142 replies to this topic

[Alias]

Chyros, on 11 December 2011 - 15:35, said:

To be bluntly honest, those screenshots almost look like CNC3. There's very little colour and the units all look unnecessarily futuristic IMO. What are the weird arches on the tanks doing there, why are the helicopters straight from the Tiberian universe? The pallette also looks really bland IMO. So far, to be bluntly honest, I'd take the current Generals over this in terms of visuals - Gens just has much more colour. looks more vivid so far, doesn't look like one giant concrete jungle etc.

I'm probably just spoiled by shw though. I've found that since having played shw, all other RTS games have lost their shine to me.

You're right on that, although I don't think any of us want it like RA3 either with pastel colours and glitter.

Generals was ideal, but do note that this is very early in development. Remember how blindingly different generals looked in alpha? I think they haven't really refined the style yet, they just needed to shove something into the engine. I'm far more concerned about the gameplay and moddability.

We'll have to wait and see, I guess.

Edited by Alias, 11 December 2011 - 16:22.

[Libains]

Chyros, on 11 December 2011 - 15:35, said:

To be bluntly honest, those screenshots almost look like CNC3. There's very little colour and the units all look unnecessarily futuristic IMO. What are the weird arches on the tanks doing there, why are the helicopters straight from the Tiberian universe? The pallette also looks really bland IMO. So far, to be bluntly honest, I'd take the current Generals over this in terms of visuals - Gens just has much more colour. looks more vivid so far, doesn't look like one giant concrete jungle etc.

I'm probably just spoiled by shw though. I've found that since having played shw, all other RTS games have lost their shine to me.

Got to admit I think we're all rather spoiler by ShW, that was time that a game studio would never, ever put into a game. The screen shots do make me wonder how much of an influence C&C3 and RA3 are going to bring to it, neither of which I hugely appreciated. At the end of the day, there are places from Generals that look like war-torn wastelands, but the majority are untouched until your war arrives, and therefore are lush, fertile, and have all sorts of things going on. I'd love to see THAT recreated, rather than the latest in the long line of 'OMFG it's a devastated city'. Fortunately, I do think Rho is correct in that those civilian buildings etc all come from BF3, so they are probably placeholders rather than finished objects.

Raven, on 11 December 2011 - 12:47, said:

btw the system requirements floating around seems to be that of BF3 because its using the same engine. The ones that were in the origin cache may have been place holders.

Tbh they're not quite the same, the recommended GFX card has been pushed up a bit further. That said I'd take it all with a pinch of salt, there's a lot of optimisation of the game to be done yet.

[Sgt. Rho]

The helicopters are simply commanches with ducted fans TBH.

[Chyros]

Alias, on 11 December 2011 - 16:20, said:

Chyros, on 11 December 2011 - 15:35, said:

To be bluntly honest, those screenshots almost look like CNC3. There's very little colour and the units all look unnecessarily futuristic IMO. What are the weird arches on the tanks doing there, why are the helicopters straight from the Tiberian universe? The pallette also looks really bland IMO. So far, to be bluntly honest, I'd take the current Generals over this in terms of visuals - Gens just has much more colour. looks more vivid so far, doesn't look like one giant concrete jungle etc.

I'm probably just spoiled by shw though. I've found that since having played shw, all other RTS games have lost their shine to me.

You're right on that, although I don't think any of us want it like RA3 either with pastel colours and glitter.

Generals was ideal, but do note that this is very early in development. Remember how blindingly different generals looked in alpha? I think they haven't really refined the style yet, they just needed to shove something into the engine. I'm far more concerned about the gameplay and moddability.

We'll have to wait and see, I guess.

Indeed, I don't want it to look like BF3, I don't want it to look like CNC3, and I don't want it to look like RA3. I just want it to look like Generals!

Of course this is very early in development, so we have almost nothing to go on. What we HAVE to go on, just a measly screenshot really, doesn't impress me so far though. This game has a lot to prove, and the visuals in this stage at least don't, at least for me.

AJ, on 11 December 2011 - 16:40, said:

Chyros, on 11 December 2011 - 15:35, said:

To be bluntly honest, those screenshots almost look like CNC3. There's very little colour and the units all look unnecessarily futuristic IMO. What are the weird arches on the tanks doing there, why are the helicopters straight from the Tiberian universe? The pallette also looks really bland IMO. So far, to be bluntly honest, I'd take the current Generals over this in terms of visuals - Gens just has much more colour. looks more vivid so far, doesn't look like one giant concrete jungle etc.

I'm probably just spoiled by shw though. I've found that since having played shw, all other RTS games have lost their shine to me.

Got to admit I think we're all rather spoiler by ShW, that was time that a game studio would never, ever put into a game. The screen shots do make me wonder how much of an influence C&C3 and RA3 are going to bring to it, neither of which I hugely appreciated. At the end of the day, there are places from Generals that look like war-torn wastelands, but the majority are untouched until your war arrives, and therefore are lush, fertile, and have all sorts of things going on. I'd love to see THAT recreated, rather than the latest in the long line of 'OMFG it's a devastated city'.

Exactly!

