I've mixed feelings about the "Command & Conquer" franchise. On the
one hand, it was undeniably a ground-breaking game when it first
released in 1995. It had solid gameplay but its production values -
right from the start, with its installation program! - were what
really set it apart from its rivals. Its immediate sequels were quite
fun too - "Red Alert" was imaginative in setting (oh, and the
acting!!!!) - and "Command & Conquer 2" added new mechanics and an
improved engine.
But with each passing sequel, the magic started to drain away and by
the time "Command & Conquer 4" was released, I struggled to fight my
way through the campaign, driven more by a need to 'finish the fight'
than any real interest in how the game played or what the story was
about.
Still, there's a nugget of love for the franchise lodged in my heart,
so the announcement of an 'Ultimate Collection' bringing the whole
thing to modern computers - and Steam! - couldn't help but install a
bit of lust.
(see here if interested: https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/39394 )
Especially since the whole thing can be had for under a tenner (in
American money, at least). That's value on the dollar!
Of course, calling it the "Ultimate Collection" is a bit of a
misnomer, since its missing the 'remastered' versions of C&C1 and the
first Red Alert game. AFAIK, these are just the original games -
tweaked to work on modern operating systems. It isn't really a single
bundled game either; you're just buying all 12 games for a reduced
price.
I'm not complaining, though. I still own a number of these titles
/only/ on CD-ROMs, so having an easily-installed digital download
alone is worth the price to me. I might not get much playtime out of the bundle, but it'll be nice to revist the games, even if only
briefly.
Anyone else gonna take EA up on this offer?
C&C remastered collection is $7 on EA shop also. Various other deals too >But then you have to buy (and launch) from EA's app. Bleh. ;-)
C&C remastered collection is $7 on EA shop also. Various other deals too >>But then you have to buy (and launch) from EA's app. Bleh. ;-)
My understanding is buying on steam still requires running the EA launcher? Or is that wrong
rms
rms <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote at 17:22 this Sunday (GMT):
C&C remastered collection is $7 on EA shop also. Various other deals too >>But then you have to buy (and launch) from EA's app. Bleh. ;-)
My understanding is buying on steam still requires running the EA launcher? Or is that wrong
rms
Apparently, this collection doesn't.
Anyone else gonna take EA up on this offer?
On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:48:59 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
rms <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote at 17:22 this Sunday (GMT):
C&C remastered collection is $7 on EA shop also. Various other deals tooBut then you have to buy (and launch) from EA's app. Bleh. ;-)
My understanding is buying on steam still requires running the EA
launcher? Or is that wrong
rms
Apparently, this collection doesn't.
I installed and ran the following games in the bundle from Steam:
Command & Conquer (original); Command & Conquer:
Tiberian Sun; Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Wars,
Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath; Command & Conquer:
Generals, Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 - Uprising;
Command & Conquer: Renegade
None of them launched EA/Origin. As mentioned in an earlier post, C&C4
did demand I create an account to run the game but it did this without
the EA App. This was a restriction of the original game when it
released in 2010.
Can it still play online for multiplayers?
From what I can tell, no, you can't.
Specifically, I can attest that neither C&C2, C&C Generals, C&C
Renegade, nor Red Alert 3: Uprising have working multiplayer. Some
require services no longer available (such as Gamespot); others just
don't work. Attempting to utilize multiplayer in RA3: Uprising, for
instance, just crashes the game.
(Although some games do have LAN multiplayer modes, and those may
still work. However, I haven't tested to see if any of them are
actually functional. But I wouldn't count on any of these working over
the Internet)
There are a number of fan patches which re-enable multiplayer support,
but a) they aren't included in the bundle, and b) I haven't tested the patches, so I've no idea how well they work. If playing these games
online is the most important thing to you, I'd recommend you research
the issue first. Myself, I'm more interested in revisiting the
single-player campaigns.
With these releases, EA largely limited themselves to just making
sure the games will run on Win10/11, and work through Steam. In this,
it looks like they succeeded admirably. But these are in no way
remasters; they're the same clunky early 2000s games you probably
already own on CD-ROM. They just are easier to install and won't bitch
about running on an OS newer than WindowsXP anymore. Still, at only a
couple bucks a game (or $10 USD for the lot) I think that's a fair
price for what you get.
Although maybe they could have knocked off an extra few dollars for
making us take C&C4. That was /such/ an awful game. ;-)
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:01:57 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 23:07 this Monday (GMT):
Can it still play online for multiplayers?
From what I can tell, no, you can't.
Bit sad that they didn't revive the online services..
Understandable, though. They'd have to invest in recreating not only
the software but the entire infrastructure of services like Gamespy or MPlayer.com, and there's little financial advantage for their doing
so. Especially since there are fan-made patches that do the same, and
are being maintained for free by the end-users.
Trust a mega-corp to always take the cheaper route. ;-)
Although maybe they could have knocked off an extra few dollars for
making us take C&C4. That was /such/ an awful game. ;-)
Negative value?
Yes.
It wasn't just that the game entirely changed how C&C played and felt.
It wasn't just the mandatory online account.
It was that the game just wasn't fun to play. EA was so fixated on transforming the franchise - the sheen had long since worn off, and
C&C's popularity in 2010 was tiny compared to what it had been a
decade earlier - that they desperately tried to shoehorn in new
mechanics without ensuring they were making an entertaining game. It
was a tedious chore to play, and had none of the charm of the earlier
titles. The only reason to play C&C4 was to see how the story ended...
and even then, it wasn't a satisfying narrative.
If pressed, I'd have to admit it wasn't TERRIBLE. The game ran, it had competent (if dull) gameplay, and the production values were above
average. But even for a fallen franchise like C&C, "Tiberium Twilight"
was sub-par. The series deserved to go out better than it did. That's probably why it's left such a sour taste in my mouth.
Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of
times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker
Star..
There are exceptions, of course. "Resident Evil" and "Final Fantasy"
have had unusual resiliency (although the latter benefitted from not
being a consistent franchise from the start; each game in the series
was different enough - in tone, mechanics, and setting - that players
never came to expect 'more of the same' from a Final Fantasy game to
begin with. Another example would be the "Call of Duty Games", whose
lasting longevity baffles me. ;-)
On 14/03/2024 17:10, candycanearter07 wrote:
Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of
times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker
Star..
I think sequels are hard as, well at least for me, what makes the
original game so special is that it was doing something a bit new and a sequel just won't have that. A couple of exceptions I can think of are
Combat Mission II:Barbarossa to Berlin and Close Combat III: The Russian Front. Both of them improved a formula that I really liked but the big
draw was they were based on the Eastern Front which I just find more interesting. Oh and a special mention to FO:NV.
Most of the time though, I know I'm not going to enjoy it as much as the
game that came before.
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:10:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 18:34 this Tuesday (GMT):
Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of
times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker >>Star..
It's an understandable happenstance.
Game is popular. Customers want more. Developer makes sequel that's
the original game but gussied up. Game sells well. Customers want more
(but hey, maybe add a few new features?). Developer makes new game
with new features. Game sells well... but not as well as original.
Customers happy, but starting to eye other games. Still, they want
more. Developer makes new game, adds even more new features. Core
audience happy, but sales are down. Publishers panic; franchise dying!
Quick, do something! Developers revamp game dramatically, often with a
much smaller budget (because last game didn't sell that well and
publisher confidence is low) and with less time to test. But popular franchise name and "new" is all that's needed, right? Customers hate
it, game bombs.
(Twenty years later, remaster old game, maybe reboot franchise)
This problem becomes exagerated if the franchise is farmed out between different developers, some of whom may not really understand what made
the original so captivating in the same place.
What so many developers - and gamers - forget is that there's a
limited longevity to games. The tastes and trends that made a game so
popular originally won't necessarily apply in five or ten years.
Similarly, a franchise is often associated with certain ideas and
mechanics, and if you stray too far from them, you'll alienate your
core audience, and if you stick too closely, you won't attract new
customers. The end result: you can't keep milking a franchise and
expecting it to sell indefinitely. It's better in the long run - for
both developer and customer - to start investing in a new IP (bolster
it by saying, "created by developers who made Old IP!") than dragging
out an old franchise long past its sell date.
There are exceptions, of course. "Resident Evil" and "Final Fantasy"
have had unusual resiliency (although the latter benefitted from not
being a consistent franchise from the start; each game in the series
was different enough - in tone, mechanics, and setting - that players
never came to expect 'more of the same' from a Final Fantasy game to
begin with. Another example would be the "Call of Duty Games", whose
lasting longevity baffles me. ;-)
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 13:26 this Friday (GMT): >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:10:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 >><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 18:34 this Tuesday (GMT):
Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of >>>times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker >>>Star..
It's an understandable happenstance.
Game is popular. Customers want more. Developer makes sequel that's
the original game but gussied up. Game sells well. Customers want more
(but hey, maybe add a few new features?). Developer makes new game
with new features. Game sells well... but not as well as original.
Customers happy, but starting to eye other games. Still, they want
more. Developer makes new game, adds even more new features. Core
audience happy, but sales are down. Publishers panic; franchise dying!
Quick, do something! Developers revamp game dramatically, often with a
much smaller budget (because last game didn't sell that well and
publisher confidence is low) and with less time to test. But popular
franchise name and "new" is all that's needed, right? Customers hate
it, game bombs.
(Twenty years later, remaster old game, maybe reboot franchise)
This problem becomes exagerated if the franchise is farmed out between
different developers, some of whom may not really understand what made
the original so captivating in the same place.
What so many developers - and gamers - forget is that there's a
limited longevity to games. The tastes and trends that made a game so
popular originally won't necessarily apply in five or ten years.
Similarly, a franchise is often associated with certain ideas and
mechanics, and if you stray too far from them, you'll alienate your
core audience, and if you stick too closely, you won't attract new
customers. The end result: you can't keep milking a franchise and
expecting it to sell indefinitely. It's better in the long run - for
both developer and customer - to start investing in a new IP (bolster
it by saying, "created by developers who made Old IP!") than dragging
out an old franchise long past its sell date.
There are exceptions, of course. "Resident Evil" and "Final Fantasy"
have had unusual resiliency (although the latter benefitted from not
being a consistent franchise from the start; each game in the series
was different enough - in tone, mechanics, and setting - that players
never came to expect 'more of the same' from a Final Fantasy game to
begin with. Another example would be the "Call of Duty Games", whose
lasting longevity baffles me. ;-)
COD is probably surviving off the brand and nostalgia? FF seems
interesting, but I prefer the Mario RPGS (and PMD) (and Earthbound/M3)
(and undertale/deltarune) over the traditional stuff.
JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 14:01 this Friday (GMT):
On 14/03/2024 17:10, candycanearter07 wrote:
Ah. I've seen that kinda "sequel being worse in every way" a lot of
times, tho the only thing that comes to mind rn is Paper Mario Sticker
Star..
I think sequels are hard as, well at least for me, what makes the
original game so special is that it was doing something a bit new and a
sequel just won't have that. A couple of exceptions I can think of are
Combat Mission II:Barbarossa to Berlin and Close Combat III: The Russian
Front. Both of them improved a formula that I really liked but the big
draw was they were based on the Eastern Front which I just find more
interesting. Oh and a special mention to FO:NV.
Most of the time though, I know I'm not going to enjoy it as much as the
game that came before.
*Sometimes* sequels are actually good, but it usually seems like a way
to make more money off the brand.
Oh don't get me wrong they can be good but for me it's pretty rare that
they surpass the original. Did I like BG:II, yes I did but it couldn't >capture the magic of BG:I. It also didn't help that I find that D&D
starts to break down when you get to higher levels as the game starts
being dominated by magic/skills and balanced encounters start going out
the window.
I've mixed feelings about the "Command & Conquer" franchise. On the
one hand, it was undeniably a ground-breaking game when it first
released in 1995. It had solid gameplay but its production values -
right from the start, with its installation program! - were what
really set it apart from its rivals. Its immediate sequels were quite
fun too - "Red Alert" was imaginative in setting (oh, and the
acting!!!!) - and "Command & Conquer 2" added new mechanics and an
improved engine.
But with each passing sequel, the magic started to drain away and by
the time "Command & Conquer 4" was released, I struggled to fight my
way through the campaign, driven more by a need to 'finish the fight'
than any real interest in how the game played or what the story was
about.
Still, there's a nugget of love for the franchise lodged in my heart,
so the announcement of an 'Ultimate Collection' bringing the whole
thing to modern computers - and Steam! - couldn't help but install a
bit of lust.
(see here if interested: https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/39394 )
Especially since the whole thing can be had for under a tenner (in
American money, at least). That's value on the dollar!
Of course, calling it the "Ultimate Collection" is a bit of a
misnomer, since its missing the 'remastered' versions of C&C1 and the
first Red Alert game. AFAIK, these are just the original games -
tweaked to work on modern operating systems. It isn't really a single
bundled game either; you're just buying all 12 games for a reduced
price.
I'm not complaining, though. I still own a number of these titles
/only/ on CD-ROMs, so having an easily-installed digital download
alone is worth the price to me. I might not get much playtime out of
the bundle, but it'll be nice to revist the games, even if only
briefly.
Anyone else gonna take EA up on this offer?
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:32:08 -0500, Lane Larson
<lnlarson@stoat.inhoin.edu> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
(see here if interested: https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/39394 )
Anyone else gonna take EA up on this offer?
You are wicked to dangle this carrot in front of my eyes.
C'mon, get it. You know you want it. All those games, and so
inexpensive too! Think of how happy this will make The Number! How can
you resist? Do it, do it, do it!
;-)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 99:44:06 |
| Calls: | 6,659 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,208 |
| Messages: | 5,334,676 |