Mixed or average reviews - based on 6 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 6
  2. Negative: 1 out of 6
Stream On
  1. Dec 11, 2018
    Rivals delivers a polished and nuanced gameplay experience, with a monetization model tacked on that stands the chance of delivering a frustrating experience or feeling like the game is nudging you to open up your wallet for a smoother experience. We’ll see if it stands the test of time, but at the very least it provides a really interesting look at what RTS can do on mobile.
  2. Dec 4, 2018
    It might not be a ‘true’ C&C game, but it’s one of the tightest and most compelling strategy games on mobile.
  3. Dec 21, 2018
    Rivals is not the classic Command & Conquer we have been waiting for. If you are open to something somewhat less traditional, you will enjoy this competitive strategy game to the fullest.
  4. Dec 9, 2018
    It is certainly different from the original series, but Command & Conquer: Rivals, taken as a title on its own, is anyway a good mobile strategic.
  5. Dec 12, 2018
    Yes, you can still be brutalised by higher level players, but most matches don’t feel that way, and real-time strategy fans aren’t exactly spoiled for choice on mobile, making Rivals well worth trying out.
  6. Dec 20, 2018
    Although Command & Conquer: Rivals is still some ways off the horror show that was Dungeon Keeper Mobile, by virtue of having a game that actually functions, it is still a major let-down.
User Score

Overwhelming dislike- based on 35 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 35
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 35
  3. Negative: 31 out of 35
  1. Feb 25, 2019
    The gameplay itself is well made and fluent. Units are well designed and interesting to use.

    But it is completely broken by the
    The gameplay itself is well made and fluent. Units are well designed and interesting to use.

    But it is completely broken by the monetization model. Paying for progress, 5 - 10€ worth absolutely nothing. It has to be a lot more to make any difference. So the game just capitalizes on people with addiction to these kind of things.

    First few days are maybe okay, learning how stuff works and trying different units. After reaching higher leagues, gold and platinum, a huge slowdown in progression comes. Battles are getting increasingly unfair, often matched against higher level player. Upgrading units gets extremely expensive, it takes probably several months to play to be simply able to to unlock all units. I can't rank up, just by having high skill. I need to grind mindlessly or just pay for it. Paying reasonable 10 bucks is useless. I can't try different units anymore since I would need to upgrade them and thus setting myself back several days. This is unacceptable and turns actual strategic decision into a grindfest. The "leagues" mean nothing other than time investment/money investment from Gold league on.

    Update: I have now played it more and got to Diamond 1 league, watched the best players replays, discussions and best loadout videos/discussions. Have to correct my rating from 3 to 1. It is indeed utterly garbage, when it comes to any "competitiveness".

    The best current player in the world loosing mainly because the opponents Banshee Unit has higher level? The hell is this? I have played many proper PC strategy games and a key balance point is how the units win against each other 1vs1 with best micro management possible, easiest thing to balance in general thinking of complexity of a real time strategy. And seeing that an anti air unit looses a fight against an air unit, it was supposed to be a counter, but more than 1 level difference tilts the battle completely. Other example is how many shots it takes to take down a Harvester, changes significantly with level. In a game where there is only one game mode in which holding territory is everything. This is not an issue which can be ironed out like a bad map or unit by a balance update, this is the core of this game. So the more you get into the game the more the randomness reveals itself.

    Other problems are that the map is choosen randomly but some of them favor a type of gameplay over another. It would be nice for a normal strategy strategy, since you can always adapt with the choices you make during the match. In this game your loadout is fixed. Some maps favor two harvester play and heavy units, some air units or long range. The limited units composition can't be adjusted to a particular map. Blitz events on one map are countering it a little bit but they are very rare, so not a solution.

    So all in all, when two player with a similar skill level play against each other there are way too many random factors put in by purpose. Unit level and map-loadout synergy breaks it. Like 30 years of real time strategy experience/evidence of bad and good balancing don't apply here. And I mean by design of the game, not accidentally. Unlike in Dawn of War 1 the Necrons were OP for some time and Scrins in C&C3, and Starcraft 2 has been improved over years to very high fidelity when it comes to balance and it still gets balance updates to react to "meta" play and keep things fair.

    This game could have been the best mobile game but they purposefully broke it in exchange for money.
    Full Review »
  2. Dec 21, 2018
    This game is simply disgusting and doesn't deserve the name Command & Conquer. Even a direct emulation of the original C&C from 1995 wouldThis game is simply disgusting and doesn't deserve the name Command & Conquer. Even a direct emulation of the original C&C from 1995 would have been less disappointing. Full Review »
  3. Dec 15, 2018
    I'm very disappointed with this game. Boring gameplay and stupid In-app purchased ruined this game