|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317084 is a reply to message #316793] |
Thu, 14 February 2008 10:20   |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Red Alert 3 Website |
...with armies fielding wacky and wonderful weapons and technologies such as Tesla coils, heavily armed War Blimps, teleportation, armored bears, intelligent dolphins, floating island fortresses, and transforming tanks.
|
I don't want wacky and wonderful, god dammit! Give me grit! Give me RA1!
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317099 is a reply to message #316793] |
Thu, 14 February 2008 12:44 |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Wooo-hooo... floating bases, and bears.
Where do I sign up?...
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317103 is a reply to message #316793] |
Thu, 14 February 2008 13:14 |
 |
Goztow
Messages: 9738
Registered: March 2005
Location: Belgium
Karma: 13
|
General (5 Stars)
Goztoe |
|
|
Did they finally put that back up? They launched it months ago but put it offline due to copyright problems.
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 #317188 is a reply to message #316882] |
Thu, 14 February 2008 22:02 |
 |
Renx
Messages: 2321
Registered: April 2003
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars)
Category Moderator |
|
|
| IronWarrior wrote on Wed, 13 February 2008 11:16 |
| Renx wrote on Wed, 13 February 2008 08:41 |
| IronWarrior wrote on Wed, 13 February 2008 08:33 |
RA1 was pretty borning and dull for me, yeah it was fun to play, but RA2 has alot more depth then RA1.
|
Are you drunk? RA2 had the depth of a pie plate
|
Too few units in RA1, everything looked crap and was just slow.
|
jesus christ... it was 1996 ffs. It probably won an award for graphics that year, or several. And who the hell ever bought a (real) C&C game for the graphics? I could care less about the graphics in an RTS game because the draw to it is for the strategy involved, not for the pretty eye lashes you see on some elf when you zoom in.
~Canucck
[Updated on: Thu, 14 February 2008 22:03] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317233 is a reply to message #317188] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 08:11 |
 |
IronWarrior
Messages: 2460
Registered: November 2004
Location: England UK
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Renx wrote on Thu, 14 February 2008 23:02 |
| IronWarrior wrote on Wed, 13 February 2008 11:16 |
| Renx wrote on Wed, 13 February 2008 08:41 |
| IronWarrior wrote on Wed, 13 February 2008 08:33 |
RA1 was pretty borning and dull for me, yeah it was fun to play, but RA2 has alot more depth then RA1.
|
Are you drunk? RA2 had the depth of a pie plate
|
Too few units in RA1, everything looked crap and was just slow.
|
jesus christ... it was 1996 ffs. It probably won an award for graphics that year, or several. And who the hell ever bought a (real) C&C game for the graphics? I could care less about the graphics in an RTS game because the draw to it is for the strategy involved, not for the pretty eye lashes you see on some elf when you zoom in.
|
I'm saying RA2 had more to offer then what was in RA1.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317306 is a reply to message #317036] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 14:54 |
JPNOD
Messages: 807
Registered: April 2004
Location: Area 51
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| LR01 wrote on Thu, 14 February 2008 03:08 |
Red Alert total conversation for C&C3, looks like to me
|
Yeah.
Kinda funny when I was playing RenAlert, and it was way popular back then. I had a quote saying "get Renegade 2 at www.renalert.com"
People always complained about it because it was a mod and not a Renegade 2. I always replied if Westwood was to make a Renegade 2 it wouldn't be much different.
Here's the prove EA makes games based on 1 engine and then milks it out for cash flow
KA-CHING!
WOL nick: JPNOD
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317335 is a reply to message #316793] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 17:00 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
One thing struck my eye when skimming through the various blurbs about RA3: Co-Op campaigns.
As for the rest... EA is too addicted to superweapons, rush-happy balancing, and special abilities. I mean, come on- the Ion Cannon was supposed to be a precision-strike weapon and C&C3 turned it into a fucking nuclear death beam. Smaller units die too quickly to make a difference in battle, forcing players to have vast resource operations just to keep ahead of loss replacement, and there is almost no room at all in some newer games for small-scale tactics that require patience and micromanagement in order to pull off. Instead, everything depends on having more firepower concentrated in one place than the other guy, which in turn usually depends on either massing fucktons of units and rushing or teching up and deploying superweapons and top-tier units (also in mass quantities). I can't stand to play modern RTS head-to-head just because of how mind-fuckingly shallow the matches are. I suck horribly at them, but I don't even feel motivated to try and get better- because the 'better' you are, the shorter the matches get, and the less time you have to do the crazy, sneaky, snowball's-chance-in-hell shit that used to make RTS so much of a blast to play.
RA3 is just going to be more of the same damned thing. It might be a fun little game for a while, but will ultimately not be so memorable as its progenitors.
"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 #317613 is a reply to message #317233] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 15:39 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| IronWarrior wrote on Fri, 15 February 2008 07:11 |
| Renx wrote on Thu, 14 February 2008 23:02 |
| IronWarrior wrote on Wed, 13 February 2008 11:16 |
| Renx wrote on Wed, 13 February 2008 08:41 |
| IronWarrior wrote on Wed, 13 February 2008 08:33 |
RA1 was pretty borning and dull for me, yeah it was fun to play, but RA2 has alot more depth then RA1.
|
Are you drunk? RA2 had the depth of a pie plate
|
Too few units in RA1, everything looked crap and was just slow.
|
jesus christ... it was 1996 ffs. It probably won an award for graphics that year, or several. And who the hell ever bought a (real) C&C game for the graphics? I could care less about the graphics in an RTS game because the draw to it is for the strategy involved, not for the pretty eye lashes you see on some elf when you zoom in.
|
I'm saying RA2 had more to offer then what was in RA1.
|
Zero Hour had "more to offer" than RA2.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 [message #317658 is a reply to message #317335] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 20:28 |
|
IronWarrior
Messages: 2460
Registered: November 2004
Location: England UK
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Fri, 15 February 2008 18:00 |
One thing struck my eye when skimming through the various blurbs about RA3: Co-Op campaigns.
As for the rest... EA is too addicted to superweapons, rush-happy balancing, and special abilities. I mean, come on- the Ion Cannon was supposed to be a precision-strike weapon and C&C3 turned it into a fucking nuclear death beam. Smaller units die too quickly to make a difference in battle, forcing players to have vast resource operations just to keep ahead of loss replacement, and there is almost no room at all in some newer games for small-scale tactics that require patience and micromanagement in order to pull off. Instead, everything depends on having more firepower concentrated in one place than the other guy, which in turn usually depends on either massing fucktons of units and rushing or teching up and deploying superweapons and top-tier units (also in mass quantities). I can't stand to play modern RTS head-to-head just because of how mind-fuckingly shallow the matches are. I suck horribly at them, but I don't even feel motivated to try and get better- because the 'better' you are, the shorter the matches get, and the less time you have to do the crazy, sneaky, snowball's-chance-in-hell shit that used to make RTS so much of a blast to play.
RA3 is just going to be more of the same damned thing. It might be a fun little game for a while, but will ultimately not be so memorable as its progenitors.
|
I have to agree with alot of what you said, all the new RTS games are just super weapon fests.
I would play RA2 more, but it crashs everytime I try to go online. :/
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
