do not buy Red Alert 3 runs and looks really bad

It runs badly on your PC? Damn, I guess that means I shouldn't buy it!

/sarcasm

Okay, dodnt buy it unless you have atleast a 4850 or above video card. but its weird that for how bad the graphics are it requires that kinda gpu. C&C3 looked as good or better and required MUCH less.

It runs badly on your PC? Damn, I guess that means I shouldn't buy it!

/sarcasm

bangell99

http://xtreview.com/review181.htm

Benchmarks of your card show that it doesn't run Far Cry 1 at very high of an fps... so I highly doubt it's the game's problem that you aren't being able to run it at a decent FPS. Time to upgrade my friend.

Oops, I bought it... please forgive me.smokeydabear076

Umm,, thats not my video card. Mines not the GT, it is alot faster than the GT.

http://xtreview.com/review181.htm

Benchmarks of your card show that it doesn't run Far Cry 1 at very high of an fps... so I highly doubt it's the game's problem that you aren't being able to run it at a decent FPS. Time to upgrade my friend.

simardbrad

it doesn't have fantastic visuals but the colour and vibrance and art design more than make up for it. Full maxed at 1920x1200 with 8x AA and everything (where possible) on ultra... it really does feel epic :D

it doesn't have fantastic visuals but the colour and vibrance and art design more than make up for it. Full maxed at 1920x1200 with 8x AA and everything (where possible) on ultra... it really does feel epic :D

GenTom

Oh yah, that is the way to go, my friend, too true. I've been waiting for Red Alert 3 for about 4 years now. And now, its out, so now I just have to buy it.

At medium settings I agree it doesn't look that great, but at really high I think the game looks just as good or better than C&C3. It's just a very different look, a bit more old school and cartoony. I also think the explosions still look pretty BA.Amigro

I now the reason (actually I remember but still) as to why the Graphics look bad to the Author of this topic: I have the Command and Conquer The First Decade pack, and I watched the video on Red Alert 2, and they said that they were aiming to make kind of like a very funny, highly interactive, very fun game for all ages, so they had to make the graphics of some things look cartoony. Because lots of the stuff the you see in Red Alert 2, and 3, will never happen, because the soviet union no longer exists, and why they would actually try and make tesla tanks? I have no clue, but because the guys at EA used their imagination and made it look all awesome, yet very fun and suitable for everyone. Unlike the Tiberium world of Command & Conquer, it was very violent in Tiberian Sun, so they could not turn that into a game for all ages. The Red Alert series is based on comedy, imagination, and alternate histories. Tiberium universe is based on 2 global factions waring against eachother, violence, and seriousness, plus some imagination, not alot but some. But when it hit C&C 3, then they got into really creating things.

I would say I have a mid level pc. And the game should run much better than it does on a mid level pc. If you go on gamefaqs you will see MANY people are not happy about this.

At medium settings I agree it doesn't look that great, but at really high I think the game looks just as good or better than C&C3. It's just a very different look, a bit more old school and cartoony. I also think the explosions still look pretty BA.Amigro

I understand what your saying but usually a more cartoony look that the graphics arent quite as good as the game thats going for the realistic look, usually the cartoony version that doesnt look as good runs much smoother and faster, not slower, thats my issue.

[QUOTE="Amigro"]At medium settings I agree it doesn't look that great, but at really high I think the game looks just as good or better than C&C3. It's just a very different look, a bit more old school and cartoony. I also think the explosions still look pretty BA.MOCHIRON_MAN

I now the reason (actually I remember but still) as to why the Graphics look bad to the Author of this topic: I have the Command and Conquer The First Decade pack, and I watched the video on Red Alert 2, and they said that they were aiming to make kind of like a very funny, highly interactive, very fun game for all ages, so they had to make the graphics of some things look cartoony. Because lots of the stuff the you see in Red Alert 2, and 3, will never happen, because the soviet union no longer exists, and why they would actually try and make tesla tanks? I have no clue, but because the guys at EA used their imagination and made it look all awesome, yet very fun and suitable for everyone. Unlike the Tiberium world of Command & Conquer, it was very violent in Tiberian Sun, so they could not turn that into a game for all ages. The Red Alert series is based on comedy, imagination, and alternate histories. Tiberium universe is based on 2 global factions waring against eachother, violence, and seriousness, plus some imagination, not alot but some. But when it hit C&C 3, then they got into really creating things.

I understand what your saying but usually a more cartoony look that the graphics arent quite as good as the game thats going for the realistic look, usually the cartoony version that doesnt look as good runs much smoother and faster, not slower, thats my issue.

[QUOTE="MOCHIRON_MAN"]

[QUOTE="Amigro"]At medium settings I agree it doesn't look that great, but at really high I think the game looks just as good or better than C&C3. It's just a very different look, a bit more old school and cartoony. I also think the explosions still look pretty BA.digitalman42

I now the reason (actually I remember but still) as to why the Graphics look bad to the Author of this topic: I have the Command and Conquer The First Decade pack, and I watched the video on Red Alert 2, and they said that they were aiming to make kind of like a very funny, highly interactive, very fun game for all ages, so they had to make the graphics of some things look cartoony. Because lots of the stuff the you see in Red Alert 2, and 3, will never happen, because the soviet union no longer exists, and why they would actually try and make tesla tanks? I have no clue, but because the guys at EA used their imagination and made it look all awesome, yet very fun and suitable for everyone. Unlike the Tiberium world of Command & Conquer, it was very violent in Tiberian Sun, so they could not turn that into a game for all ages. The Red Alert series is based on comedy, imagination, and alternate histories. Tiberium universe is based on 2 global factions waring against eachother, violence, and seriousness, plus some imagination, not alot but some. But when it hit C&C 3, then they got into really creating things.

It may be your video card, or the Catalyst Control settings; do you have ATi Catalyst Control Center? if so, it may be your Anti - Aliasing, it could be at full or half. if it is not enable in the Control Center, try turning it off in the game, if it is not already off.

http://xtreview.com/review181.htm

Benchmarks of your card show that it doesn't run Far Cry 1 at very high of an fps... so I highly doubt it's the game's problem that you aren't being able to run it at a decent FPS. Time to upgrade my friend.

simardbrad

Thats just wrong. Atleast the comparison part, because i remembe running the first far cry in its fullest on a 6600GT, and that card is way inferior to the comparison 7900 GS.

I agree. When I initially got the beta I was running with my old 7800 GT and it was pretty jerky especially at the high settings, unlike C&C3 which ran pretty smoothly. I have since upgraded my video card and it runs smooth now.

I'm not sure if the game was poorly optimized or what, but I can see your frustration with it. I still think it looks just as good or better (albeit in a different way) though.

Then game looks nice IMO.

Dont like the graphics, then dont buy it. Nobodies forcing you.

I am upgrading it when I get tax money back, kinda stretched thin with this whole gas being sky high and prices of everything going up. Im just saying C&C 3 looked as good or better and ran ten times faster, I guess you didnt get the point. I realize the gpu isnt the greatest, but it aint THAT BAD.

your graphics card is very outdated, upgrade it nimatoad2000

everything else looks worse. And it runs 10x slower,digitalman42

ive got red alert 3 and its runs fine......

I am upgrading it when I get tax money back, kinda stretched thin with this whole gas being sky high and prices of everything going up. Im just saying C&C 3 looked as good or better and ran ten times faster, I guess you didnt get the point. I realize the gpu isnt the greatest, but it aint THAT BAD.

[QUOTE="nimatoad2000"]your graphics card is very outdated, upgrade it digitalman42

No, no, no, it runs 20 times faster than RA 3 :roll: and if you consider C&C 3 as good looking as RA 3 or even better then this thread is a troll, not a single thing from C&C 3 is as good looking as anything from RA 3.

Your GPU isn't the greatest and it isn't that bad, if you play on low or med, but it IS THAT BAD if you want new games to look good :|.

[QUOTE="digitalman42"]

I am upgrading it when I get tax money back, kinda stretched thin with this whole gas being sky high and prices of everything going up. Im just saying C&C 3 looked as good or better and ran ten times faster, I guess you didnt get the point. I realize the gpu isnt the greatest, but it aint THAT BAD.

[QUOTE="nimatoad2000"]your graphics card is very outdated, upgrade it DanielDust

No, no, no, it runs 20 times faster than RA 3 :roll: and if you consider C&C 3 as good looking as RA 3 or even better then this thread is a troll, not a single thing from C&C 3 is as good looking as anything from RA 3.

Your GPU isn't the greatest and it isn't that bad, if you play on low or med, but it IS THAT BAD if you want new games to look good :|.

You don't like the game? ok, but don't start talking BS that it doesn't look as good as C&C 3 (on med :roll: ) and that it runs worse (when you could max out C&C 3 and you're playing RA 3 on med, wow, imagine that, games that need better computers actually need better computers :roll: ),

Its not a fact you know, that red 3 looks better then cnc 3, its an opinoin.

I personally like the look of cnc 3 better too.

http://xtreview.com/review181.htm

Benchmarks of your card show that it doesn't run Far Cry 1 at very high of an fps... so I highly doubt it's the game's problem that you aren't being able to run it at a decent FPS. Time to upgrade my friend.

simardbrad

Dude you sig is so funny!!!!

Okay, dodnt buy it unless you have atleast a 4850 or above video card. but its weird that for how bad the graphics are it requires that kinda gpu. C&C3 looked as good or better and required MUCH less.

[QUOTE="bangell99"]

It runs badly on your PC? Damn, I guess that means I shouldn't buy it!

/sarcasm

digitalman42

ok my pc will play this max 1680x1050 at around 2-4x AA, and AF, at 60fps, of course i dont have a low, or mid range pc, either, but thats not my point, i could get close to that with just one of my cards,

I am so confused. The graphics are WORSE than C&C3 yet it runs much SLOWER on my PC. It's even made by the same company, what gives?? the water looks better, everything else looks worse. And it runs 10x slower, I could max out C&C 3 with my duo 2, 3 gigs, x1950 video card, this game I have to run on MED to get a DECENT frame rate, even on high it crawls and looks much worse than C&C 3.digitalman42

lol and this would be a good reason to pass a good game? with my new comp i can max everything out and with my old one i could play tiberium wars with low with some lag but red alert 3 with medium and no lag, its better optimized, its your computer, just to make u guys laugh my old computer had 550 mhz

Umm,, thats not my video card. Mines not the GT, it is alot faster than the GT.

[QUOTE="simardbrad"]

http://xtreview.com/review181.htm

Benchmarks of your card show that it doesn't run Far Cry 1 at very high of an fps... so I highly doubt it's the game's problem that you aren't being able to run it at a decent FPS. Time to upgrade my friend.

digitalman42

apparantly not...

The reason why the graphics are not good is because it is using the same graphics engine that Command & Conquer: Generals used. The only reason I can think of for do that is to save time and money for other aspects of the game.

The reason why the graphics are not good is because it is using the same graphics engine that Command & Conquer: Generals used. The only reason I can think of for do that is to save time and money for other aspects of the game.

Arm_Commander

Speaking of Command & Conquer: Generals, I really want EA to make a second Generals game; They are focusing to much on the Red Alert and Tiberium series. I mean, they have 3 eras if RTS battling, but they only focus on 2 of them, like the Modern Warfare era, is just swept aside by them. there is only 2 games in the modern warfare era, and "13" games in the Tiberium saga and the Red Alert series put together. It makes me angry that they completly ignow modern warfare series.

But, back to Red Alert 3's sad performance ( most unfortanate ) on the TC's PC.

Red Alert 3 is very unoptimized.

i can play Dead space on allmost MAX, aswell as CNC3, with very nice performance, unlike red alert3..

If i put the water on MED, it runs ok, once i go to high, the FPS gets very very low.. now i know the water looks cool, but from 25 FPS to 10 just for a reflection? XD..

and btw, this engine is older than you think.. it was used on emperor aswell.

[QUOTE="Arm_Commander"]

The reason why the graphics are not good is because it is using the same graphics engine that Command & Conquer: Generals used. The only reason I can think of for do that is to save time and money for other aspects of the game.

MOCHIRON_MAN

Speaking of Command & Conquer: Generals, I really want EA to make a second Generals game; They are focusing to much on the Red Alert and Tiberium series. I mean, they have 3 eras if RTS battling, but they only focus on 2 of them, like the Modern Warfare era, is just swept aside by them. there is only 2 games in the modern warfare era, and "13" games in the Tiberium saga and the Red Alert series put together. It makes me angry that they completly ignow modern warfare series.

But, back to Red Alert 3's sad performance ( most unfortanate ) on the TC's PC.

I can say to you that it is MOST likely that the next C&C game will be Generals 2, unless its already C&C4.

as i first played the game i thougth my graphics card is damaged or something the visuals look really bad (reminds me of playstation 1 a bit :lol: ) and it also runs badly especially when there are many unity on the screen.

the gameplay is avarege and the coop mode for single player campaign isnt that great. playing a regular multiplayer match is still more fun. all in all game is dissapointing imo.

the game is great and if anybody has an old graphics card they should buy a new one and stop whining Dark_prince123

i dont think a gtx 260 is that old and also a new graphics card wont improve a poor graphics engine

[QUOTE="Dark_prince123"]the game is great and if anybody has an old graphics card they should buy a new one and stop whining crapdog

i dont think a gtx 260 is that old and also a new graphics card wont improve a poor graphics engine

I want some of whatever your smoking. The graphics in this game are not very good at all, it looks like a cartoon and the detail in the graphics is really low. C&C 3 looked much better. Ran much faster. My graphics card can play other games that look much better at a much higher frame rate.

[QUOTE="digitalman42"]

I am upgrading it when I get tax money back, kinda stretched thin with this whole gas being sky high and prices of everything going up. Im just saying C&C 3 looked as good or better and ran ten times faster, I guess you didnt get the point. I realize the gpu isnt the greatest, but it aint THAT BAD.

[QUOTE="nimatoad2000"]your graphics card is very outdated, upgrade it DanielDust

No, no, no, it runs 20 times faster than RA 3 :roll: and if you consider C&C 3 as good looking as RA 3 or even better then this thread is a troll, not a single thing from C&C 3 is as good looking as anything from RA 3.

Your GPU isn't the greatest and it isn't that bad, if you play on low or med, but it IS THAT BAD if you want new games to look good :|.

This has nothing to do with whether or not you have the latest hardware. This game blews. $50 down the tubes. EA - don't worry, this is the last title I buy from you! Revenge of the consumer!!!!!!!!!!!! P.S. You should be ASHAMED of yourselves. This title should be called "1980 graphics".

wow their are some haters of this game, well let me tell you it does determine on your hardware.... the framerate cap is 30...

i have the game at 2x aa, everyting on ultra high. except shader detail and shading, which are both set to high, at 1680x1050, and i dont see much slowdown or lag(framerate drop) see my rig below.

the graphics are not bad at all, they are actually nice, just a little colorful.... teh story stayed close to red alert...(spoiler)(spoiler)(spoiler)

in the original red alert, einstein went back intime, and killed hilter before he became the power of germany... so alternate ww2 universe... the second red alert took up where that one left off..

in this one the new premier of russia goes back in time to 1925, and killed einstein, before einstein developed the atomic weapon, or before einstein went back and killed hitler....

so now after pearl harbor happened we didnt retaliate against japan with atomic weapons because they didnt exist, now they are a super power.

i like the game...

and ive played and beat ever C&C game out. ever since '95 and this one is a good installment.

i think most of the trends against Red Alert 3 are this

1. because its EA games.

2. because drm

3. because they suck at the game.

4. because they see other people knocking it and want to jump on the band wagon...

just like the halo haters.

[QUOTE="Dark_prince123"]the game is great and if anybody has an old graphics card they should buy a new one and stop whining crapdog

i dont think a gtx 260 is that old and also a new graphics card wont improve a poor graphics engine

4870x2 should do it

[QUOTE="crapdog"]

[QUOTE="Dark_prince123"]the game is great and if anybody has an old graphics card they should buy a new one and stop whining NSR34GTR

i dont think a gtx 260 is that old and also a new graphics card wont improve a poor graphics engine

4870x2 should do it

I am so confused. The graphics are WORSE than C&C3 yet it runs much SLOWER on my PC. It's even made by the same company, what gives?? the water looks better, everything else looks worse. And it runs 10x slower, I could max out C&C 3 with my duo 2, 3 gigs, x1950 video card, this game I have to run on MED to get a DECENT frame rate, even on high it crawls and looks much worse than C&C 3.digitalman42

Your video card is horrible. Don't blame the game on sub-par PC specs. I have it running on max and it looks great!

Your video card is horrible. Don't blame the game on sub-par PC specs. I have it running on max and it looks great! Johnny_Rock

I 2nd that; RA3 looks and performs great at MAX on a Q6600+8800GT