StarDestroyer.Net BBS

SirNitram wrote:My my. This shall be interesting.

Time, is on our side..

BTW: Anyone else make it into the Beta?

I've got a beta key, but I haven't seen fit to use it since it's multi only.

I usually get C&C games for the single-player campaign and the awsome campy FMVs

As do I, but I figure if no one minds playing against a low-skill turtle so the tech trees can be examined, I'd offered.

While the original gameplay footage I saw made me gnash my teeth and curse the heavens, these FMVs are incredibly nice and I really do appreciate a bit of a nod to the original game's storyline with the Chronosphere.

At this moment, the game has a lot to prove in terms of gameplay as compared to the pretty lackluster (but 'funny') stuff we saw before. I like RTS games to be primarily gameplay with a lot of fluff, not primarily fluff, which is what C&C3 sadly ended up being. I really, really want this to be a great game. Any sort of news about the actual gameplay flow and such would be great. Do we know when the game actually comes out?

It is supposed to be out at the end of October.

I can only speak from the online beta of course, but the gameplay in this is massively superior to C&C3 - which I found was extremely repetitive and dull.

The economy has been simplified hugely - one refinery with one ore miner can harvest one ore node. This means in multiplayer you cannot scale your economy into a massive boom early on with multiple harvesters sucking up entire fields of wealth - which in turn puts a fairly strict limit on how many units you can build, to start with at least.

All that means that simply massing one particular type of unit and overwhelming your enemy with it is much harder - especially with base defences that are much more powerful than their C&C3 incarnations. Additionally the standard tank unit for each faction is placed in the second technology level so early in the game you can only build infantry and light vehicles, which leads to some nice skirmishing for map control without base-killing tank forces charging around.

As for unit design - there's much variety between the three armies. Every single unit has a special ability of some sort - and these abilities are generally vital to success. For example the Allied Hydrofoil in its standard form is a light, fast anti-aircraft vessel. However its special ability swaps the anti-air gun for a "weapon jammer" which allows the Hydrofoil to stop a target unit from firing its weapon - using this is vital to Allied success on the water early on, as their other starting naval unit - the Dolphin - has a powerful weapon but little health.

The three factions also differ in some important ways. The Soviets require the least micro-management of their forces - most of their units are very good at doing one thing to the exclusion of all others. For the Allies they have more versatile units, like the mentioned Hydrofoil, but which obviously require more micro-management to get the best out of. Finally the Empire of the Rising Sun is a very micro-management heavy faction - for example they have a unit which can transform from a flying anti-tank helicopter into a ground based anti-air unit, their main base defence structure must manually be switched to anti-ground or anti-air mode by the player etc...

Each side also builds their base differently - the Soviets click a buildings icon, place it in the desired location and a scaffold appears there while the buildings is built, meaning it requires very little player input but the building is vulnerable while it constructs itself. The Allies build in the "classic" C&C style, they click a building icon in the sidebar, it takes some time to build, then when it is ready they click its icon again and place it down where they want it. The Rising Sun's buildings come out of their construction yard as little mobile "cores" which the player moves to the desired location and then deploys - meaning they require the most player input, but can be placed anywhere on the map (so long as the vulnerable core can get there).

There are "Support Powers", which the player unlocks during the course of a match by spending experience points earned from combat (it doesn't matter if you win or lose the combat, any combat results in both players gaining experience). These are not as powerful as they were in, say, C&C Generals - but they are lots of fun. The Soviets have an ability where a giant magnetic beam (which the player steers) sucks up enemy vehicles into space - then they have another support power which allows space debris (including any units sucked up into space!) to be smashed back down on the enemy.

One quick question--that all sounds really good, by the way--are there sub-factions or any hint of them?

Covenant wrote:One quick question--that all sounds really good, by the way--are there sub-factions or any hint of them?

I'm sure sub-factions will be in the expansion pack, just like Zero Hour and Kane's Wrath.

Darksider wrote:

Covenant wrote:One quick question--that all sounds really good, by the way--are there sub-factions or any hint of them?

I'm sure sub-factions will be in the expansion pack, just like Zero Hour and Kane's Wrath.

Yes, currently no country factions. However, the allies are now the allies, and not just the americans. Listen to all the new unit voice overs since the latest patch!

Also, I too got into the beta, as ComradeDa and also ComradeGrishnak (I ended up with too many keys :S). LAN is great fun.

Zac Naloen wrote:This looks like they've fucked around with the time line again.

The Russians weren't the one's who screwed with the time line in the first Red Alert.

In terms of getting the message across quickly and sharply, the original Red Alert had the best opening cinematic ever. Albert Einstein going back in time to assassinate Hitler before WW2 ... coming back and saying "Time will tell" how things turn out. Then you hear the rhythmic marching of boots, a man shouting in Russian, and BOOM! The Red Army is on the march. Too bad the CGI looks ultra-dated by now.

I must say, I was looking towards this with some trepidation initially, but now I may just buy it. The fact that they're trying (and at least somewhat succeeding) to not make this Generic RTS 256473 is a good sign.

Darth Wong wrote:Then you hear the rhythmic marching of boots, a man shouting in Russian,

I assume you're talking about Hell March? That's actually a German DI shouting, "Die Waffen - legt an!" This means "Level weapons!"

starslayer wrote:I must say, I was looking towards this with some trepidation initially, but now I may just buy it. The fact that they're trying (and at least somewhat succeeding) to not make this Generic RTS 256473 is a good sign.

Darth Wong wrote:Then you hear the rhythmic marching of boots, a man shouting in Russian,

I assume you're talking about Hell March? That's actually a German DI shouting, "Die Waffen - legt an!" This means "Level weapons!"

How is this not a generic RTS? I mean, in any extent? I'd really like to see what feature you're talking about that makes Red Alert non-generic, given that every feature it has thus far has been in virtually every other RTS ever made.

Darth Wong wrote:

Zac Naloen wrote:This looks like they've fucked around with the time line again.

The Russians weren't the one's who screwed with the time line in the first Red Alert.

In terms of getting the message across quickly and sharply, the original Red Alert had the best opening cinematic ever. Albert Einstein going back in time to assassinate Hitler before WW2 ... coming back and saying "Time will tell" how things turn out. Then you hear the rhythmic marching of boots, a man shouting in Russian, and BOOM! The Red Army is on the march. Too bad the CGI looks ultra-dated by now.

Totally,

I was still young when this came out, it's one of those "iconic" moments of my childhood as far as entertainment goes.

Darth Wong wrote: In terms of getting the message across quickly and sharply, the original Red Alert had the best opening cinematic ever. Albert Einstein going back in time to assassinate Hitler before WW2 ... coming back and saying "Time will tell" how things turn out. Then you hear the rhythmic marching of boots, a man shouting in Russian, and BOOM! The Red Army is on the march. Too bad the CGI looks ultra-dated by now.

My first and, probably, most beloved PC game. Iconic as it is, this sequel is obviously carrying on the more tongue-in-cheek comic book style of RA2, unlike the more serious "what if...?" alternate history angle in the original game.

Either way, regardless of the gameplay, the cutscenes for these newer games are showing some top notch production values (uh, aside from the soldier outfit).

Hotfoot wrote:

starslayer wrote:I must say, I was looking towards this with some trepidation initially, but now I may just buy it. The fact that they're trying (and at least somewhat succeeding) to not make this Generic RTS 256473 is a good sign.

Darth Wong wrote:Then you hear the rhythmic marching of boots, a man shouting in Russian,

I assume you're talking about Hell March? That's actually a German DI shouting, "Die Waffen - legt an!" This means "Level weapons!"

How is this not a generic RTS? I mean, in any extent? I'd really like to see what feature you're talking about that makes Red Alert non-generic, given that every feature it has thus far has been in virtually every other RTS ever made.

Bear.

Paratroopers.

Finally set up and such. SirNitram as username. IM's when someone is availiable to let a totally FAIL player see what's for use.

Hotfoot wrote:How is this not a generic RTS? I mean, in any extent? I'd really like to see what feature you're talking about that makes Red Alert non-generic, given that every feature it has thus far has been in virtually every other RTS ever made.

100% more high camp than other RTS games. It's not going to play significantly better than other RTS games, just as C&C3 didn't (I found it singularly uninspiring), but, as mentioned, bear paratroopers and psychic schoolgirls.

Aaron Ash wrote:The Soviets have an ability where a giant magnetic beam (which the player steers) sucks up enemy vehicles into space - then they have another support power which allows space debris (including any units sucked up into space!) to be smashed back down on the enemy.

How much space debris can be sent into orbit before bringing it back down? What I mean is, is it possible to knock say, several squads of tanks into space and then drop them all down at once or is it limited to just a few units?

R.O.A wrote:

Aaron Ash wrote:The Soviets have an ability where a giant magnetic beam (which the player steers) sucks up enemy vehicles into space - then they have another support power which allows space debris (including any units sucked up into space!) to be smashed back down on the enemy.

How much space debris can be sent into orbit before bringing it back down? What I mean is, is it possible to knock say, several squads of tanks into space and then drop them all down at once or is it limited to just a few units?

Sounds just like that trick in RA2 where I dropped enemy warships onto their Conyards with the Chronosphere. It worked particularly well once I had a Satellite Uplink.

Vendetta wrote:

Hotfoot wrote:How is this not a generic RTS? I mean, in any extent? I'd really like to see what feature you're talking about that makes Red Alert non-generic, given that every feature it has thus far has been in virtually every other RTS ever made.

100% more high camp than other RTS games. It's not going to play significantly better than other RTS games, just as C&C3 didn't (I found it singularly uninspiring), but, as mentioned, bear paratroopers and psychic schoolgirls.

So it's C&C3 with a downgrade in gameplay (I hear individual units instead of squads is progressive) and silly unit types.

Yeah, got it. Generic RTS #11495.

Hotfoot, yeah, you're right. I wrote that right after I read Aaron Ash's post, and didn't consider other RTS's I've played. The only unique elements are the weird units and style (and even then, it's mostly been done before), not the gameplay itself. Go EA!

starslayer wrote:Hotfoot, yeah, you're right. I wrote that right after I read Aaron Ash's post, and didn't consider other RTS's I've played. The only unique elements are the weird units and style (and even then, it's mostly been done before), not the gameplay itself. Go EA!

I, too, hate getting exactly what I want from a Red Alert game. Fucking Elekkktronic Art$.

How is admitting that I'm wrong, and being a bit disappointed in EA for not at least trying something new instead of making RA2 again, bad again? As I said, I'll still probably end up getting it at some point, just with the realization that it is far from as good as it could be.

Hotfoot wrote:How is this not a generic RTS? I mean, in any extent? I'd really like to see what feature you're talking about that makes Red Alert non-generic, given that every feature it has thus far has been in virtually every other RTS ever made.

Are you honestly deluded enough to think there's a such thing as an innovative RTS? All RTS games are basically generic RTS games. They only differ in terms of their personality, unit selections, atmosphere, storylines, etc., none of which count as a unique or innovative feature.

Darth Wong wrote:Are you honestly deluded enough to think there's a such thing as an innovative RTS? All RTS games are basically generic RTS games. They only differ in terms of their personality, unit selections, atmosphere, storylines, etc., none of which count as a unique or innovative feature.

Huh? I agree that RTSs don't necessarily need to be "innovative" to be good, but there are plenty of new things being introduced to the genre all the time. Off the top of my head, Company of Heroes brought a whole slew of new thinking to an otherwise stagnant genre (cover, physics, well-implemented squad-based mechanics, suppression-based morale, etc etc).

Hell, Red Alert 2 gave us buildings garrisonable by infantry, taking it out of obscure niche RTT games and adding it to mainstream RTSs. C&C Generals likewise brought command-tree abilities to RTSs. These are relatively minor features, granted, but there are plenty of games out there which do significantly alter the core mechanics most RTSs rely on.

Darth Wong wrote:Are you honestly deluded enough to think there's a such thing as an innovative RTS? All RTS games are basically generic RTS games. They only differ in terms of their personality, unit selections, atmosphere, storylines, etc., none of which count as a unique or innovative feature.

Ah, yes, because Total War, Ground Control/World in Conflict, Dawn of War/Company of Heroes, and Homeworld brought NOTHING to the plate in terms of gameplay. They all play exactly the same, right?

If you're deluded enough to think that there isn't something like an innovative RTS, you're clearly not paying attention to the genre or really to games in general. Yeah, all RTS games revolve around ordering groups of guys to attack shit, that's rather what defines it as a genre in the first place. Beyond that, however, there's plenty of room for innovation. The basic *Craft/C&C model which is the core of numerous games and knock-offs, however, is generally not innovative. It's clear that with Red Alert, very little new stuff is being tried. You still build a base, work your economy, and then micro your way to the top. The units, while including some degree of "advancement", don't really bring anything new to the table. The only innovative step I've seen is using tab to switch between unit types in a mixed unit squad, and even that is something that other games have done with varying degrees of success.

Now, does this mean that Red Alert 3 can't be good? No, it doesn't. You can have an excellent generic RTS game. Hell, Blizzard is going to be raking in millions of dollars with Starcraft 2, which is going to be virtually identical to Starcraft, save with some new units and updated graphics. At least Supreme Commander brought some useful UI updates to the genre, even if it remained mired in the previous decade of gameplay.

So before you jump all over me for saying Red Alert is yet another generic RTS, think about it. It's virtually identical to every C&C game and its clone that has come before it. What new things does it really bring to the table? Minor unit changes, a new army, a new storyline, and an XP-based support abilities system, which we've seen in other C&C games for a while now. If that's your bag, awesome, have fun. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. This is nothing new except for the graphics. When people bullshit me and tell me it's innovative, I reserve the right to tell them to get a reality check.

Hotfoot wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Are you honestly deluded enough to think there's a such thing as an innovative RTS? All RTS games are basically generic RTS games. They only differ in terms of their personality, unit selections, atmosphere, storylines, etc., none of which count as a unique or innovative feature.

Ah, yes, because Total War, Ground Control/World in Conflict, Dawn of War/Company of Heroes, and Homeworld brought NOTHING to the plate in terms of gameplay. They all play exactly the same, right?

And ... you feel that those are all RTS games?

If you're deluded enough to think that there isn't something like an innovative RTS, you're clearly not paying attention to the genre or really to games in general.

No, I'm not a hardcore gamer, and I don't follow the latest developments in the field. Why don't you educate me on the fantastic developments in RTS games? And I'm only including actual RTS games here, not games like Total War which isn't an RTS game (it's a turn-based strategy, real-time tactics game).

When people bullshit me and tell me it's innovative, I reserve the right to tell them to get a reality check.

Would you care to show me where anyone in this thread said that it was "innovative" before you showed up and tried to make this nonexistent claim into an issue with your "I'm a more serious gamer than you" bullshit?