Saturday Preview

View : : :
11 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Older [  1  ] Newer
1.
 
EA
Sep 30, 2006, 18:30
1.
EA Sep 30, 2006, 18:30
Sep 30, 2006, 18:30
 
What's this, EA flogging another dead franchise? Too bad they're able to get away with it, and then we don't get any original games made.

2.
 
...
Sep 30, 2006, 19:38
2.
... Sep 30, 2006, 19:38
Sep 30, 2006, 19:38
 
They've raped the franchise but it looks like they are finally putting it right. Everything I've seen so far looks decent. They've finally ditched the shitty Generals and mediocre Red Alert and have gone back to what made the franchise so enthrawling. It's quite possible that they're just pretty screenshots/videos and the gameplay will be crap, much like the recent AoE3, but I'm trying to be optimistic.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
3.
 
Re: ...
Oct 1, 2006, 01:15
3.
Re: ... Oct 1, 2006, 01:15
Oct 1, 2006, 01:15
 
Um, Generals was the best C&C yet. Fast-paced gameplay that emphasized constant, intense battles with lots of micromanagement, as opposed to the turtle-happy nature of the previous games. Combat in Generals was simply more involved and more fun.

I'm assuming your criticism isn't actually based on gameplay but on the fact that Generals didn't follow the traditional GDI/NOD storyline.

Avatar 20715
4.
 
Re: ...
Oct 1, 2006, 01:33
4.
Re: ... Oct 1, 2006, 01:33
Oct 1, 2006, 01:33
 
as opposed to the turtle-happy nature of the previous games

Are you sure you are thinking of Command and Conquer?

5.
 
Re: ...
Oct 1, 2006, 03:10
5.
Re: ... Oct 1, 2006, 03:10
Oct 1, 2006, 03:10
 
I haven't played Generals in ages, but I remember not liking it.

I think it was the max zoom-out. If I remember, I always felt like I was seeing too little of the battlefield - the view was always too close. So while a lot of features were pretty cool, I felt like I wasn't seeing enough at a time.


But RTS games haven't been my thing since the days of late night Warcraft II over a phone line. Or TA, but TA sometimes lost me with its massive maps and no fog-of-war building memory. Can't wait for SC, though, if it's just TA with that fixed I'd love it.
edit - that, and the emptiness. TA always felt empty, barren and lifeless to me. The music just added to it. I felt like I was watching insects, not armies. Distant. But the game was good enough to surpass that.


-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/
This comment was edited on Oct 1, 03:11.
6.
 
Re: ...
Oct 1, 2006, 05:33
6.
Re: ... Oct 1, 2006, 05:33
Oct 1, 2006, 05:33
 
Are you sure you are thinking of Command and Conquer?

Yup. Overpowered turrets, defensive walls, etc. Actually, I'm mainly thinking of RA2, which also had turtle-conducive destructible bridges. And since engineers could take over a structure instantly, you were forced to play defensively until you could build a large force of tanks and then just rush your opponent's heavily defended base. I don't remember too much of the older C&C games, but I recall them having a heavy emphasis on playing defensively. Generals, on the other hand, nerfed turrets, took out walls, removed destructible bridges and basically made your base far more vulnerable, making it much harder to turtle. That makes for a faster-paced, more intense game with constant battles all over the map.

Avatar 20715
7.
 
...
Oct 1, 2006, 11:24
7.
... Oct 1, 2006, 11:24
Oct 1, 2006, 11:24
 
I think it was the max zoom-out. If I remember, I always felt like I was seeing too little of the battlefield - the view was always too close. So while a lot of features were pretty cool, I felt like I wasn't seeing enough at a time.
Exactly!! RTS games, particularly the original C&C, were originally about controlling armies across a landscape but as 3D engine crept the amount that you could see diminished. More focus was put on elite units and levelling up, whilst tactics were greatly reduced because you could barely see anything that was happening. Generals and AoE3 might have been decent enough games but the narrow aspect meant they were virtually unplayable... sure, some hacks are about that allow you to zoom out but the games weren't designed to be played like that.

