View Full Version : Command & Conquer: Generals 2 (PC)
solidvanz
2011-12-10, 18:26
http://www.commandandconquer.com/forums/image.php?u=116&type=sigpic&dateline=1323574247
Official Site: http://www.commandandconquer.com/en/games/bygameid/cncgenerals2
Release: 2013
Platform: PC
Developer: BioWare Victory
Publisher: EA BioWare
OVBvydaqBu4
http://www.cncsaga.com/pixaddict/1323543774cnc_bkg_metallic.jpg
http://www.commandandconquer.com/mediastore/CCGenerals2_Screen2.jpg
In the near future, world leaders are mere seconds from signing a global treaty and bringing an end to war as we know it when a devastating terrorist attack rips through the peace conference, killing all in attendance. In a world left with no politicians, diplomats, or activists, only the Generals remain. Its up to you to assume their roles, command their forces, and put an end to global terrorism once and for all.
Features:
All-Out War Take control of three unique factions, competing for resources, building up your base of operation, and leading massive batteries of tanks, soldiers, and aircraft into battle.
Uncanny Sense of Realism Frostbite 2 technology allows for visceral, visually stunning conflict at an epic scale. Incredibly detailed units and environments, dynamic physics, and exhilarating visual effects bring the battle to life in ways never before seen. This is the closest thing to real war without the consequences.
New Ways to Dominate or Ally with Your Friends Go beyond classic deathmatch with a selection of new multiplayer game modes, designed with both cooperative and competitive play in mind.
Thrilling Campaign Command the war on terror in an electrifying single-player campaign. Experience the dramatic story from multiple perspectives from heroic General to crazed terrorist while engaging the enemy in pulse-pounding tactical combat.
Ever-Evolving Experience Enhance your game with an expanding array of downloadable content. From maps and units to factions, campaigns, and more, the fight against terrorism is deeper than ever.
Minimum System Requirements
OS: Windows Vista (Service Pack 1) 32-bit
Processor: 2 GHz Dual Core (Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or Athlon X2 2.7 GHz)
Memory: 2 GB
Hard Drive: 20 GB
Graphics card (AMD): DirectX 10.1 compatible with 512 MB RAM (ATI Radeon 3000, 4000, 5000 or 6000 series, with ATI Radeon 3870 or higher performance)
Graphics card (NVIDIA): DirectX 10.0 compatible with 512 MB RAM (NVIDIA GeForce 8, 9, 200, 300, 400 or 500 series with NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT or higher performance)
Sound card
DirectX Compatible
Keyboard and Mouse
DVD ROM Drive
Recommended System Requirements
OS: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: Quad-core CPU
Memory: 4 GB
Hard Drive: 20 GB
Graphics card: DirectX 11 compatible with 1024 MB RAM (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 or ATI Radeon 6950)
Sound card
DirectX Compatible
Keyboard and Mouse
DVD ROM Drive
aeriolewinters
2011-12-10, 20:22
Finally, My prayers... answered... I hope it plays and feels like the first one, the transistion from RA2-RA3 was so bad, I think I got bored with RA3-related stuff.
Cosmic Eagle
2011-12-10, 20:32
Took long enough....finally....
EA is trying to turn BioWare into their Blizzard and steal a piece of StarCraft II's pie.
I always did like Generals, will certainly give this a shot :D Will help bring back hope after playing Tiberium Wars..
Tiresias
2011-12-10, 21:37
I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, there are many things I don't enjoy about Generals, such as the 'Age of Empire'-like worker-builder-gatherer mechanics (I prefer old-school build system) and very imbalanced air force units (I can somewhat swallow GLA not having any planes, but China having only ground-attack plane and no air-superiority one?).
On the other hand, both Red Alert 3 and Tiberium Twilight were the weakest installments in their respective series, so a little bit of change is fine, I guess.
I just hope for these points to come true:
Instead of one-by-one, infantries come in squads Tiberium Wars style.
No pop-caps.
More supplies per supply site so they don't get depleted too fast.
Anti-garrison weapons (flames, toxic, flash-bang) kills garrisoned units faster than normal weapons but not instantaneously
MakubeX2
2011-12-10, 21:43
It's EA. Best kept any expectations low. It will be most likely a decent title but not a game changer.
It's EA. Best kept any expectations low. It will be most likely a decent title but not a game changer.
It's BioWare. I expect to be romancing some tanks. :eyespin:
Cosmic Eagle
2011-12-10, 23:50
It's EA. Best kept any expectations low. It will be most likely a decent title but not a game changer.
The first Generals was EA.....
solidvanz
2011-12-11, 00:01
Command & Conquer: Generals 2 First Details
A beloved strategy game returns. Built with Frostbite 2, only on PC.
The next step in the Command & Conquer franchise will have nothing to do with Kane or Red Alert's war bears. Instead, Electronic Arts is returning to the slightly more realistic Generals brand, which we haven't heard much about since the Zero Hour expansion back in 2003. To learn more about this PC exclusive real-time strategy sequel, in development at the rebranded BioWare Victory studio, we had a chance to ask BioWare co-founder Dr. Ray Muzyka and executive producer Jon Van Caneghem a few questions via email.
IGN: It's been quite a while since the Generals offshoot of Command & Conquer has been in the spotlight. Why now, and why Generals in particular if the goal was to again tap into the C&C brand?
Jon Van Caneghem: We looked at each of the different universes in the franchise and thought a return to Generals was long overdue. The original game is actually the best-selling game in the series and its one our community has been asking for. And when we took a closer look, we were really attracted to the near future time period and the themes we could explore and the project went from there.
IGN: How does Generals 2 differ from what fans remember of the first one? Does it still involve the traditional RTS mechanics of base building and army management?
Jon Van Caneghem: One of our main goals is to bring C&C back to the roots that have made it one of the most popular and beloved properties in the strategy genre and that revolves around the core gameplay. The player is the General and it's up to them to create and take control of these huge, massive armies. We're definitely bringing some new elements to the table as well, but it's very important for us to bring C&C back to its foundation and that's through action-packed gameplay that also requires you to be cerebral.
Full interview: http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1214474p1.html
erneiz_hyde
2011-12-11, 00:47
I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, there are many things I don't enjoy about Generals, such as the 'Age of Empire'-like worker-builder-gatherer mechanics (I prefer old-school build system) and very imbalanced air force units (I can somewhat swallow GLA not having any planes, but China having only ground-attack plane and no air-superiority one?).
There's an older-school build system than Age of Empire?
Also, game-balance wise, remember that China had gatling guns, the best AA in the entire game. Giving it an air superiority planes too would be too much.
I just hope for these points to come true:
Instead of one-by-one, infantries come in squads Tiberium Wars style.
No pop-caps.
More supplies per supply site so they don't get depleted too fast.
Anti-garrison weapons (flames, toxic, flash-bang) kills garrisoned units faster than normal weapons but not instantaneously
1. I'm with you on this.
2. Wouldn't mind this as long as they offer more challenge in the resource management part.
3. Wouldn't mind this but unit management should offer more challenge if this is in effect.
4. I'm neutral on this, since afaik garrison killing abilities had been instantaneous in most games that support it. Or perhaps we can upgrade the garrison to make it immune to these abilities. But bunker buster bombs should have instant effect true to its definition.
My only hope right now is that this will truly be an RTS and not RTS wannabee like C&C4.
LoweGear
2011-12-11, 02:13
Now this looks like the game that C&C4 should've been: a return to the roots with awesome sci-fi styling. Looks like Generals 2 has taken its foot into the "near future-tech" instead of the "current tech with futuristic bent" styling, though with the direction Zero Hour was going it only makes perfect sense. Hope the vanilla game is more Zero Hour and less vanilla-Generals though.
And I love the new aircraft already :love:
Something to note: C&C Generals was the game that introduced the SAGE Engine to the franchise, which is the engine that ran through Battle for C&C3, RA3, and C&C4. Now, Generals 2 is once again heralding the use of a more advanced game engine to the franchise, in this case the Frostbite 2 engine.
Cosmic Eagle
2011-12-11, 02:35
Ther
4. I'm neutral on this, since afaik garrison killing abilities had been instantaneous in most games that support it. Or perhaps we can upgrade the garrison to make it immune to these abilities. But bunker buster bombs should have instant effect true to its definition.
IIRC if you rapelled Rangers in it wasn't instantaneous....
And in WWII RTS, assaulting garrisoned structures requires actual indoor fighting that takes time and can result in losses for your side....
Upgrading the garrison to be immune is just bad IMO
Another thing that I want to play/watch so badly that will be in 2013... Guess I'll have to wait for both the Inquisitor and this :eyespin:
MakubeX2
2011-12-11, 02:56
The first Generals was EA.....
And what a departure from the prior C&C titles it was. It was a good title on it's own, just not what was expected from the C&C tag.
The point is EA does not have a good track record of keeping up with expectations. I point you to Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2 and Alice Madness Returns in return for one Battlefield 3.
And what a departure from the prior C&C titles it was. It was a good title on it's own, just not what was expected from the C&C tag.
The point is EA does not have a good track record of keeping up with expectations. I point you to Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2 and Alice Madness Returns in return for one Battlefield 3.
Not sure about Alice, but Crysis 2 and Dragon Age 2 are weird examples. Crysis 2 was only published by EA, it was developed by Crytek, whose only relation to EA is that EA published their game (well, their series). Dragon Age 2 is simply a dumb example because EVERYBODY was expecting it to SUCK and of course that actually did turn out to be the case, it just didn't suck as much it was expected to.
Cosmic Eagle
2011-12-11, 03:21
And what a departure from the prior C&C titles it was. It was a good title on it's own, just not what was expected from the C&C tag.
The point is EA does not have a good track record of keeping up with expectations. I point you to Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2 and Alice Madness Returns in return for one Battlefield 3.
This is a sequel from a game made by them that was decent....
As long as they don't make another RA3 I'm fine....
LoweGear
2011-12-11, 03:28
Gameplay wise RA3 was actually quite good, especially Uprising. The story however left much to be desired. C&C4 had okay gameplay that could've been better, and an even worse story + presentation.
Looks like they're keeping it safe for Generals this time, except for the setting being further into the future.
I'm hoping they enhance the Generals Powers, and retain the Generals Specialties (Air Force General YEAAAAAAAAAAH).
MakubeX2
2011-12-11, 04:09
Not sure about Alice, but Crysis 2 and Dragon Age 2 are weird examples.
But didn't EA also hyped them up to be worthy successors ?
Look, Generals 2 could swing both ways here. I didn't preach about Generals 2 to be another failure, but rather to keep any expectations low given it's relations.
But didn't EA also hyped them up to be worthy successors ?
EA's marketing is part of the reason Dragon Age 2 was expected to suck ("Press a Button, Something Awesome Happens. Derp"). Really don't think you can count on them to hype anything without it looking like an embarrassment.
MeoTwister5
2011-12-11, 04:23
I'm a staunch fan of popcaps and that's why I think Blizzard RTS' got it right. Frankly I'm tired of watching and/or playing the usual RTS where it's almost always the side with the largest built army that always wins. SC and SC2 games online are a blast to watch because popcaps made sure you made every unit and every strategy count as opposed the guy who could wag around the most guns. It made every game, every battle and even every skirmish require tactics and good micro because you knew you had to work within your popcap means and not live on macro playstyles.
LoweGear
2011-12-11, 04:59
Well, C&C 4 implemented popcaps for the first time in a C&C game, yet didn't do it so well. It basically went the way of Warcraft 3 and had you field too few units for their effectiveness, which meant battles became a distinctly rock>paper>scissors affair.
If they ever implement popcaps for Generals 2, it should be more similar to Starcraft than Warcraft 3: large enough that the battles can feel and be epic and to allow fluid counters, but small enough that you can't simply win battles via overwhelming numbers.
If they ever implement popcaps for Generals 2, it should be more similar to Starcraft than Warcraft 3: large enough that the battles can feel and be epic and to allow fluid counters, but small enough that you can't simply win battles via overwhelming numbers.I would prefer SC1 style. ie. (a) there's no anti-popcap/worker mechanics (inject larva, orbitals/mules, warpins) and (b) it doesn't prevent near insane number of units, but prevents single-overwhelming-force nonsense ie. SC2's death balls; which from a spectator standpoint are boring as shit, especially when they're mostly just one or two boring units (marine/marauder, or Colossus/Stalkers, no the fodder players stick in doesn't count).
Going on a tangent, the bread and butter units better be cool as shit, since that's what's fun to play and what's fun to watch. C&C3's infantry/tank mechanics were solid. Well, initially they were crap, after a few patches they were good. Some positioning micro, but no stupid things like SC2's strutter step micro.
I also want my emersive C&C environments. No stupid unit/building size crap, units better come out of it. No kiddy nonsense (things like SC2's Bashee's properlas in space; or even the whole idea of a space platform to build your base on). No only-works-when-maps-are-simetrical crap, or only-works-if-map-has-ramps, or only-works-if-map-has-chokes. Building yo' base on a weird map was always half the fun. I personally want the old days of AoE style randomness back. It worked fine in Tiberium Sun and it's obviously not that hard. Imbalanced? like I care. Just make the damn generator balance if you really need it to be such, I want random maps, at least for singleplayer purposes.
Let's see what else. Tanks and other vehicles better be faster then infantry and better be able to crush it. >:D None of the SC2 infantry-steam-boots or mechanical-crawler mechanics.
Actually I hope they don't copy anything from SC2. The only exception would probably be "expantion play" but honestly SC1 did it better with no-rocks, no-gold, etc.
C&C on Battlefield 3 engine?
Take all my money.
Tiresias
2011-12-11, 06:37
There's an older-school build system than Age of Empire?
Dune 2 - 1992. Age of Empires - 1997.
Also, game-balance wise, remember that China had gatling guns, the best AA in the entire game. Giving it an air superiority planes too would be too much.
Yes, but back then Generals was hyped as being "close to real-life war" and such. At the very least, I had expected China to possess a cheaper and weaker air-superiority fighter instead of none at all.
4. I'm neutral on this, since afaik garrison killing abilities had been instantaneous in most games that support it. Or perhaps we can upgrade the garrison to make it immune to these abilities. But bunker buster bombs should have instant effect true to its definition.
The reason I add this one is because infantry is pretty useless when not garrisoned. But bunker-buster is fine I guess, as long whatever uses it is expensive.
It's EA. Best kept any expectations low. It will be most likely a decent title but not a game changer.
Honestly? I hope they don't try to be too innovative. The last time they "experiment" we ended up with Tiberium Twilight. God, I absolutely despise how they decided to add pop-caps to a C&C title - I want epic, massive unrestrained battles, dammit! :frustrated:
Let Starcraft be Starcraft, C&C be C&C, and Dawn of War be Dawn of War. Each has their own distinct flavor which works best for them and I'd rather have each of them remain their way. :)
Let's see what else. Tanks and other vehicles better be faster then infantry and better be able to crush it.
This. I want that "crunch" sensation when my vehicles ran infantry over back. And while we're at it, please please please bring back gory infantry deaths :p
I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, there are many things I don't enjoy about Generals, such as the 'Age of Empire'-like worker-builder-gatherer mechanics (I prefer old-school build system) and very imbalanced air force units (I can somewhat swallow GLA not having any planes, but China having only ground-attack plane and no air-superiority one?).
In Generals (not zero hour) China had the best airplanes because of the black napalm upgrade bug that made those missiles "explosion damage" type instead of "jet missiles" damage. Combined with the firestorm effect when 4 migs fired all at one place, they could decimate everything.
On the other hand, both Red Alert 3 and Tiberium Twilight were the weakest installments in their respective series, so a little bit of change is fine, I guess.
I just hope for these points to come true:
More supplies per supply site so they don't get depleted too fast.
Anti-garrison weapons (flames, toxic, flash-bang) kills garrisoned units faster than normal weapons but not instantaneously
I disagree on some points as someone who played generals very competitively back then.
More supplies means more turtling and less expanding and rushing, besides unlike the other C&C games where resources were limited in generals however it was not, because people could buy structures (in China's case units) to provide end game income. Like the supply drops, black markets and hackers. If your supplies depleted too fast that means a bad resource management on your side.
Garrisoned structures (and units) that could not be cleared with those convenient anti garrison weapons were horrible unbalanced, look at the fortified palaces, battle bunkers and the less static combat chinooks. Also that would unbalance some sides, seeing that china only had dragon tanks and gla toxin tractors as anti garrison unit. And they still die fast from 20 rockets from infantry garrisoned in buildings. The only safe way to kill heavily bunkered structures were with artillery units or with aurora planes. But that required late game technology and both of them are fragile and expensive, making your own defense or offence weaker.
edit: USA will have problems clearing garrisoned builings if their are snipers or flash bang rangers inside. Every side will have problems clearing them. So in a way if you don't make them instantly clear buildings, then you would promote heavy turtling.
Ascaloth
2011-12-11, 07:01
Yes, but back then Generals was hyped as being "close to real-life war" and such. At the very least, I had expected China to possess a cheaper and weaker air-superiority fighter instead of none at all.
Wasn't the MiG a multi-role fighter which pretty much fits the 'cheaper and weaker' mold? Besides, that's not even factoring in the rocks-fall-everybody-dies lulziness of the ZH tac-nuke MiGs. :heh:
In zero hour migs (regardless which one) were less effective thanks to the overpowered laser point defences. Also tactical nuke migs (even with upgrade) did poor damage on structures, so in this case the regular anti air structures and bunker type defences kill them easily. Not to mentioned it was a really late technology to acquire, because you actually needed to build a nuclair missile super weapon to get the upgrade, unless you are playing on a huge map or the battle has become a turtle and superweapon fest, it's not likely to see that mig at all.
edit:
The non upgraded migs from the nuke general was pathetic. It has problems killing a humvee.
Ascaloth
2011-12-11, 07:12
In zero hour migs (regardless which one) were less effective thanks to the overpowered laser point defences. Also tactical nuke migs (even with upgrade) did poor damage on structures, so in this case the regular anti air structures and bunker type defences kill them easily. Not to mentioned it was a really late technology to acquire, because you actually needed to build a nuclair missile super weapon to get the upgrade, unless you are playing on a huge map or the battle has become a turtle and superweapon fest, it's not likely to see that mig at all.
edit:
The non upgraded migs from the nuke general was pathetic. It has problems killing a humvee.
Well yes, but I was talking in context of a dogfight between fighters. In this case, we'll go with tac-nuke MiGs against its USA counterpart, King Raptors. Sure, the King Raptors have some of the best laser point defenses of the USA units, but in a 4-on-4, all it takes is one unzapped nuke missile, and boom, half the fighters from both sides are a goner.
