Better than Generals, but still falls short of being another Red Alert
User Rating: 8 | Command & Conquer: Generals - Zero Hour PC
Well I have a question for EA. When we say we need improvement we really mean it. So if you add an extra faction for each side, you don't effectively improve the game very much. Adding 3 new factions was a good move and so Zero Hour got a better rating than Generals, but the same lackadaisical gameplay coupled with a horrendous graphics rendering (in spite of the fact that it requires more than decent graphics), doesn't help it in any way. I'll try to give you an idea. When you start the game it starts of with an unimpressive cinematic entry. Then when you start a game, it starts of with an enormously long cut-scene, which you can't skip. So effectively you are sitting duck for a minute or so. Next in line is their graphics throughput. I was suffering when I was playing the game even with a 64 MB Graphics card, and also with a 128 MB. But even after this humongous graphics requirement, the faces are all triangles, the bikes look like custom-faded horses and their guns look like crowbar, and all this after playing the game on a 9800 GT.
Now comes the part that I love to hate. The civilians. Those good for nothing asses come into my way while playing the game.I am positive that I lost a couple of my veteran soldiers (three arrows) at the hands of the enemies who were camouflaged in the tumulus sea of scared civilians.
Personally, after playing games like Red Alert 2, StarCraft, WarCraft, Age of Empires 2, Generals and Zero Hour were hopelessly beyond salvage. However, compared to each other, I would say that Zero Hour has probably scored better.
