Ok, yesterday, I bough command and conquer the first decade. But I have a problem, which of the 12 games on there should I play first.
Shoudl I play from the oldest and then work my way up? or should I start from the latest game and "devolve"
Of course I know - I bought all the original games when they were first released!
The graphics are not 'very bad', they're from the 1990's - that's not the same thing. They are perfectly good at displaying what you need to see and at the time were regarded as detailed and smooth.
The gameplay does not 'suck'. The core C&C gameplay has been the same from the first game - it's a proven system which works and which has won millions of fans across the world.
You're talking crap if you think the units are the same. You think the Nod flame tank is the same as the GDI Abrams tank? Or the Nod flamethrower is the same as the GDI grenadier?
You're clearly very young and have never played any of these classic games before. Do you honestly think people stopped playing them before because they couldn't queue units up? No! The original C&C is regarded as an all-time classic game, one of the best ever produced.
Stop comparing these classic games with your Halo 3 modern standards - they are not supposed to match up, the whole point of the First Decade pack is for a player to be able to experience the classic C&C games and play them in sequence so they can see the evolution of the series.
Suggesting C&C is unplayable and rubbish because you're too young to have never played a game without build queues suggests that what you're saying is both ridiculous and, hell, insane too.
I highly suggest that the OP not listen to a word you say because you're massively insulting some of the best gaming material ever produced.
lol, this is turning out to be more fun then I thought!
First of all, my first PC game was Dune 2: The Building of a Dynasty, I bought that game in 1993. I also bought every C&C ever made except for Sole Survivor, C&C 3 and Red Alert 3.
Yes the graphics are from the 1990's, that why they are uber crappy right now! Also the gameplay sucks!
True that not all units are the same, but most units are copy of one another!
The C&Cs are getting crappier every year, although I did not buy C&C3 & Red Alert 3, I did play them at a friend and the devs should be ashamed of ever releasing those games. The gameplay is boring/stupid (parachuting BEARS) and it seems to me that most of the budget went to the actors that did the cutscenes!
You are right, the core gameplay as been around since the first one, thats the problem...
Compairing to Halo 3???, WTF are you talking about?? lol, I would compare Generals to Act of War, a much, much better game in every way!
I am clearly very young and I have never played these games before... WRONG, I bought every one of those games the day they came out, BTW I am 32!!! and I have been PC gaming since 1993.
I do believe that the original C&C was very good, and I will continu to say that it was a benchmark in PC gaming for many years! BUT having played these games in 2009, I can clearly say that they suck TODAY!
Bottom line is, C&C, Red Alert & Tiberian Sun are very crappy by today's standards and I recommend playing them only if you have nothing better to do!
Those games have aged very badly!
You clearly are a C&C fanboy!, if mediocrity is your thing then who am I to stand in your way!
I for one decided not to buy any other EA games.
lol, you just made my day! Thank you!
I played through the First Decade from C&C 95 to Zero Hour less then a year ago and it was quite fun. C&C 95 and Red Alert are perfectly playable. It's Tiberian Sun that's an issue since the pace is slow as molassess!
The most challenging aspect will the the Zero Hour campaign on Hard. Chinese mission #3 is really tough. Funnily enough they don't compare to C&C 3: Kanes Wrath in difficulty...stuck on the 7th or so mission. There you can talk about difficult!
Act of War is the worst highranked RTS I've played. Felt so locked. Never liked it. Completed campaign and that's it. I don't recommend it at all. But then again my preference is StarCraft 2 (Yeah I know it's not out yet but the original were my favorite game the last millenia so I know that the sequel will be my new favorite game) and Dawn of War (haven't tried CoH or SoaSE yet. Will do very soon).
Your day has been made by someone pointing out that your posting style is that of a child...? I'm not entirely sure why you'd be happy that, at 32, your writing makes people think of a teenage fanboy?
Anyhoo, the fact that you're pleased by writing large number of question marks and exclaimation marks in sequence, then having it pointed out that you're apparently a grown adult and should really know better, is irrelevant.
The point is, stop trying to convince people that the original C&C games suck, and not to play them. They don't suck, and it's stupid to buy a game and then never play it. Just because standards have risen, it does not make what came before crap all of a sudden. The original C&C and Red Alert are still great games, because what is good and what is bad is not defined by similar things placed out of any chronological context.
That opinion just assumes that any product of any kind which is past a certain date in its history must automatically be rubbish. That's not logical or accurate. Players will still have a lot of fun playing the original C&C games - they did before, there's no reason they shouldn't now. Many people I do still do.
