izigame.me

“Who knows what nightmares we have created?”
~Dr. Zelinsky

2008 was at its end and I must say, I was really excited. All of the sudden, after trying all sorts of new stuff (from dropping the original lore in Generals to turning the series into an f2p thing), EA took the U-turn and went all old-school in their C&C3. Tiberium Wars, while not being perfect, was a big surprise to old fans like me, who were ready to give up on a thing they used to love back in the days. Long story short, EA took the original C&C from 1995 and, well, gave us the next-gen version of it. All the advanced stuff Westwood planned for their own version of C&C3 was dropped, but honestly, at that point it didn't matter. What mattered is that we finally got our C&C back. Now they've promised us Red Alert and naturally, what I expected was the same thing, but with the ships. Because that's what the original RA was – same ol' C&C, just with the naval battles and some new features, right? Well, turned out I was wrong. Dead wrong.
Naturally, RA3 follows the RA2 formula. And that is something to be expected. RA2, despite insulting some old-school fans, was warmly welcomed and, let's admit it, after it became a thing, there was no turning back. The original concept was no more. Shared universe, the dark tone, the alternative history... Well, maybe not the alternative history. I mean, the original 1996 game was all about “What if?...” thing, in which Westwood tried to imagine the world without Adolf Hitler. Naturally, with Nazi Germany and the USSR being allies (they've signed a pact and then both invaded Poland the next month), it was USSR to start the world war in Westwood's game. EA? Well, they went even further back to the past. Even though it's generally considered that WWII began in 1939, in Asia it was going since 1937 (Second Sino-Japanese War), so... Yeah. We've got Japan. As a third playable faction.
Sounds rather smart, but like I said, don't expect anything serious here. RA3 is all about “OMG, LOL!” moments its predecessor was known for. Let's just say that Japanese forces here have a giant mecha kaijū with the light swords and forget about it, OK? RA3 is like RA2 on drugs. And, like Joey Tribbiani, it's not even sorry. No, seriously, it takes pride in everything. RA2 was cheesy? RA3 is probably the cheesiest thing in AAA gaming.RA2 sexualized women? RA3 feels like it was made by Larry Laffer and Vince McMahon. Et cetera, et cetera. And yes, EA threw in Hollywood cast again. We've got Tim Curry, Japanese Emperor is played by Star Trek legend George Takei, the American president is J.K. Simmons (AKA the J. Jonah Jameson)... Even that dumbass Gina Carano is in this game, which is a nice fit for her for a change. Anyway. Like I said, all that is to be expected. EA liked the direction RA took in the second game, they had the money... No surprise here. What shocked me was that... This game is nothing like C&C3. You know what we've got instead of it? We've got Generals 2. For consoles. Say wha-a-a-a-a-a-a...
I'm serious, though. I wish I wasn't, but I am. You know how sometimes the main series doesn't really fit on consoles, but publisher still wants it to be represented there? They make consoles-oriented spin-off. Something like, say, Sid Meier’s Civilization: Revolution. Something that aims for consoles audience, yet still somewhat akin to what PC counterpart was about. RA3? Is exactly that. While C&C3 was on Xbox 360 too, RA3 is also on PS3. And we all know just how much “fun” developing things for PS3 was (yes, that's, most likely, why we still didn't get Disgaea 3 in Steam). As the result... Well... RA3 looks like a console game, RA3 feels like a console game and in a nutshell, RA3 is a console game. Tiny maps, huge fonts... You know the drill. It wasn't time for Dragon Age II yet, but yes, that's the stuff. Really wonder why there's no gamepad support here, because, unlike C&C3, this game doesn't feel natural on PC.
Which... doesn't mean that it's bad. Exactly the opposite, it's incredibly fun. And that's... the worst thing about it. I'll explain why in a moment. For now, let's get back to Generals. Like I already mentioned, gameplay-wise EA Los Angeles didn't even try to deliver RA3 here. They've just gave us Generals 2. We've got, well, generals again, with all of their levels and abilities back, Spice / Tiberium mechanics is no more and we've got WarCraft-like thingy from Generals, we can build anywhere (with some “buts”, but still), etc. Which technically does sound like an arguable decision, but the thing is – there's one thing to justify all that. That thing is co-op. The whole thing is co-op-oriented. And even if you'll decide to play solo, you'll still share the map with your AI companion. All of those Generals elements were added for one single purpose – to make this game as quick and smooth as possible in co-op. See where this is going?
Yes, RA3 is one of those games. At the moment I write this, all of us can name at least some series that were heavily ruined by such an approach. MachineGames' Wolfenstein, Dead Island... RA3, on the other hand? It won a lot from it. Yes, it was all about tiny maps with not enough space for, you know, strategy. We were just teaming up in order to do some obvious tasks, but since the game was fast-paced (ish, speed slider still isn't a thing) and satisfying? It was just... Like I said, fun. Up to this day, RA3 is one of the funniest things you can play if all you want is just some quick RTS sessions. The factions are great and unique (all three feel totally different from each other), units are surprisingly complicated and sometimes even allow us to switch between different abilities, while the UI is totally fine and won't make you break your pace. Even the single player campaign (10 missions per faction) is not that bad. Even though yes, it does suffer from Generals problem, where it'll change goals on the way (which will lead to some pretty unfair surprises to you). Still, the main dish here is a co-op. It's smooth, it's fun and it's hard not to praise EA LA for what they've achieved with it. Like I said, though, it was not a good thing for the series.
Why? Think about it. What we have here is a co-op oriented spin-off for consoles. Which was sold as a real deal, as a part of main series. And it sold well. People loved it. Still do (despite the original GameSpy-based multiplayer being dead, there's still a third-party way to play online). Which made EA to believe that... That's what people want. That this here is how the series should be in the future. Not about old-school stuff, but about fast-paced short sessions online. Most of the people blame C&C4 for killing the series for good. That's how they've remembered it. But the truth is – it wasn't Tiberium Twilight that fired the poisoned bullet. This game did. Yet nobody hated it for that. Because it was crazy fun. Now, you may ask how did my old friend felt about it? You know, the man I've mentioned in my RA2 review? The one we disagreed about series' new look with? Well, we'll never know. Because at the moment of 2008 he was long dead. And there's some moral in that, I guess. You never know how things will turn out the next day. RA 3? It was one of them crazy turns. Worked great in a moment, but... Then again, let's talk about that in the C&C4 review.