Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Rabbit

What the Hell Happened?

Recommended Posts

Guest Rabbit

France lost a couple hundred and they're doing fine too. :P

Share this post


Link to post
France lost a couple hundred and they're doing fine too. :P

 

There have only been two World Wars though

Share this post


Link to post

so im wondering how you all still feel about the game :P

 

the community may be quiet but maybe thats a good sign :lol:

 

still cant play mine though :x

Share this post


Link to post

I still like it.

 

I especially like multiplayer, more so once they fix the ranking systems and that sort of thing. :nod:

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, the only reason i registered is because of the BS that mister SS is spilling allover this place.

 

So @ SS

 

Yes, its true that expectations from the CNC fans allover cant be fullfilled, everybody waited so long for the CNC universe to continue that their expectations grew high. Ok i give you that. But it sound like you work for EA advertising. What do they have ? A ****load of quantity and no substance. Do you hear of someone playng their games for decades. No! - Why. Because you dont need more than a 2 days of single player and a few weeks of multi to get bored of their games ... Now you'll probably say that from a pure technical point of view CNC aint realy that good. True its not as ballanced as it could be or as developed. But for all its lack the old stuff offers authentic atmosphere. Everybody thats is familliar with the games knows that there aint a no good alternative to mass tanks spam and rush to win ... Yeah but they keep playng their own way just because they like how it feels, how it sounds, how it looks. And the graphics is warm not some cold 3 ****. We are in the 21 century, what excuse can you find for EA to make them look good for their obvious lack of tallent. Ok they sell games. So that makes them good game makers?? Comeon even a clown with a good strategy can sell SH*T to people and still make money and fame out of it. That doesnt make him stand above the other capitalists. We are in the time that such quality 3d can be produced that you verry well may mistaken it for real video. Mind blowing audio can be made from scratch. Does it take too much to put together an exciting story line??

 

So here we are...

 

You plug and play the new cnc, nice menus and art, click on the campaign to see whatever scrap EA will trow at you to chew on, and - heey, - nice, they even hired some popular faces in the thing, and put *SOME* effort in, true that they dont look realy convincing but hey they tried GJ EA! You start, GDI aiming at crushing nod with their Kane's usual misterious plans. Later on some freaky aliens jump in protecting some unidentified tech, good!, it obviously makes you thirst more of the game on to the nod campaign. And somewhere you realize! NIIICE! Textures were realy good... Phew i would have died if this looked like Generals. Then you play a whole nod campaign just to step closer to a door and see nothing? Now you are SHOCKED!!! - But WOW! you see another campaign!! and you expect some kind of finaly -NIICE! GJ EA you added a third campaign - nice move!. And then WTF!!! 3 missions !!! and repeating scenes allover!??! No grand finally - omg they didnt even add a rokie movie in wich NOD launches a nuclear misle on GDI like in RA or one wich a few tanks blast the misile silo? Not to mention that the whole campaign movies were in tents or rooms and not a single piece of lanscape footage or 3d!And what i just lost a day playng some game thats has nothing better to offer than the obvious "wait for a sequel we may trow you a bone" ending. Come on, humanity has already produced its best ? It cant produce anything new, or greatly improve the excisting good stuff ? People are bond to the old games just because they offered them someting new + good gaming experience - fun and they will always keep that in mind long after things have evolved far ahead of the simple "tech" that amused them. There is beautifull crap to look at allover the globe. Can you blame ppl for wanting to feel excited, surprised, thrilled. Or what, you think in the pattern "Hey! - bad is actualy good since its the best on the market" get real, we are living in days in wich the market lacks fresh tallent but not like there aint tallent out there. Every chump who comes out with someting at least a BIT good gets worshiped. So hopefully we pray for someone with cash and tallent to come forth with some game thats worth more than a little while. And im not even going tru the dozzens of lame mistakes EA made in TW. If someone has playd SKIRMISH on ANY old CNC game and aint a retard will notice the things lacking to be added in the next, but they didnt even do that. They probably were too busy directing the pathetic screen play to think of anything, not to mention USING at LEAST a BIT designed font for announcing the scene rather than WHITE BOLD text that even looks worse than a system font. And what every body is soposed t feel "UBER COOL 1337" about TW ?! You shurely need to examine you grasp of reality if you think so.

