What is the issue?

[Saracen 16]

It seems to me that so many of you here do not like the idea of the changes made in C&C 4. In fact you'd prefer to continue with "Strategy-lite" C&C base building and Tank rush mechanics over something different.... But why?

 

The excuse that "It's just not C&C" will not be taken as a legitimate answer here I'm afraid. For that, there are 7 other titles and their expansions to go play if you want that. Times move on and so has the majority of the RTS genre.

 

I personally think that the further away from the original mechanics this game gets, the better it becomes. I can perhaps understand the crawler mechanic coming under some scrutiny... But still, it's different, and really I am in support of any idea which doesn't involve countless optimum build orders and all the usual harassment, tank hoarding, rushing etc.

 

So in this thread, elaborate properly and give some individual and personal feedback on this. Because I'm dying to know why the community wants to play the same old game again that they've had several times before. To me, wanting such a thing just seems like an illogical fallacy???

[Malevolence 6]

Actually I kinda buy into the new idea of the Crawler system. If you tell me it's an evolved MCV over seventy over years (or a century plus if you count RA1), I'm alright with it. I'm concern for the new gameplay mechanics and the lack of numerous structures such as power plants and essential structures such as radar and tech lab. I was under the impression that there will be mini-power plant crawlers and mini-war factory-crawlers crawling together with the main big Crawler. Another concern is the Tiberium Control Grid, or Node. Gameplay wise, I wasn't sure its a good thing (think back RA3) because I know income will be very slow as compared to traditional multi harvesters and multi refineries, and I never like slow income, its just my preference.

 

Actually from the views of the general community here, it seems that many are not ready for change. Like I mentioned before, I can suggest an alternative to the problem: the inclusion of the classic basebuilding system into the equation. In that way we can switch around to use the new Crawler system OR the classic basebuilding as when we like. This will please the entire community, both parties to be exact.

 

I may be pessimistic and yet optimistic about this new Crawler system, however I'll wait to try it out in the beta to see how's the taste like.

[Wee_Ooh 0]

I would have to guess it's all nostalgia. Like you said, if you want base building, play Tiberian Sun. I guarantee you'll like it. It will remind you a lot of the old C&C games. >_> I'm looking forward to a change. As long as it works well.

 

I seems to me that there's actually a ton of fan-service in this game. Way more than C&C3. I'm loving the fact that you can capture husks from old units. Very reminiscent of Tiberian Sun.

[Silverthorn 0]

Whow, dude! You can't expect to tell people to go back and play older games, some people just don't want to. What Mal trying to say is combine the best of both worlds togetther into the latest games today.

[Nmenth 291]

Because I'm dying to know why the community wants to play the same old game again that they've had several times before. To me, wanting such a thing just seems like an illogical fallacy???

To say that C&C4 having the same gameplay style is the same game is a logical fallacy. Can you say Tiberian Dawn and C&C3 are the same game? If you can, than I can only pity you for your unfortunate condition that paints this world into nothing but shades of black and white.

 

Nostalgia is a factor, but I bought my first copy of C&C1 from a schoolmate over a decade ago because I liked it when he let me play it. If that game then had had Crawlers, respawning, pop caps, etc. I do not doubt that I very well may have enjoyed it, but I do doubt I would have paid money for it. I will buy C&C4 now, but only because I've been with this universe for so long. If I never heard of C&C before and picked up a copy of C&C4 and read the game details that we've been told so far, I can assure you, I would put it back on the shelf because it is not the game style I am interested in playing in. Nostalgia irrelevant.

 

Nothing is new anymore. The fact that anyone can compare C&C4 to another preexisting game is proof of that. So it is not new, only different. So why different? Maybe after playing in the same genre for 10+ years, some people got tired of it, but that is their problem, not C&C's.

[Silverthorn 0]

My money is on your last paragraph, Nmenth, luckily I kept the spirit, so I'm still ok with the old system, the new Crawler system ain't for me though as I don't feel like moving on just yet as stated by Mal.

[Wee_Ooh 0]

To say that C&C4 having the same gameplay style is the same game is a logical fallacy. Can you say Tiberian Dawn and C&C3 are the same game? If you can, than I can only pity you for your unfortunate condition that paints this world into nothing but shades of black and white.

 

Nostalgia is a factor, but I bought my first copy of C&C1 from a schoolmate over a decade ago because I liked it when he let me play it. If that game then had had Crawlers, respawning, pop caps, etc. I do not doubt that I very well may have enjoyed it, but I do doubt I would have paid money for it. I will buy C&C4 now, but only because I've been with this universe for so long. If I never heard of C&C before and picked up a copy of C&C4 and read the game details that we've been told so far, I can assure you, I would put it back on the shelf because it is not the game style I am interested in playing in. Nostalgia irrelevant.

 

Nothing is new anymore. The fact that anyone can compare C&C4 to another preexisting game is proof of that. So it is not new, only different. So why different? Maybe after playing in the same genre for 10+ years, some people got tired of it, but that is their problem, not C&C's.

That's true...I said that if you wanted base building, than you could play Tiberian Sun, but I guess the same thing applies to mobile bases. You can get that in DoW2. I guess what it comes down to is that I'm more into the fiction than the gameplay. I love to see the Mammoth MkII, mutants, Tiberian Twilight, Tiberium creatures, and everything else from the Tiberian universe, even if it is in practically an entirely different game. And that's not to say that I don't want base building, either. I think that if it came down to it, I'd choose base building over the new crawler system. I just don't care enough to think of it as such a big deal, especially with the rest of the stuff in the game that I'm really looking forward to.

[Luk3us 63]

People like what they like, there doesn't have to be a rhyme or reason to it. People are irrational like that.

 

Change is something that happens slowly over time. You can't expect people to just accept things when they have changed so much. I don't see why you see it being so necessary that they change the C&C series so much in one game. If people want something that different, they can go play another game.

 

All EA are doing is alienating their own established audience. Lets see how that goes.

[Silverthorn 0]

Whow! Wee_Ooh, you don't expect everyone to go back and play the older games like Tiberian Sun, not everyone are. Your suggestion is true, but it's not always effective. It's just many of us here felt like not moving on just yet.

[Saracen 16]

To say that C&C4 having the same gameplay style is the same game is a logical fallacy.

 

Which I never said. I was referring to many people wanting the same gameplay style as this game's predecessors. And really it can only be called a logical fallacy if I was completely misinformed or unaware of C&C 4's gameplay mechanics. So I'm kinda thinking you've misinterpreted my words there.

 

Can you say Tiberian Dawn and C&C3 are the same game? If you can, than I can only pity you for your unfortunate condition that paints this world into nothing but shades of black and white.

 

As far as the core gameplay and most of the mechanics go, yes, they are the same game. There have been changes to the Engine, graphics, UI, and minor mechanics. But inherently C&C 3 is no different as the 1995 classic. The formula has remained intact for so long that strategy has never been a part of this franchise. It's always been about build orders, specific unit spams and the like... As a result (including RA3) C&C has become progressively and embarrassingly easier over the years. So either I'm an Uber 1337 pl4y3r who should have been a pr0 at the top of the 1 vs 1 ladder for several years. Or, the game is not longer an essential antagonist (Even on hardest difficulty), and contains too many statistically predictable elements.

 

My conclusion on the awareness of the issue therefore is that the former applies most when it comes to previous C&C titles.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Saracen

[Nmenth 291]

My first paragraph was me being snide. You should have replied to the second two which were me being serious.

 

As far as the core gameplay and most of the mechanics go, yes, they are the same game. There have been changes to the Engine, graphics, UI, and minor mechanics. But inherently C&C 3 is no different as the 1995 classic. The formula has remained intact for so long that strategy has never been a part of this franchise. It's always been about build orders, specific unit spams and the like...

I disagree. Yes spam has always played a role, but in previous generations, even the spam standard could be countered with a clever trick or maneuver using the non-standard.

Up until C&C3, I don't think build order was anywhere near as significant. I am not a Westwood fanatic or EA hater, but I must admit that since EA took over, the gameplay has deteriorated to the point that build orders and correct unit to spam are the only way to win. This was not always so, I know it wasn't.

 

As a result (including RA3) C&C has become progressively and embarrassingly easier over the years. So either I'm an Uber 1337 pl4y3r who should have been a pr0 at the top of the 1 vs 1 ladder for several years. Or, the game is not longer an essential antagonist (Even on hardest difficulty), and contains too many statistically predictable elements.

Indeed, RA3 was dumbed down. That was most unfortunate.

 

 

You've said that,

keeping Westwood in mind is the worst thing any fan can do.

While this may contain truth, gouging your eyes out and letting the world pass you by while you smile in your blind bliss is also not the answer.

[Saracen 16]

Metaphorically, I would say you're incorrect. It's not so much gouging your eyes out, more-or-less it's replacing them so you see things in a different light. Nothing ever survived without evolution. So let's address this paragraph I missed.

 

Nothing is new anymore. The fact that anyone can compare C&C4 to another preexisting game is proof of that. So it is not new, only different. So why different? Maybe after playing in the same genre for 10+ years, some people got tired of it, but that is their problem, not C&C's.

 

Indeed, C&C 4 isn't new, and yes it's only different from pre-existing titles in the franchise. But the predecessors have been living in a box for many years. It's been a small tight box it's called it's own little world, closed off from the reality that things have changed. Now, C&C 4 has escaped and is jumping into other people's open boxes. But I personally think that while this curious title isn't exactly unique in any way, it's found fresh air, and that's what it's needed for a long time. Sure, being curious has its down sides, and that's what killed the cat. But looking outside the box has advantages that could spur on new innovations that change things for the better.

 

I have ideas (which I've probably spent too much time on my hands to think about) which could improve the RTS genre in an extremely innovative way never before seen in this gaming industry. However I'm not a programmer, so I can't build a working model... and there's no chance I could give the idea to a developer, because of all the legal ramifications that go along with it... So, my idea is dead in the water!

[Nmenth 291]

Well you've stated your opinion and I, mine. I do not feel either one of us will alter our personal convictions and it is not my goal to make you do so.

I could continue debating the intelligence of C&C4's move for a month, but to no end. Fighting amongst ourselves will neither change C&C4, nor improve the community.

 

That is all.

[Gben 20]

"It's just not C&C"

 

Luk3us has said it several times in several places, it's too much too soon.

I appreciate the issues they are trying to address, but I believe fundamentally they have approached it from the wrong angle, they have thrown the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

I do not believe C&C4 represents a natural progression of fiction nor game-play mechanics.

 

It has given the unfortunate impression of alienating the very fans who have stuck with the universe for 15 years, and what should have been a celebration is mired in needless controversy.

This game has more in common with the Generals rather than Tiberium Universe... if only because it was trying to be different.

 

If this was a spin-off game, I would enjoy it more.

If this was an optional game mode, I would it enjoy it more.

 

[Malovolpe 3]

i do not mind change as long as they do it right, why dont everyone who says its gonna suck just take a deep breath and wait till atleast the beta is out before making any decisions

[Mighty BOB! 5]

Because some of us know what our tastes are and can use logical thought processes based on known information, EA's historical behavior, and their past games to see that the inevitable conclusion is one we won't like?

[Wee_Ooh 0]

Whow! Wee_Ooh, you don't expect everyone to go back and play the older games like Tiberian Sun, not everyone are. Your suggestion is true, but it's not always effective. It's just many of us here felt like not moving on just yet.

No, I agree with you. I was wrong in saying that if you wanted base building than you should play Tiberian Sun, because the same thing applies to crawlers. I don't really want to move on from base building either, but, personally, I'm still looking forward to the new style of gameplay.

 

If that makes sense.

 

Edit: Also, mark my words, there will be more base building than you expect in the defense class. I've said it before; the defense class already has defenses plus an Ion Cannon/Temple of Nod. I find it hard to believe that those are the only buildings. And with all of this community outcry about the whole "lack of bases" thing, I'd be willing to bet that they will add even more buildings to the defense class than they had originally planned. That's my prediction.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Wee_Ooh

[ForcedDj 0]

Well, now the only new thing that I would like is the fact that the E.V.A voice will get distorted when your health is getting low(maybe the crawler health). They could have added that to RA3(the Conyard having the so called advisor thing, if the conyard was destroyed, then no more radar and you lose your advisor voice thing, lower health would also distort the voice as well).

[Silverthorn 0]

Well, Wee_Ooh, the defense-class may have base building alright, but many of us still prefer the whole classic system a.k.a. NO CRAWLERS, we want MCVs instead! I'm not sure if modders can do something like that, but I doubt doing a total conversion to the classic C&C system is very time consuming.

 

For me, since EA broke my heart after reading MyCNC's report that says C&C4 is a "World in Conflict" clone, I decide to play the game but won't replay it for long, I'll probably wait for a total conversion mod instead so that I can play C&C4 in the classic way, with MCVs instead.

[Daisy 0]

The only complaint I have regarding Tiberian Twilight is that a lack of base-building will significantly reduce the depth of the gameplay and the total number of viable strategies, which can only be solved if the game is made incredibly micro-intensive.

 

The excuse that EA's lead designer used was "we're looking to streamline the base-building system because we find that there are 'perfect BOs' shortly after our games are launched, and if you don't use it, you're branded a noob."

 

First off, this has never been true. Even in TS and RA2 there were plenty of optional focus BOs that every player was capable of using and winning with, even at the competitive level, and if a problem had arisen, the designers were more than capable of fixing it through a patch.

 

Second, removing it is just dumbing down the game for the casual masses. If TT wants to be taken serious competitively after this, it needs to up the lethality (which is currently dismal) harden the counter system, and make it into a complex micro RTT like WiC, and from the looks of it, that's not going to happen.

 

I'm not gonna be first to buy this game, because I feel it's going to be outclassed HARD by the past games.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Otaku^Fetishization

[Gben 20]

Speaking of casual gamers... would this be more interesting mechanic for a console?

[F15pilotX 4]

It seems to me that so many of you here do not like the idea of the changes made in C&C 4. In fact you'd prefer to continue with "Strategy-lite" C&C base building and Tank rush mechanics over something different.... But why?

 

The excuse that "It's just not C&C" will not be taken as a legitimate answer here I'm afraid. For that, there are 7 other titles and their expansions to go play if you want that. Times move on and so has the majority of the RTS genre.

 

I personally think that the further away from the original mechanics this game gets, the better it becomes. I can perhaps understand the crawler mechanic coming under some scrutiny... But still, it's different, and really I am in support of any idea which doesn't involve countless optimum build orders and all the usual harassment, tank hoarding, rushing etc.

 

So in this thread, elaborate properly and give some individual and personal feedback on this. Because I'm dying to know why the community wants to play the same old game again that they've had several times before. To me, wanting such a thing just seems like an illogical fallacy???

Took the words right out of my mouth; thank you, Saracen!

 

 

The only complaint I have regarding Tiberian Twilight is that a lack of base-building will significantly reduce the depth of the gameplay and the total number of viable strategies, which can only be solved if the game is made incredibly micro-intensive.

 

The excuse that EA's lead designer used was "we're looking to streamline the base-building system because we find that there are 'perfect BOs' shortly after our games are launched, and if you don't use it, you're branded a noob."

 

First off, this has never been true. Even in TS and RA2 there were plenty of optional focus BOs that every player was capable of using and winning with, even at the competitive level, and if a problem had arisen, the designers were more than capable of fixing it through a patch.

While you could do decent with more than one BO, it was still limited to a very small number of BOs you could use if you actually wanted to win against a good player. That's just boring, for me. It really takes the 'strategy' out of the game and makes it a flashy game of rock-paper-scissors to see who wins, if the opponents skills are equal.

 

dumbing down the game for the casual masses.[/b] If TT wants to be taken serious competitively after this, it needs to up the lethality (which is currently dismal) harden the counter system, and make it into a complex micro RTT like WiC, and from the looks of it, that's not going to happen.

 

I'm not gonna be first to buy this game, because I feel it's going to be outclassed HARD by the past games.

I don't know about every one else, but I find it refreshing that I won't have to follow certain set orders to win. Rather, I can use real strategy to truly surprise my opponent. You have to actually have to plan, because not only do you have to hold onto resource points, but at the same time you have to worry about keeping track of your enemy's moving base, so he doesn't all of a sudden surprise you from behind, and disappear without you being able to bring units back in time.

 

Though there is/was some strategy in the traditional C&C, the new system in C&C 4 will open up a whole new way to fight, for most C&C fans. The pros may not like it because they can't copy-paste their strats from CnC3/KW to C&C4, but it will give players a chance to "start again".

 

Eh, I didn't put any of that very well, but hopefully you get my meaning.

 

[Nmenth 291]

It seems the only reasons given for why C&C's formula should be changed is because it was getting old and lacked strategy.

 

The first one is an opinion, a personal opinion. Putting forth an opinion is an invalid argument unless that opinion represents the majority (of which I am quite certain it does not).

 

The second point, regarding strategy, I think is somewhat false. C&C 3 lacked strategy, I'll agree, there must have been two available tactics for each side and anything else was a 1 to 100 gamble against you with speed ultimately determining the victor. C&C 3 is not C&C as a whole...

I'm willing to bet Crawlers won't solve this tactical problem either. Three months after its release, there will probably be units that are never built, specific maneuvers that are always executed the same, and certain upgrades only a noob would invest in. Even chess has its good players and its novices, you can't eliminate certain advantageous tactics.

 

Whether C&C 4 is fun or not, as is, is irrelevant. Crawlers could have been a multiplayer mode, an addition to buildable units, or even their own (non-C&C) game. To use a 14-year-old series as testing ground for a new format is a poor decision on any game company's part.

 

I wonder if they will even explain in the storyline why GDI and Nod switched from MCVs to Crawlers... If they don't, or if it is no more than a blip in their Intel Databases, I will be massively disappointed in EA. These games are more than something to entertain us with constant action, it is also a story that's been being told for over a decade. Don't screw us over in the final chapter.

[F15pilotX 4]

The first one is an opinion, a personal opinion. Putting forth an opinion is an invalid argument unless that opinion represents the majority (of which I am quite certain it does not).

 

<snip>

 

Whether C&C 4 is fun or not, as is, is irrelevant. Crawlers could have been a multiplayer mode, an addition to buildable units, or even their own (non-C&C) game. To use a 14-year-old series as testing ground for a new format is a poor decision on any game company's part.

Ironic, you criticize me for using an 'opinion' (the fact is, the gameplay mechanics ARE old, whether you enjoy them or not), but then turn around and give one of your own

[Silverthorn 0]

Putting something new into an old series can be a gamble and end up as a bad idea. Just like how Generals suffered with its controversies from various hardcore fans. In my opinion, if EA wants to use & test the Crawler system, then use it on a BRAND NEW RTS game, NOT C&C.