160 replies to this topic

[Sgt. Rho]

No, in original ZH, the Miniguner had a AK47, but a minigun in the cameo.

[WARthog]

i edited my post, since i had a couple of typos.

in gen and zh there are so many mistakes with the cameos. Just look up the manual on the fallout wiki.
Sometimes they used real pictures (Raptor and Stealth) and other times they didnt use the same house color (Hellfire Drone).
All these mistakes where corrected by the Shockwave-mod.

I would also like to see some missions in the campaign where you just have the hero or a small task force where you have to complete a hand full of objectives inside a building, like the nuke silo mission from RA1.

[CommanderJB]

Oh god no... please no...

Those missions annoy the bloody blazes out of me. Each to his own but I swear it's a frickin' strategy game, not a -keep-this-unit-alive-and-if-you-don't-you-LOSE game. Yahtzee made some comment about it to this effect (I can't remember it offhand) and I wholeheartedly agreed with it. And Yahtzee cannot be disagreed with.

(Well actually he can, but just don't do it to his face.)

[KiraSama]

Sgt. Rho, on 19 Dec 2008, 12:49, said:

No, in original ZH, the Miniguner had a AK47, but a minigun in the cameo.

My original ZH manual show the minigunner cameo with a AK47, and the pics i have searched about it show the minigunner ingame with a normal rifle but with the white thingis of a minigun

[WARthog]

Sorry to burst your bubble there!

I am sure i'm not the only one out there who likes missions with a sertain rpg-feel to it where you have only one or few units and have to use some well thought tactic and strategy to complete the mission.

Anyway, i don't want to start a flame war here, so let's just leave it as a subject which you either like or dont.

[CommanderJB]

As I said, each to his own.

[Rayburn]

Oh yes. No offence to those who enjoyed these missions but I really hated these fucking VIP scenarios where you had to keep your commando alive while doing all these flimy micromanagement tasks which do nothing but ENDANGER your commando. Sure, if you only HAVE a commando, no problem, but losing the commando when you still have other units should NOT let you fail the mission. C&C games aren't MADE for this kind of gameplay; in most cases, it ends up really awkward and random ("Aw crap, I didn't kill those enemy riflemen in the right order!") Go play the old Commandos games if you want a few single units which have to be protected but here, it's just silly. This is a grand scale war game and in war, everyone who doesn't happen to be a nation's leader is basically expendable. "I'm sorry to tell you but our commando has fallen; all hope is lost know" Bollocks to that! I COULD live with indoor missions - although I can't imagine how that would work nowadays - and I COULD live with missions where you have a small number of irreplaceable units (I actually enjoyed those in Gens/ZH like the one with Burton and the chemical lab in the mountains), but I don't want the loss of a single one of these units to result in instant failure.

Edited by Rayburn, 19 December 2008 - 12:43.

[Waris]

Rayburn, on 19 Dec 2008, 20:35, said:

Oh yes. No offence to those who enjoyed these missions but I really hated these fucking VIP scenarios where you had to keep your commando alive while doing all these flimy micromanagement tasks which do nothing but ENDANGER your commando. Sure, if you only HAVE a commando, no problem, but losing the commando when you still have other units should NOT let you fail the mission. C&C games aren't MADE for this kind of gameplay; in most cases, it ends up really awkward and random ("Aw crap, I didn't kill those enemy riflemen in the right order!")

Those kind of mission has been a staple since the first C&C. What say you?

Edited by Waris, 19 December 2008 - 12:47.

[Rayburn]

Well, to tell you the truth, I didn't really like them back then but it was forgivable since the game wasn't as fast-paced yet and things like stealth didn't exist either.
In the newer games, there's just much more stuff you have to consider which is just tedious on the scale of these VIP missions. Everything's faster and the whole thing just tends to fall apart when you're not looking. At least I made this kind of experience.

Edited by Rayburn, 19 December 2008 - 12:53.

[KiraSama]

Waris, on 19 Dec 2008, 13:47, said:

Those kind of mission has been a staple since the first C&C. What say you?

the only missions of C&C1 than i remember with that stile didnt have any vip unit unless the unit was necesary to end the mission, i am really sure all of this started with Tanya for being a important character in the FMVs of RA

[Rayburn]

Just to clarify, by VIP, I don't necessarily mean those mission-only units which you had to protect/escort/whatever. If the game offers a decent reason why these units MUST survive, I can actually live with that as long as they don't die instantly. I'm also talking about the Commando from TD and Tanya from the RA games. These were also VIPs in the sense that they must not die.

Edited by Rayburn, 19 December 2008 - 12:57.

[tank50us]

I think KiraSama is referring to prototype units that you have to keep alive, or units that you are supposed to capture, not kill. Those missions can be done. and if done right can be very challenging... so long as the unit in question isn't a super-unit that kills everything in one shot.

[Chyros]

-the same thing that made Gens 1 so good; realistic-to-slightly-futuristic units and things (e.g. paladin tank, aurora bomber, etc.)
-better moddability (fixed upgrade limit, wtf), more stable engine

That should be enough to make a great game ^^ .

[deltaepsilon]

Cartoony graphics.

[Waris]

deltaepsilon, on 20 Dec 2008, 6:42, said:

Cartoony graphics.

BITCH PLEASE

[BeefJeRKy]

Waris, on 19 Dec 2008, 17:54, said:

deltaepsilon, on 20 Dec 2008, 6:42, said:

Cartoony graphics.

BITCH PLEASE

Lol reminded me of my friends here

[deltaepsilon]

Oh and how about a General Burton?

[Sharpnessism]

Oh yea, and General power trees akin to China/GLA. USA has just too many 1-click destruction powers. China has some support, some attack. GLA have very few attack, mostly support/tactical powers.

[Uber Daisy]

deltaepsilon, on 19 Dec 2008, 18:13, said:

Oh and how about a General Burton?

Fuck YES. ZH showed that Generals CAN have characters, lets build on that!

Absolutely no live-action though.

[CommanderJB]

What was wrong with the news reports? I thought they fitted the theme rather well, even if they weren't exactly done with buckets of panache.

Edited by CommanderJB, 20 December 2008 - 02:52.

[Sharpnessism]

Quote

What was wrong with the news reports? I thought they fitted the theme rather well, even if they weren't exactly done with buckets of panache.

Boring, unpersonal.

[CommanderJB]

As I said, they were hardly done well, but they seemed an acceptable use of live-action for the game's cinematics.

[Sharpnessism]

CommanderJB, on 19 Dec 2008, 22:34, said:

As I said, they were hardly done well, but they seemed an acceptable use of live-action for the game's cinematics.

They'd have been much better off simply using in-game scenes of big battles, using narrators to tell what's happening instead of watching some guy/lady talk about a bunch of things we could care less about while occasionally showing a screen shot. Or at least have the guy/lady talking and showing videos of big battles.

[Chyros]

I personally always found the live cutscenes an advantage of CnC games, modelled cutscenes are too unpersonal IMO.

[General]

That AFRICA in earlier game concepts !