459 replies to this topic

[Destiny]

Perhaps this is a reason I could use to avoid that forum for the time being. =/

[Ion Cannon!]

Boidy, on 24 Aug 2009, 4:27, said:

To be fair, it's either complain about that, or complain about spamming...

No, its not. The unit cap on DoW1 was huge, but it was also incredibly tactical. The only spam unit LOL win was necron flayed ones.

[RaiDK]

Is the C&C forum ever NOT in a riot about something or other?

Seems they're taking a BIG risk on this one, hope it turns out to be something good.

Quote

The only spam unit LOL win was necron flayed ones.

I remember having many a good time by spamming warriors at lans. Those 2 warrior upgrades + lots and lots of warriors = really fast death for anything not in a vehicle.

Edit: Looking at the C&C forums right now I'm not seeing anything close to an uproar... I am however seeing a few whine threads which are being replied to with "YES WE KNOW, GET OVER IT."

Edited by RaiDK, 24 August 2009 - 11:09.

[BeefJeRKy]

Tiberian Twilight? The name is just as unoriginal as Tiberian Dusk proposed a while back. I think they should have called it Tiberian Horizon or something slightly more creative?

Also I wouldn't complain about the unit cap as they specified its for 5v5. The gameplay is going to be radically different. I am going to end up buying it so I can try it and play the campaign. We'll see what happens soon in the betas.

[Amdrial]

freezy said:

On C&C4:

We didn't have a chance to play it a lot, overall 90-120 minutes. This included testing one singleplayer mission, and some 5v5 multiplayer matches.

Singleplayer gameplay:

The mission was set in a yellow/red zone (was hard to tell), that was just as gritty as TW, but with next to no tiberium around. The landscape was desert-like, with scrap metal lying around. There were also a few mutant outposts, with battle-buses, visceroids and mutant-gorillas. You had to rescue 4 engies from certain buildings, and use them to capture mammoth wrecks. Next you had to hold 3 tiberium nodes, while Nod crawlers were dropped and tried to stop you. In the end, you had to defend the crash site of a GDI command ship.

The mission was rather unspectacular, but was made with loving attention to detail. For example, there were little campfires, with visceroids being grilled ^^. The mutants were a bit ridiculous though, mostly because of mutant-gorillas, jumping around like apes and wearing scrap armor Was funny too though. Looks like they want to create funny moments in the gameplay itself, while the cutscenes will be very serious.

Multiplayer:

The connection worked well and was stable, except for some problems with the GammesCom network, which were not EA's fault. A normal LAN mode would have been better however... The game was quite entertaining, but not really appealing. We could choose between Offense and Support classes, with only a fraction of Tier1 units. On the snowy map there were 5 tiberium nodes you had to fight over. Respawns work quite fast in the respawn zone, so no player could die regardless of how often their Crawler was killed. The strategy was more along the lines of harassing the nodes with all your forces, then going to another one, so the main armies pretty much ignored each other; or you had big battles, in which however it made more sense to attack the Crawler directly and ignore the other units. This is one of my main gripes:there was no penalty for losing your Crawler, all researched upgrades remained researched (which were gained too fast anyway, and you shouldf not be able to research and build at the same time imo). Units were rebuilt too fast, once you destroy one (which itself takes longer because of more HP), the enemy takes moments to build another one. So, this needs balancing. The second gripe is, there's no more credits. In fact, there's a command point limit (was much too low in the demo, you never had more than 10 units), no resources, so you can rebuild all units much too easily. In my opinion, this takes away a lot of strategic depth. When you're holding tiberium nodes however, the enemy starts losing points. The more nodes you hold, the faster this happens, like in Battlefield. To make the multiplayer more interesting, they should create other points of interest, so that for example holding specific nodes gives you some additional profits. In part, such points were present as capturable tech structures (like artillery platforms).

Overall: The game is already entertaining to play, but is not motivating due to lack of strategic depth. It has to be said though that we could only play with a handful of units, and there will apparently be more depth with more units. This is not certain, however, unless the Crawler system gets balanced further. Especially build times, resources and penalties for losing Crawlers. It really plays a lot like DoW2, and suffers the same problems. If optimised properly, it could probably also benefit from its strengths.

