| Page 7 of 9 |
|
|
 Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008 17:09 Post subject: |
|
 |
so C&C4 will be a console shitty port of a FPS game , great never felt better
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73255
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008 17:13 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think Tiberium is a sequel per se (i.e. C&C4), but just another game (crappy or not) set in the C&C universe (just as Renegade was). If you think it's crappy don't play it, just watch the story on youtube.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008 18:18 Post subject: |
|
|
the storyline follows the one from kanes wrath. And its not a console port per se, it is developed on console AND pc at the same time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008 20:15 Post subject: |
|
|
| wrathamon wrote: |
Anyway, the game ran like a charm, NOT A SINGLE CRASH in campagin.
In Skirmish the freakin game crashes EVERY COUPLE OF MINUTES.
Is it just me or is someone else having this problem too ? |
I have crashes in conquer mode.
i5 6600k @ 4.3 GHz | MSI z170 Gaming M7 | 32GB Kingston HyperX Fury | 850 Evo 500GB | EVGA 1070 SC | Seasonic X-660 | CM Storm Stryker
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008 23:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| wrathamon wrote: | r0fl, making up stuff now are we.
Anyway, the game ran like a charm, NOT A SINGLE CRASH in campagin.
In Skirmish the freakin game crashes EVERY COUPLE OF MINUTES.
Is it just me or is someone else having this problem too ? |
Same problem over here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008 23:57 Post subject: |
|
|
I played on vista x64 and had no problems, of course the frame rate was excellent but the graphics ain't much to look at it's the same bloody engine as generals, lazy Ea shit-heads, so that was expected.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 09:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| madmax17 wrote: | | I played on vista x64 and had no problems, of course the frame rate was excellent but the graphics ain't much to look at it's the same bloody engine as generals, lazy Ea shit-heads, so that was expected. |
hm the graphics are about the only thing nobody said anything about .... for the reason that there isn't anything to say about ... nothing bad anyway. they look nice, and run smooth.
Bitching about the graphics in CnC3 is just poor , sorry .... and makes you look like you just like to bitch randomly "just to bitch about something" ....
and judging a game solely for its graphics (which aren't bad at all, but just because "its EA and its based on a (HEAVILY) modified engine from 3 years ago ...) is low .. very low ...
Last edited by Sin317 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 10:24; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dunge
Posts: 1201
Location: Québec
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 10:04 Post subject: |
|
|
Same engine doesn't necessarily means same graphics.. they are in fact improved a lot.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wawrzul
Posts: 2336
Location: Cracow, Poland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 11:31 Post subject: |
|
|
If you blind people turn a page before I already bitched about the gameplay a lot especially concentrating on how much it sucks and didn't mention the graphics at all so this time I just mentioned the graphics, idiots.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 11:56 Post subject: |
|
|
The graphics are pretty decent, run like a charm.
What more can you ask for.
Ofcourse they are not in league with the likes of Company of Heroes, but still they look nice.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 12:19 Post subject: |
|
|
| madmax17 wrote: | | Dunge wrote: | | madmax17 wrote: | | everyone dies so quickly including the structures like they are made from sugar |
What's wrong with that? That's what make c&c and starcraft the best rts imo. I hate warcraft/aoe style where it take 2 mins to kill someone. C&C3 is still in the best RTS around, you might disagree but I played much online and there is a lot strategy involved. A mass army won't always win.. |
imo everything, it's annoying, unrealistic and takes away from the strategy I think, I mean the 'hero' unit is stronger than the terminator if it gets close to a base or a group of buildings it can demolish them in 5 seconds, like record breaking explosive planting it just touches the building and it blows I remember in past c&c and even generals it took some time to plant the explosives and you were vulnerable then and infantry stand no chance against it you can launch 100 soldiers at the hero and he kills them all  I don't play multi I just rate the singleplayer. |
true what you say madmax17 but let's be serious... you haven't played it online or at least in MP via lan. since you haven't done that then you can not say this game sucks. it rocks and it is one of the best games i played in sometime now. the strategic value of the game is revealed only if you play it against a human  .
@madmax17: what exactly are you expecting from a game? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 13:44 Post subject: |
|
|
Well in the end it comes to personal taste and this game just rubes me the wrong way, it's using very cheap graphical tricks so kinds playing in on the console can go wooooow look at the shimmering! it's probably a good example of a console ea strategy, fast and quick with insy-winsy maps, no thinking parts required to play and no strategy plus poor graphics.
Games that I like, well I honestly don't know which game I enjoyed more, Coh, Act of War or Supreme Commander plus all three expansion's, all the game's had huge maps (medium sized at times for company of heroes) a lot of strategy especially for act of war which was kind of a shock plus the most realistic planes and infantry I have ever seen in a strategy game and the expansion had huge maps, SC had that epic fell and a lot of units too (a lot of them useless but it is always better to have a choice) and absolutely huge maps (I keep saying big maps but it is important for a good strategy game to have big maps, attack from different sides which you can even coordinate so they happen at the same time) if these three games had donkey poo as graphics I wouldn't bitch at all because they were great and they were fun, I hope that answers your question.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 15:50 Post subject: |
|
|
well not defending CnC3 or anything , but
CoH : The unrealism of unrealism (nobody dare to say otherwise) and you have even less units to chose from than CnC3. Plus only 2 sides (+2 in expansion). Maps are ok i guess, resource system is a bit gay ... I own the game, there are like 500-1000 people playing online WORLDWIDE ...
SupCom : No offense to anyone (especially those die hard TA fan(boys ?), but that game was utter crap, even compared to cnc3. The Campaign was abolutely boring and MP is just "Out build your enemy and set waypoints and watch the 2d icons approaching the enemy base (since you had to zoom out that far to actually play the game, that all you saw where 2d-icons and some experimental units ....
Sorry to say, but no rts in last few years really hit the big one. Except maybe World in Conflict which has both, a superb campaign/story AND nice MP (Bundled with state-of-the-art graphics).
Anyway, for what it is, CnC3(and its expansion) is "OK". Sure its the worst CnC title (rts series) but that doesnt necessarily makes it "crap". And bitching about it just too look cool or "fit in" is lame.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 15:59 Post subject: |
|
|
I wish they made a new rts (red alert alike) with nice graphics but in 2d. 3d fucks up the gameplay and the overview imo.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 18:06 Post subject: |
|
|
The bitch-o-meter would probably implode if most of you people had been around when westwood released the counter-strike expansion for red alert 1.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Karmeck
Posts: 3349
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 18:29 Post subject: |
|
|
who dose not love killing ants?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 19:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| Sin317 wrote: | well not defending CnC3 or anything , but
CoH : The unrealism of unrealism (nobody dare to say otherwise) and you have even less units to chose from than CnC3. Plus only 2 sides (+2 in expansion). Maps are ok i guess, resource system is a bit gay ... I own the game, there are like 500-1000 people playing online WORLDWIDE ...
SupCom : No offense to anyone (especially those die hard TA fan(boys ?), but that game was utter crap, even compared to cnc3. The Campaign was abolutely boring and MP is just "Out build your enemy and set waypoints and watch the 2d icons approaching the enemy base (since you had to zoom out that far to actually play the game, that all you saw where 2d-icons and some experimental units ....
Sorry to say, but no rts in last few years really hit the big one. Except maybe World in Conflict which has both, a superb campaign/story AND nice MP (Bundled with state-of-the-art graphics).
Anyway, for what it is, CnC3(and its expansion) is "OK". Sure its the worst CnC title (rts series) but that doesnt necessarily makes it "crap". And bitching about it just too look cool or "fit in" is lame. |
Totally agree.
WiC is definitely the best RTS in a long time. Kane's Wrath I played, but mainly because of the storyline, and also because I was a bit bored. Supreme Commander was fucking boring. CoH I just never was able to get into.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 19:25 Post subject: |
|
|
You are not even worth the discussion, Coh was unrealistic?! quite the opposite and I suppose cnc3 is realistic in your brain, jesus chist on a pogo stick. And world in conflict was average, mediocre graphics but insane requirements for some reason, strategy was minimal but at least it was there unlike c&c3.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 19:33 Post subject: |
|
|
| madmax17 wrote: | | You are not even worth the discussion, Coh was unrealistic?! quite the opposite and I suppose cnc3 is realistic in your brain, jesus chist on a pogo stick. And world in conflict was average, mediocre graphics but insane requirements for some reason, strategy was minimal but at least it was there unlike c&c3. |
you call CoH realistic ? Go sit in the corner and learn about the laws of PHYSICS rofl ...
and WiC mediocre graphics ?
I don't even dare to start a discussion with you, you obviously have a brain and/or eye cancer or something ....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Karmeck
Posts: 3349
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 20:34 Post subject: |
|
|
opinions are like assholes, we all have them and they all stink
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 20:38 Post subject: |
|
|
Since when is physics the most important thing for a realistic strategy game, how about units, how they fire their ammo, realistic combat? O wait you think c&c3 is realistic, yes that explains it, fire all lasers shouldn't be a problem 90% of the units have it. And where is c&c3 physics gone?
But the biggest proof of your idiotic and stupid rambling is the fact that Coh uses the Havok physics engine and has 20 times better physics than c&c3 plus destructible environments plus a hundred other things which again makes me wonder why I am addressing you jet again, EOD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 20:55 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think anyone said that c&c3 was realistic...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 20:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| madmax17 wrote: | Since when is physics the most important thing for a realistic strategy game, how about units, how they fire their ammo, realistic combat? O wait you think c&c3 is realistic, yes that explains it, fire all lasers shouldn't be a problem 90% of the units have it. And where is c&c3 physics gone?
But the biggest proof of your idiotic and stupid rambling is the fact that Coh uses the Havok physics engine and has 20 times better physics than c&c3 plus destructible environments plus a hundred other things which again makes me wonder why I am addressing you jet again, EOD |
lets put this to an end before i add you to ignore :
1. I never said CnC3 was good, had better physics or was more realistic than any game (CoH
in this case)
2. I never even directly compared CnC3 to any game, but summarized the rts' from the
last 2 years as a whole.
3. "Company of Heroes how they fire their ammo ?"
Not even gonna comment on that "makes no sense" Line.
4. CoH has realistic Combat ? hm let me think ... NO ! It doesn't. Having , for example,
infantry dancing tango and shooting at eacher POINT BLANK yet not kiling each other
(takes like 10 minutes for 2 rifle squads to kill each other at point blank lol). Units have
a ready of maybe half the screen in average (in 1024x768 ...), Tanks can hardly hit a
AT Gun front on (i really want to see that in real life and see how much that at gun can
stand). I could go on and on here, but we all know its a moo point.
5. But now to the point to end all discussion, the quote that shows you are a big, stupid
COH Fanboy and that your opinion on games is pretty much useless and of no
validation whatsoever. .... i Present :
| Quote: | But the biggest proof of your idiotic and stupid rambling is the fact that Coh
uses the Havok physics engine and has 20 times better physics than c&c3 plus
destructible environments plus a hundred other things which again makes me
wonder why I am addressing you jet again, EOD |
i mean seriously...
Oh and again, i neither praise or moan about CnC3. I liked it for what it is, a continuation of the CnC Story, but thats about it. Its uninstalled and i won't buy it.
Last edited by Sin317 on Wed, 26th Mar 2008 21:03; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shimec
Posts: 1215
Location: Serbia
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 20:58 Post subject: |
|
|
I have just one question. Is FPS limited to 30 like it was in the original C&C3, or EA was smarter and didn't put limit on the FPS count
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 21:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| shimec wrote: | | Is FPS limited to 30 like it was in the original C&C3 |
Sadly the answer is yes. It feels like a rape for my eyes to play it at 30fps, when I know my PC could easily push high 60s or more in that game.
C2D E6750 @ 3.2Ghz, 4GB 800MHz DDR2 4-4-4-12, GeForce GTX 260 c216 OC 896MB, 3.2TB, Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Xbox 360 Elite, PS2 Slim, Xbox
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shimec
Posts: 1215
Location: Serbia
|
| Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008 21:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Damn idiots at EA... I'm gonna lose my eyes because of the lazy programers... Thanks for answering anyway Glottis.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miragui
Posts: 313
Location: Venezuela
|
| Posted: Thu, 27th Mar 2008 03:23 Post subject: |
|
|
| shimec wrote: | | I have just one question. Is FPS limited to 30 like it was in the original C&C3, or EA was smarter and didn't put limit on the FPS count |
There's a fix to remove the fps limit.
http://www.ppmsite.com/?go=cnc3bigfiles
You have to edit "C:\Program Files\Electronic Arts\Command & Conquer 3 Kane's Wrath\Core\1.0\Misc.big"
i7 3770k, GTX980, 16GB Ram, SSD Raid0, Internet 3rd world shit not worth mentioning
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 7 of 9 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
The main pc games arena talk themes are :
