Customer Reviews

Command & Conquer: Generals

5 star:		(86)
4 star:		(45)
3 star:		(25)
2 star:		(15)
1 star:		(30)

 

 

I'm a huge fan of the Command and Conquer series, so buying Generals didn't require any thought. We were rewarded with great graphics and amazing multiplayer gameplay.

First, the good. The graphics are quite impressive, definitely a step up from previous games. The various terrains - from snow to sand to grass to concrete - are well done. The trees sway in the wind. The units leave little tracks as they move, the construction of buildings makes you really feel like you're watching an army base get built.

The sound and music is well matched and makes the game feel realistic. Controls all work just the way you'd hope they would - after so many games they really have that down to a science.

On the down side, the usual problems in strategy gaming exist here. pathfinding isn't always perfect, units get stuck against buildings or in chasms. The campaign missions help you learn your skills but aren't extremely challenging.

Still, as with just about every game that comes out today, the built in gameplay is merely a training ground for the real challenge of multiplay. There's no way a computer could compete with the challenge posed by a real human being with experience and knowledge at the other end of the map. This game really shines in multiplayer. The three sets of units are well balanced, and if you get yourself onto a large map with teammates and opponents, you'll be hooked for months.

Skirmish mode is quite fun too, earning medals for different accomplishments.

Definitely a great game for any strategy gaming fan!

Command and Conquer enters a whole new war as the Chinese and terrorists enter the Command and Conquer series. Generals sports a new 3d engine which is starting to pop up in a lot of games which allows you to zoom in to see the action. The action is also a lot cooler and feels more realistic (even though the weaponry seems kinda comical at times). Generals also impliments new weaponry and spying technology like UAV's and satellites. Another new feature is the ability to customize vehicles by adding turrets or upgrading weaponry (machien gun turrets on tanks, laser guided bombs for stealths, missile barages for apache helicopters). Command and Conquer enthusiasts might be surprised though as a few things are different in Generals. The Veteran system is a new design to the game plus you no longer have resource fields. Instead, you have big stacks of supplies sort of like Warcraft goldmines. Also, you no longer have Primary buildings, it is more like starcraft where you build stuff per building. So now you can build 6 barracks and get 6 troops at once. Also, arrow keys function as unit changers instead of moving the map so this may seem to be a minor problem. Also, there seems to be a limited amount of buildings but i do not believe this to be a problem since in other C&C games, a lot of buildings were just needed to activate special items (special items of the sort are activated in command centers/barrackses and war factories instead of in special buildings). In the end, Generals might be a very fun game in the final release (im doing the multiplayer beta test). So far it looks like loads of fun but a little different from teh old C&C games. NOTE: One review says the specifications are VERY HIGH, but this is very wrong. The multiplayer beta that is out right now is using unoptimized code which runs slow on anything (2ghz , 512 ram neccessary to play it). The final release will use the optomized code of course and only need the 350 mhz 64mb specifications Westwood is saying it will need.

I have read endless complaints about how Command & Conquer Generals is exactly like every other C&C/Dune game. Really, now, what do you expect? Perhaps Generals is a victim of some serious hype, and it certainly isn't a revolutionary RTS in any way except for graphics, but it still is fun.

Though it has some improvements in terms of interface, commands, and most notably upgrades, Generals plays a lot like most of the older games in the series. One notable difference is that you can build anywhere on the map, in a manner similar to the Blizzard RTS style. Like its most recent predecessor, Red Alert 2, you want to play offensive in this game. It's not as impossible to fight defensively as some reviewers have said, but it's always better to be the one calling the shots.

In terms of the game balance and strategies, the three sides are definitely unique and very well balanced out. For example, the Chinese prefer to outnumber their enemies, and have slow but powerful units. The GLA is king of maneuverability and the covert strike, but has all around weaker units. The United States has the most powerful forces, but everything is expensive. In a manner of speaking, this balance is similar to that of the three major houses in the Dune games.

The really interesting thing comes with the general abilities. These are received when you've destroyed a certain number of enemies, and can seriously tip the balance in your favor. Some abilities allow you to build special units, while others do more mundane but still important things like repairing a group of vehicles or giving new units instant veterancy. Units gain experience and rank as they kill enemies, and can get very powerful if you keep them alive. Some factions can upgrade units by paying or, in the GLA's case, by scavenging junk from the battlefield (a very cool touch!). There isn't a doubt that Generals grants more tactical options than any other C&C title. Unlike say, Red Alert, the objective isn't just to build as many tanks as you can (although this might still work).

Generals has cutting-edge 3D graphics, which explains the high system requirements. I found that it ran quite well at the lowest detail settings on my PIII 733 with an old GeForce 256, but to really bring out the beauty of the game you need something better than this. All the units explode in random and often spectacular fashion, and the superweapons are a MUST see. Almost everything you find can be destroyed in one way or another, and some things really light off when they go (toxin tanks, towers, or nuke power plants for example).

The single player mode of the game is the weakest point of Generals. It lacks any of the ridiculous full motion video sequences that made Red Alert really fun. The missions range from simple to moderately difficult, but there aren't very many in all. The plot looks like it was taken right off CNN, ... In skirmish mode, the AI is quite predictable and only becomes a pain when it starts using superweapons on you. Due to the unit and general promotion system, I've had little trouble mowing down the maximum of 7 computer opponents by myself. This game was clearly created as a primarily multiplay title, and it is definitely a good deal of fun for that. The game engine is also superior, and has enormous potential for future development. Perhaps in a forthcoming expansion the single player deficiencies will be addressed.

The final word is that Generals isn't the groundbreaking game everyone expected, but it is worth the price tag and a great deal of fun anyway. Especially in a time when the RTS genre seems to be on temporary hold, this game makes a great filler.

Just wanted to clear up the rumors about high system specs needed to run the game.

The minimum system requirements are an 800MHz Intel CPU, 128 megs of RAM and a GeForce 2 graphics card.

This minimum system spec will run the game fine and if you have a higher rated CPU, more memory, and newer graphics card, you will get better looking graphics and faster performance.

Recommeded system specs are 1.8GHz CPU, with 256 megs of RAM, and a Geforce3 or equivalent graphics card.

The game ships mid-February so the reviews here are posted about the multiplayer test that EA released during November.

The first reviews of the final product come out from France and Germany and rate the game as 90+ game. More official reviews coming soon from US.

This latest entry in the Command and Conquer series will, unfortunately, probably be the very last as Westwood was just recently amalgamated into Electronic Arts.

In accordance with this amalgamation, the plotline for this game is radically different from its predecessors. The Brotherhood of Nod have been replaced with the GLA, while the US and Chinese armies have taken the place of the GDI.

The storyline for Generals is an uncomfortable reflection of real life events, with GLA terrorists invading middle eastern nations like Baghdad and Afghanistan. Naturally, the Chinese and the US are out to stop them. The parallels are a little too close to reality, and this does remove some of the fun and campiness from the game that were often present in its predecessors. Red Alert 2 was a delightful example of this.

This is also the first C&C game that contains more than 2 sides, which makes for some rather entertaining skirmish and campaign missions.

The US uses a combination of air power and ground forces to crush their opponents, with very little emphasis on "weapons of mass destruction". Instead, the player would be wise to use precision airstrikes and artillery to crush their opponents.

The GLA have units very similar to NOD, in that they are fast, light and mobile. This makes them very useful for ambushes, but they become expendable in prolonged skirmishes. Their greatest strength lies in the effective use of suicide bombers and toxic bio-weapons. The GLA is a good side for those who use stealth to defeat their opponents.

The Chinese use overwhelming numbers and firepower to defeat their enemies. Fans of the old "tank rush" strategy will love playing as the Chinese, especially as Chinese tanks get attack bonuses if they are grouped in large enough numbers.

The graphics in Generals are easily the most impressive of any entry in the C&C series. The game makes excellent use of 3D-accelerated graphics to render huge maps consisting of mountains and flowing rivers. Tanks will raise clouds of dust as they move across desert terrain. Jet fighters will execute tight banking turns as they engage a target. Most impressive are the super-weapons, like the Chinese Nuclear missile, or the GLA Scud Missiles.

The most glaring downsides to this game are the portrayal of the GLA as your stereotypical Arab terrorist. This may be particularly offensive to members of the Arab community, with
its (hopefully) unintended racial stereotyping. The apocalyptic end cutscene of the GLA campaign will certainly not help matters.

In addition, some users have reported compatiblity problems while running Generals on their PC's. Please check the internet to ensure that your PC is compatible with the game. Also, be warned that this game does require an extremely fast PC. I have an Athlon 2000+ XP with 512MB RAM and a 64MB GEForce4 videocard, and I can run the game in 1024x768 on high detail. Anything less than this, and you may have problems.

Other than this, Generals is an excellent game. Yes, other than the updated graphics it doesn't present any revolutionary innovations to the RTS genre. However, for those of us who enjoy the fast pace that the C&C games provide, this is a perfect addition to the series.

Although the impact of Generals will not be as great as the original Tiberian Dawn or Red Alert, Generals is still one of the most polished entries in the series.

For all strategy players in the world, this is a must-have and even better. For those who have tried the previous Command & Conquer games, it is a little step away from them. Buildings no longer just pop up from the ground, here you use bulldozers or workers for building things. Generals also uses a new "experience system", this means you get more experience points for each unit/building you destroy. The experience points is used to buy new upgrades, how many upgrades you got depends on your rank.

Even though I'm only playing the beta test, this is the best game I ever tried. This is a must-have!

PS: The age 12, really isn't my age...

This is a game that I ended up liking a lot better than I would have thought. It isn't overly difficult or complex, allowing the strategy-rookie to get into the game easily. This is the kind of game where you can play a few missions and then come back a month later and pick up where you left of, without having to re-play the tutorial.

I would have even given this game 5 stars, if it wasn't for a few details that I didn't care for too much. The interface leaves a bit to be desired. I found myself wishing for easier ways to select and group units. Sometimes, I also wished for the game to give me a bit more feedback about what's going on. For instance, when the GLA attacks my base with a SCUD-storm, why not show where it hit on the mini map? Games like Pretorians show how to do this (at least a little) better.

The other problem with this game is that it lets you get away with too much. The game doesn't force you to use advanced strategy. Often, it is enough to just build up a very large number of troups and send them into battle all at once. In those scenarios, I often wish the game would make me find out a bit more about all the great upgrades and special units that are available. Of course, this is a problem the player could solve :-)

Overall, this is a very good game. Personally, I had a lot of fun with this game. Probably even 5 stars worth. But compared to some other 5-star games, it just didn't seem fair to give this one 5 stars as well. It just isn't quite among the very best. But if you are looking for fun without twisting your brain all too much, then this one is for you...

I have been a fan of Command and Conquer since the beginning. And I look forward to every game they bring out. This is by far the best looking game in the series. You can zoom in on the veicles and buildings and the detail come in view without being fuzzy. I run this game with everything set on high and runs very good (I have Pentium III 1000, with 256 ram and a 64 meg video card). I was a little dissappointed when I first started playing the first set of missions China) as it seemed too easy and they were almost all short missions (except the lsat couple), but as you moved on to the the other 2 factions, it kept getting harder and harder and I started liking this game more and more. A couple of things I don't like is playing skirmish mode. When playing a skirmish, it seems the balance is off in favor of China. You can build bunkers (that will hold 5 guys, I like putting rocket launchers in them) and machine gun turrets) if I get those built quickly, the defense is too strong to get through, but the GLA and USA don't have those type of defenses and it's not easy (depending on the difficulty level you choose). And the difficulty level is touchy. If you play normal, it seems pretty easy ( I was winning with China playing against 5 computer opponents and only losing less than 10 units every game). But if you move up to Hard, and play against more than computer opponent, you get mowed over (unless you are playing as China). A little bit of balance issue I think, but this is still a very fun game. I you want more of a challenge, you can also go on-line, though you have to wait for a while sometimes for games to end so you can join. It is still a worthy effort, but I miss old but scenes they used to have. Any fan of this series will definteley enjoy.

I had big expectations for this game. The ads made it look like a revolution in graphics (It is over it's predecessor, but not over the competition), so when I started it up I immediately felt disappointed and started looking for everything wrong with it. I began playing one of the campaigns and beat it. It was okay, but I was still finding myself complaining about it a lot.

After being dissatisfied with the campaign I started playing skirmishes and then multiplayer (This is the real reason these games are made). I found that this was a balanced game with three unique teams to choose from. Every team has good units that can oppose any other team. There are a variety of ways to play the game. I find myself digging in at my base and saving money for the big weapons like the nuclear missle.

So after actively looking for everything wrong with this game I ended up addicted to it. Buy this game and team up with a friend against six brutal computer players. That is a challenge I havent met yet.

This game frustrates me. Games are not supposed to do that. I like a challenge but I have noticed that the poor intelligence of the individual units, combined with the horribly clunky interface makes for a frustratingly frantic click-fest. The units will make poor decisions on when they attack the enemy for example; you might order your fleet of tanks to move to a location, but when they get attacked, the tanks will usually ignore them and wait for you to tell them what to do. In long games with many tasks to handle at once, this gets annoying, and you will end up losing whole armies because your units wont fight back on their own, instead they sit their idle. In some cases, your supply gatherers will be under fire, but instead of retreating, they continue their routes and ultimately explode. The worst thing is that the game wont warn you when your units are attacked or taking damage, only your buildings. You only know that you are attacked when you lose a unit. By that time you are toast anyway. You have to keep an eye on an impossibly small area map that will give you one small red radar "blip" when you are attacked. If you fail to see that, you fail to come out without casualties. Giving commands to units is like pulling teeth. You cannot have units patrol an area like you can in the Starcraft or Warcraft games. You can only have units guard and area, in which case they will simply sit idle and take fire, only returning fire when the enemy is within range. This is laughable. Setting waypoints for units is also clunky.
One more thing really irritated me. My buddy had a stealth unit in my base setting demolition charges on my buildings. One by one they exploded, but I had no idea that my base was being destroyed because I was too busy micromanaging my dopey units somewhere else. I didnt even know what was going on until I tried to select my jets, but they were not selecting. Thats when I looked over to the airbase to see why and realized that my base was 80% ashes and debris. There were no warnings or anything. Its that lack of game polish that is making me sell this game. Otherwise the graphics, sound, and overall funfactor are all good. Its fun to play on the LAN, but still frustrating. I know my way around this game well and still yell at the screen, telling my stupid units to move. It is this fact that takes away from the strategic element and turns this game into a finger aching click-fest. Whoever can build the most units in a given time will win, hands down. I enjoy anything from Blizzard much more. If this game simply used Blizzards RTS interface, it would really shine, but since your options are limited and so is the intelligence of your units, you are out of luck and expect to be screaming at your monitor more that once.
Three and a half stars is accurate