The acting...

[deleted]

there's nothing wrong with the actors themselves, they are great in other movies...I blame the director.

Diomedes nailed it. The actors are just fine in terms of ability but EA didn't put as much effort into writing and directing as they did casting. It really shows that the game was written by a fairly in-experienced writer and the actors received minimal explanation on motivation from the director. I think we've all seen what these actors can do with GOOD directing and writing, so please let's not place the blame on them. Also, by today's standards, actors talking directly into the camera only really works with news programs, so the director choosing to have the camera once again be in first-person view of the commander was the first poor choice. It seems like EA was trying to find a way to make the game feel like C&C in the absence of Westwood by using the old storytelling method. To me, it just makes this very new game seem old and just adds to the cliché.

Remember, this is a video game's acting budget. There's a good reason most games don't use live actors, because they cost a lot more than voice actors (taking into account their pay, makeup, costumes, cameras, etc). VG live action will never be at the same level as movies and TV because game devs have to worry about other costs (ie the game, itself needs to be made) whereas obviously TV shows and movies only have to worry about the filming.

That said, if I had to place the blame on one element, it would be the writing. Truth-be-told, the directing wasn't that bad. Each actor did a good job of convincing me they were playing their characters, but coupled with those oft-clichéd lines it just made it look over-the-top, for what it is, and silly....

[deleted]

It's supposed to be. The guy from lost, on the interview explains how the role, being a video game character, has an element of "campness" to it. That's what i like about FMVs from Command and Conquer, Jedi Knight etc.

It doesnt take itself too seriously.