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

report

report

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

gesh.

report

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.

report

report

report

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.

report

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…

report

report

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!”.

report

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.

report

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.

report