Originally Posted by wadprimeOriginally Posted by KodaemonOriginally Posted by sybert
Yeah, I always liked the fast paced nature of the CnC games.
'Meh, I don't really care anymore about the new games direction, with many loads of hours(make that years actually) on Tib Sun, YR, Generals, CnC3, and RA3, plus all the mods they come with, another game with the same old formula is rather redundant IMO. '
Sc2 is slow, maybe, just maybe it's not slow per gamedesign, but it definitely is slow by mapdesign. You basecially cannot attack the first 10 minutes cause the only way to access your opponents base is one single small choke.
Such a mapdesign should never ever make it into command and conquer.
The ridiculously open maps of TW weren't much better though. Both games put a drastic difference between defense and offense, forfeiting the choice which route to go or even of just taking a balanced stance in most circumstances because of the massive penalties. The "redeeming" feature of TW is that while you might make mistakes just as well, at least you don't have to wait ages to feel the consequences - both systems are quite frustrating though.
Kinda agree that the implementation was bad every time they tried. It might work better if such specialization trees where integrated into a Generals-Point style system to have the gameplay play out a bit more predictable. The main problem of KW/ZH were the extreme differences in factions right from the start.
A middle-ground between TW and RA3 seems about right. SC2 is too slow when it comes to propagating the consequences of your mistakes (meaning you can't really pinpoint flaws in your gameplay unless you are pretty good anyways) which should be avoided. Generals was about right.
Ridiculously open? Not such a huge difference in tw/generals/ra2 there i would say.
Extremly flat, makeing basecrawling way too easy would be my point. Just look at ra2 how many hills, cliffs, rivers, rocks you have there to stop crawling.
Still, maps were only part of the gameplay problem tw had.
The problem is more pronounced in TW than Gen though as it's generally much more difficult to stop an enemy due to low lethality and relatively high speed compared to map sizes. Compared to what a player can cover, openings are much more prominent in TW than Gens.
i think the best way to go about it is to have a large collection of maps so that there is plenty of choice for all range of tactics. as well as the number of players on the maps.
(with free map pack releases after launch) perhaps a map generator like tiberian sun that was awesome. and alot more none semetrical maps.
-- THE JUKEBOX MUST RETURN!! -- [COLOR="#25292C" forum [COLOR="#25292C" quote
Anyways, I also thought of somehting else the command and conquer game could use. This very important in my opinion. They need to not have a frame limiter!!! I beleive commmand and conquer 3, red alert 3, and command and conquer 4 had this. I hope they dont put that on the new one. If I have a super computer with quad sli graphics card. Don't limit me and my frames per second!
I'am really enjoying this thread though, keep the ideas coming hopefully the developers read this.
Victory Games is Electronic Arts' dedicated Strategy Gaming studio. Formed in 2010 under the leadership of Jon Van Caneghem, Victory Games has offices in Los Angeles, CA; Austin, TX; and Shanghai, China and is currently focused on the Command & Conquer franchise.