Talk:DEFCON (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee DEFCON (video game) was a Video games good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 15, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indie task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Strategy games task force.
 
WikiProject Apple Inc. (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Multiplayer section is inncorect you can use steam versions to create and join internet games 213.104.76.156 (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Reception Section Work[edit]

Ive added a VG Reviews info box to the reception section. I hope you guys like the work ive done as its my first major edit in wikipedia. If you can see any way to improve my work please do so! I will try adding citations to the infobox soon. Canadakid2 (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

G.A. Review[edit]

Im going to be trying to improve this article, using some of the suggestions from the G.A. review. Any help would be appriciated. Canadakid2 (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay Questions[edit]

It seems like there are a few nuances which aren't covered in the manual. Fighters can shoot at incoming missiles? Fighters can take out radar stations? Any possibility that the non-manual details can be covered? --Jmccorm 14:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Piracy and Patches[edit]

Would it be worth noting that a press-review version has been leaked onto the internet? Introversion have disabled it's online multiplayer but not LAN. Any attempt to play online is stopped by only locked games with names bearing messages from introversion calling the pirate a thief, asking them to buy the software, and claiming to have logged their IP address. I'm not sure if it's necessarily legal to mention this, but it is an unusual case of piracy.

Also, should the 1.1 patch be mentioned? what about the availability of a restricted demo? it's all relevantMotorbyclist 12:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mac and Linux[edit]

I'm re-adding Mac and Linux info, based on the following quote from IRC:

Dec 21 16:33:06 <Chris> definately planning on mac and linux versions yeah

--Dave2 01:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

HereToHelp removed the Mac & Linux info. I think it's okay, since it can be re-added when the game is actually released for those platforms (which looking at the roadmap should be November or December). --Lijnema 00:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

The Mac and Linux games categories should be commented out until they are actually released. The categories are meant for games which are available for Linux/Mac either in the past or now, not for "future" or "upcoming" Mac/Linux games, which DEFCON currently is. As a Linux user, it frustrates me to no end that I cannot even consider a purchase, but the relevant thing is that as of now, there don't even seem to be beta tests of those versions: we literally have no way to prove that there exists even buggy Mac/Linux versions; Introversion could easily keep delaying and indeed never release. Perhaps they simply get tired of DEFCON and decide to work on Subversion, or something. The point is that it's stupid to have categories asserting a present-tense fact for things which are inherently uncertain, crystal ball-ish, and in the future-tense. --Gwern (contribs) 18:25 20 January 2007 (GMT)

What kind of proof would one like of the existence of Mac and Linux versions of Defcon? I would love to show you the screenshots I have of Defcon running under both Linux and Mac, but alas I'm bound by an NDA. If you wish though, I can ask IV's PR department to issue an authoritative statement on the progress of the Mac and Linux versions, giving proof that they exist. The main reason why developing the Mac and Linux versions has taken a while is due to the different floating point results that the compilers for each platform gives. Since Defcon relies on floating point numbers to sync the game during online play, it's imperative that they are all identical. This lead to the development of a maths lib for Defcon that would provide fixed floating point numbers regardless of the platform. This also required that simple mathematical functions had to be re-written to support this lib.
I understand the frustration you have over the lack of Linux and Mac versions, but I can assure you they are on their way. I will indeed see what I can do with IV's PR department, for the mean time though, I still say the Linux and Mac categories stay, as Defcon is a Mac and Linux game, just not publicly yet. NeoThermic 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't particularly care about screenshots; my main issue is that DEFCON is not yet a Mac and Linux game. Articles aren't categorized in every possible which way based on what is in development - one would not go to the Linux article and claim that it runs on the PDP-6 architecture because one has been quietly and privately developing some unreleased patchs which sort of make it possible. When Introversion actually releases the Linux and Mac ports, then and only then will it actually be a Linux or a Mac game.
On a side note, I'm not particularly frustrated. I've had a copy of Darwinia - which I've never played because my video card is broken - for months now. I'm no stranger to delayed gratification. If I were truly frustrated at the lack, I'd be writing a clone of DEFCON. :) --Gwern (contribs) 06:26 21 January 2007 (GMT)

Tagline[edit]

I thought the tagline for Defcon was "The only winning move is not to play; but maybe you can lose the least."

Nope [1]. --Tom Edwards 07:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
That confused me too. I mean, the interview says it a lot, and I think both demo videos say it, so it's an easy mistake. --maru (talk) contribs 03:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody Dies seems to be the subtitle. As it's put right under the name on the boxed version of the game. 208.102.97.141 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought DEFCON: Everybody Dies was the actual title of the game. Master Deusoma 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Awarded box copies[edit]

On the scale of things, and considering that this is an excylcopedia entry about the game itself, is the fact that there were some copies offered as competition prizes really notable? - Estel (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the article so full that it really needs to be removed? It's a modestly interesting promotional stunt. -- Gwern (contribs) 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Estel, it is an unnessecary piece in the article that doesn't add any valuable information about the game. It should be removed, less is more in this case. - Onslaught 11:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
If we're talking about promotional stunts, why don't we mention that the staff of Introversion dressed up as military commanders for a photoshoot? (I think that's right) -Wunderbear

Online Authentication[edit]

After recently reading the Defcon official forums I would dispute whether online authentication is necessary for Steam. http://forums.introversion.co.uk/defcon/viewtopic.php?t=1360 reflects this.

Maybe it's speculative, but didn't Introversion's other Steam-distributed titles require you to launch Steam to play them? Twinxor t 10:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope.... You could take the files out of where steam put them and play the game as if you'd downloaded them any old how Luke Wallin 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I would guess that multiplayer play would require authentication. --163.1.136.62 14:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, you can connect directly to a known server IP and play online without auth that way. However browsing/looking for servers requires authentication. Ashanthalas 20:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The version I was linked to (cracked version most likely) didn't require online authentification at all... and we did a 6 player match. The game is so boring it almost sent me into a coma though. Kurt 15:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No, they only use Steam for distribution. Think about it, how would they make that work when they release all their games for Linux. And as the story goes, Mac too for this game. It makes no sense that it would require Steam authorization. --[Svippong - Talk] 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

SPOILERS?![edit]

WHY DOES IT SAY EVERYONE DIES RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE?!--68.23.138.110 04:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Because, a: That is the slogan of the game
    • and b: This game has a high unit loss

Huh? A joke? Surely not!

No it's not. "Everybody Dies" isn' anywhere on the box for me. It's replaced with: "DEFCON: THERMONUCLEAR WARFARE." Everybody dies is nowhere on the box, so why do Wiki and game sites continuously show "Everybody Dies" as if it's part of the title of the game? --68.207.156.253 (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reggie
Because it is its slogan. Besides, it is its website; everybody-dies.com --Svippong 16:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Time[edit]

Is it worth adding "6PM GMT" to the release date? Just to be accurate? 84.187.242.177 17:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really, its like nearly 7PM GMT and it still appears users are waiting for their keys

Make sure you understand the difference between GMT and BST/WET. The game was released at 6pm GMT, although authentification took a while longer due to the load Modest Genius talk 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah maybe we should add a section about the problems with release. Steamrunner 21:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, before we do: are server problems all that interesting or significant? If they are, then how are other removed sections like publicity contests and beta information less worthy? -- Gwern (contribs) 03:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to include that information on the page. If Half-Life 2 doesn't have any mention of its early distrbution and authentication problems, DEFCON certainly should not. AlexeiSeptimus 04:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It's reasonable information to include while the trouble persists. I've been waiting since Friday to download the game, which I pre-ordered from Introversion, from everyone-dies.com. The site's been down for three days now, and Wikipedia is one place frustrated would-be buyers will look for information when they discover the game they've paid for isn't actually available to them like it is for Steam customers. I think it's valid while the problems continue, and can be struck later. --MattShepherd 11:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a support website though. It isn't here to provide suppot when something goes wrong with some other website. Although the websites look down at the moment, they were working (albeit slow) yesterday, and the day before that. --Lijnema 11:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm one of the people getting shafted by Introversion's poor planning, so I'll acknowledge that I'm working in a state of heightened grumpiness right now. You're probably right. But... Introversion's site is down, so we're documenting the LACK of a support Web site as much as the problem itself. It's not like Introversion is doing anything to explain the problem.--MattShepherd 11:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
We don't update the World of Warcraft article every time a realm goes down. At this time, all accounts are that this is a temporary technical problem. I will await a rebuttal before I remove it again, though.AlexeiSeptimus 16:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I can access http://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/ where you can download the game. When you start up the game, on the main screen you'll see a little message box from Introversion where they say there are overwhelmed by the amount of interest, and that they are working hard on solving things. I should add that I can understand that not being able to play is frustrating, but I don't think Wikipedia should be a helpdesk. If you can't access the website for some reason, places you can download the game: Introversion1, Introversion2, Fileplanet, Filefront, Fileshack, peerimpact, rapidshare, bittorrent. Not sure how authentication works for non-steam, but at least you've got the demo functionality once you have the game downloaded. --Lijnema 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Up for me now too. Thank God. I thought my head was going to explode. I'm loving it. --MattShepherd 20:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Why was it moved from Defcon (computer game) to DEFCON (computer game)? Except in the title, it is always written as "Defcon" on the website. Shouldn't it be moved back? --Lijnema 17:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

They're inconsisent on their own home page. The page title is DEFCON, it says there are two ways to purchase Defcon, in the about section, "Introversion Software presents its third title, DEFCON", and later on "Defcon will be available for download via Steam", and also "We will also be offering Defcon ...". So who knows what the actual name is. :-p -- Northgrove 22:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There are three things we need to take into account before we decided which name is "official": (1) The game is named after an acronym, DEFCON. (2) The standard font for the game does not distinguish between lower and upper case letters. (Note that if we take the font too literally, we will need to flip the N horizontally and incorporate other elements of pseudo-cyrillic) (3) Introversion and Valve, etc. can't seem to make up their mind in their promotional info. I vote that the current spelling is probably ideal, and that we can think of "Defcon" in the same way we think of "Laser." AlexeiSeptimus 18:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually said font does distingush between upper/lower case. In order to get the flipped N, the name is spelt "DEFCOn" under the Kremlin font (all lowercase letters are backwards under the font where possible). However, there's no offical way of spelling Defcon, so best use "Defcon", unless you can think of a reason not to? :) NeoThermic 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Introversion's (the company that made DEFCON) PR department has been referring to the game as "DEFCON" in all caps in all their press releases and emails they have sent to me: http://img434.imageshack.us/img434/9396/defconnotdefconfm4.jpg --Captain Cornflake 17:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I didn't think to check my press e-mails and the like. Yes, it's also written DEFCON in the press manuals, so I suppose the page should be altered to reflect this. NeoThermic 18:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems like they really, really can't make their minds up. I think it's probably a good idea to leave it as it is now (DEFCON), since I believe changing things back shortly after a move involves all sorts of difficulties. --Lijnema 00:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, fixing by hand can be difficult. With a bot and a good text editor, it's not hard at all - simply update the redirects with the bot (or only double redirects if you're lazy) and do a search-and-replace in the article itself. --Gwern (contribs) 01:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that a second move shortly after the first move caused problems of some sort. I might of course be wrong. --Lijnema 12:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, because of the double redirects that creates. Of course, it is easy to fix'em with popups or bots of some sort, although it seems most editors don't use'em. --Gwern (contribs) 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

picture[edit]

Have a look at the first picture, it says "comming soon". - Sum1

Feel free to fix it. --Lijnema 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Replaced with cover art. Twinxor t 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Airfields[edit]

The in-game text says that airfields will spawn new fighters. Has anyone noticed them doing this? Twinxor t 20:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

They do (very very slowly). AlexeiSeptimus 23:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Office Mode 6 v 8 Hours[edit]

Having seen the max length of office mode games changed here a couple of times, I have a question that might be central to that. In Office Mode, does the victory timer not start until 80% (or different if customized) of all nukes are used up, or does it automatically end the game at 6 hours? If the former, the game could last quite past 6 hours. - Keithustus 01:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When you set the game mode to Office Mode, the parameter MaxGameRealTime (in advanced options) is set to 360 minutes and is locked. Which means that the game will never exceed 360 minutes of playing time. I don't know where the 8 hour notion comes from. It's possible to play Defcon for more than 6 hours, but not in Office Mode. --Lijnema 11:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

weird sentence[edit]

"In DEFCON, players are given a dehumanised 1980s vector graphics computer-themed world map, a varied arsenal of nuclear weapons, and one objective: to kill as many foreign citizens as possible."

a map can be dehumanized? is googlemaps humanized or dehumanized? "computer-themed" is vague outside of a gamer/geek audience. "varied arsenal" is just stupid geek style writing.

Yet the meaning is clear; is the DEFCON battle map more or less "humane" than Googlemaps? If you find the sentence "weird", how else would you phrase it? If it isn't "computer-themed", how else would you describe it? If you think "varied arsenal" is stupid, what alternative phrase would you suggest? In short, constructive criticism is helpful; oh, and so is signing your name. Aprogressivist 15:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we can say that the map is undetailed and very abstracted -(abstracted from the real world and the humans who supposedly will suffer and die as a result of the game)? --Gwern (contribs) 18:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"Abstracted" sounds a lot better to me than "dehumanised". Also, I think the word 'varied' can be dropped, the nuclear part of the players' weapons arsenal isn't that varied, all the nuclear weapons are normal nukes. Perhaps "a range of missiles and naval units" would be better? --Lijnema 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like "range". That sort of goes without saying (after all, if there weren't a range of weapons, one would just be dueling with nukes), and its usage implies that there's an unusually large range - and compared to other RTSs like Starcraft or Age of Empires, there are very few units in DEFCON. --Gwern (contribs) 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Game name[edit]

I'd just like to point out that the title of this game is actually DEFCOИ. Mgiganteus1 06:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that was merely a feature of the font (Kremlin) which was used in much of the promotional material. The game's name is DEFCON (or Defcon...) - Estel (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Article name[edit]

While we're discussing the name, what do you guys say to shortening the title from DEFCON (computer game) to DEFCON (game)? It's not like there are any other games named DEFCON, after all, and the less in the disambig the better. --Gwern (contribs) 04:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree: "game" is a broader category than "computer game" and other articles are that specific (see The Hunt for Red October (video game)). Considering that one can only play Defcon on a computer, and that there are various categories of electronic games, I consider its title to be informative, not superfluous. If Defcon were adapted to be played on more platforms, I'd agree with your motion. --Aprogressivist 14:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Why not move this article into DEFCON: Everybody Dies? That is the sub-header and we'd get rid of the, in my opinion, clumsy "(computer game)" in the title. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 23:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not the game's name, though. Twinxor t 03:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The name of the game is Defcon (or DEFCON, if you prefer). "Everybody Dies" is simply a sub-title. Xyzyxx 13:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Would someone with more time than myself be able to please replace the screenshots on this page? They're all taken from pre-alpha (or at least, internal) releases of DEFCON, and don't relect the UI of the final product. - Estel (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Defconmatch[edit]

I've removed it twice now. If there was some notable website related to Defcon, that'd be one thing, but we're not talking about a thriving community site here. The forum has a grand total of 12 threads (as of this writing), most of which have been created by one of the two people running the website. please don't re-add this site (at least not until it has grown considerably). --Lijnema 10:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lijnema,

The site is 5 days old and already has close to 50 members. The forum is lively and has posts by a bunch of members, the fact the threads are started by the admins is irrelevant, since most are requests for input. The number of threads is also irrelevant. Most of the forum is "private" and members only, it counts some 180 posts in the last 5 days, over some 30 to 40 topics. I would be most interested what your real reasons are for removing it, and even more interested what would be considered a "thriving" non-profit, privately hosted and built site. The statement that the site has to grow "considerably" is irrelevant, I do not believe any entry in Wikipedia has a "size" criterium.

If you have some "moderation" rights, please do provide the "guidelines" or "rules" that state it is NOT to be re-added for the above reasons.

Wikipedia is a community, it started with a few users. Defconmatch is a non-profit community, it starts with a few users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.81.27.25 (talk)

There are guidelines for external links in Wikipedia:External links.
We can't add links to sites because of what they might become, and no, you can't count content visible only to registered users. As you say yourself, it's a website that's just been started, perhaps we can wait a bit before linking to it? I've removed it because you really don't want links to every little community/fansite. If Defconmatch stays around, becomes something notable, then I would have no problem with having a link. --Lijnema 16:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your tone is belittling, yet I can find not a single reference to anything you have done to have earned this high-horse attitude. In other words; your opinion seems to be what goes, regardless of the fact that it is based on nothing. I have read the guidelines on external links, I am aware of the fact that content "only for members" is somewhat tricky, but since signing up is done in an instant and free, I cannot see that as a problem. Furthermore, you are not in any position to judge whether something is "notable", perhaps you should ask Introversion if they are aware of us before to make such claims. Please; ask around how many Defcon players are aware of Defconmatch by now. Then lets ask around how many Wikipedia users have seen this article. If A is higher than B, we might as well delete the whole thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.81.27.25 (talk)

I'm sorry about my tone, it might have been a bit harsh. Anyway. External links are good for information that can't or shouldn't be added to the wikipedia article. One link to a fansite can be added if there are a lot of fansites on the subject and the one linked to is a major one, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Can you please explain why you think there should be a link to Defconmatch? --Lijnema 09:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Consider this Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided; specifically points 3, 5, 9 and 10. I'm not convinced it is appropriate to link defconmatch, either. -- Aprogressivist 11:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Different user and supporter of Defconmatch here. I'm really confused by this. I've just done a couple of Wiki searches for a couple of my (other) favourite computer games. One is Civilization and the other is Company of Heroes. On the Civ Wiki page, there are a number of external links. One of these is a completely lifeless fansite called Civilization Lost, which has 9 (count 'em!) registered members which compares somewhat unfavourably to Defconmatch (only running for 1 week). Company of Heroes has a specific section within external links called 'Fan sites' with about a dozen entries. There seems to be a fairly large inconsistency here given the way the link to Defconmatch has been treated. Given that both of the games I mentioned have much larger followings than Defcon and the Wiki entries have survived having these links on them, would it really hurt so much to allow the Defconmatch link to stand? Yours in a spirt of friendship. SH. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.246.168.11 (talk)

Just because one article has links that shouldn't be there doesn't mean that it should be the same here. Also, could you guys sign your comments, please? Makes it easier to see who said what. --Lijnema 12:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know what else to say if you're actually saying that it's ok for a set of rules to be applied in 2 different ways. It seems as if each time one of your arguments is countered, you simply throw up a new one in its place. You initially argued that it was not a 'thriving community site' - the initial response on behalf of the website provided an eloquent rebuttal to this. You then argued that you do not want links to every 'little community/fansite' - I demonstrated in my previous post that there are other Wiki entries that either contain links to 'little' fansites or indeed have whole sections dedicated to them and your response is simply that this is irrelevant! What's the point in having rules/guidelines if you don't apply them consistently? And if exceptions are made elsewehere, why not here? Furthermore, we're not talking about a plethora of fansites requesting a link. To my knowledge, Defconmatch is the only one around and given the size of the Defcon community, it seems unlikely that there'll be many others around in the future, so surely that meets your other 'criterion' that a fansite should be a 'major' one?

