Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Command & Conquer 4 Details?

A post on CNC Generals World has word on an "official EA survey" they believe gives indications on new directions being considered for Command & Conquer 4, the next installment in the RTS series. A subsequent post makes it clear that this is not 100% confirmed, but they are confident in the survey's veracity (thanks Ant and Planet Command & Conquer), and Shacknews has the link to the online survey itself. Here are the parts that have everybody speculating:

Play in the first RTS game with MMORPG like player progression in which you are rewarded every time you play. Every unit you kill in single player, multiplayer, or skirmish gives you experience points that allows you to level up your abilities and unlock new units, powers, and upgrades to your arsenal.

Introducing the first mobile base in RTS games: The Crawler. Focus on the action as the Crawler becomes your all-in-one base, which can be deployed and redeployed anywhere on the battlefield for even more strategic options

Play with all new, bigger and badder, units from GDI and Nod, including the Crawler, the first ever mobile base in RTS games

Dive into an all-new story written by a new scriptwriting team and told through trademark C&C cinematics taken to the next level with grittier, stylized FMVs in the vein of Minority Report.

Play in the first ever class-based C&C game a new challenge for C&C and RTS players to master

Play the campaign on your own or tackle it with a friend, as co-operative campaigns return

Play in epic 5 vs 5 online multiplayer with all new objective-based game modes

View
23 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

23. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 13:52 theyarecomingforyou
 
I thought RA3 was a big step up from C&C3. It restored a lot of the depth that C&C3 lost. Each faction had different construction mechanics and almost every unit had a secondary mode. It wasn't as deep as Generals but it was definitely an improvement over C&C3.
In some respects I agree but the superweapons became more tedious and ship rushing was irritating - it didn't play as well as the earlier videos made it look. I was much more impressed by what Relic did with DOWII - by catering the game towards the action everyone was rushing anyway and it became about how well you and your allies can work together to secure points.

Zero Hour actually did have FMV. Not that I really care though. I'm more interested in gameplay than cutscenes.
Obviously gameplay is more important but it all goes to creating the character of the game. I also didn't like the engine (it was too blocky), which I didn't feel surpassed the 2D offerings until C&C3 and, more importantly, RA3 improved things. Notably I didn't feel you could zoom out far enough to really get the picture of things, which was the big criticism I had of Age Of Empires 3 moving to 3D.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 12:08 Jerykk
 
It was the original C&C that went for absurdly over-the-top stereotypes, from the GDI commander to Kane.

I thought the stereotypes were pretty over-the-top in Generals, particularly in Zero Hour. If you haven't played Zero Hour, you really should because it's rather tongue-in-cheek.

And it lacked FMV, one of the defining qualities of the C&C franchise.

Zero Hour actually did have FMV. Not that I really care though. I'm more interested in gameplay than cutscenes.

It's just a shame that RA3 lost the plot - it looked like it was going to be decent but it was dominated by rushes, superweapons and units that went beyond OTT in a bad way.

I thought RA3 was a big step up from C&C3. It restored a lot of the depth that C&C3 lost. Each faction had different construction mechanics and almost every unit had a secondary mode. It wasn't as deep as Generals but it was definitely an improvement over C&C3.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 09:24 LobsterMobster
 
Even if the Crawler was the first mobile base in an RTS - which it definitely is not - I don't know if that bears repeating twice.

I cut my teeth on C&C1 but I'm really not fond of how "campy" they are. I know some people dig that and it's OK, but to me, in order for camp to be at all respectable it has to be non-intentional (and even then, I don't like it). Otherwise it's just laziness. It's cheap and quick to get a bad writer, disinterested actors, throw them together for a few afternoons, and call the predictably terrible outcome "campy."

So yeah, I'll take incompetence over laziness any day. Thankfully EA gives us both, regularly.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 08:09 theyarecomingforyou
 
With regards to politics in Generals I see it along the same line as Team America - OTT and tongue-in-cheek. As far as I could tell they were stereotypes being exaggerated for effect.
Hardly. It was the original C&C that went for absurdly over-the-top stereotypes, from the GDI commander to Kane. Team America was primarily focused on humour, while the same cannot be said for Generals.

Really, if you hate Generals for its politics, you should also hate...
I didn't say I hated it, just that it's less tasteful than the other games in the series due to the lack of self-parody. And it lacked FMV, one of the defining qualities of the C&C franchise.

C&C sucks after Red Alert 1. God that game is incredible, too bad the same can't be said about any of the later since they all just the same game.
I dunno, I thought C&C3 did a lot to restore the franchise. It's just a shame that RA3 lost the plot - it looked like it was going to be decent but it was dominated by rushes, superweapons and units that went beyond OTT in a bad way.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 07:17 Efflixi
 
First mobile base? Hell, KKND had you start every single map with a mobile base to be deployed before you began!  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 06:57 J
 
With regards to politics in Generals I see it along the same line as Team America - OTT and tongue-in-cheek. As far as I could tell they were stereotypes being exaggerated for effect. I think some of you are taking it more seriously than it is taking itself.

Not that taking things too seriously is exactly new 'round these parts
 
Avatar 45926
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 03:54 Sempai
 
Lemmie guess..your french.

USA OWNS GOT IT KID!

GO U S A!
 
Avatar 33180
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 03:13 Caveman
 
C&C sucks after Red Alert 1. God that game is incredible, too bad the same can't be said about any of the later since they all just the same game.

This comment was edited on Jun 23, 2009, 03:13.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 03:06 Tango
 
I'd much rather see Generals 2. The GLA were a riot. Generals was also by far the deepest C&C.
Agreed. I love the older C&C games, up to Tiberian Sun, but after that the only one that held my interest for any time was Generals.

Yes, the GO USA! style of it was rather annoying, but there are plenty of other games that are just as tedious in this respect. But 100% agree with Jerykk that the gameplay (especially with the additional Zero Hour pack) was far more tactical than previous C&C iterations.
 
Avatar 18712
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 02:30 Jerykk
 
Tiberium worked well because it combined sci-fi with a real-world setting - it showed an alternate take on the modern world.

A lot of sci-fi does that and in a much more interesting way than the Tiberium universe. Deus Ex, for example.

Generals took the real-world setting but just made it really dull and overtly political.

Overtly political? Sure, I guess. Most military-based games are overtly political. That's why we never get to play as the Nazis or terrorists. Well, except in Generals, where you could indeed play as the terrorists. They were completely over-the-top and completely different from the other factions which made them so fun to play. Sniping enemy drivers and stealing their vehicles, driving a Technical through a group of enemy tanks and dropping off a few suicide bombers right next to them, using tunnels to quickly transport your units across the map, salvaging the remains of enemy vehicles to upgrade your own... good times. China and USA were relatively boring but GLA was awesome.

It lacked the character or imagination of the tiberium universe.

The Tiberium universe really isn't all that imaginative. It's a typical post-apocalyptic scenario. You've got the good guys trying to restore and maintain order and the bad guys trying to take it all apart.

Really, if you hate Generals for its politics, you should also hate Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, Company of Heroes, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Soldier of Fortune, Operation Flashpoint, Brothers in Arms, ArmA, Wolfenstein or any other series where Americans are portrayed as the heroes.

This comment was edited on Jun 23, 2009, 02:35.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 01:41 Sempai
 
Aww..my little fans are everywhere. 8*)  
Avatar 33180
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 01:34 space captain
 
yeh dillweed  
Go forth, and kill!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 00:48 Sempai
 
These guys are going to milk this bullshit franchise until literally no one cares anymore.

C&C is utter garbage. Move on.
 
Avatar 33180
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 23, 2009, 00:05 theyarecomingforyou
 
I've never found the Tiberium universe interesting in the least. I'd much rather see Generals 2.
I disagree completely. Tiberium worked well because it combined sci-fi with a real-world setting - it showed an alternate take on the modern world. Generals took the real-world setting but just made it really dull and overtly political. It lacked the character or imagination of the tiberium universe. It should NEVER have carried the C&C name, regardless of its individual merits.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 22, 2009, 23:39 Fausticle
 
C&C4 Details...

C&C4 will be like every other C&C game since the dawn of time.
Thank you for your money.
That will be all.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 22, 2009, 23:05 Jerykk
 
And where is my C&C generals 2?

This^^^^

I've never found the Tiberium universe interesting in the least. I'd much rather see Generals 2. The GLA were a riot. Generals was also by far the deepest C&C.

Play the campaign on your own or tackle it with a friend, as co-operative campaigns return

Bad idea. RA3 really suffered from having every mission designed for co-op. If you played by yourself, the enemy AI would focus more on your teammate AI, leaving you to expand and conquer with little to no opposition. Your teammate AI would also complete most of the secondary objectives for you.

Play in the first ever class-based C&C game a new challenge for C&C and RTS players to master

I'm not really sure what they mean. Generals had "classes" in that there were generals you could play as who had specialized units.

Introducing the first mobile base in RTS games: The Crawler. Focus on the action as the Crawler becomes your all-in-one base, which can be deployed and redeployed anywhere on the battlefield for even more strategic options

Again, somewhat confused here. RA3 had mobile bases. Universe at War had mobile bases. Starcraft had mobile bases. It's not a novel concept.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 22, 2009, 22:43 Ecthelion
 
They should bring back MacNeil (played by Michael Bien) for this one. The storyline felt more personal when you had an actual face and name instead of having everyone call you "Commander."

As for the mobile base, maybe the "Crawler" can construct all unit/structure types by itself (along with the relevant tech buildings)?

This comment was edited on Jun 22, 2009, 22:44.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 22, 2009, 22:06 Tranceport
 
And where is my C&C generals 2?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 22, 2009, 21:28 theyarecomingforyou
 
The mobile base claim is bizarre. C&C has already had bases that were redeployable. It's certainly nothing new and certainly shouldn't be a key advertising point. If this is the best of what they plan to offer then I'm not exactly impressed.  
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Command & Conquer 4 Details? Jun 22, 2009, 21:15 agpc
 
The first mobile base claim is directly refuted by their own game in the same universe - Red Alert 3. You can roll your main building structure across water and land and place turrets and buildings anywhere as allies and soviets. As empire, you produce nodes that can be placed anywhere on the map, and you also have a mobile base structure as well. Pretty funny that they would make this claim since the same company has already accomplished this feat.

As an avid C&C guy, it would bother me if they created an RTSMMORPG. All I care about are automatch online games, I don't want to have to level characters or units.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo