Why I'm prejudging Red Alert 3.

[soadfan1]

I couldnt post this in the comments section I was going to as it is too long.

I do wish to say more but I dont like writing one long epic for fear of repeating myself.

Ive kept quiet on the whole RA3 front since it was announced but I can keep quiet no longer, I feel I must vent my thoughts.

Yes this will seem 'whiney', yes this will seem like a gigantic pre judgement, but I dont care, its what I see so far, and so far I've seen enough.

I totally agrewe with Derek on the cartoony side of things.
Armoured Bears? Stingrays? Polar bears?

Just because RA1 had attack dogs in it, which were actually used in war around that time, doesnt mean you should add in the rest of Noahs ark to go with it. Although at least it will give Steve Irwin fans some pleasure.

Red Alert to me hold a special place in my heart, without doubt my favourite game of all time, and it's probably this reason why I felt ra2 spat on it, and why I think ra3 will spit on it further.

Along with the well acted, but worst scripted c&c character of all time(Yuri), ra2 set about taking the urine out of everything that made ra1 so great, no grit, no class, and trying to add in hollywood B movie actors/actresses did it no favours. Where were the brutal executions of Stalin, the mystery of Stavros and Nadia and then Kanes appearance. Instead we had Yuri threatening everyone with flying saucers, the U.S president who doesn't give a wooden nickel about anything and a playstation red alert time warped General with a glued cigar to his teeth.


Had Ra2 been a completely different c&c title, like Generals I would have enjoyed it, but I simply could not enjoy it for what it was, it just seemed such a mickey take.

It just seems to me they have run out of ideas for c&c now, so they just add another number to each c&c title that comes out, throw a bunch of units a mod could've made together give them 1000 abilities, 999 of which never get used, slap together some half rate acting talent and think theyre on a winner.

I believe that I've seen enough of ra3 already to know that its going to be like ra2 in the sense I disliked the latter for.

Many will disagree with me I'm sure and claim I'm wrong for judging a game thats only just been announced.

But how can you not judge it when you're promised Tesla Stingrays, Armoured bears, and laser giraffes (probably)?

Thats without that ship that shoots tanks, the freezing Helicopter, and the Grinding magnet. Whats next a dog that shoots tanks out of its mouth and has the ability to freeze aircraft with its tail?

If I want that kind of ridiculouness I'll download a mod, not play a game that is the second sequel to one of the best games of all time!

I have a lot more to say but I'd be rambling on about how this is the first command and conquer title I am not looking forward too.

My 3 cents so far!

Reply as you will.

-Rob

[Quadhelix]

I totally agrewe with Derek on the cartoony side of things.
Armoured Bears? Stingrays? Polar bears? Actually, if you look here (http://www.cncgames.com/ra3_sovunits.shtml), the Stingray is a boat. Also, I'm not sure if the armored bears and the polar bears are two separate things.

Also, the bear was the symbol of Bolshevik Russia (at least early on), so giving the USSR armored bears is something of a historical inside joke.


Just because RA1 had attack dogs in it, which were actually used in war around that time, doesnt mean you should add in the rest of Noahs ark to go with it. I thought that this was clever.


Although at least it will give Steve Irwin fans some pleasure. This, on the other hand, is in incredibly poor taste and is inexcusable.


But how can you not judge it when you're promised Tesla Stingrays, Armoured bears, and laser giraffes (probably)? Again, Stingray=boat


Thats without that ship that shoots tanks, the freezing Helicopter, and the Grinding magnet. Agreed.

[Rowmen]

I personaly liked Ra2 More than Ra1, The humor in the game like actors, were fine. Yuri is a abandon class in Team alliance, Which makes it a broken Faction, but besides the failure to make a better compatable Team. Ra2 stole my heart with its Fast game play ( Fun Online)and Fun and corky story line. Now ra3 I hope to see it almost the exact type of game besides graphicly wise. Why change a game thats already good, besides the graphic part- Some people can be judgemental on graphics. Now this new Faction, Im sorta doubtful of its name, of it being a permanent class, rather calling it Japan or Empire it would have fine.... From what Ive seen from the screen shots it does look like crap( In my opinion) Why not base the game system off Warcraft 3-- Aleast that game made a good expansion from warcraft 2. Make 3-D objects ( Units-Buildings, etc) and Make a 2-D view Birds eye View.( Same as ra2) So really all they would of done is remake all the units in ra2 and make them 3-D and of coarse add some..

P.S its not that I dont like Yuri, I do like the Faction and find them unique but the teams needs to weaken in team combat, as I seen in another thread yuri has been discuss as how the team equals. But moding the team would fix the loss of a whole team. And now people who loved Yuri will lose this to ra3...

[HawkEye1102002]

I did not dislike RA2, infact, practically all of the units were believable, they did not look overdone or over-hi-tech as what RA3 has, some of these units look more fitting for a C&C3 based faction.

EA (in my oppinion) MUST redesign the units and remove all the silly cartoony stuff out of it and bring back the dark atmosphere of RA1

[Derek]

When RA2 first came out it was my favorite CNC. Now looking back on it, it is the worst CNC game ever made and a disgrace to the franchise. The graphics were almost as outdated as the gameplay, the storyline was a joke, and the actors were porn stars. This is right after TS too, which had incredible actors and a great storyline. TS was the best of the Westwood games, it was serious and dark, while RA2 was a Saturday morning cartoon. Generals on the other hand was a breath of fresh air for the series. It took what made CNC fun (modern, vehicle oriented combat (no melee units), fast pace, a focus on action, etc.) through out what was broken (MCV, instabuild, single build que) and replaced it with what worked from more successful RTS games (Dozers, build ques associated with factories). This combination made one of the best RTS games ever, with great faction diversity, amazingly deep strategies, headroom for a high level of skill, and of course the CNC feel to it. CNC3 then tried to combine the worlds of Generals and RA2, and failed pretty badly. Though (in its current version) it is better than RA2, its no where near Generals and like the Westwood games before essentially boils down to tank spam. With RA3 it looks like EA will once again try to combine the old and new, but leaning even more towards the old this time. Not a good sign at all. Worse yet, they look to be going overboard with the cartoony aspects of RA2, so it won't even have an enjoyable singleplayer. Does CNC really need to be the laughing stock of the RTS communiy again?

Anyways, I've gone off on a bit of a rant.

From what Ive seen from the screen shots it does look like crap( In my opinion) Why not base the game system off Warcraft 3-- Aleast that game made a good expansion from warcraft 2. Make 3-D objects ( Units-Buildings, etc) and Make a 2-D view Birds eye View.( Same as ra2)
How is that any different from any other 3D RTS? They are all 3D with a bird's eye view.

So really all they would of done is remake all the units in ra2 and make them 3-D and of coarse add some..
No, that would make it, just RA2.

[Rowmen]

How is that any different from any other 3D RTS? They are all 3D with a bird's eye view.


No, that would make it, just RA2.

Thats what the fans want, From what your saying your not a ra2 fan so your opinion on how ra3 doesn't matter. Your a Ts Fan, and I personally only liked ts When it came out and I never even bothered with CnC3.

Also it looks like your insulting ra2 from its single player yet its the mutiplayer we look forward to. Sure single player is fun but in the long run its not as in important

[Derek]

Thats what the fans want, From what your saying your not a ra2 fan so your opinion on how ra3 doesn't matter. Your a Ts Fan, and I personally only liked ts When it came out and I never even bothered with CnC3.
On the contrary, because I don't like RA2, I have all the more incentive to ensure that RA3 does not repeat the mistakes of its predecessor.

Also it looks like your insulting ra2 from its single player yet its the mutiplayer we look forward to. Sure single player is fun but in the long run its not as in important
I'm a Generals fan. And goddamn me if I don't want the next CNC game, be it RA, Tiberium, Generals, or something totally different, to have the depth and strategy of Generals. I want a game that is fast, fun, and has strategy, not a boring tank spam.

[Alpha and Omega]

I want a game that is fast, fun, and has strategy, not a boring tank spam.

So you want to start 10 minutes into a Generals game, basically.

[Derek]

10 minutes? Most Generals games would be long over.

[Alpha and Omega]

Every game of ZH I've ever played or even watched someone else play was well over an hour long, and they all ended in massive tunnel-bound tank rushes, or masses of tanks at least. The lag was unbearable.

Then again, I'm not as experienced or skilled at that game as maybe you are.

[Derek]

Stop playing No Rush 60.

If you want to see how to play ZH, here are some videos (I just found these searching on Youtube):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CmV0Ndch-w (A long game, sped up some to fit under 10 minutes for Youtube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=catzGQn5kr8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piJgGFoX1_4 (short game, an all-or-nothing rush goes wrong)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qlC-HTMGMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay9N_PNw49Q (this one is cut a little)

[Alpha and Omega]

Wasn't playing No Rush 60, wouldn't want to go that long. But everything either player threw out was countered and always weak, the game was balanced low. Unlike RA2 where everything owns everything.

[soadfan1]

Ok I see I was incorrect on the one part about Stingrays, I didnt realise they were a boat, thought they were another one of ra2's animal list.

Plus the part about Irwin, I loved the guy, but I tend to remain edgy, was kind of a reference to the amounmt of stingrays that were killed by supposed fans, and found on the beaches straight after his demise, rather than in bad taste at the man himself.

Back on topic,

Another thing that bothers me about c&c ra2 and onwards are the difficulty.

Ra1 for example had misions that really made you think, the one but last allied mission where you;re in a tunnel with no tanya having to get past tons of men and flame towers was pure genius. you really had to think, save often, and plan it.

Since then most/all missions revolve around building the base, using the dumb ai to your advantage because theres such a profound unit chain that whatever the enemy throws at you you can easily stop, and rolling them over with the biggest units.

Even the creep and peep missions tend to involve some kind of super unit that heals itself and never dies.

c&c 3 had some tough missions, but they weren't tough in the same way, they were either impossible, or easy, depending on how you played them.

However I cant really prejudge ra3 on that at all yet so its not really overly relevant, except for that I can guess they will be similar.

In ra2 everything was commercial and made politically correct, tanya was no longer this needle stabbing rough girl, she was this as Derek puts it a 'pornstar.'

Does anyone remember when people questioned why c&c wasn't called Tiberium Twilight, I cant remember who it was replied either apoc or verdu or someone replied with the psuedo- tempting comment ' who says this will be the last c&c'.

When you look deeper into that you realise, hold on whats going on here, they realise c&c is a winning franchise and wish to pump as many titles out with numbers as possible. Using the formulae theyve been 'perfecting' since ra2.

Its like they are using the Red Alert canon to go stupid and think up a load of jokey units and add them, kind of like a mod would do, which to me is the greatest insult.

IMO, they should make red Alert 3 then a final c&c game then one to link the two and then close the whole era of c&c down as an RTS for good, before they start insulting it even more, because its clear theyre not really paying attention to what the series is about and just throwing out title after title with a higher number on it.

Then if they want to make a seperate canon and go nuts on it, they can, I would enjoy it more then.

-Rob

[Derek]

Wasn't playing No Rush 60, wouldn't want to go that long. But everything either player threw out was countered and always weak, the game was balanced low. Unlike RA2 where everything owns everything.
Generals isn't "balanced low". That would better describe RA2 because a counter doesn't do much more damage than any other unit, and thats why tank spam is such a problem, there is nothing to effectively counter tanks but more tanks. Generals is balanced around ultra-hard counters. A tank is entirely useless again rocket infantry, infantry are mown down by any sort of gunfire, flames, or toxins. This forces unit mixing and micro and makes games faster because one mistake can leave your army or base wide open to attack. Both RA2 and Generals are fast games, this is what makes them CNC games. The difference is that RA2 is fast tank spam, similar to CNC3, while Generals has actual depth to it.

[apple23]

You got a point there, derek.

I really enjoyed RA2's gameplay to the point that it did have some really good hard counters (Rhinoes vs mirage tanks is NOT a hard counter...?) and there were some really good strategies and strategies to counter them. But overall, the game tended to be a tank spam fest because infantry were slow and weak. Probably the only thing I really liked from CNC3 was that infantry could keep up with tanks and had the strength to duke it out on the battlefield.

I must say, however, that RA2's storyline was too comical for me, now that I look back on it, and I don't think RA3 is going to be a whole lot better.

All we can do is hope and pray that EA can actually pull off a decent sequel to my favorite series (well, my second fav, TS was awesome)

[Alpha and Omega]

I guess I need to play RA2 more, cuz out of the 50 or so games I ever played online, never once did the "tank spam" come into play. Maybe I just didn't play enough.

[Derek]

And what did you mostly build instead?

[Alpha and Omega]

Game was too short to take time to build 50 tanks.

I tend to play Americans, and use paradrops for defensive screens. Early scouting with dogs followed closely by an engineer IFV, if he's too dumb to wall his important stuff then it's gg. From there it's whatever. Some games I used more naval, some more air, depended on where his weaknesses were.
If you scout properly you can hit weakspots while at least slowing his attempts to hit you. It's not about who has more tanks, it's about who's buildings are gone first.

Although, I will admit, A LOT of people would try to just build 15 or so tanks and rush asap. But they always failed, too many counters to plain tanks.

[Derek]

It doesn't have to have 50 tanks to be spam. When one of the most important skills in a game is "tank control", you know its a game of tank spam.

[Rowmen]

Well only soviets tank spam so if your Vs a iraq player most likely he will rush you. Some times allied ifv rush but not as often.

[apple23]

But there's a difference between tank spam and tank use. The difference is simple; if good micro with lots of tanks beats a common attack than it's tank spam, but if micro is in the common strategy, then it is simply using tanks. Generals is a perfect example.

[Derek]

If the strategy center around tanks, its tank spam. I doesn't matter whether they're microed or not, because anything can be improved with micro. The fact of the matter is that there is no need for unit mixing so tanks are spammed.

[Rowmen]

GGIs are awesome vs tanks they might be slow but they cant be crushed, tank spam can only be done good with soviets and thats how there class is played. Of coarse you can not tank spam and find your self losing. If your playing Vs allies you have to basically rush before they stock up on battle forts/GGIs because they destroy tanks.Thus a reason for tank spam.

[nyarlathotep]

Well, If you don't go tank, you're either too slow or you need a huge base for all those aircrafts.

And if you don't like tanks, there's many an other game to play (Age of Empires, for instance)

And I really did like the fact that RA2 was all about funny science, weird B-movie plotlines... If I wanted to play real strategy game with real units, I switched to Sudden Strike.

[Statalyzer]

If the strategy center around tanks, its tank spam. I doesn't matter whether they're microed or not, because anything can be improved with micro. The fact of the matter is that there is no need for unit mixing so tanks are spammed.

Exactly. But that doesn't mean that the better tank spammer wins, it means that you need to have a base of tanks to keep yourself safe to allow you to do all the other cool stuff.

[firest0rm]

just aslong as they wont allow us to do base 2 base i hate those people that build near there enemy it just dont fit

[Derek]

Sure it does, what doesn't make sense is that there is a magic circle around your buildings outside of which you can't build. And if you can't keep your enemy's vulnerable builders away from your base, clearly you're not very good.

[Statalyzer]

what doesn't make sense is that there is a magic circle around your buildings outside of which you can't build.

It also doesn't make sense that power can be instantly tranmitted to new buildings even when they are far away from the rest of your base.

[Alpha and Omega]

Why are arguing about which build style makes more sense?

It takes ten seconds to build a tank, in a tiny garage sized factory when no parts are even shown being brought in. Infantry are magically manifested in a barracks big enough for about 5 men, and walk out a door that is half the size of their body.

The fact that units and structures are produced in the field, in a contested area, in itself doesn't make sense.
However...it's a game, they aren't supposed to make sense. If everything was realistic, you wouldn't want to play it. I've been working on ideas for a super-realistic RTS game...and I have to say, I'd prolly be the only one who would play it.

[Rowmen]

Why are arguing about which build style makes more sense?

It takes ten seconds to build a tank, in a tiny garage sized factory when no parts are even shown being brought in. Infantry are magically manifested in a barracks big enough for about 5 men, and walk out a door that is half the size of their body.

The fact that units and structures are produced in the field, in a contested area, in itself doesn't make sense.
However...it's a game, they aren't supposed to make sense. If everything was realistic, you wouldn't want to play it. I've been working on ideas for a super-realistic RTS game...and I have to say, I'd prolly be the only one who would play it.

Not to mention the more realistic the game the longer it will take to play the game. Not to mention they would be alot harder to play......

[Statalyzer]

Why are arguing about which build style makes more sense?

It takes ten seconds to build a tank, in a tiny garage sized factory when no parts are even shown being brought in. Infantry are magically manifested in a barracks big enough for about 5 men, and walk out a door that is half the size of their body.

The fact that units and structures are produced in the field, in a contested area, in itself doesn't make sense.

/me salutes and gives +rep.

[Derek]

Why are arguing about which build style makes more sense?

It takes ten seconds to build a tank, in a tiny garage sized factory when no parts are even shown being brought in. Infantry are magically manifested in a barracks big enough for about 5 men, and walk out a door that is half the size of their body.

The fact that units and structures are produced in the field, in a contested area, in itself doesn't make sense.

However...it's a game, they aren't supposed to make sense. If everything was realistic, you wouldn't want to play it. I've been working on ideas for a super-realistic RTS game...and I have to say, I'd prolly be the only one who would play it.
Precisely.

Restricting a player's build space is arbitrary and contrived and invariable causes problems without solving any. There is no reason to have an MCV system, but its going to be in the game because of all the crybabies who have to have their "true" CNC game.

[Daishi]

The difference is that RA2 is fast tank spam, similar to CNC3, while Generals has actual depth to it.

Chill out, every unit had its uses (at least, more so than Generals). And tankspam had plenty of solid counters as Allies or Yuri. Those just showed up after the Battle Lab, not a problem either because tech tanks could be countered by desolators.

It doesn't matter whether they're microed or not, because anything can be improved with micro. The fact of the matter is that there is no need for unit mixing so tanks are spammed.

Soviets tank spam and micro greatly improves it. They sometimes build a few other units to support their army.
USAs vee spam and micro greatly improves it. They sometimes build a few other units to support their army.

Without such powerful tanks, the Allies and Yuri are made to use unit combos with very different properties to stop the rhinos.
Without such cost-effective light vehicles, China and GLA are made to use unit combos with very different properties to stop the vees.

I don't really see a difference here. There is enough gameplay depth to make RA2 a complex and learnable game, not so much as ZH, but perhaps some see it as a good thing.

Restricting a player's build space is arbitrary and contrived and invariable causes problems without solving any. There is no reason to have an MCV system, but its going to be in the game because of all the crybabies who have to have their "true" CNC game.

There's really no problem with the base-creeping MCV system. It's old, it could have been improved further in C&C3 (and the problems could have been averted better in the patches), it hurts your ability to stop structure rushes and restricts people to making fewer expansions, but it has its strengths, and its there to justify Tiberium Wars's position as a sequel to the classic C&Cs. Otherwise you'd need to give it another name or accept it as a spin-off like Generals.

[Rowmen]

I agree with daishi, in World War 1 there wasn't tanks and thats how the whole battle was trench war fare. But in World War 2 the Germans conquered alot of nations using mobile trucks and tanks. If anything ra2 is really based off the Soviets being the Nazis. Also aren't tanks suppose to be stronger than infantry...

[Avapodnaught]

Precisely.

Restricting a player's build space is arbitrary and contrived and invariable causes problems without solving any. There is no reason to have an MCV system, but its going to be in the game because of all the crybabies who have to have their "true" CNC game.
Its day seven of gaming, I have internet finally... now I can say, its a game, now shut up and enjoy it or don't play it at all, or enlist in the army
If you want to whine now about your lost money: Warning about things you may already know

A.Don't buy another and just do other things
B.Don't be sarcastic
C.Don't be bitchy, just because others are, it doesn't make it right
D.Don't go online and solve your problems other ways by violence and realize protesting against most good natured and other people may not always get you what you want (Yay, we got to a D)
E.Get Geico

[Daishi]

I agree with daishi, in World War 1 there wasn't tanks and thats how the whole battle was trench war fare. But in World War 2 the Germans conquered alot of nations using mobile trucks and tanks. If anything ra2 is really based off the Soviets being the Nazis. Also aren't tanks suppose to be stronger than infantry...

Historical references and realism =/= gameplay depth.

[Derek]

Chill out, every unit had its uses (at least, more so than Generals). And tankspam had plenty of solid counters as Allies or Yuri. Those just showed up after the Battle Lab, not a problem either because tech tanks could be countered by desolators.
Allies no, Mirage Tanks are still tanks. Yuri yes, but of course few people play YR and even fewer play (or play against) Yuri himself.

Soviets tank spam and micro greatly improves it. They sometimes build a few other units to support their army.
USAs vee spam and micro greatly improves it. They sometimes build a few other units to support their army.

Without such powerful tanks, the Allies and Yuri are made to use unit combos with very different properties to stop the rhinos.
Without such cost-effective light vehicles, China and GLA are made to use unit combos with very different properties to stop the vees.
Micro doesn't improve tank spam nearly as much as it improves MDvees, MDvees are entirely useless without micro (actually its pretty funny watching people with no micro try to use MDvees), and its not just unit control either. USA is fundamentally a map control and map awareness faction. They can't take the offensive early, instead they have to try to keep a few units alive while stopping attacks from all directions until they can tech up. And this is a lot harder than RA2's send takes towards enemy, maybe keep them moving a bit while fighting. Furthermore, this is just one faction. The other two factions are completely different, something unheard of in RA2.

I don't really see a difference here. There is enough gameplay depth to make RA2 a complex and learnable game, not so much as ZH, but perhaps some see it as a good thing.
No. Theres not. There just isn't.

and its there to justify Tiberium Wars's position as a sequel to the classic C&Cs. Otherwise you'd need to give it another name or accept it as a spin-off like Generals.
So lets see, Tiberian Sun should have had gunboats, in order to justify its position as a sequel to CNC1. It didn't have gunboats, therefore it wasn't a true sequel, it was just a spin off. Conclusion: A game must be identical to its predecessor to be a "true" sequel. Great logic there.

I agree with daishi, in World War 1 there wasn't tanks and thats how the whole battle was trench war fare. But in World War 2 the Germans conquered alot of nations using mobile trucks and tanks. If anything ra2 is really based off the Soviets being the Nazis. Also aren't tanks suppose to be stronger than infantry...
I think you're saying that 1) Without tanks the game will just be about turtleing, and 2) the Soviets must be tank based because they're based of the Nazis who have tanks. To the first, the only faction in Generals who depended on tanks to any extent (and it wasn't much of an extent) was China, and the game was far from a turtlefest (in fact, China mirrors were the slowest match up because of tanks). To the second, the Soviets aren't really based off any realistic faction, and definately not the Germans. They should be a faction with good tanks, but they shouldn't be a tank spamming faction.


And I have absolutely no idea what Avapod is trying to say. :wtf:

[Alpha and Omega]

My ideas for a realistic game are based off a double layer map system.

Areas would be marked off and made into individual maps, like in War of The Ring Mode in BFME:2.

Each area would have specific buildings that one could build, on preset locations. Some areas may just have a barracks, some power plants, and some defenses. Some may be tank factories, airfields, etc. Each one with important strategic value.

Players have an HQ or capital territory. Each territory they capture gives a certain stream of men, not units, but untrained men, as well as material and cash (material used to build and supply units, and cash is used in many interesting ways, such as hiring mercenaries, paying off enemy defectors, or giving prisoners incentives to give out information). Each unit would require a certain number of men, and undermanned units wouldn't be fully operable. (ex, an Abrams with only 3 tankers in it wouldn't be able to see very far, as there's no commander, Abrams with only 2 men take 3 times as long to reload, Abrams with 1 tanker can't fire any weapons)

Each man must be sent to training for his duty, either to tanker school, infantry training, pilot training, etc. Then they can take places in their units.
Advanced training can be made available by holding certain areas, but the training is expensive, so you can't just capture the SpecOps base map, train 1000 of 'em, and run.

Individual maps would be similar to Company of Heroes, as long as a unit is in captured and connected territory, it has unlimited ammo. Once it goes outisde of controlled areas, it has a limited supply until supply lines can be connected. Units only enter the area though ceratin points on the map (roads, airfields, etc.) though some units can avoid this (paratroopers, air assault troops in choppers, etc.).

During the up close battles, which occur when opposing units are on the same area, the Real-Time of the metagame stops so the all contested territories can be fought over, once battles are over, real time continues in the metagame. During the heat of a firefight one can zoom out to the paused metamap at the press of a button to call in reinforcements or support strikes from nearby batteries. Reinforcements can be called in from adjacent maps, from the units on that map. Fighting in a map next to an airbase? Call in air-support. Next to a SOCOM training area? Take some freshly trained DELTA for some field exercises. But one must be careful, because an attack on one area can be a feign, to draw troops away from an upcoming assault on another area. Reinforcements take time to get to the map, so one can use this tactic to one's advantage.

There's more to it that I'm prolly leaving out, and sorry for the long post, but I had to throw that out there for consideration.

[Daishi]

Allies no, Mirage Tanks are still tanks.
Which also have a solid counter.

Yuri yes, but of course few people play YR and even fewer play (or play against) Yuri himself.Personally, I don't think that matters when we're judging the game as a whole.

Micro doesn't improve tank spam nearly as much as it improves MDvees, MDvees are entirely useless without micro (actually its pretty funny watching people with no micro try to use MDvees), and its not just unit control either. USA is fundamentally a map control and map awareness faction. They can't take the offensive early, instead they have to try to keep a few units alive while stopping attacks from all directions until they can tech up. And this is a lot harder than RA2's send tanks towards enemy, maybe keep them moving a bit while fighting. Furthermore, this is just one faction. The other two factions are completely different, something unheard of in RA2.This is all very true, and the depth adds a lot to Gen/ZH, which is why I favor it over RA2/YR. But you said yourself: "It doesn't matter whether they're microed or not, because anything can be improved with micro." You claimed instead that it was all tank spam, and it's just as true that USA is a vee spamming faction. Just because micro and map awareness don't make as much of a difference on that old engine and therefore the game centers instead around unit production and simplified micro doesn't mean it can be a fun experience to play and to master. Maybe not for you, but I'm getting to that.

No. Theres not. There just isn't.Not to accuse you of being too subjective, but there's a lot of people who think differently about RA2, and they've played Gen/ZH. Myself included.

So lets see, Tiberian Sun should have had gunboats, in order to justify its position as a sequel to CNC1. It didn't have gunboats, therefore it wasn't a true sequel, it was just a spin off. Conclusion: A game must be identical to its predecessor to be a "true" sequel. Great logic there.Making use of classic mechanics and strategies = identical? Great logic yourself, game boy.

[crystal_sword]

i thought the RA2 Storyline was a Joke, but im not going to thrown a fit over it, i dont care what happened to "mother Russia" or "Patriotic America". I play it because if the game play with mates online..

As for Generals, its not that good derek. Seeing as you like Storyline, the Generals/Zero Hour Storyline was a complete Joke.

Patriotic and Righteous Americans, Cunning and Evil Terrorists, the Communist Lovin Chinese...

dont get me wrong, its ok, but Online its Lame, a True case of Camper = Winner. Unless you are some Expert who knows every possible strat to try and counter his, and offline the story is lame.

If you like the story, you must have really enjoyed RA2 then right?


i have to side with daishi over this one

[Rowmen]

his, and offline the story is lame.

If you like the story, you must have really enjoyed RA2 then right?




Yea I thought it was great

[Daishi]

i thought the RA2 Storyline was a Joke, but im not going to thrown a fit over it, i dont care what happened to "mother Russia" or "Patriotic America". I play it because if the game play with mates online..

As for Generals, its not that good derek. Seeing as you like Storyline, the Generals/Zero Hour Storyline was a complete Joke.

Patriotic and Righteous Americans, Cunning and Evil Terrorists, the Communist Lovin Chinese...

dont get me wrong, its ok, but Online its Lame, a True case of Camper = Winner. Unless you are some Expert who knows every possible strat to try and counter his, and offline the story is lame.

If you like the story, you must have really enjoyed RA2 then right?


i have to side with daishi over this one

Don't insult a great RTS when you have no clue what you're talking about. Derek and I only rate strategy games by multiplayer gameplay, which you don't seem to have a valid account of.

And personally, I enjoyed the Generals campaigns.

[Derek]

A&O, what your describing is not really RTS, but more along the lines of the Total War series, though no game has had quite the features you are describing. It would be a change of genre for CNC to do something like that, though it could be an interesting game.


Which also have a solid counter.
Please do tell, because I've yet to find a Soviet counter to massed Mirage Tanks (This is where I wish the game had replays). Desolaters don't count.

Personally, I don't think that matters when we're judging the game as a whole.
Well it does when most of the people argueing the other side are argueing exclusively from an RA2 standpoint and would throwout YR almost (almost) as fast as Generals. I think YR tried to do some good things with gameplay, but it didn't work out (whether due to lack of support or a stuffy community that refused to change, I don't know).

This is all very true, and the depth adds a lot to Gen/ZH, which is why I favor it over RA2/YR. But you said yourself: "It doesn't matter whether they're microed or not, because anything can be improved with micro." You claimed instead that it was all tank spam, and it's just as true that USA is a vee spamming faction. Just because micro and map awareness don't make as much of a difference on that old engine and therefore the game centers instead around unit production and simplified micro doesn't mean it can be a fun experience to play and to master. Maybe not for you, but I'm getting to that.
Well I'll admit that both USA does revolve mostly around "one" unit, the MDvee (though I hesistate to call it spamming due to the intricacies involved), and I still affirm that anything can be improved with micro, MDvees (and USA in general) require so much micro thats its essentially a completely different scenario. USA openly forgoes unit diversity and macro in general for intense micro, where as RA2 effectively forgoes both.

Making use of classic mechanics and strategies = identical? Great logic yourself, game boy.

Not to accuse you of being too subjective, but there's a lot of people who think differently about RA2, and they've played Gen/ZH. Myself included.
Well I suppose this depends on what one considers complex. I have pretty high standards for RTS. The only games I've played extensively (thus excluding all the Blizzard games) that I have felt offered good strategic depth were Gen/ZH and Dawn of War.

Making use of classic mechanics and strategies = identical? Great logic yourself, game boy.
You can't arbitrarily pick something and say, "The sequel must have this, or its not a true sequel". What if everything else was the exact same, except the BO? Would it still be a sequel? I don't know what you'ld say, but it seems pretty obvious to me that it would. There is no one thing that makes a CNC game CNC, or a Tiberium game Tiberium (okay, tiberium itself must be present, unless they came up with a really good way of getting it out of the storyline). What makes a CNC game to me is the feel, fast paced, moder(ish), vehicle centered combat. The only other game that might really fit this category is Act of War, which was essentially based on ZH anyways.

As for Generals, its not that good derek. Seeing as you like Storyline, the Generals/Zero Hour Storyline was a complete Joke.
Well your horribly miscontrued my post. I couldn't give a **** about singleplayer if the multiplayer is good, as it should be. This is commonly accepted in FPS games: CS:S, TF2, Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, none of these games have any real singleplayer, but they're multiplayer is great and the games shine on these merits alone. This is how the RTS genre should be, multiplayer first, singleplayer as a bonus. Sadly, this is only the case for Blizzard. Had RA2 had good multiplayer, I would have just ignored its singleplayer, but it didn't and thats the only reason I'm comparing its story to Tiberian Sun's.

but Online its Lame, a True case of Camper = Winner.
Good luck with that.

[Daishi]

Please do tell, because I've yet to find a Soviet counter to massed Mirage Tanks (This is where I wish the game had replays). Desolaters don't count.

Of course they count. If you're against the Allies, there's no other Soviet to pick, and they are an effective counter. :nuts:

Well it does when most of the people argueing the other side are argueing exclusively from an RA2 standpoint and would throwout YR almost (almost) as fast as Generals. I think YR tried to do some good things with gameplay, but it didn't work out (whether due to lack of support or a stuffy community that refused to change, I don't know).It was bad balance. Choosing Yuri was a free win in most situations.

Well I'll admit that both USA does revolve mostly around "one" unit, the MDvee (though I hesistate to call it spamming due to the intricacies involved), and I still affirm that anything can be improved with micro, MDvees (and USA in general) require so much micro thats its essentially a completely different scenario. USA openly forgoes unit diversity and macro in general for intense micro, where as RA2 effectively forgoes both.Forgoes? To me, it simplifies.

Well I suppose this depends on what one considers complex. I have pretty high standards for RTS. The only games I've played extensively (thus excluding all the Blizzard games) that I have felt offered good strategic depth were Gen/ZH and Dawn of War.Complexity/gameplay depth isn't everything. It's what eventually turned me away from Dawn of War. I still play casual RA2 not only out of nostalgia but also because of its unique feel and blinding speed. And I play ZH because it's intense, easy to learn, and tons of fun to play, which is what I expect in an RTS. To me, ZH's complexity advantage is just there to keep it from getting old.

You can't arbitrarily pick something and say, "The sequel must have this, or its not a true sequel". What if everything else was the exact same, except the BO? Would it still be a sequel? I don't know what you'ld say, but it seems pretty obvious to me that it would. Uh, you did it again. The MCV system is perhaps the most recognizable gameplay aspect of the C&C series, not some randomly picked substrategy.

[Derek]

Of course they count. If you're against the Allies, there's no other Soviet to pick, and they are an effective counter. :nuts:
Its a faction specific unit. If you say that there is no other counter, then you are saying that all Allies beat all Soviets except Iraq. If that is the case, then the game is imbalanced, which is generally not what I've heard.

It was bad balance. Choosing Yuri was a free win in most situations.
Which explains why people don't play Yuri, but not why most still play RA2 instead of YR.

Forgoes? To me, it simplifies.
Call it what you like, it makes the game more shallow.

Complexity/gameplay depth isn't everything. It's what eventually turned me away from Dawn of War. I still play casual RA2 not only out of nostalgia but also because of its unique feel and blinding speed. And I play ZH because it's intense, easy to learn, and tons of fun to play, which is what I expect in an RTS. To me, ZH's complexity advantage is just there to keep it from getting old.
You're right that its not everything. I don't play Dawn of War anymore because I got tired of the slow gameplay and fantasy elements. But it is essential, if you don't have strategic depth the game gets boring very fast.

Uh, you did it again. The MCV system is perhaps the most recognizable gameplay aspect of the C&C series, not some randomly picked substrategy.
You might think. But when you think about it, you recognize a CNC game by its look and feel, not its build system. You can take one look at the RA3 screenshots that have been released (which don't show any interface, mind you) and immediately recognize them as CNC and more specifically Red Alert. They could use a dozer or MCV, you can't tell, but its obviously a CNC game. Meanwhile, I could show you a game (if one existed) that obviously used an MCV system, but looked like Warcraft or Age of Empires, and you wouldn't think CNC, because it would be nothing like CNC. Its clear that there is something far deeper than the build system that defines CNC, in fact the build system really has nothing to do with it at all, its just an interface aspect. Its like saying that Doom 3 isn't a Doom game, because you couldn't jump in Doom 1 and 2.

[Daishi]

Its a faction specific unit. If you say that there is no other counter, then you are saying that all Allies beat all Soviets except Iraq. If that is the case, then the game is imbalanced, which is generally not what I've heard.

YR is very much imbalanced, and RA2 to a lesser degree. Iraq = America = Korea in power in vanilla RA2. But the desolator remains the only workable Soviet counter to mirages (I once filled up an amphibious transport with tesla troopers and that annihilated the mirages and prisms in YR, but that's something else) and means that in the late game, the Soviets generally won't stand a chance, meaning a tank rush is vital. What's more, the Libyan and Russian special units are useless and over-expensive except in extreme superweapon-related circumstances. Terrorists are useful early on, and that keeps Cuba balanced against most Allies and even gives them a slight edge over Iraq.


Which explains why people don't play Yuri, but not why most still play RA2 instead of YR.Still probably because of the balance. And possibly because of its relative simplicity. (hint hint)

You're right that its not everything. I don't play Dawn of War anymore because I got tired of the slow gameplay and fantasy elements. But it is essential, if you don't have strategic depth the game gets boring very fast.RA2 apparently doesn't (people still play it). I think that either kills your position in this argument or at least proves you're being too subjective.

You might think. But when you think about it, you recognize a CNC game by its look and feel, not its build system.Once again, we're talking about gameplay here, and as C&C3 proudly boasts, new features can very easily be added to old features in the development of new games. (Doom 3 is a good example, thanks)

Now then, everybody, do you really think it would "look and feel" like the preceding C&C titles with a unit-based build system? Why do you think people were pissed when they added the "C&C" tag to Generals to push sales? Because it might have looked like one from the outside, but it wasn't like the other related titles they grew to know and love at all.

[Derek]

RA2 apparently doesn't (people still play it). I think that either kills your position in this argument or at least proves you're being too subjective.
No, it just proves that people play bad games.

Once again, we're talking about gameplay here, and as C&C3 proudly boasts, new features can very easily be added to old features in the development of new games. (Doom 3 is a good example, thanks)
There's not much for the MCV in CNC3 to be proud about.

Now then, everybody, do you really think it would "look and feel" like the preceding C&C titles with a unit-based build system? Why do you think people were pissed when they added the "C&C" tag to Generals to push sales? Because it might have looked like one from the outside, but it wasn't like the other related titles they grew to know and love at all.
Seeing as Generals feels like a CNC game and no other game, we already know that the answer is yes.

[Daishi]

No, it just proves that people play bad games.

There's not much for the MCV in CNC3 to be proud about.

Seeing as Generals feels like a CNC game and no other game, we already know that the answer is yes.

Now don't go calling ME subjective, but I think it's obvious by now that too much of your argument is based on your personal opinions and attitudes. People may refuse Generals for whatever reasons, but they still play these old games because they're still fun. And that's what a good game is: fun for the people that play it. That still play it. Meaning RA2 didn't get old for them, meaning it either had substantial gameplay depth or that gameplay depth isn't as important as you say it is.

I'm not saying Generals isn't a superior game (well, duh, it is). But it wasn't true enough gameplay-wise to the series it was shuffled into, and that hurt the players' opinions of it. They wouldn't have minded if it was just called Generals, but it wouldn't have been such a blockbuster otherwise.

C&C3 brought back what we liked most about classic C&C and made plenty of innovations for a modern, fast-paced RTS. And people find it fun, apparently regardless of how much gameplay depth there is.

I repeat, there's nothing wrong with the "restrictive" MCV system. It's just different, and perhaps a tad underdeveloped. (it would do better if buildings were MORE limited and dozers could be used as build queues rather than cranes.) But it's a staple of the C&C style, just like Tiberium and the tank rush, and that play style is what most of us are looking for in the future of the series.

[SgtRicko]

Believe it or not Derek, there were quite a few big-name game reviewers that said that the usage of the Dozer system in Generals was both an admission of defeat in that the Craft series' build style was superior to C&C, and that it barely felt like a C&C game at all, not even visually.


No, it just proves that people play bad games.


You can't possibly be more subjective than this statement is, man.:rockbrow:

[crystal_sword]

Don't insult a great RTS when you have no clue what you're talking about. Derek and I only rate strategy games by multi player gameplay, which you don't seem to have a valid account of.

im not insulting it, i play it myself with a friend online...

But criticizing RA2 for obtuse reasons means you could just as easily Slate Generals. if you udnerstand where i am coming From..

the MCV system was Fine IMO. just because its not like another game does not mean its not "under-devolped".

If its different, it does not make it worse/better. thats for YOU to decide.

seeing as RA2 and YR are like 7/8 years old and you get arguably the same amount of Generals/ZH players (what i heard, correct me if i am wrong). You have to say RA2/YR is pretty good.

p.s. i did not want to offend anyone, so dont take it wrong way. all im saying is that their just games, and different people like different things.

take care

[Daishi]

I see now. Sorry I was a bit hotheaded earlier, crystal_sword.

[Avapodnaught]

Sorry for the confusion Derek but basically what I was trying to say is that realism hearts the fun games that many love, you can't have it both ways (I.e. so very fun, and so very realistic)
I was trying to say that if you want realism go out there, make your own game, or enlist in the army for your sake of realism in your 'games', but I ask you, would enlisting in the army during a war or taking the time making your own game and having people bitch and complain over it be that fun?
I'm honestly sorry for the confusion:(

[Alpha and Omega]

A&O, what your describing is not really RTS,

Well, considering that the game would always be moving in real-time. By definition it is RTS.

The metagame is in real-time as well, it just pauses when regional battles come up, so that you can't have 8 regional real-time battles goin at once or something. Gotta take 'em one at a time at least.

[Derek]

I'm not saying Generals isn't a superior game (well, duh, it is). But it wasn't true enough gameplay-wise to the series it was shuffled into, and that hurt the players' opinions of it. They wouldn't have minded if it was just called Generals, but it wouldn't have been such a blockbuster otherwise.
Don't buy that BS. They still would have hated it, they just wouldn't have bought it either. The only thing the name does is give them a chance to complain about it not being CNC. What they actually don't like (or refuse to try) is a game that takes more than tank spam to win.

C&C3 brought back what we liked most about classic C&C and made plenty of innovations for a modern, fast-paced RTS. And people find it fun, apparently regardless of how much gameplay depth there is.
Which totally explains why most of the RA2 people hate CNC3. CNC3 has the same basic design as RA2, but does it a lot more slowly. Now with proper support, EA has managed to make it better than RA2, but its still slow and spammy as hell.

I repeat, there's nothing wrong with the "restrictive" MCV system. It's just different, and perhaps a tad underdeveloped. (it would do better if buildings were MORE limited and dozers could be used as build queues rather than cranes.)
That would fix some of the problems, but would constrict BOs again. Compare the BO diversity of Generals to the rigid BOs of RA2. CNC3 attempted to, and partially succeeded at, bringing this diversity to the MCV system with the crane and surveyors, but the side effect was more economy and tier 3 defense spamming. Dozers don't have these problems because they are more harassable (the more restricted economy in Generals also helps a lot, I'll get to that later).

But it's a staple of the C&C style, just like Tiberium and the tank rush, and that play style is what most of us are looking for in the future of the series.
Again, its not a staple of the CNC style, its just a trait common to all but Generals. The MCV does not make a game "feel" CNC, its the action that does, and this action can be achieved with or without the MCV.


I'm going to introduce a new thread of discussion here, and see your reactions to it. The biggest problem in CNC3, bigger than the MCV system, was the run away economy. It was easy and beneficial to strip mine fields, allowing for spamming units from several factories while teching at the same time, and making economy harassment ineffective. Generals didn't have this problem because of its localized economy. This is another thing that many people, I'm sure some of you included, said was un-CNC, but it forced a cap on the number of units harvesting at one time: Two chinooks, two trucks, or 7 workers. This limited the maximum income. Additionally the unit were more harassable, workers were just infantry, supply trucks were lightly armored, and chinooks were aircraft, with about medium armor, but vulnerable to long range AA. This is something I only realized when I played CNC3 and saw what the runaway economy was like, before I played CNC3 I wouldn't have said this. RA3 needs to some way to limit the economy. I don't care how it is done, but it must be done, some way or the other, even if this means forgoeing ore to have localized supplies (but again, I'm not saying this is the only way to do it).

On a side note, harvesters should only gather half their value at a time, this rule of thumb seems to have worked well in the past. And no crystals, at least not in multiplayer. It will just cause economy booming.

[Zardac the Great]

Well, I just got done playing through Red Alert 1 again, and I was struck by how superior it was to C&C.

Red Alert had everything I love. Fast game play, a long campaign (very important), and a discernable story that was actually decent.

Red Alert 2 is a fun game to play, I suppose, but it's not quite Red Alert. I think mainly because they had a fairly goofy story and outright silly units.

I don't like silly units. I understand that the Soviets really did work on mind controll, but in Yuri's revenge, it just went too far.

That said...I'm dissapointed that the Allies won't have Harriers (my favorite plane. I think I can be excused for being dissapointed), won't have Prism tech, have amphibious ships (but have lost their naval superiority and apparently have no heavy hitting ship) and that nobody has nukes.

Nuclear weapons have been in RA from the start, and it was always very gratifying to me to have to go around repeatedly sabatoging Soviet nuclear research and Iron Curtain tech.

While I can't claim to miss the indoor missions (I HATE them.) I do approve of missions that make you think. Red Alert had these, and Red Alert 2 didn't. I hope Red Alert 3 does.

^And yes, I want Gems. Something mixed in with the ore to add a little "spice" or something

However, the only thing I'm really dissapointed with so far is the story. I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that the Allies are evil...it just doesn't seem right! **sob**

However, a few days ago (I found out about RA3 today), I did note that there wouldn't be any realistic way for the Soviets to come smashing Westward again without seeming too familiar and overdone, and I surmised that the Allies must launch an invasion of the Soviet Union, either to stop the Soviets from invading, or to remove the Red threat once and for all.

Excited about Japan though. Glad I don't live in the RA3 world though. No Godzilla.

[Avapodnaught]

All Cnc3 needs to restrict such damn tib field stripping is an easier way to rush them and kill harvesters and perhaps a small increase in all unit speed for good measure
Harvesters have too much armor (Nod's is a little close to call though), especially the Gdi one, with its own gun and in Kw it will be more trouble to deal with
The early game economy must be changed so that things like faster bikes AND pitbulls can take out them easier (but tanks could be built about that time too to counter those units so less whining there)


I hate your precious Zero Hour for the problems it brings with economy, you get too litle at a time so you are restricted in build orders that you have to wait a little just Like in Cnc3 and hit a small Eco Boom tact until you get to the massive tier point where you can just spam your life with Black Markets and other Crazy weapons you get once you hit tier level (Palace Bunkers, Aurora Bombers, Jarmen Kell, Nuclear Cannons, Scud Launchers, Rocket Buggies, ECM and Microwave tanks, Avengers)
The thing I hate is this:
It all requires many of the things that other Cnc Games need to take them out, a Little Micro and the right units to take them out
People just seem to ignore this, like Scud Launcher and Nuclear Cannon need fast units to take them out
Microing anti air helps get an Aurora Bomber
Managing you anti infantry and stealth detection for Jarmen Kell and so on

Don't give me this crap about the games being so different, they are so similar they are Command And Conquer, but different enough people just want to look the other way since Cnc3 doesn't have all those crazy cominations that are available in Zero Hour (KW might, but it ain't out yet)
So shut the hell up and talk about RA3, no new topics inside a topic, this isn't about Zero Hour or Cnc3

[Zardac the Great]

Well, the more I hear about Red Alert 3, the more excited I get. The only thing I'm really unhappy about is the length of the campaign, but with the larger maps, perhaps this will be negated to some extent. Larger maps leave the possibility for each mission to be a "mini-campaign" wide open.

I'm not sure what to think about the new Mirage tanks. It seems like they're designed to use one-and only one, but I'd like to see them in action before I actually judge them.

It seems to me that Soviet Conscripts pwn Allied Peacekeepers forever. The Peacekeepers have to use the shields to get close enough to shotgun the Reds, but that shield can be eradicated by a Molotov, leaving the Allies open to the AK-47.

I wonder if infantry will be in squads...

[Avapodnaught]

Most likely they will have squads good point about the Large Maps being 'mini-campaigns' as well


I would really hope for those

[Nullivex]

After reading through a lot of really good opinions in this thread. I wanted to post just a few of my thoughts.

First off I think that Ra3 is on the right track with moving forward. Of course there is going to be escalation in the units etc. Part of moving towards the future. And Red alert has never been set directly into our timeline.

