Command & Conquer Update Disk (3297)

cc-box.jpg
System: PC
Company: Westwood
Year: 1995
Genre: Strategy, Action
Theme: Multiplayer / Science Fiction
Language: English
Licence: Commercial

Command & Conquer Update Disk (ID: 3297)

Disks:
1 x 3.5" HD (1440kB)
Format:
Raw (.IMG)
Status:
Modified
Language:
English
Notes:
v1.18p. Modified OEM ID and RootDir (CT & AT). Looks like part native part user-side modification (CT date 1995 and AT 1997).
SHA1 Hashes:

26f11f5e7cd2571c0c7ae25a6f1a884b57ae9c00  disk1.img
Added: 2019-11-21
Edited: 2020-04-20

Comments (7) [Post comment]

Mr Creosote (2017-12-06):
The looks of characters? Yes, you have the all American General with a Kennedy haircut on the one and a bald guy with a goatee on the other side. Whose name sounds like the biblical "Cain". Figures.
pepsiman (2017-12-05):

But Mr Creosote, there is no good and bad in this world. I never thought of NOD as the bad guys. It is your prefabricated concepts that make you interpret this into the game.

In one scenario you kill many people (=bad) in the other only one person (=good), so in utilitarian ethical values (in this case measured in human lives avoided taking), it is quite obvious who is the "good" and who is the "bad" faction. But to me it seems you just based it on the color of suit they are wearing! :D

Maybe we have to begin counting killed npcs to determine utilitarian badness in the future! :D

Mr Creosote (2017-12-04):
Quote:
how well the two factions' first missions introduce them and establish their differing ideals. GDI starts you off by commanding a small strike force to take a beach head and establish a base to weed out insurrectionist forces hiding in the forest, while Nod's first mission is a rampage through a desert canyon and small civilian village to assassinate a powerful figure that doesn't "agree with" their agenda. I had never noticed this before, but it goes so far to provide a strong first impression and differentiate the two factions

Actually, in retrospect, I think this is exactly one point where the game shows its age. Or rather its limits. For some reason, we (the players) are supposed to believe that putting down "insurrentionist forces" with tanks is "good" whereas "assassinating a disagreeable figure" is "evil". Apart from the labels (insurrection, assassination etc.), I can't see any ethical or moral difference between the two.

Which is a major gripe I have with a lot of military-themed games in general. They usually follow a "good vs. evil" plotline without motivating effectively in what way the "good" side is different from the "evil" one. It is just assumed that players will swallow this ideological evaluation as is. Or, if that fails, the old hat of "beautiful people = good, ugly people = bad" is applied. Seriously!

ss2man44 (2017-09-12):
Quote:
Because after those two games, the industry degenerated into a pure imitation machine: for many years, nothing but "3d shooters" and "RTS" (two really annoying labels) would be produced. Killing all the genres I liked.

Ahhh, I getcha. It's a shame that the industry went the way it did, both because innovation is healthy and because it hurt your perception of some entertaining games.

Mr Creosote (2016-09-16):
Because after those two games, the industry degenerated into a pure imitation machine: for many years, nothing but "3d shooters" and "RTS" (two really annoying labels) would be produced. Killing all the genres I liked.
ss2man44 (2016-09-15):
Quote:
This list was to include games which I considered responsible for the games market turning into utter crap.

Out of curiosity, why would you put DOOM and C&C on that list?

Mr Creosote (2016-09-15):

Fun fact: this game was a hot candidate (along with the also mentioned Doom) when I considered to introduce a list of "banned" games which should never appear on TGOD. This list was to include games which I considered responsible for the games market turning into utter crap.

Nowadays, I've become much more liberal ;)

[Reply]