EA announcesCommand & Conquer, a new free-to-play online strategy game (which they are calling a "destination"), saying this will now include the BioWare-developed project originally announced as Command & Conquer Generals 2. This is to launch next year, and they are currently signing up beta testers on this site, where they have more details, and this new trailer. Here's word:
An all-out war rages in Command & Conquer, as players take control of multiple factions, compete for resources, build up operation bases and lead massive batteries of tanks, soldiers and aircrafts into battle. With incredibly detailed units, fully destructible environments, dynamic physics and exhilarating visual effects, Command & Conquer is poised to re-define what gamers expect from a strategy game. Heralding feedback driven design, Command & Conquer will evolve and develop with an expanding array of new content based on community response.
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
Prez wrote on Aug 15, 2012, 20:30: It's not 'missing out' if I don't like the feature to begin with. To be clear it's not just Generals - I get no enjoyment out of multiplayer games in general; I'm a singleplayer gamer exclusively except for the odd Left 4 Dead or Payday the Heist coop game.
Just curious, but why do you not enjoy multiplayer. I like single player games too, but still... most of the best moments I have had in gaming have been multiplayer or at least co-op.
That's a good question - one I'm sure you'll be sorry you asked once you read my answer!
I'm not a competitive person by nature, and in fact will totally psych myself out to the point that I offer no challenge whatsoever to the competition, even if I may otherwise be a better player. Reflexes are another thing - whether it be a FPS or a RTS, I think and react too slowly to ever win anything. Even in Turn-based games, where reaction time is not an issue, I can't compete. Furthermore, I feel multiplayer removes the fun factor of the game; it's no longer about having fun but about "winning". For me, it's all about the journey. Then there's the lack of a cohesion between matches - I like the immersion into the game universe that singleplayer campaign provides and multiplayer completely misses altogether.
I could go on, but that ought to be enough.
Did EA not have faith that they could sell this at a $50 price range?
Well CnC 4 was an unmitigated disaster, so I'm thinking maybe they don't.
Not sorry at all, it was an interesting answer. I was seriously curious. I have ladder nerve issues in SC2, for example, so I can kind of relate. I guess I am just a semi-competitive person at the end of the day. I never take it too seriously, but I like to compete for fun, so that has a factor for me. That said, I can relate to never getting super competitive people. For me it is just something to go after that gives you drive for the game.
It has never been some highlander 'there can only be one' sort of deal I mean I have lost games that I had a ton of fun in just because they were good games.