Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Saracen

What is the issue?

Recommended Posts

Erm, Generals suffered because fans were pissed off EA used the C&C name when it had absolutely nothing to do with C&C. Even then, it turned out to be a good game...

 

Using a new gameplay mechanic in a game that is part of the series is a completely different issue; try to find a better parallel :P

Edited by F15pilotX

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, it was a gimmick and fans were very angry. So do I too, C&C-related or not, what I'm referring to is also the gameplay systems such as MCVs, sidebars, etc.. The Crawler is also meant not to go into the franchise, they should do it on a new RTS game. If the dev team having problems with people disconnecting after being pwned and the losers felt depressed, then go ahead and introduce them a new game with :

 

-----

 

From the creators of C&C, EALA, presents to you "Battle Masters", a new (example) RTS game which features the crawler system to ensure reducing disconnections after being pwned & other community problems.

 

-----

 

Something like that, C&C4 should retain the old systems and once it's the last C&C game, then we can move on to the crawler system. I didn't say I would love to see the franchise goes to its grave and rest in peace, all I want is what's best for themselves if they want to reduce all that community problems and such.

Edited by Silverthorn

Share this post


Link to post
Erm, Generals suffered because fans were pissed off EA used the C&C name when it had absolutely nothing to do with C&C. Even then, it turned out to be a good game...

 

Using a new gameplay mechanic in a game that is part of the series is a completely different issue; try to find a better parallel :P

 

Don't bother bringing Generals controversy up yet again. I am still pondering should I regard it as a C&C game or not.

Share this post


Link to post
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 :P

Alright, let me specify then. Do you mean "old" as in years have passed, or "old" as in it's gone on long enough? They are not synonymous, you know. Time passing means nothing as I've already stated, there is nothing new. C&C4 is not new, only different from normal C&Cs. However, "old" as in it's gone on long enough is an opinion, one which many C&C fans (now getting labeled as hardcore) do not agree with.

 

Now, secondly, where is my opinion? That gambling with a 14-year-old series is a poor decision? Not an opinion, it is a gamble and it is a poor choice (if it pans out for the better, it may justify their gamble, but it will still exist as having been a poor choice for all eternity).

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Income? pff...They have removed income since the Commandcom build.

Share this post


Link to post

laugh.gif That didn't take much to get everyone riled up. Now, on to business...

 

Yes, it was a gimmick and fans were very angry. So do I too, C&C-related or not, what I'm referring to is also the gameplay systems such as MCVs, sidebars, etc.. The Crawler is also meant not to go into the franchise, they should do it on a new RTS game. If the dev team having problems with people disconnecting after being pwned and the losers felt depressed, then go ahead and introduce them a new game with :

 

-----

 

From the creators of C&C, EALA, presents to you "Battle Masters", a new (example) RTS game which features the crawler system to ensure reducing disconnections after being pwned & other community problems.

So you WANT C&C 4 to be a worse game (disconnections etc like you mentioned) just so it can be like the others? Wow.

 

 

Don't bother bringing Generals controversy up yet again. I am still pondering should I regard it as a C&C game or not.
Heh, I don't. I just regard it as a good game.

Alright, let me specify then. Do you mean "old" as in years have passed, or "old" as in it's gone on long enough? They are not synonymous, you know. Time passing means nothing as I've already stated, there is nothing new. C&C4 is not new, only different from normal C&Cs. However, "old" as in it's gone on long enough is an opinion, one which many C&C fans (now getting labeled as hardcore) do not agree with.
Sorry for not being clear on the old part; I meant that the basic C&C mechanics are old age-wise. They've been around for a loong time.

 

As to your "C&C4 is not new", I would love to see one example of another game that combines the crawler mechanics with the MMO-esque persistance between Single and Multiplayer.

 

Now, secondly, where is my opinion? That gambling with a 14-year-old series is a poor decision? Not an opinion, it is a gamble and it is a poor choice (if it pans out for the better, it may justify their gamble, but it will still exist as having been a poor choice for all eternity).
It is your opinion that it is a poor choice for them. It is obviously their opinion (and I tend toward their side on this one) that it is not, in fact, a bad decision. Make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
As to your "C&C4 is not new", I would love to see one example of another game that combines the crawler mechanics with the MMO-esque persistance between Single and Multiplayer.

Combining things don't make it new. It is still old game styles, just mixed.

 

It is your opinion that it is a poor choice for them. It is obviously their opinion (and I tend toward their side on this one) that it is not, in fact, a bad decision. Make sense?

I understand how you would see that as an opinion. I'm not sure if I can convince you that it isn't.

Is gambling all your money you spent 14 years earning away on something a good decision? Even if you end up winning? It is a poor decision to gamble, and always will be. EA is gambling, if C&C 4 fails, they will lose money. They spent 14 years building up C&C and suddenly want to change almost everything. It is a gamble and it is a poor decision.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey hey, Eagle, I DIDN'T say I want C&C4 to be the worst game ever, if the devs want to solve our community problems of people getting pwned and then gone for good, they should do it on another new game, NOT on C&C4 when sacrificed several traditions to trigger anger, like the Crawler over classic base-building, harvesting resources replaced by another system.

Share this post


Link to post
Combining things don't make it new. It is still old game styles, just mixed.

 

 

I understand how you would see that as an opinion. I'm not sure if I can convince you that it isn't.

Is gambling all your money you spent 14 years earning away on something a good decision? Even if you end up winning? It is a poor decision to gamble, and always will be. EA is gambling, if C&C 4 fails, they will lose money. They spent 14 years building up C&C and suddenly want to change almost everything. It is a gamble and it is a poor decision.

If you combine old things to do something someone hasn't done before, then it's new because it hasn't been done before. I mean, that would what the word means...

 

As to the gambling, whether or not the game is classic C&C or a new experience, most fans will buy it just because it IS C&C, and you know it. If you're EA, you'd be gambling with probably no more than 5-8% of the buyers, and even most of those will eventually get it. After all, if they care enough to get pissed off about that, then they'll probably want to have all the games as well. They might not even play it, but they'll buy it if only for the sake of having it to complete the set.

 

 

Hey hey, Eagle, I DIDN'T say I want C&C4 to be the worst game ever, if the devs want to solve our community problems of people getting pwned and then gone for good, they should do it on another new game, NOT on C&C4 when sacrificed several traditions to trigger anger, like the Crawler over classic base-building, harvesting resources replaced by another system.
Yea, wouldn't want to have those new people playing a C&C game. :rolleyes:

 

 

I can see where you two are coming from, but I disagree with both of you here, and that's not going to change unless you change your minds (which I doubt). ;)

Share this post


Link to post

That's why I highly doubt about it. Since the dev team done so much and they can't go back to square one, then we'll just have to deal with this "World in Conflict" clone.

Share this post


Link to post
If you combine old things to do something someone hasn't done before, then it's new because it hasn't been done before. I mean, that would what the word means...

Except it has been done before. Rearranging the mix does not make it new. I guess this is similar to the "old" problem... how do you define new? If you mean the gameplay is new, it's not, remixing styles leaves them as the same styles... only mixed. If you mean new as in this particular arrangement has never before existed, well then everything is new unless you copy every detail of a preexisting game, in which case you'll probably be going to court for illegal copyright infringement.

 

I can see where you two are coming from, but I disagree with both of you here, and that's not going to change unless you change your minds (which I doubt). ;)

Indeed. I'm not debating the game anymore, I'm debating your arguments. :P

Share this post


Link to post
most fans will buy it just because it IS C&C, and you know it. If you're EA, you'd be gambling with probably no more than 5-8% of the buyers, and even most of those will eventually get it. After all, if they care enough to get pissed off about that, then they'll probably want to have all the games as well. They might not even play it, but they'll buy it if only for the sake of having it to complete the set.

I don't understand why you would go out of your way to collect something that you don't like.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not sure where we're going, but I'll still play the game. I'll play it NOT because I love the franchise, I'll play it because I'm SUPER BORED. If EA would to look for Generals 2 or RA4 and suddenly **** up the whole mess again, then I can say bye-bye and play other RTS games made by their competitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Except it has been done before. Rearranging the mix does not make it new. I guess this is similar to the "old" problem... how do you define new? If you mean the gameplay is new, it's not, remixing styles leaves them as the same styles... only mixed. If you mean new as in this particular arrangement has never before existed, well then everything is new unless you copy every detail of a preexisting game, in which case you'll probably be going to court for illegal copyright infringement.

 

 

Indeed. I'm not debating the game anymore, I'm debating your arguments. :P

So you pretty much agreed with me with your second statement. Therefore, I win. (yes, I'm doing the same thing :P)

 

 

I don't understand why you would go out of your way to collect something that you don't like.
Some people are like that; I am in a way, but for me the reason I'll buy it is because I think it will be a good game; I have other things to spend money on as a college student than a game I don't think I'll like.

 

 

I am not sure where we're going, but I'll still play the game. I'll play it NOT because I love the franchise, I'll play it because I'm SUPER BORED. If EA would to look for Generals 2 or RA4 and suddenly **** up the whole mess again, then I can say bye-bye and play other RTS games made by their competitors.
Ya know what, how about this. Describe to me exactly what would make you 100% happy for EA to do. Only rule: it must me realistic. Now, let's see it.

 

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest, the only thing that 100% makes me happy is when they released C&C3, but the happiness decreased dramatically when they use the crappy X design instead of the Soldier's Head, copy & paste, lack of CGI, downloadable special edition goodies instead of physical items, etc.. The 100% was beautiful but it doesn't last for a long time. :(

 

So anyway, if people hates me already when I'm all hardcore WW and that. Don't worry, you won't be seeing me for long since C&C4 is going to be my LAST C&C game to play, the last game to finally reveal about Kane's story and the finale, nothing else.

Edited by Silverthorn

Share this post


Link to post
So you pretty much agreed with me with your second statement. Therefore, I win. (yes, I'm doing the same thing :P)

You win, how?

Share this post


Link to post

Because you agreed with me, and therefore I apparently am right in your opinion...since it was us two arguing and you conceded to my viewpoint, I won the argument.

 

 

Not that it really matters. :P

Edited by F15pilotX

Share this post


Link to post
Because you agreed with me, and therefore I apparently am right in your opinion...since it was us two arguing and you conceded to my viewpoint, I won the argument.

I agreed that we could not change each other's minds regarding C&C4, I did not agree to your argument. I still think C&C4's radical changes are just as unnecessary and unwise as when Saracen started this topic.

 

I already knew the community was split on this and debating it was pointless, as you can see here:

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I just signed up for this forum since I gather that in the official forums, I wasn't likely to listen to what other people are thinking about the game.

 

I guess I am in the frustrated camp. Change, sure, why not. They could do C&C:Apoc's Pink Pony Wars with this system and I will give them props. Heck, if EA can do a game like C&C: Total War I will be happy too. But in C&C4, the end of a storyline?

 

Celebration of a series with its mechanics refined and polished. I do not know if that's asking too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Celebration of a series with its mechanics refined and polished.

 

[cut-and-paste] Yep.... Save the new mechanics for the post-kane universe. [/cut-and-paste]

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×