Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Command and Conquer under Victory Games Studios
http://uk.kotaku.com/5766425/command--conquer-reborn-under-the-flag-of-victory
Re: Command and Conquer under Victory Games Studios
Hmm I'm not sure (yet) whether that's a or a D: The last C&C's where pretty bad imo (as C&C that is. As RTS they still do their job)
I liked C&C3 and RA3 very much. C&C4 was downright awful. I didn't like Generals too much either, but that isn't a big deal because it was within it's own waters and was a respectable try at a new universe. I just hope that the future of C&C isn't social networking. Multiplayer is crap compared to even a halfway decent story line and single player.
Not forgetting that all the C&C's between Renegade and Tiberium Wars was made by a division of EA...
"Last we heard Command & Conquer was in the hands of Dead Space developer Visceral Games." Now that might have turned out pretty awesome. Maybe.
That was just a misquote from a news update EA gave a while back. C&C was never given to them. That studio was mentioned in the same sentence but not in the same context as C&C.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 23:53 That was just a misquote from a news update EA gave a while back. C&C was never given to them. That studio was mentioned in the same sentence but not in the same context as C&C. That's a shame. Was looking forward to CnC5: Dead Kane Extraction.
Quote: Please, dear god EA let C&C die! This game has died when Westwood went under. ;_; This
If its an actual good game this time... Someone needs to hook this community with a discount and pre-pre-orders.
the name jon von caneghem has been nagging me for a while... and i just realised: King's Bounty Caneghor the Mystic, that's what i was thinking of
let's wait and see what happens for the record Generals has nothing to do with tiberium or soviets but it plays well and is an entirely fun game C&C 3 = mediocre Red Alert 3 = the RTS equivalent of M. Night Shyamalan's The Village C&C 4 = didn't have to play it to tell you how great it wouldn't be
Altzan wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 19:11 "Last we heard Command & Conquer was in the hands of Dead Space developer Visceral Games." Now that might have turned out pretty awesome. Maybe. I wish it was that Imagine an FPS CNC made by them lmao.
liquidv2 wrote on Tue, 22 February 2011 21:15 for the record Generals has nothing to do with tiberium or soviets but it plays well and is an entirely fun game It was a fun game, but it wasn't really a C&C game in some ways. Some of the gameplay was similar, but it still played fairly different. I guess it's nitpicking, but I will admit, it was fun. C&C3, though, is absolute rubbish. They need to go back to a Tiberian Sun-like direction: Huge focus on atmosphere, smaller scale tactical warfare (none of this huge spamming bullshit, but not some tacked on "micro management" that no one actually uses because they can still win by just mindlessly spamming, etc), and so on. Also, they'd better give it at LEAST two years development time. There was what, 6 months between Kane's Wrath and RA3?
I actually liked CNC3 and Kanes Wrath. They were the last decent CNC games to be released. Red alert 3 I tried but it was epicly shit and CNC4 I didnt even try because you could just tell it was of the same breed as Red alert 3. IF they really want to try and get back to the best it would need to be more like RA2/YR for me.
grant89uk wrote on Wed, 23 February 2011 16:47 IF they really want to try and get back to the best it would need to be more like RA2/YR for me. In case of a Tiberium universe game, I'd like to see it more like TS
grant89uk wrote on Wed, 23 February 2011 07:47 IF they really want to try and get back to the best it would need to be more like RA2/YR for me. If this is your idea for "the best" in war strategy games, you must be eleven fucking years old. RA2 is the same horse shit that they gave us with RA3. At least RA3 was honest about what it was and didn't even pretend it was taking itself seriously.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 15:30 I just hope that the future of C&C isn't social networking. Multiplayer is crap compared to even a halfway decent story line and single player. <unnice insults removed by a mod>
Dover wrote on Wed, 23 February 2011 10:09 grant89uk wrote on Wed, 23 February 2011 07:47 IF they really want to try and get back to the best it would need to be more like RA2/YR for me. If this is your idea for "the best" in war strategy games, you must be eleven fucking years old. RA2 is the same horse shit that they gave us with RA3. At least RA3 was honest about what it was and didn't even pretend it was taking itself seriously. I kind of agree, but RA2's gameplay was undeniably fun. I think that's more of what he meant, and I agree. It should still have the "gritty" feeling of C&C95 and RA1, though. I'd love to see a return to that, while still keeping in some cool scifi technology (and not turning it into MODERN DERPWAR: BROWN AND BLOOM AND GRAY)
I just got around to reinstalling C&C3 after some years of not playing it. I have to say it is definitely not as bad as I remember it being. It has a good campaign. The story isn't that great, but the missions are pretty solid. It reminded me why I have it as one of my top 3 favorite C&C games up there with both RA3 and TS. I just wish they had more game customization options... like disabling super weapons. In online matches I like superweapons because they give you an out... but when I play against skirmish AI, the superweapons make the game boring and dull after a while. I want one game where it's just a tank and unit war... but I can't do that because I'm too busy spending all my attention taking out the enemy super weapon every 2 seconds.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 23 February 2011 20:29 Dover wrote on Wed, 23 February 2011 10:09 grant89uk wrote on Wed, 23 February 2011 07:47 IF they really want to try and get back to the best it would need to be more like RA2/YR for me. If this is your idea for "the best" in war strategy games, you must be eleven fucking years old. RA2 is the same horse shit that they gave us with RA3. At least RA3 was honest about what it was and didn't even pretend it was taking itself seriously. I kind of agree, but RA2's gameplay was undeniably fun. I think that's more of what he meant, and I agree. It should still have the "gritty" feeling of C&C95 and RA1, though. I'd love to see a return to that, while still keeping in some cool scifi technology (and not turning it into MODERN DERPWAR: BROWN AND BLOOM AND GRAY) Dover most likely doesnt understand the fact the game is fun. He posts a youtube video of the ending as if a cutscene automatically makes the game bad haha. He should stick to playing starcraft.
They also have a new forum, with a renegade section. It goes beyond me why in earth the two first stickies in that forum are about Renegade X. The third sticky is an outdated "how to register" sticky. No mention of renegadeforums for the moment. *sigh*
grant89uk wrote on Wed, 23 February 2011 16:24 Dover most likely doesnt understand the fact the game is fun. Then again, I already have you pegged as the type that says "fun" when the word "retarded" is more appropriate, so no surprises here.
I do not have high hopes for this endeavorer. I once again implore EA to prove me wrong that everything they touch is turned to crap. I read the bio on the new community manager and his C&C experience appears to start with Generals. That is scarily out of touch of what C&C is.
Dover wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 10:46 grant89uk wrote on Wed, 23 February 2011 16:24 Dover most likely doesnt understand the fact the game is fun. Then again, I already have you pegged as the type that says "fun" when the word "retarded" is more appropriate, so no surprises here. You play dungeons and dragons. Your opinion of what is fun or not is invalid.
grant89uk wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 08:19 You play dungeons and dragons. Your opinion of what is fun or not is invalid. yes, let's make fun of someone for "liking" (when the fuck did Dover state he liked D&D, anyways?) something, right after we defend ourselves using the logic of "I find it fun, so it's fun". Really, now- fun is subjective. That's the bottom line. That being said, C&C3 was significantly worse than Red Alert 2 in every way. C&C4 I haven't even played, but it looks like the same bullshit, only with even less C&C-like gameplay.
Creed3020 wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 16:01 I read the bio on the new community manager and his C&C experience appears to start with Generals. That is scarily out of touch of what C&C is. Very much true!
Goztow wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 21:12 Creed3020 wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 16:01 I read the bio on the new community manager and his C&C experience appears to start with Generals. That is scarily out of touch of what C&C is. Very much true! QFT
Omar007 wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 17:39 Goztow wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 21:12 Creed3020 wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 16:01 I read the bio on the new community manager and his C&C experience appears to start with Generals. That is scarily out of touch of what C&C is. Very much true! QFT Indeed.
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 15:50] Omar007 wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 17:39 Goztow wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 21:12 Creed3020 wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 16:01 I read the bio on the new community manager and his C&C experience appears to start with Generals. That is scarily out of touch of what C&C is. Very much true! QFT Indeed. And so continues EA's raping of the C&C franchise ;_;
Goztow wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 14:12 Creed3020 wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 16:01 I read the bio on the new community manager and his C&C experience appears to start with Generals. That is scarily out of touch of what C&C is. Very much true! you build a base, you build units out of the base, you kill the other team it plays like every other c&c game plays and is quite fun; it's instead applying the c&c idea to modern times, like how call of duty made modern warfare would it make you feel better if they modded it to make little fenced tiberium fields instead of supply piles and the workers scooped it up with shovels for refinement? come on now
given the enormously varied opinions just on this forum on which C&C games suck and which don't, how can you expect to please everybody? the only consensus i've ever seen is about C&C4 (i've yet to hear a single favourable opinion about it)
Spoony wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 18:54 given the enormously varied opinions just on this forum on which C&C games suck and which don't, how can you expect to please everybody? the only consensus i've ever seen is about C&C4 (i've yet to hear a single favourable opinion about it) There are a couple people on the official C&C message boards that like C&C4. I don't see how... but they do... and they are actively defending the game's integrity.
Spoony wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 16:54 given the enormously varied opinions just on this forum on which C&C games suck and which don't, how can you expect to please everybody? the only consensus i've ever seen is about C&C4 (i've yet to hear a single favourable opinion about it) oh yeah, no, I'll be the first to admit it's very hard to please everyone but you know, they could try to NOT make something that was as absolutely horrible as C&C4 or as extremely over-the-top as RA3 (or even RA2...), and actually give it around 2 years development time. liquidv2 wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 16:00 you build a base, you build units out of the base, you kill the other team it plays like every other c&c game plays and is quite fun; it's instead applying the c&c idea to modern times, like how call of duty made modern warfare would it make you feel better if they modded it to make little fenced tiberium fields instead of supply piles and the workers scooped it up with shovels for refinement? come on now You have to understand what's being said here- it's not that basing gameplay off of Generals is a terrible idea (actually, aslong as they kept MCV's and a few other minor details which is totally doable, I'm all for them basing the general gameplay flow off of Generals), it's that it's VERY likely he wouldn't understand what makes C&C... C&C. I know that just sounds like the usual nostalgia goggles bullshit that people frequently put up, but would you really say it's a smart idea to hire someone who doesn't know as much about how C&C games were when the community overwhelmingly agrees to SOME degree that there needs to be a return to pre-Generals feeling? Especially in the Tiberium universe games; C&C95 and TS just had this feeling that EA has UTTERLY failed to recreate. And they'd need someone who's played- and loved- those games extensively to really say they have someone who knows what the old C&C games were like.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sat, 26 February 2011 06:40 You have to understand what's being said here- it's not that basing gameplay off of Generals is a terrible idea (actually, aslong as they kept MCV's and a few other minor details which is totally doable, I'm all for them basing the general gameplay flow off of Generals), it's that it's VERY likely he wouldn't understand what makes C&C... C&C. I know that just sounds like the usual nostalgia goggles bullshit that people frequently put up, but would you really say it's a smart idea to hire someone who doesn't know as much about how C&C games were when the community overwhelmingly agrees to SOME degree that there needs to be a return to pre-Generals feeling? Especially in the Tiberium universe games; C&C95 and TS just had this feeling that EA has UTTERLY failed to recreate. And they'd need someone who's played- and loved- those games extensively to really say they have someone who knows what the old C&C games were like. Considering RA3 and C&C4 were circle jerking over their own 'nostalgia,' having someone who was involved in a game outside of the two traditional universes is not necessarily a bad thing.
nikki6ixx wrote on Sat, 26 February 2011 10:17 Considering RA3 and C&C4 were circle jerking over their own 'nostalgia,' having someone who was involved in a game outside of the two traditional universes is not necessarily a bad thing. How? RA3 followed RA2's footsteps I guess, so I can sort of see how you're going with that, but C&C4 definitely didn't...
Goztow wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 08:20 They also have a new forum, with a renegade section. It goes beyond me why in earth the two first stickies in that forum are about Renegade X. The third sticky is an outdated "how to register" sticky. No mention of renegadeforums for the moment. *sigh* We could go and nag about Renegade bugs on their forums and ask when they'll patch them :+ Then again, if EA barely knows where their own source code is stored, I bet it won't help a single bit
I'm not that worried about the fact the comm manager has started with Generals, I'm worried about the fact he probably doesn't know what a tesla trooper may be... That and the fact he's German . You'd figure a bunch load of hardcore C&C fans, who have been playing for years, would die for a job like this and instead they hire someone with what seems to be relatively little experience on the "first decade" games.
liquidv2 wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 18:00 Goztow wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 14:12 Creed3020 wrote on Fri, 25 February 2011 16:01 I read the bio on the new community manager and his C&C experience appears to start with Generals. That is scarily out of touch of what C&C is. Very much true! you build a base, you build units out of the base, you kill the other team it plays like every other c&c game plays and is quite fun; it's instead applying the c&c idea to modern times, like how call of duty made modern warfare would it make you feel better if they modded it to make little fenced tiberium fields instead of supply piles and the workers scooped it up with shovels for refinement? come on now My concern is directed more towards familiarity with storylines, the history of the brand, and just that magical feeling that comes from playing C&C. I agree that most of the basic C&C elements were present. I did buy Generals and play it for some time, but if you check my PC today you won't find it installed anymore along RA1, Tiberian Sun, RA2, and Renegade.
i just realized EA is probably going to try and take C&C into an entirely new direction, having grabbed a brand new 100% C&C-free guy to head the project if you hated Generals just give up now, you're only going to hurt yourself if you continue hoping for another old school game i quite like Generals and the Red Alert 3 disc makes a great frisbee
Goztow wrote on Mon, 28 February 2011 01:42 I'm not that worried about the fact the comm manager has started with Generals, I'm worried about the fact he probably doesn't know what a tesla trooper may be... That and the fact he's German . You'd figure a bunch load of hardcore C&C fans, who have been playing for years, would die for a job like this and instead they hire someone with what seems to be relatively little experience on the "first decade" games. I read in another interview that he actually played a C&C game when he was 10 years old. He is 23 now; so obviously Generals wasn't his first game; I just hope he played the classic games well enough. http://www.cncsaga.de/foren/viewtopic.php?id=1945 -- BTW EVERYONE, I couldn't resist and bought C&C4 yesterday! I don't want to bash something without trying it; especially since it's a C&C game. I remain optimistic! Due to time constraints I only was able to play the first 10 mins of the first GDI mission. Good news is the 10 mins didn't feel like a letdown. In RA3, I was letdown in 3 mins. Haven't had time to do much ingame though so my opinions may change after a week or so of playing. The Crawler concept is kinda good; keeps you going all over and your force lean. The direct first person cutscenes aren't that bad. Meh, I will post some more opinions next week on how it goes; I am trying to be as unbiased as possible. edit: damn forgot, my internet connection dropped once and so the game quit on me. I think that is bullxxx. I hope in a year or so, they will disable this internet connection requirement. Also reading the manual that came with it, there is way too much religious overtones for Nod. Seriously, lol...for example, the Black Hand infantry unit can wield a flamethrower and also throw...ready?...Holy Water bombs!
You bought C&C4?! You actually bought it?!? I'm sorry, I can no longer be associated with you. I hope you understand.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 19:06 You bought C&C4?! You actually bought it?!? I'm sorry, I can no longer be associated with you. I hope you understand. Lines straight from a Disney high school dramaqueen show.
Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 19:53 I read in another interview that he actually played a C&C game when he was 10 years old. He is 23 now; so obviously Generals wasn't his first game; I just hope he played the classic games well enough. he's 23 i'm 23 how the fuck is a 23 year old in charge, i feel retarded and unaccomplished Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 19:53 Seriously, lol...for example, the Black Hand infantry unit can wield a flamethrower and also throw...ready?...Holy Water bombs! who invited that guy to the squirt gun fight wtf
liquidv2 wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 22:47 Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 19:53 I read in another interview that he actually played a C&C game when he was 10 years old. He is 23 now; so obviously Generals wasn't his first game; I just hope he played the classic games well enough. he's 23 i'm 23 how the fuck is a 23 year old in charge, i feel retarded and unaccomplished I thought the same too! I think he is good for the job. He has made a few candid posts in the C&C forums about C&C4 and the low public opinion of it; I was surprised to hear that from him because one would tend to think that someone in that position would be more guarded about saying such things. I just think its good to have someone our age rather than some much old guy. Hopefully, he's played the classic games well enough. edit: btw, he has said that the next C&C won't be just a game...but a series of games. So EA seems to be working on some background to establish a platform where they can churn out a couple titles. And given how much admission of "mistakes" he writes of, maybe this time it may turn out to be good.
Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 07 March 2011 06:02 liquidv2 wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 22:47 Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 March 2011 19:53 I read in another interview that he actually played a C&C game when he was 10 years old. He is 23 now; so obviously Generals wasn't his first game; I just hope he played the classic games well enough. he's 23 i'm 23 how the fuck is a 23 year old in charge, i feel retarded and unaccomplished I thought the same too! I think he is good for the job. He has made a few candid posts in the C&C forums about C&C4 and the low public opinion of it; I was surprised to hear that from him because one would tend to think that someone in that position would be more guarded about saying such things. I just think its good to have someone our age rather than some much old guy. Hopefully, he's played the classic games well enough. edit: btw, he has said that the next C&C won't be just a game...but a series of games. So EA seems to be working on some background to establish a platform where they can churn out a couple titles. And given how much admission of "mistakes" he writes of, maybe this time it may turn out to be good. Let's stop kidding ourselves, Starbuzz. There hasn't been a good C&C game since RA1. The closest they came was Zero hour, which actually really really good gameplay-wise but people love to hate it since it doesn't have robots, cults, and little green crystals. Whatever new titles won't be able to recapture that old magic that the classic games had. Personally, I'm waiting for someone to do something Nox-like. That'd really be the only good way to honor Westwood's memory. RA4 (Now with even more battle-bears!) or whatever C&C is coming next is just going to piss on their grave some more.
Zero Hour was Generals in badly balanced. That Airforce general can fuck right off.
Eh, he's not so bad. But then again I liked to play China Inf.
JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 08 March 2011 01:45 Zero Hour was Generals in badly balanced. That Airforce general can fuck right off. Right off. I just wish they would throw up something quick and no matter what it is, it will be a better product than that C&C4 piece of crap.
stealth gla
liquidv2 wrote on Tue, 08 March 2011 16:46 stealth gla S'alright. Toxin GLA pisses me off though. They have absolutely no drawbacks. It's like a more retarded version of nuke china.
i was kidding, stealth gla is the most annoying shit in the world there's a mod called Shockwave that adds a new general for each side that EA didn't have time to include, they're sick
Oh boy here we go
generals was great i played it all the time 1v1 tournament desert anyone here
the infantry general was the most overpowered, those attack outposts were ridiculous
Spoony wrote on Thu, 10 March 2011 00:58 the infantry general was the most overpowered, those attack outposts were ridiculous People get this wrong all the time (Especially in the StarCraft community lately!). It's not "overpowered", it's "awesome". The infantry general was the most awesome. If there's a problem in the balance, it's not because something is too awesome, it's because the other things are not awesome enough. Balance should never take the form of taking away awesomeness.