command and conquer

[diluzio91]

Was there a good C&C? I cant remember which one tanked and theres a steam sale.

[slaveofconvention]

C&C was ok, RA was better, Renegade is a FPS which wasn't up to much, Dune was kinda disappointing, RAII was pretty good too, better with Yuris Revenge, Generals was quite good, but RAIII was a let down albeit a very pretty one, and C&C 4 had, erm, a certain affection for the reproductive organs of the common donkey....

Just my opinion :p

[mDust]

C&C 4 had, erm, a certain affection for the reproductive organs of the common donkey....

Just my opinion :p

Very descriptive...

[d_stilgar]

I really liked Dune, mostly because it's pretty much the first RTS ever so you have to give it props for that.

I also loved Tiberian Sun and the add-on, Firestorm. Both were pretty worthy in my opinion.

I haven't played any recently because I kinda got burned out on the genre completely.

[slaveofconvention]

Very descriptive...

Yeah sometimes being staff means you have to phrase things carefully instead of publically saying what you REALLY think heh

[Munty]

I think I have a different set of guiding principles for this genre as I disagree with SoC quite a bit lol (Except C&C4 which is the biggest pile of do-do in the world)

I love the original C&C and RA and frequently replay both games just for Nostalgia. Tragically I never played Dune so I treat C&C as the beginning of the genre though I know that's not true

As the games progressed I personally feel the Tibirum series stayed the stronger of the 2 while Red Alert (an alternate gameworld parallel) became very camp, culminating with RA3 which is an absolute joke imho... That said I have played and completed it but while not unplayable it is totally unbelievable and I don't like that in the C&C universe. Warcraft, Starcraft, maybe. C&C is a serious wargame (aliens included) and should be treated as such, not a comic con attraction...

C&C 3 was the best iteration of the franchise for me as it was by far the best graphical experience of the lot. It removes the comic-book colours of the RA series and replaces them with a much darker, dirtier real wargame palette. The units are also some of the best although the Mammoth Tank in the original games has always been my favourite.

I also loved the concurrent campaign style of C&C3 which ran all 3 factions one after another. It told a good story very well and much as I love the end-game culmination of the original C&C (when you can play as either side for complete victory in different hemispheres) it's nice for a game to avoid the canon storylines that we so often end up with when we'd rather play as the 'bad guys'

Kane's Wrath, the expansion for C&C3 was also a good game and I enjoyed that too though I found myself a little confused with the story at times, never really knowing when a particular mission I was playing was meant to be set...

C&C 4 is an embarassment to the franchise and as well as destroying the title they've also managed to ruin the fantastic character that is Kane. We're left with so many questions and still not a single answer. As soon as the DVD goes in you're met by crap copy-protection and it kind of gets worse from there in my opinion. It's just not C&C, avoid at all costs...

Renegade, the FPS, is a fun distraction if you want to run around inside NOD barracks and such but shouldn't be taken too seriously and it's graphically retarded by modern day standards.

Generals IS a good game, though it is now rather dated obviously. I have never classed it as a Command&Conquer game though as it doesn't take a single page from the original story bible. The sides are different, units are different, economy is different. It's a good, fun RTS but in my opinion it shouldn't be titled as a C&C game. It was simply a ploy to capitalise on a successful franchise in order to sell more copies of a very unambitious game.

In my opinion