Messages posted by: R315r4z0r

In the beginning of the video the cop says "I told you she didn't have a ***" or something similar to that.

Final Fantasy XIII

Now that I've heard some of the songs I haven't heard yet, I can reinforce what I've been saying.

These songs are excellent, don't get me wrong, but they don't sound like they belong in an RTS.

When I listen to them it sounds like something that's good for an action/adventure game or RPG. A game where you're one person in an environment, not commanding entire armies.

...
Perhaps it's more than that. It's the visual tone of the game that doesn't fit the music. I don't know, but what I'm sure about is that epic music sounds less epic if it's put to something it doesn't fit in..

Sad news is sad.

Imma miss this show T_T

Harrrr wrote:Looks amazing, but holy dramatic and unrealistic contrast batman! There are no true blacks in an outdoor environment; and the bloom is way too dreamy.

Black is the absorbency of, and therefore lack of, any sort of light reflection.

Places where light doesn't touch or a material that does not reflect light will be totally black. Since there is always some form of light reflection or refraction in an outdoor environment, you're never going to have a complete 100% black naturally occur in nature.

However, I fail to see, in any of those screenshots, an instance of 100% black.

Also, the bloom is fine. It's working off of the perspective of dilated eyes. Basically, eyes that are vulnerable to light will therefore blur the reflections in a 'bloom' effect.

I've been in that city many times and it looks as realistic as it can get.

EA_Apoc wrote:You guys need to realize that most people on our message boards here are part of that 5%, you guys, the ultra hardcore =)

What did you think Ben?

-APOC

So, basically, for every 100 people to have bought C&C3, only 5 people played the campaign. And of those 5 people, a percentage of them are members on this forum? So, lets say for the sake of argument, 1,000,000 people bought C&C3. That means that only 50,000 people played the single player. And of those people, some of them are on this forum.

There is still absolutely no grounds to base the argument on. Whether it's true or false is out of the question. What the focus is is whether or not the information collected to conclude with those results is valid.

Was there like some secret achievement that people got when they completed the game that told you guys which people finished the campaign and which didn't upon connection to multiplayer? Cause, that's the only possible way to get somewhat of a base for this 5% statistic...

Forsaken wrote:that will be unfair

so if you don't have enough money

what happens

u become observer

Forsaken wrote:so you get money over time and somehow every tib crystal will gain you like x amount of money

You know, I'm beginning to think that you didn't even bother to read my post.

Both of your arguments were touched on later in the post. If you just kept reading, your questions would have been answered.
---
1. If you lose your Crawler and don't have the money to get a new one you would not become an observer until your last unit on the battlefleild was defeated. That would allow you to use your remaining forces more strategically and carefully. You micromanage them around the field and earn credits by attacking enemies guerrilla style, gathering crates, or capturing more nodes.

2. The Renegade style of getting credits is when you get credits for attacking the enemy. That's it. So, if you attack an enemy you get some credits. If you destroy an enemy, you get more credits. The bigger the units, the more credits you get. You would already be having a slow steady income of credits per second while you have a crawler. You could increase the rate of credits per second that you earn by capturing more control nodes. You could think of each of the control nodes functioning as Tiberium spikes if it makes it easier to understand.

The lack of an economy is by far the most overwhelming disappointment in this game.

easimon1812 wrote: valve is going for portal 2?...what for?

Because there is still a story to be told.

"The divided definitions of RTS and RTT games is a confusing and redundant waste of time and the person who decided that they had to be classified differently must have been retarded."

-Me.

Seriously, there is absolutely no reason to separate them as different genres. They are the exact same thing and play the exact same way. You have two bricks but one's got a tiny chip on the corner. Does that mean it's not a brick?

I mean really... look at card games. Do you realize how many different ways there are in existence to play with a deck of cards? The differences between Texas Hold'em and Solitaire are leaps and bounds over the differences between RTS and "RTT" and yet they ALL still fall under the same genre of game! You can play two different card games and use the cards in a completely different mechanic in each game and still have each game be considered apart of the same genre. However, both RTS games and "RTT" games play with the exact same mechanics and are still considered different genres.
The differences between RTS and RTT are about the same as the differences between Solitaire with and without the card bank. It's essentially the same game, just played a tiny bit differently; but isn't that the point of having different games to begin with?

I agree 100%.

If they included resource management in this game, it would have been 5x better. Hands down.

They wouldn't even need to have harvester units and refinery systems. I'd settle for constant credit flow at a rate depending on how many control nodes you control. The more nodes you have, the more money you generate.

Credits would be used to buy:
-Units
-Tier upgrades (?)
-New Crawlers (re-spawn)

It would have also worked to have money generated C&C Renegade style: by attacking enemies. That way, if you lose your Crawler and don't have enough to buy a new one, you can micromanage your remaining forces to earn enough credits to get back into the fight.

I'll treat it like a single player game. The multiplayer is dead to me.

I will play through the campaign on both sides and then store the game with my other single player games.

That, actually, is not insulting the game. That's how I treat all my singleplayer games including the really good ones like Mass Effect (1 & 2). I'm not the kind of person who is able to replay a game, regardless of how good it is, right after I beat it once through. It has to be a really specific niche of game for me to consider instant re-playability. Portal was one of those games, to give an example. C&C4, however is not.

Therefore it's singleplayer then shelf.

JPNyt wrote:

R315r4z0r wrote:$29.99 for the gameplay.
+$9.99 for the singleplayer

So... about $50.

I accidentally voted $30 :V

Thats... about $40... lol But ty

Oh, lol, you're right. :V

The nines threw me off. >.<

$29.99 for the gameplay.
+$9.99 for the singleplayer

So... about $50.

I accidentally voted $30 :V

I feel bad for Joe's poor hand...

Popular Platforms

Popular Genres

EA.com

Help