Also Known As: banshee_revora (Steam) Joined: 15 Aug 2002 Location: Brazil
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:58 pm Post subject:
Future C&C game and some teasing...
Subject description: News about nothing that is new.
So, EA has a new community manager and now there are reports on many gaming sites regarding the production of a new Command & Conquer game. If you wanna a proper unbiased and quick coverage of this new unnannounced game, check our friends at CNCNZ.com. Sonic and the guys there will certainly follow the marketing strategies from the studio and you'll be the first to know news about the upcoming C&C game there.
If you don't care about marketing strategies from EA, read on... because so far, they don't really have anything to show you.
Before APOC leaves EALA, he already mentioned that the studio was working in a new title that would take a long time to be announced and that they would reboot the series. So, news like THIS are entirely useless.
As you know, EA has hired a new community manager. Actually, they did not hire him. They've promoted one that they had for german community. His name is Eric Krause and he was known as Gambler for our german visitors. Right now, he is registered at EA forums as EA_CIRE, where cire is the reverse of eric. This interview at CnC Figh7club (aka CnC-Inside.de) brings you more information on him, in english.
And, guess what, the first objective from Eric is to keep the community alive. So, considering the progress of their project (too early for public announcement), he has to simply bump the community to say that they are still alive and working in a new C&C game, although there isn't much they can say about it. So, they've forged an interview at PCGamersWorld between the community manager and the big boss Jon Van 'CantSpellHisLastName' guy. If the interview isn't enough, there is also a video that says absolutely nothing at all:
We can observe in the interview that the Command & Conquer logo is changed, but it's too early to distinguish between a work in progress and a final version. Then name of the studio has changed into a lame one. Now it's called Victory Games. And the theme of the movie is tiberium based. So, there is a chance that the next C&C game may bring more GDI and Nod. Finally, this new game will also have similar online resources than C&C4 and it will require internet connection.
The fact of making a new C&C game does not necessarily means something good. We've seen what happened with Command & Conquer 4 and I'm quite skeptic to be honest. Only a well done game will make me change my feelings, although the fact that this game is not being as rushed as the other ones is already a good sign.
Update 2: Note: At the time I've posted the news, EA did not update the commandandconquer.com site, although they've built CnCStage.com which is offline (but cached by Google).
Honestly I don't like when they redo the official site. I mean, the new design hardly brings new features and, usually, old content is wiped, specially modding tools and old news and interviews.
The interview that presents the new community manager was originally posted at this new CnCStage site and then, CnC-Inside.de copied it in a news post of their own.
Finally, the teaser video is for an event organized by CnCSaga.de and sponsored by EA. It has nothing to do with a new game (Thanks Sonic). Last edited by Banshee on Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:36 am; edited 2 times in total QUICK_EDIT
I would love to see them make a new universe. Tiberium is dead, Red Alert is overplayed. Generals or a new universe. Even then, I don't think they can make a Generals with the same fun factor as the original. _________________ Victory! QUICK_EDIT
I'm pretty eager to see what they have, who knows, it could be great.
Quote:
I would love to see them make a new universe. Tiberium is dead, Red Alert is overplayed. Generals or a new universe. Even then, I don't think they can make a Generals with the same fun factor as the original.
Personally, I wouldn't. Red Alert was lame and Generals even lamer. Tiberium has been great, excluding C&C4, and it is the only c&c 'universe' I'm interested in.
Tiberium=C&C IMO. _________________ Check out some TF Kane's Wrath action:
Tournament 3rd place. Vs. bikeRushOwnz in tournament. Ladder wars vs. bikeRushOwnz. QUICK_EDIT
That C&C logo definately makes me think it will be C&C Online, as I thought C&C4 was/would be... although as you say it could well be temporary.
Any developer who says he's a C&C fan is bad news. C&C fans couldn't make a good C&C game to save their lives... I'd probably prefer a fresh perspective, with someone that understands the necessities of the series and not someone who wants to return C&C to it's original "glory". Things need to change. Yes there are necessities (IMO) like the sidebar and MCV system, however I don't want a game attempting to be TD or RA1 or a game simply playing off the old ones for success, filled with references.
If they make a new CnC based on Tiberium, they had better be damn sure to not make cop out plot hole fillers and stay true to one of the story lines. IMO CnC 3 + CnC 4 were the worst things to happen to the Tiberium Universe. _________________ You come for the modding but you stay for the Crap Forum. QUICK_EDIT
The video has propably no conection to the new CnC, it looks cheap, is using the old logo and appears at no offcial source.
