RaptorZefier
03-22-2010, 11:38 AM
Alright, after being on these forums the pass few days, I've seen a number of people telling people, "Don't worry about this and this!" "Why don't you like change?!" and generalizing what exactly is the problem with this game. So, I'm going to boil down the problems with this game into simple points as a rebuttal to what people have said.
1.) DRM isn't that bad! Yes it is. Constant internet connection is a pain, especially if you have an unstable internet connection and are prone to disconnects. Have other games done it before? Yes, Battleforge and other games being good examples. However, has a game with an established popular single-player campaign ever done it to this extent? Maybe, not not likely, and probably not to equally good effect.
Now, I have a stable internet connection, so this isn't a particular problem for me. However many of my friends do not have the same luxury, making playing with some of them actually impossible. So what's the point on spending $50.00 on a game that's unplayable with my friends?
In fact thanks to the EXP system, it would be made even worse, they'd have a harder time earning EXP, putting them behind me in unlocking units, and giving me a very unfair advantage over them.
Also the idea that the servers could go down, and this game would be useless to me, just rubs me the wrong way. Especially as I like to go back to games I enjoy years down the road and can disappear from games for months at a time doing other things.
2.) You don't like change! And you don't like keeping things the same with improved graphics! There's no pleasing you people!
This statement irks me beyond belief, so let me put this in words that refine your statement.
I do not like change to games that eliminate that game's identity and what made it stand out from other games.
This is what happened in C&C4, you can beat up and down they're doing something 'original' all you'd like, but they're really following DoW2 and Company of Heroes territory capturing formula, so, it's more the illusion of being original. Now, this change suited Dawn of War, it was already about point capturing and reinforcing squads, and the game only solidified the intensity of Dawn of War. While I preferred larger scale battles, I still like the game and find it fun. But more importantly the game kept that which set it apart from other RTS games. It was still Dawn of War.
It kept its grungy Warhammer 40k styling, its brutal sync kills, and its desperate struggle to control the strategic points on a map while still tweaking its formula in a good way.
Starcraft 2 is something often brought up here. It is a lot like the original with upgraded graphics, that's true, it doesn't veer too far from its original formula. However, wasn't that really what identifies Starcraft as a whole from other RTS games? Its fast paced gameplay, strategic base building, smooth progression and intense units. In large part this was what made SC stand out from other RTS games, so they didn't change that in the sequel.
They added small things to spice things up, like high yield resources, observation posts, destroyable terrain, and the massive change to the single player campaign, but they kept what made Starcraft, Starcraft. Is change good? Yes, but there's such a thing as -too much- change.
Lets look at Command and Conquer again, what identifies C&C? When you think C&C, what sets it apart from other RTS games? For me, it's its large scale action, its jazzy industrial theme, its gripping story, its Tibuerium filled fields, and its massive swathe of units flushing over the fields while Mammoth Tanks make the most satisfying squishing noise while they run over infantry.
So how much of this showed up in C&C4? Well you can't run over infantry now, that was balanced out, starting from the bottom up. Tiberium was reduced to Nodes, effectively mirroring Dawn of War rather then being C&C. It's taken on a far more Cyberpunk and cluttered feel, the units almost looking cartoonish and lego-like rather then keeping their industrial grungy look. Story, can't say much as I haven't played, but I've heard bad things about Nod's ending. Large Scale action was generally reduced thanks to the unit cap. . .
tl;dr They scrapped what actually made C&C identify itself from other RTS games. Let me ask you this, why exactly should I spend money on a game a lot like Dawn of War 2, when I already have Dawn of War 2?
3.) The MP is fun!
Ok I'll give you that, but as I said in my previous point I can also have fun in Dawn of War 2's MP. To me C&C had a powerful SP through its entire series, something no other RTS had to that kind of power, and lately we've been seeing games go downhill with the SP aspect. It's a shame that a game that was so great with its SP is now sacrificing it for MP.
Heck, I'd re-play C&C 1 through 3's SP many times over because I simply loved it. For what they've had to sacrifice to make the MP, it doesn't seem worth it to me. However, I'm not trying to make you change your mind about the game, I'm simply backing up my points.
These are the reasons my money is going to some other game. Call me an old time gamer, call me whatever you like, but my points still stand until refuted.
/rant
1.) DRM isn't that bad! Yes it is. Constant internet connection is a pain, especially if you have an unstable internet connection and are prone to disconnects. Have other games done it before? Yes, Battleforge and other games being good examples. However, has a game with an established popular single-player campaign ever done it to this extent? Maybe, not not likely, and probably not to equally good effect.
Now, I have a stable internet connection, so this isn't a particular problem for me. However many of my friends do not have the same luxury, making playing with some of them actually impossible. So what's the point on spending $50.00 on a game that's unplayable with my friends?
In fact thanks to the EXP system, it would be made even worse, they'd have a harder time earning EXP, putting them behind me in unlocking units, and giving me a very unfair advantage over them.
Also the idea that the servers could go down, and this game would be useless to me, just rubs me the wrong way. Especially as I like to go back to games I enjoy years down the road and can disappear from games for months at a time doing other things.
2.) You don't like change! And you don't like keeping things the same with improved graphics! There's no pleasing you people!
This statement irks me beyond belief, so let me put this in words that refine your statement.
I do not like change to games that eliminate that game's identity and what made it stand out from other games.
This is what happened in C&C4, you can beat up and down they're doing something 'original' all you'd like, but they're really following DoW2 and Company of Heroes territory capturing formula, so, it's more the illusion of being original. Now, this change suited Dawn of War, it was already about point capturing and reinforcing squads, and the game only solidified the intensity of Dawn of War. While I preferred larger scale battles, I still like the game and find it fun. But more importantly the game kept that which set it apart from other RTS games. It was still Dawn of War.
It kept its grungy Warhammer 40k styling, its brutal sync kills, and its desperate struggle to control the strategic points on a map while still tweaking its formula in a good way.
Starcraft 2 is something often brought up here. It is a lot like the original with upgraded graphics, that's true, it doesn't veer too far from its original formula. However, wasn't that really what identifies Starcraft as a whole from other RTS games? Its fast paced gameplay, strategic base building, smooth progression and intense units. In large part this was what made SC stand out from other RTS games, so they didn't change that in the sequel.
They added small things to spice things up, like high yield resources, observation posts, destroyable terrain, and the massive change to the single player campaign, but they kept what made Starcraft, Starcraft. Is change good? Yes, but there's such a thing as -too much- change.
Lets look at Command and Conquer again, what identifies C&C? When you think C&C, what sets it apart from other RTS games? For me, it's its large scale action, its jazzy industrial theme, its gripping story, its Tibuerium filled fields, and its massive swathe of units flushing over the fields while Mammoth Tanks make the most satisfying squishing noise while they run over infantry.
So how much of this showed up in C&C4? Well you can't run over infantry now, that was balanced out, starting from the bottom up. Tiberium was reduced to Nodes, effectively mirroring Dawn of War rather then being C&C. It's taken on a far more Cyberpunk and cluttered feel, the units almost looking cartoonish and lego-like rather then keeping their industrial grungy look. Story, can't say much as I haven't played, but I've heard bad things about Nod's ending. Large Scale action was generally reduced thanks to the unit cap. . .
tl;dr They scrapped what actually made C&C identify itself from other RTS games. Let me ask you this, why exactly should I spend money on a game a lot like Dawn of War 2, when I already have Dawn of War 2?
3.) The MP is fun!
Ok I'll give you that, but as I said in my previous point I can also have fun in Dawn of War 2's MP. To me C&C had a powerful SP through its entire series, something no other RTS had to that kind of power, and lately we've been seeing games go downhill with the SP aspect. It's a shame that a game that was so great with its SP is now sacrificing it for MP.
Heck, I'd re-play C&C 1 through 3's SP many times over because I simply loved it. For what they've had to sacrifice to make the MP, it doesn't seem worth it to me. However, I'm not trying to make you change your mind about the game, I'm simply backing up my points.
These are the reasons my money is going to some other game. Call me an old time gamer, call me whatever you like, but my points still stand until refuted.
/rant