Jump to content

CnCNet Forums

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

GilbertGuld

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About GilbertGuld

  • Rank
    Technician
  1. I think the forum sections are divided placed in a weird and confusing manner. The Communication Center & Repair Bay looks to me like a feedback category for CnCNet and should have the section CnCNet Discussion under it. The section In the Community looks to me like a general game universe thing that should be under The Power Plant. The thread "Welcome, New Members!" should be moved to somewhere in the Communication Center & Repair Bay category, tentatively to the moved CnCNet Discussion section, as it revolves about CnCNet rather than the C&C world in general. Many people seem to have missed it over the years, and I was surprised to find it under General Discussion. There are several threads in the General Discussion section that I think should be moved to other sections. Actually most of them on the first page I think. People ask about CnCNet or troubleshooting about a specific game. The thread "CNCNetOfficial YouTube Video Submission Thread" should be moved to either CnCNet Discussion or In the Community. Info about the Mac version's whereabouts is perhaps better suited in CnCNet News, as it wasn't really inviting to a discussion. I first looked there, and it took me a while before I found the infothread. In any case it should be under the Comm Center category, which it will be if that section gets moved as I suggest. Obviously I'm not the only one thinking like this as evident by these threads https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/10569-mac-use/ https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/10573-mac-version/ https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/10571-mac-use/ https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/10373-red-alert-1-on-mac/?tab=comments#comment-77737 In general there are a lot of threads in unintuitive places. Overall I think it's a bit of a mess. Why does this CnCNet Discussion section have a tag selector for new thread, but not General Discussion? It doesn't make sense to me. If anything should the latter definitely have it, but not necessarily the former as that is about CnCNet and not really the games as such. Maybe I'm thinking that wrong, but I think at least that the tag addition should be available in the General Discussion as an option. Member rankings/titles are underutilized. There seems to be only 3. How about having some more? Or can the forum not handle more than 3? This is not important of course, but it's a fun addition to any forum in my opinion I'm a bit fond of technicians, so how about raising the limit to Rifleman to 20 posts? Or is that perhaps linked to the approving requirement for posts? If it works with Technician to 19, then have Rifleman to 59 and then Grenadier to 99, Rocket Soldier to 199, Engineer to 299 and finally Medic starting at 300 and being the top if we're to keep it at infantry units. Considering the low average activity of regular member I think it's not necessary for more, but there can be of course. Concurrently I think the number of posts shouldn't be displayed alongside every forum post, only in the profile. That makes title more useful and exciting and creates a slightly bigger urge for people to check out ones profile. Also I haven't found any rules. Edit: Oh, actually I just found it when I edited this post for other things. Well, that should definitely not be in its own section "hidden" under Support. Move it to CnCNet Discussion or CnCNet News. And you should consider adding a direct link to it at the top or bottom of the web page. And the forum clock runs about 7½ minutes late. Thank you for all your hard work on this
  2. This has been on my mind for almost 2 decades, and I've been thinking about making a thread here for a few years but never really got to it. But with remasters imminent I feel this matter is most urgent, and I've finally taken the time to do this. The main question is simple: What is really the correct graphical aspect ratio for the first three C&C games? Since TD and RA1 are DOS games made for 320x200 in 4:3 monitors, I always assumed that that was what the games were supposed to look like. The Windows conversions where just unfortunate results because of technical limitations. One could choose the correct aspect ratio resolution, but one usually wanted to have a high resolution for better overview, and 640x480 was unfortunately the highest, so people usually went with that. Then comes Tiberian Sun and messes everything up exponentially. It's a Windows only game where you have the option to set 640x400, a resolution not really supported in Windows (sysreq for Win9x is 640x480). Why in heavens name does TS have that? I always felt that the square pixel resolutions were off. It looked cramped. The unconventional 640x400 one felt much better, but not quite right either. Some things looked much better, like units, especially after having seen concept art with scale comparisons, while other more went from one disproportionation to the other, like cliffs. Menus filled the screen, which felt much better considering there were a lot of circles going on and it felt weird to have them end abruptly on-screen. But circles were now distorted. Nothing was really good. And again, if one wanted higher resolution one had to go with the cramped graphics. What the heck happened here? With the advent of digital displays people were kinda forced to use incorrect aspect ratios to get a clear image. This has bothered me ever since, and been my main motivation to keep old computers and, above all, monitors. When I heard that there would be remasters, this was the first thing I thought about. This is a golden opportunity to fix it and portray C&C as it was intended. Getting both the old makers as well as proven remakers on the boat looked hopeful. But as EA is ultimately the ones who pulls the strings, so I've veered away from any further news to protect me from a long and painful letdown and insult fest. However, just a few days into this year I come across what I thought was a retrospective video of Command & Conquer on YouTube. I clicked on it to watch. And holy smokes, the first thing shown are screenshots from the remasters! I was shocked, first afraid of imminent huge disappointment, but to my surprise I felt it looked good and really succeeded in keeping the old feel. Shortly after I also realise that they used the Windows version cramped aspect ratio. So the natural follow up question on this subject is: Why isn't the correct aspect ratio used in the remasters? It is very important to portray the work in the way it was meant by the creators. If they're actually redrawing all art, then make it right. They have lots of resolution to play with this time around to compensate for possible iffiness with uneven pixels. There might even be no problems. They take the liberty to add details that obviously wasn't really meant to be there originally, so if some edge is a small fraction of a pixel off when compared to the original it would be acceptable. I could kinda accept the wrong aspect ratio in TD and RA1 as they kinda look okay that way anyway. But it will be very disappointing and a waste of otherwise very good effort. The thing is, one kinda already does accept the wrong aspect ratio with the current freeware iterations, so why would I buy a new one with the same wrongdoing? Why would one? It's the same thing again, why pay for that? And I'm very worried that this sloppy approach will transfer to a possible remaster of Tiberian Sun, kicking the most beautiful but flayed and disgraced horse even further, an insult that surely will awake and enrage my inner keyboard warrior. There is a realistic opportunity that Tiberian Sun finally could be finalised, the game that had potential to be the greatest RTS ever. If they blow that and treat the released alpha from 1999 as final...
  3. I have never seen this person before, and it's almost 2 years ago now, but it was still very sad to read. Or perhaps "still" is the wrong way to put it. I "just" joined, and this feels like I missed the party, or at least the cosy pre-party, and now people are moving on to the club, while some call it quits a Or that the party has transformed from a half-private party to a small club, to become less rough, cosy and bare-bones and more polished, open and anonymous and possibly kinda empty feeling. The whole coming together and rejoice period is over, and now it's more business as usual, with some of the ones who has put their soul into this and carried the project leaving for new endeavours. Now it's all done and just there, readily accessible but a little less charming. The whole work-in-progress-thing is enchanting. Now the "product" is done and the craftsmen are gone, and so goes the excitement. It's a bit commonplace now. I didn't know how to exactly put words on what I'm feeling, but I hope you kinda get what I'm going for. It's kinda touching to see a sort of milestone like this and sad to see passion and volunteer work go away, even though the work itself is left and alive. Also a new era is emerging with the remasters, and I just got a glimpse of the old desert wandering era, which already feels a bit retro and charming in hindsight. I haven't been part of CnCNet in any way. But C&C's darkest hours and the following grief, recollection, gathering, revival and life support of what was left have always lured in my mind.
  4. Yay, great! Welcome back, commander! And... goodbye? Care to explain before you go again?
  5. I don't think Red Alert 2 would benefit from Fog of War because of much of its fast paced nature. It would change the game balance and style rather dramatically. In Tiberian Sun, on the other hand, I discovered it was marvellous once I dared to try it again after having learned how to play properly, which was years later I believe. It gave the game a whole new dimension. It was an excellent FoW mechanic that really complimented the game's structure and pace that enhanced the whole experience, very different from the Age of Empires mechanic that I was used to and didn't like. I think FoW in TS should be the default. Too bad it doesn't work in CnCnet's version (I heard why). At least TS still has RA1's "Shroud Regrows" option that's easily enabled with a Rules.ini change, it might still work in RA2/YR. There are lines in there related to shroud and fog, but they don't seem to work. One of the lines say ShadowGrow = deos the shroud regrow? (def=no) DESUPPORTED. Why is it still in RA2's rules.ini if it's no longer supported? There are also lines related to tiberium and visceroids and other things which aren't even in RA2. Why are they there? Did the WW devs get lazy and just use a rules.ini template for all the old C&C's or something? TS was already rushed (released before Weswood studios was happy with it) and Ra2 was under the same engine, and most likely also rushed, so they left things in there that are no longer in the code itself (but still left in the rules because same rules was used in TS). There's also many crate power up left overs that still work in RA2/YR which can be enabled which are following -Shroud regrow crate - everything will be black again like if you lost spy sat -Ore - there will be a bit of ore where you picked up the crate -Stealth - Like promotion some units around the crate will be permanently stealth (like subs) -Explosives - Your tanks take a lot of damage -Nuke - you will get a nuke you can instant use All of those are from TS but the code is still in RA2/YR even though it was never used. However, there's also a lot of leftovers in the rules but the code is also removed from the client, meaning you can no longer enable it. I wouldn't call WWS lazy. EA rushed them to the ass and TS was heavy rushed, and WWS couldn't complete everything they had in planning (look it up). Wow, I didn't know that. I learn something new everytime I visit the C&C community But I shouldn't be surprised, I have noticed a few times that RA2 share a lot of code with TS. It's the same engine basically, so again, I shouldn't be surprised. Still pretty amazing that those things are fully functional. They must have worked on it to get them functional and at some point decided to not use them for gameplay reasons. I'm so glad the explosions were removed, those were a major pain in Tiberian Sun. Felt like every other crate was a stupid explosion, and some even blew a hole in the terrain! What the actual duck. The power-ups were very lame in TS, extremely so in comparison with RA2, and became useless if you didn't want to risk loose an expensive and/or more than one unit. They could have left the ore stuff in RA2, but I can totally see why the others were removed. This is power-ups done right. I've read on more than one wiki that Red Alert 2 was developed by Burst Studios, known then as Westwood Pacific after EA:s takeover, but I haven't seen a confirmation from a reliable source, or any at all really. But it would make sense, as the first beta of RA2 came like just a month or two after the Firestorm expansion pack for TS was released. And I believe those TS guys then went to work on Emperor: Battle for Dune. Might be possible to track in the credits or manual. Even RA2 had some last minute cuts, most notably the light tank, which is still present in the installation slideshow. Back to the crates. To refresh my memory I did a quick search and found this neat instruction video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF0FA15n0kc Was unsure if there was a shroud reveal power-up in RA2. And btw, I could never imagine that RA2 pretty much 20 years later, in a tutorial video even, would attract over 40 000 viewers and over 250 comments in just under a month.
  6. Hi! Holy smokes, this thread is from 2007. But there's forum code that doesn't work in the first post, assuming it's not meant to be like that as some sort of nerd joke. And CnCnet says © 2009– ... So I guess it was imported elsewhere. I also exist on the AdoredTV forum. https://adoredtv.com/community/profile/gilbert-guldlock/ I have a Steam account with the same name, but since Valve ousted Windows XP I no longer use it. I've been a fan of Westwood and an occasional lurker in the C&C community for two decades, but never engaged or contributed, so this is my first ever interaction with the community. I do not like to play competitively, so you will probably never see me in a game, as that seems to be the only thing going on. I only play with friends that like to chill out just like me. If you are like that, you can be my friend ;P I only played a few dozen times online back in the day, almost only in Tiberian Sun, so I haven't left any mark. I have changed nickname a few times over the years. I don't remember what I used in TS. I did manage to reach a 300-something spot on the rank ladder out of 40 000 contestants sometime in 2000 I would guess, something I was very proud of and still am a little bit. Then people learned to hax0r play it, landing a Disruptor with an Orca Carryall inside the base after just 3 minutes when I just had gotten a war factory, and I gave up ranked matches. I was going to post an overview of my personal history with Command & Conquer as part of my introduction here, but once I started to delve into my memory, there were more and more things popping up that I wanted to mention, and eventually my ambition turned into a complete exposition. I have almost 1200 words written in a document for this, I really want it to be complete. However it became harder and more time consuming as I went on, and now I'm stuck, as I want to check some dates, but it requires the revival of one or two old computers, which I wont be able to do for some months. So I figured I should at least reveal myself now and perhaps do some other things in the mean time. That's why I registered a month ago but not wrote anything on the forums until now. I really like this forum design. It's simple and clear, has a good mix of round and sharp edges, perfectly laid out, good colours, technically lightweight yet powerful with all the tools you want, topped with nice, smooth and perfectly timed animations. Like a dream from the last millennium, just as it should be.
×
×
  • Create New...