Talk:Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness

Video games Start‑class High‑importance

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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Vista Problems?

I been playing warcraft II on my Vista OS for a while and have no troubles. Is there a source for this claim?--12.160.68.62 (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Dark Portal disc problem

It says that If the disk for Beyond the Dark Portal is inserted into a CD player, the orchestrated music from the game can be played. When i put the Beyond the Dark Portal disc into my DVD Player(that can read mp3, compact disc and that kinda stuff!) and it won't play anything! i put it in my PS2 and it just said Disc Read Error. so was that just bogus or what?--Zappedgiants (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried a CD Player... like it says? Ashton.Sanders (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online

Sine my cd is broken and cdkey is being used on a bot can somone be so kind as to update the activity of online play as of 2007? Because i went to war2 usa 1 and there was nobody there. This would be truly sad if this game is dead because i used to play nonstop online at one point in time. thank you Wera 05:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Warcraft Occult is your best source for information. As it says they have moved to a another server. Or you could check War2 Ladder Challenges on bnet, I don't know. Its forum is your best source for laughing at old rivalries and flamers and hackers and dodgers who are still going strong. –Pomte 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions

Call me skeptical, but I think the whole "Conversions" section is a bit apocryphal. I admit that I'm not big into the mod scene, but I never heard about any of this stuff. I don't doubt that it really existed, but I doubt that it's notable enough the have an entire section in the article. I think we could sum it all up as, "Many utilities were developed by fans to alter and change WarCraft II assets. Many mods were developed," or some such thing. I just really don't think they were that notable. Anyone else? —Frecklefoot 14:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They were notable; many players tried out the conversions at least at some point. --Lowellian 22:16, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Conversions (or mods) have their place in this article, sure. It was/is a notable part of the Warcraft 2 experience. And hey, isn't an encyclopedia entry supposed to a bit more than just a rewording of the blurb on the game box? ~Anonymous Wanderer

"Warcraft" (lowercase 'c') was probably better

Most people (including Blizzard) seem to write it Warcraft, lowercase 'c'. Same goes for Warcraft III. --Mrwojo 20:11, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It should be moved back. —Frecklefoot 14:16, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Quotations

"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" is a quote from Warcraft III, not II. I think it should be removed but should it be moved to the WC3 page? - --EatMyShortz 12:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice this was on the talk page, but I've already moved that quotation to the WC3 article :) Rbarreira 02:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a stub?

It seems the article on the original Warcraft is more of a stub than this.

Yep, I think you're right. I'd say none of them are stubs, but I don't know. I'll unmark this article at stub, but it would not have been a problem at all if you had done it :) By the way, make sure to sign your posts (typing ~~~~ in the end). Welcome to Wikipedia! Rbarreira 02:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Online Play

I've begun a section on online play. War2 was a pretty significant step forward for online competitive gaming, and it would be nice to document some of what went on. Mutant 11:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha?

Should the Alpha version be mentioned? I do understand that it is not "general knowledge", but then again, neither is the entire Warcraft Universe. The Alpha version of Warcraft 2 was in quite heavy rotation back in the day and it is -- all things considered -- a nice piece of Warcraftiana. Further, if there's a place where I'd go looking for info on the nowadays-hard-to-come-by Warcraft 2 Alpha thingie, this is the page where I'd go foraging. I realize that a separate page would be pushing it, but a mention (however quick) is quite defendable and understandable. ~Anonymous Wanderer

Cheapness, reason for passage editing

"The depth of strategy of the game was found to be immense and evolved over time. Many of the newly invented tactics were considered unorthodox and "cheap", meaning the tactic reduced the enjoyability of the game. New players (newbies, newbs, or noobs) were able to defeat well established players by using cheap tatics. But for every cheap tactic, subsequent countermeasures were developed and matches eventually played out like complicated games of rock, paper, scissors. What was once considered cheap, eventually became routine, and established players were forced to adapt. Examples of cheap tactics include grunt rushing (rushing), barracks first (rax first), offensive barracksing (raxing), offensive towering (ot), peon rushing, and rushing to bloodlust."

Cheapness is about as subjective and unencyclopedic a subject as it gets in competitive gameplay and I didn't believe much of that was salvagable.

First, the word noob shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia. That should be obvious. Second, grunt rushing and rushing to bloodlust are THE two bread and butter strategies of the game. If you consider those cheap, every single game of War2 is cheap because you no longer have bread and butter ground units. I have never seen an offensive barracksing, or at least never seen one that succeeded.

As a former IPX player, that passage just rubbed me the wrong way. Showdown 16:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft Disco

Shouldn't there be something about the hidden disco song? SockMonkeh 05:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last item at Blizzard Entertainment#Trivia. I'll paste it here. –Pomte 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move article?

Shouldn't the main article be found at Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness with Warcraft II being a redirect? Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness is the full title of the game. Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos and Warcraft: Orcs & Humans are found at the correct full title, why not Warcraft II?

This article is about the bnet edition as well. The Dark Portal expansion has its own article just to tell the story, I guess. –Pomte 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Battlenet edition has a small paragraph within this article. I do agree that the name should be changed to Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness and make Warcraft II a redirect to that one, not the other way around. Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness is the original full title of the game. The Battle.net edition was merely a rerelease with the expansion combined. Also Warcraft II: Battle.net Edition already redirects to this page to that section. Anyone looking for the b.net edition is automatically forwarded to the right place.--Fogeltje 10:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle.net edition

Is the Battle.net edition just Tides of Darkness, or does it also include Beyond the Dark Portal?

Pretty sure both. –Pomte 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

It appears this article has been heavily edited recently, and requires cleanup. I've found numerous spelling and gramatical errors. Source checks and accuracy checks appear to be in order as well. Also some of the added pictures should be moved so that they arent covering text or creating empty space. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.234.47.244 (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Heh. Where do we even begin? The TMI in the intro and the copyvio in the story section are the first glaring problems, but the whole thing is going to be fun. Chris Cunningham 11:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely removed the story section, the content seems to be copied straight from a source. It was way too long anyway. I replaced it with a brief summary of the game's story in my own words from my own experience of playing the game as well as reading novels and such. I also removed the images in this section. Take note that the cleanup tag was placed before the story section was added. I think we should also look at the list of buildings and units and revise those sections. I don't think it should contain mere lists of units. Worth mentioning would be things like the balanced units, every Alliance unit has an exact counterpart in the Horde with the notable exception being the spellcasts (Mage and Death Knight) and the spells used by the Paladin/Ogre-Mage.--Fogeltje 13:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on this :) The article's already looking quite a bit better, although "better than really bad" isn't much of an accolade. Chris Cunningham 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something that's even more important is the title. Right now Warcraft II has the main article and Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness is a redirect. This should be the other way around. But since Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness exists already we can't simply move the page. Copying the information and talk page to the redirect doesn't transfer edit history, which could be relevant and one would have to go to the redirect to look for old versions. Should we nominate the redirect for deletion so we can move the article or ask as an admin to swap the pages or what? I'm not sure what the procedure is for this.--Fogeltje 14:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the blocking page with {{db-move}} and it'll be flagged for removal. Or you can add a request to WP:RM. Chris Cunningham 14:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, I flagged it for speedy deletion. Once the redirect is gone I will move the page. --Fogeltje 15:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the move has been made by now, thank the admins. I also drastically cut the section about buildings, it read more like a manual listing all the buildings and what they do. Story, unit and building sections have been done. Any more opinions on more cleanup that should be done? Once we are all satisfied I think we can remove the clean-up text. Most 'manual material' is gone, story section has been drastically shortened (though it was written after the tag was placed). Anything else? --Fogeltje 14:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mods section is a mess, and we need a {{warcraft}} template for related articles instead of all those seealsos. But we're looking a lot better, and I think the tag can go. Many thanks. Chris Cunningham 09:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the see also links, they are already all present in the templates below so I removed that section and moved the portal link. --Fogeltje 10:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

development

Did it really take just one year to produce? This Gamespot article said it did. [1] Anyone know when it was first shown? 129.120.86.246 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]