The IGN reviewer liked it, for whatever that is worth. The game looks fun to me, I'll have to try it out. Hopefully it will run alright on twin 1500+'s, 1GB ram, and a Radeon 9700 Pro. 
(if not, guess I'll just have to upgrade to the 2100's I've been looking at...would much rather wait until the highest non-Barton CPU is inexpensive to upgrade though)
(if not, guess I'll just have to upgrade to the 2100's I've been looking at...would much rather wait until the highest non-Barton CPU is inexpensive to upgrade though)
Originally posted by: datalink7
Which, according to the review sites, is complete bs
Thats insane. Required is a 800MHz but recommended is a 1.8GHz? Talk about a jump.
My 0.02 on C&C: Generals thus far.
Graphics are anywhere from "hmm...nice" to "holy sh*1t!" depending on your rig (ie- how high a resolution + AA can you run). I'm running it at 1280 with Quincux on and it looks excellent (Ti4600 + XP1800 + 512 RAM). Gameplay is overall very much like RA2, but with "extras" that make it interesting IMO. Tech trees have some variation depending on your General and have extra abilities that are unlocked only as you gain combat points. Each faction has unique enough units that you do actually have to put some thought into which one you'll play and how you'll play it....you can't just pick one, tank rush, and call it a day. The addition of 3D also brings terrain into play...having the high ground makes a big difference in thes game as you can wear out an approaching group before they can even scratch you. Some have complained about the overall relatively small number of units/buildings you can come up with, but I honestly find this somewhat refreshing since you don't get as bogged down in trying to remember what does what and having to constantly refer to your tech tree. Overall, it's not groundbreaking, but certainly fun. I'm looking forward to playing this at our next LAN outing.
Graphics are anywhere from "hmm...nice" to "holy sh*1t!" depending on your rig (ie- how high a resolution + AA can you run). I'm running it at 1280 with Quincux on and it looks excellent (Ti4600 + XP1800 + 512 RAM). Gameplay is overall very much like RA2, but with "extras" that make it interesting IMO. Tech trees have some variation depending on your General and have extra abilities that are unlocked only as you gain combat points. Each faction has unique enough units that you do actually have to put some thought into which one you'll play and how you'll play it....you can't just pick one, tank rush, and call it a day. The addition of 3D also brings terrain into play...having the high ground makes a big difference in thes game as you can wear out an approaching group before they can even scratch you. Some have complained about the overall relatively small number of units/buildings you can come up with, but I honestly find this somewhat refreshing since you don't get as bogged down in trying to remember what does what and having to constantly refer to your tech tree. Overall, it's not groundbreaking, but certainly fun. I'm looking forward to playing this at our next LAN outing.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that not everyone liked it. I picked it up yesterday and played until two in the morning. I aboslutely loved it. The new graphics are incredible. I was playing Red Alert 2 up until a few months ago, though. I've been a WestWood junkie ever since they release Command and Conquer all those years ago. I don't mind that there aren't ALL that many structures. There are still enough for me. Especially once you start playing the other factions (I started with the Americans). All in all a great game and a good addition to my collection.
Well EA did close out Westwood.... They probably told them to hurry and finish it up so they could close and release it. May EA get what it deserves.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
OK I guess I need to try it. Personally Red Alert made me wet my knickers and RA2 kicked some ass as well. I have always loved Westwood RTS games better than Blizzard ones for the most part (loved war 2 and 3, but hated starcraft). I hate HUgE tech trees.
The closing of Westwood had ZERO effect on Generals. C&C Generals was NOT done by Westwood. It was done by EA Irvine, which they didnt close or lay off people from, the just combined the remaing Westwood staff, EA Irvine and I think the Battlefeild 1942 development team to form EA LA. Yes they did layoff 50 people from Westwood, and to the others theyd have to relocate, but like I said Westwood wasnt doing Generals. Westwood has just been a brand name for the past 3 years. EAs were calling the shots there for along time.
FYI EA Irvine, used to be called Westwood Irvine, I believe they were the developers of Nox, and Westwood took them on board. Later EA seperated the two and EA Irvine did RA2, the expansions and started work on Generals. Westwood was still going to be allowed to do C&C3.
yeah empire earth ruined all the rest, War3 was laughable, Age of Mythology at least added a new dimension to it but was nowhere near as complex. I may go back and play some EE now....
TELL ME ABOUT THE MOUSE!!!
Does this game still left click like old C&C, or does it use both mouse buttons like StarCraft/WarCraft????
Thanks
Does this game still left click like old C&C, or does it use both mouse buttons like StarCraft/WarCraft????
Thanks
Ha.. so true.
I am very used to Warcraft and Starcraft.. I am screwing up constantly in C&C because of it.
That is horrible. I will not buy the game now.
Can't make use of all my AWESOME right clicking exercises, then they can stick it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter