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?

I've told you before Fenring that morals are only morals if they are standardised, a person CANNOT have his own opinion of morals, look up the definition of 'morality'. This is not an argument against whether or not I think Clinton should have been kicked out of his presidency because of the sex scandal but rather a point on how inaccurate your arugments can be.

It's almost irrelevant that, due to M.A.D., the only way a country will launch a nuke at another is through an incidence of shear stupidity , either on the launcher's part (such as letting terrorists get their hands on a nuke) or the targets part (Norway back in 1997 for instance, they should have waited confirmation from all its neighbours after sending a message that they were testing a propulsion rocket for ESA, due to that mistake Russia almost nuked them). Oh and its not "Because of interests and RELIGION" that we don't get along with eachother, it's our policies on BELIEF that is, Athiests themselves create as much conflict with their members who insist that everyone else should believe Athiesm no matter what. We, as a human race, have to give no crap about others who have the wrong belief, that may sound a bit enforcsive but that's the specific thought we have to keep in mind, whatever each of us believes, we believe its the correct belief, and all others are wrong.

Arabian terrorist groups usually stick to terrorising their own or neighbouring countries as they view the leaders of such countries not complying enough to their belief in their own countries, its the more likely and traditional target such groups take, there is no advantage in attacking the West unless it is interrupting in their society. Basically what I am saying is, the best we can do is prevent them from terrorising the West. Also, you have to realise terrorists are not a unified group, it is a strategy, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of terrorist groups, and they tend more to splinter then to unite. Terrorism will always exist, just as war will, we have to watch out giving reasons to people to use it, just as we have to watch out giving reasons for war. Which also brings me to the concern that Bush is obviously supporting the fear of the War on Terrorism, in what scenario would the war on terrorism ever be won? You might aswell have a war on war.

Frankly I don't know what the advantage would be to have 'secret' jails in the EU anyway, too much of an international relationship risk. In reference to the covert operations, even in allied states, though I would be against it I don't think the US is the only one which does that, besides, I think Israel has more of a record of that then the US anyway, given that they had a spy in the US. Which comes to the point, if almost every country does that, do you ever wonder that we get the right idea of the current relationships between countries? Heheh, it could just all be forced smiles and handshakes for all we know...

The very existence of this topic proves there is a misunderstanding of religion, the answer is 'only God knows', why? Religion doesn't promise to make you an all-knowing God, any person should know that. Also, I am REALLY doubtful you would find any relgious 'experts', as you put them, on a games forum, a religious expert to me would be priest, maybe even a bishop, and you know what? they'd still probably tell you the same thing. I can give you an opinion though, which is guided by my belief but its certainly not an expert opinion. First of all, your question is extremely synical and negative, its almost the sort of question you would have got about the Soviet Union turning the world into communists, but, I agree with you there is a problem with radical muslims. The problem is probably quiet straight forward, muslim culture disproves of our Western society beliefs, some of their social beliefs, I and many of you would identify as extremely wrong, but stuffing western beliefs down their throughts won't help, muslims are certainly not going to abandon those beliefs, religious beliefs, for material beliefs, if we do that we'll frankly screw ourselves on a biblical scale, and we're getting there. We have to swallow our pride and quit promoting western life as the only life, despite the fact it is (though honestly, in light of my Christian beliefs, Western life needs to be less consumerist). Now I AM going to get the gun-hoe supports after me for this, but frankly a long-term solution is needed, and the last thing we need to do is light the flame on muslim society, seriously, these guys are ready to blow, they see us promoting a Godless social belief over their Religious social belief, perhaps it would have been better if we promoted a clearly Christian social belief because atleast then they wouldn't see it as a sort of Athiest promotion (Apologise to the Athiests, but Muslims do have a strong religious hatred against you guys, its one of their beliefs that I think is extremely wrong).

Its a question of international policy, assuming the US has good intentions for the world, why shouldn't they do what needs to be done? However, even with good intentions, these sort of acts do not help in setting an example, it is very likely that this sort of approach causes more conflict in the world then it prevents, though that is not definite. Besides, it IS highly unlikely that the US DOES have good intentions for the whole world, every single country, good and bad, puts their intentions first (of course in the case of bad countries, the intentions of the dictator first). Honestly now though, approaching the whole anti-US problem, it was only since Bush came in power that I begun to understand why some countries dislike the US, I honestly never thought it was possible, and it shouldn't BE possible still, atleast in liking/disliking the country itself, the only reason why I think some people dislike the US is because of issues like these, a lot of people believe that the US, being the only superpower in the world and claiming to be the leadership of Democracy, should lead by example. Oh and sorry if this thread may lead off to a discussion on US foreign policy and possibly the reasons for the existance of so called 'anti-Americanism', but frankly, there's isn't too much more to discuss on the suspected illegal US jails in the EU.

It was on Euronews aswell, now that certainly does not prove there are any or not, but news on Euronews always has a credible source, particularly if its EU related. The EU are infact investigating this, and there is substantial suspicion. I wouldn't be amazed if Poland had them, Poland are in an awkward position internationally, they do not have strong relationships with the neighbours, Germany and Russia, and frankly most of contenental Europe dislikes Poland, as a result, Poland does look to America, much more then other European countries do, for freindship, I wouldn't be suprised if they would have such a dodgy deal with them. Not only that, but Ireland (my country) also has a dodgy deal with the US, officially we are a neutral country, we allow US planes to land in our Shannon Airport, provided they have no weapons, but here's the catch, we're not allowed determine what they are carrying, seems to me like a bit of a political trick in our neutrality policy because honestly, if I were the US, why not bring weapons on those planes? and I think the Irish Government is well aware they could bring anything they want aswell, which is fine with them considering how much they are paid for it.

Calm down, use logic there and realise I never promoted shoving religion down someones throught, we're in a topic that debates religion and you just told me to keep my religion to myself, what do you want? to debate religion amongst athiests only? Of course religions will have maniacs and immoral people following them, religion is believed by people, people can be like that, its not because of the religion. Also Laws are irrelevant in the discussion, considering Laws should exist in both a fully religious and a fully athiest society we can simply disregard their relevance in the discussion, religion would compel people to be morality correct much more (which includes following laws) then the absence of religion which may tempt people to ignore laws. It's not exactly black and white though, you will get mixes such as religious finatics making their own law but their just hypocrites. I shouldn't really be talking about religion in general though, you can easily have a negative religion which would be much worse then athiesm, e.g. Satanism, specifically I should be talking about the religions which positively follow God. Anyway, all I am trying to get across is that religion of course is not perfect, simply because of the human factor, we tend to interpret things our own way for our own goals sometimes and we would still do this without religion. Athiesm is certainly not the answer to our problems though, it's just a desperate attempt to try something different without properly assessing the real problem, we need to stop people misusing religion for their own use, stop them from interpreting it their own way.

BINGO! THAT'S the typical Athiest summation of religion, you will never find someone who has the proper idea of religion and is an athiest, why? Because if you DID understand religion, you'd believe in it. Oh, and I never said the majority of Athiests are true nihilists, rather what I meant was Athiesm itself does not make sense, if you cannot have faith, then you are a nihilist, if you can, then you are religious, you cannot draw the line logically where faith stops and non-faith starts as Athiesm does. Oh and please humour me and provide me your proof that God doesn't exist, you will find that in terms of belief and non-belief, physical proof, besides the universe itself, does not exist for either, therefore logic points more in the direction of the existence of God (due to existence of us and universe) rather then the non-existence of God. The only reason you don't believe in God is because of a partial nihilistic belief which constantly nags "But do we really know God exists?" or that you misunderstand God so much that you express your anger towards him by acerting yourself as an 'Athiest'. And don't tell me an Athiest world would do better then religion, the full negative psyche of humanity would then be exposed simply because there is nothing to standardise morality and a persons interpretation of right and wrong will be completely up to them. (I am not saying all humanity will turn evil, rather humanity will turn as evil as it can). It is niave to assume humanity will somehow work out better ideas of right and wrong without religion.

The following reply is to all the posts sent since my last post. Put those two things together Fenring, that is the summation of an Athiest world, yes people have killed and done other evil things in the name of religion but it was not because of the religion, it's because of the flaw of the human psyche, religion represses this flaw to a certain degree but it does not fix it entirely, some people expect it to and so lose their trust in religion and assume an athiest society is the way to go, wrong, this is another typical flaw in the human psyche which thinks 'if we find we are unsuccessful in something, try the complete opposite approach', what you will find in an athiest society, although a good amount of people would be decent, humanity's full psycological flaw would be exposed, you will see people much more people kill in the name of greed, anger, entertainment then before as there would be no moral standards. Yes Religion is not free of its own share of evil, but that's because of the simple fact humans are its followers, No is Religion the cause of this evil, we are. No, we don't know, if we knew we wouldn't need faith, God's not testing our loyalty much if he simply let us know. We BELIEVE in God, just as you BELIEVE in the non-existence of God, infact, when it comes down to it, there's more proof towards God then the non-God, the universe itself. That's not denial coming from Cygnus, it's faith, and faith is a vital element of life, if you have no faith, who's to say what you see, hear, smell, touch is all true? This is why Athiesm does not make sense, true Athiesm is Nihilism, and if you are a Nihilist you're waisting your life. Also, what in your opinion luk3us IS proof? To quote my post earlier. To summerise, if you think religion is what's wrong in the world today, you're wrong, Athiesm does more damage, but that still isn't the reason, though it is sometimes a sympton of the reason, it's us, as we get greedier, more materialistic and have richer trouble free lives, we chuck God out the window, thinking he didn't have a hand in our success. Of course, the other half of Athiests are those that lose faith because they're niave and expect God (when they believed) to take care of everything for them. I will assert though, that you can be good person and be athiest, sure I have a few freinds who are, but Athiests are certainly not in a position to judge religion (mainly because they don't understand it) and definitely cannot debate it, rather they try to poke fun or create doubt in followers instead (can be subconsciously).