C&C Red Alert 3 Announced

billybob89 · 13 Feb 2008 at 20:26

i remember back in the days when i was somthing like 8 or 9 years old when i got the box set of the 1st C&C game my 1st ever game lol! I got all the games and enjoyed all the series right up intill C&C3 came out.

snowdog · 13 Feb 2008 at 20:31

Welll what do you guys want then, it's either red alert 3 or no red alert 3, I'd reather have an average modern game continue with yuri etc than to still only have RA2.
RA2 will not disappear, you can still play it.

I'll see how it is when done.

Souness · 13 Feb 2008 at 20:54

Never understood this whole 2D vs 3D debate. They are identical except 3D is more realistic and prettier. It doesn't affect gameplay in the slightest. I think thee whineth too much.

Atomic · 13 Feb 2008 at 21:23

Welshy said:
Are you fully patched up to date? I had that error at first, but a week later they released a patch that solved the problem

Will wait for screens/more info before I jump on the EA hating bandwagon just yet.

Yes, fully patches, as well as manyothers over at the official forums.

Psyk · 13 Feb 2008 at 21:33

Souness said:
Never understood this whole 2D vs 3D debate. They are identical except 3D is more realistic and prettier. It doesn't affect gameplay in the slightest. I think thee whineth too much.

I was just about to say the same thing. With this type of game it makes zero difference to the gameplay. C&C3 could have been made with 2D sprites and it would play exactly the same. If people think it's crap, it's not because of the 3D graphics.

Dark88 · 13 Feb 2008 at 21:43

Minstadave said:
It was too zoomed in for my liking, the games didn't seem large enough for my liking.

i liked the small scale skirmish feel. Was more microing and unit combos than just spam tanks in 5 mins like it is in C&C3.

snowdog · 13 Feb 2008 at 21:49

Souness said:
Never understood this whole 2D vs 3D debate. They are identical except 3D is more realistic and prettier. It doesn't affect gameplay in the slightest. I think thee whineth too much.

The graphics make up a huge part of the gameplay, 3d games usually have to be twice as good to be as fun to play as 2d games...
It can easely be seen from all RTS games wich have gone pap since the conversion from 2d to 3d.

I personally can't find much wrong with C&C 3 except the lack of enough good maps for skirmish and that its not red alert. I never liked the tiberian C&C line as much, always been much more of a fan of RA.

XPE · 13 Feb 2008 at 22:15

C&C3 last year, C&C3 addon, Tiberium (fps) and RA3 this year, it feels like EA are trying milk it the C&C franchise

PureAppleJuice · 13 Feb 2008 at 22:49

XPE said:
C&C3 last year, C&C3 addon, Tiberium (fps) and RA3 this year, it feels like EA are trying milk it the C&C franchise

Nah, disagree. What's the addon? An expansion we pay for? Haven't heard of the FPS.

I'm looking forward to this, CnC3 wasn't that bad, certainly enjoyed it online!

russ0r · 13 Feb 2008 at 23:02

a 3D engine for an RTS is fine as long as you can't move the camera. I'd rather just have a plain isometric 2D engine like RA2 had than having to arse about with camera angles all the time. It's unnecessary and distracts from the game imo.

When did EA get the C&C franchise? :/

Proc · 13 Feb 2008 at 23:25

russ0r said:
a 3D engine for an RTS is fine as long as you can't move the camera. I'd rather just have a plain isometric 2D engine like RA2 had than having to arse about with camera angles all the time. It's unnecessary and distracts from the game imo.

When did EA get the C&C franchise? :/

I like the camera system in World in Conflict, its totally free and allows to look at the action from any angle.

EA got the C&C frnachise years ago, they bought out Westwood. Some of the team stayed at EA and the others created their own studio Petroglyph if i remember right.

Gashman · 13 Feb 2008 at 23:25

jidh007 said:
Nah, disagree. What's the addon? An expansion we pay for? Haven't heard of the FPS.

I'm looking forward to this, CnC3 wasn't that bad, certainly enjoyed it online!

i must say why would you want C&C when you could play supreme commander instead, its a better RTS in every sence, also starcraft II very close on the horizon (heard its completed and just being balanced), sorry EA but starcraft will beat command and conquer anywhere, anytime

Vulcan · 13 Feb 2008 at 23:40

XPE said:
C&C3 last year, C&C3 addon, Tiberium (fps) and RA3 this year, it feels like EA are trying milk it the C&C franchise

Well, EA do have a reputation for add-ons, but Westwood/Virgin made add ons with the C&C games before them.

Souness · 13 Feb 2008 at 23:57

The thing that ruins C&C3 is that 90% of games are either rushes and over in 5 minutes or turtle wars where the first one to build a superweapon wins. Either way there's no real skill apart from clicking fast and build order.

The 3D engine has nothing to do with it.

XPE · 14 Feb 2008 at 00:06

Longbow said:
Well, EA do have a reputation for add-ons, but Westwood/Virgin made add ons with the C&C games before them.

My point was that for years we have had nothing from the C&C universe and now we have 3 games coming out this year (mayby).

Pulsedriver · 14 Feb 2008 at 00:26

RA2:YR > Every RTS to date.

Killerkebab · 14 Feb 2008 at 00:32

Gashman said:
i must say why would you want C&C when you could play supreme commander instead, its a better RTS in every sence

It might be technically more impressive but it is also boring. It needs a computer the size of ENIAC to run it properly and you spend most of your time zoomed out so far you may as well play a game of Risk. It would be just as impressive graphically only your FPS might be slightly better

Jokes aside, Supreme Commander is a game I so desperately want to enjoy because in the beta (when the scale and the units were still new) I loved the game but when C&C3 came out I found a game that I could instantly pick up and play and be finished in less than six hours...

It is not a better RTS in every sense, unless 'fun' isn't a 'sense' that a game could be good or bad at

Gashman said:
sorry EA but starcraft will beat command and conquer anywhere, anytime

Can I borrow your copy of the game?

Amnesia · 14 Feb 2008 at 00:39

as long as i can zoom out a little bit more i'll be happy.

PureAppleJuice · 14 Feb 2008 at 00:49

Gashman said:
i must say why would you want C&C when you could play supreme commander instead, its a better RTS in every sence, also starcraft II very close on the horizon (heard its completed and just being balanced), sorry EA but starcraft will beat command and conquer anywhere, anytime

C&C has the whole storyline and universe with it and varied units. SupCom was a total dissapointment, it was so dull. Never really liked Starcraft but enjoyed Warcraft.

jontwhale · 14 Feb 2008 at 11:06

russ0r said:
a 3D engine for an RTS is fine as long as you can't move the camera. I'd rather just have a plain isometric 2D engine like RA2 had than having to arse about with camera angles all the time. It's unnecessary and distracts from the game imo.

When did EA get the C&C franchise? :/

had it when ra2 was released. maybe even as far back as RA.

Jon