Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sonic

CNCNZ.com Roundtable Discussion #29: July 2010

Recommended Posts

We haven't done a Roundtable since April so here is short 4 question one to cover a few interesting topics that cropped up recently. Topics discussed are the wait between C&C games, Jon Van Caneghem and the new C&C/RTS development team at EALA, when is the announcement of the next C&C game? and the new Community Manager and his team. The full panel list is below.

 

roundtable29.jpg

Here is the panel for this month.

Click here to read Roundtable Discussion #29.

Share this post


Link to post
Question 2) What If you could sit in a room with Jon Van Caneghem and the new C&C/RTS development team at EALA what would you say to them to help bring back the C&C franchise and improve it for the future?

 

Sonic: Take the franchise back to it's roots, simpilify the gameplay, bring back the classic C&C system that ever C&C fans wants. In other words no more Crawlers. And to keep things more interesting, create a new universe. A new universe would then make it easier for the new team at EALA to get away from living up to the "Westwood legacy" of making a Tiberium or Red Alert C&C game. Keep the traditional C&C formula but set it in a new universe.

 

Nathancnc: Build on the classics! There have been many developers making new games that are in he style (both gameplay and graphics) as older titles form years back (A good example is the new megaman game) They should develop a new C&C game, but make it look and play like either Tiberian Sun or Red Alert 2..... just a new storyline and all.

 

I must agree with Nathan and you him there... lots of games are trying to be innovative for the sake of being innovative. One of the silliest examples of this was Mortal Kombat going to 3D. Everything stayed the same, except that you could just step aside to avoid whatever the other dude threw at you... pretty lame if you ask me. And now, the next Mortal Kombat game is going to go back to its roots... still rendered in full 3D, but going back to the original 2D fighting style that made the game so popular in the first place. Well, let me tell you, that's the first Mortal Kombat game I'm looking forward to, in a LONG time. Mortal Kombat 1 was the first store-bought PC game I ever played.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like the C&C classics back plus some of the new mechanics from SCII. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post

I mostly agree that C&C's future is a little fuzzy.

 

I think EA should go back to the Tiberian Dawn universe, and maybe made a modern 'prequal' to the game, and call it "Command & Conquer". TD sort of throws you in the middle of the war, but it would be interesting to see the pre-TD politics, the rise of Nod, the Tiberium meteor crash and its world's reaction, and the advancements. Reintroduce some classic units, bring some new ones in, all in the classic C&C mode with some new mechanics. THAT would be an ideal future for C&C, imo.

Share this post


Link to post

I think EA should go back to the Tiberian Dawn universe, and maybe made a modern 'prequal' to the game, and call it "Command & Conquer". TD sort of throws you in the middle of the war, but it would be interesting to see the pre-TD politics, the rise of Nod, the Tiberium meteor crash and its world's reaction, and the advancements.

I would also like to see something like this even though I normally hate prequels. You know they'd have to bring Kane back for it too... Kane.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Please. No more tiberium. It can't be fixed.

 

I think the best direction would be an entirely new universe. I would like to see Kane again, but every time I see him nowadays I get let down.

Share this post


Link to post
I must agree with Nathan and you him there... lots of games are trying to be innovative for the sake of being innovative. One of the silliest examples of this was Mortal Kombat going to 3D. Everything stayed the same, except that you could just step aside to avoid whatever the other dude threw at you... pretty lame if you ask me. And now, the next Mortal Kombat game is going to go back to its roots... still rendered in full 3D, but going back to the original 2D fighting style that made the game so popular in the first place. Well, let me tell you, that's the first Mortal Kombat game I'm looking forward to, in a LONG time. Mortal Kombat 1 was the first store-bought PC game I ever played.

 

I love old school C&C games, but innovations are needed. Otherwise you'll be paying to play the same game over and over again. Certainly, the story of these games are usually the main attraction, but it is not everything.

 

The problem with most newer games is that I don't think there was much thought into the consequences of the changes that were applied to them. They just change it for the sake of changing it, as you said. In EALA's case, when they noticed the mess they've just created, they've tried to fix it by adding symmetry to ballance the game. That's completely lame.

 

Good innovations can be successful if you understand how the core of the games work. All of them derive somewhat from Tetris. In C&C's case, you have pieces that can create other pieces that once 'fired', they can attach at the enemy pieces. Once a certain amount of pieces is attached at the enemy piece, the piece disappears (aka dies). There is also a piece known as harvester (taken away in C&C4) that attaches to neutral resource pieces to create a flux of money that will allow you to build more pieces from factory pieces. Limited resources pieces forces players to move their harvester pieces to other sections of the map, forcing base expansion. Superweapons and special powers simply create temporary pieces out of nowhere that can allow you to remove enemy pieces or expand your own. Unlike Tetris, pieces have different values for the players. The core ones are the buildings, specially the factories. The expendable ones are everything else, including defense buildings. If you eliminate all core pieces from all enemies, you win the game. If you loose all your core pieces, you loose the game. C&C also has the radar/fog/shroud factor, which affects the way you see enemy pieces and resources in the map.

 

 

With that knowledge, here's a consequence of some of the most important changes:

 

-> Dozer, builder system, cranes (Generals, C&C3, RA3): It allows you to build factory pieces too much quickly, which, as a consequence, increases unit spam. According to the market laws, if something is too easy to be acquired, its value decreases. Therefore, this system reduces the value of the factories in game and, consequently, the rewarding value of destroying each core piece of the enemy. This change was bad.

 

-> Removal of harvester/collector piece (C&C4): It reduces the assymetry of resources between different armies, which makes the game more ballanced, however, more predictable and boring. It also reduces the incentive to expand the base to different regions (in C&C4, it was compensated with the Tiberium Nodes). Iin my opinion, this change was bad.

 

-> Restriction of one harvester per resource node and of the number of resource nodes (RA3): It reduces the flux of resources for the player, which decreases the speed of base building and unit spam. Following the same market laws mentioned above, the consequence is that units gain value and it motivates players to expand into different bases. I think this change was a good one for motivating the players to expand faster. It's also a good way to slow down the game, which was necessary in RA3.

 

-> Unit population cap (C&C4): It's a way to kill a fly with an ion cannon together with an atom bomb (just to ensure efficience), to stop tank spam. The problem is that the ion cannon kills the fly as well as anything near it causing a tremendous collateral damage. It makes units more valuable, but at the same time, the game becomes more boring because you cannot produce more pieces and customize the way you'll wipe the enemy ones. This change is horrible.

 

-> Tech Buildings (RA2, Generals, C&C3, RA3, C&C4): It motivates users to expand the base and fight for certain area maps. This change is positive.

 

-> Absurdly strong Superweapons and Special Abilities (C&C1, RA2, Generals, C&C3, RA3): Superweapons that are efficient against core pieces decrease the value of the core pieces, which is consequently bad for the game. Special abilities and superweapons that are efficient against non-core pieces or adds units that are not effective against core pieces to the game are positive moves. Considering that you can place these units or use these weapons everywhere in the map (most of times you need to see the region), these resources can highly affect the ballance of a game, depending on the value of the core pieces.

 

-> Allowing extremely cheap infantry to conquer enemy buildings (Generals): This change decreases the value of core pieces and therefore, it is bad for the overall system.

 

 

 

At least, this is my point of view. Innovations can be done by concepts that increases the contrast of the value of core pieces compared to other pieces, specially in Generals and newer games... or even by adding core pieces to the game that affects other areas than unit production. Or by adding an element that makes the gameplay deviates a bit more from the concept of Tetris, such as using RPG elements.

Edited by Banshee

Share this post


Link to post

What is the round table can someone explane?what are the goals of the round table?

Edited by The empror

Share this post


Link to post
What is the round table can someone explane?what are the goals of the round table?

 

The Roundtable Discussion feature is where the CNCNZ.com staff and selected people from the C&C community all come together to share their opinions about the most interesting or biggest news topics. The invited people could be from other well known sites or people who contribute to the C&C community in various other ways. One thing is for sure the answers given are not sugar coated, they are presented to you as honest opinions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
I would like the C&C classics back plus some of the new mechanics from SCII. ^_^

 

 

Please. No more tiberium. It can't be fixed.

 

I think the best direction would be an entirely new universe. I would like to see Kane again, but every time I see him nowadays I get let down.

 

Sonic: Take the franchise back to it's roots, simpilify the gameplay, bring back the classic C&C system that ever C&C fans wants. In other words no more Crawlers. And to keep things more interesting, create a new universe. A new universe would then make it easier for the new team at EALA to get away from living up to the "Westwood legacy" of making a Tiberium or Red Alert C&C game. Keep the traditional C&C formula but set it in a new universe.

 

Chickendippers: I say this every-time; post-launch support. It's important from the outset to define exactly what support the development team wants and can realistically provide. The development team always has ambitious post-launch plans; for Generals it was the Ladder Kits, for Red Alert 3 it was the new website with in-game messaging abilities, XML exports to display stats on your website, ladder groups and more. None of these have ever come to fruition for whatever reasons (budget, time constraints, medalling from management etc). So it's important to aim for something that is realistically achievable.

Agreed with all of the above, plus most of Banshee's posts.

 

I may have a biased perspective here, but it seems to me that a good portion of the community never goes on the official forums, so having the Community Manager & crew come over and post on the fansites is essential.

Share this post


Link to post

Question 2 made me agree and yes, I'm sure you already know how bad the older dev team went, especially you, Sonic, you do remember that I did suggest a brand new universe instead while retaining the original gameplay. Stale or not, C&C has always been like this and many fans refuse to move on to new mechanics, and that's where C&C4 brought us the downfall, leading to well, you get how it turned out.

 

Wow, Banshee has a lot to say, and yes, I do agree on the radar part, I prefer the classic no radar unless you have a radar tower and also shut down if destroyed or low power. I miss those! :( Regarding the 1 harvester per 1 ore node, it was an ok system in my opinion, but with that in place, RA3 didn't end up as a World Cyber Games candidate. If you want to let your game enter the WCG, then go back to the numerous harvesters like you did with C&C3. And correct, sidebar is an a must (Not just a classic key favorite), with my new laptop in use, I'm using FHD here and not to mention Widescreen! And also, if JVC is already here, just be on your guard for the greedy rushing execs, look what and how they did to Greg Black, Mark Skaggs and the other key developers!

 

As for Question 3, Zéphyr is right, I prefer a full quality game just like how Valve (Except Left 4 Dead 2) & Blizzard took their time to make their games, no more rushes, EALA, money will never come to you when you rush! We're now smarter of how to buy our games and we already know how you work on them.

Edited by Silverthorn

Share this post


Link to post
I love old school C&C games, but innovations are needed. Otherwise you'll be paying to play the same game over and over again. Certainly, the story of these games are usually the main attraction, but it is not everything.

Have you ever played any Pokemon games? The basic formula of those stayed 100% the same throughout the entire series. And they all sell like crazy just because they add new critters in them. Yes, they add some new stuff, new types of exploring (latest games have an underground mode where you can mine fossils), online trading and stuff... but all of that is extra, and, tbh, optional. The basic gameplay formula simply WORKS, and thus they're smart enough not to change it.

 

-> Restriction of one harvester per resource node and of the number of resource nodes (RA3): It reduces the flux of resources for the player, which decreases the speed of base building and unit spam. Following the same market laws mentioned above, the consequence is that units gain value and it motivates players to expand into different bases. I think this change was a good one for motivating the players to expand faster. It's also a good way to slow down the game, which was necessary in RA3.

Well, since it turned the harvesting into a glorified oil derrick, I do have mixed feelings about this. IMO it's too much like the WC3 gold mining system(s)... too strictly controlled. But I guess you're right about its game consequences.

 

-> Absurdly strong Superweapons and Special Abilities (C&C1, RA2, Generals, C&C3, RA3): Superweapons that are efficient against core pieces decrease the value of the core pieces, which is consequently bad for the game. Special abilities and superweapons that are efficient against non-core pieces or adds units that are not effective against core pieces to the game are positive moves. Considering that you can place these units or use these weapons everywhere in the map (most of times you need to see the region), these resources can highly affect the ballance of a game, depending on the value of the core pieces.

Eh, many people don't seem to realize this, but the Multiplayer nuke in C&C1 only does 1/3rd of the damage of its single player version. So it's the same as the RA1 nuke, and generally only does the same amount of damage as the ion cannon, only spread out over multiple targets.

 

 

In general, I don't really like the way your view on this seems to be 100% from a multiplayer perspective, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Have you ever played any Pokemon games? The basic formula of those stayed 100% the same throughout the entire series. And they all sell like crazy just because they add new critters in them. Yes, they add some new stuff, new types of exploring (latest games have an underground mode where you can mine fossils), online trading and stuff... but all of that is extra, and, tbh, optional. The basic gameplay formula simply WORKS, and thus they're smart enough not to change it.

 

I have not played Pokemon games.

 

 

Well, since it turned the harvesting into a glorified oil derrick, I do have mixed feelings about this. IMO it's too much like the WC3 gold mining system(s)... too strictly controlled. But I guess you're right about its game consequences.

 

I agree. It is a glorified oil derrick where somebody can eventually kill the harvester (and the resource building). But unlike the oil derrick, you actually have to build near it, which forces base expansion.

 

 

Eh, many people don't seem to realize this, but the Multiplayer nuke in C&C1 only does 1/3rd of the damage of its single player version. So it's the same as the RA1 nuke, and generally only does the same amount of damage as the ion cannon, only spread out over multiple targets.

 

Humm, yea. I forgot that detail.

 

 

In general, I don't really like the way your view on this seems to be 100% from a multiplayer perspective, btw.

 

That's because my objective was solely to analyse the multiplayer aspect of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
I agree. It is a glorified oil derrick where somebody can eventually kill the harvester (and the resource building). But unlike the oil derrick, you actually have to build near it, which forces base expansion.

I do not like forced base expansion. In Generals, those that did expand to new supply docks had a nice cash boost, but due to the secondary incomes each side got, expansion was not required to succeed.

 

In my opinion, there is nothing good about what they did to the ore collection in RA3. I thought it was a terrible idea from the moment I heard about it.

 

I didn't like the supply docks in Generals either, considering only one unit could unload supplies at a time, it really functioned much like RA3, but at least that game did not force base expansion.

 

Anytime a game forces me to do something, it decreases not only the fun of freedom to play as I want, but it also decreases strategic opportunity that comes from playing outside the lines.

 

Share this post


Link to post

You have a good point, Nmenth. Freedom is a factor that I wasn't taking much into consideration in my replies.

Share this post


Link to post

Its great to see the Roundtables continuing Sonic, I can't help but want to keep tabs on my C&C family every so often (geezus I've only been at THQ for 2 months and its feels like an eternity already).

 

I have full confidence in EA Goodman and his new team, give them the time they need to rebalance the community, and when the dev team is ready to unveil their next project, they will, but not until they are ready. I am sure you are thankful they have the time to do what they gotta do, and that is make a great C&C game.

 

Keep the fires burning, always remember, its you guys that keep the community going.

 

-APOC

Share this post


Link to post

Oh the irony of APOC posting before the current community managers...

 

BTW it looks like my answer to number three got caught by Sonic's spam filter... :)

 

Here is the actual answer:-

Q3) How far away do you think we are from here the next C&C game being officially announced?

 

I hope it is a while.

Announce in 2011 at the earliest, but prefer waiting until 2012 for a release.

Remember the five P's... proper preparation prevents poor performance!

 

(It amuses me that I'm not the poster with the highest word-count this time.)

Share this post


Link to post
BTW it looks like my answer to number three got caught by Sonic's spam filter... :)

 

Here is the actual answer:-

Eh? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

I think we'll probably have an announcement within 6 months. I won't bother guessing when the next title will actually ship however. :P

 

I won't say EA Goodman is doing a bad job on the C&C front, what does he have to promote? With no new game his hands are tied. As for the rest of his new community team, again I don't know them yet.

Right because the other 10 C&C games aren't important. Just whatever the next one is going to be..

Share this post


Link to post
Right because the other 10 C&C games aren't important. Just whatever the next one is going to be..

That kinda sums up what EA's doing wrong... looking at Blizzard, they gave out their last SC1 patch less than a year ago. But Generals' Scud bug?

Share this post


Link to post
Its great to see the Roundtables continuing Sonic, I can't help but want to keep tabs on my C&C family every so often (geezus I've only been at THQ for 2 months and its feels like an eternity already).

Yeah we try to get a Roundtable done every now and then these days as opposed to every month as we did in the past. Always good to see you checking in from time to time APOC.

 

Oh the irony of APOC posting before the current community managers...

I asked Goodman about this and even made easy for him to come to our forums by setting up an account for him and everything. But he said in a few short words he really doesn't have the time visit the fan site. Kind of dissapointing if you ask me.

 

BTW it looks like my answer to number three got caught by Sonic's spam filter... :)

Sorry about that. It was my own mistake, nothing to do with spam filters. I simply copied and pasted the wrong answer in there. All fixed now though.

Share this post


Link to post
I have full confidence in EA Goodman and his new team, give them the time they need to rebalance the community, and when the dev team is ready to unveil their next project, they will, but not until they are ready. I am sure you are thankful they have the time to do what they gotta do, and that is make a great C&C game.

 

I might have knew it may have been a new EALA-RTS team from the mix of what remains of Pandemic Studios, some of the guys from DICE and Bioware and the other guys from MOH and other games. No wonder why Sam Bass, Jason Bender and Jim Vessella are staying put. I still have confidence with these old devs they are only ones who knows C&C.

 

 

I asked Goodman about this and even made easy for him to come to our forums by setting up an account for him and everything. But he said in a few short words he really doesn't have the time visit the fan site. Kind of dissapointing if you ask me.

 

Goodman is usually busy with other EA games to focus on. He isn't commanding just one EA forum, it's multiples of it.

Edited by purplescrin

Share this post


Link to post

Goodman has a great disadvantage over APOC for the C&C franchise: he is not at EALA... not even in the same timezone or continent from the studio. What does it mean? He won't be able to convince the dev team to add wolverines and titans in the expansion game to please the community :lol:. Now... serriously, this means that C&C franchise no longer has the priority that it used to have at EA and these guys will also work to handle other franchises, not being fully dedicated to C&C. So, there will be less C&C content from them and I won't be surprised if there is no more community summits for it.

Share this post


Link to post

First off, I've got to say that the roundtable is great, make sure to keep them up. I'm sure they'll prove to be useful.

 

Secondly, sorry for taking so long to get back in touch. I've had a few complications, but everything is appears to be in order now.

 

Goodman has a great disadvantage over APOC for the C&C franchise: he is not at EALA... not even in the same timezone or continent from the studio. What does it mean? He won't be able to convince the dev team to add wolverines and titans in the expansion game to please the community :lol:. Now... serriously, this means that C&C franchise no longer has the priority that it used to have at EA and these guys will also work to handle other franchises, not being fully dedicated to C&C. So, there will be less C&C content from them and I won't be surprised if there is no more community summits for it.

 

To be honest, Goodman isn't at any real disadvantage due to not being in LA. The Internet is a wonderful thing, and negates many of the problems with long distance communication. With regards the C&C franchise no longer having the same priority that it once had. That's not the case at all, the way things are handled is simply changing.

 

Silvanoshi

 

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.

×