do these games hold up?

[tinfoildoor]

basically I am new at rts games but command and conquer is a name that always comes up. do these games hold up to todays standards? or is there a better RTS i should get? I am also playing homeworld kharak because i got it real cheap. Thanks in advance

[MrJackBurton]

Hard to say what fits everyone else out there. but C&C is a solid performer.
Act of Aggression is pretty interesting, with a cover system, high and low ground plus buildings you can enter.

[Nyerguds]

Well, you have to understand that these games are the very beginning of RTS, so a lot of features or game mechanics that are generally seen as obvious might still be missing or different in these games. The Remasters somewhat amended that, but in terms of AI and pathfinding these games are still quite primitive.

The mindset in the 90s towards games was also different; basically, besides perhaps a few tutorial levels at the start, a level you play will often fail until you figure out how to not fail. This includes getting familiar with the map you're dumped on, and the specific scripted or automatic responses of the AI to specific actions you perform.

This was a completely normal thing back then. So everything should be treated as a puzzle to solve, and every failure will simply teach you one new way that doesn't solve it. Beginners should expect to frequently restart some of the tougher missions, and learn the quirks of the AI to get around tricky parts.

There will also be times when you deadlock yourself; there are missions where you have objectives at two sides of a dividing barrier with no way to cross. And if your team on one side gets wiped out before accomplishing their part of the mission there, the game generally won't tell you that you already failed; it doesn't have scripting mechanics that are advanced enough to detect complex lose conditions. Another one like that is losing or destroying transport helicopters you're supposed to capture to get to such an inaccessible part of the map. So you have to be smart enough to figure out on your own that such conditions make the missions impossible to continue.

A lot of these kinds of situations were already fixed in Red Alert 1; it added much more complex scripting systems, and in-game text messages as gameplay hints. But in Tiberian Dawn, you really have to think on your own.

[Unapologetic Bigot]

These are remasters of ancient games, and they are not the best remasters. Lack of QoL changes, like unit balance, pathfinding etc. I personally bought this collection for nostalgic reasons, rather than a rational one. Played RA1 on PS1 as a child. For you, I would recommend to start with Tiberian Wars (+DLC) and then Red Alert 3. They are the latest games in this franchise (except one Tiberian game, which is crap). Fully 3D. Simple mechanics.
C&C is a series of classic RTS games. For me, the C&C name was a synonym for RTS, back then. These days there are much better games. More advanced in gameplay, with better graphics etc.

[Nyerguds]

Originally posted by Jack of Games:

These are remasters of ancient games, and they are not the best remasters. Lack of QoL changes, like unit balance, pathfinding etc.

Nonsense. A Remaster is supposed to preserve the original feel of the game. This remaster did get a bunch of QOL changes, but messing with the unit balance of an old game is a really quick way to make it feel off compared to what people are used to. Also note, all the scripted missions were made with its original balance in mind, so messing with that is quite dangerous.

Just look at one of the only AI changes they made in the game, to make the scripted Airstrikes literally just one step up from "completely brain-dead predictable". It seriously cranked up the difficulty of some of the Nod campaign missions; especially mission 8.

Do note that they did update some more AI stuff; harvesters will drift off a lot less, due to the fact they now remember the first spot where they started harvesting after unloading, rather than the last one.

I do agree somewhat on the pathfinding part, but, there are mods for that.

[Cat]

This is one of the earliest RTS games so it should be more geared to welcome newcomers to the genre, although a lot of the teachings were in the manual back then. The remasters do have a help page at the main menu that will link you the online manual.

I do think it holds pretty well; or at least it's better than half of the modern games being played today. Good FMVs and acting, great music, no microtransactions, it has fun singleplayer missions, multiplayer mode that doesn't take itself way too seriously and a good story. If you enjoy it, you can then play the newer C&C games in the right order and see how the game evolves and where the plot goes.

[Nyerguds]

Originally posted by Cat:

This is one of the earliest RTS games so it should be more geared to welcome newcomers to the genre, although a lot of the teachings were in the manual back then. The remasters do have a help page at the main menu that will link you the online manual.

Alas, we asked about a full manual, but there simply wasn't any budget for that.

But yea, the old PDFs of the original game will probably still help a lot. It's just that no one nowadays bothers reading these things; they expect everything to be tutorialised inside the game.

Anyway... https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Manuals

[startrekmike]

Originally posted by Jack of Games:

These are remasters of ancient games, and they are not the best remasters. Lack of QoL changes, like unit balance, pathfinding etc. I personally bought this collection for nostalgic reasons, rather than a rational one. Played RA1 on PS1 as a child. For you, I would recommend to start with Tiberian Wars (+DLC) and then Red Alert 3. They are the latest games in this franchise (except one Tiberian game, which is crap). Fully 3D. Simple mechanics.
C&C is a series of classic RTS games. For me, the C&C name was a synonym for RTS, back then. These days there are much better games. More advanced in gameplay, with better graphics etc.

When they first announced that they were doing the remaster, I was very worried that it would be exactly that. I was worried that they would change it to be more "competitively viable" or at least more appealing to the hardcore competitive/e-sport crowd. Thankfully they didn't do that and actually preserved what made this games so fun for EVERYONE back in the day.

Here is the thing. Back when these games were first released, StarCraft hadn't yet become a massive e-sport phenomena and while the concept of e-sports and e-sport style play did exist at the time, it wasn't really in the form it has taken since. Games like CnC, Red Alert, and the like were a lot more about setting and just giving players a lot of tools to experiment with and have their own kind of fun. AI was never going to be great in these titles and "comp stomping" wasn't about dominant meta strategies and instead just about doing stuff that appealed to the individual player for the sake of fun. These remasters preserve that. They are a good way to see what the genre looked like before StarCraft style e-sport fever took over (and killed a lot of good RTS franchises as a result).

