Fallout Studios Forums

i wasn't comparing anything, i was solely adressing the people that keep mentioning RA3 as a negative thing while the game on itself works in that crazy way.

if RA3 was made & published by some obscure unknown company, im sure no one would complain...

Quote

Cretinism is often confused with creativity. When was the last time that you saw anything closely resembling an armored battle bear in a real war? Adding something like this to a modern conflict game isn't a creative solution, it's the smartass solution of offering what was literally asked for, but not what was wanted.

Yes, we obviously want a game with creative new weapons that in 50 years time will be developed and used just so life can imitate art.

Was that supposed to be sarcasm?

A little bit of pessimism, cynicism, sarcasm and downright outrage at the idea of people making guns from a game. Though I do actively encourage computer games for their cathartic effects.

Don't worry not aimed at anyone in particular.

the factions to be something like an Euro-American alliance where the subfactions can be USA, Britain, and Germany. A Russian-Asia Alliance with Russia,china and maybe japan? and the GLA like faction would be a terror group on the middle east, Africa and maybe something from eastern Europe?, and all have VASTLY different play styles and units.
also,CGI cutscenes, Leave live action for Tiberium and Red alert.

1. Longer campaign (RA2 length would be the best)
2. Ability to disable SW in campaign
3. Co-op
4. Good netcoding
5. Moddability
6. LOTS of units (I just loves RA2's sidebar)
7. PS3 Version
8. Less bugs
9. More AF emphasis
10. Navy, if it could be fitted into the theme

And that's about it for now.




Edited by Admiral FCS, 18 April 2009 - 05:12.

At one hand, I would suggest to turn the continental plates upside down and get some new world with some original factions. I can't think of much new anymore.

On the other hand just continue with USA, China and GLA, but make the conflict more international, with Europe also involved, just like India & Japan. A better story can be crafted.

1. Larger sized maps. Think Supreme Commander size.
2. A proper Naval, aerial and land system, again like Sup Comm.
3. An Emphasis on co-op gameplay.
4. A more sophisticated engine which removes the annoyances of crappy path finding, upgrade limits etc.
5. Some original factions. Masses of sub gens aren't important as long as the overall idea of the faction is different. I think something in between Zh and RA2 would work. Each team would have a few new units and maybe a couple of unique buildings but would still retain lots from the Vanilla faction. They are still unique therefore but you still keep some of their Vanilla roots.
6. Good music
7. I don't want it to take itself to seriously. I wouldn't mind some of the more crazy idea like Giant squids or Epic units as long as they are done well. At the end of the day, we buy and play the game to have fun.
8. A good online system.

Mike
Edited by Mbob61, 18 April 2009 - 11:49.

I think Naval should be kept to Red Alert, support ships would be nice however.

And for number 8 EA said they'll be using inhouse servers instead of Gamespy for their future games but apart from that Generals and ZH LAN is both better than RA3 and C&C3.

^Agreed, I wouldn't mind some smaller ships or support ships (i.e. carriers, stealth detectors, minor anti air ships).

TBH, I prefer that EA kept most of the gameplay the same. Main focuses on land/air without naval, small-medium sized maps for all game types (though there are some big maps, EA's best maps are their small-mid sized ones). Nothing too far out there, Shockwave is about the furthest that I'd take it, after that I think it'd be unfitting.

Admiral FCS, on 18 Apr 2009, 6:11, said:

This, only also as an option for skirmish/lan/online
Edited by Dutchygamer, 18 April 2009 - 14:10.

Some good points , expanding the conflict would also be nice, bring europe and russia into the mix

I think generals 2 must be moddable without sdk. Like just with simple INI files (or other text file format), and no needs to be compiled (like cnc3/ra3). debugs handled with the WB.

Dozers! To the ones who insist on ConYards in Gens 2, you can go and play the "proper" C&C games.

I also want realistic, powerful units, along with realistic, loud, effects. The weak and quiet sound effects from RA3 do not belong in Generals, we want explosions akin to the one in the first Generals. GIANT, MASSIVE, BOOMING, DESTRUCTIVE! SHIT FLYING EVERYWHERE!

agrees construction units are a must in generals conyards are good but generals functions on a different play style

actual aircraft not sudo hover aircraft that ra 3 or c&c 3 uses is a must

china needs to start off as world power while usa becomes more well internalized but in order to get usa too fight something happens in usa terror attack etc some thing like gla staged attack and made it look like china thus the new war begins.

usa - high tech
china - brute might and massive forces
gla - underhanded terror tactics tunnels need to return in some form possible even improved mechanics ?

and add generals from the start.

navel warfare!!

realistic but not so realistic that ever thing is too serious its not a real life sim

return of the non simplistic resource system of generals not the too simple RA3 version.

overlord must return!!

Two new armies with the most single-player kept.
And that is not the same system RA3.
And free expansions. And more content in patchs. Extras contents.

Soldier Gruber - Air Force, on 25 Apr 2009, 11:26, said:

What does this mean? Keep the campaign? That's not really a good idea as the SP right now is more like a training device for multiplayer, to let you know the units.

Soldier Gruber - Air Force, on 25 Apr 2009, 11:26, said:

Yea, I don't like that tier-2 MBT thing. And also excessive implementation of unit abilities. Moderation is key.

Soldier Gruber - Air Force, on 25 Apr 2009, 11:26, said:

Free expansions are impossible coming from EA. Patches are not meant to add content, just fix bugs and balance. Extra content is more of an obvious thing.

I know, more on that spore is a game of EA, the new content patch was 1:03. I hope I make it a kind of official or Mod.

Now that I remember...no invinicble-on-approach aircraft, like the aurora...they simply piss off.

Sgt. Rho, on 28 Apr 2009, 18:30, said:

I cant think of anything I would change Aurora are fairly easy to counter and due to the 5k price your opponent will probably be a little less developed in other areas like ground units, either that or you simply have let them get to much cash

Sgt. Rho, on 28 Apr 2009, 18:30, said:

Sometimes, although a small chance they can be shot down during flight, but Auroras are expensive and piss weak armour so not many people will use them unless they have alot of money.

(In vZH I believe Aurora Alphas where worth it due to massive damage they dealt. And 2 almost took out a CC)

One took out a freaking SDZ, i remember playing againts one lamer in vZH

* FMV Cutscenes
* More detailed general promotion system
* Get rid of the stupid-ass bulldozers and workers. This isn't Age of Empires.
* All of the original factions, together again
* Generals, like in ZH.
* Better online multiplayer.
* Walls.
* Two words: NAVAL WARFARE.

General Wesley, on 10 Jun 2009, 9:28, said:

1: Agreed.


2: The Generals Promotion system already worked so i guess the one we currently have should be fine.


3: Disagreed, after playing Generals to much. I find MCV's freaking sucks.

4: Same, i hate alien bullshit. The ones in ZH should be enough.

5: Agreed.

6: Same, better online multiplayer with less bugs and less DC.

7: Heck no, wall's sucks.

8: Generals is not about naval warfare, unless you want a game called C&C ADMIRALS.
Edited by Kris, 10 June 2009 - 02:10.