Feedback and developer presentations:

This was the biggest part of CommandCom. Of EA, present were among others, Aaron Kaufman (Apoc), Louis Castle (ex-EA ), Jason Bender, Sam Bass, Big Mike, Amir Ajami, Jim Vessella, Raj Joshi, David Silverman, Pete Larsen, Joe Kucan, (Kane), 2Poc

The presentations:

There was one about the development process of C&C, where Louis explained the history of C&C. Then, Big Mike explained why C&C4 is like it is, and what the intention behind it was. Generally, we knew this already: they wanted to do something fresh and new and not do the same thing over again each year. It's no secret that the sales of C&C declined steadily and something had to be done to bring in new customers. In hindsight, this is very understandable.

There was also a very positive presentation on the campaign, here's the details:

Apparently they have researched the weakpoints of storytelling so far. There was a demo, showing how the narration looked like in C&C3, and how it would look like in C&C4. In C&C3, you're really just a static object in a rendered set, you just observe without interacting. It's also plagued with monologues by people you see as the actors rather than the characters themselves (there's no attatchment being built to the characters). In C&C4 it's supposed to be different: you see everything through the eyes of the character, you move through the sets (this time they have real, professional replicas, such as the bridge of the GDI command ship) and experience things with a greater dose of reality. This really adds to the atmosphere, the characters should be realistic and believable, not just overpaid celebs. The atmosphere is really much darker and serious than C&C3. Overall: We didn't really learn anything new about the story, only that the campaign branches out after 3 GDI missions when you decide which path to follow. The GDI campaign is along the lines of the 24 series, you're a rebel GDI character, who sh*ts on rules and follows only his own conscience. You're not some spotless hero, and you will find yourself questioning if your actions were good or not. The Nod campaign should explain all of Kane's mysteries, and is geared towards the totally hardcore fans. Sam Bass promised you'll be happy with it, and if you don't like it he would view it as a personal failure (and you're supposed mail him then ^^). There will not be as many missions as TW though.

Then there was a multiplayer presentation, with yet more Gameplay and Design explanations. Among other stuff, we learned there would be a custom match option, where you can set some of the rules and objectives (number of players, mode, crates on/off etc.) I also hope there's more modes, like Capture The Flag.

We had to fill out some written polls about the game, evaluating certain gameplay elements and mission points. From later discussion I gathered there was no really positive reactions and most people voted the current game as sub-optimal. The devs allegedly feared the exact same reactions. In the great feedback session at the end, you could really slam hard, which some did (though always constructively and withou flaming). Very amusing: when the devs asked who of us was unhappy with the Crawler system and would rather have basebuilding, pretty much everyone present held their hand up. The rest of the feedback was pretty negative as well. Everyone agreed the game might be good, but the gameplay doesn't suit C&C at all. The devs were really so depressed after that, I was actually sad for them ^^. Some points were passed to them very clearly, and given attention and discussion. One of the points were the structures, so there might be a chance that buildings and bases could be integrated with the Crawler system. Other points are a good online system and a great lobby (it was once more confirmed that Gamespy was ditched and EA uses their own servers, which can correctly detect disconnecters), and that more strategic depth is needed. Also, most people agree the game is not tactical enough. Unsatisfying 1v1 end e-sport possibilities were mentioned as well.
Feedback was given in the spirit of the current community feeling, and it was heard, you can be sure of that. I hope they will set themself straight after this

Just citing someone off the official C&C4 forums who has been to the CommandCon in Cologne.

I found it kindof funny in a sadistic kindof way the devs were depressed after that criticism session.

[RaiDK]

Oh wow

Well... I'd like to think they'll go back and fix stuff, but I have my doubts given their previous track record.

[n5p29]

find the difference!



Now I'm confused.

[Wizard]

Amdrial, on 25 Aug 2009, 8:38, said:

It really plays a lot like DoW2, and suffers the same problems. If optimised properly, it could probably also benefit from its strengths.

This worried me quite a bit. The change was drastic for DoW, which can arguably be said to suit the new style of play. Not sure, they way I see it now, it will work for a CnC game.

New stuff seems to be doing the rounds on the games news sites

Quote

Behold disciples of Nod, for the end is soon upon us. Electronic Arts’ award-winning and best-selling Tiberium saga is coming to a powerful conclusion with Command & Conquer 4, which will introduce a multitude of innovations to the classic fast and fluid Command & Conquer gameplay, while retaining the core compulsions that fans have come to love over the series’ history.

It is the year 2062 and humanity is at the brink of extinction. Tiberium, the mysterious, alien crystalline structure that has infested Earth for decades and served as the primary reason for years of relentless conflict between the Global Defense Initiative (GDI) and the Brotherhood of Nod, is close to rendering the planet uninhabitable. Mankind is on the verge of extinction when Kane, Nod’s prophetic leader, emerges from seclusion to deliver GDI the message that he has developed a system that could control Tiberium and harness its power. But he cannot build this “Tiberium Control Network” without GDI’s cooperation. Thus, the two opposing factions – GDI and Nod – inevitably find themselves in desperation for the same cause: to stop Tiberium from extinguishing mankind.

After 15 years, the network is nearly complete, Tiberium is under strict control and our revitalized, newly terraformed planet is on the cusp of a new age of prosperity and progress. It is then that the world’s citizens begin to seriously ponder why Kane chose to help, and what will he want in return. These questions and more lead to the dramatic final act of the Tiberium saga.

With a multitude of innovative new features to the fast and fluid C&C gameplay, Command & Conquer 4 offers players an entirely new way to play C&C. An all-in-one mobile base, persistent player progression across all game modes that is constantly updated in a real-time online profile, a 3-class system for each of the two factions, co-operative play, and a 5v5 objective-based multiplayer mode that promotes teamwork and social interaction, make Command & Conquer 4 unlike any other C&C experience.

Key Features

* The Epic Conclusion of the Saga – Command & Conquer 4 brings the 15-yearTiberium saga to a powerful and epic conclusion, told through grittier and darker live action cinematics, the return of Nod’s enigmatic leader Kane (Joe Kucan) and all the answers on the fate of Earth, GDI, Tiberium, Nod and most of all, Kane himself.
* First Class-based C&C – Play as Offense, Defense or Support classes from GDI and Nod. Each class is unique, offering players different play styles, giving you tons of strategic options and coming with its own set of units designed to support your chosen style.
* Mobile bases!– The Crawler is your giant, new, all-in-one mobile base that you control on the battlefield to produce new units, structures, powers and upgrades, each specific to the class and faction you chose to play with. Build units and store them in your hull as you move around the map and surprise your enemy with a sudden fury of units!
* Persistent Player Progression – Every unit you destroy awards you with experience points. Level up and spend your experience points on new units, powers and upgrades that give you more strategic options to choose from. Your progression is stored in your online profile that you can access from any PC with C&C 4 installed.
* 5v5 Multiplayer – With its objective-based 5v5 multiplayer, Command & Conquer 4 brings a new, social, real-time-strategy experience to your PC. Choose your individual classes and play together as a team to conquer your enemy. The all-new party system lets you move with your party of friends from one online battle to the next.

Edited by Wizard, 25 August 2009 - 13:48.

[MentalAss]

n5p29, on 25 Aug 2009, 6:00, said:

find the difference!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/tho...ith_ea_logo.jpg
http://cncmaps.com/uploader/images/cc4ttpa...ntfrontview.jpg

Now I'm confused.

Seriously. WTF?

[Camille]

MentalAss, on 25 Aug 2009, 15:46, said:

n5p29, on 25 Aug 2009, 6:00, said:

find the difference!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/tho...ith_ea_logo.jpg
http://cncmaps.com/uploader/images/cc4ttpa...ntfrontview.jpg

Now I'm confused.

Seriously. WTF?

damn right you're confused, there's as much as NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE at all.

[MentalAss]

I'm not confused, and I find poor grammar fairly significant.

[Dr. Knickers]

Icons on the bottom left are only present on the second image.

EDIT: LOL! I didn't notice the Tiberian/Tiberium deal. I just don't care enough

Edited by Dr. Knickers, 25 August 2009 - 15:06.

[Rich19]

MentalAss, on 25 Aug 2009, 15:57, said:

I'm not confused, and I find poor grammar fairly significant.

I'm going to remind everyone here that the words "Tiberium" and "Tiberian" are both made up.

[n5p29]

is there any confirmation of this?
which is the true title? Tiberian or Tiberium?

because both looks not photoshopped

Edited by n5p29, 25 August 2009 - 15:08.

[Camille]

Quote

I'm going to remind everyone here that the words "Tiberium" and "Tiberian" are both made up. tounge.gif

yes, exactly. it's pretty insignificant.

Edited by Camille, 25 August 2009 - 15:10.

[Ion Cannon!]

The developers needed fans to tell them removing base building and setting tiny unit caps makes for a shit game? That should be common sense.

The progression system I like. But no base building + tiny unit cap = not fun gameplay.

