C&C Red Alert 3 why do people dislike it?

Recommended Videos

AlexiVolkov

New member
Mar 30, 2011
78
0
0
I liked it for quite a few reasons.. the giant floating island thing that turns into a giant flying Gundam head with laser eyes for one...
Also it has The Hoff.... and Takei! It gets massive win for those reasons alone!

I have always thought the Red Alert universe was campy and silly, and never faulted it for it. Too bad C&C died after RA3...

4, or Tiberian Twilight, is a total lie and should not exist as it is... stupid forced co-op bullshit and non killable enemies.
 

Collins254

New member
Jul 30, 2011
225
0
0
cyrogeist said:
Collins254 said:
cyrogeist said:
i dont like it because the fact that you have to pay for your units upkeep it just fucking annoying
oh and that fact that infantry are pointless.
sorry are we playing the same game? how do you have to keep paying upkeep for units? once you bought them that was it not more payments? :/

and infantry arent pointless you just have to be more tactical with them, im not gunna give another massive paragraph but maybe if you give more of an explanation to it? i can say that i never ended a game without using spies/tesla troopers/angels and usually the commando and engineers even late game, thats like me saying tanks are useless coz i never use them, which is technically true, why would i build tanks when i can build planes?
yes you have to pay for your units upkeep..
and infantry are useless because tanks just run them over...and bigger tanks run THOSE tanks over
see what im getting at?
No i dont, mainly because you didnt read my post at all
Spies, just bribe enemy tanks, when your opponents 5 appocolypse tanks suddenly become your own, the look on their face must be priceless, if the shouts of rage are anything to go by
Tesla troopers, 1 can stop all vehicles in their tracks, smaller tanks cant run them over and do large damage vs tanks
Rocket angels are flying infantry, cant be run down and murder tanks.
lower tier tanks deserve to be run down and its not easy to do coz the big ones arent exactly fast are they?

and i really need to go back and play it now because im dead sure that if i wasnt building units i didnt spend money, if there was an upkeep cost it must have been so small for me not to notice, because im sure in 4 player games with large ammounts of units we would have noticed it at some point.
 
Jun 24, 2009
349
0
0
The crazy story and other silly stuff made me laugh, and I do like the game. The only bad things about it (in my opinion) were the crap multiplayer (I still can't get it to register my game) and the difficulty.

The campaigns start with reasonable levels, and then after a few levels it just jumps up to near impossibility.
 

LongAndShort

I'm pretty good. Yourself?
May 11, 2009
2,376
0
0
I find it hard to understand why people don't like it. I always found it a bit of light-hearted fun, compared with some of the other RTS games that take themselves way too seriously when they shouldn't *cough*AoE3*cough*

But what really wins me over with this game is the Multigunner IFV, a motherfucking Australian unit. Red Alert 3 may be the only game with an 'allied' army that acknowledges an Australian presence, and I will love it for that alone.
Now if they could just replace the attack dog with an Attack Kiwi...
 

LorienvArden

New member
Feb 28, 2011
230
0
0
I played a lot of RA2 with friends over lan - when RA3 came along, I took a look at it at a friends computer while we where at a lan... It was horrendous.

The unit AI was so utterly useless, it could not even return fire properly. They just stood there and took one up the arse until something got in range for them to shoot at. I lost dozens of units because of them not returning fire or reacting to beeing attacked in any way.

I played several rounds of skirmish and it just wasn't fun. We couldn't get a look at coop campaigning because EA decided if we didn't have an internet connection we didn't want to play the game hard enough.
 

VladG

New member
Aug 24, 2010
1,127
0
0
I don't like Red Alert3 much because I simply feel it's stagnating. C&C Tiberian Sun was fun back in the day. Red Alert2 was fun back in the day, if basically Tiberian Sun with different units. RA3 is just more of the same, and that would have been fine a few years ago, but games have sort of evolved and moved on. There's also quite a lot of competition now on the RTS market, especially with SC2.

RA3 is poorly balanced, units have pathfinding issues (a gripe with most modern C&C games actually), the gameplay changes don't really work that well, the story is less than compelling, what little gameplay is done right is simply lifted from any number of better C&C titles. Even worse, the game dosen't have a single redeeming quality, not a single aspect of it that shines.

Interesting units- no, however much they tried to make quirky and unique abilities, they are just awkward and too over the top to be really interesting. Universe at War for example had much more interesting units.

Story - Hardly, SC2 takes the cake in the story department. RA3 has some random plot to simply drive the game, completely forgettable and non-interesting

Gameplay - No, not by a longshot. Actually I'd go so far as to say that most other contemporary RTSs are superior.

Multiplayer - No, due to poor unit balance, crappy pathfinding, slightly outdated interface, PVP is not fun. Co-op campaign sounds good on paper, but it was just plain boring.

Interesting Campaign - not really. It's not that bad, actually it's probably the best part of the game, but it's still not that good either. SC2 again easily wins in the campaign department.

There's really nothing to compel me to play this game. If I want C&C I go play RA2. Or Tiberian Sun. Or C&C3. If I want plain RTS there's Starcraft 2, or Universe at War, or World in Conflict or WH:40k Dawn of War. I'm not even going to go into stuff like Company of Heroes or Total War. All better games.

RA3 simply isn't worth the time.
 

Apollo45

New member
Jan 30, 2011
534
0
0
Did I have fun playing it? Sure, but then again I also have fun watching Sci-Fi channel original movies. Doesn't mean they're good, nor would I recommend them to someone else unless they want to laugh at how bad it is. I felt the same way with RA3, except that I didn't get many laughs out of it. The storyline, for a start, was completely ridiculous, didn't make sense, and made everything else that happened in the series amount to nothing. There are times when the time machine made sense and worked with the story; Yuri's Revenge and the original Red Alert both handled this mechanic brilliantly. RA3 , on the other hand, was once too many. Now every time they want to make a new game they just have someone pop back in time a few years and change the world. Nothing ever matters, meaning the game has no effect on me. Seriously, with the amount of times it's been used, if the Allies wanted to win they could go back in time to the American Revolution, introduce tech hundreds of years ahead of its time, and maintain technological dominance over the entire world for millennia. Before it was used as a plot device, this time it's used as an excuse.

Second problem is with the ore harvesting. As has been said, in previous games it was vital to the game to have a solid defense around your harvesters, to keep an eye on them, and to make sure you have enough ore in a field to fund your war effort. Now it's been turned in to a fire-and-forget building. If you run out of ore in a mine you're SOL, but you might as well harvest the entire thing because there's no way for it to 'grow' and no reason to save it for later.

While I enjoyed the idea of having a co-op campaign, their way of doing it was annoying as hell. They should have introduced the co-op mechanic as a multiplayer only sort of thing, because my AI buddies were all idiots that did nothing but sit around and steal my money. I ended up killing them myself most levels because it made things easier.

I didn't mind the introduction of the Japanese Empire in to the game as an idea, but I did mind how they did it. Red Alert has traditionally been Soviets vs Allies, and that makes sense. With Yuri's Revenge they threw in an X factor that made things interesting. Yuri was done well; we knew of him from RA2, we knew what he was doing, why he was doing it, and so on. His units were unique and different, but still relatively balanced and logical. The Japanese, on the other hand, were thrown in there almost for no reason. Why, after the timeline changes from before, would they suddenly decide to go to war? And where did they get all that technology when they didn't have it in the last timeline? Since when did the Soviet mind control tech become Japanese mind control? Where did their army come from? All in all, they didn't really make sense and they didn't really fit. Compound that with the disparities in the power of their units; either they were ridiculously weak or ridiculously powerful, there was no balance, and you've got a faction that I didn't really like.

The missions, across the board, were nothing special. In general they were tedious and involved little more than building up the biggest army and rushing them in. There were some variations and exceptions to that, of course, which they didn't do too badly (far better than C&C3 anyway), but even those ones felt long and drawn out, with goals that weren't necessarily fun. The fact that every single unit had a special ability of some sort didn't help things along either; it made everything seem gimmicky, and in order to use it effectively it required much more control than was available. If there were a few units that allowed for secondary modes, it would have been fine. As it was, it didn't really make sense military wise, nor did it make the game any better.

The acting, as always, was campy and mediocre, but the Red Alerts before it had some seriousness in them, along with the fun stuff, that made it seem much more entertaining and realistic. This time around the acting only got worse, and the whole thing was trying so hard to be 'funny' that it ended up being the exact opposite.

To top that shit off, they made Tanya blonde. Who the hell do those people think they are? And why would going back in time change the hair color of someone who was already born by then? Why would going back in time change so much shit that doesn't make sense?

TL;DR: The story was bad, the acting tried too hard to be funny and it wasn't, the Japanese made no sense on any level, the missions were mediocre, their time-travel logic wasn't at all logical, game mechanics that they added were more annoying than beneficial, and in general it was a shoddy EA ripoff of my favorite franchise of all time.
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
The only problem I found with Red Alert 3 was my inability to play all the campaigns. I had to stop a few levels into the Japanese Campaign since I am mentally unable to fight for someone I utterly dislike. I was eagerly fighting for the Decepticons in War For Cybertron, but in RA3 not even George Takei could make me like the Empire. They were fighting dishonourably, cowardly and generally showed absolutely no respect for anyone but themselves.

Also, these girl units are weird. But it's based on Japan, so that's probably accurate.
 

Poster1234

New member
Apr 26, 2011
71
0
0
Well, I can't really say that the slly lines and babes are what ruined this game for me. I thought that was, well, whacky, but at least it didn't touched the gameplay and I go into RTSs looking more for an intellectual challenge than for a proper scenario.
And, in my opinion, that is the opinion of someone who played only tiberium wars, kane's wrath and RA3, the challenge simply wasn't there, or not where I wanted it to be.
I mean, I think there's something wrong with a strategy game in which I can win half th missons of a campain without creating any unit.
Oh, and the GAMEPLAY. By god, was that awful. Every guy take an age to execute any order, which makes it impossible to have any micro. By the way, a "strategy" game where there is a button to select every dude on the map isn't strategic : it's just having a big bunch of pricks charge through the map.
More : this game is SLOW. I mean, most units drag themselves across the battlefield as if someone just severed both their legs.
Oh, and what's up whith all the one-shots ? For me, a truely strategic game is one where, even in inferior numbers and against someone who apparently has a counter to everything you have, you can manage to outwit him and turn the tide in an instant : that is, with the strategic use of cliffs in age of empires 2, for example. Here, dogs and bears one-shot all ground infantry. WTF?!
Oh, and, last but not least, the powers. What I really loved in C&C3 was that almost every building gave you powers which were a great example of something one can use to suddently shift the tides of battle, but one of the great interests of this system was that the cooldowns were quick, but actually using the powers costed money, so it was a true part of gameplay.
In RA3, you end up with power points you earn in battle, which means you'll almost never see the high-level ones, since the game will be over allready. Oh, but at least it isn't too frustrating, since half of those powers suck major ass anyway. Really, most of them are passive upgrades, which isn't fun, or upgrades of an existing power, which, I order for it to need an upgrade, was crappy in the first place.

There were a few nice things, though : some proper naval warfare, and the water looked really cool, too.
And, I must admit, the whacky units had some charm, too, especially the shapeshifting japanese mechas.
 

speight88

New member
Sep 15, 2008
21
0
0
I just liked Tim Curry's russian accent, that was enough for me!

On a more serious side, i wasn't really expecting anything that people say was missing in this game, i expected an out-there storyline with bizarre units (so morphing tanks bad, psychic bald men good?)

And overall, like several other people have said i had fun, that's the bare minimum i ask from any game. Yes ones with a good story with fun are better, but if RA3 had an amazingly good story but i wasn't having fun it would've gone back to the game store, but as it is i'm still replaying it.
 

Collins254

New member
Jul 30, 2011
225
0
0
VladG said:
I don't like Red Alert3 much because I simply feel it's stagnating. C&C Tiberian Sun was fun back in the day. Red Alert2 was fun back in the day, if basically Tiberian Sun with different units. RA3 is just more of the same, and that would have been fine a few years ago, but games have sort of evolved and moved on. There's also quite a lot of competition now on the RTS market, especially with SC2.

RA3 is poorly balanced, units have pathfinding issues (a gripe with most modern C&C games actually), the gameplay changes don't really work that well, the story is less than compelling, what little gameplay is done right is simply lifted from any number of better C&C titles. Even worse, the game dosen't have a single redeeming quality, not a single aspect of it that shines.

Interesting units- no, however much they tried to make quirky and unique abilities, they are just awkward and too over the top to be really interesting. Universe at War for example had much more interesting units.

Story - Hardly, SC2 takes the cake in the story department. RA3 has some random plot to simply drive the game, completely forgettable and non-interesting

Gameplay - No, not by a longshot. Actually I'd go so far as to say that most other contemporary RTSs are superior.

Multiplayer - No, due to poor unit balance, crappy pathfinding, slightly outdated interface, PVP is not fun. Co-op campaign sounds good on paper, but it was just plain boring.

Interesting Campaign - not really. It's not that bad, actually it's probably the best part of the game, but it's still not that good either. SC2 again easily wins in the campaign department.

There's really nothing to compel me to play this game. If I want C&C I go play RA2. Or Tiberian Sun. Or C&C3. If I want plain RTS there's Starcraft 2, or Universe at War, or World in Conflict or WH:40k Dawn of War. I'm not even going to go into stuff like Company of Heroes or Total War. All better games.

