Talk:Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars

A while back a posted a bunch of pictures of units in the Kane Edition skins. However, since the wiki was still in-verse at the time the pictures weren't used. Now since the split, should I retake pictures of Kane Edition skins again or what?
 * RepublicOfClones 06:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you could, you have my approval :) AthCom 10:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Modding/Control Center/"Game browser" issues.
I really can't find the Control center or "game browser", with which I mean the place where you install mods. Could anyone please help me?

Squads...
I can't find an explanation for squads anywhere. For instance, some unit articles state that having a high squad is a good thing, presumably to avoid insta-killing by snipers, but there's no other information. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:57, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why they were included either. I like the idea, though. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 08:46, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty Differences
What's the differences between every level of difficulties in singleplayer, skirmish and multiplayer? Prices, enemey AI, weapon damage output, armor duration and/or other aspects? --General Wild Dog


 * Enemy AI for sure. Don't know about other aspects. Why? Sheldonist 19:22, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
Is it just me, or did the criticism section really get out of hand? A lot of it reads as original research and personal preference (e.g. shades of grey = bad), assumptions (KW provided "bad explanations" because...it says so) and more based on personal opinion, given the use of informal tone. I can't help but point out the irony of how the Tiberian Twilight page has a more restrained criticism section when that had by far a more lukewarm reception.--Hawki (talk) 02:56, March 18, 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, a lot of what has been added recently is quite petty and opinionated. I was considering reverting or toning it down.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 09:22, March 18, 2015 (UTC)


 * Small world, we once pointing muzzles to each other in Xenopedia, now we meet here. Command & Conquer 3 and Kane's Wrath had been long since besieged by commanders of classical Command & Conquer games, although they have many shining points, but still not enough to redeem themselves (so MOD Tiberium Essence is rated 96% since it partially corrected the wrongs). On the contrary, Command & Conquer 4 does surprisingly good on compositions of structures and units (they should be placed in Command & Conquer 3), although the web-game-like overall design and hastily-compiled plot are major turn-off.
 * Ever since Command & Conquer 3 and Kane's Wrath released, I kept interview every commander I meet (in China). Similar things were done when Red Alert 3 and Uprising were released.
 * "How do you think about Command & Conquer 3/Kane's Wrath?"
 * "Fun to play, but we still HATE it/them!"
 * "Why?"
 * "I have a list for you..."
 * --General Wild Dog (talk) 10:58, March 18, 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither myself nor Hawki claimed C&C3 was perfect. We just think the recently added criticism is petty and unfounded. As for you saying the negatives fail to redeem the game... What? It got really good reviews practically across the board when it came out (85-90%), so clearly the positives were in ascendancy.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 11:16, March 18, 2015 (UTC)


 * If they're not under the title "Command & Conquer", they will definitely be full of positives. Whoever designed/produced these games should never add "Command & Conquer" in the titles, but since they did, we classical Command & Conquer commanders would trial them by "Command & Conquer Standards", and they got F.
 * But what's the big deal? At least there are still people trying to do things in more correct ways via creating MODs. I'm rational enough comparing with those who're shouting to assault EA "for destroying Command & Conquer", although EA really had destroyed it. General Wild Dog (talk) 11:30, March 18, 2015 (UTC)


 * ...None of which has any bearing on the fact this game got great reviews.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 11:39, March 18, 2015 (UTC)\


 * That's why I always suspect some reviewers were bribed. Since I had have seen many great games got bad reviews/ratings and some not-so-good games got good reviews/ratings. I even doubt some of reviewer never play or never completely play the games they were talking about. As for me, I spend at least four months to play a game, another four months to watch others play the same game, third four month to interview those who play the game, before I start to review a game. --General Wild Dog (talk) 11:46, March 18, 2015 (UTC)


 * And yet your supposedly well-researched review focusses largely on trivial matters such as "I don't like that buildings fall apart when you sell them", or highlights things that simply aren't true, like suggesting the in-game unit models are more akin to the 2D sprites in the original game than the units seen in the second game, which is just blatantly false. You've exaggerated the environmental interaction from the previous game - the "destructible and re-freezable ice layers, forest fires" you mention didn't exist at all. Almost none of the things you have highlighted are in any way indicative of the overall quality of the game. You've also added information that reeks of personal opinion, yet you have presented it as fact.


 * And your response when I point out the game was generally given great scores by reviewers? Claiming they were bribed. Sure. That almost completely reinforces the impression the you're just coming up with petty excuses to bad-mouth the game in response to your personal dislike for it.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 14:28, March 18, 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone had already pasted a video on Youtube to demonstrate similarities of structures' and units' modellings/renders between Command & Conquer and Command & Conquer 3 almost seven years ago, but I guess some people are too lazy to check it out, and I think I just met one here. Campaign missions and skirmish maps in Tiberian Sun and Firestorm feature forest fires and destructible and re-freezable ice layers for multiple times, one of GDI's missions even forces you to exploit such feature, by moving an army across fragility-frozen water. But once again, a few people aren't patient enough to complete Campaign Mode of classical Command & Conquer games, or just bad at memorizing things. In classical Command & Conquer, buildings have "dismantle animation" when being sold, selling something is not destroying something, that's a common sense to all civilized people.


 * I personally hold extremely high expectations to Command & Conquer 3 for my long-time service as a commander since Dune 2. If I dislike Command & Conquer 3, I'll just leave it alone, I dig in so deep into it and criticize it because I like it therefore I want it to be much better. I never say the game is bad, it's actually quite good, but not good enough for a Command & Conquer. I had spent more than 300 USD to acquire Kane's Edition, Deluxe Edition and other collectibles. As long as it bears title Command & Conquer, I'll pay for it, even it doesn't deserve to be a part of such an epic RTS franchise.--General Wild Dog (talk) 15:43, March 18, 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a little comment. Quote: "GDI and Nod are clearly portrayed as "good guys" and "bad guys" respectively, but in this game GDI is like an arrogant and stubborn world government, while Nod is showing signs of being a caring group misunderstood by public".
 * Basically - the "good guys"-"bad guys" strict division is a thing of propaganda, rather than real-world politics and military conflict. For example, in USA Vietcong and NVA were viewed as "bad guys" and US troops as "good guys", while in Vietnam itself it was viewed exactly the opposite way. The same true for C&C proper - if we look at the very first game - the Tiberian Dawn, we'll find out that prior to outbreak of the conflict (with bombing BLAMED on "Nod terrorists" as the casus belli) Nod was gaining ground via economical and political actions, including backing pro-Nod politicians in democratic elections, not via outright military agression. Terran Ghost (talk) 01:26, March 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * Video game itself is a form of propaganda. Command & Conquer had already portrayed factions in eastern (Communism) or middle east (Islamic) as bad guys for more than one time. As for Nod, they attempts to convert Earth into an toxic planet by using some sort of black magic missiles and turn human race into some sort of unnatural freaks, even lure aliens to Earth to slaughter civilians, the only bad thing Nod didn't do is writing the vocabulary "bad" on papers. Now when I play original Command & Conquer again, the opening bombing of Grain Trade Center somehow gives foreshadow of 911 terrorist attack.
 * In manual book of very first Command & Conquer, the content explicitly states GDI is "good guys" and Nod is "bad guys--General Wild Dog (talk) 02:28, March 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * So than let's go the facts shown in game. The political situation prior to First Tiberium War
 * http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/cnc/images/5/59/Nodinvadesegypt.png/revision/latest?cb=20130411145057   Africa
 * http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/cnc/images/a/a1/Gdilandsinestonia.png/revision/latest?cb=20130411145007  Europe
 * http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/cnc/images/2/2f/Stronghold-gdi.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130331174135  Global
 * than we have the thing the Nod-aligned nationes counted for 49% of world's tiberium harvesting. So the point is - that Nod brotherhood was gaining global support through political and economical actions, not through military agression. And than a "campaign of urban bombings BLAMED on "nod terrorists" was used as a justification for escalating into a war, with GDI first acting as an agressor. But nothing extraordinary - it's just politics and politics is, well, dirty. Escpecially when it come to military action.
 * "World Altering Missile" and "transforming the Earth's life at atomic level" was never explained by EA, but I doubt that is equal to global genocide. Also considering the Firestorm's storyline with Earth's atmosphere becoming toxic for native Earth's life.....
 * Luring the Scrin to Earth stands out as a truly heinous deed by Kane, but the thing is that this plan is Kane's responsibility alone, and prior to that Brotherhood really did things to make life in Yellow Zone's better for those still living there.... Terran Ghost (talk) 04:48, March 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * Then who was doctoring Białystok Scandal to blame on GDI? And who was attempting to hack Ion Cannon to destroy a major world monument? (luckily Kremlin and Zimniy Dvorets were not on the list, given Russia is a major member state of GDI, or I may wouldn't be able to take photos of them in 2006 summer) Nod had researched Tiberium for many years, don't tell me they're not aware it's deadly to carbon-based species, if Earth is covered into a Tiberium planet, all life will be likely suffocated in poison, and Kane was planning to do it.
 * As for Firestorm, GDI was trying to reverse the Tiberium proliferation to save lives, but Nod attempted undermine their efforts, by assassinating Tratos, for example. Let's just temperately ignore EA screwing up almost all of Westwood's original ideas for later Command & Conquer games for now. What Nod did after Firestorm Crisis? Blowing up GDI's research center to infest Australia into Yellow Zones? Were they really doing things to make Yellow Zone population live better? If they do, why didn't Nod cleanse Yellow Zones into their own Blue Zones, instead of making more Yellow Zones? Given Nod has advanced knowledge of Tiberium than GDI.
 * Luring Scrin to Earth is Kane's own heinous deeds? He founded Nod and he is the supreme leader, what he says Nod does. I don't believe every Nod member is so blind to the bloodshed out there, but most of them is this blind and follows Kane's order like Nazi SS. No wonder Westwood gives Nod a scorpion as trademark, scorpion is always an embodiment of evil in many folklore.--General Wild Dog (talk) 13:33, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * Kane's employing ruthless and even heinous tactics is well known and, as you have said, it remained that way in Tiberium Wars.  My point is that while Nod employ "evil" tactics and have morally doubtful in not outright malevolent final goals (however for Nod it seems like "the end justifies the means" approach) it's not "distilled evil" and some of their actions and policies may be benevolent.
 * GDI, on the other hand, try to maintain peace and order while trying to ensure mankind's future (as they see it) and combating tiberium as a threat to humanity. But GDI also come to situations, when they are forced to do things "ultimately for common good" but malevolent right now. Terran Ghost (talk) 16:54, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * Nazi did many good deeds to population under its dominion, humankind even benefit by Nazi's achievements in numerous fields nowadays, but it doesn't justify them from being common enemy of civilized world.
 * If Nod chose to cooperate with United Nations in first place, they could be the bringer of a new, better world order without triggering any violence, instead they chose the opposite way, thus rendered them as bad as Third Reich.--General Wild Dog (talk) 17:18, March 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * "Someone had already pasted a video on Youtube to demonstrate similarities of structures' and units' modellings/renders between Command & Conquer and Command & Conquer 3 almost seven years ago, but I guess some people are too lazy to check it out, and I think I just met one here."

I'm sorry, WHAT?! If you're going to cite a random video as support for your argument, you should have the decency to bring it here as evidence. It's not up to other people to realise there's some obscure clip on YouTube that they should obviously check out because it's pertinent to your argument. If you're debating with someone and you're evidence isn't obvious, you're expected to provide it, you don't ask the opposition to go find it for themselves. You certainly don't accuse them of being "lazy" for not being telepathic and knowing they should trawl through all of YouTube to find one specific video clip you didn't even mention previously.

And again I raise the point that you're obsessed with trivial points like the lack of sell animations on structures. That's like saying C&C3 is crap because you don't like the colour of one of the infantry units. Is it an oversight? Sure. Does it ruin the entire experience of the game? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 10:52, March 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * Youtube had been censored by Chinese Communist Party since February 2009, and you want a Chinese like me to paste a video from Youtube? Very well, I managed to record it before it got censored since I'm slightly more diligent than others. You want it, go and take it.
 * Now you're making assumptions. I never say Command & Conquer 3 is bad, if I think it's bad, I won't spend a penny on it and won't mention a word of it (I'm curious how much you spend on this game and its expansion pack, I had spend more than 300 USD by sourcing directly from USA). I just sincerely pointed out a summary of possible improvements after years of digging in and inquiries to other commanders for I want it to be worthy for this epic title "Command & Conquer". Then you're assuming I'm badmouthing the game. Considering what happened in Xenopedia, you have started it and fallen for it...again.--General Wild Dog (talk) 13:58, March 19, 2015 (UTC)