Command & Conquer 3 coming to conquer your wallet

by Conrad Quilty-Harper { Apr 19th 2006 at 8:30AM }

Can you say "sequelitis"? Several members of the 3D Realms forum have posted scans from the latest issue of PC Gamer which reveals that a third game in the Command & Conquer franchise is being worked on. The cover of the magazine features the words "Command & Conquer 3" in very large letters with a full preview inside the mag showing off pictures of units from the game. We're sure a lot of fans are very happy at this news, and that EA will be very happy to take their money! See you in ten years when Command & Conquer: The Second Decade is out.

[Thanks Armin, Iced_Eagle and Russell Kinsella]

Tags: Command and Conquer, CommandAndConquer, Red Alert, RedAlert

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Gareth @ Apr 19th 2006 9:05AM

You post about sequelitis when EA releases a third version of this, yet shoot your load when Nintendo releases Mario Party 7... or is it 8? Or 9? What number are we on now exactly?

michael @ Apr 19th 2006 9:10AM

YEAH!!!!!!
IVE been waiting for this for like 5 years! FIRST POST BABY!
IMHO C&C generals rocked

Frexy @ Apr 19th 2006 9:14AM

Generals wasn't very good imo...

If it was me, I'd go back to basics, no need for full 3D manipulation in the game, 4 different angles should be sufficient.

I think the making of 2D games into fully 3D often destroys a game, I loved the original C&C and Red Alert most of the whole series... Don't ask me why, it just is...

Nick P @ Apr 19th 2006 9:16AM

I'd have to say I'm excited about this too. Nothing burns away the hours like a quality RTS. Here's hoping they don't go too gimmicky on it.

I really hope the Halogen guys don't go back to square one because of this....
http://halogen.slipstreamproductions.net/

Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Apr 19th 2006 9:26AM

Gareth, I think you'll find we're equally critical of Nintendo for constantly releasing sequels.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/04/12/new-mario-lacks-newness-says-infendo/
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/12/the-medias-crush-on-nintendo/

In fact, the last time we reported on your cited example (Mario Party) we quite fairly questioned the value of the constant sequels:

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/13/mario-party-7-to-feature-eight-player-action/

Gareth @ Apr 19th 2006 10:31AM

Yes but wasn't that all because the game was crap and you were questioning the wisdom behind releasing sequels that don't improve on their (equally crap) ancestors?

Unlike here for example where you're slating it simply for being a sequel, never mind the fact that it hasn't been even been previewed yet, let alone reviewed.

Simon @ Apr 19th 2006 11:00AM

YES!!

Marco heykant @ Apr 19th 2006 11:06AM

Hm.. Let's hope this one has more then 9 missions per group, and takes more then 6 hours to finish per group... Really, generals was a bit short on singleplayer. Even for me, a not so die hard gamer...

Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Apr 19th 2006 11:11AM

I'm sorry Gareth, but I just can't get excited about a game that is effectively the 13th game in the series. I already know what the game is going to be like: exactly the same as its predecessors but with prettier graphics! Sure, I'd love to proven wrong (I hope I am, I loved the original C&C/Red Alert) but unfortunately this is the situation with 99% of video game sequels.

I dont get it - gamers will moan about the vast numbers of sequels and lack of innovation in the industry, but then they'll lap up news about the latest game in a decade old franchise.

Yatahaze @ Apr 19th 2006 11:11AM

This will be great if they go back to 2D... I doubt they will though. 3D stratagy games (other than AOE3) are really, really bad... especially Warcraft 3. Does everyone understand that you can draw something better than a 3D model (style, not just quality), and have it run so fast it works on the slowest of computers?

Code601 @ Apr 19th 2006 11:15AM

Will it have difficulty levels this time??

Or an option to take out the stupid superweapons!

Gareth @ Apr 19th 2006 11:58AM

"I'm sorry Gareth, but I just can't get excited about a game that is effectively the 13th game in the series."

Yes it's the 13th game for you, as it is for me. However, a lot of the people who are playing games today were not around when the original came out. Some of them weren't even twinkles in their father's eyes - are these people supposed to go without the experience of Command and Conquer because YOU have already played it?

"I already know what the game is going to be like: exactly the same as its predecessors but with prettier graphics!"

Maybe so, but I don't see you applying to be a games designer so that you can shake up the industry.

"Sure, I'd love to proven wrong (I hope I am, I loved the original C&C/Red Alert) but unfortunately this is the situation with 99% of video game sequels."

Yes it is, but 1) wait for the review before you start slamming a game, 2) like I already said, this will be the first time many gamers get to play the game and 3) if it really pisses you off so much that you have to whine about a game before it's even previewed, do something about it. What? You won't/can't? Then what is there left to say?

