> ...Fucktard. Yup, that sums it up. Fucktard. ...
> I (being a reasonable person)...
You were reduced to nothing but uttering vulgarities by the forth sentence of your reply. Reasonable, indeed.
>>C&C3, being 3D, is a fuck load more complex than C&C2, which was 2D.
Let's talk about that new fangled 3D thing you think first showed in an EA RTS with C&C3. Perhaps you've overlooked the other RTSs that EA built in 3D on the RTS engine code base they got from Westwood...the same core technology they used in C&C3. Why don't those account for anything in your worldview? There is absolutely nothing about C&C3 that pushed the bounds of new technology. It's built on a codebase that has been used in every EA/Westwood RTS going back to Dune 2000 on the Commodore Amiga in the early '90s.
I'm in no way bashing EA's decision to use that code. It's a smart business decision to reuse tech that has been invested in and refined. It's not reasonable to give that business a pass on rampant bugs that they introduced into a game built on technological pedigree that seemed to be doing pretty well before. The other EA RTSs that were in 3D, C&C Generals and the myriad LoTR RTSs among others, didn't have these problems.
It wouldn't matter to me if it was EA, UBI, Eidos, MS, or etc... These types of bugs and problems shouldn't exist in a shipping game. Especially in a game that has as much development and refinement behind its core technologies as C&C3 does.