The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Command & Conquer: Generals'.
Just got it, walked through most of the USA campaign on hard and am halfway through the chinese. But how do you initiate dog-fights between your planes?
Is it just a case of putting them on guard, or do you have to actually select the plane you want to attack?
Excellent though, especially with the sound turned right up, it's like world war 3 at my house at the moment.
Oh, and can you switch off superweapons on skirmish? I always find them to be a pain - it's less a matter of who is the more skilled as who can build a nuke site first and press a big red button.
I hope they keep the series going, I haven't found a game that betters the C&C series at RTS.
Is it just a case of putting them on guard, or do you have to actually select the plane you want to attack?
Excellent though, especially with the sound turned right up, it's like world war 3 at my house at the moment.
Oh, and can you switch off superweapons on skirmish? I always find them to be a pain - it's less a matter of who is the more skilled as who can build a nuke site first and press a big red button.
I hope they keep the series going, I haven't found a game that betters the C&C series at RTS.
Page:
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> Who needs some scantily clad brunette with huge breasts when you have
> nuke cannons?
What the hell have you done with Borat?
> Who needs some scantily clad brunette with huge breasts when you have
> nuke cannons?
What the hell have you done with Borat?
It's the gameplay that counts.
Who needs some scantily clad brunette with huge breasts when you have nuke cannons?
what am I saying?
Who needs some scantily clad brunette with huge breasts when you have nuke cannons?
what am I saying?
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> I can't see the problem with Generals at all. I've played every
> C&C game to death, including the poorly rated Tiberian Sun, which
> I thought was still reasonably good.
>
The problem with generals for me is that it was characterless. I think it was a strange choice for a game in a series that has worked so hard on creating its world and identity. Maybe you don't need a storyline to make a good game, but it helps alot, not necessarily because people want characters to identity with but because it gives the game creators source material to do something different. And without the C&C identity its just a generic RTS that doesn't really offer anything new or interesting.
> I can't see the problem with Generals at all. I've played every
> C&C game to death, including the poorly rated Tiberian Sun, which
> I thought was still reasonably good.
>
The problem with generals for me is that it was characterless. I think it was a strange choice for a game in a series that has worked so hard on creating its world and identity. Maybe you don't need a storyline to make a good game, but it helps alot, not necessarily because people want characters to identity with but because it gives the game creators source material to do something different. And without the C&C identity its just a generic RTS that doesn't really offer anything new or interesting.
You haven't tried ZH?!
If you like Generals, you honestly need to.
It adds so much to the game.
Actually, all this talk of it makes me want to reinstall it.
:'}
It got replaced by Rome: Total War, and seeing as how I formatted my PC not too long ago and, erm, haven't redownloaded R:TW yet (hush, dear child), I might get back into Gens.
Hmm.
If you like Generals, you honestly need to.
It adds so much to the game.
Actually, all this talk of it makes me want to reinstall it.
:'}
It got replaced by Rome: Total War, and seeing as how I formatted my PC not too long ago and, erm, haven't redownloaded R:TW yet (hush, dear child), I might get back into Gens.
Hmm.
I can't see the problem with Generals at all. I've played every C&C game to death, including the poorly rated Tiberian Sun, which I thought was still reasonably good.
There are some aspects I don't like - the units seem less responsive than Red Alert 2. Sometimes when I ask a legion of tanks to move, they spend half an hour repositioning themselves over and over, when there is just no need for it. Also quite often I've seen units happily get blown to bits without returning fire.
But these are bugs that have been with the series since the start, with varying degrees of severity.
As for it being unbalanced - I've played with each of the sides (admittedly not on multiplayer yet) and can't see too much of a problem.
As far as I'm concerned it's a definite improvement over previous iterations, and I haven't tried Zero Hour yet.
One thing that is crap is the complete lack of Sea Units though. Would it have killed them to include a few battleships/submarines?
There are some aspects I don't like - the units seem less responsive than Red Alert 2. Sometimes when I ask a legion of tanks to move, they spend half an hour repositioning themselves over and over, when there is just no need for it. Also quite often I've seen units happily get blown to bits without returning fire.
But these are bugs that have been with the series since the start, with varying degrees of severity.
As for it being unbalanced - I've played with each of the sides (admittedly not on multiplayer yet) and can't see too much of a problem.
As far as I'm concerned it's a definite improvement over previous iterations, and I haven't tried Zero Hour yet.
One thing that is crap is the complete lack of Sea Units though. Would it have killed them to include a few battleships/submarines?
Whitestripes DX wrote:
> It's called Warcraft.
I had the original warcraft, but the whole magic/medieval/orcs thing doesn't really do it for me. Give me particle cannons and nuclear weapons any day.
I like Settlers, and that is set in Medieval times but isn't really a 'proper' RTS.
> It's called Warcraft.
I had the original warcraft, but the whole magic/medieval/orcs thing doesn't really do it for me. Give me particle cannons and nuclear weapons any day.
I like Settlers, and that is set in Medieval times but isn't really a 'proper' RTS.
Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Generals is an absolute shambles, utterly terrible and about 1/20th
> of previous C&C games. Still, that's what you get when EA decide
> to disband Westwood and make it themselves.
I agree Generals isn't great. But FYI, EA did not disband Westwood and make it themselves. They changed the name of the Westwood Pacific to EA Pacific. The same people who created Red Alert 2 are exactly the same people who created Generals. In fact when Generals was started, it was still under the Westwood name.
I suspect its generic nature is more to do with the fact that they wanted to create an engine they could license out.
> Generals is an absolute shambles, utterly terrible and about 1/20th
> of previous C&C games. Still, that's what you get when EA decide
> to disband Westwood and make it themselves.
I agree Generals isn't great. But FYI, EA did not disband Westwood and make it themselves. They changed the name of the Westwood Pacific to EA Pacific. The same people who created Red Alert 2 are exactly the same people who created Generals. In fact when Generals was started, it was still under the Westwood name.
I suspect its generic nature is more to do with the fact that they wanted to create an engine they could license out.
Btw,
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> I haven't found a game that
> betters the C&C series at RTS.
It's called Warcraft.
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> I haven't found a game that
> betters the C&C series at RTS.
It's called Warcraft.
lol
Generals is an absolute shambles, utterly terrible and about 1/20th of previous C&C games. Still, that's what you get when EA decide to disband Westwood and make it themselves.
It's only redeeming feature is that it can be quite funny if you play with some mates in multiplayer, but it's only funny because it's so poorly coded and ridiculously unbalanced.
4/10
Generals is an absolute shambles, utterly terrible and about 1/20th of previous C&C games. Still, that's what you get when EA decide to disband Westwood and make it themselves.
It's only redeeming feature is that it can be quite funny if you play with some mates in multiplayer, but it's only funny because it's so poorly coded and ridiculously unbalanced.
4/10
I don't understand why people prefer Red Alert to Generals.
Who gives a flying rat's ass about omg storyline in an RTS?
I certainly don't.
Who gives a flying rat's ass about omg storyline in an RTS?
I certainly don't.
Page: