A poor art direction and not feeling like a prequel isn't broken software.
Meh RA3 is broken, gameplay sucks, units suck, graphics suck, etc. list goes on.Fat_Swinub wrote:
A poor art direction and not feeling like a prequel isn't broken software.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
**Warning: ENTIRE POST CONTAINS SPOILERS**
The only missions I didn't beat first time, were Santa Monica, Moscow and Amsterdam (6th, 8th & 9th Empire missions) and Von Esling Airbase (Soviet). I played through on Medium, and then Hard. Von Esling I failed first time on hard, and thats it. I don't think my co-commander ever got routed in any mission.
What Im getting at, is that it takes you all over the world, for no apparent reason. For instance, look at the Soviet campaign structure:
NW Russia (Leningrad)
NW Russia (Outside Moscow)
E Russia (Vladivostok)
Switzerland (Geneva)
Greek Island (Mykonos)
Iceland
Japan (Mt.Fuji)
Southern Pacific Ocean (Easter Island)
US East Coast (New York)
How is that flowing? You just make a single strike against a solitary target and then leapfrog across entire continents, without fighting off any form of resistance in-between. By contrast, in C&C3, you had to complete (3?) missions as GDI to recapture a single Blue-zone in a part of America.
Take the previous C&C's (C&C95, RA1, C&C3), look at what they did: follow a map, gradually pushing back the opposing army to the brink of, and eventual, defeat. It felt as if you were causing that, with other commanders helping in other territories.
Where is that in RA3? RA3 assumes that, somehow, you have already wiped out all opposing forces between Russia and Switzerland, because how else could you strike at Geneva? And then Greece, followed by Iceland? Oh, now that that Allied airbase is taken care of, lets go back and kill the Empire because we'd forgotten about them.
I mean, seriously.
Additionally, during a Soviet campaign that lasts all of 9 missions, you kill:
1) Two traitors
2) The Allies
3) The Empire
2 huge opponents in their own right, and 2 additional enemies that made their presence known. Which leaves 5 missions to get to those conclusions.
...
Its a joke. Absolute joke.
Using (almost) the same technology, RA1 took 13 (?) missions for Soviets to beat just the Allies out of EUROPE, nevermind the rest of the "World", traitors and a third super-power. Hell, it took the Allies 15 missions in RA1 to defeat the Soviets.
The Allied missions are somewhat better (they face the Empire only 3 times, btw), except in how they kill their opposition at the end.
I mean, the first 5 missions are in Europe, and it felt better (England-France-Germany-Mediterranean-North Sea). Fine, it then goes to America. Thats 6 missions. So now we have 3 missions left to defeat the "mighty" Soviet Union and EOTRS, without ever having set foot in either Russia or Japan. So, lets make a direct strike against Tokyo Harbour after only 2 previous engagements with the EOTRS, both of which were in Europe? Right, thats them now dead.
Then, we have to defend the US from an invasion set to launch from Cuba. Ok, fine. Then, lets jump straight over Europe, Eastern Europe, all the way into the north-west of Russia to defeat the Soviet Union with a single blow.
The sheer size of the conflict put to us obviously has no relation to the size of the world and armies that are supposed to be pushing the Allies to the brink of defeat in the first place.
Forget the Chronosphere (thats a cheap way out, and is something that, technically, shouldn't exist in this alternative universe except in the hands of the Soviets...). Also, don't get me started on that Shogun Executioner.
Its stupidly short, and despite sounding long with "27 missions", the fact is, that is 9 per army, a time period (no pun intended ) that is far too short to achieve what the campaigns do.
I actually like the graphics and "cheesy" feel to the LOOKS of the game (its grown on me ), but that doesn't give them reason to make a mockery (or "silliness") of the entire campaign. Mission briefings were only good due to Tim Curry and Jonathan Pryce, Simmons was a very poor president.
I know RA is supposed to be cartoony, ever since RA2, however, that doesn't stop the actors being/trying-to-be serious, yet the campaign is "allowed to be silly"? You cant mix the both. No, just no. Its poor and its shoddy. After the C&C3 campaign, it is a HUGE letdown.
RA3 does have better MP, Ive never disputed that. Although, I think it's dependence on Protocols is just as bad as ZH, and is its only downside, because there is less warning to (most) of the damaging protocols. Unless you happen to spot the flare, you wont evade a Surgical Strike, Chrono Chasm or Cryogeddon. Whereas Final Squadron alerts everybody that its coming with a nice, loud siren saying "Move your army NOW!"
Agreed, except on the "funness" part.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
CnC3 had a more epic story I thought, the missions were the same level of funness but RA3 easily has better MP.Spidery_Yoda wrote:
I also though Red Alert 3 was good. Better than C&C3 in a lot of ways.
Well, thats obviously personal opinion. They had variety alright: all over the world, in fact (see below). The cutscenes and plot (Soviets more so than others) was just too obvious. The campaign wasn't well done for the next part:DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Big disagree here. The RA3 campaign was really great. The missions had tons of variety, the cutscenes were really, really fun and it was just overall an extremely well done campaign from start to finish. Each of them.
Yes, it eases you into the aspects of the game, Im not doubting that (ever tried the tutorial ), and you did miss my pointDoctaStrangelove wrote:
I don't exactly know what you mean by no "flow". If by a progressing story than you'd be wrong there, if by a campaign that eases you into the aspects of the game it does that quite well also. The missions also do for the most part get longer and harder as you go along, with the last few missions in each campaign taking me 30-60 minutes to complete. The missions are also pretty intense to, and require a good amount of planing to work out a strategy that works right given your resources. Heck the only mission that I beat on my first go after the 5th mission in each campaign was the last Soviet one, and in most missions the enemy AI managed to completely route my co-comander.
The only missions I didn't beat first time, were Santa Monica, Moscow and Amsterdam (6th, 8th & 9th Empire missions) and Von Esling Airbase (Soviet). I played through on Medium, and then Hard. Von Esling I failed first time on hard, and thats it. I don't think my co-commander ever got routed in any mission.
What Im getting at, is that it takes you all over the world, for no apparent reason. For instance, look at the Soviet campaign structure:
NW Russia (Leningrad)
NW Russia (Outside Moscow)
E Russia (Vladivostok)
Switzerland (Geneva)
Greek Island (Mykonos)
Iceland
Japan (Mt.Fuji)
Southern Pacific Ocean (Easter Island)
US East Coast (New York)
How is that flowing? You just make a single strike against a solitary target and then leapfrog across entire continents, without fighting off any form of resistance in-between. By contrast, in C&C3, you had to complete (3?) missions as GDI to recapture a single Blue-zone in a part of America.
Take the previous C&C's (C&C95, RA1, C&C3), look at what they did: follow a map, gradually pushing back the opposing army to the brink of, and eventual, defeat. It felt as if you were causing that, with other commanders helping in other territories.
Where is that in RA3? RA3 assumes that, somehow, you have already wiped out all opposing forces between Russia and Switzerland, because how else could you strike at Geneva? And then Greece, followed by Iceland? Oh, now that that Allied airbase is taken care of, lets go back and kill the Empire because we'd forgotten about them.
I mean, seriously.
Additionally, during a Soviet campaign that lasts all of 9 missions, you kill:
1) Two traitors
2) The Allies
3) The Empire
2 huge opponents in their own right, and 2 additional enemies that made their presence known. Which leaves 5 missions to get to those conclusions.
...
Its a joke. Absolute joke.
Using (almost) the same technology, RA1 took 13 (?) missions for Soviets to beat just the Allies out of EUROPE, nevermind the rest of the "World", traitors and a third super-power. Hell, it took the Allies 15 missions in RA1 to defeat the Soviets.
The Allied missions are somewhat better (they face the Empire only 3 times, btw), except in how they kill their opposition at the end.
I mean, the first 5 missions are in Europe, and it felt better (England-France-Germany-Mediterranean-North Sea). Fine, it then goes to America. Thats 6 missions. So now we have 3 missions left to defeat the "mighty" Soviet Union and EOTRS, without ever having set foot in either Russia or Japan. So, lets make a direct strike against Tokyo Harbour after only 2 previous engagements with the EOTRS, both of which were in Europe? Right, thats them now dead.
Then, we have to defend the US from an invasion set to launch from Cuba. Ok, fine. Then, lets jump straight over Europe, Eastern Europe, all the way into the north-west of Russia to defeat the Soviet Union with a single blow.
The sheer size of the conflict put to us obviously has no relation to the size of the world and armies that are supposed to be pushing the Allies to the brink of defeat in the first place.
Forget the Chronosphere (thats a cheap way out, and is something that, technically, shouldn't exist in this alternative universe except in the hands of the Soviets...). Also, don't get me started on that Shogun Executioner.
Its stupidly short, and despite sounding long with "27 missions", the fact is, that is 9 per army, a time period (no pun intended ) that is far too short to achieve what the campaigns do.
What is authentic about ignoring entire armies and suddenly striking against a target in the middle of enemy held territory?DoctaStrangelove wrote:
As for CnC3 feeling more "authentic" well RA3 was supposed to get a very cheesy, funny game that makes fun of bad movies and pays homage to good ones. CnC3 was supposed to be a serious Sci-Fi game with an Epic plot, as apposed to the silliness of RA3.
I actually like the graphics and "cheesy" feel to the LOOKS of the game (its grown on me ), but that doesn't give them reason to make a mockery (or "silliness") of the entire campaign. Mission briefings were only good due to Tim Curry and Jonathan Pryce, Simmons was a very poor president.
I know RA is supposed to be cartoony, ever since RA2, however, that doesn't stop the actors being/trying-to-be serious, yet the campaign is "allowed to be silly"? You cant mix the both. No, just no. Its poor and its shoddy. After the C&C3 campaign, it is a HUGE letdown.
Contradicting yourself, eh?DoctaStrangelove wrote:
RA3's campaign was imho, just as good as CnC3's campaign. RA3 however has better MP and Co-Op and is thus overall a better game.
