 |
|
| .............CONTENT
... |
Screenshots - | |||
| Minimum
Req.: P3 800, 128MB RAM, 32MB 3D Video Card (GeForce 2/Radeon 7500), 1.8gb
hd Reviewed On: P4 2.5Ghz, 256MB, GeForce 4ti 64MB, SB, Win XP Pro | |||
Intro Failing to get support in their campaign against terrorism in the Middle East, the United States has now become an isolated country in a time of increasing danger. China is on the brink of a cultural and economic revolution, but right as they are on the brink of a breakthrough, an upstart loose alliance of terrorist organizations finds themselves a secure financial backer and begins their assault. Seeing China's newfound productivity as a threat, the GLA - Global Liberation Army - begin their assaults; seeing the problems, the Security Council calls upon the aid of others to help China in securing prosperity, but the U.S. isn't going along. Thinking themselves as secure, the U.S. leaves the situation be and is beginning to be seen as an advanced, but slowly weakening, military might. With the GLA strikes becoming more abundant, China's push to destroy the organization reveals the possibility of the different groups spreading out to all countries, with the United States being the key location. Now is the time to act, and it's again time for players to don their commander caps in a game so distant from the Command & Conquer series that it's surprising that it bares its name. Gameplay: 7/10 The story I presented to you is about as strong as a presentation as you will get. Aside from the description on the back cover of the manual, this is the only resemblance of a story within Generals. Surprisingly, this latest installment of the Command & Conquer series comes barebones with nothing, aside from brief in-game cutscenes, that gives any form of a presentation; forget about the story, as it's completely ignored throughout each of the three campaigns. It never really becomes clear how the GLA, with its ragtag troops and equipment, could rival the power of China, not to mention the strength of the U.S…but I'm getting ahead of myself. As I said, this really doesn't feel like a Command & Conquer game. This realization began to form early on when the trademark snazzy install screen was absent; no big deal, but it was also a small feature that WestWood put into past titles to give them a bit of flair. The intro explains absolutely nothing of the story as it merely shows in-game cutscenes mixed with a cropped image of a television signal. Thinking I would get to know what was going on, I went on ahead into the U.S. campaign and I was immediately greeted with a picture of Earth, along with three mini images of units and brief objectives; there was an audio contact heard, but never seen. This was really surprising as there was absolutely nothing to set the campaign up; it was basically as simple as, "go attack the GLA". Throughout the various campaigns, it became clear that the statement in the manual of this being a mere inspiration of the original series was one of the truest things I had ever read. The imaginative mesh of real world and science fiction was all but gone as a mixture of units from Red Alert and the original series were mingled with more realistic weaponry that lacked the spark of the others. This change wasn't a very welcome one as it felt more as if I was playing through a special on the nightly news rather than entering into a fictional world filled with fantastic possibilities and a slight feeling of how it could happen in 50 years or so. The change in direction isn't felt long though as the game is relatively easy and fairly short. With the three campaigns of the GLA, China, and the United States, with each having seven missions, the longevity of the title is hurt by having a skirmish mode that displays a lack of balance between the sides and a multiplayer mode that was a chore to use. Since the world map of different goals was scrapped, there was no feeling of global conflict present in the originals, and no real desire to go back and play a level over again. Not to mention that even on Normal, the game is too easy. Not everything is bad about Generals. There are sparks of the previous titles' flair, like China's nuclear cannon and the GLA's rocket buggy. The realistic augmentations aren't bad either, with the U.S. being able to drop soldiers from Chinooks into fortified locations to clean them out without much hassle, pathfinders (snipers) that are a lifesaver when a wave of suicide bombers is on the warpath, ambulances for the wounded, while China's flame-tossing Dragon Tank and Gattling Tank rip infantry to shreds, hackers steal money, all while their trusty Migs light up city blocks with napalm-upgraded warheads, and propaganda spurs troops on to heal each other and fight with increased vigilance when grouped together. The GLA isn't to be outdone as they can incite angry mobs to attack hostiles, scud launchers, suicide bombers, and bomb trucks - also, despite the icon images, these aren't supposed to represent people from the Middle East; just completely ignore their garb and pretend they're white guys with really dark tans. The United States' technical superiority is slightly ousted by China's larger amounts of soldiers - along with increased explosive capabilities - while the GLA does what it can as they scavenge battlefields for parts and earn cash for each enemy killed, but ends up getting the short end of the stick as they have plenty of air defenses, but are still not quite capable of keeping back the onslaught of Migs, Ravens, Comaches, and Raptors. The most fun comes in the form of General Points. These are earned throughout missions and carry over to the next, although some levels limit what can be bought, leaving a wide range of goodies for the player to choose from. Increased accuracy, artillery strikes, cash for killing enemies, better weapons, stealth bombers, and more await the general who goes for 5 stars. It's a shame that the player pretty much gets whatever they want when the level allows, as I would've preferred them being rewarded for performance per level. In the end,
Generals lacks the cohesion needed to keep a strategy game with three sides
in line. Trying to capture the C&C spirit by bringing back weapons
like Migs, Scud launchers, bomb trucks, and so on was an interesting effort that
ultimately failed to include the spark that made the past installments so enjoyable.
Completion of campaigns brings half-hearted endings, and even victories present
identical screens for each faction. With a questionable menu system, pathfinding
problems, and devolved controls, Generals feels like a step down from the
far superior Red Alert 2. While far from a bad game, this isn't the same
caliber of Red Alert 2; tacking the Command & Conquer name onto
the produce seems to have been purely for brand recognition, because this isn't
the series I've been playing for years now. A solid offering, but ends up feeling
halfhearted.
Graphics: 8.5/10 Menus
are also awkward with grouping troops and waypoints no longer having handy icons,
and some crucial powers not given the prominence they deserve. General powers
are presented as icons on the right side of the screen, but oddly, features like
carpet bombing the particle cannon have to be selected from their appropriate
buildings, and then told where to attack. The ability to bookmark sections on
the map does help, and it's a nice feature in general, but it shouldn't be used
to fix such a simple problem. Other oddities include the lack of a number of units
selected, when multiples are chosen, and double-clicking to fortify and evacuate
a building; the latter is now done via icon or hotkey. In all aspects of control,
Generals feels much less refined than RA2 and is needlessly difficult
to wrangle, considering the age of the series and experience of the development
team. Overall: 6.5/10 [ top ] |
