I'm looking at buying the game... should I?

[GLQ_Seph]

Hey guys, I was looking at buying the game. I've heard good and bad stuff... should I even bother??

[SiDeWiNdEr]

Yes.
I'm not going to give any reasons :D

[Daishi]

No. Not until EA shows it's got its act together.

[truefeel]

If you aren't planning to stick long on this game, then yes: you should buy it. However, EA gives a very bad aftermarket support, so it's not recommended to buy this game when you want to play over a span of at least 1 year.

[Vindicare]

I would suggest you read about it and watch the videos then form your own opinion and not do what people tell you.

[GLQ_Seph]

I would suggest you read about it and watch the videos then form your own opinion and not do what people tell you.

Peoples opinions are brilliant though!

The foundation of Democracy dontcha know! :color2:

[Bouncing Ball]

No. Not until EA shows it's got its act together.
And why would they if nobody would buy the game? Such a thing goes 2 ways. It would be a kane's wrath all over!



To the OP, Id say your first sentence should say enough. Eventually nobody in the world can tell you exactly if you would like it anyway. There are still enough people trying to tell me that generals was a good C&C and that Yuri's revenge destroyed RA2, while I rather play Yuri than RA2 and get bored after an hour of generals.

Or wait a month so that a friend buys the game and play some there. I know that's what friends do with me :shifty:

[pipinowns]

Spore will be alot better.

If you have plently of money to spend and think this game looks cool you should buy it.

But you should defiantly buy Spore first.

[soadfan1]

I would HIGHLY reccommend you try the game before you buy it.

I think deep rooted, long term c&c fans will be left quite disappointed on the whole.

New players to the series though may enjoy it.

Again the post release support is very often dodgy so I would be quite wary.

But definately try the game in full before you buy.

[Thumper]

I think deep rooted, long term c&c fans will be left quite disappointed on the whole.


yep.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

I would HIGHLY reccommend you try the game before you buy it.

I think deep rooted, long term c&c fans will be left quite disappointed on the whole.

New players to the series though may enjoy it.

Again the post release support is very often dodgy so I would be quite wary.

But definately try the game in full before you buy.

I've played the CnC series since its inception, except generals, I didn't trust EA then, and CnC3/KW strained to get it together, but I picked them up, this is really my the last chance i'm giving EA, beyond some problems with the Japs I have, the game looks to be pretty damn good. I'm excited for it.
If I don't like it, chances are won't ever buy another CnC game again.
(Though in all honesty, I keep saying I'm too old for pokemon, and here I am with Diamond and Pearl[I'm 20 by the way])

If you're unsure and interested, I'd suggest you buy it. You can always return it for full price at some stores in a certain amount of time. At least I think you can, at Gamestop I'm pretty sure you can.

But in the end it all comes down to what you think, and what you want, mull over the reviews here, and make your own decision.

[apple23]

Now there is alot of dumbness surrounding the other elements of the game (the storyline seems a bit cheesy, pr0nstar actors for the FMVs, and so on...), but on the whole, even for a BETA, RA3's gameplay is better than any CNC game ever. This game overshadows generals, and that is by no means whatsoever an easy feat. The game looks very promising, but this is indeed EA's last chance to get thier **** together or they will lose ALOT of diehard CNC fans. RA3 is one of the most anticipated games of the year, and it is not hard to understand why.

The only real long term problem I can see with RA3 is EA's support for it. They have recently shown that they really don't give a rat's ass about teh community, just the money. They release the game, make tons of cash, and then dump the game a year later and move on, leaving usually a terrible game to begin with in thier footsteps.


I think deep rooted, long term c&c fans will be left quite disappointed on the whole.


Why, because they have introduced many great gameplay elements that CNC has never tried before? I am a long term CNC fan. I started when RA2 was released and have played every CNC game, including CNC95 and RA. The thing that differentiates me between the majority of the CNC fanbase is that I more than welcome a seemingly drastic change if it improves the gameplay and depth of strategy to such the level that RA3 is at. Sure, there is a different feel to the game, there is a different resourcing system, there are some high tech, somewhat impractical technologies and weapons, but that is not a deterrant at all to gameplay, and something I personally prefer, because now you are not limited to all the basic, run-of-the-mill tanks and guns, you have freeze beams, M harpoons, man cannons, flea jumping three legged mechs, and so on. That introduces a huge window of opportunity as far as new strategies go, and that is what gameplay is all about.

Don't bitch and moan about every little change they made in RA3 (zOMG no ore fields anymore!!! the Economy system is ACTUALLY BALANCED!!! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!), instead actually look at it from a passive point of view, and you will realise how much better off we probably are with those changes.

[soadfan1]

See Apple, theres one thing you must understand when I say what I say.

I probably havent made it clear enough before but I will do now.

When I talk about ra3 being a travesty to long term c&c fans and how ra3 cannot be called c&c blah blah.

Im not saying this because Ra3 has changes. Im not saying this because Ra3 isnt a Ra1 or c&c clone.

Quite the opposite, as ra3 doesnt offer anything significantly new to the table as yet. I now actually believe that c&c must evolve to avoid this slow death its suffering from.

The things wrong with ra3 are MOSTLY from an aesthetic standpoint.

The addition of second rate celebrities into the cast lists reminds me of the way The Simpsons, a once great show includes the same sort of 'talent' into 90% of its shows now to boost ratings.

c&c had a certain 'panache' and 'grit' it could bring to the table, without needing tit flashing stars, and overhammed actors from various average tv series.

Give me the Tanya needle scene, or stalin death anyday. Now its just embarrassing.

But its not just about the FMV, its also of course about the games units and design style.

No I dont really want the same rehashed light and medium tanks over and over. But even less do I want to see floating dragon flies, swordmen, and laser eye robots.

There is quite simply a happy medium between realism and surrealism without going ridiculous.

So dont ever think when I say about how I feel ra3 will be a failure to most long term fans, that I am stuck in the past and cant accept change. Its quite the opposite, I would embrace change completely. Just so long as it keeps the c&c spark that made the first set of games so remarkable.

When you get down to the core, the changes ra3 makes in its core gameplay to any previous c&c are rather minor.

[Miles]

I'm not all too fond of mechs firing lasers and the basic tanks not firing shells but energy bursts. It reminds me the tiberium series. Having an artillery unit firing a laser is totally acceptable... after all the prism tank did that. Tesla weapons and Laser turrets are acceptable too, but when the most basic weapons (Tsunami Tank is the casual basic Imperial tank just like the Soviet Hammer tank for example) also become plasma or laser based, it goes a bit too far. It becomes too futurustic. And the fact that the heaviest Imperial unit a mech unit is doesn't make it any better.

I'm probably not gonna be a big fan of the Empire but who cares? I'll probably spend most of my time playing with the Soviets anyways.

[apple23]

Quite the opposite, as ra3 doesnt offer anything significantly new to the table as yet. I now actually believe that c&c must evolve to avoid this slow death its suffering from.

So the drastically new economy system, and having secondary abilities for ALL units (just 2 examples) isn't significant?

The addition of second rate celebrities into the cast lists reminds me of the way The Simpsons, a once great show includes the same sort of 'talent' into 90% of its shows now to boost ratings.

We have already discussed this to death and beyond, and we have decided that until the game comes out and we see the FMVs, we can't judge how the new cast will play. Sure having a second rate cast may seem bas at first, but they may abtually be good actors.

c&c had a certain 'panache' and 'grit' it could bring to the table, without needing tit flashing stars, and overhammed actors from various average tv series.

that's CNC, not RA. Yes, RA1 had some grit to it, but RA2 was clearly not intended to be that overly serious storyline. And like I said before, the new cast may not be that bad.

No I dont really want the same rehashed light and medium tanks over and over. But even less do I want to see floating dragon flies, swordmen, and laser eye robots.

The design may seem impractical, but a tiny dragonfly-shaped drone would be in reality a very smart and stealthy design for a scout drone. Mechs may seem impractical, but remember this game is intended to be a bit futuristic, and the real world scientific community is actually getting ever closer to making mechas.

There is quite simply a happy medium between realism and surrealism without going ridiculous.

I don't see how (at the very least in comparison to RA2) RA3 is so ridiculous in its unit design. We are not talking about Real life here. In real life, no we do not have this stuff, but it is a freaking game. it does not have to totally 100% obey the laws of physics (although all but a select few units do anyway) and it does not have to be totally realistic and practical.

RA3 was supposed to have creative and perhaps some impractical unit designs.

So dont ever think when I say about how I feel ra3 will be a failure to most long term fans, that I am stuck in the past and cant accept change. Its quite the opposite, I would embrace change completely. Just so long as it keeps the c&c spark that made the first set of games so remarkable.

For almost every point you made in this argument, you backed it up by in some way saying that it was a change from the previous CNC games.

Good job contradicting yourself.

When you get down to the core, the changes ra3 makes in its core gameplay to any previous c&c are rather minor.

Minor, you say?

I will now take one of the best CNC games here for example. It had the best gameplay of any CNC of its time, had far superior balance and depth, and had plenty of new things to bring to the CNC genre. Can you guess what game it is?

That's right, Generals. It was ridiculed for these great changes that it brought forth and people considered it "not a true CNC game" purely because it didn't have all the origional tired-and-true systems and gameplay mechanics, which weren't very great or successful anyways.

RA3 is similar. If you played both Generals and RA3, you would notice a pretty large amount of similarities. They have a similar economy system, the generals point system was incorporated into RA3, they have a good hard counter system with secondary abilities galore, it is very fast paced and strategic gameplay, and both RA3 and Generals were criticized and ridiculed by people like you simply for these changes.

[Miles]

I wouldn't call the cast weak to be honest. Jonathan Pryce played the main villain in a James Bond movie and played an important role in all three Pirates Of The Caribbean films. Peter Stormare played in Jurassic Park 2 (crappy film, but had a lot of success) and Armageddon. J.K. Simmons in all three of the Spiderman movies (didn't like those neither but were also popular films) and Tim Curry, though not as famous, is a good actor too.

I don't know the rest of the cast too well, but they might be as good.
True, Jenny McCarthy looks a bit slutty and they probably chose her for the same reason they gave Lara Croft big boobs but to be honest, was Kari Wuhrer that much more famous? She was a pretty looking woman, but not exactly the top class actress.

Generals may not have been a "true" C&C game but it sure as hell brought lots (and still does) of enjoyment for me. I still play the game and I would label it as a great spin-off from the C&C world. Didn't like C&C 3 though...

Though in all honesty, I keep saying I'm too old for pokemon, and here I am with Diamond and Pearl[I'm 20 by the way]

Funny you say that because I totally recognize it in myself too. I'm 26 years old and I keep saying I'm too old for Sonic The Hedgehog and Super Mario games yet I keep buying and enjoying them all. And Tails is still my favorite video game character :D

[Statalyzer]

and the real world scientific community is actually getting ever closer to making mechas.

We have the technology to make them, they are just vastly inferior to tanks.

[ein1017]

We have the technology to make them, they are just vastly inferior to tanks.

mechas have built in weaknesses that makes the tank a better choice on the battlefield. One big thing is the vertical size of a mecha. A tank has a lower profile making it harder to see and target while a mech stands pretty tall and is easier to spot. Another is the instability of being a biped. A walking machine needs to constantly worry about being balanced. This can be overcome but it would be a delicate part of the machine and is vulnerable.

Not saying mechs are not fun but in a pratical sense, tanks have a higher survival rate then a same tech walking biped. Power armor on the other hand would be pretty cool and useful.

[soadfan1]

I never once backed up my arguement by saying change was a bad thing.

What I did do was back it up by saying the changes ra3 has made arent that great.

The money system in ra3 isnt all that much different from Generals ( a game I thought had great Multiplayer but poor sp)

And units have had secondary abilities for a while now, so no I dont really think they are drastic changes.

Drastic changes are incorporating risky features into a game, or having a living breathing enviroment, like the aspect of COH where throwing grenades into certain sides of a broken building affected what happened. Not that I'd want c&c to become COH at all.

Its all about making the changes in a dignified and well planned way.

-Rob

[ArmoredBear]

So far, it seems like the game is worth it. The gameplay feels way better than TW/KW, yet doesn't feel like RA2 where games could end in 2 or 3 minutes, which I think is a good thing. The sides are well done, and I've really enjoyed the naval aspect, it's not revolutionary, but being able to have bases offshore and having naval battles in an RTS (many games avoid this stuff nowadays) is nice. The big question, as has been mentioned, is the level of support. Seeing how RA3 bailed on Kane's Beta Test....err, Wrath, to make this game, it should have a better launch than the typical EA RTS. It helps it's actually getting tested beforehand too. I think the support for the game after launch will be better than usual, which isn't saying much, but still. I think EA realized finally that CNC is dead if RA3 doesn't do well and hold players.
The singleplayer also looks like it could be good. The co-op sounds intriguing, and I like the cast. For those complaining about some of the B-list actors, it's a video game, it's not like you're going to be able to get Al Pacino or George Clooney or something. I kind of find it fun watching some guys who are probably wondering what went wrong with their careers.

[apple23]

What I did do was back it up by saying the changes ra3 has made arent that great.

Please explain to me what changes were bad and how, because so far you have done nothing to substantiate your argument.

The money system in ra3 isnt all that much different from Generals ( a game I thought had great Multiplayer but poor sp)

I SPECIFICALLY said it was like the generals resourcing system, and I also said that it was a good thing that they took a leaf out of the Generals book, because it has vastly improved gameplay.

And units have had secondary abilities for a while now, so no I dont really think they are drastic changes.

Okay, maybe not drastic or revolutionary, but as of yet, only some of the units had secondary abilities. In RA3, all of them do.

Drastic changes are incorporating risky features into a game, or having a living breathing enviroment, like the aspect of COH where throwing grenades into certain sides of a broken building affected what happened. Not that I'd want c&c to become COH at all.

That is not really an example of a drastic change. Besides, something similar has been incorporated into the game already with the conscript's molotov cocktails.

Also, what would you define as a "risky feature"?

Its all about making the changes in a dignified and well planned way.

I don't see how any of the changes in RA3 constitute a lack of planning or dignification.

[soadfan1]

I have backed my arguements up time and time again, I dont see why what I see is not substantial.

Changes made in very recent c&c especially ra3

-Sensationalising of the game: Seeming to be gearing it more towards kids with cartoony warfare.

-Commercialising the game with B-list Celebrities.

-Overuse of 'wacky' ideas.

-What I percieve as a lack of real depth. Secondary abilities and a balanced counter system are not real depth.

To be honest Apple, we're going backwards and forwards here we should just agree to disagree.
I know Im not alone in my thoughts, and I know youre not alone in yours, I will defend my belief that Ra3 is an awful c&c incarnation to the end, and you will defend that it is is a great game til the end.

[Vindicare]

I have backed my arguements up time and time again, I dont see why what I see is not substantial.

Changes made in very recent c&c especially ra3

-Sensationalising of the game: Seeming to be gearing it more towards kids with cartoony warfare.

-Commercialising the game with B-list Celebrities.

-Overuse of 'wacky' ideas.

-What I percieve as a lack of real depth. Secondary abilities and a balanced counter system are not real depth.

To be honest Apple, we're going backwards and forwards here we should just agree to disagree.
I know Im not alone in my thoughts, and I know youre not alone in yours, I will defend my belief that Ra3 is an awful c&c incarnation to the end, and you will defend that it is is a great game til the end.

More towards kids? What are you talking about? RA2 was basically the same but with 2d graphics. Not to mention Warcraft3 also had far more cartoon-like graphics and I still wouldnt say it was for "kids".

Commercializing the game. Wow would you get over yourself? the C&C series is KNOWN for putting B-list celebs in it....this is nothing new at all..I mean seriously this is like being mad at a friday the 13th movie for using Jason as the killer.

Overuse of wacky Ideas.......my god....mind contol squids, aliens, tiberium, time travel...et al....oh my god your right....the previous games were far far more realistic and less wacky....who do these developers think they are coming up with a different style....they should all be fired for trying to make the gameplay fun....bastards.

Once again you go back to claiming no depth...Honestly what would be your idea of depth? Id love to hear this. Super microing units? make it so they can trip over rocks in the environment so you have to constantly check if your units fell so it doesnt effect the battle? maybe....a fatigue meter if the soldiers walk for to long they get fatigued and have to sit down and drink water? I mean you never have clarifyied what you consider depth.

[apple23]

I have backed my arguements up time and time again, I dont see why what I see is not substantial.

This reply didn't substantiate your argument, for example. The entire reply excepting the last bit was a bunch of poorly written sentance fragments that described your opinions in about the most bland and unspecific way you possibly could.

One of the things that really bites me about your style of replying is that you don't reply directly to my post, like I reply directly to your posts. Try putting a direct quote from my post, wrapped in -- Tags, in front of your reply to that quote.

It will make it alot easier to understand your arguments and therefore easier to reply to them.

[QUOTE]Changes made in very recent c&c especially ra3

It would be ALOT easier to reply to your arguments if you would actually write them with good grammar and for god's sake stop writing in sentance fragments.

-Sensationalising of the game: Seeming to be gearing it more towards kids with cartoony warfare.

"Futuristic" and "Over-the-top" does not mean cartoony. Sure the graphics and the storyline are a bit brighter than CNC3, but RA3 was meant to be that way, a break from those dark and gritty storylines.

-Commercialising the game with B-list Celebrities.

It seems like more and more people will just not stop ranting about this. Let's wait until the game ships andwesee the FMVs to judge the cast.

-Overuse of 'wacky' ideas.

Please define "wacky."

-What I percieve as a lack of real depth. Secondary abilities and a balanced counter system are not real depth.

I'd rather like to see you describe exactly what you percieve real depth to be, then.

To be honest Apple, we're going backwards and forwards here we should just agree to disagree.
I know Im not alone in my thoughts, and I know youre not alone in yours, I will defend my belief that Ra3 is an awful c&c incarnation to the end, and you will defend that it is is a great game til the end.
It dosen't even seem like you thionk RA3 is an awful game. Sure you say it alot, and give some opinions about it saying the gameplay is awful, etc., but you haven't really given us any real tangible argument as to why you think it is such an awful game. Give us good reasons as to why the aspects you hate about RA3 are so bad.

I will say this in reply to that last quote; it is entirely your choice if you wish to continue this argument. If not, simply don't reply to this post.

If you do wish to continue, I expect decent grammar and sentance structure so I can actually fully understand what you are saying.

[soadfan1]

Its funny how its ONLY you and Vindicare who insist on repeating yourself claiming I do not back up my claims. Someone Im slightly bemused at.

I dont quote as I am not aware how to quote small pieces of text as opposed to the whole message.

Also before I start the main post. Little bit pathetic to comment on my grammar since my use of language is extremely good, not poor. I MAY make typos and puncuation errors as I type very fast, but I write in a way that most can understand. No-one has EVER commented on my grammar on any forum anywhere, so I'm afraid you're wrong on that one for a start.


Ill quote you by typing myself if I need too.

Futuristic and over the top doesn't mean cartoony of course, but in ra3's case it does mean cartoony. It is far too childish and purile, with the Japanese robots, dragonflies, swordsmen, not to mention the soviet parachuting bears and magnet apolypse etc.


Apple - I'd rather like to see you describe exactly what you percieve real depth to be, then.


Ok real depth. Needing to micro every unit you make to make sure you get full use out of them. Not being able to just waste the odd few units or bit of cash, and have it not really effect the outcome of the match. Again have features in place to create tactical depth such as bombing certain sides of buildings to clear out garrisoned buildings better etc. A real living breathing enviroment that changes would help with depth too, such as day to night cycles and events.

To be honest Ra3s lack of depth is not the thing about it which ruins it for me, as lets face it previous c&cs had even less depth, but the style with which most were carried out with protected them from such criticism.

