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. James009
    Sep 28, 2014
    3
    So far removed from classics such as Red Alert and Red Alert 2 this game destroys the series mythos in favor of crazy units and far removed storyline.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Kiseki
    Oct 9, 2015
    9
    im just about 7-8 years late, but I just have to say this. this game is still amazing by today's RTS standards. excellent music, good sound effect and portrait dialogues. really good graphics on high settings, particularly the water. its just the art style is very different then previous games. cool and funny theme. incredible AI, just incredible, push the difficulty up to brutal and goim just about 7-8 years late, but I just have to say this. this game is still amazing by today's RTS standards. excellent music, good sound effect and portrait dialogues. really good graphics on high settings, particularly the water. its just the art style is very different then previous games. cool and funny theme. incredible AI, just incredible, push the difficulty up to brutal and go watch the replay of what the AI does. have not seen a better AI ever in any game and that is still the case today.

    the only negative i have against the game is the story and plot is pretty meh on "seriousness". but its quite funny if you dont look at it seriously.

    The low user score is likely some old fans trolling because they dont like the style. if you havent played too much of the series it shouldnt be a bad experience.    … Expand
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. marqpas
    Oct 7, 2010
    2
    The units are plastic toys. It's war for 4-8 year olds, really cute. Little tankies that talk to you. The warzone looks like it was designed by the team that also does Wallace & Gromit. No scary Yuri, but a lovely Japanese girl with VERY stylish hair. A real winner. Co-op is a brand new mode, which demonstrates to you how bad AI can be programmed. For 6-8 year olds, there is an ongoingThe units are plastic toys. It's war for 4-8 year olds, really cute. Little tankies that talk to you. The warzone looks like it was designed by the team that also does Wallace & Gromit. No scary Yuri, but a lovely Japanese girl with VERY stylish hair. A real winner. Co-op is a brand new mode, which demonstrates to you how bad AI can be programmed. For 6-8 year olds, there is an ongoing boobies show. Do yourself a favor and buy or download Red Alert 2. Or any other RTS, really.… Expand
  9. BR
    Mar 17, 2009
    2
    Personally, I think red alert 2 graphics are better. Gameplay is weak and units are very limited. I'm very disappointed in this. I agree with one of the others reviewing this game, I would love a refund. The 10 dollars i spent on Red Alert 3 were not worth it.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. LysanderS
    Jan 2, 2010
    2
    The only tactic is zerging. The art of zerging is a tricky business. It onvolves quickly capping a resource point, then spamming top tier units out as quickly as possible to march on the enemy base. By tricky, "i mean what the hell, are there even any tactics here?!" If you want some nice tactics, gorgeous graphics and a load of fun, i suggest you look elsewhere, specifically Company of The only tactic is zerging. The art of zerging is a tricky business. It onvolves quickly capping a resource point, then spamming top tier units out as quickly as possible to march on the enemy base. By tricky, "i mean what the hell, are there even any tactics here?!" If you want some nice tactics, gorgeous graphics and a load of fun, i suggest you look elsewhere, specifically Company of Heroes. If you want...i don't know what the hell this game offers...boring, repetitive gameplay, ugly graphics...then you came to the right place. While other games use gameplay to catch gamers' attention, this game uses skimpily girls and terrible voice acting. So, so cheesy. Do not buy this "game".… Expand
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. mgastryker
    Aug 11, 2013
    8
    Whoever is giving this game a bad review by comparing it to other RTS games is reviewing it wrong. Yes, in this game I can't command an army with 1,000's (may be an exaggeration) of units like in Supreme Commander, but I can have fun playing this game. The elitists who think only the top of the line RTS is worthy of their "supreme strategies and superb multitasking" are giving this game aWhoever is giving this game a bad review by comparing it to other RTS games is reviewing it wrong. Yes, in this game I can't command an army with 1,000's (may be an exaggeration) of units like in Supreme Commander, but I can have fun playing this game. The elitists who think only the top of the line RTS is worthy of their "supreme strategies and superb multitasking" are giving this game a bad review and are ruining it for the rest of us. While this game may not be the best, it's definitely entertaining and enjoyable.… Expand
  18. EricO
    Jan 18, 2010
    4
    Just a really bad RTS. The units are not fun to use, too complicated, or just badly designed. On top of that, basic elements of the interface that have been around in other RTS games to streamline control do not exist. For example, you can't deploy single units from a transport. You have to deploy all of them. Units that move from ground to air via special ability select with those Just a really bad RTS. The units are not fun to use, too complicated, or just badly designed. On top of that, basic elements of the interface that have been around in other RTS games to streamline control do not exist. For example, you can't deploy single units from a transport. You have to deploy all of them. Units that move from ground to air via special ability select with those on the ground when selecting all like units. There's also terrible AI even with your own units. Units with no defense will just sit there and get attacked instead of running away. And units with offense just out of range of say a tower, will sit there and die rather than moving automatically to engage the tower. It's such a bad game. I will never buy another command and conquer game after this. They've ruined it.… Expand
  19. 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
  20. ChrisK
    Apr 3, 2009
    3
