Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight

 PC
User Score
2.1

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 714 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 75 out of 714
  2. Mixed: 45 out of 714
  3. Negative: 594 out of 714
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. 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 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
  2. 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 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
  3. Judas_Flame
    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 ifI 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
  4. marqpas
    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.
  5. Erathil
    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    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 owning 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
  6. the-epikninja
    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.
  7. Dozmo
    Oct 14, 2014
    1
    Oh god, the horror. C&C is a RTS series about base building and military expansion. This sequel completely guts those elements, but you don't find that out until after you've bought it. What a horrible, truly pathetic end to the series. It only even gets 1 point due to having Kain in it. Were it not for that, I'd have rated it a 0.
  8. Ndi
    Jun 23, 2013
    1
    If you are going to slap C&C badge on a game, you'd better have the basics.

    What happened was obvious. They ran out of ideas for the franchise and decided to cash in on 20 years of history for 5 more dollars.

    Remember Dawn of War versus Dawn of War 2? Well, that, except this has no better graphics. They thought that if Relic had so much success, they wait.
  9. boomer559
    Nov 19, 2013
    1
    This game is just plain bad. They did not need to change the ENTIRE F**KING GAME! If they had introduced new units, and made the tech tree bigger then told the story in a similar fashion to C&C 3: Tiberian Wars, then it would have maybe been a great finish to a great series but the fact they took away the point of C&C which was base building, recourse gathering and tactical moments ofThis game is just plain bad. They did not need to change the ENTIRE F**KING GAME! If they had introduced new units, and made the tech tree bigger then told the story in a similar fashion to C&C 3: Tiberian Wars, then it would have maybe been a great finish to a great series but the fact they took away the point of C&C which was base building, recourse gathering and tactical moments of troops, and replaced it with 'please move these troops here.......well done, now move here'.
    DESTROYED THE GAME ENTIRELY!    … Expand
  10. 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!
  11. 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 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
  12. 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 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
  13. 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 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
  14. 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 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
  15. 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, 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
  16. AndyC
    Mar 20, 2010
    0
    I can't give this game a low enough score to justify its existence... it's just pure rubbish through and through. From the disastrous new system they came up with to the economics, the unit caps and the play style it ISNT Command & Conquer and it ISNT worth your time or money. The unit cap is so low that even the pc version feels like a limiting console release from 4 years ago, I can't give this game a low enough score to justify its existence... it's just pure rubbish through and through. From the disastrous new system they came up with to the economics, the unit caps and the play style it ISNT Command & Conquer and it ISNT worth your time or money. The unit cap is so low that even the pc version feels like a limiting console release from 4 years ago, they did it better in C&C3 than they did in 4 which surely says to me that EA seem to learn nothing from the community and decide to just completely ignore it except when it serves their purposes. The only thing that made me buy this game was to finally see a conclusion to the Tiberium universe's story and even then I'm having to grin and bare each and every mission just to get to the next cutscene. AVOID if at all possible.… Expand
  17. WilI
    Mar 20, 2010
    0
    This is the WORST game I've ever played. I don't care if this game is different from old C&C; I'm ok with changing the formula. The problem with C&C4 is that the new gameplay design they came up with doesn't work at all. The result is a game that lacks any merit, I kid you not. This is the 1st game I played that has zero merits. Some of the worsts games I've This is the WORST game I've ever played. I don't care if this game is different from old C&C; I'm ok with changing the formula. The problem with C&C4 is that the new gameplay design they came up with doesn't work at all. The result is a game that lacks any merit, I kid you not. This is the 1st game I played that has zero merits. Some of the worsts games I've played before had at least some sort of saving grace, some sort of merit. C&C4 does not. It just isn't fun at all.… Expand
  18. 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 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
  19. MikeM
    Mar 17, 2010
    0
    This game is NOT command and conquer. When westwood created the original back in 1995, they revolutionised RTS. They layed the base core of what all RTS games needed. Tiberiun sun expanded on this, and EA again expanded further, whislt also angering its community with shoddy balancing and too many changes of what was considered the norm. Having to seemingly not listen to the community, This game is NOT command and conquer. When westwood created the original back in 1995, they revolutionised RTS. They layed the base core of what all RTS games needed. Tiberiun sun expanded on this, and EA again expanded further, whislt also angering its community with shoddy balancing and too many changes of what was considered the norm. Having to seemingly not listen to the community, despite saying they have, they then release Kanes Wrath, which was essentially, what C&C should have been in terms of gameplay. Having once again displeased the community again with lack of patches and securom causing ALOT of system formats due to major issues with it, they now release C&C 4, which is nothing like the previous games. Just because the game references tiberium and uses it in a majorly poor way, has Kane, and has old units (that look totally different), does not make a game deserve the Command and Conquer title. This game should have been scrapped at the start and make how the people wanted it. EA, a company so narrow minded it seems, that they only care about the money, not what the people actually want. I do feel sorry for Joe Kucan who is basically the star of the whole series being sent out in such a poor, poor way.… Expand
  20. ShaneF
    Mar 17, 2010
    0
    I've played every C&C game ever made and was brought into the RTS world by Command & Conquer on the Sega and, as most others probably were, was glad beyond believe that the fourth and final installment in the long lasting Tiberium series was coming, but when I finally got the game... well simply enough this isn't C&C, It's a horrid waste of money and time with practically I've played every C&C game ever made and was brought into the RTS world by Command & Conquer on the Sega and, as most others probably were, was glad beyond believe that the fourth and final installment in the long lasting Tiberium series was coming, but when I finally got the game... well simply enough this isn't C&C, It's a horrid waste of money and time with practically nothing in common with past installments and answers almost none of the questions we were told it would answer and as such this "Epic conclusion of the Tiberium saga" as EA calls it, doesn't deserve to be honored with the title of C&C 4.… Expand
  21. TimY
    Mar 19, 2010
    0
    Great way to end my 2nd favourite franchise ever EA. Remove Base building, Tiberium harvesting and resource managment all toghther. I could stand C&C3 but now they ripped of DAwn of War 2 and made it with 10 times the epic fail. IF I could I would give it a -1.
  22. 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 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
  23. an
    Mar 20, 2010
    0
    This game is horrible. The requirement to connect to the internet is a worthless requirement, that prevents this game from being played on the go. Also the story line has a predictable ending. We have known for almost a decade that Kane was going to ascend. EA had Kane ascend, but they didn't give a view of the alien world. And in the game play the Scrin are non-existent. We had This game is horrible. The requirement to connect to the internet is a worthless requirement, that prevents this game from being played on the go. Also the story line has a predictable ending. We have known for almost a decade that Kane was going to ascend. EA had Kane ascend, but they didn't give a view of the alien world. And in the game play the Scrin are non-existent. We had heard rumors that the Scrin would reappear and attack earth again, but of course EA decided not to include this.… Expand
  24. 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.
  25. 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 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
  26. 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 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
  27. 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 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
  28. 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 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
  29. MikeB
    Mar 16, 2010
    0
    I am shocked at how bad this is. its unreal, im completely stunned. The GUI is awful, the friend system is archaic. the campaign is so mundane, there is no strategy involved, its just a ground and pound. no base, no structures no planning, just move your crawler around spamming unit production and win, its impossible to lose unless you just straight out ignore the prompts. the Co-Op was I am shocked at how bad this is. its unreal, im completely stunned. The GUI is awful, the friend system is archaic. the campaign is so mundane, there is no strategy involved, its just a ground and pound. no base, no structures no planning, just move your crawler around spamming unit production and win, its impossible to lose unless you just straight out ignore the prompts. the Co-Op was pointless, there is no point to team work, this has to be the worst CnC game ever. i really really am sad i loved the others and i wish i could have my money back. I hate you EA games, your the devil.… Expand
  30. Lizard
    Mar 18, 2010
    0
    well done EA, you've just successfully wrecked the most famous RTS franchise in PC gaming history. Moronic gameplay (that has nothing in common with the rest of the series) stolen from various other currently popular games coupled with a ridiculous DRM system that demands players always be online even when playing singleplayer are two huge, enormous, unforgiveable mistakes, they well done EA, you've just successfully wrecked the most famous RTS franchise in PC gaming history. Moronic gameplay (that has nothing in common with the rest of the series) stolen from various other currently popular games coupled with a ridiculous DRM system that demands players always be online even when playing singleplayer are two huge, enormous, unforgiveable mistakes, they couldn't have done a better job of destroying this game if they'd actually tried. EA could get better results if they hired monkeys, C&C4 is an utter disgrace and when they pull the servers down after about 6 months all those poor souls who payed out good money for this rubbish won't be able to play it even if they wanted to.… Expand
Page:

Awards & Rankings

19
#19 Most Discussed PC Game of 2010
10
#10 Most Shared PC Game of 2010

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
64

Mixed or average reviews - based on 71 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 71
  2. Mixed: 44 out of 71
  3. Negative: 11 out of 71
  1. Eurogamer
    60
    It's nothing at all like Command & Conquer, but - eventually - it's a thoughtful and bombastic multiplayer RTS that's welcoming to everyone.
    Read full review
  2. GameSpot
    70
    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.
    Read full review
  3. Play.tm
    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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »