Poll: Did Command & Conquer 4 make you sad?

[syndicated44]

I dont understand why you would make an ending and then throw in completely new gameplay.

yes, I agree. It was really a bad decision to start experimenting at the "END" of the series. It makes the dev look like they don't care enough about giving the series a proper send off. Which they didn't.

It seems strange to me that they would pull something like that at the end though. I would say they didnt care about it but that seems bizarre considering how beloved CnC is. I have never been a fan of CnC and I havnt played the new one (nor plan to) but when I heard they went the way of Dawn of War 2 I just cringed because its so much the opposite of what CnC was all about.

It just doesnt work in my mind. I can only imagine they said lets emulate what is popular now. Which is a very bad strategy especially with a game that had at one point defined how RTS should work. I dont know, Its the end of Kane as far as I heard. I would have settled with a shitty version of how the game used to work but the DoW2 framework for CnC is just a huge mistake.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I didn't mind the loss of base building or resource gathering but I couldn't stand the minuscule unit limit. C&C has never had unit caps so I found that incredibly frustrating.

"What, you mean I can build a grand total of 6 tanks? LAME."

 

[UnusualStranger]

I find some people going after Supcom2, and I don't see the problem with it.

Supcom2 became faster, easier to manage, somewhat more action packed, and with a lot stronger commanders and more intelligent troops. I played both the original, and a demo for 2, and I found the 2 to be much more fun, and much less on the "overtly time consuming" side.

OK,/rant.

Yeah, C&C4 just seemed like in names only was the game of the C&C universe. Everything is off...No more sprawling bases, no more resources, unit caps....what the hell happened?

 

[Jandau]

It was a disappointment.

The new gameplay mechanics sucked. And I don't mean they sucked because the game was different from the rest of the series - C&C4 sucks on its own merits, all by itself. Comparing it to other games in the series just adds insult to injury.

 

[J0k3]

It was a disappointment.

The new game play mechanics sucked. And I don't mean they sucked because the game was different from the rest of the series - C&C4 sucks on its own merits, all by itself. Comparing it to other games in the series just adds insult to injury.

Deleted the game from my computer today. The single player was boring with repeats of mission formula; assault and take and hold. Since in single player your command point is only 50 (yeah 6 little tanks will take that up)

you pretty much HAVE to co-op or it's very very hard, sometimes impossible since it will always be 2 crawlers against 1, eg. that mission where you have to protect a endless stream of escaping civilian convoys, I'm sure some of you know what I'm talking about.

Eventually I finished that mission by myself with defense class and spamming infantry and bunker. But IMHO it is a good example of very bad game design. There could've been an option to have a computer "partner" or they tune down the difficulty for solo missions.

The game is very fun when playing in co-op, but because of repetitive level design the fun will soon lose it's luster. For good level design see Dow2: Chaos rising. I also didn't enjoy the unlock system, it's a personal opinion but in a RTS game I'd expect to "research and develop" the big bad mammoths, not go off and grab a red crystal and "oh look, mammoth tank in the first 5 minute, oh what? you haven't unlocked it yet? sucks to be you.."

Speaking of those unlocks, I'm also sick and tired of being auto-matched against some lvl 20 general, who has everything un-locked while my little level 7 mechs gets pounded. It feels like I am playing the massive "fail" that was BattleForge

End of rant

 

[Mozared]

I'm floating between 'yes' and 'indifferent'. It was a decent game in itself, but like every EA-game nowadays, it didn't get past decent. If they had slapped another title on it and changed the names of all the characters it would have been "just another alrightish-EA strategy game". Now it's "just another alrightish-EA strategy game thriving on the name of C&C", as I'll agree that it's nothing like the old C&C games and when compared to those, has taken a turn for the worse.

 

[Wolfiesden]

I own ALL the C&C games and have since it was new. I was, of course, going to buy C&C4 simply because I loved all the others. They tried to break away from the base builder mentality and try a FPS view in one. While this was interesting, it was not the C&C I love. After seeing reviews and watching game play videos, C&C4 is off my purchase list. I have ZERO interest in it any longer. They stripped everything out of it that makes it truly a C&C game. The ONLY thing they kept was the name. RA3 was a bit much for me too, way cartoony. C&C3 will be my last purchase in the line unless they see the light and return to C&C's roots and re-install what made the line so successful and fun.

 

[SweetWarmIce]

Having heard nothing but bad things about it and only played Tiberium Wars and Generals I wasn't overly concerned with the changes but I bought the game today and to be honest I quite like it. The story feels empty and it's hard to get into, but the gameplay is quite enjoyable and requires precise timing and unit deployment. I miss the base building, resource gathering unit composition and spam, it's sad that it does not feel like C&C but it's a good game nonverless.

 

[J0k3]

Having heard nothing but bad things about it and only played Tiberium Wars and Generals I wasn't overly concerned with the changes but I bought the game today and to be honest I quite like it. The story feels empty and it's hard to get into, but the gameplay is quite enjoyable and requires precise timing and unit deployment. I miss the base building, resource gathering unit composition and spam, it's sad that it does not feel like C&C but it's a good game nonverless.

