Blog FeedCommand and Conquer 3 Demo
Aside from a few heretics who prefer the Red Alert series over Command and Conquer’s Tiberium universe, most people seemed pretty pleased when CnC 3: Tiberium Wars was announced. I was rather neutral to the whole thing. I like the universe, and I liked the first game a lot, but the second game of the series, Tiberian Sun, left a very sour taste in my mouth with its slow gameplay and generally poor… everything. They did much the opposite in CnC Generals - a rather poor game universe but with pretty solid gameplay. The Generals experience was always a tad lacklustre for me though due to the poor performance of the game engine, and terrible patching support from EA. Its main weakness was just bugs.
So upon hearing that CnC 3 was to be built using the same SAGE game engine, I was a bit skeptical - though I heard they improved it a lot for the Battle for Middle Earth games. On top of this, the screenshots and interviews I’d seen online all showed how the game would return to the classic CnC everyone knew - both in terms of gameplay and interface (and cut scenes, of course). To be honest I wasn’t sure if this was necessarily a good thing, and now that Vermouth and I have played the demo, we’d like to outline why.
Graphics & Performance
Cyrris: I should start by saying that my concerns on the games performance with the upgraded SAGE engine have been allayed. Using the same PC that I used not long ago for the SupCom Demo review, I found the game ran quite smoothly on medium to high detail levels. What I really loved was the sheer number of detail options - something which most games do have, really, but which were terribly absent in Supreme Commander. That game either ran like crap, or looked like crap, with no real balance in between. The CnC 3 demo should be playable for everyone with a half decent computer, though I guess only time will tell as to how well the full version scales with a big map and a bunch of AI opponents. But the outlook is promising. Legion Hardware has a good run-down on both quality setting differences, and likely performance for different video cards.
The graphics are pretty good - though the liberal use of the heat wave effect and excessive liquidity of explosions and railguns seems a bit silly at times. Using the Ion Cannon is a far greater feast on the eyes than it was in previous versions, and it really feels like it’s worth the long cooldown period. The only real problem I had with the games graphics were how infantry moved - it doesn’t seem right. The infantry animations for regular GI’s in CnC Generals were fantastic, so I am not sure why they’ve gone backwards there. Overall though, I am really impressed with what they’ve accomplished in both prettiness and performance.
Vermouth: I found the performance of this game to be surprising; with only a AMD 2500+ and a GeForce 6800, I generally expect to have to worry about performance on new games. But even on 1280×1024 in 1v1 maps I never saw so much as a hitch. I don’t know how this would scale to an 8 player huge map but since I mostly play single player anyway this was very pleasing.
The thing that I found most remarkable with regards to the graphics was that the game retained all the art elements that are distinctively C&C. GDI buildings and units all look decidedly western and geometric. Nod units and structures all look like Nod units and structures, including the distinctive Hand of Nod. We weren’t able to play the new race but in the brief trailer the aliens equipment all looked very much insectoid.
Game Universe
Cyrris: Yeah, I have to say that Command and Conquer really is back, and not just with regards to the look and feel of GDI and Nod’s stuff. Hearing “Welcome back Commander” once again on a backdrop of inane computer gibberish brought back some memories. I was impressed with the cast used back in the cut scenes in Tiberian Sun, and Tiberium Wars doesn’t disappoint either - Lando, Six and Boomer chiming in from my two favourite sci-fi franchises, with all the corny shots you’d expect from another CnC game. They’ve definitely succeeded in bringing the atmosphere back, and that is something I found extremely lacking in Supreme Commander.
Vermouth: I was very, very disappointed in the decision in Generals to do away with those cutscenes. Bringing back Kane, the hot actresses to feed you information, the cheesy news feeds… all the stylistic elements from the original game were back and the game is a lot better for it. This is possibly the strongest element of the game - it’s great aesthetic that really has fun with itself.
Interface
Cyrris: Before we really get to the meat of the game though, I can’t help but have a bitch about the interface. It started off really quite promising - the main game menu with the planet and atmosphere all looks very slick, and even throughout the game it does look good. But I found it a bit ridiculous once I started playing - the minimap just gets in the way, and the sidebar options, with multiple queues and tabs is just convoluted. CnC Generals was the first one to move away from the sidebar scheme and I think they did so with great success. Why they’ve gone back to a strange, bulky sidebar is beyond me.
I can only assume that this game is really made for widescreen - I find myself naturally squinting and trying to look past the minimap for entire skirmish games, and I can imagine this being much less of an issue on a widescreen monitor. I didn’t see any widescreen resolutions in the options menu, but a quick search revealed the usual method of fiddling with a .ini file will have the desired effect, and it looks good. Just a shame I don’t have one.
Vermouth: I had only minor issues with the interface. The mouse speed was a bit too slow. However I really liked having the sidebar back. I could quickly build my army while I was doing other things. I didn’t like anything about Generals and I was glad to see elements of the first 4 games back. I would agree the mini-map needed to be a bit more elegantly implemented but I was happy to see the sidebar back.
Gameplay
Cyrris: As usual, the real test of a game’s success is in the gameplay, and to sum up my feelings about CnC 3’s gameplay, I really only have two words: Supreme Commander.
Vermouth: To which I would add 3 words: Company of Heroes.
Cyrris: I guess we are getting at the same thing, but from different angles. The question for me is, does CnC 3 stand out as a remarkable RTS game when we’ve just had Chris Taylor burst the doors down with massive armies, full zoom, and awesome unit controls like waypoint editing, attack synchronising and ferrying? Upon first playing the CnC 3 demo after playing SupCom for a couple of weeks, I became instantly frustrated with the inability to zoom out. It felt like my face was being held in place by the burly arms of a very grumpy, jealous EA employee.
I understand that the EA team really wanted to get the original CnC feel back for this game, and in that respect I think we both agree that they succeeded. But now we’ve been treated to Supreme Commander, is a simple CnC rehash good enough? Aside from prettier graphics, it hasn’t offered me anything that I am dying to try out. I’ve built my Mammoth Tanks. I’ve rolled over a few Nod bases. I’ve used some Orcas and Firehawks… and I’ve compared them frustratingly to the awesome aircraft capabilities in SupCom. The infantry are now built in squads, but unlike the useful squads in Dawn of War, squads in CnC 3 appear to have little to no real difference compared to if they’d just used singular units with equivalent hitpoints.
Vermouth: Company of Heroes raised the bar for combat in an RTS. For one thing there are no throw-away units. Even basic infantry units can do a lot of things well. You could use tools like grenades and train special skills, pick up lost heavy weapons etc. Sure if the enemy brought a mixed force including armor and light vehicles it would be very difficult to succeed without a mixed force to counter it, but infantry was not useless. You could get a lot of mileage out of infantry if you applied it correctly. Tanks and artillery were of course huge parts of that game, but because they didn’t make the infantry throw-away units only suitable for meat screens, those units felt very special. I don’t think I ever had more than a few Shermans in the field at a time during the whole campaign. In the second mission of C&C I employed something like 5 mammoth tanks.
The effect of all of this is that the game feels a bit empty. The combat doesn’t deliver a visceral thrill, the whole game feels like it’s going through the motions. When you meet the enemy in Company of Heroes it really feels like there is a war on. All sorts of relevant data is being screamed at you not by a monotone voice but by voices of men being shot at. Furthermore as a commander you’re taking a lot more care to keep all of your men alive. You’re pinning people down with machine guns, throwing grenades, ordering units to flank ‘em, and this all puts you into the battle in a way that very few games have ever done. After playing that, a game based on build queues, super weapons and throw-away units just seems dull and lifeless.
Cyrris: I found SupCom quite lifeless as well (partly because all the units are robots), but the sheer scale and strategy employed meant that it was largely excusable - it just wasn’t an aim of the game. I’ve not played Company of Heroes, but I am getting the picture that it was much the opposite, with a small scale and a lot of life in it. So we pretty much have the two extremes, and I guess that leaves CnC 3 right in the middle. A bit like Dawn of War, except without really being new in any way whatsoever. I suppose the Scrin may add something unique, but so little was included in the demo (and no multiplayer! Gah!) it’s hard to tell.
To be frank, I’m not overly impressed. The CnC formula worked well for a long time, but I think we’re moving past it. You can polish a game and make it the best of its kind, but does that matter when that entire kind is made obsolete by the likes if SupCom and CoH? I mean I will say, honestly, that I found it relatively enjoyable. It looks like a good, solid game. But given the other RTS games out there at the moment, I can’t see myself buying it. Of course that doesn’t count the fact that CnC 3 runs well whereas SupCom runs like ass on my PC, but I plan on upgrading soon enough anyway. Will you be getting it?
Vermouth: There are some things to like here and if you’re starving for C&C then this will fill that hole. For me though there really are just so many better options out there that unless I find it on deep discount I won’t be buying this. This seems like a solid 7/10 kind of game, and because the franchise is special to me I might get it eventually, but it’s not a “run out and buy it” kind of product by any means like previous entries in the series have been.
4th March | Reply
Interesting. I’m seeing 3 very good things about the RTS genre in the 3 major RTSs mentioned here.
Company of Heroes with it’s “real” troops and such a focus on skirmishes that it can perhaps be called an RTT.
Supreme Commander with it’s advanced interface and focus on strategy.
Then CnC3. The gameplay may seem dated, but I couldn’t deny feeling a little tingly inside when I saw the latest cinematic trailer. Wow, Kane’s back. And I’ve never even played a CnC game before. What other RTS can get fans all excited about the return of cheesy FMV actors? CnC definitely has a superior lore over SC and CofH.
Now if we can get all these things together in some ultra, gold plated orgasm RTS.
5th March | Reply
I also played the demo. And while yes the presentation of CnC3 is extrodinary it is severely lacking in gameplay. The “Welcome Back, Commander” line honestly made me giddy. The original command & conquer was one of the first games I bought with my own money. It was actually back on the original playstation and the moment the GDI log-in screen popped up I thought I was playing with the future.
What kept me in that future was how incredible the gameplay was. My father and I played the hell out of that disc. However, the genre has moved on and in a big big way. If CnC3 was a Company of Heroes clone in the CnC universe I would have been thrilled. Hell if they even cloned Dawn of War I would be excited. But CnC3 takes such a large step backwards I can’t imagine I’d ever really “play” it.
If a copy fell into my hands I’d actually be tempted to turn on God mode and just cheat my way through to all the entertaining FMVs. Hell, if someone extracted them and just put’em on a disc or for download I’d prefer that. The camera is restrictive, it is hard to see your units, that’s ok since most are useless, there is no feeling of ‘conflict’ when infantry collide, tanks rule the game, the map (at least on the demo) is absolutely tiny (even without supcom’s influence), and the biggest killer of all: Where is the strategy?
A friend and I were discussing how, on impression of the demo, it doesn’t even feel like an RTS. It is like an action game where you command some units. However, it lacks that visceral feel of an action game or direct involvement in the combat.
Company of Heroes is intense. It pulls off more action than CnC3 could hope for at this point. In CoH using your troops and their abilities has a very intimate feel to it. Tossing that grenade, bombing that building or pounding a bunker with mortars, it is all very tactile for the player. The combination of sound, visuals and control help bring the the fervor of an action game to the RTS world. There is a feeling of adrenaline in a CoH match that is comparable to great FPS and Shooter games. It has its own kind of exhaustion after a match. A good exhaustion where you have to get up and walk around the house a bit. All the tactical “think on the fly” response-driven gameplay is incredibly absorbing and captivating.
In CnC3 however, there is no direct involvement in the battle. You get some units pointed at some other units and watch to see who wins. Usually it is the tanks. They’ve cribbed/improved the garrison feature making the empty buildings of the map worth inhabiting. However, they don’t seem to have the full use of this like CoH did. No forward barracks and not a lot of options to take out that building aside from tanks. Once again, making it the all-purpose unit. In CoH you had satchels, nades, TNT, tanks, bombers, mortars and flamethrowers (my favorite) for your garrison-clearing needs.
Don’t get me started on the revert back to harvesting that handy field of tiberium right next to your base. Dawn of War, CoH, Ground Control II and SupCom have since proved that forcing players out into the map from the beginning of the game vastly escalates the strategy, enjoyment and play of the game. Although I noticed there were Tiberium Spikes out in the map. I got a few but didn’t notice what they were doing for me. Stuff like SupCom’s economic overlays are fantastic to see what is sucking what in your base, and what is contributing.
