Talk:Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article is supported by the Command & Conquer task force.
VG To-do:
Knight chess piece 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:


Contents

[edit] Revised Release Date

The Battlecast Primetime keeps repeating the 26th as the game's release date. This article, however, claims it to be the 24th.

Review the battlecast primetime exclusive for a source on the issue.

http://www.commandandconquer.com/default.aspx

Changing it in the article for the meantime. Sybaronde (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For the strangest reasons, 172.212.208.29 reverted the release dates. According to the EA store, it'll be available on the 28th: http://eastore.ea.com/servlet/ControllerServlet?Action=DisplayPage&Env=BASE&Locale=en_IE&SiteID=eaemea&id=ProductDetailsPage&productID=93493700

http://www.electronicarts.co.uk/games/13323,gen/

Changing it 28th. Sybaronde (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, seems I wiped one of the references by mistake. Sorry. D: Sybaronde (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

The category Category:Command & Conquer games, which this article is included in, are included in Category:Real-time strategy video games which makes the categorization of this article in the category Category:Real-time strategy video games superfluous. --MrStalker talk 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No it does not. It allows users to browse games that belong specifically to the command & conquer franchise, without having to plow through the numerous other RTS games.Sybaronde (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] factions?

I just edited the number of factions to 6, as in 3*2. Then I saw the history page which says that there's 3*2 + 3 = 9. So... Is it possible not to choose a subfaction? If so, someone should add a comment or something. Mtijn 11:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is, just like it was in Zero Hour. Loius Castle himself has said in an interview for GameSpot that the game vill feature nine factions. --MrStalker talk 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I editted out most of the games used in the remark about the factions concept, it was used only in C&C Zero hour and not in Red Alert 2 or the previous games. Actually I am 100 % percent sure only about RA2 and its expansions, but I think that if you do a check you'd find out there wasn't anything like this before. Just 2 sides of the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajpan (talk • contribs) 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The high level game

The metagame, or high level game part of the game reminds me somewhat of what they did in Emperor: Battle for Dune, in that the missions are not simply pre-set, but there is some level of choice in the conflict. Although the descriptions of it sound much more fine grained than that which emperor gave us. Also there is much confusion about the "World domination" mode. I have seen that phrase used to describe the meta-game as seen in the single player. I've also seen it described as the "return" of global domination mode. I'm thinking that the term refers only to a multi-player mode, which uses the same meta-game system as the campaigns do. So it may be quite different than the older global domination mode. 66.254.241.199 17:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Units

Don't delete the units section in the Kanes Wrath article or something. Its infamous and a computer crime.(TougHHead 05:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

It's gamecruft. --MrStalker talk 10:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement Date

In the Command and Conquer official website, EA mentioned that "you get a free copy of Kane's Wrath when it ships in March 2008". I just edited the release date on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.64.178 (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Hand/Slavik

It looks like Slavik won't be appearing as the Leader of the Black Hand. Maybe he won't appear at all, which will be very disappointing to the C&C community. --C&C Modder talk 10:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have confirmation of this, please provide. If not, no reason to delete this yet. Kalamrir (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Slavik is mentioned in one of the cut-scenes, where Kane claims he was killed by GDI. He is not featured in KW beyond that of a single portrait screenshot. Sybaronde (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] standalone?

has EA stated if this is a standalone expansion pack or it requires CnC 3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Game90 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

An expansion pack always requires the base game installed, otherwise it wouldn't be an expansion pack, but a separate game. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 01:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. There are standalone expansion packs.WarKosign (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
For example, Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance is a stand-alone expansion pack to Supreme Commander, it doesn't require the original game to play. I would guess the Windows version will be an ordinary expansion, and the 360 version stand-alone. --MrStalker talk 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Brotherhood was in complete disarray post Firestorm? It didn't look like that, seeing as Slavik was large and in charge. The other leaders were dead at CABAL's hands, but that didn't make a mess. Even though they lost CABAL, they did steal an EVA unit. --C&C Modder talk 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by C&C Modder (talk • contribs)



[edit] Date?

It says in the article the release date for australia is 1 march?I mean when is than that of europe or really,is it correct?80.80.175.66 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Black Hand is a Knighthood?

How is the Black Hand any sort of knighthood? They're more a politically elite force than anything else. --Eldarone (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also disputing the claim that the Black Hand is also centuries old, considering that the group was only formed during the events of Command and Conquer: Renegade, which is only a few decades. --Eldarone (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
renegade shows medieval swords, shields and armor with nod emblems. tiberium wars shows the black hand and the confessors clad in full plate armor, with capes and medals like knights-templar. nod has a partially christian background and has existed since medieval times.
the status of renegade's canon is not very clear, but tiberium wars is. it builds further on those shiels, swords and armor seen in renegade. if you have issues with any of this talk to the makers of tiberium wars. they have public forums. we just note the facts. DaedricDancer (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
also, the black hand in tw show little to no evidence of being political. original research? DaedricDancer (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
They have a statue of Havoc and a direct mention of him in Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars. Renagade is also included within the game collections. The Black Hand origins are expalined in Renagade. Also, there is nothing that suggests that EA or any of the makers think the game is Not cannon. Sheilds, Swords, and armor do not suggest they're a knighthood of any kind. All that means is that they have a collection of sheilds, swords, and armor. Its speculation without any concerete proof. BTW, do you have any evidence that the Knights Templars wore capes into battle? As for the political part, that's just a comparision and not a discription. --Eldarone (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
renegade also has pictures of apocalypse tanks. ra2 is still not referenced in tiberium wars. ra1 was. in renegade the black hand were stealthy. in tw they are shock troopers and in kw they do not even have stealth. renegade and tw/kw were made by two different teams. this team takes a new direction and makes black hand into religious crusaders of nod. sources:
* http://images.ea.com/games/cc3/Wallpaper/wallpaper8_Nod_10x7.jpg
* http://www.cnc-i.net/files/media/tiberium_wars/concept_art/nod-confessor.jpg
also, the black hand is originally from firestorm, not renegade. renegade came later and was made by a different team, and tiberium wars again alters the nature of the black hand. tw is the latest installment, and wiki says that the most recent portrayal of a fictional person or group of persons is most relevant for articles. the most recent portrayal is a prestigious order of religious crusaders in nod. also, this is just a game. what would it matter if knights-templar actually wore capes in battle? it's not relevant. your comparison is more questionable than the current revision. DaedricDancer (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the source of Nod as a knighthood is based off evidence from Renegade,it's rather illogical then to try to prove that its non-cannonical. And you have yet to state any offical source which makes Renegade not part of the Command and Conquer series. The Appocalypse tanks appearing in Renagade is probably due to the fact they wanted a Renagade sequal set after Red Alert, but was never competled. That, or it was an Easter Egg.
The Black Hand's origins were never elaborated upon in Firestorm, but Renegade developed the Black Hand's origins. So what if the game is made by two different teams? It dosn't affect the canoncity of the series. As for the Black Hand being different in Renegade to Tiberium wars, note that in the Black Hand expanded their ranks following Firestorm, becoming an elite army compared to the numberus but weak Milita. As for religous crusaders, yes the Black Hand are fantaical, it dosn't mean Kane makes them some sort of knighthood. In fact, the article Knighthood does not even seem remotely similar to the Black Hand. They have no system similar to knighthood. The closest they've been discribed as a Elite#Elite_military: http://pc.ign.com/articles/772/772511p2.html Also, you brought up the Knight templars wearing capes, which was one of the criteria you stated made them into a Knighthood. I just wanted evidence to see if your point was valid.--Eldarone (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
uhh, did you carefully read my last post? the source of the black hand as a knighthood order is based of tw and especially kw, not renegade.
I did, but there is still no evidence in KW or TW that the Black Hand is some sort of Knighthood in any form. They have armor anda cape, but that dosn't make them knights. Considering Nod's flair for the dramatic, the capes are just part of the typical MO. GDI also fields units in power armor. Does that also make them some sort of knighthood? --Eldarone (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
but it doesn't look like it, because i gave you sourced content, and you simply ignore! also, if it just "typical for nod", then why do only the black hand-related units have this armor/cape/medal thing exclusively? your comparison with the GDI armor suits isn't even relevant and doesn't apply to this debate. DaedricDancer (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A source that simply has nothing to support your allegations that the Black hand was a knighthood. And trying to prove Renegade is non-cannon is pointless considering this source:
Scroll down to TECHNOLOGY IN 2047, posted in 9.29.06 by Mike Verdu
And as quoted by stated entry:
A"It was a sad day for many in Los Angeles today as the last Mammoth Mark II walker to enter active duty clanked its way out of GDI’s San Pedro war factory and into history. With its twin rail guns, battlefield dominance, and unusual, boxy profile, the Mk II became an iconic symbol of freedom during the Second Tiberium War. Closure of the Mk II production line has been greeted by many with anger, notably Col. Nick "Havoc" Parker, retired war hero, popular conservative pundit and noted proponent of the "Kane lives" theory." -Quoted from Mike Verdu's Technology in 2047
Which also in the Command and Conquer 3 unlockable database entires. --Eldarone (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
