Jump to content
Commander A9

EA: No bases in C&C4

Recommended Posts

I like the idea of no base construction. So what to the fact its been part of the franchise since day one. Things change, the franchise is evolving.

 

Plus no base construction means you get to the action quicker!

 

Share this post


Link to post

or you get to do an opening rush instantly with your starting units

Share this post


Link to post

I expect that EA will rename the game and call it an RTT then.

 

I rather liked WiC.

Share this post


Link to post

I just find it ridiculous saying things like "I'm not getting game because there is no bases". You don't know how the game actually plays, you have seen 1 screen shot.

 

To damn early to make stupid statements.

 

I welcome the change with open arms, C&C's gameplay mechanics have become stale and out dated. Its time to move forward.

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair those stale and outdated gameplay mechanics are part of what most people would consider a C&C game. But, and this is an important but, for a series to keep going it has to change and evolve, which is what a lot of people don't get. I mean FFS, I don't want to be playing TD, I've already played it I want something different and new...

 

A lot of people would be happy if they just made Tiberium Sun, exactly the same units and gameplay, just in the Sage engine...

Share this post


Link to post
I just find it ridiculous saying things like "I'm not getting game because there is no bases". You don't know how the game actually plays, you have seen 1 screen shot.

 

To damn early to make stupid statements.

 

I welcome the change with open arms, C&C's gameplay mechanics have become stale and out dated. Its time to move forward.

 

move forward? to what exactly? Dawn of War II or Joint Task Force/World in Conflict/Ground Control II style of play?

 

the concept of base building is what made C&C so popular to begin with, the combination of an economy, military, and power subsystem all combined into one, all three of which the player has to manage for success

 

take the bases out, and C&C becomes a boxing match between troops. no...it becomes like Tom Clancy's EndWar, and don't get me started on that pile of trash.

Share this post


Link to post
To be fair those stale and outdated gameplay mechanics are part of what most people would consider a C&C game.

Yes... that style is why I liked the game when I first discovered it. When I got my hands on the first C&C, I didn't think, 'Wow, this is a great game now, but I sure hope they change it in the future, I sure wouldn't want to be stuck playing something I enjoy perpetually.'

 

But, and this is an important but, for a series to keep going it has to change and evolve, which is what a lot of people don't get.

This is true, but, and this is an important but, a successful series that suddenly changes what made it what it was is a mistake.

 

I mean FFS, I don't want to be playing TD, I've already played it I want something different and new...

Go invest in another franchise...

 

A lot of people would be happy if they just made Tiberium Sun, exactly the same units and gameplay, just in the Sage engine...

Now that would be awesome.

 

Of course, don't misunderstand, I don't want TS to keep getting remade with better graphics to the end of time, and I will buy C&C 4 even without bases. However, changing the fundamentals is going to make it another game, I got into the series because it was fun the way it originated.

As Sonic says, it is too early to be condemning it right now, but so far, I must say it looks like C&C is not heading down the path I would have chosen.

Share this post


Link to post

I am very curious to see how a C&C game is going to work with no bases at all. lol.

Share this post


Link to post

Holy Jesus, I bet you never expected this. This is a temp visit, but one of constructive insight to the topic at hand.... Allow me to Divulge.

 

From the Petroglyph Forums thread (yes I arrived again there) in response to hagren's post on the thread: Classical RTS is dead:

 

Combining Building simulators and military RTS would be great- It'd be like in Earth 2150 were you'd have your home city to which you are able to switch between missions, but you actually would have the obligation to look out for it, because it provides you with your soldiers, funds and equipment, thus you'd have to watch the taxes, build schools, parks, shops, polit bureaus, factories, fire departments, prisons, churches, police depts etc; finetune the infastructure et al to keep them satisfied and your war efforts secured. In hindsight, I love this idea :P

 

But I'm pretty positive that RTS players aren't looking for complexity or a volumptous blend of multiple genres these days.

 

Something like that is a good idea. The Imperium Galactica Franchise offered a similar idea but on planets. The difference being that these planets could be taken over... But even if it was just along the lines of Earth 2150, then there could be some interesting potential.

 

I actually stuck my head into CNCNZ.com today out of curiosity, and found a thread in the C&C 4 forum that bases would not be included, or indeed buildable. No doubt this will cause an uproar, but the DoW2 community got over it.

 

Anyway, should EA's arm be twisted into having to include a building mechanic... why shouldn't EA approach a similar method you've mentioned above. Have a home HQ base in which to keep (at least) a traditional area of the franchise going. In which case where a refinery would normally cost $1200, have it cost $12,000+... so as the game goes on you could unlock extra tech, and allow for the purchase of bigger and better things. You would then build units and such on which to take in a dropship, (pop capped) to your next mission.

 

Now if you combine that with the standard unit upgrade system you've got in place, and also include missions where the base could potentially be attacked, then it would add up to a really interesting game..

 

Perhaps in some side missions you'd have to take harvesters with you to load up on a new type of mega Red Tiberium which add's like 10,000 credits per load, but takes ages to harvest. You'd then be tasked with protecting the harvesters until they have finished, then get them to an extraction point. Such missions of course would not be constant, and would only be usable in cases where mandatory upgrades are required for the next storyline mission.

 

Now as far as C&C 4 stands (as I mentioned earlier) my interest is low. But should the community twist the arm of the developers... what a perfect way to deal with the issue... Sure it wouldn't be what the complainers wanted. But there's some great depth potential there, and I would say that should EA have to compromise, it wouldn't make too much of a dent in the games overall goal.

 

If something like this was to happen... then C&C 4 will most definately get my purchase. As it stands however, I'd much really prefer to load steam and play some DoW2 instead. I would prefer C&C 4 makes a statement of being a different, and deeper experience... than just being too similar to others.

 

Just so you know, I called it! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Plus no base construction means you get to the action quicker!

If I want quick action I'll play a first person shooter.

 

However, changing the fundamentals is going to make it another game, I got into the series because it was fun the way it originated.

Thank you for saying that. This is basically why I am having issues with the gameplay changes and RPG elements they are adding. Because they're making it into something entirely different, not something moderately different. And as I've said in the other threads, I'm okay with new additions, like multiple build mechanics, or faction asymmetry, but some of the original core must remain. Otherwise it uproots everything that makes the game what it is. At most I could probably tolerate a 50% change, but this no bases thing is like an 80% change.

 

But as an FYI, http://forums.commandandconquer.com/jforum...list/17963.page.

 

Q: Will there be any base building in C&C4?

 

A: The defense class can indeed lay out a full base, which includes a wide array of different assault and support structures.

 

Maybe more like a 75% change.

Share this post


Link to post
move forward? to what exactly? Dawn of War II or Joint Task Force/World in Conflict/Ground Control II style of play?

Having never played those other games you mentioned it will make C&C 4 a very new experience for me then.

 

I am very curious to see how a C&C game is going to work with no bases at all. lol.

As am I. I feel it will be welcomed changed. Its going to piss a lot of people off but its not like the making C&C 4 and leaving Kane out of it. I see it as a shift in gameplay direction.

 

Just so you know, I called it! :P

Called what exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Stevie_K
If I want quick action I'll play a first person shooter.

 

Exactly.

 

Q: Will there be any base building in C&C4?

 

A: The defense class can indeed lay out a full base, which includes a wide array of different assault and support structures.

Maybe more like a 75% change.

 

Building a base and keeping it alive is what I like about the C&C franchise.

 

I won't say that im going to open my arms and kiss the crawler welcome before it is proven what part C&C it is improving other than "getting to the action quicker" :rolleyes:

Wasn't there enough quick action in C&C3? I miss the part where you had to relax a moment and figure out how to defeat the enemy.

 

I am just afraid that last game in my favorite childhood universe is going to end completely messed up not being C&C at all. that would suck.

Share this post


Link to post
As am I. I feel it will be welcomed changed. Its going to piss a lot of people off but its not like the making C&C 4 and leaving Kane out of it. I see it as a shift in gameplay direction.

 

Just take a look at the official forums, the threads and posts... really LOLed. What do you mean leaving Kane out of it?

Share this post


Link to post

He means that the change in gameplay (Crawlers) is going to piss off less people than if they were to (theoretically) leave Kane out of the game.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah what Mighty BOB! said. I was using it as an example.

Share this post


Link to post

They better indulge in this idea more before going diving head first into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Yeah EALA just lost me too, I'm not buying C&C 4.

And you call yourself EALA's #1 fan...

Edited by Nmenth

Share this post


Link to post
Yeah EALA just lost me too, I'm not buying C&C 4.

What? Wow really?

 

Are you pulling our leg?

Share this post


Link to post

I have my doubts about this game now. I have never enjoyed the one-building base scheme and never found it that appealing. I found it rather uninteresting. Not terrible but not really that great.

 

Granted a series has to evolve but that doesn't automatically mean the game play. That can stay the same as long as the story progresses in a nice, logical, entertaining fashion. This won't enhance the story and it will really detract from what C&C is all about - build a base, get an army, attack. That's been C&C since day one. Why does it need to change now? Granted Generals changed the method but it was still build a base, get army, attack.

 

Just adding the RPGish elements is perfect enough since it can be incorporated really well without tainting the original, core formula. WC3 incorporated that perfectly and it would really work well in Command and Conquer. But I guess that would mean a harder focus on singleplayer... but, that'll never happen.

 

This isn't C&C anymore. This is a ****ing mockery. Now it's just generic sci-fi RTS with Tiberium in it. L-A-M-E.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow did i just walk into the Official C&C Forums?

I always loved CNCNZ for the sensibility of the people here, but maybe i misjudged.

 

In regards to the game:

I'm makeing no proper judgements until i actually play it.

All I can say is it's a bit different in some core places but it's still C&C.

 

It's already over a year in production so next to none of your bitchin' 'n' whining is gonna do anything, so make it constructive.

 

@EA: Stop listning to the community and start making a game.

 

PS. Hello Saracen, nice of you to pop in :P

Edited by BioBen

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see how this is such an outrage- The franchise had to move on eventually after 15 whopping years. There was a Gamestar podcast on this, with two opposing sides regarding this change in gameplay, and the one who was in favour of it said it well (paraphrased): "If this change wouldn't have been made, what would have separated CnC3 from CnC4? The graphics are the same, the units are the same, the story still centers on Nod and GDI, and FMVs are retained, too. If they wouldn't have changed anything, you would have bought the same game three years after TW. Now where's the sense in that?".

 

Plus, it's NOT like DoW2 or WiC. There's no popcap as far as we know, infantry should not play a bigger role than before, the battles aren't small-scaled, and you have production facilities- just on the crawler. If you're itching for the old style of play, you could just simply play the defense class which is able to erect a number of structures, or even simpler, take out the 9 games that had MCVs or the gazillion titles which feature base building.

Since upgrades play a huge role in the game, it's not only going to focus on the action alone anyway. You also have to make a lot of decisions in regards of the crawler.

 

Doctor Destiny: Erm, what has the gameplay have to do with the setting? You're mixing up your aspects here. Why is a game in the same setting with base-building not generic sci-fi with Tiberium? Beats me...

Also, if not now, when then? Would those who whine now not whine when it changes in Gens2? RA4? Give me a break.

Besides, it's not that big of a change. Now it's simply Build your crawler-->upgrade your crawler-->get an army-->attack.

 

I'm curious how resource management will work.

Edited by hagren

Share this post


Link to post
If this change wouldn't have been made, what would have separated CnC3 from CnC4? The graphics are the same, the units are the same, the story still centers on Nod and GDI, and FMVs are retained, too. If they wouldn't have changed anything, you would have bought the same game three years after TW. Now where's the sense in that?

If the Crawler is the only thing separating this from C&C 3, it will fail more than my worst-case scenario.

  • Graphics can be the same, although I'd hope they've made some improvements over time...
  • Units the same? I didn't notice... Nope, still don't see it. Is it just the Crawler? No... even without the Crawler, they don't match TW or KW.
  • Story centering on GDI and Nod? Well I'd hope so... this is still the same universe, isn't it? No one expects them to eliminate GDI and Nod.
  • FMVs being retained is hardly representing monotony. That'd be like saying all movies are the same, because, after all, they are still movies.

You do not need to change the style to make it different from it's prerequisite. There are so many ways they can make the games distinguishable aside from graphics, units, story, and FMVs.

 

Example time:

Ever see Zelda: Majora's Mask? From it's predecessor, Ocarina of Time, it used the same graphics, 'units' (characters), story (it's still about Link), and even have various cut scenes (not FMVs, but for comparison's sake, it fits). Was Majora's Mask the same game? Not at all. Would it still be a Zelda game if rather than collect his treasures throughout the game, he unlocked them by experience or merely having enough rupees to afford them?

It is often regarded as one of the darkest and most original games in The Legend of Zelda series.

It ranked an average of 94.3% (which, I'm unfortunately going to point out, is better than our C&C games get) from eight significant reviewers I checked on.

Is a new game using the same graphics destined to be dull and pointless if it doesn't a radical alteration in game play? No.

Can a new game using the same graphics and no radical game play alteration be a success? Yes.

 

Conclusion:

Radical style change is unnecessary to keep the series interesting, though it may not doom it into obscurity either, it is a gamble I doubt will pay off.

 

 

(I feel I should also say I am not an EA hater, nor a Westwood worshiper. It is not a bias that causes me to consider C&C 4, as we know it, to be corrupting a perfectly good series, but the mere fact that it is corrupting a perfectly good series.)

Edited by Nmenth

Share this post


Link to post

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×