142 replies to this topic

[Raven]

I agree with nem. Its just a Victory games development with BW name slapped on it. But the use of the frostbite engine surprises me. Either way I am looking forward to this.

[Admiral FCS]

Personally I'm kinda tired of the Orca-style helis... but everything else is gorgeous. There isn't much else, so I guess it's a wait and see, but looking forward to it as well (unless Uni crushes me next year).

[Libains]

Nem, on 11 December 2011 - 02:48, said:

AJ, on 11 December 2011 - 02:43, said:

but nothing to support or deny the theory so far.

To assume they would remove one of the franchises defining features without reason, when the fan base would be universally against it is a bit silly.

Dunno what you're looking at on that picture mate, can't see a dozer on it... (unless you're looking at the construction crane far left, which to me looks like a something out of a build animation akin to RA3...). And again, I'm not stipulating that they will, I just have a funny feeling that they might, ​because whilst it is certainly a successor to the series, EA has shown that they're A) Not afraid to make changes (C&C4 anyone?) and B) They're trying to synthesise everything that they believe makes a great RTS. I don't know whether dozers will come under that remit or not.

EDIT: Also, edited the topic title, just in case anyone wasn't sure as to what this was

Edited by AJ, 11 December 2011 - 03:13.

[Alias]

Nem, on 11 December 2011 - 02:48, said:

To assume they would remove one of the franchises defining features without reason, when the fan base would be universally against it is a bit silly.

Look at C&C4, it's not completely out of character for EA these days.

Unfortunately I'm staying skeptical about this, I've had my hopes crushed enough by EA in the past.

[Nem]

Whatever, If a picture of a construction unit building a building cannot convince you, Nothing I can argue will. It's really something that EA's reputation is so bad it leads you to assume the worst, even when it's illogical.

Edited by Nem, 11 December 2011 - 04:25.

[Admiral FCS]

Umm... sorry for being ignorant, but isn't EA's main job in this game, amongst many others, publishing the game instead of developing it...? Is it because EA has the final say on what's in the game and what's not that's making people blame them?

[Libains]

It's not a matter of right or wrong, this is just shades of grey, it's not really anyone's position to convince anyone what is or is not on display in the few seconds of screentime the game has. Some of us are just more dubious as to EA's ability to listen to people, not a bloody thing wrong with that.

To answer you Admiral, they're not technically developing, but they fund the studios involved. Doing something they don't want you to do is rather like biting the hand that feeds you. AKA, a bad idea.

Edited by AJ, 11 December 2011 - 04:56.

[Nem]

My proof is an image, Your proof is your doubt in EA, a for profit corporation which stands to gain by satisfying what is an almost universal wish from the fan base. I could say Victory games is introducing dinosaurs as a build-able unit and you couldn't prove me wrong, That wouldn't make me any less of an idiot for assuming so. There isn't a doubt in my mind that the majority will come to the same conclusion I have and while it isn't my position to convince anyone what is on display, It's immoral to persuade people what isn't, based on bias.

[Admiral FCS]

AJ, on 11 December 2011 - 04:50, said:

To answer you Admiral, they're not technically developing, but they fund the studios involved. Doing something they don't want you to do is rather like biting the hand that feeds you. AKA, a bad idea.

Mmkay thanks.

[Krieger22]

CJ, on 11 December 2011 - 00:08, said:

Quote

Hard Drive: 20 GB

[Libains]

Nem, on 11 December 2011 - 05:10, said:

My proof is an image, Your proof is your doubt in EA, a for profit corporation which stands to gain by satisfying what is an almost universal wish from the fan base. I could say Victory games is introducing dinosaurs as a build-able unit and you couldn't prove me wrong, That wouldn't make me any less of an idiot for assuming so. There isn't a doubt in my mind that the majority will come to the same conclusion I have and while it isn't my position to convince anyone what is on display, It's immoral to persuade people what isn't, based on bias.

The whole point of what I said was 'let it drop'.

I really couldn't give two shits as to who thinks what anymore, but the whole point of a discussion is that two people discuss their opinions. Throwing the phrase 'immoral' around because of what I and others may believe is particular note for me. It's uncalled for when all we're doing is discussing a bloody video game, and it's never been immoral to present a point of view. I don't believe it looks like a dozer, and I have not enough faith in EA/others to assume they will build it into the game. You believe it looks like a dozer and believe EA will see financial sense in putting them into the game. I see no question of morality or otherwise, in fact, all I see are two opinions, and the discussion being blown massively out of proportion for what (scrolls back) looks like no good reason at all. Give it a blasted rest, it's not like I'm accusing you, personally, of anything.

(Oh, and saying they'd put dinosaurs into the game isn't that ridiculous, just go play Yuri's Revenge (and if they put that homage in in any way, shape or form I'd chuckle my head off) )

[Sgt. Rho]

I'll say Dozers ARE back. I see multiple ones, and one isn't busy building stuff.

Also is it me or are all those civillan assets...from BF3?

[Anubis]

Well it's official. Generals 2 is the new game franchise bioware is working on. For those who missed the event it's on gametrailers and here : http://www.youtube.c...h?v=w6bg6yhyTK4 .

I wish i had high hopes for this title, but my past experience with EA and especialy bioware says totaly different. The way i see it generals 2 has 2 options atm given how games have been done in the past 2-3 years. Either be an almost exact copy of the first game, just with better graphics and new ”old” units or it will be an online based game, which as usualy leads to a dumb down recepy for the so called ”pro wanna-be” gameplay. Either way, i higly doubt this will have anything inovative or higly interesting in it.

Also given the fact that it is bioware who is the developer ( even if it's a new team under their flag, past experiences show that habbits are the exact same ), i will expect a highly repetitive and semi-finished game with little to 0 modding possibilities. Why ? That's simple. Because both EA and their puppets at Bioware love DLC's. And you can't have both modding and dlc, because no one will buy the damn DLC if they can do stuff on their own. Both Mass Effect and Dragon Age, got an extreme dumbdown in terms of both gameplay and quality when their sequel came, and both sequels were prety much unmodable. Except changing a few ingame stats, the rest was almost impossible. Everything is hardcoded so that only DLC can change stuff.

I for one really hoped that the old trailer was a Mass Effect RTS and not Generals 2. At least they screwed up the ME series enough to lower expectations ( for those that will rant about this - i'm refering to mass effect 2 as the RPG of the year not the shooter of the year, in which category it should've been ). Ofc this is all my opinion, and i based it on the events of the past 2-3 years in the gaming world as well as the trend bioware went with. Generals 2 might just as well be the next epic strategy game, but given the multi-platform crap we generaly have today and the more and more retarded new generations of gamers that just wanna be master epic master sargent after 5 shoots in a game ... i highly doubt it. After all this is a money making bussines not a fairytale.

Edited by Anubis, 11 December 2011 - 10:36.

[Wizard]

Based on Nem's original image as proof of dozers, I would've said I disagreed with him about them being in. Rho's image does seem to suggest that they are in as we know and love them. That said, until I see one roll out of a command centre I will remain skeptical. The huge similarity of the units and buildings in these screenshots to RA3 is bloody frightening, to the degree that I would be prepared to believe that the developers would carry over the construction yard dynamic, albeit with moving dozers, as it could be suggested they are here.

*Merged Anubis' topic with this one.*

Edited by Wizard, 11 December 2011 - 10:39.

[Sgt. Rho]

Anubis, half your argument is based on the assumption that Bioware develops Generals 2. They don't. Victory Games does, and EA put them under the BioWare lable to boost sales.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

Generals 2 QA over at IGN

Quote

The player is the General and it's up to them to create and take control of these huge, massive armies.

Quote

We're focusing equal efforts on both single player and multiplayer.

I must say, I am quietly optimistic about this game...

[Amdrial]

Right now, my biggest fear is that, "With the return to the roots of C&C", they will remove the dozer/worker logic from the game.

[n5p29]

aside from the used engine, so far so good. still no sign about the "third side".

CJ, on 11 December 2011 - 00:08, said:

Quote

• Ever-Evolving Experience — Enhance your game with an expanding array of downloadable content. From maps and UNITS to FACTIONS, campaigns, and more, the fight against terrorism is deeper than ever.

wait, what?

Edited by n5p29, 11 December 2011 - 12:58.

[Raven]

btw the system requirements floating around seems to be that of BF3 because its using the same engine. The ones that were in the origin cache may have been place holders.

[Sgt. Rho]

The DLC stuff can mean anything. I doubt they'll add more factions via DLC, generals at best.

[Raven]

2 factions are confirmed to be GLA and EU. 3rd faction is up for debate. Would it be China or US? It might even be Russia.

[Pav:3d]

*Looks over screenshot* Oh great, 'vee's are back... yaaay ¬_¬

Are they bringing wall's the gens or are those just scenery

[Camille]

@raven:

or *GASP* something new altogether.

the classic factions are getting majorly boring imo. i think it's great they chose something as unconventional as a european faction for a change. if they add something like USA or russia i am seriously going to puke in my soup.

Edited by Camille, 11 December 2011 - 15:08.

[Sgt. Rho]

I'd love to see something like the TFT in Act of War: A Spin-off of one of the major factions, using completely different units and maybe even playstyle than its "parent" faction.

It's probably General Thrax tho

[Chyros]

To be bluntly honest, those screenshots almost look like CNC3. There's very little colour and the units all look unnecessarily futuristic IMO. What are the weird arches on the tanks doing there, why are the helicopters straight from the Tiberian universe? The pallette also looks really bland IMO. So far, to be bluntly honest, I'd take the current Generals over this in terms of visuals - Gens just has much more colour. looks more vivid so far, doesn't look like one giant concrete jungle etc.

I'm probably just spoiled by shw though. I've found that since having played shw, all other RTS games have lost their shine to me.