I want me a Renegade

[Revolutionary 0]

Look at Blizzard they made a HD remake and the RTS communites havent stopped excreting prase ever since

(ill admit it perhaps should have got a bit of merit but its not that good so shut up and go back to your computer you spotty little korean)

 

Should have said it in my post but that was more what i would prefer to see a remake of since they were talking about a CnC1 remake

 

When you talk about cannon, lets face it CnC isnt exactily the best, half of most of the games doesnt count for anything, then you have WW changing there mind about RA1 being a prequel then rumours are changing it back (but still keeping RA2 as cannon) Then you could go from game to game finding all the little errors, etc etc

TBH some of the reasons i liked RA3 was i didnt like the RA2 story and EA set up the start of RA3 very well to take it in a direction they wanted.

[Inferno 22]

In C&C3 they limited it to these small fields. That bothered me a LOT.

INDEED.

[Guest Stevie_K]

When God gives you lemons.. Wait what?

 

In my opinion, the quality that many C&C Mod's hold are not always tip top, although many are amazingly good.

Perhaps because it's usually unpaid work. Well at least not AAA income and in most cases absolutely none.

 

Electronic Arts does however have the money, and we don't know anything about what Victory Games will deliver yet.

So perhaps not trusted, but more or less expected to maintain canon to a reasonable level.

 

 

 

[Doctor Destiny 40]

EA DOES NOT NEED TO REDO TIBERIAN SUN IN 3D. Tiberian Sun is, by far, the crappiest C&C game (behind C&C4 of course). Tiberian Sun is ass, so are the remakes. No originality, which is what EA needs for C&C - ORIGINALITY.

[Plok 319]

EA DOES NOT NEED TO REDO TIBERIAN SUN IN 3D. Tiberian Sun is, by far, the crappiest C&C game (behind C&C4 of course). Tiberian Sun is ass, so are the remakes. No originality, which is what EA needs for C&C - ORIGINALITY.

TS was not only as good as RA2, but all that media hype from '97 to '99 was justified in every single way! (Plus, if it weren't for TS, you wouldn't have a forum to write in, or RA2 to mod, now would you)? The only games that suck in the entire C&C universe are Tiberian Twilight and Generals (if I install Generals without a total-conversion mod, I'll have to vomit for days)

[Inferno 22]

EA DOES NOT NEED TO REDO TIBERIAN SUN IN 3D. Tiberian Sun is, by far, the crappiest C&C game (behind C&C4 of course). Tiberian Sun is ass, so are the remakes. No originality, which is what EA needs for C&C - ORIGINALITY.

Tiberian sun is the best game, not the crappiest.

[Guest Stevie_K]

EA DOES NOT NEED TO REDO TIBERIAN SUN IN 3D. Tiberian Sun is, by far, the crappiest C&C game (behind C&C4 of course). Tiberian Sun is ass, so are the remakes. No originality, which is what EA needs for C&C - ORIGINALITY.

 

You are out of your mind!! Wolf and Inferno are speaking truth here.

 

Maybe Tiberian Sun wasn't as original as innovation hungry critic (like you) would like it to be, but it did bring a lot of original and unique ideas along with a good campaign.

It had set a standard that every single game released after simply couldn't live up to. Except for Red Alert 2.

[Chronojam 3]

EA DOES NOT NEED TO REDO TIBERIAN SUN IN 3D. Tiberian Sun is, by far, the crappiest C&C game (behind C&C4 of course). Tiberian Sun is ass, so are the remakes. No originality, which is what EA needs for C&C - ORIGINALITY.

If anything, Tiberian Sun is the game that needs to be remade. The atmosphere and setting and politics and unit design were all great, but it was a bit slow and a lot of its new concepts were not fleshed out for various reasons. Things like fire-in-a-line, debris rolling down hills, particle systems, destroying or altering the environment, things that are now popular for the "Starcraft HD remake" (I like that phrase now) were all there ages ago. But it was primitive and it took a billion bullets to kill a rifle soldier with other rifle soldiers.

[TeamWolf 0]

TS was the best C&C for me, it's take on the Tiberium war and how things progressed were amazing. The unit design was really well done as CJ said and I loved it's gameplay. I really hope that they just go with WW's storyline and try and make a game based on Renegade 2 and not just remake TD like they did kinda with Generals in a new light...

 

All we can do is wait and hope.

[Doctor Destiny 40]

TS was not only as good as RA2, but all that media hype from '97 to '99 was justified in every single way! (Plus, if it weren't for TS, you wouldn't have a forum to write in, or RA2 to mod, now would you)? The only games that suck in the entire C&C universe are Tiberian Twilight and Generals (if I install Generals without a total-conversion mod, I'll have to vomit for days)

Tiberian Sun was an overhyped pile of garbage. The cutscenes were the only good part of the game. Everything else about the game was atrocious. The units were unimaginative, the balance just did not exist, recycling the same interface from Red Alert was inexcusable and multiplayer is a joke. It was really nothing special at all. Story alone does not carry a game.

 

Tiberian sun is the best game, not the crappiest.

Maybe with the story and atmosphere, but not with everything else. Most notably the gameplay and interface.

 

You are out of your mind!! Wolf and Inferno are speaking truth here.

No, sorry, they're not. Everyone needs to realize that Tiberian Sun was terrible.

 

Maybe Tiberian Sun wasn't as original as innovation hungry critic (like you) would like it to be, but it did bring a lot of original and unique ideas along with a good campaign.

Decent campaign maybe, but not good. It's not even close to good. Passable for sure, but not a memorable experience by any means.

 

TS was the best C&C for me, it's take on the Tiberium war and how things progressed were amazing. The unit design was really well done as CJ said and I loved it's gameplay. I really hope that they just go with WW's storyline and try and make a game based on Renegade 2 and not just remake TD like they did kinda with Generals in a new light...

The gameplay is Tiberian Sun's absolute worst aspect. There is nothing redeeming about being Red Alert with a partially isometric view, identical interfaces and too little innovation between the two games. That's inexcusable, even by 1999's standards.

 

Do I need to spoonfeed this **** to you people? Tiberian Sun is the absolute worst TFD game. PERIOD.

[Plok 319]

Do I need to spoonfeed this **** to you people? Tiberian Sun is the absolute worst TFD game. PERIOD.

No. Look at your desktop. You have the best and the worst TFD games there. RA2 is the best (followed by TS), with Generals as the worst.

 

Heretic.

 

[Doctor Destiny 40]

Generals is not the worst; it is impossible for it to be the worst. The gameplay is solid, the multiplayer is just as solid and the armies are well rounded. There are a few overpowered units, but nothing that can't be stopped short of some harassment. I'll grant that the story is generic, but the story is not what makes Generals and Zero Hour really solid games - it's the gameplay, is impeccable. It's just so smooth and intuitive; you just can't beat the same style that StarCraft and AOE use.

 

Tiberian Sun, on the other hand, is just Red Alert's engine with a few minor improvements, graphically and feature-wise. Rather than being a top down approach, it's isometric. No big deal there either, but the interface is inexcusably bad, even for 1999's standards. The units are boring and uninspired, there's no balance for singleplayer or multiplayer and, as said many times already, the interface is nothing short of an abomination. Recycling the same thing from Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert (and by the way, the interface was barely acceptable in Red Alert) is, again, inexcusable. The only redeeming quality of Tiberian Sun are the cutscenes. Short of that, Tiberian Sun is an abortion of a game.

[Inferno 22]

Maybe with the story and atmosphere, but not with everything else. Most notably the gameplay and interface.

True, however some people consider more than just gameplay into their rating of the game. In fact, atmosphere and story wise, TS is as good as unmatched in the history of games. I have to admit that gameplay and balance is lacking, which is much more present in a game like RA2.

 

Generals is not the worst; it is impossible for it to be the worst. The gameplay is solid, the multiplayer is just as solid and the armies are well rounded. There are a few overpowered units, but nothing that can't be stopped short of some harassment. I'll grant that the story is generic, but the story is not what makes Generals and Zero Hour really solid games - it's the gameplay, is impeccable. It's just so smooth and intuitive; you just can't beat the same style that StarCraft and AOE use.

True. Though storywise Generals is extremely lacking. Not to mention there are a lot of features missing, especially when looking at the Generals and Generals Challenge. You have to admit that Generals could be so much more than it is right now.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Inferno

[Nyerguds 100]

I don't see what's so bad about TS' interface...

[Guest Stevie_K]

Tiberian Sun was an overhyped pile of garbage. The cutscenes were the only good part of the game. Everything else about the game was atrocious. The units were unimaginative, the balance just did not exist,

 

recycling the same interface from Red Alert was inexcusable and multiplayer is a joke. It was really nothing special at all. Story alone does not carry a game.

 

Maybe with the story and atmosphere, but not with everything else. Most notably the gameplay and interface.

 

No, sorry, they're not. Everyone needs to realize that Tiberian Sun was terrible.

 

Decent campaign maybe, but not good. It's not even close to good. Passable for sure, but not a memorable experience by any means.

 

The gameplay is Tiberian Sun's absolute worst aspect. There is nothing redeeming about being Red Alert with a partially isometric view, identical interfaces and too little innovation between the two games. That's inexcusable, even by 1999's standards.

 

Do I need to spoonfeed this **** to you people? Tiberian Sun is the absolute worst TFD game. PERIOD.

The interface wasn't innovative in any way no. But did it need to be innovative?

The gameplay was not like Red Alert's (or any other C&C for that matter). It was different, and good depending on whether you liked it or not.

The campaign was good and very memorable if you (again) liked it.

Balanced or not, I have had many challenging and varied games on multiplayer. It's not as competitive friendly and boringly balanced as other RTS's though.

It's definitely not just Red Alert with partially isometric view, unless you for some reason force yourself to believe that, but hey feel free to explain a bit deeper, because all I can get from that line of yours at this point is BS. (Would you also say Red Alert is Tiberian Dawn with a different "skin" then?)

 

You need to realize that it comes down to whether you like Tiberian Sun or not.

If you don't that's ay-okay, but stop saying we need to realize it was terrible like that's a fact.

 

I'm tired of remakes as well though. We are sadly living in a time of remakes where originality is way too often considered risky and not necessary. But I wouldn't mind a modern, fun, compatible and graphically attractive C&C with all the classic elements. I'm tired of playing Mods and the old in-compatible and unstable C&C games.

[Plok 319]

Generals is not the worst; it is impossible for it to be the worst. The gameplay is solid, the multiplayer is just as solid and the armies are well rounded. There are a few overpowered units, but nothing that can't be stopped short of some harassment. I'll grant that the story is generic, but the story is not what makes Generals and Zero Hour really solid games - it's the gameplay, is impeccable. It's just so smooth and intuitive; you just can't beat the same style that StarCraft and AOE use.

Don't try to make me laugh, please don't. Generals was the worst excuse for a strategy game I ever played (and I've played quite a number of games). After I finished the Generals' Challenge in Zero Hour as Dr. Thrax, I just uninstalled the bloody thing. The only good thing about it is its compatibility for mods.

 

Tiberian Sun, on the other hand, is just Red Alert's engine with a few minor improvements, graphically and feature-wise. Rather than being a top down approach, it's isometric. No big deal there either, but the interface is inexcusably bad, even for 1999's standards. The units are boring and uninspired, there's no balance for singleplayer or multiplayer and, as said many times already, the interface is nothing short of an abomination. Recycling the same thing from Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert (and by the way, the interface was barely acceptable in Red Alert) is, again, inexcusable. The only redeeming quality of Tiberian Sun are the cutscenes. Short of that, Tiberian Sun is an abortion of a game.

Let me put this in another way:

Red Alert 2 was, technically speaking, more of a copy of TS than TS was a copy of RA1. It was based on the identical "updated" Westwood RTS engine, it was as well isometric and it was even less original than TS. Its storyline was under par for 2000's standards (set by Starcraft and, unfortunately, still holds them), which means that Westwood gave even less effort to RA2 than to TS!

And don't think I didn't see how many times you mentioned the interface. In fact, I'm beginning to think it's the only thing you disliked.

[Gben 20]

I worry when I agree with DD... but TibSun is my least fav C&C branded game... but I don't even like the story or the cutscenes.

[Saracen 16]

Look at Blizzard they made a HD remake

 

This is not the forum to debate this quote. But to generalise the greatest RTS to be released in many years as a "Remake"!? Have you even played it? Probably not... But the game is far from a remake... sure, units and structures may return as well as a few classic maps. But the Story, canon, refined gameplay, strategic multiplayer etc. Destroys anything the C&C franchise (or in fact any franchise) has ever put out. Sure it's not perfect, but no other developer will even come close to the wealth of strategic possibility that both the campaign and especially the multiplayer offer by the truck full.

 

Anyway...

 

To tie that in, any RTS developer these days, just needs to look at the Starcraft Franchise. Fixed and limited resources force the player to expand and continually move out. Something which RA3 touched on fairly well I think. Although RA3 could have placed more emphasis on economic control, allowing the player to gain little amounts regularly. More harvesting units would have the player looking to strategically consider the right income to spend ratio, thus increasing the many other strategic options open to them from the start.

 

Moving the emphasis away from efficient build order. C&C has always boiled down to a single efficient build order. All but a few structures have to be built to successfully create a larger more powerful army that can beat you opponent. This outlook towards the tech tree is inefficient at best. Once again the Starcraft franchise correctly gets this right by unlocking 90% of it's structures from the start.. only requiring an extra few structures to unlock the rest. Additional structures and upgrades are unit/support specific. Which in turn increases the wealth of strategy open to the player. Different types of build orders as well as the quantity of structures each have their own strategy tied to them. This is something the Starcraft campaigns actively encourage, unlike C&C where (in most cases)you can pretty much use the build/turtle/tank spam strategy to win any Single or Multiplayer game going. Turtling should not be an option in a future C&C game, ever! Period!

 

Every RTS falls to the Rock, Paper, Scissors mechanic. However, the way in that it's hidden (as to not be so obvious) is absolutely key. I'll mention Universe at War at this point. Each of the 3 factions were hugely different, something not seen since the original Starcraft. Had that game been given another 6-12 months development time by Sega, it would have taken it's place alongside Starcraft as an absolutely brilliant piece of RTS history. The story, scripting, Multiplayer balance would have been almost spot on, and we probably would have seen a sequel easily by now.

 

What I'm getting at is the variety. Sure Starcraft may have ripped off Warhammer 40k's Space Marines, Eldar and Tyrannids. But not half as bad as EA decided to rip off both the Protoss and Zerg to create the Scrin (Zerg Drone, & Protoss Assault Carrier & Mothership anyone?)... Victory games need to either create 2 polar opposite factions, or follow the SC/UaW route and create 3 completely different sides which require even more distinct methods of construction and use then RA3 even attempted. They must even be completely different without copying faction W & X, from game Y, to create faction Z. As per example to how Petroglyph managed with UaW. Mission Variety is equally important.

 

Quick point. Victory Games will be able to create the Real Time. But they also need to do Strategy, Strategy, Strategy. A Single Player Campaign should indeed be fun and have original concepts. But it also needs to be a puzzle. The final Char Mission in SC2: Wings of Liberty assaults you consistently depending on the choice you make in the previous mission. The strategy required to win in that very mission is the best ever example I've ever come across to a campaign ending. Turtle, you die. Attack too thin, you die. Attack too heavy, you die... Find the right balance between economy, defence, unit combination, attack patterns, knowing when to let off your defensive superweapon, and planning how you approach the enemy.... you win, and there are many options to find in which to win damn well! Strategy, Strategy, Strategy. Can't say it enough!

 

Finally... None of this can work without starting from a blank canvas. Cliché has to be avoided where possible and a strong canon, storyline and Universe has to be created with an underlying unique feature, or something rarely touched on. Sins of a Solar Empire brought turn based 4X strategy into real time. The franchise Assassins Creed took a relatively average piece of history, a stale 3rd person stealth game, a 3D platformer, and a few conspiracy theories and tuned it into something amazing. Hazardous Software are putting final touches to the world's first true 4D RTS called 'Achron'... all these examples, have borrowed existing concepts from other games and moulded them into something exciting, fresh and innovative.

 

The C&C franchise cannot have a slice of the greatness again until just one mind sparks in the development meetings, and they throw out the cookie cutter. It doesn't have to be revolutionary, it just has to put it's stake in something different than any C&C we've seen before it, avoid copying, and make it work. Easier said than done? Maybe. But inspiration is all around, and providing this new team look, assess, look for gaps and pull their fingers out... The next C&C could be one hell of a game!

[Plok 319]

Moving the emphasis away from efficient build order. C&C has always boiled down to a single efficient build order. All but a few structures have to be built to successfully create a larger more powerful army that can beat you opponent. This outlook towards the tech tree is inefficient at best. Once again the Starcraft franchise correctly gets this right by unlocking 90% of it's structures from the start.. only requiring an extra few structures to unlock the rest. Additional structures and upgrades are unit/support specific. Which in turn increases the wealth of strategy open to the player. Different types of build orders as well as the quantity of structures each have their own strategy tied to them. This is something the Starcraft campaigns actively encourage, unlike C&C where (in most cases)you can pretty much use the build/turtle/tank spam strategy to win any Single or Multiplayer game going. Turtling should not be an option in a future C&C game, ever! Period!

Single efficient build order... Ever seen what it's like in post-RA2 games (excluding Tiberian Eclipse Twilight)?

I do agree with the anti-tank rush rant.

 

What I'm getting at is the variety. Sure Starcraft may have ripped off Warhammer 40k's Space Marines, Eldar and Tyrannids. But not half as bad as EA decided to rip off both the Protoss and Zerg to create the Scrin (Zerg Drone, & Protoss Assault Carrier & Mothership anyone?)...

Khm... the Scrin Mothership came 3 years before the Starcraft II Protoss Mothership. More like Blizzard has stolen that from EA

Zerg Drone and the Scrin Harvester do have similarities, but I've never seen them until you mentioned that

Protoss Carrier in C&C... wait, whut??? Scrin Planetary Assault Carrier is completely different. It doesn't build Intercreptors which cost you extra and they can only be destroyed if the Scrin Carrier is taken down.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Plokite_Wolf

[Doctor Destiny 40]

The interface wasn't innovative in any way no. But did it need to be innovative?

Yes, yes it did need to be innovative, or at least improved. Red Alert was released in 1996 with a carbon copy interface to Tiberian Dawn, which is mostly acceptable given the age. There's a three year gap between then and Tiberian Sun, and yet again, we see the same interface dating back to 1995. That is wholly unacceptable, given the vast amount of improvements since then, the Red Alert interface is inexcusable.

 

The gameplay was not like Red Alert's (or any other C&C for that matter). It was different, and good depending on whether you liked it or not.

You're right. It isn't like Red Alert since Red Alert's gameplay was exceptional (for it's time). Tiberian Sun had no balance, poor unit design, which led to huge gaps in balance between the factions. There's nothing redeeming about Tiberian Sun's gameplay and you can argue otherwise until you're blue in the face, but you'd be wrong.

 

The campaign was good and very memorable if you (again) liked it.

No it wasn't. There wasn't anything powerful about Tiberian Sun, except for the cutscenes.

 

Balanced or not, I have had many challenging and varied games on multiplayer. It's not as competitive friendly and boringly balanced as other RTS's though.

That's Tiberian Sun's biggest obstacle with multiplayer - there is no balance.

 

It's definitely not just Red Alert with partially isometric view, unless you for some reason force yourself to believe that, but hey feel free to explain a bit deeper, because all I can get from that line of yours at this point is BS.

It's not bull**** one bit. The code is literally the same, which does continue even with Red Alert 2. However, Tiberian Sun didn't improve far enough on Red Alert for a three year period between games. The engine and the limitations of Red Alert carried over to Tib Sun, barring a few enhancements here and there. Counter that with only a two year period and volumes of enhancements between Tiberian Sun and Red Alert 2. There's no excuse for Tiberian's Sun lack of... well... everything.

 

(Would you also say Red Alert is Tiberian Dawn with a different "skin" then?)

uh, YES! Red Alert is Tiberian Dawn with some minor enhancements and changes. There's no reason to say otherwise.

 

If you don't that's ay-okay, but stop saying we need to realize it was terrible like that's a fact.

Objectively speaking, the game does not match any QA standards whatsoever.

 

a modern, fun, compatible and graphically attractive C&C with all the classic elements

At last we can agree. This is what needs to be done. Something new and fresh, but somehow familiar.

 

Don't try to make me laugh, please don't. Generals was the worst excuse for a strategy game I ever played (and I've played quite a number of games). After I finished the Generals' Challenge in Zero Hour as Dr. Thrax, I just uninstalled the bloody thing. The only good thing about it is its compatibility for mods.

So you base this entirely on General's Challenge and, presumably, it's rather general, but arcade fun, campaign? And then you have the gall to say that Tiberian Sun is good? I'm just speechless. Rarely do words fail me.

 

Red Alert 2 was, technically speaking, more of a copy of TS than TS was a copy of RA1. It was based on the identical "updated" Westwood RTS engine, it was as well isometric and it was even less original than TS. Its storyline was under par for 2000's standards (set by Starcraft and, unfortunately, still holds them), which means that Westwood gave even less effort to RA2 than to TS!

The Westwood RTS engine started with Tiberian Dawn and was modified continually until it stopped production with Yuri's Revenge. For those of us who mod, and can study the game engines, already know that logic from Red Alert is present in Red Alert 2 and that Tiberian Sun hacked a lot on top of the Red Alert engine. It's very easy to see all of this without even reading the game executables themselves! The tags are nearly identical between Red Alert and Tiberian Sun; TS did add quite a bit more to the engine, but not nearly enough. Continuing to root the sides using one construction yard was a VERY poor choice, even for them. Counter that with Red Alert 2 and everything it added, also in less of a time span. Tiberian Sun is huge ****ing joke and everyone needs to understand that.

 

And don't think I didn't see how many times you mentioned the interface. In fact, I'm beginning to think it's the only thing you disliked.

More than that. Much, much more than that. The units are bad, there's no discernible balance, which makes multiplay an abomination, the interface is an abortion for 1999 and the game just isn't even that good...

 

Khm... the Scrin Mothership came 3 years before the Starcraft II Protoss Mothership. More like Blizzard has stolen that from EA

Wrong answer, Ranger Bob. Tiberium Wars was released in 2007, then two months later StarCraft 2 is announced and there are gameplay videos showcasing... wait for it... WAIT FOR IT... the Protoss Mothership! The timing blows away your entire argument hands down. Nice try, but you failed!

[Guest Stevie_K]

Yes, yes it did need to be innovative, or at least improved. Red Alert was released in 1996 with a carbon copy interface to Tiberian Dawn, which is mostly acceptable given the age. There's a three year gap between then and Tiberian Sun, and yet again, we see the same interface dating back to 1995. That is wholly unacceptable, given the vast amount of improvements since then, the Red Alert interface is inexcusable.

You keep saying inexcusable like someone is to apologize. The interface didn't need any improvement because it worked fine. Besides the way it looked was a part of the C&C brand.

The sidebar and one line of unit construction at the time is the only thing that is a pestilence.

 

You're right. It isn't like Red Alert since Red Alert's gameplay was exceptional (for it's time). Tiberian Sun had no balance, poor unit design, which led to huge gaps in balance between the factions. There's nothing redeeming about Tiberian Sun's gameplay and you can argue otherwise until you're blue in the face, but you'd be wrong.

Christ... like I said It's different. The gameplay is much more of an experience than just balance, and what exactly makes you think that the unit designs are so poor apart from not being balanced enough? TS has deploying tanks, artillery and radar scanners, underground vehicles, water/terrain vehicles, vehicle air-transport, even ****** half cyborgs. none of these are to be found in any previous C&C.

 

No it wasn't. There wasn't anything powerful about Tiberian Sun, except for the cutscenes.

I found the missions entertaining and I still play them once in a while (despite getting compatibility errors all the time). I liek it. Leave me alone!

 

It's not bull**** one bit. The code is literally the same, which does continue even with Red Alert 2. However, Tiberian Sun didn't improve far enough on Red Alert for a three year period between games. The engine and the limitations of Red Alert carried over to Tib Sun, barring a few enhancements here and there. Counter that with only a two year period and volumes of enhancements between Tiberian Sun and Red Alert 2. There's no excuse for Tiberian's Sun lack of... well... everything.

What excuse? There's nothing wrong with using the code (literally the same or not). This one of the few things that relates (in my opinion) Tiberian Sun to Red Alert, apart from being a C&C game with it's core elements.

 

At last we can agree. This is what needs to be done. Something new and fresh, but somehow familiar.

Maybe, but if you use your enhancements over time judgement hammer of doom, you are definitely in for a big disappointment

 

[Doctor Destiny 40]

You keep saying inexcusable like someone is to apologize. The interface didn't need any improvement because it worked fine. Besides the way it looked was a part of the C&C brand.

The sidebar and one line of unit construction at the time is the only thing that is a pestilence.

I don't want an apology. I want everyone to realize that Tiberian Sun is not the holy grail of Command and Conquer, and it never will be based simply on the fact the game is an abortion. However, I must reinforce that the interface needed improvement. I did not say overhaul since RA2 uses nearly the same interface but the one improvement made in RA2 made the sidebar that much more effective.

 

Christ... like I said It's different. The gameplay is much more of an experience than just balance, and what exactly makes you think that the unit designs are so poor apart from not being balanced enough? TS has deploying tanks, artillery and radar scanners, underground vehicles, water/terrain vehicles, vehicle air-transport, even ****** half cyborgs. none of these are to be found in any previous C&C.

The units themselves just look bland and uninspired, like they were halfheartedly thrown together. I have seen some concept art from the TS era. Why didn't some well designed units make the proverbial cut? Why did Westwood stick with the **** we have now?

 

What excuse? There's nothing wrong with using the code (literally the same or not). This one of the few things that relates (in my opinion) Tiberian Sun to Red Alert, apart from being a C&C game with it's core elements.

Westwood had three years between Red Alert and Tiberian Sun to either superimprove their existing engine or redo it from scratch to create something inspiring. They did neither in those three years and the result was the chaotic mess we know as Tiberian Sun.

 

Maybe, but if you use your enhancements over time judgement hammer of doom, you are definitely in for a big disappointment

Considering I actually enjoy Generals, Tiberium Wars and Red Alert 3, I doubt that. But what it comes down to is the game itself. Since there's nothing to judge yet, nothing can be judged.

[m666 0]

I'm gonna completely throw this intelligent debate off course and hope that a cool new CnC comes out. I want a new story, minus the gaping plotholes and alternate timelines. I want something that feels classical and CnC, yet brings new innovations to the series that modernize it. I want soft counters (RA3 is horrible at the hard counters IMO) like we know from most of all CnC games.

 

And most of all, I just want it to be fun.

[Plok 319]

So you base this entirely on General's Challenge and, presumably, it's rather general, but arcade fun, campaign? And then you have the gall to say that Tiberian Sun is good? I'm just speechless. Rarely do words fail me.

Yes. I have played almost all missions of vanilla Generals and the first few of Zero Hour, some skirmish and the Generals' Challenge. With ALL THAT being just a graphically nice-looking piece of ****, I really didn't have the guts remaining to play more without a total-conversion mod.

[Nyerguds 100]

uh, YES! Red Alert is Tiberian Dawn with some minor enhancements and changes. There's no reason to say otherwise.

Oh, I can name one... base building AI. That was a rather major enhancement. Granted, they were far behind Blizzard in that area anyway, since even Warcraft 1 had custom games with base building AI, but still, pretty major. It was something that didn't exist at all in C&C1 (besides a very simple script that could be filled with a list of buildings to (re)build, on specific spots), so it was completely new.