What is peoples problem with C&C Generals?

Dyson

Dyson

Dyson

Soldato
Joined
18 Jan 2007
Posts
6,400
Location
Dorset
Love this game from the first time I installed it, being playing it for years now, and yet all I hear is people moaning about it.

Had C&C3 for a bit now, apart from units I struggle to see a differance myself. Dont get me wrong, I like the new game, but just what did Generals do that was so wrong? Apart from multi-player netcode...

Was it flawed, or did a lot of people just jump on a band wagon and **** it off, much like the trend for the ATI R600. No ones used one, but already its cack!
 
I liked it, especially Zero Hour. The sheer number of varied sides really made the game for me.
 
Woo, thats two people that like it! You know what I mean though. Just read review of new C&C in PCZONE, and they had a little dig at Generals there too.
 
They did the same with Tib Sun, which if anyone actually played it through was a decent game.

I think the reason behind the bad reviews is that everyone expects a new Red Alert, god forbid they bring out one slightly different.

I still play zero hour, good game :D
 
Generals was a good game. I had hours of fun playing it.

But it was not Command and Conquer. The fact that they used its name for a game unrelated to the series put a lot of people off.
 
Wasn't in the same universe, but to me was in the same vein as the others. Still looks good now, unlike original C&C. Had a play a while back, started giving me a headache!
 
for me, what i remember is old C&C often meant hours and hours on a really difficult mid-end game map. fun battles and sacrificed prettyness for playability.

generals looked all new and fancy but boring units, boring battles and didn't take half as long to get through IIRC. but then not played it in a long time.

C&C3 for me, not anywhere near as good as old. i don't want 3 new units, or which 2 are almost identical to old ones with a new name. now, to be honest i freaking loved the prism tanks, but please, i want something original now and then. firstly they decided not to do any naval battle at all. air units were sucky, there were limited ground units and they were all basically the same as before. ok, to be fair the avenger was it called, nod mech is cool and new. but the GDI version was just a ever so slightly differently moving arty truck. nod had the prism tank it just wasn't called a prism tank. did the buggy and rocket bike still have to be the same, new base units finally, new big units, different style of attacking so gameplay changes a bit more.
 
drunkenmaster said:
for me, what i remember is old C&C often meant hours and hours on a really difficult mid-end game map. fun battles and sacrificed prettyness for playability.

generals looked all new and fancy but boring units, boring battles and didn't take half as long to get through IIRC. but then not played it in a long time.

C&C3 for me, not anywhere near as good as old. i don't want 3 new units, or which 2 are almost identical to old ones with a new name. now, to be honest i freaking loved the prism tanks, but please, i want something original now and then. firstly they decided not to do any naval battle at all. air units were sucky, there were limited ground units and they were all basically the same as before. ok, to be fair the avenger was it called, nod mech is cool and new. but the GDI version was just a ever so slightly differently moving arty truck. nod had the prism tank it just wasn't called a prism tank. did the buggy and rocket bike still have to be the same, new base units finally, new big units, different style of attacking so gameplay changes a bit more.
Click to expand...

C&C3 is based on the tiberium timeline. No tiberium game has ever had navel units. There is also nothing wrong with the air units if you know how to use them. As for the other units... GDI would not be GDI without a medium tank and a mammoth tank, as NOD would not be NOD without a flame tank and a stealth tank. It is what makes them who they are. To change them would just not make sense.

Then there is the Scrin, which adds hugely to online play. Fighting Scrin requires totally different tactics to fighting the others, somethign which other C&C games have not really had.

C&C3 is, in my opinion, far superior to Generals in every way and easily on par with Tib Dawn and Tib Sun.
 
I dont think people had or have anything against it,it's just that a few games
came along that were better more fun like dawn of war etc i still have
generals and zero hour gathering dust i may install again but i bet hardly anyone still plays it.
 
The problem with Command & Conquer: Generals was that it was an EA game called Generals, that when EA acquired Westwood had C&C slapped on the front. Other than that it was a good game. Despite being a C&C whore I've not played the third one yet. Tried the demo and couldn't get past the fact the zoom level was horrendously low. Didn't help I'd being playing SupCom either.
 
Simply Generals is not a C&C game, its some lack luster rts with C&C put on the front to help sales, Now C&C3 that IS a C&C game.
 
Generals was great and a fantastic LAN game - it's biggest problem was the fact that it was, in my experience, a nightmare reliability-wise multiplayer. Never seen any one game crash so many times across multiple LAN parties.
 
Granted generals had its online functionality problems, but it is far superior to CNC3 in its variety of game play. CnC3 is very repetitive. Get cash as fast as possible, couple defences, spam tanks, spam tanks, spam tanks.
 
Generals was ok (not great) as an RTS on its own, what sucked was that EA stuck the C&C name on a generic RTS for more sales.
 
I enjoyed Generals as well but as mentioned it wasn't really C&C, just an offshoot - had none of the previous background.

Loved the exploding barrels though, so much fun building walls of them then remote controlling them when your unsuspecting enemy rolls into that narrow choke point.........

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom