When Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars became both a critical and commercial success last year there was no doubt that a new Red Alert was in the making. Now it's official. Electronic Arts announced today the existence of Red Alert 3 and dropped some juicy details on what to expect from the game.
Red Alert 3 plans to introduce a cooperative campaign to mix up the normal RTS multiplayer offerings as well as units like armored bears and transforming tanks. That sounds great and all but what I really want is an armored bear that transforms into a tank. I guess this'll have to do for now.
In addition to tiny details about the game the press release mentions that purchasing the Command & Conquer 3 expansion Kane's Wrath could net you a beta key for Red Alert 3.
"Command & Conquer fans eager to experience Red Alert 3 before anyone else can get early access to the beta (available for the PC only - an announcement about the Red Alert 3 beta dates will be made this summer) by picking up a copy of Command & Conquer™ 3: Kane’s Wrath later this year."
More details on the beta keys can be found here.
Can we expect more live-action cut scenes? I would wager on most definitely yes. The cut scenes from Command & Conquer 3 garnered much attention - although not all positive but attention none-the-less - and more cut scenes were filmed for Kane's Wrath adding sci-fi veteran Natasha Henstridge to the cast. I guess the big question is will they recast Agent Tanya or can we expect more of Kari Wuhrer?
The interesting bits from the press release are below.
Chertsey, UK – February 14, 2008 – After a seven-year hiatus, Electronic Arts today announces the return of Red Alert, one of the most beloved and best-selling real-time strategy franchises. Command & Conquer™: Red Alert™ 3, for the PC, Xbox 360TM video game and entertainment system and the PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment system, takes players on an epic adventure to a breathtaking alternate future spawned by time travel run amok. Developed by EA Los Angeles, Red Alert 3 breaks new ground in the RTS genre, featuring a fully co-operative campaign while bringing back the series’ light-hearted style and classic, action-oriented gameplay.
“The Red Alert games are known for challenging hardcore strategy gamers with depth, variety, and innovative gameplay. But they also belong to that rare breed of games that can draw in more casual players with their over-the-top stories, instantly accessible mechanics, and straight-to-the-fun design,” said Mike Verdu, general manager of EALA. “With Red Alert 3, our team is continuing that proud tradition by introducing genre-first features like co-operative campaign play, which rewards veterans and casual players alike. In Red Alert 3, friends and family can always have your back.”
“It’s been too long.” said Chris Corry, executive producer at EALA. “Fans have been waiting for a new Red Alert game for seven years, and we’re working hard to ensure its well worth the wait. The team is staying true to the series’ roots while adding new elements like a co-operatively played story-driven campaign, an astounding new faction that will shake-up the Red Alert universe as we know it, and units that will help make Red Alert 3 everything our fans have been waiting for. And by bringing naval combat into the heart of the game design, we’re transporting that fast, fun and fluid C&C gameplay to the high-seas in ways that you’ve never seen before.”
In Red Alert 3, the desperate leadership of a doomed Soviet Union travels back in time to change history and restore the glory of Mother Russia. The time travel mission goes awry, creating an alternate timeline where technology has followed an entirely different evolution, a new superpower has been thrust on to the world stage, and World War III is raging. The Empire of the Rising Sun has risen in the East, making World War III a three-way struggle between the Soviets, the Allies, and the Empire with armies fielding wacky and wonderful weapons and technologies like Tesla coils, heavily armed War Blimps, teleportation, armored bears, intelligent dolphins, floating island fortresses, and transforming tanks.
Red Alert 3 asks the question “What If?” What if every bizarre research project and technology experiment for the last 70 years had actually borne fruit? What if the Philadelphia Experiment, time travel theory, teleportation, invisibility, Tesla technology, and a hundred other intriguing research projects had all paid off and gone mainstream? What if the Soviet Union survived and thrived; what would it look like 10 years in the future? What if the Japanese Empire had never fallen and instead became the ultimate high-tech military superpower? The end result is an imaginative and playful vision of an alternate future filled with possibility.
Comments (18)
sounds like more of the same to me.
this type of game is dead.
I am not buying any more of the same crap from EA.
Posted by andy | February 14, 2008 5:55 PM
Posted on February 14, 2008 17:55
Andy said it all, EA its killing its own breed by every move they make...alot more better and realistic games are out there...*coh* *coh*
Posted by UPI2k8 | February 14, 2008 7:05 PM
Posted on February 14, 2008 19:05
I wish they would have realised the charm of the original red alert was that it was belivable. a modern day soviet superpower was really awesome, but why not keep going with a good thing? why not destroy the only reason I (because i cant speak for everyone) liked Red Alert.
armored bears and dolphins? wtf
Posted by kyle | February 14, 2008 7:47 PM
Posted on February 14, 2008 19:47
YES! I love strategy games, and RA2 was the bomb. I'd be happy to spend $50 and endless hours on another version of Red Alert.
I just hope EA makes something more up-to-date. There are no more soviets to fight (at the moment), but maybe we could have a war against the Muslim world, or fight for the remaining oil and water resources due to a human population that has gotten to large for the planet's natural resources.
Posted by Ricardo Parker | February 14, 2008 7:56 PM
Posted on February 14, 2008 19:56
I actually liked the sillyness of RA2 some, I'm looking forward to it.
Oh...and they had dolphins in RA2 as well, don't you remember?
Posted by bourgeoisdude | February 14, 2008 8:36 PM
Posted on February 14, 2008 20:36
My worry is that if they want to proceed with this alternate 'future', all the units are just going to be more of the same sci-fi stuff as the C&C universe, I loved RA2 becuase even though they had some far out units, they were mostly still grounded/styled in the cold war era of military units and technology.
I don't want realism, I just want RA2's character to stay unique, and not become sci-fi rts #4423.
Posted by stve | February 14, 2008 11:39 PM
Posted on February 14, 2008 23:39
This is why EA sucks so much. Ever since they bought out Westwood studios, they've been slapping their name on sub-par products, that can't even live up to the original WW products. Such a shame...
Posted by Hayday23 | February 14, 2008 11:45 PM
Posted on February 14, 2008 23:45
I agree with all the 7 above!
Posted by Perzy | February 15, 2008 7:59 AM
Posted on February 15, 2008 07:59
I would be much happier for extra missions tacked onto Red Alert 2, improving the network aspects (the original game runs like a dog with several players even on the latest PCs), fixing the bugs (infinite chronos etc), and balancing out some of the units strength a little.
As others have said, the original charm was running around with recognizable units in a mostly believable setting in beautiful isometric.
This looks like it'll be another game with stupid units, overboard on 3D effects (that usually hinder seeing the action), and will probably run as slow as a dog.
Posted by Matthew Harper | February 16, 2008 11:35 AM
Posted on February 16, 2008 11:35
So the Tesla coil tanks, the Chrono troopers, Yuri's mind control units... those were okay, but whatever they're going to put into this next RA isn't?
Sounds like a lot of sour grapes from OTHER failed EA games; let's wait and see an actual demo before getting ahead of ourselves, shall we?
Posted by DT | February 17, 2008 7:47 PM
Posted on February 17, 2008 19:47
i'd like to have more "zero hour" current weapon than fictional stuff.
Posted by abdul azis arjoso | February 18, 2008 3:38 PM
Posted on February 18, 2008 15:38
I also would love to see a remade CnC Zero Hour, nothing too sci-fi. All I am hoping to see from ea in this game is that it doesn't crash every other game in mulitplayer (like Zero Hour did) and that they make an effort to fix bugs and errors. But seriously this plot sounds almost as messed up as ea's coding.
Posted by Loki | February 19, 2008 2:08 AM
Posted on February 19, 2008 02:08
Anyone actually surprised by this? I mean with Starcraft 2 coming out, you had to count on EA throwing something out there to try to beat Blizzard to the market.
Posted by Jeff | February 19, 2008 8:18 AM
Posted on February 19, 2008 08:18
im excited about the new game
all this over the top armored bears, tesla coil stuff...
crazier stuff is real, USSR earthquake machines, bears riding tricicles, Bat Bombs, death rays,... this is all real stuff.
now to bring back the polish of Westwood... thats the miricle
Posted by Jake | February 19, 2008 12:54 PM
Posted on February 19, 2008 12:54
Speaking of WestWood... man I miss Nox. Lol. I owned that game! Go :P
Posted by JoeySparkz | February 20, 2008 6:49 PM
Posted on February 20, 2008 18:49
Red Alert 2 was an abomination. Graphics were infantile and cartoonish; developers could barely be bothered to ccreate a backstory; mission maps weren't thought-through in terms of matching unit abilities and gameplay dynamics to terrain.
I feel like EA is 'that kid' in your class - the one who 'kind of got it' but didn't actually get it? The one who no one had the heart to tell him 'you're a semi-retard Jimmy'. EA can grasp a few aspects of the original games that brought them such popularity - oh, they like FMV! or 'oh they like cool super units' But they never put it ALL TOGETHER.
If the original Westwood was given Generals, Red Alert 2, and C&C 3 and said 'take these three games and create a single awesome piece of software' they could do it - they'd pick and chose from the majority of the crap contained in each game the individually 'great' aspects which are homages / carryovers from the good old days. Result: great game.
EA needs to bring back the original Red Alert brain trust, give them a great bugdet, free reign, and say 'have at it'. Barring that, they need to study red alert (the original) with hawks eyes and have a good ole' serious think-about-it session.
What makes RTS games great:
* stories that are involving. Make the players actually care again. I haven't since Tiberium Sun.
* memorable maps with engorssing environments - not cutesy. Not ridiculously hard. not great light effects. But memorable maps. Choke points, narrow bridges, unique geography, interesting artwork and building design, swirling weather, recognizable locations.
* Make us work for our rewards (and while you're at it, cherish every unit) The old games: a. slowly rolled out various units as the game ramped up, and, b. took pride in everything that was created. Backstories, training missions, explanations, unique tasks.
* Stop sucking the di*k of the 'uber-competitive online audience'. It is making RTS games suck. I'm sorry, it's the truth. For every fanboy who will weep that he can't have his 5-minute rapid click victory strategies, you'll draw in 10 armchair gamers with a unique love of history / military / strategy / engrossing campaigns. The Battle for Middle Earth RTS series was ruined by EA's submission to that interest group. C&C3 was made worse for it.
I'm sure there's more. But that's enough for now. Look, I know that the graphics of Red Alert suck utter balls compared to what we have today. However, I've played A LOT of RTS since then, and I can't remember one that was more memorable. The game drew you in like a crack fiend. I still have memories of direct connect multiplay games with my cousins lasting for hours; of campaign missions fighting tooth and nail to defend a particular road-choke; of hidden corners and Tanyas and running Einsteins.
The game was special. Does EA know how to make special games anymore?
Posted by The Dogs! | February 25, 2008 3:10 AM
Posted on February 25, 2008 03:10
Am not sure how the RA3 will be but RA2 was the classic of my life?! i hope their fix alot of thing but should remove some unit that is not possible to be exist.... eg= Octopus, like RA1 was alright, is realistic but it come out at wrong time(That i mean the graphic!) it could have been an bloody great game.... anyway i think EA studio is bleeding out yo
Posted by TLC | February 25, 2008 3:13 AM
Posted on February 25, 2008 03:13
Am not sure how the RA3 will be but RA2 was the classic of my life?! i hope their fix alot of thing but should remove some unit that is not possible to be exist.... eg= Octopus, like RA1 was alright, is realistic but it come out at wrong time(That i mean the graphic!) it could have been an bloody great game.... anyway i think EA studio is bleeding out yo
Posted by TLC | February 25, 2008 3:14 AM
Posted on February 25, 2008 03:14