Home » General Discussions » General Discussion » What should C&C3 have been?
| Re: What should C&C3 have been? [message #420634 is a reply to message #420617] |
Tue, 23 February 2010 03:18   |
nopol10
Messages: 1043
Registered: February 2005
Location: Singapore
Karma:
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I have to interrupt here. There's been way too many complaints about C&C4 which are unfounded.
Let's get a few facts straight.
-I didn't like the idea of C&C4's gameplay at all when they mentioned it. Too much of an FPS element to it and quite little of C&C. The first time I played the beta online I had totally no idea what I was supposed to do. They couldn't expect veteran C&C players to understand this concept quickly and it could fail if it didn't get anyone's interest.
-I managed to get a few friends to enter the beta and started playing together over Skype. The experience is completely different and we actually enjoyed it. Sure, its almost completely different from past C&C RTSs but keeping an open mind about the game really helps in making an objective judgment of the game. Treat it like a new game with a new gameplay experience and you'll be pleasantly surprised.
-Class based gameplay is just another term for multiple factions and there is little harm in trying out something new for the series especially when the new formula works. It will definitely cause the franchise to lose some followers but may bring new players in. That's a huge MAY because this is advertised as the last game in this story arc and it hasn't been released into public yet. Still, the devs should be applauded for willing to take such a risk.
-Changing the gameplay mechanics is something I find crucial to the franchise. C&C has followed the same formula for more than a decade now things will inevitable get stale. Imagine C&C4 using the same formula as previous games. We know the tech gap between 3 and 4 isn't too much so even with different unit names graphics, the multiplayer and even singleplayer aspect of the game would be unchanged. They can add the Forgotten, fix up the Scrin and do all sorts of new faction related stuff but that would be doing so out of quota satisfaction and fan appeasement more than anything else. Putting the Forgotten in as a new faction now would just be shoehorning and it will feel jutted just like the Scrin were in C&C3. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be playing through C&C3 all over again but this time packaged as C&C4.
-There's a few reasons why I say C&C4 will end up like C&C3 if it remained pure C&C. There's just so many things you can do with a base or a bunch of soldiers/tanks/commandos for a mission. Key point is: Blow things up. Those sort of things have been done to death in the previous C&C games and it seems that the devs are unlikely to come up with more original ideas for those missions.
-Multiplayer wise C&C3 was a success. The only thing it failed at was in promoting RTS as a sport (which was on the back cover of the game). Their Battlecast viewer (if anyone even remembered that) faded into obscurity after a short while and watching matches Live just didn't attract people's attention enough. Gameplay was good even with the multitude of balance patches that changed the game a lot each time. The Tiberium series simply didn't need another identical multiplayer element in C&C4. They can add new modes of gameplay but fan maps and mods could solve that problem in no time and they could focus on balancing the main draw which is C&C mode. Why did RA3 work then? The Red Alert universe had never been realised in 3D officially so they had the freedom to make the game with almost the same formula. Its the same reason StarCraft 2 will work. It'll be almost the same deal as SC1 in terms of multiplayer but it is now in glorious three dimensions with a spanking new (continued) story to boot.
On to singleplayer and the story
-C&C3's story was a tad cliche and rather boring. It however set up the premise for the ending of Kane's story arc and it seems to me that they are doing/did a very good job story wise judging from the FMV trailers. No one seems to be complaining about the FMVs in C&C4 (unless I am living in a dream world) because they are rather good. New first person style of shooting with a very mobile camera setup is refreshing and very immersive.
-The fact that they promised we would be using different strategies to tackle the SP missions depending on the class we chose sounds like a good idea though it may fail badly. The symmetry that they've shown us in official SP walkthru vids doesn't seem to be a good sign either. Hopefully we've just seen the tip of the iceberg for that one.
-Hold on, no more Kane anymore? We love the character and we love Joe Kucan's portrayal of him. However, his story has got to end somewhere. As one of the producers or story lead had said, they just can't carry on pulling Kane out of a hat every few years and go "Kane lives!". Its been done every sequel and it won't work as a selling factor. What they can do however, is give him a fitting ending and tie up the plot strands left all over the place within the last decade. I'm convinced the story will be a stunner direction and story wise.
HOWEVER
If you're still not convinced to at least keep an open mind about the game, you could always wait for people to post the FMVs on YouTube and just watch them all there as though it was a film. Or read Wikipedia. I'll be buying the game for my collection and also because I have a feeling it will be good.
Whoops, what should C&C3 have been?
More focussed on the story. Better script as well. There, I haven't gone too OT have I?
nopol10=Nopol=nopol(GSA)
|
|
|
|
 |
|
What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: zeratul on Mon, 22 February 2010 16:46 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: Spoony on Wed, 24 February 2010 06:24 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: Lone0001 on Mon, 22 February 2010 17:32 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: nope.avi on Mon, 22 February 2010 18:35 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: Lone0001 on Mon, 22 February 2010 19:55 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: DRNG on Mon, 22 February 2010 19:04 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: nopol10 on Tue, 23 February 2010 03:18 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: DRNG on Tue, 23 February 2010 05:53 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: Zion on Tue, 23 February 2010 03:12 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: nopol10 on Tue, 23 February 2010 16:32 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: HaTe on Tue, 23 February 2010 17:35 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: cmatt42 on Wed, 24 February 2010 22:31 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: Tiesto on Wed, 24 February 2010 07:02 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: Spoony on Wed, 24 February 2010 12:12 |
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Aug 13 02:47:34 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00922 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
