Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight Review

By Alec Meer Published 16 March, 2010

Nodded off.

Version tested: PC

When Command & Conquer 4 was announced, they made it sound like it was time for some answers. You want to find out who Kane really is and where he comes from? How he never dies? How his tiny beard always looks so neat? You want to know about that stuff, do you? Are you sure? Wouldn't you like some more questions? Don't you like questions? C'mon, what's wrong with questions? Why are you leaving? Won't you come back?

Command & Conquer 4 is the conclusion of the Tiberium saga, but you would have to be more naive than the Trojan doorman wheeling in the horse to think this really means the end of C&C. Granted, a thing happens which suggests an end to the last 15 years (and 70 in-game years) of conflict between the GDI and the Brotherhood of Nod, and another thing is said which implies Kane is something more than human, but that's how C&C usually ends.

So there's nothing final or particularly satisfying about C&C4's conclusion, and for some reason it tries to replace the tried-and-tested campy cut-scenes with something grittier and nuanced. We're supposed to take this stuff seriously now? While long-time Kane actor Joe Kucan clearly relishes the opportunity to at last lend some subtlety and moral greyness to the shiny-scalped megalomaniac (or is he, etc), the rest of the unstarry cast can only muster bad soap opera.

Most of the story involves watching your unnamed character's wife unconvincingly crying at you, while the climax involves an all-white room and an unconvincing painting of a door. Glimpses of the supposedly Tiberium- and war-ravaged world outside the small Battlestar-on-a-budget set from which Kane and company address you are transparently just 2009 folk chatting from 2009 streets and gardens.

'Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight' Screenshot 1

Why, you're right. It does look a little bit like StarCraft 2. The units, anyway - there's a lot of pleasing incidental details in the environments.

C&C's legendary cut-scenes have always been cheaptastic, but historically that's part of the charm. In C&C4 the attempts at gravitas just make them sad and limp. Meanwhile, the game component - remember that? - throws out almost everything traditionally associated with the series. Long-term C&C fans seem to be the people Tiberian Twilight is least interested in.

The question is whether these upstanding old PC gamers are necessary sacrifices, because C&C4 does have a bigger picture in mind, rather than being about ruthless change for the sake of it. In an age where traditional RTS is fragmenting, fleeing from the old build-and-bash core to various extremes - Dawn of War II's role-playing, Supreme Commander 2's sandbox tech tree, StarCraft 2's absolute precision - EA is looking for a way to keep C&C relevant. C&C3 was retro and wild, Red Alert 3 was full-pelt silly and had co-op, but something had to change.

Something did. Everything, in fact. Base-building, harvesters, Tiberium fields, power requirements, large armies, the Scrin - bar the faction names GDI and Nod, and a few returning iconic units, everything familiar has been removed. The entire game has been rebuilt, leaving something that's both back-to-basics and completely unrecognisable.

Here's how it works. At the start of a mission or match, you choose to play as Offence, Defence or Support. You're then given a Crawler, which is a mobile base with a reasonable amount of biffing power in its own right. The units and upgrades it builds (some crawl, some walk, some fly) depend on which of the three classes you pick.

'Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight' Screenshot 2

Sure looks like a lot of units, doesn't it? That's purely because there are 10 people playing. It looks like a Somerfield carpark when there are only two.

The building of units is limited only by an absurdly small population cap and wait time - there's no resource-collection whatsoever. You then proceed to capture various points on the map and to hurl your dozen-odd-strong armies at any other players/AI. If your crawler gets nobbled, you can spawn in a new one after a short wait.

It's fast and it's enthralling, even if it's small and permits little variance in single-player missions. For the most part, it's a game of countering - building the right rocks to the enemy's scissors - rather than being a land-grab and build-order race.

The closest comparison is probably World in Conflict, another baseless RTS that involved taking a specific role rather than constructing an army the size of Belgium. The idea in WIC is that everything is fair, everyone is equal and there's always room to achieve contribute regardless of personal skill level.

