hagren

Well, he'd surely have the experience as a former DICE employee

Fan-made Tetris-homage, not safe for work:

And RA1. Lovely!

In RA3 I don't mind because it's an over-the-top cheesy universe. For any Tiberian game of course, I'd prefer believable clothing (Even though EA did a tremendous job with the male Soviet uniforms, much better than Romanov's).

Lt. Zofia and Tanya definitely contained some sexappeal (Heck, Wuhrer's fake boobs almost bounced out on multiple occasions, and Sofia wore a sleek leather outfit indoors!), plus there were bikini-wearing gals playing with Vladimir briefly, so, I don't think RA3 is any "sexier" than before, the marketing department just pumped it up. And I for one would like to keep Generals 2, if there will be one, as it was. Remember, amongst hardcore CnC fans it wasn't very popular, but the MP crowd loved it- So why rain on their parade? We already have the RA and Tiberian universe, they're much more intriguing anyways.

That's exactly what I'm saying One popular complaint is that the game is all about boobs, but it isn't in the slightest and/or to any greater extent than before. Malevolence: Keychain is a good idea Or an alternate-universe coin?

Seconded! Pewter figruines are teh awsomez. Add that to the content that the RA3 premier edition offered, and we have ourselves a delicious special edition. Btw, I disagree with the statement of EA adding too many celebrities. It's certainly a good thing to bring in new audiences- the question is: Is it effective? Since if not, then the funds should be spent on something else, no doubt. I'd also like to add that there isn't more nudity in RA3 than in, say, TS or RA2. It was only marketed that way, for humoristic reasons. Lastly, even though this is a bit off-topic, there isn't actually much that sets apart RA2 FMVs from RA3; we only need some more sets (especially outdoor), add some real footage into the mix (Marches, explosions etc), and we're set. I am disheartened that there are people hating on the greatness that is RA3 for all the wrong reasons.

It's .

Could you tell us a bit more? But why do they wait until Cologne? E3 may be bigger this year.

Tell me about it

You guys are all crazy Good design is favorable (and everyone digs aesthetic looks), but not a sale-decision for me. For newcomers it could though, no obejctions there. However, good art can be misleading too, and that somehow wasn't taken into account in this discussion. Silverthorn: So, uh, you'll keep your discs without covers? How does that look? gben: That's the thing. I organize my cases by putting them onto each other, thus I never see the cover.

Yeah, this debate was actually quite calm Oh and Nmenth, I meant individuals who already planned to buy xy game. Say, if I'd wanted to buy Mass Effect, go in the store and wouldn't find the cover art appealing, I'd still buy it for the game. As said, I dig inventive or pretty covers, but in the end, they're just collecting dust on my shelf to protect the game discs, nothing less, nothing more. The excitement, the novelty of beautiful box arts and detailed manuals fades quickly for me. It's the game that stays in my head (or not).

Overdramatizing much? I don't think anyone put down a purchase of a game they wanted to play solely due to the boxart. And I doubt there's an "outcry"... Also, Warcraft II and III actually have different boxart styles- WCII had two members of opposing parties facing each other (As with WCI), whilst WCIII had multiple alternative covers like SC. And don't talk about copy&paste if you don't know for sure how the covers are made, please.

But that's the point: How do you know there weren't made specifically for the cover yet later re-used for marketing purposes by a different team? As said, I'm all for pretty covers, but this is not that significant to post about multiple times

The thing is, you may never know what was created first: The released concept arts or the cover? Perhaps they were specifically made for the cover, then re-used. Similar to the Petroglyph ads always being cover arts with some added effects. Have you seen the UK cover art? Because there's more black than in those CnC3 covers Lastly, the CnC covers pre-tw weren't that spectacular either, nothing jaw-dropping or artsy. The reason why they became a staple is the continuency- As now there are similarities between all new CnC covers. I'm all for painted covers, btw. Malevolence: Show me some examples

Honestly, who cares about box art *that* much? I keep the DVD cases on a shelf and only see their spine, and when I take out a game, I rather focus on the disc or the manual. With EA having their own style at least it's pretty clear that it's a different studio. Plus, it would get old after a while, there's not awfully much you can do with soldier heads. As for actos vs. CGI, they simply should cut the briefers for CnC4-->Done!

Why, TW's Kane Edition and RA3's Soviet cover looked nice! Uprising and regular TW on the other hand, not so much. KW is so-so.

No, no, NO! They put themselves into financial jeopardy for holding onto Tiberium that long, I don't want EALA to close just because they run out of cash!

Don't misinterpet what I wrote. All my last sentence boiled down to was that EALA is not the only one who cut down on the CGI. That the CnCs lack them since RA2 is out of the question. Nmenth: I recall reading somewhere that hiring those expensive celebrities is actually less cost-intensive than producing more CGI movies. I think Amer said that they're outrageously expensive to make these days. Silverthorn: There was more CGI, actually, not just in the campaign intros. Short clips, yes, but more.

The spirit does undoubtedly remain- There are many concepts, both visually and mechanically, that EA used in making TW, KW and RA3, including some plot points directly taken (but perhaps interpreted differently) which were in the minds of Isgreen and the likes. As for the examples you gave, that's not really about WW's spirits, but EALA's will to listen to the community, which could be very well totally unrelated. The Titan, dreadnaught and the terror drone had nothing to do with our input btw, they were included before we could give any feedback. Lastly, I ask you again: What makes you think that the spirit is lost? If anything, EALA improves with each game, listens closer and closer to the community. Why would this suddenly deteriorate? And I respectfully disagree about the 100% thing. Would you want to work on any product when you'd have no creative input and had every detail to do exactly as you're told, as it's expected from you, always having the former creator in mind? Think about that. Imho EALA deserves far more respect than they do from some of the hardcore WW-fans, and as that, we should give them some breathing room and rate their games as-is. Not to mention that that they have as much respect for the source material as we do- Flaws or not; remember, WW wasn't perfect either. On a side note, your complaint about outdoor CGI is invalid. I like them as much as you do, but how many CGI movies were in RA2/YR? Yeah.

What on earth are you talking about? The WW spirit in us? In the devs? Is there some in them now? If so, why would it fade? If not, why is TW/RA3 better than it could have been? If I were you, I'd start giving the guys some credit. Apoc communicates much more openly to us than before, there are ton of contests and surveys, we saw how they listened to the community multiple times, and we've also experienced how they clashed almost every drawback of TW with RA3. I dig Isgreen, Sperry and Legg as anyone else, but please, let's be unbiased and realistic here and just look at the facts- UaW and Petroglyph haven't turned out to be better than EALA and their efforts, and some key members even left Petro afterwards. So please, let's accept it once and for all, after 8 years that EALA is the future and WW is dead. How about we respect both?

On the other hand, Gens was popular in the MP community exactly for being different, so by changing it, EA would anger its fanbase.

Generals II and CnC4 are the most probable. I'd take either of those, even though Generals should perhaps loose the prefix and stay how it was, whilst my expectations for CnC4 may be too high. A CnC FPS wouldn't make much sense considering how much freaking money they lost with Tiberium. Hopefully we'll be saved from such monstrosities as MMOs, I want a real single-player game damn it, most favorably with co-commanders, lesser focus on base building/destruction, more on smaller troops, their abilities and updates, plus diverse music, maps and great scripts. Thus, similar to RA3 but more serious and polished.

Huh? What I meant is that most of the time I tried a mod, either the mod didn't work properly or when it did, it made the main game erroenous.

The music is outright awful, hopefully it's just for the trailer, as it is usually.