Fallout Studios Forums

deltaepsilon, on 19 Dec 2008, 23:42, said:

DENIED!

It's okay if people like this kind of style, but it should be limited to ONE of the THREE C&C franchises. There's the Tiberium series for those who like things grim and gritty, RA has been established as the light-hearted candy-colour series and Generals, well, let's say Generals is the most 'realistic' and down-to-earth series. That's all fine and dandy so there's absolutely bugger all reason to cartoonify yet ANOTHER series. No, thanks.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that may have been sarcasm. Which is of course a pain to pick up through text.

Quote

I love those missions, even if i dont play games where you cannot build, but i like this mission type for Single player. Compare the awesome commando missions from CnC1 with the spammy campaigns of RA3...
These Missions train your tactics and you micro (Cold war crisis mod had some nice of them).

CommanderJB, on 20 Dec 2008, 10:15, said:

Possibly but then again, it was the only bit of information in that post...

Don (Erik), on 20 Dec 2008, 10:35, said:

Granted but from what I remember, most of these missions still walked awkwardly on the
thin line between tactically challenging and irritatingly frustrating. Anyway, to each his own...
Edited by Rayburn, 20 December 2008 - 10:22.

-No GLA

Pav3d, on 20 Dec 2008, 13:11, said:

wat? Seriously what? D:

Pav3d, on 20 Dec 2008, 21:11, said:

I think this is what he meant.

As little as I care about the GLA, scrapping them still seems like a bad idea to me. I'm no expert but it seems like
these guys have quite a lot of tactical depth to them. Whoever replaces them would have to fill in a great gap.

What will replace GLA then? Another terrerrrrrrrist faction?

^Pretty much yea. The way I see it, GLA is replaceable by another terrorist faction, China is replaceable by Russia, USA is replaceable by a European country (or E.U.) But I'd like to see the return of the exact same sides.

Also keep as many GLA mechanics as possible. Tunnel networks means you have a decentralized army, scrap rewards fighting, many support/tactical powers and few pure offensive powers

Multiple sub-nations in addition to the primary nations. Distinct tactical doctrines per generals or nation that don't severe weaknesses like "no tanks". That's just stupid. Better balance, less buggy, better collision detection, but not so that pathing is awful (like in RA3 and to a lesser extent, CnC 3). Better formation tactics. Extensive testing and development period (Don't RUSH IT). Extensive scenario and modification support and capabilities. If generally the maximum number of transport slots for a unit in the game is 5 make it so that modders can set it to 15. PROPER CINEMATIC CUT SCENES. PROPER PLOT DEVELOPMENT.

If they do this properly and spend enough time on this, they will see returns instead of people jacking it all over the place.

That is all for now.
Edited by AllStarZ, 20 December 2008 - 22:16.

As well as smaller tactical symmetrical maps I would love to see huge, dynamic realistic beautiful maps. Sup Com style, but more detailed.
Second that reverse shockwave, I always wanted to do that as well.
Make it as moddable as ZH.
Get rid of the hard-coded elements - the silly ones anyway.
Terrain deformation.
Epic long storylines.
Make it feel like I am fighting a war, not a little skirmish.

HEAP loads of aircraft

I want tons of missions. I also want CG movies and live action footage. I want to see entirely new factions and I want the tanks to be very satisfying, fun and cool to use like in World of Conflict.

I want that the team from Generals Alpha, the one from Westwood, do the game. Heck, I want a proper Command and Conquer.

I want 15 balanced and varied factions and I DON'T want cartoony RA3 looking units.

NergiZed, on 17 Apr 2009, 15:20, said:

^ This EPICALLY supported

HeartBreak1, on 17 Apr 2009, 15:11, said:

So you want India, (Or some African country) Nod, Soviets, and War Elephants/Camels? I say no. Anyway Westwood is gone they can't do nothing with C&C apart from some ex-westwood employees that now work for EA.

Also why do people bash RA3 for it's cartoonyness? It's meant to be silly (okay RA1 wasn't really but RA2 was) but if you mean the graphics in general I agree.
Edited by Zhen, 17 April 2009 - 15:55.

NergiZed, on 17 Apr 2009, 16:20, said:

Most especially I do not want armoured bears and dolphins and squids and other bullshit.

I HOPE THEY DONT DO ANY CREATIVE SHIT CAUSE THAT'D REALLY SUCK

I think, ideally, Shockwave, ROTR, and Mideast Crisis 2 are what I'd expect from Generals 2.

ka1000., on 17 Apr 2009, 17:50, said:

CAPS MAKES ME FEEL BIG AND GROWN UP.

You had a good point, although you didn't really explain it. Why ruin it by capslocking.

DerKrieger, on 17 Apr 2009, 18:50, said:

Could not have said it better.

Ion Cannon!, on 17 Apr 2009, 16:52, said:

i was obviously not being serious.

i was pointing out the guys who keep saying that they don't want any armoured bears and shit cause... i dont know actually. too creative?...

Not liking armoured bears has nothing to do with not liking creativity. The problem is that there aren't many scenarios out there in which armoured bears are anything other than abso-bloody-lutely daft. I can accept them in RA3 but Generals has an entirely different mood and setting. If they also decide to sillify (=to render sth. silly) Generals, the only 'serious' C&C universe left will be Tiberium which, on the other hand, has been too heavy on the whole brown dystopia side lately.