Who wants Generals 2??

[ekklitz]

I really wanted a generals 2 :(
I thought CnC generals was the most serious and realistic of all the CNC'S and I dont understand why some people hate it.
It was my favourite CNC by far and when the newCNC comes out I will miss sending cornel Burton into enemy bases and Nuking a tank rush. I really will miss it. (But theres always a modding possibility :) :) )

I hope they do do a generals 2, and I hope they have the European Union in it and a real GLA not just an arabic one.

Anyone with me??

Ofcourse this isnt going to haoppen for a long long time because theyll do a red alert or a tie in between red alert and tiberium next, Maybe they could tie generals in with it? Id be happy then.

[Anthrax]

Oh boy, is this a powderkeg...

[Derek]

I wouldn't mind a Generals 2, but not any time soon, preferably after CNC3 and RA3.

[eLDiablo]

Oh boy, is this a powderkeg...
next to an oil barrel...

[starscream007]

I would like to see a Generals 2 with possibly the EU involved but im happy enough with Tiberian Wars

[FK47]

Firstly, it's 'Tiberium Wars'. Secondly, Generals is shallow, the factions are dull, the storyline is cliche and there are very few 'C&C' features in the game. A step backwards if ever there was one.

Besides, there are enough mods trying to fix up Generals into an enjoyable game... why not just pick one of those and stick with it.

[Derek]

Firstly, it's 'Tiberium Wars'. Secondly, Generals is shallow, the factions are dull, the storyline is cliche and there are very few 'C&C' features in the game. A step backwards if ever there was one.
Except for the fact that it is probably one of the best multiplayer RTS's ever. Yes, I would dare say better than past CNC games. If only EA had spent the time to balance ZH... (I guess twelve factions was a little too ambitious). Singleplayer was worthless though, I never even finished it. It could be fleshed out in a sequel though.

[ekklitz]

I think generals had an amazing storyline, if it had cutscenes though it would be so much better.
It was an amazing game its just that some people are too stubborn to see it just because EA made it.
And I will defend my belief.

Tiberium sun RA2 Generals

Factions 2 2 (regular) 3

Graphics 2D 2D 3D

Bar side side bottom

Build Con Yard Con Yard Dozer

Realistic? NO NO YES

LAG YES BAD Very Little

Tactical Slightly Slightly More Very

Total: 2/5 2.5/5 5/5

[FK47]

Generals isn't as realistic as you make out.
Tiberium sun
Nice.

And you gave Generals 5/5, that's funny considering it's a half-assed game. Oh, and there's TS with a 2.

Learn a little something about games please.

[ekklitz]

Generals isn't as realistic as you make out.

Nice.

And you gave Generals 5/5, that's funny considering it's a half-assed game. Oh, and there's TS with a 2.

Learn a little something about games please.

Learn something about fact and oppinion. I gave marks to the winners of each contest, and half marks to those close behind.

TS is unrealistic because of, well Tiberium
RA2 is unrealistic because of mind controll, teleportation and time travel, cloning in secconds, the list goes on...

Generals is unrealistic for one slight thing-The GLOBAL liberation Army isnt global, its Arabic, everything else is realistic, except the 9 foot giants, which are even bigger in RA2 and TS.

If you can find anything better about TS and RA2 that are not oppinion, and are fact, feel free and ill upgrade the scoring out of 6
And if you say 2d is better than 3d your wrong, 3D is better. No Doubt, Its newer, cleaner, and more realistic.

OK OK RA2 and TS had cutscenes. so that brings it up to 3/6 and 3.5/6 Genrals is 5/6 for its crappy ones.

[FK47]

C&C isn't meant to be realistic, anyhow. It's like calling An Act of War a part of the Dune series, it doesn't fit.

[eLDiablo]

Generals is unrealistic for one slight thing-The GLOBAL liberation Army isnt global, its Arabic, everything else is realistic, except the 9 foot giants, which are even bigger in RA2 and TS.


Global isnt describing the army, its describing the liberation. They intend to liberate the globe from the imperialist oppressors.

Oh, btw, Comanches in service, auroras, overlords, nukes that have a 500ft radius, stingers firing on tanks, lethal flashbangs... etc.

[nilloC]

Learn something about fact and oppinion. I gave marks to the winners of each contest, and half marks to those close behind.

TS is unrealistic because of, well Tiberium
RA2 is unrealistic because of mind controll, teleportation and time travel, cloning in secconds, the list goes on...

Generals is unrealistic for one slight thing-The GLOBAL liberation Army isnt global, its Arabic, everything else is realistic, except the 9 foot giants, which are even bigger in RA2 and TS.

If you can find anything better about TS and RA2 that are not oppinion, and are fact, feel free and ill upgrade the scoring out of 6
And if you say 2d is better than 3d your wrong, 3D is better. No Doubt, Its newer, cleaner, and more realistic.

OK OK RA2 and TS had cutscenes. so that brings it up to 3/6 and 3.5/6 Genrals is 5/6 for its crappy ones.

Sigh. I'll admit, the one great feature about Generals WAS the multiplayer. But they lost out on everything else. Graphics are neglectable, due to technology restraints on RA2 and Tiberian Sun (Which they were actually working with a 3D engine on TS, if I'm not mistaken).

Generals is just a misfit, and everyone knows it. Saying Generals is more realistic than Tiberian Sun/RA2 is like saying that Doom is more realistic than Perfect Dark. They just don't mesh.

And there is NOTHING wrong with 2D. Seriously, it allows a more 'artistic' style of a game, and isn't more realistic than a 3D engine in anyway.

I guarantee you (This is not opinion) that 9 out of 10 people here will prefer the TS/RA2 storyline 5 fold over the Generals storyline. And the character development, something that there is NONE of in Generals.

Generals is a pretty game on the surface, but it's pretty shallow in every aspect except Multiplayer. That may be opinion, but opinion is exactly what you're throwing at us, so expect to get some back.

[ekklitz]

All that stuff that you said is a lot more realistic than mind controll, Humans killed by tiberium turning into monsters and so on and so on.
I will admit that the RA2/Tiberium storyline is a lot better than Generals.
But Storyline isnt everything, its about the smoothness, the addictiveness, the graphics...
Plus I'm sure a Generals 2 would have a propper storyline, but more realistic.
And I dont think theres anything wrong with Sci-fi... I got an A* in my English coursework for writing a Sci-fi story.
For those of you who dont know what GCSE's are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCSE
Well its the best grade you can get anyway.

[FK47]

I got an A* in my English coursework for writing a Sci-fi story.
For those of you who dont know what GCSE's are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCSE
Well its the best grade you can get anyway.
Put your e-penis away.

[Daishi]

Generals was a huge step forward in the RTS genre, easily ahead in every way of other RTS games of its time. It also proved the power of the SAGE engine. Also, it had very balanced factions, and more choices of play than any other C&C game.

Its downside is only that what made many ppl love the series is gone, (cutscenes) and if you think this is false, good job, right desicion. I don't think that the cutscenes are especially important, at least not in multiplayer, which is what I play.

I want Generals 2, but I think the games should be spread out as they have been. Tiberian Sun was a huge upgrade in all ways of Tiberian Dawn, Red Alert 2 was a huge upgrade from Red Alert, and Tiberium Wars will be a huge upgrade from Tiberian Sun.

RA3, Generals 2, and the next C&C FPS, all of which I am waiting religiously for, should be tremendous upgrades from the last game in their series. Yes, I'm hoping very much that Generals 2 comes, but also that will be the last of the aforementioned games to come. :)

Also, nilloC, I have to say that although I did buy Generals hoping for a great storyline, I didn't care that it didn't have one because the awesome graphics and genius gameplay mechanics more than made up for it. :thought:

Edit: Renegade failed to make success and a sequel because no one expected a good FPS from an RTS series. EA could not have put the name (Command and Conquer) to better use than to apply it to a new game once again set on Earth with futuristic, unrealistic weapons (really, its just as unrealistic as before If you look at the units and structures) That's C&C all right. No other game exists like that!

[eLDiablo]

All that stuff that you said is a lot more realistic than mind controll, We werent comparing the grades of realism. You stated that generals only unrealistic bit was a misinterpretation on your part.

Which suggests to me you got no such A*, and besides, you got it in an english class, as long as your grammar was good, your story could have been trash and you could still get an A.

Lol, A* was introduced in 94 becuase too many people were getting A's, sounds like the grading scale is too easy.

[nilloC]

Also, nilloC, I have to say that although I did buy Generals hoping for a great storyline, I didn't care that it didn't have one because the awesome graphics and genius gameplay mechanics more than made up for it. :thought:


Right, and I agree with you. I bought Generals, and once I got over the fact that in my opinion it wasn't a true Command & Conquer game, it was good. I really enjoyed it, however I enjoyed the Multiplayer the most. I played through the storyline once or twice, not because it was great, or deep, but because it was enjoyable and just fast paced. I'm not trying to knock Generals at all, because it was a decently well done game. However, I feel if you gave TS and RA2 upgraded graphics and an upgraded engine, it would blow Generals out of the water (Assuming, of course, the novelty factor wasn't involved. Y'know, re-releasing a game with just new graphics wouldn't do incredibly much)

[Derek]

Right, and I agree with you. I bought Generals, and once I got over the fact that in my opinion it wasn't a true Command & Conquer game, it was good. I really enjoyed it, however I enjoyed the Multiplayer the most. I played through the storyline once or twice, not because it was great, or deep, but because it was enjoyable and just fast paced. I'm not trying to knock Generals at all, because it was a decently well done game. However, I feel if you gave TS and RA2 upgraded graphics and an upgraded engine, it would blow Generals out of the water (Assuming, of course, the novelty factor wasn't involved. Y'know, re-releasing a game with just new graphics wouldn't do incredibly much)
In the singleplayer department, they definately would, but I think Generals would have better multiplayer still. The easiest way to sum up Generals is this: Singleplayer-crap, Multiplayer-amazing (Although we shouldn't forget: Support-whats that? Thats something EA has to improve upon in CNC3, Starcraft has had how many patchse? And ZH has had 4? :rockbrow: )

[Daishi]

You known what would be awesome? If the new C&C was filled with cutscenes actually within the levels, like you can put videos into maps with the Unreal engine. And it goes from cutscene to BOOM and the commandos go wtf? and immediately, camera is sent flying out the door and over the battlefield, where artillery is raining down...and something flies outta nowhere and kills artillery and game starts right there... so awesome

And also I think remaked with better graphics never works: Super Mario Bros was not better the second time around, especially with the killing of the Minus World. Even FF7 shouldn't get a 3d remake, its just not gonna be good. Its good for movies, not games.

[ekklitz]

Which suggests to me you got no such A*,

Yes I did

and besides, you got it in an english class, as long as your grammar was good, your story could have been trash and you could still get an A.

No you cant

Oh and id like to see you come over to england and not fail an exam, English exams are a lot harder than American ones, Ive heard that from an American herself.

And I dont understand why everyone is getting so angry here... Its a game, I would like a generals 2 and so would afew others, there is absoloutley no need for personal insults here.
I said I wanted a generals 2 then i get called stupid. Did I offend anyone?

Put your e-penis away.
??? I didnt try to hump you or anything... ???

[eLDiablo]

Yes I did
prove it.

No you cant

prove it.

Oh and id like to see you come over to england and not fail an exam, English exams are a lot harder than American ones, Ive heard that from an American herself.

So one stupid whore who cant pass a simple exam is proof? Forget proving those last two items then, since by any real standard you probably cant.

And I dont understand why everyone is getting so angry here... Its a game, I would like a generals 2 and so would afew others, there is absoloutley no need for personal insults here.
I said I wanted a generals 2 then i get called stupid. Did I offend anyone?
You did get a little uppity with your "I got an A* with a scifi story" crap


??? I didnt try to hump you or anything... ???
Ever heard the phrase pissing match? Thats what e-penis represents.

[ekklitz]

Another post full of childlsh pointless stuff.
See i didnt offend you at all in that post but you must be too 'cool' to think up of a nice reply back.
Can a mod please lock this topic?

And how is me talking about what grade I got in an exam offensive?
Because your hard?
I'll save you your next pointless post 'Because your a geek'
Im a bit of a geek, but you play command and conquer games too so if Im a geek you are.
No matter what anyone says command and conquer games will always be geeky and I love them.

[eLDiablo]

Lmfao.

1) You cant say if you have offended me or not.
2) You call me childish, then you post that.

way to go.

You should really stop trying to predict what ill say next, since you will never succeed at it, and it only make you look like more of an ass than youve already been.

[KrasnyOktyabr]

I wouldn't say talking about your grades if offensive, more than anything it is useless, because no one gives two shakes of a stick as to what you got on some half-assed paper.

[ekklitz]

I wouldn't say talking about your grades if offensive, more than anything it is useless, because no one gives two shakes of a stick as to what you got on some half-assed paper.
I didnt expect everyone to applaud, I was just saying I dont mind Sci-fi, and infact i chose to write it and got that grade in it.
Because somebody said that its because I dont like Sci-Fi.
Plus what was the poinnt in that post? nobody cares
and what was the point in replying to my post.
If nobody cares?
There are a load of agressive people on this forum.
Why dont you take it out on someone you can actually see?

[ekklitz]

Sorry about that double post

[eLDiablo]

Why dont you take it out on someone you can actually see?
Because its just as much fun ****ing with someone a thousand miles away.

[KrasnyOktyabr]

Well class, let us break this down, shall we?

I didnt expect everyone to applaud, I was just saying I dont mind Sci-fi, and infact i chose to write it and got that grade in it.
Because somebody said that its because I dont like Sci-Fi.

Well I just scanned over the thread, and nowhere do I see anyone specifically accuse you of not liking Sci-Fi, if I'm wrong please correct me and point out a quote.

Also, writing a paper means nothing as to your knowledge of a subject. I once wrote a ten page paper comparing Julius Ceasar to Winston Churchill, does that make me qualified to speak publically about them without making an arse of myself? No, it certaintly doesn't, hell I don't even remember what I wrote.

Plus what was the poinnt in that post? nobody cares
and what was the point in replying to my post.
If nobody cares?

No one cares about your paper, your inflated ego, or you. This will continue to be rubbed into you until you figure it out for yourself and either stop acting like a frigging twelve year old n00b or leave.

There are a load of agressive people on this forum.
Why dont you take it out on someone you can actually see?

There are few agressive people on this forum, but when you treat a long standing member with disrespect expect to get shat on.

As for taking my agression out on real people, I don't feel the need to. I'm joining the Army, I'm making agression a career, do you think I wish to make it a hobby as well?

[ekklitz]

Well good luck getting in then.
People are aggressive on this forum. I cant be bothered arguing with you anymore. It was your idea to insult me. There youve done it. I hope your smilling and chuckling to yourself. I didnt insut anyone. And it isnt just you two that are agressive bullies, there are even more on these forums. But there are some really nice people too.
Can we please just stick to the subject from now on.
If your desperate to cause more **** PM me, then I can delete it

[FK47]

Well good luck getting in then.
People are aggressive on this forum. I cant be bothered arguing with you anymore. It was your idea to insult me. There youve done it. I hope your smilling and chuckling to yourself. I didnt insut anyone. And it isnt just you two that are agressive bullies, there are even more on these forums. But there are some really nice people too.
Can we please just stick to the subject from now on.
If your desperate to cause more **** PM me, then I can delete it
It's because you're acting like an ignorant simpleton. You can't expect to come here thinking you know everything about a game and get away with it. For every game you play there are a million others who know twice as much about it than you. And, well, this is a gaming forum, figure it out.

[drgn]

Lol, UK English coursework is easy... I got an A* for a story about a random bloke running through a shopping centre in the year 2300 or something.... made it up as I went along. You just have to get the grammar and language techniques right, they dont give 2 ****s about the story content.

[Daishi]

To help us get back on track,

Global isnt describing the army, its describing the liberation. They intend to liberate the globe from the imperialist oppressors.

Oh, btw, Comanches in service, auroras, overlords, nukes that have a 500ft radius, stingers firing on tanks, lethal flashbangs... etc.

How 'bout that Particle Cannon, a nuke that doesn't annihilate the ENTIRE battlefield and then some, and Missles filled with germs? Radiation that goes away after a while, germs that aren't blocked by chemical suits, Lasers in use that aren't just for targeting, freakin' tractors being used to kill schtuff, America having no nukes at all, RPGs that lock on target, stuff you can't see when its this close: |---------|, Hackers that can disable a Middle Eastern palace without no power or electronics from really far away, (I guess by 2010, everything has a computer chip) Lets not forget the "bringer of light", towers that speak words that heal you (lol truenames) Trucks with a rear mounted turret that shuts off when the driver is killed or its hit by an EMP,

[eLDiablo]

Missles filled with germs?

germs that aren't blocked by chemical suits,

Lasers in use that aren't just for targeting,

freakin' tractors being used to kill schtuff,

America having no nukes at all,
Possible.

broken suits, suits are also only usable for so long if i remember correctly anyway, the airfilters arent permanent fixtures.

theyre working on it, and getting quite close.

You can strap a bomb to anything, why would tractors be unrealistic?

Its never said america doesnt have nukes, they just wouldnt use them in a war where te enemy is often surrounded by civilians

[Daishi]

Possible.

broken suits, suits are also only usable for so long if i remember correctly anyway, the airfilters arent permanent fixtures.

theyre working on it, and getting quite close.

You can strap a bomb to anything, why would tractors be unrealistic?

Its never said america doesnt have nukes, they just wouldnt use them in a war where te enemy is often surrounded by civilians

Possible, but not practical, not realistic.

Only America would send its troops so ill-equipped.

Really? (lasers)

Well, its just as believable as the armies in previous C&C games, so people shouldn't be thrashing it for that.

Because tractors are really slow and impractical, and you can get shot off them easy? (I have a relative that did) No army that uses tanks would use tractors. If tractors could work as resource gatherers, as that's what they're for, moving stuff, I'd give them a point for realism.

China sure-ass would. :devil:

[Derek]

Possible, but not practical, not realistic.
Umm, yes practical. During the Cold War the US and USSR both had stockpiles of Smallpox and Anthrax for that very purpose.

Only America would send its troops so ill-equipped.

Thats not ill-equipped, you can't make a perfect Chemsuit, the filter on any chemsuit can only last so long.

Really? (lasers)
Yes, really. In fact, Popular Science had a cover article on it this month.

[CrowRbot]

Possible, but not practical, not realistic.

Only America would send its troops so ill-equipped.

Really? (lasers)

Well, its just as believable as the armies in previous C&C games, so people shouldn't be thrashing it for that.

Because tractors are really slow and impractical, and you can get shot off them easy? (I have a relative that did) No army that uses tanks would use tractors. If tractors could work as resource gatherers, as that's what they're for, moving stuff, I'd give them a point for realism.

China sure-ass would. :devil:

Many nations have or had biological weapons, and a good number, if used, would be carried by missiles. How else could they be delivered apart from bombs?

Your comment on "only America" is highly speculative. I don't think you can make that assumption. eL is right, suits can break, and air filters don't last long.

Yes, we've been working on developing lasers as weapons for quite a long time. They're finally getting close to the stage where lasers could be equipped on aircraft.

Admittedly I thought the tractor idea was a bit dumb, but I wasn't going to hold it against them. Now, the idea that anthrax apparently can kill almost instantly upon contact is ludicrous. Apart from a knee-jerk reaction to the anthrax scare a few years ago, I don't know why they couldn't have called it VX or sarin nerve gas, the former having the lingering tendency and both having the kill time observed by the use of "anthrax" in Generals.

As for the China nuke thing, they might have just decided to follow precedent rather than speculate on whether or not country A or country B would be more willing to use nukes possibly against civilians. In every CNC game, each side has its own superweapon. In Tiberian Dawn, it was the Ion Cannon (GDI) and Temple of Nod (NOD). In Tiberian Sun the GDI retained the Ion Cannon, and Nod adopted the cluster missile. In Red Alert, there's the Chronosphere and Iron Curtain. RA2, the Weather Storm and Nuclear Missile Silo. Not surprisingly, Generals followed precedent. The GLA uses the Scud Storm, combining a commonly used weapon with "anthrax." The US uses the Particle Cannon, which makes sense given that the US is supposed to be the elite in terms of technology. China is meant to be a bit behind the US technologically, and so rather than give them another high-tech superweapon, they just present China with a conventional superweapon- the nuke.

[eLDiablo]

Because tractors are really slow and impractical, and you can get shot off them easy? (I have a relative that did) No army that uses tanks would use tractors. If tractors could work as resource gatherers, as that's what they're for, moving stuff, I'd give them a point for realism.


Thats just it, strap a bomb to a civilian vehicle, disguise your weapon as something harmless. Thats what GLA suicide bombers are all about. (Obviously youd have to ignore the fact that anyone but a computer would immediately target a tractor headed straight for their base) But ive made my point.

[Daishi]

Ur all right, I'm just trying to stress the point that it-could-happen is not a reason to like this game less than previous command-and-Conquer. I'm not holding anything against EA, I'm just saying you shouldn't hate it because its more realistic!

And I'm sorry about chemsuits thing... and America... I'm sorry. I post wierd sometimes. lol... lol... *cries*

As for the China nuke thing, they might have just decided to follow precedent rather than speculate on whether or not country A or country B would be more willing to use nukes possibly against civilians. In every CNC game, each side has its own superweapon. In Tiberian Dawn, it was the Ion Cannon (GDI) and Temple of Nod (NOD). In Tiberian Sun the GDI retained the Ion Cannon, and Nod adopted the cluster missile. In Red Alert, there's the Chronosphere and Iron Curtain. RA2, the Weather Storm and Nuclear Missile Silo. Not surprisingly, Generals followed precedent. The GLA uses the Scud Storm, combining a commonly used weapon with "anthrax." The US uses the Particle Cannon, which makes sense given that the US is supposed to be the elite in terms of technology. China is meant to be a bit behind the US technologically, and so rather than give them another high-tech superweapon, they just present China with a conventional superweapon- the nuke.

And they say its not a real C&C.

[ekklitz]

Back to the subject! YEY.. Im just going to ignore allthat off subject stuff and join the discussion.

Generals is a near future game, maybe that wouldbe possible in the near future? well all the stuff that isnt possible now.

[Rolk]

Lets not resort to name calling, everyone has their opinion you can disagree with it without the name calling.

[bringonts2]

I really wanted a generals 2 :(
I thought CnC generals was the most serious and realistic of all the CNC'S and I dont understand why some people hate it.
It was my favourite CNC by far and when the newCNC comes out I will miss sending cornel Burton into enemy bases and Nuking a tank rush. I really will miss it. (But theres always a modding possibility :) :) )

I hope they do do a generals 2, and I hope they have the European Union in it and a real GLA not just an arabic one.

Anyone with me??

Ofcourse this isnt going to haoppen for a long long time because theyll do a red alert or a tie in between red alert and tiberium next, Maybe they could tie generals in with it? Id be happy then.

Well, that's the reason why they made it. EA wants to play the latest and greatest trends (/fads) in order to be the most profitable. Currently, the strive is to push towards realism. EA jumped on this, milked it for as far as it could go, and then dropped it.

Also, now it's almost impossible for them to tie in the RA series and TD (unless they'd go back in time, which EA doesn't do), so I doubt they'd also throw in a Generals 2 for good mix.

I extremely disliked Generals. If EA hadn't thrown the "C&C" label on it, I think a lot less people would be mad. The problem is, if you put a label on something, you're going to have to compare it to something else. By EA putting C&C on it, it means that it's open to be judged on the C&C standards (which it does not hold up).

EA can make a Generals 2 for all I care, but I definitely won't be buying it.

[ekklitz]

I dont get why people say its not a real CnC game.
I bet if westwood made it everyone would be happy but everyones mad because EA did.
It IS a cnc game no matter what anyone says.
Ok its not got the sidebar and cutscenes but everything else is the same.
Its just a new storyline. I think thats fine.

[Daishi]

I dont get why people say its not a real CnC game.
I bet if westwood made it everyone would be happy but everyones mad because EA did.
It IS a cnc game no matter what anyone says.
Ok its not got the sidebar and cutscenes but everything else is the same.
Its just a new storyline. I think thats fine.

Damn straight! I honestly believe it improves every flaw there was in the previous C&C games.

[ekklitz]

A new storyline is always welcome by me

[Raze664]

If westwood made it I would. Shame they went bankrupt and bought out by EA :tantrum::tantrum:

[Daishi]

I didn't think they went bankrupt, just got bought out...:\

[Derek]

They didn't go bankrupt, Raze just assumes they did because he knows nothing.

Westwood voluntarily sold themselves to EA, there are a lot of good business reasons for doing so, it saves money by simplifying the developement process, allows you to cooperate with other branches of EA, and guarantees that you will always have a publisher (and finding a publisher can be a major problem for a small development house). The downside is, of course, the loss of independence.

[Daishi]

And the chance of dying because they don't think you're quite that necessary anymore.

[webby]

I think generals had an amazing storyline, if it had cutscenes though it would be so much better.
It was an amazing game its just that some people are too stubborn to see it just because EA made it.
And I will defend my belief.

Tiberium sun RA2 Generals

Factions 2 2 (regular) 3

Graphics 2D 2D 3D

Bar side side bottom

Build Con Yard Con Yard Dozer

Realistic? NO NO YES

LAG YES BAD Very Little

Tactical Slightly Slightly More Very

Total: 2/5 2.5/5 5/5

I loved tiberian sun and I absolutely hated red alert 2 because of its cartoony graphics and I never have a problem with lagg on tiberian sun, tiberian sun was and is so much better than red alert 2, I think a generals 2 would be good but firstly I think cnc3 is going to be the best yet, hopefully...

[Daishi]

I loved tiberian sun and I absolutely hated red alert 2 because of its cartoony graphics and I never have a problem with lagg on tiberian sun, tiberian sun was and is so much better than red alert 2

You're entitled to your opinion, but my opinion contradicts yours. =

Red Alert 2 is a more complicated game than Tiberian Sun, Its the ultimate ascension of the voxel graphics that was used in both. If it lags, your computer can't handle its awesomeness.

Tiberian Sun was hard to learn, if you ask me. It sure is addicting though.

Before you badmouth cartoony graphics in a game, even though they weren't really too cartoony IMO, just colorful, look at Legend of Zelda: the Wind Waker, play it, (it takes an afternoon) and tell me it sucked compared to Ocarina.

[Kane's Retarded Cousin]

Wow, lot of people biting eachothers heads off. I'm just going to duck into my foxhole before it's my turn. By that I mean state this: Everyone is entitled to an opinion, doesn't matter if it's wrong, right, or a possibility, just don't bite their head off if it happens to contradict yours. (Unless they're a Nazi or some other bull&%$#) If it's a completely retarded opinion, please, unhinge your jaw. If it's a noob's opinion, just tell him that it's a noob's opinion, learn more. If it happens to be your own, defend it if you wish, or listen to the veterans. I think that MAYBE they should make a Generals II (Don't! Not just yet!) because EA kind of screwed over the country that they're based in, in Zero Hour. That left me confused and pissed off, why? HOW THE HELL WOULD THE US LOSE TO TERRORISTS?!? I know that there aren't any "Toxin Repositories" in California because I happen to live here AND the fact that we wouldn't really be storing chemical or biological weapons when that's what we're trying to get rid of!:rant: But if they decide to get rid of Generals, then that's fine by me.:wave: I just have one question for EA and Westwood: Are you ever going to make a game that DOESN'T involve the color red? Just asking, cause maybe they could make a game (Or mod) where instead of Gold VS Red/Grey or Blue VS Red they could make, I don't know, Grey VS Black. I don't have anything wrong with Red, just wondering. But definitely, they need to make TibWars and RA3 before Generals II, DEFINITELY!

[Derek]

I know that there aren't any "Toxin Repositories" in California because I happen to live here AND the fact that we wouldn't really be storing chemical or biological weapons when that's what we're trying to get rid of!:rant:
You don't think the US has chemical and biological weapons? Its not even a secret, the US has stores of weaponized Anthrax and various nerve gases all ready to be equippied on missiles. Nuclear weapons weren't the only thing we were racing the Soviets with. And all these chemical and biological weapons are stored in concrete bunkers in the desert, I'm not exactly sure what state, but California wouldn't surprise me.

[Kane's Retarded Cousin]

I guess I didn't know because I live on a crappy little piece of dirt in California that people call "Catalina Island", more like :devil:Satan's &%$hole:devil:. But still,
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:


Hmm......I wonder what we're gonna do with all that anti-life:chin:.....


Anti-Life: Something that kills.
Thought About By The President Of Hillbillies, Inc.

[Daishi]

If the Geneva Conference sez OK, or is null and void, we'll strike fear in the world. If we get a mad caliph for a President or if we lose half the country to a people's revolution, we'll immediately fire it everywhere we don't like. The nations of the world will have to hold up signs saying why we shouldn't kill them. Goes without saying.

Zero Hour was designed to make Generals look like more of a C&C game and less like a piece of Army propaganda The USA didn't die, but lost the respect of the world.

[NuclearDreams]

You don't think the US has chemical and biological weapons? Its not even a secret, the US has stores of weaponized Anthrax and various nerve gases all ready to be equippied on missiles. Nuclear weapons weren't the only thing we were racing the Soviets with. And all these chemical and biological weapons are stored in concrete bunkers in the desert, I'm not exactly sure what state, but California wouldn't surprise me.

When I was stationed in Korea, chemical weapons and nukes were present at one base. We stored them for all branches of the military and for South Korea as well.

[Daishi]

This is for Germany?

[NuclearDreams]

This is for Germany?


I'm an American. I live in Germany. ;)

[firest0rm]

Wow, lot of people biting eachothers heads off. I'm just going to duck into my foxhole before it's my turn. By that I mean state this: Everyone is entitled to an opinion, doesn't matter if it's wrong, right, or a possibility, just don't bite their head off if it happens to contradict yours. (Unless they're a Nazi or some other bull&%$#) If it's a completely retarded opinion, please, unhinge your jaw. If it's a noob's opinion, just tell him that it's a noob's opinion, learn more. If it happens to be your own, defend it if you wish, or listen to the veterans. I think that MAYBE they should make a Generals II (Don't! Not just yet!) because EA kind of screwed over the country that they're based in, in Zero Hour. That left me confused and pissed off, why? HOW THE HELL WOULD THE US LOSE TO TERRORISTS?!? I know that there aren't any "Toxin Repositories" in California because I happen to live here AND the fact that we wouldn't really be storing chemical or biological weapons when that's what we're trying to get rid of!:rant: But if they decide to get rid of Generals, then that's fine by me.:wave: I just have one question for EA and Westwood: Are you ever going to make a game that DOESN'T involve the color red? Just asking, cause maybe they could make a game (Or mod) where instead of Gold VS Red/Grey or Blue VS Red they could make, I don't know, Grey VS Black. I don't have anything wrong with Red, just wondering. But definitely, they need to make TibWars and RA3 before Generals II, DEFINITELY!
u know what i liked about gen was TO LAUNCH A 2 missilse with CHEM WRHEAD TO THE US MWUHAHAHAHAAA!!!
erm go play online u got colours there linke pink orange green
and for ts u can get a colour patch u can be silver
the game is not super based on real life so they made it up
like that yuri guy its all a litle based on real life
but that dosnt means that ur storing chem weapons under ur country

[wargrudge]

u know what i liked about gen was TO LAUNCH A 2 missilse with CHEM WRHEAD TO THE US MWUHAHAHAHAAA!!!
erm go play online u got colours there linke pink orange green
and for ts u can get a colour patch u can be silver
the game is not super based on real life so they made it up
like that yuri guy its all a litle based on real life
but that dosnt means that ur storing chem weapons under ur country
If you're not gonna speak in terms that people who aren't dumb can read, then don't bother to come back.

Now that I got that out of the way, Generals is a BAD game. It sucks. Framerate sucks unless you: A) Have a pretty good system, B) Lower the quality of the graphics to increase the rate, or C) Not play the game at all.* The so called "story" blows. I'd much rather save the world from the Soviet menace or clamp down on the evil deeds of Nod than try to exterminate some damn terrorist cretins. Theres no real characters to advance the story, and I'm not too much of a fan for the multiplayer either. RA2 on XWIS is much better in my opinion. So put aside all the whining that there's gonna be no General 2, and be elated by the fact that they're going back to where, arguabley, the genre of RTS began.

*= I wasn't really being serious about "C". The other two are the only ways I actually know to increase framerate ON MY COMPUTER.

[Derek]

and I'm not too much of a fan for the multiplayer either. RA2 on XWIS is much better in my opinion.
The Generals and Zero Hour multiplayer is perhaps the best of any RTS, much better than RA2. Its far more diverse and gives the player many more options. The balance is lacking, but thats a problem of support from EA. You're right to say that the singleplayer is crap though. Also, you don't need a very powerful PC to run Generals, when it was released, yes, it was pretty demanding, but three years later, a bottom end computer can run it fine.

[wargrudge]

I got the game when it came out... still have the same computer. So don't gimme that "run fine" bit. :p


My system meets all mimimum specs and runs at snails pace even with basically zero graphics and on the lowest display mode available to it. Makes me kinda sad. Takes me an hour to do what I normally could do in 15-20 minutes.

[Derek]

I got the game when it came out... still have the same computer. So don't gimme that "run fine" bit. :p


My system meets all mimimum specs and runs at snails pace even with basically zero graphics and on the lowest display mode available to it. Makes me kinda sad. Takes me an hour to do what I normally could do in 15-20 minutes.
That means its time to upgrade :p

I got my (family) computer two and a half years ago, its was middle-end back then, and can run Generals flawlessly. I just wish I could run F.E.A.R. at something more than 10 FPS :p

[firest0rm]

this is a fact: gen/zh storry line SUCKS real bad if it was ra2 storryline it would be a way better game and mebey also a bit better balanched

i am calling the storry lines of c&c gen/zh the black sheap af all the C&C storry lines

the details are cool the units 2 but it should be ra2 then it would PWN

[wargrudge]

One needs money in order to do that. And with my parents getting sued because my sister got into another car accident without having a license, money's gonna be kinda hard to come by pretty soon.

[SunnyInc.]

One needs money in order to do that. And with my parents getting sued because my sister got into another car accident without having a license, money's gonna be kinda hard to come by pretty soon.

Sorry to hear mate. Hope it works out alright for you.

I'd like to see a generals 2 out. They had the right idea the first time. I think a couple of people have already mentioned it but i'll say it again.... the whole generals concept just needs to be fleshed out a bit more. If it was given the go ahead, Generals 2 would have the propensity to be one of the best C&C games.... in my humble opinion.

[Daishi]

I hope the next Command and Conquer is extremely creative, and includes naval and perhaps space battles. If the first Generals and Zerohour were Red Alert 1, The sequel has to be the improvement and added genius that RA2 and Yuri's Revenge made reality.

No seriously, wait until CnC3 AND RA3 come out, then either make Generals 2, or a new spinoff.

[Zardac the Great]

I would love to see Generals 2, but DARN IT! I WANT A STORY! :mad: :rant: :flame:


quick question...you say that Generals has unbalanced multiplayer? Who's supposed to be the best?

[Derek]

Generals is balanced, in ZH a good USAF is unbeatable.

[CaptainIraq]

OK im going to ignore all of the other posts considering theyre probably just all arguments. Ill tell you why Generals and Zero Hour are the best RTS games af all time:

1) It is the most modder-friendly game I have ever seen. With the easy-to-edit ini files and one of the most advanced and easy to use map creators of any game on the market, it beats modding any other game by a long shot.

2) It was the first 3D RTS to really hit the market.

3) It never gets old. With the hundreds of mods on the net, and the possibility of making your own, there is always something new. I have been playing it since it came out, and I'm not bored yet.

4) It has the most plausible story line of any CnC game out there. Be it far from reality, it is easier to relate to the conflicts of our time.

5) The heros. They are just great. Better than Tanya or Boris or Yuri or anyone.

[El Sol Morado]

I am in no rush to ever see another Generals. I'd rather see another RA or TS. RA2/YR was just a badass game. To me, Generals was really all about the graphics, which is cool, but kinda gets weak after a while.

[wargrudge]

OK im going to ignore all of the other posts considering theyre probably just all arguments. Ill tell you why Generals and Zero Hour are the best RTS games af all time:
For the record, Red Alert is the best ever. And since I'm backed up by hundreds of people on these boards who would agree, you're beaten. So go home.


1) It is the most modder-friendly game I have ever seen. With the easy-to-edit ini files and one of the most advanced and easy to use map creators of any game on the market, it beats modding any other game by a long shot.
Bull. RA2 alone has a vast amount of mods for it. Add to it all the ones specifically made for Yuri's revenge, what would you think is more modder friendly?



2) It was the first 3D RTS to really hit the market.
You forgot this. (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/emperorbattlefordune/index.html)


3) It never gets old. With the hundreds of mods on the net, and the possibility of making your own, there is always something new. I have been playing it since it came out, and I'm not bored yet.
I direct you to 1. And the whole bored part? I got dis-interested after the first mision.


4) It has the most plausible story line of any CnC game out there. Be it far from reality, it is easier to relate to the conflicts of our time.
Don't talk about realism and C&C. C&C was all about story's that could happen, and make a sci-fi twist to it. Generals is beating a dead horse with the whole terrorist crap. Ever heard of Real War?


5) The heros. They are just great. Better than Tanya or Boris or Yuri or anyone.
Boris can maul tanks and infantry with ease, Tanya can destroy buildings and tanks with ease aswell as deal with infantry. I'm not even gonna bother with Yuri, we all know what he can do.

[reignofevil]

Alright first let me say this thread reaks of n00b.
Now then. Generals has only really one thing going for it. Multiplayer.
Now lets look at what is has against it.
The heros dont really turn the tide of battle, Burton can shoot at least at anything but thats about it, Lotus can make ONE vehical stop for a short time Steal some money and take over a building. A stealthed rebel bascially. And Jarmen who could kill infantry (at the time you get him infantry shouldnt be what yuor worrying about anyway) and make ONE tank yours...
Then there is the shallow storyline (if you could call it that) It goes like this. GLA blows ***** up china defends itself america blows GLA's ***** up the end.
Then we have the fact that as realistic as generals trys to be its almost as farfetched as red alert. The events are ok but what happens isnt. In the last USA level you have to destroy the GLA's last and most gaurded base.... In real life if we knew where the GLA leaders were we would just nuked then into the stone age and said well that wraps it up for them. Compared to other games generals just doesent measure up to any other CnC game.

[Derek]

The heros dont really turn the tide of battle, Burton can shoot at least at anything but thats about it, Lotus can make ONE vehical stop for a short time Steal some money and take over a building. A stealthed rebel bascially. And Jarmen who could kill infantry (at the time you get him infantry shouldnt be what yuor worrying about anyway) and make ONE tank yours...
Actually, the heroes are for the most part the most effective in any CNC game, primarily because they're stealth and thus actually get inside a base, unlike in other CNC games where heroes were only useful in single player missions (TS might be an exception to this).

In real life if we knew where the GLA leaders were we would just nuked then into the stone age and said well that wraps it up for them.
Umm, no we wouldn't. We definately wouldn't...

[reignofevil]

I said battle not base. For example boris and tanya can destroy most enemys While in generals only one is really usefull for anything other then infantry.

[CaptainIraq]

Tanya can destroy buildings and tanks with ease aswell as deal with infantry.

Tanya does waste infantry, but she sucks against tanks. Burton would waste Tanya and Boris. Or Jarmen Kell could hit them from a mile away. Yuri is the most pathetic excuse for a hero Ive ever met. Granted, it is fun to use him to steal your ally's technology:D . Another thing, the building interface of RA and TS sucks. One building at a time? That must suck:( . I like in generals where you can build 10 dozers and create massive bases in no time. Also, the superweapons in TS and RA are pathetic. And you can only build one. ONE!!!:tantrum: Also, the variety of factions is limited. What are there, like 12 different factions, and the only differences are 1 unit? That's pointless. Also, GENERALS POWERS. That is self explanatory. That was a revolution in gaming. And by modder friendly, I meant that you could do loads more to it than to RA or TS, because of the 3D factor. Ill admit that RA and TS have more interesting characters and plotlines, but in terms of cinematic sequences; Generals has everyone beaten hands down. All the cine sequences are in TS and RA are videos recorded of real people.

[reignofevil]

I am guessing that you wernt even into games when CnC dawn came out.
Also burton WOULD NOT waste tanya and boris. VS tanks tanys and boris kick ass (well rhinos lashers and grizzlys) Tanya and boris would KILL burton. Also anyone with moderate base defence around his base can DESTROY any chance of getting a hero in and if you do you eather already have a large enough force to kill the base or your opponent sucks and deserves it. Meanwhile borsi could hold his own agains defenses AND buildings and hell he and tanya kick ass on the battlefeild. You my freind are whats known as the CnC newb you were not around long enough to know WHY we liek the thinsg we do. I bet you like star wars 3 as well.

[StabnGrab]

Mmm... heroes add an interesting element to the game. They are too easy to kill in generals though.

[Derek]

I am guessing that you wernt even into games when CnC dawn came out.
Also burton WOULD NOT waste tanya and boris. VS tanks tanys and boris kick ass (well rhinos lashers and grizzlys) Tanya and boris would KILL burton. Also anyone with moderate base defence around his base can DESTROY any chance of getting a hero in and if you do you eather already have a large enough force to kill the base or your opponent sucks and deserves it. Meanwhile borsi could hold his own agains defenses AND buildings and hell he and tanya kick ass on the battlefeild. You my freind are whats known as the CnC newb you were not around long enough to know WHY we liek the thinsg we do. I bet you like star wars 3 as well.
And you, my friend, jump to conclusions. If you really care, I started playing CNC in early '99, and have played every game to date (not including some expansions and Sole Survivor). And as for your arguement, it fails, because no one who is half decent would have base defences (GLA being the exception).

[reignofevil]

Oh? You mean to say anyone decent would defend there base ? What logic is that ? Also I wasn't talking to you . But in your argument you are just trying to say I am wronge I mean honestly who the hell doesent have base defences ? Even mildly scattered about ?

[Derek]

I mean honestly who the hell doesent have base defences ?
A good player. Base defences are expensive, weak, and most importantly, immobile. You can't attack with base defences (well, you can do a dozer drop, but thats different), and if you are attacked on one side, you can't move your base defences there to provide support. Base defences also consume power and go offline when there is none. It is always better to spend your money on more units than to buy base defences. GLA tunnels are different because they have the ability to transport and heal units, thus they are actually a support structure, not a base defence.

[reignofevil]

Yes but its almost asking to be hit by a stealth unit. Its best to have at least some defense near key structures you want to keep safe from a surprise attack.

[SunnyInc.]

Guard your buildings with units not defensive structures. The good thing about units is that one unit can respond to a threat from any given direction and can also be used in attack. Defensive structures, on the other hand, can only defend one choke point and can't be used in attack. As Derek said, mobility is the key.

[Derek]

Yes but its almost asking to be hit by a stealth unit. Its best to have at least some defense near key structures you want to keep safe from a surprise attack.
Thats what stealth detectors are for, not base defences.

[reignofevil]

Fine whatever you play your way ill play mine.
Anyway you still havent addressed the fact that boris and tanya can blow there way into a base the generals heros cant.

[Derek]

The Generals heros don't have to blow their way into a base because they can sneak their way in.

[reignofevil]

And then when the enemy retaliates they cant defend themselves for ****.

[wargrudge]

I started playing CNC in early '99, and have played every game to date (not including some expansions and Sole Survivor).
I've played every game in the C&C universe, literally. :D

[CaptainIraq]

I am guessing that you wernt even into games when CnC dawn came out.
You my freind are whats known as the CnC newb you were not around long enough to know WHY we liek the thinsg we do. I bet you like star wars 3 as well.

FYI I've been playing games since I could move a mouse, and have been playing CnC since it started. From Command and Conquer(the first one) to Generals. I haven't played renegade though, but Ive played all of the Red Alerts and TS's and like them, but I still like Generals better. And which Star Wars are you talking about? Return of the Jedi or Episode 3? Or are you talking about some game I don't know of? Kinda confusing

A good player. Base defences are expensive, weak, and most importantly, immobile. You can't attack with base defences (well, you can do a dozer drop, but thats different), and if you are attacked on one side, you can't move your base defences there to provide support. Base defences also consume power and go offline when there is none. It is always better to spend your money on more units than to buy base defences. GLA tunnels are different because they have the ability to transport and heal units, thus they are actually a support structure, not a base defence.

Against Comps base defenses kick a**. And in no rush games, loads of defenses along with a moderate amount of artillery and air units are quite effective.

[Derek]

Against Comps base defenses kick a**. And in no rush games, loads of defenses along with a moderate amount of artillery and air units are quite effective.
Anything kicks ass against the AI, and no rush games are irrelevant, you shouldn't be playing them.

[CaptainIraq]

Anything kicks ass against the AI, and no rush games are irrelevant, you shouldn't be playing them.

No rush games are the only way to go. I like to play realistically. And in real life, you can't send 4 stealth comanches and destroy their whole base. Which is all you have to do to win with the USAF general. Games that last longer are more fun.

[Derek]

No rush games are the only way to go. I like to play realistically. And in real life, you can't send 4 stealth comanches and destroy their whole base. Which is all you have to do to win with the USAF general. Games that last longer are more fun.
Realistic? REALISTIC? No rush is realistic? :roflmao:

In real life your only goal is to win by any means neccesary. Generals don't sit down and say "Hey, lets not attack each other for thirty days while we gather our forces and build defences. Lets just sit on our asses and stare at each other when we could attack at any minute and be victorious, and if one of us attacks before thirty days are up, we're going to cry and call you a 'fuk1ng n00zors haxX0rz!1!1!'." No, in real life Generals attack the moment they think they have an advantage, and if they don't think they have one, they maneuver and raid until they do. In real life there are no rules, "All's fair in love and war", and sitting on your ass gets you nothing.

Face the truth, the reason you don't play no rush is because you're afraid of losing. You're afraid of being steamrolled by an opponent who is clearly a hundred times better than you in the first five minutes. You're afraid to learn. You're afraid to see how your opponent beat you, and then use that knowledge in your next fight. You're afraid to play the game how it was meant to be played. You're afraid to suffer humiliating defeat after humiliating defeat while you learn what to do and what not to do. You're afraid to take the initiative for yourself and attack your opponent first, and make him play the defensive. You're afraid to look like a newb to everyone online, but you're too blinded by your own fear to realize that you're a n00b (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php). You're afraid to be good, and until you realize this, you will never, ever, be any better.

[reignofevil]

Captain I was talking about the one with whiney bitch vader not kickass blue vader. :)

[Raynar05]

No rush games are the only way to go. I like to play realistically. And in real life, you can't send 4 stealth comanches and destroy their whole base. Which is all you have to do to win with the USAF general. Games that last longer are more fun.

yeh thats y i suck soo bad at skirmish games , i take the game too seriously and actually fill up my humvees with useless infantry and support them wit helis that get shot down in 2 secs and that stuff

[Zardac the Great]

Games that last longer are more fun. I prefer to employ strategies and not the "Whoever builds more tanks win" staple. I will employ this if I have to, but I'd rather manuever, find a weak spot (or make one :muahaha:) and slam my attack home. I enjoy sparring with my enemy with units, and enjoy fighting without superweapons.

My dissapointment with RealWar, my love for the gameplay of Generals, and my desire to continue stomping terrorists and communists into the ground all add up to me wanting to have Generals 2, but ONLY WITH A STORY!

[Derek]

Games that last longer are more fun. I prefer to employ strategies and not the "Whoever builds more tanks win" staple. I will employ this if I have to, but I'd rather manuever, find a weak spot (or make one :muahaha:) and slam my attack home. I enjoy sparring with my enemy with units, and enjoy fighting without superweapons.
If you want strategy and not just unit spam then you should be playing no rules, as thats the only kind of game where you'll find those.

[Daishi]

My dissapointment with RealWar, my love for the gameplay of Generals, and my desire to continue stomping terrorists and communists into the ground all add up to me wanting to have Generals 2, but ONLY WITH A STORY!

Gen/ZH actually had a story. It's just a simpler "it could happen" story, not one where every fight gains you control of more nations or states, or with plenty of drama between individual characters. Here it is. (most of this is taken from wikipedia. Generals takes place in the 2010s. In Generals, the United States and China are the world's two superpowers, and are the targets of the Global Liberation Army, a generic Middle Eastern terrorist organization with an unclear agenda. Both the United States and China are depicted as the protagonists in the series, and frequently cooperate with each other throughout the storyline. China retaliates for a devastating GLA nuclear attack on Beijing, Destroying major GLA cells in Hong Kong and Balykchy and covertly eliminating a toxin production facility, eventually completely crushing the GLA cell masterminding all Pacific rim operations. The GLA campaign then begins, with the organization trying to recover from its recent setback at the hands of the Chinese, by raising funds and instigating attacks against their American and Chinese antagonists, especially in the destruction of the city of Astana at the hands of a massive riot created by the GLA and eventually culminating in the overtaking of the Baikonur Cosmodrome for the firing of a Soyuz launch vehicle bearing a biological MIRV at a nondescript city. At this point the American campaign begins, in which the USA tracks the GLA back to its global capital (which includes a confrontation with a rogue Chinese general and GLA sympathiser at one point). However, the Baikonur Cosmodrome is still under the control of the GLA, and so begins Zero Hour. At the beginning of the second USA campaign, the GLA launches a biological weapon using a refitted Soyuz launch vehicle from the captured Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan at a USA military base located in Northern Europe. The United States retaliates quickly, destroying the launch platform, before the GLA can fire another missile. As the campaign continues, the United States learns that a GLA general codenamed "Dr. Thrax" has been developing a more lethal variety of anthrax known as "Anthrax Gamma". When the USA locates his base of operations, they discover that he is planning on launching several missiles loaded with this toxin at major population centers within the USA itself. A swift strike by the USA soon after succeeds in preventing this atrocity, and brings an end to "Dr. Thrax". [edit] In the GLA campaign, the GLA, though disappointed by the death of Dr. Thrax, receives a boost in morale with the successful appointment of their new leader, General Mohmar "Deathstrike". The GLA first attempts to reunite its splintered factions under "Deathstrike's" command, which it succeeds in doing after eliminating the renegade Prince Kassad's forces in Egypt following an attempted takeover of the GLA, and then begins a fervent mission to drive the Americans from Europe. Despite their lack of technology, the GLA succeeds in inflicting tremendous harm against the USA, by capturing an American particle uplink cannon which they then use to destroy the USS Reagan (splitting her in half from port to starboard) and infiltrating the US West Coast to steal toxins from a chemical storage facility. This reaches its climax when the GLA easily overruns the USA’s European central command base located in Germany, partially with the use of captured Chinese weaponry. This disaster prompts the United States to suspend its military involvement with foreign countries and return to isolationism, withdrawing its forces from Europe in an effort to defend the homeland and entrusting the responsibility of world police to China (unbeknowingst to the GLA). The GLA's primary objective accomplished, they now begin to invade a vulnerable Europe. In the China campaign, China sends its army into Europe to relieve the USA and gain revenge against the GLA for their humiliating use of China's own military hardware in the capture of the American military base. In order to prevent the GLA from making use of advanced USA weapons, China launches a nuclear missile at the military base, destroying it, and then sends its forces into Germany, where the GLA invaders are concentrated. After suffering devastating losses at the hands of Chinese troops, pressing in from all sides, the nearly defeated GLA takes control of an evacuated USA military base and uses its weaponry against the Chinese army. China succeeds in recapturing this base, and eliminating the GLA for good, rooting out their influence in Europe. With NATO now a political afterthought, the Chinese gain new respect in the eyes of the rest of the world, which now looks to them rather than the Americans for leadership, culminated in the formation of the new Eurasian Unity League. Presumably, the remaining GLA leaders are going to be (or already have been) captured and are going to face justice in the world court. Indeed, it would seem that China WILL grow larger...the persuit of world peace has seemingly begun again. Sure, no drama, but there's definitely a serious story there.

[General Kane Nash]

If you want strategy and not just unit spam then you should be playing no rules, as thats the only kind of game where you'll find those.

I am totally agree with you, people who ask for no rush/no sw/no yuri/no france conditions are just like automats that only can follow a single plan of battle, if you change something in the scenario they wanted its for sure they will be beaten.

[Zancloufer27]

Gen/ZH actually had a story. It's just a simpler "it could happen" story, not one where every fight gains you control of more nations or states, or with plenty of drama between individual characters. Here it is. (most of this is taken from wikipedia.
Yeah, there is a story there. Quite good, and I have almost beat the whole campain. But it reminds me of the Startcraft, and Brood war campainExcept the Zerg over run the galaxy, and the whole the 'bad guys' win idea. Ironically it was the Terrans who 'built' the Zerg to get rid of rebels, and in the end get over run by the. So playing god is bad, like Jurassic park taught us.

[Zardac the Great]

Yes, it had a story, but not one easily discernable. You just hopped around from one theater to the other with no idea as to what was actually going on.

