Visceral's spin on the Battlefield series breaks the norm and introduces a story with depth. We take it for a ride!
Bringing a Story to Battlefield
Follow on for our second entry in the on-going review of World of Warcraft's fifth expansion, Warlords of Draenor
World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor: Day 8 - Garrisons
We chat with Blizzard's Hearthstone team on all the juicy info about the first expansion to highly-successful card game Hearthstone
Hearthstone: Goblins vs Gnomes Dev Interview
We take a nostalgic look back at one of the best N64 games to ever be made, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
Throwback Thursday - The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
Command and Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight
Command and Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight

PC
Genre: Strategy
Developer: Electronic Arts Official Site: http://www.commandandconquer...
Publisher: Electronic Arts
Command and Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight

Genre: Strategy
Developer: Electronic Arts
Official Site: http://www.commandand...
Publisher: Electronic Arts
Hide Video Player
Click To View the Command and Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight Video
Command and Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight Review
Review By @ 03:20pm 24/03/10
PC
Platform reviewed on: PC

Legend has it that development of Command & Conquer 4 was at a crossroads very early on, and someone at EA decided that an overhaul of the entire game engine was required. This particular person decided that the formula was all wrong and drastic measures needed to be taken. Resource gathering was deemed outdated. “If you want resource gathering why don’t you release it on CD-ROM!” this person would say. Specific types of buildings that built specific types of units were also considered a thing of the past. “Listen up, it’s called a supermarket. You can buy everything there, from grapes to grape juice, to grape-flavoured bubblegum. You don’t need three grape stores to buy three different grape products!” was also convolutedly stated as an, apparently, apt analogy. But amongst all this change, Brotherhood of Nod shaman/leader Kane would still be alive, somehow. And apparently, an immortal wizard in the vein of Gandalf, without the flowing locks of grey hair. Or so the legend goes.




Now one might wonder what possessed EA to shake things up, as after all this new Command & Conquer serves as a ‘finale’ to the Tiberium saga, ending the story of the numerous and heated GDI versus NOD versus baldy nonsense spouting Kane wars. Not exactly prestige, the Command & Conquer series could always be counted on for a couple of things, that is cheesy B-grade cut scenes with Hollywood-lite production values, coupled with gameplay focussing on being able to mass armies and change strategies in no time at all. Surprisingly these two things remain in-tact, but without some key things: the ability to gather resources, tech up as part of the in-game strategy, and without the feeling of actually building an army. The end result, unfortunately, alternates between being a fun workable fast-paced skirmish and a frustratingly limited and ultimately, confusing mess.

So, gone are the Tiberium harvesters, command centres, barracks and other structures in lieu of a mobile base dubbed ‘The Crawler’ that comes in three distinct flavours: Offensive, Defensive, and Support. Each class of Crawler spawns different units or defensive structures to suit the required strategy or particular play style. Unit numbers are capped by the available command points with each Crawler being able to basically set up shop anywhere and spawn units for your disposal. Along the way you also gain experience points which in turn increases your rank to unlock new units and upgrades. Strategic points are also located across each map providing bonuses, with Tiberium showing up sparingly to provide upgrade points to spend on your respective tech tree. This is a basic explanation of the new Command & Conquer on offer, and to be completely honest, it sounds pretty good on paper.

Execution however is a different story. First off, being able to utilise, in any real strategic way, the upgrade points in the main campaign or on-line comes after several hours of mucking about with the same low-tech squads. Meaning, they’re basically useless for the first five or so hours. Secondly, you only get to control a single walker at a time, and with a unit cap meaning you control roughly ten or so units at any given time, the main campaign consequently feels like an afterthought. What isn’t made clear is that ‘single player’ means a single walker at your disposal as opposed to two when played with a friend, in the co-op campaign mode. What does this mean for the game? Well, pretty much that the single player component doesn’t really work. So this new Command & Conquer really only works as a multiplayer game, which after some thought makes perfect sense when you take into account the class structure of the walkers on offer and the limited unit cap.




But this goes against a lot of Command & Conquer history. Because when you look back at even the ‘above average’ third game, you would engross yourself in the ridiculous story, overacting, generous production values, and somewhat standard ‘mass Mammoth Tanks’ game-play well before dabbling in a little multiplayer. This new play style feels like it was developed as a fun multiplayer mode that somehow got shoehorned into being the entire game. To be honest, the first few hours are a lot of fun, and learning the various classes, how to play aggressive, and always be on the frontlines works in the game’s favour, as each new mission reveals more and more options, units, and challenges.

But then something happens, something that makes you bang your desk and yell obscenities at your monitor. The gameplay takes an ugly turn, revealing its limitations whilst also being frustratingly difficult. Essentially the single player game decides to pit you against multiple enemy walkers, each being able to pump out as many units as you can, in turn making the strategy constant unit selection/production to slowly chip away at your enemies forces. If you’re successful, the game is gracious enough to give you a few minutes to scramble for an objective (usually guarded by another walker) before the enemy walker you just destroyed re-spawns. And if you fail, you simply have to start from scratch as the game offers no penalties for defeat to either side. Simply re-spawn your walker and in less than a minute your army will be back at full strength ready to try again. The problem is, so will theirs.

But it couldn’t be that bad, could it? Well, it’s got some merit and when it works it does feel like an interesting and fun way to play Command & Conquer. But, most people will probably give up long before the game mechanics start to make any real sense. This is a shame because the basic idea for this new approach is somewhat sound, and some simple changes would make it more, well, ‘playable’. Increasing the unit cap, integrating the tech tree into the actual skirmishes, allowing players to control more than a single walker, penalising failure, and giving players units with secondary functions other than ‘shoot’ or ‘repair’, would be a start. Above all, perhaps the real change should have been to separate the single player mechanics from the multiplayer.




Offensive, defensive, or support – it sounds like the choices from a squad based shooter. And in essence the multiplayer in Command & Conquer 4 is pretty similar to that, with teamwork resulting in heated and yes, even strategic encounters. Controlling a single walker defines your role, offensive means you’ll always be on the move, scouting the map, taking charge and taking over control points. Defensive puts your role either right behind the front lines, or simply trying to protect and hold a single control point. Support puts you everywhere, to call on powers and special units and abilities as the moment sees fit. It’s here where the see-saw nature of the battles, with endless streams of units, constant battle, and the real-time rock, paper, scissors nature of each encounter finds a home. The focus on teams as always results in a good or bad time depending on whom you’re grouped with, as a bad game full of control point hopping will bring the shortcomings of the mechanics to the forefront.

Command & Conquer 4 as an experience fluctuates between reactions that are polar opposite of each other. This ‘let’s try something new’ approach is not a complete disaster, even if the in-game chat window is full of comments along these lines. It works, and it doesn’t. It’s enjoyable, and it’s frustrating. It feels like a battle heavy RTS, and it feels like the RTS equivalent of a button masher.
What we liked
  • The first few missions
  • Cinematic sequences and story
  • Small doses of multiplayer
What we didn't like
  • Requires persistent Internet connection to play
  • New play style doesn�t work in single player
  • Ultimately a spam-fest
More
We gave it:
5.0
OUT OF 10
Latest Comments
darkjedi
Posted 04:08pm 24/3/10
That makes me sad, as I've really been keen to give this a bash - even with the internet connection DRM.. Now I'll definitely not drop the cash :(
Khel
Posted 04:27pm 24/3/10
I bought it last week, but not really cos I have any interest in multiplayer, I just want to see the end of the whole Kane thing. The new game mechanics are definitely kinda weird, but I'm only there for the dodgy cinematics :P

It still feels like C&C to me though, and its still a bit of fun. As for being a spamfest, I dunno, I thought C&C has always pretty much been a spamfest.
darkjedi
Posted 04:30pm 24/3/10
I'd heard a couple of the guys I work with saying that they've un-cheesed the cut scenes a bit?

I guess I'd grab/play it from a half-price steam sale or someone giving me a (legit) copy.. Not sure I'd want to pay to put up with the DRM otherwise..
Khel
Posted 04:50pm 24/3/10
Yeah, the cutscenes seem to have a bit higher production values, probably cos they spent more money on the production instead of paying well-known actors lots of money. Not that the acting is crap, its pretty good, its just they aren't hiring the likes of Sawyer from Lost or Six from BSG. They also made real sets instead of putting real actors against CGI sets which looks a lot better.
darkjedi
Posted 05:21pm 24/3/10
Boo. Billy Dee Williams in C&C3 was the most epic thing ever known to man.
konstie
Posted 06:26pm 24/3/10
thing i'll pass on this.
Cowbar
Posted 09:27pm 24/3/10
Not happy one big spam a unit game! no super weapons + its just plan boring not how c&c should be.Anyway back to mass effect 2!!! A SAD DAY FOR KANE:(
Douche
Posted 11:20pm 24/3/10
this game sucks s*** f***** about as good as ra3 was
DEVDOGG
Posted 09:45am 26/3/10
this game could have been truely awesome, but unfortunately i found it to be quite the fail...
the beta showed a little bit of hope for the multiplayer as it was fun, but when the full game was released i was dissapointed at how s*** the single player was.
Nitro
Posted 10:34am 26/3/10
I still play RA2 its a blast with mates, but a b**** to set up with IPX n all.
Viper
Posted 11:30am 27/3/10
Sounds like the game is sorta based of the british from company of heroes.
konstie
Posted 11:32am 27/3/10
how does kane "die"!?

or does he become some sort of alien.

or does the world explode?

or do they just make peace?
gamer
Posted 12:19pm 27/3/10
dark reign > starcraft > perimeter > total anihilation > command and conquor
Commenting has been locked for this item.
13 Comments
Show