Talk:Command & Conquer series
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
|
Strategy games To-do:
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
CVG To-do:
|
||
[edit] Not very professional
This article is one of the worst I've seen. It really needs to be cleaned up and kept to a higher standard. It reminds me of some 7th grader's geocities homepage about his favorite video game. Come on. The last paragraph has some strange wording a content. It talks about fans leaving C&C for other specific games. That information is useless and irrelevant. It is also entirely unsupported. You guys are computer nerds, you should know that.
- It seems all the C&C articles have been neglected. I'm currently rewriting the Tiberian series article entirely, and will eventually work my way around to this one. -- Run! 18:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Gross mistake in the "Command & Conquer" article: the "tiberian series" paragraph starts with "tiberian sun" rather than the original "Command & Conquer". Also, the "Command & Conquer" article should be renamed "Command & Conquer series", and the "Command & Conquer : Tiberian Dawn" should be renamed "Command & Conquer". The name "Tiberian Dawn" in completely fictive, it was invented by some fan, it never was the name of the game. The whole article about the original "Command & Conquer" game seems to contain an huge amount of completely fictive data invented by some fan, rather than actual facts about the game itself.
-
- I agree on points one and two. Not so sure about point 3, because a lot of information on wikipeda about the c&c universe is from the "planet cnc encyclopedia" - and there's a debate over whether that's canon or fanon. It's a debate I'd rather not get into myself, but I certainly think there's a lot of detail in the c&c articles that is just unnecessary (see Talk:Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. Also, please get an account and/or sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so that we can tell the difference between you and other anonymous users. -- Run! 11:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"This fan" did not make up anything about the game... (1) the missions were exciting unless you think the game sucks. I was going to run DOSBOX anyway to double check all the facts. If Run wants to be such an expert, then he or she should include a separate page for the DOS/4GW original version.
We may not agree that a "flying object with wings" struck a "tall building" that was a "trade center." (2) But why, then, do I have a memory of that? Was it an optical illusion? The explosion was in the middle of the building, right? Why don't you tell us since you're the expert, instead of censoring the existence of entire game? Why do I have to install DOSBOX and re-install this game when I have no experience as a reporter?
Before Run decides to tell the world what is relevant or not, he should read the details about Metal Gear Solid on Wikipedia. (3) You'll see how incomplete this article really is, making you wonder about the meaning of the word redundant, since there are so few details about the Original game.
(4) As far as the article being unprofessional, I only submitted two paragraphs in March 16, 2006 acknowledging the existence of the 1995 game. The unprofessional nature of the article existed way before I added my two cents. (5) At least I tried to add something that was missing - all Run did was take something away and then complain about it.
(6) This article sucked way before I added my two paragraphs, and was tagged way before I got here. I think Run is off the wall to blame all the problems on two paragraphs that were added a week ago, and removed the next day. Run seems too interested in blaming people.
C&C Fan 00:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)JC
- I've numbered the sentences I wish to reply to.
- 1. Yes the missions were exciting. But it is still opinion - there might be others who do think the game sucks. It is not Wikipedia's place to tell everyone whether the game sucked or not. See WP:NPOV.
- 2. I don't know why you have that memory, but as soon as I saw the paragraph mentioning it, I loaded up the game, played the video, and checked. It wasn't true, so I removed it.
- 3. So few details? See Category:Command & Conquer. There are dozens of pages on C&C, and there is even one dedicated to the original game.
- 4. Yes, this section of the talk page wasn't directed at you. I think that's just a misunderstanding. (check the dates of comments and compare them with your edit dates).
- 5. I complained when you added it again after I removed it. And Someone else removed it the second time - not me (check the edit history) so whoever that was presumably agreed. I also gave justification for the removal - not merely complaints.
- 6. See above. This section wasn't aimed at you. The section aimed at you is near the bottom of this page. -- Run! 11:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tiberian and Red Alert
The original Red Alert needs to be added to the Tiberian Series. It is part of both Red Alert and Tiberian. At some point a split occurs, but the Soviet Ending to the original Red Alert makes it very clear that its part of the Tiberian series. -Alyeska
Westwood itself has stated that the Red Alert and Tiberian Sun timelines take place in different universes, that split off when Einstein killed Hitler; if Einstein kills Hitler = RA timeline, if Einstein doesn't kill Hitler = (our) Tiberian Sun timeline. Kuralyov 20:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- IMO the Red Alert series is the prequel to the Tiberian series -- but there is sufficient distinction between them that they can be divided into separate features. There is some ambiguity since Red Alert 2, but I feel that it will be resolved in the next game (because if it isn't, a lot of fans are going to be angry) --Alexwcovington (talk) 22:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Red Alert 1 is a clear prequel to the Tiberian series. The events that took place in RA1 (with the allies winning the war) led to the GDI being created as a global peacekeeping organization to prevent such wars as the Great WW2 (soviet/allied war) from ever happening. There's a storyline faq somewhere at GameFAQs, which deals with the connection of the series in such a detailed way that IMO its impossible for it to be non-canonic (fanmade). And seeing how technology progressed faster in the C&C universe, it would make sense that RA2 takes place in the 70s, between RA1 and Tiberian Dawn - IF RA2 is canonical to begin with. Was it even made by the original creators of C&C? I recall the credit roll saying "based on the original C&C game" or something along those lines.
RA2 was NOT developed by the Command & Conquer team and is NOT canon. Red Alert 2 is a cash-in by EA and a parody of C&C at best. --Tiberian Fiend
On the note of adding Red Alert games, Red Alert 3 was recently annouced. I added it, copying the format from Red Alert: 2, but I'm a newb, and probably didn't do it quite right (ie. Red Alert 2 has a page, but Red Alert 3 certainly doesn't). --Slavik81
Tiberian Sun was largely a remake of the original storyline. Of course there were enhancements in graphics and sound for the Windows OS. Most all of the missions in Tiberian Sun are the same as in the original.
C&C Fan March 23, 2006
What? Tiberian Sun was a WHOLE NEW GAME, a complete sequel. Definately not a remake, some of the missions may be SIMILAR, but none are the same. The graphics and units and different, as is the music and story. Only the basics of C&C are the same: GDI vs Nod, sidebar, construction yard, Tiberium and core gameplay mechanics(build tanks/mechs and attack). Play both games again and see for yourself- Tiberian Sun explains what happens 40 years AFTER Tiberian Dawn (which is an official title by the way, it appeared on Westwood's website as the product listing and in the game's readme file. Tiberian Dawn was not written on the game box or in game because Westwood was not sure the game would be a success, and because of that didn't want to hint of a sequel, as they might not secure funding for one). 81.109.94.62 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This is passage is (R4P. Tiberium Wars is also connected to Red Alert 1. There wasn't even one statement which denied this. There is even the logo of the Allies from Red Alert 1 on GDI's tanks and other stuff. --217.228.77.169 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyedit
Some things that I found wrong with the article that hopefully someone who knows more about this stuff will fix.
It was described as a Scrin Primal defending against a GDI attack on a Scrin base the by Adam Isgreen the following day, who is an Electronic Arts Game Design Director. -looks like something got cut out there
Despite the sale of Westwood to EA, the same development team that created Red Alert 2 developed Generals. -despite doesn't seem right there. Shouldn't it be more like "because"?
Also isn't the US's defense general actually called the super weapon general?
- Point 1: It does look like something got cut out, but I do not know where to look to acertain what was cut out. Sorry.
- Point 2: How about: "Although Westwood was sold to EA, the same development team that created Red Alert 2 also developed Generals." Does that work?
- Point 3: Yes, General Alexis Alexander's largest contributions are her superweapons- the cost to build them is 50% less than normal and her power plants can produce 300% more power to accomadate them; however she does have the best defensive structure in the generals challenge, so I could see where people would associate her with defense rather than superweapons. But according to Prima's Official Stategy Guide for C&C Generals: Zero Hour (Ch.6 pg 259), her official title in the game is Superweapon General. TomStar81
[edit] Separate pages for each series?
Seeing as how both Command & Conquer: Red Alert and Command & Conquer: Generals each have their own separate pages, we may want to move out the more specific details on the Tiberian series as well, and have this page focus on the threads that are common to each of them: the designers, the connections between Red Alert and the Tiberan series, etc. Also, this page seems more appropriate for posting information on speculation on upcoming C&C games than the side pages. Anyone with me? --Alexwcovington (talk) 00:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with you on posting speculation about upcoming games on this page, but I think some specific information should be left in this article so people can get a general idea about the game. On the pages where a specific game is the topic of the pages (ie the Red Alert page) we can place the fine details. Thats my opion. TomStar81 02:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- That's more or less my idea; I think there's still sufficient info on the Red Alert and Generals games on this main page -- something like that would be done for the Tiberian series as well if we moved a lot onto a side page. My main question is this - what should we name the article on the Tiberian series? Should we call it Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn, Command & Conquer Tiberian series or what? --Alexwcovington (talk) 22:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 2 disks
It's hard to imagine that C&C is 10 years old!
When it first came out, I seem to remember it was a big thing that each box came with 2 disks, and players could play a network game using 1 disk each. 1 disk was for GDI, the other was for NOD.
I never played any network games at the time, and can't remember if this was a rumour, or fact.
- This was indeed the case, and Red Alert did the same with the Allies and Soviets. David Arthur 15:01, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Red Alert 2 and Tiberian Sun also supported this practice. But with Generals (the first disc being the localised content, the second containing common content for all distros) EA stopped the "one disc for each player" system. Probably primarily for logistical reasons, but also because it would mean they would get less revenues if two people only bought one copy of the game.
EA is more of a corporation, so they obviously took away any sign of non-sale from the game.
- Another reason was probably because there were 3 factions in Generals, and they could save money and loading time by putting it on only 2 CDs. Davidizer13 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cool installation routine
Command & Conquer had a unique installation routine, as it had a cool GUI featuring many (pre-rendered) graphics and effects that really let you enjoy installation, for example a countdown while copying data from the CD to the harddisk - something NOT A SINGLE cmputer game for Windows XP nowadays has to show off. --Abdull 12:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
i remember it was a flashy show to install C&C... something that went away with the comming of redalert2 and then it went completely away with the comming of Generals, something that was very criticized among westwood fans.
--Along with the loss of story integrety, the new dozer unit that was never their before, the abscence of the live movies for mission breifings...
<sob><sigh> I want the old westwood back. EA is making the same mistake with C&C that Blizzard is making with Starcraft: they are leaving the fanbase with a product that leaves much to be desired. TomStar81 03:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Free remake of C&C
There is a free software remake called FreeCNC of the original Command & Conquer under development, maybe include this in the article?
has C&C Decade been overlooked or do you just not care
[edit] An article about Tiberian Dawn?
I miss a dedicated article about Tiberian Dawn, could someone write one? I mean, this is THE C&C game (besides from RA1) I think it deserves an article :-) (It's been years since I played the game, hope there's some fans here picking up the "challenge" ;-) ) --Jambalaya 22:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I’m working on that and a whole bunch of other stuff, give me a few days and I will make your wish come true. TomStar81 23:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"This fan" also was unable to insert a heading for the original game. Will somebody please update the TOC? This article is like a body without a head.
C&C Fan March 23, 2006
[edit] Redundant information
I've removed this twice in (March, 2006) from the Tiberian Series section:
- The Tiberian Series was not the first release of this video game(1). "Command & Conquer" was released in 1995 by Westwood Studios and distributed exclusively by Virgin(2). The opening sequence shows animation of a jumbo jet crashing into the World Trade Center(3). This act is blamed on NOD terrorists and their leader, Kane. While these are not the American buildings, the similarities to 9/11 are eerie(4).
- This video game was one of the first to utilise real-time gameplay, and cinematic animation sequences. Like the sequels, you are required to harvest Tiberium which oozes from the ground like petroleum, the word with which it rhymes(5). Missions included defending your base from mortar attack along a ridge, capturing enemy bases, destroying TV stations, amphibious assault, airstrikes on missile defenses, and other exciting war-related missions(6).
- This is obvious: it's a series of computer games. Hence Tiberian series. If the reader wants to know what games make up the series, then they can go and see the main article for that - which is linked at the top of the section.
- Tidbits of information like this should be confined to the section/article concerning the specific game itself. This particular point has nothing to do with the series - just one game in it.
- Firstly, it's not the WTC, it's the "Great Trade Center", a fictional building, in Vienna. Secondly, it wasn't a plane, it was a simple "bombing" and no plane is visible in the video. Thirdly, that sequence is insignificant - it's one of many such bombings and is of no importance to the game or storyline.
- "eerie" is a point of view.
- It doesn't "ooze from the ground" and what it rhymes with is irrelevant. Petroleum doesn't ooze from the ground anyway - oil does.
- "exciting" is a point of view, and there is no need to list mission themes in this section.
-- Run! 18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't even know about DOSBOX until I read about XCOM on Wikipedia last week. If I had known I could run DOS/4GW games on XP, I would have played the game before I wrote my paragraphs. I had no intention of writing something fictive for my own amusement, and I'm sorry that Run was offended by my efforts.
I don't believe any information is redundant -- if this article does not include the Original game with details - then the entire article is redundant. The truth is not the truth when you hide facts. Let the expert above write the 1995 article since that person knows so much about games. Why should I, a newbie, have to write something that's missing anyway?
Fine---Run is the expert here. It oozes out of the ground like OIL, and it shoots up from pillars (or tree-like objects) like OIL. It looked like a pretty big airplane to me. But, I could be wrong. When I played the game I saw a plane crash into it -- maybe if I install DOSBOX and reload the game, I can double-check. I just hope that the expert above is right. Let the expert write the article. I can't wait to read it.
Just to make this expert happy, I edited the "redundant information" for correctness and put it back in the article. This fan is curious -- why did Run refuse to correct the information as I have done? Instad, Run chose to take the information and post it here, and then remove the entire "redundant information."
C&C Fan 00:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
if this article does not include the Original game with details - then the entire article is redundant
- This article is about the Command & Conquer series, not Command & Conquer. This article is not for the inclusion of details, it is for a general overview of what makes up the series of games. If you want to contribute these details, please do so at Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn. -- Run! 11:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
Command & Conquer → Command & Conquer series – Command & Conquer is one game in the Command & Conquer series, therefore this article should reflect on the RTS game and not the series as a whole. While C&C is also known as Tiberian Dawn that is not its official name, and as an encyclopedia site we should use the official name when discussing the game.
- Support We should be factually acurate here, it is one of the wikipolicies. TomStar81 19:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support Agreed. -- Run! 11:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support Second that. --Jambalaya 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support Aye. Jareand 21:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
[edit] Discussion
- I think it's frustrating that all these years I never heard of DOSBOX, so was never able to double check my memories. I just started using Wikipedia last week, and just today saw the articles for the other games in the series. There are plenty of details except a couple. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion.
As for moving this article, or renaming it to C&C SERIES, I'm not sure what good that would do except to differentiate it from the original title. But I would support it.
C&C FAN March 24, 2006 13:31 PST
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] The redirect from Tiberian sun
As a search for "tiberian sun" for some reason ends up in a redirect from Tiberian sun to Command & Conquer series I had to add a more accessible link to the article about Tiberian Sun (the game, not the series). It's a quite messy organization IMHO though. I think there shouldn't be a redirect from Tiberian sun to Command & Conquer series, but rather it should be redirected straight to Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun. Thoughts? --Jambalaya 19:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed. TomStar81 22:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The First Decade
This should be on the main page as well at least in link form.
[edit] Mods
I think mods and conversions that were big should be links on the game pages and maybe articles Tiberian Sun Rising The first Tiberian War these are big conversions we could have links maybe even articles about them!
[edit] Origin of a Trademark
I think it should be at the top al info can be in it's box and if we ever try shooting for featured article we need something up there.
[edit] Redirect
Shouldn't Command and Conquer redirect to the original game Command and Conquer instead of the Command and Conquer series?--Taida 12:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- No I think it should redirct to the franchise Jamhaw 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
[edit] Recent Vandalism
Should there be a semi protection on this page because of the vandalism or should the user responsible be banned? Citizen erased 00:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ijust deleted the same vandalism on the tiberian wars page also by the user not zealot Citizen erased 00:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More vandilism
i just removed this line from the end of the "heros section" ... "But as Generals/Zero Hour aren't real C&C games, they should NOT be mentioned here." unregistared user (IP 86.87.36.21) time to lock page?Euano 20:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flaw with Playstation versions
Did any of the games have the ability to save to a memory card as I recall C&C and Red Alert did not. They only contained passwords.Atirage 06:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confusion Tag
Hey guys. I was an avid fan of the original Command & Conquer (to the point of obsession) back in 1995 -- I lived and breathed Command & Conquer! Which is why I hope you understand my motivations for the "Confusion" tag -- I just swung by this site out of curiosity wondering what had happened with the series in the decade or so since I played Red Alert. Perhaps I'm just getting a little long in the tooth, but several thousand words later, I have a fantastically vague idea of what's going on with this game these days -- and if I'd never played C&C before or even heard of it, I can say quite assuredly that I'd have absolutely no idea what the hell was going on. I'm generally not one for tags; I think if articles are bugging people, they should make an effort to edit them themselves rather than take the lazy man's way out by simply slapping a tag on things, but as my familiarity with the series ended around 1997 or '98, I figured I'd leave it to someone who does. If not for my sake, then please, gentlemen, do it for your fellow soldier in the GDI! Tommy Socks 10:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hey there. After reading the article, I don't know what you'd be confused about. Maybe you could elaborate on your issue, we could help further. I think maybe you'd want to read the individual game's articles, those could possibly clear some of this up. Any input would help! Thanks, BoaDrummer 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Firestorm
On THe first decade I saw for firestrom a buch of movies showing reapers and juggernaughts but I passed the game and never saw any of these by the way the version I played was from the C&C Colection. Jamhaw 18:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
[edit] A small note to attempt to tie in the errant Generals game
The GLA may be a cover for NOD, although I can't prove it...
I might be able to prove it now. The GLA is a middle-east terror organisation. Nod is (or was) situated in the middle east.
- Yeah but sadly if it were canonical it would have taken place in the 80's maybe early 90's rather than 2010 because GDI was formed in 95 sorry it just goes to show how easy it would be to connect the series if only EA had shown a little foresight. Jamhaw 16:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)jamhaw
[edit] MUST SEE
I am tired of seeing Warcraft 111 interface it is the peon system. This term is used because of the orcish peons of warcraft 2 that interface system is very very old.
[edit] Wikiquote-page gone?
I'm new so sorry if I'll press a wrong button.
I can't find the Wikiquote-page of Command & Conquer. Was it removed? Why? Vandalism?
[edit] Heroes
Hi. I don't consider myself as among hardcore CNC fans. There are probably fans here who knows much more then me. :) (now to topic).
Maybe you should consider mentioning TD 'Commando' GDI unit in the 'Hero section'. Strange thing is he's not mentioned in 'Renegade' articals nor is there reletivity to 'havoc' character. 'Renegade' intro (or maybe it was the sneak peek in YR dont remember) shows a cue that Havoc is the TD GDI Commando unit.
Peace all. --89.1.4.29 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comment about the general confusion here
I would be very happy to re-write the majority of this article in order to make it more like an encycolpedia reference. I have played all of the C&C games as they were released, and have a strong knowledge of the series.
I beleive that this page should have a link to the C&C game at the top, or a dis-ambiguation page. Further, this page should be cut back drastically to reflect the series as a whole, without discussing the relative differences between the games. IE superweapons sections.
Mention should surely be kept of the inclusion of heroes and superweapons in C&C and it's sequels, as this was one of (if not the first) RTS series to include what has now become a major feature of all RTS games. However, details should be in the relevant game's own pages.
If anyone has a problem with this, or if there is a better way for me to go about this, please let me know. I havn't written for Wikipedia before, bug use it alot, and personally think i can improve this article. I apologise if this annoys anyone, and am only acting to make this a better reference material.
Liam42 14:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tiberian and Red Alert series connection
I'm not entirely sure this section is appropriate for the article - it is high on speculation and seems to be overly confusing - linking the Red Alert & Tiberian timelines together is a prickly issue due to the existance of Red Alert 2 and doesn't even start to explain where all that advanced technology went in the years between.
I only have a vague recollection that Westwood were indeed working on a way to link the timelines, but this would probably pre-date Red Alert 2 I suspect, throwing it into even futher doubt while at the same time I seem to recall someone stating that the Red Alert and Tiberian timelines are seperate universes and the attempt to link them was abandoned. I unfortunately can't verify this properly.
I would suggest that attempting to link the timelines should at the moment, without a direct verification source stating one way or the other, be simply left as an article explaining the difficulties of doing so as there's sufficient "reasonable doubt" to claim they are linked, and the reverse would like have reasonable doubt. Kane for example does appear in Red Alert, yes, but there's sufficient room to argue that the Red Alert timeline could be a seperate "History" to the Tiberian one where the GDI was never formed. - Petrarch
