User Score

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 614 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 71 out of 614

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. Aug 14, 2010
    Purely and simply this is NOT Command and Conquer. No base building, no resource management, and no strategy at all. Just pump out a bunch of cannon fodder and if they die just pump out a few more at no cost. Joe Kucan is the only noteworthy actor and even he phones it in. The cutscenes are just bad and not in the usual so cheesy its good way. The DRM is just the cherry on this giant **** sundae. As a strategy game it's below average at best, and as a C&C game it's EA taking the franchise behind the shed and putting both barrels between it's eyes. Expand
  2. Feb 26, 2011
    I had been a fan of the C&C series from the beginning before it was even on Win95 (I think I still have the Pre-Win 95 disk kicking around somewhere) back when Westwood was still around. I don't say that to brag but so that anyone reading this understands where I am coming from. Hell i even have C&C Renegade. The FPS that could have been more all though it was fun. I say all that to say if you are a C&C fan stay away from this game, it is seriously not up to par with the rest of the series. and for everyone who defends this game as a C&C game should actually go back and play some of the older games to see what C&C is. Expand
  3. Aug 16, 2010
    Why oh why change a winning game into a mainstream game this is happening with alot of games now. think they have changed it to appeal to young kids. It is alot less fun and exiting than Command & Conquer 3 and such a waste of money to buy. Stick to what you know and make a proper RTS game not a KRTS (kids real time strategy).
  4. Aug 23, 2010
    The most important words of the review: DO NOT BUY! This is not a Command and Conquer game, this is some other game pretending that it is a C&C game. Sure, the campy cut scenes are nice and all, but if I wanted to only watch the cut scenes, I would have just found the videos for it online. For the game itself, not worth the money. I pre-ordered this game--after playing every other C&C game, I will not trust a C&C game until after it comes out, and probably has some discounts again. Expand
  5. Jul 21, 2012
    The best I can say about Command and Conquer 4 is at least it didn't kick my dog, it never started on fire, and at no point did it attempt a hostile takeover of my employer's business.
  6. Jan 1, 2011
    You know, I can live with the whole "mobile base" thing that they have going on. I don't entirely mind the RPS combat... but I can't stand how boring this game is. I've never been so bored in my entire life while playing a video game. The story was awful, absolutely terrible. The acting was was easily the worst in the series (as was the story). I've gotta say, this game probably destroyed the franchise... I know I won't pick up another C&C after this and judging from the reviews I don't expect anyone else to either. Expand
  7. Oct 3, 2010
    Spoiler Alert: This is a turd of a product, not worthy of the C&C name. - This game is even worse than Red Alert 3. It is one of the many casualties of EA. May it rot in peace.
  8. Oct 4, 2010
    It is not even RTS style like previous C&C games when I tried its betas. EA killed the series. C&C3 and its KW addon were the last good C&C games. Even the cutscenes were bad. :(
  9. Jan 5, 2011
    Tiberium Twilight brings an end to the decade-long Tiberium saga, but why the developers chose the terminal chapter of their iconic Command and Conquer series to attempt a radical new direction is beyond many. In essence, C&C 4 is all flash and little substance. Gorgeous visuals and an excellent soundtrack come at the cost of stripped down gameplay and a less-than-stellar telling of Kane's final gambit in the long struggle between rival factions Nod and GDI. While the new pace of play may be frantic, removal of such things as resource management and base construction serve only to alienate this shell of a game from it's predecessors. Expand
  10. Jan 14, 2011
    I don't know if I even want to finish this. This was a giant waste of my 5$ off of a steam deal. It feels like something some no-name developer puts out, but with decent graphics. There's no resource management. All it is is rock/paper/scissors, but with 3 or 4 different people putting their hands in. As everyone else has stated, this is not C&C. It doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the same shelf as the C&C franchise. This is one of those games that you find in a bargain bin at Menards or Fleet Farm. Expand
  11. Nov 17, 2010
    i wish i could have been positive about Tiberium Twilight, but i can't.
    the C&C series have always been a traditional RTS(simple build,train,command,conquer), but 4 breaks that formula in a bad way.
    its okay if they want to try something else but they shouldn't use a well known series as a base for that.
    the story is also far below par. people who know a bit of the Tiberium universe
    will probably find allot of loose ends in it. Expand
  12. Nov 17, 2010
    This is one of the worst command and conquer games I have ever played. The campaign was awful. The only thing nice about it was the multiplayer.
  13. Jan 13, 2011
    For anyone considering this game, don't pay attention to the reviews that claim it's the worst game ever, and that it ruined the C&C series. This game is excellent. The people who are putting it down, are doing so not because it's a bad game, but because they expected another sidebar, billion unit RTS with little interaction with the maps, and little micromanagement, like the rest of the Command and Conquer games have been. Truth be told, I actually enjoy this style of game much more than I have the previous C&C games. This is coming from a gamer who has played and owned StarCraft: Brood War, StarCraft 2, Warcraft 3 Frozen Throne, Dawn of War 2, Company of Heroes, and all the Age of Empires games. This game takes the series down a more tactical route. There is more focus on army placement and management, and proper use of focus firing with the correct counter units. It has adopted the DoW style of gameplay with control nodes, which I also like, because it forces you out onto the map to engage in battle, rather than simply camping in your base for 15 minutes until its time to fight. The graphics are simply beautiful, and run smoothly on high settings, even on my par system. I give EA credit, as well, for the originality here. Mobile MCV's are a cool addition, and you'll find a plethora of very interesting unit abilities to micromanage. You'll also find strategically placed capturable turrets and Mutant Hovels, which are similar to mercenary camps in WarCraft 3. placed on most of the multiplayer maps.

    Though the hotkeys are not customizable, you'll find most of them are mapped based on their position on the UI, which makes them easy to remember and get used to. There are a ton of units, all of which have their use, and the game is just plain fun. I actually stopped playing StarCraft 2 since I starting playing this game. It's not so fast paced that have a heart attack during every encounter, hence it gives you time to think about your moves and plan out strategies. The battles are fluent, and the unit pathing is smooth.

    Again, excellent game despite the fanboy criticisms. Easily worth the money for any PC RTS fan.
  14. Feb 27, 2011
    It's not a terrible game standing by itself, but it's barely worth 10 dollars with the C&C title on it. Even when standing on it's own merits, it's still quite a generic game, and the cutscenes are dry and uninteresting. Kane, normally an intimidating and wise character, feels dead in this one. He doesn't have that shroud of mystery that was normally maintained in previous series. If the game had a better story and began BEFORE Kane allied with GDI, along with standard RTS elements, it would be worth an 8.5. Get a better engine instead of that crappy generals engine, and it would get a 10. On it's own right now, it get's a 5. Expand
  15. Mar 4, 2011
    I have been a huge fan of Command and Conquer for many years, and own all the games. However, when they started to announce this game and it was discovered that base building had been removed I said "pass"

    I didn't buy the game till it was on sale on Steam for 5 dollars the other week, and I still think I paid to much. It is not even a C&C game. No bases and all about micro. For the last
    game in the series it was massively disappointing. Why after years of success would they alter the design so drastically. I have about 3 hours of play, and have no desire to play any more. If you were an uber micro person that always built minimal bases anyway you may enjoy the game. But if you are a macro player that just plays casually in Skirmish and used the game as your "offline" option, then this is not for you. Stick with C&C3 Expand
  16. Aug 12, 2011
    One of the most boring RTS games I've ever played. It's downright disgraceful that they could go from C&C3 (a pretty damn good game) to this piece of crap. There's no base building, no resource management, the units are boring, and there's almost no strategy beyond pointing your units at the enemy. Seriously, how do you mess up Command and Conquer SO badly? On top of all that, they've made the unit designs look worse. The sleek and dangerous looking stealth tank from C&C3 is now a blocky, over-sized mess. As I've said, no more base building. Instead, you have one mobile command center that produces all of your units. Now if the units and their strategies were more sophisticated, this might have worked. But no. Instead all you have to do is produce a mix of units (which takes about 1 minute) and send them after the enemy. This is even more boring than it sounds. If you want a good RTS, look elsewhere. Expand
  17. Apr 25, 2011
    It was brave of them to take an established money making franchise and flip the whole thing like a pancake. Not many companies have the balls to do that. Too bad the end result was a game that had nothing to do with C&C gameplay and made for a completely undesirable game
  18. Jul 24, 2011
    Basic theme of my review: You loved CnC 1 / 1.5 / 2 / 2.5 / 3 / 3.5? Don't waste your 4$ on this game like I unfortunately did.

    Long gone are the days where you would start off with little to now power and units and were expected to use skill and strategy to obtain resources and build up an army. No, today's version of Command and Conquer gets rid of all these silly concepts, puts you
    down with *one* main building whose purpose is to... let you build from a list of all your available units right from the start, mass them up at no cost to you, send them on a killing spree, and repeat. This game would have earned points for its XP system of leveling up to unlock things had it done things right, or at least attempted to steal the ideas from Starcraft 2. But no, in CnC4 you aren't given the biggest tanks for the biggest missions, you need to unlock them by grinding, because that's what the last hope for the world has to do, right?
    Graphics look pretty, but then again you wouldn't be playing this series if you cared more about the graphics than the actual gameplay.
    Finally, I tried the skirmish mode against a computer since there is absolutely no one on multiplayer these days, and it's the same thing as single player: boring and repetitive.
  19. May 16, 2011
    This game is mournful. As of the time of this writing, it's available from Steam for twenty dollars. I passed C&C4 by when it came out last year, wary from the reviews and videos I had seen, and only picked it up now while the RTS genre is fairly dry.

    It is absolutely not worth it. If this game were being given away it would still cost too much in hard-drive space alone to justify
    owning it. This is the worst RTS I can remember owning in over a decade. It is a betrayal, a betrayal of the franchise, of the fans, and of EA's customers in general.

    The Command and Conquer franchise has always had some common traits constant between all its games, from the original to the Red Alert series and even the short-lived Generals spin off. You build a base, you build structures along a tech-tree, you unlock more advanced units by building the corresponding buildings, you amass a force free of any arbitrary population cap, and you wage quick, brutal, and often unforgiving war. Command and Conquer 4 has none of that. Not a single defining point of the franchise is present. Not. A. One. Resource gathering is gone. Base building is replaced by a single 'crawler' mobile facility that builds all available units once its deployed. Your army is limited by an infuriatingly low population cap since actual units are produced without any sort of resource cost. The closest thing to a tech-tree is a list of upgrades you can purchase at your crawler if you capture special tiberium crystals and return them to your base, almost like a capture the flag mini-game. Since there are no bases and units (including the crawlers) are produced neigh instantly and freely, victory depends on capture points which are won over by standing near them until a sliding bar swings to your faction. The only analogue I can think of is a rather despised mechanic Blizzard has incorporated into one of its World of Warcraft multiplayer battlegrounds. Indeed, the entire affair feels more like haphazardly managing an MMO than playing an actual real time strategy game. The more I think of it, the more like an MMO this game feels. The campaign is available in single-player but its clearly balanced around a poorly implemented co-op approach, to the extent that you can't start a mission without being put into a chat-room of C&C4 players. Most disturbingly, you'll see people advertise games to grind experience in these channels, since higher tech-units are now dependent on experienced gathered from your playing account. You have to grind experience to build units. Let that sink in. It is exactly as awful as it sounds. Its myriad technical and mechanical problems aside, what I object to the most is its presentation. I was replaying C&C 3 out of nostalgia before I decided to buy this game, and I firmly believe C&C 3 had better graphics, despite coming out four years before hand. C&C4 may have higher polygon counts and better lighting, but there was a baffling aesthetic change in the transition that makes everything look like building blocks. Gone are the sleek and hard lines, the fascinating alien bio-mechanical fusion, the gleam of light off tanks, and any sort of attempt at a realistic presentation. Now every unit looks like a child cobbled it together out of building blocks. It's almost cartoonish. And you'll have plenty of time to savor that, as it takes forever for anything to kill anything else now, vastly slowing down C&C's famous fast tempo. And the story... Merciful gods the story... C&C 3 had an extensive world-building side to it. It detailed the ravages of a tiberium future. It spun a cohesive narrative and had players scrambling for hidden objectives that unlocked intelligence notes, entries on units, events, and background that gave no other reward than simply learning about the setting. And they were fascinating enough that many players spent a lot of time hunting them down (just look at the number of online intel guides for proof). C&C 4 does none of that. It actively tries to get you to forget plot points from its predecessor. It erases the setting earlier games masterfully erected. The actual story is irrelevant because you won't be able to follow it; cut-scenes and briefings are overly melodramatic yet carry no real information. You'll be wondering 'why?' at the start of almost every mission. It's like reading a comic where half the panels were blacked out.

    Five thousand characters isn't enough to bemoan this wretched travesty. Command and Conquer deserved better than this. There isn't a single redeeming quality to this game. It is pathetic. EA knows this; it retails for half the price of its predecessor, despite being four years younger. I give it one point because it exists and doesn't actively give you cancer. That's really the best that can be said about it.
  20. Jul 7, 2011
    This is not the C&C i used to play.... i am open for changes only if they are doing something good and make the game more fun and enjoyable but i can't find any of them... also i am a big fan of the mission crossing screen and movie... C&C or i should say WESTWOOD did it very well in the past and in C&C4....what EA have create is some sort of stupid class B movie style crap... i would say even the C&C 1 movie is better than C&C4 except the increase of resolution.... Expand
  21. Jul 7, 2011
    A Command and Conquer game without LAN play? .... no base building? ... It's only USD$4 on steam but this crap is not even worth that... sorry EA but after this and Bad company 2.... i will never be purchasing an EA game again.... you destroy franchises.

    Battlefield and Command and Conquer use to be 2 of my favorite games.... and there is a reason me and my friends still play red alert
    2 and BFV over your new games... Expand
  22. Jun 23, 2012
    I've been a huge fan of the C&C series since the first. I even loved the underrated Renegade spin-off. When I heard C&C 4 was coming out I was beyond happy. However I held off on buying the game until I found it really cheap because it contains lame DRM which requires you to be online at all time. After finally buying it and popping it in I was very let down to say the least.. First off it plays nothing like any of the other games in the series. Building is nearly non-existant, as is mining ore. About all you can build is units from a mobile factory which each side has. You are also restricted no only by a very strict unit cap, but which units you can build as well. You see in C&C 4 you have ranks. Your rank depends on what units you are allowed to build. This means for awhile you're going to be stuck with a few weak as heck units. This is not only in single player, but multi as well. It makes things so unbalanced and needlessly difficult it ruins the entire game. This game is horrible to say the least. I don't usually condone piracy, but with this one I can say the pirates got a better version. Not only can they play it offline, but they didn't pay a dime for this crap. Seriously, this has got to be one of the worst RTS games I have ever played and I have played a lot. Expand
  23. Jul 22, 2012
    So I picked up C&C 4 tonight because it was on steam sale for $5 dollars, and I believe I overpaid for it. It really disapointed me how much I dislike C&C 4. I played it for just over an hour, and that was all I could take. It just so bad that it doesn't even resemble the C&C series that I remember fondly. Where did the resource gathering go? Why are there now 3 different types of MCV's that I seem to have to switch between just to keep up with the AI? Why does the game seem to be forcing me around the map multiple times? Why are the graphic settings set to minimal as default? Why can't I adjust said setting while in a mission? Why is it when I set the graphic settings to max, that it still looks like a game from 6 years ago? Just so much wrong here and besides the guy that plays Kane, there's nothing here that even remotely resembles the C&C I know and love. I give the game a 1 purely because the actor who played Kane was still in it. Expand
  24. Mar 25, 2012
    This game is absolute trash. EA strike again with their opportunistic cash-is-the-prime-directive behavior, by riding out the franchise until it's dead in the water. It's clear than EA have squeezed the absolute life out of this franchise as the quality of anything they've release related to the series has been inferior since Tiberium Sun.

    Joke's on you EA. Enjoy your expensive critical
    panning. Not even worth pirating. Disgusting. Expand
  25. Oct 27, 2013
    Yeah, way to throw the baby out with the bath water here. The concept of the moving changeable base is ok enough but it's sadly not as good as the original base build structure. It wasn't broke, it didn't need fixing. Add to this the FMV which is sadly not as well acted or starred as the original games. It basically comes off like this... Imagine Star Wars VII came out and it was a made for TV movie by the sci-fi channel. Pretty much like that. Expand
  26. Sep 4, 2014
    The worst C&C game ever, they did crap in this game, THIS IS NOT COMMAND & CONQUER THAT I KNOW ! Don´t waste time with this. The others C&C games is much better !
  27. Jan 1, 2012
    Why did this get released? How can a big company like EA let something like this happen?
    There has to be someone in charge of giving the final "O.K." to release a certain product in a certain condition in a company like EA but judged by this game there simply isnt. Even then basic common sense should tell anyone that such garbage needs to get deleted instead of released.
  28. Dec 31, 2011
    I picked up this game for 5$. I want my five dollars back.

    I think that that should set the tone for this review. None of the elements from the Tiberium games are in the game. No base building, no choosing your own play style, no actual strategy, simply build guys and throw them at the target until you are bored.

    The paper/rock/scissors type strength/weakness system added needless
    non-intuitive complication. For what it's worth, for the short time that I played the game, it looks like the graphics were good, the environments were interesting, and that the sound and music were of good quality. It's really too bad that I have no intention of playing any further in the game to find out if the story was interesting.

    Here's hoping Bioware treats the C&C series like it should be. Or that C&C5 will return to the previous gameplay style.
  29. Jul 4, 2012
    Very disappointed for a great series. C&C4 doesn't belongs to C&C series. It should be called by another name. EA has betrayed all the fan of C&C, no base building, no resource management, just ask for troops and keep attacking to take the point. If you haven't play C&C before, don't buy this game. If you still want to try this C&C4, I suggest you buying Company of heroes.
  30. Jan 1, 2012
    There was nothing that made it C&C aside from the name and Cane. Simply not fun at all. The strategy aspect is almost gone completely. Make more units for free, zerg them, build more for free, oh that base is down....wake me when I won again.
    Lastly, the campaign cannot be beaten unless you have another player or unless you have levelled up in multi player (which sucks worse than the
    main game) to level up enough to do it solo. I have no problem with co-op games, RA3 you would do single or co-op.....but it was beatable either way. Even their online community said it cant be done at my level, and they were surprised I got as far as I did. They took everything that made C&C fun and took it away. Way to kill a franchise..... Expand
  31. Feb 29, 2012
    MAYBE, just maybe if it were not part of the "Command & Conquer TIBERIAN" series it would have done better. From a avid fan of the series since the beginning i can tell you that it is not what the series fans enjoy.
    But that being said, just like C&C Red Alert, this is different, and just like red alert, maybe this idea of no base building should have been used in another C&C series. If
    you forget about the base building, which is very hard to do because after all C&C is ALL ABOUT BASE BUILDING, than you might have a decent strategy game. Expand
  32. Mar 26, 2012
    This game takes what I, personally, loved most, and chucked it out the window. No more base-building, no more resource management. Just OK, HERE ARE YOUR GUYS AND SOME LITTLE BUILDINGS GO KILL THINGS. The only reason this is getting a 2 is because it looks good and at least kept the live-action cut scenes. That's all it really kept from previous titles. Don't buy this game if you were a fan of previous titles. Expand
  33. Dec 31, 2012
    Obligatory 0 for online-only DRM. An unforgivable offence. There might be something worth playing under the DRM, but I'd have to pirate it to find out.
  34. Jul 5, 2012
    I am incredibly disappointed in this game... Definitely not the Command and Conquer that I used to play. If Westwood sees this utter garbage. They should definitely sue EA for this nonsense that they have created.
  35. Apr 17, 2012
    OK this game sucks big time!! the story is no good, the only good actor is the guy that plays Kane, the game play is only good if you are a rusher because there is no base building or harvesting tiberium, they have a limit on how many units you can have which on the old command and conquer games the only limit to how many units you could build was how much tiberium was on the map. also i hated that they made it where units like the cyborg commando and the mammoth tank where only good at killing a select few units and they could not kill bases at all any more. when i played command and conquer tiberium sun the cyborg command could take out an entire base all by its self if easy.

    on top of all that the ending just sucked. the portal that Kane went through looked like it was painted on to a white wall and this is a portal build by the Scrin. Also Kane would never side with GDI. If i remember it right in command and conquer 3 tiberium wars Kane was really mad that who ever the second in command on that game was sided with GDI and saw the Scrin as a bigger threat.

    So all in all if you like the old C&C games and have been playing from C&C tiberium dawn which was the one made in 1995 then you will not like C&C 4. For truly I say to you this game would not be worth getting even if it was free and that it would have been better for EA games to just have ended command and conquer with command and conquer Kane's wrath.
  36. May 10, 2012
    I wanted to play this game as I played and enjoyed most of the C&C and Red Alert games through my teens and into my adulthood. But this review, sadly, is not about how good or bad the game is, or how it lives up to or lets down the franchise. I bought the game through Steam during a sale, and over the past year I have tried to play it many times. It has never once actually worked, and trying to find any support for the game has utterly failed. I essentially paid to register an account with EA, give them some personal information, and never get to play the title I purchased. I don't know if it is the DRM, or a problem with Windows 7, or something else in the code. Every other Steam game I have purchased has been playable. The support forums unfortunately backed up my experience. So give this game a miss. If you pay for it, you may get nothing but frustration in return. Expand
  37. Jul 21, 2012
    A bad ending of a great game series. The idiot and boring storytelling, also the idiot and boring story, the missing base building and management, the missing resource management and also the missing of the money are killing this game. You have only 1 "building" (called "Crawler") that can move like a big robot. You can choose from 3 Crawler types: Defensive, Attacking and Support. I think it's a total idiot idea, because you have nothing to defend. Only the Crawler maybe, but you can call another Crawler to the battlefield anytime if you want (in Singleplayer). After you deploy your Crawler, you can train/build your units for nothing. Yes, for nothing. There is no money in the game. Just click on the icon of the wanted unit and wait until it's ready. I think the developers wanted a game like Dawn of War 2. But hey, DoW2 is a real-time strategy with a huge tactical part (e.g. cover system). Where is this tactical part in C&C4? Nowhere! The multiplayer/skirmish has the same problem. It wanted to be like in DoW2 or Company of Heroes's "capture the big outposts to win" mode. But it's not work in this game. After the amazing C&C3, it's a big rubish. I can only say: don't buy this game, if you want a good strategy. If you are a masochist, maybe it's your game. Maybe. Expand
  38. Jun 26, 2014
    Once upon a time, a friend an I made a very bad uninformed purchase. We bought C&C4 thinking it would be a better C&C3. The first and last time we played this, an inside joke was born. The only thing I remember about this game was that horribly laggy cutscene.. OMG A MISISLE!1!11111111!!
  39. Aug 6, 2012
    As many have said, this game is not so much bad as mis-labled. EA made a huge mistake by trying to reinvent C&C gameplay in the final installment of a much-beloved series. Moreover, the storyline and acting was lousy and boring. After all this time of trying to figure out what Kane's master plan is, what the true origins of Nod are, what the fate of the planet will be, etc. this game gives the player a huge middle finger. The gameplay itself is very annoying and confusing, and a pointless leveling system means that you need to play single player first if you want to have a shot in multiplayer (which might actually be a little fun). Expand
  40. Jul 21, 2012
    I really like this game, i know its not the traditional C&C game but its a change. I like what they did because it makes the game very fast paced, there is also a lot more action then the other games. People were getting mad because they were not changing the game and as soon as they did everyone got all mad, i give EA props for taking the risk. I love this game and its worth the time and money!
  41. Dec 26, 2012
    EA just totally ruined command and conquer. This game is one of the most disappointing strategy games i ever played. The game play is total **** You can make good game without base management (DoW II), but in this case its total garbage and Command and Conquer is 50% about base building. In compare to tiberian sun of even tiberian wars this game is total WtF.
  42. May 9, 2013
    Dont! STOP! these are the words i said as my memories of C&C where raped. I can say little about this game that is positive, I am just glad i bought it for 1 buck. I really dont understand how this game even got a 64 from the critics.

  43. Nov 18, 2012
    the game is good, highly details and with lots of units,powers and upgrades. yes the cut scenes are a bit chessy but the game is good. not exellent but good.
  44. Dec 11, 2012
    Legitimately one of the worst games I have ever had the misfortune of playing. The game is terrible, the gameplay is terrible and the graphics are terrible. It chugs and I get slow down on my rig which runs Skyrim on ultra at 60fps. This is inexcusable.

    I tried so hard to play this game but I couldn't manage more than an hour, it's that bad. What a total excuse for a command and
    conquer game. Avoid like it will eat your first born. Expand
  45. Dec 19, 2012
    What the hell were EA thinking? This was supposed to be epic ending for beloved game series and what did we got? No base-building, **** multiplayer, **** plot and hideous DRM! I know Westwood made SOME **** C&C games too but at least they were just spin-offs, not sequels.
  46. Dec 19, 2012
    It was a bad game Command & Conquer series of large kedvencem.A biggest negative is that the material removed from the construction proceeds think it really should not have.
  47. Oct 14, 2014
    Oh god, the horror. C&C is a RTS series about base building and military expansion. This sequel completely guts those elements, but you don't find that out until after you've bought it. What a horrible, truly pathetic end to the series. It only even gets 1 point due to having Kain in it. Were it not for that, I'd have rated it a 0.
  48. Mar 20, 2013
    A garbage ending o a phenomenal series. The only thing familiar here are the cut scenes as everything else has been remodeled from scratch. This makes it not c&c at all. The game play is shoddy, the learning curve steep and unit count very low. You have to be online in order to progress too making it frustrating as hell when your internet connection is lost for few seconds 40 minutes into a level. TL;DR Too Don't buy Expand
  49. May 17, 2013
    Where do I begin. The worse always-online DRM? Maybe. The lack of any resource management? Also a good point. But the worst thing remains that the completely messed up a story that was so interesting to follow in the previous installment of the C&C series. Also, the units look worse and less realistic than they used to. The strategic element of the game that made C&C3 great is also mostly gone. It is so sad that a game with so much potential is completely messed up by a incompetent development team. C&C4 had some good ideas, but they are just implemented in a very wrong way. Expand
  50. Aug 9, 2013
    I don't know why so many people hate this game... 15 Years passed from the third Tiberium War(2047-2062), and the Earth was contaminated, there were no blue zones, and the humans need something new to survive They can't build bases in the Tiberium fields), and they needed some bases that can be moved Let's say a Tiberium Storm hits the zone, all of the base is destroyed, because it can't move) and this is where the crawlers we're invented... These MCV's are bases but they can pack up and get out of the zone if a storm comes. When almost all of the earth was full with tiberium, only some yellow zones, then GDI and The Brotherhood of Nod sided, and made the TCN Tiberium Control Nodes This was the key to survival...

    I still don't understand what people have with this game. I think its very nice.
  51. Ndi
    Jun 23, 2013
    If you are going to slap C&C badge on a game, you'd better have the basics.

    What happened was obvious. They ran out of ideas for the franchise and decided to cash in on 20 years of history for 5 more dollars.

    Remember Dawn of War versus Dawn of War 2? Well, that, except this has no better graphics. They thought that if Relic had so much success, they wait.
  52. Jun 15, 2013
    Hmm the older Commmand and Conquer Games are so much bether then this part auf C&C!
    This Game is waste of Money and time. I didnt like the "Commandopoints".
  53. Jun 15, 2013
    Original game won't start. If i cack it i can play....
    Original game won't start. If i cack it i can play....
    Original game won't start. If i cack it i can play....
  54. Jul 22, 2013
    This game took everything that made the originals great and fun! Can't even do tiberian harvesting anymore and only getting three types of MIVs. The concept of the 5v5 were great, but that didn't even work out well. Command and Conquer 3 was much better than this game and it's sad to this franchise going nowhere.
  55. Apr 19, 2014
    Command and Conquer 4 is by far the worst in the series. Yeah the graphics were nice but that couldn't mask just how poor the game was. Crawlers are ok, heck Id rather have one instead of an MCV because of the lasers but having a "class" that limits what units you can use? Having no buildings? Unit caps? A earn-points-to-win system? Sorry but I'm going back to my old tactic of planting rigs everywhere back in C&C 3 or Spy and javelin APV tactic in RA3. Though saying this, the concept of the general ranks to unlock units In my opinion, was quite good and may have been a quite smart feature if the game itself had not been horrible.

    Ps: Generals 2: A free game with a similar unlock system but buildings and no caps. Only problem I can see is micro transactions.

    PPS: If EA had really wanted to they could have cut this game and restarted like other games. Still waiting for C&C: Renegade 2 and it's explanation of how the soviet union turned into NOD.
  56. Aug 11, 2013
    This is not Command & Conquer. It likely started as a different project, but the suits quickly realized the only way they'd make their money back was to slap a more familiar name on the box. Sadly there is so much more wrong with this game it's hard to know where to start.

    Firstly, there is no base construction, which is kind of a big thing in Command & Conquer. Some poor chap probably
    had the innocent idea of making an RTS/MOBA hybrid, but the way this was executed here is a disaster. The gameplay is simply not fun. At all. The controls are sloppy, you are limited to only several units at a time, and the horrible graphics don't help. In fact the graphics are so bad you can hardly distinguish between your own units. Fun fact: the graphics are actually worse than the previous game, Command & Conquer 3, released three years earlier. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE EA?

    To top it all off, the levels are all dull and the story is downright boring. The campy video narration between each mission was the highlight of previous Command & Conquer games. But not here. Like the rest of this game, the video clips look cheap and uninspired. Even the sexy girls are gone in this one. Guess they wouldn't go anywhere near this stinker. Kane is left facing off against a stereotypical angry old fat woman. That is pretty much the extent of the cast. I cannot stress this enough: DO NOT BUY THIS GAME. EA clearly spent more money buying off critics than they did on the making of this atrocity. There is a reason the entire dev team got fired shortly after releasing this game, and good riddance. You know you have problems when your product doesn't measure up to EA's standards. But it also means this pile of crap will not be receiving any more bug fixes.
  57. Sep 6, 2013
    This was a shameless cash in on the franchise on the part of EA with the developers being forced to change what was intended as a country-exclusive experiment into a game in its own right. It corrupts every single aspect of what is recognisable about Command and Conquer and has a twist ending that just does not work in any way, shape or form. They created a weird DotA clone with even less involvement than aforementioned game with none of the excitement or entertainment value of any of the previous games.

    This ending to the series was not earned, well designed or properly executed and just shows EA up for how disrespectful of the very people they are marketing their games to are. If you find anyone who actually thinks this is a worthy finish to the series, immediately force them to play through every previous game until they see sense.

    The only good thing I will say is that it provides a much needed variation on the standard "which side will you choose?" format, but even that is only a slightly positive thing to say, because it initially forces you into the position of a GDI member instead of fully exploring the possibilities of who you will side with and why?

    Oh, and to everyone saying that change needs to be embraced, you need to recognise the difference between change and the complete redesign of something to the point where it ceases to follow a format that, whilst not perfect was certainly not broken in any way shape or form, and is instead a DotA/Dawn of War 2 rip-off. Furthermore, they've always been changing things here and there, but at the very core it has kept the same format of resource collection, force building and variation in unit types, with super weapons when you wanna be extra-nasty. Lastly: it's an old franchise which many people, including myself, would have grown up playing and are why we're hardcore gamers today. I was 6 when the first game came out and I played it way back then. People are going to be a little upset over a company saying "we couldn't care less about a franchise that is the core reason you're a returning customer and help keep us fed, we just want to turn out an ineffectual finalisation to something we have blatant disregard for".
  58. Sep 17, 2013
    This game is for those who like more action... a mix of RPG and RTS... I like both... the majority who voted negative probably never played.
    I just had bought the command conquer in playstation one a long time ago, because all versions are similar, but this caught my attention, thanks for that!
  59. Nov 19, 2013
    This game is just plain bad. They did not need to change the ENTIRE F**KING GAME! If they had introduced new units, and made the tech tree bigger then told the story in a similar fashion to C&C 3: Tiberian Wars, then it would have maybe been a great finish to a great series but the fact they took away the point of C&C which was base building, recourse gathering and tactical moments of troops, and replaced it with 'please move these troops here.......well done, now move here'.
  60. Nov 30, 2013
    You can't even call this command and conquer despite units with the C&C look.
    It is nothing like command and conquer at all and the gameplay is boring and torturing. It is the first time I haven't finished the gameplay of neither GDI nor NOD sides and go to youtube to watch the ending.

    P.S. I am more than qualified to view this game. I have been playing C&C since its DOS version.
  61. Dec 16, 2013
    The game was poorly designed for multiple reason. First the lack of bases is detrimental from the start, not staying true to the series at all. Now I could have forgiven the whole no base thing, but the rest of the game is poorly designed slop I could not over-look it! The graphic style is cartoonish and goofy, it simply doesn't feel right at all. But perhaps my biggest beef with the games are the units. No single unit has that "bite" there is no "kick" to any of the units. You get your awesome t3 kick butt GDI Mammoth out... and it does only a little more damage than your main battle tanks... it feels frustrating sluggish as a game and I am thoroughly disappointed in EA for making such a pathetic excuse for a CnC game, don't waste your money on this hunk of garbage, get a real game and go back to CnC3:KW Expand
  62. Feb 23, 2014
    C&C 4 is far from the old clasic C&C games. There's barely anything in common with the exception of the characters and story. However it does not mean it's a bad game.

    When playing the game you should not see it as C&C but rather as a new game, another series. Your goal is to combine different types of units to defeat the opponent's army.

    Pro: Interesting concept and fun leveling

    Con: Nothing in common with its previous games, outdated graphics

    Worth buying at sale but I'd hold on to the cash at full price
  63. Jan 15, 2014
    Holy **** this game is terrible! First of all, you can't even build a base like you could in Tiberium wars and earlier. Gameplay is completely changed, EA better be joking about that this is the last game in the series. I will have to say, the music is good but honestly, besides the music, this game is ****
  64. May 19, 2014
    Holy Christ what a **** up. The game is unintelligible if you are expecting some RTS action like C&C or any of the others in the genre. I'd bought it a while ago, tried it once and hated it. Reinstalled recently just to see if it was actually playable and, nope, first impression was correct. Most games you can perceive what the goal is, what you are doing etc, this is just a mess. Someone oughta have lost their job over this one.

    Leveling system? WTf, its not an MMORPG and you generally play a game like this to get right in the action, not grind to see it.

    The "unlocking" crap is stupid, every supposed stand alone game that does this, I quit buying their products, ie I liked Battlefield and BF Vietnam, but they started that locked features crap that you had to play so many games or online to unlock - no more buys of their product either.

    Thank God I have Supreme Commander (Total Annihilation reboot), as most of the RTS I enjoyed in the 902 and early 2000s have gone to crap.
  65. Sep 20, 2014
    I cannot even start to describe how bad this “game” is. It doesn't run at all on windows 8 or 8.1 and it is barely playable on windows 7, how is this even possible? If you launch the game from Origin client you still have to register it again and log in after that to play, if that wasn't bad enough you have to stay connected to internet while you play the single player and if for some reason you get disconnected from EA servers (which happens a lot) you can't advance after a successful mission you will just see a main menu screen and a message saying ”Please connect to network". After you do connect back you still have to play the same mission again.

    There is no balance in this game at all because you can win every situation if you just have a nod cyber commando, you can hack into any unit and steal it. After it is destroyed your commando will come out of the wreckage and you can hack into another unit and same goes on and on as long as you stay patient. I just uninstalled the game after seeing too much of this crap.

    This is not even suitable as alpha stage game and the game is broken and will screw up your windows desktop so be ready to put all your icons as they were after you quit the game unless you play full resolution. If you decide to change audio settings the game will crash and so will your windows 7 probably. This must be a joke. This is malware not a game. Not even a bloat ware it's a real malware that does more damage to your computer than any other crap out there. After playing this I have to restart my computer or try to do a few things to fix my Ethernet connection because the game screws it up so I can't use internet after playing it. Sounds lot like a malware to me. Take note that this never happens with any other game or software on my computer so my conclusion is to uninstall the "product". Please do not pay for this in any circumstances.
  66. Sep 14, 2014
    I think I see a typo in the title there the command and conquer part doesn't seem to fit correctly.

    I actually got this game twice funny story
    bought it brand new installed it started a game gave me a cute option to be attack defense or support im thinking ughm ok then selected one seen pop cap seen I couldn't really build bases like previous games and said well screw this not playing
    you no more so some may seen this as bias but theres more

    went and got the ultimate collection which came with this garbage game again gave it a second chance graphics were well ok I suppose I think command and conquer 3 was tuned up a bit better especially how nice the tiberium fields looked and the ambience of the whole environment anyways enough about that so played it tried to give it a fair chance its user interface is changed for the worse I believe build style for the small handful of buildings similar to red alert 2 but worse (yes somehow over 10 years they made something worse that worked before) ontop of that it did not have a command and conquer feel to it felt like some cheap rip off like how flappy bird is to angry birds lol don't have much else to say that hasn't already been said by a angry crowd of 508 people

    I would suggest look into a lot of gameplay for this game if it still somehow interests you maybe you may like it where most do not.
  67. Sep 26, 2014
    Just a mess. I have played all of the C&C RTS games, and enjoyed them all...until I played C&C 4. I played through several battles of the campaign to see if it got better, it didn't. No resource management, just a tedious slow crawl with out the epic battles and strategy typical of a C&C game. Additionally, requiring an always on connection for a single player game is always going to cost you significant points in my book. It adds nothing in value to the game, and causes all sorts of problems. Terrible job here, EA. Expand

Mixed or average reviews - based on 71 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 71
  2. Negative: 11 out of 71
  1. It's nothing at all like Command & Conquer, but - eventually - it's a thoughtful and bombastic multiplayer RTS that's welcoming to everyone.
  2. Tiberian Twilight's online play and persistent unlocks make for short-term fun, but the mediocre campaign doesn't give Kane the send-off he deserved.
  3. 75
    It's clear that EA are onto something with their new-age C&C formula but, as it stands, the core needs a little work. The series, once the most explosive game of the medium, looks like it's going out with a whimper.