Matthew on 1/11/2006 at 09:21
Dude, C&C3 has a completely C-list cast for the FMVs. How can it not be brilliant??
DaMetzger on 3/11/2006 at 18:03
Quote Posted by Maddermadcat
Jesus, I hope they don't screw this up...
EA butchers every good franchise they get their hands on. C&C was ruined by Generals, and now they're making C&C 3 which will also suck without a doubt. If they screw up system shock, I'll start hurting the executives and I'm not sure when I'll stop.
I don't like EA as well, but to say they've ruined C&C is going overboard. Generals wasn't a bad game. I enjoyed playing it. C&C Generals simply wasn't C&C - no famous cutscenes, totally different setting, different way of building things etc. It was just another generic RTS, but well made.
Let's just hope that C&C3 and SS3 turn out to be worthy of bearing their titles.
Assidragon on 3/11/2006 at 23:24
Quote Posted by DaMetzger
C&C Generals simply wasn't C&C
Now, if that is not ruining a brand, I wonder what is.
Matthew on 5/11/2006 at 17:51
Yes, because Westwood didn't make any mistakes with C&C at all.
Game of Sole Survivor anyone?
kidmystik101 on 6/11/2006 at 07:48
Quote Posted by Matthew
Yes, because Westwood didn't make any mistakes with C&C
at all.
Game of Sole Survivor anyone?
Oh ****ing ZING!
Assidragon on 9/11/2006 at 02:25
Quote Posted by Matthew
Yes, because Westwood didn't make any mistakes with C&C
at all.
Game of Sole Survivor anyone?
They didn't manage to produce such a serie of blunders like Red Alert 2 and Generals. Those two effectively killed off C&C as-is, well done EA.
Matthew on 9/11/2006 at 12:53
In my opinion, RA2 was one of the best games playability-wise of the series.
DaMetzger on 9/11/2006 at 20:32
Quote Posted by Matthew
In my opinion, RA2 was one of the best games playability-wise of the series.
True to that. Fun to play and with all that specific C&C climate and humor. The Yuri's Revenge expansion was a bit overdone though with all the flying saucers and stuff...
Matthew on 9/11/2006 at 21:21
But really well balanced. Plus the fun of reversing some of the original RA2 missions appealed to me.
Assidragon on 10/11/2006 at 19:42
Quote Posted by Matthew
In my opinion, RA2 was one of the best games playability-wise of the series.
I'm not so sure about that; C&C games weren't particularly balanced, ever. Their usual balance was having a few somewhat ridicolous units on both sides and counting oh the fact that two wrongs will make a right. If something struck me in RA2, it was the fact everything looked like little plastic toys instead of real machines. I mean come on - zeppelins in a post-WW2 combat zone?! Giant squids? Dolphins armed with some funky sonic device? A vehicle that shapeshifts it's turret when somebody gets inside? It was a huge L O L, but I doubt that was the real intention behind the whole game.
But. Even if it
was the best balanced it had no connection to the C&C universe at all. Hell, they even retconned Kane, who was in many ways The Face of the C&C franchise. Where'd he go since RA1? How does he resurface later? Now, how does RA2 in any way connect to Tiberian Dawn? Red Alert 1 offered quite a few valid theories how NOD and GDI evolved from the situation. Who the heck is this Yuri, and where on earth did he just pop up from? What the hell is this "apocalypse tank" freakness - why not mammoth, as it always was? Et cetera. Great way to keep a serie alive, isn't it?
Personally, I wouldn't care if RA2 was the best game in the RTS history ever, it would still be the step where EA shows it doesn't care at all for the C&C universe as such. Apart from blatantly abusing the name to sell their games, that is.
