Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sonic

C&C 4 Included in GameSpot's Best Games of 2010 Nominees

Recommended Posts

Well, actually, C&C in the past redefined the genre as Starcraft did. Both pushed it in different, wildly amazing possibilities; Starcraft with its focus on tactical warfare, spellcasting, and micromanagement; C&C, on the other hand, focused on large-scale battles, made turtling a real tactic (which was all but impossible in Starcraft unless you are playing Terran vs. some noobs), and made for long, epic games. At least, that was how it went until about the time of Generals. Since then, the series has been in a downhill slump, gameplay-wise, though C&C3 and RA3 managed to up it a certain notch (and the story was getting a bit better, even for Generals). It did seem like a revitalization of the series.

 

Then came the abomination called C&C4. The word "twilight" seems to fit it nicely; EA seems to be hell-bent on bringing the twilight of the C&C series. Now this one didn't just ****-up gameplay-wise; the story bombed, other RTS games had better graphics, etc.; the only component worth mentioning was the music, which was kinda above-average. But the awards it was nominated for were exactly what it deserved; it disappointed us as a sequel (hence "Most Disappointing Game" and "Least Improved Sequel"), and it really has to win Least Improved Sequel at least in my opinion. Why? It's not even least improved; IT HASN'T IMPROVED ONE BIT.

 

Ranting aside, let's just hope that some enlightened EA exec makes a realization and tries to put forth a Renaissance of sorts for the franchise. And succeeds. Now that would make come back to playing C&C, hardcore.

Share this post


Link to post
C&C, on the other hand, focused on large-scale battles, made turtling a real tactic (which was all but impossible in Starcraft unless you are playing Terran vs. some noobs), and made for long, epic games. At least, that was how it went until about the time of Generals.

Generals was the first C&C that allowed you to build one unit per factory. While more realistic, and at times fun, it did promote the spam-fest that would follow. Hitting hard in C&C3, which directly caused them to mess with the resource system for RA3, and, I think, contributed to the (stupid) idea that C&C wouldn't be so bad with a pop cap and no resources seen in C&C4.

 

In my opinion, removing the seemingly minor build-one-unit-at-a-time logic caused a domino effect that really hurt C&C in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post

Yep, but the lack of pop cap was an even bigger thing that defined C&C. Pop caps were seen in virtually every other game, and Starcraft had one of the most challenging (as well as smallest) ones, and this forces an emphasis on quality over quantity, micromanagement, and guerrilla or highly tactical (tactical meaning small-scale) warfare. C&C, on the other hand, initially disposed of that, and put an emphasis on mass battles, huge single bases (expansions were rare, and often were united with the main base), and more of strategic (strategic meaning large-scale) warfare. Not to mention it was the only game wherein turtling becomes a REAL tactic.

 

Whether or not the one unit per factory change is good or bad is subjective. I think it's good for C&C, since the emphasis is on large battles. However, having that ability, yet also having a pop cap, drained the vitality out of C&C and made it feel like just any other RTS out there. Plus, the node control method of gameplay feels too much like Warhammer 40,000's Strategic Control Point game mode, which involves the capturing of points, as well as a similar resource gathering method. Generals began a slump in some terms, but changed for a bit when Zero Hour and the following games came out, but all the possibilities of still being C&C and yet new were killed by C&C4.

Share this post


Link to post

Dunno about the build-one-thing-at-the-time... Dune II did that quite right. Then again, it wasn't a multiplayer game, it had quite special build restrictions to stop base crawling (the need for pavement and the sand areas), and then there's the whole select-one-unit-at-the-time thing :P

 

 

imo, the thing that ruined C&C3's balance was letting cranes produce exactly the wrong things. I'd have let them create only the stuff from the defenses & superweapons tab, meaning you could use your crane to quickly (re)build defenses and to make expensive tech/superweapon buildings while you can still build all basic stuff with your normal CY. That would immediately have stopped the base crawling problems.

Share this post


Link to post

It was pretty okay for me, the mass bases. It set C&C apart even further from other RTS games, mainly because it rewarded large bases and skillful management of defenses. However, it became a nuisance when it comes to Nod, what with all their stealth abilities. But base crawling isn't too bad, as long as the maps were big. The problem comes in when it comes to the fact that Nod is better equipped in terms of base defenses for large bases (stealth, no friendly fire), and GDI was ill-equipped to take advantage of that playing field.

 

I love how games become epic in scale when it comes to C&C, even with the old ones, thanks to the ability to mass large forces, and lack of pop cap. C&C4 really ruined the hell out of it; what the original C&C began (and took the series about slightly less than a decade to establish), C&C4 ruined in one release.

 

Btw, I just thought about it. Spam fests were pretty easy to counter; spam with counter units. A good combination of counter units and standard units, however, would pwn any force in Generals (unless its a steamroll of Emperor Overlords; then you'd be forced to spam counter).

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Stevie_K

I strongly agree with you Nmenth.

 

Btw, I just thought about it. Spam fests were pretty easy to counter; spam with counter units. A good combination of counter units and standard units, however, would pwn any force in Generals (unless its a steamroll of Emperor Overlords; then you'd be forced to spam counter).

Easy yes. Fun? no.

 

I liked how you had to choose carefully which units and which buildings you wanted to construct. With C&C3 it got ruined by the "a bunch of these and a bunch of these and we're set".

I'm not saying build order wasn't important in C&C3 or most other RTS' for that matter, I just think it felt like your choices where more critical in the old games.

 

To go down into the technical area, I think taking away the grid movement together with grid buildings is one of the worst moves for C&C.

It's okay to have 3D engine, but I'd love to see the next C&C with complete smooth grid based system. Bases looks so ugly in the newer games compared to Tiberian Sun. I think that's because you always rushed to place your buildings wherever you could fit them in order to start constructing the next one.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with you D14, the grid system really works well for 3D RTS games. It shines best in Starcraft 2. Even the larger bases in SC2 seem organized simply because of this. I also thing it helps avoid pathing problems, but since I'm no programming expert don't quote me on that lol

 

When it comes to balance though I think what really balanced the older C&C's was the differences in defense/offense.

 

Nod was balanced by having a superb base defense system but a weak offense that relied heavily on avoiding head on fighting. (The obelisk being the most powerful defence in all the games by being able to almost 1 spank anything.)

 

GDI was balanced by having a weak defense system but a strong offensive side (The mammoth being the strongest offensive unit in the game)

 

Those things alone is what I belive really helped balance the game and made GDI spam hard against Nod and vice versa. With C&C3 it seems that all the base defenses in the game, like the ob, got nerfed to hell in power forcing the players to use offensive units for defense and really hurting the balance.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the balance was still great in C&C3, although indeed, players were forced to be aggressive, and turtling became less effective, and steamrolling got a boost. Dunno about the old games though; it seemed to me that spamming and power weapons still took a huge chunk. I mean, with RA2, Apocalypse or Prism+Guardian IFV or Magnetron+Mastermind+Gattling Tank spams were more than perfect, and ended up facing one another (and becoming a shooting gallery; who shoots first, more and fastest wins). In RA1, Medium Tanks or Heavy Tanks, supported by Rocket Soldiers, or maybe Mammoths, ended up becoming my spam (with a mix of naval and aerial support, but not so much). In TS though, spamming was greatly discouraged; no super tank units, only specialist units. TS was probably the most balanced C&C in my opinion.

 

C&C3 though took me in with the variety it presented me; I could try and rush (usually with Nod), turtle (usually with Scrin), or steamroll (often with GDI). However, the Mammoth in this iteration was simply too powerful; it could face down a tripod head-to-head (it swallowed Avatars whole), and with railguns, it was night unstoppable in massed numbers. Best counter became superweapons, Devastator Warships (hit and run), a similar Mammoth spam, or Nod bombers. But when you combine it with other units, that's when C&C3 shines; large maps + combined forces + no pop cap=large, epic battles.

 

Pathing problems were, for the most part, nonexistent in SC2, although builder units sometimes got stuck when you constructed near solid objects (let's say a large wall; often happens with SCVs). In C&C, however, it has been a consistent issue. Balancing was pretty ****ed up in C&C4 though; in fact, it was practically nonexistent. At least in C&C3, balance only disappeared when people didn't want to have fun, but focused on wanting to win.

 

And yes, Starcraft 2 is pretty, no? >:D

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Stevie_K

Starcraft 2 is indeed pretty, apart from the fact that the whole universe and story seems completely out of my interest compared to the Tiberian universe. Too much good vs bad, where C&C depends on what kind of person you are. (Kane might seem like a bad guy, but he's the real savior of the future and you know it ;) )

 

Maybe I'm still stuck in the 90's concerning RTS's. I just don't like SC2. In my eyes it's nothing but a Chinese copy of what real RTS is all about, polished in the grace of all that Blizzard have time and money to afford.

The essence is missing.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Eh? Well, I'll just explain... There's no good or bad side in SC or SC2 either. Each side has a role to play in the future; indeed, Infested Kerrigan (the self-proclaimed Queen Bitch of the Universe >:D), and considered by most to be one of the biggest antagonists in the SC universe, is actually fleshing out to be the messiah of that universe (kinda like a Kane that will screw you for fun >:D), and the mystery still deepens because, well, it's not even sure if she's gonna save them all or screw them (which won't be the first time >:D).

 

And remember, SC and RA both fleshed out sub-genres in RTS gaming. Both games were released about two years apart, and each made a different impact in gaming. Not to mention that each went in very different directions. An RTS is, after all, just something that requires strategic thinking in a real-time, not turn based, environment. What other elements are thrown in (combat style emphasis, sci-fi or realistic, etc.) don't really matter. It's still an RTS, a real one. Both are great series (and with SC I mean the game series with -craft suffix >:D).

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.

×