Reviewers Heart C&C 3

[RepoMan]

All between 80% and 90%! (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/932602.asp) Average 86%. Whoa.

[Dave Long]

I haven't played it yet, but I will. I think it's worth pointing out that if you wait long enough between sequels, people call your generic RTS "comfort food RTS" instead of a cash grab.

Devs take note!

;)

[Demon G Sides]

May 8th for 360? Damn...

[charmtrap]

The scores are all pretty good, but the reviews I've read all make the game sound like graphics update + UI improvements + fanservice = 90%!

Summed up by Tom Chick:



The secret is that there isn't any secret, or special twist, or unique hook, or innovation. It's formulaic and unambitious, content to revisit the formula Westwood introduced back when they were competing with Blizzard as the only RTS game-makers in town.


Woo, my heart is pounding.

[dgallina]

Right. The review scores are oddly optimistic considering the *meh* tone of the review text.

Editors at work perhaps?

[roguefrog]

Summed up by Tom Chick...

Based on that, it's a pass. I played out that RTS years ago.

[Jab]

I think I'll hold off on buying it for now, still playing Coh and trying to learn Supcom. Also it sounds like multiplayer is going to be rush focused much like generals .

[Gary Whitta]

Based on that, it's a pass. I played out that RTS years ago.
Whereas for me it makes it a must-buy.

[Ben Sones]

I don't see any contradiction here, and I totally get what Tom is saying in his review. Painkiller had a similar appeal. It was pretty much the epitome of "generic shooter." It was good because it didn't pretend to be anything else, and excelled at what it was.

[charmtrap]

I don't think there's anything wrong with refining and polishing a solid concept. Blizzard has built a gaming mini-empire doing that very thing. And I'd have been perfectly happy to buy a new "Baldur's Gate, slightly updated" every year for decades.

I just think there should be an automatic 10% "lack of creativity" penalty for what end up being essentially graphics updates and expansion packs. 90% seems a bit of a high score for an unambitious sequel.

[Spam]

mini?

[Matt Bowyer]

I don't see any contradiction here, and I totally get what Tom is saying in his review. Painkiller had a similar appeal. It was pretty much the epitome of "generic shooter." It was good because it didn't pretend to be anything else, and excelled at what it was.

Dragon Quest VIII on the PS2 hardly innovated anything; to me, it felt like an old-school RPG where the enemies line up on one side and the heroes line up on the other and you go on a wonderful journey with interesting people to save a princess and learn about your own past.

I played the hell out of that game, putting in ninety hours. I did it again a year later. Innovation is all well and good, but sometimes all that's needed is a simple and fun game.

As long as Command & Conquer 3 isn't so big on babysitting your gatherers like Age of Empires III was, I'm interested. I enjoy a good stock-standard RTS, and I've got Company of Heroes and Rise of Legends for my somewhat-innovative RTSes right now.

[caesarbear]

Innovation is all well and good, but sometimes all that's needed is a simple and fun game.
And this folks, is why games are not art.

[Luke M]

That's not a bad thing, is it?

[Matt Bowyer]

And this folks, is why games are not art.

Well, if you want to paint an entire genre with one comment, sure. But I enjoy taking time out from reading Shakespeare or the Dalai Lama to read some Sherlock Holmes or whatever Timothy Zahn's put out. I can listen to the Police or Snow Patrol just as much as Bach or Holst.

I can play Okami, or the rich plot and characters in Final Fantasy XIII, or Wind Waker, and then go play Dragon Quest VIII or Madden 2007 or Tekken 5.

It's not like we can't do both.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I just think there should be an automatic 10% "lack of creativity" penalty for what end up being essentially graphics updates and expansion packs. 90% seems a bit of a high score for an unambitious sequel.

I'm not going to get into what score is right (most are in the 80s, btw) but CnC3 is not an unambitious sequel. It's plenty ambitious, but not in the way of gameplay innovations. To be fair, very few games are. Just like there are excellent formula pictures, there are excellent formula games. This is a very good formula game designed around quick skirmishes and mastering counter-units.

CnC3 takes its own native frantic formula and adds in the best stuff it can crib from other games. Better UI and superpowers mostly. And the graphics upgrade is nothing to sneeze at. Reviewers shouldn't give a game credit if it looks better than average titles in the same genre? (I think there are some problems with the art design in the game, myself, mostly centered on how some of the units are uninspired in appearance and others look too similar to each other. But things blow up good.)

Troy

[SwampIrish]

CnC3 is not an unambitious sequel.

Troy

Maybe is ambitiously unambitious.

[Matt Perkins]

Here's the deal.. if this wasn't C&C 3, it would be getting mediocre to less reviews.

But because it IS C&C, it's getting passes. On what amounts minimal UI updates and some other changes (a third race that plays VERY similar to other two) that don't affect a lot.

Weeee....


Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander tell me we're well past the C&C of old. Hell, Kohan, Rise of Nations, etc, etc, etc, etc all tell me that.

Nostalgia seems to be getting this game glowing reviews. But will this game last even as long as Crackdown in terms of time played?


*shrugs* I'm glad people are having fun with it, but it's not the game getting these glowing reviews. Hell, most of the reviews don't seem to justify the scores they are being given.

I'll pass.

[JoshV]

The C&C franchise has always frustrated me. It sells well, but it actually tends to be a pretty crappy game with little or no innovation. But it sells well while games like CoH don't =(

[Gary Whitta]

I don't get what's wrong with a good old-fashioned throwback game once in a while.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Nostalgia seems to be getting this game glowing reviews.

Not nostalgia for me since I barely played the other CnC games. I have no warm feelings about the ones I did putter with, either.

Troy

[Rorschach]

I don't get what's wrong with a good old-fashioned throwback game once in a while.

I agree but if C&C3 outsells CoH 3:1 what does that say about rewarding innovation and what can we expect from games in the future?

[SwampIrish]

Here's the deal.. if this wasn't C&C 3, it would be getting mediocre to less reviews.

But because it IS C&C, it's getting passes. On what amounts minimal UI updates and some other changes (a third race that plays VERY similar to other two) that don't affect a lot.




The funny thing is Tiberian Sun got bad marks for being the same sort of rehash that is C&C3. Welcome to the Bipolar world of Gaming Journalism.

[Lynxara]

Now, now, games journalism isn't bipolar at all. It's okay to do a rehash provided it has really high production values, or caters sufficiently to nostalgia.

[SwampIrish]

Or buys plenty of ad space...ok, I'll stop.

[Dave Long]

Did all you guys read my first post in this thread? I was semi-serious with that.

I think it's true that the longer you wait between sequels, the easier it is to sell the same basic game all over again, but prettier.

[Uncle Larry]

Some people are never happy. Usually, those poeple also happen to be C&C fans, who snarled and sneered at the one honest attempt at evolving the franchise (Generals). They HAD to have the toolbar, don't you see? That shit was paramount, second only in importance to the FMV. Oh, and restrictive base building.

You guys might be left feeling a little cold with the lack of crazy-go-nutz innovation, but it may comfort you a little to know that many C&C fans feel shorted by the exclusion of buildable walls and every shitty thing that was in Tiberian Sun. "Dude, where's my totally broken Mammoth MK II?!"

Incidentally, the game is really fun, albiet unforgivably Korean in pace. You WILL get your shit pushed in online.

[ydejin]

I think it's true that the longer you wait between sequels, the easier it is to sell the same basic game all over again, but prettier.

I agree, and I'm mostly okay with that. I know we've argued over this before, but I really think I wouldn't mind XCom simply redone with modern graphics. I suppose there are a few other things which could be cleaned up -- having the game remember previous squad equipment from the last drop, for example. But for the most part, redone with the same gameplay, but better graphics.

On the other hand, redoing XCom 1-year later with essentially everything the same, but claiming it was underwater was kind of lame. Although I still had fun with Terror from the Deep, the fact that you couldn't even initially hover in the water (hello, a scuba diver can do that right now) and that grenades worked exactly the same underwater as out of the water, showed a real lack of effort.

[Tom Chick]

Uncle Larry, if you host a custom game, you can change the gamespeed. I prefer to play with the slider bar at about the half way point.

-Tom

[Uncle Larry]

Oh, I'm not complaining, just passing along a friendly warning. There's probably a lot of folks who figure they'll just master skirmish mode before dabbling in competitive matches online, who'll then walk away in keyboard-flipping dejection. It's probably better to just jump right in and get your trial by fire.

Every day you're offline you're getting weaker, while every minute Charlie spams tanks, he gets stronger.

[Tom Chick]

Once they introduced the patch, I've been unable to play online. I can't even get into a chat lobby, and the game tends to lock up when I go online, forcing a hard reboot of my computer. Insert obligatory "fucking Gamespy" remark here.

But the one game I did play against a Random Stranger was against someone named ReignOfBlood(1), but with various letters randomly capitalized. He sucked. He built, like, a single refinery, four harvesters, and a bunch of Mammoth Tanks. Ha ha. Silly n00b.

BTW, as for the warm critical reception this game is getting, I'd just like to say that I'm happy with giving it 4 stars on Yahoo, which is the same rating I gave War Front, another very good action RTS. But I was originally supposed to review C&C3 for CGM before they went under. For the record, in CGM, I would have given it 3 stars.

-Tom

[flyinj]

I usually hate RTS... and this is as RTS as RTS gets. But I absolutely loved C&C1 when it first came out (and before I completely burnt out on the genre).

Anyhow, I'm checking out the demo. Is there a way to set a rally point for your barracks/etc? And can you set a rally point to an existing group, making that unit automatically join the group as well as go to it's desitination?