Share this post


Link to post

you need to organize that argument or w.e....cuz its all over the place and basically is just a rant, a tantrum...

 

make it neater and more understandable...dont just vent out angry criticism...i hate when people have verbal diarrhea on forums

Share this post


Link to post

I dont even get the point your trying to argue

Share this post


Link to post

i'm gonna go out on a limb here but...

 

my guess is he isn't happy with CnC3...

 

...

Share this post


Link to post

Talk about beating a dead horse.... just another person having their negative input about another EA game.

 

I really couldn't read much of it to be honest, space out long posts with paragraphs.

Share this post


Link to post

ROFL.. You think its bad now... Just wait till they release the first balancing patch..

 

THEN the **** will REALLY hit the fan.. :haha: I can see it now.... :P

Share this post


Link to post

I can't seem to decide what my thoughts on cnc3 are...at first, it was soo cool, and really fun to play...then, I got bored and played renegade for a while...I came back to play someone on network, and had a ton of fun

 

The campaign might be somewhat...non-special (for lack of a better word), but multiplayer is a lot of fun to play, especially comp-stomping :P

 

oh, and those complaining about the "n00b" tactics online, get over...just figure out how to beat them, and DO IT.

 

That's what I had to do with ZH, and I still had a great time playing ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Im over cnc3 online. The maps are way too small and symmetrical and having all the different lobbies is just stupid. I liked being able to select which lobby i wanted like casual or compstomp for instance. Now i have to keep switching between lobbies just so i can decide what game to join.

Share this post


Link to post
Im over cnc3 online. The maps are way too small and symmetrical and having all the different lobbies is just stupid. I liked being able to select which lobby i wanted like casual or compstomp for instance. Now i have to keep switching between lobbies just so i can decide what game to join.

 

Everyone flooded one lobby though and the others were deserted.

Share this post


Link to post

That's why I just use hamachi to network with people...much easier :nod:

Share this post


Link to post
Im over cnc3 online. The maps are way too small and symmetrical and having all the different lobbies is just stupid. I liked being able to select which lobby i wanted like casual or compstomp for instance. Now i have to keep switching between lobbies just so i can decide what game to join.

 

Everyone flooded one lobby though and the others were deserted.

 

Well having one main lobby would certainly simplify things

Share this post


Link to post

Funny topic. Too bad I've missed it when the discussion was hot. I didn't had the game back in april 1st or 2nd, so I wouldn't be able to discuss that if I wanted.

 

Anyway, I've played the game for a while now. So far I'm liking the campaign, but skirmish and multiplayer are terrible and I agree at those who say that C&C3 tends to look more like a generic RTS than a C&C game because some of the 'signatures' (cool features) of the old C&C games are gone in this version. Anyway, here's my quick review of the game, if anyone is interested:

 

 

 

-> Storyline: It's definitelly not as good as the previous tiberian games. It's good (GDI) vs evil (Nod) vs even more evil (Scrin). Now, each faction had at least one good (or not so bad) leader (Granger and Killian) and one evil leader (Boyle and Kane). Unlike the previous games, the factions are not charismatic... including the Brotherhood of Nod. The story and the way the campaign flows reminds me more of Red Alert 2, but instead of having retards soviets, we have a lunatic Nod. The other thing is that a lot of features from Firestorm was ignored by the game and somethings from older games were distorted on C&C3, specially the tiberium.

 

 

-> Acting: Some actors worked well, in my opinion, specially the Nod ones like Joe Kucan, Josh Holloway and Tricia Helfer. The GDI news reporter was one of the worse acting I've ever seen in a game, honestly. Also, that scene of the woman pleeing for our help because of the Nod invasion of the Pentagon that CnC King mentioned previously was also horribly acted. I have yet to play the Scrin campaign to see more.

