The Value of Tactical Gameplay Mechanics.

[goldenhorde44]

The market demand trend in RTS games with a real life analogue has been towards *more* realism not less. The Starcraft and Warcraft settings can be wacky because they are so distant from any meaningful real world reference. EA should learn from the failure of the Age of Empires and Empire Earth franchises (not to mention C&C4). At the same time, franchises like the Total War and Company of Heroes are thriving because they provide more realism, often even at the cost of very interesting strategies or steeper learning curve. EA Games needs to grab this niche before someone else does with a Company of Heroes: Modern Warfare. EA has an edge with the CC Generals IP, but that won't last forever.

So, I would recommend that EA does NOT go for a cartoony/arcade game feel for CC Generals 2. I am very in favor of vehicle cover and smart infantry tactics. I would also recommend some genuinely urban maps with very restricted movement for tanks/heavy vehicles and cat-and-house battles among winding alleys and boobytrapped houses.

[oompah]

The market demand trend in RTS games with a real life analogue has been towards *more* realism not less. The Starcraft and Warcraft settings can be wacky because they are so distant from any meaningful real world reference. EA should learn from the failure of the Age of Empires and Empire Earth franchises (not to mention C&C4). At the same time, franchises like the Total War and Company of Heroes are thriving because they provide more realism, often even at the cost of very interesting strategies or steeper learning curve. EA Games needs to grab this niche before someone else does with a Company of Heroes: Modern Warfare. EA has an edge with the CC Generals IP, but that won't last forever.

So, I would recommend that EA does NOT go for a cartoony/arcade game feel for CC Generals 2. I am very in favor of vehicle cover and smart infantry tactics. I would also recommend some genuinely urban maps with very restricted movement for tanks/heavy vehicles and cat-and-house battles among winding alleys and boobytrapped houses.

that game was made, it's called Company of Heroes. It was a moderate success but overexposed itself and when it pushed forward with Company of heroes online it was cancelled after losing money.

C&C is not Total War, it's not Age of Empires. World in Conflict and Company of Heroes do what you say and have had so/so success.

I 100% disagree with the poster here. Generals is great and has made EA lots of money because it's fast and fun and lightweight when it comes to realism

[Alaskan_Viking]

The market demand trend in RTS games with a real life analogue has been towards *more* realism not less. The Starcraft and Warcraft settings can be wacky because they are so distant from any meaningful real world reference. EA should learn from the failure of the Age of Empires and Empire Earth franchises (not to mention C&C4). At the same time, franchises like the Total War and Company of Heroes are thriving because they provide more realism, often even at the cost of very interesting strategies or steeper learning curve. EA Games needs to grab this niche before someone else does with a Company of Heroes: Modern Warfare. EA has an edge with the CC Generals IP, but that won't last forever.

So, I would recommend that EA does NOT go for a cartoony/arcade game feel for CC Generals 2. I am very in favor of vehicle cover and smart infantry tactics. I would also recommend some genuinely urban maps with very restricted movement for tanks/heavy vehicles and cat-and-house battles among winding alleys and boobytrapped houses.

I agree.

EA is just pushing the easy button and giving us more of the same lame, generic sci fi/fantasy RTS that Blizzard has made so much money selling to the adolescent masses. They ran the franchise into the ground by doing this with RA3 and C&C4. And they know the fans want more realism, so they said in their announcement of Generals2 that the game would ~"return to a more gritty realism", but they just can't help themselves, they have to dumb it down and throw cartoony **** in our faces.

that game was made, it's called Company of Heroes. It was a moderate success but overexposed itself and when it pushed forward with Company of heroes online it was cancelled after losing money.

Company of Heroes Online was made by a Chinese company that bought the right to use the IP from Relic, it was not a real sequel or true continuation of the franchise.

World in Conflict and Company of Heroes do what you say and have had so/so success.

So/so success? LOL And Red Alert 3 and C&C 4 were box office record holders! LOL

I 100% disagree with the poster here. Generals is great and has made EA lots of money because it's fast and fun and lightweight when it comes to realism

Generals was a success, because it was a solid RTS that was, thematically, BASED ON REALITY. They threw in some sci fi and near future stuff here and there, but must of it was done for gameplay reasons, and the aggregate realism of all the units was still pretty high because most units were inspired by, or exact copies of, real world military vehicles and technology.

Playing generals 1 was like commanding a faction in a, epic Hollywood action movie.

Playing Red Alert 3 was like commanding the forces from a children's cartoon.

[goldenhorde44]

What's more, the simple slugfest gameplay which oompah favors can be accomplished within a larger sophisticated and realistic game engine. Simply have some "flat" skirmish maps with no terrain features, no elevation, and lots of resources close at hand. A player can then easily have a match that involves nothing more than setting some waypoints and pressing build buttons back at base. These maps might have exciting names like "Featureless Desert," "Empty Plains" or "Parking Lot"

[Borreh]

What's more, the simple slugfest gameplay which oompah favors can be accomplished within a larger sophisticated and realistic game engine. Simply have some "flat" skirmish maps with no terrain features, no elevation, and lots of resources close at hand. A player can then easily have a match that involves nothing more than setting some waypoints and pressing build buttons back at base. These maps might have exciting names like "Featureless Desert," "Empty Plains" or "Parking Lot"

I want to play "Parking Lot" !!!

*Here Alaskan_Viking said lots of good stuff plus some "Generals 1 has real units" comedy*

Well well, is it really 2012 that I agree with Alaskan_Viking? Except for the realism of units, of course.

[robinson01]

OK, fine, please disregard my post. I just panicked because those are key-words that describe C&C4, and I'm pretty sure we don't want that. So to clarify what I'm saying, I do not think you support C&C4 in any way. If it's possible, I think you despise that game more than I do. In fact, now that I think about it, I kinda like your idea.

[Borreh]

OK, fine, please disregard my post. I just panicked because those are key-words that describe C&C4, and I'm pretty sure we don't want that. So to clarify what I'm saying, I do not think you support C&C4 in any way. If it's possible, I think you despise that game more than I do. In fact, now that I think about it, I kinda like your idea.

Hell yeah right and correct I am.

And yeah, believe me, I do.

.. yet sorry for the harsh words.

[P1nkalicious]

If it's possible, I think you despise that game more than I do. In fact, now that I think about it

I probably do. I think it retained C&C's simplistic gameplay while ditching economy and teching, therefore highlighting the crappy combat mechanics. It pretends to be a tactical game whilst shaming EA and the RTT genre.

[robinson01]

I probably do. I think it retained C&C's simplistic gameplay while ditching economy and teching, therefore highlighting the crappy combat mechanics. It pretends to be a tactical game whilst shaming EA and the RTT genre.

Exactly!!!!! How did EA even let that pass!?!?!?

[P1nkalicious]

Exactly!!!!! How did EA even let that pass!?!?!?

EA and Activision seem to have a talent in screwing over their fanbase in almost everything they do. Except EA is better because it owns a few decent developers, like DICE.