Metascore
82

Generally favorable reviews - based on 55 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 48 out of 55
  2. Negative: 0 out of 55
Buy On
  1. Red Alert 3 is a typical EA product: well-crafted, but boring for experienced players. It's clearly better than C&C 3, but it can't hold a candle to Red Alert 2. Pick it up only if you like great music, B-movie style humor, and cooperative multiplayer.
  2. History will best remember Red Alert 3 as being a good multiplayer RTS. At worst it’s an embarrassing parody of the 1996 classic. For a game whose ancestor was the original Red Alert, many will feel underwhelmed by the overall package, but you can’t argue against the well-proven mutliplayer gameplay.
  3. I will say that it is worth playing through once, if only to see the movies, and the multiplayer adds some more mileage to it. But as an entry into the C&C universe, it demonstrates a series well past its peak.
  4. Edge Magazine
    70
    It may not satisfy armchair warmongers used to Supreme Commander’s intimidating depths, but RA3 never threatens to take itself that seriously, and nor would you want it to. [Christmas 2008, p.98]
  5. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    70
    Everything you expect from the next Red Alert game is here. A new playable side, water masses as a new battlefield, cooperative campaign and sense of humor. Alas the AI still fails in some aspects. [Dec 2008]
  6. 70
    A decent game suffocating under a crust of hard plastic cheese.
  7. It has the same lack of subtlety and rapid pace - plus it looks better. But it comes off as an average and unnecessary entry in the series.
User Score
6.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 441 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 39 out of 121
  2. Negative: 54 out of 121
  1. LászlóG.
    Nov 19, 2008
    4
    Nice graphics, and the co-op mode is a good shot, but after i mentioned this two new features, there is nothing new to say. No, really there Nice graphics, and the co-op mode is a good shot, but after i mentioned this two new features, there is nothing new to say. No, really there is nothing to say, this game has nice graphics ( water), bad actors ( especially, the russian characters were poorly played.) and the possibility to call your friend to help you complete a mission.... by the way it takes only 4 hours ( cigarette and coffe breaks included) to finish the russian champaign on hard..... oh my god... couldn't you just resurrect the old C&C feeling? Full Review »
  2. Jan 1, 2012
    3
    EA tried to take the strenghs of this games predecessor to a new level, completely failed and ridiculed the complete franchise this way. AEA tried to take the strenghs of this games predecessor to a new level, completely failed and ridiculed the complete franchise this way. A company like blizzard or valve would have simply thrown this into the garbage to not damage its reputation. Not only judged by its big name and the big expectations it could not life up to this game is simply just plain bad. Guess i never played a worse rts before. Full Review »
  3. Oct 7, 2010
    2
    The units are plastic toys. It's war for 4-8 year olds, really cute. Little tankies that talk to you. The warzone looks like it was designedThe units are plastic toys. It's war for 4-8 year olds, really cute. Little tankies that talk to you. The warzone looks like it was designed by the team that also does Wallace & Gromit. No scary Yuri, but a lovely Japanese girl with VERY stylish hair. A real winner. Co-op is a brand new mode, which demonstrates to you how bad AI can be programmed. For 6-8 year olds, there is an ongoing boobies show. Do yourself a favor and buy or download Red Alert 2. Or any other RTS, really. Full Review »