User Reviews (11 - 21 of 194)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Mediocre at best

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 13 / 22
Date: February 22, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I'm a big fan of the C&C series but Generals isn't the same game at all.

There is absolutely no storyline. Aside from a few scripted events here and there, you might as well be playing a Skirmish against the Artificial "Intelligence."

The pathing is terrible. Worst I've seen since the original Age of Empires. Units have a terrible tendency to move in single-file lines or get stuck on each other, especially in the very cramped maps. They will also just sit there getting shot at if the enemy is out of thier range.

Damage and rate of fire need to be adjusted across the board. If Iraq had mobile launchers that could fire Anthrax-loaded SCUDS every 5 seconds...

On the other hand, the graphics and music are great.

The Best of the RTS genre

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 9 / 13
Date: March 25, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Graphics: 4/5
Gameplay: 5/5
Sound: 4/5
Replay Value: 4/5

This is a very impressive and immersive game. For those not familiar with RTS (real-time strategy) games, there is a "training" mission to familiarize you with the basics of gameplay.

There are really 2 modes of play: campaign mode and skirmish.
In campaign mode, you can pick which of the 3 nations you wish to play. The story progresses through increasingly difficult missions. At first, it will seem way too easy and will feel like the battle was thrown in your favor. Relish these moments. Take the time to get used to your troops and enjoy the graphics. You'll be too busy sweating later. The story is interesting and engaging (a first for an RTS game). Appropriately enough, the first mission for the USA was to eliminate a scud launch facility outside of Baghdad. The voice acting is superb, and the graphics are astounding for the genre. As fun as the campaign mode is, it is really only training for the real game, which is the skirmish mode. This is the "multi-player battle" that RTS fans have come to know and love. This is where the true test of skills and knowledge of the capabilities of your units will come into play. One of the many things that sets this RTS apart from others is the astounding flexibility of the units. For example, the USA has a unit called the Chinook. This is a double-rotor helicopter which is primarily used for resource gathering. However, the Chinook can also act as a transport (holding 2 vehicles and 2 troops, or 8 troops alone), as a special-ops vehicle (allowing troops to rappel out onto buildings to storm holed-up enemy troops), and as a scout (because it is fast, cheap, and unhindered by terrain). Many of the units have this kind of multi-role nature. In a way, it can be bewildering at first. However, properly applying this flexibility is what will separate the true strategists from the hackers.

Overall, this is an outstanding game, and has rekindled my interest in what I assumed was a dead game genre.

Now that I'm done oozing love all over this review, let me point out a couple of things that I think could have been better:

The end-game statistics are disappointing. Any of you who have played Age of Empires II or Age of Mythology have grown to love the end-game statistics. That game had charts showing the growth of the respective armies, the expansion into the technology trees, major battle summaries, and other such info. The statistics were not only fun to look at, they also let you analyze where the tide of the war turned. You could see what you did right, and more importantly, what you did wrong. The C&C: Generals statistics screen is truly pathetic.

The "futuristic" nature of some of the units tends to break the mood of the game a bit. The game appears to have a modern-day warfare theme. Then one time, when I crested a sand dune and saw a hovering robot repairing an enemy tank I thought "oh come on" to myself. There aren't a lot of these futuristic elements, just enough that it slightly annoyed me. I guess if you think of the theme of this game as "near future" (say like 50 years down the road) then it isn't that troublesome. I just thought it was an element that should have been left out.

Another hit!

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 5 / 5
Date: November 17, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I have been a fan of Command and Conquer since the beginning. And I look forward to every game they bring out. This is by far the best looking game in the series. You can zoom in on the veicles and buildings and the detail come in view without being fuzzy. I run this game with everything set on high and runs very good (I have Pentium III 1000, with 256 ram and a 64 meg video card). I was a little dissappointed when I first started playing the first set of missions China) as it seemed too easy and they were almost all short missions (except the lsat couple), but as you moved on to the the other 2 factions, it kept getting harder and harder and I started liking this game more and more. A couple of things I don't like is playing skirmish mode. When playing a skirmish, it seems the balance is off in favor of China. You can build bunkers (that will hold 5 guys, I like putting rocket launchers in them) and machine gun turrets) if I get those built quickly, the defense is too strong to get through, but the GLA and USA don't have those type of defenses and it's not easy (depending on the difficulty level you choose). And the difficulty level is touchy. If you play normal, it seems pretty easy ( I was winning with China playing against 5 computer opponents and only losing less than 10 units every game). But if you move up to Hard, and play against more than computer opponent, you get mowed over (unless you are playing as China). A little bit of balance issue I think, but this is still a very fun game. I you want more of a challenge, you can also go on-line, though you have to wait for a while sometimes for games to end so you can join. It is still a worthy effort, but I miss old but scenes they used to have. Any fan of this series will definteley enjoy.

Amazing graphics - Great gameplay ...

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 5 / 5
Date: December 11, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Here we go again - another chapter in the Command & Conquer saga, and a good one at that. With C&C Generals they've taken even further. The gameplay is pretty much the same as before (which is a good thing), although slightly improved, the story is good and catchy, and the graphics are absolutely amazing!!!

The game has 3 factions - USA, China and the Global Liberation Army (GLA), which all have very different but nicely balanced capabilities and specialties. Every faction has different "General" abilities, such as carpet bombing, paradrop etc.

The game has 3 single-player campaigns - one per faction. Each faction have certain advantages: USA has High Tech and Air Force, China is mainly about massing great numbers of units, GLA does not need to create powerplants, they have underground tunnels, and they can use chemical weapons. As usual in C&C, each faction also has their own distinct superweapon.

PROS:
* Superb graphics - Best I've seen in any RTS.
* Great multiplayer gameplay - The factions are nicely balanced, and large battles with 3x3 or 4x4 teamplay will have you hooked for months. Good ranking system that makes it so much more addictive to play online. It's also free to play online.
* Exciting single-player campaigns with very nice cut-scenes.
* Excellent music. Completely matches the gameplay.

CONS:
* 3 levels of difficulty where Easy is way too easy, Normal is also too easy, and Hard is way too hard. Normal should've been a bit harder to balance it all out.
* Does not have naval units. This is the only thing I'm really missing - Red Alert 2 was way better in that aspect.
* Extreme graphics requirements. Runs smooth on my P4 1.8GHz with a 512MB of RAM and a GeForce 4 Ti4200 (128MB).
* Not possible to skip the "cut-scenes" at the start of every new mission.

All in all, I would highly recommend this game, whether you're a C&C buff, or if you've never played C&C before. It's worth the money! 5 STARS!!!

One of the best "Starcraft style" RTS's in years!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 5 / 5
Date: January 13, 2004
Author: Amazon User

My home office shelf is a game graveyard. I've been suckered into nearly every high profile RTS ever made. When I first played Generals, all the dissapointment, the years of frustration with hyped up garbage suddenly didn't matter.

This game is a gem.

I pay attention to a few key things in an RTS:

1. Diversity

In species or nationalities, units of production, and units of war. Generals has not only an abundance of diversity, it's managed to very elegantly balance them. The Americans, the Chinese, and the Terrorists all win (online) at about 1/3rd each.

2. Pace

Remember Total Annihilation or Starcraft? Those games had you sweating it out from the second a game launched. This appeals to me. You can play a fast-paced game and not have to devote a night.

3. Animation

Units with high detail, beautiful lighting, insanely cool looking explosions....this one has it all! The graphics engine for this game was (at the time of release, and still to my knowledge today) the best on the market by far.

You can very easily play this game online, it (now) has a very well developed playmatch system, and as you win, you gain rank (very addictive attribute).

I recommend this, and Rise of Nations to anyone who loves RTS.

Enjoy...

Not as good as previous C&C games

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 14 / 28
Date: February 15, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Generals looks great, and is a decent game, but it falls far short of previous Command & Conquer titles.

First off, while this game is VERY similar to the previous titles, many handy user controls have been omitted this time with no apparent advantage. Having played many RTS games, including every C&C game to date, I was constantly frustrated trying to move my units around the map.

Second, it's the buggiest C&C to date. I have to reboot my machine after I play because DirectX can't be initialized by other games following a C&C session.

Third, this game is too similar to previous C&Cs. The units are basically the same as they've always been with different names. The tank classes are very familliar, and after C&C Tiberian Sun, the creativity in selection of the other units is pathetic.

I've always looked forward to new C&C games, but this one seems like it was rushed to market.

AWESOME!!!!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 7 / 10
Date: May 21, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I love this game! I play strategy and action/adventure games, and this game rocks! In this game you can play as the U.S.A., China, and GLA (Global Liberation Army). The U.S. was what I would say as the most advanced technology in the game. China has probably the best options for building units. Oh, the GLA, what can I say? They aren't the best, but not the worst. They have "unique" weapons such as, anthrax, chemical missles, etc. (Can you tell who the GLA is yet? Duh! Iraq, Afganistan, and more!)

Pros
-----------------------------------
1.Great Graphics
2.Realistic units
3.Appeling due to current events
4.Nukes, anyone?
5.Good story line

Cons
----------------------------------------
1.Game ended to fast
2.No NAVY!!!!!!! ARGHHHHHH
3.A.I. could have been better
4.Single player games take awhile
5.Weapons of the GLA might offend people.

Like I said, I love this game! If you play Empire earth, Red Alert, Real War, or any modern strategy games you HAVE to add this to your collection!

As Much Fun as You Put Into It

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 6 / 8
Date: April 01, 2003
Author: Amazon User

This really isn't a game, it's a toolset. If you can convince your office mates to play with you it can be fun (although it quickly devolves into the same rush or defense tactic, every time). But it's only as fun as your opponents make it.

Playing the AI is a waste of time. All it does is rush. And the difficulty levels only control how rampantly the game cheats. If you defend against a rush (which isn't difficult to do, the AI has one attack pattern on each map) the computer will keep sending troops, single file, to meet your wall of death.

It is frustrating because there is no challenge. Particularly when the only reason the computer beats you is because it is cheating - the computer obviously multitasks, performing numerous complicated manuevers at the same time. So if you're engaged in a battle the computer will be constructing buildings, sending troops to other areas, and intricately micro-managing the troops in the battle at the same time. I'm talking down to the point of running over your infantry with its tanks. I've also had situations where I control all sources of income on a map, yet the computer keeps building and building. Hmm.

The only challenge is learning the computer's build path and rush tactics, and once you're past those it's a pushover. Since it took me all of three hours to learn all of its tactics, on all difficulty levels (I can beat it on any map with little effort), I just don't feel I got my money's worth. Worse, it does nothing to train you for online gaming, which is where the future of this title lies.

My comments mainly address the skirmish mode because the campaign is just dumb. You are given these ridiculous objectives and waypoints, which aren't fun and are frequently too confusing. The attempt to place the game in a real-life scenario was pretty poor thinking. Yeah it's realistic to be able to garrison troops in a civilian building, but in real life I could call down numerous air strikes to level the building. In this game you get one per 4 minutes, and that's only after a General's promotion.

The online element fails for a much different reason. Basically, online players exploit weaknesses in the game's balance. The game would have been excellent if it had stayed with a realistic depiction of military capability. But instead there is the strange addition of invisible, invincible soldiers. The GLA have two of this type.

This ruined my enjoyment of the game. It is simply frustrating to set up a perfect defense - all paths to your base covered by machine guns and rockets - and then to have your opponent sneak an invisible soldier into your base, capture your town center, and start cranking out turrets. Sure it's funny, sure it's a way to win. But it's just not fun. It's a lot like the wall cheat in the old C&C games.

It would make some sense if there were any way to defeat these soldiers. But on top of being invisible when they don't move, they are also invincible when invisible. So if you see one, and go to where he is, and he stops moving, you can run over the entire area with tanks, flame broil it, strafe it with machine guns - and you won't hit the invisible soldier. This is a drastic departure from previous C&C games, where the soldier would still be vulnerable even if invisible.

Why is this so aggravating? Because they capture buildings in a heartbeat. So if you don't have a gun in the immediate area, by the time you get one there your building is captured. And then the guy just goes invisible again, and the cycle repeats. It's just silly, and it has no place in a war game.

The game is pretty - particularly the explosions - but it won't run well on its minimum spec machine (put it on an 800 and you're looking at around 10 fps). So that limits me to playing at the office. With a firewall keeping me from reaching the Internet and few opportunities to play on the LAN, it's just gathering dust.

If you're going to buy it, buy it used. Definitely not worth full price.

What have they done?

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 5 / 6
Date: February 14, 2003
Author: Amazon User

This game is terrible. I got the game in time as I had pre ordered it from amazon, but this game is actually horrible, the worst ive played in the command and conquer series. The camera angle is terrible and the units move so [darn] slow. They need to work way more harder if they want to see these games.
I do not recommend this game to anyone at all

Multiplayer and skirmish fun, but [not good for] single player

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 5 / 6
Date: March 12, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I had big expectations for this game. The ads made it look like a revolution in graphics (It is over it's predecessor, but not over the competition), so when I started it up I immediately felt disappointed and started looking for everything wrong with it. I began playing one of the campaigns and beat it. It was okay, but I was still finding myself complaining about it a lot.

After being dissatisfied with the campaign I started playing skirmishes and then multiplayer (This is the real reason these games are made). I found that this was a balanced game with three unique teams to choose from. Every team has good units that can oppose any other team. There are a variety of ways to play the game. I find myself digging in at my base and saving money for the big weapons like the nuclear missle.

So after actively looking for everything wrong with this game I ended up addicted to it. Buy this game and team up with a friend against six brutal computer players. That is a challenge I havenýt metý yet.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next 

Actions