My first impression from the Beta

[Statalyzer]

Yes, there's a lot of dumbness that everyone has already being talking about. However, it doesn't detract from the gameplay itself, which is very good and also incredibly diverse for a game that seems mostly balanced. Needs nerfs for a few units but you expect that in a Beta. Strategy and tactics really, really come into play and you need an overall plan to follow as well as being good at specific maneuvers and combos - and battlefield awareness and information are key as well. Just having slightly faster fingers and clicking than the other guy won't help you as much as in the average RTS.

[apple23]

If the gameplay is as good as you say it is, I'm all in for this game.

The storyline sucks and like you said there is alot of other stupid things but if multiplayer gameplay is good, I will buy, considering i spend a good 70-90% of my time on RTS games playing multiplayer.

I haven't gotten the chance to play the beta yet (just registerted a few days ago), so this is great stuff to hear.

[Derek]

I couldn't give a **** about the story, I'm not even going to play the campaign. Red Alert 1 was the only RA game to have a decent story.

[apple23]

Yah... RA2's was O.K. but YR really screwed the storyline over. I'm just glad they don't try to bring back yuri or anything related to yuri, as that could very easily end up being a disaster like it was the first time.

[nyarlathotep]

So...what about taking some ingame pics?

Please? Pretty please???

[Ivan_Moscavich]

I've played a total of 15 matchs, and have won 13 (6 of them 2v2 matchs, and 4 of those where my allied ally left me at the start of the match)
I've been playing soviet 13 times, playing allied twice(I won because the enemy quit those times though). I've only lost two matchs playing against the japanese, one was where I was rushed with their transforming mechs and choppers, the other was where I had lost control of the sea, and was facing upwards of 20 battleships (though I had managed to make the match last 45 minutes, after losing my ally 15minutes in, and losing control of the sea 20minutes in, I nearly took out the enemy allied player as well, but was cut short by a swarm of around 40 flying angel units) My win record per faction is
6wins against allies, 4 wins against soviets, and 3 wins against japanese.

I find the game looks phenomenal even on the low settings, (people were complaining when i ran it on high, even though i ran fine, some how it made their's run slow, so i run on medium now)

The balance between Allies and Soviets is fairly good. And I rather like the naval aspect. although the ammount of ampbibious units does get rediculous. (the terror drones swims like a jelly fish)

I have one problem. Good japense players, or cheap japanese players(I've encountered one of each.)
Within 5 minutes, that can have a swarm of VX Choppers and Mecha/jet tengus.
This presents you with a problem. A very very well rounded attack force of about 10 each, five minutes into the game.
At this point, you simpily don't have the time to have built a sufficent defencive force, and you can try making units because guess what. Bullfrogs to take them out in air? Too bad, they land, and since the bullfrogs arn't like flak tracks, they have no anti land(though even the flak track was not ment to be anti ground). If you have a a few tanks, they'll just get up into the air, where even the jet tengu can harass you to death.

Now, I've dealt with all kinds of rushes before, land, sea, and air. But I have never dealt with a combined land air rush, with only one(or two) sets of units, that both occupy land and air.

Now, if the allies went for sea early, this could be solved fairly simply with a riptide and some dolphins, but for the soviets, land or sea, this poses a problem.

I think the fact that they transform instantly is a problem, if there was a dely, even a few seconds in the transformation, I really believe it would help the game balance alot more.

Also, the japanese battleships, does someone want to explain to me how they out range not only V4s, but dreadnoughts? You litteraly have to build your base in the middle of a map to avoid be pounded away by battleships.
Or deny the japanese a foot hold in the sea immediately. But guess what, they have two units that can prevent that, the same two units that are able take out air, armor, ships, and infantry.

The only problem I see is that the versatility of the Japanese give them unparralleled land, sea, and air supremacy very early in the game. (Plus one of their powers allows them to instantly spawn a bunch of tank busters anywhere on the map)

I can only think that alot of people are going to pick the japanese, and spam nothing but VX choppers and mecha/jet tengus.

There must be a early avalible counter for it, and I will continue to work on one.

Over all, the beta looks great, feels great, and excluding the japanese, is balanced quite well.
I saw but one bug, which was if you attacked a bullfrog in the water, the bullfrog would become immobile, and start rocking back and forth, but would not get damaged, at all.

[Derek]

(people were complaining when i ran it on high, even though i ran fine, some how it made their's run slow, so i run on medium now)
No, it was not running fine, you just didn't know how it was supposed to run. You were clealry causing lag for the other players, which means that your computer was lagging because you had the graphics too high.

I have one problem. Good japense players, or cheap japanese players(I've encountered one of each.)
Within 5 minutes, that can have a swarm of VX Choppers and Mecha/jet tengus.
This presents you with a problem. A very very well rounded attack force of about 10 each, five minutes into the game.
At this point, you simpily don't have the time to have built a sufficent defencive force, and you can try making units because guess what. Bullfrogs to take them out in air? Too bad, they land, and since the bullfrogs arn't like flak tracks, they have no anti land(though even the flak track was not ment to be anti ground). If you have a a few tanks, they'll just get up into the air, where even the jet tengu can harass you to death.

Now, I've dealt with all kinds of rushes before, land, sea, and air. But I have never dealt with a combined land air rush, with only one(or two) sets of units, that both occupy land and air.
lol, if you're getting "rushed" by 10 Tengus and 10 VXs then you suck. A "rush" would be five Tengus, tops, and anything T2 (VXs) is not a rush. Pressure him more so that he can't mass, 20 of almost anything could steamroll a base if you let your opponent do it, but in a real game you won't see that many units. Five guardian tanks and a SpyIFV is a major attack.

[Statalyzer]

I think the fact that they transform instantly is a problem, if there was a dely, even a few seconds in the transformation, I really believe it would help the game balance alot more.

The transformation delay does need to be lengthened a bit. I think Japan's Waveforce Artillery needs a nerf, too. My friend had 3 of them and beat off 4 apocs without a loss. It was his game, by the way, so no screenies from me, sorry.

Japan does have some disadvantages too, so I don't think their overall side is too powerful. Allies and Soviet have scouting units that can attack (bears/dogs), while Japan doesn't, and the Soviet engineer also has a pistol. So, Japan is at a disadvantage in going for tech buildings unless they drive their barrack vehicle over to the tech building to unpack it and then start building the engineer, which is risky.

I find the game looks phenomenal even on the low settings

True, but that's just a technological fact of modern graphical ability rather than anything impressive the RA3 did. A lot of their graphic choices weren't very good (the infantry are harder to tell apart than in RA2, the ships mostly look nothing like actual warships and some even have a split bow, etc). Thankfully, this doesn't affect the gameplay, although it does slightly detract from the experience.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

No, it was not running fine, you just didn't know how it was supposed to run. You were clealry causing lag for the other players, which means that your computer was lagging because you had the graphics too high.


lol, if you're getting "rushed" by 10 Tengus and 10 VXs then you suck. A "rush" would be five Tengus, tops, and anything T2 (VXs) is not a rush. Pressure him more so that he can't mass, 20 of almost anything could steamroll a base if you let your opponent do it, but in a real game you won't see that many units. Five guardian tanks and a SpyIFV is a major attack.

It was only in one match, I've played with high setting against other players on several occasions and there were no problems. I may have just encountered some people with lower end computers.
I have no problems with internet service or gaming graphics.

I suck? That's real nice man, a real great reply.
And it wasn't ten, that was just a over statement. It was probably five jet tengus, and five vx choppers (he had some tsunami tanks in the sea as well, but the didn't get to my base)
He got them up in under ten minutes, maybe even under eight, it was more than five but less than ten. I had prepared base defense, and I realize what I did wrong in that match anyways, I had extended myself northwards, and was building two bases, having to defend them both with the resources and time at hand, by the point I was attacked, I realized my defence was insuffiecnet, and attmtped to salavage my starting base by abandoning my northern base, at that point however it was too late, he had gotten my collectors, and I had less than 1 k to work with.
But here's the thing.
roughly five jet tengu, and five vx choppers over came two tesla coils, four sentry guns, three flak cannons, seven flak troopers, a hammer tank, two bullfrogs, a sickle, and a few concripts.

Tell me how that is not rediculous?

I was number one on the RA2 boards for several months, so don't you even try to say "I suck"
I don't like bragging, so I don't often bring it up, but when some one like you comes around, without knowing anything of any of my previous matchs, and says "You suck", I really don't have a choice.

[apple23]

It was only in one match, I've played with high setting against other players on several occasions and there were no problems. I may have just encountered some people with lower end computers.
I have no problems with internet service or gaming graphics.

I suck? That's real nice man, a real great reply.
And it wasn't ten, that was just a over statement. It was probably five jet tengus, and five vx choppers (he had some tsunami tanks in the sea as well, but the didn't get to my base)
He got them up in under ten minutes, maybe even under eight, it was more than five but less than ten. I had prepared base defense, and I realize what I did wrong in that match anyways, I had extended myself northwards, and was building two bases, having to defend them both with the resources and time at hand, by the point I was attacked, I realized my defence was insuffiecnet, and attmtped to salavage my starting base by abandoning my northern base, at that point however it was too late, he had gotten my collectors, and I had less than 1 k to work with.
But here's the thing.
roughly five jet tengu, and five vx choppers over came two tesla coils, four sentry guns, three flak cannons, seven flak troopers, a hammer tank, two bullfrogs, a sickle, and a few concripts.

Tell me how that is not rediculous?

I was number one on the RA2 boards for several months, so don't you even try to say "I suck"
I don't like bragging, so I don't often bring it up, but when some one like you comes around, without knowing anything of any of my previous matchs, and says "You suck", I really don't have a choice.

First off, don't get so defensive. Derek can be a bit... "insensitive" at times, but just bear with it.

And depending on how well he is able to micromanage his forces, It really dosen't seem ridiculous that you lost to that. Also keep in mind that that wouldn't be a rush anyways, as most of that stuff is T2 anyways.

And being Number one of the RA2 boards dosen't mean absolutely anything at all. Especially because this is a totally different game. Rank didn;t even matter for RA2 players. Never, ever try to say you are good because you have a good rank, Rank does not back you up here.

As for the graphics issue, if you only lagged in one game but were fine in others, what makes you think it was your computer's fault? Obviously someone else was lagging.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

First off, don't get so defensive. Derek can be a bit... "insensitive" at times, but just bear with it.

And depending on how well he is able to micromanage his forces, It really dosen't seem ridiculous that you lost to that. Also keep in mind that that wouldn't be a rush anyways, as most of that stuff is T2 anyways.

And being Number one of the RA2 boards dosen't mean absolutely anything at all. Especially because this is a totally different game. Rank didn;t even matter for RA2 players. Never, ever try to say you are good because you have a good rank, Rank does not back you up here.

As for the graphics issue, if you only lagged in one game but were fine in others, what makes you think it was your computer's fault? Obviously someone else was lagging.

I never thought it was my computer, but from what he said I figured he was saying my computer or connection was bad.

I know rank in Red Alert 2 means nothing, I never cared, honestly, I never gave being on top a second though, it was just something that happened, I happened to be good, and I went to the top.

Honestly, I have alot more fun teaching new players.

Hell, today I spent alot of my matchs just helping people understand the game. To me, seeing other people enjoy the game, and knowiing that I helped, it just makes me feel good.

But it seems like everyone these days only cares about rank, and victories, I guess I just didn't want anyone to think I'm a push over.

I still doubt I'll play online much, and no ranked servers, people are just too stuck up. I'll stick to the low end matchs, help people along, it's what I like to do.

Don't get me wrong though, if I find a challenging opponent, I'll dig in and have a hell of a match, I like that, I love being challenged, and I love it when two or more people can enjoy the hell out of a game.
What I don't like, is people who think winning is all that matters in a video game.

Anyone ever heard of, or remember FlyerFry? He was one of my best friends, and a damn fine player. He helped me along, and I passed that on by helping others along. He also helped test alot of my maps.
If anyone here has seen the map by Rhett8888, StrategicNightmare, tell me what you think, that was my best map, and if you were ever able to get to your opponent, you're pretty damn good. (You about needed to make a gentleman's agreement against the neutral AI to win)

[apple23]

Excuse my bumpage here, but I just got my hands on the beta, played a few games, and it it pure awesomeness.

Gameplay is the best out of any CNC game i've played, and it is still just the beta.

[soadfan1]

Well I too recently got my ra3 beta as I said I would always try to back up my reviews.

I can say the game met my expectations.. and any of those who know me and my posts will know how low those were.

I know its only the beta so plenty of things are still to be ironed out, but seriously.. this is not a c&c game its some wierd hybrid attempting to force its way into the genre.

So far all the things I prejudged about ra3 have come to pass. From the boring unit design to the lack of depth ( yes, LACK of depth).

Whats with the horrible money system, Ore/tiberium fields are one of the few tactical things about the c&c series so they opt for the boring generals style system of fixed money sources ( even though I enjoyed generals as a standalone game).

Although this may be fixed by the time of release, once more tank srushes are the way to win, abilities dont get used, you may THINK they do, but thats only becas eyou are exploring the game and allowing time for things, in reality games are once more being settled online like c&c 3.

I will play it more and post more views, but so far I have seen nothing to make me believe this is going to be anything other than a spit in the face of c&c.

Oh and next time, dont hire pornstars and b movie actors to do the FMV, what was wrong with the early days when c&c used real actors? Why do EA feel so unconfident with their products they feel the need to get people to buy it by claiming it has such a star studded guest list.

I swear theyre turning c&c into a chocolate factory

-Rob

[Morph]

I know its only the beta so plenty of things are still to be ironed out, but seriously.. this is not a c&c game its some wierd hybrid attempting to force its way into the genre.
I think it's far more C&C than Generals was and it's got a nice classic Red Alert feel if you ask me. Keep in mind that the Red Alert and Tiberium universes are not only completely different, but the GAMES themselves play entirely differently - they don't share the same feel.

So far all the things I prejudged about ra3 have come to pass. From the boring unit design to the lack of depth ( yes, LACK of depth).
How do you figure there is a lack of depth? Have you even tried playing the game, especially against the Empire? Boring unit design? Play as the Empire, or let me wipe the battlefield with you as them, and then we'll see how 'boring' the units really are.

Whats with the horrible money system, Ore/tiberium fields are one of the few tactical things about the c&c series so they opt for the boring generals style system of fixed money sources ( even though I enjoyed generals as a standalone game).
The money system is simplified but I don't think it's horrible. People keep on arguing that 'oh boo-hoo, there isn't real ore/tiberium so you can't harvester harass or fight over it!' They, and you, couldn't be more wrong. I spend a good portion of my game time making sure that I control as many of the ore nodes as possible. Harvester harassment is awesome and very important, especially early game. It's simplified a bit, but it by no means eliminates the importance of harvesters - now it's all about how many ore nodes you control vs how many harvesters you have. Learn to adjust.


Although this may be fixed by the time of release, once more tank srushes are the way to win, abilities dont get used, you may THINK they do, but thats only becas eyou are exploring the game and allowing time for things, in reality games are once more being settled online like c&c 3.
Waiiitt....let me get this straight. You think that tank rushes are the only way to win? Or you think that tank rushes always win? You try to tank rush me, I'll counter no problem - rushes can be stopped SO easily it's ridiculous. Do a bit of scouting, see what your enemy is up to, and plan appropriately. As for the abilities, I use those all the time. They win - or lose - matches for me. I don't know who you've been playing against, but a decent player will NEVER ignore secondary abilities and talent point abilities.

Oh and next time, dont hire pornstars and b movie actors to do the FMV, what was wrong with the early days when c&c used real actors? Why do EA feel so unconfident with their products they feel the need to get people to buy it by claiming it has such a star studded guest list.I assume you forget Kari Wuhrer from RA2. Or you're just talking about C&C1 and RA1. In either case, sexing up the game draws in more customers - it's a fact. Sex sells. And Jenny McCarthy certainly can play a badass like Tanya, I'm sure.


Play the game for a good week or so before you blindly criticize it. Once you get decent at it, figure out the tactics, and really can take the time to analyze it, by all means come back and let us know. Until then, I suggest you avoid me online unless you want a beating. :p

[Statalyzer]

Although this may be fixed by the time of release, once more tank srushes are the way to win, abilities dont get used,

If by the abilities you mean the equivalent of generals powers, that's fine if they don't get used much and aren't that powerful - they shouldn't usually be the deciding factor - they are just chrome, not substance. If you can win by only tank rushing you're probably playing bad opponents.

[soadfan1]

By abilities I meant units abilities not the powers, if anything I found the powers to be one of the better things about the game.

I am not blindly criticizing it now, I have played it for half a week, although it did manage to bust TWO psus somehow, so I shall not be playing it anymore for that reason :s

[Bouncing Ball]

By abilities I meant units abilities not the powers, if anything I found the powers to be one of the better things about the game.
I am not blindly criticizing it now, I have played it for half a week, although it did manage to bust TWO psus somehow, so I shall not be playing it anymore for that reason :s
psus as in Power Supply Units? :lmao:
2?? because of a game?:p

[soadfan1]

Yup two of my Power supplies which ran top end games like crysis fine on full were destroyed whilst playing ra3.

Im not one of these 'OMGZ RA3 DONT RUN ON MY PC THE GAMEZ ****E' people but surely thats too much of a coincidence given that I havent had a PSU burst before. Ever.

-Rob

[Derek]

I'm really not sure how any game can destroy a PSU. I mean, worst case scenario your computer crashes because its not getting enough power, but how the hell is software going to damage the thing?

[Gaucho8788]

Thats an impossibility. A game can in no way shape or form break a power supply. You said your comp could play Crisis but when you went to play RA3 it fried? After how long? RA3 isn't nearly as demanding as Crisis and the only way a game could damage anything hardware wise is by overpowering the processor and in that case your processor and/or motherboard would be hurt, not your PSU. More then likely what took out your PSU's was a power surge, or you had the voltage setting to high on your PSU.

[soadfan1]

Well obviously I dont directly mean the game destroyed my PSU but what Im saying is it appears a certain technical demand or problem with the game was causing the fan to overheat and burn out or blow.

Seems to much of a coincidence it never did it at any other time ever.


Im now scared to play the ra3 beta again because of this, so I cant treally give anymore feedback :-s.


-Rob

[apple23]

I know its only the beta so plenty of things are still to be ironed out, but seriously.. this is not a c&c game its some wierd hybrid attempting to force its way into the genre.

This is what people said when generals came along. It was one of the greatest games that veen had the CNC name on it, and I'm personally very glad that RA3 has taken a few leaves out of the generals book.


So far all the things I prejudged about ra3 have come to pass. From the boring unit design to the lack of depth ( yes, LACK of depth).


LACK OF DEPTH? you're kidding me, right? This game had more depth than Generals. There is a very intricate counter-system, lots of balance, with secondary abilities (how does every unit having a secondary ability constitute a LACK of depth?!?) galore.

Whats with the horrible money system, Ore/tiberium fields are one of the few tactical things about the c&c series so they opt for the boring generals style system of fixed money sources ( even though I enjoyed generals as a standalone game).

The money system is great, it is one of the very few ways to completely balance the economy system of a game and rule out tank spam and that crap from a game.

The reason tank spam worked in other CNC games (excluding generals) was because of teh field mechanic, and the fact that if you had more harvesters than him, even if you both only had one source, you had a better economy in the short term. In RA3, you need to expand and grab those strategic points to gain more resources, you can't simply hoard one field with a million harvesters, move on to the next field, and so on.

