Jump to content

Talk:Command & Conquer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Spinoff?

I am wondering why Red Alert 2 Yuris Revenge is labeled as a spinoff? thats wierd.. im a big fan of C&C and I know as others do too, that Red Alert 2 Yuris Revenge is indeed not a spin off and absolutely nothing like Sole Survivor, so why label it the same as Sole Survivor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.22.17 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a departure from the regular "Tiberian" series. Whereas every other game, including Red Alert 1, fits into the Tiberian series, RA2 and Yuri's Revenge (and Generals too) do not fit into the main series. Thunderforge (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not very professional

This article is one of the worst I've seen. It really needs to be cleaned up and kept to a higher standard. It reminds me of some 7th grader's geocities homepage about his favorite video game. Come on. The last paragraph has some strange wording a content. It talks about fans leaving C&C for other specific games. That information is useless and irrelevant. It is also entirely unsupported. You guys are computer nerds, you should know that. I think u should be more respectful before evreyone tells wikipedia about u.

It seems all the C&C articles have been neglected. I'm currently rewriting the Tiberian series article entirely, and will eventually work my way around to this one.  -- Run!  18:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Gross mistake in the "Command & Conquer" article: the "tiberian series" paragraph starts with "tiberian sun" rather than the original "Command & Conquer". Also, the "Command & Conquer" article should be renamed "Command & Conquer series", and the "Command & Conquer : Tiberian Dawn" should be renamed "Command & Conquer". The name "Tiberian Dawn" in completely fictive, it was invented by some fan, it never was the name of the game. The whole article about the original "Command & Conquer" game seems to contain an huge amount of completely fictive data invented by some fan, rather than actual facts about the game itself.
I agree on points one and two. Not so sure about point 3, because a lot of information on wikipeda about the c&c universe is from the "planet cnc encyclopedia" - and there's a debate over whether that's canon or fanon. It's a debate I'd rather not get into myself, but I certainly think there's a lot of detail in the c&c articles that is just unnecessary (see Talk:Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. Also, please get an account and/or sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so that we can tell the difference between you and other anonymous users.  -- Run!  11:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"This fan" did not make up anything about the game... (1) the missions were exciting unless you think the game sucks. I was going to run DOSBOX anyway to double check all the facts. If Run wants to be such an expert, then he or she should include a separate page for the DOS/4GW original version.

We may not agree that a "flying object with wings" struck a "tall building" that was a "trade center." (2) But why, then, do I have a memory of that? Was it an optical illusion? The explosion was in the middle of the building, right? Why don't you tell us since you're the expert, instead of censoring the existence of entire game? Why do I have to install DOSBOX and re-install this game when I have no experience as a reporter?

Before Run decides to tell the world what is relevant or not, he should read the details about Metal Gear Solid on Wikipedia. (3) You'll see how incomplete this article really is, making you wonder about the meaning of the word redundant, since there are so few details about the Original game.

(4) As far as the article being unprofessional, I only submitted two paragraphs in March 16, 2006 acknowledging the existence of the 1995 game. The unprofessional nature of the article existed way before I added my two cents. (5) At least I tried to add something that was missing - all Run did was take something away and then complain about it.

(6) This article sucked way before I added my two paragraphs, and was tagged way before I got here. I think Run is off the wall to blame all the problems on two paragraphs that were added a week ago, and removed the next day. Run seems too interested in blaming people.

C&C Fan 00:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)JC

I've numbered the sentences I wish to reply to.
1. Yes the missions were exciting. But it is still opinion - there might be others who do think the game sucks. It is not Wikipedia's place to tell everyone whether the game sucked or not. See WP:NPOV.
2. I don't know why you have that memory, but as soon as I saw the paragraph mentioning it, I loaded up the game, played the video, and checked. It wasn't true, so I removed it.
3. So few details? See Category:Command & Conquer. There are dozens of pages on C&C, and there is even one dedicated to the original game.
4. Yes, this section of the talk page wasn't directed at you. I think that's just a misunderstanding. (check the dates of comments and compare them with your edit dates).
5. I complained when you added it again after I removed it. And Someone else removed it the second time - not me (check the edit history) so whoever that was presumably agreed. I also gave justification for the removal - not merely complaints.
6. See above. This section wasn't aimed at you. The section aimed at you is near the bottom of this page.  -- Run!  11:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Tiberian and Red Alert

The original Red Alert needs to be added to the Tiberian Series. It is part of both Red Alert and Tiberian. At some point a split occurs, but the Soviet Ending to the original Red Alert makes it very clear that its part of the Tiberian series. -Alyeska


