I fondly remember playing the original Command & Conquer back in the days. It was a blast, few have missed that the series has been quite successful since. I have actually avoided the fourth installment in the series until now, though. The mediocre review scores and reviewers pointing out the large changes in game mechanics put me off buying it at full price. Now I recently bought it at a Christmas sale, though. I wanted to play it, just to see for myself. And since it has been advertised as the series finale I was of course a bit curious to see how the story ends.
The reviews I had read didn't lie, the way the game is played is vastly different from the earlier games. Now, don't get me wrong, I really think that it should be encouraged for game developers to try different things, to experiment and to renew themselves. I'm convinced that such an approach yields much more fun and interesting games in the end. Despite this I think that there are a few important things to consider when developing game number four in a well established and highly successful series.
When you are dealing with a sequel of that kind I think that it's not at all fruitful to experiment too much with the fundamental concepts of the gameplay. The game sales will probably come from people who have played and liked the earlier games, and thus expects a similar experience. I would consider the chances very slim that people who actually didn't like the earlier games will jump on the bandwagon for game four even if the core gameplay is changed. There is so much competition from other titles that this group at large probably rather will bet their money on something they haven't had a bad experience with. In that respect I think that a sequel should cater to what has made earlier games popular with the fans, and changes should aim to enhance and enrich these features.
There is also a distinction between inventing and borrowing, and to my eyes Command & Conquer 4 does very little inventing and quite a lot of borrowing. Heavy aspects of the core gameplay has been borrowed from Company of Heroes style games. This further adds to my disagreement with the developer's decision making. To toss out the base building and even the entire resource management known and liked by the fanbase and replace it with mechanics almost entirely borrowed from a different intellectual property is a shaky decision. Now, Company of Heroes is also a good game, but most people buying Command & Conquer 4 expects a Command & Conquer game, not Company of Heroes. Expectations get shattered and disappointment arises, regardless of how fun the game actually is. And how much fun it is will of course be up to personal taste, but the audience of this game is probably, as discussed above, biased towards an endearment of the old core gameplay.
I have so far played through the NOD-campaign, wanting to see the end of the story. To sensitive eyes this is perhaps a bit of a spoiler, so jump to the next paragraph if you don't want to read it, but the end is not as conclusive as would have suited my taste at least. Most questions are still left unanswered.
Command & Conquer 4 is an okay game, not great but still entertaining. I was however, as many fans of the series was, disappointed by the fundamental changes to the mechanics that, in all honesty, were totally uncalled for. To try new concepts and ideas is commendable but the really bold moves should probably be tried on a new intellectual property instead of on an already established long running series. If Command & Conquer 4 had been released under a different name I think it would have been much better received.
All in all this wasn't the best note to end the series on I think, if the series IS over now, that is.
All the best
No comments:
Post a Comment