No, RA1's tech is fine for its era. The problem lies with TD's tech being identical to Red Alert. If the stories did really connect, why the lack of change in technology over 40 to 50 years? Kane is not a valid answer. Then the politics come into play. Red Alert is predominately European, therefore Tiberian Dawn should be the same, but TD is almost exclusively American. There would be no reason for the US to even be involved in the war.
There's a hole in the argument that RA->TD. It's just not possible. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
TD isn't necessarily American. Yes the actors are all playing characters with American accents but the game never takes place in the US itself. GDI is a global organisation, involving Europe and even Russia (suggesting an Allied victory). The United States simply joined GDI sometime after it was formed. European nations could have signed some kind of agreement with the US to ensure they'd help in any conflict or perhaps America was under Nod threat/had plenty of Nod activity so they decided to join GDI.
It doesn't involve Russia because it suggests a 'Allied Victory'. Russia is involved because the Russian Federation is a member of the UN Security Council. Also, TD is -very- America oriented.
ALL of the vehicles, even Nod's, are American pretty much. Save for Nod's unique high-tech stuff and the Mammoth Tank. _________________ Victory! QUICK_EDIT
If the stories did really connect, why the lack of change in technology over 40 to 50 years?
Because like I said before, the tanks were never supposed to represent real-life tanks to begin with. The resemblance is coincidental because WW only used them as a reference to make the models, but other than that the tanks are pretty much simply what they're called; "light tank", "medium tank", "heavy tank", "mammoth tank", "artillery", etc., with no afterthought. Just like how the artillery is also no specific artillery, but just an artillery.
Also don't forget that RA1 was originally going to be an expansion for TD and simply recycling graphics by re-rendering models they already had in slightly higher quality saves time, money and effort.
WW obviously didn't invest any time in researching and plotting out what technology there was at what time and which technology there would have been as a result of the events that occurred in C&C's story.
And like OmegaBolt said, GDI isn't necessarily American in TD; the actors are. GDI is exactly what its name says; a Global Defence Initiative, made up out of people from all countries, including the US. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
It doesn't involve Russia because it suggests a 'Allied Victory'. Russia is involved because the Russian Federation is a member of the UN Security Council.
It doesn't or you don't think it does? If TD is a sequel to RA1 then Russia can only be part of the UN because the Allies won, else it'd be Soviet Europe (where presumably the UN isn't formed).
Volgin wrote:
ALL of the vehicles, even Nod's, are American pretty much. Save for Nod's unique high-tech stuff and the Mammoth Tank.
Don't see it like that myself. I could give an Asian faction a tank similar to the Abrams and call it a Medium Tank, it would still be Asian within the realms of the mod/game.
TD is an alternate history based on, but not limited to, reality. You are supposed to, and are able to, draw your own conclusions. QUICK_EDIT
wait wait wait, most of the story in the tierium universe playe in the eastern and southern regions and IN europe, africa, israel, egypt, even germany you can't say its all american just because the TW campaigns were playing there mostly, in TD and TS the battlefield and even ground zero was on other continents _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
The idea of the vehicles in TD and RA just being 'light,medium,heavy' ecetera is absurd. Does that mean that ORCA fighters in TS are various models? Or that there are various 'Titan' class mecha? No. That logic can't be halfheartedly applied to some games and not others. It just dosn't make sense.
There was very little, if any, effort made to connect TD and RA other than throwing Kane in a few cutscenes and a referenced to an 'initiative of global defense'. Removing RA or having it 'canon' doesn't change the outcome of the storyline. Why is everybody so hellbent on holding onto these small fragments of 'evidence' to try to connect something which otherwise doesn't work? Because Westwood said so? These are the same idiots who photoshopped their work and sold a severely downgraded game, TWICE, to fans. The same people who sold out? The same people who can barely keep their canon straight, and even admitted that RA1 was a failed experiment.
Seriously. It doesn't work. Stop trying. _________________ Victory! QUICK_EDIT
and just because you make love to kitten, others are wrong?
They're wrong because, get this, they're fucking wrong.
Quote:
Because like I said before, the tanks were never supposed to represent real-life tanks to begin with. The resemblance is coincidental because WW only used them as a reference to make the models, but other than that the tanks are pretty much simply what they're called; "light tank", "medium tank", "heavy tank", "mammoth tank", "artillery", etc., with no afterthought. Just like how the artillery is also no specific artillery, but just an artillery.
That still doesn't explain why technology in Red Alert is identical to Tiberian Dawn. Stop dancing around the issue with the nomenclature Westwood used and provide a real answer, or at least admit you don't have one.
Quote:
Also don't forget that RA1 was originally going to be an expansion for TD and simply recycling graphics by re-rendering models they already had in slightly higher quality saves time, money and effort.
RA, at one time, was meant to be a 'prequel', not an expansion to Tiberian Dawn. The very idea for either idea is ludicrous at best though. And every link you provide is tenuous or non-existent.
Quote:
WW obviously didn't invest any time in researching and plotting out what technology there was at what time and which technology there would have been as a result of the events that occurred in C&C's story.
So now you're saying that Westwood is ingenious enough to include a connection between Red Alert and Tiberium but too lazy to conclude the changes in technology because of it? Sorry, that doesn't fly. Try again.
Quote:
There was very little, if any, effort made to connect TD and RA other than throwing Kane in a few cutscenes and a referenced to an 'initiative of global defense'.
I'll quote EVA for this one - marketing based on the popularity of the first game to sell more copies. End of fucking discussion. But damned if I don't agree with you, Carno. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
Does that mean that ORCA fighters in TS are various models? Or that there are various 'Titan' class mecha? No.
Unlike the mentioned vehicles, ORCAs don't have a generic name and nor do Titans.
However, that being said, I don't think the ORCAs in TS are the same class/model as the ones in TD and if WW would've made a sequel to TS and it'd featured Titans as well (or if you simply see KW as a sequel), I don't think they'd have been the same Titan class/model then either, although they'd still just have been called "Titan".
FurryQueen wrote:
raminator wrote:
and just because you make love to kitten, others are wrong?
They're wrong because, get this, they're fucking wrong.
I'm pretty sure the most will agree you're the one who fucks wrong and others fuck right
FurryQueen wrote:
That still doesn't explain why technology in Red Alert is identical to Tiberian Dawn.
Only the technology with generic names and resemblance to real-life tech is identical, yet all fictional technology is completely different.
This is also why the Apache (one of the few units that doesn't have a generic name but does have a counterpart in both TD and RA1) doesn't appear in RA1 with the same name, but was instead replaced with the Hind. _________________ Last edited by Bittah Commander on Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:27 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
They have the same technology because they didn't want to make new graphics? I mean really, thats the blatently obvious answer to everything was that there was an economic decision in how to make the game for the cheapest price as possible, and then just glossing over it in the 'cannon'. Ra1 was originally gonna be a ww2 game, and it still would have used the same graphics. Does that mean they were implying that M1Arbams were the standard medium tank of WW2? Because that's exactly how it would have turned out.
Ingame material exists to a large part for economical reasons, hence all the re used assets. The game was gonna be a ww2 game, hence the green gas and propeller planes, and the design for allot of the buildings. The financiers didn't want to touch it (appearantly 1996 was *too soon*) so they changed direction.
Even if the same tech was being used, it still kinda makes sense, in terms that old tanks are still in use today. Nod, who would make more sense getting their vehicles secondhand would make perfect sense using ancient vehicles. The US sells aton of it's old stuff, so if you think that RA1 arty must = TD arty, then it makes as much sense middle easter countries today using weapons that are both foreign and outdated, which they totally do. So that possibly explains away Nod's 'repeat tech'. As for GDI: the units that standout as the repeated techs are the medium tank and the mammoth tank. It's not like the Abram has been in production for thirty years-oh wait it has. Old stuff gets used, but there has been improvements in the overall tech from ra1 to td: nuclear power plants instead of coal looking ones, lasers shooting towers, ion cannons, humvees instead of jeeps, etc etc.
Whats the point? It's fricking fiction, they make the stuff first and then write the story second. And since its fiction, they can write whatever they damn well please, reasoning about it from the clues means nothing, some things are meant to be ambiguous and vague. If they said at one time that the two were connected, then they were. If the reverse happens, you can figure it out. Its like watching Inception and saying that the ending definitivley shows that it is or is not a dream.
I think none of this matters because I'm betting the game is gonna be a straight up gritty reboot, Batman Begins style. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
It's just pretty terrible that a forum war that pits one side of the community against the other is one of the major activity points in the community right now. I guess it's just me though. :p QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:05 am Post subject:
m7 wrote:
It's just pretty terrible that a forum war that pits one side of the community against the other is one of the major activity points in the community right now.
