Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
From the C&C Reborn forums: Quote: According to Game Informer, the C&C FPS, "Tiberium", is to be set 11 years after the end of the 3rd tiberium war. You'll play Ricardo Vega, a Used-to-be- retired GDI field commander. I'm not going to rewrite the article, so just think of it as GRAW + Battlefield + R6: Vegas in the C&C Universe. So far, you'll be leading a R.A.I.D (Rapid Assault and Intercept Deployment) around the location of the tower in the Mediterranean Red Zone that NOD defended until it was built. There's no mentioning of you fighting NOD, but you will be fighting new Scrin infantry (the two given were Shrikes, little knee-high robots with blasters an a self-destruct, and Archons, think Scrin versions of Elites from Halo) The units that were announced that you could command were standard infantry squads, missile infantry squads, a fugly version of the Titan, and new Orcas. You'll still get special powers, like an "Orbital Slug" that you can call upon your foes. In any case, go read it, it's real. The C&C FPS has arrived! http://www.cncsaga.com/discuter/viewtopic.php?t=1703 I have to say this: OMFG! As much as I'd excited for a C&C FPS, I think putting "Battlefield" or "GRAW" gameplay is a disgrace to C&C mode. One of the main reasons why C&C mode was so fun in Renegade was because it was different from these games that are completely based on realism. Battlefield 2 and such games are dying way faster than Renegade is, because they're slow paced games. Ren's gameplay was very brilliant, it just wasn't recognized, and thats what were doing for Ren07. That kind of gameplay is just so intense. Especially when both teams are collaborating. A match can last for 3 hours, and you wouldn't even notice that time just flew by. Also most FPS games now a days are based wayy to much on realism, so having a more arcadish gameplay feels a bit fresh even though it has been done. A player wants to be able to go out on the field and to some damage, rather than go out, get hit by one bullet and die. That just becomes annoying
Noticed this too, a few things: 1)Same thing, the BF, Graw, etc gameplay things sound EXTREMELY gay, so im hoping this is fake, but tbh it's 50/50 2)This random guy on the EA forums, started this entire thing taking shitty pictures of a magazine ive never heard of, "game informer". Source: http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/5252/article1er6.jpg http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/5335/cover1ml8.jpg http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2349/cover2ee1.jpg http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/1387/cover3zy9.jpg http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/1415/infsquad1ql4.jpg http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/4041/titan1jt1.jpg http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7861/tower1np4.jpg ^^Tho they are dark and poor quality, they seemed legit. 3)What seems fishy: This is supposedly the December edition of this magazine, yet look what I dugg up: http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200711/N07.1114.1221.16217.htm ^^Confused? I am. 4)http://www.cncnz.com/features/roundtable/1207.php ^^I few people who have been following the story, read the C&C FPS Q+A, and it atleast answers a few theories. Im either way on the topic right now, hoping fake tho because, even the title, just "Tiberium"?
I've heard of game informer. I think you can also get a free subscription of it if you become a member of Game Stop, which does cost some money.
trooprm02 wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 17:45 Noticed this too, a few things: 1)Same thing, the BF, Graw, etc gameplay things sound EXTREMELY gay, so im hoping this is fake, but tbh it's 50/50 2)This random guy on the EA forums, started this entire thing taking shitty pictures of a magazine ive never heard of, "game informer". Source: ... You never heard of Gameinformer?! Well what ever, Decembers edition was the Ghostbusters addition. However the magazine the thread starter was talking about was JANUARY's edition. GI always releases their magazines a month early... I don't really know why... they just do. If you don't believe me, google search "January 2008 GameInformer" and you will find the cover story to be this "Tiberium" Also, I really don't care what they model the game after... just as long as it is as fun a multiplayer as C&C Renegade's C&C mode is. If they change that, then I won't play the game much... if at all.
I don't think even EA could fuck Renegade up that much. Then again, it is EA we are talking about.
If this is true the game is going to be called C&C Tiberium , therefor they must keep the renegade multiplayer concept intact imo ^^ what else would make it C&C
WNxBoMbZU wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 01:39 If this is true the game is going to be called C&C Tiberium , therefor they must keep the renegade multiplayer concept intact imo ^^ what else would make it C&C Because it is EA and they will put it their to get your $.
If its going to be a Battlefield style game/shit, I won't be buying it. Much less if its squad style, there would be way too much difference between singleplayer and multiplayer and the only reason why it may/will become widely played is because of EA's mass marketing techniques.
You read it first on renegadecommunity.com . Anyway, could be a hoax, could be the January edition. We'll know it soon.
one of the cool things about renegade is you can run and jump while accurately sniping, tanks don't get stuck in the snow, etc. the fact that it's not completely realistic makes it that much more fun last time i checked a game wasn't supposed to be exactly like real life...isn't that the point of a game? :/ if they focus on making it look good more than making it fun then fuck it, it's gonna suck if people want it to get as realistic, accurate, and lifelike as possible i suggest joining the military and abandoning games altogether
liquidv2 wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 03:25 if people want it to get as realistic, accurate, and lifelike as possible i suggest joining the military and abandoning games altogether There are no respawn points in real life.
Why does everything have to be about Tiberium now? I hate Tiberian Sun so f'ing much. Snow Miser wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 02:22 Time line: Game Starts 13sec Missile launch detected 15Sec Rebuild Power plant 17Sec Spring noise indicating seeker mine 19Sec Rebuild Power plant 22Sec Harvester under attack (Says it for every shot taken, over and over) 25Sec Missile launch detected 27Sec Spring noise 29Sec Low power 30Sec Concrete, concrete, concrete 32Sec Missile launch detected 35Sec Driving to Walmart to return this pile of crap 37Sec Spring noise Why not a blend like Renegade is? Or hell just make a good one that is anything other than the Tiberian Sun blunder. I do have to say the title is a little....lazy as ass. The best I could hope for is something like Battlezone II. EDIT: Oh and aren't we skipping over some very important news? I saw the trailer for the Ghost Busters game and I almost rubbed one out. I can't wait for them to make a new movie and it better have Owen Wilson as one of the Ghost Busters.
If they use the CryEngine, Fuck this game. 'Nuff said. texture memory gets wasted on leaves.. LEAVES! FULLY DETAILED LEAVES.. what the hell?!
Many more scanned images and youtube video are now availlable here! This seems to be confirmed! Confirmed: here
It isn't a hoax. EA Moderators have already posted in the threads about this game and they have said nothing to deny or confirm it. In fact they haven't said anything on topic I am a subscriber to GameInformer by I only got my December issue like a week and a half ago. So January's may take some more time. Hopefully I can go to the store later and pick one up.
I'm thinking this is fake, just like the guy who claimed he found a video for cnc4, it was just a render he made and put on youtube. It isnt EA offical.
What is going on? I think this is true but how RIDICULOUS. It looks like that hated gay Halo. The Scrin infantry look like the Covenant from Halo and the "All-in-One" weapon concept is taken right out of bloody Crysis. They are messing this game up just like ID Software messed up Doom 3 for the original Doom fans. EA bastards are making this game for a new "dumbass" generation of gamers who only care for good graphics and fragfesSt and who never bothered to play the original C&C RTS. Doesn't seem like there are any bases and economy. No MCT's and no teams...just one big fragfest like gay Halo and like Battlefield with n00b spawn vehicles. And no Nod? They are COMPLETELY ignoring C&C Renegade's current fanbase. But they won't care because as long as they get the money (and they will). And who the hell is Ricardo Vega? Could have picked a better name TBH. Sounds like a barrel-chested crime fighter. LMFAO. OMG JUST REMEMBERED: ONLY 1 TYPE OF INFANTRY IN THIS NEW GAY GAME JUST LIKE HALO!
Starbuzz wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 And who the hell is Ricardo Vega? Could have picked a better name TBH.
WNxBoMbZU wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 10:59 Starbuzz wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 And who the hell is Ricardo Vega? Could have picked a better name TBH. Niece of the General Vega in Tiberian Sun.
sadukar09 wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 11:02 WNxBoMbZU wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 10:59 Starbuzz wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 And who the hell is Ricardo Vega? Could have picked a better name TBH. Niece of the General Vega in Tiberian Sun. From the dumb novel I just found out ROFL! EA is trying to make C&C into a Halo kind of crap with those nice gay novels to read in-between.
i figured that if EA made another cnc fps at all it would have to be directly or more connected to cnc3 than any other cnc game (probably because they made that one) and it wouldn't be like renegade instead they're trying to make it like halo i knew this stupid shit was coming lol
BR/GRAW/RB6 gameplay sounds absolutely fine if for SP
AoBfrost wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 11:08 I'm thinking this is fake, just like the guy who claimed he found a video for cnc4, it was just a render he made and put on youtube. It isnt EA offical. How can you think it is fake?! GameInformer wrote an entire article on the game... It is the cover story!
Renx wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 10:29 BR/GRAW/RB6 gameplay sounds absolutely fine if for SP Maybe so, but Renegade hasn't survived this long because of its singleplayer portion.
SP -> Halo , R6V , GRAW Multi -> Renegade , BF2 I hope it turns out like this
I just hope it's like Renegade, no Halo, no GRAW, no Battlefield, no Rainbow 6. I don't want a cheap artillery special (like Battlefield's) instantly killing anyone working together. I also don't want to go out on the field and get hit by 2 bullets and die.
WNxBoMbZU wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 15:02 SP -> Halo , R6V , GRAW Multi -> Renegade , BF2 I hope it turns out like this But MP for BF2 is slow right? There is no speed element to it which is something I ENJOY in Renegade EVERYTIME. No spawn time, you die, you spawn back and you want to rush back into action with more urgency. Man, it's such an addictive formula.
I absolutely hate how everyone disapproves of this. What we've been wanting for years is more C&C games. You all knew Westwood wouldn't be around to deliver them. Yet, here we are, on the verge of an expansion pack and now another first person shooter complaining about every little detail. Not to mention the LOLEASUX tone I hear in a few posts every here and there. Besides, what information do we have to judge on now? A few scans and a vague article in Game Informer. That's what. I for one, am incredibly grateful. I'm a C&C Fan because of the story, and I just want to see where it goes next.
Viking wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 03:29 liquidv2 wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 03:25 if people want it to get as realistic, accurate, and lifelike as possible i suggest joining the military and abandoning games altogether There are no respawn points in real life. Yeah, and what happens if I get lag out there?
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 15:05]I just hope it's like Renegade, no Halo, no GRAW, no Battlefield, no Rainbow 6. I don't want a cheap artillery special (like Battlefield's) instantly killing anyone working together. I also don't want to go out on the field and get hit by 2 bullets and die. I can do nothing but agree with all of your statements. u6795 wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 17:21 I absolutely hate how everyone disapproves of this. What we've been wanting for years is more C&C games. You all knew Westwood wouldn't be around to deliver them. Yet, here we are, on the verge of an expansion pack and now another first person shooter complaining about every little detail. Not to mention the LOLEASUX tone I hear in a few posts every here and there. Besides, what information do we have to judge on now? A few scans and a vague article in Game Informer. That's what. I for one, am incredibly grateful. I'm a C&C Fan because of the story, and I just want to see where it goes next. So say you're a lover of chicken and hate fish, and the only restaurant that has it actually serves fish dressed and flavored like chicken. Would you still eat it?
All I care about is it having a C&C mode. That is the only thing that I think made Renegade fun. Playing an RTS in an FPS. I don't believe that Renegade's "unrealistic" atmosphere made it more fun... if anything it was a draw back... IMO. Basically EA can throw whatever they want into the game, model it after what they want... as long as it does have C&C roots. the only thing I care about is it having C&C mode.
Renegade: 1.) Fast paced, You die, 1 second later, you re-spawn, Back in action. 2.) Vehicles, You get 8 per team, technology has improved and we can have more now, without major lag. 3.) It wasn't realistic. 4.) Blowing up buildings, hamper the other team. Battlefield 2: 1.) Slow re-spawn times 2.) Huge maps, Slow gameplay. 3.) Everyone team kills for vehicles, and there isn't much choice depending on the map. 4.) It's mainly CTF. R6: Vegas (Assuming it's a Tom Clancy game): 1.) It's a stealth game, Stealth =/= action. Does not compute. BF2 & R6 = what? more slow gameplay? Online will be even slower? more fucked up?! yeah, totally. They should keep Renegade's system, Make a worthy Single player, Improve netcode, More vehicles for online play, a shit load of character classes. Fuck, If I was a game dev. working for EA, Here's what I'd suggest. 30 vehicles on the battle field. 3 teams per map; GDI & Nod & Scrin. (Only on some maps, Other maps can only have 2 teams, GDI Vs Scrin, GDI Vs Nod, etc.) Every team for themselves. I've thought about that idea for a long time, And I can safely say, It would kick ass.
Quote: So say you're a lover of chicken and hate fish, and the only restaurant that has it actually serves fish dressed and flavored like chicken. Would you still eat it? This is a horrible analogy and you are a horrible poster. This thread is, without a doubt, one of the biggest gatherings of pure stupid I've ever seen. Blind anti-EA rage and ignorance about a game we know nothing about is what sets up this foundation of anger, yet you feel compelled to white knight it anyway, even when 90% of the people in this thread don't have the damndest idea of what their talking about. Why?
It's not "blind hate" for EA. In fact I supported some of EA's decisions in the past, and I am in support of the idea of a new C&C FPS. However, people like me, Ryu, and others are giving rational arguments about why we prefer Renegade's arcadey, fast, fluid, and fun gameplay over slow-paced realism-based games.
oh yes of course because renegade is the holy grail of all pc games and c&c mode is a beautiful delicate flower that should never ever be touched
*checks watch* OH SNAP! Is it that time already? Time for my daily worship of Renegade.
bigejoe14 wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 03:51 oh yes of course because renegade is the holy grail of all pc games and c&c mode is a beautiful delicate flower that should never ever be touched Correct. I don't want to play some shitty half-arsed FPS that tries to be "SUPER REALISTIK!!111". No, War simulator - 2 shot kill games suck, I want a game that has renegade style mechanics with some new ideas and what not. If it turns out to be Battlefield 2 style game play with huge maps, slow game play, Server owners being idiots and enabling team kill will make the experience 2 tons of shit.
Renegade was excellent. Fast, fluid gameplay that made you feel like a part of a team. No matter what your skill level was, you could always be useful at something, weather is was being an engineer, or a vehicle driver. With games like Counter-Strike for example, that try to be super realistic, they're just not fun. You end up getting sniped by coked out Russian children who play at an expert level you could never hope or have the spare time to acheive the second you enter the game, and then you sit around doing nothing for 5 minutes waiting for the next match. Zzzzzzz....
If they dont add the C&C mode in the first game , they might add it in their expanstion to make it look the xpansion really adds AWESOME new content to the game ^^ just like c&c3:s global conquest mode ..
bigejoe14 wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 21:51 oh yes of course because renegade is the holy grail of all pc games and c&c mode is a beautiful delicate flower that should never ever be touched $100 to anyone who can find a more blatant ignorant post.
Starbuzz wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 07:00 $100 to anyone who can find a more blatant ignorant post. *copys and pastes the entire thread* edit: that quote in your signature is pretty blatant and ignorant. i'd like my $100 now.
Why don't you try to understand the logic behind C&C Mode first before bashing it? And you blatantly insult Renegade mockingly calling it the "holy grail of PC games." There are so many things that have kept this underrated and sidelined game from dying in the shadows of ignorance: -2 unique teams -variety of vehicles -various infantry classes (w/various weapons) -Tiberium, harvesters, credits = ECONOMY -Buildings with unique functionality -Armor/Health bar instead of stupid lame ass 2 shot kills (excluding snipers). I know I am missing many things but let me ask you this: So is it really ignorant of us remaining Renegade players to ask for a newer updated version with the current graphical standards? I don't think so. What we hate is a game that promises endless and unsatisfactory killfests ("yay I have most kills") like in Halo. CTF, King of the Hill, Deathmatch, bullshit and other useless modes. I played Halo. The SP were awesome but MP was a joke. I don't like random aimless walking around the map bullshit with the only goal of increasing my kill count or getting a vehicle. I remember how useless and unsatisfying playing Halo MP was. N00bs would teamkill me so they can get on their damned Banshees. OH I forgot: Toggle Spoiler $$$Your 100 dollars$$$ - But I know you get a lot more from EA
Um, looking from the pre-release video of this game so far, has worried me. Im talking about a not-supposed-to-be-released video, which I managed to get my hands on, and ill upload it to some site, and link back to site and you can see what I mean. Also, im going to go out and hopefully find that game informer issue, high scan res em, .pdf, .zip em, and upload those aswell. About the gameplay, basically, best scenario would be, C&C Mode (aow) would be recopyed EXACTLY. They would improve the graphics of the game, because of the new engine, better SP (meaning better AI, gameplay value etc), but for online gameplay, just new vechiles, some old ones, same for the inf. 3 way battles? Gay. Should stay gdi vs nod. This whole scrin thing I think is a disgrace to the C&C Series, and in that sense, EA has already failed. Btw, from the prototype video, it shows gameplay for a split second, and it looks like just a cheap bf242 copy
I don't see why you're all so upset. The only mention of MP so far has been the co-op, obviously aimed at consoles as an addition to SP. All of this GRAW/BF2/RB6 talk is about the SP. Wait for details about MP before you start bitching about it. If C&C Mode was copied exactly as it is now it would be terrible. There are an enormous amount of improvements that could and should be made if they recreate C&C Mode. Just look all the modifications that have been made for renegade over the last 6 years, it's drastically different now compared to when it was released.
Starbuzz wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 07:59 Why don't you try to understand the logic behind C&C Mode first before bashing it? And you blatantly insult Renegade mockingly calling it the "holy grail of PC games." Renegade is probably my second most played online game. I know C&C mode well enough to justify any bashings I want to make against it. (also i am not bashing it btw) Quote: So is it really ignorant of us remaining Renegade players to ask for a newer updated version with the current graphical standards? I don't think so. What we hate is a game that promises endless and unsatisfactory killfests ("yay I have most kills") like in Halo. CTF, King of the Hill, Deathmatch, bullshit and other useless modes. No, it's not ignorant, but it sure is asking a lot. There may have been a decent amount of people who greatly enjoyed Renegade, but the fact of the matter is that Renegade received less than mediocre reception when it was released. There are no words to describe how bad the single player for this game is (compared to past and more current games), and the multiplayer is this games only saving grace. They will not port Renegade over to CryEngine2 and box it up as a new game. They will make a game based on what's currently the most popular FPS trends and go from there. edit: also what renx said
Renegade is ok imo but it has a lot of problems that forced me to move on. You walk up to a guy and your looking at his back, he has a RamJet and I have a chain gun. I take my time, point it right on his head and let loose a barrage of bullets. Not only does it not kill him but he has plenty of time to turn around, jump around like a moron and shoot me dead after 10 seconds of chain gun madness. Ok so thats how the game is going to be....I don't quite have enough for my Ramjet character so I go with the 500 sniper. I go out there and look for some cover.....hmm no cover...well I'll use what I got. Guy walks around the corner a million miles away and we both instantly see each other. With no real cover to speak of an the way Renegade is rendered we might as well both be wearing Richard Simmons pink. The first thing the guy does is start jumping around like an idiot. Should I crouch behind this object? Wouldn't matter if I did because my bounding box doesn't go with me and he will know exactly where I am at all times anyway. To hell with it, I'm just going to shoot at him. Pow, one shot in the neck....What??? No death?? I know it wasn't in the head but the torso/neck area is kind of very important to survival. At this point the guy is really thrashing around, he is all over the place. 18 shots later the guy is hit again and goes down. Well that was....yeah....so lets head back to the base and get a refill. On the way back there is a minigunner, well he is right on my ass so using this sniper rifle would be a poor choice of weapon, lets see if i can loose him and double back. Multiple whips around corners and vehicles, through doors and hallways later I turn around to still see my good friend the minigunner..WTF? No human could follow that! Not unless the bounding box never went away and all he had to do was use his superman powers to follow me. After respawn I decided that maybe offense just wasn't my thing in this game, lets try some defense. Wow this is exciting....placing proxy mines in the exact same place at the start of every single map, every single time. It better be worth it. APC rush on the AGT! APC blows up all the mines ejecting the Technicians to safety!! YAY!! Good thing people decided to put this MCT in clear view of the door so that everyone can shoot the engineers (APC's outside included) with really no effort at all. We love'ems bullets. F'ing A! The AGT is gone! Which is an anagram for All Get Titanium ass raping. Lets all work together and build a new one with manpower and resources....guys?? Yo guys?? Oh you are all buying RamJet characters...right after the AGT died....good...thats good that you did that. It's not like we have an anti-vehicle situation right now. Oh noes, our vehicles were destroyed by the incoming forces, lets get some reinforcements! Buy BUY BUY! What do you mean we cant get to them???!!?! They are being destroyed and anyone that approaches the area is shot? How the hell am I supposed to know they can drive themselves to danger but not to safety! To hell with this, I'll change servers and be on the Nod team. WTF do you mean he just jumped around and walked right to the Obelisk?!?! Beacon planted! Well have the base defenses shoot it, its a beacon, all you have to do is stop its signal! What no? Doesn't work that way? Oh ok. Well that was exciting, lets buy a character. I see that every single person is either a Ramjet or a stealth black hand. Lets try the stealth. What? Everyone can see me just like I could see every single Stealth Black Hand that ever there was. Its not like they are quiet or stop making noise when they walk not to mention that they fade in and out of opaque-ness every few seconds. Damn that was some wasted money then. Lets try some engineering again, WHAT!?!?!? The MCT is right by the door again! My god you people need to learn how to make a decent base defense. *Waits for mega flame* I did not write this to piss people off or to criticize them and their choice of game. This was simply the way I see the game and is why I moved on to much, much better series like COD2/COD4/HL2/TF2/COH etc etc because they fixed all this bullshit. No more will my shot to the chest go un-noticed, or will people jump around like a magikarp out of water. Splash attack didn't work then and it won't work now.
bigejoe14 wrote on Wed, 12 December 2007 21:14 Quote: So say you're a lover of chicken and hate fish, and the only restaurant that has it actually serves fish dressed and flavored like chicken. Would you still eat it? This is a horrible analogy and you are a horrible poster. This thread is, without a doubt, one of the biggest gatherings of pure stupid I've ever seen. Blind anti-EA rage and ignorance about a game we know nothing about is what sets up this foundation of anger, yet you feel compelled to white knight it anyway, even when 90% of the people in this thread don't have the damndest idea of what their talking about. Why? So instead of explaining why my analogy doesn't work (which does work and I'll elaborate on in a moment), you resort to petty insults instead. Great job, that'll win you a lot of arguments. My analogy is fine. I want a good, true, C&C FPS (the chicken). I'm given what looks like one (looks and tastes kind of like chicken), but is clearly something else that I don't want upon further inspection (fish dressed up as chicken). Knowing "nothing" about the game is completely wrong. I know that the current title is simply "Tiberium", and you have to "capture" Tiberium to get new units. Since this is basically a Battlefield/other game mechanic, one can assume the rest of the game will have similar aspects to that of those games, i.e. delayed respawn times (it's a game, I just want to fucking play), being killed in a few shots after traveling for a while (only to get the stupid spawn delay again). "Blind anti-EA Rage" is also wrong, which I've proved to you on many occasions, and I should have no need to reiterate myself here.
cmatt42 wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 16:04 My analogy is fine. I want a good, true, C&C FPS (the chicken). I'm given what looks like one (looks and tastes kind of like chicken), but is clearly something else that I don't want upon further inspection (fish dressed up as chicken). It's a horrible analogy because resteraunts do not serve chicken flavored fish. You're just trying hard to make an analogy that fits, but then you just resort to mashing several things together at once that don't make sense. Quote: Knowing "nothing" about the game is completely wrong. I know that the current title is simply "Tiberium", and you have to "capture" Tiberium to get new units. Since this is basically a Battlefield/other game mechanic, one can assume the rest of the game will have similar aspects to that of those games, i.e. delayed respawn times (it's a game, I just want to fucking play), being killed in a few shots after traveling for a while (only to get the stupid spawn delay again). We have ONE clear-cut game mechanic explained to us, and this somehow magically enables you to look into the future and see exactly how this game is going to function in and out? Try again. Quote: "Blind anti-EA Rage" is also wrong, which I've proved to you on many occasions, and I should have no need to reiterate myself here. Blind anti-EA rage is the foundation that the current C&C community is built upon. Does "fuck ea long live westwood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!omgwoot" sound familiar to you at all? Because I still hear quite a bit of that tossed around here every now and then.
razorblade001 wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 19:03 Westwood sucks more than EA does. Maybe Westwood's games didnt have such uber graphics like EA's because they weren't made in 2005-2007?
razorblade001 wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 01:03 Westwood sucks more than EA does. Haha, oh man.. Westwood are like VALVe, they defined a game genre. VALVe = Perfected FPS. Westwood = Defined RTS.
I don't care what they did, they still suck. In fact the reason why they suck is BECAUSE of what they did. (Also, on a side note... I don't really like VALVe either... however I do like Portal )
razorblade001 wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 02:03 (Also, on a side note... I don't really like VALVe either... however I do like Portal ) THIS IS BLASPHEMY! CRIMSON, BLAZER, SOMEONE, BAN THIS FOOL!! [/valve-fanboy]
razorblade001 wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 20:03 I don't care what they did, they still suck. In fact the reason why they suck is BECAUSE of what they did. (Also, on a side note... I don't really like VALVe either... however I do like Portal ) Have you realized that EA has the advantage of time and more advanced technology than westwood?
BlueThen wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 21:23 Have you realized that EA has the advantage of time and more advanced technology than westwood? ??? Where have I said why I think WW sucks? I have in no way said, implied or inferred that I think they suck because their game's graphics aren't as "up-to-date" as current games. I don't care about graphics. In fact TS is still my favorite C&C game, it beats the crap out of RA2 and Generals combined.
Westwood did invent RTS, but EA's RTS's are way better than Westwood's in terms of gameplay and balance... anyone who seriously thinks RA2 or Tib Sun are better games than Generals and Zero Hour frankly needs to see a doctor. We had the same crap with the BFME games... a section of the community didn't care about whether the gameplay and the balance were good as long as Gandalf's hat was the right shape or something... some of the threads here remind me of that tbh. OMG KANE'S PANTS ARE THE WRONG COLOUR FUCK EA I'LL NEVER BUY THEIR GAMES AGAIN!
Quote: Westwood did invent RTS, but EA's RTS's are way better than Westwood's in terms of gameplay and balance... anyone who seriously thinks RA2 or Tib Sun are better games than Generals and Zero Hour frankly needs to see a doctor.
Spoony wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 07:21 Westwood did invent RTS, but EA's RTS's are way better than Westwood's in terms of gameplay and balance... anyone who seriously thinks RA2 or Tib Sun are better games than Generals and Zero Hour frankly needs to see a doctor. RA2 and Tiberian sun are better games than Gens or Zero Hour. you need to see a doctor my friend. RA2 and TS were highly unique and had their storyline and universes were both really gripping. It made you want to frinish them. Generals was a string of missions of a generic, bland RTS. not inginuitive at all. Plus I prefered the goofy 2d graphics of the older games to the shit that Generals was.
Yes, it really depends on your point of view. The singleplayer portions of the Westwood C&C games were unquestionably superior to all EA RTS games, with the exception of C&C 3. But C&C 3 is an attempt to emulate the earlier games. Actually, I'd say that Westwood made the best singleplayer experiences in the RTS genre. But it's fair to say that they weren't particularly balanced online... or if not strictly unbalanced, many of the units were useless, or overshadowed by the most powerful units. The earlier C&C games came from the era before mass online competitive gaming, so it's understandable that they spent more time on the singleplayer element than the multiplayer balance.
razorblade001 wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 19:03 Westwood sucks more than EA does. You suck more than Electrolux does. seriously though I can see what you're getting at, and the point Spoony made, and I quite agree to an extent. Westwood pioneered the RTS genre however I sincerely doubt they would have created as popular games as EA did once they obtained the franchise. Sure Generals sucks the big one because it has absolutely nothing to do with the Tiberium and/or Red Alert universes. But the gameplay was/is vastly superior with the creation of an entirely new game engine (SAGE). I believe that EA should do the same for any new FPS titles. Make it 100% new and unique with a new engine. I like battlefield for it's multiplay as I do Renegade however the two are vastly different. EA should be careful not to stray too far from the original Renegade concepts - The original C&C mode is essential but they have to kick it up a notch. If we wanted BF we would go out and buy BF. Or do what Im doing and make a mod for Renegade (siggy). Why do such a thing? I love the WW2 atmosphere but concurr with the above, that 2 shot kills / long respawn times / deliberate teamkilling sucks monkey testicles. Hence why I am trying to recreate that on the Renegade engine. Anyone who shares these views should sign up on the mod team FTW! One last comment, the rumored name. "C&C Tiberium". Very fucking generic, awfully pathetic. But then lest we forget the last instalment... Lets look at the Tib Universe titles thusfar: TIBERIAN DAWN TIBERIAN SUN TIBERIUM WARS If you ask me someone needs to learn how to fucking spell. But you would all just say Im moaning about Gandalf's hat.
Apart from argueing with someone like razor who is clearly wrong, EA did a good job with C&C3, or so I think (-the whole scrin bullshit), in terms of listening to what people wanted, making the forums active seeing what people said before the game was even released etc. The problem? Name a single FPS EA has released that is even comparable to C&C Mode? Doesn't exsist. The obvious thing to beleive is that they are gonna redo 100% of it, to appeal to bf/graw/etc market.
ok I think everyone needs to see whether EA actually does fuck this up, because they haven't made a mess of every game, they might be learning how to keep a community happy, which gives them a dedicated fanbase, which equates to permanant income. They do have to make money you know. I will save my call on the game until I see it / play a demo.
This is good news in a kind of way because if EA does mess this up (looks like it, so far), then C&C Renegade will become even more stronger. What does everyone think about that statement? ^
I'd say that statement shows you're worse than you make EA out to be.
EA is currently getting better, lets see if they can hold that course. If they cant, well there are enough other Companys.
Surth wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 12:59 EA is currently getting better, lets see if they can hold that course. If they cant, well there are enough other Companys. Yeah, but none of them own the C&C IP.
so fucking what? its not like C&C is the only good RTS.
Spoony wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 12:57 I'd say that statement shows you're worse than you make EA out to be. I meant C&C Renegade won't lose that many players to "C&C Tiberium" if EA messes it up. And EA granting licenses to write novels about C&C3 and then basing the main character in this new FPS from a character in the novel is pretty ridiculous don't you think?
One Winged Angel wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 09:03 Spoony wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 07:21 Westwood did invent RTS, but EA's RTS's are way better than Westwood's in terms of gameplay and balance... anyone who seriously thinks RA2 or Tib Sun are better games than Generals and Zero Hour frankly needs to see a doctor. RA2 and Tiberian sun are better games than Gens or Zero Hour. you need to see a doctor my friend. RA2 and TS were highly unique and had their storyline and universes were both really gripping. It made you want to frinish them. Generals was a string of missions of a generic, bland RTS. not inginuitive at all. Plus I prefered the goofy 2d graphics of the older games to the shit that Generals was. OWA's absolutely right. I don't see any advantages Generals or Zero Hour had over Red Alert 2. Tiberian Sun and RA2 had very deep canons and storylines which left people creating theories on who Cabal was, who Kane is, etc. The stories by themselves made you want to finish the game to see what would happen. As well, the cutscenes were very well-done with actors and a movie-like atmosphere, unlike most other games which had CG. What did Generals introduce that was good? All they did was take out the sidebar, ditch cutscenes, scrap the movie-scenario briefings, and try to throw up a realistic game. It had practically no story, its multiplayer was extremely laggy and lacking features, and its graphics haven't aged well at all. There wasn't even much strategy to the game, it was all about buildings lots of WF's, lots of vehicles, lots of superweapons and charging at their base. Its single player was long, boring, and not challenging in all respects. Red Alert 2 might not be 3d, but till today it looks acceptable. The only thing that ever looked good in generals were the explosions, but most people don't like commanding stickmen.
trooprm02 wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 12:03 Apart from argueing with someone like razor who is clearly wrong ...? How can my opinion be wrong. You sir, are a moron. But anyway, most of you just allowed me to play you like an instrument. And I also proved Bigejoe's point. You're saying you can see where this game is heading from seeing the first glimpse of it, however you are denying you are doing this. All I said was "Westwood sucks" and then everyone all of a sudden started to think of their own conclusions for why I think that way. I never gave a reason, I only said "they suck more than EA does." And I also never clarified how much I think EA sucks either. It could be a lot, or I might not think they suck. You simply don't know. But the point of me even saying "westwood sucks" was to hopefully open your eyes and make you actually see you guys are being narrow minded.
Quote: There wasn't even much strategy to the game, it was all about buildings lots of WF's, lots of vehicles, lots of superweapons and charging at their base. I'll just say you SUCK at Zero Hour, if you think so. Btw what great strategy do you need in YR?
Surth wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 15:05 Quote: There wasn't even much strategy to the game, it was all about buildings lots of WF's, lots of vehicles, lots of superweapons and charging at their base. I'll just say you SUCK at Zero Hour, if you think so. Btw what great strategy do you need in YR? Have you even played Zero Hour online? All people did was go and build a hundred bases with a lot of super weapons and weapons factories. Ra2 actually had the strategy factor. It wasn't about relying on big numbers of superweapons and vehicles, you actually had to think out proper attacks. It even had ships and submarines; which adds an entire new kind of warfare that Generals did not have. Quote: ...? How can my opinion be wrong. You sir, are a moron. But anyway, most of you just allowed me to play you like an instrument. And I also proved Bigejoe's point. You're saying you can see where this game is heading from seeing the first glimpse of it, however you are denying you are doing this. All I said was "Westwood sucks" and then everyone all of a sudden started to think of their own conclusions for why I think that way. I never gave a reason, I only said "they suck more than EA does." And I also never clarified how much I think EA sucks either. It could be a lot, or I might not think they suck. You simply don't know. But the point of me even saying "westwood sucks" was to hopefully open your eyes and make you actually see you guys are being narrow minded. Then CLARIFY yourself if people are misunderstanding you. You can't just type out a few words and expect everyone to know exactly what you're saying. Explain yourself and give some rational arguments.
What are you talking about? If I had done that, then what I did wouldn't of worked. If I told everyone "Hey, I'm setting you up so I can prove a point" than no one would of responded...
ever played online with 1.05 community patch?
Zero hour is only playable with Project Raptor mod IMO.
First post on page 6: http://forums.ea.com/mboards/thread.jspa?threadID=316023&start=75&tstart =0 ealacypher Hey man, Don't worry about it. Command & Crysis The Dead Six brings you the C&C Mode love in addition to what EALA has instore with Tiberium. dead6.renevo.com R3 is sad now. BTW: Cypher is an official EA Mod. A mod who actually works for EA.
razorblade001 ??? Where have I said why I think WW sucks? I have in no way said, implied or inferred that I think they suck because their game's graphics aren't as "up-to-date" as current games. I don't care about graphics. In fact TS is still my favorite C&C game, it beats the crap out of RA2 and Generals combined. razorblade001 wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 14:03 All I said was "Westwood sucks" and then everyone all of a sudden started to think of their own conclusions for why I think that way. Ironic much?
n..no? I'm pretty sure that you just confirmed that what I did was in fact really what I did. I said before that I never said anything about why I said "they suck" and you just proved I did by quoting it... so I don't see what your getting at.
razorblade001 wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 14:39 n..no? I'm pretty sure that you just confirmed that what I did was in fact really what I did. I said before that I never said anything about why I said "they suck" and you just proved I did by quoting it... so I don't see what your getting at. That made no sense to me what so ever.
Ok, I'll restate. You quoting those two things and asking if it was ironic made no sense to me either. All you did was quote me two times saying the exact same thing. In the first quote I said that I haven't said anything to why I think they suck. And in the second quote I said the exact same thing.
razorblade001 wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 14:46 Ok, I'll restate. You quoting those two things and asking if it was ironic made no sense to me either. All you did was quote me two times saying the exact same thing. Ok, remove the "much?", then you will see I am pointing out IRONY.
Razor, man what's up? Why the need for causing so much confusion?
BlueThen wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 15:47 Ok, remove the "much?", then you will see I am pointing out IRONY. I still fail to see what you're getting at... what is ironic about me saying the same thing twice..?
Surth wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 14:32 ever played online with 1.05 community patch? Yeah, the 1.05 patch stopped people from mass producing WF.
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 13:46]OWA's absolutely right. I don't see any advantages Generals or Zero Hour had over Red Alert 2. balance? [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 13:46]Tiberian Sun and RA2 had very deep canons and storylines which left people creating theories on who Cabal was, who Kane is, etc. The stories by themselves made you want to finish the game to see what would happen. As well, the cutscenes were very well-done with actors and a movie-like atmosphere, unlike most other games which had CG. whoopee. storylines and cutscenes don't make a great game... gameplay makes a great game, and RA2 did not have good gameplay (some aspects of it are, frankly, ridiculous) Generals and ZH do. [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 13:46]What did Generals introduce that was good? All they did was take out the sidebar, ditch cutscenes, scrap the movie-scenario briefings so far so indifferent [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 13:46]It had practically no story So? [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 13:46]its multiplayer was extremely laggy uhhh... no, it wasn't? [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 13:46]There wasn't even much strategy to the game, it was all about buildings lots of WF's, lots of vehicles, lots of superweapons and charging at their base. lol... Generals and ZH are pretty much the only C&C RTS which actually requires micro, the only other being Red Alert 1 and even that on a much lesser scale.
Fobby wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 14:21 Have you even played Zero Hour online? All people did was go and build a hundred bases with a lot of super weapons and weapons factories. Yes, I have... but this statement makes me wonder if you have. Generals is about micromanagement more than anything else. Fobby wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 14:21 Ra2 actually had the strategy factor. It wasn't about relying on big numbers of superweapons and vehicles, you actually had to think out proper attacks. uh ok. Generals and ZH had nothing as absolutely ludicrous as the Desolator. well, admittedly the attack outpost came close but at least they fixed that.
Quote: balance? Ra2 isn't balanced? It's likely to be one of the most balanced games out there, because winning doesn't sway towards the direction of Allies or Soviets. They are both good teams with good countermeasures. Quote: whoopee. storylines and cutscenes don't make a great game... gameplay makes a great game, and RA2 did not have good gameplay (some aspects of it are, frankly, ridiculous) Generals and ZH do. Atmosphere is a big part of a game. Games are for entertainment, and creating a story and atmosphere is part of the entertainment. Why do you think people watch movies, read books, and watch the television. Surely gameplay is far more important, but people cherish and remember good stories that were along good gameplay. Why do you think game review sites like Gametrailers put story as a part of the final mark? Quote: so far so indifferent I take it that all of the things that made C&C unique (sidebar, cutscenes, movie briefings, and more) are not important to you. Even EA agrees with this point, because they brought all that stuff back for C&C3. Quote: uhhh... no, it wasn't? With a bunch of players building lots of bases and units all over the map, it's sort of hard to deny that all of this has at least some affect on your PC. This wasn't a problem in RA2.
Quote: Ra2 isn't balanced? It's likely to be one of the most balanced games out there, Heh.
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 15:16]Ra2 isn't balanced? It's likely to be one of the most balanced games out there, because winning doesn't sway towards the direction of Allies or Soviets. They are both good teams with good countermeasures. one word: desolator [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 15:16]Atmosphere is a big part of a game. Games are for entertainment, and creating a story and atmosphere is part of the entertainment. Why do you think people watch movies, read books, and watch the television. Irrelevant question, since none of those have interactive elements. [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 15:16]Surely gameplay is far more important, but people cherish and remember good stories that were along good gameplay. yes, but I'll take a better game with a crap storyline (Generals) over a crap game with a good storyline (tib sun) or, dare I say it, a crap game with a crap storyline (ra2) [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 15:16]I take it that all of the things that made C&C unique (sidebar, cutscenes, movie briefings, and more) are not important to you. Sidebar's utterly important... cutscenes and movie briefings are a nice bonus, but they won't be the reason people still play a game five years after its release.
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 16:16] Ra2 isn't balanced? It's likely to be one of the most balanced games out there, because winning doesn't sway towards the direction of Allies or Soviets. They are both good teams with good countermeasures. Lmao....name one time you didn't win as Yuri? Maybe if it was Yuri vs Yuri but the teams were obviously unbalanced. And no there isn't strategy in RA2, its just like all the others. To win you create a massive army and roll over them. If you want real strategy then play some Company of Heroes like the Obliv does..err Snow Miser does.
Snow Miser wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 16:25 [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 16:16] Ra2 isn't balanced? It's likely to be one of the most balanced games out there, because winning doesn't sway towards the direction of Allies or Soviets. They are both good teams with good countermeasures. Lmao....name one time you didn't win as Yuri? Maybe if it was Yuri vs Yuri but the teams were obviously unbalanced. And no there isn't strategy in RA2, its just like all the others. To win you create a massive army and roll over them. If you want real strategy then play some Company of Heroes like the Obliv does..err Snow Miser does. No, it's not the strategy of winning, it's the strategy of staying alive
BlueThen wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 17:27 Snow Miser wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 16:25 [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 16:16] Ra2 isn't balanced? It's likely to be one of the most balanced games out there, because winning doesn't sway towards the direction of Allies or Soviets. They are both good teams with good countermeasures. Lmao....name one time you didn't win as Yuri? Maybe if it was Yuri vs Yuri but the teams were obviously unbalanced. And no there isn't strategy in RA2, its just like all the others. To win you create a massive army and roll over them. If you want real strategy then play some Company of Heroes like the Obliv does..err Snow Miser does. No, it's not the strategy of winning, it's the strategy of staying alive That is the exact same thing....the only way it couldn't be is if you mean to surrender immediately.
Quote: one word: desolator What about the desolator? It was the ultimate short-ranged infantry killer. Against tanks though, the thing's useless. Even a large group of desolators can barely hurt an Allied vehicle. Quote: Irrelevant question, since none of those have interactive elements. They're all elements of entertainment though, because people like stories and stories are entertaining. What's better - a good game with no story, or a good game with a good story? I do agree that gameplay is more important, but story is not something you can just brush off. As I said earlier, even review sites like Gametrailers put storylines to the test, so it therefore has to be something important if even game reviewers are watching for good stories and bad stories. Quote: yes, but I'll take a better game with a crap storyline (Generals) over a crap game with a good storyline (tib sun) or, dare I say it, a crap game with a crap storyline (ra2) Ok, so we're getting somewhere. You don't like RA2 because you think the gameplay is crap, while I like RA2 because I think the gameplay was fast, fluid, and fun. Quote: Sidebar's utterly important... cutscenes and movie briefings are a nice bonus, but they won't be the reason people still play a game five years after its release. Yes, but the cutscenes/movie briefings/sidebar is what made Westwood's games unique... if I wanted to play a Generals-styled game, I'd just go for Starcraft and Warcraft, which were both arguably the same style of RTS. And frankly a lot of people liked those games over Generals.
Spoony wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 22:22 (NE)Fobby[GEN wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 15:16]Ra2 isn't balanced? It's likely to be one of the most balanced games out there, because winning doesn't sway towards the direction of Allies or Soviets. They are both good teams with good countermeasures. one word: desolator One unit: Sniper.
7 Words: Old CnCs sucked in terms of gameplay
Fobby wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 19:21 Quote: one word: desolator What about the desolator? It was the ultimate short-ranged infantry killer. Against tanks though, the thing's useless. Even a large group of desolators can barely hurt an Allied vehicle. rofl.. what game are you playing? Desolators are one of the most overpowered units ever seen in an RTS. Ryu wrote Quote: one word: desolator One unit: Sniper. If you don't know what you're talking about then just don't
Spoony wrote on Sat, 15 December 2007 09:41 Fobby wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 19:21 Quote: one word: desolator What about the desolator? It was the ultimate short-ranged infantry killer. Against tanks though, the thing's useless. Even a large group of desolators can barely hurt an Allied vehicle. rofl.. what game are you playing? Desolators are one of the most overpowered units ever seen in an RTS. Ryu wrote Quote: one word: desolator One unit: Sniper. If you don't know what you're talking about then just don't Sniper rifle.. ? you're saying that it's short ranged? heh. I thought simple logic would follow with such a weapon.