Command and Conquer 4 = Epic Fail

First SupCom 2 and now this. I dont mind. Why? Just allows Starcraft 2 to have a larger player base whenever the hell it comes out. Thankfully Dawn of War 2 and Company of Heroes is still good. If only there were other good resource gather RTSs out there - that arent dominated by hardcore leet nut jobs.

First SupCom 2 and now this. I dont mind. Why? Just allows Starcraft 2 to have a larger player base whenever the hell it comes out. Thankfully Dawn of War 2 and Company of Heroes is still good. If only there were other good resource gather RTSs out there - that arent dominated by hardcore leet nut jobs.

Gamesterpheonix

Like Starcraft 2 will be, seriously don't even care about SC2 at all... I would honestly rather play SupCom2 and it's not even that good.

Napoleon: Total War is good though, and that came out recently.

StarCraft2 will be great, but don't expect the "leet" crowd to leave...

Starcraft 2 is going to DEVOUR the competition. It almost makes me feel empathy for the developers working at other studios because you know that they know they can't compete with Blizzard and their hard work is going to look like piss when Starcraft 2 rolls out the door and breaks sales records and makes RTS history, going on to become one of the most popular RTS games of all time.

well what do you know.. in their attempt to reinvent the game and make it unique they end up losing out horribly. Simplified it to all hell without even adding in any new forms of depth whatsoever. While on the other hand the games with more complexity in contrast, i.e. Starcraft II is actually being generally well recieved in its Beta form despite having a lot of conventional gameplay mechanics. I think game devs should really really learn from this: Simplifying RTS gameplay mechanics is NOT a good idea. We actually like the additional complexities thank you very much.

Objectively speaking for Supreme Commander 1 at least: no. No it isn't.

*points to reviews and user scores*

And it's a fail *why*? (Not one of you, including the OP, stated why it's a fail.)

Do you hate the direction change (no base-building, as in RA3/TW/Generals)? Let's see; the United States military (the pre-cursor to GDI) has gone from building big bases (the Korea/Vietnam model), to the smaller expeditionary-force model (Iraq and Afghanistan). That is largely why the *occupation army* charge leveled by al-Quaida and the Taliban went nowhere - no large bases. Also, through the *entire* Tiberium Cycle, the Brotherhood of Nod *never* did big bases (even as high-tech as NOD went in TW, it took until the late game for the typical NOD base to get near the size of a GDI base at the start; both GDI and NOD had crawlers, or have we forgotten the MCV?). Both GDI and NOD basically rebooted and are starting small, and that means the expeditionary-force model. Different, yes. but hardly a fail.

The persistent Internet connection? That should be news to nobody; EA stated that from the beginning. What's more, that PIC actually has a purpose; neither online or single-player is truly standalone, as you can *level up* consistently (and certain upgrades are available after completing certain missions). Other than that, you are free to install the game on as many computers as you want to. Only your Master Account is unique (and it's portable across computers, ALA the Steam model).

Neither of the above makes the game a fail (let alone an epic fail).

And it's a fail *why*? (Not one of you, including the OP, stated why it's a fail.)

Do you hate the direction change (no base-building, as in RA3/TW/Generals)? Let's see; the United States military (the pre-cursor to GDI) has gone from building big bases (the Korea/Vietnam model), to the smaller expeditionary-force model (Iraq and Afghanistan). That is largely why the *occupation army* charge leveled by al-Quaida and the Taliban went nowhere - no large bases. Also, through the *entire* Tiberium Cycle, the Brotherhood of Nod *never* did big bases (even as high-tech as NOD went in TW, it took until the late game for the typical NOD base to get near the size of a GDI base at the start; both GDI and NOD had crawlers, or have we forgotten the MCV?). Both GDI and NOD basically rebooted and are starting small, and that means the expeditionary-force model. Different, yes. but hardly a fail.

The persistent Internet connection? That should be news to nobody; EA stated that from the beginning. What's more, that PIC actually has a purpose; neither online or single-player is truly standalone, as you can *level up* consistently (and certain upgrades are available after completing certain missions). Other than that, you are free to install the game on as many computers as you want to. Only your Master Account is unique (and it's portable across computers, ALA the Steam model).

Neither of the above makes the game a fail (let alone an epic fail).

PGHammer

[QUOTE="PGHammer"]

And it's a fail *why*? (Not one of you, including the OP, stated why it's a fail.)

