437 replies to this topic

[Kichō]

Yeah there will be a full on expansion just like RA1 Retaliation.

[Rayburn]

^ Does that refer to Uprising which I thought was merely a 'booster pack' of sorts now or are there rumours of yet ANOTHER new RA3 title?

[CommanderJB]

KiraSama, on 9 Jan 2009, 23:41, said:

CommanderJB, on 9 Jan 2009, 13:25, said:

Red, on 9 Jan 2009, 22:47, said:

KiraSama, on 9 Jan 2009, 19:41, said:

Red, on 9 Jan 2009, 12:23, said:

Cyro gun

its cryo, greek for ice

Lol really? I forgot cause I never played RA3 in a month...

I think it's gyrolegionary (gyro as in gyroscope, suggesting a gyro-stabilised flying system, or a fancy word for Rocketeer). Having another hovering cryo unit would be kinda redundant even if it could land.

its confirmed as cryolegionary in EA store but maybe this unit has a different use for cryotech, who knows

My apologies, I was extrapolating from typos and logic. *Smacks forehead* Silly me! This is RA3! What was I doing using logic?

[Kichō]

Rayburn, on 9 Jan 2009, 12:48, said:

^ Does that refer to Uprising which I thought was merely a 'booster pack' of sorts now or are there rumours of yet ANOTHER new RA3 title?

Amer Ajami said that 'We've not forgotten about our multiplayer fan base' which could hint to a expansion. Additionally APOC said that we could see some of aspects of Uprising in the Base Red Alert 3 (could just be maps however)

[RaiDK]

Whether units become 'iconic' or not is yet to be seen. In 3 years time we might be seeing "Why isn't the Mecha Tengu returning? It's iconic!"

[JJ]

The Desolator is.... well funny...

[Shirou]

That chrono-rocket-cryo guy is something I do look out for. I doubt however it can be as cool as the original chrono legionnaire. Zapping around removing things from existence was priceless.

[Lizzie]

Will this bloody expansion fix the fucking crash issues I experience everytime I play the game?

[Ion Cannon!]

I had that problem, downloaded the patches and multiplayer stuff and it went away.

[AllStarZ]

Have you ever wondered how much concept art they actually get done for this game? If you bother looking at some of the unit profiles (ie Dolphin), the "schematics" on some occasions look half-baked. RA3 was rushed. It's barely a few months after release and they're already considering an expansion. EA is out to get money and we keep handing it to them.

[CommanderJB]

Care to tell me a game for which there has been more concept art released?

Also, time between Dawn of War & Winter Assault: 8 months
Time between Company of Heroes and Opposing Fronts: 12 months
Time between Empire at War and Forces of Corruption: 7 months
Time between Tiberium Wars & Kane's Wrath: 12 months
Time between Age of Empires III and The War Chiefs: 12 months
Time between Supreme Commander & Forged Alliance: 10 months
Time between Battlefield 2142 and Northern Strike: 6 months
Time between Civilisation IV and Warlords: 7 months
Time between Battlefield 2 and Special Forces: 4 months (!) (Don't hear anyone complaining about that being rushed...)

Time between Red Alert 3 and Uprising: 6 months

Hardly out of all comparison, is it?

Edited by CommanderJB, 10 January 2009 - 09:11.

[Alias]

Generals had a fuckload.

So does Starcraft 2. Starcraft 2 has around 100 pieces of released art.
http://www.starcraft...artwork.xml?s=1

Edited by Alias, 10 January 2009 - 09:22.

[Waris]

^^Looks like EA titles score badly in that aspect (save for C&C 3)

I like the Gunship concept art way more than its in-game implementation. Not really surprised with the Bowman-ish unit for Empire tbh, and if the guy with the petrol pump handles is indeed the Desolator then it is the crappiest concept I've ever seen.

[CommanderJB]

Alias, on 10 Jan 2009, 20:21, said:

Generals had a fuckload.

So does Starcraft 2. Starcraft 2 has around 100 pieces of released art.
http://www.starcraft...artwork.xml?s=1

I have 93 pieces in my folder for RA3 concept art, and I know for a fact that they don't represent a full set.

[deltaepsilon]

Okay, I'm gonna eat my words. The Harbinger DOES look kinda cool. But mainly just the concept art at the moment. The one I saw in that screenshot still looks like a reskinned Century Bomber. It looks like they just thought "let's just make it all cool and black and add some random guns and this anti-gravity thingmajig on top of it",

Edited by deltaepsilon, 10 January 2009 - 11:25.

[KiraSama]

deltaepsilon, on 10 Jan 2009, 12:24, said:

The one I saw in that screenshot still looks like a reskinned Century Bomber.

except it doesnt look like a century bomber at all?

[RaiDK]

CommanderJB, on 10 Jan 2009, 18:59, said:

Care to tell me a game for which there has been more concept art released?

Also, time between Dawn of War & Winter Assault: 8 months
Time between Company of Heroes and Opposing Fronts: 12 months
Time between Empire at War and Forces of Corruption: 7 months
Time between Tiberium Wars & Kane's Wrath: 12 months
Time between Age of Empires III and The War Chiefs: 12 months
Time between Supreme Commander & Forged Alliance: 10 months
Time between Battlefield 2142 and Northern Strike: 6 months
Time between Civilisation IV and Warlords: 7 months
Time between Battlefield 2 and Special Forces: 4 months (!) (Don't hear anyone complaining about that being rushed...)

Time between Red Alert 3 and Uprising: 6 months

Hardly out of all comparison, is it?

Time between Starcraft II and whatever it's getting: Negative one year, times 2

[Lizzie]

Insomniac!, on 9 Jan 2009, 18:17, said:

I had that problem, downloaded the patches and multiplayer stuff and it went away.

Opposite effect here. It got worse for me.

[deltaepsilon]

KiraSama, on 10 Jan 2009, 11:58, said:

deltaepsilon, on 10 Jan 2009, 12:24, said:

The one I saw in that screenshot still looks like a reskinned Century Bomber.

except it doesnt look like a century bomber at all?

I don't know, it's just that I'm still not too enthusiastic about something that looks like a half-arsed Spectre. Probably just that RA3's aircraft has always been too short and plump for my liking.

Generals still holds the crown for best C&C aircraft.

Edited by deltaepsilon, 10 January 2009 - 23:31.

[BeefJeRKy]

deltaepsilon, on 10 Jan 2009, 18:28, said:

Generals still holds the crown for best C&C aircraft.

True though the Firehawk from C&C3 wouldn't be bad if it weren't VTOL.

[WNxMastrefubu]

deltaepsilon, on 10 Jan 2009, 18:28, said:

KiraSama, on 10 Jan 2009, 11:58, said:

deltaepsilon, on 10 Jan 2009, 12:24, said:

The one I saw in that screenshot still looks like a reskinned Century Bomber.

except it doesnt look like a century bomber at all?

I don't know, it's just that I'm still not too enthusiastic about something that looks like a half-arsed Spectre. Probably just that RA3's aircraft has always been too short and plump for my liking.

Generals still holds the crown for best C&C aircraft.

true. helix, mig, and all the (bleep) that USA has. cnt b beat easily

[AllStarZ]

Okay, now let me re-conjecture what I said. Lets take a look at WoW. System requirements are very low for WoW and Wc3 at least compared to their contemporaries. But they manage to make a good-looking game, that which combined with low system requirements, means that it doesn't run badly either.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that Blizzard in general creates games that are technologically probably a generation behind current market standards (again, probably long development times) but graphically they manage to hold very well over time. The campaign plot is actually interesting, and again, the multiplayer, which is quick and easy to set up, free, and comes with no bells or whistles attached. Blizzard games have a very high replayability value that is by no means not helped by the extremely flexible world editor.

Furthermore, they build up a lot of lore behind their game. I don't know where that figures into the whole gaming business, but it at least makes the experience more immersive (and to some extent, more marketable). You can say what you want about Blizzard taking so long, but they turn out a fine product.

They set up the game background, general gameplay, and interfacing better than EA would probably ever care for their games. EA doesn't care. They make too many games and spend too little time on either of them.

[RaiDK]

Yet at the same time, I think Blizzard has hit a brick wall when it comes to Starcraft II and are walking around in circles. Asking the community what they should do isn't good sign if you ask me...

[CommanderJB]

Can I just ask, if I remember correctly, you said you'd boycotted RA3, right? Have you actually played it?
Plus I'm not going to argue about lore, but the game which invented strategy multiplayer was generally considered to be Red Alert. It was of course Westwood, but the multiplayer suites for any of EA's games have proved enduringly popular as well (we're still playing Generals six years on are we not?), and they've never been criticised for their interface design.

[Alias]

CommanderJB, on 12 Jan 2009, 23:37, said:

Can I just ask, if I remember correctly, you said you'd boycotted RA3, right? Have you actually played it?
Plus I'm not going to argue about lore, but the game which invented strategy multiplayer was generally considered to be Red Alert. It was of course Westwood, but the multiplayer suites for any of EA's games have proved enduringly popular as well (we're still playing Generals six years on are we not?), and they've never been criticised for their interface design.

No, the game that invented strategy multiplayer is either Total Annihilation or Starcraft.