And Now: C&C4 Video With Stuff Explained

By Jim Rossignol on December 16th, 2009 at 2:41 pm.


Want to know what C&C4 looks like in play? You’ll be wanting no longer, thanks to the rabid newshounds of VG247, who have sniffed out a five-minute video with developer commentary. I’ve posted said video below. It’s all game footage. So go take a look, and then slam your fist on the beer-swollen counter of the internet, registering your drunken demands in the comments section, before toppling backwards off your bar-stool and into the heaps of discarded, useless metaphors littering the floor below.

__________________

« | »

, .

43 Comments »

  1. StalinsGhost says:

    Looks interesting enough, but for now I think I’ll be reserving judgment.

  2. Derf says:

    Oi! EA! No!

    Enfield sketches aside, I don’t appreciate the uber-zoom. Where’s the strategy guys?

  3. Starky says:

    Looks okay, not great though – I’ll buy it anyway, I’ve completed every other CnC game, so I can’t leave this one out.

  4. Derp says:

    Oh boy, another “RTS” game where you cant build a base from scratch. DoW 2 failed me. So will this.

  5. MikeBiggs says:

    Well I’ve always been a fan of C&C games. Though as I could never bring myself to buy the expansion to 3 it might not be worth spending money on 4. Who knows, it may rekindle my love of the series!

    • Miles of the Machination says:

      From what I heard, C&C 3′s expansion was actually better than C&C 3, balance wise at least.

      This intrigues me because I’ve never been hugely committed to the RTS genre, so I was pleasantly surprised to see a new style of mechanic, but whether it’s good or not, only time will tell.

  6. Sam Bigos says:

    Not liking the green borderlands-style borders around units. The game looks kind of average on the whole to me though.

    • Starky says:

      Looks better than the old style blob of colour on the floor at their feet, to show selection IMO.

  7. Starky says:

    The base building of CnC was never the fun part though, it was just the core you had to get through in order to watch lots of tanks blow each other up.

    Maybe it was different for the multiplayer, I never really got into it.

    If they do it well, a more action orientated CnC will be great fun – Personally I’m hoping for more World in Conflict style tank action than DoW2′s micromanagement focus.

    • Rinox says:

      There are many people who enjoy the base building process way more than the actual fighting. Because let’s face it, in RTS games of the C&C kind really very little strategy is involved. It all amounts to building a large army and waltzing over your enemy. So yeah, I like building an impenetrable fortress with a healthy ‘economy’, :)

    • JKjoker says:

      what Rinox said

      I spent half the time in starcraft and c&c building an impenetrable fortress so i could keep the base unattended for a bit while i executed low cost harassing tactics, newer strategy games dont offer that much in they way of base defense sadly, probably to keep the matches short for multiplay

  8. Rakysh says:

    *BAM*

    Needs *hic* elephants…

    *falls*

  9. Radiant says:

    I DEMAND BOOBS!
    6 OF THEM.
    2 in each hand and 1 for each foot.

    *drinks ginger ale and whiskey*

    • DMJ says:

      @Radiant: I have no idea where that outburst came from, but I endorse it in the spirit of Christmas.

  10. Andy says:

    meh……
    That’s about the most emotion I am capable of summoning for this video and I doubt there’ll be any more wasted on the game itself.
    DoW2 was the last ‘RTS’ to hold my attention and even that I found to be (not that much like an rts and) a bit of a chore.

  11. Radiant says:

    That looked good.
    Maybe not as visceral as dow2; I wonder what the mechanics are; fixed amount of units or build as many as you can and go?

  12. smokingkipper says:

    Tank Rush.

  13. Torgen says:

    I approve of the Rossignarian prose of this article. Well written, sir!

  14. jalf says:

    Who cares about the base-building and stuff like that? It’s C&C, what matters is that it’s an RTS with simple, easily digestable gameplay mechanics, and lots of cutscenes.

  15. Zaphid says:

    They are going to get stomped into the ground if they release it within half a year from SC2. Also, the game looked really uninspired, I couldn’t recognize a single unit from the old CnCs, every single one is some sort of walker and it is supposed to counter this or that. Come on, where is the creativity ? RA3 was hilarious with its units, these are just brown. Is linear gameplay stitched together by videos the ultimate evolution of RTSes ?

    I know it is difficult to cramp half an hour of gameplay into a 5 minute PR video, but this looked remarkably bland.

    • Primar says:

      If you played Tiberian Sun/Firestorm, the GDI units shown seem to be pretty similar to the units there. Looked like there was new versions of the Wolverine, Titan, Juggernaut, command/dropship thingy, and the Mammoth MkII.

      I never really got into C&C3, but TibSun was good fun – hopefully, C&C4 won’t be totally awful. I’ll only really play it for the SP anyway, most likely – the only C&C I enjoyed in MP was Generals/Zero Hour. Rockvees hoo!

  16. Railick says:

    Someone seriously said C&C needs to be more action oriented, I almost choked on my drink!

    • Starky says:

      Well choke harder next time, if you’re going to do a job, do it properly.

      Anyway, maybe it was just me who spent 30 mins in a single player turtling and building up massive forces before getting to the fun part of crushing your foes.
      Which wasn’t really tactical, and didn’t really produce action. Rolling your foe with 30+ tanks isn’t that gratifying the 3rd mission in a row, and the game quite often punished you for using other methods. Tactics like rushing were ineffective in SP, given the enemy seemed to have infinite funds which to replace units, making a skirmish based attrition of forces impossible, so the tank spam roll-over was the best (if least interesting) tactic.

      World in Conflict did that well, that constant ebb and flow of battle, losing units replacing them quickly and never running short of things to shoot, but never getting overwhelmed either.
      WiC style action in the C&C universe with a mobile base seems like it could be fun if they do it right.

    • Railick says:

      Can you choke harder, didn’t realize there were degrees to choking you either are or you’re not ;P

      I agree with you World in Conflict was a much more exciting and gratifying game action wise. It kept the ebb and flow of the action interesting and intense with incoming artillery fire and tanks coming out of no where shooting you from behind but it never totally makes the game impossible either so you have a sense of accomplishment when you finish the level (At least I did)

      I don’t know which C&C game you’re talking about with your post but in C&C3 single player all I got was constant over whelming action where the enemy was constantly attacking me and I could never build up enough forces to even defend myself much less mount a counter attack. It would continue this way until I finally got a break through and was able to destroy some of their buildings then the game would slowly slide in my favor (Or I would just lose once I ran out of money and there was no more tiberium to harvest) Then there are the missions where you only have 1 unit or only a few units and have to win with incredible odds against you, which are normally the ones I stop on and just start playing Skirmish games (Which are like you describe for the most part)

      So just adding more action to me wouldn’t really improve the game any , adding smarter action like in World in Conflict however would be very welcome :) I loved online play with World in Conflict and bofore that Ground Control. No base building, just action.

    • Starky says:

      Oh there are indeed degree’s of choking, from kinky little squeeze, to thin bit of piano wire…

      Anyway I was talking about CnC3/kanes wrath mainly – Odd how we both had utterly differing experiences with the same game, maybe a difficulty thing?
      I was playing on the hardest setting, and mounting attacks with anything less than a full army was suicide. The enemy would constantly send groups at my base, never enough to do any real damage, but enough to keep me from pushing with anything less than a full force.

      Obviously it changed from mission to mission, and there were some missions that managed to stay away from that (usually the ones that didn’t involve base building, or just gave you a base already built) and give you the constant action and back-and-forth.

      I think you put it best when you said “smarter action”, for yes while the C&C games (3 through RA3) had lots of action, it was either very scripted or turtle until you can steamroll.

      Perhaps I should reinstall C&C3 and make an effort on the base missions to constantly attack instead of holding back until I could crush everything on the map, see if the game really does respond to that as an effective tactic against AI.

    • Railick says:

      It doesn’t! At least that is how I played and I constantly lost and lost and lost until I figured out a way to turtle and which units were totally useless so I’d stop building those and wasting time. For me the best C&C game was Generals, i havn’t really enjoyed one since then.

    • Starky says:

      Same really, but I’ll buy it anyway if only to watch the second coolest Kane in video games in cutscenes.

      The coolest Kain (seriously there are like 6 ways to spell the same name…) is obviously Kain from Legacy of Kain – If only because simon Templeman has the second best voice over voice ever (first being Steve Blum, if only for a herculean list of credits).

      Simon Templeman voicing any character automatically makes any game cooler by several orders of magnitude (depending on usage, the more lines he gets the cooler the game).

      Okay yeah I’ve got a >man-crush on the guy.

  17. Magnus says:

    Where’s the RTS for people like me who like to build a vast fortress of a base and then steamroller their enemies whilst perhaps going “Muahahaha!”…?

    Also, re: the uber-zoom poster above (Derf): I totally agree, why can’t they allow people to zoom out a lot more? all the battles felt claustrophobic to me in C&C3, looks very much the same in 4. Currently playing DOW1 which suffers a similar issue… I like looking downward from a great height on my minions.

  18. mae says:

    looks generic as fuck

    makes me feel whistful for C&C generals.

    The asymmetrical warfare, the distinctive characterization, the blistering multiplayer

    I really feel that the market is missing a piece.

    Generals filled a nice little slot of exaggerated, characterized modern warfare, but not so grindingly cumbersome and tied to realism as World in Conflict or those other new breed RTS’s.

    give me ridiculous toxin tractors, suicide bombers and angry mobs any day

    Generals 2 please! away with this generic sci fi arse.

  19. Roi Danton says:

    I am not drunk.

    Most of the time.

    I think.

    When I’m sober. Or should that be an if? Meh, I’ll get another beer.

  20. kingdead says:

    so i watched someone drag boxes around their gaggle of units and click (barely discriminatingly) at the opposing gaggle of units, wait for a few seconds while a static battle of hilariously one sided attrition took place.

    oh, but you get loot! if there’s one thing i love, it’s carefully honed ability curves being made obsolete through the use of artificial loot based scaling mechanics.

  21. l1ddl3monkey says:

    C&C I like. Red Alert I don’t. This looks like fun. And has something resembling an AT AT in it, innit?

    I see the predominant tactic is still tank rushing though.

  22. jsdn says:

    This looks more like a C&C3 mod than anything. With EA shutting down several studios and the poor PR of this game, it seems the C&C series is going to be dead the day of this game’s release. Hopefully it can rest in peace and EA won’t run the name into the ground for all its worth.

  23. CloakRaider says:

    Why make it small scale?! Why?

    Who here thinks big battles are bad! I’ll thump yaz!

  24. Tei says:

    - The UI is pretty and very modern.
    - The border on selected units is clever.
    - Huge ship raising from ground.
    - The shadows of clouds on the landscape make the whole thing look “underwater”, I don’t like this ‘shader’.
    - I like basebuilding, and this game seems designed for the other “camp”, the people that hate basebuilding. I can’t criticice the game for that, is just a option. Not my tea cup.
    - Not ground damage. Explosions don’t create craters.
    - The map looks “gamey”.
    - It looks like fun, If you are into the “Strategy Lite” of squad based games (DOW2, these titles).

  25. MajorManiac says:

    To me Generals: Zero Hour upped the anti, and no C ‘n’ C game has ever been as good.

    Though I’m happy to wait and see how this one does before passing judgement.

  26. Flimgoblin says:

    DoW2 felt a bit lackluster – maybe it’s the lack of base building. There’s something that draws on the same strings as civ/sim city/etc. in the base building parts of RTSes.

    Also what is it with the obsession of ZOOMING IN REALLY CLOSE. I know it gets you pretty screenshots and videos and the like but does anyone ever play the game like that? I’m always at the edge of the zoom, wishing it would zoom out further.

  27. Serenegoose says:

    hmmm. Unsure. C&C3 was way too hard. Red Alert 3 was too easy. I don’t like ‘turtle til you steamroll’ style gameplay, so I’m hoping the mobile MCV and more strict unit cap will lead to interesting tactical choices. But…. this is C&C, and they’ve yet to deviate from the tank rush, so I’m cautiously observing, like a big game hunter in a savannah full of mecha-lions.

  28. Isometric says:

    Hmm not sure if want…

  29. Tei says:

    To quote Eistein… “I don’t know what the third c&c might be like, I only know that the fourth will be with rocks and spears.”

    Clever man this Albert Eistein.

  30. SirWhat says:

    meh. ill be playing my Chaos Rising thank you very much. maybe a little SC2 on the side (just for basebuilding, i dont believe ill like it as much as DoW2)

  31. MinisterofDOOM says:

    I really feel like EA is slowly stripping away all the strategy from C&C. The things that make it unique are slowly being peeled away. Generals and RA3 simplified harvesting beyond purpose and TT is removing it completely. Harvesters are a HUGE part of C&C strategy and removing them is a big mistake. And base building is another huge part of C&C strategy. The fact that base building isn’t “cool” anymore hasn’t changed that fact. Building the right base in the right spot is the difference between a win and a loss. Without that, the game gets yet thinner.
    I don’t care about persistent units. I don’t care about RPG elements. I don’t want to “unlock” units with “experience.” None of that garbage has ANYTHING to do with C&C. I can’t help but wonder why EA didn’t just make some other generic sci-fi RTS and leave the C&C name off the box.

    I’m very sad to see where C&C4 is going. I very much enjoy C&C3 and Kane’s Wrath. But Red Alert 3 is absolutely horrible and C&C4 isn’t looking any better. Obviously EA is capable of making a good C&C title, as Kane’s Wrath is brilliant. The fact that they hit the mark before makes this failure all the more difficult to accept.

    @ Miles of the Machination:

    Yes, I liked Kane’s Wrath more than C&C3 itself, both campaign and multiplayer. C&C3 had a good formula, but Kane’s Wrath polished it off nicely. Part of its appeal over vanilla C&C3 is the risk-style overworld, which did a lot for the game while actually being relatively simple. It added an extra layer of strategy but perhaps more importantly it includes an option to auto-resolve battles, which helps scale the time investment (something all C&C games have been demanding of) and make the game more appealing for short play sessions.

  32. Bowlby says:

    It’s an interesting departure from the series, but is it interesting in itself? Not in my opinion, no. They should have given it a few more years before bringing out another C&C. Now they’ve got this derivative- looking sequel on their hands that’s probably going to send out the series with more of a whimper than a bang.

    I’m not necessarily saying they should have just done the same old thing again; I think they should have just taken more time out to really think about where they could go with the design.