Talk:Command & Conquer: Red Alert

Red Alert Retaliation on PSP?

The beginning of the articles states that RA:R was re-released as a download for the PSP. There's no citation. Where is this download? All I'm finding in a Google search is torrents of the PSX .isos. Last I checked, those were illegal unless they are backups of your purchased copy of the game. Seeing as RA is freeware now, does this still hold true? And even if it were legal, it still requires a custom firmware for the PSP. SONY is dead against custom firmwares, so why would they allow a release of a game that requires a CFW to be run? My only conclusion is that if the game were re-released, it would probably be unofficial. Therefore, I suggest the article state it was unofficial, unless a citation is posted. -User:gunluva 05:41 PM, 06 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.77.154 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

doesnt work with systems past windows 95

can some1 else verify this, me and my friend tried installing it on 2 different comps and it said that it only works on windows 95, wat gives?

• All you have to do is making the setup file Win95 compatible (right click -> properties -> compatibility tab) and install the game. Then you go to whereever you installed the game and make RA.exe Win95 compatible, that should do the trick -BrynTheSkits 06:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, I Have Vista and Recently bought The First Decade... Red Alert runs fine with it... At first I thought maybe they had fixed it to work with Vista but it was released BEFORE Vista was... Maybe the article needs changing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthemanofsteel (talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Vista was in production when The First Decade was released, was it not? No doubt the publisher took this into account. I personally tried to run my original Command & Conquer Gold and Red Alert games on XP last year. Neither worked. I was told that my system was not Windows 95. I'd say the section is probably correct regarding original release titles, whilst later rereleases have been modified to work correctly on successive operating systems. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 06:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RA1 Counterstrike and Aftermath.PNG

Image:RA1 Counterstrike and Aftermath.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Kane's secrecy?

quote from the article: "if the Allied campaign were to be completed in Red Alert, the Allies would emerge victorious and the time line would instead lead into the events of Red Alert 2. It should be noted however that this theory is in direct contradiction to the original Tiberian Dawn manual, which states that Nod is an African group in its origin, making no mention of the Soviet Union whatsoever." if the instruction manual was written by GDI, then perhaps they were simply deceived into what the origins of Nod were. Maybe Kane planted information stating that it was from Africa; or maybe it really WAS from Africa, and Kane's attempts to drum up support in the USSR were unsuccessful. Regardless, it doesn't seem to conflict, especially if it could be established that the manual was a GDI document, and therefore biased and uninformed. 96.229.63.68 (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please go and look up the meaning of the word fiction sometime. Either by clicking on that hyperlink, or by visiting an online dictionary. The sooner the better, to be perfectly honest. Kalamrir (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the changes to the section you indirectly are proposing would translate to a classic example of original research. The section's current content is sourced through the referencing of several different publications and statements of various C&C development teams, rendering it fully verified. Kalamrir (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

polite much?

Soviet Campaign

The article explains the events of the Allied Campaign, but doesnt say what happens in the story in the Soviet Campaign. Are the Allied and Soviet campaign alternative stories or is the Soviet campaign the continuation of the Allied campaign? --Jim88Argentina (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the two campaigns each show "what would have happened" if its respective faction would win the war. As such, they're two separate stories. As for which campaign ending is canonical; the sources we have available say that both Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert 2 follow on the events of this game's Allied campaign. However, RA2 (and by proxy RA3) don't take place in between RA1 and TD according to former C&C designer Adam Isgreen, but exist in a separate "universe" altogether, rendering them spin-off games by definition. Hope that cleared things up. Kalamrir (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

in all C&C games the good guys ending (GDI, Allies) is always the canonical one, except firestorm were they complete each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.70.60 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Live action cutscenes in C&C.

This is stated in the article: "The single player campaign was also complemented by live action cinematic sequences that are a feature of all Command and Conquer games since the original."

The thing is, while I know that Command & Conquer: Renegade isn't an RTS, it's still a C&C game made by Westwood and EA. Renegade doesn't have live action cutscenes.

Should this be altered a bit, or is it fine as it is? AthCom1 (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We might as well turn that part into "a feature of all Command & Conquer RTS games". That should provide a workable temporary solution, if nothing else. Kalamrir (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again, but as much as I dislike Generals for having the 'prefix' C&C, that game, as an RTS, doesn't have live action sequences either. AthCom1 (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm just going to take the easy way out for now, and state that Generals' expansion pack Zero Hour did feature such cutscenes, retro-actively placing Generals in line with the rest of the franchise as far as this one issue is concerned. Kalamrir (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)