Fallout Studios Forums

Red Alert was released in 1996. Total Annihilation was released in 1997. StarCraft was released in 1998. The fact that the former has a fully-integrated multiplayer suite does not support the notion that either of the latter 'invented' the idea.
Edited by CommanderJB, 12 January 2009 - 13:18.

However Red Alert's multiplayer was rather poor. Also, if you're going off raw "first multiplayer RTS", that goes to Warcraft.

Both Total Annihilation and Starcraft still have quite strong online multiplayer communities now, while Red Alert has practically none.
Edited by Alias, 12 January 2009 - 13:23.

Back on topic, please.

This is about the Red Alert 3 booster pack, not a discussion about the Godfather of the modern day RTS.

Alias, on 12 Jan 2009, 14:20, said:

I'm proud to say I haven't played a single Blizzard game

Anyway, back on topic... those Cryo Legionnaires look like they have massive jet boosters on their backs... not sure if making them fly is gonna really be useful considering that the CryoCopter already exists.

Uprising's pricing has been set; Direct2Drive are retailing it for $20 US, or $15 if you pre-order now.

Nothing mentioning a DVD release?

No, not yet.

Apologies for the double post but it's with a content update and I didn't think it was worth its own topic:
http://au.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/redaler...tml?sid=6203215
The giant floating head is evidently the Giga Fortress, which transforms from that mode, in which it has a giant beam cannon in its mouth, to the starfish-shaped sea fort, in which it uses heavy guns and armour. Sounds... interesting.

looks like subsides will come back reading how somebody has a bigger and badder bear and a rocket sickler, then again till they release the multiplayer pack ....

Quote

Predictable oh so predictable.

Yeah, having the Allies start off as the underdogs in the aftermath of a Soviet/Japanese victory would have been too much of an innovation I suppose...
Edited by Rayburn, 15 January 2009 - 18:06.

Rayburn, on 15 Jan 2009, 19:06, said:

like that isnt a cliche in many movies and books either

I'd like the Russians to win for once.

KiraSama, on 15 Jan 2009, 19:37, said:

It's still less of a freaking cliché than the standard Red Dawn communist invasion bollocks which eventually gets repelled by can-do spirited Americans.
Instead, they should perhaps start their new story after the Soviet victory and have the Allies hide and fight for mere survival in a world which has almost been completely occupied by the Russians. Actually, that'd do for some cool liberation scenarios and by liberation, I mean something more epic than that silly Allied mission in Heidelberg where they landed within spitting range of the Soviet HQ way deep in enemy territory and basically defeated all Russian forces in the entire European theatre by destroying that little castle on the hill.
Edited by Rayburn, 16 January 2009 - 06:46.

agreed

Rayburn, on 16 Jan 2009, 7:44, said:

as opposed to Soviets fighting for mere survival in a word wich has almost been completely occupied by the Allieds?

YES damn it, because that IS the bog-standard storyline we've already seen in tons of other games and movies!
I'm not saying that the opposite (the Allies being the underdogs) would be the most unique idea EVAR but it's still less overused than 'ZOMG communist invasion!'
Edited by Rayburn, 16 January 2009 - 15:19.

But in the Red Alert games, its tradition for the good guys to always win! The Tiberian games cover the more bleak, realistic side of this kind of situation, where GDI get their arses ploughed as often as NOD, and are not (at least since C&C 3) viewed as the unquestionable, incorruptible good guys, with their intentions being as morally ambiguous as their enemies.

Main example being that Sarajevo mission. Ordering that Ion Cannon strike on that Nod temple that flattens half the world with the ensuing explosion?

True, the Tiberium series is characterised by its trademark black and grey morality but still, GDI is _basically_ the good guys and their endings dictate the canon. Also, the word 'tradition' is often used as a poor excuse to justify constant repetition and a lack of innovation. Of course, certain elements deserve their iconic status but other things like these endlessly re-used plots do not. Just because 'it has always been like that' does not mean that silly things should be unchangeable, in fact, it makes the issue even more alarming because it implies that the makers simply refuse to evolve their franchise because the story has to be kept 'safe' and 'familiar'.
Edited by Rayburn, 17 January 2009 - 06:38.

deltaepsilon, on 16 Jan 2009, 23:23, said:

Well in C&C, NOD set the GDI up to look the same. I do find that in the Tiberian universe follows a more gray storyline whereas Red Alert is campy with its good guys and bad guys. In RA3 tho, even though the Soviets are bad guys, they grow on you in some weird way that I can't explain.

Because Double barreled tanks and towers that shoot lightning are awesome?

Interestingly, despite everything I believed before the release of RA3, I actually ended up rooting for the Empire throughout the singleplayer.
Allies? Bunch of cocky, flag-waving smugheads.
Soviets? Back-stabbing brutes with a fundamentally flawed ideology.
Japan? Awesome battleships, high-tech samurai, and the most civilised look/overall appeal
Edited by Rayburn, 18 January 2009 - 12:39.

Plus, anyone who can build an android Ackerman spy gets instant ultimate coolness brownie points from me.

But there is no fun like when you waste your Chronospere just to fuck someone's infantry battalion

Of course, that bring the risk of being called cunt, mofo, wanker and jackass

Was there really a need for that sort of language? We have kids who read this forum. Try and use some maturity next time.