Command & Conquer 3 - reviews , previews

Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2006
Posts
39,251
Location
On Ocuk
I think we need a thread with posted previews and reviews , i do love reading them online :D

Ok first one up

I just got the latest issue of PC Gamer and they reviewed the final version of C&C 3.

They gave the game a 90%.

High points:
Three Diverse sides; quick multiplayer action; best full-motion video cut scenes in years.

Low points: Combat may be too frantic for some. Alien plot feels tacked on to the main story.

Bottom Line: C&C 3 returns to the franchise's roots with great looking non stop RTS action.

They also mentioned that the multiplayer interface is the best one that they have seen and that the alien race feels like they added an expansion on to an already complete game. They were happy about the graphics and the way the game plays. They mentioned that each side has tons of units that all have their own unique play styles.

One of the things that may make many of you happy is the system requirments.

P4 1.8GHz, 512MB RAM, 8GB HD space, DX9.0c 64MB graphic card with 8X DVD ROM.

They reccommend a P4 @2.4GHz, 1GB RAM, 128 MB video card.

Not too bad for a cutting edge RTS. They didn't mention if the game is multi-threaded so I don't know if dual core will make a differance in this one. The only complaint that I read about that I would have liked to see out of the game is that the camera cannot move out as far away as they would have liked. It's a problem that the game engine has had ever since generals but oh well.

I would recommend picking up the issue. It has detailed descriptions of each side and many more opinions that I left out. Also they have a ton of great pictures of the game.

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33883486
 
Sounds promising, can't wait. I loved the FMV in the original, glad they brought it back and its high quality stuff. Also, from the sounds of it, my PC should run it fairly well.
 
Isn't it based on a modified BFME II engine ?

In which case it will look now here near as nice as CoH but if the game play is up to scratch then it will defo be worth looking into :)
 
pah!

CoH owns

wow the specs to run this game are pretty low :D

My pc will do just fine :)

something like 30 days till release?
 
I just preordered my copy today, guess this will have to keep me entertained until the new ati cards are out :p .
I loved Kane so it's nice to see the actor reprise the role again :D .
 
A big :rolleyes: to everyone who thinks a game is all about graphics.

C&C has never been about "how good can we make this look" - it's about gameplay.
 
SpudMaster said:
am i the only person who didnt like company of heroes?

love CnC though :D


No, I though CoH was rubbish, along with SC.

Every C&C game has been good, even Generals.

No one wants WW1 or WW2 guns and tanks, we want modern and even futuristic RTS (just not magical stuff!) with simple playability and great multiplayer.

To this day, RA2:YR is the best RTS I have ever played, both offline and online, and the graphics were not even that good.

It's not all about the graphics... ;)
 
SeanyK said:
No, I though CoH was rubbish, along with SC.

Every C&C game has been good, even Generals.

No one wants WW1 or WW2 guns and tanks, we want modern and even futuristic RTS (just not magical stuff!) with simple playability and great multiplayer.

To this day, RA2:YR is the best RTS I have ever played, both offline and online, and the graphics were not even that good.

It's not all about the graphics... ;)

Agree about CoH, it was fun to play at first, looked greatm but lacked the playability of C&C and longitivity.

I play lots of RTS games though, mythological, ww1, knights on horseback, its all the same to me..... if its a good game it will keep you playing for time to come, and CoH didnt do that for me at all, one of a small few that havnt, i still like some of the old ones to. RA2 and Yuris was great, but i can't go back to them awful visuals after playing generals..... its just too much!!... :D
 
Back
Top Bottom