The game feels boring

[Mortecha]

It feels and looks like C&C3 Just in another flavor. The game should feel more dire and cataclysmic. Make it your own and take the crown Westwood couldn't maintain because of EA related reasons.

[Blitzwing]

Originally posted by Oompah:

And btw, I never heard from any reliable sources that EA was in any way offended, yet alone threatened to sue the makers of TR over the similarities to cnc

The only attempt to sue a game was by Star Control Origins by Star Control creators Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardock_Systems,_Inc._v._Reiche

In a nutshell, as long you don't use names, avoid using any plots, characters, or locations you cant win anything.

Thats why EA never did law suit KKND, Dominion: Storm Over Gift 3, Dark Colony, Earth 2140, Dark Reign, Act of War, Tribal Rage and many other RTS that did make a homage to C&C and that in time where rts were very popular.

[Oompah]

so what is this gentlemen talking about then, does anyone know?

[Blitzwing]

Originally posted by Oompah:

so what is this gentlemen talking about then, does anyone know?

Simply, gameplay cant be copy righted.

[Oompah]

but he was saying EA was threatening to sue the makers of TR over the similarities TR has with CnC, so I guess he was just mistaken then eh?

[Evil-Rabbit]

Originally posted by Blitzwing:

Originally posted by Oompah:

so what is this gentlemen talking about then, does anyone know?

Simply, gameplay cant be copy righted.

https://www.redpoints.com/blog/pubg-sues-fortnite-a-copyright-battle-royale/

apparently model likeness can though. As well as rules and user interface.

and no Oompah i didnt say EA was threatening read again. ...twice maybe.

1.I said i read there was an agreement.
2.I said without an agreement why would they not? Their lawyers are already paid for.

Universal studios sued Donkey Kong for ripping off king kong.
John Carpenter sued metal gear solid for ripping off snake pliskin in metal gear solid.
Battle Royale sued the hunger games for ripping off every single element of the movie and just character swapping. (which is the platform for tempest)
for example: swap the nice kid with a girl. swap the evil guy with a jock. turn the general into a glittery diva. and carry out the entire same story down to the exploding collars and grids. ---relevant because its literally the concept for the battle royale genre which takes the same name from the japanese guy who made created it.

This isn't like some unheard of phenomenon here. This is literally what companies do.
Deductively without an agreement its guaranteed. Just takes a little brain power is all. Like the ability to get through a sentence without taking "i heard there was an agreement" and somehow turning that into EA WAS THREATENING THEM! oogaa booga.

this is simple stuff right here. shared what i heard. take it or leave it.

and yeah CnC generals still has no multiplayer servers.
Here's the steam thread for red alert 2 yuri's revenge.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/2229850/discussions/0/4299320559084647604/
"No Multi...what the ****"

[Blitzwing]

Originally posted by Evil-Rabbit:

Originally posted by Blitzwing:

Simply, gameplay cant be copy righted.

https://www.redpoints.com/blog/pubg-sues-fortnite-a-copyright-battle-royale/

apparently model likeness can though. As well as rules and user interface.

and no Oompah i didnt say EA was threatening read again. ...twice maybe.

1.I said i read there was an agreement.
2.I said without an agreement why would they not?

I doubt EA would ever do something like this,
it would give too much advertisement for any indie project.

Originally posted by Cat:

EA has always been paranoid. I remember they C&D the VR Red Alert 2 project and even tried to copyright the name Ghost.

However, I don't think they feel threatened or offended by TR. They might be laughing at it as they can get arrogant sometimes.

Its different, becouse VR Red Alert 2 project was using names, sounds, looks and many more things from EAs game

Originally posted by Cryptic:

The biggest issue for me with the game was the brain dead ai. That's why the game was boring and it felt like it brought nothing new to the table. Absolutely nothing

I think this is the main thing we should focus on

1 What the game needs is a big and broad variety by AI. Like AI that is defensive, AI that does rush, AI that use hit and run tactics, Ai that prefers to use air force and switches what it does do between early, mid and late game.

2 I don't see a problem if a game doesn't bring something new to the table, but rather if its badly executed. Overall Tempest Rising feels very much like Stormgate, Crossfire: Legion, or Grey Goo, the way how small map and small resource economy is designed, the way how units interact just by shooting at each other, it is simply generic.

C&C has a very different and distinctive feeling if you do use the units on its maps. And so far, honestly I don't see a game that is going to pick up, what made C&C so fun in first place.

In a good designed RTS,
you should have the feeling like your skill and ability to play,
is not artificially limited.

[Artuurs]

Its not boring, youre just bored of games in general. Time to take a break and watch shows instead, come back sometime later to play games again. Also the flavour argument is stupid, theres a billion FPSes and TPSes and everyone plays every single one of them, one after the other. How can you be bored of RTS games when theres so very little of them being made, compared to the hundreds, thousands of avalanche of other, more mainstream, normie genres?

[Blitzwing]

Originally posted by Artuurs:

Its not boring, youre just bored of games in general. Time to take a break and watch shows instead, come back sometime later to play games again. Also the flavour argument is stupid, theres a billion FPSes and TPSes and everyone plays every single one of them, one after the other. How can you be bored of RTS games when theres so very little of them being made, compared to the hundreds, thousands of avalanche of other, more mainstream, normie genres?

You see there is a difference between a game to be fun and functional.
-In a game you technically progress from start to win.
And that seems to be for paid reviews the only measurement tool, reach the end.


But to be fun a game needs certain qualities, I just didn't see here at all.
-In a good designed game you do progress,
but it isn't gifted to you, it is earned by you.
For a gamer it's not about the goal, but the way.


And this leads to a different view on the subject.

Like we see with Stormgate, Homeworld 3 or Dawn of War III reviews.
https://www.metacritic.com/game/homeworld-3/
https://www.metacritic.com/game/warhammer-40-000-dawn-of-war-iii/


Look at the mission design, you are gifted units and they simply have to follow the chain of red barrels to blow up and you are gifted units again, to finish the game off. You follow a chain of events, with no alternatives.

A good designed RTS does have a vastly different design philosophy.
A variety of ways and there is some kind of challenge you have to overcome.

[Gin Kenshin98]

Bro’s basing his point on the first mission of the game.

[Blitzwing]

Originally posted by Gin Kenshin98:

Bro’s basing his point on the first mission of the game.

The entire game experience does suffer from "the same generic design",
that lacks variety.

The 4 missions we could test on steam so far had the same design. All the maps they presented so far for PvP, have the same core design, where they copy Starcrafts expansions.

Look at unit blob combat concept, where it's about moving a death ball of units.
In a good RTS you should actually separate units, to have them be more efficient.

Not to mention the usual limitation by economy, unit limit and build space.

Sure there are certain RTS that have such design traits, but the overall simplified execution of those, leads to a game that does feel boring and generic.

[Gin Kenshin98]

You never played the game, so any conclusion you think you came up with are null.

Either play it for an extended amount of time first, or don't bother giving feedback and thoughts about something you have no experience in.

[Blitzwing]

Originally posted by Gin Kenshin98:

You never played the game, so any conclusion you think you came up with are null.

Either play it for an extended amount of time first, or don't bother giving feedback and thoughts about something you have no experience in.

Maybe you did miss it out ? But there was a demo to try out the game. here proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EkXUAabymE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAAu1G1loQ0

The gameplay I have seen and played so far, was just not convincing.

Apparently they try to make an PvP esque game. The way I see it, yes 1998 Starcraft is an amazing PvP game, but the time of PvP Games did long ago reach its zenith across all genres. Dont get me wrong, I just never see such type of the game succeed. The concept has more obstacles than benefits.

[Oompah]

It seems like they team is spending equal time on making sure the SP campaigns are of high quality, with lots of briefings, cut scenes and backstory as well as giving a good PvP experience with lots of unit abilities and balance testing. Not sure I'd ever call this a PvP focused RTS game - if anything it seems more focused on SP

[uSIHitMan]

bro literallly missed the point. thats exactly what most ppl want

[Blitzwing]

Originally posted by Oompah:

It seems like they team is spending equal time on making sure the SP campaigns are of high quality, with lots of briefings, cut scenes and backstory as well as giving a good PvP experience with lots of unit abilities and balance testing. Not sure I'd ever call this a PvP focused RTS game - if anything it seems more focused on SP

Over the years we have seen many other AAA teams do this too:
Homeworld 3/ Men of War II/ Warhammer Age of Sigmar: Realms of Ruin /
Crossfire: Legion / Year of Rain / Conan Unconquered / Forged Battalion /
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III / Act of Aggression


With good paid review ratings, nice grafics, function online:
"Tuned and balanced to perfection by best Pro-PvP players you can find,
but to be accessible makes the game simple and extends time to build up."
We do not see people to actually like and buy it.

Originally posted by HitMan:

bro literallly missed the point. thats exactly what most ppl want

Considering the sales numbers and peoples feedback we could see over so many years.
I do have my doubts if people want this "Simplified/Streamlined Modern E-Sport Audience, Blizzard-PvP-Esque-Craft" concept today at all.

Again:
-In this game, we have to build like in Starcraft Expansions.
-the economy in comparison to launch version of C&C Tiberium Wars is clearly reduced.


That PvP gameplay core concept simply leaves very little room to play the game the way you want and have fun, you have to in-time prepare units for rush and take on time the expansion point, or you loose.

This Pro player early game rush design with economy limitations, leaves no room for innovative gameplay, which leads to the most repetetive and boring game experience.