|Index||6 reviews in total|
I saw the graphics for this game on some TV show, and being a huge fan of
the Command and Conquer games, went to pick it up. First off, the visuals
are stunning. Almost every detail is taken care of, from explosions to
flying out of vehichles as they blow up. The weapons and units rock, and
the super weapons... aw yeah. Who can't love nukes with such cool
dropping crazy blue anthrax on a base and watching their troops melt and
die, or dropping a fuel air boom with a blast radius that could wipe out
The whole general promotion idea is pretty cool, picking up advancements as you get better in the game. The gameplay is easy, but not boring, so begginers and advanced players can both enjoy. The in mission cut scenes are INCREADIBLE, watching a dam collapse, or a laser cutting through ranks of tanks.
The only problem with this game is the lack of continual story that is normally present in C&C games. No cool general played by a movie star, no hot girl briefing you... I missed these aspects, but with all the great action, the game made up for it. If you even REMOTELY like these type of games, you have to pick this one up!
This C and C installment is quite possibly the worst so far in the series. Don't hold me fully to this statement because I have only begun the game on each campaign, but I have instantly noticed that the game can actually be quite boring, something no c and c game has ever been to me. It is still however a good addition for C+C fans. The first chinese level requires a simple path to an enemy base, the first gla mission is well done, and usa is just boring. Your opposition and supplies are too merciful; I laugh at the thought of there actually being an 'easy' difficulty setting on this game. Check this with the first level on any other campaign on other games in this series and they will all require decent commanding skills and the AI on the lowest difficulty setting,(easy) is still challenging, with the exception of the first NOD mission on the original, which had good AI, but a simple objective. Westwood have worked on every C+C for the past nine years, this one is the only one that has disappointed me, partly because I know they could have done so much better with this game. I recommend you preplay if you plan to buy it.
Command & Conquer: Generals was the last game that Westwood Studios
developed as the company was liquidated by Electronic Arts (EA) shortly
before this game was released. The game came out at the height of
Bush's War on Terror. At the time the game was heavily criticized due
to the similarities between the fictional GLA (Global Liberation Army)
and the Iraqi terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda, this even cause a
temporary ban in Germany as well as a full scale ban in China as the
Chinese in the game are depicted as a brutal army that use heavy-handed
tactics such as leveling the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre
and destroying the three gorges dam. Which I find somewhat Ironic
seeing how this is the only western game I can think of where the
Chinese are actually the good guys in the game. Fun Fact: Command &
Conquer: Generals came out in Australia just a week after the US led
Invasion of Iraq.
Playing it now I can't help but think that somehow this game predicted the future seeing how alike the GLA is to ISIS, the game itself is also base in the not too distant future where the Global Liberation Army a large well-organized terrorist organization declares war on the two main superpowers of the world, the United States and the People's Republic of China. In response the two Nations form a Coalition against the GLA whom controls most of the Middle East, parts of China along with Central Asia and the whole of Kazakhstan. You play as one of three the Chinese, the United States or the GLA and that's really about it. There are no Cut scenes or any story behind the missions you are given and very little backstory on how the GLA came to power in the first place. Similar to the first Command and Conquer game (nickname Tiberian Dawn) is set in a divergent reality, however done in a more realistic setting and style.
Now that the game is 12 years old I found it to be limited compared to its predecessors like Red Alert 2 and Tiberian Sun which had more depth and detail with both the game mechanics and plot. It is no means a bad game but it is somewhat lackluster and compared to Red Alert 2 (release in 2000) it hasn't really age that well.
All in all it's an alright game and I give it a 5 out of 10
As many others have pointed out, this lacks what is accepted to be trademarks of Westwood's popular Command & Conquer franchise... the building system, video sequences and a solid story. However, that aside, this isn't a bad game. Rather than following in the footsteps of every RTS game that preceded it within the series, this takes a gamble, wanders of the beaten path. The results of this are hit-and-miss. Features that were missed earlier(such as a "move *and* attack" command... *finally*!) are implemented, game-play is changed around some... however, there are shortcomings and bugs, if not very many of the latter. The new interface is essentially that of other RTS titles(don't get me wrong, the engine is all-new), and this, unfortunately, puts some focus on aspects of these games that others(with this other interface) did better which still haven't been attended to, basically all falling into the category of overview... compared to the excellent overview of StarCraft and the Age of Empires games... titles released several years before this. The graphics are one of the best things about the game... and clearly, the developers realized this: they put footage of it all over the game. Every video sequence is presented in it, it's in the(surprisingly effective) intro, heck, it's even the background in the main menu. The effects are considerably more realistic-looking than in earlier efforts, with smoke, fire, the works. The game does require a bit of power to run well, but the graphics are worth it. The zoom feature was perhaps not the greatest addition, even if it is cool enough that you can get a close-up view... it shows too well where corners were cut in creating the graphics. The game-play is often very exciting and intense, and definitely entertaining. The difficulty is perhaps slightly uneven, but good. The three sides are remarkable in how even they are(though it should be noted that the way they are set up is essentially an idea from earlier RTS titles, including StarCraft), and all have some interesting stuff to play around with, as well as an arsenal that makes them formidable foes, and satisfying to play as. GLA, or Global Liberation Army("one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"), commonly referred to as the terrorists, are the fastest, cheapest, weakest and least technologically advanced. They draw their strength from numbers and celerity. USA(which, incidentally, is also the only "clean" one, no chemical/biological warfare) is the strongest, technologically superior, but also most expensive. China is a "happy medium". Any RTS player will find a side to prefer. There are quite a few units available to all three sides, in spite of further increase in efficiency... engineers are removed, it's now the sides' main infantry unit that can take over buildings, and it's no longer instantaneous, to give a quick example. There are buildings and characteristics that are unique to their respective sides... the GLA, being sneaky and tricky, have tunnel networks, the Chinese, being morally ambiguous, have hackers to acquire further funds(all three sides have an alternate method of continually achieving supplies, so even if you fight long enough to use up all the natural resources, you can still gain more), and the US, having clear air superiority, can call in air-strikes, paratroopers and a nasty drop called The Fuel Air Bomb. All three have abilities and a special unit(which is cloaked, but can be detected, when using abilities or if the enemy has a unit that uncloaks their enemies) that fit their profile... GLA has a sniper, who(in addition to sniping infantry) can kill the driver of any enemy vehicle, the Chinese have an unarmed agent who, using her lap-top, can steal from the enemies and disable their vehicles one at a time, and the US have a battle-hardened colonel, equipped with a knife, explosives and a machine-gun(essentially a Commando/Tanya, but oh well, those *are* pretty rockin'). The special abilities(as well as some units) are accessed by earning higher ranks, granting you points to "buy" them. Successful battle raises your rank, so the better you do, the better you get, the more you'll have access to. Multi-player is quite good, and the setup is very user-friendly. Single player is divided into three campaigns, one per side. There are 21 levels in total, which, sadly, means only 7 per side. Conquer the entire world in just seven missions? The briefings are entirely audio-based, but the voice-work is pretty good. Sound in general is another area where the game does well. All the effects and unit responses/comments sound right. The music is a dramatic score, which works well. The level design is good, but for only having seven missions per side, few of them are terribly memorable(though there are some interesting scenarios, such as providing cover-fire for retreating US troops, and all three sides get a reasonably satisfying finale). The air-borne combat is made more open, particularly when playing as the US, which has access to three different types of planes, a transport helicopter and an attack chopper(and that's in addition to the special abilities). This introduces some interesting stuff that works really well; repelling from a helicopter, having one unit per side which can effectively empty a building garrisoned by enemy units, a limitless source of funds for each side, allowing units to upgrade/expand and allowing more different infantry units to garrison inside bunkers/buildings. Obviously, this has some potentially politically and morally provocative material, and I won't claim that I got through the GLA campaign without feelings of unease... but that debate should be had in the appropriate forum. This is, after all, a review. All in all... it's a pretty good game, and holds new things for RTS games, but the bugs and the features that just ought to be there are a tad obvious. I recommend this to any fan of RTS titles who is interested in the concept and the promise of better graphics, but faithful fans of C&C may want to be sure before they try it. 7/10
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
this game is the worst of the command and conquer series
they have removed certain featuers of the game that makes it command and conquer.
there is no longer a toolbar, so in the result of that there is workers/buldozers.
it has nothing to do with the tiberian series or the red alert series. I think the gameplay is awful, the graphics isn't good either, it looks to much of an animation rather than a realistic game. take my advice if you are a command and conquer fan, don't get this game.
THe only good thing I could say about generals is that it is in 3D
The greatest shortcoming of this series is perhaps the lack of an in-depth story and associated cinematics that were in the past, part and parcel of all Command and Conquer games. The interface is also annoying and very slow. The load times are pathetic even on faster computers. But the game itself is excellent and includes not two, but 3 sides. The levels are however, a tad repetitive and not very creative. There are plenty of units and associated gib effects to make up for that though. The America and China campaigns are too easy on normal skill and only during multiplayer is there a real challenge that will force you to think more strategically. I think this game could have been much better if Westwood had more time on their hands.
|External reviews||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|