Fun at times, very innovative for the time, but some major flaws and clunky-ness can also make it irritating
Sometimes, GC II is downright grating and tiring. An RTS game should never be like that. Its more of a slow paced one but that does not have to mean boring or clunky. Its not always clunky, lets just be clear, and its a lot of fun a lot of the time.
So, some good points:
-Overall, immersive
-Graphics (for the era)
-Pretty neat take on urban warfare
-Gameplay is overall fun when things are not clunky
-Somewhat interesting universe (I never played Ground Control 1 but I read the story background)
-Innovative 'victory point' capture spun off this concept in a lot of later games (think world in conflict)
-Not about base building; you get a dropship and when it is destroyed, it slowly rebuilds. So, you're basically a squadron leader, not building a base. It's not like other RTS games.
-Opportunities to recover even if you have lost pretty badly due to the less than frantic pace as is typical of games like Starcraft
-Sound effects are pretty good
-Other new game mechanics such as being able to see detailed info on ranges, different modes to units, etc.
-Neat 'theater of war'
Some not so good, and bad points:
-I would have expected it to be a bit more futuristic, all the technology (at least for your side) is 2030 level. It's 700 years in the future. I can't ask for everything but I would have preferred something a bit less dull here. It's way too modern. I know that was the INTENTION, but still.
-Voice acting/character development can be pretty bad at times, and honestly, really corny and stereotypical a lot. I don't really like the major characters.
-A big drawback is the way the units behave....if I'm trying to pick stuff off and position my stuff just out of enemy turrets range, they will automatically close in and get blown up if I don't attend to them (while trying to move other stuff). So it will feel like I'm fighting my own units. Also when you change modes, they stop and will lag behind other units....sometimes getting them killed.
-Another BIG drawback to the units is if you select all of them, they'll ALL move as slow as the slowest unit. Do I want that? No, absolutely not. Sometimes it'll also be hard to select infantry in buildings, and the whole thing can get very confusing.
-They tried to make some things too realistic/detailed, like if your artillery are too close to each other in 'power mode' they will damage nearby units. Many of the secondary functions are pretty confusing and take awhile to get the hang of. Pathfinding being less than stellar doesn't help this much at all. If you're not an RTS player...forget it, you will find this game INCREDIBLY frustrating since you won't be able to rapidly manage your units (which is irritating since its supposed to be a slower paced RTS hybrid)
-AI doesnt retaliate when being picked off by long range units
-Units can take too much damage, sometimes counters are confusing
-Can't restart a mission/get directly to the load screen
Don't think that because I wrote a lot of text describing the clunky aspects that this is a bad game (the good things are pretty self evident). I simply had to be really detailed. It can just be really, really frustrating and often you never see it coming until its too late. You have to know exactly how to manage everything and that's just irritating and unacceptable in a game like this. When it works, its a lot of fun but it has a very steep learning curve. When it doesn't, its pretty random and just ruins the whole thing. You should at least know why you lost.
Basically, when it works, its a good and innovative RTS. But it doesn't always work. That's why I'd give it a 7 (partly for innovation and influence) but not an 8.5.