Do you hate the direction change (no base-building, as in RA3/TW/Generals)? Let's see; the United States military (the pre-cursor to GDI) has gone from building big bases (the Korea/Vietnam model), to the smaller expeditionary-force model (Iraq and Afghanistan). That is largely why the *occupation army* charge leveled by al-Quaida and the Taliban went nowhere - no large bases. Also, through the *entire* Tiberium Cycle, the Brotherhood of Nod *never* did big bases (even as high-tech as NOD went in TW, it took until the late game for the typical NOD base to get near the size of a GDI base at the start; both GDI and NOD had crawlers, or have we forgotten the MCV?). Both GDI and NOD basically rebooted and are starting small, and that means the expeditionary-force model. Different, yes. but hardly a fail.

The persistent Internet connection? That should be news to nobody; EA stated that from the beginning. What's more, that PIC actually has a purpose; neither online or single-player is truly standalone, as you can *level up* consistently (and certain upgrades are available after completing certain missions). Other than that, you are free to install the game on as many computers as you want to. Only your Master Account is unique (and it's portable across computers, ALA the Steam model).

Neither of the above makes the game a fail (let alone an epic fail).

Gamesterpheonix

Anyway, people will cry no matter what. I guarantee you there will be plenty of cry babies when Starcraft 2 comes out. I'm fully awaiting the "OMG SC2 SUCKS!!" threads. I don't really care what other people's opinions about a game are. If I like it, that's all that matters.zomglolcats

Hey, who here said Supreme Commander 1 was FAIL....I demand you raise your hand......face the wall....apply the blindfold.....and await the bang.

Hey, who here said Supreme Commander 1 was FAIL....I demand you raise your hand......face the wall....apply the blindfold.....and await the bang.

DigiTM73

First SupCom 2 and now this. I dont mind. Why? Just allows Starcraft 2 to have a larger player base whenever the hell it comes out. Thankfully Dawn of War 2 and Company of Heroes is still good. If only there were other good resource gather RTSs out there - that arent dominated by hardcore leet nut jobs.

Gamesterpheonix

I tried the first SC and it was pants. C&C Generals was a fun game, Tiberium Wars looks nice, but the gameplay is being lost and buried behind the shiney graphics - like most games these days. I have no interest in C&C4 or SC2... I have tried Dawn of War 2 and it's actually pretty well made! All be it you don't have huge armies, but it looks good, it plays good. I even stayed with it to the end and completed the missions :)

StarCraft was the first RTS game that I played extensively, and I've become a big fan of Blizzard and have followed all of their major releases since. However, I've played the betas for both CNC4 and SC2, and while CNC4 has gotten worse reviews than any Blizzard game will ever receive, I actually enjoyed it more.

StarCraft 2 is essentially StarCraft 1 with slightly different units and prettier graphics. Once you set those differences aside, it practically feels like you're playing the same game. I understand that games don't go through drastic changes when a sequel is released, but it's been over a decade since we've seen the first StarCraft so this update shouldn't be anything short of revolutionary. Instead of making a statement as to why Blizzard is the king of RTS, they've gone the safe route and recycled many of the same dynamics of the first game and made it 3D (technically). Protoss still feel like Protoss, Zerg still feel like Zerg, and Command Centers still cost 400 minerals-- not necessarily a bad thing, but this doesn't justify all the hype surrounding the game.

I played the first StarCraft until I was sick of it, and all that the StarCraft 2 beta has done is reminded me that I'm still sick of it. The changes in CNC4 were a breath of fresh air to me, and I bought the game even after seeing Gamespot's 7.0 review. It's true that the new playstyle isn't new user-friendly, but I've seen it's potential in beta after players got skilled and reached the level cap. Afterall, since playing StarCraft, I've only played strategy games for the multiplayer anyway.

StarCraft was the first RTS game that I played extensively, and I've become a big fan of Blizzard and have followed all of their major releases since. However, I've played the betas for both CNC4 and SC2, and while CNC4 has gotten worse reviews than any Blizzard game will ever receive, I actually enjoyed it more.

StarCraft 2 is essentially StarCraft 1 with slightly different units and prettier graphics. Once you set those differences aside, it practically feels like you're playing the same game. I understand that games don't go through drastic changes when a sequel is released, but it's been over a decade since we've seen the first StarCraft so this update shouldn't be anything short of revolutionary. Instead of making a statement as to why Blizzard is the king of RTS, they've gone the safe route and recycled many of the same dynamics of the first game and made it 3D (technically). Protoss still feel like Protoss, Zerg still feel like Zerg, and Command Centers still cost 400 minerals-- not necessarily a bad thing, but this doesn't justify all the hype surrounding the game.

