Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » C&C 4 Coming!!!!
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #394569 is a reply to message #394552] |
Thu, 09 July 2009 17:21   |
 |
luv2pb
Messages: 1488
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Not everything is as it appears
Untouchable |
|
|
Tbh I'm not that excited about it. EA just keeps making them worse. I didn't even buy the C&C3 expansion or even try any of the redalrt3 stuff.
N00bstories Director Of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #394840 is a reply to message #394569] |
Sun, 12 July 2009 20:18 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| luv2pb wrote on Thu, 09 July 2009 19:21 |
Tbh I'm not that excited about it. EA just keeps making them worse. I didn't even buy the C&C3 expansion or even try any of the redalrt3 stuff.
|
Don't even bother mate and save your money to spend on some other game. C&C 3 was ridiculous and RA3 tops even that.
[Updated on: Sun, 12 July 2009 21:28] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #394927 is a reply to message #394552] |
Mon, 13 July 2009 20:36 |
nope.avi
Messages: 601
Registered: December 2007
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
You all take c&c too seriously for it's storyline, if you look past all that those are actually pretty fun games, same with generals and zero hour, those were the funnest rts' I've ever played, and still are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #395032 is a reply to message #395019] |
Wed, 15 July 2009 00:27 |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 14 July 2009 17:23 |
I disagree, Generals was horrible.
|
lol.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #395364 is a reply to message #395346] |
Sat, 18 July 2009 01:51 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| liquidv2 wrote on Fri, 17 July 2009 20:44 |
generals and zero hour were both good games
explain why you disliked them, if you can
|
Don't bother. He's adverse to logic and reasoning.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #395458 is a reply to message #395346] |
Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
In the thread where Dover was intent on arguing about Generals, he assumed I was arguing with him and now he is on my case because he doesn't think I have any valid points to defend my opinion. (which, by the way, you don't need a reason to have an opinion, Dover, because if you have a means to back up your opinion, then that isn't called an opinion, it's called a "theory." Or, if the back up info is "proof," then it would be called a "fact." An opinion is merely someone's personal presumption or idea of something. An opinion can be right, it can be wrong, or it can just be plain ridiculous, but having the means to backup your opinion doesn't make your opinion any less than an opinion... it just makes the person less of an idiot.)
However, I feel like discussing Generals in this thread, so lets have at it then.. just as long as you aren't a complete fagsack about it.
The main reasons why I don't like Generals are:
-It looked like it was tossed together.
Regardless if they put incredible or lackluster amounts of detail into specific models, it looked like everything used a different artstyle that clashed with one another. So once everything was brought together, it looked kind of awkward, imo. (Also, why did the trees dance? The wind isn't THAT strong...)
-Extended reach units.
This, to you, might fall under the "L2RTS" category, however I don't think so. In C&C games prior to Generals, there was always an artillery type unit that was able to hit you from afar and require you to go into action to take it out. Those units never bothered me because it forced you to actually play rather than sit and watch the game play itself.
However, in Generals, I can't really explain why, but the units with the long ranges just pissed me off. Perhaps because there was either a crap load of them (either that or the defense range was small in comparison to the firing range of other units), or the long-range units were cheap and spammable. (The Rocket buggy-thing for the GLA is a good example of what I'm getting at.)
It's one thing to uproot a player so they don't spend the entire match turtling in their base... but it's another thing to make stationary defenses completely useless.
-Plot?
It may have had a "plot," but it had no story.. It's basically: a fictional war breaks out and things happen. Then the next thing you know, you see credits! The game was probably meant for multiplayer action over single player action.. however, if that was the case, why bother with a campaign at all? (Also, "Eva" in the briefings/loading was just embarrassingly tacked-on.)
-Unlikeable factions
I can't find the ability to gain a liking for any of the 3 factions. They all seem to just be there. There really isn't any info on them other than they are supposed to represent different modern-day nations and countries..
The US was too high and mighty, the GLA was just a big "Lol we're terrorists!" cliche, and China was just.. well they were just "there."
-Too slow
The pace of the game seemed to slow. Even when I changed the game speed in the options, the infantry and vehicles all seemed to move in slow motion.
