Talk:Command & Conquer: Generals

message: Generals is banned in China? I saw several copies for sale in various stores in Guangzhou and Shunde. When I tested one the units spoke english but the mission briefings were in chinese.  Can anyone comment on this? It seems suspicious to me since there is no reference links.
--Cs california 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is officially banned in China, but those little computer stores sell them, just like pirated software. Rockvee 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, during the Beijing Olympics, I'm 99% certain I've heard the Generals music being played in the Bird's Nest Stadium just before an event takes place. Find some coverage, listen to it carefully. Tell me I'm not going mad!!! --Lord Tau (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is banned for political reasons. From a banned game list, it is banned in China because the game smears the image of China and the Chinese army.Junk Police (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban in China? 

message: The unit descriptions need serious edits. Can someone fix them? 72.197.96.86 05:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will. The unit descriptions here will serve as the base for my C&C: Generals rewrite. In a few weeks (like two maybe) this will be all new and (hopefully) easier to use. TomStar81 02:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I think the entire 'Units' section should be moved to Wikibooks. WP:NOT a game guide. Cynical 11:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just tagged that section for cleanup. I think the unit descriptions belong here, but they need some serious rewriting, and removal of POV. --Stretch 07:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: Excised the whole bit about "racism," due to the fact that in it's current form, it was little more than the writer's opinion. Also, the part about the United States' portrayed benevolence as "depart[ing] from reality" is such an egregious POV violation that I can't believe the author included it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DrZin (talk • contribs) 
I agree with this. It seems to to be on the edge of gibberish, and is all POV. I have the game, and China is not represented in any such way, its how the player plays the game, not to mention the GLA is actually a terrorist faction, and not just generic Islamic civilians the other forces have assumed to be terrorists. I suggest revising this section, or even removing it, as some of the things stated are not true at all. From the above discussion, it seems others are thinking the same. Born Acorn 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and Unsourced Gibberish 

message: Am I going insane or did the paragraph stating that China is overpowered say that America was overpowered a few weeks ago? -Rim-Fire 20:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. That's why I placed the "unverified" tag – the whole paragraph's got to be rewritten using official sources. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA/China 

message: Gee, I sure wish there was a link to a page showing all of the units in the game. What? There was? Now, who would be so ignorant as to delete this useful page? Russian F 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted under the justification of fancruft or some such. CABAL 12:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we wouldn't be able to find all of the units in order to make another list. Star Wars Man 8:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major inconvenience 

message: "In reality, the MOAB is so large it can only be deployed from cargo planes, like the C-130 Hercules, though the B-2 Spirit shown deploying the bomb itself is vastly oversized compared to the real bomber."
In the game the Fuel Air Bomb is not deployed by a B-2 Stealth Bomber, but by the much larger B-52 Stratofortress which is large enough to carry a Fuel Air Bomb like the BLU-82. It is obviously a B-52 because of the 2 distinct twin jet engines mounted on each wing.
It even states in the manual:
USA 5 Star Generals Abilities
Fuel Air Bomb
Ability to call in a Fuel Air Bomb strike. Delivered by a B-52 to a selected target. Deployed from the Command Center.
I scan in the manual and upload an image if you really want more proof but anyone's that played the game should remember or recognize that it is a B-52 bomber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booboo12 (talk • contribs) 
:Ah, reread what you quoted. MOAB. Not Fuel Air Bomb. The B-52 deploys the Fuel Air Bomb, but a B-2 Spirit deploys the MOAB. :P Peptuck 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its in Zero Hour. Peptuck 20:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong, wrong, wrong.......... 

message: Looking through the links in the article, it looks clear to me that we are reaching the Spam Event Horizon. I propose we clear out all these self-promoting links to mod and fan sites so that we can get back to just links relevant to the actual game, before things go too far. Opinions? The Kinslayer 08:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I intentionally left the mods because they are included in a specific section, rather than tacked to the bottom of the article, and I can't check them out in work to see if they are notable enough to be included in the article, but I do think some mods should be left there, but only the most notable ones, as Wiki is not a repository of links or an online directory. The Kinslayer 10:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Spam 

message: This article says the Macintosh version was published by MacSoft, but from what I can tell, this may be false. I cannot find any mention of this title on MacSoft's website. However, it does appear on Aspyr's site, suggesting that Aspyr is the publisher, not MacSoft. I would just change the article myself, but I'm not 100% sure -- maybe MacSoft was the original publisher and Aspyr publishes the newer "deluxe" edition? I don't know. --Miken2005 03:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mac publisher 

message: In the article, the Crusader is said to be based off the German Leapord 2, however, it bears little to no resemblence to this tank, and does not follow the conventions of the other units in the game having some origin in their country of representation (however fictious).  It is much more likely the Crusader is based off the M1A2 main battle tank of the US Armed Forces.
M1A2
:The Crusader has next to no resemblance to the Abrams either, and the Leopard heritage is referenced within the game files (the identifying tag for the unit portrait reads SACLeopard) You're right about the limited resemblance though – I've tweaked the text. - KingRaptor 08:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well to me it seems that the Crusader resembles one of the Challenger tanks, while the Paladin resembles the Abrams. Nohomers48 (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crusader Tank 

message: Pun not intended. I looked back through this article and holy crap, its gone nuts. Gameplay has been brutally slashed by a wikichainsaw when that's one of the most important things in a gaming article! The "Comparasions" section outweighs the entirety of the rest of the article? Controversy split iinto three different sections and completely seperate from Reception?
I am not going to sit by and stare at this trainwreck of what was once a good, solid and informative article. I'm fixing this thing right the heck now, starting with a consolidation of the controversy sections, a restoration of the Gameplay section, and a friggin' massive cutback on the comparisons with modern weapons. We do not need to list every single minor difference between real-world and in-game weapons! Peptuck 06:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its quite a pity you erased most of the comparissons, it was the most interesting part of the article (even though some/most of it was unsourced). But then again considering how most of that section is pure trivia, a complete rewrite of it should be in order, the whole section just comes from comparissons that fans had made of the game to real life weaponry in webpages such as planetcnc.com and gamefaqs.com, nothing else. Somewhere along the way users of wikipedia started to write their own comparisson article within the article (and that sayd section), which sadly still endures on the article as original research.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.2.138 (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Rewrite 

message: I think the M109 howitzer should be mentioned as well, as in some ways the ingame tank bears more resemblance to it than to the Abrams. For example, the turret is mounted all the way back on the hull, unlike the Abrams. - KingRaptor 06:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Paladin and real life 

message: in the cinematics before the first chinese mission, mao's portrait is missing from tiananmen, could this be one of the reasons the game was banned in china? Theregisteredone 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would actually surprise you the small number of Mao paintings in Chinese cities, Beijing having very few of them. Mao is remembered, but it does not share the same cult of personality as Stalin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.2.138 (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mao's portrait is missing 

message: Under Compariusons to real-life weaponry, it says that the ground based Tomahawk is not an existing weapon. Since it is a ground based version of the Tomahawk, shouldn't there be a mention of the Ground Launched Cruise Missile in the article?70.57.163.217 21:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomahawk Error 

message: "China has a major disadvantage in that its army is slow to move, despite its firepower."
What does that mean? That because the China faction has a tendency towards heavy firepower, therefore it should be fast, but it isn't? That's what the sentence appears to mean.
I think whoever put that in meant to say something like
:China has a major disadvantage: its ground forces are generally slower-moving than that of the other two factions, although this disadvantage is to a certain degree offset by China's heavier firepower.
I will edit it to read the above. If anyone has objections to this, please comment with reasons...
PS I couldn't decide how much China's heavy firepower makes up for the lack of speed, so feel free to evaluate that.
WikiReaderer 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical statement 

message: Many of EA's imagery were not self-made/photoshopped, but rather from original photos:
*China offboard artillery: :Image:Artilleryshellhurtles.jpg
*China nuclear cannon: :Image:Upshot-Knothole GRABLE.jpg (GRABLE US Test)
*China nuke: :Image:Nuclear fireball.jpg (BADGER US Test)
*GLA black market nuke: CNN
Items that were original art: (incomplete)
*China Dozer
*China EMP
*Tomahawk
*All GLA units/structures
*Particle Cannon
Benlisquare 06:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those images are in the public domain, so using them is not stealing. An interesting note, anyway. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where EA took their imagery from 

message: no mentions of M1097 Avengers? Mallerd (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comparisons to real-life 

message: "Equally, the range and effects of China's artillery ability are somewhat dubious, with artillery shells seemingly capable of being propelled far across the map with remarkable accuracy."
Ignoring for the moment the disproportionate map-tile to square mile ratio common to most RTS games,  modern artillery is remarkably accurate.  The game's portrayal of long range artillery strikes (if, indeed, the distances in-game could be called long) shouldn't seem at all remarkable or dubious.
More to the point, the citation/reference itself is questionable, and looks more impressive than it is. Isn't that a tabletop game?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.150.233 (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of Modern Artillery 

message: :File:CCGenerals.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:CCGenerals.jpg 

message: I've added a tag to propose that all content of the Command & Conquer: Generals series article be merged into this article, and that the Generals series article subsequently be deleted.  A single title and its expansion pack frankly does not justify the label of "series" but also, and perhaps most importantly, these two pages are essentially about the exact same subject and have the same scope.  This renders the Generals series article redundant by its very nature. (As well as slightly misinformative, since there is but a single title and its expansion pack and not a "series" to speak of in the first place.)
According to standing Wikipedia merging policy, the above rationale is sufficient grounds to suggest and complete a merger.  I'm foreseeing an argument being given against this merger because of The First Decade bonus DVD, which mentioned that EA specifically regards the C&C franchise as three separate universes.  However, be well aware that this claim of three distinct universes no longer holds any relevance at present day, as the development team responsible for this DVD has since been disbanded and replaced by the current EALA team, which has been actively revising that official stance shown on the The First Decade DVD.  (I.e.: The much more recent and official "Kane's Dossier" document, which refers to Kane's apperances in Red Alert, directly hinting at a connection between the Tiberian and RA storylines.) As such, I believe there should be no reason for us to wait in completing this merger in the near future.  Feel free to comment on this if you want to.  Now's the time. Kalamrir (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and adding a brief summary of Zero Hour to this article along with a link to ZH's own article – in the same way the Tiberium Wars article already does with Kane's Wrath – should be done very easily. In fact, it's just a matter of importing it straight from the Generals series article.  Kalamrir (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since there appear to be no objections to this proposal, I will complete a selective paste merger of the Command & Conquer: Generals series and Command & Conquer: Generals articles. Kalamrir (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of ''Command & Conquer: Generals series'' content into this article 

message: I do not feel that the comparison is necessary as currently, there is no base to support the written statement that the portrayed Battlemasters are Type 80 or that Troop Crawlers are BTR-80s. Even if this statement can be backed with original research, I believe that the Battlemaster is a completely different tank and not the Type 80, if any sort of comparison must be made at all. -116.48.91.11 (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of real life military units to in-game units. 

message: I am thinking about getting it, and I wonder if the the online gameplay is still being played/used?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.213.80.54 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generals: Still Supported? 

message: I am an expert in Command and Conquer Generals. If you need improvements on this article, I will love to help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazymonkey1123 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  expertise 

message: 13:06, 8 September 2016 Widr (talk | contribs) blocked Punchymonkey0009 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)
Peace, peace at last. IVORK Discuss 05:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Generals'' takes place in 2013 – Punchymonkey0009 (talk | contribs)&lrm; . . (22,674 bytes) (-11)&lrm; . . (→Plot: Fixed typo) (undo | thank) (Tag: Mobile app edit) 

message: Does anyone knows why EA did stop to sell it? It worth a section in the main article? Thank you. 177.89.192.23 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The game is missing from EA page