Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Oracle X

ZOMG! It's C&C4!

Recommended Posts

nesquick,

 

that's just crap. You can play the RA or C&C games in a simple rush manner, but this does not mean you can't have diverse and strategic gameplay. The games were well balanced, and entertaining. They were not as serious as the SC games, but were an fine for what they were. RA3 took this to a whole new level of camping which was unnecessary, but the gameplay was still there.

 

If you think you can win a match by just creating a few of the most powerful matches, then you have not played a match against anyone remotely capable.

 

Starcraft, pfft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both SC and C&C are old school EEE RTS, but whereas SC is about balance and the tactical approach, whereas C&C is more about building bigger/stronger units to smash the opponents.

 

For example, SC is all about the research and secondary abilities, whereas in C&C, the guy what pumps out the biggest, most badass tanks wins.

 

That's always been my impression anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im looking forward to it!

 

Whether its really different of not, i think it will still be a great game.

 

I have played and loved the other C&Cs and i can't wait for this to come out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nesquick,

 

that's just crap. You can play the RA or C&C games in a simple rush manner, but this does not mean you can't have diverse and strategic gameplay. The games were well balanced, and entertaining. They were not as serious as the SC games, but were an fine for what they were. RA3 took this to a whole new level of camping which was unnecessary, but the gameplay was still there.

 

If you think you can win a match by just creating a few of the most powerful matches, then you have not played a match against anyone remotely capable.

 

Starcraft, pfft.

That made me LOL, they should of called it Command and Spam 4, no C&C game I have played has had a winner that uses a strategy not based on pumping out as many powerful units as you can or in some cases like in C&C3 the venom was cheap and rather shit by itself but in a pack of 100 they were pretty much indestructible.

 

edit: I have seen people win by base walking but thats just cheap.

Edited by nesquick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically what Nesquik said, there is no force strong enough that can with hold 20 mammoth tanks in C&C3 they seriously WTFPWN everything that comes across them, except when the enemy retaliates by sending 25 avatars at the force of tanks, this continues until one sides super weapon timer finishes ticking. Repeat and you have C&C multiplayer.

 

I kid there is some strategy, like spamming shit at the enemies power generators until the obelisks of light don't work anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kid there is some strategy, like spamming shit at the enemies power generators until the obelisks of light don't work anymore.

That's where shield generators come in handy on SC :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest anyone who thinks Red Alert 2, C&C 3 and Red Alert 3 are good should not call themselves a fan of RTS.

Oh fuck off.

 

Different RTS games have different strengths and weaknesses. C&C's strength was exactly the opposite of the strengths of 'hardcore' RTS games.

 

Both kinds can be appreciated, though for different reasons.

 

Anyone who thinks every RTS game should be assessed against a single narrow definition of 'good' is missing the point entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both SC and C&C are old school EEE RTS, but whereas SC is about balance and the tactical approach, whereas C&C is more about building bigger/stronger units to smash the opponents.

 

For example, SC is all about the research and secondary abilities, whereas in C&C, the guy what pumps out the biggest, most badass tanks wins.

 

That's always been my impression anyway.

You can play the game that way, you don't have to.

 

Personally, I've played RA a lot more, with the specialised units and dual modes of many units...

 

 

That made me LOL, they should of called it Command and Spam 4, no C&C game I have played has had a winner that uses a strategy not based on pumping out as many powerful units as you can or in some cases like in C&C3 the venom was cheap and rather shit by itself but in a pack of 100 they were pretty much indestructible.

 

edit: I have seen people win by base walking but thats just cheap.

You can play the game like that, it doesn't mean you have to. You can defend against an onslaught, with--wait for it----strategy!

 

To be fair, I'm far more familiar with the RA games than C&C, so maybe it's not the case in C&C 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we should play a game of RA3 sometime I will show you what I mean, seriously there is nothing that can defend against 10 or more Kirovs, they have shitloads of health and deal out incredible damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have a game for sure. You're just so very wrong....

 

I'll just set up an array of flak cannons, take over some of your buildings with engineers and spies, and use a few mirage tanks to get ride of your MCV....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i enjoyed c&c but supcom and wic bored the shit out of me so you can imagine how happy i am

coh is the only more modern strat i have enjoyed

i would like to see the story play out but i doubt it will be worth suffering the gameplay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring it on. I don't want just another C&C3.

 

What I really want is for the story to kick arse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both SC and C&C are old school EEE RTS, but whereas SC is about balance and the tactical approach, whereas C&C is more about building bigger/stronger units to smash the opponents.

 

For example, SC is all about the research and secondary abilities, whereas in C&C, the guy what pumps out the biggest, most badass tanks wins.

 

That's always been my impression anyway.

You can play the game that way, you don't have to.

 

Personally, I've played RA a lot more, with the specialised units and dual modes of many units...

 

 

 

 

It's only in RA2 that the dual mode comes into play, but they're still less refined than SC. Many dual modes in RA2 is simply switching between AA or AG, or does the same thing as the opposing faction's. Where as in SC, everything has a reason and are completely different. And ofcos, the lack of superweapons forces you to concentrate on tactics.

 

That's one of the reasons why SC is one of the best RTS of all time. Blizzard really knows how to make different fractions unique requiring different playing style but at the same time achieving an overall balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring it on. I don't want just another C&C3.

What was wrong with C&C 3?

 

I agree it wasn't the best in the series, but I still thought it was entertaining enough?

 

To me, Generals was the least impressive ... another example of where they lost sight of what was good about CC&C.

Edited by just_some_guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring it on. I don't want just another C&C3.

What was wrong with C&C 3?

 

I agree it wasn't the best in the series, but I still thought it was entertaining enough?

 

To me, Generals was the least impressive ... another example of where they lost sight of what was good about CC&C.

 

 

Na, Generals was great! It had updated graphics, a more realistic setting, 3 distinct factions that all had their strength and weaknesses, plus powers that you can ear by blowing shit up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only in RA2 that the dual mode comes into play, but they're still less refined than SC. Many dual modes in RA2 is simply switching between AA or AG, or does the same thing as the opposing faction's.

Rubbish. Theres dual, and sometimes tri modes in RA3, and other C&C games.

 

Where as in SC, everything has a reason and are completely different. And ofcos, the lack of superweapons forces you to concentrate on tactics.

You can play without superweapons, or you can incorporate superweapons into your tactics. They are just as much a risk as a boon.

 

You're also implying that units in the C&C games are not distinct and lack reasons/purpose, which is false.

 

That's one of the reasons why SC is one of the best RTS of all time. Blizzard really knows how to make different fractions unique requiring different playing style but at the same time achieving an overall balance.

SC is only the best RTS of all time, if indeed it is, because of it's popularity.

 

There are many superior RTS games that have been released since then, but people keep being fixated on SC.

 

Much like how a lot of decent FPS games get ignored because of one or two popular games, such as CS or TF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we should play a game of RA3 sometime I will show you what I mean, seriously there is nothing that can defend against 10 or more Kirovs, they have shitloads of health and deal out incredible damage.

Maybe so but Kirovs are expensive and slow to build plus whilst travelling they're slow, thus its a long time between first and last kirov built plus travel time. They're defenceless in the air too so if the enemy finds you out in or before transit a couple squadrons of elite Appolo's will rip em up good. But if you get the drop on their base then yeah they're stuffed. Unless they have F* off amounts of AA defences built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I meant RA3, not RA2.

 

 

Rubbish. Theres dual, and sometimes tri modes in RA3, and other C&C games.

Yes there's dual mode in RA2 but like I said, it's often a case of switching from AA to AG and vice versa, or the other side would have a similar skill, whereas in SC and WC, they're more unique and are used in conjuncture with other skills to achieve domination over the enemy. This is a recent thing for C&C, Blizzard been using this for years.

 

 

 

You can play without superweapons, or you can incorporate superweapons into your tactics.

Yes you can, but it's still a huge part of the game, assuming your game goes that long, you'll be building some simply because your enemy prob will.

 

 

 

 

 

There are many superior RTS games that have been released since then, but people keep being fixated on SC.

Really? Which? And how are they superior?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring it on. I don't want just another C&C3.

What was wrong with C&C 3?

 

I agree it wasn't the best in the series, but I still thought it was entertaining enough?

 

To me, Generals was the least impressive ... another example of where they lost sight of what was good about CC&C.

 

I enjoyed Generals and C&C3. Making a bit of a generalisation, C&C3 was Generals with GDI, NOD etc. Not a bad thing, but I welcome an update to the gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dead horse in terms of gameplay. :-P

To be honest anyone who thinks Red Alert 2, C&C 3 and Red Alert 3 are good should not call themselves a fan of RTS.

 

I loved the first red alert, I remember tesla coils and engineer rushes were all the rage, but something about red alert 2 onwards just seems corny and like a kiddies game with these dodgy actors with tits popping out of their tops, I mean I appreciate that ( I am only human of course lol) but it would make the game more believable if I was focused on the actors face not her tits :P (red alert 3 is a good example of this)

 

as for gameplay all you need to do as russians for example is build about 10 kirov airships and just send them randomly across your enemies base, seriously just obliterates anything under them which seems cheap, mirage tanks are probably the same in a big group.

 

I couldn't agree more Nes, Ive played every CnC game and RA series and they stopped being decent at RA1. Westwood pioneered a genre and EA shat all over its face. Ok so it might seem a little bit harsh sure some of them haven't been bad but what new have any of them brought to RTS? the story isn't even even fun any more.

 

CnC RIP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh, I think people are painting too broad a stroke when they put everything under "RTS".

 

There are many different types of RTS and in their respective fields, different games take the lead.

 

On one hand, you have games like Total War where the RTS component is super-realistic with minor details comes into play. Then you have games like WiC where it's about teamwork and very limited but specialized units. Then you have games that have RPG feels to them like Warcraft. And then there's C&C where it's superweapons and brute force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure i mean you can exercise strategy in CnC i guess though there isn't much thinking to be dome though when you can just rush the other faction with w/e your biggest tank or air ship happens to be. My problem with cnC is its bland and uninspired gameplay which has not changed in 10 years but then if you think that a lot of people buying CnC today may never have played its prequels to some 14 year old or w/e this is totally new to them and might blow their mind like all these great games did the first time we played them.

 

Is there a condition an older gamer gets that makes no games exciting any more? Im only 24 but ive been playing games since i was 10 or maybe younger i cant remember.

I liked sup com. cause since TA there was nothing else like it but essentially it was a broader remake for a lack of a better term..

IDK maybe some of you know where im coming from with this, because as far as im concerned there has been nothing new in CnC for a very long time.

Edited by Bundywow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about "there has been nothing new in CnC for a very long time". Certainly the basic idea and play-style for C&C is the same, it's a franchise after all. But there has been improvements, Generals being a slight departure, RA3 included some new stuff. Bottom line is, C&C is your basic EEE RTS, if you find yourself bored with that then there's no point looking to that series to get your fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×