RA3 simply isn't worth the time.
well atleast you have proper reasons for not playing it, i dont quite understand how a handful of units can take out an army unless your doing it wrong, but i am shocked you could compare it to universe at war, that was an appauling game, for what i could stomach before falling asleep, everything just moved so slowly, made no sense and i felt like i wasnt achieving anything, well we both have our opinions and i still think RA3 the best of the series (C&C not just RA) closely followed by Zero hour.
 

Rayne870

New member
Nov 28, 2010
1,250
0
0
Red Alert was always a little off its rocker, but RA3 went straight to the asylum got a frontal lobotomy hopped itself up on lsd then watched Sucker Punch and A Scanner Darkly simultaneously while writing poetry about rabid monkeys in scuba suits swimming with retarded dolphins.

Truthfully, the story wasn't as good as the rest of the series, there was way too much rock paper scissors in the balancing, the AI is just....annoying either its completely derpy or just mops the floor with you before you can build a war factory.

Also talking tanks in tutorial? seriously?
 

Defenestra

New member
Apr 16, 2009
106
0
0
The change to the resource handling bothered me a little. Build this building, right here, no, not there, right here, we'll highlight it for you, there, that's a good boy.

To be fair, it does make a little sense to take complexity away from the resource side(and with it, sadly, a number of dirty tricks that wereloads of fun), if all of the units now have superpowers that they only use on my command. A shift of the micromanagement, I suppose. Not one that I liked much.

I thought there were some pretty cool units in there. My favourite may well be the Soviety amphibious transport.

On the subject of amphibiousness, the sheer number of units that could move over both land and sea seemed a little on the silly side. Speaking of silliness, the tone of the game seemed to be wildly variable. Things could go from heavy, ominous and lethal, to downright bizarre, verging on surreal.


And then there's the sidekick. The Co-Commander. Thank you, game, for alternating between making me shepherd two whole armies through these missions and giving me an electronic sidekick to blow up things that I wanted to blow up.


Meh. It's not a terrible game, just not half what it could have been. I admit that Tim Curry and George Takei certainly help it, but cutscenes should not feel that much cooler than the game they're in.
 

Collins254

New member
Jul 30, 2011
225
0
0
I did find with the new resources i was moving out of the base more, rather than just sending harvesters to do it, it discouraged turtling, which is only ever a good thing, and each faction was dominant of one fighting style, the allies rule the skies, the soviets the land and rising sun the sea.... and tanya owns the infantry :p
 

willsham45

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,130
0
0
It was fun i enjoyed it...but i cannot say i played it like i did CnC3 tib wars or red alert 2...
 

Neverhoodian

New member
Apr 2, 2008
3,832
0
0
I freely admit that I've never actually tried Red Alert 3, mostly because I was scared away by feedback from longtime fans and watching some trailers/gameplay vids. Here's why I was reluctant to take the plunge:

1. The game completely screws over the pre-existing canon of the series. What was the point of Red Alerts 1 and 2 if the Soviets went back in time and erased every single event from those games? If it's that easy, why didn't they try something like that sooner? Also, what's to stop the other factions from doing the same damn thing if they lose?

2. The Red Alert series was perhaps best known for exploring the "what ifs" of WW2/Cold War military experiments while still maintaining enough standard units to suspend one's disbelief. Red Alert 3's units on the other hand were so outlandish and flat-out silly that I simply could not take it the least bit seriously. Yes the series always had a somewhat campy, almost parody-esque undertone, but this felt more like a parody of a parody.

3. I was a bit put-off by the dramatic increase in blatant male fanservice. Oh sure, the ladies were pleasant enough to look at, but it was overdone to the point that it felt insulting. Yes there was Tanya in the previous titles, but she was pretty much the only female character that dressed in relatively skimpy outfits. Now in RA3 it seemed like they were looking for excuses to put women in revealing attire. Take the character Eva for example:
Red Alert 2

Sharp, formal attire. Sensible hairstyle that minimizes interference. Basically wouldn't look out of place in a real military war room. All this, and she still manages to look quite attractive in the process (or maybe it's just because I have a "thang" for women in uniform).
Red Alert 3:

Well hello, Ms. Blatant Fanservice. Playing all smoochie-woochie for the camera, are we? I strongly suspect that hair is against regulations. Button that suit, missy! Get a proper skirt/trousers on! This is war, not a runway shoot!

Again, I haven't actually sat down and played Red Alert 3, but this is how the game's presentation came across to me.