Rating: 
Summary: Great game, if you have a great computer
Review: The Generals is finally here! The game is a load of fun, if you have a good computer. I have a AMD 1600+, 640 DDR RAM, Radeon 7000 64MB DDR, and it runs fine, but only on the lowest detail settings.
The game itself is a lot like the old C&C only with 3-D acceleration. The graphics are considerably better and you have an interesting choice of groups to control. Is it just me or is the GLA Al-Queda?
If you love the older C&C you should really consider buying this game.
Rating: 
Summary: if the devil was to release a game, this would be it.
Review: Well... how do I sum this up?? I could give it a one-word review.. ... or I could go into a little more detail.
I went to my local games shop one day with my hard earned ...and had a scan of the shelves, and BANG.. It hit me!! The colourfull front cover with an intruding burly bloke looking at me. The only way I can Justify myself buying this heap of elephant poo, is that I was disorientated by the over colorful cover, or by the shiny cling film that it was wrapped in.
Well i ask myself now, why did i have to open that cling film?
This game ... in every aspect.
Gameplay: What? there is gameplay? well you could have fooled me. 0/10
Graphics: Ehh.. well this would be more impressive if it was run off the original "castle wolfenstein 3D " engine 0/10
weapons: dont get me started on the weapons. 0/10
vehicals: the only game in the world that lets you drive in port-a-loo's.
Well, Im going to stop now before i blow a blood vessel in my head... Over all rating? -1/10
(the one star if the lowest i can give it, although i think that there should be more of a selection for this game.. like 0 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Great game but kinda dissapointing
Review: As far as Ive expect from a new Command and Conquer game, lots of new featurs and units, etc are all there. Except one very dissapointing aspect was the graphics. It may look very appealing to people because it does look nice...but its the same memory taking graphics as every RTS game out these days. I loved command and conquers unique slick graphics they had but not EA has to mess that up gave in to that empire earth kind of thing which i never really liked :\.
Rating: 
Summary: COOL GAME!
Review: This is the best game since Yuri's Revenge. Excellent gameplay and awsome weapons are only a part of what makes this a tip-top game. You are a fearless Renegade who follows no ones rules but his. You fight and drive vehicles such as tanks, Hummers, and dune buggys. You get pistols, rocket launchers, ion cannons, rifles, chemical sprayers, and flame throwers, and that's not all!! Once you start playing the game you don't want to stop. You also get attached to the characters and the story. You can also buy the Official Strategy guide a Amazon.com for about [$$$], you'll need it! Hope you take my advice: buy this game!
Rating:
Summary: Generals system spec
Review: Just wanted to clear up the rumors about high system specs needed to run the game. The minimum system requirements are an 800MHz Intel CPU, 128 megs of RAM and a GeForce 2 graphics card. This minimum system spec will run the game fine and if you have a higher rated CPU, more memory, and newer graphics card, you will get better looking graphics and faster performance. Recommeded system specs are 1.8GHz CPU, with 256 megs of RAM, and a Geforce3 or equivalent graphics card. The game ships mid-February so the reviews here are posted about the multiplayer test that EA released during November. The first reviews of the final product come out from France and Germany and rate the game as 90+ game. More official reviews coming soon from US.
Rating:
Summary: looks great, but somehow flawed
Review: make no mistake, this a great looking, addicting game, but i have found some flaws in a preview i read of it.
1. 'power balance'-- its kinda messed up. sure, the chinese get many units(just plain conscripts)- thats what they should be in the game-weak, numerous, and generally 'swarmish'. but---- somehow they have the most powerful army(in unit quality). ?!?!?! somehow i dont understand it. ill give u an example--- (hold on, im gonna talk awhile)in the korean war, back around '50, when the US did an amphibous landing on the west side of the korean peninsula, cutting off the north korean army from the north. the US malled it to having almost no effectivness in a very short time. soon afterwards, the chinese,(in a certian battle), attacked US troops with 60,000 consctipts. the US had 15,000 marines in the battle. our force was of much higher quality, although having to retreat, gave the chinese 42,000 casualties including 22000 dead. we took 1300 casualties, with about 300 dead. Im not tryin to bash on china, im just sayin that the game is balanced wrong. The meaning? our troops were much stronger in quality, able to take a battle against a much larger force. In generals, the chinese hold the best ground units in quality, and hold many more #'s. not true of the times. the game uses real life units like f22 reaptors, b52s, ect. the game throws in huge 'quality' units such overlord tanks. they are using real like units, but somehow with 'real life units', the chinese have better tanks and ground troops than the US. GET A GRIP!!! the US's ground troops are of much higher quality than the chineses. the chinese are using old solviet 1950s era t-55s and 1970s era t-72s (im not sure they have anything much more advanced) In the gulf war, iraq used the same tanks in numerous #'s. the US deployed thousands of M1 battle tanks, and the iraqi t-72s and t55s were annialated. thier tanks wernt even in range of hitting our tanks before the m1s had destroyed them very efficiently from long ranges. sometimes our tank rounds went thru both sides of the t-72s. ROFL. theyre trying to make this game accurate to the arsenals of today(real war tried to do this). sure, thier doing it in some ways, but when in the heck did china have a more efficient a dedicated army than ours? i think i made that clear in my military ramblings earlier. we have the highest quality, dedicated, organized armed forces in history. PERIOD. some may say that the othe empires militaries were better at times, but look at thier troops. thier percentages of total population were much higher. Im sure that if the US really dedicated itself to military, it would dwarf the others in its greatness. and, to the person who said i had alot against china, ur wrong. im also sure US troops can take just as much as armies of the past did, id know. my bro is in the army and ill be in it in 3 years. Generals is trying to be accurate in how millitaries work today, but thier overbalancing in some ways. the US should have the highest quality forces, still, with many soldiers. (even today, with our 1.5 million under arms with 1 million in reserve, we ar the 2nd largest in the world next to china, and ours is all volonteer, thiers is conscription) the chinese should have lots of soldiers. the way generals will be made now, the chinese will dominate the ground(not true of what it is today), and the US players will have to rely on air forces a whole lot. generals looks fun, but is flawed. im sure more flaws will come up, as in any game.
oh p.s.-- make sure uve got a computer, to take full advantage of it good graphics. im running overclocked at 2.9 ghz(p4) 512 mb of ddr thats overclocked to at 405 and a overclocked ti4200 (295/540). peace. Generals
Rating:
Summary: A whole new experience
Review: Command and Conquer enters a whole new war as the Chinese and terrorists enter the Command and Conquer series. Generals sports a new 3d engine which is starting to pop up in a lot of games which allows you to zoom in to see the action. The action is also a lot cooler and feels more realistic (even though the weaponry seems kinda comical at times). Generals also impliments new weaponry and spying technology like UAV's and satellites. Another new feature is the ability to customize vehicles by adding turrets or upgrading weaponry (machien gun turrets on tanks, laser guided bombs for stealths, missile barages for apache helicopters). Command and Conquer enthusiasts might be surprised though as a few things are different in Generals. The Veteran system is a new design to the game plus you no longer have resource fields. Instead, you have big stacks of supplies sort of like Warcraft goldmines. Also, you no longer have Primary buildings, it is more like starcraft where you build stuff per building. So now you can build 6 barracks and get 6 troops at once. Also, arrow keys function as unit changers instead of moving the map so this may seem to be a minor problem. Also, there seems to be a limited amount of buildings but i do not believe this to be a problem since in other C&C games, a lot of buildings were just needed to activate special items (special items of the sort are activated in command centers/barrackses and war factories instead of in special buildings). In the end, Generals might be a very fun game in the final release (im doing the multiplayer beta test). So far it looks like loads of fun but a little different from teh old C&C games. NOTE: One review says the specifications are VERY HIGH, but this is very wrong. The multiplayer beta that is out right now is using unoptimized code which runs slow on anything (2ghz , 512 ram neccessary to play it). The final release will use the optomized code of course and only need the 350 mhz 64mb specifications Westwood is saying it will need.
Rating: 
Summary: Flawed
Review: Several things keep this from being a great game. The VERY SLOW loading times (and I played this on a top of the line PC) really detract from the gameplay. The game has a FAST SAVE option but no FAST LOAD option. If you get fragged, you have to go to a menu and choose the game you wish to load and then you have to wait an agonizing minute until you're back in the fray. Now that doesn't sound TOO bad but if you're playing this game on medium or commando, you WILL get killed many times. And you WILL be annoyed at how long it takes to get back into the game! The game has terrible AI. The NOD forces will call in reinforcements ("Help me, brothers!")when you start fragging them but that's about it. They are most likely to just stand there while you mow them down. They are likely to stand there looking cute while you snipe their comrades. They're basically .... The game is quite long and monotonous. After you've gotten half way through the game, the levels start to look and feel the same. The excellent feeling of being in a battle starts to fade as the game progresses. The latter stages become a chore. If you really, really love C&C, you'll get a kick out of this. But if you're looking for a great FPS, avoid C&C: Renegade. Or wait until it's budget software.
Rating:
Summary: The best command and conquer expansion ever!
Review: I just purchased this game not too long ago because I was trying to beat red alert 2. After I installed it the begining video popped up and showed what was happening. Right after that I knew that this game was going to be good. I played the game for a while and really liked the campaign. The part that really got me hooked on this was the skirmish mode. There are more options for both previous unions and now you get to control yuri's forces and their mind control technology. I love this expansion so much that I recommend it to anyone who has played command and conquer because I know that they will be just as hooked on it as I am.
Rating:
Summary: You need a good PC
Review: Has anyone read the spec for this game??? I have 512mb RAM on my pc and it runs slow even with 2.7ghz so whats up? Good graphics and amazing sound though. If you like command and conquer you'll love this game(fast pc needed though)
| 
