A Special Announcement from EA

[eskimo]

Regarding the stigma around DLC;

No one ever has had a problem with DLC/expansions, that are what they used to be. Red Alert Aftermath was worth it's money. Halo 2s map packs were worth the money.

Charging 3 bucks for colours is wrong. We used to get them by achieving targets in game!

Make a complete good game with plenty of playability and i'll buy DLC/expansions.

[jonwil]

All of the add-ons for the C&C games have been worth the price IMO. They all added a bunch of new content (including new missions to play).

[Zeoinx]

Dear EA

Release the rights to C&C if you really care about the future of Command and Conquer. Give it to the fans or even better, give the ownership to one of the true owners Joseph Kucan. Please dont keep stabbing the series in the grave. It has become clear, especially in recent years, that you are unable to, weather by your own lack of vision, or the CEOs of the company, to care for series with the same passion as the fans, and of that of the original developers Westwood Studios. You had a series that would have and HAS given Blizzard's RTSs competition, allowing both series to grow better, but instead, you slacked off and because of it, your name, as well as that of the Command and Conquer has been stained with corruption.

One of Many Gamers....

[NavyCuda]

I have to say that I play openra, but I've been waiting for Red Alert 2 to come to openra so my wife and I can play together. She likes RA2s graphics but can't stand RA. I have played C&C since it was new. My best friend and I played DOS C&C via modem, he frequently beat my head in. We had lan parties with RA2 and Yuri's revenge. Same for Generals. RA3 was terrible and I stopped there.

I have concerns about a straight up remake. I would rather see new material and some modern game play mechanics going into a lovingly reimagined red alert universe.

Command & Conquer: Gray Dawn

An allied scientist discovers the secret to the entire conflict between the Soviet Union and the allied powers began with Einstein eliminating Hitler. This scientist, not knowing the history of the Nazi's stops Einstein and inadvertently tips Hitlers hand to his future.

The allied campaign begins with the majority of the Continental United States having been annexed by the axis powers. The commander is tasked with defending a bridge to slow the axis advance long enough to finish assembling a functioning atomic weapon to turn the tides of the battle. This is the allies only atomic weapon and they cannot produce another one without re-securing lost territory.

The axis campaign begins with the commander leading the charge to establish a beachhead on the Continental United States. The assault begins with the deployment of the axis's only functional atomic weapon. They are months from having another.

Cut scenes should be live action, with quality actors taking the content seriously. The allies should genuinely feel under stress, under equipped and in a bad way. Axis cut scenes should be in German with subtitles, with the smug arrogance and superiority of the axis powers at the height of their power, embarking on a war they're convinced they'll win with ease.

I personally would rather see retro RA2 graphics but in a game engine designed to handle a massive continent sized map, with the tens of thousands of units that could go with that. I imagine the technology may not exist for that to work in multiplayer but with these new 8+core processors it should be doable in a massive single player campaign.

The C&C formula works, but it's worth remembering that C&C broke the mould and did something in a way no one else had done before. So to have a successful C&C game, it can't just be a remake of something that worked before, it needs to build on that legacy and bring something entirely new. EA has deep pockets, prove you love this franchise by spending AAA money on it. Develop a new RTS engine that supports tens of thousands of units playing smoothly. Even better if you can do it for multiplayer. A good RTS game isn't about fancy graphics, its about a game that lets you openly explore strategy. So make the first truly open world real time strategy. Have multiplayer modes for quick games and long Continental games, which would be great for groups of friends who setup a server and play massive turtle games. As others have said, support steam workshop. More importantly, make sure it's on steam. Work with valve to ensure the new C&C is fully integrated with proton right out of the box for us linux users. Proton integration would mean you don't have to port to linux, you just have to use API's that work seamlessly with proton. RTS games are very strong community games because of the nature of their gameplay. So step up and be a part of the community instead of just trying to get a fat paycheque. I have nothing against you making money, that's how progress is made, but it doesn't have to be all about the money.

[SirCake]

Reading many of the comments I think RA2 would be the best candidate for a remaster. OpenRA doesn't cover it (and will not for a long while) and it has recieved a lot of love from the community. Concerning RA3, I liked it - it had really great game mechanics and scaled so well from small engagements to huge army battles. Only the graphics were way too cartoony to appeal to a wide audience.

So my wishlist for a remaster would be
* RA2 remake with at least HD 2D graphics (3D or 4k isn't a must) and an art style which takes itself serious and tries to be "realistic" (more serious than RA2) even though the featured weapons and units might be fantastic. Try to be serious in the art department and sublimely silly/liberal in the story writing. That's what made CnC1 and RA1 such good games for a wide audience.
* Some additional content on top of the original RA2 campaign (like an expansion) which the EA team designed with the brand new modding tools.
* Modding tools which allow map creation, mission scripting, importing new units/terrain/buildings from 3d models or sprite sheets.

You could later add RA2 Yuris revenge as a DLC, but I should stress that the initial on-top content should be genuinely new! This will quelch vioces saying "nothing new, same like original Ra2" and will force you to really use your own modding tools as a benchmark.

This will make sure you are producing the game the community really wants. We want to experience the game and it's familiar universe, have fun with new stuff and then "go beyond the game" and add stuff we think would be a great idea to add / to experiment on our own.

And please, no micro transactions for stuff other than aesthetic upgrades (good example -> bizzards war chest)... This is a no-go and will kill any title regardless of how amazing of a job your game design team did.

[WhoCares]

First i will say why i play openra :

I like the fact openra is in constant evolution. The base is solid as a game i loved being kid and the dev team is present and responding. Compromise and sacrifice have been made to make it both playable by casual player teamgame players and 1V competitive players. and .... It's free.

I'm not really interested to pay for a remaster as i already know the single player content and I'm already playing a pleasant version with a nice community of the multiplayer side.

I tend to agree with the opinion that Ra2 was childish and has more this ridiculous side then anything else. from the "briefing videos" to the graphics passing by the unit themselves; it felt it was designed for 7 years old. The public you are seeking now is almost entirely over 30. Dolphins and squids is not what we want to play with.

My main feeling between the 2 was the following : Ra1 felt rough, grey, almost dark. Actions seemed brutal and most of the units were scary (the sound of a tesla coil ... Oh my !). The will for winning the missions was only growing over the unsuccessful attempts to do so (Noooo this evil dog ate my spy again ![Even the dogs seemed so unfriendly]).

RA2 was so colourful, it was not dark any-more. Neither in the video or in the animations or the "plastic toy like" units you could find again this feeling you were in a desperate world war conflict with possible failure at every click. It was still fun to play to break the puzzles offered by the mission (and because RA1 was depleted of thing to discover a long time ago) but nothing in ra2 was as appealing as RA in term of ambient or graphics.

My guess, take the RA recipe in term of "briefing videos" and how the game felt and continue the history from there (like ra2 never existed). use last graphic tech to try to modernize this design of "squared" "rough" "made for war" units present in RA. Use grey colours pattern. Put us in front of a world worth fighting for like there is no other option. Make us forget we are in a game by avoiding any "childish" or "plastic toy" aspect.And ofc, everything that has been said ... bad ass Tanya again (even in tomb raider they got rid of the bimbo). Mechanic thought for multiplayer, possibility to mods ... bla bla bla.

You can even use a modern world concern as scenario : Overpopulation leading in future starvation or water shortage, over-pollution leading in climatology disaster; dumb people reaching the high sphere of power and threatening world balance.

[KimKongUn]

Hi there,
registered for some feedback.

This time about art direction.

I think what made c&c and red alert special was the relatively "realistic" cold war era art direction. Not the cartoonish or overly scifi art of the later games. It had the same "real life war aesthetics meet light scifi" vibe that metal gear has.
As in realistic uniforms and tanks with some future tech. I think the perfect balance would be looking at Metal Gear Solid V, which blends realistic 80s cold war era military tech with slight scifi elements.

http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/5/54/ ... GZHMG3.jpg

https://videochums.com/review/metal-gea ... pain-3.jpg

While playing that I kept thinking about how much I miss the times when western games like command and conquer had that kind of a subtle grounded in realism with slight exaggerated elements art direction. It would be the perfect fit.

Don't overdo it like in the later c&c games, which looked like a bad mech warrior ripoff with all it's aliens, spaceships and robots and whatnot. Keep it grounded in realism, after all c&c was directly inspired by late cold war era tech.

[Garrick]

I also registered to offer some feedback.

First things first: it is a very good news indeed, although, like many other CnC fans, I remember slightly skeptical. However, there is something I'd really like to stress, something that people have not pointed out before around here.

What, in my opinion, greatly sustained CnC over its more than ventennial lifespan, and whose lack made titles from CNC3-onwards fall by the wayside was modding accessibility. What do I mean by that? I mean that, each player could start editing the game almost right away by putting .ini files, model (.W3D), or SHP images straight into the game's folder. Furthermore, the file structure, and the way the game was built, had its own simplicity. Let's take all of the 2.5 CNC (TibSun, RA2, YR). All you needed to do to place your own spin on the game was fiddle around with the rules.ini. Then came great tools for vxl editing, which, yet again, is very accessible, as you work with a 256 colors palette and shape which are approximate enough to allow everybody to achieve a reasonable degree of skills with a fraction of the time required to get reasonably competent at doing 3d models.

A similar case could still be made for CNC Generals, although the art requirements are higher. CNC3 had a similar structure, but one key flaw: the EA-issued SDK required 3d Studio Max to access 3d models, plus lacked an importer, while also retaining key limitations in editing non-skirmish portions of the game such as campaign screens and the campaign itself. Reliance on such a costly program was problematic, as Generals , by chance, could work with 3DS MAX's free brother, GMAX. RA3 had similar issues, which where amplified by the already dwindling userbase. CNC4 was unaccessible.

Building on these considerations, what I feel would be of vital importance to keeping the community alive AND keep the new blood would be as follows:

In case of classic remakes (CNC, RA, TibSun, RA2, YR, Generals): keep the original code structure intact, or attempt to re-create it in a similar fashion and preserve compatibility with existing tools when it comes to file formats. In the case of TibSun/RA2YR, by all means get in touch with the codepatch communities and implement the features they have implemented, so that grand mods such as Mental Omega or Twisted Insurrection can be ported to the remasters without too much work. In the case of a new CNC, the above recommendations still stand. In case of 3d Art, make a plugin for a free 3d software such as blender. Accessibility is the key.

That is what kept the community alive, and should not be overlooked in this new CNC approach.

[kane0083]

When it comes to remastering C&C title, EA should assess their goal and resource before they decide which C&C to remaster.
I`ve set my opinion on what to remaster per case.

1. Most likely to benefit EA best:
C&C Renegade
C&C Sole Survivor

Pro:
They are not RTS.

Times are hard for RTS at the moment, and most popularity of RTS is transferred to MOBA(aka AOS) games, so picking non-RTS C&C as a remaster has its own merit. Also, both are in such genre which are popular at the moment(Renegade is FPS and Sole Survivor is battle royale) so it can be quite competent with EA, on both inside and outside of the corporation.

They were not so successful.

Renegade was well accepted from C&C fanbase, but not from FPS fanbase. A sequel was planned but scrapped away.
Sole Survivor came to industry too early: they just didn`t know how to make a battle royale game. now that there are some great examples such as PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS and Fortnite, so Sole Survivor can be reborn.(My suggestion: viewtopic.php?f=82&t=20777&start=75#p309147)
Therefore, remastering/remaking one would be a great way to show competence of EA, making success on where Westwood have failed.

Con:
They are not RTS.

Definitely they are C&C games, but when it comes to C&C games, they usually think of a RTS game.
Picking non-RTS game for the C&C remastering might read as EA don`t want RTS anymore, which can be deadly on reception.



2. Most likely to raise best fan support:
C&C Red Alert 2
C&C Tiberian Sun

Pro:
They are RTS and have a large fanbase.

While C&C Generals being a maverick among the flock, RA2 and TS are the most well-received C&C among the old fanbase.
If EA pick one of these game for remaster, communities will be spreading words of every small announcement.

Their game engine and UI calls for enhancements

With today`s hardware, their voxel graphics can be enhanced exponentially, if the game engine is changed.
Also, their user interface need to adopt some conveniences of later RTS games.

Con:
They are RTS and have a large old fanbase.

C&C was a pioneer of RTS, and other late-comers had to differentiate from C&C.
Classic C&Cs have engineer rush, don`t have fog of war, don`t have minimap at the beginning, use left click for selection and orders: we, members of old fanbase, are all used to playing this way, but for newbies these can be big learning curve.
For interface they can add alternative options like they did on Generals, but for other game mechanics there would be no way to satisfy both group.


3. Should not be remastered at the moment:
C&C 4 Tiberian Twilight

Now you might be surprised to see that I say TT should not be remastered: yes, it deserves a remake, but not now, not when the whole old fanbase is against EA.

Remaking TT involves one serious dilemma: should EA end the tiberium saga, or continue it?
I saw some articles saying Kane`s story and tiberium war saga was meant to be trilogy, so this becomes very hard decision.
Both ending and continuing tiberium saga will erupt rages among fanbase, unless they can believe EA is doing their very best on reviving C&C IP.

Therefore, I suggest you to remaster another C&C game first and gain trust.
Only after that, we would be ready to meet the new C&C4.
You need to be quick, however, because you need to make it while Joseph D. Kucan can act as Kane.

[MustaphaTR]

One thing i haven't seen the other people mantion. Please, allow multiplayer with more than 8 players, preferably no hard limits, as in OpenRA. But i would be OK with something like 32 players too.

[Mo]

Many people have already made great points, such as suggestions with RA2, feel like RA1, and the 1000s of hours balancing.

What I’ll add is:
- consider implementing Esports into it. OpenRA with RAGL and tournaments have been fun to observe as spectators and be a part of. Esports is a growing trend so it’ll be worth having League tables to join and progress to real world prizes.

- use DOOM and its resurgence as a case study. They redrew and went back to basics. They made it about the gore, no nonsense action and the heavy metal music with keys and skulls and non-linear maps.
RA’s comeback can do the same. What made it great and how can those characterstics be amplified?

[Battleship82]

I still prever the classic RA a lot. It´s more Chess in different Points. And realistic /Fantasy balance is good. It´s a game and it should be no real command education(I like the censored Version a lot.)


My wishes:

More Advance rules.ini Options. I never get the submarines or ships to load them with a ammo Limit which can be recharge or place watermines.
Much Better KI for Waterbased battles.
updated Campaign edit functions which Focus Options away from tank rushs.


Thanks!

[eskimo]

- use DOOM and its resurgence as a case study. They redrew and went back to basics. They made it about the gore, no nonsense action and the heavy metal music with keys and skulls and non-linear maps.
RA’s comeback can do the same. What made it great and how can those characterstics be amplified?

Yes, your possible nemises, Bethesda. Mo has a good point, not just because new Doom is simple fun, but also because there's an underlying example. Doom's multiplayer was done by a seperate company (not ID) who ignored classic play and it flopped hard. It had DLC for multiplayer only and yet fans were still calling out for single player content and just plain ignoring multiplayer.

[camundahl]

Just a question to Vessella: Will we see some EA-related games that are still not on origin? RECOIL is one of the EA games that is not available on origin, i asked a question about it and i think it's possible to bring that 1999 game with the original CD-ROM, from what i know about the game versions, only the pirated version has no OST, while the original has OST.

Really can't wait to see the game remaster, i already suggested to bring back one cancelled game: Renegade 2: Battlegrounds.

Dude Recoil was one of my favorite games as a kid! I haven't been able to play it in over a decade.

[Matt]

If I were Electronic Arts, I would go for the obvious graphics remaster for higher resolution, but retain the pixel style. From a gameplay point of view I know that a large vocal majority calls the original balancing to be perfect, but the experience of OpenRA has shown that it needs renovation to allow it to be the RTS the developers intended and not a dull tank vs. tank micromanage mini-game.