Red Alert 3 patches - full or incremental?

[TW]Fox · 6 Oct 2009 at 14:58

Why on earth do developers never label patches properly!

Want to play RA3 tonight, so need to get it patched.

Thing is there are no less than 12 patches. Do I need every one or is the 1.12 patch the latest? Each patch is bigger than the last which suggests it contains the same content as the previous one - 1.12 even lists in the readme its only a bugfix yet its 500mb surely its a full patch?

knowledge123 · 6 Oct 2009 at 15:06

I would also say it's a compilation of all the ones before it. Be sure to grab it from Gamershell for maximum speed

Don't get me started on the, iirc, Supreme Commander patches, they were a nightmare!

West · 6 Oct 2009 at 15:09

Why not use the In-Game? I recently re-installed this onto my Rig and it was done in a few minutes.

[TW]Fox · 6 Oct 2009 at 15:11

Because I'm currently sat on a ridiculously fast connection gathering patches, at home I have 1mbit

linktoinsanity · 6 Oct 2009 at 16:18

No, I don't think the patches are inclusive. The newest one is 1.12 I think, and it starts at 1.01.

[TW]Taggart · 6 Oct 2009 at 16:19

whats the bets fox misses out one and were all left waiting....

bledd · 6 Oct 2009 at 16:20

woe betide if you buy Company of Heroes, it's an aweosme game, but it's got a god awful patching system, way worse than this or COD :/

G-Man · 6 Oct 2009 at 16:57

Red Alert 3 is most definately full patches from EA, you only need the latest one.

Mailman86 · 6 Oct 2009 at 17:00

bledd. said:
woe betide if you buy Company of Heroes, it's an aweosme game, but it's got a god awful patching system, way worse than this or COD :/

Haha yes. I remember when installing it for the first time it downloaded the first patch which was fair enough. Second patch I was alright with as that is quite common as well. I thought installing a third was strange but I thought fair enough so carried on. What really kept getting me was installing several large patches and then installing a small one. Logic dicates that after installing a small patch, you won't have any large ones left. But oh no, that's too simple. The number of patches I installed must have been in double figures and that was using the Opposing Force disc! I don't even want to think about if you do a fresh install with a copy of the vanilla edition. :eek:

ChileanLlama · 6 Oct 2009 at 18:10

CoH is better since ToV. It used to be a game of russian roulette if a patch would work after downloading...or even running a known working version that you'd kept...and rather than just fail, and reverse the changes, it would patch half the files meaning you'd have to start from scratch with a new install of the game again :eek:

knowledge123 · 6 Oct 2009 at 19:48

bledd. said:
Company of Heroes

It's not that bad if you have a look around nowadays, when it was new it was pretty bad

Company of Heroes 1.00 -> 1.40 then Company of Heroes 1.40 -> 2.101 :cool:

Tom|Nbk · 6 Oct 2009 at 19:51

knowledge123 said:
Don't get me started on the, iirc, Supreme Commander patches, they were a nightmare!

God yea.

LeJosh · 6 Oct 2009 at 20:07

Didn't the Supreme Commander patch delete a vital OS file in the installation process? lol

iviv · 6 Oct 2009 at 21:06

Especially using GPGnet! Restart it 'you are already logged in!'

But if you thought that CoH was bad enough, with Steam we had to redownload pretty much the whole game for each patch. But any game with incrimental patching is awful.