Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Back to the Front: Command & Conquer 3

Last response: in Video Games
Share
April 23, 2007 4:54:58 PM

The latest Command and Conquer takes us back to the original tiberium war between G.D.I. and Nod. But is this the final nail in the coffin after CC2: Tiberium Sun or a breath of fresh air?
April 23, 2007 6:41:36 PM

Quote:
The latest Command and Conquer takes us back to the original tiberium war between G.D.I. and Nod. But is this the final nail in the coffin after CC2: Tiberium Sun or a breath of fresh air?


I definately think it is a winner. To be honest, I wasn't a die-hard C&C fan until Red Alert, and only then did I revisit the Tiberium Wars games...however, as a fan of the C&C-style RTS games, this does cut through as the "latest greatest".

When I first played Command and Conquer: Generals, for example, I still frequently found myself going back to Yuri's Revenge and Red Alert 2 for a short while as I missed all of the unit combos from that era. However, now that this game is out, I am not revisiting Generals or Generals: Zero Hour, so it's a much wider margin of enjoyment over the previous era IMHO.

Since I also was a huge fan of the Star Wars: Empire At War games as well, this almost seems to be a much easier transitioning from the previous C&C games as I'm used to the whole idea behind having "squads" rather than individual infantry, etc. I do think that the whole engineers idea is somewhat of a bad one for this game, only because multiplayer will be obnoxiously frustrating since all one needs is to drop an engineer behind my base and then they can capture one of my critical buildings seconds after the battle starts. *sigh* perhaps it's only that I am really poor against rush tactics...

...Anyway, capturing buildings like in Command and Conquer Generals works sooo much better to me, even if there is a superhero unit like Black Lotus who can capture quickly, its better than INSTANT capture IMO. Still, other than that, I find every aspect of the game superior to the previous C&C games in every single way. This definately is a must-have for any Red Alert or Tiberium Wars fans, hands down.

Since nobody in these forums hardley ever talk about these RTS games of this sort, I've assumed almost no "gamers" ever care to play them. How many C&C fans are reading this, or even have a clue who "Black Lotus" is???
April 23, 2007 6:48:21 PM

Quote:
Since nobody in these forums hardley ever talk about these RTS games of this sort, I've assumed almost no "gamers" ever care to play them. How many C&C fans are reading this, or even have a clue who "Black Lotus" is???


ME ME ME!!!!

Yes, RTS title are definitely underrated and under-promoted. It's sad, too, because with Company of Heroes, C&C3, and some others, there are some great RTS titles out there to be played. Company of Heroes still gets my vote for game of the year '06, and I plan on playing more C&C3 just as soon as Travis gets done with it.
Related resources
April 23, 2007 7:02:23 PM

Yes I know Black Lotus. Especially since I am a huge C&C fan and I have all the games even Renegade. I used Black Lotus frequently since the Chinese were my favourite faction in Generals and Zero hour.
April 23, 2007 7:03:02 PM

CoH, the original Warcrafts, STARCRAFT and broodwar, and let's not forget Total Anhilation!!!! (TA had to have been on e of teh best RTS's I have ever seen. I still have seen no other that have underwater, subterranian, arial and land based units and resources!). And let's not forget about DoW!!! I still need the second expansion set to round out my collection. Ver fun set of games (Although the single player campaign for winter assault was a bit dull).

I am always looking for a good RTS to tool with, one that does not make for easy routs and makes it more fun for everyone to play...
April 23, 2007 7:08:28 PM

I've been on-top of the C&C era ever since the original Red Alert. I have to agree this game belongs as one of the better C&C titles, along with Red Alert 2, and the other classics. The graphics, the game play, and contrary to the article, I think the story is absolutely flawless, considering it is a sequel. There isn't allot of different directions you can take a sequel too, but adding another race like the scrin with how they do it (I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't played it yet) is awesome. Even the ending of each campaign, while a little dry, makes sense. And again it fits the atmosphere of the game perfectly. The missions aren't the same 'build a base and destroy' all the time. The campaign is also long and full-filling. The bonus objectives will bring you back to get each mission done right. Other improvements over other C&C games is the fact you have to pay to use certain tactics, like tiberium vibration scan, or catalyst missile. The brutal AI is just that as well, brutal. Although I have beaten brutal, even 2v1, the AI is truly one of the hardest that I have came across. They attack weak points at your bass, they don't always come at you head on. One complaint I do have, is against brutal, to keep up with their economy, I find myself with anywhere from 4-8 refineries and 20+ harvesters. There is allot more I could praise about this game, and probably a few negative points I could pick out as well, but overall, this is the first quality game from EA for a long time, and should be in everyones collection.
April 23, 2007 7:20:43 PM

I also like the new AI style option, that makes the skirmish games much more interesting. Honestly I just never was able to keep up with human players so I never really tried. I have but one 'real life' to live and I'd rather spend spare time enjoying the defeats AND victories against the CPU rather than spend my entire life trying to beat everyone on the planet who plays C&C 3 online. Perhaps I just suck really bad and know I can never leap into the "big leagues" in multiplayer.


Quote:
The brutal AI is just that as well, brutal. Although I have beaten brutal, even 2v1, the AI is truly one of the hardest that I have came across.


I am a huge fan of these games now, it's just I never could make it to the level of the big players. I have a terrible 'obsession' with wanting to be the best (or at least close enough to the best) at whatever I do, and I simply cannot be the best at these games online. I'll enjoy the 3vs5 compstomps though, and having two allies with different playstyles always makes for a much more enjoyable game than 3vs5 with allied cpu players :) 
April 23, 2007 7:21:20 PM

I have every single piece of the C&C series. I mean every bit of it. Including Sole Survivor, the short lived multiplayer game from the late 90's, right after C&C Gold came out (It was fun for a week or two). I enjoyed Renegade because it brought back the good old Mammoth tank and let me explore the universe a little (And as a fresh take on FPS, it actually gave me a good introduction to the Genre. I refused to buy any FPS out of principal before Renegade). I wasn't sure what to think of C&C3 when I first got it. It felt...odd. Tiberium wasn't quite the same, and Kane was back...whole...without the nasty looking metal shell on his face that he sported in the end of Tib Sun. I was a huge fan of the advances made in Generals (Though Zero Hour was a big let-down for me, too many different types of opponents to keep up with. Multiplayer drove me mad). I was exceedingly pissed when Generals had no FMV. That said, the movies and plot in C&C3 weren't quite up to what I would expect 10+ years after the original, but then, FMV went out of style years ago. And the music didn't feel like C&C to me (This was one of my gripes for Tib Sun as well). C&C3's music is completely forgettable.

After some time playing C&C3, I started getting used to the newer units and the massive increase of pace compared to the other games in the series. I think the big thing I hated was how fast the battles went. I was a major turtle in online play in C&C1(Over Kali...in DOS...ah, the good ole days), and I just couldn't stand C&C2 (You mean I can only build 1 Mammoth?!). After getting into multi-player in C&C3, though, I started to appreciate what the pace did for it. This is probably the first RTS that has ever gotten my heart racing and adrenaline pumping. In Generals, I usually had time to adjust to someone's tactics and counter them. In C&C3, you have time to click a few buttons before someone's on you. I'm not a big fan of rushing, but the way C&C3 is designed, it's an unfortunate necessity to be able to build a massive army very quickly. It almost always seems like the person with the most cash wins, rather than the person with the most brains. However, the sheer rush of playing online is worth it, I think.
April 23, 2007 10:18:18 PM

I thought the game was average. I have such fond memories of Red Alert 2 (network evenings until 4am), but this game was lack lustre. Maybe I'm just becoming demanding because of the variety of games out there with great graphics, but I think they could have done a much better job on this project.

Dont underestimate the power of the story line. It really gets one into the game. This story line is, well, a little boring (bad acting).

I'm gonna try Company of Heroes next. I've been disappointed with every RTS game since Red Alert 2 (except Generals, that was great too).

They need to bring out something ground breaking again (anyone else fell asleep while playing Age of Empires?)

Edit: How can I forget Starcraft. AWESOME!
April 23, 2007 10:29:35 PM

I just picked this up yesterday, only 3 missions into the GDI campaign so far.

I'm loving it so far. This is what a C&C game SHOULD be! The FMV is great and fun.

So far I like the APCs quite a bit.

As for the hardest AI? I have to vote Warhammer 40000 Dawn of War for that honor. There are maps where me and my friends cannot even win 3v3.

RTS has long been one my 2 favorite genres. The other being RPG.

Also... I liked Renegade. I never played it until I got the decade of C&C pack and it is actually pretty good as cheesy FPS games go.
April 23, 2007 10:33:26 PM

I was a little suprised at the low poly units, expecting more from a game of this generation, but Im not dissapointed with it at all.

Travis Meacham summed it up well:
Quote:
....they did take a tried-and-true formula and wrap it up in a near-perfect presentation


It is a well thought out and executed game, even if the theatrics may not be to everyones liking. Ive never known anyone who kept playing a crappy game because it had great acting, but take a solid game and people will keep playing regardless of the theatrics
April 24, 2007 12:18:32 AM

Im not a huge fan but I do enjoy the game at LAN parties. I tried playing it by myself........and really could not get into it. I think war craft III is a better game. By hey what do I know.......... :wink:
April 24, 2007 11:54:45 AM

For every 50 hours of Starcraft, I played 1 hour of Tiberian Sun, but I still love the game. I played c&c since the beginning (and glad i got the kane edition!), except renegade (demo didnt impress me), and generals (it just doesn't feel like c&c to me), and the consoles, c&c psx, n64.. starcraft wasn't so great on the n64.


Battlezone 2..... if only my old PC could run it back then with a good framerate.

Over 20 million copies of c&c sold, 11 or 12 mil from RA alone.
April 24, 2007 1:33:42 PM

Tiberian Sun wasnt a good game. I think that one was a flop. Anyone got the sales stats of the whole C&C line? Which game sold the most?
April 24, 2007 2:03:17 PM

I always find it odd when I am listening to a commercial or a show and I hear some sound effect that I know came from (or was used in) Starcraft.

"Hey! That's a siege tank deploying!!!"

:D 

And if you are looking for a classic (with so-so AI though), try Total Annhililation. You also need the addon units they have (penguins, amphibious vehicles, the works).

I remember the game taking 3-4 minutes to load when it came out, watching the little loader bar creep across the screen (you always hoped you finished before the others you played). Now it takes 20 seconds! Holy technology batman!

Anyway, I don't know if you can buy it anywhere now, but you may be able to do a DL.

http://www.planetannihilation.com/hosted/ta/units/

Has more info (And tehy have modded the HELL out of it since I last looked!!!!! We used addon units from TADD, but their site seems to be defunct.

A quick search gave me these guys: http://www.forumplanet.com/planetannihilation/

So.... Check it out....


As for plot? You don't really NEED it for these games, but it helps for the single player. As for live action... I never really liked that much (ever since Wing Commander 4 I believe....)

It is a little discouraging to see that one race has the long-game advantage though. I do not like that......
April 24, 2007 3:02:04 PM

The RTS used to be the genre, but then games like Half-Life, Medal of Honor Allied Assault and Call of Duty came along, and as they became more popular, the RTS became less so. The MMORPG's and suchlike have only marginalised the RTS further, but it's a seasonal thing with video games - I'd say the RTS will come back in style when we get sick and tired of Generic Shooter XXXIIV.
April 24, 2007 3:47:21 PM

Quote:
The Red Alert sub-series is certified by the Guinness Book of Records as the best selling real-time strategy game in the world, with over 12 million units sold.[1] This makes up over half of the 21 million copies of C&C sold prior to the launch of Command & Conquer: Generals in 2003.[2]


From wikipedia.
April 24, 2007 5:42:05 PM

Excellent write up on one of my favorite titles, like you cant tell from the avatar.

I played the original C&C way back when on an old 486 DX on windows 3.1. Used to take 6-7 hours a round as the game ran so friggin slow, but I never minded a bit. Was the biggest waste of time ever but I enjoyed every minute of it. I used to send my brother to the next door neighbors house so we could get a game going over those old archaic dialup connections. Would be pissed to no end when the connection would drop after about 3-4 hours of a good match.

To toot my own horn I made it up to rank 126 for several months in online play until just over a million people purchased Red Alert 2. My pc broke down and I was too young and didnt have the money to buy another. Damn I was heartbroken. Then Westwood Studios being purchased by EA pretty much seemed like the end. With the latest incarnation I've worked my way up to 3 Brutal enemies and I'm not stopping till I can top all 7.

Anyway, I am thrilled at the renewed RTS titles that have come out. Still looking forward to that rumored Red Alert 3. Until then many happy hours of C&C3 await my weekend pleasure. :D 
April 24, 2007 7:27:17 PM

C&C was the first computer game I ever owned, then the covert operations. I spent a rediculous amount of time on those. I played those on my P1 133Mhz comp, with the turbo switch.
April 24, 2007 8:53:50 PM

Wow, lots of C&C love out there. I guess I'm lucky I liked it. :) 

And what's not to like, it's an excellent game.

So what other franchises do we need to see return to RTS?

Obviously Starcraft. I think I mentioned Syndicate in another post. You've already got your Total Annihilation 2 with Supreme Commander (and no, TA: Kingdoms does NOT count). Was anyone ever big on Dark Reign or any of that other stuff that came out in the first big RTS rush? Any big Rise of Legends fans out there?
April 24, 2007 9:53:18 PM

Dark Reign was such a raging disappointment. It had so much potential and promise, but was balanced so horribly that it destroyed the majority of the fun. I wanted to like it so bad, but in the end I just hated it more.

My main gripe is with the ranges of things. Tanks outranged turrets of the same class. What the hell man, just what the hell. The ONLY things that should ever outrange turrets are artillery.

And SPEAKING OF artillery... what the hell. One side had normally balanced decent range arty and the other side had arty that could sit inside their base and bombard almost anywhere on the map if you had a spotter. Talk about unfair!

Then there was the third faction who got everything both other sides got. That isn't a third faction, that is a CHEAT!

Then there were the super weapons which could destroy entire bases without having to get particularly close to them.

Sorry for the rant, but you just reminded me of that.

Of that era I enjoyed KKND for the sheer cheese factor... I went back and played it again later and discovered it to be truly crap, but I still enjoyed it back in the day.

TA Kingdoms was the ONLY TA I ever really liked. And that is mostly because Zhon was so unique.

Rise of Legends is fun but only for single player. The multiplayer somehow fails to be fun.

If I had to pick a single RTS to see a revival though, obviously Starcraft tops my list.
April 24, 2007 11:29:02 PM

This game!

