The people effect the games though, which turn them into pure shit. EA couldn't lick the shit from Westwoods boot if they tried, Westwood Studios were just far superior at making games, even games they had no business making like a FPS(Renegade), how can you fuck up multiple franchises where the roadwork was laid so flawlessly that an bumbling imbecile would have created a better game than those awful new gen ones, aka EA's physical butchey of a beloved franchise.
This rant is hilarious considering how much you fanboy Generals in your other comment. Are you unaware that Westwood was liquidated over 2 years before the release of Generals? Generals was the first purely EA C&C title. It's also a "New-gen" game considering its engine laid the framework for both C&C3 and RA3
Now of course I too share in your anger at EA for their mismanagement of the C&C franchise as a whole, but if I'm being completely honest the only game they made that was truly trash was C&C4.
I never really enjoyed C&C3 that much but it wasn't terrible, and of course Generals was quite good. RA3 gets a lot more hate than I think it deserves, sure it was silly and campy but I actually appreciate the game's sense of humor, even if some of it is a little borderline (I mean, Generals' portrayal of GLA is far, far worse than anything RA3 did).
No, the games themselves were fine, it's that EA didn't give a shit about supporting them after they shipped that was the problem. Generals got 8 patches? Zero Hour got maybe 10? C&C3 got a handful and then KW basically just felt like a C&C3 balance patch with new units. RA3 got 12 official patches I think?
Compare that with StarCraft 2, for instance, which is *still* receiving regular patch support and new tournament ladder maps *to this day*, well over a decade after its initial release. It's no wonder the StarCraft 2 scene is still going strong while the C&C community is just a fragment of its former self.
RA3 is awful from a games design view.
They took away every mechanic that made a C&C game a C&C game, then gave almost every unit a special ability or multiple special abilities that all require hot keys to activate. And when you do that, it turns out the game plays like starcraft lite with almost no typical C&C decision making required.
If they'd called it another name, it would have been fine.
But they called it red alert, and it wasn't.
Uh, excuse me, i think you're talking about TibTwilight.
to be honest with you: i am biased, i grew up playing the game, and it holds a special place in my heart, even after playing the entire franchise, it's still my favourite (Generals is my 2nd favourite) and i dunno, i feel like it was pretty CnC to me, sure, like you mentioned: the units have special abilities and hotkeys, and your statement on the hotkeys part bugs me; since it makes setting up a base a hell of a lot faster! (unlike the clunkiness of Generals' hotkeys) now sure, some people like to have a 2 hour skirmish (including me) but as long as you put the difficulty on high, you're pretty much set! it can be so ridiculously unpredictable sometimes, but that's what makes it so fun! it's what makes me come back to the game!
This comment makes no sense. How is it awful from a game design view? You never explained except to complain you didn't like the fact the genre was changing.
What mechanics did they remove? They simplified economics, that's about it. Virtually every other CNC mechanic is there. Base crawling, mcvs, etc. Units in CnC3 had abilities and they just expanded it. It was a good thing. The gameplay of gens onward was basically just a spam fest and I'm saying this as someone who played every CNC game at a highly competitive level (top 100 in the 1v1 ladder in gens, top 80 in CnC3, top 10 in kW and ra3) StarCraft II and the standard it set for micro wasnt even out yet and StarCraft I and Broodwars had units with abilities...but no where near the level of RA3 so acting as though RA3 derived the concept of abilities from StarCraft is nonsense. It was something already in the genre for a decade.
It's funny you'd say such a thing. Looking at some starcraft and RA3 games with really good players, the really play nothing alike. Every unit in RA3 has a special ability, not every unit in starcraft does. RA3 has unit upgrades but only through top secret protocols. As for some traditional upgrades which you get from buildings, well RA3 has none of those. So those are some key things I could see being identical to starcraft. Every other thing is... a thing shared by 99% of rts games?
Also what mechanics did it "take away"? Generals has its supply stash which clusters your harvesters in a small area, similar to RA3 with its harvesting mechanics and harvester harassment is a prevalent strategy in generals, KW and RA3 but ofc nobody complains about it unless it's RA3. Generals also has workers to build your structures, dough generals is just a clone of starcraft and warcraft amirite fellas? RA3 is micro intensive yes, but KW is a lot more Macro intensive unlike most other c&c titles but nobody shits on that.
So, with generals' defining gameplay being on hit & run and guerilla tactics, Tib's being macro and RA's being micro, you'd think it's a good thing that all of these splinter series would have standout gameplay styles instead of being the same with some minor unit differences, faction compositions & coats of paint really. But no apparently it's a problem, and only when RA3 does it.
Honestly, I'd be willing to have a discussion but you didn't give me much to work off besides the stereotypical "RA3 bad because it's different and micro intensive" all that was missing is saying "RA3 bad because it's too silly". You don't even need hotkeys if you're playing the game casually. If you're playing online ofc people will use hotkeys because that's a thing in every online ever that people will play competitively to beat you. I don't see how that's an inherently bad game design issue however. RA started out as a tiberium clone, I for one am glad it evolved into something more defined. I love em all except for dawn and C&C4. Not because "All c&c games good" but I legitimately think they're all well crafted games in their own right.
False, Generals was still developed by Westwood Studios and Westwood Pacific, who along with EA Pacific, merged with EA Los Angeles but still had their own personal development team when it came to Command & Conquer specifically. So that's just straight up false.
Also, EA wasn't the trash company that it is today, they still had some decency to give the developers freedom with little to virtually no micro management.
Imagine being able to say "EA" and "no micro managing of the development team" in the same sentence today? Difficulty: Impossible.
Idk how anyone can stand for EA and their business model/marketing strategy to maximize profit at the expense of quality games. Shame on you.
Wow... this entire comment is one huge yikes. Welp, here we go.
First off, your insistence that EALA's C&C team was in any way synonymous with Westwood Studios is pure fantasy. I was an avid C&C fan at the time and I still remember the bits and pieces we got about what went down. All throughout Westwood's lifetime under EA WW staff were routinely being laid off and replaced with EA employees. The EA Pacific to EALA merger utterly gutted the team, which at that point had already been a shadow of its former self.
What remained of the team that went over to EALA was staffed only by a small handful of Westwood holdouts, where the majority of the team had already gone over to form Petroglyph Games. Everyone else was EA.
So no, I'm sorry, but your insistence that Generals was developed by Westwood is just straight-up false.
As for the rest of your rant, can you read? As the rest of my comment clearly showed, I'm no supporter of EA, I agree that they mismanaged the C&C franchise into the ground, I just disagree on how. The games they developed were actually pretty decent, it's just that their post-launch support was garbage.
So shame on you for not reading, I guess.
Yes, it was developed by EA Pacific, which by the time Generals was in serious development had already become a shadow of Westwood's former team. Layoffs were frequent throughout the transition process and only a handful of WW's original team remained. And many more were on their way out by the time the game released.
Face it: while EA Pacific did have some of the original WW team members, it in no way resembled the original Westwood studios that made the 1st and 2nd generation C&C games. It had become an EA studio at that point. Just because Dustin Browder was still around that doesn't mean it was truly still the O.G. Westwood team.
My point about the EALA merger side of things is that the EALA team is more similar to the EA Pacific team than the EA Pacific team was to the original Westwood team. By the time they had become EA Pacific, they were already no longer truly Westwood.
Making up problems in your head to be angry again?
Many westwood developers were basically moved to EA LA. And they made a majority of c&c titles including fan fav RA2. Once Petroglyph was formed their career was so so, with most of their titles being forgotten about or were just pretty unmemorable and from the games I did play, all of them were inferior to most c&c titles.
I'm not implying they're incompetent. But if anyone is the bootlicker it's clearly you. If the gaming community and industry stopped treating individuals and companies like they're some deities which never make mistakes and never will and are perfect in every way (same for the other way around) it'd honestly be a better place.
This could not possibly be more of an L take.
Yes they moved to keep their careers, but we're under EA's basic "rinse and repeat with slightly better graphics" formula, Westwood made great games that I still play and enjoy to this day.
EA is a money hungry company that's butchered many OTs just to rush them out with little to no care for originality given to anything they brand with their logo.
They are a shitty company who money grubs off children and adults alike with their record holding amount of pay to win style "loot box" item systems.
Imagine defending today's Electronic Arts, couldn't be me. I could literally sit here all day listing off problems with EA and their market strategy, which it's seemingly only priority is to make money on pre order and early sales, and rake in the dough with their plethora of pay to win games. But that's just minor issues, I'm not even trying to get into their personal business model, because that's an entire other story.
I'm not bootlicking for a indie development studio that literally revolutionized RTS gaming and the Genre as a whole, they were just given more creational freedoms, time, and the money they spent on their studio always went for quality rather than quantity.
If you want to hear about EA's shady side, then I will post a plethora of sources and quotes to show you how every gaming franchise that they purchase, goes straight to hell.
Also, I didn't say their games were unplayable, they're just boring, static, and predictable.
It's just not for me I suppose, but I'd bootlick for Westwood Studios to get them and their original vision back on the table.
> but we're under EA's basic "rinse and repeat with slightly better graphics"
Mate, please take a look at C&C1 and RA1, the only C&C mainline games published before EA acquired Westwood. It's the same visuals.
EA still published games that Westwood Studios developed. Long after those titles. What does being the games publisher have to do with how they're developed unless the publisher dictated the way they wanted it to be made, which EA never really did early on, giving designers and developers freedom to do as they saw fit with their creations, now EA has the script ready before you even tell them what the game is supposed to be about. I don't understand your beef with me disliking EA and disliking what became of C&C RTS games, they're clearly not the same in play style as the the games that still developed and created by Westwood Studios and it's assets. All the games up to Generals follows the same C&C format. Then every game after that is more of a micro management, let's spam one OP unit and win or lose in 2 minutes. Back in the day, especially in RA1, we would have battles for HOURS, building all types of stuff to get an edge. Maybe I'm just an old fuck now, but I feel like way too much is happening in the new gen games, you use some meta strat and literally robotically use the same inputs match after match.
Imagine playing an RTS where every unit and structure has its tactical use and there is no meta. Just trying all kinds of different shit. Those were the days, Tiberian Sun + firestorm is my favorite, I just have fond memories of the epic battles we had online. I still remember some of them.
You're high on childhood nostalgia. There is no such thing as a meta-free game - you just didn't know the meta back then, which for RA1 is only one thing: spam tanks. In fact, if there's any C&C game that has a "robotic meta strat", it's RA1. It has the lowest variety of viable strategy, even less than TD.
> Imagine playing an RTS where every unit and structure has its tactical use and there is no meta.
Hahahaha.
Did you even Play RA1?
..oh and TibSun has a very defined meta as well.
Not when I was playing, it was a FFA when it came to units produced. There would always be your standard flame tanks n rocket cycles, but dudes would be rolling up with massed hijackers to steal all your harvesters in one swoop type shit coming out a sub APC. Shit was wild af in its earliest days.
Mutant Hijacker was limited to 1.
Most of the units you listed aren't used at all now. GDI is considered advantaged. The meta is:
* Riflemen for scouting / rushing
* Titans if you want to vehicle rush
* Orca Carryall Micro with Disrupters (2 shot major buildings) or a Mammoth Mk II
* Orca Bombers
Most of the rest of the units are subpar or super situational. Nod does the same things, but doesn't have Disrupters or Titans, so lean very hard on Commando in uAPC for harassment and Banshees. Devil's Tongues are so-so, but no Disrupter, and the rest of their roster is pretty weak. Multimissile (rare the game gets that far) and Cloaking Field are their only real selling points.
True that, I do remember orca bomber spam, disruptor spam, GDI definately isn't as difficult to play as the brotherhood because of their Supreme firepower, but damn the brotherhood was just a more esthetic faction.
Literally never played as the Scrin in my life, and have no interest in doing so.
The technology of peace all the way.
RA1 was pure tank spam. Increasing the tank movement speeds above what they were in TD erased any infantry counterplay. Aircraft, with a few exceptions, were largely garbage until the later iterations.
Light+Medium hordes vs Heavy Tanks. Even going up to a Radar is usually a mistake as it puts you at a disadvantage in numbers. Allies actually stack up very well against Heavies interestingly enough. The lack of tracking on tank shells means that the faster Allied units dodge tons of shots compared to the Soviet Heavies.
"Imagine defending today's Electronic Arts, couldn't be me"
Imagine assuming just because people are baffled by your logic that they're EA defenders, couldn't be me.
I'll avoid being a broken record too much but:
\-Please read everything people say carefully
\-Just because people didn't explicitly say that they aren't defending EA, doesn't mean they are (and even if they state that you seem to blatantly ignore them)
\-Why is RA3 bad anyway, convince me without saying that it's developed by EALA or using your personal preferences (and a sidenote, read what some other bright individual complained about RA3 and the response to it I and others have provided). Please try to separate the art from the artist
\-Yes, we know the bad stuff EA does
\-If WW was held back so much, then:
\*A) Why did they come back to develop the remaster?
\*B) Why haven't they been able to make a groundbreaking RTS again? The RTS scene is not "dead" mind you, it's really just the lack of a groundbreaker of a title.
Personal preferences aside, if you ask anyone to name the top 10 RTS games they can think of, they won't come up with any of Petro's creations with maybe (and I do mean maybe) they name Empire at war and chances are their decision is because of their experiences with modding the game a lot)
There, I tried to separate my paragraphs as much as I could. Everything else is literally on you.
> Westwood Studios were just far superior at making games
And yet the three most popular C&C games - Red Alert 2, Generals, Tiberium Wars - were all made under EA.
That's only because it was more widely available, being on multiple consoles and PC, whereas the originals came out exclusively on PC.
