C&C 4 Open Beta

DumpsterDave · #1 02-01-2010, 11:39 AM

Open Beta signup:
http://www.commandandconquer.com/new...-4-public-beta

For those interested.

Grolex · #2 02-01-2010, 02:56 PM

That looks pretty cool although I may get it when the price drops to 15-20 dollars.

boxy1111 · #3 02-01-2010, 03:31 PM

Company of Heroes for the win!

C&C has no cover mechanic

No fully destructible environments

Spam wins all the time

You can turtle and STILL somehow win

And you have Superweapons. Yeah.

DumpsterDave · #4 02-01-2010, 04:48 PM

This isn't a discussion about company of homos. Just because a game does not have destructable environments does not mean it is inferior to a game that does. C&C is a sci-fi RTS. CoH is a WW-II based one that is based on historical units and surroundings. C&C is not. Just because two games are in the same genre does not mean they can be compared apples to apples.

Hitman · #5 02-01-2010, 06:02 PM

ddd ftw

Grolex · #6 02-01-2010, 06:12 PM

back down boxy!! lol
before this gets outta hand allow me to do the honors
/thread

IQ_122 · #7 02-01-2010, 06:20 PM

i love c&c although the original universe got a bit confusing to me after tiberium wars.... Red alert was definately my favourite =)

Looking forward to number 4 though =)

boxy1111 · #8 02-01-2010, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DumpsterDivingDave

This isn't a discussion about company of homos. Just because a game does not have destructable environments does not mean it is inferior to a game that does. C&C is a sci-fi RTS. CoH is a WW-II based one that is based on historical units and surroundings. C&C is not. Just because two games are in the same genre does not mean they can be compared apples to apples.

But... what I put had no relation whatsoever to the WWII/Sci-Fi argument. I played C&C 3 a lot, it's a relatively good game. But like I said, for a competing game it needs to step up the complexity a bit from where it's at. They're both good games -- to each their own -- but personally I don't like taking scaled-up maps and lasers for a lack of physics and cover. And don't worry about CoH's "historical units;" they have more than enough unrealistic units for sake of balance. I would really like to see a polished-off version of C&C 4 myself.

And why is everyone assuming I'm already in a argument, lol?

EDIT: If you want me to delete this post I can.

DumpsterDave · #9 02-01-2010, 11:59 PM

No, I don't want you to delete your post. Deleting a post just says my foot was in my mouth and I don't want to admit it.

Gaming is loosing it's focus on the PC because of that very thinking. Vegitation does not have to be AA'd and buildings do not have to blow up to make a great game. People are switching away from the PC because the game studios think that a PC game has to push the hardware to its extremes or else it will be a flop. A game is like a plate of food. Sure, you can go into a fancy resteraunt and pay $100 for a steak. Is it because they buy more expensive ingrediants? Sometimes, but the biggest cost is presentation. You are paying for them to make the plate look pretty. But what is the goal of that plate? Are you going to frame it and hang it in the den for all to see? No. The point of the food when you really get down to it is to satisfy your appetite. Nothing else. There was once a time when the difference between a good game, and a shitty one was the fun factor. Too often now, people declare a game to be great just because it has good physics or awesome realism. Take crysis for example. Probably still the most visually stunning games of all time. And also one of the biggest pieces of shit. The AI was HORRIBLE compared to other games at the time, and the length of the game and replay value sucked. Sales weren't THAT great and most people that bought it played it, beat it, and never looked back. Now look at BF2, or even Counter Strike. It's been how many years? And people are still playing it.

I know what points you are trying to make. But frankly, I don't want more complexity in my game. Most people don't. If I spend more time thinking than I do having fun, it ceases to be fun. A good game is simple enough that no more than an hour is needed to get the full swing of the game and become a non-noob, but complex enough that you aren't just clicking the mouse and mashing a couple of keys over and over.

Also, I don't think anyone thought you were trying to stir up an argument. But I think some people may have heard your CoH sales pitch way to much. You may be straddling the line between overly enthusiastic and obsessed about that game. Take it down and notch and you won't ruffle so many feathers

boxy1111 · #10 02-02-2010, 12:30 AM

Eh, I haven't bothered to earn my level 12 in a couple months anyways. The game came out in 2006, and was essentially the main competitor to C&C 3. It depends on what you want, be it small-scale (i.e. company-size) or large-scale (Invasion fleet?). I personally prefer the closer in, more detailed, and more tactical RTS than what C&C offers. I just don't like C&C because all you have to do is turtle up, wait a while, and then just spam AA/AT troops and float around the battlefield. And to add insult to injury, then you Nuke/Tear in Space-Time Continuum/Space-Laser your opponent.

At least in CoH, they sacrifice realism for extreme balance. C&C... not so much. C&C is much flashier with all of the lights and lasers and whatnot, though.