EA’s Tiberium Delayed, Big Time

Electronic Arts is (was?) building a first-person-shooter based on the Command and Conquor series and was set to release on PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. The original title was originally slated for 2008 and now has been pushed to EA’s fiscal year 2009 or 20010.

The game was not shown off at E3, which is a bit weird, but considering other titles that didn’t make an E3 announcement (halo) perhaps this isn’t too out of the usual. Perhaps the game design was harder to tackle than originally intended? The only thing we know is that it’s slipped a good deal of time from the original date.

The debate is still up on if we need yet another first-person-shooter title, even if it’s based on the C&C series. It seems they’re using a popular series to launch another FPS genre game, will it stand alone as an innovative title or simply be another FPS title skinned with C&C character models?

(Thanks, 1up)

0 thoughts on “EA’s Tiberium Delayed, Big Time”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Episode 277: Win Borderlands 2 ContestEpisode 277: Win Borderlands 2 Contest

This week’s Gaming Podcast is exciting as we’re giving away a copy of the Xbox 360 version of Borderlands 2, which Jordan Lund drools over, while Jonah Falcon urges players to check out Kerbal Space Program. The Gaming Flashback is none other than the classic The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind.

As far as game news:

  • Guild Wars 2 suffering serious issues during Headstart
  • Ex-IGDA chair frustrated with post-launch monetization
  • DICE quadruples Battlefield 3 servers for 360, PS
  • Peter Moore sez DLC backlash is from older gamers

Finally, the Question of the Week is, “What is your favorite game from the decade of the 2000’s”. For some help, check out this article.

Are You An Okami Fan?Are You An Okami Fan?

PlayStation 2 fans may recall a little title called Okami, it’s an action adventure game developed by Clover Studios and published by Capcom. The original Okami title received fairly high reviews by many popular game sites, although there were a few flaws, the receiption seemed well received.

Clover Studios was closed after the release and all the intellectual properties went back to Capcom, the company that funded the studio, leaving Capcom responsible for future sequels.

Christian “Sven” Svensson said “I think we need a lot more people buying the current version before we seriously consider a sequel”. A harsh statement on the game’s combined sales figures, perhaps, but also probably an accurate one. (Kotaku)

This is the sound of a developer not so happy with prior performance and finding it too risky to try for a second title. Although many sequels outshine their parents there is some truth to the fact that slow selling parents will create slow selling sequels, there is something to be said about learning form past experiences.

The game had good reviews, isn’t it worth trying to make a second game based on that? Maybe people just aren’t jazzed about Japaense folklore, myths and legends as the basis for a game.

Evolution of RPG’s – Gamers Don’t Want an End?Evolution of RPG’s – Gamers Don’t Want an End?

I remember a day when old RPG games had either a level cap or a definite ending. From Pool of Radiance to Secrets of the Silver Blades to Final Fantasy the game had a final boss or stage and often had some type of level cap. Today, gamers don’t want it to end, they’d rather have the option to wonder around aimlessly or completing minor quests in order to soak up every ounce of money they spent on the title.

linkNow even Bethesda is saying “we’ve learned our lesson” from the whiplash of ending their game title and capping levels. Gamers want to go back and re-try content they missed, they want to run side quests and talk to everyone in the world they want to grind themselves to über powerful levels and become a god in their fantasy world. Can you blame them?

You can’t really blame them for wanting to maximize the content, although it’s slightly more evolved than RPG’s of old. Perhaps it was World of Warcraft and other MMORPG’s that brought us to the stage in life where we all want to squeeze every last RPG dime out of the title. As a kid I wondered the world of Hyrule and covered every tile of graphical color, burned every bush, bombed every stone looking for all the content. However, even Zelda had an end with scrolling credits – you didn’t just land on a platform with your master sword and a dream.

Other titles have used level caps to limit you and draw you into the next release of the game. This was popular in the D&D world because the game is designed to target specific levels of difficulty. They may only allow you to gain level 10 because the enemies are no tougher than level 13, allowing the challenge to be good but not overwhelming. If they allow you to get to level 50 they’d have to design the game so all the enemies grow powerful along with you — that’s not always a desired result.

Final Fantasy is a popular franchise that typically allows you to grow infinitely powerful depending on how much time you want to spend repeat killing the same enemies. Gamers aren’t always into the grind, they just want to grind “enough” to make the challenges a little more do-able.

Today, however, with larger storage capacity, larger development teams and the desire to build more value into your gameplay experience titles have dozens of side quests and sub-plots that are totally optional. The result of so many sub-quests results in a player who is much more powerful at the end of those quests compared to a player who sticks to the narrow path of the main plot. So, games much grow dynamically challenging to keep the fun per dollar high.

Do you like your RPG’s to have a definite end and a high but capped level?