Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars PC

User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 406 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 46 out of 406
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 16, 2017
    0
    Unimaginative, cliched, uninspired. A step down from Generals in sophistication. There is no more strategy as such, just a matter of churning out lots of remarkably similar units to keep throwing at a similarly spawning enemy. Boring terrain, boring units, boring gameplay. Vastly inferior to Zero Hour/Destructive Forces. EA clearly know that by dumbing the game down they will attract aUnimaginative, cliched, uninspired. A step down from Generals in sophistication. There is no more strategy as such, just a matter of churning out lots of remarkably similar units to keep throwing at a similarly spawning enemy. Boring terrain, boring units, boring gameplay. Vastly inferior to Zero Hour/Destructive Forces. EA clearly know that by dumbing the game down they will attract a lower common denominator with lower expectations. But even so, I'd be very surprised if the game's high score here isn't influenced by some kind of an EA click-farm. Expand
  2. Oct 17, 2015
    0
    The game is just horrible, nothing makes any **** sense, HEY LOOK AT ME I CAN LIE DOWN GOOD LUCK**** DOING ANYTHING. and HEY I SEE YOUR 10,000 SOLDIERS LEMME GUN THEM ALLLLL DOWN WITH 2 TURRETS
  3. BenjaminC.
    Apr 9, 2007
    4
    Ok, I had fairly high expectations for this game, maybe that's where I went wrong. I did enjoy the HD videos (Kane Rox) but the gameplay was extremely ordinary, it was fast and responsive but I think they forgot the FUN part. This may be your product if you enjoy the competitive online (and like spamming x units) but I'm sticking w/ CoH.
  4. AndyM.
    May 28, 2007
    3
    Pretty Average. No skills needed. I've played all C&C,an apart from good graphics and video cut scenes, there is no gameplay advance over the last C&C some 3 yrs ago!! Disappointing to a past fan, but with EA marketing push it'll sell.
  5. JimG.
    Mar 1, 2007
    0
    You get the games whole dam tech tree in like 3 MINUTES, thats the crappiest pacing ever, so basically a few minutes into the game and all the games weaker early units are entirely worthless. The game was clearly designed for the soul purpose of shooting for the lowest common denominator. The game is just pure shallow, they even removed the intense micro CnC was known for and made it all You get the games whole dam tech tree in like 3 MINUTES, thats the crappiest pacing ever, so basically a few minutes into the game and all the games weaker early units are entirely worthless. The game was clearly designed for the soul purpose of shooting for the lowest common denominator. The game is just pure shallow, they even removed the intense micro CnC was known for and made it all automatic, you just can't do that in a small scale 10 unit a faction a game. On top of all this the balance is horrid, the Mammoth completely obliterates anything, compare it to the NOD's Avatar it is crap, the Avatar when fully upgraded costs more then twice the price of a fully upgraded Mammoth and it's weaker then the Mammoth and doesn't have anti air! The Mammoth basically then owns all tanks, owns infantry, with the rail it makes infantry entirely pointless and it owns most of the air AND THIS IS A TANK YOU CAN GET A FEW MINUTES INTO THE GAME?!?! All these factors come together to make CnC 3 literally the most shallow RTS game ever made and don't think the balance will be fixed in the final oh no they already are finished with the game and are working on it's first patch which likely won't come out for months and will end up making things worse then they are. I didn't think RTS games could be made so casual and just so wrong on so many levels. The game is complete trash really, they took a step back from the intense micro of Generals back to 1 unit tank spam. The game has a nice old novelty to it at first, but once you dig in you get hands full of crap. The game was clearly dumbed down for the console version. Expand
  6. PeterG.
    Mar 27, 2007
    4
    It is really starting to annoy me. A steadily increasing amount of games released for the PC in the last few years make you immediately feel that underlying concepts have been seriously dumbed down for the consoles. C&C 3 fits the above example perfectly. Not only has it the horrible console tailored user interface, it's also a pretty shallow strategy game with no tactical variety / It is really starting to annoy me. A steadily increasing amount of games released for the PC in the last few years make you immediately feel that underlying concepts have been seriously dumbed down for the consoles. C&C 3 fits the above example perfectly. Not only has it the horrible console tailored user interface, it's also a pretty shallow strategy game with no tactical variety / content at all. If CoH or Supcom are too demanding for you, then this might be the right game - else save your money and HD space. Expand
  7. JackS.
    Mar 30, 2007
    0
    I give it this rating due to the combination of expectations, EA's budget as a game company, and abysmal performance across the board. Turned up to maximum settings on 1600x1200 21" monitor - the game looks like, well, crap. Crappy texturing makes me think they limited the game to get it to run on the Xbox 360's 512 meg ram. It runs perfectly on my old 6600 GT but it looks badI give it this rating due to the combination of expectations, EA's budget as a game company, and abysmal performance across the board. Turned up to maximum settings on 1600x1200 21" monitor - the game looks like, well, crap. Crappy texturing makes me think they limited the game to get it to run on the Xbox 360's 512 meg ram. It runs perfectly on my old 6600 GT but it looks bad doing so - it's going to suck even worse if I upgrade. It's the interface (kludgy, and, yes, I know how to use it) and the gameplay (Tanks. Garrison. Where the hell is the strategy?) that pisses me off. Expand
  8. MikeF.
    Mar 4, 2007
    1
    Nothing new in terms of game-play, just pretty graphics. If you like the same old style game-play that apparently will not change, this game is for you. Very disappointing.
  9. StevJ.
    Mar 5, 2007
    4
    Bad gameplay. Graphics look like Dawn of War, stale. Doesn't match either Supreme Commander or COH, in fact, doesn't match Dawn of War.
  10. Wrex
    Jan 19, 2008
    1
    A simple game with simple generic strategy designed for idiots. Spamming a single unit for victory died back in the 90's, I guess C&C 3 makers didn't know that. But in this day and age of gaming if you have pretty explosions, people will like your game regardless of crappy play.
  11. MarkusW.
    Dec 23, 2007
    1
    Simple game-play, limited tactics, very poor balance. I expected more from C&C 3, but instead of being innovative it reguritates the past in a pretty particle FX fiesta. C&C 3 is a shining example of mundane game-play wrapped in a pretty package. No wonder why the reviewers like it.
  12. HarvB.
    Mar 23, 2007
    1
    The game-play found in C&C 3 was great 10 years ago, but it doesn't compare to todays RTS games with deeper game-play. Even Starcraft has more depth. Kane is about the only thing good in C&C 3.
  13. Ham&CheeseBeef
    Mar 27, 2007
    2
    Stinky... The graphics are great if you have a mega high end machine, the game-play is dated from a decade 7 years over with. But Kane is cool. I guess if you consider clicking really quick a sport than C&C 3 might fit the bill. Can I get my money back please? Pretty graphics can only cover up so much. Time for EA to move on from RTS.
  14. Elukka
    Mar 29, 2007
    3
    I must say I'm hugely disappointed in this game. Having played ALL the Westwood (now EA LA) RTS games, this is the worst. Here are a few reasons why: 1) The one and only strategy (in single player) is to group all your units and start a clickfest againts enemy units. 2) All the maps all small and cramped, so there no room to maneuver 3) The lack of any basic formation control puts I must say I'm hugely disappointed in this game. Having played ALL the Westwood (now EA LA) RTS games, this is the worst. Here are a few reasons why: 1) The one and only strategy (in single player) is to group all your units and start a clickfest againts enemy units. 2) All the maps all small and cramped, so there no room to maneuver 3) The lack of any basic formation control puts all your weak units to the frontline 4) Single player game is TOO fast-paced, and you'll have a hard time targetting enemy units 5) The weak enemy AI has to use triggered attacks and superior numbers, because without them the player would always win. 6) Often the campaign doesn't let you use the units that would suit best for the situation (i.e. Zone Troopers) On the good side are : 1) The game is relatively easy on your hardware 2) Some spiffy effects (but nothing truly gorgeous) 3) FMVs tie the story nicely together. Disappointed. Expand
  15. ConstantineC
    Mar 31, 2007
    1
    EA continues to milk yet another series.
    This is mostly a Generals reskin with some engine optimization, and some impressive GFX, but zero innovation, many units even being copy/pasted from gens (GDI rocket buggy = GLA rocket buggy, Mammoth = Overlord.
    Quite buggy too, many times tanks and especially harvesters will clip, sometimes even crashing completely. (don't tell me its my
    EA continues to milk yet another series.
    This is mostly a Generals reskin with some engine optimization, and some impressive GFX, but zero innovation, many units even being copy/pasted from gens (GDI rocket buggy = GLA rocket buggy, Mammoth = Overlord.
    Quite buggy too, many times tanks and especially harvesters will clip, sometimes even crashing completely. (don't tell me its my rig cause I have 6600e core duo, 2 gigs, 2 7900GTs in SLI).

