Command & Conquer: Generals 2 (PC)

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by sa547

With this, EA's gonna be the whipping boy again.

They were always going to be canned. The only difference is they skipped a step of releasing a horrible game, and just jumped straight to killing the Generals franchise and firing everyone without wasting more money.

We are glad they killed a bad game, but we are not glad that they even made a bad game to begin with. The C&C formula is NOT HARD, why do they insist on changing it?

[Firefly00]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

We are glad they killed a bad game, but we are not glad that they even made a bad game to begin with. The C&C formula is NOT HARD, why do they insist on changing it?

I imagine part of the blame lies deservedly at the feet of what Dilbert would probably call 'marketroids'. This said, I wouldn't complain if C&C took pages from Total Annihilation (or its spiritual sequel Planetary Annihilation)...

[felix]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

We are glad they killed a bad game, but we are not glad that they even made a bad game to begin with. The C&C formula is NOT HARD, why do they insist on changing it?

Correction... why make the same mistakes after comletly failing with C&C4 and having so much success with C&C3. YOU have a perfect example of how to make a good 3d version of the game, AND, you have an example of how NOT to make it! I kind of doubt the studios are to blame here. This all just looks like they got a call from above of what the big wigs want to see and were just riding a sinking ship (for the most part). If this was not from above and was just what the great "designers" at EA came up with, then sorry to say this but the entire franchise is doomed; might as well put into cold storage and wait for every staff member to die or get replaced before trying again since they all clearly lack any semblance of imagination if they can't even copy/paste a working formula.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

They were always going to be canned. The only difference is they skipped a step of releasing a horrible game, and just jumped straight to killing the Generals franchise and firing everyone without wasting more money.

We are glad they killed a bad game, but we are not glad that they even made a bad game to begin with. The C&C formula is NOT HARD, why do they insist on changing it?

C&C 3 sold. Less than 2 million copies. No major tournies (there were a few on yourtube for Red Alert, but nothing material)

Starcraft 2. Sold at 6 million copies. Starcraft I, 11 million copies. Major league gaming. An entire gaming convention. National Sport of South Korea.

And to think, Dune and Warcraft, then Command and conquer and Warcraft once ran neck to to neck as the King of RTS. Both studios were golden boys of the industry. Then sometime between 1998 and 2001 Blizzard won the race when they created the idea all the Faction in a RTS DONT have to be mirror images of each other.


C&C 3 and Red Alert II was EA's hope to catch up to the Blizzard juggernaut, and it was clear EA wasn't making it.

A big problem I think was Westwood's insistence of hiring real actors for the cutscenes rather than Blizzard's fairly cheap CGI. For C&C 3 they hired a ton of actors when they could had just went for simple folks + Kane, for RA they hired a whole bunch of B or A- rated actresses and swimsuit models. For....what? A total waste of money in my opinion.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

C&C series was never a tournament game, it was not balanced to play that way. Its strong point was always its single player. It was what distinguished it from Blizzard RTS. It isn't trying to be Starcraft.

And frankly I don't care that C&C sold less than some other title, they made a profit and that's what matters. But EA doesn't see it that way.

[felix]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

And frankly I don't care that C&C sold less than some other title, they made a profit and that's what matters. But EA doesn't see it that way.

Its because they think in franchises rather then titles. Being the "lesser" title is franchise suicide; you always want to be at the very least an alternative with "its own style." Its like the hardware war between video cards; if you aren't at least special in your own niche (eg. workstation graphics card, price point, price performance, "feature X," etc) you ain't gonna cut it since you'll just bring all the other lineup down.

Also as far as I see building a fairly standard RTS with expanded features such as what Planetary Annihilation is doing (ie. take the old formula, add planets), is a very viable way of doing it.

[Firefly00]

Originally Posted by felix

Also as far as I see building a fairly standard RTS with expanded features such as what Planetary Annihilation is doing (ie. take the old formula, add planets), is a very viable way of doing it.

One thing I liked about TA is how its old formula allowed you to semi-automate some aspects of base management (for example: having units produced at a particular facility automatically take up such-and-such patrol route); I always wondered why that never caught on with the bigger players.

That, and subverting enemy assets was pretty fun. The Arm had a spider-tank with a paralyzing beam, and it was also possible to have your transport pick up enemy units - including parked aircraft. Interestingly, one of the extra (Core, I think) units Cavedog had available was capable of doing it post-mortem, provided the wreckage hadn't been 'confettied'...

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

C&C series was never a tournament game, it was not balanced to play that way. Its strong point was always its single player. It was what distinguished it from Blizzard RTS. It isn't trying to be Starcraft.

And frankly I don't care that C&C sold less than some other title, they made a profit and that's what matters. But EA doesn't see it that way.

I am not entirely sure they made a profit. EA has a lot of failed titles and write downs (like all corps). So even if EA might made a small profit with C&C3, it does not mean it will justify the studio keeping its door open.

Furthermore, without knowing the entire price structure (like hiring all those movie stars). It is entirely possible EA just broke even or lost hard.

Think of this way, Westwood studio produced Dune: Emperor (which is similar to T3) then begin to look for a buyer. I think their style of the RTS is going out one way or another anyway.