OMG!
Looks epic. They even used the old sounds! Muha!
Looks epic. They even used the old sounds! Muha!
If the beta goes well and they iron the bugs out > Success.
If they run the run the beta but still rush it out and not care enough about the feedback they get > Demise.
If they run the run the beta but still rush it out and not care enough about the feedback they get > Demise.
Looks pretty good, likely I'll get it, not too sure on the end nuke but what the hey
As for the music debate, March to Doom > HM1 and HM2.
Well with the beta potenially having >1,000,000 people I doubt it won't be that through. Also it is expected to last from late June til mid September so I don't think much will be missed.Kommander_Kale wrote:
If the beta goes well and they iron the bugs out > Success.
If they run the run the beta but still rush it out and not care enough about the feedback they get > Demise.
Now whether or not EA will pay attention is a different story but they have been very active with the CnC3 community and have listen to most requests for balancing with CnC3 so I think it will turn out really good.
Grahpics ftl. I'm not going to buy this PoS.
What's wrong with the graphics? They're unrealistic, like everything in games should be.Longbow wrote:
Grahpics ftl. I'm not going to buy this PoS.
I absolutely hate cartoonish graphics. When the game looks like a 12 year old's drawings it doesnt atract me.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
What's wrong with the graphics? They're unrealistic, like everything in games should be.
Dis gun is heavy.
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
At least I have job.Cheez wrote:
Dis gun is heavy.
And when a game looks all gray and blurry it is even worse. The graphics of RA3 reflect the mood of the game. Games aren't srs, RA3 knows this and so has not srs graphics. Realism in games is FTL.Longbow wrote:
I absolutely hate cartoonish graphics. When the game looks like a 12 year old's drawings it doesnt atract me.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
What's wrong with the graphics? They're unrealistic, like everything in games should be.
You're right. I can't wait for games like Gears of War 2. I love the gritty and diverse color palette of light brown, dark brown, medium brown, and a little bit of metallic gray for that extra spice. WE LIKE MANLY MAN GAMES!Longbow wrote:
I absolutely hate cartoonish graphics. When the game looks like a 12 year old's drawings it doesnt atract me.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
What's wrong with the graphics? They're unrealistic, like everything in games should be.
Last edited by killaer (2008-05-18 21:14:07)
What brought you to BF2's PS2 graphics? j/kLongbow wrote:
I absolutely hate cartoonish graphics. When the game looks like a 12 year old's drawings it doesnt atract me.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
What's wrong with the graphics? They're unrealistic, like everything in games should be.
I don't want cutting edge realistic graphics from games. I want cutting edge fun! Destroy All Humans got it right, cartoony graphics, human killing fun. Sure, pretty water and bushes are nice, but when that's the game's only shining point, it usually phails. Crysis wasn't the next-gen shooter people said it would be.
no.nukchebi0 wrote:
As for the music debate, March to Doom > HM1 and HM2.
CnC3 they broke away from the mould and did very well with 9 patches, but their support for KW has been atrocious. Going by this i think they will give RA3 a good shot when it comes out, but for the game to sustain a decent following and maybe even have a chance at running an alternative second to SC II in eSports, the expansion needs to be fully furbished and supported because EA lost the chance to reclaim fans with KW and just pushed them further away.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Well with the beta potenially having >1,000,000 people I doubt it won't be that through. Also it is expected to last from late June til mid September so I don't think much will be missed.Kommander_Kale wrote:
If the beta goes well and they iron the bugs out > Success.
If they run the run the beta but still rush it out and not care enough about the feedback they get > Demise.
Now whether or not EA will pay attention is a different story but they have been very active with the CnC3 community and have listen to most requests for balancing with CnC3 so I think it will turn out really good.
Some other things to check out:
7 Important Things About the Red Alert 3 Trailer
EA studio in moscow
Extended Trailer, all gameplay no flashy bits Dunno where the higher def one went :S
Just have to make do with the youtube v for now.
Last edited by Kommander_Kale (2008-05-20 04:32:14)
What's so cartoony about those units?
Most of them are just nice 3D models of the 2D ones from Red Alert 2.
The only one that I can understand is the Bear that attacks infantry. But you gotta admit, bears are awesome :3
Also unless you are colour blind you would have noticed that Red Alert series have been colourfull. Red Alert just takes it to a new level.
The link with 7 Important things is also a good read and it does hint that it's gonna be more than just mindless spamming up units.
Most of them are just nice 3D models of the 2D ones from Red Alert 2.
The only one that I can understand is the Bear that attacks infantry. But you gotta admit, bears are awesome :3
Also unless you are colour blind you would have noticed that Red Alert series have been colourfull. Red Alert just takes it to a new level.
The link with 7 Important things is also a good read and it does hint that it's gonna be more than just mindless spamming up units.
Yeah, but the one harvester to a single ore field is stupid, it will totally wreck hit and run attacks as it will be to easy to defend.Zefar wrote:
The link with 7 Important things is also a good read and it does hint that it's gonna be more than just mindless spamming up units.
If you have control of only one ore mine lol! And even then you have a choice to snipe economy, army, production queues, power. Not exactly limited?DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Yeah, but the one harvester to a single ore field is stupid, it will totally wreck hit and run attacks as it will be to easy to defend.Zefar wrote:
The link with 7 Important things is also a good read and it does hint that it's gonna be more than just mindless spamming up units.
