459 replies to this topic

[General]

C&C 3 had mechs, well atleast Kane's Wrath do, those little and middle sized titans and that Nod redeemer, it does have some, not none, but don't know if they pleased the fans of the classic...

[Golan]

There were less than people expected after TS. Frankly, seeing that EA already came up with a canon explanation for why walkers aren't up to date, I don't see how they can re-introduce them now again without contradicting their own backstory.

[Sgt. Nuker]

The Electronic Anti-Christ......I'm sorry, I mean Electronic Arts seems to do whatever it wants to do, regardless of the canon they spill out onto the internet. Looks like standard operating procedure. They go from one extreme to the next, including one or two mechs, then jumping ahead to create a game that has half the units as mechs. A mech heavy game should be reserved for the Mech Warrior franchise, not C&C. One or two in the game is fine, but from the looks of the screen shot, most of the GDI armour lineup has grown legs.

[Sgt. Rho]

So far I've only seen 3 walkers for the GDI and one For Nod....wait! Same was with KW! GDI had 3 walkers and Nod had one, so why is everyone going on a rant about EA?!

Edited by Sgt. Rho, 09 July 2009 - 20:33.

[Camille]

exa-fucking-ctly.

it all seems more like mindless bashing to me

[Golan]

There are three GDI walker types, one GDI tank type, two Nod walker types and three Nod tank types on that picture.

Also, GDI explicitly only had the three Walkers in KW during the Steel Talon campaign, preceding the events of TW. Afterwards, GDI only used Mechs for support operations.

Edited by Golan, 09 July 2009 - 20:55.

[Kaido]

Sgt. Rho, on 9 Jul 2009, 22:33, said:

So far I've only seen 3 walkers for the GDI and one For Nod....wait! Same was with KW! GDI had 3 walkers and Nod had one, so why is everyone going on a rant about EA?!

Well im not..
I just dont like the idea of "mechs" thats all..

[Soul]

I can't believe their pushing out another C&C game so soon, are they trying to kill all the hard work modders have put into making their mods for RA3?

[Sgt. Nuker]

Actually, judging by how Generals was rushed, I'm not really too surprised that EA is pushing C&C 4 out so quick. I smell v 1.01-1.05 patches in rather rapid succession to keep the fanboys from crying "IMBA, IMBA, IMBA!" and to "fix" (notice how I use that term loosely) bugs, errors, and the usual lot of short-comings that will inevitably emerge.

[RaiDK]

Sgt. Rho, on 10 Jul 2009, 6:33, said:

So far I've only seen 3 walkers for the GDI and one For Nod....wait! Same was with KW! GDI had 3 walkers and Nod had one, so why is everyone going on a rant about EA?!

Because bashing EA for everything they do is hip and cool nowadays.

Zomg, it's a cookie cutter sequel?
Zomg, they changed too much!

[MR.Kim]

That will be nobody know. Let's wait and see what happen next after 15 days.

And about screenshot, is that too much spoiler? Too much confuse for gamers these days.

[Admiral FCS]

IDK, but it doesn't look SO bad, but that's just me. Oh well, I think the public beta might do something, not sure.

[WNxMastrefubu]

the game looks ok, seems soon tho

[CommanderJB]

Good grief...
I don't know who to be annoyed at most, frankly. There are quite a lot of candidates. The first one that jumps to mind is EA for failing to understand that making their old games redundant is not going to bring them maximum profit and continually releasing new ones off the production line, no matter the changes made to the line in the process, becomes tiresome. The second one that jumps to mind is the number of people in this thread who think that one solitary screenshot gives them an ability to talk about the propensity of unit types across an entire game which has been stated to include the greatest number of units of any C&C title. The third is those who categorically deny entire gameplay elements as being without value without having the faintest clue about how C&C 4 is going to implement it and call this copycat while failing to address any one of a number of features given in the press release.

Now, being introduced to C&C through Red Alert 2 and confirmed by Generals, I have absolutely no vested interest in the Tiberium universe whatsoever. I have little reason to get partisan on one opinion on the other, and most of my observations are wholly external. But I'm astonished about how people have found a hobby horse and run with that instead of bothering to discuss what are a raft of real innovations for Command & Conquer. The roles system is highly interesting, and from what I'm hearing it will be a major change to the C&C formula; the Crawler makes a damn sight more sense than any other RTS basing I've ever heard of, particularly for a desolate future world; the 'roleplay' character-progression elements are something players have never had before in the series; it'll have co-op play and campaigns; and a conclusion to the longest-running RTS story series in the business! How is this copycat?! Seriously, if there was anything I would've thought you'd be bashing it for then it would be changing the formula too much. I realise that you have every right to be turned into cynics by years of EA mediocrity, but completely ignoring most of the interesting things about a game in order to bash it is just poor form.

I will agree the graphics are unexciting at best. It does, as people have said, look remarkably similar to C&C3 and it will no doubt use yet another evolution of RNA. But seriously, from everything I've heard, that is a new engine compared to SAGE. Moreover, this will be an alpha! An alpha! Since when do graphics ever look decent in an alpha? Every game I can think of, with the singular exception of World in Conflict, changed its art style at some later point, looked unspectacular in its alphas and later astonished me with improvements (RA3, Supreme Commander), or used 'bullshots' and did the opposite. I don't think there's much chance that's a 'bullshot'. I'm not saying it will be a major graphical upgrade for the series - no doubt it won't - but you can't say with certainty that the final product will look just the same as the old one.

As for modding, I'll give you that one - I think they should wait at least three years after the release of a previous game in a series to announce a sequel if they have any intention of seeing a community develop. If they'd released a half-arsed Generals II in 2005, would we have any of the awesome mods we have for Zero Hour? Of course not. However, with the increasing sophistication of games, required modding skill levels are naturally going up, almost without exception. But EA are the Electronic Arts corporation - they are here to make money. I don't think they're going to apologise to anyone for doing that, so while we can hope that the business culture will improve, bashing them for attempting to make money does little to indicate a considered response.

Lastly, I'm glad this isn't Generals II. The more time we wait for Generals II the greater the likelihood it will be more than a conglomerated re-make of various other recent titles. Most of all, with the Tiberium series off their plates I very much hope that they'll be able to devote more resources to Generals II than they would have otherwise.

[MR.Kim]

Here is C&C4's concept art. Pretty nice details.


Wait a second, did I saw Republic of Korea flag(and U.S.A. flag, too)? But still, it's concept.

Edited by MR.Kim, 10 July 2009 - 02:50.

[mcbob]

MR.Kim, on 10 Jul 2009, 3:48, said:

Wait a second, did I saw Republic of Korea flag(and U.S.A. flag, too)? But still, it's concept.

Indeed.

Does this mere concept signify the likelyhood of large capital ships in combat? I'm looking forward to a much larger scaled representation of war as opposed to the classic low-altitude camera angle, that doesn't have as much zoom capacity as say Supreme Commander.

Quote

I will agree the graphics are unexciting at best. It does, as people have said, look remarkably similar to C&C3 and it will no doubt use yet another evolution of RNA. But seriously, from everything I've heard, that is a new engine compared to SAGE. Moreover, this will be an alpha! An alpha! Since when do graphics ever look decent in an alpha? Every game I can think of, with the singular exception of World in Conflict, changed its art style at some later point, looked unspectacular in its alphas and later astonished me with improvements (RA3, Supreme Commander), or used 'bullshots' and did the opposite. I don't think there's much chance that's a 'bullshot'. I'm not saying it will be a major graphical upgrade for the series - no doubt it won't - but you can't say with certainty that the final product will look just the same as the old one.

What? Where is this info about a new engine?

Edited by mcbob, 10 July 2009 - 03:56.

[Sgt. Rho]

the RNA is in use since RA3, you know.

And reading the interview on Gamespot I come to the conclusion that classic buildings are still in, just that you don't deploy the MCV to build them.


"-everything you can create, be it unit, structure, power, or upgrade, comes from your Crawler. "

[mcbob]

Oh I see. Just implying that it is another big face lift of the base engine.

Quote

And reading the interview on Gamespot I come to the conclusion that classic buildings are still in, just that you don't deploy the MCV to build them.

I wonder why most people have not noticed that AT ALL since this was announced. I read the press release entirely this morning. Most of your fears about this new Crawler *cough*Work-While-Moving-MCV*cough* can be averted since traditional base building is still present.

The only difference being that it is more akin to Supreme Commander, where one large unit can spawn an entire military and base in a matter of moments. I'm hoping for a bit more differences between the two, however, I wouldn't mind seeing other Sup Com features etc in C&C 4 such as my wish for a higher camera, increased zoom, etc.

Edited by mcbob, 10 July 2009 - 04:11.

[Sgt. Rho]

Well, the RNA is a 60% reprogrammed sage. the not redone 40% seem to be bugs

[CommanderJB]

I don't think the Crawler will be like a mobile MCV - keep in mind that it will evidently be the only production-capable object under the player's control, as 'everything you can create' is pretty distinctive. As such it won't be like some sort of glorified dozer; rather it implies that it builds non-producing structures. Defences come to mind, though I'm sure there are others. Given that quote I would expect it to house all the functions of a 'normal' C&C base, so no more Barracks, War Factories or Airfields (which rather implies VTOLs unless they do something imaginative like building static airstrips which can call in planes from off map via the Crawler, but I doubt it).

Edited by CommanderJB, 10 July 2009 - 05:43.

[RaiDK]

This isn't the end of the Tiberium universe, it's just an end to the current story arc.

I'm sure nobody wants to still be fed "ZOMG KANE MYSTICAL WHAT'S GOING ON?" in 20 game's time.

[Camille]

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 3:25, said:

Good grief...
I don't know who to be annoyed at most, frankly. There are quite a lot of candidates. The first one that jumps to mind is EA for failing to understand that making their old games redundant is not going to bring them maximum profit and continually releasing new ones off the production line, no matter the changes made to the line in the process, becomes tiresome. The second one that jumps to mind is the number of people in this thread who think that one solitary screenshot gives them an ability to talk about the propensity of unit types across an entire game which has been stated to include the greatest number of units of any C&C title. The third is those who categorically deny entire gameplay elements as being without value without having the faintest clue about how C&C 4 is going to implement it and call this copycat while failing to address any one of a number of features given in the press release.

Now, being introduced to C&C through Red Alert 2 and confirmed by Generals, I have absolutely no vested interest in the Tiberium universe whatsoever. I have little reason to get partisan on one opinion on the other, and most of my observations are wholly external. But I'm astonished about how people have found a hobby horse and run with that instead of bothering to discuss what are a raft of real innovations for Command & Conquer. The roles system is highly interesting, and from what I'm hearing it will be a major change to the C&C formula; the Crawler makes a damn sight more sense than any other RTS basing I've ever heard of, particularly for a desolate future world; the 'roleplay' character-progression elements are something players have never had before in the series; it'll have co-op play and campaigns; and a conclusion to the longest-running RTS story series in the business! How is this copycat?! Seriously, if there was anything I would've thought you'd be bashing it for then it would be changing the formula too much. I realise that you have every right to be turned into cynics by years of EA mediocrity, but completely ignoring most of the interesting things about a game in order to bash it is just poor form.

I will agree the graphics are unexciting at best. It does, as people have said, look remarkably similar to C&C3 and it will no doubt use yet another evolution of RNA. But seriously, from everything I've heard, that is a new engine compared to SAGE. Moreover, this will be an alpha! An alpha! Since when do graphics ever look decent in an alpha? Every game I can think of, with the singular exception of World in Conflict, changed its art style at some later point, looked unspectacular in its alphas and later astonished me with improvements (RA3, Supreme Commander), or used 'bullshots' and did the opposite. I don't think there's much chance that's a 'bullshot'. I'm not saying it will be a major graphical upgrade for the series - no doubt it won't - but you can't say with certainty that the final product will look just the same as the old one.

As for modding, I'll give you that one - I think they should wait at least three years after the release of a previous game in a series to announce a sequel if they have any intention of seeing a community develop. If they'd released a half-arsed Generals II in 2005, would we have any of the awesome mods we have for Zero Hour? Of course not. However, with the increasing sophistication of games, required modding skill levels are naturally going up, almost without exception. But EA are the Electronic Arts corporation - they are here to make money. I don't think they're going to apologise to anyone for doing that, so while we can hope that the business culture will improve, bashing them for attempting to make money does little to indicate a considered response.

Lastly, I'm glad this isn't Generals II. The more time we wait for Generals II the greater the likelihood it will be more than a conglomerated re-make of various other recent titles. Most of all, with the Tiberium series off their plates I very much hope that they'll be able to devote more resources to Generals II than they would have otherwise.

finally an unbiased, intelligent analysis of what has been shown and told and what not. both questioning and suggesting.

thanks JB.

[Golan]

Sorry CommanderJB, but your points aren't more than "I don't know anything, but it might perhaps possibly eventually when we are lucky be cool" either. Sure, the roleplaying elements might turn out interesting (whatever that means) - yet they don't add anything new to the C&C franchise, just another tech delay that only works on a meta-level of the game, not even the actual gameplay itself. Linking SP- and MP-experience into one pool can easily backfire, making the SP way too difficult or easy depending on your XP or setting up first-time players against hard core specialists in MP because they both have the same XP, though one earned them in SP and the other one in MP. The different specialization of the classes is nothing new, having been introduced way back in ZH. And we all know how the official balancing of that one turned out.

The Crawler isn't exactly new either, being basically a copy of the MotherShip of the Homeworld series. Now, don't get me wrong here, HW2 was a great game, but if you ask a random Tiberium C&C fan about what sets the franchise apart from others, then they will mention the base building system. It's been refined, it's been streamlined over the years, and hell, it works and it works well. So it shouldn't be astonishing that senior fans are worried about this change.

Co-op was already used in RA3 and while certainly being a nice addition in theory, many found it annoying to have EVERY mission forced on them as Co-Op. Especially for purely SP players, this was a limiting point as they were forced to put up with a cretinous AI ally and the possible mission objectives were severely reduced due to the need of having the second commander play a notable role every time. Having AI allies for some special missions on the other hand is far from new or innovative, having been used in other RTS (including the early C&Cs) for years now.

The "conclusion to the longest-running RTS story series in the business" is a) debatable, as the WarCraft series story has a by far longer story when looking at the time span storywise (or the number of games in its universe), and b) relatively meaningless as Tib-C&C has a cyclic story - C&C4 seems to use exactly the same premise as the previous games, so that doesn't say anything more than just that this time around, there won't be any plotholes.

Indeed, by technical standpoints one can consider RNA a new engine compared to SAGE. Just the same, SAGE 3 (TW) can be seen as a new engine compared to SAGE 1 (Gens). But let's be honest, this is little more than nitpicking. For all it's worth, RNA is a SAGE, and by the looks of it C&C4 will yet again use another incarnation of this corrupted engine.
Seeing the production cycles of previous EA C&Cs, it is very likely that there won't be any changes graphic-wise if people don't call EA out on the bullshit they're doing. One of the first C&C3 screenshots looked like these. In the end, it turned out like this.

Sure, many "if"s, "might"s and "perhaps"s can turn out good. However, seeing EA's track record, they can just as well turn out bad. Horribly bad.

Edited by Golan, 10 July 2009 - 13:07.

[mcbob]

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 5:42, said:

I don't think the Crawler will be like a mobile MCV - keep in mind that it will evidently be the only production-capable object under the player's control, as 'everything you can create' is pretty distinctive. As such it won't be like some sort of glorified dozer; rather it implies that it builds non-producing structures. Defences come to mind, though I'm sure there are others. Given that quote I would expect it to house all the functions of a 'normal' C&C base, so no more Barracks, War Factories or Airfields (which rather implies VTOLs unless they do something imaginative like building static airstrips which can call in planes from off map via the Crawler, but I doubt it).

Hmm I can't be so sure they would do that though. How slow would the game be if only one unit was producing infantry, ground units, and structures? There has to be some kind of way to speed it up such as the obvious in which the Crawler can build support structures to build certain ground units and as you mentioned aircraft and perhaps capital ships.

[CommanderJB]

Golan, on 10 Jul 2009, 22:49, said:

Sorry CommanderJB, but your points aren't more than "I don't know anything, but it might perhaps possibly eventually when we are lucky be cool" either.

Rubbish. Where did I actually say what my personal expectations were for the gameplay mechanics or title in general at all, let alone said it would be good? Nowhere, that's where. What you've probably done is read my annoyance at EA bashers as support for the game because that was what you expected to hear, where in actual fact it did not exist. What I actually said was that I was annoyed that people had totally not bothered to discuss or even acknowledge the gameplay mechanics and changes before jumping on the bandwagon of giving it the thumbs down.

Golan, on 10 Jul 2009, 22:49, said:

Sure, the roleplaying elements might turn out interesting (whatever that means) - yet they don't add anything new to the C&C franchise, just another tech delay that only works on a meta-level of the game, not even the actual gameplay itself. Linking SP- and MP-experience into one pool can easily backfire, making the SP way too difficult or easy depending on your XP or setting up first-time players against hard core specialists in MP because they both have the same XP, though one earned them in SP and the other one in MP. The different specialization of the classes is nothing new, having been introduced way back in ZH. And we all know how the official balancing of that one turned out.

And you know this how? You state with absolute confidence that you know they're nothing new and won't be any good when the only thing you know about them is that they exist. Once again I don't claim they necessarily are good but there is vast room for EA to move and make them either good or bad within what they've outlined, which means that it is not knowledge but bias speaking when you say with certainty that it's old and rubbish. As I've already said you're perfectly right to be biased, but it remains my prerogative to argue what I want.

Golan, on 10 Jul 2009, 22:49, said:

The Crawler isn't exactly new either, being basically a copy of the MotherShip of the Homeworld series. Now, don't get me wrong here, HW2 was a great game, but if you ask a random Tiberium C&C fan about what sets the franchise apart from others, then they will mention the base building system. It's been refined, it's been streamlined over the years, and hell, it works and it works well. So it shouldn't be astonishing that senior fans are worried about this change.

This 'worried about change' idea re. the Crawler is exactly what I actually expected, but it nevertheless apparently got ignored or at the very least palmed off as unimportant when it came to most of the arguments in this thread, which is what really confused me. Personally it worries me not a jot as what you said is precisely what everyone said about Generals, which most people here now wholeheartedly support. You might not, and Tiberium universe traditionalists might not, but frankly I don't care because in my view the reviewers of C&C3 were precisely right when they criticised the core gameplay as being non-innovative and slightly stale. From my perspective it needs a shake-up again and the Crawler seems to me an opportunity to do just that. As for whether it works or not I'll wait until I've played with it to say, and I cannot understand why you feel it unnecessary to do the same.

Golan, on 10 Jul 2009, 22:49, said:

Co-op was already used in RA3 and while certainly being a nice addition in theory, many found it annoying to have EVERY mission forced on them as Co-Op. Especially for purely SP players, this was a limiting point as they were forced to put up with a cretinous AI ally and the possible mission objectives were severely reduced due to the need of having the second commander play a notable role every time.

Many didn't find any such thing, including myself. You're free to believe what you want for yourself but it doesn't include the entire player base - I thoroughly enjoyed RA3's campaigns and ignored the AI co-commander for the most part to no detriment whatsoever.

Golan, on 10 Jul 2009, 22:49, said:

Having AI allies for some special missions on the other hand is far from new or innovative, having been used in other RTS (including the early C&Cs) for years now.

Where did I say it was? My only point was that co-op was new for the Tiberium series.

Golan, on 10 Jul 2009, 22:49, said:

The "conclusion to the longest-running RTS story series in the business" is a) debatable, as the WarCraft series story has a by far longer story when looking at the time span storywise (or the number of games in its universe), and b) relatively meaningless as Tib-C&C has a cyclic story - C&C4 seems to use exactly the same premise as the previous games, so that doesn't say anything more than just that this time around, there won't be any plotholes.

I actually meant in terms of initial release dates IRL, but having done research it appears that Warcraft came out one year beforehand, so I retract the statement it is the longest. Nevertheless it is the end of the story of an iconic character who has become the face of the entire series and whose saga has lasted for fifteen years and at least two generations of gamers. Given that Kane defines a C&C game for many people, and a Tiberium universe game for almost all, I would've expected more comment on the matter. Instead people decided that taking this major decision (which is in my view unquestionably the right one) to finish up a storyline now and move onto other things was not worth commenting on, probably because it was less interesting than calling it bad.

Golan, on 10 Jul 2009, 22:49, said:

Indeed, by technical standpoints one can consider RNA a new engine compared to SAGE. Just the same, SAGE 3 (TW) can be seen as a new engine compared to SAGE 1 (Gens). But let's be honest, this is little more than nitpicking. For all it's worth, RNA is a SAGE, and by the looks of it C&C4 will yet again use another incarnation of this corrupted engine.

I don't doubt they're fundamentally similar, and that they have a bad rap from many modders, and I never claimed that reusing it was a good thing. I was rather seeking to note that to say that it uses SAGE is inaccurate because RNA is vastly more capable (and more complicated) in every regard. It isn't the best engine out there, but it can evidently be made to do a lot of different things - if you have the source code.

Golan, on 10 Jul 2009, 22:49, said:

Seeing the production cycles of previous EA C&Cs, it is very likely that there won't be any changes graphic-wise if people don't call EA out on the bullshit they're doing. One of the first C&C3 screenshots looked like these. In the end, it turned out like this.

The least you could do is actually compare like with like; if you were interested in an equitable comparison I think it would be more reasonable to use something like this, because it looks to me like the end shot you've used doesn't even have the same graphics settings applied. I did actually say that I expected the degree of graphical improvement to be small, but I think it is completely and totally logical to expect some given that this is the usual process as screens are progressively released from early announcement alphas to final release candidates.

Golan, on 10 Jul 2009, 22:49, said:

Sure, many "if"s, "might"s and "perhaps"s can turn out good. However, seeing EA's track record, they can just as well turn out bad. Horribly bad.

And I never denied that possibility. However, despite what you say there you continually deny the former in your points, which is what I'm arguing with.

N.b. the use of the word 'you' here is both a singular 'you' in response to Golan and a plural general-purpose 'you' to the members in this thread who have presented the opinions I have referenced.

mcbob, on 11 Jul 2009, 1:14, said:

Hmm I can't be so sure they would do that though. How slow would the game be if only one unit was producing infantry, ground units, and structures? There has to be some kind of way to speed it up such as the obvious in which the Crawler can build support structures to build certain ground units and as you mentioned aircraft and perhaps capital ships.

Dunno really, but that's what the quote said to me. I personally would find it likely that there was some sort of secondary procurement system, but it is fairly categorical and I was mostly trying to point out that as a result I seriously doubt we'll see the classic WF/Barracks/AF combination that has characterised unit production since TD as was claimed.

Edited by CommanderJB, 10 July 2009 - 15:26.