C&C 4 Discussion

[Adam Blue]

Gamestop text me advising that I can pick up C&C 4 12:01AM Tuesday. I'm sure this is only because of GoW3's release, but still good news to RTS fans like me. I'll be playing GoW3, but this has me more excited.

I'm very excited about this now since the beta because of how deep the strategy appears to be with tons of units to be unlocked as you play. I like the idea of persistence throughout. I also can't wait for more Tiberium lore.

Also, why Mark Skaggs left EA (http://www.united-forum.de/united-talk-f12/geschichtsunterricht-mit-mark-skaggs-94743/). Personally I think RA3 turned out fun.

[Dukefrukem]

I had no idea this was being released this week and I got that text too. What the heck? I'm in the beta right now.

[Narradisall]

Wait, this is a GOOD game?

Everything I'd heard wasn't giving it shining 5 stars.

I'll end up getting it cause I want to know how the Kane story plays out to its conclusion.

[Dukefrukem]

Well it's on Steam so that means I'll automatically be buying it...

[CappinCanuck]

Also, why Mark Skaggs left EA (http://www.united-forum.de/united-talk-f12/geschichtsunterricht-mit-mark-skaggs-94743/). Personally I think RA3 turned out fun.

Yeah, it was alright, but still far short of Generals or RA2. As was CnC3. Kind of disappointed in the last last two titles in the CnC Universe, I think I'm skipping this one.

[Narradisall]

Yeah, it was alright, but still far short of Generals or RA2. As was CnC3. Kind of disappointed in the last last two titles in the CnC Universe, I think I'm skipping this one.

Red Alert 3 was good!

This should be the 'final' one in the whole Kane/Tiberium wars storyline.

Thats pretty much the only reason I'll pick it up. I must know how it ends!

Of course this can backfire if they try to reneg on that and release more Tiberium war games after I will never touch them.

Still, I had some damned good fun co-op on RA3. I don't get why it was considered bad?

[Adam Blue]

Yeah, it was alright, but still far short of Generals or RA2. As was CnC3. Kind of disappointed in the last last two titles in the CnC Universe, I think I'm skipping this one.

It's a totally different game though. The idea that there are close to 100 units to unlock and customize your armies persistently, differentiates this enough to warrant a play. I enjoyed the beta personally.

And anything after Generals I agree wasn't up to snuff. Though, Generals was really not much like CnC, though I would like a sequel.

I'm just worried that true base-building RTSs are disappearing now that DoW2 and the like are popular.

[Hotcod]

The beta was god awful but I can see the single player being fun enough if they don't screw it up as badly as they might do. Steam sale for me I think.

[soqua]

The community rep has said that you need to be connected to the EA servers to play. I'll let someone else enjoy this style of DRM.

Also, I think it faction only has 7 single player missions. Sam Bass said that the reason for fewer missions was due to the fact that about 5% of the XBox players finished the single player campaign.

[Adam Blue]

The community rep has said that you need to be connected to the EA servers to play. I'll let someone else enjoy this style of DRM.

You can still play, but you wont get any progression to unlocks/persistence so it would be useless. Remember, this isn't normal C&C.

[CappinCanuck]

It's a totally different game though. The idea that there are close to 100 units to unlock and customize your armies persistently, differentiates this enough to warrant a play. I enjoyed the beta personally.

And anything after Generals I agree wasn't up to snuff. Though, Generals was really not much like CnC, though I would like a sequel.

I'm just worried that true base-building RTSs are disappearing now that DoW2 and the like are popular.

I'll echo your last sentiment there. Supcom 2 is another one that just went tactical. Starcraft 2 arguably is going the same. There's much less focus on base building due to the speed and resource changes.

As for the rest, yeah I get it's a different game. But I don't think it's quite as good as it should be for what it is either. It'd get a 75-80/100 for me. Not bad by any means, just not a must-have. Generals and RA2, for what they were, were much better games whether they were more traditional or not.

[CappinCanuck]

The community rep has said that you need to be connected to the EA servers to play. I'll let someone else enjoy this style of DRM.

Also, I think it faction only has 7 single player missions. Sam Bass said that the reason for fewer missions was due to the fact that about 5% of the XBox players finished the single player campaign.

You can still play, but you wont get any progression to unlocks/persistence so it would be useless. Remember, this isn't normal C&C.

Yeah, I don't think it's quite that bad. It's not much different than any other game requiring a log in for online play. It's actually quite clever to make the game advancement tied to your player rank. It's somewhat of a DRM but at the same time not; at least not in the traditional sense.

[Telefrog]

Yeah, I don't think it's quite that bad. It's not much different than any other game requiring a log in for online play. It's actually quite clever to make the game advancement tied to your player rank. It's somewhat of a DRM but at the same time not; at least not in the traditional sense.

The Eurogamer review (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/command-and-conquer-4-tiberian-twilight-review) disagrees.

It's even harder to accept because it also seems like a feeble attempt to justify the always-online requirement. Yep, just like Ubisoft's contempt-to-the-max DRM system, this will kick you out if your net connection drops for any reason - even in single-player.

In fact, the whole game sounds like they just shit on the franchise.

On the other hand, this means you don't even get to play with the best stuff in the campaign unless you come back to it later. A playthrough of one of the two short campaigns and a few skirmish, co-op or multiplayer muckabouts will get you to level 10 without too much pain - seven or eight hours, I'd say - at which point you can access about 50 per cent of the unlocks. Getting all the way to the top, and the really big toys, will take a whole lot longer - especially as you need to level up GDI and Nod separately.

It must have looked like a great idea on paper. "The kids love Modern Warfare! Let's do that, but in an RTS! We can't fail." But they have failed. It's depressing and infuriating to look at your build and powers menus and see lots of little padlocks.

This isn't how RTS works - that choice and spread of units is key. It's just a grindy, exaggerated throwback to the bad old days of single-player RTS campaigns, when all sense of momentum and progress was artificially hung around denying you the better units until the later levels. It's like a long, unskippable tutorial.

The upside is that you'll definitely learn the units rather than make a dash for the big stuff every time. You'll really come to value the tier-1 infantry and especially the bouncy, healy/grabby/fighty Engineers. The downside is: give me the game I have paid for! These aren't just a few fun bonuses. They're the entire bloody tech tree.

No thanks. They can eat a dick if they think I'm paying for this dreck.

[Panthera]

Sounds like something Age of Empires III did far better way back in 2005.

[CappinCanuck]

The Eurogamer review (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/command-and-conquer-4-tiberian-twilight-review) disagrees.



In fact, the whole game sounds like they just shit on the franchise.



No thanks. They can eat a dick if they think I'm paying for this dreck.

Eurogamer? Bah.

It's not quite that bad. It's different and the reviewer obviously wanted the same thing. I played it through to the final ranks and it's a solid little title. It's not a must-have or excellent though. Nor is it traditional. It's like CNC+DOW2. The rock-paper-scissors units are a bit too simplified, I would have expected a bit more depth from them.

[Telefrog]

Eurogamer? Bah.

Don't like Eurogamer? Then take your pick. ;)

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/commandandconquer4/review.html
http://play.tm/review/29463/command-conquer-4-tiberian-twilight/
http://www.videogamer.com/pc/command_conquer_4/review.html
http://gameinformer.com/games/command_amp_conquer_4/b/pc/archive/2010/03/16/review.aspx

The reviews are not great.

I'm not saying reviews are the last word in whether or not a game is fun, but the reviews seem to consistently point to the same issues. Even the most positive review so far (Game Informer (http://gameinformer.com/games/command_amp_conquer_4/b/pc/archive/2010/03/16/review.aspx) with a 7.75) heaps criticism on a slew of design decisions.

Add to those issues the atrocious DRM, and you have a title that I'll never buy.

[Adam Blue]

So far, this game is a disappointment. But I'll also say that 20hrs may make this a completely different game. Every level-up is a game changer. This game cannot simply be reviewed conventionally...except the campaign which would get thumbs down. The Tiberium universe has been destroyed.

Also, Eurogamer reviews have been horrible. The recent Sonic Racing review has evidence of not playing, or not wanting to play the game. It's laughable (http://www.bluegamer.net/2010/03/01/eurogamers-terrible-sonic-racing-review/).

As for DRM....you have to be online even during single-player for a reason. Actions in the campaign affect your online persona. I had a disconnect warning so I saved, exited, and started again. It's like no one actually plays, they just complain.

[SilentScreams]

Getting rid of base building got me interested, but it sounds like the game is weak in general. Oh well. It's not like there's a shortage of great games at the moment.

[Narradisall]

Sounds like bargin bin to me. Shame, it would have been nice for the Tiberium series to have ended well, considering it started rather fun. Alas.

[Adam Blue]

Here's my review/rant (http://www.bluegamer.net/2010/03/17/the-cc-4-reviewrant/).

[Narradisall]

Here's my review/rant (http://www.bluegamer.net/2010/03/17/the-cc-4-reviewrant/).

Wow, so, it sucks then.

[Adam Blue]

Since the dev team at EA are now gone, my dream is for Petroglyph to get the IP back.

[Doogie2K]

Amusing aside: EA's own Jeff Green is frustrated with getting boned repeatedly by the C&C 4 DRM. And is perfectly happy to let Twitter know about it (http://twitter.com/Greenspeak/status/10779486078).