Generals also moved away from NOD/GDI and Soviet/Allied towards a modern conflict, done in a very pro-US propaganda style... it was a disgrace to the franchise and the RTS genre. The problem was that is just wasn't Command & Conquer - it didn't have ANY similarity to the previous games and was just another generic RTS game. I had more fun playing Dark Reign 2. The original C&C was brilliant, whilst Red Alert was a decent enough sequel but I wasn't very impressed with Tiberium Sun or RA2 - they weren't bad games but they didn't have the same character about them. Despite going back to the roots and the great graphics I'm worried that the viewing aspect for C&C3 will be very limiting and that will cripple the game - sure the screenshots look nice but so did AoE3's and that played awfully.

What I express is only my opinion. I'm sure plenty of people liked Generals, possibly because of the gameplay but quite possibly because they didn't play the original much. It's the same with the Warcraft franchise - the original was amazing but each subsequent version focused on smaller battles and, for me, was a lot less enjoyable... yet Warcraft III is still very popular and widely regarded. The RTS genre is currently dead; I just hope something can revive it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
8.
 
Re: ...
Oct 1, 2006, 11:59
8.
Re: ... Oct 1, 2006, 11:59
Oct 1, 2006, 11:59
 
Turrets somewhat ruin most RTS games, anyway, at least multiplayer.

In my WC2 days my buddy was always alliance and I was always horde. He'd spend his time building an intricate main base, with a maze of walls and turrets at every junction. I'd be expansive, take 60-75% of the mines, and build a huge mass of ogres. We'd do this until we'd hit the unit limit. I'd then put my ogres just outside of his site, death and decay the turrets (which would make half his army run disjointed into mine, getting crushed) then charge in and pick the rest of, all the while bloodlusting constantly (often his units just in a clicking frenzy.)

The problem was that, if I didn't pick those turrets out with death and decay, I'd get torn to shreds. It would be impossible to infiltrate the base, given the unit limit and the exhausted gold supply. But I outnumbered him so heavily that he'd never manage to attack me.

We ended up having to make our own rules. I believe he conceded a three-turret limit in exchange for no death and decay. Worked for him, as I really spent a lot of time in that game building turrets near his guys, death and decaying his standing army, and having them run into my turrets before he could react. Worked for me, because I could no pulverize his base.


Rambling memories... haha.

-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/
9.
 
C&C and Total Annihilation
Oct 1, 2006, 14:55
9.
C&C and Total Annihilation Oct 1, 2006, 14:55
Oct 1, 2006, 14:55
 
In my opinion the best RTS's out there. There have been a lot of better games than C&C but it was the first one that got me hooked and was by far the best for it's time.

TA is the best over all. Loved the big maps, array of units and the the commander. I thought there was fog of war in the game but I could be wrong since it has been a while since I have played it.

The demo for company of hero's was really good. I plan on picking this one up next.

10.
 
Re: C&C and Total Annihilation
Oct 1, 2006, 20:46
10.
Re: C&C and Total Annihilation Oct 1, 2006, 20:46
Oct 1, 2006, 20:46
 
No, there was fog of war, but in most games when you saw an enemy building you'd still be able to see it even after the fog of war covered it back up, albeit it wouldn't update.

That didn't happen in TA, you'd just see the blank land, not the building. So you'd send some scouts out, find a base, build an army, then have no idea where the base was due to the size of the map.

-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/
11.
 
Re: ...
Oct 2, 2006, 01:32
11.
Re: ... Oct 2, 2006, 01:32
Oct 2, 2006, 01:32
 
Generals also moved away from NOD/GDI and Soviet/Allied towards a modern conflict, done in a very pro-US propaganda style... it was a disgrace to the franchise and the RTS genre.

Personally, I thought the Generals universe was greatly amusing, particularly the depiction of the GLA. Anthrax? Check. Suicide bombers? Check. Hijackers? Check. Potentially offensive depictions of Arabs in general? Check. Highly entertaining stuff.

As for the camera zoom, it bothered me at first but you get used to it. As I mentioned earlier, the focus of the game is really on intense, highly involved battles and the camera zoom emphasizes this. If the camera were pulled back more, you'd be able to see too much of your opponent's movements, which would in turn create balancing issues for long-range and aerial units.

C&C3 looks very slick but I fear that it will be too defensively oriented. The engineer rush is back, meaning that walls are back too and the turrets in the current vids have been absurdly overpowered. Also, infantry is no longer produced individually but in squads, which means the player has less control over each unit. Less control = bad.

Avatar 20715
11 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Older [  1  ] Newer