Jump to content

ultimately pointless thoughts on the cancelled c&c generals 2


Tyranno
 Share

Recommended Posts

If nothing else, my annoyance at the fact C&C Generals isn't available is gone... because the disappointment of this not being released at all; ah well

First, it being going to be free certainly raises some issues, e.g. could the developers have really kept making new generals with own units, etc? Even if they were going to make it possible to pay for optional content (which could also be earned through games), wouldn't most people just pay once for a general who suits their playstyle and then, most likely, never again?

The GLA workers could still both build and collect resources, while the chinooks would still be able to transport infantry. Being unfamiliar with Generals in general - did the Chinese harvester unit have a second function in that game? Seems odd here too.

Seems designed for team games too, because some of the generals have combinations of units that would result in just getting destroyed early game due to lack of tier 1 infantry.

Also, the generals without tier 1 infantry have several vehicles that transport infantry and such, which seems unappealing without many infantry units to transport.

I'm not sure how many people would buy generals (assuming they didn't just use points from games) because as each faction has 10 units, in many cases, switching out certain units could be costly. For example, assuming someone like me who prefers and hit-and-run type army, both the EU and Asian-Pacific Alliance have a general specializing in stealth; the APA general then has one whole unit that has anti-air capability, and the EU guy is more capable of dealing with it but still loses the rocket infantry to gain snipers. 

Again, it seems if it were released team games would be pretty much obligatory so players could cover teammates who didn't have certain units. But with many RTS it eems team players tend to squre off against opposite opponents rather than working together.

Base defenses tend to be either anti-infantry or anti-air; possibly a mid-way point between the Generals base defenses (allegedly, underpowered) and RA3, where they scaled to provide defense against infantry who were much more dangerous than most c&c games,  but allegedly too effective against vehicles.

Bunkers, apparently, were immune to anti-garrison attacks in Generals, apparently would be again, but apparently there's one near the deployment area of each player and they can't be built.

EMP apparently exists, but, with the exception of one GLA unit, is absent; maybe some analogue of ecm and microwave tanks would've been introduced.

Toxin Choppers would've existed, and people probably would've complained about that... and pretty much any changes... but  giving the GLA an interceptor seemed to be necesary thing (they wouldn't have an airfield, again, and in beta footage I saw it emerged from a war factory like most RA2 aircraft.

APA don't seem to would have had the nationalism boost that the Chinese had the first Generals.

dragon tanks exist, but in another example of being a costly unit switch, the APA factions with them lose their mbt for it, which i don't see anyone doing...

Speaking of, tanks are tier 2... except for the APA mbt; it is tier 1. Technically it fits into the idea of the APA being the strongest in physical strength, and it seems like it would've worked since the other factions could've swarmed them early on.

A large transport helicopter was programmed into the game for the EU faction, and since they already have chinooks, replacing another unit with this seems absurd; it would seem it was intended to make an appearance if reinforcement support powers were used.

Ultimately it seems like it would've been pretty good had it been released, but somehow i can't see the company being able to have got the funding to continue making content, so its fairly obvious why it was cancelled.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Given what EA did to the series it is just as well that they're not releasing any more C&C games.

And if Westwood hadn't been done away with people would be complaining about them just as much.

Know why? Because every fandom complains about the company behind it.

Also, the Westwood games didn't age well; the only part I miss is the stages like "Island Wars Extreme" where they had extra neutral units scattered around the place.

I head with the cancellation of generals 2, they announced they are making another game anyway, so that statement is untrue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tyranno said:

And if Westwood hadn't been done away with people would be complaining about them just as much.

Know why? Because every fandom complains about the company behind it.

I'm not talking about the standard complaining that happens with almost any product or service.

In C&C's case, EA went the route of watering down the game play until the game turned from a RTS into a real-time-tactics-without-the-tactics game that C&C 4 was. They failed to capture any new market share with their changes and they alienated the original fans too.

The point I was making was not that some people would complain regardless of what EA and Westwood did, the point was that they followed a path that doomed the series in order to try to make it more "mainstream".

 

1 hour ago, Tyranno said:

Also, the Westwood games didn't age well; the only part I miss is the stages like "Island Wars Extreme" where they had extra neutral units scattered around the place.

I'll certainly agree with that, but that didn't force EA/Westwood to turn newer games into increasingly gimmicky garbage. They had more options than simply "age badly" or "make increasingly dumbed-down games".

 

1 hour ago, Tyranno said:

I head with the cancellation of generals 2, they announced they are making another game anyway, so that statement is untrue.

I haven't found anything concrete about that, care to elaborate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

 

I'll certainly agree with that, but that didn't force EA/Westwood to turn newer games into increasingly gimmicky garbage. They had more options than simply "age badly" or "make increasingly dumbed-down games".

Generals (reportedly) and RA3 certainly had more tactics available than the early installments; indeed, the early games apparently had a reputation as "that game where you spam one unit" - and even in RA2 "[Soviet players only use] dogs, desolators and rhino tanks]".

C&C 4 I've avoided because even the non-biased fans didn't like it.

I fell in love with RA3 specifically because it had the option of winning without using tanks at all (something I've heard is possible in Generals).

Earlier installments... not so much; and even in terms of tank spam, the later installments had side/rear armor.

the very early installments also required destroying the enemy's units too - and should they have more tanks; its near impossible; indeed, on a recent Tiberium Dawn game, during my outmaneuvering of the opponent, even getting an "oh shit" or something like it, he was building tanks - so he won.

EDIT: Tiberian Sun allegedly had tactics, but they don't convince me; for all the alleged focus on destroying critical buildings; plyers don't seem to build redundant ones (NOTE: TS's faux-futuristic technology always bothered me, so I've almost never played it), thus this is mostly observation

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tyranno It's funny, Red Alert 2 with a mod that added TS units was my favorite of the old games even though it was unbalanced.

Looking back, the games (without mods) were a bit simplistic to begin with. I suppose what I enjoyed most was the tiberium setting and the mods.

It's a shame they didn't evolve into something more sophisticated like Zero-K, but at least we can still... just do it up ^__^

maxresdefault.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...