I was also given a copy of C&C4. In link form. If ya know what I mean.
It still wasn't worth it. Deleted it before I even made it out of the tutorial-type missions.
It had come up on some forum, and I said something to the effect of "it might not be good, but it CAN'T be as bad as all the rage." The provider of the link said pretty much exactly the same as I am now, but invited me to see for myself.
Somewhere back in this thread I posted an angry rant about everything wrong with that game. Calm, two-sentence version:
The story is aweful because Kane's basically harmless plan is both lame and out of character for the great villian that the series spent four previous games building up, meanwhile Colonel James is portrayed as some kind of extremist for coming to the logical conclusion that Kane was up to no good, while Rios gets to give the victory speech at the end because her head-in-the-sand Neville Chamberlain insistence that Kane could be trusted turned out to right in roughly the way a stopped clock is right twice a day, with the end result that the ending comes off as completely arbitrary and cynical and robs the player of any sense of achievement.
The gameplay is aweful because EA thought it would be a good idea to completely rewrite the gameplay into an undesirable C&C/DOTA hybrid where concepts like bases and economy are abandoned in favor of a weird sort of stalemate-prone attrition warfare because crippling the opponent's infrastructure is impossible when the entire infrastructure is wrapped up in one vehicle that doesn't need to harvest resources because it builds units for free and said vehicle
respawns for free if destroyed, meaning that there's no way to actually have the satisfaction of smashing your opponent, instead you have to get more arbitrary "victory points" which generally have little to do with actually dominating you opponent, meanwhile the battles are essentially squad-based because of a headcount limit that prevents you from having more than 16 units even with the cheapest infantry.
