Talk:Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight

Reception

"Tiberian Twilight was released to mixed to positive reviews" -> I think this statement causes confusion. Either the reception is negative, mixed or positive. Also if we are to use a "range" then it should be from "negative to positive," as supported by the facts from the reviews. What do you guys think? 210.4.96.73 (talk)

Removed "Adidaz thought the game was way too colorful and reminded him too much of manga." from the Reception section as it was uncited and quite possibly vandalism. 124.148.188.189 (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Beta-Testing NDA in effect

The beta-testing NDA allows discussion of the Beta outside of the forums, but prohibits posting of videos and screenshots of the game in Beta. Official EA media (reachable by the general public) is allowed. Viet|Pham (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Korean flag on screenshot?

http://gamespot.zdnet.co.kr/ArticleView.asp?artice_id=20090710112829, look at this. Maybe this means that Korea will be a sub-faction in C&C4 for GDI.--Younghyun0403 (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the large ship above it clearly has the Stars and Stripes. I don't think I've seen any real-world flags or symbols on GDI hardware before. That's cool. Anyhow, this is not a forum for discussing the game. --MrStalker ^(talk) 13:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Rember GDI is a international Front so its forces would be compirsed of nations so this means propblay no korea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaik9a (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Title

As of right now the title of the game is simply Command & Conquer 4. There is no sub-title & EA is currently having a contest to determine the sub-title [1]. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 19:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your info is clearly outdated: Official blog. --MrStalker ^(talk) 08:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So the OFFICIAL WEBSITE is wrong, but a blog is right; I'm just saying... 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 15:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. --MrStalker ^(talk) 20:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

From official website: "THIS COMPETITION HAS NOW CLOSED. THANKS TO THOSE WHO ENTERED. WINNERS WILL BE CONTACTED VIA EMAIL." --Salvadorbs (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The sub-title is now official! Don4of4 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting information in the article

I don’t know if it is me or not but there is clear conflicting information in the article like:

That Tiberian Twilight is the final chapter in the Tiberian series - (as in the last one).

And Tiberian Twilight is not the end of Tiberian series - the series is set to continue (its only Kane’s story arc that is being closed up.)

It can’t be both!!!

There is no difference between Kane's story arc ending and the series ending. Kane is the series! LONG LIVE THE PROPHET! Actually they've said both, so until they say either one again it'll stay both.Toxic Ninja (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

EALA's Samuel Bass (Designer, Storywriter, and Campaign director) stated that "C&C4 would be the end of the Tiberium Saga, but not the end of the Tiberium series". Currently, EALA is having serious community issues over complaints about the game (gameplay, story, and technical problems) which have escalated to dominate the entirety of their forums. EA's company policies mean that if a single game title bombs, the franchise (or studio after acquisition) is liquidated. Because EALA makes other games, it's likely that C&C will be terminated over the failure of C&C4 to meat critic's and community standards. EPOC has publicly stated on their forums that fan support will solely determine whether or not the franchise will continue. In my personal opinion, which I've gained from pattern recognition with EA, is that C&C4 literally may mark the end of command & conquer itself, possibly including Red Alert as well. The economy for EA is very bad, they have lost over $2 billion in net profits in the last 2 years. There's a small but strong possibility EALA may be merged with another studio, or unlikely just liquidated to free up money. If C&C4 had succeeded I really don't understand how this original statement about the 'saga' ending would have made sense anyway, so you don't worry about this problem anymore - it isn't really too official anyway, and will probably be altered. If an EXP pack is to actually be made, it will be announced shortly anyway. **EDIT: sorry but it looks like EALA will probably not be continuing C&C anymore, a new interview with Sam Bass is online addressing the issue directly: "http://www.gamereplays.org/commandandconquer4/portals.php?show=news&news_id=597610&home" 01:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.122.133 (talk)

Criticism

The game has received a lot of criticism from old players, especially directed towards EA, but I don't know where I could find something I could cite. 24.144.116.147 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the criticism has come directly from EA cheerleaders and bloggers who have had problems with the "Always Online DRM" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately most of the complaints you will see are on the closed Beta forum which is invisible to people not in the beta. --Zero Serenity (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the NDA has been modified. But until the game is released and the game reviewers get a hold of it, it'll be nigh on impossible to find a reliable citation. Viet|Pham (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Eurogamer gave the game a pretty bad review, for single player and the plot. They complained about the locked units and the other rubbish that ruined the online experience, all that was mined from the bottom of an empty coke bucket. If anyone can site on the Devs getting fired? Did this really happen several times during development? There's plenty of bad reviews from major reviewers, EA officially announced they were done with Kane as far as the tiberium story goes. I think these things might clear up how this thing failed so horribly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.122.133 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Need a source to cite for user reviews? Try the Amazon page. [2] Very scathing reviews. --MrSeagull (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Amazon user reviews are not a reliable source. Regards SoWhy 17:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a clarification in regards to the choice of game reviews available at the bottom of this article. See, there is a statement that says that Gamespy is the source that gave this game the lowest score possible which is a 50% rating. But another game reviews source called Destructoid gave this game Command & Conquer 4 a score of 3.0 out of 10.0 which is a 30% rating, which is a lot lower than that of Gamespy's. Should we include the Destructoid review into the list of quotable references in the "Reception" section? Is Destructoid a quote-worthy source for this article? See this link for more info: http://www.destructoid.com/review-command-conquer-4-tiberian-twilight-168364.phtml210.24.208.173 (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Destructoid is a multi-author blog and as such generally not a reliable source that can be included. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Situational sources for more details on this special case but the basic premise is this: Content from this page can only be included if the author can be established as reliable which is probably not possible. Regards SoWhy 10:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that these "reliable resources" are depending on advertisements sold to the same publishers they review? The differences between the reviews by "reliable resources" and user rated reviews are striking. The result might be, that this page (and the rating specific) are more a representation of commercial interests instead of a representation of the game's real reception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.86.0.186 (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Observing the forums on EA's website for C&C4 is pretty revealing of a critical reception, as EPOC has stated that the future of the entire franchise lies in 'constructive criticism' from the overwhelming majority of the community there. This suggest the complains have reached beyond EALA and that EA may be preparing to liquidate the franchise due to poor reviews. Metacritic.com is currently following the game with an average professional review of 66%, and a user rating of 2.4 out of 10. It appears criticism has 'officially' reached a point threatening the future of the series itself - following APOC on twitter under 'EA_APOC' also has this message posted after several tweets concerning negative feedback about C&C4. This should probably be added, as I'm not sure how much more officially this can be stated before a cancellation itself is formally announced or not. It's certainly worth noting. 01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.122.133 (talk)

I don't know if it's citable or not, but the Command and Conquer fanbase has complained about Tiberium Twilight on the Command and Conquer facebook page since it's release in March. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/commandandconquer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.183.17 (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Site updated

The Tiberian Twilight site has been updated.

Story Synopsis

That section needs to be UPDATED as soon as someone finishes with the game's campaigns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.55.218.206 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I really want to see who kane is so I can see wether I should by the game or not!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.212.161 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

both endings are on youtube and virtually nothing is explained kane just walks into the gate and disappears and so does his followers

i must say even though my expectations for this game werent especially high the story is a disappointment of absurdly monolithic proportions, the part about "kanes true motivations" being uncovered should be deleted since nothing of the sort happens its already been stated in the last game that those were his intentions 24.17.211.150 (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

thats crap. But can someone ASAP put up the plot for this game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.132.34 (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Kane is an alien and just wants to go back to his home planet. Tiberium dissappears once he goes through a portal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.210.115 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

well, all the cutscenes are on youtube now 24.17.211.150 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

March 16th, 2010: The day that the Command and Conquer Series died in a horrible death, by intentional tiberium poisoning by the EA staff.

Note, I actually thought that C&C 3 Tiberium Wars was the best of the series even though it was made by EA, and I also think that most EA games are very enjoyable. Unfortunately though, EA crapped up this game so much to the point that it is part of the noble C&C line only by name and the names of the factions; other than that, it is a totally new game. I thought it was crap and that there are many different discontinuities in C&C 4 from the rest of the C&C line. For example, in Tib. Sun(C&C 2), Kane needed Tratos in order to translate the Tacitus; however, in the GDI ending of C&C 4, Kane states that he made the Tacitus ("The TCN and your implant, both came from the Tacitus, which came from me"). Also, in both endings, the player is killed (GDI: shot by your commander for letting Kane go through the portal, Kane says thank you and then you die; Nod: shot by the same commander and Kane doesn't even thank you; he just leaves you for dead. (THAT SOB!)). Finally, the C&C line for tiberium would not end, but would apparently end Kane's story ark. In my thinking, C&C without the classic GDI vs Nod is not C&C at all, but I must add that I think it would be interesting to see a GDI vs Scrin invasion. 204.126.132.34 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that was me above, I was just logging in from a school computer when I made that post. I did not do any vandalism on wikipedia, as the talk page for the ip says. Mammothmk2 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia still is not a place for you publish your own analysis. Use a blog or a forum for that. Regards SoWhy 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The plot has been added and updated, unfortunately there is little to no story within the playable campaign, so only elements told in the cut-scenes are described. What little plot there was is extremely open ended, I've described everything that was concluded, or marked elements as 'presumed'. 07:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.122.133 (talk)

Looks like EA logged in to write there own version of the plot. Half of it isn't even IN the game, it's conclusions drawn by the observer. I don't care enough to fix it though. Someone might want to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.122.133 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

commanders perspective

I think something should be added about the commanders point of view especially about the part where most of the cutscenes show it in his first person perspective and the fact that he has a wife who keeps calling him "honey" Traineater (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

and the commander has an implant planted in him making him a kind of robocop, and we get his first person perspective of walking around the ship and stuff Traineater (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

True this game took a new form of perspective, C&C TS had a 3rd person cut-scene perspective. It was changed by removing the player character (you had played as a talking character) in FS, cited as 'believing it was mistake to tell the story this way'. C&C3 played the same perspective as C&C FS. However for some strange reason in C&C4 you also play as the same character, (with the same wife, with the same implant) regardless of whether you play NOD or GDI, the ending is linear as-well. There were only 4 or 5 sets, one of which was a blue screen. The remainder of scenes, which were news casts, were rendered within a CGI mock-up of your implant-o-vision, and one scene was the battle cast desk - including the battle cast actor himself, while all the others were actually randomly shot groups of people and scenery around Los Angeles. This isn't an opinion, but it appears that the cut-scenes were extremely low budget and we're mostly a cameraman silently interacting with 1 repeat actor besides Kane. The sets themselves were extremely small and relatively simple mock-ups. 07:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.122.133 (talk)

End of? No source?

The plot states that this is the end of the kane story arc, and while I do not disagree, it seems to me that without this being confirmed by someone in EA games, this is purely speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.42.20 (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)