What is peoples problem with C&C Generals?

Kreeeee said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not all that different to 3 though, in fairness. C&C3 feels, to me, a lot like a C&C plotline, characters and unit names, strapped on to a generic RTS.
 
It makes me laugh that people are judging a game because of its name!

They could have called, "My little pony attacks!" and it would make no difference to the actual game!
 
hahahahaha dunno about you but i would be ******* scared of a game called my little pony attacks! :D

Generals was a very good game, it didn't feel like a cnc game because it was better than them! command and conquer is sadly a very dated game these days, while other rts's have become more advanced as new versions came out cnc has stayed very similar to its roots which just doesn't cut it im afraid

zero hour was even better than generals, the problem with it though is with 12 different generals (3 fancy and a vanilla) it was impossible to balance the game.. and so yes their are units and tactics that rule supreme.

Of course being an ea game there is next to no after release support so these overpowered units were not balanced and the problem with the scud bug was left unfixed for months

As my current favourite game Company of Heroes says EA SuX
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom