Rating: 
Summary: Great game but could use some fine tunning
Review: This is a great Command and Conquer game but it is not the best. Generals has the best graphics out of all the other C&C games but that only accounts for part of the game. Here are some of the factors that make the game bad or could be tuned up.-There are not that many units fore each nation around 12 units each.
-Although the tanks, terrain and buildings look good. The human soldiers look horrible they look like cartoon figures, and civil was soldiers.
-There are only 7 missions for each nation.
-Some of the missions are repetitive or boring.
- Requires a state of the art computer to run.
-In one mission you have to shoot down American supply plans bringing food to the civilians, you also can use anthrax weapons (How terrible, what was EA thinking)
Here are some of the factors witch make C&C generals a good game.
-There are three sides to choose from China, GLA, and America
-Very cool units like a dragon tank, stealth bomber, snipers, nuke cannon, Migs, and scud launcher.
-Very good graphics besides the soldiers.
-Multiplayer is a blast
-You get to destroy dams and watch as a flood of water comes crashing down on your enemies.
-An upgrade system that allows you to train a new unit or gain a unique ability.
- Cool zoom in feature which allows you to see the battle up close and personal. In the end C&C generals is a good game but it could be better. EA should have waited a few more months so they could fix some of the problems.
Rating: 
Summary: Awsom, still has some downfalls though
Review: when i firts started the game i was really impressed. every thing looked really great. getting away from this stuff, some of the stuff dissapointed me. like not haveing a Ships and stuff like that. i think that the gfx could be toond though. like on the little fans on top of the command center. Yeah they spin, but there not cicular. just strate lines to form an cicle.
i think the AI has improved but i cant say much sice i suck so bad at these games. any way, the online play is really good. there is a probelem with connecting games, but it really dosent matter. if you have a Geeforce 3 32mb or more and 256 of RAM or higher, you should be fine. the game is plane out fun. even though it is a little pricey, dont bother reading the bad reavewes their just people who had some really bad probelems with their game. Oh yeah they are right it dose take a long time to install. P.S. just imagin all the little GLA people as Ossama Binladen or Saddam "insane"
Rating:
Summary: Minor balancing problems can be overcome by creativity
Review: Several friends and I own this game and after playing it fairly frequently (I play as the USA), and the only complaints my friends have is that the USA is a bit overpowered, and I'm inclined to agree. However, the best part of the game is figuring out how to get around that balancing issue, and we've played many good games, and I've lost many good games, to their new strategies. It's a great game that really makes you come up with creative strategies to win (hint - as GLA, destroy USA oil derricks and you've already won). And the stellar graphics don't hurt, either. Don't believe the lies that only a top of the line gamer's rig can run this, either - my P4 1.8 laptop runs it very well. Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: Another fun addition to this game line.
Review: I've been playing for a short time and do enjoy the gameplay and new unit types. I do miss naval battles however.
Rating:
Summary: Yes, it's nothing new, but...
Review: I have read endless complaints about how Command & Conquer Generals is exactly like every other C&C/Dune game. Really, now, what do you expect? Perhaps Generals is a victim of some serious hype, and it certainly isn't a revolutionary RTS in any way except for graphics, but it still is fun. Though it has some improvements in terms of interface, commands, and most notably upgrades, Generals plays a lot like most of the older games in the series. One notable difference is that you can build anywhere on the map, in a manner similar to the Blizzard RTS style. Like its most recent predecessor, Red Alert 2, you want to play offensive in this game. It's not as impossible to fight defensively as some reviewers have said, but it's always better to be the one calling the shots. In terms of the game balance and strategies, the three sides are definitely unique and very well balanced out. For example, the Chinese prefer to outnumber their enemies, and have slow but powerful units. The GLA is king of maneuverability and the covert strike, but has all around weaker units. The United States has the most powerful forces, but everything is expensive. In a manner of speaking, this balance is similar to that of the three major houses in the Dune games. The really interesting thing comes with the general abilities. These are received when you've destroyed a certain number of enemies, and can seriously tip the balance in your favor. Some abilities allow you to build special units, while others do more mundane but still important things like repairing a group of vehicles or giving new units instant veterancy. Units gain experience and rank as they kill enemies, and can get very powerful if you keep them alive. Some factions can upgrade units by paying or, in the GLA's case, by scavenging junk from the battlefield (a very cool touch!). There isn't a doubt that Generals grants more tactical options than any other C&C title. Unlike say, Red Alert, the objective isn't just to build as many tanks as you can (although this might still work). Generals has cutting-edge 3D graphics, which explains the high system requirements. I found that it ran quite well at the lowest detail settings on my PIII 733 with an old GeForce 256, but to really bring out the beauty of the game you need something better than this. All the units explode in random and often spectacular fashion, and the superweapons are a MUST see. Almost everything you find can be destroyed in one way or another, and some things really light off when they go (toxin tanks, towers, or nuke power plants for example). The single player mode of the game is the weakest point of Generals. It lacks any of the ridiculous full motion video sequences that made Red Alert really fun. The missions range from simple to moderately difficult, but there aren't very many in all. The plot looks like it was taken right off CNN, ... In skirmish mode, the AI is quite predictable and only becomes a pain when it starts using superweapons on you. Due to the unit and general promotion system, I've had little trouble mowing down the maximum of 7 computer opponents by myself. This game was clearly created as a primarily multiplay title, and it is definitely a good deal of fun for that. The game engine is also superior, and has enormous potential for future development. Perhaps in a forthcoming expansion the single player deficiencies will be addressed. The final word is that Generals isn't the groundbreaking game everyone expected, but it is worth the price tag and a great deal of fun anyway. Especially in a time when the RTS genre seems to be on temporary hold, this game makes a great filler.
Rating:
Summary: The Best of the RTS genre
Review: Graphics: 4/5
Gameplay: 5/5
Sound: 4/5
Replay Value: 4/5 This is a very impressive and immersive game. For those not familiar with RTS (real-time strategy) games, there is a "training" mission to familiarize you with the basics of gameplay. There are really 2 modes of play: campaign mode and skirmish.
In campaign mode, you can pick which of the 3 nations you wish to play. The story progresses through increasingly difficult missions. At first, it will seem way too easy and will feel like the battle was thrown in your favor. Relish these moments. Take the time to get used to your troops and enjoy the graphics. You'll be too busy sweating later. The story is interesting and engaging (a first for an RTS game). Appropriately enough, the first mission for the USA was to eliminate a scud launch facility outside of Baghdad. The voice acting is superb, and the graphics are astounding for the genre. As fun as the campaign mode is, it is really only training for the real game, which is the skirmish mode. This is the "multi-player battle" that RTS fans have come to know and love. This is where the true test of skills and knowledge of the capabilities of your units will come into play. One of the many things that sets this RTS apart from others is the astounding flexibility of the units. For example, the USA has a unit called the Chinook. This is a double-rotor helicopter which is primarily used for resource gathering. However, the Chinook can also act as a transport (holding 2 vehicles and 2 troops, or 8 troops alone), as a special-ops vehicle (allowing troops to rappel out onto buildings to storm holed-up enemy troops), and as a scout (because it is fast, cheap, and unhindered by terrain). Many of the units have this kind of multi-role nature. In a way, it can be bewildering at first. However, properly applying this flexibility is what will separate the true strategists from the hackers. Overall, this is an outstanding game, and has rekindled my interest in what I assumed was a dead game genre. Now that I'm done oozing love all over this review, let me point out a couple of things that I think could have been better: The end-game statistics are disappointing. Any of you who have played Age of Empires II or Age of Mythology have grown to love the end-game statistics. That game had charts showing the growth of the respective armies, the expansion into the technology trees, major battle summaries, and other such info. The statistics were not only fun to look at, they also let you analyze where the tide of the war turned. You could see what you did right, and more importantly, what you did wrong. The C&C: Generals statistics screen is truly pathetic. The "futuristic" nature of some of the units tends to break the mood of the game a bit. The game appears to have a modern-day warfare theme. Then one time, when I crested a sand dune and saw a hovering robot repairing an enemy tank I thought "oh come on" to myself. There aren't a lot of these futuristic elements, just enough that it slightly annoyed me. I guess if you think of the theme of this game as "near future" (say like 50 years down the road) then it isn't that troublesome. I just thought it was an element that should have been left out.
Rating: 
Summary: Great graphics, but AI hasn't improved...C&C in name only.
Review: If you are expecting a sequel to the Command & Conquer RTS games of the past you may be very dissapointed by this new C&C game. First, the "USA Campaign" is only seven missions! I'm done already and it seems like I just begun! Second, it's more "dumbed down" than ever before. The pretty computer voice lady tells you that supplies are out there, showes you where the enemy weapons of mass destruction are, etc. It looks like it's designed so that even the 8 year-old with sub-normal intelligence won't get his self-esteem damaged by having to think too much or get his butt kicked a few times. Third, there is no accompanying acted movie "cut scenes" in this game. No real reward for finishing a mission so you can see the cheesy but entertaining cut scenes in between. The "between mission drama scenes" were created mostly by recording the game action. So, between episodes you just watch the "non plot" unfold by watching someone else play the game, or so it seems. There are no special people, special missions, characters to like, or heroes to protect; just base building and enemy blasting. It's all for the eye, with little for the brain. It seems like the sole purpose of creating this game was to get people to play each-other on-line or over networks. The solo-play "you're in the movie" dimension is gone. What happened to this game; the greatest legacy in PC gaming history? Why did they do this? This game is like a pretty body without a mind or a soul. Below is my original review. This is a visually stunning game, and the "experience factor" is a refreshing new dimension in the C&C line of games. I have a very modern machine with a high end graphics card, but I don't have friends available to play against so I tend to play against the computer. Once I "learned the ropes", I found the user interface very fast and easy to use. Also, it's great to have many things going on at once. Many building being built at a time where ever I want, and multiple factories producing at the same time. So why isn't it possible to make the computer play a little smarter? Once I learned the interface and how the units work and are upgraded, the gameplay falls back into the same predictable, repetitive routine. If I figure out which route the computer will take to attack my base, I can assume it will attack the same way over and over for the rest of the game. So I build defenses around that area, mass my forces, and destroy the enemy base. Game over. If I destroy an enemy building, the same building is built in the same place, over and over. Would it be so difficult to introduce a little more randomness into the AI? If there are three roads to my base, how about randomly choosing which road to attack on? If an attack with 20 vehicles is wiped out, how about attacking with 30 the next time? How about attacking from several different directions at once? I can build multiple super-weapons. Why doesn't the computer think to do that? Yes, I'm playing on "brutal" mode, and the game is still easy. The computer may be "brutal", but it's brutal and stupid. In the C&C world, I think it's time for the computer's brain to catch up with it's looks.
Rating: 
Summary: HORRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: Let's review: My friend has Yuri's Revenge, which is really fun, so I thought I'd get a C&C game too. When I heard about C&C Generals, I was so excited. I ran out to the store and bought the game for $...When I got home, I wanted to install it right away. Let me tell you, I have one of the newer computers, but this thing took FOREVER to install. Finally, when it did install, I felt like screaming. That's because I was watching the opening cinematics. It was running so incredibly slow, and the music was constantly skipping! Then I got to the main menu. Omygosh! Don't even get me started! The animation was beyond horrific. It was skipping and it was slow. When I tried moving the mouse, it took forever to move! And, once it did, it disappeared! Half the time I couldn't see the mouse!!!!! And then (get this), IT BOOTED ME OUT! It sent me a window saying, "Sorry, a serious error has occured." UGGGGGHHHHHHHHH! And guess what, I didn't get to play ONE STUPID UGLY REEKING SECOND of this stupid game. Don't waste your $$$.
Rating:
Summary: Game is great, reviewer needs a spelling lesson.
Review: I am not sure how you could take anyone serious that uses chat lingo. Please, if you want to be understood make it so everyone who reads it.
Rating:
Summary: GREAT game, lousy network support
Review: If you're a fan of any of the Command and Conquer games, this one is a no-brainer. It's both an evolutionary and revolutionary upgrade of this popular series, so any fan of Command and Conquer will be a fan here. The game offers some limited single player missions, but the real emphasis is on the online play. I remember back in the days of DOS how getting the game to play was half the challenge. The tradition continues with this the multiplayer side of this game. Sadly, the network play on Generals is crippled by a poorly conceived network engine. Even if you're able to get your router and connection properly configured, chances are other players haven't. The result? You'll be met with frequent frustration in actually getting into a multiplayer game. Given the massive proliferation in home routers, it's disapointing EA would overlook supporting them without having to do some tweaking. Thankfully the Generals messageboards have an extensive guide to setting up the game and your router. Once in, you'll have a blast. This is clearly one of the best games of the year, and the graphics are simply incredible provided your hardware is up to spec.
| 
