Jump to content

CnCNet Forums

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

cn2mc

Members
  • Content Count

    707
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

175 Excellent

4 Followers

About cn2mc

  • Rank
    Grenadier

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. EatMyCar, the thread is clearly about discussing art, not gameplay. chem, WW themselves have stated many times that they went for a modern warfare look during development in order to be more realistic and garner broader appeal. C&C was initially supposed to be a wizards and warriors game. Here's some good reading material: http://web.archive.org/web/20080215002613/http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=49038 https://funambulism.com/2014/08/15/a-metric-ton-of-my-old-command-conquer-interviews/ https://www.bennet.org/features/tiberian-origins/
  2. I still see no inner contradiction in my argument. If anything, I'm contradicting your subjective opinion on TD's original art and I stand by mine, but this is not a philosophical debate on the nature of perception.
  3. Yes, there is comical architecture in the original C&C, but this is more comical, there are toy-like units and buildings in C&C, but this is much, much more toy-like. Instead of using the new hardware possibilities to make it look more gritty and realistic, which was what the original obviously tried to do with the pixels it had to work with, they are now going for a more toy-like look. This my main point. My secondary, subjective argument, since we all know that appreciation of art is a subjective matter, is that I believe this to be a wrong artistic choice that unnecessarily deviates from the original. Many people seem to like it and I hardly mind that. What I do mind is people saying we should basically accept whatever EA throws out at us without criticism. And I'm not debating people's taste. I'm repeating this (and my entire bloody argument) for the third and final time, specifically for chem, who either can't or refuses to read my previous posts in this thread. Where do I contradict myself in any of this, chem? Also, if you really believe what you're saying, about C&C being meant for kids, you might want to check some statistics, like what the average age of gamers was in the mid 90's and what it is today, who owned the majority of PCs back then, how much home computers did people have across the world, what demographic used to spend and still spends the biggest amount of money on games, etc. Sure. Kids can play C&C, I was 9 when it came out and I first played the DOS version at a friends house. But in reality it is a family game, broadly targeted at both kids and their parents, who do the actual spending. And this is also obvious by the fact that they took a whole lot of time to make the setting, story and graphics convincing enough. This is not convincing at all. Neither is your argument, so just drop it. In the end, this is a piece of arguably bad promotional eye-candy and, in reality, how the game would play and feel and what changes will be made under the hood is much more important than art. Unfortunately we're not hearing anything about that. I hope the effort on that front is closer to the original and more concentrated than in the artistic department.
  4. If you actually take time to read the threads you post in, you'd find many of the answers to the redundant questions you keep asking. I'm not your secretary or personal aide, do some reading. And some growing up. As I already said, you are completely entitled to have poor taste and I don't intend to debate this with you.
  5. chem, I wasn't debating this with you, but I acknowledge your opinion and I fully understand why something with the aesthetics of a child's toy appeals to you.
  6. Still, I believe this to be a misguided effort, even if the intentions behind it are good. No real testing has been done beforehand, no statistical data has been gathered to pinpoint what exactly should be changed, changes are too much and all at once, making it impossible to gauge their individual effect. It's a mod done on a whim basis, because a few people decided "the game should be like this". Trust me, I know that feeling. I used to mod RA 15 years ago, thinking I can make it a better game. Turned out I'm not as good at balancing games as the team that actually made them and created the RTS genre. Good that I grew out of that. Weird that you haven't. Although I can kind of understand it from the perspective of Jacko and Ferret, who are both quite younger.
  7. The irony is that the very people who are pushing this aren't actually playing it... or TD.
  8. I'm giving it a chance, I'm also giving it my fair criticism. These visuals ARE the worst thing I've seen in C&C. If you're not addressing anyone or anything, better not make snide comments. If the general line is that we are all blessed that there will be a remaster and we should not question any of EA's decisions just because there will be a remaster... I'm not buying it. The thing is that those who don't think it's good will not be swayed by posts saying it's good. And posts saying it's good when it obviously isn't make their authors look either silly or under EA's thumb. And then efforts to quell the dissent make it look even sillier.
  9. RaVaGe, I know. Hence my own irony. Back on topic: the art is bad, it deviates too much from the original, it's too shiny, and if this is the general visual style EA is envisioning for the remaster... shit.
  10. Quite ironic how this comment brings no maturity to this discussion whatsoever, nor does it address any of the many valid points people made. Coming from a position of authority, no less.
  11. It flat out looks like a shiny toy for ages 4-7. Not only does it unnecessarily deviate from the original in shape, it has none of the seriousness of C&C's art, which managed to capture the dread of war in just a few tiny pixels. It's obviously a half-assed effort (QED by Ezer). The people praising it are under EA's thumb, I know, but they should know that promoting this artistic misstep as something of value makes them look... maybe not silly, but unreliable. Saying this is somehow good art for the remaster is a disservice to the community, IMO. For me, C&C either ties with or is a very close second to Civilization I in my Best Games Ever list. EA have their hands on one of the best games in the world, period. I don't want a half-assed remaster with gummy bear graphics.
  12. Doesn't look as bad in the mockup, maybe it takes getting used to. But TD isn't really a glittery game and this has a lot of glitter.
  13. Are you sure about the engine though? I've asked this question a bunch of times and nobody gave me a concrete answer. Even if they are using the C&C engine this still looks like a bad fan effort and nothing like TD art. It's like something out of a different game. For a remaster they should be using the original renders or the closest possible approximations thereof. This is just a bad 3D model with some careful texturing that looks like something out of a bad 3D game. Nothing I would care about in this remaster.
  14. This hits my nausea notes. It does not look like TD art at all, rather like something out of a sloppy C&C3 or Generals mod. And worse, it subtly implies that this will be a different game engine-wise.
  15. This thread should be called 'Private Balance Mod' instead of 'Community Balance Patch'. I can elaborate on why, but it seems pretty obvious to me.
×
×
  • Create New...