Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Rabbit

Is A New C&C Game In Development?

Recommended Posts

bagging on Petroglyph is stupid, they make good RTS games and they are fun. if EA outsaused to Petroglyph that is fine. they have worked together before. in regards to if a new games is made i am down for it but the issue is the RTS is a Neische product now. it has more sucess on platforms that are protable (Switch)  for me i am down for a remaster of the old games for the Switch. C&C needs to be low Budget Great quility to be any kids of sucessful now. it will tank if it gets AAA funding. Indie is where it is at for the series i feel. considering it always felt indie.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, comander starlin said:

bagging on Petroglyph is stupid, they make good RTS games and they are fun

They have exactly 0 advantages over the alternatives.

1 hour ago, comander starlin said:

in regards to if a new games is made i am down for it but the issue is the RTS is a Neische product now.

It is also an abandoned market that still has demand, awaiting for a big player to enter it uncontested.

Share this post


Link to post

Just found out Greg Black is a Dune fan based on these threads:
https://www.reddit.com/r/commandandconquer/comments/7bs6jz/greg_black_apparently_is_a_dune_fan_could_his_new/
https://www.reddit.com/r/dune/comments/7bkkw4/new_dune_rts_game_in_the_works_whod_like_that_who/

I guess we'll find out and see. If EA brings back a Dune RTS since Emperor: Battle for Dune in 2001, I am sold. But then I am thinking they're gonna need new licensing for reviving the Dune series. Dune might still be the most popular sci-fi book series to date, but it never had much hype in media, especially gaming.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Luvaskot said:

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 for one like a good story in my RTS games, like StarCraft 1 or C&C games and I don't really like adventure (like point and clicks) games that much. The story doesn't have to be an epic dialogue heavy story (like StarCraft 1) just an enjoyable story that fits in with the missions you play (like C&C) it doesn't even need a lot of dialogue the sounds, units and environments can do a lot of story telling too (like Homeworld).

As for the old 2D C&C the one that fits the description of buggy gameplay is Tiberian Sun, the rest are polished fairly well. As for one production facility units come out of. I don't know I kind of like that idea it keeps things simple, rather than having to click through several factories you worry about one while the others you build assist in construction. As for SC1 wrecking C&C in sales numbers sure, Blizzard did support the game for over a decade not to mention the 3D C&C's were "wrecked pretty hard" by SC2.

Edited by Tore
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Tore said:

I for one like a good story in my RTS games, like StarCraft 1 or C&C games and I don't really like adventure (like point and clicks) games that much. The story doesn't have to be an epic dialogue heavy story (like StarCraft 1) just an enjoyable story that fits in with the missions you play (like C&C) it doesn't even need a lot of dialogue the sounds, units and environments can do a lot of story telling too (like Homeworld).

As for the old 2D C&C the one that fits the description of buggy gameplay is Tiberian Sun, the rest are polished fairly well. As for one production facility units come out of. I don't know I kind of like that idea it keeps things simple, rather than having to click through several factories you worry about one while the others you build assist in construction. As for SC1 wrecking C&C in sales numbers sure, Blizzard did support the game for over a decade not to mention the 3D C&C's were "wrecked pretty hard" by SC2.

Well, most of the EA:LA staff hired by Blizzard instantly after they left EA. These people was part of the SC2 development team. They made C&C3 and RA3 in like 10 months. They spent 3-4 years to develop SC2. I gave SC:BW example to show how multiplayer affects the lifetime of the game and EA should focus on exact same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Luvaskot said:

multiplayer affects the lifetime of the game

Indeed, it does, but...

On ‎4‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 2:14 PM, Nmenth said:

singleplayer sells your game, multiplayer keeps it alive

Multiplayer has its purpose, just because it serves its purpose well doesn't mean you should ignore what it does not do. SC is known for its multiplayer aspect, C&C is known for its storytelling. If you try to cram a C&C into a SC box, you won't please anybody.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Nmenth said:

SC is known for its multiplayer aspect

And storytelling, at least SC1 and its expansion.

I mean, this is the cutscene at the end of the first of six episodes that the SC1+BW storyline has.

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

And storytelling

I am neither saying SC's storytelling, nor C&C's multiplayer is insignificant. I am saying what the franchise is most notable for. Some people really liked SC's story, but its current fame came more from the multiplayer than the story. Same with C&C's multiplayer, it made a lot of fans from that, but its story is what people talk about first.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2017-11-08 at 3:56 PM, Plokite_Wolf said:

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.

1) You don't know me. 2) It is an unfair accusation, I'm not a "westwood fanboy", I just would have prefered a better sequel to Tiberian Sun than we got. I like TW3 as a "game" but I dislike how it breaks with established lore and how it's just a retcon. Since TS was so good there was a lot of potential in a sequel but unfortunately TW3 didn't live the part. I'm more fine with RA3 since Red Alert lore is nothing I care about but still. 

On 2017-11-08 at 3:21 PM, Plokite_Wolf said:

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:

1) I havn't said they were pay to win I said the new game might be knowing trends in the industry and that Generals 2 at one point were suppossed to be free-to-play. 
2) Nothing wrong with competitive multiplayer but I like the Tiberian games because of the lore and the story and would much more prefer a single player oriented game. But that's not how you develop profitable games. 
3) Drop the attitude please. 

Edited by ApornasPlanet

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Nmenth said:

C&C is known for its storytelling. If you try to cram a C&C into a SC box, you won't please anybody.

 

I like C&C games because of their fast paced multiplayer, not because of the story of them. I like the scenario too but it is a minor thing for me. C&C is much more volatile and quicker than SC.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ApornasPlanet said:

1) I havn't said they were pay to win I said the new game might be knowing trends in the industry and that Generals 2 at one point were suppossed to be free-to-play. 
2) Nothing wrong with competitive multiplayer but I like the Tiberian games because of the lore and the story and would much more prefer a single player oriented game. But that's not how you develop profitable games. 
3) Drop the attitude please. 

It's a common but otherwise unsubstantiated slur I see, especially in recent times, which is why I jabbed about it. Guess I should've put it in that article earlier. Glad to see you can argument it properly, though.

 

3 hours ago, ApornasPlanet said:

1) You don't know me.

Well, seeing how you, without question, gravitate towards whatever Petro shoves at you repeatedly...

 

1 hour ago, Luvaskot said:

I like C&C games because of their fast paced multiplayer, not because of the story of them. I like the scenario too but it is a minor thing for me. C&C is much more volatile and quicker than SC.

You're in quite a minority, then.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ApornasPlanet said:

I just would have prefered a better sequel to Tiberian Sun than we got. I like TW3 as a "game" but I dislike how it breaks with established lore and how it's just a retcon

I'm interested in what you mean by this. From my understanding TW3 is a pretty good follow up to Firestorm. GDI had the complete Tacitus and gained intel on how to combat Tiberium before in evolved again, hence why they were able to create and hold Blue Zones while the rest of the world suffered. I think the Red Zones definitely lacked the creativity of Tiberian Sun especially with the mutants but overall it was pretty solid. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RedDeadSmeg said:

I'm interested in what you mean by this. From my understanding TW3 is a pretty good follow up to Firestorm. GDI had the complete Tacitus and gained intel on how to combat Tiberium before in evolved again, hence why they were able to create and hold Blue Zones while the rest of the world suffered. I think the Red Zones definitely lacked the creativity of Tiberian Sun especially with the mutants but overall it was pretty solid. 

That bit he is correct in. Tiberium lifeforms were almost completely absent, save for Visceroids which were only seen as a side-effect of Corrupters' attack (a mechanic that was inexplicably removed from Kane's Wrath, despite the tooltip saying otherwise). Tiberium was entirely a crystal without the other aesthetic features from TD and TS, and characters like Slavik were completely gone. It wasn't until Kane's Wrath that these backstory parts got a bit of a quick and sloppy patchwork.

Share this post


Link to post

Tiberium also didn't spread properly, lacking the ability to overtake the entire map. Ion storms functioned so differently as to be hardly comparable. GDI walkers mysteriously vanished, only given to the Steel Talons to appease fans (possibly the same scenario with cyborgs and the Marked of Kane, not sure on the behind the scenes regarding those). I don't think the Firestorm ending was ever addressed, though I might be mistaken on that.

There's probably a number of other things too that I'm forgetting...

Share this post


Link to post

The short version is: Before the CnC3 release, EA released a semi scientific document on how tiberium works. It was a cool and interesting idea to promote the game, but it basicly contradicted every single thing the earlier games said about how Tiberium works.

Basicly: Old Tiberium extracts minerals and organic componets and turns them into the Tiberium cristals, turning earth into a alien planet full of mutated Tiberium lifeforms.

New Tiberium simply turns EVERYTHING into crystals, turning earth into a big tiberium crystal.

 

Not to mention that elements like the Tacitus or CABAL were basicly forgotten in TW and only brought back in KW because the fans demanded it.

And lets not forget about the lack of cyborgs, mechs, hover or underground units, sonic weapons... TW has basilcly the same unit rooster for GDI/Nod as TD, just with some more air units.

Edited by Stygs
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Nmenth said:

GDI walkers mysteriously vanished

Not all of them...

tw_juggernaut.png
 

29 minutes ago, Nmenth said:

possibly the same scenario with cyborgs and the Marked of Kane, not sure on the behind the scenes regarding those

Wow, don't get me started on their lack of Tiberium immunity.

 

30 minutes ago, Nmenth said:

I don't think the Firestorm ending was ever addressed, though I might be mistaken on that.

CABAL's data still exists, so there's that... And Slavik was anticlimactically assassinated off-screen...

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Nmenth said:

I don't think the Firestorm ending was ever addressed, though I might be mistaken on that.

You're right, they were never addressed. Shame really as it would have made the sudden Earth-like Blue Zones make sense.

21 minutes ago, Stygs said:

lack of cyborgs

That could be put down to CABAL turning on Nod, but I doubt lore was the intention of leaving them out.

4 minutes ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

Slavik was anticlimactically assassinated off-screen...

Agreed. That was just lazy, not sure whether I liked the direction they took the Black Hand in Kane's Wrath because of it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

Not all of them...

True, but seriously, the Juggernaut is the least interesting of the walkers.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Nmenth said:

True, but seriously, the Juggernaut is the least interesting of the walkers.

I actually quite enjoyed the Juggernauts that had the personality of a chicken.

Share this post


Link to post

My rating on most to least fav cnc game would be:

KW, YR, TW, ZH, RA2, Gen, Ren, RA3, FS, TS, TT, TD, RA

 

My focus is mostly on gameplay.

TW just works and combines the classic cnc elements excellently with newer gameplay mechanics.

YR gets a huge boost because of its wacky units, and still has excellent gameplay in SP and MP,  RA2 vanilla is also pretty close but misses the mark.

Gen and ZH have excellent balance and unit diversity, but it's plagued with bugs.

RA3 is nice, but the difference in gameplay is a turnoff.

FS/TS spamming light infantry is king, poor balance and bugs.

TT could have been much more, enjoyable RTT but not a good cnc.

TD really great for its time, but aged poorly (imo still better than SC1 though), as with TS spamming light infantry is mostly king (5 can kill a mbt with ease, a few more even a mammoth tank).

RA was mostly just a reskin of TD and I didn't much liked the setting.

Edited by Lauren

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Lauren said:

Gen and ZH have excellent balance 

FS/TS spamming light infantry is king

TD  as with TS spamming light infantry is mostly king (5 can kill a mbt with ease, a few more even a mammoth tank).

RA was mostly just a reskin of TD

Wut

While infantry is important in TS, spamming only light inf wont get you very far, maybe as a surprise attack. Disc throwers are pretty powerful though and infantry in general are useful. TS usually ends up with tons of titans, banshees, orca bombers and tons of disruptor, mammoth and cyborg commando drops.

