There probably aren’t many supposedly "objective" gaming journalists who’ll admit to being sucked in by the hype surrounding upcoming videogames. However, as inevitable as Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3’s hype was, my own anticipation was more so. Command and Conquer 3 rekindled a love for a franchise I’d last felt excited about over ten years ago, and back in the day it wasn’t the original Command and Conquer that held my attraction, but its younger, sexier sibling, Red Alert. I adored its faux-historical, time traveling plotline, its wacky units, and the self-aware humor found in the then-impressive full-motion video cut scenes. For me, it had the same excellent gameplay of Command and Conquer but sans the serious tone.

Therefore personally, even though C&C3 was something of a triumph, it’s always been about Red Alert 3. That feeling was only perpetuated by Electronc Arts LA’s strong marketing campaign; one not centred around the gameplay – likely considered to be a point proven by C&C3 – but instead focusing on the all-star acting talent performing in the trademark FMVs. OK, so big-name Hollywood talent is not new to videogames – see Liam Neeson and Malcolm McDowell in Fallout 3 for a recent example. However, EALA have been particularly savvy with their casting. The inclusion of cult heroes like George Takei, JK Simmons and Tim Curry as the three faction leaders will win a knowledgeable gaming audience without saying a word. On the fairer side you have Jenny McCarthy and Gemma Atkinson in short skirted, low cut military uniforms, undoubtedly winning over the hearts (and other things) of fans too. They’re not huge names, and yet Red Alert 3’s trailers have cultivated a large interest outside of the usual fan base. That’s savvy marketing.

EA probably think, like many publishers, that the real-time strategy genre is just waiting to make the move from PC to consoles, and they’re backing Red Alert 3 to be the breakout title in the West. That may sound unbelievable, but when you consider that Red Alert 3 is coming out not only on 360 but on PS3, that C&C3 had reasonably critical and commercial success on the 360, and the huge marketing campaign behind it, it starts to sound more plausible. The questions are, then, if Red Alert 3 does have enough to force RTS games outside of their niche audience, and whether it proves the RTS genre still has legs in a time when PC gaming is supposedly on the way out.

It’s somewhat ironic that the one given in this question, the core gameplay, appears initially to have taken a knock since Command and Conquer 3. When I say a knock, what I really mean is a light pat – after all it’s hard to go too wrong with a tried and tested formula like Command and Conquer’s drag and click gameplay. However, compared to C&C3, Red Alert 3’s units and factions don’t have quite as much depth, with the rock-paper-scissors issue commonly associated with RTS games proving to be more prevalent than expected. The mandatory co-commander in every mission will feel like a hindrance to seasoned control-freaks. The graphics have technically dropped in quality, with the infantry units in particular looking more like toy soldiers than badass dudes with guns. The campaigns, usually a strong point in Red Alert games, feel a little too short, and the true skirmish chaos of an all-out battle is restricted for the last couple of battles in each one. It’s arguably harsh, but at times they can feel like glorified tutorials. If Command and Conquer 3 fans were expecting bigger and better than they may feel a little disappointed.