Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Redmond Boyle

Generals vs. CnC3

Recommended Posts

I'm gonna say my opinion now, Generals with ZH was more fun to play than CnC3.

 

CnC3's gameplay is better, the units actually go where I want them to go, and they start moving immediately after the command unlike in Generals.

 

CnC3 has actually a storyline! ...unlike Generals...

 

but still I think that Generals ZH( Specially with Mods) is more fun to play with all the generals for each side and just because of GLA.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, who is to say C&C3's Expansion pack won't have as big as an impact as ZH did to Generals. I mean ZH was a big change for Generals.

Share this post


Link to post

Especially now that EA admits their blasphemous ways. :nod:

Share this post


Link to post
Hey, who is to say C&C3's Expansion pack won't have as big as an impact as ZH did to Generals. I mean ZH was a big change for Generals.
Good point, but I doubt it...

Share this post


Link to post
Hey, who is to say C&C3's Expansion pack won't have as big as an impact as ZH did to Generals. I mean ZH was a big change for Generals.
Good point, but I doubt it...

 

Why? He does bring up a point. Generals sucked nuts. Zero Hour did some much for it. Yes, Zero Hour was way better multiplayer wise. If the AI was as good as C&C 3's and it was supported better it would be one of the best RTSs of all time. The unit diversity and how they played really made it shine.

 

I played ZH for years and I could still run into new tactics, it was truly awesome.

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly didn't care much for Generals. It just didn't feel like Command & Conquer to me, and the way I saw it it was EA taking their own liberties with they're newly acquired franchise. They tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and it definitely upset a lot of fans. Now I'm not saying it's a bad game, but I don't think it met the standard that previous standard that C&C games had set.

Share this post


Link to post

It was a new universe of the C&C series, eh, get over it I say. Once tiberium and Red Alert series were done WW might of done the same. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, vanilla Generals sucked like hell, but Zero Hour gave it life... It was an excellent game, although not really the best C&C... Tiberium Wars, in the mean time, is still not the best C&C, but it shows to us, the community, that EA is willing to revive C&C the way we all knew it, back in the days of Red Alert... Still, I'd choose Tiberium Wars over Generals...

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if C&C3's expansion will be like ZH... Great multiplayer, terrible singleplayer. :P It would make sense really, as people play skirmish/online more than the single player campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
I wonder if C&C3's expansion will be like ZH... Great multiplayer, terrible singleplayer. :P It would make sense really, as people play skirmish/online more than the single player campaigns.

 

Well as some one who prefers SP over MP, that would suck. But the original point is good. ZH was much better than Generals. Even firestorm was MUCH better than TibSun.

 

So here's hoping that the next edition is going to be great.

 

-gben

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, usually the expansion has all the things the developers really liked, but didn't have time to chuck into the main game. :nod:

Share this post


Link to post

ever sense ive been here, ive seen 3 cnc vs generals topics... doesnt it get old?

Share this post


Link to post

So that ain't nothing, the amount of times I've see the famous "What is your favourite faction" threads is amazing... :P I think I've seen at least 10 here. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Hi, since this topic is mainly zero hour, i will talk zero hour. Yeah, think zero hour is the best. I play it more than cnc3. cnc3 is really laggy. More cash, max 50,000 and more new units. But, firestorm suckes. It only added 2 - 3 unitz for each faction

Share this post


Link to post
It was a new universe of the C&C series, eh, get over it I say. Once tiberium and Red Alert series were done WW might of done the same. :)
In order for something to be a "new universe" in the C&C series, doesn't it have to have something remotely related to C&C besides being the same game genre and title?... I mean, Red Alert had Kane...

 

I'll stick with my previous statement of it being a game where EA tried to fix something that wasn't broken.

Share this post


Link to post

I think C&C3 is better than Zero Hour. There were just too many Generals/Factions in ZH.

Share this post


Link to post
I think C&C3 is better than Zero Hour. There were just too many Generals/Factions in ZH.

 

Now wait a minute. The different factions and varied approaches presented in ZH were exactly what made the game itself so fun to play. Instead of just tank-rushing every time, you actually had to think on your feet. Just because it didn't have an excellent campaign doesn't mean that EA did a bad job with the actual gameplay.

 

While I agree that there are some aspects of both games that are better than the other, I feel that the many different "factions" in ZH is one of its strengths, not weaknesses.

Share this post


Link to post

You guys are forgetting one thing here. Command & Conquer is about the storyline. Since Generals/Zero Hour never had one its not a C&C game. The storyline for C&C3, as weak as it is, tops the crap attempt at a storyline for Generals/Zero Hour. Here's how I see it.....

 

Generals/Zero Hour:

- Great graphics

- Balanced gameplay

- Its a multiplayer only game with some random crap missions tacked on near the end of development

- Boring music

- Zero Hour improves Generals, but a bulk of Zero Hour is everything that got chopped out during the development of the original game

 

Command & Conquer 3

- Even better graphics, if there is one thing EALA has done right is that they proved that SAGE is a winner

- Somewhat balanced gameplay, but the patches are improving it

- Somewhat improved single player over Generals but still clearly developed as a multiplayer game, but the missions don't really inspire me to continue playing, gave up after about the 5th GDI mission

- Horrible music, what he hell happened here!!!!

- Weak storyline, plot holes, wooden acting.

- Joe was great as Kane as always, Ironside/Helfer were ok in their roles, but the rest of the cast were terrible

 

So in the end C&C 3 is better than Generals/Zero Hour but sadly C&C 3 in the end is shallow, and feels rushed.

 

C&C 3 is a true C&C only because the classic the elements are there. Gen/ZH is not a C&C because well none of the classic elements are there.

Share this post


Link to post

My opinions about those games in a listed form

 

General/Zh

+ It's fun on multiplayer with mods.

+ Can build as many superweapons as you want.

+ The General Promotion System was kinda cool.

- Music isn't that good, GLA musics were interesting at first...

- The units won't move immediately after the command!!!

- Units stop at random locations for no reason!!!

- No russia or Soviet Union (The China really sux!)

 

CnC3

+ The units move immediately after the command and mostly don't stop at random locations!!! W00t!!

+ Has a storyline of somekind...

+ Has Kane

- The aliens aren't interesting/unique enough!

- Where's the soundtrack?!? It's more like low volume Ambient noise!

- Is mostly boring. There are not so many cool units that are fun to use. :(

Share this post


Link to post

not C&C? sarc, C&C is just a title. Doesnt have to have every game follow the storyline. They can, but they dont have to.

 

Command & Conquer generals is a C&C title, whether you like it or not. Sure at some points C&C 3 is better btu same goes with generals, i personally enjoyed generals more then i do C&C 3

Share this post


Link to post

if it wasnt just a title there wouldnt be C&C generals now would there :P

 

C&C itself is just a title, most of the games took place in the tiberium universe timeline. Others like RA2(which was made by westwood) dont take place in the tiberium timeline. its just a title.

Share this post


Link to post

C&C may have meant something more back before Generals. But now its just another title that EA whack on to games to get them to sell better.

Share this post


Link to post

You guys are really hell bent on this "shallowness", "tacked it on to the franchise", "rushed" kind of moods lately with our games. I get the feeling that we'll never be able to meet your expectations, and I certainly don't expect to. If we do, its a miracle :)

 

I understand and respect your opinions, I don't agree on a personal level. C&C 3 had the best launch ever of any C&C game, has sold over 2 million copies world-wide, has an average review in the mid-high 80's, thats pretty good to speak of for an RTS.

 

But, we'll take what we can get from you guys in the positive credit department.

 

This is a passionate team behind me, its not Westwood, its not the team from 1995 or the same exact team from 2003 who made Generals, but its a great team with a deepened passion for C&C and our fans. I don't think any of our mistakes take away from the core fast fluid and fun gameplay.

 

Generals was a C&C game in its gameplay, not its story and that was the intent from the design and concept stage. A lot of those who worked on it now work at Petro and other RTS companies and a good bulk still work with us, it was a collective decision to take the series in a different direction. I'd say the game still stands pretty strong today despite that it wasn't a true story-line C&C.

 

C&C is about fast, fluid, and fun gameplay & compelling storyline.

 

Generals and C&C 3 both have their strengths and weaknesses, I think you guys all have some valid points that we take key learnings from and constantly try and improve upon in the future.

 

I will say honestly, it personally bothers me to constantly hear phrases involving "tacked on", "rushed", "shallow", those words don't apply to my opinion of C&C 3 or speak for the team that worked on the game.

 

-APOC

Share this post


Link to post
Generals was a C&C game in its gameplay, not its story and that was the intent from the design and concept stage. A lot of those who worked on it now work at Petro and other RTS companies and a good bulk still work with us, it was a collective decision to take the series in a different direction. I'd say the game still stands pretty strong today despite that it wasn't a true story-line C&C.

 

C&C is about fast, fluid, and fun gameplay & compelling storyline.

 

Generals and C&C 3 both have their strengths and weaknesses, I think you guys all have some valid points that we take key learnings from and constantly try and improve upon in the future.

 

I will say honestly, it personally bothers me to constantly hear phrases involving "tacked on", "rushed", "shallow", those words don't apply to my opinion of C&C 3 or speak for the team that worked on the game.

-APOC

 

I'm sorry this thread is a little stale, but I'm only getting a chance to go through my email to add this comment...

 

In it's own right ZH is a great game... a vast improvement on vanilla generals and I enjoyed the natural progression of game mechanics overall from RA2.

 

But the only tangible connection to C&C is the title. By using a dozer system and not the MCV; and not having any reference to C&C storyline or characters ruin every argument that the game belongs in our fav universe.

 

Fast, fluid & fun can apply to tetris... so does that make it a C&C game?

 

But this is an old thread, for an old argument... I was just suprised that you were still making it, and that noone bothered to rebutt it.

 

(No need to reinvent the wheel!)

 

-gben

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×