Man, Command & Conquer 4 is getting slaughtered by the reviews. On Gamespot, it's getting an average 3.4 out of 10 by the users, after 734(!) users reviewed it. What a disappointment! I was waiting for this. I'm glad I waited for the reviews.
Actually, I almost agree with you. I thought Generals was the best
It's the only C&C game I've ever really loved.
I liked every release unitl red alert 3.They already screwed up the harvesting in that one. Hell I think they just got rid of it because they couldn't find a way to fix harvester pathfinding issues. (didnt care for generals either which was a ripoff of the real war series)they had the same helicopter resource system and pick up parts for upgrade system.
you should try out the real war games then I'm sure they are either free or 2 $ by now
I did a user review on Real War back in 2001 and ripped it to shreds.
Cool story, bro.
I think that the C and C 4 multiplayer, even if it isn't really C and C, can be quite fun. However, what I absolutely hated was the storyline. I've played all of the main C and C storyline, and it's like they took away everything we knew and liked about Kane and Nod and said, "Look! Kane's actually ET!"
What happened to "Peace through Power," and overthrowing GDI? Where did the plans to evolve humanity go? Inconsistencies everywhere, even from C and C 3, which was also made by EA. What happened to the cyborg army at the end of Kane's Wrath? The impending Scrin invasion?
I'm just hoping that saying that this is the end and firing the team is all part of an elaborate ruse to conceal the fact that a new C and C is being made to try and retcon Tiberian Twilight, because I feel like 4 wasn't a C and C game. I heard that it may originally have been meant to be a different game that the managers said should become a Tiberian game. Tbh, that sounds plausible when you look at the multiplayer and the way that the story has changed to fit in control points.
Anyway, that's my rant. I shall return to my plans to overthrow the tyrrany of GDI EA.
as would I since i didn't like those games or CnC generals.
some dude was trying to convince me I needed to get the Act of War games because they're so much better than Generals and I found them on sale and ya know THEY SUCK as I expected
That is all.
LMAO, guys - lmao.
C&C4 single player is build 5 units and upgraded them then push to the object and tadah! Skirmish is a constant never end loop-de-loop of control points. All the fun of this game was ripped out in favour of the 5 minuet multimatch.
Is this really what PC gamers want? Console games? Is this what people were asking for? Dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.
Eaxactly what I expected, after C&C3. But RIP SupCom - you will be missed.
Please don't bash CnC3/RA3; I've only played the demos so I can't say much but I think that both are pretty awesome.
CnC3's awesomeness comes from the pretty active mod community (there's a BF2142 and a Dune mod in the works for it!); RA3's kinda supposed to be campy and silly I gather, and that's what makes it fun.
I agree though with SupCom2's sucktacular-ness. I played the tutorial of the demo and never even got through the first part of the 1st campaign mission.
I do like some of the unit designs though, as certain units do have a kick-ass-ness to their appearance.
Indeed, it's still one of if not the most popular games I participate in LAN parties with. I always used to hope that it would get a sequel after Red Alert 3, but after this, I'm not so sure if that is a good thing.
So, of the three huge RTS sequels comming out this year (SupCom2, C&C4, and StarCraft2), at least two been seriously disapointing. Not like StarCraft needed any help beating them though. Of course at this rate it might follow suite too.
Wasnt really triying to say they were better ... just that the concepts of those games were incorporated into generals
EA's track record with CnC games since Westwood was devoured:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHdZFppSZss
I hate being right.
Starcraft 2 plays a lot like a tweaked Starcraft 1, with better graphics and some truly excellent matchmaking and other online features. They didn't screw it up like C&C 4 or SupCom 2.
Then again, when you're working with the most popular RTS of all time, you'd have to be insane to radically dumb it down for the console crowd.
How the hell could they have had such a decent game (CnC3) and then do a 360 and make a game worse than the one before it in just about EVERY aspect?????????????????
360 is one full rotation, you are still moving in the same direction after one full rotation.
I can barely even play them, since Atari never made them really x64 compatible (if you have four or more gigs of RAM they won't start without an ugly workaround) and it bugs me too much to do it
I don't care about skirmish mode or multiplayer. I played skirmish with a friend, and yes, I agree, it was crap.
I don't mind the single player and coop at all though. It's an imperfect beast but it is nice to not have to rebuild your fortress every mission.
This is more of a classic RTS problem of single player campaigns sucking, and why so many new RTS' are trying to do something different. Relic managed to fix a large part of this by removing the 'gold mining' nonsense from their games (a large reason why I'm not looking forward to SC2). Games like World in Conflict and C&C4 take it step farther by removing all resource management and base building from the game. However, I think this latter approach doesn't work, as it dumbs down the game and makes it into an action game with RTS elements.
Company of Heroes nailed the base buiding/resource management perfectly aspect IMO. There was building and teching, but it didn't require constant babysitting of your base. If you wanted resources, you had to go out there and get them. There were also critical victory locations, so you had to decide if you wanted your forces to defend and win through victory points, or be aggressive in taking resource points so you could out tech your opponent. They sadly took a step back with Dawn of War 2.
Actually there were quite a few missions in the older CnC games where you didnt build bases. Same for the dune series. I thought they did a great job giving a little of everything for everyone.. They should have just incorporated a different multiplayer mode to go with the base building mode.
Look the problem with C&C doesn't even start with the current game, or the last game. Even though I've bought them all, I was disappointed by each of them.
Actually, 1 was alright and 3 was reassuring, even though I didn't want a remake it was really well executed. I liked all the Red Alert games and the Generals games, but the main story C&C games just never felt right after they screwed 2 so horribly.
I like 4, but I'm still disappointed. I find myself wanting to buy more games and play those instead of playing it.
Even Sup Com 2 is better then C&C4. That's sad....very sad. The User Scores on Gamespot are "Spot" on...lol. (couldn't resist the pun, sorry)
Though, it does Deserve a bad score just for Drm (which is pointless as it's been cracked anyway).
Dunno if anyone else has seen this, but the HitlerRantParodies people are expressing their c&c4 opinions through the moustached megolomaniac.
Command and Conquer 4 Review
i like CNC4 is the best if you get used to it.
Anybody talking
It's been less than 10 minutes.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
