User Score
2.1 out of 10

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 546 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 66 out of 546

Review this game

  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 17, 2013
    3
    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
  2. May 9, 2013
    0
    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.

    AVOID AT ALL COSTS, NOT EVEN WORTH IT FOR THE STORY.
  3. Mar 20, 2013
    3
    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
  4. Dec 31, 2012
    0
    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.
  5. Dec 26, 2012
    0
    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.
  6. Dec 19, 2012
    5
    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.
  7. Dec 19, 2012
    3
    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.
  8. Dec 11, 2012
    0
    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 conque
    r game. Avoid like it will eat your first born. Expand
  9. Nov 18, 2012
    8
    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.
  10. Aug 6, 2012
    3
    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
  11. Jul 22, 2012
    1
    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
  12. Jul 21, 2012
    10
    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!
  13. Jul 21, 2012
    3
    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.
  14. Jul 21, 2012
    3
    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
  15. Jul 5, 2012
    1
    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.
  16. Jul 4, 2012
    0
    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.
  17. Jun 23, 2012
    0
    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
  18. May 10, 2012
    0
    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
  19. Apr 17, 2012
    0
    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.
    Expand
  20. Mar 26, 2012
    2
    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
  21. Mar 25, 2012
    0
    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 p
    anning. Not even worth pirating. Disgusting. Expand
  22. Feb 29, 2012
    5
    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 yo
    u 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
  23. Jan 1, 2012
    0
    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 m
    ain 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
  24. Jan 1, 2012
    0
    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.
  25. Dec 31, 2011
    2
    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 no
    n-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.
    Expand
  26. Aug 12, 2011
    3
    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
  27. Jul 24, 2011
    0
    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 dow
    n 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.
    Expand
  28. Jul 7, 2011
    0
    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
  29. Jul 7, 2011
    0
    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
  30. May 16, 2011
    1
    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 owni
    ng 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.
    Expand
  31. Apr 25, 2011
    3
    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
  32. Mar 4, 2011
    2
    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
  33. Feb 27, 2011
    5
    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
  34. Feb 26, 2011
    1
    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
  35. Feb 26, 2011
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Blackened is the end Winter it will send Throwing all you see Into obscurity Death of Mother Earth Never a rebirth Evolution's end Never will it mend Never Fire To begin whipping dance of the dead Blackened is the end To begin whipping dance of the dead Colour our world blackened Blistering of earth Terminate its worth Deadly nicotine Kills what might have been Callous frigid chill Nothing left to kill Never seen before Breathing nevermore Never Fire To begin whipping dance of the dead Blackened is the end To begin whipping dance of the dead Colour our world blackened Blackened Opposition Contradiction Premonition Compromise Agitation Violation Mutilation Planet dies Darkest colour Blistered earth True death of life Termination Expiration Cancellation Human race Expectation Liberation Population Lay to waste See our mother Put to death See our mother die Smouldering decay Take her breath away Millions of our years In minutes disappears Darkening in vain Decadence remains All is said and done Never is the Sun Never Fire To begin whipping dance of the dead Blackened is the end To begin whipping dance of the dead Fire Is the outcome of hypocrisy Darkest potency In the exit of humanity Colour our world blackened Blackened Expand
  36. Jan 14, 2011
    3
    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
  37. Jan 13, 2011
    7
    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.
    Expand
  38. Jan 5, 2011
    6
    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
  39. Jan 1, 2011
    0
    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
  40. Nov 17, 2010
    10
    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.
  41. Nov 17, 2010
    2
    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 wil
    l probably find allot of loose ends in it. Expand
  42. Oct 4, 2010
    2
    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. :(
  43. Oct 3, 2010
    1
    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.
  44. Sep 18, 2010
    1
    I haven't actually bought this game and I never will! I do know all about it and as a long time C&C fan, I just wanted to rant some more. EA took a long running franchise that worked, and worked extremely well, and threw it right in the toilet. They should have marketed this as a completely different game, and they may have been able to turn a good profit from it, but it is NOT and NEVER will be C&C! Hang your head in shame EA! Expand
  45. Aug 23, 2010
    0
    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
  46. Aug 16, 2010
    0
    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).
  47. Aug 14, 2010
    0
    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. Collapse
  48. johns
    Apr 22, 2010
    0
    This is not a command and conquer style rts game.I enjoyed c&c 3 and all the other c&c games so why does this look like a completely different game its supposed to be the final part in the tiberium series so why does it look and play so different.i wish id had the oportunity to play the free beta then i would not have wasted my money on this trash.i have always been loyal to c&c and i have bought every game from the very beginning but i feel so let down........Electronic Arts please give me my money back. Expand
  49. SethF.
    Apr 20, 2010
    4
    I can't say it's the worst game I've played. The multilayer is an enjoyable factor, but could be tweaked to make it better. Besides the fact that the whole thing is different, I say it's an OK game. Nothing I would be willing to jump out and pay $50 for. I would buy it at the max of $20. Even then I wouldn't be all over it. I was really happy when I got into the beta, and regretted coming out of it. I recommend you all wait 'til StarCraft 2 comes out. Expand
  50. KevinQ.
    Apr 19, 2010
    1
    Worst, game, ever... The gameplay is horrible, mainly because Ea tried to change the type of style. Instead of changing it to Command and Conquer, they changed it to Dawn Of War. I loved the command and conquer series, but ea made command and conquer 4 bad. It has no base building, nor resource collecting. The storyline is just horrible. Multilayer is full of stupidity, mainly because its just unfair for beginner gamers of CnC4. This game has no strategic ideals, nor anything else. This game isn't worth it. If you are a Classic CnC fan, do not buy this. Its a waste of money. Expand
  51. ShaneL.
    Apr 19, 2010
    3
    Okay so I have played C&C since the beging so I am well and truly a fan, I have played all of the saga with the expansions. Since EA took over with Generals and Zero Hour (which was okay but had no cut-scenes) they have done nothing but ruin the game, When they released C&C3 and Kanes Wrath I thought WOW they have actually hit themselves over the head and made it feel more original , which did well I was not so keen on RA3 really it was okay but not as good as RA2. With C&C4 however i don't have a clue what they were thinking although a brave move I feel they have failed terribly this game totally ruins the concept of C&C possibly one of the best RTS Sagas of all time I'm very dissapointed with my purchase, But I am going to try and get used to it and see if I can enjoy it in anyway. Now for die hard C7C fan out there I would recommend not bothering honestly your missing nothing, As for EA they seriously need to rethink what they are doing bring back the old WestWood team and let them show you how its done. Expand
  52. LouisD.
    Apr 18, 2010
    2
    Far too small scale to be considered a real-time strategy game, this game makes a compelling case for a new genre, "Real-Time Tactical". If you are happy deploying no more than twelve vehicles at a time, then this is the game for you. The story line is weak and leaves alot to be desired, but the options given to the player to choose their future is very reminiscent of the early C&C titles. The handful of excellent features (such as the arsenal tab before every mission) are far outweighed by the tiny scope of the battles, the poor balance for the units, and the silly limitations placed upon the player by both command points and "crawlers". It is a sad end to the C&C series. Expand
  53. JamesW.
    Apr 17, 2010
    3
    As both an RTS fan and a huge C&C fan I have to ask what exactly the hell EA were doing when they released this, but of course the answer is once again rushing a product out of the door in an effort to make more money. The gameplay is so vastly different from any other C&C game it might as well not be related at all. The idea of "counter" units takes a fairly basic element of previous games and dumbs it down to a level where all tactics are removed. And the story? all i can say is what story? Kane seems to have undergone a personality transplant, ignoring every goal he's ever worked for in the past in an effort to "ascend", although what this ascension is nobody knows as the endings make absolutely no sense at all. Honestly if this is how EA are going to treat such a long running and massively popular series I don't think I'll ever buy another of their games. Expand
  54. JoeG
    Apr 17, 2010
    1
    This game is absolutely rubbish - Very poor game play, rubbish graphics, looks and feels like a kindergarten version of the C&C games. Very sorry I bough it, I have bought every one of the C&C and Red Alert games since 1995 but I will not be buying any more of this family of games. Not what I expected from EA!!!
  55. brandonk
    Apr 13, 2010
    5
    I'm not gana rant about this because what i wana say has already been sed by almost every comment here i will say that if they make a expansion pack i wont buy it if they make cnc5 and they dont go back tah cnc3 style gameplay i wont buy it if they make redalert4 ill wait and see reviews and if it looks good ill buy it and if they come out with generals 2 and its done in the same way the original was but with video or sum thing ill buy it but if they don't abandon this style and they push it into the other universes aswell im just going to abandon cnc forever and as a hardcore fan that fact really saddens me as a random rts game 5/10 as a cnc game ZERO. Expand
  56. DrewHero
    Apr 13, 2010
    1
    Though the game does get rid of fighting for ore/tibirum, i think it is a major setback for C&C. A lot of the strategy of the game is taken away when you can only build no more then 20 units, and don't have to worry about resources. Also, the stupid crawler/mcvs are overpowered and add a lot of pointless BS requirements to missions. I actually think the single player is broken becuase the missions really only have 1-2 ways of completing them successful, not multiple paths to victory like in old C&C games. In addition, taking away the ability to build both offensive units, defensive units, support units and buildings at the same time make the actual planning and strategy of the game on a super low level. This game is a serious disappointment, I want Westwood studios back. Expand
  57. DRitz
    Apr 12, 2010
    3
    The game itself would not have been that bad if it were a new IP or an offshoot of the C&C Brand (Like a multi-player only side-game) but C&C 4 was supposed to be the grand fanale of the traditional RTS, not some knock off. They should have kept the original formula and polished every speck of dust off of it. Personally I always like the C&C format of RTS, so I was serverly disappointed when I realized that the C&C franchise died with a whimper. Expand
  58. MawC
    Apr 10, 2010
    0
    This doest even deserve a score.. if possible i'd give it a -10 for alienating almost every hardcore C & C fan, EA has gone too far regarding "change" in games Like all the other fans out there i feel like this is a terrible Dawn of War ripoff and doesnt even deserve the name " Command and Conquer " No basebuilding, No micromanaging, graphics ETC ETC i can go on for ages about what went wrong the Second EA took over the franchise and Stabbed the hard working crew of westwood in the back, i wouldnt even get this game if it was FREE ! Yes, u heard me ! Its a spawn of evil That EA " The Hit & Miss Crew " Gave birth to whilst snorting tiberium. They should have asked the dedicated gamers about their opinions about this, id say that this is even worse than Infinity Ward's Stab in the back with the "Consoleported Golden turd" I'm hurt and i wont ever support any of EA's oncoming titles AGAIN ! Expand
  59. GlennH
    Apr 10, 2010
    1
    "I want my money back" is all i can say. This is an abysmal massacre of the command & conquer series. The missions are ridiculously irriatating and boring, no real strategy involved, just hurry up and capture the objective before the enemy sends in another mass of units!! Horrendous acting in the cutscenes doesnt help. Storyline is so cheesy I want to hurl. Even the map display before some levels doesnt make sense (the 'pacific' TCN node Nod mission is in the Indian ocean. Only having the ability to command a handful of units, not being able to establish a real 'base' and fighting AI that doesnt have to worry about command points and pumps out endless streams of units is just dumb. Should have to sign into online lobby just to play single player mode. Pathetic game..very dissapointed in this ending to the series. Expand
  60. ColinD
    Apr 6, 2010
    1
    Alright, let's start from the beginning. Every single concept in this game from the units and graphics down to the HUD display on this game are just a series of asbolute atrocities. For starters, the graphics and unit models in this game are appaling to look at. This game looks like it was designed to be played on Windows 98. Second off, EA has somehow arrived at the conclusion that C&C fans are tired of mining resources, micromanaging, base building, and overall just having fun while playing a game. EA blatantly tries to steal the Dawn of War II playstyle (1 building that produces units) and then bungles that by forgetting one of the key components that every RTS should contain, resource management. There is 0 resource gathering. None. Zippo. You and your opponent just take turns spamming out as many units as you can (about 10 on the field at a time, maximum) and then just walk them over to the enemy base and let them shoot poorly animated projectiles until they die. More importantly, the Nod and GDI tech trees are almost identical. The only real difference in the two sides is the unit colors, because almost every vehicle or soldier on one side has a perfectly corresponding counterpart on the other. Words cannot describe what an atrocity this game is. The live acting cut scenes (every true C&C fan has been wetting their pants watching the trailers with Kane ever since this game's launch date was announced) are pretty much the only thing that return unscathed. The bottom line I'm trying to make here is that this game is bad. Not redeemable, not fawed, not a "game with potential limited by some design errors", just B-A-D. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not a fan of RTS games and should be shot for suggesting this abortion of a title to you. All of this is not even taking into account the fact that the game has EA's classic paranoid DRM policy that requires you to be online while you play the game. That's right, if you don't have an internet connection, you aren't playing this game. Period. Anyone remember how well that worked out for Mercenaries 2, another title EA managed to crap all over with their anti pirating ideas? If this game was offered to me for half the price I would still turn it down. Anyone who supports what EA has done to this franchise is delusional, and more importantly, part of the problem that allows games like this to be created. Expand
  61. JosephR.
    Apr 5, 2010
    0
    Like a lot of other angry people, I was one of the original fans when it comes to Command and Conquer. I grew up on it. I was about in 5th grade when the original came out. I just feel an overwhelming need to scream this from my nearest mountain top: This game is garbage! This series basically gave a face to the entire RTS genre and then dissapeared into what would be the you and me equivalent of a brain fart. First of all, massive online multiplayer experiences are exactly what a gamer is running away from when he plays an RTS game. An RTS is a game that lets you snack whilst playing. A game that lets you half pay attention to a Family Guy episode, and half pay attention to it. You can dissapear into thought while playing an RTS. Mainly, you scheme, plan, hoard, and amass an army that will, when unleashed, dominate. This is a frustrating instinct to have going into CnC4, but not by any means an unreasonable one. They bred us to be like this. Then, in the last $%#^@ inning, they switch the batting order? No.... they start playing soccer? The game is called Tiberium Twighlight, but theres no........ Tiberium? wait, isn't this the game with the Tiberium? You have an MCV... a good old MCV, ah, wait.... is it getting up? and.... walking into battle? Who at EA actually had the power and inclination to sit down, focus on the series, and say to his inferiors, "you know what this base-building, unit-generating, strategy-forming game needs? No bases, meaningless and endless units, and no strategy beyond click click click, with no economy, troop limits (my favorite! who doesn't like troop limits?) and no INCENTIVE to keep playing because your presence on the map can never get any bigger than the paltry limit so why would you command or conquer anything?" If they told Romulus after he brained Remus that, yea, he could start the Roman Empire, but it would never be any bigger than 100 command points, would have no structures, would be born out of this awkwardly gigantic crawling headquarters that is made more vaulnerable by the fact that you have to bring it with you (like an Ipad!), the music would suck, the graphics wouldn;t be any better than the last game, nobody would ever have to economize anything, ever, Kane would somehow not have aged at all in 15 years, you'd sometimes have to play as a class of units that basically just repairs stuff, and the lame single player story mode includes YOU (the player) having a GIRLFRIEND, well, then I reckon Romulus would have just dropped that blood-soaked rock and sauntered off, disinterested. This I sadly do, too. This game sucks. Expand
  62. AlA.
    Mar 30, 2010
    8
    Oh come ooon! Cutscenes is horrible for sure ( no questions to Joe Kucan, even now he doing his job great- i love it) Overall about cutscenes: its feels like financial crysis, even compare to Tiberian Dawn. About gameplay... it's fun. Well, like many other people other here(or it's just my imagination), i play CNC since CNC TD. Many changes, etc, but its realy fun to play,feels modern, not without some mistakes of course. If someone in EA read this now, just for future: never experiment on such a MONSTER brand like CNC, i mean never do it like this. BIG mistake, but NOT a complete fail. All because of fun multi and Kane (have no doubt that he will be back again, he always do) Kane lives in death!=) long live to all. Expand
  63. ms
    Mar 29, 2010
    1
    This is not command and conquer. this is a dawn of war II ripoff that died in its development, then killed a little more when they decided that one of its main gameplay types was going to be multiplayer. I have no qualms with normal rts multiplayer; in fact i quite enjoy it. however, when the system is based on spawning in an rts game with no resource management or base building, then i have a problem. I admit, dawn of war II had no base building, but its multiplayer was supposed to be smaller, and it still had resource gathering and micromanaging. this had nothing, no strategic depth, or even a workable game. In the 5 hours ive been playing, i got to level 2 about 7 times. way to go, EA. youve completely destroyed an amazing franchise. Expand
  64. BenM.
    Mar 29, 2010
    5
    Removing the title, and analysing this as a gaming concept in it's own right, CNC4 does have a few new and interesting things to offer. The skirmish mode, while rigid in some areas does allow for some new and interesting tactical decisions with a much greater emphasis on teamwork and larger battles. The crawler idea in itself in interesting and the option are relatively fresh to keep me interested in playing this. All I have to tell myself is that EA accidentally named this a CNC game instead of a brand new franchise. Taking it as a CNC, the game is riddled with faults. The fact that you have to be online to play is extremely frustrating if you're more of a single player person who's in it for the conclusion of the epic Tiberium arc, which, to be honest was a complete and utter let down. The campaigns for both side are horrendously short and fail to meet the standards set by CNC games past. Even Kane himself seem to only be pulling out a half arsed job. So much for an epic conclusion. In addition, the unlocking mechanic is brutal on newer players, who don't have the arsenal at their disposal to take on two other NPCs with essentially a Tier 1 unit spam, almost to the point of forcing co-op play. Indeed, for Skirmish mission, the lack of level matching means that a completely new player and his lvl 1 GDI offense crawler gets his ass handed to him by the lvl 20 Nod player. The fact that in Skirmish you can no longer be GDI vs GDI etc. is also a major ball ache. While I can appreciate what the devs were trying to pull off, something new and relatively innovative, they should have left the last of the Tiberium saga alone with the old mechanics. The story explains why all the tib is receding, but that doesn't mean you couldn't have used a RA3 style mechanic of having tib mines or something. The lack of a proper harvester in a CNC RTS game? Come on guys, seriously? If you're new to the franchise, I'd suggest giving it a look and renting it, as there are some good ideas, but if you're a die hard, probably best to stay away. As a game: 7 As the ending to an epic story arc or a well established franchise: 2. Expand
  65. BriceD
    Mar 28, 2010
    1
    Wow, just wow. I got into the hype on C&C4 watching the game trailers. I sat there day after day watching the website count down to the release. I had the game preordered the minute I could apply on line. RTS is my favorite gaming genre and I have played every C&C title since the original. Ever since EA took over the franchise from Westwood studios, all the games in this series have been lacking. Each ones seems to miss the original elements that made these RTS, C&C, C&C:Red Alert, different from the others. Generals was terrible, RA3 and C&C3 seemed like EA hit copy + paste and re-skinned the units. Westwood took time on their games. Each one was new in multiple ways, from gameplay to graphics, story, etc. Even though the games changed they held the core values of what it was to be an RTS in the style that Westwood created. EA makes sports games, they copy + paste all of their work. Why they tried to make an RTS is beyond me. They lack the talent and technical skills to pull it off successfully. What's done is done, it's a terrible game and we are left with nothing new to play. I just hope the "developers" of this monstrosity realize that they failed and their game really, really "sucks". Expand
  66. nothappy
    Mar 28, 2010
    0
    This game somehow tried to force Fawn of War's gameplay mechanic of capturing points and holding them in a tug of war (which even Dawn of war has an annihilation game mode where there are no tug of war and you just kill the other guy) i wouldn't even torrent this game. i'm saying that if this game was FREE i would turn it down. and then on top of it the Draconian DRM which means you have to be connected to the internet at all times to play it only means you are renting this game. when a pirated version works better than the legit one, you have a problem. Expand
  67. ChristianP.
    Mar 28, 2010
    0
    This is the worse game EVER!!! I thought red alert 3 was garage i stand corrected muliplayer sucks you play caputuring these control nods and first team to get to 2500 points wins... theres no room name changing theres no teams nod and gdi together.. there is no merging.. doesnt make any sense then game is about merging together as one but on muliplayer your seperated this is garbage i wish i can sell my digtial copy for 5 bucks too many bugs dont buy stay away another game EA messed up i hate EA. Expand
  68. DavidE.
    Mar 28, 2010
    1
    I have played C & C since 1995 when it first came out. I was 35 Years old then and I thought it was a better invention than the wheel or the discovery of fire by man - even I played it on my antique DX 100Mz desktop computer Ie. 10% of 1 GHz process power with 8mb RAM!!!! But C & C 1 was the Best, Counterstrike, Red Alert 1, Red Alert 2, Tiberian Sun, C & C 3 excellent, Kanes Wrath Great! and Red Alert 3 BUT C & C 4 is BAD!!!!! Very Disappointing!!! No More Resources; Population, soldier Limits, Constant Internet Connection - Its BAD!!!! Disappointing and Graphics Terrible!!! Bad Work EA C & C 4 I wont play it. Just Commiserate the last 15 years since 1995. You went out with a WHIMPER! not a Bang!!! Expand
  69. AndrewM
    Mar 28, 2010
    2
    CQ4 Cannot be as bad as this, surely? Mandatory online registration (even as single player, having paid your money) to play a game that has NOTHING to do with the CQ franchise (except the pointless 'movies'). EA have reduced a strategic army-building-with-resources-and-defence to a run around the map with a squad (twelve units max, six typical... and this is CQ?) to some pointless sites, which you can neither defend nor retain--- because of course you're not allowed to build in CQ4 - or gather resources - or acquire an army - or combine defence, offence and air... or do anything like either a 'pseudo-real' army (combined ops with multiple units) or the original CQ franchise. Never has a game so destroyed a franchise - just as well it was the final one in the 'series'. EA has just lost my vote for RA3 (cartoon nonsense) and CQ4 (pointless squad rush - without the 'rational' gameplay of DOW). Sad. Expand
  70. ThomasS.
    Mar 27, 2010
    2
    This game should have been sold as a Total Annihilation game. It is not C&C. It's not worth $49.95 and definitely not worth
  71. ThirlW
    Mar 26, 2010
    1
    C&C game check. fun.... nope.. command point system: not as much fun as resource management.. crawler stance choice (IE offense, defense , support) fails to be anything but annoying solo game play: what a joke its bad enough to force us to log in to ea to play solo .. but the campaign almost forces you to play mulit player,,, epic fail end result last EA rts i buy with out a hard look..
  72. CarlR
    Mar 26, 2010
    3
    I bought this game knowing the bad reviews, but though i would have fun with the multilayer. Man was I wrong. There is not alot good to say about this game. The single player is boring. The multiplayer is just as boring. It boils down to pumping out a bunch of units and moving them to a node. They die, and you repeat. No strategy, no tiberium, no bases, no fun. Whatever you do, do not buy this game. I just lost 50 bucks and will never get it back. Expand
  73. RyanS
    Mar 26, 2010
    0
    This game is Command and Conquer by name only and should be AVOIDED like the plague by anybody looking to buy a typical Command and Conquer game. EA took a mish-mash of styles from other games, bundled them all into this game (poorly) and slapped the Command and Conquer badge on it. In the process losing the entire formula that makes a typical C&C game. * Want base building? - You're not finding it here! * Want resource harvesting? - Again, no such luck. * Want to be treated like a loyal customer rather than a potential pirate? - Nope, flat out of luck. The game requires that you log into EA's servers before it lets you even play single player. EA have basically used and abused the C&C brand to try and push their attempt at something new. The end result, a failure of a game that lets down the C&C fans, and isn't strong enough to stand on it's own right. Very disappointing for the final game in the franchise. Expand
  74. TonyJ
    Mar 26, 2010
    0
    I played every C&C game out there. I loved Red Alert and Red Alert 2 for game play was amazing! Generals i continue to play to this date for it has what the other C&Cs had and quite enjoyed building bases where ever I wanted. C&C3 i enjoyed and had amazing graphics to go with the game and the fine addition of the Scrin to the game i liked and is my favorite team (GDI mammoth tanks are cool though). I started to get dissapointed in EA starting C&C Red Alert 3, I thought the graphics were way too cartoony and everything was sized wrong and just out of wack. The gameplay of having coop for missions i didnt find interesting at all for where the stragey in that? You can have a weak player with a strong player and he never learn a thing. C&C is a game of skill and cunning not a game of follow the leader. Then came C&C4 now that was a total let down. Having to be online when espically i live in the county where high-speed net is slow so game is slow for me. Supreme Commander 2 a game that game out pretty much at the same time has far better graphics then this crap. The textures in C&C4 are off and i could make most of these wannabe tanks in seconds on Maya. As a C&C fan and as a animator i say the graphics really sucked but were slightly better then RA3 (that is all i can give the credits for it). I got better graphics playing Final Fantasy Crisis Core on my PSP then C&C4. What a let down that is. Story line for campaigns was too short and pointless. Anyone who gives this above a 4 either hasn't played to many video games or done any animation. The game wasn't worth it and i seen free RTS game look better and have a better game flow. Level caps are fine for some games but C&C was renown for not having the caps and just letting the players pick their style of gameplay. The new pick your command unit play thing limits the players to their playing styles and prevents them from expressing. They should have kept it with the orginal game play or gone down the road of Generals game play. All i can say is that i hope they make C&C Generals 2 but without changing the gameplay. All they should do is update the graphics to be more current and add new units but keep the old. They should add new countries and Generals to the series such as Britian, Russia, and Canada for a change. Make it more like Red Alert style Generals where each country has something unique. Combine what worked in the previous games not combine different style of popular games. Expand
  75. powL
    Mar 25, 2010
    8
    Arg! i thought here are "reviews" or "scores". seems that most ppl suck in being objective or something else. this game is very nice developed, easy to play and brings some fresh air into the mostly copy/paste rts genre. i like that this game isnt like the old formulas. if i wanna play the old ones...i can play the old games... i hate theses sequels where nearly nothing evolved. this is in my opinion the right direction for a command & conquer. take the game for what it is. and most ppl here do have no idea what "gamedesign" really means i guess. they are just upset ... 8! clearly. Expand
  76. MikeT
    Mar 25, 2010
    3
    The one who decided starting a game at lowest settings 800*600 should have been sacked last year. A lot of the fire the game have for "less than adequate" graphics comes from this ****** up setting?!?! That aside, this isn't c&c at all. This game is like the movie Batman and Robin, a game that should never have existed at all. The next game should begin with Kane waking up from the nightmare of c&c 4. Expand
  77. KieronS
    Mar 25, 2010
    0
    I was a beta tester for this game, before the preorder's and open beta... I got in because I was one of the people who chose the subtitle. Well let me now state that my favorite part of this game IS the subtitle, as there is not much else to really like. C&C4 is a glorified capture the flag and does nothing for anyone who actually liked C&C to begin with. I played C&C from the start, and I say now with total certainty that this is no way to end it.This game is a horrible, shallow attempt at cloning concepts popular from DOW2 and similar titles. I will never legally purchase this game, not even if it was in the $5 bargin bin. I will always beleive the way C&C should have ended is with a time travel experiment to stop the tiberium in the first place, and thus stopping the scrin AND forming the Red Alert Universe. Which was the orignal ending planned. It is a shame that EA feels like it had to ruin such an awesome series with such a poorly done attempt to gain the users of DOW2. Expand
  78. aidenz
    Mar 24, 2010
    0
    even though i thought this game was being treated too harshly by the people giving it very low scores i have to agree with everything they say. as far as the game goes the new gameplay could have been an interesting experience (it's not an awefull concept) but the execution just isn't right it doesn't feel like a c&c game. de video's are horrible (even though before they weren't the best ) i feel myself cringing at the horrible acting. as for the persistent internet connection just screws up the game for me because my internet connection just times out every once in a while and i lose all of the stuf i just worked my butt of to get. it's just not worth the money. Expand
  79. AaronC.
    Mar 24, 2010
    0
    Command and... Failure? The last three C&C games I played, all involved you, GDI or NOD, building your little base, and spamming out units to delightfully smash against each other until eventually you reached their base, destroyed it, and started another game. Oh, and you had to harvest these strange mutagenic crystals called tiberium for monies beacuse the countries could do cool things with them. It worked right? C&C 4 didn't think so. A complete changeup to the system, you now build this MCV (Crawler) through which you can unlimitedly spam units until you reach a unit cap, thus equalling an effective stalemate unless you're vastly superior to the other person, have team mates, or your enemy spends half the time picking their nose. It's boring and unimaginative, Whopee, Rocks Paper Scissors units. No tiberium harvesting, no base, spamtastic, stalemates, not very fun. I don't know *why* this game is even labeled as command and conquer. The story is also sub-par compared to the other C&C games, and tries way to hard to take itself seriously. There's no cute cheesy sci-fi fun. It's all gruff, boring, and blocky. Expand
  80. LH
    Mar 24, 2010
    0
    This game is terrible, no base building, poor graphics and boring gameplay. Such a shame as it ruined the end of the series. Do not waste your money, i wouldn't even waste bandwidth downloading a pirate of this.. I played the first few linear campaign maps, then a few skirmishes, felt so cheated that i returned the game for a refund, Ai seem to have no intelligence at all, that with additional to numerous bugs makes this EA's worst game to date. Expand
  81. C&C1fan
    Mar 24, 2010
    0
    WOW way to kill C&C EA! Are you too ***** cheap to have a collectors edition and color manual... maybe a paper cover for the DVD case. The game-play is terrible and not a part of the RTS genre. Its more of a sub-play mode that focus on tactics and small groups of units. It's ALWAYS fast paste with simple tactics and no real strategy. The combat looks like toy cars fighting one another. A lot of the units feel the same, they have no individual kick. What happened to tiberium covering the world, why is tiberium chunks collected from platforms? EA took ideas from other games with no understanding as to how they work within their game mechanics and created this crap of game with C&C art. If I where to compare this game play as more like a Demigods game to supreme commander. The Missions are weak because of a lack of good story telling, EA really... 30 sec mission and character introductions? The leveling system is stupid for single player, missions are not designed around new abilities gained by the player because you can unlock units from multi-player and use them in any mission. Cant EA design missions that will teach us how to use each base type and unit formation? Both the managers and designers should be fired for this disgrace of a game! Maybe then they'll have some time to play a real RTS like Star Craft 2. I wish Blizzard had the IP for C&C. They would had talent and business sense to make a great game that sells because its great. NOT WORTH BUYING, I hope all the good designers in EA wont support this poor equal brand anymore and leave Electronic Junk!!! and let the manager and share holders who call the shots, drowning in this sinking ship. Stop buying and destroying good IP! Expand
  82. SamM
    Mar 24, 2010
    1
    What is this? Another EA Mainstream game I see. Another EA FAILED game. Just like the battlefield series with BF:Hero's, EA is slamming C@C into the ground...No longer is there good RTS game play, good RTS base building...But more of a FPS/RTS mix. Is this even C@C anymore? Or is is some sick twisted hybrid game that came straight out of the laboratory from EA. This game flat out sucks, no true single player action, and no exciting game play. Expand
  83. SeanW.
    Mar 24, 2010
    0
    I'll start this review off with a delve into the story of the game. For me, the story of the C&C (Tiberian Universe) has been one of the more involving and high draw factors for the series. Given that the acting tends to be on the soap opera side of the spectrum it would take a significant amount of effort from the developers to actually make me want to skip the cut scenes. Enter Command And Conquer 4, stage left. In the previous title(s) C&C3 (and the expansion Kane's Wrath) the story arc builds towards a climax hinted at coming into it's full glory in the next (read: this) title. To be honest, NONE of the back story in the previous title(s) has ANYTHING to do with this game. At all. Where they could have picked up an actually interesting plot line and fleshed it out, building on and improving where it was leading towards, all that was accomplished was what seems like an afterthought to an already afterthought game. To say that this title makes the characters from the previous EA C&C amazingly enthralling and exciting is just an example of how horribly bad the writers did on this title. They dump you into the middle of a series of events that are NEVER EXPLAINED, offer you questions that shouldn't have even been introduced in the first place, and COMPLETELY REMOVE any tie-in to the previous title. This game was marketed, presented, and wrapped with a single message given to us, the gamers and loyal fans of the series: This is the endgame for the Tiberian story line. We did not need much in terms of story. Nor did we demand anything but at least meeting the bar set by the last title in the series RELEASED BY EA GAMES. This game is not a Command And Conquer title as I view them, and I can not rate it above a 0 for the absolute failure on EA's part to even remotely represent the spirit of the franchise. Come on EA. Expand
  84. MarcusA
    Mar 23, 2010
    0
    Managed to fail at everything the previous games were loved for. Besides being a mediocre looking game, it's mechanics are mostly disappointing. Looks like someone made a bad game, then slapped C&C on the front cover so that it would sell. Never have I felt as cheated off my money as I feel now. Ruined what should have been great. This is Command and Conquer in nothing but name.
  85. Jayfive
    Mar 23, 2010
    3
    It's a shame to watch a gaming company use a beloved franchise as a test tube for a new concept in gaming. If you want to create a new idea for the existing story (Renegade) go right ahead, but be honest about it. Suggesting that this is a direct sequel to C&C is laughable. The acting is ludicrous and the story leaves giant holes in the plot. The complete lack of effort in making a true end to the series was lost and cannot be rebuilt. The game itself has positive elements, albeit experimental ones, but in the end it could have been a success as a separate gaming series. The kick in the face is that after all the waiting and great previous stories, we are left with a blemish on the name of an otherwise exemplary series. Expand
  86. Jason
    Mar 23, 2010
    0
    When i heard about C + C 4 i was really excited to see what it holds! When i saw the trailier it made it gave false hope and even the trailers made the game look ok. Anyway! after playing through the first 3 missions.. i hounestly cant bring myself to even play the game anymore.. one of my most fav games.. gone down the drain in something i was expecting to be the best game of 2010!
  87. AndrewH.
    Mar 23, 2010
    1
    It is astounding that a sequel can have worse graphics, worse animation, worse visual interface and worse gameplay mechanic. Tiberian Twilight feels like and looks like a game made 3 years before Tiberium Wars. The new gameplay mechanic becomes increasingly tedious and unsatisfying, it just screams "dumbed down". Also I don't understand the awful visual baggage of green outlying of selected units, it makes the entire game even look uglier. Tiberian Twilight fails at the basic level of lacking high production values, and it tops it of with failed gameplay mechanic. A truly bizarre sequel. Expand
  88. SamuelK
    Mar 23, 2010
    10
    Despite what other users said I think that this game is completly worth your time and money. It is indeeed not like her ancestors. But all the action gameplay, crawlers, cooperation between players needed, balanced units... This game isn't bad it's DIFFERENT. You either move along and enjoy epic battles or if you don't like it go and play something else. Would you like to rather have copy of previous CnC games (which were copied by almost all of RTS) with new graphics? Or you prefer something new, something you could explore, something fast but tactical, something different? Expand
  89. JasonK.
    Mar 22, 2010
    1
    This was Command and Conquer? Felt like I was playing some other game the entire time. So I have a unit collect these... Crystals to upgrade my units? No Tiberium to harvest? Where did it all go? Thought the world was nearly un-inhabitable with all of it. The Story-Line needed a LOT of work. It was like a 6year old wrote a short story and there it was. The combat system needs work. And what was this idea of a Command Point system? I can understand a unit cap, but what? My army is small man! Where is the Command in that? Moveable MCV? Ok, I can understand in Skirmish but.. Really? Just move it anywhere i want? Deploy zones? What am I playing, A board game? Must start here! Sigh. I expect a LOT more out of the final game for the Tiberium Series. A LOT more. This was very weak. Wish I could take my game back but all I would get is in-store credit for a used game that is already registered. Sorry EA, but your Fail Truck has arrived. Replay all the C&C Games that involved Tiberium and you will see all that you Failed in. Expand
  90. rp
    Mar 22, 2010
    1
    Well, after 3 crashes it finally loaded and ran. This is a Command & Conquer game??????? You can call this C&C 4 if you want but it looks more like a game that should be on the $9.99 bargain rack at Wal-Mart. I ignored my first rule on buying PC games; never buy untill reading the reviews from users. That was a mistake and now I'm out $50. HEY EA, if it aint broke don't fix it. Moving a hulking unit around to puke out a very limited number of units is not an RTS game. What were you thinking, we need money but we don't want to spend any to get it? How about a refund or give me a game worth $50. Expand
  91. AndrewN.
    Mar 22, 2010
    0
    It's funny, it was Command and Conquer 3 which actually gave me hope that maybe somebody in EA games actually has a clue. I suspect the others found these people however and burned them at the stake, after which they made this poor excuse for a game. How do you even classify it? Certainly not as an RTS. Even less so as a Command and Conquer game. If you changed the names of everything and hid the faces of the characters, then gave the game to a fan of the series I'd bet they wouldn't realize they were playing a Command and Conquer game. Expand
  92. Alex
    Mar 22, 2010
    1
    Not entirely sure what the game designers were thinking when they decided to do away with tiberium, especially when the entire series is based around tiberium crystals and base-building as is hinted at in all the titles of the series. It's almost a given that the people who made this game lack the talent, skill and imagination of the old Westwood Studios. Unfortunately the team who made this game will go onto make further games potentially ruining another landmark RTS. The game designers especially should be prevented from writing any further games yet this won't happen and they themselves will carry on believing that they're good at their job. Not entirely sure why the mainstream reviewers have rated it so highly I think it may be because the previous titles held so much acclaim. Expand
  93. ArmandoG.
    Mar 21, 2010
    2
    Congratulations EA on CnC's Big finale, a total Letdown. I can't believe that you ended a great franchise with a such boring story and the gameplay totally sucks, its like a copy of company of heroes and Dawn of War II. Sure the animations are awesome, but other than that everything is a complete disappointment. I am a CnC Fan and seeing this game makes me really sad to know that a great franchise had a really bad ending. It's just Disappointing. Expand
  94. Kungfu196
    Mar 21, 2010
    2
    Again, EA prooved us that their influences on magnifiscent games like C & C and others is horrible, good way to destroy the series EA, awsome director and team, congradulation! Its too much expensive, maybe 9.99 would have been a bit too much, but not 49.99. The game is dangerous for those who got eyes problems, the scenario is horrible, the EA support contact is less than pathetic and the servers are simply not servers... Again, congradulation to EA and their team. Expand
  95. AdamB.
    Mar 21, 2010
    0
    Again, EA has proven it doesn't have a clue what good gameplay is and that they are run by bean counters and marketing morons. The gameplay is pathetic. Each campaign takes at *most* 5 hours to play through and is 7 missions long (after the 3 tutorial missions). Gameplay is as far away from C&C as it could possibly be. It is Real Time Tactical, not RTS. They took gameplay points from multiple games and mashed them together without realizing what makes it work for those other games. The units are almost all rehashed from the rest of the series (event the Mammoth Mk II from Tiberian Sun). There are no actors that you can recognize in the game outside of Joe Kucan. This game smacks of least effort possible and feels like less than a quarter of a full game. Don't waste your money on this game. Expand
  96. AndrewP.
    Mar 21, 2010
    0
    Solely judging by the gameplay trailers, I Refused to purchase this game. That coupled with my friend's utter lack of satisfaction with the game led me to write this review. Mind you, I was introduced to C&C back around the Red Alert era and I was instantly a fan. It was the, straight up, perfect balance between base building and offensive strategy. Every other game tries to make that one original masterpiece better by adding new things to it but it fails to notice the simplicity in mind when the game was made. If a game has too few components, lacking the basics, it soon becomes the lowest piece of garbage on the market. And if a game has several brilliant concepts and excellent ideas to it but not enough refining, *cough*Stormrise*cough*, then it fails as well. Now, when you take a game that sticks to the standard and tradition style of gameplay that it always had done in the past, a.k.a. unit production, build tabs, researching upgrades, and totally switch it over, you have to understand that there WILL be massive drawbacks. I usually end these on a good note, but just from my short 5 minutes of playing the game I have to say that I hate what EA has done to this franchise. You sorry people have twisted the masterpiece that Westwood held onto for so long and forever destroyed Command & Conquer. I refuse to even say that there ever was a C&C4. It's like what they did to the Alien series. Alien 3 was the final movie. It was to be a trilogy. Then some director says, 'Hey, what would happen if we did this...' and makes some mock up piece of crap movie that, while has some decent moments, shouldn't have ever been made. In conclusion, C&C4 has proven to be the worst example of what EA can truly do to a game. Battle for Middle Earth was fantastic and the second was even better. Then they came out with C&C3 and I was enthralled. However, this game was as much of a put down to me as Ubisoft's Dark Messiah: Might and Magic and SEGA's Stormrise. EA has stooped to a level lower than I can describe. I will always judge EA's games as the worst thing and come to expect the worst out of them. This is unforgivable, as this series is more popular than all of Blizzard's games combined. Never have I wanted to see Westwood back in business more. Expand
  97. JonathanT
    Mar 21, 2010
    2
    EA ... Seriously? The game has been paired down so badly, it's no longer fun. C&C 3's gameplay had refinement and attention to detail and effort. This feels like Red Alert 3, rubbish. A small list of problems: - Animations *The Walker animations (you spin on the spot? but yet the mastedon correctly walks around) *Oversized and ugly air planes.... *Fat units. - The pacing of the combat feels too rushed..... everything fires at a thousand miles an hour or too slowly I've a long time fan of the C&C series, but this feels like it was made for small kids, the only saving grace is at least the acting and the cut scenes are better. Please get the management and original team who made C&C 3 back and sort this game out with a patch. Expand
  98. LancS.
    Mar 21, 2010
    0
    Horrible bastardisation of the old beloved franchise, they ripped out everything good and dear from the older C&C games and just added horrible gameplay mixed with almost no base building and constant aggrevating combat. Even as an RTS it literally forces you to grind for hours for you to get the units you want, twice, as NOD and GDI have seperate experience bars. Terrible, Terrible, Terrible.
  99. TalonA.
    Mar 21, 2010
    10
    I'm not sure why there are so many negative reviews for this game. Is it because of the number of hardcore fans who whine about change? The gameplay is addicting and fast-paced, the graphics are slick, the music is awesome. Well worth the money.
  100. RyanR.
    Mar 20, 2010
    2
    An unfortunate shadow of its former self , no buildings , no real tiberium . Starting afresh may of worked for an off shoot of the tiberium canon but to change everything so significantly for the finale of an amazing trilogy is a slap in the face for all tiberium fans worldwide. I can only hope EA realise this and realise their next game with the old mechanics rather than use their loyal fan base a guinea pigs on a game very likely to fail. Expand
Metascore

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.