Star Craft II vs Red Alert 3

I know it is fun,
i once split map in half whit lines of tesla coils XD but that only work on single player.....
Few nights ago I was playing ra2 whit my friend and I was France an I was rushed him whit my grand cannons that was fun,but risky.

 

^ fave tactic

You should try a few mods sometime. To bad that the best ones don't work with the expansion, though. I like the ones where you get to play all sides at once. Hehe. Bit overpowered. But nobody plays those games online anymore. Is RA2 even supported anymore?

 

Well yes it is supported in first decade (I have first decade) and + unofficial patches....
Well some mods look fun but I love old fashion ra2 ,it's good.fast and fun
and how I said it have lots of strategy and it is mass game It is little unbalanced but it's damn fun game.

 

I never could get into the RA2 and RA3.

I liked the original red alert from west wood, but I don't know, RA2 seemed, cartoony to me..

And I just never got around to RA3.

SCFA just has me taken.
And waiting for Sc2 of course.

 

Well ra3 looks cartoony but ra2 looks good,for me ra2 have best maps ever in RTS genre,
but you must admit that last few blizzard games looks cartoony like warcraft3 and world of warcraft and now sc2....for me it looks too much on wc3.

 

Well sure most MMO's or MMORPGs look cartoony,

but I only play Rts's, so I never play those games..

 

I have The First Decade also..!! and red alert 3.. which looks like colour boxes moving around..! except from twinblade and some other russian naval units like dreadnought..

But Red Alert 2 has something magic in it, which cannot be found in starcraft.. Not accidentaly his lead designer was Dustin Browder..

 

Cartoony looks aren't a bad thing, in my opinion. Also, Red Alert 2 was quite cartoony.

 

I think that the ideal RTS should not be based on each games strenghts... C&C series plays different than SC but has just as much fun on gameplay. The thing that separates the two for me is their competitiveness and capacities for multiplayer. SC basically is a much more devoted to detailed and controlled battle, whereas C&C goes beyond limits and basically is more about macro war.

If I were to vote on which game I want to play more, it'd be SC. Because SC is much more of what an RTS is to me. (though we should all not use SC as a basis of what other rts should be like).

- SCs gameplay is unique and everlasting thats why they still have very strong supporters from SC1, and unlike how I thought about the C&C series, it would just be something that you will one day put in a box and left forgotten...

 

well if you want to play an RTS without depending on gas and minerals play Sudden Strike.. top of the creme!

 

ra2 isn't cartoony it is colorful yes,because is a very polished game and get lots of positive critics for that and for engine....and I am not talking that cartoony graphic is a bad thing but people say something bad because it is cartoony for example ra3...

as I said before for me ra2 have best maps evr in rts,ever! because really looks good you have lots details on maps and everything you see can be "touched" or selected and destroyed,also it have lots neutral buildings models and so on....

sc game play is unique....also c&c have unique game play....every c&c game evolved in something better (except c&c4).

For me sc1 and ra2 are equal both have + and -

And......maybe you will trow c&c in the box but not me,last year when I was install first decade,first game what I played is ra1 ...after long 9 years I was able to play it again and I was so happy,me and my friend play ra1 on lan every day and I show him how I can beat him using infantry whiteout tanks (tank rush stuff) and now we play generals,ra2,ts,c&c3,ra3,renegade and that is all fun! sometimes play sc and wc3,now I will get battle for middle earth 2 to play that whit my friend