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. M.Alex
    Jan 21, 2009
    4
    Unfortunatly, I'm very disappointed by this game. I'm primarily a single-player person, and the co-op doesn't entice me at all, and playing with a AI commander is incredibly irritating. I really loved C&C3, which was a good step after the horrid Generals, but in this part of the franchise EA managed to loose the plot again. Shame.
  2. RoyW
    Jan 20, 2009
    0
    Bought this game on steam, so i couldn't "return" it. very disappointed in this game, it lacks in game play and graphics. Pros: The cut scene's are great, the girls are great. Cons: The game-play lacks badly, be first to build your base not so you can have an awesome killer army, but so you can get your special attacks then you can air-strike your enemy. This will wipe them out Bought this game on steam, so i couldn't "return" it. very disappointed in this game, it lacks in game play and graphics. Pros: The cut scene's are great, the girls are great. Cons: The game-play lacks badly, be first to build your base not so you can have an awesome killer army, but so you can get your special attacks then you can air-strike your enemy. This will wipe them out almost instantly and it's game over for them. This lacks having to use all of your army. Overall: I'd love my money back to buy anther game, really would.… Expand
  3. Zak
    Jan 19, 2009
    3
    They completely ruined it. The first Red Alert wasn't cartoony, silly, or remotely light hearted. It was a violent, scary portrayal of war, with gassing, bombing, and even a cinematic with Stalin being buried alive. EA shouldn't be trying to make the Red Alert series their funny line, they should get Westwood back and make some good games. Though the soundtrack was awesome.
  4. Johnw
    Jan 13, 2009
    1
    I cannot believe that they managed to ruin such a great franchise! -The graphics are awful, look old and are very confusing nad they are also TOO bright -The camera is TOO close to the ground -The units are like they came out of a stupid manga comic for 10 year old kids -You just place an ore refinery and that's it! No more resource strategies! -Limited Buildings, Units -Female I cannot believe that they managed to ruin such a great franchise! -The graphics are awful, look old and are very confusing nad they are also TOO bright -The camera is TOO close to the ground -The units are like they came out of a stupid manga comic for 10 year old kids -You just place an ore refinery and that's it! No more resource strategies! -Limited Buildings, Units -Female actors are like they are preparing for a porno film shoot. -Lack of many automatic defenses for your base -Units can walk on land and sea!! Just build anything you like! it can do anything!! No more strategy here as well -Finally the DRM thing... I miss the old WestWood Red Alert It was a classic, serious, true strategy game for all ages. Red Alert 3 is a shame for the strategy genre. Pity C&C 3 Tiberium Wars was much better and a more serious strategy game. Why did they destroy this one?… Expand
  5. JohnS
    Jan 10, 2009
    4
    I have loved the C&C series, but ever since EA got a hold of it, it seems to be dying. While RA3 is probably EA's best C&C game, it still isn't that good. The new resource-gathering techniques make the gameplay slow, the units are extra expensive, extra buildings build MCVs, barracks and war factories buy extra upgrades to buy decent units. Games last far too long with the I have loved the C&C series, but ever since EA got a hold of it, it seems to be dying. While RA3 is probably EA's best C&C game, it still isn't that good. The new resource-gathering techniques make the gameplay slow, the units are extra expensive, extra buildings build MCVs, barracks and war factories buy extra upgrades to buy decent units. Games last far too long with the gameplay being far too slow. True, this game will probably be revived once some good mods come out for it, but I personally got bored with it just after days of playing it. Sure it has flashy graphics, but you won't be able to stand the gameplay for very long.… Expand
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. DerekT
    Jan 7, 2009
    4
    I was a huge fan of RA2 back in the good Westwood days. It really sucks that EA managed to get their hands on such a gem of a game, because honestly I think they spend too much effort on the 'Live action movies' which are all basicly pro american soft-core porn vids of busty women hanging around generals and marines. If you were a Red Alert fan like I was I would not suggest I was a huge fan of RA2 back in the good Westwood days. It really sucks that EA managed to get their hands on such a gem of a game, because honestly I think they spend too much effort on the 'Live action movies' which are all basicly pro american soft-core porn vids of busty women hanging around generals and marines. If you were a Red Alert fan like I was I would not suggest buying this game. It looks and feels slightly the same but really lacks actual effort being put into it. It's just dumbed down too far for kids.… Expand
  9. AlexB.
    Dec 27, 2008
    8
    This is a great RTS and a good Red Alert RTS. The Red Alert games were always better than the Tiberium games that came before them and this is no exception. Red Alert 3 is much more balanced, appealing to the eye, and a lot more fun to play than C&C 3. It doesn't seem to have that same attraction that keeps me playing Red Alert 2 to this day, but I can see myself playing this for a while.
  10. ThomasM.
    Dec 20, 2008
    8
    As a fan of the C&C series, I was worried when I first heard about the story of this game. But after playing this game i felt it is a welcome addition to the Red Alert family. It has its downfall, poor AI, and the co-op though great idea was not as well done as it could have been. However it has the cheesy acting and hot women which makes a Red Alert game, the sound track is good, the As a fan of the C&C series, I was worried when I first heard about the story of this game. But after playing this game i felt it is a welcome addition to the Red Alert family. It has its downfall, poor AI, and the co-op though great idea was not as well done as it could have been. However it has the cheesy acting and hot women which makes a Red Alert game, the sound track is good, the maps are fun, the units and special powers are good not the best in the series but a lot better then C&C 3. It is a worthy addition to any C&C fan collection… Expand
  11. AdamW.
    Dec 19, 2008
    10
    okay first im going to say that if people want a new "revolution" of RTS or the C&C series dont bother. but this game is very fun. all the people who are like "ore collecting is gay and the units are crap and tanya is blond" should leave. RA3 should be given a chance like all other games. this is a massive improvement over stupid C&C 3 that you could spam raider buggies and then overwhelm okay first im going to say that if people want a new "revolution" of RTS or the C&C series dont bother. but this game is very fun. all the people who are like "ore collecting is gay and the units are crap and tanya is blond" should leave. RA3 should be given a chance like all other games. this is a massive improvement over stupid C&C 3 that you could spam raider buggies and then overwhelm the enemy, this is true balance.… Expand
  12. King
    Dec 16, 2008
    1
    I had high hopes for this game, and they were dashed soundly. While playing this game it is painfull obvious they spent all of their budget on the women they included. Gameplay is awful, and using your units to their full potential is irrelevant. The game has the same overall flaw that I saw in CNC3, which is build up your base as fast as possible and spam the one kill-all unit. The I had high hopes for this game, and they were dashed soundly. While playing this game it is painfull obvious they spent all of their budget on the women they included. Gameplay is awful, and using your units to their full potential is irrelevant. The game has the same overall flaw that I saw in CNC3, which is build up your base as fast as possible and spam the one kill-all unit. The enticing "Water Battles" they promised ruins the navy aspect, allowing most navy units to drive on land and most land units to drive around seemlessly on water. This is an insult to the gaming community, driven by EA's obvious lack of creativity.… Expand
  13. 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
  14. JoeM.
    Dec 8, 2008
    3
    I bought this game, only to take it back 24 hours later. The onlything interesting about this game is the coop. There are no unique units, no fun maps, the acting is terrible and quite frankly, its just an embarassment to EA games. I took a careful look at those who dared give this game anything higher than a 75 rating.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. MikeG.
    Nov 25, 2008
    3
    Hmmm...where to begin. As a C&C fan of the older games, this version created by EA has me scratching my head in between imprinting keys on my forehead. It feels like it was an obligatory installment, and not something done well except hitting all of the right 'selling marks': Sex and RA. Just the fact that they made Tanya a blonde in this installment instead of a brunette like Hmmm...where to begin. As a C&C fan of the older games, this version created by EA has me scratching my head in between imprinting keys on my forehead. It feels like it was an obligatory installment, and not something done well except hitting all of the right 'selling marks': Sex and RA. Just the fact that they made Tanya a blonde in this installment instead of a brunette like in the previous two annoys me. Various plot flaws, including the presence of the chronosphere and lack of other chrono units annoys me. A lack of returning cast (General Carville, anyone?) hurts, but the current cast suffices, though the whole purpose of the female cast is to show as much as possible to the player, in terms of skin. Micromanagement of what little units there are can be frustrating in a large group of mixed units. a decided lack of a unit capable of ferrying land-locked vehicles across water without resorting to the massive plot-flaw that is the chronosphere extremely annoying. Ore collecting is a joke, lacking any possibility of a renewable resource for those long boxing matches I used to savor with the opponent, which now is usually taken out by my computer counterpart from sheer unit-pumping ability. I now have an obnoxious computer that I must lead by the hand in particular missions, as well as lose opportunities in commandeering enemy structures because the computer's units are trigger happy. Once again, I feel like a great game is squandered to pay fanservice to the almighty console gamer, the complete lack of a PC-oriented game in a PC-based series. They don't even dignify the PC version by hosting it's own matchmaking service, instead relying on the horrid Gamespy service for multiplayer capabilities, whereas the console version merely uses it's own services. I remember a time when this series of games was exactly that: A series. Now, it feels like a game produced for the sake of it.… Expand
  18. ShinjiS.
    Nov 21, 2008
    9
    I adore the red alert series for is absolute campy insainity! It also makes for a great rts game ontop of that. This newest entry takes all of the zanyness of the red alert story line to even more dizzying hieghts in the best way. Some of the diologe was rather clique and predictable but over all still a delight. This cast is the best in a video game I have seen to date. As far as the I adore the red alert series for is absolute campy insainity! It also makes for a great rts game ontop of that. This newest entry takes all of the zanyness of the red alert story line to even more dizzying hieghts in the best way. Some of the diologe was rather clique and predictable but over all still a delight. This cast is the best in a video game I have seen to date. As far as the actual game play goes, It isnt too different from past editions which means it is just as fun only a whole lot prettier. I havent really got to play with all three factions enough to really get a feel for the balance. Of course the C&C games have never been able in my opinion to reach the level of balance found in starcraft but the shear number of crazy options you have on what to build it a blast.… Expand
  19. JakeS.
    Nov 21, 2008
    3
    Someone else said that this game is only appealing to Red Alert fans. I am in that category and I want to shoot whomever is responsible. Sadly, my wife gave it to me as a gift. She knows how much I loved RA2 and she was so happy to buy it for me. Now I have to pretend that I like it.
  20. BlamM.
    Nov 20, 2008
    1
    You must be kidding me! When is the press going to stop kissing EA's butt. Any other company puts a game this stale out and they would get slammed. It's the same game we've all been playing since Command & Conquer 1 and that's just not acceptable.
  21. TimB
    Nov 19, 2008
    2
    Abysmal AI. Resource collection (a key part of RA) is nearly non-existent. They seemed to spend more on boobs than they did on the AI and gameplay.
  22. LászlóG.
    Nov 19, 2008
    4
    Nice graphics, and the co-op mode is a good shot, but after i mentioned this two new features, there is nothing new to say. No, really there is nothing to say, this game has nice graphics ( water), bad actors ( especially, the russian characters were poorly played.) and the possibility to call your friend to help you complete a mission.... by the way it takes only 4 hours ( cigarette and Nice graphics, and the co-op mode is a good shot, but after i mentioned this two new features, there is nothing new to say. No, really there is nothing to say, this game has nice graphics ( water), bad actors ( especially, the russian characters were poorly played.) and the possibility to call your friend to help you complete a mission.... by the way it takes only 4 hours ( cigarette and coffe breaks included) to finish the russian champaign on hard..... oh my god... couldn't you just resurrect the old C&C feeling?… Expand
  23. 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
  24. JH
    Nov 18, 2008
    3
    The AI is abysmal in the campaign (friendly AI keeps dying), and in skirmishes (rushes early in the game, then is easily decimated if you survive the one-time rush). The game is RA2 on speed... everything needs to be micromanaged and done at extreme speeds or you will be raped. It honestly feels like RA2 reboxed with some new units and graphics. EA has yet again shown its abilities of The AI is abysmal in the campaign (friendly AI keeps dying), and in skirmishes (rushes early in the game, then is easily decimated if you survive the one-time rush). The game is RA2 on speed... everything needs to be micromanaged and done at extreme speeds or you will be raped. It honestly feels like RA2 reboxed with some new units and graphics. EA has yet again shown its abilities of taking an existing game and re-releasing with ass gameplay and buggy AI.… Expand
  25. CBCB
    Nov 16, 2008
    3
    Red Alert 3 is a bastardized, arcade version of the classic RTS genre. It is an exercise in monetizing the franchise by EA and a way to boost their stock price. If you are not already a Red Alert fanatic, you'll likely rate this game a 40% (no grade inflation). The graphics are updated and look very good. There are a lot of vividly animated and colored units with the usual funny Red Alert 3 is a bastardized, arcade version of the classic RTS genre. It is an exercise in monetizing the franchise by EA and a way to boost their stock price. If you are not already a Red Alert fanatic, you'll likely rate this game a 40% (no grade inflation). The graphics are updated and look very good. There are a lot of vividly animated and colored units with the usual funny voices. A lot of people are up in arms about the cut scenes - when regarded in that light, Red Alert 3 is more of an interactive third tier movie. For $10 you can do much better in a movie theater (or for much less if you use Netflix like I do). The strategy part of the game, i.e. its core, is flawed. I personally hated the protocol concept. Basically you can have an enemy that is defeated, down to his last building and out of money and units, yet he can still control a series of devastating attacks that will savage your base and army. It is just silly. One of the interesting aspects of traditional RTS is that they combine resource management with the army build-up and the actual combat. Once you remove a big portion of your damage generation from the economic supply chain the game becomes just a silly arcade. Play whac-a-mole with your opponent's army using a silly set of tools like the magnetic satellite that pulls entire ships into outer space. And do that all for free... Basically the entire balance of power can be switched around with a few lucky deployments of the other guy's protocols particularly on larger maps. The protocols are overpowered and especially as they do not cost anything they ruin the strategic element of the game.… Expand
  26. RalphW.
    Nov 13, 2008
    4
    Being a big Red Alert 2 fan I am very disappointed. The graphics are hard to decipher it is unclear from visual examination what the units do. The whole base building side is a joke - just place an ore refinery infront of the ore - boring. I miss my Russian tanks etc - I was really looking forward to this game but I doubt I will play it at all - feel cheated - especially after reading the Being a big Red Alert 2 fan I am very disappointed. The graphics are hard to decipher it is unclear from visual examination what the units do. The whole base building side is a joke - just place an ore refinery infront of the ore - boring. I miss my Russian tanks etc - I was really looking forward to this game but I doubt I will play it at all - feel cheated - especially after reading the glowing reviews.… Expand
  27. 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.
  28. TalonA.
    Nov 7, 2008
    10
    I can tell you right now, this game, and SC2, will soon dominate the RTS genre (with the possible exception of EndWar and Halo Wars). Epic game, you're a fool if you don't buy this epicly epic game.
  29. PhilH
    Nov 7, 2008
    3
    I'm absolutely shocked by the scores supposedly professional reviewers gave this game. In all honesty I think it has to rate as one of the worst RTS games of recent years, it's staggeringly poor. Maybe if games like Company of Heroes, World In Conflict, Supreme Commander and Dawn of War didn't exist it'd be able to call itself average, but honestly I can't think I'm absolutely shocked by the scores supposedly professional reviewers gave this game. In all honesty I think it has to rate as one of the worst RTS games of recent years, it's staggeringly poor. Maybe if games like Company of Heroes, World In Conflict, Supreme Commander and Dawn of War didn't exist it'd be able to call itself average, but honestly I can't think of a more infantile, braindead, cheesy game in its genre. The graphics are reasonably well presented, but the artistic concept is like something out of a bad cartoon as the art team do their best to emulate the look of Starcraft and fail. The units are uniformly stupid and inconsistent, the interface is immensely dated, the maps are poor and small. I mean take away the shiny graphics and it'd struggle to be better than the original. It's like a decade of innovation in the genre never happened. I got this game for free through work and I still felt cheated. Free is too expensive.… Expand
  30. 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
Page:

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 »