Command & Conquer 4 - First Details!

[Malevolence 6]

I don't think so, at the heart it will still be a C&C RTS. But now it got something new, something different. And for me personally I believe its great to see some innovation in the franchise.

 

Second that. I believe that it'll be boring and meaningless if C&C4 gameplay mechanics are the same old stuff. Red Alert 3 took a slight innovative approach by introducing not 1, but 3 different base building methods. I think it'll indeed be a good opportunity to take another step to innovate something different and refreshing. Besides, originally the devs wanted mobile bases in C&C3, but couldn't have the time, manpower, and balance issues to achieve it. So, this time round, why not?

[Silverthorn 0]

I agree, the changes between the 2 games is not because of the universe like Tiberian is dark while Red Alert is bright. We know there are several differences.

 

I better C&C4 gets a new look & master the usage of the squares like Red Alert 3. Hopefully it's better not be a recycled C&C3 gets a new look via C&C4. RA3 was something brand new & different. So C&C4 should be different from its predecessors. Graphics maybe one thing, now I'm worried about the resources.

 

Will the resources go back to C&C3? Will it go back to TS style where Tiberium spreads like disease rather than sticking itself always near to the fissures (Hopefully C&C4 brings back the blossom trees)? Will it use the RA3 ore node system?

 

Gameplay wise, is it going to be fast & fluid like C&C3, all about spam spam spam?! Or will it be as slow as RA3?*

 

*Seriously, and I know why RA3 did not get into the Cyber Games as I criticize the reasons why, one of them is the sportsmen prefers spam spam spam over pure brain strategies. And another is they love to be very fast & impatient, RA3 slowed down its speed by 50%, that's why C&C3 stayed put while RA3 failed to be qualified. AND I'm going to concern if C&C4 can make it to the next Cyber Games if EA use back the traditional RA3 systems to reduce spamming problems.

[Malevolence 6]

Talking about the grid system I hope EA implements this and improve on it, i.e. able to place buildings not just in 4 directions but 8 (diagonally).

[Silverthorn 0]

It will be cool and it's worth a try. And besides, Starcraft 2 still remain using the 1-direction building deployment since SC1, although I'm not sure if their videos (Other than the trailer) features 360 degree camera turns.

 

Or better, add directional armor to buildings, imagine the ConYard is more heavily armored from the back than the front.

[Malevolence 6]

It will be cool and it's worth a try. And besides, Starcraft 2 still remain using the 1-direction building deployment since SC1, although I'm not sure if their videos (Other than the trailer) features 360 degree camera turns.

 

Or better, add directional armor to buildings, imagine the ConYard is more heavily armored from the back than the front.

 

I think it'll be cool to implement more realistic physics directional armor not only to tanks but to everything else. If the devs are planning to touch a little on the water I think it'll be better if they make use of Nvidia's PhysX.

[Troopzor 5]

I really do hope though that basebuilding will remain....

 

I agree, I like making pretty bases. I don't want C&C4 to be like DoW2, that would be terrible for the series.... It just doesnt fit the whole C&C forulma at all ._.

[BioBen 3]

The only thing i demand at this point is Tiberium organisms.

[rEdaSbLood 1]

..and punch and pie

[hagren 0]

The only thing I "demand" is intelligent AI and flawless pahtfinding. And of course, more CGI, more level variation, civilians, more EVA infomercials, a higher zoom factor, cleaner graphics, imaginative mission design, unique and useful units, bigger faction asymmetry, unique scenarios, a thought-out, brilliant plot and a volumptous outro and intro.

[Guest Stevie_K]

The only thing i demand at this point is Tiberium organisms.

 

Second that.

 

But I love building pretty bases too. In TS I kept one enemy harvester alive inside a wall prison while I build a base so large it covered the whole map.

Not that it's what I want from C&C4 at all, but building your base should be more than just deploying buildings randomly.

I think the idea of improving armor on different sides of a construction would be awesome and very innovative. Really something EA should consider.

[Red Blitzkrieg 0]

This is going to be more epic than Chuck Norris.

[Nmenth 289]

But I love building pretty bases too. In TS I kept one enemy harvester alive inside a wall prison while I build a base so large it covered the whole map.

Not that it's what I want from C&C4 at all, but building your base should be more than just deploying buildings randomly.

I did that too, only in RA1. I'd also build huge bases in TS and RA2, but only about triple normal base size, no whole-maps.

I hate games that are over so fast you don't even have all available buildings constructed yet.

[TheRoadToDawn 0]

I did that too, only in RA1. I'd also build huge bases in TS and RA2, but only about triple normal base size, no whole-maps.

I hate games that are over so fast you don't even have all available buildings constructed yet.

 

 

wow. that brings me back:

 

On RedEdit: I would have my own little island or continent so that the AI would duke it out while i created my island fortress. lol. after i got the editor, i put the soviet command HQ building on the top of a big cliff/hill. made it my own little HQ

 

For TS: I made sure my maps had a huge lake that would cut off me from the rest of the AI players and all i had to do was blow up the bridges. those subtanks were a pain in the rear, but after a few mods to not allow the enemy to build superweapons, i had the battlefield to my fingertips. I would reinact the Cyborgs rising, create Veseroid camps and have my techies run through the tib. trapped in the walls, then unleash them upon the enemy. OH, if the randomization was correct i would have a lake separate the land into 3 parts: one for the enemy, one for me, and one for the veins. >

[Malevolence 6]

The only thing I "demand" is intelligent AI and flawless pahtfinding. And of course, more CGI, more level variation, civilians, more EVA infomercials, a higher zoom factor, cleaner graphics, imaginative mission design, unique and useful units, bigger faction asymmetry, unique scenarios, a thought-out, brilliant plot and a volumptous outro and intro.

 

That pretty much sums up the general fans "demands". Hope the EA devs see this.

[TheRoadToDawn 0]

That pretty much sums up the general fans "demands". Hope the EA devs see this.

 

Ditto

[Mighty BOB! 4]

The only thing I "demand" is intelligent AI and flawless pahtfinding. And of course, more CGI, more level variation, civilians, more EVA infomercials, a higher zoom factor, cleaner graphics, imaginative mission design, unique and useful units, bigger faction asymmetry, unique scenarios, a thought-out, brilliant plot and a volumptous outro and intro.

Oh so not a whole lot? ahahaha XD I totally agree. (Don't forget copious pre-game toggles and switches.)

 

 

However, some things I am hearing are very disappointing and could turn me off of the game entirely.

 

People have already read my opinions in the Roundtable. To that I'll add this and I'll throw this in for good measure.

 

I'll try to summarize; see the links for expanded details.

 

-Crawler: I like it only if it supplements base building, not replaces it,* and only if 1 faction gets it (faction asymmetry) near the max tech level. This is a game-breaker for me. If there are no bases then I am not interested. Period.**

-Classes: I'd rather have everything available and what you get be defined by your upgrade tree.

-RPG persistency and XP: Again, upgrade trees instead of subfactions. I favor persistency only in campaigns, and resetting stats every skirmish/LAN/multiplayer match (ala C&C Generals generals points).

-Leveling up: Don't like how this can segment players. Would prefer campaign-only, if at all.

-Must be connected to Internet at all times: No. Just no. This is just another form of DRM.

 

-Tiberium: If I've read everything right, Tiberium has evolved yet a second time? Or are they referring to the drastic change between TS and TW? The Earth has 6 years before everyone is dead, oh wait that already happened 30 years ago in Firestorm and it was only 1 year left then. Amazing how that 1 year stretched into 31 years.

-Re-used art: Are they placeholders or permanent fixtures? Also not too keen about the feet on those Mk. II clones or the oversized chin turret.

 

-End of the saga: It'll be a little sad but I am curious about the finale of the story.

-Tech level: It's about damn time. I was expecting this kind of stuff in Tiberium Wars. TW really was a franchise reboot and more like TD 1.5, which makes this like TS 2.5.

-Co-op: Good to hear it's back... as long as I can go 100% alone if I want and don't have to escort an AI (and if it has LAN).

-10 players: Sounds great... if it also applies to skirmish and LAN.

-Objective-based gameplay: Good as an addition, but preferably not a total replacement.

 

 

 

*Unless only 1 faction replaces base building with it (faction asymmetry, and similar to the 3 building mechanics in RA3. This is just screaming Scrin if you ask me. Or maybe Legion, the Forgotten, or that mysterious other alien race () since the Scrin have now had a building/playing mechanic established, although a new armada could have a new one.)

**Unlesss... with mod support it is possible to implement regular base building. But with the whole RPG player progression and constant connection to EA's back-end servers I am doubtful of what kind of modding capabilities C&C4 might have.

[Silverthorn 0]

Well Mal, it's true, the Tiberium universe uses AI for their EVA & CABAL while the RA universe uses human lieutenants. C&C3 was not the right approach, all 3 factions I hear are nearly the obvious lieutenant voices instead of AI voices. I miss EVA, and yeah, so is CABAL too, I love his voice for Nod more than EVA for GDI.