As you have ultimate control over the entry, it seems likely to me that we're not going to win this one, but I wanted to take this opportunity to express how desperately disappointing it is that a reasonable request like this has been treated in a different fashion to other links within other entries in the same category of Wiki. I could perhaps have understood if there had been some nefarious intention behind posting the link, but there wasn't. It was simply an attempt to provide a link to a community site that offers unique features (and I stress this) to fans of the game. As such, I would have thought it would actually enhance the Wiki entry. Regards. signed 84.246.168.11 13:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Siberian Hamster.

You seem to think I'm some kind of evil peson just out to sabotage things, I'm simply stating my opinions and try to follow the guidelines best I can. If you've found an article a link to a site with 9 users, then perhaps you should remove that link; if you've found something that goes against the guidelines, then correct it. You seem to think that I am responsible for making sure that all guidelines are followed everywhere. I personally didn't think defconmatch was something that should be included because it seemed small and lacking content to me. I've mentioned several times that I think we can wait a little and see what happens with it. --Lijnema 13:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Just adding, I don't think I am the boss of the article. If you really think I'm being unfair, then I'm sorry about that, I don't have anything against Defconmatch as such, I just don't feel it should be linked to at this point. If other editors want to weigh in on the issue, I think that would be great. And since I'm noticing this discussion isn't making me very happy at all, I'll just leave the article be for the time being. I really don't want to get into some sort of editing war. --Lijnema 13:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lijnema, firstly I don't think for one second you're some kind of evil person and I understand that you're stating your opinions. I was simply trying to counter the points you made with my own opinions and arguments and trying to justify them with available evidence in an attempt to persuade you that the link is justified. It was in no way, shape or form my intention to cause you any offence or distress and I apologise for any I may have inadvertently caused you. I still believe there should be a place on the Wiki site for the link and hope that at some point the editorial team will agree. As I said in my first post, yours in the spirit of friendship. 84.246.168.11 14:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Siberian Hamster.

No hard feelings, I just think it would be good for me to take a step back. :) --Lijnema 15:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


== I have looked at the Civilization page, and I believe Siberian Hamster has a fair point, but then again, I would since he advocates my case. You state "if other editors want to weigh in on the issue", I believe that might be a good idea for simple reasons.
1)Defconmatch.com would be proud to be mentioned on Wiki,
2)Defconmatch.com is as far as I know the only site with the purpose mentioned below, and not an exact "fansite"
3)Defconmatch.com offers services to Defcon players Introversion is not currently planning (the main reason and answer to your question why it should be here,and yes I have that in writing). These services are match-scheduling (not now, tomorrow we play) and persistent scoring in a League system.
3b) "External links are good for information that can't or shouldn't be added to the wikipedia article." What we offer is not included in the "core" of Defcon. Therefore Leagues and persistent scoring should not be included in the article, but providing it as an external source for additional information about Defcon is in my opinion the proper action.
4)Defconmatch.com is not violating any Wiki rules, and the extra content is being made available all the time (We even have a Nukipedia)
5)"I personally didn't think defconmatch was something that should be included", is, again in my opinion, not exactly a good reason for removing a link. It's as good as "personally thinking is should be included"..

As for the points 3, 5, 9 and 10.
3) The information is about league systems and scoring systems, how to run the leagues, how to track scores. Yes, people need to sign up to the site, we need usernames to set up leagues and calculate ratings for users. I cannot discover anything biased by point-of-view.
5) We do not advertise or sell products or services, we do not require payment for anything. Yes, we run Google Adsense which one day might pay for the hosting. For that to happen we'll need another 6000 members or so.
9) We're not a fanlisting, we provide a service as stated above.
10a) All browsers I tested work (Opera, Firefox, IE)
10b) The host is in the US, "slow" is subjective/will vary for each user and location, the technology used is DNN.
10c) Screenshots and chat are in Flash, the rest is all standard DNN/Text with SQL
10d) It's in English.

The only "real" reason I can see is that we do indeed require registration to view the full content. The reason for this is explained above.