    Honestly, I was sorely disappointed in RA3. It felt like too much of a rehash - reusing the units with special abilities from C&C3 (and dumbing them down, presumably for the console releases), reusing the General abilities from C&C Generals (which were okay for that game, but seeing them again was NOT enjoyable), and throwing all of that together with the RA storyline... well, overall I Honestly, I was sorely disappointed in RA3. It felt like too much of a rehash - reusing the units with special abilities from C&C3 (and dumbing them down, presumably for the console releases), reusing the General abilities from C&C Generals (which were okay for that game, but seeing them again was NOT enjoyable), and throwing all of that together with the RA storyline... well, overall I just didn't like this game. It doesn't help that the much touted "Cooperative play" feature feels more like a "Way too ****ing easymode," and I was playing on Normal. :I But then, when your AI buddy is spamming the enemy with near infinite resources worth of units, well. Give it a pass if you want an RTS that's actually somewhat challenging. If you want one that plays like cheats are always enabled, this'd be the game for you.… Expand
  21. Petrovita
    Jun 19, 2011
    4
    The game is good, and has humour. But it's nothing like the old RA games from Westwood. If you enjoyed those games, and think about buying this, you really should see videos first. As stated by others, it's more comical (With the graphics), has more loose humour, and alot of eye candy, which personally in my opinion is just to attract young teenagers into buying the game. One thing IThe game is good, and has humour. But it's nothing like the old RA games from Westwood. If you enjoyed those games, and think about buying this, you really should see videos first. As stated by others, it's more comical (With the graphics), has more loose humour, and alot of eye candy, which personally in my opinion is just to attract young teenagers into buying the game. One thing I noticed when I played, was that the troops in the game (like a conscript), when killed, the corpse will remain on the ground for quite abit unlike other games. The bodies can even be flinged or moved around after the unit/s die. I was annoyed that there wasn't a map generator in it like the previous RA games. Luckily, the nets provided a map generator mod for the game. I would not recommend this game more than the old games. Nothing will ever beat the old Westwood games.… Expand
  22. Kirase
    Jan 1, 2012
    3
    EA tried to take the strenghs of this games predecessor to a new level, completely failed and ridiculed the complete franchise this way. A company like blizzard or valve would have simply thrown this into the garbage to not damage its reputation. Not only judged by its big name and the big expectations it could not life up to this game is simply just plain bad. Guess i never played a worseEA tried to take the strenghs of this games predecessor to a new level, completely failed and ridiculed the complete franchise this way. A company like blizzard or valve would have simply thrown this into the garbage to not damage its reputation. Not only judged by its big name and the big expectations it could not life up to this game is simply just plain bad. Guess i never played a worse rts before.… Expand
  23. 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
  24. BillA
    Nov 1, 2008
    8
    Finally the cnc franchise has a game that has the missing piece of the RTS formula: strategy. In the past every cnc game, although creative and flashy, was stale and lacked deep game play mechanics. EA seemed to fix all that and still gave ra3 that creative and flashy charm. It
  25. Shinzo
    Dec 25, 2012
    10
    Sooo I honestly can't understand all the hate on RA 3 - about half these reviews are from people who obviously haven't even played the game or had pre-created opinion.
    Now, back to review, game is great - graphics are nice (that water!), unit balance is pretty good, and while there are one-man army units which can wipe out entire base in matter of seconds, it just adds that dynamic    Sooo I honestly can't understand all the hate on RA 3 - about half these reviews are from people who obviously haven't even played the game or had pre-created opinion.
    Now, back to review, game is great - graphics are nice (that water!), unit balance is pretty good, and while there are one-man army units which can wipe out entire base in matter of seconds, it just adds that dynamic feeling to the game - you have to control everything, or you will be crushed. As of story - honestly, for an RTS it is great. Even if it's supposed to be funny at times, it makes a way better job of telling player a story than, let's say, Starcraft 2 campaign. Especially considering Uprising, which is also a lot darker and deeper than base RA3. It doesn't also matter if this game is similar or isn't to Red Alert1/2 - Why it would be? It's been like 7 years. RA3 is pretty innovative for the series, the whole amphibious-mecha-etc system is just amazing (compared to - again - SC 2, it's just godlike).
    Only problems IMHO are things like pathfinding (fixed in Uprising moreless), too much boobs (if you don't like girls :c) and imbalance between missions difficulty - Pearl Harbor is just harder than assault on Black Tortoise or even Yokohama, lol. Also, AI derps sometimes in campaign, usually if you run to water with your MCV - then it sometimes stops doing anything for ~10 minutes or until you attack.    … Expand
  26. 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
  27. 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. ;)
  28. BrianC
    Nov 6, 2009
    1
    the game play is good, and the ability to play lan is awesome but the online is the worst in the world making me never want to play any gamespy game again!! would be a 8 if not for that.
  29. 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
  30. RyanV
    Oct 31, 2008
    9
    The game is more frantic, fast-paced, and epic in scale than anything in recent memory. The solo missions are fantastic battles with multiple bases per player, multiple players per side. The AI, while not perfect, plays in a way that is varied, challenging, and makes you utterly hate your opponent. In addition to the standard RTS elements being spot-on, the whimsical unit design, The game is more frantic, fast-paced, and epic in scale than anything in recent memory. The solo missions are fantastic battles with multiple bases per player, multiple players per side. The AI, while not perfect, plays in a way that is varied, challenging, and makes you utterly hate your opponent. In addition to the standard RTS elements being spot-on, the whimsical unit design, exaggerated physics, and a fantastic soundtrack make this one of the most exciting strategy games I've played in a long time. A fan of the series or not, you owe it to yourself to at least try the game.… Expand
prev
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 »