Looks more like a fan project with a really bad (good?) timing. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Personally, I wouldn't. Red Alert was lame and Generals even lamer. Tiberium has been great, excluding C&C4, and it is the only c&c 'universe' I'm interested in.
Tiberium=C&C IMO.
Thanks for being the jackass that ruins C&C. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
He's not wrong though, because until EA appeared, the "Tiberium Universe" was the only universe (and RA1 was a part of this universe as well). So simply put, before EA "Tiberium Universe" == "C&C Universe".
IMO having EA restart the series from the tiberium universe would sound less lame than EA restarting the RA "universe" (which really never had its own universe to begin with) or even creating a new universe with C&C stamped on it like they did with Generals (I call that lame because the universe or story really doesn't have anything to do with C&C to begin with and it'd be a lot more sensible to just give it a new name then).
I really wouldn't mind seeing EA redoing the C&C saga starting with TD and rewriting the story themselves from scratch (although obviously loosely based on the original story) so that the story won't be full of plotholes like it is now.
I just hope that if they do that, they at least do FMVs and voice acting in a way it can be taken seriously (meaning no "Muhahahah, I'm so evil just for the sake of being evil" and stuff like that)... And if it turns out it's going down the same road as TW and its sequels, I'll just ignore its existence as well _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Some kind of reboot of the Tib series could actually work well... by the sounds of that interview it looks like theyre taking the online thing pretty seriously, so some kind of constantly expanding MMO style storyline from start to finish could be cool. DLC for mini campaigns/chapters of the storyline etc... could be neat if the gameplay is solid and adaptable. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:58 pm Post subject:
Quote:
He's not wrong though, because until EA appeared, the "Tiberium Universe" was the only universe (and RA1 was a part of this universe as well). So simply put, before EA "Tiberium Universe" == "C&C Universe".
Yes, because EA told WW specifically that the Red Alert games MUST be a separate universe to that of the Tiberium universe, didn't they? Please just stop and think for a minute, why would EA decide to exert control over such a minute detail like the storyline of the game? Basic gameplay, release dates or demos maybe but not story.
Quote:
Some kind of reboot of the Tib series could actually work well... by the sounds of that interview it looks like theyre taking the online thing pretty seriously, so some kind of constantly expanding MMO style storyline from start to finish could be cool. DLC for mini campaigns/chapters of the storyline etc... could be neat if the gameplay is solid and adaptable.
There's two things I can think of that they'd do with online stuff. The first one is to do a system similar to SC2 (making it more social with achievements and a unified online system with IM and stuff like that). The second is to have an MMO system with the World Domination tour. If each battle could have an overall bearing on a global GDI/Nod (or whatever sides they have) war that would be pretty cool.
I've read suggestions from people that it could be a free to play game with microtransactions but I don't know how well that would work with an RTS, especially since it would end up with people paying for an advantage. However, if it were free to play and you paid for single player content, I could see that working, so essentially a free game with paid DLC. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
For some reason I'm thinking this will be a reboot of the Tiberian series and will simply be titled "Command & Conquer", with Nod, GDI and the Scrin, and will be set in the 2030s or 2040s even.
Perhaps the ambience and story might resemble Crysis 2's, even.
This is personally what I would do if I were to reboot the franchise. QUICK_EDIT
Yes, because EA told WW specifically that the Red Alert games MUST be a separate universe to that of the Tiberium universe, didn't they? Please just stop and think for a minute, why would EA decide to exert control over such a minute detail like the storyline of the game? Basic gameplay, release dates or demos maybe but not story.
Westwood Vegas kept the RA1 and the Tiberium series in a single universe from the start; it wasn't until Westwood Pacific (which by the way is named EA Pacific Now) made RA2 that the universes got separated.
And since EA Pacific = EA (who didn't have anything to do with the development of the C&C's that came before RA2), it's EA who separated the universes. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Actually, reminds me of something Westwood would have made... Short. Pointless. Poor quality.
Still, my penis shrank after reading that they're doing something "new." Again. _________________ Okay, my signature was starting to annoy even me. QUICK_EDIT
The point is that Westwood intended them to be connected when they made RA1 (which means they were connected "until" EA Pacific claimed they were not) and the fact you feel they're not actually connected to one another because Donkey Kong doesn't like banana chips is a different matter. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
That's not really what I was on about. I was basically only saying RA1 connects to TD; I heard there was an intend to possibly fix the continuity RA2's (and RA3's) existence "broke" by making by making some kind of chrono warp thing (like Einstein did when he removed Hitler) occur again in RA3 which'd then somehow connect it to the tiberium universe.
This was never more than an idea of theirs however and was never made official. It's also not that they gave up on that idea (which probably would have felt somewhat forced, since RA2 really shouldn't have existed to begin with), but Westwood Vegas' staff left when EA took over.
What I (and Alex06) were talking about is that RA1 was originally considered to be C&C0 (TD=C&C1, TS=C&C2) and a while back Nyerguds posted a link to an archive of an old Westwood site where RA1 was also referred to as C&C0, which confirms this. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
The point is that Westwood intended them to be connected when they made RA1 (which means they were connected "until" EA Pacific claimed they were not) and the fact you feel they're not actually connected to one another because Donkey Kong doesn't like banana chips is a different matter.
Yeah? You got any fuckin' proof to back that up? So far, I ain't seen shit to prove this. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:41 am Post subject:
FurryQueen wrote:
Bittah Commander wrote:
The point is that Westwood intended them to be connected when they made RA1 (which means they were connected "until" EA Pacific claimed they were not) and the fact you feel they're not actually connected to one another because Donkey Kong doesn't like banana chips is a different matter.
Yeah? You got any fuckin' proof to back that up? So far, I ain't seen shit to prove this.
Yeah, and proof that isn't "My Lord and Savior, the One True God, Adam Isgreen, passed down in the Holy Revelation of [Post Date]".
The fact is that is no substantiating evidence that explains the massive inconsistencies in military technology and geopolitics present in RA->TD, for example, the Abrams Tank being in the 1950s and the 2000s completely unchanged on its own destroys the entire argument that RA->TD, or how all of GDI is basically blatantly American despite the fact that the United States would be a militarily unimportant nation in the RAverse owing to WW2 never happening. (TD commanders should have been British or German or something, not American)
But I especially welcome you to explain why the state of military technology didn't change at all in 50 years; I'd love to test my knowledge of tank design and history. _________________ 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
I'm pretty sure I've seen this same stupid topic before, too.
Guys, who cares. Westwood is GONE. It doesn't MATTER what Westwood 'intended' or 'thought' or 'dreamed'. What happened happened. EA runs the canon now, what they say goes. Westwood is gone and out of the picture. _________________ Victory! QUICK_EDIT
Absolutely meaningless video, dear EA should strive for better first impressions... not again rush it with nonsense filler crap to tide us over to march.
All this online talk just may endup another game like C&C4 with its flaky online requirement and frequent dropouts & no save for even single player which is UNACCEPTABLE!
some early WW guys did mention that RA1 was supposed to be prequel to TD (thus kane cameos) but technology wise that would never work as in to explain the loss of such advance technologies and not much evolution into tanks for TD Era.
The big problem is, WW made it up all as they went on, I read Adam isgreen(?) admitted that they made up the story as they went on even regards Kane's goals so all these attempts to truly make it sensible are just that, attempts!
only difference is that EA just has fucked it all more up than Westwood did while Westwood surely was far from perfect. I guess one could sum up Westwood's story effort not much different from the remake Battlestar Galactica story which again was made up as they went and we know how that ended.
Tiberium is the core C&C game universe for me since TD was first C&C and Red Alert just took different route...originally Red Alert development was just to be x-pack... but they changed mind and gave new setting. QUICK_EDIT
MEANINGLESS? Then what's that about March 2011? GDC ANYONE? IS EVERYONE REALLY THAT FAITHLESS?
R-E-B-O-O-T.
You know what, I don't care, GDC is around the corner, and I hope to see some shit, you guys continue to wallow in your petty arguments. _________________ Please, I DON'T read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
I'm ready to see what EA is going to bring to the table. I'm keeping as open of a mind as I did with CnC4.
And, this thread IS going to turn into another "EA vs. Westwood" war and it's pretty ztyping stupid to be honest. Have you got nothing else better to do than bitch and argue about which game studio did what? QUICK_EDIT
The 'big boss' is Jon van Caneghem. Of course, it is not that strange that his name is unfamiliar - how many CNC fans would also be fans of CRPGs and turn-based strategy games? Even more so as one would have to be a fan of relatively old such games. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:29 pm Post subject:
inzane krazy wrote:
MEANINGLESS? Then what's that about March 2011? GDC ANYONE? IS EVERYONE REALLY THAT FAITHLESS?
R-E-B-O-O-T.
You know what, I don't care, GDC is around the corner, and I hope to see some shit, you guys continue to wallow in your petty arguments.
Petty argument? I find it hilarious how they squirm and struggle to explain the questions that need to be answered. This isn't an argument, it's me and others waiting for the zealots to explain why technology didn't change at all in 50 years. What seems like an argument is actually us trying to redirect their ADD-like attention to the questions at hand.
As for the standing of CNCs
As for me, the only two CNCs I found mediocre were TS and CNC-4. Both had unengaging gameplay and were stories of missed opportunities to make a game that was mediocre into one that was great. (though TS actually had a story behind it, not so for 4)
As for this new CNC (YAY ON-TOPIC): here's to hoping its RAverse based. _________________ 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
I already dropped the "argument", considering what you're saying is that WW didn't connect the series properly (which is a different matter), while I was only trying to say that WW intended for TD and RA1 to be connected.
You're saying they did it wrong the technology doesn't make sense that way and I never disagreed (although the lack of a Chronosphere can be fairly easily explained and surely something could be thought up for the the Iron Curtain as well).
I think the problem was simply that WW didn't plan ahead; WW didn't have RA1 in mind when they made TD (but they did vice-versa) and the tank models they chose to use in TD just happened to be the same ones they needed to use in RA (they couldn't use tank models that were older than the ones used in WWII after all).
Anyhow, considering the new C&C is going to be a reboot, an "RAverse" based one would make it an alternate alternate WWII, which is getting kinda old IMO... _________________ QUICK_EDIT
The point is that Westwood intended them to be connected when they made RA1 (which means they were connected "until" EA Pacific claimed they were not) and the fact you feel they're not actually connected to one another because Donkey Kong doesn't like banana chips is a different matter.
Yeah? You got any fuckin' proof to back that up? So far, I ain't seen shit to prove this.
I did present you proof in the Freedom Studios forums. What more proof do you need other than a head designers own words on the matter?
Stop pretending like you didn't see it. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:12 am Post subject:
Bittah Commander wrote:
I think the problem was simply that WW didn't plan ahead; WW didn't have RA1 in mind when they made TD (but they did vice-versa) and the tank models they chose to use in TD just happened to be the same ones they needed to use in RA (they couldn't use tank models that were older than the ones used in WWII after all).
Anyhow, considering the new C&C is going to be a reboot, an "RAverse" based one would make it an alternate alternate WWII, which is getting kinda old IMO...
Well, nobody was stopping them from being creative nor from using the tanks designed between 1945-1990.
Look at the history of tank development, in particular between 1940 and 1960, it's basically the golden age of tank design. There are so many awesome prototypes that could not only staff each faction with unique vehicles but go further and staff each country with unique vehicles. (except for Ukraine, those bastards!)
BTW alternate WW2 rox ur sox _________________ 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 point a small thing out: If you check the date of the magazine in one of the RA2 videos (I think its the Allied victory one) you'll find that the date is before 1999 when the Global Defense Act (which started GDI going) was signed. So technically, RA2 could still be apart of the Tiberium universe but it would be weird considering the manner of technology in RA2 that isn't used in TD. QUICK_EDIT
Whatever, I'm sick with ea's games, literally and figurally.
I mean i barely have time next to studying, do they really think i'd spend my precious free time on playing another cnc or fix it of the numerous bugs? QUICK_EDIT
The point is that Westwood intended them to be connected when they made RA1 (which means they were connected "until" EA Pacific claimed they were not) and the fact you feel they're not actually connected to one another because Donkey Kong doesn't like banana chips is a different matter.
Yeah? You got any fuckin' proof to back that up? So far, I ain't seen shit to prove this.
Its common knowledge in the community that the devs have already said publically, you've clearly got no idea on the history of C&C QUICK_EDIT
It's still irrelevent crap now that Westwood doesn't own the franchise.
Oh wait, they sold themselves and the franchise they 'cared' about out in 2000. LOL! Now they're a c-rate company. Petroglyph lol _________________ Victory! QUICK_EDIT
Its common knowledge in the community that the devs have already said publically, you've clearly got no idea on the history of C&C
Classy tactic. Claim I don't know anything while proving nothing. Congratulations, you've shown you have no argument.
Quote:
Oh wait, they sold themselves and the franchise they 'cared' about out in 2000. LOL! Now they're a c-rate company. Petroglyph lol
C-rate? That's too much credit. Everything Petro has done so far has been mediocre or worse. They're not even worth mentioning anymore. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam Last edited by FurryQueen on Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:33 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
I'm not going to say anything but the fact that I like the "new" logo. It's almost a copy of the original, only smoother and somehow more fresh and modern.
Or am I just hallucinating because of this sinusitis I'm having?
