LoneGunman
Expert Member
one thing that really bugs me with RA 3 (and its admittedly a geeky point) - is the obvious 3d landscape that's been built, (the 'ground') and then other things (buildings, trees etc) have been loosely placed on top of it. You can almost always see these two separate factors - the 'land' and the 'objects.'
So it always looks like someones mod - rather than a fully integrated landscape where you don't notice the game engine borders.
With RA 2, you never once got jarred by one or another component within the visuals - it all blended properly. With RA 3, I find I'm seeing this fake land and the 'boxes' of buildings and material that have been placed on top of it.
When one strips away the stupid video clips, with the boobs strategically placed all the time, as well the deliberate 'NOISE' factor, and looks at the very cheesy (and cheap-looking 3D landscape) - it seems that the designers spent most of their money on integrating vid clips and not enough on making a coherent and visually pleasing world where you don't notice the 'joins' between objects.
It reminded me in some ways of the Myth franchise game engine, from a loooong time ago. Very similar camera movements in some ways.
I miss the fine detail and clutter of the maps of RA 2. Its weird but in terms of 'how it looks' - RA 3 looks much much older than RA 2. Not because they were going for a retro tacky look, but because EA, I think, screwed the pooch.
Again, thats just my take on it - and as I'm a retro (and RTS) gamer, I'm always willing to make allowances for visuals - but then how come RA 3 looks so boring, when laid alongside the visuals of RA 2? Its not just regression, its lazy game programming - they needed to have tried harder, and spent more time, like Westwood (and Blizzard) always do, on the fine detail. What eye candy there is in RA 3, is really cheap looking. It lacks the care taken with the earlier versions - and with other RTS games on the market.
As if the decision was made to make it bright, noisy, full of strategically placed cleavage in vid clips, and hope no one notices that its designed for bright 12 year olds.
Go look at things like the American Conquest series, to see integrated landscape and characters in action - or the earlier Cossacks, or even the Total War series - each does an awesome job integrating the land and strategic equipment and characters. RA 3 is kind of embarrassing if you're into real RTS gaming. Its like a noisy lots of gimmicks retarded cousin of Red Alert 2.
So it always looks like someones mod - rather than a fully integrated landscape where you don't notice the game engine borders.
With RA 2, you never once got jarred by one or another component within the visuals - it all blended properly. With RA 3, I find I'm seeing this fake land and the 'boxes' of buildings and material that have been placed on top of it.
When one strips away the stupid video clips, with the boobs strategically placed all the time, as well the deliberate 'NOISE' factor, and looks at the very cheesy (and cheap-looking 3D landscape) - it seems that the designers spent most of their money on integrating vid clips and not enough on making a coherent and visually pleasing world where you don't notice the 'joins' between objects.
It reminded me in some ways of the Myth franchise game engine, from a loooong time ago. Very similar camera movements in some ways.
I miss the fine detail and clutter of the maps of RA 2. Its weird but in terms of 'how it looks' - RA 3 looks much much older than RA 2. Not because they were going for a retro tacky look, but because EA, I think, screwed the pooch.
Again, thats just my take on it - and as I'm a retro (and RTS) gamer, I'm always willing to make allowances for visuals - but then how come RA 3 looks so boring, when laid alongside the visuals of RA 2? Its not just regression, its lazy game programming - they needed to have tried harder, and spent more time, like Westwood (and Blizzard) always do, on the fine detail. What eye candy there is in RA 3, is really cheap looking. It lacks the care taken with the earlier versions - and with other RTS games on the market.
As if the decision was made to make it bright, noisy, full of strategically placed cleavage in vid clips, and hope no one notices that its designed for bright 12 year olds.
Go look at things like the American Conquest series, to see integrated landscape and characters in action - or the earlier Cossacks, or even the Total War series - each does an awesome job integrating the land and strategic equipment and characters. RA 3 is kind of embarrassing if you're into real RTS gaming. Its like a noisy lots of gimmicks retarded cousin of Red Alert 2.
Last edited:
