C&C Generals Review

[Professor S]

I first got turned on to the Command and Conquer series with the first title, and it was what made me appreciate RTS games as a genre.

Its strengths were in its simplicity, variety and presentation. Generals has been garnering rave reviews from numerous sources, but I have a hard time rationalizing why it is receiving such acclaim.

PRESENTATION: What presentation? Command and Conquer used to be famous for their presentation, using recognizable actors with gloriously hammy performances, fictional pulp storylines that bordered on politically incorrect comics about the Cold War, and a loading sequence that was more like your own personal command center downloading files so that you could start killing thse pinko commie bastards. Of course, this entire loading sequence was accompanied by a serious soundtrack that rivaled Braveheart in the "Makes me want to kill some people" category.

Now? A mundane loading sequence just like any other. No storyline to speak of, no cinematic cut scenes, and even the signature right hand side control panel has been replaced by the normal Blizzard-esque panel at the bottom. How dull.

My biggest complaint? WHERE THE F**K IS BARRY F**KIN' CORBIN???? It just doesn't feel like Command and Conquer without him motivating you throughout the game...

Score: 1.1 - They only received a score here because of a half-assed decription of your mission before it begins and crappy cinematics using in-game graphic models before you start.

GRAPHICS: I never thought I would actually want a game to stick to 2D sprites until I played this game. Don't get me wrong, its a good looking game, but the 2D sprites that were excellently done in Red Alert just look a lot cleaner, especially the individual soldiers. The 3D soldiers look blocky and their animations, believe it or not, remind me a lot of Pitfall on the 2600. Also, there seems to be no reason why this game went to 3D. The camera is the same scrolling window from the original games. If you're going to use 3D... USE 3D.

Score: 7.8

GAMEPLAY: Frustrating. The original C&C games featured amazingly responsive controls and smooth framerates. Generals does neither. The controls are laggy offline and there are constant slowdowns for seemingly no reason even when there isn't much action going on on the screen. And trust me, its not my PC. I have a 2.4 gig P4 and 512 MB of Rambus. This game should FLY.

Also, when moving a vast array of troops, more often than not they'll just mill arunf each other going nowhere after you choose a destination. Poor design.

Is it fun? Sure. But not even close to what it should be.

Score: 7.5

REPLAYABILITY: Its online and has 3 different campaigns, 1 for each faction. If you can past the laggy gameplay and design flaws, you'll have plenty to do.

Score: 8.4

TILT: This is not Command and Conquer in my eyes. EA has stripped this beloved series of everything that made it special, and now its just another RTS, and an RTS with serious flaws as well.

Score: 6

Overall Score: 7.4

I had a choice between Generals and Battlefield 1942. Why the hell didn't I get 1942? Westwood, please come back...