Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 Message Board  

I have to agree with GGaius10. Red Alert 3 is better than RA1, and RA2 in many ways, but, like GGaius10 said, it is not what I had hoped for... I am disappointed with the game. At least if you could edit the units or game info, like with the old rules.ini, but that's not possible either... They shouldn't of have even called it Red Alert 3. It looks like they stretch it and find ways to tie it into the Red Alert series... I wish I could return the game.

Raden and I, amongst others, are editing it as we speak, so stay frosty...

Staing frosty

Hmm...What ever. The only thing i know is i like some of the improvement they already made(well there is some part i can't get from the previous RA) but i need more than this to feel satisfy.

so guys...

is the game "GOOD" or "BAD"??

because i am planning to buy it... so please help.. !

it is a good game in its own right, there is a lot of competition for games of this type. It has 3 reasonable armies- not like the old red alerts but still alright. It does have its moments but i feel that its too short and easy for me although it presents more of a challenge than the old command and conquers. It is worth buying- although don't do it with a mind to compare it with the classic C&C games.

I've also noticed a lot of comments about cartoony graphics- either your computer or eyes aren't good enough. They aren't as good as C&C3, but because of that the gameplay is smoother and more intense. Hope that helps to those in two minds about it.

this is a decent game but the fact is it seems they have reduced the number units/structures each side normaly has meaning bases end up being smaller and easier to defend also the lack of units means there is no real reason to take a mix of units.

As far as to "when" they removed Einstein... if they had removed him before the 1st Red Alert, then that means exactly what you said, the chrono tech and Prism Tech happened later.... in the ORIGINAL time line, but those technologies might have been developed earlier then, since they didn't have a viable WMD like nukes etc... because if you notice, the Allied weapons are based upon particle acceleration technology, i.e. the Proton weapon. Chrono tech is a variant of particle acceleration theory.

Like you said, it seems they may have in fact screwed up the timeline, b/c on the EA Forums Link for RA3, the claim is that Hitler was wiped in 1924 in the RA1 and then Einstein was killed in 1927 by the Soviets, but if that's the case, that means he didn't go back to kill him, b/c Einstein was dead... if you want to get deeper, if Hitler was dead b/c of Einstein going back, then in the future... why would Einstein have built the time machine? To go back and kill someone that doesn't exist? You wouldn't remember that which did not happen...

It's also easy to conclude that the corporation known as "Futuretech" in the game, may have taken Einsteins work and continued it, i.e. Mirage Tech etc. and not nuclear weapons...

Captain Janeway on ST:Voyager said it best...
"Time travel. From my first day on the job as captain I promised myself I'd never let myself get caught up in one of these God-forsaken paradoxes. The future's the past, the past is the future. It all gives me a headache."

As far as the Amphib warfare thing... I am quoting the EA development team... take it up with them.