Command and Conquer Generals Released
A reader writes:"Febuary 11th marks the day that the future of the Command and Conquer universe will be determined. Electronic Arts has taken over the franchise and has even shut down Westwood Studios. Many of us will remember Westwood for such games as Dune II. They basically invented the RTS market which makes this a sad time. Electronic Arts today launches what they are hoping will be the WarCraft 3 killa. This game along with SimCity 4 is what EA is counting on. Here is an amazing 430 screenshot pictorial of the Generals single player missions. "
...don't ask me how, but I live in SouthEast Asia(if that'll give you a clue).
My initial comments, based on playing Skirmish mode:
- Effects are okay (nice explosions) but I think some of the animations esp. for the personnel suck. I think the 3D engine is solid, but not really ground breaking. Not sure if the terrain is deformable (haven't played around with the superweapons as much), but I don't it's a big loss that it isn't. Most, if not all structures are certainly destroy-able.
- Tech tree isn't that deep, although the Experience Points system is something different. I've been able to beat opponents using the plain old tank rush, but it's not as bad (or good, depending on how you look at it) as in previous versions.
- Lack of previous version's cut scenes (no more Kari Wuhrer --- damn!!!)
Tweaking the rules.ini file kept me playing the game for a while after the original novelty had warn off. making harvesters mostly invicible was a variation that was great in multiplayer (for a change anyway). I think later incarnations (red alert etc) added this as a game option.
Tweaking also meant we could change the game just enough so that the normal strategies (light tank storm etc in later incarnations) didn't work so well, and we'd all have to invent new ones.
The map designer in redalert was also great! it added so much value to the game in multiplayer mode.
In the campaigns described on the site, you can:
1) Destroy a nuclear warhead storage facility in China ("The dragon awakes...")
2) Destroy a damn in Shymkent, Kazakhstan.
3) Destroy all enemy forces in Iraq ("Operation: Final Justice")
Can't they just use make-believe places and situations? I find this kind of stuff offensive.
If a company in China or Russian or wherever released a game about invading and destroying things in the USA, I'm sure many people in the USA - and especially elements of the press - would be outraged. Imagine if an Arabic country released a game like this - many people would see it as inciting hatred towards the USA.
Plea to game makers - please make the baddies aliens and dragons or robots.
Electronic Arts today launches what they are hoping will be the WarCraft 3 killa.
;).
Umm.. I thought Warcraft 3 already killed itself. Maybe I'm just getting too old now, but EVERYONE played the original it seems, but everyone I've talked to that I know hated 3. That's the nice thing about piracy. Everyone I knew back in the day pirated Warcraft, then went out and bought it because it rocked, but if people pirate a game they don't like they won't buy it.
Now, if they wanted to try and kill something I would suggest going after MOO, but then again this is EA(Electronic Assoles) we are talking about, so it may be good that they set their expectations low
weren't there 3 EotB's? Either way, those were some AWESOME games, and it's really too bad they're gone. I remember how amazing those graphics seemed... Some things actually looked shiny, and everything that was supposed to be smooth looked smooth... it was astounding to me!!
~Jon~
This space for rent, inquire within.
The 3. EOB was not produced by Westwood, not as nice and polished as EOB2, but not too bad. But awesome they were, btw I belive I probably can nawigate most levels of EOB2 without maps still.
I remember playing Dune 2 on the Amiga 500 & 2000 ages ago. I imported it from the UK for about 25 USD and it came on 4 (or so) floppies because CD-ROM drives were rarer then diamonds back then. It was a great game on the Amiga though, with music, in game sound and even different voices as you ordered your units around a bit. That is where my addiction to RTS games began, the moment I ordered my first Harkonen (sp?) trooperer to engage some Atreides infantry attacking my precious big red lump of pixels which was my harvester. All I remember after that is making HUGE bases that are completely walled with rocket turrets at every corner and the fact I never really finished the game because the two vs one end levels were too hard for me back then :(
Great game and pretty original back then as well. Receives a well deserved place amoung my personal RTF "Hall of Fame" which also includes "Total Annihilation" (despite the cheap name) and "Homeworld"
Hate me!
Sun Tzu's Art of War is also the first that I can remember. Played that day after day. You had swordmen and archers. Maybe Pikemen too. Top down 2D view. 4 colours only. As you moved your men around the map, the different terrain affected speed and offense/defense hiderances. You simply had to kill all opposing units.
It was followed up a year or maybe two years later by Art Of War At Sea. Independently maneuver your sailing vessels and fire their cannons (left or right barrage only). Classic elemntery naval tactics. 4 or maybe even 8 colours.
A little too sophisticated for most people at the time.
You can laugh without eating a sandwhich, but you can do both if bring one.
And I see a ton of criticism about what this game does "wrong", especially when compared to other games. So, this post is a little bit different....
:/ ....
First of all, I've only played the multiplayer game, and I would not be surprised if it far outpaced any parts of the single player campaign. There's a ton of people complaining about the lack of story, but I really see no need for one. It's not as if the games of Tic-Tac-Toe or Chess needed them. The focus is square on strategy, not extras.
As far as using "real" countries and events, this game succeeds in using a Holywood style of presentation. Yes, the Chinese talk with an accrent and the GLA (Terrorists) have carbombers that say "I love a crowd", but the USA are far more gung-ho than their real counterparts. It's blatantly over-the-top... Heck, to make money after normal supplies are depleted or destroyed, the Chinese rely on hackers to steal a little bit of money from the internet. The GLA salvage destroyed bits of enemy units to upgrade their own.
It is a great multiplayer game... The various factions seem to me to be much more distinct than other RTS games, yet still balanced. Playing locally with friends (at a gaming center with 5 copies), we've had tons of fun with this thing, especially on the unique team-game dynamic. When USA and GLA team up, you've got the biggest anthrax-spreading superweapon on one side, and radar on the other side. Hard to beat, but I send my Chineese overlord tanks anyway while occupying the city with a ton of tank hunter troops and hackers.
Anyway, I love this game, and I'm seeing far more negative criticism of this game than it deserves, and there's no clear reason why, at least from where I sit. This is one of the few games lately that's been worth my money..... even if it is going to EA
Back in the 80s on my C64 those were the good ol days. God I love that game.