Talk:Miscellaneous factions of Command & Conquer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miscellaneous factions of Command & Conquer 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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is supported by the Command & Conquer task force.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Scrin

I think it's debateable as to whether the Scrin actualy exist or not. What evidence is there? A ship with Vega says Kane build (Kane also knows when it was built) The Tacitus (a piece of which was in a temple on Earth (and the inscription ever read 'Temple of the Tacitus') Kane's teleportation That Tiberium probably came from space. --Rim-Fire 18:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Orca Craft is Not A Space Craft

Even the Orca might have futuristic look, it is not a space craft. The remains of Orca cockpits are not UFOs, contractry to many.--CommandoSR 19:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Tiberium Dawn Sighting?

Ever notice in the 3rd GDI mission of TD there is something UFO-ish to the left of your base. Could this be another UFO Sighting? OAM 00:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

... Those decorative terrain tiles from Tiberian Dawn don't /have/ to be alien, you know. They could be, as someone else said, the remains of a crashed Orca. Someone else also believes it might be a Commander Keen easter egg- that is, the Bean-With-Bacon Megarocket making a cameo of sorts. Either way, I never saw it as alien-in-origin and think all this talk that it was, is just lunacy. The Scrin ship from TibSun, however, is believably alien-looking and is comparable to the new faction's units. The TibDawn wreckage/artifact terrain tile... sorry, but it always looked human-made to me and I think you're all silly for thinking it's alien. 69.143.91.254 22:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing the Mao civil war slaughter

Anyone have a cite for that? Been awhile since I played, and I haven't played C&C Ren. --Talroth 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, fourth mission of Tiberian Dawn, Nod campaign, GDI is escalating the Mao civil war and massacring Nod followers. Also, they leveled a civilian village in Botswana in the second-to-last Nod mission with no apparent reason behind it. GDI war crime. Mikael GRizzly 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Having played Command & Conquer original (both the original DOS and Windows 95 versions) ad nauseum over the many years, and more importantly as someone who isn't exactly a stranger to the C&C storyline(s), I can say outright that I don't have the slightest clue what this "Mao civil war" is supposed to be within the context of Tiberian Dawn's storyline. As it is, this "civil war" part has all the likings of original research and/or fanfiction to me. Don't re-add this to the Civilians section without first including a reference link to an official C&C document related to the storyline that can canonically validate these claims, and which was published either by Westwood Studios, Electronic Arts (in their being the current owners of the C&C franchise) or PlanetCnC's storyline encyclopedia, because it will only continue to be deleted as things currently stand. 84.192.112.171 12:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Watch. The. Tiberian. Dawn. Nod. Mission. Briefings.
Reference: nod4b.vqa : "GDI escalating Mao Civil War. Nod factons require reinforcement. Nod command directive: Aid Nod supporters' defence. Eliminate GDI presence in the region".
During the mission, a GDI tank drives into a village full of unarmed civilians and blasts happily away at them.
Reference: 12th Nod mission: Compuer controlled units level a civilian village west of the advanced communications center. Every. Time. You. Play. The. Mission. Sneak a Stealth Tank there and watch.
PS: Planet C&C encyclopedia is NOT a source of canonical information. It's just a good, logical explanation. Nothing more.
Mikael GRizzly 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The Nod campaign of Tiberian Dawn is not official canon to begin with. None of what is portrayed in any of these cutscenes that you are referring to ever happened according to the canon storyline of the Tiberian series. Following your logic however, we may as well consider it official canon that the earth is now a floating Tiberium crystal on which all native life has been extinguished only to then be magically resurrected for Tiberium War's events, just because of what you saw in the final Nod cutscene of Tiberian Sun. Secondly, I would take anything an EVA reprogrammed by the Brotherhood of Nod states with a serious grain of salt. Nod is, and especially in the original game which was designed entirely by Westwood Studios, ment and thus portrayed as nothing less than the bad guys of the story in a similar way to how Cobra Command was to G.I. Joe back in the day. Lastly, the PlanetCnC Encyclopedia is recognized by EALA - who currently own all the rights to the Command & Conquer storylines of all series - as is evidenced by the usage of terms such as "Third Tiberium War" in C&C 3 Tiberium Wars, there where in the original Westwood games and documents no references to terms such as "First Tiberium War" or "Second Tiberium War" exist anywhere. Prior to EALA using these names for the previous conflicts within the context of Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, those terms only existed in the PlanetCnC encyclopedia and in the storyline faq published on the gamefaqs website on which that encyclopedia was partially based. 84.192.112.171 20:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
So, following this reasoning, the Soviet camapign of Red Alert is non-canonical to and Kane, Nadia, Gradenko and Kukov never existed. My point is, what does not contradict official canon is canon. similiar to how the Fallout fanbase handles Fallout 2.
Second, the argument of "First Tiberium War wasn't used by Westwood and is by EALA, so that means that PCNC Encyclopaedia is canon" is severely flawed. Basing on that, I can take any word a person once said and stretch it to fit my arguments.
Planet C&C's Encuclopaedia is 100% fanon, unless Brett W. Sperry, Jason Bender or Mike Verdu (writer for C&Cs, lead designer for C&C3 and executive producer for C&C3 respectively for example) state otherwise. And no, community manager's statements are void, unless confirmed by the lead.
In short, canon material is: Tiberian series' games (and Nod campaigns if they do not contradict estabilished canon, eg. the first chapters of Nod campaign for Tiberian Sun), their respective manuals, concept art for units that appeared in-game and developer released material (eg. Mike Verdu's tech blog). Fan created material is NOT canon, unless it's officially stated that EALA adopts PCNC as a canonical source. Mikael GRizzly 10:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"the Soviet camapign of Red Alert is non-canonical" -- That is correct.
"and Kane, Nadia, Gradenko and Kukov never existed" -- That is speculation. The only thing that the Soviet campaign of Red Alert 1 added to the canon storyline with any certainty is that Kane and the Brotherhood of Nod existed in those days, and more importantly that they evidently were the force behind the Soviet policy of Manifest Destiny which initiated the war (which history officially atributes to being the work of Joseph Stalin) in order to further their own mysterious plans. As it is however, the Allied campaign is the canon ending to Red Alert 1 and the events of this campaign are what must be added to the content of Wikipedia's C&C storyline articles and addenda concerning the Tiberian series.
"My point is, what does not contradict official canon is canon." That is incorrect. Simply because something does not outright contradict the canonical events of the C&C storyline that is still no confirmation of any kind that it also actually happened according to that same canon storyline. And that is the fundamental error you are making in believing the content of those Nod TD cutscenes are relevant to this article.
"unless it's officially stated that EALA adopts PCNC as a canonical source." -- In practice, they have. This is evidenced by the fact that EALA uses terms and concepts for the story of C&C3 which exist only in the encyclopedia and in the storyline faq that the encyclopedia is partially based on. Those terms however do no exist in any of the original Westwood games and documents. Thus please take two seconds to think. 84.192.113.195 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"In practice" does not mean official. People in practice steal car radios, but that's not legal. I thought about it, and they could've coined those two terms as they created the subtitle Tiberium Wars. Still waiting for a source. And last, recheck the newsletters, there's a bit about Mammoth Tanks, in which a reference to late Nod mission (destroy Mammoth Tank prototype) exists, meaning that elements of Nod campaign ARE in fact canon. Mikael GRizzly 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
" People in practice steal car radios, but that's not legal." -- The fundamental difference manifests itself in the fact that EALA is actively building out elements of the storyline of the upcoming C&C 3: Tiberium Wars on concepts and terms which are found exclusively in the PlanetCnC encyclopedia, and the storyline faq on which this encyclopedia was partially based. This directly signifies the endorcement of, at the very least, parts of the content of this encyclopedia and/or its preceeding faq on EALA's part. If this were not the case as you claim it to be, then those aforementioned elements would not be present in C&C 3's story and in-game lore at all in the first place. As it is, they are present, making us able to draw the conclusion that at the very least a partial endorsement of the content of these texts into the official canon of the storyline of the Tiberian series has already occured. This makes us as editors also able to include any parts of this encyclopedia which are explicitly also used in official statements of EALA regarding C&C 3 its storyline, the most obvious examples of that being the terms of "First Tiberium War" and "Second Tiberium War". There is also nothing "illegal" about this course of action of EALA, as they have come to own the exclusive rights to the entire C&C series as of 2003, effectively giving them the right to do anything with the storylines of these games that they want to. For better or worse. We'll find out in the first quarter of 2007.
Secondly, please refrain from placing an original research tag on the "GDI evacuating and protecting civilians" part of the "Civilians" section of this article. This content is verifiable in that every GDI campaign to date has specifically featured missions which involved civilian relief as their primary mission directive, and that GDI is a taskforce which operates under the review of the United Nations Security Council. Unlike 2/3 of the Nod campaigns all the GDI campaigns to date are canon storyline in full, which lead directly to the events of Tiberium Wars in the year 2047.
I hope this was able to answer any and all further doubts/questions you may have on the matter. 84.192.126.66 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Mostly, although it's absurd to state that EALA is basing on PCNC Encyclopaedia basing on a SINGLE TERM. It's as if I used the sentence "War never changes" in the context of war and then somebody started interpreting it as "he definitely was using stuff from Fallout". So, while I love PC&C's encyclopaedia, it's fanon, unless EALA EXPLICITLY states they are using it as canonical material, at which point I'll be among the first to edit it in.
Second, I~think we reached an agreement on the semi-canonicity of Nod campaigns. Mikael GRizzly 23:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"It's as if I used the sentence "War never changes" in the context of war " -- That comparison doesn't make any sense, as "War never changes." is a relatively common expression whereas terms such as "First Tiberium War" and "Second Tiberium War" are - in the literal sense of the word -unique to the PlanetCnC encyclopedia. They did not exist, nor were they used anywhere else prior to the encyclopedia and the storyline faq on which that encyclopedia was based. Not in any other fanon, not in any official Westwood documents, not in the games themselves. Against this background it becomes surprisingly obvious that when EALA uses these terms (and they are merely one example, not the sole example as you incorrectly assume), they derived them from that encyclopedia specifically for use in the canon story of C&C 3, thus making that specific content of the encyclopedia a part of the official canon altogether. Thus, at the very least partial endorsement.
"I~think we reached an agreement on the semi-canonicity of Nod campaigns." -- Um, no. Not even close actually. Instead we established that only those parts of the Nod campaigns which do not directly contradict the canon storyline shown in the GDI campaigns (a category which the Nod scenes of TD you used for your previous edits certainly do not belong to) can even remotely be used for Wikipedia edits, and even then it should at all times be clearly noted to the readers that there inherently is a degree of speculation and POV involved with the content of these campaigns, as they do not accurately portray the canon events of the series its storyline. Instead they are to be considered as an alternate "what if" reality. Content based on the GDI campaigns does not have that problem in the slightest, as they are the official canon of the Tiberian series. 84.192.126.66 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
And inherently biased towards GDI. GDI is not a purely good organisation, even UN peacekeepers aren't (I believe it was the Srebrenica massacre when dutch UN peacekeepers didn't react or scandals in Africa). And I was saying *exactly* the same thing you repeated. So, you disagree with me agreeing with my point that what does not contradict GDI campaigns is canon (or at least can be considered such). Second, two terms that coincidentally match are *not* basis for making a big statement that PC&C encyclopaedia is used by EALA as source material. It might as well have been derived from the subtitle ("Tiberium Wars") created by EALA, and my theory is just as valid as yours, until we get official confirmation from Verdu or Bender. Now, we are arguing semantics here, so I think we should rather drp the subject or take it to my/yours talk page (get an account by the way, I hate arguing with IP numbers ;)), where we can put up arguments and counterarguments for using elements from Nod campaigns as sources. Mikael GRizzly 11:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
"And inherently biased towards GDI." -- That is merely your personal interpretation of it. It's also one I happen to disagree with. But that discussion is completely irrelevant to the point at hand, actually. The storylines of these games belong to the former Westwood Studios, and now to Electronic Arts Los Angeles, and if they choose to show one side as the token "good guys" and the other as the token "bad guys" in their storyline, then that is their full prerogative. Regardless of how you personally interpret the meaning of this storyline, and regardless of what your personal views on real-life organizations that arguably resemble the two factions of the Tiberian series are, the simply fact of the matter will always remain that the canon storylines of these games are intellectual property and thus they need to be quoted and represented correctly on these pages. You failed to meet these requirements with your previous edits, as the result of an apparent bias from your part in favoring one of these two fictional factions over the other. Which is quite ironic really, since you apparently consider editors who seek to ensure the factual and canonical accuracy of the content of these articles through removing your POV and original research of doing precisely the same thing in the name of the other faction.
Furthermore, I am only interested in discussing what type of content is factually correct for this article and why, and am not interested in discussing where the precise borders of political partisanship are to be sought. 84.192.126.66 12:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* This is going nowhere and I have better things to do than argue on Wikipedia. Mikael GRizzly 13:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
That might have something to do with your unwavering conviction that you're always right, even when it is repeatedly proven that you are not. It most certainly "has gone somewhere" as well by the way, as the content of this article is now canonically verified and thus factually correct. Under your edits, it wasn't. 84.192.126.66 16:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, thankfully it's not a heartbraking deal for me. Mikael GRizzly 17:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. 84.192.126.66 19:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
In retrospective, it seems kind of silly that we argued over three lines of text, because of me... ah well. Do you approve of my edits on the "Characters..." and "Technology..." sections? Mikael GRizzly 19:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Most definitely. They are well-written additions to Wiki's C&C pages, and I am happy to link to them whenever an opportunity arises. 84.192.126.66 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, by the way, here's one thing I found:
(Joe Kucan): "The first C&C is still my favorite, although I really thought that Renegade added an interesting new perspective to the series. The fact that the two storylines happen concurrently is pretty intriguing.", interview can be found here, point no. 16. Mikael GRizzly 00:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It's an interesting read, as this would basically make the story of Renegade fall into the same category as that of Firestorm -- namely that the events for both GDI and Nod took place at the same time and that both thus are canonical. On the other hand, and as much as I hate to actually say this, Kucan is rather notorious for making a wide variety of statements in his interviews which aren't to be taken all too seriously. See his interview on 1up for example to see what I mean by this exactly. It's a lovely interview, but for some reason I can't say I'm very inclined to actually go and add to the "Other Known Facts" section of the "Tiberium Wars" article that we will get to see Kane tapdancing within this game's cutscenes; http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3156010 84.192.126.66 10:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, though he was referring to Tiberian Dawn, not Renegade I believe, and, well, this section of the interview was Kucan being serious... Mikael GRizzly 11:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Defense Initiative, Brotherhood of Nod, etc.

As this article is titled simply "Factions of Command & Conquer," it seems to me that it should at least contain links to the main articles of the major factions of the series as well. If, however, the idea of the page is to simply list "other" factions, as the introduction suggests, then shouldn't the article be moved to a more appropriate name? Seth0708 00:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Scrin?

What does scrin briefly mean? 82.114.81.149 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrin Dr. Device

In the exlpanation of the Scrin's mothership, it is said that it carries a Ender's Game Dr. Device. This comparison is rediculous, anyone who's read Ender's Game might recall the fact that shooting the Dr. Device at a planet, destroys it completely. So unless calling in the mothership ends the game by destroying the planet, you can't call it a Dr. Device. If anyone knows what it actually does, please write a better description. --Koruzarius 20:04, 29 March 2007 (EST)