81 replies to this topic

[Nemoricus]

I've got plans in the works for C&C 3 that fortunately allow for some return of Tiberian sun stuff.
I don't think any would be player units though. Just campaign.

[ambershee]

Complain all you want, but I'm going to play the game the way it comes out (And patches too.). That's the point of the game. Plus, you need to find good ways to destroy that NOD 'mech...

I'm sure with EALA style balancing there'll be a rock-paper-scissor approach that demands that you simply spam more units than they do

[Phil]

Aww, come on, ambershee. Let's keep a little optimism. Should the game really turn out as bad as you say, you'll have enough time to elaborate on all the mistakes

[ambershee]

Haha, I haven't said it'll necessarily be bad - but I am saying don't keep your expectations high, especially with the evidence in the three games produced so far. If it is a good game, and your expectations are low, you'll be pleasantly surprised

[Airman]

Well, Bf2142 turned out well, this one will too.

[Phil]

Haha, I haven't said it'll necessarily be bad - but I am saying don't keep your expectations high, especially with the evidence in the three games produced so far. If it is a good game, and your expectations are low, you'll be pleasantly surprised

Yeah, I see your point. But if they do a game like BFME1 was, then I'm totally happy. BFME also had a lot of critics, and still it was a cool game. Plus, it was played and modded a lot.

[Daeda]

Well, Bf2142 turned out well, this one will too.

Those games where made by entirely different developers, being Dice on BF and EA on CNC. Also, BF2142 is a bit gimmicky if you ask me, nothing really extremely well done. I agree with shee that it's better to keep your expectations low. Hyping is never good for a game, and this game has a rather high probability to be screwed up. If it turns out to be a good game, we can all cheer, but as for now, id rather look at the realistic chances and I'm leaning more to the expectations that this game will be just decent.. 7,5/10 like. CnC seems a bit aged compared to Company of Heroes for example. Really stop hyping this game for your own good. Once you've played it please tell me how much it rocks, but please look realistically and realize the probability of EA screwing this up is high.

[ambershee]

Well, Bf2142 turned out well, this one will too.

I've explained this one to you before, I'll explain it again.

EA Games is a publisher. They do not develop games directly.

Bf2142 is developed by a developer called Digital Illusions CE (aka DICE), they are now completely owned by the publisher EA Games.

Command and Conquer 3 is developed by a developer called Electronic Arts Los Angeles - who used to be a company called DreamWorks Interactive before EA Games bought them out and sort of merged them with Westwood Studios and Electronic Arts Pacific.

Both of these games are published by EA Games. They are not developed by the same people. They cannot be compared, they're not even in the same genre.

That aside, Battlefield 2142 is a travesty of a "game" - a glorified 10 level expansion pack for Battlefield 2 that just slams new media into the old game and fails to correct any of the issues with the previous game, asks you to uninstall important windows security updates and uses adware in a completely illogical context. 140 years into the future, we'll still be clamouring about the latest model Chevrolet, I'm sure. The adverts are not only out of place, but a ridiculous cash grabbing attempt, after having charged you more than full price for a standard game, let alone for what you got.

Haha, I haven't said it'll necessarily be bad - but I am saying don't keep your expectations high, especially with the evidence in the three games produced so far. If it is a good game, and your expectations are low, you'll be pleasantly surprised

Yeah, I see your point. But if they do a game like BFME1 was, then I'm totally happy. BFME also had a lot of critics, and still it was a cool game. Plus, it was played and modded a lot.

BfME 1 was definitely the better of the three, although it was still hardly brilliant. It was very playable, but suffered from terrible visuals, poor faction design and in many cases weak gameplay. It probably performed better than Generals or BfME II, but it's still doglike in performance alltogether.

[Phil]

Yeah, that's what I meant. You can call it as bad as you want, I found it a nice game and modding it is still awesome. If they manage to make C&C3 as "bad" as BFME1 was, then I'm happy enough

[Airman]

@Ambershee

If a game is heavily advertised, then the makers of the game REALLY want to sell it. If you barely see any, then sales must be good.

And, I'm not hyping. I'm not really a fanatic, I just don't like people ripping up EA because they have made previously bad games. Just give them a chance...

[Jsmooth13]

By the looks of the game, we don't need to worry about EA shitting out on us on this one. If they are willing to put in the effort to make it look THIS good, that game has got to be freakin' amazing.

All I have to say to you guys is don't judge the book by its cover. Just because it has the EA label doesn't mean it will be bad, despite past games. They seem to have been pulling the stops on this one and if IU were making it, I sure as hell wouldn't shit out on it once the game was up for selling.

[ambershee]

@Ambershee

If a game is heavily advertised, then the makers of the game REALLY want to sell it. If you barely see any, then sales must be good.

And, I'm not hyping. I'm not really a fanatic, I just don't like people ripping up EA because they have made previously bad games. Just give them a chance...

I'm talking about the adware in the title. Adware I find is acceptable if the adverts make sense within the context of the game, and the adware is used as a means of charging the player less for the title, or reducing or cutting out entirely monthly fees. In Bf2142 it's used as a cash grabbing scheme and meets none of the above criteria.

By the looks of the game, we don't need to worry about EA shitting out on us on this one. If they are willing to put in the effort to make it look THIS good, that game has got to be freakin' amazing.

All I have to say to you guys is don't judge the book by its cover. Just because it has the EA label doesn't mean it will be bad, despite past games. They seem to have been pulling the stops on this one and if IU were making it, I sure as hell wouldn't shit out on it once the game was up for selling.

I'm not overly worried about the EA Games label, most games have that these days, seeing as everyone is published by either EA, Activision or Ubisoft. I'm worried about the development team behind it. Stops haven't been pulled, for I can't name any that have, and it's all about the money as far as the developer and publisher are concerned anyway, meaning that the game is still liable to be dumped entirely at any time that it stops being a profitable venture to continue.

[Daeda]

By the looks of the game, we don't need to worry about EA shitting out on us on this one. If they are willing to put in the effort to make it look THIS good, that game has got to be freakin' amazing.

It looks good, but compare these screens to Company of Heroes, which is allready released and you cant deny these graphics have a bit dated feel..

[Jsmooth13]

Well that's good then. Allows my shit comp to be able to run it.

[Daeda]

Thats true.. CoH is a kind of heavy game to run

[ambershee]

CoH's is probably damn better optimised. You know what SAGE games behave like

[ScreamingCricket]

while the graphics arn't on par with other games out now, graphics don't make a game fun. It can be the best looking game out and play horribly, good graphics don't make a good game. While I do enjoy the pretty graphics, it's all about how fun it is to play.

So we can hope that after years of EA working on upgrading the sage engine, it will actually work and play well for cnc3. At least they finally got the alphas to cast shadows correctly.

[Phil]

I agree. Good graphics are a nice feature but not the content of the game. That's why I still enjoy playing old games... horrible graphics, but cool gameplay and the little something it needs...

[ambershee]

while the graphics arn't on par with other games out now, graphics don't make a game fun. It can be the best looking game out and play horribly, good graphics don't make a good game. While I do enjoy the pretty graphics, it's all about how fun it is to play.

So we can hope that after years of EA working on upgrading the sage engine, it will actually work and play well for cnc3. At least they finally got the alphas to cast shadows correctly.

Oh yes, the gameplay is where it's at, but we can't really comment on that just yet, seeing as it's impossible to get a real feel for it off static screens. I'm getting the feeling it's going to have a very heavy handed approach though, since that interview where they said that they'd recently done their research and found that there were two types of players, and they were going to gear the game towards just that. Those two player-types were thus named "The Turtler" and "The Rusher". Never having been either, and preferring a lot of underhandedness when playing games online, I'm probably going to be somewhat left out. The singleplayer Ai will also likely negate underhandedness, seeing as the past games have all used exactly the same thing - move to enemy target, attack it. Pretty shit in terms of an RTS ai, because you just can't evade that.

Also, the shadows don't cast properly. Sometimes units look like their floating because they don't match up with the model's relative position.

[Jsmooth13]

No, I don't think you understand:

I run a 996MHz Processor with like a 2000 Graphic Card.

My computer is shit.

Edited by Jsmooth13, 16 November 2006 - 01:15 PM.