Command & Conquer: Generals (USA Campaign) Review – Real-Time Stratember

I’ll be honest, I completely missed Command and Conquer: Generals when it released. 2003 was a big year for video games. Not as big as 2004, but still big. I must have been buried in whatever I was playing at the time, I’m pretty sure I still owned a Sega Dreamcast back then so probably round after round of Marvel vs. Capcom 2 or SoulCalibur. I’ve always heard very good things about Command and Conquer: Generals over the years, even owning a Mac back in that era you could get on board. I didn’t and I was legitimately kicking myself that I let a Command and Conquer game slip through my fingers. I’ve owned the Command and Conquer collection for years, as far back as when the EA app was the even less functional Origin. It sat there ready to install, watching my every movement, mocking me the entire time…probably. That was really the closest I’d ever got to playing it, UNTIL NOW. Real-Time Stratember is upon us and it’s time to give Generals its time in the spotlight, with the USA campaign. Will it be well deserved? Should I have left that stone unturned? Should I have not made room for it and just played Red Alert Remastered like I’d planned? It’s time to get stuck in and find out…

Command and Conquer: Generals was released by EA Pacific in 2003. EA Pacific, formerly Westwood Pacific now renamed after the shut down of Westwood Studios, was the same development studio behind Red Alert 2. While it may not have been the exact same development team, Mark Skaggs and the core team remained. Generals marked a transition into a fully 3D engine, which was a first for the series. In another first for the Command and Conquer series, Generals made a push into a more modern setting. Think Call of Duty when Modern Warfare debuted. Unlike Modern Warfare, the story… uh, it’s… uh, the story is present. The United States sends its forces to the Middle East, trying to eradicate the Global Liberation Army (GLA). While the official story outline has the USA aligning with the Chinese, that’s not really explained within the game and only in the final mission does the USA capture a former Chinese base to make use of their units. I guess that’s kind of aligning… Anyway, the fight with the GLA takes them across Baghdad, Kazakhstan and finally to the GLA stronghold in the Akmola Region. The story is loosely based on the early 2000’s War on Terror, with some parts representing what happened in real life. The real world elements didn’t come without consequences, it was banned outright in China and placed on Germany’s index of games listed as “harmful to young people”. It’s a bold swing for the series as its previous stories had been entirely fictional. Unfortunately, that boldness didn’t translate to execution as that’s where Generals starts to unravel.

EA Pacific delivered a new approach to storytelling for the series… or lack thereof. Previous Command and Conquer games never left you guessing with detailed briefings, FMV sequences and sometimes someone barking what is required of you right to your face. You knew exactly what you had to do and more often than not, WHY you were blowing something to bits. Generals throws that formula out entirely and instead, you’re given an objectives loading screen with a monotone voiceover and that’s basically it. Occasionally, there is a brief cutscene within the game engine to start a mission but it really pales in comparison with what was a winning formula. The presentation isn’t the only thing that feels gutted, the strategy itself feels stripped back to purely brute force. Mass enough of a strong unit, regardless of what it is, send them in and it’s basically game over. Even gathering resources manages to ditch the series’ identity, instead of harvesting Tiberium you’ve got a Chinook casting a net over a pile of shipping containers and dropping them back to your base at $600 per trip. This feels less like Command and Conquer and more like a generic, modern military RTS with the name attached for brand recognition. It’s not that Generals is unplayable, but the soul of the series feels completely gone. No FMV sequences, no detailed briefings and nothing that made the previous games feel like Command and Conquer as opposed to some generic tank-rush RTS. Honestly, you end up really missing the cheese.

Command and Conquer: Generals seems to have a major identity crisis and that’s baked directly into the game mechanics. Base building now has you building structures with a bulldozer, which makes it feel like its chasing the Warcraft or StarCraft crowd in a major move away from Command and Conquer’s distinct construction yard and deploy approach. Hero units, a staple of the series, are gone almost entirely here too. You do get a Colonel, a playable spec ops unit but there’s zero introduction or explanation as to who he is. Graphically, Generals lands itself in this odd half-serious, half-cartoony middle ground and it’s hard to read the intent behind it. Honestly, it doesn’t look bad and in 2003, the jump to 3D was probably the right call. No real complaints there. But, the overall presentation of the game suffers HARD because it feels like a mix of ideas that nobody could fully commit to. That tracks with the campaign itself where the missions are repeatedly: build a base, destroy GLA. Questioning why will only cycle you back to uh, yeah so… destroy GLA, GLA bad. There is very little variation mission to mission which I guess is competent for an RTS, but entirely forgettable. Honestly, even the name. Generals. That might hint at commanding officers with real character, call-signs or personalities. Here, we have a promotion and rank meter which isn’t explained very well except that you’ll get some extra in-game backup. Yo goober, where are the generals?

Command and Conquer: Generals feels like a series in a mid-life crisis. Buying the sports car, while insisting everything is fine. EA Pacific went for a bold, real world setting and it never quite earns its own stakes. They’ve done away with what really worked in the series and implemented a construction system that feels lazy, like peering over someone’s shoulder in an exam. A combat system that doesn’t reward strategy, a real head-scratcher for a real-time strategy game, and the promise of generals with zero generals to be seen. The USA campaign hands you rinse and repeat objectives and dares you to notice. I wouldn’t say it’s broken… exactly. Generals runs and looks perfectly fine for a 2003 release. It technically functions as a real-time strategy game, but functioning isn’t the same as being good and it’s absolutely not the same as being a Command and Conquer game. Generals still has its fans and that mostly comes from multiplayer, to my understanding. Clearly, the rush-heavy pace landed for people at the time and still does now. Judging Generals purely on its single-player, story experience the series built its name on, the reputation simply does NOT hold up. This is a campaign experience with briefings completely ripped out, FMV sequences tossed in the bin, hero units cut and the strategy simplified down to more or less the biggest pile of units wins. It may be a competent real-time strategy in the most basic of formats, but it is entirely forgettable as a story experience and worst of all, it strips away what makes Command and Conquer Command and Conquer. Honestly, it’s hard to believe this is the same core team behind Red Alert 2.

Verdict:
Command and Conquer: Generals is the follow up from the same core team who gave us Red Alert 2. This could be the biggest swing and a miss in the series. Generals manages to cut the series’ back, doing away with its trademark strategy and cheesy B-movie aesthetic to instead embrace a generic, forgettable, modern military style. Having finished the surprisingly short USA campaign, I can safely say this is barely recognisable as Command and Conquer. Incredibly disappointing.

Deck Compatibility: 9/10
Overall Game Rating: 2.5/10 – Command and Stinks