2011-12-11, 11:01 | Link #42 | ||
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
Quote:
Quote:
eg. "Make your super improtant choice:"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.
__________________
|
||
2011-12-11, 11:05 | Link #43 | ||
Adeptus Animus
Author
Join Date: Jan 2007
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2011-12-11, 11:10 | Link #44 |
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
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.
__________________
|
2011-12-11, 11:26 | Link #45 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2011-12-11, 12:14 | Link #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
|
Quote:
- 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. Last edited by Nixl; 2011-12-11 at 12:35. |
|
2011-12-11, 13:20 | Link #50 | ||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Quote:
On another note, the way the fourth Allied mission (Gibraltar) is designed allows you to pretty much break it if you're smart... Spoiler for Explanation:
__________________
|
||
2011-12-11, 13:39 | Link #51 | |
Hiding Under Your Bed
Join Date: May 2008
|
Quote:
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. 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. 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.
__________________
Last edited by creb; 2011-12-11 at 13:53. |
|
2011-12-11, 13:50 | Link #52 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
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). Quote:
|
||
2011-12-11, 14:02 | Link #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
|
Quote:
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 is good to know and thank you for telling me, yet I still think Bioware is strangely coming to mirror Blizzard. |
|
2011-12-12, 14:32 | Link #55 | |
Sensei, aishite imasu
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2011-12-12, 15:20 | Link #56 | |
reading #hikaributts
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
2011-12-12, 18:04 | Link #57 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-12-12, 18:19 | Link #60 | |
reading #hikaributts
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
Quote:
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) Last edited by hyl; 2011-12-12 at 18:57. |
|
|
|