:heh:
4 on 4 and the king raptors still win.
maybe 5 on 1 and the the single king raptor loses if the migs fire all their missiles at once.
King raptors have 2 laser point defences (with 4 of them clustered you have 8 laser point defences at the same time) at once that refreshes every second, combined with countermeasures upgrade they could avoid 50% of the time unblocked missiles.
Migs on carry 2 missiles, so ..... (you can fill in the gaps yourself). Also if you manage to kill that single king raptor, the chances are that your own migs get blown up by the explosion from their own missiles if they are too close.
Ascaloth
2011-12-11, 07:19
4 on 4 and the king raptors still win.
maybe 5 on 1 and the the single king raptor loses if the migs fire all their missiles at once.
King raptors have 2 laser point defences (with 4 of them clustered you have 8 laser point defences at the same time) at once that refreshes every second, combined with countermeasures upgrade they could avoid 50% of the time unblocked missiles.
Migs on carry 2 missiles, so ..... (you can fill in the gaps yourself)
Yeah, I'd think so too, if not for the fact that it actually happened to me once. I still have no idea how it happened, but trust me, that hurt.
:heh:
Yeah, I'd think so too, if not for the fact that it actually happened to me once. I still have no idea how it happened, but trust me, that hurt.
:heh:
The only way how i can think that it could happen is if the migs fired all of their 8 missiles at once and somehow not every missile gets blocked (which is impossible with 4 on 4 if the king raptors are close to eachother, so they have to spread somehow) and then the counter measures ability diverted one or more single nuke mig missiles the wrong way so it exploded randomly in the air, while the other king raptors accidently flew in the explosion.
Generals 2 ? wow , i remember the 1st , my youth(like 14 years old) with my best friend playing at cyber :heh:
China with emperor tank was so imba.
Cosmic Eagle
2011-12-11, 07:45
edit: USA will have problems clearing garrisoned builings if their are snipers or flash bang rangers inside. Every side will have problems clearing them. So in a way if you don't make them instantly clear buildings, then you would promote heavy turtling.
Alternatively, you can allow infantry to do the clearing....IE assault urban combat style...in addition to artillery or air power
Bioware being put in charge of the developers for this has me scratching my head. I can only see the gameplay turn out like this:
http://i.imgur.com/aJVUT.png
Tiresias
2011-12-11, 08:20
Like the supply drops, black markets and hackers. If your supplies depleted too fast that means a bad resource management on your side.
IMO China got the short end of the stick since hackers generate credits slower and are infantry (meaning they die fast) instead of buildings. No to mention that the system as a whole means that end-game bases are pretty much stocked with supply depots and black markets, making it less like a military base and more like an industrial center :rolleyes:
Garrisoned structures (and units) that could not be cleared with those convenient anti garrison weapons were horrible unbalanced, look at the fortified palaces, battle bunkers and the less static combat chinooks. Also that would unbalance some sides, seeing that china only had dragon tanks and gla toxin tractors as anti garrison unit. And they still die fast from 20 rockets from infantry garrisoned in buildings. The only safe way to kill heavily bunkered structures were with artillery units or with aurora planes. But that required late game technology and both of them are fragile and expensive, making your own defense or offence weaker.
And having weapons that can instantaneously kill garrisoned troops pretty much drops the value of infantry since they die fast in open terrain, reducing the fight into pure vehicle battles.
edit: USA will have problems clearing garrisoned builings if their are snipers or flash bang rangers inside. Every side will have problems clearing them. So in a way if you don't make them instantly clear buildings, then you would promote heavy turtling.
Alternatively, you can allow infantry to do the clearing....IE assault urban combat style...in addition to artillery or air power
Pretty much what Cosmic Eagle said. Besides, what I prefer to avoid is weapons that instantly kill garrisons. In fact, the best way might be that ALL weapons can harm garrisoned infantry but at a slower pace, while specialized weapons (flames, toxic, bunker buster, artillery) kills at a much faster rate. Very fast, but not "holy shit did ten of my veterans just die because of two dinky flash-bangs" fast.
And at least change flash-bangs with frag-grenades (seriously, killing people with flash-bangs? :eyebrow:)
Bioware being put in charge of the developers for this has me scratching my head. I can only see the gameplay turn out like this: http://i.imgur.com/aJVUT.png
I LOL'd pretty hard at this. And yes, Bioware? I thought the successor was supposed to be Victory Games or something :heh:
Wasn't the MiG a multi-role fighter which pretty much fits the 'cheaper and weaker' mold? Besides, that's not even factoring in the rocks-fall-everybody-dies lulziness of the ZH tac-nuke MiGs. :heh:
The tac-nuke thing never happened to me, so that's a rare case. In any way, Raptors are way more reliable than Migs since they have more missiles and Migs pretty much suck at killing aircraft since the firestorm effect was designed with ground-attack in mind.
Kameruka
2011-12-11, 08:23
Good to see another high-budget RTS game when there are too many FPS games lately.
SaintessHeart
2011-12-11, 08:26
And what a departure from the prior C&C titles it was. It was a good title on it's own, just not what was expected from the C&C tag.
Consider how they screwed up C&C4, I am not expecting much.
But the premise of the storyline is lovely :
......In a world left with no politicians......
:D
Alternatively, you can allow infantry to do the clearing....IE assault urban combat style...in addition to artillery or air power
If you meant by the combat drop with chinooks, then i am against that. Slowing down your own resource gathering , while at the same time the risking losing your chinook (1200 is not cheap) because they can't handle rockets that well, is hardly strategical. Also with some micro management you can evacuate the building before the chinook can clear the building while leaving the chinook stuck defenceless and most likely killed.
IMO China got the short end of the stick since hackers generate credits slower and are infantry (meaning they die fast) instead of buildings. No to mention that the system as a whole means that end-game bases are pretty much stocked with supply depots and black markets, making it less like a military base and more like an industrial center :rolleyes:
Hackers are the worst of the bunch, but that was the risk of using china. Because their units were more meant to rush (gattling tanks are one of the better early game units and dragon tanks could decimate buildings on their own). But hackers are the most easily bought, because they are cheaper than the others.
And having weapons that can instantaneously kill garrisoned troops pretty much drops the value of infantry since they die fast in open terrain, reducing the fight into pure vehicle battles.
Infantry are supposed to be weak and are only used at the beginning and mid game as support. They are not meant a means to turtle so that the game will become a stale untill the guy with the most destructive superweapons wins.
Pretty much what Cosmic Eagle said. Besides, what I prefer to avoid is weapons that instantly kill garrisons. In fact, the best way might be that ALL weapons can harm garrisoned infantry but at a slower pace, while specialized weapons (flames, toxic, bunker buster, artillery) kills at a much faster rate. Very fast, but not "holy shit did ten of my veterans just die because of two dinky flash-bangs" fast.
If they kill things at a slower pace, then the unit that is doing the clearing is most likely killed before they can even clear 2 infantry inside. Considering that some maps have tons of buildings and 1 building can house 5-10 soldiers, then what is the point of using building clearing units before they can accomplish anything.
And at least change flash-bangs with frag-grenades (seriously, killing people with flash-bangs? :eyebrow:)
Probably for balancing issues, because if it were actual grenades then rangers could also take on vehicles. They needed an excuse so that it would only defeat infantry.
The tac-nuke thing never happened to me, so that's a rare case. In any way, Raptors are way more reliable than Migs since they have more missiles and Migs pretty much suck at killing aircraft since the firestorm effect was designed with ground-attack in mind.
In generals (not zero hour), 1 mig with 2 missiles with explosion damage type from blacknapalm killed 1 raptor instantly. You still needed 6 raptor missiles to kill 1 mig because of the armour upgrade that migs can get. The migs were superior in the air and better than raptors on the ground because they did more damage and cause firestorms.
edit: migs were also cheaper than raptors and the china airfield was also less expansive than the USA's airfield. The only reason why i would ever build an USA airfield in the first generals game was for aurora bombers and those choppers (forgot the name).
pretty sure the third unit is china. maybe russia but china is more interesting
surprised why the use European instead of USA. or maybe they are allienced
I just hope there won't be limited resources. I like turtling, building an impregnable base and telling others to come and get me, but starcraft style limited resources make turtling impossible.
I just hope there won't be limited resources. I like turtling, building an impregnable base and telling others to come and get me, but starcraft style limited resources make turtling impossible.Having maps like that is fine. It's just the whole concept of a game based on 1-base that's kind of not so appealing.
Bioware being put in charge of the developers for this has me scratching my head. I can only see the gameplay turn out like this:
http://i.imgur.com/aJVUT.pngSad but true. Bioware's dialog system is a lot of the time extremely redundant in that it just gives you a shitton of options you could have just better gotten as one continous dialog between characters, or *gasp* a proper cutcene. It's like their dialog system is an excuse to create cheap fragmented dialog and avoid proper cutcenes. It was innovative the first time, but it gets reddundant and annoying as it goes on. The trinary nature of the options is also annoying, it would be much better to get less often, and instead get a whole bunch of them when it matters. And in bioware games the options you pick hardly matter, so it's more like a chore.
eg.
"Make your super improtant choice:"
"A. Save Civilians & get brownie points (help-chopper crashes and they die anyway)"
"B. Save Natzis & darkside cookies (help-chopper crashes and they die anyway)"
"C. Save Nobody (they all die)"
"Your decition will influence future events" :rolleyes:
But I'm sure that's what we'll get so better just enjoy it for what it is.
Well, I have faith in their easthetics and graphics department at least. Let's hope their RTS knowhow doesn't come from the same twats that came up with C&C4 and the new RA ones.
Having maps like that is fine. It's just the whole concept of a game based on 1-base that's kind of not so appealing.
One base? Are you kidding? I need to be able to build anywhere, I need my backup bases!
Sad but true. Bioware's dialog system is a lot of the time extremely redundant in that it just gives you a shitton of options you could have just better gotten as one continous dialog between characters, or *gasp* a proper cutcene. It's like their dialog system is an excuse to create cheap fragmented dialog and avoid proper cutcenes. It was innovative the first time, but it gets reddundant and annoying as it goes on. The trinary nature of the options is also annoying, it would be much better to get less often, and instead get a whole bunch of them when it matters. And in bioware games the options you pick hardly matter, so it's more like a chore.
Yet, when JRPG's do this, many gamers complain that it's "too linear."
Yet, when JRPG's do this, many gamers complain that it's "too linear."If anything Bioware at best just masks its linearity. I think you can even say a game can be non-linear just from it's dialog options. IMO techniques like what Raidient Historia did are much more non-linear. And typically just being different is what makes it non-linear, like say how Terraria works, or most "random content/maps" games work.
SaintessHeart
2011-12-11, 11:26
Alternatively, you can allow infantry to do the clearing....IE assault urban combat style...in addition to artillery or air power
If you played as the infantry general in Generals Zero Hour, you would learn how not to underestimate the cheap ant rush. :D
Build 5 barracks. Churn out hackers in one, TH and RI on the other 4. Watch the horrified look on your opponent's face at the 10th minute.
i hope they keep music and DAT voice actor
"AK47'S FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!"
i hope they keep music and DAT voice actor
"AK47'S FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!"tZQdaEFa_60
:heh:
tZQdaEFa_60
:heh:
Z5IobgdPKhc
EA is trying to turn BioWare into their Blizzard and steal a piece of StarCraft II's pie.
Honestly, I have been thinking the same thing.
- Kotor was warped into a themepark MMO like WoW.
-C&C RTS (vs Starcraft)
-Rumor that Dragon Age will become/have an online component. (vs Diablo 3)
To be honest, it is perfectly fine to have competition, which will drive some interesting games hopefully. However, I shall mourn the loss of Kotor RPG as a causality of the MMO.
Firefly00
2011-12-11, 13:20
Alternatively, you can allow infantry to do the clearing....IE assault urban combat style...in addition to artillery or air power
And at least change flash-bangs with frag-grenades (seriously, killing people with flash-bangs?
Whatever you may think of RA3's style, they at least got this part right: Peacekeepers and Imperial Warriors do in fact storm garrisoned buildings; Conscripts toss Molotovs. None of these processes are instant.
On another note, the way the fourth Allied mission (Gibraltar) is designed allows you to pretty much break it if you're smart...
once your base is set up, what triggers the next part of the mission is destroying the four turrets at the dock entrance. It's worth taking the time to capture the entire base behind those first; doing so allows you to have Strikers helping guard your partner's base when Naomi's relief force steams in; in fact, before destroying those turrets, disguise a Spy and park him in the southeast corner of the map. Bringing up the rear of Naomi's force is a Shogun (two in very close line abreast on Hard), and... consider it $1000 very well spent...
Honestly, I have been thinking the same thing.
- Kotor was warped into a themepark MMO like WoW.
-C&C RTS (vs Starcraft)
-Rumor that Dragon Age will become/have an online component. (vs Diablo 3)
To be honest, it is perfectly fine to have competition, which will drive some interesting games hopefully. However, I shall mourn the loss of Kotor RPG as a causality of the MMO.
You can play SWTOR as if you were playing KOTOR; completely alone, and just for the story, if you so wish. Minimize the chat tab and make sure you have no friendly/enemy player nameplates on, and you wouldn't even realize you weren't playing a single player RPG. :p
Anyways, as to the topic on hand, I'm not sure how I feel about "Bioware" doing this game (why do we still call them Bioware seeing how long it's been since they were bought by EA).
Maybe it's just me, but I was once a big fan of the Command & Conquer series not for its innovative RTS mechanics, but for its ultra cheesy/campy stories and 'cutscenes'. And while we could argue some of Bioware's stories are...a bit out there in cheese factor (DA 2, lulz), I have a hard time seeing Bioware's writers giving us the type of camp the Command & Conquer series is renown for.
I'm not sure how I'm going to feel about a Command & Conquer that features you, the protagonist, having to gather some companions; all of whom are going to be bisexual and romanceable; all the while following a cleverly disguised, highly linear story that has you first: a) Gather your companions, b) deal with a plot point, c) finish gathering your companions, d) deal with another plot point, e) deal with a plot twist, f) beat the big bad in a climax. :heh:
If it seems I'm a bit cynical, it's because Bioware has followed the almost exact same general script for every game they've made since KOTOR. :p Here's hoping they shake things up, or even better, that the "Bioware" label this time really is just a label, and that that particular studio doesn't actually involve any original Bioware employees, because as much as I like the remnants of Bioware, I'm not sure I actually want them to be touching this RTS franchise. :D
I LOL'd pretty hard at this. And yes, Bioware? I thought the successor was supposed to be Victory Games or something :heh:
They are. While Victory Games may answer to Bioware management, they're still a separate operation. In practice, I don't see much change, aside from the fact that Muzyka and Zeschuk now occupy one level of supervision.
For branding purposes, EA has simply rolled a number of existing divisions under the Bioware label. Mythic Games (Bioware Mythic), EA2D (Bioware San Francisco), Victory Games (Bioware Victory).
Kotor was warped into a themepark MMO like WoW.
That's a pre-existing contract between pre-EA Bioware and LucasArts. While it'll be a huge moneymaker for EA, they had nothing to do with its inception.
You can play SWTOR as if you were playing KOTOR; completely alone, and just for the story, if you so wish. Minimize the chat tab and make sure you have no friendly/enemy player nameplates on, and you wouldn't even realize you weren't playing a single player RPG. :p
After playing the beta for a little bit, I disagree creb. Throughout my playthrough I never once felt like I was playing Kotor or an RPG, just a themepark MMO like WoW. I saw it as an MMO with a lot of cutscenes and romances, but none of it changed the fact that I never found the story compelling. Furthermore, in the end it was just going to end with raiding each week for the next set of gear. Compared to Kotor 2, Kotor 1, Planescape Torment, Fallout 1/2, New Vegas, Morrowind, etc I felt nothing from TOR.
TOR may have more cutscenes than other MMOs, but it does not make inherently a strong RPG, especially in terms of writing. Bioware has done RPG before and so I do not see why TOR seems weaker than Kotor 1. Simply put, I just do not see how this is meant to be a better option than Kotor 3. I hope my post does not sound offensive or fatalistic, because I would love to debate about TOR's RPG elements, but perhaps a C&C thread is not the best place.
That's a pre-existing contract between pre-EA Bioware and LucasArts. While it'll be a huge moneymaker for EA, they had nothing to do with its inception.
That is good to know and thank you for telling me, yet I still think Bioware is strangely coming to mirror Blizzard.
it obvious that EA try to make Bioware as it's own blizzard (AKA "Quality" Studio name)
Roger Rambo
2011-12-12, 14:32
If you meant by the combat drop with chinooks, then i am against that. Slowing down your own resource gathering , while at the same time the risking losing your chinook (1200 is not cheap) because they can't handle rockets that well, is hardly strategical. Also with some micro management you can evacuate the building before the chinook can clear the building while leaving the chinook stuck defenceless and most likely killed.
The thing that makes the combat drop make even less sense? The only infantry who can do it are Rangers....and Rangers are equipped with ranged grenades that can clear out a building efficiently from a distance. So it does come into question why, oh WHY would you ever clear out buildings via rappelling?
I think things like that with Infantry are probably why C&C needs to take at least a few ques from games like Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2. Infantry need to be given more options with regards to taking cover, ambushing, moving over difficult terrain or staying hidden to help them survive.
I'm wondering if something like that is on the developers mind. Cause I thought it was rather suspicious that the EU tanks in the trailer had fully modeled pintle mounted machine guns. Traditionally, Command and Conquer has been pretty steadfast against basic tanks being armed with anti infantry weapons (aside from running them over). If tanks now have anti infantry machine guns, that to me suggests that they're mixing up how infantry work compared to vehicles in this game.
The thing that makes the combat drop make even less sense? The only infantry who can do it are Rangers....and Rangers are equipped with ranged grenades that can clear out a building efficiently from a distance. So it does come into question why, oh WHY would you ever clear out buildings via rappelling?
Well it worked as a rushstrategy against GLA in smaller maps though. Getting flashbang early is not the thing that you want if you want to rush gla supplies and stop their armsdealer from being build at all with a small group of rockvees. Sometimes they will hide workers in the buildings ike in the middle of tournament desert map. In that rare case you might want to use the rangers and a chinook with combat drop to prevent them from building another base while you are decimating his current main base with rockvees.
SaintessHeart
2011-12-12, 18:04
The thing that makes the combat drop make even less sense? The only infantry who can do it are Rangers....and Rangers are equipped with ranged grenades that can clear out a building efficiently from a distance. So it does come into question why, oh WHY would you ever clear out buildings via rappelling?
I think things like that with Infantry are probably why C&C needs to take at least a few ques from games like Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2. Infantry need to be given more options with regards to taking cover, ambushing, moving over difficult terrain or staying hidden to help them survive.
I'm wondering if something like that is on the developers mind. Cause I thought it was rather suspicious that the EU tanks in the trailer had fully modeled pintle mounted machine guns. Traditionally, Command and Conquer has been pretty steadfast against basic tanks being armed with anti infantry weapons (aside from running them over). If tanks now have anti infantry machine guns, that to me suggests that they're mixing up how infantry work compared to vehicles in this game.
Ranger drop is used in urban and large maps to secure chokepoints whilw your missile defenders are being built in early game, where only infantry is available.
Ranger drop is used in urban and large maps to secure chokepoints whilw your missile defenders are being built in early game, where only infantry is available.
I am sure he meant the chinook ability with rangers to clear garrisoned buildings, not the actual drop strategy with a chinook to disrupt expanding and/or rushing your opponent with it.
SaintessHeart
2011-12-12, 18:13
I am sure he meant the chinook ability with rangers to clear garrisoned buildings, not the actual drop strategy with a chinook to disrupt expanding and/or rushing your opponent with it.
That is what I meant. When in early game everyone spent their cash researching capture. Ranger drop is a good way to take over your opponent's garrisoned buildings.
That is what I meant. When in early game everyone spent their cash researching capture. Ranger drop is a good way to take over your opponent's garrisoned buildings.
I don't actually remember people online playing on big maps with lot's of buildings in it thought. The most played maps that i have seen are Tournament desert (2 players map), tournament island (4 players) and the stupidly huge twilight flame map (8 players). Out of the 3 maps only desert had buildings and those buildings in the middle were more for the show, because all of them have low health and are already quite damaged. Also the map is quite small, so even GLA would beat you to it before usa can build chinooks from the supply centre. You can easily take the west or east routes and completely bypass the centre, leaving yourself open if you wasted too much money on infantry. Exception is GLA , because the tunnels they build comes with 2 free rpg troopers.
There are other maps that are played, but they only have buildings near the extra resources as a way to promote expanding instead of turtling, there were hardly any maps that have conveniently many buildings on choke points or else it would have been an unfair advantage for USA or GLA. There were always around those buildings or bunkers. Unless you count those fanmade mod maps.
edit: researching capture building is only usefull if you have acces to oil fields nearby. Because researching it is slow, it's expensive at the beginning because building 1 barrack, 1-2 rangers (for the actual capture and some defence against infantry) and a few rocket infantry (you need atleast a few because capture building took a long time to complete and you can't build something from your barracks while researching it) Also it might make you vulnerable to rush tactics with early vehicles like technical rushes from GLA and gattling tank from China or even Rockvees (humvees with missile defenders obiously) rushes that are only there to kill your chinooks.
edit: i am slightly overreacting and too passionate, but i used to play this game online very actively and local tournaments when i was younger. I somewhat exprienced the game on a serious and high competitive level.
Even knew how to abuse some minor exploits before they were patched in those plays. Like ordering your units that have some kind of splash damage ( like tank and artillery shells or rockets) to force attack ground instead of the actual target. Because the damage is done against the ground (which has no actual resistances) the splash damage from your attacks will do the full damage on anything. Meaning a nuke or scud launcher could take out a base defence in 1 shot instead of 2-3 shots.
Or the infamous scud storm bug from zero hour, when a not completely build scud storm can fire without a recharge time (it still has the 30 second delay before hitting the area like the normal superweapon though)
solidvanz
2011-12-12, 21:33
Exclusive Interview with EA_CIRE - C&C Community Manager
Link: http://www.united-forum.de/news/cnc-s5/uf-spezialpodcast-neue-infos-community-manager-ea_cire-410.html
UF: How is it, beeing on the 'other side' after years of beeing an C&C community fansite administrator?
EA_Cire told us that there are always two sides of a coin. On the one hand he now has a lot more influence and insight, on the other hand he misses the freedom of beeing a fansite admin and not having to backcheck everything with legal and marketing. He gets a very positive vibe from the developers, who are very interested in his insights as fansite admin and community member, because he knows what the fans want.
UF: What is EA_CIREs typical workday?
His role in the community is not beeing the most active guy on the boards (he reads a lot though!), but to influence the team in order to create a great game that the fans enjoy very much. One of the reasons for him beeing community manager is his insight in the community and beeing a voice for the community as part of the C&C developer team.
UF: How did EA_CIRE experience the Video Game Awards?
His VGA day started with the Origin leak (Origin released Generals 2 preorder information hours before the VGAs), tons of emails on his blackberry and of course fixing the leak. He was live at the VGAs until shortly after the trailer and then drove back to the office to make sure the forums, blogs and so on go smooth.
UF: Does Victory Games have a guy for hunting leaks and were some leaks intentional?
There is no 'leak guy' who crawls through the net checking for leaks. Some information was posted in hope of it beeing discovered, but the way it went down was not intentionally. For example generals2.com linking to the product site was a mistake and therefore fixed asap. In general leaks mean panic, frantic phone calls and the person responsible beeing terribly sorry.
UF: Was the map shown in the teaser specifically made for the VGAs or is there already a playable version of the game?
EA_CIRE replied that they do have more, but of course that teaser was made for the VGAs. They will release more content in the form of screenshots and videos in the next months.
UF: Since the information for the game has been released, alot of players are worried about the 'downloadable content', especially about the factions and units part.
EA_CIRE pointed out that the game is designed to be highly attractive over a long time and that there will be more content coming after time. But balance is a central point for the team and they will focus on avoiding imbalances. One thing they are looking at are the DotA-clones with their ingame stores as good DLC examples. And not everything will have to be payed for, lots of additional content will be free.
UF: Follow up question. So factions and units will be free?
The game will be released in 2013, EA_CIRE pointed out. There's a lot of time left to make and refine those decisions, not much is final about the system right now. He again states clearly that the game beeing balanced is very important for the team. He also mentioned that feedback is highly important and that the team follows the statement 'hey, don't make it overpowered'.
UF: Will the EU-Faction be the European Union or some kind of 'Eurasian Unity League', as depicted in the Zero Hour storyline?
EA_CIRE said we should take a close look at the tank, especially the sign on the track. It would be very similar to a symbol in real life, either an organization or a confederation. (EU probably means European Union then)
UF: In an interview it has been mentioned that Victory Games joned Bioware this summer, what was the reaction of the dev-team to this?
EA_CIRE states that a lot of higher ups at EA have C&C in their heart right now. Bioware is known for quality and the team is very exited and happy to utilize the experience and quality management BioWare has (in terms of the game has to have a certain standard to be good enough for the fans). Generals 2, he thinks, will be one of the best Command & Conquer games, quality wise, which have been released over the last years.
UF: Will the cutscenes feature real persons again or will they be rendered in ingame graphics?
Frostbite 2 is capable of high-def cinematics, EA_CIRE said, but he knows the community wants real actors. Both are viable options, they haven't made a final decision in that regard. Time will tell.
UF: Does BioWare Victory have plans to release tools for mapping and modding? Or do they share the DICE notion, that Frostbite 2 is too complex for modding?
There is much time left until 2013, so the final decision has not been made yet. EA_CIRE knows how important it is for the community to get proper mapping and modding tools and strongly makes their case in the development team. There is still hope for all those mappers and modders out there.
UF: Will there be a ladder kit?
Presumably not, considering none has been announced yet EA_CIRE states...
UF: What did EA think off the speculations and the mood before the announcement was made?
EA_CIRE said that the site "United Forum" won some fans in the dev-team for promoting the Generals 2 rumour, despite heavy critisism. Some developers felt sorry for them. Apart from that it was really interesting for them to follow all the speculations and they were amused by some of the rumours, for example those regarding "Alliances". They also were impressed how deep some fans digged into the website code for hints.
UF: What is going on with "Alliances"?
According to EA_CIRE those are just internet domains, nothing to make a fuss about.
UF: Why is Generals 2 already announced, although it is going to be released not earlier than 2013?
EA_CIRE joined the studio very early in the development process, at a time a community manager normally is not yet needed. But BioWare Victory wants the community to take part in the development process of the game as early as possible. The feedback of the community is going to reach the devlopers early on so that the game will be shaped in the right way. EA_CIRE thinks that Blizzard already prooved this concept to be working really good.
UF: Can we expect BioWare Victory to redesign the units multiple times considering the community feedback, for example the controversial EU 'orca'?
Probably not multiple times, but according to EA_CIRE they definitely try to implement the wishes of the fans. He stresses that the helicopter shall not be regarded as GDI orca!
UF: How does the C&C Community Manager spend christmas?
EA_CIRE will stay in the US to relax and celebrate at the beach, perhaps he is also going to visit San Francisco together with an old friend from Germany.
UF: A final message from EA_CIRE to the community?
EA_CIRE: "Rejoice for an kick-ass C&C game!"
Really like how EA are saying, going back to there roots, General style.
Especially excited for the E-sport part for this game. If it actually makes it into the scene, will be amazing. Could be a really awesome game on multiplayer side, more variation of games in E-sports is brilliant imo :).
On the other hand expecting too much from EA could be the downfall to this game....
Strigon 13
2011-12-15, 12:38
I saw the news about this yesterday... the only thing I have to say is, EA couldn't possibly kill the only C&C timeline that's left unchanged.
Although I'm a little afraid how many things can go terribly wrong with the "going back to the roots" thing, but is a little refreshing knowing that at least they listen to their fans after the fiasco that was Tiberium Twilight.
Also, free additional content is always welcome.
LoweGear
2012-04-03, 01:05
Short PV clip leak:
rDNbSTzC32A
Now we know where that initial teaser image came from...
aeriolewinters
2012-04-04, 04:07
the GLA seem to be horribly underpowered.
the GLA seem to be horribly underpowered.
their strength usually in number and guerrilla.
MeoTwister5
2012-04-04, 05:43
Comparatively, I always thought they were horribly overpowered in the original.
Roger Rambo
2012-04-04, 05:48
the GLA seem to be horribly underpowered.
That's only how it looks.
In the original game if you knew how to micro them, they were ludicriously dangerious.
SaintessHeart
2012-04-04, 06:15
That's only how it looks.
In the original game if you knew how to micro them, they were ludicriously dangerious.
That is if you don't play as fast-striking US type. MD's in Humvees can take out ANYTHING in a GLA base in the first 5 minutes.
I hate the f***ing GLA. I was playing as the Americans against one dude who was the stealth general and it took me literally forever to find all his structures, let alone units. I had masses of tanks and aircraft patrolling everywhere by the end though, and and had given up on Rangers in favor of Pathfinders, which worked pretty well.
Cosmic Eagle
2012-04-23, 09:10
Vs Kassad, Pathfinders are the infantry of choice.
Vs Kassad, Pathfinders are the infantry of choice.
Yeah, I tend to think of them as special forces who are adept at finding and engaging rebels.
LoweGear
2012-08-15, 08:19
EA Makes Command & Conquer: Generals 2 Free (http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/15/ea-makes-command-conquer-generals-2-free)
"And drops the single-player portion and changes the title, establishing Command & Conquer as a free-to-play platform."
My reaction.
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa299/spec_operations/Macros/pleasestandby.jpg
People who know me know that I am very patient with the trend of gaming today, mostly indifferent, and at times supportive of change. THIS however is not one of those changes that I am indifferent about nor can accept. Frak. Given the interview about Generals 2's story last year, I was so looking forward to having a good SP RTS campaign to play through.
How would an F2P RTS work anyhow?
(At least I now understand the feeling of those who were waiting for the Mechwarrior reboot. Do note that my displeasure in this case is in the removal of the SP, rather than the move to F2P).
It's not C&C without a cheesy single player campaign. The fuck are they doing?
aeriolewinters
2012-08-15, 08:29
EA Makes Command & Conquer: Generals 2 Free (http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/15/ea-makes-command-conquer-generals-2-free)
"And drops the single-player portion and changes the title, establishing Command & Conquer as a free-to-play platform."
My reaction.
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa299/spec_operations/Macros/pleasestandby.jpg
People who know me know that I am very patient with the trend of gaming today, mostly indifferent, and at times supportive of change. THIS however is not one of those changes that I am indifferent about nor can accept. Frak. Given the interview about Generals 2's story last year, I was so looking forward to having a good SP RTS campaign to play through.
How would an F2P RTS work anyhow?
(At least I now understand the feeling of those who were waiting for the Mechwarrior reboot. Do note that my displeasure in this case is in the removal of the SP, rather than the move to F2P).
That's it, Is there an HD texture mod for Generals ZH?
Vallen Chaos Valiant
2012-08-15, 08:30
It's not C&C without a cheesy single player campaign. The fuck are they doing?
Yep, I KNEW they were going to screw it up somehow. The entire franchise died with C&C4 and short of EA going bankrupt and the rights sold to someone else, there is no way to bring it back.
This is like being told that your dead best friend is still alive, only to find out he returned as a rotting zombie with no head.
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!! :T_T: i dont see appeal of online only RTS.
AOE, New Ex-Westwood game. now this. i dont understand :T_T:
Cosmic Eagle
2012-08-15, 08:45
EA Makes Command & Conquer: Generals 2 Free (http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/15/ea-makes-command-conquer-generals-2-free)
"And drops the single-player portion and changes the title, establishing Command & Conquer as a free-to-play platform."
My reaction.
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa299/spec_operations/Macros/pleasestandby.jpg
People who know me know that I am very patient with the trend of gaming today, mostly indifferent, and at times supportive of change. THIS however is not one of those changes that I am indifferent about nor can accept. Frak. Given the interview about Generals 2's story last year, I was so looking forward to having a good SP RTS campaign to play through.
How would an F2P RTS work anyhow?
(At least I now understand the feeling of those who were waiting for the Mechwarrior reboot. Do note that my displeasure in this case is in the removal of the SP, rather than the move to F2P).
WHAT.THE.FUCK
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Damn you EA
Vallen Chaos Valiant
2012-08-15, 08:49
So EA has killed Mass Effect, C&C, AND Generals.
Now we are just waiting for them to kill Red Alert as well.
Cosmic Eagle
2012-08-15, 08:51
So EA has killed Mass Effect, C&C, AND Generals.
Now we are just waiting for them to kill Red Alert as well.
They have...more or less
It's called RA3....
Vallen Chaos Valiant
2012-08-15, 08:54
They have...more or less
It's called RA3....
RA3 is campy. But at least it is still recognisable as a RA game. EA kill games by just turning them into something else entirely.
Face it, you would rather Generals 2 to resemble Red Alert 3 than what it is becoming right now.
Cosmic Eagle
2012-08-15, 08:58
True...
Next thing we know, there will be a new announcement saying they are going to merge the MMORPG concept with RTS for this....
KBTKaiser
2012-08-15, 09:00
Too bad Petroglyph kinda beat them to the punch with that one. Granted, Petroglyph IS composed of WESTWOOD veterans as well as some of the EA LA vets.
They have...more or less
It's called RA3....
RA3 was fine. sure is not as strategic as RA2. but it still fun game and have C&C campy experienced (and fun mod :D)
to be honest i expected to learn mess from C&C4 since it bombed badly. but never expected from them to go much worse!
not to mention they already have F2P C&C. i dint expect them to go this way
aeriolewinters
2012-08-15, 09:09
It's bad for me because C&C was one of the games that I grew up with. I was pumped upon hearing about Generals 2, but this happens... I don't know what to say.
MakubeX2
2012-08-15, 10:20
Lookie here. I told people to keep their expectations low for this title and I do not know how many people heed my warnings but it seems I have a vindication of sort now.
About this move to make C&C and online only game, I can see EA's reasonings if we look the CoDs and SC. People buy the game for the online multiplayer, they do not care about the campaign, some don't even touch it. So why bother ? Just do away with the single player and save the budget for something else and widen the profit.
What really interest me is that they are making this free. EA had never done something for nothing before and they never will. So how are they going to get their returns ? I think it will be along the line for paying real money so one has the rights to access higher level of techs or a new faction.
Vallen Chaos Valiant
2012-08-15, 10:34
Lookie here. I told people to keep their expectations low for this title and I do not know how many people heed my warnings but it seems I have a vindication of sort now.
About this move to make C&C and online only game, I can see EA's reasonings if we look the CoDs and SC. People buy the game for the online multiplayer, they do not care about the campaign, some don't even touch it. So why bother ? Just do away with the single player and save the budget for something else and widen the profit.
What really interest me is that they are making this free. EA had never done something for nothing before and they never will. So how are they going to get their returns ? I think it will be along the line for paying real money so one has the rights to access higher level of techs or a new faction.
See, C&C and RA are famous for single player. On the other hand the multi-player never worked out properly, that's why it doesn't have a large pro gaming scene. C&C is NOT Starcraft.
So what EA is doing is to kill the most distinct part of the franchise that separates it from the competitors, and promote the weakest aspect of it...
I do not know anyone who bought RA3 or Generals just for multi-player.
Rising Dragon
2012-08-15, 10:35
EA ruining another franchise? Can't say I'm terribly surprised.
Vallen Chaos Valiant
2012-08-15, 10:42
EA ruining another franchise? Can't say I'm terribly surprised.
It just looks like EA wants to make online only micro transaction social games. So they are grabbing random game properties they own and jam them into the slots to meet a quota.
This is worse than just ruining franchises; they are murdering them in ways that are pointless. Games that could have sustained entire companies by themselves are being ground down into minced meat, to be turned into dog food. It's just SAD.
So EA has killed Mass Effect, C&C, AND Generals.
Now we are just waiting for them to kill Red Alert as well.RA3 was sucky enough; lets not beat a dead horse. Yeah maybe as an extremely generic cookiecutter RTS RA3 was okeyish, but looking at the reaction of my friends who were really big fans of RA2, I'd say it was a big failure.
IMO, RA3 and C&C4 (along with things like Dungeon Siege 3) are the "anti-fanservice" games; just riding the hype of previous titles and fucking everything up. You'd think companies would know better.
SoldierOfDarkness
2012-08-15, 11:33
You know a lot of people say change is good....but when it comes to changing your identity it's just....I don't know but stupid.
I hope this game fails miserably or the hate is so great that EA backs out.
Also one more thing that nobody seems to mention but really irked me in the trailer.
Where's the BIG ASS BASE? From what I saw, there's some neutral structures, a lot of units and 1 (ONE) base looking structure. Please don't tell me it's C&C4 all over again.
I understand having purely unit based RTS is like this multiplayer wet dream or something but I want my giant ass base!
I'm pretty neutral about this, since the C&C series kinda ended for me when Westwood ended. It holds a lot of nostalgia for me as the original C&C was what formally introduced me to PC-Gaming. While the majority of my school were playing Warcraft-II, I was playing C&C.
That said, it just bugs me why they even bother to label it as C&C, if they are not going to utilise what made C&C, C&C. It looks like it might be a fun game, but they're are just generating ill-will by twisting the knife.
"Hey C&C fans! Remember that game? Check this out."
*applies salt*
Call it "Tank Spam: The Game" or whatever, but please stop with the corpse-humping. You are only making it easier for me to dismiss this product and motivating me to discourage sales by word-of-mouth.
If you're not going to make a C&C game, don't call it C&C.
Cheers.
RA1 was dated but fun. RA2 was a bit too silly for my taste but was still really fun. Generals and ZH were fun and have some good mods.
RA3 looks like it took all the overly cartoony parts of RA2 and tripled it...ugh. This new generals thing looks like some generic sci-fi BS. It'll probably be UN vs terrorists, like that isn't done to death already.
RA1 was dated but fun. RA2 was a bit too silly for my taste but was still really fun. Generals and ZH were fun and have some good mods.
RA3 looks like it took all the overly cartoony parts of RA2 and tripled it...ugh. This new generals thing looks like some generic sci-fi BS. It'll probably be UN vs terrorists, like that isn't done to death already.
You never played the original or tiberian sun + firestorm? Those were my favorite C&C games.
Yes go play the Tiberium Sun series. It still looks decent even now, though the high resolution you have to play it to get sharp graphics kind of spoils the atmosphere.
Newprimus
2012-08-15, 15:34
Free to play? How is that going to work? Are they going to make it so that to unlock certain units in certain factions you have to pay for them? Sounds pretty sketchy to me.
I was looking forward to this game after Company of Heroes 2, but it may be that I might just stick with CoH 2.
freshoutofthepan
2012-08-15, 23:12
What happened to the AI generals spouting nonsense as you annihilate their units in ZH challenge mode. Only in Single Player man, that was the main pull factor for me. I'm going back relic from now on.
What happened to the AI generals spouting nonsense as you annihilate their units in ZH challenge mode. Only in Single Player man, that was the main pull factor for me. I'm going back relic from now on.
Looking forward to CoH2 too? :heh:
Natch.
You never played the original or tiberian sun + firestorm? Those were my favorite C&C games.
Hm, perhaps I ought to check them out.
Hm, perhaps I ought to check them out.
Pretty sure they are freeware now too.
Pretty sure they are freeware now too.
Just started playing Tiberium Sun. It feels like RA2 except the factions are practically the same (why is it that both sides get Obelisks and Missile Silos?) and feel the same, and that the overall quality of the game is not as good. The campaign should be fun if not only for the cutscenes.
Tiberium Sun came before RA2, so that's somewhat to be expected.
The tiberium series differs more in theme then gimmicks.
Just started playing Tiberium Sun. It feels like RA2 except the factions are practically the same (why is it that both sides get Obelisks and Missile Silos?) and feel the same, and that the overall quality of the game is not as good. The campaign should be fun if not only for the cutscenes.
Missile Silos yes, obelisks no. GDI has different base defenses than Nod. Also I can't understand saying the two factions are the same. GDI and Nod differ greatly on playstyle.
Memory is fuzzy, but missile silos for GDI in Tiberium Sun? Aren't their "End-Tech" weapons the Ion Cannon and Pod-drop Troopers? With Firewalls as their "Ultimate Defense". NOD has Normal Missiles, Chem-Missiles, and... Obelisks of Light as their ultimate defense.
GDI base defenses were modular turrets, which could either be machine gun, sam missiles and rpg-launchers. NOD base defenses were laser turrets and tick tanks.
Both sides have hunter-seeker missiles.
The playstyle is extremely different. I haven't even touched on units yet.
Cheers.
Memory is fuzzy, but missile silos for GDI in Tiberium Sun? Aren't their "End-Tech" weapons the Ion Cannon and Pod-drop Troopers? With Firewalls as their "Ultimate Defense". NOD has Normal Missiles, Chem-Missiles, and... Obelisks of Light as their ultimate defense.
GDI base defenses were modular turrets, which could either be machine gun, sam missiles and rpg-launchers. NOD base defenses were laser turrets and tick tanks.
Both sides have hunter-seeker missiles.
The playstyle is extremely different. I haven't even touched on units yet.
Cheers.
Oh right, for some reason I was thinking both sides had missiles but nod also had chem missiles. You left out artillery for Nod defense too. Well Firestorm expansion makes them weaker at that but in Tiberium Sun they were ridiculous.
Oh whoops...for some reason I thought my Skirmish opponent was GDI. They were NOD...
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/09/10/command-conquer-will-have-a-single-player-campaign/
So now it will have a single-player campaign, huh.
Vallen Chaos Valiant
2012-09-11, 03:22
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/09/10/command-conquer-will-have-a-single-player-campaign/
So now it will have a single-player campaign, huh.
The way things go, it sounds like a last minute addition.
This means we can forget about a proper storyline. F2P means they probably won't even hire real actors. I mean, "Trying to make a triple A game"? How about just making a proper C&C game instead?
It's about as comforting as hearing Michael Bay saying he is going to make a triple A movie. Seriously, the very fact that they had to claim they are trying to make a good game, is proof that they are not. "We are making something that isn't crap! Trust us!"
Cosmic Eagle
2012-09-11, 03:59
I think it's quite clear any hopes for this can be safely buried....
At least RA3 Uprising was enjoyable despite the flaws. This lacks any story to turn things around.
Sounds more like an attempt to throw in high end graphics in the hope of making something passable
The story in the original generals was weak though O_O'
Much weaker than the tiberium or the red alerts series.
Vallen Chaos Valiant
2012-09-11, 04:24
I think it's quite clear any hopes for this can be safely buried....
At least RA3 Uprising was enjoyable despite the flaws. This lacks any story to turn things around.
Sounds more like an attempt to throw in high end graphics in the hope of making something passable
It's sad that the company only panics once they lost preorders from telling us something they knew a long time ago, and is too late to change.
Because of their misguided belief that F2P by its nature can't be pirated, they think they could somehow get double or triple profits. Then they wondered why the customer base just abandoned them outright.
But just like the fall of Square Enix, I fear this isn't the matter of a bad decision; this is a matter of a fundamental collapse of the game company. The company is no longer able to make good games, and as such they can't "fix" what's broken. They don't know how.
"They want single player campaign? We will just add it in last second... How hard can it be?"
Cosmic Eagle
2012-09-11, 05:08
The story in the original generals was weak though O_O'
Much weaker than the tiberium or the red alerts series.
But you had a sense of progressing events, something to immerse yourself in even if it's not as fleshed out as RA or Tiberium series. And the Generals' Challenge in Zero Hour also added to the storyline
This one sounds just like "here's a map and units....go fight"
"They want single player campaign? We will just add it in last second... How hard can it be?"
Which is quite stupid considering that they are forgetting how much effort went into making single player games years upon years since electronic gaming began...
But just like the fall of Square Enix, I fear this isn't the matter of a bad decision
Now now, at least Gangan Comics produces good manga....so Square Enix isn't totally useless. Unlike EA....
MakubeX2
2012-09-11, 05:21
It's sad that the company only panics once they lost preorders from telling us something they knew a long time ago, and is too late to change.
Because of their misguided belief that F2P by its nature can't be pirated, they think they could somehow get double or triple profits. Then they wondered why the customer base just abandoned them outright.
What is there to talk about preorders and profits when F2P means all copies of the game will be given out at no charge ? People are suckers for free stuffs, so there will be a huge ready player base no matter how bad the final game is.
Vallen Chaos Valiant
2012-09-11, 06:03
What is there to talk about preorders and profits when F2P means all copies of the game will be given out at no charge ? People are suckers for free stuffs, so there will be a huge ready player base no matter how bad the final game is.
See, what's the point of using the C&C name if the original customer base is abandoned? If that's the case then there is no point using that name.
See, the attempt to haphazardly reinstall single player campaigns is because they didn't think they would lose the original customers and panicked; they really thought that they could butcher the game and still keep the original crowd.
And as for free games... They are really "Allegedly Free Games".
But you had a sense of progressing events, something to immerse yourself in even if it's not as fleshed out as RA or Tiberium series. And the Generals' Challenge in Zero Hour also added to the storyline
This one sounds just like "here's a map and units....go fight"
The story of the original generals game was in my opinion too bland to get yourself immersed to.
Also for me the single player mode was not the most important thing in generals, because generals had a very strong, polished and competitve multiplayer mode. Aside from the occasional gamebreaking bugs (tunnel bugs and increased damage on the ground bug in generals or thr scud storm bug in zero hour) i felt that it was the strongest multiplayer RTS at that time.
MakubeX2
2012-09-11, 09:32
See, what's the point of using the C&C name if the original customer base is abandoned? If that's the case then there is no point using that name.
The potent combination of the reputation of C&C and F2P will ensure that people, out of ignorance or not, will help themselves to a copy, especially when they are guranteed not to even loose a cent even if the game stinks.
See, the attempt to haphazardly reinstall single player campaigns is because they didn't think they would lose the original customers and panicked; they really thought that they could butcher the game and still keep the original crowd.
I'll give you that much.
And as for free games... They are really "Allegedly Free Games".
You may have noticed that one of my previous post in this thread states my awareness about "EA had never done something for nothing before and they never will." But at least it's reassuring that we do not have to pay EA any dues for this title.
Flying Dagger
2012-09-11, 15:51
Not sure why the hate on RA3, I played it for a while (SP only) and found it to be quite hilarious.
I don't think people should take the game too seriously. Even as a rather competitive gamer I played the game just for the fun and jokes. The Soviet mission where you start out with a ton of funds only to have the general take them away for "communism" was quite memorable. The level of seriousness really goes down when you see giant robot mechs and physic schoolgirls...
The end of the main franchise (Tiberian Twilight) is much more disappointing though. They tried to make the game into an esports but the whole studio was pretty much told they would be laid off after the project is "finished" (I expect decent strats and combat in a esport worthy title). The plot feels rather watered down (I believe that is because of EA's decision to close the studio), happened in the wrong time (I expected it to be when humanity is close to extinction with tiberium everywhere), and failed to tie up a lot of loose ends (scrins? And while they explained Kane's origins, what exact is he?).
The best parts of the whole C&C franchise for me would be running over infantry with vehicles. The IFV convertibles house a great idea in my eyes.
The end of the main franchise (Tiberian Twilight) is much more disappointing though.I kind of stick RA3 and Twilight in the same boat. Lot of "what you think you want" (stupid looking robots, fanservice, "tactical" shit), too little things we actually want: cool units, atmosphere, cool bases, memorable silly story, lots and lots and lots of units, simple mechanics with depth, cool resource gathering, etc.
I would want to say wetwood would have done it better, but sadly from what I can tell they ditched everything I liked about the series too, and just made "Twilight, the MMO".
tootbrush
2012-09-15, 09:17
The end of the main franchise (Tiberian Twilight) is much more disappointing though. They tried to make the game into an esports but the whole studio was pretty much told they would be laid off after the project is "finished" (I expect decent strats and combat in a esport worthy title). The plot feels rather watered down (I believe that is because of EA's decision to close the studio), happened in the wrong time (I expected it to be when humanity is close to extinction with tiberium everywhere), and failed to tie up a lot of loose ends (scrins? And while they explained Kane's origins, what exact is he?).
The actual story behind T_T is that initially it was a F2P game directed at the Asian market, called C&C Arena. Then some higher-up got the brilliant idea to turn it into C&C4.
It seems the reverse happened with Generals 2. :P
I would want to say wetwood would have done it better, but sadly from what I can tell they ditched everything I liked about the series too, and just made "Twilight, the MMO".
Not sure how EoN is in anyway similar to C&C4 other than there being no base-building.
Not sure how EoN is in anyway similar to C&C4 other than there being no base-building.The question should be how is it different; other then "it's a different story, and art".
And I like my goddamn base building. =P
The question should be how is it different; other then "it's a different story, and art".
And I like my goddamn base building. =P
EoN is closer to DoW2 mixed with some DotA elements than C&C4. Especially in some Base VS Base maps where there are actual AI "creeps" that come out of your base and attack your enemy.
LZInIFbSoNw
Okey so about this whole free to play model. I'm afraid it sounds a lot like the AoE Online model. And having played (or tried to) AoEO recently, I can safely say it's garbage (and I am one of those people that actually likes free to play in general). Some of the problems I encountered in AoEO: screwed up skirmish mode (by "buy power" boosters you can't even opt out of if you pay), screwed up shoddy multiplayer because (a) goddamn leveling systems are not good in RTSes! and (b) you can't practice shit. Why you can't practice? because the only sensible mode is the so called "champions" mode where "booster" nonsense is off, but they want to nickle and dime you so everywhere else in the game is on and you have no means of turning it off. Literally your only way to improve is to get beat on. To give you an idea of how terrible this is, after losing my first match and winning my second match I was 1000 on the ladder which doesn't seem to reset... what? how is it even possible to turn of so many people to have stats that bad.
The whole booster and "leveling goodies" are also horrible and ruin the game. "Hey come by buy factions." ....... "Congratulations on buying the Norse, enjoy! ps. we've automatically leveled you to 20, so you can enjoy the leveling experience" ..... "Oh yeah forgot to tell you, all you can do with the awesome norse is grind these 5 boring repeatable quests." No I'm not jocking these are 5 quests that COMBINED are less sophisticated then 1 tutorial mission of AoE2! Greatest service ever...
I really hope C&C:G isn't going to be that, but who am I kidding,
it's f-ing EA
they pretty much described the inglorious AoEO system in the interview
they have poor to nonexistent single player
some of their wording would suggest there are p2w elements in the multiplayer (ie. boosters, XP gaps, etc). "Oh nono it's fair, see if you spend 1000h getting beat up by people who pay and buy boosters you'll end up on equal footing. Fair right? The future of 'competitive' play."
Firefly00
2013-05-08, 12:10
And IGN has the first dev diary available (http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/05/08/command-and-conquer-dev-diary-beyond-the-battle-part-1) for viewing.
Don't really care for most of it... but this part: "Wash the stain of C&C4 away" fuck yeah.
SoldierOfDarkness
2013-05-08, 15:17
Meh could be good or bad.
Can someone explain to me why EA is so dead hard on these Free to play and microtransactions?
I mean you'd think with their track record and such that someone in the company would go, "Uh boss, we've been doing nothing but taking hits and being in the red on all sides shouldn't we try something else?"
A business is suppose to create money and if a strategy isn't working out usually the directors will do something to change it yet they still keep on going down that path.
You'd also think that with all these microtransactions they'd get a decent enough experience to know how to make it better for consumers but noooo they still can't get it right.
In one of their "for business, we are stupid and forget this is going to get out to the general public" they're obsessed with android/iphone games and have this idea success on those platforms will reach to the PC/whatever market, as I recall they were all excited about nikle and diming us with microtransactions. Expect buying power...
SoldierOfDarkness
2013-05-08, 18:08
Then they have a really pathetic board of directors and investors or a really good liason that tells them to keep investing because so far they're not getting anywhere mind boggling with the microtransactions.
Roger Rambo
2013-05-08, 18:35
Don't really care for most of it... but this part: "Wash the stain of C&C4 away" fuck yeah.
Very rarely does a game from a big franchise get released with that kind of universal negative feedback.
Very rarely does a game from a big franchise get released with that kind of universal negative feedback.The sad part is that Tiberium Wars / Kain's Wrath was a really really good game, and now all the good it did is pretty much eclipsed by how sucky C&C4 was.
Very rarely is there a case where a game in a series just needs to be erased from existance, but damn don't think anyone would actually care if we just pretended like that one never existed.
Tiresias
2013-05-14, 05:05
Will this game actually have offline skirmish? As in, I can play against AI's without connecting to the net? Cuz with my crappy connection, online games are just impossible for me, free to play or not. :(
Vallen Chaos Valiant
2013-05-14, 05:10
Will this game actually have offline skirmish? As in, I can play against AI's without connecting to the net? Cuz with my crappy connection, online games are just impossible for me, free to play or not. :(
F2P probably can't play offline. Why? Because if you can play offline, you can mod the game. And if you can mod the game, you don't NEED to pay for anything with real money.
Micro transaction and F2P = online only.
Tiresias
2013-05-14, 05:14
Excuse me while I cry in the corner.
Guess it's time to learn the advanced parts of Generals modding...
F2P probably can't play offline. Why? Because if you can play offline, you can mod the game. And if you can mod the game, you don't NEED to pay for anything with real money.
Micro transaction and F2P = online only.
Not for those who already got CnC Collection, will get it for free if someone got CnC Collection. (17 CnC games before CnC Generals 2 Released)
ArchmageXin
2013-08-16, 20:56
The sad part is that Tiberium Wars / Kain's Wrath was a really really good game, and now all the good it did is pretty much eclipsed by how sucky C&C4 was.
Very rarely is there a case where a game in a series just needs to be erased from existance, but damn don't think anyone would actually care if we just pretended like that one never existed.
Problem with TB3 is that it never reached the sales of say...Starcraft or even Warcraft III. It never had international tournies (other than a few fizzled ones). Most people just play it for the single player, and watch the movies. In term of $$$s, it was not a blockbuster than its blizzard counterpart.
TB4 was designed to be a game changer....but the studio probably ran out of monies and...well...sucks. (I suspect a major reason is because EA spent a whole ton of money hiring movie stars and swimsuit models when they should be busy designing an real game)
KBTKaiser
2013-08-16, 21:00
However, it just isn't a Tiberium Game without Kane.
ArchmageXin
2013-08-17, 13:58
However, it just isn't a Tiberium Game without Kane.
I didn't mind Kane, but it was just weird how Red Alert II and C&C 3 had so many actors from Hollywood when some random actress could had served. The old school C&C had only 2-3 actors a side, but C&C3 had to get a whole bunch of sci-fi stars, some are redundant from each other.
And then C&C4 they hire some crap actress to be your wife. W-T-F was that?
And... its been canned, along with everyone in the studio getting fired.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/29/ea-cancels-command-conquer-victory-studios-closed
After watching a few streams of it, sadly its for the most part just another "lets dumb down RTS" attempt. Yeah, wake up game industry, RTS are the LAST genre that would ever work on! The hell do you think RTS fans play it for.
With this, EA's gonna be the whipping boy again.
Vallen Chaos Valiant
2013-10-31, 03:24
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
2013-10-31, 08:36
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)...
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
2013-11-01, 11:28
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
2013-11-01, 12:43
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.
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
2013-11-02, 09:39
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
2013-11-02, 10:23
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.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.