Westwood itself has stated that the Red Alert and Tiberian Sun timelines take place in different universes, that split off when Einstein killed Hitler; if Einstein kills Hitler = RA timeline, if Einstein doesn't kill Hitler = (our) Tiberian Sun timeline. Kuralyov 20:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IMO the Red Alert series is the prequel to the Tiberian series -- but there is sufficient distinction between them that they can be divided into separate features. There is some ambiguity since Red Alert 2, but I feel that it will be resolved in the next game (because if it isn't, a lot of fans are going to be angry) --Alexwcovington (talk) 22:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Red Alert 1 is a clear prequel to the Tiberian series. The events that took place in RA1 (with the allies winning the war) led to the GDI being created as a global peacekeeping organization to prevent such wars as the Great WW2 (soviet/allied war) from ever happening. There's a storyline faq somewhere at GameFAQs, which deals with the connection of the series in such a detailed way that IMO its impossible for it to be non-canonic (fanmade). And seeing how technology progressed faster in the C&C universe, it would make sense that RA2 takes place in the 70s, between RA1 and Tiberian Dawn - IF RA2 is canonical to begin with. Was it even made by the original creators of C&C? I recall the credit roll saying "based on the original C&C game" or something along those lines.


RA2 was NOT developed by the Command & Conquer team and is NOT canon. Red Alert 2 is a cash-in by EA and a parody of C&C at best. --Tiberian Fiend

  • RA2 was made by Westwood Studios, not EA. --Elementalos


On the note of adding Red Alert games, Red Alert 3 was recently annouced. I added it, copying the format from Red Alert: 2, but I'm a newb, and probably didn't do it quite right (ie. Red Alert 2 has a page, but Red Alert 3 certainly doesn't). --Slavik81

Tiberian Sun was largely a remake of the original storyline. Of course there were enhancements in graphics and sound for the Windows OS. Most all of the missions in Tiberian Sun are the same as in the original.

C&C Fan March 23, 2006

What? Tiberian Sun was a WHOLE NEW GAME, a complete sequel. Definately not a remake, some of the missions may be SIMILAR, but none are the same. The graphics and units and different, as is the music and story. Only the basics of C&C are the same: GDI vs Nod, sidebar, construction yard, Tiberium and core gameplay mechanics(build tanks/mechs and attack). Play both games again and see for yourself- Tiberian Sun explains what happens 40 years AFTER Tiberian Dawn (which is an official title by the way, it appeared on Westwood's website as the product listing and in the game's readme file. Tiberian Dawn was not written on the game box or in game because Westwood was not sure the game would be a success, and because of that didn't want to hint of a sequel, as they might not secure funding for one). 81.109.94.62 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


This is passage is (R4P. Tiberium Wars is also connected to Red Alert 1. There wasn't even one statement which denied this. There is even the logo of the Allies from Red Alert 1 on GDI's tanks and other stuff. --217.228.77.169 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Some things that I found wrong with the article that hopefully someone who knows more about this stuff will fix.

It was described as a Scrin Primal defending against a GDI attack on a Scrin base the by Adam Isgreen the following day, who is an Electronic Arts Game Design Director. -looks like something got cut out there

Despite the sale of Westwood to EA, the same development team that created Red Alert 2 developed Generals. -despite doesn't seem right there. Shouldn't it be more like "because"?

Also isn't the US's defense general actually called the super weapon general?

Point 1: It does look like something got cut out, but I do not know where to look to acertain what was cut out. Sorry.
Point 2: How about: "Although Westwood was sold to EA, the same development team that created Red Alert 2 also developed Generals." Does that work?
Point 3: Yes, General Alexis Alexander's largest contributions are her superweapons- the cost to build them is 50% less than normal and her power plants can produce 300% more power to accomadate them; however she does have the best defensive structure in the generals challenge, so I could see where people would associate her with defense rather than superweapons. But according to Prima's Official Stategy Guide for C&C Generals: Zero Hour (Ch.6 pg 259), her official title in the game is Superweapon General. TomStar81

Separate pages for each series?

Seeing as how both Command & Conquer: Red Alert and Command & Conquer: Generals each have their own separate pages, we may want to move out the more specific details on the Tiberian series as well, and have this page focus on the threads that are common to each of them: the designers, the connections between Red Alert and the Tiberan series, etc. Also, this page seems more appropriate for posting information on speculation on upcoming C&C games than the side pages. Anyone with me? --Alexwcovington (talk) 00:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with you on posting speculation about upcoming games on this page, but I think some specific information should be left in this article so people can get a general idea about the game. On the pages where a specific game is the topic of the pages (ie the Red Alert page) we can place the fine details. Thats my opion. TomStar81 02:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's more or less my idea; I think there's still sufficient info on the Red Alert and Generals games on this main page -- something like that would be done for the Tiberian series as well if we moved a lot onto a side page. My main question is this - what should we name the article on the Tiberian series? Should we call it Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn, Command & Conquer Tiberian series or what? --Alexwcovington (talk) 22:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2 disks

It's hard to imagine that C&C is 10 years old!

When it first came out, I seem to remember it was a big thing that each box came with 2 disks, and players could play a network game using 1 disk each. 1 disk was for GDI, the other was for NOD.

I never played any network games at the time, and can't remember if this was a rumour, or fact.

This was indeed the case, and Red Alert did the same with the Allies and Soviets. David Arthur 15:01, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Red Alert 2 and Tiberian Sun also supported this practice. But with Generals (the first disc being the localised content, the second containing common content for all distros) EA stopped the "one disc for each player" system. Probably primarily for logistical reasons, but also because it would mean they would get less revenues if two people only bought one copy of the game.

EA is more of a corporation, so they obviously took away any sign of non-sale from the game.

Another reason was probably because there were 3 factions in Generals, and they could save money and loading time by putting it on only 2 CDs. Davidizer13 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool installation routine

Command & Conquer had a unique installation routine, as it had a cool GUI featuring many (pre-rendered) graphics and effects that really let you enjoy installation, for example a countdown while copying data from the CD to the harddisk - something NOT A SINGLE cmputer game for Windows XP nowadays has to show off. --Abdull 12:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

i remember it was a flashy show to install C&C... something that went away with the comming of redalert2 and then it went completely away with the comming of Generals, something that was very criticized among westwood fans.

--Along with the loss of story integrety, the new dozer unit that was never their before, the abscence of the live movies for mission breifings...
<sob><sigh> I want the old westwood back. EA is making the same mistake with C&C that Blizzard is making with Starcraft: they are leaving the fanbase with a product that leaves much to be desired. TomStar81 03:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Free remake of C&C

There is a free software remake called FreeCNC of the original Command & Conquer under development, maybe include this in the article?

An article about Tiberian Dawn?

I miss a dedicated article about Tiberian Dawn, could someone write one? I mean, this is THE C&C game (besides from RA1) I think it deserves an article :-) (It's been years since I played the game, hope there's some fans here picking up the "challenge" ;-) ) --Jambalaya 22:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I’m working on that and a whole bunch of other stuff, give me a few days and I will make your wish come true. TomStar81 23:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"This fan" also was unable to insert a heading for the original game. Will somebody please update the TOC? This article is like a body without a head.

C&C Fan March 23, 2006

Redundant information

I've removed this twice in (March, 2006) from the Tiberian Series section:

The Tiberian Series was not the first release of this video game(1). "Command & Conquer" was released in 1995 by Westwood Studios and distributed exclusively by Virgin(2). The opening sequence shows animation of a jumbo jet crashing into the World Trade Center(3). This act is blamed on NOD terrorists and their leader, Kane. While these are not the American buildings, the similarities to 9/11 are eerie(4).
This video game was one of the first to utilise real-time gameplay, and cinematic animation sequences. Like the sequels, you are required to harvest Tiberium which oozes from the ground like petroleum, the word with which it rhymes(5). Missions included defending your base from mortar attack along a ridge, capturing enemy bases, destroying TV stations, amphibious assault, airstrikes on missile defenses, and other exciting war-related missions(6).
  1. This is obvious: it's a series of computer games. Hence Tiberian series. If the reader wants to know what games make up the series, then they can go and see the main article for that - which is linked at the top of the section.
  2. Tidbits of information like this should be confined to the section/article concerning the specific game itself. This particular point has nothing to do with the series - just one game in it.
  3. Firstly, it's not the WTC, it's the "Great Trade Center", a fictional building, in Vienna. Secondly, it wasn't a plane, it was a simple "bombing" and no plane is visible in the video. Thirdly, that sequence is insignificant - it's one of many such bombings and is of no importance to the game or storyline.
  4. "eerie" is a point of view.
  5. It doesn't "ooze from the ground" and what it rhymes with is irrelevant. Petroleum doesn't ooze from the ground anyway - oil does.
  6. "exciting" is a point of view, and there is no need to list mission themes in this section.

 -- Run!  18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't even know about DOSBOX until I read about XCOM on Wikipedia last week. If I had known I could run DOS/4GW games on XP, I would have played the game before I wrote my paragraphs. I had no intention of writing something fictive for my own amusement, and I'm sorry that Run was offended by my efforts.

I don't believe any information is redundant -- if this article does not include the Original game with details - then the entire article is redundant. The truth is not the truth when you hide facts. Let the expert above write the 1995 article since that person knows so much about games. Why should I, a newbie, have to write something that's missing anyway?

Fine---Run is the expert here. It oozes out of the ground like OIL, and it shoots up from pillars (or tree-like objects) like OIL. It looked like a pretty big airplane to me. But, I could be wrong. When I played the game I saw a plane crash into it -- maybe if I install DOSBOX and reload the game, I can double-check. I just hope that the expert above is right. Let the expert write the article. I can't wait to read it.

Just to make this expert happy, I edited the "redundant information" for correctness and put it back in the article. This fan is curious -- why did Run refuse to correct the information as I have done? Instad, Run chose to take the information and post it here, and then remove the entire "redundant information."

C&C Fan 00:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

if this article does not include the Original game with details - then the entire article is redundant

This article is about the Command & Conquer series, not Command & Conquer. This article is not for the inclusion of details, it is for a general overview of what makes up the series of games. If you want to contribute these details, please do so at Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn.  -- Run!  11:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Command & Conquer → Command & Conquer series – Command & Conquer is one game in the Command & Conquer series, therefore this article should reflect on the RTS game and not the series as a whole. While C&C is also known as Tiberian Dawn that is not its official name, and as an encyclopedia site we should use the official name when discussing the game.


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

I think it's frustrating that all these years I never heard of DOSBOX, so was never able to double check my memories. I just started using Wikipedia last week, and just today saw the articles for the other games in the series. There are plenty of details except a couple. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion.

As for moving this article, or renaming it to C&C SERIES, I'm not sure what good that would do except to differentiate it from the original title. But I would support it.

C&C FAN March 24, 2006 13:31 PST

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The redirect from Tiberian sun

As a search for "tiberian sun" for some reason ends up in a redirect from Tiberian sun to Command & Conquer series I had to add a more accessible link to the article about Tiberian Sun (the game, not the series). It's a quite messy organization IMHO though. I think there shouldn't be a redirect from Tiberian sun to Command & Conquer series, but rather it should be redirected straight to Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun. Thoughts? --Jambalaya 19:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. TomStar81 22:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The First Decade

This should be on the main page as well at least in link form.


I agree, it's the reason I came to the articles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.65.60 (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mods

I think mods and conversions that were big should be links on the game pages and maybe articles Tiberian Sun Rising The first Tiberian War these are big conversions we could have links maybe even articles about them!

Origin of a Trademark

I think it should be at the top al info can be in it's box and if we ever try shooting for featured article we need something up there.

Redirect

Shouldn't Command and Conquer redirect to the original game Command and Conquer instead of the Command and Conquer series?--Taida 12:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

Should there be a semi protection on this page because of the vandalism or should the user responsible be banned? Citizen erased 00:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ijust deleted the same vandalism on the tiberian wars page also by the user not zealot Citizen erased 00:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

More vandilism

i just removed this line from the end of the "heros section" ... "But as Generals/Zero Hour aren't real C&C games, they should NOT be mentioned here." unregistared user (IP 86.87.36.21) time to lock page?Euano 20:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Flaw with Playstation versions

Did any of the games have the ability to save to a memory card as I recall C&C and Red Alert did not. They only contained passwords.Atirage 06:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusion Tag

Hey guys. I was an avid fan of the original Command & Conquer (to the point of obsession) back in 1995 -- I lived and breathed Command & Conquer! Which is why I hope you understand my motivations for the "Confusion" tag -- I just swung by this site out of curiosity wondering what had happened with the series in the decade or so since I played Red Alert. Perhaps I'm just getting a little long in the tooth, but several thousand words later, I have a fantastically vague idea of what's going on with this game these days -- and if I'd never played C&C before or even heard of it, I can say quite assuredly that I'd have absolutely no idea what the hell was going on. I'm generally not one for tags; I think if articles are bugging people, they should make an effort to edit them themselves rather than take the lazy man's way out by simply slapping a tag on things, but as my familiarity with the series ended around 1997 or '98, I figured I'd leave it to someone who does. If not for my sake, then please, gentlemen, do it for your fellow soldier in the GDI! Tommy Socks 10:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. After reading the article, I don't know what you'd be confused about. Maybe you could elaborate on your issue, we could help further. I think maybe you'd want to read the individual game's articles, those could possibly clear some of this up. Any input would help! Thanks, BoaDrummer 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe and expand tag would be better, no?--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Firestorm

On THe first decade I saw for firestrom a buch of movies showing reapers and juggernaughts but I passed the game and never saw any of these by the way the version I played was from the C&C Colection. Jamhaw 18:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)jamhaw


A small note to attempt to tie in the errant Generals game

The GLA may be a cover for NOD, although I can't prove it...

I might be able to prove it now. The GLA is a middle-east terror organisation. Nod is (or was) situated in the middle east.

  • Yeah but sadly if it were canonical it would have taken place in the 80's maybe early 90's rather than 2010 because GDI was formed in 95 sorry it just goes to show how easy it would be to connect the series if only EA had shown a little foresight. Jamhaw 16:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)jamhaw

MUST SEE

I am tired of seeing Warcraft 111 interface it is the peon system. This term is used because of the orcish peons of warcraft 2 that interface system is very very old.

Wikiquote-page gone?

I'm new so sorry if I'll press a wrong button.


I can't find the Wikiquote-page of Command & Conquer. Was it removed? Why? Vandalism?

Heroes

Hi. I don't consider myself as among hardcore CNC fans. There are probably fans here who knows much more then me. :) (now to topic).

Maybe you should consider mentioning TD 'Commando' GDI unit in the 'Hero section'. Strange thing is he's not mentioned in 'Renegade' articals nor is there reletivity to 'havoc' character. 'Renegade' intro (or maybe it was the sneak peek in YR dont remember) shows a cue that Havoc is the TD GDI Commando unit.

Peace all. --89.1.4.29 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment about the general confusion here

I would be very happy to re-write the majority of this article in order to make it more like an encycolpedia reference. I have played all of the C&C games as they were released, and have a strong knowledge of the series.

I beleive that this page should have a link to the C&C game at the top, or a dis-ambiguation page. Further, this page should be cut back drastically to reflect the series as a whole, without discussing the relative differences between the games. IE superweapons sections.

Mention should surely be kept of the inclusion of heroes and superweapons in C&C and it's sequels, as this was one of (if not the first) RTS series to include what has now become a major feature of all RTS games. However, details should be in the relevant game's own pages.

If anyone has a problem with this, or if there is a better way for me to go about this, please let me know. I havn't written for Wikipedia before, bug use it alot, and personally think i can improve this article. I apologise if this annoys anyone, and am only acting to make this a better reference material.

Liam42 14:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiberian and Red Alert series connection

I'm not entirely sure this section is appropriate for the article - it is high on speculation and seems to be overly confusing - linking the Red Alert & Tiberian timelines together is a prickly issue due to the existance of Red Alert 2 and doesn't even start to explain where all that advanced technology went in the years between.

I only have a vague recollection that Westwood were indeed working on a way to link the timelines, but this would probably pre-date Red Alert 2 I suspect, throwing it into even futher doubt while at the same time I seem to recall someone stating that the Red Alert and Tiberian timelines are seperate universes and the attempt to link them was abandoned. I unfortunately can't verify this properly.

I would suggest that attempting to link the timelines should at the moment, without a direct verification source stating one way or the other, be simply left as an article explaining the difficulties of doing so as there's sufficient "reasonable doubt" to claim they are linked, and the reverse would like have reasonable doubt. Kane for example does appear in Red Alert, yes, but there's sufficient room to argue that the Red Alert timeline could be a seperate "History" to the Tiberian one where the GDI was never formed. - Petrarch

I am going to restore it chiefly because the paragraph is not speculation; it is outright stated by a former Westwood employee (Ishmael) working at Petroglyph. Ishmael concedes on the forum that EA now controls the history, and I probably wrote that in the paragraph. At any rate, I'll revive it (with new information, like Kane's origin) and emphasize that it was Westwood's will, and this will is no longer active. The information concerning Tesla and the fact that Red Alert 2 was to be created from another split in C&C3 is very interesting and relevant to fans of the Command & Conquer series. Remember, this is all from Westwood employees. I'm not making it up; you can visit the cited references to read them. Zeality 04:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its worth a mention that america and the GDI are heavily linked in terms of tactics used, unit worth and strength ect. NOD and china have similar base characteristcs (heavy handed tactics, sacrifice of the majority to push forward, ect) Scrin and the GLA are also interlinked.. sorta.. the link is much more tedious here.

Removal of two sections concerning the Red Alert series

I've removed the "Tiberian and Red Alert series connection" and "Connection Theory" sections from this article under the following rationale; 1) The majority, if not to say all, of their content was only indirectly relevant to this article on the Command & Conquer series as a whole, and much of it was redundant as well in it being handled already in the dedicated Red Alert 1 article and with greater objective detail and under more accurate analysis to boot. 2) Much of the content of these sections was rather heavily compromised by weasel words, personal point of view and original research. Lastly, the provided reference links to Petroglyph Studios aren't something we can consider as a valid source, due to the storyline of these series being officially the intellectual property of Electronic Arts as of 2003 (and as a result Petroglyph's perspectives may cause more confusion among readers than it helps to clarify as EA may take the story in other directions than the original Westwood team had planned), and also because message board forums are not to be considered as valid reference links under standing Wikipedia policy.

I've instead made an internal reference in the Red Alert series section to the dedicated "Connections to the Tiberian Series" section of the Red Alert article, which covers the subject much more thoroughly and objectively than these two deleted sections did. 84.192.125.204 11:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Jarmen Kell AfD

This article is up for deletion. It's not clear from the article just how prominent this unit is in the game. If it's a significant feature, there's strong precedence for a Keep. However, if it's a trivial feature, it's probably deletable. Please do contribute to the AfD - expert contributors properly weighing up notability really add to AfDs. --Dweller 16:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Commandos

I'm rather new to the wiki editing, so I thought I'd leave this suggestion with you guys who have more experience in this sort of thing.

Here's the idea, a new page concerning the evolution/history of the commandos in C&C. Every C&C game up until now has always had a commando unit, so along with screenshots and descriptions, we can include other info about them.

There is much to say, such as the GDI commando intel from C&C3.

Also, this is beneficial because instead of an individual page for every commando, we can list them all in a single page. Havoc, Tanya, and all the other nameless commandos can be compared in their evolution through games.

I'm just throwing the bone out here.

Sunday June 17th, 2007

Requested move #2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was move due to the lack of opposing votes, and (consequently) the uncontroversial characteristics of the request.


