The words of angry fanboys.
Red Alert 3 is beautiful, polished, and fun to play. But nobody loves it. Blame it on the abysmal C&C 3, or the lack of ore fields, or even global warming or piracy. (Those never fail.) In my eyes, there's no excuse for avoiding and overlooking this well-crafted strategy game that was never given a chance to begin with.
In a way, the lost love is ironic. For years, Red Alert 2 fanboys had been crying for a sequel that would bring back cheesy cutscenes, bundles of humor, naval warfare, and so forth. Now that it's back, they suddenly want no part of it. Oh, the irony! The unit balance is even better than ever before and almost every structure can now be built at sea, quadrupling the number of possible strategies each faction can utilize. Oh, but it's still not a "worthy" successor to the now painfully simplistic, ADD-friendly Red Alert 2.
I'm beginning to wonder if Red Alert fans even know what they want anymore. It's apparently asinine when the developers over at EA Games change some of the gameplay mechanics for the better, modernizing the game for this generation (was it seriously enjoyable babysitting those fucking harvesters the entire length of a game?); so perhaps as an antidote, we should give them the same damned game, Red Alert 2 all over again, in shiny new packaging.
The plan for the "real" Red Alert 2 sequel is ingenious, actually. Copy the original box art, replacing the "2" with a "3" and changing the Westwood logo into a green-ish EA logo. Then, change the copyright dates on the back of the box to reflect the current year. Finally, make the same changes on the main menu of the game. Ta-da! We've got ourselves a sequel! Now, package the game and mail copies to Red Alert 2 fanboys worldwide so that they may finally rest in peace and put away their tissues. They'll never notice a difference. Not a damned thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment