The Value of Tactical Gameplay Mechanics.

[bluuurrrr]

You guys do understand that EA had about 10 years to "innovate" and have found that formula has not exactly worked.

Sure Sure - I understand... if they would only listen to you guys - who have probably coded... well nothing... it would all be better. Trust me - you would all be the first ones back here complaining about the "inbalance" from all the realistic stuff you wanted put into the game when it does not work the way you imagined. Ironically in your search for "realism" you'll find many of your gameplay demands to simply be unrealistic when it comes to the fast paced world of command and conquer RTS.

Now maybe you guys liked the 50 minute COH games, because hey... it was cool to have cover, and it was cool when a grenade may or may not kill 2 or 6 of your guys based on some randomness... but that game is gone too.

Face it - EA took a hard long look at where to go - and realized the best game they had was Generals - they understand it was what people want, and every since then... every community manager they've hired has gone back to them... our players... our customers... love Generals... every subsequent attempt has been swatted away not because it wasnt realistic enough, or didnt have tank recoil, or didnt offer blinding vapor trails..... but because it wasnt what CnC games were about.

For a bunch of guys crying for realism - it's about time you come back to reality. EA is going to make Generals 2, they are going to go back to the successful formula - they are going to use a solid engine - the game is going to sell a ton of copies, a load of people will be online playing it, and you'll all have realized... at that point... that you were all....dead....wrong.

[goldenhorde44]

The simple truth is, the die-hard fans of ye olden days C&C/RA are going to buy Generals 2 no matter what. It's the wider RTS consumer base that Generals 2 needs to attract.

Seriously? We have made the wrong innovations recently, therefore we must stop innovating and instead remake only oldies from the 1990s? That's a doomed franchise if there ever was one

[oompah]

so adding new layers of complexity to the game makes it... more accessible?

look realism might be great in a FPS. Blizzard probably knows a thing or two about RTS games and making games in general. They opted for fast, lightweight and fun every time in their titles.

[bluuurrrr]

I reject that simple truth. The wider RTS consumer base is playing and dumping millions of dollars into Starcraft 2, because it's a clean simple model that works.

The truth is there is no "untapped RTS consumer base" that you can attract with some of the suggestions on this board. You are not going to "earn" new players with some complicated mess in which new players to the genre must quickly solve a physics problem to determine whether the 12 tanks they are commanding will be able to successfully shoot over the hill based on their current 12 degree slope downward, and whether the ultra realistic recoil will move them off their mark for the next shot. I watched it first hand trying to convince people to play some of the recent "innovative" rts games.

Not only that - but I doubt any of you have any idea of how to implement your suggestions nor would I imagine that unless you slow this game down to a crawl, any of you will have any idea how those supposed "improvements" will effect your experience playing the game.

In fact, as I said before, most of you will come to tears on this message board simply using them as an excuse when you lose.

[goldenhorde44]

The "untapped RTS consumer base" for EA here are swing RTS consumers whose default position is ambivalence towards the C&C/RA/Generals franchises - who may or may not buy Generals 2 at the end of the day depending on whether they think Generals 2 offers them something interesting. If they've done their due diligence, EA should have crunched their numbers with market research by now. Based on EA public statements so far ("gritty realism"), I doubt their conclusion was that they should try taking on Starcraft II (and near future expansions) head-to-head.

[oompah]

I could possibly agree with you if they were making a brand new game, a new IP - maybe something like "ultra-realistic fighting RTS" for new players. But this game is called Generals 2

I don't think EA is aiming to be the next COH with this title. I think they want to be the next Starcraft 2 in their universe.

They are doing the right thing.

[Imperial-Dane]

@Blurr: CoH is gone ? Far from it my boy. CoH is still going strong, plenty of players still playing it after 6 years ! Not sure how many games can manage that to be frank.

As for more tactical bits in a C&C game ? Yes please. Cover ? If worked out properly. Definately. I'm not saying to make generals 2 a modern CoH. That would just result in a different kind of stagnation for the RTS genre. Where the current one is a master mold of Starcraft with variations.

Rather, look at what CoH did right and try to make it work for C&C. So what did CoH do right amongst other things besides Cover ? Made infantry be.. Well bloody infantry !! And tanks tanks. Until CoH to a larger extent. Infantry and tanks were just different entities. An infantryman with a rifle could hurt a tank, and a tank despite being a huge lumbering beast with a big gun could nary harm an infantryman unless said tank was a "counter"

So get infantry done properly, get them to act like modern infantry, have them work in squads, be flexible, and some sense of Cover usage. Have tanks be tanks, have vehicles be vehicles with speed and not so heavy armour. It's not going to make the game hugely complex if you know what you're doing. That's the beauty of CoH. It adds a lot of these things. BUT, it doesn't become madly complex because of it. And most problems seem to stem from people being so used to other RTS games rarely straying from the master mold that they're stumped.

C&C generals 2 needs to move forward. It needs to do something different, on the tactical as well as the strategic level. It can't just be C&C generals 1 with prettier graphics. Though obviously it should try to avoid being C&C4 as well

[bluuurrrr]

Right.... So EA takes a franchise - Generals - and after 11 or so years of near failures in "innovating", makes a huge announcement about Generals 2, claiming up front that they want to get back to their roots - yet you interpret it as EA crunching numbers and decideing to go in a whole new direction away from the namesake of the franchise... yeah ok.

You guys seem to think their is a finite amount of money in RTS and it's already in Blizzard's pocket, and that the largest competitor, Electronic Arts, is resigned to the fact that there is no way to make a dime from the RTS genre without some fantastic grand untested innovation involving... well good lord.. you probably need an upper level math education to determine whether it's even feasible to put into a video game.

[oompah]

I agree EA has done their due diligence - see their tag line in these forums "action-packed modern warfare" not innovative new ultra realistic warfare

[bluuurrrr]

@Blurr: CoH is gone ? Far from it my boy. CoH is still going strong, plenty of players still playing it after 6 years ! Not sure how many games can manage that to be frank.

I'll give you one.. Generals.
Me thinks EA knows what their doing.