Home » General Discussions » General Discussion » Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317695 is a reply to message #316793] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 01:04   |
 |
Goztow
Messages: 9738
Registered: March 2005
Location: Belgium
Karma: 13
|
General (5 Stars)
Goztoe |
|
|
I hardly see any super weapon used in C&C3 online. Then again: my average game time is around 9 minutes (+/- 60 % wins).
You can find me in The KOSs2 (TK2) discord while I'm playing. Feel free to come and say hi! TK2 discord
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317702 is a reply to message #317624] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 01:14 |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| One Winged Angel wrote on Sun, 17 February 2008 16:22 |
| Dover wrote on Sun, 17 February 2008 22:39 |
Zero Hour had "more to offer" than RA2.
|
Pity Zero Hour didn't have a story, but instead a situation.
|
It did too have a story, and I find it's story more rewarding that RA2's.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317796 is a reply to message #316793] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 12:33 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
To be fair, RA1 was technologically the same as TD- same engine, same look (right down to the sprites used for the units, many of which were identical in every way to their TD counterparts)- it just had more depth and variety in gameplay than its predecessor. I think we can all agree that RA1 was a very different game in the end despite being visually identical to TD.
However, I agree that EA is just being lazy by re-using the same engine, because the odds are pretty good that RA3 will make no major additions or alterations to gameplay. They're essentially doing what was done with BF2142- make some minor tweaks, change the look and a couple key units, and call it a new game. The basic concept behind the game will remain the same- rushfest, superweapon spamfest, call it what you will- and the concept behind what EA calls an RTS these days just doesn't make it to the level of the games we know as classics of the genre(TD, RA1, Warcraft II, Starcraft, Homeworld, Total Annihilation, etc).
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317821 is a reply to message #317723] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 14:20 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| One Winged Angel wrote on Mon, 18 February 2008 03:51 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 18 February 2008 08:14 |
| One Winged Angel wrote on Sun, 17 February 2008 16:22 |
| Dover wrote on Sun, 17 February 2008 22:39 |
Zero Hour had "more to offer" than RA2.
|
Pity Zero Hour didn't have a story, but instead a situation.
|
It did too have a story, and I find it's story more rewarding that RA2's.
|
What like "OH NOES THE TERRORISTS HAVE A MISSILE STOP THEM NOW!" is a good story? Don't make me laugh.
|
Not only is the plot more engrossing and believable in Zero Hour, but it has one clear, concise ending (Unlike RA2 with it's open-ended, canon-killing, two-possible-ending shit). That's something that Westwood never quite figured out.
| Starbuzz wrote on Mon, 18 February 2008 07:42 |
Dover, I think you hate RA2 too much. It is awesome.
|
The game is okay, I guess. It's even good in small doses, but
every time I play the campaign I burn up with anger at the thought that THIS is RA1's sucessor.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317826 is a reply to message #317824] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 14:25 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Originally Blue wrote on Mon, 18 February 2008 13:23 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 18 February 2008 15:20 |
Not only is the plot more engrossing and believable in Zero Hour, but it has one clear, concise ending (Unlike RA2 with it's open-ended, canon-killing, two-possible-ending shit). That's something that Westwood never quite figured out.
|
Did it ever occur to you that westwood probably intended RA2's storyline to be that way?
I mean, honestly, if westwood wanted a realistic storyline, then I'm pretty sure they'd do a decent job at it.
|
Intending a story line to be shit doesn't make it any less shitty.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317831 is a reply to message #317826] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 14:49 |
 |
BlueThen
Messages: 2402
Registered: February 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Mon, 18 February 2008 15:25 |
| Originally Blue wrote on Mon, 18 February 2008 13:23 |
| Dover wrote on Mon, 18 February 2008 15:20 |
Not only is the plot more engrossing and believable in Zero Hour, but it has one clear, concise ending (Unlike RA2 with it's open-ended, canon-killing, two-possible-ending shit). That's something that Westwood never quite figured out.
|
Did it ever occur to you that westwood probably intended RA2's storyline to be that way?
I mean, honestly, if westwood wanted a realistic storyline, then I'm pretty sure they'd do a decent job at it.
|
Intending a story line to be shit doesn't make it any less shitty.
|
I didn't think it was shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317851 is a reply to message #317821] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 17:04 |
 |
OWA
Messages: 647
Registered: May 2006
Location: W3D Hub
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Mon, 18 February 2008 21:20 |
Not only is the plot more engrossing and believable in Zero Hour, but it has one clear, concise ending (Unlike RA2 with it's open-ended, canon-killing, two-possible-ending shit). That's something that Westwood never quite figured out.
|
Hah, the open-ended endings is one of the many factors that makes the older C&C games so great. It keeps the fans talking about what they think will happen next and it allows for great discussions and theories to be crafted. People are still talking about RA2's ending today. Generals kind of stopped with no plot twists or anything so it's not talked about as much storywise.
Zero Hour is more of a parody of the ongoing situation in the middle east which, to be honest, is in the news nearly every day. Plus, serious games like Gens and ZH bore me to death. RA2, Renegade and the rest of the C&C Universe series of games are differant, compared to something that is based on something that we see a lot of in real life, without being overly serious.
