C&C 4 Thread - C&C Paradise

so what do you guys think about the new game C&C 4? lets discuses it all here

First of all the worst thing EA could ever do, end the Tiberium storyline:devil:
I mean no more Gdi and Nod???
Thats like saying that there is no command and conquer:O:sick::thumbdown:
I hope the fans lash out to this, this Heresy!!:)

havoc_frost wrote: First of all the worst thing EA could ever do, end the Tiberium storyline :devil:
I mean no more Gdi and Nod???
Thats like saying that there is no command and conquer :O :sick: :thumbdown:
I hope the fans lash out to this, this Heresy!! :)

If you make spaces before emoticons you get the image instead of just text. Fixed**

Anyway there is obviously nothing good to come of EA making yet another C&C game, Tiberian Wars was lackluster, RA3 I can not give my full opinion on because I only played a crap ass demo for the PS3 (It looks like the full game is good though), Uprising and Kane's Wrath seem to fix a lot of what IS in fact broken, but still they are limited to the original game. When I played Generals I grew a disliking towards it, it is not C&C, it is stereotypical factions of the near future killing each other with some exaggerated technology and green clouds of a certain VIRUS. (Green clouds? What the Radish!?) And Nukes and whatnot, I only like Generals because... Well I still dislike Generals, Zero Hours pulls an EA by adding a ton of content that could have been there in the first place, making the first game obsolete, but to play the "good" one you have to get the crap one. [sarcasm] Thank you EA, for taking gamers' money since the 1980's. >.> [/sarcasm]

As for the other games Westwood clearly did way better, but when they made RA2 they did have some involvement with EA, which in my opinion made it better. The older games were slow, whilst that was understandable back in 1995/96/97 it became too slow in 1999, I did not like Tiberian Sun, the only Westwood C&C game I do not like. I like tanks, not walkers, walkers are stupid an impractical. In addition TS was a bit too serious IMO, but that was excusable as the Tiberian games are the serious ones and Red Alert is the less serious series. RA2 and Yuri's Revenge are my all time favourite C&C games, the combined the old, tried and true C&C gameplay with more refinement and faster pace, in addition to taking Red Alert's somewhat humourous style and shoveling some more of it onto the pile that is Red Alert. Renegade was a failure and disappointment to me, it was not true enough to the greatness that is Tiberian Dawn, or the EPIC awesomeness that is C&C, it was too short, and of course it just did not feel right. I felt like I was playing a generic FPS when I should feel like I am a GDI commando at ground level, rather than the commander commanding the commando. But NO, it is an FPS with troops in pajamas and a stereotypical attempt at a badass player character. Renegade = FAIL (All in my opinion though, some actually like it )

C&C4 will most likely disappoint everyone except for the n00bs, the n00bs will see it and think that it must be the greatest, but the fans will just grow their hatred larger towards EA. F*CK you EA, you can take your C&C4 and shove every copy up every one of your arses for all I care, I hope you lose your game building data in public beta stage. Or better yet I hope you hand the rights to C&C over to Petroglyph. Maybe they can screw it up less than EA.

Or even better, how about release the name as freeware, let the thousands of angry fans make their OWN C&C game and then you might have fewer people who refuse to buy your over-priced, rushed out of production crap ass games.

[/rant]

Renegade's strong point wasn't it's single-player; that WAS terrible and cheesy beyond belief. The multiplayer CnC mode was where the true gems of the game lay.

As far as CnC4 goes, I am on the fence. I can see where people don't like the the RPG progression (especially competitive MP gamers), but I don't really go online with cnc that much (I'm terrible at them ). What really bugs me is the always online as my ISP recently started doing global bandwith caps. I do NOT want to be using up bandwidth when I don't have to.

But it's waaay to early to make conclusions; it was just announced today.

Edited by: Lazy6pyro

Lazy6pyro wrote: Renegade's strong point wasn't it's single-player; that WAS terrible and cheesy beyond belief. The multiplayer CnC mode was where the true gems of the game lay.

And because of my crap ass ISP I miss out on that.

