I was about to start the thread off by saying "Am I the only one that really doesn't like Command and Conquer Generals?"

But then I remembered this. And I don't want to be a clown.

Anyways, as a massive C&C fan, I don't like Command and Conquer Generals. I don't think I've ever met a single person that didn't love that game, as a matter of fact, whenever I see any news on C&C, people always say "Generals was great, I want a sequel!"

But Generals wasn't a Command and Conquer game. Why?

1. No live action cutscenes.

2. It doesn't tie into the C&C universe like the other franchise does. If Kane doesn't show up, it's not command and conquer.

3. The gameplay is too "different". Which is fine. The gameplay is actually decent. But it has nothing to do with Command and Conquer. Therefor, it should have been "generic modern setting: THE RTS"

4. EA gave Westwood the boot right after Red Alert 2 and Renegade. Then EA had a team make this. I will never forgive them. (Does anybody know how many Westwood employees worked on Generals?)

C&C 4 was more of a Command and Conquer game than Generals because it got the first 2 points down. And that game was the worst RTS I've ever played.

The reason I bring this up now, is because I wanted to know if there was anybody else who feels the same way (I know there is... just...shhhh). But mainly, because I saw that Bioware's new game could potentially be a command and conquer game, and with the 2 second teaser trailer, it looked like it could be Generals 2. I am stoked about Bioware taking it away from the current developers (Although I never would've guessed Bioware would do this.) but I'm afraid it will be Generals 2. And I've waited since 2002 for a new good C&C game.

So with #2, are you saying Red Alert isn't Command & Conquer?

Well, he shows up in the end of the first Red Alert.

I always imagined, having not played it, admittedly, that in trying to tie all the C&C games together, Generals is what happens if Einstein's time machine failed.

Kane does show you in red alert though, play the soviet campaign.

(not in the sequels though)

Yea, when Kane showed up, my 11 year old mind was blown.

And yea, thats how I thought about it too when I played. :P

I didn't help. :(

Generals was made by EA LA the same team that made Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge which are regarded as the best games in the series. Westwood's last C&C game was Tiberium Sun/Firestorm. So it's incorect to say EA gave the franchise to some new team. EA LA were formed from ex-Westwood who took EA's offer to move to Los Angeles to form the new studio, the ones who refused stayed in Las Vegas and formed Petroglyph. Westwood's demise was not as simple as EA simply closed them as the interenets often claims.

The answer is a lot of former Westwood staff worked on Generals and went on to work on The Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth, Command & Conquer 3 and Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3.

I consider that as a definite plus. The Westwood cutscenes with live actors have always made me cringe, and they seem to add absolutely nothing to the games themselves. It is like looking at some bad school play.

The cutscenes with only CGI are usually fine, though.

It has been so long since I played RA, I had forgotten Kane makes a cameo appearance.

Anyways, to answer your question, I thought it was a decent C&C title. But it had nothing on the Tiberian Dawn/RA storylines.

I find it hard to believe that any of the good Westwood developers worked on these games. I mean... how could you degrade so quickly?

Well, Jonh Romero worked on Doom... we know what he released.

I enjoy Generals, but I agree that there's no reason for it to have the C&C name.

In addition to your points, the Generals UI took more points from Starcraft than Command and Conquer.

Slightly related question: I played and immensely enjoyed the original C&C back in the day, and I don't know anything about the other titles in the series. Which one would you say is the closest (gameplay wise etc.) to the original?

ED: typos

No you're not the only one. I bought it when it first came out since C&C was awesome and all. It spent less than 24 hours installed on my computer and then became an $80 dust collector on a shelf until I gave it to a mate months later when he asked how it was.

The final straw for me was when a friend and I finished a chinese mission (#6 I think) in literally 2 clicks. Select agent, right click bridge in the distance, wait 90 seconds, hooray we won...

I once wrote a multi page rant on an old forum about all the things I detested in the game, wish I'd saved a copy, it was far more entertaining than C&C generals ever was
The BitchMaker 2000!

Ah yes. I remember discussing this game back in the day on the MacGamer forums.

To me, I've always remembered this game as my introduction to the issue of racism in games. Sure, I hacked, slashed, and sticky-bombed my way through the ridiculousness of Shadow Warrior, but that was so clearly a satirical game that had it's tongue firmly planted in cheek. C&C:G, in some strange way took it seriously. I think it was for that reason that the game rubbed me the wrong way, and that's on top of the gameplay and balance issues that it suffered.

You know, I thought I was the only one who had that thought pop into my mind, and I thought I was crazy for thinking that. Thank you.

Well, the SAGE Engine went on to power LOTR: Battle for Middle-Earth, which got a lot of good reviews (IIRC) so not all of their work was utter crap, right?