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?


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. 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)


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" 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!"
"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
Nodinvadesegypt.png   Africa
Gdilandsinestonia.png  Europe
Stronghold-gdi.jpg  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)
Well, precisely that way. But that thing didn't changed in C&C3 Tiberium Wars-  Nod's tactics still ruthless, and Kane's means (like well, killing many people due to liquid-T bomb in Saraevo and Scrins' actions on Earth) to achieve his goals often morally heinous and reprehensible. EA simply showed two additions - that some actions of the Brotherhood may be benevolent and that some members of the Brotherhood may sincerely think they work for common good (for example, Killian Quatar even defying Kane's means as unacceptable).
As for the GDI (and me personally is generally pro-GDI) - the goals of the organization was for common good. But the circumstances sometimes "force the hands of GDI". For example - with tiberium overrunning the Earth and national governments collapsing and becoming defunct GDI was forced to implement "new world order". In the end it even turned out to be "for common good" also - since GDI finally achieved the elimination of inter-national rivalries and wars. Terran Ghost (talk) 18:43, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
That's one of the many screw-ups EA had done to Westwood's grand legacy. From Westwood's perspective, bad guy is purely bad, good guy is purely good, no middle ground for them. So Command & Conquer 3 is not a sequel to Command & Conquer 2, it's even hardly to be counted as "Command & Conquer".--General Wild Dog (talk) 19:13, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
This is no means a "screw up" - on the contrary - it is bringing the new depth to the storyline and more realism to the game's world. As for "Command and Conquer" it is a franchise having three distinctive universes. As for "sequel" part - well, with Kane's Wrath the storyline goes perfectly from Firestorm to C&C3. Terran Ghost (talk) 20:30, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
Seeking realism in fiction works? I can't help to laugh, heartily and loudly. Realism is just out the windows, on the streets, seek realism out there, not here. Westwood had already generated two possible, fantastic developments for later games, none of both were put in use in Tiberium Wars, not even the game title Westwood originally planned. Tiberium Wars and Kane's Wrath completely reversed the cliffhangers left by Firestorm, GDI's translation and utilization of Tacitus's knowledge should be going well; Cabal should be a separated faction, and Kane (or Kane Clone) should have a collective mind merged by himself and Cabal; Forgotten should grow strong and has mastery of some abilities related to Tiberium; while Scrin may or may not come to Earth to collect Tiberium and to search for their national treasure (Tacitus)... And judging from leaked footage of Westwood's incomplete Command & Conquer 3, gameplay may more concentrated on small, tactical squads rather than large divisions. EA just scraped almost all the ideas. They're scared someone will point out Westwood never plan to let Command & Conquer 3 becoming what it is now, so they falsified a Kane's Wrath to fabricate an exculpation for themselves, but not all of us are so easily to be decived for we know how Westwood intended to continue Command & Conquer's legend.
All right, let's just say the least, in Firestorm GDI's command center clearly shows a holographic projector, where are holographic projection devices in Tiberium Wars? Shouldn't it be widely used in 2047? Did EA really studied source materials left by Westwood?--General Wild Dog (talk) 02:43, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
As for me - both Tiberian Sun and Tiberium Wars/Kane's Wrath are great games - and I don't care about whatever plans Westwood crew MIGHT have had for C&C3 before they split up with the EA. The thing is that "works of fictions" are made either for personal entertainment only, or for commercial gain. C&C franchise was for commercial gain from the start - EA bought it (along with Westwood itself) for commercial exploit. 
And what's bad in adding realism instead of cartoonishness to the game's plot? Since Tiberian Sun itself was a go in that direction. Terran Ghost (talk) 04:36, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
Tiberium Wars/Kane's Wrath are great games indeed, but they're not "Command & Conquer". Red Alert 3 and Uprising are the same. I don't care EA doing anything, but since they're not good enough to inherit what Westwood had bestowed, then just leave it alone. There's no Command & Conquer after Yuri's Revenge. To say the least, rename it as "Command & Conquer Re-start: Tiberium Wars" and I won't be so demanding.
To say the realism, the biggest realism should be Russia becoming primary backer of Nod in response of Western Expansionism, with cooperation of China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Vietnam. And what's the good of adding realism? People escapes into fiction because they're fed up by realism. --General Wild Dog (talk) 05:17, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
Got the point. The added realism was in form of better in-depth perception of universe. For example benevolent policies by Nod's top brass (Kane and his Inner Circle) have a simple explanation - they need folk to recruit in their armed forces and militias and they of course employed propaganda campaign (like to nazi Germany did in real world, for example). Those Nod officers that "joined the crew" thinking they fight for common good were influenced by that propaganda campaign. It culminated in Killian Quatar trying to re-forge the Brotherhood into the image propaganda shown, and it ultimately led to her demise since Nod brotherhood is Kane's creation and his alone. Nothing changed from the previous games.
As for GDI/Nod division during First Tiberium War...well, Nod had political influenced in Europe and had led a number of European nations into following Nod's cause. The case with Russia's involvement with GDI could be explained simply - GDI offered better terms.
As for GDI's "bad side" they were also shown in classical games - from GDI's employing of nuclear blackmail to prevent national governments in Africa from supporting Nod's cause in Tiberian Dawn to GDI's backing of puppet dictator Hassan in Tiberian Sun.
Red Alert 3 simply taken the trend that was laid down in Red Alert 2 - it is cartoonish and tries to be satirical, it still had dieselpunk (and Cold War stereotypes-esque) Soviets, and the game itself isn't bad at all. --Terran Ghost (talk) 07:00, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
GDI may blackmail some nations with nuclear weapon, but they never actually launch a nuke. Nod dropped a stockpile of tactical nukes during first war, even use BC weapon in second war. Use of NBC armament is a suicide politic stunt in real-world especially for an entity with a size of a nation or bigger, shouldn't GDI's propaganda exploit it and shouldn't some affiliated governments and heavy-weights aware of this dangerous move and break-off from Nod? No, many things superposed to happen by common sense never happen. There's no realism in video games, Tiberium itself is not real, and those ground troops never need to call in ammunition replenishment, and which idiot set a tank-producing factory right on battlefield? Conquering Estonia by just winning a lowest-intensity skirmish (not even a campaign) on such a tiny map? If GDI's term can change a powerful nation's mind like Russia, then why GDI cannot persuade some small, weak and poor nations in Africa? Those countries are even easier to be convinced by a correct price. Once again, I can't help but laugh heartily and loudly.
GDI didn't exterminate last trace of defeated Nod, but instead they arranged a puppet leader, such move is unrealistic itself. If it's realistic, USA can just kill Bin Laden then place a leader under their supervision to bring al-Qaeda under their command. GDI is acquiring enormous quantity of diversified knowledge of Tiberium from Tacitus in end of Firestrom Crisis and utilize them for cleansing Earth, and they didn't figure out blowing up Liquid Tiberium will trigger a devastating chain reaction at first place, even attract some extraterrestrial guests? Too many things are against so-called realism, no wonder someone said "When you're trying to see realistic things from fictions, you should consult a psychologist immediately".
Last but not the least, if Einstein is erased in 1927, Red Alert 1's war should be completely tipped to Soviet's favor, and they even incapable of driving Allied out of Europe until 1986? Who was put in charge of Soviet's strategies? He should be executed by such incapability. If Einstein is erased, there should be no theoretical and practical foundation of time-space travel, and Soviets should never be able to construct a time machine or something akin, so erasing Einstein should never happen. Same as Einstein erases Hitler, it should never happen if he really travels to 1924, since no Hitler, Germany wouldn't gone Nazi, Einstein didn't need to flee to USA to create time machine, then he never travels back.--General Wild Dog (talk) 12:30, March 20, 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)
Things you consider "improvements" does not necessarily equal fair or just criticism. You keep mentioning "other commanders" like that holds any real weight. These could be people you have invented for all I know. You have no evidence. That is why what you're saying can seem like badmouthing. You have nothing but your word to back it up. On the other hand, there is ample evidence for the game receiving very good review scores indeed.
As for the video, it won't play.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 10:45, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
Use an English-Chinese dictionary to find where the download button is. I once thought it's easy enough for even someone who doesn't know Chinese language to understand a particular button with a specific icon on it which means "download", but it's obviously I was putting on an expectation too high.
Those reviewers never have evidences to prove they're clean, no bribery, considering bribery is rather common in real world, particularly some great games got bad reviews/ratings in so-called famous video game websites. I admit I'm bribed. Many commands want me to say something for them, they didn't give me money, but they give me courage (also because they're bad at English). Seems I hurt many fragile hearts again by saying truth, to that end, change "Criticism" to "Differences from Previous Games" then everyone can feel better.
Someone else (probably a radical commander and/or fundamentalist) pasted a video of Command & Conquer 3's gameplay footage titled as "The Day when Command & Conquer Fails (or a similar name)" on Youtube years ago, however I still don't think the game is a failure since it's fun to be played as a plain RTS, however it's not a plain RTS, it's title says it's Command & Conquer, something should distinguishes itself from common RTS games.--General Wild Dog (talk) 12:51, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

As for now, I'm removing the most dubious parts of the section like the things that "large-scale" ion storms were cut out of universe, that was not the case and they are mentioned in the intel data you receive during the game, for example. 

The other thing is claim of "unit A from Tiberian Sun is more expensive than unit B from Tiberium Wars". In-game "credits"/requisition points are there to maintain balance, not to accuretely portray the price of production, and because of that "credit" from Tiberian Sun does not equal a similar "credit" from Tiberium Wars.

The question I want to ask, considering the Wiki's policy it is whether the criticism section is meant for review of how the game fared and what reception it get or it is for a single contributor to express his personal opinion based on his tastes only? 00:21, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

Few contributors still active here, many of them had ceased to come. For no new Command & Conquer games are in-production and no expanded-universe information released. Let's face it, Command & Conquer had been destroyed by "you-know-who".
But on the contrary, it might be a good thing, since Command & Conquer games after Yuri's Revenge are not good enough, therefore Command & Conquer should be placed in suspended animation, waiting for the "true messiah" to come.--General Wild Dog (talk) 02:20, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
"The question I want to ask, considering the Wiki's policy it is whether the criticism section is meant for review of how the game fared and what reception it get or it is for a single contributor to express his personal opinion based on his tastes only?"
I would say unquestionably the former.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 10:47, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
That's the point. This Wiki is after all, an encyclopedia, so it's articles are to provide information on C&C games, their plot/story elements and background story, not to act as a forum/rating board to post editors' individual gaming experience and acclaim/criticism. So right now I propose changing the "criticism" section into "reception" and post a summary on how the game was received.
As for the continuity questions about game world's elements like subterranean units for me such info belongs to thematic articles on corresponding subjects. --Terran Ghost (talk) 11:05, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
Then how 'bout this? Establish a page titled "Wish List", everyone can put down what a "correct" Command & Conquer should be at there. I once leaned this in and proposed it in EVA Database years ago. If we cannot reach a consensus here.
Huh. I certainly didn't expect to start this level of debate. But look, I never claimed that the article should be free of criticism, only that the criticism should be impartial, and based on sources. To sum up the section:
  • Base design. That's a gameplay change with no inherant pro or con. Base design has shifted in RTS series before, it is subjective to say which is better.
  • Tech: Hover units, walkers, etc. That actually did have an explanation in the leadup to the game (GDI downsizing). How one feels about the explanation is down to personal preference, but it's incorrect to say that no explanation exists.
  • Renders/modelings: Subjective, no source of comments.
  • Tiberium: Worth a note in its own page. From what I understand, it's an in-universe evolution of tiberium, but if not, that's not inherantly bad or good, just something to be noted in the host article.
  • Forgotten/Wildlife: A gameplay change. Can be noted, but not inherantly good or bad.
  • "Good guys"/bad guys: Possibly something to note in the GDI/Nod articles, but shades of gray is not inherently a negative. And going by the above discussion, there's been plenty of interpretation already of said "shades of grey."
  • Landscape/Other: Again, worth noting, but not inherently a negative.
So yes. The information isn't incorrect per se, but the way it's phrased makes it seem like these are inherently negative traits.--Hawki (talk) 10:42, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
And the debate is showing trends to evolve into a war between China and United Kingdom (a deja vu of Tomorrow Never Dies), fighting over for discourse power. For many people who grew up with Command & Conquer, it's not only a game, but a faith. They would definitely consider EA's Command & Conquer 3 is a betrayal. If Christians don't like someone tamper Holy Bible, neither do Command & Conquer commanders. I had summed up and listed up the should-be-done improvements for Red Alert 3 after years of dissection and consulting, but I'm not going to add them since they'll hurt many people's fragile hearts (unlikely, since by obvious reasons, few people come here). We classical Command & Conquer commanders never completely reject Command & Conquer 3, on the contrary, we have an open mind, just there's a red line to be respected, the red line to "keep Command & Conquer as Command & Conquer". For example the Tiberium, EA hired MIT staff to conceive a new theory of it's growth and spread, it's very innovative and impressive, but they should never abandon the classical ideas of Tiberium. They can just combine both of concepts together, like "Tiberium leeches nutrition and minerals from soil to grow and reproduce itself via roots and tiny spores, but recently, a new cycle has been discovered, that is, Tiberium can covert other substance into itself by affect on molecular, even sub-atomic levels...although the second process is extremely slow, but it can be astonishingly faster in most contaminated areas...".
Let's just say there's no fault to everyone who is in this debate, EA is the very origin to be blamed, they messed something important up, severely.--General Wild Dog (talk) 11:40, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
A betrayal of what and by whom? C&C was a commercial (for money) undertaking from the start (Tiberian Dawn) - it was never "by fans for fans", and as such it employs a different logic altogether. EA bought out Westwood in 1998, along with all of their franchises, including C&C. Some time after the commercial failure of C&C Renegade EA implemented reorganization which saw EA-owned Westwood shut down and some of the personnel offered jobs at EA Los Angeles. The reasoning for this was to cut the costs and maximize the profits. It is well, business, not a betrayal.
Keep C&C as C&C? But what is that C&C that should be kept? For example, considering "moral shades of gray" existed as long as well, Tiberian Dawn itself. The thing is simple, while Nod are the "bad guys" of Tiberian Saga (and it remained that way in C&C3), they are, well "lawful evil" subtype, not "chaotic evil", a nazi regime hellbent on control and achieving their objectives, while remaining fanatically loyal to their leader, rather than a vandal horde, hellbent on rape, murder and destruction.  This perfectly explain Nod's caring for some Yellow zone's inhabitants - they need loyal soldiers and workers for their cause, and they are building an example of Nod-dominated societies. Perfectly in line with Tiberian Dawn's Nod, for example. 
Tiberium's change of nature is even explained as evolution, rather than retconning it without any explanation given. (Offtopic - and a badge of shame goes to Games Workshop for retcons in WH40K storyline with .. no explanations given ).
And one more thing - C&C lore and setting changed rather dramatically between Tiberian Dawn and Tiberian Sun. Would that be also "a betrayal"? Terran Ghost (talk) 19:12, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
A betrayal of an epic RTS franchise by a group of American folks who flattered themselves to be qualified enough, and they damaged it badly. Command & Conquer is a commercial undertaking from a business perspective, but for many people who's not businessmen, Command & Conquer is an important component in their spiritual life, an art, even since their childhood. We don't care it's commercial or not, just don't use commercial as an excuse to infringe upon what is important to us. We Chinese have old sayings "do not touch it if you are not good enough", "over-use is suicide", but since they're American, they're isolated from Chinese wisdom. Wall Street Crisis is a direct example of over-use of commercial undertaking, Westwood knows how to keep the balance of making money and making art, but unfortunately EA doesn't know, and they don't want to know.
Westwood never see Command & Conquer purely commercial, they put their hearts into it to bring enjoyment and welfare to others. They didn't need to boast, we can feel it. Blizzard never see StarCraft a pure commercial, they put their hearts into it like Westwood did, and I'm not surprised StarCraft 2 is even better than I expected, after acknowledging some Westwood crew joined Blizzard after EA denounced their organization. Westwood and Blizzard know how to do things right.
I had already made a list what a Command & Conquer should be years ago, but consider to maintain a relatively harmonious politic atmosphere here, I won't publish it until everyone agrees. If Nod really care about people, they should team up with UN at first place to avoid bloodshed. Almost every nation under Nod's influence had become most contaminated area, this is hardly counted as caring, not to say Nod uses NBC weaponry like boys with toy guns. When GDI is struggling to keep the world as it used to be, Nod is wielding more havoc global-wide. Then suddenly in Tiberium Wars GDI satisfied to isolated themselves in so-called blue zones, Nod suddenly began to help people not in blue zones although they never even try to use their knowledge of Tiberium to create new blue zones. Just who wrote this script? Did he ever played Command & Conquer before?
Tiberium's evolution? If use the term "mutation" then I won't laugh heartily and loudly. EA is afraid, they knew they had messed up, and they're scared someone will reveal the truth. So they are in haste to erase last traces of "Westwood's Command & Conquer". Evolution is a long and slow progress, with old bio-characteristics gradually fade and new bio-characteristics gradually take place, but after 2034 as EA stated, BANG! Tiberium is no longer the Tiberium as we knew. I won't be so demanding even if they let new Tiberium cycle enter existence slowly and co-exist with classical Tiberium traits, then gradually take over. Command & Conquer is changing ever since its conception, but it never changes into something beyond recognizable under Westwood's hard-works. Anthropoid can evolve into human, but not into dinosaur, ironically EA always want mammal primate to grow into a giant lizard reptile. Darwin will come out from his grave if he knows this.
How fundamentalism comes to life? This is the reason. Fundamentalism can easily "evolve" into extremism, and I had already seen it shortly after Command & Conquer 3 was released. Same happened after Red Alert 3 was released. Since I majored in counter-extremism and counter-terrorism in university, I must point out EA had that coming.--General Wild Dog (talk) 02:54, March 22, 2015 (UTC)
You mentioned StarCraft 2 as an example of a greatly made game, that it certainly is. But - EA put much skill, labor and soul into C&C3 to make it a very decent game. And most of your dissatisfaction is well on the level of castigating Blizzard for changing the design of zerglings in StarCraft 2 and implementing some balance overhaul (that goes for complaining about abandoning grids/tiles system of base management and replacing it with something new). And there are plot holes in StarCraft-StarCraft2 also. 
To avoid bloodshed when? If you speak about Tiberian-dawn era, then it's GDI who started the war after some terrorist acts that were BLAMED (not proven) on Nod. Until then Nod used economic and political leverages to win public support - it is said so in the game itself. And then we have entire Nod-affiliated nations. We are simply not shown the inevitable civilian and more benevolent-looking aspects of day-to-day life in Nod-controlled areas. Life that be all logic should be - since it is still the same Earth where GDI located - not a demon world in the Eye of Terror. Then what's the bid deal - a Nod-originated propaganda message in C&C we get in Intel on the start of Nod's C&C3 campaign? Terran Ghost (talk) 05:10, March 22, 2015 (UTC)
EA has everything but one essential: Qualification. They don't have what it takes to continue Westwood's legacy, the more resources they invest, the further they go on a wrong direction. Command & Conquer 3 is a decent game? You underestimated it too much, Command & Conquer 3 is a magnificent game, but it is never a magnificent Command & Conquer Game. I'm never a StarCraft commander, I don't care Blizzard for doing anything, if Blizzard wants to shut down StarCraft immediately, they're welcome. My loyalty is devoted to Command & Conquer, no matter how it becomes, I'm willing to defend its glory and for same reason, I wish after Westwood is denounced, someone who is good enough will pick up what they left, to complete this grand epopee. Unfortunately, no one is good enough, Command & Conquer belongs only to Westwood. As for StarCraft, I always see it as an enemy to Command & Conquer. I wish more plot holes in StarCraft, then Command & Conquer can be proved to be superior than it. If I'm someone who grew up with StarCraft, I'll be demanding as well.
If Nod can win support via non-violence, why they can't win UN's support by similar approach? They don't want to, they never want to create a better future by using Tiberium peacefully and working with rest of the world peacefully. The best possibility is they are plotting to overthrow world order and take control of it via creating chaos. But what's the big deal? They're bad guys, they're privileged to do bad things and plot something sinister. If they're told to be bad, then be a magnificent bad, no mercy, do all the bad things one can image. Why many people is attracted by Nod, especially Kane? Because Dark Side is always seductive, they know they shouldn't do something, but they want to do those things because they shouldn't. Dark Side unleashes one's potential of destruction, and it feels good.--General Wild Dog (talk) 17:15, March 22, 2015 (UTC)
"Unfortunately", Westwood sold out C&C to EA on their own authority in 1998. So C&C is EA's to exploit commercially and to develop as they see fit. 
What they don't want to? As for Tiberian Dawn timeline Nod did spread their influence peacefully up until GDI used "urban bombing campaign" BLAMED on Nod to start a war. They also did compete for UN support with GDI - just remember the Byalistok scandal and the Ion cannon hacking - both of the actions (also an example of ruthless tactics employed by Nod) were to destroy GDI's public image and force UN to look to Nod brotherhood for "keeping the peace". What had changed in C&C3? Well, not much - Nod and Kane are still plotting towards goals benevolent in their eyes but sinister to those who not support Nod's cause. They still employ ruthless and heinous tactics (there is plenty of examples of such tactics), and they still wage propaganda war, like the did in First Tiberium War and like the nazi did in real world. So yeah, they are still the same "bad guys" but shades of grey still exists as they were. 
And Nod never was a raping and murdering vandal horde, just never. They were an ancient secret society with a goals for world domination and humanity's uplifting and they do utilise "the end justify the deed approach" that explain they using ruthless tactics. Just a perfect example of "lawful evil" "bad guys". 18:51, March 22, 2015 (UTC)
"And one more thing - C&C lore and setting changed rather dramatically between Tiberian Dawn and Tiberian Sun. Would that be also "a betrayal"?"
This is actually a very good point. Most obviously, Nod went from "equality for the little guy/down with GDI" in the original game to "infest the entire planet with Tiberium and thereby inevitably cause the deaths of billions" in the second. Any argument that C&C3 changed the franchise too much could equally be leveled against Tib Sun. Just because you prefer the changes they made for the second game doesn't make it a valid criticism against the third.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 11:09, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Westwood knows how to keep the "evolution" not become a "mutation". Tiberium is spreading fast after first war, benefited by suitable climate and nutrition provided by Earth's temperate zones, and it still retains fundamental nature such as an extraterrestrial plant-mineral with strange effects to organic lives. GDI is still struggling to counter Tiberium proliferation and save lives, while Nod is still attempting to sabotage GDI's commitment, kill people and using Tiberium as weapons like they did in first war. Kane is still a ambitious schemer wants to use Tiberium to dominate the world. Things are changing, to a correct direction. Westwood does it well like it always did.--General Wild Dog (talk) 17:33, March 22, 2015 (UTC)
Nod's goals were not about killing people, but about forcefully bringing human race "to new step of evolution". That's how it was in both C&C2 and C&C3. 18:51, March 22, 2015 (UTC)
That maybe even worse, turning everyone into Tiberium freaks.--General Wild Dog (talk) 19:51, March 22, 2015 (UTC)
Thing is that we simply don't know what actually happened. There were words about "Earth's life changing at atomic level" (and that's not simply a mutation) after World Altering Missile's "detonation" and we have thing that Nod's followers do believe this is actually a step forward in humanity's evolution. That's for C&C2.
In C&C3 a perceived step forward in human evolution is referenced as the Ascension and it is implied that Scrin technology will play part in it. 
And in both games Nod follow the suite of "the end justify the means" thus employing ruthless of outright heinous tactics at times. 
PS: Also about Tiberium changing. That could easily be brought about as an unforeseen consequence of GDI's methods employed (after the events of Firestorm) to avert Earth's atmosphere becoming toxic to carbon-based life.
PPS: Also about "shades of gray" - if we follow C&C2 and Firestorm's storyline we will find out that Tiberium infestation will make Earth's atmosphere toxic to carbon-based life forms in foreseeable future. So Nod's "technology of peace" and forced "change at atomic level" of all life is a drastic measure and with not known consequence, but it seems a method to avert humanity's certain doom if "do nothing" course of action followed Terran Ghost (talk) 20:44, March 22, 2015 (UTC)
Changing at atomic level? Changing into what? We have already seen human is changed into devastating Visceroids in small patches of Tiberium fields, or simply die of Tiberium poisoning. If entire planet is covered by Tiberium, do anyone can image what scale of catastrophe will occur? Ascension? To where? Killing everyone and let God to sort their souls out? To that end, Kane should consult a psychologist. If Kane and Nod really want to save humankind, do it from basic: Cleaning Tiberium field in their home's backyard for starters. Kane is playing something he even cannot understand all the time, much less to save someone, and fancies himself can reshape the world as he saw fit.
If Kane knows Tiberium so well, why he still needs decades to develop associated technologies, even kidnap scientists from other factions? He can just do all brain-works by himself in a very short order, directly produces and provides blueprints to manufacturers under his command. So Kane is not some Messiah, he is just a fanatic ambitious schemer who willing to take entire Earth as a risk.
To say the least, if Tiberium changes fundamentally after 2034 in a blink, EA could find a way better reason: E.g. too much soil of Earth's surface had been leeched out of nutrition and minerals, rendering them barren, to continue their proliferation, Tiberium added a second cycle, changing any substances they make contact into themselves, this new approach of reproduction also changed Tiberium's appearance, from plant-like to crystal-like, and makes them spread even faster...not some farfetched reason like "because GDI's effects of reclamation and decontamination of atmosphere, Tiberium's evolution rapidly accelerated". Even someone like me is better than EA on telling stories.--General Wild Dog (talk) 05:38, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
So lets first look at info EA provided in the C&C3 in-game "intel data" - they are actually saying that in it's early development it was the plant-like organism and than it simply ... changed, much to the suprise of GDI's scientists. 
It was not simply covering the entire planet with tiberium... it was changing all the Earth's life at atomic level from carbon-based to tiberium-based. At least, that's how Nod's followers believed it gonna be.
And that's the fundamental difference between GDI and Nod if we take C&C2-C&C3 eras. While Nod toy with "next step of evolution" playing things they do not entirely understand and taking great risks, GDI take a cautious approach, prefering the status quo where applicable.  The final irony is that at some point after C&C2 GDI started to be part of Kane's plan - first off all they were needed to eradicate the Scrin after the aliens did what Kane wanted them to and then - GDI was needed to just "keep the peace" until Kane bring about the Ascension. Terran Ghost (talk) 06:42, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
"Simply changed", that's how EA explains things? No wonder they did pretty a bad job on continuing Westwood's legacy. I once thought EA's collective intelligence could be sufficient at putting up a convincing reason, but the objective truth is...they're not that smart, at least not as smart as I am. Maybe this is the example of Principle of Tenth People.
Westwood intended to let Tiberium to merge with Earth and its biosphere, but instead EA let Tiberium to kill everyone, let's witness how Tiberium wildlife disappear one by one in transition between Firestorm and Tiberium Wars, a mass extinction. Guess EA isn't industrious and courageous enough to add them in actual game, so just fabricate a reason to kill them off.
Playing some thing they don't understand is practically suicide, and Nod wants to take entire human race with them, great, pretty smart. Good job, Kane, you established a fine example of boldness and self-aggrandizement, which secured your third position on a list I saw in a video game magazine 15 years ago, a list called "Ten Most Magnificent Evil Overlords in Video Games".--General Wild Dog (talk) 09:22, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the criticism section. The debate here has boiled down to pure preferences, and while preferences are fine, it's hardly a basis for objective info. All the info that was there should ideally be found in other articles (e.g. the tiberium one) or presented objectively (e.g. the base mechanics).--Hawki (talk) 01:50, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
Constitution guarantees your rights of free speech, so you can do whatever you want, so do I. And you happened to erase a few objective, unbiased contents, such as "Though the game was well received by many fans".--General Wild Dog (talk) 05:38, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

That criticism section was anything but objective and unbiased... No argument with seeing it gone.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 08:50, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

Ironically "Though the game was well received by many fans" was written by someone else way earlier, and I second that statement very much. Guess someone never carefully review editing history when he/she is making an edit. Now you have been non-objective and non-unbiased, maybe a part of me had infested virus or Tiberium spore?--General Wild Dog (talk) 09:30, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
Stating that the game was well received by many fans is just as biased as everything else in the section. The section goes both ways. But the main issue is that such statements constitute original research, which is generally frowned on in wikis.--Hawki (talk) 22:44, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
Wiki itself is a collection of original researches. That's why many universities and collages forbid students from taking any references from Wikipedia or any website akin. If nobody borders doing original researches, I'll do it for them. This is a fiction anyways, especially original developer is defunct and current developer had clearly abandoned it. Original research may help it to draw some attentions, which will be a good thing.--General Wild Dog (talk) 00:23, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, original research is actually strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, since it is well, an encyclopedia. As such - personal experience and opinions do not belong in articles, also because not everyone would readily agree with your point of view. Also - Wiki is not an experiment in democracy or exercising free speech on issues. Terran Ghost (talk) 06:39, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself and its variants are discouraged by many academics, even governments. As far as I know, some nations have their own Wikipedia variants and they clearly classified some sovereign states as "evil", "empires", quite contrary to "that" Wikipedia said, so only God is objective and unbiased, unfortunately God doesn't exist. I can just reverse recent edits, but I won't, before a common consensus is achieved. Since I respect everyone's rights of free speech despite I came from a country quite authoritarianism (from Wikipedia's perspective, my fatherland is like that way). I may be a fundamentalist, but I'm not an extremest.--General Wild Dog (talk) 16:41, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.