Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Saracen

Generation VeXed

23 posts in this topic

Just when you thought I was getting peachy with everything going on. I decided to write this article .... I must have some withdrawal symptoms or something cos I'm looking forward to your comments on this one!

 

So here's the link

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I can certaintly say as I did in a PM, that this should certaintly strike Controversy.

 

@At King, Brilliantly written. Us true gamers realize and understand this completely, yet, nobody has taken the time or effort to push it into someones face and explain the truth. That's right, to all of you reading it, you need to get this through your head that your 50 prism tanks are really nothing compared to my Boris, 3 teslas, and 7 grizzlys.

 

 

@ You "l33t" players, yes, "You suck." In reality, you are the problem. You are the sole reason for complaints in the C&C community. And god damn, you don't deserve to play. Using huge masses is just about as bad a hack for masses, it looks the same, it feels the same.

 

Hey, little boy, have you heard of a tesla tank? A demolition tank? Heck, a battle fortress? Oh! Yes, it's not just a reward in single player, you can actually BUILD these! Why don't you give it a try? Oh, no no no, don't worry about money, just wait, you'll get more, for ****'s sake!

 

 

@EA.

 

God damn... EA. How the **** could you? You were doing so well... SO F***CKING WELL. You finally got Nod out there, you finally showed the face of Kane... and now... 15-20 minutes of ****.

 

We don't have the articles, the sites, the features for our health. We design these games to keep it live. To keep it fresh, to keep some hope of a future... And what do you do? You ignore our pleas, you tell us we rant too much, jeez, I thought I was on your side...

 

I'm sorry, but soon, if you keep this **** up, there will be no more C&C. It will be a bunch of dumb**** teenagers who speak in nothing but bad grammar and insults. Is that what you want?

 

 

It's interesting, in a sense, we're fighting more OUTSIDE the gameplay. It's almost like the true battle is to get a good game, not to actually play it. Do you really want that?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pah. This is nothing. No RTS is safe from the "uberleet" menace. Every game I play online is full of these morons. Usually, I just deal with it, stop their assault and win with some sneaky way while they're busy massing Rhino Tanks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that article was mindless throughout, not just at the end.

 

The sad part is, I agree with you. Online play has changed quite a bit over the last few years, obviously. However, rather than giving a thorough analysis of why its changed, what the developers have done, and what you'd like to see in C&C 3, you instead chose to go on a horrible tangent with no real point, and insult the players and the developers.

 

The fact is, yes, the games are different. There are a number of factors contributing to this, none of which are analyzed well, if at all mentioned, by you. There are a number of specific things that should be done differently in C&C 3, though again, you fail to give any constructive suggestions, instead cursing at the developers. That'll help, I'm sure.

 

The point is, developers create gameplay; players try to innovate with the framework of the game. While this might, judging from your article, be far over your head, that's the nature of the beast. The article I would have liked to see, and maybe was expecting, would have examined what decisions by the developers allowed this trend toward shorter games, which no doubt exists, to permeate, and how the players responded to those decisions. That would have been the proper way to isolate the issue, and actually create a good discussion of the points that maybe EA would consider for C&C 3.

 

Again, I agree the trend exists, and I agree it's probably not something I love, despite playing online in all C&Cs on occasion. But your article was a horrible attempt at the issue, and while I'm sure you'll claim it was "opinionated" or whatnot, but the truth is, it was a piece without thought, a waste for all involved.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ya know, that's why I love Renegade :P

 

It really does suck though....playing 1:30 of ZH, just to get pwned by a few dozen raptors...get annoying....how about RTM[assing] instead of RTS :roll:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that article was mindless throughout, not just at the end.

 

blah blah blah

 

Since when has writing articles become a school homework assignment to which you are the teacher? I don't care if you are a content advisor for your own site, this is ours. I have a particular style of writing articles, if you don't like it, tough. I cut the bull of analising throughout this article because I wanted to. I write how I speak verbally and that's that.

 

As for insulting the players and the developers. Good, it was my intention, and I'm glad you picked up on it. I don't write about things not knowing the consequences. Hence what I typed on the main page:

 

It's time, for another one of those articles people. You know the one's I mean. The kind of article that gets down people's throats and causes debate and rebuttals from all over the community. Well I love it, so here we go!

 

Yes, I love it. I know there's gonna be backlash, I know there's gonna be people like you who will whinge at any given thing. I tell it like it is. Yes it is opinionated, yes it went of on the wrong tangent, but do you think I care? Do you think it bothers me what people think? No. I write the article, upload it and move on without giving a crap what happens.

 

End of story!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You angered zee King. Well, no, you didn't. You just assisted him in making a fool of yourself.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homework? Teacher? No, no, no. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this topic was for readers' comments on the article. I commented on it. If you weren't trying for any sort of intelligent article or analysis, but rather a mindless tirade that doesn't have any benefit to anyone, then that's fine by me. You're certainly entitled to write what you'd like. I just thought that someone who claims at pretty much every oppurtunity to be a veteran and caretaker of C&C might have higher goals. If all you wanted to get out of writing an article--not that you spent much time writing it--was a mindless unhelpful tirade, then I won't object. I misread your intentions. I thought you were trying to actually present something of value. Maybe you consider your article something worth your time writing, but I don't. That's my comment.

 

That's not a personal attack. It's a comment, in the thread designed for comments, on what you produced. Again, I agree with you about the change in online play. I'm just disappointed that instead of creating something of value, you opted for a rant that doesn't benefit anyone, and certainly won't bring about any change in C&C 3.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homework? Teacher? No, no, no. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this topic was for readers' comments on the article. I commented on it. If you weren't trying for any sort of intelligent article or analysis, but rather a mindless tirade that doesn't have any benefit to anyone, then that's fine by me. You're certainly entitled to write what you'd like. I just thought that someone who claims at pretty much every oppurtunity to be a veteran and caretaker of C&C might have higher goals. If all you wanted to get out of writing an article--not that you spent much time writing it--was a mindless unhelpful tirade, then I won't object. I misread your intentions. I thought you were trying to actually present something of value. Maybe you consider your article something worth your time writing, but I don't. That's my comment.

 

That's not a personal attack. It's a comment, in the thread designed for comments, on what you produced. Again, I agree with you about the change in online play. I'm just disappointed that instead of creating something of value, you opted for a rant that doesn't benefit anyone, and certainly won't bring about any change in C&C 3.

It was actually (for me anyway) refreshing, and in a way...relieving to read that article...it may not have been 100% proper format, etc....but that was not King's intent, and I don't think most of us really care :wink:
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just disappointed that instead of creating something of value, you opted for a rant that doesn't benefit anyone, and certainly won't bring about any change in C&C 3.

 

Oh, don't be so sure it won't help a change. King is one of the most respected advisors to the Community Manager of EA games there is out there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypno, I know who C&C King is, given that I was also involved with CNC 10 with him. However, I can't see, and I certainly hope I'm right, EA taking that as a rational argument.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No indeed Aaron said that was indeed not rational. But for some reason he wasn't (and hasn't been for months now) getting my messages expressing my concerns. So I had to publically display them. For some reaons direct attacks are the only way of getting attention from EA.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bravo king bravo. Theres a reason i dont play rts multiplayer much anymore unless its with someone i know. i used to get criticised even in skirmish for not crushing my enemy as soon as i could. much more fun engaging in little skirmishes in different places on the map.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me and Hypno had a couple of turtling games last night, and that was the most fun I had in ages. OK I lost both of em, but they were both stalemates. That was until Hypnotist in the first game with more RA2 online experience broke through once my cash reserves were out.

 

But the great thing about this game which brought back memories was the fun in trying to break through each others lines. Any massing that was done, was quashed, and the most effective strategies that caused the most damage were in fact surgical strikes.

 

My downfall was finding a Yuri MCV, although it caused me to have an upper hand for the best part of 10-15 minutes, it cost me an arm and a leg to get a Yuri base up and running.

 

Best moment in that game was using 3 Virus snipers against a hoard of about 50 GI's. A few kills caused a Domino effect wiping out most of em.

 

2nd game was a superweapon game. I used RA2's poorly coded Random Map Generator (TS: Firestorm's) was 100% more interesting. It ended up as a superweapon rush, and not much else. We both agreed that it was crap, since we played like everyone else out there. :P

 

But as I said, good fun! How games should be played.... Leave the damn player for half an hour, then attempt to do anything in your power to win! It's much more exciting that way. :wink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a barrel of fun. :P

 

You'd send your units over, and mine would basically obliterate them, then I'd see the advantage to send my remaining group of units, while your base was left undefended, but your damn base defences obliterated those :P

 

I was just trying to knock your power out. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to give you guys a different pov on this one.

But I'll get this outta the way first. I played the old rts games, dune2 was awesome and I loved it to death. But in my eyes generals was the greatest rts ever made, despite its horrific stability and netcode, better than c&c, wc3, etc etc. Everyone has an opinon and I'm sure no one here will agree with me on that one but there it is, fundamental difference right there.

Anyway.

My fav games are fps. I'll be very stereotypical here so you can see the difference in mentality. The concept of playing a simcity style game that I build up a huge army and send forth to wage battle.Very dull and very boring.

BUT

I'm not saying its wrong, I have much respect for that game style, theres no way my brain could manage 200 units while a base the size of a small city is still churning in the background. The planing and multitasking required for that is amazing.

So yea I have a fast action orientated brain designed for fps games which you shoot people and try not to shoot your team mates. Limited capacity yes. With the advantage of quick reflexes and decision making.

So what sort of rts game style would I like? Something that uses the brain in a similar way. This is where the rush style gameplay comes in. Personally I'd never call it rush style, because if its countered the game can go on just as long as the 10min nr games.

For me the idea of attacking someone quickly with say 5 units, then managing those 5 units to get the maximum performance out of them is my concept of a certain skill. The other guy will counter my units with his own, I'll maneuver the units and try to beat him. If it doesn't work the game continues, if it does I win.

Nothing to do with wanting the game over as soon as possible though.

 

Point is that I'm a completely different rts minset from you and while you don't appreciate my play style, I can appreciate yours.

So is "generation vexed" the problem? Or is it a generation of rts players that won't move forward and embrace game design and the play styles that go with it because "back in their day" it was never like this.

 

Without the variation in rts game play styles I think the community would be too small.

 

 

btw I think supreme commander will definately fill the void you guys currently feel.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, see, the problem is, here, you say, that with a base running, it's hard for you to multitask and pump out 200 units.

 

Problem with most players, is they completely abandon their base, and focus ONLY on their units.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to register and reply a week ago, but never recieved the activation email (it might have been blocked as spam), so finally I just re-registered with a different email, although if you can manually activate accounts I would prefer if I could use my originally intended account (name: Derek).

 

I'm going to breakdown the article with my responses. The first half of the article is history, so there is no point in commenting on it. The rest of the article is pretty redundant, so there are really only a couple of counterpoints I need to make.

 

I won’t bother you with the details of who they are, cos the product can be seen online right now. The 2nd Generation were new players (and most of todays community) who joined during Red Alert 2. The 3rd Generation (those who belong to the so-called hardcore and think C&C Generals and RTS Replays are the best invention since the wheel) are perhaps the worst offenders, and to be honest should be considered scum. They are a strange breed. They mass tanks and aircraft like there’s no tomorrow. They aim to finish a multiplayer game within 15-30 minutes and the worst thing about them. They Save the replay to show off to everyone who they destroyed and how they did it. Hell they even make sites these days just for replays so people’s show off fests can be rated, and Egos can raise through the roof! How friggin crazy is that!?

Here you start to get angry, but I'll ignore the blatent insults. First of all, you assume that the so called "3rd Generation" players are new to CNC. Here you are dead wrong, the average "3rd Generation" player has been playing CNC as long as anyone else, in fact, probably longer. Personally, I started playing with RA1, but have played all the games to date (although not all the expansions). Admittedly I never got heavily involved in multiplayer until Generals when I got a broadband connection, but I know what the games were like, and have a fair idea of the multiplayer.

 

Second, you state that they mass tanks and aircraft, while this may be true for RA2 where (from what I've picked up) the Tank Rush reigns supreme, it is so far from the truth in Zero Hour as to be utterly laughable. Indeed, it is not the least bit uncommon to play a game in ZH without seeing a single tank or aircraft, with the exception of China, the tanks are not the backbone of any army, being far to vulnerable to rocketmen, and aircraft, while effective, are expensive and weak to any AA. Zero Hour is a game where massing of any unit leads inevitably to defeat, units must be mixed and then controlled effectively to even begin to dream of victory, none-the-less acheive it. The strategic depth involved in this is quite frankly beyond your scope of comprehension unless you've actually had experience with it, which clearly you haven't.

 

Third, you claim that the "3rd Generation" tries to finish the game as soon as possible. Another ridiculous statement. The fact of the matter is, with the exception of a small handful of true rushes, the rest of the early game attacks are not actually rushes, but merely raids intended to hamper the enemies economy and base development. If this raid leads to your defeat, then in all honesty, you suck, and it would be better for me to finish you off so we can both stop wasting our time fighting mismatched opponents. A game between two players who know what they're doing is not one of trying to destroy each other's base as fast as possible, but one of hindering your opponent while advancing your own base. To this end, important factors become the protection of resources, gaining map control, and teching up, all the while trying to prevent your opponent from doing the same. A good game between average players will last between 10 and 15 minutes, but in that time you will be employing infinitely more strategy and having much more fun than in any no rush game of any length. A game between even more evenly matched players will last longer, I've seen a game last around two hours or more (although I wasn't timing) between two pros, and a game that good will never come from holding back.

 

Fourth, you say they save replays so that "Egos can raise through the roof" by posting them on website devoted to replays. This is a pretty thinly veiled referance to GameReplays.org. Perhaps you didn't realize then, that GR is devoted to showing people how to play well, and giving them entertaining replays, in fact, replays that explicitely show one person "owning" another are banned. While I'm sure that more than a few egos are stroke on that site, thats not the purpose of the site or the replays uploaded there. If you look you will find literally the best games of Generals and Zero Hour ever played, between the best of the best players. The addition of relays was perhaps the greatest addition to the CNC series from Generals, the ability to not only rewatch your favorite games, but also show them to others so they can learn how to play better themselves has revolutionized the CNC multiplayer community.

 

Other than modifications, multiplayer is supposed to extend a game’s life from 50 to an infinite percentage longer. So despite working on a kick-ass Single player campaign, how on earth is C&C 3 supposed to appeal to the majority of the masses when Multiplayer only keeps itself open to people who cannot satisfy their partners?

You're right that multiplayer is supposed to extend the life of a game far beyond the singleplayer, but you're suggestions would never do it. You speak about how great CNC multiplayer used to be, but have you ever wondered why it was so small compared to Warcraft and Starcraft, despite the games having comparable popularily? Its because the multiplayer that you liked so much sucked. It sucked hard. Up until Generals, CNC was a singleplayer only RTS for the vast majority of buyers, whereas the Blizzard games couple great singleplayers with unbelievable multiplayers, there are three TV channels devoted to Starcraft in Korea, and I can promise you they don't show people playing the campaigns. CNC never had anything like that. Thats why EA decided to shake things up for Generals, they looked at Warcraft and found parts of it that seemed to improve the multiplayer and they mixed these with the CNC style of play to create an all new RTS, with the great multiplayer of a Blizzard game and the style of classic CNC. Of course, as we all know, in the process the singleplayer took a hit, but for those who are patient and take the time to learn the multiplayer, it is quite possibly the best CNC game to date, I know for sure that I've spent more time playing multiplayer ZH than I have playing all other CNC games combined. With CNC3 EA is trying to make great multiplayer in a CNC package again, but this time they're sticking a bit closer to the CNC formula, which could possibly end up defeating the multiplayer, but only time will tell that.

 

What the f**k are you thinking about the 15-20 minute Multiplayer Timescale!! Seriously bad move guys. I can only laugh at you wasting your time, money and all other resources. The community will only continue to run away from Online play as long as the Online “Hardcore” community is your only target for Multiplayer!

And here you are wrong once again. A multiplayer community would be a shell without a hardcore base (hence the name, hardcore), and the only way to get a hardcore base is to have a deep, strategic, and diverse multiplayer experience, something which Zero Hour succeeded in finding, but no other CNC game before it, and your suggestions of slowing down the game and forcing players to play in your antiquated style would only put more bullets into the already crippled foot of CNC multiplayer.

 

I’m a part of the huge Generation Vexed, and I’m outta here!

I'm part of Generation "Three", and I'll see the rest of you in CNC3.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A multiplayer community would be a shell without a hardcore base (hence the name, hardcore)

So... what about the softcore base? :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, you state that they mass tanks and aircraft, while this may be true for RA2 where (from what I've picked up) the Tank Rush reigns supreme, it is so far from the truth in Zero Hour as to be utterly laughable. Indeed, it is not the least bit uncommon to play a game in ZH without seeing a single tank or aircraft, with the exception of China, the tanks are not the backbone of any army, being far to vulnerable to rocketmen, and aircraft, while effective, are expensive and weak to any AA. Zero Hour is a game where massing of any unit leads inevitably to defeat, units must be mixed and then controlled effectively to even begin to dream of victory, none-the-less acheive it. The strategic depth involved in this is quite frankly beyond your scope of comprehension unless you've actually had experience with it, which clearly you haven't.
You are correct in that massing ends in defeat, but you find me ONE game longer tha 10 min where there were no tanks/aircraft :wink:
Fourth, you say they save replays so that "Egos can raise through the roof" by posting them on website devoted to replays. This is a pretty thinly veiled referance to GameReplays.org. Perhaps you didn't realize then, that GR is devoted to showing people how to play well, and giving them entertaining replays, in fact, replays that explicitely show one person "owning" another are banned. While I'm sure that more than a few egos are stroke on that site, thats not the purpose of the site or the replays uploaded there. If you look you will find literally the best games of Generals and Zero Hour ever played, between the best of the best players. The addition of relays was perhaps the greatest addition to the CNC series from Generals, the ability to not only rewatch your favorite games, but also show them to others so they can learn how to play better themselves has revolutionized the CNC multiplayer community.
I have to agree with you on this one. Gamereplays is actually very helpful, and has quite a few useful replays.

 

 

I’m a part of the huge Generation Vexed, and I’m outta here!

I'm part of Generation "Three", and I'll see the rest of you in CNC3.

:lol: cute
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0