Page 1 of 2
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:22 pm
by Leisher
Forgot that I had pre-ordered this until I walked into Best Buy today. It's getting pretty good reviews too.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:33 pm
by Leisher
Interesting quote from the GDI campaign.
Billy Dee Williams' character becomes the leader of the free world (don't worry, that's not really a spoiler) and is being interviewed on a cable news show. The host says public confidence is down because it's a time of war and he has no experience as a leader. Billy Dee responds by condemning those who are criticizing him at this time. He says he doesn't need to be a military leader because there are already military leaders who he has full confidence in to win the war.
He then says: "To undermine the trust between a people and their protectors is a mistake."
Good stuff.
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:32 am
by GORDON
Leisher wrote:He then says: "To undermine the trust between a people and their protectors is a mistake."
Yeah but
1. Free speech, you fascist!
2. Has anyone proven that Kane has nukes? No so the war is illegal.
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:11 am
by DoctorChaos
Leisher wrote:Billy Dee Williams' character becomes the leader of the free world (don't worry, that's not really a spoiler) and is being interviewed on a cable news show.
Sorry, I can't resist.
Was his campaign slogan, 'Colt 45, works every time!' or is that how he got the popular vote?
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 11:28 am
by Leisher
Ok, let's discuss the actual game and I'm going to do this as spoiler free as I can.
(Note: I have completed the GDI and NOD campaigns. However, I have NOT completed every mission in the game. There are 4 missions left, but I haven't gotten around to them as I recently rebuilt my PC and purchased new games which have distracted me from returning to C&C at the moment.)
Command & Conquer is exactly the same game as it was before except tweaked just enough to be better and worse than it's predecessors. Weird statement, I know, but let me explain.
As soon as I launched my first mission, a training mission, I realized I HATED the camera. This is an area where the gaming media and I are in complete disagreement. They and the C&C developers apparently believe that the camera should be shoved up your units' asses and done so from a really close to the ground isometric perspective rather than more top down. Try to pull the camera back to get a wider view of things and/or see more of the map and you'll find it doesn't go very far at all.
This sucks.
The gaming media claims it's great because it helps show off the pretty graphics. I call them hypocritical assholes for constantly writing articles bashing companies for concentrating on graphics and not gameplay, and then blowing smoke up C&C's ass for the same sin.
Look, it's very simple, the camera will interfere with your ability to effectively command your units. That is all the proof I need to prove that I'm right here.
To contrast, in Supreme Commander you can zoom all the way in or zoom all the way out so you're in space looking down on icons representing your units.
In C&C, I'd routinely lose aircraft and have to waste time searching for them as they'd find a spot on the map and do circles. Losing a unit like that is impossible in SC.
In C&C, I couldn't lasso all the units in an attack group during many missions. In SC such a problem is impossible.
The list of complaints about the camera goes on, but you get my point. "The camera brings you close to the action and shows off the graphics" my ass. It traps you and tricks you into thinking the game is faster paced that it actually is because you're fighting with a bad camera.
Moving on, I started playing with NOD rather than GDI. I'm not sure why, just did it on a whim. It turned out to be an interesting choice for a few reasons. The NOD side, IMHO, has the best mix of units, shows off the tactics that can be used in the game better than GDI, has the better performances in the FMV sequences, and is overall, more fun than the GDI campaign. I should add that it's also more difficult, but that's not a knock on GDI's campaign as it was designed to be this way. (GDI's early missions are little more than extended training missions.)
That brings me to the differences in the sides. NOD has fast units with specific purposes and what I thought was the best mix of super weapons. Their overall theme is hit and run style warfare. I also thought their base defenses were superior to GDI's. Ditto for their air power. I'm not sure why, but their air units just seemed easier to use than GDI's. Keep in mind that NOD's ground forces are a bit weak when compared to GDI's.
GDI, on the other hand, is all about the power. Their units aren't very different (Here's a tank! And here's a bigger tank!), but they do vary in their punch. Throw 5 rocket jeeps, 5 normal tanks, and 5 APCs at an enemy and they will stand a chance. However, throw 5 Mammoth tanks at them and it's over. If you're playing as GDI and you have 5 Mammoth tanks, you've won. Really. You'd have to be really, really bad to lose that advantage. And the Mammoth isn't even the biggest unit on GDI's side.
One thing about this version of C&C is the very cool ability to heal, steal, and upgrade units. Engineers are no longer just about repairing buildings or capturing enemy bases. Now they can actually steal enemy mega units. For example, let's say the enemy attacks your base with NOD Avatars or GDI Juggernauts. Take them down and their husk will remain. Get an engineer to it and he'll get it back on it's feet at 50% health. Bring it back to your motor pool and it'll heal it back up to 100%.
Another cool bit is unit ranks. A veteran unit hits harder and can withstand more damage. At the highest level they also heal themselves. A group of veteran Mammoth tanks are an unstoppable force.
As you might be able to tell, most missions can be won with a simple mix of units...at least from the GDI side. GDI missions are really just about firepower. I barely even used their air force. Once you get Mammoths they should be your priority. They really need no supporting cast, but if you wanted to give them something, give them APC support, with a rifle squad in each one, to handle infantry units. I'm not kidding about the Mammoth tanks meaning game over. I never bothered with Juggernauts unless I was just spending money to spend money. If I had a group of 5-10 Mammoths, I could walk through any enemy base in any mission.
On the NOD side, you'll use everything. Their missions are designed better than GDI's and you'll have to use all the weapons at your disposal to win. I really enjoyed using the air units NOD has as they turned many stalemates my way. On the NOD side of life, stalemates occur as your ground units aren't as effective as GDI's.
(SPOILER ALERT)
Fuck it, on the C&C official site, they show the spoiler, so why shouldn't I? The third race is the Scrin and they're aliens. I only know about them as their enemy so let me tell you what I've seen.
Their ground units suck with the exception of their War of the Worlds walker rip off. Those things are bad ass especially when shielded. Concentrate fire on them first and then get an engineer to steal it. I think they're the Scrin's Mammoth tank.
Their air units are a varied result. Their fighters are pussies and easily shot down by ground units. They have two larger ships though and they can be devastating. One seems to be an aircraft carrier that launches a shitload of drones. The other is like a battleship. Shielded, tough to take down, and can reduce your base to ashes quickly and do it from a distance which means you have to actively go get it rather than hoping your base defenses deal with it. There is one other thing I saw, but I never saw it fire a shot. I assume you don't want to let it do that.
The gameplay itself is standard C&C. Harvestors mine tiberium, you spend tiberium on buildings, units, and technology. Buildings and defenses need power which you supply them via power plants. Enemy attacks you, you attack enemy, repeat until one is gone.
You know it, you love it, nothing new there.
One thing that does suck in this version is the level design. Everything is small and compact designed to make the game seem faster paced. You will not be waging any epic battles in this game. I do like that they varied the mission goals this time around by mixing in missions with bases, without bases, with multiple units, with a single unit, with one goal, with many goals, etc, etc. I don't like how some of those missions come off though.
One mission in the NOD campaign is probably one of the worst designed missions I've ever seen in a game. You start off on a map with your small base with no real production abilities. Also on the map are two GDI bases and two Scrin bases. You have to capture production facilities at those bases and use their own weapons against them. Well, the fun part is that GDI and the Scrin are fighting each other too. You can do everything by the book, literally how they want you to play the board, and still lose. Wheee! How fun. What makes this level, and others like it, soooooo much more difficult is that fucking camera. You can't see shit around you with the camera or the fog of war which makes it kinda tough to sneak around a map, particularly with non-stealth units.
You'd think a radar would be a great thing to add to the series, but it'd actually ruin it since all the maps are postage stamp size.
The FMV was a big disappointment, but also entertaining in the same way watching a car crash is entertaining. I thought Josh Hollaway (Lost) did a good job for the NOD side despite the cheese factor. Every female in the FMVs also did a decent job. The three that I did have a problem with were Kane, Billy Dee Williams, and Michael Ironside.
Kane just didn't sell me this time around. In the earlier games he seemed a lot more maniacal and desperate. This time around he seemed like a soccer dad who was upset that the deli got his order wrong. He just didn't sell it.
Billy Dee Williams was Plan 9 From Outer Space awful. I love Lando, but he didn't just phone this one in, he actually seemed to work hard to make his performance worse.
Michael Ironside was, by far, the most disappointing. He's an established actor and he CAN act his ass off. Plus, he has respect for the industry as he's voiced a lot of games including being the voice of Sam Fischer from the Splinter Cell series. Hell, there's talk that he'll play Sam in an movies. But he really phoned it in here. The camera is supposed to be the player and he barely looks at it. His lines are delivered without emotion. He just looks like he wants to rush and get this done so he can go home. Very disappointing.
Overall, this version of Command & Conquer is both a step forward and a step back for the series. huge advances in gameplay and graphics have been made, but bad camera controls, poor FMV acting, and some very poor design decisions hinder it from being a classic. What's most disappointing though is that the goal of this C&C was to put it back to the level it was at with Red Alert 2 and they just didn't get that done. Red Alert 2 had something Tiberium Wars doesn't have: Personality. The thing people still talk about from C&C 2 was starting it up and hearing the shouting soldier and then the opening riffs of Hell March. The damn thing sold as a soundtrack. The current design team overlooking things like that when trying to make this game the new RA2 is a sin.
Graphics don't mean shit to an RTS game. They should be the last thing a person is focused on. It's a war, who has time to stop and smell the roses? Gameplay, unit variety, the ability to strategize and use varying tactics, not having to micromanage, etc. These things are what make a good RTS, not pretty explosions and big name actors acting poorly in early 90s style FMVs!
Oh yeah, pathfinding still sucks.
Nice game. No personality. Too many flaws to give it a great score. I would recommend it to any RTS fan though. I'd just tell them to wait until the price drops a bit.
6 out of 10.
P.S. PC Gamer gave it a 90% (I've seen other mags also rate it highly). They're out of their fucking minds. EA must've cut them a nice check. It's either that or they're biased, ignorant, or just bad at their jobs. Take your pick. Personally, I think they're rating this game based on its name more than it's qualities. And this comes from someone who was a HUGE Red Alert 2 fan. I've even made the argument that it was better than Total Annihilation.
Edited By Leisher on 1178206564
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:38 pm
by GORDON
I would have sworn Leisher started a thread for this game already, but I couldn't find it in a search.
Good:
I can crank up every graphic level and have a perfectly smooth game, unlike SupCom which drags my PC on even low graphics settings. Yes, I know it's because SupCom is giving me a much more physics-perfect world, but it's nice to be able to play a game with the system I have NOW instead of one I might have in 18 months.
Bad:
I just got close to the end of a long mission and my system crashed with a memory allocation error.
Edited By GORDON on 1185590392
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:35 am
by Cakedaddy
I've turned SupCom down, but not to the lowest settings. I don't have performance issues. But then, I don't build 500+ unit armies. The game is over before either side has that kind of force built up. As I either own a single hardest level enemy, or two own me.
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:17 am
by GORDON
GORDON wrote:I would have sworn Leisher started a thread for this game already, but I couldn't find it in a search.
I remember last night in my sleep that Leisher typod the thread title.
Threads merged.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:10 pm
by Leisher
I remember last night in my sleep that Leisher typod the thread title.
Should I be nervous that you're dreaming about me?
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:19 pm
by GORDON
Geez, like when don't I dream about you?
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:56 am
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Geez, like when don't I dream about you?
When you dream about Paul or V.
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:28 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:GORDON wrote:Geez, like when don't I dream about you?
When you dream about Paul or V.
I almost added that to my post.
We need some fresh blood and jokes around here.
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:46 pm
by Malcolm
Blood attached to veins attached to people or just for some general splashing about?
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:08 pm
by GORDON
Finished the game.
All in all, I liked it better than SuPCom.... but a decent part of that is because my machine could not run SupCom smoothly.
And again, where the TA/SupCom franchise is about.... cold, hard logic.... C&C focuses on making a fun game.
So.
There it is.
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:52 pm
by GORDON
Just wanted to say I've been playign skirmishes ever since. This game has tons of replay value, and it feels like they finally got a C&C right.
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:14 am
by Leisher
While SupCom was a disappointment of sorts, although still ranks as a fantastic game, I thought C&C:TW was also a disappointment.
Units were NOT balanced properly, shitty unit AI, small maps, etc.
My two main gripes though:
-The gameplay is too fast for the small maps and for the genre. This is supposed to be a war time setting where research is occurring. Thus, the game speed needs to drop. Let people focus on defense, research, and strategy. If you want all out fast paced, balls to the wall action, then why is there a research tree? Why are all the maps as big as a postage stamp?
-The fucking camera still sucks because it defaults at about 1 inch away from the ground, but can be pulled back to a distance of 3 inches. The developers claim they did this "so people can enjoy the graphics we worked hard on." Horseshit. Bravo to all the gaming media that bashed them on this subject too (pretty much all of them).
SupCom got the camera so right that the gaming media actually complained that they spent more time in satellite mode because, sit down for this, it was best for gameplay.
Gee ya think? It's a fucking war. Who the hell wants to fight it with a camera that can show two whole units at a time? Of course, you'd want a view that shows the entire battlefield.
The camera in C&C:TW was so limiting that I couldn't even lasso entire squads I had built. I'd have to move one portion of it and then move the other portions.
Not saying I hated C&C:TW, but it would've ranked a LOT higher if they'd move that fucking camera back.
That being said...
This game has tons of replay value, and it feels like they finally got a C&C right.
They had it right at Red Alert 2. They've just been fucking it up since then.
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 11:45 am
by GORDON
I've always felt that previous versions of the game had too many wild cards. Too easy for someone all but beaten to come back against a wildly larger foe. I know that doesn't sound right... but like the old unit "The Seeker." It makes a unit that is SUPPOSED to randomly kill one enemy unit or structure on the battlefield. Except it was never random. You push a button, and your enemy's tech center is gone, followed by their operations center, followed by airstrips, etc.
None of that cheap crap in C&C3.
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:21 pm
by Leisher
I don't remember "The Seeker", which game was that in?
I also don't remember anything like that in Red Alert 2.
And hey, if we're getting picky here, Tiberium Wars has these types of weapons. TONS of them in fact. There are many, many ways that your opponent can wipe out specific structures.
In many of the missions during the campaigns I'd charge up my super weapons and then fly a plane around the map where I knew the enemy was and once I saw him I'd target all my super weapons into that spot. It'd usually be enough to end his chances of victory.
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:45 pm
by GORDON
Eh.
Nothing you say will convince me that I'm not enjoying this version of C&C better than previous versions. 
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:48 pm
by Leisher
Well, first of all, I'm not trying to convince you that you're not having fun. To each their own.
I'm just saying that, imho, it's not the best in the series.
Also, I think you're still bitter about the ass kickings you used to get in Red Alert 2.
I'll never forget the square map with the itty bitty, teeny weeny bit of water around it. Not even remotely enough to build a navy, but somehow I managed to build a single transport boat and ship Tanya up into the heart of your base that had zero defenses. Had I prepared better, I would've knocked you out of the game rather than just crippling you.