- Summary: Red Alert 3 breaks new ground in the RTS genre, featuring a fully co-operative campaign while bringing back the series’ light-hearted style and classic, action-oriented gameplay. In Red Alert 3, the desperate leadership of a doomed Soviet Union travels back in time to change history andRed Alert 3 breaks new ground in the RTS genre, featuring a fully co-operative campaign while bringing back the series’ light-hearted style and classic, action-oriented gameplay. In Red Alert 3, the desperate leadership of a doomed Soviet Union travels back in time to change history and restore the glory of Mother Russia. The time travel mission goes awry, creating an alternate timeline where technology has followed an entirely different evolution, a new superpower has been thrust on to the world stage, and World War III is raging. The Empire of the Rising Sun has risen in the East, making World War III a three-way struggle between the Soviets, the Allies, and the Empire with armies fielding wacky and wonderful weapons and technologies like Tesla coils, heavily armed War Blimps, teleportation, armored bears, intelligent dolphins, floating island fortresses, and transforming tanks. Red Alert 3 asks the question "What If?" What if every bizarre research project and technology experiment for the last 70 years had actually borne fruit? What if the Philadelphia Experiment, time travel theory, teleportation, invisibility, Tesla technology, and a hundred other intriguing research projects had all paid off and gone mainstream? What if the Soviet Union survived and thrived; what would it look like 10 years in the future? What if the Japanese Empire had never fallen and instead became the ultimate high-tech military superpower? The end result is an imaginative and playful vision of an alternate future filled with possibility. [Electronic Arts]… Expand
PC GamerAny game in which a giant laser cannon pops out of Teddy Roosevelt's head on Mt. Rushmore is a winner in my book...Red Alert 3 is a highly polished game that doesn't take itself the least bit seriously, and co-op play might jus be the next big thing in RTS. [Holiday 2008, p.62]
Play (Poland)Novel rules, bizarre units and a twisted design style carry this venerable series to the new heights of glory, previously unattainable. The special abilities that can markedly change the role that any unit plays on the battlefield add a layer of goodness to the whole experience. [Dec 2008]
It's big, loud, and crazy, and it's clearly not meant to be taken too seriously. But looking past the pageantry, the whole thing is a little too familiar. If you're looking for some innovation, or at the very least, a modest twist in your RTS, you're not going to find it here.
Dec 25, 2012Sooo I honestly can't understand all the hate on RA 3 - about half these reviews are from people who obviously haven't even played the game orSooo I honestly can't understand all the hate on RA 3 - about half these reviews are from people who obviously haven't even played the game or had pre-created opinion.
Now, back to review, game is great - graphics are nice (that water!), unit balance is pretty good, and while there are one-man army units which can wipe out entire base in matter of seconds, it just adds that dynamic feeling to the game - you have to control everything, or you will be crushed. As of story - honestly, for an RTS it is great. Even if it's supposed to be funny at times, it makes a way better job of telling player a story than, let's say, Starcraft 2 campaign. Especially considering Uprising, which is also a lot darker and deeper than base RA3. It doesn't also matter if this game is similar or isn't to Red Alert1/2 - Why it would be? It's been like 7 years. RA3 is pretty innovative for the series, the whole amphibious-mecha-etc system is just amazing (compared to - again - SC 2, it's just godlike).
Only problems IMHO are things like pathfinding (fixed in Uprising moreless), too much boobs (if you don't like girls :c) and imbalance between missions difficulty - Pearl Harbor is just harder than assault on Black Tortoise or even Yokohama, lol. Also, AI derps sometimes in campaign, usually if you run to water with your MCV - then it sometimes stops doing anything for ~10 minutes or until you attack.… Expand
RyanVOct 31, 2008The game is more frantic, fast-paced, and epic in scale than anything in recent memory. The solo missions are fantastic battles with multiple The game is more frantic, fast-paced, and epic in scale than anything in recent memory. The solo missions are fantastic battles with multiple bases per player, multiple players per side. The AI, while not perfect, plays in a way that is varied, challenging, and makes you utterly hate your opponent. In addition to the standard RTS elements being spot-on, the whimsical unit design, exaggerated physics, and a fantastic soundtrack make this one of the most exciting strategy games I've played in a long time. A fan of the series or not, you owe it to yourself to at least try the game.… Expand
MaximeG.Jan 2, 2010I don't understand why so much people hate this game ... Sure EA has made better games , but this one is actually good and I got to be I don't understand why so much people hate this game ... Sure EA has made better games , but this one is actually good and I got to be honest, this is the second time I buy this game. I have it on Xbox 360 too. The gameplay for the console just S**ks period. But after playing the demo on PC, I decided to buy it again ( at 10 $ on STEAM, why would I cry about it ? ) I like the storyline, the cinematics and although there is a lack of new original units in the game and a weird way of getting ressources ( mean by weird that you have to build near the spot and still need collectors ? ) the game is still good. The co-op features was an addition to this game and I like it . There is more difficult RTS games in the world though so for those guys who complaint about the game being too easy, I give you a big point on this one ! if anyone want a difficult RTS, pass on this one or you will regret it. But if you dont care about the difficulty, the graphics and just want a RTS where you build an army in a easy strategic way to destroy your opponent, get it . This game didnt worth its price when it was 50 $ at the beginning ( well in Canada it was 50 $, and 60 $ on console ) but now that the game is 10 to 20 $ , you should get it without complaining.… Expand
Mar 22, 2014Ok so first off I played C&Cs for quite a few years over the course of my gaming life.
C&C RA2 is nothing short of the game I played theOk so first off I played C&Cs for quite a few years over the course of my gaming life.
C&C RA2 is nothing short of the game I played the most in my life and still is a wonderful strategy game all around.
As such I will talk about C&C RA3 individually and then compare it to its predecessor.
Individually, this game is quite solid. Campy cutscenes with stupid stereotypes are everywhere. If you mind the campyness it will be awful to watch but else it's ok. Yeah, just "ok".
Visuals and sounds make a fine little job of giving it a nice identity, so does the music.
Gameplay is strategic-ish and strong but unfortunately clearly goes the Starcraft path of sacrificing complexity and strategic gameplay(aka gameplay where time isn't your main constraint but preparing a good battle strategy is) for the sake of speed.
This part is why the game gets a 6. Its variety of units and/or strats is nowhere near as useful because ultimately you will spam resources and units to win. Just like Starcraft II, which is also fun, but is an extremely poor strategy game.
The problem is that by copying Starcraft II's fast paced style, Red Alert 3 suffers TREMENDOUSLY from that stupid, obviously EA-originating choice, because the game comes off like a knockoff that isn't as fun as Starcraft II, and yet doesn't manage to have a real strategy to itself.
Now taken as a comparison to the RA2 and the rest of the series, it gets far far worse.
The speed and violence of the RA3 mechanics do not come even close to the glorious and incredibly satisfying ones of RA2.
If RA2 managed to have two different races, 8 special units, which together were well balanced and offered tons of defensive and offensive capabilities, RA3 doesn't give the same sort of feeling at all. Races aren't that complex anymore, and while before every unit felt unique and useful in some way(apart from a very small number of flunkies), here it feels like a mishmash of practical, one-situation units that don't really give a lot of diversity to gameplay, and you'll find yourself using "that unit VS this unit" a lot. Just like Starcraft II. Terrain doesn't matter nearly as much as it used to, heights aren't nearly as advantageous, garrisonning buildings isn't as useful since there is a lot more airforce, and the idea of letting buildings be built on water is just destroying the principle of "water" in a strategy game...
Holding positions and/or buildings, heights, and bottlenecks aren't nearly as important as they've been or should be, which again reminds of SC II.
In this game, all that seems to matter is to have an economy be stronger and faster than your opponent's, which AGAIN is like SC II.
Planning an operation, whether offensive or defensive, isn't nearly as strategic and important because economy and spamming units is everything, and although RA3 does have the strong defensive capabilities that C&C has, it's not as good as RA2 and more importantly, it's not as useful because this game is an obvious SCII knockoff. Instead of focusing on creating a strong defense where you need it, you will conquer the map, get all the resources you can, spam defenses and units and play the game by trying to spam faster than the enemy.
The ultimate problem being again that this is a knockoff and is in the uncanny valley of not being as strategic as RA2, Generals, C&C3, or the Total War series, and isn't as fast-paced and dumb fun as SCII is.
Campyness in RA2 was taken with a lot of salt. It had many comic relief elements, Yuri was comically evil, the Russians were usually talking loudly, laughing and doing less than commendable acts, Americans were loud, arrogant and proud, but never annoyingly so.
RA3 completely, utterly lacks these elements. It takes the campyness with a little over-the-topness to it, but has nowhere near as much lighthearted silly things to smile at. It makes you think of someone trying to be funny campy, but is just boring.
Ultimately, with a weaker style and tone, no real strength in its gameplay and less identity in its music and quotes than RA2, RA3 is an acceptable, but clearly inferior game.
I personally entirely blame EA for turning the gorgeous franchise from Westwood into a cheap Starcraft knockoff. I know this game came before SC2, but it copies SC1.
Not as good for the strategist as the real C&C was, and not as fun for the keyboard masher as Starcraft is.… Expand
M.AlexJan 21, 2009Unfortunatly, I'm very disappointed by this game. I'm primarily a single-player person, and the co-op doesn't entice me at Unfortunatly, I'm very disappointed by this game. I'm primarily a single-player person, and the co-op doesn't entice me at all, and playing with a AI commander is incredibly irritating. I really loved C&C3, which was a good step after the horrid Generals, but in this part of the franchise EA managed to loose the plot again. Shame.… Expand
JakeS.Nov 21, 2008Someone else said that this game is only appealing to Red Alert fans. I am in that category and I want to shoot whomever is responsible. Someone else said that this game is only appealing to Red Alert fans. I am in that category and I want to shoot whomever is responsible. Sadly, my wife gave it to me as a gift. She knows how much I loved RA2 and she was so happy to buy it for me. Now I have to pretend that I like it.… Expand
Jun 10, 2014Como jugador del Red Alert original sólo consiguió enfurecerme hasta cotas inauditas. Todo mal, historia, gráficos, intentos de humorComo jugador del Red Alert original sólo consiguió enfurecerme hasta cotas inauditas. Todo mal, historia, gráficos, intentos de humor fallidos, falta de interés en mecánicas. Dan ganas de mostrarlo a los estudiantes para que vean "lo que no hay que hacer".… Expand