Author Topic: Command & Conquer: Generals 2 (Read 2120 times)

newy · « **on:** December 11, 2011, 02:35:03 AM »

BioWare, Frostbite 2, Generals 2, Trailer

nstgc · « **Reply #1 on:** December 11, 2011, 04:39:51 AM »

When I first saw the title of this thread I though "just let it die". Then I saw Bioware and thought "what the fuck". Generals was the worst CnC game I've ever played and I have played them nearly all of them (I haven't played the original nor the most recent). Generals sicked ass.

[edit] Forgot Renegade. I bet its going to be the next ME.

AceHigh · « **Reply #2 on:** December 11, 2011, 05:59:41 AM »

Weird, in newer time Generals was the best C&C game that was made. After all the real C&C games were made by Westwood and Red Alert 2 was the last RTS they made. After that the only good game EA managed to make was Generals.

Sure, the balancing wasn't really good, and the game engine had memory leak issues, but the game play was way better than RA3 or god forbid RA4.

What does make me sceptical, is fucking Bioware. How many good RTS did bioware make? I have a really bad feeling that we will get a shitty fusion of RTS and RPG or something like that.

Sosseres · « **Reply #3 on:** December 11, 2011, 06:20:07 AM »

I hope they go a fusion of RTS and RPG per the Spellforce campaigns or the recent Warhammer 40k RTS.

AceHigh · « **Reply #4 on:** December 11, 2011, 06:22:55 AM »

This is what you will get.

Sosseres · « **Reply #5 on:** December 11, 2011, 07:08:50 AM »

Quote from: AceHigh on December 11, 2011, 06:22:55 AM

This is what you will get.

They could actually make an interesting campaign.

AceHigh · « **Reply #6 on:** December 11, 2011, 07:15:16 AM »

I hate you...

newy · « **Reply #7 on:** December 11, 2011, 02:49:02 PM »

Quote from: AceHigh on December 11, 2011, 05:59:41 AM

How many ~~good~~ RTS did bioware make?

None, this will be their first. And that is why I will watch reviews etc before I decide to play it.

Quote from: nstgc on December 11, 2011, 04:39:51 AM

[edit] Forgot Renegade. I bet its going to be the next ME.

Renegade X: Black Dawn or something like that is going to be the unofficial sequel of Renegade. Uses the Unreal Engine 3. Was a mod but is now planned as a full game.

JoonasTo · « **Reply #8 on:** December 11, 2011, 02:56:14 PM »

Yeah, this was pretty o_O. I totally agree with CAD on this.

AceHigh · « **Reply #9 on:** December 11, 2011, 06:34:32 PM »

Quote from: newy on December 11, 2011, 02:49:02 PM

Quote from: AceHigh on December 11, 2011, 05:59:41 AM
How many ~~good~~ RTS did bioware make?

None, this will be their first. And that is why I will watch reviews etc before I decide to play it.

Excuse me, I realized something very important and will correct my own quote.

Quote from: AceHigh on December 11, 2011, 05:59:41 AM

How many games did bioware make?

Answer: None.
Because it's not Bioware, but Bioware Victory, which is some new development studio that EA put a Bioware sticker on. The real Bioware is from Canada, this "Bioware victory" seems to be from LA.

Basically the outcome can be completely random and unexpected. However with use of Frostbite 2 engine it can sure as hell need insanely high specs for an RTS game.

Speaking of Westwood, I checked out their current project (they are Petroglyph games now) and it seems they are making an MMORTS, check out the trailer.

Edit: fixed fucked up quotation

newy · « **Reply #10 on:** December 11, 2011, 08:45:03 PM »

Now that is no really assuring news you found there... I guess I have to emphasize my checking of reviews etc... >_>

tomoya-kun · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2011, 03:30:48 PM »

Quote from: newy on December 11, 2011, 08:45:03 PM

Now that is no really assuring news you found there... I guess I have to emphasize my checking of reviews etc... >_>

I tell you now, Command and Conquer is DEAD. Red Alert 3, Tiberium Wars, Generals, all terrible.

When the EA bought Westwood and took apart the studio, CNC died.

nstgc · « **Reply #12 on:** December 17, 2011, 11:35:24 PM »

CnC 3 was good, and RA3 was passable, but yes, without Westwood CnC is a shell of its former self. Quite honestly, since someone mentioned them, I don't think Petroglyph is half as good as WW was. Better than EA, yes, but still not WW.

tomoya-kun · « **Reply #13 on:** December 19, 2011, 01:45:16 AM »

Quote from: nstgc on December 17, 2011, 11:35:24 PM

CnC 3 was good, and RA3 was passable, but yes, without Westwood CnC is a shell of its former self. Quite honestly, since someone mentioned them, I don't think Petroglyph is half as good as WW was. Better than EA, yes, but still not WW.

CnC will always be just that, "good"

Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn was the RTS that defined the genre. Everything up to and including Red Alert 2 was amazing.

What most don't know about is the flexibility of the tiberium sun game engine.

The game engine from 1999 supports 1920 x 1200 graphics!
Unlike starcraft you can change the render resolution.

nstgc · « **Reply #14 on:** December 19, 2011, 06:47:11 AM »

I've played Tiberian Sun at 1920x1200...it sucks. I dealt with a blurry resized image instead of having to use a magnify glass.

[edit] of course I'm not suggesting that TS was a bad game. Far from it. It was the last game WW had any degree of free reign over (the only interference I know of is that they had to cut the development short because EA was breathing down their necks).

[edit2] By the way, the games started going down hill with RA2. It was still a great game, but it wasn't up to the level of TS or RA1. And of course, the only true Hell March, is the original from Red Alert. (Hell March 3 was one step above steamy pile of shit)

[edit3] Just noticed a post of Ace's

Quote from: AceHigh on December 11, 2011, 05:59:41 AM

Sure, the balancing wasn't really good, and the game engine had memory leak issues, but the game play was way better than RA3 or god forbid RA4.

I won't argue that RA3 was the mentally retarded child of EA raping a crack whore, but I still think it was better than Generals. Generals lacked polish, and at least RA3 was funny. Generals was trying to be serious and failed. EA was trying to quickly react to a market that had "terrorist" ringing in its ears. RA3 felt more like a CnC game as well, even with the shitty harvesting.

[edit4] I can't say anything about whatever the most recent "CnC" game is called. I haven't, and won't play it.

newy · « **Reply #15 on:** December 19, 2011, 08:33:13 AM »

You mean CnC4 with no base construction? Has anyone played that at all? Taking away the most crucial part of CnC...

AceHigh · « **Reply #16 on:** December 19, 2011, 09:36:32 AM »

Quote from: nstgc on December 19, 2011, 06:47:11 AM

Generals was trying to be serious and failed.

Serious? Like this? Did all those over the top cliches escape you? Have you heard taunts in challenge mode from other generals? How can any of that qualify as remotely serious?

Quote

EA was trying to quickly react to a market that had "terrorist" ringing in its ears.

Then Westwood is equally guilty of milking the Cold War hysteria. By your logic all C&C games are crap.

nstgc · « **Reply #17 on:** December 19, 2011, 01:36:43 PM »

The tone of the conflict was suppose to be serious. Yes.

As for cold war histeria? The Cold War was over when these games where made and Tiberian Dawn was not a Cold War game I don't believe (I haven't played it). Certainly not by the time Tiberian Sun came out. RA was set in a world where the Cold War never happened, but I can't see that as a attempt to milk anything other than our willingness to part with money in return for a good game.

AceHigh · « **Reply #18 on:** December 19, 2011, 02:17:48 PM »

The cold war was over (barely) and Russia was still seen as the greatest enemy of the USA. Red Alert uses that cliche and the second Tiberian game uses Red Alert as a continuation. Of course later they needed to make more Red Alert so with more time travel they break the whole continuation thing, but you get the idea. The whole "story" was an inconsistent clusterfuck being a victim of a company trying to keep going with original Tiberian universe, but couldn't let go of the "evil russians" theme which was much more popular.

Quote

The tone of the conflict was suppose to be serious. Yes.

"Supposed to"... I don't know, but it wasn't. Dr. Thrax. Doctor motherfucking Thrax. I can see how that is serious

Then again, people with no sense of humour will take everything seriously, so this is pointless. Then again you wrote this:

Quote

Generals lacked polish, and at least RA3 was funny.

RA3 was funny? War Bears and Bullfrog transport alone made my brain feel embarrassed for me to play something that retarded.

RA3 wasn't even close to funny, it was annoying and too stupid for an adult, it crossed the line after RA2, something that Generals didn't do even when they used cheap stereotype jokes.

nstgc · « **Reply #19 on:** December 19, 2011, 02:32:41 PM »

I never said RA3 wasn't retarded. Also, I never said that the reason Generals sucked was because of EA's reaction. I was saying that had things been different, had the US not been thinking of terrorists, Generals would never have been made. It was a reaction. Had the Cold War never happened, we would not have had RA, but we would have had something.

Regardless of whether or not RA3 was funny or not is irrelevant (as I already said that it was retarded). What is relevant is that it was meant to be funny.

Perhaps Generals was suppose to be funny. Maybe I was just so pissed off that I bought such garbage that I couldn't see it. Who knows.

In anycase, I doubt the new CnC game will have those problems. It seems as if Bioware Victory (?) is planing on returning the franchise to its roots in terms of game play, is going to make it dark and gritty, and I'm sure its not going to be something they simply throw together.