In C&C1 minigunners alone will be wrecked by grenadiers, flamethrowers, buggies, hum-vees and any vehicle that can squish. Infantry is still important though and can be used to support defenses or even attack. C&C1 games usually end up with tons of bikes, buggies, hum-vees, medium tanks, light tanks and the occasional engie filled APC, commando, stealth tank, rocket launcher and streams of infantry of different kinds pouring out of barracks. The most OP unit being the Apache, followed by the Orca.

As for Zero Hour...quad cannon, aurora alpha........

As for RA you pretty much only need heavy tank, heavy tank, heavy tank, 7 MCV's, tesla coil, tesla coil, tesla coil, V2, V2, V2, tesla coil.....................................

Share this post


Link to post

Disc throwers are useless. The disc travel time is way too high vs someone who spreads out and micros, light infantry is a lot more cost efficient. (Similar issue in TD, though the Grenadiers at least do more damage when they hit something). A Cyborg Commando has only 4x the health and can only kill 1 light infantry unit at a time. It fires once each 3.3 seconds. It needs ~50s to kill all of them. Assuming 16 light infantries (with money left over) do 128 dps, it would take them about 5 seconds to kill the Cyborg Commando. So even a few dying, coming late to the party, or whatever would overwhelm a Cyborg Commando with ease. In TS all units in a higher tech level have this issue. Sure they do more damage and have more health, but they also cost quite a lot more to produce. Additionally the time and credits invested in tech invested in more inf/rax/hon increases that discrepancy. Tanks that can crush them in TS are also not fast enough to crush enough of them.

 

There is a reason Superweapon General was never big in competitive play: aside from Aurora Alpha they got nothing. Everything else is just basic and a lot more expensive, sure AA are op in 10 min no rush games, but please that's your fault.

Quad Cannons OP? Wut? Sure if you only go Inf/Humvees.... Tanks kill them with ease because they don't have a lot HP, sure if you let them upgrade the weapons they become a monster, but again that's pretty much your fault then. They have to scoop something up, which means a tank has first to die, then being still alive and not immediately destroyed afterwards.

 

I believe you speak from the point of view of someone who doesn't like to rush?

Edited by Lauren

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Lauren said:

Assuming 16 light infantries (with money left over) do 128 dps, it would take them about 5 seconds to kill the Cyborg Commando.

The Cyborg Commando takes far less damage from anti-infantry weapons than from anti-armour weapons, much like regular Cyborgs, so they're pretty much Hand of Nod vehicles in a way. And if they stand in the sacred green crystal...

 

29 minutes ago, Lauren said:

Additionally the time and credits invested in tech invested in more inf/rax/hon increases that discrepancy.

In TS, there's a stupid mechanic which allows you to sell your Tech Center but retain all the units and buildings it allows you to build. Not sure if it applies if the Tech Center is destroyed forcibly...

 

29 minutes ago, Lauren said:

There is a reason Superweapon General was never big in competitive play: aside from Aurora Alpha they got nothing. Everything else is just basic and a lot more expensive, sure AA are op in 10 min no rush games, but please that's your fault.

The Superweapon General can build Particle Cannons at half the price. Alexis needs to calm her tits.

Also, Airforce General op pls nerf

 

29 minutes ago, Lauren said:

Sure if you only go Inf/Humvees....

From what I understand, the competitive ZH crowd favours Humvee spam to tank usage.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

From what I understand, the competitive ZH crowd favours Humvee spam to tank usage.

Yes, Hummers pack an incredible amount of punch when loaded with rocket infantry. They are fragile, but fast and low-tech. Combine that with powerful planes and dozer hunt frustration, and there's the reason why the Air Force General is the most powerful general in MP, assuming equal skill.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes Humvees+Rocket Inf is huge damage, that and Search and Destroy is the strongest US tactic. You just have to adopt though, throw in a tank or two as a meatshield and humvees for dps.

Oh no, SW Gen builds a SW and then has to wait 4 mins to do something with that. For that cash you can just crush the SW player esp as all units are more expensive.

 

Also in TS the point is to crush your enemy before they're even able to tech to a Cyborg Commando. Usually you have 20-30 light infantry units in your base before you finished the Tech Center.

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.

×