Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Screenshots of Command & Conquer Generals on a Matrox Parhelia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Cobos
    ...you can not have a modern nuke in any of those kinds of games... [they] would obliterate everything on the entire map considering the scale they are using. Which of course makes it a sort of pointless weapon
    If you've ever played Total Annihilation, you know what I'm looking for. The nukes in that game was perfectly balanced. When the missile hit its target, it more or less obliterated everything in your view. But then again, in TA you could also build an anti-missile defence, so you're not completely defenceless when your archenemy gets hold of nukes.

    The nukes in Westwood games (and Blizzard games too, it would seem) are just silly. They serve no purpose. They are mildly stronger than a hand machinegun. Sometimes it can even damage a vehicle, but only if you're very lucky. And we're talking about a direct hit, here. Spot on. Bulls eye. I mean, the missile chassis itself, without the warhead, should do more damage just penetrating the panzer of the tank.

    Empire Earth also gave the nuke a try. Ofcourse, they don't develop much from the WW-II era and onwards, so even in the nano-age, you still have bombers with nukes hardly capable of taking out buildings.

    Oh well, this ranting feels rather pointless, but what I'm trying to say is this:

    If you're ever in the position that you're writing a RTS game, and you have the bright idea of adding nuclear weaponry; don't do it unless you're prepared to make it a weapon of mass destruction. WW/Blizz-nukes are pointless. Stop it!

    Comment


    • #17
      Total annihilation

      Comment


      • #18
        What I of course meant when I said Cruise missile was one with a modern non-nuclear warhead. The kind to take out a block or two in a city, not the whole disctrict like a nuke does. Don't tell me the nukes in Starcraft aren't effective....
        I had established a medium attack force there with 24 Wraiths, 2 Battlecruisers and 8 transports full of goodies. Then I saw the nuclear launch text (not surprising since one of my opponents loved nukes) and looked in for the red dot. I finally found it in the middle of my attack force, and started moving them out. Alas it was too late and I had 2 badly damaged Wraiths and 1 battlecruiser hanging by a thread left.... that was all...
        (But it still shouldn't be called a nuke)

        Cobos
        My Specs
        AMD XP 1800+, MSI KT3 Ultra1, Matrox G400 32MB DH, IBM 9ES UW SCSI, Plextor 32X SCSI, Plextor 8x/2x CDRW SCSI, Toshiba 4.8X DVD ROM IDE, IBM 30GB 75GXP, IBM 60GB 60GXP, 120GB Maxtor 540X, Tekram DC390F UW, Santa Cruz Soundcard, Eizo 17'' F56 and Eizo 21'' T965' Selfmodded case with 2 PSU's.

        Comment


        • #19
          I don't think Blizzard nukes are useless. They're great in StarCraft. One will demolish all but the toughest buildings, and a second one will finish that off. And soo many units go bye-bye.
          Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

          Comment


          • #20
            Hmmmm....

            Nukes in Generals is isn't that way, you kill abselutely all infantery in the area, all armour, and most buildings. Stratigical buildings like "command Centre" and other super weapons gets damaged down to red.... (20%)

            China has the nuke, and after the nuclear mushroom is away, it will be nuclear waste there for about 30 secs.

            US has an "Air-Fuel bomb" droped by an B-52 instead of a nuke. I will try to get you some screenshots when I'll play later this week!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cobos
              Don't tell me the nukes in Starcraft aren't effective....
              You said so. I don't know. I never found StarCraft interesting unough to play for more than 15 minutes.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by albatorsk
                You said so. I don't know. I never found StarCraft interesting unough to play for more than 15 minutes.
                You can be shure you are amongst the minority regarding that issue!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by albatorsk
                  You said so. I don't know. I never found StarCraft interesting unough to play for more than 15 minutes.
                  I'm with you on that one. Could never get into it. Just another warcraft clone, but at least the orcs were amusing in that.

                  Leech
                  Wah! Wah!

                  In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Yeah, but Total Annihilation was released just before StarCraft, and after playing TA, there was no way I could motivate myself in to playing SC. Going from 1024x762 beautifuly realtime rendered units in TA to the 800x600 (or was it 640x480? I don't remember) cartoonish pixly ugly SC models? No thanks. And what's up with only selecting 12 units in SC? I want to move my army, god darn it. No such limit in TA. Select all your units, if you like. TA was also expandable ad infinitum, wheres in SC you were more or less stuck with what felt like 10 buildings and units. There were more than a hundred different units, per team, in TA. Going from TA to SC was like stepping back 5 years in RTS development.
                    Last edited by albatorsk; 8 January 2003, 17:23.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X