I played so little of it, cuz at the time I had a really bad computer for it.

But yeah.. Starcraft 2, hopefully I won't have athritis when that comes out.
April 25, 2007 12:17:08 AM

Definately have to go out and pick this one up.
Ive been a fan of C&C for many years, and I Still play TA at home. Never got into starcraft though.

I agree with infornography42's comments on ranges. TA stated this, but the later C&C games were like having a sea battle in a bathtub. RL ships and artillery have ranges measured in Miles.. not 30-40 yards.
April 25, 2007 9:25:13 AM

I hope that EA will come out with a GREAT new Red Alert version one of these days! Red Alert was a big seller- seems like a NO BRAINER to make the business decision to develop a new version!
April 25, 2007 5:02:06 PM

I remembered a couple more last night that I'd like to see sequeled.

Someone get me Homeworld 3 and Mech Commander 3.

I've read that Sins of a Solar Empire could be the Homeworld successor.
April 25, 2007 5:49:10 PM

I've been a C&C fan since the old days. I think my favorite has been and still is Generals. That version has a more of a real world scenerio. Generals and Zero Hour, for me, has been more of an interest to me because of that and also how you can build things much like Starcraft, etc... In my opinion, Generals has a lot of potential but has been plagued by bugs which have never been addressed or fixed. I was excited to find out that there was a C&C 3 coming out and couldn't wait to download the demo version. I got it downloaded and was a bit disappointed to find out that it still played like the older versions (other than Generals) with how you build things. Other than that, the graphics were greatly improved and game play was improved overall based on the Tiberian Sun version. I still like the Generals interface better. It would be nice if they would at least patch the bugs in Generals and keep up with it like Blizzard does with their games. They still send out patches for Starcraft and it came out in 1998.
April 25, 2007 7:56:38 PM

C&C3 is the same recycled garbage from EA. If you played Generals or BFME2
you played this game new skins new graphics, same crap.If you listen to the unit voice actors there the same as generals. I have to say I loved playing Generals but how many times can you recycle the same game play. EA is extremely good at using all that money to destroy franchises. UO was a victim of EA and with there purchase of Mythic lets see if they kill Warhammer online as well.
April 26, 2007 11:16:36 AM

I must be in a minority here, I tend to think that progress is the way to go when it comes to games (and not just games). In Supreme Commander for example progress comes in the form of scale, you can now play on 81*81 km maps and the size itself makes for a varying experience. In Medieval 2 progress comes in the form of vast graphical improvements as well as more minor but still important battle and campaign improvements.

CnC 3 on the other hand simply recycles ideas from previous games. You have infantry in squads, you have superweapons without counters typical of CnC and you have structure placement taken from a game more than 10 year s old. What's more, the graphical improvements are nothing to write home about, this is a game running an engine that is simply outdated, when my mate saw the game running on my system (e6600, 8800gtx, 2 gig ram= all candy on) he inquired whether I was back to playing Generals. What is sad is that EA actually uses the fact that the ideas in CnC are recycled to market the game saying that it has the "Old School" feel.

I am not trying to knock anyone down but I believe that when the company relies on a base of fans to sell an inferior product the gamers should vote with their wallets and leave that game on the shelves. And sometimes you have to ask yourself the question: would this game have got the same reviews if CnC wasn't part of its name, are the reviewers biased because the game feels similar to what they have played when they were growing up?
April 26, 2007 2:28:07 PM

Quote:
I must be in a minority here, I tend to think that progress is the way to go when it comes to games (and not just games).


I agree with this, but I think there are two ways to make games:

1) You strike out in new territory and create something completely original, but take the risk of falling on your face. This can result in a pretty good game followed by an excellent sequel fixing some of the mistakes of the original, or a complete piece of crap.

2) You take established formulas and tighten them up with small inprovements to make a product that people recognize immediately.

Will Wright and Peter Molyneux are the guys that go with scenario 1 and Blizzard is the king of scenario 2. Blizzard has never released an unsuccessful game yet all their games are derivative of other games at the base levels. From a marketing and business perspective, scenario 2 is the clear choice and the larger companies are going to go with that, but what you end up with is a really good hamburger and not some new, exotic food. The smaller companies run by people who are already extraordinarily rich can risk more with innovation.

Scenario 1 is better for gaming at large because it explores the frontiers, but Scenario 2 is what most companies are interested in because it guarantees a return on a significant investment.
April 26, 2007 11:00:45 PM

Exceptionally well said tmeacham.

I admit that had C&C3 come out without the C&C name and backstory, I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought.

It IS a good game though. It is not new or revolutionary and it isn't going to take the genre in new and interesting directions... it is simply a good game.

There is something to be said for a familiar classic. Hell if Fallout 3 came out and looked and felt just like the first two, I would be thrilled. The only reason I do not continually play Fallout 1 and 2 is that I have already beaten every side quest, talked to every character, Played as every archetype that interested me, and killed every bad guy (and a lot of the good guys). The games are thoroughly beaten. What I could really go for is more game, not necessarily a new game.