Although this may be fixed by the time of release, once more tank srushes are the way to win, abilities dont get used, you may THINK they do, but thats only becas eyou are exploring the game and allowing time for things, in reality games are once more being settled online like c&c 3.

Tank rushing is not possible in this game, simply because you need T2 to even get main battle tanks. Even then, if you haven't a decent economy, massing tanks is difficult. If you don't get yourself well defended, you could easily be overrun by infantry (tesla troopers pwn =D)

Secondary abilities are used all the time. Or at least I use them all the time and I win all the time. Secondary abilities of units offer a strategic advantage over the people that don't use them, and that's the way it is supposed to be.

Also to your last bit, about only exploring the game, I have only played beta for a week and I have over 75% wins without using tank spam at all.

How many games have you played in total and how long have you played for?


I will play it more and post more views, but so far I have seen nothing to make me believe this is going to be anything other than a spit in the face of c&c.


Like I have said earlier, anything that incorporates some of the best features of generals is bound to be a success compared to the rest of CNC.

Oh and next time, dont hire pornstars and b movie actors to do the FMV, what was wrong with the early days when c&c used real actors? Why do EA feel so unconfident with their products they feel the need to get people to buy it by claiming it has such a star studded guest list.

This issue has buzzed around this forum for awhile, and we have come to the conclusion that we don't know enough about how the FMVs will look to judge them right now.

I swear theyre turning c&c into a chocolate factory

:rockbrow:



Im now scared to play the ra3 beta again because of this, so I cant treally give anymore feedback


What kind of system are you running?

If you can play Crysis then it is not a specs problem, and I played RA3 fine (except for a crash error because of ****ing XFIRE!) Without any problems.

What happened when your PSU was "destroyed"? did your comp shut off completely? did it freeze? at what phase of gameplay did the problem occur?

[Statalyzer]

I like the way you can't build tanks right out of PP-Refinery-Barracks-WF. It makes for some interesting early games with only light AFVs available, but doesn't make it impossible to mass tanks. A large tank force is still very powerful, but harder to acquire than before.

[apple23]

I personally go Rax-pp-ref-ref-wf-... allows me to get bears and engineers quick to scout and grab those oil derricks. Two refs is to get my economy up before adding an extra build queue.

[Quadhelix]

LACK OF DEPTH? you're kidding me, right? This game had more depth than Generals. There is a very intricate counter-system, lots of balance, with secondary abilities (how does every unit having a secondary ability constitute a LACK of depth?!?) galore. He already explained it: "So far all the things I prejudged about ra3 have come to pass" (Post #13 (http://forums.cncden.com/showpost.php?p=386789&postcount=13), emphasis added). In short, he perceives a lack of depth and boring unit design because he judged, back when the game was first announced, that that was the way the game was going to be. Any new information that he learns about the game will be warped in his mind to fit the mold of a game with boring unit designs and no depth.

[apple23]

knowing the kind of person this guy is, you're most likely right...

[Vindicare]

I used to believe Soad maybe could possibly have some points, but it has become glaringly apparent he is so biased and irrational in his bigotry toward EA that he can't see a good thing if it was right in front of him...which it is.

He wants a prettied up version of RA1 or nothing. He doesn't accept any changes and bashes EA or those who disagree with him as EA mouthpieces.

He has showed his opinion is hard lined and no matter what, he has prejudged it and will not alter his view. Thats fine he doesn't have to, that is totally his right ,but if he thinks comming on here and spewing the same claims that have now been proven false he may be preaching to the wrong people.

If I'm not mistaken you have stated you dislike every game in the CNC franchise since RA1...so why do you keep coming back?

[soadfan1]

I used to believe Soad maybe could possibly have some points, but it has become glaringly apparent he is so biased and irrational in his bigotry toward EA that he can't see a good thing if it was right in front of him...which it is.

He wants a prettied up version of RA1 or nothing. He doesn't accept any changes and bashes EA or those who disagree with him as EA mouthpieces.

He has showed his opinion is hard lined and no matter what, he has prejudged it and will not alter his view. Thats fine he doesn't have to, that is totally his right ,but if he thinks comming on here and spewing the same claims that have now been proven false he may be preaching to the wrong people.

If I'm not mistaken you have stated you dislike every game in the CNC franchise since RA1...so why do you keep coming back?

Then you are most certainly mistaken, in fact the entire post was full of misgivings about my thoughts or previous threads.

I hold ra1 c&c 1 and Tib sun closest to my heart of any game I have played, EVER.

Renegade is probably the c&c I have played the most as I am part of the Renegade Revival community, but also because I enjoy it anyway.

Ra2 I enjoyed to some extent but felt YR ruined it.

Generals I enjoyed loads as a stand alone multiplayer game for its depth and balance.

c&c 3 I felt failed in many aspects of its design, but it was just about acceptable.

I stated more often than not ra3 was the ONLY c&c I have held huge criticism for.

Never would I want a prettied up version of ra1. Because ra1 was tank rush tank rush tank rush even more so, Thing is ra1 is 12 years old now.

So because I have found my prejudices were right thats because I wouldnt be able to change my mind is it. You people really are stupid.

If you read my previous posts I was quite willing to change my mind, if the game I played surprised me, and made me think 'hold on I might be wrong here, this isnt so bad'

But it didnt, it came off to me as a pretty way to milk a series. Wheres the REAL depth, almost everyone Ive spoken to independantly ( thats not people on this forum) say that the game lacks depth and strategy and is once again about rushes. And by depth I dont just mean a few abilities and a counter balance system. I mean depth being that every action you take has a reaction and effects the game, making you take m,ore care not to just let units die because you can get more and keep you on your toes.

Lets face it my opinion on the unit and general game design was not going to change anyway was it? As from screenshot to real thing they wont look much different.

And I couldnt resist laughing at Apples personal comment that ' this shows what sort of person I am'

Yes what kind person am I? Someone who has stood with the c&c community for 12 years now. Starting with being part of the ra1 community. Supporting game after game, watching westwood fall, watching the games get steadily worse, post Tiberian Sun with the exception of Generals. Helping Renegade survive past its sell by date, and generally floating around the c&c community with. So thats what kind of person I am, the question I pose to you now is, what kind of person are you?

I think after spending over £200 pouinds on c&c games I now have earned the right to complain if I feel the series is screwed.

[Annihlator :D]

almost everyone Ive spoken to independantly ( thats not people on this forum)

Links or it didn't happen.

[Vindicare]

"You people really are stupid."

