hagren

Stiff competition from Spore? That game was a one-trick pony.

Sounds like an introduction to Yuriko never finished.

I had nothing against her, but Wuhrer was obviously much sassier. Bear in mind though that Wuhrer had much more screen presence to play with. But from an acting perspective, both have been cheesy and forced in my opinion. As was Sergej, who acted even worse. Loved Eva though, as I did the rest of the team. As for the in-game unit, I do prefer her old voice.

Eh. Death Magnetic was more like a "Best of" album that at no point reached the heights of their previous work.

CoD2 was one of the most dull and repetitive FPS I've played, but CoD4? You should really try it. The Prypjat level is legendary, in my opinion.

Firestorm Nod ending, RA3 Allied ending (THe Hoff!), RA both endings. Every other CnC end sequence is too silly or meh.

I pretty much liked every character except for the Japanese commanders.

Thanks for the invitation guys, btw I always love to share my opinion, and am equally delighted to hear your thoughts.

Happy Birthday! Your gallery rocks, guys!

Couldn't agree more. Add some building upgrades and this game is going to devour the sun.

SupCom is faceless.

Indeed.

The soundtrack turned out phenomenal anyway, so don't let us think about "if"s

Twas a bit off.

Imho that's the point; there's nothing wrong with three or more sides IF they get the side differences and units right. With the Scrin they did not, but the Empire turned out kick-ass.

The unskippable in-game cutscenes are a bit annoying as well, altough I dig them.

I'd hardly fault EALA for that. Compare an RPG of these days and one from the nineties, the differences shriek to the heavens. I don't have anything against the arrows, btw- many don't have the time or patience to look around for their objectives, so imho it's good they have the feature. What I agree on, however, is that they should keep the shroud around those objectives, else it's just a bombardement mission. There are enough imaginative and enjoyable missions though, and while the Scrin failed, the three-side concept worked with RA3. Or wouldn't you agree that the Japanese are great?

The Rhino tank was never iconic to me. The Mammoth however was, and go figure, WW took it out with TS, whilst EA added both the Apoc and the Mammoth to their games. As for TWs shortcomings, I'm the last one to deny that, but we're talking about RA3, which is a much better game. As for the box arts, I'm not saying that the soldier heads weren't a good idea, but if EA would have kept that up, it would have been kind of cheating. At least this way everyone knows immediately which game comes from which studio.

...so You actually think RA2 was serious? Remember when Romanov introduced us to his turtle, Uncle Sam? Furthermore, every character was clichéd, including Tanya, who was similarly overacting the "tough chick" sterotype. On another note, keeping the soldier heads would be disrespectful. Imho it's good they clarify that this isn't WWs franchise anymore. I for one have nothing against that, even while EA is not perfect yet.

You know that your criticisms have nothing to do with the gaming studios? Like WWP, EALA took the humorous route (While, imho, the presentation of characters was not nearly as silly as in RA2, respectively the units were, while toyish, also less ott than in YR), and that's the reason why the units mainly look like toys. And I like that look very much. RA2 wasn't very different, and both give the game a plastic feel. The Apoc tank may look a bit light-hearted, but it's still a blast to grind enemies to pieces with its magnetic hook ability. I also have no clue why this all marrs gameplay, which is imho the most varied in CnC history. By the way, Your argument about names and animal models was very petty. Did it ever occur to you that the Hammer and bears are symbols of Mother Russia? Which make them more fitting than a name like Rhino or German sheperds. Lastly, what does a colourful look have to do with creativity? For an EA game, it's filled with inventiveness.

And I just said "The heck with it!" and changed difficulty to easy Was piss-easy that way, but still a great game. I hate it when strong titles are ignored or misjudged. It deserves respectable sales and a good reputation

As was the case with Oblivion- Morrowind was a far more challenging and hostile game, which made it a much more satisfying experience. For that matter, I have no idea how such a high profile developer can get away with that poor character and facial animation.

WoW is evil. And of course it has better content, because it's not only 5 or 10 euros you're paying over regular editions. And you seriously replay the Gens/ZH campaign?

At places the co-commander was helpful, but not in this mission.

I don't know about you guys, but the quality is definitely there with most maps and the soundtrack, respectively some of the FMV bits. Sure, it's a bit traditional, and yeah, you get more playtime with F3, but it still is better than the average rating of 82% might suggest- Of course, they could have worked more on the story and FMVs, let alone the mission design, but there are very nice ideas in the game, and it's more enjoyable to play than most RTS since RA2. In terms of difficulty, it's more or less like RA2, ie. the learning curve is botched. And about the campaigns: It's too early to tell. I replayed bits of RA2 a couple of times since there were gaps between the trials, and it might happen with RA3 as well. However if not, it's just that I don't have enough time to focus my attention to one game only. Only the open-ended, non-linear games are really worth to be played again, imho, like Fallout 1/2, for example. 20 hours of gameplay are not a bad value, mind. Btw, Saracen, you questioned the quality of RA3 while the quantity was really the factor that was missing. What EA needs for the next CnC game is a really deep story and more "Wow"-moments (Since there were 15 good missions out of 24).