Saracen

The partial image is the concept art for the Chrono tank... originally left out of the original game because of balance reasons... EA have obviously come up with successful counters to this weapon for the other factions. Then the C&C franchise would have evolved by now, and we would probably be on the verge of World Peace. Other similar reasons have unfortunately been censored for my benefit! I have to admit though that quote would make a damn fine separate topic lol.

I wish that were possible right now. It will be a short while yet before you see me bust out Sigs as a Staff member on other gaming fansites. As it stands I've had to drop my membership commitments around the Frontlines, Civilization, Petroglyph (even though I had ages ago), and Rockstar communities I've also been a part of under somewhat different names though. I have joined one new community yesterday though. Although as it stands, it's only to keep track of the news on particular upcoming title. We'll see what happens when the offline commitments balance out a little more.

That's all it is though is novelty, nothing more, nothing less... and it wears off and wears thin very quickly. The factions in UaW was all that was innovative. The rest was just a mediocre mess. It's fun to play through perhaps once with a few MP games, but that's it. It deserves its place in the Bargin bins across the planet, cos what you pay for is for all it's worth. Sure, hands up to them, they tried to make something of it, they can be applauded for that. But that doesn't take away the fact that everything but the factions were plain awful. Self aware they may be... but typically corporate that they are, they'll never even attempt to make something of their games other than what's already there. Where's the harm in trying to be better? Sure they may not match other heavyweights, but what's the harm in giving it a go at least. Dawn of War was really the first game to get territorial expansion right and reward the player accordingly. It didn't require huge armies to get the job done either... also another bar they raised higher. Games like Z and Steel Soldiers tried, but failed... but DoW managed to raise the bar for those particular game mechanics. This is why it's better than the sum of its parts, purely because it took previously failed concepts and corrected them accordingly. The short campaign and such didn't matter, the game was still fun, and the Multiplayer was damn solid because of the said mechanics. That's what made it a great game. It's necessary these days to be. If I was as critical now as I was 5 years ago, I'd be banned from here on a permanent basis. There is no room for Criticism of any kind these days in this community. It can't happen anyway without having EA or other people jumping on my back.... I'm sick and tired of not being able to express my opinions forthright even though I have the god-given right to. It's almost like this community as a whole has been conditioned into being smiley happy people who worship the ground EALA walk on. I'm sorry, but I cannot be like that any more. It's not like I'm shouting EA sucks, or lead developer X is a retard. So why attempt to complain at me when all I'm saying is that the "do everything by the book" and "follow the yellow brick road" mentality of the studio is unfortunately commonplace. I want to see what these people are truly capable of rather than what was done an X number of years ago when EA had the balls to do such things. In a FPS game for example. Are you going to use the bigger gun that potentially can do better damage and get you through the game to completion? Or are you gonna stick with the peashooter that was given to you when you started the game? Similar concept really... but EALA have been firing off their Pea-shooters since the SAGE engine was developed. They have the guns, and they have the ammo... so why the hell aren't they attempting to use it!?

No I applaud it because I welcome it. I like different things in gaming that are willing to push the envelope. Most games don't do that. Why not? If Demigod manages to work, and does everything well then it's one of those diamonds in the rough. It takes a particular game to raise the bar in a genre. You've got to give more credit to developers who are more willing take risks than those who conform to their comfort zones... So what if they're rubbish, at least they tried. You mentioned "charades for reviewers and marketing managers to convince half-wits and have something to babble about"... how is EALA any different in this respect... it's all textbook stuff which we've heard before, put out of context for a game that hasn't changed in almost 14 years. It's my right to criticise EALA for doing nothing new with Westwood's stale franchise. Let's see, C&C has 7 RTS titles and 7 expansions to it's name. The others are on their 2nd title only. For 14 years it's been the same old stuff and there's been no real evolution from Westwood or EALA in that time. I'd argue that both Relic and Blizzard do not need to change their formulas, as both their new IPs scored magnificently well and both offered more than other RTS games during their time. C&C 3 only scored highly cos we were C&C dehydrated, and was glad to see it. RA3 has been a mixed bag purely because of the aforementioned points. Sure if DoW2 or Starcraft 2 are complained at for not being different enough from their predecessors then I'll quite happily admit that they probably got something wrong. But they are at the stage where their franchises aren't broke, so why fix it? C&C on the other hand has had enough releases to start asking critical questions... sure many people say the formula ain't broke... but I on the other hand think it's rather tired and worn out like Christmas is expensive and unexciting to most adults. C&C needs something new added to it. It's like drinking black coffee all you're life and not being able to try it with milk or sugar, it's gonna get boring. I was never that excited about RA3. As I've said to some people on MSN, I do all this happy excited stuff so I don't get my head ripped off for being critical regardless if it's constructive or not. If you read my review through again of RA3 you'll find I focus mainly on the bad points.... then for the sake of not justifying the 74% mark I wanted to give it, I thought I'd change gear and be a little positive.... most people thought the score was too high. Probably cos I tried too hard to be enthusiastic about the whole thing.

Such a thing is no different from EALA's so-called "innovation" in RA3. That game had about as much innovation as C&C 3 did. I mean the original Starcraft was doing secondary abilities for most units, and that was 10 years before RA3! Yet, we all seemed to have loved RA3 in some form of another. But it was a charade none the less. All this innovation was taken from other RTS titles. Earth 2140 first and foremost, with a sprinkle of other ideas from other games. I for one am glad they're taking out features. RPG elements work well in RTS games because the genre's are so much alike anyway. All power to Relic for changing direction, to test the water, and take a big risk for the franchise by making it different from the original DOW. I wish EALA would do something like that with C&C. Is that a bad thing? I don't think it is. Well done, you've accurately described the C&C Franchise for the last decade. Seriously though, you may consider it mediocre. But at least it's not doing a C&C by being the exact same game with a few cosmetic changes. There's an irony here. You're quick to play down any RTS that doesn't conform to the way you want it to work. I'm not saying you have to like DoW2 or Starcraft or any other RTS. But what does make me laugh is that I can rip the C&C franchise to shreds, and you'll defend it until the cows come home. What makes C&C so special? It is afterall "a disgustingly hyped pile of mediocrity" just like most other games in the RTS genre. If I was ever to be invited to EALA again (which I won't anyway)... I would turn it down very quickly. This is because I'll go there, be told (like twice before) that the engine has been 60-80% rewritten for this game, the designers and programmers have worked hard to bring a fresh experience etc.... It's all textbook bull****! All this before going into the auditorium to see a GUI change, and some reskinned units etc... To be honest I do not see the point in community summits, they are a waste of time and money. Money which could have gone into that extra concept and design time to make the game more original. EALA should only call the community to Playa Vista when they've got something worth showing off.... Not a 3D version of the 1995 classic every damn time! Anyway.....The real question these days is more about the quality of the product. If that can go alongside real changes, for example, removing core elements of the RTS for something different, then I'm all for it. Why should a franchise stick to what it's predecessors have done. Sure Dawn Of War 2 might be crap, but at least it tried!

That's the thing I love about my current dual core PC, I've had it 2 years now and it's still nowhere being out-dated. Ok, I've done a couple of Graphics card upgrades since I've got it... But it's so much easier on the pocket now than it was in the single core days. If technology was able to keep threading a single core to ever more faster speeds, I'd have to buy another PC this year! Proof really that the new i7 is a waste of money unless your PC is old, and you're buying a rig anyway. I do need a new mobo actually... For some retarded reason my current one has a 2GB DDR2 Limit on it... and considering I only have 2 sticks of DDR2-533 RAM, the clock speed on it sucks with only 4200MB/S peak transfer. With a new board I'd jump at the chance to get 4GB worth of DDR3-1600 RAM inside. With a solid 200MHz Clock and a 12800 MB/s peak transfer.

snake eater bored the hell outta me. The whole jungle thing, and the fact it was big boss you were controlling and not the real snake bothered me some. The again I said that in July. But MGS4 wasn't too bad. As a cinematic experience anyway. It did deliver the story tie ups and answered questions, so it was enjoyable in that respect.

Variety is the spice of life hagren. If the industry was to stick with the concepts that you believe to be of an RTS nature, the genre will never move forward. In fact that's half the problem today really. There's too much "staple" crap in the genre which prevents innovative steps forward.

It's the lack longevity in the modern titles. If the quality isn't there, people will play it and then move on. Plus with the 3 other RTS heavyweights (DoW2, SupCom 2 & Starcraft 2) on the horizon, there's better quality titles to be had in 2009. Also, the Console RTS games such as Halo Wars and Stormrise may join the ranks alongside Endwar as being great next gen RTS titles. With so much possible choice this year, C&C is nothing more than a mid-range game these days.

At the beginning of 2008 I did a review on Burnout Paradise. The review still holds true. They've also patched in motorbikes and made a few very solid changes since... so really after you read that, the answer is still... yes.

To be frank though, at least cars outside the USA don't look like boxes. There seems to be no design innovation or care for aerodynamics state-side. Plus with your behemoth engines chucking out extremely low MPG, I'm surprised there is very little passion or pride from your car industry. There's only 4 decent modern cars (post 50's) to ever come out of the states, and they are the Dodge Charger (Purely classic), Dodge Viper (with emphasis on the most recent model), Chevrolet Corvette (older models), and the Ford GT... The rest unfortunately, appear to have no real edge compared to the rest of the world. Trust me, I've been to the states many times, and I wouldn't even attempt to sit in half the native scrap metal you guys drive over there. For the so-called richest nation on earth, your car industry has a lot to answer for.

Ford Fiestas are good little cars. You probably would love this 2009 Fiesta. It looks good inside and out. Great interior trim, interesting range of colour options, and it does drive really smoothly. I took the 1.6 Diesel out on a test drive a few weeks ago and was surprisingly bowled over with how much an improvement it is over previous models. If I had the money, I probably would get myself one. Final word. The Toyota Prius is crap!

Small list of must haves: Metal Gear Solid 4 - (only buy if you've played the prequals on the other Playstations, or you'll be like WTF!?) Fallout 3 - Despite reviewers saying the PS3 version is more buggy than other versions, it's been patched Saints Row 2 - Funnier, more offensive, and actually more enjoyable than GTA4. Somewhat buggy right now, but a patch is coming. Others worth some serious consideration Midnight Club: Los Angeles - If you like arcade racers this is the game to go for. Not quite as good as Burnout Paradise (Check bargin bin for that) but it has more customisation... and it craps on the Need For Speed Franchise (which is truly pants!) Resistance 1 & 2 - This is the PS3's exclusive landmark FPS. It's fun, gritty, and the MP is suprisingly good! Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution - Not an exclusive title, but if you like Civilization, this is a must have. A little simpler than its PC counterpart, but still utterly engaging. Valkyria Chronicles - Petroglyph say they're creating an Action Strategy RPG genre. Here's a game (and several hundred before it) that's already done it. Although a turn based JRPG at heart, this PS3 exclusive is a superb sleeper hit and beside Civ is the best strategy title on the PS3 bar none. Warhawk - A purely online only third person shooter, this is the PS3's version of Battlefield, but just as good in my eyes.... it came out a long while ago, but still a benchmark title for the console. It's probably cheaper on PSN still than in the shops, so shop around for it. There are plenty more games about, but these are the titles I personally own, and are definite keepers for me. I've put Saints Row 2 down as a must have because I think it's better in some ways than GTA4. It has some great subtle humour, it laughs in the face of political correctness, and the missions don't ever feel like a chore. The mechanics aren't as solid and it's not as polished, and for some reason right now the game frigging crashes every single time I wanna save it... but providing the patch sorts it, the game is a must have, and is extremely fun to play!

I can hammer out around 49 with only a single spelling mistake just looking at the screen and not the keyboard at all. About another 8 or 9 less per minute if I take a glance at the keyboard lol. If the sentences made sense I probably could push up to beyond 60... but to be honest, anyone beyond 65-70 spends too much time at their PC.

Starcraft 2 is all about building large armies... but the main thing I see being a selling point in terms of Single player is High Level Strategy and Engaging Tactical Gameplay. In November's Roundtable (Question 3) I addressed there being 4 problems with C&C, and I would extend that to RTS in General. The first I outlined was 3 factions... OK Starcraft 2 has 3 factions, but I'm letting that slide. However there is a great Campaign Length and Story to come out of this, no crappy "Click-2-win" scenarios, and as I've already mentioned there's heaps of Strategy in this game. I don't care about flashy graphics, supreme innovation or fancy promises or hype. As I see it, the RTS genre needs to severely get back to some core basics, and develop these basics to the point of perfection. Once a game can truly define itself as a Real Time Strategy (Emphasis!!) game, build itself to a really high quality standard, and have the bar set high so it's a necessary staple in the genre.... that is when the genre can move forward with fancy physics, innovation and the like. When you look at C&C, is it really any different to anything out there? Does it boast a stunning campaign length and story? Does it offer deep, engaging strategy and thought? Is it developed and produced to the highest standard deemed possible with a heavy amount of polish and pride? Does it ****! Nothing against EA here, but it's really Westwood's fault for not attempting to raise the bar for the genre. Because the C&C franchise is seen as a flagship franchise in the Genre, most developers would rather follow in that game's footsteps rather than attempt to rival a franchise like Starcraft which has quality written all over it. It applies to anything really. C&C can be seen as basically made flat-pack furniture which you can pick up at Walmart/Argos or whatever. There's usually something wrong with it, and while it looks good and does the job, it's not going to be a memorable item of ownership many years down the road. Whereas I'd argue Starcraft to be more like a hand crafted, lovingly constructed, well made piece of furniture lovingly completed to a high standard by the best carpenters in the industry. Therefore I see it as ironic that a few of the best Westwood/EA talent, have actually quietly joined Blizzard over the years to work on Starcraft 2, rather than join Petroglyph, stay with EA etc.

OK, I suppose I better reel off my little collection: Fallout 3 (PS3) Midnight Club: Los Angeles (PS3) LittleBigPlanet (PS3) Saints Row 2 (PS3) Siren Blood Curse (PS3) Endwar (PSP) - (I Already have Endwar on my PS3, but this is a different game entirely!) Jeremy Clarkson's: For Crying out loud (The World According to Clarkson Volume 3) Two PS3 Pads Bottle of Whiskey Few Bottles of Wine Several cans of Strongbow Cider, Cans of Guinness etc. The Annual same old stocking stuff such as: Socks, T-Shirt, Chocolate , luxury pen set, really cheap casual PC games, money, and an outdated PC Gamer Magazine!

From my mechanical knowledge, it could be any of these: Timing belt incorrectly fitted or tensioned. Fuel filter choked. Fuel pump faulty, or delivery pressure low. Fuel tank vent blocked, or fuel pipes restricted Uneven or low cylinder compressions. Worn, faulty or incorrectly-gapped spark plugs. Vacuum leak at the carburetor, throttle body, inlet manifold, or associated hoses. Faulty carburetor. Fuel injection system fault. Clutch slipping. Air filter element clogged. Distributor cap cracked or tracking internally. Faulty ignition coil. Uneven or low cylinder compressions. Camshaft lobes worn. There's also a small possibility of oil being the factor, such as: Low oil level, or incorrect oil grade. Worn engine bearings and/or oil pump. Excessively high engine operating temperature. Oil pressure relief valve defective. Oil pick-up strainer clogged. So in conclusion, when engines have issues, they're a pain in the ass!

I watched the first of Blizzard's Battle Report series the other day, and I will say that there's something different about Starcraft 2 to the original. I'm not talking about a graphical or engine overhaul either. There is something in this game that makes it different from the others. The game (although in Alpha) already screams quality and polish. It shouts tight balance and it just says "play me"... The Irony here? I thought the Original Starcraft was pants... I didn't like it, and I didn't get why it was so good... Here however, it's changed, the gameplay appears to have evolved... These battle reports that are being released are just Multiplayer videos of developers slugging it out, while another couple of developers commentate and report on the action going on. "Sure" you may say "... this is what C&C's Battlecast system is all about!" But no! It's not.... C&C multiplayer matches are often very boring to watch, developer commentary on these matches are boring, dull, and watching 2 so-called "Pros" battle it out is almost sleep inducing. I said this on MSN to Kevin Yu (Blizzard's RTS Community Manager) the other day, and he laughed. The fact of the matter is, I found the 21 minutes of Starcraft 2 action extremely entertaining. It wasn't just that the commentary was better, or the fact these devs could play pretty well.... But the gameplay was extremely solid... I saw some real strategy and tactics being used.... The game wasn't about who could use the best build order, tech the fastest or who could spam like nuts.... The game seemed to require some brain power and the requirement to adapt faster (strategically) on the fly, and make it work.... in comparison to other RTS games. An early mistake wouldn't mean instant doom. There are opportunities to claw the game back using skillful planning, and much more..... I'm sure DD will say it was evident in the first game, but I could really notice it here. For someone who widely regarded this game as Starcraft 3D, and had no desire to even look at the game before. Those 21 minutes have sparked my attention, and have placed me in a positive stead for 2009. I've played catch-up listening to podcasts, gathering information about the game etc, and I do like what I see here. Blizzard do have a rather strong and interesting Marketing Approach, and the game isn't slammed in your face like C&C is by the EA Marketing machine. But I will say this.... Starcraft 2 is planning to do something differently... I can't tell what it is, but when the game comes out... it is going to have a sheer dominance over the competition.... and it's not because several million Koreans regard it as a religion either. Sure, this game will not revolutionise RTS games in my opinion. But it will actually reset the bar to its correct height. It will show that Quality will prevail heavily over short development cycles and half-assed attempts at cloning classics. The most important thing in my eyes though is that it will show that a 30+ mission campaign per faction is how RTS gaming should be done... packaged with plenty of strategy, quality gameplay, and Multiplayer that's actually worth playing/watching!

That was my initial impression.... As far as I was concerned Petro's interest in the community sites and their staff were non existent. So when it did come through, my reaction was simply "eh!?".... It didn't make sense??

It still might come, I got through this years card this morning. I was genuinely shocked that's for sure.

Zero Punctuation's Yahtzee (and his mates) branches out into a more interesting gaming show, rather than just reviewing.

Just a few that I know of: Demigod Starcraft 2 (or is it still premature) Dawn of War 2 Supreme Commander 2 (unlikely until 2010, but we'll see) I personally don't think we'll see a C&C in 2009. If we do then I'd argue that it's been thrust out the door too quickly. There are a couple of more titles, but I'm too ill to remember them

I raise you these:

"Uprising", how original. Regardless of who supposedly wins the war, am I the only one thinking it should be called "The Hoff Strikes Back!" RA3 did lack some of the humour that was supposed to be there, at least make amends and start from the title this time around.

OK, a little Christmas themed goodness here. The rules of this thread are simple. Pick up to 5 forum members who you would buy a present for. Name them, name their present, and why you would give them it. for example: It doesn't have to be in this format. But the only rule besides the above are that presents remain realistic... So no new supercars, or penthouses guys. Oh, and last of all, keep it clean. Be humorous if you wish, but you should know where the line is drawn. Have fun!