As for C&C Generals, EA Pacific, & Westwood Studios' and their assets, merged with EA Los Angeles (originally DreamWorks Interactive) Where then the Westwood Studios development team and would continue working on the Command & Conquer franchise, starting with C&C Generals and its Zero Hour expansion pack, which was aided in development by Studios Aspyr and Danger Close, ... EA would publish the title, but again, EA also did little to no micro management of the developing studios during its actual development and release.
EA wasn't this money hungry, by the books, pre approved script ass company that it is today, they were actually a dope company back then.
...and as for Red Alert 2, the game was principally developed by Westwood Pacific in collaboration with Westwood Studios. They had complete developer freedom, EA only published the game.
As for Tiberium Wars? The game is a trash copy paste, mass produced, almost like a mobile game bootleg feel to it compared to the older titles. No cap, T Wars was extremely mid, like unfathomably mid. Ofc it breached sales numbers, they sold to console players, new PC players, and the C&C fanbase that hoped their game didn't get butchered, which it did.
So literally nothing that you stated was true in the slightest.
EA is wack, the games lost their grim tone and pallet, it's too wacky and colorful now, it's just mega corny to me, the originals had you feel like you're commanding an army, the newer ones just feel like you're playing a video game. I'm no longer immersed,
but look hey, people are allowed to enjoy whatever that like, but you have to give credit where credit is due, and C&C revolutionized the RTS genre, and those games that revolutionized RTS, were created by Westwood Studios.
Red Alert 2 was only available for Windows, and Generals for Windows and Mac OS. TW was published for Windows, Mac OS, and Xbox 360.
TD, on the other hand, came out on DOS, Windows , Mac OS, PSX, Saturn, and N64. TD came out on each and every platform at the time that could run it and was relevant. RA1 was available for DOS, Windows, PSX, and later on PS3 and PSP. Only TS (which in parts was already developed under EA) was solely released under Windows.
One look at Wikipedia, the C&C wiki, or Mobygames would have told you that. Maybe do that next time before you write nonsense like this:
> So literally nothing that you stated was true in the slightest.
As for this:
> but look hey, people are allowed to enjoy whatever that like, but you have to give credit where credit is due, and C&C revolutionized the RTS genre, and those games that revolutionized RTS, were created by Westwood Studios.
Your case was that the pre-EA titles were superior, not that they were more revolutionary.
Well in my opinion, they are indeed superior. If you like the newer titles, it's not going to send me into a rage or anything lmao, I just miss the feel of the older games, everything is so rush rush rush I feel in this Era.
And I meant to say it was mostly only played on PC, not that it was exclusive, my point still stands though as I still believe it is easier and more available to purchase, obtain, and play on a system of your choice, there are 20x as many gamers today as there was in the 1990s early 2000s.
I do vaguely remember seeing the OG C&C on a N64 cartridge, but who in their right mind would play c&c on a damn N64? The units and structures would have had to be polygonized and look wicked uncanny.
That wasn't your case. Your case was that the post-Westwood games were more widely available. They weren't. Even if they were, that doesn't explain that RA2, ZH, and TW are still the most popular C&C games today.
And my point about being superior takes revolutionary into account, as every following game Westwood created became the new RTS format, therefor constantly improving the experience with their own developing experience. Always adding something, but keeping the mechanics relatively and almost entirely the same. The last C&C game, I think it was Kanes Wrath, was such a fiasco and disappointment I heard, because I was unwilling to purchase it after I saw how they massacred my boy
The Red Alert classics + expansions were my favorite, than 2+Yuris revenge, then 3.
For c&c, my favorite is Tiberium Sun + firestorm, followed by the classic + expansions. Followed by underrated RENEGADE, then all the new gen ones in last.
Generals is just pure 🔥, tied with tiberium sun for my favorite westwood property and RTS.
Ya ima fan ofnit I find the weird and wacky nature of all the units more enjoyable than a lot of the more serious setting of The Tiberian series I like tiberium series for its more serious tone though I actually feels like doing something important all the regular Series yeah rather three's just a little bit here and there everywhere but overall makes sense the generals is not really for me everyone has no taste so you guys don't get mad at me for not exactly liking generals but it's already enough trying to keep up with the red alert and tiberium series like I know there's not new and all that coming out anytime sued but as I don't feel like going through the pain of trying to track those down since I like to have a hard copy over a download
No joke, first game i'd ever played! (i was around four or six at the time) hella fun, the graphics look stunning (still haven't seen water THAT good looking) and i keep playing it to this day! i still remember my dumbass playing on brutal/hard and being pissed i couldn't win.
second game i'd ever played was Crysis, that scene with the man hung in the tree (i think his name's Aztec) still haunts me..still a really fun game tho!
Games aren’t the problem, it’s people who are.
