Point me at least one reason why C&C3 or RA3 is worse than C&C2 or RA2... one reason. (Apart from a lot of chicks and stars, which is... well... positive?!) RA1 was more colourful than C&C1, RA2 was more cartoony than C&C2, RA3 is more variegated graphically than C&C3, so criticising RA3 for graphics is BS, too. ;->
What reasons left, let's count... hmm... boring campaigns, maybe, maybe. A lack of Yuri faction. But personally I like the Empire better than Super Extra Evil Yuri.
C&C3? This existing looks better than that sh*tty alpha, which was presented around Generals times. Generally, C&C3 should be more "darker", the atmosphere is too close to Generals (modern/contemporary) one. EALA scrapped subterranean units, too.
But, after all, C&C3 is quite an enjoyable game, save for some faux pas (curious to know why Nod Militia changed looks in KW? Because they remembered TS!).
You should know that EA let C&C die gracefully at least once (and perhaps not the last time).
Tiberium shooter. = / That's because of you! B/c of BS fans, anti-fans which hate EA just because it's EA! O.o [I know that it isn't true. But maybe they really read once "fans" opinions? Well, EA can judge the quality of its own games.]
Bias. Prejudice. Nothing more. (You think "made by EA? It's sh*t". If new C&C was made by another company and the result was exactly the same, you'd say that the game is actually good. -_- I can bet!)
Edited by feillyne, 14 November 2009 - 05:02 AM.