Kresnik said:
Not to single you out for it, because I've seen a lot of people do it; but it seems to get a lot of flak, and when I ask people why they say "because it didn't feel as good as Red Alert 2" or something similar. I personally really enjoyed Red Alert 3. It continued the silly, campy time-travel storyline really well. Tim Curry & George Takei were absolutely fantastic in their roles. As for the game itself, I felt it really continued that traditional Red Alert "land, sea and air" vibe where anything was viable. I loved that they added a co-op campaign (a friend and I played the whole game together and it worked fantastically) and skirmish mode provided me with another 100+ hours of enjoyment. So I often struggle to understand the criticism for it :P |
It was probably due to high expectations not being met. I never tried the co-op, and I reckon that the game was build around that feature, and don't know, I didn't felt that good with AI at your side, battling with another AI.
Japan was another thing, you may have noticed that I have quite an interest in the country, as you see me as a regular in the COMG thread, and well I was expecting more from that. But, again, the balance of the game wasn't that good, and the allied side seemed again to be favoured. This was also an issue in RA2, and I shouldn't have expected anything.
I don't know at what time did you played the game, I tried it quite early, and it was quite buggy. They surely have patched everything and that, but I remember that until that game I've never seen a game crashing that many times.
I played the Japan, and Soviet campaigns, enjoyed at a certain point, but that was it. Didn't bothered trying it online, nor in LAN, as I did with previous C&C games. EA will probably release RA4, and I will try, and this time I may will try to keep the expectations at a decent level.
