Red alert 3 is going to suck balls

[Soviet779]

Anyone remember that time nearly two years ago? Every cnc fan was exited for cnc3 because EA were following the storyline this time, no more generals bull****. They hired people from MIT or somewhere to figure out tiberium and they put in the viceroid etc etc... look how that turned out, the whole atmosphere of the tiberian universe was lost, no more tiberium mutations, the single player in cnc3 was forgettable, online play died quickly, the cheap bastards even oursourced the expansion pack which i never bought! What a goddamn rip! That was supposed to be cnc's comeback, theres more people play freakin company of heros online than cnc3... niche WWII RTS which average joes comp probably wouldnt run.

Face it, RA3 is going to suck. This isnt gonna be anything like RA2 or RA1, they were great games. If you must play RA3 dont pay for it. EA dont deserve money for trashing so many good franchises and then having the nerve to force DRM on loyal customers. DRM which was put in to stop the resale market. Pirates get a better product for much less, its laughable.

[Bouncing Ball]

Anyone remember that time nearly two years ago? Every cnc fan was exited for cnc3 because EA were following the storyline this time, no more generals bull****. They hired people from MIT or somewhere to figure out tiberium and they put in the viceroid etc etc... look how that turned out, the whole atmosphere of the tiberian universe was lost, no more tiberium mutations, the single player in cnc3 was forgettable, online play died quickly, the cheap bastards even oursourced the expansion pack which i never bought! What a goddamn rip! That was supposed to be cnc's comeback, theres more people play freakin company of heros online than cnc3... niche WWII RTS which average joes comp probably wouldnt run.
I don't know why, but I think that without EA we would never have gotten a RA3.
Besides, EA realizes that with a ra3 just like C&C3, the moneyflow will stop.
By throwing the Beta online instead of offline like the beta of C&C3, they allready show a different path.

Pirates get a better product for much less, its laughable.
Just like gangmembers always get the better guns for a cheaper price, life isn't fair..

[eLDiablo]

Pirating games will only cause an increase in the use of DRM software.

I vote we ban Soviet for even suggesting piracy, as im getting sick of such ignorance around here.


Lol at neg rep, Sticking my head in the sand huh? I'm an aspiring game designer moron, im more in touch with it that you know.

Lol at second neg rep. Grow some balls, debate me in the thread.

[EliteGi]

I don't know why, but I think that without EA we would never have gotten a RA3.
Besides, EA realizes that with a ra3 just like C&C3, the moneyflow will stop.
By throwing the Beta online instead of offline like the beta of C&C3, they allready show a different path.
The game concept, IMHO is absolutely rediculous. C&C3 at least had great potential - the trailers and screenshots were awesome, I thought we were going to get an atmosphere just as dark as Tiberian Sun.

This goofiness crap has gone way too far now though by the looks of it. RA2 didn't take itself seriously, but managed to be a fun game without being rediculous. This on the other hand...

[Bouncing Ball]

The game concept, IMHO is absolutely rediculous. C&C3 at least had great potential - the trailers and screenshots were awesome, I thought we were going to get an atmosphere just as dark as Tiberian Sun.

This goofiness crap has gone way too far now though by the looks of it. RA2 didn't take itself seriously, but managed to be a fun game without being rediculous. This on the other hand...
I understand your opinion. Personally I love the goofiness though.

[wargrudge]

It seems a little TOO cartoony to me. That and from all the gameplay clips I've watched alot of the in-game voices (ie infantry, tanks, dying men sounds) are the exact same ones from RA2. Why do that, it's almost always been new and improved sounds.

[Bouncing Ball]

It seems a little TOO cartoony to me. That and from all the gameplay clips I've watched alot of the in-game voices (ie infantry, tanks, dying men sounds) are the exact same ones from RA2. Why do that, it's almost always been new and improved sounds.
The sounds seemed copied from RA2 and I think that will be in the Beta only. Although C&C3 also has some older sounds in it.
Pure on the looks I think RA3 looks about just as cartoony as RA2.

[apple23]

I don't get why having a lighter, less serious atmosphere is such a detriment to the game. The campaign storyline is probably going to suck balls, I will admit but Multiplayer gameplay is better than any CNC game that has been released thus far.

So what if unit design is a little over the top? It is all stuff that, while not necessarily practical, is all possible somehow.

Also, it is worth noting that something happened in the timetravel mess that advanced technology in the world significantly faster than in the real world.

And for the record, RA2 is not that great of a game. It is all tank spam crap with little real strategy and there is alot of luck involved.

[Derek]

It seems a little TOO cartoony to me. That and from all the gameplay clips I've watched alot of the in-game voices (ie infantry, tanks, dying men sounds) are the exact same ones from RA2. Why do that, it's almost always been new and improved sounds.
Those are just filler sounds in the Beta. Most of them have already been replaced with new sounds, and the rest will be the time the game comes out.

I don't get why having a lighter, less serious atmosphere is such a detriment to the game. The campaign storyline is probably going to suck balls, I will admit but Multiplayer gameplay is better than any CNC game that has been released thus far.
Yeah, the singleplayer is going to be retarded, but if you buy RTS games only to play singleplayer then you're doing it wrong.

[Statalyzer]

Apple - one of the awesome things about RA2 was how much you can do besides tank spam.

RA3 is not going to suck - the gameplay looks to be excellent and truly about skill and planning more than who can click the fastest. If this turns out to be true, it'll be an interesting phenomenon, IMO, of the Red Alert series turning out far superior games to the Tiberium series.

[Daishi]

Apple - one of the awesome things about RA2 was how much you can do besides tank spam.

RA3 is not going to suck - the gameplay looks to be excellent and truly about skill and planning more than who can click the fastest. If this turns out to be true, it'll be an interesting phenomenon, IMO, of the Red Alert series turning out far superior games to the Tiberium series.

When hasn't it been true? Tiberium games have always been on the bottom as far as gameplay goes because historically, the RA series fixed everything that gamers hated about the previous Tiberium RTS.

RA3 will be no different, given the lack of C&C3/Starcraft spam tactics, ultra-hard counter system, diverse battlefields, the least abusable economic design to date in a C&C game, and factions with diverse gameplay and a cast of interesting units that all not only function, but move around in the most unique ways.

My only fear is that it'll be significantly harder for newbies to grasp than the first decade was.

[EliteGi]

RA2 was barely an upgrade of Tib Sun. The very reason I stopped playing RA2 online was because of the tank spam. Rhino spam was the only soviet tactic.

[Cylon Crusader]

I agree with you about the dismal failure of CNC 3 and KW, but EA is already starting to do good stuff, battlefield:heroes will be free when it comes out, they have already made some other things free, such as the conquest game mode for BF:Bad Company.

I honestly think, as much as I dislike EA games, that they still have a shred of hope left with RA3, if they mess RA3 up, then I will lose all hope for EA, RA3 better be CNCs new, improved comeback.

[Daishi]

RA2 was barely an upgrade of Tib Sun. The very reason I stopped playing RA2 online was because of the tank spam. Rhino spam was the only soviet tactic.

Saying Rhino spam was the only soviet tactic is about as ignorant as saying zergling spam is the only Zerg tactic, or that Zealot spam is the only Protoss tactic. Although you were making a crapload more rhinos than any other unit, the Soviets had an impressive arsenal that worked really well in a variety of different TACTICS to cover the rhino's shortcomings and overcome an enemy with plenty more tanks than you.

[EliteGi]

Saying Rhino spam was the only soviet tactic is about as ignorant as saying zergling spam is the only Zerg tactic, or that Zealot spam is the only Protoss tactic. Although you were making a crapload more rhinos than any other unit, the Soviets had an impressive arsenal that worked really well in a variety of different TACTICS to cover the rhino's shortcomings and overcome an enemy with plenty more tanks than you.
But the bold, basic and very true fact is that almost every single Soviet tactic is made up of mainly, if not entirely, Rhino tanks.

Using 90% of one unit and 10% of support units is not good gameplay variety for me.

What I'm saying isn't ignorant because I've been there and done it.

[Daishi]

Everyone who agrees with you just played Allies. :p

Eh, I suppose RA2 was a bit heavy on the power of mainstay units. But RA2's relaxed-strategy unit balancing and speedy pace were what made it so successful.

[EliteGi]

Everyone who agrees with you just played Allies. :p
I was mainly a Soviet player. :D

Besides, if we're talking YR you also had the choice of the wonderfully balanced Yuri team. :p

[Daishi]

I think you mean "diverse" :p

[EliteGi]

I mean "totally ghey"! :p

[Derek]

So you played Yuri then? :p

But EGI is right. Soviets were straight up tank spam and the game was boring as ****. RA3>>>>RA2

[jo_2]

Well, what I see is that EA have kind of messed up with casting this time round, picked some wrong people for the movies if you ask me. That will sure decrease the quality of the single player campaign.

[Daishi]

Soviets were straight up tank spam and the game was boring as ****.

NOT THE WAY I PLAYED IT

[Miles]

I played the beta this weekend. I won one online game with two Sickles :D
But yeah we were both noobs so... anyways, after that I played a game with someone else and we didn't attack each other simply because I wanted to get to know the units a little.

I like it. The graphics totally sucked but I suppose that's because it was a beta, or it may be because the game is a little too heavy for my PC (though since I can play KW on highest detail settings without any for of lag I don't think it's really that)

Yeah the unit design is a bit goofy here and there. I'm not too happy with "legged" units and the apocalypse doesn't look as massive as it used to in RA2, but I can perfectly live with that. They reminded me how awesome the Apoc's speech was in YR.
I can't wait for the "Red ALert 3 Tactics" forums to be born, because I really want to play this game online against humans.

[Soviet779]

I don't know why, but I think that without EA we would never have gotten a RA3.
Besides, EA realizes that with a ra3 just like C&C3, the moneyflow will stop.
By throwing the Beta online instead of offline like the beta of C&C3, they allready show a different path.

Good, better the franchise die with dignity than be kept alive on life support. They did the public beta to sell copies of kanes wrath... yes that outsourced piece of **** expansion nobody in their right mind would have bought without the RA3 beta key... buisness move dude, not EA changing their ways simply a buisness move to sell a crappy expansion to stupid people.


Just like gangmembers always get the better guns for a cheaper price, life isn't fair..

Well enjoy sitting back and getting your face stamped on by those who get a better deal for less :) FYI gangmembers have **** all to do with cnc or video games, try again with a better analogy.

[Soviet779]

I agree with you about the dismal failure of CNC 3 and KW, but EA is already starting to do good stuff, battlefield:heroes will be free when it comes out, they have already made some other things free, such as the conquest game mode for BF:Bad Company.

I honestly think, as much as I dislike EA games, that they still have a shred of hope left with RA3, if they mess RA3 up, then I will lose all hope for EA, RA3 better be CNCs new, improved comeback.

Oh right EA games has changed its ways has it? Its less of an evil corporation and now its a customer caring heaven like blizzard and other decent companys. People said the same thing back when cnc 3 was newly announced "oh look they are putting tiberium in, and its got GDI and NOD they do care after all!! cnc 3 will be awesome!! yay". Like i said before look how that turned out.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000FKBCX4/ref=pr_all_summary_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Yep thats EA caring for the people who followed spore. I was interested in that game (its actually a lousy game anyways DRM aside) but no more. Only 3 installations per customer. Apparently they are releasing a patch so you can uninstall the game and get an installation back, so you dont lose one, so in the future you will be required to uninstall every EA game before you format your OS (which might be in a bad way anyways hence you formatting it to begin with).

They care about their customers then? Thats why they upped it to 5 installations for red alert 3 and crysis warhead. Thats right 5 :D instead of 3 :D just what the customers wanted.....

Nah cylon... EA do not care. They have shown it many times in many franchises, even their sports fans are starting to get ticked off with the constant rehashes they are getting.

The only people interested in RA3 are people who are either too young or too stupid to realise that it will suck :rolleyes:

[nilloC]

Stop being such a bitter ****, Soviet.

I'm excited for RA3. Obviously you are not. End of story, yes?

[Bouncing Ball]

Good, better the franchise die with dignity than be kept alive on life support. They did the public beta to sell copies of kanes wrath... yes that outsourced piece of **** expansion nobody in their right mind would have bought without the RA3 beta key... buisness move dude, not EA changing their ways simply a buisness move to sell a crappy expansion to stupid people.
Yeah... As I still like the C&C games, I'd prefer it not to 'die with dignity'.
They sold me the expansion because I wanted the expansion. And I agree that it was crappy untill the patch..

And ofcourse a business makes business moves. And as EA is very, very succesfull as business....

Well enjoy sitting back and getting your face stamped on by those who get a better deal for less :) FYI gangmembers have **** all to do with cnc or video games, try again with a better analogy.
Yeah, well, if I gave you an example about C&C it wouldn't be an analogy at all now would it?
Besides, it wasn't based upon C&C3 but your unrespectfull "tip" to illigally download whatever..

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Dang, I'm gone four days and then a good debate thread pops up.

Personaly, it looks like the storyline and FMVs will try to maintain at least a B movie type attitude. Honestly, even in RedAlert2 I didn't see any "Super wacky cartoony attitudes" there were a few occasions of comedy, but i really felt like they were trying to make a movie there.

The game will in m yopinion be from okay, to great, EA is trying as hard as they can to listen to the community. And if they **** up, that means we, the community, are partly to blame, because e influenced it in a way.

We didn't like the new apoc design, the overwhelming discontent made EA change it. Just one of the examples of fan involvment.

Either you'll buy it, or you won't, that's all it comes down to, same thing with whether you like it or not.

Too each his own.

The only people interested in RA3 are people who are either too young or too stupid to realise that it will suck Well that wasn't very nice, I've been a CnC fan since 95, and have all the games, including Kane's Wrath (It's an okay game, not by any means a great CnC game, but it's okay), and I'm eagerly looking forward to RA3 so much, i pre ordered the Premeir Edition.

Also, an interesting side note, for the longest time, I hated generals, never played it, and decided it wasn't a true CnC game, so I hated it, I played it the other day, and I can honestly say, it's an okay game, it's not the best, but it's not horrible. While it still doesn't deserve the CnC title, it by itself is just alright, and I enjoyed playng it.

[Tomahawk]

Look at it this way. Generals was EA's first CnC title. We all agree that, while a decent game in its own right, its not nearly CnC worthy.

CnC 3 was EA's first attempt at a game worthy of the title "Command and Conquer", the first try at continuing a legacy is never going to be a stellar success. EA has demonstrated that they are willing to listen to an extent, they could have pulled some "Tiberian and Red Alert was Westwood's Command and Conquer, not EA's" crap, but they decided to give it a go.

Don't get me wrong, EA should haveve left Westwood the **** alone, but we have what we have.

[Soviet779]

Lets not talk about generals, if that tubestick with 10 million posts is still around it will be hailed as the best thing in the world ever next to christ and beer and there will be a 100+ post discussion on the matter which i cant be arsed with.

Well ivan i have also been a cnc fan for a long time, but i know that EA do not listen to the community at all, they have no idea in hell what makes a good game and its been demonstrated so many times. CNC 3 was awful, simcity socities was a pile of garbage, it took battlefield 2 a 1GB + patch to become decent, spore was a total letdown. EA dont make good games, RA3 will be no different.

Yeah tomahawk EA should have left westwood the **** alone, i dont hail westwood as an amazing developer, they have made their fair share of crap in their time and what they have put out as petroglyph hasent been anywhere near as good as the old cnc's but cnc would have been a lot better than it is today if EA didnt buy them over. EA's patten of buisness goes like this:

1. Buy out good developer with in the works or nearly completed title.

2. Release title with EA plastered all over the box since they own the developer now, they had nothing to do with the development of the game.

3. Release rehashes of this until they no longer sell or release low quality quick to make sequals until they no longer sell, running the franchise into the ground.

4. Rinse and repeat.

Its a damn shame what happened to cnc but you pro RA3 guys gotta face facts, the game will suck, cnc is dead, theres much better games out there to play with a better storyline and gameplay and online play, theres no niche for cnc anymore apart from a nostalgic niche which is overshadowed completely by the lousy quality of EA's design.

[EliteGi]

Look at it this way. Generals was EA's first CnC title. We all agree that, while a decent game in its own right, its not nearly CnC worthy.

CnC 3 was EA's first attempt at a game worthy of the title "Command and Conquer", the first try at continuing a legacy is never going to be a stellar success. EA has demonstrated that they are willing to listen to an extent, they could have pulled some "Tiberian and Red Alert was Westwood's Command and Conquer, not EA's" crap, but they decided to give it a go.

Don't get me wrong, EA should haveve left Westwood the **** alone, but we have what we have.
Actually, there's quite a few on hand to argue with your first point, about Generals. Please let's not turn this into a Generals debating thread, we all know it's very well balanced but as bland as white paint. :p

I for one really don't like how EA has dealt with the takeover of C&C. So many empty promises gone and forgotten, and a huge chunk of the community saying it's EA's last chance each time they make a game. I for one stopped buying C&C's since Generals but maybe that's because I have a 4 year old crappy lappy that needs a rest to support the screen and a quick prayer to get it started. Sometimes it just can't find Windows. :happysad:

Anyway my point is... hmm I forgot. Oh yeah - you all suck!

[Derek]

Look at it this way. Generals was EA's first CnC title. We all agree that, while a decent game in its own right, its not nearly CnC worthy.
...
/me bitch-slaps Tomahawk.

But with respect to Soviet and EGI, I will refrain from going further.

[Tomahawk]

I wasn't trying to debate Generals. I merely said that it was an okay, if bland, game.

My point was that you can't expect to win your first race, and Generals was EA's first race with the Command and Conquer title completely under their control.

Obviously they didn't pay attention to what Westwood was doing while partnered with them, so EA is going to have to learn what it takes the hard way.

My point is: Don't write off RA3 just yet.

[Statalyzer]

Derek, why do you get so insulted when someone says Generals should have been preceded by "Command & Conquer"? Plenty of people who like the game think that too. It's got very little in common with the others besides that they both happen to be RTS's.

and Generals was EA's first race with the Command and Conquer title completely under their control.

Doesn't excuse the abomination of Yuri's Revenge. Maybe that wasn't "completely" under their control but it was still their fault.

[Derek]

Derek, why do you get so insulted when someone says Generals should have been preceded by "Command & Conquer"? Plenty of people who like the game think that too.
Because people say retarded suff like

It's got very little in common with the others besides that they both happen to be RTS's.
And then use it as an excuse to prevent CNC from ever moving beyond its old and failed mechanics.

[EliteGi]

Lemme just say: in reference to the thread title... now that's won me over I gotta buy RA3. :p

[soadfan1]

I'm not sure I agree with this idea that if you liked Generals, you will like Ra3.

As a standalone game I thought Generals provided excellent balanced Multiplayer gaming.

Ra3 I still cannot stand to play, look at, or listen to. But then thats for different reasons I guess.

[Bouncing Ball]

I'm not sure I agree with this idea that if you liked Generals, you will like Ra3.
As a standalone game I thought Generals provided excellent balanced Multiplayer gaming.
Ra3 I still cannot stand to play, look at, or listen to. But then thats for different reasons I guess.

Hmmm, I just thought of something considering the goofyness. Personally I consider C&C to be unreal. from the first game that used tiberium as money, the next one with tesla coils and ion canons I realized this was a game not to take literally.. I agree it's getting more and more unreal, but my base was allready there.

I never liked Generals. I don't know, I tried, but eventually I gave up and skipped that one. Generals is very real life or at least mean to. Maybe if you are a generals fan instead of a Command and Conquer fan (:hyper:) you'll easier think it's too goofy?

[SgtRicko]

Hmmm, I just thought of something considering the goofyness. Personally I consider C&C to be unreal. from the first game that used tiberium as money, the next one with tesla coils and ion canons I realized this was a game not to take literally.. I agree it's getting more and more unreal, but my base was allready there.

I never liked Generals. I don't know, I tried, but eventually I gave up and skipped that one. Generals is very real life or at least mean to. Maybe if you are a generals fan instead of a Command and Conquer fan (:hyper:) you'll easier think it's too goofy?

Generals itself was pretty far removed from reality. Too many breaks from reality and gameplay, or odd changes in a unit's original role and actual purpose; the US Paladin is a pretty good example, as well as the Chinese Helix. That, and I still cannot get it beyond me as to how EA thought that making stuff like humvees or modified pickups capable of withstanding tanks, even if only for a little bit, would not fly by gamers as a wee bit weird...:|

[apple23]

Too many breaks from reality and gameplay, or odd changes in a unit's original role and actual purpose; the US Paladin is a pretty good example, as well as the Chinese Helix.

But those are just names. Naming a heavy tank the Paladin is not a break from reality even if IRL the Paladin is something different. Names don't matter in a game because for the most part, the game is not trying to EXACTLY copy real life, and names are insignificant in that respect.


That, and I still cannot get it beyond me as to how EA thought that making stuff like humvees or modified pickups capable of withstanding tanks, even if only for a little bit, would not fly by gamers as a wee bit weird...:|


As I said in an earlier thread, they can only stand a light brush with tanks (only a few hits), but this was mainly done for BALANCE. If the humvee was destroyed in 1 hit of a rocket or tank shell, hummvees would be nearly useless at the current lethality levels of the game (change the overall lethality level of the game and then that may make sense).

[Derek]

In reality one hit from a tank will destroy most things, including other tanks (though to take out another tank that hit might have to be from a certain angle). In real life killing enemies and destroying vehicles is mainly a question of actually hitting the target, not hitting it enough times. But since having the majority of shots in a game miss (like they do in real life) would make the game incredibly random and no fun, its replaced with damage. You can think of it as, in real life a tank would have to fire an average of five times to hit and kill another tank. In the game, it kills the tank in exactly five shots (all hits) every time. I think this was the original conception in the original CNC and other early RTS games. Since then its become accepted as standard and it no longer even has to represent an "average" of real life.

[Soviet779]

I wasn't trying to debate Generals. I merely said that it was an okay, if bland, game.

My point was that you can't expect to win your first race, and Generals was EA's first race with the Command and Conquer title completely under their control.

Obviously they didn't pay attention to what Westwood was doing while partnered with them, so EA is going to have to learn what it takes the hard way.

My point is: Don't write off RA3 just yet.

Hmm yep generals was their first try, it failed, CNC3 was their second try it was a horrible game, and the outsourced expansion was their attempt to make a zero hour for CNC3 and it turned sour because the game was still was shallow and boring as before.

So taking that into account, how things have been slipping south since generals and have continued to do so you think RA3 genuinely has a hope? No way dude, it will be awful, and it will likely recieve one poorly thought out expansion which maybe this time will be outsourced to a bunch of chimps instead of some unheard of company to save money, then the game will be abandoned.... roll on CNC4 and the new promises of something good which those nostalgic but blind people will claim "this is it, this one is gonna be good!! im serious!" and it will suck too. :rolleyes:

Wake up guys, there are no more good cnc games, RA2 was the end.

[Daishi]

Ignoring the argument that's going on right now, I'm just going to say that this thread is completely pointless.

Anyone who thinks classic C&C suffers from failed mechanics doesn't realize that the gameplay in C&C3 could have worked perfectly if it had been more thought-out before initial release and each fundamentally game-changing patch, because they suffer from too closed a mind.

Anyone who thinks Generals was in any way, shape, or form inferior to previous C&Cs has played about 100x more of the older titles than Generals, enough that they can't recognize the failures of the old games nor the successes of Generals. This is assuming they have an Internet connection with which to compare the multiplayer experiences.

Anyone who strongly believes that RA3 is going to be inferior to past C&Cs and cites his reasons as "inconsistent support" is an anti-EA fanboy, because every past C&C did excellently with virtually no support (with the exception of KW) Wait til the game comes out THEN use that argument.

As for the thread starter: http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/images/300/baby_crying_closeup.jpg

You clearly haven't played the RA3 public beta nor do you take into consideration that it's EA's first for a C&C title, you base your entire argument on single-player campaigns, and the facts you present regarding the quality of Generals and C&C3 conflict sharply with sales figures AND with virtually anyone who's played those games for more than 30 minutes.

