Tiberium Announced

EA officially announces Tiberium, confirming reports that this new first-person shooter set in the Command & Conquer continuity is in development (story). Here's word on the game, which is due next fall for PC, Xbox 360, and PS3:
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Tiberium is a mysterious extraterrestrial crystal that shatters the energy output of traditional fossil fuels. It has the power to save our civilization. It also has the power to destroy it. Over two-and-a-half years in development, Electronic Arts Inc. (NASDAQ: ERTS - News) today revealed Tiberium™, a new intellectual property that brings a rich, original fiction to life through intense tactical action and visceral first-person shooting. Set in a stunning sci-fi world with spectacular visual effects and dramatic environments, Tiberium takes players on an adventure through an environmentally-devastated world and places them in the heart of an epic battle for control this powerful energy source.

For eleven years, an alien tower has stood dormant, looming like an unholy mountain over a wasteland once known as the Mediterranean Sea. The tower was thought to be a relic of the Third Tiberium War; a devastating war fought for control over Tiberium crystal. It is not a relic. It is not dormant. Deep within the tower, plans are in motion for an alien invasion. This is where the Tiberium adventure begins. Players step into the shoes of Forward Battle Commander Ricardo Vega and will assemble an assortment of elite squads to combat the global crisis. Armed with an intense arsenal of weapons including a transforming personal weapon system, multi-launch homing missiles, capital ship bombardments and tactical ion cannon strikes, Vega will lead the fight from the front lines.

Featuring a unique blend of first-person shooting and tactical squad combat, every moment in Tiberium is intense, every mission leaves players breathless. To take the first-person shooter experience deeper into strategic combat, players will control multiple infantry, armor, and air squads as the fight escalates. In Tiberium, Vega is the most powerful presence on the battlefield, and the squads are his most decisive weapon. Players can take multi-squad control combat into single-player or bring the action into online multiplayer battles.

“Tiberium is our ‘One Ring’, our ‘Force’. It is the connective tissue that defines this universe and tears it apart,” said Chris Plummer, Executive Producer at EA Los Angeles. “After two years of pre-production, it is exciting to finally reveal this game and its rich fiction to the world. We’ve put a lot of effort into evolving the tactical shooter experience by taking core gameplay compulsions like commanding, choice and dominating your enemies and delivering them in first-person. Some of the weapons and mechanics are truly innovative for a first-person game. We’re very proud to be part of a project that has the potential to really make a mark on the cannon of sci-fi fantasy fiction.”

Mike Verdu, VP and General Manager at EA Los Angeles added, “EALA has a long history of developing groundbreaking real-time strategy games with the Command & Conquer series. That series also originally introduced the Tiberium universe to gamers worldwide. Now, we are growing Tiberium from a simple backdrop to a fully realized universe with its own unique, hybrid squad-based shooter gameplay. This is the birth of a new franchise -- we couldn’t be more excited.”

Developed at EA Los Angeles, Tiberium will be available worldwide in Fall 2008 for the PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment system, Xbox 360™ video game and entertainment system, and PC. The game has not yet been rated by the ESRB. For more information on Tiberium, please visit: www.Tiberium.com.
View : : :
22 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
22.
 
Re: Why so serious?
Dec 19, 2007, 03:11
22.
Re: Why so serious? Dec 19, 2007, 03:11
Dec 19, 2007, 03:11
 
Hopefully it will be another attempt at a Battlezone 2-style game, with FPS and vehicle combat, along with RTS elements.

It's much more likely that this will be Ghost Recon: Tiberium Warrior.

Avatar 20715
21.
 
Re: Why so serious?
Dec 18, 2007, 19:27
21.
Re: Why so serious? Dec 18, 2007, 19:27
Dec 18, 2007, 19:27
 
Also, I think it'd be great if we saw a high profile attempt at a Natural Selection-type multiplayer game. For those unaware, in the HL1 mod Natural Selection, one team had a commander who basically played an RTS game while all the other players on his team played an FPS game. It was very unique and innovative. The big problem is that it suffered from a "power of the few outweighing the power of the many" issue. People don't like that. The Commander determined far too much of the game's outcome.

But, I'd like to see a Commander in this Tiberium game. Someone who actually sits in an RTS view and builds stuff and orders units into combat from up above. They just need to make sure the Commander isn't too powerful.
Adventures of a video game mercenary
http://virtualmerc.blogspot.com
20.
 
Re: Why so serious?
Dec 18, 2007, 19:17
20.
Re: Why so serious? Dec 18, 2007, 19:17
Dec 18, 2007, 19:17
 
I'm excited for this game. Hopefully it will be another attempt at a Battlezone 2-style game, with FPS and vehicle combat, along with RTS elements. IMO, Battlezone 2 is still one of the greatest games ever Battlezone 2 got pretty good reviews but it failed miserably at the marketplace. But a C&C game of a similar design would be more likely to succeed since it's an established franchise.

I think they need to offer all the complexity that Battlezone 2 offered, but for players who want a simpler experience, they need to offer that, too. Perhaps different difficulty levels could accomplish it. I'm thinking on Super Hard mode, the player would be required to operate vehicles, be an FPS soldier, while also playing a simplified RTS game. All at once. On easier modes, you could progress through the game on any individual aspect of the game. So if you're an FPS fan, you can play it as a pure FPS. If you're a vehicle combat fan, you play that. If you're an RTS, you play that. But on super hard, you have to play all three.

Maybe the AI would take over the stuff you don't wanna do.

The multiplayer possibilities are awesome, too. Instead of having 12 players all running around as individual soldiers (boring and done to death), we could have just 4 players controlling squads of AI troops, vehicles, and so forth. All while being a part of the battlefield, too. It'd be like an RTS game but from a first person perspective.
Adventures of a video game mercenary
http://virtualmerc.blogspot.com
19.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 18, 2007, 18:31
19.
Re: No subject Dec 18, 2007, 18:31
Dec 18, 2007, 18:31
 
the off-the-wall idea of Far Cry 2

FC2 may have nothing to do with FC1 but it looks pretty cool and definitely more ambitious than the true successor to FC, Crysis. I'm looking forward to it.

Avatar 20715
18.
 
Please not Renegade 2
Dec 18, 2007, 18:27
18.
Please not Renegade 2 Dec 18, 2007, 18:27
Dec 18, 2007, 18:27
 
I will be happy with nothing less than a good game this time around. Renegade was actually a very fun multiplayer game. But graphically it was pretty pathetic.

The worst part about Renegade was how completely worthless the hand guns and rifles were in that game. Just pathetic.

But the vehicles were bad ass fun. But the whole primary colors thing really was over the top. They need to make the game less fisher price this go around.

17.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 18, 2007, 17:28
17.
Re: No subject Dec 18, 2007, 17:28
Dec 18, 2007, 17:28
 
Enter: Bioshock, Crysis and STALKER.

It's not that they don't still make them, but as a proportion the number has dropped.

Ubi has gotten particularly bad at it lately. From the majesty of GR to GRAW and GRAW2 (same place, slightly enhanced engine), from the great R6 games to the bile of Lockdown and the consolized near-redemption of R6: Vegas, only to be squandered with R6: Vegas 2 (WTF??), the fall of the SC series with Double Agent, the off-the-wall idea of Far Cry 2 (nothing to do with FC1 at all, so why call it FC2?)...
At least in the 90s the games could be innovative.

To hell with the calls for "more realistic graphics"--all that did was drive the game costs up so that instead of 100,000 sold being successful, it's a flop! Well guess what? If you need to see a million on day 1 just to break even, you're going to cater to the lowest denominator which is never good for a game.

16.
 
Alien Tower
Dec 18, 2007, 17:00
16.
Alien Tower Dec 18, 2007, 17:00
Dec 18, 2007, 17:00
 
"Holy crap, there's a giant alien tower jutting from the Mediterranean Sea! What the hell is it doing there?"

"...I dunno. Never thought about."

"What?! How long has it been sitting there?"

"...Eleven years, give or take."

"Jesus christ! There's been an alien tower sticking out of the sea for eleven freaking years and no one's bothered to look into it?"

"...I dunno. S'probably a relic or something of that one war."

"What the heck does that mean?!"

"...I dunno."

Sounds like a good story the guys at EA have put together there.

15.
 
Re: Why so serious?
Dec 18, 2007, 15:33
15.
Re: Why so serious? Dec 18, 2007, 15:33
Dec 18, 2007, 15:33
 
Oh yeah, I forgot about Lando. His scene chewing was much more what I wanted to see from the rest of the actors although even he gave you the impression he was deadly earnest. When he sent me on a mission it was with a smile on his face and I happily nuked the planet with that briefing rather than the dour and grim briefings everybody else gave me.
--------------------------------
...no, not *that* Brian Reynolds
14.
 
...
Dec 18, 2007, 15:29
14.
... Dec 18, 2007, 15:29
Dec 18, 2007, 15:29
 
EA is all about the safe money. They buy Franchises and exploit them. Why develop new and exciting content when you can just make another version of command and conquer. Or a new add for the Sims, or Madden 09.
But what about the fans of the franchise that want a game like this? I'm sorry, developing things that people will want to buy really is a terrible idea. /End Sarcrasm. It's not even as if the first game was a success, so it's basically having another stab at the concept. Without sequels we wouldn't have had Half-Life 2 and it's expansions or had games like the original Unreal Tournament. Or is it that EA is simply not allowed to be liked because they want to make money?

Sure, if the game is crap then we can all slag it off but criticising the concept and the developers / publisher for wanting to make money is ridiculous. We have no way to tell how motivated the developers are and even with motivated staff you still end up with crap games like ET: Quake Wars.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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
13.
 
Re: Why so serious?
Dec 18, 2007, 15:20
13.
Re: Why so serious? Dec 18, 2007, 15:20
Dec 18, 2007, 15:20
 
This game will be an utter failure... unless Billy Dee Williams is in it.

12.
 
Why so serious?
Dec 18, 2007, 15:02
12.
Why so serious? Dec 18, 2007, 15:02
Dec 18, 2007, 15:02
 
C&C is my favorite series and I've been delighted at the very thorough dedication given to C&C 3 and the forthcoming Kane's Wrath, but why does the atmosphere have to be so completely gravid and downbeat? These games play like the polar opposite of Red Alert 2 which was by far the most FUN game in the lineup even when others were equally satisfying to play. Kane has been turned from an enjoyably evil guy having a great time taking on the world into a driven madman filled with religious fervor, conviction and an out-of-place sense of urgency. I lay the blame partially at Westwood for their serious take in C&C 2, but man, let's remember how much fun can be had in the midst of the apocalypse (pointedly looking at any Mad Max movie).

That said I'm looking forward to another FPS venture into C&C territory. Bring back Frank Klepacki though! C&C just isn't the same without the boombox music effect.

As for the disappointment with sequels, it's all business. The investment in making games now is high enough that heavy consideration has to be given to the ability to recoup the money, and since no one seems to care about (ie: buy) games that are two years old (subscription games excepted) then a lot of effort and decision must be made to maximize the audience potential at launch date. That usually translates into a pre-existing audience and that means sequel / spinoff / tie-in.
--------------------------------
...no, not *that* Brian Reynolds
11.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 18, 2007, 14:37
11.
Re: No subject Dec 18, 2007, 14:37
Dec 18, 2007, 14:37
 
Is it me or are video games following the trend of movies lately? ie. Remakes. How about we get a FPS set in a brand new universe with a new storyline? Is that too much to ask?

EA is all about the safe money. They buy Franchises and exploit them. Why develop new and exciting content when you can just make another version of command and conquer. Or a new add for the Sims, or Madden 09. This is the wrong company to look for new IP's.

Stalker was a new IP FPS this year and I don't think that was a big seller. (I could be wrong?) Portal was a new IP FPS and it was awesome. Bioshock was new (sort of...could be considered a spin off of System Shock) and mostly a FPS. Haze was delayed but should have been a new FPS.

There are new FPS's out and coming out, but the avalanche of sequels and spin offs make it seem like no one is trying anything new.

We'll get to see their new game at e3 2008 I'm sure, hopefully they will surprise us.


Ending Song on Portal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjGfgV7rJHI
This comment was edited on Dec 18, 14:38.
10.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 18, 2007, 13:31
10.
Re: No subject Dec 18, 2007, 13:31
Dec 18, 2007, 13:31
 
Is it me or are video games following the trend of movies lately? ie. Remakes. How about we get a FPS set in a brand new universe with a new storyline? Is that too much to ask?

Newer IP would be nice, but...

I don't mind the occasional game sequel. Some universes are interesting enough to deserve a more fleshed out story. So in some cases 1 or 2 sequels are OK.

Spin-offs are another story. Take Star Wars, there's a lot there to touch on: Jedi Knights, Republic Commando, fighter squadrons, smugglers, etc. If they want to make the occasional game somewhere in that setting then fine with it so long as the games are alright and they don't saturate the market all at once.

In the end, it comes down to how much they want to milk that cow. Milk it too much and you get nothing.


This comment was edited on Dec 18, 13:32.
"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurama
9.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 18, 2007, 13:25
9.
Re: No subject Dec 18, 2007, 13:25
Dec 18, 2007, 13:25
 
i agree. for years and years i was fine with sequels. now im sick to death of them. new IP or GTFO.

i also love how they throw in the word 'mechanics'. reminds me of buisness speak; doesnt really explain a damn thing. BUT OUR MECHANICS > YOURS.

8.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 18, 2007, 13:25
8.
Re: No subject Dec 18, 2007, 13:25
Dec 18, 2007, 13:25
 
Noooo, its being made into an MMO: see Slipgate Ironworks, heh.

7.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 18, 2007, 13:16
7.
Re: No subject Dec 18, 2007, 13:16
Dec 18, 2007, 13:16
 
In related news, Daikatana is to be made into an RTS game.

6.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 18, 2007, 13:09
6.
Re: No subject Dec 18, 2007, 13:09
Dec 18, 2007, 13:09
 
C&C Renegade 2: Electric BoogaTiberium

Edit...seconds too slow.


This comment was edited on Dec 18, 13:09.
-Azrael
"Don't Fear the Reaper, fear ME."
http://gamershots.net
5.
 
Renegade?
Dec 18, 2007, 13:08
5.
Renegade? Dec 18, 2007, 13:08
Dec 18, 2007, 13:08
 
so they're making another Renegade?

meh

4.
 
No subject
Dec 18, 2007, 12:53
4.
No subject Dec 18, 2007, 12:53
Dec 18, 2007, 12:53
 
Is it me or are video games following the trend of movies lately? ie. Remakes. How about we get a FPS set in a brand new universe with a new storyline? Is that too much to ask?

3.
 
Re: Innovative
Dec 18, 2007, 12:48
3.
Re: Innovative Dec 18, 2007, 12:48
Dec 18, 2007, 12:48
 
I believe the word "evolving" was used.

22 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older