Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » C&C 4 Coming!!!!
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #395746 is a reply to message #395521] |
Mon, 20 July 2009 22:06   |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
@ Dover: You are welcome! I removed the image assuming you did not like it; after your massive attack, I uploaded it again. LOL!
You pretty much got down all the reasons for why I like the Peon system. MCV system lacks depth and strategy; Peon is more realistic; I prefer how the buildings take time to appear and how you are forced to keep flexible control groups of units to aid yourself in expansion.
| nikki6ixx wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 22:50 |
People can argue about Generals sucking until they're blue in the face, but from a marketing and sales point of view, it was very successful. For one thing, it was created relatively recently after 9/11. Another thing is that it has a believable world, as opposed to the 'Tiberian Universe' and the Red Alert 2/3 one, which quite a few people regard as rather 'nutty.' This new setting allowed C&C to reach a mass audience made it one of the best selling games in '03.
The game itself rated very highly too, so obviously EA made a very smart move. Plus, it likely brought people into the C&C fold that may have not been interested in the other two universes previously.
|
I have been saying this in every Generals debate here.
The game was a stunning success in every way, shape, and form and it picked up a prestigeous E3 best RTS award.
C&C fanboys don't realize what a MAJOR gap Generals successfully filled. EA made a smart move making a killer 3D RTS game with modern military units that was NOT in the market at that time; atleast not anything as advanced as Generals. They cashed in major time and brought more players to RTS gaming with help of a simple "terrorists vs everyone else" plot.
Generals units were awesome as well. I found the factions to be a fresh break; the Chinese faction was both inspirational and well done imo.
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #395748 is a reply to message #395746] |
Mon, 20 July 2009 22:35 |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Starbuck wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 22:06 |
@ Dover: You are welcome! I removed the image assuming you did not like it; after your massive attack, I uploaded it again. LOL!
|
Not at all. I didn't see it the first time around. I love it. Again, thank you very much. :D
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #395778 is a reply to message #395740] |
Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
I'll chose to ignore the "surprisingly".
|
Why? I meant it as a complement.. As in, normally when you are in a debate, you a decent job at stating points, but I was surprised to find a few flawed in your response.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
I'll admit, the infantry in Generals were pretty ugly, but that's why you don't zoom in to the max to look at them. Still, I don't think there's a bad of a problem as you say there is.
|
You're right, it isn't a big deal. But you said you wanted reasons and that's one I thought of.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. Aside from palm trees (Where it's pretty expected), the only "dancing trees" I've seen are the one's "getting down" after getting run over.
|
If I recall correctly, all the trees swayed heavily. Some trees are a given, but every tree did.
What I was getting at when I mentioned the wind was that even in hurricane force winds, heavy and hardwood trees wont sway as much as they do in their animations. I just thought it looked dumb.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
I don't see the difference between how it was done in Generals and how it was done in previous games. Artillery-type units in Generals are nowhere near as gamebreaking as the Nod Artillery in Tiberian Sun. Note that Tomahawk missles and SCUDs can be stopped with simple anti-air defense (lol wtf), rocket buggies can be intercepted by point-defense, and the Chinese artillery units are either fairly ineffective (Inferno cannon) or a huge investment that moves like a fucking snail making it an easy target (Nuke Cannon). Compare that to Nod's Artillery. Cheap, fast (When not deployed, and it even deploys/undeploys very fast), ridiculous range two to three times the range of the runner up, and you can't even stop the damn things with the FireStorm wall tiles. How can you call this a good implementation and call Artillery in Generals game-breaking?
I stand by my previous statement. L2RTS. You're putting way too much emphesis on defense, when it simply doesn't do you that much good, no matter what game you're playing. I want you to note that in the Professional StarCraft scene, Terran Bunkers are built in the enemy base more often than they're built in your own base. This is because the best of the best know that you can't take the firepower in your base on the offensive with you if you build static defense.
|
I don't think the Nod artillery in TS was gamebreaking. It was fun to play against opponents that used them. It was harder to fight against them than the equivalent units in Generals, but I just don't find it as appealing when dealing with the long-range units in Generals, regardless of how much easier they are to destroy or how slow they are to attack. It's just something about them doesn't sit right with me.
Also, note, I'm not just talking about static base defenses. If I have some units set to guard some position out in the field and they start taking on fire when I'm not looking.. I don't expect them to survive, but I at least want them to fight back or give some indication that they are doing something useful.
Edit:
I think I figured out what annoyed me about the "long-range" units in Generals. It's the fact that they aren't "long-range" at all. Let me explain:
The units in the game are very short sighted, meaning something can be right up in front of them and they won't do crap until the enemy gets close enough for them to "realize." The "long-range" units weren't very long range, but they were what I would consider moderate range. In TS, the Nod artillery attack you from a FAAAAR distance, which explains why the units they attack don't see it coming. That doesn't annoy me because it's logical. However, with something like the rocket-buggy, they basically get up close and personal, which is still considered a "long range" according to the game.
I'd be screaming at my screen: "WHAT ARE YOU? BLIND?! HE IS RIGHT THERE!"
That being said, the artillery units in Generals, such as the Nuke Artillery, didn't bother me because of their long range.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
I'm not saying the story in Generals was good. I'm saying it's not much worse than those in any other C&C game. No C&C game has a good backstory besides the sequels (Because they have the story of their prequels to build on), and even then you have some abomination backstories (RA2's and RA3's backstory of "LOL THAT NEVER HAPPENED!! MIND CONTROL!! SQUIDS!!"). I agree with you they could have put more thought into the story, but I can't agree with going on and on about it when there's RA2 and RA3 out there which are much, much, much worse.
|
It is very bad, which is my point, and it is much worse than other C&C games, which isn't my point. It's a bad story for the sake of being a story. Who said anything about comparing it to previous C&C games?
However, if you must, the "story" of Generals is much worse than even the story in C&C3, which is also pretty mediocre. At least the C&C3 story had plot twists, depth, and immersion.. not some news caster saying something about politics and then letting you jump into a battle.
The story in Generals could have just been a few missions:
1. Learn of your enemies
2. Learn of your allies (optional)
3. Final strike on your enemies
And it would have turned out the same. All the missions in the game between the beginning and end missions are just pointless filler.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
You're missing my point. She's "tacked on" in EVERY C&C game. In RA2 she's just "That helper bitch that tells me what to do". In Tiberian Sun she's just "That voice that isn't CABAL (SILOS NEEDED)". In Renegade she's "The option screen". She has mp real background in any C&C game. And that's because she doesn't need one. She's there to fill a role (Prevent the player from getting confused), and she does that just fine.
|
Not true. EVA was a main character in the Tiberium universe first. The fact that she was in RA2 as a lieutenant was just supposed to be an unrelated reference to previous C&C games. Sort of like the developers trying to be clever.
What they did with Eva in Generals was a rip off. If I was to think of a clever way to implement Eva into Generals, I wouldn't have made her a person or AI, but rather a system or code. Maybe like the spy satellite network or the way they interpret what they are looking at. For example, E.V.A. could stand for "Electronic Visual Analysis." That would have fit the mood of the game and wouldn't have been a rip-off of EVA/Lt. Eva in the other two games.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
Nod's backstory in Tiberian Dawn can be summed up with by this little guy:| Quoted so black text is readable |
|
And every Tiberium Universe game only builds on that, and in each Nod is refered to with words like "Shadowy" and Kane is refered to with words like "Mysterious". It isn't until the upcoming C&C 4 that we're actually going to get some details. Face it, we the community know next to nothing about Kane's motives, or what his plans actually are. Even games that are supposed to provide more insight like Kane's Wrath left me more confused and raised more questions than it answered.
|
Yes, Nod is mysterious. Mysteries are intriguing and suspenseful. They keep you entertained and make you want to learn more. We do know of their main characteristics in the fictional realm and they are morale enough for players to even side with or against them. It's like people placing faith in god.
GDI is trying to preserve the world. Their main objective isn't just "lol we're the good guys and we must save the civilians," it's to stop the spread of Tiberium. That's why they were formed in the first place. They are, at their basic roots, a global, militaristic, hazmat team. However, they have their own unique characteristics from Nod and are interesting to follow and read into or possibly side with.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
In Red Alert 1, the backstory is identical to that of Generals, with the exception that the premise is "Hitler never happened", instead of "twenty years in the future". The countries are just there, and rely on the player's understanding of history/current events to fill in the gaps.
|
You're correct to an extent, but it's not the same. The thing that makes it interesting is exactly that, Hitler never happened. It's an entire new world filled with new technology that makes people want to see what happens in the upcoming events.
Although I admit that my feelings on both Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert 1 are among the lowest in the series, Generals being rock-bottom, they still have a head and shoulders over Generals in terms of story and originality.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
HAR HAR.
I was refering to the stereotypes you were presenting. Each side is presented as adequately positive when playing their campaign and adequately evil when you're facing them as an enemy. It's the same in the Tiberian Universe. GDI holds themselves to be the vangaurd of civilization and see Nod as dangerous terrorists. Nod sees themselves as a liberation front (A global one, at that) and see's GDI as oppressive imperialists. SOUND FAMILIAR?!
|
I never really said anything about stereotypes in this thread. I was just trying to point out that the factions were too cut and dry. Like the US is just trying to defend the world because they are "oh so powerful," the GLA is fighting for their own reasons and China is like "lolwut?"
If I was on the development team for that game, I would have suggested that they personalize each faction better. Give a few missions or simply a information about what and why their fighting for... you know, instead of just throwing them into the fray after a few sudden strikes and expecting the player to draw their own conclusions by the time the game is over.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
You're making an assertion without giving it any support at all, and you admit to it. I suggest you quit bringing it up if you can't offer up anything more substantial than "this is just the way I feel".
|
Yes, but like I said, it's not something that can be debated logically.
For example, if you told me you liked a certain genre of music that I completely disagree with.. how am I supposed to argue about something you enjoy? Regardless of what I say or think, you're still going to listen to it. You aren't going to suddenly develop new preferences simply because I said otherwise.
It's not about pros and cons, its just about your gut feeling about what you like and dislike. There are just some things in this world that you can like or dislike without a true logical reason.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
But while we're on this topic, let's explore some of the positives/negatives of each system:
Positives of the MCV system:
- "Unique" to the C&C franchise (Even though it's a carry-over from the Dune franchise)
- Was somewhat fixed with C&C 3
Negatives of the MCV system:
- Structures appear on the battlefield unrealistically and stupidly fast
- Limited benefit and no incentive to build multiple unit-producing structures (Up until C&C 3)
- Makes expansion expensive and unwieldy (Until C&C 3, sort of)
- The inability to devote resources to fast-structure production (Until C&C 3, but even then it's still slower than what's capable in non-MCV games)
- Carries with it the global "repair" and "sell" commands, which are not only unrealistic but unbalanced.
- Units lack "abilities" in the sense that they are present in WarCraft, StarCraft, Age of Empires, Sins of a Solar Empire, basically any other RTS and even some TBS (Turn based strategy). This isn't because the game designers lack imagination, but because unless they are a one-trick pony like the MCV, there's just no place to put such a command (Until C&C 3)
No doubt C&C 3 did a lot to fix the sidebar system, but I would argue that even in it's updated form it's still inferior to the peon system and the only reason it was reinstated is because fanbois loooove it so much and bitched until they got it.
Positives of the Peon system:
- The ability to build anything anywhere so long as you control the map well enough to keep your worker alive (A boon to strategy)
- Obviously works well, since it's the industry standard.
- Realistic and balanced use of commands like "repair" and "sell" (that is, you have to have someone actually doing the work)
- Expansion is handled well
- Structures appear on the map at a more realistic and balanced pace.
Negatives of the Peon system:
- ...? Feel free to add your own. I can't think of any. Seriously.
|
Of course you can't think of any negatives. And I don't think you're lying either. It just so happens that whenever you trying to think of negatives of something that you prefer, you tend to not be able to. It also happens with the positives on the opposing side of the argument. Happens to me all the time.
You have to take an outside source's points and use them rather than make them yourself, because they will always turn out bias. (The outside source can't be a single person either, because the results would be just as bias.)
-Most of your negatives are opinions. I tend to like having structures simply appear on the battlefield.
-Also, in games prior to Generals, building multiple production centers allowed your production speed to increase dramatically. For example, if you have a single barracks, a soldier might take 6 seconds to build, but with two he might only take 3 or 4. And it increased with even more. There was a limit at one point, but it still gave you more than enough reason to build multiple production structures. Also, there was the fact that each structure was tied together, so if you made one on one side of the map and another on the other side of the map, you could chose which unit came out of which structure. (So you could train a unit and pause it seconds before it was created, then build a production structure in your enemies base and set it to primary, then continue the training and that unit would be made in the enemy base.
-You're third point is a play off of the second point. Just like multiple production centers, having multiple MCVs made structure building faster.
-I tend to like the global repair and sell commands. Especially since how they work in C&C3 and RA3. How are they unbalanced? Everyone has access to them.
-Units lack "abilities" because in the games Generals and prior, it really wasn't necessary to have them (Unless you count things like amplifying tesla coils with tesla troopers in RA2, ect). The only C&C game that really pulls off "abilities" nicely is RA3.
As for your positives about the Peon system:
-More strategy can tend to be more fun. So I agree with you there. But not every game should play the same.. or else there is no point in making different games. If you're going to make a game the same as another game, ask yourself: "Why?"
-Industry standard? Don't you mean unoriginal mainstream standard? The MCV system may not be the best, but its definitely different than the peon system and stands apart from it.
-Expansion. You're making a base, not a city. However, I agree that the peon system expands in a more fun way than the MCV system.
-Your last few points: Realism and fun aren't always counterparts. C&C isn't about realism, it's about having fun with references to realism. Some people tend to have fun when they mimic real life, some people tend to have fun when they escape from real life. It's a balance, really. I think RA3 pulled off the balance between those two types of people very nicely with the separate building strategies each faction used.
The way I see the MCV system is more like symbolism. All the experiences of the battle being shown to you, the player, through summery. Like, you build a structure and place it instantly is the sped up summery of what really happened, which was a construction crew came out and made the structure using the supplies and tools given to them through the use of the MCV. Or to put it another way, a the MCV system might look and work one way in TD, but it might look more realistic and logical if you are looking at the same situation through a game like Renegade.
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
It doesn't take up much more room in Generals than it does in any other C&C game. You're imagining it. And like I said, you can hide it.
|
I'm not imagining it, you probably just never noticed. Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert for the N64 and PS1 aside, Generals was the first C&C game were the control bar overlapped and obscured your view of the gameplay experience. In all the C&C titles prior to Generals, the 'sidebar' was it's own division of the screen. It didn't overlap the game sreen but was more of a complement to it. In Generals, C&C3 and RA3, the game screen was expanded to fill your entire monitor and the control bar was placed on top of it. It's not as much of a problem in C&C3 and RA3 because the sidebar is small, partially transparent, and doesn't have pointless solid areas that obscure your view.
Also, yes, you may have the ability to move the control bar out of the way, but then you lose the ability to use it. The sidebar is always there and it takes up minimal room.
General's control style may have been better if it took up less room. Something similar to this:
http://odyssee.cncsaga.com/images_cnc4/2.png
[Updated on: Tue, 21 July 2009 10:53] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #395852 is a reply to message #395778] |
Tue, 21 July 2009 23:21 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
I'll chose to ignore the "surprisingly".
|
Why? I meant it as a complement.. As in, normally when you are in a debate, you a decent job at stating points, but I was surprised to find a few flawed in your response.
|
In that case, I misread that, too. You form very awkward sentences every now and then. 
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
I'll admit, the infantry in Generals were pretty ugly, but that's why you don't zoom in to the max to look at them. Still, I don't think there's a bad of a problem as you say there is.
|
You're right, it isn't a big deal. But you said you wanted reasons and that's one I thought of.
|
Fair enough.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. Aside from palm trees (Where it's pretty expected), the only "dancing trees" I've seen are the one's "getting down" after getting run over.
|
If I recall correctly, all the trees swayed heavily. Some trees are a given, but every tree did.
What I was getting at when I mentioned the wind was that even in hurricane force winds, heavy and hardwood trees wont sway as much as they do in their animations. I just thought it looked dumb.
|
And I remember differently. I'll pop in my Zero Hour and find out before my next post.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
I don't see the difference between how it was done in Generals and how it was done in previous games. Artillery-type units in Generals are nowhere near as gamebreaking as the Nod Artillery in Tiberian Sun. Note that Tomahawk missles and SCUDs can be stopped with simple anti-air defense (lol wtf), rocket buggies can be intercepted by point-defense, and the Chinese artillery units are either fairly ineffective (Inferno cannon) or a huge investment that moves like a fucking snail making it an easy target (Nuke Cannon). Compare that to Nod's Artillery. Cheap, fast (When not deployed, and it even deploys/undeploys very fast), ridiculous range two to three times the range of the runner up, and you can't even stop the damn things with the FireStorm wall tiles. How can you call this a good implementation and call Artillery in Generals game-breaking?
I stand by my previous statement. L2RTS. You're putting way too much emphesis on defense, when it simply doesn't do you that much good, no matter what game you're playing. I want you to note that in the Professional StarCraft scene, Terran Bunkers are built in the enemy base more often than they're built in your own base. This is because the best of the best know that you can't take the firepower in your base on the offensive with you if you build static defense.
|
I don't think the Nod artillery in TS was gamebreaking. It was fun to play against opponents that used them. It was harder to fight against them than the equivalent units in Generals, but I just don't find it as appealing when dealing with the long-range units in Generals, regardless of how much easier they are to destroy or how slow they are to attack. It's just something about them doesn't sit right with me.
Also, note, I'm not just talking about static base defenses. If I have some units set to guard some position out in the field and they start taking on fire when I'm not looking.. I don't expect them to survive, but I at least want them to fight back or give some indication that they are doing something useful.
Edit:
I think I figured out what annoyed me about the "long-range" units in Generals. It's the fact that they aren't "long-range" at all. Let me explain:
The units in the game are very short sighted, meaning something can be right up in front of them and they won't do crap until the enemy gets close enough for them to "realize." The "long-range" units weren't very long range, but they were what I would consider moderate range. In TS, the Nod artillery attack you from a FAAAAR distance, which explains why the units they attack don't see it coming. That doesn't annoy me because it's logical. However, with something like the rocket-buggy, they basically get up close and personal, which is still considered a "long range" according to the game.
I'd be screaming at my screen: "WHAT ARE YOU? BLIND?! HE IS RIGHT THERE!"
That being said, the artillery units in Generals, such as the Nuke Artillery, didn't bother me because of their long range.
|
The rocket buggy isn't up close and personal at all. It has a pretty good range on it, and it outranges most other units in the game (I think it just narrowly beats out the Inferno Cannon). The only time it ever has to get up close and personal is if there's an obstacle like a building in the way, because they alone amongst "Artillery" units can't fire over them.
Maybe the 3D confused you? It can be tricky to accurately measure distances in 3D from certain perspectives.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
I'm not saying the story in Generals was good. I'm saying it's not much worse than those in any other C&C game. No C&C game has a good backstory besides the sequels (Because they have the story of their prequels to build on), and even then you have some abomination backstories (RA2's and RA3's backstory of "LOL THAT NEVER HAPPENED!! MIND CONTROL!! SQUIDS!!"). I agree with you they could have put more thought into the story, but I can't agree with going on and on about it when there's RA2 and RA3 out there which are much, much, much worse.
|
It is very bad, which is my point, and it is much worse than other C&C games, which isn't my point. It's a bad story for the sake of being a story. Who said anything about comparing it to previous C&C games?
However, if you must, the "story" of Generals is much worse than even the story in C&C3, which is also pretty mediocre. At least the C&C3 story had plot twists, depth, and immersion.. not some news caster saying something about politics and then letting you jump into a battle.
The story in Generals could have just been a few missions:
1. Learn of your enemies
2. Learn of your allies (optional)
3. Final strike on your enemies
And it would have turned out the same. All the missions in the game between the beginning and end missions are just pointless filler.
|
That "something about politics" IS the story. I don't see how you can marginalize the story and then complain about how bad it is. You're not even trying to enjoy it.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
You're missing my point. She's "tacked on" in EVERY C&C game. In RA2 she's just "That helper bitch that tells me what to do". In Tiberian Sun she's just "That voice that isn't CABAL (SILOS NEEDED)". In Renegade she's "The option screen". She has mp real background in any C&C game. And that's because she doesn't need one. She's there to fill a role (Prevent the player from getting confused), and she does that just fine.
|
Not true. EVA was a main character in the Tiberium universe first. The fact that she was in RA2 as a lieutenant was just supposed to be an unrelated reference to previous C&C games. Sort of like the developers trying to be clever.
What they did with Eva in Generals was a rip off. If I was to think of a clever way to implement Eva into Generals, I wouldn't have made her a person or AI, but rather a system or code. Maybe like the spy satellite network or the way they interpret what they are looking at. For example, E.V.A. could stand for "Electronic Visual Analysis." That would have fit the mood of the game and wouldn't have been a rip-off of EVA/Lt. Eva in the other two games.
|
"Electronic Visual Analysis" sounds like a poor ripoff of "Electronic Video Agent" in Tiberian Sun. And keep in mind there is some intention of tying all three universes together, and the strands of doing so are there. EVA is one example. The many parallels one can draw between the GLA and Nod is another. The pervasive faction that is communist-aligned is a third. There isn't anything "Unoriginal" about a LT. Eva being your guide. This is a C&C game. You may as well be calling your beloved MCV sidebar system a "ripoff" from one game in the series to another.
By the way, the idea of EVA originated in the Dune series just like your beloved MCV sidebar system, so if anyone is unoriginal it's Tiberian Dawn, not Generals.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
Nod's backstory in Tiberian Dawn can be summed up with by this little guy:| Quoted so black text is readable |
|
And every Tiberium Universe game only builds on that, and in each Nod is refered to with words like "Shadowy" and Kane is refered to with words like "Mysterious". It isn't until the upcoming C&C 4 that we're actually going to get some details. Face it, we the community know next to nothing about Kane's motives, or what his plans actually are. Even games that are supposed to provide more insight like Kane's Wrath left me more confused and raised more questions than it answered.
|
Yes, Nod is mysterious. Mysteries are intriguing and suspenseful. They keep you entertained and make you want to learn more. We do know of their main characteristics in the fictional realm and they are morale enough for players to even side with or against them. It's like people placing faith in god.
GDI is trying to preserve the world. Their main objective isn't just "lol we're the good guys and we must save the civilians," it's to stop the spread of Tiberium. That's why they were formed in the first place. They are, at their basic roots, a global, militaristic, hazmat team. However, they have their own unique characteristics from Nod and are interesting to follow and read into or possibly side with.
|
You can make the same arguement for the factions in Generals. The GLA are mysterious (You never do find out who the head honcho is, even in Zero Hour) and their motives beyond simply uprooting foreign imperialism is unknown.
Likewise, the USA aren't just trying to save civilians, but preserve freedom and spread democracy and all that jazz. If you disregard real life, that's pretty unique in an RTS.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
In Red Alert 1, the backstory is identical to that of Generals, with the exception that the premise is "Hitler never happened", instead of "twenty years in the future". The countries are just there, and rely on the player's understanding of history/current events to fill in the gaps.
|
You're correct to an extent, but it's not the same. The thing that makes it interesting is exactly that, Hitler never happened. It's an entire new world filled with new technology that makes people want to see what happens in the upcoming events.
Although I admit that my feelings on both Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert 1 are among the lowest in the series, Generals being rock-bottom, they still have a head and shoulders over Generals in terms of story and originality.
|
It's the same thing! Instead of the past it's the near future! It's still a fictious war with a touch of science fiction!
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
HAR HAR.
I was refering to the stereotypes you were presenting. Each side is presented as adequately positive when playing their campaign and adequately evil when you're facing them as an enemy. It's the same in the Tiberian Universe. GDI holds themselves to be the vangaurd of civilization and see Nod as dangerous terrorists. Nod sees themselves as a liberation front (A global one, at that) and see's GDI as oppressive imperialists. SOUND FAMILIAR?!
|
I never really said anything about stereotypes in this thread. I was just trying to point out that the factions were too cut and dry. Like the US is just trying to defend the world because they are "oh so powerful," the GLA is fighting for their own reasons and China is like "lolwut?"
If I was on the development team for that game, I would have suggested that they personalize each faction better. Give a few missions or simply a information about what and why their fighting for... you know, instead of just throwing them into the fray after a few sudden strikes and expecting the player to draw their own conclusions by the time the game is over.
|
You never explicitly stated that the game was stereotypical, but that's what you were getting at. "The US is high and mighty, the terrorists are desert rats, etc etc".
I would argue that it's fairly obvious why each faction is fighting. Only a hermit would be confused by what's going on, and even he would catch on by mission 3 or so.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 |
You're making an assertion without giving it any support at all, and you admit to it. I suggest you quit bringing it up if you can't offer up anything more substantial than "this is just the way I feel".
|
Yes, but like I said, it's not something that can be debated logically.
For example, if you told me you liked a certain genre of music that I completely disagree with.. how am I supposed to argue about something you enjoy? Regardless of what I say or think, you're still going to listen to it. You aren't going to suddenly develop new preferences simply because I said otherwise.
It's not about pros and cons, its just about your gut feeling about what you like and dislike. There are just some things in this world that you can like or dislike without a true logical reason.
|
Each genre of music has it's merits, and by analyzing them and the reason behind them, you can arrive a logical conclusion on which is truely better, (at least for one person, as reasons differ from person to person). Nothing is random, and everything has a set of logic behind it.
I'll give you an example. One of my favorite genres of music is Power Metal. I can give you fairly decent sales pitch on why Power Metal is a superior genre of music. It combines the pleasant heaviness of regular music with things it usually lacks, like Melody and clean vocals. You could give me a sales pitch on whatever your favorite genres of music is and we can debate it over. We may not convince each other--And that's not what I'm after in this Generals debate, either--but the result will be a clearer understand on why we like or don't like what we do. You've already expanded your understanding somewhat in this thread. You yourself came to the realization on what exactly about artillery-type units bothers you so much.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
Of course you can't think of any negatives. And I don't think you're lying either. It just so happens that whenever you trying to think of negatives of something that you prefer, you tend to not be able to. It also happens with the positives on the opposing side of the argument. Happens to me all the time.
You have to take an outside source's points and use them rather than make them yourself, because they will always turn out bias. (The outside source can't be a single person either, because the results would be just as bias.)
|
Which is why I welcome your input.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
-Most of your negatives are opinions. I tend to like having structures simply appear on the battlefield.
|
You may LIKE it, but it's not an opinion that it is unrealistic, harder to balance, and a general detriment to the game rather than a benefit.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
-Also, in games prior to Generals, building multiple production centers allowed your production speed to increase dramatically. For example, if you have a single barracks, a soldier might take 6 seconds to build, but with two he might only take 3 or 4. And it increased with even more. There was a limit at one point, but it still gave you more than enough reason to build multiple production structures. Also, there was the fact that each structure was tied together, so if you made one on one side of the map and another on the other side of the map, you could chose which unit came out of which structure. (So you could train a unit and pause it seconds before it was created, then build a production structure in your enemies base and set it to primary, then continue the training and that unit would be made in the enemy base.
|
Which is inferior to having each structure have it's own production queue, like in C&C and every other RTS. It's a poor consolation prize that I'm still producing one tank at a time with twelve war factories.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
-You're third point is a play off of the second point. Just like multiple production centers, having multiple MCVs made structure building faster.
|
That doesn't even begin to pay off. MCVs are always amongst the priciest units. It's a roundabout, awkward system to simply having a worker unit producing structures, instead of insisting on having them produced invisibly, off-screen.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
-I tend to like the global repair and sell commands. Especially since how they work in C&C3 and RA3. How are they unbalanced? Everyone has access to them.
|
Because I can react quickly and salvage a structure or even an entire base that I cannot or choose not to defend. It softens to blow of losing a building. If you're losing a structure, you're not entitled to half it's value in a refund. You see this all the time especially with buildings that are about to be captured by a rouge engineer. If your building is about to be captured, you shouldn't be allowed to immediately remove it from the battlefield. Games with using the Peon System with repair/sell functions require a worker unit to repair or deconstruct a building, giving the attacking army the ability to stop the process.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
-Units lack "abilities" because in the games Generals and prior, it really wasn't necessary to have them (Unless you count things like amplifying tesla coils with tesla troopers in RA2, ect). The only C&C game that really pulls off "abilities" nicely is RA3.
|
Nothing is necessary. You can have a very simple strategy game without any fanciness like that at all and still be very good and very successful (Like Chess, for example). That said, if such abilities done correctly is helps expand the strategic options open to a player making the game more complex and more deep. Even games as primitive as WarCraft II have them and it's shameful that games as (relatively) new as RA2 lack them. Not being "necessary" is a poor excuse. It isn't necessary to have a limit on how much currency a player can have stored in his war chest at a time either (A-la the silo system), yet it does something to expand the depth and strategy of the game on the macromanagement level.
And I dispute your claim that only RA3 has pulled off "abilities" nicely. The commando units in Generals and C&C 3 live and die by their abilities. And even if C&C games don't do abilties well, that's no excuse for their conspicious absence. They would be a benefit if added, and one of the long-time constraints on their presence is the old "sidebar". Competitive C&C games (Especially pre-Generals) usually devolve into who can produce the larger force of Scorpion Tanks/Battlemasters/Medium Tanks/whatever, with very little force variety. This is a stark contrast to games using the peon system with a robust system of unit abilties like StarCraft, WarCraft, Sins of a Solar Empire, and others, where you stand little chance of winning by producing a ton of one type on units and you practically require a balanced army.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
As for your positives about the Peon system:
-More strategy can tend to be more fun. So I agree with you there. But not every game should play the same.. or else there is no point in making different games. If you're going to make a game the same as another game, ask yourself: "Why?"
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
-Industry standard? Don't you mean unoriginal mainstream standard? The MCV system may not be the best, but its definitely different than the peon system and stands apart from it.
|
You're right. I guess other industry standards like ctrl+c being "copy" and ctrl+v being "paste" are "unoriginal", and software engineers should do things differently, just for the sake of doing things differently.
It's the standard because it works best. "Original" and "different" isn't always a good thing. Variety is only a positive if it offers an improvement over what is currently being used, and that's something the MCV/sidebar system just doesn't do. Why do you think it was updated with C&C 3 to bring it closer in line with the peon system (Different production lines, etc)?
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
-Expansion. You're making a base, not a city. However, I agree that the peon system expands in a more fun way than the MCV system.
|
Great. We're in agreement then.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
-Your last few points: Realism and fun aren't always counterparts. C&C isn't about realism, it's about having fun with references to realism. Some people tend to have fun when they mimic real life, some people tend to have fun when they escape from real life. It's a balance, really. I think RA3 pulled off the balance between those two types of people very nicely with the separate building strategies each faction used.
|
RA3 did nothing of the sort. RA3 was a continuation in the "wacky", "zaney", "nutty" line of games that RA2 began. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my share of shows like The Animaniacs which are a similar form of humor, but RTS games are about a high level of thinking and planning, and forcing such sillyness (For lack of a better word) clashes dramatically with the game.
But my points weren't so much about realism but balance and the expansion of strategic options. In games with the Peon System an attacking army can stop defenses from being completed while they're in the process of construction. Not only is this realistic, but it's better balanced and properly rewards the attacking army/penalizes the defender for their timing (or lack thereof). It rewards the better player. If you begin making defenses on one side of your base and get attacked on the other, you're shit out of luck, and you rightly deserve to be. You've commited a strategic blunder. In the MCV system, all you have to do is place your Telsa Coil or whatever it is you're making in a different place, and problem solved. That takes away from strategy, instead of adding to it.
[quote title=R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47]The way I see the MCV system is more like symbolism. All the experiences of the battle being shown to you, the player, through summery. Like, you build a structure and place it instantly is the sped up summery of what really happened, which was a construction crew came out and made the structure using the supplies and tools given to them through the use of the MCV. Or to put it another way, a the MCV system might look and work one way in TD, but it might look more realistic and logical if you are looking at the same situation through a game like Renegade.
We never see building construction in Renegade, so I can't really say, but I imagine if we did it would require engineers or Hotwires/technicians. Workers. Just like the peon system.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 |
I'm not imagining it, you probably just never noticed. Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert for the N64 and PS1 aside, Generals was the first C&C game were the control bar overlapped and obscured your view of the gameplay experience. In all the C&C titles prior to Generals, the 'sidebar' was it's own division of the screen. It didn't overlap the game sreen but was more of a complement to it. In Generals, C&C3 and RA3, the game screen was expanded to fill your entire monitor and the control bar was placed on top of it. It's not as much of a problem in C&C3 and RA3 because the sidebar is small, partially transparent, and doesn't have pointless solid areas that obscure your view.
Also, yes, you may have the ability to move the control bar out of the way, but then you lose the ability to use it. The sidebar is always there and it takes up minimal room.
General's control style may have been better if it took up less room. Something similar to this:
http://odyssee.cncsaga.com/images_cnc4/2.png
|
Heaven forbid you have to scroll down slightly to see what's behind the command bar. More successful and argueably better games than Generals (Most notably WarCraft III) have much larger "HUDs" (For lack of a better word), and they accomplish their goals much better.
I admit, the "HUD" in that screenshot is superior to that of Generals, and it's not hard to find something that would be, but you're making a bigger deal out of this than the issue deserves. The control scheme in Generals might not be perfect, but it's not near bad enough to begin to impact the game, the way Call to Power 1's was.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Tue, 21 July 2009 23:25] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #395946 is a reply to message #395852] |
Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
That "something about politics" IS the story. I don't see how you can marginalize the story and then complain about how bad it is. You're not even trying to enjoy it.
|
There is a difference between trying to enjoy something and not being able to enjoy something.
My main reason for playing C&C games is to play the single player and skirmish. After I've done that, I move onto multiplayer. The campaign and story, however, is the selling point for me when it comes to the game. For Generals to lack heavily in terms of an enjoyable story, it makes my opinion of it very poor.
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
"Electronic Visual Analysis" sounds like a poor ripoff of "Electronic Video Agent" in Tiberian Sun. And keep in mind there is some intention of tying all three universes together, and the strands of doing so are there. EVA is one example. The many parallels one can draw between the GLA and Nod is another. The pervasive faction that is communist-aligned is a third. There isn't anything "Unoriginal" about a LT. Eva being your guide. This is a C&C game. You may as well be calling your beloved MCV sidebar system a "ripoff" from one game in the series to another.
By the way, the idea of EVA originated in the Dune series just like your beloved MCV sidebar system, so if anyone is unoriginal it's Tiberian Dawn, not Generals.
|
Of course it sounds like a "poor ripoff." That's because it uses the same acronym. But the title is one thing, what it actually does is something else.
In Tiberium, EVA is a strategic AI that gives you advise on how to handle situations logically as well as give you information which may be key to your missions.
In Red Alert, Lt. Eva is a briefing officer that is used to twist the way a mission is under taken when compared to Tiberium.
In Generals, it's a mix of the two. I suggested making it its own unique flare to the game rather than taking aspects of the previous games (other than the name, obviously.)
As for the uniqueness of the MCV and sidebar, I meant that it's different in structure when compared to other RTS games out there. Name a single, non-C&C, modern day RTS game that uses a building system similar to the MCV. You can't because there is none (or if there is, I haven't heard of it.) What I'm getting at with that is that it is a step away from mainstream. It's a taste of something different for those of us who want it.
The Peon system has it's fun and positive aspects over the MCV just as the MCV does over the Peon system. But that doesn't mean that one system should be the total standard for which RTS games are based off of. Nothing should ever be definitive as there is always people who enjoy it another way.
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
You can make the same arguement for the factions in Generals. The GLA are mysterious (You never do find out who the head honcho is, even in Zero Hour) and their motives beyond simply uprooting foreign imperialism is unknown.
Likewise, the USA aren't just trying to save civilians, but preserve freedom and spread democracy and all that jazz. If you disregard real life, that's pretty unique in an RTS.
|
Yes, I understand that, but there's more to it than that.
Perhaps I'm explaining it to you the wrong way. The USA, GLA and China are all based off of real world nations and organizations. As such, they don't require much explanation because the players should already understand who they are (unless they live in a cave somewhere in the middle of the Outback). However, it's that aspect of using the modern-day real world that makes the factions unlikeable, imo.
Maybe it's just my own personal opinion.. I don't like games that the characters/factions are ideally virtual real-world people/armies. Along with the campaign requirement I mentioned above, that's just another turn-off for me.
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
It's the same thing! Instead of the past it's the near future! It's still a fictious war with a touch of science fiction!
|
No, one's a fictitious war based off of the implication of current events. 'This could happen in our world.' The other is a fictitious war based off of implication of historical changes. 'What if we changed this part of history and allowed these ideas to work?'
Ones a "this could happen tomorrow" and the other is "this could never happen but what if it did?"
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
Each genre of music has it's merits, and by analyzing them and the reason behind them, you can arrive a logical conclusion on which is truely better, (at least for one person, as reasons differ from person to person). Nothing is random, and everything has a set of logic behind it.
I'll give you an example. One of my favorite genres of music is Power Metal. I can give you fairly decent sales pitch on why Power Metal is a superior genre of music. It combines the pleasant heaviness of regular music with things it usually lacks, like Melody and clean vocals. You could give me a sales pitch on whatever your favorite genres of music is and we can debate it over. We may not convince each other--And that's not what I'm after in this Generals debate, either--but the result will be a clearer understand on why we like or don't like what we do. You've already expanded your understanding somewhat in this thread. You yourself came to the realization on what exactly about artillery-type units bothers you so much.
|
When it comes to reasoning for liking music, I have different feelings than you. Although I understand where you're coming from, it's not like that with me. I like certain genres of music simply because I unexplainably do. I like to listen to some and not to others.. not based on any real reasons... or at least reasons I can perceive.
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
Which is why I welcome your input.
|
Point taken.
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
You may LIKE it, but it's not an opinion that it is unrealistic, harder to balance, and a general detriment to the game rather than a benefit.
|
I have also stated on many occasions in this thread that the MCV system wasn't realistic and have also stated that being realistic doesn't count as a good or bad fact. Games should be fun to play through their own means. If one finds a realistic game fun, that doesn't mean that only realistic games are fun.
Harder to balance? Maybe, but what difference does it make?
General detriment? That's your opinion.
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
Which is inferior to having each structure have it's own production queue, like in C&C and every other RTS. It's a poor consolation prize that I'm still producing one tank at a time with twelve war factories.
...
That doesn't even begin to pay off. MCVs are always amongst the priciest units. It's a roundabout, awkward system to simply having a worker unit producing structures, instead of insisting on having them produced invisibly, off-screen.
|
Again, that's your opinion. I preferred it over multiple queues. When C&C3 introduced multiple queues, I was a bit discouraged (and was joined by a decent size group of other people.) I even created my own gameplay mechanic idea to meet halfway between the two systems. I'll explain it if you're curious, but for the time being I'll leave it out.
Personally, I find that multiple queues lead to spamming... which is exactly what C&C3 was: "Spam-tacular."
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
Because I can react quickly and salvage a structure or even an entire base that I cannot or choose not to defend. It softens to blow of losing a building. If you're losing a structure, you're not entitled to half it's value in a refund. You see this all the time especially with buildings that are about to be captured by a rouge engineer. If your building is about to be captured, you shouldn't be allowed to immediately remove it from the battlefield. Games with using the Peon System with repair/sell functions require a worker unit to repair or deconstruct a building, giving the attacking army the ability to stop the process.
|
I'll give you the point about defending against capturing.. however the refund points have been corrected since C&C3. Now the price you get back is a ratio to the damage you've taken. If you try to sell a $2,000structure just before it's destroyed, you get maybe $20-$50, if you're lucky. If you sell it when it's at full HP, then you get half of what it cost to purchase (in this case it would be $1,000).
It may have the same principle on paper, but the effect it has on gameplay is to a much lesser scale. Not to mention the fact each player has the ability to do it.
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
Nothing is necessary. You can have a very simple strategy game without any fanciness like that at all and still be very good and very successful (Like Chess, for example). That said, if such abilities done correctly is helps expand the strategic options open to a player making the game more complex and more deep. Even games as primitive as WarCraft II have them and it's shameful that games as (relatively) new as RA2 lack them. Not being "necessary" is a poor excuse. It isn't necessary to have a limit on how much currency a player can have stored in his war chest at a time either (A-la the silo system), yet it does something to expand the depth and strategy of the game on the macromanagement level.
And I dispute your claim that only RA3 has pulled off "abilities" nicely. The commando units in Generals and C&C 3 live and die by their abilities. And even if C&C games don't do abilties well, that's no excuse for their conspicious absence. They would be a benefit if added, and one of the long-time constraints on their presence is the old "sidebar". Competitive C&C games (Especially pre-Generals) usually devolve into who can produce the larger force of Scorpion Tanks/Battlemasters/Medium Tanks/whatever, with very little force variety. This is a stark contrast to games using the peon system with a robust system of unit abilties like StarCraft, WarCraft, Sins of a Solar Empire, and others, where you stand little chance of winning by producing a ton of one type on units and you practically require a balanced army.
|
I was originally planning to say "weren't able to" but I realized that wasn't true. I settled on wasn't necessary because, exactly as you said, you can have a good game without the use of abilities.
Also, how does the idea that a single unit from either Generals or C&C3 can sway your opinion in favor of them when EVERY unit in RA3 had game-changing abilities?
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
You're right. I guess other industry standards like ctrl+c being "copy" and ctrl+v being "paste" are "unoriginal", and software engineers should do things differently, just for the sake of doing things differently.
It's the standard because it works best. "Original" and "different" isn't always a good thing. Variety is only a positive if it offers an improvement over what is currently being used, and that's something the MCV/sidebar system just doesn't do. Why do you think it was updated with C&C 3 to bring it closer in line with the peon system (Different production lines, etc)?
|
Copy/pasting isn't a form of entertainment value. People want simple standards for things like work or office programs because it makes the program easier to work with when used in conjunction with other programs and it gets the job done faster.
With games, however, it's a different story. Doing something different for the sake of doing it different will give you an appeal to a new audience of people/fans. Something doesn't have to be original or different to be good, only if it doesn't want to be boring.
Where's the fun if all RTS games used the same game mechanics?
Also, C&C3 had that implemented cause the self proclaimed "pros" said so. Like I said earlier, there were many people, including myself against it, and I even suggested my own gameplay mechanic that met halfway.
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
RA3 did nothing of the sort. RA3 was a continuation in the "wacky", "zaney", "nutty" line of games that RA2 began. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my share of shows like The Animaniacs which are a similar form of humor, but RTS games are about a high level of thinking and planning, and forcing such sillyness (For lack of a better word) clashes dramatically with the game.
But my points weren't so much about realism but balance and the expansion of strategic options. In games with the Peon System an attacking army can stop defenses from being completed while they're in the process of construction. Not only is this realistic, but it's better balanced and properly rewards the attacking army/penalizes the defender for their timing (or lack thereof). It rewards the better player. If you begin making defenses on one side of your base and get attacked on the other, you're shit out of luck, and you rightly deserve to be. You've commited a strategic blunder. In the MCV system, all you have to do is place your Telsa Coil or whatever it is you're making in a different place, and problem solved. That takes away from strategy, instead of adding to it.
|
You're overreacting to the "weird," "wacky," "zaney" aspects you mention because they aren't really that apparent. They are only in the main idea of the technology used, which still seems pretty solid. The theories were disproven (or never followed up on) in the real world, but that doesn't doesn't necessarily make them "wacky." The game's light hearted, not humorous. However, how that relates to the faction balance.. I don't know.
