Fallout Studios Forums

Reviews of games are pointless, best way to know whether or not to buy a game is to try it out

1. Reviews are normally made for the game at the beginning when its released, OK for consoles but for PC games there are patches that will greatly change the gameplay and in some cases, add content

2. Reviewers spend almost no time on a game. Of course they can't, they have to review a TON of games per week, the amount they play a game makes it so that they have no idea of the depth of the game, they'll rarely catch many bugs and will either miss or overstate features

3. Reviewers are normally not good at most games anyway, they don't spend much time on one game so they have no idea how the multiplayer works out, they don't actually know the imbalances of a game

4. Some reviewers simply give good reviews even if the game's mediocre but the game company pays them a lot

Sharpnessism, on 2 Apr 2009, 23:13, said:

Most modern console games also have patches/ added content... but other than that, I agree

When I look at the scores of my games on Gamespot I can safely say I will rely on them in future for an insightful and objective review.

Yes and no there... Gamespot have recently been giving lower scores than most for games, but they're still willing to throw perfect scores at Generic-Space-Marine-Console-FPS-9000.

Well it's either Generals 2, or whatever the hell this is:

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w238/TX...nC/cc_arena.png
http://www.thethirdfloorinc.com/


I would guess by the name that it would be along the lines of 'Sole Survivor 2.0', and EA have already said that the next C&C will be 'Heavily Multiplayer Based'.
Edited by TX1138, 03 April 2009 - 11:04.

How... intriguing. That doesn't seem to be what I was expecting next, certainly, though that's of course based on a large dollop of personal prejudice given the rather total lack of details as to what exactly it is.
Still, even if they don't go straight to Generals II, given EA's track record, they will eventually.
Also, what's with all the artists leaking game details? Are they seriously just that bad at keeping the lid on things, or does EA/do other companies actually coordinate 'leakages'?
Edited by CommanderJB, 03 April 2009 - 11:52.

Since the company responsible will have signed a non-disclosure agreement, I doubt with 100% certainty there is anything in this.

Sole Survivor 2? Need more info before I jump to conclusions...I've never played the first one so I don't think I'll like the second.

That game was a big Flop, they'd need to come up with some very good Ideas to make a Version 2 entertaining.

However, I'd look forward to that, if it realy is something along those lines.

- E.V.E.

Just because things aren't meant to happen, doesn't mean they don't happen.

The C&C: Arena section of the 'The Third Floor' site has been removed:


http://www.thethirdf...nematics-1e8798

Sheesh, here we go again...
And while I agree that the group in question would indeed have signed an NDA the exact same thing happened with James Hannigan composing for RA3 a while back; the first anyone knew he was involved was an obscure slideshow on his website, which was shortly removed.

Sole Survivor 2.0 + 3rd Person(+ also 1st person) = W

W= MMO + Fun + Classic C&C Weapons and Vehicles (-) bugs (-) bad support

It is safe to assume that W= Win.

If they make Generals II which I hope they will they better not god damn forget to add Russia and Europe or im going to kill EA

factions i want to see

USA, china, russia, india.

they're global superpowers. in a more realistic view, and not colurful
Edited by AZZKIKR, 04 April 2009 - 12:41.

FiReFTW, on 4 Apr 2009, 14:29, said:

Problem is that Europe and the USA aren't very easy to typify differently, IMO. Russia and China can be characterised by completely different forms of warfare, strengths and weaknesses, which make them much more interesting. And since EA will probably never make a game in which the USA isn't the protagonist nation...
Edited by Chyros, 04 April 2009 - 13:43.

im pretty sick and tired of the USA-based faction being the good guys as well.

i think some kind of African-based superpower could be interesting, considered the unique setting and characteristics. a bit like what they intended for generals.

AZZKIKR, on 4 Apr 2009, 8:40, said:

India?? Maybe they should just call it the commonwealth, group stuff together, kinda like the allies in RA3

well, india has an army of around a million, fought in major wars with pakistan and china, and has various weapon collabs wih russia. hence, it makes good choice

MEEP, next game is not Generals 2 or C&C4. They said only that they will do those eventually, but never said it's the next game.

Next game is...*drum roll*


C&C: Arena! A mainly multiplayer game that's all about robots fighting each other! How totally awesome and C&C!

... <_<

Anyways, here's some proof:
http://forums.commandandconquer.com/jforum...list/12266.page

EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot to read the last page. xD

Also, about the USA being the "good guys" in Generals, they aren't. They get their asses handed to them by the GLA, and in the end, China saves the day. Generals is quite satirical.
Edited by Alex06, 04 April 2009 - 16:56.

i know it's satirical. it's one of the main reasons why i played the campaign till the end. (i normally never CBA to finish c&c campaigns).

anyway, i never said they are the "winning" guys. just the good guys. the poor victims or the heroic saviors.

AZZKIKR, on 4 Apr 2009, 13:40, said:

I certainly hope your not serious about India beeing a global superpower...

Chyros, on 4 Apr 2009, 14:33, said:

Nonsense , if ROTR can do it so can EA

Fact of the Moment: India was actually considered as a potential faction in ShockWave.

Check out this one:

http://www.commandandconquerarena.de/

Quote

This is... different

Uhg. I really don't want to see this happen to the next game in the CnC series

I happen to feel that CnC shouldn't be treated like Generic Fantasy MMO #263, but EA can do whatever it wants of course