Ditch the cartoony graphics + Sage engine

[Plasticz]

IMO i dont really care if the RA universe is wacky and junk, just keep it out of the tib and gens universe....

Exactly. I got into Red Alert too late to care much about it, but keep my serious Tiberium Universe! (Generals got a little wacky with zero hour, but I don't think it was a bad thing.

[GlobalDefense]

Realistic graphics (and unit design) are a must! While yes graphics are not by themselves what makes a game great, they do play a big part of the game. The biggest reason that I never have, (and never will) buy C+C 4, is because the units look terrible! (especially Nod's units, most of GDI's units were not terrible, but they were not good either). More realistic graphics and units are absolutley imperative for Tiberium, and I do really want to see it in Red Alert. Yes Red Alert is supposed to be crazy and nonsensical, but Red Alert 3 took it way to far.

Also, a better engine is needed. SAGE is still going to have flaws with it just for being SAGE, no matter how hard you try to fix it. A better engine will allow better graphics, more realistic physics, and more unique abilities and features within the game.

[Commander32]

in any case, wut we need is sum real deals and a serious one to be that.

[Cyriel]

Realistic graphics (and unit design) are a must! While yes graphics are not by themselves what makes a game great, they do play a big part of the game. The biggest reason that I never have, (and never will) buy C+C 4, is because the units look terrible! (especially Nod's units, most of GDI's units were not terrible, but they were not good either). More realistic graphics and units are absolutley imperative for Tiberium, and I do really want to see it in Red Alert. Yes Red Alert is supposed to be crazy and nonsensical, but Red Alert 3 took it way to far.

Also, a better engine is needed. SAGE is still going to have flaws with it just for being SAGE, no matter how hard you try to fix it. A better engine will allow better graphics, more realistic physics, and more unique abilities and features within the game.

IMHO this is how i've ALWAYS seen the "realism" factor in any C&C game

Generals = Most real. Real life units, vehicles, tanks, support powers, warfare etc. Zero hour added a lot of futuristic / technologically advanced features, but not alien like or completely unfathomable.

Red Alert = Mostly real. Realistic mostly in older games, newer games added more "technologically advanced" (prism weaponry, time travel, etc)

C&C = Least real but not overdone. It's not starcraft but features a lot of highly technologically advanced units and weaponry, along with bizarre and exotic units mostly on NOD's side. The theme of futuristic warfare is key but overdoing it makes it lose credit. The tiberium, 2 factions and revolving themes like cyborgs and alien terraforming make this game solid. Deriving too far off this path (tiberium eye implants linked to the towers, no mention of any form of alien retaliation / activity and so on) make it fun to some degree, but definitly not canon.

Also i would like to get this off my chest.

DID NO ONE PAY ATTENTION WHEN DEVELOPING C&C4 ? Seriously. So far ALL the C&C games were canon to some point (TD / Renegade missing the boat). So how is it that LEGION interfaced with this device, then later all mention of legion and ascension as planned in Tiberium wars and Kane's wrath are dismissed and neither LEGION or the tacitus's amazing prophetic abilities are never heard of again ?

IF you are going to correct the mistake that is C&C 4, you need to LEGALLY change the C&C 4 name into something like "C&C - Intermission while working on a good story" so the REAL C&C 4 can be canon again along with the entire storyline regarding legion, the scrin, the towers, ascension, GDI's battle AGAINST tiberium and so on.

Some things C&C4 did right.
- Dealing with tiberium. I like the idea of actually solving part of the problem.
- Extended Forgotten. This was a good move in terms of showing the rest of the world versus just GDI vs NOD.
- The attempt to give depth to the "commander". The attempt. Now work on the execution
- The idea that Kane doesn't have full control over the NOD faction. Granted, kane is awesome and he should, etc, but having splinter factions oppose the founder is what makes sense. It's depth, and this game needs that to keep the story going. (see brother marcion's separation.)

Here's the blot of ideas i have right now.

- Keep LEGION in. Canon demands it. Legion could go rogue like Cabal did. Would make sense and actually give GDI a reason to team up with NOD. (the whole "Gentlemen, there's bigger issues going on right now" idea.)
- Don't immediately return the scrin, but have the forgotten play a bigger part. Introduce them as temporary allies, rebels or neutral factions for all sides. The units for the forgotten in C&C4 were a good step in the right direction (just not visceroids. They side with the scrin in C&C 3 and never sided with anyone or anything else throughout the entire decade of C&C up until 3.)
- Over the years, more and more tiberium covers the planet. This due to terraforming from the scrin, which is all good. Reflect this in the real world. Give a reason behind Red tiberium. Make tiberium evolve. I don't care which, just don't both cut it as a resource and a serious threat to the planet because that defeats the entire world C&C is based on. It gives no reason for the scrin to be there or the forgotten to exist and NOD's plans, GDI's struggle.

Tiberium is a key plot in all games and it should be in this one.

That's all for now.

[Kyang]

(just not visceroids. They side with the scrin in C&C 3 and never sided with anyone or anything else throughout the entire decade of C&C up until 3.)

Viceroids never had a side in C&C3.

[Reno]

1- Dealing with tiberium. I like the idea of actually solving part of the problem.
2- Extended Forgotten. This was a good move in terms of showing the rest of the world versus just GDI vs NOD.
3- The attempt to give depth to the "commander". The attempt. Now work on the execution

1. Same here. Although I would have prefered the game to be the fiften years between the teaser trailer and the actual game. Playing in a near-apocalyptic world due to tiberian growth and the desperate struggle to get rid of it would have been awesome. Seeing the trailer and then playing the game was like taking candy from a baby.

2. Agree again, but I was under the impression they were going to be a fully playable faction. So I was a little dissapointed when it turned out they were simply accessed by capturing a tech building on the map.

3. Just LOL.

Welcome to the forum by the way.

Also to help put your mind at ease:

just don't both cut it as a resource and a serious threat .

Tiberian is still a recourse in C&C4. They just found a better way to harvest it through the TCNs.

[vimpel76]

i tired of ra3 c&c4 cartoony graphics. I dont agree with this theard

[Kyang]

i tired of ra3 c&c4 cartoony graphics. I dont agree with this theard

This thread is about getting rid of those cartoony graphics you just said you're tired of.

[Harrrr]

To be quite honest, I liked the feel of RA3. It was the only CnC imo that was full of life, and felt like a world of it's own. The animations were spectacular and made sense with the ridiculous designs. The Sickle is an absolutely perfect example...there is so much life in that unit. It actually defied the odds and was a great memory in RTS because it wasn't set in another dark, desolate brown and grey "gritty" world; it was in-your-face color and threw the player into a completely new world.

That said, I am not a fan of CnC4's art direction and designs. I have no actual problem with the technicalities of the graphics. Many of the designs were poor to begin with and poorly executed (most likely due to the "rush" factor that CnC4 had). The animations weren't as good from a technical standpoint and they didn't convey that sort of life

Now, onto engines. Some of the oldies here are familiar with me as I do tend to float around questions regarding game-engines and real-time art. For all you clamoring "new engine", you're going to get something based off SAGE with a new name. SAGE is completely different now than it was in 2002, so much so that it is technically a different engine by most standards....just they didn't decide to change the name. Game engines of the modern era are modular and have completely interchangeable parts. Very, very few game engines are written from scratch because it's just unnecessary. Source is based on Goldsrc which came from iD Tech 2, and many other engines have a huge lineage Unreal, Jupiter (Lythtech), iD Tech and others are perfect examples of such.

[Leyvin]

There are alot of calls to get rid of the current engine used by C&C, however no one has yet to provide a good reason as to why...
Just saying "The Graphics are Cartoony" honestly isn't a reason to scrap an engine and build a new one; the final design and feel of the game artwise has abolutely nothing to do with the engine, which while I'm not a fan of C&C 4 ... that game frankly goes toe-to-toe with Dawn of War 2 and with there being no clear winner on which is more beautiful to look at while playing.

They both do fantastic jobs providing incredible visual fidelity while not requiring PCs powered by plutonium to run, in-fact the lighting engine alone in C&C 4 was fantastic for an RTS.

If everyone is called for a change in art direction, then I'm firmly behind anyone who is asking for that. It would be nice to have units that are not overly exaggerated in dimensions; with perhaps more subtle colour usage over the currently employed vivid nature, although I can see why they do both of these things to provide units with nice stark differenciation from the terrain.. something that earlier C&C games suffered from often was trying to see a unit next to terrain that was coloured the same.

If however everyone is calling for a brand new engine, what exactly would you like Victory to use?
There are no engines on the market right now that have graphics fidelity that not only require massive amount of programming to the point where they might as well make their own internal engine just to make an RTS; but more over engines (like Frostbite for example as someone mentioned it) focused directly on-top of PhysX technology which means anyone without an NVIDIA-based Graphics card will not be able to run the game at any decent framerate.

Frankly I couldn't give a flying monkies about in-depth physics or the ability to watch buildings crumble in the middle of a dust & fire cloud. I just wanna blow crap up with a pretty looking game; Dawn of War 2 and C&C 4 frankly are by far the prettiest RTS games on the market today. Starcraft 2 characters in-cutscenes / ship interaction are incredible ... but the engine itself hasn't aged very well at all.

C&C however despite really uses the same engine for the past what decade now, stands head and shoulders abover most of it's competition. Performance wise it actually is quite superior to Dawn of War 2; if you guys don't believe it is, perhaps you should buy new graphics cards and run it at maximum settings... it is a fantastic looking game.

The only thing I don't like is the art style, not the graphics fidelity.