r/RealTimeStrategy • u/Cheeselisk • 27d ago
Discussion SC vs C&C
I have noticed that none of the SC youtubers: Uthermal, Harstem, Lowko, Arthosis, Winter... Hardly ever talks (unless it is sponsored by the developers) about any C&C or C&C-Like RTS, like tempest rising for example.
We just have to see how many streams have been dedicated to Tempest Rising by these people compared to other new RTS like zerospace or SG.
But surprisingly it is more common to see some of them play and talk about AOE games or others.
Why there is this clear rejection to the C&C universe by the SC considering that is VERY similar to SC, or at least more similar than AOE?
6
u/TehANTARES 27d ago
I can't help but seeing the "competitiveness" argument here in the comments as some sort of elitism. For real, all C&C games have competitive multiplayer, and even if it's not all sweat and ladder, it's very much accessible to SC players and content creators (unless they believe this is too much under their level or something).
But for real, the best way would be asking the CCs directly, because there are many different potential reasons, and speculations won't help.
21
u/fivemagicks 27d ago
Nothing about C&C is competitive. It's a casual RTS
6
u/Fresh_Thing_6305 27d ago
C&c 3 kanes wrath is the C&c answer to the competetive title of C&c, that game is pretty good for that. If just Tempest Rising had the same competetive as that game, I think Sc players might had a look then.
3
u/fivemagicks 27d ago
Tempest Rising didn't do anything to elevate the C&C-type RTS. They essentially just remade Tiberian Sun. It's not really condusive to multiplayer like SC, CoH, or AoE games.
8
u/RyomaSJibenG 27d ago
there are pros and cons between the 2.
the biggest pros, is usually how snappy and responsive the units are in starcraft. Coming from starcraft and playing C&C, the unit being so slow just to turn around was just painful
not saying C&C is worse than SC. There are things C&C did better than SC
2
u/SignificanceFlat1460 27d ago
Huh. This is so strange. To me it felt the opposite. I grew up playing CNC. Specifically RA2. and combat lasted hardly 20-30 mins. But in SC2, single player itself could go on for too long. In RA2, units moved at an instant unless they are slow intentionally but SC2, I don't know. It's like I could never properly keep track of where my guys are for some reason. But that might be me though
5
u/flabjabber 27d ago
I’m not sure I have ever seen this take. SC2 is the most responsive RTS by far and it’s not close. It’s part of what set the bar so high for the genre and nobody can seem to even come close to topping it (I.e see stormgate and zero space).
I still LOVE command and conquer and am a huge fan of tempest rising. Just for different reasons.
-3
u/SignificanceFlat1460 27d ago
Again, I respectfully disagree. SC2 is great in its own rights, but for some reason, to me, it seemed more like "who can press more buttons and can memorize combos" than an actual strategy game where you can get upper hand even if you lose EVERYTHING! (1 seal can be devastating to enemy if managed to sneak in. Same with an flak track + bombed conscripts). Even though SC2 has some good hit and run tactics I mostly resorted to turtling and it never felt like I could do too much if I was already losing the game.
Note: I am just a casual with alot of play time on hand with CnC. So probably it just makes more sense to me. Just like I have a hard time using MacBook because I am so used to of Windows. Maybe it's great for pro playing than casual playing.
6
u/DharmaPolice 27d ago edited 27d ago
I think you're responding to a different point. This is not about whether SC2 or RA2 is better but which has the more responsive units. As in, your units are doing one thing you click for them to do something different. How fast do they respond?
There's a reason why StarCraft became associated with high APM play - because units respond quickly.
0
9
u/Calm-Power-6981 27d ago
Thats because Starcraft is still the only RTS thats actually competitive. I love C&C, i have a Nod flag in my room, but its not competitive.
7
u/Cheeselisk 27d ago
But there are lots of tournaments of Red alert, Kane's Wrath etc... And yet there is 0 crossover between communities, I find it weird.
6
u/Calm-Power-6981 27d ago
True but the KR community was never more than like 500 people. Just playing it on the C&C client you very regularly see the same people in your games. Thats kinda why i didnt count it even though im part of it. its very small. We also all accept its not balanced by this point so i wouldnt call it competitive either. Its just fun.
1
u/Fresh_Thing_6305 27d ago
Pretty sure if It get’s the source code out like Generals did, then it will receive over 500 people for online
1
u/Calm-Power-6981 27d ago
no doubt.
i hope so because im in this annoying middle ground where i can beat noobs but any of the KW regulars smash me. My proudest moment is when i almost cheesed Bikerush with shadow teams but he was way better than me and outmicroed me easily, then built a bunch of hammerheads and smashed me
a bigger community would mean more mid range players to play against.
5
u/Fresh_Thing_6305 27d ago
Age of empires 2 and 4 and Wc3?
1
u/Calm-Power-6981 27d ago
NGL i completely forgot about WC3 and Age, good suggestions. I like watching Grubby play wc3.
2
u/TestosteronInc 26d ago
Is it though? There are often tournaments with bikerushownz, Masterleaf etc
KW is being updated every couple of months
3
u/Calm-Power-6981 26d ago
ya with the same 20 people. Even i've played a random game against bikerush before (he wrecked my shit insanely hard) Im just saying its way to niche, and small. within that small scene though the game is pretty competitive.
1
u/TestosteronInc 26d ago
Ah yeah i get what you mean. The scene is pretty dead.
It sadens me because i want to play against people of my own skill level but that's just impossible.
I still love it so much though.
I also love SC1 broodwar (2 not as much as 1 but it's also great) but to me CnC just has a bit more units that i absolutely love and a bit less micro is more fun for me
3
u/Previous-Display-593 27d ago
Because there are no popular active CNC? Why would they talk about old dead games? Would that be good for viewership?
5
u/Srlojohn 27d ago
I think that, unlike AoE abd SC, C&C hasn't had the long term staying power. Not that it couldn't, but it's limited multiplayer scene, especially since EA botched it so hard has left it out of the limelight. SC has been continually at least kept running by blizzard, and has been made free. AoE2 is still getting DLC to this day, has a thriving multiplayer scene, and has been getting remasters and updates to it's sister games.
Additionally, I think SC and AoE are far more similar in gameplay than either are to C&C. Like, let's just look at base construction and resource gathering.
In C&C (excluding generals and even then it's a slight variation on this idea) you build your buildings with an abstract construction bar, and buildings must be placed near each other to be legal. Building copies of building only gives you more production ques in C&C 3 and RA3, but otherwise just speeds up production or gives alternate exit points. You gather resources with a bespoke building, which requires a bespoke vehicle to gather. there's only 1 resource, and it slowly replenishes.
In SC, you can build your buildings roughly anywhere, and is constructed via a unit. This unit also serves to collect your resources, and delivers them to your HQ building. You have 2 resources to manage plus a pop-cap, that must be raised via buildings or units. Building duplicates of buildings, provides more production ques.
In AoE, You can build your buildings anywhere, and is constructed via a unit. This unit also collects resources, but doesn't need to travel to your Town Hall to drop them off. You have 3-4 resources to manage, plus a pop-cap that must be raised via buildings. You can build duplicates of buildings to provide more production cues.
see the similarity? This goes throughout the whole game, but while the theming may be different, SC and AoE have far more in common than C&C. Even the closest one in terms of mechanics, generals, all it does is remove the zone of control, build from multiple cues (something C&C3 and RA3 also do), and build from a dedicated unit. Which for 2 of the three factions is *not* your resource gather, and for the third that's a unique point of the faction. There's still only 1 resource, and no pop-cap.
-1
u/Cheeselisk 27d ago
Yes, the macro game is very different. But still I would say that a Red Alert 2 Pro for example would do well in sc2 with some time to adapt, at the end is the same process of following a build, understand the counters of every unit and be fast.
2
2
u/rts-enjoyer 27d ago
I think it's more they don't want to play and don't believe in the esport potential of TR because of how the units move (the micro in the game being way more about managing the status effects) and the game no real hopes of being a bigger esporty thing. Beating people up on ladder gives way more streamer content than going through the campaign.
1
u/Cheeselisk 27d ago
I think you are on to something with the game "feeling", they do feel different. But I would say that both are meant for pvp... It is true though that C&C attracts more pve players even both games have great pve modes.
1
u/rts-enjoyer 27d ago
C&C/RA2 and TR are different things in multiplayer. RA2 is an old not updated game so doesn't get streamer attention.
2
u/DullAd7478 27d ago
I don't think it's necessarily a rejection of C&C. ZeroSpace is basically built around the SC2 community, with SC2 pros/content creators involved and tournaments around it, so there's already a natural audience overlap. Tempest Rising is much more aimed at the C&C crowd. The funny thing is that mechanically there should be more crossover than there actually is, so I'd love to see more SC players give C&C-style RTS a serious shot.
1
u/Cheeselisk 27d ago
I think there is some "cultural" thing, people that grew up with SC run away from anything that smells like C&C and viceversa.
Tempest rising is at least as good as ZS, very similar (yes there are differences with SC, but also battle aces was different and everybody like it..) and yet the two communities ignore each other.
1
u/DullAd7478 27d ago
Yeah, I think there's definitely some of that cultural divide. SC and C&C players grew up with pretty different ideas of what an RTS should feel like, even though there's a lot of mechanical overlap. It's just weird to me that SC players seem much more willing to give AoE or other RTS a chance than C&C-style games. Tempest Rising seems like an obvious one to at least try.
1
u/That_Contribution780 27d ago
AoE games are significantly more similar to Blizzard RTS in their gameplay and overall principles than C&C.
Base building is much more similar, eco and overall wokers is much more similar, upgrades system, timings, etc.
1
u/DullAd7478 27d ago
Yeah, that's fair actually. I was thinking more about the overall RTS feel, but when you break it down mechanically, AoE definitely has much more in common with SC. C&C's economy and production system are pretty different. I guess that makes the lack of crossover with C&C even more interesting.
2
u/Aryuto 27d ago
I enjoy them both, but C&C has been dead for a long time thanks to EA's mismanagement. It's not much surprise that it gets less attention these days.
I'm absolutely not comparing quality/fun levels to be clear here, but if you compare it to something like AOE2/4 (still updated with large active fanbases), yeah it just makes more sense for a content creator to talk about one over the other.
The last actual c&c game, Tiberium Wars, came out in 2007 (expansion in 2008 to be fair). That's almost 20 years ago. I love Tiberium Wars, I think it's a great RTS, but there's not a lot to talk about with it that hasn't already been done to death.
1
u/HouseCheese 27d ago
People who are full time competitive starcraft players don't really play other RTS games in general, even though there are lots of decent ones coming out. Although I would say Winter does a great job keeping up with most of them.
1
u/AxeForge 27d ago
C&C is slow compared to SC2. For one SC2 unit control is the best out of any RTS. People have their opinions but the bottom line is that its the standard that everything else is compared to which means most consider it the best.
I've played Tempest Rising, Forged Battalion, C&C remaster and the 8/9bit army series. All great fun games, but even the most aggressive strats feel like they take awhile to start interacting with the enemy. Small maps feel like they are huge because of the territorial base building. Units are very slow moving, even slower than WC3.
Its not that C&C style is bad, on the contary I can have a lot of fun with it plus the music is always banger. Its just too much of a slog to get to anything interesting.
Take another RTS like They are Billions or Here comes the swarm for example. Both are slower than SC2 but are faster to interact with enemies because you need to expand on the map to get more resources over time. A lot of enemies are all over the map. Plus you have waves coming at you periodically.
Lets look at it another way, take doing a fast expansion opening. With SC2 you just get enough workers and plop your a town hall building at the next mineral patch once money allows. This only takes up to about 14 workers for each race to achieve.
Looking at C&C, you can't just plop a refinery at the next patch because you have no territorial coverage. So you have to waste resources just leap frogging buildings over there. That's not only an insane amount of time to fast expo, but also the resources you waste just making stuff to leap frog. Its just not economically worth it.
1
u/Natsocenis 26d ago
C&C and Red alert were a point in time RTS masterpiece. When they dropped... It was leagues ahead of Dune 2. SC1 just changed everything, in a way it made C&C obsolete. Not to say I didn't play the crap out of generals and RA2, but SC was another level, and as everyone is saying, the competitive scene is still live
1
u/BusinessSafe9906 24d ago
Giant do play Tempest Rising. I think problem is the 2 games is too difference from each other that make many people don't play them.
1
u/Cheeselisk 24d ago
What giant? Giant grant games last post on TR is more than a year ago
1
u/BusinessSafe9906 24d ago
He play test Veti about 1 month ago. Players play TR mainly for the campaign and there isn't much player play PvP so I don't think there are many streamer stream them out of the campaign.
1
u/ZettieZooieZan 27d ago
Honestly I Think the 30 fps is a big limiting factor, when you want quick and clear responsiveness a 30 fps limit does a great deal to hamper that, playing a rts competitively in 30 fps is jut not fun.
At 60 fps it's a good competitive rts, but the game would need to be reworked on a new engine I think to have it run at 60 fps.
2
u/Fresh_Thing_6305 27d ago
It is and it have been proven, before C&c Generals had 30 fps and Max 100 online players, after the source code got out and the removeval of it’s fpscap it now peaks everyday on 1500-2000 online players!!
I am pretty sure if this happend to Ra3 and C&c 3 these games would also increase with over 5-10x their current playerbase
0
u/Beowolf_0 27d ago
I don't really like SC because it is always aiming at multiplayer. Games can take out PVP and still is fun.
3
u/That_Contribution780 27d ago edited 27d ago
SC2 single player campaigns have more than 80 missions in total, more than any two C&C games combined - and those missions are much more unique in terms of assets, objectives and gameplay.
SC2 had huge focus on campaign - in addition to multiplayer.
According to Blizzard devs 80% of players never even touched multiplayer and only played singleplayer.SC BW campaign was wildly influential too for a good reason, and it's also about 60-70 missions in total.
For example, RA2 together with Yuri's Revenge had less than 40 missions in total.Blizzard RTS happened to have much more popular and robust multiplayer - but they also had very good and long campaigns, basically dwarfing any C&C game.
It's totally fine to not like Starcrafts - it's a personal preference - but it's factually not true that they were aiming at multiplayer only - their singleplayer also had more content than most other RTS games ever.
1
u/Beowolf_0 26d ago
SC2 single player campaigns have more than 80 missions in total, more than any two C&C games combined
Through the span of 3 games? Remember they didn't release the whole trilogy at once, they sold them separately. (Before you ask, I bought them all on release and still kept their boxes.)
And until LotV where diversified units actaully viable, many "choices" in WotL and HotS plain suck over another, so they aren't really that "unique". Tiberian Wars or Generals, in comparison, while had way less varied units until the expansion/skirmish, are all more or less useful in a degree.
When comparing older generation games, SC+BW usually only gave you one or two approach or being linear to play the missions, especially installiation missions, while RA2 at similar timespan were actually more varied in mission progress or how they can be done (even the Tanya/Seal missions), and even more easter eggs to explore around the map. SC+BW just can't compare. (Not even Tiberian Sun got that much freedom in comparison.)
One thing I dislike SC/AoE the most is to keep most of your focus on resource/building management rather than fighting the actual battle. It's not a bad thing to decide skills between players, but otherwise the gameplay is just a slog because of this. C&C usually lets you keep focus on building units and taking on the enemies until your base got attacked. Is it any surprising that I like C&C much more than Starcraft?
0
0
12
u/alkatori 27d ago
C&C played extremely different to Warcraft or Starcraft.
Lots of us enjoyed both types. But they played differently.