Talk:Empires: Dawn of the Modern World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Empires: Dawn of the Modern World is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-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 Strategy games task force.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Article Cleanup[edit]

There are several problems in this article which I tagged and will attempt to clean up. The features section reads as if it is taken right off the back of the box or from an advertisment, which needs to be cleaned up. I'll do my best to turn it into a paragrapgh. Also the criticism section has a lot of complaining, but no resources to back up the facts, and Wikipedia doesn't allow any original research. --Clyde Miller 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Sections[edit]

Just an FYI, I deleted the advertisment section and minimized the POV criticism section. If the person who wrote the criticism section wants to add some stuff back in, fine with me.--Clyde Miller 21:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

taken care of--Clyde Miller 14:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Known Bugs[edit]

I have a problem with my game, only the germans and french get up to 8000 without houses but the rest of my civs require me to build houses to increase my population. Why is that, is this some kind of bug?

Hey anon: First you might want to sign your name. People will get mad if you don't. As to the answer to your question, it is not a bug. Housing is based on the civ that you pick. When I purchased my game, there were these weird pamphlet things that have all the tech and special units of every civilization. If you look at the bottom of any of them, it says whether or not each civ needs housing. Houses are good to have sometimes since they heal stuff or restore power (depending on the civilization). Personally, I don't mind them either way. The only downside is that they take up a lot of room.--Clyde Miller 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm MR UNSEEN by the way, and i didn't get a pamphlet.

Your welcome. Unfortunantly I can't find a place to update my game, so I currently can't play multiplayer. Where did you go? --Clyde Miller 14:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mine is...Clyde Miller. --Clyde Miller 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Updating[edit]

I feel kind of embarrassed asking this considering how much I added to the article, but I am unable to update my game. Why has the website expired? Anyway, I could use some help. Thanks.--Clyde Miller 20:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

nevermind. --Clyde Miller 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Article assessment[edit]

  • Version reviewed was oldid:75176634

I chose this article because it had been nominated for GA longer than any other article. I'd never heard of Empires before, but I'm glad I ended up reading your article. It was a nice discovery.

According to the criteria, a good article must be:

  1. well-written
  2. factually accurate and verifiable
  3. broad in its coverage
  4. be neutral in its point of view.
  5. must be stable
  6. must contain images where possible, to illustrate the article

The writing is, for the most part, very good. There are some rough spots. For instance, "Empires was developed by Stainless Steel Studios, A now closed developing company [12] . The company also made Titan 2.0 before it closed, which is a game engine used for making real-time strategy games." The capital A in "A now closed" initially confused me. The term "closed" also is a little confusing; a closed corporation is not one which has ceased to engage in business, but one which is not open to outside investors, such as a family corporation with a half a dozen members of the family owning all the stock. And the "Many critics had one consistent complaint, however. There is not tutorial of the game." is worded poorly.

I couldn't find any factual errors. For the most part, you are extremely verifiable. The spoiler section doesn't have many citations. I am forced to assume, without knowing, that you've represented history as it appears in the game. Since it's a spoiler, I (as a Wikipedia user) can live with that, but I'd like to know that you've got it right. I am forced to assume, without knowing, that the game follows actual history. I (as a potential gamer) recognize that it's not really important, as long as it's a good game, but since you're Wikilinking to historical characters and events, it would be nice to know.

Since I'm unfamiliar with the game, I can't be sure of this, but it appears you are broad in your coverage; I don't see any pieces missing.

This page was obviously written by people who liked that game, but I don't get buried in glurge. You don't find it necessary to be a cheerleader; you simply trot out the facts. That's what NPOV is all about.

When I check the history, I see a fairly stable page, one that's being maintained and improved, but not one that's engaged in an edit war.

And it's nicely illustrated. I'd have put the "gathering resources" screenshot a little lower on the page, and over to the left, so that it doesn't crowd the infobox so much, but again, we're talking trivialities.

I'm not "easy". When I say an article is a Good Article, it's a very good article, and it's not even close. You don't need me to tell me that you've done a very good job here; you already know that. But I'm telling you anyway: you get the star.

The only significant difference between a Good Article and a Featured Article is that a GA doesn't have to be as comprehensive, and GA judges tend to cut a little more slack, but I think you can make some little tweaks here and there and go for FA status with very little more effort. Good luck! ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 01:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm so proud and happy on the good article nod. I'll let the other editors know, and will work on the problems. I also went ahead and changed the CVG tag. Thank you so much.--Clyde Miller 02:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

reception[edit]

I suggest the reception section to be divided into positive and negative subsections. It would be easier to read. Good friend100 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I would, but if you take a look here, most of the featured articles don't do that, so I don't think it's a very good idea.--Clyde Miller 21:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a small comment...in the text of reception section it implies that GameSpot gave a "negative" review, but on the box on the right it says GameSpot's score was an 8.5 for the game. Judging from the scores that GameSpot gives to games in a year, a 8.5 is one of the top scores, as the website only gives a handful of scores above 9 per year. I'd say anything above an 8 is a great score from GameSpot. NobleHelium 06:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's better. I was thinking something like "GameSpot criticized it for its apparent lack of guidance..." or so, but it's fine as is. Probably could've edited it myself, but eh, whatever. NobleHelium 07:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't actually write that sentence, I beleive one of the copyeditors did. If I made a guess, I'd say the dependent clause was to help introduce to the reader that the entire paragraph was about problems, but I'm not sure.--Clyde (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Last Gameplay Paragraph[edit]

We have a problem with the last paragraph in the gameplay section. It is explaining a rather complicated topic, and I'm not sure if it's worth keeping in the article. The paragrapgh is about advancing through ages, and I'd like to know what people's opinions are and where we stand.--Clyde Miller 00:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary, as it is too complicated to explain in one sentence, and it's not important enough to merit a whole paragraph; I'd say we can drop it. — Deckiller 11:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Deckiller. It would probably be best to simply drop the paragraph. JimmyBlackwing 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you guys as well. It's gone.--Clyde Miller 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting[edit]

Just so I know when you guys are done copyediting, are you guys gonna cross out the to-do list, or let me know or what? I'm not really sure how to ask this.--Clyde Miller 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I say so is because I think we are ready, if not nearly there. What still needs to be copyedited?--Clyde Miller 19:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the Gameplay section is probably ready. Haven't had a chance to look at anything else; it's been hectic for me lately. Sorry for the slow response. — TKD::Talk 02:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No rush. I was kinda just asking in general.--Clyde Miller 04:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The Gameplay section is acceptable, but I think the second half of the article is going to need a good audit. — Deckiller 04:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Just let me know here or something when you guys are done and when we should renominate.--Clyde Miller 15:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I've finally finished. Sorry for the length of time that it took. I think it should stand a chance now at FAC. — TKD::Talk 06:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll give it a quick combthrough and see if there's still issues. — Deckiller 07:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. To either you or TKD, just cross out the to-do list when copyediting is done (or post it here or something).--Clyde Miller 14:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical (in)accuracy[edit]

Is there a source that explicitly shows that Richard's campaign is historically inaccurate? It's not entirely clear to me how the Oxford reference was fitting in. Artistic license is very common, and it could be seen as original research to use a purely historical reference not in the context of the game to make a case for "inaccuracy". Is there anything that can be used from reviews or such? — TKD::Talk 08:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading through the rest of the section, it seems to me that "Campaigns" should focus on the stories as depicted in the game, historically accurate or not. The issue of historical accuracy, or lack thereof, might be better saved for Reception. — TKD::Talk 09:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. When I looked into the campaign accuracy and compared it with real history several months ago, it was off. However, most reviewers say it is was good enough for them, so I removed the highlighted spots you selected.--Clyde Miller 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Japan[edit]

The Japanese don't really fall into the civilizations category, so it might be better if it were moved back to where it was. I also think the paragragh becomes more awkward with the Japan sentence at the end, since it is so far away from anything else about the civilizations. Deck, you may be right, but I was just wondering where you are coming from.--Clyde Miller 17:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In the campaign paragraph, it breaks up the flow; however, since it applies to the topics discussed in the civilizations (which are playable), the sentence demonstrates that the Japanese can be fought, but they aren't included as a civilization. — Deckiller 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well right now it looks like this
"There are nine civilizations in Empires. The first four civilizations exist from 950 A.D. to 1900 A.D., which covers the first three ages: the Medieval, Gunpowder and Imperial ages. The other five civilizations roughly cover the years 1900 A.D. to 1950 A.D., which is during the ages of World War I and World War II.[1] Each age progression requires a large amount of resources, which varies in size depending on the age and game type. Once a new age has been entered, new upgrades become available. New upgrades cost different combinations of resources, and can do anything from improving a civilization's fishing rate to upgrading units with enhanced technology.[1] Once this change occurs, older unit types cannot be created. Although the Japanese are opponents in the game's campaign mode, they are never playable."
Should we move the sentence to here?
There are nine civilizations in Empires. The first four civilizations exist from 950 A.D. to 1900 A.D., which covers the first three ages: the Medieval, Gunpowder and Imperial ages. The other five civilizations roughly cover the years 1900 A.D. to 1950 A.D., which is during the ages of World War I and World War II.[1] Each age progression requires a large amount of resources, which varies in size depending on the age and game type. here? Once a new age has been entered, new upgrades become available. New upgrades cost different combinations of resources, and can do anything from improving a civilization's fishing rate to upgrading units with enhanced technology.[1] Once this change occurs, older unit types cannot be created. Although the Japanese are opponents in the game's campaign mode, they are never playable.
I don't know where excatly, but there's an idea. I think it is more relevant somewhere up in the paragragh with the rest of the civilizations, instead of in age progression section. What are your thoughts?--Clyde Miller 22:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah; moving it up to the middle of the paragraph sounds like a good idea. — Deckiller 07:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys actually like this game? Good friend100 01:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I see why you wouldn't like it, but it was the first RTS I ever bought, and I guess I consider it one of my favorites.--Clyde (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Flags[edit]

Flags are usually not in infoboxes. It was discussed here, here, and here.--Clyde (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG External Links check[edit]

This Featured Article has a total of three dead external links, which can be found here. Please fix them as soon as possible. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ziff Davis Media/Computer Gaming World is still dead, but there might be enough information to keep it as a text only reference. — Dispenser 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Empire Games Renaming Discussion[edit]

For those of you who are unaware, this isn't the only game called Empire! Well, actually, the game's called "Empires", but my point's the same - there are loads of games with Empire as (and in) the title. As you might imagine, this can cause some trouble when choosing what to name each article and how to disambiguate them, and has, in practice, led to some rather unusual choices in some cases... Since it's probably best to consider all the games with Empire as the main part of the title at once when deciding how to rename a few of the worst offenders, this game has been included in a discussion on how to name (and rename) Empire titled games here. Please join in the discussion there and add any thoughts, comments or suggestions you may have. Thanks! --xensyriaT 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow.[edit]

I thought this was part of Ensemble Studio's Age of Empires series. Now I know why I can't find Empires, Dawn of the Modern World in connection with Ensemble. :P--24.1.52.33 (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This article may not meet the FA criteria[edit]

Hi, I'm just letting readers and possible past contributors know; this article may be nominated for an FAR before too long. Among the problems I have found with the article and placed on WP:VG:

"Short intro that doesn't mention Development; last paragraph in intro is one sentence, is unsourced, and appears nowhere else in the article; Campaigns has a couple short paragraphs and redundancies; Reception is questionably organized; frequent use of unreliable sources such as fansites" Tezero (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference manual was invoked but never defined (see the help page).