Soooo EA's CnC Forums...

[Shiner]

Peaches, I soooo forgot about Dune. Thanks for reminding me.
Now, to remind you of one more Dune game: Emperor, battle for Dune.

I loved the idea of the game, though it troubled me that the maps were way to small and the gameplay was annoying sometimes. But the combination of all things: using the smaller "factions" (Guild, Fremen etc.), the sandstorms and, above all, riding the sandworms, made a few nice things. Also, it is one of the first RTS games where you could look at the battlefield from a 360 degree perspective.

[Peaches]

I finished the GDI campaign yesterday. It was the first time I actually was good enough (read : not ****ty) to finally complete the commando mission. Massing Mammoths with MLRS and Orca support was something I had never done before, since there's no skirmish.

MAN. The sounds of those missiles. I just can't get enough.

On to the Nod now.

[Mistfox]

Yeah I was old enough to play Dune 2, the original, and I remember the guys in our computer club actually hacking into the DOSShell to mod the game. It was hilirious, having the sandworm's control changed to your faction. What was even more hilarious was that the sandworm unit only had one command. "Attack" "Attack" "Attack" and "Attack". It really cracked us up to see that, now we know sandworms have one track minds.

CnC1 was a classic. It may be dated now, but it was cutting edge, or even slightly above cutting edge when it 1st came out, and the idea of a plant leeching minerals out of the soil and turning the area toxic but valuable was groundbreaking in it's concept and the backstory was wonderful, no weird alien stuff. It really started getting weird with the Tactius, Mutants, Scrim and Pseudo-religious crap, and really capped it off with the really terrible CnC4. I mean, it was bad in 2 and 3 but at least you wanted to know how it ended, but 4 really felt like a rush job to wrap up the story, and wrap up they did. Badly. Pity. C&C was one of the most memorable series I've ever played, but the finale was a really bad let down.

[Shiner]

Actually, C&C: TD already had some mutations. 2 types of viceroids if I remember correctly.

But that aside: RA1. Don't forget about the ants!

[Sir Shockwave]

Hoo boy, Command & Conquer...where to begin...

So I should mention I've been following C&C since I was eight years old. I should also add my very first game EVER was the original Red Alert. I've followed the series ever since, with Yuri's Revenge still being my favorite.

And then we get to the EA era, where the Community and Franchise slowly starts to go downhill. Generals was released first - and people complained, like a new Matt Ward Codex had just been released. While I admit I was originally an Anti Generals preacher approx. 4 years ago ("EA KILLED C&C!" and other such ******ed phrases), I have since turned 180 on that. Generals, for all it's differences, wasn't actually bad.

Same goes with C&C 3/KW. One of the big complaints about it was CONTINUITY. Proof that Sonic isn't the only fandom that will give something a bad rap just because EA did not do the research (an example - in one case, the Tacitus (an alien device recovered in the previous Tiberian game - Tiberian Sun - was said to have been recovered in 2028...despite the fact that Tib Sun specifically time stamped one of the cutscenes as being 2030/2032 (depending on the source you read)). And yet no one complains about half the stuff the C&C Wiki writes up?

The series (for me at least) didn't officially Jump The Shark until Red Alert 3...where they took the point and missed it by a country mile. The acting in the Single Player was horrible and downright embarrassing for all (though some like George Takei do put in some effort in their performances - but I swear to god the chick from Hollyoaks ANNOYS me), and the unit choices...yes Red Alert had weird tech. But it was also practical. Things like the Tesla Coils, Mind Control Squid, Mammoth Tanks and Psionics were all former Research Projects, usually taken from around the Cold War era (though the closest analogy to the Mammoth Tank would be Land Battleships like the Ratte, though of course WAY smaller). RA3 replaced it with (and quoting one of my housemates) "a mix of racism and crack". Admittedly though, the gameplay is fairly solid, but still...

...And then we have C&C 4. Which is the C&C communities version of the Anti Christ. My opinion? It's good ideas, crap execution (y'know, like the average 1C Company game - Perimeter (especially the Sequels), Maelstrom etc). The Crawler system was interesting and could have worked...but was poorly implemented. There's also severe balance issues, which show up most notably in online play (e.g: we still have the Overpowered Engineers people were complaining about since Beta, as people simply build one or two units and fill the rest of their cap with Engineer type units). The Story itself was a colossal letdown, as well as Kane acting VERY out of character (despite Joe trying his hardest to play the role - though I swear in some shots Joe is not happy). Go watch any cutscene from Tib Sun or C&C 3, then go watch a cutscene from C&C 4 to note the difference.

All in all, if Victory don't deliver, then I think we can start preaching the whole C&C is dead thing. My main point though? C&C under EA wasn't ALL godawful...though I do think if Westwood were still around, the story would have been WAY more interesting (try and find some of their old notes regarding the original ending to the franchise if you can).

[Jetsam]

Generals was released first - and people complained, like a new Matt Ward Codex had just been released.

I lol'ed irl.

When it comes to the EA era of C&C I feel that they are all decent enough games (excluding C&C4 because that game is actually pretty boring) but somehow just don't feel like C&C games.

Generals was a pretty solid game but the only reason it ahs a C&C title on it is for marketing. it's just not a C&C game. Period.

C&C3 I also thought was a pretty good game; however, as you mentioned the continuity (or lack thereof) was terrible to the point of non-existence. Had EA done their research and actually continued the story from the earlier C&C games, I'm sure C&C3 would have been much better.

As for RA3: It's a really solid RTS game but, once again, just doesn't feel like it should deserve the title of C&C.

[Obliterati]

Ive not seen a c&c game worth playing since the first red alert, and i think that c&c 3 was the worst game ever made.

Call me a dinosaur, but growing up in the great age of rts's of the past, and seeing whats out there today is not really even a comparison. Seemingly the only fans of the new games werent really even around to see what a decent rts even looks like to begin with.

[QTrooper]

Personally I don't see what's the big deal with EA, sure they messed up CnC4 beyond belief and that's unforgiveable. BUT, Generals was BRILLIANT, Tiberium Wars was BRILLIANT and in my opinion atleast, so was Kane's Wrath (I'm a spectre kind of guy). However, in relation to this, I'm probably younger than the first game, how long ago was it? So the earlier versions don't apply to my "more graphics, less actually gameplay" style of thinking

For all those first decade owners there that havent watched the bonus disc, DO IT!!
You will learn that even thou EA released it, it is still a westwood idea/production. When making the first CnC they where trying to achieve something like generals, but never really got it right because of the technology restriction. As the technology progresses so did the CnC franchise until the technology was there to release the long waited game they have wanted to make. The downside of it, was that the idea along with other project where bought by EA. I think that EoN will be very close to what generals is and was, only on a much bigger scale.

PS: oh how i have wanted to say this XD

Edit: it seems i quoted the wrong post, i will try to repair it if i can.
Edit 2: nope i did indeed got the right one XD

[Sir Shockwave]

I lol'ed irl.

Glad I made someone's day.

Generals was a pretty solid game but the only reason it ahs a C&C title on it is for marketing. it's just not a C&C game. Period.

Point taken.

C&C3 I also thought was a pretty good game; however, as you mentioned the continuity (or lack thereof) was terrible to the point of non-existence. Had EA done their research and actually continued the story from the earlier C&C games, I'm sure C&C3 would have been much better.

Probably, though C&C 3 at least got the characterization of Kane somewhat right, a credit I can't give C&C 4.

As for RA3: It's a really solid RTS game but, once again, just doesn't feel like it should deserve the title of C&C.

Again agreed. Solid Gameplay...but it's a mix of Racism and Crack, something neither Red Alert game was (RA2 had Camp Factor, but it was well done Camp, and actually funny at times). It's nice to see the series you've been following since you first played distilled to the General Public as LOLCat Humor. And that is a bigger middle finger to me than almost anything I can think of (though the biggest is non C&C related, so it's not going to be mentioned here).

But yeah, EA are the Matt Ward of the C&C Franchise - horribly ******ed, missing the point fluff full of RetCons and Did Not Do The Research (and unlike some of Wards, these do not make ANY kind of logical sense), as well as cheap Gameplay and Tactics (since when did you do any thinking outside of "TANK RUSH!!!!"?). It's like the sort of thing I expect from a bad fan mod.

Oh, wait...http://wiki.paradoxmod.com/index.php?title=Main_Page