Can we just get an upgrade to generals instead of al this dlc stuff?

[woutva]

I was wondering. It has been 10 years since C&C Generals was released. I loved this game, especialy with Zero Hour it was just so much fun. Sure it wasnt that balanced, sometimes situations came up that you couldnt really counter something as effective as another army, but overall it was pretty decent.

In fact, I notice very few differences from Starcraft 2 balance wise, I dont really feel that game is perfectly balanced as well, and to be honest, Generals felt more fair, and at least, more fun (even though I have a lot of fun with SCII)

Anyway, my point:

Just give us Generals again, with a graphic improvement (its been 10 years after all) some new maps, and some new units. I would be totaly fine with just, say, 4 new units for each faction and just support and graphic improvement. Add a new campaign to the mix and you'll have a happy buyer.

What I DONT want, is EA trying to chance a game that just worked the way it was. Can someone please explain to me why this game needs chance? Why on earth do we need DLC upgrades? Generals worked just fine.. And honestly, the last time they wanted to chance C&C, we got 4.. And yes. 4 is bad. No discussion.

Just give me the generals game I love, and dont chance things just to chance things. Starcraft 2 is as far as I know almost the same as 1 with a few chances. I am FINE with that. I dont want a second battleforge (+ points to you for knowing this game) where we have to pay for every minor tweak. I want a full game, and I want it to be generals worthy.

[AgentOrange]

Boring. Go play Generals then, it has a big modding community.

[bombspy]

You want to play Generals 1? So play Generals 1. There is no need to pay 50 bucks für new graphics.

[Adridos]

What I DONT want, is EA trying to change a game that just worked the way it was. Can someone please explain to me why this game needs change? Why on earth do we need DLC upgrades? Generals worked just fine.. And honestly, the last time they wanted to change C&C, we got 4.. And yes. 4 is bad. No discussion.

Why do we get DLC?

People on consoles can't make anything and so any minor new content is like "God sent" for them, so they pay ridiculous charges for minor stuff. Game companies noticed the idiocy and started exploiting it. And now EA wants to do teh same thing to us by not giving us any World Builder and charging us for a pack of colours into skirmish for about 5 $.

There are too few companies that accept they can't mess with PC community and rather give us standard we are used to, which in turn gives them great sales. Namely Valve, CD Projekt, Blizzard (sort of), etc.
Two of those don't even do DLCs and the third (CD Projekt) makes DLCs, but for free, as they should be (and not a new horse armour, but 4 hours of campaign).

You simply can't count on a developer to make the game without this sort of crap and make the game modder friendly, which boosts the sales at PC, but isn't done by exploiting week mind of some people.

[hellodean]

i seem to remember a few months ago they said a world builder is (currently) too complicated for us to use, but it isnt yet decided what will happen.
and there is a year or so until its released so its still possible for it to come out. even if its not shipped with the game it could be added later.

as for the make it the same but new graphics, sorry to disappoint you but it wont happen. the new game is in development. your best bet is the modding community to extend it.

[oompah]

agree with original poster

[CnC_Fin]

And honestly, the last time they wanted to chance C&C, we got 4.. And yes. 4 is bad. No discussion.

Your opinion

Just give me the generals game I love, and dont chance things just to chance things.

Why should they remake Generals if only one person wants it? Of course there are probably hundreads of people who want that too, but there are a lot more people who think Generals and Zero Hour were already great, and want Generals 2 now. If you want Generals recreated so badly... make your own game or search for mods.

[Plrsvek]

You know, thats what I hated about SC2, being just a HD upgrade to SC1. The game itself brought nothing new to the genre, it just refined an old game back to todays standards. The singleplayer was also a huge letdown imo

Your title seems to be a little misleading, it sounds more like you just want Generals 2 to be more updated instead of making DLC content. I agree they should try to atleast add some new maps, like SC2 does. For stuff like new units, new skin, new music thats more the work of DLC or an expansion.

What you want can also easily be made by modders. We don't have to bother Bioware Victory for it, let them make new games. Currently we are unable to work with Frostbite 2, which kinda sucks, but if they'll give us modding tools then I bet some modding team will try to update Generals 1 with it.

[=LEVIATHEN=]

I agree with the others: If you want to play the original Generals, then play the original Generals. While an update to the graphics is always nice, I don't want to be playing the exact same game again. I already bought Generals 1. I can always play that.

In case you haven't noticed, never changing the gameplay just gets plain boring (take a look at CoD- a fun campaign, but then a boring multiplayer. I'd just get one with a good campaign and stick with it). That's why almost every C&C game has had some minor difference in the gameplay; so that it isn't boring.
C&C 4 was only such poor quality partially because of the time EA gave the developers to make the game, and partially because they changed the game too much.

The point is, with a sequal, you don't want it to be exactly the same as the first, and you don't want it to be too different.

[Commander32]

The point is, with a sequal, you don't want it to be exactly the same as the first, and you don't want it to be too different.

I approve!!!