An amateur review about the demo of Command and Conquer Red Alert 3

I started gaming only some years after the release of CNC Generals and loved the game. I have played the original game plus expansion plus mods plus custom maps, both single and multiplayer, ever since. (I think something is wrong either with the style or grammar of the previous sentence.) CNC Generals, though, was never part of the official CNC lore/universe. I never played the original Red Alert, or 2, or the original Tiberium and am most unfamiliar with the units or the atmosphere of the CNC universe. I tried a few early levels of Red Alert 2 on a website that allows 1-hour trial-download of some antiquated games of the previous decade and lost interest after a few levels. It was perhaps because of the cartoonish graphics, which look like caricatures compared to the models in CNC Generals. Or perhaps because I never grew up hearing or knowing much about the Soviet Union, so I don't have this sensational concept of it as an empire or a powerful entity at all, though I knew while growing up that it had a large area on the map. But there were other countries with large areas on the map that I grew up equally ignorant of.

Perhaps it's because I played CNC Generals for years and then Battle for Middle Earth, which uses the same engine, whenever I download a new CNC demo I either expect the gameplay to be similar to Generals or uses it as the criteria of comparison. I only vaguely remember the demo of Tiberium Wars by now. Though it had better 3D graphics than Generals, something was missing in the gameplay though I don't remember what.

I tried the demo of RA3 yesterday. It did not have the "Generals" effect of "this game is a must have". For reference, here are the best RTS according to me, in my very limited gaming experience. There are more RTS games that I like after having tried the demo that should be on this list, but I rather not add a game to my benchmark list if I only played the demo.

Act of War: Direct Action
CNC Generals
Company of Heroes
Joint Task Force
Sudden Strike

These games have the combination of gameplay, graphics and game design and play factor (atmosphere, I don't know how to describe it) in RTS from my limited experience. Starcraft isn't even on the list because I haven't even finished the Terran campaign, when I last played/tried Starcraft I played till I was with the Ghost on a level with a lot of deployed Siege Tanks and the Ghost is supposed to get into that base. I think there were still many more missions after that. I tried maybe one Protoss campaign mission and haven't played Zergs at all. I haven't played much Starcraft, hence my limited experience.

Out of the ones I listed, JTF and Sudden Strike do not involve gathering of resources. CoH involves the gathering of multiple resources. So only AoW is comparable with RA3. I did notice that RA3 uses the AoW engine, when I saw how the building was built on grids and could only be rotated at 90 degree angles. RA3 also tried to copy AoW's revolutionary style of including actor-filmed action-sequences in between game levels. Whereas AoW had utterly gripping gameplay, RA3 did not achieve something comparable. The hiring of beautiful Gemma Atkinson and Gina Carano does indeed keep the attention riveted when they appear, but more is required in a videogame than well-made loading videos.

I will make a few comments: the graphics, the gameplay, the user interface and the atmosphere. Since I mentioned the loading video characters though, I'll talk about that first, and it does also involve comments about graphics.

I don't remember much from my trying of RA2 by now, though I do remember the somewhat cartoonish graphics. In looks of the units, RA3 seems to be the 3-D graphics port of RA2 and some of the buildings are even reminders of a 3-D graphics port of Warcraft2.

My comment is this: when fans follow a series, they may be nostalgic about the game universe or the gameplay, but when the graphics have evolved from 2-D to 3-D to excellent textured 3-D, the fans of a series would not be nostalgic about the original graphics style.
RA2 had the graphics style of Starcraft and Warcraft and "that cartoony" look. It was drawn that way because that was the limitation of graphics back then. Back then it was probably considered the most realistic drawing/depiction of units on a computer screen, a bit like how Contra was probably considered the most realistic drawing/depiction of units on a console screen. Except, games have evolved from 2-D Contra to 3-D Medal of Honor and Call of Duty.

RA2 probably had funny/humorous conversations, but the cartoon-style of graphics back then was probably considered the usual standard of realism. So I deduce the game had a good mixture of humor and make-believe realism. I can deduce this from playing CNC Generals, which had a good mixture of humor (some really funny lines from units, and the way some units are designed) and make-believe realism. The units, some of whom humorously designed, do look very close to the real thing. When I move Generals units on the battlefield, the treads or wheel marks they leave on the road, the dust cloud, and especially the look of the units, I really felt like I was moving tanks and humvees, or T-55s and APCs, or ZSUs and pick-up trucks. The humor was a nice seasoning, but the main course (or main excitement) were the graphics of the units and gameplay.

RA3 has done the humor tradition very well; however, in 3D-porting the 2D graphics of RA2, it made a world of cartoony or semi-cartoony buildings and units that also look humorous without intending to.

So that there wasn't enough satisfaction moving the units around or interacting with them. I felt like I was moving little toy soldiers and little toy cars. That's not the impression you'd want in an RTS. Maybe that could even be the impression people wanted in the time of RA2, maybe not, I didn't game till mid-college so I wouldn't know. It's definitely not the impression people want in an RTS now, after CNC Generals.

That same impression is made more displayed by the disparity between the look of the characters in the loading videos and the look of the characters on the game map. After watching Natasha speak, I get to see her in-game. Unfortunately it wasn't some Lara Croft or Aeon Flux seen from a distance, it was some cartoon portrayal that was about as real as Black Lotus in Generals. Now, the Generals hero characters were limited by the number of graphics polygon at that time. RA3 definitely isn't limited by that.

Here is a look at some screens of Act of War, the game whose engine was used by RA3, and what it could have looked like:





In-game look of a basic unit (and this is graphics from 2006 or 2005, which means RA3 could have had even more):


In-game graphics zoomed in:








Continued later, with a picture of what these loading-video people look like as in-game units.

This is the heroïne of the new computer game Mirror's Edge (and since it doesn't involve precise aiming, like HALO, it would play very well on console). I hope there will be customization options on what the character looks like. I remember reading the preview of a game called Star Trek Elite Force, and people could customize the main character to be of their gender. The current game called Mount and Blade allows for extensive customization of what the character looks like in gender, ethnicity as well as looks.

I love what I have seen of the game so very much; this would be the first game that would be centered around running and I love it. The opportunity of jumping from roof to roof is also utterly fascinating. When I first saw the trailer though (and it was utterly breathtaking) I didn't know the main character would have a face. I though it'd be like HALO where everyone can be the main character. Hopefully the look could be somewhat customized. If it's an attempt to make an Asian version of this:


(Charlize Theron in "Aeon Flux")

then the attempt is less than successful. The girl looks anemic compared to Charlize Theron and it's not due to skin color. She seems less alive. Thankfully at least she doesn't look like a corpse like the current "Versace"-style of models , the dead and dying photographs of whom they manage to waste entire magazine on (compare with same person, actually alive). But the perverted fashion "standard", of course, isn't quite what guys would want a girl to look like. Real girls look more like Cortana from HALO or Alyx Vance from Half Life II.

Having tried a free version of Red Alert II (and that's of course, many years after its publication, hence it was available on a legitimate website for free) I remember the character of Tania (or Tanya) who once in a while said "Yeah, baby" almost in a sexual kind of way. And I am glad that girls have gone from sexual objects to girl friends and girlfriends in videogame design, meaning Cortana and Alyx are people to go into action-adventure with, in addition to being attractive girls (but not in the porn-type of way, because then people could just go look at that; in gaming there has to be something different because sex is not the reason people play videogames).
When referring to Cortana, I meant Cortana in HALO II, that is. I haven't yet tried HALO III, and I am not sure about that semi-naked figure (and, sexual-object-ing Cortana who has thus far been a great character in HALO I and II) in a game clearly meant to be played by a lot of under-18 people.


I am not sure whether it's the sparkle in the eye or what, but both of these seem more alive than the Asian girl.


OK, put it another way. Were there some kind of ODST operation like in the beginning of "Delta HALO" level of HALO II, or that landing scene in Starship Troopers, I'd jump headfirst into the atmosphere with Starbuck, or fly into the midst of a Cylon attack wave with Starbuck (I somehow think landing from a hundred mile high is more dangerous than flying a Viper Mark II)



And if I had to go through a city under enemy occupation with snipers everywhere and minimum provision and maximum danger, I would go with Boomer.





As an Asian face of action-adventure, she is far more lively and better-looking and more real-person looking that the Asian girl of Mirror's Edge. I would jump into jungle/space/wind/ocean/cities and climb mountains and ford rivers and explore wilderness with all these girls pictured and know they'd be by my side. (adding Angelina Jolie in both Lara Croft movies, adding Miranda Keyes in HALO II, adding Aishwarya Rai in "The Last Legion", adding Coen in Splinter Cell I, adding Juno Eclipse in "The Force Unleashed", adding "The Ghost" (2:19-2:34 5:30-5:34 5:52-5:55) in "Starcraft Ghost" which they should make!) I have some difficulty in make-believing the same with the Mirror's Edge girl, who despite the in-game content portraying her as athletic and roof-to-roof leaping, and therefore exceptionally courageous and brave, looks like a repressed Asian girl of some stereotype who wouldn't think on her own. (Compare her with Sharon Valerii or "Boomer")

So, I am sure the in-game content, physics, level design, graphics, concept art, atmosphere, storyline and gameplay is all very high quality. There just seemed to be a parallel divergence between the visual expression (that's much more than facial expression) of the main character, and the visual expression of everything that the main character does in-game plus the gameplay plus the environment, etc.

A bit more bold (not pissed-off, not serious; bold) look would be great. There are girls who can look bold and adventurous even when smiling. In the few pictures on Google, the Mirror's Edge girl looks from repressed to spooky. Miranda Keyes portrays a military person in uniform and she looks more lively than this. If the character inspiration of the Asian girl is from some Japanese anime, well the Japanese anime aren't the best source for visual expression of people in actual life. The slant-eye make-up is quite a bit much and she looks like she doesn't speak English. Since the game premise is about the every-day high school and college-age people identifying with the main character (since everyone can be a "runner"), perhaps it's better to make a girl that girls can identify with (how about a late-teen Asian athlete) and guys would want to be around.

It is my hope that people could identify with the main character and more people would actually be inspire to run in real life, thereby increasing the fitness level of the average people. It's so good to see a videogame centered around running and not around gunfire.

The actress who doesn't care about the Hollywood fashion that requests women to be as thin as possible has, apparently, a problem though: she is being paranoid about her height.

At least that's what she confessed, speaking to the New York Post:
"One time I was in a ladies room. In the stall. And two women were talking at the sink.
One said: "'Is that Scarlett Johansson? Oh my God, she's so short!"
I began to get a complex. Because I was also in a restaurant in New York and a waiter said how short I was.
I told him: 'Good things come in small packages.'"

Well, if she ever worries too much about her height (5' 4'' or 1.63m), Scarlet may at any time apply her red lipstick.
The 'Lost in Translation' star has recently confessed that, whenever she's feeling lost in sadness, she uses a trick that proved efficient so far.
"If I am feeling glum... I like to apply red lipstick; then, for the whole day I feel better," she revealed.





Dear Scarlett, it's not so much that people think you are short by comparing with some "normal" height, it's people comparing your height with the expected height they had in mind. It's due to movies/TV and magazines showing all the celebrities to be of the same height, or just about. And since there is no way to tell how tall people are on screen, most people (me included) expect all the actors to be six feet tall or just about, and actresses to be five feet ten (half a face shorter than the "expected" male height) or just about. There is also the factor of people projecting the 'height' in social status with the expectation of a corresponding physical height, therefore people expect a celebrity to be most likely taller than them even though it does not make sense. So anytime you hear "she's so short...", there is the unspoken part of "compared with what I imagined by celebrity stereotype", rather than "compared to some 'standard' height".

The automobile-making human and technological resources will survive, definitely. The status quo of dispersing them thin among so many brands as to result in many mediocre products and nearly no innovation (except in looks) probably won't. And even if temporarily, it still won't after a while.