Command and Conquer Generals - Page 2

Lonestar · February 16, 2003, 22:12

Ugh, C&C Generals runs slow on my computer...whc\ich I find odd because it runs Emperor: Dune and Empire Earth just fine.

DinoDoc · February 16, 2003, 22:21

Do they have a demo for the game yet?

mactbone · February 16, 2003, 23:08

I have an AMD Athlon 700mhz and 256 meg RAM and it jags on the low setting. I customized it to reduce some of the effects and it runs fine now and still looks damn cool.

I played the turorial and I love the Crusaders. That is how a tank should look and sound. It's also nice to not see little balls shoot out of the chamber...

I've played Red Alert 2 and its not meant to be super serious, just take a look at the units and you can tell they wanted a pure fun game, and it is. That said, there isn't a while lot of replay value.

The thing that would improve Generals THE most would be decent skirmish maps. I played a skirmish and it's basically just a large flat space. IIRC the Red Alert 2 maps weren't much better.

The best feature that Westwood added was the ability to fortify neutral buildings and attack from them.

Kc7mxo · February 16, 2003, 23:21

Quote:

Ugh, C&C Generals runs slow on my computer...whc\ich I find odd because it runs Emperor: Dune and Empire Earth just fine.

I had this problem initially also. What's your system like?

All my units moved extremely slow, and it took forever to do anything.

Once I reduced resolution to 800x600 from 1024x640, everything started working great.

DrSpike · February 17, 2003, 05:18

Those sorts of specs are pretty much the bottom end these days. Most new games that have decent graphics will only run playably at 800*600 at best, with detail turned down, and maybe bell and whistles turned off.

Adagio · February 17, 2003, 05:38

Quote:

Originally posted by MacTBone
I've played Red Alert 2 and its not meant to be super serious, just take a look at the units and you can tell they wanted a pure fun game, and it is. That said, there isn't a while lot of replay value.

Strange, I got the feeling, they wanted the game look way too serious, that they forgot to include "fun"...

vee4473 · February 17, 2003, 09:22

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do they have a demo for the game yet?

That's what I want. Another reason that demos are valuable.

I think that if a game has high min. requirements, a demo should be available to see if someones system can even play it.

DrSpike · February 17, 2003, 09:25

Most games have a demo......so you should never have much problem checking, though it might take you a while to download on a 56K modem.

vee4473 · February 17, 2003, 09:29

i haven't seen one for generals yet.

cable modems rock, sometimes i get damn near a 1 megabyte per second transfer rate!

thats not the norm tho...usually hangs around 400 to 500 kb/sec

DrSpike · February 17, 2003, 10:57

Hmm you are right.........gamespot doesn't have one even though the game is released in America around about now. You could always get the version the reviewer in this thread tried.

Sava · February 17, 2003, 12:02

Starcraft is still the king of RTS! f*** everything else... and f*** WC3!

Adagio · February 17, 2003, 12:10

Starcraft? I played it once... one time too many...

DrSpike · February 17, 2003, 12:53

Warcraft 3 is better..........even loads of former SC players admit it.

Adagio · February 17, 2003, 13:23

Of course it's better... everything is better than StarCraft...

Lonestar · February 17, 2003, 14:51

I'm also dissapointed in the lack of story. Dammit, this is CnC, where's the story?

Did they decided they had no idea how to make a Terrorist "Look Good"? They did so in the original CnC (Hell, it Began with the Brotherhood of Nod blowing up a building) and they did a good job with Stalin in Red Alert 1.

Kc7mxo · February 18, 2003, 19:09

Quote:

Warcraft 3 is better..........even loads of former SC players admit it.

Warcraft3 is different. Doesn't mean its better or worse. I miss the horde armies of sc zerg. I once built 400 zerglings. . .

"And Lo! The ground was red with zerglings, and they did stretch from one horizon to the other. Nothing could stand before their mad dash, and all humanity quivered in fear!"

DrSpike · February 18, 2003, 19:48

That's precisely why I like Warcraft more.......less but more powerful units require more skill to use.

Jahi · February 19, 2003, 19:31

warcraft 3 was pretty cool.. i liked the length of the game as well.

I also like C&C generals, but 7 missions per side kinda stinks, esp with some of them being short.. (unless i'm missing some)

Kc7mxo · February 20, 2003, 01:37

Quote:

I also like C&C generals, but 7 missions per side kinda stinks, esp with some of them being short.. (unless i'm missing some)

The missions did indeed seem to fly by. But I was playing on "normal." When I get a chance, I figure I'll play through it on hard, maybe that'll make it last longer.

And, and I tossed some screenshots into the review the other day, made them myself.

pg · February 20, 2003, 11:12

i used to like c&c when i was a kid. i don't think c&c games are deep enough to really be as appreciated by adults as much as aoe games or wc3. i did like the original c&c and red alert but that was a long time ago. i remember me and my friends would play red alert on big maps and do sim-base. after we built a sprawling complex of powerplants and factories we'd nuke each other, and use planes to attack each other. this would usually go on until we got bored. sometimes we would try ground assult but that gets a bit hard with 500 tesla coils!

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/games/...view/page7.asp

i almost always agreed with firingsquad.

DrSpike · February 20, 2003, 12:11

Quote:

Originally posted by pg
i used to like c&c when i was a kid.

This sums it up really........playing c&c is one step removed from buying a console.

mactbone · February 20, 2003, 12:14

You're saying that certain games are "childish"? I mean c'mon, unless they market it directly for the little people, Blues Clues could be as entertaining for adults as it is for kids. Personally, I still enjoy the Dr. Brain series even though it's geared toward teaching kids.

Are you one of those that watched cartoons until you were a teen, then watched the crappy teen sitcoms like Saved by the Bell, and now just watch prime time TV?

Some of us like flying bodies and big explosions... and nukes, lots of nukes.

DrSpike · February 20, 2003, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by MacTBone
You're saying that certain games are "childish"? I mean c'mon, unless they market it directly for the little people, Blues Clues could be as entertaining for adults as it is for kids. Personally, I still enjoy the Dr. Brain series even though it's geared toward teaching kids.

Are you one of those that watched cartoons until you were a teen, then watched the crappy teen sitcoms like Saved by the Bell, and now just watch prime time TV?

Some of us like flying bodies and big explosions... and nukes, lots of nukes.

Hehe. I still watch cartoons and I never watched teen sitcoms.

I was, quite obviously, being a little flippant. But there is a kernel of truth there as well.........IMO it all comes down to what you want from your gaming, particularly strategy gaming. If big explosions are what do it for you (and you are not alone) then by all means play bad strategy games. I think the general move towards 'pick up and play' games with little depth is a bad thing.......and as a self-confessed hardcore (pc) gamer I have always felt that way.

Adagio · February 20, 2003, 13:49

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Hehe. I still watch cartoons and I never watched teen sitcoms.

Who can live without cartoons?

mactbone · February 20, 2003, 13:56

My point is that some people will read philosphical novels every chance they get. Some will only read Reader's Digest. Most of us like to read different things for different occasions.

I still enjoy HoI, EU2 and to a lesser extent Civ3. At the same time I enjoy being able to start up a game and start blowing sh*t up. The main problem for me is that I'm too research and diplomatic oriented in Strategy games, it's the way I am, so I pick up fast paced games so I can blow things up in an indiscriminate manner.

DrSpike · February 20, 2003, 17:15

Quote:

Originally posted by MacTBone

I still enjoy HoI, EU2 and to a lesser extent Civ3. At the same time I enjoy being able to start up a game and start blowing sh*t up. The main problem for me is that I'm too research and diplomatic oriented in Strategy games, it's the way I am, so I pick up fast paced games so I can blow things up in an indiscriminate manner.

You're single, right?

Sava · February 20, 2003, 18:11

SC sucks? suck it ADG, you suck!

SC was better because there are so many different strategies because you can build huge armies. If you were a really good clicker, you could use combined arms attacks with a variety of units and completely annhilate an opponent in less than a minute. AND NUKING IS THE SH!T THERE ARE NO NUKES IN WC3!!

Jahi · February 20, 2003, 21:58

I actually like Total Annihilation better than SC. SC kinda felt like TA with training wheels. I loved the physics model and the need for combined arms and artillery..

Nubclear · February 20, 2003, 22:55

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG

Who can live without cartoons?

Me!

Kc7mxo · February 22, 2003, 22:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Me!

Life without the simpsons. . . .