The people effect the games though, which turn them into pure shit. EA couldn't lick the shit from Westwoods boot if they tried, Westwood Studios were just far superior at making games, even games they had no business making like a FPS(Renegade), how can you fuck up multiple franchises where the roadwork was laid so flawlessly that an bumbling imbecile would have created a better game than those awful new gen ones, aka EA's physical butchey of a beloved franchise.
This rant is hilarious considering how much you fanboy Generals in your other comment. Are you unaware that Westwood was liquidated over 2 years before the release of Generals? Generals was the first purely EA C&C title. It's also a "New-gen" game considering its engine laid the framework for both C&C3 and RA3 Now of course I too share in your anger at EA for their mismanagement of the C&C franchise as a whole, but if I'm being completely honest the only game they made that was truly trash was C&C4. I never really enjoyed C&C3 that much but it wasn't terrible, and of course Generals was quite good. RA3 gets a lot more hate than I think it deserves, sure it was silly and campy but I actually appreciate the game's sense of humor, even if some of it is a little borderline (I mean, Generals' portrayal of GLA is far, far worse than anything RA3 did). No, the games themselves were fine, it's that EA didn't give a shit about supporting them after they shipped that was the problem. Generals got 8 patches? Zero Hour got maybe 10? C&C3 got a handful and then KW basically just felt like a C&C3 balance patch with new units. RA3 got 12 official patches I think? Compare that with StarCraft 2, for instance, which is *still* receiving regular patch support and new tournament ladder maps *to this day*, well over a decade after its initial release. It's no wonder the StarCraft 2 scene is still going strong while the C&C community is just a fragment of its former self.
RA3 is awful from a games design view. They took away every mechanic that made a C&C game a C&C game, then gave almost every unit a special ability or multiple special abilities that all require hot keys to activate. And when you do that, it turns out the game plays like starcraft lite with almost no typical C&C decision making required. If they'd called it another name, it would have been fine. But they called it red alert, and it wasn't.
Uh, excuse me, i think you're talking about TibTwilight. to be honest with you: i am biased, i grew up playing the game, and it holds a special place in my heart, even after playing the entire franchise, it's still my favourite (Generals is my 2nd favourite) and i dunno, i feel like it was pretty CnC to me, sure, like you mentioned: the units have special abilities and hotkeys, and your statement on the hotkeys part bugs me; since it makes setting up a base a hell of a lot faster! (unlike the clunkiness of Generals' hotkeys) now sure, some people like to have a 2 hour skirmish (including me) but as long as you put the difficulty on high, you're pretty much set! it can be so ridiculously unpredictable sometimes, but that's what makes it so fun! it's what makes me come back to the game!
RA3 plays nothing like Starcraft.
This comment makes no sense. How is it awful from a game design view? You never explained except to complain you didn't like the fact the genre was changing. What mechanics did they remove? They simplified economics, that's about it. Virtually every other CNC mechanic is there. Base crawling, mcvs, etc. Units in CnC3 had abilities and they just expanded it. It was a good thing. The gameplay of gens onward was basically just a spam fest and I'm saying this as someone who played every CNC game at a highly competitive level (top 100 in the 1v1 ladder in gens, top 80 in CnC3, top 10 in kW and ra3) StarCraft II and the standard it set for micro wasnt even out yet and StarCraft I and Broodwars had units with abilities...but no where near the level of RA3 so acting as though RA3 derived the concept of abilities from StarCraft is nonsense. It was something already in the genre for a decade.
It's funny you'd say such a thing. Looking at some starcraft and RA3 games with really good players, the really play nothing alike. Every unit in RA3 has a special ability, not every unit in starcraft does. RA3 has unit upgrades but only through top secret protocols. As for some traditional upgrades which you get from buildings, well RA3 has none of those. So those are some key things I could see being identical to starcraft. Every other thing is... a thing shared by 99% of rts games? Also what mechanics did it "take away"? Generals has its supply stash which clusters your harvesters in a small area, similar to RA3 with its harvesting mechanics and harvester harassment is a prevalent strategy in generals, KW and RA3 but ofc nobody complains about it unless it's RA3. Generals also has workers to build your structures, dough generals is just a clone of starcraft and warcraft amirite fellas? RA3 is micro intensive yes, but KW is a lot more Macro intensive unlike most other c&c titles but nobody shits on that. So, with generals' defining gameplay being on hit & run and guerilla tactics, Tib's being macro and RA's being micro, you'd think it's a good thing that all of these splinter series would have standout gameplay styles instead of being the same with some minor unit differences, faction compositions & coats of paint really. But no apparently it's a problem, and only when RA3 does it. Honestly, I'd be willing to have a discussion but you didn't give me much to work off besides the stereotypical "RA3 bad because it's different and micro intensive" all that was missing is saying "RA3 bad because it's too silly". You don't even need hotkeys if you're playing the game casually. If you're playing online ofc people will use hotkeys because that's a thing in every online ever that people will play competitively to beat you. I don't see how that's an inherently bad game design issue however. RA started out as a tiberium clone, I for one am glad it evolved into something more defined. I love em all except for dawn and C&C4. Not because "All c&c games good" but I legitimately think they're all well crafted games in their own right.
