Rating: 
Summary: A Loyal Customer and Avid Fan of the C&C Series
Review: I have waited for this game for months and when it finally arrived it was in my PC not three days after being released. Besides to number of items you must have to make the game run smoothly like the correct chipset, the game locks up my PC every time I play it. I have followed the instructions, made sure I have the correct software and hardware but nothing makes it stop locking up. I have a brand new 200 machine, 7500 video card and sound care well past the minimum requirements. The game is very enjoyable but HIGHLY unstable. Be ready for a few hours of aggrevation.
Rating: 
Summary: Serious bugs
Review: The good : Game has decent graphics, not as stunning as Age of Mythology, but in line with Warcraft III.The bad : The game interface is still much the same as C&C's of past. Left click everthing. Right click twice to release unit/group. Very annoying. The ugly : First installed on my "high-end" gaming machine: Win XP Pro on an Athlon XP 1800+, 512M DDR RAM, with an Asus GeForce4 TI 4200 w/ 128M. After playing through training mission and 2 missions in the first campaign, system started locking up (not just the game, it took the whole system down). Latest patch from game co and updated drivers from nVidia, still no luck. Runs then crashes. Then, uninstalled from that machine and put on my sons PC: Win XP Pro on an Athlon XP 1800+, 512M DDR RAM, with an ATI Radeon 8500 w/ 64M RAM. Game at least runs, however, the response is extremely slow, video is choppy, and the cursor is extremely erratic (does not paint well). Conclusion : Although the game appears to be fun, there are way too many bugs and annoyances to warrant anything other than 1 star.
Rating: 
Summary: Great game, but not perfect
Review: Pros:
-Lots of variety between the 3 factions.
-Versatile units perform many different tasks.
-Different strategies are required for different situations. This is one of the few RTS games where you actually have to strategize to do well.
-Good graphics (except for the water, which is terrible)
-Units, abilities, and super weapons are tons of fun to use. Cons:
-Requires lots of juice to run. Don't even think of buying this game unless you have at least a Pentium 4 (or equivalent processor) and at least 256 MB of RAM.
-There's no real story to the campaigns. It's certainly realistic for you to only be doing military operations but it would be nice to have more of a story.
-Computer AI is not all that intuitive or crafty.
-Map editor is clunky and harder to use than the average RTS map editor.
Rating: 
Summary: Revolutionary, Epic, the best RTS of all time
Review: Most reviews for this game are not giving it the credit it deserves. People are complaining that there computers cant handle it. Would you prefere if they made the graphics a little worse and the amount of units more limited? Of course not. The reason the A.I. doesn't seem as effective as it did in past games is because the this game is so much more complex. I think that if fighting a brutal army is to easy for you, why not fight 2 or 3. If you think you're such a hotshot that the A.I. can't challenge you, try and take on 7 brutals. Of course that would be impossible but the point is that you can still challenge yourself with this games brytal armies. This doesn't matter that much anyway because the only time you'll be playing the computer is when your friends aren't on. That won't be often judging by how much fun multiplayer games are.
On a final note, I'd like to take this time to tell anyone who already has this game, or is purchasing it, to turn off any virus programs they have while they are playing online. Otherwise they may be seeing the, "You or another player may have a firewall blocking the connection so you can't play" message quite often. Thank you.
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.
| 
