Red Alert 3 Review Review

[neckthrough]

I've been lurking about the RA3 forums (at gamereplays.org) for the past few months. A couple of days back, gamesradar.com published a somewhat shallow review for the game. A gamereplays.org veteran member proceeded to write the following article in response, which I really liked. I think many of his comments are relevant to the state of gaming journalism in general. Linky:

 

http://www.gamereplays.org/redalert3/porta...rt-3-scores-big

[Morgoth]

Haha, pathetic. And people get paid for writing such reviews. "If she has boobs and laser guns it's a win in my book lolz". Jeez.

 

At least the German-speaking game journalism still has some overall good quality.

[H]

I was agreeing with the guy until I read this:

Its comments like these that are responsible for the growing trend to slow down RTS games to the point where they

[Hildegard]

RA3 is just a typical Hollywood based everyday EA piece of **** of a game. Command&Conquer series died when Westwood stopped being an independent company.

[Strix]

That was one of the worst reviews I have ever read, I agree with the posted article...

[neckthrough]

RA3 is just a typical Hollywood based everyday EA piece of **** of a game. Command&Conquer series died when Westwood stopped being an independent company.

Have you played any of EA's CnC games? Granted, CnC3 was lacklustre, but Generals and Zero Hour were immensely enjoyable games, both for their single-player campaign as well as online multiplayer. I was never good enough to be able to compete online, but my impression from the online community has always been that while they didn't have much in the way of macro-management (so they're nowhere close to a real e-sport RTS like Starcraft), they were fun little micro-management intensive games. In fact, as far as competitive multiplayer is concerned, I believe Generals and Zero Hour are considered superior to Westwood's revered originals.

 

I've been following the RA3 Beta and it seems most of the community generally prefer it to CnC3, it's not as good as Zero Hour was. So it seems to have decent core gameplay. Package this gameplay in a completely wacky over-the-top Hollywood-esque single-player campaign, and I think you end up with an enjoyable game.

 

It's sad that Westwood died, but there's no need to unnecessarily revere their games as some gold standard that no modern developer can surpass.

[Hassat Hunter]

*reads both reviews*

 

Okay, have to agree somewhat in the uselessness of said RA3 review, but alot of the complains on it are not purely unbiased either. He's complaining of dumbing down of RTS'es, how zooming was overrated among other "more important functions".

Don't want to say much, but my most favorite RTS'es don't contain units with 5 Special Functions you have to manual activate and reward mass-twitchiness like a WarCraft III. And look at that one RTS (name slips my mind) set in WWII that was so popular a few years ago where you controlled a few units that were fully costimisable with items like some RPG/RTS hybrid.

 

And then "Innovation is unwanted". Seriously.

 

Anyways, who ever honestly is making a decision based on a NET review. I don't. Buy a mag, *they* don't suck as much as the average online review.

[Calax]

RA3 is just a typical Hollywood based everyday EA piece of **** of a game. Command&Conquer series died when Westwood stopped being an independent company.

Have you played any of EA's CnC games? Granted, CnC3 was lacklustre, but Generals and Zero Hour were immensely enjoyable games, both for their single-player campaign as well as online multiplayer. I was never good enough to be able to compete online, but my impression from the online community has always been that while they didn't have much in the way of macro-management (so they're nowhere close to a real e-sport RTS like Starcraft), they were fun little micro-management intensive games. In fact, as far as competitive multiplayer is concerned, I believe Generals and Zero Hour are considered superior to Westwood's revered originals.

 

I've been following the RA3 Beta and it seems most of the community generally prefer it to CnC3, it's not as good as Zero Hour was. So it seems to have decent core gameplay. Package this gameplay in a completely wacky over-the-top Hollywood-esque single-player campaign, and I think you end up with an enjoyable game.

 

It's sad that Westwood died, but there's no need to unnecessarily revere their games as some gold standard that no modern developer can surpass.

Generals and Zero hour were C&C in name only. They didn't have any of the UI you love from the origional and Red Alert. Plus it didn't have the fmv and hammy actors. Until the expansion on the actors and then they weren't hammy.

 

*reads both reviews*

 

Okay, have to agree somewhat in the uselessness of said RA3 review, but alot of the complains on it are not purely unbiased either. He's complaining of dumbing down of RTS'es, how zooming was overrated among other "more important functions".

Don't want to say much, but my most favorite RTS'es don't contain units with 5 Special Functions you have to manual activate and reward mass-twitchiness like a WarCraft III. And look at that one RTS (name slips my mind) set in WWII that was so popular a few years ago where you controlled a few units that were fully costimisable with items like some RPG/RTS hybrid.

 

And then "Innovation is unwanted". Seriously.

 

Anyways, who ever honestly is making a decision based on a NET review. I don't. Buy a mag, *they* don't suck as much as the average online review.

Company of Heroes. I refer to it as Real Time Tactics rather than Strategy because of the way the game is structured. (with single units being EXTREMLY important.... and I'm not talking about mega units)

 

I haven't played Red Alert 3. I want to but cash is an issue at this time. I personally Like games where the idea isn't to have to micro the units in the fight to the nth degree just to have a chance at winning. I like the idea of running a team into a fight and then going back and making/grabbing reinforcements and actually having my troops in combat have enough holding power on their own with a small amount of micro that they can survive for fresh units to come up and start pounding the living CRAP out of the opponent.

 

That said I'm a world class turtle. And it seems like the devs have a personal vendetta against turtles in general because they want action and constant action. The most obvious dev team who hates turtledom is Relic (as much as I love them). All the RTS/RTT games that they put out now require you to move your units constantly around the field taking strategic points for resourses. Generals was a Turtlegasm but then with C&C3 they kinda left turtles in the dust again.

[Maria Caliban]

I dislike RTS. You have to pull me in with a good story and setting. The Warhammer 4k games I enjoy just because the Space Marines are my buddies. They're so cute! Oh, and the little dudes with the jetpack + chainsaw are my favorites.

 

I also enjoyed Age Of Legends.

 

Both of those games combined an overland map of controlled, neutral, and enemy territories. Your territories provided you with resources instead of you plunking down a miner/woodcutter whatever. More RTS should do that.

 

But, I still prefer games like Alpha Centurai, Civilization VI, or Galactic Civ. To me, strategy should not be 80% warfare.

[Musopticon?]

I actually prefer it if an rts does away with base building and most of resource control and concentrates on warfare, tactics, etc.

 

The Ground Control games, particularly the first one, are great examples of this. Almost zero resource control, every unit has a use and wrong decisions are costly yet repairable with skillful gaming. Though, I think the Myth games were likely the best example of tactical rts gameplay done excellent, the command point idea was brilliant and the awesome setting helped. Best thing, there was little microing involved and armies could be managed and entire formations controlled with swiftness and ease, usually resulting in very brutal and decisive victories, if you "got" the system. That's actually been a problem in the genre so far, the games aren't exactly intuitive.

 

Here's hoping WH40K: Dawn of War 2 will fix it. I love the ideas they've presented so far.

[Calax]

I suppose I want a WW1 level of RTS.... where tank fights were duke fests and... yeah

 

I prefer to slug it out with somebody rather than micro four guys to their base and annoy them to death.

[neckthrough]

I suppose I want a WW1 level of RTS.... where tank fights were duke fests and... yeah

 

I prefer to slug it out with somebody rather than micro four guys to their base and annoy them to death.

Yup, then you wouldn't like Generals or RA3. They're both micro-oriented games. Some people enjoy this tremendously, since a single unit can sometimes turn the tide of a Zero Hour battle. Different strokes I guess.

[jaguars4ever]

Haha, pathetic. And people get paid for writing such reviews. "If she has boobs and laser guns it's a win in my book lolz". Jeez.

So he's the guy who stole my book!

[Aram]

I feel like I shouldn't have bothered to read either review.

[Nick_i_am]

10/10

[Morgoth]

I never considered the EA made C&C series as real RTS games. They got too trashy and mindless...Well, actually the Westwood games were mindless too, but at least they had some soul and were fun.

It's more a shame that Ensemble Studios was shut down. I immensily enjoyed all their games, so now that only leaves us Blizzard and Relic for decent RTS goodness left.

[Zoma]

Don't forget Petroglyph. The core of the studio is made up of many former Westwood developers who left Westwood when EA took over it.

[Hildegard]

Yesterday I installed the game which I borrowed from a friend and just now uninstalled it. What a bunch of crap

 

I agree with Morgoth, C&C from EA have no soul at all, RA3 is just an another trash Hollywood spawned game. Shame

Edited November 2, 2008 by Hildegard

[Calax]

I've heard the game is hit or miss. Some people love the feel of it and the Tim Curry (who doesn't love Tim Curry?) but others think its abominable.

 

It'll be interesting to see for myself once I get my hands on a copy.