Return to the basics

[Retroidz]

@Victory Games (or whichever group will develop the next C&C game), stop using the SAGE engine and go back to the RA2/YR engine, please. Don't just think of this as a step back, think of this as a step back into the right path (before C&C veered off into an ugly turn, AKA the SAGE engine). Take Starcraft 2 for example, though it had a lot of new features such as better graphics, more units, achievements, etc., it had the same style/feel as the original Starcraft and because of this, within minutes of playing, the millions of gamers from SC felt right at home with SC2.

[Golan2781]

I'd really like to know what makes you think an engine several generations old is superior to SAGE or for that matter appropriate to use today.

[Retroidz]

I'd really like to know what makes you think an engine several generations old is superior to SAGE or for that matter appropriate to use today.

The majority of people's opinion in this thread, other C&C forums such as http://strike-team.net, The Community Bracket Game, people I know and of course my own personal experience suggests that old-school C&C is superior.

Dune II*, TD, RA1, TS, YR, just to mention a few, all had the same feel to them. The fans, myself included, could easily adapt and be hooked from one 'old-style' C&C to the next. Although I must apologize, after reading my previous post, I think I was a little harsh on SAGE because Generals, RA3 and KW were actually ok games.

I could of course be totally wrong because my opinions on this matter are probably biased towards what I've grown up with, but as I mentioned above, I think that the majority of C&C fans feel the same way.

*Not C&C but I thought I'd include it since it was made by Westwood.

[stephanovich]

They could make the games play the same way with SAGE as far as I know. It's the devs decision as to how they want the game to play that is different. Going back to sprites and 2D would just make most people say "bad graphics, no buy" most likely.

[Golan2781]

The majority of people's opinion in this thread, other C&C forums such as http://strike-team.net, The Community Bracket Game, people I know and of course my own personal experience suggests that old-school C&C is superior.

Gameplay has only little to do with an engine. For games such as the C&Cs and their 2D, Voxel and SAGE engine, it virtually has nothing to do with it.

[Retroidz]

They could make the games play the same way with SAGE as far as I know. It's the devs decision as to how they want the game to play that is different. Going back to sprites and 2D would just make most people say "bad graphics, no buy" most likely.

Oh ok. Well if that was the case, I'm all for SAGE! Sorry, I'm only a gamer that reads a lot of game magazines. What I meant was that I prefer the same style/feel as the older C&C games. But in no way did I suggest that we should go backwards in graphics!

[LukaColic0]

While I can relate with the gist of the OPs post I'm not sure that C&C3 is a good example for your cause. It is the second worst game in the franchise because the gameplay was utterly flat and uninteresting, the diversity was non-existent with clone armies, the art designs (of almost everything) were atrociously bad and importantly what balance was there besides spamming tanks... In fact C&C:RA and even C&C:TD had more gameplay finesse than the huge backwards step that was C&C3.

You clearly have an understanding of the core appeal of the franchise even though you seem to not acknowledge the significant contributions of Generals and RA3. Generals gameplay is highly acclaimed not because it doesn't implement the basics, but because it builds apon them with hundreds of new gameplay mechanics that didn't affect the core gameplay style. RA3 had an excellent gameplay system with land-sea-air integration despite its flawed resource model and bizzare 'anime' aesthetic. So in essence every game in the franchise except C&C3 and C&C4 has something excellent to contribute to the next game as long as the core gameplay is unchanged!

CNC3:TW was great.I gona play CNC4:TT soon but from what my friend said it's good(NOT THE STORY).

[Technique]

The way building down cliffs at ra2 works, is not even possible in the engine used for newer cnc games, so yeah...

[Golan2781]

The way building down cliffs at ra2 works, is not even possible in the engine used for newer cnc games, so yeah...

Care to clarify?

[Mucusmaster]

I am a giant C&C Fan, I have owned every release + Expansion, but RA3 and C&C3 KW.

I loved C&C 1 so much I built an old PC just to install C&C 1!

I agree with the OP's ideas, and many other people posting. Ignoring the little squabbles about which verion is better for what reason. Every version has been better than C&C 4.

I miss resource gathering, I hate the army cap, I miss building a base, I miss the old style units that were realistic enough that they could be real but sci-fi enough to add a little va va voom to the units.

I would love to see the origional game style back, instead of this Dawn of War style game.

In basics, I agree with the OP's, I agree with 99% of the posters on this thread, and I miss the good old style game .