Command and Conquer needs good exceution, not innovation

[EA_Agm]

New blog on Generals2.org. It was actually written not long after we all learned that EA fired its RTS team, but it's still relevant.

http://www.gamereplays.org/generals2...ews&tid=864608

[bombspy]

I don't know who wrote this blog but he is a ***** imo.

2. Singleplayer is expensive to develop, and overrated

The singleplayer is what makes C&C worth buying for me and many others. I don't like the multiplayer of previous C&C games, because I don't like rush gameplay at all and a C&C concentrating on this would be a no-buy for me. (I liked the mp of C&C4 somehow)

I spent hundreds of hours in Generals campaign and especially in the Challenge mode.


If they want to make a good MP expierence they should look on World in Conflict.

Command and Conquer needs good exceution, not innovation

Great so they should make a Call of Duty RTS? I didn't bought a CoD game since MW1. Why? NO INNOVATION

[EA_Agm]

I don't know who wrote this blog but he is a moron imo.

It's ironic that you should call ME a moron when it's you who can't put two and two together (or read, apparently).

blogauthor.jpg

I don't like the multiplayer of previous C&C games, because I don't like rush gameplay at all

Further irony that you should call me a moron. Maybe if you realized that "rushing" is an inherent part of a REAL TIME strategy game, you'd simply adjust your perception to match reality. "Rushing" is normal in a real time strategy game.

If they want to make a good MP expierence they should look on World in Conflict.

More irony that you should call me a moron.

Sounds to me like you just shouldn't play RTS games, they're clearly not suited for you.

[bombspy]

Sounds to me like you just shouldn't play RTS games, they're clearly not suited for you.

I didn't read the headline of the blog site, but still I think you have a very strange perception of what a RTS should be like.

Anyway I'm quite confident that Bioware will put the right priorities in this game and give ME enough reasons to buy it.

[StormWolf]

Singleplayer is the main reason I play C&C games. I hardly even play multiplayer and I care more about the story in any game.

[P1nkalicious]

Perhaps you could stop being so insulting, arrogant and annoying, Agm? I may think you're right, but dicks can be right too.

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

I don't know who wrote this blog but he is a moron imo.


The singleplayer is what makes C&C worth buying for me and many others. I don't like the multiplayer of previous C&C games, because I don't like rush gameplay at all and a C&C concentrating on this would be a no-buy for me. (I liked the mp of C&C4 somehow)

I spent hundreds of hours in Generals campaign and especially in the Challenge mode.


If they want to make a good MP expierence they should look on World in Conflict.

Great so they should make a Call of Duty RTS? I didn't bought a CoD game since MW1. Why? NO INNOVATION

all honesty mate, its -you- who has the strange perception of rts

if you liked cnc4 but not the games before it, its because:

1) cnc4 actually pretty much forced or coerced you to try multiplayer... i think 90% of people who played cnc4 must have played online too, whereas im sure its <40% for other cnc games.
if you'd bothered to actually get into the multiplayer of previous cnc's, youd have seen how they were 10000000x better in so many ways than cnc4.... even if they werent even very refined.

2) cnc4 spoonfed all the game mechanics to you entirely, and watered down several aspects of what makes an 'RTS'... while this is bad for people who actually understand RTS, its good for newbies who havent a clue of RTS basics --- and if youre so opposed to 'rushes', you clearly appear to belong to the latter category, no offense.

Perhaps you could stop being so insulting, arrogant and annoying, Agm? I may think you're right, but dicks can be right too.

in a way youve gotta understand his position as well tbh - he -has- been running RTS communities for several years now, been in almost every EA community summit, knew many of their devs personally, alpha/beta tested every one of their games etc... and finds the same old problems cropping up in EVERY single title (generals/zh/bfme/bfme2/rotwk/cnc3/kw/ra3/ra3u)

itd be hard not to get frustrated when you're in that position and feel things CAN be easily improved, and youve voiced your ideas but they only ever seem to fall on deaf ears
==============
but i dont quite agree with the blog -- im a multiplayer fan but i think its still important to have a decent singleplayer component

what we need to have imo is a proper incentive to make singleplayer people play online, not 'force' them into it by not doing a singleplayer at all...

cnc4 was a failed project, but i think it was an interesting experiment in that it made more people play it online than any other title before it did...
so taking a leaf out of that book, i think something along the lines of rewards/achievements for playing online would help create some of that incentive to play online.

[Revenent]

Just a small voice, but I rather liked the C&C single player campaigns.

I rarely play MP, simply because I can't find people I know to play with (sorry, somewhat weary of RTS MP - it's definitely a different world than the FPS MP world).

I do like CrazyGDIfan123`'s idea of enticing campaign-players, like myself, to go online more, though please don't do the always-online thing - it's quite annoying, especially during the first weeks where the servers are always faltering due to load. And since that's when the first reviews come out, it never makes the game look good.

Good ol' CD-keys, phone-home when joining a MP game, I can live with those - you expect online connections in MP games.

As for innovation - innovate to enhance the experience, not simply because it is a shiny thing you can place into the game. The whole Frostbite engine thing could be worrisome, but if they can focus on smooth game play, creative maps to force out-of-the-box thinking, and good unit intelligence, throwing in great graphics is just plain bonus.

Again, just a small voice.

Edit:

There was a section in that blog about Starcraft... In pure hindsight, I think the Starcraft phenomenon was a collision of good fortune. The game definitely was good, but I think the failure (or at least lower success) of its competitors during that timeframe was also a cause of its immense popularity.

[Nerdfish]

Competitive Multiplayer is expensive to develop, and overrated

Fixed.
Maybe Bioware Victory is developing this game for you AGM, so they could sell one single copy of the game to someone with "good" taste. And maybe they should also sell you the studio, because obviously you know so much more about developing games then they do.

A competition of whoever can sink more hours into practices isn't a game at all. Suffering for the sake of becoming good at something that makes money is admirable, suffering for the sake of becoming good at something just for the sake of ego is a mental disease.

[m4dn3ss]

"4. The engine is a lemon"
Well not anymore, RNA is gone