henke on 31/5/2019 at 04:35
Umm, icemann, everything you just wrote reinforced Tomi's (and my own) assumption that it's not about the actual quality of the game, but that it simply wasn't what C&C fans wanted.
icemann on 31/5/2019 at 05:36
Feel free to go play it then :p. I dare you.
Sulphur on 31/5/2019 at 05:55
That's not the point, though. Is the new gameplay bad, and if so, detailing what the problems were apart from 'IT'S NOT CLASSIC C&C HUAGHALUGH' would be nice.
icemann on 31/5/2019 at 06:13
Any franchise that does the same = the same outcome. Say Street Fighter was suddenly a sports game, Doom is changed to being a racing game. If you change the formula, your game is not going to sell well. Especially in C&C 4's case as they did it in a sequel, rather than a spin off. If it'd been a spin off, that would have been completely different. Same thing goes for films as well.
Sulphur - To get the answer your looking for, you'd need to have someone who is not a fan of the series, play it, which presents a catch 22, as why would someone enjoy it if they don't like C&C-like games. I don't know anyone who likes it, so I can't refer you to them either.
Note that I'd read all the reviews prior to playing it myself. I set my expectations at rock bottom and did my best, but after 15 minutes I just couldn't stand it and uninstalled it after that. And I detailed what about the game was bad in the last paragraph of my post above. If that is not enough and you want more detail, then we shall just have to wait until another person who has played it, posts of their experiences. In my case, I played it so long ago, that I've blanked the game from my memory (save for the bits I mentioned above), much like a bad film in an established franchise.
What I will say though, is that it's for similar reasons to why I hate Fallout 4. And just like Fallout 4, if it had been it's own game under a different name then fate would likely to have been kinder to it, but as it was released under that name then people are going to have expectations of what would be in the game. Be like, if you had a Tetris game that wasn't about clearing lines of blocks. That's not Tetris then. You may say, well what's wrong with the game though? And get the response "They called it a Tetris game, but you don't clear blocks. That's not Tetris." I feel the same on C&C 4.
With all of the above said, I get that that is not the type of answer that you are looking for. You are looking for an in depth analysis of the game itself, name taken away. That's not how I look on games sorry. Nor movies or other literature for that matter. So I will pass the batten to another who has also played the game.
Sulphur on 31/5/2019 at 06:20
It looks like you're saying this: anyone who's a C&C fan can't decouple their C&C nostalgia goggles from their face to look at C&C 4 with a smidge more objectivity. This is unfortunate if true, because it means that polarisation towards extremes is the only meaningful form of expression for fans.
I don't think we're living in a world as unfortunate as that, though, even if that type of communication is the norm.
zombe on 31/5/2019 at 06:25
Judge the game by what it is - not what it ought to be.
Or in other words: do not judge it by what it is not.
That is my two cents of the blatantly obvious and useless smart-assery over with.
Distrust of any scoring scheme is why i get the majority of my games by looking someone else take a look / play it. It is the only way to find out what the game actually is and whether that happens to be what i like. Still does not prevent some occasional regrets though - not to mention goodies skipped without ever finding out that i did.
It is hard to judge games. Even the worst piece of shit is probably exactly what someone seeks for.
Would be interesting indeed to hear some comments of the worst one has tried out in its library. I don't have any :/.
icemann on 31/5/2019 at 06:29
See my edits to my post above.
As for other games in my library that were really bad (this is going to be super subjective to the individual):
* E.Y.E - Divine Cybermancy - This is nothing but a glorified Half-Life 2 mod, that they had the balls to charge for. They even left one of the original Half-Life 2 turrets in the game at the start with a different texture applied to it. They were that ballsy. I played this for about an hour. Got to a long hallway against an enemy with a rocket launcher I think, and it all just looked and felt meh. I really wasn't enjoying it, as the "game" just didn't excite me. Was nothing about it that was fun. Uninstalled.
Checked the rest of my library and it's fine.
Malf on 31/5/2019 at 10:10
So I reinstalled both Godus Wars and Spacebase DF-9 last night to give them a look. Didn't get around to playing any Godus Wars, but I fired up an old save for Spacebase.
Probably not the best idea, as I had no idea what was going on, so I think I might start a new game this weekend. But first impressions were actually quite good!
It's very pretty, which I suppose is to be expected from a Double Fine game. The interface is quite clear for this type of game, and is well animated, feeling snappy and responsive.
Overall, certainly not one of the worst games I've ever played. And from looking at the Steam forum associated with it, it looks like the community have been releasing unofficial patches that expand gameplay, so I might have to give those a look.
I'll post some screenies when I get the chance.
WingedKagouti on 31/5/2019 at 11:34
Quote Posted by zombe
Judge the game by what it is - not what it ought to be.
Also judge it by what it claims to be.
(
https://twitter.com/BrianFargo/status/1047967566168174592) Baldur's Gate 3 is being teased by (
https://larian.com/) Larian Studios, and if BG3 turns out to be a Tetris-clone game with no story does it not deserve a negative reception even if it's a good Tetris-clone?
Nameless Voice on 31/5/2019 at 12:11
As a counter-point to the discussion about sequels, Dawn of War II changed the premise of the game entirely from the first game. The first is a classic RTS, while the second is a squad-based tactical game with more RPG elements.
Yet, despite some fans being obviously annoyed, Dawn of War II still has a positive review score (85% positive over its lifetime, 70% in recent reviews), because it's actually still a good game with the same high quality as the first game had.
Compare that to Dawn of War III, which is sitting at ~45%.
That one was just so badly-designed and with such low production values that it was rightly panned by pretty much everyone.
The writing, story, and voice acting were awful. The unit designs and gameplay loops were bad. The levels were poorly designed and the campaign was boring.
Both games stirred up the formula of the previous game significantly, being more like spin-offs than direct sequels. But Dawn of War II was still a good game, and got a high review score regardless of it not really being a proper sequel to the first game, while Dawn of War 3 got terrible reviews because the game itself was bad.