I am thoroughly excited to see this news. I've been playing since the first game debuted and I had my old 486DX. I was actually worried C&C would end after C&C4 because they started altering game play.
A lot of complaining about the game, but its run longer than most games could ever dream of. Most of the comments here are baseless garbage. Take the original game play, add better graphics, and get some great sound tracks. You've got a winner every time.
Having better graphics doesn't always make a game better. It's all about fun and game design. CC4 was bad because you always needed to be connected online. Second it had limited number of levels. Finished it in less than a week. No cheat codes and unrealistic levels for the ending. Hence, can't play in the air or traveling because wifi isn't constant and is pricey. In flight wireless like GOGO is a rip-off, $15 for an hour connection. Unless it's really for business like a contract win or large sales then there probably is a justification. Other than that, it's just impulse spending...
3 wasn't all too terrible, but I couldn't play 4 for more than a few minutes before I threw it away, it was the worst game ever.
As for Starcraft, I'm kind of pissed that I waited years for them to release 2 just to have to wait more countless years for them to finish the last 2/3 of the game...sigh
Red alert 3 is nothing, absolutely nothing compared to red alert 2 which IMO remains the best of the series.
Lots of interesting, creative units all still balanced with eachother, fun campaigns in traditional C&C style (the cheesy cut scenes where just as much part of C&C as base building was), and none of today's "micro" crap. The micro you did there was strategic movement of armies, positioning, flanking, that kind of stuff. None of the rock/paper/siccor abilities micro of today. If you'd build a bazillion light tanks that worked just fine. Even in multiplayer.
Generals wasn't so bad. I mean it was crap at the time, everybody said it was crap. And it was, compared to RA2 which was the previous game. Not just gameplay wise either, i modded generals back in the day and it was a real bitch to do so. Much harder then RA2 (just code wise not even graphics wise) and infinitly harder then warcraft 3 which was out at the time. And we knew it would lead to further degeneration of the classic C&C style games, namely C&C 3 and most obviously now, C&C 4.
If there's one franchise EA has F'ed up, it's C&C. It got better with each game, then EA took over, then it got progressively worse each game. I've got no doubt it'll look marvelous, and gameplay wise won't be so different from the original generals. But just remember: generals already was crap compared to what came before. With the new engine, considering what's in BF3.... I'm expecting a smaller unit cap then before.
By comparison, i once built 600 chinese infantry in generals just because i was bored and wanted to see the limits of the engine. I could move about 450 of them at the same time with cross-map selection (otherwise they would not move). But i could move them all at the same time in chunks. Bet ya 10 bucks frostbite 2 can't handle that.
Have you played the original? It had 3 campaigns, 1 for each race, the expansion also had 3, 1 for each race. I stand by my original statement. SC2 only has the Terran campaign, the '2 expansions' as you call it are campaigns for the other races, which I feel really just adds up to one game. I wouldn't have minded if they had announced this originally, or if they didn't take 12 years to make it, but I waited a long time just to get only one campaign. (I was also underway/on deployment alot at the time, so I didn't get to play it until ~8 months after it was out and I missed the part about it only being a Terran campaign until I got back)
The only bigger disappointment I had last year was when I played C&C 4, I mean, really, that was the worst excuse for a game ever. I tried so hard to like it, the tiberian sun franchise was my favorite by far, but really, support MCVs, WTF.
Yes, I bought Starcraft and Brood War the day they were released.
The original game had three campaigns, 30 missions total. SC2 has nearly as many missions and takes about as long to complete as Starcraft and Brood War.
Your logic only makes sense if Starcraft 2 had a third as many missions as it shipped with. As it stands, you're getting even more content and a much bigger campaign in the end.
Obviously you are missing the core principal of my argument, so i will use an analogy as I would to a child. The original SC to me was like Neapolitan ice cream, chocolate (Protoss, by far my favorite), Vanilla (Terran, which I can stomach, but not as good as chocolate) and Strawberry (Zerg, which I hate.) I was expecting another Neapolitan game, but was delivered Vanilla. True, there is just as much Vanilla ice cream than the Neapolitan combined (not arguing with you there, but as it turns out we aren't in the 90s anymore), but its still not the same. To look at your argument look at WC 2 vs WC3. I got more enjoyment out of SC than WC2, and WC3 included all races and I got much more game play than WC2, same with Frozen throne. I expected the same with SC2, all the races and much more gameplay, my expectations weren't met, I am dissapointed, end of story.
So it's an RTS? Hmm will be interesting to see what Bioware can do with an RTS, the singleplayer campaign should be good...
It's to bad they aren't making a game for the Tiberian or Red Alert universes, you know the two proper C&C universes, but I suppose they are both beyond saving thanks to EA Los Angeles... (Well maybe RA isn't completely dead yet but Tiberian sure is after C&C4)
BioWare Victory is the RTS heads from EALA who didn't just give up and leave. Now EALA is an asset house for FPS they needed somewhere to put the studio that kinda once was Westwood and so EA Victory was born. Now rebranded Bioware Victory, because if EA can do anything it is dilute a brand to the point where anyone with an interest in games can smell the stink.
So EA are releasing a 'Westwood' game, with a Bioware brand, on a service called Origin. Because that clearly reminds PC gamers of all the good EA have done for the industry.
I get the tongue-in-cheek irony and angst directed at EA by listing those names, but overall I think EA's influence on the industry is far more postive than negative.
I mean surely those studios/IPs are in a better place than some of the past stalwarts of the industry like Sierra, Interplay, SSI, FASA etc? There's a more modern tragedy unfolding before our eyes with what's happening to iD Software (currently dyng under Bethesda/ZeniMAX's banner).
Its just a volatile industry where IPs and dev studios tend to run their course rather quickly regardless of who's cutting the checks and printing their names on the boxes.
Unfortunately there's a bit of a boondoggle by EA going on here. C&C was never a BioWare game (nor was any other RTS), and "BioWare Victory" has nothing to do with the BioWare we all know, the development studio that EA purchased.
EA opened a new studio location and just decided to name it after their hottest development house, so the press would think BioWare had something to do with it. They don't.
...was EA's best title sans the original C&C 1 and 2. It was a veritable basehopping RTS as is Warcraft/Starcraft. Sadly both don't hold a candle to Relic's Company of Heroes/Dawn of War.
Well, sounds hopeful, but considering what has come of Bioware/EA recently, turning KOTOR into an MMO and whatever they did to Dragon Age 2, I have reservations.
I liked the Generals series, so I hope they put the emphasis on a really good single player campaign.
So much for BioWare maintaining its independence under EA, it seems like slapping the BioWare name on a dev studio has become the solution to try and clean up and rehab all of EA's failed IPs. First it was Warhammer Online, and now C&C? I'm sure there's at least some original BioWare talent involved too, at least at the leadership level.
I just worry BioWare is starting to be spread too thin with all the IPs they are working on. The quality level definitely dropped with Dragon Age 2 imo, probably shifted their manpower to work on SW The Old Republic which was really solid from what I saw in a few of the betas. I have really high hopes and expectations for Mass Effect 3 too, so hopefully they don't disappoint there.
RTS isn't something BioWare has ever been known for though, but EA partially funding Frostbite 2 development looks like it will pay off immediately. That's probably the most exciting part of all of this, as that engine will be an immediate and tangible upgrade to address one of BioWare's most glaring historical shortcomings: terrible graphics.
Yea I understand its a rebadged/relabeled studio with the BioWare name slapped on it, but whenever BioWare takes on this kind of studio assimilation, they move their own people in while integrating existing talent.
This is the same thing that happened to Mythic Entertainment, which is now BioWare Mythic and fully under BioWare's RPG division. BioWare moved their people into key positions when they took over and forced the old GM (Mark Jacobs) and anyone else who wasn't onboard out the door.
I thought we might get a little respect from EA. But no, always following the money.
*sigh*
Can EA not be...I don't know, set on fire or something? Is that not something that can happen? I hate this company with the fury of a thousand suns. They disrespect gamers, fans of series, programmers, employees, competitors. The people who run that company have transformed themselves into worthless human beings. And for what? A few percentage points on the bottom line? And what do they do with that money? Lobby congress to make it easier for them, and screw the working man.
I'd like to keep all the political nonsense out of at least one area of my life - entertainment. Leave it all at the door. Just make good games. But no, EA insists on stabbing me in the back at every turn. Want to work with a company that does treat customers with respect? Sure, buy on Steam - but we're going to pull our software because we can't compete with a company that doesn't work every day to screw gamers.
You can go fuck yourself EA. A thousand years of ill will towards EA, and bad sales on every game - until they start treating customers with respect.
I understand the ill feelings to EA, but I think Bioware must shoulder some of the blame too. Didnt they know what they were getting into when the sold out (in every sense of the term) to EA. They must have known they would be giving up alot of their independence and artistic control. I think they just got greedy.
If they reimplement the special installers that used to come with C&C games I may check it out despite the EA tag. I don't have much faith in that though since they went out of their way to remove the installers when they released that collection many years ago
Basically I want at least see a sign they plan to do more than milk the names of both Bioware and C&C
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
Back to Article
gevorg - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
So who is the Boogieman now? Freedom hating terrorists, evil Russians, or commie China?prophet001 - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link
naiveSandmanWN - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link
Hey, why not all 3?I am thoroughly excited to see this news. I've been playing since the first game debuted and I had my old 486DX. I was actually worried C&C would end after C&C4 because they started altering game play.
A lot of complaining about the game, but its run longer than most games could ever dream of. Most of the comments here are baseless garbage. Take the original game play, add better graphics, and get some great sound tracks. You've got a winner every time.
jconan - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link
Having better graphics doesn't always make a game better. It's all about fun and game design. CC4 was bad because you always needed to be connected online. Second it had limited number of levels. Finished it in less than a week. No cheat codes and unrealistic levels for the ending. Hence, can't play in the air or traveling because wifi isn't constant and is pricey. In flight wireless like GOGO is a rip-off, $15 for an hour connection. Unless it's really for business like a contract win or large sales then there probably is a justification. Other than that, it's just impulse spending...Sahrin - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link
>CC4 was bad because you always needed to be connected online.No, TT was bad because it was a bad game. It wasn't fun to play, the story was boring, and the mechanics sucked. It was a bad game.
Ronakbhai - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
Man, I stopped playing that crap after Red Alert came out. StarCraft has held my attention since then.MartiCode - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
I would love to play StarCraft, if they ever bothered to bring it on Steam, which sadly is unlikely...V-Money - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
3 wasn't all too terrible, but I couldn't play 4 for more than a few minutes before I threw it away, it was the worst game ever.As for Starcraft, I'm kind of pissed that I waited years for them to release 2 just to have to wait more countless years for them to finish the last 2/3 of the game...sigh
Ben - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
I agree. C&C 4 is an unfair comparison. It would have tanked no matter what it was called or who made it because it just SUCKED!I also thought C&C3 was OK, not really great, just OK.
Red Alert 3 was fun! That was probably the last one in the series I liked enough to play for a few weeks after I finished the SP campaign.
Oh, and Generals ruled too. Still does actually. Hopefully these guys don't F it up.
KoolAidMan1 - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
The key people who were responsible for Generals (ie - Dustin Browder) are now at Blizzard making Starcraft 2 the excellent RTS that it is.TSS - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link
Red alert 3 is nothing, absolutely nothing compared to red alert 2 which IMO remains the best of the series.Lots of interesting, creative units all still balanced with eachother, fun campaigns in traditional C&C style (the cheesy cut scenes where just as much part of C&C as base building was), and none of today's "micro" crap. The micro you did there was strategic movement of armies, positioning, flanking, that kind of stuff. None of the rock/paper/siccor abilities micro of today. If you'd build a bazillion light tanks that worked just fine. Even in multiplayer.
Generals wasn't so bad. I mean it was crap at the time, everybody said it was crap. And it was, compared to RA2 which was the previous game. Not just gameplay wise either, i modded generals back in the day and it was a real bitch to do so. Much harder then RA2 (just code wise not even graphics wise) and infinitly harder then warcraft 3 which was out at the time. And we knew it would lead to further degeneration of the classic C&C style games, namely C&C 3 and most obviously now, C&C 4.
If there's one franchise EA has F'ed up, it's C&C. It got better with each game, then EA took over, then it got progressively worse each game. I've got no doubt it'll look marvelous, and gameplay wise won't be so different from the original generals. But just remember: generals already was crap compared to what came before. With the new engine, considering what's in BF3.... I'm expecting a smaller unit cap then before.
By comparison, i once built 600 chinese infantry in generals just because i was bored and wanted to see the limits of the engine. I could move about 450 of them at the same time with cross-map selection (otherwise they would not move). But i could move them all at the same time in chunks. Bet ya 10 bucks frostbite 2 can't handle that.
KoolAidMan1 - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
Are you always mad when a game has expansion packs?It doesn't seem like anything to get outraged about. Instead of one expansion like the original did, now we get two. I'm all for more game.
V-Money - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
Have you played the original? It had 3 campaigns, 1 for each race, the expansion also had 3, 1 for each race. I stand by my original statement. SC2 only has the Terran campaign, the '2 expansions' as you call it are campaigns for the other races, which I feel really just adds up to one game. I wouldn't have minded if they had announced this originally, or if they didn't take 12 years to make it, but I waited a long time just to get only one campaign. (I was also underway/on deployment alot at the time, so I didn't get to play it until ~8 months after it was out and I missed the part about it only being a Terran campaign until I got back)The only bigger disappointment I had last year was when I played C&C 4, I mean, really, that was the worst excuse for a game ever. I tried so hard to like it, the tiberian sun franchise was my favorite by far, but really, support MCVs, WTF.
KoolAidMan1 - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
Yes, I bought Starcraft and Brood War the day they were released.The original game had three campaigns, 30 missions total. SC2 has nearly as many missions and takes about as long to complete as Starcraft and Brood War.
Your logic only makes sense if Starcraft 2 had a third as many missions as it shipped with. As it stands, you're getting even more content and a much bigger campaign in the end.
V-Money - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link
Obviously you are missing the core principal of my argument, so i will use an analogy as I would to a child. The original SC to me was like Neapolitan ice cream, chocolate (Protoss, by far my favorite), Vanilla (Terran, which I can stomach, but not as good as chocolate) and Strawberry (Zerg, which I hate.) I was expecting another Neapolitan game, but was delivered Vanilla. True, there is just as much Vanilla ice cream than the Neapolitan combined (not arguing with you there, but as it turns out we aren't in the 90s anymore), but its still not the same. To look at your argument look at WC 2 vs WC3. I got more enjoyment out of SC than WC2, and WC3 included all races and I got much more game play than WC2, same with Frozen throne. I expected the same with SC2, all the races and much more gameplay, my expectations weren't met, I am dissapointed, end of story.Jedi2155 - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
Man, I stopped playing it after Generals, but I was a die hard C&C fan until they just shat on it with crap.Spivonious - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link
Those are all kid games. Total Annihilation is the only true RTS.Leonick - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
So it's an RTS? Hmm will be interesting to see what Bioware can do with an RTS, the singleplayer campaign should be good...It's to bad they aren't making a game for the Tiberian or Red Alert universes, you know the two proper C&C universes, but I suppose they are both beyond saving thanks to EA Los Angeles... (Well maybe RA isn't completely dead yet but Tiberian sure is after C&C4)
shivoa - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
BioWare Victory is the RTS heads from EALA who didn't just give up and leave. Now EALA is an asset house for FPS they needed somewhere to put the studio that kinda once was Westwood and so EA Victory was born. Now rebranded Bioware Victory, because if EA can do anything it is dilute a brand to the point where anyone with an interest in games can smell the stink.So EA are releasing a 'Westwood' game, with a Bioware brand, on a service called Origin. Because that clearly reminds PC gamers of all the good EA have done for the industry.
chizow - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
I get the tongue-in-cheek irony and angst directed at EA by listing those names, but overall I think EA's influence on the industry is far more postive than negative.I mean surely those studios/IPs are in a better place than some of the past stalwarts of the industry like Sierra, Interplay, SSI, FASA etc? There's a more modern tragedy unfolding before our eyes with what's happening to iD Software (currently dyng under Bethesda/ZeniMAX's banner).
Its just a volatile industry where IPs and dev studios tend to run their course rather quickly regardless of who's cutting the checks and printing their names on the boxes.
ciparis - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
Unfortunately there's a bit of a boondoggle by EA going on here. C&C was never a BioWare game (nor was any other RTS), and "BioWare Victory" has nothing to do with the BioWare we all know, the development studio that EA purchased.EA opened a new studio location and just decided to name it after their hottest development house, so the press would think BioWare had something to do with it. They don't.
ananduser - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
...was EA's best title sans the original C&C 1 and 2. It was a veritable basehopping RTS as is Warcraft/Starcraft. Sadly both don't hold a candle to Relic's Company of Heroes/Dawn of War.Malih - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
there's been a few typos in the site lately, especially the short pipeline articles, i wonder if there's no editing for pipeline posts.with that said, I've moved on from C&C, but would be interested with BioWare take on this one, wonder if it would be available on Steam.
paul878 - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
Dear BioWarePlease let the game have Zoom Out , players need to know what is happening in the battle filed.
frozentundra123456 - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
Well, sounds hopeful, but considering what has come of Bioware/EA recently, turning KOTOR into an MMO and whatever they did to Dragon Age 2, I have reservations.I liked the Generals series, so I hope they put the emphasis on a really good single player campaign.
chizow - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
So much for BioWare maintaining its independence under EA, it seems like slapping the BioWare name on a dev studio has become the solution to try and clean up and rehab all of EA's failed IPs. First it was Warhammer Online, and now C&C? I'm sure there's at least some original BioWare talent involved too, at least at the leadership level.I just worry BioWare is starting to be spread too thin with all the IPs they are working on. The quality level definitely dropped with Dragon Age 2 imo, probably shifted their manpower to work on SW The Old Republic which was really solid from what I saw in a few of the betas. I have really high hopes and expectations for Mass Effect 3 too, so hopefully they don't disappoint there.
RTS isn't something BioWare has ever been known for though, but EA partially funding Frostbite 2 development looks like it will pay off immediately. That's probably the most exciting part of all of this, as that engine will be an immediate and tangible upgrade to address one of BioWare's most glaring historical shortcomings: terrible graphics.
eddman - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link
It's "BioWare VICTORY", the former "Victory Games". It has nothing to do with BioWare, makers of mass effect and dragon age.chizow - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link
Yea I understand its a rebadged/relabeled studio with the BioWare name slapped on it, but whenever BioWare takes on this kind of studio assimilation, they move their own people in while integrating existing talent.This is the same thing that happened to Mythic Entertainment, which is now BioWare Mythic and fully under BioWare's RPG division. BioWare moved their people into key positions when they took over and forced the old GM (Mark Jacobs) and anyone else who wasn't onboard out the door.
Sahrin - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
I thought we might get a little respect from EA. But no, always following the money.*sigh*
Can EA not be...I don't know, set on fire or something? Is that not something that can happen? I hate this company with the fury of a thousand suns. They disrespect gamers, fans of series, programmers, employees, competitors. The people who run that company have transformed themselves into worthless human beings. And for what? A few percentage points on the bottom line? And what do they do with that money? Lobby congress to make it easier for them, and screw the working man.
I'd like to keep all the political nonsense out of at least one area of my life - entertainment. Leave it all at the door. Just make good games. But no, EA insists on stabbing me in the back at every turn. Want to work with a company that does treat customers with respect? Sure, buy on Steam - but we're going to pull our software because we can't compete with a company that doesn't work every day to screw gamers.
You can go fuck yourself EA. A thousand years of ill will towards EA, and bad sales on every game - until they start treating customers with respect.
frozentundra123456 - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link
I understand the ill feelings to EA, but I think Bioware must shoulder some of the blame too. Didnt they know what they were getting into when the sold out (in every sense of the term) to EA. They must have known they would be giving up alot of their independence and artistic control. I think they just got greedy.benedict - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link
How did Jon Van Caneghem end up in Bioware Victory? The man's a genius, created some of my personal top 10 games, sadly, none of them were RTS.Mopsen - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link
If they reimplement the special installers that used to come with C&C games I may check it out despite the EA tag. I don't have much faith in that though since they went out of their way to remove the installers when they released that collection many years agoBasically I want at least see a sign they plan to do more than milk the names of both Bioware and C&C
Namey - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link
Scud Storm! Scud Storm! Scud Storm!damianrobertjones - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link
I didn't see this coming at all :) Love the C&C games and as long as it's nothing like C&C 4 I'll be a happy boyDjjug - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link
Black Lotus...summer1 - Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - link
this is a interesting post to read it.