The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Ok, I should stated I own warcraft 3 and TFT and have played C&C at a local lan center I know.
I am not planning to buy C&C because I think it is a basic RTS which dosen't take long to learn while warcraft 3 takes skills and thier 1000's of strats.
I had a game of C&C and it was a 2v1. I was GLA and vs 2 Chinas.
I expanded quick and built mass rocket buggies.
I beat them with jsut a army of them and thier could only kill them with air, I found boring and to easy to win by mass a unit.
I ask which you prefere to see which game is more popular and not because I am being prat ( Thanks for the insult Safedisc_V2 )
, I just want to see which game is liked more and why.
I am not trying to insult the 2 games, I just want opions because RTS our popular and these 2 are the best 2 out at the moment. I just want to know which people like more and see which is played more.
Now lets carry on this post and stop flaming each other because its easy to flame someone for a simple mistake.
I am not planning to buy C&C because I think it is a basic RTS which dosen't take long to learn while warcraft 3 takes skills and thier 1000's of strats.
I had a game of C&C and it was a 2v1. I was GLA and vs 2 Chinas.
I expanded quick and built mass rocket buggies.
I beat them with jsut a army of them and thier could only kill them with air, I found boring and to easy to win by mass a unit.
I ask which you prefere to see which game is more popular and not because I am being prat ( Thanks for the insult Safedisc_V2 )
, I just want to see which game is liked more and why.
I am not trying to insult the 2 games, I just want opions because RTS our popular and these 2 are the best 2 out at the moment. I just want to know which people like more and see which is played more.
Now lets carry on this post and stop flaming each other because its easy to flame someone for a simple mistake.
Red-Baron234 wrote:
> Now lets carry on this post and stop flaming each other because its
> easy to flame someone for a simple mistake.
Fun too :D
Sorry.
*Goes back into hole*
> Now lets carry on this post and stop flaming each other because its
> easy to flame someone for a simple mistake.
Fun too :D
Sorry.
*Goes back into hole*
Safedisc_V2 wrote:
> So you cannot comment on the game then.
Yes I can, because for the past 8 years, Westwood have done little other than regurgitate the same boring formula that was acceptable back then, when there was little else available or indeed within capability, but today, it's just crap.
> If you haven't played something, how can you comment?
Saw reviews that said it was balls, Westwood have worn their reputation into the ground etc..
> 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.
Somebody wasn't reading, were they?
> He is not looking for an opinion based on someone who just dismises a
> game out of hand.
Something I rarely do, and usually only to film licenced games, which almost invariably suck hog boils.
> 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?
For reasons stated above, general internet attitude towards it, and the fact that there are numerous games available that are far more popular, perhaps?
Just because you like the game, doesn't mean that everyone has to. I will probably never play a westwood game again due to their raping of the genre, and inability to evolve it. look at Blizzard. Pretty much every game they produce is a must have, look then at the westwood catalogue. What do you see but the odd gem amongst a pile of dismissable garbage?
Westwood built themselves an awesome reputation with C&C and Red Alert, only to throw it all away with several years of treating RTS fans like The Sims enthusiasts, which they are not. So if, as a result, they get frowned upon, and viewed with a very cynical outlook, they have only themselves to blame.
> So you cannot comment on the game then.
Yes I can, because for the past 8 years, Westwood have done little other than regurgitate the same boring formula that was acceptable back then, when there was little else available or indeed within capability, but today, it's just crap.
> If you haven't played something, how can you comment?
Saw reviews that said it was balls, Westwood have worn their reputation into the ground etc..
> 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.
Somebody wasn't reading, were they?
> He is not looking for an opinion based on someone who just dismises a
> game out of hand.
Something I rarely do, and usually only to film licenced games, which almost invariably suck hog boils.
> 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?
For reasons stated above, general internet attitude towards it, and the fact that there are numerous games available that are far more popular, perhaps?
Just because you like the game, doesn't mean that everyone has to. I will probably never play a westwood game again due to their raping of the genre, and inability to evolve it. look at Blizzard. Pretty much every game they produce is a must have, look then at the westwood catalogue. What do you see but the odd gem amongst a pile of dismissable garbage?
Westwood built themselves an awesome reputation with C&C and Red Alert, only to throw it all away with several years of treating RTS fans like The Sims enthusiasts, which they are not. So if, as a result, they get frowned upon, and viewed with a very cynical outlook, they have only themselves to blame.
Safedisc_V2 wrote:
> '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.
I didn't directly aim my comments at you, it was just a generalization. I was basically saying if there are any newbies to strategy games out there, they'd probably prefer Generals to Warcraft because it does seem allot easier.
I started of strategy gaming with the original C&C, and have enjoyed two of it's sequels, but after Total Annihilation, Ground Control, Starcraft, Sudden Strike, Commandos 2, Shogun: Total War and Medieval: Total War, I just can't enjoy the same old simplified strategies that the series has come to rely on. Fun, but not not challenging enough.
> '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.
I didn't directly aim my comments at you, it was just a generalization. I was basically saying if there are any newbies to strategy games out there, they'd probably prefer Generals to Warcraft because it does seem allot easier.
I started of strategy gaming with the original C&C, and have enjoyed two of it's sequels, but after Total Annihilation, Ground Control, Starcraft, Sudden Strike, Commandos 2, Shogun: Total War and Medieval: Total War, I just can't enjoy the same old simplified strategies that the series has come to rely on. Fun, but not not challenging enough.
Speaking of which, when is Rome: Total War out?
Bane wrote:
> If you haven't played something, how can you comment?
>
> Saw reviews that said it was balls, Westwood have worn their
> reputation into the ground etc..
This is perhaps why Westwood no longer exists, and then there are the failures with their C&C: Renegade and Earth & Beyond games. EA took up developing Generals with the help of a few ex westwood employees.
> If you haven't played something, how can you comment?
>
> Saw reviews that said it was balls, Westwood have worn their
> reputation into the ground etc..
This is perhaps why Westwood no longer exists, and then there are the failures with their C&C: Renegade and Earth & Beyond games. EA took up developing Generals with the help of a few ex westwood employees.
Well, C&C will always be "Westwood" to me.
But then, I view life through a sceptical hate-lens.
But then, I view life through a sceptical hate-lens.
Bane wrote:
> Speaking of which, when is Rome: Total War out?
Not sure. I'd hoped this year but it looks unlikely. Sometime next year perhaps, around April if it doesn't slip.
Speaking of which, do you watch a show called Time Commanders? It's a game show where a team of people have to cammand armies in historical battles, but here's the thing, I'm sure the show uses Rome: Total War to recreate these battles, and if that's the case then it's looking very good indeed.
> Speaking of which, when is Rome: Total War out?
Not sure. I'd hoped this year but it looks unlikely. Sometime next year perhaps, around April if it doesn't slip.
Speaking of which, do you watch a show called Time Commanders? It's a game show where a team of people have to cammand armies in historical battles, but here's the thing, I'm sure the show uses Rome: Total War to recreate these battles, and if that's the case then it's looking very good indeed.
Bane wrote:
> Well, C&C will always be "Westwood" to me.
>
> But then, I view life through a sceptical hate-lens.
The Generals demo still had that Westwood feel about it, same game different graphics.
> Well, C&C will always be "Westwood" to me.
>
> But then, I view life through a sceptical hate-lens.
The Generals demo still had that Westwood feel about it, same game different graphics.
cipro wrote:
> Speaking of which, do you watch a show called Time Commanders? It's a
> game show where a team of people have to cammand armies in historical
> battles, but here's the thing, I'm sure the show uses Rome: Total War
> to recreate these battles, and if that's the case then it's looking
> very good indeed.
No. What channel/when is it on?
> Speaking of which, do you watch a show called Time Commanders? It's a
> game show where a team of people have to cammand armies in historical
> battles, but here's the thing, I'm sure the show uses Rome: Total War
> to recreate these battles, and if that's the case then it's looking
> very good indeed.
No. What channel/when is it on?
Page: