StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So when I signed into steam an hour ago the news thing pops up and informs me that C&C4 is now available. This stunned me because I hadn't been following it's development closely. So I go in search of reviews, and this is what I get.



The final game with the scene-chewingly glorious Kane, and it apparently sucks. Going through the reviews, the gameplay sounds positively awful. I'll probably wait till somebody ups hi-res cutscenes to youtube and then cry myself to sleep.

Hmm... Well, after RA3 I'm not terribly surprised that it reeks.

Until I'd played it, I had -some- hope that C&C4 would be at least palatable like C&C3 was...

It also uses basically the same DRM that Ubisoft recently implemented. Although EA apparently does not think it's DRM.

I think RA3 was under-rated, personally. But this sounds like a piece of shit.

I would have been shocked if it turned out to be good. I've stopped caring about the C&C franchise a long time ago (and i used to be quite the fan, even bought the original C&C one month before I had a computer to play it on).

I don't know what you're talking about.

I've heard EA have released some new RTS called twilight or something, and I hear it sounds as bad as the book...but there is no C&C 4.

Nope, nah, nada.

Vympel wrote:I think RA3 was under-rated, personally. But this sounds like a piece of shit.

I found it drearily boring. Neither it nor C&C3 could hold my attention for long. Something about the gameplay in C&C3 was just off, and RA3 had an extremely similar feel to it, plus it embraced the over the top RA2 siliness and turned it up to eleven. I always hated the silly aspects of RA2, so RA3 was like a perfect storm of design choices I disapproved of. The only saving grace in my books was the star studded casting.

I would have been shocked if it turned out to be good. I've stopped caring about the C&C franchise a long time ago (and i used to be quite the fan, even bought the original C&C one month before I had a computer to play it on).

The last game I really loved in the series was Generals. For all it's departures from the franchise, it was a genuinely great RTS game.

I don't know what you're talking about.

I've heard EA have released some new RTS called twilight or something, and I hear it sounds as bad as the book...but there is no C&C 4.

Nope, nah, nada.

Man, wouldn't it have been awesome if they'd made a sequel to Tiberian Sun?

Atavarius wrote:It also uses basically the same DRM that Ubisoft recently implemented. Although EA apparently does not think it's DRM.

The worst part is, its DRM scheme suspiciously like that of Steam. If that was going to be the case, why not just make the discs Steam installer packages like MW2 and NTW were?? I know that that got me to not pirate them.

In addition, my thoughts on two of the replies at the bottom...

NeofelisNebulosa wrote:The best solution to get people to buy a game and not pirate it is to make a game that good that they don't want to wait for pirated versions. Sounds easy, is easy enough to try once in a while.

Hypothetical-EA: "But we can't AFFORD to try! It's too hard, our development team would all want raises if they were required to work/think harder! And even then, a good bit of them aren't creative enough!" (I... have consistently struck myself as lacking the creative spark, so I can imagine many a game development employee like me who couldn't think more creatively, though they'd certainly try harder, even if given such a raise. )

TheNoddingGod wrote:How long will support last? How many months before that "revolutionary" online system is taken down because EA don't care anymore? How many months before the game just refuses to run?

This is exactly the concern that people have over the potential "franchising" of the video game industry and the move away from dedicated servers. In contrast, when SOCOM 4 was announced, Zipper Interactive went out of their way to emphasize that they would still continue to support MAG... though here's hoping that enough MAG players stay with that to keep that viable.

Any ending spoilers for someone who wants to know what happens but doesn't want to buy the game?

AMT wrote:Any ending spoilers for someone who wants to know what happens but doesn't want to buy the game?

Bring it on.

NeofelisNebulosa wrote:The best solution to get people to buy a game and not pirate it is to make a game that good that they don't want to wait for pirated versions. Sounds easy, is easy enough to try once in a while.

Bwahahaha, is this guy an idiot? How long does he think it takes for pirates to release cracked versions of games?
And I guess he doesn't realize that all the preorder incentives are trying to do just that, bribe players into buying the game as soon as it is released, or before even, wich is way easier than trying to be creative, and seems to work so far.


The most important concern regarding all this is, in my eyes, the very real danger of the publisher discontinuing the game and leaving legitimate owners with a shiny coaster, something EA is known for regarding multiplayer servers.

Bullshit, there is no C&C4... now if you'll excuse me I have to weep over the corpse of my most beloved franchise.

PS The ending is completely anticlimactic, makes no sense, and answers no fucking questions about where the fuck Kane comes from and what his true purpose was. That's all I know, because I refuse to ruin my memories of C&C by watching any of the ending videos of this God forsaken piece of crap.

adam_grif wrote:The final game with the scene-chewingly glorious Kane, and it apparently sucks. Going through the reviews, the gameplay sounds positively awful. I'll probably wait till somebody ups hi-res cutscenes to youtube and then cry myself to sleep.

Everybody's pissing and moaning because the gameplay isn't SimCity like the rest of the C&C games, and it now plays like World in Conflict.

Except they've added a MW style experience thing that unlocks units as you go, so you can't actually produce competent unit balances until you've already been playing the game for a while, and since it carries across between multiplayer and campaign, you don't even get to see the cool stuff come out by the end of the campaigns.

It's awful - definitely don't buy it, don't even bother wasting the space on your hard drive that a pirated copy would take. Definitely don't watch the cutscenes on youtube, the ending is absolutely fucking awful to give players after over 10 years of playing. It answers absolutely fucking nothing, and the only half decent thing about it is Kane - and even he can't save the abortion that is the ending

So don't even go near it, unless you want to see a franchise you actually like get thoroughly raped by EA in pretty much every conceivable way.

Vendetta wrote:Everybody's pissing and moaning because the gameplay isn't SimCity like the rest of the C&C games, and it now plays like World in Conflict.

Considering the fans of C&C have been pretty content with the same gameplay style for the past fifteen years and they couldn't even have bothered to give us a decent story, I'd say we have every right to 'piss & moan' about how they've taken a gigantic dump over C&C and called it a game. There's no legitimate reason to be found to change what had worked for seven video games and eight expansion packs, change for the sake of change is not the way to engender your fanbase to you.

Meh, doesn't look that horrible to me, but I think I'll pass for now anyway, as I was hoping for something really epic to end the Tiberium series, which this doesn't appear to be. I did enjoy TW and RA3, but then I am easy to please.

If they wanted to do WIC, C&C edition, they've got the perfectly good Generals line to tack a sequel onto. I wasn't planning to buy this in the first place, but blah, it's a shame to see the series end in a whimper.

Just have a look at the ratings by players on Amazon.

I don't think I have ever seen such low ratings on a game from such a prominent series.

First SC2 and now this. 2010 must be the year for RTS sequels that bring shame and humiliation upon their franchises.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:First SC2 and now this. 2010 must be the year for RTS sequels that bring shame and humiliation upon their franchises.

As much as this thought pleases me, I haven't seen negative impressions of SC2 yet (although I haven't really looked around either). Link?

adam_grif wrote:

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:First SC2 and now this. 2010 must be the year for RTS sequels that bring shame and humiliation upon their franchises.

As much as this thought pleases me, I haven't seen negative impressions of SC2 yet (although I haven't really looked around either). Link?

Supreme Commander 2.

OH. I thought he meant Starcraft 2.

I was given a free copy thanks to my status as a prominate modder of C&C games. So, that's pretty kickass. Thus far, I like it; it's a very, very different take on C&C style games. I've been discribing it as RTT Team Fortress; 5 vs 5 games feel remarkably 2fortish. It's not really much like World in Conflict, or any other game, really. That says, I feel that whatever it is, it does it remarkably well; it's a great competative team tactics game.

As for the ratings, it's just a bunch of fucking fanboys with their panties in a twist because fifteen years of cookie-cutter games wasn't enough for them, and I say that as an huge C&C fanboy myself.

open_sketchbook wrote:I was given a free copy thanks to my status as a prominate modder of C&C games.

*prominant

Which mods did you work on? I DL'd a lot of Generals mods but not much for the other entries. Cold War Crisis was so fucking amazing for a mod.

open_sketchbook wrote:As for the ratings, it's just a bunch of fucking fanboys with their panties in a twist because fifteen years of cookie-cutter games wasn't enough for them, and I say that as an huge C&C fanboy myself.

Couldn't have anything to do with the story or the fact that our much beloved game doesn't resemble itself in any way shape or form.