PDA

View Full Version : Command and Conquer 4 Review


Central
05-12-2010, 10:27 PM
Contrary to the raving and ranting about this game, it isn't BAD.

No, look at it this way. Remove from your mind that this is associated with Command and Conquer. Forget that part. Imagine this as a new franchise - and it's not bad, is it?
The game's mechanics have a few bugs here and there, but overall the game is enjoyable. The combat is a bit frustratingly easy to impossible at times in singleplayer (If you intend to use only one class), and multiplayer is plagued by the fact that you can rebuild your entire army in moments.

While the game itself is fun, it has enraged me with how EA has ruined the C&C series. C&C has -always- (Save for Renegade, and I still love that) been about the base building, and resource gathering...Hell, now that I think about it, even Renegade had bases, and resource gathering, and it was a first person shooter.

For them to just so blindly give a 180 on the design of this game for the final one is just beyond my comprehension. Who in their right mind would do this? It would be like turning the final movie in a trilogy into a different genre - like making the final Matrix movie a romantic comedy.

Kane has been turned into the good guy (Rhetoric aside, he's always been the 'bad guy' you fight against) and GDI has been turned into the equivalent of Hitler and his troupe. The ending slapped everything we knew about NOD and GDI in the face - and let's not forget that CABAL, and Scrin. The Scrin were mentioned maybe once or twice, but never seen. CABAL is long gone, and Legion has disappeared (Save for him being the NOD version of AEVA, I believe.) and all references to the story before this are zilch. There is no tie-in. You could pick up this game never having played any of the other C&C games and still understand all that there is to know in this game.

The story is incredibly shallow in that regard. There is no character depth, Kane is even flat as a sheet of paper, the only saving grace being Kucan knows how to play him excellently, even with writing the quality of...I don't really have an analogy to describe that.

The game is fun. Maybe a 7.5/10 on the fun-o-meter. Points lost for the RPG-leveling system, and more lost for the class system to a degree.


Graphics - 7.5/10 - Nothing new, C&C3 had the same, nearly.
Audio - 6.0/10 - Unremarkable. Red Alert 3 had much better.
Gameplay - 7/10 - Fun, but plagued by 'what-if's.
Story - 0/10 - This is not C&C.
Overall - 6.5/10 - The game is amusing. Nothing more than combat to it, forget it's C&C, and ignore the story, and you've got yourself a game to amuse yourself with.

GrandmasterYoda
05-13-2010, 07:36 AM
I dont really know how you could say its fun, its mindless. Its like playing with lego, apart from the item you're making comes out the box ready made.

As for the graphics? They're bad.
Audio, no comment, I generally dont have game sounds on.
Gameplay? there is no game play. You build units based randomly on number generation, and win a map.

Overall its just a bad game. Maybe if it was packaged under a different title, i'd not be so negative about it, but that'd only be because it wouldnt be a slow, painful death of a much loved series.

For the budget that went into it, a much better game could have been produced.

Central
05-13-2010, 08:59 AM
You have to keep in mind, two out of three of the lead devs quit the day they were told they'd be sacked the day after the game released.

Blazer71
05-14-2010, 12:44 AM
You have to keep in mind, two out of three of the lead devs quit the day they were told they'd be sacked the day after the game released.

EA is known to do that with alot of there games before the release date. Look at BFVietman, EA fired the entire team before the game was released.

Trashcantoy
05-16-2010, 04:37 PM
EA is known to do that with alot of there games before the release date. Look at BFVietman, EA fired the entire team before the game was released.
at least that game turned out alright... much better than this pos.