Haha, we, we are the stupid ones? Whose the guy who things a game blew out his PSU's? Secondly most of what your saying is directly contradictory to things you have said in other threads and even said in this thread....you can read it for yourself. I wont re-post it.

Once again you spew this nonsense about lack of depth and rushes. To anyone who has played this game and has some common sense and or skill they would know this game is extremely deep as apple has mentioned before. There are hard counters, tough strategy's and very important tactics. If you are getting beaten by rushes I hate to break it to you buddy but your just a bad player. The rushes are so insanely easy to stop in this game. No matter what faction you play you can stop a rush.

"I mean depth being that every action you take has a reaction and effects the game, making you take m,ore care not to just let units die because you can get more and keep you on your toes."

Once again I point out you have never played anyone good or you yourself are not good. If you play even a semi-decent player then know to deny your economy...by terror drones, burst drones, spies...whatever when you econ is grinding you better make damn sure your units survive or you will be stomped while your money barely trickles in.


So you call us stupid when you've been coming on here since the game was announced to say you hate it, you offer nothing constructive to say, you don't explain why you don't think the game is good other than general statements like "it lacks depth". You have also gone on multiple tirades against EA and have even said in other posts you hated RA2 so its funny you list you kinda liked it now. I pose the question again, the game is basically completed its getting ready for release yet you still hate it and continue to come here to bash it....why? Dont you have better things to do than go to a game message board to talk about how much you hate it???:nuts:

[soadfan1]

"You people really are stupid."

Haha, we, we are the stupid ones? Whose the guy who things a game blew out his PSU's? Secondly most of what your saying is directly contradictory to things you have said in other threads and even said in this thread....you can read it for yourself. I wont re-post it.

Once again you spew this nonsense about lack of depth and rushes. To anyone who has played this game and has some common sense and or skill they would know this game is extremely deep as apple has mentioned before. There are hard counters, tough strategy's and very important tactics. If you are getting beaten by rushes I hate to break it to you buddy but your just a bad player. The rushes are so insanely easy to stop in this game. No matter what faction you play you can stop a rush.

"I mean depth being that every action you take has a reaction and effects the game, making you take m,ore care not to just let units die because you can get more and keep you on your toes."

Once again I point out you have never played anyone good or you yourself are not good. If you play even a semi-decent player then know to deny your economy...by terror drones, burst drones, spies...whatever when you econ is grinding you better make damn sure your units survive or you will be stomped while your money barely trickles in.


So you call us stupid when you've been coming on here since the game was announced to say you hate it, you offer nothing constructive to say, you don't explain why you don't think the game is good other than general statements like "it lacks depth". You have also gone on multiple tirades against EA and have even said in other posts you hated RA2 so its funny you list you kinda liked it now. I pose the question again, the game is basically completed its getting ready for release yet you still hate it and continue to come here to bash it....why? Dont you have better things to do than go to a game message board to talk about how much you hate it???:nuts:

Right you dont read a word of what I say so Im not even going to bother justifying myself to your ignorance anymore, because everything you claim I either think, have said or wrote is incorrect.

I've spent 12 years defending c&c games, but this one I cannot.

Im not spewing bias unfounded rubbish im spewing what I see of the game so far, if you dont like it then dont reply to it, but either way get over it, not everyone is going to like this game.

God you remind me of these little metal kids in school who go mental when you bash their favourite band.

[Vindicare]

Right you dont read a word of what I say so Im not even going to bother justifying myself to your ignorance anymore, because everything you claim I either think, have said or wrote is incorrect.

I've spent 12 years defending c&c games, but this one I cannot.

Im not spewing bias unfounded rubbish im spewing what I see of the game so far, if you dont like it then dont reply to it, but either way get over it, not everyone is going to like this game.

God you remind me of these little metal kids in school who go mental when you bash their favourite band.

Yes I am the ignorant one..Everyone points out reasons why your complaints don't make any sense and all you can respond with is calling people "stupid" or "ignorant" Your the sad individual who cannot sustain an argument by using any facts. When someone points out your verbal diarrhea you just call them names...how sad.

Oh no and see your posting this crap on the forums....so its not that I shouldn't respond to what you say...you just shouldn't post your garbage if you can't handle people disagreeing with you.

I don't defend this game blindly....quite the contrary, I have played it and found it to be very complete and def. the best C&C I've played in a long time. You on the other hand have been talking trash since the start and sound like the irrational fanboy (for former cnc games). All you do is whine that they have changed things around. Like I said before you have been resistant to every change they have made....for someone who has been in the C&c community for "12 years!" you sure as hell need to grow up.

[pipinowns]

Right you dont read a word of what I say so Im not even going to bother justifying myself to your ignorance anymore, because everything you claim I either think, have said or wrote is incorrect.

I've spent 12 years defending c&c games, but this one I cannot.

Im not spewing bias unfounded rubbish im spewing what I see of the game so far, if you dont like it then dont reply to it, but either way get over it, not everyone is going to like this game.

God you remind me of these little metal kids in school who go mental when you bash their favourite band.

Don't bother defending Command and Conquer games.

I enjoy them but the only one I'd call a great game is Tiberian Sun.

I liked Command and Conquer 3 alot but Kane's Wrath made it alot worse.

I defend Red Alert 3 because I enjoyed playing it and it's kind of getting alot of hate it doesn't deserve.

But I think Dawn of War is 10x funner then any of the new Command and Conquer games. Mainly because EA will never release a game that lives up to its full potential Because there always looking to make sequels and expansions. "The Sims" proves this on the most obvious level.

Eventually though EA needs to end the series and can make at least one awesome game. This is why 'The Sims 12" is going to rock. And "Command and Conquer 6" will be extremely awesome.

Until then stop calling people stupid and getting into fights.

[Quadhelix]

I enjoy them but the only one I'd call a great game is Tiberian Sun. Really, because Tiberian Sun, while good, is hardly perfect. Disruptors and Disk Throwers are good against all ground targets, which is bad in game were air units are effectively limitted to a support role. Pavement is absolutely necessary against Nod opponents, but almost useless against GDI; the same is true of Mobile Sensor Arrays. GDI lacks early game AA.

[Vindicare]

"But I think Dawn of War is 10x funner then any of the new Command and Conquer games."

I'd agree but I'm sure you can tell that from my name/avatar :-)

[soadfan1]

I defended c&c games previously because I believed they would once more create a game worthy of branding the name.

Its not about carbon copying the previous games, its not about being a formulae, its about keeping dignity and not milking the series.

Change is exactly what I want, but in an intelligent and justified way. Ra3 does not change much, it just tarnishes what already exists.

We saw this to some extent with c&c 3, but c&c 3 just made it due to certain nostalgic factors.

Btw I didnt want to start 'fights' but people started attacking me personally, something I never did before.

I attack the game, and will continue to if I continue not to like it. As I believe it is the first 'poor' c&c game.

And that doesnt mean I should 'just not come to the forums,' Ive been visiting these forums and site for over half a decade, and built up a decent friendship with Lion, Im not leaving them just because ra3 is crap.

-Rob

[pipinowns]

Really, because Tiberian Sun, while good, is hardly perfect. Disruptors and Disk Throwers are good against all ground targets, which is bad in game were air units are effectively limitted to a support role. Pavement is absolutely necessary against Nod opponents, but almost useless against GDI; the same is true of Mobile Sensor Arrays. GDI lacks early game AA.

Its an old game so yeah its going to have alot of problems. Its just so much fun to play. I love it.

"But I think Dawn of War is 10x funner then any of the new Command and Conquer games."

I'd agree but I'm sure you can tell that from my name/avatar :-)

Yeah. Dawn of War 2 looks awesome too.

I defended c&c games previously because I believed they would once more create a game worthy of branding the name.

Its not about carbon copying the previous games, its not about being a formulae, its about keeping dignity and not milking the series.

Change is exactly what I want, but in an intelligent and justified way. Ra3 does not change much, it just tarnishes what already exists.

We saw this to some extent with c&c 3, but c&c 3 just made it due to certain nostalgic factors.

Btw I didnt want to start 'fights' but people started attacking me personally, something I never did before.

I attack the game, and will continue to if I continue not to like it. As I believe it is the first 'poor' c&c game.

And that doesnt mean I should 'just not come to the forums,' Ive been visiting these forums and site for over half a decade, and built up a decent friendship with Lion, Im not leaving them just because ra3 is crap.

-Rob

Red Alert 3 is WAY better then Command and Conquer 3. Especially after Kane's Wrath.

Honestly I don't care. I'm going to get Red Alert 3 and for the month of November I will have lots of fun playing it. Then I'll stick it on my shelf and not pick it up until The Summer.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

On that note of aircraft being relegated to the support role.
Since the CnC series was mostly focused on ground in the first place, perhaps it would have been better to stick with aircraft in just the air support role, close air support, tactical strikes, and the like.

[soadfan1]

Exactly, if you enjoy the game go buy it and play it, Im just telling people what I think is wrong with the game and the series in general now.

If you cant handle what I write dont reply to it, if you can then argue against it in a normal way.

[Annihlator :D]

If you cant handle what I write dont reply to it, if you can then argue against it in a normal way.

I think the problem most people may have with you is that you seem to have prejudged the game, and now won't give it the benefit of the doubt (if it needs any)

[starscream007]

I havent played since this new patch that just came out because the game kept crashing on me when I was about to start a game. Anyone know if that problem was fixed?

[soadfan1]

Well you're right I am prejudging it. But thats because Im sick of getting all 'hyped and excited' about a game and its surrounding features only to be let down either somewhat or totally.

This way if ra3 did somehow take a complete U-turn and became substantial I would be surprised and happy and would gladly admitt I was wrong.

Everyone is becomming tired of the lies and the broken promises. Even Lion himself. You can see it in his post regarding the KW world builder as it refuses to work for him.

Gone are the times when you should just wait it to come out before you bash it, let THEM prove us wrong rather than get away with what they do.

The whole game smacks of user friendly themes and watered down plots and characters. C&c is not a fashion show or a reality tv program, its lost its identity.

Bash me all you want in the end im not speaking rubbish whether you agree with me or not.

[Annihlator :D]

Gone are the times when you should just wait it to come out before you bash it, let THEM prove us wrong rather than get away with what they do.


No matter how good a game is, if you prejudge it before it comes out, you will never like it. This is what seems to be happening to you. Because the game, wich people seem to think is very good, does not fit your exact specifications, it won't be a good game to you, and never will be.

[pipinowns]

Well you're right I am prejudging it. But thats because Im sick of getting all 'hyped and excited' about a game and its surrounding features only to be let down either somewhat or totally.

This way if ra3 did somehow take a complete U-turn and became substantial I would be surprised and happy and would gladly admitt I was wrong.

Everyone is becomming tired of the lies and the broken promises. Even Lion himself. You can see it in his post regarding the KW world builder as it refuses to work for him.

Gone are the times when you should just wait it to come out before you bash it, let THEM prove us wrong rather than get away with what they do.

The whole game smacks of user friendly themes and watered down plots and characters. C&c is not a fashion show or a reality tv program, its lost its identity.

Bash me all you want in the end im not speaking rubbish whether you agree with me or not.

Your not saying anything that I can argue against.

Your saying things that are wrong. It's hard to argue against somebody that claims 2+2=5. They're just wrong.

You are just wrong. Command and Conquer has no "Identity" and it can't really loose it. There making it different. They're changing it. If they kept doing the same thing over and over again (Which is what alot of fans want) then it would be boring and bland. The same game over again but with better graphics.

The game would suck if they listened to you.

[soadfan1]

Your not saying anything that I can argue against.

Your saying things that are wrong. It's hard to argue against somebody that claims 2+2=5. They're just wrong.

You are just wrong. Command and Conquer has no "Identity" and it can't really loose it. There making it different. They're changing it. If they kept doing the same thing over and over again (Which is what alot of fans want) then it would be boring and bland. The same game over again but with better graphics.

The game would suck if they listened to you.


Who wants the same game over and over?

Please direct me to the part of any of my posts where I said I wanted the same game over and over.

However I could direct you to several parts where I said thats exactly whats happening and thats exactly what I dont want.

read the 'why im prejudging ra3' thread for a better idea.

I dont understand why I have to repeat myself a dozen times before people understand, I dont really think youre stupid, but seriously read what I write if youre going to reply.

-I DO NOT WANT THE SAME GAME OVER AND OVER, NOR DO I WANT RA1 OR AN EARLY C&C REHASHED OVER AND OVER.

Ok are we now clear on this point before ANOTHER person decides to claim I said that?

On the other point, theres no way I would say the game was poor if I thought it was good. I gave it a try to give it a chance, although I always said it would have to be something special to surprise me. It wasnt and didnt.

[pipinowns]

Who wants the same game over and over?

Please direct me to the part of any of my posts where I said I wanted the same game over and over.

However I could direct you to several parts where I said thats exactly whats happening and thats exactly what I dont want.

read the 'why im prejudging ra3' thread for a better idea.

I dont understand why I have to repeat myself a dozen times before people understand, I dont really think youre stupid, but seriously read what I write if youre going to reply.

-I DO NOT WANT THE SAME GAME OVER AND OVER, NOR DO I WANT RA1 OR AN EARLY C&C REHASHED OVER AND OVER.

Ok are we now clear on this point before ANOTHER person decides to claim I said that?

On the other point, theres no way I would say the game was poor if I thought it was good. I gave it a try to give it a chance, although I always said it would have to be something special to surprise me. It wasnt and didnt.

Its your fault.

You fail to tell what's wrong with Red Alert 3.

Every post your making in this thread is about you and how you are such an awesome person that's been playing command and conquer.

Step up and say something REAL. Give me a REAL reason why Red Alert 3 is bad. Because your forcing me to make up ones for you. Such as "Its not enough like the old series"

Your saying there milking it? No. Your wrong. There making a goddamn game. And its different and alike to the other ones. Its basically itself. You can't say a country movie sucks because you hate country movies.

I am once again making up reasons why you'd hate it. Please stop trying to sound intelligent and just spit it out.

Also DON'T go off and tell me to read another thread.

[soadfan1]

Ok, I feel like Im repeating myself here, but I will again state what I feel is wrong with ra3.

-First and foremost was the games design.

c&c and Ra1 has always been about mixing surreal settings and slightly futuristic elements with gritty tough gameplay and storylines.

Ra3 is far too 'cartoony' and ridiculous in a design sense, what with the japanese anime style robots sword men and the soviet bears etc.

RA2 just started crossing that line, YR then stepped over it.

Secondly turning the franchise into a way to market some B list celebrities is not good.

The best actors c&c ever used have been Joe Kucan and James Earl Jones.

Seeing pornstars camping it up as soldiers and stars of hour long evening television programs running the show is cringeworthy.

Thirdly despite what many people say I dont personally believe the game has much depth. Granted some may disagree on that but its what I've found and this is where I couldnt understand why you thought I wanted a c&c clone over and over.

ra3's core gameplay is not that detached from its predessecors, and by now it seems to be just a way to get sales from the fans as well as the new. I said it a few months ago and I never thought I'd say it but I think the time has come for c&c to evolve.

Not that I particuarly want c&c to evolve into a COH or SC clone, but there were elements of those games I really liked, and are what I mean by depth. Having every action really affect the game, where what side of a building youre on really matters, things that make you really feel like youre commanding a force, not just in a war of attrition.

c&c got away with being a 'meat and potatoes' RTS for 12 years because it did it so well. Im not going to deny that ra3 as a standalone title, if it was my first RTS game would probably be a fun game.
But it isnt a standalone title and its also not my first RTS game, and as time went on c&c slowly seemed to become more and more watered down.

Depth is not about just making sure every side is balanced and every unit has a counter, depth is about insuring every action you make or plan to take is thought through. Lets face it in c&c 3 for example if you lost that extra couple of predators because you were lazy and forgot you sent a small force up to the top quite often it didnt matter. Thats not depth, and as far as I can see ra3 is similar in that respect.

Now if you are new to the series or even if youre not but still think or know from the beta that you will enjoy this game then fair enough. But I know Im not alone in my thoughts.

Plus coming off patronizing wasnt my intention, a i'm not one of these, 'Ive been the community for 10 years therefore Im god' type of people, however I do think the amount of time I have spent on the community gives me a bit more experience when I am talking about it.

So there, in one sense this post is half a rehash of the old thread I made but theres a bit more to boot.

If you want to reply you tell me exactly what gives ra3 depth, what makes having these celebrities good, and how c&c ra3 fits perfectly in to the ra and c&c series, and also why you believe this will finally be the game EA delivers on its promises.

If you can tell me that and I will listen, then I will have to think again.

So there, something for you guys to think about.

-Rob

[pipinowns]

Ok, I feel like Im repeating myself here, but I will again state what I feel is wrong with ra3.

-First and foremost was the games design.

c&c and Ra1 has always been about mixing surreal settings and slightly futuristic elements with gritty tough gameplay and storylines.

Ra3 is far too 'cartoony' and ridiculous in a design sense, what with the japanese anime style robots sword men and the soviet bears etc.

RA2 just started crossing that line, YR then stepped over it.

Secondly turning the franchise into a way to market some B list celebrities is not good.

The best actors c&c ever used have been Joe Kucan and James Earl Jones.

Seeing pornstars camping it up as soldiers and stars of hour long evening television programs running the show is cringeworthy.

Thirdly despite what many people say I dont personally believe the game has much depth. Granted some may disagree on that but its what I've found and this is where I couldnt understand why you thought I wanted a c&c clone over and over.

ra3's core gameplay is not that detached from its predessecors, and by now it seems to be just a way to get sales from the fans as well as the new. I said it a few months ago and I never thought I'd say it but I think the time has come for c&c to evolve.

Not that I particuarly want c&c to evolve into a COH or SC clone, but there were elements of those games I really liked, and are what I mean by depth. Having every action really affect the game, where what side of a building youre on really matters, things that make you really feel like youre commanding a force, not just in a war of attrition.

c&c got away with being a 'meat and potatoes' RTS for 12 years because it did it so well. Im not going to deny that ra3 as a standalone title, if it was my first RTS game would probably be a fun game.
But it isnt a standalone title and its also not my first RTS game, and as time went on c&c slowly seemed to become more and more watered down.

Depth is not about just making sure every side is balanced and every unit has a counter, depth is about insuring every action you make or plan to take is thought through. Lets face it in c&c 3 for example if you lost that extra couple of predators because you were lazy and forgot you sent a small force up to the top quite often it didnt matter. Thats not depth, and as far as I can see ra3 is similar in that respect.

Now if you are new to the series or even if youre not but still think or know from the beta that you will enjoy this game then fair enough. But I know Im not alone in my thoughts.

Plus coming off patronizing wasnt my intention, a i'm not one of these, 'Ive been the community for 10 years therefore Im god' type of people, however I do think the amount of time I have spent on the community gives me a bit more experience when I am talking about it.

So there, in one sense this post is half a rehash of the old thread I made but theres a bit more to boot.

If you want to reply you tell me exactly what gives ra3 depth, what makes having these celebrities good, and how c&c ra3 fits perfectly in to the ra and c&c series, and also why you believe this will finally be the game EA delivers on its promises.

If you can tell me that and I will listen, then I will have to think again.

So there, something for you guys to think about.

-Rob

Thanks for saying all this. It makes more sense now.

-This isn't Red Alert 1 or the original C&C. Alot of people like the cartoonish over the top stuff. Including me. Infact I wish there was more alligators and stuff in it. I think that I play so many serious RTS games that its nice to have a more cartoonish fun one. Once again. A Country movie doesn't suck because you hate country movies. It's just not your thing.

