I approve from what I've seen..I don't play RTS generally and I've been somewhat interested in it. They're saying the same about C&C4, eliminating the base building and whatnot. Base building is for suckas~

Because attracting people who never liked a franchise in the first place is the best way to keep the legacy intact.

They are not going the DOW2 route of removing base building entirely however they are now using mobile bases so you are no longer static. One of the biggest problemes with C&C 3 was that it really favoured the turtle. C&C4 is an attempt to make C&C a more aggressive game. I dont know if it will work because C&C has always been about turtling but I will buy it as its more Kane. And Kane now seems to have the Tacitus device which should be interesting.

What more can EA do to stay true to the Franchise other than re-hire Petroglyph and rename them Westwood? EA HAVE re-hired a lot of the Westwood staff and they have formed EA Westwood!
I have been a C&C fan since the beginning I have all the games twice. Once with the individual purchases and a second time with the Decade pack. I loved every minute of RA3. I also enjoyed C&C3, Kane's Wrath and Uprising. C&C should never try to be Warcraft and Starcraft. C&C was always silly especially RA so what better than to make it even sillier? Why shouldn't an RTS make you laugh out loud? If you ask me C&C Tiberium Wars was a far better C&C game than Tiberium Sun was.

I suspect maybe EA is seeing other companies make a little extra cash by dusting off their old titles and putting them up for sale for cheap on digital download services, and they want their piece of the pie. Makes sense.
However, if they did decide to make a new Road Rash...

What exactly is your point? That because you bought the games multiple times, you are automatically right?

No, his point was that he, being a long-time player of the C&C series, felt that RA3 was a great game and in tune with the tone of the series.

Exactly my point, thank you.

I don't hold out much hope for a 'modernised' 'for our time now' version, considering what that usually means. But EA are no longer the evil overlords of gaming, there is a chance higher than I would of expected a year or two ago things will be great.
Release the old stuff, or even do a remix/update/polish of the old stuff (as this appears a bit popular), but don't deviate to far and I'm happy.

Bullfrog doesn't even exist anymore, and I'm perfectly fine with the original Bullfrog games right now. The copyright renewal should be some standard practice to enforce their "right" to do with the IPs whatever they want, even 20 years later. I don't give a damn.

Yes, God forbid they release games like BioShock and Fallout 3, two of the best games of the last 5 years. That would be terrible.
Seriously, some revivals are good and some are bad... EA has been doing a good job lately, and I support them in bringing these back and seeing what works. They concentrated on new IP the last couple years, and now they seem to be going back to sequels and such... I wish them well.
There was an announcement some time ago that Starbreeze, of Escape From Butcher Bay fame, was making a new game for EA based on an old IP. Everyone assumes that will be Syndicate, but Syndicate is not listed in these stories... so... not sure what that means.
Starbreeze and Wing Commander would be weird.

If Starbreeze really are working on a new Syndicate game then my year will be made... so long as it's good... and doesn't have install limits.

I'd be pleasantly happy if a remake of Gene Wars were to be made. The original was promising but full of flaws - a proper remake would be uber :D

And again, that makes it automatically right without any further need for explaination? Does that really make you an authority on the matter? And most of all why then mention the fact that you bought the games multiple times if it is apparently not so important?

Shows that the opinion is formed with a full and enthusiastic knowledge of the history of the franchise and the multiple purchases show that this enthusiasm was clearly enough to inspire the spending of additional funds so it wasn't a passing fancy.
Its much the same as when I say I think Fallout 3 was great, a lot of people would assume I was a lame console shooter n00b who likes it because its pretty and shiny with lots of guns but as someone who has full experience and knowledge of Fallouts 1, 2 & Tactics, I can see where Bethesda have done a damn good job remaining true to the history of the franchise universe whilst telling a new story in a new game style.
In short, he's saying that he didn't just pick up red alert 3 and think it was fun but he's played them all.

Care to elaborate how Bethesda did a damn good job remaining true to the history of the franchise universe? Your full experience and knowledge of Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout: Tactics should definitely bring some light into this.
I'd like to start reading real arguments, not fallacies according to which someone who enjoyed previous episodes of a serie can have an accurate opinion on the latest entry.