If I were to describe Red Alert 3 as a B movie, I don't think that it would provide an entirely accurate picture. About the only thing it has in common with a low budget movie is terribly hammy acting with a completely incomprehensible storyline. No, it's more like a cult classic B movie, sort of like a computer game step-cousin to Labyrinth, sans David Bowie with his tights and Tina Turner-inspired hair. Instead of the Goblin King, we have a sweet transvestite mad doctor: none other than Tim Curry. Of course, he isn't actually playing a gender bending madman (to my knowledge), just the Russian Premier with his dastardly wicked grin and Machiavellian schemes. The cast is of course stellar, with many names that should be familiar to young and old: George Takei, Jonathan Pryce, J.K. Simmons and Jenny McCarthy being some of the notables. The combination of such a diverse range of talent with a typically computer gamey story leads to an insane amount of cheese as each actor attempts to out ham the other. At the end of the Allied campaign the madness really bubbles over the top, I won't give it away, but it's quite funny.

So why is the cast and story so important here? Well if I were to take a wild stab in the dark as to where the majority of funding for this game' development went, I would think the story and level design departments might have been lucky to get fifty cents between them. It seems harsh, but is a recycled plot idea borrowed from previous Red Alerts the best they could come up with? It would be forgivable if the single player campaign had some kind of continuity to it. Instead we get three sides with disjointed mission structures that left me wondering what could have been. It's a feeling of wastefulness, as even the balance of missions and their design feels off. There are far too many restrictions imposed on the player in terms of map size and objectives to really allow a player to freely explore every possibility the side they are playing possesses. That can only really happen in multiplayer or skirmish mode, which I will get to later. Map design also feels constricted and perhaps a little small due to the naval units with their long range abilities. This isn't the strongest single player in the Command and Conquer series, but it is still very serviceable and provides a distraction and some training before the real challenge of multiplayer.

In terms of gameplay it's nothing new, RTS is an old genre and the people behind RA3 tend to stick with the proven formula. There are three sides to control over the course of the game, each with their own campaign. The Empire of the Rising Sun are the newest addition and have the more unique unit design, with dual functions for most units and a mish mash of Japanese pop culture infused throughout (the psionic schoolgirl being one of the more exuberant design choices). It seems that having a third side has really allowed the designers to go a little crazy with all the units in the game, from the Bullfrog with its man cannon to the Allies and their amphibious Assault destroyer. Red Alert 2 had plenty of crazy unit designs but this one exceeds it in my opinion. Resource collection has been given an overhaul as well, with ore mines rather than fields. It streamlines the resource gathering considerably, yet also slows the game down to a more tactical affair rather than tank-rush-a-thon. This is achieved by the simple act of making harvesters collect bugger all and making everything cost a lot. Each ore mine has a finite amount of resources. This subsequently encourages the player to expand and seek alternative income, such as oil derricks.

Another really cool feature and one that I am sure many have wanted to see is a co-op mode for the single player campaign. You have the choice of allowing the AI to fill the role, or by using your friends list you can get a mate to help. Whichever way you go, it provides some welcome support for some of the later missions (the ones that allow it). The AI team-mate is no slouch either, although it can be a little unpredictable (translation: useless) from time to time. When I played as the Russians, my team-mates always seemed to love having armoured bears swimming all over the place whilst getting hammered by the opponent AI. Your AI compadre also likes to spend all your money sending small squads on suicide missions into enemy territory, which can be rather frustrating as you attempt to implement your own strategy. It is a nice touch though, having a team-mate (AI or otherwise), even though it can make some missions a little easy when playing on lower difficulty settings. It would have been even better if there was a matchmaking option for those of us without the requisite number of friends to get a regular team-mate.

The real crowning achievement or silver lining for this game is the control scheme and how well it is implemented. The right trigger controls all production and special power functions as seen in previous C&C games (Kane's Wrath) and gives a level of control only slightly behind that of the PC version. It's not perfect and the next problem for EA to solve has to be unit control and selection when the intensity of battle increases. As it is, everything rolls along smoothly during lulls in fighting and in single player. The minimap zooms in sufficiently, scrolling across the map quickly, and creating raiding parties to harry the enemy is a cinch in the intimate beginning of RTS foreplay. Once the main thrust and friction of battle takes hold, it all becomes harder to manage and even a bit overwhelming trying to keep track of everything. It's a tricky balance to get right, but at least there have been some major strides taken in the control department to reach the point now where an RTS is not just viable, but enjoyable to play on a console. Sure, the PC version allows a more intricate interface, but apart from some hectic moments I found this version to be remarkably easy to control.

Alas, with every positive that I come across in Red Alert 3 there is invariably a negative that rears its head. While the art direction is colourful and rather good, the graphics and visual detail are underwhelming. I never found the game getting too laggy during play and with a cap of only four players in multiplayer, perhaps next time the graphics dial could be turned up above halfway. In fact it would be exciting to see some kind of graphical leap forward in the next game, akin to what Relic did with Company of Heroes.

Finally, we come to the multiplayer aspect. This is where the majority of time will, and should, be spent, as the game truly opens up here and becomes everything it can be. As with most Live-enabled games, finding someone to challenge is disgustingly easy and matches can be up and running in no time. It really is a shame then that the maximum amount of players is four as it limits the epic nature of battles somewhat. Multiplayer is devilishly hard though and I found myself soundly beaten on quite a few occasions; there really is no substitute for a human opponent in this game. The sides seem fairly well balanced, although playing against the Russians was an exercise in frustration for me as my opponent kept using the magnetic satellite to get my harvesters and thus deny me resources to put up much of a fight. If you put the time and practice into multiplayer it can be a real thrill to decimate an opponent, something I must admit I rarely had the pleasure of achieving.