User Reviews (71 - 81 of 194)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

The Best RTS Game Ever

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 4
Date: October 24, 2003
Author: Amazon User

This game takes the best of Blizzard based RTS (WarCraft, StarCraft) and the Command and Conquer series. I've always thought that C&C were better games because there were more possible strategies to choose from because of the diversity of units and how different each unit is. However, this game goes far and above the previous C&C RA2 and allows you to build away from buildings by taking your builder thingie anywhere, and there are many useful and interesting upgrades to buildings and units. The multiplayer is AMAZING. I think that Amazon's "Star" reviewer or whatever they call him is way off base. Granted, the AI is a little stupid, its much better than most RTS I've played. This is simply the best RTS around.

C&C Generals

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 2 / 4
Date: November 05, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Fun game, great FX effects, excellent balancing. It could do better with hotkeys.

what for a game :((

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 3 / 9
Date: March 14, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Sorry, this was the worst game i played in the last time. In comparison with other titles Generals get the worst review of all. I am very disappointed about what they made out of this brand. The balancing is awful, America is every time the best choice. And people, what do say about great gfx? Are you blind? Just watch the water in the rivers. Just moving polygons. Not to mention about the missing story, strange mission goals and bad pathing. The best thing of the whole game are the remarks of the units. For this and the hope i got while playing that the game will be better by the missions i assign two stars.
I was a big fan and played every title. Not more. Just installed the good old red alert. Wouldn't buy it with this experience.

Not quite the same as the previous versions

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 5
Date: February 17, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I didn't like Generals as much as Red Alert and Red Alert 2. For me, it's all about building different kinds of units and structures, but the selection is about half of that of the RA games. But the best graphics to date if you can afford the 1.5 GB of space it takes up.

Quite dissapointing

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 5
Date: February 19, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Just before i played it i was relly looking faward to playing Generals. i liked all the other commander and conquer games like red alert 2. I think the graphics let it down the most, especially when i found out it needed a g force graphics card 3, i thought the graphics would be amazing, (i'v sin better)
All the units are literally the same and on the skirmish levels, u can only get three teams.
But it was alot more realistic, with money, aircraft, buildings bin built and of course explosions. I also liked the general abilities with stuff like computer hackers and upgrades to units, my favourite is black Napalm fof the migs and Dragon tanks. The game also takes up a huge amount of room.
If u want my advive, i would pass on generals.
P.S, i do hav a g force 3 graphics card.

This is a GREAT game, YAY!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 5
Date: February 28, 2003
Author: Amazon User

This game is really good and fun. If you know how to configure your computer and upgrade it you should not have a hard time playing this game. For all those people that said it is too slow and you to have a good computer, I say, LEARN TO UPGRADE YOUR COMPUTER! I got a really good 3D card at EB for ... and my game works great. My computer is NOT a super computer and I configured it to work perfectly!

Anyway, this is a great game and its detail on most units is superb. I was a little disappointed with the detail on the actual soldiers. Another disappointment was there are no actual cinematics through the missions. This can be a vital thing for the success of games. That is what made the other C&C games so great. Cinematics make the player feel closer to the characters and make the player feel like they are actually a General. But this game is great! The graphics are great! The gameplay actually seems easier to me.

My favorite side is the GLA because their units can become quite powerful when upgraded. China is also good because of their Overlord tanks which can be upgraded with a gattling turret, a pillbox, or a propaganda tower. This is a grand game, DO NOT LISTEN TO THESE BLABBERING FOOLS WHO ARE TOO IGNORANT TO UPGRADE THEIR COMPUTER WHEN IT NEEDS UPGRADED!!!

Garbage

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 2 / 5
Date: July 12, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Ive forced myself to play about 10 hours of this game, and that was all I could stomach. I love RTS' and most CnC games but this one is icredibly boring, absolutely horrible graphics, and a complete letdown. This game isn't half as good Yuris Revenge. For the love of God EA, go back to 2D. Glowing brightly colored boxes slowly moving across a screen pretty much sums up the graphics of this game.

I thought it would be better

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 1 / 1
Date: February 15, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Solo play is not that good little or no stroy line which is very uncommon for a C&C game. I played all the U.S. Solo levels on hard and it only took about 4 hours to play them all. Westwood did not set a new standard here. Think twice before spending the 50 bucks!

Shoudn't even be called a C&C game

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 1 / 1
Date: February 23, 2003
Author: Amazon User

this is the first time I was diseapointed with a C&C game.
the only thing that even makes it anything like the other C&C games is the units(with diffrent names) and the fact it is called C&C generals,

the problems with it are, they took out the power bar, make you choose between your best tanks, infantry, and things like nuke strike. the infantry are as big as the tanks, all the units movie slow, the maps are small, money is harvested at 300 per load and the lowest infantry costs 300, the harvesters are really weak, and the buildings have to be built on the map and with a truck. you also are given tanks and other units right off the bat, instead of getting them gradually, the first mission with china I used a flame tank rush, second a standard tank rush, (this was after waiting 30 minutes to get enough money), also you can't change the speed of the game so you can't set it to fast so you can get money quicker you have to wait the whole time while the harvesters get the money really slowly. the game was also really slugish, it would keep pausing during a fight, and I had the graphics set to low, and my computer is a 1.5 GHz, with a 64 mb graphics card. all in all it was a [bad] game and the only game to date that I have ever bothered to go trade in.

a good game

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 1 / 1
Date: December 30, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I love the graphics and the game. I own most of the command and conquer games. The game is actually a resource hog. I have an amd duron 1300 with nvidia 64mb graphics card and 768 mb pc133 ram.The game slows down with the more computers you play against. I love the special weapons that you aquire through experience. A definite game to get. gave 4 stars due to the slow down.

Review Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next 

Actions