This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Red Alert 3

As much as I loved RA2, I won't get RA3 due to a deep dislike of EA developed since 2000.

Every EA game I've recently (i.e. last 4 years) decided to give a chance has turned out to be a mistake, so I'll be dodging this one.

Reply 61

MakingMoves

Jiktori

Every EA game I've recently (i.e. last 4 years) decided to give a chance has turned out to be a mistake, so I'll be dodging this one.

That is soooo true.

Reply 62

Morgoth

1

That is soooo true.

not really i mean EA have released in recent years, Crysis, the sims 2, army of 2, burnout, Mercenaries, battle for middle earth 2, sim city 4, NFS underground, Lord of the rings return of the king. ALL are generally widely well reguarded so as much as i hate EAs need to buy up everything that moves and the keep slapping out the same game over and over, they have been releasing a number of damned good games in recent years

Reply 63

MakingMoves

Morgoth

not really i mean EA have released in recent years, Crysis, the sims 2, army of 2, burnout, Mercenaries, battle for middle earth 2, sim city 4, NFS underground, Lord of the rings return of the king. ALL are generally widely well reguarded so as much as i hate EAs need to buy up everything that moves and the keep slapping out the same game over and over, they have been releasing a number of damned good games in recent years

Fair point.

Reply 64

Jiktori

1

Morgoth

not really i mean EA have released in recent years, Crysis, the sims 2, army of 2, burnout, Mercenaries, battle for middle earth 2, sim city 4, NFS underground, Lord of the rings return of the king. ALL are generally widely well reguarded so as much as i hate EAs need to buy up everything that moves and the keep slapping out the same game over and over, they have been releasing a number of damned good games in recent years

I'd first ask what you define "widely regarded as being good" as being; as if that's referring to reviews etcetera, gaming reviews have always been overly generous. Also, general opinion of games can be unreliable when you consider (to put it bluntly) that a large proportion of gamers are horrifically bad and hardly know a thing about gaming.

Crysis failed to deliver imho, the single player felt like it ended abruptly, the online play just didn't feel playable (I.e. it doesn't allow for 'I feel like I'll go play a nice game of Crysis', what with the need to start a game from the beginning on the flagship gametype to have a chance and the annoyingly unskippable logo-intros). Also, notably but unsurprisingly, it failed to deliver it's hype-points.

The Sims 2: So damn easy to get ridiculously wealthy in no time [without cheating I might add] making it get boring in no time. Also the content included without the expansion felt really light in comparison to having been used to playing Sims 1 with loads of expansions, and the whole 'Release 10 expansions in 2 years thing' is, well, I think inferable what I would think of that.

Army of Two: Never heard of it, might it be a console game or something?

Burnout: I admit the original had its moments, but its sequels lacked (for example in Burnout 3, the traffic blantantly turning towards you trying to hit you, which, uhmm, I felt was a 'little' cheap and at times irritating).

Mercenaries/ Battle for Middle Earth 2: Also unaquainted with.

Sim City 4: Played it but my memory is not exact on it; if I remember correctly it got swiftly boring, wasn't very playable and was worse than the prequels.

NFS underground: I've only ever played a NFS game at a friends house once, I think it was underground. From what I could tell, it was mediocre racing trash.

LotR Return of the King: It's extremely rare that I ever play film-merchandise-games so I wouldn't know.

Reply 65

MakingMoves

Not really EA though. They're just the publisher right? Not the game developers.

Reply 66

Jiktori

1

In some cases. However, the trends that are still consistent in games that they only published make me suspect they may have had a bit more input than just to publish it (although obviously I don't know how they go about it).

For example, I really did think that EA only published Crysis at first, which is why I decided to give it a try, however there seemed to be flaws in it that really smelled of EA (for example, the unskippable logo intro's are quite common in EA games and I don't remember it being like that in Farcry.) Aswell as the single player being piss easy (rule of the thumb with EA games; they're either piss easy or have one aggrovatingly impossible difficulty with the rest being piss easy). Oh, and since I'm mentioning Crysis again, I've just remembered: The whole game's content was pretty much included in the demo (as in, all the guns and vehicles) how's that for quality? If EA didn't have something to do with it, those Germans must have really lost their zing.

Reply 67

Okay54

martynonline

yeah, exactly! recent past records dont give me much hope but if they go back and stick closely to the original RA2 then i'll be happy :biggrin:

im sorry you must have the wrong EA

Reply 68

Angel Interceptor

11

I'd first ask what you define "widely regarded as being good" as being; as if that's referring to reviews etcetera, gaming reviews have always been overly generous.

