Command & Conquer

>>4111886


You save on the last GDI level before you blow up the temple. Then you take out the temple without, and finally with the ion cannon. Then you play the covert ops.

>>4111946
Cool. Shouldn't I play the NOD campaign too for the full experience?

>>4112041
diff anon but if you want full experience, you have to play C&C Renegade because it takes place during the last days of the First Tiberium War (C&C 1 AKA Tiberian Dawn), also because the last GDI level shows up in there too

File: tiberian_sun_cd_cover_208.jpg (1MB, 1406x976px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1406x976px

Why did they stop having guys with cool goggles in the cover art?

Why did people regard Tiberian Sun as a disappointment upon release? Many of the initial reviews seem to treat it as such.

>>4112162
It was very different from previous C&C games. Aesthetics, soundtrack, game pacing, gameplay mechanics, the farther camera, everything was different. Fans didn't like the changes very much, prompting Westwood to bring back classic gameplay and aesthetics on RA2.

>>4112041

I thought I typed it in, but yeah, play the NOD disk before the covert ops.

>>4112162
>>4112391
EA forced Westwood to rush the development for TS.

>>4112162
From a review: "Geriatric pacing."

Also the map design and mission excitement goes from top quality ( mostly beginning) to barren and boring.

my biggest problems with it, and I love the game, even firestorm.

Can we agree that the timeline goes like this:

C&C Red Alert Allied Victory -> RA2

C&C Red Alert Soviet Victory - > C&C -> Tiberium Sun etc

Do you think EA will ever restore the C&C franchise by either selling the IP or restoring westwood studios/victory games? There seems to be a trend among fans with a tendency to revive C&C. Especially with videos like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlIkGlTMUNE and the online community being alive and well.

>>4112162
>Why did people regard Tiberian Sun as a disappointment upon release?

It got stuck in development hell, it was too ambitious and didn't manage to deliver on everything it was supposed to (it was meant to have directional armour, searchlights providing targeting bonus, etc), the engine had heavy performance issues, people expected it to be a rocking hard game like C&C instead of ambient post-apocalyptic, and it was up against StarCraft.

>>4112391
>prompting Westwood to bring back classic gameplay and aesthetics on RA2.

RA2 was fun but it was also full-on campy retarded. And everything had paper armour.

>>4112643
>Can we agree that the timeline goes like this:

No.

RA Allied Victory directly leads to the forming of a united nations black ops "peace keeping" force, to prevent any future wars like the one against the soviets (eg. uphold the political status quo). They also raid soviet tech, hence why they have Mammoth tanks.

Kane then uses the media against them and makes them publically known after they fail at desert storm. This prompts them to become publically ratified as the United Nations Global Defense Initiative. Then the tiberium asteroid hits, Nod sells harvesting technology for it, and they become a world power (they were a shadow organization before that, always present, never public).

If Soviets have won in RA, then there would be no reason for GDI to exist and for Nod to fight against them, because Nod already controls half the world.

The bad guy endings are never canon in any of the C&C games, except C&C3 which had all missions running in parallel for some stupid reason.

>>4113307
EA couldn't figure out how to make a good C&C game. I mean C&C3 and RA3 had a GREAT chance, and had everything in place, but they rushed the development to bring the games to the market (StarCraft 2 was coming). If they gave the team 1 more year for each game, they could've been perfect sequels.

At least they got the controls down pat, I can't actually go back to RA2 now that I'm used to C&C3. Formation move, reverse move, and aggro stance are awesome.

>>4112609
Looking back on it, I can't even remember some of the later maps while I've got the first few sections etched into memory. I do remember sneaking in to Hammerfall or wherever to capture the GDI officer though.

>>4113324
Hearing about what was cut really disappoints me, but the game would've been really far from C&C if it went through. Might've taken the series in an entirely different direction if it happened.

>>4113336
>rush the development of 2007 and 2008 releases to compete with a 2010 release

>>4113443
No one knew when SC2 was going to release at that time, it's very possible it could've been seen as right around the corner at that time. EA probably tried to head them off.

>>4113449
At least C&C3 and RA3 didn't make you buy more games to get campaigns for all sides, if they weren't rushed they could market the games based on that fact

>>4113474
Only Blizzard can really pull that, and even then it backfired somewhat. People only put up with so much bullshit before they break.

If modern game development wasn't so expensive for your average studio, big entities like Blizzard and EA would be forced to be more competitive, but unfortunately it's not the case.

/thread music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGuuOdD6iY4

>>4113443
Yup, if they rush the game to come out before SC2, then they'll make sales. If they develop it for 3 years, then they may or may not make sales next to SC2.

It's why Renegade was rushed too, and Renegade 2 cancelled (Doom 3 was coming).

You can thank EA.

>>4112148
Tiberian Sun was my shit.

>>4113574
The reason why EA will never really expand their market any is for that exact reason. They have the market cornered on FIFA and other sports games (Which makes more than the rest of their games divisions combined with considerably less effort), but as soon as any other title isn't giving a huge, quick return on their investment, they drop it and churn out something shitty with what they have.

I think it would probably do them some good if EA saw games franchises as something you build up over time, establish a fanbase, and maintain that core audience for years. Sure, having a studio that only brings in a net profit of 20-30 million a year is pretty tiny compared to a hollywood blockbuster juggernaut like Bioware in its heyday, but being able to rely on that studio to consistantly pull those numbers over a decade is worth its weight in gold.

>>4112391
>prompting Westwood to bring back classic gameplay and aesthetics on RA2.

Westwood didn't even make RA2. That was Westwood Pacific, an entirely different studio EA acquired from Virgin alongside Westwood.