As you can see, a handful of people have voted how succesful they think C&C4 really, in all truthfulness, is. Decide what you think, and join the voting if you like. _________________
It's not C&C the way Westwood envisioned it, and I don't think you should see it that way when you judge the game. In it's own right it will probably be a good game (that's the feel I get from the short time I had with the beta), best RTS of 2010 is a huge exaggeration though. QUICK_EDIT
Bad unit designs (dammit I LOVE the Forgotten's mutant bus! WTF are with it's turrets!?), crawlers not as good as in UaW (they're nothing more than mobile barracks, warfactories that need to deploy first before usage), completely different gameplay style, etc.
I still like some of EA's other games (like Burnout Dominator ), but they just blew it with CnC4 :/
Westwood Studios - they made the great games. _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten!
Bret Sperry shouldn't have been so eager to sell his company and creation out. What an asshole he is. I feel no sympathy for him. In fact, ztype him. Its thanks to him that C&C4 is... what it is.
Now, onto C&C4. It looks interesting. I don't think my PC can run it however. I'm not upgrading to run one game when I've all but quit PC gaming though. Why are they even asking for the 'best RTS of 2010' though? Shit, it's still 2009. besides, you know Starcraft is going to win. What is the point? _________________ Victory! QUICK_EDIT
Bret Sperry shouldn't have been so eager to sell his company and creation out. What an asshole he is. I feel no sympathy for him. In fact, ztype him. Its thanks to him that C&C4 is... what it is.
Now, onto C&C4. It looks interesting. I don't think my PC can run it however. I'm not upgrading to run one game when I've all but quit PC gaming though. Why are they even asking for the 'best RTS of 2010' though? Shit, it's still 2009. besides, you know Starcraft is going to win. What is the point?
You think it's as simple as that? WW had shareholders, EA bought the majority of the company shares when Virgin interactive was being put out of business/or sold out. QUICK_EDIT
Westwood didn't have shareholders. Westwood was -given over- in an agreement between NYSE: SP and NYSE: VIA (Spelling Entertainment and Viacom) to EALA for 122 MILLION. Westwood shareholders didn't exist.
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 4, 1998--Spelling Entertainment Group Inc. (NYSE:SP) (PSE:SP) Friday announced that it and Viacom Inc. (AMEX:VIA) (AMEX:VIAB) have completed the sale of the stock of Westwood Studios Inc., a subsidiary of Virgin Interactive Entertainment Ltd. (VIEL), and certain other development assets to Electronic Arts for $122.5 million in cash. _________________ Victory! QUICK_EDIT
Westwood didn't have shareholders. Westwood was -given over- in an agreement between NYSE: SP and NYSE: VIA (Spelling Entertainment and Viacom) to EALA for 122 MILLION. Westwood shareholders didn't exist.
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 4, 1998--Spelling Entertainment Group Inc. (NYSE:SP) (PSE:SP) Friday announced that it and Viacom Inc. (AMEX:VIA) (AMEX:VIAB) have completed the sale of the stock of Westwood Studios Inc., a subsidiary of Virgin Interactive Entertainment Ltd. (VIEL), and certain other development assets to Electronic Arts for $122.5 million in cash.
They did, you even proved that they had. QUICK_EDIT
Why is this even being brought up. Uh, gaiz, StarCraft 2 is coming out in 2010. End of competition.
it is true... C&C4 cannot compete with a game which has a fanbase to start with, and will attract many modders from outside the fanbase for the mythically usable engine. QUICK_EDIT
Dude. Westwood didn't have shareholders. Viacom, Spelling Corporation, and EA had shareholders. Westwood was just a section of Viacom with no investors in it. You realise that if Westwood and every little group inside Viacom had holders, it would be the equivalent of every branch of EA having holders? Its the same situation as EA's. Only EA has holders. EALA and EA Redwood don't have holders.
The exact same thing here. _________________ Victory! QUICK_EDIT
I know probably about a third of the less hardcore C&C fans probably won't get it just because Nod looks like they've sourced all of their schematic design out to Fisher Price. QUICK_EDIT
You also forgot the fact that the Cyborg Commando looks like something from Power Rangers and all of GDI's "weapons" are Ion this or Railgun that. Apparently no one cares any more for a good ol' fasion 120mm Cannon. QUICK_EDIT
Okay, so Fisher Price and Bandai.
But here's the beauty of the railgun: You can use 120mm Shells with one of those bad boys also. Don't get me wrong, they've stopped innovating a long time ago, and it looks like C&C 4 is just gonna be an Xbox commander's wet dream. From what I can tell, it's either being fatally dumbed down, or irreversibly complicated...
Your base frigg'n respawns for crying out loud. QUICK_EDIT
only problem the c&c4 have IMO is just only it's C&c"4"
all problem will be solve if they just change the game name to another like "C&c:Arena" QUICK_EDIT
I like the idea behind the game but it is not a good idea it ruins the point moving con yards that still build even though there moving and Tib dropped in by ships it would be so easy to control the map. QUICK_EDIT
Lol, CNC4 units are cool? That theyre NOT cool is one of the big problems. EALA can't design units for shit (except they did a good job with RA3, they just seem to struggle with making a "real" game). Well, thats kind of wrong as their concept artists do a good job its just their 3D artists that cock it up somehow. QUICK_EDIT
Well, while it is gonna be one of those WTF games, I do think that the gameplay overall might be interesting, though that is far from successful being I've never played a RTS like it.
Anyhow I luled at this:
Quote:
I voted 'Continue developing it, but change it'. But change it ALOT.
Here is a list of things that don't need to be changed:
the beta is well balanced, something EA seemed incapable of, so in this respect I applaud them. The unit design for the most part is ok, although there are several design decisions I disagree with.
I have a list of my thoughts on the EA forums, but the biggest problem is the unit cap. I understand that it's there for balance, and it really does help the balance out, it's just that there are way too few units. you get '50' points, and units cost 3, 6, 10, or 12 points. So you really don't get a whole lot... _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Is it me or have they rammed together bits and pieces of lots of other games and resulted in something that's not as good as any of the individual games they've copied?
And had the work experience boy handle creative management? _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Is it me or have they rammed together bits and pieces of lots of other games and resulted in something that's not as good as any of the individual games they've copied?
And had the work experience boy handle creative management?
Yes.
Here's a short list of ripoffs:
1) Pop caps: Yay for ripping off the Warcraft series!
2) RTT gameplay via control points: Yay for ripping off War40k!
3) Lame ass graphical animations and bobbly units: Yay for being both horribly unrealistic and ripping off RA3's campiness! QUICK_EDIT
Its a good game, not a great game. Its just not a C&C.
Its innovative, to some extent. But a lot of it is just picking up things from other games which appeared successful in a hope to stay with the flow.
It is very different. If you let go of what you may have hoped or expected for a sequel, then you have a chance of enjoying it. If you don't like the prospect of it, move on. Simples. I'll be getting it because I want to see the end to the story I love, and because I am starting to enjoy the beta.
The Rock-Paper-Scissors is a very strong component in the game, and can be powerful if you know how to use it, or a bitch if you don't. The achievements and arsenal is a nice touch, gives you something to strive for, and the very different subfactions require very different ways of thinking. Which is nice because it adds a bit of lifetime to the game.
The game would be better if people actually worked together. Thats one of the premises of the game, and it really does make a huge difference if you do. The team aspect of the game is pretty big, depending on the players. Get some friends and work together, and you can have a really good time. I have. Play with idiots and you know it.
The game depends on the players, like so many games. Depends on how you approach it, and how others approach it. Its not ground breaking, and its very different. But it can be good if you let it.
Also, peoples comments on the campaign. Have you seen the videos/storyboards? No? Then don't comment on it being cheesy.
And should anyone want a game on the beta, (I think its public now?) I'd absolutely love to play. Give me a pm. _________________ If there is a problem on the forums, PM me. QUICK_EDIT
You can 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