Now on to the OP's original question.

Originally posted by tinfoildoor:

basically I am new at rts games but command and conquer is a name that always comes up. do these games hold up to todays standards? or is there a better RTS i should get? I am also playing homeworld kharak because i got it real cheap. Thanks in advance

So this is going to be a difficult thing to answer. As I said in the reply earlier in this post, I think that it is important to understand that this remaster is more of a love letter to the original fans that preserves something that has largely been lost in the genre as priorities were shifted towards e-sport/high-level competitive play. This remaster is going to feel dated and it is going to feel a bit primitive but if you can kinda let yourself enjoy it on its own terms, it is very fun and a good time capsule to the golden age of the RTS genre.

[Unapologetic Bigot]

startrekmike

I see. What e-sport has to do with my comment? e-sport players (more likely their viewers/followers, than actual competitors, to be honest) rarely care about such old games, even less about quality of games in general. There are enough games for them on the market, with competitive scenes. Starcraft too, as you mentioned. Balance has nothing to do with e-sport. In times when people want easy solutions, the whole concept of balance for them boils down to "Can be defeated = Balanced". The actual better balance in C&C wouldn't change the world, but it would have made the player experience a lot more enjoyable. Including online matches. I don't wear pink retro glasses. RA1 gave me a lot of fun, back then. It doesn't change the fact that game development made a huge step forward since then. While story mode can be fun, for veterans, the post-story gameplay (vs AI/Online) won't motivate new players to stay. Story isn't deep or serious, to begin with. At least devs could have made a separate option, with new balance. C&C is niche franchise now and RA1/ C&C1 aren't even the best or most popular games in the franchise. They are good for nostalgic reasons. For RTS newcomer, there are better choices. If OP wants C&C experience, then Tiberium Wars and Red Alert 3 should be on his list. This remaster has new and optional control scheme, and that's where "todays standards" end. Visually, balance-wise etc it's still good'ol RA1/C&C.

[Noodlesocks]

They are old games. They feel old and play old. Not to say they are awful or clunky, they did a good job modernising the bits that needed to be modernised but they are still very basic compared to newer RTS.

It's a good place to start if you want to get into the story but for pure gameplay, I'd say Red Alert 2 or C&C 3 would be a better place to start.

[Cat]

Originally posted by Jack of Games:

OP wants C&C experience, then Tiberium Wars and Red Alert 3 should be on his list.

I would recommend Tiberian Sun or Red Alert 2, that's where C&C was at it's peak and arguably those are the pinnacle of the franchise. However, I am still saying playing the first games (TD and RA) is the better way to start where it all began.

But c&c3 and red alert 3? Most c&c players disliked where EA was taking those games. C&C3 has a patch that broke the campaign which made it more frustrating to the point you gotta find exploits and beat it the unintended way and mp for it is a ghosttown. Not something I want to introduce newcomers to.

[Unapologetic Bigot]

Originally posted by Cat:

Originally posted by Jack of Games:

OP wants C&C experience, then Tiberium Wars and Red Alert 3 should be on his list.

I would recommend Tiberian Sun or Red Alert 2, that's where C&C was at it's peak and arguably those are the pinnacle of the franchise. However, I am still saying playing the first games (TD and RA) is the better way to start where it all began.

But c&c3 and red alert 3? Most c&c players disliked where EA was taking those games. C&C3 has a patch that broke the campaign which made it more frustrating to the point you gotta find exploits and beat it the unintended way and mp for it is a ghosttown. Not something I want to introduce newcomers to.

They don't exist on Steam. From what I know, I know that RA2 is on top list of best C&C games, but TS?

I don't know about those "most" players and credibility of their arguments. What I do know is that TW and RA3 are decent classic RTS games, but with a more modern graphics. I personally completed both. In terms of sales, RA3 sold well on Steam, according to data, and the all-time peak number of players is three times higher than what C&C remastered collection had. TW also sold well.

TW and RA3 have good discounts at the moment. Other than that, there are other RTS, like Star Wars Empire at War, Company of Heroes 1-2 (second has big and active playerbase), Dawn of War 1-3.

[Mistfox]

Originally posted by Nyerguds:

Originally posted by Cat:

This is one of the earliest RTS games so it should be more geared to welcome newcomers to the genre, although a lot of the teachings were in the manual back then. The remasters do have a help page at the main menu that will link you the online manual.

Alas, we asked about a full manual, but there simply wasn't any budget for that.

But yea, the old PDFs of the original game will probably still help a lot. It's just that no one nowadays bothers reading these things; they expect everything to be tutorialised inside the game.

Anyway... https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Manuals

Don't worry, I still got my copy of the manual from the original.

[Nyerguds]

Originally posted by Jack of Games:

They don't exist on Steam.

TS is freeware. Red Alert 2 is in the Ultimate Collection bundle on Origin, which should be the first choice for buying the C&C games anyway since it's a lot cheaper than all the separate ones on Steam, and Steam doesn't have the older games. (Note, this does not apply to the Remasters; they are 100% Steam games, with workshop integration, and are not included in The Ultimate Collection)

[CriticalM@ss]

This is a solid remaster but I just had my first skirmish game, playing C&C and damn the pathfinding sucks. still had fun though but I'm missing my pathfiniding and attack moves

[rubyjuno]

I played C&C and RA originals when they first came out, and completed both and their expansions. I also played Age of Empires 1 & 2 when they first came out. As someone who has been playing PC games for over 30 years, the original C&C, RA and AoE2 are the best RTS games ever for me, and I've played a lot of games. When all of these were remastered I was over the moon. Sure they may be basic compared to more recent games, but they concentrated on game play and fun and that's why we're still playing them.