If you can find this game or download it or something, GET IT, it's so expansive that you could play it forever.Khell_Sennet said:
Can Red Alert 3 restore my confidence in RTS?
- Thread starter fpsasm
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This might get me flamed...
This is how I see it, there are RTS fans and then there is C&C fans.
When you strip the fluff away C&C is very shallow and outdated when compared to modern games in the genre. But then people play C&C for the fluff not for its deep complexities in strategy.
If you're looking for a more "realistic" RTS I would recommend Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, but you will need a dualcore CPU and a good GFX card to play it well.
Dawn of War series and its successor Company of Heroes is good too.
This is how I see it, there are RTS fans and then there is C&C fans.
When you strip the fluff away C&C is very shallow and outdated when compared to modern games in the genre. But then people play C&C for the fluff not for its deep complexities in strategy.
If you're looking for a more "realistic" RTS I would recommend Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, but you will need a dualcore CPU and a good GFX card to play it well.
Dawn of War series and its successor Company of Heroes is good too.
I follow the same path you did in the C&C series. The problem is that when Westwood went away, I started playing other RTS games and finding brillance in them. Company of Heroes with the infantry taking cover, battlefield deformation, building destruction; the game actually looked and sounded like a warzone was taking place.
I was quite excited when C&C 3 was announced - but I was so disappointed with it. It was fun to play, but the gameplay felt like the original C&C with new graphics and a few features put in it. To see units disappear when they get blown up and the battlefield not really change in the "war zone" just didn't feel right. Give me World in Conflict any day. Even the map zoom from Supreme Commander should have been something they used.
I guess EA went with the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" idea with C&C 3 - and I doubt RA3 will be any different, so I'm not even going to bother. After reading the review about how outrageous the story has become it is simply ridiculous.
I'll never forget the original C&C and watching General Shephard vs Kane. That story had an epic feel to it; but I feel like it all went downhill from there. Even though I enjoyed RA and RA 2, they just can't recapture the magic; the gameplay is same as it ever was. I suppose for those that didn't grow up with the original C&C, it is something "new" and fun for them.
I was quite excited when C&C 3 was announced - but I was so disappointed with it. It was fun to play, but the gameplay felt like the original C&C with new graphics and a few features put in it. To see units disappear when they get blown up and the battlefield not really change in the "war zone" just didn't feel right. Give me World in Conflict any day. Even the map zoom from Supreme Commander should have been something they used.
I guess EA went with the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" idea with C&C 3 - and I doubt RA3 will be any different, so I'm not even going to bother. After reading the review about how outrageous the story has become it is simply ridiculous.
I'll never forget the original C&C and watching General Shephard vs Kane. That story had an epic feel to it; but I feel like it all went downhill from there. Even though I enjoyed RA and RA 2, they just can't recapture the magic; the gameplay is same as it ever was. I suppose for those that didn't grow up with the original C&C, it is something "new" and fun for them.
C and C 3 was a really good game until they released a specific patch, one I can't remember, that started to nerf the economy, after that, they released another one that nerfed it further, for me and I'm sure many other people, they ruined the game at that point.
For all intents and purposes, the Real-time stragety genre is dead. I've had many a gamer friend accuse the Dawn of War series for "Ripping off Starcraft."
Yeah, right, I'm brainwashed. Of course. I took my tinfoil hat off to have a shower and the games industry got to me.Richard Groovy Pants said:
If we didn't have piracy, publishers would have no excuse for making anti-piracy measures. Fact. So if you don't like anti-piracy measures, don't fucking pirate games, and don't condone piracy.
I dislike Red Alert 3 for its style, not its gameplay. The earlier games are campy without being completely stupid or over the top. This new one is just a complete joke. Since your complaints seem to be about the "ridiculousness" of Kane's Wrath (which is quite good, and still very much in the vein of Tiberium Wars), you probably won't enjoy Red Alert 3 very much.
Let me repeat myself in bold, in the hope you read and understand it this time.
If we didn't have piracy, publishers would have no excuse for making anti-piracy measures. Fact.
Get it this time? Even if DRM is actually a conspiracy to prevent rental or whatever tinfoil shit you believe, if it wasn't for dickheads who pirate games, publishers couldn't get away with having it.
Second of all, piracy is immoral and illegal. Piss off and stop advocating it and showing how few moral principles you really have.
If we didn't have piracy, publishers would have no excuse for making anti-piracy measures. Fact.
Get it this time? Even if DRM is actually a conspiracy to prevent rental or whatever tinfoil shit you believe, if it wasn't for dickheads who pirate games, publishers couldn't get away with having it.
Second of all, piracy is immoral and illegal. Piss off and stop advocating it and showing how few moral principles you really have.
Its not always illegal. Its sketchy if you already own the game and in some countries only uploading is illegal.CmdrGoob said:
Let's see, systems that aim to prevent people from copying games implemented at a time where lots of people are pirating games and lots of publishers are talking about how concerned they are that lots of people are pirating games. Maybe if nobody was pirating games tinfoil hat interpretations of DRM would make more sense, but I'm going to go with Occam's razor on this one.Richard Groovy Pants said:
But whatever. You've already said that you're happy to pirate games even if that means you're taking a methaphorical shit on ethical principles and pissing on the wellbeing of an industry that provides you with excellent entertainment, so I'm not going to hold anything you say with much regard.
I've always been a good customer, I buy my games, but as soon as I get punished in ridiculous ways by brain dead corporations, bugger that for a joke.CmdrGoob said:
I can just see how it came about. "Wow, this guy is buying games legally, paying full price, lets put in DRM to stop pirates"
Yeah right, people like ME is the reason Bogus DRM was put in, people who have always supported the gaming industry. Makes a lot of sense.
Bogus DRM products like secuROM doesn't stop pirates, in fact pirates are the ones who get the better deal over consumers when secuROM is utilised. That's totally obvious, the one program which I have seen which actually fixes the problem and gives consumers something back is steam, a program which I totally support, and purchase off regularly.
All secuROM does is screw ME over as a consumer, so I'm not going to support a braindead publisher who is screwing me around.
People like you, who continue to support companies with shoddy pirate protection are more of a problem than I will ever be.
Don't bullshit me. You proudly posted that you were going to pirate it, and now I called you out on it you switch to the 'I always buy games, I'm such a good customer'. Yeah, you're a veritable saint. You're just so ethical.Arcticflame said:
If you can't stand DRM that much, then don't buy it. That would be ethical. Using it as a piss weak excuse to abandon ethical behaviour? That's just sleazy.