C&C4 Is official!

[JeepRubi]

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/comman...topslot;title;1

[JeepRubi]

http://www.commandandconquer.com/cnc4/index.html

[net]

Wow... never heard of it.. awesome.......!!!!

[Pendullum]

ffs they're calling it command and conquer 4?

Still as fucking original as ever EA...

[HunterXc]

No, they're going to send out a competition for the name of the game, check http://www.commandandconquer.com on the right-down side of the new CnC4 site.

[Havoc89]

Well, even though I know the story will be ruined; I'm psyked!

Man their MMKs look so gay. That big one looks like they took the C&C3 gdi recon unit (I dunno what it's called but it shoots 2 rockets) and turned it into a giant frog. I bet the two big mechs, the one on gdi and one on nod are the crawlers we've been hearing about.

[Tsumetai]

You guys just love to hate EA, dontcha?

[Spycon_Fighter]

QUOTE (Tsumetai @ Jul 9 2009, 05:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You guys just love to hate EA, dontcha?[/b]

There are people who don't?

[pupbarn]

QUOTE (Tsumetai @ Jul 10 2009, 12:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You guys just love to hate EA, dontcha?[/b]

...Yes.

[MightyBOB]

[Jointn00b]

lol. well i think i'll stay positive untill the game is released.

Even though C&C 3 didn't really have the C&C feel it still had some good features. I'm really curious as to how these 'crawlers' will work. Although im affraid that they'll just walk further away from the original C&C feeling and gameplay.

[DXR_13KE]

what i have seen is that the crawlers are mobile MCVs

[HunterXc]

I think that you cant really base your opinion on 2 screens and a little information.. Besides the idea of Kane infiltrating the GDI headquarters sounds like a good begining of the end, in my opinion that is..

[[NE]Fobby[GEN]]

Since it's early I'll refrain from developing opinions on the game yet, unlike most of the people who have either jumped to attack or defend a game they haven't played.

I sincerely hope that this conclusion to the series will answer all of the questions raised in Tiberian Sun and Firestorm. And I'd prefer some sort of open-ended ending to the series or at least something open to interpretation rather than a solid and abrupt ending to the series.

Mobile bases, eh? Might be cool, but though it might be different in C&C4, it's not the first RTS to do that.

[Demigan]

I think that most of the critics is simply because the series had an almost untouchable image. The new games just didn't answer well enough to the expectations of most, and I must agree they tried too much eyecandy and too little added content. But the complaints about the added content is misplaced. The game has to progress, otherwise it would have been stale and wouldn't have sold at all. The prospect of such mobile bases, in combination of an experienced based RPG system, is more to what I would have expected from the previous games. These are the things that set C&C on the map: innovative command structure, easy access to units and structures, easy to understand mechanics which can be used in complex stragetics. The fact that they are finally improving on the old systems they build, other than tweaking a few of the previous mechanics in the game, tells me they are finally trying to achieve a new game that might actually be a worthy sequel to the old game-mechanics we've seen and loved for long.

Ofcourse, there will be hundreds bitching simply because they don't get what they expect from this game, but no matter how good EA will do, they will always get critics.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[Shark]

QUOTE (Demigan @ Jul 11 2009, 12:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but no matter how good EA will do, they will always get critics.[/b]

It's more has to do with EA having to please 2 types of players; oldschool and the newer gen players.

EA can't do what was cool 10 years ago because industry has moved on. And so this affects old school players like me who have trouble playing these shitty high graphics games like C&C 3 and RA3 with crappy missions and silly units with tons of half-naked tits actresses designed to steal the minds of today's younger generation of saliviating little teenagers.

[[NE]Fobby[GEN]]

I don't think old school C&C fans like myself are necessarily looking for "what was cool 10 years ago", because we all know that RTS evolves - just look at the differences made with each game between Dune 2000 (Westwood's first RTS) and Emperor: Battle for Dune (their last). Each game added more and more to the RTS formula. What C&C longtimers are looking for is a consistent story with comparable gamplay. C&C3 simply didn't answer much to Tiberian Sun both in story and units, as a lot of story and tech seemed to have just disappeared into thin air. We also aren't a fan of things like multiple build cues for structures and units, which turns C&C a lot more like Starcraft and other games in the genre.

[thrash300]

ONLY be the ORIGINAL developers of Tiberian Dawn, Red Alert, Tiberian Sun, and Tiberian Sun Firestorm, essentially ONLY the original Westwood crew, cause I am getting the feeling that they are being rushed to finish this project with out time to make the story line being sane!! EA ruined C&C by killing Westwood, EA should restore Westwood if they wanted any real success. But then again they are a tyrannical game company that only cares about profits and nothing else.

Quote this post if you agree.

[pupbarn]

QUOTE (Shark @ Jul 10 2009, 10:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

EA can't do what was cool 10 years ago because industry has moved on. And so this affects old school players like me who have trouble playing these shitty high graphics games like C&C 3 and RA3 with crappy missions and silly units with tons of half-naked tits actresses designed to steal the minds of today's younger generation of saliviating little teenagers.[/b]

Hear, hear!

[HunterXc]

Trash, seriously, how can you just decide based on 1 screenshot, 1 artwork piece, some pieces of info and just the beginning of the story..

I say you just wait until the 24th/25th when BCPT gives us some more info and that trailer is finnaly out, I think that people are really exagerating..

Also, everyone has to agree that, gameplaywise, they've learned alot in RA3..

[Mr. Weedy]

I'm just going to say that EA is a master of recycling (game ideas).

Same stuff fubared over and over again and the end result is same. How much we have moved away from C&C Generals till this C&C 4?

I only see new graphics and fancy looking models. All the rest is basically more or less the same.

Recycled I say. :[

Edit:

While watching the video from here: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/comman...%3B1&page=2

I realized something... EA would make SO MUCH MORE MONEY making MOVIES based on their game ideas. Fully computer animated movies with real actors and all that shit. They really know how to make awesome looking war scenes and video clips and I think they really should stop making recycled games and just turn every C&C game which they have made into a movie.

NOW THAT would be a VERY ORIGINAL IDEA FOR A MOVIE SERIES and I think the movies would look awesome too.

Very fresh ideas, fresh point of view, fresh storyline and fresh everything for a movie series or movies in general.

Edit II:

Look at the video here: http://www.commandandconquer.com/cnc4/index.html

At 0:46 you can see the "new tank." I can clearly tell that's just recycled chassis of the mammoth tank from the C&C 3 Tiberium Wars. I has been just slightly modified and turret has been replaced...

RECYCLING. That's why I hate EA.

[~Aydynbek~]

The chassis of the "Prowler" is more like the one from the Predator tank.

[R315r4z0r]

I agree with everything Demigan said. Except for trying to do what was cool 10 years ago.

The old school players aren't looking for anything specific. They probably don't even know what they want. They are just going to hate on EA regardless of what they do. (Most anyway) If EA recreates a WW title bit for bit in the SAGE engine, players will complain they have no originality. If they make a completely original concept to the story, they will complain that they are disregarding what WW set out to make. If they make a game that perfectly balance story continuation and original ideas, players will complain that the story sucks and EA is ruing the franchise.

EA can't win with them, regardless of what they do, so it makes no difference. Just as long as there are players that want EA to do what they are setting out to do, it doesn't really matter what "oldschool" players think. (Again, most oldschool players.. not all think the way I posted above)

[MightyBOB]

For a detailed explanation of my previous (and awesome) post, see here, here, here, and here.

[~Aydynbek~]

I actually started thinking positively about C&C4 after reading your post BOB.

[DXR_13KE]

it requires constant internet connection!

[HunterXc]

QUOTE (DXR_13KE @ Jul 15 2009, 02:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it requires constant internet connection![/b]

w/e just like you aren't connected to the internet when you're playing your games now...

I mean, come on, most people dont use dial-up's anymore or something like that, it's all some kind of constant wireless connection nowadays..

[R315r4z0r]

The people that still use dial-up probably don't have the hardware required to run the game in the first place..

[Saga]

As an "old schooler" it is simple to me. Give me a game which doesn't need only eye candy to sell it. Give me 1 vs 1 but in team format. You have a base, I have one and we get up to 64 to wack each other doing it. throw in some kewl characters and vehicles and I'm good to go.

[DXR_13KE]

in my perspective they are turning an awesome RTS into a MMORPG with RTS elements.... that sucks!!

[R315r4z0r]

It's far from an MMORPG...

Do you even know what an MMORPG is? It's different from an RPG.

MMO means massive multiplayer online.. or in other words: a lot of people playing at one time.. hundreds, thousands.. in one game. The "RPG" on the end of it is of an entirely different genre of game. RPGs are just player experience games which allow you to progress by customizing different abilities and features (like weapons, armor, ect.). An MMORPG is an RPG that's played online with a crap load of other people.

They said "RPG elements" not "MMORPG" elements. They are two totally different types of games. The player-by-player mechanics may be the same, but the entire outlook of the game itself is totally different.

Adding the RPG elements in gives the RTstrategy game more strategy to use. They've said that this game is going to have the most units in a single game than out of any other game they've ever made. That means that different players might bring different units to a single battle. Even if they are playing as the same faction and class, the entire unit tree may be totally different between the two players. That leaves open waaaaay more room for strategy than currently possible in the recent games.

[DXR_13KE]

QUOTE (R315r4z0r @ Jul 19 2009, 04:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's far from an MMORPG...

Do you even know what an MMORPG is? It's different from an RPG.

MMO means massive multiplayer online.. or in other words: a lot of people playing at one time.. hundreds, thousands.. in one game. The "RPG" on the end of it is of an entirely different genre of game. RPGs are just player experience games which allow you to progress by customizing different abilities and features (like weapons, armor, ect.). An MMORPG is an RPG that's played online with a crap load of other people.

They said "RPG elements" not "MMORPG" elements. They are two totally different types of games. The player-by-player mechanics may be the same, but the entire outlook of the game itself is totally different.

Adding the RPG elements in gives the RTstrategy game more strategy to use. They've said that this game is going to have the most units in a single game than out of any other game they've ever made. That means that different players might bring different units to a single battle. Even if they are playing as the same faction and class, the entire unit tree may be totally different between the two players. That leaves open waaaaay more room for strategy than currently possible in the recent games.[/b]

I did know what a MMORPG is.

Time will tell if that is a winning formula, if it is not.... well... it will end up like spore.

[Spycon_Fighter]

QUOTE (DXR_13KE @ Jul 19 2009, 08:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did know what a MMORPG is.

Time will tell if that is a winning formula, if it is not.... well... it will end up like spore.[/b]

Ewww spore...

[DXR_13KE]

QUOTE (Spycon @ Jul 19 2009, 05:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ewww spore...[/b]

It was completely awesome on paper but the final product was... well... you get the idea.

[renchamp]

QUOTE (Mr. Weedy @ Jul 11 2009, 10:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm just going to say that EA is a master of recycling (game ideas).

Same stuff fubared over and over again and the end result is same. How much we have moved away from C&C Generals till this C&C 4?

I only see new graphics and fancy looking models. All the rest is basically more or less the same.

Recycled I say. :[

Edit:

While watching the video from here: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/comman...%3B1&page=2

I realized something... EA would make SO MUCH MORE MONEY making MOVIES based on their game ideas. Fully computer animated movies with real actors and all that shit. They really know how to make awesome looking war scenes and video clips and I think they really should stop making recycled games and just turn every C&C game which they have made into a movie.

NOW THAT would be a VERY ORIGINAL IDEA FOR A MOVIE SERIES and I think the movies would look awesome too.

Very fresh ideas, fresh point of view, fresh storyline and fresh everything for a movie series or movies in general.

Edit II:

Look at the video here: http://www.commandandconquer.com/cnc4/index.html

At 0:46 you can see the "new tank." I can clearly tell that's just recycled chassis of the mammoth tank from the C&C 3 Tiberium Wars. I has been just slightly modified and turret has been replaced...

RECYCLING. That's why I hate EA.[/b]

I agree they should make a movie on the idea's would become a big blockbuster also, since it will be ORIGINAL!

[firescan]

you know i really dont like it that the tiberian war is gonna end aready

i really liked it more than the red alert <_<

[havoc9826]

Exclusive world premiere teaser trailer at GameTrailers.com! Link is here

[Demigan]

QUOTE (Mighty BOB! @ Jul 12 2009, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For a detailed explanation of my previous (and awesome) post, see here, here, here, and here.[/b]

Hmm okay.

The point about the 'My tanks are level 96 and yours are 26' is invalid if I read my information right. I haven't read alot, but as far as I know the units will still have the ordinary veterancy system we've seen in practically every C&C game, 3 levels, that's it.
The player can level up, those levels wouldn't improve your units as far as I understand it, it will give you access to different units, structures and abilities.

I defenitely agree with a greater asymetry to all factions, with what I read you will have a general complement which they will certainly botch upon and make almost similiar in every faction, and several other units, structures and abilities which will make each time you play a unique faction. For a given amount of 'unique'. My guess is that within weeks there will be guides on the internet similiar to Diablo II characters: You want to build a steamroller/turtler/lightning rush/whatever faction? First do this, take this ability, take this unit, apply it this way and you got one. I think that Diablo II will still have a much more refined system to evolve unique characters at that.

The thing about the crawler you might be right. So far it seems more like a ripoff from total annihilation with C&C mechenics behind it rather then a unique idea, especially with the feature to upgrade the crawler itself, which makes it a PERFECT ripoff of the commander of the sequel to total annihilation. But having a moving MCV that can build on the run isn't such a bad idea, I think that the most effective base will still be one build all on one area, so you can easily mount a defence instead of having to defend 30 buildings all spread out over an enourmous area. But with the added bonus that you can much easier start expanding, making the 'sit in your base, get funds, attack' idea much less appealing as by the time you actually get to your enemies starting location, you might find out he's only build a startup-base for funds and units there, and has the real base ready and waiting somewhere else. At which point he'll know you have an incredible force at your starting location and an empty base.

More about the levels. I don't know, but I just hope that since they are having consistent XP, they will balance it out at the beginning. A level 40 vs a beginner might be an almost equal battle if they do it right. The level 40 just has a lot more options available to attack, not simply more firepower. That would be a great start.
Think of Nod, GDI is all about firepower, but Nod would be a great faction to get a miriad of powers and units that can be used to throw the enemy in dissaray, from creating false information on his/her radar, to shutting down power to certain structures, to booby-trapping a tiberium shard so the harvester or the refinery get damaged, decoys, incursions, surprise attacks. You name it. It wouldn't just give the higher level the firepower to kill someone lower then him, it would simply give him far more options to test his skills. The more elaborate the things you have to do to succeed in your plan, the more effect it would have on the enemy.

Yours sincerely,
Demigan.

[An4x1mandr0s]

2 words : Non Cannon :lol:

But really , for me EA's games are ok alternate universes that they can **** up all they want

The REAL cannon one is WestWood's Universe

Tho i would have loved if EALA would have continued to finish westwood's version... (but LOTR HAD to come along <_<)

[raKeto]

it perhaps carrys the name CnC, but the gameplay is clearly Command and Conquer like.

sure, its maybe be a fast game as it is typical for CnC, but the crawler "just does not fit"

I am not saying that the idea was bad, but in a CnC they do not fit imo

It has been simply plagiarized in large parts in other games, just to "go with the flow". That, and once again too short development time of the game makes it clear with what development philosophy we are dealing here. And even if that little innovative concept in the end, again, still expected to be very well. I have little till no Hope that EA is able to succeed with those new Gameplay implementations.

[Gasolin3]

I still have faith in this. Sure, it may look and sound disappointing now, but it's still at an alpha build (iirc), so there's going to be changes along the road.

The biggest thing I'm anticipating isn't the game itself, really, but the story. I really want to see how it all wraps up!

[SirFatalx]

I believe they destroyed the franchised from Red Alert 3. Command and Conquer 3 and Kane's Wrath were decent, but from Red Alert 3 and on, I didn't want to buy any more C&C future games. The fact that this game has no base building, just makes me not even want to buy the game in the first place. Sure, it's a interesting approach to take, but Command and Conquer was all about base building (expect for some missions). I don't see much strategy now with Multiplayer. And the fact they are including Role Playing elements, just makes it more worse. The only reason now that I would play this game is for the Single Player campaign, just to see the end. And that for me just doesn't cut it.

[R315r4z0r]

You kidding? I thought RA3 was the best C&C game yet. C&C3 and KW were the disappointments.

Unfortunately, C&C4 does not deliver. I've played the beta and I do not like it at all. The game gets boring really fast. However, because of the NDA, I can't really go into much detail about it.

Hopefully it will change for the better from now til release.

[kenraali]

I have played ALL Command & Conquer games.. But not yet this C&C 4, but I can say that C&C 3 and Red Alert 3 was really big disappointed.. I didn't like them at all.. And C&C 3 Expansion Packs is just full of shit. I liked C&C Red Alert and Red Alert2 : )

[An4x1mandr0s]

The Franchise died when Westwood disbanded , so no , I played Tiberium Wars , Kane's Wrath and RA3 and they all were ... bad , so i will skip this game , it's not even command and conquer anymore (Crawlers? Control Points? TIBERIUM CONTROL NETWORK?!).

I feel like I could make a better job with the story than Sam Bass and he's paid to do that. :\

The community does a better job than EALA , and this fact just makes me sad.

Tiberian Dawn was awesome , Tiberian Sun really gave you the feeling that Earth was dying and Tiberian Incursion was practically giving (from what i found) the feeling of Mankind's extinction (Scrin would come and own GDI and Nod [Then the Frem- errr Forgotten would come in and save the day >_> ])

The Ion Storms , fauna and flora gave you the impression that the world was being transformed into something else.

And the Scrin were much more mysterious and menacing (they created tiberium)

At any rate , you could notice that the Devs really too good care of their fiction even on Red Alert 1 (Red Alert 2 was made by future EALA , Westwood Pacific)

Well , i think i'll just stop before i start crying again :'(

This is not a rant , just me giving my opinion that EALA could have done better , much better.

[Gasolin3]

How was CNC3 bad? I can see why people say RA3 was bad, it's too close to Generals but CNC3 was nowhere near a bad CNC game.

Anyhoo, as far as 4 goes, I've lost hope. The game isn't CNC, I don't even care if the gameplay would be fun. CNC needs basebuilding.

Not to mention those ridiculously retarded unit designs, "hmm what should we make the scorpion tank look like in 4..." Ok, I like the idea they finally incorporated an obelisk on a mobile unit, that's fan service, but to make a scorpion tank to actually look like a scorpion? No, just no! It looks stupid.