Jump to content
Zee Hypnotist

Is A New C&C Game In Development?

Recommended Posts

97KccUg.png

Greg Black, the former lead balance and multiplayer designer for C&C 3 and Red Alert 3, has returned to Electronic Arts. What does this mean? Some are asking the question: Is a new C&C game in development?

While there is no way to know, Greg Black is one of the most experienced developers within the Real-Time Strategy genre. Even after leaving EA (and C&C) after Red Alert 3, Greg Black continued to work on RTS games, most recently Blizzard's StarCraft II expansions. One might believe he wouldn't leave a lucrative job at Blizzard without a good reason. Maybe that reason is a new Command & Conquer game.

Greg himself seems interested in calling attention to his new job, as hinted at on his own Twitter feed, with the message:
"Survived my first day back at @EA
It's a weird feeling being back after all this time. Can't wait to show you all what I'm working on."

What do you think it means? Feel free to discuss, debate, fight, kick, and scream your comments below. Please note that this is complete and utter speculation, and we do not want you to take any suggestion of a new C&C game as fact until an official announcement is made by EA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll keep my expectations low, but looking at Black's Mobygames page, he indeed seems to have worked primarily on RTS games. Of course that only means so much. The project (if it's a new project) could also be a lootbox pay2win Dota ripp-off, or not anything related to strategy or tactics at all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's worth getting hopes up at the moment. Even though it's been 7 years since Twilight I don't trust them to make a C&C game yet, especially after the Generals 2 fiasco.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As in a TW remake? Or C&C5 in the style of C&C3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha ha ha......dont know about this. But it will be really weird to see.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, whatever it is... It's still slightly exciting news!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say more other than this person:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1589022/

...Is also interested in the project, and this project is something she's familiar with. :) So...2+2=4. Quick mafs. You know what this could mean. ;)


If C&C is back, I'll definitely come back to help you guys run the website and moderate the forums. I'll be glad to help with video & audio content as well, if necessary, including streaming and what not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't give my hopes for a new C&C at this point of time because I highly doubt it will happen. Greg Black was last involved in EA developing Empires vs Allies before temporarily went to Blizzard.

I don't care if a new C&C is a reboot, a VR game, a mobile game or a card game, just as long as it has a story and gameplay mechanics of C&C, and not focused on free-to-play (and pay-to-win) mechanics or developing into a MOBA, MMORTS or a hybrid of some kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PurpleGaga27 said:

Greg Black was last involved in EA developing Empires vs Allies before temporarily went to Blizzard.

6 years and two titles isn't temporary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that he could leave Blizzard for just a crappy mobile game. We would at least see remastered version of an old C&C game. It could be either Generals or RA2 remastered.

Edited by Luvaskot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alex06 said:

Can't say more other than this person:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1589022/

...Is also interested in the project, and this project is something she's familiar with. :) So...2+2=4. Quick mafs. You know what this could mean. ;)

How do you know this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

How do you know this?

It was a response to a comment she made on Greg's Facebook status update about going back to EA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

GameWatcher picked the story up

Huh... it is still 100% speculation at this point, but they are already saying, "We predicted this, don't you know."

I looked at their prediction and it is laughable straight from the title, "EA will make another attempt at reviving the Command & Conquer franchise, made by Petroglyph."

At this point, I think the only thing EA could do that would cause me to lose more faith in them to do C&C right would be to outsource to Petroglyph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

knowing he worked on cnc3 and ra3 it will probably be shit. I guess it will be some competitive multiplayer pay to win shit. 

it would be cool if it was a story oriented (faithfull) reboot of the tiberian series however

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ApornasPlanet said:

knowing he worked on cnc3 and ra3 it will probably be shit. I guess it will be some competitive multiplayer pay to win shit. 

I see the Westwood Whiner mentality still exists no matter how much time passes, refusing to accept anything without a green-lettered logo as valid after 14 fucking years.

And I fail to see how TW/RA3 and SC2 were pay to win, nor how competitive multiplayer is in any way negative per se. It just is in the fanboy circles, so I guess it's trustworthy then. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

I see the Westwood Whiner mentality still exists no matter how much time passes

That is an unfair accusation. One can find the later games underwhelming without believing the older games were superior simply because they were built by Westwood.

If you look at my personal ratings for the games, you'll see a notable arc that closely corresponds to certain events involving who was running things.

gwLIfgS.png&key=bd6aacf27cc4905f3cf3fdcf

Does this mean I am a Westwood fanboy? No, it means I think the games I rated higher were better than the ones I rated lower. I couldn't care less who made them, never has that influenced whether I liked a game or not.

 

10 minutes ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

I fail to see ... how competitive multiplayer is in any way negative per se.

There is nothing wrong with people who enjoy playing or watching competitive multiplayer. However, competitive players are a tiny minority. Making a C&C game that can be played competitively is fine, a game designed specifically for them is a mistake. Generals 2 was putting far too much focus on the multiplayer aspect, and I think that did a lot to hurt it. StarCraft may have made a name for itself through its multiplayer, but for C&C, I think the singleplayer has played a greater role in its fame.

The glory of e-sports and the rise of online streaming has caused EA to lose sight of C&C's foundation, which was created from a very different seed. If EA tries C&C again, and follows this multiplayer-focused path again, I strongly believe they will be headed into yet another repeat of TT and Gen2.

Multiplayer RTSs can exist, but that is not the road for C&C, a series that has been story-driven from the beginning. If you take the story out of C&C, you will take C&C out of the story.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nmenth said:

That is an unfair accusation.

Knowing him, it isn't really. You, on the other hand, scored the games on a clear scale, and didn't just dismiss the later games just because they weren't Westwood-branded or were done with multiplayer in mind. If you were a Westwood Whiner, I'd be seeing TW get 1 star in that list, tops.

 

7 minutes ago, Nmenth said:

Making a C&C game that can be played competitively is fine, a game designed specifically for them is a mistake. Generals 2 was putting far too much focus on the multiplayer aspect, and I think that did a lot to hurt it. StarCraft may have made a name for itself through its multiplayer, but for C&C, I think the singleplayer has played a greater role in its fame.

SC2 was made largely with multiplayer in mind, coming off from successes with SC1 and WC3 (and it did deliver a good enough story before the expansions botched it up). It's logical that EA wanted a piece of the competitive multiplayer's cake, but they had the wrong approach to it, as they just wanted to steal a bit of SC2's sales in a time when they didn't know when it'd be released. As for Generals 2, I have no idea who it was for, as they barely got to even imitate Generals 1 by the time of the cancellation, and had a few flawed ideas that would easily have pissed off the multiplayer community (such as crushing that they only intended to put in the patch on the cancellation day because people bitched at them enough about it), yet reverted changes that would've helped it (such as a secondary resource, oil).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

Knowing him, it isn't really.

Perhaps so, I suppose I don't actually know his past opinions on the series.

3 minutes ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

If you were a Westwood Whiner, I'd be seeing TW get 20 in that list, tops.

Yes, but I don't provide those numbers when I talk about the games. Suppose you didn't know me and I said TW was worse than TS, and RA3 was worse than RA2. I have a feeling you would be throwing Westwood Whiner accusation my way in a heartbeat. I think it is too presumptive to use that label if the person hasn't actually invoked Westwood by name.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nmenth said:

Suppose you didn't know me and I said TW was worse than TS, and RA3 was worse than RA2. I have a feeling you would be throwing Westwood Whiner accusation my way in a heartbeat.

Without good argumentation provided, I would. If you provide valid arguments (or anything that remotely resembles them) for what you say, then we can speak of tastes. If you just slander the games, then the motive is pretty clear.

Also protip: RA3 is inferior to RA2, and that's coming from someone who's repeatedly defended it. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Black is back."

It makes for a catchy slogan, and who knows? Whatever comes of his return, I'm excited for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can just play another genre of games than RTS, to play single player and campaign if who is interested in scenario. There are plenty of adventure games with epic story and singleplayer. How come you rate EA:LA C&Cs lower than TA where you just can make 1 production facility of each kind and even no fog of war. Buggy game play, etc. 2D C&C games were wrecked pretty hard by StarCraft both in story and multiplayer.

I don't understand that being a Petroglyph fanboy either. They are not the Westwood spirit. Maybe the coffee boy from Westwood is at Petroglyph and the music composer, that is all. Most of the ex-Westwood staff are now working for Blizzard, not fot the Petroglyph.  Why they need to rip off things EA does while they are always claiming to be Westwood. Take some of those concepts like pitbull from cnc3 - but make the model a lot crappier/blockier and texture it with 1 monotone color and lets call it a day. Even in game voices are EA rip-offs.

 

post-72661-1508421075.jpg

 

Is that Westwood spirit? Or this:

 

image.thumb.png.228239b51909932bdee1b9afd3a4f523.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


×