I'll just re-iterate the point that no, 'most of the units' are not a copy of one another. The minigunner and rocket guy are the ONLY units which GDI and NOD share, or in Red Alert, which the Allies and Soviets share. Many of the buildings are the same, but that just makes logical sense. I suppose you could say that the Humvee and Dune Buggy are similar, because they serve similar scouting roles. Still makes your statement cack.
Your points about Red Alert 3 may well be true, I can't say as I haven't played it. I hate what's been done by EA to the C&C franchises - they've pretty much raped part of my youth away, and I absolutely hated everything I saw about Red Alert 3 (though I enjoy C&C 3 and think it's far superior because at least the storyline's still serious). So no, again you're wrong - I'm by no means a C&C fanboy. Quite the opposite in fact - I didn't like Generals (it simply wasn't C&C) and aren't a big fan of the new ones. The originals are still the best, and as such the whole point of this discussion remains: the orignal poster should most definitely play all of the First Decade, because if he doesn't he will miss out on some great entertainment and a fantastic piece of gaming history.
I'm gald you enjoyed yourself playing the first decade but maybe I wasn't precise enough on what I meant by "playable". The original C&C by Westwood Studios was a lot of fun when I bought it in 95. But 14 years later, I felt that the game had aged very badly to the point of being "unplayable". Slow pace, bad graphics, mediocre units. Dont get me wrong, it was quite enjoyable back then, but I could not bring myself to liking/playing it in 2009.
On the subject of Act of War, every person is entitled to their opinion and I personally believe that Act of War is the best RTS ever created so far. Infantry units play an important part in the game, you can't spam tanks and tactical/strategic decisions are very important before lauching an attack, you can't just spam large numbers of tanks and ruch your opponent à la C&C. Thats why I think that Act of War took the best part of the C&C series and twiked it to take it a step forward, something that should have been done by EA a long time ago!
WOW, back so soon!!!!!
YiddoBobbins, you typed lots of pretty words just for me, so nice of you!
BTW, my writing "style" is none of your concern! My opinion on the subject is just as valid as yours and nothing you can say or do can make me believe that the old C&C games are fun to play in 09. I found them boring, slow, and uninspiring. Nostalgia is the only reason someone would want to replay them, MOST people new to PC gaming will find that those games suck. Its like saying that DOOM is still a good game, its not. Its old and pass its time. I could not get any fun out of those old games. Its time to put the pass behind us and look forward to the future (Starcraft 2).
You accuse me trying to convince people not to play those games, but that is far from the truth. My post was a warning that the earlier games havent aged well, and that today they suck, nothing more.
As for the units, I still think that they are copies of one another, maybe they increased the number of hit points from the medium tank to create the heavy tank, but thats about it. Minor changes from one unit to another does not constitute variety in my book.
You did not like Generals, I think it is one of the best C&C out there. It was new, fun and from a creative perspective; original. It tried to separate itself from the old C&C and that was a good thing. I've got to give EA credit for at least trying something diffetent.
Actually, they were for the OP - as I said I'd like to convince him to play the classic C&C games to experience some great gaming moments and give him an impression of the continuity of the franchise.
Ok, you've written something positive towards EA, this conversation's over (those story-raping bar-stewards...)!
I'm a huge Generals fan, but Act of War had the most boring demo. I can't get myself to buy it.
Savyg, if you are a big fan of Generals, than you are missing on one hell of a game. Act of War is far superior to Generals in every way. Unless spamming tanks and rushing the enemy is your thing. If that is what you like to do, then dont touch Act of War. In AoW, you cant spam tanks, and you REALLY need a balance army to defeat your enemy.
If I remember correctly, the demo was the level were you start by calling a few airstrikes to clear out enemy bunkers, right before the landing on the beach. The demo did not show you the entire level, only a very small part. Dont let the demo stop you from buying the great game.
BTW, Amazon.com sale price is only 7.99$. Not a huge risk if you ask me. Its your call, but if you are a C&C Generals fan, than you have nothing to be afraid of.
http://www.amazon.com/Act-War-Direct-Action-DVD-Pc/dp/B0006FZUH2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1246791765&sr=8-1
I've still gone back and played tiberian sun(+firestorm) from time to time, but the original C&C+Red alert are too aged for my liking for me to want to replay them. If you're intending to play them all, I'd play them in order of age though, since once you're used to the fancy new graphics you'll hate the old ones even more (not to mention there will be some gameplay features that you'll be used to on the later ones that will be missing on the earlier ones, making it even harder to adjust). If you're not so bothered then I'd probably start with tiberian sun - the graphics are poor by todays standards, but you can still have a fair amount of fun with it and it doesn't make my eyes hurt. I'd pick out Yuri's revenge as being one of the best ones, although I also really like Zero Hour's general challenges.
I just started playing Yuris Revenge, little annoying as the move and attack button are the left mouse button not the right...
I have nothing to gain either. I have way too many games already.
(Along with plenty of other older games that seemed interesting but I never actually played.)
Yeah the controls get all screwy between the C&C games. Why consistency was too much to ask I'm really not sure. I do like their simple hotkeys in the later games though...double Q should be select all in all RTS games, I tell you!
I disagree, you do have something to gain; one amazing RTS. If you are not ready to spent 8 tiny dollars for a great game then its your choice. The campaign alone is worth more than 8$.
I really dont understand why people continu to accept mediocrity (C&C). They are ready to pay large sums of money for anything C&C, but when something better comes along, they disregard it as inferior just because it doesn't have the C&C logo on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vIKHnX4gnE
http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-games/act-of-war-direct/4505-9696_7-31321174.html
Go buy it, and experience Act of War for yourselves. Play through the entire campaign, experience an incredible/superior RTS. If you liked C&C, you're gonna love Act of War!
Yeah, I'll love it so much I'm not going to buy it. I still think it'll suck.
To add some detail to that statement, I think Advent Rising is one of the best games I've ever played. I don't go tell people to buy it because I'm sure plenty of them will disagree with me. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would tell me turn based strategy is the only way to fly. Same with world war 2 games. I can't stand either type, except in rare cases.
The fact is, that ship is sailed. Most people who actually wanted to buy Act of War already did. You'll have a bitch of a time convincing anyone who doesn't have any solid evidence (like a demo that doesn't suck, which doesn't exist) that they need to buy it.
And I didn't like C&C2 or 3. The Red Alert games are all good though, too bad I waited eight months before giving RA3 a shot, but C&C3 was so disappointing that it just happened that way. Still, the day I consider $30-$50 to be 'large sums of money' is the day I go shoot myself in the head.
I loev C&C threads they always bring up good points and inevitably there will always be disagreements.
Here's my opinion for what it's worth.
Judging older games by the standards of today is a fatal flaw. One cannot say that back in '93 Dune 2 (which I spent ocuntless hours playing and loved to death) was an awesome game and then all of a sudden today it sucks. If back then you played a game to death but today you wouldn't toluch it... well thats understandable. BUt to go out and say that the same game you went out and played to death years ago now sucks ass is not only wrong but incredibly hyprocitical of you.
For example: Stating that back in the 13th century when the magna carta was written is not a big step towards responsible government ad democracy because of today's standards is ignorant and follows the same principle. Life is an evolution. Without the original C&C series (95 and red alert) RTS games would propbably not be what they are today. Of course they are better today with better graphics, but they are so because of the way they have evovlved thanks to the older titles.
Now in terms of the OP's original question of what order you should play it in. I agree that you should do them in order. Except for renegade. Not that you shouldn't play renegade but that you should play it right after beating the original C&C (Tiberian Dawn as they call it now).
I liked Renegade becasue of the way it put you in the C&C universe. I always wanted to know what it was like to drive a mammoth tank. NOW I KNOW!!lol
cheers
unfortunately the new CnC will require an active internet connection....even for single player.
Another one to throw onto the "don't buy" pile.
Hmm I never really tossed my ten cents in here did I?
First off, don't diss Red Alert 3 based on the early missions. It's a well designed game (though certainly ridiculous!) and each of the sides plays uniquely. I've played through all but one of the campaigns, been trying to get through the other one with my friend and we don't get together enough. I liked Uprising too, though not having the coop mode sucks.
As for the graphics and playability of the early games...there isn't any. I can only go back to that age of gaming if I am really, really bored. Yes, they were good games, and that doesn't go away over time, but that doesn't make them playable for most people now. It's hard to go back to anything pre-Red Alert 2 IMO (especially the disaster that was CnC2.)
Some people do get more out of old games than others. I'm not one of em.
I still haven't finished most of these games campaigns, except Generals and Zero Hour. May never happen. Life's like that I suppose.
CnC3 I'm working on though, I'm excited enough about 4 that I just picked up Kane's Wrath So I hope I can finish the 3 campaign and start in on that very shortly. The sound designers (technology and effects) on 3 need a mention. It's one of few RTS sound engines that really sounds like a battle is going on...I was pretty impressed there. Technology marches on, and still we get crappy afterthought audio 90% of the time...heh.
(Note I'm not trying to insult sound designers on games, just that it usually seems to lack polish and variety compared to other parts of gaming.)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
