Jump to content
Sonic

What Does "Command & Conquer" Mean to You?

Recommended Posts

What does "Command & Conquer" mean to you? That's the question posed to fans on the Official C&C Forums by APOC, the C&C Community manager. When you see the name "Command & Conquer", what do you immediately think?

 

cnclogo.png

Hey guys,

 

*PLEASE DO NOT WRITE A LONG ESSAY* =)

 

Before you answer this thread, let me be frank. I want to ask you questions in the coming weeks and months, I want to research your passions for C&C, but not at the expense of our forums being flame-hate filled. So I kindly ask, in threads like this, please reply with constructive answers and respect your community peers. I've seen all the "Westwood / dislike C&C 4" comments, etc. You've been heard and understood. Right now, I'm taking a step back and digging in to specific topics for awhile.

 

I posed this question on our C&C Facebook page, a lot of great short constructive answers. Let's see how we do here with the real hardcore fans.

 

What does "Command & Conquer" mean to you? You see those words, that name, when you see it, what do you immediately think, and expect as a game?

 

There is no right or wrong answer here, just looking to understand what Command & Conquer means to you. I'll leave it at that.

 

Thanks!

APOC

So click here and tell APOC what does "Command & Conquer" mean to you?

Share this post


Link to post

command and conquer was my first meaningful videogame experience. it felt awesome to command forces into the enemy's base and destroy them. i was a kid, and i grew up on action movies with real heroes. command and conquer was a step into a world of action, honor, glory, and strategy. command and conquer entered my life at a young age, and it probably had some sort of butterfly effect on my whole life.

 

this is why i think people are passionate about the game, and rage about things that disappoint them; command and conquer has more than just a mundane meaning for us. it is no shallow form of entertainment. it fulfilled multiple levels of pleasure: excitement, challenge, imagination. and i wont rage on about EA and what they did, but saying that i think they violated MY franchise in order to "try" something new actually speaks to what command and conquer is to me and what i've invested in it.

Share this post


Link to post

I posted in the topic, but I think I'll post what I said here too.

 

It's great to see that the dev team is looking back at its roots and actually asking the fans for their input this time around (which I assume you're all in pre-production for the next game atm)

 

What C&C means to me:

 

Epic Story: Not what we got with C&C4, but something like what we got in TS and TW.

 

Awesome factions: Nod and GDI are the best example of course, but even the RA and Generals factions were diverse, unique, and interesting in their own right.

 

Victory/Lose CG sequences: This is something I truly miss from TD and TS. Even when you lose it was interesting to see a well made CG sequence of what happens (in a first person perspective) after you win or lose

 

FMV's: Personally I would be fine without them as long as they were replaced by awesome CG sequences like we got with the Scrin campain in C&C3 but they have always been a staple in the series and I would prefer if they stayed.

 

ART DIRECTION: I can't stress this enough. The art directions of all the C&C's (except C&C4) have always drawn me back time and time again. Watching awesome looking units fighting other awesome looking units is what made C&C so epic. In fact it's the reason why I originally bought C&C95 and fell in love with the series so long ago

 

Music: I've always enjoyed the music in C&C's past, and the musical direction taken in C&C4 was a step in the wrong direction IMO. Other than that I don't know what to say.

 

Base Building: It's always worked, it just needs some refinement to avoid the build order problem

 

Harvesting: Tiberium would never have been as cool as it was if it didn't spread and turn other trees into Tiberium trees ect. Being able to play a solo game and leave it up for hours just to let the Tiberium take over the entire map really showed how much of an alien life form Tiberium really was.

 

And now a quick list of other, less important things in my book:

 

MCV's, Sidebar, Innovation, unique units, and No pop cap

 

(did my best to keep this as short and to the point as possible )

Share this post


Link to post
I posted in the topic, but I think I'll post what I said here too.

 

Tiberium my life and Red Alert my fun, the C&C but invaluable. :)

 

C&C the best RTS series, Kane the best Hero and the most RTS multiplayer game.

World in Conflict, Company of Heroes etc good-good, but the best and original, the C&C :)

Share this post


Link to post

Copy&Paste from the original thread:

 

When I read or hear "Command & Conquer" I think in:

 

- Base building (buildings emerging from the ground!).

 

- GDI, Nod, Kane.

 

- Frank Klepacki!

 

- FMVs with real actors.

 

- Tiberium/Ore harvesting from fields. (dependence on a single resource).

 

- Scouting, early combats, quick action, huge bases.

 

- Massive battles. No popcap (spam spam spam).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's difficult to sum up Command & Conquer and what it means to me, but let me put this into perspective.

 

I've been a long time Command & Conquer fan. I and my older brothers played endless hours of the Command & Conquer 95 demo when it originally came out, and after that point, I've kept up with the series' releases, news, mods etc. I was also a big fan of other games by Westwood like Dune 2, Nox, Emperor: Battle for Dune, etc. In other words, C&C has been a big part of my life and is really the only game series I feel passionate about, in and off game.

 

To me, a big part of Command & Conquer is story and storytelling. It started off simple with Command & Conquer, but it was packed with details, with cutscenes explaining Tiberium as a lifeform, its growth, and its affects on people. The two factions were also set up and put into perspective in that game. Red Alert, which was originally on the same continuum as TD, expanded more on that story.

 

The game with the best storytelling in my opinion was Tiberian Sun, which literally felt like you were watching a movie throughout the campaign. I liked seeing the commander in third person, to see how bad ass I am :), ambiance music and lighting was put in the background, multiple sets, characters, and a war that you can really see both on ground level and in the highest echelons of GDI and Nod. The story gives you real incentive to not only finish the game, but to ponder about it after the fact, debate details on forums, etc.

 

Gameplay-wise, I think Command & Conquer is all about the establishment of an RTS concept and its expansion. In TD we had a very basic RTS concept that worked beautifully at the time, and thus, it sold millions. In RA1, the concept was expanded with naval units, and a bigger gameplay opportunity. In TS, C&C expanded into having a build cue, natural disasters (ion storms and meteor showers), multiple superweapons, capturing and repairing bridges, etc. In RA2, we were given four different build cues, a new outlook on superweapons and their use, faster & more fluid gameplay, capturable neutral buildings, building garrison, etc. In Emperor, we had sub-factions, new and creative superweapons, the ability to order units rather than just building them, more natural disasters... C&C3 further expanded on that... you get my point by now.

 

Command & Conquer gameplay is all about expanding on the original foundation. In just a few years, from 1995 to 2001, we found a rapidly evolving Command & Conquer system. In my view, it needs to continue following this gameplay pattern, as well as tie better with the story elements I mentioned earlier. This doesn't mean change doesn't take place - Command & Conquer is built on change - but changing the foundational qualities is a no-no, as we've seen from the reviews. Sure, bring in a mobile base rather than an all-purpose Crawler, and things may be very interesting. Introduce some capturable nodes, but give them a bigger and more overall purpose than just being "nodes", such as giving each of them a special ability once a team has attained it. And pack as much story goodies and detail into the game.

 

As for what C&C could be, I think an RTS series is the very least of what it could be. In 2002 Command & Conquer in every intention was meant to expand to the FPS and MMORPG genres with Renegade and Continuum. I can see C&C becoming a multi-platform multi-genre game series, expanding the perspectives on the story and canon into ways we can only dream, as there is only so much that can be done behind a commander's desk. C&C can expand into literature too (anyone read Kirby's "The Scorpion's Tale"?) and who knows, maybe movies. We can be given more perspective as to the backstory of C&C, and possibly what goes on in between the major Tiberian wars, just as Renegade took place between the 1st and 2nd.

 

So to me, Command & Conquer is one, detailed, in-depth elaborate storyline, with great visual, audio, and atmospheric presentation, and a foundational ever-expanding game model.

Share this post


Link to post

Unlimited units!

Buildings poppin' out! It's fun to see it!

 

And i think of an nice lil' base...

Then a gazzillion millon trillion Apocalypse Tanks come and decimate the base!

Share this post


Link to post

I can see C&C becoming a multi-platform multi-genre game series, expanding the perspectives on the story and canon into ways we can only dream, as there is only so much that can be done behind a commander's desk...

 

C&C is story first and foremost...

Share this post


Link to post
Tiberium my life and Red Alert my fun, the C&C but invaluable. :)

This! I believe that Tiberian Sun Rising will be the perfect C&C game! EA has everything to learn from that project.

Share this post


Link to post

Excellent thread with some very good responses, but I'll write an essay if I feel like it! *shakes fist*

 

Short version:

Immersive and engaging narrative of a monumental scale. Gameplay that is relatively "easy" to pick up, but challenging to master, powered by intelligent systems management with lots of variety and options.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Even shorter version:

C&C is story first and foremost...

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Long version:

Here's that essay he didn't want. :P But I already conveniently made shorter versions above this for your consumption.

 

Want me to decode the short versions?

  • The story is what got me into Command & Conquer. It was never about the multiplayer. Heck, back in the day, C&C games barely even had multiplayer due to early Internet technologies and adoption rates, so the games had to stand on their own legs based on the merits of what came in the box, and nothing else from the outside.

     

    It was deep and it was wide. The universe had a rich fiction that would set it up for fantastical scenarios, pulling elements from history in an interconnected web of events* as well as futuristic or very-near-future technologies and out-of-this-world elements** that mixed together to form unique settings and very compelling stories. It was also long. It should take days to finish a long campaign. Not a few hours to finish a short one.

     

    *(Kane/Cain biblical connections, GDI founded by the UN, Nikola Tesla, Einstein, etc.)

    **(Lazarus cloaks, laser weapons, Ion Cannons, Tesla Coils, Gap Generators, Chronospheres, Tiberium, etc. etc.)

     

    Tiberium was elusive and mystifying; mysterious because we didn't know what it was or where it came from. We could see that it was a great gift; a resource that could better mankind. But it we also began to see that it could easily and ominously corrupt the greed of man and literally corrupt the environment we lived in. Tiberium was power.

     

    Chrono technology catapulted us into alternate histories where whole new technologies were fielded that never made an impact on our actual history. Hitler was out of the way, but we had to face an entirely new threat from an enemy that was just as ambitious, ruthless, and powerful. (Or we could fight on the side of the reds too. :P ) It was an amazing 'what if' scenario that pitted real world powers from the past (with a writer's twist of course) against each other.

     

    The stories were massive and affected everyone, fighting across all continents and literally spanning generations of time. The fate of the entire world hung in the balance as massive armies were pitted against each other in a struggle to survive. They engaged us and pulled us into the worlds we were fighting for.

     

  • The gameplay supported the story. Not the other way around. It may not have been particularly deep when compared to other games, but it was wide. The mechanics weren't ultra complicated, but they allowed for many many possibilities. We had to use our wits to outsmart our enemy while managing several systems including an economy (and the dumb harvester AIs :P ), tech advancement, and power levels. Maintaining a base alone is a multi-layer endeavor of base construction with available economy, layout/flow (paths for unimpeded unit movement through your base), utilization of available build space (because the maps ACTUALLY HAD VARYING TERRAIN HEIGHT which prevented base crawling and limited the space you had to work with), tactical placement of defenses and channeling devices (aka walls), etc.. All that while scouting, building your forces, doing probing strikes and tactical strikes* on your enemy, and defending yourself.

     

    *(as in giving the enemy setbacks like going after their economy [harvesters], their power, their tech advancement structures, their radar; basically their ability to make war, but not the final blow of obliterating them off the map. Strikes that weaken them, and give you time to strengthen yourself.)

     

    The gameplay always grew and expanded upon itself to become even better as others have said (build queues, tabbed sidebar, upgrades, etc.).

     

  • The games had strong presentation that made it feel strongly rooted to its foundations. The victory/lose sequences made us feel that our actions had solid consequences. Seeing our advancement on the map selection screen for the next mission, and seeing our enemy's advancement and/or retreat helped to solidify the world. The in-game atmosphere was believable and reflected that of the cutscenes and story. The designs and realism may have been a little questionable at times, but because they had plausibility within our known laws of the universe, that gave them credibility and didn't break our suspension of disbelief. You could feel the passion of the developers in the games, and all the subtleties that were implied in the themes presented. The games were also consistent. There weren't enormous gameplay or canon changes between games. If you saw a C&C game on the shelf, you had a general idea of what you were going to get if you bought it. Also the music was always rockin' and energetic with high production values that made you want to listen to it outside of the game.

 

BONUS FEATURE: A LIST!

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

I realize Apoc didn't ask for essays, but if you really want to know what C&C means to people, to truly understand them, then it automatically begs that there be an explanation. Otherwise the question is disingenuous and the answer is inaccurate and you just get a sound byte that you can throw to the marketing department. (Although I have provided such a sound byte as my first sentence anyways.)

 

C&C used to mean "awesome" to me before EA took over. I trusted implicitly that if I saw a game in the store with "Command & Conquer" on the box, then it was going to be awesome and I would buy it on the spot.* These days, I am saddened to say, that is not the case. I haven't even bought the last two C&C games. You'll notice I used a lot of past tense in my long version. Well it's because when I hear "Command & Conquer" what I immediately think is TS/TD/RA1. I think the recent C&C games have failed to deliver what I would consider what C&C "means."

 

*(this was back when I was a kid, and also before I had Internet access)

Share this post


Link to post

(It's a predicament, not insurmountable, but present none the less.... that I associate Kane with the story of C&C.)

Share this post


Link to post

I play C&C mostly for the story. If there had been no story, I wouldn't have been here. The story is what have kept me interested, and it is what has always made me hunger for more.

 

Gameplay wise, it has been fun. I have many fond memories of playing the C&C games. But still, it is the story that is C&C to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Everything what Mighty Bob! said

C&C tiberian sun was the very first game i truly played.

 

The day i saw this GDI cutscene, i was sold to C&C and GDI forever

 

 

and when i saw the mammoth Cutscene, i just wanted all of them. In a week, i bought Red alert and C&C1, then i bought FS. Then i bought red alert 2. And thats when it became...downhill for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Everything what Mighty Bob! said

C&C tiberian sun was the very first game i truly played.

 

The day i saw this GDI cutscene, i was sold to C&C and GDI forever

 

 

and when i saw the mammoth Cutscene, i just wanted all of them. In a week, i bought Red alert and C&C1, then i bought FS. Then i bought red alert 2. And thats when it became...downhill for me.

 

 

God I miss those sick nasty CGI's... Those really are a staple of C&C that has been overlooked a lot :(

Share this post


Link to post
God I miss those sick nasty CGI's... Those really are a staple of C&C that has been overlooked a lot :(

They truly defined each faction aswel

 

GDI simply looks like a high tech powerhouse.

Nod resembles stealthy,sneaky and Brotherhood like signs.

Share this post


Link to post

Firestorm promo :)

 

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, nearly many of you mentioned my comments, particularly the CGI is my main favorite. Damn, those videos are kickass like hell! That's what makes C&C, well, C&C. :D C&C3's CGI were there too but I'm very sad & disappointed that EA kept those behind our backs. :(

 

Ok, here's my comments.

 

--------

 

C&C is not about commanding army & conquering enemies, it's all about the gameplay which are different from other RTS games. We got :

 

1. Sidebar

2. MCV (Many other RTS uses the Dozer system, that's what makes C&C different from the others)

3. FMV (Which other RTS doesn't do that too), and of course, preferably more towards serious acting rather than Hollywood cameos. Yes, the old Westwood days which the actors we got are not on Hollywood level.

4. CGI (Already mentioned it above), oh, for you EA, do make yourself a CGI room like Westwood did, enough with the outsourcing as you already know how expensive they are. In-house production is way better. Look at Infinity Ward did with Modern Warfare 1 & 2, those CGIs are so beautiful!

5. Seriousness in terms of art direction (C&C3 is the last game that has pure seriousness, RA3 & beyond are just average and C&C4 became the worst in history),

6. Slower gameplay (It's kind of fun too as I remembered in my 1st C&C, that is TS)

7. Base building (That is RTS, no base building is RTT, and I hate RTT)

8. Harvesting (Another RTS element as well, without it, it's just another RTT)

9. No pop-cap (That's another element what makes C&C different from other RTS games)

10. Soldier's Head boxart! (It has been used this way since the beginning of the franchise, DON'T use back your old X design, we hate it! AND no copying & pasting, don't be lazy, we're very smart to identify how a boxart is made. Westwood's boxes are all drawn from scratch.)

11. Theater of War map system (Just like in TS, C&C3's is all wrong. Coding maybe really hard as we know, but it's best to use it despite the difficulty. You wanna bring the franchise to rise from the ashes? Then use this one as per hardcore WW fan requests)

 

Overall, the best C&C games is when Westwood made them, when EA made them, they're just plain no good and I don't want to explain the reason behind each of them, you already know how they look.

 

So far, Apoc, I hope JVC is really bringing us the real meaning of C&C & happiness, please, no more those experiments or whatever stupid things the dev team has done for us, Adam Isgreen saw how C&C4 went and it really hurts him to see his beloved project goes up in flames and end with a whimper. So far, please do show us the real light, we the fans will lead the franchise to its ultimate glory, in this way, it'll make both Brett & Adam really proud.

 

EDIT 1 : Must have nearly a forgotten another important part, and please, it maybe a box is a box, but this is bringing back the old Westwood times we're talking about. And it's no point for me to write Special Edition items like pewter figurines, we know how the economy is in right now.

 

EDIT 2 : And another which I also forgot again.

Edited by Silverthorn

Share this post


Link to post

Ok ok I will make it the shortest possible!

 

One word to describe C&C is: PWNAGE

(and red colour of doom!)

Share this post


Link to post

Is it just me or does the length of that thread keep changing? First it was 7 pages, then 8, then 7, then 9, and now 7 again.

Share this post


Link to post
Is it just me or does the length of that thread keep changing? First it was 7 pages, then 8, then 7, then 9, and now 7 again.

 

think it may be the mods cleaning up flames on C&C4 and/or the devs

Share this post


Link to post

I think Apoc should have provided a word limit. Is a "long essay" a ten page paper, or more than a few sentences?

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.

×