Command & Conquer: Generals

 PC
User Score
8.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 374 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 294 out of 374
  2. Mixed: 60 out of 374
  3. Negative: 20 out of 374
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. LaCuna77
    Jun 28, 2020
    0
    This game sucks at StarCraft. Multiplayer is just awful! He is completely unbalanced. The game itself is incredibly boring
  2. maiq
    Jan 18, 2013
    3
    Playability is awful, you can't scroll trough the map with keys, you must select buildings to build troops unlike other games in the saga, and the button configuration of the mouse is plainly retard: the left mouse button is used to both select and give orders, meanwhile the right button is used only to deselect.
    Also units don't return enemy fire unless you set them on guard, by default    Playability is awful, you can't scroll trough the map with keys, you must select buildings to build troops unlike other games in the saga, and the button configuration of the mouse is plainly retard: the left mouse button is used to both select and give orders, meanwhile the right button is used only to deselect.
    Also units don't return enemy fire unless you set them on guard, by default they stand by till death.    … Expand
  3. DanielL.
    Mar 6, 2003
    4
    Very stupid how you have to build units. It was so easy to build units in Red Alert 2 but now you have to actually click on a building to build the units. Westwood seemed to structure it EXACTLY like warcraft 3. Red Alert is the greatest command and conquer game ever, and one of the best war strategy games. looks great though!
  4. TenionFCSM
    Jun 28, 2020
    3
    For me, it’s still a mystery why the name of this game makes Command & Conquer. It has nothing to do with the universe. The game itself is interesting except for network battles. The story company causes only tears. In this game and close to the spirit and atmosphere of the legendary Westwood
  5. BranFlakes
    May 10, 2003
    3
    Pretty graphics, same crappy AI. Here we are in 2003, using 2003 hardware, and yet the AI of the units feels no different than the ones from Dune 2, over 10 years ago. Westwood's AI abilities and programming priorities are a joke.
  6. TysonP.
    Jan 15, 2005
    3
    The worst C&C to date, finish it in half a day, and reflect on its shocking balance of the three forces (GLA is far too strong vs the other 2 teams). Crap Controls, your units will always wander into danger, Long range weapons will NEVER fire unless told to. U can't even ROTATE, even though its a fully 3D game. I hate it, EA has insulted a once great series.

Awards & Rankings

23
#23 Best PC Game of 2003
19
#19 Most Discussed PC Game of 2003
12
#12 Most Shared PC Game of 2003

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
84

Generally favorable reviews - based on 34 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 29 out of 34
  2. Mixed: 5 out of 34
  3. Negative: 0 out of 34
  1. netjak
    89
    The graphics and animations are the best I have yet to see in a RTS, and the in-game effects are powerful. Just get ready to laugh like a maniac at what the units say during the game.
  2. GamePro
    100
    Generals has a rock-solid single-player game and the most addictive multiplayer skirmishes of the year... A gaming masterpiece.
    Read full review
  3. Maxim Online
    100
    With amazing visuals and an arsenal that would make Saddam Hussein soil his prayer mat, C&C Generals is war at its flashiest.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »