Talk:Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changes

Hi I recently included some changes to grammar mistakes and syntax. Sorry, but I am quite new and did not include the summary of the information I changed, and did not check the minor box for instances such as adding a few commas. My mistake. Kilkia123 (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

I think we need a citiation regarding the final paragraph of the DRM isses of RA3. I cant really believe it until i see any official source annoucing that news.Dakimstar (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Let's make a great Red Alert 3 article!!

As some of the well-known game magazines are going to be featuring Red Alert 3 as their main article along with proofs of screenshots and feature introductions, it seems pretty clear that there will be official announcement of Red Alert 3. Let's make it a great article! Stevefis (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There isn't enough information to justify an own article yet, per WP:N. However, it will be soon. --MrStalker (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The press release should be enough. xenocidic (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, as I said, soon. --MrStalker (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we hacked it together pretty well. I'm looking forward to working more on this and other C&C articles with you. xenocidic (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Likewise. --MrStalker (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We've got a start from scratch here, it's just been announced so this is the fastest we could possibly get this article together. I say that by the time of release we should pretty much have it at Good Article or better, and within a few weeks of release we can get it to FA status (before then will be a problem due to the speculative nature of it). Let's be sure we get every scrap of encyclopaedic information on this, as well as ensuring that all the usual standard are adhered to at all times right from the get go. Right first time, every time. Peace through power everyone! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
We'll do our best. --MrStalker (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

beta = multiplayer ?

call me stupid, but where does it say that in either of those references? p.s. sorry about fixing those [[dolphin]]s and [[tank]]s, i didn't realize it automagically fixed those - i was just looking at the wikitext. xenocidic (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"By ordering Command & Conquer 3: Kane’s Wrath and registering with the Beta Key before September 15th, 2008, you are guaranteed a chance to play the multiplayer Beta before Command & Conquer Red Alert 3 releases." There you go. --MrStalker (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
ahhh now I see it. it was below the fold. cheers mate. edit: actually, It wasn't below the fold. I'm just blind. =) xenocidic (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hehe. No problem. --MrStalker (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank Klepacki

Frank Klepacki - Exclusive Interview --Ilhanli (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't have time to do it myself, but if someone wants to add this to the article as a reference to the fan desire for the soundtrack to be done by Klepacki that would be great - I think the desire for his involvement, given his past work on the series, warrants a mention now that we have a good quality reference. Anyone agree?Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok I've gone and added this. Not the most reliable of sources, but there's no denying the fans want Klepacki so until a better one turns up this will do.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Then in the recent RA3 Community Summit in June 2008, Frank Klepacki showed a video to the entire C&C community that he has been finally confirmed to be involved in the RA3 soundtrack." Wait Is this true!? Please tell me and if you can give me the link for that video I'd be very grateful!!! Because if it is true I will be SOOO HAPPY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by VEGETA DTX (talk • contribs) 13:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We do not have a source for that, so I tagged it [citation needed]. I guess you will have good chances, if it is true, to find it by asking at the EA forums rather than here. --So#Why 13:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New Units?

Should we add in the units that have been leaked so far?--64.79.177.254 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not without reliable sources. --MrStalker (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There are units that we know for a fact that are in the game though, ie: the peacekeeper, apoc tank, kirov etc.JackorKnave (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

All units are up on the official EA site. Duct tape tricorn (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

PC Zone April 08 - lots of new info

Any assistance in adding some of the new information contained in this magazine would be great - we have confirmation about several new and returning units, secondary ability details, etc.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted Edits

For future reference, could we please not have fanboy edits who are concerned that "Ohh why did you list PlayStation 3 last, I think it's a conspiracy." That doesn't warrant an entry edit, and you know all too well it's sparking a fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrel (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

eh, yea, that particular editor is on a PS3fanboy rampage. imo it should be based on the order that the press release states, in this case it was PC, X360, PS3. xenocidic (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Xeno and Wrel, please don't make unfounded person attacks. It's common knowledge P is before X in the alphabet, which is why I changed it. Hope that clears this up. Also, there are no limitations on what constitutes and edit, Wrel. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I consider your edits unconstrutive and have reverted them. Consensus seem to support my opinion. Please to not revert this again without proving change in consensus or it will be considered vandalism. Thank you. --MrStalker (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)el]] (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


demo

should thier be a section about the upcomming demo, i think in thier new video they said demo i just remember —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesb91 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • A demo wouldn't normally warrant its own section, though there may be justification in mentioning it if there's a source. Possibly not however, this is just meant to be an encyclopedic article about the game.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I've seen some very nice things up here, but the page is not very up to date as of now. I'd like to help on working on this page, if you guys don't mind. A very good source is http://www.gamereplays.org/redalert3/portals.php?show=page&name=game_info. Regards, sebra30

Sebra30 (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi there! Your assistance would be very much appreciated, yes some of the information here is a bit out of date and could do with being updated. Just remember to always include reliable sources whenever you add something and to avoid speculation. Also, summarising your edits in the edit summary box is good practice as well, it lets other editors see very quickly what you have changed - even if it is or appears to be insigificant. Looking forward to seeing your additions to the article! I definitely stick by wanting to get this up to FA ASAP after release, but we're a long way away from that goal! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I will start writing some things up then. They might need revision though as my English isn't that good. Did you check out my link? I think it can be used as valid information? Sebra30 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Copy editing can be done, that isn't a problem, and feel free to post things that you are considering adding on here or on my talk page first if you want to check it beforehand. That website doesn't seem to have a lot that isn't elsewhere, and beware of the speculation section. Nothing from it should be added until it is confirmed.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Casting

I've filled in the bit on the first confirmed character in the game, Natasha Volkova, and added a non-included note that only sourced, non-speculative hirings should be included. I intend to be zero tolerance on this. We do have two reliable sources on this, and all information is taken directly from those and I do feel it is relatively encyclopedic all things considered, but nevertheless I suspect what I have just written will require a copy edit, so please feel free to modify as required.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference mistake - assistance please

The article which refences the Japanese Commando Yuriko I've also used to reference the use of dual abilities in the gameplay section. For some reason though when I tried to use short hand it screwed up the rest of the reference list, so it appears twice just now (at present as references 8 and 13. If somebody could take a look at the syntax and fix it so that it only appears once in the reference list I'd be very grateful. Thanks. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Lighthearted?!

"The factions in the game have been confirmed by executive producer Chris Corry to emphasize Red Alert's traditional "light-hearted, colourful" feel..."

Granted RA2 and Yuri's revenge kicked up the cheese factor in a massive way, but the first game was quite a serious sci-fi outing (and also quite drab in it's colour palatte). How it's the cheese factor traditional?? I just thought this was a bit of an erronious comment from Chris Corry and seems to indicate his lack of understanding of the series (in the time before EA bought out Westwood and then shut them down, like they do with most competition. :p ) (192.43.227.18 (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Yes. I was looking at the screenies on gamespot, and the one where the japanese are dropping bombs, the words on the balloons say "flying death" XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duct tape tricorn (talk • contribs) 04:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Duct tape tricorn (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. --MrStalker (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you looked at a video game as a piece of art, then this change in mood is a notable aspect of the game and should be included... we're just waiting for a "reliable source" to notice and announce it. Duct tape tricorn (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Erasing?

wait...erases the events of the previous games...so this is alt. world war 2 then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.155.108 (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. You should ask at the EA forum or just wait for the game to be released. This is not a forum. SoWhy 19:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopediac suitabiltity ... or something

This section a fairly drab World War II between the Allies (including Germany) and the Soviet Union, with some high-tech esoterica, doesn't seem appropriate to Wikipedia and probably violates one of the guidelines (I'm no good at remembering the tags so I didn't tag it. tonyf12 ( talk) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

These lines are directly WRONG

This must be corrected:

he game will have to be activated the first time online, and will then feature a limit of 4 installations per machine. After this fourth installation, consumers will be required to contact EA Customer Service for every additional activation. He has also confirmed that uninstalling the game with the CD based installer, will return the used installation back to the user

In the official thread on the SecuROM topic on the official EA forums Chris Corry clearly states [1] that the install limit will restrict you to install on no more than 5 different computers. There is no limit on the number of installs per computer. He also states that it is not the case that uninstalling the game will return the used installation back to the user. Quote from his post:

Quick update. As many conversations as I’ve had about this, it turns out I got an important detail wrong so I need to clarify something important.

An uninstall does not return the entitlement to the user. (...)

Only five unique machines can be licensed with the same installation code. So you will be limited to a total of five machine activations.

More information can be found in the first announcement post [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrnshp (talk • contribs) 09:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are free to fix it. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The issue has now been fixed. Chrnshp (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Congrats and welcome to Wikipedia. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Release =/= shipping date

In the article, it is stated that the release date is Oct. 28th for NA (in the infobox). 28/10 is the shipping date, not the release date. Am I right? AthCom (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the release date. Has the game is already available in shops in NA. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Printing error conserning Licensekey

EA FAQ: http://help.commandandconquer.com/cgi-bin/eacandc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=1idoRBhj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_faqid=20760 Dutch Article: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/56515/red-alert-3-installatiecodes-blijken-incompleet-door-misdruk.html English Article: http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/42637/Red-Alert-3-Copies-Ship-with-Bad-Install-Codes Brute Force Tool: http://www.nickkusters.com/articles/82/Red_Alert_3_Manuals_Missing_Last_License_Character.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.224.134 (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Things that need to be improved in this article - let's come on and do it!

Ok, now that the game is out, let's really try and make it a GA or even better! No C&C article is a GA, in fact they're all a mess, so I think we need a list of things to get done. I'm going to start creating such a list this afternoon, and hopefully start making the changes, but let's use this section for things people see that need doing.

I'll be back on this one... Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead: Needed total teardown, I've done that basing it on the Age of Empires II: Age of Kings article, which is an FA. Not much in the way of FA strategy to go by for this article, but I'll do what I can. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Atlast someone is here. Go ahead and make a list. If we have few more help article can reach FA. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To do List

Reception section: Needs to be much longer. Reviews added to table are sufficient, though scores on Metacritic and Game Rankings need to be monitored and updated as needed. Prose in the section needs expanding, needs to cover the main positives and negatives, focussing on the positives since the game was received largely positively. Add in quotes to identify specific comments from the major reviewers where they reflect general consensus - GameSpot and IGN for example. A pre-release section could also be added if there's sufficient references for it a la Supreme Commander. Don't think this is essential, though there is a case for it as it was a highly anticipated game.

Lead: Just needs a copy-edit I think, most of the information that needs to be there is there. Not sure what the policy on references from the lead is, if need be they should be added from other sections, though no references should be in there that aren't elsewhere.

Plot: I'll do what I've done for the campaign for the Empire for the other two in a few minutes, making it of a similar length, after which it may need a copy edit. Might be a bit long as it stands, not too sure on that. Second opinions? Simplified faction section can be added to make it a general "Setting" section as per the Supreme Commander FA - one of the few of the RTS genre.

Cast: Not relevant in the same way that film casts are, I'm unsure as to the best way to progress with this is. Certainly it's inadequate as things stand, though the high profile actors in the video sequences are notable to some degree. There's certainly OR in the descriptions of the characters, and while it's true (as I know from playing the game) it's also uncited and that's bad. Advice requested on the best way to handle this bit, though a merger into a prose section within "Setting" is one idea?

Controversy: Needs to be merged into one section and rewritten. Both sides of it are well referenced, but NPOV means it probably needs trimmed. Probably is notable as both the SecuROM stuff and the CD key issue were fairly high-profile. The CD key though I could accept the argument against due to it being quickly patched though, maybe just a small reference to both needed rather than a whole section? Could put it in with the release and prerelease stuff. Advice please!

Ok, I've rearranged this as above, any more changes though please suggest. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack: If there's more info out there, let's get it. It's a bit out of date for now and that needs to be changed. I'll see what I can dig up tonight.

Development: More needed. Never really been good at those sections, basically it just needs added to. I'm sure there's development notes out there somewhere, waiting to be added!

Gameplay: Let's use the Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings and Supreme Commander articles as a template since they're the same genre and FA, and clean it up.