I played the first StarCraft until I was sick of it, and all that the StarCraft 2 beta has done is reminded me that I'm still sick of it. The changes in CNC4 were a breath of fresh air to me, and I bought the game even after seeing Gamespot's 7.0 review. It's true that the new playstyle isn't new user-friendly, but I've seen it's potential in beta after players got skilled and reached the level cap. Afterall, since playing StarCraft, I've only played strategy games for the multiplayer anyway.

MaxGamer

AND THIS MY FRIENDS.. is why i wont be getting SC2.. im not buying essentially the same game TWICE. i can see the pointlessness of it. tbh this would be like buying the dragon lance chronicles a SECOND TIME because they changed the book count AGAIn (seriosuly its changed like 4 times) overall a bad year for rts's overall. chaos rising and the MINOR sucess of sup commander 2 are diamonds in the rough. but this looks like a year to avoid the genre unless somehting really hookes on and doesnt let go.. kinda like a headcrab.

First SupCom 2 and now this. I dont mind. Why? Just allows Starcraft 2 to have a larger player base whenever the hell it comes out. Thankfully Dawn of War 2 and Company of Heroes is still good. If only there were other good resource gather RTSs out there - that arent dominated by hardcore leet nut jobs.

Gamesterpheonix

Starcraft 2 is going to DEVOUR the competition. It almost makes me feel empathy for the developers working at other studios because you know that they know they can't compete with Blizzard and their hard work is going to look like piss when Starcraft 2 rolls out the door and breaks sales records and makes RTS history, going on to become one of the most popular RTS games of all time.

THA-TODD-BEAST

I am personally going to find you and laugh my ass off if it totally happens the exact opposite of what you say.

It probably won't, but still.

Starcraft 2 is going to DEVOUR the competition. It almost makes me feel empathy for the developers working at other studios because you know that they know they can't compete with Blizzard and their hard work is going to look like piss when Starcraft 2 rolls out the door and breaks sales records and makes RTS history, going on to become one of the most popular RTS games of all time.

THA-TODD-BEAST

I am personally going to find you and laugh my ass off if it totally happens the exact opposite of what you say.

It probably won't, but still.

lol I bet he works for Blizzard or he has a magic crystal ball which allows to exactly predict the future of our gaming... if that's the case. Name a decent FPS game coming soon please ;)

So would I be better off getting C & C 3 and Kanes Wrath instead of this? Haven't played number 3 nor the expansion. And noticed the combination is the same price as number 4. Are the graphics inferior now or still hold up pretty well?

Edit: Never mind, decided to buy number 3 with expansion on Steam. I really don't know about 4. I have been given a complimentary code for number 4 (you know the ones from graphics cards when you buy them), but can't decide if it's worth getting or shred it?

I agree it looks like **** and it makes Supreme Commander 2 look good. I enjoyed C&C3 but this one is crap. EA you ruined the series

Objectively speaking for Supreme Commander 1 at least: no. No it isn't.

*points to reviews and user scores*

doanm

Relic are the kings of RTS games and are there to stay. They might not have the luxury of Blizzard to keep a game in development for 5+ years, but at least they try to push the genre forward in that time they have on their hands before the publisher starts kicking the doors in and so far they've done an amazing job with all their major releases.

That said, I think StarCraft 2 will be a great game, I just wished for Blizzard to innovate instead of improve, they had a decade to come up with something new for the genre, yet up-till-now they failed to impress me personally, doesn't mean to say that they wont wipe the competition with SC2, which is kinda sad really in regards to the other great talent out there.

lol I bet he works for Blizzard or he has a magic crystal ball which allows to exactly predict the future of our gaming... if that's the case. Name a decent FPS game coming soon please ;)

Anarchist-TKC-1

So would I be better off getting C & C 3 and Kanes Wrath instead of this? Haven't played number 3 nor the expansion. And noticed the combination is the same price as number 4. Are the graphics inferior now or still hold up pretty well?

Edit: Never mind, decided to buy number 3 with expansion on Steam. I really don't know about 4. I have been given a complimentary code for number 4 (you know the ones from graphics cards when you buy them), but can't decide if it's worth getting or shred it?

DigiTM73

Starcraft 2 is going to DEVOUR the competition. It almost makes me feel empathy for the developers working at other studios because you know that they know they can't compete with Blizzard and their hard work is going to look like piss when Starcraft 2 rolls out the door and breaks sales records and makes RTS history, going on to become one of the most popular RTS games of all time.

THA-TODD-BEAST

Westwood could if they never sold out to EA. Blizzard has it easy nowadays:?

Not a fan of this game at all, poor C+C.. just not what it use to be.

But then again I wasnt a fan of the last Red Alert game or C+C3.

Red Alert1 and 2 where awesome though, as where the original C+C games.