Looking at the picture there, we can safely discern 2 new units for both the Allies and Japs.
If you too lazy to click links, apparently, RA3: Uprising will feature 4 Campaigns, (one being a campaign exploring the origins of Yuriko Omega), add new units, ZH-esque Challenge mode and be digital download (only?)
(the main CNC site refers to it as well, but more subtle)
I've never played RA3...nor really plan to anytime soon. but I have no grudges against it.
the art is pretty interesting, yet it makes me giggle at the whole omg "Fast,fluid and fun" mantra they seem to spew... _________________ Delirium.. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Red Alert 3 Expansion announced!
Updated the first post with another image. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
Yeah, wish I could do original Unit design. Get some new Ideas! Cartoony C&C generals is the worst of both worlds. I hate RA3's art style and the "Fast, fluid and fun" crap... But the gameplay might be saved! This is just the generals gunship with a new model...
Fail-o-meter peaking at a mildly dumb 5.2 _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
I dislike something and have a voice, PPM's server and webmaster are locatde in democracies, I cannot be silenced. You can't shut up the racists, the christfags or the fag fags, so you can't shut me up.
My opinion may be seen as stupid, however it is thought through and not encouraging criminal activity. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:35 am Post subject:
DonutArnold wrote:
"Futuretech", wuts that? Did few of the dicks of EA found theirselves at TI forums?
No, FutureTech is a mega-corporation that is the principle developer of Allied weapons technology in RA3. They are not too well explained, but in this altered universe, they apparently are the ones behind the construction of the Allied Chronosphere, Spectrum, Mirage and Proton Collider technologies.
(so they are connected with Einstein to a degree)
Lt Albrecht wrote:
Whine whine whine
Why yes, correct.
But not correct on the part of free speech on the internet.
First, Free Speech is not part of the package with a Democracy(or Republic). For example, in America, the Left-Wing will assure you, George Satan Bush will take ur freedums of speech away. (and that Obama is the Messiah, but lets leave that for another topic)
Second, such rights are not passed on to servers in that nation.
Third, enforcing such rights on the internet is impossible, you can't send police or military units in to secure the place and set things in order.
Certainly, there is no free speech on a forum, only what the administrator deems acceptable.
And DaFool, connecting the dots and some units that have been named-
Allied Jumpjet Guy- Cryo Legionnaire(?)
Jap Archers- Theory is these guys are a T1 Anti-Air inf for the Japs. Who knows.
Allied Harbinger- This is the Spectre-like aircraft. If all its weapons are functional, then it has 4 mini-Proton Colliders, two turreted gattling guns and a front mounted cannon.
Jap Steel Ronin- That is the large demon like Jap mech. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
George Satan Bush will take ur freedums of speech away.
Privacy. Not freedom of speech. Dubya's administration severely diminished the privacy of the American people.
For what? Invisible terrorists(because the western part of Al Quada is ztyping dead). Europe should worry more about terrorists than Americans. But hey, fear sells. And the United States loves some spoons full of fear (communists, Dungeons and Dragons, marijuana, Rockstar Games, rock and roll, Elvis, UFO's, the number of the beast, stem cell research, and since recently... THE ABHORRENT AND TERRIBLE ARAB! DUN DUN DUN!).
Besides, the United States always needs an enemy to focus on, be it brits, northeners/southeners, Canadians, Germans(x2), DEM COMMUNISTS, and now the commies are BLERGH I R DED, fundamentalist muslims.
Also, it looks like the desolator will make a return as a dual wielding sludge trooper (who's "guns" look like gas pumps) and his general shape is reminiscent of the tiberium trooper or KW.
The rocketeer looks like the chrono legionaire and the rocketeer had a love child. So I think it will have the jumps that the zone troopers had on TW, with a gun that either freezes (cryro) or probably does like burst of chrono damage.
Then there's a giant japanese head. This dissapointe me to see this.
And finally a tank that looks like it has nbo other weaposn that a giant grinder in the front of it. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Apr 2003 Location: Somewhere in Germany
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:12 pm Post subject:
Dutchygamer wrote:
And here goes the anti-EA bashing again. Be goddamn happy they still make these games
C&C/RA in it's recent incarnations have completely lost track of what made the originals such great games. I didn't buy Generals, bought C&C3 only from ebay and didn't buy RA3. And while it was fun, I didn't like RA2 as much as the previous games, either. The EALA RTS department mainly consists of former WW Pacific/EA Pacific members, and their approach to art, story, atmosphere, music and gameplay differs too much from the approach WW had, for my taste. Joe Bostic, Brett Sperry and Erik Yeo FTW. QUICK_EDIT
it's recent incarnations have completely lost track of what made the originals such great games.
So what exactly did make the originals (I presume you mean TD and RA1) such great games?
Even in terms of setting, TS had a crazy leap in technology which turned the whole thing into Starcraft-esque sci fi that didn't quite feel as believable as TD (and the excuse that it's set in 2030 isn't very good for TS, I doubt by 2030 we'd really have all that crazy shit).
RA2 was practically the polar opposite of RA1 in atmosphere... C'mon the Soviet leader has a pet turtle who is like the 3rd major character you encounter in the campaign. QUICK_EDIT
Don't forget their masterplan of connecting Tesla with Tiberium, Scrin and Kane.
Maybe Kane is Tesla, gifted immorality by the Scrin.
Too bad we'll never know...
Kane is probably with Future Tech and one day we'll learn the Obelisk of light came from "Spectrum Technology" and the Mirage tank's capabilities were succeeded by Decoy Army support power in 2047 QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Apr 2003 Location: Somewhere in Germany
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:21 pm Post subject:
Valdez wrote:
Even in terms of setting, TS had a crazy leap in technology which turned the whole thing into Starcraft-esque sci fi that didn't quite feel as believable as TD (and the excuse that it's set in 2030 isn't very good for TS, I doubt by 2030 we'd really have all that crazy shit).
It was never made clear in which year(s) TD plays, although it's assumed it starts around 1995, giving them 35 years.
Besides, a giant laser cannon, a stealth tank and a monster tank with two cannons, missile pods and the ability to self-repair - let alone the whole base-building stuff - weren't exactly realistic either.
TS did go a tad too far for my taste as well, but there was still something about the game that I liked more than what came after FS. RA2 was also fun, but it already went too much into that "fast, fluid and fun" formula for my taste, and compared with previous C&Cs I got bored rather fast. Generals isn't a C&C imo, and both C&C3 and RA3 are just too bloated with units, special abilities, secondary abilities and upgrades. The first 3 games, especially the first 2, were simply much more straightforward in that aspect.
They have simply added too much annoying stuff, removed or changed some cool stuff, shortened the singleplayer parts (except C&C3, but that has many missions which are either totally boring or totally unbalanced, i.e. rushed, as "compensation", and a crappy open ending) and totally f***ed up the canon, music style, atmosphere and generally everything I liked about TD and RA1.
The fact that they're always at least 1 step behind in terms of AI and graphics doesn't help, either.[/rant end] QUICK_EDIT
the whole base-building stuff - weren't exactly realistic either.
The base building MCV system is a gameplay mechanic, not intended to be realistic, I'm sure. Ditto for the unit production structures.
Reaperrr wrote:
the whole base-building stuff - weren't exactly realistic TS did go a tad too far for my taste as well, but there was still something about the game that I liked more than what came after FS.
IMO TS gameplay had an unfavourable pace. If C&C 3 is said to be agonizingly fast, TS to me is agonizingly slow.
I don't mind the introduction of upgrades and abilities for units because it adds depth to the gameplay, the same way TS added depth with introducing veterancy, and RA2 with capturable buildings and garrisoning. QUICK_EDIT
and RA2 with capturable buildings and garrisoning.
I'm pretty sure you mean garrisoning only. To add my part to the rant, even RA2 went backwards; they gave up deformable terrain (which is a great feature in my opinion, even better if it weren't limited to the "slopes" which occupy one cell each), fire as it was in the earlier games (Gosh, we can haz burny buildings naow! Lets forgot about forest fires, okai?), the map in the campaign before you start a mission (where you can select between 1-3 missions), tunnels and trains (although these can be brought back by editing) and many other features that were introduced in earlier games.
Of course they had many new ones to compensate the lack of olds, but still whats the point to get rid of something that has been proven to be awesome? _________________ QUICK_EDIT
My guess is it's like the Artemis, seen only from a support power, not actually buildable. Or they'd shrink it to fit on the airfield and it'll end up all cute and mini.
Crimsonum wrote:
even RA2 went backwards; they gave up deformable terrain (which is a great feature in my opinion, even better if it weren't limited to the "slopes" which occupy one cell each), fire as it was in the earlier games (Gosh, we can haz burny buildings naow! Lets forgot about forest fires, okai?), the map in the campaign before you start a mission (where you can select between 1-3 missions), tunnels and trains (although these can be brought back by editing) and many other features that were introduced in earlier games.
The mission selection thing was axed from Firestorm onwards although it was a nice feature IMO (I loved the visual design used in C&C 3). Fire... yeah that one is solely missed too, it came back for a short while in Generals along with trains and tunnels...
IMO Generals was where you started to see a lot of the potentially cool features. The civilians units could move about and stuff, while in C&C 3 all you got are lifeless car props. You had trains which could be ini-edited to have different layout of train cars there was fire, toxin, radiation... _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
And why do all Ra3/C&C3 topics have to turn to dribble? It really is sad. Everybody knows who doesnt like it... and it really doesnt boost anyones image by posting it again. And again. Make one topic to vent your ratty nerd-anger into, rather than show how little lives you all have by posting crap in every topic. QUICK_EDIT
Since KW I have hated EA's expansions. To soon and the new units look out of place. for example archer units in the future, perhapse soviets will have horses instead of tanks now?
Anyway generals 2 at the end of this year. 2010 generals expansion. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Location: North America Posts: You cannot comprehend...
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:02 am Post subject:
Iron Cathedral wrote:
rather than show how little lives you all have
You shouldn't presume that, bud.
C'mon, we know thats just made up on the spot. Made-up-on-the-spot kinda of stuff is supposed to be used in comedic situations, but your post isn't that funny; its not funny enough. Just don't give up, you have potential.