According to whom?

Also, general opinion of games can be unreliable when you consider (to put it bluntly) that a large proportion of gamers are horrifically bad and hardly know a thing about gaming.

So that makes your opinion so valid because...what exactly?

Army of Two: Never heard of it, might it be a console game or something?

Burnout: I admit the original had its moments, but its sequels lacked (for example in Burnout 3, the traffic blantantly turning towards you trying to hit you, which, uhmm, I felt was a 'little' cheap and at times irritating).

Mercenaries/ Battle for Middle Earth 2: Also unaquainted with.

Sim City 4: Played it but my memory is not exact on it; if I remember correctly it got swiftly boring, wasn't very playable and was worse than the prequels.

NFS underground: I've only ever played a NFS game at a friends house once, I think it was underground. From what I could tell, it was mediocre racing trash.

LotR Return of the King: It's extremely rare that I ever play film-merchandise-games so I wouldn't know.

You're 'argument' against someone who gave some examples of good games that EA have brought out in the relatively recent past is rather poor; after all, you haven't played most of the games he mentioned, and only have limited experience with others, whilst comments like "it got swiftly boring, wasn't very playable and was worse than the prequels" make it sound like you don't know what you're on about; they're hardly specific comments/criticisms on the gameplay. As for your comments on Burnout 3, the game had finished development before EA bought out Criterion in August 2004, so that's not really a relevant criticism.

I could say that what you type gets swiftly boring, but that would be just a vague generalisation; I'd be better off saying that a lot of what you say is contradictory, and that you have limited/no experience of playing some of the well-regarded games that EA have released as of late. You comment that a lot of gamers "hardly know a thing about gaming", but by the 'critique' (although that is perhaps too generous a term) and opinions that you have given, I'd say that this is quite the case of the proverbial pot calling th kettle black.

Gaming taste is down to individual preference; after all, I wouldn't care how good/bad a game Crysis is/isn't since I don't enjoy first person shooters, so its gameplay holds no value for me. RTS games on the other hand are more my style, even if some of them receive a poorer criticial reception by reviewers and others (than Crysis, for example), so regardless would better attract me to play them.

Reply 69

Jiktori

1

Angel Interceptor

According to whom?

Have you read a decent amount of game reviews? Only absolutely terrible games ever get less than five out of ten (and five should in theory mean 'average'). Games that are really nothing fancy tend to get around 8/10. And I hesitate to call people who write reviews 'critics' because they do minimal criticisim (either that or they do it in the last half of the article then still slap a '9 out of 10' on it).

I'll just scan through gamespot to give you a quick example, because I know you won't be happy with my 'generalisations':
Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures for the PC Review Critic Score 7.4. Got it, played it. To keep it short: Play the first level and you may aswell have played them all (Or even, play Lego Star Wars and you may aswell have played it). The game play was also very basic (I was able to play it as 'two players' by myself which goes to show that). It's a mere timekill game that should not be given any higher than a five. But yet, the reviewer glossied this up with "Tons of Replay Value" and "Very Funny [in the cutscenes presumably]."

Angel Interceptor

So that makes your opinion so valid because...what exactly?

Because I know a few things about gaming? Go play some online games and you will realise that most people do not.

Angel Interceptor

You're 'argument' against someone who gave some examples of good games that EA have brought out in the relatively recent past is rather poor; after all, you haven't played most of the games he mentioned, and only have limited experience with others, whilst comments like "it got swiftly boring, wasn't very playable and was worse than the prequels" make it sound like you don't know what you're on about; they're hardly specific comments/criticisms on the gameplay. As for your comments on Burnout 3, the game had finished development before EA bought out Criterion in August 2004, so that's not really a relevant criticism.

Sorry if it was not obvious enough to you, but I don't play console games [any more, I've had ample past experience with them which has led me to no longer play them], and I'm happy with ignorant confidence in the knowledge that if EA were to ever release a decent console game, I might aswell eat my hat.

Fair enough point about Burnout 3's relation to EA. However, what I said about the game still stands (not that it matters). Enough said about Burnout as it's off the topic.

Re Sim City 4. You misunderstand me, I have played it as extensively as I could without getting bored to death, but it came out in 2003, I played it in 2003, meaning I can just not remember the details, but I can remember my conclusion.

I've since confirmed that it was 'Underground' that I had played at a friend's house, which I would have done so for a couple of hours; It was really just racing round a track with the only fancy thing being that the steering was over sensitive. I was aware of the hype about it when I was playing it and I just did not see anything to justify it. Or was that just superficial and there was a supposedly 'really good game' hidden underneath it?

Also, I'm not going to buy film merchandise game just because in theory they may be decent. I'd rather be ill-informed than poor. Plus to reinforce the reason why I haven't played RotK is because I had played it's prequel the Two Towers which, sorry for what you will call a generalisation, was a mediocre hack and slash. Also, I would have played The Battle for Middle Earth One (which gamespot says its sequel merely built upon), but there was a corrupt file which prevented installation, so sorry about that.

Sorry if my conclusions on the games were too general for you. I don't feel like playing over such games again to write you a full review. I assure you, the games I play a decent amount (I play decent games, I don't waste my time with EA games, as that would be contradictory) I know about.

Angel Interceptor

I could say that what you type gets swiftly boring, but that would be just a vague generalisation; I'd be better off saying that a lot of what you say is contradictory, and that you have limited/no experience of playing some of the well-regarded games that EA have released as of late. You comment that a lot of gamers "hardly know a thing about gaming", but by the 'critique' (although that is perhaps too generous a term) and opinions that you have given, I'd say that this is quite the case of the proverbial pot calling th kettle black.

I could say that you did indeed just then make vague generalisations and that that paragraph could be pointed at yourself, that you're being contradictory by generalising my 'generalisations' and that your generalising in saying I hardly know about gaming.

My comment about most gamers hardly knowing a thing about gaming is referring to people not knowing much about the games they play. I assure you that the games I play extensively, I know about. If you want to find examples of the afore mentioned people, go play any mmorpg and see how hopeless many people are at doing simple tasks.

I can't know about games I haven't played, simple as. Would you rather me just pretend I know all about them? I thought my point had been shown in that out of the ones listed that I had played, that they were rubbish (you know, the ones you cut out of your quote?), or have I conveniently not played the ones listed that are actually good or something?

Angel Interceptor

Gaming taste is down to individual preference; after all, I wouldn't care how good/bad a game Crysis is/isn't since I don't enjoy first person shooters, so its gameplay holds no value for me. RTS games on the other hand are more my style, even if some of them receive a poorer criticial reception by reviewers and others (than Crysis, for example), so regardless would better attract me to play them.

Preference doesn't do the trick of cementing over the holes for me, and it's unfortunate that it does for other people as that provides no incentive for the game producers to use real cement (metaphorically). But people are free to spend their cash on what ever games they want. I think I'll keep my cash with most of them though. I also fail to see your point in trying to reference comparing RTS to FPS, of course that's like comparing a horror novel to a fantasy novel; the point being made was that EA don't produce good games regardless of genre (If an author's terrible at writing, chances are there'll be terrible at writing both horror and fantasy).

Reply 70

Okay54

woah woah woah woah woah woah woah woah woah

what the hell started all of this stuff???

by the way EA DO make good games, for exaple i dont like C&C3 as a C&C game, but it is still a good RTS. I could go on but i really cant be bothered reading BOTH of your extremely long posts - which im sure others will do as well, simply pass them by because they are too long, but you are both straying off topic i think - this thread is for Red Alert 3, not EA in general.

Reply 71

Untitled258

12

http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/tv/news/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=9130079

Gemma Atkinson is going to be in RA3 apparently :eek:

Reply 72

omicronlyrae

11

YUS

I got my beta key =D

Reply 73

3105

olileauk

YUS

I got my beta key =D

Reply 74

rummang

1

1 more day til' release?

Reply 75

nuffy12

Man this brings me back to playing red alert 1, what a great game.

Reply 76

Morgoth

1

Just got my "premiere edition" of RA3 and i have to say i havent even installed it yet, the sound track is just sooo awsome its not left my DVD drive

oh and the poster.... omg "babes of RA3" poster there are some better looking ladies on there than the three they made a big deal about!

oh and as an aside, while at i34 gemma atkinson turned up in her RA3 gear to sign posters

Reply 77

estel

18

Yeh, I'm going to go pick up the premiere edition tomorrow in game. At i35 at the moment, though I'm not hopeful of Gemma making another surprise appearance :wink:

lol "attack bears!"

They finally got it right!

I was worried they'd never match Red Alert 2 again, and they have. Fantastic game.

So much better than Generals and C&C3.

Red Alert 3

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you