15 Minutes of Red Alert 3 Fame

By Alec Meer on May 29th, 2008 at 5:29 pm.

Yep, a 15-minute long footage video of the upcoming C&C3-but-with-bears strategy sequel. 15 minutes! This is almost as ludicrous as those 90-minute long cutscenes in Metal Gear Solid 4. Actually, no, there’s nothing as ludicrous as that, and I feel sick and furious whenever I think about it. Anyway! Red Alert 3, and lots of it:

All fairly much as expected, in both positive and negative senses. Shame about that droning voiceover, though (I’m sure he’s a lovely chap, of course). A suitably in-theme Stalin impersonator would have made preposterous lines like “hopefully we’ll find some more Destroyers to mince up” significantly less mortifying.

, .

36 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. Hermes says:

    amphibious destroyers…are they kidding? this game looks generally awful. maybe it’s just the narrator failing to sell it.

  2. MasterBoo says:

    EA fails again. Stupid units concepts… I miss the first Red Alert… In addition the observation tower is total rip-off from SC2.

  3. oryly says:

    Ugh, it’s real-time rock paper shotgun scissors again.

    The most interesting thing was the man cannon.

  4. PleasingFungus says:

    Amphibious destroyers aren’t inherently a bad idea – Salem destroyers from SupCom were quite nice, really – but those things are ridiculously fast. They just look silly.

    And it’s very bad for anything in a super-serious game like Red Alert to look silly, as we all know. Thus the armored bears.

  5. Rob says:

    @Jahkaivah

    bweh? I’m unclear how that applies here

  6. Man Raised By Puffins says:

    EA fails again. Stupid units concepts… I miss the first Red Alert… In addition the observation tower is total rip-off from SC2.

    Nothing compared to Starcraft 2, eh? ;)

  7. eyemessiah says:

    Meh.

  8. Jahkaivah says:

    @Rob

    Using Yahtzee’s template:

    ” Okay, so sometimes your mining green stuff, and sometimes you’re nuking terrorists, and sometimes you’re fighting a seriously fucked up version of WW2, but pick any one of the ninety billion C&C games there’ve been so far and odds are good you’ll always be microing the same bloody units in the same bloody destructable city exploiting the same bloody RPS formula.”

  9. Heliocentric says:

    by the numbers… They just dont get it, have non of these people played modern RTS’s?

    And reused assets

  10. Lucky says:

    Jahkaivah, what if someone… likes the concept? No one is forcing you or Yahtzee or anyone on this planet to play them.

    …though I have heard rumours that some countries use KKND as a form of torture.

  11. Lord_Mordja says:

    Eh, I’m looking forward to it, largely for the wackiness. Looks more interesting than CnC3 at least. Except that I got massive SC2 vibes from that. I mean wow. I’m waiting for a DoW2 gameplay trailer.

  12. Jahkaivah says:

    @Lucky

    Not so much “being forced to play it” as it is *being force to not be able to play the potential innovation sequel because publishers seem more obsessed with milking it for more than its worth than letting developers produce something both fanboys and the average joe can enjoy”

    Just to note, im not a complete anti-EA, if EA were the hulking abomination everyone says they are they wouldn’t be allowing games like Spore or Mirror’s Edge.

  13. runningwthszzors says:

    Wow, not a lot of love for this game.

    This game actually looks a lot like RA2, which actually wasn’t a super-serious game. It looks like they didn’t really change the voice for the units yet – the helicopter had the same voice as the siege copter in Yuri’s Revenge, but from the looks of it, without the siege capabilities. And capturing neutral buildings is more of a C&C feature than a Starcraft one… you could say observation towers came from RA2 and SC2 is just ripping them off.

    Overall, if it can capture the campy feel of RA2 along with its sandbox-like single player campaign full of easter eggs, it would be a success in my mind.

    *edit*
    @Jahkaivah
    While this game isn’t going to be revolutionary, neither are a lot of sequels, SC2 included. I mean the problem with C&C3 is that it was a little too old school to the point where the original game concepts started showing their age (they got rid of the mechs and replaced them with mammoth tanks again for Christ’s sake!). I’m sure if EA make this game as frantic as the originals, fanboys like me and average joes would enjoy this game.

  14. Snofeld says:

    I’d imagine the RA2 voices to be placeholder sounds.

  15. Lucky says:

    Jahkaivah, meh, if it’s a well made rehash I don’t see a problem with its existence. Blizzard became a legendary company by practically never inventing anything on its own. In any case, RA3 already gets some creativity points in today’s gaming environment for not being dead-serious.

    Also, I don’t understand how an innovative game would somehow automatically be universally enjoyed.

    Oh, and just for the record, I found C&C3’s demo to be mindstaggerinly dull and old-school. If RA3 is like it, I will be very displeased.

