Much like Doom, Generals uses an incredible engine to deliver outstanding atmosphere and a disappointing story.
A better copy cat of Starcraft than Warcraft III: A story told from three sides, in non-mandatory sequential order, is betrayal of the highest kind. I concede Starcraft (which I also own) used this technique to tell an epic story. However, Starcraft contains three complicated factions with intricate connections. The epic nature comes from Mengsk's inevitable evolution from revolutionary to dictator, Kerrigan's painful mutation into the queen of blades, and Tassadar's unwavering loyalty to the Protoss despite his respect for human life.
On the other hand, whatever epic feel to Generals is destroyed by its three perspectives. The US's motives are painful self-righteous. The GLA never once demonstrate just cause for their uprising. Although I am Chinese, I must ask who really gives a **** about that side. Why then should I be subjected to the goody-two-shoes American morality after I decided to beat the crap out of the developed world as GLA? I never saw the GLA stray from committing terrorism in the name of freedom, did any of you? For that matter, why should I bother with the Chinese in the first place? All other C&C games were epic struggles between two sides: one arrogantly good, the other deliciously evil. From start to finish, we hardcore fans either wanted to save the free world or crush it either in our scorpion claw or under our red banner. We traded Kane for some no namer in a turban and Tanya Adams for some hacker? How pitiful.
A smaller point. The tunnel network used by the GLA was used long ago by Zerg overminds. At least the Zerg had the decency to build only on Creep.
A PLUS: the copying of Starcraft (and Warcraft) interface is an improvement since the original C&C sidebar was not very flexible, though easy to use.
Thoroughly unrealistic background:
Obvious GI Joe is no where near as interesting as Protoss Zealots. Hell, the designer couldn't muster the imagination to make a realistic terrorist faction. If any terrorist organisation dared to build a base in plain sight, even if that organisation is the size of Iraq or Afghanistan, our B-2 would be happy to bomb everything in the surrounding terrain into Lake Freedom. Furthermore, the idea that Middle Eastern terrorists can go into China undetected and be so clever as to smuggle a nuclear warhead into Beijing under the nose of ten thousand Chinese secret police (who make sure not even Chinese citizens can go on the street unobserved before every parade) is ludicrous. A game based on the strategies of Al Qada in Iraq (God forbid) would be much more realistic and innovative game.
Novelty in gameplay:
General points--truly the shining star of new features; I personally have been waiting for rewards.
Secondary source of money--black market, hacking, supply drop, kudos.
Upgrades--not original but certainly adds depth to unit strategy.
Propaganda--both clever and surprisingly realistic for the Chinese.
That is about the extend of new ideas in Generals. Every other unit or structure has been done in a previous game. (I would be happy to answer which.) Though I confess there are only so many designs for a tank. Jarmen Kell is a rip off from Battlezone, but he is just too damn fun to pass up.
Really good quality:
Like I said, the engine is great for eye candy.
Conclusion:
For non C&C fans, I highly recommend this game (also RA2) both are wicked fun that's easy to get into. From a real fan's perspective, the entry strays too far from its roots, making it a decent RTS that does little another game has not already done better.
I gave value a five because it is quite a good deal for the casual player but largely a disappointment for series fans