Command and Conquer Generals

Kc7mxo · February 9, 2003, 02:01

Here's my review of Command and Conquer Generals. The short of it is, I liked it, and I'll be buying it. As soon as it gets released anyway.

Game play 8/10

Generals is a basic Westwood RTS, no apparent selection limit, harvester based resources. While some things have changed in this version of C&C, most of the game their basic design is still here. Base power system is still intact, and the basic war model is still the same. Infantry, tanks, air support, and super weapons. There still doesn’t seem to be any limit to the number of units you can build, as masses of Chinese infantry can quickly attest to. Units still advance in rank with kills, and infantry can still occupy buildings.

But while a C&C fan will still be right at home, there are some changes that can come as quite a surprise. The construction bar is gone, units are built at their facility now; and buildings are built by individual construction unit. The resource model has changed a little; while harvesters still go and pick up resources, each side also can make something which provides a constant source of income. The Chinese can build hackers in abundance, and this reviewer quickly used them to unbalance his single player campaign. After you get enough of them, the computer simply cannot compete with the resources they provide.

A problem I had was with unit control. Grouped units prefer to move in lines, rather than as mobs. While this means you can have realistic ambushes against troop columns, it can be extremely irritating to watch your tanks plug up a road and just stop, with half the column still behind them. These troops will then all just sit and wait, apparently hoping a traffic cop will show up to resolve the situation.

Air power works well. Helicopters simply hover constantly, and recuperate ammo, while planes have to return to their airstrips. Planes can be ordered to move to a position on the map, and their orders can be easily modified mid flight. I found that migs with improved napalm simply annilated enemy ground fources. The only irritant is that you can only have four planes per airfield

Story 7/10

The storyline was kind of a let down. the game’s missions come at you basically as scenarios, with little to no background. While the videos from Red Alert 2 could be a little too far over the top sometimes, the lack of any sort of video in the game is a bit of a letdown. One of the highpoints for me in Warcraft 3 was the way everything connected together. There’s very little of that feeling here. But even though the missions didn’t have much in the way of a connecting story, each was well designed, sometimes with several objectives, and I had fun on all of them. Even the ones where the enemy was bombarding me with impunity.

Graphics 9/10

The graphics were quite impressive, even for someone who has been playing a lot of Warcraft 3. For the most part, the units all look quite nice; the infantry being the main exception. And as long as aren’t zooming way in, the infantry work just fine. Vehicles and planes are all quite detailed, and the flame and explosion effects are fantastic. The camera is zoomable, and rotatable.

One problem I noticed was a tendency of vehicles to drive through some of the smaller, unoccupiable buildings. It was rather disconcerting to watch my gatling trucks drive through storage containers on the docks.

Large scale explosions such as the nuke come off very well, and the glowing green goo is quite nice. The game has numerous environment sets, and all the buildings look quite nice. Buildings go through several different levels of damage, and tower like buildings will tip over and crash into the ground. Destroyed vehicles stick around as wrecks for a ten seconds or so, and scorched earth seems to stick around for good. Infantry are thrown around like rag dolls if they're caught in an explosions; caught in a fire and they'll run around screaming flailing their arms. And of course, the napalm explosions are simply delightful.

Performance 9/10
I had some odd issues with this. My system is an AMD XP 2000, with 512 mb of pc2100 ram and a geforce 3 ti200 running XP. I initially attempted to play with max settings at a resolution of 1020x640. The game speed was insanely slow. Troops appeared to be moving in slow motion, and although scrolling speed was fine, it took forever to do anything. I then fiddled with the settings, eventually reducing my resolution to 800x600, with max settings. The game runs great this way, but I’d still like to know why I can’t run it at higher resolutions. The game didn’t seem to have any issues with large numbers of units, as I had hordes of Chinese infantry marching across the field, with my overlords escorting and 18 migs flying overhead.

Balance
Since I was unable to play multiplayer with this, I won’t make any comments it and the accompanying about balance issues. Except, I have never liked super weapons, and I do not enjoy the presence of those in Generals either. There’s something about being bombarded by artillery that you cannot reach, attack, or prevent, that truly irritates me.

Final Decisions 8.5/10
Command & Conquer Generals is a great looking game, with better than decent game play. The campaign is fun to play, if not very inspiring. Each side have significantly different unit trees, special weapons, and basic strategies. I feel that Generals incorporates just about all of the best parts of the C&C design, as well as the Starcraft / Warcraft design. All in all, I give it an 8.5/10 and I will be picking up a copy.

Screenshot 1
Screenshot 2
Screenshot 3
Screenshot 4

Traianvs · February 9, 2003, 07:56

Well we don't play the game for the story

a few screenshots btw would be nice!

PS: now how did you get your hands on the game?

Zopperoni · February 9, 2003, 08:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Trajanus
PS: now how did you get your hands on the game?

It's on the P2P-networks.

I'm moderately interested, but also afraid I'll blow up my computer

These are the minimum spec requirements:

Quote:

Windows 98/ME/2000/XP
DirectX 8.1
Intel Pentium 1000 MHZ
128 MB RAM
1.2 GB Hard Disk Space
4X CD-ROM
64 MB GPU

General Ludd · February 9, 2003, 09:00

My god, what would a game have to do to get a 6 or lower from you?

7 for story?

Even after you say the campaign has no redeeming qualities and, in fact, doesn't even have a story?

I've seen the promotionals for this game; Americans, Chinese and Arabian terrorists? Real creative.

DrSpike · February 9, 2003, 09:23

I don't know why C&C is so popular. I hated the original, I hated Red Alert, and one look at the following 567 clones of those convinced me I'd hate them too.

Early on I can see it........because RTS was being born and C&C has a place as the first real populariser, although not the first RTS. But the Age of empires - Age of mythology series and the blizzard series Warcraft/Starcraft - Warcraft 3 are IMO far superior.

Kc7mxo · February 9, 2003, 10:27

Quote:

My god, what would a game have to do to get a 6 or lower from you?

7 for story? Even after you say the campaign has no redeeming qualities and, in fact, doesn't even have a story?

I've seen the promotionals for this game; Americans, Chinese and Arabian terrorists? Real creative.

Heh, ok, I was feeling pretty generous. I don't know why, but I had a good time despite what I thought was a pretty pathetic storyline. I was basically lumping in my feeling towards the missions with the story as well. I should probably have based my opinions off of a 0 - 5 system however, cause my thinking is that 70 is a C, and below a 60 is flunking . . . damn schooling getting in the way.

Quote:

Windows 98/ME/2000/XP
DirectX 8.1
Intel Pentium 1000 MHZ
128 MB RAM
1.2 GB Hard Disk Space
4X CD-ROM
64 MB GPU

I've watched the game run on a p3 500 with 256 mb of ram and a geforce 3 ti200. It didn't run very fast, or very pretty, but it was definetly playable. Keep the settings turned down and you should be fine.

Quote:

Early on I can see it........because RTS was being born and C&C has a place as the first real populariser, although not the first RTS. But the Age of empires - Age of mythology series and the blizzard series Warcraft/Starcraft - Warcraft 3 are IMO far superior.

Well, I've never played the Age of Mythology, and AOE always drove me up the wall for some reason. Starcraft is my favorite and superior to all of them, even warcraft 3, IMO. Warcraft 3 just doesn't have the scale in armies that I prefer. Generals offers the sight of your hordes driving across the field. Only problem is that they have a tendency to do it in columns. . .

deamon451 · February 9, 2003, 12:38

One of the main problems with C&C games is that the armys always travel in columns.

Nubclear · February 9, 2003, 15:50

QUestion: Are all the trees the same? eg in Red Alert 2, each side only had different art sets (and maybe a few different units) but really they were the same.

DrSpike · February 9, 2003, 16:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
QUestion: Are all the trees the same?

No, the units are different colours.

Nubclear · February 9, 2003, 16:49

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike

No, the units are different colours.

Oh. yay......

DrSpike · February 9, 2003, 16:52

I'm being harsh......there were some perfunctory differences between the sides even in the earlier C&C games, but it wasn't until Starcraft that truly diverse factions were available.

da_jaymz · February 9, 2003, 22:52

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
I don't know why C&C is so popular. I hated the original, I hated Red Alert, and one look at the following 567 clones of those convinced me I'd hate them too.

Early on I can see it........because RTS was being born and C&C has a place as the first real populariser, although not the first RTS. But the Age of empires - Age of mythology series and the blizzard series Warcraft/Starcraft - Warcraft 3 are IMO far superior.

C&C is cool.
It has insanely huge fun factor cause its not all that serious nor it tries to be serious.
While Age of.. and -craft series wins in tactics sector, C&C wins in huge explosions and insane destruction.

DrSpike · February 10, 2003, 06:27

Quote:

Originally posted by da_jaymz

C&C is cool.
It has insanely huge fun factor cause its not all that serious nor it tries to be serious.
While Age of.. and -craft series wins in tactics sector, C&C wins in huge explosions and insane destruction.

Thank you for making my point far better than I ever could.

Jamski · February 10, 2003, 06:36

It sounds like Dune Emperor with different graphics sets. Now that was a game that was just fun with no depth. I enjoyed it, but after winning with each of the three factions, what else is there?

Hmm, based on this idea I'll probably buy it when I need a new game after playing MoO3 to death.

Hey Spikie - what's with the undead pirate avatar? The old one had more "dignity" IMHO.

-Jam

DrSpike · February 10, 2003, 06:39

It is LeChuck.......I thought you were old enough to know that.

Ricardo will make an imperious return......this is more fun, and a homage to what is my second favourite series of games.

Jamski · February 10, 2003, 08:58

Of course, but I haven't played Monkey Island (I think?) since it was new, on my Amiga 500. My God, I'm not only old enough to remember, but I'm old enough to start forgetting things too.

-Jam

DrSpike · February 10, 2003, 09:03

Yep, I played it first on my spanky new Amiga as well........'tis a great game that loads of people remember. I had a "funny moments in the monkey island series' thread in 'other games'. You should check it out, there were loads of hilarious responses.

Jamski · February 10, 2003, 09:05

You think I'm going to hunt it down myself ? I am at work right now. I'll try the search, but if it takes more than 60secs... Gateway Timeout Fun for all.

-Jam

DrSpike · February 10, 2003, 09:08

It's not a busy forum so it wont be far down. Besides the search function works well if you specify thread title and poster, and the forum in which the thread appears.

Jamski · February 10, 2003, 09:09

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...=Monkey+Island

Well I never, search worked !

-Jam

Kc7mxo · February 13, 2003, 20:32

Quote:

C&C is cool. It has insanely huge fun factor cause its not all that serious nor it tries to be serious. While Age of.. and -craft series wins in tactics sector, C&C wins in huge explosions and insane destruction.

Heh, there are several missiosn towards the end where the Enemy is armed with a Scud Storm, a superweapon with toxic after effects launched from a base. I've twice captured the facility with its count down timer in the last 30 seconds due to paradrops.

I then immidiatly launched them into the AI's base, and sold the building.

vee4473 · February 13, 2003, 21:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Trajanus
Well we don't play the game for the story

a few screenshots btw would be nice!

PS: now how did you get your hands on the game?

The story is a big part of RTS games. Regardless of what detractors of RTS games think.

But, you have point, if you mean that pure battle and battle graphics are the focus.

Gangerolf · February 15, 2003, 09:24

It's cool.

a couple of things annoyed me though (I've only played once so far):

1. The Chinese Nuke Cannon - what the hell kind of nuke is that? it didn't even blow up one building!

2. No naval units

DinoDoc · February 15, 2003, 13:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf
1. The Chinese Nuke Cannon - what the hell kind of nuke is that? it didn't even blow up one building!

Neutron Bomb?

Adagio · February 15, 2003, 14:18

I never liked RA or C&C, while I have always liked Dune 2, Dune 2000 and Emperor - Battle for Dune. There was one part of Emperor I didn't like though... all those boring, annoying, boring and boring missions that came between the fights (in SP). If they didn't include those missions, I would proberbly still be playing the game...

Anyway, back to topic:

I might take a look a Generals some day, just to see the graphics... I saw a video showing some great graphics, but I believe the gameplay is still the same...

Just one question: Why is it called a C&C clone, when the fact is: C&C is a clone of Red Alert (AFAIR) and Red Alert is a clone of Dune (A bad clone indeed)

DrSpike · February 15, 2003, 14:24

No, Red Alert was a later C&C game than the original C&C. You are right that Dune2 (not Dune, which wasn't RTS) came first, but C&C really popularised the genre.

Adagio · February 15, 2003, 14:25

Sorry, forgot the '2'

Wasn't sure if it was RA or C&C that came first...

vee4473 · February 16, 2003, 09:10

i have an AMD 700mhz t-bird with 256 ram. a 32 meg nvidia riva tnt2 m64 card, my comps a little old.

i'd love to get generals, but does anyone know if i will have problems?

and if the answer is that i would have to turn all the settings down to minimum, then my next question is , does that make the game look bad?

i want to play the game because of the graphics and if i have to turn all the effects off to play, then why bother.

as a little sidenote, warcraft 3 ran like crap on my comp until i upped the ram to 256, now it works pretty good.

it seemed that ram was the major factor in war 3

Jahi · February 16, 2003, 21:01

C&C is pretty cool, i have to admit. i can even run it at 1600x1200 on my laptop. its just like warcraft 3 except with tanks.

the game seems a little short though.. they really should have put in more missions like warcraft 3

Kc7mxo · February 16, 2003, 21:55

Quote:

i have an AMD 700mhz t-bird with 256 ram. a 32 meg nvidia riva tnt2 m64 card, my comps a little old.

i'd love to get generals, but does anyone know if i will have problems?

and if the answer is that i would have to turn all the settings down to minimum, then my next question is , does that make the game look bad?

i want to play the game because of the graphics and if i have to turn all the effects off to play, then why bother.

as a little sidenote, warcraft 3 ran like crap on my comp until i upped the ram to 256, now it works pretty good.

it seemed that ram was the major factor in war 3

You should be able to play it with that system, but not wi9th much turned on. It still looks good, even turned down. Of course, it looks far nicer on a better system.