Command and Conquer needs good exceution, not innovation

[Cypher[CS]]

Jeebus....

- Minimal bugs
- highly balanced
- deep strategy
- fun and tactically interesting micro
- mechanics fun enough to sandbox in skirmish
- tons of online features to make competition fun and rewarding
- and if it has a campaign, one that's fun, invigorating and deep

Fixed it for ya...
And don't argue.

[Timmaigh]

You said "good execution will only lead to another game like StarCraft 2" which implies that the inevitable result of good execution is a game like SC2, which of course is completely untrue. The GOAL of good execution is:

- Minimal bugs
- highly balanced
- deep strategy
- high micro
- mechanics fun enough to sandbox in skirmish
- tons of online features to make competition fun and rewarding
- and if it has a campaign, one that does NOT come at the expense of the above

The actual design of the game can vary quite a bit from the design of SC2, but if it's not well executed and does not achieve the above, it really doesn't matter what it's design is, it will suck to play it.

hehe, ofc it can be different to design of SC2, i was using SC2 as a reference of something well executed, but lacking innovation.
My point was, that it wont be the same as SC2, but that it will be the same as the original game (in this case Generals), just like SC2 is polished version of original SC, nothing more. And while that might be enough to sell well, because in case of SC there are perhaps enough people just in Korea to buy it to recoup the development costs for Blizzard, i do not think its enough for the game to leave its mark in the history of the genre and at this point in my life, where i am bored by 9 games out of 10, it is certainly not enough for me.

[Dilin]

I love skirmish and singleplayer never really found an RTS base builder online any fun accept the Occasional Art of Defence map now THOSE were fun so many laser turrets and chinese gattling gun things. Thats probably the only thing i found fun about command and conquer multiplayer.

[Skipper3]

This is why RA3's co-op campaign was a great idea. It gets people accustomed to the idea of teamwork and/or treating the game as a social medium.


Not fixed. Since MP requires only the nuts and bolts mechanics, it's CHEAPER to develop than it is to develop singleplayer, which still requires nuts and bolts mechanics and a massive array of other expensive art/coding tasks on top of it. A multiplayer-oriented game is actually more efficient when it comes to dev costs, and it produces more re-playable content per dollar invested than singleplayer does.


True, but Frostbite 2 could be the same old graphics-over-gameplay nonsense. When I played the beta for BF3, I ran into some troubling issues. The hit registration was downright awful. I'd get behind cover, and then 3 seconds later I'd die. Or I'd empty a clip into someone and do no damage, and then they'd turn around and one-shot me. I even joined servers with less than 40ms pings.

It seems DICE decided that pretty graphics and "fluff" were more important than rock solid basics of FPS play. Let's hope Frostbite 2 isn't as laggy and unresponsive as SAGE/RNA. For anyone who has played HoN or SC2, that's what BioWare should be aiming at. If they don't think that kind of responsiveness is necessary for good gameplay, they might as well just abandon this project altogether. Of course people will spend $60 and play a few hours of singleplayer and think they got their money's worth though...


Thank you.

Guys, look. Here are the facts:

1. Sales of C&C games since Generals have declined
2. They declined so much that EA fired its entire RTS team
3. There have been two consistent characteristics in all C&C games since Generals:
- Under-developed gameplay and multiplayer
- An expensive singleplayer component

Therefore logically speaking, this singleplayer approach IS NOT WORKING FOR THEM. Thus it's fair to say that the people who actually enjoy C&C singleplayer are a sales minority, else the sales wouldn't have declined.

Nobody can honestly sit here and argue that repeating this strategy is going to magically work. They need to do something different, and the ONE THING they haven't tried yet is focusing on good, polished gameplay while making singleplayer an afterthought.

For Battlefield 3's Cover, just because your head is behind cover doesn't mean you're whole body is. An arm sticking out can still be shot at, no matter how close your nose is to the wall.

For RTS, Yea, I'd like good gameplay. But before we can ask for good gameplay AGM we first need to ask ourselves "What's good gameplay?" I suppose good gameplay is told through the empricial. Meaning, how many units has the game sold in a month? That's odd though because Modern Warfare has no different game play than any other FPS. Taking cues from Halo's regen health system then throwing in ironsight aiming. Is that good gameplay?

I have to wonder..playing Modern Warfare's online I noticed that when things die. I do get points. Numbers. Which lead to experience which lead to leveling up which lead to perks So, considering that MW is very popular and we've established that good gameplay is dictated by how many units are sold within a month. Is good gameplayer dictated purely by whatever number is shown? Let's look at World of Warcraft. Purely a numbers game. Everything in it has either a number or a percentage on it and it's EXTREMELY popular, which also has a experience and leveling up system. Hmmm..

So AGM, is it reasonable to assume that..for you..at least.. that RTS's are lacking in numbers? Cos that's what makes good gameplay? Needing a leveling up system makes for good multiplayer? Yes, looking at the evidence. It seems to me AGM that for any game to succeed they need some sort of leveling up system, that goes beyond just a basic "oh you're level 10 good job" but is also coupled with a reward for example "oh you're level 10 good job here's a humvee with a missle launcher attached"..Yes?

But yea, anywho, here's the reasons that I believe people don't multiplay.

1. Don't want to get creamed and called a newb I.E stagefright.
2. Don't want heart beat/ blood pressure to rise.
3. Don't want to deal with twats.
4. Don't see much of a point in it.

[Alex06]

Jeebus....


Fixed it for ya...
And don't argue.

I have to agree with your changes, but I agree that developing the campaign shouldn't come at the expense of developing the multiplayer experience. Though that doesn't mean we can't have an engaging, immersive, and properly developed story. StarCraft 2 is proof of this.

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

Rushing is normal. You can't NOT have a rush. Someone is bound to attack fast and first. Your whole concept of "rushing is annoying" is ridiculous. No one "rushes", it's just that people attack when they are ready, and sometimes, you just aren't good enough of a player to be ready for the attack. That doesn't mean rushing is a problem, it means you are a terrible player, and the pace of the game is fast and you aren't good at following that pace.

Also, why the heck is the text all white in the reply box?! I have to make it black to be able to see what I'm typing. This was a stupid idea...

[xPlatinum]

True, but Frostbite 2 could be the same old graphics-over-gameplay nonsense. When I played the beta for BF3, I ran into some troubling issues. The hit registration was downright awful. I'd get behind cover, and then 3 seconds later I'd die.

This problem is not the game, it's your Internet connection or high ping to the server, you need search for the euro servers, or something close, not with 400 + ping servers, but where is 100, and there will be no such problem when you're running for cover and you die. .

[[GR]Agm]

No, I was playing on 50ms servers, and I still had that problem.

[Lauren]

I thought weapons could pierce small obstacles.

[Golan2781]

It's the standard for pseudo-realistic shooters at least. Even CS back in the good old days had it.

€dit: BF3 has it too. On top of occasional but horrible hit box lag.

[[GR]Agm]

I thought weapons could pierce small obstacles.

No, when I am comfortably behind a solid concrete wall, or behind a rock, and I get killed a good 700ms AFTER moving behind the obstacle, the game is clearly broken and out of sync. Or my favorite is when I unload an entire clip into the back of an enemy, and they turn around and kill me in one shot.

I didn't buy BF3 because of this problem. They should never have released a beta where the hit registration and kill mechanics were so horribly broken.