Forum post is a summary of new features from the August issue of PC Powerplay. I've already read it to check them, but they don't put their articles on the internet. --Tkangaru 12:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone should get a reference for the magazine. (Yes, you can reference a magazine, even if it's not online. It's like referencing a book.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of forum post "info" is already in the Gamespot article and separated into distinct sections, instead of being stuffed into a single long listed "features" section. (Organization, yes?) New info should be appended into existing sections or given new sections as appropriate. A book-like reference should be made for the stuff from the magazines, forum posts should only be used if it's made by an official source and I'm not certain if the forum poster was such a source. - Meco (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually yes, he is, if the magazine content is corroborated by more than one source. 17:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are so many corroborations then it should be a simple matter for somebody to provide the name of the article, the name of the author(s), and the page numbers. - Meco (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Then ask them to do so. 18:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought my previous post was effectively asking Tkangaru for it. He's seen the original source, claims to have confirmed it, so must be able to get the necessary referencing information. If a user adds something I expect them to be able to give that sort of information. - Meco (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The only clear remnant of the Scrin is a Threshold, i beleive =) Sclera1 02:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the GDI campaign supposed to be called "To Kill Kane" instead? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 20:43, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

added the official release date. it's been comfirmed here in the countdown clock. --Yellow13 03:04, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The criticsm section makes it appear that the sole criticism to the game is some people not liking the new system and bawwing about it and crying "ruined forever". Could we make it to a proper criticism section? How bout the fact that the game was developed in about a year, giving no realistic prospects for a polished game? Or that Tiberian Twilight was not even supposed to be a sequel until EA changed mind? Or that the team working or the game was being downsized while working on the game? Or the overzealous DRM that forces you to remain online? The fact that it is the lowest ranking C&C game on Amazon and the lowest Metacritic score a C&C game got? This game and the sources of its criticisms are far worse than "bawww they don't let us build bases anymore" and it should be taken note. --Neakal 21:24, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Make a tidy criticism section

It is important to put a criticism section in because this wiki represents the C&C fan community. EA will consult this in their market research and take it into account when thinking about making new games. Here's an example below.


Short development time

Substantially less time and effort was invested in the development of Twilight than was invested in the other Command and Conquer titles. Twilight is visibly shabbier than Tiberium Wars, due to the lack of effort invested in the game's development.


Unlike other Command and Conquer titles, players must remain online in order to play. This can make it very irritating if you have an overcrowded network or connection problems or do not have Internet access at the time you wish to play.

Some players, especially those in China, counters this problem by hacking the game.


On Amazon, the game was rated as the lowest in the Command and Conquer series.

Gamers appear to have been unsatisfied for reasons as diverse as the break from the old style of gameplay to an outrageously unfamiliar new style of gameplay to a poor and anticlimactic storyline that left many Command and Conquer gamers feeling betrayed and abandoned. A minority reacted in the opposite way, claiming that the other Command and Conquer titles were the ones at fault and Twilight is in fact the first truly playable incarnation of the game.

One could say that EA unwittingly alienated its original market and gained a much smaller market of new players unfamiliar with the game's previous incarnations.


On Metacritic, the game was rated lowest in the Command and Conquer series.

A criticism section needs to be neutral, not a rant aimed at EA in general. While personally I think that the game falls short of providing a satisfactory conclusion to Kane's story arc, I would not make statements such as "visually shabbier" or "lack of effort" simply because the former's an opinion (I like Twilight's visual style personally, though the scale issues are annoying) and the latter's an unconfirmed statement. I wouldn't base on Amazon's rating too much - it deserves a note in the article, but it's meaningless, as it was an action aimed at EA, not an assessment of the game's good and bad sides. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 14:18, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.