Tiberium Wars, Good or bad. Options

[Deathrider1991]

So I was arguing with someone from the CNC Reborn forums a month or so ago and it was over CNC 3. They said it was "Way better than TS" and I flipped out and basically said it was sh*t and the scrin really shouldn't have been in it, seeing how in Tiberian Sun they are never directly mentioned unless you look in the ini files or see "Scrin Ship" when you hover your mouse over the crashed alien craft in the campaigns. So i am wondering, do you think that CNC3 is a GOOOD game or do you think that EA destroyed CNC with this game.

Oh and sorry for posting lots.

[Rampastring]

We've already discussed it, and it has almost always led to flamewars..

http://www.tiberiumweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2011

I hope this one doesn't turn into one.

IMO Tiberium Wars was OK. If I would be a reviewer I'd give it 8/10. I didn't like the campaign (too easy, many illlogical things here and there, especially with the story), however the multiplayer made it worth the money.

Right now I'm more interested about it's mods than the original game although I don't have it installed (Universe at War feels better IMO, and as such I'm playing it instead of TW).

[Team Black]

well as long as only people who haven't played C&C3 don't comment, the topic might stay legit.

I didn't like the build system, at all. Since they had such a problem with base creepers, they made it so now base expansion is IMPOSSIBLE without using another MCV or surveyor.
This is especially annoying, because now all superweapons have to do is target the conyard and you KNOW it's going to kill EVERYTHING.
They really should have stuck with the RA2 system, building a maximum 1 main building and 1 defensive building at any given time. Cranes and multi MCV building really screwed up C&C3's gameplay.

But, the graphics and the atmosphere are incredible, assuming that your video card has enough juice to display them.

This post has been edited by Team Black: Mar 4 2009, 10:48 PM

[Deathrider1991]

Don't get me wrong, the graphics are amazing. ORGASMIC...well...not that far. The graphics and sounds are amazing, i love what they did with the super weapons, some of the game play really sucks. If I had to rate it. I'd give it a 5/10 for game play, a 9/10 for graphics, and they destroyed the Tiberium plot line altogether especially when they destroyed the Philadelphia, so I'd give game play a -1/10.

[Corsair]

I think it's okay but I wouldn't play it online; for the reasons Team Black stated above.

[Deathrider1991]

I think it's okay but I wouldn't play it online; for the reasons Team Black stated above.

I've played it online, and some guy spent all of his time doing what Team Black stated and I captured half of his base under his nose. I won.

[Rampastring]

I haven't played it online, however my brother did and it lagged in 1 vs 1's (and 2 vs 2 games were almost unplayable due to the EA servers' slowness).

When I compare the graphics to other RTS games released in 2007, I don't think they are that great. Although the lighting is nice and the atmosphere is great, it clearly loses to Universe at War and World in Conflict in texture quality (Also, WIC had better water reflections etc. from what I can remember).

However, although the graphics were worse than in UaW and WIC, what I was happy about in TW was that it didn't lag at all, the gameplay was smooth even when I had about 100 mammoth tanks on the same screen.. while I get have quite a low amount of FPS (frames per second) in UaW and WiC in larger battles.

(Btw, I've ran all of these three RTSs on maximum graphics.. I mean, the maximum I can get with DirectX9 (WiC and UaW both have better effects with DirectX10)).

This post has been edited by ^Rampastein: Mar 11 2009, 05:29 PM

[KingByng]

My new PC can handle C&C3 with all the graphics on ultra high (the old could barely handle low) very well, and I have to say that makes the game look amazing. The gameplay... was ok I guess. I've not played it enough to have any real complaints. The story was a little lame at times; the GDI TV reporting was cool.

I give the game 7/10. I meant to click the first option, but accidentally clicked the second. So... yeah.

[Laro24]

EA Suckers destroyed the Tiberium universe, no walls, no classic sounds, not even A Mammoth Mark 2! @#$% No Tiberium monsters, they changed the nature from Tiberium also.

There is still hope that Westwood might return... God bless Westwood..

[THE SPLAT]

some of the online stuff is okay... if people recal to set the game to lesser graphics otherwise.. it lags like hell.
Lacks pretty textures... and ea has pretty textures.. wtf why didnt u include nicer textures ea ? . Am happy the pathing is reasonable.. although some larger objects notably the mcv and nod avatars get animation bugs around falling buildings.
all in all id give the game a 7 out of 10 .. the funny part is ea had already some of the textures that wouldve made this game look freaking cool. yes EA im talking about your lava textures... why oh freaking why did you forsake us good looking lava ?

[Poskov]

Horrible, they've reduced Nod of some sort of pathetic millitia.

Anyways, the story? Awful. EA could've just lied and said Kane's "science advisor" was Slavick, but no. Slavick's "dead".
He probably left with his Black hand because "Nod" in TW was so bad.

Did I mention that it's simply a CHEAP, FAILING TD remake? EVERYTHING is pointing to it.
Look at the like the HON, FTNK & BAR etc.

Where are the viceroids, floaters, veinholes & fiends?
There's only a critter I affectionately call a Threefoot, but they should've added the TS-FS creatures as well.


I bought TW Kane's Editon a while ago, played it for a week, got so annoyed with it I just gave it to my friend. (And he didn't like it either)
And it was half a game. KW was the other half.

I was lastly so disappointed, as I kept expecting the cool hitech Tiberian Twilight. (The TT screens and concept art looked much than TW)

This post has been edited by Poskov: Dec 2 2009, 01:40 AM

[raKeto]

So many different opinions about the game... For me C&C3/KW is the best C&C multiplayer wise! And who cares about walls anyway?

[godly-cheese]

In Tiberian Dawn, walls was ma sh*t!

Lol, but seriously. Walls helped a lot more then people think.

This post has been edited by godly-cheese: May 17 2010, 02:39 AM

[Rampastring]

I remember a poll about walls on the EA forums after TW's release.. and most C&C3 fans said that the only thing walls helped against in previous C&Cs were engineer rushes (and if I remember correctly that was also the EA community manager's response). I wondered if they had actually played these previous C&Cs, as in TD units can't shoot over walls, and in TS only some units can (many can't). I usually build walls in front of my Obelisks or Guard/RPG Towers in TD and TS (and in the Tiberium Essence mod for C&C3).

This post has been edited by ^Rampastein: May 17 2010, 12:59 PM

[Revolutionary]

That view point doesnt supprise me having spoken to/played some of "them"

in TD i always found things a bit to fast when i was playing to use walls properly how ever i mainly used them to create passages and chock points
in RA on the other hand having never played any one who was good i focused of other things and very rarely built them

In RA2 i mainly uesd them to stop things getting in to my base from unwanted directions and not so much to stop engineer rushes but to stop spys entering buildings like mtech center and to add a extra line of defence for buildings like my CY

In TS i always used walls along with gates again to try to redirect the enemy towards my gates and/or to keep things out, when playing nod however if i wanted a stealth gen theni would never build walls and lazer fences took up to much power when i needed surplus to keep the stealth gen online, even if i did they were just to replace the wall in some areas. As for the firestom walls ive never properly managed to utilise them in multiplayer (despite loving them very much) in a way i would include in future stratagies
I liked creating Grand fortresses with oblisk's, laser's or tower's visible above the layers of wall, i many way it kept my base orginised and well kept something which i dont bother to do in the latter games, stoping only to concider hows best to place my defences and try to judge where to place things so the supers cant destroy every thing.

[Daroach]

I've tries to build a sort of perimeter wall, then a Firestorm/laser wall than another wall with a gate in between. though I've found them to be a great asset.

Though I would like to play TW, my graf' card can't handle it. (It's a nvidia GeForce2!)

[Devastator]

Walls always have helped me.
And thats why it sucks that TW doesn't have them.

TD/RA1 had the same walls so it was the same deal.

Tesla/Obelisk
Turret/AGT

I found the walls in RA2 with a better style than TS.

Either way, if TW had walls, it would be a whole lot better.

@ raKeto:I shouldn't be talking since I'm posting but why bring back this topic?

[Aztek985]

Game = Freakin' Sweet!

Storyline = Toast.

[Daroach]

Game = Freakin' Sweet!

Storyline = Toast.

Sums it up neatly there.

[Revolutionary]

Sums it up neatly there.

I would disagree

I thought the game play was good but what i felt the patches spoilt it fo me some of there anti rush rubbish realy spoilt it for me and im no rusher

Story line was ok it wasnt to bad imo it was just full of holes before the community pointed out the bigger rips, and compaired to CnC4 its great(still not as good as TS/TD), Like i said it was the holes in the stroy line which got me, no walker, not no control network thingy (which was added in CnC4 horribly), stealth gens siddenly got worse, firestorm walls dissapear, no sonic or hover tanks, etc