[Kichō]

n5p29, on 25 Aug 2009, 16:07, said:

is there any confirmation of this?
which is the true title? Tiberian or Tiberium?

because both looks not photoshopped

Official title is Tiberian, not the lame "Tiberium wars"

And I dont see whats the confusion? The logo? It was going to be 'Tiberiums' one.

[RaiDK]

So is it Tiberium or Tiberian? I'm confused somewhat.

[Amdrial]

As far as I know, Tiberium is a substantive. Example: My Harvester harvests tiberium and doesn't afraid of anything.
Tiberian on the other hand is an adjective. Example: This sure is some Tiberian looking sun!

Anyway, Tiberium Wars probably implies Wars fought over Tiberium (Which is wrong IMO, it should be Tiberian Wars at the least)

[Golan]

From a linguistic point of view, both is correct an pretty much implies exactly the same. From any other point of view, it's really a "who the fuck cares?" situation.

Edited by Golan, 26 August 2009 - 13:18.

[General]

Ion Cannon!, on 24 Aug 2009, 4:17, said:

Godamnit I hate how they are dumbing down everything. They ruined DoW, I mean really fucked it up, now they're going to turn this into some tiny scrap with 10 units? And no resources?? If this alpha becomes the final product, I will not be buying it.

Whats happened to RTS's with 50+ units? Why are we suddenly in control of such tiny forces? In video terms, whats more exciting. 5 tanks, 1 chopper and 3 soldiers versus 7 tanks, 2 choppers and 1 soldier. Or huge battlions of units, clashing together, reforming the landscape, weapons able to devastate entire armies. Guess whats also more exciting in a game.

I mean who wants to control 4 units instead of 40? WTF is wrong with these developers.

Campaign of the DOWII saves the new style since it was epic, they need to do better for good multiplayer experience , but I am ' sure ' it will be good as previous DOWs a few years later
For the C&C : Ten units just fucked up too bad man, I need to mention it twice, as I see from the screens, there isn't something revolutionary going on to reduce the number of units, graphics are same as C&C3's and we not see 100.000 poly characters there, so why reduce the number of units anyway, its just pointless, I hope they have a really good reason for this

[Sgt. Nuker]

Ion Cannon!, on 25 Aug 2009, 14:28, said:

The progression system I like. But no base building + tiny unit cap = not fun gameplay.

I can do nothing but agree with you. Building a base is a corner stone of RTS, but apparently the next generation of gamers is looking for the most simplistic way of getting into combat.....*sigh* Everything's being "dumbed down".

RaiDK, on 26 Aug 2009, 8:39, said:

So is it Tiberium or Tiberian? I'm confused somewhat.

You're not the only one mate. Seems the terms are interchangeable though.

One other difference is the weapon FX the Nod mech was given (lower right corner).

[Admiral Wesley]

Here's what I do Like and Don't Like in CnC4:

DO LIKE:
*No Scrin. I think they were stupid.
*The crawlers sound pretty awesome on paper, let's wait and see how they turn out.
*GST FTW. (Global Stratospheric Transport For the Win.)
*Same thing for the Skyship.
*And the Mastadon.
*The over-all storyline is awesome, like all the other CnCs out there.
*The fact that experience can be carried out over ALL THREE modes, skirmish, campaign and multi.

DON'T LIKE:
*No economy, no way.
*No bases, no way.
*No tiberium (Not harvest-able at least), NO FUCKIN' WAY.

[Sharpnessism]

Quote

I can do nothing but agree with you. Building a base is a corner stone of RTS, but apparently the next generation of gamers is looking for the most simplistic way of getting into combat.....*sigh* Everything's being "dumbed down".

I wouldnt say dumbed down as there are a lot of decent games with minimal or no base building but EA should have just made a new franchise instead of making a CNC game w/o base building.

To me, EA's "innovation" is stemming from the fact that SC2 will be killing any other conventional base building RTS in terms of sales and also, removing basebuilding+economic management will allow the game to sell better in general. Why? Games that require basebuilding normally have a higher learning curve and have more depth overall, which is what the current American generation of gamers dont want; just look at the current esports that's "popular" in America; MLG games (Halo, GoW, CoD4), WoW. Those FPS games pale in comparison to UT, Wolfenstein:ET, or CS and have much lower learning curves, and I don't think I need to say much about WoW being a popular esport game.

[CodeCat]

I wonder how long before we get yet another decent game ruined by DRM...