459 replies to this topic

[Golan]

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

Which is why I didn't say you did.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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 you've probably done is read my annoyance at calling people EA bashers as reading your annoyance at EA bashers as support for the game because that was what you expected to hear, where in actual fact this is not the case.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

Fun fact: They don't have to. This isn't a topic for scientific analyses, it's for people to state how they think about the game, and if someone doesn't like it, they are very likely to focus on why they don't like it.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

And you know this how?

Reading the numerous information available.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

I explicitly added to my post that even without specifically mentioning it, all posts include the premise that they are only based on limited knowledge. Beside that, the Gamespot interview is quite clear.
€dit:
No wait, I didn't? Ops. Well, regardless, it should be clear that none of us is clairvoyant.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

Old and rubbish? Dear sir, are you overinterpreting my posts?

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

As I've already said you're perfectly right to be biased, but it remains my prerogative to argue what I want.

It doesn't seem like I'm perfectly right to be biased seeing that people are reproached for it.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

If the Tiberium Series doesn't have good gameplay anymore, then bury it. D'uh. It's not exactly difficult. The point of sequels is that they are largely similar to their predecessors in the defining points of a series, otherwise there's no point in making a sequel.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

Which is exactly why I did not claim that all people felt that way.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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

I didn't say you said so. But it's a part of Co-Op.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

Isn't this exactly the problem? C&C isn't much more than OMGWTFKANE storywise and, let's be honest here, he sucks at being a story. So why care for him?

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

More like "because it doesn't matter" to most. The Kane storylines having been rather bland and cheap and EA mentioning that C&C4 will be the last game of the storyline, but not the universe, should be enough for most people to shrug and focus on the important parts of the game.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

Good thing I didn't say you did, eh?

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

Well, it isn't. TW used SAGE and many people will agree that RNA is different, but not in the slightest bit better.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

Yeah, it can be made to do a lot of different things - by rewriting it from scratch. Which, by current "educated guess" of the non-EA people that had a look at the previous games, they did not.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

The least you could do is actually compare like with like;

Believe me, I wanted to, especially after Nem informed me that the image I initially used was using the wrong settings, but point being, there aren't many post-release screens around and I replaced most of the EA shaders with custom ones, among others the bloom shader, so reproducing the scene was also out of question.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

Good thing that's an actual post-release screenshot of TW! No wait, it's not.
Point being, the one I used DOES show the game on the same settings.

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

Which is a good reason for people to be upset already, no?

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

I don't deny that there might be some good in the game either, I simply say that a) I didn't care before and b) am pessimistic about it regardless for various reasons of which I stated multiple.

Edited by Golan, 10 July 2009 - 16:32.

[Admiral FCS]

I just noticed that in the home page, there's a timer. What do you think it's for, next news update, beta announcement or else?

[CommanderJB]

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

CommanderJB, on 10 Jul 2009, 15:15, said:

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.

Which is why I didn't say you did.

While it's not my desire to get into a long and ultimately non-productive sentence-by-sentence debate about who said what, the impression I got (rather logically, I think) from reading the words 'your points don't amount to much more than "I don't know anything, but it might perhaps possibly eventually when we are lucky be cool" either' is that you had interpreted me as saying that I thought it might be cool. I didn't. As I said below my points were these:
- If you're going to bash a game, at least bother to talk about what it's adding
- The graphics aren't spectacular but then they're not complete either
- It'd be better if they'd released it later, but EA are a money-making company and trying to bash them for that is nothing more than a waste of time
Nothing more, nothing less. Calling something innovative for the series does not equal my saying it might be cool. The point is effectively academic, but I was fairly specific about my wording to avoid exactly this sort of misinterpretation.

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

What you've probably done is read my annoyance at calling people EA bashers as reading your annoyance at EA bashers as support for the game because that was what you expected to hear, where in actual fact this is not the case.

Perhaps. But then given that my arguments were not primarily oriented toward you and toward posts that were EA bashing, I'm not really sure why you got annoyed in the first place.

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

Fun fact: They don't have to. This isn't a topic for scientific analyses, it's for people to state how they think about the game, and if someone doesn't like it, they are very likely to focus on why they don't like it.

My entire point was that people didn't discuss the game; they either neglected to name reasons at all or found one thing that they didn't like and extrapolated that into dislike for the whole game apparently without considering the rest of it, which made me a little exasperated.

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

Reading the numerous information available.

Having re-read the interview, I retract much of my question. It is clearer than I had thought, though I would stress that it is still the only source available. I am nevertheless dubious that we can claim all these things as 'nothing new' when we have no idea as to the degree the role system will be implemented (will it be like

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

I explicitly added to my post that even without specifically mentioning it, all posts include the premise that they are only based on limited knowledge. Beside that, the Gamespot interview is quite clear.
€dit:
No wait, I didn't? Ops. Well, regardless, it should be clear that none of us is clairvoyant.

If it was not your intention to make no differentiation between opinion and fact then I apologise; I made a point out of it because this is something I encounter regularly elsewhere and feel a need to correct when I do.

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

Old and rubbish? Dear sir, are you overinterpreting my posts?

Probably, yes.

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

It doesn't seem like I'm perfectly right to be biased seeing that people are reproached for it.

I don't mind people being biased, but I do mind it when this bias affects a debate to such a degree that it means there is no debate, just bashing of selected points. This was what I was witnessing.

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

If the Tiberium Series doesn't have good gameplay anymore, then bury it. D'uh. It's not exactly difficult. The point of sequels is that they are largely similar to their predecessors in the defining points of a series, otherwise there's no point in making a sequel.

I disagree that a series should be buried rather than subject to innovation, and the definition of a sequel is a matter for another debate. Regardless, this is a matter of purely opinion, and you are more than welcome to have yours; I was speaking only for myself.

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

Which is exactly why I did not claim that all people felt that way.
...
I didn't say you said so. But it's a part of Co-Op.

Very well, I accept your points.

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

Isn't this exactly the problem? C&C isn't much more than OMGWTFKANE storywise and, let's be honest here, he sucks at being a story. So why care for him?
...
More like "because it doesn't matter" to most. The Kane storylines having been rather bland and cheap and EA mentioning that C&C4 will be the last game of the storyline, but not the universe, should be enough for most people to shrug and focus on the important parts of the game.

I would be completely flabbergasted if this was the case because I constantly see Kane raved about as being the best thing since sliced bread on most C&C community sites I visit, hence why I expected at least some comment on it.

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

Good thing I didn't say you did, eh?
...
Well, it isn't. TW used SAGE and many people will agree that RNA is different, but not in the slightest bit better.
...
Yeah, it can be made to do a lot of different things - by rewriting it from scratch. Which, by current "educated guess" of the non-EA people that had a look at the previous games, they did not.

Having re-read your initial post regarding the engine in the first place I retract my arguments about it; I incorrectly recalled someone having said that it's using SAGE, which, given the difference between the engines, I felt a need to respond to. However, this was my mistake, so I'll take your word for it about the engine, as it's outside my experience other than playing with it.

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

Believe me, I wanted to, especially after Nem informed me that the image I initially used was using the wrong settings, but point being, there aren't many post-release screens around and I replaced most of the EA shaders with custom ones, among others the bloom shader, so reproducing the scene was also out of question.
...
Good thing that's an actual post-release screenshot of TW! No wait, it's not.
Point being, the one I used DOES show the game on the same settings.

Well, you can take your pick; here's one one of the final release of Tiberium Wars (or any of the several in the last pages of that gallery), taken by an independent organisation, and it is not a massive downgrade from the initial release shots you posted. I would still maintain that the normal state of affairs, as witnessed in RA3, is for graphical quality to increase in some degree throughout the evolution from alpha to final release candidate.

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

Which is a good reason for people to be upset already, no?

Depends on the person. For myself it seems pretty logical to have the game looking much the same as its predecessor, and while I wouldn't knock more graphical quality it's not really going to keep me awake at night. Besides, as we're constantly told, 'Gameplay > graphics' anyway...

Golan, on 11 Jul 2009, 2:28, said:

I don't deny that there might be some good in the game either, I simply say that a) I didn't care before and b) am pessimistic about it regardless for various reasons of which I stated multiple.

Very well, I accept the point. I appreciate that I may have been selective in my reading earlier.

It appears we have both misunderstood each other in various instances, and for my part I apologise. I would emphasise that you are always entitled to your opinion and it was not my intention to give the impression that this was not the case at any point.

Admiral FCS, on 11 Jul 2009, 13:04, said:

I just noticed that in the home page, there's a timer. What do you think it's for, next news update, beta announcement or else?

Right above that it says 'COMMAND & CONQUER 4 TRAILER PREMIERES IN', so I'd say there's a pretty decent chance it's counting down to the trailer release.

Edited by CommanderJB, 11 July 2009 - 06:19.

[RaiDK]

I think we can halt these wall of text responses now. Back on topic, yo!

I personally love the idea of having a 'base vehicle' which does everything. Here's hoping they give them sufficient firepower to defend themselves.

[JJ]

Replacing traditional base building totally sounds too drastic though. Drastic changes tend to skew up gameplay (as much as I hate to say this, example: ROTR). I think it's better if it's:
- A selectable mode.
- Available on certain maps/missions.
- Be faction specific.

Yes, I'm doubting the way it will be balanced alongside other stuff. Balancing a radical thing like this is hard already, and yet it's EA who has to do it. The way they balance things (big patches with lots of changes instead of small patches with small tweaks) just doesn't give me much confidence.

[Golan]

Admiral FCS, on 11 Jul 2009, 4:04, said:

I just noticed that in the home page, there's a timer. What do you think it's for, next news update, beta announcement or else?

It's the countdown for the next BCPT episode that will feature the C&C4 release trailer.

CommanderJB, on 11 Jul 2009, 7:19, said:

It appears we have both misunderstood each other in various instances, and for my part I apologise. I would emphasise that you are always entitled to your opinion and it was not my intention to give the impression that this was not the case at any point.

Thanks, I too apologize for dragging this on.

CommanderJB, on 11 Jul 2009, 7:19, said:

I would be completely flabbergasted if this was the case because I constantly see Kane raved about as being the best thing since sliced bread on most C&C community sites I visit, hence why I expected at least some comment on it.

Again, not trying to speak for all C&C fans, but at least most of the senior fans I know are rather indifferent towards him. In C&C1, he was a dark and edgy militia leader going for world dominance, in C&C2 he was a manipulative cult leader trying to terraform earth and advance humanity while in C&C3 he was a wacky religious nutjob (as opposed to TS, where this was clearly only a facade) trying to go INTO SPACE - also, he pretty much died every time. There is only little consistency in the role of Kane, but at the same time most people will identify him with the portrayal they liked the most so he is still a quite useful PR figure to unite the different camps of fans.

Edited by Golan, 11 July 2009 - 07:50.

[BeefJeRKy]

C&C 4 needs a constant internet connection. This bit of news has sealed the deal for me. There is no way I'll get this now.

[CJ]

Scope, on 18 Jul 2009, 1:18, said:

C&C 4 needs a constant internet connection. This bit of news has sealed the deal for me. There is no way I'll get this now.

This can't be serious ! Must be kinda most stupid idea EA ever had... Who would like being forced to connect simply to be able to play a singleplayer mode ?

Wonder what they're planning for the next C&C, maybe make it a puzzle game, or a point & click one '_'

[MR.Kim]

This is might more stupid this:
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/07/16/cam...39s-bill-rights

Not olny C&C4, Compay of Heros dose this. Either other games same dose, too.

It's not real big deal anyway.

Edited by MR.Kim, 18 July 2009 - 03:23.

[MentalAss]

But Company of Heroes does not require you to be online to play. To play without the CD, yes, to play in general, no.

The fact that you are most definitely required (at least by the wording that has been put forth) to have a constant Internet connection to play Twilight, is ridiculous to say the least. The fact that not all people enjoy online play not to mention the countless people who are still void of a higher speed connection is a foolish move by EA. They are needlessly alienating countless potential consumers.

My take on C&C4 is one of utter disappointment. I enjoyed playing Tiberian Dawn, Tiberian Sun and Red Alert (less Red Alert 2 for the cartoony graphics) for the addition of base macro in conjuntion with unit micro. Having a base walker, if you will, just takes away from the RTS base building element that I enjoyed so much. I even frowned upon Firestorm's Mobile War Factory/Fist of Nod. Now it seems less C&C and more like DoW2, and let me tell you, I'm not a big fan of it either.

Edited by MentalAss, 19 July 2009 - 20:49.

[Golan]

Okay, there's a bunch of new info and screenshots about C&C4 from the French PC Jeux magazine. I guess it's appropriate for me not to comment, just to give you the link and facepalm for the rest of the week.

€dit
Remember to also read the summarization...

Quote

-Kane contacts GDI after all hope is lost due to the Tiberium contamination, forming the "Tiberium network control", which allows to control Tiberium spread, as well as turn it into an inexpensive power source- but of course, the extremists of both parties don't agree with this shift, sparking a new war
-FMVs won't consist of much asinine babbling in front of bluecsreens, there should be much more action ahead
-Our character will play an important role in the story, but FMVs remain 1st person
-Much more mature and stern tone
-Crawler produces all our units, and is upgradeable as our standard units are
-Lost crawlers are instantly replaced, and you can choose between offensive, defensive or engineer classes
-Tiberium will be collected by refineries you erect yourself at pre-determined spots
-All SP and MP matches will net you experience points to unlock new tech
-Oil derricks as secondary income (Unconfirmed!)

Edited by Golan, 20 July 2009 - 07:26.

[Alias]

Quote

-Crawler produces all our units, and is upgradeable as our standard units are
-Lost crawlers are instantly replaced, and you can choose between offensive, defensive or engineer classes

...
What the hell went through the designer's minds to get to this. They simplified the gameplay in C&C3, now they're practically turning it into a baby toy.

[Golan]

Sounds like they are trying to go for a gameplay hybrid of tactic based RTS and FPS (Q3, UT). Not that either would have been identified with C&C in the past...
What I really don't understand though is how they come to talk about a "much more mature and stern tone" when most stuff looks like toys.

[Kaido]

That is not a C&C game <.<

[Stalker]

Is there another source for the new info? I can't acces filefront from here.

[Golan]

CNCZ got the same info. Check it our here.

[Wizard]

Openly criticizing a CnC game on this forum these days invariably gets you condemned for some reason but I don't care. This just looks shit. Simple. Those units could've been designed and made by a toddler.

*Total end of interest in the CnC franchise imminent*

[Dutchygamer]

Am I one of the few who actually likes some of those ideas?

[JJ]

Seems so, as those ideas are totally awful in terms of gameplay, plus the story sounds crap.

[Dutchygamer]

Hmm, I think it's for my own sake to stop posting in topics like this, because I know I will get flamed for liking this game...

[JJ]

What you need to do is reason, why you like them? People won't be impressed with single sentence statements.

[Destiny]

The only bit of interest I have for 4 is are the airships/battleships/whateverships. I don't really give a damn about the others

[JJ]

If only they didn't touch base building and Tiberium gathering.

It would still be good enough, as some of the units do seem quite nice. Currently feels ridiculous though, as no base building means no teching.

[Amdrial]

First info from the article, thanks to CnCSaga and CNCDen for directing me there.

-Kane contacts GDI after all hope is lost due to the Tiberium contamination, forming the "Tiberium network control", which allows to control Tiberium spread, as well as turn it into an inexpensive power source- but of course, the extremists of both parties don't agree with this shift, sparking a new war
-FMVs won't consist of much asinine babbling in front of bluecsreens, there should be much more action ahead
-Our character will play an important role in the story, but FMVs remain 1st person
-Much more mature and stern tone
-Crawler produces all our units, and is upgradeable as our standard units are
-Lost crawlers are instantly replaced, and you can choose between offensive, defensive or engineer classes
-Tiberium will be collected by refineries you erect yourself at pre-determined spots
-All SP and MP matches will net you experience points to unlock new tech
-Oil derricks as secondary income (Unconfirmed!)

Magazine Scans are HERE.

Edit: Fail.

Edited by {LP}Admiral-(NL), 20 July 2009 - 13:45.

[Camille]

already posted