RA3 First Impression

[Sledgehammer70]

Well I ahve to say it up front... so far I am not very impressed. The graphics are not all that great and the building and units are not all that cool looking. I haven't gotten to see to much of the game, but the first wave of screenshots has me wondering how the game is going to play. If EA is planning to compete with SC2 they better hit the drawing boards over again or dump that Sage engine!

Hopefully EA will give us some more screen or video of the game and let us see how the game is truly going to play. CnC3 was a good game but it was to cattered to WCG! we want infantry and not end all tank wars in 7 minutes...

Take a look at some top RTS games on the market EA please!!!!!!!!!

[Freek]

It doesnt look very special, but RA1 and RA2 were also built on old engines :P The naval battles do sound interesting, though.

[Sledgehammer70]

meh EA dev's need to move away form the Sage engine... I hate not being able to zoom out at all!

[General Tekno]

In all fairness, I doubt Blizzard will allow zooming out in SC2... that would provide FAR too much of a competitive advantage to people who do that.

However, I wholeheartedly agree - EA needs to replace the SAGE engine soon.

Blizzard, on the other hand, redoes their engine for all their games - though there's likely elements of their old engines in SC2's, if I know Blizzard it'll have been very well upgraded.

After all, I think WoW's engine is based off of WC3's. And Starcraft II's is probably an offshoot of that engine, though even still different since they probably had to add support for all sorts of new features/higher quality graphics. Not to mention the ability to render Starcraft levels of units on the screen at one time. Warcraft III wasn't built to render massive numbers of units at once - it shows by the gameplay design. Starcraft, on the other hand, has always been about massing units - so it'll probably have to be able to handle at least 400 units at once.

[Thorgaz]

Well, before we complain too much about the SAGE, I believe that EA recoded at least 60% of it for RA3... that sounds like a pretty darn substantial change to me. (although I do think that RA3 should be the last RTS to use SAGE) And also (not sure if this is true or not) the screenshots we saw are supposed to be a lot worse than real ingame footage according to some person who tested out the game. but I really hate that EA said that one of the graphic design keywords for the Soviets is "Bulbous." sounds wretched! a "bulbous" Mammoth or Apocolypse tank??

[Freek]

SAGE = W3D = Emperor: Battle for Dune

Enugh said, to be honest.

[GoGoCactusMan]

From what is known through EA, the code for the SAGE engine was rewritten by a very large percentage.

Some big differences known between this and C&C 3 are:

- Completely Co-op able campaign.
- Grid based structure placing, which will allow for (finally) MUCH BETTER unit pathfinding.
- Naval battles as well as building structures on the water. No word yet if water-base building is faction specific or not.
- Map size is said to be substantially larger than the ones found in C&C 3.

Some concerns so far really stem around art design and story changes. EA is well aware of the outcry to redesign the Apocalypse tank, and it seems they will be making it a bit more menacing.

When I have more time, I'm going to make a list for everyone of the whole overview, story, factions, units, the whole deal!

[General Tekno]

But... here's how I see the SAGE engine.

The engine was originally a mid-level house. Nothing bad about it, persay.

Then it had some rooms added on to it.

Then another floor.

Then more rooms.

All the while, the original house gets neglected because all the resources are going into adding on to the house. So the interior begins to rot.

It's all fine and dandy to keep tacking on features - but let's face it, SAGE is getting old.

[GoGoCactusMan]

*shrug* What can we do about it? My biggest problem with it so far has been the path finding, and perhaps the occasional interface lag, but other than that, I've no trouble with it.

I sat back and watched a friend play Kanes Wrath yesterday, with all the setting cranked to ultra high, and I have to say, for an engine that is this old, it still looks damn good.

[~SvN~]

Hopefully EA will give us some more screen or video of the game and let us see how the game is truly going to play. CnC3 was a good game but it was to cattered to WCG! we want infantry and not end all tank wars in 7 minutes...

Take a look at some top RTS games on the market EA please!!!!!!!!!

the gameplay for RA3 will be slow, which will reduce the use of rushing strategys and allow more strategic depht to the gameplay. Also, naval will be a huge part of this game, so don't expect the pointless BFME2 naval style here.

but I have to agree with sledge, and Im not impressed at all. the units and buildings are awfull copies of the C&C3 structures and units, and I cant understand why EA is doing another futuristic rtsgame when they just made C&C3. (speaking of C&C3, I really hope EA will listen not just to the damn onlineplayers like they did with C&C3. C&C3 gameplay is right now more about balance and competition than fun and strategic gameplay. the mammoth tank doesnt need to be a weak tank just because some nerds are complaining about balance in the C&C3 forums.)

RA3 will include battlebears, vehicles freezing units to ice, aswell as a canon that shoots men. as you can see, RA3 has lost its last piece of sense. I also have to inform you that the RA3 environment looks like a toy town.

the graphics may be bad right now but Im sure it will be better as EA are far from from done with the game.

as for the sage eninge, I have no problem with it:P who needs zooming?:tonguec:

[General Tekno]

Oh, I honestly don't care much for zooming, personally. Not in a regular game - only time it's useful is if you KNOW that you've GG'd the other guy.

However, one thing I'll give Blizzard is their cinematic skill is top-notch - they proved it in Warcraft III with that editor's cinematic support.

I mean, you can do pretty much ANYTHING with cameras. I'm sure that you can with SAGE, but I have to admit - it looks a heck of a lot harder to use.

Warcraft III was EASY to script for. And then if you wanted, you could get advanced and write some super advanced stuff - there's an FPS mod some people wrote for it years back where it could run a shell overtop of Warcraft III to do FPS-style gaming.

The mod was never finished, but they released all their work to the public. And someone went and made an action-based third person Blademaster game that ran off the engine.

To say nothing of the campaigns that a user named Razorclaw X made... the dude threw so much plot and so many easter eggs in there it wasn't even funny.

[Freek]

SAGE still has an FPS dependant cursor, which sucks...

They have a zoom level that doesnt show more then 3 buildings at a time, which reduces the amount of strategic movements you can do.

Regardless, Id rather have a weak balanced mammoth when I go for a quick 10 minute game, rather them some powerhouse units that take half an hour to build and about as long to take down.

[~SvN~]

Regardless, Id rather have a weak balanced mammoth when I go for a quick 10 minute game, rather them some powerhouse units that take half an hour to build and about as long to take down.

the mammoth has always been something to fear on the battlefield, my point is that the balance doesnt need to ruin the realism that has worked well in the previous games.

speaking of tanks, the tanks in C&C3 are like super fast and fragile paper vehicles. A tank should be a strong and powerfull maskine of war, they should come in small numbers among groups of infantry as small movable forts, providing cover and heavy gunpower.

sorry if Im going a bit off topic here:P

[Freek]

CnC isnt about realism. What you describe is more like Company of Heroes, or World in Conflict.

[~SvN~]

yes, but still, the tanks are too fragile, and they have'nt been like that in the precious C&C games. at least not that much.:)