Edited by: sgtmyers88

sgtmyers88 wrote:

Uh oh... this is a joke... right?!

Ok... *sighs*

FOR THE RECORD: I wanted Generals 2 since the Generals series was new and different (sorta) and it had nothing before it to build off of like C&C3 and RA3 did. I guess I will have to continue my old school C&C game modding career after all because C&C is being raped and murdered... especially with this "dramatic conclusion" crap. I noticed they did not mention it as "exciting" because if they did I would have to challenge it by saying a "sobering conclusion" or "depressing conclusion" but it is apparently going to be those two things anyways...

C&C Fans and Modders I think it is time we all band together and start our own gaming company and continue to remake the classics on modern game engines for the new generations to enjoy while also developing better sequels so C&C will not be reduced to nothing more than MMORPG'S and video game spam ****! Who is with me!?!?!?! PEACE THROUGH POWER IN THE NAME OF KANE LETS SAVE OUR BELOVED C&C!!!

Sure, I can be the one who has no skills but supports the idea and everything behind it. Every team needs supporters.

Oh and I prefer GDI, Nod can shoot themselves in their feet with their Oblelisks for all I care.

sgtmyers88 wrote: C&C Fans and Modders I think it is time we all band together and start our own gaming company and continue to remake the classics on modern game engines for the new generations to enjoy while also developing better sequels so C&C will not be reduced to nothing more than MMORPG'S and video game spam ****! Who is with me!?!?!?! PEACE THROUGH POWER IN THE NAME OF KANE LETS SAVE OUR BELOVED C&C!!!

Agreed!! I'm with you! For fans, from fans, and by fans!

EDIT:

Wait, it is the end of tiberium STORYLINE right? not the end of tiberium UNIVERSE. (it's different)

and in another forum, CommanderJB said this:

CommanderJB wrote: Good grief...
I don't know who to be annoyed at most, frankly. There are quite a lot of candidates. The first one that jumps to mind is EA for failing to understand that making their old games redundant is not going to bring them maximum profit and continually releasing new ones off the production line, no matter the changes made to the line in the process, becomes tiresome. The second one that jumps to mind is the number of people in this thread who think that one solitary screenshot gives them an ability to talk about the propensity of unit types across an entire game which has been stated to include the greatest number of units of any C&C title. The third is those who categorically deny entire gameplay elements as being without value without having the faintest clue about how C&C 4 is going to implement it and call this copycat while failing to address any one of a number of features given in the press release.

Now, being introduced to C&C through Red Alert 2 and confirmed by Generals, I have absolutely no vested interest in the Tiberium universe whatsoever. I have little reason to get partisan on one opinion on the other, and most of my observations are wholly external. But I'm astonished about how people have found a hobby horse and run with that instead of bothering to discuss what are a raft of real innovations for Command & Conquer. The roles system is highly interesting, and from what I'm hearing it will be a major change to the C&C formula; the Crawler makes a damn sight more sense than any other RTS basing I've ever heard of, particularly for a desolate future world; the 'roleplay' character-progression elements are something players have never had before in the series; it'll have co-op play and campaigns; and a conclusion to the longest-running RTS story series in the business! How is this copycat?! Seriously, if there was anything I would've thought you'd be bashing it for then it would be changing the formula too much. I realise that you have every right to be turned into cynics by years of EA mediocrity, but completely ignoring most of the interesting things about a game in order to bash it is just poor form.

I will agree the graphics are unexciting at best. It does, as people have said, look remarkably similar to C&C3 and it will no doubt use yet another evolution of RNA. But seriously, from everything I've heard, that is a new engine compared to SAGE. Moreover, this will be an alpha! An alpha! Since when do graphics ever look decent in an alpha? Every game I can think of, with the singular exception of World in Conflict, changed its art style at some later point, looked unspectacular in its alphas and later astonished me with improvements (RA3, Supreme Commander), or used 'bullshots' and did the opposite. I don't think there's much chance that's a 'bullshot'. I'm not saying it will be a major graphical upgrade for the series - no doubt it won't - but you can't say with certainty that the final product will look just the same as the old one.

As for modding, I'll give you that one - I think they should wait at least three years after the release of a previous game in a series to announce a sequel if they have any intention of seeing a community develop. If they'd released a half-arsed Generals II in 2005, would we have any of the awesome mods we have for Zero Hour? Of course not. However, with the increasing sophistication of games, required modding skill levels are naturally going up, almost without exception. But EA are the Electronic Arts corporation - they are here to make money. I don't think they're going to apologise to anyone for doing that, so while we can hope that the business culture will improve, bashing them for attempting to make money does little to indicate a considered response.

Lastly, I'm glad this isn't Generals II. The more time we wait for Generals II the greater the likelihood it will be more than a conglomerated re-make of various other recent titles. Most of all, with the Tiberium series off their plates I very much hope that they'll be able to devote more resources to Generals II than they would have otherwise. <!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_666904-->

Maybe it's not bad at all.

Edited by: n5p29

Commander JB does have a point maybe we are jumping to conclusions about a game of which we have only seen one Alpha screenshot
The new gameplay features like the crawler does sound interesting and would make a more interesting game formula in skirmish and mulitiplayer
BUT if EA does not learn the lessons of CNC3 like the cutting of tiberium fauna/creatures and mutants as well as having a more serious approach when it comes to things like the State of the Planet itself and the seriousness of the actors stance towards tiberium then they are going to end up with a game with no appeal to fans.

Wow Ea: Extreme Ass failed and destoryed the greatest games yet again, they just cant learn from theyr fails, they fail, fail and fail agian and they will fail till they go down the shithole, like wtf is up with them? ther literaly destroying the whole game! liek wtf no base building? walker robots ( the worst theme for a game known to man ) For me they destroyed the best games, Ra with ra3, CnC Tw with CnC4 , Need for speed, hope they dont take over Valve, and destoy Generals ( which is by far the most awesome for me of all CnC's ), judging from the pics, SHIT SHIT SHIT FAILED SHIT, graphic look uber gay, looks like some ra2 port tanks look worthles, and everything looks so supreme comander type, with those huge robots and 3 box detail tanks, yet another fail by EA once more. I think joy myers and make new Cnc at its best, with the best stuff created, and create new epic stuff, now EA is just a money sucking company, Valve looks like turning into one to

EA fails at making cnc4, come on they were thinking about generals 2 till some dude in some country let the cat out of the bag so EA was force to stop with the ideas for generals 2 and work on cnc4. Valve will always be better than EA even if they are money whores just like EA.

EA, well, where to begin.

First of all, lets face it, they cant and never will be abble to make better RTS games than westwood, despite the fact that westwood was part of EA. There biggest mistake was removing westwood, because the new guys are crap. There games are made for profit, not entertainment, and they stink of it. Everywhere you look in an EA RTS you find cut corners, 'forgoten' codes, unused models and in the case of Zero Hour, unfinished games which still included the files.

IF zero hour had ever been completed it would of been a very good game, but EA dropped true cinematics, Didn't use half the models they created, and comletly watered down the game.

Tiberium wars was a complete failure, only people who never played the origionals have a chance of liking it, and even then you have to try, hard. Most of there models where 'unssatisfactury' and the amount of bugs was scarry. Plus the fact that no SDK was released for KW...

RA3 is such a bad game that the only reason I keep it and not burn it is because of the mods out there, in particular then ones on ModDB. The Models where crap, (although some textures where good in highest quality, like vindicator) the lighting was messed up and the sound was appaling compared to RA2. The game play was bad and there was very little fun involved in playing. Not to mention the fact that there are probably more patches for RA3 than C&C games.

So, C&C 4, hmmm. Actually the concept sounds really good, but then with EA it allways does, RA3, Tiberium wars and Kanes Wrath all sounded really promising, but they where really dissapointing. So I hold few hopes for this game.

Also I seriusly doubt this will be the last Tiberium game. There will be atleast 1 expansion pack, and I am expecting more.

So while I would love to, I can not believe that C&C4 will be as nearly as good as it makes out to be.