Short version: It's short, but fun. Replayable to some extent.
Long version: Plenty of time has passed to let the game season. There was lots of hype about the game leading up to its launch. The fact that someone was creating almost a new genre of game, a first person game that plays down the shooter in favor of movement and interaction with the environment.
The game was short. I wish it had been longer.
The High Dynamic Range graphics looked nice, but the overwhelming whiteness got a bit old after a while.
It's pretty hard to play the game without shooting anyone or beating anyone up, although I guess it's meant to be that way (I think there's an achievement for that). The game unnecessarily makes it even harder by forcing a certain timing on quick-reloads after you die. In one case, I had to exit a door, jump from one building to another, then run across a building top and climb up some pipes, all while police rappelled from a helicopter to the top of that building. The first time I ran that sequence, I had a head start, thanks to a quick transit through the previous area. I had plenty of time to make it through that area before the police could shoot me, but fell and died at the end. When the game reloaded the sequence, I didn't get the head start, and the police showed up much earlier, making my passivistic trek across the rooftop impossible.
I didn't have any problems with the controls, other than operator error. The controls were consistent and simple enough. I have to share the complaint heard elsewhere that turning your head to look around while hanging from something was stupidly slow.
I also encountered an issue with sound, where the effects and ambient noises were far louder than the dialogue. This in effect removed any sort of plot, until I found that an update of my sound drivers would solve the problem.
Speaking of plot, does anyone else see an issue with Faith's crusade to save her sister? How many police did she kill or beat up on the way to save her sister? And where the heck are all the regular citizens? I mean, come on, this is a dense urban environment. Where are all the people? And what's the point of the bags, which originally figured to be a significant part of the plot?
The game begs to be replayed--can you make it through without firing a shot? Can you make it through without so much as a punch? Can you hit a rhythm so well that you never break stride through an entire chapter?
I didn't take the time to hit the time trials, but thinking back, I kind of want to now.
After release, the game got slammed, mostly on the basis of controls and brevity. I had no issues with the controls, but I have to agree with the sentiment on brevity. Overall, I would give the game a B. The technical execution, in my opinion, was outstanding. The plot and length were its main weak points.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Mini review: Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3
This one is a bit stale, but here's a quick shot at a review for CnC:RA3.
Short version: Tons of fun. If you enjoyed Red Alert 2, you'll like RA3. The 3D graphics were nice, but not necessary.
Long Version (aimed at those who have played RA2):
Having thoroughly enjoyed RA2, I was hopeful but a little worried about whether EA would preserve the elements of RA2 that made it great. I need not have worried. From the moment I first started the game, it was abundantly clear that the management at EA recognized what worked so well in RA2. Heck, the game begins with a cutscene depicting the main characters returning to the past to assassinate a famous historical figure. And then it takes you to the main menu, proudly trumpeting a deliciously over-the-top Soviet-style anthem.
If you enjoyed the tone, pacing, and style of the previous CnC:RA games, you'll love RA3. All the nuttiness we came to know and love in RA2 is back. National monuments that contain secret super weapons? Check. Young, attractive personal-assistant types in skimpy costumes? Check. Hard-driving rock soundtrack? Check. Hammed-up, questionable acting and liberal use of green screen? Check.
I'm not up to speed on my pop culture, so I only recognized Tim Curry, but apparently the actress who plays Tanya is well known. At least, my wife instantly recognized her. (personally, I preferred the Tanya from the original RA, but meh)
The gameplay is enjoyable and varied, and never really gets dull. The game engine is now 3D, like CnC Generals. I never really used the camera movement, sticking instead with a single viewpoint. You really don't lose any enjoyment by ignoring the camera. I found myself wondering why EA did it this way. I guess the graphics are better, since the explosion decals and local light sources and effects look better, but it didn't affect my enjoyment of the game at all. I got the impression that the 3D-ness of the game was incorporated for two reasons: first, the engine was available and capable, and second, without an updated, 3D, normal/specular/bump-mapped world, RA3 would have been labelled as simply an overpriced expansion pack for RA2.
All the units have some sort of special ability, and some of them are actually useful. It does add a level of complexity to the controls, and forces you to micromanage more. It also doesn't seem to apply completely consistently if you have a group of disparate units selected. I found this particularly bothersome when playing as the Japanese. Some units convert from ground vehicles to aerial units as their special function. If I had a group of the same unit selected, with some on the ground and some in the air, I never knew what the special function would do--would it make all the units perform their special function? Would it put them all on the ground? All in the air?
In short, the special abilities fall into the category of "not a bad idea, but could have been implemented better." Certainly not a deal-killer, as you can still play the game while mostly ignoring those issues.
There was only one mission that I found really difficult, and when I actually beat it, it was thanks to a glitch. It was the Mount Rushmore mission, and at one point, the president's limo veered off the established path and started running up and down the mountains. And then it got stuck, leaving me with all the time in the world to complete the mission.
The units in the game are pretty familiar fare for those familiar with the series: the same classes (more or less) of infantry are available to the Russians and Allies, and the same mostly goes for the armored units as well. There are some "they must have been drunk when they thought of this" units, but amazingly, they work as intended. I'm thinking of the Man-cannon here. The first time I saw it in action, I bust out laughing. Great idea, fantastic implementation.
The super weapons are just as over-the-top. Decomissioning satellites as a method of orbital bombardment? Brilliant! It put a smile on my face every time I got to push that button.
The campaigns seemed short, which is kind of compensated by having three sides. While the addition of a third faction garnered a lot of interest, I don't know that it added much value to the game. I would have been no less satisfied had we been given a two-faction game with longer campaigns.
All in all, I would give the game a B+/A-. It was a great ride with a few little niggles that prevented it from being purely stellar. Kudos to EA for making this game a worthy successor to Red Alert 2.
Now, when do we get to see RA4?
Short version: Tons of fun. If you enjoyed Red Alert 2, you'll like RA3. The 3D graphics were nice, but not necessary.
Long Version (aimed at those who have played RA2):
Having thoroughly enjoyed RA2, I was hopeful but a little worried about whether EA would preserve the elements of RA2 that made it great. I need not have worried. From the moment I first started the game, it was abundantly clear that the management at EA recognized what worked so well in RA2. Heck, the game begins with a cutscene depicting the main characters returning to the past to assassinate a famous historical figure. And then it takes you to the main menu, proudly trumpeting a deliciously over-the-top Soviet-style anthem.
If you enjoyed the tone, pacing, and style of the previous CnC:RA games, you'll love RA3. All the nuttiness we came to know and love in RA2 is back. National monuments that contain secret super weapons? Check. Young, attractive personal-assistant types in skimpy costumes? Check. Hard-driving rock soundtrack? Check. Hammed-up, questionable acting and liberal use of green screen? Check.
I'm not up to speed on my pop culture, so I only recognized Tim Curry, but apparently the actress who plays Tanya is well known. At least, my wife instantly recognized her. (personally, I preferred the Tanya from the original RA, but meh)
The gameplay is enjoyable and varied, and never really gets dull. The game engine is now 3D, like CnC Generals. I never really used the camera movement, sticking instead with a single viewpoint. You really don't lose any enjoyment by ignoring the camera. I found myself wondering why EA did it this way. I guess the graphics are better, since the explosion decals and local light sources and effects look better, but it didn't affect my enjoyment of the game at all. I got the impression that the 3D-ness of the game was incorporated for two reasons: first, the engine was available and capable, and second, without an updated, 3D, normal/specular/bump-mapped world, RA3 would have been labelled as simply an overpriced expansion pack for RA2.
All the units have some sort of special ability, and some of them are actually useful. It does add a level of complexity to the controls, and forces you to micromanage more. It also doesn't seem to apply completely consistently if you have a group of disparate units selected. I found this particularly bothersome when playing as the Japanese. Some units convert from ground vehicles to aerial units as their special function. If I had a group of the same unit selected, with some on the ground and some in the air, I never knew what the special function would do--would it make all the units perform their special function? Would it put them all on the ground? All in the air?
In short, the special abilities fall into the category of "not a bad idea, but could have been implemented better." Certainly not a deal-killer, as you can still play the game while mostly ignoring those issues.
There was only one mission that I found really difficult, and when I actually beat it, it was thanks to a glitch. It was the Mount Rushmore mission, and at one point, the president's limo veered off the established path and started running up and down the mountains. And then it got stuck, leaving me with all the time in the world to complete the mission.
The units in the game are pretty familiar fare for those familiar with the series: the same classes (more or less) of infantry are available to the Russians and Allies, and the same mostly goes for the armored units as well. There are some "they must have been drunk when they thought of this" units, but amazingly, they work as intended. I'm thinking of the Man-cannon here. The first time I saw it in action, I bust out laughing. Great idea, fantastic implementation.
The super weapons are just as over-the-top. Decomissioning satellites as a method of orbital bombardment? Brilliant! It put a smile on my face every time I got to push that button.
The campaigns seemed short, which is kind of compensated by having three sides. While the addition of a third faction garnered a lot of interest, I don't know that it added much value to the game. I would have been no less satisfied had we been given a two-faction game with longer campaigns.
All in all, I would give the game a B+/A-. It was a great ride with a few little niggles that prevented it from being purely stellar. Kudos to EA for making this game a worthy successor to Red Alert 2.
Now, when do we get to see RA4?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)