CNC: 4 Announced

[Prannon]

I don't mean in terms of 'is useful to the players', although it's pretty damning that most players and most games don't even bother to use the capability, I mean 'how does it make the gameplay more interesting'. IMHO it makes it less interesting, because terrain becomes even less relevant than it already is in modern RTSes.

I agree with you on the point that terrain needs to retain importance in how players decide their strategies. I haven't played RA3, but the idea that most units could go through the water with little time/effort lost seemed a bit too much for me. Given the commentary in this thread, I'd say that opinion was a little justified.

As for justifying mobility in terms of making the game interesting, I'd say that it'd only work if one faction were blessed with that increased mobility, while others were blessed with some other advantage. Even in Starcraft, they didn't give that kind of mobility to everyone. But, then again, you have a point in whether or not the players use it, so bleh.

Which would make skill in base building less relevant... if there was any skill in base layout left in RA3 anyway, which there isn't.

Well, even in Starcraft base layout was an important skill to develop even for Terrans who had mobile buildings. Time is lost moving things around once you realize that you make a mistake. Something that also played a role in that though was that some buildings were mobile and some weren't. You couldn't even fix every mistake.

Then again, I can't even assume that CnC4 will have the same sort of mobility that Starcraft has. I have a feeling that what they intend is something like this.

[Stark]

Moveable bases are in general totally useless in Starcraft. It's too slow to be an escape, and it's only really 'useful' to 'hide' a barracks somewhere which is seldom going to make a difference (outside of ninja harvesting anyway). Some guy using it usefully once doesn't really mean shit; it's not like effective strategies had it at their core or anything.

Starcraft with gimmicks; it's impossible to believe I know.

[wautd]

Command & Conquer 4 offers players new, innovative and compelling strategic depth."

I actually sniggered when reading this part

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Something that occurs to me is that the style of the unit design for both GDI and Nod in that screenshot is very reminiscent of the (awful) unit designs from the CnC3 expansion pack, and that was actually farmed out to different developer than CnC3 itself. It wouldn't surprise me if that developer has been given the task of doing CnC4, while the studio that worked on RA3 works on something else - there are rumors and hints about a sequel to C&C Generals bubbling up quite often recently.

Looks to me like it's Tiberium Sun units (which, IIRC, appeared in the C&C3 expansion pack for one of the sub factions). Mammoth Mk2 and all that. Good for nostalgia, I guess, but if you hated them in Tiberum Sun, I don't think you'd like them now.

[Companion Cube]

Funnily enough, I seem to remember Tiberian Sun having deformable terrain that actually had tactical consequences, back in 1999. Oh yeah, and everything was made out of voxels.

[PREDATOR490]

I would have been more impressed if the 'mobile' bases turned out to be something like Supreme Commander's ACU. That might fit with NOD's cyborg nature but not with GDI. Having a garbage engine isnt too bad, the original games are hardly fantastic themselves but they manage to look passable. The recent games have went from that to everything looking like bathtoys in RA3. Granted RA2 started it by becoming more of a farce but they just went overboard in creating a completely cheesy game.

The major issue that bugs these games now is the focus on the cutscenes over the actual game. I dont give a fuck if Kane is there or you have big name actors prancing around on screen. I want to play a game and enjoy it, the cutscenes are there to AUGMENT that experience not DOMINATE it. Instead they make flashy cutscenes that look great but make a generic RTS that looks and plays dreadful.

More than likely I will pick this game up after it reaches the bargain bin like I did with the premium edition of RA3 last week.

[Uraniun235]

Wasn't RA3 built on the CNC3 engine?

[Nephtys]

Wasn't RA3 built on the CNC3 engine?

Yes. Only they made the game uglier and run less efficiently. My old PC could run CNC3 at top settings. It could run RA3 at 800x600 with lag when enough units were around. Even at top settings though, CNC3 looked better because it relied on better art assets and textures, than throwing lightbloom and reflection mapping on EVERYTHING.

[PREDATOR490]

Personnally, I think it was a major mistake to ever take the Red Alert verse down the road of RA2 and 3. RA1 looked semi-realistic and felt less like a big comedy sketch.
RA3 was simply an overt attempt at reeling in idiots with models as if looking at Gemma Atkinson dressed up as a life sized fantasy doll is what the game was about.

I really hope they do not intend to use the co-op system in CNC4. It was awful in RA3, if you want to play with another person then fine but it really is irritating that ALL of SP had this feature and you got stuck with an AI Ally if you dont have another player. Even more annoying when the idea behind Co-Op was originally introduced as co-dependant team work rather than independant players working on the same team. One player can build tanks while the other builds infantry etc.
That might actually have been interesting but if that feature exists it must be entirely dependant on MP which makes it redundant for people like me that have no intrest in getting involved in online battles.

[open_sketchbook]

I don't understand this association that micro=bad. To me there are two broad catagories of RTS; you've got your stratagy games where positioning and armour facing and and overall tactical know-how are important, then you've got action-stratagy where build order, reflexes and hard counters rule the day. CnC, and RA3 in particular, fall under the second catagory. Stratagy games are more like fighting a battle while action stratagy is more like a cross between a stratagy game and a fighting game, or maybe a time-based puzzle game. I wouldn't say that requiring micromanaging is bad per say; while it may be frustating to a player that doesn't like it or is not used to it, it does require it's own sort of skill. If micro = bad, then RA3 wouldn't be as popular as it is. Personally, the feeling I get when I outmicro an opponant in RA3 is similar to the one I get when I execute a proper flank in Empire : Total War, or push the enemy back into their base in Company of Heroes. If it's not your cup of tea, that's understandable, but I wouldn't call it bad just because it relies more on twitch reactions than stratagizing.

RA3, I think, was the perfect game for fans of twitch gameplay but ended up isolating people that weren't fond of it. It's why I see such drastically varied views of the game; for a lot of people it's their favorite CnC, and for others it's a piece of garbage.

[Nephtys]

Company of Heroes has a different sort of micro. It's the use of tactics, not the use of SPESHUL POWER BUTTANZ.

In CoH, I can have my infantry engage yours, then spot some cover for them to use. You then advance, and I can fall back until my machine guns pin you down, when I can advance and crush the pinned squad. Or, I can outflank your army by concentrating on a weaker point on the front lines, and cut off your supply lines with an end run for a strategic point. I don't for example, have to order my troops to fire their guns. They do so anyway. I don't have to order them to reload or anything stupid bizzare. The only special functions are rarely used orders that consume my resources to employ, and are generally not a big deal outside of very specific situations such as building clearing, or grunt troops fighting a tank with charges.

In RA3, there's none of that 'maneuver strategy'. It's just 'LOLS, I CAN SWITCH MY WEAPON JAMMER TO NEW TARGETS FASTER'. You're making up for the brain-dead stupidity of your comically incompetent units, instead of letting them do their job (fighting) while you do yours (directing). You literally have to tell your forces, who are getting hammered by an air unit, to switch to 'shoot up mode'. And that's just insane. Your forces also hideously overkill enemy targets without your direction, etc etc.

One makes a better game, and one makes a game which promotes mindless memorization, which is only popular with people who's main life skills include mindless memorization.

[open_sketchbook]

Yes, it does involve a great deal memorization to a large degree. So do fighting games. Are fighting games bad in and of themselves?

The point of the "shoot up" mode has less to do with forcing a player to micro to win and more to do with the hard counter system. The Japanese in RA3 have the advantage of flexibility with the drawback of more limited numbers; you can switch your units to "shoot up" mode, which makes ever tower a turret against both air and ground, but it takes time, which allows another player to use combined-arms against you to more effect than if you had both a flak turret and a sentry gun. You think that Company of Heroes and RA3 are similar in ways they are not and that they call for the same sort of thinking, and if your thinking doesn't work in one it must be bad at a fundamental level. A lot of the micro fanboys hate CoH and such for much the same reasons you hate RA3; they believe that their game requires the skills nessesary to keep track of their forces and react to threats and that CoH is no fun because the computer does all the work for them. That doesn't make CoH bad by any means, their just different perspectives. Stop assuming that because it doesn't adhere to the sort of gameplay you enjoy, it must be bad. I dislike racing games, but I don't think they're bad.

[Stark]

You want to whinge about leet APM play, go make a new thread. We're too busy laughing at CnC4's ridiculous primitiveness to argue with dickless nerds.

[open_sketchbook]

Oh Stark, your edgy internet toughguy routinue never fails to please, but I'll play it your way. Shutting up for now.

Speaking of CnC4, I do have to admit I am cautious about this persistent player progression thing, as I've never really seen it well executed in this sort of game, while the mobile bases might be interesting only if they really make sure it's required. I'm attempting some mobile base gameplay with one of the factions in my Paradox mod and one of the problems with it is encouraging players to move their bases at all, as when a building is moving, it's not popping out new units for your war effort. The key seems to be making them move fairly fast, or give them some advantage when moving (Order of the Talon buildings will crush enemy tanks when moving, for example.) that offsets this.

[Nephtys]

Stark, we should make the most skilltastic game ever.

Your soldiers would have lots of weapons and tons of skills, and you'd have like 50 making up a good sized force. Only, they need to use the special RUN button to do more than a leisurely stroll. When they see the enemy, use hotkey CTRL-P to go Prone to increase their survivability! Then, make sure you order each soldier to shoot another enemy soldier with click commands, else they'll stand around doing nothing. When a soldier has fired 30 tones, use the RELOAD SPECIAL ORDER to make sure they put more ammo in their guns. If the sun is up at noontime, use the SHIFT-F4 key to have them put on sunglasses, or else they'll stuffer a -50% damage debuff. Oh, and when an enemy target is close, you need to use the UP UP DOWN HIGHPUNCH button for them to affix bayonets, which are 15 percent more effective than guns. Unless the enemy is wearing red clothing. Then, that means they have 99 percent resistance to bullets and bayonets, but -500 percent resistance to rockets. If they're wearing BLUE shirts, bullets do 500 percent more damage, rockets do 99 percent less damage, unless you activate REVERSABLE COAT, where their resistances go to max except against LASERS.

Brilliant.

Edit:
Back to CNC3, I really hope that giant artillery cannons and missiles only mildly irritate soldiers they're fired at. Oh, and that Tanks should only fight infantry by running them over, because that's hardcore. Also, let's make fixed defenses entirely (pick one) overpowered/worthless in proud CNC tradition.

[open_sketchbook]

We get it, you hate micro and CnC games. Woo. And isn't painting people who like these things strawmen and mocking the enjoyment they get out of their particular brand of computer entertainment fun and exciting? God forbid anyone like something you don't.

[Nephtys]

We get it, you hate micro and CnC games. Woo. And isn't painting people who like these things strawmen and mocking the enjoyment they get out of their particular brand of computer entertainment fun and exciting? God forbid anyone like something you don't.

You know what? I don't hate CNC games. I greatly enjoyed CNC3 and found it's main issues to be inter-faction balance flaws (Spam Shocktroopers! Spam Scorpions! Spam Shadowteams! Pray GDI never gets Mammoths up!). The previous games were just fine as well.

RA3 however, takes a radical departure into a realm of suck and failure.

[Stark]

Oh Stark, your edgy internet toughguy routinue never fails to please, but I'll play it your way. Shutting up for now.

I didn't say 'shut up', you fucking coward, I said 'go make a new thread'. We're talking about CnC4, not your attitudes about APM and micro. Go make a thread about micro, we'll talk about it there (I can flame you all day over that issue) but please, there's so many more hilarious parts of EA's creative bankruptcy.

[open_sketchbook]

CnC3 is very spam-heavy and that wasn't helped by the comparitive ease by which you could tech up. I personally didn't like it too much; it didn't have much strategic depth beyond picking one or two overpowered units and pressing the button until your enemy drowned in them, and it didn't have enough micro to keep me interested either. I personally think it would have benefitted greatly from some more strategic depth and realism, especially considering the darker and edgier tone it took.

As for you, Stark, I'm not going to make a new thread just so you can get off on yelling at me for enjoying something you don't. Tough for you, big guy.

[Ghost Rider]

Then how about this, dipshit. Either make a new thread or I lock this on as being hijacked or shut the fuck up and discuss the upcoming C&C4.

Jesus fucking christ, just because Stark can be rude and an asshole doesn't make him fucking WRONG.

[PREDATOR490]

Micro isnt too bad but RA3 takes it to stupid levels with the amount of units and their special functions. I prefer my micro to be base related, not unit by fucking unit in a game which encourages large amounts of units on the battlefield. Special utility units, fair enough but not every single goddamn one to the point you can have 30 units and require to keep a check on each one and direct it's special abilities.

It would not be so bad if the special abilities had an element of auto-fire to them making things more dynamic than having the player do it all themselves. One of the things that Star Trek Armada managed to achieve ages ago so I see no excuse why every special must be orientated towards player control. If the Aircraft Carrier can fire a super missile, launch the fucking missile or if it can activate 'increase damage for X time' then do it. Although RA1 and CNC 1 did just fine WITHOUT each unit having super abilities which I find more appealing. That way it is simply Unit vs Unit balancing without having to include the whole dynamic of special powers that get frustrating to control or end up being niched to the point of uselessness.

CNC4 MIGHT be good if they choose to focus less on the eye candy fan service and more on the actual gameplay which does not revolve around stupid gimick features.
However, in light of the whole 'fluid' angle I can see this game being a repeat of CNC3s idea of fast paced 'spam' tactics mixed with 'micro' units and who wants to bet one of those micro units will be this 'mobile base feature' that the game bends over backwards to accomodate.

[Vertigo1]

Wasn't RA3 built on the CNC3 engine?

yup, which IIRC is just a modified version of the Generals engine.

[Pelranius]

Well, at least CnC4 seems to have Mammoth Mk IIs (or whatever number it is now) as the heavy vehicle unit, instead of the old Mammoth Tank.

Didn't see anything about the Scrin? Did they just dump the whole thing?

I hope we see a lot more Forgotten and the like.

[TC Pilot]

EA officially announced the next C&C strategy game - Command & Conquer 4. According to the publisher, Command & Conquer 4 will introduce "a multitude of innovations to the to the classic fast and fluid Command & Conquer gameplay while retaining the core compulsions that fans have come to love over the series’ history.

For fuck's sake, where did this retarded "fast and fluid" idea come from? Was it Tiberian Dawn when it took twenty shots to kill a tank, and practically every building and unit took a minute to build? Or was it Red Alert 1 where you need to spend 20 minutes resource collecting to build up an appreciable force to attack an enemy? Or was it Tiberian Sun where it takes 10-15 minutes for a unit to cross the map?

It's like that idiotic "Red Alert was wacky and cheesy! Now watch us turn every character into a blathering clown and make an entire faction based on Japanese anime!" brainbug. They're just making shit up.

And "core compulsions"? What the hell does that even mean?

Introducing new class-based gameplay, mobile bases and persistent player progression throughout all game modes, Command & Conquer 4 offers players new, innovative and compelling strategic depth."

Didn't Generals and Tiberian Sun cover all of that as much as a decade ago?

“Command & Conquer is a powerful franchise with an amazing 15-year legacy.

Well, it's actually 14 years, but what the hell.

"This game is designed to give fans all the answers they’ve been looking for,” said Mike Glosecki, Lead Producer of Command & Conquer 4 at EA Los Angeles.

Instant fail right there. The only real thing I can think anyone cares about (besides "what the fuck is up with the Nod end to C&C3") is Kane. And there is no explanation that either makes sense or isn't complete crap. Better that they're just lying.

The story of Command & Conquer 4 takes place after the events of the critically acclaimed Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars™. The year is 2062 and humanity is at the brink of extinction.

Ah, so Kane got control of an indestructable Scrin teleporter in 2047 and has just been... sitting on it for 15 years?

With only six years left until the mysterious crystalline structure Tiberium renders the earth entirely uninhabitable, the two opposing factions – Global Defense Initiative (GDI) and the Brotherhood of Nod – inevitably find themselves in desperation for the same cause: to stop Tiberium from extinguishing mankind.

Ignoring, of course, the fact Kane's been working for the past fifty years to spread Tiberium, preaching how it's the "next step in human evolution" forever.

The unthinkable becomes reality and Nod’s enigmatic leader Kane takes off for GDI headquarters. What is Kane planning in the heart of his enemies’ base?

Might it be the same plan he's been running with since Tiberian Dawn? Wipe out GDI and spread Tiberium across the planet? Or is that not wacky and cheesy enough?

I know these are just corporate suits spewing the regular sales pitch, but for crying out loud, you'd think they'd be able to make it sound more appealing than its 15 and 14-year old predecessors.

I don't know, I actually liked C&C3, if only because it seemed like they were actually trying. Maybe if I can get a computer that can actually run it, I'll give it a shot. But if it's RA3 with a coat of grimdark on it... no chance.

[PREDATOR490]

After recently going back to CNC3 I find it better than RA3 which saddens me. The game is highly dedicated to the rush / 5 minute game mentality with offense being focused on more than any of the defenses but it at least looks feasible and the micro is limited to sensible levels. The serious nature is certainly more appealing than RA3 but realistically RA2 started the slide to becoming that farce.

Although there really is no justification for the fuckers pandering to the masses with graitious ego stroking in the cutscenes. Oh great, I am getting a military briefing from a model dressed in a stupid looking uniform like Gemma Atkinson who ends up fighting her miniskirt throughout the run. Personnally I found the Soviet Dasha more attractive for being remotely professional compared to the retarded Eva's performance. Although strangely I found Jenna (Tanya) rather fitting for Tanya.

As for CNC4: Bringing back the Walker Mammoth is silly. CNC3 stated they were removed and brought back the Mammoth Tank so switching back is pointless. Although if they are that keen to pander to fans then just include both. Storywise CNC3 played out with both campaigns working concurrently rather than one vs. the other. Thus jumping forward in time is going to require explanation including why Tiberium suddenly appears to be winning when GDI has the means to fight it back in CNC3.
Although really, the story of CNC has gotten disjointed so much over the games that I just play the game, watch the movie and dont care. Looking for any sort of sensible explanation for events that works seems highly unlikley even if they really intended to work on it.