SupCom has a wonderful economy approach. You can build structures that produce both of your resources so in effect you can make a self-sustaining base. The only requirement is time really. However, the mass extractors you can put on mass points in the world greatly increase your resources for far less time/cost. The elegant balance allows for a wide variety of strategies and complements both 1v1 and team play. CoH is essentially “expand or die” which does very well in its tactical gameplay and establishing ‘fronts’ of war.
I am starting to think that since this game is going to be on xbox 360 as well they are shucking away a lot of the depth. I don’t think you have enough buttons on a 360 pad for CoH (and definitely not supcom) but for CnC3 all you need is a “build tank” button and a “move” button.
5th March | Reply
Well, I think the game would typically look better on an X360 setup with a widescreen TV - it’d take care of my interface gripes, though I still can’t imagine playing an RTS without a mouse.
I have been playing the demo a fair bit still - nearly got my ass handed to me on medium which just shows how out of touch I am with fast paced games. Playing as Nod is fun though, and a nice thing for them to accidentally(?) leave in there.
For those who don’t know, you can play as Nod by selecting the drop down, highlighting Nod, and pressing the N button on the keyboard while pulling away (or something to that effect, it took me a few goes each time). The same logic applies if you want the enemy to be GDI, and what strategy the AI uses.
Avatars are pretty fun.
6th March | Reply
Yeah it might be nice if you had a wide-screen HD set. But Like a lot of other Xbox 360 owners I play on a 4:3 TV in standard def. I picked up the demo for Battle For Middle Earth 2 on the 360 and it wasn’t really all that elegant of a control scheme. I mean maybe in some perverse world I could produce enough energy to learn it but if they’re banking on hundreds of thousands of people playing this with a controller they’re going to be sorely out of luck. And I kind of prefer playing most games with a controller so I really doubt that’ll do them much. Also in 480 most BFME was really ugly compared to what it was on the PC.
I’ve kind of moved on as I keep getting better games offered to me.
9th March | Reply
To be honest I don’t mind the CnC3 interface that much. It’s much better than Supreme Commander’s which - literally!!! - takes up half the screen. At least in CnC3 the only annoying portion of the interface is the minimap. The distance from the ground also seems to be just about right and there’s plenty of zoom-ability for a non-SupCom game.
There’s also no validity to arguing that CnC3 is a step backwards because of it’s resource based gameplay model. The fact is that many people do not like control point based RTS games - that is also why it took MANY years for that kind of RTS gameplay to even become semi-popular (with Dawn of War). You - and I - might find it more enjoyable, but many other people do not and thus I wouldn’t call it a step backward, just a different design philosophy.
A game doesn’t have to be innovative to be considered a good, or even a ‘classic’, game. If a game had to be innovative to be considered a good game, then no one would consider Warcraft 3 or World of Warcraft to be good games - nay even classics. Not that I’m saying CnC3 is a classic, it probably won’t turn out that way, but I think it’ll be a very decent game.
9th March | Reply
Yeah, in my closing statements I said I still found it enjoyable, and a solid game - and I agree it will float some peoples boat. Hell, it’s certainly a lot more entertaining at 25 fps than SupCom is at <5 fps.
I also think that the demo, as far as demos go, was poor. It featured a small skirmish map (and I prefer big ones in CnC games) and there wasn’t even any bloody multiplayer. And for all I know, the Scrin could well add some innovative elements to the game. But it’s hard to tell from the demo because they just didn’t give us a big enough bite.
If a demo is supposed to give a good indication of how I will enjoy the final game then sure, it’ll be OK - but worth all that money? Hmm. Not really willing to risk it I’m afraid. Not while I’m on a uni student budget anyway.
Also, I find SupComs interface more or less fine at 1280×1024, though I understand that people running in lower resolutions are having a hard time. Pixel-dependent interface scaling is a big no-no. GPG should have known better.
12th March | Reply
I think we’ve all got to remember that this is just a demo, the map isn’t a very good one. The whole game will change once it turns multiplayer, more strategy will come into it on bigger maps.
The Ion Cannon makes me giddy, shame you can only build one.
