I used to be really into RA2, but I still didn't like RA3 a lot. It was way too over the top :/.
I used to be really into RA2, but I still didn't like RA3 a lot. It was way too over the top :/.
Since this was necroed already, may as well throw it out there.
Whichever matchmaking system goes up (probably based on fucking EA accounts) I want to get some BG people in on the 5v5 teams. Pretty much looking at you Takedown & Korietsu so far, you guys seem to be in my league of C&C is srs business.
I'm SO looking forward to this, hopefully they build around C and C3 TW engine, i played that game so much online, til they stopped updating it and everyone was Engineering Glitching....
I got turned off the series because of Red Alert, completely wrecked the game, at least for me.
Number of the units have been posted if anyone didn't see it already:
http://www.commandandconquer.com/factions
So anybody else in the beta and getting that utter feeling of hopelessness as well?
This game is back to C&C3 styling but reeks of the oversized, fun-time models that RA3 had. I'm somewhat hoping they used bad or reduced quality models just to get a client out for actual game testing, but what little I've seen has me scared. :[
Why is it that every intellectual property with a character/figure named Cain/Cane/Kain/Kane automatically ends up being pure win?
Eagerly awaiting this game.
Can't find anyone to play with lol
Will there be an unlockable Rob Halford character.
wtb beta.
Today we come together to pay our final respects to my once favorite gaming franchise. The prophecy of Kane I will no longer follow. The tanks of GDI I will no longer command. The Allied technology is worthless. The Soviet war machine is gone.
I cannot play this game. Redifining the formula has produced a game more like Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II or perhaps Company of Heroes than a classic C&C game. What made C&C great? Structures and the MCV. You got to build your base without having to worry about massive micro-management. You qued up something, went to control your units and when it was up you dropped it on the field. In 4, you don’t get that. You don’t even get the MCV. You get this worthless thing called a crawler that constructs all your units in house. Should probably also mention that engineer’s purpose has been redone from capturing structures to repairing units. Few dedicated structures (Basically you can only build defense structures) and you only get one build que which brings me to my next thing.
Resource gathering. Removed entirely. No longer do you have to gather tiberium, getting new fields or spikes. Instead, you can gather these tiberium crystals that drop from the sky, bring them to your base and you get upgrade points to make your units stronger or unlock extra tiers of units. But with the removal of resource gathering comes the removal of units actually costing money. Essentially what you have is a *craft style game where units cost a supply cap. That’s it. No credits. The game is around cranking out units and filling a que. When your units die, just raise another batch at no cost. What does this lead to? Stalemates and wars of attrition. Not exciting.
Also, you can’t win by beating your opponents into submission. No, you have to go around and collect these Tiberium Control Nodes to earn Victory Points. Why does this sound familar? On right. This is stolen from Warhammer 40,000 again.
I read somewhere that this game is more about co-operative play where one person each takes a crawler of offense, defense and support. Can someone beat into Raj’s head that nobody who plays these games wants to play Co-Op? It was a hindrance in RA3 and now you want to bring it back?
This is not the game I wanted to see. As much as people complain about it being roughly the same game with better graphics I would pretty much like to see that with C&C games. I want to start from nowhere, build up a base and a total army of units and steamroll over my opponent. Games that involve being the uber micro are for Counter-strike players. I on the other hand will be sitting back enjoying a rousing game of Magic: The Gathering, something that still has some semblance of strategy left in it.
I’ll leave you with the following quote:
Stormfather wrote: C&C isn’t dead yet. It’s only lying under the guillotine with its hands tied. You can see the timer until the execution here: http://www.commandandconquer.com/
Aside, has anyone actualy tried this yet?
tl;dr?
You're only the third person to say that. Summary: C&C4 is a pile of garbage and is not a true C&C game, much like Generals wasn't.
I hated C&C after EA bought WestWood.
Generals was fun in its own way. But from all the descriptions I hear about 4, its just going to be a piece of shit.
I have to admit that 3 was good. True to the classic formula while not adding too much that broke what made the game good.
4 is like shitting on Westwood's grave.
My buddy just told me his thoughts. I'm sorta devastated that they would ruin the series like this.
Yes, I'm in the beta.
That paragraph sums it up nicely. The gameplay is terrible, the mechanics have done a night/day change, and everything bad about RA3 was brought over mixed with the warhammer references. I feel like I was the victim of the sonic cycle since I wanted to believe (lol) that all the changes they were announcing would make the game better, then I get a hold of the beta and it's fucking awful.
I'll pirate it on the small hope that they at least treat the story relatively well, since C&C3 got me hook, line, and sinker into the Tiberium storyline, but somehow I bet they ruin that too.
C&C Generals though seemed like they wanted to play with the mechanics (which admittingly it did play very different) without ruining the franchise. Some minor elements remained, but the game itself wasn't bad, though I'll admit perhaps not "worthy" of the C&C name since it had no relevance at all to either RA or Tiberium. If they'd called that C&C3 with a storyline it probably would've been screamed at as much as C&C4 is. (Though I still hold that Generals wasn't a bad game in itself.)
The most disappointing thing is that EA LA treated C&C3 so well, that was a good game. There were no game-breaking alterations (well scrin aircraft but we'll leave that alone since that's balance and not core gameplay) and the production values were high. We got a game that continued the story well, was [somewhat fairly [I know, lol]] balanced, was fun to play, added more tactical features [like how three infantry couldn't kill a tank anymore like they could in RA2 by moving them around,] and generally made the game better. I know the C&C4 changes are all to appease the console tards who want to play a HEAVILY mouse dependent game on a controller, but fuck all if it isn't one terrible decision after another to ruin the series entirely.
And here I wanted to give EA a get out of jail free card for C&C3, then ignore RA3 since it looked like it was just fanboy pandering.
"I know the C&C4 changes are all to appease the console tards who want to play a HEAVILY mouse dependent game on a controller, but fuck all if it isn't one terrible decision after another to ruin the series entirely."
Should I chime in with "No console version planned."?
I agree with most of the OP, I'll still get it just for the sake of owning every C&C game, and to find out the end to the story. But everything that made C&C what it is just went out the window. Resource gathering was tedius, but tactical in defending them. And engineer rushes can be annoying as catching cancer, but were always apart of its legacy.
What they seem to be doing is trying to focus on missions similar to the original C&C where you have limited units to take down the enemy base in a lot of the situations. Course noone liked those levels that much and always wanted a base...