PDA

View Full Version : C&C Red Alert 3



Antoninus
December 5th, 2008, 02:06 PM
Ok so I played the demo of this the other day and I have to say it felt like being on drugs.

The intro was...trippy to say the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u28bo1sZiyk

I mean in FIVE MINUTES the Soviets have a time machine, kill Einstien, and suddenly Mr. Sulu becomes Emperor....Which all sounds like something ripped out of a bad science fiction movie but I assure you it gets worse.

And no this isnt a spoiler because this whole series of events was spelled out on EA's website.


On the gameplay side...nothing has really changed. Its the same old C&C you've always played with only one actually new feature period, the ability to direct a CPU general that fights alongside you. You can use them to help plan attacks or to strike certain targets. Interesting but not exactly innovative.

But with all the hype this game has recieved you'd think there would be at least something interesting under the covers. But...there really isnt. It just looks like more of the same with the story changed around slightly.

The story is the strangest part about this. Suddenly in the new alternate present military uniforms have changed to require all women to show cleavage and wear rather un-practically short skirts (Done, I have no doubt, to entice people to play the game with the promise of nudity or sex somewhere in the game).

That said RA3 DOES continue the tradition of having interesting cutscenes and the acting is, for the most part, well done but this begs the question why the hell would I subject myself to MORE of the same just to watch the cutscenes? While admittedly cool, the cutscenes do not rescue the game from being basically a carbon copy of almost every C&C game made to date.

A better idea would have been to have actually taken innovative steps with the gameplay and kept the same quality cinematics. But that wont happen because its a good idea and as we know the gaming industry in general seems to be opposed to ideas that are halfway decent. Another decent idea would be to make this some sort of interactive movie (A rather un-tried idea in the game world as far as I know) with the player being asked to play smaller and shorter missions to drive the story line rather than treating gameplay like a blockade that one must surpass in order to continue watching the cutscenes and the story. But again, that wont happen. Its much easier to pour money into high name actors and boobies then copypaste the last C&C game onto a disk after changing a few pixels and unit names.

C&CRA3 (Im sorry but does that acronym look like CRACK to anyone else?) follows along with EA's strategy of releasing the same games year after year after year.

Apokalipse
December 6th, 2008, 02:32 AM
I'm not really impressed with RA3, and I've been a fan of C&C games since Red Alert 1

I mean, the gameplay just isn't really doing it for me in RA3. Yet, I can pick up and play RA2 and RA1 and still find them fun. (though Yuri's revenge did start to get a bit weird with its storyline)

RA1 had by far the best storyline/acting. It may be lacking in the graphics department (which is to be expected from a game made in 1995), but the way it was presented seemed a lot more, um.. convincing in a lot of ways.

Glowingsun
December 6th, 2008, 02:39 AM
I 've seen worse!
Check out National Lampoons "Last Resort". Messed up movie that makes no sense. And the worst fake props yet. Steven Spielburg would turning in his grave if her were dead.

Phoenix Blue
December 6th, 2008, 05:34 AM
Are the plots of the Red Alert games actually meant to be taken seriously? :)

Apokalipse
December 6th, 2008, 07:14 AM
Are the plots of the Red Alert games actually meant to be taken seriously? :)as seriously as the games themselves.

A bad plot can kinda ruin a game.

Phoenix Blue
December 6th, 2008, 07:42 AM
That's strange, because I didn't take Red Alert 2 seriously. *Shrugs* Just because a plot is silly doesn't automatically mean it sucks.

Apokalipse
December 6th, 2008, 09:01 AM
That's strange, because I didn't take Red Alert 2 seriously. *Shrugs* Just because a plot is silly doesn't automatically mean it sucks.well RA2 wasn't really that bad with its storyline as a standalone. But it doesn't mix so well with the full Red Alert history (especially with Yuri's Revenge, which kinda did get weird), and I think that led to a not so great path to RA3

The game itself is sort of, um, 'cleaner', and the drama is exagerrated a bit like hollywood movies - which isn't as convincing...

RA2 was/is a fun game. But I tend to look at RA2 and the original Red Alert as two very different games, even if they're based on the same storyline.

I mean, as a game I like RA2. But I think the original Red Alert had a great storyline that I think could have led to a much better series of games (because RA3 isn't really that great), if they had really let the story develop the game more, and not tried to make it too bizzare/hollywood drama style.

I blame EA for it. They're trying to appeal to the mass-market, and essentially prostituting what they can, while buying out good companies that otherwise could have led to a lot bigger variety of great games.

Laisrean
December 6th, 2008, 12:25 PM
I agree the storyline is weird and unrealistic, but the game play itself is WEIRD AND UNREALISTIC. The kinds of weapons they use in it are not anything like what exists in the real world, plus its also very weird that you can plop down factories right on the middle of the battlefield and begin churning out tanks and stuff right in the midst of the battle! But for mindless fun it can't be beat.

Edit: if you guys want REALISTIC real-time strategy war games, check out Hearts of Iron 2.

Nox_Mortus
December 6th, 2008, 12:29 PM
I liked all of the C&C games up until generals, wherein they totally screwed up the game play. BTW the plot of Red Alert 2 is supposed to be kind of silly and tongue in cheek.

Antoninus
December 6th, 2008, 03:05 PM
That's strange, because I didn't take Red Alert 2 seriously. *Shrugs* Just because a plot is silly doesn't automatically mean it sucks. The storyline is the only place RA3 has to distinguish itself because, as I mentioned, its basically a carbon copy of almost any other C&C game except Generals.

Phoenix Blue
December 8th, 2008, 04:15 AM
I liked all of the C&C games up until generals, wherein they totally screwed up the game play.
Gods, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so. I couldn't stand that game.

Antoninus
December 8th, 2008, 03:31 PM
Am I the only one who loved Generals?

It was a tad easy but still I thought it was a great game

Nox_Mortus
December 8th, 2008, 06:05 PM
I just thought they overcomplicated the game play and made it just really unlike command and conquer.

Antoninus
December 9th, 2008, 03:37 PM
I just thought they overcomplicated the game play and made it just really unlike command and conquer. Thats probably why I enjoyed it so much. C&C games have always been remarkably simple and I prefer the horribly over-complicated games (Homeworld).

Although Generals was pretty easy once you got the rhythm down of what the CPUs would do. Even on hard it just meant they cheated more.

Apokalipse
December 9th, 2008, 05:01 PM
Thats probably why I enjoyed it so much. C&C games have always been remarkably simple and I prefer the horribly over-complicated games (Homeworld).

Although Generals was pretty easy once you got the rhythm down of what the CPUs would do. Even on hard it just meant they cheated more.does the Generals AI cheat? how?

Antoninus
December 10th, 2008, 05:03 PM
does the Generals AI cheat? how?

Very much yes. Ramping up the difficulty in the game simply makes the AI cheat more.

Build times get shortened, superweapon charge times decrease, they can see exactly where you are.

The biggest one though is money. Even when you cut the CPU off from ALL sources of money they still manage to build units unless you're on the Easy setting.

Nox_Mortus
December 11th, 2008, 03:27 AM
Thats probably why I enjoyed it so much. C&C games have always been remarkably simple and I prefer the horribly over-complicated games (Homeworld).

Although Generals was pretty easy once you got the rhythm down of what the CPUs would do. Even on hard it just meant they cheated more.

I was never overly concerned with the AI (I usually play the campaign through once and then play online multiplayer a lot with these games) I just didn't like the way it played and the play balance seemed really screwed up I remember one of the factions being really really underpowered compared to all of the other ones.

Antoninus
December 11th, 2008, 03:33 AM
I was never overly concerned with the AI (I usually play the campaign through once and then play online multiplayer a lot with these games) I just didn't like the way it played and the play balance seemed really screwed up I remember one of the factions being really really underpowered compared to all of the other ones.
The play styles are far different for each one but I played the game recently and all factions are equally powered if you use the intended play style. GLA wasnt meant for tanking and PLA wasnt meant for stealth.