Don't try to change our opinions with biased guesswork when most of us curiously await further information. I'd take your bet that RA3 will suck, but seeing how you treat the last two titles, you'd end up failing to appreciate the game for what it is regardless of how well it performed up to everyone's expectations.

[Miles]

I would really not say Generals was a failure, especially not after the release of Zero Hour. I still play it today online, I still enjoy compstomp games, it's still very popular even if many players these days are 50k NOru/db/aur/air/lololol idiots and I still catch myself playing the generals challenges. EA really did a good job with Generals and Zero Hour (except for some unforgivable mistakes such as not fixing the scud bug). The SP campaigns of ZH sucked except for a few missions, but if you judge ZH only on it's SP aspect, you're not worthy of discussing this topic.

From what I've seen in the Beta, RA3 looks pretty fun. Goofy, but still fun and reminds me of the same light-hearted humoristic atmosphere in RA2. I expect a lot from this game and playing it in when it is really released will only say wether I like the game or not.

[Statalyzer]

Sorry, Derek, but Generals is vastly different. It is the answer to the question "Which one of these things is not like the others?"

That doesn't make it a bad game, nor does it prevent any future C&C games from changing any mechanics that need to be changed. But all the other C&C games are closer related to each other than to Generals, despite some of them having a few things more in common with Generals simply because of advantages in technology.

It'd be like calling Bablyon 5 or Battlestar Galatica a Star Trek series.

[Cylon Crusader]

For those trying a realistic feel for their units, try out cold war crisis, a mod for CNC:generals zero hour, or try out one of the many other third party mods that make the game more "real."

[Thumper]

team fortress 2 proves you can be cartoony and goofey without sucking. RA3 is the very opposite.

I would rather get a good game every 5 years than a ****ty game every year.

I deleted about 2 paragraphs from this post. trying to hold my tongue.

[apple23]

Team fortress 2 is also a very different atmosphere, not to mention a very different genre.

I do agree with you that I would rather have some good games than tons of bad ones.


Hmm yep generals was their first try, it failed, CNC3 was their second try it was a horrible game, and the outsourced expansion was their attempt to make a zero hour for CNC3 and it turned sour because the game was still was shallow and boring as before.

generals may have been a bit bland, but gameplay was awesome. CNC3 wasn't too bad, honestly, but there were still some old fail mechanics in the game. RA3 does not have any of those old fail mechanics in the game, thus making it at the very least a promising game.
So taking that into account, how things have been slipping south since generals and have continued to do so you think RA3 genuinely has a hope? No way dude, it will be awful, and it will likely recieve one poorly thought out expansion which maybe this time will be outsourced to a bunch of chimps instead of some unheard of company to save money, then the game will be abandoned.... roll on CNC4 and the new promises of something good which those nostalgic but blind people will claim "this is it, this one is gonna be good!! im serious!" and it will suck too. :rolleyes:


First off, just because they have been giving crap support for all thier games in the past dosen't mean that EA can pull thier **** together and make a decent game. Sure CNC3 was quite awful in its first days, but it got progressively better, and then KW improved it a little more. It is still not a stellar game, but it is not a complete failure.

Besides, you have absolutely no idea on earth what the hell you are talking about. You cannot as of yet predict what RA3 will be like, especially because you have more than likely not had any first hand experience with RA3's gameplay.

[soadfan1]

team fortress 2 proves you can be cartoony and goofey without sucking. RA3 is the very opposite.

I would rather get a good game every 5 years than a ****ty game every year.

I deleted about 2 paragraphs from this post. trying to hold my tongue.


Dont hold your tongue. As long term c&c fans its our duty to speak our mind when we feel an inappropriate bunch of ****e comes our way. Anyone getting a sense of de ja vu?

Whether people think thats whining, or prejudice, just ignore them. They dont know what theyre talking about, and happily just shell out £34.99 or whatever it is in dollars for half rate games only to see them pretty much abandoned in 6 months time.

Then each time a new title comes along they say, 'oh but just because they did bad before doesn't mean they will again'. Pure lol.

They have their stance and we have ours. Only time will tell whos in the right, sooner or later, time will tell.

[Statalyzer]

team fortress 2 proves you can be cartoony and goofy without sucking. RA3 is the very opposite.

Have you played RA3?

[Soviet779]

You clearly haven't played the RA3 public beta nor do you take into consideration that it's EA's first for a C&C title

No i wasent stupid enough to be suckered into buying kanes wrath just to play another crappy game in BETA form. Also theres plenty of other developers who have taken over from an old developer and continued the franchise they took over successfully and even made it better, EA just suck, the "its my first day" excuse just dosent fly here...

[Soviet779]

Dont hold your tongue. As long term c&c fans its our duty to speak our mind when we feel an inappropriate bunch of ****e comes our way. Anyone getting a sense of de ja vu?

Whether people think thats whining, or prejudice, just ignore them. They dont know what theyre talking about, and happily just shell out £34.99 or whatever it is in dollars for half rate games only to see them pretty much abandoned in 6 months time.

Then each time a new title comes along they say, 'oh but just because they did bad before doesn't mean they will again'. Pure lol.

They have their stance and we have ours. Only time will tell whos in the right, sooner or later, time will tell.

Yeah, the "we love RA3" group is a minority of individuals clinging onto nostalgia in the vain hope EA wont **** down their throat like last time but all the real or intelligent cnc fans know better and have moved on to better games after the poor show that was cnc3. In fact the real ones would have ditched it after generals, i was stupid and bought into cnc3 and EA's false promises of a good game, it wont happen again :) Unfortunately some people are not as perceptive as i am and will buy anything EA say :( christ knows why....

[Statalyzer]

Yeah, the "we love RA3" group is a minority of individuals clinging onto nostalgia in the vain hope EA wont **** down their throat like last time but all the real or intelligent cnc fans know better and have moved on to better games after the poor show that was cnc3.Wow. That is a huge generalization.

I haven't even played C&C3. I did play the RA3 beta, and it needs a few tweaks but overall the multiplayer gameplay is excellent. I still probably won't buy it because EA has yet to show me they'll offer serious long-term online ladder and tech support for their RTS line of games - plus I'd need to buy a new computer.

[Derek]

all the real or intelligent cnc fans know better and have moved on to better games after the poor show that was cnc3.
Believe me, I have. I had absolutely no interest in getting RA3 before the Beta. It looked like they were giving up on serious RTS and going back to RA2. However I am going to get the game now because I have seen in the Beta that the gameplay is very refined. What they actually did was not give up on serious RTS, but give up on listening to "fans" who don't know wtf the're talking about. The ditched the broken field economy, refined the MCV system to the point that it is almost good, and made sure that every unit (except generic T2/3 tanks) has a distinct role (usually two) in the combat chain, with no overlap between units. Units were not included solely for nostalgia or "cool" purposes, if its in the game it has a good reason to be.

SP is still going to suck balls though, but honestly no one should give a **** about that. RTS is not a singleplayer genre.

I still probably won't buy it because EA has yet to show me they'll offer serious long-term online ladder and tech support for their RTS line of games - plus I'd need to buy a new computer.
CNC3/KW has a ladder that works fine. The ladder seasons are inconsistent but the prizes are serious (ie, money that is more than chump change). This will no doubt be continued in RA3 (at the cost of KW of course). The real question is how long the support will last and how good it will be. CNC3 had fairly good support, but they completely dropped the ball on KW. So far the Beta support has been good, but will it last after the retail release? And the expansion? (I don't mind if they stop RA3 support after the expansion as long as the support continues with the expansion) EALA has said they are trying to start a live team whose sole purpose is to support games. If this actually happens it will be great, if not we'll be back to square 1.

[Statalyzer]

Your last paragraph underscores exactly what I'm talking about.

CNC3/KW has a ladder that works fine.

Yeah, because it's really recent.

The ladder seasons are inconsistent but the prizes are serious (ie, money that is more than chump change). This will no doubt be continued in RA3 (at the cost of KW of course).

Don't care about prizes as I don't have time to get that good - but inconsistent seasons shows poor planning and of course, what you describe will also probably be continued in whatever is the next game (at the cost of RA3).

EALA has said they are trying to start a live team whose sole purpose is to support games. If this actually happens it will be great, if not we'll be back to square 1.

Trying to start a live team? As Yoda might put it, either they're starting one or they aren't, there is no "trying" to start one.

[Derek]

Don't care about prizes as I don't have time to get that good - but inconsistent seasons shows poor planning and of course, what you describe will also probably be continued in whatever is the next game (at the cost of RA3).
If you're not interested in prizes then the ladder is fine for you, it runs 24/7 and is only reset between seasons.

[Daishi]

Believe me, I have. I had absolutely no interest in getting RA3 before the Beta. It looked like they were giving up on serious RTS and going back to RA2. However I am going to get the game now because I have seen in the Beta that the gameplay is very refined. What they actually did was not give up on serious RTS, but give up on listening to "fans" who don't know wtf the're talking about.

Lol. If they had paid more attention to the construction of the old games during development, about 50% of C&C3's problems would never have manifested. It wasn't the fanbase's fault. For example:

They ditched the broken field economy, refined the MCV system to the point that it is almost good, and made sure that every unit (except generic T2/3 tanks) has a distinct role (usually two) in the combat chain, with no overlap between units.
Field economy was only broken because it was poorly built in C&C3. I'm sure you can think of simple ways it could have been brought under control.

MCV system was always fine. The new C&C3 system made the mistake of granting an extra build queue for every MCV instead of just speeding up production for both tabs like in classic C&C, as well as allowing structures to be placed REAL far from one another, which made the game all about building pretty bases crawling all across the map.

Just because EA screwed up bringing the classic mechanics back doesn't mean the mechanics were broken. You're just being offensive.

SP is still going to suck balls though, but honestly no one should give a **** about that. RTS is not a singleplayer genre.

Lol, opinion. It was primarily a SP genre until the advent of Starcraft. Even in modern RTS, campaigns do much more than just introduce us to the units one by one.

[apple23]

Yeah, the "we love RA3" group is a minority of individuals clinging onto nostalgia in the vain hope EA wont **** down their throat like last time but all the real or intelligent cnc fans know better and have moved on to better games after the poor show that was cnc3.

Obviously we're not a minority group if we outnumber you guys.
Not to mention that the vast majority of people that still think RA3 will suck haven't played the RA3 BETA and are so obsessed with CNC's old fail mechanics. RA3 is very different in teh respect that it no longer contains the old mechanics like field resourcing and the luck factor in RA3 compared to other CNC games is almost nonexistant.

In fact the real ones would have ditched it after generals, i was stupid and bought into cnc3 and EA's false promises of a good game, it wont happen again :) Unfortunately some people are not as perceptive as i am and will buy anything EA say :( christ knows why....

Generals did not give anyone a real reason to think EA was a bad producer. ZH and patch 1.04 did, though.

Anyways, in the past, most people bought CNC games because they operated on a mentality of "Well if I don't buy the game and it sucks, good, but what if the game is good and I don't buy it? Then I'm missing out!"

Now, however, we have the RA3 BETA, so you can try it before buying it, and most everyone I know has loved the RA3 BETA.

No i wasent stupid enough to be suckered into buying kanes wrath just to play another crappy game in BETA form. Also theres plenty of other developers who have taken over from an old developer and continued the franchise they took over successfully and even made it better, EA just suck, the "its my first day" excuse just dosent fly here...

KW really wasn't THAT bad, IMO. It was at least better than CNC3, and I personally thought it was worth it, especially for the RA3 BETA key.

Believe me, I have. I had absolutely no interest in getting RA3 before the Beta. It looked like they were giving up on serious RTS and going back to RA2. However I am going to get the game now because I have seen in the Beta that the gameplay is very refined. What they actually did was not give up on serious RTS, but give up on listening to "fans" who don't know wtf the're talking about. The ditched the broken field economy, refined the MCV system to the point that it is almost good, and made sure that every unit (except generic T2/3 tanks) has a distinct role (usually two) in the combat chain, with no overlap between units. Units were not included solely for nostalgia or "cool" purposes, if its in the game it has a good reason to be.


I second that all the way.


Field economy was only broken because it was poorly built in C&C3. I'm sure you can think of simple ways it could have been brought under control.



It was almost the same exact way as they did in previous CNC games, except that the tiberium looked cooler and the crystals actually sprouted out of the ground.

The main problem with the field mechanic is that it is unbalanced. If you have more miners, you get more money faster than your opponent. The node mechanic requires you to claim territory to get more resources, meaning that if you have more strategic points, you have more money, but the latter is more strategic and there is risk involved. There is little strategy or risk in piling 5 miners on one field, especially because that field is usually right inside your base.


MCV system was always fine. The new C&C3 system made the mistake of granting an extra build queue for every MCV instead of just speeding up production for both tabs like in classic C&C, as well as allowing structures to be placed REAL far from one another, which made the game all about building pretty bases crawling all across the map.


The MCV system was never totally fine. Again, there is one main problem with the CURRENT MCV system of CNC3 and others, and that is that buildings can just pop up out of nowhere. Not only is that unrealistic but it is strategically unbalanced. The building, while building, is virtual, meaning it cannot be destroyed while constructing, and it is placed after construction is finished. Now the soviet's build system in RA3 is the ideal MCV system. They place thier building BEFORE construction, and then the building builds up on the ground, as a physical object that can be destroyed while constructing. There is nothing wrong with the build radius mechanic, but how the buildings are actually placed and constructed.

[Daishi]

It was almost the same exact way as they did in previous CNC games, except that the tiberium looked cooler and the crystals actually sprouted out of the ground.

The main problem with the field mechanic is that it is unbalanced. If you have more miners, you get more money faster than your opponent. The node mechanic requires you to claim territory to get more resources, meaning that if you have more strategic points, you have more money, but the latter is more strategic and there is risk involved. There is little strategy or risk in piling 5 miners on one field, especially because that field is usually right inside your base.

Differences from RA2 field mining:

-Extra space and structure rotation allowed more than 2 refineries per field
-Consequently, more than 4 harvesters could use a single field at once.
-Multiple build queues and fast production meant Harvesters could be produced without sacrificing the necessary offensive power at any stage of the game.

Result: HARVESTER SPAM.

The MCV system was never totally fine. Again, there is one main problem with the CURRENT MCV system of CNC3 and others, and that is that buildings can just pop up out of nowhere. Not only is that unrealistic but it is strategically unbalanced. The building, while building, is virtual, meaning it cannot be destroyed while constructing, and it is placed after construction is finished. Now the soviet's build system in RA3 is the ideal MCV system. They place thier building BEFORE construction, and then the building builds up on the ground, as a physical object that can be destroyed while constructing. There is nothing wrong with the build radius mechanic, but how the buildings are actually placed and constructed.Differences from RA2 MCV system.

-POWERFUL defenses, some of which could take out multiple units in one shot. In RA2, defenses, especially the better ones, were very situational.
-Greatly extended build radius, allowing strategic placement of defenses in inescapable locations, also allowing bases to easily stretch all the way across the map with minimal investment.
-Multiple build queues, allowing many of these powerful defenses to pop up in the same instant.

The result: A completely broken and easily abused MCV system.

K, I just proved that the mechanic itself wasn't broken, just their manifestation in C&C3.

[Derek]

Lol, opinion. It was primarily a SP genre until the advent of Starcraft. Even in modern RTS, campaigns do much more than just introduce us to the units one by one.
And FPS was a primarily sp genre before Quake 3 and UT.

[Daishi]

And FPS was a primarily sp genre before Quake 3 and UT.
There ya go.

Now SP is still a major factor for a large portion of the people who play these games, especially those that were balanced for online play. 1P is obviously no longer the primary factor that hooks people on a game like it was back in the 90s, but it's not like EVERYONE casts an FPS/RTS aside for sub-par multiplayer if the SP mode has decent replay value.

I'm really surprised that you didn't respond to anything else in that post of mine, though. Thought there was an argument to be made. :\

[Derek]

There is nothing wrong with SP games, but RTS, like FPS, is a naturally MP genre and should be focused towards that. Once was get some Quake3 and UT in the RTS genre, I'll be more open to HL and Bioshock. EA is wasting so much money not just creating a SP campaign, but hiring actors for FMVs that will at best be "so bad its funny", and at worst just "bad." This money could be used to pay for the live team and we could have patches out for ZH, CNC3, and KW in six months. Personally I'm am hoping with all my heart that the next CNC game will be Generals 2, downloaded for $30 off Steam and exclusively online (ala CS:S, TF2, etc.).

I'm really surprised that you didn't respond to anything else in that post of mine, though. Thought there was an argument to be made. :\
Meh, Apple covered the subject pretty well. The only thing I have to add is that you're right that RA2 prevented Harvester spam, but thats because it gave little to no benefit for having expanding. Your extra money couldn't spent because your build speed maxed out at four factories or something, and even that was only like twice as fast as one factory. Therefore there was no reason to strip mine all fields on the map at one time, strip mining one at a time was sufficient (and thats exactly what people did). These are all just as bad mechanics. Players should be able to exploit a superior economy to its full extent, but at the same time you can't allow their economy to be ridiculously large. The field system fails at this. Only a system of fixed income rate per-resource location will work. CNC3 mixed old and new elements in a way that was to a large extent worse than both, but thats no reason to go back to what is and always has been a failed mechanic.

[soadfan1]

Shame, SP used to be my favourite part of c&c titles.

Out of curiousity Derek what is your opinion on the design of the game.
Particuarly things such as a buildings.

I personally find them to be terribly bland and unimaginative.

[Statalyzer]

If you're not interested in prizes then the ladder is fine for you, it runs 24/7 and is only reset between seasons.

It does now. For how long will they have guys ready to fix the servers if they go down? For how long will they have guys policing the ladder and keeping cheaters away?

Just as you said, the RA3 ladder support will probably come at the cost of the C&C3 ladder support. The next game's ladder support will probably come at the cost of the RA3 ladder support.

[Derek]

It does now. For how long will they have guys ready to fix the servers if they go down? For how long will they have guys policing the ladder and keeping cheaters away?
The servers are Gamespy, its **** quality but at least they are maintained. The Gens/ZH servers still work so there is no reason to assume they will stop having servers for RA3 any time soon. As for cheaters, there is no telling, but EA has still be cracking down on cheaters in KW and CNC3, but it hasn't been as big of a problem in those games as it was in Gens/ZH to begin with.

[Soviet779]

Obviously we're not a minority group if we outnumber you guys.
Not to mention that the vast majority of people that still think RA3 will suck haven't played the RA3 BETA and are so obsessed with CNC's old fail mechanics. RA3 is very different in teh respect that it no longer contains the old mechanics like field resourcing and the luck factor in RA3 compared to other CNC games is almost nonexistant.

Even on this dying forum its debateable that most people like RA3... Everyone else has moved on and gone elsewhere, its a dying franchise, you just dont realise that because you are still here among others who cling onto the nostalgia of cnc in vain making you believe that everyone loves RA3 and its gonna rock when in reality the opposite is true, it gonna totally suck.

KW really wasn't THAT bad, IMO. It was at least better than CNC3, and I personally thought it was worth it, especially for the RA3 BETA key.

It was terrible, the online part was just cnc3 with a few new units and the single player was boring and lame. Ive heard that before "i personally thought it was worth it" which often translates into "i got ripped off but i dont wanna show it". I never bought it thankfully but i did have the misfortune to play it because a stupid friend of mine bought it :rolleyes: Hes learned not to trust EA and that theres way better games out there.

[Statalyzer]

Even on this dying forum its debateable that most people like RA3...

I have yet to hear someone play the Beta and just flat-out say the gameplay is poor.

its a dying franchise, you just dont realise that because you are still here among others who cling onto the nostalgia of cnc in vain making you believe that everyone loves RA3 and its gonna rock

There's nothing anybody has said to indicate that's what they are thinking. When did you acquire Yuri's mind-reading capabilities?

when in reality the opposite is true, it gonna totally suck.

You seem to be be clinging to the nostalgia of C&C and convincing yourself that RA3 will suck just because you don't think it fits with that nostalgia.

[Thumper]

Have you played RA3?

yes. but i wasnt talking about the gameplay but the overall design.

and generals was not bad.

[Statalyzer]

Who was that last sentence directed at? You didn't give any indication that weren't still addressing me, but I never said anything about Generals being bad.

[apple23]

Your extra money couldn't spent because your build speed maxed out at four factories or something, and even that was only like twice as fast as one factory. Therefore there was no reason to strip mine all fields on the map at one time, strip mining one at a time was sufficient (and thats exactly what people did).


Actually, you're wrong there. If you had enough resources to keep it up, you could make about 10 factories and virtually anything would build seemingly instantly. get 15 or more to build even faster. Eventually things build so fast that by the time the second or even third tank is finished, the first one still hasn't gotten out of the war factory, and so it deploys out of another war factory.

Get on yuri's revenge any day and try it out, the more war factories you have the faster it builds and there is no cap to the bonus you get for multiple factories (although there is a point where the actual build time gets so small that the multiplier (which is 0.8) becomes unnoticeable from building even 10 extra war factories)


Off that subject, I personally like the node mechanic because it forces you to scout and expand aggressively, and grab that territory and secure it before you enemy does. With the field mechanic, you can strip a field, then go grab an obscure one, mine it, and then by that time, half your origional field has already regenerated. (which was another problem with he field mechanic)



It was terrible, the online part was just cnc3 with a few new units and the single player was boring and lame. Ive heard that before "i personally thought it was worth it" which often translates into "i got ripped off but i dont wanna show it". I never bought it thankfully but i did have the misfortune to play it because a stupid friend of mine bought it :rolleyes: Hes learned not to trust EA and that theres way better games out there.


One of the things I've noticed about your style of argument is that all you do is simply flat-out say that the game sucks, and nothing more. You only have it in you to say it is a terrible game, but you give absolutely no real reason as to why you hated it so badly. You also said that you had no experience with tehg ame except for playing a few games with a friend. This is also a brutally obvious sign that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

Same thing with RA3. You say it is going to suck balls, but first off, you are totally clueless. You obviously have absoultely no odea what you are talking about, but secondly, you give no real reason whatsoever as to why you think it will suck. You have no firsthand experience with the gameplay obviously, and all you do is blindly criticise the game with little to no idea of what RA3 is like.

All you based your argument of both RA3 and KW off of was the past. Yeah, CNC3 sucked in the past, but KW definitely improved CNC3 gameplay. And EA crap support in the past dosen't necessarily condemn any future games from being good, this is where RA3 comes in. I will say first off that NOBODY knows for sure how well EA will support RA3. We can only hope it is good, but we are not sure. We can't say it will suck either, because the game hasn't even come to release date (it is more than a month off).

[Annihlator :D]

Even on this dying forum its debateable that most people like RA3...


You're a terrible lair.

[Daishi]

You're a terrible lair.
Good point. They say trolls live in terrible lairs. :)

[Annihlator :D]

Good point. They say trolls live in terrible lairs. :)
oops. liar I meant, although I'm sure he keeps a terrible lair.

[pipinowns]

Actually alot of people play Command and Conquer. Not just hardcore fans.

It's far from a dying franchise. It's one of the hugest franchises in the RTS industry.

So next time you decided to press the "Post Reply" button. Please try and only post things that aren't bull****.

[EliteGi]

So next time you decided to press the "Post Reply" button. Please try and only post things that aren't bull****.
Please take your own advice. :)

[soadfan1]

You're a terrible lair.

I dont think he is actually, a lot of people here dont like the game for one reason or another.

Even the poll on the Dens would suggest this.

The majority do like it, but it's not an overwhelming majority.

[Soviet779]

I have yet to hear someone play the Beta and just flat-out say the gameplay is poor.

Like i said before the only people who bought kanes wrath were stupid, so the only people beta testing RA3 are stupid as well. Plus it links back to what i mentioned earlier, people dont like admitting when they got ripped off.


You seem to be be clinging to the nostalgia of C&C and convincing yourself that RA3 will suck just because you don't think it fits with that nostalgia.

No it will suck for two reaons, its made by EA thats reason 1, and reason 2 is a lot like reason 1 but slightly different. EA only ever chrurn out bland boring RTS games that never stand out amongst the crowd, their games sell on marketing and a brand name tacked to the front of the box, thats it. RA3 is going to be a joke compared with the other RTS's today, thats not even taking into account the future ones that will be good, dawn of war 2, starcraft 2, warcraft 4 when they make it...

[apple23]

Like i said before the only people who bought kanes wrath were stupid, so the only people beta testing RA3 are stupid as well. Plus it links back to what i mentioned earlier, people dont like admitting when they got ripped off.

This is exactly what I said earlier about your style of argument. You seem to be afraid to give any substantial reason to support your claim.

How can you be sure that KW sucked if you never really played it? How do you figure that all KW players are stupid?

No it will suck for two reaons, its made by EA thats reason 1,
What about it being made by EA, as a standalone argument, makes RA3 bad?

and reason 2 is a lot like reason 1 but slightly different. EA only ever chrurn out bland boring RTS games that never stand out amongst the crowd,
RA3 is not bad because you have something against EA. The reason that your argument was doomed from the very start is because you have NO substantial evidence whatsoever that says that RA3 will suck. You have absolutely no experience with the game, your logic is horribly flawed, and all your argument is based off of is EA's track record (which is bad, but DOES NOT provide any substantial evidence to judge thier products, especially when you have no experience with the game.)

RA3 is going to be a joke compared with the other RTS's today, thats not even taking into account the future ones that will be good, dawn of war 2, starcraft 2, warcraft 4 when they make it...

Without using the past as a base for your argument, how can you say that RA3 will suck, and how can you say that any of those other games will be good?

[Annihlator :D]

Like i said before the only people who bought kanes wrath were stupid, so the only people beta testing RA3 are stupid as well. Plus it links back to what i mentioned earlier, people dont like admitting when they got ripped off.

Just leave. Now.
Besides being insulting to many good people here, that was also the most pathetic argument I have ever heard.

[apple23]

which is my point exactly =)

[Derek]

Apple is absolutely right here. Soviet, you have no argument. FYI, Kane's Wrath was incredibly buggy and rushed, but the gameplay was quite good, especially after the patch. The only question then is, will RA3 also be rushed? And the answer to that is a definite no. For the first time ever EA held a public Beta test, and many of the initial bugs and imbalances have already been worked out. When RA3 ships it will already be a refined product (though something remain up in the air, such as how the rest of the maps will be).

[soadfan1]

I would still offer extremely short odds of the game ending up abandoned and forgotten about after the first few months.

It's up to them to prove us wrong, not us to give them another chance.

Besides lots of my issues with ra3 are things that cant be fixed.

Im sure lots of people will like ra3

but lots wont as well.

[Annihlator :D]

Im sure lots of people will like ra3
but lots wont as well.

Yeah, but that's true of just about every game.

[soadfan1]

Except Ra1 and c&c TD. I dont know anyone, ever, who didnt like either of them :P

[Miles]

Except Ra1 and c&c TD. I dont know anyone, ever, who didnt like either of them :P

I do, it depends on style of game people like.
Some people here seem to be stuck in the late nineties. They hope for another TD or RA1 to bring back the good old days. While I agree that these games were good, times have evolved. If you think you're not gonna like RA3 that's fine but that's still YOUR opinion. I think I'm going to like it and if you keep bringing up arguments like "EA is teh worst EVAH and RA3 will suck because KW sucked and RA3 is no fun gameplay" well don't expect people to take you seriously.

[pipinowns]

Except Ra1 and c&c TD. I dont know anyone, ever, who didnt like either of them :P

You obviously have few friends that are gamers.

Because MANY people don't like Ra 1 and c&c TD.

[eLDiablo]

You obviously have few friends that are gamers.

Because MANY people don't like Ra 1 and c&c TD.
Those people aren't gamers, they're stupid.

[apple23]

I liked CNC95 and RA1 when I first played them, but that was because they were pretty much the first RTS game ever. Compared to modern RTS, the games lacked depth and gameplay was quite shallow.

In other words, I play the games purely for nostalgia, but I wouldn't really compare them to modern RTS games because they were the first ones, so you can't expect all the modern flourishes that RTS games today have.

[Soviet779]

Nah i played kanes wrath, it sucked. What do you want? Some kind of in depth analysis as to why it sucked and to debate this with me? Lol, pass. The game sucked because it was no fun, just like cnc3 before it, no fun, no longevity, no thought put into it. A very lousy game, and some of you still like it haha :rolleyes: crazy...

If you guys played decent games then you would know exactly why kanes wrath is absolutely balls. The opposing front expansion for company of heros brought so much more to that game, building on what was already a solid game, kanes wrath is just another turd on top the the steaming pile that was cnc3. Such a waste of a good franchise.

[eLDiablo]

If you guys played decent games then you would know exactly why kanes wrath is absolutely balls.

You are more of an elitist than I am... the difference?





You fail at it.

[nilloC]

Nah i played kanes wrath, it sucked. What do you want? Some kind of in depth analysis as to why it sucked and to debate this with me? Lol, pass. The game sucked because it was no fun, just like cnc3 before it, no fun, no longevity, no thought put into it. A very lousy game, and some of you still like it haha :rolleyes: crazy...

If you guys played decent games then you would know exactly why kanes wrath is absolutely balls. The opposing front expansion for company of heros brought so much more to that game, building on what was already a solid game, kanes wrath is just another turd on top the the steaming pile that was cnc3. Such a waste of a good franchise.

So you don't like C&C anymore, or something. Why keep posting here? You aren't changing the opinion of any other forum members. Do you just like being an asshole, or beating a dead horse?

Jesus Christ man, you've been muttering the same rhetoric for this entire thread. Go play your elite games that are so much better than anything we've heard of, while we remain here and masturbate to the idea of an armored bear. Because that's ****ing kick ass.

[apple23]

Nah i played kanes wrath, it sucked. What do you want? Some kind of in depth analysis as to why it sucked and to debate this with me? Lol, pass.

No, please do. I want an indepth analysis of why you think KW sucked. It is the only way you can substantiate your argument

If you guys played decent games then you would know exactly why kanes wrath is absolutely balls. The opposing front expansion for company of heros brought so much more to that game, building on what was already a solid game, kanes wrath is just another turd on top the the steaming pile that was cnc3. Such a waste of a good franchise.

That entire paragraph is all insubstantial opinions.

[Derek]

And be sure to include in your analysis why previous CNC games (other than Generals) were better than KW.

[sg500]

Anyone remember that time nearly two years ago? Every cnc fan was exited for cnc3 because EA were following the storyline this time, no more generals bull****. They hired people from MIT or somewhere to figure out tiberium and they put in the viceroid etc etc... look how that turned out, the whole atmosphere of the tiberian universe was lost, no more tiberium mutations, the single player in cnc3 was forgettable, online play died quickly, the cheap bastards even oursourced the expansion pack which i never bought! What a goddamn rip! That was supposed to be cnc's comeback, theres more people play freakin company of heros online than cnc3... niche WWII RTS which average joes comp probably wouldnt run.

Face it, RA3 is going to suck. This isnt gonna be anything like RA2 or RA1, they were great games. If you must play RA3 dont pay for it. EA dont deserve money for trashing so many good franchises and then having the nerve to force DRM on loyal customers. DRM which was put in to stop the resale market. Pirates get a better product for much less, its laughable.


I never got into cnc3 but i do plan on getting ra3 i just to play it offline. Hell this is the only title im excited about since warcraft 3 roc. Sure ea wont support it online. Sure there are going to be a strong need for patches . Sure cheaters will make life a living hell on players. If ur a true ra fan im sure it will end up in your collection.

[soadfan1]

You obviously have few friends that are gamers.

Because MANY people don't like Ra 1 and c&c TD.

I probably should have mentioned I mean fans of c&c when I say this, obviously there are people who dont like games at all, or RTS games at all.

But ive yet to meet an RTS or c&c fan who thinks ra1/c&c were bad games.

their mp doesnt compare today obviously but for outstanding sp, nothing could beat it, and I still believe that to be the most important part of a c&c.

Even though Generals excelled in mp terms.

-Rob

[soadfan1]

If ur a true ra fan im sure it will end up in your collection.

No, No it wont :P if you;re a true Ra fan it will end up not being given a second thought.

[Vindicare]

Soad I'm still at a loss, you come here everyday and spew about how much you hate EA and RA3....yet you have changed no ones mind and continue to make lame posts on how CNC needs to go back to the "old days" . Do you not have anything better to do but come on a message board for a game you hated (Unfairly I might add) since its announcement and prove how archaic and simply asinine your reasoning is? Nothing you say can justify you coming on this board as much as you do for a game you hate. If you love the old cnc so much go load em up on your computer and rub one out to it.
I come to these boards because I love the game and found it to be great in beta and look for new news on here. You will never find me on the forums for a game I disliked (or a game i have no intention of buying)...I mean seriously does it make you feel good to come on here and bitch? Guess what EA doesn't read this, anyone with comprehension skills isn't going to be swayed by your non-exsistant arguments, and the old CNC is dead...live with it and MOVE on.

[Soviet779]

I never got into cnc3 but i do plan on getting ra3 i just to play it offline. Hell this is the only title im excited about since warcraft 3 roc. Sure ea wont support it online. Sure there are going to be a strong need for patches . Sure cheaters will make life a living hell on players. If ur a true ra fan im sure it will end up in your collection.

No if you are a true RA fan then you wont support EA in screwing up the series any further. See the strong need for patches and cheaters, they arent a problem in most games, its most common in EA games like it will be in RA3 because they dont support their games. It dosent pay, they have all the cash from the daft people who bought the game so theres no reason to support it in their view. If you played warcraft III then you will know what a good game is really like, although warIII isnt my thing, it is a very good game, blizzard never fails to deliver.

I dont really think ill bother buying something that i know will be a complete letdown, for those that do.... :nuts: enjoy wasting your cash.

[Vindicare]

No if you are a true RA fan then you wont support EA in screwing up the series any further. See the strong need for patches and cheaters, they arent a problem in most games, its most common in EA games like it will be in RA3 because they dont support their games. It dosent pay, they have all the cash from the daft people who bought the game so theres no reason to support it in their view. If you played warcraft III then you will know what a good game is really like, although warIII isnt my thing, it is a very good game, blizzard never fails to deliver.

I dont really think ill bother buying something that i know will be a complete letdown, for those that do.... :nuts: enjoy wasting your cash.

Who are you to say whose a true fan? My god your arrogant. Secondly as I just said to Soad, if you have no intention of buying the game why the hell are you spending time on the message boards on a site dedicated to it? You defy rational logic. You know it will be a letdown because you prejudged it before its even out. Don't buy the game I'm pretty sure no one will miss you but your just an ass for trying to tell people what to do with their money and then calling them crazy for enjoying something you dont.

[nilloC]

No if you are a true RA fan then you wont support EA in screwing up the series any further. See the strong need for patches and cheaters, they arent a problem in most games, its most common in EA games like it will be in RA3 because they dont support their games. It dosent pay, they have all the cash from the daft people who bought the game so theres no reason to support it in their view. If you played warcraft III then you will know what a good game is really like, although warIII isnt my thing, it is a very good game, blizzard never fails to deliver.

Soviet, reply to me instead of giving me negrep, moron.

[Derek]

No if you are a true RA fan then you wont support EA in screwing up the series any further. See the strong need for patches and cheaters, they arent a problem in most games, its most common in EA games like it will be in RA3 because they dont support their games. It dosent pay, they have all the cash from the daft people who bought the game so theres no reason to support it in their view. If you played warcraft III then you will know what a good game is really like, although warIII isnt my thing, it is a very good game, blizzard never fails to deliver.
Dude, almost no one gives good support to game except Blizzard and Valve. Apparently Relic is getting better, but the concept of "support" for a game beyond fixing the most glaring bugs is foreign to most developers (or beyond their resources).

[Statalyzer]

I don't like Blizzard's games as much for the most part, but their online support blows EA's out the water about like the modern US army would do to WW2 Italy.

Like i said before the only people who bought kanes wrath were stupid, so the only people beta testing RA3 are stupid as well

There is no logic at all in that statement.

[ein1017]

I have not played ra3 beta yet but from what I have seen, it looks like an interesting game. KW gameplay was fun for me. The multi-build feature was quite interesting but I can see why it would be a pain when using it online (I have connection problems so I can't play certain games online. Also me and EA online tend not to get along very well.) I do agree that the support from EA sucks but the game itself was not that bad. KW added an extra layer to C&C3 that which made it fun for me.

Now I actually did not like ra1 that much. I just did not enjoy the units all that much. ra2 and YR was better but after a while of playing it and watching my dad play it (the only modern game he does play) I grew tired of it and never touched it.

With that said, I am hopefull for ra3. I have found a better RTS franchise that I like better then C&C mostly because they did the gameplay differently and in a way I like better (It is easier for me to win that way XD) but I still enjoy the C&C games. Maybe it is because it was the first RTS game I played and I had fun playing them but I still will continue to play them.

[Statalyzer]

RA was fun when it came out (and had better singleplayer than any other C&C game I've played), but the gameplay was definitely dated. Now there's a game that was about nothing but tank spam. The other units just didn't have the potential drastic effect that RA2 support units did, so unless the Soviets risked the 6-mig strategy or the Allies got a cruiser in the action, nothing but light/medium/heavy/mammoth tanks had a chance to make a major impact.

[apple23]

You defy rational logic. You think it will be a letdown because you prejudged it before its even out. Don't buy the game I'm pretty sure no one will miss you but your just an ass for trying to tell people what to do with their money and then calling them crazy for enjoying something you dont.

First off, I fixed it for you, and secondly, this is basically soviet's argument throughout the entire thread. He says the game will suck when he has no clue whatsoever, and the he insults us because he thinks we are wrong when he, once again, has no clue.

And yes, Soviet by far defies rational logic of any stretch of the imagination.

[soadfan1]

Soad I'm still at a loss, you come here everyday and spew about how much you hate EA and RA3....yet you have changed no ones mind and continue to make lame posts on how CNC needs to go back to the "old days" . Do you not have anything better to do but come on a message board for a game you hated (Unfairly I might add) since its announcement and prove how archaic and simply asinine your reasoning is? Nothing you say can justify you coming on this board as much as you do for a game you hate. If you love the old cnc so much go load em up on your computer and rub one out to it.
I come to these boards because I love the game and found it to be great in beta and look for new news on here. You will never find me on the forums for a game I disliked (or a game i have no intention of buying)...I mean seriously does it make you feel good to come on here and bitch? Guess what EA doesn't read this, anyone with comprehension skills isn't going to be swayed by your non-exsistant arguments, and the old CNC is dead...live with it and MOVE on.


First off you only ever seem to come on here to reply to MY or other peoples objective posts.

Secondly, sorry but you must be really stupid because yet again youve made some headed statement relating to the idea we want c&c to 'go back to the old days' , even though Ive said that isnt the case at least 9 times!

I also disagree I've changed no-ones mind. Since my original post I recieved lots of support for my complaints. Ok not really changed their minds but made them speak up, where they would otherwise have kept quiet.


Theres also this ridiculous idea that people should not be on forums for games they dont like. Of course this is complete bollocks, since I have been a c&c fan since around 1996. Also have been visitng the dens for about 8 years or more now, so I think i've earnt the right to express my views on the next installment, which I dont like (fairly I might add).

Im more willing to argue with Apple since he makes some coherent sense in his posts and gives me more to bite into rather than this repetetive drivel I keep recieving from you.

Pleasse dont waste your time argueing with me anymore, be cause I will not reply again to them.

[Vindicare]

First off you only ever seem to come on here to reply to MY or other peoples objective posts.

Secondly, sorry but you must be really stupid because yet again youve made some headed statement relating to the idea we want c&c to 'go back to the old days' , even though Ive said that isnt the case at least 9 times!

I also disagree I've changed no-ones mind. Since my original post I recieved lots of support for my complaints. Ok not really changed their minds but made them speak up, where they would otherwise have kept quiet.


Theres also this ridiculous idea that people should not be on forums for games they dont like. Of course this is complete bollocks, since I have been a c&c fan since around 1996. Also have been visitng the dens for about 8 years or more now, so I think i've earnt the right to express my views on the next installment, which I dont like (fairly I might add).

Im more willing to argue with Apple since he makes some coherent sense in his posts and gives me more to bite into rather than this repetetive drivel I keep recieving from you.

Pleasse dont waste your time argueing with me anymore, be cause I will not reply again to them.

Thats fine if you don't reply because when you do its just like you didn't. Ah the last argument of an incompetent...you call names and then you try to bail out of the conversation.
You may have said it is the case "9 TIMES!!" but you have also contradicted yourself countless times and use the generic cop out term that there is no "depth" to the game with out explaining anything that makes sense in that regard.
You also prove my point "I've received lots of support for my complaints" the only reason you come on here is for validation.
You love to keep throwing around in every post you make that you've been a CNC fan forever!!! Big friggin deal so have many on here and they are all far less whiny. You act like because you have been a FAN of something it makes you a defining authority on what it should be and whatever garbage you spew should be believed. 8 years you have been coming to a site....that you admit you havent liked a game in the series since RA1....wow.....and we are the crazy or how you put it "stupid" ones :nuts:

P.S. The only reson I mostly respond to your posts is because your whole biased and ridiculous view on this just plain pisses me off. For someone to actively come on a board for a game people like and whine as if the game and company had raped your dog is just asinine. On top of that I just visualize that fat guy from south park living in his basement playing wow all day claiming hes been a "fan since 1996!!" so that make me important somewhere....righ?!...right?!?!

Edit: as for fans not liking this game....read http://forums.ea.com/mboards/thread.jspa?threadID=441826&start=0&tstart=0

[soadfan1]

Lol, just pure Lol.

Apple, Derek, please argue with me again, I had normal educated arguements with you two and would rather respond to something which makes some sense, or at least something which doesnt continuously spout bullcrap.

Derek, what do you think of the building structure design? I found it very bland and unappealing. I dont know if you remember all the uproar about how bland c&c 3's sutrcture design was, what did you think of ra3's?#

I guess that same question can go out to Apple.

Apparently though I havent liked any c&c game since Ra1???? Obviously Tiberian Sun, Renegade, and Generals were before that :-s.


One thing I will asay though, and this isnt a backtrack its actually something ive thought about given more time to think and play.

Perhaps I should've used the term innovation rather than depth.

Maybe Ra3 does have refined mp gameplay, I just personally didnt find anything new enough to stir the series from it's middle age slump.

[Soviet779]

Dude, almost no one gives good support to game except Blizzard and Valve. Apparently Relic is getting better, but the concept of "support" for a game beyond fixing the most glaring bugs is foreign to most developers (or beyond their resources).

Relic is up there with blizzard and valve in terms of support, their patches for CoH sometimes even add in new stuff. Many developers give games good support... dont know what planet you are from but here its not a foreign concept, its just you spend so much time playing that pile of garbage generals you assume every other game is like that. :rolleyes:

EA has a lot of resources, far more than is needed to support their games, more than activision blizzard has. They just dont bother because they dont care.

[Derek]

Derek, what do you think of the building structure design? I found it very bland and unappealing. I dont know if you remember all the uproar about how bland c&c 3's sutrcture design was, what did you think of ra3's?#
I can tell them apart easily, thats good enough for me. Additionally, they all have a general them that is held to for each faction's structures. Thats a plus.

Perhaps I should've used the term innovation rather than depth.

Maybe Ra3 does have refined mp gameplay, I just personally didnt find anything new enough to stir the series from it's middle age slump.
I'll give you a lack of innovation, but thats perfectly fine by me. Innovation for the sake of innovation is usually wasted. I'll tell you now that SC2 will have zero innovation. But making a game that takes what has already been done in different areas and brings it together and refining it to perfection is just as good as innovation.

Relic is up there with blizzard and valve in terms of support, their patches for CoH sometimes even add in new stuff.
And yet Dark Crusade got 2 patches iirc, and Soulstorm currently stands at 0. Thats inconsistent. CNC3 and Generals also got good support, but KW and ZH didn't. Like I said, Relic seems to be improving, they've even gone so far as have balance betas for CoH, but it'll only count as good support when they continue it for the next games (or go back and patch the old games).

[apple23]

First off you only ever seem to come on here to reply to MY or other peoples objective posts.
Isn't that what a forum is for? to reply to other people's posts?

Secondly, sorry but you must be really stupid because yet again youve made some headed statement relating to the idea we want c&c to 'go back to the old days' , even though Ive said that isnt the case at least 9 times!

What you say in one paragraph and what you say in the next paragraph (or even the next sentance) usually don't agree, so we are left to infer what you really meant against what you went out and said bluntly. In other words, you say that it isn't the case, but in the next paragraph or two you imply (and thus we infer) that it is the case.

I also disagree I've changed no-ones mind. Since my original post I recieved lots of support for my complaints. Ok not really changed their minds but made them speak up, where they would otherwise have kept quiet.

Who here has supported your complaints, and how do you know that it was you that changed thier minds?


Theres also this ridiculous idea that people should not be on forums for games they dont like. Of course this is complete bollocks, since I have been a c&c fan since around 1996.

How does your being a CNC fan have anything to do with complaining about games you don't like?

Also have been visitng the dens for about 8 years or more now, so I think i've earnt the right to express my views on the next installment, which I dont like (fairly I might add).

Just browsing the website? You haven't been around the forums for very long, and that where you would "earn" the right to express your views.

Although I will say this, anyone has the right to express thier views on this forum. It is when they try to make an assertion and/or try to change people's opinions that gets everyone all riled up.

Im more willing to argue with Apple since he makes some coherent sense in his posts and gives me more to bite into rather than this repetetive drivel I keep recieving from you.

While I will admit that Vindicare's grammar is quite poor sometimes, at least he has all his facts straight.

Pleasse dont waste your time argueing with me anymore, be cause I will not reply again to them.
Funny, because you did reply to him after saying this.


Derek, what do you think of the building structure design? I found it very bland and unappealing. I dont know if you remember all the uproar about how bland c&c 3's sutrcture design was, what did you think of ra3's?#

Honestly, I care very little about structure design. As long as it looks like the structure can perform its intended purpose, it is in porportion to the rest of the game, and it fits with the faction's scheme and design, then it works fine for me.

Apparently though I havent liked any c&c game since Ra1???? Obviously Tiberian Sun, Renegade, and Generals were before that :-s.

I'll go fishing later for a quote, but I do believe that you have said somewhere that you didn't like any of the CNC games since RA1...
But I don't think it would be necessary, if you really did like TS, Ren, and Generals. You never really talked about any of them, so you never said you didn't like them.

Perhaps I should've used the term innovation rather than depth.

Well it wasn't like it blew me off my chair the first time I played it, but I was quite impressed with great balance, fluid gameplay, and interesting unit design with cool secondary abilities.

Innovative, perhaps not, but it is definitely one of the best games EA has churned out with the CNC label by a long, long shot (this is of course, my opinion.)

[soadfan1]

Fish for the next ten thousand years and you will not find a quote of mine that states I didn't like a c&c game since Ra1.

In fact I could find you multiple which states I did.

In my thread 'have the development team lost their imagination I state my enjoyment of Generals online

'My point isn't really that a game hAS to have imaginative units, as Generals had mostly modern day units yet I felt its unit design and online play was excellent.'

Then in a thread made by someone else about over the top being good or bad

'The reaper was in the Tiberian Sun universe and it wasnt protrayed in a cartoony way. No-one especially me thinks that c&c should be ultra realistic, but it always managed to get the right balance between grit realism and fantasy.

Red Alert was less fantasy based than the Tiberian universe anyway, thats why mechs and robots and cyborgs were perfectly acceptable in Tiberian Sun and Wars, But they didnt protray them in a cartoony way in any case.'

The problem I have with Vindicare and the people argueing against me is that they remind me of a politician who cant accept something.

No matter how many times I say we dont want a copy of the early c&c games, I still see the same replies time and time again saying ' You are just stuck in 1996'

I even explained in one post which I cant find I am a moderator on the biggest Renegade server at present! So hows that for not liking any c&c since RA1?

That to me is ignorance, and shows a lack of getting the full arguement before replying.

Please dont attempt to defend him Apple, in reflects on you, his facts were not correct at all as I have just proven.

Just to re-iterate so that no-one can claim otherwise

c&c TD
RA1
Tib Sun
Renegade
Generals

All excellent games. Generals only online though.

c&c 3 was just about acceptable, and ra2 I have the same feelings as Derek on.

Secondly youre right, I joined the forums in early 2004, but I had visited dens downloading stuff since about 1999.

I'm not trying to make out I am some 'elite' character who deserves more respect than others. I'm simply saying Im not one of these newbie whiners who are just ranting with no cause.

In fact before I started getting tagged by Vindicare and Apple, the latter of which I dont mind talking too admittedly, I had a lot of support. Check out my much earlier post on 'why Im prejudging ra3' I will also direct you, Apple, to a post you made in that topic, showing you too had doubts about ra3 prior to the beta, showing that although the beta changed your mind, its not exactly foolish to believe you too had your reasons to dislike.

Apple - I must say, however, that RA2's storyline was too comical for me, now that I look back on it, and I don't think RA3 is going to be a whole lot better.

So whilst the MP gameplay helped you change your mind, it didnt to me, whilst I can understand why some will enjoy the gameplay, personally its lost the dignity c&c had.

Reply and tell me other bits you want me to reply too, I havent got time to reply to everything now, will talk later

[Vindicare]

I bring up "being stuck in 1996" because you had made numerous posts saying RA1 was the last time you really enjoyed a cnc game. Ever since people called you out on that you changed your position in future posts. Well I'm not going to let you slide on what you said initially. Only recently you have started defending yourself with any modicum of reason. In previous posts we argued for pages to get legitimate reasons on why you didn't like RA3 and you gave us nothing but nonsense.

In all honesty fighting with you on all this is quite pointless. You are right you are entitled to your opinion.

If this game isn't your cup of tea that is just fine. Why you feel the need to express that in every post you can is still beyond me. Whatever...do as you wish.

[soadfan1]

I bring up "being stuck in 1996" because you had made numerous posts saying RA1 was the last time you really enjoyed a cnc game. Ever since people called you out on that you changed your position in future posts. Well I'm not going to let you slide on what you said initially. Only recently you have started defending yourself with any modicum of reason. In previous posts we argued for pages to get legitimate reasons on why you didn't like RA3 and you gave us nothing but nonsense.

In all honesty fighting with you on all this is quite pointless. You are right you are entitled to your opinion.

If this game isn't your cup of tea that is just fine. Why you feel the need to express that in every post you can is still beyond me. Whatever...do as you wish.

Thats because I had already given reasons on a huge thread so was fed up of repeating myself.

because you had made numerous posts saying RA1 was the last time you really enjoyed a cnc game. - Vindicare Im really confused as to where you got this idea from.

I have not backtracked on this as I would never ever have said it in the first place.

If you can find a post or sentence using the 'find more posts from Soadfan1' function that accurately depicts that I felt this, I will completely admitt I am wrong. But I wont because I would never have said it.

Thats what annoys me, because you seem to fabricate several things I have claimed to said.

I think its just the way you have taken completely out of context things, as there are more posts/sentences from me stating the complete opposite. As I said from the very beginning I am a big part of the Renegade community as well as being a huge fan of Tiberian sun and Generals online play. I would never have said any different.

What I said is there has been a general decline in the games overall quality since its early days. But early days included Tiberian sun, which in my opinion is where the first generation of c&c games ended.

The second period (Ra2 Generals Renegade) included 2 great games both of which were amazing online. Renegade for example is my most played game ever.

The third period contained so far c&c 3 and Ra3 and c&c 3 only just passed sp wise for me, and didnt pass my mp standards very well at all.

Seriously to claim I havent l;iked a c&c game since Ra1 is ludicrous, and I would never have said that EVER. Please dont say I have said it because I havent.

[apple23]

Fish for the next ten thousand years and you will not find a quote of mine that states I didn't like a c&c game since Ra1.
In fact I could find you multiple which states I did.

Like I said earlier, you may not have said it out flatly, but anyway, it is unimportant. You never really talked about any of the other games, you never really gave your opinion on them.

'My point isn't really that a game hAS to have imaginative units, as Generals had mostly modern day units yet I felt its unit design and online play was excellent.'
Then in a thread made by someone else about over the top being good or bad
'The reaper was in the Tiberian Sun universe and it wasnt protrayed in a cartoony way. No-one especially me thinks that c&c should be ultra realistic, but it always managed to get the right balance between grit realism and fantasy.

Alright, so I get your point. You liked all the right CNC games, BTW :p
Red Alert was less fantasy based than the Tiberian universe anyway, thats why mechs and robots and cyborgs were perfectly acceptable in Tiberian Sun and Wars, But they didnt protray them in a cartoony way in any case.'

This argument has been beaten left and right and again and again, and we have all come to that very same conclusion.

The problem I have with Vindicare and the people argueing against me is that they remind me of a politician who cant accept something.

How ironic...

No matter how many times I say we dont want a copy of the early c&c games, I still see the same replies time and time again saying ' You are just stuck in 1996'

You very often talk about the differences between the new CNCs and the old CNCs, and in context, it seems like you are saying that the game is bad because of the differences. Review the thread "Have the development team lost thier imagination?" for further details.

I even explained in one post which I cant find I am a moderator on the biggest Renegade server at present! So hows that for not liking any c&c since RA1?

what forum are you a moderator at and you is your account name?

That to me is ignorance, and shows a lack of getting the full arguement before replying.

You hardly ever mentioned other CNC games besides the old CNCs and RA3, so how is that ignorance?

Please dont attempt to defend him Apple, in reflects on you, his facts were not correct at all as I have just proven.
Just to re-iterate so that no-one can claim otherwise
c&c TD
RA1
Tib Sun
Renegade
Generals
All excellent games. Generals only online though.
c&c 3 was just about acceptable, and ra2 I have the same feelings as Derek on.

Alright, I get it now.

Secondly youre right, I joined the forums in early 2004, but I had visited dens downloading stuff since about 1999.

Visiting the website does not give you any reputation or authority, and in 4 years you have posted 1/10 of what I have posted in about a year. Some authority you have.
I'm not trying to make out I am some 'elite' character who deserves more respect than others. I'm simply saying Im not one of these newbie whiners who are just ranting with no cause.
So you may have a cause, but you still are kind of a newbie (120 posts? N00b!:p) and you are whining to some extent.

[soadfan1]

what forum are you a moderator at and you is your account name?

I help moderate the server 'n00bstories'

www.n00bstories.com

--Soadfan1--

I dont actually moderate a forum on the site. I moderate the game server itself, in game or from IRC. If you enjoy Renegade still come along!

As I said before the complaint its a rather tricky one to explain or understand its not a simple case of. 'Because I say the differences between the older games and ra3 are bad, therefore I want the same style as the old ones.' Theres a certain level of panache, dignity and elegance that I believe attracted a lot of people to c&c. I personally feel ra2 and definately ra3 stripped the series of it.

(yes I always maintained I didnt really like ra2).

[Annihlator :D]

Like I said earlier, you may not have said it out flatly, but anyway, it is unimportant.

No, he did, at least once, I think twice, and maybe three times. I'm sorta busy now, but if you remind me later I'll find the quotes.

[apple23]

Thats because I had already given reasons on a huge thread so was fed up of repeating myself.

because you had made numerous posts saying RA1 was the last time you really enjoyed a cnc game. - Vindicare Im really confused as to where you got this idea from.

I have not backtracked on this as I would never ever have said it in the first place.

If you can find a post or sentence using the 'find more posts from Soadfan1' function that accurately depicts that I felt this, I will completely admitt I am wrong. But I wont because I would never have said it.

Thats what annoys me, because you seem to fabricate several things I have claimed to said.

Just to kill this myth, I thought it because of a huge misunderstanding. I dunno how vindicare pulled it out of his ass, but soadfan did not state anywhere that he didn't like any of the CNC games. If he ever did, all his following comments would be very inconsistent.


I think its just the way you have taken completely out of context things, as there are more posts/sentences from me stating the complete opposite. As I said from the very beginning I am a big part of the Renegade community as well as being a huge fan of Tiberian sun and Generals online play. I would never have said any different.

What I said is there has been a general decline in the games overall quality since its early days. But early days included Tiberian sun, which in my opinion is where the first generation of c&c games ended.

The second period (Ra2 Generals Renegade) included 2 great games both of which were amazing online. Renegade for example is my most played game ever.

The third period contained so far c&c 3 and Ra3 and c&c 3 only just passed sp wise for me, and didnt pass my mp standards very well at all.

Seriously to claim I havent l;iked a c&c game since Ra1 is ludicrous, and I would never have said that EVER. Please dont say I have said it because I havent.


We'll hold you to that opinion from now on.

[soadfan1]

Thank you Apple, maybe now you can understand my frustration I was suffering from a few of these posts, when people were claiming I thought or said something that was completely fabricated, or twisted.

Seems now at least you for one have accepted I did not say such things.

I feel the best thing to do now is to wait til it comes out and see what happens post-release.

[Vindicare]

"I dunno how vindicare pulled it out of his ass"

Classy apple.... Hmmm I remember you had quite a few problems with people on the forums in the past and you were telling people not to think they are something special just because they post on here a lot. Irony is you do that quite a bit. You have been agreeing with me on most things but now you attack me. One for grammar which I can hardly take much insult to, and now just to go with soad because he "may" make you look wrong about something. We have both stated soad shouldn't be an elitist just because hes been a longstanding fan of the series but at the same token you should tone down your arrogance just because you frequesnt a message board.

Forgive me soad but I'm not going through all your posts to find what you said months ago. I really don't have the time or the desire to do that. I'm willing to leave it as it is. While I greatly disagree with your prejudgements on an unreleased game that shows major potential you can state them all you wish. I'm far far to lazy to keep arguing about it as its really going to make no difference in the end anyway.

[soadfan1]

My aim wasn't really to appear an elitist. By saying 'I have been around here for a long time etc' was trying to tell you that I'm not just some random newbie jumping on the 'bash EA bandwagon' who has no experience with c&c games or its history.

[Soviet779]

Thanks apple for ****ting all over a whole page on this thread with your stupid "he said she said" arguement. Who the cares what someone said about cnc ages ago... Apple I can actually see you enjoying RA3, stupid people like stupid games, its a fact.

[apple23]

"I dunno how vindicare pulled it out of his ass"

Classy apple.... Hmmm I remember you had quite a few problems with people on the forums in the past and you were telling people not to think they are something special just because they post on here a lot. Irony is you do that quite a bit. You have been agreeing with me on most things but now you attack me. One for grammar which I can hardly take much insult to, and now just to go with soad because he "may" make you look wrong about something. We have both stated soad shouldn't be an elitist just because hes been a longstanding fan of the series but at the same token you should tone down your arrogance just because you frequesnt a message board.

Forgive me soad but I'm not going through all your posts to find what you said months ago. I really don't have the time or the desire to do that. I'm willing to leave it as it is. While I greatly disagree with your prejudgements on an unreleased game that shows major potential you can state them all you wish. I'm far far to lazy to keep arguing about it as its really going to make no difference in the end anyway.

Okay, i wasn't trying to attack you by saying that, I guess "pulled it out of his ass" was a poor choice of words.

The thing is, those who say that others are arrogant, are usually arrogant themselves. (Ironic of me saying this, but you are very, very arrogant. Before calling me a hypocrite, read the rest of my post) I will agree that I can be a bit arrogant sometimes, but usually you get arrogance out of my posts whenever I disagree with you. I am very strong in my arguments, and I can tend to press my opinion, but that doesn't make me arrogant. I don't try to make myself look better than you, I don't try to brag anything to you or others, if anything I am a bit subordinate in these forums. I look arrogant to you because of my stance (and perhaps somewhat my style of argument) and the context that I reply to. It seems ironic, and I'm sure that you will find this post arrogant, but just think about what I just said, and you will see what i mean.

And just so you know, I went flat out and said myself that I was wrong. I also went further and attempted to shut up the other people that believed the same thing, hence my mentioning you.

Whatever Soad said months ago, it is no longer relevant, and even if he was backtracking on something he said, people can change their opinions and they should be entitled to do just that as they please.

Thanks apple for ****ting all over a whole page on this thread with your stupid "he said she said" arguement. Who the cares what someone said about cnc ages ago... Apple I can actually see you enjoying RA3, stupid people like stupid games, its a fact.

Only a total idiot like you would believe the horribly flawed logic you represent. What gives you any reason to say that RA3 will suck?

I will admit I had my doubts for the quality of the game. all those doubts vanished as soon as I played the beta, replaced by total assurance that (given EA doesn't change RA3's gameplay) RA3 will at least be great multiplayer.

[Vindicare]

Okay, i wasn't trying to attack you by saying that, I guess "pulled it out of his ass" was a poor choice of words.

The thing is, those who say that others are arrogant, are usually arrogant themselves. (Ironic of me saying this, but you are very, very arrogant. Before calling me a hypocrite, read the rest of my post) I will agree that I can be a bit arrogant sometimes, but usually you get arrogance out of my posts whenever I disagree with you. I am very strong in my arguments, and I can tend to press my opinion, but that doesn't make me arrogant. I don't try to make myself look better than you, I don't try to brag anything to you or others, if anything I am a bit subordinate in these forums. I look arrogant to you because of my stance (and perhaps somewhat my style of argument) and the context that I reply to. It seems ironic, and I'm sure that you will find this post arrogant, but just think about what I just said, and you will see what i mean.

And just so you know, I went flat out and said myself that I was wrong. I also went further and attempted to shut up the other people that believed the same thing, hence my mentioning you.

Whatever Soad said months ago, it is no longer relevant, and even if he was backtracking on something he said, people can change their opinions and they should be entitled to do just that as they please.

No I have absolutely no problems with you disagreeing with me. That's the fun part about forums, debate. From every other thread we have both posted or argued in you come of as very condescending and arrogant(reference the thread were you go off on all the girls in this game being sluts).
I have been reading these forums for a while but never really bothered to post until recently, but I have read multiple post by you in the last couple of years and I find it pretty funny you went from being a bit less confrontational and hated by most everyone...to now thinking you have much more merit than everyone else because you make a ton of posts.
Now are you the worst of the people on this forum? Hell no not even close. You do make valid points and when not talking down to people debates can be fun. On the other hand there are people like soviet who don't even deserve a response for the garbage they post. In any event I honestly don't have anything against you at all...I actually don't have anything against anyone on the internet as I find most people are far different than their online persona's. Anyways pointless....I apologize to Soad if I was disrespectful to him. I disagree with him but I should have tried to be more civil. All in all I think we should all try to reign in the flaming or move it to the flamerz board.

As for what he said months ago not being relevant I disagree, while people are def. allowed to change their stance out right denying what was original said is just silly (Soad dont take this as something you have to respond to because as I said since I'm to lazy to dig it up we will just take you recent argument at face value and will go with being wrong).

[soadfan1]

Tbh though I do wish to respond and I do wish you to dig this ' thing' up.

Because I would never have said that years let alone months ago.

It is just so impossible that really its mention doesnt bear credability.. please can we now understand I never ever EVER not in my entire history have said this.

Then I will feel settled that people at least arent fabricating things I said.

[Soviet779]

What gives you any reason to say that RA3 will suck?.

Generals sucked, C&C3/KW sucked, EA games are always garbage anyway therefore there is a 100% chance that RA3 will suck.

Besides just looking at the game it looks plain, boring, lame and ive heard plenty of negative opinions about the BETA test that it sucks just as much as C&C3 did.

[Annihlator :D]

Generals sucked, C&C3/KW sucked, EA games are always garbage anyway therefore there is a 100% chance that RA3 will suck.

That's not only stupid, but very bad logic. Just because previous games sucked, does not mean there is a 100% chance it will suck. Quick rule for you, games are like weather, there's never a 100% chance of anything.

Besides just looking at the game it looks plain, boring, lame and ive heard plenty of negative opinions about the BETA test that it sucks just as much as C&C3 did.

Plain is one thing that cannot describe RA3. Also, where did you hear those opinions? I want links.

[soadfan1]

That's not only stupid, but very bad logic. Just because previous games sucked, does not mean there is a 100% chance it will suck. Quick rule for you, games are like weather, there's never a 100% chance of anything.


While I dont really agree with soviets over-aggressive tone and slightly over the top remarks in this thread, this is in no way bad logic, even if the way he puts it across isnt all that good. I will pose this question to you annihlator.

If you tease a Rattlesnake and it bites you once and you survive. Do you use that same logic and say well I will tease it again because theres not a 100% chance it will bite me again?

Of course this is a reference to the saying 'once bitten twice shy'

No theres not a 100% chance it will follow the trend, but due to the past, there is a 80% chance say. This alone is enough to warrant skepticism.

So on that point I say EA need to show us first that they have changed, before we trust them. We cant just keep giving them chances. Prove to us this isnt just milking the series and I will change my mind, but I;m not going to take that chance myself before it has been shown on at least one title.

If anything the cancellation of Tiberium showed me they MAY be thinking about quality in some games.

I was very pleased they cancelled that game.

-Rob

[apple23]

If you tease a Rattlesnake and it bites you once and you survive. Do you use that same logic and say well I will tease it again because theres not a 100% chance it will bite me again?

I know what you are getting at, but purchasing RA3 is not a possibly life-threatening situation.

Of course this is a reference to the saying 'once bitten twice shy' The keyword there is SHY. The person will then know "Oh crap, he bit me once, he may bite me again, I will be more careful near that rattlesnake" (notice the italicised word, I will explain it below)

No theres not a 100% chance it will follow the trend, but due to the past, there is a 80% chance say. This alone is enough to warrant skepticism.

First off, you cannot make a percentage based prediction on wether or not a game will suck. It just does not work that way. Either it DOES or DOESN'T suck. There is no WILL or WON'T suck.

Another thing about Soviets style of argument that pisses me off (besides what I have already pointed out) is that he asserts his opinion like it is the truth. (this especailly annoys me when it is combined with the stuff i mentioned earlier about his style of argument)

But my main point here is that, while we can have DOUBTS and SKEPTICISM about the quality of the game, we cannot say for sure wether the game WILL be good or bad. if Soviet made this thread saying "I think RA3 is going to suck balls" and then continued by saying that he DOUBTED that the game would be good, that would be alot better than saying that it WILL suck.

So on that point I say EA need to show us first that they have changed, before we trust them. We cant just keep giving them chances. Prove to us this isnt just milking the series and I will change my mind, but I;m not going to take that chance myself before it has been shown on at least one title.

Read that through carefully. Why does that make no sense? You tell me.

If anything the cancellation of Tiberium showed me they MAY be thinking about quality in some games.
I wasn't exactly happy that they cancelled it, but if the quality of the game was as bad as they seem to think it was, it MUST have been a bad game.
(Before calling me a hypocrite here, please understand where I am comming from and the context of this comment)

From every other thread we have both posted or argued in you come of as very condescending and arrogant(reference the thread were you go off on all the girls in this game being sluts).

Give me at least 2 good quotes that came off as arrogant and condescending and give me a good description as to why they were arrogant and condescending. And just so you know, I will admit that I am a bit arrogant. But condescending? are you kidding me?

I have been reading these forums for a while but never really bothered to post until recently, but I have read multiple post by you in the last couple of years and I find it pretty funny you went from being a bit less confrontational and hated by most everyone...to now thinking you have much more merit than everyone else because you make a ton of posts.

First off, I very rarely make any reference at all to post count, and even rarer so do I use it to gratify myself. I'm fairly certain that I have really only done that once, and it was quite awhile ago. (and the reference was obscure anyways)

Secondly, the only time when I was really hated by most everyone was way, way back (more than a year ago) when I was still using my previous alias of Nuker7735. Those days are long past, and may NOBODY make reference to those days to make an argument against me. (I am totally serious about that, it really pisses me off when people try to say "Oh, you were an asshole a year and a half ago and everyone hated you!" to make an argument against me)

And to your last bit, no, I don't think post count gives me any merit. I don't believe that I have any more merit than any other regular poster on these boards, and you can very clearly see that. The thing that pisses me off (and where i usually make some obscure reference to post count) is when a new guy that nobody knows waltzes in here and posts like he is better than anyone else. Now, the only person that really exemplifies that is Soviet, but some others have a tendency to be a bit arrogant and try to say things when they are in no position themselves to say it. I will admit that I did go off a bit on soad in one of his threads, and I kind of went off on another new guy, but both times it was for reasons stated above.
You do make valid points and when not talking down to people debates can be fun.

Again, give me a good example of a time when I talked down to someone. There are very, very few people on these boards that I would intentionally talk down to, so if they aren't one of those people, I sincerely apologize.

Also, you will find that the longer you are on these boards, the less I will seem this way to you. When you become a respected member of these boards, it will seem like people talk to you differently, and it will seemlike you talk differently to them. You may also notice that newer people (like you are now) may tend the share the same views against you as you do with me. Trust me, I underwent this very same process, I thought that a few members on these boards were arrogant and condescending and always talked down to me, until I maturened up a bit, got used the the members of the boards, and realised I was wrong.

On the other hand there are people like soviet who don't even deserve a response for the garbage they post.

I'm considering just completely ignoring him, the garbage he posts. Glad to know one thing we agree on ;)

In any event I honestly don't have anything against you at all...I actually don't have anything against anyone on the internet as I find most people are far different than their online persona's.

A wise view, as you are right, that is true almost all the time.


Anyways pointless....I apologize to Soad if I was disrespectful to him. I disagree with him but I should have tried to be more civil. All in all I think we should all try to reign in the flaming or move it to the flamerz board.


Yes, let us not have a flamewar here.

As for what he said months ago not being relevant I disagree, while people are def. allowed to change their stance out right denying what was original said is just silly (Soad dont take this as something you have to respond to because as I said since I'm to lazy to dig it up we will just take you recent argument at face value and will go with being wrong).

Alright then, let's drop it on that note.

[apple23]

oops, accidental doublepost, the server brain-farted =/

[soadfan1]

So on that point I say EA need to show us first that they have changed, before we trust them. We cant just keep giving them chances. Prove to us this isnt just milking the series and I will change my mind, but I;m not going to take that chance myself before it has been shown on at least one title.


Apple - Read that through carefully. Why does that make no sense? You tell me.

Im not sure? why doesnt it make sense to you. The only possible reason it might not make sense I can figure is that you may think 'well if he doesnt buy or try a game til theyve proved it how can he ever find out if they've changed.'

Easy

You wait til after the games released. See what everyone says about the quality of what was promised, post release support, etc.

You dont have to take risks yourself in order to find out if EA have changed or not. I for one am certainly not taking them on the off chance they may have changed.

[apple23]

did you play the BETA? That was a sure-fire way to see if RA3 had potential or not. The fact that it was an online multiplayer BETA made it very successful.

[soadfan1]

Yeah I did play it. While I will agree the gameplay is refined from my overall experience I still find it hard to enjoy it in the same way I would if it kept some of its dignity, and wasnt quite so predictably outrageous.

Although the BETA isnt a full proof way to predict how the post release support, nor the features that have been promised will be.

I will give it a month after to see what the overall consensus is on these aspects, once the hype and gloss wears off.

Every new game is given better ratings upon release. Then when issues/truths surface in the months following we get more discontent.

So I will wait.

[Soviet779]

did you play the BETA? That was a sure-fire way to see if RA3 had potential or not. The fact that it was an online multiplayer BETA made it very successful.

Hahaha, so every game that has an online BETA will be a raging success?? You are an easily led moron if you think that. EA makes a ton of crap C&C's and all of a sudden you turn into an EA fanboy because they let you in on an online BETA, they let you in because you were dumb enough to buy their outsourced lousy expansion for another of their low quality games :rolleyes: Apple you are a complete tool.

[Annihlator :D]

Hahaha, so every game that has an online BETA will be a raging success?? You are an easily led moron if you think that. EA makes a ton of crap C&C's and all of a sudden you turn into an EA fanboy because they let you in on an online BETA, they let you in because you were dumb enough to buy their outsourced lousy expansion for another of their low quality games :rolleyes: Apple you are a complete tool.

I'm sorry, you just missed his entire point right there. His point is that if you played the Beta, you would be able to see and judge for yourself whether it is good or not, not that every game that has a public beta is automatically good. And just for the record, I'd call you the tool for immiedietly following the crowd and jumping on the Anti-EA bandwagon, we to be an individual, huh?

[apple23]

Hahaha, so every game that has an online BETA will be a raging success?? You are an easily led moron if you think that. EA makes a ton of crap C&C's and all of a sudden you turn into an EA fanboy because they let you in on an online BETA, they let you in because you were dumb enough to buy their outsourced lousy expansion for another of their low quality games :rolleyes: Apple you are a complete tool.

Wow... way to completely miss my point. Anyways, Annihilator pretty much hit the nail on the head here, but I will say one more thing...

You DARE to call ME an EA fanboy? my god you're ignorant.

[Annihlator :D]

Could who ever anonymously neg-repped me man up to it? I'm fine with neg-reps, but if your to afraid that your precious little "reputation" is going to be tarnished, don't send them in the first place.

[ImageKlonoa]

I like how people can judge how good/bad a unreleased game will be (Spore is going to be the best game EVAR!), and how they rip apart past titles and attack other people about it because of experiences they believe are the consensus of everybody. Because the real world revolves around them.

Just my opinion, which carries no more or no less weight than anyone elses:

I feel RA3 will be a decent game, but will have one similarity with every EA game I can come up with off the top of my head that has a sequel; it's all more of the same, with just a few new nice features and changes that makes me feel I paid for a patch instead of a new release.

[Soviet779]

I feel RA3 will be a decent game, but will have one similarity with every EA game I can come up with off the top of my head that has a sequel; it's all more of the same, with just a few new nice features and changes that makes me feel I paid for a patch instead of a new release.

Its a shame that a lot of people will settle for the sub par lousy thrown together game that RA3 is, but then again thats EA's core market, the "stupid" market i guess they could call it. Not really hardcore gamers not really casual gamers either, an entirely different category of people who dont know what a good game is and are too dumb to go find one, so they settle for whatever EA gives them.

Apple23 being the EA fanboy that he is will likely hail RA3 as the next big thing in gaming when its released, i dont understand it myself but then again some people are just ****ed in the head i guess :nuts: He is a good example of the average "stupid" gamer that EA targets.

[Annihlator :D]

He is a good example of the average "stupid" gamer that EA targets.

Stupid gamer? you're one to talk. RA3 will not be "the next big thing", everyone knows that. There are no defining gameplay elements to market it as such. Quit spouting drivel and use a real argument.

[apple23]

Its a shame that a lot of people will settle for the sub par lousy thrown together game that RA3 is

My god you're a retard here. You have not even played the game or even seen any real gameplay footage and you make a comment like that?

Do you even read my posts at all?

but then again thats EA's core market, the "stupid" market i guess they could call it. Not really hardcore gamers not really casual gamers either, an entirely different category of people who dont know what a good game is and are too dumb to go find one, so they settle for whatever EA gives them.

The funny thing is, the vast majority of players have a good reason to love or hate RA3 (and most everyone loves RA3, look at the RA3 forums!), and you have absolutely no argument whatsoever, you have no idea what RA3 even is, you've never played it, and yet you insult it and say it is a terrible game, despite you have no clue whatsoever.

My god you're ignorant.

Apple23 being the EA fanboy that he is will likely hail RA3 as the next big thing in gaming when its released, i dont understand it myself but then again some people are just ****ed in the head i guess :nuts: He is a good example of the average "stupid" gamer that EA targets.

You call me a stupid EA fanboy why? Because I have good taste in RTS games? Because I have proved you wrong about 1002109482390857 times in this thread? Because I like RA3 after trying the beta? Because you have nothing else to say about me?

So which one is it? I'm curious to know what obliges you to go so far out of your way to **** on yourself this badly. Surely there is another reason than your illusion that RA3 is a bad game.

[Soviet779]

Do you even read my posts at all?

Honestly i just skip along to a part that dosent bore me, so not really no.


(and most everyone loves RA3, look at the RA3 forums!)

Hahaha people on RA3 forums like RA3 what a ****ing surprise there apple, maybe on the starcraft 2 forums they like starcraft 2 lol. You are so stupid its funny :lol:

This forum isnt all that busy, despite the recent release of KW and the imminent release of RA3.... wonder why... oh thats right because they will suck and people know this so they dont post here.

You call me a stupid EA fanboy why?
Because you are a stupid EA fanboy.

[Statalyzer]

I'm not an EA fanboy, I won't buy RA3 unless I see some evidence that EA will give top-notch support to its games, and I think they did go a bit over the top with the oddities, and I still played the beta of RA3 and thought the gameplay was the best of any C&C game.

[truefeel]

Well, do look the other side too: the actual game will not show much more then the beta. Yes, the 3 campaigns (and the coop campaigns) are nice, but I think the most fun part of it will be away after you played them all one time. The only main new feature to the multiplayer will be the extra maps, which is cool though. But then you had all the main new features. I think it's for the ones who played the beta already (I had a key, and installed the game, but I never played it due lack of time) it'll be less atractive to buy it, asthe already played it for a part.

[apple23]

Honestly i just skip along to a part that dosent bore me, so not really no.

If you don't even read my posts then don't even bother to post your garbage up here, when you obviously haven't a slightest clue of what I said or even of what you are saying.


Hahaha people on RA3 forums like RA3 what a ****ing surprise there apple, maybe on the starcraft 2 forums they like starcraft 2 lol. You are so stupid its funny :lol:

This forum isnt all that busy, despite the recent release of KW and the imminent release of RA3.... wonder why... oh thats right because they will suck and people know this so they dont post here.

The logic in this whole section is so horridly flawed I can't find the right words to argue it.

Because you are a stupid EA fanboy.
Wow... you fail. You fail miserably.

For all of mankind's sake, go kill yourself.

[truefeel]

Honestly i just skip along to a part that dosent bore me, so not really no.




Hahaha people on RA3 forums like RA3 what a ****ing surprise there apple, maybe on the starcraft 2 forums they like starcraft 2 lol. You are so stupid its funny :lol:

This forum isnt all that busy, despite the recent release of KW and the imminent release of RA3.... wonder why... oh thats right because they will suck and people know this so they dont post here.


Because you are a stupid EA fanboy.

Dude, this forum is made with the intention that conversation, debating, ... can be done on a mature level. Either you make your post appropriate to that level, or you keep your childish comments for yourself.

Wow... you fail. You fail miserably.

For all of mankind's sake, go kill yourself.

That also applies to you, apple. Stay above his level, don't go with it.

[Soviet779]

If you don't even read my posts then don't even bother to post your garbage up here, when you obviously haven't a slightest clue of what I said or even of what you are saying.

I skim them, theyre hardly worth my time, its a game, its going to suck, you disagree because your stupid.... enough said, no need to waste my time with your worthless drivel.


For all of mankind's sake, go kill yourself.

Take your own advice dip**** :rofl:

[Derek]

I skim them, theyre hardly worth my time, its a game, its going to suck, you disagree because your stupid.... enough said, no need to waste my time with your worthless drivel.
Which is precisely why you fail so, so miserably. You're hardly an "informed consumer".

[Bouncing Ball]

Hahaha people on RA3 forums like RA3 what a ****ing surprise there apple, maybe on the starcraft 2 forums they like starcraft 2 lol. You are so stupid its funny :lol:

This forum isnt all that busy, despite the recent release of KW and the imminent release of RA3.... wonder why... oh thats right because they will suck and people know this so they dont post here.

Actually, this forum is more silent since Generals. Since then it is stuck to that few members who think this forum is one big extremely boring flame war annoying the new members away. Even this thread, outside the flamesection is stuffed with flaming. :nuts:

Yet it seems to be active enough to those few members still alive here to fill a thread about an opinion about a game not fully released yet with 15 pages!

[truefeel]

I skim them, theyre hardly worth my time, its a game, its going to suck, you disagree because your stupid.... enough said, no need to waste my time with your worthless drivel.




Take your own advice dip**** :rofl:

Stop with this childish behaviour, plz. From my point of view, it's more you who wastes others their time.

[Statalyzer]

Yet it seems to be active enough to those few members still alive here to fill a thread about an opinion about a game not fully released yet with 15 pages!

Why do you have your forum settings adjusted to only 10 posts per page?

[Cylon Crusader]

Oh right EA games has changed its ways has it? Its less of an evil corporation and now its a customer caring heaven like blizzard and other decent companys. People said the same thing back when cnc 3 was newly announced "oh look they are putting tiberium in, and its got GDI and NOD they do care after all!! cnc 3 will be awesome!! yay". Like i said before look how that turned out.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000FKBCX4/ref=pr_all_summary_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Yep thats EA caring for the people who followed spore. I was interested in that game (its actually a lousy game anyways DRM aside) but no more. Only 3 installations per customer. Apparently they are releasing a patch so you can uninstall the game and get an installation back, so you dont lose one, so in the future you will be required to uninstall every EA game before you format your OS (which might be in a bad way anyways hence you formatting it to begin with).

They care about their customers then? Thats why they upped it to 5 installations for red alert 3 and crysis warhead. Thats right 5 :D instead of 3 :D just what the customers wanted.....

Nah cylon... EA do not care. They have shown it many times in many franchises, even their sports fans are starting to get ticked off with the constant rehashes they are getting.

The only people interested in RA3 are people who are either too young or too stupid to realise that it will suck :rolleyes:

Easy there, I didn;t say that OMG, look its EA, the video game developer GODS, OMG OMG OMG, I said that they have improved very very very minsculy, and by that I mean about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

Oh, PS: enjoy the pos rep I accidently gave you, I forgot to make it negative rep, could you honestly just stop saying stuff like that, use your head for 2 seconds atleast before you go galavanting off to quote people in the way YOU think they've said their comments. For example that dealio with apple back there, one little comment about EA and you're saying that he's an EA fanboy, while all he said was that he liked the GAME, not the DEVELOPER. Are you like 12 or something?

[apple23]

I skim them, theyre hardly worth my time, its a game, its going to suck, you disagree because your stupid.... enough said, no need to waste my time with your worthless drivel.

If that is the way you regard my posts, then I won't ever grace your pathetic drivel with a substantial response ever again after this post, as you are obviously incapable of providing any substantial reply or comprehending any complex argument. Not only that, but after about 150 posts in this thread, you have so far been unable to produce a tangible argument as to why RA3 will be a bad game. You just lamely and blindly insult RA3 and anyone who liked it without a single clue in your head about what the game or its supporters are like.

Take your own advice dip**** :rofl:
zOMG that was hilarious :lol::rofl::lmao:.

Now, this time take my advice seriously, because you obviously haven't taken that advice. This time I will put it in the form of captain obvious pics to help you out a bit.
http://distractible.org/wp-content/plugins/RndmImgs/Captain%20Obvious%208%20finished.jpg

And a really great peice of advice:

http://www.bluelinecomics.com/New%20Blue%20Lines/Captain%20Obvious%205%20finished.jpg

There, I hope that helps us understand eachother.



Also, if this does start to degenerate into a flamewar, will a mod please move this thread into the flamerz thread?

[truefeel]

If that is the way you regard my posts, then I won't ever grace your pathetic drivel with a substantial response ever again after this post, as you are obviously incapable of providing any substantial reply or comprehending any complex argument. Not only that, but after about 150 posts in this thread, you have so far been unable to produce a tangible argument as to why RA3 will be a bad game. You just lamely and blindly insult RA3 and anyone who liked it without a single clue in your head about what the game or its supporters are like.


zOMG that was hilarious :lol::rofl::lmao:.

Now, this time take my advice seriously, because you obviously haven't taken that advice. This time I will put it in the form of captain obvious pics to help you out a bit.
http://distractible.org/wp-content/plugins/RndmImgs/Captain%20Obvious%208%20finished.jpg

And a really great peice of advice:

http://www.bluelinecomics.com/New%20Blue%20Lines/Captain%20Obvious%205%20finished.jpg

There, I hope that helps us understand eachother.



Also, if this does start to degenerate into a flamewar, will a mod please move this thread into the flamerz thread?

way to go. Quality post :).

[Bouncing Ball]

Why do you have your forum settings adjusted to only 10 posts per page?
I really don't know, that must have have been done years ago..

[soadfan1]

If Soviets posts are so Brainless and stupid why is everyone argueing with him as though he has some credible point?

I agree that Soviets arguements arent good hence why I have rarely used any of his points to back up my arguements.

The shame is that there is probably some common ground between the way I and him feel about Ra3.

I see entire novels written argueing against Soviets posts which are clearly just incitements to get you writing, why take the bait?

Personally I think the responce to Ra3 will be mixed.

I expect the majority of long term c&c fans to dislike it in every way except maybe the multiplayer.

I expect newer c&c fans to enjoy it.

I expect things to come crumbling down when things that weere promised aren't delivered and support becomes non-existant after announcement of an Exp pack.

However I'm more than willing to change my mind if I am proved wrong.

-Rob

[Soviet779]

If Soviets posts are so Brainless and stupid why is everyone argueing with him as though he has some credible point?

I agree that Soviets arguements arent good hence why I have rarely used any of his points.

The shame is that there is probably some common ground between the way I and him feel about Ra3.

I see entire novels written argueing against Soviets posts which are clearly just incitements to get you writing, why take the bait?

Personally I think the responce to Ra3 will be mixed.

I expect the majority of long term c&c fans to dislike it in every way except maybe the multiplayer.

I expect newer c&c fans to enjoy it.

I expect things to come crumbling down when things that weere promised aren't delivered and support becomes non-existant after announcement of an Exp pack.

However I'm more than willing to change my mind if I am proved wrong.

-Rob

This guy has more brainpower than the rest of you idiots put together :lol:

[Bouncing Ball]

This guy has more brainpower than the rest of you idiots put together :lol:
Because he agrees with you???? :lmao:

[soadfan1]

I dont think that was the reason :P I wouldnt say we had that much common ground.

[Statalyzer]

This guy has more brainpower than the rest of you idiots put together :lol:

Because he said pretty much the same thing we're saying?

Soviets arguements arent good

BTW, I just checked my User CP. LMAO at poor Soviet trying to cuss at me through the rep system and failing. :lol:

[Soviet779]

Heh, some of you need contacts or laser eye surgery i guess... i bolded the part relevent to my earlier post about most of you being idiots but for those with piss poor eyesight:

" I see entire novels written argueing against Soviets posts which are clearly just incitements to get you writing, why take the bait?"

[Statalyzer]

So, let me get this straigth? First you act like an utter jackass and a moron, and then when we argue against your blatant stupidity and someone says "Hey, Soviet's a nutjob, so why are you responding to him?", that somehow makes us idiots, too?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v498/Statalyzer/genesimmons.jpg

[Derek]

BTW, I just checked my User CP. LMAO at poor Soviet trying to cuss at me through the rep system and failing. :lol:
Yeah, I've gotten two of those as well. :)

[apple23]

Heh, some of you need contacts or laser eye surgery i guess... i bolded the part relevent to my earlier post about most of you being idiots but for those with piss poor eyesight:

" I see entire novels written argueing against Soviets posts which are clearly just incitements to get you writing, why take the bait?"

So this entire time, you were ****ting on yourself just to annoy us?

Hmm... what one other person on these boards would do that...?

Anyways, don't expect your points or your arguments to be taken seriously anymore. You're obviously too idiotic to really contribute anything of value here, so just shut up already.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Holy ****ing hell.

How did this **** even happen?

I swear to god, it's a simple as this,
You either buy it or you don't, you either enjoy it or you don't.

There is no point forcibly trying to change someone's opinion.

This is just incredibly silly...

[CivBase]

wow... RA3 does suck.... *sad face*

[Soviet779]

Im not here to exclusively annoy people but the stupider posters are naturally annoyed by the truth, its a shame really but at least i can say i called it when they come crying because their game sucks or it wont work because of DRM or 3-4 months down the line noone is playing it anymore because RA3 is a lousy knock off of a game that only fools and kids are going to buy.

When starcraft II comes along c&c is going to be completely dead. They have already cancelled tiberium, RA3 will be the last c&c game, after that even the really dumb c&c fans like apple23 will realize that EA only releases crap. I bolded his name in case he misses it, idiots are prone to that.

[apple23]

Since you post such crap I can't take you seriously anymore, I'm going to very accurately reflect your style of argument, as all other methods of showing what a retard you are have thus failed.

I'll start from now on:
Im not here to exclusively annoy people but the stupider posters are naturally annoyed by the truth, its a shame really but at least i can say i called it when they come crying because their game sucks or it wont work because of DRM or 3-4 months down the line noone is playing it anymore because RA3 is a lousy knock off of a game that only fools and kids are going to buy.

It's a shame that only stupid people like you don't realise what a great game RA3 is. You never played the beta or anything, and you don't know anything else, you're just a clueless idiot blindly insulting a game you know nothing about. You're going to come back crying to us when RA3 hits the top ratings and starcraft 2 sucks. Only fools and kids will not buy RA3 because they were like you and never played the beta and have no idea what the game is like so the joke is on them.

When starcraft II comes along c&c is going to be completely dead. They have already cancelled tiberium, RA3 will be the last c&c game, after that even the really dumb c&c fans like apple23 will realize that EA only releases crap. I bolded his name in case he misses it, idiots are prone to that.

When starcraft 2 comes along CNC and RA3 will be going strong. So what if they cancelled TIBERIUM? RA3 will most definitely not be the last CNC game, but after RA3 the really stupid CNC fans like Soviet779 will realise that EA has turned thier game around and they will realise how stupid they were to assume RA3 was a bad game when they had no evidence whatsoever. I bolded that last part in hopes to make you understand what an idiot you've been to blindly insult a game when you had absolutely no clue in your mind.


Just so all the smart people here know, the above post does not reflect my opinion with complete accuracy. I had to modify it alot (and I mean alot) to match Soviet779's argument style, because I had to leave holes in the argument like Soviet does, where I would have substantiated myself, and I had to seriously dumb down my logic to attempt to match soviet's horrible logic.

after that even the really dumb c&c fans like apple23 will realize that EA only releases crap. I bolded his name in case he misses it, idiots are prone to that.

Oh and one more thing Soviet, you suck arse at flaming.

[Statalyzer]

Im not here to exclusively annoy people but the stupider posters are naturally annoyed by the truth

And all posters are naturally annoyed by the stupid.

[apple23]

except Soviet, obviously...

[Zardac the Great]

http://despair.com/in24x30prin.html

http://despair.com/def24x30prin.html


That's all I have to say about this.


Red Alert 3 is going to rock. Hard.

[Annihlator :D]

and starcraft 2 sucks.

I'm sorry.... what did you just say? :squint:

[Soviet779]

When starcraft 2 comes along CNC and RA3 will be going strong. So what if they cancelled TIBERIUM? RA3 will most definitely not be the last CNC game, but after RA3 the really stupid CNC fans like Soviet779 will realise that EA has turned thier game around and they will realise how stupid they were to assume RA3 was a bad game when they had no evidence whatsoever. I bolded that last part in hopes to make you understand what an idiot you've been to blindly insult a game when you had absolutely no clue in your mind.

Hahaha, i did play the BETA, it was complete trash as i expected it would be. I said i played the BETA several times before and gave reasons as to why i didnt like it. I dont feel the need to get into a deep discussion about it, the game sucks so i wont buy it lol, if you want to waste your cash thats cool by me, your choice. Smarter gamers will be playing games that arent bland boring knocked together in a year trash. Enjoy your second rate knocked together in a year game, smarter gamers will be playing better quality games ;)

I cant wait until RA3 comes out and proves me right lol, it will be hillarious.

Just so all the smart people here know, the above post does not reflect my opinion with complete accuracy. I had to modify it alot (and I mean alot) to match Soviet779's argument style, because I had to leave holes in the argument like Soviet does, where I would have substantiated myself, and I had to seriously dumb down my logic to attempt to match soviet's horrible logic.

So by copying what i apparently do you accomplish what exactly...:rolleyes:

Oh and one more thing Soviet, you suck arse at flaming.

You are the only one flaming here, i am expressing an opinion, a negative opinion on RA3 that you dont like so youve taken a hissy fit over it.

[apple23]

Hahaha, i did play the BETA, it was complete trash as i expected it would be. I said i played the BETA several times before and gave reasons as to why i didnt like it.
You never, never, ever in this thread said you ever played the BETA, as a matter of fact I could pull out several quotes where you said you didn't play the BETA. And you never gave any reason at all as to why the gameplay was bad.

I dont feel the need to get into a deep discussion about it, the game sucks so i wont buy it lol,

You don't know if the game sucks, you've never played it according to all your previous posts.

if you want to waste your cash thats cool by me, your choice.

Yes, i'll be "wasting" my cash enjoying RA3 while you poor suckers wait for starcraft 2 and other games
Smarter gamers will be playing games that arent bland boring knocked together in a year trash.
You really have a knack for doing nothing to insut this game but call it names

Enjoy your second rate knocked together in a year game, smarter gamers will be playing better quality games ;)
It dosen't take a smart gamer to realise that RA3 has pretty impressive gameplay. Unfortunately you have no clue because you didn't play the BETA and even if you did, you would probably be ranting about losing every game you played.

I cant wait until RA3 comes out and proves me right lol, it will be hillarious. Trust me RA3 has already proven you wrong. It is just a matter of time until they release the game and we see how good or bad the singleplayer is and the FMVs and such.

So by copying what i apparently do you accomplish what exactly...:rolleyes:

I hoped to show you what an idiot you have been. It is extremely difficult to copy your argument style, because it requires that I leave tons of holes in the argument and I have to use preschool level grammar to match your sentance structue.

You are the only one flaming here, i am expressing an opinion, a negative opinion on RA3 that you dont like so youve taken a hissy fit over it.

Take a good look at your earlier posts... is that the only thing you say in them?


I'm sorry.... what did you just say? :squint:


I put an extra paragraph at the end of my post saying that this wasn't really my opinion, I just went with it because it fit with the post I was making.

I'm sure starcraft 2 will be just fine, probably better than that. Hell, I'm probably going to buy it.

[Annihlator :D]

I put an extra paragraph at the end of my post saying that this wasn't really my opinion, I just went with it because it fit with the post I was making.
I'm sure starcraft 2 will be just fine, probably better than that. Hell, I'm probably going to buy it.
Whups, didn't see that there, sorry.
And there is no probably, you will buy it :p

[CivBase]

Im not here to exclusively annoy people but the stupider posters are naturally annoyed by the truth, its a shame really but at least i can say i called it when they come crying because their game sucks or it wont work because of DRM or 3-4 months down the line noone is playing it anymore because RA3 is a lousy knock off of a game that only fools and kids are going to buy.

When starcraft II comes along c&c is going to be completely dead. They have already cancelled tiberium, RA3 will be the last c&c game, after that even the really dumb c&c fans like apple23 will realize that EA only releases crap. I bolded his name in case he misses it, idiots are prone to that.
I have to disagree with you on this....
While I probably haven't been the best member on this forum, there is one thing I know, and that's that companies like money. I am a big member on the Halo Wars forum and the same thing is happening there... but the franchise is bigger than ever. There are already plans for 3 new Halo games besides Halo Wars. I doubt this will be enough to stop CnC.

On another forum I was on, they posted a picture of a soviet plane with feet... this thing isn't actualy going to be in the game... is it? :(

[Zardac the Great]

On another forum I was on, they posted a picture of a soviet plane with feet... this thing isn't actualy going to be in the game... is it? :(


The only plane I know of that has feet is the Japanese Tengu.

It transforms from a "walker" that never walks into a fighter. Its engines are on the feet.

The only airplane the Soviets have is the MiG. No feet. Are you sure it wasn't either a Tengu or concept art?

[Soviet779]

I have to disagree with you on this....
While I probably haven't been the best member on this forum, there is one thing I know, and that's that companies like money. I am a big member on the Halo Wars forum and the same thing is happening there... but the franchise is bigger than ever. There are already plans for 3 new Halo games besides Halo Wars. I doubt this will be enough to stop CnC.

On another forum I was on, they posted a picture of a soviet plane with feet... this thing isn't actualy going to be in the game... is it? :(

Yeah but halo is still going strong, its still a good franchise, halo 3's singplayer was a bit too short for my liking, way too short actually but its still a good game. Thing about halo is that not all the future games will be made by bungie, as microsoft owns the halo IP, but bungie and microsoft are still on good terms despite splitting. Totally different from EA absorbing westwood and then making most of the employees leave, and churning out garbage since then, MS is better than EA by far, so i have good expectations for the future halp games, but im gonna wait for reviews first for the games bungie dosent develop.

[CivBase]

The only plane I know of that has feet is the Japanese Tengu.

It transforms from a "walker" that never walks into a fighter. Its engines are on the feet.

The only airplane the Soviets have is the MiG. No feet. Are you sure it wasn't either a Tengu or concept art?
Yah, this thing.
http://images.ea.com/games/redalert3/Units/Tengu/RA3_Tengu2.jpg
I think it looks like a plane with dog feet.
Kinda defeats the point of a plane, doesn't it?

[Vindicare]

Yah, this thing.
http://images.ea.com/games/redalert3/Units/Tengu/RA3_Tengu2.jpg
I think it looks like a plane with dog feet.
Kinda defeats the point of a plane, doesn't it?

No it doesn't. Seems your commenting on things you haven't even done the most basic research on. Japan's army in this game is distinct from the other because almost all their units transform into different ones. While in its conventional "plane" form the Tengu is an air superiority fighter. When it transforms it becomes anti infantry and glides along the ground. There are obvious benefits to this and beta showed it is very effective.

I wouldn't criticize units in a sci-fi game when you are from a Halo wars message board.

[apple23]

The only thing I always thought was weird about the tengu was that, while it had feet, it never walked. Not even in its land form. I could understand it hovering to go over water, but to trek land, it hovers when it has legs?

[CivBase]

No it doesn't. Seems your commenting on things you haven't even done the most basic research on. Japan's army in this game is distinct from the other because almost all their units transform into different ones. While in its conventional "plane" form the Tengu is an air superiority fighter. When it transforms it becomes anti infantry and glides along the ground. There are obvious benefits to this and beta showed it is very effective.

I wouldn't criticize units in a sci-fi game when you are from a Halo wars message board.
Hmmm... I dunno... that just kinda makes me less excited for the game. This is just my opinion, of course, but I don't feel like dropping $60 for a transformers RTS. I still find the unit rather stupid actualy, though I'm sure many will diagree and not like me for it (but hey, what do I have to worry about? I don't really have a great rep here anyways).
A plane that fights on the ground? Come on! You'd be better off building both instead of combining them. This is true for many reasons that should be obvious:

You don't have to spend the extra money for all the extra parts and various items needed for it to transform.
You now have two units instead of one. Twice the firepower.
You don't need to waste time transforming the stupid thing.
You can add a lot more extras to it without screwing up it's other varient.I'm not saying it's completely pointless, as it could greatly help in advancing over enemy ground, but it just seems stupid to me. Too much like a cartoon, too unrealistic. While I am pissed at Ensamble Studios for ruining the Halo franchise by making Failo Wars (our nickname for Halo Wars), it's starting to sound better than RA3....

[Vindicare]

Hmmm... I dunno... that just kinda makes me less excited for the game. This is just my opinion, of course, but I don't feel like dropping $60 for a transformers RTS. I still find the unit rather stupid actualy, though I'm sure many will diagree and not like me for it (but hey, what do I have to worry about? I don't really have a great rep here anyways).
A plane that fights on the ground? Come on! You'd be better off building both instead of combining them. This is true for many reasons that should be obvious:
You don't have to spend the extra money for all the extra parts and various items needed for it to transform.
You now have two units instead of one. Twice the firepower.
You don't need to waste time transforming the stupid thing.
You can add a lot more extras to it without screwing up it's other varient.I'm not saying it's completely pointless, as it could greatly help in advancing over enemy ground, but it just seems stupid to me. Too much like a cartoon, too unrealistic. While I am pissed at Ensamble Studios for ruining the Halo franchise by making Failo Wars (our nickname for Halo Wars), it's starting to sound better than RA3....

Transformers RTS? Please, seriously man if you are gonna make comments about this game why not to just a little research on it first. The Empire has many duel purpose units Not all of them transform though. The Soviets have brute force units and the Allies have high-tech units but none that transform (though many are amphibious).

People here might disagree with you but the only reason they will not like you is if you continue to throw out negative comments when you clearly know little to nothing about the game.

"A plane that fights on the ground? Come on! You'd be better off building both instead of combining them."
This type of unit seems to be a trend in RTS games these days...go look at the Starcraft II unit profiles for more examples.

"You don't have to spend the extra money for all the extra parts and various items needed for it to transform."

Im sorry are you making this comment as a reference to real life? Seriously you have to be joking. By this logic I assume you dont play any video games that have sci-fi or fantasy units that don't seem cost effective to you if they were real?! WTF.

"You now have two units instead of one. Twice the firepower."

Why build two units and spend more money when 1 does the same?

"You don't need to waste time transforming the stupid thing."

In game the transformation is almost instantanious, if you are again referring to real life....you are beyond help.

You can add a lot more extras to it without screwing up it's other varient.

See my response to your first question.

"Too much like a cartoon, too unrealistic."

Yea almost like its some kind of videogame...oh wait. You clearly didn't play the beta and you seem to be making all your judgements off of screenshots or information by people with a grudge against the game. While the Empire does have some over the top units it still fits with the Red Alert universe. From how you talk I doubt you were a fan of RA or RA2. Those games also had some pretty whacky units. The RA series is about fun and crazy units with fast gameplay. If you are looking for a series game with no "out there" units I'd suggest Company of Heroes or World in Conflict.

[Tomahawk]

My biggest let down is that I won't get to stare at Kari Wurher.... :(

[apple23]

Hmmm... I dunno... that just kinda makes me less excited for the game. This is just my opinion, of course, but I don't feel like dropping $60 for a transformers RTS.

Yep, a grand total of 3 units can transform. RA3 is a total transformers RTS.

A plane that fights on the ground? Come on! You'd be better off building both instead of combining them. This is true for many reasons that should be obvious:

The funny thing is, when it is on the ground, it is not a plane, it is a mecha...
You don't have to spend the extra money for all the extra parts and various items needed for it to transform.
Wether you are talking about in RL or not dosen't matter here, it would be much, much more cost efficient to make a single unit instead of two
You now have two units instead of one. Twice the firepower.
This is where you need a bit of logic. Two units does not necessarily mean twice the firepower. Let's take the Tengu for example. For its primary role, it is an anti ground vehicle that can't shoot air. Its secondary is anti air that can't shoot ground. Now lets say you have a bullfrog and a hammer tank. That is not twice the firepower because the bullfrog only shoots air and the hammer only shoots ground. Not to mention that it would cost twice as much to have both a bullfrog and a hammer tank than to just have a hammer tank that could transform into a bullfrog.
You don't need to waste time transforming the stupid thing.
The transformation is instant, though IMO there should be a delay
You can add a lot more extras to it without screwing up it's other varient.

What more would a transforming unit need? Vending machines in case the pilot gets hungry?


Ensamble Studios


Lol, Ensamble Studios? :lol::rofl::lmao:

[soadfan1]

I hope you're getting paid for fighting all these Ra3 haters Apple! ::color1:

For lots of us I think one of the biggest problems boils down to the feel of the game. It doesnt feel right for a c&c. Its similar to Generals but without the dignity.

I liked Generals because of its well balanced online play and refined gameplay. The game still kept its dignity despite having an awful sp campaign.

I just cant feel anything for Ra3 even if the online play is very refined.

I just cant play or especially look at the game without feeling like its just plain stupid, and not in the good way.

-Rob

[CivBase]

You guys are right, I haven't reseached this game hardly at all. I have the beta, but I can't get the stupid thing to work without crashing my computer. However, going off of what you guys are saying, the game sounds like a total loss to me.
Yep, a grand total of 3 units can transform. RA3 is a total transformers RTS.
Just my opinion, but that's 3 too many. I feel like I'm going to have to add "just my opinion" to everything because you are all acting like I'm speaking for everyone.


People here might disagree with you but the only reason they will not like you is if you continue to throw out negative comments when you clearly know little to nothing about the game.
So far I'm just arguing basics. If you convince me that a transformer has sufficient use enough to have three different kinds of them, I'll shut up on this subject.


The funny thing is, when it is on the ground, it is not a plane, it is a mecha...
Is that a joke? If so, I don't get it. It is still a plane, even if it's not in that form.


Wether you are talking about in RL or not dosen't matter here, it would be much, much more cost efficient to make a single unit instead of two
I don't see your logic, but I supposed that is explained in the next quote.
Just my opinion (here we go again), but RL matters in any game that had two other games that folowed close to realistic. The orriginal RAs stayed pretty close to real with the exception of the chronosphere and a few other tech advancements. I kinda expected RA3 to be the same.


This is where you need a bit of logic. Two units does not necessarily mean twice the firepower. Let's take the Tengu for example. For its primary role, it is an anti ground vehicle that can't shoot air. Its secondary is anti air that can't shoot ground. Now lets say you have a bullfrog and a hammer tank. That is not twice the firepower because the bullfrog only shoots air and the hammer only shoots ground. Not to mention that it would cost twice as much to have both a bullfrog and a hammer tank than to just have a hammer tank that could transform into a bullfrog.

Interesting. So your saying you don't have twice the firepower if you have both move in at the same time? Strange. As far as I know, that's two guns moving into the same position, both have the opportunity to fire at the same time.... unless there's a catch, which would make this a bad example. Even if they can only shoot cirtain units, you now have two of them instead of only being able to shoot cirtain units and having one of them.
Lets use an example of mine. You could either have a tank and an AA tank... or you could make them transform into eachother. Now you can only use one at a time and you spent the same amount of money to make them (if not more for all those parts you have to make to allow the two to transform and move all the other parts where they need to go). Do you see where I'm coming from?


The transformation is instant, though IMO there should be a delay
"Just my opinion" yes, there should


What more would a transforming unit need? Vending machines in case the pilot gets hungry?
Bigger guns. Maby an AA attachment. A bunker to fire out of. Theres tons of things you could add to tanks in this universe


Lol, Ensamble Studios? :lol::rofl::lmao:
Not any more. They went out of business as of the creation of Halo Wars. ES is no more. Serves them right for ruining a great franchise.


Yea almost like its some kind of videogame...oh wait. You clearly didn't play the beta and you seem to be making all your judgements off of screenshots or information by people with a grudge against the game. While the Empire does have some over the top units it still fits with the Red Alert universe. From how you talk I doubt you were a fan of RA or RA2. Those games also had some pretty whacky units. The RA series is about fun and crazy units with fast gameplay. If you are looking for a series game with no "out there" units I'd suggest Company of Heroes or World in Conflict.
Hey now, don't go shooting your mouth about me not being a fan. I love RA2 and used to love RA1 (but I haven't played it forever because my old version stopped working when I got a newer computer). There were a few "whacky" units, but they were practical and cost effecient. All the chrono stuff, the tesla stuff, the mind control stuff, they were awsome. They each folowed in line with the tech available in the factions and if I had the chance, I would have applied that tech to even more units. The diff between all that and transformers is that transformers aren't paractical (in my oppinion).

Look guys, I don't know how big of fans you are of this game, but I don't want to get in a huge fight. Face it, neither of us are going to convince the other, so why try? If this thread was made to convince people that the game sucks, it's a lost cause. A much better use of the thread is to give a place for fans to voice their oppinions on the game. Who knows? Maybe EA will benefit from it? Prehaps EA will actualy listen to their fans (unlike ES).

[CivBase]

You guys are right, I haven't reseached this game hardly at all. I have the beta, but I can't get the stupid thing to work without crashing my computer. However, going off of what you guys are saying, the game sounds like a total loss to me.
Yep, a grand total of 3 units can transform. RA3 is a total transformers RTS.
Just my opinion, but that's 3 too many. I feel like I'm going to have to add "just my opinion" to everything because you are all acting like I'm speaking for everyone.


People here might disagree with you but the only reason they will not like you is if you continue to throw out negative comments when you clearly know little to nothing about the game.
So far I'm just arguing basics. If you convince me that a transformer has sufficient use enough to have three different kinds of them, I'll shut up on this subject.


The funny thing is, when it is on the ground, it is not a plane, it is a mecha...
Is that a joke? If so, I don't get it. It is still a plane, even if it's not in that form.


Wether you are talking about in RL or not dosen't matter here, it would be much, much more cost efficient to make a single unit instead of two
I don't see your logic, but I supposed that is explained in the next quote.
Just my opinion (here we go again), but RL matters in any game that had two other games that folowed close to realistic. The orriginal RAs stayed pretty close to real with the exception of the chronosphere and a few other tech advancements. I kinda expected RA3 to be the same.


This is where you need a bit of logic. Two units does not necessarily mean twice the firepower. Let's take the Tengu for example. For its primary role, it is an anti ground vehicle that can't shoot air. Its secondary is anti air that can't shoot ground. Now lets say you have a bullfrog and a hammer tank. That is not twice the firepower because the bullfrog only shoots air and the hammer only shoots ground. Not to mention that it would cost twice as much to have both a bullfrog and a hammer tank than to just have a hammer tank that could transform into a bullfrog.

Interesting. So your saying you don't have twice the firepower if you have both move in at the same time? Strange. As far as I know, that's two guns moving into the same position, both have the opportunity to fire at the same time.... unless there's a catch, which would make this a bad example. Even if they can only shoot cirtain units, you now have two of them instead of only being able to shoot cirtain units and having one of them.
Lets use an example of mine. You could either have a tank and an AA tank... or you could make them transform into eachother. Now you can only use one at a time and you spent the same amount of money to make them (if not more for all those parts you have to make to allow the two to transform and move all the other parts where they need to go). Do you see where I'm coming from?


The transformation is instant, though IMO there should be a delay
"Just my opinion" yes, there should


What more would a transforming unit need? Vending machines in case the pilot gets hungry?
Bigger guns. Maby an AA attachment. A bunker to fire out of. Theres tons of things you could add to tanks in this universe


Lol, Ensamble Studios? :lol::rofl::lmao:
Not any more. They went out of business as of the creation of Halo Wars. ES is no more. Serves them right for ruining a great franchise.


Yea almost like its some kind of videogame...oh wait. You clearly didn't play the beta and you seem to be making all your judgements off of screenshots or information by people with a grudge against the game. While the Empire does have some over the top units it still fits with the Red Alert universe. From how you talk I doubt you were a fan of RA or RA2. Those games also had some pretty whacky units. The RA series is about fun and crazy units with fast gameplay. If you are looking for a series game with no "out there" units I'd suggest Company of Heroes or World in Conflict.
Hey now, don't go shooting your mouth about me not being a fan. I love RA2 and used to love RA1 (but I haven't played it forever because my old version stopped working when I got a newer computer). There were a few "whacky" units, but they were practical and cost effecient. All the chrono stuff, the tesla stuff, the mind control stuff, they were awsome. They each folowed in line with the tech available in the factions and if I had the chance, I would have applied that tech to even more units. The diff between all that and transformers is that transformers aren't paractical (in my oppinion).

Look guys, I don't know how big of fans you are of this game, but I don't want to get in a huge fight. Face it, neither of us are going to convince the other, so why try? If this thread was made to convince people that the game sucks, it's a lost cause. A much better use of the thread is to give a place for fans to voice their oppinions on the game. Who knows? Maybe EA will benefit from it? Prehaps EA will actualy listen to their fans (unlike ES).

[Vindicare]

You guys are right, I haven't reseached this game hardly at all. I have the beta, but I can't get the stupid thing to work without crashing my computer. However, going off of what you guys are saying, the game sounds like a total loss to me.

Just my opinion, but that's 3 too many. I feel like I'm going to have to add "just my opinion" to everything because you are all acting like I'm speaking for everyone.


So far I'm just arguing basics. If you convince me that a transformer has sufficient use enough to have three different kinds of them, I'll shut up on this subject.


Is that a joke? If so, I don't get it. It is still a plane, even if it's not in that form.


I don't see your logic, but I supposed that is explained in the next quote.
Just my opinion (here we go again), but RL matters in any game that had two other games that folowed close to realistic. The orriginal RAs stayed pretty close to real with the exception of the chronosphere and a few other tech advancements. I kinda expected RA3 to be the same.


Interesting. So your saying you don't have twice the firepower if you have both move in at the same time? Strange. As far as I know, that's two guns moving into the same position, both have the opportunity to fire at the same time.... unless there's a catch, which would make this a bad example. Even if they can only shoot cirtain units, you now have two of them instead of only being able to shoot cirtain units and having one of them.
Lets use an example of mine. You could either have a tank and an AA tank... or you could make them transform into eachother. Now you can only use one at a time and you spent the same amount of money to make them (if not more for all those parts you have to make to allow the two to transform and move all the other parts where they need to go). Do you see where I'm coming from?


"Just my opinion" yes, there should


Bigger guns. Maby an AA attachment. A bunker to fire out of. Theres tons of things you could add to tanks in this universe


Not any more. They went out of business as of the creation of Halo Wars. ES is no more. Serves them right for ruining a great franchise.


Hey now, don't go shooting your mouth about me not being a fan. I love RA2 and used to love RA1 (but I haven't played it forever because my old version stopped working when I got a newer computer). There were a few "whacky" units, but they were practical and cost effecient. All the chrono stuff, the tesla stuff, the mind control stuff, they were awsome. They each folowed in line with the tech available in the factions and if I had the chance, I would have applied that tech to even more units. The diff between all that and transformers is that transformers aren't paractical (in my oppinion).

Look guys, I don't know how big of fans you are of this game, but I don't want to get in a huge fight. Face it, neither of us are going to convince the other, so why try? If this thread was made to convince people that the game sucks, it's a lost cause. A much better use of the thread is to give a place for fans to voice their oppinions on the game. Who knows? Maybe EA will benefit from it? Prehaps EA will actualy listen to their fans (unlike ES).

I respect that you are not an idiot like some posters(Soviet). You seem to be missing the point of the transforming units though. Like you said every faction has something distinct, allies/prism, soviet/Tesla , Empire/mechs, so I dunno what the problem is. You say its to unrealistic but seriously.....mind controlled squids, mirage tanks these things are hardly anchored in reality. I don't know how to really explian it but it just fits. I didn't like the inclusion of the empire at all in this game. I didn't like their style or thier units. After playing the beta I would def. say they belong though I still don't prefer playing as them.

The Transforming units work fantastic too. For instance, You send 2 tengus out early game to secure oil derricks from capture...those two tengus cant stop preety much all infantry trying to take it. When your enemy finally sends some armor just transform into plane mode and high tail it. Plane mode is also great for scouting and if you have a large amount of tengus they can dominate the sky(they do not require airfields like thier soviet and allied counterparts).

[Annihlator :D]

Vindicare, could you please calm down? CivBase is voicing his doubts, and you're acting like he's insulted your mother.

[Vindicare]

Vindicare, could you please calm down? CivBase is voicing his doubts, and you're acting like he's insulted your mother.

What the hell are you talking about? I said I respect him. All I said was that if he kept making negative comments without knowing anything about the game then people would have a problem with him.

If you read my last post I also stated when I initially saw the Empire faction I felt much the same way he did. Then I played the beta and learned about why the Empire is distinct.

I admit my first tone was slightly hostile, but only because so many people keep coming on here and bashing the game and they hardly know anything about it or make things up (not targeted toward you Civ you are respectful with your posts and make it clear its your opinion).

[CivBase]

I respect that you are not an idiot like some posters(Soviet). You seem to be missing the point of the transforming units though. Like you said every faction has something distinct, allies/prism, soviet/Tesla , Empire/mechs, so I dunno what the problem is. You say its to unrealistic but seriously.....mind controlled squids, mirage tanks these things are hardly anchored in reality. I don't know how to really explian it but it just fits. I didn't like the inclusion of the empire at all in this game. I didn't like their style or thier units. After playing the beta I would def. say they belong though I still don't prefer playing as them.

The Transforming units work fantastic too. For instance, You send 2 tengus out early game to secure oil derricks from capture...those two tengus cant stop preety much all infantry trying to take it. When your enemy finally sends some armor just transform into plane mode and high tail it. Plane mode is also great for scouting and if you have a large amount of tengus they can dominate the sky(they do not require airfields like thier soviet and allied counterparts).
I suppose. I just find transforming and mech units impractical in a realistic environment. At least the mind control, the tesla, and the chrono/prism stuff would be practical in such a situation. Oh well, hopefuly they can pull it off.

[Vindicare]

I suppose. I just find transforming and mech units impractical in a realistic environment. At least the mind control, the tesla, and the chrono/prism stuff would be practical in such a situation. Oh well, hopefuly they can pull it off.

I agree, Realistically mechs are very silly and impractical. In the game they work very well and are pretty fun to use. Thats my opinion of course. Its a shame you couldn't get the beta to work I think you would have liked the game.

[Statalyzer]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v498/Statalyzer/itis.gif

[SgtRicko]

I agree, Realistically mechs are very silly and impractical. In the game they work very well and are pretty fun to use. Thats my opinion of course. Its a shame you couldn't get the beta to work I think you would have liked the game.

An arachnid-like design might work in the real world though, since not only would it allow a large degree of flexibility in most terrain types, but if any legs were damaged, it could still function reasonably well. Aside from the more current limitations, such as designing a system to coordinate the leg movement and the power system required to run it, it might work out as some type of scout or light armored vehicle.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Well damnit to hell, I missed a good discussion.

I personaly just don't like the Japanese faction. Call it a personal distaste for them.
the first thing I'm going to do is boot up a skirmish match, set up an easy jap enemy, and STOMP THE **** OUT OF THEM.

[apple23]

so... this is what you're adding to the discussion you're trying to get into?


Interesting. So your saying you don't have twice the firepower if you have both move in at the same time? Strange. As far as I know, that's two guns moving into the same position, both have the opportunity to fire at the same time.... unless there's a catch, which would make this a bad example. Even if they can only shoot cirtain units, you now have two of them instead of only being able to shoot cirtain units and having one of them.
Lets use an example of mine. You could either have a tank and an AA tank... or you could make them transform into eachother. Now you can only use one at a time and you spent the same amount of money to make them (if not more for all those parts you have to make to allow the two to transform and move all the other parts where they need to go). Do you see where I'm coming from?


Alright, so yes, technically it is twice the firepower, but also think about this, a transformer is also two guns moving into the same position. The main thing here is cost. A transforming unit is just one unit, and it costs the same as only one unit, however it is dual roled. Where a sickle and a bullfrog cost 1550, a mecha tengu has both AA and AG anti infantry for only 650. The only disasdvantage of a transforming unit is that it cannot use both guns simultaneously, but that is more than compensated for by its cost.

Lets have some more math and logic here:
So we've established that sickle + bullfrog = Simultaneous Anti Inf and AA for 1550 credits. A tengu is induvidual anti infantry or AA for 650. Here it looks like the tengu is at a disadvantage, because it can only use one gun at a time. However it is actually much more versatile. More Math:

So, Bullfrog + Sickle = You know what fo 1550 Credits. Now, 2 Tengus (Each in different transformations)= Simultaneous AA and Anti infantry, with also the possibility of two on one infanty, or two on one aircaft, and it costs only 1300 credits. Which one is more cost efficient and versatile? The Tengu obviously.

And as far as cost of making a transforming unit goes, the transformations are actually quite small. Take the Seawing for example. Its 'transformation' is simply flipping itself over and using a different weapon.


Not any more. They went out of business as of the creation of Halo Wars. ES is no more. Serves them right for ruining a great franchise.



Just so you know, that is not what I was getting at. You spelt Ensemble wrong... :lol:


And one other thing, you can substitute the "Just My opinion" in your posts with an IMO (=In My Opinion)

[CivBase]

I don't get how you guys figure they cost less. For them to transform, they still need all the parts for both vehicles so that it opperates effectively; not to mention the cost of the parts needed to move the other parts around. While the game probably won't compensate for these costs (they simply will price it by size, not density), it would not be efficient realisticly.
As for the Ensemble thing... whatever lol. I don't like them anymore, they diserve to have their names misppeld.

[Gaucho8788]

You're adding reality into fantasy, that is something you should never do. And also Apple made the comparison of how the Tengu is more cost effective. Here it is:

Alright, so yes, technically it is twice the firepower, but also think about this, a transformer is also two guns moving into the same position. The main thing here is cost. A transforming unit is just one unit, and it costs the same as only one unit, however it is dual roled. Where a sickle and a bullfrog cost 1550, a mecha tengu has both AA and AG anti infantry for only 650. The only disasdvantage of a transforming unit is that it cannot use both guns simultaneously, but that is more than compensated for by its cost.

Lets have some more math and logic here:
So we've established that sickle + bullfrog = Simultaneous Anti Inf and AA for 1550 credits. A tengu is induvidual anti infantry or AA for 650. Here it looks like the tengu is at a disadvantage, because it can only use one gun at a time. However it is actually much more versatile. More Math:

So, Bullfrog + Sickle = You know what fo 1550 Credits. Now, 2 Tengus (Each in different transformations)= Simultaneous AA and Anti infantry, with also the possibility of two on one infanty, or two on one aircaft, and it costs only 1300 credits. Which one is more cost efficient and versatile? The Tengu obviously.

And as far as cost of making a transforming unit goes, the transformations are actually quite small. Take the Seawing for example. Its 'transformation' is simply flipping itself over and using a different weapon.

In short, Bullfrog + Sickle = 1550 credits. Two Tengu's = 1300, thats a 250 credits difference in favor of the Tengu's. I'm not exactly sure how the power of each line out, as I haven't played the Beta nor really looked into it, but I feel the Tengu have a slight advantage since you have two that can either both take out Infantry and both can take out air, or one doing one thing and the other doing the other. Also you can switch more based to your current sitaution instead of, "ooh they're hitting me with more air so I need to produce more AA", or "ooh they're hitting me with more infantry so I need to produce more anti inf".

[Cylon Crusader]

Come on guys, why dont we all agree to disagree. After all, this IS just a video game, and in the end its not like we'll ever have transforming mechas/jets in our future, the kind of power and resources required to do that would be enormous.

[Soviet779]

This isnt a dorky mech discussion thread, stay on topic fools.

[Commander Dave]

Anyone remember that time nearly two years ago? Every cnc fan was exited for cnc3 because EA were following the storyline this time, no more generals bull****. They hired people from MIT or somewhere to figure out tiberium and they put in the viceroid etc etc... look how that turned out, the whole atmosphere of the tiberian universe was lost, no more tiberium mutations, the single player in cnc3 was forgettable, online play died quickly, the cheap bastards even oursourced the expansion pack which i never bought! What a goddamn rip! That was supposed to be cnc's comeback, theres more people play freakin company of heros online than cnc3... niche WWII RTS which average joes comp probably wouldnt run.

Face it, RA3 is going to suck. This isnt gonna be anything like RA2 or RA1, they were great games. If you must play RA3 dont pay for it. EA dont deserve money for trashing so many good franchises and then having the nerve to force DRM on loyal customers. DRM which was put in to stop the resale market. Pirates get a better product for much less, its laughable.
Hey i really dont think R A 3 will suck, maybe you are just a little one sided . So what if some of the units are over the top , i think it makes the game not so one sided ! in other words am i making any sense probably not , but if it is abit cartoonish so what ! just enjoy it and have a little fun or just dont buy the game ! nuff said

[apple23]

that post would probably make more sense if your grammar was anywhere above kindergarten level...

[Soviet779]

that post would probably make more sense if your grammar was anywhere above kindergarten level...

This isnt a dorky grammar discussion thread, stay on topic fool.

[apple23]

This isn't a "stay on topic, fool" discussion thread. Stay on topic, fool.

Or alternatively, you could go buy yourself a brain. I hear they have great prices on eBay.

[Statalyzer]

This isn't a "stay on topic, fool" discussion thread. Stay on topic, fool.:D

[truefeel]

that post would probably make more sense if your grammar was anywhere above kindergarten level...

Ah, common Apple. It was perfectly understandable what he wrote. Some peeps just have difficulties with English (I am one of them); don't rub that in.

This isnt a dorky grammar discussion thread, stay on topic fool.Although your are right, you should not take this as an opportunity to jump on him. Stay polite

Hey i really dont think R A 3 will suck, maybe you are just a little one sided . So what if some of the units are over the top , i think it makes the game not so one sided ! in other words am i making any sense probably not , but if it is abit cartoonish so what ! just enjoy it and have a little fun or just dont buy the game ! nuff said

It's not really the graphics that interests me, although I do find that in these imes we are living, RA3 does deserve better graphics. CNC3 had better ones then RA3. I don't doubt the gameplay. It will be fantastic. But they key of a longlife for a game like RA3 lies in the aftermarket support. And that's where the shoe does not fit. EA, only out for people their money, is not bothered at all to give years of support to a single game. They give a few months of support to keep sells at rendable level, but then it stops, completely. I like give a personal example of this: when Kanes Wrath was announced (only 3 moths after Tiberium Wars was released !), I expressed my worries that Tiberium Wars will be forgotten, that it. Apoc himself ensured that would not be the case and that they would actually use 2 teams: the original team of CNC3 who would continue to work and a completely new team on Kanes Wrath. What's the conclusion I have to make right now ? Not only TW is forgotten, but also KW! And that very same problem will be lying ahead for RA3. EA promised AGAIN that they will learn from mistakes out of the past and will not leave RA3, yet each time they make such a promise, I really, really fear for the existence of the game in question in the long run.

[apple23]

Ah, common Apple. It was perfectly understandable what he wrote. Some peeps just have difficulties with English (I am one of them); don't rub that in.

Okay, sure, you make some grammatical errors but the intellect you put forth in your discussion quite well makes up for that. This Commander Dave guy dosen't have horrible grammar, it is more just his sentance fluency. He has run-ons, fragments, and every manner of weak verb and sentance patterns imagineable all over his posts. Sure his logic may be there and he may be a wise or otherwise logical and smart man, but from the way he posts, I get the mental image of a 3 year old banging at his keyboards.

With you, you seem more like an intelligent, logical, wise person, just like I said about Commander Dave. The one main difference, however, is that you show a significantly better understanding of the english language, even if you have some minor convention errors in your posts.

It's not really the graphics that interests me, although I do find that in these times we are living, RA3 does deserve better graphics; CNC3 had better ones then RA3. I don't doubt the gameplay, It will be fantastic but they key to a long life for a game like RA3 lies in the aftermarket support and that's where the shoe does not fit. EA, only out for people's money, is not bothered at all to give years of support to a single game. They give a few months of support to keep sells at rendable level, but then it stops; completely. I like to give a personal example of this: when Kanes Wrath was announced (only 3 moths after Tiberium Wars was released!), I expressed my worries that Tiberium Wars will be forgotten. Apoc himself ensured us that that would not be the case and that they would actually have 2 teams: the original team of CNC3, who would continue to work, and a completely new team on Kanes Wrath. What's the conclusion I have to make right now? Not only TW is forgotten, but also KW! That very same problem is lying ahead for RA3. EA promised AGAIN that they will learn from mistakes out of the past and will not leave RA3. Each time they make such a promise, I really, really fear for the existence of the game in question in the long run.

Just to help my argument a little, I went ahead and fixed and boldened every grammatical or convention error you made. Notice that they were very small errors and none of my edits significantly changed the meaning of the sentance in question. That means that you have a decent understanding of the language.


Anyways, back on topic, yes, RA3 has the stage all set, with great gameplay and the like. Hell, we might even get so very lucky as to have a decent (I'm hoping even better!) Campaign, but that's pretty questionable. Aside from that, the only thing that would hurt RA3 in the long run is, like you said, thier aftermarket support.

[soadfan1]

I'd like to think c&c fans would not just buy the games anymore because they wish to own every title.

It just feeds EA and doesnt help the situation we find ourselves in.

However I'm not sure there is a choice?

If significant amounts of people stopped buying the games, they would probably just stop making them, as opposed to trying to make them better.

What we really need is for a smaller game development company to retake over c&c, preferably a team like petroglyph.( They still exist don't they?)

A development team which has ample money, so doesnt just need to make loads of cash, and has past experience with c&c games.

A man can dream though.

[truefeel]

Okay, sure, you make some grammatical errors but the intellect you put forth in your discussion quite well makes up for that. This Commander Dave guy dosen't have horrible grammar, it is more just his sentance fluency. He has run-ons, fragments, and every manner of weak verb and sentance patterns imagineable all over his posts. Sure his logic may be there and he may be a wise or otherwise logical and smart man, but from the way he posts, I get the mental image of a 3 year old banging at his keyboards.
I know, but the fact that some people don't speak/write English as their mother-tongue and also the fact that they are not able/not willing to make an effort to write a piece of text with a good build up, makes situations like the one of Dave understandable. These forums have people all over the world, so the emphasis should be heavily on the topic and not on he grammar. At least, that's the way I see it.

With you, you seem more like an intelligent, logical, wise person, just like I said about Commander Dave. The one main difference, however, is that you show a significantly better understanding of the english language, even if you have some minor convention errors in your posts.Well, you might have noticed it already, but I suffer under some form of dyslexia. I sometimes forget words inbetween sentences, with on top the normal errors. I try to compensate that with making a strong line in my posts, with the result my posts as a whole ussually look decent.

[SgtRicko]

Anyways, back on topic, yes, RA3 has the stage all set, with great gameplay and the like. Hell, we might even get so very lucky as to have a decent (I'm hoping even better!) Campaign, but that's pretty questionable. Aside from that, the only thing that would hurt RA3 in the long run is, like you said, thier aftermarket support.

Well, they said that the campaign will be built around co-op, and the missions are sometimes supposed to have several different 'solutions,' so I guess it's a start.



Well, you might have noticed it already, but I suffer under some form of dyslexia. I sometimes forget words inbetween sentences, with on top the normal errors. I try to compensate that with making a strong line in my posts, with the result my posts as a whole ussually look decent.


Really? Wow, you're pretty good then!:wired:

[Black Hand]

RA3 is going to be a great game. It still have the same playability of RA2, the good game engine of C&C3 and the fun of a C&C game.:D

[Soviet779]

I'd like to think c&c fans would not just buy the games anymore because they wish to own every title.

It just feeds EA and doesnt help the situation we find ourselves in.

Most wouldnt do that, however EA's profits are made off dumber cnc fans like apple23 or people who are new to the franchise and werent around for the better games.

What we really need is for a smaller game development company to retake over c&c, preferably a team like petroglyph.( They still exist don't they?)

A development team which has ample money, so doesnt just need to make loads of cash, and has past experience with c&c games.

A man can dream though.

Its cool that a lot of the ex-westwood guys went and formed petroglyph but theyve been around for what... 4 years? All they have put out are mediocre games, star wars empire at war was ok, sins of a solar empire is what i expected from it though. I never bothered with universe at war because i wasent crazy about their last game. I can actually see another flagship studios scenario happening here, small developer, grows quite a bit larger over time, fails to put out any good titles that sell well, goes under. Cnc was their thing and now thats gone, they dont have anything.

What would make cnc better is not necessarily a small dev team, but a good one, like valve, blizzard, relic etc, one that knows what makes the games fun and caters to all types of fans.

[Gaucho8788]

Most wouldnt do that, however EA's profits are made off dumber cnc fans like apple23 or people who are new to the franchise and werent around for the better games.

Ok dude what the hell? It's like you're just trying to insight a flame war. Just because he thinks the game is going to be good doesn't mean he's a "dumber" CnC fan, it just means he has slightly different taste in games then you and isn't being short sighted. Now I will admit what EA puts out isn't top notch or anything but the gameplay is decent enough.

[truefeel]

however EA's profits are made off dumber cnc fans like apple23 or people who are new to the franchise and werent around for the better games.Stop with this attitude. Apple is a loyal member of the cnc franchise. He has until now putted up a higher level of communicating then you. Instead of trying to insult other people, try to build up your posts with good arguments. I'll repeat myself again: this is NOT the flamerz corner. If you want to insult him, make a topic in the appropiate section and leave this one clean of such crap.

@Apple in advance: plz don't react on his post. He still needs to learn what maturity really is.

On topic: I do agree the lines through the campaigns in earlier CNC games were very intense and actually breath-taking. However, the newer games don't have to give in alot on that front (CNC3 TW had an awesome campaign. Maybe the best example is the base of Temple Prime: it really matches the might of the brotherhood; it really gives that epic feeling like in the old games). All cnc games made by EA do have a large potentional. Ultimately, the game's critical survival factor is the multiplayer part of the game, which needs to most attention due balance is very important. This is linked to the aftermarket support and like I explained earlier, EA makes a bad job of that.

Its cool that a lot of the ex-westwood guys went and formed petroglyph but theyve been around for what... 4 years? All they have put out are mediocre games, star wars empire at war was ok, sins of a solar empire is what i expected from it though. I never bothered with universe at war because i wasent crazy about their last game. I can actually see another flagship studios scenario happening here, small developer, grows quite a bit larger over time, fails to put out any good titles that sell well, goes under. Cnc was their thing and now thats gone, they dont have anything.The reason why they fail is really easy to explain:
a) they aren't a big compagny like EA. EA is known; face it: games with EA on it sell better then games with a relative unkown name on it; the quality of the game does not play a role then

b) EA has most of the big franchises. CNC games have a tremendous reputation. Ok, petroglyph made a star wars game, but there are so many of those. There's no line in them. CNC has on the conctrary a strong line. EA knows that games related to older ones who proved to be bestsellers in the past, wil sell again.


What would make cnc better is not necessarily a small dev team, but a good one, like valve, blizzard, relic etc, one that knows what makes the games fun and caters to all types of fans. Today 05:29 AMNo, there's not really something wrong with the dev team. They do a really really good job. It's like I said the aftermarket support that makes the newer cnc games decent instead of awesome.

Really? Wow, you're pretty good then!:wired:Well, not really. It's only a mild form of it. It's not like I typ everything wrong, but it does occurs.

[soadfan1]

I dont think the dev team have done a particuarly good job.

Well some have done a 'good job' in the literal sense of the term.

I dont think the design team have done a good job, they havent really inspired with their creations and they definately have not captured the c&c feel.

I wont deny that in terms of creating a working, refined balance system they did a good job, but in almost every other aspect they adhered to too much pop culture.

Its similar to how Family guy was/is never as good as The Simpsons or South park.

[Soviet779]

The reason why they fail is really easy to explain:
a) they aren't a big compagny like EA. EA is known; face it: games with EA on it sell better then games with a relative unkown name on it; the quality of the game does not play a role then

b) EA has most of the big franchises. CNC games have a tremendous reputation. Ok, petroglyph made a star wars game, but there are so many of those. There's no line in them. CNC has on the conctrary a strong line. EA knows that games related to older ones who proved to be bestsellers in the past, wil sell again.

Big company has nothing to do with a quality game, EA are successful due to marketing alone, nothing to do with their brand name or resources, you may think big company = big marketing but theres tons of even larger companys that cant market themselves for ****, EA is decent at marketing. Apple is one of the best examples of successful marketing, difference between them and EA is apples products are generally really good.

Petroglyph made an average star wars game and a pretty lousy RTS game that was supposed to be part of a trilogy but that dosent look like it has a future anymore. The games just arent good enough... its as simple as that nothing to do with the size of their company etc they just didnt make a good game, theres tons of smaller devs that have made some fantastic games and have grown because of that, petroglyphs future looks grim imo.


No, there's not really something wrong with the dev team. They do a really really good job. It's like I said the aftermarket support that makes the newer cnc games decent instead of awesome.

Heh well if they were doing a really really good job why did cnc 3 suck? Why is the online part of it dead so soon? It was touted as an online gamers paradise! Competitive gameplay, fast fluid etc etc blah blah and now noone plays it any more lol theres more people on company of heros than cnc 3 which is ridiculous for a command and conquer game. I dont mention how they advertised it as fast/fluid in the light that they did not deliver that, they did but it wasent any damn fun is the point im making here. I predict the same failure for ra3, same dev team, same lousy engine, total lack of immersiveness or fun, total failure.

[truefeel]

Big company has nothing to do with a quality game, EA are successful due to marketing alone, nothing to do with their brand name or resources, you may think big company = big marketing but theres tons of even larger companys that cant market themselves for ****, EA is decent at marketing. Apple is one of the best examples of successful marketing, difference between them and EA is apples products are generally really good.
Right, but you still missed the point. I never said anywhere that a big company makes always quality games. Furthermore, scientific research claimed that Marketing influences the buying of people very indirectly. People instead focus on known names to buy things. EA indeed has a good marketing, but it plays a much smaller role then you might assume.

Petroglyph made an average star wars game and a pretty lousy RTS game that was supposed to be part of a trilogy but that dosent look like it has a future anymore. The games just arent good enough... its as simple as that nothing to do with the size of their company etc they just didnt make a good game, theres tons of smaller devs that have made some fantastic games and have grown because of that, petroglyphs future looks grim imo.
I've never played the game, so I can't judge it myself. However, I've looked for critical review marks. It scored well: GameRankings gove it 79/100, Gamespot 87/100, IGN 76/100. That says ALOT.
I also want to note that you speak if it is generally accepted that it is not such a good game, while it truly is your opinion. This be "Apple-ish", but use better sentences to express the right meaning.

Heh well if they were doing a really really good job why did cnc 3 suck? Why is the online part of it dead so soon? It was touted as an online gamers paradise! Competitive gameplay, fast fluid etc etc blah blah and now noone plays it any more lol theres more people on company of heros than cnc 3 which is ridiculous for a command and conquer game. I dont mention how they advertised it as fast/fluid in the light that they did not deliver that, they did but it wasent any damn fun is the point im making here. I predict the same failure for ra3, same dev team, same lousy engine, total lack of immersiveness or fun, total failure.Next time read my post COMPLETELY. CNC3 only does average b/c of the weak aftermarket support.I think the game itself has all the potentional that was claimed, however due the problem described above it never really showed it fully. Also saying that nobody plays it is a real understatement; I would agree though with this if it was posted a year later.

I have to join the people who say you did not do enough research to it. Plz don't make arguments based on your own assumptions only.

[apple23]

I know, but the fact that some people don't speak/write English as their mother-tongue and also the fact that they are not able/not willing to make an effort to write a piece of text with a good build up, makes situations like the one of Dave understandable. These forums have people all over the world, so the emphasis should be heavily on the topic and not on he grammar. At least, that's the way I see it.

Well as you can see, this is an english-speaking forum. I personally think that to participate in an english-speaking board you should learn the language and have a decent understanding of the language. It's understandable if you have bad grammar because you are still learning the language, but so long as the sentances are fluent and understandable, I'm fine with it. However, if you don't want to put the effort into learning the language and being able to form coherent sentances, that's just ridiculous and you shouldn't be on an english speaking board in the first place.

This is not talking directly about you, but about people in general. Even if you are dyslexic you do a decent job at writing/typing and like you said your strong arguments compensate for any poor grammar or conventions.


Heh well if they were doing a really really good job why did cnc 3 suck? Why is the online part of it dead so soon? It was touted as an online gamers paradise! Competitive gameplay, fast fluid etc etc blah blah and now noone plays it any more lol theres more people on company of heros than cnc 3 which is ridiculous for a command and conquer game. I dont mention how they advertised it as fast/fluid in the light that they did not deliver that, they did but it wasent any damn fun is the point im making here. I predict the same failure for ra3, same dev team, same lousy engine, total lack of immersiveness or fun, total failure.


Have you ever really played Kane's Wrath? Didn't think so.

[SgtRicko]

Well as you can see, this is an english-speaking forum. I personally think that to participate in an english-speaking board you should learn the language and have a decent understanding of the language. It's understandable if you have bad grammar because you are still learning the language, but so long as the sentances are fluent and understandable, I'm fine with it. However, if you don't want to put the effort into learning the language and being able to form coherent sentances, that's just ridiculous and you shouldn't be on an english speaking board in the first place.

This is not talking directly about you, but about people in general. Even if you are dyslexic you do a decent job at writing/typing and like you said your strong arguments compensate for any poor grammar or conventions.

I would have to disagree with you on that, Apple. From what I've seen, the majority of the less readable posts actually come from people who speak English as the main language, but just don't give a damn about using it correctly. If anything I'd say the foreign posters tend to be more meticulous with their grammar at times, and actually make a point to use spell checkers and such. Granted, there are times where you wish the other party would learn to speak more coherently (or maybe just grab a dictionary), but for the most part, it's still legible.

[truefeel]

Well as you can see, this is an english-speaking forum. I personally think that to participate in an english-speaking board you should learn the language and have a decent understanding of the language. It's understandable if you have bad grammar because you are still learning the language, but so long as the sentances are fluent and understandable, I'm fine with it. However, if you don't want to put the effort into learning the language and being able to form coherent sentances, that's just ridiculous and you shouldn't be on an english speaking board in the first place.

Yes, I know this is an english speaking forum. I also totally understand the point of view you have. I'm just saying you should not take it that much on your heart that some peeps their efforts aren't enough or that they are hampered by a limited knowledge of the english. The problem for them is that most of such forums are english.

This is not talking directly about you, but about people in general. Even if you are dyslexic you do a decent job at writing/typing and like you said your strong arguments compensate for any poor grammar or conventions.

Thx mate. I do know though that you weren't directly pointing this at me. You don't have to say that explicit :).

[Daishi]

Could everyone stop feeding the troll already? It's already too clear he's either at his intellectual limit or he's not putting any real effort into his argument. All he's trying to do is piss anyone who disagrees with him off.

[SgtRicko]

Could everyone stop feeding the troll already? It's already too clear he's either at his intellectual limit or he's not putting any real effort into his argument. All he's trying to do is piss anyone who disagrees with him off.


But isn't that what the internets is all about, Daishi???:p

[Soviet779]

Right, but you still missed the point. I never said anywhere that a big company makes always quality games. Furthermore, scientific research claimed that Marketing influences the buying of people very indirectly. People instead focus on known names to buy things. EA indeed has a good marketing, but it plays a much smaller role then you might assume.

Use your head, dont be a fool like apple23, if they didnt have good marketing to begin with noone would know or care about the EA name.... marketing makes name, not the other way around, marketing plays a huge role.

I've never played the game, so I can't judge it myself. However, I've looked for critical review marks. It scored well: GameRankings gove it 79/100, Gamespot 87/100, IGN 76/100. That says ALOT.
I also want to note that you speak if it is generally accepted that it is not such a good game, while it truly is your opinion. This be "Apple-ish", but use better sentences to express the right meaning.

It sucked, the supposed trilogy is dead in the water. Go read the petroglyph forums, this is petroglyphs own fans talking not just me making up stuff.


*snip*
Also saying that nobody plays it is a real understatement; I would agree though with this if it was posted a year later.

Nobody plays it. I know this, i played it and less than 400 people were showing up online regularly and this was agges ago which sucks. Fact.

[truefeel]

Use your head, dont be a fool like apple23, if they didnt have good marketing to begin with noone would know or care about the EA name.... marketing makes name, not the other way around, marketing plays a huge role.I think I use my head alot more then you. Marketing indeed made EA in the past, but not in times we are living. EA is an established name; marketing is not being noted as much as you like to believe. I also want to point for the 4th or 5th time that you really need to stop your insults against Apple. Who do hell you think you are to insult him (or anybody else) in this section?

It sucked, the supposed trilogy is dead in the water. Go read the petroglyph forums, this is petroglyphs own fans talking not just me making up stuff.Then come up with proof if it is really so.

Nobody plays it. I know this, i played it and less than 400 people were showing up online regularly and this was agges ago which sucks. Fact.No, opinion. 400 people is still rather decent. I even believe in time that amount will rise again, b/c of the unbalanced KW will loose eventually alot of players. I say this b/c the same happened with YR back in the time, which is a completely comparable situation (unbalanced game+no actions from EA to brimg out balance patches).

[Soviet779]

I think I use my head alot more then you. Marketing indeed made EA in the past, but not in times we are living. EA is an established name; marketing is not being noted as much as you like to believe. I also want to point for the 4th or 5th time that you really need to stop your insults against Apple. Who do hell you think you are to insult him (or anybody else) in this section?

I forgot to mention this last time lol, EA dosent even have a good name! I dunno how i missed such an obvious point with that... EA has a terrible freakin name, they are associated with copy/paste titles, lousy quality games, and of course DRM. Well point it out for a 6th time then, apple is a presumptuous dickhead and dosent have a clue what constitutes a good game.

Then come up with proof if it is really so.

Like i said go read petroglyphs forums, im not interested in "proving" anything to you, if you are interested enough to find out you will go over there and poke around or google it.

No, opinion. 400 people is still rather decent. I even believe in time that amount will rise again, b/c of the unbalanced KW will loose eventually alot of players. I say this b/c the same happened with YR back in the time, which is a completely comparable situation (unbalanced game+no actions from EA to brimg out balance patches).

No 400 sucks, you clearly have no idea about the scale of online games. Let me just dumb it down a little for you. Starcraft is a big name franchise, so is cnc, 50.000 people are regularly on starcraft (no theyre not all korean, and if they were so what) fifty freakin thousand after 10 years.... Thats extremely impressive, and its because of the UMS maps (custom maps to you). Whereas after only 4 months cnc3's online is dead in the water with 400 or less people lol, thats pathetic. Dont bother using RA2 or YR as examples, i was playing them when they came out and there were far more people on them than with cnc3. Plus people played them for much longer.

One last example to get through your thick skull that cnc3 failed. Company of heros has around 5000-8000 people on regularly. A WWII RTS that isnt particularly easy for newbs and requries a decent computer to run (much more than cnc3 requires) has more than 10x the players. Thats pathetic on cnc3's part.

[truefeel]

I forgot to mention this last time lol, EA dosent even have a good name! I dunno how i missed such an obvious point with that... EA has a terrible freakin name, they are associated with copy/paste titles, lousy quality games, and of course DRM. Well point it out for a 6th time then, apple is a presumptuous dickhead and dosent have a clue what constitutes a good game.And yet again you let your ego, your chidlishness do the speaking, instead of making a good relevant post.

Like i said go read petroglyphs forums, im not interested in "proving" anything to you, if you are interested enough to find out you will go over there and poke around or google it.Oh no no no. It was your point, so you have to prove it. Until you haven't, your point actually remains invalid.

No 400 sucks, you clearly have no idea about the scale of online games. Let me just dumb it down a little for you. Starcraft is a big name franchise, so is cnc, 50.000 people are regularly on starcraft (no theyre not all korean, and if they were so what) fifty freakin thousand after 10 years.... Thats extremely impressive, and its because of the UMS maps (custom maps to you). Whereas after only 4 months cnc3's online is dead in the water with 400 or less people lol, thats pathetic. Dont bother using RA2 or YR as examples, i was playing them when they came out and there were far more people on them than with cnc3. Plus people played them for much longer.You cannot compare the 2 games. Due the fact EA rushes games out, 400 online players for a cnc game is rather average. You might find 400 players not worth, but I and others do find that enough. Also for a fact I have played RA2 and YR from the beginning stages and RA2 was rather empty with the release of YR, but after a good half year people suddenly came back to RA2 b/c everybody realises the balance was of a very low quality. They indeed had more players back then, but after another year player amounts dropped. TW has dropped rather fast due to the fast releases of KW and RA3, but I do think alot of people will get back to TW.

One last example to get through your thick skull that cnc3 failed. Company of heros has around 5000-8000 people on regularly. A WWII RTS that isnt particularly easy for newbs and requries a decent computer to run (much more than cnc3 requires) has more than 10x the players. Thats pathetic on cnc3's part.Like I said, earlier: you cannot compare 2 completely different games. That's an irrelevant point.

I hope you stop posting, b/c truly, you are embarrasing yourself. I tried in every possible way to say you have to build your posts on decent arguments, and not saying something and hoping it will be a lucky shot.

[Zardac the Great]

"apple ... dosent have a clue what constitutes a good game."


Because he disagrees with you?

Different people like different games. Get over it.

http://despair.com/giveup.html

[apple23]

I would have to disagree with you on that, Apple. From what I've seen, the majority of the less readable posts actually come from people who speak English as the main language, but just don't give a damn about using it correctly. If anything I'd say the foreign posters tend to be more meticulous with their grammar at times, and actually make a point to use spell checkers and such. Granted, there are times where you wish the other party would learn to speak more coherently (or maybe just grab a dictionary), but for the most part, it's still legible.

Actually, you kind of suported my point there. The only thing you added there was that most foregin language-speakers are more literate than the dumber posters here, which is understandable because whether english is thier native tongue or not, some people just don't give a crap about having good english.

Anyways, I do agree with you and I do appreciate the people who do put in the effort to have good english and have readable and fluent posts.



I forgot to mention this last time lol, EA dosent even have a good name! I dunno how i missed such an obvious point with that... EA has a terrible freakin name, they are associated with copy/paste titles, lousy quality games, and of course DRM. Well point it out for a 6th time then, apple is a presumptuous dickhead and dosent have a clue what constitutes a good game.


I love how you always try to gratify your piss-poor arguments with a little insult to me. This is bordering on obsession; it's just ridiculous.

The rest of your posts bear no response...

[Soviet779]

You cannot compare the 2 games. Due the fact EA rushes games out, 400 online players for a cnc game is rather average. You might find 400 players not worth, but I and others do find that enough. Also for a fact I have played RA2 and YR from the beginning stages and RA2 was rather empty with the release of YR, but after a good half year people suddenly came back to RA2 b/c everybody realises the balance was of a very low quality. They indeed had more players back then, but after another year player amounts dropped. TW has dropped rather fast due to the fast releases of KW and RA3, but I do think alot of people will get back to TW.

No most gamers are smart enough to steer clear of rushed games, and its not all about balance, i said it before starcraft wasent entirely successful due to its balance, its the same reason warcraft and diablo were successful, you are simply too blind/thick to see that or you have never played a good game before.

You admit EA rushes games and has crap balance yet you think RA3 will be a decent game..... HAHAHAHA How dumb are you :lol:

Like I said, earlier: you cannot compare 2 completely different games. That's an irrelevant point.
*snip*

Your post smelled like **** so i cleaned it up a little. You can compare two completely different games, and these games arent completely different anyway, ill bold this for you since you are either just incredibly stupid or dont even know what company of heros is: they are both RTS games therefore they are both comparable :rolleyes: Just because your favoured game dosent stack up well dosent mean the comparison is unfair. Cnc 3 sucks, deal with it.


I love how you always try to gratify your piss-poor arguments with a little insult to me. This is bordering on obsession; it's just ridiculous.

The rest of your posts bear no response...

Lol i ignore 90% of what you post apple, you are a douche and im calling you out on it, hardly an obsession, its just you are stupid enough to take the bait every time, noone else here seems that thick.

[Annihlator :D]

No most gamers are smart enough to steer clear of rushed games, and its not all about balance, i said it before starcraft wasent entirely successful due to its balance, its the same reason warcraft and diablo were successful, you are simply too blind/thick to see that or you have never played a good game before.

No, most gamers are not that smart. Take for example Halo 2, which was rushed, but still sold an amazing amount of games. Or C&C3 for that matter, which really was rushed, and could have been a lot better, but still ranked 5th for most copies sold the year it came out, and the top 2 were WoW and Burning Crusade, and The Sims 2, which are to be expected.



Your post smelled like **** so i cleaned it up a little. You can compare two completely different games, and these games arent completely different anyway, ill bold this for you since you are either just incredibly stupid or dont even know what company of heros is: they are both RTS games therefore they are both comparable :rolleyes: Just because your favoured game dosent stack up well dosent mean the comparison is unfair. Cnc 3 sucks, deal with it.

No. that's like comparing Halo and CoD4, the only similarities are that you shoot things from a first person perspective, everything else being different.

[truefeel]

No most gamers are smart enough to steer clear of rushed games, and its not all about balance, i said it before starcraft wasent entirely successful due to its balance, its the same reason warcraft and diablo were successful, you are simply too blind/thick to see that or you have never played a good game before.

You admit EA rushes games and has crap balance yet you think RA3 will be a decent game..... HAHAHAHA How dumb are you :lol:



Your post smelled like **** so i cleaned it up a little. You can compare two completely different games, and these games arent completely different anyway, ill bold this for you since you are either just incredibly stupid or dont even know what company of heros is: they are both RTS games therefore they are both comparable :rolleyes: Just because your favoured game dosent stack up well dosent mean the comparison is unfair. Cnc 3 sucks, deal with it.



Lol i ignore 90% of what you post apple, you are a douche and im calling you out on it, hardly an obsession, its just you are stupid enough to take the bait every time, noone else here seems that thick.

You are typical a person who doesn't know what to say anymore when he gets outtalked, and then just flames to not look like he's going down. If you don't have the intelligence to communicate, I fear that you will end up soon or later on the streets, b/c nobody wants a person with such a low IQ. I will take the less worse pieces out of your post:

You admit EA rushes games and has crap balance yet you think RA3 will be a decent game

Rushing games does not automatically mean the game is not decent. I was pointing on the consequences of it, but unlike the others, you completely failed to understand that.

they are both RTS games therefore they are both comparable :rolleyes: Just because your favoured game dosent stack up well dosent mean the comparison is unfair. Cnc 3 sucks, deal with it.


I don't favour any game, I agree totally starcraft is a better, but unlike you I don't let myself lead by subjective ignorance. The game are uncomparable, b/c games of EA succes eachother at a rapid pace, making that the players also rapidly shift between games, or that some people simply choose not to participate at that chain. Blizzard however chooses to stick with one game for a very long time, which means gamers also stick a very long time to that game (very long aftermarket support), so that blizzard games also have for a longer time more players.

So in short, the lifespan of starcraft and cnc are completely different, and that makes those 2 games uncomparable. You can't just claim that one game has a better potentional then the other, and certainly not based on the numbers of how many people play it.

If you now still lack the intelligence to understand this, I give up. Nobody can be this "dumb".

[apple23]

No most gamers are smart enough to steer clear of rushed games, and its not all about balance, i said it before starcraft wasent entirely successful due to its balance, its the same reason warcraft and diablo were successful, you are simply too blind/thick to see that or you have never played a good game before.

You admit EA rushes games and has crap balance yet you think RA3 will be a decent game..... HAHAHAHA How dumb are you :lol:



Your post smelled like **** so i cleaned it up a little. You can compare two completely different games, and these games arent completely different anyway, ill bold this for you since you are either just incredibly stupid or dont even know what company of heros is: they are both RTS games therefore they are both comparable :rolleyes: Just because your favoured game dosent stack up well dosent mean the comparison is unfair. Cnc 3 sucks, deal with it.



Lol i ignore 90% of what you post apple, you are a douche and im calling you out on it, hardly an obsession, its just you are stupid enough to take the bait every time, noone else here seems that thick.

You are the most ignorant person I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. How can you call yourself a gamer when you say retarded crap like:


You can compare two completely different games, and these games arent completely different anyway, ill bold this for you since you are either just incredibly stupid or dont even know what company of heros is: they are both RTS games therefore they are both comparable :rolleyes:

Honestly, you haven't a single clue what you are talking about, just go away.


Lol i ignore 90% of what you post apple, you are a douche and im calling you out on it, hardly an obsession, its just you are stupid enough to take the bait every time, noone else here seems that thick.


And the grand finale there. Epic fail. You are so wrapped around yourself with your head so far up your ass you can't even tell the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

[yurihomer]

You can compare two completely different games, and these games arent completely different anyway, ill bold this for you since you are either just incredibly stupid or dont even know what company of heros is: they are both RTS games therefore they are both comparable :rolleyes: Just because your favoured game dosent stack up well dosent mean the comparison is unfair. Cnc 3 sucks, deal with it.

well, u can't really compare company of heroes with cnc 3. first of all, the playing style is different, in CoH, u cap points to gain resources, and in cnc 3, u just spam refineries. and in CoH, its all about unit micro, where in cnc 3 is more about out spamming ur opponent. in my opinion, CoH is way way way more strategy involved than cnc 3, and it is way way way more realistic strategy game. since it takes the map surroundng into game play (e.g. green covers, line of sight, decap strategic points so that ur opponent's territory doesn't connect together) and i do agree with ya on the part that that cnc 3 suck, i played it for couple months and its just spam fest...
and i somehow don't have a good feeling on the red alert 3 (well, i do have to say that their movie and the girls do make me wana get the game :D)

[apple23]

Can we beat this horse any more? We got it already, CNC3 was crap compared to some of the best RTS games of all time. That has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of RA3. Let's finally put the "CNC3 was crap!" stuff to rest because most everyone agreed that CNC3 was pretty bad to say the least. KW was okay; CNC3 was not.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

well, u can't really compare company of heroes with cnc 3. first of all, the playing style is different, in CoH, u cap points to gain resources, and in cnc 3, u just spam refineries. and in CoH, its all about unit micro, where in cnc 3 is more about out spamming ur opponent. in my opinion, CoH is way way way more strategy involved than cnc 3, and it is way way way more realistic strategy game. since it takes the map surroundng into game play (e.g. green covers, line of sight, decap strategic points so that ur opponent's territory doesn't connect together) and i do agree with ya on the part that that cnc 3 suck, i played it for couple months and its just spam fest...
and i somehow don't have a good feeling on the red alert 3 (well, i do have to say that their movie and the girls do make me wana get the game :D)

And all strategy games bow to Chess, or Panzer General.

[SgtRicko]

well, u can't really compare company of heroes with cnc 3. first of all, the playing style is different, in CoH, u cap points to gain resources, and in cnc 3, u just spam refineries. and in CoH, its all about unit micro, where in cnc 3 is more about out spamming ur opponent. in my opinion, CoH is way way way more strategy involved than cnc 3, and it is way way way more realistic strategy game. since it takes the map surroundng into game play (e.g. green covers, line of sight, decap strategic points so that ur opponent's territory doesn't connect together) and i do agree with ya on the part that that cnc 3 suck, i played it for couple months and its just spam fest...
and i somehow don't have a good feeling on the red alert 3 (well, i do have to say that their movie and the girls do make me wana get the game :D)


But at the same time CoH had a pretty difficult and unforgiving learning curve.

In C&C3, you could quickly build up an army and get straight to the big action with little fuss. It was also possible to effectively cover several fronts while at the same time keeping up the main battle. That, and it wasn't very hard for a newbie to the game to understand and play it effectively, even online.

But in CoH, you're forced to work with such a small army that it actually starts to become annoying trying to control the bigger maps. Even worse, it's far too easy to get screwed over no matter what you do: spread out too thin, and your guys get picked off one by one by either a tank or sniper; focus on a single strong point, and you'll end up losing a ton of territory to a couple of engies with flamethrowers, or maybe a flak track.

[apple23]

Well, the thing is, CNC3's only real problem is the economy. THAT is what makes it spamfest. If the resourcing system used the node mechanic (one harvester per harvesting resource) The majority of CNC's most apparent problems would disappear. The only thing left for CNC3 would be small balance fixups where necessary and CNC3 would be a stellar game.

[Statalyzer]

And all strategy games bow to Chess, or Panzer General.

:\

[truefeel]

Well, the thing is, CNC3's only real problem is the economy. THAT is what makes it spamfest. If the resourcing system used the node mechanic (one harvester per harvesting resource) The majority of CNC's most apparent problems would disappear. The only thing left for CNC3 would be small balance fixups where necessary and CNC3 would be a stellar game.

Well, the so called spamfests are not a problem for me; I like big battles. I do agree though that they need to be limited to a certain point. EA tried that in KW by makig refineries and harvesters more expensive, but the only result from that is that rushing, a completely valid tactic in my eyes, is far too limited, while spamming still occurs late game (although epic units are great against spamfests). You could reduce the value of the tiberium crystals, or let harvesters harvest slower.

[EliteGi]

Well, the so called spamfests are not a problem for me; I like big battles. I do agree though that they need to be limited to a certain point. EA tried that in KW by makig refineries and harvesters more expensive, but the only result from that is that rushing, a completely valid tactic in my eyes, is far too limited, while spamming still occurs late game (although epic units are great against spamfests). You could reduce the value of the tiberium crystals, or let harvesters harvest slower.
I think a very good method of limiting the economy is the unloading time of the harvesters. If harvesters take a long time to unload (almost as long as it takes them to load up), the amount of harvesters you can use per refinery is significantly reduced. That's exactly how Tiberian Sun didn't have such a runaway economy.

Another way is to have the fields deplete and regenerate a good bit faster. This means a field with one or two harvesters is sustainable, but any more and the field will be depleted and then another field will have to be used.

Put these two in together and you'll find the economy becomes a lot more similar to the node system, but a bit more flexible. If only they gave it a little more thought, the economy could have been a good point about the game, not its single-biggest flaw.

[Soviet779]

well, u can't really compare company of heroes with cnc 3. first of all, the playing style is different, in CoH, u cap points to gain resources, and in cnc 3, u just spam refineries. and in CoH, its all about unit micro, where in cnc 3 is more about out spamming ur opponent. in my opinion, CoH is way way way more strategy involved than cnc 3, and it is way way way more realistic strategy game. since it takes the map surroundng into game play (e.g. green covers, line of sight, decap strategic points so that ur opponent's territory doesn't connect together) and i do agree with ya on the part that that cnc 3 suck, i played it for couple months and its just spam fest...
and i somehow don't have a good feeling on the red alert 3 (well, i do have to say that their movie and the girls do make me wana get the game :D)

RTS compares with RTS, they are different kinds, but at their core CoH and cnc are both RTS games done differently, they are comparable but obviously one shouldnt be judged based on the others gameplay, the fun factor and longevity of both games is the criteria for comparison. CoH has far greater longevity due to the things you mentioned which makes it more fun, really once you have played a 1v1 a 2v2 and a 3v3 in cnc 3 you are pretty much done. KW didnt change much either, it actually brought back all the old bugs cnc 3 used to have before patching because EA didnt even make KW, some other company did. That just shows how much they care about the franchise.

No. that's like comparing Halo and CoD4, the only similarities are that you shoot things from a first person perspective, everything else being different.

Halo and COD4.... wtf are you smoking? They are directly comparable... both FPS's both heavy on the multiplayer... get a grip :rolleyes:

[Annihlator :D]

Halo and COD4.... wtf are you smoking? They are directly comparable... both FPS's both heavy on the multiplayer... get a grip :rolleyes:

Even though you obviously play both differently? :wtf:

[apple23]

I think a very good method of limiting the economy is the unloading time of the harvesters. If harvesters take a long time to unload (almost as long as it takes them to load up), the amount of harvesters you can use per refinery is significantly reduced. That's exactly how Tiberian Sun didn't have such a runaway economy.

Another way is to have the fields deplete and regenerate a good bit faster. This means a field with one or two harvesters is sustainable, but any more and the field will be depleted and then another field will have to be used.

Put these two in together and you'll find the economy becomes a lot more similar to the node system, but a bit more flexible. If only they gave it a little more thought, the economy could have been a good point about the game, not its single-biggest flaw.

I am in part replying to truefeel's post, but more directly replying to you...

Anyways, the problem with the field mechanic is not how fast harvesters harvest, gather, how much they gather, etc., it is the fact that there is no limit on how many harvesters can harvest a resource. How did TS not have a runaway economy? It was partly because harvesters took longer to unload, but it was more or less the compelling fact that more money didn't give you a significant enough bonus in production (since there was no way to boost production speed; more factories didn't give any bonuses) the only reason you need money is so you can keep all necessary production queues going. If you had a strong enough economy to keep all necessary production queues going, then you had all the cash you needed, and extra harvesters was unnecessary.

Now why didn't RA2 have a runaway economy? Its economy negated both the facts I just presented. Harvesters unloaded instantly, and extra factories did boost production. Well, RA2 kind of did, but there was something that at least made it decent. Some kind of gameplay element that forced players to use moderation. Truth be told, I don't totally know, but I can guess that it is because to be successful in RA2, especially in early game, you had to balance economy and military. Too much economy, and you enemy outguns you and wins. Too much military, and you run out of cash and your enemy eventually outguns you.

Now with CNC3, money came so fast and easy that moderation was hardly a problem; just spam a few refineries and then you can run 2 wfs both crankin tanks and still make more refineries to boost your economy. Strip that field and simply move to the next one. Rinse and repeat until you have outspammed your opponent. Decreasing the overal value of tiberium would be a good way to fix it, (and make it startegically like RA2 in the point I presented above) but really the problem lies in the fact that you can have as many harvesters as you want on the field. If you could only have one harvester on that field, that would force you to claim more terrain to expand your economy, making it more strategic.


Halo and COD4.... wtf are you smoking? They are directly comparable... both FPS's both heavy on the multiplayer... get a grip :rolleyes:


Justifying a comparison by saying "They both happen to be FPS games" is like comparing Bill Gates and Paris Hilton and saying "Well, they are both humans."

[EliteGi]

Anyways, the problem with the field mechanic is not how fast harvesters harvest, gather, how much they gather, etc., it is the fact that there is no limit on how many harvesters can harvest a resource. How did TS not have a runaway economy? It was partly because harvesters took longer to unload, but it was more or less the compelling fact that more money didn't give you a significant enough bonus in production (since there was no way to boost production speed; more factories didn't give any bonuses) the only reason you need money is so you can keep all necessary production queues going. If you had a strong enough economy to keep all necessary production queues going, then you had all the cash you needed, and extra harvesters was unnecessary.
I disagree. Play Tiberian Sun, on a Westwood map against a decent player and then tell me how easy it is to get the economy going to support continuous vehicle, aircraft and structure construction. Not very easy at all (and on some maps it simply can't be done). From what I can tell about C&C3 (so correct me here if I'm wrong), TS has slower harvs, longer gathering time (and a long unloading time to go with it) and is Tiberium less valuable?

Sometimes to get to the next field (which will need an expansion to get there), you will have to sell all your refineries and any defenses at the previous field, halt production and then restructure your entire base. It's very hard to perfect and when you are being hassled with base-destroying units, it really keeps your economy in check.

What I really like about the field system is that it's far less restricting. Yes, we can agree that C&C3 really implemented it badly, but I really don't think that's because of the multiple production. If someone could make a mod for TS right now which allowed multiple production, I can guarantee you there'd be little VERY little difference in the economies you see. I can't stress this enough here - there'd be very little difference in the amount of refineries and harvesters people build.

However, on Red Alert 2 it's clear the economies would change drastically. That's because RA2 has a much faster economy which is very easy to maintain and any expansions are less prone.

With a properly implemented field system there is a lot more skill required to judge a good military and an economy throughout the game. SURELY anything that requires more strategy and planning, whilst adding more variability to the gameplay is good for a RTS game.

[truefeel]

However, on Red Alert 2 it's clear the economies would change drastically. That's because RA2 has a much faster economy which is very easy to maintain and any expansions are less prone.

Well, the resources in RA2 are directly unloaded, unlike TS and CNC3. The real difference though is that the manners of playing RA2 and YR are very very perfected and the economic/production factor is maxed out. I believe this will happen for CNC3 and KW also, after a few years. Also a main difference is that in RA2 and YR is that expansion bases like in CNC3 and KW, are very little seen. Instead, RA2 and YR players just basewalk from one ore field to another, which is rather easy as most of the normal buildings have 2 cells build radius, while in CNC3/KW only a few buildings have build radius. So you automatically will think that RA2/YR are all about tank spamming. That is true to an extend, as rushing is also another important factor.

I personal think that tiberium should only be slower mined. Tank spamming should not be completely erased. In long games it should still exists.

[Soviet779]

Even though you obviously play both differently? :wtf:

Well you clearly havent played them at all... see this is the kind of retarded arguement i would expect from apple23. Hardly worth my time tbh. :rolleyes:

[truefeel]

Well you clearly havent played them at all... see this is the kind of retarded arguement i would expect from apple23. Hardly worth my time tbh. :rolleyes:

Then why are you here? if you think it's not worth your time, then why do you still insist in posting?

[Neo]

TOPIC CLOSED!

STOP THE FLAMING IN THE WRONG SPOTS BEFORE I GO ON A BANNING SPREE!