Duke4.net Forums: Command and Conquer Corner - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

Hide message Show message
Welcome to the Duke4.net Forums!

Register an account now to get access to all board features. After you've registered and logged in, you'll be able to create topics, post replies, send and receive private messages, disable the viewing of ads and more!

  • 6 Pages +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Command and Conquer Corner  "Building..."

User is offline   MrFlibble 

  • 661

#151

View Postjohnnythewolf, on 03 March 2019 - 09:16 AM, said:

an average Command & Conquer clone

I'd probably say it's one of the better clones (felt more like RA1 to me), not very innovative but steady. Good music and the cutscenes are hilarious. I heard the second game is way better but haven't gotten around to try it out.

Whaddaya guys think about Earth 2140?
0

User is offline   gemeaux333 

  • 10

#152

Earth 2140 is another CNC clone, with a research tree for both factions and ground/air/water units which was very rare back then, every single building is a MCV prior and defense building can be upgraded
and the first game of a trilogy (to taht day) made by Topware/Reality Pump

there is another element in KKND worth of attention : you have the same amound of action and chalenge as Total Annihilation !

This post has been edited by gemeaux333: 03 March 2019 - 01:31 PM

0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 467

#153

View PostMrFlibble, on 03 March 2019 - 07:07 AM, said:

I think it is one of the strengths of Westwood's Dune games that they basically went their own way and did not stick to the books save for taking the most basic of plot premises and faction names.

I agree but my argument was a comparison between the Dune setting and C&C so how does this refer to that?

Quote

It does not matter if the Encyclopaedia is "canon" or not (I never implied that it is BTW), because Westwood's games are not "canon" anyway.

Sure, it doesn't matter and you never implied that they are canon specifically but you did say that the Encyclopedia is an "authorized companion" without explaining what that means while that's pretty important. What that means is that Herbert approved the book by writing the foreword that said this:

Quote

Here is a rich background (and foreground) for the Dune Chronicles, including scholarly bypaths and amusing sidelights. Some of the contributions are sure to arouse controversy, based as they are on questionable sources ... I must confess that I found it fascinating to re-enter here some of the sources on which the Chronicles are built. As the first "Dune fan," I give this encyclopedia my delighted approval, although I hold my own counsel on some of the issues still to be explored as the Chronicles unfold.

Basically "this is great stuff but it's not canon." :D

Quote

On a side note, the fact that House Ordos is not mentioned in the original hexalogy doesn't mean that it does not "exist" in the Dune Universe. There's no statement in the books that it doesn't exist either.

What, you'd want a statement in the books that says "House Ordos doesn't exist"? :D The thing is though that even if you're like "the Ordos can exist, mate!" then well sure, even if they are not mentioned in the 17-18 books that came out so far they can exist but Westwood really only took the name. The Ordos is mentioned twice in the Encyclopedia: first when they are listing the houses of the Landsraad and a second time where they are showing the insignias of some of the houses. There the Ordos logo is two bones in the shape of a saltire and with some vines on the bones.

That's it, that's all you know about the Ordos so Westwood only took the name, then they switched their logo with another house mentioned in the Encyclopedia, House Wallach (they have the book with the snake around it in the Encyclopedia), came up with all the smuggling stuff so that they could combine the Ixians and the Bene Tleilax into one faction for the game and went with that. That's a very powerful combination, too powerful to be ignored in a major power struggle.

But sure, theoretically it is possible that there is a small house called Ordos in the Dune universe, they are rocking their cute bone insignia, they are chilling at Landsraad gatherings and vote on shit. :D

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 03 March 2019 - 03:45 PM

1

User is offline   Sledgehammer 

  • 726

#154

I always thought that Ordos house doesn't to conflict with canon (what he possibly tried to imply). Westwood made them kind of a "hidden" faction, you know, like they're just some kind of mercenaries acting behind the scene.

View PostMrFlibble, on 03 March 2019 - 10:20 AM, said:

Whaddaya guys think about Earth 2140?

People seems to recommend it a lot. Still need to get my hands on it, the visuals reminds me a bit of a Dune too.

Also I never heard of KKND and definitely got to admit that just from the first look at screenshots I've got C&C and RA feeling. By the way, there is another pretty fine gem called Dark Colony.

1

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 467

#155

View PostSledgehammer, on 04 March 2019 - 02:32 AM, said:

I always thought that Ordos house doesn't to conflict with canon (what he possibly tried to imply). Westwood made them kind of a "hidden" faction, you know, like they're just some kind of mercenaries acting behind the scene.

Yeah, I get it but that's not really possible in a world where there are truthsayers and people who see the future, especially not in the time where the Encyclopedia puts them (during the reign of Muad'Dib). A hidden faction is not impossible in the Dune universe but that needs a greater deal of secrecy and a need to blend in (see: the Jews in Chapterhouse: Dune).

Another thing that's problematic with the Ordos is their tech: they use forbidden technology, even in Dune 2000 it seems like they are using thinking machines while in Emperor that's quite obvious. They would be wiped out for that.
0

User is online   johnnythewolf 

  • -85

#156

View PostSledgehammer, on 04 March 2019 - 02:32 AM, said:

Also I never heard of KKND and definitely got to admit that just from the first look at screenshots I've got C&C and RA feeling. By the way, there is another pretty fine gem called Dark Colony.


It looks closer to StarCraft to me. The soundtrack is nothing special from what I heard, with the possible exception of the first Humans one; holy crap, it is a kickass track.
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 467

#157

View Postjohnnythewolf, on 04 March 2019 - 03:03 PM, said:

It looks closer to StarCraft to me.

The gameplay of KKND is very much like C&C. I don't remember it as being bad btw., hell, KKND 2: Krossfire was a beautiful looking RTS back in the day and it had a cool atmosphere too.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 05 March 2019 - 12:39 AM

0

User is offline   MrFlibble 

  • 661

#158

View PostZaxx, on 03 March 2019 - 03:43 PM, said:

I agree but my argument was a comparison between the Dune setting and C&C so how does this refer to that?

I meant to say that the setting of Dune II, which inspired C&C, from the start bore only a superficial similarity to the Dune books.

I feel I did not specifically address some of the points that you made earlier so here you go:

View PostZaxx, on 25 February 2019 - 06:57 PM, said:

- Melange and tiberium are pretty similar: both are important resources for the whole of humanity and both of them are basically alien substances that affect people in more than one ways.

Similar as in-game resources, yes, and similar as both are a type of unobtanium. But the "powers" given by each substance are very different.

It would probably be silly to argue that Tiberium was not in any way inspired by spice, but in the books, spice has completely different functions so to speak. I think that for FH, it symbolised humanity's ultimate dependency on a resource (in the context of his ecological ideas) because without the spice there'd be no space travel and the Imperium would fall apart. This is closely tied to and mirrored by the fact that spice affects human users like a drug and causes literal addiction.

Tiberium isn't even remotely that, it's an alien thing that basically makes Earth inhospitable in preparation for an alien invasion. One could see it as a metaphor for petroleum and the ecological hazards of non-renewable energy, but I'm not sure this is what the developers intended to say. Even if the petroleum metaphor was inserted intentionally, is certainly not the main focus of the original game. Westwood did the good job of slowly revealing the properties of Tiberium to the player via all the cutscenes though (I love that Nod one where EVA says that Tiberium "appears to be spreading by means of conveyance, unknown", and Kane quips, "unknown to them, perhaps"). I think one could find a parallel between this and how the properties of spice and its origins are slowly revealed. In fact, there are hints in the conversation between Jessica and Yueh that the Harkonnens possibly knew more about the spice than they revealed, yes, that could be compared to the Brotherhood's Tiberium monopoly (but for different reasons though).

View PostZaxx, on 25 February 2019 - 06:57 PM, said:

- Just like how the sandworms and the melange they produce change Arrakis into a desert planet tiberium is changing the Earth too.

Interestingly much of the Dune books are about how the planet was transformed back into a more hospitable place. Again, FH had his ideas about climate and ecosystem changes behind this concept of the desert planet. The process of desert erosion is very Earth-like while Tiberium infestation isn't.

View PostZaxx, on 25 February 2019 - 06:57 PM, said:

- Two great factions are fighting for the same resource just like in the first Dune book.

Now this is the point I disagree the most with. The Atreides-Harkonnen feud is not a war for the spice, not even for control of Arrakis. Arrakis was just a trap set up for the Duke by the Baron. They had an ancestral score to settle and the Emperor allowed this to happen because he feared the power of the Atreides troops. It is heavily implied that the Harkonnens did not stand a chance against Atreides elite fighters on their own, without support by the Imperial Sardaukar.

This is not even remotely similar to how a military wing of the UN fights a quasi-terrorist militia in a twenty-minutes-into-the-future, past-Gulf War scenario.

View PostZaxx, on 25 February 2019 - 06:57 PM, said:

- Kane is pretty similar to the messianic figures in the Dune saga, especially in the later games.

I cannot judge how much the Dune books could have influenced the character of Kane, I believe that he owes a lot to Joe Kucans's imagination and charisma than anything else. In the original game, Kane is clearly a villain (even if charismatic and mysterious), whereas none of the Dune books portray Paul or Leto II as villains, even in God Emperor where the reader is basically supposed to identify with Duncan and Duncan hates Leto II. No matter what the small people of the Imperium would think of that, or the Bene Gesserit who appear to have a king of a love-hate relationship with the Tyrant.

View PostZaxx, on 03 March 2019 - 03:43 PM, said:

Sure, it doesn't matter and you never implied that they are canon specifically but you did say that the Encyclopedia is an "authorized companion" without explaining what that means while that's pretty important. What that means is that Herbert approved the book by writing the foreword that said this:

Basically "this is great stuff but it's not canon." :D

This is my personal opinion and it does not have any bearing on the present discussion, but I've always had a problem with the whole "canon" argument in relation to the Dune books. For me, discussing "canonicity" of this and that in Dune is rather inappropriate because I have always valued Frank Herbert's ideas that are expressed in the hexalogy way more than merely the plot and characters. Canon and questions like do Ordos "exist" matter only on the plot level, not on the idea level.

Also from the "canonicity" standpoint, Dune Encyclopaedia is not canon and Brian & Kevin's books are, yet in truth the former was written by highly educated people who meticulously studied the source material and tried to reflect upon it, while it is an established fact that the latter are full of inconsistencies that probably arose from insufficient research of the source material, and generally fail to even remotely approach the same depth as the original books by FH.


This post has been edited by MrFlibble: 05 March 2019 - 04:07 AM

0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 467

#159

Yeah, the idea of the Dune lore is interesting in itself but overall I have to say that I never hated the Brian Herbert / Kevin J. Anderson books. Yes, the same kind of depth isn't there but I really can't fault them for that, I mean it's quite obvious that Frank Herbert was a genius and there is no living up to that. And really I think that the 6 Frank Herbert books are so complex that they serve as a great groundwork for interesting but lighter to read sci-fi: not every book has to be a masterpiece if the universe itself is already a masterpiece.

With that said I can't think of the 6 FH books as a "hexalogy" simply because at the end of Chapterhouse it's very obvious that a concluding Dune 7 was planned. Hunters of Dune and Sandworms of Dune were written based on FH's outline for the story of Dune 7 and I think those are the books where BH and KJA managed to come a bit closer to the original quality than usual. I view the series as one even if the authors are not the same and even if the quality is varying. I see some fans recommend reading the Prelude to Dune trilogy before the original books for newcomers... now that's taking it a bit too far in my opinion too. :D

On the note of inconsistencies: upon closer inspection the FH books have those too (for example: the axolotl-tanks of the later books contradict what you learn about them in Dune Messiah), nothing serious though, mostly you just feel that FH altered some of his original ideas. More importantly FH already contradicts the Encyclopedia in Heretics and Chapterhouse, to me that's the main reason why I don't view that book as part of the lore in any shape or form. Plus keep in mind that most fans did not read a word from that book since it was published only once back when it came out so it's more of a curiosity / collectors item nowadays.
0

User is online   johnnythewolf 

  • -85

#160

View PostZaxx, on 05 March 2019 - 12:37 AM, said:

The gameplay of KKND is very much like C&C. I don't remember it as being bad btw., hell, KKND 2: Krossfire was a beautiful looking RTS back in the day and it had a cool atmosphere too.


I was talking about Dark Colony!

This post has been edited by johnnythewolf: 05 March 2019 - 05:34 PM

0

User is offline   MrFlibble 

  • 661

#161

View PostZaxx, on 05 March 2019 - 06:34 AM, said:

Yeah, the idea of the Dune lore is interesting in itself but overall I have to say that I never hated the Brian Herbert / Kevin J. Anderson books. Yes, the same kind of depth isn't there but I really can't fault them for that, I mean it's quite obvious that Frank Herbert was a genius and there is no living up to that. And really I think that the 6 Frank Herbert books are so complex that they serve as a great groundwork for interesting but lighter to read sci-fi: not every book has to be a masterpiece if the universe itself is already a masterpiece.

That would be a fine argument if the first like ten new books weren't so full of inconsistencies and/or direct contradictions to the originals with no good explanation for them.

View PostZaxx, on 05 March 2019 - 06:34 AM, said:

With that said I can't think of the 6 FH books as a "hexalogy" simply because at the end of Chapterhouse it's very obvious that a concluding Dune 7 was planned.

I only use the term "hexalogy" as shorthand for "the six books written by FH", with no implication of completeness (but I'm fine with there being only six of them).

View PostZaxx, on 05 March 2019 - 06:34 AM, said:

On the note of inconsistencies: upon closer inspection the FH books have those too (for example: the axolotl-tanks of the later books contradict what you learn about them in Dune Messiah)

I don't believe there's an inconsistency in the fact that Ghola production may or may not have changed over the time between Messiah and Heretics. After all, the reader is given no firsthand experience with the tanks until the last two books, and the Tleilaxu were known to be exceptionally secretive. And that's an in-universe explanation, while of course FH changed his concept of the Tleilaxu.

View PostZaxx, on 05 March 2019 - 06:34 AM, said:

More importantly FH already contradicts the Encyclopedia in Heretics and Chapterhouse, to me that's the main reason why I don't view that book as part of the lore in any shape or form.

Well, that actually doesn't seem important to me at all because there's no way he had to be consistent with something he didn't write, and didn't consider an authoritative source. It's the exact opposite here, FH's books are the authoritative source; and you couldn't expect the authors of the Encyclopaedia to be consistent with what did not exist back when they were working on it.

Anyway, the Encyclopaedia is important if only because it influenced Westwood games; big thanks to everyone involved for that (I wish I remembered where I had read that dev interview, it had some very interesting snippets of information!). And it is also an enjoyable read, e.g. some cool stuff written by professional linguists on in-universe languages. It doesn't matter if FH agreed on everything, just that the authors loved his books and put thought into the concepts they developed on their own.

I guess this illustrates my standing on the issues of canon.

But the position of BH and KA is different because they were supposedly building upon the existing legacy of Frank's books. The argument that FH had his inconsistencies too cannot be valid here: an author is entitled to changing their mind whenever they like (well, like anyone is when it concerns their own ideas and opinions), but a much greater deference to the source material is expected in the case of continuing the story when the original author is no longer around. It's not fan fiction (fans are entitled to their interpretation as well, no matter how far this may be from the original author's intention), but from what came out of it, it's more like fan fiction to me.

View PostSledgehammer, on 04 March 2019 - 02:32 AM, said:

Also I never heard of KKND and definitely got to admit that just from the first look at screenshots I've got C&C and RA feeling.

i'd dare say the work they did with the terrain somewhat surpasses the quality of C&C and RA1:
Spoiler



This post has been edited by MrFlibble: 06 March 2019 - 08:08 AM

1

User is offline   Sledgehammer 

  • 726

#162

Funny, it even has literal scorpions.
0

User is offline   gemeaux333 

  • 10

#163

"Mine scorpions", and I would say the graphics are better in KKND than in KKND 2 Crossfire
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 467

#164

View PostMrFlibble, on 06 March 2019 - 07:29 AM, said:

But the position of BH and KA is different because they were supposedly building upon the existing legacy of Frank's books. The argument that FH had his inconsistencies too cannot be valid here: an author is entitled to changing their mind whenever they like (well, like anyone is when it concerns their own ideas and opinions), but a much greater deference to the source material is expected in the case of continuing the story when the original author is no longer around. It's not fan fiction (fans are entitled to their interpretation as well, no matter how far this may be from the original author's intention), but from what came out of it, it's more like fan fiction to me.

That's where I disagree: the way I see it it's good if the new authors have full creative control even to the extent of changing stuff except for the fundamentals. I like that they are doing their own thing instead of being slaves to FH's style of writing and ideas because that's what keeps the universe fresh. They carry the torch now and that's fine.

Here's an extreme example of when things can go weird: Dracula the Un-Dead by Dacre Stoker. I'm a huge fan of Bram Stoker's original Dracula so I was curious when I learned that one of his relatives (don't remember the exact family connection, maybe he is Bram's great-greatnephew?) is writing an official sequel after all these years. The book is interesting to say the least, it was marketed as a sequel but it's actually not a real continuation to the original book but rather a collection of weird but interesting retcons. Dracula can walk in daylight in the original, now he can't. He is absolutely evil as fuck in the original book, now he's a borderline positive character while the heroes of the old book are miserable old men who seem a lot less heroic than they were. On top of all this even the timeline doesn't fit the original book, they changed the year where the original story took place.

How does that fit? The original Dracula novel exists in the world of the sequel, Bram Stoker is a character in the new book and the story is basically that he wrote the original novel after somebody who saw what happened told him the story. Basically "he got it wrong" is the explanation for all the changes. The reason they took this route is because the publisher ordered Bram to change the original book back in the day but the relatives didn't like that so they wrote a sequel to the Dracula nobody (except for them of course) actually read + they wanted to modernize the Dracula mythos by adapting the vampire traits that are common now.

The result is a book that takes a lot of time to explain the differences and because of thait it's pretty mediocre overall but it's actually a fairly good read with a lot of interesting tidbits. I can't say I fully enjoyed it after being a fan of the original but it could surprise me and some of those surprises were really good. On top of that the wild rush of ideas from the sequel resulted in a new book called Dracul (it's sort of a prequel to the original book) and that's actually fantastic so even though the start was shaky Dacre managed to write a book that lives up to the legacy of the original by using his own ideas.

So you know, I don't agree with fundamental changes like that but change is needed to freshen up the material and an author should always have the room for experimentation because that's what leads to better material. Sure, BH and KJA have a ton of minor inconsistencies but you just kinda have to accept those and don't pay much attention to them because sometimes (not always, sure) it's worth it to go along for the ride.

Honestly the way I see it the biggest mistake of the new Dune novels is that they stay too close to Frank Herbert's work and that's why the inconsistencies are annoying. BH and KJA should have started their own, fully original Dune saga a long time ago in way that serves as a continuation to the universe but takes place in a fully different time with all new characters and stories. After Children of Dune even FH realized that the universe is too well known at that point and a drastic change is needed to freshen things up so the God Emperor came and changed everything (that's why that's my second favorite book in the whole franchise after the original Dune, it's literally a metaphor for change out of necessity). Apart from Hunters and Sandworms their Legends of Dune stuff works the best and for a good reason.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 06 March 2019 - 03:21 PM

0

User is offline   gemeaux333 

  • 10

#165

THe KKND soundtrack : https://www.youtube....C391D3236B68EC4

This post has been edited by gemeaux333: 11 March 2019 - 10:22 AM

0

User is offline   MrFlibble 

  • 661

#166

A guy in another forum share this:

1

User is offline   Solais 

  • 24

#167

Some news about the Remasters: https://www.reddit.c...st_art_preview/

This post has been edited by Solais: 19 April 2019 - 02:43 AM

0

User is offline   MrFlibble 

  • 661

#168

I'm gonna be nit-picky and point out that in the original sprite, the outer walls of the Construction Yard are not parallel to the roof but at a slight angle, being farther apart on the front than at the back:
Posted Image
NOTE: this image is in correct aspect ratio (4:3) and taken from an official pre-release screenshot, hence the Nod logo on the roof.

You can also clearly see the shape of the Construction Yard in the cinematic (also recorded in correct aspect ratio). Additionally note that the outer walls also slope a bit as suggested by the sprite (they are flat on the remaster render).


This post has been edited by MrFlibble: 19 April 2019 - 06:07 AM

0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 467

#169

I see the inaccuracy you're talking about but if I'm being honest I just like the remastered version a lot more. It just looks thicker and more massive, it looks like a building that can take a lot of damage now and that's kind of how it should be.
0

User is offline   MrFlibble 

  • 661

#170

View PostZaxx, on 19 April 2019 - 07:03 AM, said:

It just looks thicker and more massive, it looks like a building that can take a lot of damage now and that's kind of how it should be.

Maybe, but what's the point of the remaster if they're not trying to recreate the original game as closely as possible? Just call it a reboot or remake, and reimagine the original elements as much as you like.

Now I didn't closely examine every single in-game sprite from StarCraft Remastered but I have the impression that they are very close to the originals, but with more detail added for the high resolution. Not 100% identical, but at least the general shapes are mostly the same. I was kind of expecting the same approach for C&C -- I heard that the graphics were being sourced to the same studio that did SCR?


This post has been edited by MrFlibble: 19 April 2019 - 10:17 AM

0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 467

#171

Yeah, Lemon Sky is doing the art, the same studio that worked on SCR. As for SCR yes, the remastered art is generally very close to the original but they had a lot more detail to work with there and there are differences, especially at parts of the art where the original lacked detail. Most buildings look the same but most of the unit portraits are very different because the original game had lackluster art there. Some elements were added from SC2 too to make the two games look more consistent in their designs, for example the UED uniforms got some skulls added from Stukov's SC2 design:
Posted Image
And really compared to SC Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert offer a lot less to work with since most of the graphics is very-very simple. Because of this it's fair to expect differences and changes here and there even if they use the CG cutscenes and the portraits for reference. Accuracy is one thing, it also has to look good.
0

User is offline   Sledgehammer 

  • 726

#172

View PostSolais, on 19 April 2019 - 02:43 AM, said:

Some news about the Remasters: https://www.reddit.c...st_art_preview/

I'm getting Generals vibe from it. I wonder if there will be NOD/GDI symbol on it along with the faction colors.

Anyway, for those who want to see what's the deal without time wasting:
Posted Image

Quote

Fellow Command & Conquer fans,

We are approaching the conclusion of our pre-production phase, having achieved several of our key milestones since our last Reddit post. During March we delivered our first playable campaign mission (GDI Mission 1), which included multiple samples of the remastered art running at 4k. This was accompanied by a more complete Visual Target image, which helps the dev team align around our goals for the artistic fidelity. We are now in the middle of getting Multiplayer up and running for the first time, along with dozens of art assets iterating towards their finalized look. Last week we showed many of these items to the Community Council, and continue to receive fantastic feedback via their contributions.

With that in mind, today we wanted to share a glimpse of the pre-production work with all of you here in the C&C community. And this is the first time anyone outside of EA or the Community Council has seen work from the Remaster. In this spirit, we felt it appropriate to start with one of the first assets you see in Command & Conquer - the classic Construction Yard.

Now, if you’ve been reading our previous posts, our primary goal with the visual approach is to maintain the authenticity of the original in-game asset. It’s worth calling out that if there’s a conflict between the in-game asset, cinematic asset, or UI portrait, we’re always going to side with the in-game asset. That being said, if there are opportunities to pull in details from the cinematic footage to enhance an asset, we’ll do our best to incorporate those details. A good example here would be the blue pattern / texturing on the Con Yard door (Inspired by the classic Con Yard unpacking cinematic).

As always, we are eager to hear your thoughts in the comments, and looking forward to sharing more details about the visual approach down the line.

Cheers,

Jim Vessella

Jimtern


This post has been edited by Sledgehammer: 19 April 2019 - 09:29 AM

0

User is offline   MrFlibble 

  • 661

#173

View PostZaxx, on 19 April 2019 - 09:19 AM, said:

Most buildings look the same but most of the unit portraits are very different

I should have specified, I was not talking about portraits, only about in-game sprites that appear on the map.

Also that UED collage is hilarious, as if the Brood War intro or the rest of the game established them as the "good guys".

View PostZaxx, on 19 April 2019 - 09:19 AM, said:

And really compared to SC Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert offer a lot less to work with since most of the graphics is very-very simple. Because of this it's fair to expect differences and changes here and there even if they use the CG cutscenes and the portraits for reference. Accuracy is one thing, it also has to look good.

The in-game graphics may be very simple because of the low resolution, but both Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert 1 feature a comparatively large amount of high-resolution renders in addition to many cinematics showing a great deal of buildings and units in rather close detail (StarCraft has way less to show in this department). How about using this for reference:
Posted Image
This model might not be very detailed by today's standards but at least make the additions or changes meaningful. What are those huge bolted plates in front of the Con Yard door supposed to be? The crane actually places the prefab building on that platform, so it has to be flat, not have these large seams where the plates join. Also the FMV shows engineers walking around there (and the new model actually has a door for them, like in the original video), which would not be easy with such an uneven surface.

It seems to me that the designer was just adding details that seemed "cool" instead of being meaningful.
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 467

#174

View PostMrFlibble, on 19 April 2019 - 10:16 AM, said:

This model might not be very detailed by today's standards but at least make the additions or changes meaningful. What are those huge bolted plates in front of the Con Yard door supposed to be?

I dunno, maybe the individual pieces of the MCV? :) I guess there is some reasoning behind those bits and pieces but we won't know for sure until we see the proper animation for the MCV's transformation. Overall what's important to me is that it feels like Tiberian Dawn tech: it's simple and to the point yet you see that "HD detail" a modern remaster should have.
0

User is offline   MrFlibble 

  • 661

#175

View PostZaxx, on 19 April 2019 - 05:40 PM, said:

Overall what's important to me is that it feels like Tiberian Dawn tech: it's simple and to the point yet you see that "HD detail" a modern remaster should have.

I'm more concerned with the question of the extent at which the developers are willing to consult original material like the renders I mentioned above. After all, Jim Vessella's post says that

Quote

our primary goal with the visual approach is to maintain the authenticity of the original in-game asset. It’s worth calling out that if there’s a conflict between the in-game asset, cinematic asset, or UI portrait, we’re always going to side with the in-game asset. That being said, if there are opportunities to pull in details from the cinematic footage to enhance an asset, we’ll do our best to incorporate those details. A good example here would be the blue pattern / texturing on the Con Yard door (Inspired by the classic Con Yard unpacking cinematic). [emphasis added]

I think no one will state that there is a substantial conflict between how the ConYard looks in the original game, in the cinematic and in the strategy guide. However the remastered version appears more like something created from a rather vague memory of the original ConYard's appearance, rather than from directly consulting original sources.

The problem is that it simply doesn't look the same. First off, compare this to the strategy guide render, the remaster looks flatter. This is probably because the artist was using the raw sprite as a reference, without regard to the aspect ratio problem. In my post above, I showed the original sprite with correct proportions, here's what the raw image looks like:
Posted Image
It is true that starting from the Macintosh port, Westwood disregarded the aspect ratio problem and included video modes that allow (or force) the user to play in the wrong ratio, although at least in the Windows version, if you have a 4:3 display you can play properly if you choose the 640x400 mode. However it doesn't mean that the remaster should not rectify the problem.

The original C&C is a DOS game running in VGA mode, and the graphics were made with the aspect ratio correction in mind. In the tried-and-true example, the GDI logo looks oval in the uncorrected DOS screenshot and perfectly round in the corrected one:
Spoiler

There's also a high-res render of the GDI logo released by Westwood which proves that it was conceived as round and not oval (in case you had any doubts), making it easy to guess which of the above screenshot images is the correct one.

Using uncorrected raw sprites as reference will inevitably result in the remastered sprites having a different height-to-width ratio. I can hardly term that "maintaining the authenticity" of the graphics assets.

As for the remastered ConYard keeping the essential spirit of the original C&C tech: the original game's ConYard has a distinct, rather unusual shape that makes it iconic, whereas the remastered version is more of a simple rectangular hangar, dull and boring. I don't know why you think it should feel more sturdy and durable than the original.

Anyway, here's the remastered version with the (more or less) correct aspect ratio:
Posted Image
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 467

#176

I don't think they are basing the remaster on the stretched look (why would they do that?) but the difference may have something to with the viewing angle. The old C&C games have this weird thing going on where the structures and units appear to be isometric while the terrain clearly works as it would from a top down perspective. Considering that the engine will be a mix of the original source code and Petroglyph's newer tech it just might happen that the remaster will be more consistent and use something that's closer to the look of TS / RA2.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: Yesterday, 06:46 PM

0

User is offline   MrFlibble 

  • 661

#177

View PostZaxx, on 20 April 2019 - 06:44 PM, said:

I don't think they are basing the remaster on the stretched look (why would they do that?)

You mean vertically stretched? That is how the game was supposed to look, originally (see above).

View PostZaxx, on 20 April 2019 - 06:44 PM, said:

but the difference may have something to with the viewing angle. The old C&C games have this weird thing going on where the structures and units appear to be isometric while the terrain clearly works as it would from a top down perspective.

The terrain actually has cliffs, roads and rivers going in all eight directions. The bridges are actually in the isometric perspective, so no, it's not purely top down. The underlying system is still rectangular tiles, but this holds true for StarCraft as well with it pronounced isometric-looking terrain. AoE on the other hand already had diamond-shaped isometric terrain tiles
0

User is offline   Micky C 

  • Honored Donor
  • 3,747

#178

I’ve heard CnC described as a 3/4 birds eye view.

Polymer wishlist: Global illumination, SSAO, Bloom, reflective surfaces, adjustable specular (wetness), volumetric lighting.
Mapper of the Month December 2014.

Herbs? Tell me more!
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 467

#179

View PostMrFlibble, on 21 April 2019 - 01:57 AM, said:

The terrain actually has cliffs, roads and rivers going in all eight directions. The bridges are actually in the isometric perspective, so no, it's not purely top down. The underlying system is still rectangular tiles, but this holds true for StarCraft as well with it pronounced isometric-looking terrain. AoE on the other hand already had diamond-shaped isometric terrain tiles

Yeah I know that it's not purely top down but it really works that way gameplay wise even if it can appear somewhat differently. It always looked weird to me so I'd love it if the remasters were to establish some consistency. I don't think the game would look that different if they based the viewing angle around how the structures look because what MickyC is saying really only holds true for the buildings, the rest of the game is kind of a mix between top down, isometric 3D and even 2D if you consider some of the unit animations too. :D

And yeah, SC is a bit similar with how it's presented as an isometric game while really it's just the WarCraft 2 engine shown from an altered perspective. :D Btw. that's why the pathfinding is so shit in that game: ramps are kinda hacked into the environment and they cause only half of some tiles being there, the AI can't use those so when your units are using ramps they get stuck. At least it looks better and somewhat works better than in C&C where you can't really feel any sort of heigh difference, you don't even go up a cliff, you just enter a secluded area where are some cliffs around you for some reason. :D Like if you look at this shot:
Posted Image
There is no height difference at the south side of the base, they just put some cliffs there because they look cool. :) This on the other hand:
Posted Image
Yeah, that's nice, there it matters if you're on top or at the bottom, it's not just an obsctruction in the terrain.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: Today, 10:26 AM

0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 467

#180

Basically what I'd love to see in the remaster is the Nintendo 64 version, just not in full 3D:


Also: look at how the N64 ConYard looks like:
Posted Image
Interesting... :D

This post has been edited by Zaxx: Today, 10:38 AM

0

Share this topic:


  • 6 Pages +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks are property of their respective owners. Instead of reading this text, you could be playing Ion Maiden! ;) © 2018 Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options