Carrier Command: Gaea Mission

About

"Carrier Command: Gaea Mission" is a tactical combat game where players control a massive aircraft carrier. The objective is to explore, dominate and defend islands in a vast archipelago, using land, sea, and air units. Players can customize their carrier and units, and engage in real-time battles against AI or human-controlled opponents. The game offers a mix of strategy, action, and exploration in a detailed and dynamic open world.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Single-Player Play through the game's story or campaign solo

Carrier Command: Gaea Mission screenshot

44%

Audience ScoreBased on 729 reviews

story39 positive mentions

stability37 negative mentions

The game features a unique blend of RTS and FPS gameplay, allowing players to control units directly or issue commands from a strategic view.
The graphics are visually appealing, with detailed environments and good weather effects that enhance the overall experience.
The concept of commanding a carrier and managing resources while engaging in combat is engaging and offers a nostalgic feel for fans of the original Carrier Command.

The AI pathfinding is severely flawed, often leading to units getting stuck or failing to engage enemies effectively, requiring constant micromanagement.
The campaign features poorly executed FPS segments that feel unnecessary and detract from the overall gameplay experience.
The game suffers from frequent crashes and bugs, making it frustrating to play and hindering progress.

story
247 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
16%
72%
12%
The story of *Carrier Command: Gaea Mission* is widely criticized for being lackluster and poorly executed, often described as a mere backdrop to the gameplay rather than a compelling narrative. Many players find the voice acting subpar and the mission objectives confusing, leading to frustration rather than engagement. While some appreciate the attempt to integrate a storyline into the gameplay, the overall consensus is that it detracts from the experience, making the game feel more like a tedious tutorial than a fully realized campaign.
- “Carrier Command: Gaea Mission is an intricate and captivating game that managed to keep me engrossed for a solid 40 hours.”
- “The story for the campaign is a nice touch.”
- “I certainly enjoyed playing through the story.”
- “The story is terrible and the cutscenes ruin the entire flow of the game.”
- “The story mode is just a glorified tutorial with bad voice acting.”
- “The storyline is hollow as it acts more as a 'reason to be' since it just says 'you need to get the carrier because this' 'you have to conquer islands because of that' and etc, it really isn't engaging.”
gameplay
157 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
23%
62%
15%
The gameplay of "Carrier Command: Gaea Mission" is characterized by a mix of RTS and FPS mechanics, offering players control over various units and resources, which can be engaging and rewarding. However, many reviews highlight significant issues such as poor AI, clunky controls, repetitive tasks, and a lack of polish that detracts from the overall experience. While the game has promising concepts and beautiful graphics, it suffers from bugs and design flaws that hinder its potential, leading to a mixed reception among players.
- “The gameplay itself is very deep and rewarding; the 3D model of the carrier and its subsystems make sense - it is also not a micromanagement nightmare.”
- “Gameplay is very unique; it combines FPS, RTS, and strategy all in one. It's like playing Battlefield + Command & Conquer, allowing you to take control of any unit and play with them in first-person or third-person view.”
- “Carrier Command: Gaea Mission was a pretty fun game to begin with, full of rich features and dynamic gameplay.”
- “The RTS gameplay, which is the bulk of the game, has a lot of promise, and being able to take control of units manually is very nice, but the AI piloting is lacking and regularly causes frustration to the point where manual control becomes a necessity instead of a 'nice to have' feature.”
- “Gameplay is extremely slow and tedious with not much variety.”
- “The gameplay is solid and the concepts are promising, but the game becomes repetitive after the first hour.”
graphics
126 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
49%
41%
10%
The graphics of the game receive mixed reviews, with some praising their beauty and detail, particularly for a title released in 2012, while others criticize them as outdated or inconsistent. Many players appreciate the atmospheric effects and overall visual appeal, but some report technical issues such as crashes and poor performance at higher settings. Overall, while the graphics are generally considered solid, they may not meet the expectations of players looking for cutting-edge visuals.
- “The graphics are incredible, the controls are good, the sound is good, I just like it.”
- “The graphics are solid, and the feeling of launching vehicles from your carrier is great.”
- “The graphics are beautiful, certainly, but I felt a little betrayed by the trailers which appeared to promise a trifecta of gameplay.”
- “The orange tinge on everything is horrible; I can handle the 2005 graphics, but I swear they had colors back then.”
- “Many shortcuts were taken with graphics (for example, the manta engine turbines don't even turn! Destroy a building and the rubble is a static picture that moves upwards, a step back in realism even from older games).”
- “The graphics are the worst (the 90s called, they want their engine back).”
stability
38 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
8%
97%
The game is widely criticized for its numerous bugs and stability issues, including constant crashes, poor AI pathfinding, and a lack of polish that detracts from the overall experience. While some players acknowledge improvements after updates, many still find it unplayable due to persistent glitches and technical problems. Overall, the consensus is that the game is a "buggy mess" that hampers enjoyment despite its interesting concepts.
- “Runs great on my old rig.”
- “The game maintains a steady frame rate, even during intense action sequences.”
- “I've experienced no crashes or bugs, which is impressive for a game of this scale.”
- “Buggy pathfinding, constant crashing (with a poor save system), AI that cheats and skips tech levels, terrible tacked-on campaign that literally starts out as a janky FPS, the ability to get stuck in the map, an AI that can take your islands without any resistance no matter how defended they are unless you rush to their aid, and many more little issues drag this game down.”
- “Horrifically buggy AI pathfinding that was never fixed.”
- “This is a bloated, buggy mess that has so many pointless distractions that it just is a bore and bummer to play.”
music
13 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
46%
31%
23%
The music in the game receives mixed reviews, with some players appreciating the soundtrack and its epic moments, while others find it inconsistent and overshadowed by voice acting. Several users noted that the music can be distracting or uninspired, particularly during intense gameplay, and some felt the soundtrack was too short for the length of the campaign. Overall, while the music has its highlights, it often fails to enhance the gaming experience effectively.
- “The music is great and the graphics are nice.”
- “Nice graphics, nice story, nice music, good gameplay. I didn't find any important bugs or glitches.”
- “I really liked the graphics, music, and the general concept of the game - being a FPS/RTS game.”
- “I had to constantly lower the music volume because it would shift between epic sounding battle music and then some people loudly wailing in my ears as I was trying to hear the voice actors.”
- “The graphics aren't bad, and the sound effects were alright, but honestly I could have just played this with the sound off and been just as happy not to listen to any more of the voice acting or music.”
- “- The soundtrack is around 25 minutes, and frankly doesn't come close to cutting it, considering the campaign can last 15+ hours.”
grinding
12 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The reviews consistently highlight that the grinding aspect of the game is excessively tedious and slow, leading to a lack of enjoyment and variety in gameplay. Players express frustration with the slow pacing, particularly in resource generation and unit restoration, which detracts from the overall experience. Additionally, the incorporation of poorly executed FPS elements further contributes to the game's tediousness, making it feel more like a chore than an engaging adventure.
- “Instead, gameplay is extremely slow and tedious with not much variety.”
- “I stopped playing by the third island because of how tedious and slow the game was.”
- “Unfortunately, the original game's tediously slow pacing (that was fun in 1989) is copied with perfection, as are fundamental elements of the game's design that leave the player stuck waiting for resources to generate.”
optimization
9 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
22%
78%
The game's optimization has been widely criticized, with players reporting severe technical issues, including frequent crashes, poor AI pathfinding, and overall subpar performance. Many users noted that the AI, which is central to gameplay, is poorly designed and fails to respond appropriately in combat situations, leading to frustrating experiences. Additionally, despite the game's visual depth and environmental effects, character models and overall graphics quality do not meet expectations, further detracting from the experience.
- “As for the performance:”
- “I'm also still astounded by the fact that there are many different weather conditions that affect you, not only in vehicle performance, but also in the visual aspect of it. For example, a rainstorm makes it harder for you as a player to see what you're doing, and the psychological aspect is especially delivered with the weather and environmental depth of the game.”
- “The game is wooden, poorly optimized, and in addition, I managed to break the save from the beginning of the mission at the end of the mission. Keyboards need to be improved; despite the release date, the game has technical problems as if it was Bethesda. The plot is not captivating, and the maps are designed strangely.”
- “The game literally revolves around the use of AI-controlled units which are so poorly optimized that the pathing is incredibly bad.”
- “Optimization is terrible, and even at the highest quality, character models look awful.”
humor
8 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The humor in the game is largely derived from its quirky elements, such as the protagonist's amusing British accent and the absurdity of AI pathfinding issues, particularly with walruses and vehicles getting hilariously lost. Players find the combination of bugs and odd physics both frustrating and comical, leading to moments that are unintentionally funny, especially in challenging environments. Overall, while the game has potential, its humorous aspects often stem from its technical shortcomings.
- “The British accent of the protagonist is hilarious. Can't tell if it's real or not, but it definitely sounds off.”
- “It has a huge amount of potential, but there are so many bugs, so much stupid AI, and so much lack of attention to detail by the programmers (i.e. hearing bird chirps and wildlife sounds while deep underground in the bowels of a research center - kinda funny actually).”
- “The vehicles can often even get lost by themselves, often with hilarious results, not to mention some odd physics.”
replayability
5 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
40%
20%
40%
The game's replayability is generally praised, with many players finding it commendable and filled with value. However, some users note that the absence of multiplayer options significantly limits its replay potential, suggesting that competitive play against others could enhance the experience.
- “The game's replay value is commendable.”
- “The game is great and has tons of replay value.”
- “Even if it doesn't have replayability.”
- “Lack of multiplayer cripples replayability - it would be brilliant vs. another human.”
atmosphere
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
75%
25%
The game's atmosphere is praised for its excellent graphics and overall visual appeal, creating an enjoyable experience. However, the cutscenes and voice acting detract from the atmosphere, feeling lackluster and uninspired. Overall, while the game excels in visual design, the narrative elements fall short.
- “This is an excellent game with atmospheric graphics, moderate tactical depth, and thoughtful missions.”
- “Love the controls and atmosphere.”
- “I love the look; the graphics are neat (if a bit 2005), great atmospherics, and an overall joy to look at. The vehicles are well-designed too; not too gimmicky and have a balanced futuristic feel.”
- “The aforementioned cutscenes are, on the whole, horrible; the voice acting is wooden, and they somehow feel devoid of any atmosphere or effort.”
emotional
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players report mixed emotional experiences with the game; some find the clunky controls and poor mouse sensitivity physically nauseating, leading to a quick abandonment of the game. Conversely, others appreciate its ability to provide a temporary escape from daily stress without becoming overly emotionally taxing.
- “I get to think just hard enough to forget the day's woes but not too emotionally invested where I feel drained following a session.”
character development
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
300%
Character development in the game is criticized for starting poorly, with users reporting significant bugs and a lack of engaging progression, leading to frustration and dissatisfaction early on.
- “The game starts off on a really bad note, and after 15 minutes of bugs and nail-bitingly poor character development, I think I've had enough of this game.”
- “Character development feels rushed and shallow, leaving me disconnected from the characters and their stories.”
- “I was expecting a deep and engaging character arc, but instead, I was met with flat personalities and predictable outcomes.”