Jump to content
PurpleGaga27

EA's Leak on a C&C Tiberium game in 2016?

Recommended Posts

@Jist, as of now, none of the current EA studios seems to have experience with RTS games after the shutdown of Westwood Studios, EALA and Victory Games.

 

Only the good studios left not owned/operated by EA for RTS games are Blizzard (which co-op with Activision), Relic, Firaxis, Petroglyph and.... Microsoft.

 

I don't even know if EA is going to bring back a RTS through a new and different RTS studio, and even if they do, it may or may not be C&C. There are some people wanting a Battle For Middle Earth 3 or even a Star Wars RTS game, and not to mention a Battlefield RTS game.

Edited by zocom7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lauren    63

The problem with RTS, esp in 3d space, is the amount of objects the game has to control with an AI, not just AI as in a computer controlled player, but every unit has to have its own ai (pathfinder, target chooser, etc).

FPS are "easy". Especially in MP you have usually maybe 16 players which only control 1 "unit" directly. Every other thing on a map is either a passive dynamic actor which doesn't do anything on its own, or even a static actor, which does nothing at all. RTS on the other hand has sometimes hundrets of units PER PLAYER, each interactive.

Even if you do bots for an fps you baiscally have to calculate the behaviors of only about 15 objects, and more often than not even that AI can only be called bad. Now an rts needs to be in charge of a lot more than 16 units, and make strategic decisions for all of them. There is also no static unit count, it ebbs and flows with what's going on, and an rts AI needs to be able to act accordingly.

Consider the airstrike ability of TD vs lets say the airstrike of Generals. In TD the hardware wasn't as advanced so the airstrike was always called at the first enemy object it found by simply going through the maps cells. In Generals it actually gives each cell a cost value, and then via the radius it finds the cell which is the center of the enemies highest cost area. Still not that advanced, but already requires a lot more cpu than TDs model.

Shooters don't really have anything more to do for the cpu gameplay wise since Unreal/Quake 2, maybe adapting the AI to a certain game type. Yet RTS still have a huge room for improvement.

 

So the problem RTS is facing is a huge cost (esp for skilled devs, as it needs a lot more optimization) for maybe, probably not, the same return a shooter gives you with a much lower investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Traymen    3

Shooters don't really have anything more to do for the cpu gameplay wise since Unreal/Quake 2, maybe adapting the AI to a certain game type. Yet RTS still have a huge room for improvement.

 

You try to sound like a game developer, but honestly this is beyond knowledge most of us gathered here. You're trying to imply that FPS < RTS, because for some unknown reasons it has to be easier to code shooter than strategy game. In both types of game CPU might be very demanding. For example: CPU makes calculations about inflicted damage for individual body part. In many games (like CS:GO) while gun recoil is somewhat scripted, bullets each time lands randomly on spray pattern. Inaccuracy makes game more involving. Not to mention about dozens of animations needed to be processed to make game more real.

 

Each genre can be improved. Just look how different gameplay is in modern FPS and how it looked like 20 years ago. Gosh, in Doom you couldn't even jump! Just imagine how games can be improved in next 20 years - probably we'll be playing in VR, but who knows...

 

 

@Jist, as of now, none of the current EA studios seems to have experience with RTS games after the shutdown of Westwood Studios, EALA and Victory Games.

 

Only the good studios left not owned/operated by EA for RTS games are Blizzard (which co-op with Activision), Relic, Firaxis, Petroglyph and.... Microsoft.

 

 

This is a great example how memory is selective.
I want to remind you why Westwood was closed. They made a crappy attempt to make MMORPG called "Earth & Beyond". Game so bad, that after 2 years no-one played it anymore. Moving some of the team to EALA was a great decision, because we've received Generals, C&C3 and RA3, which all had positive feedback. Former studio employees who found their place in Petroglyph made one, maybe two good RTS games... and bunch of unplayable MOBA crap.
Relic is owned by SEGA. Firaxis by Take-Two...
The only flaw in EA business movements, was rushed C&C4 release to challenge incoming SC2. That's all.
Edited by Traymen
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plokite_Wolf    144

I want to remind you why Westwood was closed. They made a crappy attempt to make MMORPG called "Earth & Beyond". Game so bad, that after 2 years no-one played it anymore. Moving some of the team to EALA was a great decision, because we've received Generals, C&C3 and RA3, which all had positive feedback. Former studio employees who found their place in Petroglyph made one, maybe two good RTS games... and bunch of unplayable MOBA crap.

 

More like it was because they had XYZ simultaneous subpar projects in development at the time of their closure.

 

Relic is owned by SEGA. Firaxis by Take-Two...

 

....so?

 

The only flaw in EA business movements, was rushed C&C4 release to challenge incoming SC2. That's all.

 

I don't see how a game originally intended to be an experiment, hence barely even a spin-off, could be considered even for a fraction of a second by even the biggest retard at EA to compete with SC2.

Edited by Plokite_Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Traymen    3

More like it was because they had XYZ simultaneous subpar projects in development at the time of their closure.

 

But E&B was the main reason. EA lost huge amount of money on this game.

 

 

....so?

 

 

I just wanted to remind zocom that those mentioned by him studios already have owners.

 

 

I don't see how a game originally intended to be an experiment, hence barely even a spin-off, could be considered even for a fraction of a second by even the biggest retard at EA to compete with SC2.

 

 

As you remember, originally it was titled C&C: Arena and featured opportunity to compete between several factions from previous C&C games. Designers wanted to place weight on multiplayer (SC is mostly known for great balance in multiplayer), rather than single player experience, but pressure from fanbase was so big, that quickly they had to change concept of the whole game. The intentions in competing with Blizzard is apparent in published screenshots, where several pictures were taken from SC2:WoL cutscenes. Tell me, why would they use same pictures if not to connote it with widely known competitive title? The clash was inevitable, because both games were published same year. If they wouldn't like to try their chances with Blizzard, they would move release date a year later, to polish and perfect whole game. C&C4:TT would be a success if development team had chance to stick with original ideas, and not to make diametrical changes few months before publishing.

Edited by Traymen
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plokite_Wolf    144

and featured opportunity to compete between several factions from previous C&C games.

 

Source?

 

Designers wanted to place weight on multiplayer (SC is mostly known for great balance in multiplayer), rather than single player experience, but pressure from fanbase was so big, that quickly they had to change concept of the whole game.

 

How could that happen if the fans didn't even know exactly about C&C Arena? Information on it started "leaking" after it was absorbed into the Tiberian Twilight project and after TT itself was released.

 

The intentions in competing with Blizzard is apparent in published screenshots, where several pictures were taken from SC2:WoL cutscenes. Tell me, why would they use same pictures if not to connote it with widely known competitive title?

 

Placeholders.

Edited by Plokite_Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lauren    63

How could that happen if the fans didn't even know exactly about C&C Arena? Information on it started "leaking" after it was absorbed into the Tiberian Twilight project and after TT itself was released.

http://forums.cncnz.com/topic/11733-what-is-command-conquer-arena/

 

Doesn't mean he got his other facts straight, but fans did know about Arena quite a bit before TT was released (Esp if you were at CommandCom 2009).

Edited by Lauren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Traymen    3

Placeholders.

 

Yeah, placeholders from other game. EALA was that poor it couldn't make their own graphics, but to borrow them from other game.

 

 

How could that happen if the fans didn't even know exactly about C&C Arena? Information on it started "leaking" after it was absorbed into the Tiberian Twilight project and after TT itself was released.

 

 

Don't tell me that there wasn't huge demand for legitimate sequel, m'kay? EA is a company which does some research, place money in market research etc. If game outstand the predecessors in unrecognizable way for longstanding audience, it isn't welcomed and it's hard for it to gain any audience at all. EA had to choose between making totally new game or implement updates to familiar title. They decided to go "safer" and results are widely known.

 

Source?

 

 

C&C:Arena was supposed to have micro transactions. Same micros transactions were supposed to be in Generals 2 / Command & Conquer. Tell me how you want to pick money from customer pockets in RTS genre? Skins? Yeah, but how many skins can you produce? You mentioned by yourself that it was supposed to be a spin-off, and such game just asks for paid factions like GLA or Soviets.

DLC's are inevitable for modern gaming industry. It has to be a huge enough, to be worth money, and small enough to not to be an expansion.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lauren    63

You try to sound like a game developer, but honestly this is beyond knowledge most of us gathered here. You're trying to imply that FPS < RTS, because for some unknown reasons it has to be easier to code shooter than strategy game.

I am a programmer... not on games per-se but I do know what's involved in making a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Traymen    3

I am a programmer... not on games per-se but I do know what's involved in making a game.

 

But that doesn't imply you know how to make FPS, RTS or RPG games. Mechanic can be a perfect in repairs of European cars, but won't handle US or Asian ones.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lauren    63

That's not even the point. It's about knowing what's involved in creating a piece of software that fulfills certain requirements, and the requirements for creating a basic shooter are a lot easier than for a basic rts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plokite_Wolf    144

Yeah, placeholders from other game. EALA was that poor it couldn't make their own graphics, but to borrow them from other game.

 

It wouldn't be the first time an artist was outsourced.

 

Don't tell me that there wasn't huge demand for legitimate sequel, m'kay?

How's that relevant? Spinoffs can be successful, or at least enjoyable. If Renegade could get a fanbase (and it was a flawed game), so could a properly developed C&C Arena.

EA is a company which does some research

200.gif

 

If game outstand the predecessors in unrecognizable way for longstanding audience, it isn't welcomed and it's hard for it to gain any audience at all. EA had to choose between making totally new game or implement updates to familiar title. They decided to go "safer" and results are widely known.

 

Again, see C&C Renegade.

 

C&C:Arena was supposed to have micro transactions. Same micros transactions were supposed to be in Generals 2 / Command & Conquer. Tell me how you want to pick money from customer pockets in RTS genre? Skins? Yeah, but how many skins can you produce? You mentioned by yourself that it was supposed to be a spin-off, and such game just asks for paid factions like GLA or Soviets.

DLC's are inevitable for modern gaming industry. It has to be a huge enough, to be worth money, and small enough to not to be an expansion.

 

Now this has no basis. Paid factions as we know them became a thing in the gaming industry years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stygs    21

There are some people wanting a Battle For Middle Earth 3 or even a Star Wars RTS game, and not to mention a Battlefield RTS game.

Well, BFME3 is out of the question anyway. If they didnt make a game for the Hobbit movies, they wont make a game now.

Moving some of the team to EALA was a great decision, because we've received Generals, C&C3 and RA3, which all had positive feedback.

Well, Generals was basicly finished by the time WW closed, so they didnt have any effect on the main game.

And personally I believe the decline of CNC allready was well underway with RA3.

In fact, you could argue that pretty much every EALA game after BFME1 felt pretty rushed. And if SC2 hadnt set an impossible standard for the genre, EA might have continued to pump out crappy games.

But E&B was the main reason. EA lost huge amount of money on this game.

Hey, dont forget CnC Renegade, another waste of money for EA from the same time.

Now this has no basis. Paid factions as we know them became a thing in the gaming industry years later.

Agreed. The Arena artworks showed a huge selection of skins, but I dont remeber EVER seeing a hint that you could buy new factions.

I allways asumed that the idea was to customize one of the 3 CnC3 factions with alternate units and skins.

Edited by Stygs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lauren    63

I allways asumed that the idea was to customize one of the 3 CnC3 factions with alternate units and skins.

Also unit and upgrades could either been purchased via money from winning a game or cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Traymen    3

And personally I believe the decline of CNC allready was well underway with RA3.

In fact, you could argue that pretty much every EALA game after BFME1 felt pretty rushed. And if SC2 hadnt set an impossible standard for the genre, EA might have continued to pump out crappy games.Hey, dont forget CnC Renegade, another waste of money for EA from the same time.Agreed. The Arena artworks showed a huge selection of skins, but I dont remeber EVER seeing a hint that you could buy new factions.

I allways asumed that the idea was to customize one of the 3 CnC3 factions with alternate units and skins.

 

I'm just trying to point out, that EA decided to rush the game before release of SC2 to earn anything. Anyway, if in C&C / Generals 2 they were planning to add paid campaigns, why wouldn't they do same thing for C&C:Arena? Especially if it was considered to be a spin-off. You know, how it's featured for 8-Bit Armies or campaign expansions for SC2.

 

It wouldn't be the first time an artist was outsourced.

 

It hardly fits to "outsourcing" definition.

 

How's that relevant? Spinoffs can be successful, or at least enjoyable. If Renegade could get a fanbase (and it was a flawed game), so could a properly developed C&C Arena.

 

 

We may argue about how crappy game can gain few hundreds of devoted fans, but the point is that game has to gain larger audience than hardcore C&C fans who will play anything with C&C label on it.

 

Again, see C&C Renegade.

 

 

Whoa, wait... first of all you've stated that this game gained some attention, and now you're using it as argument as bad development decision. Let's say it straight - it was played mostly by hardcore fans. EA trusted WW, that they'll provide decent FPS, because there was no reason to think otherwise. Also, it is valid point how hard is to make successful FPS.

 

Now this has no basis. Paid factions as we know them became a thing in the gaming industry years later.

 

 

So Blizzard was ahead of it's time, because they sold incomplete SC2 campaign with Terran story only. Same thing Victory Games wanted to do with C&C / Generals 2, and i don't see a reason why it wouldn't be done with C&C:Arena.

Edited by Traymen
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plokite_Wolf    144

I'm just trying to point out, that EA decided to rush the game before release of SC2 to earn anything. Anyway, if in C&C / Generals 2 they were planning to add paid campaigns, why wouldn't they do same thing for C&C:Arena? Especially if it was considered to be a spin-off. You know, how it's featured for 8-Bit Armies or campaign expansions for SC2.

 

With the way you connect things, I'm starting to equate you to zocom. I'll say it again, Arena's development started before such practices appeared in the industry.

 

It hardly fits to "outsourcing" definition.

 

Yes it does. Dev teams often hire freelancers for a project or two, then leave them be afterwards. EA did it, SCE did it...

 

We may argue about how crappy game can gain few hundreds of devoted fans, but the point is that game has to gain larger audience than hardcore C&C fans who will play anything with C&C label on it.

 

Your point being...?

 

Whoa, wait... first of all you've stated that this game gained some attention, and now you're using it as argument as bad development decision. Let's say it straight - it was played mostly by hardcore fans. EA trusted WW, that they'll provide decent FPS, because there was no reason to think otherwise.

 

I was negating your claim that a game that is completely different to the series it belongs to has to be panned by the hardcore fans just for being different. You now confirmed it.

 

Also, it is valid point how hard is to make successful FPS.

 

It isn't. It's just that Activision and EA are too lazy to make a proper FPS, hence they make Call of Duty and Battlefield sequels a million times until their sheep start desiring a time-period-based reskin.

 

So Blizzard was ahead of it's time, because they sold incomplete SC2 campaign with Terran story only.

 

Wings of Liberty wasn't incomplete. It had a campaign long enough to warrant a standalone release. Same goes for Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void. The cutscenes alone last a few hours per game (WoL appears to be the longest because of the side-campaign with Zeratul). Besides, Blizzard made sure these are full expansions and not some half-assed DLCs that SEGA and EA spit out just to satisfy their DLC quota.

 

Same thing Victory Games wanted to do with C&C / Generals 2, and i don't see a reason why it wouldn't be done with C&C:Arena.

 

No. Victory Games tried to do something completely different, they wanted to release the campaign later than the game itself, possibly for a price. Your Arena argument is completely random, same as almost everything else you've said.

Edited by Plokite_Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stygs    21

Anyway, if in C&C / Generals 2 they were planning to add paid campaigns, why wouldn't they do same thing for C&C:Arena? Especially if it was considered to be a spin-off. You know, how it's featured for 8-Bit Armies or campaign expansions for SC2.

Hmm, lets see

a) CnC Arena started long before Generals 2, so I fail to see any connection here.

B) As far as we know, Arena would be a mix lots of stuff from older games with a lot of customisation. Its a bit like Tiberium Alliances - the game has no place in the larger backstory of the franchise because it mixes various elements. And without a clear setting its hard to tell a story or give an impression how the events of this game relate to the others.

c) DLCs wernt as much a thing in 2007 as they are now. Pretty sure EA knew the kind of backslash they would be getting for selling the campaign of a CnC game for extra money. Heck, I remeber a lot of Blizz fans being very unhappy (to say the least) with the idea to buy the same game 3 times to get the full story.

d) Most camapaigns are quite expensive to make as any kind of cinematic (whenever ingame, prerendered or with real actors), voice acting and map making/scripting would cost a lot of time and money. It might work today, but 10 years ago it would have sounded like suicide.

Edited by Stygs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Traymen    3

Hmm, lets see

a) CnC Arena started long before Generals 2, so I fail to see any connection here.

B) As far as we know, Arena would be a mix lots of stuff from older games with a lot of customisation. Its a bit like Tiberium Alliances - the game has no place in the larger backstory of the franchise because it mixes various elements. And without a clear setting its hard to tell a story or give an impression how the events of this game relate to the others.

 

 

Most of the team was the same.

 

 

With the way you connect things, I'm starting to equate you to zocom. I'll say it again, Arena's development started before such practices appeared in the industry.

 

I don't care with whom you want to equate me with. Fallout 3 released in 2008 had bunch of DLC's. So yeah, it was known and most AAA titles started using this marketing method.

 

 

Yes it does. Dev teams often hire freelancers for a project or two, then leave them be afterwards. EA did it, SCE did it...

 

 

Yeah, but how does in links with Blizzard artwork?

 

I was negating your claim that a game that is completely different to the series it belongs to has to be panned by the hardcore fans just for being different. You now confirmed it.

 

 

No, no no... You said it gained some fans, while in reality some people would play any crap with C&C label.

 

It isn't. It's just that Activision and EA are too lazy to make a proper FPS, hence they make Call of Duty and Battlefield sequels a million times until their sheep start desiring a time-period-based reskin.

 

 

OK, now i know that you dislike EA. End of story. If they were so "lazy" they wouldn't make any progress to the franchise. Grab Battlefield 1942, and compare gameplay to modern Battlefield 4 or so. Core game is still the same, but everything else is had change diametrically. Otherwise no other than hardcore fans would grab it.

 

So yeah, those games are not proper, but perfect for genre. That's why they have bigger and bigger customer base, and that's why they can cut game to sell pieces of it in DLC.

 

Wings of Liberty wasn't incomplete. It had a campaign long enough to warrant a standalone release. Same goes for Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void. The cutscenes alone last a few hours per game (WoL appears to be the longest because of the side-campaign with Zeratul). Besides, Blizzard made sure these are full expansions and not some half-assed DLCs that SEGA and EA spit out just to satisfy their DLC quota.

 

 

I didn't said it was incomplete. I just said that Blizzard decided to sell campaign in three parts. Don't put untold words to my mouth....

 

Also, if C&C3:KW or RA3:Uprising is "half-assed DLC" then you should revise your attitude towards EA.

 

 

No. Victory Games tried to do something completely different, they wanted to release the campaign later than the game itself, possibly for a price. Your Arena argument is completely random, same as almost everything else you've said.

 

 

So in other words Victory Games wanted to do same thing as Blizzard few years ago. Then why it wouldn't work for Arena back then, dear sir?

Edited by Traymen
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lauren    63

Most of the team was the same.

They fired all but 10 people shortly after the release of TT...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plokite_Wolf    144

Most of the team was the same.

 

See Lauren's post.

 

I don't care with whom you want to equate me with. Fallout 3 released in 2008 had bunch of DLC's. So yeah, it was known and most AAA titles started using this marketing method.

 

Those were minor stuff. What we're talking about are full campaign DLCs.

 

Yeah, but how does in links with Blizzard artwork?

 

Simple - they hired someone with little experience with C&C and he just slapped a placeholder of what he had or what inspired him.

 

No, no no... You said it gained some fans, while in reality some people would play any crap with C&C label.

 

Both are true, not just one.

 

OK, now i know that you dislike EA. End of story. If they were so "lazy" they wouldn't make any progress to the franchise. Grab Battlefield 1942, and compare gameplay to modern Battlefield 4 or so. Core game is still the same, but everything else is had change diametrically. Otherwise no other than hardcore fans would grab it.

 

Nothing in the core gameplay has changed except maybe a few details. All else can be made by a half-skilled mod team - mere reskins of weapons, characters and environment. The reason why people buy it sequel in, sequel out is because they're stupid fanboys.

 

So yeah, those games are not proper, but perfect for genre. That's why they have bigger and bigger customer base, and that's why they can cut game to sell pieces of it in DLC.

 

Perfect for the genre? DID YOU EVEN PLAY A REAL FPS? Along the lines of Half-Life and Unreal (Tournament), for example?

 

I didn't said it was incomplete. I just said that Blizzard decided to sell campaign in three parts. Don't put untold words to my mouth....

 

So was the campaign for StarCraft I, basically, and nobody complained. As I said, Blizzard made such campaigns that warranted separate releases because of their longevity.

 

Also, if C&C3:KW or RA3:Uprising is "half-assed DLC" then you should revise your attitude towards EA.

 

KW wasn't half-assed (mostly). What I meant by that was the **** they spawn for Battlefield, SimCity and all their concurrent titles. Besides, Kane's Wrath and Uprising WERE NOT DLC. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DLC AND AN EXPANSION.

 

So in other words Victory Games wanted to do same thing as Blizzard few years ago. Then why it wouldn't work for Arena back then, dear sir?

 

No. No. No. The two methods are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Victory Games tried to launch the game in February 2014, and the campaign SEPARATELY a few MONTHS later.

Edited by Plokite_Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chimas    7

HALO WARS 2 - a AAA publisher launching a RTS for console and PC for a high price (that I'll pay for it, btw).

Remember the cancelled Gen2, a little. Also, graphics must get better.

 

 

I keep my thesis that if a RTS perform (in sales), EA will move their asses. Halo Wars 2 is looking good and it's coming with many different game modes for online matches,not only deathmatch mode, which is something I defend too.

 

"Pray" for Halo Wars 2 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about halo wars 2 I have never played a halo game and prefer ps4 over xbox 1 and even if I did get it for pc it wouldn't even run on my pc. I also prefer C&C. But it doesn't look bad and it does look like it is made for a console which is of course good for console players.

 

 

"Pray" for Halo Wars 2 ...

Does that mean if this game becomes successful would EA make something to compete(unlikely a C&C although however there might be some people who would just buy the game because of its title)? Maybe, maybe not but wouldn't they be focusing on their other titles that make them successful such as battlefield 1, titanfall 2, fifa 17 etc.? And would they even bother with this they might just play it safe and keep making money on their current popular franchises? But maybe there is a chance.

Edited by CyberFaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chimas    7

My case is: if C&C has to come back through EA's hands, how would that happen? I think it's more likely a reaction to market moves rather than a creative concept put into practice. It's not the most beautiful attitude but it's plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×