Red Alert 3 Hits the Top 10 in Sales

[Sonic 295]

Marketing research group NPD has released the list of the top 20 best selling PC games for the month of October. And Red Alert 3 has cracked the top 10, but only in the 10th spot though, with the Red Alert 3 Premier Edition slotting in at 16th overall. Here's the top 20, dominated by many EA games of course.

1. Fallout 3 / Bethesda Softworks / $49 (Average)
   
2. Spore / EA Maxis / $49 (Average)
   
3. Nancy Drew: The Haunting of Castle Malloy / Her Interactive / $18 (Average)
   
4. Far Cry 2 / Ubisoft Montreal / $50 (Average)
   
5. Warhammer Online: Age Of Reckoning / EA Mythic / $49 (Average)
   
6. World Of Warcraft: Battle Chest / Blizzard Entertainment / $38 (Average)
   
7. The Sims 2 Apartment Life Expansion Pack / EA Maxis / $26 (Average)
   
8. Fallout 3 Collectors Ed / Bethesda Softworks / $79 (Average)
   
9. The Sims 2 Double Deluxe / EA Maxis / $25 (Average)
   
10. Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 / EA Los Angeles / $48 (Average)
    
11. World Of Warcraft / Blizzard Entertainment / $20 (Average)
    
12. Civilization IV: Colonization / Firaxis / $29 (Average)
    
13. World Of Warcraft: Burning Crusade / Blizzard Entertainment / $29 (Average)
    
14. Crysis: Warhead / Crytek / $30 (Average)
    
15. Brothers In Arms: Hell's Highway / Gearbox Software / $49 (Average)
    
16. Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 Premier Ed / EA Los Angeles / $65 (Average)
    
17. Dead Space / EA Redwood Shores / $49 (Average)
    
18. Spore Creature Creator / Spore Creature Creator / $10 (Average)
    
19. Civilization IV / Firaxis / $24 (Average)
    
20. The Sims 2 FreeTime Expansion Pack / EA Maxis / $25 (Average)
    

[hagren 0]

Disappointing.

[recover 2]

Fallout 3 is such a sweet game

[hagren 0]

Hey, you should have said RA3 is such a sweet game, don't forget where you are

 

Ah, who am I kidding, I am longing to buy that game, if only to find out how Bethesda butchered Fallout Hopefully I'll get used to the combat and stiff animations.

[G0NE2W4R 0]

Not bad rank for a C&C game. But does anybody know what C&C 3 ranked in?

Trying to figure out if this is the highest ranking for a C&C game.

Edited November 17, 2008 by G0NE2W4R

[Luk3us 63]

Fallout 3 is such a sweet game

 

This.

 

Screw RA3, Fallout 3! B)

[sith_wampa 6]

Yes, but what does RA3 rank when combined with the Premier Edition?

[Saracen 16]

The same... the extra money you pay for is for all those features. It doesn't improve the quality of the game and the fact that Red Alert 3 is just a "Run of the mill RTS"... which it is.... You'll get more for your money with a game like Fallout 3, or even the Civilization games in that list than you ever will with RA3.

 

I have to be honest here. But in Hindsight, and after playing Red Alert 3 a little more I can see why the reviews rate it around the 75-85% mark. As a package, RA3 is still one of the best Multiplayer games out there... but despite all the money they spend on single player, it still lacks quality. It's clear with the original C&C and RA games. They were single player games first and Multiplayer just about factored in as an extra. The quality showed, and you could pack in many many hours with the original games. These days, you can do all 3 campaigns in less than a week, or even a couple of days at most!

 

I'm an extremely busy person, and I still completed all 3 campaigns in under 7 days with around 3-4 hours game time a night. Compare that to Tiberian sun which took me 2 weeks to do both campaigns, and I was hammering 6-8 hours a day out of that game. Agreed, I was battling with a lot of time killing bugs which would mean I'd have to start entire missions again. But the game still took me longer to complete and I was dedicating more time to it.

 

Back then it was all about huge amounts of Quality with a shed load of Quantity... these days, it's a set amount of quantity with however much quality you can pack in with the time you're given. Really, when it comes to games, whatever happened to the idea of creating a masterpiece. So very few games these days are keepers, and as a result can never be given "Classic" Status... because the quality isn't there any more. This is why EA are sticking DRM into their games... because their games are not classics and are not worth really keeping.

 

That's why the original Civ 4 is still in the charts. The quality is there, the replayability is there. The game is already a classic because Sid Meier has put the time and effort into his masterpiece franchise. It's not churned out like RA3 and every modern C&C feels. Need I say much more?

[Nmenth 291]

Need I say much more?

No, I understand completely. RA3 loses entertainment value on a second run, whereas older C&C titles still have fun campaigns.

I said in another post and still think RA3 was too easy, everything was handed to you, even little green and yellow flags attached to your objectives.

It's cool that your units talk to you to tell you why the road is dangerous, but figuring it out on your own after restarting the mission a couple times is what made it a challenge.

[hagren 0]

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).

Edited November 18, 2008 by hagren

[sith_wampa 6]

No, I understand completely. RA3 loses entertainment value on a second run, whereas older C&C titles still have fun campaigns.

I said in another post and still think RA3 was too easy, everything was handed to you, even little green and yellow flags attached to your objectives.

It's cool that your units talk to you to tell you why the road is dangerous, but figuring it out on your own after restarting the mission a couple times is what made it a challenge.

They don't want anybody to feel like the game is better than them.

 

I agree with you, restarting missions like that was a good quality that has sadly slipped away from at least C&C...

[GeneralZ 0]

They don't want anybody to feel like the game is better than them.

 

I agree with you, restarting missions like that was a good quality that has sadly slipped away from at least C&C...

 

 

personally the only C&C game which i enjoy replaying over and over is Generals/ZH and RA2. I can't stand to play singleplayer more than twice on RA3 or C&C 3.

 

Funny how WoW Battlechest and Burning Crusade are on that list, despite being several years old.

Wrath of the Lich King will dominate November and December lists.... Its what I'm playing right now. RA3 had the bad timing of coming out around the same time as WotLK. I like C&C, but I'd pick the new WoW expansion over RA3 anyday. Its onwards to lvl 80 for me.

 

Also I find people more receptive to playing WoW than C&C. I've gotten most of my friends into WoW recently, and them all getting WoW Battlechest helped contribute to its #6 slot. Getting people into C&C on the other hand was much more difficult, I'd have to lend them my discs and then they'd just beat it once and lose interest or torrent it. On the other hand, I just get people 10 day free trials of WoW, and that usually hooks them in enough to buy the whole game and pay monthly.

 

Maybe EA should try demos and free trials, Blizzard doesn't need to market itself that much, it can rely on its current suscribers to pull in more. Hence any package of WoW comes with 2 10 day trial keys to give out to friends, and you can do it directly on their website too. Hell they even reward players who bring in their friends, for each suscriber you refer, you get a free month of gameplay, a zebra mount, double exp when leveling with ur friend and the ablity to summon him to your location anywhere. that was a huge incentive for wow players, and both my brother and I got the benefits by recruiting our friends, and so have most of the people i play with. Hence when people promote wow to their friends, they actually have something to gain for it cause nothing else will motivate humans more.

 

Of course if they do that, they'll actually need to make missions longer, harder, have more substance. Beating a campaign in 1 day won't cut it. I remember when Generals was released as a Demo with the C&C Collection. (the original one with renegade and everything before that) It only had the first china and gla missions, but i enjoyed them so much I'd play the demo over and over, and was excited to get my hands on the full version. This may seem sacrilege, but Generals/ZH is still my favorite C&C game, despite it not being true C&C.

 

EA is also an evil backstabber. I got the collector's edition C&C 3, for its exclusive content, the special maps and stuff. Then they release the maps public. I'm not wasting my money on any stupid collector's edition when there are no real added benefits. So I got normal RA3 edition instead or premier. Now the wow expansion collector's edition, they actually made it worth having, with a full artbook, ingame exlusives, a really cute flying dragon minipet. Plus you know if you don't open it, its actually worth money, its really a Collector's edition. The original wow collector's edition unopened sells for hundreds of dollars today.

Edited November 18, 2008 by GeneralZ

[Silverthorn 0]

With all that sales, understood. EA can enjoy all that money they gain, but one day, they'll against us even further. Especially we do know Securom is really going to take the whole OS even further. Or when Windows 7 show up, who knows one day a vulnerability caused to crash the whole OS, let's say install RA3, then suddenly the next day, your computer needs to reformat due to the whole kernel system crashed because of Securom.

 

EA can get sued is really a small thing, but we'll find another way to make them pay. One lawsuit may not be enough, but multiple which cause billions of dollars are gonna be a bigger hit.

 

Well, at least I do respect what Blizzard is doing, not just their collector's editions, but as well as their customers for not applying installation limitation as well as Securom-like crashing methods.

[hagren 0]

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?

[-NickoheaD- 0]

RA3 is a better sequal to RA2 than FO3 is is to FO2. Personally, I find Fallout 3 to be overhyped and overrated.

[hagren 0]

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.

[Silverthorn 0]

RA3 is a better sequal to RA2 than FO3 is is to FO2. Personally, I find Fallout 3 to be overhyped and overrated.

 

Honestly, yes, it's a good sequel. But the creativity from EA is pretty limited compare to Westwood. Like I agree with the game site critics, RA3 does not take the game very seriously. Storyline wise is good, but the units & gameplay are not.

 

What I mean about gameplay is not how we play, what I mean is like the voiceovers & EVA. I pretty much do not like how the EVA sounds like our usual annoying "Enemy units detected" (TW's "Enemy Units sighted" is not too annoying as it sounds), worse, the Allied & Soviet EVA sounds are not good compare to RA2's (they're much better and more suited for RA3), the Empire one is much better it sounds when I play the campaign (Not the skirmish, they do sound a little different in 2 different game modes).

 

Units on the other hand, is not going well. My main criticism has been the seriousness, one of them is the Hammer Tank, not an effective name and moreover, the model is not very serious & it looks lightly armored. The Rhino is not only a very good name, the model is also serious & heavily armored. Hammer? Pretty like the same light armor as the Tsunami tank, NO GOOD! Bear may look good, but I prefer the usual not-broken Huskee dogs (If the dogs are not broken, why replace them with bears?). And another is the Apocalypse Tank, although for gameplay reasons, the tank model & role are not good anymore since RA2's model and role are much better & a lot more serious (Sacrificing the anti-air rockets for balanced gameplay which some of us do not care or agree).

 

Sorry about that, but my interest on the game & possibly the franchise too are getting lacking when EA is in charge. I'm a traditionalist, old school is better. If Westwood does not ruin the franchise, why replace it with EA? So I'm more towards what Westwood is doing. Nope, definitely NOT today's Petroglyph. Ahh, the good old days.

[Sonic 295]

Wow.... how did you guys get to all of this negative feedback for RA3 from some meaningless list of the top selling PC games? A week ago everyone liked the game, and now everyone hates it? Very confusing

 

But if its RA3 you want bash and keep consistently bringing up the old Westwood days then so be it. But please don't fall into the same trap that so many of the big gaming sites reviews did. RA3 was never going revolutionise the RTS genre, the devs were simply carry on with what was started in 2000 with RA2 and then 2001 with Yuri's Revenge. This was a point that was clearly made to us during the RA3 community summit back in June. They never want to change that much, keeping the core of what made RA2 so successful was a key point in the development of RA3.

 

There is enough "new stuff" and innovation in RA3 anyway, you have got your new faction in the Empire of the Rising Sun, then you have the Co-Op mode.

 

In the end RA3 is way better than C&C 3, its simply more enjoyable to play.

[recover 2]

To be honest, I haven't played RA3 yet.

I've been extremely busy the last few weeks so I have not had the time for much gaming.

When I got some time I had to choose between Fallout 3 and RA3, I probably chose Fallout 3 because I recently replayed F1 and F2.

[hagren 0]

Honestly, yes, it's a good sequel. But the creativity from EA is pretty limited compare to Westwood. Like I agree with the game site critics, RA3 does not take the game very seriously. Storyline wise is good, but the units & gameplay are not.

 

What I mean about gameplay is not how we play, what I mean is like the voiceovers & EVA. I pretty much do not like how the EVA sounds like our usual annoying "Enemy units detected" (TW's "Enemy Units sighted" is not too annoying as it sounds), worse, the Allied & Soviet EVA sounds are not good compare to RA2's (they're much better and more suited for RA3), the Empire one is much better it sounds when I play the campaign (Not the skirmish, they do sound a little different in 2 different game modes).

 

Units on the other hand, is not going well. My main criticism has been the seriousness, one of them is the Hammer Tank, not an effective name and moreover, the model is not very serious & it looks lightly armored. The Rhino is not only a very good name, the model is also serious & heavily armored. Hammer? Pretty like the same light armor as the Tsunami tank, NO GOOD! Bear may look good, but I prefer the usual not-broken Huskee dogs (If the dogs are not broken, why replace them with bears?). And another is the Apocalypse Tank, although for gameplay reasons, the tank model & role are not good anymore since RA2's model and role are much better & a lot more serious (Sacrificing the anti-air rockets for balanced gameplay which some of us do not care or agree).

 

Sorry about that, but my interest on the game & possibly the franchise too are getting lacking when EA is in charge. I'm a traditionalist, old school is better. If Westwood does not ruin the franchise, why replace it with EA? So I'm more towards what Westwood is doing. Nope, definitely NOT today's Petroglyph. Ahh, the good old days.

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.

Edited November 19, 2008 by hagren

[Silverthorn 0]

Well, Sonic. Honestly, it might be some natural instincts. You know some people doesn't like EA and have a hard time to admit accepting EA as their new producers. Me for instance, but don't worry, I won't argue that much, even if it sounds like one. If I would argue a lot (Let's say everyday none stop), I might be flaming forever.

 

Anyway, yes, RA3 is better than C&C3, but it's just people feel sorry for what the result turns out compare to the seriousness back in RA2, and yeap, some of us did fell into the critics' traps. Other examples I forgot to mention is RA3 Tanya's voiceover in the game, she is not really serious compare to Kari did for RA2 (A quick ChaChing? Yeah right, no good!). So far, the game ain't the only thing that made me felt negative, the cover box is another, I don't understand why EA want everything they made as though it's their very own instead of Westwood's, especially they destroyed the original "Soldier's Head" icon, if that trademark is not broken, why threw it away & replace them with nothing but copying & pasting methods including the usage of the X design (C&C3's boxart style) & have empty meaningless black areas. I rather go back to the old school with that soldier's head icon, it's the best & retains the spirit of C&C. Today, it doesn't retain much for me, that's how I expressed my negativity. Sorry, Sonic.

 

Plus, in my profile for favorite C&C, I thought I was going to change it to RA3, but apparently, no matter if you changed the icons or not, I won't change it. I'll just leave it to Yuri's Revenge instead. Making the only thing best for me, Westwood style.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Silverthorn

[hagren 0]

...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.

Edited November 19, 2008 by hagren

[Silverthorn 0]

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.

 

Gaming studios produce things differently, that's how EA got the result out for C&C3 in the first place. Turning the TW's Tiberium production's own Blossom Trees into fissures without a good reason & a hard mystery to solve. Several icons got broken, especially the box cover. EA completely ruined it when Westwood did very well, especially the signature "Soldier's Head". EA wants to do things their way, Apoc said that they are not doing "Copy & Paste", which I don't 100% believe. Originality is what they prefer, more like possessing Westwood's spirit only at 10-30%, not 100%.

 

As for the colorful look, from how I see it, yes, it's nice. But some other elements are wrong, that's how it goes. Although the hammer & bear are Russian icons, but some prefer Westwood's old style (Rhino & Huskie dogs for instance), sure, you can blame Westwood for their lack of research, but it's too late already. Westwood died and the spirit lives on, and I possess it.

 

EDIT : For the recent post, that's ok, it's your opinion to not retaining the "Soldier's Head". But some people prefer old school, that head icon is a key signature to the history of the franchise, but then disgracefulness came in with Generals & the X design when C&C3 came in. Well, that's how a pure hardcore C&C fan said, I bet I'm not the only one saying like this in their mind.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Silverthorn

[hagren 0]

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.

[Saracen 16]

Wow.... how did you guys get to all of this negative feedback for RA3 from some meaningless list of the top selling PC games? A week ago everyone liked the game, and now everyone hates it? Very confusing

I'm personally not saying I hate it. I'm saying it misses a lot of the quality. Mission design, while the best in any EA C&C, is still rather low quality. There's a "click 2 win" button in most missions... and you are even told where things are and how to go about destroying them.. So much so, they poke through the shroud, and you even know the location of every structure the enemy has. This would be OK on Easy, but for medium and hard difficulty... simply ramping up how much the AI is prone to cheating, or chucking forces at you isn't an improvement in difficulty.

 

But if its RA3 you want bash and keep consistently bringing up the old Westwood days then so be it.

I used the old Westwood games as an example. I could have said, Dark Reign, Dark Reign 2, Total Annihilation, Earth 2140 etc... The reason I pick older Westwood titles is because most (if not all) people have played them. Any other game may not sit well as an example. And so it goes back to my previous point above... the other games I mentioned. They had a difficulty which is based around clever mission design, and the older games chuck you in the deep end. You know your objective... but you have to find your own way to complete them. That's what RTS is about... RTS isn't putting arrows over your objective with a target shouting "Destroy me!!!" I mean, where has the strategy gone from these games... It's like developers are creating games for dumb people these days.

 

But please don't fall into the same trap that so many of the big gaming sites reviews did. RA3 was never going revolutionise the RTS genre, the devs were simply carry on with what was started in 2000 with RA2 and then 2001 with Yuri's Revenge. This was a point that was clearly made to us during the RA3 community summit back in June. They never want to change that much, keeping the core of what made RA2 so successful was a key point in the development of RA3.

That's great and all.... But RA2 and Yuri's revenge did a lot of things better. The Game speed was horrible... but still...

 

There is enough "new stuff" and innovation in RA3 anyway, you have got your new faction in the Empire of the Rising Sun, then you have the Co-Op mode.

Hand up, I'll admit Co-op is a great feature, and it offers a lot in the way of new Gameplay dynamics and features. But I don't wish to see it in the next C&C. An AI co-commander was OK, but the old style formula of fighting on your own felt great. If co-op is involved, then devs need to find a way to incorporate that into campaigns without giving us solo-game players the chance to fight alongside useless AI.

 

However, the 3 faction thing is becoming so cliche it's as bad as the "click-2-win" mechanic. What happened to 2 faction wars. They were better. This article I've written... it's exactly along these lines, and I've basically said what I find wrong with RA3... save posting it on the site, I'll post it in the RA3 section later..