Hosted by

I got my hands on Command & Conquer. Westwood had wowed me with Dune II and I wanted more. I also wanted to be able to play my friends in head to head combat. C&C delivered a lot more than I asked for. While the graphics were average for the time, they did a more than adequate job of conveying the action taking place. The sounds were great, the soundtrack was very cool, I was pleased with the game by itself. The multiplayer aspect was (still is) amazingly well balanced between GDI and NOD. Two armies composed of very different units, yet at no point can I honestly admit either side had an advantage in any way. This balance was found in Dune II, but the difference in the sides between GDI and NOD was far greater than the differences between the three houses in Dune II. C&C was the true succesor to Dune II in every way (except story line).

Then my brother (ptackbar), gave me a copy of Warcraft. Blah. The graphics were very nice. The sides were very balanced. But I missed the game that both Dune II and C&C had offered. Warcraft had minimalistic terrain. Compared to Dune II and C&C, Warcraft was like fighting on an open field. I also didn't feel as drawn into the story, or the conflict. Warcraft was a well made game, but it didn't exceed C&C or Dune II. It was fun, but not anything new or revolutionary in my eyes.

After Warcraft and C&C, Red Alert and Warcraft II came out. Red Alert sucked. Warcraft II was Warcraft with two I's after the name. Neither filled my desire for a story driven, detailed, bullet popping, balanced, good vs. evil RTS game. I began waiting for Starcraft and C&C2. Starcraft would be the next RTS I played.

Starcraft was ok. There was terrain. There was story. There were three sides. There was some balance. Starcraft is the best of Blizzards RTS games and I feel it is better than C&C and Dune II in most aspects. Graphically it is vrey nice. I really can get into the battles in Starcraft like I did in Dune II and C&C. I also liked the story quite a good deal. The balances started to wear out after more serious game play. I felt there were issues that Blizzard had overlooked. They claimed they were the first RTS with three different sides. Technically Westwood had allready done that with Dune II. But that's just me being nitpicky. Starcraft gets good marks for uping the ante a little more for C&C2.

Now Tiberian Sun (C&C2) has been released and I've had a chance to play it a little. I've also read a few reviews. Well, I get the impression that a lot of reviewers who are rating C&C2 so poorly are maybe not exactly RTS players. Or perhaps they simply enjoy beating up on Westwood, I honestly have no idea. So far, I really enjoy C&C2. The graphics are excellent while still appearing to be C&C-ish (you know what I mean). The terrain and lighting detail is splendid. Color me impressed. The cut scenes are nice and really draw you into the game. The combat feels very realistic and nasty. Frankly, anyone who expected C&C2 to turn RTS on it's head should be looking into Homeworld (of which I am a big fan). C&C2 is a logical story extension to C&C. It's a fun and exciting game in the C&C and Dune II vein, not a brash new game looking to make Starcraft look like a text adventure. If you aren't a C&C fan, don't expect to fall in love with C&C2. If you are a C&C fan (maybe you still think of playing it, hehehe), go get C&C2, I don't think you'll be let down.

since june 7 1999