Reference List Several of the references need formatting fixes. I suck at this, so I'd be very much appreciative if somebody could have a look at these! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That will do for now, sorry if it's a bit vague! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remember the plot section should not be separated for ex: a plot for Allies, Soviets and Japan. It is a big no. It violates game guide. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem is there are 3 plots - unline in the Tiberian series, the plots are contradictory in this game with just a singular premise uniting them before they go in different directions. Surely a short summary of the three individual ones would be ok? Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It would be confusing to have short lines. Hmm follow the StarCraft it is a fa article. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Right, got a version which fits similarly to the way that one does, with no offence intended to Kizor I think his summarises the whole RA series more than this individual game. I will however copy what exists and put it into the main RA series article. I'll just add it, comments/edits as appropriate please. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh hi, I only just noticed this section on the talk page. :-) I've done a revamp of the gameplay section and split off a "design" section , which should probably be called "aesthetics" or something if it's not clear enough that the section's about the way the game is designed and not the process. Anyway, given the conspicuous nature of RA3's utter madness, it's a vital thing for this article to cover. Caissa, correcting links that point to redirects is not pointless and can avert later trouble by avoiding double redirects, which don't work right. It's one of the thankless wikignome jobs, so thanks for doing it. --Kizor 19:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Now then. In doing the above I steamrolled over the plot section, and as Caissa pointed out in edit summaries it still needs some discussion. Here's the original, fairly clunky plot section without faction-specific plotlines. Here's Caissa's compact version with a subsection for the Empire's plot. Here's my detailed version based on the original one (I didn't notice Caissa's going up) that has no faction-specific plotlines, and here's Caissa's later edit with faction plotlines. --Kizor 19:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Kizor hmm. I heard that name somewhere.... The story should be in such way that it should fit well instead of having various plots. Any ideas?. For casts hmm. Command and Conquer is mostly like watching a film :). So i think cast should be exception for command and conquer. --SkyWalker (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally I don't think that we need faction-specific plotlines. Not because they're game guides (they have nothing to do with gameplay instructions) but because the game doesn't have much plot. Starcraft's has twists, turns and some genuinely interesting characters: People would play it to see what happens. IMAO, RA3's plot mainly consists of "the selected side blows up everything else," and its characters are defined as the people who blow stuff up. Would you have cared about any one of them making a heroic sacrifice? The details of stuff blowing up are incidental, they hardly give insight to the reader or add to comprehension. The most outlandish locations are a point against this -- those could be mentioned in the design/aesthetics/something section, as they're of interest because of that outlandishness.

Caissa just made a new section below for discussing the cast, that's probably the best place for doing so. --Kizor 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
For reference, Kizor's most recent version now exists in the new Plot section of Command & Conquer: Red Alert seriesCaissa's DeathAngel (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I apologise for my total disappearance from this article, I will be back in a few weeks, but I've lost my net connection at home and have somehow taken charge of the clean up operation of the factions and characters C&C articles, so that has to take priority for me just now. I will get this article to GA or better though when I get the chance! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cast and characters section

Figure I'm as well creating a new section for this, does anyone have any ideas as to what should be done about this bit? It's a huge problem overall for the series, but if we're specifically focussing on this article for now then it needs to be addressed here at least. Making it prose is a given, but who do we include? Do all the Commanders need to be in it, or just the plot important guys like Bingham and Cherdenko, and important supports like Zerlinsky and Tanya? Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm actually in favor of not making it prose. Is avoiding such lists in the rules? Let me think out loud.

The merit in listing the characters here is due to their value as complex and well-written characters, their significance to the storyline, and to the significance to the actors playing them. The actors can be covered by five to seven words each. The characters have next to no character development, so that doesn't take up space, only interact on occasion, and are defined by single personality traits. A bulleted list seems ideal for describing this gang: it covers all the relevant bits neatly and effectively.

The country leaders need to go in. Their actors are importand, their significance definitive, and EA linked the U.S. president to the real-world election in its promotional materials. The second-in-commands should also go in, and I'd include the female commandos and dispatchers because Tanya is iconic of the series, Yuriko a big deal in the Empire's design, and because many of the women have such blatant sex appeal that it should not go undiscussed. The commanders might as well be made out of cardboard, and should stay or go according to the strength of the actors. --Kizor 20:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
That all makes sense. Bulleted lists though tend not to exist in FAs - which is where I want to take this article. Prose is pretty much universally preferred except in list articles, which this obviously isn't. (New idea though, as an aside - list of characters in Command and Conquer to sort out the whole problem generally). The Commanders are largely not relevant I suspect, at least not in the main RA3 article. More when I can think of it. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
That's true, the list format would mean trouble with FA review. That doesn't meant that its case shouldn't be argued, or that people who are active with FA nominations shouldn't be consulted first, as there's sense behind a bulleted list here regardless of precedent. In other news, I keep my jousting skills sharp by training with windmills and subsist mainly on crow.

If keeping the list about is not too demoralizing, then this is a bridge that we can burn when we come to it. I might have to bow out of editing this article shortly before anyway (not that I know how much more there's for me to do) as I've sworn to bring sex in space to GA/FA first in moderately deranged circumstances. --Kizor 21:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I can totally see the case for it. I'm just wary of spending time and effort making changes to this article for GA (where there wouldn't be a problem with a list I don't think) only to have to undo it all for the spring to A/FA class. Running out of time to do this tonight but I'll be back on tomorrow. You know, if this article gets as far as GA/FA, we can use it as a template for all the other C&C articles! We might actually make a real advance in these articles! I'm quite excited by this actually! This I'd say is one of the major issues we need to sort though, especially as it runs through so many other articles. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok I've gone and removed the commanders from the list for now, they don't strike me as being relevant and can always be readded if need be. I've copied the entries for the Soviets and Empire into their respective character list articles, the Allies already had equivalents so didn't need that. I'll try and put it into prose tomorrow, or at least make the whole thing look better anyway. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot has spoilers?

We need warning tags as the plot section containers major spoilers. Duct tape tricorn (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings were banned on the English Wikipedia in May 2007. This was one of our greatest failures in avoiding rule by force. I could go on, but I wouldn't stop. Fortunately, the game's plotline is mainly of interest because of the various interesting ways of blowing stuff up and locations where stuff is blown up, and the plot section doesn't mention the most creative ones. --Kizor 09:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It's my assumption that anyone choosing to read a section called "plot" knows what they are getting into - that section will have spoilers.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Gaping Plothole

Brought up in every campaign, but never fully resolved: Dr Zelinsky speaks to the commanders of each campaign (Soviet, Allied, Imperial) regarding going back in time and causing damage to the Time/Space Continuum. Not in any of these is this ever explained or covered for more than simply being brought up, then ignored by the end of the campaign.

Shouldn't this be addressed in the article? Or would this be something for a future expansion pack to handle? AndarielHalo (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant to the article in any way, as it isn't encylopedic. It may however be discussed on a fan forum somewhere if so desired. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple operating systems

IUn the articel it is said, that the game can be installed on 5 different systems. Does it count as pone or two systems, if you install ist on two different operating system on the same PC? --MrBurns (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Even i have the same question. It is so complicated to understand each such things especially when FarCry 2, Crysis Warhead, Spore has different but same mechanism --SkyWalker (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

World War 3? Or 2?

The synopsis section doesn't make sense. Albert Einstein stopped Hitler, meaning that the second world war was instigated by Stalin (i.e. Red Alert 1). Therefore, in that timeline, Red Alert 2 was telling the story of the third world war. So now in this game, the Soviets go back and kill Einstein... but when? Do they go back between the previous two Red Alert games, which would make this game concurrent with Red Alert 2, thus being World War 3? Or do they go back and kill Einstein before Red Alert 1, which would make this World War 2? It seems like they'd have to go back to the beginning, because the Allies won Red Alert 1, so they'd want to reverse that defeat as well.

The synopsis says this game is depicting World War 3, but it seems like it should only be World War 2. Any thoughts? Nerrolken (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the post above this one. I get that this is not a forum, but it hurts the quality of the article if it doesn't make sense, and it might just be a mistake by the Wikipedian writing it. If EA is calling it World War 3, can we at least get a citation on that, so it's clear that it's their words, not ours? Nerrolken (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
No, they are not calling it WW3 or WW2. You are correct though about the "World War III" bit, I changed it to "a World War". The first sentence can stay, because it only talks about "World War II as we know it" and that is true (because it's about the events in RA1). The trailer shows Einstein being teleported away but does not state when this happens, so we have no further information, but might speculate (here, not in the article) that the Soviets surely did not want to prevent Einstein from removing Hitler. But we have to wait for EA to give us more details - either with a trailer or webpage update or in the game. Let's wait then... SoWhy 16:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
1927 To be precisce(I have the game and watched the intro, the whole way). Does Red Alert 1 happen before or after that year?-Jedi77 (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In RA1 Einstein removed Hitler from the time line when Hitler was released from prison in 1924, so RA1 takes place afterwards, but no further information is revealed, when exactly Stalin started attacking the Allies. But Einstein created his time machine much later than 1927 so RA3 erases the events of RA1. But as usual, that's OR and we can and should not add anything about how RA3 influences those other timelines without a reliable source. Regards SoWhy 09:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Allied Tech-HUGE GAPING SPACE/TIME CONTINUUM HOLE

If Einstein was eliminated, that would mean that most of the tech they had in Red Alert 2 would no longer exist. That includes prism tanks, prism towers, mirage tanks and the chronosphere. So why do they even have a chronosphere? That was Einstein's tech, therefore it shouldn't exist. Just because they have a tech headquarters thing that helped them make mirage tanks and spectrum towers shouldn't mean that they get the chronosphere. He (Einstein) was the only one ever to even think about it, so it doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.73.206 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

All of that technology was researched and created by FutureTech Corporation instead of Einstein in this alternate timeline. Also, please note that all of this technology is much less advanced than their Red Alert 2 counterparts. --Darthkillyou (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


Not quite. While the Chronosphere is iffy, the Mirage tank in Red Alert 3 appears to be a mixture of the RA2 Mirage Tank AND Prism Tank. It is almost obscenely overpowered compared to the Red Alert 2 Mirage tank. AndarielHalo (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
That is true, I've played the Mirage tank and I was surprise that it is so OP. It might as well be the main battle tank for the Allies.
Actually, the Ra3 Mirage Tank gets completely decimated by the Empire's King Oni and the Soviet's Apocalypse Tank. Unless of course, you were using it against Tier-2 units like Tsunamis or Hammers, which it tears through like paper.
The reason(Or at least my theory) the RA3 Mirage Tank is so powerful is because that Einstien wanted his technologies to be used for peaceful Purposes, and FutureTech didn't share his views.-Jedi77 (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Cmdr. Zhana Agonskaya?

Hi , I'm new here . I just read the RA3 wiki page I think the Soviet Characters part lacks Cmdr. Zhana Agonskaya , a naval commander (maybe? I dont remember exactly) , by Vanessa Branch . Is that right? OOMoonOo (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately I had to remove the commanders from each section. The list is not meant to be comprehensive, just to cover those relevant in an encyclopedic context. I'm sure dedicated fan sites and even the Command and Conquer Wikia will have more detailed information on her. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
We should make a Co.Commanders Article!-Jedi77 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't. The Co-Commanders are non-notable and anything included in such an article would be gamecruft, which is best left to the C&C Wikia. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Platform

System Requirements?

Where did these new system requirements come from? Any sources?122.107.221.248 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it, No sources is give neither did EA announce say thing regarding sys reqs. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey now that the beta is out for quite a while, should we put the beta requirements in the article? Gunman47 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Only retail. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I have it, requirements are: 1gb ram, 2.2ghz for XP and 2.6ghz for Vista, 10gb hdd, 256mb gfx card (ATi X800+, nVidia GeForce 6800+). DX version 9.0c, and an internet connection for initial validation. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by The Mysterious Gamer (talk • contribs) 19:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Your requirements differ from those currently listed in the article (specifically the nVidia GeForce requirement).

Mac version

Removing Mac reference from current category/title box (or whatever those are called). EA's own webstore, as of this post, does not have a Mac version available. Emulation via WINE or Bootcamp may be possible but need a published article to justify entry. --Vorik111 (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an article on Macworld now that talks about the upcoming Mac version http://www.macworld.com/article/138673/2009/02/redalert3.html. TransGaming is in charge of the conversion to Mac for EA. --Scuac (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Any PS3?

In the just released 14 min walktrough of RA3, the speaker said that the game will ship this holiday on PC and Xbox 360. Does that mean the PS3 version is delayed or non-existent? (Psykocyber (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Anything about the PS3 based on that would be assumption, so right now all that could be gleaned from it is that the PC and 360 versions are set for a holiday release, nothing more.FusionMix 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2009/01/13/ps3-to-get-ultimate-edition-of-command-and-conquer-red-alert/ Make what you want of that.. 209.253.20.25 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Found some more sources to provide, http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/946/946877p1.html and interview with ign and a dev, http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2009/01/21/red-alert-3-brings-rts-warfare-to-ps3-this-march/ some more information about the ultimate release, http://www.psu.com/Red-Alert-3--Ultimate-Edition-confirmed-for-March-2009-News--a0006200-p0.php which gives us information its tagged for a march 09' release. I bow to the editors and hope this information helps. 209.253.20.25 (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Red Alert 3:Ultimate edition has been released for PS3 and is on sale.--Younghyun0403 (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Psionic vs. Psychic

The edit "The Empire of the Rising Sun has infantrymen in samurai armor with the special ability to use lightsaber-like katanas, giant transforming mecha, ninjas, a psionic schoolgirl, and submersible planes." was reverted back to "The Empire of the Rising Sun has infantrymen in samurai armor with the special ability to use lightsaber-like katanas, giant transforming mecha, ninjas, a psychic schoolgirl, and submersible planes." It has been stated that Yuriko is psionic but NOT NECESSARILY psychic. Therefore, I have re-edited the section. --Darthkillyou (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the difference, but thanks. --Kizor 10:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Psionic = moving stuff with your mind; Psychic = reading minds (but both involve other "mind powers" if used generically) 193.226.105.89 (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DRM success

Would it be worth noting in the section concerning DRM how successful it was as compared to previous DRM. While rips of the game did appear online very quickly, it was impossible for most users to get a playable game for some time, and even then there were many flaws. This could be said to be a success of the DRM compared to many failures (immediate flawless copies available) in comparable recent games.Tevlen (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No it wasn't! And even if it was having to take other measures so the DRM won't stop you from playing a pirated version is hardly new anyhow! 193.226.105.89 (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
He.. He he... BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You are joking, right!? 217.210.20.20 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RA2?

The cover image is for RA2. I think it's vandalism.--119.149.135.35 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, then. It's recovered. --119.149.135.35 (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Story

Why is there a large diference in the size of each stor for each faction IE Empire is very large while Soviet is very small, either expand or crop because its rather inconsistent. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't wait for someone else to fix it, just expand it yourself. ;-) SoWhy 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I would, but I haven't done the Soviet campaign... the short section at the moment. The Empire could do with a trim. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The red campaign is by far the simplest; its mostly due to the actual design of the plot rather than a lack of anybody willing to write something, I think. However, perhaps you should be looking to the other two sections as they seem...excessively wordy. Annihilatron (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

time travel paradox

in the first Red Alert they tell us that einstein traveled back in time and killed hitler. but if the soviets traveled back in time and killed einstein before he could invent the chronosphere (thus going back and killing hitler) then how come there never was a nazi germany? the story doesn't make sense... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.102.81 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can identify a reliable source that highlights this apparent discrepancy, this really doesn't belong here per WP:NOTFORUM. –xenotalk 16:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that and it's just a freakin game... Jersey John (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC) By the way, the "Reception" section looks like it was written by an EA employee, amazingly one who is not disgruntled... Jersey John (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Shades of 1984?

The whole three way between a soviet (eurasia), allied (oceania) and empire of rising sun (eastasia) sounds very much like the novel 1984. I wonder if this was intentional. 120.62.167.131 (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Typical neutral wikipedia

Did someone paid wikipedia to advertise this game? Entire article seems like a giant commercial! There is not a single word about negative reviews about RA3 and there are plenty of it. Just one example: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/redalert3/player_review.html?id=621280&page=34

I don't know why I am even bothering, because all I will get is blah blah blah, not reliable source because only reliable sources are those that we like blah blah blah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.71.58 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The reception section needs expansion, so please have at it. (But you are right, typically user-generated content such as a "reader review" would not be considered a reliable source) –xenotalk 17:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
To 93.138.71.58: Regarding "not reliable source because only reliable sources are those that we like": that is completely incorrect and not Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy on video game articles is to accept professional reviews. The source you provided was a reader review, and that is the reason it is not acceptable. The vast majority of professional reviews were positive, as indicated in the sidebar. —Lowellian (reply) 08:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Added Setting Categories

Hello everyone, I just added this page to all of the "Category:Video games set in [country x]" for all countries the campaign takes place in. I believe this is fair because the player's actions are focused on a specific region, and the campaign locations all have specific locations, so this isn't just guesswork. Also, Chile is added because one of the missions takes place on Easter Island, which is administered by Chile. If you have any questions/scruples, please debate/message me. Gaijin Ninja (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Original research in the article

I just shrunk the plot section as requested. Of course, I removed a lot of unimportant details, though I do not that from the point of view of a fan, there is no such thing as "unimportant".

But I also removed some of the original researches in the article as well. Frankly, it appears that someone had first assumed Red Alert 2 and 3 to be related and then tried to act on that assumption. I however, did not assume and did not find any evidence to that effect. I have played both games (and both their expansion packs) and they seem completely unrelated. If anyone wants them back, Verifiability is the way. (Not that I am going to contest or anything...) Fleet Command (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Overhaul

It might be me, but as I read my way through the article I can't help but think it needs a good overhaul. with respect to the writers, but it reads odd, and more like a summary of a advertisement than anything else. If people can find themselves in this judgement, I'll try and setup a new style for the article. Scourge Splitter (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Command_%26_Conquer:_Red_Alert_3/Archive_1&oldid=1086313256"