Retro Review: Command & Conquer: Generals

Command & Conquer: Generals shares a lot in common with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. While this controversial statement will undoubtedly puzzle many of you, the rationale behind it is sound. Both games involve a near-future conflict between America, a secretive terrorist organization, and a major eastern superpower. In these conflicts, both sides use Clancy-esque technology that in our world doesn’t quite exist yet, and both games feature sweet industrial rock guitar solos to get your blood pumping. The final element that both games share is an incoherent narrative that exists for the sole purpose of creating the most insane combat situations possible.

Generals focuses on a three-way conflict between the USA, China, and the fictitious Global Liberation Army, a faction whose sole purpose is to play the others off of each other. While a war against this not-quite-Al-Qaeda group of fundamentalists might give the game a “ripped from the headlines” appeal, it only increases the feeling that this is a bad comic book. For example, the first mission tasks you with invading Baghdad. While this might have been an interesting and plausible future in February of 2003 when the game was initially released, the fact that the United States actually invaded Iraq later that year makes the mission simply feel weird. Furthermore, the “You are victorious!” message that ironically appears upon the mission’s completion leaves a sombre aftertaste. While this unfortunate coincidence could not have been foreseen, it represents the blind patriotism found in all three of Generals’ factions.

Many of the Global Liberation Army’s most powerful weapons use Anthrax. Apparently, it glows florescent green.

While corny missions like these represent the majority of the game’s single-player, there is essentially no overarching story to tie everything together. Upon completing a mission, you are shown a world map and some text describing your next mission. While the presentation is very sleek and the voice narration is a nice touch, you are given no context as to why these missions are even happening. While I understand that operating on a need-to-know basis is part of military life for the lowly grunt, it feels weird considering that the game is about Generals. The strung-together nature of the three singleplayer campaigns feels especially odd considering the emphasis that previous Command & Conquer (C&C) games put on narrative and charismatic science-fiction characters.

Despite the messy narrative, Generals’ core gameplay is actually quite strong, and multiplayer can be a blast. The units themselves have a lot of personality, and for the most part, they feel plausible in a near-future setting. There are several exceptions however, such as the Chinese Overlord Tank that is a not-so-subtle nod to the Mammoth Tank found in the original Command & Conquer. It can be hilarious to click on a GLA worker, only to have him complain that it is difficult to build structures without shoes. There are plenty of such Easter eggs to be found, and they do a lot to make your troops feel unique. Battles themselves feel hectic, and eight-player online skirmishes can contain many memorable RTS moments such as sneak attacks and heroic last stands. Veteran C&C players will find that a new “Generals Points” system makes calling in air support a lot easier, as all your purchased support abilities are nicely lined-up at the side of the screen. Some of the classic C&C super-weapons also return, such as the nuclear missile and the USA’s Particle Cannon, which essentially acts like the Ion Cannon from C&C of yore, except now you can move the laser beam while it is firing to burn a line through your enemy’s base. However, veteran C&C players will undoubtedly be confused by the redesigned interface that feels more like something out of StarCraft.

While it may be shiny, the new user interface feels nothing like Command & Conquer.

With a bit of a cult following, Generals still has a small but dedicated online community, and there are plenty of mods available to spice the game up. Be forewarned however, that anyone still playing this game online has likely had a long time to practice, so prepare to lose a lot at first. This might lead to serious frustration, but is more a criticism against how RTS games are designed in general. Luckily, there are a lot of fan-made strategy guides available online, and hopefully you’ll be able to get up to speed without too much fuss. However, if you’re having trouble finding a fair fight, there are completely competent bots available for practicing.

Unless you bring proper anti-aircraft weapons, American helicopters will lay waste to your tanks.

While it was cutting-edge back in 2003, Generals’ presentation is definitely showing its age. While the music, sound effects, and loading screens are still great, the in-game visuals look muddy. This might actually be a blessing in disguise for players with lower-end computers, as the game will scale down to the point that it can run on pretty much anything. However, those of us who like to keep our PCs current will definitely notice how old the graphics look. To add to the frustration, the game only supports low-resolution monitors, and I had to edit some .INI files just to get widescreen to work. While such headaches are par for the course when attempting to play older games, it would be negligent not to mention them.

Unfortunately, Generals’ greatest sin was EA’s decision to give it the Command & Conquer branding. Had it been a standalone product, expectations would have been much more realistic. Instead of a true successor, Generals proves to be nothing more than Red Alert 2’s awkward stepchild. The result is a decent game which was simply given boots too big to fill. With the upcoming release of Command & Conquer 4, and the promise to reinvent the C&C gameplay, we’ll see if “Generals 2″ is a more proper title than “Tiberian Twilight.”