  16. Log1c says:

    I just want everyone to realize that he said “Man Cannon” without bursting out laughing immediately afterwards.

  17. Matt says:

    I realized, Log1c. And now I have an excellent new pickup line for use on girl gamers.

  18. Butler` says:

    hahalol man cannon

    also, this looks like it’s trying really, really hard to differentiate itself (and thus compete) with SC2 with the whole water thing

    it also looks like it’s failing miserably

  19. RichPowers says:

    If RA3 is anything like C&C3, we’ll get cheese, overproduction and a self-important “THIS IS COMMAND&CONQUER” vibe without enjoyable, interesting gameplay to make it worthwhile. Hollywood-grade cutscenes and “battlecasts” can’t gloss over antiquated gameplay models. At least other by-the-books RTS games like StarCraft II will have excellent online matchmaking (Blizz has yet to fail in that area); C&C3’s online elements are pathetic.

    Red Alert should stop being C&C’s pastel-colored dumb cousin and return to the series’ more serious, B-movie roots.

  20. Jahkaivah says:

    @ runningwthszzors & Lucky

    Sorry to say i’m not all that fond of Blizzard for those very reasons.

    Not all sequels are like this of course, I tend to note that the majority of them are. Half Life 2 has always been my typical example of a sequel done right… everything from the previous games there… but with enough new features to make a new game by itself.

    Of course Valve then went and showed precisely how not to do it with their episodic content (still having trouble getting round the fact we haven’t had a single new weapon yet).

    And your right… attempting to innovate can be bad… but as long as your innovations aren’t blatentlly stupid the worst that can happen is something like Assassins Creed where I can at least appreciate what the developers were trying to do…

    But there’s no point in arguing futher. I doubt I can convince you that a innovative sequel will be better than a rehash if you aren’t convinced already, nor do I really have the desire to continue trying.

    Also Man Canon

  21. averagejoe says:

    Jahkaivah “Sorry” apology accepted.

  22. Pod says:

    Firstly; dodgy voice over aside, THAT is how to do a trailer. I don’t want to see crappy cutscenes and flashy CGI. I want to see people, clicking mouses, doing what I will be doing.

    Secondly; I ‘gave up’ on C&C after RA1. Nothing after it was ever as good. This, however, looks a lot more interesting. Not fantastic, mind you, but I’ll definatley give the demo ago. It’s nice to see amphibiousness being ubiquitous. Whilst not exactly the same, they either played Rise of Nations and noticed a “good thing” and then stuck guns on them, or seperately came up with the concept of removing annoying boat-transport micro-management.

    I also don’t see how this video has inspired such hate. It’s a game with “COMMAND&CONQUER” in the title. Why on earth would it be serious or even remotly “strategic”. C&C was all about the unit spamming arcade-fun. To expect anything less is unfounded logic, in my eyes.

  23. phuzz says:

    Well, I’m looking forward to this, I know I’m just being unimaginative, but what I really want is more RA2, but with more pretties, which seems to be what we have here.

    Plus those big robots look cool :)

  24. Colthor says:

    Red Alert 2 is somewhere in my top 3 RTS games, so I’m looking forwards to this.

    I’m unconvinced by the “ore node” system compared to the old gold-plated Tiberium (seems a bit similar to Generals’ system or generic “control points”), but everything else looks pretty good.

  25. Admiral Dread says:

    I am a little worried over the game’s overall speed, with the units and the buildings (aware the building speed was changed) but I’ve had that problem with every single C&C game that had adjustable gamespeed. Plays far too fast for me typically.

    The Red Alert series has been my favorite so far because it always had an over the top feel to it, so I look forward to the demo (and the beta) but I am afraid it wouldn’t become an all time favorite.

  26. Crispy says:

    Well, it’s got bench-topping technology, so I guess it’s a must-have! :0

    I don’t mind derivative features in RTS games, but derivative units is pretty weak. Naval carriers = Protoss Carriers by the looks of things.

    Firstly; dodgy voice over aside, THAT is how to do a trailer. I don’t want to see crappy cutscenes and flashy CGI. I want to see people, clicking mouses, doing what I will be doing.
    That is most certainly not how to give an RTS in-game teaser. While the mechanics are fine -like you say, an in-game teaser from the player’s perspective- the presentation was poor. In my opinion the commentary was sickeningly patronising and buzzwordy.

    This is how to do an in-game teaser:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KgWTnTq9I8

    In the StarCraft 2 teaser, the superlatives in the commentary are more or less the same (‘powerful’ this, ‘deadly’ that) but they’re used much less frequently and the delivery is a lot more matter-of-fact. There’s no need for lameass one-liners, and any new units are introduced via their place in the backstory (e.g. “After the destruction of Aiur and the events of Brood War, the Protoss have been forced to adapt. They created these…”).

    This basically conveys a lot of confidence on Blizzard’s part: they’re saying “This is how it is. This is how the warring factions have evolved”, which shows their investment in the game as partly a story within a carefully crafted fictional world.

    On the other hand, EA make a lot more references to the fact that it’s a game based on games that came before it, which is both immersion-breaking and salesmanlike. Their approach is all in your face, like some brattish kid shouting “Look at me, look at me!”.

  27. phuzz says:

    I’d say the derivation for the Naval carriers was probably from the aircraft carriers in RA2 rather than anywhere further away, they even look pretty similar (ie, like an aircraft carrier). Nice to see they couldn’t be bothered to record any new sound effects yet, I think all of them were from RA2 in that vid.

  28. Theory says:

    On the other hand, EA make a lot more references to the fact that it’s a game based on games that came before it, which is both immersion-breaking and salesmanlike. Their approach is all in your face, like some brattish kid shouting “Look at me, look at me!”.

    It seems to align with the personality of the games in question. Odd that…

  29. Jeremiah says:

    Dear Lord.

    You all need to step off your high horses for ten freakin’ minutes.

    It’s Red Alert 3. The man’s responsible for the game. He’s not Martin Luther King Jr delivering some type of speech to change mankind – he’s the freakin’ developer simply stating how stuff works.

    Pull your heads out of your collective asses and realize a few things:

    1.) The game’s not done yet.
    2.) Hate the game all you want – but hating it because the developer didn’t sound like Abraham Lincoln delivering the Gettysberg address? Please.
    3.) DON’T BUY IT IF YOU HATE IT.

    All this BS about them “stealing” from Starcraft? Please. I remember when they came out with Dune. Westwood Studios INVENTED the RTS Genre, and, like it or not, RTS’s will ALWAYS be about building an army and invading someone else. Zerg swarm anyone?

    If ANYONE is going to be “claiming” something was stolen from somewhere else, pin Blizzard.

    Trust me – I’m going to be there opening day getting BOTH SC2 and RA3 – but if you haven’t watched the SC2 videos, let me just state the obvious – it’s Starcraft with a few new units and 3D Graphics. Innovative gameplay?

    I think not. It’s the same as it always was.

    Freakin’ awesome – just like Red Alert 3 will be.

  30. Asskicker says:

    Thing I missed the most are the minerals, I loved those in RA2 :'(

  31. Jimi Hendrix says:

    Looks far to much like C+C3 in art and scale, a thing I liked about red alert 2 (not so much red alert 1 which had more in common with c+c 1) was the humour and art style and the battles could involve quite alot of units.

  32. Crispy says:

    Firstly, I never used the word ‘stealing’, I said ‘derivative’, i.e. uninspired.

    Jeremiah, the new Zerg units and abilities alone prove that Starcraft 2 has new gameplay where RA3 looks to have none. Tbh the ‘build in water’ idea will switch up gameplay a bit, but I don’t think it will as much as they say it will. Land bases cannot be attacked by naval units, and now water bases cannot be attacked by land units. Air units can attack both. I can’t see this really making a big difference. In a way it actually makes the map design more boring because the MCV can go anywhere and build a base. From what they’ve shown, it’s just turning sea into land.

    It would be more interesting if there were perks and disadvantages for building in the sea, i.e. certain structures could not be built but some new ones could, such as hydropower versus power stations (hydro giving less overall power but can withstand a lot of damage, and power stations the flipside). Sadly it doesn’t look like they’ve really gone into much depth with the sea bases which is a pity because the idea has the potential to be quite interesting.

    As for your Dune comment, Westwood died the second it got to second base with EA.. If you can’t accept that you’re in denial.

  33. nothinunik says:

    As for your Dune comment, Westwood died the second it got to second base with EA.. If you can’t accept that you’re in denial.

    Oh yeah.. and when Westwood died all it’s developers got killed as well.. thanks for clearing that up.

    gesh.

  34. Jeroen_JRP says:

    For the Westwood developers you have to go to Petroglyph, C&C died as soon as Generals was released.

  35. quenus says:

    WESTWOOD is dead wtf are you saying? 80% of the developers left. What is one game that EA actually successfully made(deadspace looks promising)? NOT PUBLISHED. This game is going to suck like Tiberium and Kane’s Wrath.

    I really want an RA2 game back.

    “if you hate it don’t buy the game” – that is and idiotic statement, we want to let devs know what we think! What we want so they can sell more copies. We want them to know our expectations, maybe to a point were we go “Huh. this game isn’t so bad after all?”.

    RA3 is going to suck. period. reminds me of kane’s wrath of all its lazers, mine system is gone, and became complicated.

    I bet all those kiddies who love whatever comes out at their time would crave superweapons. Superweapons destroy some tactics you can use in RTS games. There must be a turn off button like in RA2