Command and Conquer 3 Announced 91
pasamio writes "After years of April Fools Jokes and other pranks, EA has officially announced Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars. Set for PC release in 2007, they're keeping the details very close to hand but it is being developed using the next generation SAGE engine (used in C&C:Generals and Battle for Middle Earth)."
Also in the news (Score:4, Funny)
OW!
Hey!
Stop hitting me!
New direction needed.. (Score:5, Informative)
Westwood is now just a shell of the company it once was, since a lot of the staff have moved on to other projects. I hope whoever is left at the development house knows how to design with the same concepts that started the franchise.
Going back to its roots is something I think this series needs to do. Red Alert 2 was the name's last huge success, and the bad sales of Renegade and the mediocre response to Generals should show that a new direction is needed.
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:1)
I also liked the present-day / near-future un
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:1)
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:1)
In Earth 21*0 (the only one I'm sure about is 2160 but 2150 probably does as well) there is a sidebar in which you can cycle through your production facilities so you can give new build orders even while you are watching a battle
In essence, you are correct. In Earth 2150 (which I have played very much) the sidebar actually appears only when a building or vehicle with construction capabilities is selected. The exception is while playing the Lunar Corporation, building construction is always available, si
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:1)
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:1)
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:2)
Most fans of the series prefer the classic universe, and the ESPECIALLY like the side bar, no unit upgrades, and the ability to have huge battles.
As has been said, Generals, with its unit upgrades, complex tech trees, etc, felt like a Warcraft rip-off.
CnC games are about simplicity. Generals was not.
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:1)
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:1, Informative)
Many of the Westwood employees got together and created Petroglyph. Their current title is Star Wars: Empire at War. It's a great RTS.
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:2)
-Erwos
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:2)
Maybe it's Nvidia's fault; maybe it's Westwood's fault. I don't know or care. I just wish I could play all the maps and scenarios without being nauseated.
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:1)
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Blizzard RTS have a totally different feel than Westwood CTS's for those not in the know. For example, Lets say that Blizzard and Westwood added a Duck to their games. In the Westwood game, it would be a Duck and it would Quack. In the Blizzard game, it would be white breasted green tailed mallard which has a quack and a peck command, and if you built the biomek duck processing factory, you could add interchangeable beaks that would either give the pecking power more oomph, or give the duck a "Sonic Quack" that would stun the enemy for 3 seconds. C&C generals felt like Blizzard made it simply because every unit had this extra touch that wasted more of your time instead of just simply being a unit and kill or be killed.
EA simply doesn't know what they bought from Westwood. They bought it for the name and the IP when they should have bought it for that as well as the Game Devs, which were some of the best in the industry at the time.
As the owner and fan of Every C&C game ever made, (including Sole Survivor, Which Westwood buried in a landfill somewhere) I can tell you that if C&C 3 plays like generals, then don't bother. I'd rather remember what it was like rather than knowing that EA is raping the series.
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:1)
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:2)
Hitting and accuracy against small targets may be an issue, but hey, that could be the downfall of trying to mow down troops with a tank.
I used to love playing Tiberian Sun (or was it Yuris or RA2?...) playing with the artillery deployed would kill anything. Drop a few around the edges of your base (they were mobile, iirc) and hit anything 1.5 screens away. Even if you attempted to mov
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:1)
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:2)
Did I just not "get" the game?
The biggest problem is still there (Score:2)
If you go back to C&C and particularly Red Alert 2, you can crank the screen resolution and see a very large area on the screen - maybe a few hundred metres or so, certainly most of your base at one time.
In Generals, you can see one or two buildings and a few units. I always found this made it extraordinarily frustrating tr
Re:New direction needed.. (Score:2)
The controls were a little foreign at first, being backwards to what I was used to. Once I got past that, I discovered a highly detailed and very immersive game. I bought this game about 2 years ago and have played it consistently online with friends ever since. Last night being the most recent.
In my opinion, if they can make the game as good as G
bought all of them (Score:1)
Can't wait to see the new game - I usually wait months before purchasing a new release, but I'll prolly pick this one up the day it's released.
Re:bought all of them (Score:1)
Fucking bullshit.[/rant]
Re:bought all of them (Score:1)
Bull indeed...
Re:bought all of them (Score:1)
Walmart? Never.
Sony? A pair of $8 headphones a year or two ago.
CDs/DVDs? Last CD I got was Smash Mouth (l'old). Last DVD I got was Grave of the Fireflies (a gift).
Re:bought all of them (Score:1)
Are you for real? (Score:1)
Re:Are you for real? (Score:1)
Have most of the versions before the generals issue too.
If you check my older posts you'll see I don't "shill" games . Unless of course, this is a brilliant move on ea games part - let some guy post for a few years on
God I wish I had invested in tin foil 15 years ago...
Re:How is it 3? (Score:1)
Re:How is it 3? (Score:1)
Re:How is it 3? (Score:1)
Re:How is it 3? (Score:2)
And C&C: Generals had nothing to do with the C&C games, it was just throwing the name on to sell more copies.
Re:How is it 3? (Score:1)
Re:How is it 3? (Score:2)
Re:How is it 3? (Score:1)
Wasn't that the Wrath of Khan? Oh I see 11 NOT II.
KHaaaaaannnn!!! - sorry just had to.
CnC Timeline (Score:5, Informative)
RA1: Solviet Campaign --> CnC-->Tiberiun Sun-->CnC3
RA1: Allied Campaign --> RA2/Yuri's Revenge
The two campaigns in RA1 esentially follow two paralell universes. I believe wikipedia has a good article on the CnC universe connections here [wikipedia.org]
Re:CnC Timeline (Score:1)
It doesn't matter which ending you take, the Soviet Union falls either way. Basically, the Soviet campaign just provides background information (the Nod stuff). Therefore:
RA -> C&C -> TS -> Firestorm -> C&C3
(RA ->) RA2 -> YR
Re:CnC Timeline (Score:1)
Re:How is it 3? (Score:1)
Possible Hope (Score:4, Interesting)
I still feel betrayed by EA for letting the community down at so many points - Generals, their interference in Tiberian Sun (look at prerelease info about the game to see what I mean), the dumbing down of Red Alert 2 (the original RA was serious, RA2 was all cartoony and not serious at all) and then the fiasco surrounding The First Decade pack they released. If they can release a solid C&C game that lives up to the expectations of myself and other C&C fans, I could probably forgive them.
Also, not mentioned there but there is to be a third side available once GDI and Nod campaigns are complete, but it's unknown as to who you'll be playing as. If you're in the US, there's a PC Gamer coming out that will have a lot of info about the game, and a Dutch magazine, PC Gameplay, also has a preview of the game.
Re:Possible Hope (Score:3, Insightful)
It felt like it was taking place "40 minutes into the future". I especia
Re:Possible Hope (Score:2)
"waaay in the future a la cyborgs/mechs/subterranean vehicles" in tiberian sun. However, I thought the overall atmosphere was pretty cool. The tiberian minerals were taking over the planet with their rapid growth (almost reminded me of the red weed from war of the worlds). It was poisoning entire populations of people, and transforming others into superhumans.
I loved Red Alert, and was totally disappointed when RA2 was corny and cartoony. I h
Re:Possible Hope (Score:1)
I thought the overall atmosphere was pretty cool. The tiberian minerals were taking over the planet with their rapid growth
Yeah, I especially remember the fifth mission on the GDI side of the Firestorm expansion pack. The terrain was almost entirely covered with various forms of Tiberium, the mission took place at night, and the Tiberium was the main light source, in various shades of green and blue. It was a one-man mission, using a Ghoststalker, sneaking around various sleeping Tiberium lifeforms. Ver
Re:Possible Hope (Score:1)
Now, it's good that they're going back to the near future, and hopefully making it feel 'gritty' and '10 minutes into the future' again.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you are far off. The first game, Tiberian Dawn, was supposed to take place around 1995. The second game was supposed to take place around 2015 (I specifically remember that it mentioned that 20 years had passed since the first tiberium war). And C&C 3 is supposed to take place in 2047 according to the press release itself. So I assume th
Re:Possible Hope (Score:1)
Don't miss out on Tiberian Sun! (Score:2)
Plot-wise, TS is a completely logical extension of C&C. Yes, it's more "out there" when compared to the real world, but not when compared with the world in the original C&C. That's pretty much a necessity in any divergent timeline plot. After all, C&C took place in what- 1995? TS takes place in 2030 (the manual is absolutely clear on t
Re:Possible Hope (Score:3)
Person
Re:Possible Hope (Score:2)
Mod me troll, but the SAGE engine kind-of seems to suck. I mean, generals got old after a couple weeks, unlike previous CnC games.
When I want gameplay, I go for RA2: Yuri's Revenge with the deezire mod. Now THAT'S fun.
Re:Possible Hope (Score:2, Informative)
Petroglyph will be releasing a military style RTS around the same time (actually a guess, since neither EA's or Westwood's games have solid release dates as of now).
http://www.petroglyphgames.com/press/segaann.html [petroglyphgames.com]
Coincidence?
C&C Back in the Day (Score:2)
Re:C&C Back in the Day (Score:2)
I hope they can come out with another C&C that is just plain fun, like the original. Looking back at C&C, the graphic
Re:C&C Back in the Day (Score:2)
Oh dear god, you just reminded me about the single most annoying thing I ever encountered in that game... but it also made me want to play again and again....
Addiction is a funny thing...
Re:C&C Back in the Day (Score:1)
I completely agree--I still play Tiberian Sun and RA2 to this day--can't play the first two because Windows 2000 refuses to play them...*checks WINE to see if it plays them* And, since it plays, this post will have to get cut off,
Don't forget... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Ah, the nostalgia (Score:2)
Even without that, Generals was one of the best RTS games I'd ever played.
This, if EA doesn't screw it up, has the possibility of bestin
generals is wonderful, network technology sucks (Score:2)
until just recently when the bugs and network difficulties got to be too much for us.
I think whoever designed the networking code was either inexperienced or lazy or both.
Why can't they just use a SIMPLE network protocol??? For example, if you have a
firewall, you have to open up the TCP ports: 80, 6667, 28910, 29900, 29920
and UDP ports: 4321, 27900. That's just part of it. There's loads more "fun" if NAT
is involved.
Re: network technology sucks (Score:1)
Re:generals is wonderful, network technology sucks (Score:2)
Re:generals is wonderful, network technology sucks (Score:2)
If you had bought it, you would have noticed that it's been very stable for about 9 months, and EXTREMELY well balanced for about 3 months now (since the patch that improved anti-air missiles). Balance was only a problem in the first couple months; a recent balance patch fixed the last remaining significant balance issues (all the remaining balance issues tend to come down to player preference more than a
Re:generals is wonderful, network technology sucks (Score:2)
So basically, what you are saying is that it was stable ages ago because YOU never had an issue with it? Ummm, No. 9 months ago it was still crap. I know, because that's about right when I purchased it. You know what? April was the first month that I've really been able to play it.
I am stuck on a wireless network. I have ga
Re:generals is wonderful, network technology sucks (Score:2)
From a standpoint of the network ports, you can choose just one port in the settings for generals, and it will stick to that - but you do have to (on your firewall) dedicate that port (UDP AND TCP - if you don't do UDP, you'll have issues, as I've found) to your internal box.
Oh yea, and the mismatches - WTF. I know they're attempting to run in lockstep so they're not being overly chatty, but look at Age of Empires (another one that me and my friends got into big time) - if there was ever a "mi
Re:generals is wonderful, network technology sucks (Score:1)
Yay (Score:2)
Re:Yay (Score:2)
Some goodies. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Some goodies. (Score:2)
Where's the originality??
Red Alert please (Score:1)
Re:Red Alert please (Score:1)
There hasn't been a Command & Conquer sequel since RA2 at all. That is, unless you count Renegade, but that's not a realy RTS game anyways.
Oh, and Generals doesn't count. That was in another universe entirely.
Re:Red Alert please (Score:1)
Lack of Care for Customer Concerns (Score:3, Interesting)
But I have vowed never to give EA another dime for that franchise if it's the last thing I ever do. Why? Because their commitment to their customers is crap compared to their RTS rival Blizzard. Here's what happened for you non C&G:G players:
First they released the game. It was cool. People noticed it was blantantly unbalanced. It was still imbalanced. They released 3 or 4 patches and then Zero Hour came out. Zero hour further screwed up the balance of the game. In the end, they patched it a few more times and then left it in a crippled, obviously screwed up state. I remember being so frustrated with the game being one sided that I was posting in their support forums. EVERYBODY was angry about the game. It came down to a point where people were telling prospective customers to not purchase the game because EA doesn't care about you once you cough up cash. It was only after insane amounts of anti-EA posts when EA staff finally started interacting - on a very limited basis - with the community. I remember their first post being an apology of sorts. But it was clear the higher ups were telling them to can support and move on to working on the LoTR game that was coming up.
The consensus was that the game coulda been great, but EA's lack of commitment to release balance patches (is it that much work???) killed hard core players' will to keep playing. I remember vowing to never play again until they patched the current version. I haven't picked up that CD since.
Why would I complain about the game's balance? Because the expansion set made the game have TWELVE sides and yet at the end of the day there was one or two CLEAR superior sides to play (inf and usaf). It became boring and frustrating to play when two out of three random opponents you played was one of the two cheese sides.
I don't care how shiny and flashy their next game is. I'm not giving them a damn dime. If they are going to release a multiplayer RTS and then not bother to make sure it's balanced, I'm not interested.
Re:Lack of Care for Customer Concerns (Score:1)
The clearly superior sides change depending on the experience of the player. You just keep learning new tactics.
However, for the very experienced player the Toxin General is the strongest.
We've been playing Zero Hour non-stop every lunchtime at work for over 2 and a half years. That's the longest I've played *any* game daily.
We patched it ourselves to limit each side's money-generators to 10 black markets, 10 drop zones, and 40 hackers... otherwise in 3v3 games, one play
Re:Lack of Care for Customer Concerns (Score:2)
Always seemed like a pale immitation of... (Score:3, Interesting)
Blizzard is good for micromanaging. Age of Empire was good for huge wars and economic games. TA was for downright fighting and it seemed to me that C&C was going for the TA feel but never achieved it.
Re:Always seemed like a pale immitation of... (Score:3, Informative)
Also, for the record... the sequel to the most amazing RTS ever, aka Total Annihilation 2, aka Supreme Commander [supremecommander.com] is scheduled to rock the RTS world some time in 2007. Oh hell yes. *Fanboi drooling noises*
Re:Always seemed like a pale immitation of... (Score:2)
Re:Always seemed like a pale immitation of... (Score:1)
They're making a new one (Score:2)
Check it out here: link [slashdot.org].
And let's hope it happens - still the best, most complex RTS game ever, all it needed to be perfect was some improvements to the AI.
I'll wait before I buy. (Score:2)
good news (Score:1)
EA Games suck (Score:1)
console games dont need support and balancing.
They dont care if it is a RTS game or anything else.
Not C&C without Kane!! (Score:2)
Not only did Joseph D. Kucan [imdb.com] do great acting for the games but he also directed them.
My Hero!