No Single Player for Command and Conquer: Generals 2

[Angel Molina]

...Some further details have been revealed, among them that the game will not have a single player campaign, as the developer intends to focus on multiplayer online skirmish gaming.

Well, it's not too surprising considering it's an F2P now, there's no point in making a SP campaign since it's difficult to make money if players just played SP.

Command and Conquer: Generals 2 will be the first to get the treatment, but other games in the series will follow...

What? NOOOO, YOU MONSTERS!!!! D=
Maybe I would let two games like these slide with an F2P model, but I want some old fashion C&C with a good story/campaign, skirmish, etc.

Your....... getting rid of campaigns to "get back to the roots of what made Command & Conquer great."
Every C&C game had a campaign. That's not going back! Its trampling over 17 years of the series

Couldn't have said it better myself.... (oh the irony)

 

[teqrevisited]

Killed it. Just like they killed the Tiberium timeline. Arguably that killed the entire franchise but this is just another nail.

 

[hutchy27]

I heard this earlier and I'm not getting it now, was looking forward to it but now there is only one thing I can do.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well congratulations. You've successfully killed any interest I may have had in it. I also weep for the single player game in general because how long before this becomes standard?

 

[kajinking]

A Command and Conquer game without the ridiculously campy cutscenes is not a Command and Conquer game.

Plus, while I love RTS games, I can only play against NPC's set at the "brain-dead chimpanzee" level. At least then I have a fighting chance. Put me up against people and I get steamrolled within 30 fucking of a match.

So yeah, basically I'm going to pass on this.

Yeah pretty much this for me too, I love RTSs but I never touch the multiplayer thanks to my inability to beat anything other than a half broken AI who just makes a million transports and does nothing with them at base (supreme commander). Plus I have to agree on the cutscenes, I started with Tiberium Wars and loved the newest Red Alert since they actually had decent story that played out in those made-for-tv movie quality cutscenes.

 

[Quintin Stone]

Isn't Generals the one that absofuckinlutely sucked anyway? The one with shittier AI than any previous C&C game and indeed possibly any previous RTT ever?

Y'know, the one no one would've bought anyway?

Actually, it was the best of the series.

 

[Kuurion]

I have not heard, anywhere I've loked, a single good thing to be said about this change. A single good opinion, or cry out positivity from fans. I wish we could make EA see this. They see what they want to see.

 

[mattaui]

Save me from all this e-sports nonsense. I'm glad it's something people enjoy, but I dislike seeing my games retooled for the purpose.

Granted, I haven't liked many of the C&C games that have come out since Generals, but the first couple C&C and Red Alert games were some of my favorites.

 

[wetfart]

Every C&C game had a campaign. Thats not going back! Its trampling over 17 years of the series.

What about Command and Conquer: Sole Survivor and Tiberium Alliances?

Either way, the reason I enjoyed Command and Conquer so much was for the campy acting and the, at least to me, enjoyable storylines. More Billy Dee Williams; less e-sport silliness.

 

[Carnagath]

Isn't Generals the one that absofuckinlutely sucked anyway? The one with shittier AI than any previous C&C game and indeed possibly any previous RTT ever?

Y'know, the one no one would've bought anyway?

Mmmnope, Generals actually did really well, many people bought it, and it was a solid enjoyable game, with a great expansion to it as well.

As for the news, it's devastating. If it cost money I wouldn't buy it, but since it's free I'll try it just out of curiosity and to quite possibly laugh my ass off at EA's concept of a "F2P model", right when I assume they will be asking you to pay 10$ to increase your maximum unit size and stomp non-paying players. This game is doomed, because it's a F2P game by EA, and because you can't make a better online RTS than SC2 without putting in the required time, money and effort.

 

[Jandau]

A series made popular by single player campaigns with campy cinematics and B-movie plots gets a sequel with no single player campaign whatsoever? Yeah... I'll be skipping this one, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one...

EDIT: Also, it's supposed to be F2P and focused on e-sports? I sure hope they understand that you can't do a F2P with Pay-to-win and hope for any chance at e-sport recognition. Oh who am I kidding, it's EA, they have purged the last of their common sense years ago...

 

[Mathak]

Frankly, after C&C4 I'd say not including a single-player campaign is a mercy. At least that way there can be no misunderstanding whatsoever as to the nature and quality of any future games.

 

[kajinking]

Well it's funny as soon as EA made the game multiplayer only a poll popped up on the EA forums asking which was most important singleplayer or multiplayer and singleplayer is pretty much wrecking at this point. I won't post the link but feel free to check it out if you are ok with entering the unholy lair of EA.

 

[NLS]

Well, then I won't be buying Generals 2, simple as that.

Such a shame EA also wants to fuck over their other two franchises. I greatly enjoyed the C&C series and the Red Alert offshoot, but EA just came in and fucked it.

Well that was an easy purchase decision, straight to the "no thanks" pile.

It's going to be Free to Play btw, just adding that.

 

[Legion]

Were people actually expecting a free to play game to have a single player campaign? Are you fucking kidding me? It was fairly obvious from the start that this was going to be multiplayer only.

No, people were expecting the game to be similar enough to the previous titles that they enjoyed to be worth getting.

EA may as well have made an entirely new I.P for what they are doing to this, but we all know the only reason they aren't is in the hope that the name convinces people to play it.

 

[Mister Six]

As long as they keep their grubby F2P/Multiplayer-only hands away from Red Alert and get rid of the team responsible for C&C4 I'll let them fuck up Generals, but they start this shit with regular C&C or Red Alert and the gloves come off.

Also, I'm curious as to who in EA thought that it was still a good idea to let this studio call themselves 'Bioware'. Before the whole ME3 shitstorm it was an understandable dick move to pull on people, now it just seems like they're trying to shoot the studio in the foot.

 

[teebeeohh]

i love how people keep saying that they wont buy the free game, way to read past the title
oh and c&c was never good at MP, c&c is playing against friends in lan(so you can smack them) and hilarious camp

 

[Bernzz]

What made the originals great? Strange, I seem to remember hammy acting and fun single player missions. Too bad you won't get any of that now, because EA has their yearly 'franchises we have to ruin' quota to meet.

Oh, and once they're done with Generals 2, it's on to Tiberium and Red Alert? Tiberium is ruined as ruined can be with C&C 4, but Red Alert too? RA3 wasn't that great (personally), but why destroy it further?

I miss Westwood.