 

As for the CGI, yes, I demand the huge amount of it just like Tiberian Sun had. Too expensive because of outsourcing? Then go build your own CGI room, EA, it creates jobs as well as put the outsourcing choice out of option. RA3 was no good when you wasted tons of CGI over one mere Allied 1st mission.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Silverthorn

[hagren 0]

Mighty_bob: I, like many others, was against the notion of the lack of base building in the past; I considered myself as a "Sim City"-type of player, who builds big, pretty bases before streamrolling over the enemy. But then I played World in Conflict and got a taste of instant action, and it's not that bad at all- Plus, there's definitely more building going on in CnC4, because your customizing your crawler, build bunkers and towers as support class...

Edited July 12, 2009 by hagren

[Nmenth 289]

I agree with most of your views, Mighty BOB!, including the ones you linked to.

 

-Crawler: I like it only if it supplements base building, not replaces it, and only if 1 faction gets it (faction asymmetry) near the max tech level. This is a game-breaker for me. If there are no bases then I am not interested. Period.

Yup, how I feel, minus the game-breaker bit. I'd be sorely disappointed in EA, but I'd buy it anyway.

 

-RPG persistency and XP: Again, upgrade trees instead of subfactions. I favor persistency only in campaigns, and resetting stats every skirmish/LAN/multiplayer match (ala C&C Generals generals points).

One thing I didn't really like about the Generals points was that you could never get all of them. I thought it was kind of lame that I'd be a five-star general a short way into the game, then nothing more for the rest of the match. RA3's points are a little better, although I hate that it is restricted to three rows.

 

-Must be connected to Internet at all times: No. Just no. This is just another form of DRM.

I was very dismayed by this. The internet download only stupidity with Uprising was bad enough and the only reason I still haven't bought it. To then go a few steps further? To express my full thoughts on that would probably get this post deleted. I suppose it could be summed up using your words: No. Just no.

[Malevolence 6]

Well folks, since C&C4 is still in infancy stage at the moment, if you have any crazy idea, say for example, your own vision of how C&C4 is, why not post and share your suggestions and criticisms here? After which, in any luck, I'll try to compile it and hopefully APOC or some EA dev team picks it up and get some inspiration from there?

Edited July 12, 2009 by Malevolence

[Silverthorn 0]

Well, sounds like a good start, I'll be there and hopefully I'll remember the old stuff back in Tiberian Sun which were not included in C&C3.

[recover 2]

After having the C&C4 announcement sink in, I have some worries.

I wonder how they will be able to tie all loose ends together in a satisfactory manner. If there's even a single loose end left after I've completed C&C4, I will be disappointed. That means I want explanations of all the questions we have asked ourselves over the years, like "Why did Kane do that?"

Anything less than this, and I will not consider the game an epic conclusion.

Epic is the highest you can aim for, and if I know EA right, they often use terms like 'epic' for marketing reasons, even if they don't actually reach that high.

 

Sorry, but this is just how I feel.

[hagren 0]

Understandably. Apoc, you hear this?

[Mighty BOB! 4]

Mighty_bob: I, like many others, was against the notion of the lack of base building in the past; I considered myself as a "Sim City"-type of player, who builds big, pretty bases before streamrolling over the enemy. But then I played World in Conflict and got a taste of instant action, and it's not that bad at all-

 

Well I just think that bases are a staple of Command & Conquer and you can't get rid of them even if you want to. Like I said, I'm fine with the addition of the Crawler, in fact I encourage it, but not as a replacement. Lack of bases can work in other games, but I just don't see it happening here.

 

Plus, there's definitely more building going on in CnC4, because your customizing your crawler, build bunkers and towers as support class...

 

That's not even close to the same thing at all and you know it.

[Commander A9 0]

I was actually pissed when they got rid of walkers

 

i was also pissed when i started seeing more flak jackets and less head-to-toe armor compared to the TS days

 

the planet's going to hell and you mean to tell me you're going back to older technology?

 

well, if EA can give me a game that focuses on strategy and tactics rather than speed, numbers, and MLG-styled play, if they can give me the tacitus, if they can give me head-to-toe body armor, all Juggernaut barrels firing barrages, hover lift fan aircraft, sniper spotters which don't fire unless being fired upon, snipers who don't fire follow-up shots at dead bodies...then I'll be impressed

 

I have to admit, the prospect of commanding platoons of Mamoth Mk. II's sounds very appealing...