C&C 4 in PC PowerPlay Magazine

[Silverthorn 0]

We will not be very sure until we get a gameplay demonstration from Jeremy Feasel or Jim Vasella. As for the upcoming trailer, I'm not really sure, my guess that will be a CGI video rather than a gameplay video.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

Since base building is more or less out, I imagine that you'll probably have to capture points of the map to gain income.

 

God I certainly hope not. If "objective-based gamplay" is EA-speak for "control points" then I will be thoroughly unimpressed. Control points have already been done over and over.

 

 

I can confirm that they have done that...

I'm guessing you'll need to have a Crawler next to a capturable building (Spikes are such a building) to build units, as only such a Factory would build these units, and not the Crawler itself. (I hope I am wrong dearly however!)

They already said all of your units come from the Crawler.

[hagren 0]

The problem with the control points isn't their abundance, but their dullness.

[Gben 20]

Who knows what EA have planned, but while can't harvestors dock with the crawler?

 

If we have mobile "bases", we should have mobile economic source... like a tiberian storm that randomly moves over the map and requires harvesters to follow the path... you could have multiple storms.

Edited July 19, 2009 by gben

[Johnnyxp64 20]

i like the storm idea, i would prefer to have the crystals as primary source of mining, and with a mobile refinary-collector all at once (like the uniqe GDI unit did in KW) and maybe have a stormcapture antenna that captures extra tiberium from storms!

 

 

 

[mirza044 4]

EA have a chance to repair damage they did with C&C3. With KW they already repaired few things, but that's not enough. C&C4 is their chance for "redemption" but it seems that's not going to happen. Even it's still early for any serious thought or comment (we need to wait for more official informations and clarifications), with every new bit of information sounds that everything about C&C4 going from bad to worse. I just hope that some of previous comments (rumors) are not true.

In case that all rumors are true (no harvestable tiberian fields, tiberian sipkes as primary resource, tiberian spikes instead of classical or EA C&C3 evolved tiberium, etc) now I understand why they bringing more TS era units into action: EA want to compensate for radical change of C&C4 gameplay mechanic.

Edited July 19, 2009 by mirza044

[Guest Stevie_K]

and maybe have a stormcapture antenna that captures extra tiberium from storms!

 

Sorry to say it but that sounds lame to me. Since when did tiberium storms appear? Besides it would look really wierd with an antenna trying to catch flying tiberium

[Malevolence 6]

Pretty funny and creative, but I wouldn't take the tiberium storm antennae seriously.

[Sonic 296]

EA have a chance to repair damage they did with C&C3.

C&C3 didn't do any damage. It simply didn't live up to high expectations that everyone had for it. Mine included. I was never really overly pleased with the end result but you can't deny it was successful product in terms of reviews and sales.

 

In case that all rumors are true (no harvestable tiberian fields, tiberian sipkes as primary resource, tiberian spikes instead of classical or EA C&C3 evolved tiberium, etc)

And thats exactly what they are. Rumours. Everyone moaning about the changes when they don't actually what changes their are. You have all seen one screen shot, see no Tiberium so it can be in the game. It was awhile before you could see Tiberium as screen shots for C&C 3 were released.

 

EA want to compensate for radical change of C&C4 gameplay mechanic.

From where I sit, the same old stale gameplay mechanics had to be updated.

[Nmenth 291]

C&C3 didn't do any damage. It simply didn't live up to high expectations that everyone had for it.

Hate to say it, but I don't agree with that at all. What would define a series as being damaged? I'd say inconsistencies in storyline would be my number one definition, and I'm not just saying that with C&C3 in mind, I'd stick to that rule for any series in question. There are other ways to damage a series, like make it so bad no one wants to touch it, that C&C3 did not fall victim to. That does not mean it emerged in an 'undamaged' state.

 

From where I sit, the same old stale gameplay mechanics had to be updated.

I can understand there being people accepting and those opposed, but how can you go so far as to say they had to update it?

If those are 'old stale gameplay mechanics,' maybe you are tiring of the whole genre...

[mirza044 4]

C&C3 didn't do any damage. It simply didn't live up to high expectations that everyone had for it. Mine included. I was never really overly pleased with the end result but you can't deny it was successful product in terms of reviews and sales.

If only you said:"C&C3 didn't do that much damage, maybe in few things", maybe I would agree with you, but didn't do any? Any at all? C'mon Sonic, you run this site and forum and probably you read hundreds of posts and few articles where was explained what is wrong in C&C3: Storyline inconsistencies (repaired in KW to some extent), new "evolved" tiberium (OK, I can live with that), no tiberian flora and fauna (lifeforms, veinholes, etc.) and thus no dark and apocalyptic atmosphere (maybe on few red zone maps, and C&C3 is more atmospheric than RA3), and, maybe not so important, unit "artistic" design. There is number of units in C&C3 which look more like mascots and toys than some serious hi-tech soldiers and military vehicles.

Sales and reviews? I agree that C&C3 is good RTS, fun to play, etc., but it's not good as Tiberian Sun and Firestorm successor. Many reviewers don't pay attention on storyline inconsistencies and other subtle details which are very important to most C&C fans, or at least to old C&C fans.

 

From where I sit, the same old stale gameplay mechanics had to be updated.

Upgrading yes, but completely changing no. There is huge difference between progressive transition and extreme change. Based on little official info and some rumors (for which I say again, I hope it's not true, but we shall see for few more days) extreme changes going to be introduced in C&C4, maybe too much extreme. Probably some changes going to be good for C&C and Tiberian Universe, but we shall see.

Edited July 19, 2009 by mirza044

[hagren 0]

There was progressive transition from TW to RA3, yet still many reviewers and fans found the gameplay mechanics obsolete. And since SCII already will be released with the hardcore community in mind, EA had to change to compete.

[mirza044 4]

There was progressive transition from TW to RA3, yet still many reviewers and fans found the gameplay mechanics obsolete. And since SCII already will be released with the hardcore community in mind, EA had to change to compete.

RA3 was released in relative short period of time after TW (two years, even less) and KW (about six or seven months), and when you have situation when every year has been released game with same or very similar gameplay mechanic, casual gamers getting bored, and maybe some fans (I'm not sure about that many fans complained about gameplay mechanic). You see, same thing happend with RA2, reviewers complained RA2 has a same gameplay mechanic as TS, even one reviewer wrote about RA2 "another day and another Tiberian Sun". Why? Same thing as it was with TW and RA3, short period of time between releases of these two games. I have one question for you Hagren: why reviewers not complained that much about gameplay mechanic of TW, even it's gameplay mechanic is same as it is in previous C&Cs (excluding Generals and ZH) and even it's dumbed, missing few features which existed in previous C&Cs (amphibious units, subterrain movement, deformable terrain, etc)?

Edited July 19, 2009 by mirza044

[Mighty BOB! 5]

progressive transition

I hereby hijack this term for my own use.

[Johnnyxp64 20]

lets change the subject

 

anyone thinks of a Better name than

 

Command & Conquer 4

Tiberium Twilight

 

???

 

i think is the best name the one that westowood was thinking of releasing after the TS.

[mirza044 4]

lets change the subject

 

anyone thinks of a Better name than

 

Command & Conquer 4

Tiberium Twilight

 

???

 

i think is the best name the one that westowood was thinking of releasing after the TS.

There is better name: TIBERIAN Twilight

[Guest Stevie_K]

lets change the subject

anyone thinks of a Better name than Command & Conquer 4 Tiberium Twilight ???

i think is the best name the one that westowood was thinking of releasing after the TS.

 

Yeah Twilight it is, but I am afraid it's just going to be the "4"

 

I can understand there being people accepting and those opposed, but how can you go so far as to say they had to update it?

If those are 'old stale gameplay mechanics,' maybe you are tiring of the whole genre...

 

Agreed. I don't think they had to update it. But as far as the rumors and our tiny piece of intel. goes we know that base building will have a very minor role. And that's a big step we can only hope ends up good.

[hagren 0]

RA3 was released in relative short period of time after TW (two years, even less) and KW (about six or seven months), and when you have situation when every year has been released game with same or very similar gameplay mechanic, casual gamers getting bored, and maybe some fans (I'm not sure about that many fans complained about gameplay mechanic). You see, same thing happend with RA2, reviewers complained RA2 has a same gameplay mechanic as TS, even one reviewer wrote about RA2 "another day and another Tiberian Sun". Why? Same thing as it was with TW and RA3, short period of time between releases of these two games. I have one question for you Hagren: why reviewers not complained that much about gameplay mechanic of TW, even it's gameplay mechanic is same as it is in previous C&Cs (excluding Generals and ZH) and even it's dumbed, missing few features which existed in previous C&Cs (amphibious units, subterrain movement, deformable terrain, etc)?

Because many longed for a classical CnC after Generals, including reviewers.

[Malevolence 6]

lets change the subject

 

anyone thinks of a Better name than

 

Command & Conquer 4

Tiberium Twilight

 

???

 

i think is the best name the one that westowood was thinking of releasing after the TS.

 

There it goes again with the tiberIUM and tiberIAN discussion yet again.

[Nmenth 291]

We could always call it Tinerium Twilight... :lol:

[mirza044 4]

Because many longed for a classical CnC after Generals, including reviewers.

 

Correct, and why they longed? Long timespan between releases of two C&Cs with classic gameplay mechanic (RA2/YR - TW: about five or six years).

We could always call it Tinerium Twilight... :lol:

haha, that's good one

[Silverthorn 0]

C&C is meant to be that way, sidebar, MCV, harvestable resources, that's about it. Generals does not count as it only looks like a regular RTS which I have seen, WiC, WC3, Age of Empires, etc.. Many of them utilizes the bottom bar & dozers!

 

Yeap, the old flame is here again. And don't worry, I won't go for it even further, that's just an opinion come from the Westwood traditionalist.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Silverthorn

[Malevolence 6]

C&C is meant to be that way, sidebar, MCV, harvestable resources, that's about it. Generals does not count as it only looks like a regular RTS which I have seen, WiC, WC3, Age of Empires, etc.. Many of them utilizes the bottom bar & dozers!

 

Yeap, the old flame is here again. And don't worry, I won't go for it even further, that's just an opinion come from the Westwood traditionalist.

 

Although I'm neither a Westwood traditionalist nor an EA fanboy, I have to agree with you about the sidebar, harvestable resources bit. Maybe you should rally up the whole community of westwood traditionalists and voice out loud on these important areas, hopefully the devs get the message.

[Silverthorn 0]

I am no riot leader, so I don't need to do that, even if I am a riot leader, I'll be expecting EA fanboys who defend the rights of "Westwood IS DEAD, MOVE ON ALREADY!" and all that whining, so it's more like a flame war if I want to gather and protest to the dev teams plus the marketing team.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

Although I'm neither a Westwood traditionalist nor an EA fanboy, I have to agree with you about the sidebar, harvestable resources bit. Maybe you should rally up the whole community of westwood traditionalists and voice out loud on these important areas, hopefully the devs get the message.

Hehe, I'm pretty sure that they are aware of what's going on. Have you been to the official forums in the last few days? Haha.