先上原文，等会简单翻译下
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/65pd76/if_you_could_bring_back_any_game_from_your/dgd1geg/

The biggest problem was tension between free to play, and monetization. There's really no good way to find a happy medium. Either you incentivize people with persistent upgrades like levels, or new unit loadouts, or you have fair, competitive play. There's just not a good happy medium. Naturally, money talks and bullshit walks, so the game was leaning towards monetization and away from competitive play (except it's the competitive play that really keeps things interesting over the long term, so....)
The second biggest problem was also a result of the need to monetize: content sprawl. We were adding two new Generals every month or so, so that there would be lots of unlockable content. 2 weeks per General is not even remotely close to enough time to fully develop each General. Like... not even close. You need distinct units, generals powers, upgrades etc. 2 weeks is probably 1/10th the time necessary to even get the assets built, let alone tuned, polished, and balanced. So what was the solution to this break-neck cadance? Strip down the Generals so they only had a subset of units, and go for MOBA style 3v3 gameplay where you had to pick complementary Generals to form a team. SNORE. We were trying to clone LoL in a fundamentally different genre. Also, I hate being dependent on 2 other randos, or spending time trying to coordinate with 2 other players I trust. I just want to hop into a 1v1 ladder and start playing. But this game was not built for that, at all.
Next was the siloed development. Art was doing its thing. Engineering was doing its thing. Design was doing its thing. There was no vision holder creating a cohesive product. Art was laser focused on realistic visuals, which actually HURT game readability substantially. You could hide a terrorist in the shadow of a palm tree, and he would just blow up half your tanks. When you're playing a game competitively, you're spending literally fractions of a second on a given screen, and need to be able to assess conditions instantly. This can't happen when the map is full of visual clutter (burning piles of trash, crumbled walls, shrubs everywhere...). Zero Hour's simple graphics actually enhanced the gameplay. Generals 2's hurt it. I actually created a test presentation for the dev team called "Count the terrorist" where I'd show them a screen, give them 5 seconds (an eternity) to count how many terrorists were hiding on the screen. I did this for both Gens 2 and ZH. Nobody got the number right on Gens 2, but ZH was more accurate. Why? Better overall readability.
Moreover, we wanted to do things like make Technicals transports. Art was against this because they didn't have time to model the dudes sitting in the back of the technical, and the load/unload animations. Like.. who gives a shit? It's a game, not Saving Private Ryan FFS.
The third biggest issue was I was hired as the CNC expert to move the game more towards a CNC direction. The lead gameplay designer at the time was a huge StarCraft fan, and the gameplay he had designed reflected that. Units didn't have mass, and all behaved in very homogenous ways. No variety in turn rates, no acceleration, nothing. All of that nuanced micro that made CCG/ZH so special? 100% non-existent in Gens 2. I was hired to fix this. Except right up until we were cancelled, I was never really given that authority. I was told to create special community builds in secret rather than just getting to work making the game feel more like CNC. Of course, a big part of that is requesting engineering features to make that happen, but that's not possible when you have one designer requesting StarCraft-like features, and another requesting CNC-like features. Other things like the maps themselves were designed like SC2 maps - large platforms and huge maps, with narrow entrances that newbies could use to wall off. The goal was to make it easier for players to avoid being "rushed", but several design elements contradicted this goal. Unit build times were too slow, and movement speeds too fast. It would take a tank 35 seconds to cross a map, but a tank would take 35 seconds to build. This means you could at most, have 2 tanks built by the time one of your opponent's tanks arrived. Even on small maps in ZH, you could often have 3 or 4 tanks ready by the time one arrived. Why? ZH had short build times. Short build times and somewhat slower movement speeds actually create a natural defender's advantage that actually helps people repel "rushes".
Speaking of engineering. God damn. The game was an authoritative client-server model, where the server would model the game, and broadcast game state to the clients, which merely rendered it. Great for stopping cheating, but due to performance issues, the game's logical frame rate was 4FPS (literally 250ms per tick). And that didn't really account for latency. So you'd order a tank to go in one direction, and then very noticeably later, it would finally obey that order. This slow gameplay frame rate also made things like accurate crushing, and other effects (like high rate-of-fire weapons like gatts and quads) almost impossible. Also, apparently Frostbite 2 (the engine it was built on) is really not well suited for RTS gameplay according to the engineers I talked to. Things (like range detection) that would have been cheap and simple in an RTS-dedicated engine, were not so straight-forward or cheap in Frostbite.
And things like crushing wasn't just a technical hurdle - it was a political hurdle as well. Crushing is kind of a signature part of CNC gameplay, but there were lots of people on the dev team who thought that crushing would just make infantry useless, so they didn't want it. Except there are myriad ways to design infantry to retain a core role, while also allowing crushing...
Other issues like the Generals powers were just lame. They were point and click instant effects. Totally uninteresting, lacked nuance, and lacked depth. My voice of concern over the existing powers and suggestions to effectively scrub them and start from scratch, was not strong enough. Further, the manner in which you earned those powers was incredibly bad. In Generals/ZH, you earned your generals points by destroying enemy units and structures. In Generals 2, they were unlocked as a function of time or tech level (or something else, I forget which now!). No earning them, just suddenly became available to you even if you camped in your base and did nothing all game.
At the time we were cancelled, the game was about 2 months away from open beta. As a massive fan of the franchise, and RTS snob/connoisseur, to me it should have been 2 more years away from open beta. There was so much work that had to be done just to make it feel like a CNC game, let alone balance it and polish it. Honestly, even if that game had been released, fans would have hated it and would have been really disappointed in it. I personally would not have played it, for what it's worth.

等待中文版

等待翻译

楼主还是如此活跃啊

最大的问题在于F2P充钱模式，
氪金
吸引力与游戏平衡性不可兼得，最终（EA）选择了”充钱使你变得更强“，然而缺乏平衡性与竞技性的话这游戏根本活不久。
第二个问题是由充钱系统导致的内容泛滥，为了增加氪金内容我们每个月都得做两个新将军，平均每人两星期，然而这时间根本不够用。要给每个将军制作独特的单位，将军技，升级之类的东西起码需要10倍时间，还不包括后期的润色调整。为了解决这个问题，我们把游戏简化成了3v3的MOBA，每个将军只有一组单位，需要队友选择不同类型的将军来互补。我们简直就是在做RTS版的LoL（王八竞技场？）。顺便我个人不喜欢依赖两个路人队友，我只想来一发紧张刺激的1v1，然而这破游戏并不支持这种模式。
下一个是制作小组之间缺乏沟通，全都是各做各的。美工组只顾着提高真实性，实际上降低了画面可读性。你可以让kb份子站在树下面，别人基本看不见。在一个竞技游戏里，你需要一眼就能看清屏幕上的情况，而在满图都是废墟的情况下你根本做不到。ZH的画面虽然简朴，但是它实际上提高了游戏性。

震惊

一分钟版本：***EA打算做个氪金游戏，程序员和设计师根本做不到短时间内定量更新；团队缺乏沟通，恐怖分子站树底下就跟隐形了一样；主设计师只会玩星际，坦克无限重叠，取消碾压；为了防作弊游戏卡得要死；将军技五毛特效都没有，和屎一样；作为一个rts，游戏在（作者认为）还需要两年开发的时候就打算在两个月以后公测，这时候项目被叫停了

另外，我们希望冲锋车后排有乘员的模型，并且增加上下车动画，然而美工组以一副"我们是在做游戏，又不是tmd做电影"的表情把我们无视了。
第三个问题是我作为CNC专家被雇来把游戏做得有CNC风格。当时设计师的头儿是个SC粉，他把将军2做成了盲人游戏，单位没有重量感，没有不同的转向速度，没有起步后的加速移动，将军1的那些细节在将军2里荡然无存。我本来是负责来修正这一点的，然而直到被取消之前我都没有权利那么做。他们叫我自己秘密更新一个非官方版本，因为领导权还在SC粉手上。其它像地图之类的东西也是一股SC2的味道，大地图，到处是高台，易守难攻。我们的目标是让玩家更容易抵御前期rush，然而某些设计却和这个目标南辕北辙。单位建造速度很慢，跑得却比记者都快，等你造出两辆坦克的时候，对面坦克都已经进你家了。

说实在做成dow模式也比王八这种不伦不类的好。

心疼我将军2

震惊

一个好好的策略游戏居然做成lol……也是醉了……

回想起来，幸亏没出不要钱。

让玻璃渣粉来做cnc？ea果真脑子抽了