« PAST POLL RESULTS »
NOVEMBER 2002

• Yes! (127)
• No way! (26)
• Not sure (55)

Some Fan Comments:

• weezle77: Very small crowded maps appear to be the curse of generals if the screenshots and gameplay movies are anything to go by. do you get the feeling you will be in charge of an army of hundreds (like a general) or a squad of tanks (like a captain)? will it have the ability of RA2 to have massive maps with fifty or so tanks plus support at your disposal? not wishing to be a doomsayer, but it gives the impression of being a squad based game rather than a full on war requiring "generals". I WANT FULL ON BATTLES, NOT MINOR SKIRMISHES!
• sterio: I am not sure whether I like the direction CnC games are heading. I like the idea behind Generals but I am pretty sure that I will never fully accept it as a CnC game.... I definitely don't like the sidebar moving, and the music which has always been, to me at least, a big aspect in CnC games I am almost sure I won't like. The 3D is good however, it is something that is needed to be done. I hope Generals is just a stepping stone on the way to Tiberian Twilight...
• Blackwaltz3: Dude....what is wrong with everyone...? I have been shi*in kittens over Generals since I saw the first screens! So what? It isn't Red Alert or Sun/Dawn, but that's the beauty of it! If you think about it, General is the right step! the only step! Think about it, if Generals is successful, (which I'm sure it will be), then imagine a Sage Engine Red Alert 3 (OMG, that's not even funny!!!) or a Sage Engine CNC?? Heck, even a Sage Engine Dune?! And refined Sage Engine at that....the longer it is existence the longer EAP can refine modify and perfect the engine! Come on...Generals it going to be outstanding (Damn...even the Commandos climb walls for Pete's sake!) and I can't wait and I'm sure everyone else cant either. And also, While command and conquer is a name that has a wonderful history and legacy...it is only a name...Great games sometimes have crappy names...TimeSplitters...retarded name...awesome game! final Fantasy...sounds like a porn...nope...great game...see my point. Its the game, not the name, that is what you should be looking for. Trust me. Its a great time to be a gamer and Generals will keep the CNC crown.
• SenjiXenon: I think that Command & Conquer: Generals graphics are great, and they are the way games should look like in the future. I think that the sidebar is a tiny thing that doesn't matter, but if people are being really picky, maybe an option for where the sidebar is. As to the Bulldozer, 2 things. 1) Sure, it may be a little more realistic than having a building make all your other buildings, but it was a good way to do it, and made it easy for the player. Adding bulldozers reminds me of Total Annihilation. That started annoying me after a while - the bulldozers took ages to get anywhere, got stuck between your structures, and also could not get into a space surrounded by your building to make a structure! 2) If this is supposed to be set in 20 years, are people still going to be using bulldozers? Maybe, but I dunno...
• Pointblanc: This story seems fine, not realistic (I have a reason, now's not the time) but still very good. All there is left is better AI and more support, if everyone would demand for these things, we just might get it, so go to the Generals forums and tell them you want a complete game!
• Snipe26: Now C&C has needed 3d graphics but these EAP guys are really going overboard. So they moved the sidebar, not a very big deal, but when they take away construction yards THEY'VE GONE TOO FAR. Bulldozers? that is just a stupid idea, it is just like all the other RTS games out there. There are just too many changes being made, I'm not saying it will be a bad game but (I am still definitely buying it) it has been twisted so much from previous C&C games I don't think it deserves the name Command & Conquer.
• GDIHAVOC5: I think the idea of generals being 3d is a good idea. I also like the fact the are bringing back familiar units, but more advanced. There is so much more it can do...Sure RA2 and TS had night and day but this is gonna be more realistic. And air-to-air combat - you couldn't do that before! Again, its going to be more realistic - I like the idea of having scaffolding when your building, and US army rangers abseil down from a Chinook onto a building - wicked.
• virtualoctopus: The ideas and technologies behind Generals could be a double-edged sword - on one hand, it could completely revolutionize the genre, and reinvent CNC - one of it's main criticisms has been that CNC hasn't really changed that much since Tiberian Dawn. Generals, with it's 3D interface, and many other gameplay changes, is a big step - but is it really a step forward? Many of the new ideas, such as unit upgrades and no shroud seem to pull Generals towards games such as Age of Empires, which, in all rights, is a great game, but isn't Command and Conquer by a long way. There's always a chance that all this similarity could cause Generals to flop - it's not huge, but perhaps it would be better for CNC to try and remain it's own sub-genre of RTS, instead of imitating other popular games. On the subject of storyline, CnC's roots are NOT in modern war. The first game was Tiberian Dawn, which was not a 'modern war' game. It featured science fiction elements, and was more geared towards a light-sci-fi feel that modern war. If CNC : TD was set in the gulf war or something, I'd understand EAP with their idea, but it wasn't. Red Alert, arguably the best game in the series, included such weapons as teleporters and invulnerability - neither of which are in 'modern war'. Granted, the Generals storyline does seem good, but I don't think it really has the CNC feel. On the subject of modding, I don't think that we have any evidence about the 'better mod support' yet. The best example of mod support I can find is this, from a PlanetCNC interview :
  
  "Q: Can you shed any light on the mod support for the game?
  A: Our goal is to do really heavy duty mod support, to open up as much as we can to the people. We want people to look at Generals and say "this is really easy to modify, I can do this, change the INI files, head models, change some art work, and can build great scenarios." Not just regular maps, we want them to be able to build fully scripted scenarios. We saw what people did with Red Alert 2, and we didn't help them at all. If we made some good tools for them, that should open everything up."
  
  There's nothing new here. We can already change the ini files, change artwork, and make scenarios in RA2/YR (which isn't even modding, in my opinion). What "head models" is, I don't know, but my best guess is that you'll be able to plaster your own face over various units. Big deal. This isn't any more 'mod support' than before. I need to see some more info before if I say if this ‘mod support’ is a good thing – it seems just a gimmick that’s nothing new. I may have seemed negative, but I don't think it's right to pass complete judgment yet. I think I'll wait until I play Generals before making a final judgment.
• chickendippers: Yes, 3D is good, and from the looks of it it's not gonna suffer from the same problems as Emperor does. I also like the new 'modern' setting without going to realistic like Commandos or anything.
• goliedude: I'm glad their going back to a more present day war scenario. I think it is so much more exciting. But, I hope they go back to the roots of the original C&C because that had to be the most fun I've had with a game ever. (even more than the present C&C games).
• CannisRabidus: Going to 3D: They have to, time marches on after all. Changing the sidebar to the bottom: Big mistake. It reduces a squarish view of the battlefield to a letterbox. There are other things too, like the silence about the game's AI is very worrisome. Probably the biggest problem looking at past efforts, is the tendency to forge ahead to the next game while forgetting to support the game just released. This is a fault of Westwood however; hopefully EAP will not continue this "tradition".