437 replies to this topic

[Stinger]

 CommanderJB, on 11 Mar 2009, 0:29, said:

I take it then that anything that has no multiplayer automatically qualifies as 'rubbish', no matter its other attributes? The vast majority of gamers are still single-player oriented, and while I don't remove your right to consider this a bad thing, quite honestly from a single-player's point of view it looks like a far more attractive option than something that adds another few multiplayer maps and unnecessary units and rebalances everything either unnoticeably or to the extent of breaking my strategies.

I play single player only titles like Fallout 3, which I rate to be one of the best games ever created.

C&C has always had a multiplayer component and I also see no good reason now why EA has removed all of the cool features that it introduced in the base game. My definition of an expansion is an add on - not something that takes things away.

Yeah, it adds a few new units and a General's Challenge rip off, but when was that done before? We're now in 2009 and we have an expack for a C&C game that adds nothing new. Some progress...

[Rayburn]

``So have I but do you expect EA to go back and create games like that?´´

Yes I do, because these old games were actually great, not just 'good' or 'above average' like today's. It's a question of overall quality. Even though I only care about multiplayer when it comes to FPS, I actually agree with Stinger. Multiplayer has always been an important component of C&C games and leaving it out just for the hell of it by saying 'oh well, we might add it later' doesn't cast a positive light on EA for me. It's yet another step in the ongoing endeavour of cutting down on the content and filling the gap with sophisticated but fundamentally pointless fluff. "So you're still buying our games if they don't even have multiplayer? Sweet! Will you also buy them if you get a non-transferable download key rather than a physical storage medium? Great! Now give me some time to come up with the next groundbreaking innovation!" Just because things like Steam are growing in popularity doesn't mean the classic distribution model is obsolete. I don't have Steam and I don't want it as long as I can still get my games in a real store. I find this much more convenient and if I have to go to the shops and buy the game with my own, physical money, I also don't risk losing my sense of monetary value. Steam users may call retail versions obsolete but what about those poor sods who don't have an (effective) internet connection? Does that mean they don't deserve any more games because they are dependent on an 'obsolete medium'? Physical sale is where it STARTED. I tolerate Steam and other ways of digital distribution as an addition, perhaps even one that is used by the majority, but NOT as a full replacement because it only serves to strengthen the monopoly to sell games held by the big companies and them ALONE. If retail fades into nothingness, it's good bye to that little game store round the corner, good bye to a bunch of jobs and good bye to the classic way of distribution on which the industry was founded.

[/walloftext]

Edited by Rayburn, 11 March 2009 - 06:53.

[Wizard]

 Stinger, on 11 Mar 2009, 0:00, said:

If you buy this half-baked product then you are sending a message loud and clear to EA that it is acceptible for them to produce similar rubbish in future.

I very much doubt whether you/I/we buying this will make a difference to what EA makes in the future. I am not sure that RA3 was exactly what the community wanted in the first place.

I remember Apoc saying that this expack was a result of listening to the fans......sorry but that sounds like BS. They listened to the 12 yo's that shouted the loudest about new units and more lore. Not the die hards that have followed this franchise since westwood. If so they would've made it multiplayer, taken their time and done sooo much different. This expack is a poor excuse for "we listened". This is them making something to make them more money.

Money Making expack is Money Making.

[Rayburn]

Spot on, mate.
I don't think any real fan would have said something along the lines of 'Please EA, add a giant floating head that turns into a starfish battleship!'

Edited by Rayburn, 11 March 2009 - 09:57.

[The_Hunter]

and if they do one day stop selling retail (which i doubt and honstly hope they never will) they should drop the prizes too becouse weither you buy specific games in a store or on steam or a other game downloading client you still pay the full prize for the same game you could buy in the store with box and manual.

[TX1138]

I'd much rather EA balance out vanilla Ra3 before any attempt is made to touch the multiplayer aspect. Uprising won't require any balance patches, which will allow the Live-Team to focus more on current problems with the base game.

The last thing the community needs is another Kane's Wrath. The only thing it achieved was splitting the multiplayer community in half, leaving both sides with horrible patch support.

[BeefJeRKy]

 TX1138, on 11 Mar 2009, 7:36, said:

I'd much rather EA balance out vanilla Ra3 before any attempt is made to touch the multiplayer aspect. Uprising won't require any balance patches, which will allow the Live-Team to focus more on current problems with the base game.

The last thing the community needs is another Kane's Wrath. The only thing it achieved was splitting the multiplayer community in half, leaving both sides with horrible patch support.

Exactly, RA3 still needs some work I believe. RA3 uprising may as well have been simply a mission pack but they decided to add some new units. RA3 multiplayer expansion shouldn't come out so soon.

[ultimentra]

The reasons why all of you love the original C&C games is the same reason why most adults view the Star Wars prequels as utter crap. Life was better at that point in time, you most likely lived with mom and dad, didn't have to do all crap you have to now, and so your mind is tricked into thinking these older and obsolete games with mediocre balance are better than a modern game. I know, because it happens to me too. I grew up with Generals and Zero Hour, and I find myself playing RA3 and wanting some of the things Zero Hour had in there. But I realized this is a completely new and different game with a different purpose. Also, stinger, RA3 uprising DOES have co-op campaign. Yea RA3 does need work, alot of you were expecting it to be something it isn't. You were expecting that feeling from your teenage days or childhood that you got when you played the first red alert game. You were expecting something that new, and awesome, and never done before and it made you squeal. Well, that just isn't possible anymore, pretty much to the point were a lot of things have been exhausted to the point there isn't really "new" content. So, to the more experienced out there, this game seems like just another RTS, just another 40 or so dollars down the drain because of what the were expecting the game to be (subconsciously or not).

[Wizard]

 ultimentra, on 11 Mar 2009, 15:04, said:

You were expecting that feeling from your teenage days or childhood that you got when you played the first red alert game. You were expecting something that new, and awesome, and never done before and it made you squeal. Well, that just isn't possible anymore, pretty much to the point were a lot of things have been exhausted to the point there isn't really "new" content.

No, just no.

I expected a game with thought to be put into it. I expected a game that didn't look like a 10 year old got into the design process between the concept designers and the modellers, then again into the minds of the locomotor animators. The overall gameplay of RA3 isn't really something that is heavilly criticised. It's the design of the thing itself. So many of us have said that the models aren't good enough or to cartoony, that planes should not stop dead in the air to fire. Granted that some of us that have complained are really the older guys who played CnC and from there but it's the lameness of the thing that bothers us. Not that things aren't awesome, but that they don't even come close.

[E.V.E.]

Wow, singleplayer Product.
Even if I would buy it, I'd simply won't ever play it again after finishing the Campaign etc.

Multiplayer keeps games alive for me. And like it has been said before, why remove Content that was always there in the first place? The features shrink and shrink untill they suddenly dissapear.

The most funny thing though is when they said back then that the Red Alert button was cut. I knew right from the start that the button would appear sometime anyway.

I'll pass on this one, have fun shooting around with heads.

- E.V.E.

EDIT: Apart from that, I dislike Yuriko and don't realy give a damn about her.

[CommanderJB]

 Stinger, on 11 Mar 2009, 13:22, said:

 CommanderJB, on 11 Mar 2009, 0:29, said:

I take it then that anything that has no multiplayer automatically qualifies as 'rubbish', no matter its other attributes? The vast majority of gamers are still single-player oriented, and while I don't remove your right to consider this a bad thing, quite honestly from a single-player's point of view it looks like a far more attractive option than something that adds another few multiplayer maps and unnecessary units and rebalances everything either unnoticeably or to the extent of breaking my strategies.

I play single player only titles like Fallout 3, which I rate to be one of the best games ever created.

C&C has always had a multiplayer component and I also see no good reason now why EA has removed all of the cool features that it introduced in the base game. My definition of an expansion is an add on - not something that takes things away.

Yeah, it adds a few new units and a General's Challenge rip off, but when was that done before? We're now in 2009 and we have an expack for a C&C game that adds nothing new. Some progress...

First of all I'd like to say sorry for the distinct lack of eloquence in that post; my vitriolic/aggressive streak hadn't quite subsided from another forum when I posted, so apologies again.
Secondly I still find that definition a little vague. In my view, the reason they removed it is (a) in order to allow them to be far more creative and more radical with the game than they would be otherwise - the care that has to be lavished on even the smallest tweak to the base game in a multiplayer expansion is of course huge - and (b) because it allows them to release a product faster, and another one later, thereby increasing their profits. While the latter isn't obviously a 'good reason' from the perspective of a gamer I think it's nonetheless important to take it into account as a fact of life.
I would have to say that this is, if anything, a much better expansion pack than Zero Hour was to Generals for the majority of players. I myself am excited about getting to play the new campaigns, and the Commander's Challenge looks to be twenty times anything Generals Challenge ever was, and with exceptional replay value. It's not the worlds greatest ever expansion pack (and I agree with you E.V.E., I couldn't really give a toss about Yuriko, though I'll be interested to see how the dungeon crawler campaign - which is something new - turns out nonetheless) and it doesn't cater to everyone but there is a significant amount of content in here which, by its appearances to me at least, will be fun and interesting to play.
I'd much rather EA try things like the Giga Fortress and Harbinger out in this environment than attempting the Kane's Wrath scenario already mentioned, and I'd much rather they try it out than not attempt anything like that at all, which is the alternative.

[Kichō]

Yeah EA is trying to not do another Kanes Wrath disaster which is good I suppose which means they can still support vRA3.

Anyway if you don't mind spoilers then:

Spoiler

The Soviets, Allies and Empire have 4 campaigns each. Yuriko has 3 HOWEVER they are much longer, harder and better than the RA3 ones(I ain't played them yet but just telling you what I know)

And 50 missions in Commanders Challenge where you basically work for FutureTech.

[Overdose]

No Steam release? Bullshit. Well I'd still wait for the reviews before buying anyway.

[Comrade Sanders]

 Overdose, on 13 Mar 2009, 2:59, said:

No Steam release? Bullshit. Well I'd still wait for the reviews before buying anyway.

i agree.

[DerKrieger]

 Overdose, on 13 Mar 2009, 1:59, said:

No Steam release? Bullshit. Well I'd still wait for the reviews before buying anyway.

Wait, what? I hope they release it on DVD then, I hate having to go through some contrived d/l crap that isn't Steam or Xbox Live (see: Fallout 3 DLC).

[Dutchygamer]

I'll wait until Sunday for the Steam release. If not available after that, I'll check out the other ways of distribution...

[Overdose]

Direct2Drive has it for sale now. If the reviews are good I'll just buy it from there.

[Kichō]

There probably will be a Steam release, and a retail (no disc but a code)

Also Steel Ronin profile

[Alias]

 Zhen, on 14 Mar 2009, 6:08, said:

There probably will be a Steam release, and a retail (no disc but a code)

That's not really retail then...

[Stinger]

EA decided not to give reviewers copies of the game in advance so that says to me that they were attempting to sell Uprising on the strength of Red Alert 3 and the Command & Conquer name brand.

The two reviews that we have so far mark the game as average and below:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/...sing?q=uprising

[Rayburn]

It's always a bad sign when a company refuses to give copies to reviewers; it tells me that they don't even WANT to be criticised, not even in a constructive way.

[Mbob61]

Mortar Bike Profile here...

Mike

[Kichō]

^The Mortar Cycle is probably the most annoying unit imo...

Anyway just took some screenshots if anybody is interested:

(About 15 images incoming and potential spoilers)

Yuriko's Dungeon Crawler Campaign:









Commanders Challenge:





Skirmish:



















If anyone wants to see the Soviets/Allies feel free to ask.

[Liten]

Is this game worth to purchase? Also, do you need EA Download manager to download it?

[Kichō]

 Liten, on 17 Mar 2009, 17:11, said:

Is this game worth to purchase?

If you're a single player person sure.

Quote

Also, do you need EA Download manager to download it?

Yes and no:

Yes if you purchase from EA(You can get a discount) however you have a time limit to download (I think 30 days not sure unless they give you extended download service)

No if you use retailers like direct2drive, you can download it as many times as you want. (Like in 6 years time you could download it again for free)