C&C4 Designer Jeremy Feasel Answers Fans Questions

[Malevolence 6]

EA Apoc, thanks for visiting CNCNZ and checking us out. I'm working on this little thread on our vision of C&C4. It's still in infancy stage at the moment, so if you ever run out of ideas or soemthing, please check it out!

 

And there was one excellent thread (Post-Mortem: Tiberium Wars Article) and definitely something for the internal team to check it out if you want the product to surpass C&C3. Check this out please!

Edited July 14, 2009 by Malevolence

[Gben 20]

APOC, the kinda concepts that are mentioned in C&C4, are the kinda concepts I would rather see tested in a spin-off game rather than in the core universe game... especially during the "epic conclusion" to the story. In fact I would rather more emphasis be placed on the story itself, rather than new toys.

EDIT: Oops, spelled your name wrong (how dumb is that!)

Edited July 15, 2009 by gben

[Wildshield 0]

"Assumptions, guesses, and constructive opinions. That is great." - EA APOC

 

Sonic was right, I do read alot of core fans asking for something they will never get. So I ask, if a idea is up in the works for the new game. Why don't EA keep that thought quiet until they know how to answer fan questions. I get it, its a new game with a new look. I dont get, each time I read how improvements were intended but in the end were scrapped (due to time restraints) for the final release. If EA didnt announce what they intended, then maybe we wouldnt have that much of a let down once we play the game.

[Silverthorn 0]

Thanks for dropping in, Apoc, after all, it's fine that you don't spill everything out yet. But my money is to ensure C&C4 doesn't end up to become the next WoW & World in Conflict, I still prefer the classic base building & unit production, in that way, the RTT idea will be kept away, I'm pretty sure not everyone loves the RTT idea.

[Guest Stevie_K]

Im beginning to have faith in this. Im sure that it won't be like any game we have seen before (WiC aso..) So far it doesn't sound very C&C but it defenitly sounds unique and interresting.

(and that's what made me play C&C way back in the beginning) To be honest, Id rather see a C&C4 with new gameplay than a C&C4 with the same as C&C3 and RA3.

 

I just have this feeling that I won't be dissapointed.

[Sonic 293]

Id rather see a C&C4 with new gameplay than a C&C4 with the same as C&C3 and RA3.

Finally someone understands. I said it awhile ago in previous Roundtable that the next C&C had offer something different compared what was in C&C3 and RA3.

[Silverthorn 0]

Me too, Sonic, although I'm still ok to have something different for C&C4, BUT just as long as the whole game better not end up as an RTT, I love base building as well as unit production. WiC has NO unit production, you just order the unit and it'll fly in via transport, that's still considered RTT style, which I obviously hate. I love things coming out from a war factory or barracks.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Silverthorn

[Malevolence 6]

Finally someone understands. I said it awhile ago in previous Roundtable that the next C&C had offer something different compared what was in C&C3 and RA3.

 

What do you mean that finally someone understands? I'm in the club too! I'm pretty optimistic about the new revolutionized gameplay. I thought I said something along the lines somewhere in other threads?

[ghost_zero 0]

"Providing the same game over and over again is not pushing the RTS genre forward, and certainly not going to grow the C&C community or audience. You can only get away with nostalgia so many times before you need to try a new approach. C&C 4 will still be "C&C 101" at heart, but we didn't want to make C&C 3.5. We understand completely some of the new concepts are "shocking", but if we don't take steps in a new direction, we're going to get left behind. We have a lot of details to share. Really appreciate the comments, all of them."

 

Nothing against new ideas but that leveling idea is probably the most stupid thing I have heard in a while for a RTS. Come on, those with higher levels can use MORE units - even if it might be true that you can counter them with your lower level units too (which I really wonder), it still gives the other player different strategic elements which that player knows the other WON'T HAVE as he has a lower level and therefore is already at an advantage.

OK: Maybe I am a a bit influenced by the point that I also hate most MMORPGs.

 

Btw.: Am I right and only ONE CLASS will be able to build structures? How will the others operate? Especially, how will they be able to have a fair fight if one has to build structures and the other one doesn't? And actually base building is still one of the things I like most in RTS games, so if it is more or less missing, I really have to think about buying the game.

 

One more thing: The need to be online to just play single-player or LAN multiplayer is totally stupid and it definitely is not required, even with that leveling system. There could be different profiles for online and offline (or you should be able to choose if you want to have different profiles or the same profile for both or whatsoever).

Furthermore, I think those with old dial-ups would be more concerend about the internet costs because those are mostly paying per minute and then the need to be online all the time would increase the online time and therefore to pay price pretty much.

Edited July 16, 2009 by ghost_zero

[Wildshield 0]

good luck with all the forethoughts into the making of the game. I will just have to see first hand if it was a good idea. Even then its C&C, its not like EA cant recover from the series.

[Gben 20]

Finally someone understands. I said it awhile ago in previous Roundtable that the next C&C had offer something different compared what was in C&C3 and RA3.

 

I would rather C&C4, if it was going to be an "epic conclusion", be treated like an expansion. In that they would focus on story rather than gameplay innovations.

They've hinted that more games would be done in the universe, use those games for the innovation of gameplay. I'm not an EA-basher, it's just innovations in old series rarely work, they usually only work in new IP with no 'baggage'.

 

And failing that, use the 'crawler' dynamic for just one faction (the scrin obviously), keep GDI as the base buildings, and make Nod more like the a combination of C&C1 with airdrops and make civillian buildings critical structures for them (upgrades, reinforcements, income.)

 

And obviously making 'crawler' as a mode of MP play would add freshness to the game without the risk of alienating a portion of your fanbase.

 

I really think I would be excited about this concepts in a spin-off game, but I dread the detraction in the "epic conclusion".

These directions dissapoint me, but wouldn't stop me from buying the game.... unlike the internet connection issue. That really is, something I need to think about.