Command & Conquer series → Command & Conquer (series) — Using "()" around the "series" is the standard title formatting used in most video game related articles —MrStalker talk 15:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Note that if no one opposes the rename within, let's say, 72 hours from the time the request was posted, I must be bold and rename the article. --MrStalker talk 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    Lack of opposition is not consensus. And who says you must rename it after 72 hours? The standard time for a page move discussion is 5 days. 172.200.54.177 04:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    Lack of opposition means I will follow the conventions. Perhaps I don't must, if the word is used in the correct meaning, but I will. Anyhow, it doesn't matter since A Man In Black already has moved it. --MrStalker talk 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: See also for example Final Fantasy (series), which uses this naming. --MrStalker talk 12:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rumor report

This was found on http://jobs.ea.com:

Does the idea of contributing your specialized knowledge in sound design to the next generation gaming platform for EAs widely recognized leading Sci Fi franchise get you pumped? EA has an exciting opportunity for a Sound Designer who will work closely with the Audio Director on creating sound effects, dialog and music for a next-generation first person shooter game. You will be instrumental in designing audio elements for a high profile new intellectual property.

(...)

Responsible for designing and implementing sound effects for C&CX including sound effects design and editing, music integration, field recording, technology development and documentation.

Source: Planet CnC

Conclusion: There is another C&C FPS game coming. Should any of this be included in the article? Since it's not confirmed, it's on the edge of speculation. --MrStalker talk 22:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

Anyone find that this needs to be wikified and rewritten according to Wikipedia standards? The wording is just bad, there are grammar issues, and overall its starting to be hijacked by C&C fanboys instead of sensible Wikipedia editors. crazyviolinist 00:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree--KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 12:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And can someone decide if its "Tiberiun" or "Tiberium"? totally unprofessional if its spelt 2 different ways 100 times!! --T3hllama 02:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It is Tiberium. --SkyWalker 04:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dune 2 references?

I am surprised there are no references in this article to C&C being spun out of Dune 2 by Westwood. It probably needs some coverage. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Command & Conquer Factions

Command & Conquer Factions is now on AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Factions you may wish to comment there. --Salix alba (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Command & Conquer 3 Mobile

Recently, a user added that "Command & Conquer 3 Mobile" was released. After a fair amount of searching, I decided to delete it. Here are my reasons:

  • Although game trailers exist, I could not find any official announcement from EA about the product
  • EAMobile.com does not offer the game. Only one site I could find offered it, but it seemed to be very ambiguous
  • Regardless, the game was listed in the section of games produced by EA Los Angeles. There is no indication that such a game was produced here.

If anybody can find solid proof on the contrary, I would be more than happy with including it. I just don't feel right adding it when I couldn't find sufficient proof for its existence. Thunderforge (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Commandos

I distinctly remember building multiple commandos in multiplayer C&C. I would check but multiplayer has been disabled by the patch that allows it to run on xp. 67.173.1.71 (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Character and Faction Pages

(Cross-posted from WikiProject: Video Games talk page, also posted to Command & Conquer Task Force talk page)

This is something that's been bothering me for a while, time to get closure on it. Basically just about every Command & Conquer related article is a mess, and to get a template for the other games I've been working on Red Alert 3. A sticking point is the cast and characters section, and the main articles. At present there is are articles for most characters divided by faction (so Allied characters of Command & Conquer etc). These articles are almost wholly non-referenced, at least not to 3rd party sources, and I would say non-notable. There are exceptions - I'd argue Kane and Tanya are iconic enough to warrant their own articles (possibly not the latter) and indeed the C&C miscellaneous articles have been cut down a lot already, but should these characters articles exist?

Actually, when thinking about this I would extend this discussion to the faction articles as well where notability can't be proven - I'm not sure how many other computer games have pages for factions not existing in a context outwith the series.

There are a few options here (this list is not exhaustive):

  • Keep all articles as they are, just cleaning them up, adding references, etc as any normal article progresses.
  • Submit them all to AFD - individually of course - citing the likes of WP:N as reasoning
  • Cut down on the number of lists, for example by having one list per series
  • Keep a couple of them, remove the rest
  • Take a few key characters - like Kane and possibly Tanya - and expand them into their own articles (Kane already has one right enough) while deleting the broader lists
  • As above but keep the lists for (a smaller number than at present of) minor characters
  • Keep the faction articles and merge the character lists into them

For reference I'm talking about the following articles:

I'm undecided on the best course of action and as such open to any of the above options. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I vote that we take the same route as the articles for species in StarCraft, another RTS game that is a Featured Article. Rather than having individual pages about each faction (Terran, Protoss, etc.), they use a combined page called Species of StarCraft that covers them all. A similar thing could be done with Command & Conquer with a page called "Factions of Command & Conquer" or we could split Tiberium and Red Alert factions if we wanted to be more specific. I think that the factions of C&C are just as notable as the StarCraft factions and they way they handle it seems to work well.
I'm not sure about what to do with the characters. The StarCraft pages make an individual page for each notable character. I don't think there's really enough information in the C&C Universe to warrant individual pages (an article about Nick "Havoc" Parkman would be just like the C&C: Renegade page, for instance). I think Kane needs to keep a page of his own since he's appeared in a lot of outside material. Tanya could go either way. She's in enough games and has enough personality and all to warrant an article for herself. I think we should also keep the Yuri article. He's a major antagonist (he's got an expansion pack named after him!) and the existing page seems to be detailed enough. As for Allied characters of Command & Conquer and similar pages, I think they can be safely scrapped.
So, my vote is to merge factions, expand articles for Kane, Tanya, and Yuri, and delete the "List of Characters" pages. Thunderforge (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Funnily enough I made the same suggestion - a "Factions of Command & Conquer" page on Video Games Project posting of this. Seems to be a good idea, and one I'll create just shortly. Mergers and the like can then be discussed. For the characters, Kane I agree needs an article, Tanya is one I'm not sure on, Yuri is full of OR and Game Guide stuff which shouldn't be in Wikipedia. There's also the fact that Kane is iconic of the whole series and a consistent factor throughout, Yuri was in RA2 but in the main game he was only really a minor character except for a couple of missions/units. I don't think he is quite notable for his own article.
One thing we could do is create a "Characters of Command & Conquer" article, with a paragraph on those who matter, like Yuri, and definitely Tanya if she doesn't get one, but be brutal about it so it's not just a straight merger of the existing (awful) articles. The concept of Eva for example has value, discussions of the individual incarnations probably doesn't. We need to look at non-OR, Plot or Game Guide material that we can source for encyclopedic value, the rest can be dumped. What say you to that? Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be a good compromise. I looked at the Yuri article again and I agree that it's kind of worthless as is and would likely be better presented in a characters page. Of course, the page should only contain info about noteworthy characters (i.e. we don't need to talk about Col. M.O. Morelli, but Tanya, Cmdr. McNeill, and Gen. Solomon would all be in). So would it be better to have a single page for all characters in the C&C universe or would it be better to split it into Tiberium and Red Alert? I vote splitting, it just becomes too long otherwise. Better yet, it may be best to split between Tiberium and "Spin-off games" that way we can structure it like the C&C template at the bottom of C&C pages. -Thunderforge (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
How long would it be though if we were to create one article? Actually, see below, I think it's time we looked at sorting out who should go in the article. If we can do that then we can discuss that before creating the article.

Section break for discussion of proposed content of Characters of Command & Conquer article

The following are my suggestions for characters to be included in such an article along with my rationale for including them, ordered by game. Feel free to discuss and comment, I won't create the article yet:

CNC

  1. Brigadier General Mark Jamison Shepard - main player contact with GDI, gives nearly all briefings
  2. Dr Ignatio Mobius - discoverer of Tiberium, referred to in four games, appears physically in two
  3. Kane - small summary needed only with link to main article, which can be kept - leader of Nod and easily most iconic character in series
  4. Seth - Kane's second in command, gives orders to the player for much of the first game and appears again in Renegade
  5. Captain Nick "Havoc" Parker - main character of Renegade, referenced again in Tiberium Wars
  6. General James Solomon - Leader of GDI during Tiberian Sun
  7. Commander Michael McNeill - the player assumes the role of this character, vital to the game
  8. General Paul Cortez - assumes Solomon's role during Firestorm
  9. Anton Slavik - the player character, as with McNeill, vital
  10. CABAL - formerly had its own article which was Prodded a few months back and failed easily. Still warrants a mention in this article though
  11. Director Redmond Boyle – plot-critical, a leader in GDI
  12. General Jack Granger – player’s main contact in the game, plays the Solomon/Jamison role
  13. LEGION – the player character in Kane’s Wrath

RA

  1. Nadia – Kane’s agent in the Soviet campaign in the original Red Alert, plot critical and on occasion briefs the player
  2. Premier Josef Stalin – the Soviet leader, obviously warrants an appearance
  3. General Nikos Stavros – Allied 2nd in command
  4. Grand Marshall Gunter von Esling – head of Allied Command
  5. Professor Albert Einstein – created a lot of the Allied technology, plot critical in all 3 games. The “Mobius” of the Red Alert series (though that of course is OR to say so won’t be included)
  6. Special Agent Tanya Adams – possibly warrants own article, if not gets extended section in this one
  7. General Ben Carville – the main player contact in RA2, also plays the same role in the Playstation version of the expansion packs to RA1
  8. Premier Alexander Romanov – leader of the Soviets in RA2
  9. Yuri – currently has own article, probably shouldn’t, but warrants an extended mention in this one
  10. President Michael Dugan – leader of Allies in RA2
  11. Premier Anatoly Cherdenko – leader of Soviets in RA3
  12. Dr Gregor Zelinksy – plot critical, the inventor of the time machine
  13. President Howard T. Ackerman – president of the USA during RA3, a key leader
  14. Field Marshall Robert Bingham – the player’s direct contact for most of RA3
  15. Emperor Yoshiro – leader of Empire of the Rising Sun
  16. Crown Prince Tatsu – Yoshiro’s son and deputy

Characters removed from list

Moved here for clarity #Dead-6 - Collectively not as individual sections, Havoc's team in Renegade, provided the game guide stuff is kept down they can go in, though I’d not be complaining if they were left out #Commanders Shinzo Nagama, Kenji Tenzai and Naomi Shirada – see Soviets, same applies #Commanders Nikolai Moskvin, Zhana Agonskaya, Oleg Vodnik – probably just a short summary for all 3, there won’t be much encyclopedic information out there #General Vladimir – important Soviet official, plays the second in command role #General Boris Krukov – plays the Vladimir role for Cherdenko #General Topalov – plays the Carville role in the expansion packs for the Playstation version and with certain patches for the PC versions #Commanders Warren Fuller, Giles Price, Lissette Hanley – see Soviets, same applies #Kukov and Gradenko – probably a joint entry, they both brief the player and are plot important #General Killian Qatar – plays a role equivalent to Seth #Dr Elena Petrova - final boss in Renegade, as a principle antagonist she deserves a mention #General Gideon Raveshaw, Carlos Mendoza and Sakura Obata I'm not sure on to be honest, they seem rather borderline to me. Anyone?

Eva I think could be dealt with in possibly a separate article, possibly an all encompassing section of this one – the role and name is mostly the same in all games for all sides, with the name Eva applying to a character in RA3 and an AI in the Tiberium series.
That list by the way is shorter than it could be, but that’s because I’ve tried to be brutal. I wouldn’t object to further removals, I would be reluctant to add to the list however. It does look though like a separate list for the RA and Tiberium series articles would be best, though it could also be split by main games and spinoffs. Opinions? Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be a pretty comprehensive list. My concern is still that the article may be too long. There are 40 characters on the list. A list such as List of Earth characters in Stargate SG-1 has paragraphs for 29 characters (and many minor ones that it mentions in about a sentence). That page is already quite long and we would be planning on making a page that would be even longer. However, since it would be easier to split than to merge, it may just be best to start with one article and split if it's decided at that point to become too unweildy. -Thunderforge (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Starting with one article would certainly force us to be brutal to keep within a decent length. Hmm...perhaps we could discuss equivalent characters together in some way? I'm not quite sure how this would look on paper, but as I've suggested with Eva, perhaps we could keep the length down by discussing the role of the Jamison etc characters in one fell swoop. This would also mean that we'd be forced to avoid plot repetition, which is always a good thing. I've got a subpage link to a single characters page at the bottom of my userpage by the way, you or anyone else are free to create a work in progress article using it - obviously I watch my own userpage, so I'll be kept up to date with it anyway. I'll certainly see what I can do by way of starting on it if that would be an idea, I'm wary of biting off more than I can chew which is why I haven't yet made a formal merger proposal for the characters - I've got my work cut out with the factions one! If desired though I'm happy to start a formal discussion on it just as I have the faction pages, I may just about be able to keep track of everything at once. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I numbered instead of bulleted them, to get a rough idea of what's here for each series. As for the Jamison type characters, that popped into my head separately after seeing that there was commonality between certain kinds of characters. I personally would avoid all plot in this article, as that can be left to the main game articles. Instead, look to how they're described in game and out of game, as well as the necessary development and such of each. Personally, I'd try to get it down to half of those currently present if that is possible. --Izno (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay in replying here! I think there's two options for this article:
  1. Create a List-class article "List of Characters of Command & Conquer"
  2. Create a normal article "Characters of..."

The difference is in the approach, because if it's the latter we need to avoid huge quantities of gamecruft and focus on the encyclopedic stuff. So I think that's what we should be doing, leaving a crufty-list to the C&C Wikia, which can be linked to at the bottom of all C&C pages I think. The equivalency idea suggested could perhaps apply then to other sets of stock characters - the insane scientists (Einstein, Yuri, Zelinksy) etc. It would take a good bit of thought and discussion as to how to structure the article, but I think it would be easier to keep it to the notable characters and to keep it free of gamecruft if we did it this way. What say you? Oh, and I've trimmed the list a bit anyway in case the list idea seems more feasible. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Louis Castle

I seriously object to Louis Castle being called the creator of the C&C series. This is the impression EA is trying to create, since Castle was one of the founders of Westwood, and one of the few people from Westwood who decided to stay with EA after Westwood was dismantled. However, a quick look at the credits to Command & Conquer game reveals he had nothing to do with the creation of this particular franchise at all. In fact, in the context of the series, Castle's name first appears in the credits to Tiberian Sun, where he was responsible for, lo and behold, "additional voices". 77.112.163.52 (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Command & Conquer NOT Tiberium Dawn

While C&C is also known as Tiberian Dawn that is not its official name, and as an encyclopedia site we should use the official name when discussing the game. I'm going to go through and change all the references of the game being called Tiberian Dawn to just Command & Conquer, It's offical name. Any objections? --Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 10:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, it was named "Tiberian Dawn" in the official Westwood FAQs for C&C and C&C:RA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.19.166.73 (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We've been through this before, the official name is Command & Conquer. That's what Westwood published the original game as, that's what Westwood publishe the Gold edition as, that's what EA published the game as in The First Decade, that's what EA's free download is called. Even if FAQs call it Tiberian Dawn, I see no reason to change it since every time the game was published it was simply called Command & Conquer. The way we have it now works fine: it's called Command & Conquer, but at the beginning, it also notes the alternate title. -Thunderforge (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archived

This talk page was getting too big so it has been archived here

Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Command_%26_Conquer/Archive_1&oldid=1149982299"