Thats kind of the way it is with C&C3. It is a continuation of a game I loved. Honestly, had they changed things dramatically and taken it in interesting new directions, I'd probably hate it. I have certain expectations when I load up a C&C game and this game lived up to them.

If you are looking for something new and revolutionary, don't look to old and venerable franchises. Look to games that don't have a lot of history holding them back. That is where you will find it.
April 27, 2007 3:01:01 AM

You said it man, CnC in the name is the main selling point of the game. Personally, I think that the game doesn't have to be completely revolutionary to be enjoyable but I'd like to see every RTS and FPS to introduce something new even if it follows the established formula. I don't believe that gameplay of games that are many years old should be completely recycled without any innovation at all (save for graphics). I don't believe that cheesy movies are a substitute for actual game development, in fact when I saw the cutscenes in SupCom, I thought they were sufficient and I realised that the valuable time that the developer could have spent on cutscenes was put to better use in gameplay.

I think that until the gamers make a stand on this and make the publishers realize that we won't take crap just because of the franchise we will continue
to get titles like Doom3, Quake4 and CnC3 and less games like STALKER and SupCom.
April 27, 2007 4:35:52 AM

When Doom 3 came out, I thought I was the sole voice of reason out there. People kept telling me, "OMG the graphics," and I'd say, "Yeah, I wish I could see them, but it's completely dark all the time. Oh, and that Hogan's Alley gameplay is reaaalllyy fun still. How come my character doesn't cast shadows on any walls?" They'd look at me blinking and say, "OMG the graphics!"

The shadows killed me though. The Chronicles of Riddick game came out right about the same time, had very similar graphics, and cast player shadows all over the place to great effect.
April 27, 2007 4:38:35 AM

Quote:
The shadows killed me though. The Chronicles of Riddick game came out right about the same time, had very similar graphics, and cast player shadows all over the place to great effect.


Mmmmm...Chronicles of Riddick :D  One of my all-time favorites. And yes, it was much better than Doom 3.
April 27, 2007 5:00:10 AM

Quote:
Thats kind of the way it is with C&C3. It is a continuation of a game I loved. Honestly, had they changed things dramatically and taken it in interesting new directions, I'd probably hate it. I have certain expectations when I load up a C&C game and this game lived up to them.


I think that could be said for any C&C Fan, thats why we like C&C. Tried and true RTS mechanics. The games are fun, and great at LANs. And that can be said about (almost) any C&C game...
April 30, 2007 11:26:23 PM

Quote:
What is sad is that EA actually uses the fact that the ideas in CnC are recycled to market the game saying that it has the "Old School" feel.

That's not sad. I remember firing up AOE3 and instantly saying, "This doesn't feel like AOE. :( "

I agree with Aaron:
Quote:
The RTS used to be the genre...

I loved WarCraft, StarCraft, AOE, and TA. I never got into C&C back then. I think it was Red Alert that I bought. I don't know if it was my PC or the game itself, but it was way too sluggish (units took forever to reach their destination) and I wrote off the series.

Jumping to the present, I just played the demo over the weekend (on the 360 of all things, though I'd never buy it for the system). It was fun. It looked good. It wasn't hard to learn, even with awkward console controls. I was impressed. I think that "old school feel" is actually a great selling point for the game. I'd certainly recommend it to any old-school RTS-ers.
May 7, 2007 9:38:33 PM

Quote:
The old-school style of resources gathering via harvesters still works in C&C 3, but too many times I found myself with no harvesters, not enough money to build another one and having to sell necessary buildings to make it up, which cost me the game. Attacking lines of supply is certainly a valid wartime strategy, but when the entire line of supply is one or two poorly armored vehicles, it can be frustrating to see them taken out so quickly.


That's just because you don't know anything about defense to PROTECT them. Also, you only want automated resources cuz you're too noob to micro your workers.

Quote:
It's almost like the coach mode they put in some football games where you call the plays but they execute without any of your input.


That's just because you're bad and don't have any micro or skills.

Quote:
When price no longer becomes an object, it's hard to topple a well-built G.D.I. base.


It's hard to topple a well-built any base (but I'd still think Nod's defenses are stronger than GDI's with its stealth structures and triple defenses). But Scrin Devastators easily takes out heavy armor like structures, vehicles and defenses from afar. With that said, a few Devastators easily topples ANY defense(s).

Quote:
Even with the element of surprise and speed, very few armies can withstand a small force of G.D.I. Mammoth Tanks upgraded with rail gun technology.


Ever heard of air units? How about Vertigo Bombers? Devastator Warship? Rail guns cannot attack air units. In a real war, you wouldn't want a bunch of tanks to roll in without backup such as antiair. Even if you have Mammoths, you'd still need at least some micro to keep them alive. A few simple Raider Buggies can just EMP the tanks and then you can say gG to your huge investment.

Are you sure you've actually played the game Command and Conquer 3? If magically so, you don't seem to be very good at it (no offense :p ).
May 7, 2007 11:00:07 PM

Quote:
That's not sad. I remember firing up AOE3 and instantly saying, "This doesn't feel like AOE. :( "


lol amen.
May 12, 2007 3:18:16 PM

You must have been asleep when you played the game, couldn't blame you either. Mammoth missiles are anti-air as well and more powerful than buggy missiles too. And no, the game doesn't require a great deal in the way of 'skills', and yes, small force of Mammoth tanks (about 8-10) WILL demolish anything in their path. The fighters not only look ridiculous but are not very useful in the game considering that ground to air units are so powerful.

This game IS a joke made for CnC die-hard fanboys. No matter how hard I look I cannot see any advantages of this game over Supreme Commander other than the fact that it's easy to learn and will run on any system.

The only reason this forum isn't flooded with negative responses about CnC 3 is the fact that people can't be bothered wasting any more of their time on that game. I just can't be stuffed studying at the moment and don't want to game caz I won't stop once I start.
May 13, 2007 4:28:14 AM

Since when is 8-10 Mammoth tanks a 'small force'??? That's already 20,000-25,000 tiberium spent; that's supposed to be small? Mammoth tanks do have some sort of antiair weaponry, but it isn't powerful enough. For example, try pitting up 3 mammoth tanks against one Devastator, with or without the shield (even with the shield, its cost is well below that of 3 mammoths) and see how much damage the Devastator would take before the mammoth tanks get blown up.

As I said before, you'd still need some sort of micro to keep your mammoths alive; Vertigo bombers ring a bell? I never said buggy missiles (they have missiles?) were going to damage the tanks, I said its cheap but efficient EMP blast would temporarily disable the tanks, and then other units can move in and take them down.

You should go back to your noob Supreme Commander with no micro and wtf, no hotkeys (in Supreme Commander) to micro with? I don't think you've played C&C3 either.
May 13, 2007 4:44:59 AM

Sry I forgot I was playing CnC3, caz in SupCom 8-10 heavy tanks is not just small, it is insignificant, and yes SupCom does avoid micro because there are bigger things to command than a single tank. Also, the airforce actually plays a role in SupCom, all u see in CnC online is rush tactics be it scorpion or mammoth. If u think rushing is the only good strategy then go play CnC3: a game with dated visuals, limited zoom, useless air units and no navy, truly a sandbox RTS with gameplay that is 12 years old.
May 13, 2007 7:34:25 AM

Quote:
This game IS...easy to learn and will run on any system.

The only reason this forum isn't flooded with...responses about CnC 3 is the fact that...I won't stop once I start.

SupCom...is not just small, it is insignificant...

...go play CnC3:...truly a...RTS with gameplay that is [tried and true].

I couldn't recommend it any better. :p 

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
May 13, 2007 7:50:16 AM

Quote:
Sry I forgot I was playing CnC3, caz in SupCom 8-10 heavy tanks is not just small, it is insignificant, and yes SupCom does avoid micro because there are bigger things to command than a single tank. Also, the airforce actually plays a role in SupCom, all u see in CnC online is rush tactics be it scorpion or mammoth. If u think rushing is the only good strategy then go play CnC3: a game with dated visuals, limited zoom, useless air units and no navy, truly a sandbox RTS with gameplay that is 12 years old.


First, 8-10 tanks, even mammoth tanks, are somewhat mild. On huge maps, with huge resources, an army can grow huge and an incredible rate... example:

(Can 10 mammoth tanks get through that? Hehe)

(My opponents were practically dead in 12 minutes. Also, look how many units were created in that time. I guess this game isn't as pathetic in terms of army mass after all, considering I was building some of most powerful units in the game for this army)

Hmm, looks to me like 1/3 of my army is air units, seems that they do have a purpose. And if C&C3 was designed to be a long game, it would have a much higher tech tree, and alot more units. But it's not, C&C3 is designed for fast games, 15minutes or less. How on earth does that make it a bad game? And just because a game uses the same style of an older RTS, does that make it a bad game? Absolutely not. It's obviously tried-and-true, it's simple to learn, which is a good thing, but has incredible depths in terms of stratagy.

I've played both SupCom and C&C3, and I have to say that SupCom is a much easier game. Sure it's got a much more complicated tech tree, more units, But what other stratagy works other then brute force? No defences can truly defend against any of the experimental units, so turtling is out of the question. There are no major techs that can be used that would shift the balance of any game. (Ya, nukes, but they can be defended against extremely easily). And once your up the tech tree, and the majority of the units become extrelemy useless once the game has been played long enough to get up that tech tree. However, I'm not trying to point out negatives about SupCom, but trying to prove that C&C3 is just as good a game if not better then it's competition.

Basically if I had to split the positives for both games, it would go like this:

C&C3
+Easy to play, easy to learn
+A massive amount of different strategies
+3 almost truly unique races
+An absolutely amazing story with nearly-perfect execution, star actors (A first as far as I know)
+Amazing visuals
+Low requirements

SupCom
+HUGE battles (Huge is an understatement)
+3 different powers to chose from
+Plenty of units, upgradeable buildings/units
+Control a small army, or the entire battlefield, with the scroll of a mouse

While SupCom doesn't have a long list, it is one of the truly most massive RTS games I have ever played, and for that reason alone is to make it a truly great game. Neither SupCom or C&C3 is better then the other, but C&C3 is alot more polished due to it's huge number of games based on this particular RTS style. If the Total Annihilation... Supreme Commander... genre comes out with another game, it might just be a game with a more widely available audience, considering that SupCom's true requirements are absolutely ridiculous. Oh ya... keep in mind TA only came out 2 years after the first C&C, so... that genre you were talking about that is so old, applies to SupCom as well.
May 13, 2007 8:19:22 AM

I disagree with a few points.
First of all, brute force isn't the only way to win games in SupCom like it is in CnC3. Sure u can just tech up to tech 3 ASAP, pump out assault bots and crush the opposition but there are other ways to win as well. And actually turtling is a major strategy in SupCom, especially in team matches. In one of the matches I've tried other team members were attacking while I was building teh MAVOR, the ultimate artillery which can target anything on the map (even 81*81 km maps)

Secondly the best defence against experimentals is either other experimentals , strat bombers or massed gunships, I have also seen massed tactical missiles used to great effect. The experimentals aren't that great value if u do some number crunching, they are there to break through hardpoints which have a lot of defensive structures but are not well thought out. It also causes many players to concentrate all their units in one location allowing a sneaky air drop or a flanking move.

Thirdly, strategic defence is actually a good thing since it prevents nuke spamming and adds a new strat level, one time I sneaked a sub aircraft carrier near enemy base, released 20 strat bombers (lost all of em) which destroyed the two strat defences and I followed that up with two nukes. Needless to say it was just mop-up after that with airlifted siege bots.

The only weapon in the game that doesn't have a counter is the MAVOR which is prohibitively expensive so it usually doesnt even get built.

And finally my quarrel with CnC3 is not that it is too small and doesn't allow a great deal of units but that it brings ABSOLUTELY nothing new to RTS, ALL of its ideas are recycled. SC at least introduces insane scale and scope, which are major innovations.
May 13, 2007 8:43:51 AM

One more thing about the 'massive number of strategies'. Before I was completely disappointed with the game I played 4 games online.
In the first i built predators and buggies and artillery walkers, i sent them over and bang! A force of about 30 scorpions just dropped on top of em and then stuffed up my base.

In the second I wasn't building any anti-air units at all, I just built and upgraded Mammoths, stationed them near the rig, he sent the scorpions, I won, sent over my tanks, straight to the end of his base bypassing the defences (which only took out 1 tank) and with 3 mammoths stuffed him up.

Third game was against a different opponent who was convinced that spamming infantry was a good idea. He just spammed rocket troops and zone troopers it took only 6 mammoths all up to destroy all his infantry and level his base.

Fourth game I lost: the opponent just spammed devastators against which my defences sucked (like me before he went to the back of the base and actually lost only one (!) ship in the process to 5 anti air turrets and 5 buggies.

So there, I may be unlucky but the 4 out of the 4 games I played were all about outspamming the opposition.
May 14, 2007 5:21:51 AM

$5 says you were probably just playing a bunch of noobs with no micro (and from what I assume, you got no micro either).

To F1nal_0men, your graphics settings must be turned down uber low for those ugly pictures lol no offense. And, to have all that in 12 minutes is a joke; you must have set like 40000 start tiberium or something, and then just make like 3 cranes and climb tech tree uber fast while making like 20 refineries. 10 mammoth tanks probably can't break through that (I'm sure you spent way more than 10 mammoth tanks for that army), but can you say, Ion Cannon? Or Nuke? Nod is prob teh best cuz it can do a Nuke and drop a tiberium bomb (for 3500 tiberium) both at once, making sure everything is blown up.
May 14, 2007 7:15:11 AM

Quote:
$5 says you were probably just playing a bunch of noobs with no micro (and from what I assume, you got no micro either).

To F1nal_0men, your graphics settings must be turned down uber low for those ugly pictures lol no offense. And, to have all that in 12 minutes is a joke; you must have set like 40000 start tiberium or something, and then just make like 3 cranes and climb tech tree uber fast while making like 20 refineries. 10 mammoth tanks probably can't break through that (I'm sure you spent way more than 10 mammoth tanks for that army), but can you say, Ion Cannon? Or Nuke? Nod is prob teh best cuz it can do a Nuke and drop a tiberium bomb (for 3500 tiberium) both at once, making sure everything is blown up.


Uh, last time I checked, this conversation turned into a C&C3 vs SupCom argument, so when is the players skill relevant in such things?

And as for my screenshots, everything was on high at 1024x768.

Now as far as getting an army that huge that fast, yes starting resources was at 40k, and I had 2 cranes actually. But why does that matter? I was playing on an official map, using in game rules, your point? I didn't cheat to achieve that size army. Also, take a look at the screenshot, I mined of 500'000 tiberium, so you bet alot of spending was going on. If there are resources to be mined, then why not mine them? I also had 5 war factories, 4 barracks, and 5 "gravity stabilizers"

Also keep in mind that while a nuke or rift generator or ion cannon could of eliminated more forces, if such a weapon was available, I wouldn't clump my units together. And it would take at least 10 minutes to be able to fire a super weapon for the first time. Also the Tiberium Bomb sucks, and is a complete waste of resources. The bomber that delivers the pay-load can easily be shot down, and the damage this bomb delivers is pathetic as well.

=====

Now, Mr. commie, I really appreciate you giving your argument as professional as you did. I understand exactly what you are trying to say. And I'll admit, I play allot more C&C3 then I do SupCom, so I can understand and agree with some of the points you have made. And ya, the Mavor takes, what, 180minutes to build one with only one tech3bot?

And as a response to your closing paragraph, yes while C&C3 doesn't bring anything new to the table, when your talking about units or specifics. But as a whole, it's a brand new game with many new strategies and such. And as I remember hearing somewhere, game developers have two ways to look at making a game. Start from scratch and make something wild and new, or build up on an old idea.

Now with your experiences with C&C3, maybe just maybe is it possible that you were just unexperienced and didn't know and truly cunning strategies? (I realize that my first sentence in this post was arguing that this conversation has nothing to do with player skill, but I have to reply to his remark, even if it contradicts me). Because I can point out a few things you could of done different in each strategy that would of helped in your (or your opponents) chance for victory. And to be good in any RTS, is to be able to predict the opponents strategy, and counter it with as little cost to yourself as possible.

And as I write this response, I think I can sum up both games into a single word:

SupCom - Epic
C&C3 - Classic
May 14, 2007 3:15:40 PM

Quote:
$5 says you were probably just playing a bunch of noobs with no micro (and from what I assume, you got no micro either).


I remember when I first discovered Pure Pwnage, but that was about 2 years ago, and I'd forgotten it. I'm starting to remember why I forgot it now.

As for this, "Travis Meacham is bad at video games"? I suppose the appropriate response is to phonetically pronounce "lawlz" or something.

On a side RTS note, who will give me odds on the upcoming Blizzard announcement being Starcraft 2. Anyone?
May 14, 2007 6:31:50 PM

Quote:
On a side RTS note, who will give me odds on the upcoming Blizzard announcement being Starcraft 2. Anyone?


I see it as 40% odds of being Starcraft 2
40% odds of being World of Starcraft
10% odds of being Diablo 3
5% odds of being a new Warcraft game
5% odds of being something new and different.
May 14, 2007 9:18:30 PM

I think it'll be Starcraft 2 and here's why.

First of all, they're making the announcement in Korea to the pro-gamers. Starcraft is the biggest thing ever over there. It's unbelievable how popular it is. So I think Starcraft is their universe.

World of Warcraft is the most successful video game of all time with no signs of slowing down soon. If they announce World of Starcraft, WoW players will get that feeling that you get when you have one thing but the next thing is coming out. Why should I keep playing WoW when World of Starcraft is "around the corner"? I don't think Blizzard will introduce a product that will compete directly with their most successful product to date. It can only end two ways: either it's a hit and everyone moves from WoW to WoS in which case Blizzard does not (relatively) make money aside from the initial influx of people buying the box because the WoW monthlies suffer. Or it sucks and they lose the significant amount of money it will cost to develop and launch the game. I just don't think it makes good business sense to do World of Starcraft yet (although I want a sci-fi MMO).

If it is World of Starcraft, keep in mind that World of Warcraft was released some four of five years after it was announced so "around the corner" is not what we're talking about.

I think Starcraft 2 is the better business decision because it will cost less to develop, it will come out sooner, and they can reap the benefits of it much quicker. Businessmen love a fast ROI.
May 26, 2007 7:06:33 AM

I must disagree with your assessment of the RTS abilities of myself and my opponents simply because the three opponents I have played were chosen at random and all had similar tactics which I had to adopt to win. Those tactics were all about rushing the opponent. I realise that some people such as yourself had success with different tactics other than rushing but from my experience of online play and from what I read in the forums by far the most common strategy is rushing. That is because of two reasons:
1. It is easy to master
2. In CnC 3 it works really well

The fact is: there are no units in SupCom that will not be countered by units that cost less to produce or less overall, which is especially the case with experimentals. That encourages the player to use combinations of units and to use maneuver on the battlefield. That is not the case in CnC 3, any counter to a rush of Mammoth tanks will have to cost at least as much as the tanks involved in the rush.

Additionally I will repeat myself in saying that the graphics on CnC3 are dated. I will also say that Zero Hour is a better game (even if it is a little unbalanced) by virtue of it having significantly more variability and lack of uber units without viable counters.
!