Homeworld 3 will come,THQ didn't throw away a pile of cash to acquire the licence and then put it in a drawer...

The bought licence means that there will be a 3rd HW.

Ok so if I get this correctly we have THQ acquiring Relic and executive vice president of worldwide studios, THQ saying:

"The Relic acquisition underscores THQ's strategy to acquire development studios with a proven ability to create the highest quality products," The above quote was made back in 2004 mind you. So far I fail to see the strategy of the THQ aquisition, it seems all THQ did was buy relic and hide them away in a drawer somewhere because I dont see anything new from relic. What did THQ have in mind? can someone contact those jokers and let us know? I dont mind starting something here to turnsome attention towards this long forgotten issue.

One more concern, what in hercules hairy arm pit does THQ want with Relic, lets not forget who we are talking about when we mention the name THQ, yes folks the same people that brought us the wacky games of Destroy all Humans, Saints Row (1&2) and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (if you can remember that disaster of a game on the NES), I mean come on!!!

Tetratrance_CK

Dawn of War,Company of Heroes - Relic under THQ

They need to make Homeworld on a grander scale, with the inclusion of a meta map.. Homeworld's mainflaw in my opinion is it replaced Terrain, with a fully 3d enviroment.. This is cool, but it got old when really there was no way to actually make defenses, aside from mindfields, which were a pain.. Or the troublesome turrets in the second game.. They need to go along the lines of Sins of a Solar Empire.. Not in game play, but make a meta map like area, where defense, and offense are completely different from one another in the sense of a regular strategy game. Homeworld 3 with the gameplay of the last 2, strung across a metamap of some 50 systems and territories would make for a epic battle. It really is mind boggling why so many people are pressing for Dawn of War 2 over this game. I am a Warhammer 40k fanatic my self, but the closest thing we have had to a space rts is Sins of a Solar Empire.. When really we have had countless ground rts games many of them sci-fi..sSubZerOo

I disagree completely....Sins were a dissapointment for me just because of the restrictions the meta map....

Homeworld will be perfect for me only in fully 3D open world..

U can play any game u want....COD4,Crysis,COH...u name it.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

MFaraz_Hayat

There were and are variant copies of the Quran, some were discovered in 1972 in Yemen (January 1999 Atlantic Monthly), this in spite of the fact that when the Quran was finally assembled and approved all existing variant copies were ordered destroyed.

"Since Muhammad could not read or write, his companions wrote down what he said. These recitations were copied onto a variety of materials, papyrus, flat stones, palm leaves, shoulder blades and ribs of animals, pieces of leather and wooden boards." ( Watt, W. Montgomery, Islamic Surveys: Bell's Introduction to the Qur'an, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, 1970)

After Muhammed died in 632, Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father in law, became the caliph and there was a small effort to collect the fragments of Qur'anic sayings into a common place. But, it wasn't until the fourth leader of Islam, Caliph Uthman,that the whole Qur'an was finally assembled, approved, and disseminated throughout the Muslim world. (Glasse, Cyril, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. San Francisco, 1989)

Here is something that you might want to know about that could change things a bit,

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html

blackregiment

Yes, I do agree that certain variant copies were found. These were in existence during the Caliphate of Hazrat Uthman and belonged to Hazarat Abdullah Ibn Masu, Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Ubay Ibn Kab. Each of these people had their own collection (known as Mashuf). All of these versions were compared with the standardized versions of Quran and the only difference found were:

Orthographical (spelling and structure of words)

Lexical (grammar related)

Verse count

There were no other differences in these discovered copies. Hence, I say again: these variant copies people talk about donot contain different verses at all! These have minor differences like those mentioned above and difference of dialect. The meaning and verses have always remained the same.

Plus, during Hazarat Abu Bakr's rule a complete copy of Quran was made. It was called mushaf-e-Hafsa( as was given over to hazarat Umar's daughter Hafsa). During the caliphate of Hazrat Uthman, this copy of Quran was used to make the standardized version of Quran, in Quraih dialect.

The is link disputes your claim of consistency in the variant copies. There are many scholars that also think that the Koran may have been written in Syriac not Arabic.

"Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to that recited by Muhammad. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. 'Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.

Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai ibn Ka'b, 'Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad). 'Uthman's codex supposedly standardised the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations persisted into the 4th century AH. An unpointed and unvowelled script contributed to the problem. Also, although 'Uthman tried to destroy rival codices variant readings survived. Standardisation was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.

Also, if some verses were omitted, why couldn't some have been added? For example, the Kharajites considered the Joseph story to be an interpolation, and most scholars suggest the addition of scribal glosses designed to explain the text or smooth out rhyme."

http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html

"Three Ancient Korans (pp. 76-96)
-Alphonse Mingana

1. The sources of the Koran - Muhammad was illiterate. He depended on oral information from Christians and especially from Jews. The corruption of oral transmission explains the inaccuracies of the stories. Historical errors include: Mary being the sister of Aaron(S. 3:31ff), Haman being Pharaoh's minister (S.28:38 ), and the conflation of Gideon and Saul (S. 2:250). There are contradictory attitudes toward non-Muslims. S. 2:189 says to fight against unbelievers and Suratut-Taubah says to make war on those who disagree, but S. 2:579 says there is no compulsion in religion and S. 24:45 says to dispute only kindly with Jews and Christians.
2. If we strip away the commentary, the Koran is inexplicable. Muslim theologians explain the contradictions by trying to put ayat (verses) in a historical context and by appealing to the doctrine of abrogated and abrogating verses. Without the commentary the Koran is completely garbled and meaningless.
3. Transmission from 612-632? – Muhammad never ordered the Koran to be written down, and when first asked to do so by Abu Bakr, Zaid ibn Thabit refused, arguing that he had no right to do so if Muhammad hadn't thought it necessary. (The wonderful memory of the Arabs has been overstated. For example, if we compare versions of the elegy 'Itabah' in different tribes we see significant variations.) Some verse were apparently written down, but we're not told which ones and we have no idea how they were preserved. What happened to the scraps after codification? They couldn't have been just chucked away – what sacrilege!
4. Who is the compiler of our standard text and is it authentic? Zaid ibn Thabit supposedly wrote the whole text of the Koran at least twice (under Abu Bakr and then under 'Uthman). The first copy was given to Hafsa, but 15 years later the believers were still arguing about what the Koran was, so 'Uthman had Zaid write up a second copy and destroyed all the others. Zaid probably tried to reproduce faithfully the words of Muhammad, otherwise surely he would have improved the ****and grammar and amended the historical and typographical errors!) Indeed, the Koran today is substantially identical with this second recension, though not necessarily with the words of Muhammad. The claim that the Koran is perfect Arabic is absurd – there are many examples of repetition, weak rhyme, changing letters to force a rhyme, foreign words, bizarre usage or change of names (e.g. Terah to Azar, Saul to Talut (S. 2:248250), Enoch to Idris (S. 19:57)"

"Muhammad was trying to create a religious history for the Arabs, but Arabian religious history did not provide many sources for him. What references there are occur mainly in the Meccan period. He refers to Hud, the prophet of the people 'Ad; Salih, the prophet of the Thamud; and Shu'aib, prophet of Midian. All pagan customs not directly involving idolatry were preserved in Islam, e.g. the rituals of the Haj.

After exhausting the Arabian possibilities Muhammad began to rely on Jewish material because it was well-known and would give the new religion greater credibility in the wider world. In addition to apocryphal works, Muhammad must have been familiar with the canonical Bible, especially the Torah. He only knows the prophets with interesting stories and is therefore ignorant of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and all the minor prophets except Jonah. From popular tales the Arabs knew that the Jews felt that they had descended from a common ancestor, Abraham, via Isma'il and Isaac respectively. Hagar is not mentioned in the Koran. The Koran says that they built the Ka'ba (though later Muslim doctrine says that Adam built it and Abraham cleansed it of idols). It is possible that the 'hanifs' (Arab monotheists following the religion of Abraham) are an invention of later Islam. The story of Iblis (or Shaitan) prostrating himself before Adam (38:73-77) may not refer to worship as there is a possible Jewish source for this story in Sanhedrin 596 and Mir. Rabba 8. Shu'aib is probably the Biblical Jethro. 'Uzair is Ezra, and the Jews are accused of declaring him to be the son of God. Idris is also Ezra (the Greek name). Hebrew chronology is very week in the Koran, e.g. Muhammad seems to associate Moses near to Jesus (as Moses' sister is also Jesus' mother).

"Muhammad died in 632. The earliest written material of his life is the sira of Ibn Ishaq (750), but Ibn Ishaq's work was lost. We only have parts of it available in quotation by Ibn Hisham (834). The hadith are even later. There are six authoritative collections of hadith: Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nisai. All are dated between 200 and 300 years after Muhammad.

Scholars have attempted to distinguish which hadith contain real information from those containing legendary, theological or political embellishment. Wellhausen insists that the 8th century version (i.e. Ibn Ishaq) was accurate, and later versions were deliberate fictions designed to alter the 8th century story. Caetani and Cammens suggest that most sira were invented to construct an 'ideal' past and a justification for contemporary exaggerated exegesis of the Koran. Most scholars conclude that the stories about Muhammad prior to becoming a prophet are fictitious. In his important critique of the hadith Goldhizer argues that many hadith accepted even by the most rigorous collectors were 8th and 9th century forgeries with fictitious isnads. These hadith arose out of quarrels between the 'Umayyads and their opponents – both sides freely inventing hadith to support their respective positions. The manufacture of hadith speeded up under the 'Abbasids who were vying with the 'Alids for primacy. Even Muslims acknowledged a vast number of forgeries [~90% of hadith were discarded], but even so the collectors were not as rigorous as could be hoped. Even in the 10th century over 200 forgeries were identified in Bukhari. At one point 12 different versions of his work existed."

'Isa ibn Maryam is Jesus. Very little is known about him by Muhammad and there are no uniquely Christian doctrines in the Koran. The little that was known about Jesus came from (1) the facts and fancies that were spread throughout all Arabia, and (2) a little via the Jews. The name 'Isa is itself inappropriate, it should be Yeshu in Arabic. Either it was given by the Jews (associating Jesus with their ancient enemy Esau) or it is a corruption of the Syriac name (Isho). In the Koran itself Jesus doesn't have a position higher than Abraham, Moses, or David. This elevation occurred later in the caliphate when the Arabs had closer contacts with Christians. A few Christian terms (e.g. Messiah, Spirit) work their way into the Koran without any real understanding of what they mean. It was probably the migration to Abyssinia that increased Muhammad's interest in the Christian stories. Rudolph and Ahrens argue that if Muhammad had learned about Jesus from the Jews then he would have ignored or insulted him. But many Jews appreciated Jesus as a teacher while rejecting Christian dogmas. Also, Muhammad was aware of the large Christian empire, so he would have distrusted anyone who insulted Jesus. The only information about Christ in the Koran is the kind of stuff that wouldn't bother the Jews. The Koran's view of Jesus' mission is: (1) confirm the true doctrine of the Torah, (2) preach monotheism, (3) warn against new sects. S. 15:1-15 is a literary connection with the New Testament (Lk. 1:5-25, 57-66). This is the story of Zechariah and John was probably related by a learned man but not a Christian as it was isolated from any association with Jesus' birth. In summary, there is nothing particularly Christian about Jesus in the Koran." The Origins of The Koran: ****c Essays on Islam's Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq (Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York. 1998The Jewish Foundation of Islam (pp. 293-348 )

Allah and Islam (pp. 293-330)

There has not been a great amount of textual criticism allowed on the Quran however, that is changing. New discoveries are being made regularly and recent world events relating to Islam have caused the West to take a closer look at Islam's history and claims. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out for the future of Islam and its declared truths.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html

Holy crap,a giant wall of text.....do I dare to Quote it ? Hardly..... :shock: