If we dont fix what is broken, then we will never progress.

Gaming was better ten years ago than it is now.
Because it changed.

C&C TD and RA1 are Better that C&C 3 and RA3
Thats a Fact.
Not an opinion.
Fact.

uummm...no we don't. you go ahead and accept it. we don't have to. if someone were 'changing' the government you lived under from a free republic/democracy or whatnot to a dictatorship where the dictator loves to take and [censored] the citizens and rob them of all of their wealth for his own personal enjoyment you'd simply accept that because...well, change is going to come :facepalm:

sorry but that's just idiotic.



HUH? change just for the sake of change? change just so there can be change? :blink:

There you go folks! we have a majority! :rolleyes:

simply pointing out you cannot make general statements without supporting it. it may very well be a majority that think so. i don't know. personally i still play games from 10 years ago more than i do more modern games so :shrug:

They keep the gameplay that has worked so well and defined the series with each game save the last few.
They made a spin-off but with drastic changes?
It still has base building.
It still has a tech progression system.
It still has resource gathering.
it still has the use your strengths to overcome you enemys weakness gameplay rather than warcrafts or starcrafts both sides are equal.
C&C always had brilliant LAN multiplayer,Internet was just on the side.
The reason the don't change the core forumula in the majority of C&C titles is because IT WORKS! it defines the game and makes it better than other RTSs.
I'll let someone who cares about COD ansewer that.
P.S. Halo wars is a casual RTS, C&C is not.

Source?

Or is that just your opinion?

First of all, let's get one thing straight. It's in human nature to be conservative, and to be afraid of change. I understand that, believe me. It's no surprise that this kind of scared behavior is very common on this forum, since we are all humans, and automatically react with disappointment once a change has been revealed. Since we are all humans with emotions, we tend to resort to our feelings rather than logic when it comes to posting our reactions on certain changes and other things. Since we are indeed primarily afraid of change, which leads to frustration and fear once a change has been announced, these feelings will dominate most of the posts which are posted on this forum. However, I'm going to try to take a different approach to this.

I believe that every single attempt at change in anything, whether it's political systems, forms of art, architectural style, or something as trivial as gaming, is a good thing in itself. By attempting to change things, we will know whether the change is for the better, or for the worse. If it's for the worse, we change it back, realize not to try that particular change again, and move on. If it's for the better, we keep it, realize that maybe it's a path worth expanding on, and move on. By never attempting to change anything, we will never know if changing something will lead to something better. That is why I am reacting with anticipation whenever I read about something that is being done differently in Skyrim compared to other TES games. Because once the game is out, and I get to try out the game, with all of its changes, I will actually know whether it's for the better or for the worse. Then I will come to this forum, share my opinions, read the opinions of others, discuss our opinions, and ultimately try to figure out what's worth keeping or removing for the next game.

My point is that even though everyone is on some level, some more than others, afraid of change, things are going to change nonetheless, and we must accept this. Things can't stay the way they are forever. Even though some of you would probably like it, the future of TES won't just be copies of Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind or Oblivion. The game series is evolving, just like everything else in the universe. I do not believe that the work of the fans should be to complain and be annoyed by the changes in the series, especially if they haven't even tried them out yet. I believe our job is to wait in anticipation to try out the game, along with its changes, and then make up our minds. I know some of you will call your complaining "constructive criticism" but I beg to differ. How can you give any kind of criticism for something that you haven't even tried out yet?

I know that you're all afraid, frustrated and/or angry on some level to some or all of the changes. But don't let your feelings get in the way. Think rationally; without change, we will never know if something that hasn't been tried is going to work. This is why I believe that change for the sake of change is a good thing in itself.

Eh...wut? That doesn't make any sense. First you say that change is a good thing on its own and then you say if a feature is 'good' then keep the change for the next game (= no change in the next game). You contradict yourself by saying that. If you keep the 'good' stuff then you admit that change is not always a good thing. So basically you say keep the good stuff and change the bad stuff until it's good. Which is something everyone here agrees with anyway. What is 'good' and what is 'bad' is a matter of personal preference in most cases though - and that is the problem. :shrug:

Quite a lot of RTS have base building, tech progression and resource gathering.. its nothing really new or anything the C&C franchise even invented.

Warcraft and Starcraft factions are equal? Both of those franchises have considerable differences between factions compared to C&C. The majority of C&C games follow a basic template when it comes to faction design. Then they just add a bit of health here and take away of bit of damage here to make them "diverse".

C&C is one of the most casual franchises around. Its primary target is single player only RTS players. The franchise, besides Generals which ive explained, has hardly even had a competitive scene.

Morrowind kept a key element of Daggerfall (the size), and yet changed it by making it smaller,

:rofl:

They are the same just differnt names.
C&C is more then "add a bit of health here and take away of bit of damage here". Each unit in Generals,which you are fond of, is differnt from there counterpart in each faction. USA Ranger is the Best infantry unit out of the three. Have two ways to clear buildings,rank up faster,immune to anthrax/radiation,cost more to train and has an anti infantry AOE.

Chinese rifleman is the worst infantry unit out of the three. Cheap to train,comes in pairs,gains bouns in groups and has a melee attack.
Clear differnce between the two.

Morrowind kept a key element of Daggerfall (the size), and yet changed it by making it smaller...

You cannot just make a sequel, by grabbing the last game and just improve it, especially for a game big as TES.

Why? Apples and oranges. There are some things that you just cannot add without removing something else.

If you expect a game to be like the last one, except better, then prepare to be disappointed in many ways, because there definitely will be a lot of things that will be changed.

EDIT:

uh... isn't that a good thing?

So different factions are actually... you know... different?

By "keeping the good stuff" I mean keeping it, experiment with it, and see how you can change it in the future. What I don't mean with "keeping the good stuff" is keeping it and never change it.

For example; Arena was a large, open-world RPG. Daggerfall expanded upon this formula, and made an even bigger open-world RPG. Morrowind kept a key element of Daggerfall (the size), and yet changed it by making it smaller, which ultimately was for the better, since it allowed for more detailed landscapes, handmade dungeons and so forth. That was changing something that was already very good, and it lead to even better results, while still keeping the basic formula. That is what I mean by changing something for the sake of changing, even though it was already good in the first place.

I think the change of the world size from Daggerfall to Morrowind is a very bad example since it was a technical requirement to make the game and not a change to try something new. They simply couldn't make a handcrafted world with the map size of Daggerfall, so they had to make it smaller.

What you say is that you can only know that something was good until you changed it to something worse. That is a bit weird imo. If something is good, then it is good and you will know it's good without changing it. ES games come out every ~5 years or so, if they constantly changed everything only to find out whether it works better, even if it worked well before the change, then you will never get a good game. They did something like that with Oblivion's level scaling system and it was a total failure. So no, change for the sake of changing is not a good idea, it's a very, very bad idea. You should look at the flaws of previous games and get rid of them while keeping the good features that worked. Simple as that.

You don't have to experience something in order to make a accurate judgement on it for you. Your life experiences up to that point will give you more than enough information to figure things out. So no it is not fear of change, it is knowing what I like an dislike and commenting on changes I don't like and changes I like.

But hey I know being an idiot is in human nature, and all someone has to do is spew PR jargon and most people will except any change as good no matter how much it will svck.

I know that you're all idiots, blinded by PR jargon. But don't let your idiocy get in the way. Think rationally; without looking to your experiences, you will never know be able to make a judgement on things without trying them. Don't just take the punch to the nuts, you know it hurts in advance due to past experiences just because this punch is different wont change that. This is why I believe that change for the sake of change is only a good thing if the change is actually good.

Just curious is calling people idiots worse than calling them fear wracked cowards? Oh and grammar police feel free to tear it apart, I svck in this department.