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

[Sonic 296]

Westwood had their own rendering setup so they could do their own CGI in house. EALA don't so it gets out sourced to an out side company, in the process becoming more expensive.

 

And don't forget they have to render the CGI in HD these days.

[Silverthorn 0]

Ooo, Sonic, you're surprising me, from the way I see it, it's UUUUUGGGGGLLLY! And got to face it, if EA doesn't have that rendering department and have to do it in HD, then I already get the picture. I thought I meant expensive means it's still affordable if they cut down on the celebrity people, but when you mention they outsource the whole thing including in HD size, definitely it's already crazy and will be a lot worse than my "expensive" word. More expensive than expensive.

[Nmenth 291]

EALA don't so it gets out sourced to an out side company, in the process becoming more expensive.

 

And don't forget they have to render the CGI in HD these days.

Eh... They can get rid of the celebrities anyway. Then buy some donuts. Or hire an artist to do a good box art. Or anything else really, hiring those actors is just a waste of money.

[hagren 0]

Why, TW's Kane Edition and RA3's Soviet cover looked nice! Uprising and regular TW on the other hand, not so much. KW is so-so.

[Silverthorn 0]

Eh... They can get rid of the celebrities anyway. Then buy some donuts. Or hire an artist to do a good box art. Or anything else really, hiring those actors is just a waste of money.

 

Now that is more like it, especially I'm still looking into those box arts. ENOUGH with those nonsense EA's own styles, especially those lazy "copy & paste" & ENOUGH with those empty black areas which I can never forget. WE WANT OUR SOLDIER'S HEAD! SOLDIER'S HEAD! SOLDIER'S HEAD!

[Gben 20]

If I had a choice, I would certainly get rid of actors to get more CGI... not every single character needs to be a superstar...

 

(Even though it's only Silverthorn taking the bait, this whole Westwood conversation backs up my point about controversy with a possible Gen2 project. It's that vocal minority that causes too much grief!)

[hagren 0]

Honestly, who cares about box art *that* much?

I keep the DVD cases on a shelf and only see their spine, and when I take out a game, I rather focus on the disc or the manual. With EA having their own style at least it's pretty clear that it's a different studio. Plus, it would get old after a while, there's not awfully much you can do with soldier heads.

 

As for actos vs. CGI, they simply should cut the briefers for CnC4-->Done!

Edited May 21, 2009 by hagren

[Malevolence 6]

Why, TW's Kane Edition and RA3's Soviet cover looked nice! Uprising and regular TW on the other hand, not so much. KW is so-so.

 

In C&C3 TW, we saw the "X" shaped design with some random concept artwork compiled together.

In C&C3 TW KE, we saw Kane's head with a hand holding kryptonite.

In C&C3 KW, we saw the retooled "X" shaped design with KW concept artwork compiled together.

In C&C RA3, we saw a bunch of cartoonish random concept artwork compiled together.

In C&C RA3 UR, we saw a retooled version of a bunch of cartoonish random UR concept artwork compiled together.

 

I believe more effort could be done, or EA could pay respects to the classics by mimicking the original classic boxart designs.

[Silverthorn 0]

In C&C3 TW, we saw the "X" shaped design with some random concept artwork compiled together.

In C&C3 TW KE, we saw Kane's head with a hand holding kryptonite.

In C&C3 KW, we saw the retooled "X" shaped design with KW concept artwork compiled together.

In C&C RA3, we saw a bunch of cartoonish random concept artwork compiled together.

In C&C RA3 UR, we saw a retooled version of a bunch of cartoonish random UR concept artwork compiled together.

 

I believe more effort could be done, or EA could pay respects to the classics by mimicking the original classic boxart designs.

 

QFT! That's why I did say, even to typical WW fans, they want the Soldier's Head. The TW KE was the only best box so far, I find that artwork is nearly or hardly a "Copy & Paste" type of work.

 

Oh, and don't forget on the empty black areas, Malevolence, that's why I'm asking you, if you were a product design student, does those black areas mean anything to you? The obvious ones were TW & KW's, & RA3's below Natasha. At least Uprising does not have those empty black areas, but I'm still disappointed with their typical lazy "Copy & Paste".

 

And I'm sure even some EA fans who contain some little bit of Westwood "thing" may look and they knew it's all are bunch of concept arts are copied & pasted in to create as a lazy boxart.

 

Westwood NEVER do something like that during their days, they treat their boxart as a SEPARATE artwork! What's wrong with you and why use the "Copy & Paste", EA?! Is it too expensive to do a separate artwork, or are you trying to save time & to make it cheap?! Even Petroglyph NEVER copy & paste their concept arts to create as a boxart, I've seen the Star Wars games & UaW covers, they're all treated as separate artworks. & more, competitors like Blizzard & Atari's games! Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Silverthorn

[Malevolence 6]

QFT! That's why I did say, even to typical WW fans, they want the Soldier's Head. The TW KE was the only best box so far, I find that artwork is nearly or hardly a "Copy & Paste" type of work.

 

Oh, and don't forget on the empty black areas, Malevolence, that's why I'm asking you, if you were a product design student, does those black areas mean anything to you? The obvious ones were TW & KW's, & RA3's below Natasha. At least Uprising does not have those empty black areas, but I'm still disappointed with their typical lazy "Copy & Paste".

 

And I'm sure even some EA fans who contain some little bit of Westwood "thing" may look and they knew it's all are bunch of concept arts are copied & pasted in to create as a lazy boxart.

 

Westwood NEVER do something like that during their days, they treat their boxart as a SEPARATE artwork! What's wrong with you and why use the "Copy & Paste", EA?! Is it too expensive to do a separate artwork, or are you trying to save time & to make it cheap?! Even Petroglyph NEVER copy & paste their concept arts to create as a boxart, I've seen the Star Wars games & UaW covers, they're all treated as separate artworks. & more, competitors like Blizzard & Atari's games! Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

 

Not to sound mean to EA, honestly I've seen several fan artwork, and funny, they are way better than the finalized EA's boxart work.

[Silverthorn 0]

But fanarts are just fanarts. I know they're funny, but when a corporate company did a bad artwork and just let it be done, it's not funny.

[hagren 0]

The thing is, you may never know what was created first: The released concept arts or the cover? Perhaps they were specifically made for the cover, then re-used. Similar to the Petroglyph ads always being cover arts with some added effects. Have you seen the UK cover art? Because there's more black than in those CnC3 covers Lastly, the CnC covers pre-tw weren't that spectacular either, nothing jaw-dropping or artsy. The reason why they became a staple is the continuency- As now there are similarities between all new CnC covers. I'm all for painted covers, btw.

 

Malevolence: Show me some examples

Edited May 22, 2009 by hagren

[Silverthorn 0]

I may not be a huge gamer, but I never see many different types of cover arts before, so I hope you don't mind showing those pre-production covers as well as that UK one you're talking about?

 

By the way, although concept arts are important, but it's best that it should NEVER be recycled or re-used and compile them into a boxart, that's copy & paste! Imagine if Starcraft 2 or any other good games (Or let's take the WoW games for instance) would to be released, before production, concept arts first, then when it's approve, and so on. The boxart can be either during or post-production, and when the right time comes, the separate boxart is a go by drawing something which is brand new. Copy & Paste concept arts is NOT brand new, it's just lazy.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Silverthorn

[Malevolence 6]

The thing is, you may never know what was created first: The released concept arts or the cover? Perhaps they were specifically made for the cover, then re-used. Similar to the Petroglyph ads always being cover arts with some added effects. Have you seen the UK cover art? Because there's more black than in those CnC3 covers Lastly, the CnC covers pre-tw weren't that spectacular either, nothing jaw-dropping or artsy. The reason why they became a staple is the continuency- As now there are similarities between all new CnC covers. I'm all for painted covers, btw.

 

Malevolence: Show me some examples

 

I didn't save those images, they were littered all over various C&C fansites and forums. Sorry.

[hagren 0]

I may not be a huge gamer, but I never see many different types of cover arts before, so I hope you don't mind showing those pre-production covers as well as that UK one you're talking about?

 

By the way, although concept arts are important, but it's best that it should NEVER be recycled or re-used and compile them into a boxart, that's copy & paste! Imagine if Starcraft 2 or any other good games (Or let's take the WoW games for instance) would to be released, before production, concept arts first, then when it's approve, and so on. The boxart can be either during or post-production, and when the right time comes, the separate boxart is a go by drawing something which is brand new. Copy & Paste concept arts is NOT brand new, it's just lazy.

But that's the point: How do you know there weren't made specifically for the cover yet later re-used for marketing purposes by a different team?

 

As said, I'm all for pretty covers, but this is not that significant to post about multiple times

[Silverthorn 0]

Pretty pictures are good, yes, I know, but when sacrificing key things or traditions (In this case, the Soldier's Head), it won't turn out well and I fear many might not accept the new boxes unless EA puts it back.

 

Imagine if Warcraft 4 would to use EA's boxart style, symmetrical and copy & paste concept arts, you can imagine that Blizzard fans will be more flaming on that matter a whole hell lot! That's why WC3 use the Soldier's Head style, and if WC4 is made, the tradition of that head stays like it should be! If that tradition is not broken, why replace it with something new?

 

In this case, the Soldier's Head tradition for C&C has not been broken until EA bought Westwood, Generals' boxarts were ok, but when they threw it away completely for C&C3, here comes the outcry like we already see today. Like I said, if it's not broken, why fix it? In this case, EA fixed it and it's NOT cool, put the Soldier's Head back! Don't ask for the Natasha's head on the RA3 Premier edition, that DOESN'T count because it's taken from a concept art, we can see that, I prefer if her head is drawn from scratch, then it'll be a soldier's head instead, NOT some lazy copy & paste.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Silverthorn

[hagren 0]

Overdramatizing much? I don't think anyone put down a purchase of a game they wanted to play solely due to the boxart. And I doubt there's an "outcry"...

 

Also, Warcraft II and III actually have different boxart styles- WCII had two members of opposing parties facing each other (As with WCI), whilst WCIII had multiple alternative covers like SC.

 

And don't talk about copy&paste if you don't know for sure how the covers are made, please.

Edited May 22, 2009 by hagren

[Malevolence 6]

Alright, alright. EA fanboys and Westwood zealots. It's good to see once in a while these rivalry debates stirring some crazy sh*t up, really shows how passionate C&C fans are.

 

But but...

 

It's a little hot in here isn't it?

 

 

Settle down folks. Help yourself with some ice cream cake and chill down.

 

In this case, the Soldier's Head tradition for C&C has not been broken until EA bought Westwood, Generals' boxarts were ok, but when they threw it away completely for C&C3, here comes the outcry like we already see today. Like I said, if it's not broken, why fix it? In this case, EA fixed it and it's NOT cool, put the Soldier's Head back! Don't ask for the Natasha's head on the RA3 Premier edition, that DOESN'T count because it's taken from a concept art, we can see that, I prefer if her head is drawn from scratch, then it'll be a soldier's head instead, NOT some lazy copy & paste.

 

Actually I was wondering if YR broke that tradition. It's Yuri's head and not a generic soldier's head. Come to think of it, if YR is valid does that make C&C3TW KE (Kane's head, ok his hand and kryptonite was kinda bonus)and RA3 (Special Edition or whatever pre-order Edition??? Correct me for that), UR (remove that old hag with toygun and the petrol gas man) valid too? Hmm.

 

As for me, boxart's kinda important to me too, especially I'm a generic C&C fan, not too hardcore, not too softcore. Some minor details I can forgive, but there are some I can't. Anyways, as I was saying, I was a little disappointed with the newer boxarts. I agreed with Silverthorn's take for this one.

 

Overdramatizing much? I don't think anyone put down a purchase of a game they wanted to play solely due to the boxart. And I doubt there's an "outcry"...

 

Also, Warcraft II and III actually have different boxart styles- WCII had two members of opposing parties facing each other (As with WCI), whilst WCIII had multiple alternative covers like SC.

 

And don't talk about copy&paste if you don't know for sure how the covers are made, please.

 

It seems you are those fans who are more concern with the software instead of the packaging, or probably treating the "packaging issue" as a bonus, not a necessity. Well I can understand that.

Anyways do you know how covers are made, have you actually seen the whole process? :lol: I guess the whole point is the finalised boxart layout, not the process of being made, drawn, Photoshopped, cropped, paste, glued, cut, copy, print, MS painted, whatever.

 

Anyways, EA fanboys and Westwood zealots, once again thanks for the heated debate. I think both sides need to chill down alittle, alright?

Edited May 23, 2009 by Malevolence

[Silverthorn 0]

Well Mal, Yuri is not actually a soldier, but from the way he pose, he shows no emotion and his face looking at you with no angle turn, that's the Soldier's Head I'm talking about, even WC3 & SC1 also use the Soldier's Head, range from Thrall in Reign of Chaos, Arthas in Frozen Throne, and finally the 3 factions from SC1, Protoss Zealot, Zerg Hydralisk & Terran Marine, and don't forget the already well known Kerrigan's head for SC Brood War. That's the Soldier's Head pose, it's already been quite a huge hit since C&C1. By the way, those heads you see are separate artworks, you won't find them coming from concept arts. Take the Tiberian Sun soldier's head for example, there's no concept picture of him in the game itself, Westwood drew that boxart from scratch as a SEPARATE artwork.

 

As for WC1 & WC2, yes, I know there are 2 heads posing & facing each other. But this design cannot be continued or used further when WC3 has 4 factions, no longer the original 2, that's the problem, and that's why Blizzard used Thrall & Arthas' heads as their Soldier's Heads.

 

And to be honest, the packaging also means memory to some of us. If a game ever made is so good, you want to keep it, but when its packaging is so ugly, you're forced to accept it BUT with pain of disgust because of a good game in a terrible looking box. I love EA's C&C3 until RA3's gameplays and stuff, but when the box are not their original Soldier's Head, I felt so painful and even feel like rather throw the boxes but keep the DVDs instead.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Silverthorn

[Nmenth 291]

Overdramatizing much? I don't think anyone put down a purchase of a game they wanted to play solely due to the boxart.

Don't be so quick to say that, I think if someone was wanting to buy a new game, but didn't know what they wanted, it is quite possible that the box appeal would cast a deciding vote. It is true that you can no more judge a game by its box than a book by its cover, but that does not mean people won't do it anyway.

 

But but...

 

It's a little hot in here isn't it?

 

 

Settle down folks. Help yourself with some ice cream cake and chill down.

It doesn't seem very heated to me... There is a difference between debating and arguing, it still looks like a rational debate to me.

[hagren 0]

Yeah, this debate was actually quite calm

 

Oh and Nmenth, I meant individuals who already planned to buy xy game. Say, if I'd wanted to buy Mass Effect, go in the store and wouldn't find the cover art appealing, I'd still buy it for the game. As said, I dig inventive or pretty covers, but in the end, they're just collecting dust on my shelf to protect the game discs, nothing less, nothing more. The excitement, the novelty of beautiful box arts and detailed manuals fades quickly for me. It's the game that stays in my head (or not).

Edited May 23, 2009 by hagren

[Nmenth 291]

Oh and Nmenth, I meant individuals who already planned to buy xy game.

Perhaps so, but what I said is still true. A good box art is still important. Personally, I don't need the WW traditional style, but EA's new style sucks.

[Gben 20]

Good boxart is the icing on the cake... it's the difference between just a spine or the full face showing on your shelf!

[Malevolence 6]

Looks to me there are many here who wants nice fanciful boxarts!

[Silverthorn 0]

Looks to me there are many here who wants nice fanciful boxarts!

 

QFT, especially people prefers the beautiful & more original boxarts.

 

The "Don't judge a book by its cover" phrase was mostly meant for nearly many things, but definitely NOT for games or movies or softwares. If a game is so good, but when the cover is so bad, do you want to accept it? Like I did mention, if I have a very good software but the cover is horrible, I rather just keep the disc while the ugly box can just throw away.