    Single player is the same as the old CNC games (stop the rocket from launching with Kane sending corny "you'll never stop me" messages is just old).

    How much CNC nostalgia can you have? Well apparently EA thinks you have quite a lot.
    I wouldn't be surprised if they start a CNC2008, CNC2009 etc series since the Fanboys will buy.

    If you want something new, revolutionary and innovative get SupCom or CoH.
    Expand
  16. KyleP.
    Mar 8, 2007
    4
    I have always been a big C&C fan, and this really disappointed me. The game looks great, and runs smooth, but thats about it. The whole game felt very childish to me. The way the GI's just fall over and start doing push-ups when they're not busy, the way missiles leave funny looking crooked smoke tails, among other things. I am definitely not planning to buy this game. My hatred I have always been a big C&C fan, and this really disappointed me. The game looks great, and runs smooth, but thats about it. The whole game felt very childish to me. The way the GI's just fall over and start doing push-ups when they're not busy, the way missiles leave funny looking crooked smoke tails, among other things. I am definitely not planning to buy this game. My hatred for EA has increased, seeing how they just killed one of my favorite series. Expand
  17. Esse
    Apr 2, 2007
    1
    Nothing special - gameplay is terrible. Multiplayer is really nothing new. Starcraft is a years better. In C&C 3 there is no skill - no micro, no macro, only fast clicking into building process. It's the step back in C&C series. Only Kane is nice in camping.
  18. TeodorR.
    Apr 4, 2007
    2
    Game seen so many times before, and I was sicked of it in 10 minutes. Some units look nice, and some graphic elements, but that is it.
  19. TylerA.
    May 8, 2007
    1
    Fun single player, but that's likely all you'll get to play if you buy this. With all the time they've spent working on balance, merch, and hype, the net code of this game sucks, horribly. A large number of people cannot even play online (myself included) due to shoddy network code. Don't pay retail price for a game that still seems to be in beta.
  20. ArneK.
    Jun 25, 2007
    3
    Two point for good storyline. one point for good actors. another point for ... oh ... erm ... that's it. could someone tell ea to stop? pls? i mean, it sure looks nice when i'm not ingame and i sure love the story about the tiberium but ... ea messed it all up. and i guess the moneyflow stopped during the scrin campaign.
  21. ThavornN.
    Jul 25, 2007
    2
    The game looks darn promising, the graphics and lighting looks gorgeous, BUT if any only if some of the gamer can actually play it!!! This game is way too buggy, hang is a commonly known issue in which the patches doesn't do any good to it.
  22. MajorK.
    Aug 3, 2007
    3
    I have been a C&C fan since the beginning, but this Tiberium Wars SUCKED. Zero Hour had Great graphics
  23. AnsonG.
    Sep 3, 2007
    1
    Too boring and repetive. Map too small. Gameplay terrible. Even multiplayer and skirmish oomes out nothin new. Do not play this game. Its not worth for money.
  24. SteveP
    Oct 8, 2008
    0
    Beware, the game secretly installs malware - SecuROM. It is likely to cause problems with your computer and is almost impossible to remove.
  25. cncguy
    Aug 8, 2009
    0
    This is the most UNBALANCED RTS i have ever played!!! This is my main complaint: Most units are almost useless and ONLY used to counter other units. Like a ROCK, PAPER, SCISSORS GAME. That is why this sucks as soon as you relise this. This really disappointed me because I was expecting a really balanced game.
  26. Kiki
    Nov 22, 2007
    1
    C&C 3 sums up everything wrong with most RTS games today. The graphics are nice, Joe Kucan is awesome, but the game-play is horrible. Spamming tons of the same type of unit and calling it "fast, fluid, and fun" is absurd. The game lacks strategy and depth. It really would have been nice that instead of patching the game 9 times (in 9 months), they just did a beta test. What a mess... If C&C 3 sums up everything wrong with most RTS games today. The graphics are nice, Joe Kucan is awesome, but the game-play is horrible. Spamming tons of the same type of unit and calling it "fast, fluid, and fun" is absurd. The game lacks strategy and depth. It really would have been nice that instead of patching the game 9 times (in 9 months), they just did a beta test. What a mess... If you want pretty explosions and nothing more, C&C 3 fits the bill, but if you want depth and serious game-play go with something like Universe at War or Supreme Commander. Expand
  27. AndrewL.
    Apr 21, 2007
    4
    Pretty average RTS. Brings nothing new to the table and follows the same tired old formula of previous C&C titles. Dated menu and build system.
  28. OneShot
    Apr 29, 2007
    3
    Are you serious? I was so excited about this game due to the fact that I was a Command & Conquer Generals : Zero Hour fanatic. I loved that game so much, thought that this would be like that. This game is super boring, don't buy it. I was so excited for a new Generals too!
  29. SeanH.
    Sep 12, 2007
    3
    Great graphics are really all this half-arsed sequel brings to the table. The storyline feels forced, the FMVs are painful to watch; gameplay feels incredibly generic, and the fact that there is no innovation whatsoever makes for an utterly forgettable game.
  30. Aug 21, 2012
    0
    I was pretty dissapointed. I grew up playing Red Alert 2/Yuri's Revenge. So I never knew that the Red Alert Franchise (prequel) was released after the sequel.... And then remade with tiberium and all that stuff. I liked the original Red Alert 2, I never bothered the campaign since I just liked going to war and having like 30 factions battle on the map. Was some crazy stuff. Red Alert 3I was pretty dissapointed. I grew up playing Red Alert 2/Yuri's Revenge. So I never knew that the Red Alert Franchise (prequel) was released after the sequel.... And then remade with tiberium and all that stuff. I liked the original Red Alert 2, I never bothered the campaign since I just liked going to war and having like 30 factions battle on the map. Was some crazy stuff. Red Alert 3 only had 3 factions which was like 1/10 of red alert 2. As for this game, didn't meet up to my expectations at all. Maybe because it said it was newer on Steam then RA, so that maybe it'd be better, and they'd just keep improving. Main things that bothered me:

    The **** user interface, the menu is confusing as **** with all these modes and it's like dark blue.

    The Babes, this ticked me off right at the beginning, I was expecting it to be like RA 3, the point of going to war is so that when you end the war, you have babes to return to., there are like no babes in this game.

    The in-game user interface, they switched all the buttons, why the **** would they do that.

    The graphics, how does a newer game have more horrible graphics than an older game. First of all, no explosions, yea things explode on airstrike, but guess what. You can airstrike a wooden house, and it won't explode. It plays the sound effect and then it sinks into the ground. WTF. Also, the reason RA didn't let you zoom all the way in to see your troops were to not show the low-rez landscape. When you zoom in to your troops now in squads (1 squad can contain like 5 people), the background looks like a solid crap color.

    I look for gameplay over graphics, but the gameplay is extremely repetitive.

    They used crappy colors for the user interface, everything seems so damp, so I guess it's like an apocolyptic situation where some dude called Kain is trying to **** with everybody and your base is like under a rock doing research. Man, they needa continue the red alert series, I liked those graphics, gameplay, explosions ftw, music, babes, everything about it.
    Expand
Metascore
85

Generally favorable reviews - based on 47 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 43 out of 47
  2. Negative: 0 out of 47
  1. PC Gamer
    90
    It's action-packed gameplay; attractive, colorful visuals; and star-studded videos are sure to draw in both hardcore fans of the series and large numbers of new players. [Apr 2007, p.20]
  2. It's deeply hilarious - as aracde-feeling as strategy games can get...It does everything it can, bar a song and dance routine, to entertain you. And it succeeds. [Apr 2007, p.62]
  3. After years in the wilderness, RTS is pretty cool again right now, and something as cheerfully straightforward as this is just what's needed to stop the big braininess of "Company of Heroes" and "Supreme Commander" leading to another plunge into an inaccessibility that turns more casual players off the whole genre.