User Reviews (1 - 11 of 194)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Command & Conquer: Generals - Amazing!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 51 / 69
Date: December 18, 2002
Author: Amazon User

For all strategy players in the world, this is a must-have and even better. For those who have tried the previous Command & Conquer games, it is a little step away from them. Buildings no longer just pop up from the ground, here you use bulldozers or workers for building things. Generals also uses a new "experience system", this means you get more experience points for each unit/building you destroy. The experience points is used to buy new upgrades, how many upgrades you got depends on your rank.

Even though I'm only playing the beta test, this is the best game I ever tried. This is a must-have!

PS: The age 12, really isn't my age...

A GREAT GAME

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 0 / 0
Date: December 24, 2002
Author: Amazon User

IS A NEW TYPE OF GAME WITH EXELLENT GRAPHIES AND SOUND.YOU ONLY HAVE TO SEE THE PICTURES AND YOU WILL NOTICE THIS.I AM A BIG FAN OF COMMAND AND CONQUER GAMES.

Awesome and gorgeous

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 24 / 35
Date: January 18, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Wow! This game really rocks. I've been playing the multiplayer test (released in November) and its nothing short of amazing. I haven't had this much fun playing an RTS for ages - and I'm a huge Starcraft fan. The test is months old and I can only imagine how far the game has come since then. I wasn't much of an Age fan since its moves so slow and Red Alert 2 was good but not a must have for me. So far, this one blows them away. I recommend you get this on the first day.

You need a good PC

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 9 / 30
Date: January 20, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Has anyone read the spec for this game??? I have 512mb RAM on my pc and it runs slow even with 2.7ghz so whats up? Good graphics and amazing sound though. If you like command and conquer you'll love this game(fast pc needed though)

A whole new experience

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 34 / 40
Date: January 24, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Command and Conquer enters a whole new war as the Chinese and terrorists enter the Command and Conquer series. Generals sports a new 3d engine which is starting to pop up in a lot of games which allows you to zoom in to see the action. The action is also a lot cooler and feels more realistic (even though the weaponry seems kinda comical at times). Generals also impliments new weaponry and spying technology like UAV's and satellites. Another new feature is the ability to customize vehicles by adding turrets or upgrading weaponry (machien gun turrets on tanks, laser guided bombs for stealths, missile barages for apache helicopters). Command and Conquer enthusiasts might be surprised though as a few things are different in Generals. The Veteran system is a new design to the game plus you no longer have resource fields. Instead, you have big stacks of supplies sort of like Warcraft goldmines. Also, you no longer have Primary buildings, it is more like starcraft where you build stuff per building. So now you can build 6 barracks and get 6 troops at once. Also, arrow keys function as unit changers instead of moving the map so this may seem to be a minor problem. Also, there seems to be a limited amount of buildings but i do not believe this to be a problem since in other C&C games, a lot of buildings were just needed to activate special items (special items of the sort are activated in command centers/barrackses and war factories instead of in special buildings). In the end, Generals might be a very fun game in the final release (im doing the multiplayer beta test). So far it looks like loads of fun but a little different from teh old C&C games. NOTE: One review says the specifications are VERY HIGH, but this is very wrong. The multiplayer beta that is out right now is using unoptimized code which runs slow on anything (2ghz , 512 ram neccessary to play it). The final release will use the optomized code of course and only need the 350 mhz 64mb specifications Westwood is saying it will need.

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

Generals system spec

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 10 / 13
Date: February 03, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Just wanted to clear up the rumors about high system specs needed to run the game.

The minimum system requirements are an 800MHz Intel CPU, 128 megs of RAM and a GeForce 2 graphics card.

This minimum system spec will run the game fine and if you have a higher rated CPU, more memory, and newer graphics card, you will get better looking graphics and faster performance.

Recommeded system specs are 1.8GHz CPU, with 256 megs of RAM, and a Geforce3 or equivalent graphics card.

The game ships mid-February so the reviews here are posted about the multiplayer test that EA released during November.

The first reviews of the final product come out from France and Germany and rate the game as 90+ game. More official reviews coming soon from US.

Great game but kinda dissapointing

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 3 / 34
Date: February 09, 2003
Author: Amazon User

As far as Ive expect from a new Command and Conquer game, lots of new featurs and units, etc are all there. Except one very dissapointing aspect was the graphics. It may look very appealing to people because it does look nice...but its the same memory taking graphics as every RTS game out these days. I loved command and conquers unique slick graphics they had but not EA has to mess that up gave in to that empire earth kind of thing which i never really liked :\.

Enough is enough.

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 72 / 117
Date: February 13, 2003
Author: Amazon User

This is 2003, and I for one have completely had it with Westwood's ridiculously bad AI. We took this kind of unit stupidity in 1992 with Dune 2 when the RTS genre was new, but when is Westwood finally going to wake up, smell the coffee, and realize that they can't just keep putting new graphics on the same game, give a minor gameplay tweak here and there, ignore the AI and corresponding strategy elements, and expect us to dutifully keep swallowing it and shelling out the bucks?

What was the original C&C's gameplay like? Click click click click, build build build build, then click to attack (or defend) with your hundreds of units. Repeat. And repeat. Until someone edges out a win because they clicked slightly faster, or the tiberium is done and a victory is squeaked in via attrition. Now fast forward to 2003 and C&C: Generals. What's the gameplay like? Click click click click, build build build build, then click to attack (or defend) with your hundreds of units. Repeat. And repeat. Etc ad nauseum.

This isn't strategy. In fact the so-called "Real-Time Strategy" has never been about strategy at all...it's just a marketing term to give a very rote, very brain-numbing kind of gameplay more of a cerebral spin. Well a lot of us tolerated that lack of strategy and AI, with the hope that as the genre matured, Westwood would have enough vision (if not common sense) to finally put in a worthy AI and make these games a truly fun, strategic challenge to play. Well they never did, and with what we're seeing, it doesn't look like they ever will...all they do is spend all of their resources - ALL of them - on graphics. The computer "opponents" and units are all as stupid as ever, and once you learn the units and the rote action, gameplay is also just as coma-inducing. :P

Save your money and your time. You haven't just seen this before, it's practically all you've seen if you've followed Westwood games, and anyone expecting this game to finally start using the immense amount of potential computer intelligence available to us with modern PCs, will be very disappointed indeed. "C&C: Generals"? More like Mindless Clickfest 2003. Pass.

Great game, if you have a great computer

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 9 / 12
Date: February 13, 2003
Author: Amazon User

The Generals is finally here! The game is a load of fun, if you have a good computer. I have a AMD 1600+, 640 DDR RAM, Radeon 7000 64MB DDR, and it runs fine, but only on the lowest detail settings.
The game itself is a lot like the old C&C only with 3-D acceleration. The graphics are considerably better and you have an interesting choice of groups to control. Is it just me or is the GLA Al-Queda?
If you love the older C&C you should really consider buying this game.

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

Actions