the only thing you establish with this is that certain elements of renegade's canon are not in doubt. this does not prove in any way that therefore every part of renegade's canon is not in doubt. see the red alert 2 reference and the picture of the apocalypse tanks for reference, again. also, the sources provided do support the notion of the bh being a knighthood in great length in fact, for reasons already specified. your arguments to the contrary are not convincing. also, and strangely enough, your own interpreations of the black hand seem to be more prone to being correctly identified as original research than the assertion that the bh are a knighthood order. i quote from your original post: "They're more a politically elite force than anything else.". for this interpretation, there exists no sourced evidence whatsoever. as it is, you continue to champion an interpretation of the black hand which is outdated and no longer accurate. as already mentioned, for wiki the most recent portrayal of a fictional group is the most relevant. and that portayal can be seen in the official sources i provided and which fully support the inclusion of the knighthood definition. DaedricDancer (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
the black hand had their role shifted from stealthy covert ops to in-your-face heavily armored shocktrooper soldiers in tw. that last thing is the first they do share in common with the knighthood article (see "the medieval institution", second paragraph). secondly the black hand have also had their role shifted from a more conventional "black ops" division within nod, to an actual "order" and one with distinct religious undertone (see:"Becoming a knight", second paragraph. ) thirdly, the black hand as portrayed in tw and especially kw is a separate, prestigious group of followers within nod that have sworn special allegiance to both kane as their "liege lord" and to the "military order" they represent as the black hand (see: "Knighthood and the feudal system", 4th paragraph). all this is supported by the pictures from ea, where the black hand are shown in official capacity as a distinct order within nod. only they in nod have such customes/armor (black hand, confessors), receive such training (garrison clearing, hallucination grenades, infantry bufs), and membership to the order must first be earned by a nod militant ("every nod soldier dreams of being appointed to the ranks of the black hand"). lastly the black hand are shown by ea to have a distinct religious undertone (see the picture from the ea website). it is true the precise definition of "knight" varies a lot, even in real life, depending on time and place. but there are sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt the black hand is to be considered a nod-specific knighthood order. DaedricDancer (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This is original research then, since its not supported by any of the main inforamtion, but instead by your personal interretation. --Eldarone (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
this is already responded to above. DaedricDancer (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The Black hand where Kane's bodyguards before they became the special ops of Nod. As Nod open their ranks, the Black hand formed the core of the Brotherhood's revitalization efforts, resulting in the change in combat doctrines. This does not mean they are not the same group. It actually occurs in real life, such as the SS, which was originally just Hitler's bodyguards before developing into a military organization of their own. Also, I like to point out Nod is filled with religous undertones, and not limited to the black hand. Third, Nod is not a feudalistic society. Although the black hand has swworn their loyality to Kane, that's about it. Its not that unusal in real life either, such as in north korea or Iran, to swear alliuegence to som eone and not be a knighthood. Fourth, you're using a very loose connection to a futrusic military force to aa medieval knights. Instead, you have to show any information from any interviews or websites that even remotely states the Black Hand are some sort of Knighthood. If it's not verifiable, then it dosn't cut. --Eldarone (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
its ironic that someone saying he wants things to be factually accurate has to contantly revise his own position. you depart from many things the factual accuracy of which is questionable themselves. the extent of renegade being canon is not at all clear, because EA changed a lot about the identity of the black hand (and c&c story in general, really) since then through tw and especially kw. the most recent portrayal is the most relevant for wiki articles, so your references to renegade do not prove or substantiate anything. its tw and kw that are important, and in there there are many explicit references to black hand being a nod knighthood order. or at least, much more so than your assertion that they are just elite unit with "flair for the dramatic", for which you deliver no sources and which seem to be based on outdated renegade references. for the knighthood thing there are sources however and it is backed by the most recent and relevant portrayal of black hand as well. DaedricDancer (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
First, I did not revise my postition. And second, unless you can provide any offical evidence that the Black Hand is a Knighthood, then the information is in error. Do not make an argument from ignorance. No verifability, then no go. --Eldarone (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
first of all, you originally departed from the assumption that the definition of the black hand as a knighthood was based on renegade. this was factually incorrect, as it never was based on renegade but on tw and kw, and secondly, you demonstrated ignorance of the fact renegade's portrayal of the bh is outdated. you since then have had to revise your position as a result. that is, again, very ironic for someone whose stated aims in this are the ensuring of factual accuracy. secondly, educate yourself better on wikipedia guidelines regarding the inclusion of content, most notably this;
Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. ... Only once you have justified your edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to others.
since i have provided such sourced material, we seem to have arrived at the juncture where the burden of proof shifts to those disputing the content. the sources i provide establish beyond reasonable doubt the bh is (re)designed by these new creators from eala to be a nod specific knighthood order. as such, i am expecting sourced material from your part that either explicitely contradics the black hand are to be considered as a knighthood, or explicitely mentions them by another term or which provides another definition. until that source material is given, the entry stays. DaedricDancer (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Release dates

The release date for the xbox 360 version of the game has been pushed back to Jun 10th (US). Can somebody update the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickziller (talk • contribs) 17:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regional release dates

Have EA confirmed whether Kane's Wrath will be a simultaneous worldwide release, or be released in different regions on different dates? It might be helpful to clarify. So as not to give us Europeans false hope. 172.212.208.29 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CABAL/LEGION

Someone needs to edit this section for grammar, because I am confused. Do you mean LEGION is a controllable faction like The Black Hand, or a computer system like EVA?

There's no playable faction called LEGION in Kane's Wrath.Sybaronde (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that LEGION is the role of the player in the campaign - an updated version of CABAL. 220.239.190.26 (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I fixed up the grammar. I hope it's easier for you to understand. 220.239.190.26 (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Released in NA at gamestop

I have confirmed personally that local gamestops have the game in, amazon claims it is released as well, so it's general status is released at this point. Hydryad (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Expansion?

If the expansion ends with "Kane connects it to LEGION and presumably sends the AI into the Scrin homeworld", does that mean, there will be another expansion to cover what happens then? Is there any rumor or news about that? I kinda feel that's a bit of a cliffhanger ending... --SoWhy Talk 18:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a cliffhanger, it's either setting things up for the FPS, another expansion pack or C&C4. 220.239.190.26 (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Kane connects it to LEGION and presumably sends the AI into the Scrin homeworld" It doesn't imply this at all in the game, so where is this coming from? What's this based upon? (Bobbo9000 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

on original research. i'm removing this part right away. 84.192.127.254 (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The chances are pretty great they will make a second expansion. All the files are labeled with cnc3ep1 (either episode or expansion pack) and you don't usually call something 1 unless you're expecting a 2. I jotted down a quick sequel section, feel free to remove it. Toxic Ninja (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Ninja has a great point; that .exe file caught my attention as well. And with such an annoyingly vague cliffhanger...we MUST have a sequel expansion soon (preferably before the 11 year or so leap proposed in the FPS Tiberium. --Samuel.ordonia —Preceding comment was added at 02:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mac?

Do we have any idea if or when the expansion will be available for Mac? Paullloydjohnson (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image update (march 08)

The page was feeling bleak so I took some screenshots and threw in images of the faction logo's and the epic units. I don't like how the epic unit images push into the plot section(at my rez at least)so if someone could fix that it would be great, I'm not too good with aligning stuff.Toxic Ninja (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice pics. Can you get the pics of global conquest mode?. To illustrate global mode.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I'll put it here because I wouldn't even know where to start placing it.Toxic Ninja (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Snapped and uploaded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Conquest.JPG If you want anything else just say so. Note: I tried to get nod in the picture but they cloaked all of their bases. Toxic Ninja (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sub-factions and red alert games

to the person(s) who keep removing red alert 1 and 2 from the sentence detailing the origins of the sub-faction gameplay concept:

the first red alert game was the very first game to have introduced the concept of sub-factions in the RTS genre as a whole. brought out in 1996, it obviously was more primitive than it is today, but red alert's multiplayer offered players the option to choose specific countries as both allies and soviets. each of these countries had specific alterations, enhancements and downsides to themselves compared to the others: for example, the germany sub-faction in the first red alert had tanks with a higher rate of fire. the ukraine sub-faction of the soviets has somewhat cheaper heavy tanks compared to other soviet factions. etc.

this concept was further expanded upon with red alert 2, then generals, and now has returned for kane's wrath. sub-faction origins extend back as far as the original red alert game from 1996. this information content is correct, and thus stays. thank you. 84.192.127.254 (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It would still be better if a reliable external source said as much, even though I don't disagree. The current model is very obviously taken directly from Generals, but the minor changes seen in Red Alert are examples of it. However, without a source it fails WP:OR thus it is acceptable to remove it. If someone questions it how can we prove it?Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
by just playing red alert and red alert 2, and just verify for themselves? it's not like it can't possible be proven as such. but unfortunately, i've taken a look at the official red alert faq by westwood studios, and the feature isn't being mentioned in there. anyone with a red alert 2 manual should perhaps take a look if the term "sub-factions" is used to describe the different countries you can choose from as both allies and soviets in that game. because that we could use as reference too to back it up.
that the kane's wrath sub-faction system is mostly based on generals zero hour doesn't detract from the truthfullness of the sentence that keeps getting removed. generals its sub-faction system is a continuation/refinement of that of red alert 2, which itself is a continuation/refinement of the original red alert. that's why the earlier c&c titles with sub-faction should most certainly be mentioned too, because they share this connection with each other. as far as i know, the concept of sub-factions is completely unique to the C&C franchise as well. 84.192.127.254 (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
i'll also add that if someone does request a citation for the inclusion of red alert and red alert 2 in that sentence, i'm adding a citation request for the inclusion of generals itself as well. either they all get included, or the entire sentence is scrapped totally. i don't like half-baked business. 84.192.127.254 (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Policy on this site is that if it can't be proven it gets deleted. If someone who has never played a C&C game were to question the fact, as well they might, you would need something to say to them. So no, "it is therefore it is" is not acceptable logic. I suggest you try and prove it, else it is likely to be removed as OR. And no, it doesn't matter how many C&C fans coming in here saying "yeah that sounds right", a primary or secondary source of a reliable nature (so no forum posts) will be required.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Then I'll re-iterate my last statement -- when the inclusion of Red Alert and Red Alert 2 becomes disputed or is again removed from the sentence, I will place a citation request for Generals as well. If that source isn't provided after a reasonable period of time, the entire referencing of sub-factions appearing in previous games within that paragraph will be removed by me without hesitation. 84.196.74.217 (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

I sincerely think the plost part should be erased. Since I haven't got the game yet, everytime I enter this page I fear for spoilers.--Shadowy Crafter (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Per WP:SPOILER the plot part will not be erased. It is encyclopedic and the game is on release, therefore interested parties may wish to read about it. I'm not meaning to be excessively harsh here, but it's hardly the article's fault that you don't have the game, if you don't want spoilers you may need to avoid the page. I do have the game and I am interested in reading about every aspect of it, including the ending.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Update

New Update: A new discovery has been made, you can now unlock 3 hidden GDI missions by running the last NOD mission where you have to get the Tacitus. Just Capture the GDI MCV and let the countdown go to zero. --I've yet to see any proof of this. Probably an April Fools Joke. I'm removing it, but it's here if you want to restore it and source it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.86.107 (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooo someone deleted it. NVM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.86.107 (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It's an April Fools joke which has been doing the rounds on C&C message boards recently. Gone now though, and nobody is to put it back please.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide or shoots LEGION.

I seen several changes made in main article about second act final. At first i tought she shoots LEGION too but after re watching scene I am more tended to agree that she shoots herself rather than legion. So imo should be changed back to version she shoots herself.Edgarss (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, she DEFINITELY shoots LEGION. She turns to face the player (LEGION); if she were going to commit suicide, then why would she take the time to turn, then shoot herself? Besides, she wanted to get rid of the "evil" LEGION, not kill herself. The bullet into LEGION is to be extra-sure that the CABAL-evolved cyborg could not be re-animated. Please keep the part of her shooting LEGION. --Samuel.ordonia —Preceding comment was added at 02:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Nope, she shoots herself that is very obvious from the video, the virus is used to destroy LEGION, she kills herself to prevent interrogation torture and execution at the hands of Kane's men. Change it again and it will only be reverted, check the video again if you want to be sure. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I must admit the first time I watched it I was certain she shot the legion, but I watched it again I saw she did indeed put the gun to to her neck. Still doesn't make sense why she turned, but whatever. It stays off.Toxic Ninja (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't that just be for dramatic effect? As in "Look what you made me do, you damned AI thing" *bang*. Also, it'd be harder for the player to see what was going on if she wasn't facing the camera with her gun in plain sight. -Clueless (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

Whoever wrote the part about the Scrin now being Overpowered has not played this game thoroughly. It is grossly biased and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.112.118 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, now with the "cited" areas it is still unacceptable. Go visit the Kane's Wrath offical forum and you will get every unit is OP because someone's favorite faction isn't a UBERWTFBBQPWN faction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.112.118 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The Criticism section is entirely POV and so I've removed it again - forum message boards are not acceptable sources or references, do NOT readd the section without a reliable source as termed by Wikipedia - I'll remove it every time it reappears. Reaction to the game is encyclopedic when it takes the form of reliable publications reviewing it, fan reaction on a message board has no verifiability and is therefore unacceptable here. Please realise this, and that goes to the multiple editors who have been adding the section as well as any others who might in the future. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Would the fact that nearly all of the top players in the ladder playing as the same faction be evidence for this? I don't intend to add it, just that even professional gamers have come out and said it's not quite right at the minute. Also is it worth adding somewhere that some errors that were fixed in Tiberium Wars have re-emerged in Kane's Wrath, widely believed due to it being based on an older build. EA has been tight lipped about any potential patches so unfortunately getting verifiable sources is difficult, but isn't one of the philosophies of wikipedia content not form? 144.32.155.188 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Content not form, yes, but we do need to be able to verify it. Unfortunately, speculation falls down the minute a neutral walks into the article and says "Here, is that actually true? How do I as someone who has only heard of this game after being linked to it in another article know that that's true?". Verifiable sources are needed, I'm afraid. Sources, sources, sources, nothing less can be accepted, if it aint referenced it aint going in.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
On the official EA forum the community manager / dev has said he acknowledges there are problems and mentions some balance issues and says they're working on it. But then it comes under the issue of notability. (http://forums.ea.com/mboards/thread.jspa?threadID=359671&tstart=0). Anyway, I'll leave it to the editors, just my 2p :) 144.32.155.188 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I don't really doubt that people have issues with it, but unfortunately we can't use a forum. If you can find another source for it though we can certainly put it in, such as in a review if people have doubts, or something like that, but for now we'll have to leave it I'm afraid.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical Issues

I think that it should be mentioned that this game is rife with technical issues, with thousands of fans complaining about errors in the Direct3d engine, an issue which was also present in C&C3:TW, and which EA has never responded to, fixed, or even acknowledged, in spite of tens of thousands of complaints on their technical support forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.136.70 (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • That is the USER's problem. I can easily run KW and TW without any problems so there is nothing wrong in the EA department. It's the user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havoc1310 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Potential technical issues may exist on a larger scale, though I'm personally not aware of them. In order for them to appear in the article however we need a reliable source. I'm quite prepared to be dictatorial about that point given the recent history of that article.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The game appears to have some sirius problems with its AI. The game crashes for me every time I try and play against more than one AI. The game gives an out of sync error. I have this game installed on more than 15 Computers and every one of them gives the same error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.250.121 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redeemer inconsistancy...

The redeemer isn't tripedal, it's quadrupedal. Just wanted someone who has the authorization to correct that. ExternalGazer (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Fixed. Nice catch. (Havoc1310 (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Separate faction images

I just had an idea pertaining to images in the article, and was wondering if anybody thinks that it is a good one. We have an image of all 9 faction symbols, but would cutting it into separate sections and placing each one next to the paragraph about it help add cohesion to the article? The faction paragraphs look a tad dull, and adding their faction 'logo' might spruce them up as well as clarify what symbol goes with which faction/sub-faction. FusionMix 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Absolutely, great idea. Incidentally the faction sections need to be trimmed a great deal, there's no way we need that much detail on them. Now that the SirBlew vandalism spree seems to have disappated I reckon its time we really improve this article, there's no doubt we can do it!Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright. I can handle splitting the images, hopefully I'll get around to it today. I'll leave the main Nod, GDI, and Scrin ones in a bar to be kept near the top of the article though, as I can't see them included seamlessly anywhere unless moved to the main C&C3 article. The images are all split and uploaded, but need to contact User:Toxic Ninja before I replace his image with the split-up versions. FusionMix 17:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I approve, go ahead. I just didn't want the image to add too much mess to the article so I kept it as one clear cut image. But you're free to do whatever you think improves the article.Toxic Ninja (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. FusionMix 00:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It's done, but do see how it could be messy...I tried to scale the images so that they don't dominate the text, but I'm not sure if I succeeded at that. It does make it colorful though... FusionMix 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Just as an idea I've moved the Nod images - the middle ones - to the other side of the page, just to break it up a bit and mkae it seem less like a wall of text with the same images just breaking it up. If it doesn't look right, feel free to change it back, it's just an idea really. Further scaling of the images might be necessary as there still looks to be a bit too much text per faction, but maybe a proper copy edit is required to sort that problem?Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Clueless has reversed the image layout, but that's because it was messing about with the headings. I've still got no problem with them being put back if that's considered best, though I think it maybe looks a bit better this way. There's quite a lot of images here and avoiding clustering is important.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I do like it this way, though I think the Epic Unit images need to be moved to the other side now. I'm going to reduce the size of the logos too, they're quite large. I'll muck with it a bit, we can see how it looks then. FusionMix 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top professional gamer criticises Kane's Wrath

I think although the source is a forum post (http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=362991) this may well merit inclusion, since the poster is one of the top players having won many tournaments / high up on the ladder. He is basically saying there are too many 'luck' or factors in Kane's Wrath that make it a game that's impossible to master, and he criticises EA for not taking the community seriously and rather wanting to just get a game out to make money. I'll leave it to an editor to decide whether it merits inclusion. 144.32.155.188 (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's a forum, and forums can't be used as qualified sources. Now if he could say something like that elsewhere, that would be interesting. FusionMix 11:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
So if I get your point right, the fact that he can't just develop one strategy and use it to propel himself to the very top means that the diversification of the game and it's subfactions is great and it also means the gameplay is always evolving and requires more than a Rock-Paper-Scissor outcome. Also, I'm sure one of my accounts is up there somewhere on the ladder and I think the game is great, where do opinions end and professional opinions begin? Havoc1310 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere. Even if there was a qualified source, unless this 'professional' happened to be in the industry or as famous as one of the professional StarCrafters who makes boatloads of cash, he probably wouldn't be included. As you've said, it's merely an opinion, and sourced to a forum. He could be mentioned in passing if sourced properly, like to an interview, but wouldn't get his own part in the article in which lots of random 'balance' issues could be introduced by trolls. *cough*SirBlew*cough*. Overall, I don't think it merits a part in the article. FusionMix 12:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)