Dead Space
Ever wonder what it would be like to be drifting alone in space with no escape plan, slowly watching the ship whose air you’re quickly burning through come apart at the seams, all the while being chased by unimaginable horrors that won’t die after shooting them in the head?
You…you haven’t wondered that? Just me? Really? Come on, guys, it’s not that much of a scary scenario, is it? It is? Oh…
Well, anyway, moving on…
Dead Space tells the story of Isaac Clarke, an engineer sent with a small crew to the U.S.G. Ishimura, a planet-cracking ship that they lost contact with recently. What they find is a horrific alien entity bent on killing or assimilating them, and what began as a possible rescue mission becomes a lone man’s fight for survival inside a quite-literal box of death. In space.
While I might be a little biased in my assessment (I first played Dead Space on a full-wall projector with surround sound, and wept as I cowered before a human-sized Isaac taking down vile Necromorphs taller than him), this game scared the crap out of me. Beautifully gruesome visuals, terrifying sound design, and a wonderfully creepy score elevate the tension on the Ishimura, sometimes past the breaking point in certain areas. Movement can be a little clunky, but it’s only to be expected of an engineer with no combat training trying to survive; in other words it’s a perfect emulation.
Enemy types can get repetitive after a while, with their zombie apocalypse vibe, but the level design makes up for those shortcomings, especially in the vacuum stages. Story’s a bit convoluted, which is probably a deliberate design since it highlights the alienation you feel all alone, seemingly without a purpose beyond survival, in the depths of the void. The story opens up more if you play through the sequels as well, which you should really do if you can get past the first game. What could be worse?
Is it perfect? No. Is it groundbreaking? Nope. Is it scary? Oh, hell yes. Do I love it all the same? Absolutely.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2
Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 was developed by Westwood Studios, officially re titled Westwood Pacific, and published by Electronic Arts in 2000. The fourth Real-Time Strategy title in the Command & Conquer franchise; Red Alert 2 was the direct sequel to Red Alert and followed its predecessor thematically and mechanically. It would be followed in 2001 by an expansion pack, Command & Conquer: Yuri’s Revenge, which added a third faction as well as additional units and fourteen new single player missions split up into two campaigns.
Red Alert 2 was also the first title to be finalized after Westwood and Electronic Arts had completed their merger and did not suffer the development problems that had plagued the previous title in the series: Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun. It also reflects some of the design changes that EA would begin to implement in the series, such as an increased focus on setting-based tropes (in this case Golden Age America and the Cold War) as well as a gradual lessening of the dichotomy that factions had displayed in previous games. Yet EA wisely chose to keep the story premise largely intact and to build closely off of developments that had occurred in Red Alert.
Red Alert 2 picks up where its predecessor left off. The Allies defeated the aggressive Soviet Union and established a puppet government to oversee reconstruction. Thus the Allies, including the newly arrived United States, were caught completely off guard when the Soviets began a secret re-militarization and launched a surprise attack on the United States from three directions. Initially the other Allied nations are not involved, but gradually join the war effort as Soviet aggression continues.
The player takes the role of a specially appointed American commander in the Allied campaign, or an up-and-coming Soviet commander in the Soviet campaign. Most of the missions take place in the United States and its territories, with Europe and Russia itself also featuring a number of locales in various missions. The missions, and the regions they take place in, are heavily thematic and geared towards making the game’s challenge, and Cold War feel, the centerpieces of design.
The Command & Conquer series always did a masterful job keeping the player at the center of the campaign’s narrative. The most important battles of the conflict serve as the missions of each campaign, with the commander taking a pivotal role in either stopping the Red Menace for good or completing the final conquest of the various Allied nations. The cutscenes and in-game cinematics are campy and perfectly reflect Golden Age Cinema techniques; they also don’t distract the commander from the RTS experience, keeping such elements as moral choice and NPC involvement to a minimum.
The portrayal of in-game units in the cinematics, as well as the perception that the commander is one of the first officers to gain access to new technology when it becomes available, keeps the immersion throughout cutscenes and missions. Some missions contain segments where particular units are required, but for the most part the player may choose whatever strategy that their current unit roster will facilitate. More advanced units and buildings are unlocked as the player progresses through the campaign; in multiplayer each faction’s roster is completely available for use.
Westwood RTS products have always been a little finicky when it comes to multiplayer games, but Red Alert 2 had a strong online following in its heyday, although it was admitted that the vanilla game was unbalanced in several aspects. Connection issues once a match has begun are rare and often more indicative of localized malfunctions instead of issues with the game itself. In the present day no public servers exist for online matches, but community run servers are still available for games between friends.
Red Alert 2’s AI does what it can given the conventions of RTS design at the time. In the campaign the AI can prove to be a very enjoyable opponent given its terrain advantages and often superior positioning. Most campaign missions are also of a substantial duration and can be accomplished through multiple strategies and tricks, warranting each faction’s campaign at least two-playthroughs. The Skirmish AI suffers without its campaign bonuses, as it follows predictable patterns and often fails to keep consistent pressure on the player. There are even cases where the AI will stop trying after a suffering a certain degree of setbacks. Yet for all its weaknesses, Skirmish mode does allow players to explore the game’s nuances at their leisure and test the capabilities of units in a more relaxed environment.
Red Alert 2 is widely considered to be one the of best Command & Conquer titles of all time. Its combination of fast-paced dynamic combat, traditional mechanics, and campy fun appealed to a wide range of gamers and also made it easy to learn and enjoyable to explore. Ironically the expansion pack Yuri’s Revenge upset that balance in the online arena, but self-imposed moderation in the online community as well as a host of balancing mods have kept the core game’s online experience intact. Red Alert 2 marks the high point of RTS gaming in the industry’s history and rightly remains one of the most beloved RTS titles of the first decade.
Red Alert 3
Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 is a real-time strategy game developed and produced by Electronic Arts, released in late 2008. EA had finally gone back to a longtime staple of the RTS genre, eight years after the release of the previous title in the series, Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2, and five years after closing down Westwood Studios, the original developer of the Command & Conquer franchise. EA had already released Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars in 2007 to great success and was wisely pursuing its foray into RTS with a revival of the other half of Westwood’s RTS legacy.
Red Alert 3 follows roughly the same formula of its predecessors. Players construct their chosen faction’s base around a central building alongside such requirements as power and proximity between structures, as well as requirements for unlocking higher level structures and units. Units are produced from their respective production facilities and Red Alert 3 features land, air, and naval combat, with many units capable of transitioning between these battle spaces. Resources take the form of ore, which in previous Red Alert titles was represented by fields of golden nuggets, but in Red Alert 3 has been boiled down to a neutral mine structure, reminiscent of Warcraft style gold mines, that harvesters automatically collect from.
Three factions are playable in Red Alert 3. The Allies and Soviets return with many familiar units as well as completely new developments, and the Japanese Empire of the Rising Sun is introduced combining tactical and strategic elements of both sides. The Soviet faction focuses on overwhelming numbers and powerful tanks and warships. The Allied faction features more heavy combat units than in previous Red Alert titles but still emphasizes defense and long ranged, powerful attacks. The Empire of the Rising Sun strikes a balance between the two with large numbers of adaptable, hard hitting units.
Three story campaigns allows players to fully utilize each faction as they play through the faction’s path to eventual victory in the three-way war that dominates the main plot. Here is where Red Alert 3’s innovative failures start to show. Instead of picking up where the series last left off, the current story begins by erasing everything that occurred in the previous games. The campaigns commence with a three-way brawl that plays out as a series of loosely connected missions chosen more for their memorable locales than for their relevance in the strategy of global war.
Red Alert 3 is the first Command & Conquer title to introduce campaign co-operative play, allowing two players to proceed through the missions against the AI. In single player mode a friendly AI represented by one of the faction’s characters takes the place of the second human player. This marks one of the first RTS titles to take the step into co-operative story modes and the missions are well balanced around them.
Unfortunately they are a bit too well balanced and suffer when a co-op player is not present. The AI replacement for a second player tends to lack the strategic finesse and resilience of a human player. While the player is still fully capable of handling the mission alone the imbalance of proficiency makes many of the challenges, especially timed missions, frustrating and stressful. Additionally the co-op feature was hosted through GamepSpy servers which were shutdown in 2013, rending the feature useless without a third party server hosting.
EA didn’t spare any expense when adding its own innovations to the Command & Conquer formula. The shift to mine based resource harvesting, the addition of unique abilities and modes for each unit, and the emphasis on rapid, high cost battles are all new to Command & Conquer’s style of play; and they don’t necessarily mix well. Strategic management and defensive tactics take a backseat to rapid key-binding skills and fast paced reactions. Units are, on average, lightly armored and heavily armed making battles costly and quick. The one-dimensional resource system also prevents the player from increasing or otherwise modifying their income without simply capturing more mines, a situation compounded by the fact that the limited income is rarely able to supply enough forces to hold off enemy attacks and secure a new location simultaneously.
Red Alert 3’s graphics introduce another of EA’s innovations, the Sage 2.0 graphics engine. The engine provides bright and somewhat cartoonish effects, which given the game’s camp portrayal is actually appropriate. The graphics moved easily even on modern machines of the time and most devices should have no trouble operating it. Sadly multiplayer for Red Alert 3 is officially non-existent, although third party servers provided by C&C Online support multiplayer and co-op.
As far as strategy games go Red Alert 3 is a fair presentation. One of EA’s traditional failings is to take familiar titles and re-brand them with what it believes to be market selling points, usually patterned off of Blizzard games. This is effectively what has been done here and many Starcraft players would recognize familiar traits and tropes in Red Alert 3’s gaming style. The game itself is entertaining although the story-line sacrifices immersion for comedic presentation. Yet as it is Red Alert 3 falls from a continuation of a legendary RTS series to just one more title among many in the strategy gaming market.
Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight
After Electronic Arts successfully continued the Command & Conquer saga with its releases of Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars and it’s expansion Kane’s Wrath in 2007 and 2008 respectively there was a great deal of hype and excitement when EA announced the fourth and final title of the current Tiberium saga: Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight. EA added to the hype by promising that Tiberian Twilight would introduce new mechanics and concepts never before tried in a Real-Time Strategy game. These would of course be appearing alongside such iconic C&C staples as live action movies, familiar faction units, and the desolate landscape of a tiberium-scarred earth.
One of the most important aspects about Tiberian Twilight is that it is a server based game requiring an active online connection to update the player’s profile. EA utilizes what they called an RPG style approach toward player profiles. As the player completed missions and won skirmish and multiplayer battles their profile gained experience which unlocked units and technologies of the faction that they played as. Once their profile reached enough experience for each faction they would be able to utilize all of the units, buildings, and technologies of those factions in any single player or multiplayer game. Each faction levels up separately, although the player need not create a different profile to play both factions. The game can be played without an internet connection and single player games are not interrupted if the connection is somehow lost, but the player’s profile will not gain experience in offline mode.
Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight does away with the old C&C convention of a single unit providing a central building from which a static base grows to provide the player with a fully advanced and capable army. Instead at the start of a game the player receives the option to choose from three different crawler units. Each crawler represents offensive, defensive, and support classes and the player will have access to different types of units and abilities depending on which class is chosen. The chosen crawler appears in a deployment zone and serves as both a unit and factory for all of the player’s units.
Crawlers are heavily armored and as the player unlocks more technologies the crawlers gain weapons, armor, and other defensive abilities. Like their MCV predecessors from previous C&C games crawlers must deploy to produce units which are produced almost instantly. The support class emphasizes air units and their crawler appropriately is an air unit, but it must still deploy to produce or call down other aircraft. If a player’s crawler is destroyed, or if the player wants to switch classes, a new crawler can be chosen and will appear in the same manner as the first one.
Each map in single player or multiplayer has several small landing pads on which green and blue tiberium crystals will routinely spawn. These crystals can be collected by ground units and carried back to the player’s deployment zone to unlock technologies and are an important point of contention for players as the player who gathers more crystals more quickly will have the better army in the early game. Once a player unlocks all of their units and technologies, the crystals provide small boosts to their victory point track.
Single player missions still feature traditional objectives and follow the game’s storyline in terms of the enemies and maps encountered. In skirmish and multiplayer modes victory is determined by a point track. The principle way to gain points is to control a majority of tiberium nodes around the map. Nodes are structures that can be captured by stationing more units than an opponent near the node for a certain amount of time. Battles over these nodes take place on arena style maps with AI controlled structures defending each faction’s deployment zones while the nods themselves are situated in the map’s central no-man’s land.
EA finalizes its changes to the C&C formula by introducing rock-paper-scissors style interaction between units based on their type and weapon. For example, machine guns are effective against infantry and light vehicles while laser weapons are effective against heavy vehicles and structures. A heavy unit with machine guns will be effective against infantry, but vulnerable to lasers, and vice versa. Some units deal enough raw damage to be somewhat effective against any threat, but the formula holds true for the arsenals of each class and faction.
The many changes to the RTS and C&C formulas that appear in Tiberian Twilight practically make it its own game with unique style and strategies. Sadly, this is perhaps the single greatest failure of the game and EA. If Tiberian Twilight had been produced as its own game, distinct from the style associated with its predecessors, it may have been far more successful and well received. Unfortunately it turns out to be another attempt by EA to project their own creative designs onto a classical franchise in an attempt to sell their own ideas on the shoulders of someone else’s giant.
The profile leveling system ensures that players cannot experience the full game until they’ve played dozens of hours of meaningless grinding. The fact that profiles can’t be leveled in offline mode slaves the players to a continual internet connection and makes offline mode a pointless option. Poor or even moderate latency will result in continual disconnects forcing players to reload games to continue gaining experience. The single player missions do not restrict a player’s units and buildings and are thus not balanced for any level of technology, which can confuse and frustrate new players.
The crawler based combat is hectic and clumsy at best. Units are thrown into a mosh-pit style battles with little chance for strategic planning and no possibility for territory control. The rock-paper-scissors dynamic to weapons is also a disappointment. Units have been marginalized from their distinctive roles in previous C&C titles into generic types that have little use if their intended opponent type is not present. Combat also devolves into players trading unit types as endless counters are swapped. Units die quickly to their hard-counters but practically ignore attacks from any other weapon type. This leaves players who maxed out their limited population cap with the wrong types completely out of luck until they suffer enough casualties to allow rebuilding.
The faction’s distinctive styles have also disappeared. The fast and stealthy Nod no longer clashes with the slow and steady GDI; now each faction is essentially a mirror match. Resources are no longer present so the only limitation on a player’s production is the population cap. This cap is far too small to control a significant portion of the map and players can find themselves kitted around by small groups of fast units stealing tiberium nodes while avoiding direct conflict.
Finally the game itself, for all its nostalgic units and references to previous C&C titles, lacks theme and flair. It is a boring slug-fest where units without identity or history clash on generic and alien battlefields for objectives with no tangible accomplishments or definable impact on their opponents. There is no sense of accomplishment or ownership for the player profile, only a grind to unlock units, which should rightly be available from the start, until the full tech tree is unlocked. The fact that players have to work to experience and enjoy a game they paid for in full is itself an unforgivable sin.
Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight had a lot of ideas that, taken by themselves, could have been very successful. Mashed together they ensure that yet another attempt by EA to match the MOBA and Starcraft environments has only succeeded in ruining another beloved gaming franchise. If Tiberian Twilight had at least been marketed as a different game instead of trying to usurp the C&C series it might have stood a chance; but many fans were left feeling cheated and frustrated by the alien style and disorienting focus of gameplay.
Fans who want to see the Tiberium saga played out need only invest about a dozen hours into completing the campaigns and will find that purchasing the game on sale is about equal to the value; but they should avoid buying the game at EA’s full retail price. Any other gamer hoping for a fulfilling RTS experience, or gaming experience in general, should not waste the money and time on Tiberian Twilight; a sad end that such a storied franchise did not deserve.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth II
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth was very well received by series fans and real-time strategy gamers and is arguably the best RTS representation of the Lord of the Rings trilogy yet produced. When Electronic Arts announced the upcoming release of The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth II fans were energized not so much with the prospect of new campaign content by with a newer and more expanded chance to enjoy the Lord of the Rings mythology. Its release in 2006 garnered a great deal of praise and sold very well but its failure to continue the Battle for Middle Earth series hints at some unfortunate shortcomings in the design.
Battle for Middle Earth II changed a great deal of the gameplay mechanics that its predecessor introduced. Bases are no longer static locations but are now made up of individual buildings constructed by workers. Base size was also indeterminate as resource buildings need a certain amount of free space around them to generate resources efficiently. A central fortress building constructs workers, trains heroes, and functions as a command center for the player.
Unit production and composition also received an overhaul. Buildings still need to reach higher levels to produce more advanced units but instead of leveling as units are produced the player must purchase building tier upgrades. The units themselves increase in squad size with most units now holding ten units and some evil faction squads holding twenty.
There are six factions in BFME II but only two from the first title make an unaltered appearance. The forces of Good have been merged into the Men of the West, essentially the Gondor faction with Rohan cavalry. Elves and Dwarves round out the forces of good and are ranged against Isengard, Mordor, and the new Goblin faction. Each faction features its own unit and building roster and many of the heroes from the previous game have been divided up among their respective races; new heroes were also introduced to round out the new factions.
The single player elements include good and evil campaigns, a War of the Ring mode, and of course skirmish mode. The campaigns focus on each side’s perspective of the War in the North, a parallel conflict to the battles in the south during the War of the Ring that were mentioned but not covered in J.R.R. Tolkien’s books. Some battles like Mordor’s attack on Dale and Erebor come from the original work while other missions like the goblin attack on the Grey Havens were developed specifically for the game.
The War of the Ring mode is perhaps BFME II’s most intriguing feature. The entirety of Middle Earth is divided into a regional world map similar to the mission map from the first game. Players take on the role of one of the six factions in a battle for supremacy over all of Middle Earth against other factions, which can be of any race regardless of alignment. Two regional buildings can be constructed in each region and are also present in real time battles that take place in the region. For example the Fortress forces a battle whenever the territory is invaded when normally only strongholds like Helm’s Deep or Minas Tirith provoke a confrontation with invading armies.
Each faction has three armies, led by the faction’s three main heroes, that can move one region per turn and re-spawn in the player’s home territory if defeated. Other armies without a leader can be raised by regional production buildings for defense or reinforcement but cannot invade hostile territories. Resource buildings on the global map generate resources that are used to purchase buildings in other regions or train units for armies. A global population cap limits the number of units on the regional map. Armies always gain a worker unit when engaged in real time combat and can produce any unit or building during the battle regardless of the units the army actually contains.
Another innovation that generated a lot of excitement was the hero creator system. Utilizing several templates for appearance, race, faction, and class players could create heroes that would utilize certain abilities of various tiers and take on roles similar to those filled by the standard faction heroes. These created heroes could not be used in the campaign but were available in skirmish, War of the Ring, and multiplayer. During creation the players adjusted bars that related to stats like health, damage, and special abilities to determine the focus and balance of the hero. In general these created heroes were not especially comparable to faction heroes but still provided very unique flavor.
These changes made BFME II its own fully enclosed game and EA did a very fine job balancing the different races (except the Elves whose unbalanced archer upgrades had to be fixed through patches). That is both a strength and a weakness of the game as players who enjoyed the first Battle for Middle Earth because of its gameplay will find little to endear them to the sequel. At the same time many of the mechanics EA introduced would not have functioned properly in the first game’s style.
In fact that is possibly BFME II’s greatest failing. Any attempt it made to directly improve upon the original was a failure. EA advertised larger units and bigger battles and, while squads were bigger, population readjustment ensured that there actually wasn’t a difference in models or numbers of units on the field. Dynamic base building and the standardization of lower tier unit rosters (every faction has an infantry, archer, pikeman, and cavalry unit) caused the factions to lose a great deal of their unique flavor and feel. Special powers, which increased in number dramatically in BFME II, also become standardized even at higher tiers among the factions causing a lockstep of strategies regardless of which faction was played.
The campaign also failed to deliver the same feel of epic struggle that the first game provided. Most of the missions play like the great siege battles from the first Battle for Middle Earth but lack a sense of scale and also restrict gameplay due to map and objective limitations preventing players from exploring the races and mechanics they are using. Special powers also fell flat as the players are mechanically prevented from generating enough power points to unlock the full tree of powers available and if they finish the missions too quickly may not unlock higher tier powers at all.
The War of the Ring goes a long way to redressing these issues through increased re-playability and greater freedom for the player, but brings its own shortcomings as well. Movement is far too limited in relation to the player’s ability to defend home territories. Armies move too slowly and marauding enemies can conquer any region that lacks an army or defending fortress with impunity. Also aside from annoying and petty tactics the AI is for the most part incompetent, attacking the same territories repeatedly and following little rhyme or reason in its utilization of units and heroes.
By itself BFME II is a decent game with numerous options to explore and a great deal of good old fashioned RTS combat to enjoy. At higher tiers factions gain a great deal of unique abilities and high level battles can be very entertaining. The hero creation system is nothing like an RPG but is a fun way to mix up traditional skirmish battles. Yet anytime BFME II tries to assert itself into the Battle for Middle Earth series as a sequel or improvement it fails to measure up to expectations in almost every way. Another major point that does little to affect gameplay but is worth mentioning on behalf of Lord of the Rings franchise fans is that the units and heroes EA made up to fill in racial gaps feel downright alien. They are balanced and they can be fun but in no way would they ever feel natural in the original trilogy’s books or films.
Fans of Lord of the Rings will have to temper their genre love with appreciation for innovation to enjoy this game, but there is still a lot of Middle Earth to experience with the new single player modes. Most RTS fans will at least find BFME II a familiar addition to the genre and a far better title than many modern RTS games. Hard core gamers are ironically the most likely to enjoy BFME II as its gameplay panders to fast battles and micro-management. In all situations the game would be welcome in any RTS library but probably shouldn’t be purchased outside of a sale.
Command & Conquer 3: Kane’s Wrath
A Command & Conquer title is just not the same without an expansion pack to accompany it and flesh out its content. C&C expansions come from the golden age of expansions when gamers could expect at the least new units, missions, and multiplayer maps if not full fledged campaigns and new factions. Thankfully Electronic Arts has not departed from this model with its expansion to Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars; Command & Conquer 3: Kane’s Wrath.
Each of the three main factions receives new units and support powers. Many of these units, like the GDI Slingshot anti-air unit, were added to remove deficiencies in existing faction rosters or new gaps that arose as a result of the new minor factions. Epic units, one for each side, were also introduced as super powerful vehicles capable of crushing lesser units and could be customized by loading infantry into their hard points to add secondary weapons. The new toys are worth a few games just to play with and are enjoyable for the most part but can still be overshadowed by high tier units.
Following after its successful implementation of minor factions in Command & Conquer: Generals EA chose to add two minor factions to each major faction in Kane’s Wrath. The minor factions focus on a particular strategy or aspect of their parent faction; like flame weapons and heavy infantry for the Brotherhood of Nod or sonic weaponry and tiberium immunity for GDI. Minor factions also receive build restrictions in exchange for their specializations; one GDI minor faction can only produce basic infantry units but gets a strong boost to its armored units. Many of the new units added by Kane’s Wrath are unique to the minor factions; some are entirely new and others are improvements of existing designs to match them with their respective minor faction’s emphasis.
The campaign for Kane’s Wrath is less filled out then the rest of the game as its 13 missions only feature the Brotherhood of Nod as the playable faction. The campaign is still very well done with strong narrative and many entertaining missions. Players will also get to utilize each of Nod’s minor factions to their fullest and will also encounter the other minor factions as enemies throughout the course of the campaign. Sadly it can only serve as a blueprint for the campaign experience that could have been; the lack of a similar model for the other two factions puts a damper on the player’s ability to enjoy the new minor factions in a narrative environment.
Perhaps the most innovative addition that Kane’s Wrath brings is the Global Conquest mode. This single player options presents a turn based world map where the player, as one of the three major factions, builds bases, raises armies, and conducts global warfare against the other two factions. Bases can be upgraded with defenses and tech levels to allow them to produce armies with stronger units.
Armies can be moved a set distance across the map, or ferried between bases on different continents. When opposing armies meet or an army attacks an enemy base the battle can be auto-resolved or played out in real-time in a manner resembling a skirmish battle. However if the attacking army does not include base-building units it will not be able to construct a base and if the defending base has high enough technology and defenses it will be able to produce advanced units a the start of the game, tying in developments on the strategic level with tactical combat.
The Global Conquest mode compensates somewhat for the lack of a full campaign. Players can enjoy what each faction has to offer at length. The AI in this mode is essentially a basic Skirmish AI and is competent enough to manage the world map effectively. However its tactical capacities are lacking on lower difficulty settings and don’t always mesh in capability with the AI’s performance on the world map; making for a somewhat dichotomous experience. On the flip-side it is usually fairly easy for the player to establish a continental stronghold thus allowing the full extent of the mode’s options to be tested at length.
Multiplayer sees little improvement from C&C 3. The new minor factions can offer interesting tactical opportunities, but some limitations on their tech tree limit tactical flexibility; generally making the main factions the safer and well-rounded option. Perhaps the greatest tragedy for multiplayer was the lack of inclusion for Global Conquest mode. Granted the mode features only three factions so a multiplayer version would have been either incredibly limited or PvP only but the option still would have been a great benefit to the game; all the more so if a co-op feature had been included.
Kane’s Wrath isn’t needed to make C&C 3 a great game; the full package was already there. The minor factions are a welcome addition for expanding skirmish and multiplayer gameplay, but the lack of campaign options to enjoy them at leisure detracts a bit from their impact. However the Global Conquest mode suffers only from the somewhat mediocre performance of the AI at lower difficulty levels. In all other aspects it is a very ambitious and enjoyable experience with a smooth design that needs only the ability to share it with a friend. Kane’s Wrath isn’t its own game, but it expands C&C 3 to the fullest possible extent.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth
Its inevitable that successful book, and to a greater degree film, franchise will spawn numerous titles in different media. The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth is not Electronic Arts’ first foray into J.R.R. Tokien’s Middle Earth but is certainly EA’s best. Following on the heels of Liquid Entertainment’s and Sierra Entertainment’s The Lord of the Rings: War of the Ring, The Battle for Middle Earth is the second real time strategy game to be set on Middle Earth during the War of the Ring and events of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Unlike many previous game titles The Battle for Middle Earth is based exclusively off the interpretation of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings film trilogy.
The Battle for Middle Earth takes a new approach to RTS play. Bases are now constructed from pre-located build slots in circular base layouts of varying sizes, each categorized by the number of building slots it provides (i.e. a stronghold provides six build slots while a citadel provides eight). Units are unlocked as their production centers level up through increased use. Most troop units come in groups, with five being standard for cavalry and human units while ten is more common for orcs. Upgrades are applied to each individual unit for a price and remain fixed, even if the unit suffers losses. Special powers, familiar to players of EA’s Command & Conquer Generals, make a comeback as special or passive abilities acquired by purchasing them from a tree that unlocks more options as the player purchases more powers. Power points are acquired through destroying enemy units and structures.
The power trees are divided between good and evil teams. In the campaign these are shared by the two factions that make up each team, but the trees are split in multiplayer with the factions sharing some powers but keeping others for themselves. The four playable factions are the great participants in the War of the Ring: Gondor, Isengard, Mordor, and Rohan. Good and Evil aligned factions share similar traits, for example only Good aligned factions can build walls and only Evil aligned factions have powers that boost their economic ability. In keeping with the thematic presentations of the films each faction features its own artistic style and for the most part possess unique unit and building trees. The designs are very flavorful and surprisingly well balanced. Some factions lack the diverse build options of others (Isengard is pretty one-dimensional and Rohan can only choose from six units) but their unique designs leave few holes for enemy teams to exploit.
The heroes of Middle Earth make an appearance as well. Seven of the Fellowship can be trained between Gondor and Rohan (only Sam and Frodo are restricted to the campaign), and these are supplemented by the royals of Rohan and Boromir’s brother Faramir. Heroes are a lacking aspect for the Evil team, with Isengard offering two and Mordor deploying three aerial Nazgul. These are powerful heroes, but far less flashy and unique than their good counterparts. This is not a design error so much as a thematic choice; the Evil factions are able to field a far greater amount of troops and unit types than the Good factions, making the heroes more of a counterweight than an exploitation.
The story for the Battle for Middle Earth’s campaign is the story of the Lord of the Rings, primarily as told by Peter Jackson’s film trilogy. Players can come to this game and reasonably expect its story to be entertaining. Even knowing the ending is no spoiler since the outcome hinges on the player’s success in scripted mission such as the Siege of Minas Tirith or Sam’s liberation of Frodo at Cirith Ungol. While the game’s cinematic openings may promise a grander scale than the mission’s scripting and capacity can actually deliver players trekking through the Good campaign can expect massive battles and sieges where their hero units can shine against overwhelming numbers of orcs, Uruk-hai, and trolls. The Evil campaign is even more exciting to experience as the player challenges the established outcomes of the trilogy. EA admittedly had to take some creative licensing with missions like Mordor’s subjugation of Harad or Isengard’s assault on Edoras, but since the Evil campaign boils down to the forces of darkness winning the War of the Ring scenarios like these are logical conclusions.
All of the fantastic elements of Middle Earth make an appearance including Ents, giant eagles, the Army of the Dead, and even the Balrog. Battles between scripted missions generally play like skirmish battles which can lead to some repetitive experiences depending on how long the player wants to continue the campaign (the player can finish the campaign before all of Middle Earth is conquered). However each mission has a minor bonus objective unique to that region; they don’t need to be completed to win the region but completing the objective eases the player’s fight against their opponent. Once the player finishes a capstone scripted mission (Minas Tirith for Good and Osgiliath for Evil) towards the later half of the campaign all of southern Middle Earth is available for conquest by any of the armies the player previously used in earlier missions.
For its time Battle for Middle Earth was a graphically advanced game. There are few flashy explosions but the minutiae of the game is very well detailed. This does the story of the War of the Ring the service its due, but can lead to massive performance issues on a machine which runs closer to the minimum system requirements. Little of the gameplay experience is lost on lower graphics settings, but having to play in fear of a game ending crash is a worry that can always be done away with. As with most EA RTS games the multiplayer connection can be finicky during launch; dropping players for no apparent reason. Thankfully this is not a crippling side effect; it has no long lasting effects and is a fairly rare occurrence.
Playing through the campaigns for the Good and Evil teams pretty much encompasses the full single player experience. Eighteen scripted missions and over thirty regions to conquer make for hours upon hours of gameplay. Each faction’s full tech tree is available as the campaign progresses, with the power point special powers taking the longest to unlock. Available skirmish maps include all of the non-scripted missions (sadly, the Siege of Minas Tirith can only be replayed through saves and new campaigns). Supporting two to eight players with several different types player setups (some regions only have outposts for starting locations where others offer citadels).
The game’s AI is competent but not spectacular. It follows logical paths for the deployment of infantry, cavalry, siege units and such. However its use of powers is quite predictable and on anything below the hardest difficulty the AI’s penchant for expansion is little to none. As a flip side however this one of the few EA RTS games were the learning curve is more stable. Casual players may find even the normal AI to pose little challenge but the more relaxed pace allows players to level their heroes and unlock powers before the end game.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth is by far the most flavorful and thematic Lord of the Rings RTS to date with immaculate attention to detail and a very immersive and entertaining single player campaign. Fans of the trilogy, especially the movies, will enjoy the movie references and familiar scenes. RTS gamers may find the unique game elements confusing and perhaps boring, but like any good RTS game the heart of the experience is combat and here Battle for Middle Earth does not disappoint. For whatever reason the Battle for Middle Earth is not available for online download through any store; but even at full price this game is worth the purchase for any player, casual or skilled, who wants to run the battles of the War of the Ring.
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars
After the dissolution of Westwood Studios in 2003 the Real Time Strategy market experienced a general stagnation in productivity. Several companies continued to produce stand alone RTS titles and some spinoffs but suffered from a lack of stylistic direction as they attempted to formulate new templates of RTS gameplay separate from the Blizzard and Westwood formats. In this period gamers were introduced to a lot of different RTS mechanics and interfaces; yet none of them were able to compare with the genre setting giants of old until Electronic Arts introduced a new title in the Command & Conquer series: Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars.
Command & Conquer 3 revived the long absent Command & Conquer series; bringing with it the familiar standards of the Westwood RTS format such as a central Construction Yard, refinery resource processing, and flashy explosive late game battles. Most skirmish battles, multi-player battles, and single player missions start the player off with little more than a construction yard from which the player must construct a base and army in order to crush their opponents. Base and army building follow the standard Westwood format with higher tier buildings unlocking more advanced units and abilities. Power plants are required in increasing numbers to maintain a growing base and base defenses are divided by their effectiveness against different unit types.
The series’ principle factions, GDI and Nod, return to continue their struggle over the eponymous resource tiberium and their differing views on its terramorphic properties. The game’s storyline picks up not long after the series’ previous title Command & Conquer Tiberian Sun and its expansion Firestorm. Reminiscent of previous C&C games players begin the campaign with a limited tech tree; benefiting from more units and abilities as the campaign progresses. Missions include the old RTS fares like escort missions, base defense, and territory control. Yet unlike older RTS titles Command & Conquer 3 spices up these familiar missions with more appropriate strategies and units; often taking the unique tactical situation of each mission as a chance to introduce the player to a new unit type. Stealth missions will utilize Snipers teams and Juggernaut artillery or Commandos and Stealth Tanks. A feature not unheard of but seriously underused in previous RTS games.
Support powers, available on the left hand side of the screen as the buildings required for them are built, make an appearance in the mainline C&C series for the first time. These powers require a certain amount of cash to be used and must recharge between uses; they also require a line of sight on their target. Some powers are more useful in a multiplayer setting against human players and, sadly, many rapidly become obsolete as the tech tree is unlocked. However many can be used to game changing effect and overall the support powers should be actively utilized; particularly in the single player campaign.
The single player campaign is undoubtedly C&C 3’s strongest feature. Following the vein established by earlier Westwood games the campaign for both factions follows a series of story-driven missions where the player completes a series of objectives, often gradually unlocked as the player progresses through the mission. New units and structures are made available each mission until the faction’s full arsenal is unlocked. The enemies each faction faces vary as the missions go by and some missions will involve the player facing off against two enemies. Unlike older titles which feature supposed ‘bitter enemies’ ignoring their differences to attack the player; in C&C 3 three way battles remain a constantly fluctuating contest between all three factions (some brief ceasefires do appear).
The Scrin, a new playable race that EA has introduced to the Tiberium series of C&C games, is an alien race based off of hints and plot elements from earlier titles in the Tiberium series. The Scrin are very dependent on tiberium and many of their strategies revolve around it; they also feature more heavily specialized units and a greater reliance on aircraft than other factions. Although their short, unlockable campaign provides only a brief glimpse at their faction history and story it still provides challenging missions and entertaining cinematics (all CGI however).
Live action cut scenes and cinematics reappear with renewed visual splendor. Each mission is interspersed with a live action briefing prefacing the situation the player will face in the upcoming mission and its relevance to the faction’s overall goal. The acting and dialogue could certainly be called campy but is far more enjoyable as the characters struggle with the increasingly complex situations the game’s plot thrusts them into. For what could be the first time in RTS history the characters actually sympathize with the player when real time situations turn grim. Settings come alive with numerous extras and improved background visuals. The only thing sadly missing are the old Westwood endgame videos; sadly few if any in-game units are seen in CGI animation. In a masterful move by EA the story of C&C 3 is concise enough that players need not have played the older C&C games to follow the story (although their enjoyment of the cutscenes is enhanced by familiarity with the series).
Following on the heels of EA’s last C&C title, Command & Conquer: Generals, C&C 3 features a very vivid display with heat waves, sonic pulses, and dust clouds all beautifully rendered alongside vibrant explosions and flying wreckage. While beautiful this does exact a heavy toll on graphics utilities and PCs with up to date graphics cards and drivers are recommended for anything beyond the barest visual experience when running C&C 3.
Skirmish mode varies little from previous C&C titles. Map options ranging from 2 to 8 players are available and players can set the amount of starting cash they begin with as well as special options like bonus crates and allowing superweapons. Although playing with a faction’s full tech tree is inevitably entertaining the game’s AI can be predictable and varies widely in its skill between difficulty levels making for a poor learning curve. EA mitigates this somewhat by allowing players to select archetypes for the AI personality such as Rusher or Turtler. Games also tend to be fast paced with the winner or loser often decided within the first ten minutes. While this is preferable for many gamers it does deprive anyone wishing to explore and enjoy a faction’s tech tree of more than a few opportunities to test strategies and units.
Multiplayer in C&C 3 is smooth and consistent. Sadly it suffers from the same flaws as the skirmish mode, namely predictable AI and a poor learning curve. However the large number of map options and quick gameplay fare far better in a multiplayer setting and combine with easy multiplayer setup to allow a large number of diverse games to be played in short order.
Newer gamers, particularly those familiar with RTS games but not with older C&C titles, might find C&C 3’s rehash of Westwood’s style dated and perhaps even simplistic. Fans of the C&C series will love this game and although EA’s touch has made subtle changes to the old Westwood formula the favorite elements of C&C, particularly its entertaining and immersive single player experience, return in new and vibrant glory. Command & Conquer 3 brings back all that was good about old school RTS gaming. Newer gamers will also enjoy C&C 3’s rich single player campaign. Anyone who is a fan of the RTS genre should find this title a refreshing rework of the old RTS giants and C&C 3 by far is the best RTS game to be produced in the late 2000s.