<t>People want a good game. Command and Conquer is generally gimmicks and not much new. <br/>
<br/>
I don't believe they give people what they want. People want originality and strategy - the command and conquer line of games hasn't delivered that IMO since Red Alert. <br/>
<br/>
The whole ...

Figures. Its one of the reasons that I just can't stand the Command and Conquer line of games. Its a big rotting, sore titted cash cow begging to get shot in the head.

<t>To be honest, I don't know if a strategic war game could ever come out of the war with Iraq at the moment. Perhaps maybe as just a scenario in a bigger game but... You'd probably need to include sucide bombers as actual units/tactics. I'm sure eventually 'command and conquer' will cash in on the ...

<r>RE:Zakhal<br/>
<br/>
1. Maybe its because I live in the middle of no where but no one was every online when I was around. Well - correction. They were but mostly flying planes or whatever or just shooting at me when I reached destinations. I'm sure a lot more people play now but still, I found ...

<t>I played WWII online a little and I own battlefield 1942. All I remember of WWII online is the following: <br/>
<br/>
1. You walked for twenty minutes (real time) and then get shot by someone you didn't see who's hiding behind one of them square hedges. Realism is nice but walking is boring sadly ...

<t>I've got the book of Nostradamus' 'poems' if you want to call them that. Most of them are fairly nonsensical. The one released after 9/11 was a hoax. <br/>
<br/>
I can't remember it but it said something about twin towers and two brothers east and west, it was just made up by someone though. Its ...

<r>Just to be the first one to answer the question straight... <E>:)</E> <br/>
<br/>
I reckon it would've made things *a lot* shorter and more clean cut. With a high level of coverage and hourly updates on who and who hasn't died, it would be a lot more difficult to keep up a sustained war effort ...