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 Fri Mar 29, 2024 9:13 am
All times are UTC + 0
C&C4 Rant Thread
Moderators: Global Moderators
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [63 Posts] Mark the topic unread ::  View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Author Message
Muldrake
Supreme Commander


Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Location: England

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:50 am    Post subject:  C&C4 Rant Thread
Subject description: Rants about the game, but try and keep them sane guys..
Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Okay, this thread is for rants about the game, to try and keep the other thread cleaner.

Keep it sane, if it gets stupid, it goes. The job of this thread is for me to try and work out what bothers you the most about the game, and to try and arrange questions to address these issues.

_________________
If there is a problem on the forums, PM me.

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


Joined: 11 Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

-Silly Tiberium (No longer makes any kind of sense, for instance, if Tiberium breaks down everything it touches now, how is it a fuel source or weapon? How can it be contained at all?)
Obviously, I don't think that EA will do an abort on the new Tib.

-Stupid designs (I mean, WTF? at least the TS Titan didn't look like it was about to fall over forwards, or like a mutant chicken. The crawlers look ugly in a way indescribable, with odd angles and strange boxy designs.)

-Internet Requirements (Was it actually confirmed that it will require that you be online whenever you play?)

-Crawlers (Yeah, A mobile unit which can do everything and respawns whenever it gets killed sounds like a pretty stupid, and boring, idea. I'd rather see more mobile WFs or barracks type structures, rather than putting all my eggs in one basket.)

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


Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Location: Somewhere up high.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

-Tiberium retcons bother me.
-The maps better be better than C&C3 tiny-tub maps.

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


Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Muldrake, I thank you very much for this thread. Now let's hope ppl actually do posts there rants here and not in the other 2 threads...

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


Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Location: Thailand

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

- no harvesting

- obelisk tank and gattling tank is the most ugly unit in the world.

- no base building

- only 2 faction

- too much unit per side

- UI design very ugly

- Internet Requirements

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
need my speed
Cyborg Artillery


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands! Banned: 3 times

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

You all forgot pop caps.

_________________
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Become one with your heart's desire:
http://www.moddb.com/mods/command-conquer-red-renegade1
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Holy_Master
Commander


Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Location: Thailand

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

because i have no problem with pop cap :p

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


Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Location: Somewhere up high.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Who cares about pop cap. I want floaters and visceroids.

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


Joined: 22 May 2008

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

The fact that they removed everything we come to know and love in C&C. New innovative ideas may come and go like the Ore Node in RA3 or the PopCaps in 4; the game must be C&C veteran friendly also like including the sidebar which by the way, is horrible. It shouldn't be on top of the game screen. And they're not keeping the storyline err.. in line with the game. Tiberium is supposed to be everywhere by now and yet, they kept it "Underground" for node capturing.

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


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Location: Fineland

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Holy_Master wrote:

- obelisk tank and gattling tank is the most ugly unit in the world.


Right, most if not all of the unit designs from C&C3 onwards have been very disappointing and makes you feel like you're watching a Toy Story battle instead of a fierce war. Of course, it's future, and future must come with all these funky designs, but a scorpion tail and arms on tracks and wheels? This is far from anything rational.

Then we have a clear opposite on the GDI side: A box on tracks. A box that fires pew-pew shining bullets (why on Earth do they glow?) from two cylinders on its sides.

_________________


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Elerium-155
Commander


Joined: 07 Mar 2005

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

-GDI allying with Kane, the instigator of all the world wars, butcher of millions, the fact that Kane is even working with GDI is silly as he knows he would never get close to reason with them so he manipulates them but here he is talking with their world leaders thinking of a compromise despite the fact he's been playing GDI for fools since long ago and hasn't aged (at least in canon terms) since 1995 which should raise some eyebrows.

-Crawlers and almost silly designs by having them for both sides

-No MCV

-Internet requirements

-Tiberium control network from allied Kane/GDI going against what Kane wanted in TS/C&C1- a Tiberium divined world.

-The fact that Crawlers and balance do not go well with each other, no matter what EA insists from balance experience you will end up messing something up especially as you rank online to get better weapons/units.

-Ugly units

-Ugly interface

-No sidebar

-Chronic lack of Tiberium flora/fauna

-Too many units

-Endless retcons, C&C4 feels rushed out the door especially as RA3 was only released a short time ago.

_________________

Last edited by Elerium-155 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:07 pm; edited 4 times in total

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


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Location: Fineland

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Quote:
-Endless retcons, C&C4 feels rushed out the door especially as RA3 was only released a short time ago.


This.

_________________


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


Joined: 19 May 2008
Location: Scotland, starting a Revolution Cameo: metricon. Posts:???

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

There are Pop Caps and you have to build (most of the the few things you can ) on pads , This is CnC not Damm Galo wars.

look at BFME it pads were so crap you got away with them in BFME 2

_________________
Creator of TS:BoB and some other things that might be good when finnished.

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


Joined: 07 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Where the hell is Generals 2? No seriously. After RA3 it should've been a Generals game, hell, they even released a mission that got cut from the game, only to vomit up C&C4 on our plate. I want my terrorists and technicals, goddamnit.

Also, why is there a bizarre attempt at fan service? First in C&C3 they remove mechs, hover, and sonic stuff then the fans complained, and Kane's Wrath GDI seemed like a huge fan service. Can we have logic before fan service? Now the bloody Hover MLRS is back along with the Mark 2, Titans, and God knows what else is back.

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


Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Location: England

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Yeah, most of these rants are feelings I share. However, I'm trying to keep as open a mind as possible to the game until I get to know more.

My general opinions of it so far:
It *looks* like the sequel to TS which I was hoping for about 9-10 years ago. Which is both good and bad. Good in that, I loved TS, and I wanted it to continue on. I get my Mk.II and Titans, and I get my impressive GDI airforce. However, its bad, in that it *looks* outdated in graphics. At least from the screens so far seen, they don't seem like a leap ahead of C&C3 or RA3. It also seems as if they've disconnected a lot of established stuff in C&C3 to try and link in more to TS. As mentioned, GDI now going full-hog into Mechs, Earth once again going to hell from Tiberium, even though apparently they were sorting this out. In C&C3 they left out C&C2.. in C&C4 it seems they're missing out on C&C3?

While I'm up for trying new stuff in the RTS genre, I don't agree with them trying to completely remove "core" components to the genre, ie, base building and harvesting. Personally, I loved building the bases just as much as managing strike forces (read: not spamming), and having bases and harvesting enabled a wider range of strategies in attack. Change is good, and at times a necessity. But I think they could be overdoing it, and loosing a lot in the process.

It seems as if EA are taking components on recent games and trying to incorporate them into the game to try and fit in with the way games seem to be going. But I don't think C&C needs that. It doesn't have to, nor should it try to follow the trend set out by other games. There was a time when C&C set the trends.

I want to see the game as it is before I properly judge it. There are several things which may help validate it, such as the idea of support classes, which can to some extent base-build. It obviously won't be the same, but it could be something better than nothing. Trying to reach a balance between pleasing the gamers who prefer strategy and a background development to the battlefield, and those who just want to crack out tanks and blow up the other guy.

The big thing for me, is modability. Because, simply put, the game won't be perfect. Everyone knows that, and to be honest, no game ever is. Not even my beloved TS. But if you can make the game into what you want, you can then please everyone. Support would be nice, but if they make it modable enough, support wouldn't be a necessity.
The C&C community is big. It should have more power than it currently does. I wish, and hope that EA actually make use of this. Because they could help extend the product lifetime. And while most people may think that there is no gain to be had from that, I would disagree. Not only would it extend the sales lifetime, it would allow an extended time for expansion packs (an inevitability, lets face it). If they make a good game, an easily accessible, moddable game, then people are more likely to buy their products next time around. I'm only interested in C&C because I've always been. I look at the new games, because I loved the old ones.

I think that'll do for my thoughts at the moment. Please keep the comments coming.

_________________
If there is a problem on the forums, PM me.

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


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Location: Fineland

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

The Alien Tower. The entire end half of the Nod campaign in C&C3 was built around it. Now it seems to be completely ignored, as is the entire Scrin faction.

_________________


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
0warfighter0
Commander


Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Location: Belgium, Haasdonk

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Crimsonum wrote:
The Alien Tower. The entire end half of the Nod campaign in C&C3 was built around it. Now it seems to be completely ignored, as is the entire Scrin faction.

I think they'll come back using the tower to destroy the TCN as the world is almost completely "terraformed" to there wishes.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Account
Ixonoclast
General


Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Location: Somewhere up high.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Elerium-155 wrote:
-GDI allying with Kane, the instigator of all the world wars, butcher of millions, the fact that Kane is even working with GDI is silly as he knows he would never get close to reason with them so he manipulates them but here he is talking with their world leaders thinking of a compromise despite the fact he's been playing GDI for fools since long ago and hasn't aged (at least in canon terms) since 1995 which should raise some eyebrows.

Since when did Kane care about GDI and Nod? He uses Nod and GDI both like a tool.

He only wants his plan to succeed. It makes perfect sense. Remember, you're talking about the man who programmed his mind into CABAL.

Elerium-155 wrote:
-Too many units

Did you even read how the force selection system works?

Oh, and screw Generals 2.

The only good C&C game has either Soviets, Harkonnen or Nod. Razz

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Elerium-155
Commander


Joined: 07 Mar 2005

PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Quote:
Since when did Kane care about GDI and Nod? He uses Nod and GDI both like a tool.


Well with Nod it's understandable as he's their messianic figure #Tongue With GDI they know they're walking straight up to Kane, trusting him, and going ahead with his plan which is just wall banger.

Quote:
Did you even read how the force selection system works?


Yeah, although this also fits with the balance thing I mentioned.. no way in hell is that going to be balanced this time the next millennium especially as it's EA..

_________________

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


Joined: 11 Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Oh, ant I want to see nice maps, none of that "easy balance and simple design" rubbish - I want real maps!

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


Joined: 21 May 2004
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

no thought into units

no real expaination on factions

no answers on tiberuim changing

No base building (EG MCV)

what Tore said

***********Mission failed************
...

_________________
Link to a document to see what mods i have and/or working on or working with
Click

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Account
MadHQ
Commander


Joined: 07 Nov 2003

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I'm not gonna wright this game off just yet... I happen to like the fact that there bringing in a lot of units so you can customize your force to your play style.

And as much of a fan of base building... EA just can not get it right. With the paper like armer, and the Multiple build cues, it just doesn't work. So if they remove the base building maybe it could turn into a game that is playable. Because the way it is in TW/KW,RA3 its just not working...

Last edited by MadHQ on Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:12 am; edited 1 time in total

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Account
Ixonoclast
General


Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Location: Somewhere up high.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

MadHQ wrote:
I'm not gonna wright this game off just yet... I happen to like the fact that there bringing in a lot of units so you can customize your force to your play style.


Exactly.

Feels like Warhammer 40,000, where you can create a bunker-busting artillery swarm, a meatgrinding infantry army or a sneaky commando force with THE SAME ARMY by just switching a few units around.

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


Joined: 11 Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Yeah, custom armiess doesn't sound that bad.

I must say that the paper armour was annoying and make bases way to susceptible to attacks. in TS/RA2 I happily leave my base undefended early game, because nothing can destroy the whole base before my army returns - in TW/RA3 I can't do that because the early game spam always wrecks things. It makes it more important to drain my funds early for defences which will be overcome in a few minutes time, which is, imo, a waste of time. I'd rather turtle with units, because simply building little turrets has no effect late game (paper armour, again). So EA needs to make a choice, either make the buildings stronger, or- ...wait, they only have one choice.




Wasn't there a Post-Mortem on TW by someone? I agreed with it, and it would make sense to dig it out for C&C4, so that EA hopefully avoids the same mistakes.

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


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Orac wrote:
Yeah, custom armiess doesn't sound that bad.

I must say that the paper armour was annoying and make bases way to susceptible to attacks. in TS/RA2 I happily leave my base undefended early game, because nothing can destroy the whole base before my army returns - in TW/RA3 I can't do that because the early game spam always wrecks things. It makes it more important to drain my funds early for defences which will be overcome in a few minutes time, which is, imo, a waste of time. I'd rather turtle with units, because simply building little turrets has no effect late game (paper armour, again). So EA needs to make a choice, either make the buildings stronger, or- ...wait, they only have one choice.


Well its either make buildings stronger, OR make early-game units lousier at killing structures. One reason IMO why the state of the gameplay is the way it is today is because early-game units are too good at killing buildings, that's why rushing with a bunch of units in early game can win you the game.

To a competitive guy playing to win, he would think "why bother teching up? The longer a game gets, the stronger my foe becomes and the smaller my chances of victory. I might as well hit him hard in the early game ASAP, eliminate or at least cripple him while his base is still small, while he has yet to expand or tech up to those super strong late game stuff."

...and that's how you get rushing being too-effective a strategy. Essentially if you're up against a competitive rusher, your fate is sealed if you're caught off-guard or if you cannot match the attacker's speed.

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
need my speed
Cyborg Artillery


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands! Banned: 3 times

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

That's why Power Plant's should have weak armor, unit producing structures weak / medium, construction yards and super weapons super heavy, and the rest normal. At least, I think it should be. #Tongue

_________________
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Become one with your heart's desire:
http://www.moddb.com/mods/command-conquer-red-renegade1
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

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


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I really do think the problem lies more with the firepower of the early game units though.

If you boost the armour of conyards or other important buildings too much, the whole thing could backfire and make it too difficult to kill such structures even by late game weapons.

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Elerium-155
Commander


Joined: 07 Mar 2005

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Also don't forget in most RTS it suffers from useless defences/defences that can be bypassed, and the defender after losing his force can't recooperate his losses to join his defence stuff to repulse a counterattack, meaning they'll barge straight in and an all too common sight.. "gg" appears on the screen signaling he's won. Running through the base should incur losses depending on the level of defences which should be cheaper and siege weapons introduced should be more indirect wearing you down as a calculated risk, but keep them in safety and they'll do you well, rather than I can bulldoze a base with 3 Prism Tanks..

Supers should have medium armour, Base production with high/critical levels of armour and Power Plants relatively weak (protect them to keep defences powered or some benefit you don't want to lose and more strategy in aiming for them).
Defenders should be able to repulse an early attack, late game should become more set along a tech tree. I see in RTS too often investment is the opposite of more units, there has to be some incentive or easier transition to upgrading and that high tech units should offer more flexibility rather than "pwn all" Battle Fortress or so on.

_________________

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


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Well useless defences is simply another case of trying to solve a problem and ending up with another problem.

In this case the problem would likely be something like too-strong defences which lead to players being able to wall themselves up with an impenetrable barrier of them.

So to try and solve the issue I guess the devs make defences easier to kill so that even if they have superior firepower, the enemy can still fight back. Somehow it gets taken to the extreme and defences end up paper thin.

Regarding defences IMO they should simply be balanced cost-wise based on their health and firepower by the same proportion used to balance units based on cost and firepower. The fact that defences cannot move would then be compensated probably by a slightly shorter build time or some other factor.

Cost-wise I definitely do not think that being immobile is a good excuse to make defences cheaper since the cheaper you make something, the higher the risk that it becomes too cost-effective, which would make them spammable.

_________________

The white lady~!

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


Joined: 26 Nov 2004
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I wish they could explain some of the basic mysteries like, why has Kane not aged a day, what happened to him at the end of the TS Nod ending, which isn't canon but gives insight as to what happened in the TD Ion cannon ending.

Knowing EA's track record at story telling though, I'm certain I'm in for a big disappointment.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Confessor
Vehicle Drone


Joined: 22 Aug 2008

PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

-Ugly unit designs.

Other than that I'm actually really looking forward to the change of pace!

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


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

lol I have to agree on the unit designs, I haven't found a single unit so far whose design I can say I like.

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Confessor
Vehicle Drone


Joined: 22 Aug 2008

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Exactly.

What I don't understand is why fanart ALWAYS looks so badass and official units look horrendous.

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


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Well, most of what I have to complain about Command and Crap 4 has already been pointed own. I do like new ideas but this is basically a new game entirely. The experience = new stuff is neat since it occupys me, all I play now a days is campaigns. Also Generals 2 would be complete udder crap, you must realize that it isn't a C&C game, not a bad game, but not a C&C game. It just doesn't belong here, go mod Age of Empires into Generals since it has almost nothing to do with classic C&C and I mean the real C&C not this EA crap.

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


Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Confessor wrote:
Exactly.

What I don't understand is why fanart ALWAYS looks so badass and official units look horrendous.

Because you can't put all the detail you have in a drawing into a 3D model, especially if it's a model used many times ingame (MBT IE), without suffering from lag or extremely high system requirements...

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


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Confessor wrote:
Exactly.

What I don't understand is why fanart ALWAYS looks so badass and official units look horrendous.


I wouldn't call it always... it really depends on the skill of the artist. Likewise it also depends on the modeller on how much detail he wants to translate from artwork to 3D model. UAW was one example of a game where models had pretty good resemblance to concept art, even in terms of detail and quality


This one has around 2800 vertices.






...in EA's case... well the modellers just plain stink. There's a saying about the models in SAGE games: "It only looks good if you don't zoom in on it." :p

_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Confessor
Vehicle Drone


Joined: 22 Aug 2008

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Dutchygamer wrote:
Confessor wrote:
Exactly.

What I don't understand is why fanart ALWAYS looks so badass and official units look horrendous.

Because you can't put all the detail you have in a drawing into a 3D model, especially if it's a model used many times ingame (MBT IE), without suffering from lag or extremely high system requirements...

I'm talking pure design choices, not how many polygons there are or how high-res the the textures are.

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


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Well in terms of pure design choices it would then be based on personal individual tastes. Mecha enthusiasts for example might totally love the Mastodon, but I, not being a mecha enthusiast, don't really like it (I'm more of a sort of person who prefers military designs that emphasise practicality over 'coolness' factor)

_________________

The white lady~!

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


Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Location: Somewhere up high.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Confessor wrote:
Exactly.

What I don't understand is why fanart ALWAYS looks so badass and official units look horrendous.


I'd say the fanart is often horrendous. Laughing

EA has great artists, but their artists probably never played TD, RA1 and TS.

It isn't that EA has shitty artists, their artists didn't do the job correctly.

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


Joined: 24 Dec 2005
Location: Final Alert 2

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

When people point out how detailed models are bad and have problems with framerate I will always point to Supreme Commander. Its models are very well done and the game revolves around unit spam. Yet I could run it on a shit system(1 gb ram, Geforce 7300 GT, 8 Yr old processor, ect). Although the setting were minimum I could run it fine even during the end game unit spam. If you are worried about being able to be used on older systems then you give extremely low detail options(from extremely low texture resolution to ridiculously low poly models included for low settings).

In this day and age system requirements should not equal a huge sacrifice in graphics. If they are having problems with detailed models then its their shit engine they are still using.

Yes the game play is also different but THAT isn't what bugs me. What is bugging me is they make an RTS that copies several other games' gameplay and slaps on the C&C name to get sales from this audience while at the same time trying to get the audience of the other RTS players from the other games. The C&C fans are stuck with a generic RTS while the gamers who seem to hate "new" innovations to gameplay get yet another copypasta of a game.

_________________
Comcast: Yo dawg we herd yo were downloading, so we put fail in yo modem so yo cant download while yo failin!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Account Yahoo Messenger Account
Dutchygamer
President


Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Arf, why did I even made the effort to post here Rolling Eyes
*quickly leaves thread to not get infected with the anti-C&C4 disease*

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


Joined: 07 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Darkstorm=One of those people who would be happy if every C&C was as 'technologically advanced' as the Tiberian Sun engine, and never actually evolove.

Also, this is an RTS. An RTS is full of spamming and units being built en-masse, which are seen from the top, never from the sides or front or back. If you want to try 'high poly RTSes', then go and export the Call of Duty WaW or HALO 3 soldiers and vehicles and import them into an RTS. See how fun the lag is. Are you people just dumb or something?

Lol bashing SAGE again. Can we find some more creative ways to bash EA? Please? It'd be nice for once. Especially considering that YR is built ontop of the TS engine which is built off the RA engine which is built off the TD engine...which is built from the Dune engine. I'd hardly say EA's overused SAGE. As for C&C games being generic, gee, isn't that what you want now? More of the same cookie cutter crap we've had since RA1? Build a base, pump out units? Its bizarre, on one hand fans are screaming that C&C is the same, yet these same people are saying that C&C should stick to its roots. What the ztype, people? It just seems like this one side of 'We want innovation' suddenly disappears when EA tries something new. When EA does the same thing, or worse, something to please the fans, the people screaming 'we want new' all creep out of the woodwork.

