Slashdot Mirror
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. "
Hmmm, it's like the tenth post, and the site is not reacting.
:-/
The pop-ups loaded though.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Sniff...Westwood also did the two Eye of the Beholders in the beginning of the '90s.
anyone know if these are more *relistic?* than the crappy little explosions in red alert for instance..
;)
also anyone reamaber tweaking the configuration files for red alert and arming a dog with an anti aircraft missile and the such, hope you can do the same with this
moo
I used to be a big fan of C&C. Problem is, Red Alert was just like the original, Tiberian Sun was just like Red Alert, Red Alert II was just like the original Red Alert. Each game has new graphics and different names for the same things.
Well, EA has made some good games but for me it's more and more a game-studio killer, buying other game makers and shutting them down (more or less)...
The interview with Lord British that was posted recently on /. gives some insight into EA's thinking: make money fast, even at the cost of quality, it seems.
Very sad...
Deleted my Win98 partition a while ago; I'm hoping this doesn't rely too much on DirectX 8.1...
I always enjoyed Red Alert. From the previews I've seen, Generals looks like it might be even more fun. We'll see.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
hardly worth playing the game now...
What would Brian Boitano do?
this is from what i can understand a completly new engine, look at the graphics.
Bunch of movies here.
the warez peeps played it and came up with some additional information not contained in this slashvertisement...
:p
10 hours playtime for all 3 campaigns
uncounted number of bugs
AI is.. Not So Good(tm)
there are no movies furthering the storyline
then again there is no real storyline
its built on chinas/arab terroristi stereotypes, us are great peeps though
worst c&c ever.
so im off playing dune2.. the dos one you know
I thought they intended to reduce the entire game market to Sims and Sports. But I forgot that there is one other category just as boring as Sims and Sports -- the C&C Clone category!
This increases the diversity of EA's offerings by 50%!
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
...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!!!)
Here is an amazing 430 screenshot pictorial
Hssssssss... BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!
they are hoping will be the WarCraft 3 killa.
Yeah, ok...Word up, homey.
Sheesh.
Bowie J. Poag
Oh Battletech, The Crescent Hawk's Inception (and Revenge) were my first ever Westwood games, and in fact my first ever PC games back in 1988 on a CGA monitor and an XT i believe! The Crescent Hawk's Inception was one of the best RPGs i've played, but of course playing it now only takes a few hours to win. I'd love to see a huge, modern version of that game instead of today's run-around-and-kill-stuff-in-a-huge-robot Battletech games. Here's to more science fiction RPGs!
Don't forget Westwood also did a whole bunch of the early AD&D games (whether that's a good thing or not is perhaps debateable). They did California Games - those wacky surfer dudes with their hacky sacks :-) Kyrandia, Eye of the Beholder II, Lands of Lore (featuring our beloved Jean-Luc Picard).
I have a feeling Westwood were even around in the 8-bit days, though going under a different name, perhaps. Were they Ocean? Does anyone remember?
I got a sig so you would remember me.
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.
The original Dune was hardly an RTS. While there were certain strategic elements to it...there was little that was actually realtime. It played more like a turn-based, strategic RPG.
yrs,
Ephemeriis
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
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.
ah yes the map editor, made many levels with that.. however due to running on a 486 dx66 was slow to keep going between the game and the map editor.. was the same with editing the rules.ini, had to exit out to change it then load the game back up and test the hack..
;)
they really dont make games like they use to
moo
It was Virgin Interactive together with Westwood Studio's (or maybe Westwood was a part of Virgin?).
The original Dune had splash screens during the introduction movie with both Virgin Interactive and Westwood logo's.
Too bad Westwood is down... I really enjoyed their games and I spended lots and lots of hours on them.
sig(h)
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
check it out over at transgaming.com
So this is what the Pentagon needed to attack Iraq ? We can expect an attack any day now !
"Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
Also in the article, they talk a bit about sports games, saying it's the perfect franchise because fans will repurchase essentially the same game year after year to get updated player rosters. Is this actually true? I can understand buying the same game every couple years, as they add new features, and you migrate from one generation of consoles to the next. But are there really people who buy Madden 2000, Madden 2001, Madden 2002 and so forth all for the same system?
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Does the game come with a free P4 cpu? Otherwise I might need an upgrade...
Informative? Put down the pipes, moderators. The original Dune was in fact an RPG. You played Paul Atreides and walked around talking to Leto, Stilgar, etc. There weren't really any traditional puzzles to solve or battles to fight, you just met with Fremen, spoke to them, found out a little more about what was going on, then set them to work mining spice or training for war. Toward the end of the game you told all your Fremen to attack the Harkonnen palace, and that was that. It wasn't the most interesting game in the world, but it was undeniably one of the most immersive. The graphics and music were absolutely stunning at the time, and remain breathtaking even today. We're talking 320x240x256 VGA, but the color palettes were perfectly chosen, and the attention to detail when flying the ornithopter over sand and rock formations was second-to-none. I highly recommend downloading it from an abandonware site near you. If you get the CD-ROM version it has full speech throughout the whole game, with perfect pronunciation and acting on a par with a LucasArts adventure game. One of the best "art" games ever, in my opinion.
Dune 2, however, was a total different kettle of fish. That truely was the first real-time strategy where you build units, move them around, click back and forth real fast to avoid getting eaten by a sandworm, etc. There were other real-time strategies before that - the one that sticks in my mind is an old (80s era) CGA game called Sun Tzu's Art of War or something, but nothing broke through like Dune 2 did. Everyone liked Dune 2. The difficulty was very well-balanced, the interface was simple (unlike today's 25-hotkey RTS games) and the music and sound effects worked very cleverly with the game - subtlely changing with action on the screen. I think this was one of the first truly successful (read subtle) implementations of interactive music.
All in all, Dune has had a great time of it on home computers. That said, i haven't played Dune 2000 or the new C&C Dune. Anyone got reports?
I got a sig so you would remember me.
Isn't that the POINT of a sequel game? Keep the basic game play, which people like, intacted but also add as many new features as you can. Each game had new units with differant special abilities changing the game play just enough to keep it fun and fresh. Yet they kept most of the basic units in some form or another so the learning curve would be small for an old vet.
Game sequels are the game programers remaking the same game to push the latest hardware and add new things that at the time of the orignal game where not possible.
Don't dog on a C&C game for being a C&C game.
I'm not sure what you mean by Dune II was made with Virgin... It was developed by Westwood and Virgin published it (much like EA is publishing Westwood games now). Dune I, on the other hand, was developed by Cryo though also published by Virgin. It seems Virgin had the Dune license, because at the end of Dune I there's a "teaser" saying something like "Coming soon... DUNE II!" I would guess that due to poor reviews of the Cryo game, Virgin kicked the franchise over to Westwood.
I got a sig so you would remember me.
anyone remember syndicate, did it hit the shops before Dune 2?
Dune was nothing like Dune 2, it was closer to a clasic adventure game.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Heh yeah, archers rocked the Casbah :-) I'm glad someone else remembers it and it wasn't just some figment of my imagination. Sure it wasn't realtime? In my memory it was something like... you could see all your little guys slowly moving around the level. But maybe that was between turns? Hmm.
I got a sig so you would remember me.
Can you people PLEASE turn down the political correctness? Some of us like real-life scenarios, because it provides a kind of voyeuristic pleasure to simulate, however unrealistically, the killing of America's enemies.
Why do you think Return to Castle Wolfenstein is so popular? Yeah, the engine and the gameplay are good; but honestly, it's just so morally and emotionally satisfying to shoot Nazis in the brain. Killing a computer representation of Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden or that wacko Kim Jong Il would be just as fulfilling, I'd imagine.
[ home ]
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!
it is a huge rpg game at sea, somehow like privateer though. i played sea dogs and i loved that game.
sea dogs 2 should be released soon.
http://seadogs2.bethsoft.com/
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Dune 2000 was simply a graphics redo of Dune II. Otherwise, the game was the same (pretty damn good).
A lot of people panned Emperor: Battle For Dune. Personally, I thought it was excellent. The storylines were well-told (Michael Dorn plays the head of Atreides), and I like the involvement that the lesser houses play both in the story and in the game (Ix, Tlielaxu, Fremen, Sardukar, and the Spacing Guild).
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
There are no naval units in it or carpetbombing, even though the into movie shows them.
I'm gonna have to say that this one looks like it was released half-baked.
Westwood did not basdicaly invent the RTS. They devoloped some of the first RTS's but so did Blizzard. No one company invented RTS, a variety of sources led to its creation.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
They basically invented the RTS market
They might have come up with the name 'Real-Time Strategy' (mind you, I didn't realize they had before today), but I doubt they invented the genre. As soon as I read that my mind went back to games I was playing well before any that WWS had made.
Here's a read
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
I agree completely. I was a big Red Alert player (never did C&C. I didn't play for a few years till a friend got Tiberian Sun and challenged me a to a LAN match (after he'd been playing it for a few days). I beat him in the first game I played - never touched Tiberian Sun before. It was so similar to Red Alert, all my old strategies came flooding back to me, and I picked up the few subtle differences between the two as I went along.
Complete waste of time releasing subsequent versions that are so similar.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Even at high resolutons (>1280x1024), the zoom is horrible. When fully zoomed out, you are limited to such a small portion of the map. I like the 3d but let us zoom out just a little bit more. Also the maps are SMALL! You end up taking over 1/2 the map when you play the game. If you try to play with 6 players you realize the 8person maps are still too small. Overall a good game, I think they did an OK job.
Over all the game is a masterpiece. I was one of the 3000 'preview testers' and now finally have my hands on the retail copy. The game doesn't go overboard with the 3D engine - it's really a part of the gameplay. It runs great compared to the beta too! Even my brother, who is running a very lowly P3 933 (with SDRAM no less) is able to get a great frame rate using the low detail setting.
Unit balance is good, and what's nice this time around is the true uniqueness of each army. The scrappy GLA terrorists need to be run as such or you'll get clobbered by the USA and China. China's units are slower, so you need to adjust your strategy accordingly. And the USA needs expensive stuff (and a lot of it) to conquer the other armies.
Multiplayer is where this game really shines.. Although I get my sorry ass schooled day in and day out, it's still fun :). The biggest mistake that EAP has made thus far is the exclusion of support for NAT routers. Their messageboards are chock full of 12 year old ingrates unable to get their game working. Hopefully they'll get this thing fixed so their bitching and moaning will stop once and for all.
www.lonseidman.com
They used to be one of the best....used to be pretty much any game I bought was Origin, Bullfrog, Sierra(et al), or Blizzard...well we all know whats happened...
I really miss Origin...Lucas Arts has me placated for a while with the X-wing and Tie games, but they seem to have abandoned the space shooter...I am just itching for a good space Shooter like wing commander again, but alas....
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
There are a couple of reviews of Generals out. This review from Gamespot gave it a 8.9 of 10. Not too bad.
forma3
Just like many recently released over-hyped nth sequel crap.
I saw it while peering over the shoulder of somebody I don't know but they say he's a warez guy.
It plays sort of like the original, true - but it has numerous faults.
System requirements are insane, and it does not look it. I mean, do you really need 2x the horsepower to reproduce Warcraft 3 & AoM's visuals?
The "story" (or since there's no story to speak of, the "setting") looks like a certain Texan's wet dream.
Units and sides are stereotypical and completely lack imagination. I mean, the arabs have a suicide bomber unit! Wow, who came up with THAT idea? Give him a medal.
Is it supposed to be fun to drive my shiny US tanks into a desert town after having the game take out all their defenses automatically with a number of combat helicopters and send the civilians flee in terror (oops there's that word in a weird context) while taking no casualties - not even shot at?
If this dud makes or breaks the C&C franchise, well, I have bad news.
Surely EA didn't take the people who work there and kill them as a "severance" package, did they?
Studios don't create great games, people do.
Agreed, but I suppose you can say pretty much the same thing for WarCraft, WarCraft2, StartCraft, WarCraft3,... Sure, Blizzard made some pretty big changes, but face it, isn't the interface the same? Don't all four games have a catapult device?
Needless to say, I would agree that Westwood does repeat itself far too much. I loved RedAlert, then bought TiberianSun. Although the graphics were better, I had to force myself to finish the single player missions. After that, I never played the game again. I can't say I'll miss Westwood as much as I miss CaveDog (Total Anihillation) and Auran (the original Dark Reign). I guess all I have left is Blizzard, and I can honestly say that I still like StarCraft far more than WarCraft3. An itch on the back of my neck tells me that StarCraft2 will be a disappointment, but Blizzard hasn't failed me yet...
On a side note, the music from Westwood will be the most missed. Maybe it's just me, but the soundtrack from RedAlert (and expansions) was the best music score I've ever heard. I mean I actually enjoyed LISTENING to the music while playing the game. I know the music was all techno, but it was perfect for that type of game. Sure, Blizzard and CaveDog had some nice music, but Westwood's music really pumped you up. I love StarCraft, but I NEVER listen to the music anymore. For most games, the music is background noise. To me, the westwood music was background enjoyment. I use to time my attacks to the "Hell March" tune. At the time, I just that it was the greatest.
I've had the full game since last Friday (I'd rather not reveal my sources, yadda yadda). I've played through the China campaign, and would've played more online but since the full game wasn't released until yesterday (and I can't pick up my copy until today incidentally), there was no one on there :P
So, here are my thoughts:
* I love the idea that cutscenes are gone.
They are cheesy, and it would take Spielberg to make them even resemble TV Mini-Series status. I mean, did anyone actually care about those overracted scenes and goofy costumes? Tiberian Sun wasn't the worst (Red Alert 1 + 2 takes that honor), but they certainly make the game more serious, and the beautiful engine makes the most of showing what's going on and what you need to do.
* I'm so glad they broke the formula but didn't break the game.
This refers to the fact that they took the command bar from the right to the bottom of the screen, and now you have the ability to minimize it (why isn't this in Warcraft 3?). Also, they quit that "Primary" crap that haunted old C&C's forever, and now you can have 5 different barracks on seperate hotkeys. This was not previously available in past versions of C&C.
* The game is SO BALANCED. It is unbelievably balanced. I was so impressed how the rocket launchers now have much more effect on tanks, yet the infantry can take out rocket launcher units in no time flat. Defenses and offensive units strike an excellent balance, and this is probably because the game was delayed, and the online beta test was a rousing success. This just goes to show you that if you keep the game in beta long enough to try it out on many different systems, and people find the weaknesses and strenghts of all the different factions, you'll strike a perfect balance that never upsets the gameplay or the fun. This is huge, and what might make C&C Generals a classic (I can't wait for the Expansion Pack/Sequel).
* The engine is glorious.
It's not Jaw Dropping, it's no Doom 3, but its damn good and better than Warcraft 3's in my opinion. Again, thanks to in-game cutscenes utilizing what they've already got, you cut down on the cheese and can really showcase what's truly great about the game. The environmental effects are truly staggering. I just cannot explain how cool it is to be attacking a garrisoned tower, blowing it up, and then watching it fall on the rest of the enemy forces, crushing them instantly. Geek greatness is found here!
Anyway, to sum up, the more I play it the more I like it. They've finally put some of the most balanced gameplay into an RTS (even War3 can't touch this one), and the engine is a delight. Truly a notable game, and I'm so glad they delayed it to add functionality, gameplay and a graphics polish that the difference between the God Awful Beta Test (if you've played it, rest assured the final game is Much Much Better) and the Final Game is truly Night and Day.
Just wondering if EA came up with the "invade Iraq" 1st mission, but it seems out of place really, consider 90% of the game overall takes place in Kazakhstan. I think it was a ploy by EA to be compliant with Dubya initiatives. Of course I'm pretty sure the mission outlines were made many months ago, so it wouldn't be too hard to keep the same map, and change the mission name and the intro cutscene to say "Afghanistan" or "West Bank" or whatever they wanted, but the fact they chose Iraq is kind of disturbing. Not that it matters, since I "support" terrorists by sometimes smoking marijuana (it's bad mmm'kay) that is "home grown"...Oh well.
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
This game suffers from the same thing SimCity 4 does - Rediculous end use requirements. I have what I think is a pretty damn decent system w/ a 1.6 Ghz processor and geforce 4. To have it stutter constantly is rediculous. What the hell is wrong with EA lately?
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.
Yeah, well they tried something a little different with Dune: Emperor and it pretty much failed. 3d engine, original structures and unit types. Same with C&C Renegade. Completely new concept on a crappy 3D engine. Didn't sell well off the mark so support and patches have been miserable. Add that to the one of the flakiest online systems around and you can see Westwood has been losing some diehard fans for years now.
Most of the generals beta-testers I know won't be buying the game. They've done a poor job integrating user suggestions and nobody is expecting them to fix much after release.
I know they need to focus on the successful products, but they can only burn their fans so many times. Maybe will bring some changes, but I doubt it.
"Starcraft blows."
The best selling RTS of all time blows. Uh-huh.
Game sequels are the game programers remaking the same game to push the latest hardware and add new things that at the time of the orignal game where not possible.
Actually, typical game sequels are the publishers/developer shops trying to make some "easy" money. A lot of the work is already done: name recognition, game design, internal toolsets. Some of the actual game code might be "reusable" as well, with some tweaking (or none, depending on the game).
I've worked in the game industry in the past, and this has been my experience... YMMV.
All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
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
Agreed, but I suppose you can say pretty much the same thing for WarCraft, WarCraft2, StartCraft, WarCraft3,... Sure, Blizzard made some pretty big changes, but face it, isn't the interface the same? Don't all four games have a catapult device?
Warcraft 2 added boats and a third resource to harvest. Starcraft had three very different races. Warcraft 3 with its unit cap at 90 and the heros requires a very different strategy.
It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
a) Canada Rising: 500 years from now the Canadians are all that is left from humanity. The English tribe must destroy the French tribe. Both parties have psychological weapons in the form of squads bad female teenager singers capable of destroying the enemy troops morale.
b) Maori Revenge: The secret Maori army, developed for centuries disguised as a rugby team, has taken New Zealand and now are on the way to Australia. As the Maori leader your mission is to free Australia from all white people.
c) Antarctica: The war for clean water reachs its finnal stage: The joint Israeli-Saudi Arabia army face the South American forces for the last untapped water resources.
d) The Fourth World War, Einstein version: armed with sticks and stones, Americans, Chinese and Russians fight for World domination.
I totally agree. After a month of playing Warcraft III, I found myself incredibly bored of it. The engine is amazing and the graphics are great, but it just isn't as fun. Lately, I've gone back to Warcraft II bnet edition and Starcraft.
The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
I've never been a big fan af any RTS. I always found them too time consuming, that what I love about FPS's I can get some quick action after a long day of work but not have to sit at the computer for hours and hours trying to finish a game. Sure you can save it, but when you come back to it your train of thought at the time is lost. But one game that I could not get away from and played till I beat it, skipping classes or running out the door at the last second, is Homeworld 1/2. Never did understand why that game was not a big hit. It is the best single player game I have ever played. I would love to see a Homeworld 3.
Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
I'm not a fan of C&C - I've only played the original and Red Alert a few missions each. What I'm wondering is, what is offered in terms of online possibilities? Is there even a battle.net equivalent for C&C? I play Warcraft III obsessively (not as obsessively as a lot of other people), but I doubt I would if there weren't a battle.net. Campaigns/single player modes are BORING AS HELL (except for reminiscing with classic games). So anyway, someone please enlighten me as to the online prospective for Generals.
Every time you read this, I am going against my principles.
Syr GameTab.com
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.
Of course you don't see the need for a storyline if you're playing only the multiplayer campaign. Stories get in the way of multiplayer (usually). However, there's no reason for there not to be a story in the single player game. There should be a reason to press on to the next mission besides having a new place to blow shit up. Not having a story in a single player campaign makes the game seem rushed and half-assed.
The included world editor is quite simple to use, if someone with a new map you don't have hosts the game, your game will automatically download it.
My brother's P3-933 runs great set to 800*600 @ low detail.
www.lonseidman.com
Herzog Zwei is the earliest RTS that I know of.
Yeah, well they tried something a little different with Dune: Emperor and it pretty much failed.
I'd say they did the same bloody thing _over_ and _over_ and _over_ again in Dune:Emperor. Missions were not unique, rehashing the same maps got old, and it was real flacky on my laptop until one of the later patches fixed the graphics issues. Anything 'new' with units retreating was lost on me... What a waste of time/money.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Gary Dahl sold over 1.5 million pet rocks in the 1970s -- I guess those rocks must have been pretty damn exciting since they sold so many right DirkDaring?
I don't want to pay another $50 to play the same game I already have in my library. Sequels should keep the style of gameplay the same, with similar (if not identical) hotkeys but a completely different storyline/graphics/units. Blizzard has done a pretty good job of this with their WC/SC series...you can almost consider SC a sequel to WC...same style, similar hotkeys but completely different storyline with different characters and a different means to an end.
I want something that changes my strategies from the original game. Now, I haven't played the newest C&C game, but I'm guessing you're going to be tank rushing a lot.
--trb
What I'm talking aboutis the careful use of resources...... In MAX, your anti-ground aircraft (good for killing tanks, turrets, etc) had only 4 ammo shots. So you had few of these planes, and few shots with each before they had to go back and re-supply. Heck, your towers had supply problems unless linked to a supply unit. It was half RTS and half turn.. bu sxcrap that.. I want an RTS where you can probe the enemy, then sit back a sec and think "how can I used" my "mixed arms" to get through that big well thought out defense? So I'll need a couple of these to square agains tthat, and a couple of these to get through over there.. some actual strategy.
First of all, this is a REAL TIME STRATEGY game. That's two parts... real time (speed) and strategy. You have to have both down to be a truly excellent player. You say you want just the Strategy part. That's fine. Why don't you play chess? or diplomacy? or civilization? Or any other turn based game. People constantly whine about people who emplore mass this and mass that strategies in RTS. The fact that they keep getting owned by them is because they want to sit back for a second and think of the best strategy. Think about it - if there is someone out there who can think of the best strategy instantly, how would you expect to beat him? It's not the games fault - he can just think of good strategies and execute them with ruthless efficiency. If you ever watch replays of top games, you'll see unbelievable things - micromanaged units of a disparate choosing that make those who love the game cry. There is a LOT of strategy that can go into a game - you just have to learn how to do it optimally fast. Don't whine about mass whateverers, just learn how to do those mass whatever strategies, and then learn how to beat them - yes, they can definitely be beaten with non-mass strategies.
Every time you read this, I am going against my principles.
Please, please, stop beating it! (the horse, that is).
While I loved playing the first few games in this franchise, I personally think it's time for the madness to stop. Buying this game will only encourage EA to come out with more $50 retooled clones of old games.
__
I own several EA games, and intend never to by another one. One of the best driving games I have played, Need For Speed III is an EA game. It was released shortly before Windows 2000, and EA have made no effort to see that it runs in 2k, so I m unable to play it. Wonderful. Red Alert 2 was released after Windows 2000 and the network code relies on some 'features' of the win9x IPX stack (yes, it doesn't use TCP/IP, unless you use Westwood Online) and hence doesn't work in 2k. If they can't support their products on a mainstream operating system, then I have no intention of using them, since I know that the next time I upgrade my OS, my game CDs will become coasters. I dread to think what their Linux support is like.
The thing that really irritates me about the company though, is that they release patches for their games which feature tweaks to improve balance etc. but don't actually make the game work.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Heh, I have some guys I work with that would have nominated me "least likely to be /.'d"
- transnote at renegadegenerals dot com
Back in the 80s on my C64 those were the good ol days. God I love that game.
Well, yeah, especially in the way that pretty much all RTS's are about the same. But we keep buying them to see new eye candy with the units and get different missions. I think there is more diversity among the different races/factions in one game than between games.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
> 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 stuff.
I remember making a row of 20 sonic tanks, followed by another row of 20 rocket launchers
and then going through the last mission and losing just 2 or 3 of them in total. Of course, I had to move them one square ahead one at the time.
After that it was time for Dune II: The Destruction (an mod) that made everything harder.
Isn't that the POINT of a sequel game? Keep the basic game play, which people like, intacted but also add as many new features as you can.
No! No! I disagree and I hate when they do that!
I would agree is that the basic game play should be the same, but the thing should be SIMPLIFIED!
Make the user interface CLEANER! (Example: I am so glad that in Civ III I no longer have to move the fucking camels around)
Emphasize the things that people LIKED about the game, and remove the fiddly bits that people did NOT like. (Example: allowing you to let an AI "advisor" do things that you don't want to control manually)
Simplified doesn't mean "not improved" though. Things that are good can be HEIGHTENED and enriched, without just "lookit all the new features. To use Civ III again as an example, they didn't just add more "features" to diplomacy as much as enriched it. Yes, it is more complex from one point of view, but I would say it is simpler in that the types of things you can do seem more natural. An "alliance" feels more like what I would expect an alliance to be like, for example.
And... of course... I think part of the point of a sequel is to make the AI SMARTER.
(and yes, I like it when the whole thing is purtier too)
God is real unless declared integer
I never really finished the game because the two vs one end levels were too hard for me back then :(
well, level 8 was the 2 vs 1, with both other houses against you, level 9 was 3 vs 1 with both other houses and the emperor against you.finishing the game was probably the easiest with harkonen as your palace power was the missile, as was the emperor's. when you played as harkonen you only had one nuke coming towards you every 10 minutes, destroying half your base. if you playted atreides/ordos then you had1 missile every five minutes, which was bloody hard at times. although your aim with them was always terrible, their aim to you was usually pretty good.
house atreides's palace power was fremen, which was kinda a bit sucky. some fremen troops appeared at random and walked straight towards an enem base to get shot to peices.
what was the ordos palace power... oh yes, sabateurs, they sucked mightily as well. same as the fremen basically.
damn fie game though, I put alot of time into that
dave
That small problem aside, I agree, it was a pretty awesome game.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
User Interface improvements can make all the difference in a game.
For example, Age Of Empires vs. Age of Empires 2. Don't get me wrong, AOE 1 was a great game, but it could be a pain in the ass to control. Villagers would finish working and do nothing and could easily get lost in a town. AOE 2's idle villager button solved that problem. Also organizing an army was a pain because you could not separate units once you selected them. AOE 2 allowed individual select, select by type, individual de-select and de-select by type for a large selected group. Although the two games were basically the same, the differences in gameplay made AOE 2 much more enjoyable.
Anyone who doesn't already have this game doesn't have it because either A> their moral code prohibits warez even when they're going to go buy it anyway or B> their internet access is too slow to download a binary with base64 or yENC overhead added, or C> they're f'n clueless and don't deserve to post comments here, or finally D> they don't want it in the first place.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Can you say "Ogliopoly?"
No, but I can say 'oligopoly'.
It appears the whole "UN Weapons Inspectors" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" thing has been a carfully plotted publicity stunt!
Anyone remember the old advert for C&C? The "High Scores" one, with the pictures of Dictators? It looks like they have taken it a step further this time, faking a whole war - they even had CNN and the BBC taken in this time, tho.
Bah, adverts on Gravestones... people changing their name to 'Turok' for money... and now this. Whats next? Simulating a real war, complete with 1,000s of extras shooting people in the street?
I have been a big fan of C&C since the original came out and loaded it on my p90. I was a beta tester for generals and it was a total letdown. They ruined the gameplay by bumping up the graphics and the zoomed in view makes the game a bad experience. I even asked the developers on their forums if I could give away my beta test cd to someone else because I would not play it anymore, they immediately banned me and called me an idiot. This was less than a month ago and the game has not changed much since then.
I don't understand how they could intend for C&C to be a WC3 competitor at all. Sure they're both RTS, but they take place in completely different worlds. You can't expect a game based in a world similar to our real one to compete with a game based in a world based entirely in fantasy.
"This is the OverLord Tank", "Extra Large". If you like the tank rush, play China. You are absolutely correct in saying that the key to winning is to tank rush. I find that the new Generals is just as imbalanced as the other titles in the series. It's sad to see really. The USA has great abilities, but requires fine-grained control which the hotkeys simply do not provide. I praise the efforts of the developpers (full 3d...) but as usual the game is awfully slow (AMD 2100+ GF4) on very good hardware (even in 640x480) and there are the usual server disconnects. At least they got rid of IPX :-)
Remembering your name in the morning is already a good start...
I don't think anybody who played this game hasn't hit the Sears Tower or tried to fly between the twin towers. I first did it back when I was 5 years old, around 1984.
To top everything off, single player missions are boring, and repetitive. There's no secrets to find on the maps, or during the game. Compared to Red Alert 2, this game is very lacklustre. RA2 at least had video to tell the story, and the occasional unusual mission (My favorite being with Tania and the three spies, where you have to destroy the nukes. There's several ways to do it.) The "evil" GLA is so predictable, they're no fun to play, versus the "evil" Russians in RA2, which were rather comical.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
No. The point of any game is to sell. The fact of the matter is that C&C's gameplay, while cool when it was new, has been superseded and nearly perfected by Blizzard. So in order for a RTS game to sell, this is the bar they have to meet.
I for one hope it meets this bar, as it would be cool to have some other top level options in the RTS area.
WESTWOOD invented the RTS market? That's news to me.
Maybe I've gotten too used to playing games like Civ3, but C&C generals just seems to lack real strategy. Build a lot of tanks and send them out to your enemy. Infantry seem useless at best.
IMHO the best 3D based RTS was Total Annhilation, where controlling a hill actually meant something, and every unit was of use.
I'll have to try multiplayer still though.
-- taking over the world, we are.
The original C&C will always be the king in my book. It was easily the best test of true RTS know-how and has yet to be touched. The problem with most RTS is the formula for success is (all the units you have)+1. Red Alert was ATROCIOUS for this. It was 100% tank rush. With 30 tanks, no base in the world is defendable. At a lan once I actually mined half the damn map, and I still lost to a tank rush.
C&C was different. I used to make people insane when they'd have some 12 missle tower base entrance and I'd land a chinook in their base and start c4'ing everything. With good players, the general rule was "if they make your base, you're done". That's why in the original C&C EVERYONE played the Tiberium Gardens map, you could make choke points into your base.
All RTS's suck these days, and I wonder if I'll ever see another C&C caliber game. RTS's now are about how fast you can click the build unit button.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
I only disagree about Red Alert, which I found to be tons better than C&C. I mean, come on, how could you not love the Tesla Coil? I still laugh thinking about them frying an infantry rush somebody sent against me!
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
This is all great and all, but I don't do windows and would really like to see some more games for Linux. If some company (LinuxGames?) was working on ports like Loki was, I'd be more interested. Or if more companies would put Linux versions in the set like they did with UT2003, I'd be more inclined to buy it.
Just my $0.02. That, and I'm not a big fan of war simulations myself.
-- DuckWing
This marks a first (that I know of), where /. linked to a page that spawned at least two popups and tried to install Gator
:(
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
Plea to game makers - please make the baddies aliens and dragons or robots.
That's it, you are banished to play Dark Reign 2 for the rest of eternity!
(OTOH, I did enjoy RoboRumble...)
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
Maybe its the illegal drugs, or the horrible forced public education. But am I the only one who things that The Sims: Command and Conquer could be a good idea? I mean come on, play the general and actualy watch the poor suckers you command die with the birds eye view that the Sims has perfected. And dont forget the online expansion pack: play General with and against all your friends and enemies. And no one actually gets hurt (except for the little kids i have to knock over to buy the game). Yeah? Yeah? Can't beat the same old recycled garbage that most companies are releasing lately...
Same old same old, but looks really sweet.
I can't help thinking about the next level of gaming.. where the people controlling the war will be playing a c&c generals type of game, but the actual troops are human, and those players are playing a battlefield 1942 type of game.. now that would be some sweet gaming..
----------------------------
Esobofh - Currently drinking fresh mango juice.
Could you amend that to recent history?
Some of us still remember MULE, Mail Order Monsters, Marble Madness, Seven Cities of Gold, Arctic Fox, Skate or Die, Racing Destruction Set, Archon, etc.
I hate sports games too - but EA was once something, man.
Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
So are the linux and OSX versions on the same disc, or are they available separately?
I was never a fan of C&C. But this one caught my eye. I have played a few hours into it with China, and it has been entertaining. Albeit I have to play with the cheats because it's just too damn hard even on normal. I'm not a real big strategy game player either so that's part of the problem. What I've noticed though is no matter how many goddamn units I make, they always pop 20 more out in the blink of an eye. So basically what every level comes down to is just rushing the living hell out of everything. Time is definately of the essence.
You're nothing; like me.
Personally, I thought running through the streets of DC and garrisoning inside the Smithsonian was fun.
It makes perfect sense- the developers can concentrate on duplicate a reality that the players are already familiar with rather than letting them waste time acclimatizing to an entirely novel, foreign, or historicial setting. Known landmarks and cities are going to generate more compelling drama and enthusiasm by ready-made association. Sure lots of people read a lot of fantasy, science fiction, are well traveled, or know history, so those settings are going to generate instant repoire with those people- but it's smaller fraction of potential audience.
And what about the coolness of being the 'bad guy'? Half of this doesn't have to do with being mean, but with style: Dark colors, shiny jackboots, rigid marching and chanting, and angular symbols, aren't inherently evil, but were adopted by (and therefore forever associated with) fascists and others because they so effectively resonate with a lot of people.
Also, the bad guys play to power fantasies more effectively- The bad guy gets to choose when to attack ('pre-emptively' or without any cause at all), can use the most devious methods, can disregard human rights and popular opinion (which are left out of most simulations and games anyhow), and demand total unquestioning submission from their followers (which also simplifies AI). There's more freedom there, which gamers like- but it's a fantasy freedom that generally has negative results when translated to reality- most people are going to end up on the suffering end rather than be dictator.
I guess the problems arise when people are also capable of living out these fantasies vicariously through the actions of their leaders and don't mind their impotent position in the scheme of things: If you believe your government can do no wrong, then screw causality, the government is always carrying out your wishes!
Is it possible that power-fantasy games, if used as an outlet for dealing with political impotence in ordinary life, create a higher tolerance for actual disenfranchisement- or does the disparity between what you would have done and what is decided on-high lower this tolerance?
I for one play it single-player - ONLY. I don't invest very much time in RTS games, but when I do I expect to be able to duel it out with the computer, not just throw everything I have straight at their base and win. Nor do I expect that if I take more than 10 seconds to gather forces up, they automatically have a giant army that comes and beats my base down with ease. This game is very unbalanced for single-player, which is a shame because I have a TERRIBLE connection for multiplayer games, and thus do not play them.
You're nothing; like me.
I dunno, but RA looked kinda outdated to me, as allways the other RTS beyond C&C2 where. And now they come up with an RTS which looks uglier than Dark Reign 2 (~2 years old) and seems to render the pedestrians(infantry) as bitmaps(!!), and in bad animation quality too - as someone posted further down. :-)
And then there's that view-edge marker in the radar that looks so very much like the one from Myth/Myth2 that you can't deny it.
It seems to me very much like a crappy redo of an once mediocre to ok series, as to milk the last $$$ out of the concept. No?
As far as 'classic' 3D 2 opponent RTS goes, Dark Reign 2 still rulez, imho. Just played it again recently and it rocked as ever. Cool units, maps, top notch gfx and gameplay and solid multiplayer. And, let's not forget, Uncle Samedi kicks serious shit.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I've been a Westwood C&C fan for a long time. I think I've purchased every C&C game until now. I've owned C&C for Windows, C&C Gold, Red Alert, Tiberium Dawn, Red Alert 2, Sole Survivor and even Renegade. I've decided not to buy Generals. Over the years I've noticed a pattern where Westwood releases a game and then seems to abandon support it. Take Renegade for example, they released 1 or 2 updates for the game. Widespread cheating and exploitation of bugs have made the game unplayable. Customers provide detailed bug reports in their forums and WW seems to just ignore them. Compare this to something like Blizzard's Diablo II. Blizzard still actively supports Diablo II even though it is probably 3 years (?) old now and still makes new releases. There used to be a website www.westwoodexposed.com where a bunch of radicals with a similar opinion posted a whole bunch of anti-WW rhetoric.
While it is great that EA and the like are making money selling games, I want to know if they run under linux or Mac os x??
I doubt it, so I just don't care!!
BYE
I'll politely disagree with you.
I'd think the changes you're referring to are completely necessary, but they're changes that should be made in a newer version of the same game -- the developers should release free patches for the improvements you list.
I would treat sequel games like I treat sequel movies -- something along the same lines as the first game, perhaps a continuation of a storyline, or a major jump in technological advancement in the game engine.
However,
Anyone know either if it runs on OSX or when a Mac version is likely to be released?
Real time strategy for Sega Genesis. Launch title (I think). Well over a decade old. Extradinary, ahead of its time; great fun to this day. Fish around and find the ROM.
Click here for more.
"My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
..slightly off topic but I would like to see this kind of game optimized for dual processors, to take advantage of extra clock cycles to speed up AI calculations. Does anyone know what game companies have planned to take advantage of AMD's Hammer?
Do you need a website upgrade?
I'm with you on this one. The original C&C was great fun. It was truly innovative in its time - great graphics, exciting gameplay, and little men getting run over with tanks, how cool was that!
But for anyone contemplating this game, do yourself a favor and forget it. The ridiculous storyline will insult your intellect and the poorly designed UI and awkward gameplay will assault your senses.
Good riddance Westwood Studio, if only someone had put this dog down sooner.
I hope Best Buy will take it back even though I opened it.
hello? Age of Mythology anyone?
I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
OMG. I cannot believe this. This post is the ONLY POST where the person talking knows what he is talking about. As for the rest of you computer geeks, I am greated disappointed. /. crowd would go in an uproar if someone use Linux for 5 minute then declared it to be the crappiest OS out there.
/. comments about C&C:Generals or any other RTS mean absolutely nothing. When someone have proven themselves then I'll care what they have to say.
/. players in whatever RTS they like even if I have not played the series before. Sad, but true. =[
IMO, the depth of a game is judge by how the greatest players play it and not by how a bunch of whining nobodies attempt to play.
Anyone idiot can do one unit mass strategies, it takes skill and speed for someone to win with mix units. That strategy beats one unit mass most of the time.
As for the people that complain about Warcraft 3, it is obvious how they miss the point of how Warcraft 3 is suppose to be played. WAR3 is primarily a pure tactical game. It is all about control and finess. It is not about how many X units you have. It is about how you control them in a battle. Tactical control requires speed and reflex.
Bottom line is, most of the comments on these
Not to sound cocky, but I find it funny that I can probably beat 99%
They basically invented the RTS market which makes this a sad time.
... Dan Bunten ...
Really? Actually, probably not...That probably belongs to one guy
M.U.L.E. - Ozark Softscape (1984)
Modem Wars - Electronic Arts (1988)
Command HQ - Microplay (1991)
Global Conquest - Microplay (1992)
Compare that to Westwood's first RTS game...
Dune II (1992)
As far as Westwood, although they are disolving the subsidiary, EA still owns rights to some of their previous games...Most likely, they will still release C&C titles with the Westwood name...
Actually, the same thing happened to Psygnosis US when they were merged with 989 Studios...
So basically what every level comes down to is just rushing the living hell out of everything
See, if this is the underyling strategy, then to me this isn't a good RTS game. That was what made SC/WC different from C&C for me, the creatures actually had abilities that changed the strategy, not just the amount of damage that was done.
Case in point...the Zerg. Perfect for zergling rushes, right? True, but they were also perfect for defending bases from archons/siege tanks because you could take a group about half a screen length outside your base (where archons/tanks typically would set up while the melee units attacked your defenses) and drop them underground. The enemy walks up, BOOM!, their long range heavy hitting units are history and you have them in a crossfire. Wonderful strategy to use.
C&C never offered anything like this. I remember playing Red Alert when my primary strategy was to build as many freakin rocket dudes as I could because a) helicopters terrorized me and b) they were somewhat effective at killing tanks. It worked, but certainly not what I call a killer strategy. That, and whoever made the most tanks usually won, hands down.
--trb