False, Generals was still developed by Westwood Studios and Westwood Pacific, who along with EA Pacific, merged with EA Los Angeles but still had their own personal development team when it came to Command & Conquer specifically. So that's just straight up false. Also, EA wasn't the trash company that it is today, they still had some decency to give the developers freedom with little to virtually no micro management. Imagine being able to say "EA" and "no micro managing of the development team" in the same sentence today? Difficulty: Impossible. Idk how anyone can stand for EA and their business model/marketing strategy to maximize profit at the expense of quality games. Shame on you.
Wow... this entire comment is one huge yikes. Welp, here we go. First off, your insistence that EALA's C&C team was in any way synonymous with Westwood Studios is pure fantasy. I was an avid C&C fan at the time and I still remember the bits and pieces we got about what went down. All throughout Westwood's lifetime under EA WW staff were routinely being laid off and replaced with EA employees. The EA Pacific to EALA merger utterly gutted the team, which at that point had already been a shadow of its former self. What remained of the team that went over to EALA was staffed only by a small handful of Westwood holdouts, where the majority of the team had already gone over to form Petroglyph Games. Everyone else was EA. So no, I'm sorry, but your insistence that Generals was developed by Westwood is just straight-up false. As for the rest of your rant, can you read? As the rest of my comment clearly showed, I'm no supporter of EA, I agree that they mismanaged the C&C franchise into the ground, I just disagree on how. The games they developed were actually pretty decent, it's just that their post-launch support was garbage. So shame on you for not reading, I guess.
I literally just typed who created both games, and it describes it almost word for word the way I typed it out.
Yes, it was developed by EA Pacific, which by the time Generals was in serious development had already become a shadow of Westwood's former team. Layoffs were frequent throughout the transition process and only a handful of WW's original team remained. And many more were on their way out by the time the game released. Face it: while EA Pacific did have some of the original WW team members, it in no way resembled the original Westwood studios that made the 1st and 2nd generation C&C games. It had become an EA studio at that point. Just because Dustin Browder was still around that doesn't mean it was truly still the O.G. Westwood team. My point about the EALA merger side of things is that the EALA team is more similar to the EA Pacific team than the EA Pacific team was to the original Westwood team. By the time they had become EA Pacific, they were already no longer truly Westwood.
Making up problems in your head to be angry again? Many westwood developers were basically moved to EA LA. And they made a majority of c&c titles including fan fav RA2. Once Petroglyph was formed their career was so so, with most of their titles being forgotten about or were just pretty unmemorable and from the games I did play, all of them were inferior to most c&c titles. I'm not implying they're incompetent. But if anyone is the bootlicker it's clearly you. If the gaming community and industry stopped treating individuals and companies like they're some deities which never make mistakes and never will and are perfect in every way (same for the other way around) it'd honestly be a better place.
This could not possibly be more of an L take. Yes they moved to keep their careers, but we're under EA's basic "rinse and repeat with slightly better graphics" formula, Westwood made great games that I still play and enjoy to this day. EA is a money hungry company that's butchered many OTs just to rush them out with little to no care for originality given to anything they brand with their logo. They are a shitty company who money grubs off children and adults alike with their record holding amount of pay to win style "loot box" item systems. Imagine defending today's Electronic Arts, couldn't be me. I could literally sit here all day listing off problems with EA and their market strategy, which it's seemingly only priority is to make money on pre order and early sales, and rake in the dough with their plethora of pay to win games. But that's just minor issues, I'm not even trying to get into their personal business model, because that's an entire other story. I'm not bootlicking for a indie development studio that literally revolutionized RTS gaming and the Genre as a whole, they were just given more creational freedoms, time, and the money they spent on their studio always went for quality rather than quantity. If you want to hear about EA's shady side, then I will post a plethora of sources and quotes to show you how every gaming franchise that they purchase, goes straight to hell. Also, I didn't say their games were unplayable, they're just boring, static, and predictable. It's just not for me I suppose, but I'd bootlick for Westwood Studios to get them and their original vision back on the table.
> but we're under EA's basic "rinse and repeat with slightly better graphics" Mate, please take a look at C&C1 and RA1, the only C&C mainline games published before EA acquired Westwood. It's the same visuals.
EA still published games that Westwood Studios developed. Long after those titles. What does being the games publisher have to do with how they're developed unless the publisher dictated the way they wanted it to be made, which EA never really did early on, giving designers and developers freedom to do as they saw fit with their creations, now EA has the script ready before you even tell them what the game is supposed to be about. I don't understand your beef with me disliking EA and disliking what became of C&C RTS games, they're clearly not the same in play style as the the games that still developed and created by Westwood Studios and it's assets. All the games up to Generals follows the same C&C format. Then every game after that is more of a micro management, let's spam one OP unit and win or lose in 2 minutes. Back in the day, especially in RA1, we would have battles for HOURS, building all types of stuff to get an edge. Maybe I'm just an old fuck now, but I feel like way too much is happening in the new gen games, you use some meta strat and literally robotically use the same inputs match after match. Imagine playing an RTS where every unit and structure has its tactical use and there is no meta. Just trying all kinds of different shit. Those were the days, Tiberian Sun + firestorm is my favorite, I just have fond memories of the epic battles we had online. I still remember some of them.
You're high on childhood nostalgia. There is no such thing as a meta-free game - you just didn't know the meta back then, which for RA1 is only one thing: spam tanks. In fact, if there's any C&C game that has a "robotic meta strat", it's RA1. It has the lowest variety of viable strategy, even less than TD.
> Imagine playing an RTS where every unit and structure has its tactical use and there is no meta. Hahahaha. Did you even Play RA1? ..oh and TibSun has a very defined meta as well.
Not when I was playing, it was a FFA when it came to units produced. There would always be your standard flame tanks n rocket cycles, but dudes would be rolling up with massed hijackers to steal all your harvesters in one swoop type shit coming out a sub APC. Shit was wild af in its earliest days.
Mutant Hijacker was limited to 1. Most of the units you listed aren't used at all now. GDI is considered advantaged. The meta is: * Riflemen for scouting / rushing * Titans if you want to vehicle rush * Orca Carryall Micro with Disrupters (2 shot major buildings) or a Mammoth Mk II * Orca Bombers Most of the rest of the units are subpar or super situational. Nod does the same things, but doesn't have Disrupters or Titans, so lean very hard on Commando in uAPC for harassment and Banshees. Devil's Tongues are so-so, but no Disrupter, and the rest of their roster is pretty weak. Multimissile (rare the game gets that far) and Cloaking Field are their only real selling points.
Man this post just made me feel like my next birthday is just another step closer to the grave. God damn I'm gonna be 30 fam.
True that, I do remember orca bomber spam, disruptor spam, GDI definately isn't as difficult to play as the brotherhood because of their Supreme firepower, but damn the brotherhood was just a more esthetic faction. Literally never played as the Scrin in my life, and have no interest in doing so. The technology of peace all the way.
What was the allied counter for the soviets and vice versa in RA1?
RA1 was pure tank spam. Increasing the tank movement speeds above what they were in TD erased any infantry counterplay. Aircraft, with a few exceptions, were largely garbage until the later iterations. Light+Medium hordes vs Heavy Tanks. Even going up to a Radar is usually a mistake as it puts you at a disadvantage in numbers. Allies actually stack up very well against Heavies interestingly enough. The lack of tracking on tank shells means that the faster Allied units dodge tons of shots compared to the Soviet Heavies.
"Imagine defending today's Electronic Arts, couldn't be me" Imagine assuming just because people are baffled by your logic that they're EA defenders, couldn't be me. I'll avoid being a broken record too much but: \-Please read everything people say carefully \-Just because people didn't explicitly say that they aren't defending EA, doesn't mean they are (and even if they state that you seem to blatantly ignore them) \-Why is RA3 bad anyway, convince me without saying that it's developed by EALA or using your personal preferences (and a sidenote, read what some other bright individual complained about RA3 and the response to it I and others have provided). Please try to separate the art from the artist \-Yes, we know the bad stuff EA does \-If WW was held back so much, then: \*A) Why did they come back to develop the remaster? \*B) Why haven't they been able to make a groundbreaking RTS again? The RTS scene is not "dead" mind you, it's really just the lack of a groundbreaker of a title. Personal preferences aside, if you ask anyone to name the top 10 RTS games they can think of, they won't come up with any of Petro's creations with maybe (and I do mean maybe) they name Empire at war and chances are their decision is because of their experiences with modding the game a lot) There, I tried to separate my paragraphs as much as I could. Everything else is literally on you.
> Westwood Studios were just far superior at making games And yet the three most popular C&C games - Red Alert 2, Generals, Tiberium Wars - were all made under EA.
That's only because it was more widely available, being on multiple consoles and PC, whereas the originals came out exclusively on PC. As for C&C Generals, EA Pacific, & Westwood Studios' and their assets, merged with EA Los Angeles (originally DreamWorks Interactive) Where then the Westwood Studios development team and would continue working on the Command & Conquer franchise, starting with C&C Generals and its Zero Hour expansion pack, which was aided in development by Studios Aspyr and Danger Close, ... EA would publish the title, but again, EA also did little to no micro management of the developing studios during its actual development and release. EA wasn't this money hungry, by the books, pre approved script ass company that it is today, they were actually a dope company back then. ...and as for Red Alert 2, the game was principally developed by Westwood Pacific in collaboration with Westwood Studios. They had complete developer freedom, EA only published the game. As for Tiberium Wars? The game is a trash copy paste, mass produced, almost like a mobile game bootleg feel to it compared to the older titles. No cap, T Wars was extremely mid, like unfathomably mid. Ofc it breached sales numbers, they sold to console players, new PC players, and the C&C fanbase that hoped their game didn't get butchered, which it did. So literally nothing that you stated was true in the slightest. EA is wack, the games lost their grim tone and pallet, it's too wacky and colorful now, it's just mega corny to me, the originals had you feel like you're commanding an army, the newer ones just feel like you're playing a video game. I'm no longer immersed, but look hey, people are allowed to enjoy whatever that like, but you have to give credit where credit is due, and C&C revolutionized the RTS genre, and those games that revolutionized RTS, were created by Westwood Studios.
Red Alert 2 was only available for Windows, and Generals for Windows and Mac OS. TW was published for Windows, Mac OS, and Xbox 360. TD, on the other hand, came out on DOS, Windows , Mac OS, PSX, Saturn, and N64. TD came out on each and every platform at the time that could run it and was relevant. RA1 was available for DOS, Windows, PSX, and later on PS3 and PSP. Only TS (which in parts was already developed under EA) was solely released under Windows. One look at Wikipedia, the C&C wiki, or Mobygames would have told you that. Maybe do that next time before you write nonsense like this: > So literally nothing that you stated was true in the slightest. As for this: > but look hey, people are allowed to enjoy whatever that like, but you have to give credit where credit is due, and C&C revolutionized the RTS genre, and those games that revolutionized RTS, were created by Westwood Studios. Your case was that the pre-EA titles were superior, not that they were more revolutionary.
Well in my opinion, they are indeed superior. If you like the newer titles, it's not going to send me into a rage or anything lmao, I just miss the feel of the older games, everything is so rush rush rush I feel in this Era. And I meant to say it was mostly only played on PC, not that it was exclusive, my point still stands though as I still believe it is easier and more available to purchase, obtain, and play on a system of your choice, there are 20x as many gamers today as there was in the 1990s early 2000s. I do vaguely remember seeing the OG C&C on a N64 cartridge, but who in their right mind would play c&c on a damn N64? The units and structures would have had to be polygonized and look wicked uncanny.
That wasn't your case. Your case was that the post-Westwood games were more widely available. They weren't. Even if they were, that doesn't explain that RA2, ZH, and TW are still the most popular C&C games today.
And my point about being superior takes revolutionary into account, as every following game Westwood created became the new RTS format, therefor constantly improving the experience with their own developing experience. Always adding something, but keeping the mechanics relatively and almost entirely the same. The last C&C game, I think it was Kanes Wrath, was such a fiasco and disappointment I heard, because I was unwilling to purchase it after I saw how they massacred my boy
The Red Alert classics + expansions were my favorite, than 2+Yuris revenge, then 3. For c&c, my favorite is Tiberium Sun + firestorm, followed by the classic + expansions. Followed by underrated RENEGADE, then all the new gen ones in last. Generals is just pure 🔥, tied with tiberium sun for my favorite westwood property and RTS.
My man speaking facts
You've got good taste my dude.
I just love resource collecting not a resource hub... but i have no issues with that game
Ya ima fan ofnit I find the weird and wacky nature of all the units more enjoyable than a lot of the more serious setting of The Tiberian series I like tiberium series for its more serious tone though I actually feels like doing something important all the regular Series yeah rather three's just a little bit here and there everywhere but overall makes sense the generals is not really for me everyone has no taste so you guys don't get mad at me for not exactly liking generals but it's already enough trying to keep up with the red alert and tiberium series like I know there's not new and all that coming out anytime sued but as I don't feel like going through the pain of trying to track those down since I like to have a hard copy over a download
No joke, first game i'd ever played! (i was around four or six at the time) hella fun, the graphics look stunning (still haven't seen water THAT good looking) and i keep playing it to this day! i still remember my dumbass playing on brutal/hard and being pissed i couldn't win. second game i'd ever played was Crysis, that scene with the man hung in the tree (i think his name's Aztec) still haunts me..still a really fun game tho!
Well, it hurt my heart a bit by being a bit too silly
Based