RA2:AR Moddb Page
Ω W A
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317910 is a reply to message #317766] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 02:50 |
JPNOD
Messages: 807
Registered: April 2004
Location: Area 51
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| {SB}Lone0001 wrote on Mon, 18 February 2008 13:12 |
I would say it's mostly C&C3 with some Generals, if you don't agree it looks like C&C3 FFS look at the Allied War Factory!
|
There's no denying in that.
Imo a good General/C&C3 mod would be a Red Alert 3.
But why not use a good working product? And make alot more profit out of it without having to rebuild it from scratch. EA has it on the right end here.
If Renegade 2 would have came out it would have been based on a more advanced w3d engine type.
That's why I have so much respect for the mods's like Reborn, Renalert. ecta because thats the closest to a Renegade 2 youle ever get.
And you can't beat good gameplay. Graphic's won't do the trick for me. And I think that this counts for most people.
WOL nick: JPNOD
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317915 is a reply to message #317851] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 04:22 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| One Winged Angel wrote on Mon, 18 February 2008 16:04 |
Hah, the open-ended endings is one of the many factors that makes the older C&C games so great. It keeps the fans talking about what they think will happen next and it allows for great discussions and theories to be crafted. People are still talking about RA2's ending today. Generals kind of stopped with no plot twists or anything so it's not talked about as much storywise.
|
That's a polite way of saying nobody knows what's going on, so they all make shit up (Westwood included). The open-ended endings is what helps make RA2 so silly, since if the Soviets win RA1 (And they do exactly half the time), the rest of the series goes out the window. Same goes for Tiberium Sun and Tiberium dawn.
The "theories" you're talking about usually involve trying to explain how Tanya hasn't aged in 30+ years but even appears younger. Or trying to explain how the Sears Tower is present even though it hasn't been constructed in the time that RA2 is supposed to take place in, or how the World Trade Center was included, even though it wasn't complete by that time.
Combine that with what the RA3 website describes as "wonderful and wacky" mechanics and plot-twists (mind control? time-travel? giant squids and dolphins? The result isn't a game. It's a parody. It's Monty Python does Red Alert.
| One Winged Angel wrote on Mon, 18 February 2008 16:04 |
Zero Hour is more of a parody of the ongoing situation in the middle east which, to be honest, is in the news nearly every day. Plus, serious games like Gens and ZH bore me to death. RA2, Renegade and the rest of the C&C Universe series of games are differant, compared to something that is based on something that we see a lot of in real life, without being overly serious.
|
War is serrious. There's nothing lulzy about it. Why should it make for a lulzy game?
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317965 is a reply to message #317875] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 10:45 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Mon, 18 February 2008 20:23 |
Well assuming that the story in TS followed the GDI ending as firestorm goes into, we have to assume that Kane was killed and McCain goes and dies later.
|
I assume you meant McNeil?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317971 is a reply to message #317915] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 11:13 |
 |
cmatt42
Messages: 2057
Registered: July 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 05:22 |
War is serrious. There's nothing lulzy about it. Why should it make for a lulzy game?
|
If you're given a serious game with no trace of excitement or intrigue,
| Dover wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 05:22 |
The result isn't a game.
|
It's a war simulator.
I'd prefer a game over a simulator any day.
GunKataGaming.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #318083 is a reply to message #316793] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 20:37 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
RA1 isn't realistic either. I find it hard to imagine that in reality it would take more than a few rockets to disable a tank, and I'm sure what nukes would wipe out entire cities instead of blowing up a power plant and scratching up buildings around it.
However, unrealistic does not nessessarily mean lulzy. RA1 is unrealistic but not lulzy. C&C 3 is not realistic. Generals/Zero Hour is not realistic. RA2 is not realistic, but is also very, very lulzy.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #318223 is a reply to message #317915] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 17:56 |
|
OWA
Messages: 647
Registered: May 2006
Location: W3D Hub
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 11:22 |
That's a polite way of saying nobody knows what's going on, so they all make shit up (Westwood included). The open-ended endings is what helps make RA2 so silly, since if the Soviets win RA1 (And they do exactly half the time), the rest of the series goes out the window. Same goes for Tiberium Sun and Tiberium dawn.
The "theories" you're talking about usually involve trying to explain how Tanya hasn't aged in 30+ years but even appears younger. Or trying to explain how the Sears Tower is present even though it hasn't been constructed in the time that RA2 is supposed to take place in, or how the World Trade Center was included, even though it wasn't complete by that time.
Combine that with what the RA3 website describes as "wonderful and wacky" mechanics and plot-twists (mind control? time-travel? giant squids and dolphins? The result isn't a game. It's a parody. It's Monty Python does Red Alert.
|
You know what's going on for a lot of it. There are just a few things that are open to interpretation. Like, for example: "Did Yuri really get eaten by a dinosaur at the Soviet ending of YR?", "What happened to Vladimir in YR?" and "How the hell does Kane keep coming back and what was that wierd scene at the end of Firestorm all about?"
It's down to opinion my friend. No one is "right" and no one is "wrong". I do agree that RA2 was pretty stupid at places but I really loved the cheesy characters and the unit voices. I do a bit of acting so sometimes I try and replicate the accents that some of the RA2 units did for lols. I really liked RA2 for it's style as you can't really find anything else out there like it 
| Dover wrote on Tue, 19 February 2008 11:22 |
War is serrious. There's nothing lulzy about it. Why should it make for a lulzy game?
|
War doesn't always have to be serious in games.
RA2:AR Moddb Page
Ω W A
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Dec 12 01:51:04 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01306 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
