[Solatar]

I think I've sucked every bit of fun I can find out of CnC Generals and I'm looking to buy one of the next Command and Conquer titles. Tiberium Wars is a bit cheaper than Red Alert 3; and Red Alert 3 looks a bit quirky. I guess I'm looking for a few opinions on which one is better.

[General Battuta]

Tiberium Wars by miles.

[CP5670]

Yeah, C&C3 is a much better game in numerous respects. The Kane's Wrath expansion has several issues though.

[Scotty]

Red Alert 3 is for 10 year olds who want to see bears parachute out of airplanes.

Buy C&C3, no argument.

(Can we get a mod to lock this already?  It's no contest.)

[Solatar]

I went ahead and bought CnC3.

Actually it was such things as the armored bears that turned me off...Red Alert 2 was ALMOST crossing the silliness line, but it was enjoyable. I had a feeling that Red Alert 3 might be crossing the line and you guys confirmed it.

[CP5670]

The comedy atmosphere was a design choice and isn't the issue. The problem is that the basic gameplay has been dumbed down from C&C3 in many places and there are a lot of new glitches with the individual unit AI and the menu interface. Only one of the three singleplayer campaigns is hard enough to be interesting, and the skirmish mode has fewer features and a weaker computer AI than C&C3.

The unit and side balance also needed work when I played it, but EA typically takes a few patches to get that right, so that might have changed since then.

[General Battuta]

All this is correct. For instance, C&C3 had a number of interesting unit upgrades; Red Alert 3 has none.

[Scotty]

That, and power suited zone-troopers with gauss rifles just kick that much more ass than a guy with a dinky little SMG.

[Pred the Penguin]

CnC3 is definitely more interesting in the long run. RA3 might give you laugh, but don't expect it to last longer than a few months.
Also you might wanna check out the mods they're making for CnC3.

[General Battuta]

That, and power suited zone-troopers with gauss rifles just kick that much more ass than a guy with a dinky little SMG.

The Zone Troopers were just fantastic. I loved those guys so much.

That game had great atmosphere all in all. No matter who you played you felt really powerful.

[MP-Ryan]

I have Generals sitting on my desk and I haven't played it for more than 20 minutes of the tutorial.  Guess I'm going to have to try it sometime soon =)

[General Battuta]

Generals was decent, but I thought Tiberium Wars was a real step up in both storyline and gameplay.

Generals also had this odd issue where the USA was really, really powerful. Realistic, perhaps, but not balanced.

[IceFire]

I always felt that Generals did a fantastic job of taking three very different approaches to balance and making it work.  Not quite as good as StarCraft but thats a whole other level.  The USA side was indeed very powerful on a unit to unit basis but they could easily be overwhelmed by Chineese numerical superiority or cleverly defeated by using more asymmetric tactics when playing as the GLA.

Tiberium Wars was quite good...had a few issues here and there but well worth it.  Its definitely an epic storyline and good fun.  RA3 was fun...but its somewhat simplified in too many ways I think.  I like some of it...but it feels like I've already done everything I can do with it whereas C&C3 is much more epic and rolling over a cloaked NOD base with a wave of Mammoth tanks backed up by Titans and Firehawks never gets old

[Pred the Penguin]

Generals was decent, but I thought Tiberium Wars was a real step up in both storyline and gameplay.

Generals also had this odd issue where the USA was really, really powerful. Realistic, perhaps, but not balanced.

But the USA also had a lot of weaknesess in Generals. It actually very well balanced.

[Vidmaster]

I disliked Generals the most of all the C&C Games.

On the other hand, I only really (=finished) liked the very first.

[Solatar]

Generals was decent, but I thought Tiberium Wars was a real step up in both storyline and gameplay.

Generals also had this odd issue where the USA was really, really powerful. Realistic, perhaps, but not balanced.

But the USA also had a lot of weaknesess in Generals. It actually very well balanced.

For instance air units are VERY vulnerable to concentrated AA fire, and can get pretty expensive to replace. 25%or more losses on Raptor assaults can get prohibitively expensive very quickly.

[Titan]

Get Supreme Commander. I've played both, and SupCom beats CnC by miles.

[General Battuta]

Ooooh, you've opened a can of worms, Titan.

SupCom has its charms, but C&C is faster-paced and has a better plot. You're not going to spend hours on a single game, and your units will at least talk to you -- but, on the other hand, you'll never pull off the kind of madly grand strategy possible in SupCom.

[Titan]

I never said that Supcom was a better game. I just prefer supcom. The two games are different genres. I was just saying given the choice, I would buy supcom.

[CP5670]

I never played SupCom but love the original TA, and most people who have played both say that TA is a far better game.