Command & Conquer: Generals 2 (PC)
 

http://www.commandandconquer.com/for...ine=1323574247

Official Site: http://www.commandandconquer.com/en/...d/cncgenerals2

Release: 2013
Platform: PC
Developer: BioWare Victory
Publisher: EA BioWare

Finally, My prayers... answered... I hope it plays and feels like the first one, the transistion from RA2-RA3 was so bad, I think I got bored with RA3-related stuff.

Took long enough....finally....

EA is trying to turn BioWare into their Blizzard and steal a piece of StarCraft II's pie.

I always did like Generals, will certainly give this a shot :D Will help bring back hope after playing Tiberium Wars..

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, there are many things I don't enjoy about Generals, such as the 'Age of Empire'-like worker-builder-gatherer mechanics (I prefer old-school build system) and very imbalanced air force units (I can somewhat swallow GLA not having any planes, but China having only ground-attack plane and no air-superiority one?).

On the other hand, both Red Alert 3 and Tiberium Twilight were the weakest installments in their respective series, so a little bit of change is fine, I guess.

I just hope for these points to come true:

1. Instead of one-by-one, infantries come in squads Tiberium Wars style.
2. No pop-caps.
3. More supplies per supply site so they don't get depleted too fast.
4. Anti-garrison weapons (flames, toxic, flash-bang) kills garrisoned units faster than normal weapons but not instantaneously

It's EA. Best kept any expectations low. It will be most likely a decent title but not a game changer.

It's BioWare. I expect to be romancing some tanks. :eyespin:

The first Generals was EA.....

Command & Conquer: Generals 2 First Details
A beloved strategy game returns. Built with Frostbite 2, only on PC.

The next step in the Command & Conquer franchise will have nothing to do with Kane or Red Alert's war bears. Instead, Electronic Arts is returning to the slightly more realistic Generals brand, which we haven't heard much about since the Zero Hour expansion back in 2003. To learn more about this PC exclusive real-time strategy sequel, in development at the rebranded BioWare Victory studio, we had a chance to ask BioWare co-founder Dr. Ray Muzyka and executive producer Jon Van Caneghem a few questions via email.

IGN: It's been quite a while since the Generals offshoot of Command & Conquer has been in the spotlight. Why now, and why Generals in particular if the goal was to again tap into the C&C brand?

Jon Van Caneghem: We looked at each of the different universes in the franchise and thought a return to Generals was long overdue. The original game is actually the best-selling game in the series and its one our community has been asking for. And when we took a closer look, we were really attracted to the near future time period and the themes we could explore and the project went from there.

IGN: How does Generals 2 differ from what fans remember of the first one? Does it still involve the traditional RTS mechanics of base building and army management?

Jon Van Caneghem: One of our main goals is to bring C&C back to the roots that have made it one of the most popular and beloved properties in the strategy genre and that revolves around the core gameplay. The player is the General and it's up to them to create and take control of these huge, massive armies. We're definitely bringing some new elements to the table as well, but it's very important for us to bring C&C back to its foundation and that's through action-packed gameplay that also requires you to be cerebral.

Full interview: http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1214474p1.html

There's an older-school build system than Age of Empire?

Also, game-balance wise, remember that China had gatling guns, the best AA in the entire game. Giving it an air superiority planes too would be too much.

1. I'm with you on this.
2. Wouldn't mind this as long as they offer more challenge in the resource management part.
3. Wouldn't mind this but unit management should offer more challenge if this is in effect.
4. I'm neutral on this, since afaik garrison killing abilities had been instantaneous in most games that support it. Or perhaps we can upgrade the garrison to make it immune to these abilities. But bunker buster bombs should have instant effect true to its definition.

My only hope right now is that this will truly be an RTS and not RTS wannabee like C&C4.

Now this looks like the game that C&C4 should've been: a return to the roots with awesome sci-fi styling. Looks like Generals 2 has taken its foot into the "near future-tech" instead of the "current tech with futuristic bent" styling, though with the direction Zero Hour was going it only makes perfect sense. Hope the vanilla game is more Zero Hour and less vanilla-Generals though.

And I love the new aircraft already :love:

Something to note: C&C Generals was the game that introduced the SAGE Engine to the franchise, which is the engine that ran through Battle for C&C3, RA3, and C&C4. Now, Generals 2 is once again heralding the use of a more advanced game engine to the franchise, in this case the Frostbite 2 engine.

IIRC if you rapelled Rangers in it wasn't instantaneous....


And in WWII RTS, assaulting garrisoned structures requires actual indoor fighting that takes time and can result in losses for your side....

Upgrading the garrison to be immune is just bad IMO

Another thing that I want to play/watch so badly that will be in 2013... Guess I'll have to wait for both the Inquisitor and this :eyespin:

And what a departure from the prior C&C titles it was. It was a good title on it's own, just not what was expected from the C&C tag.

The point is EA does not have a good track record of keeping up with expectations. I point you to Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2 and Alice Madness Returns in return for one Battlefield 3.

Not sure about Alice, but Crysis 2 and Dragon Age 2 are weird examples. Crysis 2 was only published by EA, it was developed by Crytek, whose only relation to EA is that EA published their game (well, their series). Dragon Age 2 is simply a dumb example because EVERYBODY was expecting it to SUCK and of course that actually did turn out to be the case, it just didn't suck as much it was expected to.

This is a sequel from a game made by them that was decent....

As long as they don't make another RA3 I'm fine....

Gameplay wise RA3 was actually quite good, especially Uprising. The story however left much to be desired. C&C4 had okay gameplay that could've been better, and an even worse story + presentation.

Looks like they're keeping it safe for Generals this time, except for the setting being further into the future.

I'm hoping they enhance the Generals Powers, and retain the Generals Specialties (Air Force General YEAAAAAAAAAAH).

But didn't EA also hyped them up to be worthy successors ?

Look, Generals 2 could swing both ways here. I didn't preach about Generals 2 to be another failure, but rather to keep any expectations low given it's relations.

EA's marketing is part of the reason Dragon Age 2 was expected to suck ("Press a Button, Something Awesome Happens. Derp"). Really don't think you can count on them to hype anything without it looking like an embarrassment.