הנה כמה פרטים על המשחק שאמור לצאת לפני סוף-השנה:...Generals takes place over three sequential campaigns of nine missions each. It starts with China attempting to assume a new role in the East. A new generation of world politics and terrorist attacks along their border have forced the Chinese to become the policemen of Asia. Their main opponent is the Global Liberation Army (GLA), a group of "have-nots" who are frustrated with the economic prosperity of the first and second world powers, a prosperity that comes increasingly at the expense of more marginal political and social groups. In their quest for power, the GLA decide that the best solution is to bring the technological and economic powers of the world down to their level through a policy of devastation and terror. Naturally, the Chinese want them to knock it off and be happy with the status quo. The US, presumably faced with other crises, welcomes Chinese oversight of the situation.
At least until they discover that the GLA has a new weapon that poses a great threat if ever brought to bear against the United States. Fearing that Chinese efforts might not be sufficient to eliminate the threat, the US decides to launch a preemptive strike against the GLA. You can play through this story in order starting as the Chinese, then the GLA and finishing it up as the Americans. (Although the game's story progress across all campaigns, players can play them in any order. Later campaigns aren't necessarily more difficult so you can jump right into the last one without being overwhelmed.)
The majority of the action will take place between China and Europe in the region known as the 'Stans. You know...Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and their similarly named neighbors. The environment forces certain tactical choices on the players. The harsh, mountainous landscape renders Desert Storm tactics nearly useless. The terrorists have the advantage in leveraging small amounts of firepower in an indirect manner.
As you might expect from a Westwood game, each of the three sides are defined by very specific and distinct philosophical approaches. The "lethal hi-tech hardware" of the US is employed to preserve the lives of their soldiers. Why use men when you can use missiles? The increased cost and effectiveness of the US soldier are a compelling reason to preserve them. China has no such compunction. While not openly suicidal in their cause, the Chinese recognize that manpower is their greatest asset.
Although the context for the game has parallels with current world affairs, the team has opted for a political rather than religious motivation for the GLA terrorists. These fanatics are modeled on the numerous "pseudo-guerilla military groups from the 1970s" and, as such, use hit and run tactics that minimize the disadvantage they suffer in terms of technology and supplies. But the greatest weapon of the GLA is the culture of sacrifice it fosters among it members, all of whom would gladly give their lives for the cause.
Beyond these fundamental philosophical differences, Generals further differentiates the sides by offering you the option to use any one of three distinct generals for each side. If you play as the US Tank General, all of your tanks begin as veterans. The Special Operations General can paradrop Rangers onto the battlefield. These all-terrain soldiers even do a little hot dogging in the air as they parachute to the ground. The final US general is an Air Force specialist and has access to a special fighter-bomber.
The Chinese Red Army general is focused on "heavy firepower and artillery," beating his opponents up close and at long range. Those players who are looking for a more defensive oriented approach can choose the Super Weapons general. He specializes in defense and you'll find it's much more difficult to get close to him. Finally, the Secret Police general can attack your enemies infrastructure through computer hacking.
On the GLA side, you have the Terrorist Cell general who is capable of hiding right under your nose and suddenly appearing to ruin your whole day. The BioWar general specializes in scorched earth tactics, burning down anything that he can't infect with anthrax. A more direct approach can be attempted with the Warlord general. He's "always in your face" with units that are fast, bulky and, even worse, regenerative.
As you'd expect from Westwood, the missions will have a lot of personality. Random Acts of Violence for instance starts with a Chinese military parade through Tiananmen Square. During the middle of the parade, things start blowing up and the Chinese have to start scrapping with GLA forces. Operation Firestorm involves the US attack on GLA fortresses high in the mountain. Since traditional tank tactics won't work ("You can bring all the metal you want to the mountain," says Mark, "but they've got the advantage"), you'll have to try a different approach. One such method would be to drop a daisy cutter bomb on them. This "game-ending weapon" is basically a fuel air bomb. It disperses fuel in the air and ignites it, creating a super-powerful explosion.
Another significant change for the title is the lack of live action cutscenes. While I'm personally a bit piqued by this (I can't enough of that sexy Barry Corbin), Westwood's heart is in the right place. They're trying to tell more of the story during the missions themselves. "Players like and want story telling aspects," explains Mark, "but they don't want to be pulled out of the game to see it and they also don't want some gigantic monologue." Westwood's including Matrix-like camera scripting for key triggers (what Mark calls "memorable moments") in the game. When you blow up a key objective for instance, you might be rewarded with a short cinematic that takes place in real time within the game engine. Since these moments will be limited to about one per mission, they won't be too distracting.
But even without the "memorable moments" there'll be plenty to look at. Here's a little secret from the game industry: everyone claims their environments are dynamic...or interactive...or cool. But in the case of Generals it's more than just talk. The team is "really working on the environments and the cities, making every thing feel like it's alive." While this was a goal for Red Alert 2, it's been taken beyond that here.
First and most conspicuous is the density of objects on the various levels. These towns, while not covering a large area, are certainly packed with people, buildings and all manner of other objects, almost all of which can be affected by the player's actions. When my platoon of tanks rolled into a crowded marketplace, the burnoose-clad citizens started screaming and running for cover. Tanks knock down trees and crush cars and those items persist in the environment. Even the non-interactive objects add a lot of personality to the game. Rugs hanging on a line sway gently in the breeze for instance.
The technology seems really sound, especially considering the title isn't going to be released for another seven months. Mark admits that the team hasn't begun the process of optimizing the code yet; they're trying to kill themselves on the framerate right now by filling the game with objects. Once they reach that point, they'll be better able to identify where the game engine needs the most attention. The team is also considering the limits of the games camera. Hopefully they'll retain the nearly limitless range of movement the game already has while finding an optimal scale for the zoom.
נ.ב
האם תקנו את המשחק הזה כשיצא???
------------------
I miss ally......
:and remember always
"two is not a verb"
DO'H!!!
נכתב 
פרופיל
עריכה
ציטוט
אתר בית
דואל
נכתב 