Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

C&C 3 Won't Start-Up

Tags:
  • Desktops
  • Games
  • Video Games
Last response: in PC Gaming
April 10, 2007 8:03:02 AM

The game is fully installed. When I finished installing it, I started the game up using the desktop icon. It gets stuck on the window-size loading screen or it will appear for a few seconds and close. When it stays on the loading screen I check to see if it is running and it is. I installed the latest patches and tried again but the same thing happened. The game just won't open.

More about : start

April 10, 2007 12:11:03 PM

what your computer? It could be the direct x. If you have direct x 8 and it requires 9 that could be the problem

Please post your spec. I had the same problem with my P4 3.4 extream edtion laptop. The direct x was 7 but the game require 8.
April 10, 2007 4:28:44 PM

Travis is actually working on a review of C&C 3 so I'll see if he can weigh in.

The specs would help. Vista or XP?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 10, 2007 5:32:29 PM

A little late to the game hehe, I love c&c3 (haven't played a C&C game since Tiberian sun and a little bit of RA2, but RA has lost appeal to me, just too much wacko stuff in that game, attack dogs are awesome though!), finally at the last mission for gdi and nod, savouring the moment, my moment to strike! Then on to the scrin campaign.
April 12, 2007 3:13:10 PM

I just got the game and started playing GDI campaign (and on the 2nd mission now). I'm love the theatrical cutscenes. Currently playing it at 1280x960 with max details.
April 19, 2007 11:28:08 AM

Started playing GDI, played several missions, got bored, same with the NOD. After trying the Scrin in skirmish decided not to finish the GDI and NOD campaigns for the sake of the Scrin missions. My friend got bored playing through the first GDI mission.

My rig has 8800GTX so I cranked everything up and it doesn't look that great, basically it doesn't look like a 2007 game, for the most part it just looks like Generals.

I basically knew all this from the demo so I just rented the full version so I didn't waste too much cash but I still expected better.

This game is for hard-core CnC fans ONLY. CnC 3 got high reviews because of having CnC in its name just like Doom 3. I recommend Dawn of War if you like light games or Medieval 2 (my personal favorite) and Supreme Commander for heavy RTS.
April 19, 2007 12:59:56 PM

I agree, I have never played generals, didn't care, the last c&c game I played was a bit of RA2, but that was kinda boring for me, Tiberian Sun all the way, and tiberium wars reminded me of it so much, just a little better.

Supreme Commander got great reviews, and I think the same, it's for hardcore TA fans, I don't particularly like the game, it was a waste for me to buy it.
April 20, 2007 3:51:42 AM

I didn't play TA before I played SC but meh, it is a good game, give it a try, it certainly not just a 'pretty name' like CnC3, there is so much you can do and there are already tonnes of mods out there to make teh experience what you want it to be.
Like I said CnC3 is a total waste of money and even the cutscenes aren't great, in primitive games like taht I at least expect some hot babes in the movies and they are not there in CnC.
April 21, 2007 12:02:50 AM

Quote:
I didn't play TA before I played SC but meh, it is a good game, give it a try, it certainly not just a 'pretty name' like CnC3, there is so much you can do and there are already tonnes of mods out there to make teh experience what you want it to be.
Like I said CnC3 is a total waste of money and even the cutscenes aren't great, in primitive games like taht I at least expect some hot babes in the movies and they are not there in CnC.


??!!??

I would question your definition of the term hot babes. If you mean infants who are on fire, then I agree with you that they are not present, but .. really... are we even talking about the same game? Perhaps you were disappointed that they were not naked or especially close to it?

*shrug*
April 21, 2007 1:08:31 PM

Not necessarily naked but short skirts would have helped. Anyway, my point is: CnC3 is only for hardcore CnC fans and those who think rushing is THE only good strategy in RTS. If you want a good RTS you would go for DoW, CoH, Total War or Supreme Commander.
April 21, 2007 2:22:23 PM

ive always thought of DoW as a rush game, i have it and its expansion pack, aswell as CnC3 and SC.

pesonally loved all the CnC games so i loved 3 aswell and the update to the graphics just makes it more enjoyable. SC i havnt started to play properly yet, think i might need to patch it before playing cause i noticed a few bugs with the AI in the first 10 minutes or so.

CnC i think is an awesome game, if you balence the AI and put it on about medium, then the game is really enjoyable, the computer will build a base while sending small waves to keep you on your toes.

personally i like to keep it realistic as if im playing another person so thats why i use medium, hard just means that the AI has too much of an advantage.
April 22, 2007 5:37:52 AM

Played medium-its too easy, hard is harder but only because teh enemy sends more stuff, but its the same units.
While I like the SC a lot I agree that its AI is pretty weak, I could defeat 4 supreme AIs allied against me in T3 bot rush as well as holding fort/teching to nuke and nuking them before they built defense. In fact I believe that I could defeat 7 supremes using the same strat. However the variety of ways in which you could defeat an enemy is incredible, especially on island maps where the navy plays a major role. Another thing I like about SC is the role played by air force. You could build a huge navy capable of levelling a large base quickly but unless you provide that task force with an umbrella of fighters it will get demolished by tech 3 gunships or strat bombers before it even gets to the base.