RA3 does have better MP, Ive never disputed that. Although, I think it's dependence on Protocols is just as bad as ZH, and is its only downside, because there is less warning to (most) of the damaging protocols. Unless you happen to spot the flare, you wont evade a Surgical Strike, Chrono Chasm or Cryogeddon. Whereas Final Squadron alerts everybody that its coming with a nice, loud siren saying "Move your army NOW!"
I liked it!Kptk92 wrote:
idk about SP, but Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory sucked major arsecrack
Worst SP: I don't know I haven't played like a ton of games through my lifetime but I'd have to say CoD5, lmao blatant rip off of CoD4. Vandetta trying to copy all ghillied up which blowed compared to all ghillied up. Most of the missions had barely any storyline just fight and make the game look cool..
Worst MP: Again not much gaming, plus I don't play most recent games, I'd say CoD5, can't stand it for more than a hour. I could play CoD4 for hours upon hours. But, this doesn't really drag me in, guns are obviously retarted, maps are too big/small and it just doesn't have that feel.
Idk, may be that "Oh no, another WWII game".
Worst MP: Again not much gaming, plus I don't play most recent games, I'd say CoD5, can't stand it for more than a hour. I could play CoD4 for hours upon hours. But, this doesn't really drag me in, guns are obviously retarted, maps are too big/small and it just doesn't have that feel.
Idk, may be that "Oh no, another WWII game".
Good points Snake. The campaigns are incredibly disjointed. And easy. It didn't really bother me though the missions themselves were enjoyable.
"I don't like it! It must be broken!"FloppY_ wrote:
Meh RA3 is broken, gameplay sucks, units suck, graphics suck, etc. list goes on.Fat_Swinub wrote:
A poor art direction and not feeling like a prequel isn't broken software.
Single Player: A tie between Stuntman and American Army, i hate learning in video games
Multiplayer: Hands down Soldier Front, too much hacking, disgusting graphics, horrible physics, eye stabbing visuals, unenjoyable community, everyones a freaking sniper, the list goes on and on.
Multiplayer: Hands down Soldier Front, too much hacking, disgusting graphics, horrible physics, eye stabbing visuals, unenjoyable community, everyones a freaking sniper, the list goes on and on.
I see your point about the flow now, but I don't think the fact that the missons take place all over the place is a bad thing, I prefer the variety. If they did "flow", half the missons would be in Eastern Europe, which would be lame.
I actually enjoyed Stuntman...{B-T}<babacanosh> wrote:
Single Player: A tie between Stuntman and American Army, i hate learning in video games
Spoiler (highlight to read):
when it wasn't so busy loading!
Last edited by mtb0minime (2009-01-06 16:28:33)
Ive played source maps with brush based vehicles that turned better. The coding was the fault of the mod makers, should have jsut absed it on the buggy/jalopy code, would have allowed for a better vehicle system. As for the ping, hitting my normal 40~ yet still lagging in the turning, was basically "tap a key, wait, turn, tap the other key, wait, turn". Rather play gmod, throw some guns and rockets on a jeep and have at it, much better experience. The game was just plain bad, the gameplay was garbage, thats why theres no servers, not even fun to play.Spidery_Yoda wrote:
That 'stupid reason' was that its hard coded into the source engine that vehicle movement is all server side. So the mod teams had to just live with it and do the very best job they could. Given the circumstances they did incredibly well IMO.r2zoo wrote:
MP: DIPRIP (that Twisted Metal esque mod for HL2) - Garbage all around. Vehicle control was crap, delayed by a few seconds in turning for some stupid reason, nasty lag, like 2 servers, not to mention the weapons sucking. But of course this was a Steam sponsored mod, compared to the other that got put up, this one is just crap.
The only problem with the mod is the lack of servers. Get a server of decent ping and the turning lag is barely noticable.
I played quite a bit of stalker, was a waste of hardrive space. Theres a difference between being good, and having the game disadvantage you. What should have been a 5 minute gun fight took a half hour of crouching, firing slowly using my sights and still not hitting anything. Game had me excited to play it, only to be let down by terrible weapons. The other systems worked well, and the world was pretty great, but at the end of the day it was just terrible. Mod might make it better, maybe ill try it again smeday, but for now it will sit in my collection of crappy games. Till then I'll keep on with Fallout 3Fat_Swinub wrote:
Laughing at all the people who think STALKER and CS are bad because they're awful at playing them.
I think that's probably the most imaginative SP game to come out in a long time. Only reason I agree with you, however, is because the stages are too short, then you arrive at the ever lasting, ever boring, space stage.Sydney wrote:
Worst singleplayer: Spore
The eyeball lasers were more disturbing to me. Heh.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Also in RA3 you get boats which sprout legs and shoot lightning. What's more awesome than that. I'll tell you what, a giant
death-ray in Theodore Roosevelt's head. And both are in RA3.