You must be new here. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
It's a discussion. It's amusing. And considering it's contained within a single active topic you can simply either join in or avoid it. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Last question there. Seems that CNC isn't going to be dead:
Quote:
Eric: In closing, do you have anything you’d like to say to the fans?
JVC: Absolutely! I want the fans to know that Victory Games is committed to bringing Command & Conquer back to the forefront for the next ten years and beyond.
In name C&C will prolly still be around until the day I die. I bet people will be drinking C&C soda by then
pd wrote:
So C&C 4 was the last in the series, so what do we do: recreate the first?
EA is the most retarded company I know if they are really doing this.
Also, C&C has been dead since the introduction of 3D. Now it's just another series with the same name. Pretty much period here for me.
Although I agree, we already know EA was going to keep milking C&C for as long as possible anyhow and knowing that, a reboot is actually the best thing they could've done.
I agree C&C has been dead since the inclusion of 3D. C&C v1 (RA1, TD, TS) already died with WW, C&C v2 died with C&C4, so I guess it's onto C&C v3. And although I'm not getting my hopes up, because of the disappointment with v2, v3 just might turn out to be a pleasant surprise.
DaFool wrote:
I'm betting the game is gonna be a straight up gritty reboot, Batman Begins style.
Post
That's actually the best thing I can hope for. Batman Begins took a partially silly, although somewhat interesting universe and rewrote its story from the beginning with an a lot more serious tone.
Hopefully the same will be done with C&C (whether or not RA1 will be connected to TD), although I hope it'll also have some real-life references like WW also had in mind (such as Tesla contacting the Scrin rebels, the Philadelphia experiment and possibly even Roswell; although I do realize that the reference to Roswell originally wasn't supposed to be anything more than just a wink to those who know about it, but there was no actual connection to the Scrin) since those made the story somewhat more interesting IMO. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:14 pm Post subject:
pd wrote:
Also, C&C has been dead since the introduction of 3D. Now it's just another series with the same name. Pretty much period here for me.
Even though I want to stay out of this discussion as much as possible, I can't let this one pass.
Generals and TW aren't bad games. In contrary, they are just as good as TS/RA2 imho. It went downhill after TW, and especially after RA3.
But as said, let's hope the new studio will do their best to bring C&C back to what it was before: a damn good RTS series. QUICK_EDIT
TW ain't bad, but what makes it quite short-lived for me is the lack of good multiplayer maps (even with TE). It has only a few 6+ player maps, and all of those are symmetrical and boring. Something I hope the new C&C will fix, bringing the map variety back to the level it was in TS/FS and RA1.
The campaign also had one rather annoying issue; I don't remember ever seeing Nod harvesting tiberium in the GDI campaign. The AI was getting pretty much all of its money from the air. It felt like I would've been playing with entirely different rules than the AI (in a way that limits strategies). I'd say C&C3 is good, but not great like the first C&Cs.
How can people claim Westwood didn't intend RA1 to be a prequel to TD? I mean, Kane is in the game, what more do you need?! Regardless of anything that came after, clearly Westwood intended at the time to make it a prequel.
I'm pretty hopeful for the reboot, although if they stick (loosely of course) to the original story, that means we'll be playing a few Soviets vs Allies games before we get to a GDI vs Nod game. If theyr're really smart they'll plan the entire story arc ahead of time, at least roughly, and then skip back and forth between the two (giving years when they take place, I'm sure) until reaching the climax right in the middle: the point where Nod takes over from the Soviets.
That's my guess anyway. That way people don't get bored with one type of game or the other.
I'm still concerned with how they're going to handle it. So far they've had a really hard time finding a good balance of how serious they make them. Either they go way overboard with pandering to the hardcore fans (TW+KW), or they just go completely silly (RA3). They haven't been able to find the middle ground that Westwood had, with just enough story to be compelling, without going crazy in-depth, and without being farcical.
I think that's the biggest difference between how EA handles the franchise and how Westwood did. Generals wasn't too bad in that regard; although it did lean a bit towards the ridiculous for my tastes, at least it wasn't RA3.
There are also little things, like "Fast, Fluid, and Fun", but that's really tied into them not knowing how to reach that balance. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
No, it isn't. Not even remotely.
If you really want other proof, you can find it yourself. If you decompile the RA1 exe, you'll find the directory structure of the source code, and the folder it's all in is called C&C0. From this, we know that from very early on the game was planned as a prequel.
Also, the game was marketed as the prequel to TD.
From their marketing copy:
Quote:
Now, Westwood Studios prepares to once again re-define the real-time strategy game with Command & Conquer: Red Alert. The prequel to C&C, Red Alert probes deeper into the mystery of the C&C universe, giving the player all new strategies and elements to further their conquests in solo, LAN, and modem play.
Numerous developers have stated that it was a prequel since then as well. The proof is all around, I really can't imagine how you could not believe it other than that you willfully ignore it. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
That's bad reasoning. Forgetting about the contract that'd have to have been signed, if NWA would've claimed Snoop Dogg is part of NWA and Snoop Dogg wouldn't have contradicted that, Snoop Dogg would've been a part of NWA even if he never recorded more than 3 songs with them. As long as they (both NWA and Snoop) keep saying it, it's true; even if the fans disagree.
Or if you want a different example; Flesh-N-Bone, a member of Bone Thugs-N-Harmony, spent 10 years in prison. During those 10 years in prison he was still considered to be a member of Bone Thugs-N-Harmony (yes, yet another rap group) and even if he'd have had a life sentence they'd still have considered him to be a member of the group. Even if fans disagree it doesn't matter because they're BTNH, so they decide who's a member of BTNH and who's not. _________________ Last edited by Bittah Commander on Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:00 am; edited 3 times in total QUICK_EDIT
Because its was the 3rd released, for some reason in germany thats the number they selected, rather then its chronological number of 2 (as Red Alert was the prequil of C&C1)
C&C 0 = RA 1
C&C 1 = Tiberian Dawn
C&C 2 = Tiberian Sun
C&C 3 = Tiberian Twilight
C&C 4 = possibily a 4th Tiberian game, unsure on this. Last edited by Rico on Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:24 am; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 24 May 2004 Location: Flanders (Be) Posts:300000001
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:38 am Post subject:
Actually, I remember devs on the Petro forum saying they never planned to only have three parts in the Tiberium storyline. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Actually, I remember devs on the Petro forum saying they never planned to only have three parts in the Tiberium storyline.
Thats the impression I got, they had always left it open for more sequals, and Tiberian Twilight was meant to be C&C3 but they may have given a name change (perhaps saving twilight for a later game?) QUICK_EDIT
Actually, I remember devs on the Petro forum saying they never planned to only have three parts in the Tiberium storyline.
IIRC they intended to have 3 parts when they made TD, but quickly changed their minds when they made RA1.
I'm not sure why they changed the name of the third part to Incursion however... Maybe they necessarily wanted the last part to be Twilight? _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Actually, I remember devs on the Petro forum saying they never planned to only have three parts in the Tiberium storyline.
IIRC they intended to have 3 parts when they made TD, but quickly changed their minds when they made RA1.
I'm not sure why they changed the name of the third part to Incursion however... Maybe they necessarily wanted the last part to be Twilight?
well twilight does mean evening/end, so they wanted to follow the Dawn (tiberian era start), Sun (middle child) and Twilight (end of the story), but decided to put incursion (scrin incursion im assuming) in after Sun (possibly due to change in storyline or decided one game couldnt finish it off how they wanted (or just wanted more money)). QUICK_EDIT
Nah, seriously. I don't have a clue what you're saying
Anyhow, the C&C storyline is technically already finished, as full of holes and horrible the end might have been.
Now that EA is doing a reboot, EA will likely be more devoted to staying "true" to the story (rather than turning it into swizz cheese), since it's a story they started themselves. I certainly have higher hopes for this turning into anything good than I had for KW (and C&C4 isn't even worth mentioning). _________________ QUICK_EDIT
TW and KW were both very good games. My only few problems with them were the art direction which TS had the best of. C&C3 also had a good story, not what you wished for but nonetheless good and exciting maybe just a bit disrespectful to the characters and events of FS.
But then came a C&C4... well it was shit as one could be. Shit graphics, awful art and a gameplay trying to mimic DoW2 which would be a disgrace to DoW2.
Since C&C4 came I was hoping for a reboot to come after years. And I still want one but I'd first prefer more time to pass to make it feel more like a reboot and let the memories of the last game just pass.
But EA can make really good games, Crysis was great and by looking at the reviews Crysis 2 also seems fantastic. The problem is they should just not give their own input and let the devs do their job. Look what happened to Dragon age 2 thanks to rushing the thing. QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
