The Value of Tactical Gameplay Mechanics.

[Borreh]

well that's your theory. I personally think the decline in sales has more to do with launch issues, poor quality and brand fatigue.

How can brand fatigue be an issue in case of two games released 5 years after the previous title in the series, and around 7 in the case of their sub-series? Launch issues - To an extent, yes, I agree. Poor quality - That is what we are talking about here right now.

First C&C:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy1Sq1nupMY

Red Alert:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wG_LkRIEJw

Tiberian Sun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Fg1...eature=related

Red Alert 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6CSytb-kqM



The gameplay is fundamentaly the same. Same deal as with Starcraft 2. It is a perfect game, while it is the same as its predecessor. Improved UI, different units, new approach to campaign. Even Red Alert 3 had more improvements, but noone complains about it. There is nothing wrong with the system itself and C&C and Sc are the only games that kept it. Some improvements are needed, but nothing that major. Introduce new units, keep water, or make some form of it at least in upcomming C&Cs, new types of units, etc. No need to change the system to something completely different.

Well yeah, sure games up until RA2 worked perfectly fine because that was the best what there was from RTS.. in 2001. Ten years have passed, and the genre had moved forward. I do not deny the first era C&Cs were great games in their time, I wouldn't be here otherwise - But the genre has moved forward and C&C remained the same.

Keep in mind C&C is not Starcraft, we do not have the luxury of a whole asian country that will buy our game even if the only difference will be graphics.

Stop acting like "the game is OK, new units, new stuff, etc., people will play it because they will" - People will NOT play it because the game has too little to offer, no matter how many new units you will add, the game will still be poor compared to other titles because of limiting gameplay which was fine ten years ago and now is simply outdated and bland.

as oompah said, their 'failure' compared to perhaps more successful rts franchises comes down to quality/polish, support and brand management - all areas where EA has fared terribly

If so, then what about RA3? The game was the best what the "oldschool" C&C gameplay had to offer, had a huge marketing campaign and somehow people didn't buy it.

And no, I will not believe that people didn't buy it because the post-release support was weak. Simply because you need to buy a thing first in order to care about post-release support and to learn wether it exists or not. And no, the entire gamer population does not visit C&C fan forums and does not know about wether the games are good at post-release or not. Also, up until RA3 TW had a solid post-release support, so it can't be considered an argument in this case.

and some people here need to stop obsessing about 'evolving' the genre or making cnc's more 'realistic' and whatnot

And some poeple need to realise that in order for their beloved game series to continue, it needs to sell, and no matter how much they love the games, their love will not replace money from casual customers. If people do not want to buy something then it means that something is wrong with the product, and it can't be post-release support and wrong shoe on the villains foot in the cover image. Those are only thing that long-time fans care about. And we are not Starcraft fans, we do not come in millions. As RA3 has shown, we are not enough for a game to be even considered a commercial success.

Bitching "DO NOT TOUCH MAH GAMEH JUST TURN UNIT A HP FROM 99 TO 89 AND THE GAME WILL WORK" will not help.

---------------

I would also like to note that the majority of this fan community seems to think adding a bit of realism like a cover system will be a good addition to the series, according to the poll results:

http://www.commandandconquer.com/for...ntry-use-cover

[NastyNick]

You don't need cover or directional armor to have depth in the game.

A simple, well-made, game will provide this depth on its own. For example, the Gattling Tank in Generals had a charge up time before it started shooting full speed. Gatting Tank battles that were head to head (no veterans) were always won by the tank which started shooting first. Pro players adapted by force firing their gattling tanks at the ground in order to speed them up before they engaged each other. It was this tiny bit of design that was certainly not intended, but added significant depth to the game at the highest levels. By adding things like cover and directional armor your just making the barrier for entry even steeper, without gaining much in the end.

COH was too complex IMO. Green, Yellow, Red cover wasn't even accurate. Buildings had materials and certain Yellow cover was better than other Yellow cover. It was ridiculous.

[Borreh]

You don't need cover or directional armor to have depth in the game.

A simple, well-made, game will provide this depth on its own. For example, the Gattling Tank in Generals had a charge up time before it started shooting full speed. Gatting Tank battles that were head to head (no veterans) were always won by the tank which started shooting first. Pro players adapted by force firing their gattling tanks at the ground in order to speed them up before they engaged each other. It was this tiny bit of design that was certainly not intended, but added significant depth to the game at the highest levels. By adding things like cover and directional armor your just making the barrier for entry even steeper, without gaining much in the end.

COH was too complex IMO. Green, Yellow, Red cover wasn't even accurate. Buildings had materials and certain Yellow cover was better than other Yellow cover. It was ridiculous.

If CoH is way too complex and C&C is simple yet brilliant, then why do more poeple enjoy the more complex game?

Besides, that was nothing more than a one-time unimportant gimmick rather than anything that really added depth. Because I also happened to play Generals and the importance of gatling tanks was marginal, besides.. It's just one unit acting different. While I do love the idea of units actualy behaving different rather than having different statistics, I think this is not enough to make a "deep" game. If all you do is collect resources, build and army and send it on enemy, then the gameplay is shallow. That was normal ten years ago, but now is just not enough.

I think you should stop considering people idiots who are overwhelmed by the idea of telling their tank to face the enemy.

[Garbarsardar]

If so, then what about RA3? The game was the best what the "oldschool" C&C gameplay had to offer, had a huge marketing campaign and somehow people didn't buy it.

And no, I will not believe that people didn't buy it because the post-release support was weak. Simply because you need to buy a thing first in order to care about post-release support and to learn wether it exists or not. And no, the entire gamer population does not visit C&C fan forums and does not know about wether the games are good at post-release or not. Also, up until RA3 TW had a solid post-release support, so it can't be considered an argument in this case.

How was RA3 the most "old-school" of the recent C&Cs? On the contrary, it had a bunch of innovations like all the unique unit powers, the entire ground/naval/amphibious dynamic, etc. all that other junk. I can just as easily blame all of that on it not selling well. But funny you'd mention RA3 since it came close on the heels of C&C3, which had already tarnished the brand name with its lack of polish and quality. That and releasing two C&Cs back-to-back probably didn't help matters.

[Borreh]

How was RA3 the most "old-school" of the recent C&Cs? On the contrary, it had a bunch of innovations like all the unique unit powers, the entire ground/naval/amphibious dynamic, etc. all that other junk. I can just as easily blame all of that on it not selling well. But funny you'd mention RA3 since it came close on the heels of C&C3, which had already tarnished the brand name with its lack of polish and quality. That and releasing two C&Cs back-to-back probably didn't help matters.

The game was the best what the "oldschool" C&C gameplay had to offer

not "the most oldschool" but "best of oldschool style". It's a difference.

Hard to say that TW "tarnished" the series since it had the highest scores of all EALA-era C&C (85% at metacritic). Definetly not a lack of polish and quality, at least not yet. If my memory is correct, it sold quite decently, too.

Somehow coming close at the heels of another game can hardly be called brand fatigue since CoD is coming out every year since 4 years at least and yet they menage to earn millions. Especialy given that both TW and RA3 came out around 6 years after the last C&C title. You can talk about "brand fatigue" after 3-4 titles, but not 2.

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

...

you do know there was kw right after tw too... and ra3 just after that, and then uprising immediately after.
if this isnt brand fatigue, what is?

the biggest problem with such back-to-back releases is the the support for the previous title gets completely dropped

tw died soon after its last patch, and so did kw and ra3 -- none of the games were truly fleshed out to their potential... heck, 99% people who played cnc3 literally only ever played 10 games on cnc3 pre-tw1.05, noticed it was all railgun vs laser tank light-shows, and went "ok - this is just a lame, boring, tankspam game"

yet 9 patches an expansion pack later, the remaining folks discover a COMPLETELY different game from what it was pre-tw1.04.
they realise theres a whole lot more shitt to the game than just tankspam battles

infact, kw gameplay is arguably the most strategically diverse cnc of all --- tank battles, infantry, aircraft, harassment, turret pushes... you name it, kw has it.

MORE diverse than gens/zh? oh yes.
MORE diverse than cnc1/ts/ra1/ra2? oh helll yes.

(sure, it was still far from perfect, and still needed tweaks; Epic units dominated/ruined the lategame experience, some units and factions were just useless/underpowered, there were bugs etc - but this is what precisely happens when EA drops support)

yet what is the impression of cnc3 that most people took away with them? "lame, bland, boring tankspam game"



what went wrong? Fact is you only get ONE chance to appeal to the playerbase - and EA just dropped the ball too early.
you arent going to get old players back 1 year later even if you entirely revamp the game head-to-toe....
once theyre done with it, theyre done with it for good and move on - its human psyche.

and people like you who continue branding cnc3 as 'spammy' or a 'failure' are actually living proof of that statement.

Somehow coming close at the heels of another game can hardly be called brand fatigue since CoD is coming out every year since 4 years at least and yet they menage to earn millions. Especialy given that both TW and RA3 came out around 6 years after the last C&C title. You can talk about "brand fatigue" after 3-4 titles, but not 2.

and btw COD is a bloody fps - how are you even comparing it to cnc?

reason COD works is because thats just how fps is -- they have a much higher threshold for brand fatigue than rts.

most people who play fps just want their quick fixes for spraying bullets, blood and frags - you can keep regurgitating that same formula with slight variations and people will keep buying it.

rts on the other hand is 100x more complex - it needs time with each title for people to DISCOVER it.
you have eg 20 units per faction its a hard task to figure out how EVERY possible combination of those units works.

if you release title-after-title you give no time for people to see what the game really offers -- and in the end people only scratch the surface of what is potentially a pretty deep gameplay experience.... its not surprising this sort of approach completely fails.

[Garbarsardar]

not "the most oldschool" but "best of oldschool style". It's a difference.

Hard to say that TW "tarnished" the series since it had the highest scores of all EALA-era C&C (85% at metacritic). Definetly not a lack of polish and quality, at least not yet. If my memory is correct, it sold quite decently, too.

Somehow coming close at the heels of another game can hardly be called brand fatigue since CoD is coming out every year since 4 years at least and yet they menage to earn millions. Especialy given that both TW and RA3 came out around 6 years after the last C&C title. You can talk about "brand fatigue" after 3-4 titles, but not 2.

Then what exactly is "the best of old-school style" that it offered? TW was far more like past C&Cs than RA3.

TW definitely tarnished the name. You'll notice that all C&C games did well up through and even including C&C3, then fell into a sharp decline. If people liked C&C3, they would've gotten RA3. The fact that RA3 didn't sell as well indicates that people weren't satisfied with the previous installment in the franchise. It could easily be brand fatigue too, since all C&C3, KW, RA3 and Uprising were released in the span of 3 years. Remember, they don't have the benefit of being console games to get sales.

[oompah]

Brand fatigue is more relevant with the RTS genre because of the investment to max out your RTS knowledge for a particular game, shooters probably can avoid this problem because FPS releases game is always just a reskinning at heart. Playing an RTS is a real commitment, when you become competent at an RTS and really enjoy it it is asking more to drop it and start on another one.

You have to realize something too the sales numbers of a sequel are usually more indicative of the previous titles quality. RA3 sold only as well as C&C3 did justice to the brand. C&C3 wasn't a great hit for EA and there was little enthusiasm to fork over another $60 two years later yet to boot. RA3 also strayed as far from the original formula as any game to date with maybe the exception of C&C4 - adding naval, a more complex teching and abilities system, less intuitive units than ever before and adding in a complex array or toggle abilities. That fact hurt word of mouth sales so couple the brand fatigue, c&c3 only being a moderate success and no good word of mouth RA3 failed for many reasons none of which was it was too much like Generals.

The above also answers your question why COH may have sold better than C&C4 or RA3. COH was a brand new IP (no fatigue) and a very high quality product and there definitely is a market for a slower paced RTS title with a more "realistic" feature set like directional damage, cover etc...

You dumb down C&C when you describe it as: resource, build, attack. It's a much deeper experience where you must manage your actions per minute very closely. There are many more decisions to be made than in a COH match. Adding some of these other elements would create a mess of a game unless of course you want to kill what made C&C so great - the fast paced action which includes base defense, expanding, resourcing, teching and fighting

wow just read the two posts above me and we were all saying the same things. I declare thread victory...

[P1nkalicious]

wow just read the two posts above me and we were all saying the same things. I declare thread victory...

Lolnope, I'm still here.

C&C does not need a major shift in it's formula. It needs evolutions to the mechanics of the game in order to appeal to the modern playerbase. This modern playerbase enjoy complex, tactical games, and only you, the hardcore fanbase want to retain the simplistic game mechanics of the past. It's time for an evolution. Plus, what's with the act? You're speaking as if the statistic and subtle depth will be lost if cover is introduced. It doesn't have to be! I enjoy these subtle differences that separate the hardcore pros from the newbs and casuals, but the difference is that complex cover and cover mechanic interplay is purposeful depth. A lot of the little things that gave C&C it's greatness were glitches and bugs (some were intentional, like gatt spin up), like Humvees going faster on a diagonal.

Even if C&C is just suffering from brand fatigue, the obvious, sensible way to break this is to ensnare the modern market with mechanics and depth, not give it an accessible, simple shine. Because the modern playerbase loves this stuff. They aren't going "Lol I have to make the tank face this direction. It's too hard!" That's just taking people for idiots. Modern RTS players expect and enjoy depth, and you can't rely on accidental statistic errors to give that depth.

Cover mechanics could always give incredible opportunities for individual units. Like you said, some of the enjoyment in the original generals was the way some units acted differently. Why not have a tank destroyer (yes, I know they went extinct after WWII) that gets camouflage bonuses from cover in addition to having a fixed turret (which could also add depth). Or give infantry the ability to ride on tanks, in exchange for inability to fire and for negative cover.

Hell, we're not asking for absolute realism - the Quad Cannon will still be able to kill a heavy armour tank. We're asking for deep mechanics.

EDIT:

So it's me and Borreh vs. CrazyGDIFan, Oompah and Garbarsardar, hey? FIGHT!

EDIT #2: Where the hell is Agm when you need him?

[Borreh]

So it's me and Borreh vs. CrazyGDIFan, Oompah and Garbarsardar, hey? FIGHT!

I can be very loud when I want to. One angry phone call and Kodaemon will support us, too, even if he doesn't want to.

EDIT #2: Where the hell is Agm when you need him?

Making up new 1337 graphs to objectively demonstrate to us his subjective superiority.

-----

I'll post something more constructive tomorrow, nao sleepytime.