The RPG Maker Resource Kit

RMRK General => Video Games and Entertainment => Topic started by: &&&&&&&&&&&&& on December 24, 2007, 10:10:23 AM

Title: Command and conquer: generals
Post by: &&&&&&&&&&&&& on December 24, 2007, 10:10:23 AM
I was wondering, am I the only CnC fan that hated Command and conquer: generals?
It should've been named "Not a Command and conquer game, but we're calling it Command and conquer to make more money".
The story had nothing to do with Red alert. It didn't play like a CnC.

discuss
Title: Re: Command and conquer: generals
Post by: Link on December 24, 2007, 03:50:58 PM
I liked it, it never had ANYTHING said about red alert so i dont think that is a problem, it was basically a new CnC with real-ish troops, it was a new CnC in it's own right,
Tibiruim wars/Red alert/Generals.

Title: Re: Command and conquer: generals
Post by: &&&&&&&&&&&&& on December 24, 2007, 11:13:54 PM
I liked it, it never had ANYTHING said about red alert so i dont think that is a problem, it was basically a new CnC with real-ish troops, it was a new CnC in it's own right,
Tibiruim wars/Red alert/Generals.



That's my point.
Title: Re: Command and conquer: generals
Post by: Pathbinder on December 24, 2007, 11:57:05 PM
It's EA's fault.

Quote from: Wikipedia quoted:
Although Generals is officially listed as a Command & Conquer game, many fans of the Command & Conquer series were upset over various changes implemented for the game.

Since Generals was such a departure from the Command & Conquer universe (both the Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert storylines), there were mixed reactions amongst fans to the developers' use of the words "Command & Conquer" in the title of Generals, due in large part to Generals lacking the distinctive C & C style of gameplay. For example, in every other Command & Conquer RTS game released, players have had full motion video briefings (although there are still briefings), which tie the game's missions and plot together. The interface for construction of all structures and units has been a tabbed scrollbar to the extreme right of the screen (as opposed to the Warcraft style of producing different units at their respective buildings), and there has been no "peon" or "worker" unit (a unit needed to build other structures).

The game mechanics display an influence from other RTS games, such as Blizzard Entertainment's StarCraft and the more recent Warcraft III. The control bar is now at the bottom and several units have special action buttons (cfr. The Warcraft series 'magic spells'). Many units' attack and defense can also be upgraded in specific buildings, much like in Blizzard's RTS games. There are no engineers, but buildings can be captured by upgraded infantry. Unlike in the previous C&C games, the game allows players to build as many superweapons as they have the funds for; however the game has an option to limit a player to one superweapon of each type in skirmish and multiplayer mode. In addition, the musical score is dynamic ambient music for each side, instead of the multiple-track soundtrack of all previous Command & Conquer games, and was the first game of the series not to feature the music of Frank Klepacki. As a result of these changes, there are debates among fans as to whether Generals is a true Command & Conquer game.

I like Generals because of its new fun factor, but I hate it for the same reason as you do. EA f---ed up the CnC title because Westwood let them(EA Pacific made Generals, not Westwood).
Title: Re: Command and conquer: generals
Post by: Lord Dante on January 06, 2008, 05:48:38 AM
I agree with the general consensus that it's a fun RTS, but not a fun CnC game. The gameplay is dramatically different... Obviously...But still fun.
Title: Re: Command and conquer: generals
Post by: Krebel on January 11, 2008, 05:11:23 AM
I feel that CnC Generals was an attempt to uplift the series from its roots to something new. In an essence it worked, but for the diehard CnC fans, they were all upset because of the changes. I love change, but I love good descions more, I do not think it was the best Decision for EA to do what they did with Generals. I think it is a good basis for a completely different series.
Title: Re: Command and conquer: generals
Post by: Venom on January 31, 2008, 08:05:04 PM
it was okay... it was atleast different than red alert more of in our world not some alternate future.
the worst thing about it is that the resourses recover at such a slow rate. the good side is there is a macross/gundam mod for it
Title: Re: Command and conquer: generals
Post by: Kefka on March 06, 2008, 12:39:20 AM
I thought  that the game was great. But it was mentally retarded if you can consider it to be a CnC. Great game change it  to Generals and leave out Command and  Conquer because we know its not a CnC game. I think EA is retarded for making this game because CNC it is a series and General has no relevance to the actual games. That is why they are retarded but forgave them when they made CnC 3:Tiberium wars.