The Red Alert 3 Fiasco

[Saracen 16]

For the most part, I've seemed relatively positive about Red Alert 3. But upon consideration of some factors, I'm looking at the game in a different light. Now let me disclaim this before I start, the EA censorship bandwagon can keep at arms length, because I'm stating an opinion here and in a democracy we're all entitled to free speech. So if this goes invisible or is requested for deletion, I'll be sure to rebut strongly, so here goes...

1) The SAGE Engine

 

My opinion on this is that the engine is old and tired. I look at a Red Alert 3 trailer, and what do I see instantly? C&C 3 in new clothing with the pace slowed a little. I felt this way about C&C 3 too actually... that it was Generals in new clothing, and hell, I like to think I was right on that. Quite simply put, the SAGE engine is showing its limitations no matter how you look at it. Each development cycle we're told that it has been stripped and re-coded by some radical percentage and put back together!? So why on earth do I feel like I'm playing the same game over and over, but with more graphical eye candy? To be honest EA, if the SAGE engine is so damn good then why are we not seeing more enhancements with each new game beyond the eye candy... put some innovation on the table already!

2) The Story

 

Now I'm almost 100% confident that this game is going to fall flat on its face within the first few missions. In regards to storyline on the EA front, there wasn't one for Generals, C&C 3 was terribly thought out, and well Kane's Wrath came up with an ending that makes even the WWE wrestling look like it's written by Ridley Scott. Allow me to be brutally honest here and say that I don't think there's a single writer for EA with a vivid and elaborate mind capable of generating a story that will live in memory. Let's just look to Grand Theft Auto 4 or even Metal Gear Solid 4 to see that here are two well established franchises, and these are two really well made games. They both got almost perfect 10's and 100% scores across the board. Why? One of the strongest reasons is because their single player experience was brought first and the minds that developed it took the time to ensure there was an epic story behind each of them.

 

3) Level Design

 

Behold the might of the so-called symmetrical map. EA RTS culture has taught us that map designing isn't a strong point for the franchise. I expect it more or less to continue here, because we all know that asymmetrical maps require some effort and a lot of testing. Even though there's a Beta, we're not gonna be focussing on the maps themselves are we... just the bugs. I mean do you think GTA4 & MGS4 got perfect scores for level design because they were randomly thought out without due care and attention? I think not... RA3 will not stand the test of time unless nothing but effort is put into the arenas that we're being placed in... and that includes the time taken to complete each arena too... length to any game is key as well when it comes to level design.

 

4) Over Zealous Marketing

 

This is a tricky area.. don't do enough, and it won't get noticed... Do what EA's doing, and well, we've played the game before it's even on the shelf. Let's dig GTA and MGS again shall we... but established Franchises should not need heavy handed inside-out marketing to be well known. A notice of existance, followed by a campaign of decent teasers and trailers should be enough to secure interest from anyone, and carry the game on until its release. You just need to look at any existing strong franchises to see how it works... the name should carry the weight. Instead, what EA are doing are telling us every unit, every factor put into that unit, what it's role is, where it goes, and even to the point where we might have to be told whether it has it's own heating and air-conditioning system. Too much info kills a game, and we don't really need to hear it for a franchise like Command & Conquer.

 

5) The Development Cycle

 

You can call me a "Games are Art" hippy if you like. But one thing that influences a game to be great (and not just Gamespot being paid under the table to say it is) is the time it takes to cycle the development of a game from basic concepts, to going gold. A solid two years is the average cycle for most games, and in EA's defence, C&C follows such a trait. However the games that are considered great are those that break the standard cycle and put a little extra time and money into things. An extra 4-6 months can make all the difference in terms of bugs and polish, but a game that takes an extra year perhaps with no initial release date immediately after announcement *cough* are the ones that seem to fare a lot better in this industry.

 

The fact that Red Alert 3 has been announced so soon after C&C 3's expansion, Kane's Wrath seems a little too concerning to me. That and the fact that a release date is already solidly made sends out an actual "Red Alert" even more so. They say absence makes the heart grow fonder, and the same should be true for games. Such a quick appearance gives me the impression of a potential Sims like franchise milking or even worse in some respects biting off more than the developers can chew... Red Alert 3 could have done with another year on the table, being announced somewhere later this fall then perhaps being released in the October next year. At least then the game might feel fresher, have a stronger perspective and be given more time to be wanted by the general public. Maybe if that happened then a better image of EA might come forward, and hell, I might not even be writing this... After all, anticipation is a stronger emotion to wield in this industry than just keeping this community happy because they've apparently been waiting long enough already.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

1) Actually, SAGE has been rewritten quite a bit. They're very different engines from BFD to Generals to BFME to BFME2 to C&C3/KW to RA3. The scalability increases with each implementation so it's far from the same engine being recycled for each game. While I'd agree a new engine would be great but why re-invent the wheel when you have something exceptionally powerful and functional already?

 

2) You knew the story was going to be funky. That was a given. You're following Yuri's Revenge for ****'s sake. However, while not perfect, I see it as a good goofy romp through a comedic look at war. But I'm less worried about canon events in the Red Alert saga than Tiberium. There's not much canon to really follow concerning Red Alert as it ends up being its own saga anyway.

 

3) Yeah... can't argue that. Symmetrical maps are suck and lame.

 

4) Indeed but it is nice to see that some effort is being put into this game. Also, I like quirky jokes about AM clock radios and onboard A/C. Kinda shows EA has a sense of humor and I applaud them for that approach.

 

5) Can't argue this either. I'd rather have waited a while before the next Red Alert game. I mean, we already have TIBERIUM get announced during KW's development cycle.

[Luk3us 63]

1) I don't mind Sage. If I wanted eye candy I'd go play something else.

 

2) Yeah, their writers suck, but they could be worse.

 

3) The maps in KW were a lot better than TW, so they are getting better.

 

4) I like the marketing done by EA. Its not as though EA are shoving all this info down your throat, if you don't want to know, then don't read it.

 

5) If EA want to release a new RTS every year, I won't complain. By the time I get sick of the buggy piece of **** that was released in 2007, I can move on the year after. As opposed to waiting 4 years for a game that I'll still dump a year later for something else anyway. On a more serious note, yeah of course it would be nice, but I don't think EA are going to go with that approach, given the sales they made with TW, and that was sub standard from the start...

 

 

Though that all being said, I was surprised that EA are going to release RA3 in October. I'm expecting them to push it back to something like March next year, which would seem more appropriate. And similar to what they did with TW, plus that added time for the beta test would be great. Assuming its a decent test, and not some waste of time like UAW was. lol..

Edited June 22, 2008 by Luk3us

[Sonic 295]

Oh I see now, its time to start going back to the familiar road of negativity again is it. I give up.

 

Yes your entitled to have your say buy when you **** all over game before you even play it, the act begins to wear thin.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Oh I see now, its time to start going back to the familiar road of negativity again is it. I give up.

It's all because, and only because, it's EA, Sonic. If this were Westwood, Saracen would be humping their leg like a good little lapdog.

[hagren 0]

With all due respect, you just lost a little credibility for me, Saracen. No, not because you critisized RA3- TW is, in retrospect, a mediocre game, as were all EA RTS (in this case, mostly thanks to boring level design and shallow gameplay). Rather, due to mentioning raving reviews of GTAIV and MGS4. I always had the mild suspection that you like to ride on the coattails of hyped games followed by quickly forgetting about them subsequently, and these little crumbles proved it. Or the contradictional handling of reviewers- So, it's an indication of quality that GTAIV got perfect 10s, but they're paid to do so?

Nonetheless, I'd like to go through the points you mentioned, since I respect your opinions and you as a gamer/individual.

 

1) You should know that engines do not mean anything. Or would you say the Witcher and Neverwinter Nights have much to do with each other? Or MoHAA with Quake 3? Half Life 2 with Bloodlines? The list goes on.

Gameplay is not defined by the engine. They took quite a different approach with many aspects, as their previous games varied in gameplay, too. Visually however, you can always pinpoint the engine, I give you that.

 

2) GTA and MSG are first and foremost SP titles, so it's no surprise there's lot of thought behind them. However, I read many a criticism of MSGs convoluted story, on which I personally cannot comment. GTA on the other hand never stood as story-driven game for me- and I wouldn't cite Rockstar as counter to EA. How many remakes did we have by now? And most of them were meh.

Generals had no plot, true, but CnC3s main storyline was all the stronger. I do not care much for the story in RA anyways, what it needs is diverse levels and FMVs, and at least with the scenarios RA seems to be much more diverse as Generals and TW combined.

 

3) Sorry, RA3s level desing already puts every other (EA) RTS to shame, at least in it's variety- Just looking at the PC Gamer screens makes me drool.

 

4) The backstory behind the units is actually a good thing. There are many gameplay-relevant infos missing anyway.

SC2 does the same, and no one is complaining. They just have to come at a slow rate and perhaps leave some out.

 

5) True, not the best time to announce it. Personally, I would have left out Kane's Wrath altogether or release it a bit in 09. However, the game's in developement since 05, and that's more time than the past games had.

Edited June 22, 2008 by hagren

[Saracen 16]

It's all because, and only because, it's EA, Sonic. If this were Westwood, Saracen would be humping their leg like a good little lapdog.

I don't hump Petroglyph's leg, so why on earth would I hump Westwood's? The RTS has become a stale and boring genre with nothing really going for it. My reasons above purely state that in such a stale Genre, such things need to be looked at, as opposed to going down "same street"... If I've written EA sucks anywhere apart from this very sentence.. please enlighten me?

 

Oh I see now, its time to start going back to the familiar road of negativity again is it. I give up.

As much respect I have for you Sonic. I could speak along similar lines about your general attitude since you've got back from the summit. But nevertheless, this thread isn't a negative rant. It's a feedback of sorts, but that just sums up the quick assumptions you always decide to make on my part when I write something like this, and that act in itself Sonic is beginning to wear thin as well.

 

Or the contradictional handling of reviewers- So, it's an indication of quality that GTAIV got perfect 10s, but they're paid to do so?

Such games are not something I'm riding on hype wagon. GTA4 is genuinely the best of the series as is MGS4. The latter being the best story driven game I have ever played... I can't say there's been another game which made my jaw drop to the floor in terms of how damn well written it was. The reviews of these games have had no baring on what I think about them. In fact those scores are ultimately justified as far as I'm concerned. So ask me in 3 months time if I think the same thing... cos I guarantee, I will. Getting back to the subject anyway The only thing that is really going to differenciate the good from the bad RTS is better concepts, designs and a strong storyline to boot.

 

I've said it before I got told to shut my mouth and pretend to act like I'm going love this game, Red Alert 3 will be considered sub-par by myself until I see it otherwise. So unless I'm ranting and raving about every news item to come out of EA, I don't need any loss of credibility to phase me. But let's face it, the world would be a pretty boring place without its sceptics and critics. Let's also be honest too, you have to respect the fact that I'm not on the "I hate EA" bandwagon, cos unlike them, at least I explain my reasons in an elaborate manner.

[hagren 0]

Well you reasons were quite general, so I guess everyone has similar fears. I'm more of the optimistic type of person, but if by lowering your standards the game will be all that greater for you, that's just a good thing. I was simply surprised after that raving review on KW. Btw, there was enough critcism in your post to interpet it as being written by someone who thinks that EA sucks And before you realized that RTS games got boring (Which is somewhat true), you did critisize TW in favor of UaW.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

I don't hump Petroglyph's leg, so why on earth would I hump Westwood's? The RTS has become a stale and boring genre with nothing really going for it. My reasons above purely state that in such a stale Genre, such things need to be looked at, as opposed to going down "same street"... If I've written EA sucks anywhere apart from this very sentence.. please enlighten me?

Oh come the hell on. You don't have to state something for it to implied. You've proven time and time again that you're Westwood's bitch. You rant and rave about how bad every game past Tiberian Sun is. Your rants and tirades about Red Alert 2, Generals, Tiberium Wars and now RA3 are getting old and tiresome. We don't care, no one does. Let it go.

 

And by the way, you were humping Petro's leg before UAW came out. You stopped when the inevitable was discovered - it sucked.

[Sonic 295]

There are personal attacks towards others in this thread, that I will disregard for now.

 

Saracen raises one point that I find important. Single player content. And past C&C games like Generals/Zero Hour and then C&C3 and Kane's Wrath have been very weak in this area. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Its almost like they make C&C multiplayer games and then tack on some rough single player content at the end.

 

Yes multiplayer is a critical component these days but not everyone is interested in it. I'm a single player gamer, I want a storyline that entertains me and inspires me to keep playing. C&C3 and Kane's Wrath didn't do that.

[Gben 20]

1) The SAGE Engine

My opinion on this is that the engine is old and tired.

 

I strongly disagree with the point that each game must have a new an innovative engine to show off some gadget. RA2 from Tib Sun is a great example. The benefit of using basically the same engine, despite rewrites, is that they can focus on other elements, like story.

 

2) The Story

Now I'm almost 100% confident that this game is going to fall flat on its face within the first few missions.

 

Hmm, I think the difference is that RA3 will probably follow the RA2 style storyline, which is camp, humorous and fun - and I think it's fine. I think the story elements in C&C3 & KW were fine, but the segways in each segment of the unfolding story was *very* disconnected. It's a serious universe, and the disjointed storytelling ruined the suspension of disbelief. What this proves is not poor writing - but poor editing from a continuity standpoint. If you ignore certain actor's performance, each story segment is fine - they just don't mesh at all. With RA3, my tolerance is much higher because RA2 worked so very well.

 

3) Level Design

Behold the might of the so-called symmetrical map.

 

I agree with boredom of the symmetrical map in MP. My memory was the SP maps were not like this, but that there was very little trick/puzzle to the design, and often the scripts didn't work. I've actually just restarted the campaigns, and the second mission introducing the Steel Talons ends with Kane - saying we should retreat - and that we can't stand up to the might of steel talons which was weird because I had completed eradicated GDI before capturing the lab. It needed an alternative ending, or better scripts or map design to prevent me finishing the mission the other way.

 

4) Over Zealous Marketing

Too much info kills a game, and we don't really need to hear it for a franchise like Command & Conquer.

 

I disagree that EA are over-marketing RA3. The unit updates are fine because they largely contain ancillary information that's not relevant to the game - like AM radios. I think EA/Apoc have learned a huge lesson about hype, and are responding reasonably.

 

5) The Development Cycle

The fact that Red Alert 3 has been announced so soon after C&C 3's expansion, Kane's Wrath seems a little too concerning to me.

 

I strongly agree and share this fear, as I have noted in the past. It makes RA3 seem merely a polished mod, rather a full game in it's own right with such a short development cycle. Although again I refer to RA2 which was sprung upon us with little warning and was quite good.

 

I also note Sonic's comments about getting personal. Lets not. I like threads like this, I'd like to discuss it more. And I think it helps to keep EA on their toes when it's reasonable and not personal.

 

Oh and Sonic's comments about designed as MP with SP tacked on... they strike a chord with me.

Yet I don't feel like that was true with C&C3 - I do think they tried their best to make a great SP experience but the accountants had more sway than the creators. Which is a shame.

 

Long live C&C under EA's banner.

They're doing alright!

[TheBlackOut 7]

I was one of the first (maybe the first even, though I don't go to zillions of other C&C forums ) that criticized the SAGE engine. I dislike it and I think EA needs to quit milking the cow, it's getting old and dated. It looks okay to me, same with C&C3. But then I glance over at Company of Heroes or World in Conflict and just think... wow. Those look great. C&C3.... not so much.

 

For your other points, I will say I will wait to the play the game. Honestly, that's how it is now with C&C and it's kind of sad but eh, maybe EA will throw out a few good C&C titles along with mostly mediocre ones, I can't really say anything too horrible.

 

I'll say that I was disappointed with C&C3, not really with Kane's Wrath but there were a few letdowns.

 

I have to reserve judgment.

[Mina Synd 0]

woah that was a lot of text and reading ^^; but having caught up, i agree with a fair amount of the points there... but let's face it, no matter how badly RA3 sucks we're all gonna buy it and put it in the collection with the other games. i haven't got much hope for the plotline after TW and KW but maybe a little hiding away because it's following on from the RA2 series... it could go either way, we just have to wait and see. single player is always an important aspect of the C&C series... although almost every C&C game had multiplayer (though how many of us have tried say, hotlinking two PS1s together to get a game working. i tried it for laughs but it's hard to do sneaky things when your enemy is sitting besides you and can look at your screen xD) the single player was always the main focus in the past... it had to have a strong storyline. because multiplayer has become more popular recently things have gone away from single player... it's a shame but the two are tricky to balance out o.o my theory is just don't get too happy or sad over the game before we see it. for all we know it could turn out to be the best C&C game made yet... we simply don't know. but in all honesty the chances of that happening are pretty slim but that doesn't give everyone an excuse to beat it down ^^;

and what's with the personal attacks guys? D= remember it's just a game. sure it's a major part of your life but let's not kill eachother because the video sequences didn't make you cry like aeris dying in FF XD not everything in life is perfect... lower your standards or you'll never be truely happy ^-^

[Polarity 0]

I have similar feelings about the sage engine - although I don't have quite the experience with it that others do. From playing CnC3, the issues I had with it were mainly how the free-form build system worked, making it difficult to quickly place buildings; and the fact that units didn't quite respond as fast as I would have liked.

 

Now, from looking at the Red Alert 3 screenshots and gameplay video, I feel that Red Alert 3 has solved most of these issues. I sure hope so, but only time will tell.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

Well once again the radar sucks hard.

[Sonic 295]

Well once again the radar sucks hard.

You mean the mini map?

 

Actually its been improved by leaps and bounds since C&C 3.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

No, what I was referring to is according to HeX's summit report not only is the radar no longer on it's own dedicated structure, it isn't even on a destroyable object (Conyard), AND it stays operational during power outages meaning it is impossible to blind your enemy unless you have a Spy handy. Thanks to some whiny idjit "pr0" tester(s) it was bad enough in C&C3 being slaved to the MCV, but this is outright stupid and insulting.

[Gben 20]

I guess this one direction that I wish EALA did not go... lack of black shroud to start the game... and handling of the radar (ala generals).

[hagren 0]

No, what I was referring to is according to HeX's summit report not only is the radar no longer on it's own dedicated structure, it isn't even on a destroyable object (Conyard), AND it stays operational during power outages meaning it is impossible to blind your enemy unless you have a Spy handy. Thanks to some whiny idjit "pr0" tester(s) it was bad enough in C&C3 being slaved to the MCV, but this is outright stupid and insulting.

Wanted ro reply to this earlier, but I was being lazy:

 

Yes, this sounds lame at first glance. However, did you ever play CnC3 without radar being on? It's impossible, epecially on larger maps. And RA3 maps are even bigger. So without the radar, the game would be less enjoyable, and who wants that? Also, makes the spy real useful.

[Gben 20]

No one is questioning the need for the radar, just the lack of choice in the tech tree to get that tactical advantage.... at least in generals you had to purchase the radar. In C&C3 we have a radar building without any purpose other to unlock additional units. At least in KW, the building has upgrades directly attached to it.

 

We all want the radar, but the early game can survive without the radar IMO. It makes the early rush a more interesting choice - because you can pick a place on the map to rally too without first seeing it, you can't defend against the early rush effectively without the radar.

[Nmenth 291]

Thanks to some whiny idjit "pr0" tester(s)

Noobs...

 

I even thought it was dumb in Generals that USA came with free radar attached to Command Center. Radar is... almost tradition...