Jump to content

EA Games Working on Red Alert 3?

DasHogg

By DasHogg
in Gaming

 Share

Recommended Posts

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

The problem with Generals was that it lacked a real single-player element... sure, there were the three campaigns, but they were loosely tied together, there were no characters for you to follow, and more or less the "campaign" was a series of scenarios that you played in a certain order. In Zero Hour, they add a Mortal-Kombatesque General fight mode. Wow. Not much of a campaign; no actualy story like Red Alert or Tiberian Sun... nor were there any real interactive campaign-style elements; like the battle map of Emperor and Dune 2000. You might not think that this is a real problem, but when you consider what Generals was going up against, it was the game's Achilles' heel.

Generals, without any real compelling single player experience, then had to rely on multiplayer for its popularity. This is when Generals is going up against WarCraft III; possibly the most anticipated real-time strategy game ever made. In addition to a plethora of other games that came out not too long before or after to meet the strategy gamer's fancy; MechCommander 2, Ground Control II... there is quite the list. Generals had too little a window of opportunity to become really popular, and beyond the initial hype, Generals did not last.

Caid Ivik

Caid Ivik

Posted
Posted

If we are to measure Warcraft III, then do so with MechCommander 2 or Emperor. Not with Generals, which bring nothing new, or at least perfection in one aspect... I hope there will be enough possibilities to make Tiberian Twilight mod from Petroglyph's Star Wars RTS, if they won't do it by themselves  ;D

gunner154

gunner154

Posted
Posted

No superweapons in Zero Hour? I MUST GET THAT!!

But wait, I remember getting a mod for my Generals that totally disables superweapons. The upgrades in the nuclear silo were transferred to the propaganda centre too. Wow. That means I don't need to get Zero Hour, since I can't afford it and don't intend to. The Generals Combat thing sounds pretty gay to me...

DasHogg

DasHogg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The 'General Challenge' shit is the lamest idea ever thought(if you exlude the sims sereies) by EA. In some random order you fight different commanders with only slightly different tactics and superweapons. It has set maps wich are really awful - your defence possibilities are close to zero and you have to build your base from nothing(you have a dozer and command centre) while the enemy already has a nuclear missle ticking to be dropped on you. And you also hear a gay little 'taunt' every 30 seconds. My grade on this on a five point scale: less than zero.

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
Posted

If they are going to create a sequel to the RA series, I have a few suggestions.

- Do not even bother creating an SP part. RA2 has perpetually castrated any prospect of writing a decent storyline for RA3.

- Invent new factions, because nobody is going to believe the Allies would be soft on the Soviets after being stabbed in the back for the second time. Though considering the previous reason, maybe that wouldn't matter anyway.

- Introduce the following new units:

Giant flying squid: the basis is already there, and taking the next step is only half as stupid.

Christina Aguilera: renders the enemy units braindead, and on top of that deaf to both ears to make sure they won't obey commands from the player. It will be fun to shoot her.

The illiterate Arab towlhead sitting on a donkey, good only for cannon fodder. Face it, a new RA game will need stereotypes to succeed, just like the last one.

Zombies- 'cause they're cool.

- Hire me to do the above said things. That would rule.

AMIgaBot

AMIgaBot

Posted
Posted

so i wish something from other game a dink smallwood, for  soviets an slayer( monster like dragon and lizard, but they have just claws and paws(no wings, some fins they have on top of body. long hands and small heads. long tails and they do huge damage on enemy.  so they could be civilian unit (slayer) so goblin would be for allies, a man like tanya but they use explosive hammer if they throw him and hit target, target explode but hammer return to owner.

Avrillian_Sard01

Avrillian_Sard01

Posted
Posted

Hooboy...I totally dislike the cartoonyness of some of the units in RA2... I liked the serious overtones of RA1, but making a sequel with some outrageous units and balancing issues totally killed the fun in the RA storyline...

I could've sworn there are more units 'fielded' in RA1 than RA2...

Emperor Harkonnen

Emperor Harkonnen

Posted
Posted

I don't see why you care so much about storyline. It is skirmish and multiplayer which is cool about ra2.

and ra1 has a great story. but it is a matter of opinion. but it seems to me that most people like it, since it became the worlds most sold game, and got world record in 1998.

ra1 and c&c are pretty much the same in gameplay, but what makes ra1 better is that there are more units and several more opportunities to make your own stuff. it lasts much longer! besides it has skirmish combat also. that is absolutely something which would make c&c better!

Avrillian_Sard01

Avrillian_Sard01

Posted
Posted

What do you mean, I dont understand you

There seems to be more unit types in RA1 (More infantry types and vehicle types) than in RA2 (w/c is nothing but basic anti-armor, anti-vehicle, anti-infantry, etc... They made the units too basic...)...that's what I meant...

  • 3 weeks later...
Sober

Sober

Posted
Posted

RA2 had a dumb story because EA butchered the contraversy WW Games usually have, so it's "Real friendly".

"You maniac..." Is that the best the president can call a Russian who's sending EVERYTHING they have at their country? Seriously....

And besides, why RA3? RA2 takes place in the 60s or 70s, I wonder how they will "squeeze" RA3 before the year 1995 (Tiberium Dawn)?

I better have the classic C&C interface, or I might just not buy it.

Terror

Terror

Posted
Posted

RA2 had a dumb story because EA butchered the contraversy WW Games usually have, so it's "Real friendly".

"You maniac..." Is that the best the president can call a Russian who's sending EVERYTHING they have at their country? Seriously....

And besides, why RA3? RA2 takes place in the 60s or 70s, I wonder how they will "squeeze" RA3 before the year 1995 (Tiberium Dawn)?

I better have the classic C&C interface, or I might just not buy it.

RA2 is not part of the Tiberium universe. (Red Alert 1 is). It's rather a universe where they can create units as weird as they can think of. I am glad that RA2 is not part of the tiberum universe BUT I do like the game. It's singleplayer campaign was nice and the cutscenes hilarious at times. Also it had a lot of gameplay fun. I think they did rather well.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.