RED ALERT 3 BETA!

The Dutch Ghost said:
They pushed the boring sci-fi alien story even further rather than retconning the alien invasion out of existence.
Click to expand...

Ashmo, the idea that there would be aliens one day in C&C was right there from the start.
Perhaps it wasn't done in a fashion that you would have liked but getting rid of it, now that would have been annoying.
Click to expand...

He's right.

In TD they don't say anything about it in the story, but players can infer it by discovering the crashed UFO's on the edges of some maps as well as the fact that Tiberium being so suited to grow on Earth when it came from space seems like too much of a coincidence.

In TS they openly tell you of the presence of aliens in the 1 GDI and 1 Nod mission to investigate the crashed UFO which they even call the "Scrin ship". In fact alot of Nods higher technology was built on info gained from an artifact they captured inside it the "Tacitus".

As much as I'd like to say the addittion of a third side especially being aliens was a lame way to make C&C 3 more epic I actually think it was meant to be that way from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong. I totally share your cynicism about what EA has done to what should be a series equal to Warcraft and Starcraft.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
I love Command & Conquer 3, plain and simple. It logically develops the story (read the Intel Database carefully), has atmospheric cutscenes (although not on par with Tiberian Sun's) and includes much of what Westwood had already prepared for Tiberian Incursion.

The Scrin that finally make an appearance are a good addition, even though they aren't really THE Scrin (they are one of the two that exist).

I have to disagree with you Ashmo on pretty much everything, except for RA2.
 
I really liked Red Alert 2, I thought it was a great game :)

C&C3 was also really nice, and when they added the Scrin campaign as a surprise I got very happy :P
 
I must admit i was positively suprised of cc3 on the gameplay part(didnt expect much from ea) , havent played the story yet though.
 
I was always a bigger fan of the RA-series than the Tiberium-series, and Red Alert is still my favourite RTS. RA2 was perhaps a bit over the top on the campyness, but it's not like the first RA was a very serious affair, with Einstein traveling back in time to kill Hitler. The game itself was very well balanced, and lended itself well to online play.

I believe EA can do a good job with RA3. C&C3 was very good, and was faithfull to the old Westwood-games. Nothing like what a certain Bethesda-based company is doing to a certain post-nuclear RPG-series these days.
 
Wow, TVD said that RA 2 and TS are bad and there still isn't a petition to perma-ban him on the internets!

This is an outrage, do I have to to do everything myself?
*sigh* I'm comin' for ya.

On topic: RA and RA 2 were really, really good, so was Tiberian Sun.
These games have amazing atmosphere. And I always liked huge amounts of units, example- RA2- playing as a Russia, capturing some USA buildings, training a spy and sending him to USA tech lab allowed you to produce something like chrono-yuri if I remember correctly.
But look what they've done to C&C 3. For example, from what I've heard, the map is always revealed. Dumbing down. And a new race? C&C was always (at least for me) about GDI vs Nod as much as RA and USA/Allies vs Russians.
EA admitted they screwed up and I think RA3 will show if they really mean it or not.

Oh, and 'ere's smethin fer ya
http://www.ea.com/cncmovies/
 
Black said:
Wow, TVD said that RA 2 and TS are bad and there still isn't a petition to perma-ban him on the internets!

This is an outrage, do I have to to do everything myself?
*sigh* I'm comin' for ya.

On topic: RA and RA 2 were really, really good, so was Tiberian Sun.
These games have amazing atmosphere. And I always liked huge amounts of units, example- RA2- playing as a Russia, capturing some USA buildings, training a spy and sending him to USA tech lab allowed you to produce something like chrono-yuri if I remember correctly.
But look what they've done to C&C 3. For example, from what I've heard, the map is always revealed. Dumbing down. And a new race? C&C was always (at least for me) about GDI vs Nod as much as RA and USA/Allies vs Russians.
EA admitted they screwed up and I think RA3 will show if they really mean it or not.

Oh, and 'ere's smethin fer ya
http://www.ea.com/cncmovies/
Click to expand...

I hate to point this out, but what I said was that RA2 and TS were bad examples of "RTS" games. There atmosphere and story are SO awesome that not only are they worth playing, but I loved them as a matter of fact. It's just that unlike other properly made (balanced) RTS RA2 and TS can't be played multiplayer. RA2 has the worst balance ever and that's no exaggeration. TS is decently balanced, but the overrall design is flawed in the sense that you can play balanced or turtle, but never rush. The decision between those 3 strategies is probably the single biggest decision you can make in a match and having to choose two severely limits the gameplay.

Let me put it this way. Story and atmospher RA2 and TS are a 9/10. Gameplay and balance wise they are a 3/10. It's a damn shame EA forced the games to be hurried since while I'm sure the story didn't take long to write/direct the balance issues are stuff that takes alot of testing from many people and it looks like that got sacrificed.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
I guess maybe you're right about the RA and TS balance. To trully feel if they're balanced or not, I'd have to play on multiplayer which I haven't. I was fine with singe player.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that there still isn't any petition!
 
VD, I actually think that rush preventing gameplay is better than rush-allowing. For one, it force players to actually think tactically rather than race to build barracks and pump out cheap infantry.
 
