APOC Looks Back at C&C Generals

[Sonic 295]

Over the past few days APOC has been publicly vocal via Twitter and the Official C&C Forums about rediscovering C&C Generals again. Some fans have been quick to jump on this and suggest that Generals 2 might be the next C&C game from EALA. Lets not jump to conclusions here. Just recently, APOC posted a sort of mini-review looking back at the USA campaign in Generals....

 

I'm doing my own little bit of digging in to the past to discover what was enjoyed the most about all of our past C&C games. I decided to start that out with Generals. Just beat the USA campaign and forgot how incredibly short it was. I am not an RTS pro, so I usually like to play on Normal, which I did, and found it generally pretty easy to get through.

 

I won't lie, I died a bunch of times on Mission 5 trying to stop the GLA Scud Attack, lets just say, I am not a rusher and usually when I get to the point where I have the upperhand, I often get flustered and end up falling back.

 

Replaying the USA Generals campaign reminded me how "ARCADEY" fun Generals is. By far my favorite USA tactic is just building 6-8 Comanches and micro-ing them around the map trying to avoid GLA rocket soldiers (not always easy).

 

I really enjoyed replaying the 7 mission campaign and am going to tackle the GLA right now.

 

I will say, was extremely disappointed with the story presentation, the ending cinematic, but I personally didn't care about that because the gameplay was just outright fun. The missions were generally not that unique, but there was something about it that just made me feel like I was at the arcade popping quarters in to stay alive, and that addiction is something I always loved.

 

[...]

 

Agree with all the above, and this game was RIGHT BEFORE my time. I came in right after Zero Hour, pre BFME 1.

 

This is no indication of anything, just trying to replay our roots and rediscover what has made our past & current games great in their own right.

 

I think everyone concurs Generals had an incredibly weak story, but magical easy to play Gameplay that was as addictive as ever.

 

What I love most about Generals is without looking at the UI, you know what everything does, and its incredibly intuitive to know what can counter what. I think its a lot easier to accomplish this with a modern-warfare realistic game, than sci-fi oriented.

 

But even then, its all about scale and things just making sense. Generals did that, at least that was my favorite aspect.

 

-APOC

Its an interesting thread, and finding out what APOC thinks makes me want to dig out my Generals/Zero Hour discs again. Anyway, click here for the original thread.

[Malevolence 6]

Generals is a decent RTS game, I enjoy the multiplayer aspect of the game, really... but I just didn't treat it as a C&C title. It's just another RTS game to me, no offense.

 

PS. I just don't see how it relates to the C&C franchise tbh.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Malevolence

[[NE]Fobby[GEN] 10]

I think it was pretty average. It wasn't a bad game, but there was nothing particularly ground breaking or C&C about it. I still liked it more than the latest game though.

[Aaron Kaufman 0]

When Command & Conquer branched off in to the Red Alert universe many moons ago, that is when "Command & Conquer" became a style of RTS play, a universe in which a certain type of RTS gameplay was expected, a franchise.

 

Even though there were attempts or proclamations back in the mid-90's that the Red Alert and Tiberian universes were meant to be canonically connected by their stories, that never saw a successful light. Sure Joe Kucan made a cameo in Red Alert, but looking back that was a parody that caused a lot of confusion. Nowhere since has there been any strong storied connection THAT EVERYONE GETS between the Red Alert and Tiberian universe.

 

And yet, both carry the franchise name "Command & Conquer".

 

When Westwood created Red Alert 2, Tiberian Sun, they furthered the separation of those two universes, solidifying their storylines, and further emphasizing "Command & Conquer" as a universe, a "style of RTS gameplay" that would forever be known for traditional resource gathering rock em sock tank rush in your face aggressive arcade like action.

 

And why is Renegade not chided the way Generals was? =) That was a clear departure from "Command & Conquer", even though it vaguely connected stories in the Tiberian universe as an off-shoot.

 

So which brings me to my point yet again, Command & Conquer: Generals/Zero Hour went on to sell millions, and while its story/fiction was not even even close to that of Tiberian/Red Alert with hardly any memorable storied characters (unless you count units), GENERALS was a COMMAND & CONQUER "style of game" set in a completely different modern warfare universe.

 

Arguably and I think justifiably, Westwood/EA Games capitalized on the current world events situation at the time, and made a true Command & Conquer game in the sense of gameplay and general over-the-top themes, tone, unit actions, etc.

 

Generals was created as a new C&C Universe in the same exact way and manner as Red Alert, and even Renegade.

 

I think it's time to look at "Command & Conquer" as a universe/style of play, not as a Tiberian/Red Alert only franchise. Even though those two C&C universes have had the most games made under them.

 

The fact that the hardcore loved the Generals Multiplayer (as you said) further strengthens the argument/fact that "Command & Conquer" is a style of RTS and one could almost create new universes under the name, as long as it carries/maintains the style of gameplay/themes, etc that you've come to know and love since 1995.

 

-APOC

Edited April 21, 2010 by EA Apoc

[ORCaLoVeR 0]

Generals and Zero hour where good. But GLA was overpowerd in the game. US? Go Quad cannon spam and you win. China? Scorpion spam and win.

[Aaron Kaufman 0]

Generals and Zero hour where good. But GLA was overpowerd in the game. US? Go Quad cannon spam and you win. China? Scorpion spam and win.

 

That's why they call it Command & Conquer =)

[Saracen 16]

That's why they call it Command & Conquer =)

 

I have to come in here and say actually that this was EALA's finest hour. Should I be honest even further, it's still the only C&C I still bother playing. It has a certain re-playability that others haven't. I think the fact that it had no story, had some great units, strong variation, made it in general RTS terms still one of the best RTS packages across the whole spectrum.

 

Didn't think I'd say that did you now.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Saracen

[methuselah 0]

Generals and Zero hour where good. But GLA was overpowerd in the game. US? Go Quad cannon spam and you win. China? Scorpion spam and win.

 

oh dear......lets play. I've not played either game more than once or twice in years.......but you take OP GLA and Quad spam and we'll see who wins

 

CCG is pretty balanced at high levels of play there are map advantages and such but the play is pretty balanced. Zero Hour is pretty broken but USAF is the most OP faction in the game due to KR's and MDvee's.

 

Sorry back on topic now I enjoy the philosophical APOC

 

I have always looked at it that way and it pisses me off to hear people talk about CCG/ZH not being C&C. What they are not is Tiberian/Tiberium universe games but they are the finest examples of C&C ever created IMHO. Now keep in mind I'm not hiding my loyalties here. I love the fiction of the Tib universes and I mean that with all my heart but what makes my gamer pants go crazy is online.

 

And CCG/ZH rock online.

 

Have a nice day

Edited April 21, 2010 by methuselah

[recover 2]

I agree with many things that you say Apoc, but I disagree that Kane's presence in RA1 was "a parody" and I disagree with your statement that there were a lot of confusion. Kane's appearance has a clear impact on the story, something even you guys used in C&C4 ("I've spent thousands of years here...", etc). RA1's story is every bit as serious as TibDawn's story is. The confusion you mention first appeared when RA2 was released and had no reference to the past games story-wise. I think that was a mistake. RA2 was confusing, RA1 was not.

Edited April 21, 2010 by recover

[Aaron Kaufman 0]

That is a topic for a long debate, but regardless, its been all but affirmed the two universes are completely separate by now.

 

I am sure some will come here and write a long prose as to why I am wrong with story connections, and short quotes from past devs, but ultimately, Red Alert 2 was designed by Westwood, published by EA, so there was still a serious opportunity to connect them and keep it serious if that was the original intent.

 

I think its better that they remain separate and things went the way they did. It created a distinct "distinction" between the two universes and allowed for a lot less confusion in the end.

 

-APOC

[CCHyper 3]

Its nice to hear your side APOC, and i do agree.

 

Dam its been years since i played Zero Hour, perhaps i should dust it off?

[ill-lushtrator 0]

As much as I sometimes do disagree with some statements made here and there about the C&C universe and its library of games, I actually have to agree with EA_APOC's thoughts (philosophy?) about C&C Generals being a game that is still C&C-centric gameplay-wise, despite not related to the Tiberian/Red Alert plots where storyline is important. I personally do not play C&C:G multiplayer often, but I did go through the Single Player mode (I usually play C&C for Campaign Modes). I feel that the plot isn't my cup of tea. Sure, the motif(s) and themes surrounding C&C:G seemed more of a modern military warfare which is popular (some people I met say it's a 'cash-in' to 9-11; I agree to a small extent only). But other than that, I don't feel spiritually connected to the Generals universe itself (personal preference) but yet I still do have find similarities in that said game with previous installments (unit designs), etc. That is interesting, I feel.

 

Actually, I do have a funny thought. Well, I was watching some Youtube videos on C&C's history, and from these videos, I found out that C&C originally was pitched to be a fantasy-themed game, but changes in pitching the original game idea meant spawning the sci-fi Tiberian saga that we know today. So my question is:

 

* If a new C&C game (obviously to differentiate from the Tiberian/RA/Generals sagas) were to be made, what chances of marketing success will there be, if this new C&C game were to be fantasy-genre instead of the modern warfare/sci-fi themes?*

(Come to think about it, it IS very silly. But since possibilities are almost infinite, I believe anything is, well, possible.)

[Johnnyxp64 20]

what i loved in generals and zh was the direct IP to IP connection and no hamatce no online servers nothing, just a good port forward and limitless hours of gaming!!!

 

specially whn i edit the gamedata.ini (if remember corectly) and improve the FPS from 30 to 60 and took the camera a little more far and my friends were using the same, oh BOY! now that was a game!!!!

 

we have been playing for months!!!!

 

 

but remembering the past will not make the future brighter i quess.

 

i would love to see a Generals 2 even with the current Sage engine, would perform with nevel battles fantastic! Red Alert 3 is so damn cool when come to engine, and lighting improvent in TT is even better too bad i really dotn enjoy the last game that much

 

but back to topic, i Vote for Generals 2 (with Decent story this time without insulting any country or terorist organization ;-)

Edited April 21, 2010 by Johnnyxp64

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Generals and Zero hour where good. But GLA was overpowerd in the game. US? Go Quad cannon spam and you win. China? Scorpion spam and win.

You don't play much real online, do you? These are hardly valid and will get you owned.

 

Anyway, I've always thought of Generals as part of the universe. It's not as easy to work in, but it is possible. Seems to follow an Allied victory path through Red Alert, Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge. RA3 kinda ****ed up the mix, but they flat used time travel so it doesn't count.

[[NE]Fobby[GEN] 10]

And why is Renegade not chided the way Generals was? =) That was a clear departure from "Command & Conquer", even though it vaguely connected stories in the Tiberian universe as an off-shoot.

 

Actually, many do "chide-away" Renegade as a Command & Conquer game, but I would argue that it definitely is a C&C game, despite its genre. We have to remember that pre-Generals, C&C was an ongoing story and not a brand. Tiberian Dawn was the first of the series, Red Alert was its prequel (hence the Soviet ending with Kane), and Tiberian Sun was TD's sequel. If you see C&C in light of a 'story', Renegade still fits, because it takes place in 2002 - seven years after Tiberian Dawn - as its own individual timeslot and low intensity conflict between TD and TS (it was half solo operations after all). Storywise, Renegade has no problem in being considered a C&C game.

 

In terms of gameplay, I think the raw appearance of TD vehicles, structures, characters (ie Mobius), aircraft, and most importantly, C&C Mode, is what made Renegade a C&C game and not just an FPS misadventure. If it was a deathmatch or capture the flag game, that did not make sense with the previous story arch, then I wouldn't have considered it a C&C game.

 

Some may ask about RA2, which was my personal favourite C&C RTS gameplay-wise, and its consistency with the story. EA had actually asked the second division of Westwood (Westwood Pacific I believe) to make another Red Alert game, as the previous one had been so successful. Westwood however also had plans to tie together RA2 and TD in Renegade 2, which was cancelled in 2003.

 

As for Generals, like I mentioned earlier, it's not a bad game at all. But, considering at the time where the series was going, Command & Conquer was not a brand, so Generals neither fit in the story arch, nor carried any prominent C&C RTS gameplay features (sidebar, structure & vehicle construction system, cutscenes, etc.) This doesn't make it bad, but it's quite undeniable that the Command & Conquer was slapped on for marketing purposes, as it was unrelated to the series at the time (and still is today) unlike C&C3.

Edited April 21, 2010 by [NE]Fobby[GEN]

[Nmenth 291]

"Command & Conquer" became a style of RTS play, a universe in which a certain type of RTS gameplay was expected

 

"Command & Conquer" as a universe, a "style of RTS gameplay" that would forever be known for traditional resource gathering rock em sock tank rush in your face aggressive arcade like action.

 

GENERALS was a COMMAND & CONQUER "style of game" set in a completely different modern warfare universe.

 

I think it's time to look at "Command & Conquer" as a universe/style of play, not as a Tiberian/Red Alert only franchise.

 

"Command & Conquer" is a style of RTS and one could almost create new universes under the name, as long as it carries/maintains the style of gameplay/themes

In other words, Apoc is saying C&C4 is not a real Command and Conquer game.

[Sonic 295]

When Westwood created Red Alert 2, Tiberian Sun, they furthered the separation of those two universes, solidifying their storylines, and further emphasizing "Command & Conquer" as a universe, a "style of RTS gameplay" that would forever be known for traditional resource gathering rock em sock tank rush in your face aggressive arcade like action.

To be specific it was the team at Westwood Pacific (later EA Pacific) who created RA2, the team at Westwood Vegas made Renegade and they had every intention of the 2 universes be connected at some point. Adam Isgreen even wrote a long story around this time that made everything fit. In 2005 during C&C's 10th anniversary we did a bunch of interviews with former Westwood devs and asked questions about this. I should really dig up these interviews and restore them back to the main site. Anyway, as I said a story was created after RA2 that was intended to connect it all together, to quote Adam Isgreen from the interview:

 

Do you favour the original C&C storyline or the Red Alert universe?

 

I love them both, but I love where we went with the RA universe slightly more. They (were) always planned to be one continuous universe! Someday maybe I'll have the gumption to explain how they tied back into each other. It was pretty cool, if I do say so myself. Yuri fit and everything!

Don't forget that same team that did RA2/YR when on make Generals and Zero Hour. Generals was a decided attempt by EA Pacific, who wanted to take a different approach to a C&C RTS.

 

I can live with the fact the universes are not connected, its probably easier to explain that way. Its cool to consider "Command & Conquer" as a brand anyway because from my point of view it really needs new story, new universe to be set in. So in the end Generals is part of the "brand".

 

[TheBlackOut 7]

Oh God, I loved Generals and Zero Hour, but APOC, you have nostalgia for the campaigns? Snoreville there. They were pretty standard campaigns, nothing really worth replaying honestly.

 

But Generals and Zero Hour weren't just a standard, "let's pump out an RTS" game, it was a damn good RTS. It was diversified, it was different, lots of tactics, units, B/Os, factions, etc. It was insanely fun, especially MP. Sadly, like EA typically does, they neglected it post-release and now it's not near as popular. I'm confident if they would have kept supporting it, it'd still be very, very popular. Oh well, c'est la vie, right? Maybe a Generals 2 can fix it.

[Gben 20]

When talking about Generals and it's expansion I always try to talk about them in isolation because in my mind C&C has two core elements: story and gameplay.

 

In terms of story

- it has no FMV

- it has no connection to the Tiberium universe fiction... overtly, subtle, hidden or plain lateral.

 

In terms of gameplay

- it has no mcv

- it has no sidebar

- it does avoid a popcap

- it does use tanks, infantry, and planes in a familiar rock/paper/scissors approach to combat

- it does have an economy, albeit in an unusual manner

 

Gen/ZH will never convincingly win an argument that it belongs in the C&C universe.

The combat may be the same, the economy is familiar but different, but the rest of the structure of the game is too far removed from core C&C elements. C&C is more than combat, it's a universe of many different elements. Gen/ZH is simply a decent RTS from the producers of C&C.

 

I never really took the opportunity to play ZH in online MP, but I enjoyed the skirmish and odd LAN parties tremendously. I think the game was a success on it's own merits, and should be considered it's own universe, and I really hope we see a 'spiritual' successor one day, because I really enjoyed this game.

[Silverthorn 0]

I got to admit that I did have fun with Generals & ZH, except I do not appreciate that you say it's all about "Command your armies & conquer your enemies", what C&C is all about is all began from the start, it's all about the style like the sidebar, MCV & ConYard, no pop-caps, strong story, CGI, etc.. Yeah, all but Gben said and I'm with him on this one.

 

But Generals doesn't have the right stuff, I don't have my big feelings for its storylines, but I'm more towards its gameplay and style. EA created Generals like a regular RTS, but it's not cool that it stole the "C&C" name as though like EA doesn't know what they were doing. Overall, I play because I'm super bored and also ever since there wasn't a new RTS came out, so I play it out of boredom.

 

So far, I appreciate the green light is a go for a possible Generals 2, but please, do not use the "C&C" name next time, the franchise is already in a huge disgrace ever since C&C4. Sure, you can use it, ONLY if you bring back our MCV, sidebar, resource gathering, no pop-caps, etc.. But if you want Generals 2 to be like its predecessor & ZH, then do not use the C&C name. TBH, last time C&C was just a simple title, today it's a very sensitive one and it should not be messed with.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Silverthorn

[ApornasPlanet 9]

When Command & Conquer branched off in to the Red Alert universe many moons ago, that is when "Command & Conquer" became a style of RTS play, a universe in which a certain type of RTS gameplay was expected, a franchise.

 

Even though there were attempts or proclamations back in the mid-90's that the Red Alert and Tiberian universes were meant to be canonically connected by their stories, that never saw a successful light. Sure Joe Kucan made a cameo in Red Alert, but looking back that was a parody that caused a lot of confusion. Nowhere since has there been any strong storied connection THAT EVERYONE GETS between the Red Alert and Tiberian universe.

 

And yet, both carry the franchise name "Command & Conquer".

 

When Westwood created Red Alert 2, Tiberian Sun, they furthered the separation of those two universes, solidifying their storylines, and further emphasizing "Command & Conquer" as a universe, a "style of RTS gameplay" that would forever be known for traditional resource gathering rock em sock tank rush in your face aggressive arcade like action.

 

And why is Renegade not chided the way Generals was? =) That was a clear departure from "Command & Conquer", even though it vaguely connected stories in the Tiberian universe as an off-shoot.

 

So which brings me to my point yet again, Command & Conquer: Generals/Zero Hour went on to sell millions, and while its story/fiction was not even even close to that of Tiberian/Red Alert with hardly any memorable storied characters (unless you count units), GENERALS was a COMMAND & CONQUER "style of game" set in a completely different modern warfare universe.

 

Arguably and I think justifiably, Westwood/EA Games capitalized on the current world events situation at the time, and made a true Command & Conquer game in the sense of gameplay and general over-the-top themes, tone, unit actions, etc.

 

Generals was created as a new C&C Universe in the same exact way and manner as Red Alert, and even Renegade.

 

I think it's time to look at "Command & Conquer" as a universe/style of play, not as a Tiberian/Red Alert only franchise. Even though those two C&C universes have had the most games made under them.

 

The fact that the hardcore loved the Generals Multiplayer (as you said) further strengthens the argument/fact that "Command & Conquer" is a style of RTS and one could almost create new universes under the name, as long as it carries/maintains the style of gameplay/themes, etc that you've come to know and love since 1995.

 

-APOC

Using that logic Dune2000 and Emperor Battle for Dune becomes C&C games.

 

[Mighty BOB! 5]

SOOOOOOOoooo.

 

 

 

How 'bout that SCUD bug eh? Glad they fixed-- oh right they didn't.

 

 

 

Bugs and some balancing* aside, I've had a lot of fun in Gen/ZH in the skirmish mode. I've even made something like 20 or 30 maps for it. That being said though, I disagreed with some of the design decisions. I won't go into that though.

 

*mainly for ZH.

 

 

And like Sonic said, Red Alert and Tiberium were going to be one "continuum." There were plans to link them more closely** in Renegade 2, and Red Alert 3. If memory servs (and there's a good chance it doesn't) it involved a Chronosphere that was "rediscovered" in a GDI warehouse (formerly Allied) messing with the timeline. Somehow Kane was to know about Yuri. But it is true that since Ren2 was canned, and Westwood/EA Pacific's RA3 didn't get off the ground, that stuff didn't happen. And it is true that since the IP is in different hands today, that stuff obviously isn't canon since it was declared not to be by the new owners. But the point being, it would have been.

 

**more closely than they were already (RA1 Kane).

 

 

 

Also C&C's "roots" are the originals, not Generals. Although you could say EA's C&C roots are with Generals, inspiration should still be taken from the "essence" of the originals. You might say that's what Apoc was talking about with "C&C as a gameplay style."

 

 

 

And I seem to recall a few years ago, there was an interview on a C&C fan site, or a video or podcast from EA, where one of the head guys from Generals said that they didn't actually intend to design a game with the parallels to 9/11 and the resulting wars. IIRC they sort of saw that asymmetrical warfare was a big possibility on the horizon, and then real world events sort of unfolded in a way like that?

Edited April 22, 2010 by Mighty BOB!

[Koen 2]

Using that logic Dune2000 and Emperor Battle for Dune becomes C&C games.

Dune 2000 is a really good RTS, and its quite C&C-style with FMVs, base building. Only the setting is different (Dune). It's a tribute to Dune 2, the direct predecessor to Command & Conquer 1.

Emperor is... really unbalanced. And being an early 3D RTS, it is not very visually pleasing.

[Sonic 295]

And I seem to recall a few years ago, there was an interview on a C&C fan site, or a video or podcast from EA, where one of the head guys from Generals said that they didn't actually intend to design a game with the parallels to 9/11 and the resulting wars. IIRC they sort of saw that asymmetrical warfare was a big possibility on the horizon, and then real world events sort of unfolded in a way like that?

Same here BOB, I'm sure I remember something very similar. There was some criticism that EA were cashing in the the 9/11 tragedy.

[PurpleGaga27 40]

There was some criticism that EA were cashing in the the 9/11 tragedy.

 

Not until after 2003. Who ever thought that EA was on the uprising back then? RA3 was EA's biggest gamble and it failed to receive very high praise, all but the content.

Edited April 22, 2010 by purplescrin