Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3

 PC
User Score
6.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 593 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 324 out of 593
  2. Mixed: 153 out of 593
  3. Negative: 116 out of 593
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. JimP.
    Jan 8, 2009
    7
    I'll divide the review into 2 parts: 1) the campaign and 2) skirmishes. I haven't tried online play since the Beta and I know I wouldn't do well anyway, so I'm just leaving that part out. 1) Campaign For fans of the C&C series, the story will be a major disappointment. In Red Alert 1, an anonymous scientist (more specifically, professor) goes back, kills Hitler, and I'll divide the review into 2 parts: 1) the campaign and 2) skirmishes. I haven't tried online play since the Beta and I know I wouldn't do well anyway, so I'm just leaving that part out. 1) Campaign For fans of the C&C series, the story will be a major disappointment. In Red Alert 1, an anonymous scientist (more specifically, professor) goes back, kills Hitler, and alters the history of the world (thus leading to Nod, GDI, and the C&C universe). In Red Alert 2, they said it was Einstein who made the time travel back to kill Hitler and alter the world. In Red Alert 3, the Soviets go back in time and kill Einstein. This would naturally create a time paradox throughout the entire Red Alert timeline, since Hitler would have been allowed to live, World War II would have happened, and the world would be closer to what it is now, except no nukes (apparently a consequence of not having Einstein around). To get back to the Campaign, the campaigns are short, but fun. 9 missions for each side all having multiple mission objectives and bonus objectives. Each campaign can really be divided into the following: 2/3 battles against one faction, 4 battles against the other faction, 1 battle against the first faction, and then 1/2 battles against the second faction. It does not take long to knock one side out of the war. For the Soviets, the Empire is eliminated first and then they concentrate on the Allies. For the Allies, they knock the Soviets out, make peace, and then go after the Empire. The Empire takes out the Soviets first, then goes after the Allies. Doing online co-op of the missions would be fun, but it might make the missions a bit too easy. Sharing income would be the only difficulty in the mission (you also share income with your AI co-commander in each mission). The cutscenes are cheesy, but add a light atmosphere. The campaigns are very much so targeted towards teenage and young-adult males as most of the women are in revealing outfits (well, they all are in at least one point in the game...). The selection of actors they got to play in the game were good actors, but in my opinion, Tim Curry shouldn't be playing a Russian. 2) Skirmishes Once you're done with the campaign you might delve into fighting the AI commanders in single-player skirmishes. Oddly enough, the difficulty AI seems to be slightly reversed. The easy computers are a challenge for newcomers, the medium computers are aggressive and more diverse, but when you get to hard, the AI suddenly becomes incredibly stupid. I just recently watched a 2v2 Hard computer match and I have never seen such ridiculously inert AI in my life. Examples of the AI's shortcomings are as follows: 1) An Allied commander fired their Super Collider (the Allies' superweapon) at a small band of Empire units coming to their base, only to miss them all completely. 2) The Empire that was attacking the Allied base allowed for the Allied MCV to leave the combat zone. It had almost no life remaining. 3) The Empire used its transforming units irresponsibly, constantly transforming them in times when it would make them useless in the fight. An example, a Striker-VX (a ground anti-air/air anti-ground unit combo) was attacking ground units when it was being attacked by some ground anti-air units. It transformed into its anti-air mode so it could shoot back at the ground units, allowing for itself to be destroyed. So, I'd say if you're looking for a challenge, play the game against medium opponents for now. It'll give you the hardest opposition. The manual mentioned "Brutal" difficulty, but I haven't seen it when adding computer opponents and I'm also afraid as to how low it's going to go. I actually had some really good fights against Easy opponents, especially when playing the Hidden Fortress map which pits a 2 v 1 scenario. All in all, Red Alert 3 is a fairly good game. If you can set aside some of the discrepancies from the original storyline as well as the cartoony look to the game, it can be fun. Some people have complained that the Empire of the Rising Sun's units look too close to anime units. The game's developers said that they were taken directly from anime concepts, such as the transforming units, the King Oni (a giant walking robot), to the Shinobis (ninjas) and Yuriko Omega (a powerful telekinetic girl moving about in a schoolgirl outfit). I was also slightly disappointed that they took away the ability of the Apocalypse tank's (formerly the Mammoth Tank) ability to shoot air, but it was a good balance choice. The sides are all fairly balanced, although some of the super powers are more useful and powerful than others. I'm sure if EA puts up some patches to the game, it'll be ready to move on up to an 8, maybe even a 9.… Expand
  2. VidyaBum
    Mar 22, 2014
    6
    Ok so first off I played C&Cs for quite a few years over the course of my gaming life.

    C&C RA2 is nothing short of the game I played the most in my life and still is a wonderful strategy game all around. As such I will talk about C&C RA3 individually and then compare it to its predecessor. Individually, this game is quite solid. Campy cutscenes with stupid stereotypes are    Ok so first off I played C&Cs for quite a few years over the course of my gaming life.

    C&C RA2 is nothing short of the game I played the most in my life and still is a wonderful strategy game all around.

    As such I will talk about C&C RA3 individually and then compare it to its predecessor.

    Individually, this game is quite solid. Campy cutscenes with stupid stereotypes are everywhere. If you mind the campyness it will be awful to watch but else it's ok. Yeah, just "ok".
    Visuals and sounds make a fine little job of giving it a nice identity, so does the music.

    Gameplay is strategic-ish and strong but unfortunately clearly goes the Starcraft path of sacrificing complexity and strategic gameplay(aka gameplay where time isn't your main constraint but preparing a good battle strategy is) for the sake of speed.
    This part is why the game gets a 6. Its variety of units and/or strats is nowhere near as useful because ultimately you will spam resources and units to win. Just like Starcraft II, which is also fun, but is an extremely poor strategy game.
    The problem is that by copying Starcraft II's fast paced style, Red Alert 3 suffers TREMENDOUSLY from that stupid, obviously EA-originating choice, because the game comes off like a knockoff that isn't as fun as Starcraft II, and yet doesn't manage to have a real strategy to itself.

    Now taken as a comparison to the RA2 and the rest of the series, it gets far far worse.

    The speed and violence of the RA3 mechanics do not come even close to the glorious and incredibly satisfying ones of RA2.
    If RA2 managed to have two different races, 8 special units, which together were well balanced and offered tons of defensive and offensive capabilities, RA3 doesn't give the same sort of feeling at all. Races aren't that complex anymore, and while before every unit felt unique and useful in some way(apart from a very small number of flunkies), here it feels like a mishmash of practical, one-situation units that don't really give a lot of diversity to gameplay, and you'll find yourself using "that unit VS this unit" a lot. Just like Starcraft II. Terrain doesn't matter nearly as much as it used to, heights aren't nearly as advantageous, garrisonning buildings isn't as useful since there is a lot more airforce, and the idea of letting buildings be built on water is just destroying the principle of "water" in a strategy game...
    Holding positions and/or buildings, heights, and bottlenecks aren't nearly as important as they've been or should be, which again reminds of SC II.

    In this game, all that seems to matter is to have an economy be stronger and faster than your opponent's, which AGAIN is like SC II.
    Planning an operation, whether offensive or defensive, isn't nearly as strategic and important because economy and spamming units is everything, and although RA3 does have the strong defensive capabilities that C&C has, it's not as good as RA2 and more importantly, it's not as useful because this game is an obvious SCII knockoff. Instead of focusing on creating a strong defense where you need it, you will conquer the map, get all the resources you can, spam defenses and units and play the game by trying to spam faster than the enemy.
    The ultimate problem being again that this is a knockoff and is in the uncanny valley of not being as strategic as RA2, Generals, C&C3, or the Total War series, and isn't as fast-paced and dumb fun as SCII is.

    Campyness in RA2 was taken with a lot of salt. It had many comic relief elements, Yuri was comically evil, the Russians were usually talking loudly, laughing and doing less than commendable acts, Americans were loud, arrogant and proud, but never annoyingly so.
    RA3 completely, utterly lacks these elements. It takes the campyness with a little over-the-topness to it, but has nowhere near as much lighthearted silly things to smile at. It makes you think of someone trying to be funny campy, but is just boring.

    Ultimately, with a weaker style and tone, no real strength in its gameplay and less identity in its music and quotes than RA2, RA3 is an acceptable, but clearly inferior game.

    I personally entirely blame EA for turning the gorgeous franchise from Westwood into a cheap Starcraft knockoff. I know this game came before SC2, but it copies SC1.
    Not as good for the strategist as the real C&C was, and not as fun for the keyboard masher as Starcraft is.    … Expand
  3. Genek13
    Nov 20, 2019
    6
    Don't make me wrong - I love C&C and Red Alert, but this installment is... let's say ok ? Mechanics are similiar to this from Tiberium Wars, but this graphics... I can't stand the look of this units, very cartoonish and silly... miss those from RA2...
    Campaign is long, funny and enjoyable, especially with friend.
  4. RichterB.
    Oct 30, 2008
    6
    Don't let mountains of EA press releases fool you: the Red Alert series hasn't "always been ridiculous". The first Red Alert was a fantastic game that built upon the original C&C, both in story and atmosphere; yes, the full motion video WAS cheesy, but unintentionally (and thus endearingly) so. RA2 definitely possessed an obvious silly streak, but the gameplay was solid enough Don't let mountains of EA press releases fool you: the Red Alert series hasn't "always been ridiculous". The first Red Alert was a fantastic game that built upon the original C&C, both in story and atmosphere; yes, the full motion video WAS cheesy, but unintentionally (and thus endearingly) so. RA2 definitely possessed an obvious silly streak, but the gameplay was solid enough to make a highlight of the C&C family. RA3 is not a terrible game, but the changes (the over-the-top tone, the oversimplification of resource gathering, the boobs, etc) will alienate a lot of us fans who prefer to remember things differently. If this is what C&C has come down to, then count me out.… Expand
  5. MarkL
    Jan 24, 2009
    7
    I agree in everyone who said that this game is only for the cinematics. The game is allmost a copy of red alert 2. Its the same units, the same objectives. I, being a big fan of the CNC series (especially Red Alert), think this is one of the biggest dissapointments i've had in my gaming experience. The Things i liked about the game tough, is the graphics. Much better than the older I agree in everyone who said that this game is only for the cinematics. The game is allmost a copy of red alert 2. Its the same units, the same objectives. I, being a big fan of the CNC series (especially Red Alert), think this is one of the biggest dissapointments i've had in my gaming experience. The Things i liked about the game tough, is the graphics. Much better than the older games. The Story in campaign is nice too, and then the thing that they've used real-life recordings in the game is so cool.… Expand
  6. boomshanka
    May 18, 2012
    7
    I really wanted to give this game a good rating. I enjoyed the C&C Generals series a lot and this game seemed to have a bit of that same mix of cheesiness and great gameplay. There are some really nice new RTS features like campaign co-op and 3 completely different stories to choose from. The graphics are okay too and the AI is also pretty intelligent. What ultimately ruined some of theI really wanted to give this game a good rating. I enjoyed the C&C Generals series a lot and this game seemed to have a bit of that same mix of cheesiness and great gameplay. There are some really nice new RTS features like campaign co-op and 3 completely different stories to choose from. The graphics are okay too and the AI is also pretty intelligent. What ultimately ruined some of the fun I had was the amount of micromanagement and irritating game flaws which affected the gameplay a lot; errors in path finding which makes your units stop, the default stance being too passive and not being able to select a default stance for all games which will make your units ignore enemies close by, the way you have to scroll all the way back to your base and actively select your construction building in order to set its waypoint. These types of flaws would probably not mean so much if they did not affect the gameplay but unfortunately they do. This game has great potential and a delightful cheesiness to the story but the gameplay issues have not been prioritized enough to be fixed and sadly that ruined it for me.… Expand
  7. behastie
    Mar 5, 2013
    7
    Well, it's not Star Craft... I rather enjoyed the gameplay honestly; I've logged 27 hours on it so far, so I certainly can't complain that I was not entertained. I can however complain about the disgraceful sexism (ironic or not it's pretty bad), horrible acting, confusing story-line and inscrutable unit design. Story/acting aside, the biggest problem that I had with this game is that unitWell, it's not Star Craft... I rather enjoyed the gameplay honestly; I've logged 27 hours on it so far, so I certainly can't complain that I was not entertained. I can however complain about the disgraceful sexism (ironic or not it's pretty bad), horrible acting, confusing story-line and inscrutable unit design. Story/acting aside, the biggest problem that I had with this game is that unit function is not intuitive. I simply couldn't remember which infantry kills vehicles or whether the freeze ray was good against tanks or smaller units or whether I should just use it against the anti-air that swarms in every campaign mission.… Expand
  8. MarkJ.
    Oct 26, 2008
    5
    I am a firm supporter of Westwood Studios and their original view of Command and Conquer; It was a realistic RTS, with a firm storyline. Westwood Studios created very industrialized, mature RTS games. EA has taken Command & Conquer and turned it into a kids game, full of needless effects that don't improve anything but eye strain. Gameplay is and always will be accentuated by the I am a firm supporter of Westwood Studios and their original view of Command and Conquer; It was a realistic RTS, with a firm storyline. Westwood Studios created very industrialized, mature RTS games. EA has taken Command & Conquer and turned it into a kids game, full of needless effects that don't improve anything but eye strain. Gameplay is and always will be accentuated by the reason to play, with Westwood in charge, you were playing because you felt and were treated like an knowledgeable intellectual human being; with the capacity to understand complex yet exciting scenarios in which global military intervention is necessary. Electronic Arts has created a apathetic game in which the only thing that truly impresses you are the actors that incorporate the cut scenes.… Expand
  9. DanM
    Nov 7, 2008
    5
    This game can be fun but if you enjoy the original Red Alert, then stay away from this one. The original Red Alert was almost realistic, Red Alert 2 was not even to far fetched to imagine, Red Alert 3 is a complete launch into a fantasy realm that isn't for people who love the original RA. It does however provide some interesting new characteristics for a general RTS fan that you This game can be fun but if you enjoy the original Red Alert, then stay away from this one. The original Red Alert was almost realistic, Red Alert 2 was not even to far fetched to imagine, Red Alert 3 is a complete launch into a fantasy realm that isn't for people who love the original RA. It does however provide some interesting new characteristics for a general RTS fan that you should look into.… Expand
  10. antdude
    Oct 4, 2010
    5
    I loved C&C (before 4) and RA, but this was not fun. It didn't feel right either. I played the beta. I didn't like how you can't collect resources with harvesters any more. :( Cutscenes were fine, especially with the hot women. ;)
  11. quacker
    Dec 18, 2010
    5
    EA ruined the series with this game. The cartoonish graphics are completely uncharacteristic of the C&C series, as is the blatant sex-appeal. Other games had some attractive ladies here and there and maybe one scene (ex: the ends of RA2 and Yuri's Revenge) with some sex-appeal, which was in good taste. But EA has no style. For the most part, the previous two Red Alert's tried to keep theEA ruined the series with this game. The cartoonish graphics are completely uncharacteristic of the C&C series, as is the blatant sex-appeal. Other games had some attractive ladies here and there and maybe one scene (ex: the ends of RA2 and Yuri's Revenge) with some sex-appeal, which was in good taste. But EA has no style. For the most part, the previous two Red Alert's tried to keep the military aspect of the series realistic, while EA ignored this. The game overall isn't bad, but EA failed to capture the spirit of Red Alert with this game. Decent game, but for C&C fans it's a waste of money.… Expand
  12. ChoicestGames
    Mar 3, 2012
    7
    Red Alert 3 is a solid and fun RTS in a similar vein to its predecessor, Red Alert 2. However, if you're looking for something new in terms of RTSes, RA3 isn't it. Only sex-craving young teenage males and veteran Red Alert fans should apply.
  13. jwt7000
    Oct 13, 2011
    5
    This RTS game was very technically flawed from the sequel and the original. The past wasn't cartoonish in nature and it didn't have sexy characters either. Most of the money was wasted on some actresses and actors who didn't get much involved in the game. Only the good stuff are refractive water, co-op and balanced gameplay. Upgrades and more support powers would have been more useful toThis RTS game was very technically flawed from the sequel and the original. The past wasn't cartoonish in nature and it didn't have sexy characters either. Most of the money was wasted on some actresses and actors who didn't get much involved in the game. Only the good stuff are refractive water, co-op and balanced gameplay. Upgrades and more support powers would have been more useful to the game. The only feature I am impressed is the RA3 Mod SDK.… Expand
  14. JCT.
    Feb 24, 2009
    5
    This game has insulted Kane's Wrath players and forced Tiberium development into cancellation during the global recession. As anyways this is the worst RTS game I have ever seen in the global recession. While popularity are into their players' hands, I found this game with very poor expectations. Some ideas in this game are outdated, with a confusing spinoff story with cheap This game has insulted Kane's Wrath players and forced Tiberium development into cancellation during the global recession. As anyways this is the worst RTS game I have ever seen in the global recession. While popularity are into their players' hands, I found this game with very poor expectations. Some ideas in this game are outdated, with a confusing spinoff story with cheap actors/actresses in FMVs just to bargain for the money with the sex appeal shown. Also the graphics could have been sharper despite the cartoonish graphics and the engine still did not support 64-bit and DirectX10 compatibility. Gameplay is a bit out of date but was gained thanks to the co-op play feature though some users who gave poor scores said that gameplay is still fast and having still fragile units. Even the worst design in C&C history just happens to be the Apocalypse Tank which isn't even big then we thought to be and it lacks air defenses. And like what the other users have said, where's the creativity and innovation from EALA that we once had expected? They done their best on C&C3. If you look at Starcraft II, Company of Heroes and Dawn of War II, they performed better than this game because of their good features, good story, good gameplay and very good graphics. EALA might have thought they made this game their best including the best non-Hollywood actors/actresses when it's really C&C3 they made the best out of more than RA3. This rush release has been poor with incomplete development unlike on how Infinity Ward studios did on the Call of Duty series. Therefore this game is not a epic experience to C&C players out there.… Expand
  15. TomG.
    Nov 19, 2008
    5
    This is a very generous score EA. The 5 comes from the fact that it would be a rare find these lidays to come across an RTS with a unique and astute balance of streamlined gameplay, organic command/control and, last but never the least, an auspicious storyline. The once asymmetrical and oligopolized landscape of action strategy is now very much a mediocre affair, given room for certain This is a very generous score EA. The 5 comes from the fact that it would be a rare find these lidays to come across an RTS with a unique and astute balance of streamlined gameplay, organic command/control and, last but never the least, an auspicious storyline. The once asymmetrical and oligopolized landscape of action strategy is now very much a mediocre affair, given room for certain exceptions of course. Unfortunately RA3 is not among one of those few - far from it in fact. RA3 isn't alone in this field and industry of apparent complacency (it's been a while since my last having witnessed a solid RTS title - that of Blitzkrieg). However, that's no excuse for dishing up this ill-conceived, half-baked serving of what could have been a stunning revival to the genre. At risk of going off-course, I want to point out the progression of the Batman series of motion pictures. After the first two blockbusters directed by Tim Burton, the franchise went to the doghouse and got cleaned out by reviewers for its blatant absurdity and stark incoherency. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight changed all that because the series got back on track. It had rediscovered its ROOTS - the dark sardonic broodings of a pained crusader. The C&C series succeeded because it had embodied the crux of what was involved in the inevitable and perpetual struggle between the standing superpowers - quantity vs. quality. One striking element was the Red Horde or Tank Rush as referred to by some participants. The mammoth tank was an avid rendition of that concept which took flight - a powerful illustration of firepower, armored endurance and overwhelming superiority. It gave Westwood Studios all the Christmas bonuses it can take, buffet style, until EA came along and bought up the entire operation - BUMMER! Tiberian Sun failed to achieve stellar status because of the decision from somewhere within EA to exclude the mammoth tank from the game. I hope whomever made that call is serving out his term chipping rocks in Eastern Afghanistan. That walking thingy called the Titan just didn't cut it; it failed to make the distance by miles. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the original C&C and RA1 were dark. Both had their providentially inserted moments of comical relief which gave the game a certain quality of wit and charm. EA tried to mass-replicate the set of once-successful characteristics by turning the franchise, in its RA3 offering, into the Rocky Horror Picture Show of the RTS genre. What can the fans say? Innovation actually takes a fair bit more than transparent and reflective water effects. I'm uncertain as to their business model which underlines the intrinsic market segment targeted by the title. Perhaps it may connect with and develop a new fan base. I do know however that the game's direction, as dictated by EA, has done an exacting job towards alienating a significant proportion of pre-existing fans whom had marched through thick and hell alongside Westwood ever since the first original C&C hit the shelves in 1995. I was one of them.… Expand
  16. RileyS.
    Nov 9, 2008
    6
    Not nearly as good as Red Alert 2. Game lacks depth. AI generals are cheesy and childish. I wont play this game much. Units are not as cool as Red Alert 2. Nothing is as good.
  17. MathewG.
    Dec 13, 2008
    6
    This is probably the most mixed bag I have EVER come to review, as this game is a daring experiment and a shameless fanservice at the same time. On one hand, it is the continuation of one of the most popular and respected RTS franchises, on he other hand, it most definitely lacks the Westwood touch. On the plus side is the fact that, despite sheer simplicity of gameplay, This is probably the most mixed bag I have EVER come to review, as this game is a daring experiment and a shameless fanservice at the same time. On one hand, it is the continuation of one of the most popular and respected RTS franchises, on he other hand, it most definitely lacks the Westwood touch. On the plus side is the fact that, despite sheer simplicity of gameplay, self-contradictory storyline, ridiculous design, incredibly cheesy cutscenes and lack of any challenge whatsoever... this game is fun to play, simple as that. All factions are distinct and well-balanced, while pretty much every unit has a secondary ability which allows for a number of creative strategies to be implemented, the missions are quite varied, and inclusion of famous landmarks gives them a distinct feel. Music is at least good, especially the bombastic Soviet march played in the main menu, and battle themes for all factions, and graphics, cartoony design aside, are well-detailed and smooth. On the other hand, there is a lot of problems both small and big. The very first thing that strikes every longtime fan of C&C is the utter lack of understanding of the series on devs' behalf. Until now, RA2 was the only C&C game with intentionally cheesy cutscenes and cartoonish design - the first three games were gritty, quite dark tales about world war, and that's how the series' 'founders' envisioned it. RA3, on the other hand, throws all of it away, which is visible in pretty much every unit and scenario of the game. The ideas implemented range from weird (an Imperial unit transforming from a sub to an anti-ground fighter and vice versa) to completely retarded (a chopper capable of shrinking down units or Mt. Rushmore monuments turned into laser cannons). Design is also weird at best - the mighty Apocalypse tank (well remembered as the respectable, realistically-looking behemoth from RA2) looks like something that could be classified as weaponized toy, while the entire Empire looks like a corny collection of various anime rejects, from Mecha Tengu land/ground unite to the insanely powerful Shogun Executioner. Even the most plausible units are strange - in the previous C&C games even the most outlandish units had had a certain deal of plausibility to them due to design that was rooted in a real-life weapons. Here, on the other hand, units look as if they were designed after toys. The only units that have genuine character to them are the Kirov Airship (the design of which is taken directly from RA2...) and a few naval units (out of which, once more, a number was taken from the previous installment). The other problem is the implementation of the AI commander to aid. While the player has a limited control over his or her actions, they are very basic and ultimately come down to simply ammasing an army and sending it to slaughter. There is no 'Hold your ground' or 'Expand to this mine' kind of subtleties - it's all brawn and no brains. The AI commander has also a very 'all or nothing' attitude - upon ordering him to execute an instant attack on a selected target sends ALL his units at once to the given location - that way, before the heavy armor arrives, the fastest units are usually slaughtered by the enemy, who later on has no trouble dispatching the other units who manage to catch up. This way, sometimes destruction of a simple Factory is done at a high price in resources and personnel. What's worse, the Co-Commander and the player share their income - which tends to be infuriating, as the AI eagerily builds units only to lose them a few moments later... and it comes partially at the player's expanse. The campaign is strangely designed; but before I get into it, let me recap how the previous C&C games handled it. The first RA had 14 missions per side... with only TWO warring factions and a SINGLE continent. That really gave the conflict a punch - even as the Allied divisions locked on Moscow, or Soviet war Juggernaut approached the final Allied resistance point, they still had to give it their all, as the enemy fought (literally) to the last men. The inclusion of Counterstrike and Aftermath only increased the number of missions, and quite difficult one sat that, ultimately making it a whooping 26 missions per side. Now, that's a bloody, lengthy, plausible conflict. The cutscenes, while tended to be overacted and cheesy, still gave the sense of urgency and seriousness to the conflict unfolding in front of the player. The same can be said about Tiberian Sun and C&C aka Tiberian Dawn. Even Red Alert 2, despite intentional cheesiness, managed to add this sense of urgency to the campaign - nuclear destruction of Chicago followed by a covert operation meant to neutrilize Soviet nuke silos, almost defeated Allies who nevertheless posed a threat beacause of their Chronosphere... most, if not all missions felt strategically important and somewhat logical. In RA 3, on the other hand, the campaign is very brief, despite plenty of stuff to do in every mission (9 missions per side, and it's a three faction war pretty much from the beginning), and feels very disjointed. The objectives sometimes are strange, too - for instance (SPOILER) the final Soviet mission requires the player to destroy Fort Bradley and the Statue of Liberty... and that's all. The Allies lose their cherished monument, and surrender. There is no mission in Washington, or any other strategic target in the US - compare it to RA2, when invasion of the Big Apple was just the third mission, and even that was but one victory, as Allies continued to oppose. The other thing that feels strange is how little it takes to take out a warring party out of the conflict - in RA it took 14 missions to finish the war against a single enemy, in RA 2, 12 battles to take out the Soviet Union or Allies and enemies within. In RA 3, it's usually 4 or 5 missions to eliminate a faction. It makes the conflict hardly believable, as victory seems to come too fast and too easy. This rant is getting too long for what's supposed to be a brief comment, so let's wrap it up - RA3 is definitely an enjoyable game, yet it is more of a shadow of what the series used to be. If you are a fan of the series, make sure you know what you are up to, as this game departs very far from the original feel and style of the series, and mostly does so with poor results.… Expand
  18. Mark
    Jan 10, 2009
    6
    The campaign in Red Alert 3 is good fun to play through . Once. However, the multiplayer has a lot of balance issues. For example: an opponent can send a handful of helicopters into your base, and after decimating your air defenses (which shouldn't happen) can then procede to wipe out your base within seconds, while you are powerless to resists because units take forever to build and The campaign in Red Alert 3 is good fun to play through . Once. However, the multiplayer has a lot of balance issues. For example: an opponent can send a handful of helicopters into your base, and after decimating your air defenses (which shouldn't happen) can then procede to wipe out your base within seconds, while you are powerless to resists because units take forever to build and die too quickly anyway. This is command and conquer in name only.… Expand
  19. Airabisu
    Sep 18, 2011
    6
    Pros (Opinion)
    Co-Op - I just love gaming with friends. If your into that sorta thing.
    Graphics - Decent, graphics however matters little. Intriguing Units - some units are rather fascinating. Decent Interface - Hard to complicate. Strategic - Units have dual purpose. You'll find it fun when your screwing around with those global abilities. Cons (Opinion) Simplified Resource Collection -    Pros (Opinion)
    Co-Op - I just love gaming with friends. If your into that sorta thing.
    Graphics - Decent, graphics however matters little.
    Intriguing Units - some units are rather fascinating.
    Decent Interface - Hard to complicate.
    Strategic - Units have dual purpose. You'll find it fun when your screwing around with those global abilities.

    Cons (Opinion)
    Simplified Resource Collection - I'm a Empire Earth 2 Fan, excuse me!
    Strategy - sometimes it doesn't matter, send everything in....
    Poorly designed units : Seriously ran out of ideas.
    Non existing units : Ran out of ideas.
    Content : Ran out of ideas. You get my drift.

    Logged Hours of Play : 49
    Played Hours Worth : Decent
    Replay : Little

    Compare (Opinion)
    (PC)Red Alert 2 + Expansions >= (PS1)Red Alert 1 + Expansion (I am really fighting with this one.)
    (PS1)Red Alert 1 + Expansions > (PC)Red Alert 3 + Expansion (Nano second of thoughts)
    Like Supreme Commander? Then you will like Red Alert 3.
    Like Company of Heroes? Then you will find Red Alert 3 unpleasant.
    Individual
    Little under Decent... I can't really say much more than that.

    Insight
    I can't recommend this game to just anyone. They didn't do well with this project, however I hope their future RTS projects do not fall as this one did. I had hoped to enjoy 100's of hours of gaming, to fall short of decent means I can only say, at least it was entertaining, keeping me preoccupied for 1-2 weeks before moving on completely. I was unable to pick the game up again knowing how disappointed I was. I hope you find a means of playing without paying, or if it is on sale, I do not want you to feel that your money was all but wasted. My feelings on EA taking on the Red Alert Project?
    Quote "I don't want to live on this planet anymore."
    -Professor Farnsworth / Futurama : A Clockwork Origin    … Expand
  20. Blackbeard
    May 19, 2011
    7
    I love the Red Alert games. If this review was for Red Alert 2, I would be giving it a 10 and wishing i could give it higher than that. But... for Red Alert 3, i feel i am being generous with the grade of a 7. I like the special abilities for units, and the maps are ok. My major problem with this game is that you can't turn off the super weapons. For me, I liked a good meat grinderI love the Red Alert games. If this review was for Red Alert 2, I would be giving it a 10 and wishing i could give it higher than that. But... for Red Alert 3, i feel i am being generous with the grade of a 7. I like the special abilities for units, and the maps are ok. My major problem with this game is that you can't turn off the super weapons. For me, I liked a good meat grinder game with no bombs or crazy special ability attacks. Come on EA games!! how hard would it have been to add the ability to turn off all that wierd crap. Plus, gamespy really really sucks.… Expand
  21. auptyk
    Mar 4, 2011
    7
    Its a fun game that is really kind of cheesy but in a fun way. One thing that I didn't like and this is just preference is it focuses too much on Micro. I only play in the Skirmish option, but I like to just camp out and then steam roll the computer. This is hard to do in Red Alert 3, but I still manage. The game is more focused on small diverse groups of enemies with special abilitiesIts a fun game that is really kind of cheesy but in a fun way. One thing that I didn't like and this is just preference is it focuses too much on Micro. I only play in the Skirmish option, but I like to just camp out and then steam roll the computer. This is hard to do in Red Alert 3, but I still manage. The game is more focused on small diverse groups of enemies with special abilities that can be utilized. I am just not good with the micro, and use C&C as a game to relax so i will never take the time to get all the hot keys down etc. Its by far worth getting, its a lot of fun, and for sure not the weakest in the franchise (I am looking at you Tiberium Twilight). But I think that C&C3 is still my game of choice in this Franchise.… Expand
  22. SamL.
    Dec 8, 2008
    7
    If not for the cinematics i will not even pick up this game, it looks & plays like C&C3 without the humour of course. If not for the lack of RTS game this year this game was not even worth a 6. Luckily EA realised that & pushes the game early this year. With Starcraft 2, demigod & DOW 2 released next year this game is busted. If yous still have C&C3 on your closet don't bother to If not for the cinematics i will not even pick up this game, it looks & plays like C&C3 without the humour of course. If not for the lack of RTS game this year this game was not even worth a 6. Luckily EA realised that & pushes the game early this year. With Starcraft 2, demigod & DOW 2 released next year this game is busted. If yous still have C&C3 on your closet don't bother to pick this up, this another copy & paste.… Expand
  23. AdamC
    Oct 30, 2008
    5
    Only started playing it so I wont be too critical. There are quite a few things that bug me in this game. The zanny cartoony gameplay is fine. However the sluggish U.I, building placement & and balance irritating me the most. Its my opinion that developers shouldn't be irritating its customers when it comes to gameplay. how the hell it current form but past beta stage is a shock Only started playing it so I wont be too critical. There are quite a few things that bug me in this game. The zanny cartoony gameplay is fine. However the sluggish U.I, building placement & and balance irritating me the most. Its my opinion that developers shouldn't be irritating its customers when it comes to gameplay. how the hell it current form but past beta stage is a shock frankly. Meh, I'll spend more time playing it.… Expand
  24. lizard
    Dec 5, 2008
    7
    It's tempting to bash this game just because it's an EA product, the C&C franchise was at it's best when under the wing of Westwood studios, there's still some life in the old dog yet but somehow the old magic seems to be missing from more recent releases. This holds true for the latest offering - Red Alert 3, it isn't a total disaster however - it's quite a It's tempting to bash this game just because it's an EA product, the C&C franchise was at it's best when under the wing of Westwood studios, there's still some life in the old dog yet but somehow the old magic seems to be missing from more recent releases. This holds true for the latest offering - Red Alert 3, it isn't a total disaster however - it's quite a fun game in many respects and it's certainly very highly polished ( like the majority of EA products). The cut scenes are quite entertaining, the graphics are all very well done, it seems pretty much bug free and stable (unlike a few recent releases I could mention), in terms of atmosphere and presentation this game feels very much like it's predecessors ( especially RA2 ), the new faction - The Empire Of The Rising Sun fits in quite nicely and has some interesting units . Having said all this there are some issues, quite big ones at that, whilst EA have done a good job of making this look and feel like a C&C game they seem to have really dropped the ball in the game balance department . For starters the resource system seems to have been dumbed down quite a bit and it's a move away from the more traditional C&C resource model, also the resources just seem to trickle in at quite a slow rate ( at least in the single player campaign , I can't comment on the rest ) meaning that once you have depleted your initial reserves the game really starts to bog down no matter how many refineries you have. This brings me on to my second gripe, the units seem way too weak and puny - whole armies can be flattened in the blink of an eye and considering they can take quite a long time to assemble this can lead to a very unbalanced gameplay experience . It's also not a particularly original game, the co-op mode was about it's only innovation and it feels like something we should have had years ago, not that every game needs to be new and original of course, especially with an established franchise ( there are certian elements that long term fans will demand to see included which narrows the scope for innovation) . I found the singleplayer campaign compelling and fun to play through but the strange game balance decisions made by the developers make skirmish and multiplayer (apart from maybe co-op mode) seem less appealing . All in all I think I got my money's worth but now that I've played through the single player campaign I won't be coming back to this game anytime soon .… Expand
  25. COMThing
    Jun 12, 2014
    5
    RA3 is a big disappointment compared to RA2 and even C&C 3. I would go so far as to say that the only thing this game has going for it is bases on water. The AI is arguably worse than in C&C 3 and tries to make up for it by having no reaction time. The result is you either dominate them early or they spam late-game units and coordinate multiple large sacle attacks at once on differentRA3 is a big disappointment compared to RA2 and even C&C 3. I would go so far as to say that the only thing this game has going for it is bases on water. The AI is arguably worse than in C&C 3 and tries to make up for it by having no reaction time. The result is you either dominate them early or they spam late-game units and coordinate multiple large sacle attacks at once on different locations (not something a human could do). Overall though, it has decent gameplay and can be fun at times.… Expand
  26. Wiebe
    Feb 26, 2020
    6
    Lacking debt, just blend and not unique, not memorable, but it is a functional RTS
  27. IceCobra
    Jun 18, 2013
    7
    Red alert 3 in my mind was fantastic and really funny. the rising sun was quite unexpected however made the experience quite enjoyable. The units were also very nice, the graphics were cool and best of all the co-op mode which was a good move in the right direction. Not as good as some of the old originals but never the less an enjoyable game to play
  28. RealEnigma
    Feb 26, 2014
    6
    While it's still a good game, it fails to live up to its expectations after Red Alert 2. The graphics looks almost cartoony or team fortress 2-esque. The story is silly and a little stupid, but still playable. The gameplay itself is solid, but once again, it fails to live up to expectations.
  29. Rauffan
    Jul 1, 2014
    7
    I have lots of fun with this game, despite its flaws. Co-op with friends is very funny and the action is really intense. And I personally enjoy the colourfulness of the maps and the characters. However, I understand most of its hate because of how different it is now from the original C&C games. Also, some of mechanics are not well-made, there is a clear unbalance between some troops. II have lots of fun with this game, despite its flaws. Co-op with friends is very funny and the action is really intense. And I personally enjoy the colourfulness of the maps and the characters. However, I understand most of its hate because of how different it is now from the original C&C games. Also, some of mechanics are not well-made, there is a clear unbalance between some troops. I would reccomend this game, but just as a different way to have fun.… Expand
  30. ShawnD
    Jul 15, 2018
    6
    It's ok I guess. 6/10

    My complaint is that it has a lot of bizarre limitations on the units, and it screws up the gameplay. For example, soviet attack helicopters can only attack ground units. They cannot attack other air units. Conversely, soviet fighter jets can attack air units but cannot attack ground units. Why? It seems like shoehorned complexity into the game. I also don't like    It's ok I guess. 6/10

    My complaint is that it has a lot of bizarre limitations on the units, and it screws up the gameplay. For example, soviet attack helicopters can only attack ground units. They cannot attack other air units. Conversely, soviet fighter jets can attack air units but cannot attack ground units. Why? It seems like shoehorned complexity into the game. I also don't like how apocalypse tanks no longer have AA missiles, so they can't be put into a single attack group. We're forced to have mixed groups of helicopters with migs, apocalypse tanks with AA vehicles, etc. It feels like a micromanagement simulator.    … Expand
  31. GreK4
    Jul 27, 2021
    7
    Interest game. Especially, film in there. Actors play so interesting. But for me this game had so difficultly and I didn't had experience for finally it.
  32. SilverOrlov
    Sep 28, 2019
    7
    I can’t call this game bad. But I can't call this game good as well. I really did not like the graphics of this game, it is wildly like some toys, like some kind of inflatable plastic balls in a bright overly colored surroundings. And the plot, some are also a little wild: In the second part, it was holistic, strong, interesting, with an atmosphere ... And here, there is a feeling that youI can’t call this game bad. But I can't call this game good as well. I really did not like the graphics of this game, it is wildly like some toys, like some kind of inflatable plastic balls in a bright overly colored surroundings. And the plot, some are also a little wild: In the second part, it was holistic, strong, interesting, with an atmosphere ... And here, there is a feeling that you are playing some kind of not very popular Japanese average anime about robots and samurai.… Expand
  33. RTS-Lover
    Mar 18, 2019
    7
    The hard-counter RTS #1. While being quite similar to earlier RA games when it comes to controls and APM demands, RA3 got extremely diversified units, due to the rock-scissor-paper armor system. Although I for the most part dislike these kind of hard-counters I must say it plays well. It can get a bit annoying, however, when it gets hard to actually finish an opponent even though you'reThe hard-counter RTS #1. While being quite similar to earlier RA games when it comes to controls and APM demands, RA3 got extremely diversified units, due to the rock-scissor-paper armor system. Although I for the most part dislike these kind of hard-counters I must say it plays well. It can get a bit annoying, however, when it gets hard to actually finish an opponent even though you're levels better. The answer seems to be to have a diversed army to begin with, but this of course hurt the strategic depth in the game.

    The campaign is, as in all RAs, very enjoyable and funny. After all, the C&C series focus on singleplayer/co-op rather than classic 1v1 multiplayer game, and RA3 is no exception.    … Expand
  34. Tumen
    Jan 16, 2020
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The game of my childhood, but I will not raise the score. The game is simply put unfinished for me, the game is not a continuation of the part it is essentially a different universe… Expand
  35. TenionFCSM
    Jun 28, 2020
    6
    Of all the frequent red alerts, I have the most inappropriate attitude towards this. Cranberries in the game has become prohibitive. The company itself was as boring as possible. It seems that they added a new side to the conflict, but somehow there was no desire to go into the multiplayer once again.
  36. IdleSpace
    Nov 25, 2021
    6
    Раньше нравилась эта игра, на момент оценки (конец 2021 года) играется совсем плохо.
    Синематики топ, не знаю что еще и сказать. Пройдите еще раз Warcraft 3.
  37. Naked_Snakee
    Apr 8, 2023
    6
    Just text (crutch) to save the game to the list. Such things. Maybe I'll do a review later.

Awards & Rankings

26
#26 Best PC Game of 2008
18
#18 Most Discussed PC Game of 2008
11
#11 Most Shared PC Game of 2008

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
82

Generally favorable reviews - based on 55 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 48 out of 55
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 55
  3. Negative: 0 out of 55
  1. PC Gamer
    92
    Any game in which a giant laser cannon pops out of Teddy Roosevelt's head on Mt. Rushmore is a winner in my book...Red Alert 3 is a highly polished game that doesn't take itself the least bit seriously, and co-op play might jus be the next big thing in RTS. [Holiday 2008, p.62]
  2. GamePro
    80
    Red Alert 3 is by no means a bad addition to the Red Alert series, but compared to its forebears it lacks much of the panache the series held and may hold some disappointments for fans despite the addition of a good new faction and a fairly satisfying single-player experience.
    Read full review
  3. GameSpy
    80
    What was a tongue-in-cheek look at Cold War paranoia married to solid RTS gameplay has blossomed into a pure comedy that retains the easy-to-pick-up and addictive-as-peanuts gameplay of the best in the Command & Conquer franchise. It's not a game that will redefine strategy gaming, but it is one heck of an enjoyable ride.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »