Home » General Discussions » General Discussion » Any Vista fix for Generals?
| Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #342299] |
Mon, 21 July 2008 12:18  |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Damn TFD Generals won't work in my Vista...after some Googling around, it looks like some long-standing problem that was never fixed.
That sucks becuase my Vista rig is best I got. Any solutions? I want to play this real bad...
-pawky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #342303 is a reply to message #342302] |
Mon, 21 July 2008 12:55  |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
WOW fixed it!
http://www.cncgeneralsworld.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7451
That guy ^ is awesome. So, you have to create a options.ini file and put in in the Generals file that is in My Documents. And paste this in:
| Quote: |
AntiAliasing =
DrawScrollAnchor =
GameSpyIPAddress = 0.0.0.0
Gamma = 50
IPAddress = 0.0.0.0
IdealStaticGameLOD = High
LanguageFilter = false
MoveScrollAnchor =
MusicVolume = 55
Resolution = 800 600
Retaliation = yes
SFX3DVolume = 79
SFXVolume = 71
ScrollFactor = 50
SendDelay = no
StaticGameLOD = Low
UseAlternateMouse = no
UseDoubleClickAttackMove = no
VoiceVolume = 70
|
lol...nice...
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #342304 is a reply to message #342299] |
Mon, 21 July 2008 12:57 |
 |
sadukar09
Messages: 2812
Registered: May 2007
Location: Ottawa,Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Try updating to 1.02, if that doesn't work, try 1.03 here. I think it's EA endorsed, so it should be ok.
Edit: Screw you!  Too slow.
| Quote: |
[19:16:48] <APBBR> @ryan3k: THE ENFIELD DEFIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS BECAUSE THE BULLETS INSTANTLY HIT THEIR TARGETS LOL
[19:16:52] <APBBR> @ryan3k: CHRONO TECHNOLOGY IN TEH BULLETS
|
| Quote: |
[22:48]<APBBR> @V0LK0V: AOL COMING UR WAI K
[22:48] <APBBR> Host: Quitting due to Westwood Online connection loss.
|
[Updated on: Mon, 21 July 2008 12:57] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #342305 is a reply to message #342304] |
Mon, 21 July 2008 13:20 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| sadukar09 wrote on Mon, 21 July 2008 14:57 |
Try updating to 1.02, if that doesn't work, try 1.03 here. I think it's EA endorsed, so it should be ok.
Edit: Screw you! Too slow.
|
lollolololol....TY very much anyway! Well, yes, I have to get that patch too! 
| Zion wrote on Mon, 21 July 2008 14:21 |
Compatability settings?
Maybe forums relating to Generals in general?
|
TY for teeling me to look in the Generals forums lol.
[Updated on: Mon, 21 July 2008 13:21] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #343350 is a reply to message #342299] |
Mon, 28 July 2008 14:00 |
|
sadukar09
Messages: 2812
Registered: May 2007
Location: Ottawa,Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Shockwave is!!!111!!!
| Quote: |
[19:16:48] <APBBR> @ryan3k: THE ENFIELD DEFIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS BECAUSE THE BULLETS INSTANTLY HIT THEIR TARGETS LOL
[19:16:52] <APBBR> @ryan3k: CHRONO TECHNOLOGY IN TEH BULLETS
|
| Quote: |
[22:48]<APBBR> @V0LK0V: AOL COMING UR WAI K
[22:48] <APBBR> Host: Quitting due to Westwood Online connection loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #343390 is a reply to message #342299] |
Mon, 28 July 2008 19:46 |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I don't understand the hate towards Generals, as it is a very good game in and of itself.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #343432 is a reply to message #342299] |
Tue, 29 July 2008 04:51 |
|
sadukar09
Messages: 2812
Registered: May 2007
Location: Ottawa,Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
No, EA's not doing good with RTS, Generals is good, but it should not be named, *C&C*. And, that's just generic Starcraft HUD.
| Quote: |
[19:16:48] <APBBR> @ryan3k: THE ENFIELD DEFIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS BECAUSE THE BULLETS INSTANTLY HIT THEIR TARGETS LOL
[19:16:52] <APBBR> @ryan3k: CHRONO TECHNOLOGY IN TEH BULLETS
|
| Quote: |
[22:48]<APBBR> @V0LK0V: AOL COMING UR WAI K
[22:48] <APBBR> Host: Quitting due to Westwood Online connection loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #343444 is a reply to message #342299] |
Tue, 29 July 2008 07:04 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
It shouldn't be called C&C... but I dislike and don't play it for a simpler reason- I tried it and hated it.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #343448 is a reply to message #343393] |
Tue, 29 July 2008 07:18 |
 |
JoeBro
Messages: 202
Registered: July 2008
Location: Ruth, NC
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| pawkyfox wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 21:57 |
| nikki6ixx wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 21:46 |
I don't understand the hate towards Generals, as it is a very good game in and of itself.
|
Thank you my friend. Yes, Generals is a great game. Only zealous wannbe C&C fans keep bashing it. I am playing it right now and it is great I tell you. I do not yet know of any imbalances with the game units as I just started playing.
Who cares if there were not video scenes...every mission has a small animation sequence before it anyway. I found the HUD very easy to use and not up there in my face on the right side. All the buttons and upgrades and the tech tree buttons are right there in the HUD...and it is easy to use. Only the purists are having trouble with it...and that EA has made it.
EA is doing a damn good job with C&C I think, especially with the RTS titles.
Anyone not playing Generals are missing out on some good stuff...there are a lot of unique units in the game. The infantry units are awesome I think...my favorite so far is the Pathfinder sniper...
| JoeBro wrote on Mon, 28 July 2008 15:12 |
great job! lol I was worrying if I got a Vista I wouldn't be able to play Generals, and now my worrying is over!
|
If you play tell me your nick!! I still have not gone online in Generals...but I will get a nick soon.
|
Yes, Generals is a GREAT... no, AWESOME GAME!!! I don't know why many C&C fans have a problem with it. Why is it wrong for EA to try something different?! C'mon guys. I even read reviews about C&C3 about how repetitive it is. Generals is something completely different and I like different. Besides, Sci-Fi gets boring if you play it too long.
P.S. To Pawkyfox: you're the first 1 that asked me that! lol. Anyway, my name is JoeBro or JoeJoeBro. Can't really remember. If you see me, tell me on the chat thing. Also, on Renegade, my name is WolfWarrior2 (foxes, wolves, what next? lol). What's your name on Renegade (not web name. i mean when you're actually playing Renegade. people get that confused  )? Bye!
P.S. like your attitude. cool lol (I just love saying lol lol lol lol lol)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #343483 is a reply to message #342299] |
Tue, 29 July 2008 10:32 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
Why is it wrong for EA to try something different?!
|
I may be talking out of my ass, but I believe it was the fact that it was EA doing something different that pissed so many people off. If Westwood had done something different I doubt there'd have been a peep about it.
The game lacks several features which, IMHO, made the true C&C games better- among them being tech level limits, radio buttons to disable superweapons (let's be honest... superweapons become the whole point of the game whenever they show up), multi-engineer captures, no-base matches (anybody remember those?) and a host of other features. The build-anywhere approach to base construction changed the whole base building equation (allowing placement of defense structures near or within enemy bases without cross-the-map expansion or a local outpost- that worked for Starcraft, but not for Generals IMHO), the interface was vastly inferior to RA2's (which IMHO was just about perfect- if it had been mated to the original RA, TD, or even TS I'd still be having a non-stop nerdgasm), and the fact that it was released so quickly on the heels of WW's demise really doesn't endear it to the more rabid series fans.
All opinion, of course.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #343552 is a reply to message #342299] |
Tue, 29 July 2008 12:15 |
|
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I'll bet that if Red Alert 1 were released today, there'd be a near endless supply of people moaning about how the game is not a 'Command and Conquer' game, and shouldn't be a part of the franchise.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #343578 is a reply to message #343448] |
Tue, 29 July 2008 12:53 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
OMG IT HAS C&C ON IT BUT HAS NO TIBERIUM OR GDI OR NOD OMG OMG ITS A INFERIOR PRODUCT AND A LIE! SARCASM!!!!!!!
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 10:04 |
It shouldn't be called C&C... but I dislike and don't play it for a simpler reason- I tried it and hated it.
|
Why not sure it did not continue the storyline but you gotta remeber that the MINUTE WW decided to make C&C: Covert Operations...AT that point, Command & Conquer became a BRAND under which other games set in the original C&C universe were made.
That pretty much justifies the possiblity that you can make any game with any storyline and still put C&C on it. haha!
But you have tried the game and did not like it so you actually have a good reason to hate it.
---
Those who bash EA are those little kids who mindlessly jump on the bandwagon that appeals to themm. EVERYBODYS GETTING ON THE BANDWAGON SO I AM GETTING ON IT TOOO haha!!!!!!
And the sad part about it is that the facts gets all lost and smeared over the place. And we are left with 2 groups beating the poor strawman.
---
| sadukar09 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 06:51 |
No, EA's not doing good with RTS,
|
OK now you have to tell me in bulleted points why EA is not doing good with RTS
---
| sadukar09 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 06:51 |
And, that's just generic Starcraft HUD.
|
Sure the HUD drifted from previous practice but c'mon lol...but agreed that they could have stuck with the classic C&C hud.
---
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 12:32 |
The build-anywhere approach to base construction changed the whole base building equation (allowing placement of defense structures near or within enemy bases without cross-the-map expansion or a local outpost- that worked for Starcraft, but not for Generals IMHO),
|
LOL you can't simply build structures anywhere...you gotta send a Dozer or Worker first. And you can buy a Hummer or Gattling tank or Tehcnical to take out any incoming dozers/workers. Heck, this actually encourages people to get the heck out of base and explore and expand and attack quickly rather than just build a "OMG SEE MY BASE!!".. That's what is so much fun about this game...even the skirmish on Brutal AI is a lot of fun...
I am barely through this game so if there is a special in-game structuire or soemthing that allows you to build your stuff anywhere on the map without dozer/workers, then I don't know about it and you have a point.
| JoeBro wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 09:18 |
Yes, Generals is a GREAT... no, AWESOME GAME!!! I don't know why many C&C fans have a problem with it. Why is it wrong for EA to try something different?! C'mon guys. I even read reviews about C&C3 about how repetitive it is. Generals is something completely different and I like different. Besides, Sci-Fi gets boring if you play it too long.
P.S. To Pawkyfox: you're the first 1 that asked me that! lol. Anyway, my name is JoeBro or JoeJoeBro. Can't really remember. If you see me, tell me on the chat thing. Also, on Renegade, my name is WolfWarrior2 (foxes, wolves, what next? lol). What's your name on Renegade (not web name. i mean when you're actually playing Renegade. people get that confused )? Bye!
P.S. like your attitude. cool lol (I just love saying lol lol lol lol lol)
|
hehe glad to see another Generals fan...and yes, I lol a lot too.
My Ren nick is pawkyfox...it is same as my web name too.
And you see, Generals came in and cashed in the right time in the market when RTS gamers were looking for a game with modern units. Other modern RTS games did not do so well but Generals came and filled the gap...
Personally I like Generals a lot as I use to have trouble adjusting to playing in a 3D setting...it seemed very fantastic but also difficult to manage. But Generals eased me out on that one as I played so I think I am more adapted to playing 3D RTS games...I think I will reinstall C&C3 and actually enjoy it.
hehe...we have 2 new 3D RTS coming out lol StarCraft2 and RA3... 
Oh yes muhahaha I ,lol too much sometimes mods warn me not to lol too much. I think those mods lead sad lonely lives. 
[Updated on: Tue, 29 July 2008 12:56] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #343613 is a reply to message #342299] |
Tue, 29 July 2008 17:48 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
LOL you can't simply build structures anywhere...you gotta send a Dozer or Worker first.
|
*twitch*
That's what MCVs are supposed to be for. Tech up, shell out the money, and you get this spiffy vehicle that goes anywhere you want it to and deploys into the foundation of a new base. Depending on the game settings in later titles, you could even pack it back up and move it elsewhere while continuing to expand that base. Every single C&C game save for Generals works that way, even C&C3 (which has the Outpost also, which is sort of MCV Lite- IMHO poorly implemented and too easy to acquire). Said vehicle is expensive, slow, and unable to defend itself. TS Firestorm even added the Mobile War Factory into the mix, along with other deployables that could be used to augment the new base's abilities- but they still had to be built remotely and moved into position. It worked very well this way, because nobody could sneak off with basic units and set up production ability or base defenses on their enemy's doorstep without putting considerable thought and effort into doing so.
With Generals, you can send an ACV, build a Barracks behind enemy lines, and pump out 20 or so Marines to go harass your enemy's resourcing op... whoops, I'm sorry, that's StarCraft. Or you could send the Probe- I mean, Dozer or Worker- and build a few proton cannons in good positions to intercept enemy forces just as they leave their own base. Whoops, that's StarCraft again! Silly me. Funny how the same tactics apply, isn't it? Trouble is, Generals didn't pull it off as well, and pretends to be two completely different RTS games at once. Is it C&C or (title here)Craft? It's neither and both, and it has more superweapons! That must make it good, right? The result is a game that plays like it has MPD with lots of pretty shiny toys where might always triumphs over strategy and tactics. I'd love to see a game that successfully blended C&C style play with 'Craft, but Generals didn't quite make it.
IMHO, of course.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Any Vista fix for Generals? [message #343652 is a reply to message #343613] |
Tue, 29 July 2008 22:44 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
That's what MCVs are supposed to be for. Tech up, shell out the money, and you get this spiffy vehicle that goes anywhere you want it to and deploys into the foundation of a new base. Depending on the game settings in later titles, you could even pack it back up and move it elsewhere while continuing to expand that base. Every single C&C game save for Generals works that way, even C&C3 (which has the Outpost also, which is sort of MCV Lite- IMHO poorly implemented and too easy to acquire). Said vehicle is expensive, slow, and unable to defend itself. TS Firestorm even added the Mobile War Factory into the mix, along with other deployables that could be used to augment the new base's abilities- but they still had to be built remotely and moved into position.
|
Remember that Generals is a realistic military RTS...Generals is NOT a Sci-Fi RTS. It is a RTS that successfully filled an existing gap in the market when it came to RTS games with modern current military weapons...except Generals featured reimagined units.
It would be unwise to have some silly transformer like vehicle-building hybrid in a realistic military game like Generals. Dozers and workers are more realistic along with their ability to build anywhere IF they have accessibility to said area.
Also, dozers and workers are EASILY countered. If you ever seen the scores of highly skilled competitive players play 1v1 games in for example, RA2, you will see the first units they usually build is the Attack Dogs and lots of them: to QUICKLY scout territory, gain information on the enemy and hasteing their expansion of the map. You will aos see them build basic infantry and set up patrols in a very wide area around their base...VERY important as if those far patrols are attacked, then you know the enemy is near.
The same applies in Generals..and you have overlooked the important factor here: skill
If you are skilled in what your doing, then you would not have to worry AT ALL about the enemy creaping up on you and building a Barracks...you would be the one telling him how to play...IF you are skilled enough.
Skill defines EVERYTHING...Skill determines who wins. You can pair up 2 complete n00bs in a 1v1 but the n00b with the higher skillset would win...very simple to understand. I can only imagine the embarrasing outcomes when a highly skilled player crushes someone inferior using EVERY bit of the game to his advantage.
ANY game provides a FAIR and LEVEL standard which you must have the skill to reach. If the game allows you to build anywhere, you do so if that is what it takes to win. Still having a problem? Build infantry and pair em up and start a patrol. Once you got a war factory going, build a couple Technicals or Hummers (divide em into groups and hot key them) and start a patrol. They wil lcome in handly even later in the game if your opponent decides to change strategy. Get Raptors and Mig patrols too once you have the resources...the idea is to maintain a vigiliant mighty presence in the map so that it the enemy reacting to your moves NOT you to him! There is a counter to everything.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
It worked very well this way, because nobody could sneak off with basic units and set up production ability or base defenses on their enemy's doorstep without putting considerable thought and effort into doing so.
|
In the same way, you can mass-produce GI's and even massproduce Soviet Conscripts in RA2 in the beggining of a match and rush all in...I have won a fair amount of games that way. I don't think that required considerable thought and effort...select all --> attack.
tbh and this is my opinion, mass-producing units in ANY C&C RTS usually results in victory. That cannot be done THAT successfully in StarCraft due to 2 types of dwindling resources and a host of other game mechanisms. This is why StarCraft still holds the honor of being an excellent RTS.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
With Generals, you can send an ACV, build a Barracks behind enemy lines, and pump out 20 or so Marines to go harass your enemy's resourcing op... whoops, I'm sorry, that's StarCraft. Or you could send the Probe- I mean, Dozer or Worker- and build a few proton cannons in good positions to intercept enemy forces just as they leave their own base. Whoops, that's StarCraft again! Silly me. Funny how the same tactics apply, isn't it?
|
People across all industries have been influenced by each others ideas but I highly doubt EA was trying to copy anyone. Every FPS game could be traced back to the first ever FPS. Generals was executed differently in a style (atleaast when it came to some gameplay mechanisms) that was reminiscent of RTS games that came outside the norm of traditional C&C.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
Trouble is, Generals didn't pull it off as well, and pretends to be two completely different RTS games at once.!
|
No c'mon Generals does not pretend to anything else but rather is accused of pretending to be something else just because a few gameplay mechanisms are similar. I belive Generals is a unique game of it's own...the most important word here is "Generals"
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
Is it C&C or (title here)Craft? It's neither and both, and it has more superweapons!
|
It has only 3 superweapons. Nuclear missile (classic C&C superweapon  ) for China, Scud Strom for GLA, and Particle Cannon for USA which is not that far off from GDI's Ion Cannon. superweapons are those that are a part of the eventual buildings you will get to as you advance the tech tree.
I would not classify any of the other "Generals Abilities" as superweapons....you know why? Simple: Because you have to EARN them. They don't come standard like the 3 individual superweapons after you go through the tech tree! You have to fight and earn the Generals Points through which you can get the other Generals Abilities like artillery strike, carpet bombing, A-10 bombing, etc.
Which leads to another very important point: if you have to fight to earn those Generals Abilities (which you call superweapons-they are not) then you also have the abilty to DENY your opponent HIS ability to use his Generals Points: just YOU be the first one to strike and attack him so you get Promotions.
If you do that, then you would be the one getting promoted, points more rather than him. And if your opponent is the one giving you the lecture, then that means you can't earn promotions and thus your ability to get to those Generals Abilities is twarted. All the more reason to be the FIRST one to take the initiative on the battlefield. Once again, skill plays itself here.
This makes for a fast paced game that is very challenging as you not only have the tech tree to deal with, but also the Generals Abilities that you need to earn by striking first and fast. So you can see that it was not just some blind mix of powerful weapons thrown in to the bag.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
That must make it good, right?
|
After I explained above, o yes........! And challenging too.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
The result is a game that plays like it has MPD with lots of pretty shiny toys where might always triumphs over strategy and tactics.
|
I explained for most of the "toys" but pretty much in ANY RTS or game for that matter, once you got a giant bunch of units, you win. THAT is reality.
-Get 20 Battle Cruisers with Yamato guns in StarCraft = Game over.
-Get 30 Apocalypse tanks in RA2 = game over
-successful Med rushes on Ren anyone? = game over
I can go on...might always wins. that is the basic truth.
Which is why in RTS we have limiting factors like minerals, gas, credits, ore, supplies, to collect and a host of other gameplay mechanisms to make it more challenging.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 19:48 |
I'd love to see a game that successfully blended C&C style play with 'Craft, but Generals didn't quite make it.
|
Again, Generals was not trying to join C&C and StarCraft...only the fans imply that just because they found a few linking similarities. In C&C Generals is a great UNIQUE game that is overlooked and underrated for petty reasons.
[Updated on: Tue, 29 July 2008 23:02] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 19 05:32:46 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01455 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