When was the last time you popped in RA2? It was mind-blowing for its day, but the interface feels crippled in comparison to the controls in more recent RTS's.FloppY_ wrote:
RA2 > RA3 if you ask me... RA2 looks better aswell
Snake wrote:
**Warning: ENTIRE POST CONTAINS SPOILERS**Agreed, except on the "funness" part.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
CnC3 had a more epic story I thought, the missions were the same level of funness but RA3 easily has better MP.Spidery_Yoda wrote:
I also though Red Alert 3 was good. Better than C&C3 in a lot of ways.
Where exactly do C&C3 and RA3 missions differ that much in 'funness?' RA3 simply adopts the stylings of RA2, while C&C3 takes the old Tiberium stuff and runs wild. Both are equally valid. Matter of opinion, I guess...Well, thats obviously personal opinion. They had variety alright: all over the world, in fact (see below). The cutscenes and plot (Soviets more so than others) was just too obvious. The campaign wasn't well done for the next part:DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Big disagree here. The RA3 campaign was really great. The missions had tons of variety, the cutscenes were really, really fun and it was just overall an extremely well done campaign from start to finish. Each of them.
And Cain's army of leather-clad knuckle-heads aren't? And why don't the Scrin just plant Tiberium on a large, rocky uninhabited planet rather than embarrass themselves by getting their asses kicked by a primitive species who haven't even really left the planet? I sense alien cliché.Yes, it eases you into the aspects of the game, Im not doubting that (ever tried the tutorial ), and you did miss my pointDoctaStrangelove wrote:
I don't exactly know what you mean by no "flow". If by a progressing story than you'd be wrong there, if by a campaign that eases you into the aspects of the game it does that quite well also. The missions also do for the most part get longer and harder as you go along, with the last few missions in each campaign taking me 30-60 minutes to complete. The missions are also pretty intense to, and require a good amount of planing to work out a strategy that works right given your resources. Heck the only mission that I beat on my first go after the 5th mission in each campaign was the last Soviet one, and in most missions the enemy AI managed to completely route my co-comander.
Averaging Docta's time estimate and distributing it through the three campaigns gives us about 20 effective hours, which trails some of the more gutbusting RTS's by a few but is still a respectable amount. Look at what Blizzard's doing with releasing one race's campaign at a time for SC2.
The only missions I didn't beat first time, were Santa Monica, Moscow and Amsterdam (6th, 8th & 9th Empire missions) and Von Esling Airbase (Soviet). I played through on Medium, and then Hard. Von Esling I failed first time on hard, and thats it. I don't think my co-commander ever got routed in any mission.
What Im getting at, is that it takes you all over the world, for no apparent reason. For instance, look at the Soviet campaign structure:
NW Russia (Leningrad)
NW Russia (Outside Moscow)
E Russia (Vladivostok)
Switzerland (Geneva)
Greek Island (Mykonos)
Iceland
Japan (Mt.Fuji)
Southern Pacific Ocean (Easter Island)
US East Coast (New York)
How is that flowing? You just make a single strike against a solitary target and then leapfrog across entire continents, without fighting off any form of resistance in-between. By contrast, in C&C3, you had to complete (3?) missions as GDI to recapture a single Blue-zone in a part of America.
If anything, that remains more local than RA2. Remember the dinos and giant ants? I see what you're getting at with the 'fill-in-the-territory-color' bit. Yeah, that wasn't there, but it also wasn't necessary.
If each episode of Sopranos was about as long as a Godfather movie, I'm sure less people would have the time to see it through to the end.
Take the previous C&C's (C&C95, RA1, C&C3), look at what they did: follow a map, gradually pushing back the opposing army to the brink of, and eventual, defeat. It felt as if you were causing that, with other commanders helping in other territories.
Where is that in RA3? RA3 assumes that, somehow, you have already wiped out all opposing forces between Russia and Switzerland, because how else could you strike at Geneva? And then Greece, followed by Iceland? Oh, now that that Allied airbase is taken care of, lets go back and kill the Empire because we'd forgotten about them.
I mean, seriously.
Nevermind that your progress on one map did little to help you on the next.
Additionally, during a Soviet campaign that lasts all of 9 missions, you kill:
1) Two traitors
2) The Allies
3) The Empire
2 huge opponents in their own right, and 2 additional enemies that made their presence known. Which leaves 5 missions to get to those conclusions.
...
Its a joke. Absolute joke.
Using (almost) the same technology, RA1 took 13 (?) missions for Soviets to beat just the Allies out of EUROPE, nevermind the rest of the "World", traitors and a third super-power. Hell, it took the Allies 15 missions in RA1 to defeat the Soviets.
The Allies were already pretty much beaten out of Europe in RA3. I'm assuming that the Allies still held bits here and there, possibly Australia and South America as well, but I'll concede that the battle plans weren't as well fleshed out. But again, did it really matter?
The Allied missions are somewhat better (they face the Empire only 3 times, btw), except in how they kill their opposition at the end.
I mean, the first 5 missions are in Europe, and it felt better (England-France-Germany-Mediterranean-North Sea). Fine, it then goes to America. Thats 6 missions. So now we have 3 missions left to defeat the "mighty" Soviet Union and EOTRS, without ever having set foot in either Russia or Japan. So, lets make a direct strike against Tokyo Harbour after only 2 previous engagements with the EOTRS, both of which were in Europe? Right, thats them now dead.
Then, we have to defend the US from an invasion set to launch from Cuba. Ok, fine. Then, lets jump straight over Europe, Eastern Europe, all the way into the north-west of Russia to defeat the Soviet Union with a single blow.
The sheer size of the conflict put to us obviously has no relation to the size of the world and armies that are supposed to be pushing the Allies to the brink of defeat in the first place.
Then I wish you luck modding in another 80 campaign maps.
Forget the Chronosphere (thats a cheap way out, and is something that, technically, shouldn't exist in this alternative universe except in the hands of the Soviets...). Also, don't get me started on that Shogun Executioner.
The Allies were the ones with Chronospheres in the first place, if I'm not mistaken...
Its stupidly short, and despite sounding long with "27 missions", the fact is, that is 9 per army, a time period (no pun intended ) that is far too short to achieve what the campaigns do.
If you want to spend an entire week on a campaign, I'd suggest Sins or Supreme.What is authentic about ignoring entire armies and suddenly striking against a target in the middle of enemy held territory?DoctaStrangelove wrote:
As for CnC3 feeling more "authentic" well RA3 was supposed to get a very cheesy, funny game that makes fun of bad movies and pays homage to good ones. CnC3 was supposed to be a serious Sci-Fi game with an Epic plot, as apposed to the silliness of RA3.
I actually like the graphics and "cheesy" feel to the LOOKS of the game (its grown on me ), but that doesn't give them reason to make a mockery (or "silliness") of the entire campaign. Mission briefings were only good due to Tim Curry and Jonathan Pryce, Simmons was a very poor president.
What is authentic about poking at every enemy bunker? Check out MacArthur.
I know RA is supposed to be cartoony, ever since RA2, however, that doesn't stop the actors being/trying-to-be serious, yet the campaign is "allowed to be silly"? You cant mix the both. No, just no. Its poor and its shoddy. After the C&C3 campaign, it is a HUGE letdown.
Yes you can mix them, and it is a legitimate ploy. The serious actors are working as 'straight men' to the otherwise ludicrous situation. Even their serious women wear some of the cheesiest costumes known man. Watch Abbott & Costello if you don't believe in the 'straight man.'Contradicting yourself, eh?DoctaStrangelove wrote:
RA3's campaign was imho, just as good as CnC3's campaign. RA3 however has better MP and Co-Op and is thus overall a better game.
RA3 does have better MP, Ive never disputed that. Although, I think it's dependence on Protocols is just as bad as ZH, and is its only downside, because there is less warning to (most) of the damaging protocols. Unless you happen to spot the flare, you wont evade a Surgical Strike, Chrono Chasm or Cryogeddon. Whereas Final Squadron alerts everybody that its coming with a nice, loud siren saying "Move your army NOW!"
This is where both games fell apart for MP. Superweapons, once fired, impact way too quickly. I don't know what sort of patches are out for either, but I was of the initial impression that there should've been more host-toggled modifiers for matches.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-01-06 17:55:20)
Marine Sharpshooter 3
I wanted a sniper game, but this one was SOOOO LAWL
Also, the worst AI i have ever seen, you can only control one guy at a time, the sniper or the spotter, the fucking spotter stands up when your hiding and blows your position...
I wanted a sniper game, but this one was SOOOO LAWL
Also, the worst AI i have ever seen, you can only control one guy at a time, the sniper or the spotter, the fucking spotter stands up when your hiding and blows your position...
Oh come on.... CoD5 is just CoD4 in a WW2 setting. The idea of swapping between two different soldiers in two different theaters? A stealthy sniper mission in which you and another guy move through a ruined city and shoot an important enemy with a large caliber sniper rifle? Controlling the gunner on an aircraft as it helps protect friendly units? It even has things like the UAV (spotter plane) and flashbang (signal flare). A modder could probably create CoD5 from CoD4 with a few weapon skins and maps.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
HAW HAW HAW.Sup3r_Dr4gon wrote:
The blatant ripoff of Cod4
That's like saying that Rocky 4 was a ripoff of Rocky 3.
For SP i gotta say MOH: Airborne. The worst SP game ever.
MP: Gotta be Crysis. It's buggy, full of hackers, and boring.
MP: Gotta be Crysis. It's buggy, full of hackers, and boring.
Don't forget the attack on Yuri's base on the moonunnamednewbie13 wrote:
What Im getting at, is that it takes you all over the world, for no apparent reason. For instance, look at the Soviet campaign structure:
NW Russia (Leningrad)
NW Russia (Outside Moscow)
E Russia (Vladivostok)
Switzerland (Geneva)
Greek Island (Mykonos)
Iceland
Japan (Mt.Fuji)
Southern Pacific Ocean (Easter Island)
US East Coast (New York)
How is that flowing? You just make a single strike against a solitary target and then leapfrog across entire continents, without fighting off any form of resistance in-between. By contrast, in C&C3, you had to complete (3?) missions as GDI to recapture a single Blue-zone in a part of America.
If anything, that remains more local than RA2. Remember the dinos and giant ants? I see what you're getting at with the 'fill-in-the-territory-color' bit. Yeah, that wasn't there, but it also wasn't necessary.
If each episode of Sopranos was about as long as a Godfather movie, I'm sure less people would have the time to see it through to the end.
* CoD4 is just CoD2 in a modern setting with a couple of extra game modes.Sup3r_Dr4gon wrote:
Oh come on.... CoD5 is just CoD4 in a WW2 setting. The idea of swapping between two different soldiers in two different theaters? A stealthy sniper mission in which you and another guy move through a ruined city and shoot an important enemy with a large caliber sniper rifle? Controlling the gunner on an aircraft as it helps protect friendly units? It even has things like the UAV (spotter plane) and flashbang (signal flare). A modder could probably create CoD5 from CoD4 with a few weapon skins and maps.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
HAW HAW HAW.Sup3r_Dr4gon wrote:
The blatant ripoff of Cod4
That's like saying that Rocky 4 was a ripoff of Rocky 3.
* Soldier swapping worked with 4, so why change it?
* And that wasn't the stealthiest of sniper missions. At first, sure, but then you were clinging to noisy Russian grunts. Besides which, that part was well done and if they didn't put one in, you might've been happier but then there'd be a horde of players wondering why there wasn't a sniper mission so they could go all Enemy at the Gates.
* Being a gunner on 5's aircraft was a bit different than the detached feeling you got on the AC-130.
* The spotter plane does report way too often, imo.
* The signal flare isn't as effective.
* (And Warcraft 3 could've been mostly reproduced using Warcraft 2's engine.) But since they didn't, we have CoD5. The great thing about recycling an engine is that you don't have to add another year or two to development.
Never!Spidery_Yoda wrote:
Don't forget the attack on Yuri's base on the moonunnamednewbie13 wrote:
If anything, that remains more local than RA2. Remember the dinos and giant ants? I see what you're getting at with the 'fill-in-the-territory-color' bit. Yeah, that wasn't there, but it also wasn't necessary.
If each episode of Sopranos was about as long as a Godfather movie, I'm sure less people would have the time to see it through to the end.
*hates STALKER* *enjoys game with build in auto-aim*. Hummm you've sure surprised me here.r2zoo wrote:
I played quite a bit of stalker, was a waste of hardrive space. Theres a difference between being good, and having the game disadvantage you. What should have been a 5 minute gun fight took a half hour of crouching, firing slowly using my sights and still not hitting anything. Game had me excited to play it, only to be let down by terrible weapons. The other systems worked well, and the world was pretty great, but at the end of the day it was just terrible. Mod might make it better, maybe ill try it again smeday, but for now it will sit in my collection of crappy games. Till then I'll keep on with Fallout 3Fat_Swinub wrote:
Laughing at all the people who think STALKER and CS are bad because they're awful at playing them.
I recognize STALKER's single player value, but I couldn't take having to shoot someone in the head ten times before they went down.
It was sort of dumb shooting a guy in the head and him getting dazed instead of killed especially when they had a balaclava. Wouldn't have to shoot more than twice in the head unless it was the really heavily armoured guys though.
I have played it allmost every day for the past few weeks tbh... RA2 > RA3 also in interface, it is simple and effectiveunnamednewbie13 wrote:
When was the last time you popped in RA2? It was mind-blowing for its day, but the interface feels crippled in comparison to the controls in more recent RTS's.FloppY_ wrote:
RA2 > RA3 if you ask me... RA2 looks better aswell
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Granted, and its nice that they do go all over the world, its just, to me, there should be more "in-between" nature. For instance, if the Allies can take down the Soviets in a single strike, why not do that from the start? At least tell us how they fought from Germany to the borders of Russia, or give us a mission or two to fill the gap.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
I see your point about the flow now, but I don't think the fact that the missons take place all over the place is a bad thing, I prefer the variety. If they did "flow", half the missons would be in Eastern Europe, which would be lame.
Going "all over the world" could have worked, if there were more missions, or information (cinematics especially: I really miss them ) to explain what is going on and how its taking place.
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Granted, 20 hours is a long time, but if you divide that between the 3 armies, thats 6hours per campaign. In effect, they feel short, because of the addition of the Empire to the mix, which cuts down on the length of the Sov/Allies campaigns if the game was still going to contain a total of 27missions.Snake wrote:
Yes, it eases you into the aspects of the game, Im not doubting that (ever tried the tutorial ), and you did miss my point
Averaging Docta's time estimate and distributing it through the three campaigns gives us about 20 effective hours, which trails some of the more gutbusting RTS's by a few but is still a respectable amount. Look at what Blizzard's doing with releasing one race's campaign at a time for SC2.To me, obviously I was comparing the sheer scale of the war pitched in RA1 to what it is in RA3, against how long those wars lasted in mission-numbers. But thats not to say that Australia and S.America weren't part of the Allies in RA1: Im sure they would have beenSnake wrote:
Using (almost) the same technology, RA1 took 13 (?) missions for Soviets to beat just the Allies out of EUROPE, nevermind the rest of the "World", traitors and a third super-power. Hell, it took the Allies 15 missions in RA1 to defeat the Soviets.
The Allies were already pretty much beaten out of Europe in RA3. I'm assuming that the Allies still held bits here and there, possibly Australia and South America as well, but I'll concede that the battle plans weren't as well fleshed out. But again, did it really matter?See my reply to Doctas post If the campaign either didn't take place in such wide-spread countries, or was explained inbetween (as mentioned), then it can work.Snake wrote:
I mean, the first 5 missions are in Europe, and it felt better (England-France-Germany-Mediterranean-North Sea). Fine, it then goes to America. Thats 6 missions. So now we have 3 missions left to defeat the "mighty" Soviet Union and EOTRS, without ever having set foot in either Russia or Japan. So, lets make a direct strike against Tokyo Harbour after only 2 previous engagements with the EOTRS, both of which were in Europe? Right, thats them now dead.
Then, we have to defend the US from an invasion set to launch from Cuba. Ok, fine. Then, lets jump straight over Europe, Eastern Europe, all the way into the north-west of Russia to defeat the Soviet Union with a single blow.
The sheer size of the conflict put to us obviously has no relation to the size of the world and armies that are supposed to be pushing the Allies to the brink of defeat in the first place.
Then I wish you luck modding in another 80 campaign maps.Um, yeah, it was invented by Einstein in RA1. But, with the RA3 plot, if the Soviets are going back in time themselves to remove Einstein...how could he have invented the Chronosphere on this new timeline? (or all the other Cryo-tech we now have ). Granted, he could have left notes or whatever behind, but it seems a bit...weak.Snake wrote:
Forget the Chronosphere (thats a cheap way out, and is something that, technically, shouldn't exist in this alternative universe except in the hands of the Soviets...). Also, don't get me started on that Shogun Executioner.
The Allies were the ones with Chronospheres in the first place, if I'm not mistaken...Again, see previous comments Im just saying, there should be something more solid, and concrete, inbetween attacking (for instance) the Caribbean and then straight to Moscow Whether that be missions or dialogue supplied in the briefings/cinematics.Snake wrote:
What is authentic about ignoring entire armies and suddenly striking against a target in the middle of enemy held territory?
I actually like the graphics and "cheesy" feel to the LOOKS of the game (its grown on me ), but that doesn't give them reason to make a mockery (or "silliness") of the entire campaign. Mission briefings were only good due to Tim Curry and Jonathan Pryce, Simmons was a very poor president.
What is authentic about poking at every enemy bunker? Check out MacArthur.Agreed on the SW's, or now aptly named "Ultimate Weapons". RA2 gave us the option to disable them, but never since. Ive just modded a map to remove all Protocols and the Ultimate weapons, and by god, the game plays so much better, even the AI in Skirmish as they are not constantly rebuilding it whenever I destroy itSnake wrote:
RA3 does have better MP, Ive never disputed that. Although, I think it's dependence on Protocols is just as bad as ZH, and is its only downside, because there is less warning to (most) of the damaging protocols. Unless you happen to spot the flare, you wont evade a Surgical Strike, Chrono Chasm or Cryogeddon. Whereas Final Squadron alerts everybody that its coming with a nice, loud siren saying "Move your army NOW!"
This is where both games fell apart for MP. Superweapons, once fired, impact way too quickly. I don't know what sort of patches are out for either, but I was of the initial impression that there should've been more host-toggled modifiers for matches.
Simple, effective, and damn reliant on who can speed-click the most. Personal opinion, I guess, but I prefer the interface of DoW/CoH above either.FloppY_ wrote:
I have played it allmost every day for the past few weeks tbh... RA2 > RA3 also in interface, it is simple and effectiveunnamednewbie13 wrote:
When was the last time you popped in RA2? It was mind-blowing for its day, but the interface feels crippled in comparison to the controls in more recent RTS's.FloppY_ wrote:
RA2 > RA3 if you ask me... RA2 looks better aswell
====
IRT below quote:
a) If they would've slashed the Empire faction, people would've complained that it was just another Reds vs Allies clone. Look at it this way: we now have a freakin' coop mode in a C&C game. How long have people been wanting that? Since I started playing C&C1.
b) RA3 operates under the assumption that much of the fighting has already been done. Even after the time reset, it was pretty much a mop-up for the Soviets or a star comeback for the Allies. The Empire threw a wrench into the whole thing. Aspects of how some of the missions were realistically operable are in question, but you're criticizing a game whose sequel had you fighting dinosaurs, giant ants, and telepath clones on the moon.
c) And if it didn't take place in widespread countries, they wouldn't have developed so much base art, which could've killed visual variety in multiplayer maps. If you want more, I'm sure there'll be an expansion. If Zero Hour was any indication of improvement over the original, it shouldn't disappoint.
d) You're getting into Trekkian/Terminator physics here. Do you know how many Chronos I've captured in the previous games? It's safe to bet that the Russians stole the technology to begin with. The rest of the still-existing tech could've been invented by one of Einstein's associates from the time of his assassination. He wasn't the only genius in the world.
e) I thought the why was enough. If you want gutbuster descriptions on campaign progress, read Harry Turtledove. Even the previous RA games did very little other than offer you a path of attack (which didn't really do much other than give you a different map layout). It was only interesting for me in Dune and BfME.
f) I believe you could disable them in Generals. RA3's a nightmare of timered superweapons though. Words cannot describe how lame it feels to have your aircraft carriers sucked into space. However, launching two truckloads of bears into the middle of some guy's infantry is immensely satisfying.
Snake wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
a) Granted, 20 hours is a long time, but if you divide that between the 3 armies, thats 6hours per campaign. In effect, they feel short, because of the addition of the Empire to the mix, which cuts down on the length of the Sov/Allies campaigns if the game was still going to contain a total of 27missions.Snake wrote:
Yes, it eases you into the aspects of the game, Im not doubting that (ever tried the tutorial ), and you did miss my point
Averaging Docta's time estimate and distributing it through the three campaigns gives us about 20 effective hours, which trails some of the more gutbusting RTS's by a few but is still a respectable amount. Look at what Blizzard's doing with releasing one race's campaign at a time for SC2.b) To me, obviously I was comparing the sheer scale of the war pitched in RA1 to what it is in RA3, against how long those wars lasted in mission-numbers. But thats not to say that Australia and S.America weren't part of the Allies in RA1: Im sure they would have beenSnake wrote:
Using (almost) the same technology, RA1 took 13 (?) missions for Soviets to beat just the Allies out of EUROPE, nevermind the rest of the "World", traitors and a third super-power. Hell, it took the Allies 15 missions in RA1 to defeat the Soviets.
The Allies were already pretty much beaten out of Europe in RA3. I'm assuming that the Allies still held bits here and there, possibly Australia and South America as well, but I'll concede that the battle plans weren't as well fleshed out. But again, did it really matter?c) See my reply to Doctas post If the campaign either didn't take place in such wide-spread countries, or was explained inbetween (as mentioned), then it can work.Snake wrote:
I mean, the first 5 missions are in Europe, and it felt better (England-France-Germany-Mediterranean-North Sea). Fine, it then goes to America. Thats 6 missions. So now we have 3 missions left to defeat the "mighty" Soviet Union and EOTRS, without ever having set foot in either Russia or Japan. So, lets make a direct strike against Tokyo Harbour after only 2 previous engagements with the EOTRS, both of which were in Europe? Right, thats them now dead.
Then, we have to defend the US from an invasion set to launch from Cuba. Ok, fine. Then, lets jump straight over Europe, Eastern Europe, all the way into the north-west of Russia to defeat the Soviet Union with a single blow.
The sheer size of the conflict put to us obviously has no relation to the size of the world and armies that are supposed to be pushing the Allies to the brink of defeat in the first place.
Then I wish you luck modding in another 80 campaign maps.d) Um, yeah, it was invented by Einstein in RA1. But, with the RA3 plot, if the Soviets are going back in time themselves to remove Einstein...how could he have invented the Chronosphere on this new timeline? (or all the other Cryo-tech we now have ). Granted, he could have left notes or whatever behind, but it seems a bit...weak.Snake wrote:
Forget the Chronosphere (thats a cheap way out, and is something that, technically, shouldn't exist in this alternative universe except in the hands of the Soviets...). Also, don't get me started on that Shogun Executioner.
The Allies were the ones with Chronospheres in the first place, if I'm not mistaken...e) Again, see previous comments Im just saying, there should be something more solid, and concrete, inbetween attacking (for instance) the Caribbean and then straight to Moscow Whether that be missions or dialogue supplied in the briefings/cinematics.Snake wrote:
What is authentic about ignoring entire armies and suddenly striking against a target in the middle of enemy held territory?
I actually like the graphics and "cheesy" feel to the LOOKS of the game (its grown on me ), but that doesn't give them reason to make a mockery (or "silliness") of the entire campaign. Mission briefings were only good due to Tim Curry and Jonathan Pryce, Simmons was a very poor president.
What is authentic about poking at every enemy bunker? Check out MacArthur.f) Agreed on the SW's, or now aptly named "Ultimate Weapons". RA2 gave us the option to disable them, but never since. Ive just modded a map to remove all Protocols and the Ultimate weapons, and by god, the game plays so much better, even the AI in Skirmish as they are not constantly rebuilding it whenever I destroy itSnake wrote:
RA3 does have better MP, Ive never disputed that. Although, I think it's dependence on Protocols is just as bad as ZH, and is its only downside, because there is less warning to (most) of the damaging protocols. Unless you happen to spot the flare, you wont evade a Surgical Strike, Chrono Chasm or Cryogeddon. Whereas Final Squadron alerts everybody that its coming with a nice, loud siren saying "Move your army NOW!"
This is where both games fell apart for MP. Superweapons, once fired, impact way too quickly. I don't know what sort of patches are out for either, but I was of the initial impression that there should've been more host-toggled modifiers for matches.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-01-07 20:37:21)