In RA3 each faction was totally different in terms of balance.
The Allies built using the traditional MCV system with some twists to make it better. They required "tech clearance" per base in order to build higher-tier things. That made using high-tech units and weapons from expansion bases much harder and it required you to strategically plan where you make your technologically advanced expansion bases.
The Soviets also used the MCV system with even more of a twist. They had a global technology pool, so you could build any high-tech unit/weapon anywhere you're able to just as long as you have the unlocking structure somewhere on the map. The catch, however, is that your structures don't "appear" on the map. You chose a structure and then chose where you want to build it. Then the structure will begin to build itself on the map, all the while being vulnerable to attack.
Japan had the most unique form of construction. They had an MCV, but it worked differently than what you're thinking. Their MCV produced building specific "Nano-cores" which would transform into the building they represent at a location you desire. This is the only faction that isn't limited to a build radius. They are able to build anywhere on the map at any time they want, given they are able to transport the nano-core to the desired location. The core took a while to get deployed, all the while being vulnerable to attack. This way of building bares the most resemblance to the peon system.
I preferred using either the Allies or Japan.
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
We never see building construction in Renegade, so I can't really say, but I imagine if we did it would require engineers or Hotwires/technicians. Workers. Just like the peon system.
|
Which is exactly my point. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
| Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 |
Heaven forbid you have to scroll down slightly to see what's behind the command bar. More successful and argueably better games than Generals (Most notably WarCraft III) have much larger "HUDs" (For lack of a better word), and they accomplish their goals much better.
I admit, the "HUD" in that screenshot is superior to that of Generals, and it's not hard to find something that would be, but you're making a bigger deal out of this than the issue deserves. The control scheme in Generals might not be perfect, but it's not near bad enough to begin to impact the game, the way Call to Power 1's was.
|
You can brush it off by saying "just move the camera" but my point is "why should I have to?"
Just like in web site designing, every bit of space counts as well as how many times you require the person to click around. You want someone to have maximum access to basically everything at any given time. If someone has to do even the simplest of tasks to get what they want, it's a demerit. For example, you shouldn't have to scroll the webpage down to click a button to get to another page.
It might not be a big deal in the onlook of the situation, but it really makes a difference if the issue didn't exist to begin with.
[Updated on: Wed, 22 July 2009 18:45] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #396158 is a reply to message #394552] |
Sat, 25 July 2009 01:40 |
_SSnipe_
Messages: 4121
Registered: May 2007
Location: Riverside Southern Califo...
Karma: 0
|
General (4 Stars) |
|
|
The part i dont like,
| Quote: |
Command & Conquer 4 will reveal the epic conclusion of the Tiberium Saga.
|
Who will win 
P.S. Check out trailer on there site...makes you cant wait any longer
[Updated on: Sat, 25 July 2009 01:44] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #396187 is a reply to message #395946] |
Sat, 25 July 2009 09:23 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
There is a difference between trying to enjoy something and not being able to enjoy something.
My main reason for playing C&C games is to play the single player and skirmish. After I've done that, I move onto multiplayer. The campaign and story, however, is the selling point for me when it comes to the game. For Generals to lack heavily in terms of an enjoyable story, it makes my opinion of it very poor.
|
And that's what I'm talking about. You're choosing to hate the game for what it isn't rather than enjoy it for what it is. You're not even trying to have fun with it.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
Of course it sounds like a "poor ripoff." That's because it uses the same acronym. But the title is one thing, what it actually does is something else.
In Tiberium, EVA is a strategic AI that gives you advise on how to handle situations logically as well as give you information which may be key to your missions.
In Red Alert, Lt. Eva is a briefing officer that is used to twist the way a mission is under taken when compared to Tiberium.
In Generals, it's a mix of the two. I suggested making it its own unique flare to the game rather than taking aspects of the previous games (other than the name, obviously.)
|
They do the samn damn thing in either situation. You're nitpicking. There's no difference. Besides, is it that hard to accept that it could be the same Lt. Eva in both games? It's a person with the same name that holds the same job for the same country with practically the same voice.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
As for the uniqueness of the MCV and sidebar, I meant that it's different in structure when compared to other RTS games out there. Name a single, non-C&C, modern day RTS game that uses a building system similar to the MCV. You can't because there is none (or if there is, I haven't heard of it.) What I'm getting at with that is that it is a step away from mainstream. It's a taste of something different for those of us who want it.
|
The "mainstream" is what it is for a reason. Because it works and because it's superior. Why do all action/RPG games use some form of a red bar and/or a number to indicate the health of a character? Because it works, and games that mix it up (For example, Soul Reaver) are ususally sub-par at best and terribad at worst.
As for a non-C&C modern RTS, Dune II. If you say it isn't modern, it's Wikipedia page says otherwise:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_II |
Dune II established a format that would be followed for years to come, and was the first to use the mouse to move units, allowing players to fluidly interact with their troops.[1] As such, Dune II was the first modern real-time strategy game. Striking a balance between complexity and innovation, it was a huge success and laid the foundation for the coming Command & Conquer, the Warcraft series, and many other RTS games.
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
The Peon system has it's fun and positive aspects over the MCV just as the MCV does over the Peon system. But that doesn't mean that one system should be the total standard for which RTS games are based off of. Nothing should ever be definitive as there is always people who enjoy it another way.
|
You can always find one wackjob that will find an inferior control scheme more fun or more beneficial in some way, but that doesn't make it true. There are a lot of people who are against advancing the control system in the upcoming SC2 because they feel it would lead to a decrease in player skill level. In the end, any given Blizzard game (Which all use the peon system) outsell any given C&C game. As a capitalist, I'm sure you can appreciate that the free-market has spoken, and it has said that the peon system is superior?
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
Perhaps I'm explaining it to you the wrong way. The USA, GLA and China are all based off of real world nations and organizations. As such, they don't require much explanation because the players should already understand who they are (unless they live in a cave somewhere in the middle of the Outback). However, it's that aspect of using the modern-day real world that makes the factions unlikeable, imo.
Maybe it's just my own personal opinion.. I don't like games that the characters/factions are ideally virtual real-world people/armies. Along with the campaign requirement I mentioned above, that's just another turn-off for me.[/color]
|
You see, you're telling me your opinion, but you're not saying WHY. We can't have a discussion if it's just going to devolve into talking about our feelings.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
No, one's a fictitious war based off of the implication of current events. 'This could happen in our world.' The other is a fictitious war based off of implication of historical changes. 'What if we changed this part of history and allowed these ideas to work?'
Ones a "this could happen tomorrow" and the other is "this could never happen but what if it did?"
|
You're nitpicking.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
When it comes to reasoning for liking music, I have different feelings than you. Although I understand where you're coming from, it's not like that with me. I like certain genres of music simply because I unexplainably do. I like to listen to some and not to others.. not based on any real reasons... or at least reasons I can perceive.
|
Nobody, and this includes you, likes something for no reason. You have a reason for liking what you do. All you're doing is hiding behind your (Real, or perceived) ignorance. Do some soul-searching, and get back to me on why you enjoy what you do.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
I have also stated on many occasions in this thread that the MCV system wasn't realistic and have also stated that being realistic doesn't count as a good or bad fact. Games should be fun to play through their own means. If one finds a realistic game fun, that doesn't mean that only realistic games are fun.
Harder to balance? Maybe, but what difference does it make?
General detriment? That's your opinion.
|
I guess I should stop using the word "realistic", because although it's true, it really isn't my point. My main point is that it's harder to balance which makes it subsequently less-balanced. It closes off strategic options that would be open to a player under the peon system and generally takes away from the game more than it adds.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
Again, that's your opinion. I preferred it over multiple queues. When C&C3 introduced multiple queues, I was a bit discouraged (and was joined by a decent size group of other people.) I even created my own gameplay mechanic idea to meet halfway between the two systems. I'll explain it if you're curious, but for the time being I'll leave it out.
Personally, I find that multiple queues lead to spamming... which is exactly what C&C3 was: "Spam-tacular."
|
And? All C&C games have been spam-tacular. This isn't because of multiple production queues but because the units are poorly balanced. Even with a single production queue, most C&C games encourage the mass production of a single type of unit, which is something that just wouldn't fly in most other RTSes.
Again, explain to me how when I have 30 War Factories built all my tanks come out of one of them, and why I can't make 30 tanks at once. That's retarded, there's just no other word for it.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
I'll give you the point about defending against capturing.. however the refund points have been corrected since C&C3. Now the price you get back is a ratio to the damage you've taken. If you try to sell a $2,000structure just before it's destroyed, you get maybe $20-$50, if you're lucky. If you sell it when it's at full HP, then you get half of what it cost to purchase (in this case it would be $1,000).
It may have the same principle on paper, but the effect it has on gameplay is to a much lesser scale. Not to mention the fact each player has the ability to do it.
|
"Each player has the ability to do it" doesn't and shouldn't come into the equation. If you're losing a building or it's about to get captured and you can't save it, then you deserve to have it get blown up or captured. That's it. End of story. If you get 50 credits out of it, that's 50 credits more than you deserve.
Not to mention the free units you get when you sell things, in some cases high-tier units like Shadow Teams for selling...a secret shrine I think? I don't know I'm having a brainfart.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
I was originally planning to say "weren't able to" but I realized that wasn't true. I settled on wasn't necessary because, exactly as you said, you can have a good game without the use of abilities.
Also, how does the idea that a single unit from either Generals or C&C3 can sway your opinion in favor of them when EVERY unit in RA3 had game-changing abilities?
|
I'm looking more at games like StarCraft and WarCraft that have "caster" units that have multiple supportive abilities which is something you just don't see in C&C (With the exception of Black Lotus in generals, I suppose). I see the limited availability of such units as part of the reason competitive C&C is such a spamfest.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
Copy/pasting isn't a form of entertainment value. People want simple standards for things like work or office programs because it makes the program easier to work with when used in conjunction with other programs and it gets the job done faster.
With games, however, it's a different story. Doing something different for the sake of doing it different will give you an appeal to a new audience of people/fans. Something doesn't have to be original or different to be good, only if it doesn't want to be boring.
Where's the fun if all RTS games used the same game mechanics?
Also, C&C3 had that implemented cause the self proclaimed "pros" said so. Like I said earlier, there were many people, including myself against it, and I even suggested my own gameplay mechanic that met halfway.
|
I truely pity you if you think the HUD a game uses (Since that's basically what this is coming down to, if it's at the side or at the bottom) affects how fun that game is to any major degree.
I'd like to hear your own gameplay mechanic, but judging by your opinions I've heard so far I'm willing to predict I'm not going to like it.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
You're overreacting to the "weird," "wacky," "zaney" aspects you mention because they aren't really that apparent. They are only in the main idea of the technology used, which still seems pretty solid. The theories were disproven (or never followed up on) in the real world, but that doesn't doesn't necessarily make them "wacky." The game's light hearted, not humorous.
|
Lol
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
However, how that relates to the faction balance.. I don't know.
In RA3 each faction was totally different in terms of balance.
The Allies built using the traditional MCV system with some twists to make it better. They required "tech clearance" per base in order to build higher-tier things. That made using high-tech units and weapons from expansion bases much harder and it required you to strategically plan where you make your technologically advanced expansion bases.
The Soviets also used the MCV system with even more of a twist. They had a global technology pool, so you could build any high-tech unit/weapon anywhere you're able to just as long as you have the unlocking structure somewhere on the map. The catch, however, is that your structures don't "appear" on the map. You chose a structure and then chose where you want to build it. Then the structure will begin to build itself on the map, all the while being vulnerable to attack.
Japan had the most unique form of construction. They had an MCV, but it worked differently than what you're thinking. Their MCV produced building specific "Nano-cores" which would transform into the building they represent at a location you desire. This is the only faction that isn't limited to a build radius. They are able to build anywhere on the map at any time they want, given they are able to transport the nano-core to the desired location. The core took a while to get deployed, all the while being vulnerable to attack. This way of building bares the most resemblance to the peon system.
I preferred using either the Allies or Japan.
|
Are we talking about faction balance? I don't think any past C&C games have had faction-balance problems.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
Which is exactly my point. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
|
No, in Renegade it IS happening because you can kill off hotwires and engineers and stop repairs and such. In other C&C games it ISN'T happening because nothing you do will stop repairs short of the player running out of money.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
You can brush it off by saying "just move the camera" but my point is "why should I have to?"
|
Because the game doesn't play itself.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
Just like in web site designing, every bit of space counts as well as how many times you require the person to click around. You want someone to have maximum access to basically everything at any given time. If someone has to do even the simplest of tasks to get what they want, it's a demerit. For example, you shouldn't have to scroll the webpage down to click a button to get to another page.
It might not be a big deal in the onlook of the situation, but it really makes a difference if the issue didn't exist to begin with.
|
You're making a big deal out of nothing. The controls in Generals are sub-par but not terrible. There's certainly room for improvement, but isn't there always?
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Sat, 25 July 2009 09:25] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #396190 is a reply to message #396187] |
Sat, 25 July 2009 09:41 |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:23 |
making a big deal out of nothing.
|
This pretty much sums up this entire thread.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #396193 is a reply to message #396187] |
Sat, 25 July 2009 09:44 |
 |
Herr Surth
Messages: 1684
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
[quote title=Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:23]| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
However, how that relates to the faction balance.. I don't know.
In RA3 each faction was totally different in terms of balance.
The Allies built using the traditional MCV system with some twists to make it better. They required "tech clearance" per base in order to build higher-tier things. That made using high-tech units and weapons from expansion bases much harder and it required you to strategically plan where you make your technologically advanced expansion bases.
The Soviets also used the MCV system with even more of a twist. They had a global technology pool, so you could build any high-tech unit/weapon anywhere you're able to just as long as you have the unlocking structure somewhere on the map. The catch, however, is that your structures don't "appear" on the map. You chose a structure and then chose where you want to build it. Then the structure will begin to build itself on the map, all the while being vulnerable to attack.
Japan had the most unique form of construction. They had an MCV, but it worked differently than what you're thinking. Their MCV produced building specific "Nano-cores" which would transform into the building they represent at a location you desire. This is the only faction that isn't limited to a build radius. They are able to build anywhere on the map at any time they want, given they are able to transport the nano-core to the desired location. The core took a while to get deployed, all the while being vulnerable to attack. This way of building bares the most resemblance to the peon system.
I preferred using either the Allies or Japan.[/color]
|
Are we talking about faction balance? I don't think any past C&C games have had faction-balance problems.
|
you mean apart from everyone?
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #396196 is a reply to message #396193] |
Sat, 25 July 2009 09:55 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 09:44 |
| Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:23 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
However, how that relates to the faction balance.. I don't know.
In RA3 each faction was totally different in terms of balance.
The Allies built using the traditional MCV system with some twists to make it better. They required "tech clearance" per base in order to build higher-tier things. That made using high-tech units and weapons from expansion bases much harder and it required you to strategically plan where you make your technologically advanced expansion bases.
The Soviets also used the MCV system with even more of a twist. They had a global technology pool, so you could build any high-tech unit/weapon anywhere you're able to just as long as you have the unlocking structure somewhere on the map. The catch, however, is that your structures don't "appear" on the map. You chose a structure and then chose where you want to build it. Then the structure will begin to build itself on the map, all the while being vulnerable to attack.
Japan had the most unique form of construction. They had an MCV, but it worked differently than what you're thinking. Their MCV produced building specific "Nano-cores" which would transform into the building they represent at a location you desire. This is the only faction that isn't limited to a build radius. They are able to build anywhere on the map at any time they want, given they are able to transport the nano-core to the desired location. The core took a while to get deployed, all the while being vulnerable to attack. This way of building bares the most resemblance to the peon system.
I preferred using either the Allies or Japan.[/color]
|
Are we talking about faction balance? I don't think any past C&C games have had faction-balance problems.
|
you mean apart from everyone?
|
You know, the more I looked into your claims, the more it seemed to me that it was just bad players on the forum bitching instead of playing the game and getting better.
| nikki6ixx wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 09:41 |
| Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:23 |
making a big deal out of nothing.
|
This pretty much sums up this entire thread.
|
One could argue it sums up this entire sub-forum.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Sat, 25 July 2009 09:55] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #396199 is a reply to message #396196] |
Sat, 25 July 2009 10:33 |
|
Herr Surth
Messages: 1684
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:55 |
| so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 09:44 |
| Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:23 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
However, how that relates to the faction balance.. I don't know.
In RA3 each faction was totally different in terms of balance.
The Allies built using the traditional MCV system with some twists to make it better. They required "tech clearance" per base in order to build higher-tier things. That made using high-tech units and weapons from expansion bases much harder and it required you to strategically plan where you make your technologically advanced expansion bases.
The Soviets also used the MCV system with even more of a twist. They had a global technology pool, so you could build any high-tech unit/weapon anywhere you're able to just as long as you have the unlocking structure somewhere on the map. The catch, however, is that your structures don't "appear" on the map. You chose a structure and then chose where you want to build it. Then the structure will begin to build itself on the map, all the while being vulnerable to attack.
Japan had the most unique form of construction. They had an MCV, but it worked differently than what you're thinking. Their MCV produced building specific "Nano-cores" which would transform into the building they represent at a location you desire. This is the only faction that isn't limited to a build radius. They are able to build anywhere on the map at any time they want, given they are able to transport the nano-core to the desired location. The core took a while to get deployed, all the while being vulnerable to attack. This way of building bares the most resemblance to the peon system.
