Yeah, and disco isnt dead! Sit on it!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New Command & Conquer gameplay details from the C&C summit
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Yeah, and disco isnt dead! Sit on it!
TemplaerDude
Member
And Red Alert 2 has Kari Wuhrer when she was still hot. So get stuffed, Generals.
SC2 had a decent SP campaign so it didn't suffer from the MP focus of the game.
It's not like any AI is good enough for balance to matter in SP and interesting units are important for both, MP and SP.
The sp campaign in sc2 was so damn boring I couldnt get 5 levels in.
And the story and characters? Apparently the mp focus either drained the entire game of any charm or character, or blizzard is staffed by nothing by hacks.
Its the same shit I have been doing for 43 years in rts games, build a base, collect resources, build housing.... etc... that was great design back in the days of yore. Now? Cmon, move on, innovate, change. Want to know why rts games are held back? because the esport crowd wouldnt have it any other way. They can still play sc1 if they want, why completely stop innovating to please them though with sequels? Its like a damn soap opera, 'we found the formula the audience likes, should we change it to appeal to more people or try new things?'
'Your fired!'
Its sad. Blizzard used to try new things in rts games, each sequel wasnt a carbon copy of the prior installment. Now? Its what their audience demands! They even said during dev that the esport scene was their main concern. And what did they want? SC2 with better graphics at most. Anything else would have been an abomination.
Fucccccccccccck that.
Company of heroes shits on sc2 as a single player game. And its a terribly big shit.
And the story and characters? Apparently the mp focus either drained the entire game of any charm or character, or blizzard is staffed by nothing by hacks.
Its the same shit I have been doing for 43 years in rts games, build a base, collect resources, build housing.... etc... that was great design back in the days of yore. Now? Cmon, move on, innovate, change. Want to know why rts games are held back? because the esport crowd wouldnt have it any other way. They can still play sc1 if they want, why completely stop innovating to please them though with sequels? Its like a damn soap opera, 'we found the formula the audience likes, should we change it to appeal to more people or try new things?'
'Your fired!'
Its sad. Blizzard used to try new things in rts games, each sequel wasnt a carbon copy of the prior installment. Now? Its what their audience demands! They even said during dev that the esport scene was their main concern. And what did they want? SC2 with better graphics at most. Anything else would have been an abomination.
Fucccccccccccck that.
Company of heroes shits on sc2 as a single player game. And its a terribly big shit.
all innovative RTS's of the last years sold like shit.
TemplaerDude
Member
After seeing this genres attempts at "innovation" over the past decade I'm totally okay with more classic style RTS.
Proof? I have no doubt that Company of heroes and warhammer games were some of the best selling games THQ have on their books.
World in combat had pretty good sales too. And a multiplayer mode that was ruined by their attempt to turn it into an esport.
TemplaerDude
Member
And here they are, bankrupt.
Because they were run worse then a lemonaide stand.
TemplaerDude
Member
Maybe, still probably not the best time to make that point.
Warhammer and world in conflict both are very small scale and mostly tactical. I want some macromanagement in my RTS's.
Company of heroes is good but that is one game... EE, Rise of nations, Petroglyph's stuff, even the CnC series (though CnC 4 was a really bad game) ect... all tried innovative stuff, none of it stuck.
And C&C fans seem especially fond of the old style of the games.
Vangu Vegro
Member
Better to play games that play like they're from the 90s that I can still get some enjoyment from than the endless streams of excrement that pass for 'modern' games.
And IMO, what killed the genre was all those devs trying to reinvent the wheel by removing everything that made the genre work in the first place.
I'm sure a day will come when someone somewhere will find a way to make an RTS that's both innovative and fun. Eventually. But it is not this day!
(More on topic, I have to admit I can't really bring myself to be hyped about a C&C game not in the Tiberium or Red Alert universes, but I'd be willing to support it if only to increase the chances for getting those games in the future.)
And IMO, what killed the genre was all those devs trying to reinvent the wheel by removing everything that made the genre work in the first place.
I'm sure a day will come when someone somewhere will find a way to make an RTS that's both innovative and fun. Eventually. But it is not this day!
(More on topic, I have to admit I can't really bring myself to be hyped about a C&C game not in the Tiberium or Red Alert universes, but I'd be willing to support it if only to increase the chances for getting those games in the future.)
From what I remember EE and RoN sold well for their time. I think the bigger issue was that in recent memory the one big 'innovation' for the genre was getting it compatible with a gamepad. That and anything that didn't do CoD numbers wasn't deemed successful enough for publishers to invest in for a while. I still think there's success out there for traditional RTS games in the indie market.
the first iterations did, the sequels (where they went away from "traditional" RTS) didn't.
but i agree, managing multiple units in real time doesn't work well with a controller
Wiktor
Member
Meh, I like varety. Blizzard is pretty much the only company still doing the classic 90s-like RTSes. Everybody else went for radical changes of formula.
So let Blizz do their 90s RTSes.
Dance Inferno
Unconfirmed Member
Wiktor
Member
AFAIR Empire Earth 2 sold very well. The sales collapsed with EE3, which was just pure shit.
Also...RoN never was traditonal RTS and if anything the second one moved more towards that.
Frank Gibeau noted that after the backlash they changed their mind.
Improving core mechanics and doing the SP campaign? Wise choice.
Hell, I would love for all the purchasable items to be purely cosmetic, but I doubt it.
I remember all content packs being free.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
How so? It seems like the things that would support eSport would also improve the multiplayer experience in general.
MyAbsolution
Member
Could not agree more. Been playing since first game and Generals really kept me coming back, the depth of the multiplayer was sickening. I still have friends that play ZH on Game Ranger to this day.
What do you mean by that? Buy factions? Units? Stuff not attainable by grinding?