Generals 2 to not have Single Player 16 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Antilles VIP Member

The Imaginative

114,272 XP

17th July 2006

0 Uploads

9,726 Posts

1 Threads

#1 6 years ago

C&C: Generals 2 Won’t Have A Single Player Mode | GameFront

Right.. you know, all I can really say is fuck.

Normally, I like EA, I dont really see how they are evil, they tend to let quality games be made, even if they do retarded things.

They honestly have fucked up here. Not only are they doing a a retarded thing to a GOOD game series, but they are ruining a game series that are usually quality. Hell, really they started with CnC4 there. But honestly, a game that started as a single player games, NOT having single player? I thought they said they wanted to go back to the games roots?! I mean.. What the fuck!!!!!

/rant.

Anyways... reactions?


Garruscopy.png



darkclone

116,900 XP

10th April 2006

0 Uploads

11,075 Posts

0 Threads

#2 6 years ago

If it means there's no skirmish mode, against AI, how the Hell are you meant to practice for playing against people? Or if you don't have decent internet? Bit daft really.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,720 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,174 Posts

6 Threads

#3 6 years ago

Hah! I wonder how much of this is based off the success/acceptance of Diablo 3's always online mode.




Demonseed VIP Member

Gettin' real tired of you ducking me, man...

50 XP

29th December 2004

0 Uploads

464 Posts

0 Threads

#4 6 years ago

Not sure I would call the reaction to Diablo 3's always online mode 'success/acceptance.' After all, player numbers are dropping precipitously, lawsuits have been filed in multiple countries, and players are generally disgruntled.

Then again, isn't this already the case with most EA games? Maybe their theory is that it can't get any worse.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,421 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,020 Posts

8 Threads

#5 6 years ago

This seems to be a general trend, it is probably cheaper to focus on multiplayer than to design several single player campaigns. A good multiplayer game lives longer than a good single player game, so I guess this means that there is more potential for revenue from DLCs.

And as for the article - SimCity without singe player? Those EA guys have lost it. Not everything needs to be a mandatory social-gaming web2.0 experience.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,720 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,174 Posts

6 Threads

#6 6 years ago

Demonseed;5656007Not sure I would call the reaction to Diablo 3's always online mode 'success/acceptance.' After all, player numbers are dropping precipitously, lawsuits have been filed in multiple countries, and players are generally disgruntled.

Then again, isn't this already the case with most EA games? Maybe their theory is that it can't get any worse.

People still bought it though. It might not be a game with lasting appeal, but they got over the always online thing as far as it composed a barrier to entry. And once it's on your computer and set up and you've got it to remember your password... how much more do you really notice it?

Social psychology tells us that one of the key methods to encourage people to go along with something is to allow verbal dissent but to insist on behavioural compliance. Or to put it another way: If people talk and do the thing anyway, for whatever reason, then soon enough talking becomes what they do instead of something real.

"Sure always-online modes are a horrible intrusive inconvenience, everyone knows we dislike them, but that's just the way things are done nowadays." - I imagine that's how it works out.

There are a lot of things killing EA, I think. The rather vampiric business model that milks existing IPs without encouraging any innovation or investment in game-mechanics, interface paradigms, or anything like that chief among them. But I don't think the always online thing's especially responsible.




Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,954 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,512 Posts

38 Threads

#7 6 years ago

Publishers are slowly losing their rational decision making abilities and draining out their logic entirely. There's absolutely no reasoning that can explain, in a sane manner, why they've taken this decision. None. They're only doing it because they can, because I seriously refuse to believe that their production team can be so thoroughly dysfunctional to think this is a good idea that will improve the game.

Their old motto of "Challenge Everything" would be more appropriate today.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#8 6 years ago

That really makes me uspet. I mean I like playing multiplayer like anyone else, but singleplayer campaigns always are interesting if there's some cool maps and features, maybe even a story (though honestly the first generals was corny, but it was fun nonetheless). The PC Gamer article that is linked in the article discusses it more, and it says no single-player whatsoever, so I guess that includes offline skirmish too.




Red Menace

SCHOFIELD DID 4/30

415,760 XP

10th August 2004

0 Uploads

40,364 Posts

1 Threads

#9 6 years ago

Should rename the thread "Generals 2 to not have my money."

I essentially only play games for the singleplayer story nowadays.


sigpic82523_3.gif</div></body></html>



Antilles VIP Member

The Imaginative

114,272 XP

17th July 2006

0 Uploads

9,726 Posts

1 Threads

#10 6 years ago

Its supposedly going to be Free to play, so your money doesnt matter. For the basic game that is.


Garruscopy.png



  • 1
  • 2