C&C 3 Named Strategy Game of the Year

[Sonic 295]

Command & Conquer 3 has been named the Strategy Game of the Year in the 11th Annual Interactive Achievement Awards. Other RTS heavyweights nominated in the same category were Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts, Supreme Commander and World in Conflict. So I guess this a this great award to pick up.

 

LAS VEGAS--What the Oscars and the Emmys are to film and television, the Interactive Achievement Awards wants to be to games. Its sponsor, the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences, not only takes its nomenclature cues from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, it also put on a glitzy affair for the 11th Annual Interactive Achievement Awards, which unfolded Thursday night, February 7 in the largest ballroom in the Red Rock Casino and Resort in Las Vegas. The awards are nominated and voted on by a jury of game developers all around the world, so this is quite an honour.

 

Among the many high-profile winners of the night, you're very own Command & Conquer 3 took home the coveted award for "Best Strategy Game of the Year". The following strategy games were also nominated.

 

Strategy/Simulation Game of the Year

 

Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars (EA LA)

Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation (Namco Bandai Games America)

Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts (THQ, Relic)

Supreme Commander (THQ, Gas Powered Games)

World in Conflict (Vivendi Games, Massive Entertainment)

 

Congratulations to the Command & Conquer 3 development team for this outstanding achievement, this is a remarkable award for Command & Conquer fans to savour around the world.

More info about the Interactive Achievement Awards can be found here.

[Gben 20]

not worth watching, but the actual footage of the award is given here...

http://au.gamespot.com/video/extras/iaa.html?sid=6185745

I repeat, not worth watching.

 

But if this is statement is true...

The awards are nominated and voted on by a jury of game developers all around the world

Then it is indeed an honour.

 

Congrats EALA.

 

[sith_wampa 6]

Well done, deserved it too.

[Luk3us 63]

lol?

[rEdaSbLood 1]

i have a feeling certain people aren't happy about this decision...no?

[Duke 0]

Congratulations I guess. Probably not my first choice but hey, definitely a pretty good game.

 

I wonder how many posts we can go before someone starts ripping this to pieces?

[Luk3us 63]

Eh, out of COH, Sup Com and WIC it is the best RTS there.

 

Sup Com is just ****ing stupid with little dots everywhere. WIC isn't even a RTS, and COH is just eh.

 

I would say UAW should be in there, but as I understand it, its tanking pretty hard...

Edited February 11, 2008 by Luk3us

[hagren 0]

Well deserved. CnC3 may be not innovative, but damn well made and has preserved and updated the gameplay we have been loving for more than a decade.

[Saracen 16]

I wonder how many posts we can go before someone starts ripping this to pieces?

 

HAHAHAHA... You mean me? Never! Why would I do such a thing?

 

Hang on, did they just say Strategy Game of the Year? The only game of 2007 not to make use of a single synaptic link in your brain? Well I never.

 

The fact is that once C&C 3 is done with, with Kane's Wrath, the Franchise needs to evolve. Before the game came out I was someone crying for continuity and preservation of the Canon and Gameplay.... Now I realise, why on earth was I so god damn stupid!? Forget all that, I think that it's time for EA to scrap the old formula C&C, leave everything that Westwood started... and actually create a new C&C which has the balls, the innovation and none of the classic C&C stuff.

 

As someone who now is beginning not to get attached to a particular franchise. (Cos universe at war seems to suck the more you play it). I just want to see good quality RTS games. Many Strategy gamers are sick of games which clone or are stuck in the past. So C&C 3 winning this so called "Strategy" award really spits in the eye of progress and evolution of the Genre..

 

To be honest no game from last year deserved the award. They were all poor. But I suppose the decision from this came from the idea that since all games lacked anything decent... just go with the classic formula..... Well it's been 19 years since the RTS Genre was created with Herzog Zwei.... maybe before the 20th Anniversary of the Genre we can see more games like Sins of a Solar Empire perhaps? This game has good amounts of innovation, it tries new things, and hell, the developers even created a new Sub-Genre of RTS! Now that's evolution!

[Inferno 22]

Company of Heroes should've gotten the award instead.

 

*Don't shoot me *

[hagren 0]

Saracen: I understand what you say, but why change a formula that still entertains people? Of all the RTS shematics ive tried, its still the classic thats the most enjoyable imho, since thats what RTS stands for me personally. Ad FPS, on the other hand...there i like shying away from the average gameplay, its just so mindnumbingly boring. And quality? Not the quality is the issue here, is it?

 

If EA should create a non-CnCish CnC...well, then they should exactly do that! A completely new IP.

Edited February 11, 2008 by hagren

[Saracen 16]

There is an ever growing market of people though who crave something deeper. Some thing a lot more complicated and time consuming. With that said the market is actually the older gamers or the people who have played most of the RTS games ever to hit the shelves. I'm one of them, and while classic is great, a lot of people are growing tired of it.

 

It's like Universe at War, Petroglyph tried to define strategy by making it rather small scale and personal. It doesn't really work because the balancing is still not great, the pop cap is arguably too small, and the battles therefore are sacrificed and the action isn't what it should/could be. It may be better strategy wise than C&C 3, but Dawn of War does the whole small capped, big action, strategy thing better... Even if like SupCom it has identical playing factions.

 

OK, I'm going on about how great Sins of a Solar Empire is, and in truth yeah, it is. But for a game that has a huge history and Lore created for it, it's still missing a hell of a lot. Firstly it has no campaign or on-going story, and it only has scenario style games. That can detract from the gameplay, or give any real reason to why you're fighting this conflict. While space battles are good, they're not great unless (in the rare case) you get 2 equally huge armadas slugging it out. But the game truly defines strategy, and that's what makes it excellent.

 

It's started a platform for what can make the RTS Genre great. Now all we need is a ground based RTS that can create the same level of strategy and gameplay. Have a decently strong campaign, and stronger action within battles, and then that game (if ever made) would be the best RTS ever created in my opinion.

[hagren 0]

Alas im all for campaign, story, scenario and recognizability

 

And im a fairly old and experienced gamer as well, albeit not hardcore.

Edited February 11, 2008 by hagren

[Duke 0]

I agree with Saracen.

 

They need to come up with a better *CNC* game that *revolutionizes* gameplay and strategy. If they can bring some brand new original ideas mixed with some original rts strategy concepts we might see the C&C Community carry on for another 10 years. Sure this time EA did a pretty good job at re developing a modern CNC game, but they can do as many expansion packs as they like - it's not going to last forever. Unless they bring something new into the mix CNC is going to get milked to death and then left to die...

[hagren 0]

With that i do agree as well.

[Gben 20]

I notice Saracen, that like the MTV generation, your attention span is small - and you're always harping onto the next best thing... it comes across like a snake-oil-salesman. You've clearly found a new band wagon to jump on, and it seems all your C&C posts are now going to be coloured with SoaSE in mind - where last year it was UAW. Are you conscious of that? (This is a polite observation - I just point this out because you can't hear my tone of speech.)

 

But geez you guys - you want something new and they create ZH, and it's panned.

You want something classic - and they create C&C3, and it's panned.

You guys are making Macro complaints of micro mistakes.

 

And Saracen, you need to use the disclaimer, that as an older game, and an avid fan, you have played every RTS out there, so for you and other people like that, you're getting a little bored with the genre. But that doesn't mean that the genre is stale.

 

 

 

(Sonic - I notice that on this computer as I type this post - that the email reply button is flicking on and off by itself. Weird!)

[hagren 0]

Ive made that observation as well. Not that his attention span is short, mind, but that he tends to be amazed of games and then quickly gets bored afterwards, case in point: WiC.

 

Agree with everything else gben posted, though.

[Sonic 295]

I notice Saracen, that like the MTV generation, your attention span is small - and you're always harping onto the next best thing... it comes across like a snake-oil-salesman. You've clearly found a new band wagon to jump on, and it seems all your C&C posts are now going to be coloured with SoaSE in mind - where last year it was UAW. Are you conscious of that? (This is a polite observation - I just point this out because you can't hear my tone of speech.)

I was going to say something about this but I fear it will just lead to arguing like what happened around these forums after the release of C&C 3 in March last year. You know what I'm talking about don't you Saracen?

[Saracen 16]

I can understand it, and yes you're probably all right on that matter. There's a difference with SoaSE though and that is it's a game I found myself, played myself and got drawn into myself... The game reminds me of Imperium Galactica 2 in so many ways, and that 's still a great game you will hear me go on and on about from time to time even though it's a 7 year old game. So expect me to go on about SoaSE for another 7 years even after other RTS games come and go.

 

But it's not really my attention span. But like Hagren says I do get excited about new games, and get bored quickly. A lot of games these days are very much like peaches, they look nice, they taste nice but once you get to the core, there's a giant stone... It's then you begin to realise the problems, the shortcomings and the rather disappointing areas that can cloud what first appears to be a truly excellent game... Sure I may be on the SoaSE bandwagon, but I've found it's shortcomings, I've played close to 40 hours of it already since Thursday, and I'm still not even tired of this game at all. I'm even losing sleep over this game, I haven't done that with any RTS game since Imperium Galactica 2 in 2001.

 

I'm a Multi-format games player and reviewer in my spare time now guys.... as much as Universe at War kept me going, I've played the campaign, I've played a Skirmish series.... Global Scenario, done all the Skirmish maps, conquered 7 hard AI, and played Multiplayer to death as much as I could... the game is done in my eyes, and I'll move on... there's no replayability in my opinion. C&C 3 was like that, SupCom was like that, World in Conflict was like that. If the game is not replayable beyond multiplayer then I don't care for it, I need a reason to keep playing, the game needs to keep entertaining long after it's hit the bargin bin and died out. I'm repeating myself but games like Imperium Galactica 2 and Sins of a Solar Empire can do that... C&C and UaW cannot.

 

I was going to say something about this but I fear it will just lead to arguing like what happened around these forums after the release of C&C 3 in March last year. You know what I'm talking about don't you Saracen?

 

No arguing to be had... C&C was once a true love and a dedication beyond words. When C&C 3 came out it got me upset with what they did to the lore and canon, the game didn't feel right in my eyes at all. So naturally I was pretty miffed about it... It may appear that I've turned my back on UaW as well... true to a certain extent, but that's why I chose not to review it for Petro-Gamers... I probably would have just ripped it apart after playing 50 hours worth over a few weeks and just end up making the game look worse than it was.

 

But with the shortfall in UaW I've come to realise (as I approach quarter of a century old ) that the games industry lacks so much multi-talented people. My hand goes up to the devs of Sins of a Solar Empire for trying new innovations and a new sub-genre (which actually works). Despite the long delays of Spore, my hand goes up to Will Wright and his team at Maxis (EA) for trying to be different... People like this, like Sid Meier, Peter Molyneux etc who try to be at the forefront of gaming innovation. These are the people who are our future and are the people we should watch and be following... not some RTS or FPS game which happens to be based on an old tiring franchise, or games from passed it developers who used to create that said franchise.

 

Times change, and it's taken almost a year since the release of C&C 3 to find a niche I'm happy with. But I'm not afraid to tell anyone anything, I'll still speak my mind.... just in a more constructive and less inflammatory manner.

[hagren 0]

Your thoughts remind me of Republic Commando When one starts to think... I did play CnC3 for whopping 6 months though. And im really not playing much these days, most of the time im dusting off the classics (Right now its Allied Assault again) or use the PC outside gaming for good. I think it depends on why and how someone plays, what you expect from a title.

 

I do not agree with what you said about innovation, though. Innovation is very much needed, but these innovative games are often short on the basics, and devs like Molyneux like to make the same mistakes over and over again. Especially after Dungeon Keeper. And Sid Meier tends to exploit those three series hes known for. We dont need dev stars who have ideas, we need games that are both fun to play and new.

 

You know what id like to see for instance? The return of RPGs like Fallout or adventures like Monkey Island. Those games were true masterpieces.

Edited February 12, 2008 by hagren

[Saracen 16]

You know what id like to see for instance? The return of RPGs like Fallout or adventures like Monkey Island. Those games were true masterpieces.

 

To be honest, I don't want the games industry to become the movie industry. Remakes can sometimes work, but that feels like a step back as opposed to a step forward. Everything needs to move forward and evolve to survive... Do you think BioShock would have been as good if it was just a straight System Shock 2 remake? Ok that's a little bit defensive of the game, because it was system shock 2

 

But can you understand where I'm coming from... the games industry has got it into its head that it can just recycle the same old crap every 5-10 years because for the most part a whole entirely new Generation of gamers will be playing it. Therefore why on earth should a company spend a few extra million dollars creating a worthy successor or something intelligently fresh, when you can just keep pumping out the same old more mutated ****ard child every so often? It's tiring and for us older gamers it's just not clever.

[sith_wampa 6]

To be honest, I don't want the games industry to become the movie industry. Remakes can sometimes work, but that feels like a step back as opposed to a step forward. Everything needs to move forward and evolve to survive... Do you think BioShock would have been as good if it was just a straight System Shock 2 remake? Ok that's a little bit defensive of the game, because it was system shock 2

 

But can you understand where I'm coming from... the games industry has got it into its head that it can just recycle the same old crap every 5-10 years because for the most part a whole entirely new Generation of gamers will be playing it. Therefore why on earth should a company spend a few extra million dollars creating a worthy successor or something intelligently fresh, when you can just keep pumping out the same old more mutated ****ard child every so often? It's tiring and for us older gamers it's just not clever.

 

Keep in mind you're talking about video games here.

[Saracen 16]

True but then I can just revert back to C&C 3. It's the same old recycled formula with a less inconsistent edge. But then we'd just be going around in circles regarding the discussion, so it's important to move on in many respects and look at the wider picture.

[sith_wampa 6]

True but then I can just revert back to C&C 3. It's the same old recycled formula with a less inconsistent edge. But then we'd just be going around in circles regarding the discussion, so it's important to move on in many respects and look at the wider picture.

 

I was just pointing out that you seem overly concerned with an issue that, in the end, doesn't really matter all that much.

[F15pilotX 4]

Honestly, it would be great if companies would try to think up new, inventive games (like SoaSE); however, I just don't see much of that coming in the near future for RTS-style