MadSeven ==

Hello, firstly thanks very much for allowing the link to defconmatch.com to be posted on the main page. I edited it yesterday to make it clear that it was a link to the website and also posted a short description (about 4 words) to make it clear what the website was about. I've noticed today that the entry has been reverted to the previous version and that the reason for the reversion is described as 'RV vandalism'. I really just wondered what I'd done wrong as I thought I was just making the link a bit more explicit?

Thanks 84.246.168.11 13:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Siberian Hamster


Siberian Hamster: If you look carefully at the diff of the versions, the vandalisim wasn't the Defcon Match link, someone added that the controls of Defcon include 'penis', then slightly edited that to say 'Joystick'. The revert doesn't specifiy to whom they reverted to, but a quick dig shows they reverted to the revision done by 195.6.25.118 (see: Diff). NeoThermic 19:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"Matchmaking" has a specific meaning in the English language that doesn't lend itself to this context. Describing it as a "Defcon league" is more accurate. Aprogressivist 13:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fighters shooting missiles[edit]

I've seen it happen; I think it happened when a fighter is in the air near a missile and (sometimes) automatically targets it. It must be some sort of bug, however, because you can't ORDER a fighter to attack a missile. It must be some sort of pathing / target prioritization exploit. Does anyone know more?

P.S. Also, note that while the fighter was shooting at the missile, I have no idea whether or not its fire was effective. Presumably so, but it's hard to tell without further testing. --Aprogressivist 13:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

(EDIT By MadSeven, Defconmatch.com :-P)

Fighters can target nukes in only one way as far as I know; before they leave the airbase. So, when a nuke comes in, launch a fighter targetted at the nuke. Mind you, I do not think there is any report of a fighter actually shooting down a nuke!

I believe it was confirmed in the beta testing that while Fighters can shoot at Nukes, their fire is incapable of destroying them. Xyzyxx 13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"IRC"[edit]

I doubt that the statement that the chat system is based on IRC is accurate. The actual data format and network model are much different from that specified in RFC 1459 (the definition of IRC). If this assertion is based on the fact that there are public and private channels, then I challenge the idea that that's the same thing as being "based on IRC" because:

  1. IRC did not invent that. Many local-network-based chat systems/BBS chat systems, etc., had that general model long before IRC. And it's definitely not limited to IRC now.
  2. The way it's done in DEFCON is actually one of the more different-from-IRC ways I've seen to do it -- there are no IRC-like commands, and the "alliance channel" is completely unlike IRC, for instance.

tgies 08:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There are some IRC like commands, like /name and /me. There might be more, they don't seem to be mentioned in the manual. I don't think it's totally unfair to say it's based, or inspired by IRC. --Lijnema 12:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
/name is not an IRC command. /me, though I can't trace its origins, was on a number of BBS systems prior to IRC, and certainly isn't limited to IRC now. tgies 09:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but you've got /nick, which has the same function. My point was that commands prefixed by slashes is something I (and I imagine most people who know about them also would) associate with IRC. Whether a command was present in BBS systems before IRC isn't really important. --Lijnema 12:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Just because you haven't used any BBS systems doesn't mean they are unimportant. Internet Relay Chat was originally created to replace a chat in a BBS. It sounds like you are using mIRC or something similar as your IRC client. In irssi, which is my IRC client of choice, /name is just an abbreviation for /names, which lists all users present at the current channel. Notice that the commands are defined in RFC 1459 and /name isn't one of them, so it's every client's own business to decide what to do, if anything, if the users enters such a command. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 12:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying BBS systems are unimportant, just that perhaps they weren't the base for the Defcon chat system. The manual[2] says "The communications window provides an in game IRC chat channel.", so I think leaving the mention of IRC in the Wikipedia article not totally out of order. --Lijnema 17:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed you are correct. I think the comment about IRC-likeness should be reinstated. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 23:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but the manual is wrong. More wrong than "IRC-like", actually, since it seems to assert that the chat system is actually IRC. tgies 09:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong to say it is IRC-like, since the manual describes it as IRC — we cannot even know if it actually uses the IRC-protocol. I have reinstated the description as "IRC-like", since I think it is a very good description. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 13:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll grant you that "IRC-like" is okay. I must, however, point out that we can very much know that -- I packet-sniffed it myself out of curiosity and established that it was not anything like the IRC protocol. tgies 08:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That's original research! ;) --ZeroOne (talk | @) 14:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite aware of that; just pointing out that "we cannot even know if it actually uses the IRC-protocol" is inaccurate :) tgies 10:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Some more press reviews...[edit]

Just added the reviews from IGN, IGN UK, and Gamespot. Also added a section under the Reception headline for common complaints. ShadowFox3735 14:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy to see those in the article, but can you source them? NeoThermic 14:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Subtext[edit]

Hi folks! Has there been any discussion or content editing on this article regarding the role that 'antiwar' subtext has in the game? The 'dehumanized' gameplay (wherein the goal is to cause the greatest amount of human loss), combined with the soundtrack (sounds of human suffering, etc.) is an extremely powerful commentary on the dread inherent in nuclear war. A number of reviews have addressed this - so I thought I'd bring it up for discussion. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do add it, then don't forget to add Missile Command to the See also (or at least mention it). --Gwern (contribs) 14:14 1 February 2007 (GMT)

As long as you cite reviews - i.e. it isn't 'original research' - go for it. - AlKing464 09:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Availability[edit]

How Available is it?