Second, I like that they have brightened things. The cartoony feel gave Ra2 style and I am glad to see a bit of the brightness back in ra3. Though I thought Ra1 was brighter than and of the Tib series. it just makes things easy to see.

Third, I think the sight and sounds phase of the gaming world is starting to wear off and they are getting back to gameplay. 3D was great but companies were just worried about how good their graphics looked and no how fun the game was. I think they have lost enough sales to this that they are after making something great again.

I have high hopes for Red Alert 3 and I just really hope they dont get shot down.

[Statalyzer]

Red Alert 2 is a fun game to play, I suppose, but it's not quite Red Alert. I think mainly because they had a fairly goofy story and outright silly units.

I don't like silly units. I understand that the Soviets really did work on mind controll, but in Yuri's revenge, it just went too far

Considering the whole timeline starts with using time-travel to remove someone from time so that they never existed in the first place, I don't see how you can say that. RA did have a better story and FMVs than RA2. RA2 really had better units though, because the support units could be decisive where in RA when really only tanks, tanya, cruisers, and maybe migs could really win you the game.

[Derek]

Third, I think the sight and sounds phase of the gaming world is starting to wear off and they are getting back to gameplay. 3D was great but companies were just worried about how good their graphics looked and no how fun the game was. I think they have lost enough sales to this that they are after making something great again.
Companies never forgot about gameplay, it never suffered. And companies are still pushing the envelope as well (case in point, Crysis).

[nyarlathotep]

but that's an fps, and that's no fun...for me anyhow.

[Zardac the Great]

I think the way the Chronosphere operates has changed.

In RA1 & 2, the timer charged up for one use, then had to recharge, but now we're told we can play "Hot Potato" with the Time Bomb, using the Chronosphere. That wouldn't work with traditional Chronosphere deployment.

This suggests to me that one of three things will happen.

A) Multiple Chronospheres are allowed.

B) Chronoshifting becomes a support power, much like Nod's Seed Tiberium ability or GDI's Sonic Artillery power in C&C 3, where you pay for each use, but there would be no timer associated with it, because then Chronoshifting Hot Potato would be impossible.

or C) The Chronosphere has become much like the Firestorm Defense System from Tiberian Sun, where it charges up, but can be used in "Small Portions," where the entire charge is not necessarily used up completely with one use.

I also suspect that whatever is true for the Chronosphere is also true for the Iron Curtain.

[Nullivex]

Companies never forgot about gameplay, it never suffered. And companies are still pushing the envelope as well (case in point, Crysis).

Look at gens. The gameplay was horrible. There were no cinematics. The only advantage of that games was a 3d engine.

[Derek]

Look at gens. The gameplay was horrible. There were no cinematics. The only advantage of that games was a 3d engine.
Cinematic = Gameplay?

I think this discussion is over.

[Zardac the Great]

I thought Generals was fun...

[Rowmen]

We really think of Red Alert being not so much about World War II or the Cold War, but it really is about time travel and the unintended consequences that can occur from meddling in areas that no man has a right to.

the leadership descends into the bowels of the Kremlin into their secret labs where they have this skunk works project going on. They fire up this prototype of this device which is a time machine that's never been used before

pretty full bore with the cinematics this time. We're going to have more than an hour of cinematics

This was a part of a review

http://pc.ign.com/articles/859/859781p1.html

[Avapodnaught]

Nice find, I like the approach on this game
Making Sea and Air sounds great, but I hope they also promote the crazy infantry types even with the game starting with 3 factions (no mind control though, leave that to Scrin and or Yuri)
Although I don't like the fact if you spent all your money on land that you could lose (there should be enough resources on land to set up air) just because there is more money on sea... sounds kind of... one sided?
But I still like naval


Has anyone see the below sea level island formations in some pictures right below a piece of island, that is nice shading imo, and you can see in some photos some underwater items, but I can't see what they are for

[OneWiseJedi]

Look at gens. The gameplay was horrible. Zero Hour is one of most important RTS games ever made. Its by far the best C & C game made to date.

[Daishi]

Thank you!

[Rowmen]

Zero Hour is one of most important RTS games ever made. Its by far the best C & C game made to date.

I really don't think thats even possible to say, maybe you find it the best rts but I know alot of other people that wouldn't agree with you.In fact you can ask the whole population c&c fans and I bet generals wouldn't even hit 40% of that.

[OneWiseJedi]

In fact you can ask the whole population c&c fans and I bet generals wouldn't even hit 40% of that. Thats irrelevant.

[Rowmen]

Not really, its just a test of how willing I'm sure my post was correct. It was the frosting on a cake, if you need to picture it.

[Daishi]

Objectivity, Rowmen.

One irrelevant thing regarding the quality of any game is what percentage of people is aware of its quality.

More relevant are its advantages and disadvantages stacked up against those of other RTS titles over the last decade.

[nyarlathotep]

Zero Hour is one of most important RTS games ever made. Its by far the best C & C game made to date.

Well, 1 things for sure, THE most important RTS game is Dune 2, followed by dune emperor because that's the first 3D RTS.

Neither do I think it's the best, since I had more fun playing RA2, but that's more of a personal choice.

[Derek]

Well, 1 things for sure, THE most important RTS game is Dune 2, followed by dune emperor because that's the first 3D RTS.
Wrong and wronger. The most important RTS game is Starcraft, by far. It set a bar for excellence that has never been beaten, and is the most competetively played game in the world. And the first 3D RTS was Total Annihilation.

[Rowmen]

Total Annihilation was pwnage

[Statalyzer]

and is the most competetively played game in the world.

According to OWJ, that's not relevant.

[nyarlathotep]

Wrong and wronger. The most important RTS game is Starcraft, by far. It set a bar for excellence that has never been beaten, and is the most competetively played game in the world. And the first 3D RTS was Total Annihilation.

Okay, granted, you can put starcraft in between Dune 2 & Dune emperor. But Dune 2 did set the standards for the RTS genre in 1992, while Starcraft is from 1998.

And I never really played TA, so I don't really remember if it was truly 3D. And I don't mean 3D like Warcraft 3 where everything is made in 3D but you can only see from 1 point of view. I mean really everything like zoom, pan, tilt etc.

[Daishi]

I don't think it's the hype that defines Starcraft as the most important game, Stat. It's the way that it's fluid, balanced, easy to get into, and still has a massive enough learning curve to justify its place as the best competitive RTS.

Generals was as close as C&C ever got to that. Too bad EA's objective was never to make a highly competitive international community, or Starcraft might have had a 3D rival in the totally balanced Generals/ZH.

[Rowmen]

Well my Favorite RTS is Ra2 and thats whole reason I'm on these forums- liked more than StarCraft and Warcraft even tho those games are great

[OneWiseJedi]

Statalyzer I was saying that most of the people I have talked with did not give Generals a chance due to the "No MCV" element and the like. So they based a game on what was not in it, instead of what was. Thats whats irrelevant. I have always enjoyed Star Craft and War Craft I & II before that. I liked Dune II it had 3 factions as well as worms that were a nice touch of micro to avoid.

I agree with Daishi about Zero Hours fate.

What Derek said is relevant due to the fact it has most people playing an RTS competitively; also it brought people to the table that may never been there before, thats important.

In Dune my favorite part of the game was the "Death hand approaching" warning.

[Zardac the Great]

Bah. I never liked StarCraft.

However, I am a bit of a C&C partisan, so take what you will from that statement.

I do, however, love other RTS games. Like Paraworld. The "Craft" games just never really interested me when I played them.

[SgtRicko]

I don't think it's the hype that defines Starcraft as the most important game, Stat. It's the way that it's fluid, balanced, easy to get into, and still has a massive enough learning curve to justify its place as the best competitive RTS.

Massive learning curves are not good things to have in a game, Daishi. They tend to kill off a lot of the more casual gamer types interest, and only serve to satisfy the devoted.

[Avapodnaught]

Massive learning curves are not good things to have in a game, Daishi. They tend to kill off a lot of the more casual gamer types interest, and only serve to satisfy the devoted.
I say only to the point where getting expert is hard

[Derek]

I think what he means is that even at high levels of play, there is still lots of room to improve. This is called headroom, it allows the very best players to differentiate from the kind of best players. So unless you're playing for hundreds of thousands of dollars in Korea, there is always more to improve on.

Of course, people have also bee playing SC so long that even the "newbs" are pretty damn good by now.

[OneWiseJedi]

The commentary is great too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkzYssPZ9Rs&feature=related


Do you think that Red Alert 3 will achieve this popularity.

[EliteGi]

Zero Hour is one of most important RTS games ever made. Its by far the best C & C game made to date.
You can't be serious here mate. It was not important, it didn't revolutionize anything and will be forgotten in the future. Important to who?

Starcraft may be the most important game ever in the RTS genre but by god, I can't think of a more boring game. It's brilliantly balanced and thought-through, but I hate it. It lacks character and fun. Something the C&C series has always had, which is why it is so popular. This is, with the possible exception of Generals (and lesser extend Zero Hour).

Tell me I'm wrong, but the fact is I've played every bit of C&C available since the first year it came out, and never have I put a game down as quickly as Generals. No character, no fun elements, no solid storyline - just online gameplay that was full of n00bs and pricks, that can't stand losing.

Edit: Sorry if I came accross as a wankah, but yeah I feel something great previous C&C games have had is a fun storyline and involving atmosphere, to go with fun online play that got me addicted. I didn't get the same feeling with Gen/ZH and haven't got a PC to run anything post-Gen. :( Games that play brilliantly online is good yeah (which Gen/ZH didn't for me), but if that's all the game is then it's half a package IMHO.

[Derek]

You can't be serious here mate. It was not important, it didn't revolutionize anything and will be forgotten in the future. Important to who?
Well lets see, its the only CNC that ever had a serious multiplayer community, it introduced concepts that have been used in many other games since (variations on the idea of Generals Points have been used in AoE3, CoH, and WiC, all non-EA games). I mean just take one look at the ZH section on GR.org and tell me thats its "unimportant", in fact the entire GR.org site grew out of ZH, and is now the most important RTS website in the world.

Starcraft may be the most important game ever in the RTS genre but by god, I can't think of a more boring game. It's brilliantly balanced and thought-through, but I hate it. It lacks character and fun. Something the C&C series has always had, which is why it is so popular. This is, with the possible exception of Generals (and lesser extend Zero Hour).

Tell me I'm wrong, but the fact is I've played every bit of C&C available since the first year it came out, and never have I put a game down as quickly as Generals. No character, no fun elements, no solid storyline - just online gameplay that was full of n00bs and pricks, that can't stand losing.
Character? Dude. Team Fortress 2 is character. CNC is cheesy actors and generic units. Generals had no more character than any other CNC game, but at least its gameplay was top notch. That can't be said for any other CNC game. And if you haven't played Generals online at a serious level, you have not "played ever bit of CNC", you've not even played half of it. I mean, I know that not everyone wants to devote the time it takes to get good at a game (though its not that much), but if you're not going to then admit that you aren't knowledgable. I don't like hearing people call a game "boring" when they haven't even really played it. For the same reason, I hate it when a friend (kind of) of mine says that video games are all terrible because he didn't enjoy five minutes of Halo.

[Rowmen]

Well lets see, its the only CNC that ever had a serious multiplayer community, it introduced concepts that have been used in many other games since (variations on the idea of Generals Points have been used in AoE3, CoH, and WiC, all non-EA games). I mean just take one look at the ZH section on GR.org and tell me thats its "unimportant", in fact the entire GR.org site grew out of ZH, and is now the most important RTS website in the world.



Only Generals had a serious community? If you meant only Generals then Im Laughing with tears and I dont really wanna explain my self.

[Daishi]

Only Generals had a serious community? If you meant only Generals then Im Laughing with tears and I dont really wanna explain my self.
Well, C&C3 had one too. That's about it for highly competitive communities though.

That "TF2 > C&C in character depth" comment was pretty stupid, Derek. I agree with you on every other point, though.

[Derek]

CNC3's community is only the result of all the money EA has put into it for prizes. People will play pretty much any game if money is on the line. But when WCG and the official ladder season are over, what do you see in the lobbies? Nothing, they literally empty out. People have posted the stats before, hardly anyone is playing it still. (I do think KW might turn this around, I'm really hoping so, but there are some very fundamental problems that EA must overcome)

That "TF2 > C&C in character depth" comment was pretty stupid, Derek.
Who said anything about depth? He was talking about character, personality. TF2 has so much style it can't be described, you'll have to play the game to fully understand what I'm talking about, but you can get an idea from some of the videos. TF2 is entirely its own game, it doesn't look, feel, or play like anything else. Thats character.

[soadfan1]

It gets worse

The Soviet faction had some history with quadruped units like the Terror Drone in Red Alert 2. The Sickle is basically a larger version of the Terror Drone chassis, armed by machine gunners. We’re definitely looking back to the previous Red Alert games for some visual inspiration. We try to be true to the art style of Red Alert and its sequel while also going someplace new and fun visually.

Shouldn't they be saying Red alert GAME, since RA1 never had this kind of unit.


Red Alert is all about over-the-top, humorous unit interactions. What kind of cool and fun attacks and interactions will the Sickle and Bullfrog bring to the table? It’s been heard, but not seen that the Bullfrog can shoot parachuting Bears out of it, care to shed some more light on this and the other fun things these two units can do?

If thats what Red Alert is all about I definately dont want ti know about it.

Sorry but its like because they didnt make Ra1 they just forget about it and think the only RA game that existed was RA2.

If I want over the top stupidity, I'll download a free mod, honestly they are taking the piss out of the Red Alert series now. I've never said this about any c&c during my 12 years of loyal devotion, but this will be the first c&c title I am not interested in.

Oh and 'shoot parachuting Bears' ....... my soul hurts....

[wkw427]

I agree. With the bad support for cnc3 and kw, I doubt RA3 would even boot up on my comp sadly

Might torrent it though. Least I can try it without looseing $50

[Derek]

Might torrent it though. Least I can try it without looseing $50
Just because you don't like something, doesn't give permission to steal it. Just don't buy it.

[Zardac the Great]

I too wish that RA3 was a serious game, but I think I'll just be glad that it's coming out. Yes, Red Alert 1 was serious, and I like that, but Red Alert 2 was a bit silly, and I like that too. I'm just going to enjoy it.

It reminds me of some stuff I saw at a forum about Street Fighter 4. I'm just glad it's got Blanka again. I'm not going to join the people who said, "Oh Noes! It's not 2D!!!"

[Commander Dave]

:rant: Well the way i see it is ummmm........... :yuck: Get over it because RED ALERT 3 IS COMING SO GET READY RED OCTOBER WILL BE UPON YOU BEFORE YOU KNOW IT !!!!!!!!!!!!! :flame:

[soadfan1]

Nah I wont 'get over it' because Red Alert 1 made too much of an unmovable impression on me to be able to 'get over' them destroying it like this.

But go ahead be a pawn to the EA machine, the only thing Im looking forward to in October is my c&c Renegade communities u.k gathering. Ah yes c&c renegade, a real c&c game back when the series wasn't all about hype, sensationailsm and bull****.

-Rob

[Avapodnaught]

Poor Soad, older games bring too much hype for newer games, you can't expect that newer technology or EA could possibly bring it back exactly to the original by standard without.... remaking the original, which they have in mind for what many of the fans want, but unfortunately they have been known to pick up ideas from some people more often than other people

You aren't going to get what you want by seeking to badmouth it, when has that ever worked for the best in everyone's interests, you would need more of a direct source and a much more positive way to express your ideas of 'change' and correctness, and that would have only worked if they had announced they were starting it sooner and were allowing such a phase to take place

[soadfan1]

I know I cant change anything at all, but I will continue to make my feelings and opinions for as long as this game is in development and through every rubbish statement they make and every horrible design they show.

I know I'm not alone is my dislike of the way this game is turning out, so lets just see what happens after the game is released, and we'll find out exactly how Red your October will actually be!