Command & Conquer: Generals 2 Single Player May Still Exist

Command & Conquer: Generals 2 Single Player May Still Exist

image

EA President Frank Gibeau thinks that the next C&C can be built to fans' demands.

When it was revealed that Command & Conquer: Generals 2 would lack a single-player campaign, the decision was met with disapproval from series fans. After all, the hallmarks of the franchise include its plot-driven missions and extra cheesy FMV cutscenes. In a bid to keep the peace, Electronic Arts has announced that a single-player campaign for the game (which is now rebranded as Command & Conquer) is not totally out of the question.

Frank Gibeau, president of EA Labels, explained the situation in a recent interview. "Our intention with Command & Conquer is to create a triple-A experience, and by that I mean we're using Frostbite tech, we're using very high-end graphics.

"Does that mean it's not going to have single player? No, that's something we've obviously heard loud and clear that is important to people," he says. "The beauty of free-to-play is that we can adjust and adapt to what we're hearing as opposed to, 'I'm sorry, it's two months from ship and it is what it is.' It's a very different model because you don't have to build as much. You build in response to your audience."

Command & Conquer is expected for release in 2013.

Source: Polygon

Permalink

"Our intention with Command & Conquer is to create a triple-A experience, and by that I mean we're using Frostbite tech, we're using very high-end graphics."
Because graphics are, of course, the most important thing.

BlackNoel:
"Our intention with Command & Conquer is to create a triple-A experience, and by that I mean we're using Frostbite tech, we're using very high-end graphics."
Because graphics are, of course, the most important thing.

To EA they are.

I swear EA just doesn't give a fuck anymore.

BlackNoel:
"Our intention with Command & Conquer is to create a triple-A experience, and by that I mean we're using Frostbite tech, we're using very high-end graphics."
Because graphics are, of course, the most important thing.

They obviously are. That and egregious multitplayer abuse because, hey, the future belongs to Call of Duty and Battlefield, and we here at EA want a piece of that hot money-pie.

Honestly, this is good news, in a roundabout sense. See, the part we have to remember is that they caved in under the demands of fans. The fans WANTED a single-player campaign, and they finally got one. What this means is that with enough pressure, we can make individual studios back away from Gibeau's claims of "all multiplayer, all the time".

Yes, some people actually do want to spend all their gaming time up against other people for the sake of competition, but others just want a good story or unpretentious, simple fun that doesn't rely on them developing perfect habits for this or that genre. I'm one of those people. You'll rarely, if ever catch me doing multiplayer stuff - unless it's with a gaggle of friends I've known for about seventeen years.

It's setting yourself for multiplayer with complete strangers that gets my goat. Laughging up our failures in Left 4 Dead 2's Expert mode between friends is okay. Being called a faggot because I couldn't reach the safe room in time on that difficulty level? That isn't okay.

Frank Gibeau:
Does that mean it's not going to have single player? No, that's something we've obviously heard loud and clear that is important to people.

Well, that didn't take long. Whether or not it ends up being something fun to play remains to be seen, but at least there's some hope they aren't totally abandoning single-player. Sure wish they wouldn't have dropped the Bad Company bit for what they did with BF3. Bad Company was a lot of fun... *le sigh*

Frankly, being the newbie guy I am with RTS games, it's really a no-win situation when it comes to the C&C series. On one hand, the single player campaigns have always been silly and obtuse, ending up being outright bad in the last installment. On the other, the multiplayer experience seems to be dominated by people who actually know what the hell they're doing.

Skirmish has always been where it's at for me. :P

Command & Conquer was dead by the time C&C 4 came out.

Generals was enjoyable if you mentally replaced the words "Command & Conquer" with "Age of"
Since it resembled a well done "Age of Empires" game in the modern setting.
Then again EA seems to like to ruin franchises. I'm pessimistic to say the least.

BlackNoel:
"Our intention with Command & Conquer is to create a triple-A experience, and by that I mean we're using Frostbite tech, we're using very high-end graphics."
Because graphics are, of course, the most important thing.

Funnily enough, that's more likely to stop me getting it than the lack of single player.

I bought a reasonably priced PC last year, but it won't be able to play a high end graphics game from next year, and I don't plan on upgrading it soon.

End of Nations rip-off.

That is what this will be.
Will quote this very post when this game is released saying: "I was right, bitches".

Command and Conquer is dead, bros.
Nobody will ever make a C&C game like the old ones, because nobody cares about old school RTS games outside of Starcraft.

End of Nations has got a very good niche to fill, and MoBA's like Dota 2 and Lol are the closest thing to a strategy game people are willing to play.

Generals 2 wil fail, 100%, no doubt.

You build in response to your audience.

What he really means is EA's audience knows how to do their job better than EA does.

Oh for pete's sake.

I get the hate when EA messes up (like when they said Generals 2 turned f2p).

But seriously. Why do EA get hate even when they listen to the fans? I mean come on.

And don't give me that "C&C died with C&C4" b/s.

A gaming franchise can't die. It can only have a bad iteration.

captcha: do more sit-ups.

OI. I am alright.

Sigh even when EA is (maybe) conceding they were being idiots they still come off just as douchy as when they made their first statement... that takes the refined skill only a mega douche can produce, Bravo. And no one care's about your in studio engine Frostbyte EA. Besides didn't you already make one game which was centered around showing us the meaningless spectacles the Frostbyte could produce? Why don't you just stop dancing around the issue and put Frostbyte watermarks into every textures? I know you want to.

EA Exec: "Coming 2013, the first pay to win singleplayer! ...What, no fan-fair?"

(Sorry double)

Hornet0404:
Oh for pete's sake.

I get the hate when EA messes up (like when they said Generals 2 turned f2p).

But seriously. Why do EA get hate even when they listen to the fans? I mean come on.

And don't give me that "C&C died with C&C4" b/s.

A gaming franchise can't die. It can only have a bad iteration.

captcha: do more sit-ups.

OI. I am alright.

Because they did an abysmal job with C&C 4, now the reason I bring that up, is because they bult that wanting to compete with the Dawn of War 2 model and failed.

In this case their listening to the fans means slapping a single player campaign onto a F2P MMO... Everything will be geared and balanced for an F2P environment, not a singleplayer one.

So they get hate because they are backpeddling after getting shown how retarded they are and are likely to make things even worse, and people know it.

I am still willing to give it a chance, hell I wont lose anything if they shove it out for free, who knows, maybe they will surprise me!

Aaaaaaand then they slap a price tag on the single-player campaign and fans will cry bloody murder.

Best case scenario is that they don't and the campaign turns out to be spectacular, but I doubt it'll happen. I'll give credit to EA that they actually took note to fan's demands.

FelixG:
(Sorry double)

Hornet0404:
Oh for pete's sake.

I get the hate when EA messes up (like when they said Generals 2 turned f2p).

But seriously. Why do EA get hate even when they listen to the fans? I mean come on.

And don't give me that "C&C died with C&C4" b/s.

A gaming franchise can't die. It can only have a bad iteration.

captcha: do more sit-ups.

OI. I am alright.

Because they did an abysmal job with C&C 4, now the reason I bring that up, is because they bult that wanting to compete with the Dawn of War 2 model and failed.

In this case their listening to the fans means slapping a single player campaign onto a F2P MMO... Everything will be geared and balanced for an F2P environment, not a singleplayer one.

So they get hate because they are backpedaling after getting shown how retarded they are and are likely to make things even worse, and people know it.

I am still willing to give it a chance, hell I wont lose anything if they shove it out for free, who knows, maybe they will surprise me!

Well at least they are backpedaling instead of "bulldozing" ahead with a bad idea.

And as you said it's free so if it isn't good I haven't lost anything and might as well install the old Generals once more.

It might help if EA actually had an artistic vision for C&C, instead of just trying to attract the largest possible audience.

I expect a pretty, playable and completely bland experience that isn't worth the time or the download.

Frosthype 2 really is not a good engine at all.
it is not as powerfull as they make out it is, and it doesn't have amzaing graphics like they suggest it does.

Anyway, all i do is play skirmishes against ai, so doesnt look like there is anything in this one that appeals to me.

Ok, if it actually gets singleplayer ill take it off blacklist and transfer to review-dependent.

I don't care about command and conquer anymore. I honestly don't. EA raped and murdered the franchise. Let it die.

AHHHH! PEOPLE! this only says they are thinking about it, it does not say, Yes, there will be single player!

Also, yes, "high-end graphics" are the most important part, they make the best screen shots, and trailers. It doesn't mater that once you buy the game you find it to be an unplayable mess, because they already have your moneys!

If this doesn't have a singleplayer campaign, this is one game I will never, ever play, even if it is given away for free.

Command & conquer died with Westwood Studios, I gave up on the series after playing Tiberium wars.

EA: We don't want to make games anymore. Now just license Frostbite from us and we'll go away.

DVS BSTrD:

You build in response to your audience.

What he really means is EA's audience knows how to do their job better than EA does.

I was thinking the same thing. Now if only they could keep listening to their audience. It's a shame that will probably never happen... At all...

The point is, if you're gonna cram the single player into the game in the last two months, I don't think anybody is going to enjoy or thank you for that. In fact, it just shows that you didn't care before, and putting it in now is only a minor, half assed concession you are making in an attempt to shut people up, instead of actually caring about the situation.

If they do make a proper campaign, it'll take too long to do before people lose interest in the game, so right now they're in a spot they can't really weasel their way out of easily.

Sorry, no longer have any interest in the game. I will have nothing to do with games created under this man from now on.

I get the feeling that this is in the same boat as Syndicate- the newest iteration will not have any of the old feeling or charm, so the addition of the C&C name will only serve to alienate those people who remember it fondly from a while back.

Also yeah, when they start saying the game will be great because of the graphics that is an immediate cause for me to not invest in a game.

And That's Terrible:
End of Nations rip-off.

That is what this will be.
Will quote this very post when this game is released saying: "I was right, bitches".

Command and Conquer is dead, bros.
Nobody will ever make a C&C game like the old ones, because nobody cares about old school RTS games outside of Starcraft.

End of Nations has got a very good niche to fill, and MoBA's like Dota 2 and Lol are the closest thing to a strategy game people are willing to play.

Generals 2 wil fail, 100%, no doubt.

As much as it pains me to say it, you're probably right. Well, I hope that Company of Heroes 2 does well. That'll probably be the last RTS I'll buy for a long time. For now though, I'm going to go play some Tiberian Sun, and remember all the good times I've had.

For Generals 2 I actually wouldn't mind a singleplayer where there was no story or cutscenes, just interesting situations and scenarios that you had to play through: creating situations and objectives that are otherwise impossible to find in a skirmish or multiplayer map. Heck, give out map editor tools and let your community create their own scenarios, you now have more singleplayer content streaming into the game regularly than you could ever dream of making.

This is good initial news, but it still doesn't solve the problem of having a game that is supposedly both running off the free2play model, yet balanced enough to be used as a competitive Esports title. That won't work, even if they begin with a purely cosmetic micro transaction promise, it'll be broken as soon as the number of players show any signs of dropping.
Or they could release every unit for sponsorship: In next weeks update we reveal the new Coke-a-cola Tank, and the Samsung Submarine!

Hero in a half shell:
For Generals 2 I actually wouldn't mind a singleplayer where there was no story or cutscenes, just interesting situations and scenarios that you had to play through: creating situations and objectives that are otherwise impossible to find in a skirmish or multiplayer map. Heck, give out map editor tools and let your community create their own scenarios, you now have more singleplayer content streaming into the game regularly than you could ever dream of making.

This is good initial news, but it still doesn't solve the problem of having a game that is supposedly both running off the free2play model, yet balanced enough to be used as a competitive Esports title. That won't work, even if they begin with a purely cosmetic micro transaction promise, it'll be broken as soon as the number of players show any signs of dropping.
Or they could release every unit for sponsorship: In next weeks update we reveal the new Coke-a-cola Tank, and the Samsung Submarine!

Off the F2P model, the only way to make it work in e-sports is that all units that you can buy with IRL money must be essentially recolors or prettied up versions of existing units; ie, they're different in terms of appearance, but the same in terms of actual combat capability. Problem is, that philosophy doesn't last long. Look at Combat Arms when they first introduced weapons for IRL money. It started off as cosmetic improvements; now there's weapons that can body 9000 times over with no rank restriction or anything.

As for the whole campaign, go one further & allow for a Skirmish mode. RA1 on the PS1 had it, so there's no excuse for it not to be here, especially when you're trying to sell a F2P RTS game.

OT: Frostbite 2 will only work here if it actually contributes to gameplay (infantry can be garrisoned behind things, use enemy vehicles for spare parts, etc.).

On the one hand, yes, C&C4 sucked donkey balls. On the other hand, I actually quite enjoyed C&C3 and Red Alert 3, even though Westwood were long dead by that point. Generals 2 may well suck, but I'm willing to give it a chance.

 

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.