-Alot of great celeberities are in there. That guy from Spiderman who I think is really funny (Can't wait to see "Burn After Reading"). Also they have that British guy who was EXTREMELY funny when he guest started on one Psych episode (It is usually considered the funniest episode ever). And they have the Korean guy from Heroes (Awesome!). And the "pornstars" aren't that cringe worthy. They may be "Roll Eyes" worthy. But not cringe. Once again. A Country movie doesn't suck because there not your favorite actors (Even though there good actors). There just good actors you don't like. Because there good the Country movie is still a good movie.

-This isn't Dawn of War or Company of Heroes. We aren't going to see a bunch of blood and intense battles (Which I love). We are going to have a good time with the cool and very different units. And some funny campaign moments. I don't want something thats going to be exactly like Dawn of War. Because then I wouldn't buy Red Alert 3 and just wait for DOW 2. But because its different I'm buying both. Once again. No Country For Old Men doesn't suck because its not more like a better movie such as (IMO) Star Wars (Episode V). Its being its own movie and not copying other movies. Therefore this point shows how the country movie is even better.

- Stop rubbing in the fact you've been apart of the community for 12 years. I've been playing these games just as long. Even though I enjoyed them alot more back then because I was very young. You don't have ANY more expierence because you've been apart of the community. Some random professional critic would own your ass even if its his first Command and Conquer game.

This game is good. It's obviously not your type of game but hell, that doesn't mean its bad. EA did a good job. And just because they made a different sort of game doesn't mean it sucks. Which is what your basically saying. The actors and actresses are GOOD at there job. I have seen some exclusive previews (They came out with a new one) and it looks not only awesome by the actors, but also the animation is PWNAGE.

Don't just stop defending this game. Stop hating on it. And leave it alone. Once again. Just because you hate country movies. Doesn't mean No Country For Old Men sucks.

[soadfan1]

But this is exactly what I said. if I quote a piece from my last post


'Now if you are new to the series or even if youre not but still think or know from the beta that you will enjoy this game then fair enough. But I know Im not alone in my thoughts.'

This piece I wrote here plus the bit that 'its probably fun' both are indicating im not denying many will enjoy the game. Im posting my views on it, as everyone who has views will, we cant just have good views or the overall concensus will be bias.

Plus the very piece I wrote about my experience was saying Im not one of these 'Ive been here for ages Im god' people I was simply saying I have been around to witness the change in c&c, not everyone here has, so are in a better position to judge the relationship to a c&c than someone who hasnt. That wasnt referring to you personally as I have no idea how long each individual has played c&c for.

These are all my thoughts and opinions, but I dont want to have to keep writing 'its my opinion' or 'I think', its not what you do when you review something.

Yes when I can be bothered and put my mind to it I can write long review pieces that make sense, its only when I get down to it I can be bothered though.

P.S you got some country movie obsession? :P

[Derek]

Secondly turning the franchise into a way to market some B list celebrities is not good.

The best actors c&c ever used have been Joe Kucan and James Earl Jones.
Seeing pornstars camping it up as soldiers and stars of hour long evening television programs running the show is cringeworthy.
Which is why I'm not going to play the singleplayer campaing. No CNC game has had a worthwhile sp since Tiberian Sun, and honestly I wish they would stop throwing away the money and focus everything on making the most refined multiplayer experience possible. If they took the millions of dollars they're spending on actors and FMVs, they could probably pay for a dedicated team to support all their games for a couple years.

[Avapodnaught]

Which is why I'm not going to play the singleplayer campaing. No CNC game has had a worthwhile sp since Tiberian Sun, and honestly I wish they would stop throwing away the money and focus everything on making the most refined multiplayer experience possible. If they took the millions of dollars they're spending on actors and FMVs, they could probably pay for a dedicated team to support all their games for a couple years.
Y... You didn't like Kane's Wrath, WAH!!!
It may have had leaks since there were different people handling the story but it was still rather good seeing the Old Bald Guy make his mostly hairless army of cyborgs rise up out of the ground (I remember seeing a good deal of hair on the top of some of the cutscene cyborgs attacking GDI base defenses on TS)

Hey, Soad, seen the RA3 cinematic trailer that shows the actors? (I'm not that happy about Tanya, but the rest is all good, specially the emperor

[soadfan1]

Which is why I'm not going to play the singleplayer campaing. No CNC game has had a worthwhile sp since Tiberian Sun, and honestly I wish they would stop throwing away the money and focus everything on making the most refined multiplayer experience possible. If they took the millions of dollars they're spending on actors and FMVs, they could probably pay for a dedicated team to support all their games for a couple years.

Exactly Derek I agree 100%, I dont know if its to do with the game designs, but since Tiberian Sun they dont seem capable of providing a tough challenging interesting sp with FMV.

I think it may have something to do with the fact that they concentrate more on balancing and making sure you can play well and less on making the AI extremely clever and tough. Which is fair enough for online play, but for sp it makes the player hugely better. Pretty much every mission since Tiberian Sun has been easy or moderate, all you needed was patience at times.

Thats not to say some of them games I havent enjoyed online (Generals in particular)

I feel it's hard not to prejudge a game that has Tanya go from a rough looking female assasin, to a 'Im a celebrity get me out of here, nude modeller'

How do you personally find the mp of ra3 so far Derek?


-Rob

[SgtRicko]

I think it may have something to do with the fact that they concentrate more on balancing and making sure you can play well and less on making the AI extremely clever and tough. Which is fair enough for online play, but for sp it makes the player hugely better. Pretty much every mission since Tiberian Sun has been easy or moderate, all you needed was patience at times.

The majority of the pre-RA2 game's campaign modes could more or less be won with attrition tactics, engineer spam, or by taking advantage of the AI's stupidity/patterns, especially in Tib Dawn and Tib Sun. It cheated rather commonly as well; just take a look at the later levels of Tib Dawn and RA1, and how the enemy silos could get filled up entirely by a single harvester payload.

Ever since RA2 though, the AI has actually become fairly competent, and doesn't cheat as crazily as it did in the past. In fact, with the exception of it's far superior micro-managing capabilites and annoying ability to tail stealth units without even seeing them, the latest incarnation's AI has played a pretty straight game.

[soadfan1]

I'm thinking of really tough mission, such as Allied 13 on ra1, in the tunnels. Or certain TD missions, and especially cov ops missions.

Genuinely tough, sometimes frustrating but always fun in the end levels.

Good times.

[Statalyzer]

Geez, Allied Mission 13 was tough as hell.

RA Hard Enemy was a lot tougher than RA2 Brutal Enemy.