Die Frage waere wohl besser gewesen: Welches ist das bessere Spiel, Generals oder C&C3?
Dann waere eventuell die Diskussion nicht so ausgeartet
Wie auch immer, ich wollte mal hier was von einem der Ex-Entwickler einstreuen:
Zitat:
Incursion was our working name for C&C3, but that wasn't converted into Generals by WWP. Incursion was being worked on after Generals was already being developed -- we were using SAGE to dev it, actually. Generals was always its own game. It was more an updating of C&C1 than anything akin to what C&C3 was going to be. A few of the unit concepts for early C&C3 ended up in RA2 / Yuri's... as yes, we were working on C&C3 stuff that long ago, right after TS/FS, but before we stopped work on C&C3 to work on Continuum.
C&C3 went through several incarnations at WWS and at EALA over the years after that. The current game (C&C3) doesn't look to have any of the new/unique elements we were playing around with back then (which I can't discuss), but feels like TS 2.5 in terms of story / fiction, a re-imagining of parts of TS in some ways I guess. If Generals was C&C TD 1.5, then C&C3 being C&C TS 2.5 makes sense.
[Link]
|
Also hat SonGohan wohl nicht ganz unrecht mit der Aussage, dass Generals innovativ ist.
Ich persoenlich finde auch, dass Generals eine interessante Vielfalt bietet, speziell mit den
Unterfraktionen im ZH Addon.