Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 Image
Metascore
82

Generally favorable reviews - based on 55 Critic Reviews What's this?

User Score
6.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 577 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • 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
Buy Now
Buy on
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 48 out of 55
  2. Negative: 0 out of 55
  1. PC Gamer
    92
    Any 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]
  2. Play (Poland)
    90
    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]
  3. A superb interface, the ability to garrison your men and unit veterancy are also worthy of high praise.
  4. Red Alert 3 is an interesting RTS. However, besides the cooperative mode it doesn't add anything even remotely new. It's still solid, the production values are high, but the missions could use more creativity.
  5. Red Alert 3 is a raucously fun strategy game that overcomes its issues with both style and substance.
  6. 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.
  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.

See all 55 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 51 out of 143
  2. Negative: 55 out of 143
  1. Dec 25, 2012
    10
    Sooo 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
  2. Jun 23, 2020
    9
    I've had countless hours of fun playing this game. It was a big part of my early gaming experience. I never played the older games (CnC 3 wasI've had countless hours of fun playing this game. It was a big part of my early gaming experience. I never played the older games (CnC 3 was my first, and Generals is the oldest I've really played that much), but I bought the remastered collection so hopefully I'll have something to compare it to. Expand
  3. Nov 7, 2010
    9
    A real gem. Although EA have spoiled C&C since they took over, they got this one right. The gameplay is both slightly new and traditional - itA real gem. Although EA have spoiled C&C since they took over, they got this one right. The gameplay is both slightly new and traditional - it is still lightning fast, but having new elements like single mines for resources and full on naval battles. Many have said this new resource method is out of place in C&C - and yes, it is different, but now you can focus on the fighting. The aforementioned naval battles are sublime - it's a wonder why so few RTS games do it. Now you can build entire bases in the water if need be which has never been done before in Red Alert. This added importance of a navy leads to having to pick your strategy well. All tanks, air or navy? Or a mix of all? The balancing between them is decent, if a little unsuited to C&C. While you still have a few 'pure' combat units, most have an ability that allow the unit to fulfil a different role, disable something, enhance allies firepower, things like that. It is interesting, and the best players always fully understand which units to use and when. Another welcome change is the new approach - this game is ridiculous. Not gritty, or serious, just ridiculous. War Bears, Dolphins, massive zepplins, and yes - lasers from a robot's eyes. It is a great amount of fun to observe. The FMV's are still cheesy and stupid, and while EA have accumulated a cast of models (no explanation needed as to why), they seem to have asked them to not act at all, it doesn't matter. The campaign is a lot of fun too, with the added choice of playing the whole game in co-op with a friend. Above all, if you want a silly, fun, fast and above all, solid RTS, this is for you. Expand
  4. MathewG.
    Dec 13, 2008
    6
    This is probably the most mixed bag I have EVER come to review, as this game is a daring experiment and a shameless fanservice at the same This is probably the most mixed bag I have EVER come to review, as this game is a daring experiment and a shameless fanservice at the same time. On one hand, it is the continuation of one of the most popular and respected RTS franchises, on he other hand, it most definitely lacks the Westwood touch. On the plus side is the fact that, despite sheer simplicity of gameplay, self-contradictory storyline, ridiculous design, incredibly cheesy cutscenes and lack of any challenge whatsoever... this game is fun to play, simple as that. All factions are distinct and well-balanced, while pretty much every unit has a secondary ability which allows for a number of creative strategies to be implemented, the missions are quite varied, and inclusion of famous landmarks gives them a distinct feel. Music is at least good, especially the bombastic Soviet march played in the main menu, and battle themes for all factions, and graphics, cartoony design aside, are well-detailed and smooth. On the other hand, there is a lot of problems both small and big. The very first thing that strikes every longtime fan of C&C is the utter lack of understanding of the series on devs' behalf. Until now, RA2 was the only C&C game with intentionally cheesy cutscenes and cartoonish design - the first three games were gritty, quite dark tales about world war, and that's how the series' 'founders' envisioned it. RA3, on the other hand, throws all of it away, which is visible in pretty much every unit and scenario of the game. The ideas implemented range from weird (an Imperial unit transforming from a sub to an anti-ground fighter and vice versa) to completely retarded (a chopper capable of shrinking down units or Mt. Rushmore monuments turned into laser cannons). Design is also weird at best - the mighty Apocalypse tank (well remembered as the respectable, realistically-looking behemoth from RA2) looks like something that could be classified as weaponized toy, while the entire Empire looks like a corny collection of various anime rejects, from Mecha Tengu land/ground unite to the insanely powerful Shogun Executioner. Even the most plausible units are strange - in the previous C&C games even the most outlandish units had had a certain deal of plausibility to them due to design that was rooted in a real-life weapons. Here, on the other hand, units look as if they were designed after toys. The only units that have genuine character to them are the Kirov Airship (the design of which is taken directly from RA2...) and a few naval units (out of which, once more, a number was taken from the previous installment). The other problem is the implementation of the AI commander to aid. While the player has a limited control over his or her actions, they are very basic and ultimately come down to simply ammasing an army and sending it to slaughter. There is no 'Hold your ground' or 'Expand to this mine' kind of subtleties - it's all brawn and no brains. The AI commander has also a very 'all or nothing' attitude - upon ordering him to execute an instant attack on a selected target sends ALL his units at once to the given location - that way, before the heavy armor arrives, the fastest units are usually slaughtered by the enemy, who later on has no trouble dispatching the other units who manage to catch up. This way, sometimes destruction of a simple Factory is done at a high price in resources and personnel. What's worse, the Co-Commander and the player share their income - which tends to be infuriating, as the AI eagerily builds units only to lose them a few moments later... and it comes partially at the player's expanse. The campaign is strangely designed; but before I get into it, let me recap how the previous C&C games handled it. The first RA had 14 missions per side... with only TWO warring factions and a SINGLE continent. That really gave the conflict a punch - even as the Allied divisions locked on Moscow, or Soviet war Juggernaut approached the final Allied resistance point, they still had to give it their all, as the enemy fought (literally) to the last men. The inclusion of Counterstrike and Aftermath only increased the number of missions, and quite difficult one sat that, ultimately making it a whooping 26 missions per side. Now, that's a bloody, lengthy, plausible conflict. The cutscenes, while tended to be overacted and cheesy, still gave the sense of urgency and seriousness to the conflict unfolding in front of the player. The same can be said about Tiberian Sun and C&C aka Tiberian Dawn. Even Red Alert 2, despite intentional cheesiness, managed to add this sense of urgency to the campaign - nuclear destruction of Chicago followed by a covert operation meant to neutrilize Soviet nuke silos, almost defeated Allies who nevertheless posed a threat beacause of their Chronosphere... most, if not all missions felt strategically important and somewhat logical. In RA 3, on the other hand, the campaign is very brief, despite plenty of stuff to do in every mission (9 missions per side, and it's a three faction war pretty much from the beginning), and feels very disjointed. The objectives sometimes are strange, too - for instance (SPOILER) the final Soviet mission requires the player to destroy Fort Bradley and the Statue of Liberty... and that's all. The Allies lose their cherished monument, and surrender. There is no mission in Washington, or any other strategic target in the US - compare it to RA2, when invasion of the Big Apple was just the third mission, and even that was but one victory, as Allies continued to oppose. The other thing that feels strange is how little it takes to take out a warring party out of the conflict - in RA it took 14 missions to finish the war against a single enemy, in RA 2, 12 battles to take out the Soviet Union or Allies and enemies within. In RA 3, it's usually 4 or 5 missions to eliminate a faction. It makes the conflict hardly believable, as victory seems to come too fast and too easy. This rant is getting too long for what's supposed to be a brief comment, so let's wrap it up - RA3 is definitely an enjoyable game, yet it is more of a shadow of what the series used to be. If you are a fan of the series, make sure you know what you are up to, as this game departs very far from the original feel and style of the series, and mostly does so with poor results. Expand
  5. 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? Expand
  6. Jun 11, 2012
    3
    EA has failed to appease its gamers they have defiled the c&c series and it saddens me, Red alert 3 was hyped up as being a true c&c game butEA has failed to appease its gamers they have defiled the c&c series and it saddens me, Red alert 3 was hyped up as being a true c&c game but failed to achieve this goal, it is not competitive the story is off track.... And no Ore really wtf EA seriously go lay in a pit forever. Expand
  7. Jun 10, 2014
    0
    Como 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

See all 143 User Reviews