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

message: Think about the section where tiberium could be a third side should be removed because in 19 december EA tells us about the third side so there should be no speculation.
82.114.81.148 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown 

message: As this article is about a future release, I think there should be a little more leeway allowed for the inclusion of fansites as external links. However we do seem to be going over the top a little. We really need to trim the list down to 4 or so links to such sites. I propose that we include the ones with the most information and get rid of those that just seem to be repeats of press releases and screenshots that all of them have.-Localzuk(talk) 10:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites 

message: I have just read a blog from Mike Verdu explaining that EA has changed several things in the game due to the fans complaints including the return of blue tiberium, visceroids,and mutants. So I'm asking, are they listening and is that a good sign for the game?NODfanatic 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a good thing. Usally Game Developers or publisher dont listen to their fans. Has command & conquer is the father of all RTS. They should listen to their fans if they dont the whole community will drop command and conquer. Has command & conquer 3 is the most awaited game. Iam sure EA will do their best to provide best of the best command & conquer. --SkyWalker 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps. Since this is a since of good faith on EAs part I went ahead and added some of that paragraph into the "Concer over developement" section as evidence that EA is taking the concern over the development seriously. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EA listening? 

message: Is it right to say that there the new juggernaut should be called with MK3 is it really MK3 i think only the mammoth is MK3 so is it good to change it from the article.
82.114.81.148 18:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you think?.... 

message: I wish EA the best of luck with this new game and have a lot of faith in this new game; Things such as the lack of units and small details such as the roof on the pitbull are details that will probobly be resolved before the game is released.
Rob Gyergyek 18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Luck` 

message: Please can editors realise that this talk page is here to discuss the contents of the article, not to discuss what you personally think of the game and it's changes. Please take this sort of talk elsewhere as it is not appropriate. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 13:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm new here so what is your definition of it. Can we say our opinion as this is a discussion page or are we supposed to be unopinionated? Can we discuss things read on ea.com or can we only use the article on wikipediaNODfanatic 16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi and welcome to the site. Article talk pages are for discussing what is, and should be, in the article. Please take a look at our guidelines on how talk pages are supposed to be used. Opinions are welcome on the content of the article, but not on the subject of the article. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 16:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but you are all wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, your contributions are welcome - as long as they are kept on topic and are relevant to the improvement of the site. Personal opinions on changes between versions of this game are not appropriate. If you wish to discuss this within the context of including the information in the article, please do. If you just want to post messages (such as those above) about personal shock and opinions on these changes then this is not the right place - the right place would be a fan-forum. I hope you understand my meaning and do not take it as a 'your views aren't welcome' - because they are, but only within the context of improving the article. Thanks,Localzuk(talk) 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is best to leave your comments there, per the guideline I mentioned earlier. However, if you wish to remove them, you can do as they are your comments. Cheers, Localzuk(talk) 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of this talk page 

message: The article has the NOD Avatar listed as both an infantry and armored unit. I was wondering if that is correct or is it one of them.NODfanatic 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avatar:Infantry or armored unit? 

message: Earlier today I removed the lists of individual units and structures but left the general descriptions. An anonymous user then reverted by edit, stating that it was "far too radical". I'm referring to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.". They make the article look amateurish and unstructured, simply not encyclopedic but fansite'ish. I'm posting my views here because I'm trying to avoid an edit war. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 21:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I agree with you on this one. Lists of units in a forthcoming game - with no references seem like a definite breach of WP:NOT. I have re-removed it.-Localzuk(talk) 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "there should be more screenshots so users can be amazed form[?] the game"??? Wikipedia is not a soapbox! I also find the article already has plenty of images. And concept art is just that, concept art, and has actually nothing to do with the game. I don't know who would even like to read the list of units. I simply skipped it. I'm sure C&C fans can find fansites that are better than Wikipedia. The article should be accessible to casual readers and they aren't interested in knowing that the game has a unit called "Pitbull" or something. And by the way, do the screenshots you keep referring to actually tell the unit names and properties? And don't you think the header "Known units and structures" contradicts with the next sentence, "Actual unit lists and unit names may be subject to change over the course of the game's development"? --ZeroOne (talk | @) 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, everything in an article has to be sourced. Ok, on an article about a future game the definition of 'reliable source' may be somewhat lower, but it still needs citing. I think I will go through the article and flag things with requests for citations and remove blatant original research.-Localzuk(talk) 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You kept insisting that all units listed there can be seen in screenshots and now you say you don't rely on screenshots. What do you rely on then? And I don't think that if a game is unfinished it is any excuse for a Wikipedia article about it to be plain fancruft. I also think the Warhammer: Mark of Chaos article has too many screenshots but at least it doesn't have any excess unit lists. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 12:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a discussion, not a 'discussion war'. The article should only contain well sourced information that adds to the article in some meaningful way. Listing units and building types is pointless - as it doesn't give a reader any extra incite into the game, it just bulks out the page with lists. I have not seen any other articles about games that list units, so why should this one be different?-Localzuk(talk) 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other articles about C&C games contain a list of units, Tiberian_Sun and Command & Conquer: Red Alert --Spacemonkeynz 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit list 

message: I think there should be at least two screenshots,one that shows the Nod side and one for the GDI side,so you can see the two sides,an later on probably the third side could get another screenshot.If you do not agree with me,than the only screenshot should be changed to a screenshot that shows both sides an some units too.
82.114.81.150 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should have a limited selection of screenshots that show a good overview of the game. I will take a look at the official site and make some choices about which ones would be best.-Localzuk(talk) 16:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that any of those screenshots at the official page are that good because they do not show the user interface. For all we know, they could be just artists' renderings. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be so,but there it says they are game screenshots,and there are some screenshots that show the user interface.I think some screenshots without the interface will not change anything.
82.114.81.150 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What is the use of the this insult,no screen interface!Does the mammoth picture have an interface?.That screenshot does not show anything,just two tanks.I would prefer to get another screenshot that tells us about the the game,so GDI and Nod.
82.114.81.145 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pointing out that an image is missing something is hardly an insult. I do not think I have insulted anybody. If I have, I apologize. I sometimes enjoy a good argument, but I will not do personal attacks. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, please just bear with us. Meanwhile, you could register an account as you seem like a fairly active editor anyway. Personally I'm having a little trouble reading your text. Please mind the punctuation and spelling. There are some good online spell checkers you could use. I'm not a native English speaker either so I need text to be well structured to understand it well. If I do not understand a question then I'm not likely to answer it. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a native english speaker.I could write something wrong and make punctutaion mistakes because I am a fast writer.If this is a problem then please tell me where they are,so I can correct them.I am having some problems too so do not expect to be perfect.My problem here is that I want that you complete to put new screenshots in the article,thats it.Localzuk said that he will look for new screenshots. !82.114.68.27 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: Directly after the "casting" section, describing the cast who will be apearing C&C 3, is the "other known facts" section which opens by saying the FMV sequences will return. Is this realy needed, since it has allready been mentionse? 172.141.25.201 19:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is not needed. -Localzuk(talk) 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FMV sequences 

message: I've done a bit of digging, and I've relocated the original source on which I based the now disputed Scrin part originally added to the "Sides Overview - Unnamed Alien Race" section of the article by me.  (Click on the picture contained within this link to enlarge it.)
http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/post-6265-1147374889.jpg
Reading through this again after all this time, I'll say it seems rather dated to the standards of our current knowledge on the ongoing development of C&C 3, however.  Kane's return for example is apparently considered to be a 'question mark' by this source.  Conversely, this was rather obviously published with the consent of the game's developer.  In order to avoid a renewal of the original dispute between editors which this piece of information previously gave rise to, I'm throwing this out for open discussion/review on whether it can be considered a valid reference or not, so that this becomes settled once and for all.  84.192.112.171 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On what exactly are you basing the assumption that I was not doing this before?  By the way, make proper use of the " : " symbol to separate your post from previous posts in the future.  Otherwise, you will create confusion as to whom you are responding to when more than one person has already posted in the same topic. 84.192.126.66 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well my IP number should tell all this mockery.Really I do not respond only for you.
Well I am proud ironically of this...82.114.68.28 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  And in the end I am very surprised how many members support you.
My idea could not even reach to be a topic in this article.
It seems this is not a place for me.82.114.68.28 15:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Scrin reference source 

message: It can be viewed on the official C&C 3: Tiberium Wars homepage.
http://www.ea.com/commandandconquer/news.jsp?id=17
Could someone so inclined upload this packaging art to Wiki and replace the C&C 3 logo we currently have with it?  Thank you.  84.192.126.66 09:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official package art revealed by EA 

message: Out of the four screenshots currently on display in the article which are directly related to C&C 3: Tiberium Wars, there are three that are focussed on the GDI and but one that features the Brotherhood of Nod.  Because of this, it may be desirable to replace either the first screenshot featuring the Mammoth Tanks or the concept art of the Zone Troopers with a picture showing in-game footage of the Brotherhood of Nod instead.  Personally I'd advocate to have the screenshot of the Mammoth Tanks replaced, as it is rather generic when compared to the Zone Troopers concept art picture.  If anyone knows of a few visually interesting in-game screenshots which feature the Brotherhood of Nod, please feel free to upload them to Wikipedia. 84.192.116.92 06:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brotherhood of Nod screenshots

message: Why won't he just die?
: If he dies. They wont be anymore of triberium series and ea wont be able to create anymore game because they are mindless people who just copy other people work. He is also the source of income for EA Games. If you have seen lot of videos. He would say "You can not kill the messiah". I hope that has explained a lot :P. Have fun. --SkyWalker 08:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The cynicism is strong in this one.  84.192.125.204 23:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kane's back

message: I have deleted the background article. I don't feel they is any use of it anymore in this article. The game is going to be released on march 28th. So i feel the article should expand more on the game and should be more readable to all users. I hope everyone agrees it. --SkyWalker 09:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite.  I'd opt to keep the background section in place until the date of the game's release.  The article is unable to expand much more on the game itself at this time, save for the occasional info that is revealed in interviews with the producers and the like, until it actually becomes released.  Lastly, I don't see how the removal of the background section results in the article becoming 'more readable' to 'all users'.  If anything, it is likely to have the opposite effect pending the game's release, as the game itself is not yet available for all to see how it does and does not relate to its predecessors, made by Westwood Studios.  84.192.125.204 09:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I dont see any information interesting in the article. Talking about Red alert 3 and mark skaggs does not make any sense in this article. I pretty much dont see any information relating to Tiberium wars. Create a article History about Command&Conquer and you can write all the history of command & conquer here. --SkyWalker 09:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does actually, as Tiberium Wars essentially replaced the planned Red Alert 3 to give one example, making it part of the context of TW's early development history.  It's also quite obvious that this background section isn't a 'History [of] Command & Conquer' as you put it, as it only pertains to Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars its early development background, and not to that of the C&C series as a whole.  I agree that this section isn't suitable to remain as a permanent addition to the article however -- this is why I will support your call for the removal of it as soon as the game's release date is reached, as I've already been hinting at.  But for now, we may as well keep it as it provides a little additional context to a game under development.  84.192.125.204 11:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting  the background article. 

message: People there gained much more knowledge as to what C&C 3 will be. As to the alien name, it will be the scrin, although it is not official yet EA has acknowledged that there was a leak from a Spanish magazine that first reported this and have not denied the report and had talked the name during the Summit.
misterdan 04:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide some links to substantiate this?  Specifically for the leaked Spanish magazine part, and a reference to EALA having explicitely used the name of 'Scrin' during this summit. DieOfGoodLuck 09:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EA's C&C community manager has confirmed that the name of the third race is (The) Scrin on the official forums. --MrStalker 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: C&C 3 Community Summit

message: Also we should have pictures an details of the preorder and Kane editions.Jamhaw 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Abrahamic" does not quite equate to "worshippers of Abraham".  Click on this link to find out a little more on the subject. DieOfGoodLuck 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I mean't they don't worship God they worship Kane I had already checked ou that article.Jamhaw 14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "From God, to Kane, to Seth." -- Quoted from the first mission briefing cutscene of the Brotherhood of Nod campaign, in Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn. DieOfGoodLuck 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah in fact I thought of maybe saying a don't use that quote against me when I wrote it. The point is that Seth was not your typical Noddy and this was during the Brotherhoods formative days before they organised a dogmatic religion. "Did you all Knowing god say you were going to die to today Slavic" or Kane's "let's show them who's side the gods are on" really while Kane doesn't believe he's a god at least most of his followers do and this is what they preach. 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This doesn't conflict with the notion that the Brotherhood of Nod is Abrahamic by nature.  In the same manner, Christians worship Jesus Christ because they consider him to have been the Messiah, and thus the mortal born personification of God.  But in both cases it is irrelevant to their classification as Abrahamic faiths. DieOfGoodLuck 07:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is it irrelevant? Jamhaw 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is irrelevant, in the sense that all of the Abrahamic religions focus their worshipping of God through a central Messiah or prophet figure.  In Christianity, that figure is Jesus Christ.  In Islam, it is the prophet Muhammed.  In Judaism, the central point of worship is the covenant that existed between Abraham and God, and later also the renewal of this covenant between Moses and God.  However in each of these three examples none of this is relevant to the notion that they are Abrahamic faiths either, because "Abrahamic" is simply a reference to the religion or faith deriving from ancient Semitic tradition, traced back by its adherents to the figure of Abraham.  The Brotherhood of Nod is portrayed in the Command & Conquer games as being very similar to these three real-life religions in that regard, because Nod too traces its origins to ancient Semitic tradition and in part to the name of Abraham in the precise same manner as Christianity, Islam and Judaism do.  The fact that the central figure of worship in Nod is actually Kane, and not Jesus Christ, Muhammed or the covenant between Abraham/Moses and God, subsequently becomes irrelevant to its classification as "Abrahamic". DieOfGoodLuck 08:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nod is not an Abrahamic cult they worship Kane

message: While these comments certainly constitute sufficient confirmation for C&C fans such as ourselves, who have been following the official C&C 3 forums over these last few months, the problem which arises is that the content in this article is required to meet Wikipedia's standards regarding verifiability.  If - and indeed when - other editors on Wikipedia will begin to request verification on this name of 'Scrin' through the placement of a  tag, for example, we would presently be unable to offer this to them due to the content of message boards being prohibited as a valid reference link on Wikipedia, as shown in the provided internal link.  This is a little unfortunate -- I know.  But for now we will need to put this news on hold here on Wiki, until Electronic Arts makes the name of the alien faction official in the more formal sense of the word through updates on their C&C 3 website, or through interviews with established gaming magazines and the like.  DieOfGoodLuck 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the comments of ''C&C 3'''s community manager on the name of 'Scrin' 

message: While I myself know what BFME2 is, I doubt a lot of people will.  Honestly, someone please change the S.R. to something people know.  Bfme 2 requirements- 64 Display memory, windows xp or higher, system memory of 256, directx version 9 or higher, and a processor speed of 1600 Mhz (1.6 Ghz).  There you have it, straight from electronic arts EasyInfo for the game.  Look it up, these are the exact specifications.
:No exact specifications for Tiberium Wars is released, but they are expected to be similar to those of BFMEII. So just click the link if you want to know the specs for BFMEII. --MrStalker 14:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  System Requirements