EA's decision of doing a Red Alert sequel might be a counter against Blizzard's Starcraft 2. Back in 1996-97, 2 of the hottest RTS game on the market were Red Alert and Starcraft.
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
VD, I actually think that rush preventing gameplay is better than rush-allowing. For one, it force players to actually think tactically rather than race to build barracks and pump out cheap infantry.
Click to expand...

I use to think that, but after playing Warcraft 3 competitively online for a few months my outlook on multiplayer RTS changed completely. I use to never play games online or only for fun FPS mayhem. With W3 I learned just how much learning and concentration it takes to play competitively. I can't summarize it all since it's too complicated, but lets just say that rushing is just as much tactical as not. Sure you have more forces, but the defenders decision to either abandon teching to counter-rush or still tech and try to defend with less units can have a big effect on the game. If you survive the rush you and your opponent are equal in strength, but you've climbed the tech tree or expanded and now will probably win. Besides when you rush one person with double the units he has he still has two big advantages. One in that his units enter battle immediately since you are attacking his base and two that his defensive structures will aid him.

Either way rushing vs. playing balanced the rusher has an advantage early and the balancer has an advantage later. It's all who plays better.

Man all this strategy talk is giving me a heartache for when I used to play W3. I will have to buy C&C 3 soon, but I'm waiting til they have the expansion and also til they make a few major balance patches so it'll be around a half a year before I play.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Wooz said:
Wasn't RA released in 1995?
Click to expand...
Bagge said:
...and Starcraft in 1998?
Click to expand...

Well, late 1997 was the time I remember people started to play Starcraft, in my hometown.
Earlier 1997 though, was the time every RTS gamer playing Red Alert.

And wooz, Red Alert was released in October 31, 1996.
 
zioburosky13 said:
Well, late 1997 was the time I remember people started to play Starcraft, in my hometown.
Click to expand...

Just checked Wikipedia, and Starcraft was released april 1998.
 
OH NO!

Originally Westwood felt that the Red Alert and Tiberian universes were in the same world, but different periods of time. However Red Alert 3 will have to take place far enough in the future to where it intersects with Tiberian Dawn and this creates an obvious contradiction. How can both the war between the Soviets and free world occur while Nod and GDI are also fighting? EA found a way to get around this...fortunately their idea makes sense unfortunately it contradicts Westwood's intents.

I received a few emails on Monday alerting me to the fact Red Alert 3 will not be a Command & Conquer game. Well, if you check the news, you will see that this is not true, and RA3 is indeed a C&C game. I can understand about the confusion though, especially for those new to the Command & Conquer franchise of games. Tiberian Dawn started this whole thing back in 1995. But it was also referred to as simply Command & Conquer. Then along came C&C: Red Alert. Then C&C: Tiberian Sun, which was also called C&C2. So now we had to go back and start calling Tiberian Dawn C&C1. Then came C&C: Red Alert2, and Red Alert became RA1. Confusion really set in with Generals and Zero Hour. They also had the C&C tag attached but were not related to the Tiberian or Red Alert universes because they didn't have Allies, Soviets, GDI, or Nod. So some fans refused to accept them as 'TRUE' C&C games, and threatened to burn all EA establishments. What defines a 'true' C&C game? Build your base, assemble your army, and destroy your opponent. About as simple as it gets. Anyhoot, and to finish this blurb short of a novel, Command & Conquer is the franchise, and whatever that name is attached to becomes a part of the franchise. For instance, if someday (and I hope that day never comes) EA decides to develop C&C: The Sims Wars, then we'd have another universe in the C&C franchise. Just don't confuse 'franchise' with 'universe' and you'll be fine. As of now, we have three different 'RTS' universes, Tiberian, Red Alert, and Generals, all with the Command & Conquer tag, and none of those related to each other. Although it was once thought that the Tiberian And Red Alert universes would eventually be tied together (Westwood Studios had planned that at some point), EA says it ain't gonna happen as that would just add confusion.
Click to expand...

Found here;

http://www.cncden.com/

:crazy: ,
The Vault Dweller
 
Dumbasses. Tiberian Dawn only happens if the Soviets in Red Alert win the campaign. Red Alert 2 happens when the Allies win in Red Alert 1. In Red Alert, Stalin was being manipulated by the Brotherhood of Nod, and then overthrown by Kane after he killed Stalin, which starts the Tiberian storyline.

So basically, both games are in the same universe on 2 different timelines. I can't believe that EA can fuck-up so badly... Yes I can.
 
Dopemine Cleric said:
Dumbasses. Tiberian Dawn only happens if the Soviets in Red Alert win the campaign. Red Alert 2 happens when the Allies win in Red Alert 1. In Red Alert, Stalin was being manipulated by the Brotherhood of Nod, and then overthrown by Kane after he killed Stalin, which starts the Tiberian storyline.

So basically, both games are in the same universe on 2 different timelines. I can't believe that EA can fuck-up so badly... Yes I can.
Click to expand...

Did you figure that out yourself or is there some sort of "C&C Storyline Guide" comparable to the "Fallout Bible" that you found somewhere?

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Yeah, in all honesty, I spent days trying to figure out why the hell Kane was at the end of the Soviet Campaign. It is the only logical outcome.

So, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that EA decided not to screw with it. I think I just expect people to over-analyze things as much as I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top