The Nker

It's out! http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/redale...%3B1&page=1

Just a moment... *browses GMC mag* I can confirm that the game is using the unreal 3 engine.

Yeah, it was me who posted that. If you need proof maybe I can upload a pic of the mag.

Yeah. But then again, they could also be mutated insects or something... We need CGI's! That's probably one of the points why renegade SP failed. They are crabs. That desert was a sea once. Didn't you notice the ships? BTW, doesn't the EA logo in the puddle at the very beginning remind you of the Renegade intro?

Did you notice the tiberium-mutated crabs?

Watched it. Doesn't show too much, but awesome nonetheless.

Nice to see I got no credit for bringing the news. Nah, just kidding. Do you think the mobile campaigns will be different from the PC ones? What missions would you like to see?

I'm speechless: :shock:

So I wasn't hallucinating: he -did- say 12 campaigns! :shock:

It doesn't crush just infantry, you know:

Lol, that was fun

Well, yes, EA ignored big parts of the TS/FS storyline. But you have to understand that it has been 7 years since TS. That's what, two, three generations of gamers? You couldn't expect EA to make a game with a storyline wich is pretty obscure for anyone except for us hardcore fans. They had to make a plot that anyone could understand, so that they could sell more. Can you really blame someone for doing his job? :roll: Now the storyline in itself was good, with quite a few twists. After all Kane losing the war intentionally just to call the Scrin to Earth was quite surprising, perhaps the biggest plot twist in C&C storyline (except for the FS final, of course). What I didn't really like was the lack of action CG clips (why did they cut the Zone trooper fmv? Why?), the unedited-ness of some FMVs, and the fact that they just split the story in two, leaving the second part for an expansion.

See this article on gamespot: http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/command...tml?sid=6159993 In the article there's also the link to the full list of actors. -The Nuker-

I'm not saying two 'rogue states' such as Iran and North Corea can't be a threat, I'm saying we're not in the middle of a freaking world war. They haven't even attacked anyone. They deserve punishment for their actions (the UN ones vs. the North Corea are good enough, IMO), but they don't deserve to be attacked unless they attack first. We're not living in a peaceful world, believing that would be very, very stupid, but thinking a third world war is about to start (if it is not already) is just as stupid. Nukes are a huge threat, but you fail to see their actual use: intimidation. No nation in the world is going to use them, and, even if really so many people in a nation were so crazy to use them (President, general, etc.) there's no way they're going to use them and make it alive. Iran and North Corea would be mass invaded and leveled to the ground. I myself would support the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation of a nuclear strike. But attacking first automatically puts you in the wrong. The only reason why the USA weren't santioned for the attack on Iraq was your veto power in the scurity council, that would have made any petition useless. You can believe anything you want, but the fact itself that you're the only nation in the world with such an approach should at least make you think twice before telling the world to 'suck off'. Until then, I guess we agree to disagree. Now, on a slight different topic: like Alphabear mentioned, the Un has proven useful in many situations (the most recent ones are the missions in Kosovo and Lebanon). Even in this moment there are various UN forces in many different countries, keeping peace. You don't know about most of them only because american soldiers are not in them (By the way, I wanted to say that your not the backbone of Un forces. The majority of the soldiers are Pakistani, Indian, etc.). It is, however, limited, and the absolutely inefficent structure of, for example, the security council has immobilized it in any situation that involved one of the major powers, the ones with the veto power. Also, any UN force has to ask the state if they want their troops, which is a bit lame if you want to free an occupated region, for example. I agree that bit should be deeply riformed and restructured, and I also think that the idea of a GDI-type force is not really far-fetched in these times.

Look at the 3-4 screenshot, behind the war factory: there's something really similar to blossom trees there. And, anyway, those screenshots are beautiful and uber-cool to say the least. (there are still some graphic bugs, tough :? )

Oh, what an apocalyptic theory. You should write novels. Wait...Do you seriously believe to all that 'the world is under attack' crap? :roll: Reading what your opinon on the world is, I can't hate you. I can only pity you. Feel free to live in your world of illusions and to call an asshole whoever doesn't agree with you. Persons like you are the ones that ruin the image of America in front of the rest of the world. See you.

There's simply not a question such as 'who's gonna take US place'. The fact is, and you Americans REALLY need to understand it, the world doesn't need nor want a defender. A defender from who? Who would want a so-called defender? For what? Think about it. The century of world wars is over (and, anyway, you entered war only when attacked), the cold war is over. The world is free and doesn't need anyone to defend it. Simple as that. You can ignore me and my ideas if you want, but keep this in mind: I'm a moderate person, and I don't call myself an American hater. I can say I was raised, just like every European, in the myth of the USA. Still, the world hates USA. And you, instead of wondering if maybe you have done something wrong, just think you must be in the right, and that it's the whole world to be in the wrong. That only makes things worse. I assure you.

BWare, basically you're saying: "We have the right to attack whoever we want, use nukes, ignore international law, and tell UN and whoever doesn't agree with us to suck off, because, hey, we are America, and we are the defenders of the world!" Is that your opinion? Because, just in case you didn't know, it's because of that approach that half of the world hates America...

That doesn't make you selfish. That makes you stupid, short-sighted, and, quite possibly, suicidal. Now you REALLY need to learn something about how to treat your allies. If they're about to get wiped off the map, and you have the direct ability to prevent it, then how could you not? Israel and the US rely on each other, and we are also very loyal to each other. An attack on Israel is an attack on the US. No, we're not going to take your cowardly approach and cut our ties, leaving Israel to fend for themselves. Are you seriously suggesting this? :shock: Oh yes he would. That's be problem. Have you actually looked into this? The man is truly insane. He is a Muslim radical who actually believes that he will be an instrument of Armageddon, and will help usher in the 12th Imam, the righteous descendant of Muhammed. He believes that this will all happen in his lifetime, and what better way than to use nukes to wipe out the country that he already swore he would destroy? He's not joking around, and neither am I. We're not dealing with the relatively sane enemy we had in Russia. These Muslim radicals are a whole different breed. Plus, you DO realzie that nukes can be smuggled over borders, right? Frankly, I really don't feel like running the risk of having one of MY cities blown off the map after that monster hands off a nuke to a small terrorist group and smuggles it over, say, our border with Mexico. I'd MUCH rather eliminate that possibility now.... and it takes true leaders and strength (something apparently foreign to most of Europe) to think this way and, yes, to protect the planet. The world has basically been under the protection of the US since WWII, and especially since the UN has been so incapable of doing ANYTHING right in the last couple decades. And where do you get the idea that no nation has the right to attack another nation? Where did THAT come from? You say it as though it's common sense, but it could not be further from the truth. I stand on my ground. No nation has the right to attack any other nation. You don't want US or Israel to be attacked by Iran, do you? It's your right not to be attacked, but it's also the right of every nation in the world. With no distinctions. You can attack only if attacked before. International law, do you know what it is? You would have all the rights to attack Iran if it attacked first. Wich is IMHO improbable. Even if Amadinejihad was that crazy, not all Iranians are, keep in mind that their propaganda is all about a pacific use of nuclear technology, and that Iranian Imams condemned the Nord-Corean nuclear test (you should worry about them more), and said that Iran strongly condemns the use of nuclear technology for war. If Aamadinejihad tried to use nukes, it would the Iranian people itself to get rid of him. I'm not saying the Iranian nuclear program isn't a problem, even if Amadinejihad didn't use them, he would be ignoring the no-proliferation act (which, BTW, you don't seem to follow...), but you should let UN solve it. You say UN hasn't been able to do anything in the last couple decades? Well, that's because of the crap rules (veto power, etc.) you and the former allied nations did.

Crazy. :roll: Assuming that Iran actually wants to make nukes, they're not going to make 1000 ICMBs able to target USA anytime soon. They don't have the resources to do it. All they can do is build 5-7 nukes, that could be able to hit Israel. Yeah, that's WRONG, but they're aiming at Israel, not at you, so let Israelians solve their problems (don't call me selfish, Italy would be in range of Iranian nukes). Iran won't use nukes anyway. A nation doesn't build nukes to use them since WWII. They build them to show they're powerful. Even if Amadinejihad was crazy, he would not be so crazy to use them. They know they'd be immideately blasted to oblivion by French, English, Israeli and American nukes. No nation in the world has the right to attack any other nation, and that does include USA. Remember that the world isn't under American protection, nor it has to be.

Have you? They do MASSIVE damage... but in the right place. Do you want those nuclear research bunkers wiped out or not? Do you have a better solution? Leang, why are you overreacting about this? :? Ahmadinejad is a psychopath whose research program MUST be stopped at all costs. The worst case scenario would be him with his finger on the red button. The guy has SWORN the destruction of Israel! For those of you who are so damn eager to draw Nazi parallels to extremist Christians (:roll:), how about taking a look at THIS guy? He is, in his OWN WORDS, hell bent on wiping the Jews off the face of the earth. Maybe the world finds a bit...incoherent using nuclear weapons to prevent another state from building nuclear weapons. But maybe it's just me :roll:

A very interesting podcast. It's nice to finally hear something new. And Predator fools absolutely no-one Hi Apoc!: http://www.zshare.net/audio/hi-apoc-mp3.html

It could be better, and Nod's Venom scout somehow seems more "Orca" than the Orca itself, but whatever...

RA3 after C&C3 is higly probable, IMO. A C&C game, a Ra game, a C&C game, a Ra game, etc. just like Westwood did.

Well, Europe is covered in red zones, but US is only yellow and US more friendly allies are blue, so I think they were trying to say "OMG!USisgoingtosavetheday!!!11!!1oneoneone"