southern_land wrote (View Post): |
there just hasn't been the resurgance to a single online playing site to built on the renewed interest. |
Quote: |
CC2 days were the peak |
vonB wrote (View Post): | ||
There is an argument for that. It sold the largest number of copies (1.25 million +). Is that more than all the others put together? Perhaps not, but we do not know. However from a 'Community' point of view, I think the argument for CC3 is compelling. Single player interest has fallen despite the plethora of Mods and Maps, but without them it would ave fallen MUCH further. I will admit pre-CC3, after I had thrashed CC2, it was beginning to get a bit stale. You can only play the same battles over and aover again so many times before you want new challanges. Then Maps and Mods came along, and the foundations of the online Community. Woo hoo! It has not stopped since. You can still see something from those days in action, and that is Ryan's Board. That's where I used to go pre-SSI, and I seem to recall that is where the first CC2 custom maps were available for Community download. Now the problem is the game itself. It's just human nature to want something new to explore and experience. The demand for a compelling Strategic Game as well as the Tactical Game has been there for a long time. We want to see new graphics (though I believe the top down resolution is fundemental to the attraction of this game). Whether true 3D can work is yet to be seen. It's not about pretty graphics but about human interaction, but poor 3D graphics would be a downer. However, these things are relatively easy to produce. What is not is AI. You think it is? Hmmmmm..... The psych AI in CC was developed in collabration with Academia, who could provide the depth of logic independantly of the developers, and as specialists in that field would be able to design algorithms superior to non specialists. That's why we have such a good psych model. The same approach was not taken regarding the Tactical AI, and as a result (maybe due to publishing pressures?) resulted in something rather primitive. If anyone has made any study into the issues of developing AI, then you will realise this is an extremely complex issue. How far has mankind got producing ANY AI? With the world's brains and resources, is there a 'machine' that can operate at the level of a Human Being (except perhaps in some small particulars)? And you expect a Team of game programmers and entrepreneurs to somehow build this marvellous thing that the rest of the world has not been able to so far? I rest my case. Having said that, it is still possible to produce a good enough AI to give us a satisfying game experience, but be aware of our limitations! Now I will leave you with a tongue in cheek thought... If we were to build an AI that is self-learning, could it at some point just turn around to us and say to us "Up yours sonny!" |
vonB wrote (View Post): |
The same approach was not taken regarding the Tactical AI, and as a result (maybe due to publishing pressures?) resulted in something rather primitive. |
Quote: |
I also wonder if I could tolerate the dope smoking,nacho eating smart ass on the other end when he excuses himself to take a hit,or chews the dammed Nachos. |
QM wrote (View Post): |
Schreck used to get up me for grabbing a beer during our CCIII GW GC. My entire assualt line would pause and go to cover on no mans land. In reality it was me grabbing a beer from the fridge, not the intense artillery from his heavies.
buuurp, sorry cobber |
platoon_michael wrote (View Post): |
So I guess it's safe to say when all the CCIII players left the hey day went with it?
I think it's also safe to say that CC is an old mans game, and not many older men play video games. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT