StarCraft II vs. Red Alert 3.
 

Both are some of the most celebrated RTS series in history, with StarCraft 1 still pulling in millions of unique players per day (with a large concentration in South Korea). RA33 is slated for a late October release, while SC2 is still as of yet unannounced. I would personally peg its release between a spring 09 estimate on the early side or a 2010 or later release on the later side.

I've personally been a longtime fan of the SC series, yet one of my friends is a RA fan. Neither of us has played the other (except for me playing the -original- Red Alert over a decade ago) so we're rather unknowledgeable about the other's series.

Which ones are you still looking forward to? These are both mentioned on this board already but it would be a heavy heavy necro to bring those threads up, so I figured I'd bring up discussion on these two again.

Others with more expertise than I can discuss the RA side, I'll talk a bit about the SC side to get it started.

The identity of the three races coalesces more and more with every announcement made on the official site. Numerous units that were originally released have been retooled, replaced, and restatted. The game will feature a MUCH improved UI, but this brings up the argument that it will make the game too easy. Blizzard is working overtime to introduce new mechanics to the game that will keep it as immersive as the first and keep the skill ceiling high: they don't want anyone to be able to 100% master the game, like the original. StarCraft is currently the premier e-sport in the world, and they want to design a game that will adequately fill the shoes of its successor.

I don't know too much about Red Alert to be honest, though I did play the original like yourself. But, I have no doubt that in terms of sales and popularity, SC2 will win. As far as strategy and gameplay kind of stuff, it seems to me that Blizzard makes extremely good quality RTS's (and and other genre in general). They actually focus on making a game that revolves around the skill of the player and his/her ability to manage the units. I feel like other games don't focus that much on this aspect, and instead, focus on making cool looking units and teching as much as possible to win.

For instance, in SC, zealots (low end of the tech tree) will dominate siege tanks (higher in the tech tree). In Red Alert, your militia men (I don't know the name of the units) won't do shit against tanks.

I'm biased because I was big into StarCraft, but based on the SC popularity 10 years later and Blizzard's great line, I'm guessing that SC sees more success. This isn't to say RA3 won't be popular, though.

Ironpham speaks the truth regarding unit management.

It is good news to hear that RA is finally getting another game soon in the series. I doubt I have much incentive to buy it currently as my fastest system is ideal for Yuri's Revenge and adequate for Doom3 at lower to medium settings.
I have spent many hours in years past playing Yuri's Revenge, but have no clue how Starcraft compares to it in specifics.

Starcraft 2 will have better mechanics and balance, and a stronger community. It's going to be massive. It will almost certainly be *the* competitive RTS until Blizzard releases SC3.

That being said, I'm not very excited for it. As usual, Blizzard is more interested in refinement than innovation. And that's fine, it works for them, but I'm paying more attention to Relic, Gas-Powered Games, Stardock, etc.

So where does RA3 fit into all of this? I dunno, it'll be the mediocre-but-probably-better-than-most-people-were-expecting-after-the-disaster-that-was-C&C3KW RTS that gets ported to the 360. Really, I'm not sure what it brings to the table. Armoured bears, I guess. The setting is pretty interesting but that's about it.

It depends on what you want.

Superb balance, huge community: Starcraft 2.
Innovation: not Starcraft 2
Armoured Bears with friggin' parachutes: Red Alert 3

I would bet on Starcraft myself. My only hope is that blizzard doesn't do what they did with warcraft 3 and make it all about the heroes.

@ironpham: While I agree with the sentiment of your statement, rocket infantry crap on all but mammoth tanks (who have anti-infantry rockets), fare slightly less well against rangers, and die to artillery. So long as you continually scatter them to avoid getting run over, of course.

@willravel: I still haven't met anyone on here that continues to play the game, unfortunately =(. UMS makes the game enduring for me :p.

@Speed: Just as a note, Blizzard is committed to having scalable requirements for SC2. So it should be able to run on comparatively low-end machines just fine (just you'll have to turn off a lot of the graphical doohickeys).

@Challah: Well, yea. They're not making a whole new game, they're making SC2. That said, they're not making SC 1.5. There's quite a bit of innovation going in, notably the mobility improvements (with a whole separate topic being the separate-level terrain traversal units) and ways they're going to refine the UI but simultaneously keep macroing a feasible option for pro players.

@Rekna: ZERO worries on that one. There will be no heroes in SC2 melee. That being said, SC2 UMS is going to blow. your. mind.

(I was a mapmaker for SC1 and am currently looking to learn the WC3 scripting editor in addition to being a programmer. This'll give me a head start on the nuts and bolts aspect of the SC2 editor).

I still play, though not often.

"Willravel", West Coast. You'll find me in hydra ranchers, 3v3 zc no rules, or insane comps most often.

Of course, I didn't know this because I never really played the game except for maybe like twice. I guess I may be wrong about Red Alert, but I know there are other RTS's that concentrate solely on teching higher in the tech tree. I had a couple of friends who played Dawn of War, and all you had to do was get to the end of the tech tree as fast as possible.

This was actually true for Warcraft 2, but Starcraft and Warcraft 3 both did a great job of having lower tech counters to higher techs.

But regardless of any of that, I feel like Starcraft is by far, the most sophisticated RTS. I don't know of any other game that required as much micro-management skills.

I don't like how WC3 forced you to micromanage so much, and as a big fan of SC, I hope SC2 doesn't go that way. Micromanaging wasn't as bad in C&C Generals, and I was a huge fan of RA2, so I'm looking forward to it a bit more.

Hopefully I'll have a big shiny new computer by the time either is released (if SC2 is currently scheduled for '09, the actual release may lose media attention to the ending Mayan calendar thing, though.)

Honestly I'm just glad SC2 doesn't have heroes. They're a pain.

@Ironpham: WC3 actually has much more microing than SC. SC, however, has a nice balance of macro and micro: There's too much to do at any one time to be perfectly performing on all fronts at all times.

@Willravel: Agreed for melee. On the other hand, did you ever play any other UMS? I was a fan of the siege-style maps. Helms Deep, Heaven's Last Stand, etc.

As an update for SC2 balance, this just in. Zerg units will now move x% faster (currently 30%) while on creep, which is spawned by a burrowed, immobile unit (called a Creep Tumor). Overlords can also spawn creep, making the amount of creep a Zerg can utilize quite a lot. And this is in addition to the change that was already made that creep damages enemy buildings that it touches (nonzerg).

Any thoughts on this change?

EDIT: Just realized zerg units also heal faster on creep, unknown bonus %.

She's in RA3:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...a-atkinson.jpg

I will admit that EA has Blizzard hands down on attractive female models in its games.

That would be because Blizzard's cutscenes are entirely generated, but still.

That is...attractive.

Starcraft FTW