Command and Conquer 4 Tiberian Twilight

The real shame of mishandling the series this way is that the actual gameplay can be good. You won't realize that for a while. Partly because of the unlock system, partly because the interface can be pretty bad, and partly because the action can get so sloppy, it's going to take a while before you can appreciate what Command & Conquer 4 does right. At first, it will seem like splashing around helplessly in a madly shuffling action game. It doesn't even look very good. It's like the worst of Red Alert 3's cartooniness in a last-gen engine that you might mistake for using 2D sprites when the action gets clogged up, as it invariably will.

But this is the same basic design that was proven in World in Conflict, an underappreciated RTS that plays like a class-based team multiplayer shooter. Each class has weaknesses, and therefore relies on other players in the match to cover for them. But each class also has strengths, and therefore can make unique contributions to their team -- the same principle behind Team Fortress. Meanwhile, the objectives play out like a Battlefield game, with players on each side scrambling to seize and hold points; there are ebbs and flows and front lines and end-runs. Unlike most RTSs, it's not over until it's over.

After the disastrous micromanagement problems of Red Alert 3, this is a welcome return to controlling fewer units with fewer powers, making fewer choices with more important consequences, and keeping the action exciting and fluid. You can play with throwaway units, shifting among different classes as needed, banging on the Q button and just flinging your army into whatever front line has formed. Or you can work to level up your units by keeping them alive in combat and gathering crates, including precious blue crates that give some units a special ability. Once you grok the system enough to play at this level, Command & Conquer 4 has a lot to offer.

Click the image above to check out all Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight screens.

For instance, somewhere around level 10 (I'd say that's going to take about five hours of gameplay per side, assuming you don't lose your connection), you unlock second tier units and more interesting upgrades. Here's where the two sides start to really distinguish themselves. But this is a game without a regular economy. You don't buy units. You simply build as many as you want up to your command limit, with the only price paid being the time it takes to build them. However, to apply upgrades or to build higher tier units, you have to fight for crystals that appear on the map. This is a great bit of gameplay, and when higher level players are involved, it can decide a match if you can clamp down the crystals first. It's arguably more interesting than the business of grabbing and holding victory locations that count up your score until one side wins. Consider it your reward for slogging through several hours of lower-level gameplay.

Another potential problem is that this is only a team game. Because the maps are so big and the design is based on classes, games with fewer than three people on each side are absurd roundabouts of swapping victory points, a sloppy musical chairs RTS where you occasionally bump into other units. Fortunately, the A.I. is competent and "comp stomps" are a viable way to play. Even as a solo game (albeit online), you can drop yourself into a swirl of A.I. players and make stuff happen. However, the A.I. can't choose its own class, which means you're always fighting against a pre-set opponent. EA doesn?t even allow an option for a random class for A.I. players. And since the cat-and-mouse of shifting classes is an important part of the gameplay, this is a really strange omission.