EA Cancels Command & Conquer

[PGHammer]

Let's be realistic here, the last traditional C&C game was C&C4: Tiberian Twilight and it received very poor ratings from reviewers and users alike. That was followed up by the free-to-play C&C: Alliances, which was also widely criticised and poorly received. The series has been circling the drain for a while now. As for appealing to fans, there were only two main themes: Original and Red Alert. Generals should have never been released under the C&C name - it's not that it was a bad game, it's just that it didn't have any connection to the main franchise and was incredibly generic thematically.

 

EA's problem is that it keeps giving major franchises to nobody developers, which we've seen with C&C4, C&C 2013, Syndicate and Medal Of Honor. Top-tier franchises need top-tier developers to remain credible. Heck, with C&C 2013 EA couldn't even commit to a theme, as it was originally going to be General 2 and then they backtracked on that. For what it's worth the gameplay footage looked better than I was expecting but it didn't do anything new - it didn't have the magic that first drew me to the franchise.

 

At the end of the day all C&C fans want is a decent RTS game, which this wasn't shaping up to be. The move to F2P and the scrapping of single-player were all fans needed to know to avoid it.

The critics of C&C 4 were all over one thing it lacked - traditional base-building.  (Not that you couldn't build a base, because you certainly could - but the traditional "generalist" base-building of the Tiberium franchise was not there.  It was that specialization; in a way, C&C 4 had too much depth to satisfy the fans.)

 

The plan for THIS C&C was that it would be a lot like Generals (or even Zero Hour) crossed with RA3 (that is what I was seeing via the various news drops).  A single-player mode was planned; however, they said from the beginning that it would NOT be available at launch.

 

Commit to a theme?  That was part of the problem that would face ANY developer for the franchise - look at Generals or Red Alert or Tiberium.  Except for 4, all have been successful (and I pointed out the reason 4 got whacked) - how DO you satisfy ALL the fans in terms of a theme?  It's not a problem faced by C&C alone - it's a problem that every franchise faces;  look at how much heat that Battlefield 4 has faced, and that's without a change in either developer or publisher.

 

What developer (other than DICE) could do a C&C game justice?  Still, if you give it to DICE, do you risk focus on BF5 being hampered?

 

C&C Alliances is still around - I'd been playing it while this game was in development.

 

The fanbase isn't clear on what IT wants from a future C&C game, either - look at just the mod community.  I've seen Generals-based mods, and RA-based mods, and even Tiberium-based mods - they are no more clear than EA. (That's why I'm unsurprised over the squabbling.)

[HawkMan]

It had no single player (it was dropped in favour of multi player when it went F2P), it's was a multi player only title. However, back when it was Generals 2 and being developed by BioWare, it DID have a single player campaign. The only thing Victory promised was it wouldn't be "pay to win". I wasn't that bothered it was Generals (loved the first one) although I would of loved another C&C based in the Tiberium Dawn universe (I'd been happy if they had just pretended C&C4 didn't happen and released a true sequel to C&C3). That is my 2 cents anyway...

 

No they initially announced they dropped single player. then they later announced it would have a full single player campaign as well. 

[Torolol]

EA just loves trying to kill Single Player mode don't they?

[theyarecomingforyou]

The critics of C&C 4 were all over one thing it lacked - traditional base-building.  (Not that you couldn't build a base, because you certainly could - but the traditional "generalist" base-building of the Tiberium franchise was not there.  It was that specialization; in a way, C&C 4 had too much depth to satisfy the fans.)

C&C4 didn't fail because it had too much depth, it failed because it threw out all the traditional gameplay mechanics that defined the franchise - resource collection, base-building, large armies, etc. That's not a problem if it's a compelling new direction for the franchise but it just wasn't that. Too much focus was placed on multiplayer and the singleplayer was short and rushed. This review highlights a lot of that. It also had weak graphics, poor animations (units would often overlap) and went backwards in terms of the cinematics. It wasn't what fans wanted, as evidenced by the brutal user score on Metacritic.

 

The plan for THIS C&C was that it would be a lot like Generals (or even Zero Hour) crossed with RA3 (that is what I was seeing via the various news drops).  A single-player mode was planned; however, they said from the beginning that it would NOT be available at launch.

C&C has traditionally always been a singleplayer game, which makes it all the more bizarre to focus on multiplayer. That's especially true when it moves into unfamiliar territory with regards to setting. There's little point using the C&C name if you're not going to use anything recognisable from the franchise. Adding singleplayer after the launch all but guarantees it won't be anywhere close to the quality of a traditional singleplayer game.

 

Commit to a theme?  That was part of the problem that would face ANY developer for the franchise - look at Generals or Red Alert or Tiberium.  Except for 4, all have been successful (and I pointed out the reason 4 got whacked) - how DO you satisfy ALL the fans in terms of a theme?

By that I mean it started out as Generals 2 and then they flip-flopped, same with the commitment to singleplayer. Fans just couldn't keep up with it. Further, to make it F2P again flies in the face of franchise tradition. There just wasn't anything for fans to get excited about and I say that as somebody that supported the franchise from the original game. Age Of Empires faced a similar thing with the decision to go F2P, which fundamentally altered the gameplay that everybody knew and loved.

 

What developer (other than DICE) could do a C&C game justice?  Still, if you give it to DICE, do you risk focus on BF5 being hampered?

I didn't suggest that but take a look at the guy in charge of Victory Games - he's a nobody. He has no experience with the genre and ran his previous company 3DO into bankruptcy. Victory Games just wasn't a credible developer to have in charge of the franchise and I'm not surprised that EA decided to shutter it altogether.

[HawkMan]

C&C traditionally single player ? 

 

seriously ? it was the games we went to friends houses with our big 90's desktops and laplink and eventually coax network cable to play. 

 

I miss the original C&C multiplayer, RTS game with Capture the flag multiplayer, it had multiplayer modes NO modern RTS has, and hasn't had for ages. Rushing a base with a jeep an stealing the flag was awesome when he was preparing a major assault :)

 

and the game was still Generals 2, it wasn't in the name, but it certainly wasn't regular C&C, it still had the ###### Generals, concept, the ###### generals, design, the ###### Generals style. and the "not multiplayer" lasted for a day or so at most, before they announced it was a faulty announcement or misinterpretation along with the F2P announcement. hardly something to get confused over. 

[PGHammer]

C&C4 didn't fail because it had too much depth, it failed because it threw out all the traditional gameplay mechanics that defined the franchise - resource collection, base-building, large armies, etc. That's not a problem if it's a compelling new direction for the franchise but it just wasn't that. Too much focus was placed on multiplayer and the singleplayer was short and rushed. This review highlights a lot of that. It also had weak graphics, poor animations (units would often overlap) and went backwards in terms of the cinematics. It wasn't what fans wanted, as evidenced by the brutal user score on Metacritic.

 

 

C&C has traditionally always been a singleplayer game, which makes it all the more bizarre to focus on multiplayer. That's especially true when it moves into unfamiliar territory with regards to setting. There's little point using the C&C name if you're not going to use anything recognisable from the franchise. Adding singleplayer after the launch all but guarantees it won't be anywhere close to the quality of a traditional singleplayer game.

 

 

By that I mean it started out as Generals 2 and then they flip-flopped, same with the commitment to singleplayer. Fans just couldn't keep up with it. Further, to make it F2P again flies in the face of franchise tradition. There just wasn't anything for fans to get excited about and I say that as somebody that supported the franchise from the original game. Age Of Empires faced a similar thing with the decision to go F2P, which fundamentally altered the gameplay that everybody knew and loved.

 

 

I didn't suggest that but take a look at the guy in charge of Victory Games - he's a nobody. He has no experience with the genre and ran his previous company 3DO into bankruptcy. Victory Games just wasn't a credible developer to have in charge of the franchise and I'm not surprised that EA decided to shutter it altogether.

 

Sounds like you really wanted "improved old" - not new.  Again, that's a problem in ANY franchise - it was an issue even in Battlefield 4's development; how do you move forward without horking off your fanbase?

 

Also, C&C has traditionally been campaign (skirmish) focussed - however, Generals added multiplayer (LAN multiplayer of the same school as the original Starcraft) - it never got rid of that (it even kept LAN multiplayer after WoL dropped it) - how many games have LAN multiplayer today?

 

I did NOT disagree of your assessment of Victory Games - I happen to agree with it.  However, would any A-list developer that EA has - other than DICE - be good enough?  

 

Further, look at the likely price if it were a "traditional" game - around $60USD.  (Examples - Battlefield 4 or even Simcity Limited.)  It's still early enough where you can do so, and have it release by 2014 (better yet, 2015).  Would players be able to afford it?

 

Tradition is all well and good - however, how do you prevent it from becoming an albatross (or worse, a boat anchor) around your neck?

[Torolol]

new is not always for the better though

 

for example, the old C&C have good story for its campaign, but the new one?

[BoDEAN]

C&C was a great franchise til the last few games

[theyarecomingforyou]

Sounds like you really wanted "improved old" - not new.  Again, that's a problem in ANY franchise - it was an issue even in Battlefield 4's development; how do you move forward without horking off your fanbase?

Not necessarily. For instance, I thought W40K: Dawn Of War II was much better than the original even though it dramatically reduced the emphasis on base building, introduced smaller unit caps and focused on the progression of individual units. It wasn't a traditional RTS game at all yet I really enjoyed it. But if a game is going to make such radical changes it has to do them well.

 

I did NOT disagree of your assessment of Victory Games - I happen to agree with it.  However, would any A-list developer that EA has - other than DICE - be good enough?

EA regularly buys up developers and hires people from competing studios, so there's no reason for a franchise like C&C to be given to relative nobodies. DICE wouldn't even be my first choice, as their experience is obviously with first person shooters. Bioware would be a better fit, as they could leverage their experience with RPG elements to take the franchise in new directions.

 

Further, look at the likely price if it were a "traditional" game - around $60USD.  (Examples - Battlefield 4 or even Simcity Limited.)  It's still early enough where you can do so, and have it release by 2014 (better yet, 2015).  Would players be able to afford it?

Don't forget that many F2P games end up more expensive than regular games - you only have to look at Age Of Empires Online to see that. It also fundamentally alters the gameplay. Traditional games might start out more expensive but digital distribution leads to substantial sales relatively quickly and DLC?if it's done right?is a decent way to supplement revenues and support continued development. I would much rather pay for a decent game than get a half-baked one for free. In fact there are very few F2P games I actually play, with the notable exceptions being TF2 and Dota 2.

 

Tradition is all well and good - however, how do you prevent it from becoming an albatross (or worse, a boat anchor) around your neck?

As I said, putting the franchise in the hands of decent developers would be a start. Then picking a consistent theme, respecting the franchise tradition and giving it proper funding would be the obvious way to continue that. Most games go F2P because they don't have the budget to be released as standalone games.

 

C&C 2013 just wasn't the game the franchise needed.

[Eric Veteran]

That is the best graphic ever considering it's a load of crap.

 

I know, they left BioWare off of it... :P

[Osiris]

C&C4 didn't fail because it had too much depth, it failed because it threw out all the traditional gameplay mechanics that defined the franchise - resource collection, base-building, large armies, etc. That's not a problem if it's a compelling new direction for the franchise but it just wasn't that. Too much focus was placed on multiplayer and the singleplayer was short and rushed. This review highlights a lot of that. It also had weak graphics, poor animations (units would often overlap) and went backwards in terms of the cinematics. It wasn't what fans wanted, as evidenced by the brutal user score on Metacritic.

 

 

C&C has traditionally always been a singleplayer game, which makes it all the more bizarre to focus on multiplayer. That's especially true when it moves into unfamiliar territory with regards to setting. There's little point using the C&C name if you're not going to use anything recognisable from the franchise. Adding singleplayer after the launch all but guarantees it won't be anywhere close to the quality of a traditional singleplayer game.

 

 

By that I mean it started out as Generals 2 and then they flip-flopped, same with the commitment to singleplayer. Fans just couldn't keep up with it. Further, to make it F2P again flies in the face of franchise tradition. There just wasn't anything for fans to get excited about and I say that as somebody that supported the franchise from the original game. Age Of Empires faced a similar thing with the decision to go F2P, which fundamentally altered the gameplay that everybody knew and loved.

 

 

I didn't suggest that but take a look at the guy in charge of Victory Games - he's a nobody. He has no experience with the genre and ran his previous company 3DO into bankruptcy. Victory Games just wasn't a credible developer to have in charge of the franchise and I'm not surprised that EA decided to shutter it altogether.

 

Spot on with all of the above

[HawkMan]

Spot on with all of the above

 

Except all the points that are wrong, like C&C always being single player

[PGHammer]

Not necessarily. For instance, I thought W40K: Dawn Of War II was much better than the original even though it dramatically reduced the emphasis on base building, introduced smaller unit caps and focused on the progression of individual units. It wasn't a traditional RTS game at all yet I really enjoyed it. But if a game is going to make such radical changes it has to do them well.

 

 

EA regularly buys up developers and hires people from competing studios, so there's no reason for a franchise like C&C to be given to relative nobodies. DICE wouldn't even be my first choice, as their experience is obviously with first person shooters. Bioware would be a better fit, as they could leverage their experience with RPG elements to take the franchise in new directions.

 

 

Don't forget that many F2P games end up more expensive than regular games - you only have to look at Age Of Empires Online to see that. It also fundamentally alters the gameplay. Traditional games might start out more expensive but digital distribution leads to substantial sales relatively quickly and DLC?if it's done right?is a decent way to supplement revenues and support continued development. I would much rather pay for a decent game than get a half-baked one for free. In fact there are very few F2P games I actually play, with the notable exceptions being TF2 and Dota 2.

 

 

As I said, putting the franchise in the hands of decent developers would be a start. Then picking a consistent theme, respecting the franchise tradition and giving it proper funding would be the obvious way to continue that. Most games go F2P because they don't have the budget to be released as standalone games.

 

C&C 2013 just wasn't the game the franchise needed.

I'm saying that there are few decent RTS developers - period.  (That is in or outside of EA.)

 

Take a look at the genre as a whole - you have (other than EA) Blizzard, Stardock, and who else?

 

Bioware itself has become an RPG developer.  The same has even become true of Firaxis (outside of the Civilization series); if Firaxis were to do another non-Civ RTS, they would be better off doing a sequel to their own Alpha Centauri/Alien Crossfire, as opposed to C&C.

 

If anything, a sequel to RA3 would make better sense as far as a theme goes - however, you'd need a different set of actors to properly chew the upholstery.  (And finding actors mere as good as the LAST grouping - RA3's George Takei and Ric Flair among them - will be FAR from easy.)

[spaceelf]

Take a look at the genre as a whole - you have (other than EA) Blizzard, Stardock, and who else?

Stardock is a turn based strategy developer, at the moment.  They only published Sins.

 

It's pretty much Blizzard, Ironclad, Relic, and Creative Assembly now and I can't stand any of them :(

[theyarecomingforyou]

I'm saying that there are few decent RTS developers - period.  (That is in or outside of EA.)

 

Take a look at the genre as a whole - you have (other than EA) Blizzard, Stardock, and who else?

I agree, but I'd like to see a studio helmed by somebody with a modicum of experience in the genre or at least responsible for some top-rated games. If they're going to go with somebody with such a poor background then they should have at least worked on the franchise before.

 

Bioware itself has become an RPG developer.  The same has even become true of Firaxis (outside of the Civilization series); if Firaxis were to do another non-Civ RTS, they would be better off doing a sequel to their own Alpha Centauri/Alien Crossfire, as opposed to C&C.

I only listed Bioware because they're at least a credible developer. Firaxis is a great developer but they don't have any experience with real-time games.

 

If anything, a sequel to RA3 would make better sense as far as a theme goes - however, you'd need a different set of actors to properly chew the upholstery.  (And finding actors mere as good as the LAST grouping - RA3's George Takei and Ric Flair among them - will be FAR from easy.)

Red Alert was probably the strongest theme, as the setting was surprisingly compelling. There's no need for big-name actors either, though if they are affordable then they can certainly help to sell the game. 

 

It's better to cancel a below-average game now than to further tarnish the brand. There will be plenty of opportunities to revive the brand further down the line. I just hope that EA will give any future product the time, money and expertise needed to make it a success.

[spaceelf]

and I can't stand any of them :(

though Ironclad does have potential, I'm not entirely dismissive of their work

[HawkMan]

 

Take a look at the genre as a whole - you have (other than EA) Blizzard, Stardock, and who else?

 

 

The one that's better than all of those together, GPG. to bad he keeps making mediocre rpg's inbetween classic RTS games, and got bought up by Square. 

[spaceelf]

The one that's better than all of those together, GPG. to bad he keeps making mediocre rpg's inbetween classic RTS games, and got bought up by Square. 

They weren't bought up by anyone.  As far as I know they're pretty much dead.  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_Powered_Games

 

IMO they kept making mediocre RTSes in the middle of some interesting RPGs :p

[ShadowMajestic]

They weren't bought up by anyone.  As far as I know they're pretty much dead.  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_Powered_Games

 

IMO they kept making mediocre RTSes in the middle of some interesting RPGs :p

You must not have played Supreme Commander then. 2 was a bit different, but 1 was absolutely awesome (ignoring the engine limitations and gigantic ram usage)

[spaceelf]

You must not have played Supreme Commander then. 2 was a bit different, but 1 was absolutely awesome (ignoring the engine limitations and gigantic ram usage)

I've played and own them both.  1 was alright, but forgettable.  2 was just forgettable.

[HawkMan]

There's no game that compares to the massive scale of SupCom, except Total Annihilation. but it's getting very old and SupCom is all it was and more. 

 

you keep playing your tiny little Real Time Tactical games, SupCom is the only true rtS game ;)

[ShadowMajestic]

There's no game that compares to the massive scale of SupCom, except Total Annihilation. but it's getting very old and SupCom is all it was and more. 

 

you keep playing your tiny little Real Time Tactical games, SupCom is the only true rtS game ;)

Those that made Total Annihilation also worked on SupCom. (edit: and last I heard, were working on a new RTS again, if it wasn't canceled yet in the GPG buyout :()

 

And there is no other RTS better then SupCom since the times of RA2 and WC3.

 

Some might not have enjoyed the futuristic side of it, but the as you mention, the massive scale of thousands of units moving across the map....the strategic mind was well satisfied. Oh and the dual monitor addition.... priceless, a welcome addition to the genre, having a whole monitor to act as your map <3

[Osiris]

Except all the points that are wrong, like C&C always being single player

 

Or you could accept that C&C was one of the first in the RTS genre to offer a compelling single player storyline backed up by a lot of FMVs to engage the player.

 

Any C&C fan would remember seeing Kane come in about mission 3/4 and shoot Seth.  Or taking the ion cannon to landmarks at the end etc (yeah I like the baddies :p)

 

If you had a great time with it as multiplayer, cool beans bro but C&C set the standard for a great single player RTS experience that had a bumpy ride ever since WWS was canned but hit rock bottom in C&C4 with poor storytelling combined with throwing out one of the fundamental mechanics of the series and replacing it with a subpar change for the sake of change approach.

 

To some extent I would have rather had seen a buggy ass Generals 2 than none at all.  There is a severe dearth of RTS games at the moment.  Its interesting how the games industry goes through phases.  In any case we are a long way away from the late 90's - early 2000s where you actively had C&C, Red Alert, StarCraft, Dune2000/emperor, Dark Reign, TA etc

[AJerman]

I didn't play all of them, but I really enjoyed RA and RA2. Everyone I know played RA2 almost exclusively online. The story was quite frankly a little weak, but what game from that time frame wasn't? That was part of the fun I suppose.

[Gaffney]

I really enjoyed Command & Conquer - Generals but it's the only one I've liked and for one simple reason. It was a modern day RTS; you know the factions, you know the units and you know the environments. To make a futuristic or historic game good, you have to put a lot of effort into making the whole world feel, real.