120 replies to this topic

[Jazzie Spurs]

Lol ore mutated gigant dolphins D:
And even, there's a bug in the video, watch carefuly the part where the Tesla troopers destroy that war factory

[Medve]

Being a critic is pretty easy and don't tell me that you even KNOW anyone who can judge a game by not playing it.

[Rayburn]

I agree with FF on the scaling thing. I sure don't mind if developers disregard real life proportions in favour of better performance and overview but this one takes the biscuit. The ships look like fucking bathtub toys. They're barely bigger than an average tank which makes them look insignificant and expandable. Remember RA1? Sure, ships weren't scaled realistically either but atleast they were bigger than a damn jeep which reflected their firepower and tactical value. Back in the day, ships weren't designed to be gamebreaking spam-units like they seem to be in RA3 where they appear to be present ALL the time. They were expensive support units that could't win a game for you but which allowed you to put some heavy pressure on the enemy. They were something special. Now they're just one of many other units that all look okay but too mediocre to impress, not memorable in the slightest. In this aspect, scaling does matter because it fucks with the image of a unit that used to be big, mean and powerful.

Edited by Rayburn, 18 May 2008 - 11:30.

[Medve]

If you watched the trailer carefully, you could see that seas have ALOT more importance than they had. Yeah well making things a bit bigger is OK but please don't do it like it's in Gen.

Medve

[Rayburn]

Well, they did an okay job in Generals considering that ships didn't play an important role outside the campaigns.
They were never designed to be buildable and since you only had about 3 of them, their size wasn't that much of a problem.
As soon as ships DO become a vital aspect of gameplay - like in RA3 - scaling HAS to be changed accordingly but this is simply going to far.

Edited by Rayburn, 18 May 2008 - 11:36.

[☆FreedoM_FighteR☆]

I am working As A profecional QA in a Gaming Company . my job is to find bug in programs sites and ecpesialy Vide games
so sory if i am to much critic but this is my job :-\

[Waris]

 ☆FreedoM_FighteR☆, on 18 May 2008, 21:08, said:

I am working As A profecional QA in a Gaming Company . my job is to find bug in programs sites and ecpesialy Vide games
so sory if i am to much critic but this is my job :-\

No that's fine, in fact I think we need more people like you down here

So far I'm agreeing with Oleg and Rayburn.

[Rayburn]

Good to see I'm not alone. This situation kind of reminds me of the ZP-video where Yahtzee bashed the Brawl-fanboys who complained about him not being a "real" reviewer. Infact, it's a critic's job to be honest about the product he is reviewing and as long as he can justify his opinion, it's perfectly valid. The fact that I haven't played the game yet is no reason for me to ignore the things that already bother me about it. Chances are they'll change it, but knowing EA, the opposite is possible as well. All I have to judge at this point is a trailer and some screenshots. That's enough to judge about the visuals which is the only thing I've done so far. I never said the gameplay was shit because I haven't played the game yet. THAT would be wrong, but since I'm able to judge the visuals by looking at images, I bloody well have the right to judge as well as I have the right to dislike them.

Edited by Rayburn, 18 May 2008 - 11:59.

[KiraSama]

 Rayburn, on 18 May 2008, 13:16, said:

Remember RA1? Sure, ships weren't scaled realistically either but atleast they were bigger than a damn jeep which reflected their firepower and tactical value.

you are right they are the size of mammoth tanks!

to bad rangers where the size of medium tanks in red alert 1, eh?

no offense but put out the nostalgia glasses, red alert 1 is hardly better in the scale departament

[Rayburn]

Way to go, compare the biggest tank in the entire game to one of those little gunboats. All I'm going to add is this: I do not mind unrealistic proportions, on the contrary, in most cases, I don't even perceive them consciously. When I casually look at my units, I don't say "oh, that tank should be bigger." However, if the proportions are as poor as in RA3, I DO notice them on first glance because it's simply disturbing to see a dolphin which is almost as big as a ship next to an aircraft carrier the size of a bus. Proportions CAN be unrealistic to an extent as long as it does not exceed a certain tolerance limit beyond which the very first thing you SEE is that the proportions are wrong.

I stated my point and I stand by my opinion, that's all you'll get from me on this one.
I'm not going to argue with EA's valiant crusader whose sacred duty is to defend everything they do with unceasing fervour.
It's futile and does nothing except raising my stress-level.

Edited by Rayburn, 18 May 2008 - 18:27.

[Camille]

it's just because you're so used to see huge ships that they seem out of scale. now if i undestand correctly, the goal of this game was to include a huge naval factor and thus expanding the battlefield even more. if that is so, is'nt it acceptable that the ships designed by almost all factions are not too big? that they are able to come out of a factory in a not too ridiculous way? i also read that alot of tanks will have aquatic capabilities and vica versa so it's only a good thing that the boats are not too big, imagine having two life-size aircraft carriers on the doormat of your base... ra1&2 were never about realism and certainly not correct scaling, so why would ra3? because the graphics are more realistic? i dont think so. i'm happy with what i've seen so far and i truly believe this can be something great. too bad a lot of people are seemingly stuck in the nostalgia-matic, it's almost like they dont want new ideas and concepts...

[Rayburn]

The people you mention mostly dislike the game for it's candy-colour art-style, not because of the new gameplay mechanics. You have to understand that many of us have followed the C&C series since the early days. We grew to like RA since part one which was less colourful and got most of it's inspiration from real life weapons, adding only a few far-fetched technologies which still seemed a little believable. RA2 moved the series into a more comical direction which met mixed reactions. Most people still accepted it since it was a good, although it was clear that the new tendency was more comical and crazy than the Tiberium universe which is all serious and gritty. RA3 however takes the whole idea of exaggerated designs and colours a little too far for some traditionalists like myself. It's not that we dislike the idea of new gameplay mechanics, it's mostly the fact that this game is so radically different from the old RA we learned to love back in the day. RA1 was our World In Conflict back then: Soviets go mad and start WW3 using real technologies as well as futuristic weapons in a serious setting.

Edited by Rayburn, 18 May 2008 - 19:29.

[Sgt. Nuker]

 Major Kid, on 17 May 2008, 15:05, said:

The still have 5 moths to fix it. Let's hope tha they do an awesome job.

Do you honestly think EA will get their collective heads on straight in 5 months? What bong are you puffing from? Your optimism for a conglomerate that just sent gaming down the shitter is admirable, but only just. There isn't a chance in Hell that they'll fix any of the bits we all find lacking. They'll wait till the patch, and even then that won't be enough (in fact it won't even be enough to tickle one's fancy). I can see it now, RA 3 will have a patch released once every other week and why? Because EA doesn't beta test their games as thorough as they'd like us to believe. They've got a track record of screwing things up and I'm not about to believe RA 3 will be any better than CnC 3 or Generals. The only thing EA does right is sports games, and IMHO, they should stick with what they do best and stop buggering up other genres.

[smooder]

*points at open beta test for RA3*

And that sounded a bit flamey. Not very nice

[Sgt. Nuker]

Comment was not meant to flame, but to make a point. EA has a bad track record with making games in the RTS genre. They do have their good points, but for me, the bad outweighs the good.

[Dr. Knickers]

I'm gonna have to agree; some of the things in RA 3 and in this trailer just turned me off.

I was going, "Hey, this looks pretty cool actually" then I see parachuting bears, a large walking tank jumping off a cliff, and a very uninspiring nuke effect.

However, the scale of the infantry doesn't bother me so much; it seems like a nice touch of the Warcraft 3 feeling and it appears to emphasize the importance of infantry in the game. Whether or not they will be important gameplay wise, I've no clue. But this way, we can actually see the infantry and not see a stick figure with a gun.

[Kris]

 ☆FreedoM_FighteR☆, on 18 May 2008, 15:56, said:

that what i thinking

only the water is nice :]

ROFL I totally agree on the Soviet EA logo .

About the scaling. C'mmon, Generals had a SEMI-Decent object scaling and C&C 3 had realistic object scales so why screw it on a newer C&C ? And on the RA3 loosing the RA2 Grittyness comment earlier, I somewhat agree. Ships LOOKED like ships in RA2 in 2D form while in RA3, they look like bathtub toys.

Also: Generals Nuke effect >>> C&C RA3 Nuke effect.

Edited by Chris, 18 May 2008 - 21:46.

[Stinger]

If EA spent the time making exceptionally good games then no one would move on to buy their next shiney new product that fixes all the bad things in the previous title, and so on ad infinitum.

I'll admit it, though, with Red Alert 3 they have me hooked.

I like the new gameplay dynamic of base building on water - and water will feature heavily in this game. You can't knock them for innovating. Another thing I like about Red Alert 3 is the power of creative freedom they've been given. It's like they have been handed a clean slate to work with.

Tiberium universe games are much more restrictive in that we come to expect them to have the same iconic units and resource.

In Red Alert 3 they've changed the resource gathering system to one that seems to be in a controlled environment - and my guess - more strictly measured, like Generals.

I think they are taking things on board after the lessons they learned with C&C 3 - things which will ultimately benefit this game. You only have to look at the new scaffolding build system, resource collection points, single infantry, and the promise of secondary abilities that promote skill and have micro potential to see that. These were things C&C 3 itself was lacking. It was too simplistic.

I don't like to wish my life away - being almost over the hill now - but I cannot wait to get my hands on this game.

I seriously believe Red Alert 3 will save the C&C series once again after a poor Tiberium offering as Red Alert 2 did before it.

Edited by Stinger, 18 May 2008 - 23:29.

[CommanderJB]

Sorry if I seemed a bit vitriolic in my defence of EA (though I would have to say it was no more vitriolic than the the posts of those who have the opposing view). I'd never seek to deny your opinion, of course.
Regarding the scale, I think a very large and important point that people seem to be forgetting is this: ships go on land and land units go on water. This is an amphibious game, a premise which has a lot of promise (ouch, sorry, that was bad) from where I'm sitting. So they simply can't have them all on even semi-realistic scales without making all the ships mega-units which would be more powerful than all the heavy tanks etc, so no one would bother building land units since they could get more bang for their buck with amphibious ships. As such, while I know aircraft carriers, battleships and similar are extremely large, it doesn't really bother me because (a) this is Red Alert, where I'm happy to suspend disbelief in order to simply have fun (I started with RA2, you see) and (b) there are valid reasons for why they'd do that.

[Alias]

 KiraSama, on 19 May 2008, 3:46, said:

 Rayburn, on 18 May 2008, 13:16, said:

Remember RA1? Sure, ships weren't scaled realistically either but atleast they were bigger than a damn jeep which reflected their firepower and tactical value.

you are right they are the size of mammoth tanks!

to bad rangers where the size of medium tanks in red alert 1, eh?

no offense but put out the nostalgia glasses, red alert 1 is hardly better in the scale departament

However back in those days map size was limited, a zoom feature didn't exist, and it is a lot harder to scale units without a 3d scale button in the model editing program. Pixels are far more restrictive than models, make it too small, you don't have enough detail, make it too big and you've got an attention whore.

[KiraSama]

 Alias, on 19 May 2008, 11:01, said:

However back in those days map size was limited, a zoom feature didn't exist, and it is a lot harder to scale units without a 3d scale button in the model editing program. Pixels are far more restrictive than models, make it too small, you don't have enough detail, make it too big and you've got an attention whore.

true in the most part, still a sense of scale wasnt the main point of the saga after all, and to tell the true, i rathe have a dolphin half as size as a aircarrier, a transport ship able to transport five times his own size and things like that more than having to zoom in and out constantly like in "realistic size games" to know what i am selecting

i still stand in my point throug, RA1 scale = RA2 scale = RA3 scale

changing suject and as i say early: seems like the Allieds are the only ones than have C&C3 repair drones around they buildings, maybe the crane in the soviet warfactory is actually a repair crane?

[Sgt. Rho]

@FreedomFigter: That "ore field" is a unit. The "modeling error" is a robot arm, and unit scales always where fucked up.

[☆FreedoM_FighteR☆]

that what i think about RA3 !

[Waris]

[Kaido]

Thats so true, only one prob.How can they bite allied soldier when they have that thing on their mouth