Talk:Age of Empires Online

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Link to blackhat page[edit]

There has been a protracted edit war about a link to a blackhat page that includes a description of a hack for this game. This is not how we resolve disputes on Wikipedia. I suggest both parties review our reliable sources guide and discuss on this page so we can arrive at a consensus on this problem. This page has been semi protected in the meantime, and will further steps will be taken if there are more problems. I would also suggest reviewing our dispute resolution guide. TNXMan 11:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Information and link to blackhat page should remain[edit]

The author of the "Age of Empires Online Cheats" page ( which was cited as a source for game cheats and the disclosure of the games' third civilization is well known in the Age of Empires online forums and has a clear understanding of the game and subject in general. As such, the author/source should be considered as authoritative.

The source in question has been mentioned on the official Age of Empires online forums and confirmed as legitimate. The screenshots have also been confirmed as legitimate by a member of Gas Powered Games, one of the developers of the game. The source is not only accurate, but directly supports the information that was added to the article.

If you look at the history of the IP addresses which keep removing the information, you'll notice they belong to Microsoft. You'll also notice that they leave a note with every edit they make to other articles, but they never leave any note or explanation when removing the information from this article.

Trying to cover up the fact that cheats are available for Age of Empires online is not a legitimate reason for removing the information from the article. This isn't China and trying to hide information doesn't mean it never happened.

Unless they can provide a legitimate reason for removing this information, I suggest that the information remains. (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources you have listed are reliable sources as Wikipedia defines them. Unless you have significant third-party coverage, I see no reason to include information about the hack. You may also want to read our information on original research and why it is not permitted. TNXMan 14:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CelticPeon, 29 June 2011[edit]

Please add the following content to the bottom of the article. It was removed in an abusive edit by a Microsoft IP, see talk page for more info.

Content to be added:

On June 20, 2011, in a blog post by a blackhat SEO[1], it was revealed that players can cheat at the online game. by modifying a configuration file in the games startup directory. The third civilization was also revealed as being Celtic.

CelticPeon (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Blogs aren't reliable sources, and cheat information has no place in an article (and even less so cheats of a beta version). Amalthea 06:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

prices are reduced[edit]

Almost twiceEdelward (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Rating Reassessment Request[edit]

Perhaps the rating of this article should be reassessed. A lot of information has been added over the past week by a couple of users and this article may have what it takes to get out of the C rating. This article is almost 10 times larger than it was when it was first rated C class so it may now be good enough for a higher rating. I don't know anything about the rating process so that's why I'm posting about it here. KnowledgeFreak7 (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


I've assessed the article. It met the B-quality standard. Now, i thnik there's still some issues to be resolved before properly being reviewed at GA. I can review it if asked. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 14:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well at least it is no longer a c rated article but perhaps you should review it for GA. It may not make the cut but at least then we'll all know what needs fixing when it comes to this article. KnowledgeFreak7 (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Age of Empires Online/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 03:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I've been asked to review this article and i'm privileged! It's the first video game related article i've ever reviewed and i chose to do it because i'm a long time player of Age of Empires and i have the knowledge to take this job. I'm a little busy as of today (May 21, my birthday), so i'll start the review on the next few days. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 03:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the article will be the longest i've reviewed to date, so it'll take a while... --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 23:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Before starting with the review, i'll take a couple of days to read and be sure i undestand the guidelines related to videogames, as i'm not too knowledgeable yet to them. I think i can properly start the review by the end of this week. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 23:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I will start the review and writing notes by Sunday 27 May 2012. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 04:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


Main section[edit]

# Statement Issue(s) Status
1 "Age of Empires Online features much of the gameplay of past games in the series, with the addition of a persistent city that functions when the player is offline, cooperative multiplayer quests, crafting, and trading."
  • The phrase does not clearly explain which is the main gameplay of the game. It would be clearer if written as this: "AoEO, as well as its predecessors, is a real-time based strategy videogame..."
  • Also, words like function and persistent may not be suitable to completely explain the topic.
2 "The game is an attempt to blend the real-time strategy (RTS) genre with massively multiplayer online gaming."
  • May be original research or an uncovered claim. To avoid such things, the word attempt would be better if put alongside developers. I mean: "The developers attempted to blend RTS with MMO."
3 "Also, the game features a great quantity of new content, such as crafting items with earned materials."
  • Above, on another statement, it is written that "with the addition...," so this phrase would be clearer if merged with that one.
4 "Gameplay requires the player to develop a civilization from a handful of hunter-gatherers to an expansive empire."
  • Gameplay doesn't require the player to develop a civilization. "The main gameplay revolves around the player being able to develop a civilization from its birth to its peak and fall." would be more clearer for the reader.
5 "To assure victory, the player must gather resources in order to pay for new units, buildings and more advanced technology."
  • pay sounds like incorrect here. As a strategy game, if we analyze it from a historical point, civilizations do not pay but spend resources on units, buildings and more advanced technology.
6 "Resources must also be preserved, as no new resources become available as the game progresses, for example, trees that are cut down will not grow back."
  • Might be too much detailed and irrelevant to explain this.
7 "A major component of the game is the advancement through four ages. Advancement between ages is researched at the Town Center, and each advancement brings the player new technologies, weapons, and units."
  • Maybe unnecesary detail. It would be better if the "four ages" is the only kept. (comment only)
8 "Resources can be used to train units, construct buildings, and research technologies."
  • This phrase appears twice.

Comment: I think the second paragraph needs to be totally rewritten, as it's very detailed on some topics and might lack information about some gamplay points. Remember that the first paragraphs here might do what the lead does for the article, summarize all the basics that will be explained later on the sub-sections. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 17:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, we need references covering this topic. We now that gameplay is like common sense, but some references are needed. Examples: Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings and Test Drive: Ferrari Legends. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 17:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


Paragraph 1
# Statement Issue(s) Status
1 "Every player has a limit to the number of units they can create—a population limit—but may not immediately use the entire potential population. The population capacity, which is capped at 200, is based on the number of houses or Town Centers—the main building in a player's town—which have been built."
  • "The population capacity, which is capped at 200." capacity and capped usually means the same, so it seems like a redundancy here. Also, capped is a videogame-related neologism, and should be avoided.
2 " based on the number of houses or Town Centers—the main building in a player's town—which have been built."
  • How is it based? I would be clearer if it shortly explains the relation between the number of houses and population.
3 "...limit to the number of units..."
  • I know this may be obvious, but i think some readers might ask this:military units? villagers included?
Paragraph 2
# Statement Issue(s) Status
1 "Certain types of infantry, archers, and cavalry are "counter units" with special defenses against other types of unit."
  • From the same civilization, the rest of the civilizations? or specific civilizations?
2 "The military classes generally follow a rock-paper-scissors model. For example, infantry are generally powerful against buildings but weak against cavalry, thus the infantry counter units—spearmen have attack bonuses against cavalry."
  • Maybe this could be better explained without the rock-paper-scissors example to avoid neologism. I can recommend the use of the word balance to write it like this:
  • "All military clases are developed to recreate a balance on gameplay, and thus avoiding visible advantages between civilizations. As an example, a unit powerful against a special type of building would be weak against a certain kind of cavalry."
  • The phrase "thus the infantry counter units—spearmen have attack bonuses against cavalry." is unnesesary, since the article only needs to give the reader a summary of how the game works, not specific details about it.
3 "Each civilization has unique units that are exclusive to that civilization, along with unique units obtained from Advisor cards."
  • Redundant use of civilization. This could be avoided if written as this: "Unique units are available for each civilization, either from the start of the game or through Advisor cards."
4 "These Civilization-specific units are generally more powerful, but still follow the basic rock-paper-scissors model."
  • This might be irrelevant, since the balance of the units is already expressed above, either from unique or non-unique units.
5 "The priest is a special kind of military unit that has the ability to convert enemy units to the player's civilization, and to heal allied units."
  • "to heal allied units" >> "to heal both the player's and allied units." could be clearer.

Comment: At this point, a copy-edit is recommended. I'll go through the entire sections and subsections leaving comments of what does not meet the criteria. As of now, it may be clear the article fails criteria 1(a), may fail words to watch from 1(b); I don't believe it fails 2(b), since the guideline says "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are likely to be challenged" and none of those are valid on the gameplay section (yet); and it fails 3(b), since (as of what i've carefully read) it goes into unnecesarry gameplay details. Notwithstanding, i will review the entire article to leave all that needs to be done documented for a future GA nomination. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 04:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


Paragraph 1
# Statement Issue(s) Status
1 "The buildings in Age of Empires Online are either economic and military buildings."
  • "either economic and military" >> "either economic or military..."
2 "Buildings can research technologies and upgrades that increase economic, military or unit-based efficiency, as well as provide resources for the player."
  • "On the buildings, the player can research new technologies to increase efficiency on specific elements of gameplay."
  • Just a suggestion: The gameplay section might only overview the basic mechanics to play the game, as well as any controversial element it has. Overdetailed elements might be avoided per the guideline.
3 "Different civilizations also possess buildings unique to their design and gameplay. The most important economic building is the Town Center, where villagers are created, all types of resources can be stored, some technologies are researched, and from which the player can advance to the next Age."
  • "Each civilization has unique buildings, but the most important of them is the Town Center, where villagers are created, resources are stored, some technologies researched and on which the player can advance from age."
4 "Other economic buildings available include the storehouse for resources, farms, docks (the dock may also produce several military ships), and houses to support a higher population. Military buildings include unit-producing buildings such as barracks, archery ranges, stables, and fortresses, as well as defensive buildings such as walls and towers."
  • This phrase might be unnecessary.

Second opinion[edit]

I would just like to point out some major issues with the article that, if I were the reviewer, would result in a quick-fail. The current reviewer can decide whether they would like to give the nominator time to correct these problems. I hope I'm not stepping on the reviewer's toes here, but I had noticed these things just before the review was claimed. I've also pasted the GA criteria below for reference. --Teancum (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  • The Gameplay section is roughly 3x bigger than your average video games good article, yet it has only five references. I submit that this is both excessive content (fails criteria 3b and WikiProject Video games guideline WP:GAMECRUFT) and that it's exceedingly poorly referenced (fails criteria 2 entirely).
  • Some references have no formatting whatsoever, and others are missing crucial items such as publish dates
  • The External links section goes after the References section (though this wouldn't cause a quick-fail, it still needs to be moved). The Steam link should also be removed to comply with WP:BIAS.
  • The See also section is redundant. All of those links are found elsewhere in the article or are unnecessary fluff
  • The Reception section states things like "GameSpot gave the game [x] score". This should reference the author of the article. For example: "Justin Calvert of GameSpot gave the game [x] score"
  • There are two dead links that could possibly be recovered using The Wayback Machine
  • Section headings should have only the first word capitalized unless it's a proper noun
  • Prices are not to be included in articles, as these are both subject to change and region
  • Numbers under 10 are to be spelled out
  • Citations must go after punctuation, and there should not be any spaces between that punctuation and reference
  • There are a few spelling errors such as "gamemode" (game mode) and "develepors" (developers)
  • Acronyms such as PvP should be explained the first time around and spelled out; they should also include a wikilink where applicable and then have the acronym in parenthesis afterwards. The acronym can the be used from that point on. For example: "player versus player (PvP)

Hey, thanks for your comments. I really appreciate the notes you've left above. Just one detail: Per the GA criteria, the WikiProject Video games guideline must not necessarily be met to reach GA, and past experiences i had show me they must not be required on the review. Notwithstanding, every point you've written is right. The gameplay section is kind of too much estensive and i've also noted the references I'm not sure about failing the article yet. I'll take a closer look to document every detail that doesn't meet the criteria, which is what the nominator wanted to be done when asked me to review the article. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 20:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I just briefly looked over this possible candidate for GA. I have never played this game, and at first glance, I feel the majority of the content in the gameplay section is WP:OR. There is no supporting citations for most of this information, and that alone should quickfail the article. I propose the gameplay section be slimmed down/cited or this article should remain B-class. Chilled616 (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The article will remain B-Class. As of now, I have some 5 grounds to fail/QF the article. I'm just going through it and writing what needs to be done because the user who nominated the article for GA asked me that favor, and i have no reasons not to do it. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 07:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


Ok, i have no time right now to continue filling in issues on the article. I mean, as of now, the article fails several criteria, and i will fail it for that reason. In the future, i'll write on the talk page all issues that need to be resolved.

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):


Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg

--Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 02:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.