[Tom Chick]

There's no 'rally to group' or 'rally to unit' function, flyinj.

You can, of course, select a building and right click to give it a rally point. Alternatively, if you're using the command panel to build without selecting the relevant building, you can give a rally point with CTL+R. Once you get used to using this, it's enormously helpful.

-Tom

[mono]

Ugh. I was just playing the 1st mission in the GDI campaign, and had the "Sell Structure" button selected. I forgot to turn it off before clicking on my production yard and the building was instantly destroyed/sold, resulting in an immediate defeat. They should at least provide a boneheaded-move preventative confirmation dialogue for noobs like me.

[Tom Chick]

Ha ha! We've had people do that at Shoot Club. The upside is that if you end up losing a game when you do that, it's a pretty compelling excuse for why you lost.

It is a bit odd that the 'sell structure' and 'power down structure' commands are sticky like that, but to the developers' credit, the cursor clearly displays a lightning bolt or dollar sign when you're in those modes.

-Tom

[OblivionSHO]

For the record, in CGM, I would have given it 3 stars.

-Tom

Tom,

Just curious, why would you have given it a lower score in the magazine? Would CGM have called you a pussy for giving it such a lenient score where Yahoo wouldn't? ;-)

[Tom Chick]

Different publications have different ratings scales, even when they don't. I considered three stars in CGM a thumbs up. Three stars on Yahoo is, umm, not so much a thumbs up. In fact, it's darn near a 60% on a 7-9 scale!

-Tom

[Alan Au]

It is a bit odd that the 'sell structure' and 'power down structure' commands are sticky like that, but to the developers' credit, the cursor clearly displays a lightning bolt or dollar sign when you're in those modes.
They haven't fixed that yet? Sticky input modes are a big UI no-no, but they're obviously trying to be "retro" with their homage to the bone-headed UI of the original C&C.

- Alan

[Tom Chick]

Fixed it? It's not broken.

It's clearly a toggle. You press the button or hotkey and then click on everything you want to sell or power down. I guess the assumption is that people will want to sell or power down multiple structures at a time. In fact, there's a campaign mission where this is absolutely necessary, and you have to do it pretty quickly. Without those buttons being "broken", as you put it, you'd be in a world of hurt.

-Tom

[Alan Au]

It isn't so much "broken" as it is "unnecessary legacy interface." Why not just have the user hold down a command key while in "delete" or "power down" mode? Yeah, I know I'm being picky, but UI design is a distinguishing feature of RTS games these days. For example, what modern RTS would dare leave out the "attack-move" option? *smirk*

- Alan

[Cronox]

It isn't so much "broken" as it is "unnecessary legacy interface." Why not just have the user hold down a command key while in "delete" or "power down" mode? Yeah, I know I'm being picky, but UI design is a distinguishing feature of RTS games these days. For example, what modern RTS would dare leave out the "attack-move" option? *smirk*

- Alan

I agree on your attack move point but totally disagree on your command key idea. In my experience most casual gamers don’t use really use the keyboard in video games if they can avoid it, using a mouse wheel to change weapons in a FPS, when binding keys to each weapon is a faster and more precise setup is a perfect example of this. Given this I think removing the sell and power down interface buttons would have been poor design.

Assuming buttons are going to be used In the case of power down I think it stands to reason that the majority of the time you press the power down button you are going to be powering down more than one building, so it makes sense to make it a toggle as this is the most efficient option the majority of the time. With power down being a toggle it stands to reason that the sell button should be too, imo not doing so would be very inconsistent, and thus poor, design.

[Matt Perkins]

To be fair here, my post might have been a bit over the top. And I definitely wasn't calling out anyone in specific with it, I was just saying that the same thing that would have sunk another game into mediocrity, made C&C3 a hit, in terms of review scores. *shrugs*

I think Dave Long is probably right (are we allowed to save Long is right about something?) with his theory. :)

[Troy S Goodfellow]

To be fair here, my post might have been a bit over the top. And I definitely wasn't calling out anyone in specific with it, I was just saying that the same thing that would have sunk another game into mediocrity, made C&C3 a hit, in terms of review scores. *shrugs*

Part of that, of course, is because new titles are supposed to do new things. If my game is just a carbon copy of, say AoE, only it looks worse then I can be rightly criticized for not doing anything with my design that hasn't been done better by other people. Doesn't make a lot of sense to complain about an Ensemble game being too much like an Ensemble game.

Still the reviews for Age of Empires III (which had a wide range for a marquee title) show that a franchise name is not necessarily enough to keep you in the must buy range.

Troy

[Matt Perkins]

Yeah, that's a fair point. I just think it's unfair to allow C&C3 to get away with yet another RTS because it's C&C. At least, that's how I view the game from not having played anything but the demo and read reviews on it.

[Uncle Larry]

Hey, anyone else getting game.dat crash errors? How about audio/video sync problems?