Look, post whatever is on your mind, preferably if its relevant.
- - -
I'm sick of the streamlined crap of the new C&Cs. If was to play C&C3 without any prior knowledge of TD or TS, I'd probably like it more; as of right now, I find C&C 3 to be okay, but its blasphemous. RA3 is fun to play, but, when you compare it to RA1, its gay. You think, what the hell happened with this franchise? Oh right, RA2. Again, RA2 is a fun game, I play it to this day, but its blasphemous.
- - -
I'd love to see a C&C game actually show off the build system in a semi-realistic in-theory way.
I always imagined that a tunnel complex is created shortly after the MCV deploys (drilling platforms, you've all seen that animation where a crane picks up a box and it dissapears, sometimes into the ground? THATS what I'm talkin about), so there would be lots of automated digging and drilling, this would all be happening while you play, in fact its purely a cosmetic addition to the game, you see the drills when they're above ground, but you can't select it or anything.
The Con Yard creates a compact structure, a box; its crane sends the box down to the complex, then out, then up, then it deploys. This could have been applied to RA3, like this:
- The Soviets would do what I just described, but the conyard would send out a drilling vehicle to the build spot, and start digging to connect with the underground network, but instead of a compact structure box, it sends in the parts in a more standard way.
- The Allies just stick with making the tunnel by using solely the Conyard, but to make the structure seem to appear almost instantly on the spot, proton beams are used to completely vaporize the the dirt, or something like that.
- EotRS, EA actually depicted their way of making structures. No changes needed.
- - -
Sindri wrote:
I bet the dreaded and horrid casual gamer will love this shit.
Are they (the ones local to you) really that bad? If so, do tell; I love stories (SHORT ones, at least) about douchebags and turd sandwiches. _________________ Destroy to create. All for the hunt to dominate!
I'd love to see a C&C game actually show off the build system in a semi-realistic in-theory way.
For realism, the buildings have to be designed in such a way that they look very basic and could be assembled within days, as opposed to the permanent-looking structures of concrete and steel. Basically... stuff that looks like
http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/gallery/renders/usa/buildings//usbarracks.jpg
The downside of this would be that buildings will have the appearance of looking fragile and flimsy, since they're basically tents, quonset huts, sandbags, you get the idea... and also for realism there is no such thing as a War Factory and your vehicles will have to be air dropped. _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Location: North America Posts: You cannot comprehend...
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:50 am Post subject:
Thats true, and I like CWC's way; but I was implying semi, realistic, not full blown realistic, just semi realistic theoretic s. _________________ Destroy to create. All for the hunt to dominate!
I think the current worker unit system is about as semi-realistic as you can get.
It's basically a highly condensed version of how real-life construction projects are done. You have your worker unit, who more often than not is designed with visual themes pertaining to construction engineering and who has capabilities of an entire construction team.
The one-man construction team builds the building gradually, which you will receive once it is done.
To date I have not seen anything more "theoretically realistic" except maybe Halo Wars's style of having entire building modules air-dropped and then welded together.
C&C's MCV system just isn't meant to look realistic (at least not without compromising gameplay). If I were to think of how a ConYard can be realistic, well...
- Structures don't insta-build which means it has to be like the Soviet style in RA3
- Only ConYards provide ground control. Absolutely nothing else, since a construction worker realistically shouldn't be able to work on a building if the building is on the other side of the world, even if his buddies are over there providing "ground control"
- ConYards are permanent installations and do not pack up into MCVs.
...now the second point would probably kill off base expansion tactics unless MCVs somehow became as readily available as the current ground control expansion vehicles, and assuming they were, you'd end up with a ton of build queues and can build many things at the same time (although that can be balanced by the gradual structure building, as most RTS games show) _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 24 May 2004 Location: Flanders (Be) Posts:300000001
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:35 pm Post subject:
Valdez wrote:
To date I have not seen anything more "theoretically realistic" except maybe Halo Wars's style of having entire building modules air-dropped and then welded together.
I find it much more plausible that an entire building would be built in a factory rather than one guy walking over and magically spawning an entire structure. The most realistic one would be that the building is constructed at the conyard, and then the building is made into a compact thing, and a truck drives it over and drops it off, where at that point it deploys into the structure. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
I find it much more plausible that an entire building would be built in a factory rather than one guy walking over and magically spawning an entire structure. The most realistic one would be that the building is constructed at the conyard, and then the building is made into a compact thing, and a truck drives it over and drops it off, where at that point it deploys into the structure.
Vehicles that turn into structures aren't exactly realistic either. The Surveyor and GDI ConYard are fairly realistic but things like the Nod conyard are not (you get stuff like entire smokestacks materialising)
In any case, the structures in C&C are definitely not CWC-like. They are not the sort of structures that can be dismantled into transportable components and then assembled on-site.
And structures that turn compact is really pushing it in terms of realism... especially if the structure is really big. Even now I cannot comprehend how the EotRS does it with vehicles as tiny as a nanocore. _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You can edit your posts in this forum You can delete your posts in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Red Alert 3 Expansion announced!
And I again can't use RA3:U logo, because it's you work?