'Wacky' in this case means BOTH units which make little to no tactical sense, and are generally seen as childish fantasy.

Obviously c&c always had futuristic units, but they were never protrayed in this kind of way, nor did they ever become this purile.

Apple - 'It dosen't even seem like you thionk RA3 is an awful game.'

You know what heres the part that is probably confusing you because its hard to explain without sounding like Im contradicting myself.

If this was a completely different RTS game called something like 'Rise of the empire' completely unrelated to c&c I would see it as a normal standard RTS game.

But being a c&c title carries with it a burden.

Also consider this:

Me and a huge huge amount of other long term c&c fans dislike EA and their c&c support and development team. for their continual abandonment of previous games once the new title comes out. I am aware this is a bit of a dead horse subject but it is something which still effects us.

Given that; everytime I see a new c&c title come out with another number slightly higher than the one before it appears that they have now accepted that its ok to simply make basically the same games over and over and the fans will buy it like sheep no matter what the game contains.

Maybe I am taking c&c too seriously maybe it shouldnt matter, but thats what happens to you when you are a HUGE fan of something, you become passionate about it, and when the bigwigs start to take it over and spoil it, resentment ensues.

Lets face it ra3 does not contain the spark which made c&c, c&c.

Therefore in my eyes its going to be a lot worse than from someone who came into c&c say, from red alert 2 onwards.

Hopefully you could read this better , although I dont see anything really wrong with the first few posts but never mind.

-Rob

[Derek]

Changes made in very recent c&c especially ra3
-Sensationalising of the game: Seeming to be gearing it more towards kids with cartoony warfare.

-Commercialising the game with B-list Celebrities.

-Overuse of 'wacky' ideas.
While I completely agree here, the flaw with your argument is that this has been the case with every CNC game since RA2, except for Gens/ZH. To be bringing up the issue now is a bit late.

-What I percieve as a lack of real depth. Secondary abilities and a balanced counter system are not real depth.
Here on the other hand, you're completely wrong.


And there never was a "spark" in CNC games. They were shallow and marketed off 2-bit storylines and B-grade actors.

[soadfan1]

While I completely agree here, the flaw with your argument is that this has been the case with every CNC game since RA2, except for Gens/ZH. To be bringing up the issue now is a bit late.
Here on the other hand, you're completely wrong.
And there never was a "spark" in CNC games. They were shallow and marketed off 2-bit storylines and B-grade actors.


I only found YR and ra2 to be like that I didnt find c&c 3 to be particuarly cartoony. course these kind of issues were brought up then but still are now. This isnt the first time I've said this dating right back to 2001/2002 but this is the time it has REALLY become too much.

I guess the second part depends on what you see as depth in a game, I guess since ive played more complex games Ive seen what can be done and miss some aspects of that.

However the last bit I most certainly feel is very wrong, as there was most certainly a c&c spark, Im sure the c&c oldies would know what I mean when I talk about the 'c&c spark'

c&c Ra1 and tib sun had a spark about them. They were gritty tough and exciting. The actors werent celebrities (bar james earl jones) and they werent all great actors, they just played a normal part without hamming things up too much. The storylines of c&c have also been very highly thought of as being one of if not the best in a video game ever. Kane was rated best video game villan in 1999/2000 in Englands P.C gamer.

[apple23]

Its funny how its ONLY you and Vindicare who insist on repeating yourself claiming I do not back up my claims. Someone Im slightly bemused at.

I dont quote as I am not aware how to quote small pieces of text as opposed to the whole message.

Copy/paste a quote into your post, and put a quote tag in front of it, and a /quote at the end of the text. wrap both tags in [] brackets.


Also before I start the main post. Little bit pathetic to comment on my grammar since my use of language is extremely good, not poor. I MAY make typos and puncuation errors as I type very fast, but I write in a way that most can understand. No-one has EVER commented on my grammar on any forum anywhere, so I'm afraid you're wrong on that one for a start.


Very interesting how you seem to magically fix your grammar in this post. Look at all your other posts now, and you would be ashamed.

Futuristic and over the top doesn't mean cartoony of course, but in ra3's case it does mean cartoony. It is far too childish and purile, with the Japanese robots, dragonflies, swordsmen, not to mention the soviet parachuting bears and magnet apolypse etc.

I know what you are getting at here. RA3 does have a generally brighter look and feel to it as opposed to CNC3 or similar games.

I just personally don't think 'cartoony' is the right word to describe it.

Ok real depth. Needing to micro every unit you make to make sure you get full use out of them. Not being able to just waste the odd few units or bit of cash, and have it not really effect the outcome of the match.
wasting an odd few units meaning what? Scouting with cheap bears or dogs? or actaully sending an army and losing it all?

I'll put it this way. The units differ in cost for a reason. Some are supposed to be more or less expendable and less important.

Depending on the unit, outright wasting any unit will affect your game significantly.

Again have features in place to create tactical depth such as bombing certain sides of buildings to clear out garrisoned buildings better etc. A real living breathing enviroment that changes would help with depth too, such as day to night cycles and events.

That is not depth. That is logistics, which TBH I think should only be in a game to a certain limited extent, because more often than not, adding alot of logistics into a game makes it very unfair and introduces a huge factor of luck, which would be fine if this was real life, because real life war is not fair, but in a game, it has to be fair for both sides, or the strategy is completely eliminated.

To be honest Ra3s lack of depth is not the thing about it which ruins it for me, as lets face it previous c&cs had even less depth, but the style with which most were carried out with protected them from such criticism.

I don't quite follow you there, and you are being extremely vague. What did the other CNCs do that was so substantial to make up for a lack of depth?

Don't even try to give me the "It was a true CNC game" bull**** either.


'Wacky' in this case means BOTH units which make little to no tactical sense, and are generally seen as childish fantasy.


In a TACTICAL sense, the units are perfectly fine. They essentially act just like other units, they just walk, hover, etc. (with obviously the exception of transforming units)

Obviously c&c always had futuristic units, but they were never protrayed in this kind of way, nor did they ever become this purile.

That is CNC, not RA. Ever since RA2, EA has apparently decided that the RA universe was going to be cheesy saturday matinee style. They pull that off quite perfectly without hurting gameplay at all, but it is seriously not as stupid as you people make it out to be.

You know what heres the part that is probably confusing you because its hard to explain without sounding like Im contradicting myself.

As I will explain below, this is because you are contradicting yourself.


If this was a completely different RTS game called something like 'Rise of the empire' completely unrelated to c&c I would see it as a normal standard RTS game.

But being a c&c title carries with it a burden.


BAM. Right there, epic win for me.

You said earlier that you were open to changes in the game compared to earlier CNC games. Here, you just said that it "carries with it a burden," which translates to the argument of "It dosen't have all the features and gameplay mechanics of the CNC titles before it, therefore it is not worthy of the CNC title!"

This is exactly what happened to generals, and seeing that RA3 took some leaves out of the generals book, I'm not surprised to see this kind of feedback.


Me and a huge huge amount of other long term c&c fans dislike EA and their c&c support and development team. for their continual abandonment of previous games once the new title comes out. I am aware this is a bit of a dead horse subject but it is something which still effects us.


And I agree with that. EA's post-release support has been crap ever since YR came out, which was the first CNC game done be EA.

Given that; everytime I see a new c&c title come out with another number slightly higher than the one before it appears that they have now accepted that its ok to simply make basically the same games over and over and the fans will buy it like sheep no matter what the game contains.

Obviously they have abandoned that hope, with everything they are trying to do to get player feedback with the beta.

Maybe I am taking c&c too seriously maybe it shouldnt matter, but thats what happens to you when you are a HUGE fan of something, you become passionate about it, and when the bigwigs start to take it over and spoil it, resentment ensues.

EA hasn't really screwed the pooch just yet. If RA3 is a big success and they actually make a good game out of it, EA will win my respect back. If they **** RA3 up, they lose a HUGE chunk of thier fanbase.

Lets face it ra3 does not contain the spark which made c&c, c&c.

That's because it is RA, not CNC.

Therefore in my eyes its going to be a lot worse than from someone who came into c&c say, from red alert 2 onwards.

Just because it does not feel like the origional game, made more than 10 years ago, does not mean it is going to be a bad game. You are way to stuck in old CNC, you need to come out and see the light. Look at RA3 from a totally passive, unbiased perspective. when you really, really, honestly get a good look at RA3 from that perspective, then come back and tell me what you saw.

*EDIT*: Also, you contradicted yourself, again.

Inconsistencies do not win the argument for you...

Hopefully you could read this better , although I dont see anything really wrong with the first few posts but never mind.

Yes, I could read this post alot better, and you did very nicely in typing in complete, coherent sentances. For both our sakes, I thank you for that.

[zgtrman97]

After reading most of the posts here (because alot of it was just bikering and I skipped all that) my opinion of RA3 is it a CNC3 TW mod with a Generals twist.
Reason being is one of the developers for RA3 was part of the Generals development team.

I am 50 yrs old and have been playing video games since Pong. ( an 8 bit ping pong type game for those who dont know what I am talking about)
I have seen alot of games come and go so I think I know what I am saying here.

Personally I will wait until RA3 hits the bargin bin before I put my money down for it.

I still play Generals almost daily because it is the most balanced CnC game out there thus far.

Note: I have a job and family and a life before any of you start flaming the "old guy"

In the end it is all a matter of taste and opinion... buy a game because you like it...not because some else said to.

[apple23]

The graphics and gameplay speed/feel are similar to CNC3, and many gameplay mechanics from generals were implemented. The result: an RA so balanced and with such depth it rivals Generals itself, maybe even surpasses it. Hell, this game got me to stop playing generals, and I have stood by that game since the beginning (even through the whole era of "Generals isn't a true CNC game!!")

And yes, get the beta, try it before you buy it. See if you like it.
If you liked generals, there is a good chance you will love this game.

[Miles]

fore you buy it. See if you like it.
If you liked generals, there is a good chance you will love this game.

Good to hear. I still play Generals these days and I never stopped loving it.

[soadfan1]

If you liked generals, there is a good chance you will love this game.

I liked Generals :P

[apple23]

so you are not going to reply then, huh?

Some argument you got going there...

[soadfan1]

Mate, I will post a longer reply to it at some point, but you must understand I am not on the internet for the sole reason of argueing this. I only make huge replies when I have the time.


By wasting units what I meant was like in c&c-3 where if you sent 5 of your 60 predators the wrong way and they got destroyed it didnt make a blind bit of difference.

Apple - 'I don't quite follow you there, and you are being extremely vague. What did the other CNCs do that was so substantial to make up for a lack of depth?

Don't even try to give me the "It was a true CNC game" bull**** either.'

Im afraid Im going to have to give you that kinda bull**** because its the truth.

They had a spark about them that made them special. The atomopshere of the game, the brutality of the fmv's and the grit and toughness of the missions to name a few. Plus whatever happened to the little cinematics of the units in between missions!

Anyone who played c&c from the beginning as an adult or teenager will know what I am talking about, its what brought us to the series. Ask Lion!

Apple - 'You said earlier that you were open to changes in the game compared to earlier CNC games. Here, you just said that it "carries with it a burden," which translates to the argument of "It dosen't have all the features and gameplay mechanics of the CNC titles before it, therefore it is not worthy of the CNC title!"'

See here is where you're looking at things too black and white.

Me saying 'Im open to change' and ' being a c&c title comes with a burden' is NOT a contradiction at all.

Partly because youre translator isnt working very well :P

What it amounts to is, c&c needs to change, but as it changes it needs to keep with it the style, grit and panache that it is famous for and not lose its dignity.

Dont be so quick to think Im contradicting myself because I can assure you without a shadow of a doubt, that anywhere you think I am contrdicting myself, Im not. Its because its not a black and white arguement, you have to think more than just inside the box.

-Rob

[thetechieotaku]

If you are into eye-candy and graphics then go buy the game. But if you are into good gameplay, better stick to YR mods that alters the dismal AI.