Crispy Gamer Reviews Red Alert 3

[Sonic 296]

Crispy Gamer have reviewed Red Alert 3. This review basically rips the game to shreds. Its negative with hardly anything positive mentioned. The only thing they could say was "Superfast gameplay, if you're into that sort of thing". Its almost like they have forgotten what Red Alert games are all about. This is also yet another review that simply reuses the same screen shots we have all seen a hundred times before. Here's a sample.

 

There was hardly a time I was playing Red Alert 3 that I didn't wish I was back in Command & Conquer 3. These two games are a compelling study in contrasts. Taken together, they're an object lesson in speed and pacing; in the balance between base building and army management; in the interplay between economy and tactics; in the difference between demanding precision and demanding reflexes; in how to give units personality. It's a mystery to me that EALA felt the need to follow up on a game that got it all right with a game that got it all wrong.

There is no score for their review, other than some odd thing saying "Fry It". If you want the full review click here.

 

[Saracen 16]

 

Ha! The guy's an idiot! That's just for liking C&C 3!

 

This review is so polar opposite to almost everything out there. He really hasn't a clue. I highly doubt he really even played the game. There just seems no logic to his excuses. Oh well

[Koen 2]

He's right about the co-op singleplay not being completely inspired. But I think they're called CrispyGamer, because they fry over 50% of the games.

[hagren 0]

Ha! The guy's an idiot! That's just for liking C&C 3!

 

This review is so polar opposite to almost everything out there. He really hasn't a clue. I highly doubt he really even played the game. There just seems no logic to his excuses. Oh well

Yeah, it was a highly questionable review.

Anyone care to comment at this site and rip his review to pieces?

Edited November 5, 2008 by hagren

[Hans5849 0]

I agree with it.

[hagren 0]

Excuse me? You may dislike RA3, but most of what he writes is still nonsense coming from someone who didn't really see CnC3s flaws and knows virtually nothing about RA3s precedessor.

Edited November 6, 2008 by hagren

[Sonic 296]

I sent a quick e-mail to their Editor-in-Chief, John Keefer. I told him I thought this review was bad, and to possibly prepare for a backlash from the C&C community diehards. He defended the reviewer by saying....

 

Quite possibly, but I do trust Tom’s opinion, as he is an huge RTS fan. He is in charge of writing our RTS column every two weeks called Rush Boom Turtle: http://www.crispygamer.com/columns/2008-10...-it-thrice.aspx

 

 

[hagren 0]

But did you aslo tell the EiC why?

 

-The gameplay is not superfast. The pace was deliberately decreased because many complained how fast TW/KW matches were over (Also makes me wonder how he found TW/KW well-paced)

-RA2 was even faster than TW/KW

-The cutscenes are deliberately hammy and juvenile. Again, how didn't he know this as someone who played its precedessors?

-Adding nothing to the genre? Co-op campaigns? Water building? More relevance in unit abilities?

-TW tactically rich? Yes, in theory. In practice, no one ever used the intricate strategies of the units, since spamming or rushing was way more effective

-General powers not effective?

-More to do? How? The economy is more streamlined. Oh, that you have to scout and expand? Yeah, a real hassle

-Not every ability is needed for every order you give, so you don't have to use them all the time. Against less experienced players, you probably don't even need them

-The pace is in fact manageable, because the game is slow

-Cannot see which unit is set to which mode? How about unit management, sir?

-Why wouldn't the tengus be all in the same state? Again, if you need them for various purposes, just split them into teams

-Small world of competitive gaming? Say that to the hundredthousands of peeps playing SC right now

-How is managing your units not a test of tactics?

-Everything is about practice, because it's about speed. Does not mean that smarter tactics aren't useful though.

-Oh, now onto the campaign bashing. Sure, TWs campaign has not a single cookie-cutter mission, has it? Same goes for the FMVs. TW did the same thing, but with worse set design and less variety. Why is it suddenly a bad thing? And someone clearly did not see Kovacs's low-cut cleavage in KW

-Unit design usual? Wait, since when were TW units not looking typical? I would not call rocket troops or Guardian tanks in laser-mode disposable, btw. And sure, freezing(shrinking helicopters are a lot more conventional than tanks with beams...

 

The whole review sounds like a rant about pacing from someone who is even more a noob than me. Horrible.

 

 

 

 

[Troopzor 5]

You should comment that in the review, it was just so..... bad..... And completely uninformed...

[hagren 0]

I just sent Mr. Keefer a mail. Hopefully Sonic won't mind I mentioned him

[sith_wampa 6]

What a dumb ****.

Yeah, it was a highly questionable review.

Anyone care to comment at this site and rip his review to pieces?

Flaming is fine too.

[Troopzor 5]

Siths flame made me lol

[Saracen 16]

He's right about the co-op singleplay not being completely inspired.

 

I wouldn't even say that. It's not perfectly streamlined and integrated into the game, but the gameplay and fun you can have with co-op far outstrips the few interface annoyances that you have to endure.

[hagren 0]

I got back a reply

 

Here's what I wrote:

 

 

 

Dear John Keefer!

 

I just finished reading Mr. Tom Chick's review for EA's RTS Red Alert 3 the second time, and, with all due respect, I still can not believe how objectively wrong and lacking his review ultimately is.

Now, I don't know what our dear friend Sonic from CnCNZ wrote You earlier, respectively wheter he provided You with reasons for our dismay, but since I'd like this to be constructive criticism as opposed to hate mail, I would like to tell You why this review is questionable, and I'm quite certain most who played the game, be it the beta version or the gold master, would agree. Without further ado, here are the arguments in question:

 

Mr. Chick claims that the gameplay is too fast for it's own good. This is simply false. The pace was in fact deliberately decreased because many complained how quick TW/KW matches were over in multiplayer matches. Red Alert 2, in skirmishes at least, was even faster. I can personally attest that with an average match length of 20 minutes, as opposed to TW/KWs 10, RA3 is a much slower game. Ironically, some are even complaining that the pacing is too slow, whilst most of us who played the beta reckon that the it is much more satisfying and leaves larger headroom for strategies and countermeasures.

He continues with being insulted by the cutscenes. It is CnC tradition, however, that they are deliberately hammy and juvenile. TW/KW did the same with worse set design and less variety- Why wasn't it bad there? And how didn't he notice the low-cut cleavages in TW/KW, respectively the ridiculous outfit of Borther Marcion in KW?

He also states that RA3 did not contribute anything to the genre. Gamers playing the game in co-op mode and using water to their advantage are going to disagree.

TW , in Mr. Chick's opinion, is tactically rich. In theory, I could not agree more. In practice, no one ever used the intricate strategies of the units, since spamming or rushing was way more effective. Something which is far less viable in RA3, on a side note. However, opposite to Mr- Chick' claims, general powers are useful, especially at the right moment. Anyone being "magnetic-satellited" or cryo-shocked would agree. Furthermore, contrary to his beliefs, there's not "more to do". The player does the same things as before, or rather, does what one should do in any RTS: Scout, expand and use his units effectively. While even having to think less about economy or tech upgrades. Also, abilities and units are not that hard to manage, especially since one does not use them constantly- Not every ability has to be used in every situation. If one has a hard time managing their state, simply put them in teams. Even as single player, though, I am personally insulted how Mr. Chick sees competitive gaming as a small portion of the community- How does someone involved in RTS underestimate 160.000 users enjoying their matches on Battle.net simulteaneously every day? Mr. Chick should also now from experience that everything in life is at least partially about practice. Starcraft, arguably the best RTS of all time, centers on quick reaction and micromanagement. That still does not indicate that how one reacts is insignificant, and the same is valid for RA3.

But the most incredulous statement has yet to come: The reviewer actually believes that units are uninspired and useless. Comparing it to a game were you fight with ordinary tanks, clichéd tripods and mechs. RA3, on the other hand, features helicopters that shrink or freeze enemies, commandos which jiggle with enemy vehicles, tanks which leech weapons and submarines transforming into aircraft. Not to mention that one can pull ships out of the water with tractor beams to crush them in a mounted grinder (!). I'd hardly call that uninspired. Nor are they disposable, as he thinks, contrary to the game he favours to RA3, since even when having moved to Tier 3, you rely on Tier 1 units such as the Bullfrog, being the only vehicle on the Soviet side to fill the dedicated anti-air-vehicle role. Even Tier 2 units such as the Guardian tanks are able to bring a bunch of T3 Apocalypse tanks to its knees if used effectively.

 

But even if we take these misconceptions aside, Mr. Chick's review reads rather as a rant about pacing and design, not like an insightful and complete review to my mind. For one, he did not even mention the music, which has improved significantly since Tiberium Wars.

 

 

I honestly hope I haven't upset anyone with my view and apologize for the inconvenience I may have caused- I did not have bashing in mind, but if someone portrays a game that ended up the way it is due to fan feedback and tradition in a false light, I cannot leave it uncommented. Especially as fan, and even more as someone who followed the development and went through hell in 2007 defending EA's Tiberium Wars from Westwood fanboys. This game is a labour of love and understanding, and with that in mind, the game deserves more attention and thoroughness in the process.

 

Thank You for Your time.

 

Yours sincerely: TR

And here's the reply:

 

Hi TR,

 

Firstly, thanks for your feedback on the Red Alert 3 review. I appreciate that you're one of those rare folks on the internet who can disagree without being disagreeable. I hope you don't mind that John Keefer forwarded me your comments. I'd like to respond to a couple of

points you raise.

 

1) I'll gladly accept that we can disagree about the pacing of the game if you'll acknowledge that pacing is inherently subjective. What's too fast for one person might be too slow for another. Neither you or I can really claim any objective insight into that matter, but what we can do is discuss our experience. I play a lot of RTSs and I

think you'll agree with me that the workload placed on a player in Red Alert 3 can be very demanding *if* that player wants to optimize his

game. If the game ran slower, for instance, it would be easier to do things like use dogs to stun infantry, deploy troops with the bullfrog, and micro the cryo-copter's freeze beam. But for me -- and I don't claim to represent anyone else -- I can't do this efficiently at the game's default speed. For me, a lot of the game's design gets lost in the pacing. For me, it's easier to just build units in large numbers without taking advantage of their special abilities. This is compounded by how hard it is to manage special abilities given the interface, which wouldn't be such an issue if the pace weren't so frantic. If this is an intentional part of how the game is supposed to play, so be it. But since I want to fully appreciate the game's features, I consider it too fast.

 

(Also, this is hardly a controversial point. I think you'll find the point made in many reviews and online discussions about RA3.)

 

2) I see you're a frequent player (you seem to speak on behalf of either a clan or a fan site). You mention you were part of the beta. That's great that you're so supportive of Red Alert 3, but your experience with the game isn't going to be typical of the average Red

Alert 3 player. Electronic Arts builds games for a wide audience, many of them more casual players than you or me. Consider who they're targeting by casting well-known names in the cut scenes. You or I will buy Red Alert 3 regardless of whether Jenny McCarthy or Jane Doe plays the allied commando. But the reason EA pays her is because they know it'll make people pay attention who might not have otherwise noticed the game. So one of my concerns is that the gameplay will fail to appeal to a wider audience who might like other RTSs.

 

3) As for the fact that you feel insulted that I describe competitive RTS players as "a small world", I intended no insult. The majority of people who buy a game never even try its multiplayer features. And many of those who do try multiplayer do so casually, or infrequently, or only when the game first comes out. I intend no value judgment by referring to competitive RTS players as a small group. It's strictly a matter of numbers.

 

4) I'd like to correct a few misstatements from your email: I never said the special global powers were useless, I don't feel insulted by the cut scenes, and I didn't say RA3 didn't contribute anything to the genre. I'm sure there are plenty of things you can take issue with in my review that don't require making up things I didn't write.

 

5) You say my review didn't mention the music and read like a rant about pacing and design. I fully agree. I write reviews based on what I feel are the issues most important about a given game. There are other sites that write reviews like checklists discussing every feature in turn. They're both valid approaches. Fortunately, Crispy Gamer gives its writers leeway to use the format they feel is most appropriate. We do value your feedback, though, so continue to let us know if we miss issues that you feel are important, or if we emphasize issues that you feel aren't significant. Games coverage is at its best when it's a collaborative process.

 

6) Finally, let me say I fully approve of your support for Red Alert 3. I really like the work EALA has done in the past, and I wish them all the commercial success they need to keep making RTSs. I just hope the games they make from now on are more like C&C3 and BFME2.

 

Best regards,

 

-Tom

 

Hm, hm.

[Sonic 296]

But did you aslo tell the EiC why?

My full e-mail to John Keefer was....

 

Hello John,

 

Thanks for the news tip. The review has been posted on our site, http://forums.cncnz.com/index.php?showtopic=10842

 

Prepare for a backlash from the C&C community diehards though, when you publically trash a new C&C game they don’t take to kindly to it. Personally I thought this review was bad myself but people are entitled to their opinions. But I feel your reviewer has totally missed the concept behind this game.

None of us may not agree with their review but in the end what does it really matter. You have RA3 and you like it.

[Hannibal 0]

I have to agree with all of hagren's points. This review leads me to wonder if the reviewer was playing the right game.

 

 

I just hope the games they make from now on are more like C&C3 and BFME2.

I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly don't hope that. Balancing was non-existent in CNC 3.

[ORCaLoVeR 0]

Its all a matter of personel opinions.

 

I find Ra3 online is way more challenging then TW/KW was.If this guy dint liked the game, then so be it.Sure the game issent like WAOAOW, but it aint bad either.