For the three campaigns, but I argue you will get more 'value' in replayability and 'fun' from just the first game than you will from RA3. I don't like to EA bash but it's just been my experience again and again - I own all the c&c games and expansions and love the franchise but EA bought it for the franchise in order to sell it as such - rather than make it their own great game.
So for my £30 (which is more appropriate since normally I would just buy every RTS that comes out... but I'm extremely broke right now lol), I think out of the choice of the two I'm going to get more money's worth out of starcraft 2, just based on all the installments of C&C I've had.
The best EA C&C was generals, but because of the warcraft style (probably some other game before that too?) mobile construction units vs a construction building rather than anything else - the game is still to this day imbalanced and has plenty of bugs. Whereas Starcraft (I don't actually play it because it's so old!) is still receiving patches from Blizzard when necessary as far as I'm aware.
On the subject of coop, where is LAN coop? I mean really EA is it that hard to make it work?
Kimbie
Forcing you to go online provides one more hurdle for the pirates to cross (or to look at it the other way, one more level of DRM) so I should think it was a conscious decision. Plus the Xbox version likely would have only ever used an online mode, so yet more incentive to go that way for them.
Wouldn't wiping out Einstein have prevented him from stopping Hitler and caused WW2 to actually happen, stopping the Allies vs Soviets war from ever happenning in the first place ? (That being the whole point to the original RA story - no Hitler, no WW2, the cold war starts early and gets hot)
I think it's after Hitler is removed from time. The one thing that does bug me, the Chronosphere and Mirage Tank are both Einstein creations, yet still in the game, yet no Prism, Weather Control, Nukes etc, duh
I yesterday started playing this and went through training mode and one skirmish game with Russian faction. The game and its graphics are good and it will take some time to get used to the right use of weapons. Red alert 2 was the game i played and liked most.
In RA2, graphics was simple but suficient, and most of the weapons, tanks, fighters were more realistics similar to our real worls. Soviets had Nukes then Allied had weather storm. It was a fight and fun game as anybody with lesser IQ and not being a strategist could enjoy the war fare. Yuri's revenge expansion pack introduced some out of the real world weapons and features game moved towards fantasy world.
RA3 is kinda expansion of RA2+yuri' revenge and similar to Kane's wrath. So the gamers who are habiutal of playing with artifical fantasy weapons would like this version and those who want some real world like weaponary system would still love RA2.
for me RA2 still the simple and best and all RA series.
Comments 26 to 30 of 30
For the three campaigns, but I argue you will get more 'value' in replayability and 'fun' from just the first game than you will from RA3. I don't like to EA bash but it's just been my experience again and again - I own all the c&c games and expansions and love the franchise but EA bought it for the franchise in order to sell it as such - rather than make it their own great game.
So for my £30 (which is more appropriate since normally I would just buy every RTS that comes out... but I'm extremely broke right now lol), I think out of the choice of the two I'm going to get more money's worth out of starcraft 2, just based on all the installments of C&C I've had.
The best EA C&C was generals, but because of the warcraft style (probably some other game before that too?) mobile construction units vs a construction building rather than anything else - the game is still to this day imbalanced and has plenty of bugs. Whereas Starcraft (I don't actually play it because it's so old!) is still receiving patches from Blizzard when necessary as far as I'm aware.
Forcing you to go online provides one more hurdle for the pirates to cross (or to look at it the other way, one more level of DRM) so I should think it was a conscious decision. Plus the Xbox version likely would have only ever used an online mode, so yet more incentive to go that way for them.
Wouldn't wiping out Einstein have prevented him from stopping Hitler and caused WW2 to actually happen, stopping the Allies vs Soviets war from ever happenning in the first place ? (That being the whole point to the original RA story - no Hitler, no WW2, the cold war starts early and gets hot)
Sam
In RA2, graphics was simple but suficient, and most of the weapons, tanks, fighters were more realistics similar to our real worls. Soviets had Nukes then Allied had weather storm. It was a fight and fun game as anybody with lesser IQ and not being a strategist could enjoy the war fare. Yuri's revenge expansion pack introduced some out of the real world weapons and features game moved towards fantasy world.
RA3 is kinda expansion of RA2+yuri' revenge and similar to Kane's wrath. So the gamers who are habiutal of playing with artifical fantasy weapons would like this version and those who want some real world like weaponary system would still love RA2.
for me RA2 still the simple and best and all RA series.