I preferred using either the Allies or Japan.[/color]
|
Are we talking about faction balance? I don't think any past C&C games have had faction-balance problems.
|
you mean apart from everyone?
|
You know, the more I looked into your claims, the more it seemed to me that it was just bad players on the forum bitching instead of playing the game and getting better.
|
The ZH Community patch was made by some of the best ZH players there...
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #396201 is a reply to message #396199] |
Sat, 25 July 2009 11:31 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 10:33 |
| Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:55 |
| so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 09:44 |
| Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:23 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
However, how that relates to the faction balance.. I don't know.
In RA3 each faction was totally different in terms of balance.
The Allies built using the traditional MCV system with some twists to make it better. They required "tech clearance" per base in order to build higher-tier things. That made using high-tech units and weapons from expansion bases much harder and it required you to strategically plan where you make your technologically advanced expansion bases.
The Soviets also used the MCV system with even more of a twist. They had a global technology pool, so you could build any high-tech unit/weapon anywhere you're able to just as long as you have the unlocking structure somewhere on the map. The catch, however, is that your structures don't "appear" on the map. You chose a structure and then chose where you want to build it. Then the structure will begin to build itself on the map, all the while being vulnerable to attack.
Japan had the most unique form of construction. They had an MCV, but it worked differently than what you're thinking. Their MCV produced building specific "Nano-cores" which would transform into the building they represent at a location you desire. This is the only faction that isn't limited to a build radius. They are able to build anywhere on the map at any time they want, given they are able to transport the nano-core to the desired location. The core took a while to get deployed, all the while being vulnerable to attack. This way of building bares the most resemblance to the peon system.
I preferred using either the Allies or Japan.[/color]
|
Are we talking about faction balance? I don't think any past C&C games have had faction-balance problems.
|
you mean apart from everyone?
|
You know, the more I looked into your claims, the more it seemed to me that it was just bad players on the forum bitching instead of playing the game and getting better.
|
The ZH Community patch was made by some of the best ZH players there...
|
You're missing the point. Some professional StarCraft players have made comments like "Oh, Terran is overpowered" or "Protoss lategame vs Terran provides too much mobility with Recall, that's imbalanced", and I'm sure given the chance they would alter the game so suit their definition of balanaced, but that isn't the case. The game is what it is, and rather that patch it over, what should be done is learn to counter whatever the "overpowered" tactic is. It's not impossible.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #396202 is a reply to message #396201] |
Sat, 25 July 2009 11:34 |
|
Herr Surth
Messages: 1684
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:31 |
| so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 10:33 |
| Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:55 |
| so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 09:44 |
| Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:23 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 |
However, how that relates to the faction balance.. I don't know.
In RA3 each faction was totally different in terms of balance.
The Allies built using the traditional MCV system with some twists to make it better. They required "tech clearance" per base in order to build higher-tier things. That made using high-tech units and weapons from expansion bases much harder and it required you to strategically plan where you make your technologically advanced expansion bases.
The Soviets also used the MCV system with even more of a twist. They had a global technology pool, so you could build any high-tech unit/weapon anywhere you're able to just as long as you have the unlocking structure somewhere on the map. The catch, however, is that your structures don't "appear" on the map. You chose a structure and then chose where you want to build it. Then the structure will begin to build itself on the map, all the while being vulnerable to attack.
Japan had the most unique form of construction. They had an MCV, but it worked differently than what you're thinking. Their MCV produced building specific "Nano-cores" which would transform into the building they represent at a location you desire. This is the only faction that isn't limited to a build radius. They are able to build anywhere on the map at any time they want, given they are able to transport the nano-core to the desired location. The core took a while to get deployed, all the while being vulnerable to attack. This way of building bares the most resemblance to the peon system.
I preferred using either the Allies or Japan.[/color]
|
Are we talking about faction balance? I don't think any past C&C games have had faction-balance problems.
|
you mean apart from everyone?
|
You know, the more I looked into your claims, the more it seemed to me that it was just bad players on the forum bitching instead of playing the game and getting better.
|
The ZH Community patch was made by some of the best ZH players there...
|
You're missing the point. Some professional StarCraft players have made comments like "Oh, Terran is overpowered" or "Protoss lategame vs Terran provides too much mobility with Recall, that's imbalanced", and I'm sure given the chance they would alter the game so suit their definition of balanaced, but that isn't the case. The game is what it is, and rather that patch it over, what should be done is learn to counter whatever the "overpowered" tactic is. It's not impossible.
|
With emphasis on "SOME" professional players?
Because, you know, virtually everyone thought China was underpowered.
Oh btw, are you proposing not to patch games at all anymore because nobodies input could be trusted?
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #396209 is a reply to message #396202] |
Sat, 25 July 2009 12:40 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:34 |
With emphasis on "SOME" professional players?
Because, you know, virtually everyone thought China was underpowered.
Oh btw, are you proposing not to patch games at all anymore because nobodies input could be trusted?
|
...Let me give you a specific examples on what I mean. This, this, and this are three Terran vs Protoss games of StarCraft on two maps that are widely acknowledged to favor Protoss fairly heavily, but the Terran player deals with it fairly well in both situations, because he's a highly-competant StarCraft player. Lesser-skilled players would crumble to the odds being stacked against them where their canned build orders don't work. A skilled player adapts to his situation. In the first video he reacts flawlessly to a powerful early rush and holds his own into the lategame. In the second game he completely reverses the odds by getting an early containment on his opponent. In the third he uses an unorthodox build to counter his opponents unorthodox build. The point I'm trying to make here is that being underpowered or unfavored doesn't mean you can't win. Rather than bitch about it, be the better player and win anyway.
By the way, you can skip the first 1/4 or so of the videos unless you're interested in listening to music or reading lots of Korean text or listening the commentators talking about pre-game stuff.
And yes, I would propose that games shouldn't be patched anymore by the community. The game is what the developers make it, love it or leave it.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Sat, 25 July 2009 12:41] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #396214 is a reply to message #396211] |
Sat, 25 July 2009 13:18 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:01 |
what? using the underpowered race when your skill is exactly or a bit above the enemies skill means EXACTLY that you can't win.
|
No, it doesn't. Everything has a counter, and if the game is truly that imbalanced then nobody would play it. Watch the videos. In each the unfavored player comes out on top by playing unconventionally or pre-empting is opponent.
| so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:01 |
Man is that a stupid attitude or what.
Basically you say "Sorry TT, but I dont want you to implement the pointfix (man this is gonna turn into a pointfix debate in a matter of an hour hopefully!) because Westwood was too stupid/lazy to do it.
Btw, Highlevelplayers usually have a much higher understanding of the game mechanics than the developers.
btw#2, the patch got approved by EA iirc.
|
That's difference. From an update perspective, Renegade is a dead game. If the developers have given up on a game, then the community can step in. Otherwise it's just self-serving.
As for high-level players having a better understanding, they are also self-serving and have a vested interest in things changing to favor their faction/unit/tactic/whatever. Balancing a game requires you to be impartial, which game developers are and players may or may not be.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!! [message #396216 is a reply to message #396214] |
Sat, 25 July 2009 13:54 |
|
Herr Surth
Messages: 1684
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 15:18 |
| so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:01 |
what? using the underpowered race when your skill is exactly or a bit above the enemies skill means EXACTLY that you can't win.
|
No, it doesn't. Everything has a counter, and if the game is truly that imbalanced then nobody would play it. Watch the videos. In each the unfavored player comes out on top by playing unconventionally or pre-empting is opponent.
|
Why would nobody play it? practically every rts out there is somewhat imbalance and favors one race or another. ZH was just a bit more extreme, nothing major. Im playing WiC on a competitive level and its quite imbalanced. it still was played on CPL. (granted, CPL died shortly after, but anyway)
| Quote: |
| so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:01 |
Man is that a stupid attitude or what.
Basically you say "Sorry TT, but I dont want you to implement the pointfix (man this is gonna turn into a pointfix debate in a matter of an hour hopefully!) because Westwood was too stupid/lazy to do it.
Btw, Highlevelplayers usually have a much higher understanding of the game mechanics than the developers.
btw#2, the patch got approved by EA iirc.
|
That's difference. From an update perspective, Renegade is a dead game. If the developers have given up on a game, then the community can step in. Otherwise it's just self-serving.
As for high-level players having a better understanding, they are also self-serving and have a vested interest in things changing to favor their faction/unit/tactic/whatever. Balancing a game requires you to be impartial, which game developers are and players may or may not be.
|
SO WAS ZH. EA had abandoned it.
I'm a highlevel WiC Airplayer and I still condoned a change that nerfed air in the beta for patch 11. Is your theory disproved now?
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 06 15:58:48 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01467 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