Oh, and I'm all open for a reboot. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Admitting you have no argument while proceeding to say I have no clue about C&C's history. You are certainly the most brilliant debate tactician ever! _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
Since nobody seems to have anything left to say about the original topic anyhow (and I don't think there's anything left to say; 50% wouldn't mind and the other 50% would prefer a reboot from what I gathered), I'll just give my 2 cents about the topic we've derailed onto.
As I mentioned before, TD wasn't made with a prequel in mind, while RA1 was made with TD as a sequel in mind. Because of this plotholes were inevitable, since the tanks used in TD already came from RA's era and RA couldn't use tanks that were older than the ones used in WWII or more advanced looking than the ones used in TD.
Still, regardless of that I don't think WW even really intended any of the tanks in TD or RA to represent real-life tanks, but only used real-life tanks as a reference to design them... Hence why they only have generic names such as "Light Tank" and "Medium Tank", but they probably could've looked like any other real-life tank for all they cared.
The problem with WW was that they partially made up the story as they went, which can work fine when you start from the beginning and work your way to the end, but when you make a prequel after its sequel, it's inevitable for plotholes to appear if the prequel wasn't already planned in advance.
Still, when EA Pacific made RA2 there still a lot of plotholes between RA1 and RA2 (regardless of the fact it broke the link between RA1 and TD), which could've easily been avoided if they'd have properly read into the information surrounding RA1 (making an unplanned sequel doesn't have difficulties making an unplanned prequel has after all).
And the same was the case when TW was made; the plotholes created were even bigger than those between RA1 and TD or RA1 and RA2.
And "change" isn't the issue here; changed game play is fine as long as it's still fun to play. Broken continuity is what the actual issue is; especially since it could've easily been prevented if they'd have cared enough to properly read into the information surrounding the games they're making a sequel for.
And whether WW's version of the story really is that deep or not I don't know (I kinda doubt they intended to go any deeper with the biblical references than they already went though), but what I do know is that WW had the urge to use real life events and facts and tie those into the story in an attempt to make it sound more interesting, which IMO really worked quite well.
Regarding the original topic; I actually wouldn't even really wanna see EA trying to fix the plotholes they created since especially coming from them a reboot (or an entirely new story) would be much more interesting than awkwardly patched up swizz cheese.
I just hope they'll make something that gives a more serious impression since I personally just dislike war RTS games with an intended (or unintended) silliness to them, although I know some people like that silliness. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:42 am Post subject:
You act like there is only WW2 tanks and then the modern age, and that's sad. There are so many interesting and unique designs that Westwood could have easily used if they seriously wanted to give the impression that RA1 was some Stalin-era war in the 40s or 50s. Take for example, the T92 Light, T95 Medium and IS-7 Super-heavy. (google it)
Frankly the whole thing is a matter of their actions vs their words. They say RA1 is a prequel in a few statements spread across a wide time scale. Their actions, their published game, has no logical lead-ins to Tiberian Dawn and shows absolutely no effort in portraying a Stalin-era war. It's not just the tanks, it's almost everything. Hell, look at the command center in the Allied cutscenes.
The difference is that I see their actions as the evidence, you see the words as the conclusive evidence. _________________ 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
Red Alert 1 has a V2 launcher called Frog. I don't think Westwood was really aiming for accuracy at any point.
Whether or not RA1 really is a prequel I don't honestly care, although I'm leaning towards it not really being a prequel (Or at the very least, a very poorly thought out prequel).
Either, either, either way, Westwood is gone and EA has the franchise. Whatever they do, I really hope they can find something to make it their own - maybe the problem all along has been trying to fit into Westwood's mould? QUICK_EDIT
@EVA: TBH I never really looked in depth into the kind of tanks that were around at the time of WWII since it doesn't interest me all that much, but from what I understand you're saying RA1's tech doesn't even make sense regarding its own story?
I'm not going to argue that, since I really wouldn't know. It however shows that WW's ideas didn't always go as far in-depth as people look into it (both ideas concerning technology and the story in general), although they still work as long as you only look at them from the surface. I actually don't think Westwood had a concrete idea for Kane's actual origin, but they'd surely have given one by the time the story ended.
Orac wrote:
maybe the problem all along has been trying to fit into Westwood's mould?
Probably true. Since there indeed already were a significant amount of plotholes and they then only added way more, it'd have been better if they'd have done a reboot from the start. The original story writers and EA's also just seem to have completely different styles and interests, which most likely is actually the main reason why the story's handover from WW to EA felt so awkward. _________________ 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
Future C&C game and some teasing...
