Talk:Tower defense

DTD first in genre

the screenshot sucks Interesting redirect, is Desktop Tower Defence the first game of the genre? If not, I think this needs to be a short article about the genre as a whole. LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It was redirected because this was a deleted article that was continually being created with no unreliable sources. The direct itself should be deleted if people don't want it point there, but it was as good as place as any.--Crossmr (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this talk page gets wiped when the article gets deleted, but the gist of it was that no one could find any sources that met Wikipedia's standards. --Pdeq (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've added a note above about the old afd. It survives the deletion.--Crossmr (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the article so that it now properly describes the genre. The only issue now is that links are now being added which are possibly spam. My inclination is to remove these unless there is a source establishing notability and safety. Please comment. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • They're spam and invitation for edit-warring over who's game gets to spam up the article the most, blech. There are at the very last three notable TD games, Desktop Tower Defense, Garden Defense and Monster Mash; though I expect there are several others who qualify. They're getting more attention, reliable sources are at the very least covering individual games, so it should be possible to at least hammer out a functional stub for the time being. Someoneanother 08:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete! I promise I'll help look after it. TD is an important Genre, not something to be deleted. I am the RockReader... I will answer all of your problems. 15:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

SPAM concerns

This statement in the header strikes me as worrisome:

There are many tower defense games like Onslaught, Flash Element and Vector TD but probably most famous is Tower Defence By Roman Saine.

If the game isn't notable to be in wikipedia, then it's probably spam to start listing it in this article. I'm going to wait to see other people put in their thoughts. But if I don't hear anything, this stuff is getting cut. Randomran (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, it's obvious spamming. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do I get so excited about removing bad edits? Watch how fast I go. Randomran (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps spam could be cut down by linking to a site that lists tower defense games rather than to individual ones? I found this one: http://www.towerdefence.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.25.46 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best way to avoid spam would be to avoid posting any external links at all. But if there are any notable tower defense games out there, I'd encourage people to try to make some new wikipedia articles for individual games. That would help people get their research fix if they wanted to learn more about specific tower defence games. Right now, the only recticle that appears to meet that standard is Desktop Tower Defense. Although even that article seems to be in some trouble. Randomran (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Immortal Defense? It got independent strategy game of the year, and has been reviewed in many print game magazines and online game review sites. I'm not sure it's that notable because it's just an independent game (like Darwinia), but as independent games go it's fairly notable. 67.84.25.46 (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to wikipedia. Wikipedia actually has pretty clear standards on this if you check out the general notability guideline. Independent games can be notable. The key is if it's covered by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That means more than just the developer's website, or press releases that get spread around the net. If you have two reviews in a reputable source like gamespy, IGN, or some print magazine, that would be enough. You'd want to find those sources, though, so you can do a proper citation. Randomran (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dont say "First made popular by WC3"

A few hundred people were in Age of Empires II Tower Defense games at any moment on zone.com back in the days before WC3. I don't want to amke a big argument, just cite whatever you add on the subject or its going to get removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.63.178 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a citation for WC3 but we don't have one for Age of Empires II. Your confused point seems to be that we should remove your unsourced addition but I'm inclined to let it stand for now to see how this might be improved. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually "made popular by WC3" is a very accurate statement. DOTA or, Defense of the Ancients, created an explosion of games across all genres incorporating the defense strategy gameplay style. As a programmer for basic flash games I have to say when I asked on the forums I write on all credited DOTA as not the first but the most important video game to this genre.

strategy game?

Of course TDs derivated from big realtime strategy titles like Starcraft and WC3, but although they definitely involve much stratetic gameplay and often also teamwork, but I always classyfied them as puzzle games, especially in their flash and mobile form... 78.50.6.57 (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tower Defense games that qualify as notable

I know a lot of people want to spam their favorite tower defense game. That's not allowed. What is allowed, however, is adding a tower defense game that has become the topic of reliable journalists. For example, this gamasutra article mentions a game called "Protector"[1] ... if someone wanted to add this with a proper reference, I would support it. I might do it myself when I find some time. Randomran (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Pixeljunk Monsters, the PS3 game. It was popular enough for an expansion to get released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.249.149 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I have no idea. Notability on wikipedia isn't determined by a popularity contest, but based on anything that gets covered by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GNG. If the only coverage of the game is from the game's website, instruction manuals, and some blogs and forums, then it's not notable. If it's covered by even 2 game news sites, then it IS notable. Randomran (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What about "Defend your castle"? Not only is it a popular game, but a WiiWare version has been released and reviewed by several major videogame reviewers. AlexFili (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of game genre have a good list of examples. Take a look at this good one: List of strategy video games. Why not making a similar section here?
I came here to look for a few good examples and maybe a few references to site who will have more info on this, and I couldn't find any. So I try to add something good and maybe by starting this section more will contribute, but I see you are quite restrictive here. I didn't said "this is the best" or "play this" or "made by the great developer...". What makes your two examples better so we will have them here and limit the list to them?
What about if I add reference to some "big" gaming sites articles about the games? Or add some that have already pages here on Wiki?
And what about mentioning a few sites who are dedicated to Tower Defense games? Wouldn't be so much easy to find a few here instead of digging the internet for one good link.
Sorry about the long talk, but I want to understand and help a bit here since I like Wiki and TD. Thanks. --Ternami 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Those other game genre articles link to games that are notable: games that have been covered by big gaming news sites and reviewers. There aren't many tower defense games that have reached that level of notoriety. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote your favorites. It's a place to write about topics of real world significance. Randomran (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't promote favorites, I'm trying to start a list like many others. You could make a list of any TD games, but please let's add more examples on this page, up to more complex graphics like Defense Grid: The Awakening (I din't start that page). You can find so many obscure games around, tell me if all games listed on List of strategy video games have reviews on big sites or their own wiki page, so notoriety is not a valid issue. Examples of reviews of Harvest: Massive Encounter (I didn't start this either): IGN.com, gametunnel.com. Examples of reviews of "Azgard Defence": justanothermobilemonday.com, smartphonemag.com, myworldofhandhelds.com. --Ternami 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If the examples in the other lists are just an independently produced fan game with no notoriety, they shouldn't be there. I think adding a mention of Defense Grid would be entirely appropriate. But something like Azgard Defence isn't, because the reviews come from other self-published fansites. Randomran (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend including some mention of gemcraft chapter 0, as it allows the player to make a particular wave stronger (and thus give more score/resources) without affecting other waves.74.61.53.5 (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Origins of the Tower Defense

First, let me introduce myself - I am the first person who has ported a TD on a computer, through the Starcraft editor. I am not notable, and do not want my name included (it would look like pure vanity/egocentrism anyway), what matters is that I can accurately tell you the early history of Tower Defenses (that is, if you believe me, as I have no reliable sources or proofs).

It all started in 1992, with a Gameboy game called Rampart, to which I was quite addicted. Years passed, and, with the help of two other friends, we did the first PC port of it by adapting it as Turret Defense on Starcraft in precisely november 1999. To be honest, this was really a crappy map, and I left it as is.

One of the two other people who made it with me thought this had a future, and continued working on the map, alone. Around 2000/2001, Battle.net became flooded with tower defenses (it was notable WAY before Warcraft III and AoE II btw, you need to fix that).

I am sorry that I cannot have any reliable sources (though I still have the unprotected version of the original starcraft scenario which was the very first tower defense), but at least I hope my comment will help you look back at Rampart as the origin of it all and have a better idea of when to date the beginning of the TD web-epidemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.118.63 (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your account makes good sense to me - thanks for the input. We have good evidence for Rampart and, as this is a recognisable ancestor of the genre, I have updated the article accordingly. It may be that Rampart has progenitors - I recognise some affinity with Space Invaders. As we accumulate evidence, we shall improve the article accordingly - this is the Wiki way. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad that my input, even unsourced, could be of some slight use :) --81.64.118.63 (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Makes sense. It's kind of a shame that no reliable sources can confirm it. But I figure it's good to put this info in there until we have anything that seriously contradicts it. (Or, hopefully, confirms it.) Randomran (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We have reliable sources for the existence of Rampart, its dates and its other details. We could use some verification of the linkage between that and later games/mods but that's not a big claim. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? I checked the references here really quick and couldn't find a mention of Rampart. Randomran (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the separate article on Rampart. But I've added a ref here to nail it. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thanks. Randomran (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We really, really need a better source for the claim that the genre descends from Rampart than an anonymous Wikipedia comment. As-is it looks like total speculation in the article itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could have provided some sources to back me up, but sadly there are none other than my own anonymous word, which I realize has no credibility/reliability whatsoever, sorry (but then, anyone can write whatever they want on their website, there are topics such as this that can not be completely reliable regardless of whether it's sourced or not) --81.64.118.63 (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Random websites wouldn't be reliable research anyway. Randomran (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not reliable. Nor is the current sourcing for this. The source in no way indicates that Rampart was remotely involved in tower defense other than the fact that it bears a bit of a resemblance to the modern genre. Unless someone can point to a reliable source which draws the conclusion its not up to us as editors to do that.The article is wandering in to areas that got it deleted previously.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been playing Starcraft since 1998. I have on my computer a map (not made by me) called Bible Defense Revelation.scx, with last modified date Monday, May 28, 2001, 6:44:58 AM . It isn't very good, but it has the same gameplay as all other defense maps, including many other tower defense games that have infested bnet for at least the last 7 years. 71.200.102.171 (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

DotA isn't a TD

Defense of the Ancients is not a tower defense mod. The player cannot build towers, and instead controls a single hero unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.49.196 (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

According to a Gamasutra article, "Defense of the Ancients is a fascinating, still-played Warcraft III mod which helped inspire Tower Defense". Gamasutra is a very reliable source. Even if it isn't a Tower Defense game, it was still an influence. Randomran (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Gamasutra failed here. Defense of the Ancients could not and did not influence the Tower Defense genre in any way. Tower defenses existed years before DotA, and their game mechanics are vastly different. Jineo (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're proving Gamasutra wrong. Just because Tower Defenses existed before DotA, it doesn't mean DotA had no influence on Tower Defense or their popularity. If you want to disregard a pretty reliable source, you're going to need to find some reliable research for us to work from. Randomran (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea where gamasutra gets the idea that DotA had anything to do with TD, and the article actually states that it was inspirational to flash TD in some way unspecified. If Gamasutra actually wanted to talk about TD in detail, I might see the inclusion of that as a source, or possibly, if it was more than a footnote that it (disputed by us) influenced flash TD. Yes, we're both arguing for the truth, and I don't want you to make an exception, but we're still just saying that Gamasutra did fail here. I think in this case, either a better citation should be dug up than from Gamasutra, or the statement removed. --Izno (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible there was a failure by Gamasutra here. It wouldn't be the first time that a reliable source played fast and loose with the facts. But then we usually go on what other reliable sources have said, and try to resolve the conflict. What's your read on the source below, which says that people would recognize the gameplay in PixelJunk Monsters from Defense of the Ancients? I mean, when I look over it, DotA has enough in common with tower defense that an influence is not unfathomable: automated waves of creeps try to make their way to your base, and you need to stop them. Randomran (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My read, when I had a look at it, is exactly what they said: it's easy to recognize the play similarities. But that doesn't mean one or the other was based on the other (similarly, that doesn't mean either was developed in a vacuum). However, we're also missing a bit of history here, I think. It's quite well established that DotA is based on the "Aeon of Strife" (AoS) maps of the earlier-released StarCraft (though I don't know if they were called that in StarCraft). I do think it possible that there's an association there, as the second source notes. However, Gamasutra certainly takes it too far in this case. It's an offhand comment which was obviously not researched whether in affirmative or negative of the comment. You have a thought about where you want to take its? --Izno (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just flagging another reference, which I might add in later. See here. Randomran (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd have to go with removing it in this case - while Gamasutra IS a realiable source, it doesn't mean they're right on every single statement. Furthermore, the information you're quoting is just a sidenote, not the focus of the article, making it less reliable (ie. I could write a paper about ant colony optimization and mention something about real ants, but since that isn't the focus of the article, probably noone would review it and I could publish it in an influential journal - and yet it could easily be wrong). The same logic can be applied to the CNet review (and in general, what do reviewers know? ;)). If an article about TD mentions DotA, then by all means, include this information, but otherwise, I think it should be left out. --VPeric (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. The problem is that we don't have a lot of research on this topic. Normally, we would have another source that is *more* reliable that could explain what the "truth" is. But this time we don't. Gamasutra really is the best source of anything I've found thus far. But I'm willing to concede it might be wrong, and I'm removing it. At a certain point, you gotta WP:IAR and trust the consensus that the rule doesn't make sense here. Trying to develop this article with reliable research has been agonizing. What the heck do we do with an article that is destined to be a stub for the foreseeable future? Randomran (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Leave it to be or merge it into Real time strategy are options that I can see, as this largely is a derivative of the real time genre (if there's another option, feel free to add it). The concern I have with the latter is that RTS might get large; perhaps a "spinoff" section might work either way. The other of course, is just to leave it and come back to it later, and I think I might advocate this, as TDs will undoubtedly make a resurgence into culture when StarCraft II comes out, so it may happen that at that time it will find its way into other media. --Izno (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good plan. I'll see if new coverage starts to crop up once StarCraft II comes out. Otherwise, a merge would help provide more context I think. Randomran (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

80.34.137.194 (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)== 2D tower defense? ==

Does anyone know the subgenre for the games where 2D people run at your castle, and you have to defend it? (e.g. Defend Your Castle) Would that be tower defense, or something different?--_ZXCVBNM 21:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think not. In my opinion, one of the defining characteristics of the genre is the lack of direct player input - you just place the towers, everything else is automatic. Defend Your Castle, on the other hand, is built around the player doing stuff. --VPeric (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

See the Juggling strategy below. Stationary defenses have a limit and to go further in the game you need to be more active and start opening and closing paths to delay the units and have more time to kill them.80.34.137.194 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

way too many citations...

This article has WAY too many citations, it makes it look messy. You don't need to cite a media source that says that all these games exist, as long as the games are wikilinked to their own sourced articles. Most of these citations (which, I assume, are there to prove they're tower defense games) should be in the articles about the individual games as sources for their genre there, rather than in an article about the genre itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.184.42 (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Everything should be cited if possible. It is liable to be removed otherwise. --Izno (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Our WP:V policy says that we cite everything. Sorry. Randomran (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• WP:V does not say to cite everything. It says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.". But we need some specific cases to establish which is which. 06:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Odds are that it's a reaction against something. Allow the editors their jittery nerves... --Kizor 17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Strategy, JUGGLING and earlier version than Rampart

Ok, I have taken the liberty of adding the strategy section, based on the idea that it will be very useful to leave a short description of the most important strategy: Juggling. Please leave it, it may not have any reference, but it is exactly what I would have wanted to read.

On another note, Rampart may have been the main inspiration, but going back to the old BBC computers, contemporary of the spectrum, amstrad and comodore, there was an addictive game where you had to harvest wood, water and stone to fortify a hill and defend it from attacks at the end. It had the basis of resource management, but the idea was not waging war, but defending a hill.

In my opinon, the first proper, modern TDs came about with MODs, as our fellow map maker states above, and the latest flash versions are extremely limited compared with the hundreds of different maps for Age of Empires, were you have teamwork and resource management.

On a final note to enciclopedist, there are references out there for the juggling strategy, I read it in a youtube comment, though I was very close to developing it myself, I love TDs. 80.34.137.194 (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)