Worth playing?

[Mamsnrhbr Chehfde]

I just bought the game since I like military RTS, its one of very cult series ever and it really looks good but I really wonder that is this a good decision.

[metal_hamster]

Of course it is. They're classics for a reason. They have their issues, but doesn't everything.

[DasaKamov]

Command and Conquer isn't really a "military RTS" in the modern sense - all the units and the theme are completely fantasy (lasers, stealth technology, anti-gravity gunships, techno-cults and everyone's fighting over magical crystals from spaaaace).

If that's ok with you, you'll find a good deal of fun in these grand-daddies of RTS games. ;)

[dave46563]

You get two classic C&C games, one of which started the popularity of the RTS genre IMO. The choice of playing in Remastered or 'original' graphics. You get missions from the N64 version of C&C1. You get bonus footage of the mission briefings. You get a remastered score by Frank Klepacki (who made the soundtrack of the original). If you grew up with the games, then there is no doubt a nostagia trip to it as well.

Is it worth it? Oh yes. I think so, anyway.

[dave46563]

Originally posted by dave46563:

You get two classic C&C games, one of which started the popularity of the RTS genre IMO. The choice of playing in Remastered or 'original' graphics. You get missions from the N64 version of C&C1. You get bonus footage of the mission briefings. You get a remastered score by Frank Klepacki (who made the soundtrack of the original). If you grew up with the games, then there is no doubt a nostagia trip to it as well.

Is it worth it? Oh yes. I think so, anyway.

EDIT: And while there have been many games trying to imitate the C&C series and jump on the RTS bandwagon, I don't think any of them come close (not including C&C 4. The less said about that mess the better).

[Mamsnrhbr Chehfde]

Originally posted by dave46563:

You get two classic C&C games, one of which started the popularity of the RTS genre IMO. The choice of playing in Remastered or 'original' graphics. You get missions from the N64 version of C&C1. You get bonus footage of the mission briefings. You get a remastered score by Frank Klepacki (who made the soundtrack of the original). If you grew up with the games, then there is no doubt a nostagia trip to it as well.

Is it worth it? Oh yes. I think so, anyway.

One of the reasons that why im asking this question is: No I didn't grow up with this game

[Pangolin Legends: Arceus]

You bought it. Play it and find out.

[Mamsnrhbr Chehfde]

Originally posted by Pangolin Legends: Arceus:

You bought it. Play it and find out.

I still have a chance to refund and I wanted to see advises and thoughts of this game's players

[AlgernonClarke]

look a video on youtube and see if it is for you... it is a fun RTS, but its core gameplay is from the 90s.

[Pangolin Legends: Arceus]

Play it for just less than 2 hours and decide?

[Nyerguds]

I mean, that's what those 2 hours are for...

[The C&C Strategist]

I say yes but I'm of course biased. It has three different difficulty levels (casual, normal, hard) so you can start on casual to get a feel for what the game is like without getting frustrated.

[Darkill 4K]

yeah
masterpiece

[Nyerguds]

Anyway, I'll just copy-paste the answer I gave on a similar thread a while ago:

Originally posted by 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.

[S3SSioN Solaris]

Originally posted by Nyerguds:

Anyway, I'll just copy-paste the answer I gave on a similar thread a while ago:

Originally posted by 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.

This is a really well written description of what to expect, gameplay wise.

[rubyjuno]

I played it and Red Alert all the way through when they came out, and the expansions. IMO the series went downhill after that. When the first one came out, it blew my mind - I'd never seen anything like it. Even since then, the only RTS game that comes close in terms of enjoyment is AoE2. When I found out that C&C and RA were being remastered (and AoE2!!), I nearly wet my pants. Incredible bargain for the amount of content. It's not perfect, nothing is, but it's a brilliant fun game.