 

 

-> Missions: Some of them are very simple, specially playing in the Normal level, but I'm enjoying them. Most of GDI missions are boring, except for Sarajevo and few others... but Nod ones are fun. I haven't played Scrin yet. Anyway, the weirdest thing was seeing Ajay saying he was going to Sao Paulo to assist us in a 'brazilian desert' mission... honestly, go to La Paz in Bolivia that you'll be closer from that 'Amazon Desert' than Sao Paulo which is about (or more) than a thousand of miles away :lol:.

 

 

- Provocations: I miss the cutscenes where Nod provoked GDI and vice versa... with eagle picking the scorpion or the scorpion tail breaking the GDI logo... stuff like that which is real C&C and the game only shows this kind of thing when GDI or Nod captures the white house. However, the cutscenes has a lot of provocations and inside the missions the game gets better than previous tiberium games in this point of view, specially on Nod campaigns.

 

 

- Skirmish Maps: They are extremely booooooooooooring! All symetric, except for 2 if you have Kane Edition...but one of them is partially symetric. So, they are predictable, you don't need to scout them properly to know where the enemy units will be, collect tiberium, send their troops and capture tech structures. People can play them only by memorizing the position of tiberium and tech structures.

 

 

- Factions Build Order and Ballance: If you know how to play with GDI, you'll play well with Nod and Scrin, because it's all about paper scisors and rocks. Same build orders, same building and unit types and roles. Only the abilities differs and some other features. In late game you can either pwn the enemy with groups of Mammoths, Avatars and Tripods (the last two using some anti-air units) or with air units, specially stormriders. Create a mass of storm riders and nobody will stop your force. The anti-air units are very slow, except for the GDI AA-Battery, that doesn't have a great range and it can be easily wiped by Vertigos or Devastators. Other than that, Mastermind is the only useful unit... and... well these units that wipe garrisoned buildings can also be useful sometimes. Scorpions are only useful before the enemy gets the high tech units... after that, they'll suck. Infantry is the most useless thing in game, specially with railgun, laser and the scrin equivalent upgrade.

 

 

-> Graphics: Awesome!

 

 

-> Sidebar: The best sidebar ever from any command and conquer game. The interface of the game is very good and deserves my thumbs up.

 

 

-> Good random things: Here's the things that I liked: reverse move, the formation thing, the number tips for the campaigns, the intel database and support for replays from previous versions.

 

 

 

 

 

So, in short, C&C3 is a overhyped rushed game with a nice look, great technology involved, but terribly planned and based on several cheap formulas, however that it is still fun, although I have a feeling that it could have been much better.

 

 

The community will always demand more... it's natural. And Petroglyph isn't that big deal either. EAW sucked, honestly. The game failed with the ridiculous population cap based on reinforcement points, an extremely bureaucratic way to build units, the campaign was horrible and maps were very small. Forces of Corruption was much better, fixing some of the problems above, although it still keeps this stupid unit limit. And let's be honest here, C&C3 is much better. So, I don't think that EALA isn't evil. They are just releasing games too much early because of the top people who runs that business.

 

 

If Westwood wasn't dissolved, they would also have the same time to build the game than the EALA has, unless they had a different publisher, because EA is far too much business driven. The difference between EALA and Westwood or Petroglyph is that EALA has a bigger team and more money to invest on its development... and a better engine in their hands. SAGE is better than Alamo in terms of graphics and gameplay... however, C&C3 is not looking good for modders at the moment, although that will change once the mod SDK is released. World Builder is better than FOC Map Editor, since it allows a better texturing and doesn't obligate the map builder to place all buildings of the map... actually the inability to select a place to build a building when playing EAW is another thing that sucks in that game.

 

 

And I totally disagree at the amount of crap that Fenring (or whatever name he uses now) has posted about the community. Sure, there are elitists, n00bs and there are also people who actually contributes to improve the community. If a gaming community catch this kind of people, the game can survive for years or even an eternity without the support from the company or publisher of the game. This is how TS is still alive :lol:. In the other side of the coin, it's natural to bitch at things you dislike, although constructive criticism is much more welcomed than a simple bitching spree. EA and Petroglyph are already prepared to deal with this kind of pressure. This is where Aaron Kaufman (EALA) and Kevin Yu (Petro) comes in. People will naturally speak a lot of garbage and demands a lot of idiocy. These comunication experts will filter what is interesting to the company from all this absurd amount spam posted constantly on community areas.

 

 

Anyway, I still have faith on C&C... even on C&C3, although I've noticed an urgent need of an Open Map Competition for this game to increase the amount of cool maps... but without world builder, it's not possible to plan this contest properly. An interesting thing from these moddable games is that... if the company who made it broke it, there is a possibility to fix it or make it better.

 

 

Well... as I said before, I know I'm late in this topic, but I had to leave my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
EAW sucked, honestly. The game failed with the ridiculous population cap based on reinforcement points, an extremely bureaucratic way to build units, the campaign was horrible and maps were very small. Forces of Corruption was much better, fixing some of the problems above, although it still keeps this stupid unit limit. And let's be honest here, C&C3 is much better.

 

That's something a little harsh to be honest. Yes indeed EaW wasn't great by any standards, but it didn't suck. It was a very promising RTS game for a company's first game, and I was quite proud of the results that came out.

 

To say it's worse than C&C 3.... Well you've said it yourself that C&C 3's Skirmish and multiplayer sucked while the campaigns were fairly strong. Empire at War was the opposite. A damn poor campaign while the multiplayer and Skirmish play was strong. Ying and Yang... so really they are about the same in strength and weakness to be honest.

 

SAGE is better than Alamo in terms of graphics and gameplay... .

 

That to be honest is a very unfair statement against Petroglyph. The SAGE engine was developed in 2001 during the Westwood days for their version of C&C 3 and has 4 games and 2 expansions to its credit. The Alamo engine was started in 2003 and only has one game and one expansion.

 

The SAGE engine has undergone some heavy refinement in the last 6 years and of course it's true it's better for graphics and gameplay for that exact said reason. The alamo engine on the other hand is taking its first evolutionary stage from Empire at War, and is yet to be judged on a single terrain. Reports are that the engine has been inproved 10 fold and early magazine previews have suggested that the engine and gameplay is alot faster, stronger and a hell of a lot more fun to play. And as someone who also works for Petrolution your statements shock me.

 

I'd hate Universe at War to be a sleeper title that goes un-noticed as an RTS that was the best of 2007, but nobody cared. An open mind is needed on this game and its engine. The guys there have no restrictions raining down on them, and the game is looking very strong. But comments like that do no favours to try and help the Petroglyph community grow larger, especially when we need visitors to CNCNZ sister site Petro-gamers.com (everyone go visit)...

 

I know it's only your opinion, respected, but I dunno. Yoou've sorta **** on the little guy there. I could attack EA's C&C 3 and it wouldn't be put in vain because it's a rooted and developed franchise, but... meh. I hope you understand what I mean in that respect.... anyway, peace.

Share this post


Link to post
EAW sucked, honestly. The game failed with the ridiculous population cap based on reinforcement points, an extremely bureaucratic way to build units, the campaign was horrible and maps were very small. Forces of Corruption was much better, fixing some of the problems above, although it still keeps this stupid unit limit. And let's be honest here, C&C3 is much better.

 

That's something a little harsh to be honest. Yes indeed EaW wasn't great by any standards, but it didn't suck. It was a very promising RTS game for a company's first game, and I was quite proud of the results that came out.

 

To say it's worse than C&C 3.... Well you've said it yourself that C&C 3's Skirmish and multiplayer sucked while the campaigns were fairly strong. Empire at War was the opposite. A damn poor campaign while the multiplayer and Skirmish play was strong. Ying and Yang... so really they are about the same in strength and weakness to be honest.

 

 

I like Forces of Corruption, but I don't like EAW, really. And I don't think EAW's multiplayer was anywhere good. FoC's multiplayer is much better because of the corruption ability and some other changes that they've done in the expansion.

 

EAW's problems doesn't lie on engine. Alamo is a fine engine, even if SAGE is better for being more refined and it is more evolved in terms of graphics and loading time.

 

EAW's problem was on excessive micromanagement on land battles because of the reinforcement points and limited population cap. Small map size on both space and land battles, limiting battles a bit in terms of expansion. I know you have stuff to conquer, but you can't grow your base and there is a natural process of space battles being too plain. I think they could have explored more the meteors, planets... maybe satelites near the planets... stuff like that, which could create more obstacles and more dynamism in these space battles.

 

But I must congratulate the Petro guys for doing an original RTS game (unlike EALA), but I still prefer C&C3's skirmish over EAW's... and if C&C3's skirmish is better, imagine the campaigns :P. I think you can inovate without cuting the resources from the player to make your game ballance job easier.

 

 

 

 

 

SAGE is better than Alamo in terms of graphics and gameplay... .

 

That to be honest is a very unfair statement against Petroglyph. The SAGE engine was developed in 2001 during the Westwood days for their version of C&C 3 and has 4 games and 2 expansions to its credit. The Alamo engine was started in 2003 and only has one game and one expansion.

 

The SAGE engine has undergone some heavy refinement in the last 6 years and of course it's true it's better for graphics and gameplay for that exact said reason. The alamo engine on the other hand is taking its first evolutionary stage from Empire at War, and is yet to be judged on a single terrain. Reports are that the engine has been inproved 10 fold and early magazine previews have suggested that the engine and gameplay is alot faster, stronger and a hell of a lot more fun to play. And as someone who also works for Petrolution your statements shock me.

 

I'd hate Universe at War to be a sleeper title that goes un-noticed as an RTS that was the best of 2007, but nobody cared. An open mind is needed on this game and its engine. The guys there have no restrictions raining down on them, and the game is looking very strong. But comments like that do no favours to try and help the Petroglyph community grow larger, especially when we need visitors to CNCNZ sister site Petro-gamers.com (everyone go visit)...

 

I know it's only your opinion, respected, but I dunno. Yoou've sorta s*** on the little guy there. I could attack EA's C&C 3 and it wouldn't be put in vain because it's a rooted and developed franchise, but... meh. I hope you understand what I mean in that respect.... anyway, peace.

 

When you sell a game, it doesn't matter to the customer if you work on this game for 1, 2, 3 or 5 years. The customer wants quality. The Alamo engine for Empire At War was worked on for about 3 years... but they've started from scratch. C&C3's SAGE engine was worked on for about a year, by a bigger team, but it wasn't done from scratch, but it was heavly modified from Battle For Middle Earth II. All the internal structure is different, with the XML support, the graphics format totally changed, new particles system technology, etc... The result is that Alamo looks more stable than SAGE, however, SAGE is faster, offers better graphics, more features, but it's rushed. Yes, it is rushed! Look at the multiplayer net code! They've still haven't fixed that... and Generals, BfME games... all this crap that came before C&C3 also had problems with the net code. EALA focused on making more features, but they haven't polished these features. Battlecast also has its problems.

 

But I still think SAGE engine is better since it provides more features and it is more moddable (once that mod SDK goes live, unless it becomes another Generals Ladder Kit). I've heard that Petro is working to make UaW much better than EaW in terms of modding. If they really make almost all aspects of the game as moddable as they said they will, I'm sure UaW will become very competitive and with a nice community.

 

 

Anyway, don't take that as a personal insult. We are not part of EA or Petroglyph. We are gamers. We are fans. Of course we enjoy these games... at least I'm enjoying a lot C&C3 and I also had days of fun with Forces of Corruption, but we also need to have a critical view of them, instead of simply being fan boys... Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
But I must congratulate the Petro guys for doing an original RTS game (unlike EALA), but I still prefer C&C3's skirmish over EAW's... and if C&C3's skirmish is better, imagine the campaigns
They (Petro) did a total crap called EaW and this game can`t be stay near the teh C&C series :S

Share this post


Link to post

i like EaW, but i don't think its great.the micromanagement was interesting but too limiting.the space battles were alot of fun, actually a favorite of mine about the game.my system ran EaW graphics at a minimum and they were pretty pleasing..

 

but i cannot really make a comparison between CnC3 and EaW because i cant play CNC3 on my comp :cry:

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.

×