Home » General Discussions » General Discussion » Any Vista fix for Generals?
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #343652 is a reply to message #343613] |
Tue, 29 July 2008 22:44   |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma:
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
That's what MCVs are supposed to be for. Tech up, shell out the money, and you get this spiffy vehicle that goes anywhere you want it to and deploys into the foundation of a new base. Depending on the game settings in later titles, you could even pack it back up and move it elsewhere while continuing to expand that base. Every single C&C game save for Generals works that way, even C&C3 (which has the Outpost also, which is sort of MCV Lite- IMHO poorly implemented and too easy to acquire). Said vehicle is expensive, slow, and unable to defend itself. TS Firestorm even added the Mobile War Factory into the mix, along with other deployables that could be used to augment the new base's abilities- but they still had to be built remotely and moved into position.
|
Remember that Generals is a realistic military RTS...Generals is NOT a Sci-Fi RTS. It is a RTS that successfully filled an existing gap in the market when it came to RTS games with modern current military weapons...except Generals featured reimagined units.
It would be unwise to have some silly transformer like vehicle-building hybrid in a realistic military game like Generals. Dozers and workers are more realistic along with their ability to build anywhere IF they have accessibility to said area.
Also, dozers and workers are EASILY countered. If you ever seen the scores of highly skilled competitive players play 1v1 games in for example, RA2, you will see the first units they usually build is the Attack Dogs and lots of them: to QUICKLY scout territory, gain information on the enemy and hasteing their expansion of the map. You will aos see them build basic infantry and set up patrols in a very wide area around their base...VERY important as if those far patrols are attacked, then you know the enemy is near.
The same applies in Generals..and you have overlooked the important factor here: skill
If you are skilled in what your doing, then you would not have to worry AT ALL about the enemy creaping up on you and building a Barracks...you would be the one telling him how to play...IF you are skilled enough.
Skill defines EVERYTHING...Skill determines who wins. You can pair up 2 complete n00bs in a 1v1 but the n00b with the higher skillset would win...very simple to understand. I can only imagine the embarrasing outcomes when a highly skilled player crushes someone inferior using EVERY bit of the game to his advantage.
ANY game provides a FAIR and LEVEL standard which you must have the skill to reach. If the game allows you to build anywhere, you do so if that is what it takes to win. Still having a problem? Build infantry and pair em up and start a patrol. Once you got a war factory going, build a couple Technicals or Hummers (divide em into groups and hot key them) and start a patrol. They wil lcome in handly even later in the game if your opponent decides to change strategy. Get Raptors and Mig patrols too once you have the resources...the idea is to maintain a vigiliant mighty presence in the map so that it the enemy reacting to your moves NOT you to him! There is a counter to everything.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
It worked very well this way, because nobody could sneak off with basic units and set up production ability or base defenses on their enemy's doorstep without putting considerable thought and effort into doing so.
|
In the same way, you can mass-produce GI's and even massproduce Soviet Conscripts in RA2 in the beggining of a match and rush all in...I have won a fair amount of games that way. I don't think that required considerable thought and effort...select all --> attack.
tbh and this is my opinion, mass-producing units in ANY C&C RTS usually results in victory. That cannot be done THAT successfully in StarCraft due to 2 types of dwindling resources and a host of other game mechanisms. This is why StarCraft still holds the honor of being an excellent RTS.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
With Generals, you can send an ACV, build a Barracks behind enemy lines, and pump out 20 or so Marines to go harass your enemy's resourcing op... whoops, I'm sorry, that's StarCraft. Or you could send the Probe- I mean, Dozer or Worker- and build a few proton cannons in good positions to intercept enemy forces just as they leave their own base. Whoops, that's StarCraft again! Silly me. Funny how the same tactics apply, isn't it?
|
People across all industries have been influenced by each others ideas but I highly doubt EA was trying to copy anyone. Every FPS game could be traced back to the first ever FPS. Generals was executed differently in a style (atleaast when it came to some gameplay mechanisms) that was reminiscent of RTS games that came outside the norm of traditional C&C.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
Trouble is, Generals didn't pull it off as well, and pretends to be two completely different RTS games at once.!
|
No c'mon Generals does not pretend to anything else but rather is accused of pretending to be something else just because a few gameplay mechanisms are similar. I belive Generals is a unique game of it's own...the most important word here is "Generals"
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
Is it C&C or (title here)Craft? It's neither and both, and it has more superweapons!
|
It has only 3 superweapons. Nuclear missile (classic C&C superweapon  ) for China, Scud Strom for GLA, and Particle Cannon for USA which is not that far off from GDI's Ion Cannon. superweapons are those that are a part of the eventual buildings you will get to as you advance the tech tree.
I would not classify any of the other "Generals Abilities" as superweapons....you know why? Simple: Because you have to EARN them. They don't come standard like the 3 individual superweapons after you go through the tech tree! You have to fight and earn the Generals Points through which you can get the other Generals Abilities like artillery strike, carpet bombing, A-10 bombing, etc.
Which leads to another very important point: if you have to fight to earn those Generals Abilities (which you call superweapons-they are not) then you also have the abilty to DENY your opponent HIS ability to use his Generals Points: just YOU be the first one to strike and attack him so you get Promotions.
If you do that, then you would be the one getting promoted, points more rather than him. And if your opponent is the one giving you the lecture, then that means you can't earn promotions and thus your ability to get to those Generals Abilities is twarted. All the more reason to be the FIRST one to take the initiative on the battlefield. Once again, skill plays itself here.
This makes for a fast paced game that is very challenging as you not only have the tech tree to deal with, but also the Generals Abilities that you need to earn by striking first and fast. So you can see that it was not just some blind mix of powerful weapons thrown in to the bag.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
That must make it good, right?
|
After I explained above, o yes........! And challenging too.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
The result is a game that plays like it has MPD with lots of pretty shiny toys where might always triumphs over strategy and tactics.
|
I explained for most of the "toys" but pretty much in ANY RTS or game for that matter, once you got a giant bunch of units, you win. THAT is reality.
-Get 20 Battle Cruisers with Yamato guns in StarCraft = Game over.
-Get 30 Apocalypse tanks in RA2 = game over
-successful Med rushes on Ren anyone? = game over
I can go on...might always wins. that is the basic truth.
Which is why in RTS we have limiting factors like minerals, gas, credits, ore, supplies, to collect and a host of other gameplay mechanisms to make it more challenging.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
I'd love to see a game that successfully blended C&C style play with 'Craft, but Generals didn't quite make it.
|
Again, Generals was not trying to join C&C and StarCraft...only the fans imply that just because they found a few linking similarities. In C&C Generals is a great UNIQUE game that is overlooked and underrated for petty reasons.
[Updated on: Tue, 29 July 2008 23:02] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Current Time: Fri Feb 07 22:51:44 MST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00979 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
