Talk:Empire: Total War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Empire: Total War has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
April 14, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Video games (Rated GA-class, Mid-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Talk Page Missing?[edit]

I don't understand why all the entries from the talk page were removed? especially so close to the release of the next installment of the game, when the comments on the talk page are even more relevant. I propose the talk page be reverted to the way it was if nobody has a problem with that. (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion has be archived, not removed. See the Archive section in the above header. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
See WP:ARCHIVE, this is standard practice for Wikipedia talk pages. As Escape said, all previous threads are still accessible from theheader. In any case, this talk page and article aren't relevant for the release of Napoleon: Total War, beyond the one-sentence mention of the sequel in the release section. If you wish to make or view comments regarding Napoleon: Total War, the appropriate venue is the respective talk page rather than here. -- Sabre (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

More information on ETW from CA[edit]

I figured I'd post this for anyone who is interested in the latest kieran brigden (creative assembly public relations representative) has to say to the ETW community on the total war center forums. He created an account on those fan forums on the 19th of January under the handle TW Rehab. Here is a link to all of his posts as listed on his user profile. (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Who is Kieran Bridgen? -- (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)A Onlooker-- (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Steam Required[edit]

Should Steam be added to the requirements? AFAIK it is required that you install Steam to run the game. It's the primary reason I won't buy the game.Wjousts (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Steam is already noted in the development section and under the "distribution" field of the infobox. That's the usual way of dealing with Steam annotations. -- Sabre (talk)
That's not the same as being required, which it is. Lots of games are distributed via Steam and retail, and the retail version doesn't require steam or maybe only requires it for multiplayer. I read the development section and it is far from clear whether Steam is required or not. Wjousts (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Its pretty specific in the development section: "The game incorporates Valve's Steamworks programme for both retail and electronic versions". Feel free to tweak the wording for that sentence if you think thats not unequivocal. That's how our articles deal with it for when a game requires Steam, such as Half-Life 2 etc: mention in distribution field, and be more precise in development. The requirements field is for hardware, not software. -- Sabre (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I think I'll tweak incorporate to requires. Incorporate doesn't necessarily mean you have to use it. For example, a lot of games (use to) incorporate GameSpy, as in it was on the disc and it asked you if you wanted to install it. But you didn't need to install it and lost nothing by skipping it. I feel the thing here with Steam is different since you can either install Steam or not play at all. But since I don't have this particular game, I was looking for clarification on whether it really was needed or not. Wjousts (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment[edit]

How incredibly frustrating it is that this page gives the the incorrect impression that this game was overwhelmingly positively received. Ironically, thanks to wikipedia standards, we can only post official reviews and not user reviews. Almost all official reviews rave about the game, while the game was almost universally dissatisfying to most consumers. The disparity between the "expert" reviews and user reviews is striking; 90% to 67%.

It is an inconsistency that can't be addressed because of the rules, and an injustice, because what is posted here is not a reflection of the reality of the game. It is an inherent flaw in the, "Verifiability, not truth" standard of wikipedia. In fact, that's it right there. What is published is what is "officially" true, not what IS true. And here that disparity shows itself. As I said, it's an injustice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the polemic, though at least you aren't going "conspiracy!" like some others have. Properly read the release and reception sections, they aren't "overwhelmingly positive" despite the high Metacritic score; the release section in particular deals with user complaints that can be adequately cited. Yes, we have to convey a positive tone because of the overall critical consensus, but there's plenty of criticism in the article. From the paragraph that you wrote then removed yourself: "Dissatisfaction with poor AI" – yup, in the reception section, "Game glitches, bugs and crashes" – covered in both reception and release sections, "game support" – already in the release section. Most of the concerns voiced by the vocal users, contray to their beliefs as they cannot look past the review scores, have been touched on in reviews and other appropriate secondary sources.-- Sabre (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the article still reads like an ad and is not really accurate on how the game was recieved or how it is seen today. (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to concur with opinions expressed in this section. The game is simply not well made. The release date for their past 3 titles coincides with the end of SEGA's fiscal year - that should tell you something. As should the fact that they are releasing a new game every year. They've adopted a quantity approach, which necessitates sacrifices in quality. (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, but we don't go on personal observations and opinion. We use established secondary sources. -- Sabre (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


This article uses an FAQ from the Total War website as a source. The fact that the game has a technology tree is referenced with that page but the only comment about technology I can find is "And no, we’re not handling technological advances as set historical events. We’re giving you more control over the game than that, but as to how -that’s for another day." I don't think a hint is a reliable source. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC) What do you mean? If you think that this page does not make sense then try Empire Total War or something close to that on it has a lot of actual game play! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Expansion section[edit]

Personally, i felt the current description of the warpath alludes to an expansion rather than a stand alone campaign, hence the recent changes. "Napoleon: Total War, which focuses on the life of Napoleon Bonaparte and was released in February 2010, builds upon the technology used for Empire: Total War, though according to Mike Simpson "the level of detail required to successfully depict the Napoleonic Wars is an order of magnitude greater than we were working to with Empire: Total War", among other reasons, contributed to the reasons why Napoleon: Total War was made a separate product from Empire: Total War." - was a little nonsensical, so i've edited that to make it a little more clear aswell. Though i'd post here so it doesn't look like i'm just reverting everything. -Evaristé93 (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

1701 or 1700?[edit]

It says the game spans from 1701 to the early 19th century. However, the Grand Campaign starts in the Summer of 1700. Should this be corrected? (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If that's true then sure. Be Bold! Muskeato 02:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It ends in the 19th century as 1790 is considered by some historians the beginning of the 19th century — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)