The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 and Conquer Generals: Zero Hour'.
I am a big warcraft fan and I love the game because it is the perfect strat game but alot of people don't like it because it is not real enough.
Thier prefere C&C, which I think is a awfull game in all ways. You really have no major control over your armies in battles like warcraft and you can build super weapons to kill someone off without building a army.
I am wondering which you think is better between the two.
C&C
or
Warcraft
When you voted could you give reasons why
Thier prefere C&C, which I think is a awfull game in all ways. You really have no major control over your armies in battles like warcraft and you can build super weapons to kill someone off without building a army.
I am wondering which you think is better between the two.
C&C
or
Warcraft
When you voted could you give reasons why
Page:
I am a big warcraft fan and I love the game because it is the perfect strat game but alot of people don't like it because it is not real enough.
Thier prefere C&C, which I think is a awfull game in all ways. You really have no major control over your armies in battles like warcraft and you can build super weapons to kill someone off without building a army.
I am wondering which you think is better between the two.
C&C
or
Warcraft
When you voted could you give reasons why
Thier prefere C&C, which I think is a awfull game in all ways. You really have no major control over your armies in battles like warcraft and you can build super weapons to kill someone off without building a army.
I am wondering which you think is better between the two.
C&C
or
Warcraft
When you voted could you give reasons why
I don't really like C&C, but I've never played Warcraft, but I'd guess I'd prefer Warcraft.
Warcraft is ok, but the expansion really makes the game come into its own.
Frozen Throne is awesome. It even made it slightly painful to go back for retro Starcraft: Broodwar games, which I previously thought was impossible.
C&C games post Red Alert 1 aren't worth the CDs they're printed on.
Frozen Throne is awesome. It even made it slightly painful to go back for retro Starcraft: Broodwar games, which I previously thought was impossible.
C&C games post Red Alert 1 aren't worth the CDs they're printed on.
C&C Generals is excellent - easily the best game in the series since the original Red Alert.
Warcraft 3 and its expansion pack The Frozen Throne is also a top game.
Personally i prefer Generals, simply because of its real world setting - but if you like RTS games, you can't go far wrong with either.
Warcraft 3 and its expansion pack The Frozen Throne is also a top game.
Personally i prefer Generals, simply because of its real world setting - but if you like RTS games, you can't go far wrong with either.
Well, I haven't played it myself. I lost all respect for Westwood with Tiberian Sun. That licked dog balls.
Bane wrote:
> Well, I haven't played it myself.
So you cannot comment on the game then.
I agree, Westwood lost the plot for many of the seemingly endless C&C sequels, in no small part to most of the team leaving and the company being intergrated into the coding 'sweat shop' that is Elexctronic Arts.
However, Generals is a great game in its own right. Not the revolution that oringal C&C may have been, but it doesn't do much wrong.
If you haven't played something, how can you comment?
This guy is looking for informed opinions on a game he wants to buy, and to have this opinion you MUST have played it - simply as.
He is not looking for an opinion based on someone who just dismises a game out of hand.
If you have played Generals and really didn't like it because you thought it was a bad game, then fair play, slate it all you want. But until you have done so, how can your opinion be a valid one?
> Well, I haven't played it myself.
So you cannot comment on the game then.
I agree, Westwood lost the plot for many of the seemingly endless C&C sequels, in no small part to most of the team leaving and the company being intergrated into the coding 'sweat shop' that is Elexctronic Arts.
However, Generals is a great game in its own right. Not the revolution that oringal C&C may have been, but it doesn't do much wrong.
If you haven't played something, how can you comment?
This guy is looking for informed opinions on a game he wants to buy, and to have this opinion you MUST have played it - simply as.
He is not looking for an opinion based on someone who just dismises a game out of hand.
If you have played Generals and really didn't like it because you thought it was a bad game, then fair play, slate it all you want. But until you have done so, how can your opinion be a valid one?
Safedisc_V2 wrote:
> This guy is looking for informed opinions on a game he wants to buy,
> and to have this opinion you MUST have played it - simply as.
Which guy? Nobody prior to you made a reference to purchasing any games.
> This guy is looking for informed opinions on a game he wants to buy,
> and to have this opinion you MUST have played it - simply as.
Which guy? Nobody prior to you made a reference to purchasing any games.
I was going to buy C&C Generals, then I played the demo and found out it's just every other C&C game that's come before it but with some nice new graphics. A game which still relies on the old "Tank Rush" strategies just doesn't cut it anymore, not unless your a complete strategy newbie.
Warcraft 3 gets my vote.
Warcraft 3 gets my vote.
Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> Safedisc_V2 wrote:
> This guy is looking for informed opinions on a game he wants to buy,
> and to have this opinion you MUST have played it - simply as.
>
>
> Which guy? Nobody prior to you made a reference to purchasing any
> games.
Ah okay.
I assumed that if someone was asking a straight question, which is better, game A or game B - as the original post did - then it would obviously be because they are thinking of buying it.
He doesn't actually say i want to know whcih one to buy, but why else would you ask? For the hell of it? I don't know. However if the guy who started the post just wanted opinons for no reason other than being a prat - then fair point.
However, my point about not being able to pass judgment on a game until you have played it is still valid - surely no one here believes they should slate a game they haven't even played?
please, tell me that is true :-|
> Safedisc_V2 wrote:
> This guy is looking for informed opinions on a game he wants to buy,
> and to have this opinion you MUST have played it - simply as.
>
>
> Which guy? Nobody prior to you made a reference to purchasing any
> games.
Ah okay.
I assumed that if someone was asking a straight question, which is better, game A or game B - as the original post did - then it would obviously be because they are thinking of buying it.
He doesn't actually say i want to know whcih one to buy, but why else would you ask? For the hell of it? I don't know. However if the guy who started the post just wanted opinons for no reason other than being a prat - then fair point.
However, my point about not being able to pass judgment on a game until you have played it is still valid - surely no one here believes they should slate a game they haven't even played?
please, tell me that is true :-|
cipro wrote:
> I was going to buy C&C Generals, then I played the demo and found
> out it's just every other C&C game that's come before it but with
> some nice new graphics. A game which still relies on the old
> "Tank Rush" strategies just doesn't cut it anymore, not
> unless your a complete strategy newbie.
>
> Warcraft 3 gets my vote.
Hmmm, in skirmish mode that is indeed true, just get the biggest army you can and attack. However, the actual campaigns, particularly as you progress through the game, are really rather good and require a bit of tactical thought. I am not saying the game is on par with some of the harder core RTSs out there, but its certainly not tank rush fodder.
Plus the campaign story lines are really well realised, with some nice set pieces and objective - as I say, it's not ground breaking but its enjoyable stuff. Which is what gaming is all about. Well for me it is anyway.
'strategy newbie' - hmmm, well I really liked the game, and I played the original C&C when it was first released, so I would not call myself a newbie.
However, as Cirpo says, get the demo and make up your own mind - simple as.
Different strokes for different folks I guess.
> I was going to buy C&C Generals, then I played the demo and found
> out it's just every other C&C game that's come before it but with
> some nice new graphics. A game which still relies on the old
> "Tank Rush" strategies just doesn't cut it anymore, not
> unless your a complete strategy newbie.
>
> Warcraft 3 gets my vote.
Hmmm, in skirmish mode that is indeed true, just get the biggest army you can and attack. However, the actual campaigns, particularly as you progress through the game, are really rather good and require a bit of tactical thought. I am not saying the game is on par with some of the harder core RTSs out there, but its certainly not tank rush fodder.
Plus the campaign story lines are really well realised, with some nice set pieces and objective - as I say, it's not ground breaking but its enjoyable stuff. Which is what gaming is all about. Well for me it is anyway.
'strategy newbie' - hmmm, well I really liked the game, and I played the original C&C when it was first released, so I would not call myself a newbie.
However, as Cirpo says, get the demo and make up your own mind - simple as.
Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Page: