Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
^from Kane himself, on facebook Its already in the early stages of production at EALA, the same place that made C&C 4 obviously, we just still don't know what kind of game it will be (im praying for a FPS, but alot of people think it will be generals 2) and if it will by the same team that made C&C 4 (hopefully not). More Info: http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/10/19/ea-clarifies-c-amp-c-visceral- games-project.aspx
Brace yourself for more shit! Who knows, maybe it will be a Renegade sequel?
even if a renegade sequel was made...(yes i realize he was being sarcastic) if it was made by the same team that did c&c4... im not buying it. same with another rts
This has been known for at least a week already, you're a little late. The vast majority of the original team (including Sam Bass, as far as I know )has been let go. That means there is a new team behind it. The new team leader (who's name escapes me right now) has talked about the game in a few interviews. What basically worries me the most is the direction he plans to take the new C&C games. He basically says that he sees C&C as a social game and that's the direction he wants to take the series in. So whether you interpret that as C&C Halo or C&C Farmvil is still up in the air.. but one thing that I don't like about it is that I much prefer playing C&C games alone than with other people. I would much prefer to lose to a well-programmed AI than win against a human opponent. Humans all play the same way: out spam your enemy faster than he can out spam you. I can do that just fine.. but sometimes I just want to break away from that style of play...
Im buying if it has base building.
Can't they just let the damn series die in peace after anally raping it repeatedly with a rusty serrated entrenching shovel? There hasn't been a great one since before Westwood got the axe. It's not even a top seller anymore since RA3's activation limits and C&C4's Epic Fail decimated the fanbase. The brand is now the leper colony of the RTS world, and jerking off another sequel isn't gonna bring the glory back.
DERP So anyway, after remembering how to read again, does this mean it's definitely going to be another RTS?
Nightma12 wrote on Sat, 23 October 2010 13:17 oh god This. However, if they're really fucking cool, they'd reboot C&C starting with C&C3. That's really where it fucked up- yes, Tiberian Sun was campy, but it had its charm and its own sense of awesome. C&C3 really tried to make it too mainstream, as well as just... lacking in a lot of things that made C&C, and lacked EVERYTHING TS had. C&C4's units were actually really cool. But then they fucked up the gameplay and still didn't do much with the ambiance, and turned it into a herpderp tournament game. Also, if it's an FPS, I'd actually be glad. Assuming it's not Battlefield: C&C.
Really good news but I fear it will be more of the same nasty money-consuming shit I have come to expect from this company. Maybe they are jealous of the money Blizzard is raking in on StarCraft with its 2 expansion packs un-released! C&C 3 was a good effort but it was lackluster and didn't have the charm of the earlier games but I do appreciate EA for it. Red Alert 3 redefined the word "silly" and was a total turn-off. And C&C 4? I don't even want to waste a penny. Not to mention the massive screw-up with Tiberium. I hope it is a FPS game but I doubt it. Still, Joe Kucan being around gives me hope of something set in the Tiberian universe with Kane and Nod. And maybe, just maybe they will make a FPS but this time around will meet the "quality standards set by the development team and the EA Games label."
Starbuzzz wrote on Sat, 23 October 2010 18:46 Really good news but I fear it will be more of the same nasty money-consuming shit I have come to expect from this company. Maybe they are jealous of the money Blizzard is raking in on StarCraft with its 2 expansion packs un-released! Starcraft II, 12 Million WoW players and (soon) Diablo III. Money Money Money!
It'll obviously be based off Generals . C&C3 was actually a good game, tbh.
World of TiberiumCraft: Wrath of the Bald Man Who Won't Effing Die
Goztow wrote on Sat, 23 October 2010 23:16 C&C3 was actually a good game, tbh. I gotta agree with you but only for a few skirmish games and only for one play through... I dont even find it fun anymore. nothing like tiberian sun, red alert, red alert 2, yuris revenge, tiberian dawn, and of course renegade. i always go back to those and find it just as fun Altzan wrote on Sat, 23 October 2010 23:29 World of TiberiumCraft: Wrath of the Bald Man Who Won't Effing Die im sure that would officially kill the game, beat its dead body, dump it in a river, let it rot for a few days, then be ate by coyotes, who were later killed crossing a road by a car, which exploded somehow
Goztow wrote on Sun, 24 October 2010 00:16 It'll obviously be based off Generals . C&C3 was actually a good game, tbh. i really liked generals and zero hour; i actually spent several hours earlier today playing Shockwave, a mod for zero hour what's your beef with generals? the fact that it entirely deviates from the tiberium and red alert storylines? yeah it does, but the game plays well and is fun it's a command and conquer version of modern times, like call of duty modern warfare and i thought that was a cool game too
People rag on Generals because it doesn't have a bald, mustachioed, leather-clad guy in it. Each to his own kink, I guess.
Goztow wrote on Sun, 24 October 2010 00:16 It'll obviously be based off Generals . C&C3 was actually a good game, tbh. C&C3 was awful compared to generals :/
I'm just praying (I'm not even religious but w/e ) for Renegade 2 or Tiberium
C&C3 got me for over 500 games online during the first 3 months after its release. I also finished single player campaign twice. Yes, it got boring rather soon but it was worth its money. My beef with Generals was that I wasn't an online player when it got released. The single player options weren't decent, IMO.
for people who complained about generals not having anything to do with tiberium or allies/soviets... may i ask what you thought of quake 2?
Spoony wrote on Sun, 24 October 2010 15:19 for people who complained about generals not having anything to do with tiberium or allies/soviets... may i ask what you thought of quake 2? i think it also had nothing to do with cnc
Maybe, it will be a rts/fps game... I'm not sure))) But... the game will be different from our ideas about it anyway.
nikki6ixx wrote on Sun, 24 October 2010 03:09 People rag on Generals because it doesn't have a bald, mustachioed, leather-clad guy in it. Each to his own kink, I guess. Somewhat. Honestly I just find it lame they called it C&C; that and it had little to no story. The gameplay itself is pretty damn well done, though, and feels more like C&C than C&C3. Which is sad... Also, I hope they give whatever this game is more than 1 year of development time. That's also why C&C3, RA3, and C&C4 got shafted so damn hard. And why Tiberium was cut.
to be really honest. Generals, the 1st one not zero hour was fucking awesome. Really it had it's sharm to the fullest. It actually felt c&c capturing oil dericks etc. it was a good game. after zero hour it started to get fucked up. Tiberium wars sucked imo, red alert 3 is fun, but is too warcraft like. they had to keep it simple and not special units who can get new skillss etc. i am still hoping Tiberium FPS to come out, now that game looked fucking kinky.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 23 October 2010 14:51 So whether you interpret that as C&C Halo or C&C Farmvil is still up in the air.. I take offence to that Also it better be a fps. and work well.
It might be an FPS; EA said they want to focus on action games, so... yeah. Renegade 2 would make me lose control of my bowels, though.
Quote: So, team. What could we do to milk the most money out of the C&C franchise?
BlueThen wrote on Sun, 24 October 2010 18:32 Quote: So, team. What could we do to milk the most money out of the C&C franchise? for one thing.... you could make a GOOD command and conquer edit: na too much time
halo2pac wrote on Sun, 24 October 2010 18:30 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 23 October 2010 14:51 So whether you interpret that as C&C Halo or C&C Farmvil is still up in the air.. I take offence to that Also it better be a fps. and work well. Hey, I love Halo. But it's multiplayer matchmaking is the perfect example of 'social gaming.' Anyway, as far as the discussion goes, I actually really liked RA3. I liked the way that it played and how your actions early on actually effected you later in the match. For example, ore nodes. The more you had, the more you could do. C&C3 would have been a whole lot better if it didn't have any cranes. Generals, I wasn't much a fan of... but that's because I really don't care for multiplayer RTS games much... and Generals had virtually no single player campaign.
Some more reading for you guys if you are interested. http://www.nowgamer.com/news/4425/ea-confirms-visceral-expansion http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=26182&utm_source=feedb urner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+GamasutraNews+(Gamasutra+News)& amp;utm_content=Google+Reader http://kotaku.com/5414147/you-may-not-like-where-command--conquer-is-headed
INSERT RAGE HERE Also holy shit hi PermaGrin, I never see you around anywhere ever.
>>C&C 3 would be a really sweet game if they'd set it between TD and TS and taken out the Scrin. It'd make sense, with all the complete lack of sick ass technology from TS. But this, this sounds bad. It's going to be EA's "social gaming" fodder until they find a better franchise to rape. Regardless, I can't wait to buy my 5$ real money Tiberium resistant boots in C&C5 Online.
If this new C7C involves Facebook in any way I'm out. Then again I bought C&C3 which collected dust after playing it for week. Red Alert is what started C&C for me but I never got any good feelings about RA3. I never even touched C&C4 based on the feedback of others, I could not justify another $60 on a game that I would play only for a week and get bored of.
If you think about it if they make any C&C FPS it has already been made by the community modifiers. So most likely they are going to hack in and steal C&C reborn and slap their label on it and add new shaders+bloom and a shitty game mode
C&C fans are the last group of people allowed to use "story" as a critera for buying games. Not after TS and RA2. Proof. If you liked this garbage, you can't complain about General's story or lack thereof. Personally, when playing Generals, I found it refreshing that I was playing a game that didn't go so well with Benny Hill music. I'm not kidding in the least. Next time you fire up RA2 or RA3, turn off the in-game music and have this playing in the background.
Yeah, people overlook how ridiculous RA2 was then bash RA3 for it. RA3 was basically the same nonsense, just with more professional actors and whatnot. I will however say that TS, despite its campiness, was still pretty good. It's like Starship Troopers- it's campy, but I'll be damned if it wasn't awesome.
Dover wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 16:01 Personally, when playing Generals, I found it refreshing that I was playing a game that didn't go so well with Benny Hill music. I'm not kidding in the least. Next time you fire up RA2 or RA3, turn off the in-game music and have this playing in the background. LOL!!
nikki6ixx wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 18:37 Dover wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 16:01 Personally, when playing Generals, I found it refreshing that I was playing a game that didn't go so well with Benny Hill music. I'm not kidding in the least. Next time you fire up RA2 or RA3, turn off the in-game music and have this playing in the background. LOL!! bunch of fucking bears running all over the map with this playing jesus christ i hate you Dover
It's not just the story though, it's skirmish matches and AI. Since I'm the only one who brought up disliking Generals based off of the lack of story, then I'm assuming you posted because I said that. All of the C&C games stories suck. Every last one of them. But General's sucks the most because it is non-existant. Even C&C4's story is better. I said even earlier on that I would have much more fun losing to a well programmed AI than winning against a human opponent. I just don't find the fun in outspamming other players faster then they can outspam me.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 26 October 2010 16:26 Yeah, people overlook how ridiculous RA2 was then bash RA3 for it. RA3 was basically the same nonsense, just with more professional actors and whatnot. naw, that's just not true! RA2 can't be mentioned in the same line with RA3. If you look at RA2, besides the few goofy scenes, and a semi-believable storyline, you had solid faction armies with realistic infantry, vehicles, and superweapons. It was a pretty good set of armies and navies with a variety of maps to use them on. That was simply not true with RA3. EA applied the silly stupidity to the UNITS AS WELL. Bears and the Soviet Bullfrog (vehicle that shoots infantry out a circus cannon) along with a ship that grows mechanical legs to walk on the land says all about EA's stupid STUPID game. What's more, first impression is everything. The RA3 trainer mission had the 3 faction tanks talking to you like as if you were a 6th grader. That instantly turned me off and it made me feel embarrased to have bought the game. I am not even kidding. With RA2, you had solid armies with efficent and deadly looking units and I had solid fun for 4 years. All I am saying is that RA2 cannot be compared to RA3 and put in the same bunch. EA took it way up the top. They made the game so silly it turned me off. They were so desperate that they even included a poster of all the cheap b*tches with the game. And let's not forget, RA had some funny shit too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H24bpgkiK1I&feature=related lmao If someone looked for realistic itty gritty warfare and a sobre atmosphere, then RA is the way to go. RA2 was a bit more goofy but overall, only a couple scenes qualify as being silly and this can be overlooked when you had good faction armies and navies and good maps and missions. The intro was pretty badass for example. In RA3, pretty much every cutscene was comical garbage. RA3 was a waste of money and a further degradation of the C&C series.
Starbuzz, you said it my man!
Starbuzz you kidding? RA2 was a complete laughing stock. RA3 was too (perhaps arguably more), but that was the point. You can't hold RA2 higher than RA3 because they are on the same level, aesthetically. I mean, Yuri alone is a complete black mark on that entire universe. He has to be the most stupid character ever invented. Now mechanically, I believe RA3 is much better than RA2. In fact, before RA3 came along, I outright hated the Red Alert universe because it was nothing more than boring story (RA1) and a compilation of retarded unit designs and scenarios (RA2). While RA3 did continue that trend, it also managed to improve C&C gameplay dramatically, IMO. Granted they restricted some freedom when it came to collecting resources, but I think that the ore node system was the first step onto something really great. I think RA3 is the best C&C game to date, discounting Renegade. It's the only C&C game, again, discounting Renegade, that, when I played it, actually made me want to play online. Not many games do that, especially RTS games. While Renegade was the first C&C game I ever played, RA2 was the first RTS game I ever played. Not only that, but it was the first game I ever played online. I've, to date, only played about 5 matches of RA2 online. I played RA2 for two matches, then moved onto Renegade. I remember that day was the first day after we got dial-up internet installed. I tried to play RA2 online and was like "hey, this is pretty neat" and then I realized "oh what about Renegade!?" That's when I ditched RA2 for Renegade and never looked back except when a friend asked me to play with him. TBH, I really don't like RA2 that much. It's pretty much in the same boat with C&C3. In fact, if C&C 3 didn't have cranes, the two games would play almost the exact same way. Those two are definitely the most spammy C&C games.
I'm not going to get too deep in to this discussion but I will say the following. RA2 was the game that got me into C&C, I played C&C on the N64 before that, I liked it but it didn't get me that attached. I played a LAN match of RA2 at a friends house and became in love with it. I played RA2 for a few years (and I was on dialup then) before I started playing Renegade. RA2 is basically still one of the only RTS games I will play online. PS. RA3 just sucked like hell imo.
Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 10:02 If you look at RA2, besides the few goofy scenes, and a semi-believable storyline, you had solid faction armies with realistic infantry, vehicles, and superweapons. It was a pretty good set of armies and navies with a variety of maps to use them on. ...Except the giant squids, WW1 War Blimps (Kirovs), Crazy Ivan, Yuri, and etc. The art style was significantly more cartoony, as well. Compare it to TS, and you'll see what I mean. Now I will admit, RA3 is MORE over the top so I guess it's a little unfair to say RA2 is AS bad, but RA2 was the game when Westwood went overboard. It didn't even fit with any of the C&C storyline, either... even RA1 did, RA2 was just like "Whelp, time to take a realistic-ish game and make it utterly ridiculous". RA2's gameplay and missions were fun, I will admit that. But it just felt like they could have done WAY better and made it WAY cooler. Tiberian Sun, although the missions were campy, the game itself had an extremely rich ambiance. Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 10:02 All I am saying is that RA2 cannot be compared to RA3 and put in the same bunch. EA took it way up the top. They made the game so silly it turned me off. They were so desperate that they even included a poster of all the cheap b*tches with the game. Kari Wuhrer was just as much, and if Westwood could they would have done just as much media whoring with Zofia, Tanya, and the other female characters. EA's just bigger so they had money to blow. And honestly, I found the Bear vs Flair videos amusing. Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 10:02 If someone looked for realistic itty gritty warfare and a sobre atmosphere, then RA is the way to go. I can agree with that, RA1 had a better feel (just not my personal taste). Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 10:02 RA2 was a bit more goofy but overall, only a couple scenes qualify as being silly and this can be overlooked when you had good faction armies and navies and good maps and missions. The intro was pretty badass for example. In RA3, pretty much every cutscene was comical garbage. I dunno, the whole game felt like it just took a step into way goofy territory, and although some parts were serious, it was really hard to take it serious. I mean, atleast in Tiberian Sun, one of the first few cutscenes is a live execution of a traitorous general... which is pretty badass. This isn't to say RA2 is a bad game- but it was a major departure from the rest of C&C games. If anything, despite its utter lack of story, Generals went back a bit to a RA1-ish feel... RA2, though, really went overboard... then RA3 went even more overboard. However, RA3- despite me not playing it- seems to have WAY better gameplay. I actually want to buy it sometime, but my comp is a piece of shit and doesn't like certain games. PS: I play a personal YR mod constantly with some of my friends, that I help make and such. I, by no means, hate RA2/YR. I just hate it when people point their fingers at RA3 and say "OMG THIS GAME RUINED C&C FOREVEERRRR". They tried to undo some of the gameplay damage they did with C&C3, and figured since they have a shitton of money they'd just hire some professional actors and have some goofy scenes. Which, if Westwood had the same budget, they would have done the same with RA2.
RA1 wasn't realistic. Far from it. It just had a dulled color scheme. The game is based off of technology that doesn't exist. That's the preface of the game; that's the whole concept of the game. All of the technology in RA1 was based off of failed real-world experiments. Without even playing the game you can conclude that the goal of the game is that it is not supposed to be realistic. Chronospheres, tesla technology, M.A.D. tanks, etc. The existance all of these things proves that the game isn't supposed to be 'griddy' or 'realistic.' The only reason people think that is because of the palette of colors used in the game. If RA2 used the same dulled palette, people would think it's just as realistic as RA1 and the same goes for RA3 as well. RA1, RA2 and RA3 are all in the same cartoony boat. The only difference is that the latter two are brighter and more vibrant than the first (and also that the cut scenes in RA1 tried too hard to make everything seem real that it had a complete 180° effect).
Actually no, it wasn't the technology or just the palette that made it "realistic". It was more of the story, how things panned out, the way the units sounded... etc. It wasn't as ridiculous, nor as over the top as RA2. Yes, the color palette also had something to do with it, but the general graphics, the feel of things... It didn't feel as over the top. Basically, if that technology existed, it felt like that's how RA1 would have panned out. Also a thing that bugged me about RA2 was how every Allied unit except the specific country units were all HURRR AMERICA. (with the exception of the battle fortress)
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 14:32 In fact, if C&C 3 didn't have cranes, the two games would play almost the exact same way. Yea, oh and aside from the way C&C 3 handles multiple war factories / barracks, or how the terrain under shroud is viewable, or how units work in squads, or how most of the units and defenses are different, or how there's a large variety in super weapons, or how vehicles are upgradeable (through tech buildings), or how the shroud is dynamic (will grow back into places you aren't in), or the turbines, or drones, or the nonbuildable walls, or silos, or the 3 separate factions instead of 2, or how the game is 3D (360 degree view), or how they're in completely different universes.
BlueThen wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 18:46 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 14:32 In fact, if C&C 3 didn't have cranes, the two games would play almost the exact same way. Yea, oh and aside from the way C&C 3 handles multiple war factories / barracks, or how the terrain under shroud is viewable, or how units work in squads, or how most of the units and defenses are different, or how there's a large variety in super weapons, or how vehicles are upgradeable (through tech buildings), or how the shroud is dynamic (will grow back into places you aren't in), or the turbines, or drones, or the nonbuildable walls, or silos, or the 3 separate factions instead of 2, or how the game is 3D (360 degree view), or how they're in completely different universes. Or the ridiculous amount of harvesters needed to keep a stable economy, or how ridiculously effective recon/scout units are in killing said harvesters, or...
BlueThen wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 17:46 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 14:32 In fact, if C&C 3 didn't have cranes, the two games would play almost the exact same way. Yea, oh and aside from the way C&C 3 handles multiple war factories / barracks, or how the terrain under shroud is viewable, or how units work in squads, or how most of the units and defenses are different, or how there's a large variety in super weapons, or how vehicles are upgradeable (through tech buildings), or how the shroud is dynamic (will grow back into places you aren't in), or the turbines, or drones, or the nonbuildable walls, or silos, or the 3 separate factions instead of 2, or how the game is 3D (360 degree view), or how they're in completely different universes. wait shroud regrowth wasnt an option in ra2? i know it was in ra1 and tib sun...
Zeratul wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 19:41 BlueThen wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 17:46 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 14:32 In fact, if C&C 3 didn't have cranes, the two games would play almost the exact same way. Yea, oh and aside from the way C&C 3 handles multiple war factories / barracks, or how the terrain under shroud is viewable, or how units work in squads, or how most of the units and defenses are different, or how there's a large variety in super weapons, or how vehicles are upgradeable (through tech buildings), or how the shroud is dynamic (will grow back into places you aren't in), or the turbines, or drones, or the nonbuildable walls, or silos, or the 3 separate factions instead of 2, or how the game is 3D (360 degree view), or how they're in completely different universes. wait shroud regrowth wasnt an option in ra2? i know it was in ra1 and tib sun... Shroud, not tiberium/ore.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 17:11 ...Except the giant squids, WW1 War Blimps (Kirovs), Crazy Ivan, Yuri, and etc. The art style was significantly more cartoony, as well. Compare it to TS, and you'll see what I mean tbh, we are only comparing RA2 with RA3! And what do mean "etc" lol...in RA2, only the Dolphin and Squid were the crazy units except that the Dolphins are actually based on real life US Navy stuff. Sure, the Squid was over the top but it was a thousand times better than a ship with mechanical legs or the embarrassing man cannon. The Kirov was outdated stuff as well but it was way cooler than a giant horned red-eyed Japanese mech. The Crazy Ivan was really just a demolitions unit like the Allied SEAL except Crazy Ivan enjoyed his job way too much! Yuri had only a few completely fictional units and in no way were they as wacky as the ones you had in RA3. Brutes, Floating Disks, Masterminds, and Chaos Drones were the on-off crazy units but they didn't incite the same childish embarassment that a mechanical legged-ship or a man-cannon vehicle did. Now that was stupid. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 17:11 RA2's gameplay and missions were fun, I will admit that. But it just felt like they could have done WAY better and made it WAY cooler. Tiberian Sun, although the missions were campy, the game itself had an extremely rich ambiance. Agree with you on this. TS was a class of its own when it comes to ambiance. You could taste the dirt in your mouth in the war-torn maps. Add in a high-tech faction of madmen wearing black and red uniforms and it felt as if the war was real! One of the negatives RA2 got when it came out was it made no real improvement over TS. It was the same engine but beefed up. But what do you mean by "could have done WAY better and made it WAY cooler?" GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 17:11 Kari Wuhrer was just as much, and if Westwood could they would have done just as much media whoring with Zofia, Tanya, and the other female characters. EA's just bigger so they had money to blow. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 17:11 They tried to undo some of the gameplay damage they did with C&C3, and figured since they have a shitton of money they'd just hire some professional actors and have some goofy scenes. Which, if Westwood had the same budget, they would have done the same with RA2. There so many things wrong with this assumption tbh! WW just didn't go overboard because they knew what they were doing. How do you explain what WW did for RA2 then? WW had enough money to make rare collectors edition pewter figurines of the Tesla Trooper and Chrono Legionnaire (not including the cancelled Tanya action figure) which were included in the collectors edition of RA2. They had the money to do that! So they weren't poor. Instead they channeled it into making something fans can have something solid to remember them and the game by...not by making silly meaningless posters of the female actors in their game cast! That's what EA does. RA2 feels quiet conservative; WW wanted to make it funny no doubt but they knew which lines to not cross as to make it totally ridiculous. It feels like a game where WW could have taken the wackyness to the max but didn't. But EA sure did with RA3. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 17:11 I just hate it when people point their fingers at RA3 and say "OMG THIS GAME RUINED C&C FOREVEERRRR". I understand but that's not what I am saying. I just go nuts when people put RA2 in the same boat as RA3. From someone who enjoyed RA2 for almost everyday for 4 years, RA3 felt like crap. I was so eager to play it as having lived on RA2 for so long, I was looking forward to RA3 but it let me down. It was not a worthy follow-up to RA2 and never will be in my eyes. And thanks to EA, the RA universe is most probably dead. @ R3: It had nothing to do with the colour palette or the failed real-life technology. It had to do with the feel of the game units. And lol at "RA1, RA2 and RA3 are all in the same cartoony boat!" Build 5 Apocalpse tanks in RA2 and move them around. Listen to their sounds, how initmidating they look, and how realistic they seem and behave and shoot. Watch from 3:05 onwards: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yhSjiUzTEA&feature=related Now try building 5 Apocs in RA3 and do the same thing. Here's a reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K844rpUI0FE LMFAO! See what happened with the RA3 Apocalypse tank; a loose turret that caused a constant eye sore not to mention looking like a ugly oversized plastic toy! I hate this kind of comical crap. Another idiotic RA3 unit is the Allied Cyrocopter. First off, what a ugly ass helicopter lol. And to add insult to the already silly game, the Cyrocopter's special power was shrinking enemy units it is used on! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This was so crap lol and it looked so stupid in-game when the enemy Allied AI used it on my tanks in a skirmish game. I was left staring at the screen in disbelief at the stupidity unfolding on it! RA2 felt way more real and even with the Yuri faction, the game didn't spiral into insanity in design. I have no idea why EA did this; they should have kept the unit physics from C&C 3. Not to mention that the target outlines for the RA3 units made it even more unbearable. Toys! The game wasn't what I expected. EA went in a different direction and sure they can't please everybody. But as someone who throughly enjoyed RA2 for 4 years almost everyday and then eagerly bought RA3 to enjoy the series further, it was a huge let down.
BlueThen wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 19:46 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 14:32 In fact, if C&C 3 didn't have cranes, the two games would play almost the exact same way. Yea, oh and aside from the way C&C 3 handles multiple war factories / barracks, or how the terrain under shroud is viewable, or how units work in squads, or how most of the units and defenses are different, or how there's a large variety in super weapons, or how vehicles are upgradeable (through tech buildings), or how the shroud is dynamic (will grow back into places you aren't in), or the turbines, or drones, or the nonbuildable walls, or silos, or the 3 separate factions instead of 2, or how the game is 3D (360 degree view), or how they're in completely different universes. Actually no. I was originally planning to say "the two games would play exactly the same way" but then I realized things like what you mentioned and then changed it to "almost the exact same way." However, you have to realize how big an impact on the game the cranes had. The removal of cranes would change the game so drastically that much of the mechanics that made it different from RA2 would actually be more inline. For example, if there were no cranes, then there would be no ecoboom. The thing with C&C3 is that there were like 10,000 refineries and harvesters in your base at a time. Another refinery meant a lot more money for you. But because of cranes, there was no hindrance when you wanted to buy more. People would build a crane and then spam refineries in one building queue while doing their normal build order in the other. That allowed people to achieve T3 in like 5 minutes. Tanks were pumped out in seconds and just keeping your economy pace up was only doable by making more refineries and soaking up more Tiberium. Without cranes, you would have to either focus on climbing the tech tree or focus on building your economy. If you chose to build a second Refinery, then you would have to wait for it to finish if you want to build that War Factory. And that's only one thing that the inclusion of cranes had to the game. However, most of the other things you mentioned were either aesthetic or just splitting hairs. I said "almost exactly" meaning if you're halfway decent at playing RA2, then C&C3 is right up your ally. Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 21:55 It had nothing to do with the colour palette or the failed real-life technology. It had to do with the feel of the game units. It's probably just a matter of opinion then. When I see Red Alert, any of them, I see the exact same thing. And I wasn't saying RA1 was realistic because of the colors used, I said the colors used gave the illusion that it was realistic while in reality it was just as cheesy as the others in the series. Ever since that whole "next-gen" joke about realistic games having brown/grey palettes (*coughcoughGTAIVcoughcough*), I've been looking beyond the horrible shades of color and extensive bloom to see what the game really was. When I look at RA1, I see the basis for RA2. Granted you probably wont be seeing a communist dictator being poisoned in any of the latest games, but that goes with what I said before about the cut scenes in that game being so serious that it really had an opposite effect. I do think that RA1 was much more serious than RA2 & RA3 combined, however. But I just cannot see RA1 as a "realistic" game. I'm sorry. It's more like a bad comedy routine, tbh... You go to this place not knowing what's in store to only find out that guy sucks. You want to leave, but there aren't many people there and you think if you leave you'd hurt the guy's feelings so you stay. But, seeing you stay gives him the wrong idea and he goes on to do more and more until it finally gets to a point were nothing makes sense anymore (RA3).
BlueThen wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 19:06 Zeratul wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 19:41 BlueThen wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 17:46 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 14:32 In fact, if C&C 3 didn't have cranes, the two games would play almost the exact same way. Yea, oh and aside from the way C&C 3 handles multiple war factories / barracks, or how the terrain under shroud is viewable, or how units work in squads, or how most of the units and defenses are different, or how there's a large variety in super weapons, or how vehicles are upgradeable (through tech buildings), or how the shroud is dynamic (will grow back into places you aren't in), or the turbines, or drones, or the nonbuildable walls, or silos, or the 3 separate factions instead of 2, or how the game is 3D (360 degree view), or how they're in completely different universes. wait shroud regrowth wasnt an option in ra2? i know it was in ra1 and tib sun... Shroud, not tiberium/ore. learn to read
I know it was an option in Tiberian Sun. I don't remember if it was in RA1 or RA2 though.
Shroud regrowth is in ra1 just checked it. its under "shroud regrows" last choice on checkable items in skirmish setup idk if its in ra2 and dont feel like checking
Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 08:02 And let's not forget, RA had some funny shit too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H24bpgkiK1I&feature=related lmao. Funny, yeah, but in a subtle way, not in the "LOLOLOL YURI GOT PWNED BY THAT DINOSAUR" kind of way. Don't ever compare the two. R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 15:45 RA1, RA2 and RA3 are all in the same cartoony boat. The only difference is that the latter two are brighter and more vibrant than the first Bullshit. Let's compare the endings of RA1 and RA2: RA1: Stalin chokes a bitch, and then he gets poisoned, and then it turns out Kane was running a master plot behind everything all along, including the fall of communism in the 90s. Srs fkn bzns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN2zeRbu0x4 (Yeah, it's campy, but that's because it's like 1994. At this point they were at least still trying to keep a legitimate atmosphere) RA2: We stormed the Kremlin! What should we do with Rominov? Let's take silly pictures of him in his silly boxers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MQHgvZ45RM We captured Yuri, what should we do with him to make him repent for his millions killed and untold crimes against humanity? Let's put him in the silly prison box! "ZE TIMELINEZ ZEY R MERGING!!1!" And then you get to take Tanya and Eva to the prom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXC_kZtNeuM God damn. Just thinking back to the RA2 endings makes me rage. >:[
Dover wrote on Thu, 28 October 2010 02:06 Funny, yeah, but in a subtle way, not in the "LOLOLOL YURI GOT PWNED BY THAT DINOSAUR" kind of way. Don't ever compare the two. not at all comparing and definitely subtle. Just pointing out something silly in an otherwise itty-gritty war game. Though I must admit I am clutching at straws here as a "dictator screwing his secretary" is not that far off from reality. A Soviet general (Vladimir) playing around with MILFS from Florida in a hot tub is [not subtle] but understandable! Then again, the whole game (RA2) is on a different level to RA. Dover wrote on Thu, 28 October 2010 02:06 God damn. Just thinking back to the RA2 endings makes me rage. >:[ Don't let the cheesy scenes stop you from playing with the units! One thing I liked so much of this game was the replay value even after I finished the campaigns. You can have endless skirmish fun. Get a map like the Bering Strait and fill all the slots with Brutal AI against yourself and you will have a game on your hands using all the units including navies. It's the units; both infantry and vehicles/ships that keep me from getting bored. No valid complaints really exist against them! That's why I dislike RA3 so much. I don't really mind the cutscenes but the idiocy extends to the units as well. And THAT is what made me feel like I wasted my money; and that is never a good feeling. edit: Zeratul wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 22:43 Shroud regrowth is in ra1 just checked it. its under "shroud regrows" last choice on checkable items in skirmish setup idk if its in ra2 and dont feel like checking Shroud regrowth is not in RA2/YR but for good reason. I don't think it was even an option. There were rumours that it wasn't included because WW could not get it working (wtf?). My personal pet theory is that the gameplay mechanics didn't need a fog or shroud growing back in. The Allies have the information advantage. They can just put up the Spy Satellite Uplink building and whooosh; the entire map gets revealed. Not to mention they can use the Gap Generator to cover themselves up as well. Sneaks! Also the Soviet Phychic Sensor in RA2 and Yuri's Phychic Radar reveal incoming enemy attacks. So really these 4 features/buildings make using the reoccurring fog-of-war pointless and would not have made sense in the game. That's why I think they were taken out. If this did not already disadvantage the Soviet factions, a re-occuring shroud would have. The Soviet player also have to deal with Spies sneaking into the Radar Tower and undoing all the hard work he has done to uncover the map. Thankfully, the dogs are cheap to produce and it greatly helps the Soviets to uncover the fog that way. YR balanced it for them greatly though. They got the Spy Plane and the Siege Chopper acts as an ideal scout late in the game.
Quote: Zeratul wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 22:43 Shroud regrowth is in ra1 just checked it. its under "shroud regrows" last choice on checkable items in skirmish setup idk if its in ra2 and dont feel like checking Shroud regrowth is not in RA2/YR but for good reason. I don't think it was even an option. There were rumours that it wasn't included because WW could not get it working (wtf?). My personal pet theory is that the gameplay mechanics didn't need a fog or shroud growing back in. The Allies have the information advantage. They can just put up the Spy Satellite Uplink building and whooosh; the entire map gets revealed. Not to mention they can use the Gap Generator to cover themselves up as well. Sneaks! Also the Soviet Phychic Sensor in RA2 and Yuri's Phychic Radar reveal incoming enemy attacks. So really these 4 features/buildings make using the reoccurring fog-of-war pointless and would not have made sense in the game. That's why I think they were taken out. If this did not already disadvantage the Soviet factions, a re-occuring shroud would have. The Soviet player also have to deal with Spies sneaking into the Radar Tower and undoing all the hard work he has done to uncover the map. Thankfully, the dogs are cheap to produce and it greatly helps the Soviets to uncover the fog that way. YR balanced it for them greatly though. They got the Spy Plane and the Siege Chopper acts as an ideal scout late in the game. now that i think of it.. your right but this was a possible situation in the first as well aside from the psychic radar and sensor
Dover wrote on Thu, 28 October 2010 03:06 ...Bullshit. ...RA1: Stalin chokes a bitch, and then he gets poisoned... ...God damn. Just thinking back to the RA2 endings makes me rage. >:[ R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 22:46 Granted you probably wont be seeing a communist dictator being poisoned in any of the latest games, but that goes with what I said before about the cut scenes in that game being so serious that it really had an opposite effect. I do think that RA1 was much more serious than RA2 & RA3 combined, however. But I just cannot see RA1 as a "realistic" game. I'm sorry.
R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 29 October 2010 12:20 Dover wrote on Thu, 28 October 2010 03:06 ...Bullshit. ...RA1: Stalin chokes a bitch, and then he gets poisoned... ...God damn. Just thinking back to the RA2 endings makes me rage. >:[ R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 27 October 2010 22:46 Granted you probably wont be seeing a communist dictator being poisoned in any of the latest games, but that goes with what I said before about the cut scenes in that game being so serious that it really had an opposite effect. I do think that RA1 was much more serious than RA2 & RA3 combined, however. But I just cannot see RA1 as a "realistic" game. I'm sorry. You're missing the point. It's not about what happens in the cutscenes, but it's in the atmosphere created. Go try playing the Benny Hill theme for RA2 and RA3 like I recommended, and then try it for RA1 and observe the difference. Besides "realistic" game is relative. Frankly, this makes RA1 look like the history channel.
My point is that realistic and serious are two different things. It was stated earlier that RA1 was a realistic game. That's what I'm disagreeing with. It was definitely a serious game... but realistic? I don't think so. It's only an illusion given to us through dulled colors and over-acted cutscenes. While I would agree for the most part that realism in a game is relative, in this case it is an exception. The game directly contradicts real history. It's therefore impossible for it to be considered realistic. If I wrote a book saying Hitler won WWII, it cannot be a realistic book. Would you not agree?
R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 29 October 2010 19:10 grapsing at straws k.
GoTWhisKéY wrote on Fri, 29 October 2010 14:08 Renegade 2 gogogo
GoTWhisKéY wrote on Fri, 29 October 2010 14:08 Renegade 2 gogogo you know, i'd be excited for that but i have a feeling they'd make it into something horrible maybe they'd be open to suggestions
liquidv2 wrote on Sat, 30 October 2010 00:02 GoTWhisKéY wrote on Fri, 29 October 2010 14:08 Renegade 2 gogogo you know, i'd be excited for that but i have a feeling they'd make it into something horrible maybe they'd be open to suggestions Renegade 2: Battlefield Play as GDI and Nod! Use all 4 vehicles including scout vehicles (Nod Humvee and GDI Humvee), tank vehicles (Nod Battle Tank and GDI Battle Tank), artillery vehicles (Nod Artillery and GDI Artillery) and air vehicles (Nod Apache and GDI Longbow)! Play as 5 exciting classes, including light infantry, heavy infantry, scout, engineer, and sniper! Use exciting weapons like the M4A1 Assault Rifle and Beretta 50 caliber sniper rifle!
if its an rts, the history is going to repeat itself (as it has done three times) and that game is going to be a garbage. but if it is an fps, there could be a chance. maybe.
archerman wrote on Sat, 30 October 2010 09:08 if its an rts, the history is going to repeat itself (as it has done three times) and that game is going to be a garbage. but if it is an fps, there could be a chance. maybe. thats the first time ive heard it put that way but most and likely true
The teams in CnC 5 are: GLA Japan GDI Civilian fraction is Nod, and a secret side teams of Yuri and the Mutants.
Jerad Gray wrote on Sat, 30 October 2010 21:42 The teams in CnC 5 are: GLA Japan GDI Civilian fraction is Nod, and a secret side teams of Yuri and the Mutants. >:[
Oh, and you make money by printing and selling license plates. And the building list consists of power plants and workshops.
World of Command and Conquer ...craft
liquidv2 wrote on Mon, 01 November 2010 18:24 World of Command and Conquer ...craft World of command and conquer craft 2: the death of command and conquer
Zeratul wrote on Tue, 02 November 2010 02:25 liquidv2 wrote on Mon, 01 November 2010 18:24 World of Command and Conquer ...craft World of command and conquer craft 2: the death of command and conquer Tiberium World of command and conquer tiberian craft alert 3: the final tiberium death of command and conquer
A CnC MMO would be cool... if done right. And frankly, I don't know whether or not that's possible at this stage.
Altzan wrote on Tue, 02 November 2010 18:24 A CnC MMO would be cool... if done right. And frankly, I don't know whether or not that's possible at this stage. C&C: Continuum was going to be an MMORPG. It was gonna have some pretty awesome shit from what I recall, but it got trashed along with the rest of Westwood's projects (Renegade 2, C&C: Incursion (AKA C&C3). A C&C MMO would be great, but if it were made by EA... God, it'd be Lord of the Rings Online and Dragonball Online and Star Wars Galaxies and every other MMORPG that everyone wanted but failed so fucking hard and fell into the cliche bullshit that fills up every other MMORPG all over again.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 01:45 Altzan wrote on Tue, 02 November 2010 18:24 A CnC MMO would be cool... if done right. And frankly, I don't know whether or not that's possible at this stage. C&C: Continuum was going to be an MMORPG. It was gonna have some pretty awesome shit from what I recall, but it got trashed along with the rest of Westwood's projects (Renegade 2, C&C: Incursion (AKA C&C3). A C&C MMO would be great, but if it were made by EA... God, it'd be Lord of the Rings Online and Dragonball Online and Star Wars Galaxies and every other MMORPG that everyone wanted but failed so fucking hard and fell into the cliche bullshit that fills up every other MMORPG all over again. If EA would make a proper MMORTS then it could be completely totally awesome. Think of TS world domination but then with an near endless map with the possibility to ask for reinforcements on the fly (extra commanders). This could create an awesomely dynamic almost real life like war environment. Would possibly take quite some computing power, but I guess they'll just have to cut back on the ridicules lasers and overdone explosions.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 04:54 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 01:45 Altzan wrote on Tue, 02 November 2010 18:24 A CnC MMO would be cool... if done right. And frankly, I don't know whether or not that's possible at this stage. C&C: Continuum was going to be an MMORPG. It was gonna have some pretty awesome shit from what I recall, but it got trashed along with the rest of Westwood's projects (Renegade 2, C&C: Incursion (AKA C&C3). A C&C MMO would be great, but if it were made by EA... God, it'd be Lord of the Rings Online and Dragonball Online and Star Wars Galaxies and every other MMORPG that everyone wanted but failed so fucking hard and fell into the cliche bullshit that fills up every other MMORPG all over again. If EA would make a proper MMORTS then it could be completely totally awesome. Think of TS world domination but then with an near endless map with the possibility to ask for reinforcements on the fly (extra commanders). This could create an awesomely dynamic almost real life like war environment. Would possibly take quite some computing power, but I guess they'll just have to cut back on the ridicules lasers and overdone explosions. Actually it wouldn't take much computing power at all if the games are instanced... many MMORPG's do this nowadays (Dungeon Fighter Online, Vindictus, etc). Some just have parts that are instanced, where as others aren't. It's not that hard, and is totally feasible. EALA just sucks too much dick to do anything creative and out of the usual genre-bound bullshit they throw out.
I don't think a C&C MMO would be a good idea just yet. There needs to be a base line story first. Since C&C is an RTS game mainly, a new storyline has to be an RTS first before it is adapted into an FPS or MMO. The Tiberium universe would have been a good setting if they didn't make C&C4. Since the world was at death's doorstep, civilization would be in chaos.. which is the perfect setting for an MMO. However, since C&C4 not only introduced the Tiberium Control Network, but it also ended Kane's story arc. That means the world is all pieceful now and it will no longer make a good MMO. Generals and Red Alert wouldn't be good MMOs because they rely solely on military aggression whereas a Tiberium MMO would have allowed you to become a regular citizen just trying to survive and thus aligning yourself with what you think was right. So, the only hope now for a C&C MMO is that EA first has to create a new universe that does not rely on 'military power' factions.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 15:18 I don't think a C&C MMO would be a good idea ever. well said
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 21:18 I don't think a C&C MMO would be a good idea just yet. There needs to be a base line story first. Since C&C is an RTS game mainly, a new storyline has to be an RTS first before it is adapted into an FPS or MMO. The Tiberium universe would have been a good setting if they didn't make C&C4. Since the world was at death's doorstep, civilization would be in chaos.. which is the perfect setting for an MMO. However, since C&C4 not only introduced the Tiberium Control Network, but it also ended Kane's story arc. That means the world is all pieceful now and it will no longer make a good MMO. Generals and Red Alert wouldn't be good MMOs because they rely solely on military aggression whereas a Tiberium MMO would have allowed you to become a regular citizen just trying to survive and thus aligning yourself with what you think was right. So, the only hope now for a C&C MMO is that EA first has to create a new universe that does not rely on 'military power' factions. Read what I said, MMORTS would be awesome. Also allows them to rewrite the storyline after TS.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 14:18 I don't think a C&C MMO would be a good idea just yet. There needs to be a base line story first. Since C&C is an RTS game mainly, a new storyline has to be an RTS first before it is adapted into an FPS or MMO. The Tiberium universe would have been a good setting if they didn't make C&C4. Since the world was at death's doorstep, civilization would be in chaos.. which is the perfect setting for an MMO. However, since C&C4 not only introduced the Tiberium Control Network, but it also ended Kane's story arc. That means the world is all pieceful now and it will no longer make a good MMO. Generals and Red Alert wouldn't be good MMOs because they rely solely on military aggression whereas a Tiberium MMO would have allowed you to become a regular citizen just trying to survive and thus aligning yourself with what you think was right. So, the only hope now for a C&C MMO is that EA first has to create a new universe that does not rely on 'military power' factions. Or they pull a Star Trek and reboot the series starting from C&C3- only this time they don't cock it up. I've been suggesting this for awhile now, but no one seems to notice...
"At that point, EALA had another big project on the table: a real-time strategy/first-person shooter hybrid set in the Command & Conquer Generals universe known as "Project Camacho," named after the president from Idiocracy. And for financial reasons, then EALA general manager Mike Verdu -- who took over for Young as studio head, while former Westwood head Louis Castle (pictured with Spielberg, above) took over Young's Blueprint group -- had to choose between the two, so he cancelled Project Camacho and moved most of its team onto LMNO." source http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3182177 fucking what the fuck... Every time I say EA sucks and think they can not do any worse, I find shit like this out. While I really did not like Generals (not getting into best C&C game with you guys ), I would totally play "Project Camacho".
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 02:07 Or they pull a Star Trek and reboot the series starting from C&C3- only this time they don't cock it up. I've been suggesting this for awhile now, but no one seems to notice... Nah, the series is said and done. I wont support it if they reboot it... especially if they do it from the mid point of the series. That wouldn't make any sense. They fumbled hard with the series and royally screwed up. They (we) have to live with it. Making a reboot would only make it even worse. The Tiberium universe was my favorite series. Because of that, I don't ever want to see it again unless it's in another game genre (like an FPS.) Technically, I guess they could still make it an MMO if it took place before C&C4.. but I think it would be better to just drop the series completely and work on something new.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 00:15 Zeratul wrote on Tue, 02 November 2010 02:25 liquidv2 wrote on Mon, 01 November 2010 18:24 World of Command and Conquer ...craft World of command and conquer craft 2: the death of command and conquer Tiberium World of command and conquer tiberian craft alert 3: the final tiberium death of command and conquer cummand & con-cure: revenge of plecos two days before teh day after tomorrow in obama's wonderland nuff said.
How about you guys stopping getting angry over a game we know nothing about. You guys are virtually raging over a game you know NOTHING about.
Lest we forget
Tiesto wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 10:42 How about you guys stopping getting angry over a game we know nothing about. You guys are virtually raging over a game you know NOTHING about. No, not the game - over their past games, and what that implies about the new ones. But yeah, we should just wait and see at this point.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 01:07 Or they pull a Star Trek and reboot the series starting from C&C3- only this time they don't cock it up. I've been suggesting this for awhile now, but no one seems to notice... yah, kane gets his hands on the chronosphere and goes back in time good thinking!
Tiesto wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 10:42 How about you guys stopping getting angry over a game we know nothing about. You guys are virtually raging over a game you know NOTHING about. Every time I've raged against a C&C game I know nothing about, I end up being proven right I really want to be proven wrong, though liquidv2 wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 21:58 yah, kane gets his hands on the chronosphere and goes back in time good thinking! or they could just be like "so like, when that Chronosphere shit happened a like, huge amount of alternate universes were spawned, ya feel me? yeah then like in this one tiberium spread MORE after Tiberian Sun, Nod didn't become the new GLA, and GDI's technology doesn't get set back" I'd buy 10 copies
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 14:00 "and GDI's technology doesn't get set back" I think they explained pretty well why they moved away from the walker nonsense in C&C 3. It didn't look as cool as people claimed it did in TS anyway.
Dover wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 20:18 I think they explained pretty well why they moved away from the walker nonsense in C&C 3. It didn't look as cool as people claimed it did in TS anyway. did they then explain why every fucking thing walked in C&C 4?
liquidv2 wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 20:49 Dover wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 20:18 I think they explained pretty well why they moved away from the walker nonsense in C&C 3. It didn't look as cool as people claimed it did in TS anyway. did they then explain why every fucking thing walked in C&C 4? Huh? I didn't even bother buying that monstrocity. I've loved the C&C genre since my childhood, but that love can only take so much abuse. RA3 was the last straw for me. :[
Dover wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 20:18 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 14:00 "and GDI's technology doesn't get set back" I think they explained pretty well why they moved away from the walker nonsense in C&C 3. It didn't look as cool as people claimed it did in TS anyway. Oh it's not even the lack of walkers. They lacked hover stuff, their scout units were wheel based, etc. It all felt like the technology was between TD and TS is the thing. I can dig the lack of walkers (Although I really did miss Titans), but in whole the technology just felt like it was set back from TS. I haven't played C&C4, but I rather liked the unit designs (except the Crayola avatar). They felt more like what C&C3's should have been.
You would not like the way they look. I guarantee it.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 08 November 2010 06:36 You would not like the way they look. I guarantee it. That's pretty clever! That's like, a 6/10 on the clever scale. C, C- level clever.
http://largedownloads.ea.com/pub/misc/%20CCG_ZeroHour2.pdf ?