APOC Looks Back at C&C Generals

[Guest Stevie_K]

What about 9/11 the movie, and how often haven't there been made all kinds of crap cashing in on 9/11 and tragedies like it?

There's not even any mentioning of 9/11 in the game at all.

 

However you can't deny that it was very "fortunate" that EA decided to develop a war game with terrorists in it, at that exact time. I think it wouldn't have sold half as many copies if there had been no war at all.

You might call it "free in-direct advertisement".

 

[lkRaven 0]

Although im a long time reader, i registered to this forum just to say my thoughts on Generals. To me Generals is the Best CnC game. As most people have expressed here, whether it is a true C&C game or not is up for debate. But officially it is, and out of all the C&C games, this is the game that has put the biggest smile on my face when playing. The old RA and TD games also had a certain flair to themselves and a unique identity. But Gens has always been THE C&C Game for me. The fact that there is still a healthy community of players playing it proves its worth. Even more impressive is the extent of the current active modding community for the game almost 7 years after release.

 

The fun when calling down A-10s, B-2s, artillery strikes, nukes and all the rest has an impressive feeling that is still unmatched in RTS games. The only game that matches this kind of experience is the far modern world in conflict games, but for me Generals still has that unexplainable magic when delivering the thrills. I really do hope that a gens 2 would come out. But i want it to be done with a lot of passion and not money in mind. A quality product would always bring in money. If it wants to be rushed like late C&C games, then its better not to have a gens game. If not, its awesome to have a gens game.

[ApornasPlanet 9]

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.

yeah, so? I know all that but I don't see your point. Apoc listed the following as criteria for a CNC game:

 

"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

 

And using that criteria qualifies Dune2000 & EBfD as CNC Games since they are even more CNC than Generals if CNC is defined as a "style of RTS gameplay". Capish?

[Publix666 0]

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.

 

More or less my views on the subject.

 

APOC you say you want to see what made C&C a great game? Go back to its true roots. TD and RA1 are, in my opinion, far better the General in every aspect other then graphics, and even then graphics dont make a game. As far as my favorite C&C's go, obviously from my information on the left, Renegade is my favorite for more reasons then i have time to put into this post, but basicly they took my all time favorite C&C, TD, and took it to ground level. They allowed me to actually drive those tanks i steamrolled across countless NOD and GDI bases. TD, Renegade and RA1 will forever be my favorites. Hell, just recently found my old N64 copy of C&C TD, slapped it in just for laughs and played that for about three hours lol.

 

Generals, in my opinion, was decent. I own the game, but ive only played it once or twice. Im not a MP RTS gamer, i play them for their story, and we know, and you know, the Generals story was pretty weak. But in terms of game play i think its an alright RTS, there was a few things i really liked about Generals. But felt the C&C was slapped on the cover to sell.

 

While i have no plans to buy C&C 4, i however remain hopeful you guys can breathe new life into C&C and produce something truly great.

 

[Cyborg207 0]

The thing I liked most in Generals was the "Matrix scene" (before C&C 3 came out I really hoped it will have those Matrix scenes) other then that, Generals is a good game, altho the lack of story and FMV's, I still get the 'C&C feeling' playing the campaigns. I'm not a fan of the multiplayer (only like the C&C multi, where the whole match is not about 1 single unit - the harvester/ore miner/any money collector)

[Silverthorn 0]

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.

 

I'm with you on this one, especially some Red Alert fanatics are criticizing that RA3 is not a true Red Alert, that's my guess, because the obvious parts I know is they change some of the things like :

 

1. Harvesting system (For gameplay balance, at least reasonable)

2. Gems (All gone, which is sad)

3. Apoc tank (Like #1, gameplay balance)

4. Soviets (Including myself, we love our old brute force Soviets & attack dogs, not some circus clowns)

5. Yuri (Where the hell is he? He can't just change into Yuriko)