So I jumped in and bought Red Alert 3...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

clamum

Lifer
Feb 13, 2003
26,256
406
126
I picked it up yesterday but only played a quick skirmish game so I don't have much of an opinion on it yet.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,202
216
106
Originally posted by: clamum
I picked it up yesterday but only played a quick skirmish game so I don't have much of an opinion on it yet.

What I liked so far is that I started playing on the Campaign instead of going for a Skirmish immediately (which I did with C&C 3 and Kane's Wrath). And that way I discovered the units and their abilities as the story progressed, and it brought a better element of surprise. I finished the Soviets campaign just this morning and I loved it.

Now I'm going for the Allies, I'm still just on the second mission now, and so far I like them. I still have to see much of the Empire of the Rising Sun's units though, although I may have seen about all of them during the last Soviets campaign missions. The EotrS seem to be quite advanced in technology, which was of course previously an Allies thing in RA1 and RA2 (although the Tesla technology on the Soviets side is quite a deal).

Now all we need is some sort of a Yuri clone making a come back in RA3's expansion, which will undoubtedly happen for the the simple fact that EA always makes expansions. If not Yuri then I hope they will still introduce a fourth faction, which would be a first for the RA franchise (I think).
 

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,604
15
81
Ive just finished the soviet campaign... bleh its just red alert 2 all over again in the SAGE engine with different actors. *spoiler* Theres the treacherous general at the start who is a dick to you (like general vladimir) and theres the overall leader stabbing you in the back (like yuri). To top it all off a lot of stuff makes no sense, why are there still prism tanks if they killed einstein? Theres actually a lot of stuff that makes no sense by taking out einstein really early. Unless you buy into EA's RA2 is set in a different universe from RA1 excuse.*end spoilers*

As for the gameplay its alright, nothing to brag about really. Theres a few new units, a few old units making a return with new abilities/looks, its an improvement over CNC3, the ability to build in the water is nice, tesla coils are actually useful again like they were back in RA1. The apocalypse tank makes a return but seriously it looks like it was slapped together by dwarfs... i was much more impressed by the old apoc and the overlord in generals, its also the first big bad tank in CNC that dosent shoot at air units at all. Overall im not that impressed, its better than CNC3 was but its nothing special.

Oh one thing i forgot to mention! You get an AI friend for most missions (maybe all missions) and they have a real actor playing the AI general, not just a faceless AI. That was pretty cool.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,202
216
106
Indeed, the A.I with an actor and commenting at the start and the end, is a very good idea. It also applies during skirmishes, whether they are allies or enemies, at the start they will comment, and at the end too, it's a very good idea that many RTS'es before it would have taken an advantage of.

And even without real actors, just having the A.I making comments with a voice actor would be good, not just text comments like in Age of Empires for example (although Age of Empires III do have vocal comments during game-play). But the point is so few RTS'es feature that, and I thought that the RA3's implementation is very well done.
 

novasatori

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2003
3,851
1
0
haha @ the hoff :)

I think its a pretty shallow game, but the cut scenes at least live up to RA, but RA had a lot of cool cg action scenes, not just actors & tna :roll:

 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Originally posted by: zerogear
Originally posted by: DeePee
http://img368.imageshack.us/my.php?image=asdffs9.jpg

i've registered on ea.com

and still get this message, what the fuck.

And that sums up my reasoning for not buying EA products. Oh and also, what are you going to do when they shut of authentication servers? :confused:

Were that to ever happen, I believe they have always said that they will release a patch which will remove the need to authenticate the installation. This is the same for all authenticated software.
 

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,604
15
81
Originally posted by: drebo
Originally posted by: zerogear
Originally posted by: DeePee
http://img368.imageshack.us/my.php?image=asdffs9.jpg

i've registered on ea.com

and still get this message, what the fuck.

And that sums up my reasoning for not buying EA products. Oh and also, what are you going to do when they shut of authentication servers? :confused:

Were that to ever happen, I believe they have always said that they will release a patch which will remove the need to authenticate the installation. This is the same for all authenticated software.

EA's idea of a patch would be to buy RA4 when the RA3 servers shut off...
 

TripleAAA

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2002
1,412
0
0
Another dissapointed consumer. EA has really turned me off to PC gaming in general. I tried Spore...yuck. Now this...

The game lacks no depth whatsoever. I won't be buying another RTS until the new Starcraft.
 

Xellos2099

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2005
2,277
13
81
Anyone here got a not used warhammer item code from RA3? If so, can I have it. Please pm it to me if you are not using it. Thanks in advance.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
I used to love RTS in the C&C1/RA1 days, but I thought as the technology got better the games would get bigger and more complex - they seem to just get smaller and more ridiculous. Why is the range on a machine gun still about 10 feet? Why can I only see a tiny area in the standard view and the only option is to zoom IN not OUT and see something like an over the shoulder view in an action game?
 

Pia

Golden Member
Feb 28, 2008
1,563
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
I used to love RTS in the C&C1/RA1 days, but I thought as the technology got better the games would get bigger and more complex - they seem to just get smaller and more ridiculous. Why is the range on a machine gun still about 10 feet?
Balancing playability and better-looking graphics with realism. Truly realistic ranges would result in you never seeing the attacking and defending unit on the same screen, hard to admire detail or even identify, hard to control. That means worse to play.

Gameplay-wise, this obviously flattens the curve of possible ranges.
Why can I only see a tiny area in the standard view and the only option is to zoom IN not OUT and see something like an over the shoulder view in an action game?
Competetive gaming. Watching a wider area gives an advantage to larger screens and better H/W. Therefore games like Starcraft2 will not allow it to allow a level playing field. The game being focused on small vicious tactical battles, it also isn't that big a deal.

Now, the game you obviously need is Supreme Commander and/or the sequel. Built ground up to do what you want. Some units will be able to fire right across the map, or maybe more interestingly, half the map.
 

Piuc2020

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,716
0
0
Originally posted by: Pia
Originally posted by: Atheus
I used to love RTS in the C&C1/RA1 days, but I thought as the technology got better the games would get bigger and more complex - they seem to just get smaller and more ridiculous. Why is the range on a machine gun still about 10 feet?
Balancing playability and better-looking graphics with realism. Truly realistic ranges would result in you never seeing the attacking and defending unit on the same screen, hard to admire detail or even identify, hard to control. That means worse to play.

Gameplay-wise, this obviously flattens the curve of possible ranges.
Why can I only see a tiny area in the standard view and the only option is to zoom IN not OUT and see something like an over the shoulder view in an action game?
Competetive gaming. Watching a wider area gives an advantage to larger screens and better H/W. Therefore games like Starcraft2 will not allow it to allow a level playing field. The game being focused on small vicious tactical battles, it also isn't that big a deal.

Now, the game you obviously need is Supreme Commander and/or the sequel. Built ground up to do what you want. Some units will be able to fire right across the map, or maybe more interestingly, half the map.

I'm not even sure Starcraft 2 will support widescreen resolutions for that reason alone... I have a feeling it'll be 4:3 exclusive.
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,804
46
91
RA3 sucks, at least the campaign anyway. I hate these new RTS games where they assume everyone has ADD or plays at the same (read as professional) level. I don't even have time to think and everything is constantly swarming me. if the AI co-op player wasn't there it'd probably be even worse. the ai co-op player pisses me off too. taking all the resources before i get a chance to get them, destroying everything, etc.

RIP C&C (although i believe that happened a long time ago).
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
For those following the DRM debacle, RA3 has been cracked several times now, by a few different people. A few popular BT sites have cracks and the full ISOs of RA3, which the comments indicate functions perfectly.
 

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,604
15
81
Originally posted by: pontifex
RA3 sucks, at least the campaign anyway. I hate these new RTS games where they assume everyone has ADD or plays at the same (read as professional) level. I don't even have time to think and everything is constantly swarming me. if the AI co-op player wasn't there it'd probably be even worse. the ai co-op player pisses me off too. taking all the resources before i get a chance to get them, destroying everything, etc.

RIP C&C (although i believe that happened a long time ago).

Wow for once i agree... apart from the bit about being swarmed i always destroyed the AI relatively easily.
 

Alienwho

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2001
6,766
0
76
This game is terrible. And this is coming from a guy who really enjoyed C&C 3. The AI is terrible. My guys will stand there and get shot at without returning fire on the default mode (attack but not aggressively follow). Or I'll set orders and my tanks or foot soldiers will get stuck on a building and just stand there instead of trying to go around.

Additionally, the general control sucks. I don't know how they could land so far away from C&C3.

Absolutely horrible game.
 

Dorkenstein

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2004
3,554
0
0
Too bad. I had some kinda high hopes for this since I loved RA1. Didn't Greg Kasavin work on this game? I wonder what role he served in the games creation, I mean, wouldn't you learn something about what makes a game pleasing after reviewing them for years?
 

Coldkilla

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2004
3,944
0
71
RA1-2 was the shiznit yo'. Now its "CooCoo for cartoons" when it comes to destroying my favorite games. That being said I never played it, but it looks like one big dynamic cartoon.

These games today are making me go INSANE. I used to be able to come home, grab a cold one, sit back, and enjoy a nice strategic battle of C&C. Now I've gotta have my face pressed up against the screen 100% of the time because if I miss one second my entire bass will be swarming with huge aliens from outer space! Arrhhhh!!! (This happens in a cycle every 2 minutes).
 

Pepsei

Lifer
Dec 14, 2001
12,895
1
0
Originally posted by: novasatori
haha @ the hoff :)

I think its a pretty shallow game, but the cut scenes at least live up to RA, but RA had a lot of cool cg action scenes, not just actors & tna :roll:

man, talk about tna overflow..... with the cut scenes...i can't help but paying attention to that instead of the acting.