C&C Generals 2

EA have reportedly bought a Generals 2 domain name.

Me too

Domain name: generals2.com

Registrant:
Electronic Arts
Domain Hostmaster
209 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065
US
Hostmaster2@ea.com
+1.6506281500 Fax: +1.6506281331

Domain name: generals2.net

Registrant Contact:
Kiwi Dynamic
Caleb Isaacs


NZ

Me too

cncgenerals2.com
cncgenerals2.net

Now let's hope they're actually up to something

Oh Gods no... not Generals 2... The world is ending!

Well..I've read the uber 12 pages thread in RA3 forum, most of all posters seem ultra happy about Generals2 because they say: It's funnier than the rest of the other C&C games, it's more balanced (? I've read years ago lots of compliants about cheap combo Tank Hunter + Gattling Tank, or the uber MiG aircraft ecc... I've no idea if they fixed them, I don't have the game since it didn't have a decent single player campaign, too much holes in arsenal, too much steroeotypes, too much zealotism (is it correct?) USA are always the best, China is a primitive faction with wood structures written in Japanese, GLA resembles the evil muslims with toxins, anthrax, suicide units etc.... I was quite disgusted, in my opinion was a bad game for these reasons.

Sorry for my bad English.

Edited by Rygar, 17 August 2008 - 06:00 AM.

you cant really say its bad without playing it...
i have played it, and its not a bad game.

I don't have the game since it didn't have a decent single player campaign

have you played the campaign?

too much holes in arsenal, too much steroeotypes, too much zealotism (is it coorect?)

holes in arsenal? if by holes you mean things aren't realistic... then you might as well forget about playing any other C&C game... generals has the most realistic weaponry out of all of them
to many stereotypes? again, you might as well forget about playing any other C&C... they have just as much stereotyping as generals, if not more (Red Alert especially)
to much zealotism? what do you mean? if you are talking about the fact there are terrorists(the actual unit called 'terrorist') in it, then i guess you might say this... you'd have to be pretty zealous to want to blow yourself up. no normal person would do it... so no, your not correct, there isn't too much at all.

USA are always the best, China is a primitive faction with wood structures written in Japanese, GLA resembles the evil muslims with toxins, anthrax, suicide units etc

again, have you even played the game?

USA is Not always the best, the only way USA could be better then other factions is if you suck using the others. its all up to you. China is not privative! they might have some wood on their buildings, but they are not all wood, only little bits(like some of the roofs awnings) they have nuclear technology and advance propaganda and tanks. they might not be advanced as USA, but they aren't heaps behind, the technology is close. GLA have least advance, but thats cause they are a terrorist organization... they salvage weapons.

and dude, how the hell are you suppose to have a terrorist faction without suicide units!? and the anthrax and toxins are also terrorist technology.
GLA resembles evil muslims because they are. what is would you call an islamic middle eastern terrorist organization, just like Al Qaeda? did you expect middle eastern terrorists to not look like middle eastern people!?

----------------

gesh, why do people hate generals, its a good game!

Attention, I've never said I hate people who play Generals. I assure you I hate noone.

To be honest I've seen the game, one of my friends bought it and I've seen the SP missions. In my opinion it was a delusion because:

graphic wasn't that good (in particular for infantry units)
there were few missions per side (If I remember correctly, 8 per side),
there weren't movies (only some game animations),
most of the missions weren't that interesting and in my point of view even offensive (I've found tasteless the GLA mission in which you've to destroy UN aircrafts to steal humanitarian supplies and get money from them),
I really don't like how the factions are created, before I was misunderstood.

For "USA are the best" I didn't mean the most powerful side in the game. I mean how do they look: high tech, always the good guys, their units and structures look the coolest, they have clean weapons (like Paladin laser, Particle cannon, Military ambulance etc...) even the names of their units resemble the symbol of the good forces (crusaders, paladins ecc..., why not saints and templars too?), in few word the stereotype of the winner, the justice, the best of the best, the bringer of freedom, peace, democracy and advanced civilization.

The "primitive Chinese" uses dirty technologies (the nukes, always associated to the "bad guys", Nod, Soviet, Harkonnen etc...) they are fanatic, propagandists, zealots, they seem to symbolize the 2nd world, the underdevelop world. They haven't cool streamlined and advanced units like the US, instead they have slower units, their colour is dark and it seems they use low/average quality stuff (this was written even in the manual). They use their bastard hackers to steal money and sboutage the enemy. They don't have fast ground units, they win not because their quality, but their quantity (the horde bonus was an example), they call "foreign demons" the enemy, just to emphasize their fanatism etc...

Then we have the "Evil Muslim Terrorists" called GLA (Global Liberation Army, I've seen nothing but Arabian faces in their infantry and some ex soviet vehicles and something like WWII stuff. If they want to call something "global" at least they could add some other people, European, North and South American, Australian etc... terrorist aren't always muslims or Arabians) the 3rd world evil side. They are so poor and bad trained that they aren't able to drive an aircraft. So they don't have the airforce, their vehicle seem to come from a junkyard, they use dirty weapons too, they use slaves to build their structures etc... So they represent the poor and envy who fights the rich and good. I'm surprised that they didn't add the horse riding robbers.

For holes in arsenal I mean what I've written: ok for different side but at least do them complete! Only the the US seems really complete. They have complete infantry, fast and heavy vehicles, complete airforce etc.

China hasn't a fast scout unit and GLA doesn't have an airforce at all! Holes in arsenal have never balanced a game.

RA3 not only seems more complete under this aspect (all of 3 sides have a good airforce, good fast and heavy units, complete naval force etc...) but also is much more politically correct. They've removed nuclear technlogies in respect of Japanese people, in China Generals was forbidden because the Game turned to be offensive for the Chinese people.

Just imagine if EA or Blizzard or Atari etc... make a RTS game with no good guys, each side is evil and is ultra sterotyped, for example:

The US is evil because start a war to steal oil, water and use depleted uranium, cluster bombs, white phosphorus weapons. Their intelligent weapons aren't that intelligent and their own infantry get injured with "friendly fire". They have a structure called "detention camp" in which enemy prisoners are captured and tortured.

The China is evil because uses its own citizien as slaves, ignore human rights and exploit them in a warfare. It produces low cost units and masses them against the enemy. They do not care if lots of their soldier die, they can always replace them. They use torture, dirty weapons and blackmail other allied countries to join the war because else they will get invaded.

The European Union is evil because sometime is allied with the US sometime with Russia, sometime with China and use diplomacy to manipulate, make big deals with middle east countries and using their banks to finance their wars called "peacekeeping missions".

Russia is evil because wants to subjugate the world with military strenght, wants to blackmail the ex soviet union countries (now indipendent) and wants to bring the communist dictatorship all around, "showing the muscles" against small countries who claim independence. They use torture and psycologycal warfare.

The middle east is evil because all the world terrorists are here, because there's Al Quaeda, PKK, mercenaries, rebels, kamikaze etc...It's allied with Africa and South America and wants to cancel the "western civilization" and all the infedels. They use mind control and suicide tactics.

Well, a game like this can be considered one of the biggest insults ever created. Who wants to buy such an offensive game?

Let's consider another fact: RA universe is alternative and the Soviet Union still exists, Generals pretended to be more realistic, but wasn't that politically correct and fallen in the stereotypes I've mentioned.

3 years ago, more or less when Generals came out, I've prefered Act of War instead of Generals for some reasons:

1)Had cool missions and movies inside.
2)Had 3 original sides with realistic units (not all, the game wasn't 100% realistic), the "conventional" US army, a "commando US faction" Task Force Talon and the Consortium, a terroristic faction that used both low tech units (like RPG units) and stolen Soviet, European and American high tech units.
3)The expansion added even naval units and neutral mercenary stuff.
4)You can capture enemy prisoners and gain some advantages.

All of these sides were really different but they are absolutely complete, no holes in arsenal, special abilities for their units etc... the bad thing is that Atari didn't support the game for a long time and abandoned it because the game wasn't well known and didn't sell enough. That's a pity in my opinion.

So if Generals 2 wants to be an overall good game (not only on line and multi player) should be politically correct (not only for 1 or 2 countries), balanced, with a deep story, good sp missions and movies, possibly not that stereotyed and completed. At the moment I like much more RA3 and AoW.

Just my opinion, I don't want to insult nobody.

Edited by Rygar, 17 August 2008 - 09:43 AM.

So you think my country uses slaves huh?...

Anyway, China may have wood in their buildings but it's Traditional. They are high tech but wouldn't compete against USA Technology, China relys on theirs numbers to overwhelm their enemies.

USA is a turtler faction; They have to build up then attack later.

GLA..Well they're not really a country infact they are organized by Mid East countries to assemble a Terrorcell even if they are low tech, they still kick ass!

Anyway I don't mind if Generals 2 is made I just hope theres more content in it unlike the cut content in Generals/ZH.

Also Generals is forbidden in China because Red Guard refers to religious content in southern China + GLA nuked Beijing. You can play Generals in China but you MUST have either the German or UK version to play it.

Apologies for my English it's still a second language to me.

No, I don't think your country uses slaves, I've intentionally exaggerater just to show a "stereotyped point of view".

Anyway, China may have wood in their buildings but it's Traditional. They are high tech but wouldn't compete against USA Technology, China relys on theirs numbers to overwhelm their enemies.

This was more or less what I mean...China cannot compete against US thech and adopts quantity rather quality to win.

For the rest I'm quite sceptical about Generals 2, if it will be more like Act of War then can be a masterpiece, otherwise it couln't get my interest.

Does anyone wanna buy www.generals3.com and sell it to them for double the price when they make generals 3 xD

Registrant:
Electronic Arts
Domain Hostmaster
209 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065
US
Hostmaster2@ea.com
+1.6506281500 Fax: +1.6506281331

Domain Name: GENERALS3.COM
Too late, it's already been bought.

They also bought up to Generals 9.

- Zhen

I loved playing Generals so Gen2 should be fun. I love the exagerated aspect of sterotypes in the game. US with cowboy style dialogue, GLA with terrorist stuff. (though the GLA worker actually had an indian accent)

I often wondered how someone can let themselves get insulted or turned off by something in a video game. It's just a game. Some people takes life so serious.

They also bought up to Generals 9.

- Zhen

Maybe they want to keep us far away from us getting profit

lol this got moved to its own topic... and i speant all that time composing a pm to rygar so as not to drag the RA3 topic any further... if i had know this was here i would have just posted it here


and yeah, exaggeration is funny, but they main reason stereotypes are used is because people can quickly identify.. "oh he sounds chinese, hes from china" or "he sounds like a terrorist, he's from gla'...

people can be pretty dumb, so stereotpyes make it easier for them to work out who is who...

i would just like to see generals 2 to have nicer graphics...
somewhat like supreme commander's terrain.

as well as maybe some nice Variety in Playable Generals...

I dunno what i would want from a generals 2 game. personally anything RTS that isn't inspired by what Relic did with Company of Heroes and is doing with DOW2, is not really worth looking at.

Generals was a good game though, so if they find a good balance between tanks and infantry and whatnot, then it might be acceptable to play it.

i think that generals 2 should at least have a story not like its inexistant story in generals 1 and there should be better weaponry and more classic c&c style building.

oH AND YAY THIS IS MY 100th post

and more classic c&c style building.

This is precisely one of the main factors why Command & Conquer sucked before generals. The dumb construction yard concept. Generals gave you the freedom to build anywhere.

...in theory, Generals was a better game, minus the storyline. In THEORY; in practice it was riddled with bugs. Which made it suck in a different way.

Though at least it was more honest. The old C&C games try to disguise what is in fact an inferior shitty game with boring gameplay by putting camp "funny" live action cutscenes.

I don't care what people say, EA didn't ruin C&C and make it suck, it sucked before it as well. It's overrated.

okay lets just say that all C&C games are good? and anyone who goes like "generals is bad cuase its not westwood and the musics differnt and all the EA ones suck because they dont use crappy sprites and other stuff" should be kicked

Edited by segwayrulz, 05 December 2008 - 08:02 AM.