Talk:Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath

message: is Global conquest on the 360 version  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.254.199 (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Conquest 

message: The Battlecast Primetime keeps repeating the 26th as the game's release date. This article, however, claims it to be the 24th. 
Review the battlecast primetime exclusive for a source on the issue. 
http://www.commandandconquer.com/default.aspx
Changing it in the article for the meantime. Sybaronde (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Release Date 

message: The category :Category:Command & Conquer games, which this article is included in, are included in :Category:Real-time strategy video games which makes the categorization of this article in the category :Category:Real-time strategy video games superfluous. --MrStalker talk 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it does not. It allows users to browse games that belong specifically to the command & conquer franchise, without having to plow through the numerous other RTS games.Sybaronde (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I just edited the number of factions to 6, as in 3*2. Then I saw the history page which says that there's 3*2 + 3 = 9. So... Is it possible not to choose a subfaction? If so, someone should add a comment or something. Mtijn 11:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is, just like it was in Zero Hour. Loius Castle himself has said in an interview for GameSpot that the game vill feature nine factions. --MrStalker talk 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: factions?

message: The metagame, or high level game part of the game reminds me somewhat of what they did in Emperor: Battle for Dune, in that the missions are not simply pre-set, but there is some level of choice in the conflict. Although the descriptions of it sound much more fine grained than that which emperor gave us. Also there is much confusion about the "World domination" mode. I have seen that phrase used to describe the meta-game as seen in the single player. I've also seen it described as the "return" of global domination mode. I'm thinking that the term refers only to a multi-player mode, which uses the same meta-game system as the campaigns do. So it may be quite different than the older global domination mode. 66.254.241.199 17:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The high level game 

message: Don't delete the units section in the Kanes Wrath article or something. Its infamous and a computer crime.(TougHHead 05:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gamecruft. --MrStalker talk 10:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't mean it can be shortened a bit. It's almost as long as a page of C&C wikia.--46.138.190.35 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: About Units

message: In the Command and Conquer official website, EA mentioned that "you get a free copy of Kane's Wrath when it ships in March 2008". I just edited the release date on this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.64.178 (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcement Date 

message: It looks like Slavik won't be appearing as the Leader of the Black Hand. Maybe he won't appear at all, which will be very disappointing to the C&C community.
--C&C Modder talk 10:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have confirmation of this, please provide.  If not, no reason to delete this yet. Kalamrir (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slavik is mentioned in one of the cut-scenes, where Kane claims he was killed by GDI. He is not featured in KW beyond that of a single portrait screenshot. Sybaronde (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Hand/Slavik 

message: has EA stated if this is a standalone expansion pack or it requires CnC 3?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Game90 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An expansion pack always requires the base game installed, otherwise it wouldn't be an expansion pack, but a separate game.  --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 01:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. There are standalone expansion packs.WarKosign (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance is a stand-alone expansion pack to Supreme Commander, it doesn't require the original game to play. I would guess the Windows version will be an ordinary expansion, and the 360 version stand-alone. --MrStalker talk 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  standalone? 

message: It says in the article the release date for australia is 1 march?I mean when is than that of europe or really,is it correct?80.80.175.66 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date? 

message: The release date for the xbox 360 version of the game has been pushed back to Jun 10th (US). Can somebody update the page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickziller (talk • contribs) 17:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release dates 

message: Have EA confirmed whether Kane's Wrath will be a simultaneous worldwide release, or be released in different regions on different dates? It might be helpful to clarify. So as not to give us Europeans false hope. 172.212.208.29 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional release dates

message: Someone needs to edit this section for grammar, because I am confused.  Do you mean LEGION is a controllable faction like The Black Hand, or a computer system like EVA?
:There's no playable faction called LEGION in Kane's Wrath.Sybaronde (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  My understanding is that LEGION is the role of the player in the campaign - an updated version of CABAL. 220.239.190.26 (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I fixed up the grammar. I hope it's easier for you to understand. 220.239.190.26 (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CABAL/LEGION

message: I have confirmed personally that local gamestops have the game in, amazon claims it is released as well, so it's general status is released at this point.
Hydryad (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Released in NA at gamestop 

message: If the expansion ends with "Kane connects it to LEGION and presumably sends the AI into the Scrin homeworld", does that mean, there will be another expansion to cover what happens then? Is there any rumor or news about that? I kinda feel that's a bit of a cliffhanger ending... --SoWhy Talk 18:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a cliffhanger, it's either setting things up for the FPS, another expansion pack or C&C4. 220.239.190.26 (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  on original research.  i'm removing this part right away. 84.192.127.254 (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Expansion?

message: Do we have any idea if or when the expansion will be available for Mac? Paullloydjohnson (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mac?

message: The page was feeling bleak so I took some screenshots and threw in images of the faction logo's and the epic units. I don't like how the epic unit images push into the plot section(at my rez at least)so if someone could fix that it would be great, I'm not too good with aligning stuff.Toxic Ninja (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice pics. Can you get the pics of global conquest mode?. To illustrate global mode.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I'll put it here because I wouldn't even know where to start placing it.Toxic Ninja (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Snapped and uploaded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Conquest.JPG If you want anything else just say so. Note: I tried to get nod in the picture but they cloaked all of their bases. Toxic Ninja (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image update (march 08) 

message: I sincerely think the plost part should be erased. Since I haven't got the game yet, everytime I enter this page I fear for spoilers.--Shadowy Crafter (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: New Update: A new discovery has been made, you can now unlock 3 hidden GDI missions by running the last NOD mission where you have to get the Tacitus. Just Capture the GDI MCV and let the countdown go to zero.
--I've yet to see any proof of this. Probably an April Fools Joke. I'm removing it, but it's here if you want to restore it and source it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.86.107 (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Update

message: I seen several changes made in main article about second act final. At first i tought she shoots LEGION too but  after re watching scene I  am more tended to agree that she shoots herself rather than legion. So imo should be changed back to version she shoots herself.Edgarss (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit the first time I watched it I was certain she shot the legion, but I watched it again I saw she did indeed put the gun to to her neck. Still doesn't make sense why she turned, but whatever. It stays off.Toxic Ninja (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't that just be for dramatic effect?  As in "Look what you made me do, you damned AI thing" *bang*.  Also, it'd be harder for the player to see what was going on if she wasn't facing the camera with her gun in plain sight. -Clueless (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought It served several purposes, One being that she wouldn't face kane in death (Just seems like in that situation you wouldn't want to look at him), and for (breaking the 4th wall) cinematic reasons, it looks better as a fluid motion. Also I could have sworn I've seen that move in a previous C&C game...?--Techercizer (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide or shoots LEGION. 

message: Whoever wrote the part about the Scrin now being Overpowered has not played this game thoroughly. It is grossly biased and should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.112.118 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the fact that nearly all of the top players in the ladder playing as the same faction be evidence for this? I don't intend to add it, just that even professional gamers have come out and said it's not quite right at the minute. Also is it worth adding somewhere that some errors that were fixed in Tiberium Wars have re-emerged in Kane's Wrath, widely believed due to it being based on an older build. EA has been tight lipped about any potential patches so unfortunately getting verifiable sources is difficult, but isn't one of the philosophies of wikipedia content not form? 144.32.155.188 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Content not form, yes, but we do need to be able to verify it. Unfortunately, speculation falls down the minute a neutral walks into the article and says "Here, is that actually true? How do I as someone who has only heard of this game after being linked to it in another article know that that's true?". Verifiable sources are needed, I'm afraid. Sources, sources, sources, nothing less can be accepted, if it aint referenced it aint going in.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the official EA forum the community manager / dev has said he acknowledges there are problems and mentions some balance issues and says they're working on it. But then it comes under the issue of notability. (http://forums.ea.com/mboards/thread.jspa?threadID=359671&tstart=0). Anyway, I'll leave it to the editors, just my 2p :) 144.32.155.188 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ***Yeah, I don't really doubt that people have issues with it, but unfortunately we can't use a forum. If you can find another source for it though we can certainly put it in, such as in a review if people have doubts, or something like that, but for now we'll have to leave it I'm afraid.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception

message: I think that it should be mentioned that this game is rife with technical issues, with thousands of fans complaining about errors in the Direct3d engine, an issue which was also present in C&C3:TW, and which EA has never responded to, fixed, or even acknowledged, in spite of tens of thousands of complaints on their technical support forums.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.136.70 (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Issues 

message: The redeemer isn't tripedal, it's quadrupedal. Just wanted someone who has the authorization to correct that. ExternalGazer (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redeemer inconsistancy... 

message: I just had an idea pertaining to images in the article, and was wondering if anybody thinks that it is a good one. We have an image of all 9 faction symbols, but would cutting it into separate sections and placing each one next to the paragraph about it help add cohesion to the article? The faction paragraphs look a tad dull, and adding their faction 'logo' might spruce them up as well as clarify what symbol goes with which faction/sub-faction. FusionMix 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I can handle splitting the images, hopefully I'll get around to it today. I'll leave the main Nod, GDI, and Scrin ones in a bar to be kept near the top of the article though, as I can't see them included seamlessly anywhere unless moved to the main C&C3 article. The images are all split and uploaded, but need to contact User:Toxic Ninja before I replace his image with the split-up versions. FusionMix 17:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Will do. Thanks. FusionMix 00:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done, but do see how it could be messy...I tried to scale the images so that they don't dominate the text, but I'm not sure if I succeeded at that. It does make it colorful though... FusionMix 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as an idea I've moved the Nod images - the middle ones - to the other side of the page, just to break it up a bit and mkae it seem less like a wall of text with the same images just breaking it up. If it doesn't look right, feel free to change it back, it's just an idea really. Further scaling of the images might be necessary as there still looks to be a bit too much text per faction, but maybe a proper copy edit is required to sort that problem?Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clueless has reversed the image layout, but that's because it was messing about with the headings. I've still got no problem with them being put back if that's considered best, though I think it maybe looks a bit better this way. There's quite a lot of images here and avoiding clustering is important.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I do like it this way, though I think the Epic Unit images need to be moved to the other side now. I'm going to reduce the size of the logos too, they're quite large. I'll muck with it a bit, we can see how it looks then. FusionMix 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate faction images 

message: I think although the source is a forum post (http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=362991) this may well merit inclusion, since the poster is one of the top players having won many tournaments / high up on the ladder. He is basically saying there are too many 'luck' or factors in Kane's Wrath that make it a game that's impossible to master, and he criticises EA for not taking the community seriously and rather wanting to just get a game out to make money. I'll leave it to an editor to decide whether it merits inclusion. 144.32.155.188 (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that's a forum, and forums can't be used as qualified sources. Now if he could say something like that elsewhere, that would be interesting. FusionMix 11:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: So if I get your point right, the fact that he can't just develop one strategy and use it to propel himself to the very top means that the diversification of the game and it's subfactions is great and it also means the gameplay is always evolving and requires more than a Rock-Paper-Scissor outcome. Also, I'm sure one of my accounts is up there somewhere on the ladder and I think the game is great, where do opinions end and professional opinions begin? Havoc1310 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere. Even if there was a qualified source, unless this 'professional' happened to be in the industry or as famous as one of the professional StarCrafters who makes boatloads of cash, he probably wouldn't be included. As you've said, it's merely an opinion, and sourced to a forum. He could be mentioned in passing if sourced properly, like to an interview, but wouldn't get his own part in the article in which lots of random 'balance' issues could be introduced by trolls. *cough*SirBlew*cough*. Overall, I don't think it merits a part in the article. FusionMix 12:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top professional gamer criticises Kane's Wrath 

message: There should be a mention on players petitioning for a Mod SDK to be released by EA.
http://forums.ea.com/mboards/thread.jspa?threadID=395244&start=150&tstart=0 <-- Proof.
76.171.182.9 (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mod SDK Petition

message: The text currently says: "This is the only epic unit to be able to attack aircraft."  Why does it say this?  Any of the epic units can be garrisoned with soldiers that can shoot at aircraft.  --Robinson weijman (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire epic unit section must be removed. It is a game guide. Game guide is not allowed in Wikipedia.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake Regarding Scrin Eradicator Hexapod? 

message: There is a significant defect in Global Conquest Mode.  For epic units, e.g. the MARV, infantry can be added to the unit at each battle.  That is, four infantry can be added in one battle and then, if the MARV survives another four units can be added in the next battle, apparently indefinitely.  This makes them practically invulnerable!  Is this something useful to add to the article?  --Robinson weijman (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, evidence can be found here.  --Robinson weijman (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for getting back to me.  My reason for suggesting it was that it reflects the quality of the product - hence why I thought it was relevant.  So, how can I know if something is encyclopedic?  --Robinson weijman (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that you need to ask if its relevant to someone with no past knowledge of video games who comes across the article. Something like that seems very trivial, as it's one tiny means of exploiting something. It's not very important to the quality of the product as a whole, though if you found a reliable source, such as a review (not a blog or fansite or guide) citing it then you could include it. Hope that helps. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is very helpful, thank you.  --Robinson weijman (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Conquest Mode Bug 

message: Some of the data about factions is inaccurate, being based on previews/trailers/what-have-you. I've done a couple of edits to correct the irformation, but I'm not sure how to cite that it's based on my gameplay experience. Hopefully a WikiVeteran can make sense of it. -- 69.63.28.210 (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preview Data 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080321092143/http://www.ea.com.sg/en-sg/promotions/razerkane/ to http://www.ea.com.sg/en-sg/promotions/razerkane/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/games/reviews/171788.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3167096&p=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080401095421/http://gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/8950016F-86AC-404C-8551-D5E144C3F59F.htm to http://gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/8950016F-86AC-404C-8551-D5E144C3F59F.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330071126/http://www.gametap.com/read/article/5180 to http://www.gametap.com/read/article/5180
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)