User Reviews (31 - 41 of 194)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

bad tech support

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 3
Date: August 19, 2003
Author: Amazon User

while the game it self is enjoyable, if you can play it, the game is plague with bugs, and saddled with ea horriable tech support. They released a patch that was supose to fix probelms with the fx geforce, delayed the patch for two weeks for testing and QA/QA Testing, yet some how over half the items that were supose to be fixed in the patch, including the geforce fx fix were not fixed. I open a ticket with ea after the patch. Before contacting them i had uninstalled and reinstalled the game, and stated so in my ticket, however not only can ea word not be trusted, it appears tech support can not read, cause they had me uninstall the game again, dispite me stating that this had just been done, before contacting them. When the probelm could not be solved after the second uninstall, they told me I was infored that it appears there are still probelms with this graphics cards series, despite the fact that they claimed to fix, and they let me know if they ever fixed. Of course i had come to the conclustion before contacting them.

so if we want a buggy, no support game, go ahead and buy it.

I hope "Zero Hour" adds some difficutly

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 3 / 3
Date: October 09, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Like many reviewers, I've been a fan of C&C since the first title (loved all except Renegade). That being said, here's some major points of consideration for anyone who doesn't have this title yet and is considering buying it:

1) No FMV between missions

This seems minor, but I was really looking forward to them. Sure, they were always somewhat campy, but I just enjoyed the cut-scenes. They never enhanced game play, but they did enhance the enjoyment of playing.

2) 3D graphics

Westwood did a great job on this. Every review mentions it so we'll stop there. What most reviews also mention is the Herculean system you have to have to run this game at max detail w/o getting choppy!

3) Animated explosions

This was really surprising! The first time I saw a technical explode and launch the gunner into the air (whilst screaming) was it - I really appreciated the detail that was taken to craft these.

4) Animated explosions pt II

They get a little tiresome after the 100th time - every time with the same screaming sound... In fact, all the sounds get tiresome quickly. Does every unit have to say something everytime you click on (or direct) them? It's a little excessive. After a while you have to kill the effects and stick to the music.

4) Difficulty levels

I made the mistake of playing USA first on "Hard", and walked through every mission. So I did China on "Brutal" - same thing. Then with GLA... now it gets difficult. Trust me: this is not the case of me being a great player, it's that the GLA (whom both sides war against) is just not equipped to deal with the US/China units. I suppose it's accurate in a real-world sense, but it'd really be better if they could bloody your nose a couple of times before you figured the strategy out!

So, I've complained a lot and still gave 4 stars? You bet: Generals is visually awesome, explosions are top-notch, it's fun (at least the first time through), and it's a good way to burn a few hours of time. If you played the campaign and were less than satisfied, then LAN up w/ some friends and REALLY get the full impact! "Zero Hour" will add more units and fuel to the fire, and I look forward to buying it as well.

Hope this helps in your decision!

For the price, it's nice

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 3 / 3
Date: January 24, 2007
Author: Amazon User

This game does'nt have the best graphics, but they're good enough. Gameplay is great, but the sounds of troops saying various, yet repetitive things after being trained gets tiresome very quickly. The ability to occupy buildings enables the player to develop their strategy more than is common to RTS games. However, I would suggest getting the expansion pack (which I don't own) for an extra ten bucks or so. I actually found at Wal-Mart a five pack of games; Generals, Zero Hour, and some other, not so my taste games, going for 20.00. Well worth the price.

Looks great, if I could only play it!

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 6 / 11
Date: October 11, 2003
Author: Amazon User

This looks like a great game, but alas I cannot bare to play it. I've tried it on 3 top of the line machines (well over the recommended requirements), and the gameplay still comes out slow & choppy. I'd think twice about buying this obviously buggy game.

Worst command and conquer yet

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 8 / 18
Date: February 26, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I guess I'm showing my age but I've been playing command and conquer since the first version and this is by far the worst, the graphics are impressive but cpu intensive, you can't escape any of the video sequences and last but not least the ai which in all of the command and conquer games was always tough to beat in normal mode was easily beaten.

What is the difference?

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 10 / 26
Date: April 19, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I have played the C&C series, and I have a question: what is the difference between Generals and all the other C&C games. I have to agree with the CLICK CLICK CLICK theory, that is the way C&C has been and always will be:( basically the game is about 3 races: US, china, and the "global liberation army" (terrorist). The story for the US and China missions is that the GLA is coming and and you must destroy them. I story for the GLA missions is the US and china are coming and you must destroy them. The missions are encredibly easy even compared to the other C&C games. Generals does have its Pros, though. Sometimes building mass armies of Paladin tanks and charging in the enemy base with guns blazing and no strategy can be fun, but the effect soon wares off.
So to in summary of the game.....:
Pro's: 3d graphics(first time ever in C&C game), graphics, SOME gameplay
Con's: no strategy involved, horrible AI, and no difference in any of the other games.

I can truely say that I thought this game would be different, and might have more strategy then "whoever build the most wins," but it is exactly the same. this game could have been a LOT more fun and strategic, but westwood made it just another Red Alert with 3d graphics:(

TOO MANY ISSUES, TOO LITTLE SUPPORT

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 6 / 13
Date: April 01, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I bought this game, it worked for a week. I began receiving fatal error messages. Attempted to contact customer support, no glory. Checked on EA's website, all they offer is a forum where techs post replies to problems. They told me that my chipset is not supported. The box does not list my chipset as not being supported. The game scanned my PC and said it met all system requirements. Don't waste your money.

A game with very dodgy morals

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 3 / 4
Date: February 24, 2003
Author: Amazon User

The fun thing about games is the escapism factor for me. Even games like 'Red Alert' were fun. Yes, you may think it's war-based, but it was always comical. Russians with mind-control devices, and humorous cut-scenes, made the games fun to play.

However, for 'Generals', they've tried to go serious. Gone are the cut scenes, and in are more down to earth (as it were) weapons.

The trouble is, in doing so, they've lost any moral structure that their games may have had.

Use car bombs to blow up troops, steal a nuclear weapon and watch as people die screaming when you launch it on their city. Or maybe you'd like to ransack some villages, killing the civilians for their money? If this sort of game appeals to you, then buy all means buy it. But for me I find it very distasteful.

Even as the "good guys", your vehicles run down civilians without any second thoughts.

On the whole it could have been a good game. Graphically it's nice, and it has some good new units. It get pretentious in the small scenes that start the levels... pausing and rotating to show off the explosion Matrix-style, before moving on.

The levels are far too easy, and some can be over in minutes. And there's very little variety in gameplay (build up, kill the easy enemy).

But gameplay issues aside, it's just the subject content I don't want. I don't want to launch anthrax weapons, or kill civilians. I don't want to see terrorist attacks. I play computer games to get away from the real world for a while, and this just doesn't provide that.

The worst coding in a game since the beginning of time

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 4
Date: February 26, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Stay away from this game. It is poorly coded, patches are worthless and the price tag is [too much]. It's a perfect example of what EA Games does. They buy good companies with good products and destroy everything they had good for profits that they should not be awarded. The game has continous serious errors which occur randomly and that is the worst experience I've ever had with any games. Just that this one is a lot worse.

EA [messed] this one up

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 4
Date: March 04, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I'm a big fan of Real Time Strategy games. I've played all the C&C games, Warcraft games, even the turn based strategy games.

Command & Conquer games where great for a number of reasons:
1. Really good techno/industrial sound track
2. Really good back story (caine or Tania etc)
3. Awsome cut scenes (either 3d or live action using good actors)
4. Intuitive interface
5. Beautiful graphics
6. Excellent game play.

With Generals, there is a poor sound track. A very weak back story, [poor] game engine style cut scenes, clunky interface and the game play is poor. The graphics are nice, but they look like a copy of Warcraft III.

While it isn't the worst game I've bought (that would be MOO 3), I still wouldn't recomend it.

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

Actions