Talk:Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Expansion

The expansion to Tiberian Sun.. did it not explain how Kane would be back? The ending cinematic showed a cloning facility of some sorts, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.216.176 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 April 2006

Kane, due to the biblical references, supposedly has 7 lives in total. During those 7 lives he will "re-incarnate". The ending of Firestorm showed Cabal and Kane beeing sort of "merged." And speaking of merging, this article should be merged with the Tiberian Twilight one considering it's the same page. However information from both should be kept as it can be used to inform of the early stages of the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.167.96.195 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC).

  • but there probably going to take the religion out of it, I hope we get Kucan as Kane anyway though! Jamhaw 14:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

Last Installment?

"Last installment"? if it were called Tiberian Twilight, maybe, but not with a name like Tiberium Wars —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.64.43 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC).

I agree, although if EA succedes in butchering the tiberian series then this game may well be the last game in the tiberian series. TomStar81 04:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The Tiberian series were originally planned with 3 seperate 'stories', thus 3 games. Knowing EA, and if Tiberian Wars is succesfull, they will try to expand the universe, against common believe among fans and others. I sencerely HOPE this will be the last installment, just because it would be more canon. -crashmatrix
If I recall correctly, PC Gamer ran an article about Tiberian Sun years ago where the developers related that they felt that the franchise's storyline had enough in it to support 2 or 3 additional games from there. Hopefully Westwood kept its storyline ideas in a vault that EA has easy access to...it would be nice to continue the saga for a few more years. LitCigar 17:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thats why everyone here is praying "The EA Prayer" ;-) TomStar81 20:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I highly dought that EA will continue the Tiberian series. It took them this long (after settling EALA and crap with Skaggs) to finally make the game official, and I like many other fans, don't think EA is good in the story industry, and what we just want out of this game is a decent ending to what Westwood (RIP) started. After that, they might make an expansion and they'll probably make Red Alert 3, but we're probably in the Twilight of C&C, well, at least the C&C we know. Jareand 19:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The C&C we all new and loved died in 2003 when Westwood was absorbed by EA. No matter how hard EA tries, no matter what technology they use, and no matter how many fan suggestions they take to heart there is simply no replacement for Westwood and its personel. Its like losing a relative: yeah, there are other family members who can soften the blow, but there is simply no getting around the fact that a relative is dead and will never return. TomStar81 20:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It better be except for shooters and RA3 oh and I suppose a thousand sequals for Generls but all I want is one last Tiberium game and one last Red Alert game to tie them in then I will be happy Jamhaw 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

I dont care if they make more games, I just want them to be worth playingNODfanatic 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The EA Prayer

Dear lord, please let EA not fuck this one up, like they fucked up Renegade and Generals... amen. Ghostalker 02:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Renegade was all Westwood's doing. EA didn't mess that up. It just was delayed far too much because of development, and it was released far too late.
Enfestid 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree EA did fucked up Generals. The gameplay seems like a Warcraft rip off. I also hope they don't mess this one up. They better use Joseph D. Kucan as Kane.

Better than nothing mate! Dfrg.msc 07:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cs_California

Thanks to Ghoststalker, I now have a new userbox! Check it out:

C&C3 This user is praying
The EA Prayer.

TomStar81 05:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Superche.jpg
Whoa! Were living on a prayer!
Oh! Nice one mate! It shall have pride of place!

Dfrg.msc 07:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I liked generals....... Zerath13

I liked generals too. What's wrong with it? It's a fun game.--Taida 01:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of a Trademark

I think this section should be incorporated into the main Command and Conquer (series) article, as it doesn't really say much about Command and Conquer 3 itself. Anyone else agree? The_B 14:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Ehhhh, It's growing. Give it a month, maybe 2 and there will be a lot more information. All games (and their pages) gotta start somewhere and we're at that point here. I'd say to link here from the Command and Conquer Series page, since the Tiberian Twilight page was already redirected here (hats off to whoever beat me to it). I can't wait for more stuff like screenies and concepts to come out.

Ghostalker 03:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


  • I was actually just referring to the "Evolution of a Trademark" section, but it seems someone has deleted it. The_B 13:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • We could add in few links to the Command and Conquer (series) article, on C&C 3.

Dfrg.msc 06:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Frank Klepachi will NOT be doing the music.

I contacted him, this is his quote:

"On another note, I've been getting a lot of emails asking me if I'm doing the music for the newly annouced C&C3, so I'd thought I make a quick post for the record to say the annoucement was the first I've heard of it, like everyone else.

Not sure they would ask since I'm full time at Petroglyph anyways...

Be interesting to see what they do with it." -*The Hypnotist

  • This does not bode well. Unless EA can come up with a solution that doesn’t SUCK we are going to get screwed. Again. Announcements like this drive home the fact that EA can’t handle the C&C series. If Westwood was still counted among the living odds are we would not even be having this discussion. TomStar81 04:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Totally agreed with ya. The Hypnotist
  • He doesn't say anywhere that it's a definate no, that no matter what he won't do it. I claim that I am the world's #1 EA hater, however, this time I believe, especially with the annoucement of fan summits, that EA was to please fans. We have been waiting eight years for this game, and they want to make it worth the wait. "Not sure they would ask since I'm full time at Petroglyph anyways..." oh come on! EA has all the money in the world. They'll stop at nothing at getting Frank to do the music. Jareand 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • He did say no. He stated that he found out the game was being developed at the same time we did. They have already started on it, and he had no idea until they released info. Note that this is because I have contacted him about it. That was just an overall quote, and it is a No-Go. The Hypnotist
  • Mind sharing all this secret "information" you have? And until it says on his website that he will definatley not be doing the music and/or EA says he won't be doing it, the main article will say that it cannot be confirmed is he is or is not doing it. Jareand 01:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ignore my above post. After reading posts on EA's forums, I agree that he likely won't do it. Jareand 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I will have him post it. I will have him confirm. I have just contacted him reguarding your request, and, as soon as he replies, I will ask if it's ok to post it here. The Hypnotist
  • Couldn't they just take the music from his other games?
  • No. That would be theft. They'd need his permission. Plus, wouldn't you rather have NEW music? :)
  • I thought they owned the music in those games? Jamhaw 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
  • Well, maybe they'll get the guy that did the Music for Total Annihilation. I mean, that was kick ass music for a RTS game and the guy is working on another set of musical scores to the Total Annhilation sequal. Nothing like slaughting your enemies to the overtones of an orchestra :D Ghostalker 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • They could just recycle the music from the original, thems were some block rockin beats! I just hope there is another Hell March.
  • Just because Klepacki is not doing the music does not mean it's going to suck. I find that many people here would rather have a high-res 3D version of C&C 1, but it's not going to happen. EA is doing a great job so far. Music will probably be based on Klepacki's music anyway. TagDaze
YOU RIPPED ME OFF! WHERES MY RADIO?
YOU RIPPED ME OFF! WHERES MY RADIO?

Dfrg.msc 07:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Name

Is it me, or does "Tiberium Wars" Sound a little boring? I mean, they could've at least named it Tiberian wars. Or, something other than the word wars. Cause, it's been a war with tiberium for the last two games. The Hypnotist

I think it might just be a working name like commando or Jar Jars big adventure.

  • Tiberium will be taking a center role here, unlike the other C&C games, where tiberium was just a "driving" character. TagDaze

I'm still quietly hoping eventually the game will be called Tiberian Twilight, and that this is just a working title. However, that would make sense, so EA will probably ignore it all together :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crashmatrix (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

  • We hear ya ;) TomStar81 23:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Who cares? Its C&C! Does the name matter when your Ion cannon obiterates their oblsek and you roll over their base with twenety Mamoth tanks? C&c!


Dfrg.msc 06:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What's with the wheat picture? and what "you ripped me off, where's my radio" mean? 81.109.94.62 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Generals stuff

I think it should be moved to the Generals article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.174.135.175 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC).

  • No, it has NOTHING to do with Generals. It is it's own game. -The Hypnotist
  • No I mean the stuff about "preserving freedom" and stuff like that.
What? This isn't a Generals Game at all, and the GDI is an entirely seperate entity from the USA in the two seperate C&C universes. There's no reason for this to be moved to the Generals Article, other then to somehow make Generals look better, which wouldn't take much anyways. Payneos 22:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No i am talking about some of the concerns in development would be better in the Generals article as there Generals proplems and yes Generals does suck.
Generals is done and gone, this is a completely different game. Anything that references to Generals is just that, much like how Red Alert references to Tiberian Dawn in terms of graphics and gameplay, and so on.Payneos 17:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No one seems to get it not only is Red Alert just a prequel but there is stuff on concerns over development which should be in Generals as it's about Generals not TT.
Well, cite an example. Payneos 22:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Preserving Freedom and other complaints about Generals are Generals proplems not TW's or TT if EA's smart.
    "Many players also found the manner in which Generals latched onto topical issues in an overtly militaristic and pro-American fashion to be tasteless and insensitive. However, some argued that the stereotypes portrayed in the game extend to all three factions in a "tongue-in-cheek" manner in order to demonstrate political irony in today's world conflicts. Phrases such as "Preserving freedom!" and "We fight for peace!", both spoken by the US team, lend credence to this argument.
As a result of these changes, some fans of the series argue that Generals was not a true Command & Conquer game. Some even going as far as to call it "Age of Generals" as a reference to the Age of Empires series by Microsoft Game Studios."
If you're referring to this, then you're absolutely wrong. This is the part of the article that builds the argument for those who are concerned that "Tiberium Wars" will become too over-militaristic, cartooney, and that it will fall under the Generals "Not a C&C game" just like Generals itself did. It has a place here because of fan concerns over how this game will be handled. Payneos 16:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a war game it's supposed to be militaristic but I see your point but still some of it should be moved or deleted.
Again, no. It doesn't violate any Wikipedia guidelines, so it shouldn't be deleted. And it is completely relevant to the article. So it should not be modified. Payneos 23:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No i'm just saying that some of the stuff like Age of Generals and other complaints should go to Generals as not all of them have anything to do with TW. 216.174.135.175 16:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
Keep em in this one as it's part of the fears of what Tiberium Wars might become, but also include such things in the Generals Article as well. Best idea I can think of. Payneos 17:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I can live with that. Jamhaw 20:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

Third Side

THere going to have a mobile base. And merging units. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamhaw (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

  • Navies will be avilable though not neccessaraly for the third side. Jamhaw 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
    • I am suprised. The only naval unit in C&C so far has been that gunboat from Tiberian Dawn. Any news on the naval make up? TomStar81 06:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It was a pleasent suprise if you go on the fan site you can find a screenshot with ships that's actaully where I go the info.
    • I think the ships in this photograph may be GDI Orca support ships; those are clearly GDI Orca units overhead and they do not appear to be attacking the ships, nor do the ships appear to be defending themselves from the Orca units. On top of that the two ships appear to have gold trim on their flight decks. TomStar81 00:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • ...although it should be noted that the firestorm game manual pointed out that tiberium in the ocean was prevent ship traffic from sailing the seven seas. TomStar81 01:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Also, take a look at the tails of the Orca units present in the game and you will note that they have the mark of the US side from Generals and not the trademark GDI eagle emblem. TomStar81 19:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you sure that's not the Allied symbol any way I think the Tiberium water problem only really counted with rivers and they would have had to fix it otherwise they would have died of water poisoning by now! Jamhaw 17:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
    • Actually that was one of the issues brought up in Firestorm. Dr. B stated that this new type of water tiberium was expanding into the areas where people obtained drinking water, which was cause for alarm. They never did fix that problem in Firestorm, so I assumed that it would be adreesed in C&C3, but now I am not sure. 20:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Scrin is what it is obviusly "Tiberium was sent by an intelegent race and is the precursor to an invasion that's what Loius Castle said. Jamhaw 16:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

The Forgotten

I know that The Forgotten were in Tiberian Sun, but I do not remeber seeing them in Renegade. Did I miss something, or are the recipiants of and participants of Project Regenisis considered members of The Forgotten? And if The Forgotten are not in Renegade why does The Forgotten entry in the section Third Side Speculation mention them in Renegade? TomStar81 04:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I dont know the Forgotten are an organisation and not just mutants.

Tiberian Sun is in 2030, Renegade in 1995

  • Actually it is 2020, but it contradicts other info.

FMV or Live Action

FMV only means it has motion is it going to be actors or CGI if it's actors it should say Live Action.

FMV means Full Motion Video. It has been confirmed to have the cheesy videos from the other C&Cs (except Renegade/Generals) that everyone loves. This means there will be live actors. --Gamer007 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Great! but what I meant was that the FMV article does not mean it is live action it could mean it is CGI so I think we should change what it say. 216.174.135.175 14:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
But again, it's already been *confirmed* by *many online gaming sources* that it will have the live action actors and not the ill-recieved CGI ones from Renegade. The change is unnecessary, EA, I think, has learned it's lesson. Payneos 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You're pinning the tail on the wrong donkey.[User:TagDaze|TagDaze]
  • I guess. I had not seen that it would have live action, but still the FMV article says it could be CGI so I still thn that fr *eope who have not heard about it yet or are new that it should say action.
Which has now been cited and is, as stated many times, not correct. In PlanetCnC's expose on the subject, it was stated that they will have Full-Motion Video, In-Game Cutscenes, and between mission Cutscenes that are identical to the ones found in Tiberian Sun and Red Alert 2. Which means there will be a combination of faceless units crossing terrain alongside the massive tanks this game will provide, a look inside the Temple of Nod should be expected, and there will be live action acting, since Tiberian Sun and Red Alert 2 featured that as well. In short, it's going to be live action. Payneos 05:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank gawd. I was worried that we would have to make do those AWFUL 3d movie things they had in generals again. Thats a load off... TomStar81 06:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah but it should say live action not FMV. Jamhaw 16:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
  • Bout freakin' time they brought back human beings. I don't care if it takes a few percentage points out of their profit, if it wasn't going to have people in it I was just gonna pirate it. No point in paying EA for skinning Generals. I don't need some stupid little bitmap tank saying "Lets get NOD!" with a cheesy acent. I'll take Michael Biehn with his pulse rifle any day of the week (pity EA won't bring him back, theres no proof he died in Firestorm)! Ghostalker 01:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Kucan

Joe Kucan deserves his own article not just a redirect to Kane he has done a lot more than be Kane. Jamhaw 14:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

  • Kucan already has an article at Joseph D. Kucan. You created another article called Joseph D. Kucan. (with a '.' at the end). I removed the '.' from the link in this article so it directs to the correct Kucan article, although you might want to delete your redundant (and incorrectly titled) article. -Derek 65.188.254.26 02:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah cause I talked on the Kane article there used to be a redirect Jamhaw 21:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

Unit Upgrades?

If I am reading the unit preview right, certain vehicals could be equiped with upgrades. That was not possible in any of the other C&C specific games, was it? TomStar81 03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was possible in C&C Generals and Zero Hour where for instance, the Overlord tank could be upgraded with the battle bunker upgrade, the speaker tower upgrade or the gatling cannon upgrade.Gunman47 05:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I know, but I am am one of those C&C fans that beleive that Generals is not a "true" C&C game. More specifically, what I am asking is if any unit in the Tiberian series could be upgraded. TomStar81 06:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Only through Veterancy could a vehicle be upgraded. And that was only in Tiberian Sun. Payneos 07:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No I remeber getting far more powerful and cool atttacks in Red Alert 2 the stronger the unit became. Jamhaw 14:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
What? Yeah, Red Alert 2 had veterancy too, but Tiberian Sun had veterancy FIRST. That's the question, RA2 has no relevance right now. Payneos 15:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah but you said only Tiberian Sun had veterency. Jamhaw 16:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
Because he asked in the Tiberian Series. Not the Red Alert series. Payneos 23:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Only Generals is out side of the Tiberian series besides TS was only the second game you mention that. Jamhaw 14:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
  • I'd like to see some upgrades, as long as it doesn't get tedious and overbearing. I dunno how many of you played Earth 2150, but upgrading/customizing units in that game took longer then it did to actually play the mission. And forget it in multiplayer, if you tried to take the time to make a "perfect army" you're enemy would just nuke ya. Ghostalker 01:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, upgrading is nice for buildings and some versatile units, but one everything *requires* upgrading 2 times, then it doe get pretty old.Voice-of-All 08:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • On firestorm the last nod level you can blow up the firestorm generator with your cluster missle instead of deactiavating the stations is that allowed or the right way to win? p.s. what are all the pictures for? Jamhaw 14:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
    • The firestorm wall, for whatever reason, does not stop large missles of that sort. That was one of the first things I changed in rules.ini :).Voice-of-All 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Movie host

Anyone here with some webspace that wants to mirror that .avi file? I don't know how much longer it can stay on the server :( It's a home-made (high quality) conversion from inferior MOV format to the universal AVI, so I doubt its being hosted on say... IGN or FilePlanet. Ghostalker 01:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over development section

Is this section really necssary? I'll be honest, to me it looks like some jaded C&C fan complaining over Generals again.

I thought Generals was good, by the way. Someguy-021 05:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Someguy-021

  • Wow, I never met a C&C fan who thought Generals was good. That’s almost sacrilege. The press builds it up to be an astounding B- grade, which is great.... but I'll bet they never played its predecessors. If EA called it anything else without the "Command and Conquer" title, it would have been fine and would be very representitive of most EA games which is a potentially good game skinned over to act like another but with newer graphics. And thats just the gameplay. Then theres the fact they removed the classic cinematic cut-scenes with REAL people, not some stupid CGI unit thats spews bandwagon patriotism.
  • Would you buy a Harely-Davidson with plastic fenders? Would you buy a $300,000 house that had a tarp instead of a roof? How about paying for broken lightbulbs?

Ghostalker 01:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly my opinion or at least it was. It looks to me like everything that made the old C&C series so great was replaced by something more "modern": the scenario, graphics etc.. However, I'm afraid this discussion might get out of hand. There are better places for discussion. Long story short most players who played the old C&C games think the same. I hated Generals when it was released but now I kinda like it for its dynamic and balance which I missed in the old C&C games. However, this is no excuse! - Jack's Revenge 11:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I wrote the section, and when I did it was not intended to spite generals again. I had hoped to adress the concern(s) of C&C fans by looking at the C&C universe under Westwood and the C&C universe under EA. I do not think any one would argue that EA games has made changes to the C&C universe as it has seen fit, the catch is condensing that into something that both meets NPOV standards and can be explained to the average jane or joe. I would ask that the section not be removed in its entirety, although given the discussion here it may be nessicary to retool it. (And for the record I niether liked generals, and until five minutes ago had never met anyone else who liked generals.) TomStar81 07:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

the original section clearly breakes npov so if you dont mind, ill add mine here. i have played many many games in the c&c series and let me tell you many of them were good but many were medicore. tiberian sun imho simply was bordering a bad game. why? because after ra there was nothing nothing new and not only that the games were strategically lacking which made multiplayer unfeasible. multiplayer had very bad unit balance and very bad preparations in terms of economy and base expansion. the truth is that c&c was a single player experience. thats why im against your rant because although generals was not such a spectacular game because to much extent it did copy on blizzard and they released an unfinished product performance wise it tried to innovate. ea has 2 options, stick to a formulah that was proven to produce bad results which will make many people not to buy it or adapt and innovate.personally,im very glad they did a contextual sidebar. the truth is that the innovator wins as long as the game is polished and if they want to create a good title that has some chance hurting the beast that is warcraft 3 before starcraft 2 comes out and nukes every other strategy game they will surely do just that. Nightybeta