Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I read on the wiki that it was due to bad fan feedback over it still having base building/resource gathering (I thought getting rid of that in C&C4 was the problem TBH). This trailer makes it look like the game was almost finished. Don't get the whole free to play MMO thing they were harking on about either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEwSDh4LZaY

Also, was the Asian-Pacific alliance just meant to be China or was it meant to represent the US and China because they allied during the first C&C Generals? edit - (ah, never played Zero Hour. China replaces US as worlds sole super power and they go isolationist afterwards; I imagine they would have added the US as an expansion pack eventually though)

Because they buried the franchise into the ground with a continous release of generally underwhelming games and instead of just fixing the problems (i.e. make better games) they were just like "screw this series."

You know. The usual.

The demise of the Base Building RTS is one of the saddest developments in video games. C&C generals was one of my favorites. I don't know why so many of the old school C&C players disliked it. I thought it was awsome.

It was killed due to a bad reception. It was seen as a souless cash grab because it was a F2P game.

Personally I was quite looking forward to it and simply because a game is F2P doesn't mean that it is pay to win or unbalanced, at least not if it is well designed.

 Palindrome wrote:
It was killed due to a bad reception. It was seen as a souless cash grab because it was a F2P game.

Personally I was quite looking forward to it and simply because a game is F2P doesn't mean that it is pay to win or unbalanced, at least not if it is well designed.

It was F2P? Are you sure you aren't thinking of that web based Command and Conquer game?

They canned it because it was ill recieved and it'd only cost them money than them getting money.

They said something allong the lines of: "Your feedback from the alpha trial is clear: We are not making the game you want to play," a rep for developer Victory Games wrote in a blog post published this afternoon. "That is why, after much difficult deliberation, we have decided to cease production of this version of the game." P

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

It was F2P? Are you sure you aren't thinking of that web based Command and Conquer game?

Nope, although there were apparently plans to release paid campaigns.

 Palindrome wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

It was F2P? Are you sure you aren't thinking of that web based Command and Conquer game?

Nope, although there were apparently plans to release paid campaigns.

So rather than just bring out a regular RTS game they were trying to do something like Starcraft 2? (though in fairness Heart of the Swarm is brilliant with new assetsand Wings of Liberty is an okay length campaign)

How could you even do an MMO RTS?

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
How could you even do an MMO RTS?

If I was tasked with creating an MMORTS, I'd draw on the Earth 2150 and Warzone 2100 games, and give each player a persistent "home" base map and a per-game "away" base.