Command and Conquer Generals 2 Announced Options

[Mcbob]

Surprise surprise.

http://www.commandandconquer.com/en/games/...id/cncgenerals2

[MARS]

Oooooooooh, so that's what UltimateAero was hinting at in the other thread yesterday. I hadn't seen this back then. So yeah, new C&C indeed I guess and it actually IS going to be Generals 2...That's cool and all but before we all get our knickers in a twist, we should wait for some hard information first. Points of interest are certainly the involvement of Bioware of all people and the use of Frostbite. Who knows, could be promising, but this game only has a chance if EA learns from their past mistakes and decides to support this game properly, i.e. release modding tools early on and do NOT release a full-blown next installment a mere year or two later. Part of the reason ZH has this great modding community is because it was the only C&C game for four years until TW came out in 2007. And naturally, they should also get rid of this whole mandatory Origin-bullshit until 2013.

[Mcbob]

I'm rather excited to see how Frostbite performs in-game. Sound design and particle effects look sharp.

My hopes for the game are that infantry can take cover, aircraft can fly at various altitudes, and projectiles ricochet off the ground and surfaces in the manner of C&C4.

I take it we will also see realistic scaling of units? The detail on the tank was great. I don't really like the design of that VTOL gunship though, not really an issue though.

Coincidentally, I was modding Zero Hour when I stumbled upon this.

[MARS]

The in-game graphics do look impressively detailed for an RTS...But then again, these details only serve to highlight some odd design choices. Whoever's in charge of designing their tanks really needs to get that 'exposed tracks make it look cool and high-tech herp derp' out of their head. Exaggerated unit designs stand out like a sore thumb in an otherwise realistic-looking environment and I hope they don't overdo it. Also, the mention of DLC for maps, campaigns and apparently even new units and entire factions pretty much killed my hopes for decent mod support right there. EA hasn't changed one bit: Modders can go fuck themselves because EA would rather sell all these little extras as DLC and be able to drop the game dead the moment the next one's coming out.

Without trying to sound overly negative at this early stage yet, here's actually a valid question: Do you think the original factions, particularly the GLA, will still largely resemble their original counterparts? Judging by the premise of the story, I could imagine them replacing the US with a more inclusive 'Euro-American Trans-Atlantic Alliance' and China with some pseudo-socialist Eurasian Union. If that happens, the GLA will probably cease to be a hypocritical anti-'imperialist', Arab/central Asian nationalist, ambiguously Islamic terrorist organisation and turn into some sort of anti-'New World Order' gang of anarchists and conspiracy theorists with ridiculous amounts of resources akin to TS-era Nod. Remember that the original Generals was basically "War on Terror: Steroid Edition" back in 2003 but that kind of subject really isn't all that 'en vogue' nowadays anymore.

[Mcbob]

Mmm I just realized the exposed tracks. I was paying attention to the turret. The color choices are odd to me as well.

From the looks of the trailer, the GLA will be radically redesigned, going from a ragtag junk army to a more industrial-looking force. I mean, just look at those quad cannons. The guns are mounted on a.... dump truck? Not sure.

I do hope the iconic units remain. Unfortunate about the DLC though. I also realized because its Frostbite, there is no SDK; that is of course if the community doesn't speak up enough.

Supposedly they are paying attention to feedback according to the official newsposts. I hope that is the case.

I cite the feedback on the early design of the Zone Trooper before C&C3 came out and EALA's response as an example of responding to the community.

Then again, its set to release in 2013. We've got time to see where it goes.

This post has been edited by Mcbob: 11 Dec 2011, 9:49

[MARS]

By the way, about 10 seconds in, we get to see this on one of the tanks:



An...EU logo?

[The_Hunter]

This certainly interests me
The look if it the trailer is pretty neat too altho i'm not jumping the gun untill i get some more info.
I also hope they don't go overboard with some crazy hightech look for most units as the original generals was neat becouse all of the stuff used in that game was (to an extend) thinkable tech that could be employed within real life militaries within the next 30 years.

edit:

highres screenie:

[Shiro]

I hope the shot Hunter posted is without shaders. This looks blander than even TW, and what's up with those tanks? Once again, a single missile at these tracks would destroy their parts, making the tank completely immobile if not outright killing it. Quad Cannons don't look so bad though.

[The_Hunter]

An other snipper i found:

IGN: What's the story setup for Generals 2, and does it tie into the first one at all?

Jon Van Caneghem: Generals 2 takes place ten years after the events in Generals. At the beginning the world is actually at peace. There's a huge conference where a landmark peace treaty is about to be signed. But moments before that happens, a terrorist attack takes away all of the leaders in attendance. The only leaders who are left are the generals and that's where you come in. We have three factions in the game, the GLA, the EU and one more we aren't revealing – yet!

So yes there will be a European faction.
I'm hoping China will be the third faction.

[Massey]

This certainly interests me
The look if it the trailer is pretty neat too altho i'm not jumping the gun untill i get some more info.
I also hope they don't go overboard with some crazy hightech look for most units as the original generals was neat becouse all of the stuff used in that game was (to an extend) thinkable tech that could be employed within real life militaries within the next 30 years.

edit:

highres screenie:

I agree. Generals "1" was cool because it was simial (for the most part) to a "real" army or possible army base on tec research or at least concepts, of the day (thinking of the microwave tank)

I know it might be a little early to say this but if that "EU"(guessing) flying gunship is any thing to go by.... im looking more forward towards ROTR then Generals. I say this because unlike other CnC games, for me it was about playing "real...er" army then NOD or GDI crazy tect. but thats just my opinion.

i will say this, If thats in-game graphics and not intro movie then i tip my hat of to them. looks good.


Massey
Edit:
P.S i love that the colour theme for the EU is yellow.... if they keep the USA, China, GLA... they will have Yellow, Blue, Green and Red. They need a maroon
Edit x2:
Story thought: if it is the EU then it be funny to see a story base on revange for the GLA war.... but like some of u have sead... GLA are dead, so who would they fight? a GLA offshot? A regrouped GLA or maybe its a war on just a random(made up) country.

This post has been edited by Massey: 11 Dec 2011, 12:09

[Shock]

A whole lot of negativity...

I think you're being overly speculative here, and you're not really comparing this new game to it's predecessor but rather what you would like to see as a modern warfare RTS game.

If we have a look at Generals, that game is defined by it's realistic setting intermingled with stark colours and sometimes exaggerated unit design. Overlord tanks, dual cannon Marauders and Laser tanks. This game already looks a lot more realistic than that, but still they should stay in the Spirit of Generals and keep an open mind for futuristic technology that may never be viable in the real world, but is acceptable enough for this game.

The fact that the tank in the video has such nice colours immediately sets this apart from games like World in Conflict, where war is grey and units nondescript. Colours and weird units are CnC staple, and while Generals is an exercise in how to dose these ingredients, leaving any of them out will certainly be a loss.

Also, there is a trailer now, with in game footage, and the game will be released in 2013. This shows to me that this BioWare studio is taking a lot more time and hopefully effort into this game than what was done to previous installments. Generals was their last truly competitive and certainly their most balanced (if you do not compare it to starcraft) game. I just hope they do it right from the beginning so that even with the poor support track record from EA, this game can be played competitively at a decent level.

[MARS]

We have three factions in the game, the GLA, the EU and one more we aren't revealing – yet!

If we assume that the EU takes over the United States' part of being the high price, high reward faction, it'd be easy to assume that the third faction would be China...But then again, everyone who's played the first game would logically EXPECT them to be China, so...what's the point of making a big secret out of it? That would only make sense if the third faction turns out to be someone else!

Also, I'd actually love to see how they interpret this whole 'world peace conference blows up, kills every president, prime minister and chancellor in the world' thing. Silly as it sounds, this is actually an interesting thought experiment. Who would assume control in their respective countries? Military juntas? The political opposition? The banksters who've been running the entire show to begin with?

[The_Hunter]

Also, I'd actually love to see how they interpret this whole 'world peace conference blows up, kills every president, prime minister and chancellor in the world' thing. Silly as it sounds, this is actually an interesting thought experiment. Who would assume control in their respective countries? Military juntas? The political opposition? The banksters who've been running the entire show to begin with?

Well this guy just explained the story in a rough 3 seconds so it's hard to expect any more depth in a 3 second explaination ?

everyone who's played the first game would logically EXPECT them to be China, so...what's the point of making a big secret out of it? That would only make sense if the third faction turns out to be someone else!

This is indeed the case i was have a disscusioun with SorataZ a few minutes ago and came to the this conclusion.
There are only 3 major players that would make a big enough a difference (in the setting of generals) to be a seperate faction of their own:

- United States
Would seem unlikely since with the events of ZH they pulled back to defend their home soil and pretty much isolated themselfs of the rest of the world.

- Republic of China
After the events of ZH they "libterated" a large portion of the EU from the GLA army and would be a logical ally to the EU against the GLA.

- Russian Federation
Beeing the second (right next to the EU which we allready have now) most wanted faction in the original Generals and by far also one of the most common faction to be included in fan mods.

I would be happy with either the Russians or China as third player specialy the inclusion of the russians would be a plesant suprise

[MARS]

I think you're being overly speculative here, and you're not really comparing this new game to it's predecessor but rather what you would like to see as a modern warfare RTS game.

Actually, no, when I look at Generals 2, I WANT to see a game that actually resembles its own predecessor and while it's true that I'm still waiting for a definitive modern warfare RTS, I wouldn't look for it in the direction of a C&C game. What I'd like to see in that particular regard would be a lot more akin to a thing between Company of Heroes and World in Conflict. But still, that nit-pick about open tank tracks has nothing to do with a dislike of unique design; it's simply a dislike of foolish, ill-conceived 'because why the hell not?'-design and apparently, I'm not the only one who took notice of that little detail.

If we have a look at Generals, that game is defined by it's realistic setting intermingled with stark colours and sometimes exaggerated unit design. Overlord tanks, dual cannon Marauders and Laser tanks. This game already looks a lot more realistic than that, but still they should stay in the Spirit of Generals and keep an open mind for futuristic technology that may never be viable in the real world, but is acceptable enough for this game.

This is a purely subjective thing and I can already imagine that we might end up disagreeing on this. IMO, generals had some exaggerated unit concepts but not necessarily exaggerated designs. Take a look at the aforementioned Overlord tank: From a purely realistic military standpoint, this thing is an unviable piece of garbage, an oversized, inefficient monstrosity that only you-know-who would have greenlighted, but the way this kind of insane concept was actually depicted in the game, within suspended disbelief and all, it did look appropriate and not exaggerated. It looked like a 'semi-realistic' rendition of an utterly unrealistic concept and thus, worked. Now, as an example for the opposite, I'll cite the RA3 Apocalypse Tank which, from a realistic standpoint, was just as much of an unrealistic concept but this time also depicted with an unrealistic, exaggerated design (which still worked within the context of its own game). Now, try to imagine the RA3 Apocalypse Tank IN Generals and the result is kind of jarring if you ask me.

Bottom line of this little tangent: I don't mind unit concepts/roles/niches/whatever being unconventional, but from a purely personal standpoint, I'd like to see these outlandish concepts rendered in a semi-realistic fashion that fits the overall realistic look of the game's environments and in that regard, Generals worked quite well indeed.

The fact that the tank in the video has such nice colours immediately sets this apart from games like World in Conflict, where war is grey and units nondescript.

Again, personal taste, but I rarely found WiC to be excessively grey. The colour pallette was mostly realistic and aside from the optional colour filter in skirmish no more grey than necessary. It wasn't really "grey for grey's sake" which, admittedly, IS an artistic philosophy that hurts the current game industry a lot. But again, WiC isn't the kind of aesthetic I'd want for a Generals sequel; it can have more colour and exaggeration than WiC, but it shouldn't be any more exaggerated than the original Generals IMO.

Also, there is a trailer now, with in game footage, and the game will be released in 2013. This shows to me that this BioWare studio is taking a lot more time and hopefully effort into this game than what was done to previous installments. Generals was their last truly competitive and certainly their most balanced (if you do not compare it to starcraft) game. I just hope they do it right from the beginning so that even with the poor support track record from EA, this game can be played competitively at a decent level.

That, we can agree on. Generals was the best C&C game EA itself ever made (I'm not counting RA2 which was still late-Westwood but with an EA influence) and it's a damn shame that it took them so long to acknowledge their 'bastard child' of the series as the only instalment that stood on its own and had some actual longevity in all regards. My greatest fear right now is that Generals 2 will not fail because of its own design but because of EA's very own business model with only a token amount of mod support, a rushed sequel and mandatory Origin.


Christ, this got waaay too long.

[Shiro]

lots

I think the reason Bioware are making it is because the bosses of EA stopped with EALA churning out game after game every single year (not realising it was them who ordered it) and thus wanted someone else (because ya know, putting the blame on your minions is totally acceptable and all).

As most probably do, I'll keep an eye on it but won't expect much of until just before release which will be a while off. My main hope is that they won't do another TW where the colour palette is either grey, grey and grey (with some white) or brown, brown and brown (with disco crystals everywhere). I don't demand the full palette that RA3 offered, which on it's tamer maps looked quite realistic actually, just something to make it visually interesting. Undersaturated brown is real crap is what makes most games look so dull.

[MARS]

Like I said, "grey for grey's sake" - or in your post, brown - is a terrible design trend that gives actual realistically coloured design a bad name.

As for The_Hunter's post, I'd like to throw another speculative theory out there:
Faction number three won't be the US (too isolated in-universe + another western high tech faction akin to what seems to be the EU already). It won't be China, because if it were, they wouldn't have to make it a secret. It won't be Russia either because Russia has been all over the place in recent games and adding them would raise the question as to what exactly happened to China which led to their disqualification as a viable faction choice. Thus, I raise a highly implausible but not entirely unthinkable 'Russo-Chinese Alliance' that allows us to have both in one faction. Perhaps they even go all-out and have BRIC instead, allowing for a rich selection of silly national stereotypes to counter-balance all the national stereotypes within the EU faction.

On the other hand, we haven't considered the typical problem of depicting China in a video game yet: Any game that portrays them as even remotely ambiguous/morally grey gets insta-banned (Generals itself is proof for this) and EA might not want to risk losing the entire Chinese market which is apparently important enough nowadays for things like Crysis, Homefront or that upcoming Red Dawn remake to feature North Koreans instead. This is one of those things that weren't worthy of consideration back in 2003 but they certainly are now.


Heck, thinking about Generals like this makes me feel old.

[Massey]

Just to get off the what if's.... for a little.

Just looking at the EU gunship.... Just a closer look. I notice that the two "left right" blades seem to have, what looks to me simial look to a door hing, thing at the base of the "wing". This makes me think the blades will fold up like this. So this makes me think it will Either come out of a building with wings up or eIther land at base and "stands by" with wings up. but thats just a guess.

Also about the blades.... if u got two "left right" blades.... WHY would it have a third tale blade? its not like it needs it.
Maybe someone will say it looks cool or to get away from the GDI unit but if u say that, it just makes it silly in my opinion. But again 99% time im wrong.

Edit: Also the tale has those stabilzers thingies on it so I em also thinking that the gunship would act like a F35.... moves slow to attack but can move fast when it needs to... Again guess.

Massey

This post has been edited by Massey: 11 Dec 2011, 14:37

[Dangerman]

Looks nice and the 2013 date (which is vague though) gives me the feel that this is not likely getting rushed that much.

This is indeed the case i was have a disscusioun with SorataZ a few minutes ago and came to the this conclusion.
There are only 3 major players that would make a big enough a difference (in the setting of generals) to be a seperate faction of their own:

- United States
Would seem unlikely since with the events of ZH they pulled back to defend their home soil and pretty much isolated themselfs of the rest of the world.

- Republic of China
After the events of ZH they "libterated" a large portion of the EU from the GLA army and would be a logical ally to the EU against the GLA.

- Russian Federation
Beeing the second (right next to the EU which we allready have now) most wanted faction in the original Generals and by far also one of the most common faction to be included in fan mods.

I would be happy with either the Russians or China as third player specialy the inclusion of the russians would be a plesant suprise

Maybe it's India? You never know. I doubt Russia though because since the US is MIA from this game I wouldn't be surprised EA/Bioware Victory (that's the studio that's making Generals 2) will try to be 'original' and use China or India.

This post has been edited by dangerman1337: 11 Dec 2011, 15:19

[Jester]

Hmmm I'm not sure what to think tbh I really hope it keeps thing on and semi realistic level like generals I'd also like to see a return from the USA they where one of the definitive factions in generals "1" IMO I also hope aircraft don't function like the current CNC games vertical take off no runway stuff witch is kind of bland tbf and a return of real base building. I have a good question though where does this leave swr? Do you guys think it will make a good modding platform as I know alot of people are curious as to what swr will do once you've completed your current projects

[The_Hunter]

I have a good question though where does this leave swr? Do you guys think it will make a good modding platform as I know alot of people are curious as to what swr will do once you've completed your current projects

Generals 2 will likely have no modding capabilities at all.
It's based on the same engine as Battlefield 3 which is apparently "to complicated to mod" as DICE officially stated a few times.

Even if it did i wouldn't start up any major projects like i used to.
I simply no longer have time for it and barely any as it is.

[Cobretti]

Hi guys, long time no see!

Hm...Generals 2...looks fairly interesting. Sounds like EA might be recognizing the mistakes they made in the past since RA3 and C&C4 bombed. Hopefully they do something about Origin (aka we're butthurt about Valve and Steam, so we'll create our own crappy piece of malware that works half as good and with less the features and games available) as well as releasing mod tools. It just wouldn't be the same without them!

I have something to note about the factions; Bioware did say that there was DLC planned for Generals 2, including factions. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if the US will appear again. Seems a bit odd to have a modern/near-future war game without US forces showing up in some way. Right now, though, I'm suspecting that the third faction could be some sort of east Asian military alliance, thus allowing China to be in the game but with a fair amount of plausible deniability (not to mention including both Russia and China).

[Shock]

Just to get off the what if's.... for a little.

Just looking at the EU gunship.... Just a closer look. I notice that the two "left right" blades seem to have, what looks to me simial look to a door hing, thing at the base of the "wing". This makes me think the blades will fold up like this. So this makes me think it will Either come out of a building with wings up or eIther land at base and "stands by" with wings up. but thats just a guess.

Also about the blades.... if u got two "left right" blades.... WHY would it have a third tale blade? its not like it needs it.
Maybe someone will say it looks cool or to get away from the GDI unit but if u say that, it just makes it silly in my opinion. But again 99% time im wrong.

Edit: Also the tale has those stabilzers thingies on it so I em also thinking that the gunship would act like a F35.... moves slow to attack but can move fast when it needs to... Again guess.

Massey

Oh yeah, on aircraft:

They NEED to have non-VTOL aircraft. Those things that passed for fighters in RA3 were horrid pieces of design, and the pathfinding of aircraft was actually one of the most awesome things of Generals. If they are going to use the 10-years into the future as an excuse to use only VTOL aircraft, then..

Oh please just dont do that. Frostbite 2 has the physics anyway with the A10 aircraft in Battlefield 3, no reason to not include it.

[MARS]

Hi guys, long time no see!

Hey, cool to see you again. Hope you've been doing all right.

And yeah, them using only VTOLs because 'zomg so futuristic!' would reek of horrible laziness.

[Mcbob]

So if the footage we saw was early-alpha, just imagine how many changes are possible. If there is enough community feedback, I'm hoping we'd see something along the lines of how the original Generals was developed; i.e. all models are redone, reskinned, and redesigned from:



Also, what are the chances we will see the General System that was supposed to be implemented for Generals 1?


This post has been edited by Mcbob: 11 Dec 2011, 22:11

[Massey]

I was just thinking... (as i was playing Generals "1")

The name of the game is... Generals... and the story was about a "GLA war".... So this got me thinking... Think think think (pooh bear)
Generals 2 does not have to do any thing with the old factions at all! I am thinking this becuase there were not any "character" for a faction to follow. (like NOD) the story was about points of view of a General in the factions or army, in the "GLA war". SOooooooooooo this leads me to think Generals 2 might and I stress "might" just do other points of view from Generals from other armys....

Again a guess... but a smart guess

Massey

This post has been edited by Massey: 11 Dec 2011, 21:15