It's available for digital download from both Steam and Introversion Software. As such, it has theoretically infinite availability ;) - AlKing464 09:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You can also buy a boxed retail version off their website. 208.102.97.141 19:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just picked it up at Big Lots for $4.00 U.S. dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.156.253 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Move[edit]

Why was this moved? "Everybody Dies" isn't part of the title of the game, it's just a tagline. The title of the game is just "Defcon". --Darksun 18:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and this was actually brought up earlier and argued against for the same reason. --Dave2 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Move it back :) - Estel (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm waiting for some further comments from the user who moved the page first. --Darksun 18:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
SharkD agreed, I just moved back :) - Estel (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My main criticism of DEFCON[edit]

I thought I'd bring it up in here cause it doesn't appear to be a 'popular' criticism but I've found the use of the Mercator map projection combined with the upward/downward loop of the ICBM courses a bit annoying.

An example is if I was playing as Africa in a +3 player game, attacking pretty much any enemy will result in a lot of my vehicles having to go through European air defenses and get taken out by them. So I have no real option but to attack Europe. It could be a similar situation playing as Asia with Russian air defence taking down my vehicles no matter who I'm attacking.

I admit a format where ICBM vehicle headings respected the bi-polar aspect of the globe could get a little confusing but it would bring about a new and better aspect of game play. 87.114.142.252 16:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been explained on the DEFCON forums as not being a bug but a feature - apparently it forces greater strategic depth as you have to better consider your alliances and whom to attack so as to make sure your missiles will even get there (or enforce better timing?). Anyway, this isn't a forum for complaining about DEFCON. --Gwern (contribs) 18:01 6 May 2007 (GMT)
I agree with the anonymous guy. I think the missile trajectories are more to look cool than anything else. I would like to see a 3D globe map for the game. Which may eliminate that issue. --DeadlyLintRoller 18:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are MY main criticisms of the game:

Sensationalism and the media, as well as pop culture have fearmongered the populations for years by unrealistic portrayals of nuclear warfare. Here are some things in DEFCON that step over those lines, as well as a critisism of the scoring system and the misleading nature of the game.

  • A single nuke will not destroy an entire city. (In the game, an entire country like Iraq can be destroyed with a single nuclear missile.)
They don't. Look at the statistics sometime, it can take multiple nukes to drive a city to 0 population.
Also, Iraq's weakness is a sideeffect of the map. Nothing's stopping you from coming up with a board that's just Iraq and is more realistic.
  • Nuclear weapons are not nearly as powerful in real life as they are in a game. You actually have a quite high chance of surviving a blast.
See the comment above: a single blast does not kill everyone in a city, in the game. What research did you do on this game? --Ian Maxwell (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In this game, the only way to win is to launch many ICBMs and kill as many civilians as possible, while this is not true in real life. You don't deliberately target civilians.
You've played Defcon, right? Yes, there's a ruleset where you only get points for kills, but there's also a ruleset where you only get points for protecting your civilians.
  • In real life, you make use of what's called a Tactical Nuke and take away the enemies ability to strike, then make limited use against the enemy, like fleets or bases. SDI takes out whatever got through. You don't slaughter civilians by the millions. The game forces you to do this just so it can slap you with the "there's no way to win" slogan.
Strange you don't give Defcon any pro-nuclear props for having such a ludicrously effective missile defense setup.
  • The game goes so far as to give you NO POINTS WHATSOEVER for destroying military targets. You can destroy as many Radar Installations, subs, silos, etc and the game rewards you with zero points in an attempt to push an anti-nuclear message of you killing millions of people.
There wouldn't be much purpose to adding points for those targets. Each player is going to lose most of them, and it better reflects the use-it-or-lose-it mentality of total nuclear war.
  • It is to my knowledge that the United States has developed or is almost to the point where it's new nuclear missiles are completely clean. No radiation whatsoever comes from it. This makes the fallout issue irrelevant.
lolwut. Even fusion bombs aren't 'completely clean', with 'no radiation whatsoever'. Maybe you've been reading a bit much Kahn.

And here are geographical and political issues, due to the fact the game supposedly takes place in 1983 (The game does things to screw over Russia and America, or to benefit Europe. One or the other.):

  • Greenland is part of North America, but not in this game.
  • Mexico is part of North America, but not in this game.
  • Central America is part of North America, but not here for one reason or another.
  • Hawaii was removed from the game. It simply does not exist here. If they showed Ireland, Madagascar or small south Pacific islands, why not Hawaii?
  • Georgia is part of the Soviet Union, but not here.
  • Kazakhstan is part of the Soviet Union, but not here.
  • About half of the countries in Europe are part of the Soviet Union, not here.
  • Mongolia is part of Asia, though during the Cold War it was an unofficial part of the Soviet Union, not here.
  • Turkey is not involved in this game, though it played a major role in the Cold War.
  • Australia and all of the islands of the South Pacific had strong ties to either the U.S. or Britain. They were very active in the Cold War, yet they do nothing in this game.
  • Cuba does nothing in this game, yet is was a major part of the Cold War.
  • Africa being a world power with equal nuclear capability in this game, which is laughable.
  • In this game, all countries in the world having identical military capabilities, giving Europe an immediate advantage.
  • Several countries that hate each other or have strong mutual distrust are part of the same alliance. Such as:
  • India and Pakistan
  • North Korea, South Korea, Japan and China all part of the same alliance.
  • Colombia and Venezuela together.
  • Israel and several Middle Eastern countries are together, which there is no way in hell that would happen.

That is all. --68.207.156.253 (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reggie

Right, because the developers' top concern on a 1200 pixel screen depicting the entire world is to make sure Kazakhstan is part of Russia and not Europe. And some of your points are silly; eg. of course Cuba is ignored, its role in nuclear war - once the short-range missiles were removed - was minimal at best and it was well within easy bombing distance; it would be the very foolish Russian strategist who thought he could get any mileage out of Cuba. --Gwern (contribs) 15:46 27 December 2008 (GMT)

OS[edit]

IS this a Vista game or does it work on XP? --Simpsons fan 66 04:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazon says Windows 2000/XP/Vista. Which doesn't surprise me, it was developed when Vista was hardly a choice... --Gwern (contribs) 05:10 7 February 2008 (GMT)
Yes, it runs fine on Vista. Xihr (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
What I meant is, does it run on XP? --Simpsons fan 66 06:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it runs on both. I've never heard of a game or software package that's Vista-only at this point; Vista has such little market penetration that it would be self-defeating to make a Vista-only release. Xihr (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank god for that. What about Halo 2? --Simpsons fan 66 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not check the side of the box for the system requirements? Why are you asking here? Xihr (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Counterattack[edit]

I have changed the word attack to counterattack in the first paragraph of the main article. I am new to editing wikipedia and I was just wondering if I should link the word to the article on the military tactic. DeadlyLintRoller 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)DeadlyLintRoller

If it's the appropriate definition, why wouldn't you? Xihr 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I am unsure of the of what the etiquette. I imagine that links are useful, but too many of them may make a page cluttered. I imagine that users reading this article would be interested in that subject matter, so I am going to go ahead and add the link. --DeadlyLintRoller 02:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
links are always nice. When I'm reading fucking complicated (usually religious and philsophical articles), I end up jumping from page to page discovering new things, and understanding other things.

Ambiguity[edit]

There is at least one other game called Defcon : http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=3614 I seem to recall an Amiga game but couldn't find a link to it. 63.241.31.130 (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It does exist but is extremely obscure. Only if there is a likely confusion between the two is a disambiguation page warranted.  Xihr  07:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Defcon (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I haven't completed a full review, but Defcon is a C-class article rather than a GA candidate, rated accordingly. Here's some things to consider before renominating:

  • Gameplay is full of bullet-points, lists and excessive sub-headings containing little information. Multiplayer may warrant a sub-heading, but all game modes can be summarized within gameplay proper or the multiplayer sub-heading if that's more appropriate.
  • Units should be summarized under a sub-heading within gameplay, each type of unit doesn't need a separate sub-heading, these break the flow of text. See Golden Sun: The Lost Age's gameplay section as an example. I do like the table with the Defcon ratings though.
  • There isn't a development section, this is all but vital for video game Good Articles unless there is a strong argument that such information is not available. Considering the publicity surrounding the developer's plight after the development of Darwinia, and the subsequent interest in that game, it's extremely unlikely that there are not interviews with them covering this game. See Chocolatier (video game)'s development section as an example.
  • Reception is a stub section and again it is vital that this is completed before the article could be a GA. The scores belong in a review box, see Wario World's reception section for an example, if you hit 'edit' you can copy and paste the box and fill it out with the relevant reviews.
  • Citations from websites would ideally be cited using the cite web format, so all the relevant details are there for the reader to see.

Hope that's of use. Someoneanother 08:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thank you for your suggestions. I am already working to try to implement them into the article. I have added a infobox to the reception section already and am going to keep working on the article. Thanks again, Canadakid2 (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Why it says "collapse"? Is wiki collapsing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.187.29 (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)