. Still WWP was managed by Westwood Studios, so at some point or another, the so-called original Westwood guys greenlighted the piece of lulz that would become RA2.


Westwood wasn't an authority over the other studio, seeing as they were both under EA, and I certainly doubt Ra2 was something the old folks at WW wanted. I mean, look at Adam Isgreens quote on something they were planning for their C&C3:

Quote:
Yes, the solution to RA2's complete break of the RA -> C&C -> TS fiction was something that several of us came up with to "fix" the problem. RA being the prequel was what we (Westwood LV) intended for the series. It was originally called C&C0, FYI. RA2 was a great game, but we had issues with how to fit that into the timeline we wanted to maintain. We found a creative way to fix it. It's in the WWv2 C&C3 GDI campaign. Yuri, an acolyte of Kane's (Nod was experimenting with psionics in the WWv2 C&C3) is sucked into a chrono-vortex that is created by a Chronosphere that GDI inadvertently activates (along with some other RA-era tech) while attempting to retrieve the only other existing suit of powered "screaming eagle" commando armor (the first was melted on re-entry from orbit when the Philadelphia was destroyed) from the sealed tech vaults at Area 51.

Just like Einstein fracturing the timeline from "real" time with his little trip back into the past in RA, so did Yuri's presence throw off the already-altered timeline again, creating the RA2 reality. RA games would have continued in that splintered reality.


Bolded font by me. So you see, it's stupid to think they encouraged the direction Ra2 was taking and then wanting to fix it by mere coincidence. Just think about it. So pelase stop putting words into Westwood's mouth, Ra2 wasn't even a true westwood styled game, even UAW and EAW has more similar characteristics than Ra2. Not saying that Ra2 is bad game in itself though.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Excuse me which part of UAW has "similar" characteristics? There's no MCVs or engineers in UAW for starters... RA2 had both, plus walls, plus elements from the original RA1, like chronoshifting and tesla coils and naval warfare and resource-harvesting from a field. So yeah which part of UAW has more similar characteristics? I've played UAW before and felt zero C&C vibes from it so yeah please enlighten me here on what I apparently am not aware of

Actually wait wtf do you even mean by a "Westwood styled" game to begin with? And please don't give vague responses, because the vaguer the answer, the more likely anyone here can easily cite a non-Westwood game that fits your criterion.


Also, encouraging something is not the same as greenlighting it. They may have simply allowed WWP to pursue the RA universe in their own direction rather than wanting to force a rigid direction. I mean if you look at how the setting for TS was so different from TD (no, the 30 years later excuse doesn't cut it for the level of insane sci fi TS had) it's obvious C&C was never the sort of thing which adhered to any rigid direction.

And that fix-up they were planning sounded retarded the first time I read it. This is probably the 4th time I read it and it still sounds retarded.



Deformat wrote:


Also,what I want in the future:

Quote:

-Games that still have the sidebar,the MCV,the basic resource systems.
-Games that will have good modability support.And here I can also mean releasing some unreleased stuff(hell,what is it going to do to the community?!
-We all love style.RA1,TD,TS,RA2-YR had style.Renegade wasn't that good.Generals had its own style too.Same for CNC3 and hell,with a bit of exaggeration,RA3 had something similar.
-I'd love to see EA supporting modding communities.Paradox Interactive created with the help of Hearts of Iron 2 modders a new game with increased modability:Arsenal of Democracy.And hell,they did it damn good.This doesn't mean that we should do something like a new YR or a new TS - no.This means that EA could work on some new bloody tools and patches,or help out guys like those from Ares.
-I'd love to see the gameplay to be as simple and maybe as basic as it once used to be - I'm kinda sick of this "Let's do it like Call of Duty X for the fun" and simply making a simple game complex.
-I'd love to see EA going backwards,not only forward in the CNC game history.(and here I mean:Why not do prequels,or whatnot.Everybody thought of a prequel of RA1?Although not very original,its probably the most easiest stuff to do.
-I don't want uber-realism.I want fun.Hell,these are games,not sex simulators.



I don't think C&C is prequel material tbh. TD was the starting point of the war between Nod and GDI, and the only significant event before RA1's events was WWI which was as ordinary as any portrayal of WWI could have been.

Gameplay simplicity is a tricky issue. I wouldn't be in favour of something like RA3's 1-ability per unit system (even WiC had more abilities per unit) as I feel that is too dumbed down. There needs to be a good balance between simplicity and depth.

Definitely agree with you on modding though. EA's modding support is atrocious.

As for uber realism, thats not a problem. C&C was never realistic. The closest it ever got to realism was having stuff like an Abrams Tank in TD, the game where black protruding spikes shoot magical lasers from thin air, special tanks have cloaking devices, and satellites can shoot particle beams. try to make C&C realistic and you destroy the very spirit of the game itself, especially for Nod, whose arsenal is ass-deep in unrealism with their lasers, cloaking and other stuff attributed to sci fi.

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepzi
Plasma Trooper


Joined: 26 Nov 2004
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

The "Westwood styled" was a reference to the tone and touch they gave on whatever game they were developing. When I first played Empire at War I immediately noticed how the interface and unit graphics and writing style were done in a serious tone, the unit voice responses were the familiar "Unit/squad reporting" "affirmative" "moving out". I even had vibes of Renegade interfacing in it. It somehow resonated in a similar manner despite being foreign to each other. I wasn't talking about basic features like MCV:s, by such reasoning TW would be considered a true WW game, and I couldn't agree less.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

*facepalm*

"writing style were done in a serious tone" is precisely the generic, vague stuff I mentioned... you wanna know how many games out there fit the bill for a serious writing style?


And the unit responses are so superficial that if that's enough to sway your view, a modder could swap out the unit sfx in C&C 3 with the relevant sfx from TD or TS and you'd immediately consider it as being one step closer to "a true WW game".


I just dunno... the more I converse with you the more I just feel you're simply inherently biased in westwood's favour even to the point where non-Westwood games like EAW strike a chord with you simply because of the ex-Westwood people in the dev team. What next, SCII scores brownie points with you too because Dustin Browder's on the team? I really hate to venture this deep into potential flamebaiting territory but you seem to have really shallow standards for what constitutes a true WW game... it's almost as if you've convinced yourself that only people who were once from Westwood can make a true Westwood game. Reality check: Westwood is dead, and there will never ever be another Westwood game, ever. Anything else that feels Westwood-ish is just your nostalgia sense tingling, sort of like the TA-vibes a person might get if he tries SupCom.

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ju-Jin
Cyborg Firebomber


Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Also have you ever played Nox? There are some funny references to C&C but hey, its one of their biggest franchise at that time, why they shouldn't put it in there? But everything else? Nothing there would have reminded me of C&C.

Also this:
"(Nod was experimenting with psionics in the WWv2 C&C3)"
lets face it, who would have ever felt a psi-Nod would be in any way good? Sorry, but a psi-Nod would be horrible in my opinion. Nod was hitech from the start, so why psi stuff? Come on, its not Babylon 5 with this Psi Corps. Btw this was, in my opinion, the biggest negative in that show.

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Account
Tony
Commander


Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Location: United States

PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I can't picture a Nod soldier staring a goat to death with his spoon bending powers.

Anyways, to me CnC was about fighting over something valuable, modability, and most importantly a fun atmosphere that made you want more!

Almost forgot.. Very important! the story should have never been so focused on a character such as Kane, to me it should be an epic story on the war itself, and what life was like during that time, and intricate detail on units, terrain, and WEATHER should have always been at the top of the priorities list for making a CnC.

I have moved on..

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Account
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Focusing only on Kane was huge mistake that both Westwood and EA seem to have made. When you have a universe where the characters are changed over and over, with only 1 recurring character in the cast, it's really hard to have good character development. Looking at say, Halo for example, we only get introduced to brand new guys for spin-off parts like ODST and Halo Wars. For C&C, Kane's the only familiar face.

I dunno about weather being a top priority though... if it's that high a priority why is it that only Generals out of the whole saga had rain and snow...

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaFool
Defense Minister


Joined: 07 Nov 2006

PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

What is the essence of Command and Conquer? Where's Kierkengaard and the existentialists?

_________________
Please, read the signature rules of the forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
inzane krazy
General


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Location: Sketchpad

PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

EA, I want my epic battle CGI's that last at least a minute after every mission, what happened to those?

Did everyone forget about the epic CGIs that made completing a mission feel so ztyping rewarding?

Honestly, I think this is what killed C&C3 for me, full of boring talk in the cutscenes, no CGIs like C&C1/TS/FS/RA1, it made finishing the missions unrewarding. I also feel that I'm the only one that misses these little things.

Also, even though RA2 might not have these CGIs, they had far more, less-boring Cutscenes, as in, they had a feeling of comic-y which was on purpose, which kinda lifted the boring-ness, but Im not saying there should be any comic relief in the next game though.

_________________
Please, I DON'T read the signature rules of the forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Emphasis on "action" scenes stopped after TS. It was from FS onwards that we really ended up with all that talking crap. Shame really.

I still recall the 2nd GDI mission of FS. Whoo, blank screen with green digital stuff and a GDI logo in a corner, EVA says "hostile tiberium lifeforms attacking, advise evacuating the civilian population" poof, video ends. That was probably one of the lamest mission briefing vids I'd ever seen.

That sort of stuff showed up again in C&C 3's Scrin campaign. We got 1 invasion scene which was nice and all, but all the briefing vids after that was a disembodied voice and flashy alien Google Earth graphics.

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Regulus
Commander


Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Location: The Lone Star State

PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Rumor: New Universe
Undeniable Truth: Game STILL sucks ass. Thanks EA.

_________________
You come for the modding but you stay for the Crap Forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Account
Ju-Jin
Cyborg Firebomber


Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Valdez wrote:
I dunno about weather being a top priority though... if it's that high a priority why is it that only Generals out of the whole saga had rain and snow...

TW, RA3 and even TT also had rain in at least one map. Snow was possible but unused in these games tho.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Account
Orac
President


Joined: 11 Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Psionic weapons could follow the macabre path of River Tam.. All the awesome psychic power, but at the expense of having to physically modify the subject's brain and cause irreversible psychosis.

But the kind of careful domino-effect stories which begin with a small happening and slowly grow in ways which could not be predicted may be beyond the scope of today's developers.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Story development is not exactly a high priority because few games have their main selling point as the story rather than the gameplay. Mass Effect is an example.

Also it's not easy to be far-sighted enough to plan out an entire saga spanning several games, especially if you don't know if the saga will even survive beyond the first title (see UAW).

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GeckoYamori
Cyborg Artillery


Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I thought Generals retained enough key C&C mechanics to feel like a C&C game. The most significant changes (apart from simply not being set in the Tiberian or RA universes) were the removal of the conyard/build radius system and basic infantry/hero units capturing buildings over time instead of engineers. Though I still prefer conyards and engineers, I thought it worked quite well as an offshoot game. And though the story itself wasn't very in-depth or "personal" like the other games, the conclusion sets an interesting premise with the United States returning to an isolationist policy and China creating closer ties with Europe.

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Volgin
Commander


Joined: 07 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

C&C to me is people complaining about developers and developers not caring about the future of their products long term.

_________________
Victory!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AltomareXD
General


Joined: 22 May 2008

PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Already posted on the forums

Quote:
Well, C&C for me is more of a story. It's incredible how removing one man can change everything so much (RA1). Another is an icon that, whenever you say C&C, Kane and "those commie bastards" come immediately come into mind. I myself likes to play single player mode; to hell with online and C&C as a spectator sport. Though I'm not saying multiplayer is a bad thing.


These things would define C&C, in view of a gamer, fan and a lore oriented player.

-MCVs
-Base Building
-Sidebar
-Kane/Soviets/Yuri
-Seriously cheesy part awesome FMVs - NO WHITE BACKDROPS. My school's auditorium has much more props than that.
-Ore collecting with miners
-Campaign, stretched out to 12, like in RA2
-Jukebox
-Frank K's music, maybe a comeback of 2-3 music, like in RA3.
-Epic Hell March invasion intro. RA2 anyone?
-.INIs for moddability -- no need for tutorials for .XMLs; rulesmd.ini was very self explanatory for me.
-Interactive Installation

Every new C&C has something new to offer ( storyline twists in YR, Firestorm and C&C3, unique base building in RA3, intel Database and unit secondary skills in C&C3, Global Conquest in KW, experience points in C&C4, etc..). Generally, these things aren't so bad unless you take away the above mentioned factors that make up a C&C game.

These features would be a welcome for me if an expansion:

-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)

-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.

-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.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reaperrr
Commander


Joined: 26 Apr 2003
Location: Somewhere in Germany

PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Technically, this is the wrong question. The question should be: What did you enjoy about Command & Conquer?

Simplicity
No, I'm not kidding. If they really want C&C to become more accessible to casual gamers AND win back many old fans, by all means, go back to the roots.
And when I say roots, I do NOT talk about crappy path-finding, I do NOT talk about stupid AI, I do NOT talk about any of the weaknesses of the old C&Cs (they had quite a lot from an objective standpoint).

Remove the f-ing bloat. Take a step back on everything. Sometimes less can be more!
- 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.
- Reduce the power of superweapons. I actually liked the good old times when a nuke did not destroy but only damage your buildings, and when the Ion cannnon could only destroy a single target.
- reduce the base micro-management. Go back to the ConYard system, remove the additional build queues.
- Tone down or completely remove veterancy.
- remove directional armor.
- reduce the number and significance or even completely remove upgrades.
- keep the number of units per side low. Something like 4-6 infantry types, 5-7 vehicle types and 2-3 aircraft per side.
- When it comes to the art style, please go back to the less fancy, more pseudo-realistic approach of C&C1/RA1.


What EA should be concentrating on
- Make an engine that allows to zoom out further than SAGE currently does. And with decent path-finding (and AI in general). Dumb harvesters are one thing I'd definitely NOT miss.
- make the sides completely asymmetrical. Do NOT give each side a direct counterpart to the other sides' unit line-up like in C&C3. Go back to the C&C1/RA1 approach: One side lacks fast units, the other lacks strong units, for example.
- make decent single-player campaigns, preferably in terms of both quality AND quantity. The best example is, in my opinion, the campaign of Emperor BFD: The only RTS EVER that got the mix of a dynamic campaign and scripted missions right. The hire-able sub-houses were the icing on the cake, every play-through was a bit different. Other games that got at least the scripted missions right are StarCraft, RA1, Firestorm and RA2, and to a lesser extend vanilla TS. Btw, same applies to the story-telling. SC and E:BFD are the best ones in that aspect as well.
- make at least half of the multiplayer/skirmish maps asymmetrical, geared towards looks, eye-candy and special features (you know, capturable unit husks spread around the map, neutral units [civilian resistance anyone?] etc.). According to at least one poll at cncden, the majority of C&C fans plays mostly skirmish, not multiplayer. Going for 100% symmetrical, e-sport-optimised maps like they did with C&C3 is IMO short-sighted and somewhat ignorant. For me it was one of the reasons why I lost interest in C&C3 so fast, it was simply too dull playing on these maps.
- Multiple multiplayer/skirmish modes: Sole Survivor, Capture the flag, Defend the hill, special Co-Op maps etc. You ge the point.
- Get rid of the damn "dynamic music" approach, give us a jukebox, ~15 tracks spanning from electronica over rock/metal to orchestral, let some of those tracks be composed by Frank K. If he doesn't have time, license some tracks from his solo albums, plenty of good tracks there.
Besides, Westwoods C&Cs have proven that jukebox and situation-specific music don't exclude each other, I still remember Killing Machine being played when escaping from the CABAL core, or Rain In The Night 2 in FS GDI mission 5.


Well, that's my opinion.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
inzane krazy
General


Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Location: Sketchpad

PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Ah well, alot of arguments going on, each fan has their tastes, likes and dislikes, I do hope that the next game wont just be a rehash but something that'll appeal to everyone.

_________________
Please, I DON'T read the signature rules of the forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [98 Posts] Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Mark the topic unread ::  View previous topic :: View next topic
 
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on DiggShare on RedditShare on PInterestShare on Del.icio.usShare on Stumble Upon
Quick Reply
Username:


If you are visually impaired or cannot otherwise answer the challenges below please contact the Administrator for help.


Write only two of the following words separated by a sharp: Brotherhood, unity, peace! 

 
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


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group

[ Time: 0.2646s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0101s) ][ Debug on ]