Jump to content

EA- C&C survey C&C 4


Recommended Posts

EA and C&C.com sended by email a survey about game but they give some info about the new C&C game :D

if you didnt received the mail


the game is called simply ''Command and Conquer 4'' it will be base on Tib Saga and its supposed to be the Ending of the Tib Serie. any comment on this guys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE ((NE)Fobby(GEN) @ Jun 23 2009, 01:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not really looking forward to having MMORPG elements.[/b]

for me a RPG like is like a '' how to kill the C&C series''

QUOTE (Jointn00b @ Jun 23 2009, 02:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
the ending of the tib universe would be stupid. although i'm very curious about how kane's going to 'ascend' (or how ever you spell that lol).
oh btw link isn't working lol.[/b]

the link work fine under 3 diff browsers here .. and my bros tried it too and it work .. strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Former Developers

RPG elements? NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! As if upgrading units isnt bad enough. And, crawlers? As if Rigs didnt kill the game now you can deploy a base?

EA should go play Covert Ops, then they will know what real tactic is all about. Not some stupid upgrading shit with a mobile base. And if they like FMVs so much then aim for movie styled like in Tiberian Sun. Not the crap that was in TW and RA3.

I'm glad that its a conclusion but also saddened because I know EA will ruin it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Totem Arts Staff

I think they should probably resurvey the community - and more specifically, long time C&C fans, like myself and many others, who have been keeping up with the series since 1995.

Havoc89's right, Command & Conquer: Covert Operations is an example of real tactical gameplay in an RTS. I've never played a game harder than that, but it wasn't impossible to beat either, you just had to be very intelligent. I also never liked the idea of mobile bases, building multiple bases all over, cranes to build multiple buildings at once, etc. it just turns the saga from tactics to how fast you could build everything. That's just me though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was concerned at first too, but after completing out the survey, they go into more detail about the RPG elements.

First of all it's not MMORPG elements, its RPG elements. Secondly, its you as the commander level up, not your units. As you level up, you gain new abilities and new units. That's what they meant.

An upgraded unit via levels would be retarded thought.

Also, the "Crawler" idea is horrible. I REAAAALLLY hope that is still a concept and gets scrapped. I don't want to see moving bases. That will just remove what strategy the series is still holding onto.

After thinking about the RPG elements, I've decided it's a good idea.. especially for the multiplayer crowed. If they set it up so that only certain level commanders can fight certain level commanders, then the problem with people 'smurfing' on the ladder ranks will be eliminated. It also allows for players to customize the fights they make... and that leads me to believe they might include a 'tech level' option in their skirmish matches.

The way I see it is that as long as the original core C&C formula is there, the way that its presented doesn't really matter. I welcome new features.. just as long as they don't change what's already expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have to agree, when i first played C&C3 i didn't like the aspect of being able to build cranes or base expansion vechicles. the mcv was to easy to build (don't get me started with this about RA3). the superweapons were put on overdrive and they threw in more known as "support powers." the units are customizable with upgrades. lastly, they added too many secondary functions to the units that no one ever uses.


it all went downhill since EA took it over...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (R315r4z0r @ Jun 25 2009, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The way I see it, Generals was a horrible game, but C&C3 was decent. RA3 is a work of art.

EA's been getting better and better at making C&C games as they have been creating them.[/b]

Stop smoking, really, it messes with your brain..... :lol: :lol:

no, seriously, why do you think that they are getting better?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (R315r4z0r @ Jun 26 2009, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I explained why I thought they were getting better...

C&C3 is much better than Generals and RA3 is much better than C&C3. RA3 is actually fun to play and requires the most strategy out of any C&C game. The only thing that needs work is the AI and its cheating problem.[/b]

What made them so much better than Generals? It wasn't a C&C game (and shouldn't have gotten that title), but I loved the building system a lot more though (and wow, they messed up with graphics on RA 3 so bad...). Though the game plays alright.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, Generals sucked not only as a C&C game, but a game in General. It's build system was one of the worst aspects about the game. The game had Starcraft clone written all over it. C&C3 and RA3 are better because they follow the true C&C gameplay mechanics.

Secondly, the graphics in RA3 are much better than the graphics in C&C3. If you meant that the art style looks worse, then that's your opinion. RA2 had a similar art style and look how well that worked out.

Thirdly, ending the Tiberium wars conflict doesn't mean the end of the Tiberium universe. There can still be prequels, side stories, parallel stories, ect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...