Say you are sitting in your house one night and a group of parachuting bears with Soviet helmets crash through your door. Without proper skill, you can easily find yourself in this situation while playing Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3.

The game begins with the downfall of the Soviet Union during their last ditch effort to become victorious. They resort to a desperate weapon, a highly experimental time machine that they use to go into the past and alter the present. When they return, they find themselves in a battle with not only the allies, but with the Empire of the Rising Sun. With all three nations on the verge of killing each other, the final battle is just beyond the horizon.

The game itself plays a lot like Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, with a bunch of new features that make it superior to its predecessor. For instance, the feature that revolutionizes this game the most is its co-op campaign missions. The entire single player game can be played with friend over the Internet, or via LAN. If you don’t have any friends :-( that’s okay because the computer can just as easily be your co-commander.

Having the computer as your co-commander is a little tricky because you are unaware of what it is building and when it is going to attack the enemy. Therefore, you need to base your tactics around the computer and what it is doing, and this could be very difficult at some points.

As with its previous games, Command and Conquer delivers an intriguing storyline with actors such as Tim Curry, George Takei, Andrew Divoff, J.K Simmons, and Jenny McCarthy (don’t worry, Jenny doesn’t have too many speaking parts, but she does make for some good eye candy). The storyline itself is quite basic, but the live action parts with the actors help string it all together. It helps the player seem like they are a part of the story rather than just hearing it from a third-person perspective.

The multiplayer portion of this game is everything you could ask for in a modern day real-time strategy. It basically has its own version of Xbox Live built into it. There is a tab that has a friends list, several lobbies, and a section where you could join games. People could send you game invites, and all you have to do is click on this tab and you can instantly join their game. From what I have seen, the multiplayer is lag free and I haven’t had any problems joining games.

The gameplay itself is quite fast paced, very similar to Tiberium Wars. Units die very quickly and there isn’t much room for micromanaging mistakes. One thing that I absolutely loved about this game was its application of naval combat. This is one of the few real-time strategy games that have correctly added naval combat to its bag of tricks. This element leads to a battle on three fronts: land, sea, and air.

Also, there are many units that are amphibious: not only are they effective on land, they are also effective on water. I was so excited when I saw my stingray boats grow legs and walk on land.

Another new point in this game is the threat meter. This meter accumulates how much destruction you cause, which then adds to an overall meter. The meter will hit milestones that grant you skill points, which you then place into a tech tree to learn new abilities. For example: the Soviets can obtain air strikes if they cause enough damage to the opposing enemies.

One other thing I found fascinating was the alternate fire on a lot of the units in the game. With the press of a button, your Soviet riflemen can go from shooting their assault rifles to tossing Molotov cocktails, Hydrofoils switch to weapon jammers, and so on.

The controls themselves are an exact replica of Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars. If the key actions themselves don’t float your stingray, every button is fully changeable in the options menu. In a nutshell, it’s a very standard layout for any real-time strategy game. Personally, I find this layout to be very comfortable and easy to use, not only for the avid RTS-er but for someone just getting into the genre as well.

The graphics in this game are done very well, and I see little complaints in this department. They have refined every little detail to look stunning, especially when you get up close with them. There is nothing like watching a Kirov Airship drop bombs on a group of unsuspecting victims (I think what does it for me is the hammer and sickle, followed up by the shark face).

Sound-wise, I am a big fan of unit dialogue. I love when units have funny little things to say when you click on them. This game is no exception. Listening to the Soviet infantry is my absolute favorite — they have funny little sayings that keep the comedy alive (“this is nice coat” and “am I suppose to do something” just to name a few).

Even though I enjoyed playing this game, I decided to knock points off of the score because of a beef I have with the Command and Conquer franchise in general. I don’t like the fact that the gameplay itself is so unvaried. For example: I build my base and then I meet my enemy in the middle. When I meet them in the middle, we fight back in forth until one of us wins the tug of war match. That’s it. Rinse and repeat.

This franchise really doesn’t emphasize enough tactics that force players to create multiple bases and expand their arsenal, even on higher difficulty levels. Most winning strategies involve the usage of only 2-3 different unit types and up to 2 bases (most of the time the maps are so small they end up being right next to each other). This can lead to any game in the franchise being very repetitive and boring within a month of play, and Red Alert 3 is no exception.

Now I know it’s asking a lot to reinvent the main gameplay mechanics, but this has been a recurring problem with every game since Command and Conquer: Generals. Besides this personal issue I have with the franchise, I believe this is a solid purchase. It has a compelling single player, a very competitive multiplayer, and some awesome co-op options.

A recent post by an EA Community Staff member on the company’s Command and Conquer message board outlines changes to their policy, stating their intent to link a gamer’s forum account to their EA gaming account. Why does this matter? Because EA is planning on banning those who get banned on their forum from their games as well.

The post by the EA Community Staff member can be seen below:

Your forum account will be directly tied to your Master EA Account, so if we ban you on the forums, you would be banned from the game as well since the login process is the same. And you’d actually be banned from your other EA games as well since its all tied to your account. So if you have SPORE and Red Alert 3 and you get yourself banned on our forums or in-game, well, your SPORE account would be banned to. It’s all one in the same, so I strongly [recommend] people play nice and act mature.

All in all, we expect people to come on here and abide by our ToS. We hate banning people, it makes our lives a lot tougher, but its what we have to do.

Those banned will stay banned, but like most other internet services, its not that hard to create a new fake e-mail account. However, its a lot harder to get a new serial key =)

While I am not a fan of fanboy or over the top argumentative banter, this still seems like it is a bit much. Is it just me, or is there a hint of corporate greed in this disciplinary action? Maybe it’s the smiley face after the “harder to get a new serial key” comment that is getting under my skin, but I am not agreeing with this move.

They are essentially saying that if you have the financial means to be an asshole (i.e. you’re rich bitch), you can be as nasty as you want as long as you keep feeding their corporate machine. I have a bad feeling about this.

Aterthought: What do you think of EA’s policy change? Are you happy to see them lay the smack down, or do you think they are going about this all wrong?

Source: forums.ea.com

UPDATE: The community staff member comment has apparently been contradicted by an anonymous EA rep. I’m not sure if I buy it though. Read More…

UPDATE 2: C&C Community Manager has issued an apology for his previous statement, stating that it was all just a misunderstanding. Read more…