6 Comments so far ↓

• Tim McDonald // Feb 14, 2008 at 9:48 pm

  Honestly I’d probably agree, albeit perhaps only because I loved C&C3, and I can’t really remember many other strategy games from 2007. Close call between that and Opposing Fronts, but its buggy state and the hideous copy protection were quite upsetting.

• Scott Tendering // Feb 15, 2008 at 10:09 am

  Thought I really didn’t spend much time with C&C3, I thought the interface was a little dated (too much like the original C&C) and the plotline felt the same too.

• Troy // Feb 15, 2008 at 11:10 am

  The plot was no great shakes, but how many RTS have good plots? It, at least, is a continuation of a familiar story with recognizable characters and hammy acting.

  I think that C&C 3 is a great traditional skirmish RTS and I think the interface is actually quite good in important respects, from the superpower sidebar menu to the very flexible order queuing.

  I will admit that even with the AIAS voters (whoever they are) agreeing with me, this makes it two against the world. World in Conflict seems to be everyone else’s choice.

• SwiftRanger // Feb 15, 2008 at 2:09 pm

  As I probably said before somewhere else on this site, you’re forgetting SupCom as well. :)

  I don’t have much problems with C&C3 (only tried the demo+skirmish hacks which said enough about the gameplay I think), only that it reminded me too much about the Generals-playstyle and not as much about Tiberian Sun, probably because the Generals-engine was used and the gameplay became a lot faster with less overview. C&C3 is decent for what it tries to do but to be fair, it doesn’t try to do a lot. That drive backwards toggle and the pre-waypoint setting up stuff were cool though. Might pick it up in that new C&C3+C&C: First Generation bundle.

• Bruce // Feb 15, 2008 at 5:11 pm

  To paraphrase Sonic Youth:

  SupCom is boring.

• Jim9137 // Feb 15, 2008 at 8:05 pm

  Well, you are a heretic too, so THERE.

  Kill the heretic.