Which is entirely not the case in Command & Conquer 4, largely thanks (or not) to a new me-too persistent unlock system. Persistent unlocks are great in some contexts, but not in a way which means people starting out only have access to three different units and pretty much zero Support powers.

The careful unit-balancing means it is possible to take down a flock of tanks with a swarm of tier-1 infantry, which is an admirable achievement from a series traditionally known for races up the tech tree. But it would be much easier, and much more fun, to use tier-2 Mammoths and Scorpion Tanks, or tier-3 Support powers that blow up half the screen, which you can't do for too long.

Sensibly, the experience points - earned from kills, achievements and grabbing respawning lumps of Tiberium - are at least shared between single-player, the co-op campaign, skirmish and multiplayer, so you can get a bit of headstart before wandering online.

On the other hand, this means you don't even get to play with the best stuff in the campaign unless you come back to it later. A playthrough of one of the two short campaigns and a few skirmish, co-op or multiplayer muckabouts will get you to level 10 without too much pain - seven or eight hours, I'd say - at which point you can access about 50 per cent of the unlocks. Getting all the way to the top, and the really big toys, will take a whole lot longer - especially as you need to level up GDI and Nod separately.

It must have looked like a great idea on paper. "The kids love Modern Warfare! Let's do that, but in an RTS! We can't fail." But they have failed. It's depressing and infuriating to look at your build and powers menus and see lots of little padlocks.

'Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight' Screenshot 3

STOP CRYING. Please. Stop. Crying.

This isn't how RTS works - that choice and spread of units is key. It's just a grindy, exaggerated throwback to the bad old days of single-player RTS campaigns, when all sense of momentum and progress was artificially hung around denying you the better units until the later levels. It's like a long, unskippable tutorial.

The upside is that you'll definitely learn the units rather than make a dash for the big stuff every time. You'll really come to value the tier-1 infantry and especially the bouncy, healy/grabby/fighty Engineers. The downside is: give me the game I have paid for! These aren't just a few fun bonuses. They're the entire bloody tech tree.

It's even harder to accept because it also seems like a feeble attempt to justify the always-online requirement. Yep, just like Ubisoft's contempt-to-the-max DRM system, this will kick you out if your net connection drops for any reason - even in single-player.

That the game is constantly monitoring and uploading your experience-point count isn't justification enough, because there's no reason it can't wait to do that until you're next back online, just like consoles do with their unlocks. C&C4 has an engine that plays really nicely on a mid-range laptop, but you won't be able to play the game on a train, a plane, a holiday, an oilrig or a subterranean cave-system inhabited by molemen unless there's Wi-Fi in range. It's the misjudgement cherry on top of a whole cake of weird decisions.

'Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight' Screenshot 4

Imitation is the sincerest form of Hothery.

There is redemption of a sort. Once you've got most of the toys in hand, the multiplayer is a really good time, especially because of its teamplay focus. The Defence guy locks down the spawn and capture points with turrets and infantry-filled bunkers, Offence guy swarms around the map grabbing caps and trashing enemy crawlers with tanks and walkers, and Support guy causes trouble with planes and powers, such as mines and healing rays.

With close-quarters maps and no glacial up-front building, it means instant, constant warfare, and a genuine opportunity for even the most inept player to enjoy the carnage and chaos of online RTS. The respawning Crawlers and lack of resources means it's basically impossible to not build an army and go thump something.

At the same time, the careful countering and the unlock system means adept players can really excel. Casuals might kill enough things to level up, but they're unlikely to win. It's nothing at all like Command & Conquer, but - eventually - it's a thoughtful and bombastic multiplayer RTS that's welcoming to everyone.

On the one hand, it's important to look at this as its own game rather than through change-fearing spectacles. On the other, it's called Command & Conquer 4, and that bald bloke who keeps waving his arms and talking about ascension is all over it. It's still aimed at the fans. That it is such a giant step away from the mechanics C&C has clung onto for so long is bold and exciting in concept, but so absolute in practice that it's an insult to the faithful.

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Alec.

About Alec Meer

A 10-year veteran of scribbling about video games, Alec primarily writes for Rock, Paper, Shotgun, but given any opportunity he will escape his keyboard and mouse ghetto to write about any and all formats.

Read more articles from Alec by visiting the Alec Meer archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (65) Latest comment 5 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Bremenacht #1 2 years ago

    Oops.

  • rosshuts #2 2 years ago

    Hmmmm!

  • urban #3 2 years ago

    expected a 5 tbh

  • the_dudefather #4 2 years ago

    ummm

    Really liked Red alert 3 for whatever reason, but think I'll give this a miss for a while (or continue playing the now free tiberium sun ;) )

  • Hunam #5 2 years ago

    A WIFE!?

    No thanks.

  • dsmx #6 2 years ago

    If your going to make a sequel to game you can't just ditch every game mechanic that came before it and call it a sequel.

  • jellyhead #7 2 years ago

    No offline mode, no sale.

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #8 2 years ago

    Ouch?

  • JahB #9 2 years ago

    they better pray that blizzard take a long time to finish starcraft 2...

  • Hunam #10 2 years ago

    If you want a fast paced, unintimidating multiplayer it could be worth a look in. As they removed perma-death from multiplayer and just replaced it with a 10 seconds respawn it really is more fun and open and I can see a lot of people who don't like RTS online to quite enjoy it. But if the tone of the game is lost and the single player is just a grinding tutorial then I can't really see myself finding anything to get me hooked in the first place. The online beta was fun, but the comments about having half the game locked away after you complete the game sounds like a slap in the face.

  • photoboy #11 2 years ago

    I'm so glad I read the review to the end. At first this sounded fantastic and I was all ready to pre-order without even seeing the score. Then I came to the part about needing to spend ages playing online or in skirmishes to unlock enough XP for the single player mode. I dislike that sort of grinding so my enthusiasm was subdued but not extinguished.

    But then I read about the DRM. I refuse to pay for a game that will only work as long as EA's servers are there. I own a gaming laptop and I won't be able to play the game when I'm away from home. Wifi hotspots aren't that common and they usually cost a small fortune. I have not bought any of Ubisoft's games with their DRM and I am not buying EA's either.

    Fuck you EA. Take the DRM out and patch the XP requirements and I'll buy it in a heartbeat.

  • Artemus #12 2 years ago

    Really didn't like the beta, so this is unsurprising. Gameplay wise It's C&C in name only. It's ironic the only reason I'd buy this is for the story, but it sounds like they've even ruined that.

  • chudders #13 2 years ago

    Hmm, seems like it's following in Supcom 2's footsteps of chucking out the rulebook and not really succeeding in writing a new one (albeit, this is more drastic).

    The sad thing is, poor sales of titles such as this and Supcom 2 are likely not to result in 'oh well, let's go back to what people like and expect', but more 'we'll not be making any RTS games in future'.

  • Eraysor #14 2 years ago

    For some reason I never expected this to go well. It seems like time has moved beyond C&C, even if I did find RA3 quite fun. The DRM is the final nail in the coffin for me; I'm actually glad the game is mediocre so I wouldn't even be tempted to try it.

    Also, kudos to EG for churning out multiple reviews so quickly.

  • Sunyavadin #15 2 years ago

    I'll be grabbing the offline crack and grabbing a throwaway second hand copy off someone (I expect they'll be worthless second hand due to accounts being tied to the game, so I should get it for free, bonus.) in order to play the campaign. Then ditching it.

  • Guv #16 2 years ago

    Bah! I rather liked C&C3, even the expansion. Played most of the games (think there was an FPS at one point that I missed) in the C&C series and was looking forward to a new campaign.

    Though shalt not give lead designer jobs to interns!

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #17 2 years ago

    But then I read about the DRM. I refuse to pay for a game that will only work as long as EA's servers are there.

    Missed that. Double ouch, then. It's the reason I won't buy AssCreed 2 for PC. Ubisoft already made it clear they don't want to hear consumers. It's always been about pacifying shareholders and preventing their games from entering the second hand market (far more damaging than piracy, actually). Was curious to see how C&C4 would hold up but if the "attacks" on Ubi's servers are any indication, companies still need to provide better infrastructures and reasons to invest in this kind of thing.

    Besides, EA has already shut off servers for a great deal of games. What happens when they shut off C&C4's? No brainer, as they say.

  • frankfurter209 #18 2 years ago

    It definitely saddens me, but this franchise has run its course. Red Alert 2 was the last game I really enjoyed

  • jellyhead #19 2 years ago

    Chudders wrote:The sad thing is, poor sales of titles such as this and Supcom 2 are likely not to result in 'oh well, let's go back to what people like and expect', but more 'we'll not be making any RTS games in future'

    Yup and it's a shame but i won't buy poor games in the hope that the devs will wake-up and do it properly next time.

  • altitude2k #20 2 years ago

    Wasn't this meant to be the last C&C outing for a while?

    Sad. Quite sad.

  • Evolution #21 2 years ago

    Get me McNeil!

  • TH3WICK3D1 #22 2 years ago

    noooooo...... stupid DRM...

  • mingster #23 2 years ago

    eeek no base building! Unthinkable!

  • Armoured_Gideon #24 2 years ago

    Oh dear, what a shame. C&C in all its naffness, is a cherished part of my personal gaming heritage, and it's very sad to see it brought so low.

  • WinterSnowblind #25 2 years ago

    I was in the beta for this, and didn't enjoy the game at all. The multiplayer features felt thrust upon me, not sure if the final game has more options, but it seemed everything had to be done with multiple players. The gameplay mechanics didn't feel at all like Command & Conquer and it just generally wasn't much fun.

  • VicViper #26 2 years ago

    Looks like YouTube videos and wikipedia then to find out about how the story doesn't really end good enough, time to download that CnC freeware they release as that sounds better value for time n money

  • UncleLou #27 2 years ago

    I had absolutely no idea this would be released already. Had a vague idea of C&C4 being in development, that's all. I am either totally out of the loop, or their marketing is a failure. :)

  • Hunam #28 2 years ago

    Considering the site design ad just went kaput with this review turning up, I can't blame you for not noticing.

    PR has been very lax on this though.
    Edited by 1 at 16/03/10 @ 14:54

  • rudedudejude #29 2 years ago

    Sounds a bit like Z to me...

    It all went a bit downhill after Red Alert 1 tbh. Generals was good with it's choice of land, air tank, etc, but then again still pretty dull all in all.
    Edited by 1 at 16/03/10 @ 14:59

  • SixFootHalfling #30 2 years ago

    If they'd simply modded C&C3 with new units, I would have bought it, thats how much I love the old C&C gameplay.

    If they allowed offline play I might have gotten it in a few months for a cheaper price, done the campaign, cheated for the decent units, and then forgot about / sold it.

    As it is, with absolutely no interest in online play, I'll watch the cutscenes on youtube for the story, and not bother with the actual game at all.

  • Zerobob #31 2 years ago

    Te hee, Somerfield carpark.

    With this franchise I feel they need to take it back to basics, and realise what made the original games so successful, be it the ease of accessibility, the well realised factions and unit design, or the way the progression and economy works.

    For example, my Dad doesn't play games, any games, apart from one...C&C: Red Alert. My Mum hates the day I bought that game and lent it to my Dad indefinitely, as for years my Dad has been hiding away playing it hour after hour.

    It's a basic game, it doesn't have thousands of different units, or glitzy graphics, or awkward concepts to get used to. It simply and ultimately gives you a good, easily controllable battle every time, the same as the first C&C game, and that's why my Dad still plays it years later. This is what C&C games should be about.
    Edited by 2 at 16/03/10 @ 15:17

  • Spekingur #32 2 years ago

    I hated it the first time I fired up the beta of this but the game kind of grows on you. Which might be bad in some way, come to think of it.

    Also, I wouldn't be surprised that Blizzard would do something similar with 'constantly online' mode thingy with Starcraft 2 and battle.net

  • linksdad #33 2 years ago

    A bit more FMV might have sold me this.... err actually no it wouldnt. I had enough with the first installment.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #34 2 years ago

    I enjoyed the C&C3 demo but never bought it because my PC was too weak at that point. The last C&C I really enjoyed was in fact Generals - even though (or maybe because) it had nothing to do with C&C at all. I didn't pour as many hours in that game as I did with other RTS games but I certainly had a good two weeks of fun with it.

  • iamtheoneneo #35 2 years ago

    is there any fit ladies in the cgi scenes with this game?
    does this game even have any good gameplay? id expect the answer is no to both....man c+c hasnt been good since tiberium.
    just quit it EA ffs!

  • etherfiend #36 2 years ago

    I enjoyed C&C3 on the PC, not so much on the 360 and Red Alert 3 was a mess on the 360...forced to play co-op with AI or friend on campaign, no thanks!

    This doesn't look like the swansong I'd hoped for from the Tiberium saga. I have to agree with the earlier poster and say Red Alert 2 was the peak of C&C.

    Oh, and of course insert the obligatory DRM rant here. I see the publishers are being slow to react to the utter fail that is persistent online DRM...probably some idiot signed a fixed length minimum contract for it's usage...

  • Kremlik Verified Co-Founder, Crash To Desktop #37 2 years ago

    As soon as I saw there was no base builiding I already knew the game wouldn't work. Simple reason is that with 3 'big names' other then C&C in the RTS works this year I think EA tried to see what is selling atm and clone that.

    Looking at Relic's sales of DoWII, it's resonable to sence that EA wanted to capitalise on the DoWII 'idea' but simple fact is that DoWII 'works' uniquely because thats closer to what the Warhammer fanbase play with the tabletop version - it was basically made for the fanbase.

    A huge clue would be that most of the RTS playerbase didn't take to the lack of basebuilding at all in DoWII but then may have considered the reasoning behind it - Warhammer is ment to be more about the smaller skermish units then bases, the reserse of what most RTS players wanted and completly againest what C&C was, which was armies going to war, hence the reason why DoWII had the 'RPG' feel to it, again thats more in line to what actally Warhammer can play like (certain versions of campain in the tabletop start off with small units then 'upgrade' over time).

    I'm really dissapointed that the whole Tiberian saga may indeed go out on a low note, couped with the stupid DRM methord even tho i'm always online theres no way of assuimng EA's end will be - I'm just going to keep with SC2 and DoW as at least both of those are at least clear cut in how they play and not trying to cashgrab a 'trend'.
    Edited by 1 at 16/03/10 @ 15:31

  • Byzanite #38 2 years ago

    Well, EA have broken C&C. The steady decline of this RTS giant is nearly over. Please let this be the last C&C, please.

  • mingster #39 2 years ago

    Adam T don't compare this to Z.
    Z was awesome and each level was designed perfectly.

  • gavinneil #40 2 years ago

    Remember Command & Conquer Generals..? Now that was a great game, Red alert 2 and Yuris revenge..? shame on you! Is it just me or have they just ruined this C&C franchise..? Strong words but I haven’t bought a C&C game since generals. I don't like the direction of the sci-fi element, i think other games offer more depth (the feckin excellent Company of Heroes to name but one) and I think peeps have just grown bored of iterations of no innovation. As a long term fan am disappointed. Yuri and the boys would be turning in their grave!

  • Kerome #41 2 years ago

    Tbh lost interest in C&C a long time ago. I played the most recent one released through XBLA mostly for form's sake (and to see what they'd been up to), but most of the last ten years' evolution of gaming seems to have passed them by.... still long tutorials, imperfect balancing, overly garish units, mission-based architecture... it was like playing sub-WC3 RTS again.

    Needless to say glad to see my suspicions confirmed, won't be spending money on this, tho Starcraft 2 is looking quite tasty.

  • jonfon #42 2 years ago

    I was really fond of Generals as well. So much so that C&C3 just seemed a bit dull after it. This just seems horrific though. A random game with the C&C name slapped onto it.

    As for the DRM, good luck with that EA, nice to see you haven't gone totally to the Light Side, I was starting to get worried about your lack of evil ways.

