User Reviews (161 - 171 of 194)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Good but not Great

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: March 10, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Generals is moderately entertaining but it feels like I'm missing something. Unfair or not, the game will be compared to Warcraft3, Age of Mythology and of course the previous incarnations of C&C.

I only dabbled in Warcraft and was never drawn in the way many have been but I loved RA2 and Yuri and also have been exceedingly pleased with AOM. So what's the difference here?

Well - AOM, while switching to 3D didn't drastically alter the mechanics of playing - but - the game play was enhanced. A great amount of depth and variety was added and they didn't simply rely on a new graphics engine to make it, what I humbly believe, is the best RTS available.

Now Yuri and RA2 were pure fun. Generals seems to take itself a bit too seriously and while it is nowhere near a realistic war sim, it leans more in that direction. I find Generals to feel harder to control and I have less of a sense of how the units interact and counter one another.

I've played most of the single player mainly because I've had trouble getting the multiplayer to work well so maybe I'll discover more in the game later on. But the bottom line is that while graphics are great to have, the gameplay is the thing. If that wasn't the case, then Civ3 wouldn't have a chance - and it is still as addictive as it ever was.

And - I've also experienced some choppiness while playing and my system meets or exceeds the recommended system. AMD XP1900 w/GeForce4 Ti200 and 512 DDR PC2700 RAM. I would expect the game to run completely smoothly, but that hasn't been the case - at least not all the time.

Command & Conquer - Generals

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: July 16, 2003
Author: Amazon User

An excellent game. Great graphics. The AI, in my opinion, does not seem to be a great leap forward. However, I have only had the game a few weeks, so there may be something I'm missing.

Campaigns are a bit short.

System Requirements are very high. Check this against your PC before you buy.

All in all, I still give the game a 7 out of 10

If all RTS games were like this!

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 2
Date: February 15, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Well, basically, C&C Generals, has to be the best RTS game out in the market. Ive been anticipating its release for a while, and now that it's out, im not dissapointed at all. Generals is based on issues and global conflict our world today. You have the option of playing as China, USA, or an underground organization, known as the GLA(Global Liberation Army), each with its own distinct capabilities and missions.

The graphics are simply awe-inspiring. Almost every other move you make, is followed by a very neat video-clip. Trails left by cruise missiles and F22 Raptors is stunning. Buildings and houses and civilians are very life-like, similar to Sim City4.
You get to fight in Urban areas, deserts and many other locales.

The gameplay is very similar to other RTS games. If youve played Real War and Real War: Rogue states, then C&C Generals is nothing new, besides the improved graphics. Loads of levels to play, and ton's of strategies to adopt adds a good replay-value to this title. Sounds are very well done and the music is superb.

In conclusion C&C Generals is a great buy. Make sure your computer system meets or more preferabley exceeds the system requirments.

This is worth your money. Go Get It NOW!!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: February 13, 2003
Author: Amazon User

If you like RTS games then this is for you. I am predicting that Command and Conquer:Generals will be game of the year for 2003. The improvements are great. The game just makes more "sense" now. The air units are more important than ever to your success and the sound in this game is just phenominal in 5.1 in some levels you can here people speaking in arabic, dogs barking etc.
The graphics are excellent. I always wanted to zoom into the action, now you can adjust you zoom level to what ever you like. It makes you feel like you are part of the battle rather than a god observing from on high. The front end visuals and menus are done very well. Some have said that they are disappointed that the series has taken a different path. Nod is non-existent in this game and so is the cheesy acting. This game is taking a more serious tone.
There was the rumor of needing a high end video card to run this game. I am having no problem with my laptop running this game. It has the mobile Raedon 7600. I think that is the equivalent of a Geforce 2.
With an upgrade any soldier can now capture buildings(which makes more sense to me) Your war factory can now repair vehicles( makes mores sense to me)
The explosions are awesome, you see soldiers and pieces of shrapnel flying everywhere. The AI is fairly smart at the higher difficulty settings and each army type has their own strengths and weaknesses. Too me this really is a whole new game and I am already excited about expansion paks and new maps. I cannot comment on the multiplayer yet as I have been too absorbed in the single player campaign.
I am very satisfied with this game. This was the best $...I have spent this year. If you enjoyed Command and Conquer then you will fall in love all over again.

One word of advice: Don't play this game on Valentines Day because your sweetheart won't see you until the next day!

Not as Good as it could have been

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 2
Date: February 13, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I am a huge C & C fan but this latest installment is just missing something. Yes it does have great graphics and I like the fact that it has three different armies to choose from but I just like red alert 2 better. I guess one problem is that there are only three different races to choose from. Red Alert 2 had 3 different races if you use the expansion pack but it also had the option of several different countries each with their specific special unit. I just liked it better like that. By far the biggest dissapointment that i have is the lack of ships. I haven't heard anyone else mention the fact that there are no water units of any kind in this game. What happened to the water units? Is there no Navy in the future? I was amazed that they failed to add a navy. Plus if you want to play the game with a friend they need their own set of discs. What is up with that? I don't mind them limiting us to one user key for the internet but limiting us to one player per set of discs is a low blow considering they always let us do that before. The bottom line is get this game if you like RTS. Its a decent game and the graphics are outstanding....

looks great, but somehow flawed

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 0 / 2
Date: February 02, 2003
Author: Amazon User

make no mistake, this a great looking, addicting game, but i have found some flaws in a preview i read of it.
1. 'power balance'-- its kinda messed up. sure, the chinese get many units(just plain conscripts)- thats what they should be in the game-weak, numerous, and generally 'swarmish'. but---- somehow they have the most powerful army(in unit quality). ?!?!?! somehow i dont understand it.

ill give u an example--- (hold on, im gonna talk awhile)in the korean war, back around '50, when the US did an amphibous landing on the west side of the korean peninsula, cutting off the north korean army from the north. the US malled it to having almost no effectivness in a very short time. soon afterwards, the chinese,(in a certian battle), attacked US troops with 60,000 consctipts. the US had 15,000 marines in the battle. our force was of much higher quality, although having to retreat, gave the chinese 42,000 casualties including 22000 dead. we took 1300 casualties, with about 300 dead. Im not tryin to bash on china, im just sayin that the game is balanced wrong.

The meaning? our troops were much stronger in quality, able to take a battle against a much larger force.

In generals, the chinese hold the best ground units in quality, and hold many more #'s. not true of the times. the game uses real life units like f22 reaptors, b52s, ect. the game throws in huge 'quality' units such overlord tanks. they are using real like units, but somehow with 'real life units', the chinese have better tanks and ground troops than the US. GET A GRIP!!! the US's ground troops are of much higher quality than the chineses. the chinese are using old solviet 1950s era t-55s and 1970s era t-72s (im not sure they have anything much more advanced)

In the gulf war, iraq used the same tanks in numerous #'s. the US deployed thousands of M1 battle tanks, and the iraqi t-72s and t55s were annialated. thier tanks wernt even in range of hitting our tanks before the m1s had destroyed them very efficiently from long ranges. sometimes our tank rounds went thru both sides of the t-72s. ROFL.

theyre trying to make this game accurate to the arsenals of today(real war tried to do this). sure, thier doing it in some ways, but when in the heck did china have a more efficient a dedicated army than ours? i think i made that clear in my military ramblings earlier. we have the highest quality, dedicated, organized armed forces in history. PERIOD. some may say that the othe empires militaries were better at times, but look at thier troops. thier percentages of total population were much higher. Im sure that if the US really dedicated itself to military, it would dwarf the others in its greatness. and, to the person who said i had alot against china, ur wrong. im also sure US troops can take just as much as armies of the past did, id know. my bro is in the army and ill be in it in 3 years.

Generals is trying to be accurate in how millitaries work today, but thier overbalancing in some ways. the US should have the highest quality forces, still, with many soldiers. (even today, with our 1.5 million under arms with 1 million in reserve, we ar the 2nd largest in the world next to china, and ours is all volonteer, thiers is conscription) the chinese should have lots of soldiers. the way generals will be made now, the chinese will dominate the ground(not true of what it is today), and the US players will have to rely on air forces a whole lot.

generals looks fun, but is flawed. im sure more flaws will come up, as in any game.
oh p.s.-- make sure uve got a computer, to take full advantage of it good graphics. im running overclocked at 2.9 ghz(p4) 512 mb of ddr thats overclocked to at 405 and a overclocked ti4200 (295/540).

peace.

Generals

Best game Ever

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: March 07, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I just bought this game and it is fantastic. The great gameplay makes up for the slightly narrow unit range. About that person who wrote the other review that said that the game was bad, I think that he has a slow computer and doesn't like the fact that playing the game takes him for ever.

Another fun addition to this game line.

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 2
Date: March 28, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I've been playing for a short time and do enjoy the gameplay and new unit types. I do miss naval battles however.

Game is great, reviewer needs a spelling lesson.

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 5
Date: March 22, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I am not sure how you could take anyone serious that uses chat lingo. Please, if you want to be understood make it so everyone who reads it.

the best game EVER!!!!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 0 / 2
Date: April 18, 2003
Author: Amazon User

this is the best game i have ever played, playing alot of games this has meaning. online play is the best feature, along with cutting edge graphics and game play. BUY THIS GAME!!!! i dream about it, thinking how i can beat the AI (which is better then ever). This game is a MUST!

Review Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next 

Actions