Multiplayer and the Final Score

Kane’s Wrath multiplayer is as frenetic and chaotic as ever, which is to say that it remains mostly unchanged from C&C 3. The new units and epics add more counters and strategies to the battlefield, but not to the point where the core principles are broken. I’ve spoken out before about my disdain for RTS multiplayer titles in general, and after my experiences with Kane’s Wrath, my grievances remain unchanged. But I can hardly fault this game for problems I see in the genre as a whole. The Scrin still seem overpowered, evidenced by several quick defeats and many multiplayer games called "no scrin," but for every player claiming a faction is overpowered there’s another one with a perfect counter-strategy. Time will tell if the expansion unbalances the game as players work out strategies with the new units and buildings.

My big complaint about Kane’s Wrath doesn’t amount to much but it was an aggravation I had with C&C 3, as well. It’s the kind of thing I hoped would be fixed with the expansion. Many times during single-player missions the objectives will change mid-mission. For example, you may be asked to capture a building and then told to defend it after you’ve captured it. If you don’t already have the area defended or a standing army nearby, chances are you’ll fail the mission and be forced to start the whole thing over from the beginning. This could be easily addressed with an autosave feature that saves every time the objectives change. Like I said, it isn’t a big complaint but it caused me some frustration.

Kane’s Wrath is a by-the-numbers expansion adding new units and abilities to spice up the gameplay of Command & Conquer 3. The single-player campaign doesn’t push the story into new areas like other great expansions in the past but the Global Conquest strategy mode brings a new flavour to classic C&C gameplay. Kane’s Wrath doesn’t play with the formula behind C&C 3 much, so rather than it feeling like a new and updated game, it feels like more of the same. Depending on how you look at it that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Shielded Scrin tripods with the epic unit known as the Eradicator Hexapod attack a GDI base.

Specs of PC Used for Review: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.66 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 768 MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX, Windows XP Pro.

Where I’m Coming From: I play a lot of RTS campaigns and skirmish matches but very little multiplayer. My problems with RTS multiplayer have more to do with the people than the games themselves. I’ve played every iteration of Command & Conquer through the years and I’ve always thought of it as the summer blockbuster of strategy games - a little shallow but fun and entertaining none the less. When RTS games seem to be getting more and more complicated, it’s nice to have a solid C&C game to fall back on where things are simple.

What I Compared It To: Obviously the original C&C 3 was on my mind a lot but I also considered the expansions to Warhammer 40,000K: Dawn of War and Battle for Middle-Earth II. Comparing an expansion to RTS games as a whole is a little unfair but it’s important to look where the genre is going.

What I Liked: Global Conquest mode, epic units, sub-faction variety, Carl Lumbly, more of Joe Kucan’s Kane, big-explosive action.

What I Didn’t Like: Natasha Henstridge, no mid-mission autosaves, multiplayer rush tactics, disjointed single-player campaign.

Value Meter: If you still play C&C 3 multiplayer you have to get this, but it’s also a good excuse to reinstall the game if you haven’t played it in a while.

Final Score: 8.0 out of 10