Discuss What makes a true C&C game?

[Killing_You]

So before long, I'm planning to make a 5-part series on how EA has handled the C&C franchise. The first part will be establishing the franchise as a whole, as well ad defining what makes a "true" C&C game, before I examine Generals, C&C3, RA3, and C&C4 in the second, third, fourth, and final parts, respectively.

For this first part, I'd like to ask you guys: What do you think makes a "true" C&C game? What elements need to be present in order for a game to be considered a "true" entry, and how important are these elements to you? Keep in mind that there is a difference between a "true C&C game" and a "good C&C game." For example, Generals is considered to not be a "true" C&C while still being praised as a great game, while RA3 seems to hit the mark as far as being a C&C game goes while also falling short of being good.

[OrangeP47]

Base building from a construction yard and resources on the map that slowly regenerate.  Granted, this is mostly in reference to generals, which had *units* as the constructor, and also could theoretically run out of resources entirely.

[TYTY]

What makes a true C&C game is a game that holds itself true to what C&C means. Building structures from a general Construction Yard and resources to be collected into a "refinery".

RA3's Ore fields felt a bit meh in my eyes personally. At best what C&C 3 has can be seen as the most desired route, although some prefer the route that RA2/TibSun have, however modernization is a thing and C&C 3 definetly is a great game on it's own and stayed true to C&C's core.

RA3 overdid it with slapping abilities on every single unit in the game and kinda overdid it with the theme. Yes the Red Alert series were the colorful ones of the two universes (not counting the Generals universe here cause it was only one game and an expansion and it does feel out of touch with C&C, maybe due to there only being one game in the series), however RA3 overdid that by looking very cartoonish. Building deaths looked just as if you threw a rock at a badly built LEGO home.

The part with the abilities just felt like they tried to compete with StarCraft, which was a pretty bad attempt imo. It doesn't fit C&C and probably never will.

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by TYTY
spelling errors trigger me why do I do this

[OrangeP47]

Yeah I suppose to expand, while I still consider C&C 3 to be a 'true' game, the fact that tiberium was 'corralled' into set areas kind of made me meh about the resource management.  I liked TD and TS where tiberium could spread all over the map if left unchecked.

[Inferno]

8 minutes ago, TYTY said:

What make a true C&C game is a game that holds itself true to what C&C means. Building structures from a general Construction Yard and resources to be collected into a "refinery".

RA3's Ore fields felt a bit meh in my eyes personally. At best what C&C 3 has can be seen as the most desired route, although some prefer the route that RA2/TibSun have, however modernization is a thing and C&C 3 definetly is a great game on it's own and stayed true to C&C's core.

RA3 overdid it with slapping abilities on every single unit in the game and kinda overdid it with the theme. Yes the Red Alert series were the colorful ones of the two universes (not counting the Generals universe here cause it was only one game and an expansion and it does feel out of touch with C&C, maybe due to there only being one game in the series), however RA3 overdid that by looking very cartoonish. Building deaths looked just as if you threw a rock at a badly built LEGO home.

The part with the abilities just felt like they tried to compete with StarCraft, which was a pretty bad attempt imo. It doesn't fit C&C and probably never will.

  

You hit it on the nail with a hammer, bro.

[Raap]

At it's core, C&C RTS games were a sandbox. The game gave you a bunch of units and structures along with related mechanics but ultimately it was up to you, the player, how you went about utilizing any of the tools the game gave you. Two or more people, with their own strategies and tactics, fighting each other over bragging rights. The whole concept is truly this simple.

Forget e-sports and crazy twitchy micro management. The original games offered a very accessible gaming experience that was very unique at the time, and even till this day there has not really been many games like C&C RTS games. Most RTS games fail to get any traction at all because they always miss one or more fundamental pillars that C&C games nailed down (and perhaps Westwood did so more by chance rather than intentionally).

The RTS franchise as a whole has been completely tunnel vision focused on e-sports when there simply is no audience for this. For the onlooker, RTS games are a difficult to follow mess, and for the participant, the barrier to entry is massive because of the huge skill ceiling that comes with micro managing and fast reaction requirements. C&C games in particular had much more success in the hands of "the average player", the casual player that wanted to play some RTS for either story or a match versus some equally skilled opponents, or simply with friends.

To most players, the over-designing of later RTS games did not add anything of value. All that really mattered was that factions were diverse and offered plenty of unique and fun units, structures, or mechanics. RA3 was a good example of over-designing, where so much time was wasted on making the units e-sports friendly, that in that process they forgot to focus on everything else, resulting in bland and forgettable units at best, and cringe-worthy units at worst.

Naturally, earlier C&C games added upon that in terms of game setting, background stories, and general game character. It resulted that people gained a sense of ownership to these units and structures as they became more immersed into the universe. This isn't something many other games managed to emulate, because the traditional C&C themes were original and strong (until EA absolutely murdered all of this post C&C3).

TLDR: C&C games are beautifully simple games. Later C&C games and other RTS games cannot reach the potential of the older games because game developers do not understand what made these games sell.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Raap

[ganein14]

In my opinion, the only RTS series I'd truly consider C&C's rival in terms of stratagy mixed with story (Before what they did to it beyond C&C 3) would be the Starcraft series. I mean just from a single person perspective or skirmishes with bots, no online multiplayer.

[NodGuy]

Question: What makes a true C&C game?

Answer: Tiberian Sun

but that’s just my opinion.

[Cat]

What makes a true C&C game: 

1. It has the C&C title slapped on it.
2. It's produced officially by the company holding its license.

What makes a good C&C game:

1. Primary resource collection is done by harvesting/mining/anything-equivalent. 
2. You can easily produce units/army/base using the limited resources.
3. Destroying base power being a good and simple alternative to weaken an enemy base.
4. It has a storyline and campaign.
5. It's not complicated, confusing and boring to the point my judgement tells me to stop playing it.

If a C&C doesn't have the 5 criteria above, I'm still fine to accept it being a good C&C game (or at least a good spin-off) as long as it has something unique that appealed to me. The reason is because I think C&C should not be limited to RTS base-building game only, it can branch out into other game genres like Renegade being a shooter game, Sole Survivor being a deathmatch game, etc. (Just my opinion)

[Nodlied]

4 hours ago, Cat said:

What makes a true C&C game: 

1. It has the C&C title slapped on it.
2. It's produced officially by the company holding its license.

What makes a good C&C game:

1. Primary resource collection is done by harvesting/mining/anything-equivalent. 
2. You can easily produce units/army/base using the limited resources.
3. Destroying base power being a good and simple alternative to weaken an enemy base.
4. It has a storyline and campaign.
5. It's not complicated, confusing and boring to the point my judgement tells me to stop playing it.

If a C&C doesn't have the 5 criteria above, I'm still fine to accept it being a good C&C game (or at least a good spin-off) as long as it has something unique that appealed to me. The reason is because I think C&C should not be limited to RTS base-building game only, it can branch out into other game genres like Renegade being a shooter game, Sole Survivor being a deathmatch game, etc. (Just my opinion)

Pretty much this although I would add that at least one of the factions requires to have a double-barreled super heavy tank.

[OrangeP47]

32 minutes ago, Nodlied said:

Pretty much this although I would add that at least one of the factions requires to have a double-barreled super heavy tank.

Eh, while I liked it early on, by the later games that kind of became cliche.  Probably after C&C 3.

[ChopBam]

51 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Eh, while I liked it early on, by the later games that kind of became cliche.  Probably after C&C 3.

Killjoy.

[OrangeP47]

38 minutes ago, ChopBam said:

Killjoy.

To be fair, the sentiment is definitely mixed up with a thing others have said, the "overabundance of special abilities".  About the time every unit started having a special is about the time I stopped caring about the units, double barreled tanks included.  I like C&C 3, but nothing even from that game particularly stands out to me as a unit I particularly enjoy.  Give me TD, TS, or RA1 anyday.

[ChopBam]

1 hour ago, OrangeP47 said:

To be fair, the sentiment is definitely mixed up with a thing others have said, the "overabundance of special abilities".  About the time every unit started having a special is about the time I stopped caring about the units, double barreled tanks included.  I like C&C 3, but nothing even from that game particularly stands out to me as a unit I particularly enjoy.  Give me TD, TS, or RA1 anyday.

Upgrading those Mammoth Tanks with railguns, tho'. ?

[FRAYDO]

What makes C&C "C&C", by FRAYDO.

1) Immersive universe. Tiberian Dawn had an amazing balance of the real-life warfare we experienced at that time and science fiction introducing the alien substance that is Tiberium. Not only was Tiberium this resource that had to be collected in order to finance your war machine, it was the focal point of the entire world. This quasi-religious organization sought to use it not only for financial gain, but for the advancement of technology and humanity. "The Technology of Peace!", as it came to be known by devout followers. Conversely, you then have our equivalent of the UN forces in GDI. The Global Defense Initiative, united in fighting against what they perceived as tyranny and fighting to protect the free world. Despite their noble ideals and intentions, they were not above using Tiberium for their benefit. Tiberian Dawn, and later Tiberian Sun, potentially had you conflicted. Is Nod's vision for the future one that should be pursued? Is their way of evolving and elevating humanity the route we should be taking? What of GDI? Are they halting the progress of mankind in stopping Nod? Or is GDI the best hope for Earth, in their mission to eliminate Tiberium and return to the status quo? As the series progresses, it becomes evident too that GDI was quickly becoming too powerful to be restrained, eventually becoming their own superpower and no longer operating within the UN's jurisdiction. Was Kane correct in warning the world that if GDI's strength was left unchecked, they would rule the world with an iron fist? Between playing the game and watching the storyline unfold in the cutscenes, it's these questions you ask yourself that immerses you further in the game. You weren't just clicking a unit here and moving him to over there. You had chosen a side in this conflict between GDI and Nod, and you were fighting to see their vision through to the end.

2) Memorable soundtrack. We all know of Frank Klepacki, the legend. He recognized that music is all too important in story-telling to be ignored. He may not have realized it at the time, or maybe he did, but his contributions in that front is what brought the game to life. You can add in a fantastic story, an impressive list of units and vehicles to fight with, and even A-list celebrities, but in order for the player to experience all this they must actually play the game. When Act on Instinct hits when you enter your first Tiberian Dawn mission, you're immediately engrossed in the mission. Get moving, soldier, we have a war to win. Better put, "We are going to have to act, if we want to live in a different world." After that song ends and the shuffle kicks in, you're still engaged in the game. Each track playing was catchy enough yet not distracting, playing on a delicate balance of keeping you the player engaged but not driven away by the music and still allowing you to focus on the action at hand.

Before anyone says "if Frank Klepacki didn't make the music then it's a terrible C&C track", let me just state that you are wrong. Jarrid Mendelson did an amazing job on the Tiberian Sun soundtrack, both on the songs he did in collaboration with Klepacki and those he did entirely of his own.

3) "Classic" RTS gameplay. Not much to say that the others have not already. Deploy the Construction Yard. Build the Power Plant, then the Barracks, then Refinery, collect money, build your army, find the enemy's base, send your army, win. Command & Conquer ™ . Any variance of this (Generals, Red Alert 3, and C&C 4), is initially met with resistance. Generals and its Bulldozers/Workers system I came to like, Red Alert 3's style of Allied Prospectors and Imperial Nanocores I could barely tolerate, and C&C 4, well just no.

4) Idk. I just love Command & Conquer. The series has its ups and downs, but as a whole I love everything the series has given to me. The good memories, the communities it has brought me to, and my passion for blasting the C&C soundtracks on my car radio.

[thedisclaimitory]

i think EA as a hole cough c cough did very well no they dint dumb #%(. EA has been very stupid with c&c like they canceld c&c generals and tiberium and what els do they know nothing about c&c they may own it but westwood knows more about command and counqer more than anyone but there gone exept for maybe some devs who may have joined EA who knows they might not even care for the old westwood devs that have joined EA if this is all true because they don't care about command and counqer why do I say this is because they focus there time on battlefield and battlefront and there big games. And they have never done an rts other than command and counqer and this is why they have resorted to mobile because they don't simply have the time to focus on c&c so it either gets sold off to modders or maybe even dice itself or it could get sold off to maybe even Microsoft who knows right now we can only guess why and the reason why EA never announced c&c rivals was because they knew we dint want mobile games for c&c maybe they did this to keep us busy and there working on something big for c&c that we might actuely like who knows and hopefuly its not some tib twilight rip off because then id be very very pised much like a very drunk and pissed off old fat man who gets up in the morning drunk and grumpy and pissed at the same time only because EA screwed us all and put up the middle finger straight to our faces. But anyway they might not wan tto do it anymore because they might think its not prophitable like for instance dice dint know why people still like battle field bad company 2 and they had no idea im serious that's like saying to your daddy I made this for you and it looks so nice to him but not to you so your like why does he like this I made this to be likeable but I have no idea why he likes this and its your own creation and you wonder why hes marveling at it when you made it to be marveled at ,it makes absolutely no sense 

[Inferno]

If EA would ever read this thread, they could no longer hide behind their bullshit reason of "the fans just don't know what they want".

 

Anyways, onto what makes a C&C game for me.

• I got started into C&C with Tiberian Sun. The amazing cut-scenes/story-line, immersive environment, easy-to-get-into game-play and decently challenging campaign really captured my full interest and I wanted more. From there on, I went and bought RA1 and TD and afterwards every C&C that came out afterwards. What makes TS/FS stand out from the pack was its captivating environment, the rich tiberium diversity just made it feel like the whole map was alive and the soundtrack just made it all come together. That's exactly one of the very few flaws I want to point out in TW: the rich diversity in tiberium wildlife really adds to the amazing atmosphere (FS was the best at this).
• Now, onto the general C&C formula. To me, what really made the C&C games stand out from the pack is the in-depth Single Player experience. Aside from Generals & ZH, no C&C game was truly competitive MP-focused and shouldn't try to be. I'm talking a variety of different types of missions, like commando missions or missions with pre-deployed units to vary up the majority of the missions (which involve base building).
• Which brings us to base building. The build order of PP, barracks, refinery, etc. is legendary C&C material. The structure of the build order and tier structure is simple, but proven to be very popular. Don't change the core; the only thing you could play with is possibly adding a higher tier (like in KW with the epic units, for example). But let's not forget how different strategies can be very effective: both turtling up heavily or aggressive unit-based strategies are both viable in the game.
• Tank rushes. C&C is notorious for its tanks to be amazingly effective for rushing. Add in a super-heavy (anti-everything) tank in the mix and you have another C&C ingredient. Of course, it's possible to slightly diverge from this (like C&C3 and RA3 did) by making anti-tank infantry very powerful, but never make the mistake of eliminating the tank rush.
• Keep it simple. No 5 different unit abilities, nobody wants excessive micro-management except the very top of competitive RTS players. C&C3 was amazing at this, providing a little micro-management - this way you don't lose track of what C&C is known for - macro-management.
• No capture point X shenanigans in C&C please, thank you very much. If you want a capture RTS, go play CoH or something. Another reason why C&C4 failed as hard as it did.
• Relatively soft counters. RA3 was especially guilty of ignoring this principle. In general, if you spam enough of one unit, you can overwhelm the opponent - no matter what - in C&C. It's part of its charm; there's no need to balance the game endlessly for competitive players. Rifle soldiers are capable of killing tanks and enough rocket troopers can kill a rifle soldier. No need to change this. 

 

Other things to consider:

• Alternative Singe-Player content was amazing both in ZH and RA3 uprising: commander's challenge and general's challenge. Provides time-extensive additional SP content and significantly increases replayability (that's not the skirmish mode).
• Adding Generals and Subfactions was one of the additions that I really loved in ZH and KW. Really spices up the game, even though it's not necessarily core C&C content.

[Threve]

What makes a true C&C game?

Something you'll play forever and put down when you grow a little and move on with life. Then keep coming back to it even when you beat all the missions, know you'll win against the AI Skirmish and listen to the soundtracks in your car.

[MPRA2]

^---This