I guess in the end it's a game that newcomers to the series will find refreshing, and the veterans of the series will loath. I just feel that, by touting that this will be the final installment of Kane, the developers were obviously drawing the fan base to buy this game. Yet they didn't realize that by changing the game at the series supposed finale, they inadvertently stabbed the fans in the back.

 

[pffh]

Consider this: You're happily working on the fourth installation in the C&C series when your boss swings by, you chat for a bit, he asks you what you're doing etc and then just before he leaves he mentions that by the way you are all fired when you're finished with this game.

What would you do?

 

[SomeBoredGuy]

I haven't played it myself, but I do wonder one thing. How moddable was C&C4 and 3? Because, and this is just random speculation, I have a sneaking suspicion that someone will try and recreate all the levels in C&C4 except for the C&C3 way of playing and then replace all the C&C4 levels with those. Again, it;s late and I'm just rambling but I would honestly say I'd be surprised if no lone modder was sitting alone in his room thinking to himself "dude, this sucks. You know what? I'm gonna fix this shit." and decided to check out how he could do so.

Again, just my tired ramblings.

 

[Elexia]

I enjoy CnC4 and honestly have no qualms about the gameplay. I don't unsettle easily when a series changes. I guess I adapt quickly due to the gaps between a series' releases. I've been a follower of CnC since the original. I enjoy the challenge of having a mobile MCV, new ways of attacking/defending etc. Although in multiplayer, no one else has realised you need to collect crystals rather than attack the enemy - which lets down the multiplayer a great deal.

As for its story, I agree with the point that adding innovation to a series is fine - but not at the end of it. After having everything the same for a while to change it such a great deal results in unsettled gamers.

 

[XUnsafeNormalX]

"Gee Relic's RTS system seems to be pretty standard now."

"KAY LETS DO THAT."

Luckily Starcraft 2 will come out soon enough to bring back resource gathering.

 

[Kragg]

I find some people going after Supcom2, and I don't see the problem with it.

Supcom2 became faster, easier to manage, somewhat more action packed, and with a lot stronger commanders and more intelligent troops. I played both the original, and a demo for 2, and I found the 2 to be much more fun, and much less on the "overtly time consuming" side.

OK,/rant.

Yeah, C&C4 just seemed like in names only was the game of the C&C universe. Everything is off...No more sprawling bases, no more resources, unit caps....what the hell happened?

see, but supcom2 turned into a command and conquer type game, no longer the supcom they loved, and command and conquer 4 was just bizzarre and almost unbearably bad as a single play game, in most peoples oppinions

if c&c were like supcom 2 it would have been alot bettter actally

 

[UnusualStranger]

see, but supcom2 turned into a command and conquer type game, no longer the supcom they loved, and command and conquer 4 was just bizzarre and almost unbearably bad as a single play game, in most peoples oppinions

if c&c were like supcom 2 it would have been alot bettter actally

Supcom2 turned into a C&C game? I did not notice this. I found it still uniquely Supcom, with a lot of the annoying things in the original chopped away. If those annoying things are what made it unique, I'm glad it changed.

And yeah, if C&C was like supcom2, perhaps things would be better for it. Not the case though.

 

[J0k3]

I find some people going after Supcom2, and I don't see the problem with it.

Supcom2 became faster, easier to manage, somewhat more action packed, and with a lot stronger commanders and more intelligent troops. I played both the original, and a demo for 2, and I found the 2 to be much more fun, and much less on the "overtly time consuming" side.

OK,/rant.

Yeah, C&C4 just seemed like in names only was the game of the C&C universe. Everything is off...No more sprawling bases, no more resources, unit caps....what the hell happened?

see, but supcom2 turned into a command and conquer type game, no longer the supcom they loved, and command and conquer 4 was just bizzarre and almost unbearably bad as a single play game, in most peoples oppinions

if c&c were like supcom 2 it would have been alot bettter actally

Now there's an idea, anyways I believe that as a Dawn of war 2 imitation C&C 4 lacked a few key elements, the reason why dawn of war 2 worked so well was because with the down size of the unit caps (from unlimited to a few) there was a increase in unit abilities and micromanagement potential (as each Sergent has changeable and useful abilities) as well as a cover system which was key in the overall strategy (instead C&C 4 gave us the units with reflective shield idea, which is only good on paper IMHO).

it is my belief that when a game limits the amount of units build and also limits their micro-management worth, thats when the game limits it's overall depth and playability.

 

[Spaghetti]

Yes, and I haven't even bought the bloody thing. Nor do I intend to. Once I heard they removed resource colecting and base building, they tore out both a piece of my soul and the soul of the game. Being able to build a functioning base while managing your resources is half the battle and half the reason it is a "Strategy game" is gone.

The only game that has made this new style of RTS game play was Dawn of War 2, but they did it on a small scale that sat perfectly within the W40k universe. The only other example I can think of was Tom Clancy's End War and that was just a mess.

In my PC-biased opinion, its just so developers can make RTS's for the consoles. The traditional system would have been tough to implement without a mouse or keyboard (although Westwood was able to do it with the N64 and C&C 1)

Thanks EA, you've bludgeoned to death one of my favorite series. Right, that's my nerd-rage for today.