At the Spike TV Video Game Awards, BioWare announced it is working on Command & Conquer: Generals 2. A new BioWare studio, BioWare Victory, is developing the PC-exclusive real-time strategy game set for release in 2013.

The first C&C: Generals, released in 2003, was a bit of a departure for the franchise. It eschewed the series’ campy live-action cutscenes and instead attempted a more mature, modern story. It also changed up classic C&C gameplay by changing how resources were gathered and armies constructed.

BioWare Victory head Jon Van Caneghem told IGN that Generals “is actually the best-selling game in the series,” so it isn’t surprising that EA would revive it after last year’s underwhelming Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight.

Command & Conquer: Generals 2 will utilize EA’s Frostbite 2.0 engine, currently powering Battlefield 3. You can take a look at teaser footage in the trailer below.

Source: Electronic Arts

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • gevorg - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link

    So who is the Boogieman now? Freedom hating terrorists, evil Russians, or commie China?
  • prophet001 - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

  • SandmanWN - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

    Hey, why not all 3?

    I am thoroughly excited to see this news. I've been playing since the first game debuted and I had my old 486DX. I was actually worried C&C would end after C&C4 because they started altering game play.

    A lot of complaining about the game, but its run longer than most games could ever dream of. Most of the comments here are baseless garbage. Take the original game play, add better graphics, and get some great sound tracks. You've got a winner every time.
  • jconan - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link

    Having better graphics doesn't always make a game better. It's all about fun and game design. CC4 was bad because you always needed to be connected online. Second it had limited number of levels. Finished it in less than a week. No cheat codes and unrealistic levels for the ending. Hence, can't play in the air or traveling because wifi isn't constant and is pricey. In flight wireless like GOGO is a rip-off, $15 for an hour connection. Unless it's really for business like a contract win or large sales then there probably is a justification. Other than that, it's just impulse spending...
  • Sahrin - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link

    >CC4 was bad because you always needed to be connected online.

    No, TT was bad because it was a bad game. It wasn't fun to play, the story was boring, and the mechanics sucked. It was a bad game.
  • Ronakbhai - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link

    Man, I stopped playing that crap after Red Alert came out. StarCraft has held my attention since then.
  • MartiCode - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link

    I would love to play StarCraft, if they ever bothered to bring it on Steam, which sadly is unlikely...
  • V-Money - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link

    3 wasn't all too terrible, but I couldn't play 4 for more than a few minutes before I threw it away, it was the worst game ever.

    As for Starcraft, I'm kind of pissed that I waited years for them to release 2 just to have to wait more countless years for them to finish the last 2/3 of the game...sigh
  • Ben - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link

    I agree. C&C 4 is an unfair comparison. It would have tanked no matter what it was called or who made it because it just SUCKED!

    I also thought C&C3 was OK, not really great, just OK.

    Red Alert 3 was fun! That was probably the last one in the series I liked enough to play for a few weeks after I finished the SP campaign.

    Oh, and Generals ruled too. Still does actually. Hopefully these guys don't F it up.
  • KoolAidMan1 - Sunday, December 11, 2011 - link

    The key people who were responsible for Generals (ie - Dustin Browder) are now at Blizzard making Starcraft 2 the excellent RTS that it is.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now