[Anubis]

Sgt. Rho, on 11 December 2011 - 11:11, said:

Anubis, half your argument is based on the assumption that Bioware develops Generals 2. They don't. Victory Games does, and EA put them under the BioWare lable to boost sales.

Rho, as i already posted in my post, i said it is developed by a studio under bioware, and i also stated that the past 2-3 years experiences show that new studios under a big one do almost the exact same shit. And no, do not link me some obscure studio that created some game. I will point you at 4 giants that made all their studios puppets of shit : EA, Activision, THQ and Ubisoft and many more ofc.

Also what i said is prety much covered by their own site features declarations. All i got is that the visuals ( what a freekin surprise ) will be state of the art, the campaign will be ”epic” which to me equals shit tons of scripted events and a lame as hell storyline about the triumph of the Heavenly western forces vs the Hellish forces of the east and the fact that the content of the game will be small enough to make alot of space for shit tons of DLC ( like just about every game that is produced with DLC in it's features ). So sorry Rho, but their own site confirms my post.

Edited by Anubis, 11 December 2011 - 18:41.

[General]

What I see from the trailer is; it is a combination of C&C3 and Red Alert 3 with added Generals storyline.
I hope future trailers prove me wrong because what I see over there is not Generals.

[Camille]

Anubis, on 11 December 2011 - 18:41, said:

Sgt. Rho, on 11 December 2011 - 11:11, said:

Anubis, half your argument is based on the assumption that Bioware develops Generals 2. They don't. Victory Games does, and EA put them under the BioWare lable to boost sales.

Rho, as i already posted in my post, i said it is developed by a studio under bioware, and i also stated that the past 2-3 years experiences show that new studios under a big one do almost the exact same shit. And no, do not link me some obscure studio that created some game. I will point you at 4 giants that made all their studios puppets of shit : EA, Activision, THQ and Ubisoft and many more ofc.

Also what i said is prety much covered by their own site features declarations. All i got is that the visuals ( what a freekin surprise ) will be state of the art, the campaign will be ”epic” which to me equals shit tons of scripted events and a lame as hell storyline about the triumph of the Heavenly western forces vs the Hellish forces of the east and the fact that the content of the game will be small enough to make alot of space for shit tons of DLC ( like just about every game that is produced with DLC in it's features ). So sorry Rho, but their own site confirms my post.

while harsh, the contents of your post pretty much sum up my feelings so far. then again, i would never trust such PR-speak to begin with, since it always sounds pretty much like this. let's wait for more info and hope for the best.

[GDIZOCOM]

I'm very excited about this game. Even if there are many objects like the other EA games like what Alias said for some reason this reminds me of Alpha 98. I'm sure the final game will look more like Generals. I just hope they bring back what made Generals "Generals".

[Raven]

btw in the QA article posted by bob, they mention that Gens is the best selling game in the Franchise. I was surprised by that cos I thought most ppl hated it and loved just Tib n RA3. I thought CnC3 was the best seller!!!!

[Krieger22]

I don't know, remember that C&C3 & KW were accused of butchering the Tib storyline (it got worse) and RA3 was criticized for being too cartoonish. But then I'm just as surprised.

[Sgt. Rho]

I'm not surprised a bit. Everyone knows and has or had Generals at some point.

[Wizard]

Sgt. Rho, on 12 December 2011 - 08:16, said:

I'm not surprised a bit. Everyone knows and has or had Generals at some point.

Indeed, even friends I know who do not game have a copy of Generals. I can well believe how popular it is, which makes you realise how dumb EA have been avoiding this for soo long.

[Chyros]

Wizard, on 12 December 2011 - 08:43, said:

Sgt. Rho, on 12 December 2011 - 08:16, said:

I'm not surprised a bit. Everyone knows and has or had Generals at some point.

Indeed, even friends I know who do not game have a copy of Generals. I can well believe how popular it is, which makes you realise how dumb EA have been avoiding this for soo long.

Partly because of that I never thought Generals was THAT popular Oo .

[Sharpnessism]

Anubis, on 11 December 2011 - 18:41, said:

Sgt. Rho, on 11 December 2011 - 11:11, said:

Anubis, half your argument is based on the assumption that Bioware develops Generals 2. They don't. Victory Games does, and EA put them under the BioWare lable to boost sales.

Rho, as i already posted in my post, i said it is developed by a studio under bioware, and i also stated that the past 2-3 years experiences show that new studios under a big one do almost the exact same shit. And no, do not link me some obscure studio that created some game. I will point you at 4 giants that made all their studios puppets of shit : EA, Activision, THQ and Ubisoft and many more ofc.

Also what i said is prety much covered by their own site features declarations. All i got is that the visuals ( what a freekin surprise ) will be state of the art, the campaign will be ”epic” which to me equals shit tons of scripted events and a lame as hell storyline about the triumph of the Heavenly western forces vs the Hellish forces of the east and the fact that the content of the game will be small enough to make alot of space for shit tons of DLC ( like just about every game that is produced with DLC in it's features ). So sorry Rho, but their own site confirms my post.

as long as people are willing to pay for it, people will buy the same thing over and over regardless of its quality =/ can't blame companies for wanting to make money instead of taking a risk but ill agree with everyone seeing "DLC" is disappointing as a gamer. curious though, what would you define as "different", or a good campaign, or a good storyline (given that they're working with a war-on-terror storyline and can't terribly offend anyone)?

in regards to the game, generals 2 looks overly realistic to me, graphic style is mediocre, i would've preferred something more similar to ccg. i doubt the gameplay will be similar to ccg, which could be good or bad, but i dont have high expectations.

[Erich Honecker]

Hmm...im very surprised.

My question is how far they will go with the DLC. Like if they will split the base factions into "generals" like ZH, or if they will wait for DLCs for that.

Or if they will have some specializations in another way.

No USA tho..heh

[Anubis]

Sharpnessism, on 12 December 2011 - 21:48, said:

Anubis, on 11 December 2011 - 18:41, said:

Sgt. Rho, on 11 December 2011 - 11:11, said:

Anubis, half your argument is based on the assumption that Bioware develops Generals 2. They don't. Victory Games does, and EA put them under the BioWare lable to boost sales.

Rho, as i already posted in my post, i said it is developed by a studio under bioware, and i also stated that the past 2-3 years experiences show that new studios under a big one do almost the exact same shit. And no, do not link me some obscure studio that created some game. I will point you at 4 giants that made all their studios puppets of shit : EA, Activision, THQ and Ubisoft and many more ofc.

Also what i said is prety much covered by their own site features declarations. All i got is that the visuals ( what a freekin surprise ) will be state of the art, the campaign will be ”epic” which to me equals shit tons of scripted events and a lame as hell storyline about the triumph of the Heavenly western forces vs the Hellish forces of the east and the fact that the content of the game will be small enough to make alot of space for shit tons of DLC ( like just about every game that is produced with DLC in it's features ). So sorry Rho, but their own site confirms my post.

as long as people are willing to pay for it, people will buy the same thing over and over regardless of its quality =/ can't blame companies for wanting to make money instead of taking a risk but ill agree with everyone seeing "DLC" is disappointing as a gamer. curious though, what would you define as "different", or a good campaign, or a good storyline (given that they're working with a war-on-terror storyline and can't terribly offend anyone)?

in regards to the game, generals 2 looks overly realistic to me, graphic style is mediocre, i would've preferred something more similar to ccg. i doubt the gameplay will be similar to ccg, which could be good or bad, but i dont have high expectations.

As story - well without trying to offend anyone here, but i would for once wanna see the story from the perspective of the people who are being royaly screwed each day and whos country is being invaded. You know, i wonder how would anyone here feel when their country is invaded and their kids are bombed to pieces by a self imposed justicar of the world. This would be an interesting turn on this pathetic war on terrorrism for the ignorants.
In terms of different - well without making any commercial to any mod, i would really prefer something along the lines of Rise of the Reds. You know ... more than 3 frekin factions ( and while one of the factions is now a european one, it will 100% play as the old usa, one is gla and the other is probably something extremly similar to china ) with a much more interesting generals system that actualy fits the name, generals factions that have more than 1 tank or 1 building different, and if possible ( cause apparently this is a legend in today's games ) frekin more unit variety. I am sick of all strategy games having only 1 unit for a very specific role, which in the end leads to a max of 3-4 inf, 5-6 vehicles, and 2-3 air units, each having a single role, and leaves no space for anything else. Oh and i really hope they keep the secondary econ system. That is the thing thad for me made generals alooot more playable than just about any strat game i played.

Edited by Anubis, 13 December 2011 - 21:03.

[Raven]

I don't think such a game would commercially viable for a big company like EA. That would take so much flak and sales would suffer in US and EU IMO. Also such an aspect can best be covered in an FPS/3PS rather than a RTS

[n5p29]

oh hey, more GLA units!

[Destiny]

God, GLA with a...heavy-tank-looking MBT, flying stuff...well, flying stuff aint't THAT bad, at least they're made outta scraps

[Admiral FCS]

Destiny, on 14 December 2011 - 07:18, said:

God, GLA with a...heavy-tank-looking MBT, flying stuff...well, flying stuff aint't THAT bad, at least they're made outta scraps

It probably just LOOK like a heavy tank

[Raven]

is this fan art?

[Sgt. Rho]

No, it's from EA's site

I have mixed feelings on those units. The crop duster looks kinda nice, the rocket buggy is utter shit, and at first I thought "Is this End of Nations?".

[Camille]

the crop dusters look hilarious.

as for the other units, they look majorly uninteresting. and somehow, they look a little too patchy. i liked the original generals' beige colour scheme better. this just looks like patches of puke randomly added to patches of dried puke.

[Chyros]

Camille, on 14 December 2011 - 11:00, said:

as for the other units, they look majorly uninteresting.

I agree, so far this stuff is really not pulling me in .

[GuardianTempest]

My (soon-to-be) laptop better run this.

And since DLC factions, I daydream user-made ones too.

In fact, there better be more powerful modding tools and...you know those unused voice files in ZH? Those types of missions(free the POW) better exist here. And ALL the stuff the original game thew out, like walls, POW's, other stuff.

And since Bin Ladens death, what will they focus this one on?