Command & Conquer 4 "Open" Beta

[LingeringSoul]

Whoa, this game came out already? There was pretty much no hype for it whatsoever. Nice to see that EA has faith in their project, but then again, maybe it's better not to waste advertising dollars on something that is destined to be a failure and an insult to a once great franchise.

From Gamespy's review:

All of the mission design problems are exacerbated by C&C4's worst misstep: The vast majority of the units are locked to you from the game's start, even in skirmish mode. You have to play through many, many missions (multiplayer and/or single-player) in order to rank up and unlock the cooler units, upgrades, and support powers... and that's per faction.

That's just ridiculous. Unlocks are one thing in an FPS game, but in an RTS? It's almost as if they want the game to fail in competitive circles.

Read the rest of the review here: http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/command-conquer-4/1077918p2.html

[PGHammer]

But C&C is about base building. It's like playing DoTA without heroes.

Your post is the one I chose to quote (after reading them all) because it sums up the general one of the criticism I've heard in the thread.

"I want the OLD hardcore game style, but with much better graphics."

So far, I have heard that criticism for *every* game that has followed another in a series (even Starcraft II has come in for it's share of whacking, and it actually changed the LEAST).

First, it was NFS: Shift (here, I was actually one of the critics; my complaint is that it veered WAY too much toward the "sim" end of things).

Then, it was Starcraft II (which dropped LAN play; other than that, and some new units/changes to old units, the core game has changed little).

Next it was Supreme Commander 2 (which did NOT cause the massive strain on either CPU or GPU that the original SupCom did or have the onerous learning curve that both SupCom and Forged Alliance did).

Now, it's C&C 4's turn in the blast furnace.

SSS (Selfish Shellfish Syndrome) is not attractive in anything (it's not directed at you per se, but at all the ragers over changes, treating ANY change like it was Evil Incarnate).

[Lovell]

Your post is the one I chose to quote (after reading them all) because it sums up the general one of the criticism I've heard in the thread.

"I want the OLD hardcore game style, but with much better graphics."

So far, I have heard that criticism for *every* game that has followed another in a series (even Starcraft II has come in for it's share of whacking, and it actually changed the LEAST).

First, it was NFS: Shift (here, I was actually one of the critics; my complaint is that it veered WAY too much toward the "sim" end of things).

Then, it was Starcraft II (which dropped LAN play; other than that, and some new units/changes to old units, the core game has changed little).

Next it was Supreme Commander 2 (which did NOT cause the massive strain on either CPU or GPU that the original SupCom did or have the onerous learning curve that both SupCom and Forged Alliance did).

Now, it's C&C 4's turn in the blast furnace.

SSS (Selfish Shellfish Syndrome) is not attractive in anything (it's not directed at you per se, but at all the ragers over changes, treating ANY change like it was Evil Incarnate).

Have you even played the game? or did you just want a reason to post a **** rant?

[CentralDogma]

Wow none of the reviews have much to say about the single player except it was limp, too short, not engaging and Kane didnt get a fitting ending :( since I have no interest in MP I guess ill have to wait till this hits the cheap bin before I can play it to see how it all ends.

Good luck waiting. C&C 3 is still $30 on Steam.

[Rob2687]

The MP experience in the beta totally turned me off this game.

[murkurie]

wait, so it did come out already. I wish it was more old CnC style, this new one isn't that fun, I didn't like the beta which was a let down. they wont be getting my 50$

[Raa]

It's been out for a couple of days. I preordered it and picked it up yesterday.

Played it for 3 hours, and I doubt i'll be playing it again. It's absolute rubbish.

[bluewind.]

Not even going to attempt to run this on my 4 year old laptop. But I did install Tiberian Sun which is now a free download. Brought back memories.

[Emn1ty]

I knew C&C was dead the moment I played Generals.

[PGHammer]

Have you even played the game? or did you just want a reason to post a **** rant?

I have played the game (and own several previous C&C titles).

My rant, as you call it, is over the criticism of *any* game (not just C&C) for daring to do things even the least bit different.

[Sirtuin]

I didn't like open beta but Tiberian Sun and C&C3 were also quite big let downs for me. I just wish EA would license Relic's Essence engine (used in Company of Heroes) for their next C&C game.

[Emn1ty]

I have played the game (and own several previous C&C titles).

My rant, as you call it, is over the criticism of *any* game (not just C&C) for daring to do things even the least bit different.

But that's the challenge isn't it? Being different while not completely alienating your current fans. Halo does this pretty well, Half Life did it very well, SupCom 2 failed miserably (although the first was a worthy successor to TA). It all comes down to balancing out new features and old mechanics. Most of C&C's core was destroyed when Generals was released. It lost most of its pace and turned into a slow paced game. They lost the traditional elements of the game and pushed too far forward on the tech. RTS is the one genre that doesn't need stunning visuals to be great. Just good gameplay and unit balance. I would have taken amazing gameplay over a rotating camera. Honestly I really enjoyed the fact that I didn't need to worry about camera control in RA2, but when Generals came I was irritated with controlling the rotation all the time.

It really is about determining what is and is not going to be missed in the game, and with C&C4 it seems they got that horribly wrong.

[Osiris]

Now, it's C&C 4's turn in the blast furnace.

SSS (Selfish Shellfish Syndrome) is not attractive in anything (it's not directed at you per se, but at all the ragers over changes, treating ANY change like it was Evil Incarnate).

Myabe its because CnC had 14 odd years of using the right formula, now they didnt just make a change, they threw the whole recipe out the window. I use flour, and choc chip pieces (amongst other ingredients, s/r flour, butter, sugar etc) in my home made cookies. Now using M&M's instead of choc chips = a welcome change....using kitty litter instead of flour...you get the point.

[rajputwarrior]

sad to hear such bad things about the game, i loved the 3rd one

[PGHammer]

Myabe its because CnC had 14 odd years of using the right formula, now they didnt just make a change, they threw the whole recipe out the window. I use flour, and choc chip pieces (amongst other ingredients, s/r flour, butter, sugar etc) in my home made cookies. Now using M&M's instead of choc chips = a welcome change....using kitty litter instead of flour...you get the point.

There have been *several* missions in all the C&C cycles (going back to even the very first C&C!) that required no base-building. So that's not it.

Maybe what folks are *really* steamed about (which is new for C&C) is an actual hard unit cap (as opposed to a cap that can be finessed, if not outright evaded, with judicious upgrades).

The hard-unit cap is, in my humble opinion, extremely overdue, and extremely welcome.

Why overdue? One trend I have noticed with RTS gaming in general (and especially RTS gaming with abundant economic resources) is a tendency for them to devolve into spamfests. While economic capping is the standard way of dealing with the issue, a game with rich economic resources will, by that mechanism alone, render economic capping useless. (Even certain scenarios in Stardock's "Sins of a Solar Empire" and GalCiv2 cycle walk into that trap.)

C&C 4 has NO economy to speak of. (Tiberium collection isn't economic, but for upgrades and technology unlocks.) So how do you avoid campaign missions (or worse, online multiplayer) from devolving into spamfests? You attack it head-on with a hard unit cap. (At best, you can engineer-spam in certain situations; however, that is actually *necessary* for certain missions; and you still have that overall cap to sweat.)

Why is it welcome? Spamfests are (in my humble opinion) a pain in RTS gaming in general, and especially online RTS gaming. Yet for all the hue and cry over it, when a developer actually addresses it (either with economic caps or the more-draconian unit cap), you might as well have unleashed a demonic horde. Three cheers for EA for resisting the temptation to not address the issue of spamming in RTS gaming.

Lastly, consider the entire premise behind this point in the alternate history as laid out - as useful in the short term as tiberium is, in the longer term, it will destroy the planet. Period. Full stop. (This is actually *backstory*, as this point was made quite succintly in the beginning of C&C 3, as a report by a GDI research team; in fact, the same team that discovered the effective uses for each type of tiberium.) What's interesting here is that Kane is also well aware of it. The other interesting fact (which should be news to nobody) is that *doing something about it* will undoubtedly hork folks off. On both sides. (Short-term thinking vs. longer-term thinking.) Due to population constraints, neither side can afford to build the large bases that it would take to finally settle things once and for all. The end result of that are small expeditionary forces. (Again, backstory. Most of this was not news in even Tiberium Sun, let alone C&C 3.) In short, the entire Tiberium Cycle led to this series of events coming to happen. (The entire problem WITH tiberium was that it couldn't be harvested fast enough. Worse, failure to do so invariably leads to areas where it's found being written off. The planet has a FINITE surface area, and a finite population base. In short, the problem has to be attacked - now! The problem is that the problem is almost bigger than GDI and NOD combined (which is why Kane came to GDI in the first place).)

[Emn1ty]

I don't think unit caps have anything to do with it. All recent C&C games since Generals have had a distinctly different feel and playstyle to them. And for some reason, they always feel like they are in slow motion.

[PGHammer]

I don't think unit caps have anything to do with it. All recent C&C games since Generals have had a distinctly different feel and playstyle to them. And for some reason, they always feel like they are in slow motion.

The same game engine has been used for Generals and every C&C game since (SAGE) and, quite honestly, SAGE is showing its age (it was bad enough with RA3). However, SAGE isn't the only reason for things moving slow. Any game that requires (or suggests) base-building on any decent scale needs *time* to build the bare infrastructure (it's largely why most previous C&C games had economic caps - to buy the necessary time and avoid early spam/rushfests).

[Green_Eye]

It's funny Emn1ty this may be the first time we disagree on games but I think the pacing and unit balance was very good in both Generals and Zero Hour and started going downhill since then. RA2 and Yuri's Revenge remain my favorite of the series still but Generals and Zero Hour are very close behind.

Things didn't slow down it all depended on what faction you played as. China being the slowest, USA the medium and GLA the fastest. China was supposed to be brute strength, USA the happy medium and GLA the hit and run opposite of China. I thought the game in that manner balanced itself out for any play style (Y)

[Argi]

For what it's worth, C&C General is the only game I've ever seen lose sync on a LAN. I read that the netcode was re-written for C&C4 but heck, I couldn't even get into one matchmaking game during the beta so I have no idea whatsoever. At this stage I don't know if I'll ever play it since I really wanted to try out the new style of gameplay before forking out the money for it.

[Emn1ty]

It's funny Emn1ty this may be the first time we disagree on games but I think the pacing and unit balance was very good in both Generals and Zero Hour and started going downhill since then. RA2 and Yuri's Revenge remain my favorite of the series still but Generals and Zero Hour are very close behind.

I'm not saying it was bad, but it really wasn't very C&C like. It was much slower and far different in the way it played. Generals was understandably a new arm for the C&C titles, but it still seemed a tad off. I honestly feel that C&C could have continued with just refining gameplay mechanics and only slightly improving visuals. I prefer a smoother game with more detail and care put into it over huge graphical prettiness (which is why I really hate most 3D RTS's). Only two RTS's make up for 3D environments, and that is RUSE and SupCom. All others seem chunky and cartoonish. I just never liked full 3D graphical representation of units.

[Green_Eye]

I'm not saying it was bad, but it really wasn't very C&C like. It was much slower and far different in the way it played. Generals was understandably a new arm for the C&C titles, but it still seemed a tad off. I honestly feel that C&C could have continued with just refining gameplay mechanics and only slightly improving visuals. I prefer a smoother game with more detail and care put into it over huge graphical prettiness (which is why I really hate most 3D RTS's). Only two RTS's make up for 3D environments, and that is RUSE and SupCom. All others seem chunky and cartoonish. I just never liked full 3D graphical representation of units.

I too was disappointed that they did not make a new RA immediately after Yuri's Revenge and that when RA3 came out it was complete garbage. However I think that Generals can be added to that list of exceptions where 3D does not take much away from the experience (Y)

[~WinGz~]

For the first time since Command and Conquer came out I was just disappointed as much as any CnC fan could ever be.

I borrowed the game from my friend who forewarned me it was bad.

My god It's not even CnC anymore.

The micromanagement was what made the game good to me, and I stomached RA3 and its Unit Cap, but after this atrocity

I can no longer support the CnC franchise if this is how all their games are be going from now on.

[Osiris]

Yep im a big CnC fan so much so I could tolerate the new gameplay because I loved the whole unfolding story and FMVs but even those were complete ****, out the window. Seriously did any long term fan even write or work on the storyline to finish off this great series or was it all just ad-hoc after they'd pillaged WiC and DoWs gameplay. They shouldnt have even wasted their time with a SP campaign it was that **** weak, should have called this CNC: Multiplayer and be done with it.

Any big fan is likely going to buy this anyway, but hede the warnings in this thread, youll just be disappointed, consider CNC3:KW to be the final - youll be doing yourself a favour.

[PGHammer]

Yep im a big CnC fan so much so I could tolerate the new gameplay because I loved the whole unfolding story and FMVs but even those were complete ****, out the window. Seriously did any long term fan even write or work on the storyline to finish off this great series or was it all just ad-hoc after they'd pillaged WiC and DoWs gameplay. They shouldnt have even wasted their time with a SP campaign it was that **** weak, should have called this CNC: Multiplayer and be done with it.

Any big fan is likely going to buy this anyway, but hede the warnings in this thread, youll just be disappointed, consider CNC3:KW to be the final - youll be doing yourself a favour.

I humbly, but emphatically, disagree.

Anyone that followed the *plot* of KW could have predicted this sort of closer (or something similar).

At the end of KW, the Scrin have vamoosed.

That leaves GDI, NOD.....and tiberium that is slowly devouring the Earth (and everything and everyONE on it).

Neither GDI or NOD wants to rule over a lifeless corpse of a planet (which means fighting over it at this point is rather pointless). The problem BOTH face is that each side has those that would much rather fight than cooperate (Gideon for NOD and Col. James for GDI).

If either Gideon OR Col. James wins, the Earth is screwed.

Neither side has the RESOURCES (in terms of troops) to crew big bases and large armies (KW alone reflected that).

Why is it that nobody wants to believe anything said in KW concerning the state of the Earth?

[Osiris]

I humbly, but emphatically, disagree.

Anyone that followed the *plot* of KW could have predicted this sort of closer (or something similar).

At the end of KW, the Scrin have vamoosed.

That leaves GDI, NOD.....and tiberium that is slowly devouring the Earth (and everything and everyONE on it).

Neither GDI or NOD wants to rule over a lifeless corpse of a planet (which means fighting over it at this point is rather pointless). The problem BOTH face is that each side has those that would much rather fight than cooperate (Gideon for NOD and Col. James for GDI).

If either Gideon OR Col. James wins, the Earth is screwed.

Neither side has the RESOURCES (in terms of troops) to crew big bases and large armies (KW alone reflected that).

Why is it that nobody wants to believe anything said in KW concerning the state of the Earth?

Dude, I dont even know what points of mine you are disagreeing with but if you thought that was a good ending then im happy for you, fortunately for me I can take comfort with the disappointed masses alike who thought it was a **** poor excuse for a finale to a once great series.