Every C&C4 thread ends up into this usual EA bashfest, and its ztyping sickening. If you don't like EA and C&C4, leave. Please, for the love of God, leave,. The few people who look forward to C&C4 have to sit and read all of these garbage posts bashing it, RA3, or TW or whatever EA makes and its just ztyping old. Its such a shame EA picked C&C up again, its done nothing but bring out a mountain of bullshit.

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


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Apex wrote:
they make an RTS that copies several other games' gameplay


Every RTS in recent times contains stuff that is in one way or another, copied or adapted from something already done earlier. To accuse EA alone of being guilty of the "ripoff tendency" isn't really fair.

_________________

The white lady~!

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


Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Volgin wrote:
Darkstorm=One of those people who would be happy if every C&C was as 'technologically advanced' as the Tiberian Sun engine, and never actually evolove.

Also, this is an RTS. An RTS is full of spamming and units being built en-masse, which are seen from the top, never from the sides or front or back. If you want to try 'high poly RTSes', then go and export the Call of Duty WaW or HALO 3 soldiers and vehicles and import them into an RTS. See how fun the lag is. Are you people just dumb or something?

Lol bashing SAGE again. Can we find some more creative ways to bash EA? Please? It'd be nice for once. Especially considering that YR is built ontop of the TS engine which is built off the RA engine which is built off the TD engine...which is built from the Dune engine. I'd hardly say EA's overused SAGE. As for C&C games being generic, gee, isn't that what you want now? More of the same cookie cutter crap we've had since RA1? Build a base, pump out units? Its bizarre, on one hand fans are screaming that C&C is the same, yet these same people are saying that C&C should stick to its roots. What the ztype, people? It just seems like this one side of 'We want innovation' suddenly disappears when EA tries something new. When EA does the same thing, or worse, something to please the fans, the people screaming 'we want new' all creep out of the woodwork.

Every C&C4 thread ends up into this usual EA bashfest, and its ztyping sickening. If you don't like EA and C&C4, leave. Please, for the love of God, leave,. The few people who look forward to C&C4 have to sit and read all of these garbage posts bashing it, RA3, or TW or whatever EA makes and its just ztyping old. Its such a shame EA picked C&C up again, its done nothing but bring out a mountain of bullshit.

You sir have won 9001 internets for this post. I agree completely.

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


Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Location: Somewhere up high.

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Apex wrote:
What is bugging me is they make an RTS that copies several other games' gameplay and slaps on the C&C name to get sales from this audience while at the same time trying to get the audience of the other RTS players from the other games.


Welcome to RTS gaming ever since Dune II. The only innovative games since Dune II were Ground Control, War Wind, Age of Empires, Metal Fatigue, Sacrifice and Company of Heroes.

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


Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I just have the feeling that CNC4 =



Only good thing is no big bewb actress so far.

_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ModDB Profile ID Facebook Profile URL Twitter Channel URL
Muldrake
Supreme Commander


Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Location: England

PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Less of people suspecting that C&C4 will just fail. I don't want that here, I just want stuff in particular which you dislike, such that I can try and make a constructive question to pose to EA when I get there.

You have 2 days left, folks. Make the most of it.

_________________
If there is a problem on the forums, PM me.

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


Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Location: Hampshire, England. Creating RA2: Moscow's vengeance

PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Where are the Orcas?!??!?!?! D=

_________________
Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Account
Ixonoclast
General


Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Location: Somewhere up high.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Put some LOVE in it.

That's what's lacking in the EA C&C games.

It needs some LOVE, like WestWood LOVED their games.

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


Joined: 17 Sep 2007

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Ixonoclast wrote:
Put some LOVE in it.

That's what's lacking in the EA C&C games.

It needs some LOVE, like WestWood LOVED their games.


That's why they never provided us tools for modding.


...


BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [63 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 can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group

[ Time: 0.2152s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0104s) ][ Debug on ]