Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars

 PC
User Score
8.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 545 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 415 out of 545
  2. Mixed: 76 out of 545
  3. Negative: 54 out of 545
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Kiki
    Nov 22, 2007
    1
    C&C 3 sums up everything wrong with most RTS games today. The graphics are nice, Joe Kucan is awesome, but the game-play is horrible. Spamming tons of the same type of unit and calling it "fast, fluid, and fun" is absurd. The game lacks strategy and depth. It really would have been nice that instead of patching the game 9 times (in 9 months), they just did a beta test. What a mess... If C&C 3 sums up everything wrong with most RTS games today. The graphics are nice, Joe Kucan is awesome, but the game-play is horrible. Spamming tons of the same type of unit and calling it "fast, fluid, and fun" is absurd. The game lacks strategy and depth. It really would have been nice that instead of patching the game 9 times (in 9 months), they just did a beta test. What a mess... If you want pretty explosions and nothing more, C&C 3 fits the bill, but if you want depth and serious game-play go with something like Universe at War or Supreme Commander.… Expand
  2. Nitewolf
    Aug 16, 2020
    1
    Similar to C&C: Generals - Zero Hour, the AI is just ridiculous and nowhere near human-like playing style. I've tried playing against Medium (Balanced) difficulty level and it's just consistently relentless at sending units to attack my base. Even if I manage to defend I eventually run out of tiberium.

    I wonder if the developers ever bothered to play against the AI to see what it's    Similar to C&C: Generals - Zero Hour, the AI is just ridiculous and nowhere near human-like playing style. I've tried playing against Medium (Balanced) difficulty level and it's just consistently relentless at sending units to attack my base. Even if I manage to defend I eventually run out of tiberium.

    I wonder if the developers ever bothered to play against the AI to see what it's like. Also looking at the post-game stats there is just no way that any normal player would be able to build units and structures and attack in such a short period of time. Really, because of this I'd say it's border-line unplayable.    … Expand
  3. JackS.
    Mar 30, 2007
    0
    I give it this rating due to the combination of expectations, EA's budget as a game company, and abysmal performance across the board. Turned up to maximum settings on 1600x1200 21" monitor - the game looks like, well, crap. Crappy texturing makes me think they limited the game to get it to run on the Xbox 360's 512 meg ram. It runs perfectly on my old 6600 GT but it looks badI give it this rating due to the combination of expectations, EA's budget as a game company, and abysmal performance across the board. Turned up to maximum settings on 1600x1200 21" monitor - the game looks like, well, crap. Crappy texturing makes me think they limited the game to get it to run on the Xbox 360's 512 meg ram. It runs perfectly on my old 6600 GT but it looks bad doing so - it's going to suck even worse if I upgrade. It's the interface (kludgy, and, yes, I know how to use it) and the gameplay (Tanks. Garrison. Where the hell is the strategy?) that pisses me off.… Expand
  4. JimG.
    Mar 1, 2007
    0
    You get the games whole dam tech tree in like 3 MINUTES, thats the crappiest pacing ever, so basically a few minutes into the game and all the games weaker early units are entirely worthless. The game was clearly designed for the soul purpose of shooting for the lowest common denominator. The game is just pure shallow, they even removed the intense micro CnC was known for and made it all You get the games whole dam tech tree in like 3 MINUTES, thats the crappiest pacing ever, so basically a few minutes into the game and all the games weaker early units are entirely worthless. The game was clearly designed for the soul purpose of shooting for the lowest common denominator. The game is just pure shallow, they even removed the intense micro CnC was known for and made it all automatic, you just can't do that in a small scale 10 unit a faction a game. On top of all this the balance is horrid, the Mammoth completely obliterates anything, compare it to the NOD's Avatar it is crap, the Avatar when fully upgraded costs more then twice the price of a fully upgraded Mammoth and it's weaker then the Mammoth and doesn't have anti air! The Mammoth basically then owns all tanks, owns infantry, with the rail it makes infantry entirely pointless and it owns most of the air AND THIS IS A TANK YOU CAN GET A FEW MINUTES INTO THE GAME?!?! All these factors come together to make CnC 3 literally the most shallow RTS game ever made and don't think the balance will be fixed in the final oh no they already are finished with the game and are working on it's first patch which likely won't come out for months and will end up making things worse then they are. I didn't think RTS games could be made so casual and just so wrong on so many levels. The game is complete trash really, they took a step back from the intense micro of Generals back to 1 unit tank spam. The game has a nice old novelty to it at first, but once you dig in you get hands full of crap. The game was clearly dumbed down for the console version.… Expand
  5. SteveP
    Oct 8, 2008
    0
    Beware, the game secretly installs malware - SecuROM. It is likely to cause problems with your computer and is almost impossible to remove.
  6. cncguy
    Aug 8, 2009
    0
    This is the most UNBALANCED RTS i have ever played!!! This is my main complaint: Most units are almost useless and ONLY used to counter other units. Like a ROCK, PAPER, SCISSORS GAME. That is why this sucks as soon as you relise this. This really disappointed me because I was expecting a really balanced game.
  7. zigazaga
    May 16, 2017
    0
    Unimaginative, cliched, uninspired. A step down from Generals in sophistication. There is no more strategy as such, just a matter of churning out lots of remarkably similar units to keep throwing at a similarly spawning enemy. Boring terrain, boring units, boring gameplay. Vastly inferior to Zero Hour/Destructive Forces. EA clearly know that by dumbing the game down they will attract aUnimaginative, cliched, uninspired. A step down from Generals in sophistication. There is no more strategy as such, just a matter of churning out lots of remarkably similar units to keep throwing at a similarly spawning enemy. Boring terrain, boring units, boring gameplay. Vastly inferior to Zero Hour/Destructive Forces. EA clearly know that by dumbing the game down they will attract a lower common denominator with lower expectations. But even so, I'd be very surprised if the game's high score here isn't influenced by some kind of an EA click-farm.… Expand
  8. Soulslayerzx
    Aug 21, 2012
    0
    I was pretty dissapointed. I grew up playing Red Alert 2/Yuri's Revenge. So I never knew that the Red Alert Franchise (prequel) was released after the sequel.... And then remade with tiberium and all that stuff. I liked the original Red Alert 2, I never bothered the campaign since I just liked going to war and having like 30 factions battle on the map. Was some crazy stuff. Red Alert 3I was pretty dissapointed. I grew up playing Red Alert 2/Yuri's Revenge. So I never knew that the Red Alert Franchise (prequel) was released after the sequel.... And then remade with tiberium and all that stuff. I liked the original Red Alert 2, I never bothered the campaign since I just liked going to war and having like 30 factions battle on the map. Was some crazy stuff. Red Alert 3 only had 3 factions which was like 1/10 of red alert 2. As for this game, didn't meet up to my expectations at all. Maybe because it said it was newer on Steam then RA, so that maybe it'd be better, and they'd just keep improving. Main things that bothered me:

    The **** user interface, the menu is confusing as **** with all these modes and it's like dark blue.

    The Babes, this ticked me off right at the beginning, I was expecting it to be like RA 3, the point of going to war is so that when you end the war, you have babes to return to., there are like no babes in this game.

    The in-game user interface, they switched all the buttons, why the **** would they do that.

    The graphics, how does a newer game have more horrible graphics than an older game. First of all, no explosions, yea things explode on airstrike, but guess what. You can airstrike a wooden house, and it won't explode. It plays the sound effect and then it sinks into the ground. WTF. Also, the reason RA didn't let you zoom all the way in to see your troops were to not show the low-rez landscape. When you zoom in to your troops now in squads (1 squad can contain like 5 people), the background looks like a solid crap color.

    I look for gameplay over graphics, but the gameplay is extremely repetitive.

    They used crappy colors for the user interface, everything seems so damp, so I guess it's like an apocolyptic situation where some dude called Kain is trying to **** with everybody and your base is like under a rock doing research. Man, they needa continue the red alert series, I liked those graphics, gameplay, explosions ftw, music, babes, everything about it.    … Expand
  9. Fastgoalie
    Oct 17, 2015
    0
    The game is just horrible, nothing makes any **** sense, HEY LOOK AT ME I CAN LIE DOWN GOOD LUCK**** DOING ANYTHING. and HEY I SEE YOUR 10,000 SOLDIERS LEMME GUN THEM ALLLLL DOWN WITH 2 TURRETS
Page:

Awards & Rankings

19
#19 Best PC Game of 2007
13
#13 Most Discussed PC Game of 2007
56
#56 Most Shared PC Game of 2007

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
85

Generally favorable reviews - based on 47 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 43 out of 47
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 47
  3. Negative: 0 out of 47
  1. PC Gamer
    90
    It's action-packed gameplay; attractive, colorful visuals; and star-studded videos are sure to draw in both hardcore fans of the series and large numbers of new players. [Apr 2007, p.20]
  2. PC Gamer UK
    82
    It's deeply hilarious - as aracde-feeling as strategy games can get...It does everything it can, bar a song and dance routine, to entertain you. And it succeeds. [Apr 2007, p.62]
    Read full review
  3. Eurogamer
    80
    After years in the wilderness, RTS is pretty cool again right now, and something as cheerfully straightforward as this is just what's needed to stop the big braininess of "Company of Heroes" and "Supreme Commander" leading to another plunge into an inaccessibility that turns more casual players off the whole genre.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »