J wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 03:31:
I received my C&C email last night and was amused by the "Battle in your browse" headline

So did I. I thought it was a new game, but it wasn't. Haha. EA is desperate with it. I can't even find reviews and ratings!

I received my C&C email last night and was amused by the "Battle in your browse" headline

Well i guess there is a reason there are so many Remakes of old pc games beeing made

F2P, MMO, or otherwise known as milking a cow.

Fantaz wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 11:17:

Suppa7 wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 05:01:

jacobvandy wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 03:58:

Suppa7 wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 03:20:
blah blah blah

I'm a low IQ gamer and can only post stupid youtube videos to people yelling 'gay'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU

That video is funny.

It's funny because it is true lol.

Prez wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 13:44:
If nothing today has any value then why do you guys bother gaming? Jesus you guys sound like the decrepit old dudes that sit in McDonalds every morning drinking their free senior coffee and complaining how nothing is like it was 50 years ago and therefore everything sucks. Those rose-tinted glasses must be handed out for free at every corner given how much some people like to view everything through them. I played Quake and UT; I played Doom and Fallout 1 and 2. And I can unequivocally say that I'd rather play the modern games. Not everything is some phoned-in Call of Duty clone or a lifeless F2P game. After Fallout New Vegas I doubt Fallout 2 would ever recapture the magic; it was great in its day but now its time is past. The same goes for Deus Ex after I played Human Revolution. Despite you guys living in denial of it, many of these classic games have not aged very well. So many of them are old, tired, and archaic by modern gaming standards. I don't want to have my fond memories of the classics soiled by the realization that advancements in game design (the ones the old snobs slap their hands over their eyes an ears and refuse to acknowledge) have left them in the dust. I've tried re-playing several of the old greats that I bought from GOG and it wasn't pretty - not just the visuals, but the mechanics, the interfaces, and the severely limited gameplay that necessitated by the limited technology of the day robbed the experience of the magic it once had.

I used to think that left 2 options: either learn to appreciate what modern gaming has to offer (and despite the incessant bitching to the contrary from the old snobs there is a LOT that it offers) or just accept that gaming has changed and that this is no longer the hobby for you. But in the last several years I see that many people have chosen a third: keep buying games then complain constantly that they suck and belittle anyone who finds enjoyment in them. My rose-tinted glasses are retired. I'll play the games of today and not be ashamed of it just because a bunch of stodgy old grognards may think it proves I lack their finely-honed, sophisticated and oh-so-mature tastes.

I have no idea what precipitated the vehemence of that rant but anyway, I actually agree that old school PC games don't hold up well. The retro games I can still play and enjoy are mostly on the consoles, sprite based games in particular hold up fairly well. I think TIE Fighter is one of the only old school PC games that I still can play and enjoy simply because no game (even Freespace) has done the combination of gameplay elements better.

That said, there are many Mass Appeal concessions in modern games that are very frustrating as they often impact gameplay depth and complexity. So I totally get why some people miss the older games, warts and all because for all of their flaws compared to modern games they at least pushed and challenged you to think. I hate that it is suddenly market acceptable for games to be considerably dumbed down just so every moron out there can feel special. There were a lot of retro games I played where I just accepted that I didn't get the core concepts or wasn't up to the challenge and that was fine.

As throwback games like Demons/Darks Souls show, you can have difficulty and great design without hand holding. I'd rather have games that require you to work at them a bit than the michael bay masterpiece theater direction we've seen things go, where the player is barely involved beyond moving the set pieces forward.

...None of which pertains to F2P C&C at all I have to be honest, I just do not see EA doing F2P well. One look at how they proposed to F2Pize SWTOR and I've got similar dollar signs in my head. I'm not sure RTS games would lend themselves well to the concept either.

This comment was edited on Nov 5, 2012, 14:08.

Prez wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 13:44:
I used to think that left 2 options: either learn to appreciate what modern gaming has to offer (and despite the incessant bitching to the contrary from the old snobs there is a LOT that it offers) or just accept that gaming has changed and that this is the hobby for you. But in the last few years I see that many people have chosen a third: keep buying games then complain constantly that they suck and belittle anyone who finds enjoyment in them.

I could have sworn you used to argue this with me. Jerykk, too.

But I think several of the older posters here have reached the point that they no longer feel like spending energy complaining and instead have looked for the good out there. And there's still good to be found.
As you mentioned, NV and DX:HR are fantastic games that may be different than their predecessors, and may play differently, but are ridiculously well made, fun games.

If nothing today has any value then why do you guys bother gaming? Jesus you guys sound like the decrepit old dudes that sit in McDonalds every morning drinking their free senior coffee and complaining how nothing is like it was 50 years ago and therefore everything sucks. Those rose-tinted glasses must be handed out for free at every corner given how much some people like to view everything through them. I played Quake and UT; I played Doom and Fallout 1 and 2. And I can unequivocally say that I'd rather play the modern games. Not everything is some phoned-in Call of Duty clone or a lifeless F2P game. After Fallout New Vegas I doubt Fallout 2 would ever recapture the magic; it was great in its day but now its time is past. The same goes for Deus Ex after I played Human Revolution. Despite you guys living in denial of it, many of these classic games have not aged very well. So many of them are old, tired, and archaic by modern gaming standards. I don't want to have my fond memories of the classics soiled by the realization that advancements in game design (the ones the old snobs slap their hands over their eyes an ears and refuse to acknowledge) have left them in the dust. I've tried re-playing several of the old greats that I bought from GOG and it wasn't pretty - not just the visuals, but the mechanics, the interfaces, and the severely limited gameplay that necessitated by the limited technology of the day robbed the experience of the magic it once had.

I used to think that left 2 options: either learn to appreciate what modern gaming has to offer (and despite the incessant bitching to the contrary from the old snobs there is a LOT that it offers) or just accept that gaming has changed and that this is no longer the hobby for you. But in the last several years I see that many people have chosen a third: keep buying games then complain constantly that they suck and belittle anyone who finds enjoyment in them. My rose-tinted glasses are retired. I'll play the games of today and not be ashamed of it just because a bunch of stodgy old grognards may think it proves I lack their finely-honed, sophisticated and oh-so-mature tastes.

This comment was edited on Nov 5, 2012, 13:55.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 12:51:

Beamer wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 11:28:
EVERYTHING WAS BETTER WHEN I WAS WIDE EYED AND YOUNGER!



I always enjoy how little people realize that their personal point in life greatly effected how they viewed the product of that time. There's someone, somewhere, claiming rap was never better than when MC Hammer did it, because rap was exciting and new to him personally at that time.

Games today do almost everything better than previously. They're less cheap. They're more focused. They actually tell stories. Hell, I know the plot of Borderlands 2. I consider that something of a miracle. Somehow Gearbox managed to tell that story coherently. Does anyone know the plot of Metroid? How about Quake? Did anyone ever know why they were doing anything in particular in Doom?

Sure, certain game styles have died out. Turn-based, story-heavy JRPGs, for instance, are no longer popular. FF selling poorly isn't a sign that games are worse, it's a sign that those style games just aren't popular.

The real complaint people can have is that everything is homogenized at the top. Much like what happened with radio and network TV, no one will fully commit to a risk because anything unique may have a limited audience. Fine, whatever. Did this kill music? No, because with the homogenization of radio came the rise of mp3s and spotify. Did this kill TV? No, because with the homogenization of network TV (i.e., Terra Nova being a kiddie show) came the rise of AMC, FX, HBO and Showtime.
With the homogenization of EA will come the rise of anything else, thanks to convenient digital distribution. It's still hard, as video games cost a fortune, as movies do, but man, if FTL and Orcs Must Die 2 aren't up there as 2 of the 5 best games of the year...

X-Com's sales figures say hello. A well made TBS title will sell. As for JRPG's, when you don't inovate at all for 20 years and just slap a new number on the end of your latest cutscene generator v.X.X , yes people tend to gravitate to other things.

I'd take games like Wingcommander and the older C&C games complete with cheesy fmv over the flux of free to play and browser garbage we're getting now.

I said TBRPGs, not TBS, but regardless of that X-COM isn't really selling well. Have you seen any press releases touting how wonderfully it's selling? It may be doing well on Steam, with little competition right now, but it's sadly fallen on its face a bit everywhere else.

Which still doesn't change the fact that the late nineties/early oughts were essentially a golden era, especially as far as story telling goes. RPGs were lightyears better, shooters were more inventive/fun (especially because of the ease/popularity of modding), there were a ton of good strategy games, we still had space sims, there were more/better platformers (there were like a million Ratchet and Clanks on PS2, and we still only have 2 plus that stupid multiplayer one on PS3). We are in the heyday of generic shooters and generic action games. Borderlands may be fun, but it's empty pleasure and not something I'll look fondly back at ten years from now (if Borderlands is what I'm reminiscing of ten years from now I'll hang myself in despair).

Beamer wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 11:28:
EVERYTHING WAS BETTER WHEN I WAS WIDE EYED AND YOUNGER!



I always enjoy how little people realize that their personal point in life greatly effected how they viewed the product of that time. There's someone, somewhere, claiming rap was never better than when MC Hammer did it, because rap was exciting and new to him personally at that time.

Games today do almost everything better than previously. They're less cheap. They're more focused. They actually tell stories. Hell, I know the plot of Borderlands 2. I consider that something of a miracle. Somehow Gearbox managed to tell that story coherently. Does anyone know the plot of Metroid? How about Quake? Did anyone ever know why they were doing anything in particular in Doom?

Sure, certain game styles have died out. Turn-based, story-heavy JRPGs, for instance, are no longer popular. FF selling poorly isn't a sign that games are worse, it's a sign that those style games just aren't popular.

The real complaint people can have is that everything is homogenized at the top. Much like what happened with radio and network TV, no one will fully commit to a risk because anything unique may have a limited audience. Fine, whatever. Did this kill music? No, because with the homogenization of radio came the rise of mp3s and spotify. Did this kill TV? No, because with the homogenization of network TV (i.e., Terra Nova being a kiddie show) came the rise of AMC, FX, HBO and Showtime.
With the homogenization of EA will come the rise of anything else, thanks to convenient digital distribution. It's still hard, as video games cost a fortune, as movies do, but man, if FTL and Orcs Must Die 2 aren't up there as 2 of the 5 best games of the year...

X-Com's sales figures say hello. A well made TBS title will sell. As for JRPG's, when you don't inovate at all for 20 years and just slap a new number on the end of your latest cutscene generator v.X.X , yes people tend to gravitate to other things.

I'd take games like Wingcommander and the older C&C games complete with cheesy fmv over the flux of free to play and browser garbage we're getting now.

EVERYTHING WAS BETTER WHEN I WAS WIDE EYED AND YOUNGER!



I always enjoy how little people realize that their personal point in life greatly effected how they viewed the product of that time. There's someone, somewhere, claiming rap was never better than when MC Hammer did it, because rap was exciting and new to him personally at that time.

Games today do almost everything better than previously. They're less cheap. They're more focused. They actually tell stories. Hell, I know the plot of Borderlands 2. I consider that something of a miracle. Somehow Gearbox managed to tell that story coherently. Does anyone know the plot of Metroid? How about Quake? Did anyone ever know why they were doing anything in particular in Doom?

Sure, certain game styles have died out. Turn-based, story-heavy JRPGs, for instance, are no longer popular. FF selling poorly isn't a sign that games are worse, it's a sign that those style games just aren't popular.

The real complaint people can have is that everything is homogenized at the top. Much like what happened with radio and network TV, no one will fully commit to a risk because anything unique may have a limited audience. Fine, whatever. Did this kill music? No, because with the homogenization of radio came the rise of mp3s and spotify. Did this kill TV? No, because with the homogenization of network TV (i.e., Terra Nova being a kiddie show) came the rise of AMC, FX, HBO and Showtime.
With the homogenization of EA will come the rise of anything else, thanks to convenient digital distribution. It's still hard, as video games cost a fortune, as movies do, but man, if FTL and Orcs Must Die 2 aren't up there as 2 of the 5 best games of the year...

Suppa7 wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 09:26:
D3 is much worse then diablo 2, it's loot sucked and that was a major part of the hook for Diablo 2.

it's = it is

its = possessive.

I know it's the internet and all, but you don't need to keep making ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with your opinion.

All of that being said, Diablo 3 has a ton of flaws, but so did Diablo 2 for the first year of its release.

More on topic, it's a shame that gorgeous Frostbyte 2 engine is going to be used to make what will most likely end up being a nickel and dime microtransaction mess to end the C&C legacy.

Suppa7 wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 05:01:

jacobvandy wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 03:58:

Suppa7 wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 03:20:
blah blah blah

I'm a low IQ gamer and can only post stupid youtube videos to people yelling 'gay'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU

That video is funny.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 08:55:
Diablo III was exceptional...

You lost all credibility in your ability to judge game quality with that statement. D3 is much worse then diablo 2, it's loot sucked and that was a major part of the hook for Diablo 2. The replayability for D3 is in the toilet because the loot design is just awful. Outside of loot and combat there are no other major gameplay goals and they screwed up the foundations that made diablo 1 + 2 so addictive.

It's completely obvious you have no idea what goes into making a game good with your lauding of diablo 3.

The rest of your post just goes to show you're part of the brain-dead generation I'm talking about. You don't have the intelligence to even understand what makes a game good.

Suppa7 wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 03:20:
You're just WRONG, overall the last 10 years have got to be the worst in gaming history. Nintendo's major franchises (starfox, Zelda, metroid) are all suffering in different ways. Other M was a disaster. Final fantasy series is on the ropes. Since FFX, FF has been going completely downhill and it's basically a movie with hardly any gameplay anymore. The combat system and loot has been totlly removed/dumbed down/gutted.

Who cares what Nintendo is doing? They may have been relevant about 15 years ago but PC gaming has long since offered better gaming. Starfox, Zelda and Metroid were always kiddie and Final Fantasy has been dead since FFVII. Consoles are for gaming on a budget - there are some decent exclusives but you have to suffer terrible graphical fidelity (720p @30fps is like watching movies in black and white), when they would have been much better on PC.

Suppa7 wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 03:20:
On PC ... I've played all those games you mentioned. Torchlight 2 is basically a worse version of diablo 2. The itemization is bad and the story/world is worse. Not to mention Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 were huge disappointments especially with the 'always online' bullshit and the gimped mod tools. Starcraft 2 is basically another parallel universe in terms of story, the story in SC2 is totally not congruent with the firsts. We're seeing what World of warcraft did to blizzard (totally fucked them up). The people behind the original diablo 2 and starcraft were blown to the winds and after 12 years the new developers totally sucked at giving sequels to two of gamings most beloved franchises.

I haven't played Torchlight 2 yet but it looks better than the original, which was a game I loved. While Starcraft 2 wasn't really my cup of tea (I'm more a C&C 1, Warcraft I sort of guy) it was still a solid game and Diablo III was exceptional, though it was undermined by the auction house system.

Suppa7 wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 03:20:
Borderlands 2 isn't anything special, people who are over-wow'd by graphics and don't have good taste in gameplay find it 'amazing'. Older FPS's were more fun on release then the entire single player campaign of borderlands 1+2 and had more longevity (UT2004).

Borderlands 2 is a great game, especially when played co-op. The graphics are solid, though I wouldn't say they're the main appeal of the game. Very few games do I put anywhere near as much time into, so that's pretty high praise.

Suppa7 wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 03:20:
Metro is YET ANOTHER FPS (gtfo). Witcher is a mediocre RPG with a shitty combat system and Dishonored is a half baked version of thief combined with bioshock for the ADHD call of duty crowd.

Metro 2033 was excellent (though it could have done without the QT-events); The Witcher 2 was superb; and Dishonored had great atmosphere and great gameplay - it wasn't perfect but certainly it's an example of how the games industry is pushing things forward.

I think gaming is better than ever. XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Dishonored both grabbed me like few other games have, while you still have interesting and well made indie games like Legend of Grimrock, Black Mesa and Torchlight. Skyrim was in a league of its own and King's Bounty is great for those who like old-school RPGs. If you can find decent modern games then you're simply not trying.

LOL - am I part of your supposed "newer generation of less intelligent gamers"? I've been gaming since 1977. I'm not going to get in a pissing match about it - if you don't like games today then you don't like them. (Which begs the question why you stick around posting about it, but that's your deal). I do want to thank you for the laugh I got from your idiotic assertion that everyone who enjoys gaming today is less intelligent than you. That's one of the dumbest things I've read in a while. It couldn't be that people that actually enjoy games today just have different tastes than you. Oh no. Nosiree! They're DUMB!

Luke wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 07:51:
could also be i am getting to old, but games sure not worth the money they cost

It's not that you're getting old. It's that the newer generation of gamers is less intelligent and never grew up on games in the 80's and 90's, so every new game SEEMS awesome to newer generations (that have never played the old games) and the stupidly braindead members of our generation think the new 'movie games' are amazing but are completely oblivious to what makes good gameplay.

I wracked my brain on this problem for many years as I and millions of others felt like that quake video on youtube "WTF happened??". The reality is we had a flood of non-gamers enter gaming that DON'T like videogames but only movies with minimal gameplay. If you look at all modern first person shooters they have been dumbed down beyond belief compared to shit like Quake and Unreal from the past. It's like watching FPS games go backwards.

Consolized Halo still can't touch Unreal 2004 for fucks sakes in terms of game modes, levels, etc, and it's 2012.

This comment was edited on Nov 5, 2012, 09:34.

Prez wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 07:10:
Who cares??? I'm talking PC gaming.

You can't talk about one without the other. Gaming on PC took a major hit after 2000 if you'd been PC gaming all through the 90's because of PC devs switching focus to consoles. The last 10 years has been pretty mediocre for PC games (and all games) all around compared to the 90's. Every other game is a sloppy port of some dumbed down multiplatform console game. We could also mention the removal of dedicated servers from first person shooters and DRM/online only in publishers attempts to ram console like bullshit upon us.

You have to be stupid to believe 'it's the best time in 35 years' to be a gamer when game ownership is being removed from us every which way from steam to origin and back and millions of mouthbreathers taking it up the ass supporting the whole clusterfuck.

Prez wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 07:10:
Suppa7 - How in the hell did we go from me talking about great gaming on the PC to how bad Nintend's ancient properties are. Who cares??? I'm talking PC gaming. I couldn't care any less if those kiddies games had never existed in the first place.

Anyway, it sounds like you need to find a new hobby then Suppa, because you are impossible to please when it comes to gaming. Go make love to your Super Mario cartridge and your Akalabeth floppies one last time then move on to new things; the rest of us will enjoy the great experiences gaming today has to offer the unjaded, non-bitter gamers.

well enjoy your railroad pc games , games are booring today
could also be i am getting to old, but games sure not worth the money they cost