[Wrecking Crew]

Who wants Generals 2??

I didn't want Generals 1, but I bought it, played it for awhile, got bored real quick. Bought Zero Hour, got bored even quicker. Went back to playing TS and now I'm playing Conquest: Frontier Wars until Tiberian Wars is released.

Final thought, even games made before 2000 are better than Generals and ZH. Don't bother replying to my post because I don't care what you think, just like you don't care what I think. Let's just do what games are made for....play them. :lol:

[Daishi]

What I find interesting is that I appear to be the only person I know who started their C&C days with Tiberian Sun and enjoyed RA2 even more, and still went on to prefer Generals and Zero Hour when they were released, and play all three games even today, without disregarding the older or newer titles. How come everyone around back when C&C started prefers the older games? And how come the opposite is true with the newer crowd? Is there something about the old games that mystifies the mind into liking the later titles less?

[Leper Affinity]

I don't think I want a Generals 2. You could honestly expand on the story line, but I see no point. It would be more exciting to see a new Red Alert come around the corner than a new Generals. Generals can offer new sci-fi units and such, but they could deffinitly not be as crazy as Red Alert could.

A new Generals game to me seems like everything would just be too predictable.

[sterio]

What I find interesting is that I appear to be the only person I know who started their C&C days with Tiberian Sun and enjoyed RA2 even more, and still went on to prefer Generals and Zero Hour when they were released, and play all three games even today, without disregarding the older or newer titles. How come everyone around back when C&C started prefers the older games? And how come the opposite is true with the newer crowd? Is there something about the old games that mystifies the mind into liking the later titles less?

Well, I was like you, started with TS. When RA2 came, I enjoyed it as much. It was as good, but in a different way. In my opinion - many disagree with me. But I still don't like Generals, simply because it's... not fun! :p

[wargrudge]

Who wants Generals 2??

I didn't want Generals 1, but I bought it, played it for awhile, got bored real quick. Bought Zero Hour, got bored even quicker. Went back to playing TS and now I'm playing Conquest: Frontier Wars until Tiberian Wars is released.

Final thought, even games made before 2000 are better than Generals and ZH. Don't bother replying to my post because I don't care what you think, just like you don't care what I think. Let's just do what games are made for....play them. :lol:
I agree with everything in that post of yours Wreck. My sentiments EXACTLY. Cept I've been playing Dawn of War :p

[Derek]

I started playing with RA1, but Zero Hour easily has the best multiplayer, so thats why I like it so much.

[Daishi]

Bingo. It also has the most intelligent and difficult AI. I rate games like the magazines, for graphics, sound, control, and gameplay. In comparison to the other C&C titles, C&C:Gen/ZH both excel in all 4, and ZH is the best title so far in the C&C series. That is... as a scored game. If you're looking for the best movie, or best sci-fi, Gen/ZH loses.

The reason few veterans liked Gen/ZH IMHO is because it did away with everything they liked about C&C, and traded it for complexity, a wider gap, but a more easily crossed one, between noobs and masters, and, most importantly, the gameplay. It's harder to learn, and therefore is harder to get addicted to than the other C&Cs.

[reignofevil]

Harder to learn? Peh.
Heres how generals works.
Gla and china were made to fight. Just them and the game would be great. China has flame tanks GLA has terrorests. Gla has toxins china has double infantry. Gla has anti air china has migs. China has gatts and bunkers gla has bomb trucks.
Then they threw in USA to screw it up. Since in order to justify it as a CnC game (almost) they gave em an ion cannon and gave china a mammoth. Really they decided hey why not give USA a plane that cant be hit untill it shoots? And we give them flashabangs to take out infantry. And patriots to take out tanks and bomb trucks. AAAAANND to top it off lets give them the abilty to spy on stealthed units anywhere airdrop units anywhere and some ehlicopters. That balanced. Right?
So basiccaly you learn early on play usa and pwn anything. Unless your playinga pro then me on there team.

[Daishi]

reign, it is very much balanced. Just because USA is so easy to learn doesn't mean its stronger, or that it makes the game less fun. If it weren't for USA's ease, far fewer people would have stuck with Generals in the first place.

[Derek]

USA the easiest to learn? Naw, China is the easiest to learn (just tank spam), then USA is the easiest to get good at (once you learn to micro mdvees), and GLA is somewhere in the middle. At the higher levels though they're all equal though (not specific generals, but the nations as a whole).

Then they threw in USA to screw it up. Since in order to justify it as a CnC game (almost) they gave em an ion cannon and gave china a mammoth. Really they decided hey why not give USA a plane that cant be hit untill it shoots? (1) And we give them flashabangs to take out infantry. (2) And patriots to take out tanks and bomb trucks. (3) AAAAANND to top it off lets give them the abilty to spy on stealthed units anywhere (4) airdrop units anywhere (5) and some ehlicopters. (6) That balanced. Right?
1. That costs an arm and a leg, has exremely fragile armor, and is quite slow after dropping its bomb.
2. With basic infantry, which are the easiest unit to kill anyways.
3. Ok, Patriots just suck.
4. To counter act the fact that USA is extremely vulnerable to rushes.
5. Oooh! I dropped six rangers in your base! So deadly! :rockbrow:
6. Which also have paper thing armor, and can only deal significant damage once ever thirty seconds or so.

With all this, its a miracle that USA is even playable, and were it not for the mdvee it wouldn't be.

[CaptainIraq]

I agree that the AI in ZH are the best. The AI in TS is just cheap. There's no point in defending because they'll hit you with a missile in 2 minutes or so. The AI in Red Alert 2 are just cheap also. They use their planes to destroy your ore refinery, or some other d*ck move like that. That brings up another good point about Generals:

You don't need a constant flow of ore miners to get money.

That was absolutely a revolution in the CnC world. In TS and Red Alert it was like, "What the heck? I've got one patch of ore here to supply my entire army for the entire war:tantrum: :tantrum: :tantrum: !" In Generals, you can build supply drops or hackers. Also, in the older games you often had to go outside your base perimeter to actually get the ore.

And yes, Generals is the most balanced game in the CnC world. In RA2 the bomb trucks are ridiculuosly cheap. Just get it within 500 yards of their base and poof go their defenses![smilie=53,24,29,63] Also the French Grand Cannon is ridiculous. TS isn't exactly well balanced, either.

[Daishi]

TS is the last very well balanced. Between beginners and masters alike, you get no disadvantages from choosing either the Initiative or the Brotherhood.
Out of the later games, Generals was less balanced, because only between masters were the teams really even, because the USA learning curve is far faster than the others.)
RA2 has the next best balance (even between beginners, slightly less so among masters), then Zero Hour (most factions are well balanced among one another), then Yuri's Revenge (No two nations have the same power, there's an ubercountry and a weakling nation). I'm not sure about Firestorm because I never got around to playing it online, but I hear it's pretty fair.

I'm glad you appreciate Generals for its improvements to the gameplay in C&C, but it's quite true that France and Libya are among the weaker choices in RA2. Both Cannons and Trucks are expensive, unversatile gambles, which are quite powerful if your opponent is unable to work their strategy around them before you get 3 up, something rare in quick matches.

[CaptainIraq]

I do like to play RA2 and TS, don't get me wrong. But, the one thing I hate about RA2 and TS that is SO much better in Generals is the anti-air. In RA2 and TS they can blow right through your air defenses just enough to get a shot off. You just can't beat the air units with anti air in those games. In generals, you can tear thorugh planes like nothing, if you have enough defenses. Which is more realistic and less annoying. Also, the "power grid" thing in the original CnC games was annoying. You couldn't build outside your base, or make outposts near supply locations. Also, in those games, if you lose your command center, it's game over.

[Daishi]

A positive IMO was that you could scramble planes to attack enemy planes. I swear nothing would be cooler than a bunch of Black Eagles realistically scrambling to deal with a squadron of Kirov airships, but they just had to wait until Generals.

I've just decided: I don't care if they never make another Generals title, as long as they integrate concepts from Generals and ZH into later C&C games, such as the Fighter-bomber, the secondary resource producers, the different production queues for each production structure, as opposed to the "Primary building system," The disabling of enemy equipment, and the use of warp transport (Tunnel Networks) and the intelligence system (in RA2, wherever a dog went, you'd be able to see for the rest of the game :wtf: )

People overlooked all the problems C&C games had for the wonderful storylines and simple, addictive gameplay, and didn't expect them to be fixed when Generals was released. Generals fixed a lot of gameplay flaws and added a lot of good stuff, and used new technology to make over the structure of the game completely, which would have been impossible with the weak engine before it. Everyone was looking for simple, fast-paced gameplay and a good storyline tied in with the rest of the series. They found little, if any, of either, and the game was shunned.

I repeat. We don't need a Generals 2, we just need EA to avoid taking big step back.

[Zardac the Great]

I've rarely had enemy air attacks except for Generals, and my brother developed a strong affinity for the Offensive Grand Cannon. Especially in the multi-player mode where oil derricks are your only money supply.

TS & FS were just boring. They were too slow paced, but they did have a few really cool units. I found that Nod was good at defending (as are the RA2 Allies), while GDI is just hard to fight period.

[Daishi]

GDI is more like the Sovs, with an early advantage. Therefore they're better :)

[ein1017]

TS was soo much fun. The one thing I hated about it was the AI always knew where everything was (even cloaked) That is what I miss, the NOD's cloaking device, in my opinion is way better than the gap generator.

The best part of Generals I like is the ability to build buildings apart from your base (instead of the limited range in the other games)

[Fireboycli]

I would like to see that. A story line would be a good thing. Yep I do beleave that would be a blast.

[C4]

Despite some agressive moments this forum looks nice.

First:
-Compare Generals 3d with previous 2d C&C games by it's technology is silly.
No rotation map, no good collision on units(like crushing infantry with vehicles), bad pathfinding, etc
-Bad balance, no good counterunit scheme (it arrived really with Emperor-Dune. Not exactly from C&C series but using the same mechanics. and with bad pathfinding too), weird Tech tree, etc.

-Better storyline and cutcenes, obviously. Any way i enjoyed Generals&ZH Single-player a lot. No need for those great cutscenes (a way to skip them, it really should be an improve:lol: ). The mission were great ( I've finished all campaigns and challenges in hard many times and enjoyed them all. well, in hard, sometimes is desperating).


But is in multiplayer where ZH really beats EVERYTHING. And what is the most important here? Today the best quality a game can have is good multiplayer. I'm tired (and believe that most of u too) of playing vs CPU. Always compensating lack of A.I. with "cheatings". Doing improbable plays and stupid ones as well predictable past some time. No... definetly Multiplayer is the quality ensurer in any modern RTS (as any game type at all).

There were some steps back with the pathetic LOTR 1&2 BFTME (disgusting unbalance) but i believe in better days, and hope C&C3 brings better A.I., better pathfinding (though ZH is quite good) if possible, good balance, and a great storyline and cutscenes.

Second:Non realistic? This is a valid subject here? blablablabla... Do u know chess? in real, horses usually run in L-shaped way? People,... C&C is not necessary realistic and don't need to be. It needs to be good in its purpose: to create a balanced, enjoyable and competitive experience. Why not a "normal" nuke? "Our nuclear missile has been launched"....Boom. Draw game:lol: .

Third: we people will be curious anyway with any new C&C that comes, and we'll try it.

So, of course we all want the series to continue and one day Generals2 to appear. Surely with inproves in many ways, but always, ALWAYS with stunning multiplayer and balance. Anyway not for now. This one still have many to give. Could be like one Tiberium, one RedAlert, one Generals. We'll see...

[Cylon Crusader]

I really wanted a generals 2 :(
I thought CnC generals was the most serious and realistic of all the CNC'S and I dont understand why some people hate it.
It was my favourite CNC by far and when the newCNC comes out I will miss sending cornel Burton into enemy bases and Nuking a tank rush. I really will miss it. (But theres always a modding possibility :) :) )

I hope they do do a generals 2, and I hope they have the European Union in it and a real GLA not just an arabic one.

Anyone with me??

Ofcourse this isnt going to haoppen for a long long time because theyll do a red alert or a tie in between red alert and tiberium next, Maybe they could tie generals in with it? Id be happy then.

I AGREE WITH YOU GENERALS WAS THE MOST REALISTIC CNC GAME OF ALL TIME BUT IT LACKED THE OVERALL CNC FEEL TO IT. THE GAME FELT LIKE EA TRYING TO JUST NAB OFF AS MONEY AS POSSIBLE WITH THE SAGE GRAPHICS ENGINE AND BETTER MULTIPLAYER. OVERALL IT SUCKED BECAUSE THE STORYLINE WAS CLICHE,AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL IT LACKED THE CNC FEEL TO IT. CNC IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUN AND EXCITING FOR PEOPLE OF ALL AGES TO ENJOY BUT GENERALS GOT 2 REPETITIVE AND BORING... FAST.

[Zancloufer27]

Generals is not boring, its very fun. Sure its not a 'C&C' in normal terms, but it is way better than most games out there. ****loads of no0bs really ruin online play though.

[Cylon Crusader]

Generals is not boring, its very fun. Sure its not a 'C&C' in normal terms, but it is way better than most games out there. ****loads of no0bs really ruin online play though.

true it is full of noobs though.

[Alpha and Omega]

Harder to learn? Peh.
Heres how generals works.
Gla and china were made to fight. Just them and the game would be great. China has flame tanks GLA has terrorests. Gla has toxins china has double infantry. Gla has anti air china has migs. China has gatts and bunkers gla has bomb trucks.
Then they threw in USA to screw it up. Since in order to justify it as a CnC game (almost) they gave em an ion cannon and gave china a mammoth. Really they decided hey why not give USA a plane that cant be hit untill it shoots? And we give them flashabangs to take out infantry. And patriots to take out tanks and bomb trucks. AAAAANND to top it off lets give them the abilty to spy on stealthed units anywhere airdrop units anywhere and some ehlicopters. That balanced. Right?
So basiccaly you learn early on play usa and pwn anything. Unless your playinga pro then me on there team.

Yup, that exactly how the game was made. Actually, were you even speaking English in that post?

[SgtRicko]

true it is full of noobs though.

Is not!!!!:mad:

Just cos I once lost to a dude who rushed and killed me with only 4 Laser Crusaders and an Avenger while I was the Infantry General doesn't mean I suck!!!!!!













....Right????:cry:

[Cylon Crusader]

generals is only good with mods as it says sumwere on this thread.its an ok game but it is not worthy to bear the cnc name

[Zardac the Great]

Acutally, I think Generals is one of the best ones out there.

Yes, it's a little different. It is still cool. In my oppinion, it has the best game play of any C&C game. It also has 0 story.

It let me do things I could never do before (close air support being one of them), and each side, when played right, can be devastating to their enemies.

[CaptainIraq]

generals is only good with mods as it says sumwere on this thread.its an ok game but it is not worthy to bear the cnc name
That is very true, however, I still like to play regular ZH so that I can play online with friends. Generals is defenitely one of the best if not the best rts game in the world for modding.

[ZenMan]

Meh, I hope they don't even make Generals again and focus on CnC. Red Alert is where it's at. I still enjoy playing ra2 online to this day, 5 years+ after release date, whereas Generals is boring as hell without mods.

Gameplay > Graphics, Animations, Realism, etc...

If I wanted to play a realistic game, Generals wouldn't be the one either.

I'm not too hyped up for CnC3 (Since it's set in TS atmosphere not RA), but hopefully they'll make Ra3 which I'll be very happy to play. :)

[CaptainIraq]

I'm not too hyped up for CnC3 (Since it's set in TS atmosphere not RA), but hopefully they'll make Ra3 which I'll be very happy to play. :)
I sort of have to agree with you on that one. RA is alot more exciting than TS. I have to admit also that a 3D RA would kick all of the other CnC games' arses.

[Cylon Crusader]

I sort of have to agree with you on that one. RA is alot more exciting than TS. I have to admit also that a 3D RA would kick all of the other CnC games' arses.

i agree wit both of u guys, the red alert universe rocks better than tiberium and generals universes.ra3 with a full 3d sage graphix engine,mmhhhhhhh red alert 3!!!!!:) :) :) :) :)

[C4]

Out of the later games, Generals was less balanced, because only between masters were the teams really even, because the USA learning curve is far faster than the others.)

U're giving a compliment to the game. The fact that some factions are more "learnable" is common to many RTS (only those with clone faction don't).
It brings to choices: Try to become a master or play USA!!!:rolleyes: Sounds easy!:D

[SunnyInc.]

...bump.

[NuclearDreams]

After "World in Conflict" hits the stores any further ideas of Generals 2 will be laughable.

http://www.worldinconflict.com/

[Derek]

After "World in Conflict" hits the stores any further ideas of Generals 2 will be laughable.

http://www.worldinconflict.com/
Yeah, that game looks nothing like Generals. Thats also the exact same thing they said about An Act of War, and that didn't get anywhere. So...no.

[SgtRicko]

Yeah, that game looks nothing like Generals. Thats also the exact same thing they said about An Act of War, and that didn't get anywhere. So...no.

Dunno man - World In Conflict looks a lot like Sup Com only in a modern setting vs the Ruskies (which is always awesome), so it might actually pan out pretty well!:)

BTW Derek, have you ever played AOW? Given the responses you've given over time and your perference to rush or play fast games, I figure you might actually like it, (unless you already own it:p )!

...But only buy it if it's in the used bin or somethin; I don't think it's worth the cash to buy it at $50+ in mint condition:|

[Derek]

I played the demo and hated it, I've never felt the need to give the full game a chance. This is why developers should make good demos.

[MercZ]

I wouldn't mind a Generals 2 if they at least try to put a story and background. Also have them drop the C&C title as well, make them an independent game series, so they won't be judged up against ye old C&Cs.

[Ace]

im open for a generals 2 but first a red alert 3 :D

[Kinetic]

After "World in Conflict" hits the stores any further ideas of Generals 2 will be laughable.

http://www.worldinconflict.com/
How is that even remotley true? if the devs were going to design a Generals 2 and have only begun planning phases then it would be assumed they would make the game better than anything released currently or soon-to-be and if they have already started then this whole thread is pointless because, well, they have already started.

World in conflict will be just like Act of War... a waste of money.

[NuclearDreams]

World in conflict will be just like Act of War... a waste of money.

Surely you jest. I was a beta tester for Act of War - High Treason, which was a joke...they are not even in the same class.

And you're right, if EA puts some time and care into the development of a Generals 2 then maybe it will sell. But I think a RA3 would be a better game and an instant money maker

[SgtRicko]

Surely you jest. I was a beta tester for Act of War - High Treason, which was a joke...they are not even in the same class.

So it wasn't good after all... How about the naval combat then??? I heard the main issue there was that the ships were too pricey to build, and were too fragile to use effectively (i.e., 2-3 torpedoes would sink even a cruiser).

[NuclearDreams]

So it wasn't good after all... How about the naval combat then??? I heard the main issue there was that the ships were too pricey to build, and were too fragile to use effectively (i.e., 2-3 torpedoes would sink even a cruiser).

For skirmish play naval combat wasn't included in the original release of High Treason, it came later in a patch from Atari. Yeah and you're right about the ships being wimps.

[SgtRicko]

For skirmish play naval combat wasn't included in the original release of High Treason, it came later in a patch from Atari. Yeah and you're right about the ships being wimps.

That bad, huh?:\

Good thing I didn't order it.

[NuclearDreams]

Both World in Conflict and Generals are "what if" RTS games. Unlike World in Conflict there is a mix of science fiction in Generals which would most likely evolve into a look-a-like cousin of C&C 3-Tiberium Wars. RA1 and 2 on the other hand have roots in a total other universe of play, complete with a rich "what if" Soviet history that by far captures and holds the imagination.

[Kinetic]

After "World in Conflict" hits the stores any further ideas of Generals 2 will be laughable.

http://www.worldinconflict.com/

Surely you jest. I was a beta tester for Act of War - High Treason, which was a joke...they are not even in the same class.

And you're right, if EA puts some time and care into the development of a Generals 2 then maybe it will sell. But I think a RA3 would be a better game and an instant money maker

Both World in Conflict and Generals are "what if" RTS games. Unlike World in Conflict there is a mix of science fiction in Generals which would most likely evolve into a look-a-like cousin of C&C 3-Tiberium Wars. RA1 and 2 on the other hand have roots in a total other universe of play, complete with a rich "what if" Soviet history that by far captures and holds the imagination.

Not really, world in conflict won't sell as good as you might think. Wait and see. Also, again, if the devs design generals all they have to do is make it better than WiC, even if it meant stealing concept designs.

RA3 is a nice addition, but, honestly, I am getting tired of Generals, Tiberium, and Red Alert games. I think the devs should try and start work on something new that will last and be a placeholder for future expansions and sequals much like those games. Don't get me wrong, I loved the games and will love more of them; I just think something new would be nice.

[SgtRicko]

Not really, world in conflict won't sell as good as you might think. Wait and see. Also, again, if the devs design generals all they have to do is make it better than WiC, even if it meant stealing concept designs.

Why? have you beta-tested it? It looked pretty awesome to me!

RA3 is a nice addition, but, honestly, I am getting tired of Generals, Tiberium, and Red Alert games. I think the devs should try and start work on something new that will last and be a placeholder for future expansions and sequals much like those games. Don't get me wrong, I loved the games and will love more of them; I just think something new would be nice.

:gnasher: HERETIC!!!!! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!!!!!:gnasher:

[Kinetic]

Why? have you beta-tested it? It looked pretty awesome to me!



:gnasher: HERETIC!!!!! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!!!!!:gnasher:

So did Act of War...

:gnasher:Mindless drone!!! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!!!!:gnasher: ;)

I tend to not follow the crowd and make decisions for myself and freely express my opinions, thus, I am tired of RA3...I want something new.

[JJFZ3000]

boring..........

[Daishi]

I'm actually with Kinetic here. After CCG/ZH proved that you don't have to stay true to the series to make an incredible game, I'm not entirely opposed to a detailed new placeholder as we wait for the next installment in the Tiberium/Red Alert timeline.

[tennesseetitans]

Forgive me if someone already said this, I didn't bother reading all the posts. It is possible to enjoy all three games equally. Personally, I enjoy playing RA2 and Yuri's Revenge just as much as C&C Generals/Zero Hour. I have never tried tiberium sun. There doesn't have to be some Command and Conquer legacy. Red Alert games and Tiberium games give the player a more futeristic feeling, while Generals is all modern strategies. All three games have something unique to offer. Although I am partial to Generals and Red Alert, I'm sure Tiberium Sun is good too.

To answer the intial question, I would love to see a Generals 2. The style of play created my Generals is unparreled by any other RTS. I would also love to see a Red Alert 3, as I love the storyline and overall gameplay of the Red Alert family of games.

[(U.S.S.R) Jamie]

I think if there is to be a CnC Generals 2, they really need a EUROPEAN faction or mabye KOREA, like the good ol' times in RA2, and mabye, Generals 2 could mabye tie in to the whole "tiberium" story, like how it was created/where it is from etc etc, mabye could tie up at least a few loose ends

[Derek]

A European faction would be fine, but it must be kept unique. I supposed Korea could be done, but it would seem somewhat out of place to me (Korea has never had trouble with Islamic terrorists that I know of). But keep Generals and Tiberium seperate (not that you really could combine them, seeing as they take place during the same time period but it clearly different universes).

[Soviet779]

I think if generals 2 were to be made there should be a decent story. Same high quality gameplay but with a good story. It would go like, the GLA have been beaten and are wiped out, the only two left are USA and china, so china team up with the rest of asia/europe to form the Eurasian dynasty or ED and the USA takes over the rest of their continent and forms the united civilized states or UCS for short, then the ED nukes the UCS but the nukes are so big and numerous they blow the earth off course towards the sun and they have to evacuate earth before it becomes inhabitable.

Also a long forgotten 3rd faction from the moon can take part too cause the moons screwed as well, lets call them umm... the lunar corporation or LC if ya like.

[Sqwerlpunk]

I think if generals 2 were to be made there should be a decent story. Same high quality gameplay but with a good story. It would go like, the GLA have been beaten and are wiped out, the only two left are USA and china, so china team up with the rest of asia/europe to form the Eurasian dynasty or ED and the USA takes over the rest of their continent and forms the united civilized states or UCS for short, then the ED nukes the UCS but the nukes are so big and numerous they blow the earth off course towards the sun and they have to evacuate earth before it becomes inhabitable.

Also a long forgotten 3rd faction from the moon can take part too cause the moons screwed as well, lets call them umm... the lunar corporation or LC if ya like.

:nuts:

[SgtRicko]

I think if generals 2 were to be made there should be a decent story. Same high quality gameplay but with a good story. It would go like, the GLA have been beaten and are wiped out, the only two left are USA and china, so china team up with the rest of asia/europe to form the Eurasian dynasty or ED and the USA takes over the rest of their continent and forms the united civilized states or UCS for short, then the ED nukes the UCS but the nukes are so big and numerous they blow the earth off course towards the sun and they have to evacuate earth before it becomes inhabitable.

Also a long forgotten 3rd faction from the moon can take part too cause the moons screwed as well, lets call them umm... the lunar corporation or LC if ya like.

Stop playing Earth 2150!!!

[HelloDave]

I think they should make generals vs red alert vs red alert 2 vs tiberium dawn etc with all the factions fighting each other and those ants and call it Command And Conquer: Tiberian Alert General Zero Dawn Sun Dune Came From Yuri Wars.

[Zardac the Great]

Eh...I've actually thought for a while that it would be cool to have Nod fight the Allies, etc, but I'd leave Dune out of it.

[SgtRicko]

Eh...I've actually thought for a while that it would be cool to have Nod fight the Allies, etc, but I'd leave Dune out of it.

That, and balancing it would be near impossible, especially with Tib Wars insane build speeds and RA2's uber powerful weapons...:dead:

[HelloDave]

That, and balancing it would be near impossible, especially with Tib Wars insane build speeds and RA2's uber powerful weapons...:dead:
Imagine Unholy Alliance On It, It Would Take About 3 Mins To Deploy All The Mcvs. :dead:

[SgtRicko]

Imagine Unholy Alliance On It, It Would Take About 3 Mins To Deploy All The Mcvs. :dead:

That, and you'd run out of cash just trying to build the power plants!:dead:

[Cylon Crusader]

I cant believe this thread is still being answered to!

But anyawys Id like to see a generals 2 but with a EU or maybe they can make three major sides such as the allies: Canada, america, EU.Middle Eastern Alliance: Middle Eastern Countries and most of northern africa.United Soviet Alliance (china, russia and indonasia).

If they do plan to make a generals 2 it would most probably and most preferably be after the CNC 3 expansion and RA3 (hopefully).

[Avapodnaught]

wow, this is a long thread... I might like a Gen 2 after a Tib Wars expansion definetely after a RAIII that is after the first expansion... Many people like the red alert series because it has had sea units that u can actually move around and control... But of course Generals and Zero hour and Tiberium Wars had ships... But they were big and unable to move, waste of time if u ask me... And I hear many complaints about things that the Generals series had that earlier games didn't have... WTF IS WRONG WITH U PEOPLE!!!! Those things couldn't be done back then!!! And I think Westwood would have done much better with Generals if they ever did something like it... No complaints on EA with Cnc 3 tho...
but anyway... I bet they'd do great if they just went long like this...
Tiberium Wars expansion...
RAIII and expansion with ships...
Maybe Gen II... somewhere they could do a FPS, but I wouldn't know...
And then another Tiberium game with ships and even better... SPACE FTW!!!YEAH, FUN UNREALISTIC SCI - FI COMMAND AND CONQUER TIBERIUM SPACE SHIPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!














In memory of the GDI's Philidelphia... and for the people on it... To realize that they should never be so stupid with their ground security ever again... Only thing I find wrong with the storyline.....

[Gaucho8788]

In memory of the GDI's Philidelphia... and for the people on it... To realize that they should never be so stupid with their ground security ever again... Only thing I find wrong with the storyline.....

You think that they would think that NOD would be capable of something like this and build a defense grid, if anything just to be prepared. But yeah, I'd like to see Generals 2, but first they have to make CNC3 expansion, RA3 + Expansion, and Renegade 2. It can be in any order but Generals 2 comes last.

[GenChuck3]

I was quite happy with generals, but I will be forever stuck with yuri's revenge, great storyline cutsenes futureistic weapons, generals is more of a actual eventings

[firest0rm]

hmmm

first of all CNC IS NEVER MENT TO BE REALISTIC

second renegade DID NOT FAIL and this is wy they are going to make the next cnc an FPS game ^-^ i heard that from crimson the leader of the official renegade website WITH THE CRYSIS ENGINE!!!!

third generals sucks due to lack of good storyness i wouldent like a general 2
tiberium wars gets boring verry fast due to lack of tactics and units availibel in the game

forth my english sucks so dont bother nagging me with it

over 5000 people still play renegade thats more then tiberium wars atm so stfu about renegade ok

[Cylon Crusader]

Yeah generals focuses on the world 20 years from now.

[Derek]

second renegade DID NOT FAIL and this is wy they are going to make the next cnc an FPS game ^-^ i heard that from crimson the leader of the official renegade website WITH THE CRYSIS ENGINE!!!!
Thats a fan made mod, not an official game :rolleyes:

third generals sucks due to lack of good storyness i wouldent like a general 2
tiberium wars gets boring verry fast due to lack of tactics and units availibel in the game
Well then I guess you think that every CNC game made sucks, because Generals was the only one with any real depth to it.

over 5000 people still play renegade thats more then tiberium wars atm so stfu about renegade ok
And where did you get that number?

[Avapodnaught]

well I only agree with the first bit, seems like derek cut that one post out, dissected it twice, put it back in, twist it around, and out came a pretty torn out post....
Generals is not bad, the only thing I say about it is, It Could Have Been Better In Many Ways That We All Like To Exploit Very Often Mainly Because Of Its Differences From All The Others... personally, Id only play it now for lan...

[Daishi]

Well then I guess you think that every CNC game made sucks, because Generals was the only one with any real depth to it.
RA2 has real depth. And hey, so does C&C3.

[Derek]

RA2 has real depth. And hey, so does C&C3.
CNC3 has some depth, but its still pretty shallow compared to ZH. RA2 is definately lacking though.

[Daishi]

I suppose depth comes with technology. Still, I would never say that RA2/YR is lacking in depth.

Destroyers + Micro > any pre-tech Soviet naval mix
Destroyers - Micro < an equal force of subs
Dolphins > squids
Squids > everything unsupported by dolphins
Subs > dolphins
Dreadnought rush tactic must always be anticipated because it's so difficult to stop once it shows up
IFV could take any unit and morph its own weapon accordingly to provide a wide variety of roles.
Scouting is easy but anti-scouting is a coinflip
All 3 miners are very different.
GGIBF is the lamevee of yesterday. Perfect micro on these babies is unbeatable.
Magnetron and its many overpowered uses.
Fast-tech can work on big maps but never on most maps.
Basewalk for a superior economy.
Cannon fodder. That's in ZH too.
Rhino spam > Grizzly spam. So support your grizzlies.
Mirage spam > Rhino spam. Get Desos.
Desos incoming. Sniper IFVs can handle it.
Black Eagles can take those things out in two hits. Three kills the infantry inside.
$2500 and every ore you process from now on will yield 1.5x the cash. Take it or leave it.
Stretch your base and you can take the gold. Make a cannon and he'll have to take his business elsewhere.
Extra war factories to build tanks faster!
OMG CHRONOSPHERE. ON DEMO TRUCKS.
Curtained Terror Drones = gg Yuri.
Rockie Rush? Who could've seen THAT coming?
5 Terrorists in a flak... You forgot the Ivan, but meh, it'll do just fine.
Quick AFCC, we need those free GIs.
Spy the war factory and it's a free win.
What was going through your head when you picked Russia?

[Avapodnaught]

Lol, derek was wrong there... and raII is more like cnc3 than generals, so thats more depth there too... although they each have units that u put units in and they do something different... ifv, apc, humvee...

[Derek]

Lol, derek was wrong there... and raII is more like cnc3 than generals, so thats more depth there too... although they each have units that u put units in and they do something different... ifv, apc, humvee...
RA2 is a lot more like CNC3 than Generals, its like CNC3 but with less depth. RA2<CNC3<<Generals in terms of depth.

[Dracaveli]

hmmm

first of all CNC IS NEVER MENT TO BE REALISTIC

second renegade DID NOT FAIL and this is wy they are going to make the next cnc an FPS game ^-^ i heard that from crimson the leader of the official renegade website WITH THE CRYSIS ENGINE!!!!

third generals sucks due to lack of good storyness i wouldent like a general 2
tiberium wars gets boring verry fast due to lack of tactics and units availibel in the game

CNC95 was meant to be realistic, you even had a critque about your economic and leadership style of waging war after each campaign (mission)...

leadership was gauge by the "clicked" commands given vs "not" clicking again to move/fire them out of "danger" until it completed the command...it assumed your first command was already well thoughtout and correct one....so changing it was seen as a failure of leadership by you in the first place.. I would have loved to see this feature in RA and RA2 but it wasnt....this in my view was meant to introduce the real style movement of army units engaged in war......it also really makes use of the enviorment since you wouldn't click deep into shrouded territory, but rather a few "hexes" ahead only...I also think this is how the old "ambush" AI tag came into play found in rules.ini stretching from RA to Tib sun but unused


Renegade didnt fail I agree, it offered a lot more to play around with then other FPS out there, namely Return to Castle Wolf, just the marketing wasnt done.

what makes RA2/CNC3 is the storyline of CNC95, which has to be one of the well thought out war games of all time..it carried over to red alert and Tiberium series...

Generals would do beter if it drop the CNC title

[Cylon Crusader]

CNC95 was meant to be realistic, you even had a critque about your economic and leadership style of waging war after each campaign (mission)...

leadership was gauge by the "clicked" commands given vs "not" clicking again to move/fire them out of "danger" until it completed the command...it assumed your first command was already well thoughtout and correct one....so changing it was seen as a failure of leadership by you in the first place.. I would have loved to see this feature in RA and RA2 but it wasnt....this in my view was meant to introduce the real style movement of army units engaged in war......it also really makes use of the enviorment since you wouldn't click deep into shrouded territory, but rather a few "hexes" ahead only...I also think this is how the old "ambush" AI tag came into play found in rules.ini stretching from RA to Tib sun but unused


Renegade didnt fail I agree, it offered a lot more to play around with then other FPS out there, namely Return to Castle Wolf, just the marketing wasnt done.

what makes RA2/CNC3 is the storyline of CNC95, which has to be one of the well thought out war games of all time..it carried over to red alert and Tiberium series...

Generals would do beter if it drop the CNC title


Exactly, EA just made generals to be their cash cow, for a few years anyway.

[Derek]

Exactly, EA just made generals to be their cash cow, for a few years anyway.
No. Generals was EA's attempt to make CNC into a respectable competetive RTS series, and it would have been a success had it not been for blind fanboys like you.

[Avapodnaught]

THe main thing is that we who like cnc, don't want Zh, which has a totally different theme to it, than cnc, to be called cnc, but, I guess there isn't much we can do about the name, but it doesn't mean people will let u just say that it was respectable and get away with it;), it will seem like a money maker at the time, and until zh fans can stand up and get a patch to improve it... not happening soon I c, unless they make one and most likely put off cnc3's patch because it is a part of the series, needing a patch, which im sure, nobody wants

[Derek]

THe main thing is that we who like cnc, don't want Zh, which has a totally different theme to it, than cnc, to be called cnc,
Wrong. The theme of ZH is the same as that of other CNC games. Its the implemenation of gameplay that is superior.

but, I guess there isn't much we can do about the name, but it doesn't mean people will let u just say that it was respectable and get away with it;),
ZH is the only CNC game that has a lot of respect. CNC3 is pretty good because it borrowed from ZH, but the older games are a joke by modern standards (and RA2 was a joke by then-current standards).

until zh fans can stand up and get a patch to improve it... not happening soon I c, unless they make one...
*Ahem* (http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showforum=1138)

[Avapodnaught]

Hmm, that isn't official is it? Not when I load up the game it asks me about it, does it? well, more a modded patch than an official, hope u have 'fun' with it
(rollseyes)

Theme as in sci fi original, it is less sci fi than the others, because it is based on present day to future instead past prediciments changing the timeline, and its future is laughable,

Eh, Many people still play the older games that aren't unavailable to them (no more cnc95? it won't go there....) Just think of those who play Ra2 and Yuri'z revenge and renegade, (ts is a little slow tho, where I get on...)
and I already said what I had to say about the 'patch'

[Derek]

Hmm, that isn't official is it? Not when I load up the game it asks me about it, does it? well, more a modded patch than an official, hope u have 'fun' with it
(rollseyes)
Its a patch made and tested by a collaboration of the best ZH players. It is a huge improvement over v1.04 and is nearing completion, although its lately had some leadership issues. It was for a time used by Clanwars, and was also used in the last DGNF tournament. Although its unlikely that EA will make it official, it is not unprecedented: v1.03 (which is a buggier version of v1.04) was made almost entirely by the Aceton team (not EA) with similar goals as the Community Patch.

Theme as in sci fi original, it is less sci fi than the others, because it is based on present day to future instead past prediciments changing the timeline, and its future is laughable,
None of the CNC games are very sci-fi (well, CNC3 is, but thats because it takes place fifty years into the future). All the games have had a very modern setting with a few fun sci-fi things thrown in for fun, but not enough to qualify the games as sci-fi.

[Avapodnaught]

Its a patch made and tested by a collaboration of the best ZH players. It is a huge improvement over v1.04 and is nearing completion, although its lately had some leadership issues. It was for a time used by Clanwars, and was also used in the last DGNF tournament. Although its unlikely that EA will make it official, it is not unprecedented: v1.03 (which is a buggier version of v1.04) was made almost entirely by the Aceton team (not EA) with similar goals as the Community Patch.


None of the CNC games are very sci-fi (well, CNC3 is, but thats because it takes place fifty years into the future). All the games have had a very modern setting with a few fun sci-fi things thrown in for fun, but not enough to qualify the games as sci-fi.
a whole civilization changed in Ra history (ours), and it is much different in tech and history, a sci fi earth, and it has two different versions of how it ends, same as the first two tiberium games (renegade only one ending), and made it feel different depending on who was victor

Cnc3 may have had that what generals had ( a 'chronological sense'), but how they did it was pretty good, knowing about what each side did in time, and it still gave u a good rap up just like the previous games, Nod was pretty much first up, then gdi takes off after most of the settings, and scrin comes in as aliens and it gives the best of the story lines how they tell it (they even made a book which I have yet to find, buy, and read:freek:)

Generals did somewhat the same thing, but its plot made little sense (all three armies were up upon that dam, they each destroy it in the game:gnarly:, I see the same city die three times:gnarly:, lol, china vs gla, usa vs gla, and gla vs china) Generals gave u the feeling of chronological order, and when it was finished, u had to do it in the order to know more about how it went on, not done well.... same in Zh, but its sci fi feel is quite weak compared to all the other games (just pick one, mwahaha)

[Cylon Crusader]

Generals is based more on real worldwide events rather than sci-fi.

GLA= terrorists/al qaeda

USA=USA/ western powers

China=allies of the usa in the game but not in real life, in real life there are other allies of the US of A.

[C4]

No. Generals was EA's attempt to make CNC into a respectable competetive RTS series, and it would have been a success had it not been for blind fanboys like you.

First of all, i admire your patience to this endless discuss with these fanboys about RTS quality. As we know many ppl admire those "lovely storylines and cutscenes" and the concept of depth is escaping them. About the "cash cow" it's not that out of sense, we both also know the policy of EA -money comes first-. That's why EA "forgot" about GEN/ZH long time ago. I understand perfectly your point Derek, but unfortunately to ZH many didn't.

To those fanboys out there: When it comes to depth and quality of an EA RTS, ZH reigns supreme and second comes Emperor-B.f.Dune (this one was the first good one made by EA/Westwood). Everything else (and i'm including CnC3) is a tank spam fest.
But what the h***, we cannot hope to everyone to share the same concept of quality, right?! Some call it graphics, others call it storyline and cutscenes, others call it good counter-system, pathfinding and adequate ratio of unit-value/cost, unit gameplay and diversity, and everything else ZH has.
Maybe the depth is something too much to some ppl to handle. It seems the less depth a game have and the easier to play the better.:hmm:

Even so ZH is not perfect (some balance issues taint it) but as Derek coughed, u can now realise (if it matters to u, what i doubt) there are ppl trying to make the best of it.

Generals did somewhat the same thing, but its plot made little sense (all three armies were up upon that dam, they each destroy it in the game:gnarly:, I see the same city die three times:gnarly:, lol

That one is really stupid but i think the programmers need to show us thrice how hard it was to program such animation. :lol:
Well it's really needless.

To the topic: No doubt i'd like to see generals 2 but not in a near future (5 years maybe). ZH still has plenty to offer until get mastered. About those next CnC games, maybe any of 'em is worth enough. If not, i'm hopeful Starcraft will be another possibility for a good game. After all, there are no need for many games, just for those few great ones.:rolleyes:

[apple23]

First of all, i admire your patience to this endless discuss with these fanboys about RTS quality. As we know many ppl admire those "lovely storylines and cutscenes" and the concept of depth is escaping them. About the "cash cow" it's not that out of sense, we both also know the policy of EA -money comes first-. That's why EA "forgot" about GEN/ZH long time ago. I understand perfectly your point Derek, but unfortunately to ZH many didn't.

To those fanboys out there: When it comes to depth and quality of an EA RTS, ZH reigns supreme and second comes Emperor-B.f.Dune (this one was the first good one made by EA/Westwood). Everything else (and i'm including CnC3) is a tank spam fest.
But what the h***, we cannot hope to everyone to share the same concept of quality, right?! Some call it graphics, others call it storyline and cutscenes, others call it good counter-system, pathfinding and adequate ratio of unit-value/cost, unit gameplay and diversity, and everything else ZH has.
Maybe the depth is something too much to some ppl to handle. It seems the less depth a game have and the easier to play the better.:hmm:

Even so ZH is not perfect (some balance issues taint it) but as Derek coughed, u can now realise (if it matters to u, what i doubt) there are ppl trying to make the best of it.



That one is really stupid but i think the programmers need to show us thrice how hard it was to program such animation. :lol:
Well it's really needless.

To the topic: No doubt i'd like to see generals 2 but not in a near future (5 years maybe). ZH still has plenty to offer until get mastered. About those next CnC games, maybe any of 'em is worth enough. If not, i'm hopeful Starcraft will be another possibility for a good game. After all, there are no need for many games, just for those few great ones.:rolleyes:

Generals/ZH had plenty of depth, I'll give you that, but how can you possibly say that RA2 is a tank spam fest?!?!? RA2 was very balanced, enjoyable, and was one of the best games of it's time. Spamming never worked in RA2 and it never will, because the countering system was so well designed that spamming was almost impossible. I personally enjoy playing the clasics that Westwood made when it was still westwood, because westwood actually took the time to make a good game,(*coughCNC95oneofthebestRTSgamesevermadecough*) whereas the money hungry EA blotched the release of all of the other CNC games because they wanted to market them as fast as possible to make the most money (except Generals origional, that one was awesome and i still prefer it over ZH)

And as a sidenote, pathfinding for Generals/ZH sucked way worse than pathfinding on other CNC games because of the fact that a cell-grid-based system is easier to use than a free-move system.

And another sidenote: you were talking about B.F. Dune being second best in the CNC series!?!?!? We're talking about CNC, not any other series, and as a matter of fact, the whole forum is based on CNC and not anything else.

[Derek]

And as a sidenote, pathfinding for Generals/ZH sucked way worse than pathfinding on other CNC games because of the fact that a cell-grid-based system is easier to use than a free-move system.
Actuall the pathfinding in Generals is actually really damn good, and a whole lot better than I've seen in some RTS games. You're right that a cell-based system is simpler, but its also restrictive.

And another sidenote: you were talking about B.F. Dune being second best in the CNC series!?!?!? We're talking about CNC, not any other series, and as a matter of fact, the whole forum is based on CNC and not anything else.
Dune is a CNC game. The title really doesn't matter.

[C4]

because the countering system was so well designed that spamming was almost impossible. I personally enjoy playing the clasics that Westwood made when it was still westwood, because westwood actually took the time to make a good game
"countering system was so well designed"? What...?!:dismay: Sorry, No! And i insist in the Tank spam. I didn't say they aren't fun however. I like RA2/Yuri in particular (the others are "unplayable"...), and i play'em from time to time. But in single player. Its multiplayer doesn't fit my tastes.
pathfinding for Generals/ZH sucked way worse than pathfinding on other CNC games because of the fact that a cell-grid-based system is easier to use than a free-move system.
Trying to crush infantry with a tank is a lol.
you were talking about B.F. Dune being second best in the CNC series!?!?!? We're talking about CNC, not any other series, and as a matter of fact, the whole forum is based on CNC and not anything else. If u played it, u already know what i'm talking about. If u don't just feel assured that it was a twin (while plentifully enhanced) copy of the CNC mechanic in building/upgrading system (con.yard), economy (harvesters to collect a single resource) and veterancy system. The huge difference was, it effectivelly had a counter-unit sytem well defined and really notorious. It unfortunatelly, suffered from some balance issues though. (i "patched" it to turn it into a somewhat balanced game:D).

[SgtRicko]

None of the CNC games are very sci-fi (well, CNC3 is, but thats because it takes place fifty years into the future). All the games have had a very modern setting with a few fun sci-fi things thrown in for fun, but not enough to qualify the games as sci-fi.

Tib Sun was pretty darn Sci-Fi-ish if you ask me.:|

[Derek]

It was the most Sci-fi of any CNC game, but it wasn't really that futuristic.

[SgtRicko]

It was the most Sci-fi of any CNC game, but it wasn't really that futuristic.

They had mechs, anti-grav tech, cyborgs, really futuristic looking structures (the tech centers and GDI power plant in particular), spaceships capable of atmospheric travel with ease, subterranean tanks, large dropships capable of carrying several walkers plus infantry at once... what wasn't overtly futuristic?

[Derek]

And compare that with something like Starcraft. TS is still obviously grounded in the realm of modern war, just with some technologies that really aren't that far off thrown in.

[SgtRicko]

And compare that with something like Starcraft. TS is still obviously grounded in the realm of modern war, just with some technologies that really aren't that far off thrown in.

Yeah, well... that's StarCraft, man! It's almost a space opera in its own right!

And BTW, I'd have to say that StarCraft isn't a good parallel, since the tech for the Terrans is really uneven: you got psionic ghost operatives with all kinds of high-end gear and enhancements, infantry who are basically armed with just a flamethrower, power armor and nothing else (i.e. Firebat), research vessels with Star Trek esque abilities and powers, anti-grav bikes with an oddly wimpy loadout and protection... I say StarCraft is more stylized than anything else.

[Derek]

Its all still way more sci-fi than TS. There really isn't anything in that game that that probably couldn't be done in the next 100 years (practicality aside). And this is the most sci-fi CNC game we're talking about. Its quite obvious that CNC is a series focused on relatively modern combat.

[SgtRicko]

Eh, I guess so. But still, the subterranean units and advanced beam weaponry are really off if that's the case...

[Avapodnaught]

I would actually say hat cnc3 is more sci fi bcause it is in more depth with aliens, walkers, railguns, lazers, tiberium, what tib has done to the world, how the world is reshaped, how tib sun and tib wars units came into being in transfer... scrin,lets not forget about some of the newer drop pods, tib weapons, catalists, ion cannon, rift, invasion ships, crazed persons, although weaker but more advanced viseroids, mutants (also adds to rickos post) go into being sci fi... need to look here an there but im sure stealth technology is also in ther, and besides, a game that starts in space will have more technology, of course, but the basis of the story and universe itself... real big sci fi leap in RaII, don't c how cnc3 and ts amount to that (what about firestorm, also much toaddthere... a smashing amount o story and weird new stuff there)

[Cylon Crusader]

Yeah, thats true CNC 3 is all about fictional warfare, Generals on the other hand, is one of the most realistic CNC games that i've ever played.

[Annihlator :D]

Yeah, thats true CNC 3 is all about fictional warfare, Generals on the other hand, is one of the most realistic CNC games that i've ever played.

Yes, although the truth is twisted some. for example, the Paladin is an Artillery pice, the Tomahawk is Naval launch only, and I doubt that the US has an operational Laser Division.

[Jester Kirby]

A real hypersonic aircraft wouldn't slow down after dropping a bomb either. Nothing else it would speed up. :rolleyes:

[SgtRicko]

A real hypersonic aircraft wouldn't slow down after dropping a bomb either. Nothing else it would speed up. :rolleyes:

Well, the in-game reason was that the thing had a really poor fuel economy, and that the hard turn it maks after dropping the bomb kills most of it's momentum.

[Jester Kirby]

If that where the case, in a real life situation it wouldn't turn then, it would just drop the bomb and continue in that direction and head for some other airbase or aircraft carrier.

[Gaucho8788]

If that where the case, in a real life situation it wouldn't turn then, it would just drop the bomb and continue in that direction and head for some other airbase or aircraft carrier.

Thats what I would do.

[General Kane Nash]

Still, I would like to see Auroras not desaccelerating but shootable, just 80 percent of miss and 200 per cent of life while flying, that would be a bit more realistic.

[Thumper]

i wouldnt mind a generals 2, named something different, made by a completely different team.

[Derek]

made by a completely different team.
When a sequel to a good game is made by a different team than the original, its almost always bad.

[GrandpaTroll]

Just checking in, was this a wishlist game or is/was Generals 2 a possibility?

Thanks

Grandpa Troll:wave:

[Derek]

Its certainly a possibility, but its just wishful thinking at this point.

[GrandpaTroll]

Its certainly a possibility, but its just wishful thinking at this point.


Please forgive me, I am on some heavy pain meds awaiting yet another surgery from my auto accident, but seems I read somewhere while surfing the net, maybe here, that maybe someone was working on a scenario or redoing this game, not a company but maybe a gropup of folks.

I am not an expert, but dabble in scenario making. I hope someone talkes this up and is successful

Thanks in advance

Gramps:drool:

[Thumper]

Mideast Crisis 2 (http://isotx.com/mec2)

[kyle]

Just a thought, but what if C&C was pushed into the far future? I.E. Space?

[Thumper]

it would resemble too much the stars crafting.

[kyle]

......

what about the opposite?

Command and Conquer: Generals: War of 1812

[Annihlator :D]

......

what about the opposite?

Command and Conquer: Generals: War of 1812

AoE III

[kyle]

But AoE sucks. to much commerce and stuff.

What about Command and Conquer: Tactical Armed Recon Defense, a brisk, fast paced compliment expansion to generals that deals in large maps and fast units.

C&C: TARD! :gnarly:

But really... I'd hate to see another 'Modern Day' game like Generals

[EliteGi]

What the hell? Why on earth would/should there be a sequel to Generals?

It had nothing going for it except the gameplay/multiplayer aspect - and that can be easily adapted to a different C&C game. Generals had no storyline, no atmosphere, no creative unit design - simply a generic RTS.

It'd make a lot more sense to evolve the gameplay and adapt it to a different c&c title; which is sort of what's happening with RA3 - but RA3 is a far far cooler universe than Generals (even though I don't particularly like the look of RA3 to this point, it's far better than nothing (Generals' storyline)).

[Derek]

It had nothing going for it except the gameplay/multiplayer aspect
In other words, it was perfect.

no creative unit design
Just plain wrong, especially compared to RA2 before it. CNC3 and RA3 have had interesting units though.

simply a generic RTS.
Except that generic RTSs (such as RA2 and CNC3) suck, while Generals was one of the best ever made.

It'd make a lot more sense to evolve the gameplay and adapt it to a different c&c title; which is sort of what's happening with RA3 - but RA3 is a far far cooler universe than Generals (even though I don't particularly like the look of RA3 to this point, it's far better than nothing (Generals' storyline)).
The problem with that is that if you use an existing CNC universe the fans will demand "true CNC" elements, which would completely defeat the point of making a great RTS. Because it was set in its own universe, Genearls was free from these restraints, and this is why it excelled so much. The best development team in the world is useless if its restrained by "tradition".

[kyle]

The problem with that is that if you use an existing CNC universe the fans will demand "true CNC" elements, which would completely defeat the point of making a great RTS. Because it was set in its own universe, Genearls was free from these restraints, and this is why it excelled so much. The best development team in the world is useless if its restrained by "tradition"

I'll drink to that. :beer:
That's what I liked about Generals, actually. It had no point other then combat. No dorky story line :P
I've probably had more fun playing Generals then RA and RA2 (Plus YR) combined. There's just less distractions imo.

Like for instance:

1) No walls. (I always felt inclined to surround my entire base, even though it was unnecessary.
2) No comparison. I didn't say anything like "Well, the Apoc was so much cooler in the first Red Alert."
3) No expectations. This actually ties in with #2, obviously. I had zero expectations for Generals. I actually expected it to suck balls. But to my surprise it was the most enjoyable C&C to date.
As for RA3 I have huge expectations for, and it'll be in a heap of trouble if it doesn't top my already 'above atmosphere' expectations.

What I hope for in the next 'Generals' (Or forth party Command and Conquer) is something different. Storyline, gameplay, feel. Anything thats differant and new to the genre.
If I want something like Command and Conquer is now, I'll go play older Command and Conquer's.

[Daishi]

What Generals needs is a remake with a greatly expanded singleplayer mode and more care put into its competitive balancing. I don't like the idea of a sequel to this spin-off, and I'd rather they came up with a new spin-off that had the C&C feel to it.

Derek doesn't really know what he's talking about, don't let it get to you EGI. Being the highly-competitive gamer he is, he's unwilling to accept that multiplayer isn't the only determining factor in the quality of RTS games. And RA2 and C&C3 weren't generic at all. I daresay they were both extraordinary. RA2 was the fastest RTS ever at the time and pushed the aging engine to its limits, introducing gameplay elements that were nonexistent until its release. C&C3 was downright beautiful, and despite being one big piece of fan-service, it managed to survive as both a competitive game and as that year's most addicting and intuitive casual RTS (as expected from a C&C - these games have always been especially easy to pick up).

Gameplay-wise, Generals had more depth to it than any other released C&C title. This meant that the multiplayer community could flourish and continue growing indefinitely, which is the case with the legendary Starcraft. It doesn't mean it was entertaining to people without friends or internet connections, and you may count its flavorless campaigns as a flaw, putting you in a completely different section of the game's target audience as he and I are.

And Derek, the "true gameplay elements" that were demanded weakened the gameplay as a result of flawed implementation, not just because they were there. The crane, the gigantic build radius, the tank spam... it's the fault of the developers, not the fans.

[Derek]

What Generals needs is a remake with a greatly expanded singleplayer mode and more care put into its competitive balancing. I don't like the idea of a sequel to this spin-off, and I'd rather they came up with a new spin-off that had the C&C feel to it.
Completely wrong, it needs to be a $20-30 downloadable multiplayer only game. We're talking CS:S or TF2 here. A singleplayer campaign would only serve as a distraction during development, the money would be better spent on dedicated servers and continued balance support.

[kyle]

Yess... with unique sides... they (if they really worked hard) could compete with Star Craft multiplayer wise.

Three sides. Balanced out, but unique in every way... hmm... we're asking EA of to much. They're to simpleminded, methinks. :lol:

[SgtRicko]

Believe it or not, I'm actually on Derek's side on how the game should be, even though I personally disliked Generals for being so... well, generic. Not only would it cut out what would probably end up getting booed by the fans even if it actually was pretty good (the singleplayer), but it would also mean that any weird or ridiculous balance choices that would make no logical sense in real life wouldn't be taken as seriously. And lastly, just like Derek mentioned earlier, a full multiplayer focus would probably please the fanbase needed; any others who really don't care too much for the multi (like me) would probably buy something else that actually gave a s*** about technical accuracy and quasi-realistic gameplay.

HOWEVER, I do take offense at the fact that you called RA2 "uncreative", Derek!:rant:

[EliteGi]

In other words, it was perfect.
Ummmm no. Just as performance and looks aren't all there is to a car. And just with cars, people look for different things in particular. It's clear all you're concerned about is the multiplayer gameplay aspect, and that's absolutely fine. But remember what makes a game good is a matter of opinion. Because I look for the storyline, the singleplayer aspect, the atmosphere and enjoyablity of the game as well as the multiplayer gameplay, Generals was quite crap IMHO. It only scored on the multiplayer gameplay, and I even got bored of that after a few weeks (though admittedly that's mainly because of the lag caused by my computer).

On NO level was Generals perfect. Not even the multiplayer gameplay. Maybe it can be considered very good by some, but not perfect.

Just plain wrong, especially compared to RA2 before it. CNC3 and RA3 have had interesting units though.
RA2 had some interesting unit design. A lot more creative than anything that came from Generals. All Generals did was take current warefare and add a little twist to it. Very simular to C&C Dawn in that respect, but C&C dawn's unit design was somehow much better. With units like the mammy tank, commando, orcas, obelisks and AGTS etc, the unit designs were neat and tidy. Add to that superb music and good storyline with cutscenes, along with the good fun gameplay its a fun and creative game (for the time) that sparked this entire series. Tib Sun had incredible units - by far the best in C&C. Without question. Have you even played Tiberian Sun?

Except that generic RTSs (such as RA2 and CNC3) suck, while Generals was one of the best ever made.
Can't comment on C&C3 since I haven't got a comp to play it on, and when I do I'm not even sure if I'll buy it. RA2, on the other hand, was a bit flat because unit spam was all there was to it.


The problem with that is that if you use an existing CNC universe the fans will demand "true CNC" elements, which would completely defeat the point of making a great RTS. Because it was set in its own universe, Genearls was free from these restraints, and this is why it excelled so much. The best development team in the world is useless if its restrained by "tradition".
Ah, you see, this is were I agree with you, to a degree. What I want to see is an EA team with balls of steel - not afraid to try new things and introduce new ideas that may, or may not, work. Put it into one of the C&C universes (this is where they will go right - don't make it a new chapter in the series, just station it between games, like Renegade did). This way they won't ruin/interfere with the storyline of the universes, but can slot in, borrow things that have worked in the universe and introduce all the new elements and try to actually make something ground-breaking in terms of gamplay and fun, which still holds decent singleplayer and storyline. Tradition should never be looked at as a restraint. :p

I'm currently hating all this "stuck between making a good, new game but keeping all the fans happy". It's simply not being pulled off, it's all being done wrong.

[Lazzars]

i disliked generals because of its sucky SP

i never play RTS online (no micro :() and thus have no need for a very good MP game with no SP to back it up, C&C has loads of back story to it that i thoroughly enjoy and the same should be said for RA.

i don't like the idea of a game where the single player aspect is just there to train you for multiplayer as that would never work and not be any fun. i'm not looking for multiplayer for replay value.

which is funny as i got bored of supcom very very quickly despite its very large SP :\

[Derek]

RA2 had some interesting unit design. A lot more creative than anything that came from Generals.
RA2 had tanks. Thats about it. There were a couple creative units, but most of them were meaningless anyways. I suppose units in Generals might look plain on the surface, but if thats what you think then it would only speak to your ignorance of the game. If you actually knew what the units did you would realize the enormous amount of depth each one had.

Tib Sun had incredible units - by far the best in C&C. Without question. Have you even played Tiberian Sun?
Where did I even mention TS? You won't find it anywhere in my post. I would highly recommend actually reading posts before responding so you don't look so foolish. TS had unique units, thats part of the reason why it was the best of the original CNC games. Their linear behavior still pales in comparison to Generals however.

What I want to see is an EA team with balls of steel - not afraid to try new things and introduce new ideas that may, or may not, work.
That was the team behind Generals. This is the hypocrisy of the CNC community, they say they want something new and original, but if anything breaks from the established mold, its immediately "not real CNC". Westwood made one big mistake: They made a direct sequel to the original CNC. The game was good, but what they didn't realize was that this doomed them to forever be locked into making games for only two universes, forced to use the same tired old units, mechanics, and characters over and over. You'll notice the game made by Petroglyph are nothing at all like CNC games, in fact the adopt many of the mechanics used in Generals that have been shunned as heresy by "real CNC fans". These people want nothing to do with CNC anymore, they decided to move on to new ideas. The developers who remained at EALA however have not had that same freedom.

Tradition should never be looked at as a restraint. :p
And yet that is exactly what it has been ever since Generals.

I'm currently hating all this "stuck between making a good, new game but keeping all the fans happy". It's simply not being pulled off, it's all being done wrong.
You're absolutely right, CNC3 was the result of a disastrous attempt to compromise between old and new. I think EA has largely realized the futility of attempting to please traditional fans with old mechanics. With RA3 they seem to be content to let them drool over porn stars while developing a game with the goal of actually being good, instead of making "fans" happy. They're still restricted a lot by CNC "tradition", but they're working around it as best as they can.

i never play RTS online (no micro :()
If you've never played online, you can't know that you have no micro.

C&C has loads of back story to it that i thoroughly enjoy and the same should be said for RA.
lol, if you want backstory then go play Dawn of War or Starcraft. The backstory to CNC is about as deep as a kiddie pool.

i don't like the idea of a game where the single player aspect is just there to train you for multiplayer as that would never work and not be any fun. i'm not looking for multiplayer for replay value.
I guess you've never played CS, TF, UT, Quake 3, Battlefield, or any other multiplayer-exclusive (or nearly exclusive) game. Yet these are by far the most popular games these days.

Replay value? According to Xfire, the top 4 PC games I've played the most I have played almost exclusively multiplayer. Of the top 9, only one (Portal) was played for singleplayer. IIRC the most times I have ever gone through a singleplayer game (not counting Portal which is ultra-short) is three times through FEAR, and yet I have played FEAR multiplayer at least four times as much. Singleplayer games lack replay value. Thats just a fact.

[Lazzars]

my second most played game according to Xfire is Hearts of Iron 2, that has a ton of replay value (thats why i keep playing it) and i only play it for SP

5 of my top 10 are single player (2 being total war games), i like playing SP, its more relaxed compared to the twitchy gameplay of TF2 and CSS. of course i have played RTS online but i was never any good at it and it has never grabbed my enthusiasm like FPS has.

BF2 is my most played game ever and i hated the SP on that being a cheap bot deathmatch. don't think UT or quake are really much fun though.

i just plain don't like to play against other people on RTS, its no fun. i like an offline single player for when i don't have internet or feel like chilling out. a good SP will bring me back every so often even if i hate the MP. i hate the MP for CoD4 so much but i still play the singleplayer every so often cause it was really good.

[EliteGi]

RA2 had tanks. Thats about it. There were a couple creative units, but most of them were meaningless anyways. I suppose units in Generals might look plain on the surface, but if thats what you think then it would only speak to your ignorance of the game. If you actually knew what the units did you would realize the enormous amount of depth each one had.
I played the online quite frequently for a few weeks, and became decentish in the time I played. Of course I know what every unit does, looks likes, sounds like etc (or did, it's been a while now). I mean come on; battle buses? In no stretch of the imagination is that an original unit design.

Where did I even mention TS? You won't find it anywhere in my post. I would highly recommend actually reading posts before responding so you don't look so foolish. TS had unique units, thats part of the reason why it was the best of the original CNC games. Their linear behavior still pales in comparison to Generals however.
You didn't mention it, and I can't recall you ever mentioning it. That's why I asked the question. :freek: Of course the units aren't going to have the same depth as Generals because Generals was made many moons later, after the genre had evolved more.

That was the team behind Generals. This is the hypocrisy of the CNC community, they say they want something new and original, but if anything breaks from the established mold, its immediately "not real CNC". Westwood made one big mistake: They made a direct sequel to the original CNC. The game was good, but what they didn't realize was that this doomed them to forever be locked into making games for only two universes, forced to use the same tired old units, mechanics, and characters over and over. You'll notice the game made by Petroglyph are nothing at all like CNC games, in fact the adopt many of the mechanics used in Generals that have been shunned as heresy by "real CNC fans". These people want nothing to do with CNC anymore, they decided to move on to new ideas. The developers who remained at EALA however have not had that same freedom.
Well the C&C team aren't there because of the conflicts and problems that lie eternally withing EA. It would be be interesting to know what the Westwood team would have done to evolve the series and the genre. I believe they would have taken the games in many different directions and tried loads of new mechanics to go with them.

[SgtRicko]

Derek, there are a lot of strategy games out there that have proven that the singleplayer experience can make a difference. Rise of Nations, Galactic Civilizations II, Earth 2150, Company of Heroes, Warzone 2100, and yes, even C&C3 itself have proven that singleplayer sells just as good - hell, even Starcraft qualifies since the story and campaign were damn good.

[Daishi]

RA2 had tanks. Thats about it. There were a couple creative units, but most of them were meaningless anyways. I suppose units in Generals might look plain on the surface, but if thats what you think then it would only speak to your ignorance of the game. If you actually knew what the units did you would realize the enormous amount of depth each one had.
That's like saying "Starcraft had Dragoons. That's about it." And in YR, the individual units have just as much depth as in Generals. Try the game out online and make nothing but tanks and engineers (on any map that isn't totally wide-open like Tournament Arena) with any faction, even the Soviets, and lets see how well you do against an enemy that does the same thing. Then, try mixing in the rest of the army.

You'll find soon enough that the only matches that tanks vs tanks is really that significant after T2 is Soviets vs Soviets.

TS had unique units, thats part of the reason why it was the best of the original CNC games. Their linear behavior still pales in comparison to Generals however. TS was so plagued with gameplay flaws I consider it a miracle anyone liked the game after Starcraft's release. You want a classic C&C game with unique units that don't overlap as far into each others' boundaries, look at YR.

That was the team behind Generals. This is the hypocrisy of the CNC community, they say they want something new and original, but if anything breaks from the established mold, its immediately "not real CNC". Westwood made one big mistake: They made a direct sequel to the original CNC. The game was good, but what they didn't realize was that this doomed them to forever be locked into making games for only two universes, forced to use the same tired old units, mechanics, and characters over and over. You'll notice the game made by Petroglyph are nothing at all like CNC games, in fact the adopt many of the mechanics used in Generals that have been shunned as heresy by "real CNC fans". These people want nothing to do with CNC anymore, they decided to move on to new ideas. The developers who remained at EALA however have not had that same freedom.Puh-leez. If you look at the strategies involved, Generals was just Starcraft with C&C's unforgiving lethality and relative simplicity, with a few YR elements brought back and made-over for the sake of realism.

And I believe Petroglyph's games are less like C&C for one reason: they could get sued if they carried too many of those mechanics over. Petroglyph is more than capable of finding flaws in the old games and fixing them (after all, all RTS communities do) but in this case, they don't have an opportunity to fix the old mechanics because they may face a lawsuit if they do.

You're absolutely right, CNC3 was the result of a disastrous attempt to compromise between old and new. I think EA has largely realized the futility of attempting to please traditional fans with old mechanics. With RA3 they seem to be content to let them drool over porn stars while developing a game with the goal of actually being good, instead of making "fans" happy. They're still restricted a lot by CNC "tradition", but they're working around it as best as they can.You just don't get it, do you? Like I said in my earlier post, if you'd played any classic C&C multiplayer, you could watch one TibWars replay and point out the extreme flaws in the implementation of the classic game mechanics. The developers rushed the game, and overlooked extreme flaws as they made every ensuing patch, every one of which chipped away from the game's unique feel while replacing old imbalances with new ones. The reason the game ended up sucking was not the mechanics themselves, it was the irresponsible developers that never cared to balance what they were putting in, and tried to augment as little as possible in the patches until the expansion, which was FINALLY patched to fix most of the original critical isues.

If you've never played online, you can't know that you have no micro.Literalist alert.

lol, if you want backstory then go play Dawn of War or Starcraft. The backstory to CNC is about as deep as a kiddie pool.
Newbie alert. Back when Westwood was in charge, the story was pretty thought-out and unique.

I guess you've never played CS, TF, UT, Quake 3, Battlefield, or any other multiplayer-exclusive (or nearly exclusive) game. Yet these are by far the most popular games these days. Hahaha you're funny. They're all far behind The Sims, GTA:SA, and HL2. If more people could run their games, the Bethesda games would be up there too, but it still outranks some of those games in popularity by a fair bit.

Replay value? According to Xfire, the top 4 PC games I've played the most I have played almost exclusively multiplayer. Of the top 9, only one (Portal) was played for singleplayer. IIRC the most times I have ever gone through a singleplayer game (not counting Portal which is ultra-short) is three times through FEAR, and yet I have played FEAR multiplayer at least four times as much. Singleplayer games lack replay value. Thats just a fact.Wrong. All you did here was prove that singleplayer games lack replay value FOR YOU. There ARE other kinds of people out there, or more precisely, surrounding us, in case you don't know.

One day, you'll be able to appreciate the singleplayer aspects of games as more than just introductions to the multiplayer mechanics. Until then, enjoy those games that were designed just for people like you, we'll be over here happy with our bigger libraries.

[SgtRicko]

That's like saying "Starcraft had Dragoons".

More like Zealots and marines, really, but I read ya.

TS was so plagued with gameplay flaws I consider it a miracle anyone liked the game after Starcraft's release. You want a classic C&C game with unique units that don't overlap as far into each others' boundaries, look at YR.

What made Tib Sun appear so fondly to players over the years was the story, atmosphere, and the fact that you could play sim-base and get away with it pretty well. Oh yeah, and don't forget "Golden Age Syndrome."

The developers rushed the game, and overlooked extreme flaws as they made every ensuing patch, every one of which chipped away from the game's unique feel while replacing old imbalances with new ones. The reason the game ended up sucking was not the mechanics themselves, it was the irresponsible developers that never cared to balance what they were putting in, and tried to augment as little as possible in the patches until the expansion, which was FINALLY patched to fix the original critical isues.


Personally, I think that they should have kept the super spam-esque nature of C&C3 in, and not have gotten rid of it over the course of all of the patches and such. It may have been a bit overboard at the start, but it was what made the game stand out (and actually likable to some) in the first place. The fact that some campaign missions have effectively become unplayable thanks to all of the changes is proof of that.

[Derek]

Derek, there are a lot of strategy games out there that have proven that the singleplayer experience can make a difference. Rise of Nations, Galactic Civilizations II, Earth 2150, Company of Heroes, Warzone 2100, and yes, even C&C3 itself have proven that singleplayer sells just as good - hell, even Starcraft qualifies since the story and campaign were damn good.
Who's denying that singleplayer games exist? But the fact of the matter is what we need is not another generic singleplayer game. To be perfectly honest, I don't want to see another ****ing story in an RTS until someone makes a multiplayer-exclusive RTS and does it right (of course, I know I will, thats the sad part). Then someone can make the RTS version of HL, sans multiplayer, but the priorities are all mixed up right now.

That's like saying "Starcraft had Dragoons. That's about it." And in YR, the individual units have just as much depth as in Generals. Try the game out online and make nothing but tanks and engineers (on any map that isn't totally wide-open like Tournament Arena) with any faction, even the Soviets, and lets see how well you do against an enemy that does the same thing. Then, try mixing in the rest of the army.

You'll find soon enough that the only matches that tanks vs tanks is really that significant after T2 is Soviets vs Soviets.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot fodder :rolleyes: Now YR was an improvement, well mainly just Yuri (Siege Tank and Battle Fortress were interesting though). RA2 was linear. Say it with me, linear. It has all the strategic depth of candyland (and it looked like it too, but then again, so does RA3). Yeah, I've played it. I just about shot myself afterwards. If the boring gameplay doesn't kill you the atrocious maps will (not all of them, but many), but thats another story.

Puh-leez. If you look at the strategies involved, Generals was just Starcraft with C&C's unforgiving lethality and relative simplicity, with a few YR elements brought back and made-over for the sake of realism.
I'm not sure which you haven't played enough of: Generals or Starcraft, but since I know you I'll assume the latter. Starcraft and Generals have just about nothing in common. Starcraft is a macro game played on large maps. Generals is a micro game on small maps. Starcraft takes a long time, barring early rushes (which it does at least have), Generals is over very quickly. Now I won't deny that EA took elements of Starcraft to make Generals, thats part of the reason its so good, but that mostly amounted to a more efficient interface (well, at least where micro is concerned) and the revolutionary concept of units with abilities and upgrades. If Generals were Starcraft, every map would be played on Twilight Flame and players would build 10 factories at their base and skill would be measured by how well they can keep them all running. (Then again, some people do play it that way... :doped:)

And I believe Petroglyph's games are less like C&C for one reason: they could get sued if they carried too many of those mechanics over. Petroglyph is more than capable of finding flaws in the old games and fixing them (after all, all RTS communities do) but in this case, they don't have an opportunity to fix the old mechanics because they may face a lawsuit if they do.
Getting sued for copying gameplay mechanics? You've got to be kidding me. If that were the case Blizzard would have sued the asses off of every RTS publisher since 1999. Petroglyph could remake the entire CNC concept, as long as they wrote the code from scratch and gave it a different name they would be perfectly fine (and this is from a legal stand point, not just a practical one). No, the developers at Petroglyph know RTS (after all, several of them helped invent it). They know that the CNC mechanics are broken, or at the very least incredibly limiting. They left EA because they didn't want to work for them, but they also took the opportunity to escape from the retarded expectations of their so-called fans. (Now if only they could make a decent game with decent servers...)

Literalist alert.
No. Its physically impossible to know if you are good at micro if you have never tried. That would be like saying that you're bad at math because you've never done a math problem. For all you know you could be Euler if you actually tried. Its one thing to say you don't want to play online (your loss), its another to say you don't because you're not good enough, because you've never tried, thats circular reasoning.

Newbie alert. Back when Westwood was in charge, the story was pretty thought-out and unique.
Unique? Partially. Well thought-out? Not between games. And further the CNC story has not changed at all. Even when Westwood was in charge, TS was just a rehash of the first CNC's story (but with much better actors), and RA2 was essentially a rehash of RA1's story (but with much worse actors and far more cheese). If you want a story, go see DoW (immense backstory), SC (actually based on Warhammer 40K, like DoW, so thats sort of a cop out), or WC (umm, based on Warhammer. I'm noticing a pattern here...)

Hahaha you're funny. They're all far behind The Sims, GTA:SA, and HL2. If more people could run their games, the Bethesda games would be up there too, but it still outranks some of those games in popularity by a fair bit.
In sales, yes, but not in play time. This is why I love Xfire:
1. WoW
2. CoD4 Multiplayer
3. CoD2 Multiplayer
4. CS:S
5. BF2
6. Warhammer Online
7. WC3:TFT
8. Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (I seriously don't know how that game is on the list, I hate it!)
9. Guild Wars
10. Silk Road Online

You will, of course, notice that all those are multiplayer games (yes, TFT has a campaign, but thats not what people are playing, they're playing DotA). Lets see how far down the list we have to go to find a singleplayer game...ah, here it is, #22: GTA: San Andreas (interestingly, the next is Solitaire and #30). You see, singleplayer games get quick bursts of play, CoD4 Singleplayer was in the top 10 for a couple days after it came out, but people don't replay singleplayer games over and over. Thats why they have never even approached the top of the list for extended periods of time since multiplayer games first became common.

Wrong. All you did here was prove that singleplayer games lack replay value FOR YOU. There ARE other kinds of people out there, or more precisely, surrounding us, in case you don't know.
No, I believe I have presented sufficient evidence to prove that multiplayer games have more replay value than singleplayer games.

One day, you'll be able to appreciate the singleplayer aspects of games as more than just introductions to the multiplayer mechanics. Until then, enjoy those games that were designed just for people like you, we'll be over here happy with our bigger libraries.
Actually, one day you will realize that you are spending ten times as much time on multiplayer games as you are on singleplayer games. That as incredible as HL2 is, you wouldn't hesitate for a second to quit it and play TF2 instead.

[kyle]

Um, dudes.... the topic... you're off it.


I just want my ZH to work again. It is my favorite RTS on and offline. All I hope for in C&C's to come is the awe inspiring feel that I felt from Generals (If you don't agree with me then remember this from the game: A single raptor bust a scorpion with a well placed missile shot and the tank blows up. If that doesn't give you a feeling of satisfaction then I'm obviously nto like you. :P )

[SgtRicko]

Who's denying that singleplayer games exist? But the fact of the matter is what we need is not another generic singleplayer game. To be perfectly honest, I don't want to see another ****ing story in an RTS until someone makes a multiplayer-exclusive RTS and does it right (of course, I know I will, thats the sad part). Then someone can make the RTS version of HL, sans multiplayer, but the priorities are all mixed up right now.

Apparently, you've never heard of Sins of a Solar Empire. Although there's a story, it's there purely for the sake of background and flavor, nothing else. Check it out if you ever get a fancy for a 4x RTS game, it's pretty good!:)

[kyle]

Gonna download the demo for Sins when I go to bed, thanks mate ;)

Also. Something that I like about Generals thats odd... Its personal to me. Growing up one of my few fascinations was military hardware. I had books with Tank cross sections, aircraft histories, missile systems. I even had a giant 2000 page 3 book set all about Soviet Union era weapons and training styles. (Which I really should read some day)
And seeing a game which held allot of its units in close resemblance to actual, factual vehicles was intriguing for me. As opposed to a 'Mirage' tank.
I loved seeing the Humvee dash across an open terrain and strike a rocket buggy from behind. Or watch as a pathfinder picked off the men in a stinger site one by one. It was something I loved.
Sure RA and Tiberium were nice, and had some resembalence to real life. But it just wasn't as special to me.
Now that I wrote what I liked about Generals (Which, came out of NOWHERE!... oddly enough...) I will say what I, honestly now that I think about it, would like to see from Generals 2.


More Realism.

Not like Tom Clancy End War or anything. Just something that reminds me of something in real life.
More C-130's, Chinooks', Humvee's ect. A new scenario (No more GLA or China) maybe something based off of North Korea :chin:

Its just something I'm unsure of what I want. And I honestly will try to not form any ideas of what 'Generals 2' should be, as it would cause the next third party C&C to be crap if it isn't what I want.

[Daishi]

I'm not sure which you haven't played enough of: Generals or Starcraft, but since I know you I'll assume the latter. Starcraft and Generals have just about nothing in common. Starcraft is a macro game played on large maps. Generals is a micro game on small maps. Starcraft takes a long time, barring early rushes (which it does at least have), Generals is over very quickly. Now I won't deny that EA took elements of Starcraft to make Generals, thats part of the reason its so good, but that mostly amounted to a more efficient interface (well, at least where micro is concerned) and the revolutionary concept of units with abilities and upgrades. If Generals were Starcraft, every map would be played on Twilight Flame and players would build 10 factories at their base and skill would be measured by how well they can keep them all running. (Then again, some people do play it that way... :doped:)Did I mention that Generals was simplified? I did? Good.

So in that case, what do we have left? Microintensive units and generally medium-sized maps, as well as an improved micro interface.

Oh wow, that's EVERYTHING ELSE THAT MADE STARCRAFT SO GREAT. Face it, the only real invention here was the genpoint system - everything else was just Starcraft with the Terran construction system (plus C&C's capture/sell/repair) an economy that's more affected by the law of diminishing returns (hallo WC3), and RA2's blinding speed and simplicity. Make the factions play differently, especially in different matchups, and what do we get? Westwood presents Starcraft minus macroAPMfest. Simple and easy to learn while retaining the unparalleled faction distinction and microintensivity that made SC so great.

No. Its physically impossible to know if you are good at micro if you have never tried. That would be like saying that you're bad at math because you've never done a math problem. For all you know you could be Euler if you actually tried. Its one thing to say you don't want to play online (your loss), its another to say you don't because you're not good enough, because you've never tried, thats circular reasoning.K.

But my point stands. You took what he was saying literally and it impaired your ability to respond to it. And you're still at it... :(

And further the CNC story has not changed at all. Even when Westwood was in charge, TS was just a rehash of the first CNC's story, and RA2 was essentially a rehash of RA1's story.What?

No, I believe I have presented sufficient evidence to prove that multiplayer games have more replay value than singleplayer games. Not for everyone. [/Yahtzee]

Actually, one day you will realize that you are spending ten times as much time on multiplayer games as you are on singleplayer games.Not with my ****ty connection. These days the only multiplayer games I can play without constant dcing are UT2004 and Starcraft. So naturally I play more Morrowind (game hasn't gotten old for 3 years) and Civ IV.

But I'm pretty sure there's other people around here who share my opinion, possibly for similar reasons. My point was that your qualifications for replay value do not apply to everyone.

[Miles]

I would like Generals 2. With the same factions if needed but this time I hope they won't give Europe such a pathetic role. Basically, we get labelled as a bunch of losers who get invaded by poorly equipped terrorists and we cry for China's help.
But yeah, after RA3, Generals 2 would be really nice. The fact that it's so "recognizable" makes it fun. It's not too futuristic as Tiberium series, and it's not as absurd as Red Alert series (not saying the styles of Tib and RA are bad though, I like these too).

I still play ZH these days. And I still enjoy it. I would really miss rolling in a base with Overlords/Gatts/ECM tank and Helixes :)

As for Starcraft... never played hese so I can't say which I like more. However, I liked Warcraft 2 and if there is ever another Starcraft game, chances are big I'll play it.

[Thumper]

If you liked generals, please check out Mideast Crisis 2. I think you will like it more than generals. but it is made by people who apretiate the good aspects of generals.

And I would like to see a generals 2, and i would hope it does not have fmv's, but a full story. the original seems like it just said "now this is happening, deal with it."

And this topic spans 3 years. wow.

[Annihlator :D]

Not for everyone. [/Yahtzee]



ZeroPunctuation?

[Derek]

So in that case, what do we have left? Microintensive units and generally medium-sized maps, as well as an improved micro interface.

Oh wow, that's EVERYTHING ELSE THAT MADE STARCRAFT SO GREAT. Face it, the only real invention here was the genpoint system - everything else was just Starcraft with the Terran construction system (plus C&C's capture/sell/repair) an economy that's more affected by the law of diminishing returns (hallo WC3), and RA2's blinding speed and simplicity. Make the factions play differently, especially in different matchups, and what do we get? Westwood presents Starcraft minus macroAPMfest. Simple and easy to learn while retaining the unparalleled faction distinction and microintensivity that made SC so great.
lol, you still think that Generals is similar to Starcraft? They're very nearly polar opposites on the RTS spectrum. Generals has far more in common with WC3 than SC, and even thats quite a stretch. There is nothing more than a superficial similarity between the two. The various things you think make Generals the same as Starcraft are also found in nearly every other RTS game released since Warcraft II. They are merely standards that have been adopted because they work, Starcraft proved that they work, but that doesn't make everything else a Starcraft ripoff, no more than CS:S is a Quake ripoff.

[WNxAnthrax]

Global isnt describing the army, its describing the liberation. They intend to liberate the globe from the imperialist oppressors.

Oh, btw, Comanches in service, auroras, overlords, nukes that have a 500ft radius, stingers firing on tanks, lethal flashbangs... etc.

Comanchies are not in service. They were tested and cancled the development. Auora's aren't in service, Overlords arn't (Thou the concept behind it was from Nazi Germany)

Nukes have a 100M radious (or is it 10miles?) Stingers are Surface-to-air. Flashbangs aren't LETHAL.

Generals 2? No thanks. Generals was a half assed game by EA to test out a new engine.

Generals lagged like balls. I love how a 3GHZ, 2GB of Ram and a 7600GT lagged like ASS on most maps with the latest drivers back than for the game.

(Hell 1.5GHz Dual-Core w. 2GB of DDR2 ram and a 8600M GS and the game lags like balls on LOW)

Yes oh yes Generals was the PERFECT online multiplayer!

[Derek]

Comanchies are not in service. They were tested and cancled the development. Auora's aren't in service, Overlords arn't (Thou the concept behind it was from Nazi Germany)
Thats his point :rolleyes:

Generals lagged like balls. I love how a 3GHZ, 2GB of Ram and a 7600GT lagged like ASS on most maps with the latest drivers back than for the game.

(Hell 1.5GHz Dual-Core w. 2GB of DDR2 ram and a 8600M GS and the game lags like balls on LOW)

Yes oh yes Generals was the PERFECT online multiplayer!
lol, you need to check your computer for spyware or something. Generals was fairly demanding when it came out, by the time ZH was out any new average machine could play it on max resolution with no lag, I know this because this is the kind of computer I played it on. Generals only lagged on 1) ****ty custom maps with chokepoints that units could barely pass through, which caused hell for the otherwise perfect pathfinding and 2) ****ty no rush 30 games on Twilight Flame where people would build hundreds of units and throw them at each other (when played properly, 10 units is a large army).

So you basically just proved that you don't know **** about Generals.

[Miles]

The only thing that I find frustrating when playing online, are mismatches. Especially when they happen late game. But except for that, I barely ever encounter lag in human vs human games simply because I don't play laggy maps and we play aggressively not allowing each other to create like 100 units, toss them in the battle and continue sending wave after wave until someone outnumbers the other.
If you play the game online as it was intended to be played (rushing allowed and keep pressure) then you shouldn't have lag.

[WNxAnthrax]

Thats his point :rolleyes:


lol, you need to check your computer for spyware or something. Generals was fairly demanding when it came out, by the time ZH was out any new average machine could play it on max resolution with no lag, I know this because this is the kind of computer I played it on. Generals only lagged on 1) ****ty custom maps with chokepoints that units could barely pass through, which caused hell for the otherwise perfect pathfinding and 2) ****ty no rush 30 games on Twilight Flame where people would build hundreds of units and throw them at each other (when played properly, 10 units is a large army).

So you basically just proved that you don't know **** about Generals.

Oryl? mean to tell me vs brutals or online matches you've NEVER lagged on say maps like twilight flame? Sure. Yea i don't know shyt.
**** i remember playing people on a 3v3 and we had hardly 30 units each and it lagged so bad people quit. Coding was Awesome for generals!

Oh wait, your heavily "People vs people". Oh damn.

Guess i'm not worthy!

[Derek]

Oh wait, your heavily "People vs people". Oh damn.

Guess i'm not worthy!
lol.

No, no you're not. :wave:

[WNxAnthrax]

lol.

No, no you're not. :wave:


The same head-up-ass reponse I knew I would get from you.

Nice to know their some people who can't see daylight past multilayer games. You must go crazy without internet if heaven for bid it happens.

[Annihlator :D]

@ Thrax, stop being so touchy, he's elitist

@Derek, stop being so elitist, he's touchy

:p

[Derek]

Nice to know their some people who can't see daylight past multilayer games. You must go crazy without internet if heaven for bid it happens.
I would play games with good singleplayer, like HL2.

[SgtRicko]

I would play games with good singleplayer, like HL2.

Or Fallout 3, like I am!:p

[truefeel]

I have nothing against a new generals game, but it needs to have more bands with the real cnc game (the general games were always a bit of outcasts on that front). I know red alert 3 has also a few to nothing similarities concerning story line with the original cnc games, but that's just b/c it evolved out of it. generals was from the beginning not really connected to the genre of cnc (despite of being a great game).

I hear Derek's rage up to here in Belgium :p.

[Derek]

Or Fallout 3, like I am!:p
Yes, exactly!

@ Thrax, stop being so touchy, he's elitist

@Derek, stop being so elitist, he's touchy
http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/elitism.jpg


:p

[Bouncing Ball]

I am one of those stuborn people who refused to see generals as part of Command and Conquer.
Therefor I hardly played it, never got into it and skipped to Tiberian Wars.
So by now, I still hope the generals realm will die! :p
It won't happen as it's probably the only realm that EA sees as it's own so...

[truefeel]

I don't see it either part of command and conquer, but that does not influence my opinion about it (although I never have played it, maybe one day when I have the time for it). I do think it has a great singleplayer campaign and, just to ease Derek's mind :p, an awesome multiplayer design.

[jo_2]

Of all the C&C series Generals is the one I like least. I have played it and finished it (not Zero Hour) on all 3 campaigns, but it's nothing like say RA2.

Of course, you guys are right that it was kind of an outcast really. The two things I can say in its favour is great (but dull and dark) graphics and much more realism than the other c&C titles. But still, being able to conjure up 5 rebels at the click of a mouse wherever you point in the map is way worse than teleportation in RA. At least there they explain it away with the chronosphere.