Waraddict

Ask the community? I'd make a bet the next C&C won't be too good... It's a not a question of whether the community as a whole is good of thinking of ideas, it's just the fact that 1. It hints that the development team may not have much confidence in their own decisions and basically probably don't know what's fun. 2. If, at best, the community gives good ideas, you can't just throw them altogether and hope that you get a good game, compromise between all these ideas could end up with a pretty rubbish game. 3. Also worth noting, although an idea may seem like a good idea in theory, we may not like how that idea is implemented in the actual finished game. I'd really like them to stop ignoring the fanbase at one stage in the series' development, going all gun-ho with their complete own interpretation on what the community wants and then effectively turning to us afterwards at a later stage to ask 'so you think you know how to make a good game? Well tell us then!'. Just simply look back on the past C&Cs, see what worked and didn't work, use your own senses on what was fun and what wasn't, I always wondered why some of the more fun innovative features introduced in one C&C were missing in the next C&C, e.g. General's XP system was fun and I think it would have fitted fine into C&C3 without ruining the feel. If the Development team aren't capable of doing this, then they're simply not suitable for the job.

I'd say retcon EA's tiberium altogether, it's in the spirit of EA style fluff anyway, EA fluff always contradicts itself. Simply put, EA's tiberium was a bad entertainment decision, doesn't matter how well the transition from enigmatic interesting tiberium to brainlessly boring kryptonite tiberium is explained, it's still bad entertainment.

I'm amazed how genuine openRA feels in comparison to the real thing, a real excellent job. If its' any help, these are the specs of the computer I had serious performance issues with openRA on. Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU @ 2.40gHz Memory: 4GB System type: 32-bit OS: Vista Ultimate Service Pack 1 Gfx: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT Sound: Creative SB X-Fi

Woah! That application is a guzzler! Some serious optimisation is needed here I'm afraid.

Not after what they've done to it. After C&C4, they're either going to let it die or wait a few years (to make sure most people have forgotten it) before making the next one.

EA have shown nothing but poor marketing strategy with C&C, they have the leading franchise copyrights and yet overall they are losing ground in the RTS genre altogether. Besides, it is idiotic for consumers to acknowledge the business' view, that's not how it goes, we're expected to look after number 1, us. As for BFME 2, that beta isn't a beta, its a demo, and its frankly just mediocre, if EA were serious about testing BFME 2 they wouldn't have limited the Beta to multiplayer-only, one map, and 2 sides out of six, how the HELL are we supposed to test that? BFME 2 was to me as exciting as a baked potato. I also find your point on the SAGE engine completely irrelevant, graphics are not a key element to a good engine, and as for anything else it offers, it certainly doesn't leave room for a C&C due to the fact it doesn't retain anything familiar from the classic C&C interface. And if graphics truely are what you think makes a game, there are plenty of engines out there that make a mockary of the SAGE engine.

If you want to approach it from an objective view, there isn't a set reason why any company exists, however, in America, Britain, and ex-British Empire countries, the most common reason is to exist for the shareholders (in Europe its for the employees). Either way though, as consumers we are to assume the company serves us, without us they are nothing, if we don't like what they offer, we don't buy it, now obviously this doesn't exactly happen with the C&C Community, a lot of us voiced our discontent with how the C&C franchise is going (maybe as early as TS) and yet bought the next C&C anyway. Why? Because the original C&Cs were groundbreaking, they created a strong fan community, addicted to what C&C offered, despite the discontent of some of us, we knew the chances of finding the same RTS game feel in another company were slim to none, the best we could hope for was to make our complaints and that EA would listen to them. It is coming to the point though, that those of us who have complained, hoping that future C&Cs would offer what we were looking for, are getting fed up, and realising that not only can we not find the original C&C charm in EA anymore, but that EA is beginning to lose foothold in the RTS genre altogether, it disturbs me to think how idiotic they've been in decision making to completely lose their advantage of owning the rights to the most famous RTS franchise ever.

In my opinion, I would define them as Nuclear, Chemical or Biological ICBMs. If you want a more general explanation, the answer is, it's completely open to speculation, the term is much too abstract and unprofessional to be a proper argument in any military action. In its present form you could argue any country has them and therefore WMDs are the perfect excuse to attack any country of choice. Presumably though, the WMDs in question that were used as an excuse to invade Iraq were ones to which the US was concerned about that could reach themselves, or their allies, the post powerful weapon Saddam had could only reach east Cyprus at best and it is a conventional warhead missile, the Al Samud, there were no Scuds. That point is irrelevant, you do know that during the Iran/Iraq war your own country supported and armed him? Clearly the USA had no real concern for who was fighting who in the Middle East back then. Not only that, but Iraq certainly does not have the largest army in the middle east, Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia all have much larger armies. Also, try not to hop to a black and white conclusion, Saddam was most certainly NOT ok, nobody in their right mind would argue that he was. What on earth makes you think anyone should lead things in the middle east? Oh and people certainly have the right to condemn the US for 'trying', when you remove the regieme of a country 'trying' is a far cry from what should be done considering how serious and vast an operation it is. The Iraqi people were repressed by a dictator, even only doing them one better is a disgrace. Im afraid your arguement is no where near 'grown up' itself, it shows nothing to me but besides baseless arguement founded in nothing but naivety and patriotism. Mistakes simply cannot be made with these operations, mistakes are literally genecidal in this area. This may suprise you, but I don't use the two dimensional thinking of the ignorant, just because I don't side on the Iraq war doesn't mean I side on that scandal, it was wrong and horribly unethical. The fact is money in the Western World is becoming a source of false worship, people break moral conduct these days for cash because they don't see salvation in God but in wealth instead.

Im afraid that's a mixture of speculation and paranoia, it's for the same reason you could assume any country that disfavors America harbours terrorists. That's simply an unrealistic task, especially when the most effective tactic against terrorists is to get their leader, considering that Al Qaeda is the primary Terrorist organisation that is a definite threat to the USA and Europe, it is disconcerning that the USA does not see this and feels it should satisfy pure abstract reasoning on terrorism. Frankly Im afraid the war in Iraq is a failure, due to over simplification of the previous situation with Saddam in power. The logic that removing a dictator from a country can only improve a country is unfortunately flawed, Yes the Iraqi's could be better without Saddam and should be, but without the right guidance, the right preparation and the right understanding of the history of Iraq can that be done. Unfortunately it's gone to the dogs now, since it didn't occur to the USA before they went in that Iraq is a British set-up country and that it's people have no sense of Iraqi nationality at all, they should have planned three seperate states because the only other outcome is civil war. The USA simply rushed into it too much, now was NOT the time to liberate Iraq, another goal was supposed to be achieved and that is the assassination of the Al Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden (funny how news of him has faded so much).

Bware, that is a VERY flawed argument unfortunately, just because Saddam and Terrorism are both enemies of democracy does not mean both worked together, Saddam's Iraq was a secular Iraq, the terrorists currently in Iraq are pro-Islamic State, Saddam was not sympathetic to them and the US are not stepping on nerves, the terrorists in Iraq are the result of pro-Islamic Statism trying to take advantage of the removal of Saddam. Don't try to argue those facts, any source which has led you to believe otherwise is clearly propaganda. I fear for the world when the USA is clearly applying the wrong tactic and creating nothing but more terrorism as a result. It seems to me the US Government is more interested in retaining a climate of fear of terrorism then defeating it.

Honestly I can't believe how retarded the US Government has been in taking care of Osama, the guy had a terrorist network in Afghanistan, he could move anywhere, in anytime, without anyone knowing, send a big bloody army in there and he would be gone long before anyone could get near him. War and Terrorism are two completely different planes of fighting, I wouldn't exactly say one couldn't effect the other but Terrorism IS specifically designed to take on a force which vastly out numbers their fire power, Armies are the LAST thing you send against Terrorists, Terrorist forces have no bases, no root, its possible you could make a host country mostly inhospitable to terrorists through armies (very rarely though) but they can just go somewhere else, to defeat terrorists you need two things, intelligence and covert operations, the US Government FAILED in both, and that's a disturbing thought considering their the world superpower. Not only that, but they decided to remove a dictator while they were on this supposed 'War on Terrorism', good intentions, yes, but they should not be preoccupied with something as vast as removing the government of a country then helping to set up a new one when trying to repremand a dangerous terrorist who gets further and further out of grasp each day. The conclusion seems to me that the USA is simply unfamiliar with terrorism and is applying the tactics that it only knows of in vain.

Bah! Im off rugby for a good while I think after the recent matches, you two can especially guess what country Im from.... :lol:

I don't think your turkey migrates from China.... :lol:

God himself, should he exist. Yes, but he did say it.

and what was it I said? Tell me, for whom would it take to say that the Christian standard of morality is universal in order to convince you?