459 replies to this topic

[Kichō]

By DRM you mean install limits? This game has none but you have to be connected to the internet, APOC said that he'll ask the devs on giving us a offline mode.

[Red]

I don't know if some of you notice this but theres couple of cnc4 images from Gamespot.com...

EA is making they're own TS not CNC4...

Edited by Red, 13 October 2009 - 05:06.

[MentalAss]

I must say, the atmosphere looks absolute spot on, albeit conflicting with EA's "OMG Tiberian World imminent" story. They did say that they were considering visuals akin to TS, and the game is certainly delivering on that aspect. Now if only they didn't pull the no bases bull-card then I'd have to check if Hell froze over.

[Wizard]

Indeed, the atmosphere appears to be much better in those screens that previous versions.

[JJ]

Vast improvement than the C&C3 mod we previously know!

Yea I am in a good mood, so I am optimistic about it right this moment.

[Wizard]

*watches everyones C&C4 o'meters swing to "good"*

[MentalAss]

Don't worry Wiz, I still think it's a piece of tripe, of which I can't swallow , I was just giving credit where it's due.

Having atmosphere is only one thing, but without the C&C style to complement, it's nothing. Once EA gave word on the elimination of base construction and large scale battles, I stopped caring. For the life of me I can't get into an RTS without base building. With the sole excetion of MechCommander, I've tried WiC and found it uninteresting and heard horrid stories about DoW2, so in my land of RTS, or RTT as this is trying to be, C&C4 is going to receive some harsh skepticism.

[RaiDK]

Oh wow, that actually does look pretty OH HEY CYBORG REAPER LOOKALIKE

[Dr. Knickers]

Hooray for horribly bright and obnoxious projectiles and muzzle flashes!

Some of them look very plain, imo.

[Brad]

Looking interestin, I like the new visuals personally.
The TS lookalikes though makes me think that EA are simply uncreative.

[BeefJeRKy]

The game seems to be moving to better visuals compared to before. Hopefully, they can nail down the gameplay as the C&C formula was getting kinda stale though it might be too radical. Tbh EA haven't been as bad as they used to be, so let's keep waiting and see if they can pleasantly surprise?

[Kichō]

Brad, on 13 Oct 2009, 16:08, said:

Looking interestin, I like the new visuals personally.
The TS lookalikes though makes me think that EA are simply uncreative.

Lookalikes? Uncreative? Hardly, its the people complaining thats making EA change these things, remember C&C3's atmosphere? It was non exsistant.

Only complaint I've got is the removal of harvesting and base building, though I could probably handle the latter.

[Ion Cannon!]

I like how the atmosphere is progressing but no base building and tiny unit caps just isn't a real RTS to me. I want to play with gigantic armies, not small skirmish squads.

[Erik]

tbh i perfer playing with 3 units over playing with a hundred, it leaves more room for actual strategies and skilled play, while huuuge armies are just attack-move.

[Amdrial]

The only thing I dislike about the screenshots displayed on the linked pages would be the projectiles fired. Ofcourse, these are screenshots and I wouldn't be able to give a correct judgement until we actually get in-game footage.

[General]

Erik, on 13 Oct 2009, 17:43, said:

tbh i perfer playing with 3 units over playing with a hundred, it leaves more room for actual strategies and skilled play, while huuuge armies are just attack-move.

I prefer such style at online, but I somewhat like base building and with high numbers is better when playing alone, It was getting boring to see same thing on all strategy games anyway, build a thousand tank then run to enemy base, not so fun anymore Though I still like base building, that love get lowered in months, but I am suspicious non base building will suit to Command & Conquer franchise.

Edited by Gabriel Angelos, 13 October 2009 - 20:18.

[Sharpnessism]

Quote

tbh i perfer playing with 3 units over playing with a hundred, it leaves more room for actual strategies and skilled play, while huuuge armies are just attack-move.

i agree mostly, a lot of the times i prefer to have games using fewer units so micro managing has a larger role than macro.

CNC4 doesn't look too interesting so far, i wont judge it harshly yet though since a few screen shots pre-open beta never shows how the game will play out when released. it may be amazing and innovative, or it may be short lived and gimmicky. im not really holding my breath for this one though.

[tank50us]

same here, when they removed all elements of tactical ability [rocket up tanks tail-pipe = dead tank sorta thing] They said that the reason for no directional armor was to focus more on fighting, [not an exact quote I know], but it makes no sense, irl, if you have a small number of men, your best bet is to lie in wait, and when the tanks pass, spring up, and put an RPG into the back of the turret, problem solved. WiC did it, Codename Panzers did it, both Ground Control Games did, Company of Heroes did it, hell, why can't EA have that same mechanic in C&C4? I guess we'll never know, maybe when they start putting 3+ years into each game rather then their current 18 month policy, maybe then their games will work well. My support for EA now stands with my support for certain politicians, they just better hope they can hold onto porcelain [flushes].

[Amdrial]

The decision to remove directional armor might have had something to do with the ''fast and fluid'' style of gameplay the last few C&C games have had. You just don't have the time to run around your enemy without him being able to easily respond to your actions.
The games simply weren't built for directional armor. Look at how easily vehicles turn around, and then tell me how that works in comparison with games like CoH, in which your vehicles actually take time to turn around.

[Golan]

Didn't they revoke the decision to cut directional armor from the game? Thought I'd read that somewhere.

Amdrial, on 25 Oct 2009, 17:34, said:

The games simply weren't built for directional armor. Look at how easily vehicles turn around, and then tell me how that works in comparison with games like CoH, in which your vehicles actually take time to turn around.

Keep in mind that the armies in C&C3 and C&C4 are much more mobile than in many other games and need to be. While a unit can turn quickly, directional armor shines when you can flank retreating and relocating forces. Granted, it could have a much more critical role, but it's far from neglectable.

[tank50us]

I agree, not only is it really necessary, but it's a tactical advantage, if you hit the enemy while there at their weakest, you now hold the advantage. I think it's safe to say that EA is deliberately trying to kill the C&C Franchise by coming up with crappy titles and scaring us away. Then the main heads at EA can blame it on the EALA staff, and fire them. iah, EA is digging it's grave, and one day the smaller companies will rise up and knock the giant into the hole. maybe we should band together for that purpose, who knows.

[Amdrial]

First gameplay trailer right here.

Well, what can I say? It doesn't reveal anything about the ''gameplay'', except some combat scenes. It still doesn't give an idea on how the game plays out, and I guess I'll just have to wait until I get my (two) beta keys.

Edit: Golan beat me to it in the CNC4 Dated! thread

Edited by Amdrial, 13 November 2009 - 21:57.

[General]

Where is C&C in that video, I just saw some robots fighting with GDI and NOD logos over them

[Golan]

Amdrial, on 13 Nov 2009, 21:57, said:

Well, what can I say? It doesn't reveal anything about the ''gameplay'', except some combat scenes. It still doesn't give an idea on how the game plays out, and I guess I'll just have to wait until I get my (two) beta keys.

From what I can tell, this isn't because they actually missed to show parts of the gameplay but rather because these missing parts simply don't exist.

[Killerratte]

LoL, C&C 4 is so bad, it's not even worth ranting about. I told you this day would come, bahahahaha.