EA Q1 - Is there anything "sacred" you would advise NOT to change in Remaster?

[Lordsith54]

I’m hoping to see some new dlc but only thing is the micro transactions... that is always a deal breaker. If you remaster the old games I hope you keep the “original” games the same. I hope to see new characters and units in the dlcs if you ever release them! Some of the older games I don’t think would be as profitable to release new dlcs, several games I’m hoping to see with new dlcs  are red alert 2, generals, and Tiberius wars, 

[DeathWish]

The CnCNet its so cool and smooth we need to stay with two options of course wich is play online from in side game or from cncnet and add zoom in and zoom out Feature and we need good graphics plzzzzzzzz .. and there problem with the original games wich i can type in arabic to my friends plzzzz add arabic feature

Edited October 13, 2018 by DeathWish

[xmobster5]

I would love for RA2 to be touched up a bit. Bug fixes, resolution fix, better multiplayer options.. Keep the campaign and videos though. 

[MrSeagull]

This I would not want to see changed at all:

• Resources - Tirberium and Ore being on the ground, gathered by harvesters, with terrain objects that spawn resources around them (ore mine/tib tree). I don't care for the resource nodes from RA3, or the lack of resources from C&C4.
• Base Building - The method of grid-based base building pleased my OCD-like mind, but I was okay with C&C3, so long as we don't have base size restrictions.
• Single Player Campaigns - The campaigns of all the titles up to C&C3:KW are precious to me, even as campy as they are at times. I would very much prefer to see them not excluded - cut-scenes and all.
• Music - If you can get higher quality audio, great, but I would prefer the original scores not be changed or removed. New music is fine.
• The INI files / modding - the ability to change the INI files added a giant layer of replay-ability to the older games. Being able to easily mod the game is a HUGE plus for me.
• Map making: Even if we need to use 3rd party applications, I want to be able to create maps with full scripting functions.

This I would be okay with changing:

• Interface - I'm okay with the interface of C&C3:KW, but the system of each building having a separate queue probably would be a balancing concern with the older titles. I'd be okay with keeping the single queue system with building speeds increased with multiple structures from the older titles.
• Designing unique structures for each faction: Some of the older titles had structures that were the same no matter what side you were on. For instance, MCVs, refineries, harvesters, power plants, etc. I would actually prefer if each side had a unique structures, even if they aren't visually different. Map making / modding was a bit of a pain when dealing with the shared structures and building requirements (I.E. War factories in RA1).
• Quality of Life changes: Things like building walls in sections (C&C:TS, RA2) instead of piece by piece, build queues for units and infantry, ability to power down structures (C&C:TS), select all units / select all type units.

[Nyerguds]

The bugs. Keep them in.

 

Keep them ALL in.

(damn, I'm turning into Myg )

[sensosio]

Thanks Ferret... and I agree with MrSeagull. Personally for Generals ZH (non-pro gamer):

The core gameplay elements were/are great for me and my friends. We like to play against hard AIs (but love it after the great fan made fixed AI mod) but the matches are so hard to play (in terms of performance). Sooner or later the gameplay is like a slow motion show. No always but I would guess 90% of our nights. Apart from this I think the game was well made but almost impossible to play for people who like building bases or even only want to play against the AI. Today If someone says "anyone wanna play ZH" the first answer in the round is "nah, it'll surely crash/desyc or even will not start". 

The LAN & online desync bugs
If it's possible for 8 players to play, it should be playable under all circumstances. ZH begins to stuck even If only the AIs are playing against each other.

The low/bad AI performance
People in their free time fixed a lot of things but the core performance is poorly from our perspective. An AI for example should always try to rebuild the own base :-)

I think If this is the core element of a ZH remake, it should be no problem to build a pro-gamer system around. Like the choice in FIFA to get the recent stats of the teams but instead load all the balanced patches and other stuff.

Just my thoughts as a big casual CC-fan from the first hour :-)

Edited October 13, 2018 by sensosio

[Antioch]

keep gameplay exactly the same (maybe some balance and bug fixes). HD textures and resolutions. compatibility with newer versions of windows. online multiplayer. keep the audio/videos the same, just maybe updated to HD with more clarity. it needs to feel like the same game, just refreshed a little bit to keep the nostalgia for the players coming back, but updated enough for first time players to be able to appreciate the original experience.

[ore_truck]

I would like to see a remastered version of Sole Survivor. Keep the game the way it is, but make it compatible with newer windows and we can play online straight from the game's main menu without needing a 3rd party program to run it.

[Mafarka]

As others have said, sacred are the soundtrack (or rather sound in general, the death screams are perfect) and FMVs. Except quality of life improvements and other "new" standards (such as production queues, air units regular movement control, veterancy ranks... stuff already present in later C&C installments), the gameplay is sacred as well -do NOT add secondary skills etc.

I wonder whether they are going 3D (kind of what at some point they said Generals 2 would evolve into, a single engine for different games) or stay with the same design with upgraded sprites (if they achieve the quality of TS and RA2, that would be perfect). In any case, don't change the the way things look; I fear EA might be tempted to redo the artworks for the sake of artistic direction consistency with the later games.

[Grant]

  On 10/14/2018 at 10:36 AM, cn2mc said:

@Nyerguds

Yeah, I tried to explain that as best as I could, but he doesn't get it. I've always thought about it: can this harv issue actually be resolved with a hack?

Expand  

Please keep to the topic at hand, if you want to discuss this open a new thread. Cheers! 

[Sonoman]

PLAYABILITY.
That's why I still keep playing Red Alert 2 and never played Red Alert 3...
Better Graffics, TExtures, Animations. Yhats it.

IMHO.

Nice to hear wabout what your going to do! Count me in!

 

[Commander_McNash]

In terms of sacredness I will say EA should respect the core gameplay of classic C&C (C&C95, RA1, TS and their respective expansions), to further expand upon this I make a description of the three main elements inherent to this core:

• A tech-tree reliant upon different static production and tech structures build through a construction yard (A few of them may be capable to redeploy or have no need of power plants)
• Collector-refinery based economy reliant in tiberium or ore fields (although tiberium spikes, oil derricks and other secondary forms of economy are welcome)
• Infantry, vehicles and aircraft divided in tiers capable to work in synergy to create a functional fighting machine (at least a non-tournament gaming level)

I believe as long as you respect these three elements things will be good.

[Alex06]

- The Music

- The Voices

- The actors in the FMVs

- The hotkeys (allow them to be remappable)

- Modding and Mapping capability and tools. People want to be able to mod and map the game. They want to add 3rd, 4th and 5th factions with new unit & gameplay mechanics, their own UIs for the new factions, etc. - Let them do it, please! That's how the C&C Community survived for so long.

- No paid content, even if it's skins, only. Skins could be an extra thing for pre-ordering and for the collector's edition, but that should end there. Skins could work in a new C&C game, but I can hardly see it in a remaster, especially if it's one of the 2D games like RA1, TD, TS and RA2.

 

What can be changed:

Adapting the UI and more varied and modern waypoint, build queue, unit pathfinding and formation mechanics from C&C3 and such can work, but the rest must remain the same. It could work if you had a classic mode like with DTA, for example. In classic mode, GDI and Nod have their original TD arsenal but in "Enhanced mode", GDI gets Hover MLRS, mechs, Nod gets subterranean beam cannons, cyborgs, etc. - as well as an additional tech center, to lengthen the build orders and tiers. Maybe in "Enhanced mode", you can build several build queues ala C&C3 and RA3 instead of each subsequent ConYard, War Factory or Barracks simply speeding up unit production. I can see that work. The art style can be changed to 3D with a fixed camera in classic mode, but enhanced mode lets you maybe rotate buildings ala RA3 and the camera, as well.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Alex06

[Swahap]

To be honest, don't alter the overall game play. Graphics is the only concern, to me at least.

I am a Yuri's Revenge player by the way. I love how the game play mechanic work.

[Zlaks]

I really hope u gona remaster C&C red alert 1 and General,  (not zero hour too much cheated units...)   

Red alert 1 and general where the best micro games and the survival mode are insane on it!  Much fun!  Plz don't forget to put back map builder  cause it was very bugged on general.  

I can't wait to see general back honnestly, most interesting game.  The "realistic" graphic make it so cool.  

If u want add some "pax feature"  then add things like avatars,  units disign or things like that than have only "visual" change and doesn't affect the game.  So people will support you and it won't be a pay to win.  

Thx for reading. 


 

[Disguise_AU]

It's really simple from my opinion.. DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING!! Just make the game compatible with new systems, improve frame rate and resolution, and make it compatible with new systems that didnt exist at the time such as ChromeOS (Chromebooks). Other than that I just want the original games. Some of the best remastered games weren't changed much from their originals. Please don't change the gameplay or add crates and stuff, I'd rather spend more money to buy the game than get it cheaper or free and then be expected to buy in-game content. 

 

From a long-time C&C fan! 

-Disguise_AU 

[fir3w0rx]

  On 10/15/2018 at 6:04 PM, JamesRyko said:

Its interesting i guess that they're choosing to work with them. Although I''m not 100% certain I disagree with the decision. What is it about OpenRA that you feel like makes them the wrong people for EA to be focusing on? 

Expand  

I have nothing against them or their version of the game(s), but that's just it - THEIR VERSION of the games. There is also nothing wrong with a remake, but I prefer a remaster. Also, if I'm right about EA using their source codes, I think it's unprofessional (not to mention funny) that they can't come up with their own.

I think the OpenRA community are the right people to kick-start all this, but the wrong people to ask for opinions regarding how the final product should be.

[EA_Jimtern]

Hello CnCNet Community,

This is Jim Vessella from EA.  I wanted to post here and let you know I am reading all the comments in this thread and greatly appreciate the input you have provided so far.  We absolutely want the CnCNet community be heavily involved in this Remaster initiative, as this community has been instrumental in keeping the classic games thriving all these years.

Please continue to engage here on the forums, in Discord, or on Reddit, and we're looking forward to share more details in the near future!

Cheers,

Jimtern

[[CC] RaVaGe]

While everyone is saying not to touch the gameplay, after over a decade of playing RA2 and continuing on YR, I can easily confirm that, do indeed add balance adjustments.

With the above mentioned classics only minor changes can bring the game to a fairly perfect gameplay balance.
For example, Allied air units being a bit more durable and not instantly dying to anti air weapons of all other sides.

 

If there's one thing I can really suggest, it's that to me it seems past C&C games have lacked play-testing from veteran C&C fans and competitive gamers.
When and if you guys finally get to that stage please include the old competitive players in your beta.

[ore_truck]

Don't change the graphics (I don't want Red Alert (1) to look like Red Alert 2 graphics). Just keep it simple. That's the most sacred thing I want left untouched.

As for giving suggestions: windows compatibility, bug fixes, AI pathfinding and online competitiveness is probably the first thing that comes to everyone's mind. I would like some new official maps, missions (separated from the main campaign like covert ops, counterstrike and aftermath) and the return of the Technician units in the later C&C game remakes. Hopefully Renegade and older C&C games (Sole Survivor included) gets a remake first.

It's good to see so many new accounts having their first post in this remake topic. Just shows it can really attract new players.

[Legolas]

any game that you're creating, i hope you'll take a look at the balanced factions aspect of it. also better graphics plz

[sgtmyers88]

This will apply for any remaster or future C&C game but I also wish to add and request no over saturated cartoonish themes and graphics that turns a gritty semi-realistic military strategy game and its units and factions into a bunch of toys or an anime cartoon. (looking at you, RA3 & C&C4) What was appealing to me about C&C1, RA1, and Generals was the aspect of it being realistic gritty warfare with a touch of sci-fi. This is C&C, not Warcraft or Starcraft. I will be fair to say EA did in fact do a decent job keeping that atmosphere with C&C3.

Speaking of this topic,  here was my guidelines I submitted back when EA announced C&C Generals 2.

Heck, how about reviving that game while we are at it?

Edited October 17, 2018 by sgtmyers88

[sunny]

As a ra2/yr expansion player for nearly 17 years and seven rank 1's,  I have to give my input and agree with those who suggest keeping the game true to the original. Blizzard did it with StarCraft in 4k. The gameplay is essentially unchanged just the graphics are improved. It would be very nice seeing the same route taken with ra2 and yr.  Having the same speed and feel of the original gameplay is crucial to a remaster, because it preserves the gameplay everyone loves while improving on the atmosphere of the game itself and making it more immersive.

Plus points such as adding better graphics, effects and long lasting online multiplayer support would be a no brainer and bring many people back.

 Changing any of the gameplay and atmosphere of the classics deviates from what everyone is used to and probably would be a let down. 

Edited October 17, 2018 by sunny

[SodswSov]

Just ask yourself this one question..... What negative aspect of the game caused a massive drop in activity. If the gameplay it self is out dated and undesirable, then why bring it back? It’s now even more outdated and unenjoyable minhs a small sample of the community. The reason ra2 and yuris revenge activity dropped substantially on WOL in a very short period of time was the lack of ability to control all the cheaters. Ladder hack, map hack, President ifv, with the constant bot spamming of the games caused a mass exodus from the game. The other X factor was the xwis server being created which split the remaining community up. Then the WOL server shutting down with a lot of people not knowing how to move over to the other server. There was (and maybe still is) 1000+ players on the Chinese servers still playing ra2 a couple years ago. So the game playability did not drop off since it’s introduction.

[toxic]

I think the single most important thing to NOT change in the games from tiberian sun backward are the graphics.  The old style graphics really make it them stand out.