Command & Conquer 4 Review Round Up

[Sonic 296]

A few more reviews for Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight have appeared over the past 24 hours. So here's a quick round up including the scores and samples.

 

GameSpot - 7/10

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.

 

Eurogamer - 6/10

It's fast and it's enthralling, even if it's small and permits little variance in single-player missions. For the most part, it's a game of countering - building the right rocks to the enemy's scissors - rather than being a land-grab and build-order race.

 

VideoGamer.com - 7/10

Ultimately, C&C4 is a curiosity, one that succeeds in moving the RTS genre forward and is at times brilliant fun, but it fails as a fitting finale to one of the most loved science fiction tales in gaming.

 

Play.tm - 75%

Command & Conquer 4 still knows how to pile on the schlock. We're now up to 2077, thirty years after the third game, so all your units are either vehicles or people in chunky robot suits because it's the future - though the Mammoth Tank is still going strong.

 

GameInformer - 7.75/10

The entire point of this game is to bring cooperative real-time strategy to the next level. It accomplishes that goal quite well, but does so at the expense of everything else.

Personally I wouldn't call those bad scores. Their good, but not great. If you have found a review for Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight let is know and we will add it to the list.

[Nmenth 291]

Personally I wouldn't call those bad scores. Their good, but not great.

I wouldn't call an average of 70.5% 'good'. Mediocre at best.

[sith_wampa 6]

Agreed. I think GI says it all too well.

 

I believe Nmenth brought this up once:

 

If your teammates are lone-wolf idiots or just bad, the entire game breaks down. Accomplishing anything of note by oneself is a frustrating, Sisyphean labor. No amount of micro skill or clever unit balance will make up for fighting an entrenched defense class with competent repair and scouting assistance from a support teammate when your ally is off doing something useless.

Edited March 17, 2010 by sith_wampa

[Sonic 296]

I wouldn't call an average of 70.5% 'good'. Mediocre at best.

Mediocre scores would in the 50% or 5/10 range. 70% or 7/10 is above average or good in my book.

[Nmenth 291]

Mediocre scores would in the 50% or 5/10 range. 70% or 7/10 is above average or good in my book.

I guess I have higher standards then (too high?).

 

100 = perfection (which can only be a lie, because nothing is perfect)

90-99 = great

80-89 = good

70-79 = average

<70 = worsening levels of suckiness

 

70.5 is riding the lower edge of average.

[Luk3us 63]

95 - 100 = Great

85 - 95 = Good

75 - 85 = Average

65 - 75 = Bad

< 65 = Abysmal

 

 

That being said I don't care too much about reviews. When I watch them all I care about are the amount of bugs. Cause that right there can kill any "great" game in its tracks.

[sith_wampa 6]

95 - 100 = Great

85 - 95 = Good

75 - 85 = Average

65 - 75 = Bad

> 65 = Abysmal

 

 

That being said I don't care too much about reviews. When I watch them all I care about are the amount of bugs. Cause that right there can kill any "great" game in its tracks.

I agree, except you mean less than.