459 replies to this topic

[BeefJeRKy]

Tbh, RTSes don't need dedicated servers as much as FPSes. And the LAN is a bummer

[Camille]

bummer, yeah.

can live with it though. it's not that terrible.

[Foxhound]

What's with the 'no LAN' kick every developer is going on? It doesn't stop piracy, after all...look at MW2, for example.

[Golan]

Seeing that the game stores the player profile online, having no dedicated LAN mode is just a logic consequence - the only thing that could be done locally would be connecting the players to each other, but since the EA server doesn't do more than just hooking all the players' computers up too, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

The previous titles all worked fine without dedicated servers, there really isn't any need for this in such a game.

[Wizard]

Foxhound, on 23 Feb 2010, 23:08, said:

What's with the 'no LAN' kick every developer is going on? It doesn't stop piracy, after all...look at MW2, for example.

Nothing stops piracy except free games. And MW2's problem isn't piracy per say, although I believe that is going on, it's just plain and simple hacking.

[Lizzie]

Wizard, on 24 Feb 2010, 4:57, said:

Foxhound, on 23 Feb 2010, 23:08, said:

What's with the 'no LAN' kick every developer is going on? It doesn't stop piracy, after all...look at MW2, for example.

Nothing stops piracy except free games.

Perhaps but butchering and locking off parts of games that people are used too for the paying customers sure doesn't help with the piracy issue either.

[Shirou]

well the no LAN option would do something to stop people from using the LAN-over-internet programs to play this game online. They would first have to hack the log in in order to do that.

Since the whole unlock thing is tied with your account, only a full level 20 unlocker hack in conjunction with an available LAN mode would support pirated multiplayer, but when you pick the latter off the equasion, there is no more hacked online play.

Oh did I mention you have to be online all the time to play the game, also with the campaign?

I have my problems with the visual in game style too but I think it's for the best because they had to design 45 individual nod and gdi units and if you keep it to a more realistic art design the differences would be much less apparent and creative.

Nod, primarily though, is the one with the weird designs, GDI is pretty sturdy and nice overall (save the mecha gorilla). Nod has stuff like the superugly new Scorpion.

I like the gameplay as well and currently leveling up with Nod. The new balance patch that is said to come will hopefully fix the last issues and bugs such as those with the overpowered Nod basilisk, healer spam and the spider tank buggers which I love but can't use as they're messed up.

Due to the standard match up of GDI versus Nod I believe balancing this game will be very much possible even with EA's poor track record. They seem to listen to the Beta communities ideas.

Edited by Shock, 24 February 2010 - 13:48.

[Golan]

Shock, on 24 Feb 2010, 13:38, said:

They seem to listen to the Beta communities ideas.

Yeah, like they did in the 6 months before... good joke.

[BeefJeRKy]

Foxhound, on 24 Feb 2010, 1:08, said:

What's with the 'no LAN' kick every developer is going on? It doesn't stop piracy, after all...look at MW2, for example.

Apparently piracy cost Activision about $425million in sales in 2009.

[CJ]

JRK, on 27 Feb 2010, 14:35, said:

Foxhound, on 24 Feb 2010, 1:08, said:

What's with the 'no LAN' kick every developer is going on? It doesn't stop piracy, after all...look at MW2, for example.

Apparently piracy cost Activision about $425million in sales in 2009.

These stats are just bullshit. Piracy doesn't cost them anything, for instance look at the PS3 : Since you can't pirate it's games, pretty much no one in Tunisia owns one...
You can't say that the fact that someone pirates your game is going to cost you money, the only which is doing so in this case is the money that publisher are spending in vain to stop piracy.

[BeefJeRKy]

Piracy = lost sales. 4.1 million copies of MW2 were downloaded illegally through torrents. Multiply that by the price of the game and you get the picture. Also I realize the figure is $245M

sauce

[ĦѦʠʠɵƇҟ Ϣϙɩƭ]

In a lot of the games I play, nod often won because their units seemed stronger. however, in a recent balance patch, I've seen this balanced out. Luckily the sandstorm was too weak to do anything with 675 hp, but now with it's 900, it can do a LOT more damage. I won more than 1 match just by spamming these things, and they counter that annoying nod venom spam. Also, I'm level 18! I can't wait for 20. <- totally fell for the leveling system.

[Stalker]

The leveling system was a good idea but it was really badly executed.

High-level players have a huge advantage because of T3 units. Also haveing a team of a few high-level and low-level players comepletely sucks because the lower ones won't go for Tiberium because they only need 1-5 upgrades where a high-level player needs at least 12 for T3.

And my motivation to play this game greatly dropped when I reached 20 with both factions

[Kichō]

It's a good thing Campaign and Skirmish levels you up, however since they are locked right now I can see your point (Although Nod Devouts, or any Nod Infantry when en masse are pretty powerful)

Beta ends on the 5th of March by the way.

[TheDR]

JRK, on 27 Feb 2010, 14:07, said:

Piracy = lost sales. 4.1 million copies of MW2 were downloaded illegally through torrents. Multiply that by the price of the game and you get the picture. Also I realize the figure is $245M

sauce

I see what the companies try to do with the figure, but tbh you can't really tell if someone who pirated a game was actually going to buy it at all or if they wanted to buy it but it was too expensive. There are so many variables to account for, so saying a company lost sales to pirating using the download figures isn't viable.
I remember when EA got all angry at pirates when Crysis apparently lost sales due to pirates. Its more likely that most people where just downloading Crysis just to see if it ran on their computer and was never thinking about buying the full game at all.

Command and Conquer 4 doesn't really excite me, i just wish they would get on with Generals 2 with the bulldozer building system and a nice lack of over bloomed visuals that all the recent C&Cs seem to suffer from.

[Lizzie]

TheDR, on 28 Feb 2010, 7:44, said:

Command and Conquer 4 doesn't really excite me, i just wish they would get on with Generals 2 with the bulldozer building system and a nice lack of over bloomed visuals that all the recent C&Cs seem to suffer from.

Unless they butcher Generals 2, which is likely.

[ĦѦʠʠɵƇҟ Ϣϙɩƭ]

Stalker, on 28 Feb 2010, 7:23, said:

The leveling system was a good idea but it was really badly executed.

High-level players have a huge advantage because of T3 units. Also haveing a team of a few high-level and low-level players comepletely sucks because the lower ones won't go for Tiberium because they only need 1-5 upgrades where a high-level player needs at least 12 for T3.

And my motivation to play this game greatly dropped when I reached 20 with both factions

I don't know, they take up a lot of command points for their power. I prefer T2 units more, as they are still kinda cheap, but much more powerful than T1

[Camille]

from what i've seen so far i've made this little comparison:

Gen:ZH was a raw and dirty diamond. it was rough around the edges but still very valuable on the inside.

in that aspect C&C4 looks like a really well-cut piece of dry feces. it's beautifully shaped and polished but is still a worthless piece of dirt.

argh.

Edited by Camille, 28 February 2010 - 17:10.

[Lizzie]

Here's a question. How would the game be if you cut off the CNC part and just judged it by everything else.

[Sharpnessism]

The game looks pretty bad. It's like they tried to take some elements from a bunch of games and just threw it together, the game is really too simple for a PC RTS, though I suppose it would be an improvement for people that play RTS on the console since it's a lot easier to manage everything.

Even w/o the CNC tag, it has less factions than most RTS games and there are even fewer matchups since there are no mirror matches. The game again, suffers from too much bloom which makes it hard to concentrate on a battle. There'll probably be much less support for this game since most of the devs are going to be gone after this game.

Of course, it's only worse that it has the CNC tag because people will expect some semblance of base building and macromanagement.

[Golan]

Lizzie, on 28 Feb 2010, 17:29, said:

Here's a question. How would the game be if you cut off the CNC part and just judged it by everything else.

I wouldn't even have bothered looking at it.

[Camille]

Golan, on 28 Feb 2010, 19:05, said:

Lizzie, on 28 Feb 2010, 17:29, said:

Here's a question. How would the game be if you cut off the CNC part and just judged it by everything else.

I wouldn't even have bothered looking at it.

this is in fact quite true. i couldn't imagine myself being interested in the game even one bit if it didn't bear the c&c brand name. it's stupid but it's true.

[BeefJeRKy]

Without C&C, my opinion of the game would be that it's a weirder WiC/DoW2 clone.

[Numbers]

It's release day. Who got it?

[Golan]

The reviews are devastating...

The usual scores range from 60% to 75%. Apparently, not much changed from the beta, the SP sucks, MP gameplay is fun there's but little long-term motivation, the story is laughable and die-hard fans are about to make EA die hard.

Edited by Golan, 16 March 2010 - 18:11.