Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 announced

[Praxil]

Well, from magazine scans I've seen RA3 will be closer to RA2 than ever to first RA. It's a clear let down for me as I completely love first Red Alert with its expansions. While RA2 is good and entertaining game, however it never reached first RA on any level other than on UI controls and in some gameplay areas. I'm not saying that RA3 will be bad, no, but like with RA2 it probably wont satisfy my demand as much as first RA did. Other than good RA3 can be great by bringing flexible and rapid sandbox AI (I know, easier said than done). Being a game witch requires strategy from a player, rather than being uber fast in games economy and mass horde enemy to win. C&C 3 UI is good, but there are flaws mainly in handling aircraft, that should be fixed. While C&C 3 is fun and I enjoy it a lot, the pace is just a bit too fast for my taste. I mean, I can handle the fights, but I don't like how everyone dies so quickly. I want tanks fighting longer, same goes for soldiers and any structure should stand for a lot longer. Let super weapons destroy anything in a second, but other than that structures should take a lot of punishment before they are destroyed.

The main issue is that, from what perspective EA has ordered to approach Red Alert 3. Multiplayer (like with C&C 3) or singleplayer? Because that will clearly be seen in the final game. Multiplayer and singlepayer (campaign) are two completely different things and should in my opinion always be developed separately. Good example is the TW series where the multiplayer is there as an feature, but I think that 90% more or less of TW players play purely the singleplayer in the Total Wars. Now while "fast and fluid" C&C 3 multiplayer is probably fun and all that, same thing doesn't work like that in campaign.