18th March | Reply
It would be cool to follow up these reviews with some technical details perhaps - like release date, price, sys reqs, etc. That way I don’t have to go to multiple sites for all the info I need.
25th March | Reply
I am very pleased by the game, I’m finding it a whole lot of fun. It’s like they’ve mixed all the good things about previous C&C games into one great game.
The most important aspect for me was that they kept the aggresive strategy emphasis from Generals. I do not think you can say players aren’t forced outwards. Like the map in the demo, you have a small tiberium field next to your base but the good stuff is in the far corners. You definately need to expand out quickly to win on this map.
I have few complaints and the first couple come from playing the Supreme Commander demo the weeks before hand. Not being able to zoom out and no repeat build button (otherwise I’m very happy with the interface). But it’s funny how you only miss things when you’ve used them in other games. I mean, Would I think so highly of C&C3 if I owned Company of Heroes? Maybe not. In regards to CoH though, I played it a couple times and for me, personally, I found it abit micromanagy and therefore generally less fun.
I also think there are some balance issues with C&C3. Notably weak infantry and overpowered Mammouths.
And finally, I’d just like to stick up for the old Ion Cannon which I thought was better as a single powerful shot as opposed to dancing hippy lasers.
26th March | Reply
It’s funny it was said that COH infantry are userful, while I foudn they weren’t useless, every map you could steam roll with 4 shermans and a couple 1/2 tracks. While I agree that CnC3’s Demo is a bit lacking, as I had wanted to see the scrin and how they fit in, I think it’s important to remember RTS don’t need to “inovative” they just have to be fun and good. I personnally don’t like capture control point games, because they force the players to attack certain ways and certain things. While in CnC you will fight over tiberium fields and other resource areas you are free to set a base anywhere on the map, that might allow you a strategic local, due to terrain, etc.
Infantry aren’t as useless as people have said they are either in CnC3, while it’s not perfect (and I don’t think anyones figure out infantry yet in a RTS) if you use the terrain to your advantage a single rpg or missle soldier can take out a tank if you know what your doing.
As to the running ability I’m running an older laptop with an AMD64 3200, with ATIs 200m 128mb graphics card, and this game runs smoothly even when I made a rediculous amount of units skirmish mode(as there wasn’t a large map to really test it out). I think this is something most companies lack when they make games these days, the ability to scale they’re games. Unlike supcom, which I only know a handful who can run it properly, CnC3 seems to be playable on a wide arrange of computers.
Finally we must not forget, one of the things that makes CnC great and always has is the single player story line. Too many games are multiplayer driven and lack a good story line. I’ve been waiting many years for a sequal to learn more about the “aliens” now know as scrin to finally make an appearance. And what they’re purpose for the tiberium is. I will definately pick this up as Soon as I am able.
27th March | Reply
Just one thing I forgot - my biggest complaint about the demo. Computer AI is once again terrible after the first 15 minutes or so.
14th April | Reply
I own and have played both cnc3 and SC both games ofer a little bit more in respective areas cnc3 with its lore and legions of fans SC with its differnt playstyle and uniqe resource gathering all good things for both games but as an rts enthusist i crave more…alot more and the game that will dominate this genre is already on the way you want an orgasimic gold plated rts then WIC is the game for you WIC will absolutly dominate these games this fall
if your a real rts gamer I would encourage you to look at the World in conflict and then decide who is king
14th April | Reply
World in Conflict is definitely shaping up to be the next big player amongst them - the media I have seen so far on it has been pretty impressive. It looks like it will eat my video card for breakfast though, but we’ll wait and see what happens. I’m not sure when a demo is due out.
15th April | Reply
In Reply to #12:
Er, right. Well, I’ve got news for you, Cosmic Dominance will take the RTS genre to levels that World In Conflict can only dream of. I’d provide a link to the game but I haven’t written it yet so you’ll have to take my word for it that this will be the greatest RTS game ever and the others that came before it were just a bit of light practice…
I hate to mention it but there have been many games in the past that have been hyped up to be “the greatest thing since sliced bread” and in the end haven’t delivered on their promises. In this regard, and with the greatest respect, I’ll wait for World In Conflict to be released before declaring as anything more than another “also ran”.
Nice try.