-Preferences
1. I prefer the MCV system to the cliche mainstream dozer style system. (Dover said it had a name, but I forgot it.) C&C has always been about the MCV. I can respect that since Generals was a new unique 'universe' in the franchise that they were experimenting different "routes," but, imo, I don't like the style. I'm fine with using it, I just prefer using the MCV style.
2. The control bar on the bottom of the screen was annoying. I prefer the side bar. It didn't take up 3/4 of the screen and allowed the game to be viewed from it's own area of the screen.. rather than the control panel being pasted over the gameplay itself. Also, I don't really remember, but could you "lower it" to see more of the screen? Or am I confusing that with starcraft?
3. Camera was too low! You couldn't see anything! The viewing angle should have been zoomed out more so you have a larger field of view. (Was that fixed in ZH? I don't remember..)
However, overall, my biggest reason for not liking the game is simply because of the setting. I don't like its setting. It just seems lame. They should have put more thought into it.
I get the same feeling for old-school settings.. like WWI or II games, for example. I'm not much of a fan of Call of Duty 1-3 simply because the setting just feels lame.
[Updated on: Sat, 18 July 2009 20:11] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #395681 is a reply to message #395458] |
Mon, 20 July 2009 09:21 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Ah, R315r4z0r my friend. I knew you couldn't stay away. :)
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]In the thread where Dover was intent on arguing about Generals, he assumed I was arguing with him and now he is on my case because he doesn't think I have any valid points to defend my opinion. (which, by the way, you don't need a reason to have an opinion, Dover, because if you have a means to back up your opinion, then that isn't called an opinion, it's called a "theory." Or, if the back up info is "proof," then it would be called a "fact." An opinion is merely someone's personal presumption or idea of something. An opinion can be right, it can be wrong, or it can just be plain ridiculous, but having the means to backup your opinion doesn't make your opinion any less than an opinion... it just makes the person less of an idiot.)
|
Either we have differing definitions of what constitutes an opinion or you have some wacky beliefs. It's very rare that a person holds an opinion for no reason. Someone or something has given him reason to believe the way he does. This is his reasoning, his "proof". Without these initial "points", the person in question isn't convinced and there is no opinion. You don't have to back up your opinions, true, but only in the same sense that you don't have to post on these forums or you don't have to drive on the correct side of the road.
Also, if I read that last statement correctly, you just called yourself an idiot (Or, at the very least, not "less of an idiot) for refusing to validate your opinions up until now. I applaude your
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]However, I feel like discussing Generals in this thread, so lets have at it then.. just as long as you aren't a complete fagsack about it.
|
I could say the same for you. Try not to get so butthurt this time.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]The main reasons why I don't like Generals are:
-It looked like it was tossed together.
Regardless if they put incredible or lackluster amounts of detail into specific models, it looked like everything used a different artstyle that clashed with one another. So once everything was brought together, it looked kind of awkward, imo. (Also, why did the trees dance? The wind isn't THAT strong...)
|
If you're referring to how the GLA units look different from the USA units, and the USA units look different from the Chinese units, then DUUHHHH. That's like complaining about how in StarCraft the art-style used with the Zerg is so different from the art-style used with the Protoss. It's an intentional art direction choice to give each faction a unique flavor. This isn't anything unique to Generals. Notice how vastly different the Allied and Soviet structures look in RA2? And how they clash aesthetically when put in the same base?
I won't even ask how you can conjecture about how strong the wind is when you have nothing but the trees to go by.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]-Extended reach units.
This, to you, might fall under the "L2RTS" category, however I don't think so. In C&C games prior to Generals, there was always an artillery type unit that was able to hit you from afar and require you to go into action to take it out. Those units never bothered me because it forced you to actually play rather than sit and watch the game play itself.
However, in Generals, I can't really explain why, but the units with the long ranges just pissed me off. Perhaps because there was either a crap load of them (either that or the defense range was small in comparison to the firing range of other units), or the long-range units were cheap and spammable. (The Rocket buggy-thing for the GLA is a good example of what I'm getting at.)
It's one thing to uproot a player so they don't spend the entire match turtling in their base... but it's another thing to make stationary defenses completely useless.
|
You're absolutely right. L2RTS. Large-scale turtling of any sort in any game is always discouraged, because the more cash you sink into making Telsa Coils or Patriot Missles or Gattling Guns, the less you're spending on your economy or your army. You'll never win a game by defending to death.
You mentioned the Rocket Buggy in particular. It's true that it has a long range, good damage, and great speed. That said, it's made of glass, and it only takes an air strike or two to wipe out even a large group of them. They also get raped by Crusaders and other point-defense laser units, since all rocket-based units can't touch them. Everything has a counter, and the rocket buggies are no exception. You're just trying to counter them with the wrong thing (Static defense). L2RTS.
Also, if long-range units bother you, you must REALLY hate Tiberian Sun, since that game was won or lost by the Nod Artillery (And the GDI Juggernaut was a pathetic pale imitation of the Nod Artillery's fury)
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]-Plot?
It may have had a "plot," but it had no story.. It's basically: a fictional war breaks out and things happen. Then the next thing you know, you see credits! The game was probably meant for multiplayer action over single player action.. however, if that was the case, why bother with a campaign at all? (Also, "Eva" in the briefings/loading was just embarrassingly tacked-on.)
|
"Fictional war, some things happen, game over" is a summery of every C&C game. When you dismiss the entire plot with the words "thing happen", you can't complain.
I'm not sure what you mean about Eva. She fills the same role she has in every C&C game. There's nothing different about Eva in Generals and Eva in any other C&C.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]-Unlikeable factions
I can't find the ability to gain a liking for any of the 3 factions. They all seem to just be there. There really isn't any info on them other than they are supposed to represent different modern-day nations and countries..
|
What more do you need? There are much flimsier excuses for factions. The GDI are the assumed nondescript good guys. The Soviets in Red Alert are generic steroticapal russians. The Terrans in StarCraft are just "the humans". This is the way RTSes work. Why blame Generals for it?
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]The US was too high and mighty, the GLA was just a big "Lol we're terrorists!" cliche, and China was just.. well they were just "there."
|
You're reading too much into something that isn't there.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]-Too slow
The pace of the game seemed to slow. Even when I changed the game speed in the options, the infantry and vehicles all seemed to move in slow motion.
|
Infantry are slow. This shouldn't be a surprise to you
I would assert that Generals is fairly fast. With the rise in air power and superweapons, the deciding moments in battles goes by faster than before.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]-Preferences
1. I prefer the MCV system to the cliche mainstream dozer style system. (Dover said it had a name, but I forgot it.) C&C has always been about the MCV. I can respect that since Generals was a new unique 'universe' in the franchise that they were experimenting different "routes," but, imo, I don't like the style. I'm fine with using it, I just prefer using the MCV style.
|
See my diatribe on opinions at the beginning of this post. It's fine that you prefer one to the other, but you're not saying WHY you prefer one to the other.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]2. The control bar on the bottom of the screen was annoying. I prefer the side bar. It didn't take up 3/4 of the screen and allowed the game to be viewed from it's own area of the screen.. rather than the control panel being pasted over the gameplay itself. Also, I don't really remember, but could you "lower it" to see more of the screen? Or am I confusing that with starcraft?
|
The control bar at the bottom took up very little of the screen, and it isn't the first C&C to have a bar at the bottom (RA2 was) And yes, you could hide it at-will, so this is a non-issue of a complaint.
3. Camera was too low! You couldn't see anything! The viewing angle should have been zoomed out more so you have a larger field of view. (Was that fixed in ZH? I don't remember..)
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
However, overall, my biggest reason for not liking the game is simply because of the setting. I don't like its setting. It just seems lame. They should have put more thought into it.
I get the same feeling for old-school settings.. like WWI or II games, for example. I'm not much of a fan of Call of Duty 1-3 simply because the setting just feels lame.
|
What?! You say they haven't put enough thought into the setting when you like WWII games? WWII games are so ridiculously overdone that I can't take this complaint seriously at all.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Mon, 20 July 2009 09:24] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #395731 is a reply to message #395681] |
Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Surprisingly, as most of the time when you put forward points, you do them very well. This time, however, you seem to have misread a lot of what I said.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
Also, if I read that last statement correctly, you just called yourself an idiot (Or, at the very least, not "less of an idiot) for refusing to validate your opinions up until now. I applaude your
|
Yes, you would be correct. I realized that when I was proof reading my post, but left it in because it's the best way I could express my idea.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
If you're referring to how the GLA units look different from the USA units, and the USA units look different from the Chinese units, then DUUHHHH. That's like complaining about how in StarCraft the art-style used with the Zerg is so different from the art-style used with the Protoss. It's an intentional art direction choice to give each faction a unique flavor. This isn't anything unique to Generals. Notice how vastly different the Allied and Soviet structures look in RA2? And how they clash aesthetically when put in the same base?
|
No, I'm referring to the art detail between infantry vs vehicles vs flora vs structures, ect. Not simply between factions, because that's an obvious "Duuhhhh!!!" More or less within the same faction.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
I won't even ask how you can conjecture about how strong the wind is when you have nothing but the trees to go by.
|
I'm not conjecting about the wind. I was merely being dramatic. I'm commenting on the tree animations. Why do the trees dance? Even the seemingly heavily rooted hard-wood trees.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]-Extended reach units.
This, to you, might fall under the "L2RTS" category, however I don't think so. In C&C games prior to Generals, there was always an artillery type unit that was able to hit you from afar and require you to go into action to take it out. Those units never bothered me because it forced you to actually play rather than sit and watch the game play itself.
However, in Generals, I can't really explain why, but the units with the long ranges just pissed me off. Perhaps because there was either a crap load of them (either that or the defense range was small in comparison to the firing range of other units), or the long-range units were cheap and spammable. (The Rocket buggy-thing for the GLA is a good example of what I'm getting at.)
It's one thing to uproot a player so they don't spend the entire match turtling in their base... but it's another thing to make stationary defenses completely useless.
|
You're absolutely right. L2RTS. Large-scale turtling of any sort in any game is always discouraged, because the more cash you sink into making Telsa Coils or Patriot Missles or Gattling Guns, the less you're spending on your economy or your army. You'll never win a game by defending to death.
You mentioned the Rocket Buggy in particular. It's true that it has a long range, good damage, and great speed. That said, it's made of glass, and it only takes an air strike or two to wipe out even a large group of them. They also get raped by Crusaders and other point-defense laser units, since all rocket-based units can't touch them. Everything has a counter, and the rocket buggies are no exception. You're just trying to counter them with the wrong thing (Static defense). L2RTS.
Also, if long-range units bother you, you must REALLY hate Tiberian Sun, since that game was won or lost by the Nod Artillery (And the GDI Juggernaut was a pathetic pale imitation of the Nod Artillery's fury)
|
I left my quote in there because you misread it. Re-read what I said about the long range units in previous C&C games compared to long range units in Generals.
To summerize, I said long range units are good because they prevent a player from turtling in their base all game long. The way they did it in games prior to Generals (as well as in the two games after generals) were the best ways, imo, to implement long range units. The way Generals did it was game breaking.
Why should they bother making it possible to defend stationary areas (and I'm not just talking about defensive structures) when basically the simplest unit can just out range them and defeat the entire purpose of the stationary defense?
It removes a lot of strategy from the strategy game.
Also, on a side note, I'm not looking for the game to play itself, I'm looking to make sure my troops have a brain.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
"Fictional war, some things happen, game over" is a summery of every C&C game. When you dismiss the entire plot with the words "thing happen", you can't complain.
|
That's not what I mean. When I said "things happen" I was referring to the idea that generic events happen. It's not like chapters in a story or creative fictional realm. It's "Do this, do that, game over." No real plot other than "destroy the enemies!"
And even if you want to argue that it is still a story/plot, it's definitely not a good one. It's all face value.. no depth what-so-ever.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
I'm not sure what you mean about Eva. She fills the same role she has in every C&C game. There's nothing different about Eva in Generals and Eva in any other C&C.
|
That's exactly what I'm getting at. It was very apparent that the only reason why the name "Eva" was in Generals was because it was in Tiberium and Red Alert. "Tacked on" is the feeling I got when I saw it.
If they wanted to make a cameo for Eva, they should of done it more creatively... or at least give some background on her...
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
What more do you need? There are much flimsier excuses for factions. The GDI are the assumed nondescript good guys. The Soviets in Red Alert are generic steroticapal russians. The Terrans in StarCraft are just "the humans". This is the way RTSes work. Why blame Generals for it?
|
There is no depth! In Generals, the factions are what they are because they are. In Tiberium, GDI and Nod have a rich back story to fall back on and give a greater meaning in the story. In Red Alert, the factions there are creatively designed and, as well, are immersed in a well thought out back story.
In Generals, the factions are what they are. There is no reasoning for them to be interesting or likable. They are just thrown into the game and pinned against each other. The same could have been done with any other 3 nations in the world and Generals would have turned out exactly the same.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]The US was too high and mighty, the GLA was just a big "Lol we're terrorists!" cliche, and China was just.. well they were just "there."
|
You're reading too much into something that isn't there.
|
Depth? You're right, there is none... how could I have been so stupid?
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
Infantry are slow. This shouldn't be a surprise to you
I would assert that Generals is fairly fast. With the rise in air power and superweapons, the deciding moments in battles goes by faster than before.
|
Actually, I think that point was more of my fault for not remembering the actual game over the demo. The units in the demo were so slow it's hard to forget. (That goes for infantry as well as vehicles.)
Also, I'm not actually talking about game pace, but the pace the units themselves moved at, which, like I said, I think I'm confusing it with what I remember from the demo... so that's my bad.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
See my diatribe on opinions at the beginning of this post. It's fine that you prefer one to the other, but you're not saying WHY you prefer one to the other.
|
I can try, but the thing is: I don't want to. Why? Because my reasoning for my own opinions change constantly. That, and you're just going to rebut it anyway. (Rebutting a preference is stupid, imo. That's like me arguing with you over your taste in music.)
If I had to make a single generalization for why I prefer the MCV system it's because I think it's unique to the C&C franchise. It isn't about mimicking realism, but it's about having fun. I find the MCV system is more fun when compared to the dozer system. Each have their own pluses and negatives, but it's just more fun one way over the other.
..I really don't see a reason to go any further than that in terms of reasoning because it will continue a senseless debate. Why do I think it's more fun? I don't really know, tbh. You can pick at that if you want. But all I know is that after playing both ways for each style of game, I prefer the MCV to the dozer (or whatever you call it).
Perhaps is a reasoning of being bias? If C&C Generals was just Generals, I probably wouldn't make it a point about the dozer system.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
The control bar at the bottom took up very little of the screen, and it isn't the first C&C to have a bar at the bottom (RA2 was) And yes, you could hide it at-will, so this is a non-issue of a complaint.
|
In RA2 they had buttons on the bottom of the screen, yes, but you didn't control the entire game from there. And most of the options on the bottom of the screen where visual representations for hotkeys.
The reason why I like the old style side bar is because it's its own portion of the screen and not an overlapping control panel. And it took up a much, much lesser portion of the screen for that matter. The control bar just looked annoying. If they maybe got rid of a lot of the useless garbage in its graphics and just showed the important info, then it wouldn't be so bad.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
However, overall, my biggest reason for not liking the game is simply because of the setting. I don't like its setting. It just seems lame. They should have put more thought into it.
I get the same feeling for old-school settings.. like WWI or II games, for example. I'm not much of a fan of Call of Duty 1-3 simply because the setting just feels lame.
|
What?! You say they haven't put enough thought into the setting when you like WWII games? WWII games are so ridiculously overdone that I can't take this complaint seriously at all.
|
I'm leaving my quote there because you completely misread it.
I said I DIDN'T like WWII games because there setting just seems lame to me.
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #395740 is a reply to message #395731] |
Mon, 20 July 2009 20:00 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Starbuck wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 00:19 |
I sense a...
|
LOL!! Fuckin' saved! Thank you sir. 
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 |
Surprisingly, as most of the time when you put forward points, you do them very well. This time, however, you seem to have misread a lot of what I said.
|
I'll chose to ignore the "surprisingly".
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 |
No, I'm referring to the art detail between infantry vs vehicles vs flora vs structures, ect. Not simply between factions, because that's an obvious "Duuhhhh!!!" More or less within the same faction.
|
I'll admit, the infantry in Generals were pretty ugly, but that's why you don't zoom in to the max to look at them. Still, I don't think there's a bad of a problem as you say there is.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 |
I'm not conjecting about the wind. I was merely being dramatic. I'm commenting on the tree animations. Why do the trees dance? Even the seemingly heavily rooted hard-wood trees.
|
I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. Aside from palm trees (Where it's pretty expected), the only "dancing trees" I've seen are the one's "getting down" after getting run over.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]-Extended reach units.
This, to you, might fall under the "L2RTS" category, however I don't think so. In C&C games prior to Generals, there was always an artillery type unit that was able to hit you from afar and require you to go into action to take it out. Those units never bothered me because it forced you to actually play rather than sit and watch the game play itself.
However, in Generals, I can't really explain why, but the units with the long ranges just pissed me off. Perhaps because there was either a crap load of them (either that or the defense range was small in comparison to the firing range of other units), or the long-range units were cheap and spammable. (The Rocket buggy-thing for the GLA is a good example of what I'm getting at.)
It's one thing to uproot a player so they don't spend the entire match turtling in their base... but it's another thing to make stationary defenses completely useless.
|
You're absolutely right. L2RTS. Large-scale turtling of any sort in any game is always discouraged, because the more cash you sink into making Telsa Coils or Patriot Missles or Gattling Guns, the less you're spending on your economy or your army. You'll never win a game by defending to death.
You mentioned the Rocket Buggy in particular. It's true that it has a long range, good damage, and great speed. That said, it's made of glass, and it only takes an air strike or two to wipe out even a large group of them. They also get raped by Crusaders and other point-defense laser units, since all rocket-based units can't touch them. Everything has a counter, and the rocket buggies are no exception. You're just trying to counter them with the wrong thing (Static defense). L2RTS.
Also, if long-range units bother you, you must REALLY hate Tiberian Sun, since that game was won or lost by the Nod Artillery (And the GDI Juggernaut was a pathetic pale imitation of the Nod Artillery's fury)
|
I left my quote in there because you misread it. Re-read what I said about the long range units in previous C&C games compared to long range units in Generals.
To summerize, I said long range units are good because they prevent a player from turtling in their base all game long. The way they did it in games prior to Generals (as well as in the two games after generals) were the best ways, imo, to implement long range units. The way Generals did it was game breaking.
Why should they bother making it possible to defend stationary areas (and I'm not just talking about defensive structures) when basically the simplest unit can just out range them and defeat the entire purpose of the stationary defense?
It removes a lot of strategy from the strategy game.
Also, on a side note, I'm not looking for the game to play itself, I'm looking to make sure my troops have a brain.
|
I don't see the difference between how it was done in Generals and how it was done in previous games. Artillery-type units in Generals are nowhere near as gamebreaking as the Nod Artillery in Tiberian Sun. Note that Tomahawk missles and SCUDs can be stopped with simple anti-air defense (lol wtf), rocket buggies can be intercepted by point-defense, and the Chinese artillery units are either fairly ineffective (Inferno cannon) or a huge investment that moves like a fucking snail making it an easy target (Nuke Cannon). Compare that to Nod's Artillery. Cheap, fast (When not deployed, and it even deploys/undeploys very fast), ridiculous range two to three times the range of the runner up, and you can't even stop the damn things with the FireStorm wall tiles. How can you call this a good implementation and call Artillery in Generals game-breaking?
I stand by my previous statement. L2RTS. You're putting way too much emphesis on defense, when it simply doesn't do you that much good, no matter what game you're playing. I want you to note that in the Professional StarCraft scene, Terran Bunkers are built in the enemy base more often than they're built in your own base. This is because the best of the best know that you can't take the firepower in your base on the offensive with you if you build static defense.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 |
That's not what I mean. When I said "things happen" I was referring to the idea that generic events happen. It's not like chapters in a story or creative fictional realm. It's "Do this, do that, game over." No real plot other than "destroy the enemies!"
And even if you want to argue that it is still a story/plot, it's definitely not a good one. It's all face value.. no depth what-so-ever.
|
I'm not saying the story in Generals was good. I'm saying it's not much worse than those in any other C&C game. No C&C game has a good backstory besides the sequels (Because they have the story of their prequels to build on), and even then you have some abomination backstories (RA2's and RA3's backstory of "LOL THAT NEVER HAPPENED!! MIND CONTROL!! SQUIDS!!"). I agree with you they could have put more thought into the story, but I can't agree with going on and on about it when there's RA2 and RA3 out there which are much, much, much worse.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 |
That's exactly what I'm getting at. It was very apparent that the only reason why the name "Eva" was in Generals was because it was in Tiberium and Red Alert. "Tacked on" is the feeling I got when I saw it.
If they wanted to make a cameo for Eva, they should of done it more creatively... or at least give some background on her...
|
You're missing my point. She's "tacked on" in EVERY C&C game. In RA2 she's just "That helper bitch that tells me what to do". In Tiberian Sun she's just "That voice that isn't CABAL (SILOS NEEDED)". In Renegade she's "The option screen". She has mp real background in any C&C game. And that's because she doesn't need one. She's there to fill a role (Prevent the player from getting confused), and she does that just fine.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 |
There is no depth! In Generals, the factions are what they are because they are. In Tiberium, GDI and Nod have a rich back story to fall back on and give a greater meaning in the story. In Red Alert, the factions there are creatively designed and, as well, are immersed in a well thought out back story.
In Generals, the factions are what they are. There is no reasoning for them to be interesting or likable. They are just thrown into the game and pinned against each other. The same could have been done with any other 3 nations in the world and Generals would have turned out exactly the same.
|
Nod's backstory in Tiberian Dawn can be summed up with by this little guy:| Quoted so black text is readable |
|
And every Tiberium Universe game only builds on that, and in each Nod is refered to with words like "Shadowy" and Kane is refered to with words like "Mysterious". It isn't until the upcoming C&C 4 that we're actually going to get some details. Face it, we the community know next to nothing about Kane's motives, or what his plans actually are. Even games that are supposed to provide more insight like Kane's Wrath left me more confused and raised more questions than it answered.
In Red Alert 1, the backstory is identical to that of Generals, with the exception that the premise is "Hitler never happened", instead of "twenty years in the future". The countries are just there, and rely on the player's understanding of history/current events to fill in the gaps.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
[color=red]The US was too high and mighty, the GLA was just a big "Lol we're terrorists!" cliche, and China was just.. well they were just "there."
|
You're reading too much into something that isn't there.
|
Depth? You're right, there is none... how could I have been so stupid?
|
HAR HAR.
I was refering to the stereotypes you were presenting. Each side is presented as adequately positive when playing their campaign and adequately evil when you're facing them as an enemy. It's the same in the Tiberian Universe. GDI holds themselves to be the vangaurd of civilization and see Nod as dangerous terrorists. Nod sees themselves as a liberation front (A global one, at that) and see's GDI as oppressive imperialists. SOUND FAMILIAR?!
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
See my diatribe on opinions at the beginning of this post. It's fine that you prefer one to the other, but you're not saying WHY you prefer one to the other.
|
I can try, but the thing is: I don't want to. Why? Because my reasoning for my own opinions change constantly. That, and you're just going to rebut it anyway. (Rebutting a preference is stupid, imo. That's like me arguing with you over your taste in music.)
If I had to make a single generalization for why I prefer the MCV system it's because I think it's unique to the C&C franchise. It isn't about mimicking realism, but it's about having fun. I find the MCV system is more fun when compared to the dozer system. Each have their own pluses and negatives, but it's just more fun one way over the other.
..I really don't see a reason to go any further than that in terms of reasoning because it will continue a senseless debate. Why do I think it's more fun? I don't really know, tbh. You can pick at that if you want. But all I know is that after playing both ways for each style of game, I prefer the MCV to the dozer (or whatever you call it).
Perhaps is a reasoning of being bias? If C&C Generals was just Generals, I probably wouldn't make it a point about the dozer system.
|
You're making an assertion without giving it any support at all, and you admit to it. I suggest you quit bringing it up if you can't offer up anything more substantial than "this is just the way I feel".
But while we're on this topic, let's explore some of the positives/negatives of each system:
Positives of the MCV system:
- "Unique" to the C&C franchise (Even though it's a carry-over from the Dune franchise)
- Was somewhat fixed with C&C 3
Negatives of the MCV system:
- Structures appear on the battlefield unrealistically and stupidly fast
- Limited benefit and no incentive to build multiple unit-producing structures (Up until C&C 3)
- Makes expansion expensive and unwieldy (Until C&C 3, sort of)
- The inability to devote resources to fast-structure production (Until C&C 3, but even then it's still slower than what's capable in non-MCV games)
- Carries with it the global "repair" and "sell" commands, which are not only unrealistic but unbalanced.
- Units lack "abilities" in the sense that they are present in WarCraft, StarCraft, Age of Empires, Sins of a Solar Empire, basically any other RTS and even some TBS (Turn based strategy). This isn't because the game designers lack imagination, but because unless they are a one-trick pony like the MCV, there's just no place to put such a command (Until C&C 3)
No doubt C&C 3 did a lot to fix the sidebar system, but I would argue that even in it's updated form it's still inferior to the peon system and the only reason it was reinstated is because fanbois loooove it so much and bitched until they got it.
Positives of the Peon system:
- The ability to build anything anywhere so long as you control the map well enough to keep your worker alive (A boon to strategy)
- Obviously works well, since it's the industry standard.
- Realistic and balanced use of commands like "repair" and "sell" (that is, you have to have someone actually doing the work)
- Expansion is handled well
- Structures appear on the map at a more realistic and balanced pace.
Negatives of the Peon system:
- ...? Feel free to add your own. I can't think of any. Seriously.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
The control bar at the bottom took up very little of the screen, and it isn't the first C&C to have a bar at the bottom (RA2 was) And yes, you could hide it at-will, so this is a non-issue of a complaint.
|
In RA2 they had buttons on the bottom of the screen, yes, but you didn't control the entire game from there. And most of the options on the bottom of the screen where visual representations for hotkeys.
The reason why I like the old style side bar is because it's its own portion of the screen and not an overlapping control panel. And it took up a much, much lesser portion of the screen for that matter. The control bar just looked annoying. If they maybe got rid of a lot of the useless garbage in its graphics and just showed the important info, then it wouldn't be so bad.
|
It doesn't take up much more room in Generals than it does in any other C&C game. You're imagining it. And like I said, you can hide it.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 |
However, overall, my biggest reason for not liking the game is simply because of the setting. I don't like its setting. It just seems lame. They should have put more thought into it.
I get the same feeling for old-school settings.. like WWI or II games, for example. I'm not much of a fan of Call of Duty 1-3 simply because the setting just feels lame.
|
What?! You say they haven't put enough thought into the setting when you like WWII games? WWII games are so ridiculously overdone that I can't take this complaint seriously at all.
|
I'm leaving my quote there because you completely misread it.
I said I DIDN'T like WWII games because there setting just seems lame to me.
|
Oh shit. You're right. I completely misread that. My bad, and we can come to an agreement here, then. (Although I genuinely liked Call of Duty 1, because it did what it does very very well, and much better than say the Medal of Honor series, but that's neither here nor there)
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Mon, 20 July 2009 21:10] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #395741 is a reply to message #394552] |
Mon, 20 July 2009 20:50 |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
People can argue about Generals sucking until they're blue in the face, but from a marketing and sales point of view, it was very successful. For one thing, it was created relatively recently after 9/11. Another thing is that it has a believable world, as opposed to the 'Tiberian Universe' and the Red Alert 2/3 one, which quite a few people regard as rather 'nutty.' This new setting allowed C&C to reach a mass audience made it one of the best selling games in '03.
The game itself rated very highly too, so obviously EA made a very smart move. Plus, it likely brought people into the C&C fold that may have not been interested in the other two universes previously.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
[Updated on: Mon, 20 July 2009 20:51] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 28 01:54:34 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01334 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
