Jump to content

C&C series Warz: Spiltt from favorite track from Frank/Jarrid topic


MN_Chief
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have to admit though. I think the tiberian universe has a better plot line to it. Only if it had skirmish like RA1 did. :(

You know what, there's enough truth to this :) Actually, I prefer C&C to everything else because it has a great balance of realism, sci-fi and mystery elements, while TS already shifted into a more dark science-fiction universe. Actually, RA2 is more close to the original C&C in this respect IMO :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let's do it! :D (BTW, I kinda don't like the section being called "Crap Forum" - maybe something more neutral, like "Nonsense Forum" or "Random Discussions Forum" could be used instead? Because if it's called "Crap Forum", then everything you post there is automatically defined as crap, no? And generally, I think this topic could have been well in "The Barracks" forum anyway :))

 

Let's discuss C&C (and by C&C I mean TD :P) vs. RA1. RA brought in a lot more features like skirmish, high resolution (it was high back then, that is ;)) and improved multiplayer. However, some of the unique C&C traits were dropped. An obvious example is the EVA interface, which has a "back story" behind it in C&C, is just an interface with vocal announcements in RA, with no in-game world justification. Another thing is the ore stuff I mentioned above, compared to Tiberium in C&C which comprises one of focal points of the game plot!

 

It is also not immediately obvious that C&C is unique in the respect of mission variants (versions). In C&C, selectable variants of certain missions are not only different by terrain and base/unit locations, but also by mission objectives and even different video briefings. In RA, all available variants of all missions differ only by terrain and position of objects. Moreover, even though briefing videos are longer, some of the campaign missions only have text message briefings and no FMV briefings at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree about the ore and gems. I doubt they would have had the resources and time to develop a completely new resource system, but instead of spreading all over, the ore should stick to a limited area and that area only. Gigantic golden rocks and brightly colourful gems should definitely have been replaced with something more realistic, though. Not forgeting miners that look like combines :roll:

 

some of the campaign missions only have text message briefings and no FMV briefings at all.

 

That's not necessarily a bad thing. It would be strange if video conversations were used everywhere in the 1950s :huh: Plus, none of the covert operations had FMV intros, unlike some Aftermath and secret ant missions in Retaliation.

 

Though these are not the only things that require(d) fixing in Red Alert: For example, the ugly resized infantry in windows version and grenades with wrong warhead explosion. It's also absurd that while Red Alert terrain affects unit speed in a realistic way, it makes wheeled units, such as costly Ranger, less effective on anything but roads than their TD (Hum-vee/Buggy) counterpart. It's wacky to see the usually-so-slow convoy truck speed up to 100mph on dirt roads :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some of the campaign missions only have text message briefings and no FMV briefings at all.

 

That's not necessarily a bad thing. It would be strange if video conversations were used everywhere in the 1950s :huh: Plus, none of the covert operations had FMV intros, unlike some Aftermath and secret ant missions in Retaliation.

Well, I just pointed out the difference. The emphasis was on the fact that missions with alternate variants in C&C also have different briefing videos as well.

 

Though these are not the only things that require(d) fixing in Red Alert: For example, the ugly resized infantry in windows version and grenades with wrong warhead explosion.

Right. While oversized infantry can be more or less easily fixed, warhead explosions in RA are a mess, and I wonder why. They partially fixed that in the 3.03 patch: the grenade explosion is now identical to the one in C&C (and does not leave scorch marks), same with flamethrower infantry weapon explosion, which has correct animaton and scorches ground. However, the  mammoth tusk explosion in v3.03 has the artillery shell explosion graphics (and a very loud sound effect to it), which looks weird when attacking air units, while the artillery and the cruiser retain their generic explosion graphic that was used with most things prior to v3.03.

 

Oh, and I honestly don't like how they changed the flamethrower weapon to a "magic fireball" type in RA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and I honestly don't like how they changed the flamethrower weapon to a "magic fireball" type in RA.

 

Possibly to increase the range of the flamethrower infantry. It would look odd if it was given the classic flame animation but kept its current range. However if they had made a longer flame, it would have been odd again since infantry could only face and fire at 8 directions. Think about a situation when the flames don't seem to touch the target but still cause damage....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and I honestly don't like how they changed the flamethrower weapon to a "magic fireball" type in RA.

Possibly to increase the range of the flamethrower infantry. It would look odd if it was given the classic flame animation but kept its current range.

Yes, this most probably was the reason behind the change - maybe not even because of the portable infantry version but of the Flame Turret that has an even greater range. Additionally, the flame jet in C&C damages everything in its path, including friendly units, while the RA fireball only does splash damage at impact. In general, I think the RA Flamethrower had become almost completely useless with its low movement speed, average HP (compared to its C&C counterpart) and high position on the tech tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...