I have to say that the most advanced AI I encountered in RTS is that of Medieval 2 TW, all things considered it performs admirably even though it often makes stupid tactical and strategical decisions such as moving the army away from the city when your army is about to land amphibiously near that city, however given the complexity of the game that is forgivable.
April 22, 2007 8:09:11 AM

Quote:
Played medium-its too easy, hard is harder but only because teh enemy sends more stuff, but its the same units.


this is what gets me though, you try building as many units as the computer aswell as a base of equal size, i bet you find you have ran out of money before the computer does. i tried the strategy once i ended up with a equal amount of units as the computer but it had managed to build a bigger base.
April 22, 2007 10:21:32 AM

From what I've heard the AI only cheats in Brutal setting, but I still don't understand y u bother with this game, it brings nothing new to RTS, it's graphics are dated (I have 8800GTX so the system isn't the problem) and its predecessor betters it in many aspects such as variety and gameplay. This game has three sides that are far too similar, there is no differences such as one between GLA and USA where GLA didn't need power and therefore power generators, didn't have an air force and employed markedly different tactics.

Also, in Generals the infantry had a use due to the presence of bunkers, fire platforms and GLA buses, the buildings could also be garissoned by 10 units instead of 3. Additionally Zero Hour had 12 sides and the generals challenge which is many hours of fun.
April 23, 2007 1:40:25 PM

Generals fanboi die! You and the other 4 people that bought the game lol.
April 23, 2007 7:01:11 PM

Quote:
From what I've heard the AI only cheats in Brutal setting, but I still don't understand y u bother with this game, it brings nothing new to RTS, it's graphics are dated (I have 8800GTX so the system isn't the problem) and its predecessor betters it in many aspects such as variety and gameplay. This game has three sides that are far too similar, there is no differences such as one between GLA and USA where GLA didn't need power and therefore power generators, didn't have an air force and employed markedly different tactics.

Also, in Generals the infantry had a use due to the presence of bunkers, fire platforms and GLA buses, the buildings could also be garissoned by 10 units instead of 3. Additionally Zero Hour had 12 sides and the generals challenge which is many hours of fun.


Well, it is "different" fun in this game for sure, but that's because the strategies are changed. Honestly I hated Zero Hour when it came out, but after finally pushing myself into it, I began to enjoy it immensely. For some reason almost every new C&C game I play seems inferior to the previous...until I start playing it more.

This game is in every way superior to the previous Generals games--except for the engineers/saboteurs, which I'd rather they'd left it like it was where you had to capture with normal infantry like in Generals. Then again I was always a fan of "Turtleing" rather than rushing, and always hated rushers. Guess that's why I've been playing mostly compstomps in multiplayer rather than vs. humans. I guess my play-style isn't very good when it comes to beating human opponents, but I play for the fun and less for the challenge.

Anyway, I think this game will be loads of fun once I learn all the "tricks" of the different units and such. We'll see.
April 23, 2007 7:05:54 PM

Quote:
Generals fanboi die! You and the other 4 people that bought the game lol.


Really? Still over 137 users online looking to play an online skirmish last I looked just now, with several dozen games in progress...Generals online today still seems busier than Yuri's Revenge and RA2 were at their peak, so I'd imagine there were a few more than 4 people playing them...
April 24, 2007 11:38:45 AM

H4x0r copies! lol.
April 25, 2007 2:50:42 AM

I am not a Gens fanboy, I haven't even played the game for more than a year now. All I have to say to those that can't read is: CnC 3 is inferior to even its predecessor and that is pretty pis$ poor.
April 25, 2007 5:12:39 PM

Nah, it's solid. Quite a good game in my opinion.

I haven't given SC much time yet, but I do like all the automation with the transports and support Commanders. That seems like it could get fun. I was a big TA fan, though.

I love the Dawn of War games, and Company of Heroes might as well be in that group as well since it shares many characteristics (and is also by Relic).

I just wish that Warhammer Online was a 40K MMORPG and not a fantasy one. Aren't WoW and LOTRO covering all the elves and fairies already? Can't we get mechs and machine guns?
April 25, 2007 7:40:08 PM

I've heard that they ARE working on a Warhammer 40,000 MMO.

Honestly though if I had to pick a world that would be excellent for a Sci Fi MMO, I'd go with Battletech. 3050-3065 preferably. Or maybe they could start in 3025 era and have the Clans be a HUGE expansion or something.

Anyway, it would offer a very rich galaxy to explore and many different roles to fill. There would be tons of potential for both PVP AND PVE and several different militaries that you could work for.

I just feel like Warhammer 40,000 is going to be too constraining of a world for an MMO to truly do it justice.
April 26, 2007 11:20:29 AM

Battletech for sure, praise the Clans for making Madcat, Daishi and Shadow Cat to mention a few.