User Reviews (1 - 11 of 13)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Solid RTS, but wrong title.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 35 / 37
Date: August 12, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Command & Conquer: Generals is a lot of things. It's pretty. It's reasonably well balanced. It's fairly easy to pick up. It's not, however, Command & Conquer, as Westwood Studios did not develop the game.

The interface is totally different. All of the familiarities of the C&C series, the FMV movies, GDI, NOD, Tiberian ore, even the harvesting process, are completely absent this time around. There's no storyline in this game, so the campaigns are, in a word, boring; you get a simple briefing, maybe a short cinema done with the in-game engine, but nothing to the level of the old C&C games. Disappointing.

As stated before, the interface is new. Some aspects of it, such as queuing unit production, a-la WarCraft, are welcome. However, the adoption of construction units, and the removal of the constant production sidebar (meaning you could produce units without having to click on specific buildings) is a massive loss, and completely robs this game of the interface that defined C&C. The music is also disappointing. C&C games were known for their outstanding soundtracks. This game lacks one. Each side has maybe two themes that randomly start playing; otherwise you play without music. "Realistic" maybe, but not C&C. The USA themes themselves are quality, Hans Zimmer-esque work. But the China and GLA themes are so cliche and stereotyped (not to mention the China theme rips some progressions note-for-note from the music of Battle Realms) that they're uninteresting. A massive loss, that one.

The game, however, plays well-enough. AI is all-right; it's occasionally kind of cheap, but then again, it's occasionally just idiotic.. The sides are all fairly balanced. China is weak against air units, but incredibly strong on the ground. USA is very strong in the air, but average on the turf. GLA are very fast and weak on the ground, but have excellent anti-air units and defenses. In all, it balances out and allows for some interesting play. Units, however, are uninspired. EA tried to go for a "realistic" game, and so you won't find cool units like Tesla Tanks or Orca choppers this time round. Also, units themselves are incredibly weak. Human units are completely useless after about five minutes into the game, and vehicles are ridiculously fragile when compared to past C&C games.

The graphics, however, are outstanding. Particle effects are all around; explosions and fire look amazing. Unit explosions are great; aircraft, when destroyed, fly out of control into the ground, tanks blow apart, etc. Overall, the visuals are good, though the Mac version seems plagued with some tearing and occasional polygon glitches. Collision detection is also way off; units often just pass straight through buildings. Still, to get these lush, totally 3D polygonal graphics to run well requires a massive rig. The game runs on my 15" PowerBook G4 1GHz w/ 512MB RAM, though seemingly in slow-motion. Performance on my father's dual 1.8GHz G5 w/ 1GB of RAM is good, though even that slows down during massive explosions or battles.

If you've got the machine to run it, I recommend Generals as a solid real-time-strategy game, especially if you're not familiar with its history. I do enjoy playing it. Fans of C&C, however, should be warned not to purchase the game by the C&C name alone. This is NOT Command & Conquer.

Warning

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 15 / 16
Date: January 29, 2005
Author: Amazon User

You won't see this in the advertising...anywhere...but at the moment (and probably permanently) Mac Generals and PC Generals cannot play together online. So, if you are getting this game to play with your PC using friends on your Mac, just forget about it.

[...]

Should be called "Age of Generals"

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 13 / 17
Date: March 04, 2004
Author: Amazon User

First off, the reason it should be called "Age Of Generals". The older Command and Conquer games, for the PC, had a very unique gameplay type and interface that is hard to explain, while Generals is more like your average strategy game, such as Age Of Empires or Warcraft. Also, the money system has changed from the older games.

Now, to the reviewing. WHile it is different from the older Command and COnquers which i lvoe so much, IT IS BETTER THAN ALL OF THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've played it for PC and it may turn out a bit different for the Mac, but it would probably only be visually different. Choose form 3 unigue armies; The United States of America, The People's Republic of China, and, my favorite, The Global Liberation Army.
the GLA is my fav because I love their cheap disposable units ((i like big armies :) )) and the fact that they don't need power for the buildings.
Another new feature introduced in Command and Conquer: Generals; general abilities. Similar to the God Powers in Age of Mythology, each army has a different set of unique abilities; these abilities can upgrade or battle-harden units,give you new types of units, give you special super weapons, and special sneaky attacks((like China's artillery strike or GLA's Ambush)). Here is 1 example of a General ability from each army:
-USA: A-10 Strike; Up to 3 A-10 THunderbolt II fighters unload their air-to-ground missiles on a target area, devastating everything in that area.
-China: The Red Guard veteran ability gives all Red Guard units battle-hardeness, making all of those units produced start out with Veteran status.
-GLA: The Anthrax Bomb ability lets you send an old bomber to drop an anthrax-filled bomb on a large target area every 4 minutes. The bom does virtually nothing to medium-to-heavy armoured units, but instantly destroys and infanry units. It also leaves behind some disease for awhile.

Another new thing introduced is the Super weapons each side owns.
Multiple ones can be built and each fires the weapon in different amounts of time
USA: The Ion cannon is a classic of the Command and COnquer series. It is a concentrated laser beam that does damage to a small area and you can move around. Takes 2 minutes to charge.
CHINA: A nuclear missile. Thats all you need to know. Decimates everything in a large area and leaves behind a bit of radiation. Takes 5:00 to load a new missile
GLA: The SCUD storm. Fires several anthrax-loaded SCUD missiles at a target area and does medium damage to structures, kills most armoured units and all infantry. Leaves behind anthrax for a long time.
Takes 4 minutes to charge.

Command and COnquer will be the greatest thing to happen to Mac gaming ever. You guys won't know whats about to hit you. Can't wait until April 22. Peace out.

Systems Requirements Overstated

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 8 / 9
Date: February 13, 2005
Author: Amazon User

I play this game on my recently purchased iMac G4 with an 800MHz processor and 512MB of RAM and have not had any problems whatsoever. The box states the requirements are a 1GHz processor. This is an overstatement of the requirements in my opinion. I had a Windows computer with a 1GHz processor and played the PC version and I do not see any difference in the game performances. The MAC version functions very well with an 800MHz processor.

Not your daddy's Red Alert

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 5 / 5
Date: May 26, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Pretty much an entirely new story line and a different universe in this one, so if you're looking for GDI vs NOD action it isn't here. That being said, this is the best looking RTS I've seen, and the gameplay is good and the resource gathering mechanisms are rather simple (i.e. you don't need 9 different elements to build a tank).

One thing to note is that if you're like me and want to beat up on the computer in skirmish mode (custom game configuration where you can take on between 1 and 7 computer controlled opponents) it will slow down if you crank up the number of opponents and the skill level at which they play (I'm on 2x2.3Ghz G5, Radeon X800, 2.5G RAM). The one good thing that can be said about this is that while it does slow down in the heat of battle things keep moving fairly smoothly whereas with my PC version the game begins to stutter and get very frustrating.

C&C lives on!

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 3 / 3
Date: April 14, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Command and Conquer: Generals is a great game and I'm glad to say the game lives up to the C&C name. Fans of the series will enjoy the simular gameplay but you don't have to be a fan to enjoy Generals. For those of you who are worried it might not be the same since Westwoods name isn't on the box (developer of past C&C games) worry not since Westwood is a part of Electronic Arts.

The interface is slightly different but works out nicely. Instead of having every building option available to you at once, the options for each building become available when you click on them. Another nice change to Generals is the 3D environment. Being able to rotate the camera and zoom in and out is a nice feature to have, especially if your units go behind buildings and you hate the colored shadows that show up to let you know where they are.

There are a few things that I miss from the previous C&C games. There arn't any naval units so if you wanted to blast your enemies base away from off shore with Tomahawk missles, you'll have to keep dreaming. Another thing they took away are the cinimatic live action movies for the storyline missions...in fact, there really isn't much of a storyline at all. I've played a few of the storyline missions and they are pretty fun so far, however, it would have been nice if they had kept the live action movies. from C&C games past.

Overall, I think anyone who is either familiar with the C&C games or likes RTS games should definatly check Command and Conquer Generals out.

Way too High!

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: May 02, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Well... while C&CG is a solid game... it has major faults, the first being the requirments being far too high. My 800 Mhz can barely run it (yes, technicly the game needs 1 Ghz.. but that is insane, as the 800 i have is still a top notch machine), and my dads 1 Ghz machine is not much better (and is less than a month or two old).
As for the game itself... while the graphics are nice, gameplay solid, the AI sucks... not even providing a challange for me on the highest settings. However, multiplayer is a redeming factor, saving the game.

runs ok for me

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 3
Date: May 24, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Bought it after playing the demo. it runs well even on my eMac 700, but i do have it maxed out. 160GB Hard Drive and a Gig of memory. note to anyone with same type of machine/processor who wants to buy this game, set all the graphics to the lowest settings. you still get decent eye candy, but i did notice that with the factory setting, the building construction seems cooler on highest and lowest settings. also, when you use the ultimate weapon for either team, you don't see the Big explosion, but for me on loss. I bought it for the amount of thinking you need to do.

Demo review, be warned

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 2 / 4
Date: April 11, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Might be slow. Be warned, I played the Demo on my Power book G4 12 inch (with 1Ghz processor and 1.25GB RAM). It ran fine, just slow. Also, the graphics aren't as good as Warcraft III. I think you would need a G5 to play this and enjoy it, so perhaps this is one for the Hard Core C&C fans out there.

Great Game...with flaws

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 1 / 3
Date: December 26, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Overall this was a solid RTS and a solid game. The missions are prettu fun but they can get repetative. The graphics are awsome and my low end eMAc 1.25 runs the game fine. The only big flaw is the AI which is bad, really bad. Besides that this game is awsome and great fun.

Review Page: 1 2 Next 

Actions