Let me clarify my position. Your points are good, but you're argueing a bit past my point. First off, you're using a different definition of 'C&C' than me. I was talking about the Tiberium series and Red Alert specifically. I don't really consider Generals a C&C games, it just has the title slapped to it.
That said; just the fact that Tiberium Wars was even made ties in to how they were trying to go back to their roots. They could've just created strategy game X and slap C&C in front of it, but they decide to pick back up on the old Tiberium hype and roll with that. Same deal with Red Alert 2. And sure, they have also made games that don't fit into this model; Generals fits the theme nicely, and the latest Tiberium game didn't look one bit like its predecessors. My main point was that this 'going back to the roots' thing is, or perhaps already has been, a bit of a hype. Red Alert 2 attempted to imitate Red Alert 1 on many points, just as how Tiberium Wars was Tiberium Sun with shinier graphics, a probably shittier story and a lame ass third race.
I suppose the best way to describe it is that next to 'going back to the roots', the other hype is 'revolution for revolution's sake'. There is no more focus (from especially EA) on creating good games. They either recreate old shit because it sold well, or they try to introduce all sorts of new things to the genre because they think that'll sell well (read: latest Tiberium game and Lord of the Rings [RTS] games). The 'in between' is gone, especially within EA. One might almost call it a bit of an 'artsy' movement where a failed 'back to basics' game made by EA is followed by a 'lets revolutionize everything' game.
This is why I took your post of 'mixed feelings' and ran with it, as it kind of suits my sentiment in this situation: Generals 2 will probably be either a 'back to basics' game, which means we'll get Generals 1 (which was regarded as a good game, afaik) with new graphics, or some kind of shitty ass RTS with a lot of unwanted 'new' and 'revolutionary' functions. In the case of the first, we'll have a new Generals 1 to enjoy. In the case of the second, it'll suck balls. Here's hoping on the third possibility, that they actually get it right for once. Like they did when they made Generals 1 after the Red Alert, Lord of the Rings and Tiberium games.
First Red alert 2 was still westwood, EA had already owned westwood at the time, but it was already started and mainly worked on by westwood, it was 3 that was just hands down horrible.
Anyway to the main point disagree with. C&C TW was NOT going back to the roots, in any shape or form. They are simply trying to carry on the story. None of the game play was "back to the roots". No walls, Unites totally differ to what they have always been. They redid the full building system (im sorry but... being able to build all the buildings you want...and "D and O buildings not the same CD?" it was horrible. It was nowhere near the "roots" and they know it.
When they said "going back to the roots" they mean for the first time, sitting down, and Doing C&C original style, seeing how that was done, and going from there, that is something they have never done, or have ever tried to do, they did not want to make it at its roots ever, they said that.
All my point was, is this is not something we have seen them try to do yet with the C&C series.
I loved C&C Generals, Singleplayer sucked, but the multiplayer was about as good as starcraft 1. It had a good Feel to it, But the Disconnects and the league counted D/Cs against you ruined alo to fit. Still a fun game though
First Red alert 2 was still westwood, EA had already owned westwood at the time, but it was already started and mainly worked on by westwood, it was 3 that was just hands down horrible.
Anyway to the main point disagree with. CC TW was NOT going back to the roots, in any shape or form. They are simply trying to carry on the story. None of the game play was "back to the roots". No walls, Unites totally differ to what they have always been. They redid the full building system (im sorry but... being able to build all the buildings you want...and "D and O buildings not the same CD?" it was horrible. It was nowhere near the "roots" and they know it.
When they said "going back to the roots" they mean for the first time, sitting down, and Doing CC original style, seeing how that was done, and going from there, that is something they have never done, or have ever tried to do, they did not want to make it at its roots ever, they said that.
All my point was, is this is not something we have seen them try to do yet with the CC series.
3 had great graphics, but the gameplay felt... i dunno, Small It felt like you never had a real army just a small platoon at max supply. It played good on Xbox 360 though, but Halo Wars whooped its ass.
First Red alert 2 was still westwood, EA had already owned westwood at the time, but it was already started and mainly worked on by westwood, it was 3 that was just hands down horrible.
Anyway to the main point disagree with. CC TW was NOT going back to the roots, in any shape or form. They are simply trying to carry on the story. None of the game play was "back to the roots". No walls, Unites totally differ to what they have always been. They redid the full building system (im sorry but... being able to build all the buildings you want...and "D and O buildings not the same CD?" it was horrible. It was nowhere near the "roots" and they know it.
When they said "going back to the roots" they mean for the first time, sitting down, and Doing CC original style, seeing how that was done, and going from there, that is something they have never done, or have ever tried to do, they did not want to make it at its roots ever, they said that.
All my point was, is this is not something we have seen them try to do yet with the CC series.
3 had great graphics, but the gameplay felt... i dunno, Small It felt like you never had a real army just a small platoon at max supply. It played good on Xbox 360 though, but Halo Wars whooped its ass.
First Red alert 2 was still westwood, EA had already owned westwood at the time, but it was already started and mainly worked on by westwood, it was 3 that was just hands down horrible.
Anyway to the main point disagree with. CC TW was NOT going back to the roots, in any shape or form. They are simply trying to carry on the story. None of the game play was "back to the roots". No walls, Unites totally differ to what they have always been. They redid the full building system (im sorry but... being able to build all the buildings you want...and "D and O buildings not the same CD?" it was horrible. It was nowhere near the "roots" and they know it.
When they said "going back to the roots" they mean for the first time, sitting down, and Doing CC original style, seeing how that was done, and going from there, that is something they have never done, or have ever tried to do, they did not want to make it at its roots ever, they said that.
All my point was, is this is not something we have seen them try to do yet with the CC series.
You're absolutely right about the RA part - I'm messing up RA2 and 3. Replace 'RA 2' with 'RA 3' in my previous posts and it should make some more sense. In regards to TW... I'd still want to consider that under the 'going back to the roots movement'. Even aside from the gameplay, just because of the simple fact that it was made. TW is the 2007 sequal to a 1999 game, that alone is a testimony of EA willing to go back and pull stuff out of the old hat.
In a followup to that, I don't think that "going back to the roots" is something we haven't seen EA do with C&C yet. Maybe you're right, if you're willing to say it so specifically, but we've definitely been seeing it from nearly every major gaming company out there and I don't consider EA an exception. And that leads me to say that Generals 2 "going back to the roots" in the modern meaning of the world will simply mean we'll get a rehashed Generals 1.
Interesting, it says 303 views and 646 dislikes. And every time I refresh this video dislike count increases by 1 :O
At this point, I find it hard to care. C&C not made by westwood is just a marketing scheme. I know they won't pay respect to predecessors, EA got enough income to not concern themselves with what veterans want. Now it's mostly experimenting with stuff and then put recognizable name on it. A shame, but I suppose businessman don't play video games..
PS. Amusing, mule-like machines harvest blue crystals and green resource nodes.. actually no, that not.., no I should stop, I mustn't care any longer.
First of all, in response to EW's point:
I think we've had the discussion before, but I really have to disagree on all fronts. Micro matters a lot less than in games like Warcraft and macro is more important, this is true. And good macro alone gets you into masters league or such. It's at the top level where micro becomes important, though. I suggest you watch some recent Nestea games. Or some of Naniwa's games from really any of the MLG's this year. Or the couple of finales between MMA and MVP from two MLGs ago. We're talking about CONSTANT action here. Not just a-moving. Harassing, drops, constant repositioning of siege tanks, hellions, denying expansions... CONSISTANTLY. The maco is merely the backbone required for all of that. If you really think Starcraft two involves no micro-skill, I dare you to watch a couple of the named games and come back to me with the same conclusion. It's some of the sickest in-game action I've ever seen.
Ive watched pro replays and players. Its true what you say.
There`s just a fundamental problem in that only a minority of players(Grandmasters and master league players) would be able to experience that level of excitement.
See, the actual micro itself only seems spectacular BECAUSE they are doing it in unison with macro play. The micro itself is not hard at all. Marines running back and sniping banelings, drops etc, anyone can do that. Its not half as intense as Warcraft 3, as everything dies in 1.5 seconds in Starcraft 2. But not everyone can do those micro `moves` while trying to keep your macro up at the same time..
Now imagine if the macro gameplay was more automated for you, kinda like Warcraft 3(5 workers at the gold mine and X peasants harvesting lumber and thats it!!!), Then you`d have a wider audience experiencing the thrill of battle, and being able to make strategic decisions involving Army composition, Terrain control, etc. You know, the important fun stuff. The huge focus on economy(which is always there on any level of play in Starcraft 2) is a negative in my point of view. Its totally pointless and detracting.
I can beat a pro Starcraft 2 player at Warcraft 3, because our skills can be locked at the same speed, and then it becomes a matter of strategy.
BUT
I can NEVER beat a pro/Grandmaster player at Starcraft 2 because that person hides behind and excels at a macro mechanic and therefore will utterly destroy me. Thats not strategy at all, and it annoys me. That someone can beat me at a game because they are faster at a process not directly associated within the context of that game. In this case, hotkeys and how fast you inject your larvae etc..
Think about it. We might as well have a usb paddle ball device attached to the pc, and hit it constantly using our left hand, while playing the game/mouse with our right hand. That can be used to artificially measure a macro element in the same way you`d just be buying worker units all the time, dropping mules, chrono-boosting, etc..
The current Starcraft 2 Meta is incredibly boring. I mean, TvZ, Its just tanks and marines. ALWAYS. Sure you`ll have the terran drops all over the place at random and everything, but I think thats more just terran abusing their balance a bit there. Its the same scenario over and over again.
PvZ/T, You get "death balls", Voids + Collossi/immortal +Stalkers with 3/3/3 upgrades and you pwn house.
Really, most pro games(proper pro games, not cheezy boxer shenanigans or ones for "show" etc) involves both sides taking all the expansions, and attacking with blob armies mid-late game. They get expansions really fast.
And again, you talk about the excitement from pro replays and commentary. NOT from your own in-game experience. Do you even still play Starcraft 2?.
I can watch some pro Starcraft 2 games now and I know I`ll enjoy it. But I know I`ll be utterly bored to hell if I login to B.net and play Sc2 ladder. Thus the game fails to keep me entertained and still playing.
On your point about War3, I found it to be a lot harder than SC2 in terms of managing everything and actually beating other people. More complex to me I guess.
Interesting. I always thought an RTS MMO (in a player controlled world) would be really cool (but super complex)... my guess is that Blizz's Titan is going to be FPS or RTS and will be a player-controlled world. That's really the only way MMO's can progress right now without being grind fest npc battles.
OH... I didn't know 3 was for xbox too. There you go guys. Console port = why it sucked.
Whether or not we like it, a developer who makes a game for PC & Console is ultimately going to make decisions that sacrifice for the PC user. The developer will convince themselves it's okay but in the end everyone can tell. I'm hoping this isn't the true reasons why Blizz is removing skill/stat points from D3, and simplifying tooltips etc... but I'm purely speculating here.
On your point about War3, I found it to be a lot harder than SC2 in terms of managing everything and actually beating other people. More complex to me I guess.
Interesting. I always thought an RTS MMO (in a player controlled world) would be really cool (but super complex)... my guess is that Blizz's Titan is going to be FPS or RTS and will be a player-controlled world. That's really the only way MMO's can progress right now without being grind fest npc battles.
OH... I didn't know 3 was for xbox too. There you go guys. Console port = why it sucked.
Whether or not we like it, a developer who makes a game for PC Console is ultimately going to make decisions that sacrifice for the PC user. The developer will convince themselves it's okay but in the end everyone can tell. I'm hoping this isn't the true reasons why Blizz is removing skill/stat points from D3, and simplifying tooltips etc... but I'm purely speculating here.
I dont want an RTS MMO, I want a Pokemon MMO, even if the graphics are Gameboy quality...
Id pay 5$ a month for it LOL..
Age of empires online is an RTS MMO, its Okay, not great but decent.
Between Generals and Genitals and Molsterr and Molester, this thread is definitely getting out of control!
Except your mind is obviously quite a scary place...o.o (<- Those are eyes fyi)
But yes more on topic and, @Taintedwisp
Use quotations and address multiple people in one post, rather than 1 post per individual reply in a thread. When possible.
So, are you guys just butchering any idea of a company that ain't westwood can do a viable C&C game? Is this simply because it must have that name on the box, or are you certain that no other company can create a C&C game that's worth playing?
So, are you guys just butchering any idea of a company that ain't westwood can do a viable CC game? Is this simply because it must have that name on the box, or are you certain that no other company can create a CC game that's worth playing?
The folling companys can make a new C& C game.... Blizzard, The guys who made Age of Empires 1,2 and 3.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@Tolkfan: Go
Wow, are you serious? That is funny as hell. EA is such shit.
Let me clarify my position. Your points are good, but you're argueing a bit past my point. First off, you're using a different definition of 'C&C' than me. I was talking about the Tiberium series and Red Alert specifically. I don't really consider Generals a C&C games, it just has the title slapped to it.
That said; just the fact that Tiberium Wars was even made ties in to how they were trying to go back to their roots. They could've just created strategy game X and slap C&C in front of it, but they decide to pick back up on the old Tiberium hype and roll with that. Same deal with Red Alert 2. And sure, they have also made games that don't fit into this model; Generals fits the theme nicely, and the latest Tiberium game didn't look one bit like its predecessors. My main point was that this 'going back to the roots' thing is, or perhaps already has been, a bit of a hype. Red Alert 2 attempted to imitate Red Alert 1 on many points, just as how Tiberium Wars was Tiberium Sun with shinier graphics, a probably shittier story and a lame ass third race.
I suppose the best way to describe it is that next to 'going back to the roots', the other hype is 'revolution for revolution's sake'. There is no more focus (from especially EA) on creating good games. They either recreate old shit because it sold well, or they try to introduce all sorts of new things to the genre because they think that'll sell well (read: latest Tiberium game and Lord of the Rings [RTS] games). The 'in between' is gone, especially within EA. One might almost call it a bit of an 'artsy' movement where a failed 'back to basics' game made by EA is followed by a 'lets revolutionize everything' game.
This is why I took your post of 'mixed feelings' and ran with it, as it kind of suits my sentiment in this situation: Generals 2 will probably be either a 'back to basics' game, which means we'll get Generals 1 (which was regarded as a good game, afaik) with new graphics, or some kind of shitty ass RTS with a lot of unwanted 'new' and 'revolutionary' functions. In the case of the first, we'll have a new Generals 1 to enjoy. In the case of the second, it'll suck balls. Here's hoping on the third possibility, that they actually get it right for once. Like they did when they made Generals 1 after the Red Alert, Lord of the Rings and Tiberium games.
A few things that dont fit for me in your posts.
First Red alert 2 was still westwood, EA had already owned westwood at the time, but it was already started and mainly worked on by westwood, it was 3 that was just hands down horrible.
Anyway to the main point disagree with. C&C TW was NOT going back to the roots, in any shape or form. They are simply trying to carry on the story. None of the game play was "back to the roots". No walls, Unites totally differ to what they have always been. They redid the full building system (im sorry but... being able to build all the buildings you want...and "D and O buildings not the same CD?" it was horrible. It was nowhere near the "roots" and they know it.
When they said "going back to the roots" they mean for the first time, sitting down, and Doing C&C original style, seeing how that was done, and going from there, that is something they have never done, or have ever tried to do, they did not want to make it at its roots ever, they said that.
All my point was, is this is not something we have seen them try to do yet with the C&C series.
@Mozared: Go
I loved C&C Generals, Singleplayer sucked, but the multiplayer was about as good as starcraft 1. It had a good Feel to it, But the Disconnects and the league counted D/Cs against you ruined alo to fit. Still a fun game though
3 had great graphics, but the gameplay felt... i dunno, Small It felt like you never had a real army just a small platoon at max supply. It played good on Xbox 360 though, but Halo Wars whooped its ass.
3 had great graphics, but the gameplay felt... i dunno, Small It felt like you never had a real army just a small platoon at max supply. It played good on Xbox 360 though, but Halo Wars whooped its ass.
Talkin' 'bout butchering a franchise:
You're absolutely right about the RA part - I'm messing up RA2 and 3. Replace 'RA 2' with 'RA 3' in my previous posts and it should make some more sense. In regards to TW... I'd still want to consider that under the 'going back to the roots movement'. Even aside from the gameplay, just because of the simple fact that it was made. TW is the 2007 sequal to a 1999 game, that alone is a testimony of EA willing to go back and pull stuff out of the old hat.
In a followup to that, I don't think that "going back to the roots" is something we haven't seen EA do with C&C yet. Maybe you're right, if you're willing to say it so specifically, but we've definitely been seeing it from nearly every major gaming company out there and I don't consider EA an exception. And that leads me to say that Generals 2 "going back to the roots" in the modern meaning of the world will simply mean we'll get a rehashed Generals 1.
@Neonsz: Go
Interesting, it says 303 views and 646 dislikes. And every time I refresh this video dislike count increases by 1 :O
At this point, I find it hard to care. C&C not made by westwood is just a marketing scheme. I know they won't pay respect to predecessors, EA got enough income to not concern themselves with what veterans want. Now it's mostly experimenting with stuff and then put recognizable name on it. A shame, but I suppose businessman don't play video games..
PS. Amusing, mule-like machines harvest blue crystals and green resource nodes.. actually no, that not.., no I should stop, I mustn't care any longer.
Ive watched pro replays and players. Its true what you say.
There`s just a fundamental problem in that only a minority of players(Grandmasters and master league players) would be able to experience that level of excitement.
See, the actual micro itself only seems spectacular BECAUSE they are doing it in unison with macro play. The micro itself is not hard at all. Marines running back and sniping banelings, drops etc, anyone can do that. Its not half as intense as Warcraft 3, as everything dies in 1.5 seconds in Starcraft 2. But not everyone can do those micro `moves` while trying to keep your macro up at the same time..
Now imagine if the macro gameplay was more automated for you, kinda like Warcraft 3(5 workers at the gold mine and X peasants harvesting lumber and thats it!!!), Then you`d have a wider audience experiencing the thrill of battle, and being able to make strategic decisions involving Army composition, Terrain control, etc. You know, the important fun stuff. The huge focus on economy(which is always there on any level of play in Starcraft 2) is a negative in my point of view. Its totally pointless and detracting.
I can beat a pro Starcraft 2 player at Warcraft 3, because our skills can be locked at the same speed, and then it becomes a matter of strategy.
BUT
I can NEVER beat a pro/Grandmaster player at Starcraft 2 because that person hides behind and excels at a macro mechanic and therefore will utterly destroy me. Thats not strategy at all, and it annoys me. That someone can beat me at a game because they are faster at a process not directly associated within the context of that game. In this case, hotkeys and how fast you inject your larvae etc..
Think about it. We might as well have a usb paddle ball device attached to the pc, and hit it constantly using our left hand, while playing the game/mouse with our right hand. That can be used to artificially measure a macro element in the same way you`d just be buying worker units all the time, dropping mules, chrono-boosting, etc..
The current Starcraft 2 Meta is incredibly boring. I mean, TvZ, Its just tanks and marines. ALWAYS. Sure you`ll have the terran drops all over the place at random and everything, but I think thats more just terran abusing their balance a bit there. Its the same scenario over and over again.
PvZ/T, You get "death balls", Voids + Collossi/immortal +Stalkers with 3/3/3 upgrades and you pwn house.
Really, most pro games(proper pro games, not cheezy boxer shenanigans or ones for "show" etc) involves both sides taking all the expansions, and attacking with blob armies mid-late game. They get expansions really fast.
And again, you talk about the excitement from pro replays and commentary. NOT from your own in-game experience. Do you even still play Starcraft 2?.
I can watch some pro Starcraft 2 games now and I know I`ll enjoy it. But I know I`ll be utterly bored to hell if I login to B.net and play Sc2 ladder. Thus the game fails to keep me entertained and still playing.
@EternalWraith: Go
On your point about War3, I found it to be a lot harder than SC2 in terms of managing everything and actually beating other people. More complex to me I guess.
@Neonsz: Go
Interesting. I always thought an RTS MMO (in a player controlled world) would be really cool (but super complex)... my guess is that Blizz's Titan is going to be FPS or RTS and will be a player-controlled world. That's really the only way MMO's can progress right now without being grind fest npc battles.
@Taintedwisp: Go
OH... I didn't know 3 was for xbox too. There you go guys. Console port = why it sucked.
Whether or not we like it, a developer who makes a game for PC & Console is ultimately going to make decisions that sacrifice for the PC user. The developer will convince themselves it's okay but in the end everyone can tell. I'm hoping this isn't the true reasons why Blizz is removing skill/stat points from D3, and simplifying tooltips etc... but I'm purely speculating here.
anyone else see molester when seeing molsterrs name?
I dont want an RTS MMO, I want a Pokemon MMO, even if the graphics are Gameboy quality...
Id pay 5$ a month for it LOL..
Age of empires online is an RTS MMO, its Okay, not great but decent.
Yea. Lol.
Between Generals and Genitals and Molsterr and Molester, this thread is definitely getting out of control!
Getting? everyon whos posted for the last 20 post are just restating their original post at this point LOL.
Except your mind is obviously quite a scary place...o.o (<- Those are eyes fyi)
But yes more on topic and, @Taintedwisp
Use quotations and address multiple people in one post, rather than 1 post per individual reply in a thread. When possible.
I'm honestly kind of excited to see how this will turn out with Bioware developing it...
So, are you guys just butchering any idea of a company that ain't westwood can do a viable C&C game? Is this simply because it must have that name on the box, or are you certain that no other company can create a C&C game that's worth playing?
The folling companys can make a new C& C game.... Blizzard, The guys who made Age of Empires 1,2 and 3.