New Poll: What Will the Next C&C Game Be?

[Sonic 292]

Sometimes I always feel I let the polls we have here on CNCNZ.com run on to long so I've decided to set up a new one. For the new poll we want you to gaze into your crystal ball and predict what you think the next Command & Conquer will be. Are you going to go with C&C 4, maybe another Red Alert game, do EA dare make another Generals, or perhaps it will be something completely different like a C&C FPS or MMORPG. If your reading this news on the main page just look to your right and vote in the poll box, if your reading this via the forums click here to cast your vote. And, as always, don't forget to share any feedback or comments about this poll as well.

 

Now to the results of our previous poll, What do you like the most in RA3 Uprising? With 35% of the vote, the Commanders Challenge is the most favoured part of RA3 Uprising, closely followed by the Yuriko campaign. The full results of this poll can be found right here.

[Malevolence 6]

Finally a new poll. I was just wondering when you were going to change the last one. You should have included one more choice, a new C&C RTS game. I'll probably go for that. Logically speaking, Generals 2 should be a good choice for now.

[CnC-Fin 0]

I really hope it's Generals II. Not RA4, because we just got new Red Alert game with expansion pack. Not C&C4, because it's not long time ago when we got C&C3 and KW. New FPS game should come after Generals II

[Silverthorn 0]

Finally something new, well, I was supposed to vote for a BRAND NEW universe, but since you didn't include it in the poll, which is pretty sad for me. So then I vote for "C&C 4".

 

Woo, Generals 2 maybe ok for some, but I don't recommend reviving that universe especially since China banned the game, and I'm pretty sure if that comes out or even during development, the Chinese government probably ban the game immediately BEFORE the project even started. RA3 was fine because it wasn't based on real history compare to Generals, that's why it was ok and the removal of the nuke plus not mentioning the Hiroshima & Nagasaki names are painful sacrifices so the game can also be sold in Japan, thus without provoking their government authorities, so I'm ok of it while I cried over spilled milk (In this case, the nuke). But as for Generals 2, I fear it's a gamble but EA should reconsider this since it's a terrible mistake they made as well as it's still a disgrace to some C&C hardcore fans today, so, let's take a look and see what happens. If they decide to go for Generals 2, we will bring ideas to them FIRST so they will not screw up again with their typical schoolboy mistake by applying Generals 1's non-C&C gameplay systems.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Silverthorn

[Publix666 0]

Kinda hoping they do a FPS...i know Tiberium kinda tanked but seriously..i dont want to see another Generals...isnt even a real C&C...

[BioBen 3]

C&C FPS

I mean come on, you can't ignore the success of renegade and let the failed ren2 and tiberium get in the way.

Besides, I want it!

[Malevolence 6]

i dont want to see another Generals...isnt even a real C&C...

 

I was worrying someone would say that, particularly the Westwood fanboys. If EA makes Generals 2, lets hope that the only way they can save it is to relate the game play style to the original C&C series. Say sidebar. MCV of sorts, FMVs and decent singleplayer.

[Gben 20]

Well I *expect* C&C4, I *hope* for a FPS, and I would be *interested* in Gen2... of course I would be interested in the concept of a MMORTS where factional conflict is waged on a global scale with multiple players in a true 'war-sim' but i would be unlikely to be able to invest much time in it.

[Silverthorn 0]

I was worrying someone would say that, particularly the Westwood fanboys. If EA makes Generals 2, lets hope that the only way they can save it is to relate the game play style to the original C&C series. Say sidebar. MCV of sorts, FMVs and decent singleplayer.

 

I'm worried about that too, as a WW traditionalist, I said I don't recommend reviving that universe, I prefer a brand new one and hammer the last nail on General's coffin. But if EA wants to go for it, here's what are my basic ideas will be.

 

1. USA using the RA3 Allied system (MCV + Clearance)

2. China using the RA3 Soviet system (Build up structure + base creeping)

3. GLA using the RA3 Empire system (Worker carts as Nanocores)

4. FMV (Try to make it more Westwood style WITHOUT excessive use of news backgrounds, they're too boring & lame when used excessively)

5. CGI (Too lacking since RA3, most of them are wasted in RA3 1st Allied mission, it's a horrible mistake which EA should not have done that. And I do not care if CGI is expensive these days, if Westwood can spend a lot well in Tiberian Sun & RA2, why can't EA?)

6. Theater of War (Got a little tired with linear storylines, DO NOT repeat the same mistake since Tiberium Wars, Tiberian Sun's ToW is the best example you can refer, and I wonder, does EA play Tiberian Sun before?)

[Luk3us 63]

Generals 2.

[Malevolence 6]

I'm worried about that too, as a WW traditionalist, I said I don't recommend reviving that universe, I prefer a brand new one and hammer the last nail on General's coffin. But if EA wants to go for it, here's what are my basic ideas will be.

 

1. USA using the RA3 Allied system (MCV + Clearance)

2. China using the RA3 Soviet system (Build up structure + base creeping)

3. GLA using the RA3 Empire system (Worker carts as Nanocores)

 

Your suggestion of Generals 2 is purely a RA3 ripoff, this may cause a major uproar in the community because nobody wants to play the same thing again.

 

 

I wonder, does EA play Tiberian Sun before?

 

They played Tiberium Sun, which I have no idea what was that. :lol:

[Silverthorn 0]

Well, Mal, it is a ripoff alright, but what else can we use? Hopefully as long as the MCV system is back in use, because you know what will happen when a dozer suddenly show up, their uproar will be even more intense and dangerous than my ripoff idea. It's not the matter of Command your army & Conquer your enemies (Which Apoc said it, but to the hardcore WW fans, it's pure rubbish), C&C is all about MCVs, Conyards, sidebars, FMVs, etc..

 

As for TS, even if they played the game, how come they are so dumb to set things right, especially the Theater of War system is all wrongly done in Tiberium Wars. If you didn't play the game before, that's ok, if you have First Decade, then check it out. If you want only that game alone, very well, PM me to where to get it, I can't tell what, how or where to get it as the admins here enforcing piracy talks, those are all illegal and they don't like it. So, a PM is a PM. Sorry, buddy.

 

I wish I could explain the Theater of War system further, but I think TS has a lot of details you can look at. Here's what I can give.

 

Primary Mission : Take out Nod's huge missile launch facility

Secondary / Optional Mission A : Destroy supply lines to missile launch facility

Secondary / Optional Mission B : Cut off power lines to allow enemy missile launch facility to go offline for a period of time.

 

If you play the primary mission straight away, it's quite hard, once completed, the optional missions are skipped. But when you play the optional ones, then your primary one should be a lot easier.

Edited May 17, 2009 by Silverthorn

[Luk3us 63]

Generals is a dozer game. If you want MCVs go play Red Alert or Tiberium Wars.

[Silverthorn 0]

Generals is a dozer game. If you want MCVs go play Red Alert or Tiberium Wars.

 

Been there, done that.

 

Similar to other RTSes which uses the Dozer system, bottom bar, possibly unit selection limitations (Especially Starcraft & Warcraft which only selects 12 units), C&C is an exception! What EA done with Generals is a total disgrace and it'll NEVER be forgiven.

[Malevolence 6]

I'll bow down to the development team if they are able to come out something for a new C&C RTS that uses a totally new build system that was never seen before in C&C games and other RTSes.

[Silverthorn 0]

I highly doubt about that, as long as it stays pure C&C, then it'll be ok, at least RA3 was fine with the requirements of MCV, sidebar, FMV & CGI (Especially tons of it) were met, then it was ok. But Generals were none of these, that's why it was so disgraceful that the entire history of C&C is under huge shame which nobody can forget, even our future children will suddenly see this change, and it'll find it really embarrassing.

 

I may even worry for pure hardcore Generals fan too, who are huge fans of regular RTS instead of the original C&C (Which I assume, to be honest), if Generals 2 were to become as a new C&C content with MCVs, sidebars, etc.. instead of the regular bottom bar & dozer system. I bet they'll begin to flame and say "Hey, EA, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH OUR GENERALS! How dare you!". So, which side are we on? That's why I recommend EA not to revive that universe. I predict a flame such as I said just now will be very intensive and possibly a lot more dangerous than after Generals was released as a so called "C&C" but using under regular RTS systems.

Edited May 17, 2009 by Silverthorn

[ORCaLoVeR 0]

I'm hoping for a new C&C FPS

 

[Nmenth 289]

Well I *expect* C&C4, I *hope* for a FPS, and I would be *interested* in Gen2...

*Same*, *Same*, *Lame*.

 

If you want only that game alone, very well, PM me to where to get it, I can't tell what, how or where to get it as the admins here enforcing piracy talks, those are all illegal and they don't like it. So, a PM is a PM. Sorry, buddy.

Subtle...

[hagren 0]

Generals II and CnC4 are the most probable. I'd take either of those, even though Generals should perhaps loose the prefix and stay how it was, whilst my expectations for CnC4 may be too high. A CnC FPS wouldn't make much sense considering how much freaking money they lost with Tiberium. Hopefully we'll be saved from such monstrosities as MMOs, I want a real single-player game damn it, most favorably with co-commanders, lesser focus on base building/destruction, more on smaller troops, their abilities and updates, plus diverse music, maps and great scripts. Thus, similar to RA3 but more serious and polished.

[Mighty BOB! 4]

People seem to be throwing around the term MMORTS a lot in the community all of a sudden. I think the most probable game would be Generals 2 or something new. Although the name C&C Arena does sound like it could be an MMORTS sort of setting. We'll find out in the summer I guess.

[Malevolence 6]

Sonic can you just add in one more "Totally new C&C RTS" option in it?

[Sonic 292]

Once a poll has started I don't like add more options, especially after its been going for a couple of days.

 

Besides, C&C doesn't need fourth universe.

[Malevolence 6]

Besides, C&C doesn't need fourth universe.

 

What if EA intends to make a C&C in a whole new universe? And it comes true?

[Silverthorn 0]

What if EA intends to make a C&C in a whole new universe? And it comes true?

 

I highly doubt about that too, sure, EA may not need a 4th one, but who knows, after all, Generals already sparked too many controversies and they dare to go for it with Generals 2? I bet China will never allow it to be sold into market either, no matter if the content has been changed or not, especially they cannot forgive of what EA had provoked, the Tiananmen Square, Hong Kong Convention Centre & the 3 Gorges Dam. They'll ban Generals 2 BEFORE EA could even start it, after all, you may never know there is a Chinese who surf the net is also a Chinese government or politician in real life.

 

So I still prefer a brand new universe and seal the last nail onto Generals' coffin, like a 4th new one to replace the controversial 3rd universe.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Silverthorn

[ORCaLoVeR 0]

I agree on the above post

 

Generals sure was fun, but not really a C&C.I really enjoyed playing it(Even though the GLA was way to strong) but a sequel to Generals?nah thanks