If however you've done what any sane person would do and try to get more ore mines, then you'd have to split your forces...... And if you only have one ore mine, then you probably won't have as many units as the other person so it could be hard to defend it still.
But even with control of multiple ore areas it would still be to easy to defend. The large ore/Tiberium fields in previous CnC games were easy to sneak units into the back of as they covered such are large area. Now it will only take a Tesla coil and flak gun to defend a miner.Kommander_Kale wrote:
If you have control of only one ore mine lol! And even then you have a choice to snipe economy, army, production queues, power. Not exactly limited?DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Yeah, but the one harvester to a single ore field is stupid, it will totally wreck hit and run attacks as it will be to easy to defend.Zefar wrote:
The link with 7 Important things is also a good read and it does hint that it's gonna be more than just mindless spamming up units.
If however you've done what any sane person would do and try to get more ore mines, then you'd have to split your forces...... And if you only have one ore mine, then you probably won't have as many units as the other person so it could be hard to defend it still.
Yeah Strangelove, because that would sooo work.
Fair enough the eco harassment forces that I used in RA2 wont ber adequate but a few light tanks isn't much.
Edit.
Actually watched the trailer. If I have a decent PC at the time I'll buy it. Looks like more of the same C&C, which to my mind is a good thing.
Fair enough the eco harassment forces that I used in RA2 wont ber adequate but a few light tanks isn't much.
Edit.
Actually watched the trailer. If I have a decent PC at the time I'll buy it. Looks like more of the same C&C, which to my mind is a good thing.
Last edited by Flecco (2008-05-22 04:23:41)
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
It looks absolutely awful. Nothing new, same graphics, unreal terrain and AI, unreal movements from soldiers ( always in a square or bunch, never like CoH or WiC ).
They should really take a page out of WiC's or CoH's book. This is going to be a failure.
They should really take a page out of WiC's or CoH's book. This is going to be a failure.
1. no they shouldnt. They should follow the style of previous RA games which they are, very good move from them.Zimmer wrote:
It looks absolutely awful. Nothing new, same graphics, unreal terrain and AI, unreal movements from soldiers ( always in a square or bunch, never like CoH or WiC ).
They should really take a page out of WiC's or CoH's book. This is going to be a failure.
2. This is very unlike to be a failure.
Wrong. Why? Because, like Pro Evolution Soccer, who perfected the football game in series 5, they went downhill from there. Why? Because every year, games capabilities increase and as perfection couldn't be improved in their eyes, they added nothing new and it became a failure of a game. They COULD have added new elements and changes, but they didn't. Konami kept it the same and they got slated everywhere for that.Vilham wrote:
1. no they shouldnt. They should follow the style of previous RA games which they are, very good move from them.Zimmer wrote:
It looks absolutely awful. Nothing new, same graphics, unreal terrain and AI, unreal movements from soldiers ( always in a square or bunch, never like CoH or WiC ).
They should really take a page out of WiC's or CoH's book. This is going to be a failure.
2. This is very unlike to be a failure.
So why does EA think they can pull off a stunt like that one? There is NOTHING new in this version. Graphics are beyond disappointing and gameplay will be the exact same - show me a new RTS which uses that gameplay which has received more than 80% good reviews. I bet you can't. Why? Because when people wait 3 years for a new game, they want something refreshing, keeping some old values, but revamping the whole system and creating something MORE fun than the last one. This is just reincarnation of 2 and 1.
Maybe they can pull it off; but I don't expect to be seeing reviews above 7 for this.
Also, you say "unlikely". Not "unlike".
You do realise this "downhill" streak you claim pro evo has doesn't seem to be effecting its sales each year. You also can't compare an RTS with a sports title.
These graphics and gameplay are on par with SC2 and if you think that will be a failure....
Incase you haven't played a RTS before, infantry in WiC and CoH are in squads, if you group multiple squads they don't maintain this so called real movement, they clump up so you just have two squads on top of each other, there is no system of multi-squad formations for infantry, they act independently of each other. In RA games and nearly every other RTS title every unit conforms to the specific formation they have been programmed to.
Since when has RA been about realism anyway? As to your claim of the gameplay and reviews.
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platfor … ?q=supreme
Im also pretty sure this and SC2 will get an average of atleast 80+ and guess why? Because they are building on the gameplay of games that are two of the most highly rated RTS games out there.
These graphics and gameplay are on par with SC2 and if you think that will be a failure....
Incase you haven't played a RTS before, infantry in WiC and CoH are in squads, if you group multiple squads they don't maintain this so called real movement, they clump up so you just have two squads on top of each other, there is no system of multi-squad formations for infantry, they act independently of each other. In RA games and nearly every other RTS title every unit conforms to the specific formation they have been programmed to.
Since when has RA been about realism anyway? As to your claim of the gameplay and reviews.
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platfor … ?q=supreme
Im also pretty sure this and SC2 will get an average of atleast 80+ and guess why? Because they are building on the gameplay of games that are two of the most highly rated RTS games out there.
Uninformed opinion much?Zimmer wrote:
So why does EA think they can pull off a stunt like that one? There is NOTHING new in this version.
1. Completely revamped economic control systems
2. Diversification of land and water, making both integral parts of the game
3. 3rd faction, so its more interesting than the same CoH battle over and over..... (even though RA2 allowed mirrors)
4. Less emphasis on tank spam + huge battles by controlling income rates, more emphasis on specific unit abilities