"I dont get it - gamers will moan about the vast numbers of sequels and lack of innovation in the industry, but then they'll lap up news about the latest game in a decade old franchise."

I hope you're not referring to me there? I'm not lapping up any news. I'm indifferent to this game's announcement. What does my head in is people like you who are all too ready to jump on the bandwagon and complain about stuff just for the sake of it - while at the same time are doing *nothing* to reverse the trend that you are complaining about.

Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Apr 19th 2006 12:23PM

G, firstly I just wanted to say thanks for having this argument with me, and I'm not being sarcastic. I think the problem of sequelitis isn't taken seriously enough and this is giving me an opportunity to discuss the problem. Saying that, I'd appreciate it if you could keep the discussion civil - I've already had to edit an insulting section of one of your comments.

"Yes it's the 13th game for you, as it is for me. However, a lot of the people who are playing games today were not around when the original came out. Some of them weren't even twinkles in their father's eyes - are these people supposed to go without the experience of Command and Conquer because YOU have already played it?"

By your logic, every game that isn't the current version is worthless. Why can't gamers pick up an earlier version? How is a prettier version of the same game going to make the game any better in terms of gameplay?

"Maybe so, but I don't see you applying to be a games designer so that you can shake up the industry. Yes it is, but 1) wait for the review before you start slamming a game, 2) like I already said, this will be the first time many gamers get to play the game and 3) if it really pisses you off so much that you have to whine about a game before it's even previewed, do something about it. What? You won't/can't? Then what is there left to say?"

Even though it may not seem like it to you, through Joystiq I feel like I am shaking up the industry bit by bit. I may not be a games programmer, but by not eating up the latest news about a sequel hopefully I can influence other media outlets which will in turn question why we're constantly seeing sequel after sequel.

Again, I'm not slamming the game. I'm just trying to question the value of the 13th game based upon the same universe and the same gameplay mechanics when we're seeing declining interest in games due to sequelitis! Then again, this is EA we're talking about - what do I expect?

"I hope you're not referring to me there? I'm not lapping up any news. I'm indifferent to this game's announcement. What does my head in is people like you who are all too ready to jump on the bandwagon and complain about stuff just for the sake of it - while at the same time are doing *nothing* to reverse the trend that you are complaining about."

Please do not think that this is a personal vendetta against you - I wasn't referring to you in that paragraph. Again, I'm not slamming the game, just the reasoning behind having a series 13 games long! Again, by promoting discussion of this issue I am doing something about it.

Thanks,
Conrad

Gareth @ Apr 19th 2006 12:47PM

"G, firstly I just wanted to say thanks for having this argument with me and I'm not being sarcastic. I think the problem of sequelitis isn't taken seriously enough and this is giving me an opportunity to discuss this."

No worries - I love a good debate! ;)

"Saying that, I'd appreciate it if you could keep the discussion civil - I've already had to edit an insulting section of your comment."

Aye ok, fair cop.

"By your logic, every game that isn't the current version is worthless."

No, I see room for sequels as well as original IP. As a consumer I can either buy a game or not buy it. How much I want to play the game dictates whether I buy it or not, and whether I've already played the same kind of game before or not affects how much I want to play the latest incarnation of it. In the end it's a buyer's market.

"Why can't gamers pick up an earlier version?"

I'm not saying that they are unable to. Of course they can. Not sure if the original would work on Windows XP , but they could easily play it on Saturn/Playstation of new PCs present a problem. On the other hand, Joe Bloggs who got an Xbox 360 for Christmas is hardly going to go out and buy a console he's never heard of to play an ancient game with crappy graphics. His loss yes, but why should games companies let poor little Joe Bloggs lose out on the experience when they can just make a new version of it and sell it to him?

"How is a prettier version of the same game going to make the game any better in terms of gameplay?"

It's not, but I don't think that was ever the argument from either of us. Now that you mention it though, it may be easier to see what you're doing on a nice, high resolution and true colour display than it is on a 640x480 screen with 256 colours. In general though, the gameplay won't change unless they have some new ideas - new weapons/vehicles etc.

"Even though it may not seem like it to you, through Joystiq I feel like I am shaking up the industry bit by bit."

Stabbing EA for doing something that you love Nintendo for isn't really shaking up the industry. In fact, sabbing EA at all is pointless as there are already millions of people doing just that - and what effect does it have? EA won't stop churning our sequels until their profits go down, no matter what you say on a discussion board.

"I may not be a games programmer, but by not eating up the latest news about a sequel hopefully I can influence other media outlets which will in turn question why we're constantly seeing sequel after sequel."

I remember the same questions from 10+ years ago with Mortal Kombat 3, Road Rash 2, Earthworm Jim 2, Sonic 3, Super Mario 4 etc. Asking questions therefore doesn't change anything. If you want to influence these companies you have to do it with your wallet, not your mouth.

"I'm just trying to question the value of the 13th game based upon the same universe and the same gameplay mechanics"

I could ask if you've seen this game running and if you know there are no new game mechanics present. I'm already sure of the answer though.

"Then again, this is EA we're talking about - what do I expect?"

I think 'EA' and 'sequelitis' have been synonymous for at LEAST 10 years, yet the last time I checked they're still the world's largest publisher. Seriously, the only way you're going to change their direction is by damaging their bottom line. After all the criticism you give about sequels etc. all EA have to do is look at their bottom line and ask 'If it ain't broke, why fix it?'

"Please do not think that this is a personal vendetta against you - I wasn't referring to you in that paragraph."

Ok kewl. ;)

"Again, I'm not slamming the game, just the reasoning behind having a series 13 games long!"

You want to know the reason? The reason is because they will spend a few thousand on TV and magazine adverts and they'll be in the top 10 games chart for at least a few weeks, making more money on the game than most of us make in 10 years.

"Again, by promoting discussion of this issue I am doing something about it."

True, you are promoting discussion, but it's not going to have an effect on EA.

Before you proclaim all sequels as crap though, isn't everyone here counting the days til the next Zelda game?

Iced_Eagle @ Apr 19th 2006 1:07PM

Can't wait :)

Loved RA2, and hopefully this will love up to my expectations.

Gareth @ Apr 19th 2006 1:13PM

Actually, the more I think about it the more evident it is that the problem you have with EA isn't even the fact that they churn out sequel after sequel.

Nintendo has churned out many more sequels than original games over the past 20 years, yet they are highly regarded and are even the subject of many a wet dream for some of my fellow readers here.

The fact that Nintendo's games are generally more fun to play than EA's seems to excuse them for the same general behaviour - that of releasing the same ideas in games year after year but with nicer graphics. Wasn't Super Mario All-stars a complete rehash of old NES games but with boosted visuals?

When Nintendo releases yet another update to their Mario/Pokemon/Zelda franchises the world goes crazy, yet here we are discussing how lame EA is for working on a new version of an old game of theirs.

I feel that the problem isn't sequels - it's just crap and lazy games. EA just happens to be guilty for most of them, and yes, most of them just happen to be sequels. EA is therefore a crap company, but it has a marketing machine and a bank balance that mean it's not going anywhere fast.

If you want to make a difference to the induty, start convincing Joe Bloggs to stop buying Medal of Honor, Need for Speed, Burnout and Fifa.

King @ Apr 19th 2006 1:20PM

The same people that bash EA are the same people that praised the 360 versions of Battlefield 2 and burnout. I don't see anything wrong with sequels. If the franchise is good and the games are fun so what.

"How is a prettier version of the same game going to make the game any better in terms of gameplay?"

It doesn't change the gameplay but imho it makes the game more enjoyable. look at the post on joystiq the other day:
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/04/15/out-of-this-world-remastered-with-high-res-graphics/

this update didn't change the gameplay at all. It still played the same as all the other versions I own but I rather play this one because it just looks better.

Pixelantes Anonymous @ Apr 19th 2006 1:52PM

Great comment about the crap and lazy games.

That DEFINES a lot of the sequels out on the XBox 360 at the moment.

Every single 2K Sports title on the 360 are perfect examples of this, incl. Top Spin 2 and MLB 2K6, the non-launch titles 2K Sports supposedly had all the time they needed to work with. They barely enhanced the originals at all, and there certainly was no effort whatsoever to advance the franchises in any significant manner from the XBox versions to the XBox 360 versions, and they're in some respects worse than the supposedly inferior XBox titles. And yet they expect us to pay $60 for each title? Ridiculous.

The crap and lazy approach to game making works only under certain circumstances:

1. the consumer is a first-time buyer of the franchise and doesn't therefore have any expectations compared to the earlier versions
2. the franchise is so remarkably brilliant that the developer can get away with rehashing old garbage

EA has managed, because most of their franchises are best-of-genre blockbusters. However, it looks like the backlash is increasing year after year. The XBox 360 version of Madden was received quite poorly exactly because of the crap and lazy approach EA took with it.

I don't really get that upset about sequels by itself, and I'm quite enjoying several on my 360 (PGR3...great innovation in that one, especially with the auto-update, CoD2 / Burnout Revenge - I'm a first-time buyer into these franchises), but what really does bother me is how several publishers of top notch franchises are increasingly going where the fence is the lowest and just shoveling garbage on me. My latest purchase: Top Spin 2 is a perfect example. 2K could've done so much more with it, but instead decided to release a game that's barely different from the previous version with graphics that in no way are next-gen.