Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

C&C

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
In my mind, one of the greatest crimes in the strategy genre was the C&C style of strategy game, because they held SO MUCH promise.
It started with Dune 2, and basically only the graphics got better from there. It wasn't until really late in the series that they even allowed you to queue up unit builds. The games don't have much balance, the units themselves are a pain to use.
The latest, they've completely abandoned their old model of resources, and now the C&C series has become incredibly generic with the Generals.

Personally, I liked Red Alert 1 & 2 and I absolutely loved the Dune games, but I can't bring myself to actually play them. The idea of spice harvesters that get picked up and shuttled about on automated carryalls, the sandworms, etc. appeal to me so much, it's really too bad that they suck.
I just got Dune 2000 and Emperor Battle of Dune or something like that. Dune 2000 is basically C&C with Dune units. I haven't played Emperor, but its supposedly different from the originals. I'll get back to you, but man I wish they would make a worthwhile Dune game.
 

spacemoose

Erudite
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
9,632
Location
california
In the same vein, I've recently tried Emperor of the Fading Suns and I love the setting - its a sort of Urth-of-the-New-Sun scenario, where humans had a vast galactic empire once, but it has now fractured, degenerated and most of the knowlege has been lost. So you still have some starships and can use them, but don't have the tech to build any more. You lead a noble house with the goal being to get yourself elected regent, and declare yourself emperor. Most people here probably know about it, since it's on underdogs and was in your abandonware thread, Kingcomarade.

So I love the setting, but the combat is terrible - its hex based, and you can only attack a hex from one other hex, there are no leader traits, no combat events, terrain bonuses are incorrect. I've been spoiled by Hearts of Iron, and no matter how I try I can't enjoy this game.
 

roguefrog

Liturgist
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
561
Location
Tokyo, Japan
C&C was king in the early RTS days. Give me C&C and Red Alert over Warcraft 1&2 anyday. Then the heavy hitter came out. Total Annihilation and Starcraft, and line was drawn.
 

Vival

Augur
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
230
I loved C&C and Red Alert on small lan-parties with friends, despite the unimpressive unit balancing (i.e. battleships in RA) and the lack of strategy depth compared to Starcraft. It was somewhat similar to Doom1+2 which just were plain more fun in multiplay than the slower Quake. Could be nostalgia, i guess.
 

LlamaGod

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
3,095
Location
Yes
roguefrog said:
C&C was king in the early RTS days. Give me C&C and Red Alert over Warcraft 1&2 anyday. Then the heavy hitter came out. Total Annihilation and Starcraft, and line was drawn.

Total Annihilation is okay, the rest suck. TA can be fun, but there is such a lack of strategy. I do like it's method of resources, though. But good modern RTSes have progressed past that to a higher degree (Kohan)
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom