CNC 3 Gets a 82% from PCGamerUk

Basically to give you the jist of what they said they said the game gives you the great old CnC feel, but is extremely old school and the balance issues break the game down to a simple tank spam fest game.

In comparison they gave

Company of Heroes a 94

Supreme Commander 90
MoeMania

[QUOTE="MoeMania"]Basically to give you the jist of what they said they said the game gives you the great old CnC feel, but is extremely old school and the balance issues break the game down to a simple tank spam fest game.

In comparison they gave

Company of Heroes a 94

Supreme Commander 90
Glordit

Its a continuation of the old Command and Conquer, not a remake.  I know it doesnt bring much new to the franchise or the RTS genre, but thats ok.  There is the same great storyline, with acting and cool cutscenes with awesome action.

If you want to talk about remakes, just look at Supreme Commander.

If you want to talk about remakes, just look at Supreme Commander.

I still dont get WHY people keep saying "its just plain old C&C, its old school...". Whats wrong with the game being old school? Whats wrong with the game feeling like the original C&C? As a matter of fact, the guys at EA kept saying throughout the whole development cycle that they would "be going back to the roots of C&C". And the game turned out to be just what they said. In my opinion, it manages to capture that essence that was lost in the last couple of years...

I just think that there are gamers that are not "objective" when talking about this. They label the game as "dumbed down", or "old school" just because it doesnt have all the bells&whistles that other games have.

People need to understand that throwing every possible feature that you can imagine into a game is not a good idea... Thats why we end up with games that the whole world is waiting for, and they turn out to be major flops.

Just to finish: EA said "we are going back to the roots of Command and Conquer". They stayed true to that statement. It doesnt make any sense to say that the game is bad because it doesnt have a feature that other has...

i don't get people who say it's okay that it has no innovation at all and is literally the same game we played a decade ago becaue ea told us that's what it'd be - packs of smokes have warning stickers, but the smokes themselves are still very lethal

maybe c&c3 should come with a warning sticker

something like warning: this game is very not good!

maybe they could word it better, maybe not - checl back with me later for more ideas about the sticker

82% seems like a reasonable score for what is essentially a ten year old game in a new (and not so new) engine - i grew sick of c&c after red alert 2, but it is a fun series - and if i didn't have dawn of war, i'd probably buy c&c3 just, to reminisce

command and conquer 3, though, is one of those games that doesn't need a review - everyone who is gonna buy it is already gonna buy it, and everyone who isn't, isn't

for those who wanna play it - good for you, i'm happy you've gotten a game you wanna play - but really, in a day where making innovative, new games that offer new experiences and new challenges seems to be the centerpiece of half the discussions, on how games like oblivion and stuff have taken great concepts and watered them down, is don't give us better, just give us more really a message we should be sending as a community?

like i said though, it's nice that someone is getting some new games they want to play this year, seems like everything i want is delayed about billion and fifty years
A-S_FM

Thats so true.  The game could get a 40% and I would still buy it.  C&C was one of my first games and first RTS games at that, so it has a special spot in my heart.  I am happy we are getting a new game, with new missions and a great story with great storytelling elements.

I used to agree with people about needing more innovation and stuff like that, but now I just care about having fun.  Prey was fun and so was Oblivion, so what kind of gamer would I be if I said they were bad games ("bad" implies a game is not enjoyable) because they watered down RPG elements, or were just a vanilla shooter with a gimmick or two?

C&C 3 wont offer new RTS elements the way Homeworld and CoH/Dawn of War did, nor will it be the prettiest game, but it will be...FUN!  And thats why we play games, isnt it?

thats funny, because PCGamerUS gave it a 90%.Jd1680a

[QUOTE="Jd1680a"]thats funny, because PCGamerUS gave it a 90%.Smudge_Smill

The game isn't even out yet! How did those thugs get their filthy paws on a copy?
 biggest_loser

I was really hyped for C&C:3, but once i tried the demo, i realised i was mistaken. Tbh, it felt nothing like the old games, everything was so damn flashy that i found it hard to figure out wtf was going on, the game is zoomed in miles meaning there is little strategy.

And grouped units! wtf?!
This game is another example of dumbing down for consoles, that is all.
kris2456

I was really hyped for C&C:3, but once i tried the demo, i realised i was mistaken. Tbh, it felt nothing like the old games, everything was so damn flashy that i found it hard to figure out wtf was going on, the game is zoomed in miles meaning there is little strategy.

And grouped units! wtf?!
This game is another example of dumbing down for consoles, that is all.
kris2456

[QUOTE="kris2456"]I was really hyped for C&C:3, but once i tried the demo, i realised i was mistaken. Tbh, it felt nothing like the old games, everything was so damn flashy that i found it hard to figure out wtf was going on, the game is zoomed in miles meaning there is little strategy.

And grouped units! wtf?!
This game is another example of dumbing down for consoles, that is all.
speed1