Now, it's an RTS truism that the biggest draw is multiplayer, but fans should be aware that C&C4 , like a bear in a pigpen, is a whole different beast from previous C&C titles. Multiplayer involves both sides trying to capture and hold various control nodes throughout the map. This, however, involves its own special set of tedium, since the game's small maps and mobile bases mean games always play out the same.
Any attempt to turtle a single node inevitably leaves the mobile team with an advantage, as the turtle cannot run to other nodes. This leads to both players going mobile, chasing each other around the map.
Timothy Michael Wynn has scored music in the video game industry since 2005. He has worked on known game franchises like Command & Conquer, Warhawk and Red Fraction. You might have heard his work on CW’s Supernatural. His best work was in Warhawk as gave its vibrant atmosphere that suit it’s military theme. It’s Wynn’s behind the scenes work that helped make the game stand out from the rest, but do fans notice? Do people look at soundtracks as a whole or as background noise?
They may only get appreciation from a small group of gamers, but their importance is imperative. They can save a game, make a great game epic or leave good game feeling undone. While I have never personally listened to soundtracks on their own, I know the soundtracks of my favorite games very well and often hear it it my sleep or throughout the day. It's similar to the nostalgic feeling that songs conjure up years later. If I hear a track I spent countless hours of my life listening to, I am immediately transported back to that time.
It really depends. Much of it is just there to enhance the scene, slow for sad, fast for excitment, whatever, and you never really get to hear it. But the truly memorable songs really do something for a game. The Halo theme is very recognizable, and the song that's playing as you go into into Mexico in RDR works wonderfully.
When Splinter Cell Conviction was released and the premise altered with modernisation, fans of the series were outraged and were more than happy to voice their disdain. Since then, many other titles have come under fire for stepping away from the norm.
GamingLives writes: "Only in the games industry do people truly believe that they deserve something for free, something to be a specific way or specific quality and length. I believe that, because we pay £39.99+ for a game, we expect higher standards of entertainment and quality for every pound. This can be understandable, as nobody wants to pay a high premium for something that sucks, but does this give us the right to become armchair game designers?"
Tough call. I do think developers should have the freedom to bring new elements within a game's franchise but if it hinders the core aspects of the game, I think fans should have the right to complain about it.
Its not really wrong for fans to get upset over unwanted changes to a franchise that they enjoy....most studios do all of that with purpose of greed and trying to expand the audience/profit....
Yeah...
Gamers made the industry what it is (core gamers by the way) because we dumped a lot of money into someone else's effort.
Before this gen gamers nary said a word that stirred the pot. The internet has been in existence since before AOL and bulletin boards and user groups have been around for ages. If gamers were displeased there were outlets to make it known.
But back then video games were designed by passionate people and gamers were enthralled with what these guys had to offer us. We willing forked over cash even if we didn't have trailers, screenshots and $100 million dollar marketing campaigns.
It's the opposite nowadays...franchises we grew up to love are being neutered for "higher sales margins" and gameplay has become standardized to attract "mainstream casual audiences". It's not even about gaming anymore, that's why REAL GAMERS are pissed.
How often do you hear core gamers complaining about Limbo? Dust Force? Bastion? MineCraft?
Yeah, exactly.
"Gamers made the industry what it is (core gamers by the way) because we dumped a lot of money into someone else's effort".
VERY true. But at the same time that doesnt really give us the right to dictate what devs do with their product (to an extent). If i may give an example recently in the news:
Mass effect 3 (you knew i was going there). We have the right to complain (because we have a legitimate reason). Although i dont believe we have the right to make our own ending. If we have complete control over what devs do then i think we lose the people who are really putting an emphasis on creativity and innovation in the industry.
When the controversy started over ME3 i was surprised that people felt the entire game was worthless because of a disappointing ending. We pretty much said "10mins of this game sucks and because of that the entire game is worth less than my dogs shit". This is where we sort of lose our credibility when we complain. We go TOO far with our anger...
I agree.
I think that the focus should have been on pressuring BioWare to just stick to making an ending THEY felt was befitting for the conclusion of Shepard's galactic journey. We all know they were pressured and there's no way they would have really concluded the ending the way they did if they had more time.
Some gamers are understanding of this, but yes, I do acknowledge that there were a lot of other (rightfully) butthurt gamers who took it to a level where it didn't need to go.
I think there still needs to a fine balance of respect on both ends, because we'll always support good franchises like faithful fanboys should, but it doesn't mean we have to deal with $1,000 worth of DLC, stripped content and rushed products just to try to get the "complete" experience.
If gaming media did more to work as a ventilation shaft for our "gamer rage" then I don't think the vitriol would have been all that bad. But since gaming media took the pro-corporate route it left a lot of gamers to rage like they never raged before.
They're only going under fire for stepping INTO the "norm," by ripping off CoD.
"Only in the games industry do people truly believe that they deserve something for free."
I take it you never go to Youtube the week after a major site update, every video is full of people saying "thumbs up if you liked the old layout" and stuff like that.
"What gives you the right to display such arrogance to claim that Conviction is not a proper Splinter Cell game?"
Because the things that made Splinter Cell great are no longer there. The game was too easy and took the focus away from stealth gameplay to the point where it would have more sense to make it a new IP than a new Splinter Cell installment. Any game where you say it would have been better as a new IP than a sequel doesn't deserve to be a sequel.
Amazon have launched 3 new video game bundles including a new 19 games EA pack for $89.99.
That's a saving of $299.84 off 19 EA titles. Games included are Alice Madness Returns, Battleforge, Bad Company 2, Command and Conquer 4, Command and Conquer 3, Command and Conquer 3 Uprising, Crysis 2, Crysis Warhead, Crysis, Darkspore, Deadspace 2, Deadspace, Dragonage 2, Dragonage Origins, Mass Effect 2, Medal of Honor, Mirrors Edge and Saboteur.
This game sounds so disappointing. I actually liked C&C 3. Not my favourite in the series but enjoyable (but really, how can I ever judge something in comparison to the original C&C?). This game - I was thinking that I would pick it up when it got $20 or below, but I'm not sure I even want to do that anymore. Maybe I'll just wait for the cut scenes to be UPed somewhere and then I'll find out how the story ends and call it a series. What a slap in the face to those who have followed the C&C series for over a decade.