Generals 2 is the Most Desired and Anticipated Game in the Next Year. Wow!

[Parture]

A) A good game is a good game right from the start. A game that doesn't work until you've spent approximately 200 hours is very obviously lacking in its learning curve and accessibility.
B) The development history makes it clear that it wasn't highly developed. They didn't even have a clue what to do with it a month before release.
C) The balance couldn't have been much worse because it was fundamentally a copy game with extremely washed down complexity. There weren't enough permutations to realistically mess up.
D) That's your personal opinion.
E) That's your personal opinion.

Wrong. A good game that breaks the mold will take time to get use to. Of course this takes humility to accept, something you are in short supply of.

Even though not as much time was needed to develop the game, that only speaks to how brilliant the model was which made it even more fun than any other game.

The balance was by far better than any RTS game ever made. You would know this how teams would get locked into hitting back and forth with a wide array and combination of units then slowly one side would break the barrier. I have never experienced that sort of gridlock before in any RTS game before. It was amazing!

What I have said is not personal opinion, since all those who have played C&C 4 over many hours can testify to this fact. Since you lack the experience, your judgment is impaired.

Anyway that's my que to leave as I feel like I am talking to boneheads which is killing too many of my brain cells.

[=LEVIATHEN=]

I felt that countering was a pointless venture, as I felt that the conversation has moved on. I wanted to keep the continuation of that discussion at a minimal, as a closing.

I know that you're going to ridicule me for this, but your reply made so little sense that it is impossible to counter. Good job.

As for the rest... I don't know how we can convince you to change your argument. I don't see how you think you can convince us by repeating yourself, even as we've giving counter arguments.
I know I've said similar before, but this is a hopeless case.

[Golan2781]

Wrong. A good game that breaks the mold will take time to get use to. Of course this takes humility to accept, something you are in short supply of.

Even though not as much time was needed to develop the game, that only speaks to how brilliant the model was which made it even more fun than any other game.

The balance was by far better than any RTS game ever made. You would know this how teams would get locked into hitting back and forth with a wide array and combination of units then slowly one side would break the barrier. I have never experienced that sort of gridlock before in any RTS game before. It was amazing!

What I have said is not personal opinion, since all those who have played C&C 4 over many hours can testify to this fact. Since you lack the experience, your judgment is impaired.

Anyway that's my que to leave as I feel like I am talking to boneheads which is killing too many of my brain cells.

I'm not the one throwing big phrases at other people. I seriously doubt I'm lacking in humilty in this discussion, seeing how much time I have spent reflecting and actually addressing your points instead of brushing them of as you repeatedly do.

Yes, a good game breaking the mold will have this effect. So will a bad game breaking the mold. The effect is a meaningless feature for assessing quality, other then quality in accessibility and learning curve - which an all-round good game requires and C&C4, according to your own account, doesn't deliver.

If you've never experienced this before, I suggest you play more strategy games. Or MOBA games.
Again, it's not surprising they got good balance - the game is so simple that it would be a challenge not to.

As described earlier, your vague group of fellow C&C4 players isn't much of a neutral authority. Of course, what you could logically argue with is numbers, the problem is that C&C4's numbers are awfully small.

[Adisuki]

I hope Generals 2 is RTT and very limited base building since it slows the game down and uses up too much space.

It's Generals 2, not Generals: The RTT. Generals was always imagined as a classical RTS, not an RTT. If you want RTT you should find your satisfaction somewhere else. I don't even understand the urge that Generals 2 is an RTT. It's like wanting Call of Duty to be a TPS stealth game.

[Parture]

The fact remains all the C&C 4 players I played with and against in 5v5 multiplayer who played as much as I did or even half as much I did all agreed they would prefer to never go back to base building because it slows the game down, clutters up too much space and takes away from the action and enjoyment of the game. It also makes the game unecessarily longer than it needs to be. Basically, stationary units that you can't take to the battle are boring!

Now I too felt the same way you do now when I played as few games as you have, but unlike you, I fought through to playing enough games to finally appreciate what a brilliant game C&C 4 was and still is the best RTS/RTT game ever made. It was like an epiphany once you cross that barrier of resistance you still suffer under.

Don't be offended by this, just realize the reason you can't appreciate what I am saying is because you lack the necessary information acquired upon playing enough games to discern the truth. You were unwilling to humbly sacrifice your time to play enough games to realize the approach C&C 4 took was far superior than previous models, so naturally it took some time to get use to. You were just not willing to put in the time and develop the experience needed to make an educated decision. Self always resists change and trying new things. Perhaps do so now before Generals 2 comes out, because I am sure they will try to incorporate much of what made C&C 4 so successful into Generals 2.

[Victimizer]

Base building is supposed to slow down the game. The pre-battle base construction phase allows for initial infantry skirmish and scouting.

As for bases cluttering the map: this is true at times, but it is not a problem inherent to base construction. Rather, it is a problem in that base expansion is too fast and maps are too small.

[Parture]

Base building is supposed to slow down the game. The pre-battle base construction phase allows for initial infantry skirmish and scouting.

As for bases cluttering the map: this is true at times, but it is not a problem inherent to base construction. Rather, it is a problem in that base expansion is too fast and maps are too small.

It's nice to see someone with a little more knowledge and experience agrees.

[Harrrr]

It's nice to see someone with a little more knowledge and experience agrees.

Yet he's not entirely agreeing with you.

It's obvious that base-building slows down the game as it is the definitive way to pace the game. You think that's not necessary, but I disagree. You are entitled to like RTT games, but the simple fact remains that Generals 2 WILL be an RTS game, in which Bioware Victory has already stated that base-building will be a part of the game in a major fashion as with resource gathering. No editing of Wikipedia will change that no matter how much you personally hate it.

[Victimizer]

I never agreed to anything in your post. CnC4 is awful in almost every possible way. The action is mindless, repetitive and bland. EVERYTHING from bases to units are incredibly badly designed and look awful. Base building is a part of CnC, but in the latest iterations it was somewhat out of balance because base expansion was too fast. This is not a reason to abandon base building, but to readjust it.

And CnC 4 was not a success by any measure.

[Parture]

You did agree with me entirely because I entirely agree with what you said.

Let's hope and pray Generals 2 will have the same RTT elements that made it so successful of little or no base building. Just because you think C&C 4 was not great though, doesn't mean you didn't agree with me in what you had said. I agreed totally with what you said in post #76.

As to the other matter you just raised now, I couldn't disagree more. C&C 4 was intelligent, strategic and dynamic. The battles were intense. I thought the design of the units was superb. Base building is not part of the new C&C genre that broke the mold. The reason EA went this way is because it was badly needed! I thought base building was always too slow in all its forms. Hence the need for no base building at all. C&C 4 was such a success it was in the top of the charts for many weeks if you recall.

It sounds like you suffer though from the same problem inexperienced players suffered by not getting into it to get over the hump. I understand because I felt the same way before I put in enough games. I almost quit many times because of your apparent issues. Fortunately they were only apparent and not real.