  • GiarcYekrub #43 2 years ago

    I'm divided, the DRM itself doesn't bother me too much (probally should but doesn't) as long as it doesn't interfere with play. My main concern is the change of gameplay and the story comments don't bode well and what happened to the scrin? I'm starting to be pleased that EA haven't replied to my constant emails requests

  • makariel #44 2 years ago

    Ouch...

    Guess I'll pick up DoW2: Chaos Rising instead.

  • jaywalker3010 Verified Mastering Manager, Square Enix #45 2 years ago

    You know its bad when a game with the heritage and history of the C&C series is concluded on a single page review..

    Tis a sad end :(

  • geeza2020 #46 2 years ago

    there must be some sort of consumer rights infrinngement here. If you own the game, surely you should be able to play it whenever you want. not when the EA servers say you can. Why should the honest consumer have to pay for publishers greed and anger at the second hand market? I dont know, im probably wrong, but all these new DRM's seem extremely unethical.

  • craziii #47 2 years ago

    is it just me or does the game look horrible?

  • makeamazing #48 2 years ago

    Its sad that such a classic series can be ruined by someone (designers/suits) who thinks NOW is a good time to try something different to the formula.... its been successful is because we like the way it works.

  • Anaardvark #49 2 years ago

    Brilliant, it sounds awful :D
    What a waste of a great franchise, thrown down the toilet with some bad ideas and draconian DRM.

    No doubt the pirates will find some way around the protection and be able to play it at their leisure.

    Thanks, but no thanks.

  • Zaiz #50 2 years ago

    I guess my real curiosity is, why do they immediately claim that this game looks like Starcraft? I mean...eh? They both look like modern RTSes, really.

    On the other hand, this DRM is obnoxious, and I wish I'd seen that it was somewhere before I pre-ordered(mind you with a bazillion dollars in instore credit, and not actual money) it, since I kinda liked the tactical implications of a crawler, and if I really wanted to play a base building RTS, there are tons to pick from that I already own. So, something different.

  • Sunyavadin #51 2 years ago

    I'm also still amused at the people on all the forums who actually believe they'll release an offline patch when they shut down the servers.
    Sure.
    When EA are laying off the dev team after the game comes out.

    Dream on.

  • Eisenstein #52 2 years ago

    @chudders
    "The sad thing is, poor sales of titles such as this and Supcom 2 are likely not to result in 'oh well, let's go back to what people like and expect', but more 'we'll not be making any RTS games in future'. "

    True, but the best you can do is buy the good RTS left - Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising is a really good one for example, Starcraft 2 looks like it can rightfully bear the name.

  • Cafuddled #53 2 years ago

    I have seen a few people talk about the steady decline of the franchise... I don’t know about you but I fairly enjoyed the last C&C. I’ve not really been too attracted to the franchise or really any RTS outside of the Total War series after first Red Alert (with the exception of Homeworld 1 - 2). It seemed that they had recaptured what was good and built upon it with C&C 3. C&C 4 just seems as people have said, a simple cash generating exercise that never pulled off and has left the C&C series dyeing badly, so blame EA for this one (might be talking a bit prematurely on the sales but I would imagine they would be less that stellar).

    You have to wonder though, why are all the game testers for EA so scared to tell the designers “well this game works well, on a technical level. But really it is kinda shit...”. But hey, money talks, but will EA ever listen? ‘It was not the rubbish game that accounted for the lack of sales, it’s the DRM getting hacked that done it’.

    You would think though that if they were going to introduce a draconian form of DRM that they would at least introduce a very good game on it? It seems as though they either know people are not going to like it so are releasing it on sub-par games. Or that they generally don’t know what is and what is not a good game.

    I could go on forever about corporate BS, but I won’t. So for now all I will say is that this has yet again put me off the old school RTS franchise that I was reared up on.

    Peace and harmony amongst all human kind.

  • kratos-i-am #54 2 years ago

    The whole charm of C&C3 and to a lesser extent Red Alert 3 (only couple i've played) for me was the base building and tech trees. Seeing as I wasn't a big player of RTS games before this generation of gaming (platformer/adventurer man myself and that's kinda on life support aswell!) seems as though I got into RTS games to late...

    Though honestly how many genres of games are we going to sacrifice for the action/fps nut?

    Oh and just putting it out there, although it might also make me a bit of a hypocrite... I absolutely love Final Fantasy XIII!
    Edited by 1 at 17/03/10 @ 10:13

  • gmjapan #55 2 years ago

    The description of the walker producing all your units sounded like an attempt to copy the HomeWorld Mothership idea but on the ground... how do you mess up with that classic as a reference point?!

  • 4thVariety #56 2 years ago

    I can't hepl but wonder who is making the decisions at EA these days. What happened to the comittment to quality and the 80% average score?

  • adamsolo #57 2 years ago

    7.0 in Gamespot... boy that's bad. Being a old time fan of the command & conquer series I'll play it anyway.

    -----------------------
    edit by mod: No spam please.
    Edited by 2 at 28/08/10 @ 10:11

  • thrashard #58 2 years ago

    i preordered this game without really reading reviews or watching gameplay vids, because the c&c name has never let me down. that was a pretty big mistake. i thought about taking it back to gamestop and telling them the disc was defective then taking the unopened copy to an out of town store, but na i'll just take it as a lesson learned and not buy anymore games from ea. if nothing else it can be used as micro training. i'm also going to have to buy another game to get the bitter taste of this one out of my mouth.
    this is not your traditional RTS, but it is certainly your conventional GAY.

  • obscured021 #59 2 years ago

    It seems with a lot of games getting this on line DMR the only option left for people with out a good connection is to pirate

  • Vampire_Yoshi #60 2 years ago

    As I played, the systematics of the game itself was/were so bad that I was obsessed with only one thing: clawing my way to the end to see the next Nod-campaign cutscene with Joe Kucan. His acting is as SUPERB as ever, and now my "excitement" switches to those hints he gave that he's had movie/studio offers to play villains, or what have you. Seriously, he is one of the best talents in Hollywood (or at least, the region that includes Hollywood).

    I have not played the GDI campaign, and I probably won't. To me, the Nod path is canon...even if it answered absolutely none of the questions is promised to, save one: Kane is not human, and never was. To any claims of "No DUH," it wasn't clear if he had become more than, or started that way. Now it's clear: when he "found us," "we" were living in mud huts scratching our way out of hunter/gatherer existence, and into agriculture. Other than that, nothing...but at least there IS that.

    Am I a Nod FANATIC, for being pleased with even that minor scrap of plot/lore? I suppose so. EA and C&C are dead to me, with this farce. But KANE...LIVES. ON.

  • butler` #61 2 years ago

    played c&c since day one

    fan of westwood since dune 2

    what a sad way to go...

  • Bustaboy #62 2 years ago

    people listne up I made the BIG mistake pre-ordering this game as I tought it would be like C&C 3.
    After RA3 I already was very disapointed because of the bad graphics but I really have no words for this game (not in a good way)
    You don't get to build a base.. you can only have like 15 units max.. AND you have to unlock EVERYTHING!
    I am an casual gamer and like to play 2/4 hours a week but it is already very clear that you won't gain units within a nice period of time.
    It might be ok for the hardcore gamer but the more casual it really sucks. I hope to unlock my tier 2 units this week. but up till now this game is a real disappointment to me

  • Timbercottage #63 2 years ago

    Who's idea was it to remove base building? The idea itself is stupid enough, but the other people in the meeting who went "hmmm, good idea" are fucking retards.

  • captain_MeanMachine #64 8 months ago

    Awefull Awefull game.....

  • gamingboy #65 5 months ago

    I loved C&C 3, i wasted so many hours playing it, I hate EA has litterately stripped all the gameplay, and fun, of C&C and replaysed it with shit that consumers just should be happy with!
    Starcraft 2 always had to make updates when I wanted to play it and so I would play a other game, C&C 4 WILL NOT BE DIFFERENT!
    I agree that with just giving C&C 3 new units and a new campainge ect. it would be rad!