Talk:Betrayal at Krondor

Quest Items (Spyglass / Spider) Glitch - or intended "feature" for observant players?

I'd like to reconsider having my contrib about the quest items added, perhaps rewritten in a shorter format. The main reason I've added this info is to illustrate yet another "featureglitch" that BaK featured - a unique aspect of the game that can be noticed by an observant player, giving them an edge. Glitch? Feature? Cheat? You decide :D ... I just think it's cool that BaK had a few things like that, made the repeat gameplay that much more interesting. Think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1927metropolis (talk • contribs) 08:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

older comments

i want to add the download location for the game (which i did and was subsequently removed) -- granted i did not know the correct format and the hyperlink was not given a proper description, but still... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.200.20.195 (talk • contribs) .

• Providing a direct download link is nasty because the software is still copyrighted and apparently being sold somewhere. I think the best we can do right now is to put a link to Home of the Underdogs, which merely describes the game (and coincidentally lets you download the game, at least until Vivendi complains). As noted in the article, the game is not freeware according to Vivendi, even when it previously was. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• The game has been freeware since 1997 [1]. Pictureuploader 12:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read the article! Cited link: "We [Vivendi Universal Games] have existing contracts with other companies that preclude us from being able to authorize this [redistribution by unlicensed third parties]." However, Vivendi isn't making much noise about people redistributing it, though that's not the same thing as them condoning it... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

CD-ROM version

what's different in the CD ROM version? (if anything at all) ? (131.130.121.106 08:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Well, I've seen two CD-ROM versions, the budget CD and the one that came with the book; The budget version has CD soundtrack and the option to use it in game, and the book version doesn't have the soundtrack but has video interview of Feist. Uh, some of the versions also have Windows help file that has bunch of stuff about the game. And there may have been additional demos/video clips in the book CD too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"This Kingdom Mine" = "Greensleeves"?

Has anyone else noticed that "This Kingdom Mine" (the tune you play when barding) bears an uncanny resemblance to the song "Greensleeves"? Shador5529 23:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it... yes, yes it does. :) Chris 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of music... as I recall (this was 14 years ago, though), the 1994 edition's included soundtrack featured some songs with actual lyrics - not just CD-DA clones of the MIDI soundtrack. I.e. someone actually bothered to write & sing the lyrics (which were not, and could not, be played by the game's MIDI engine). Can't remember the track title or number, but I distinctly recall actual sung lyrics - "In the north, the Moredhel / Are vicious - to a man / Get too close, they run you through / Any way they can". Does anyone have an actual disc to check this factoid? :D 1927metropolis (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, some rambling on the cleanup requirements.

Basically, I added a bunch of stuff to this article way back then. Then User:Cjwright79, while at least trying to be helpful, expanded the article - but not exactly in a neutral way that is expected of stuff that's supposed to be in an encyclopaedia article.

While I wasn't looking, he then nominated the thing to be a Featured Article and for Peer Review. Frankly, this is barely better than a stub article, and has too glowing language to merit either. This article has a long way to be a Featured Article, and the problems with the article are, frankly, self-evident.

So, the thing is, now this article needs to be cleaned up, trimmed, and partially rewritten - and expanded. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Phew. I went ahead and cleaned up most of the wholly unnecessary glow from this article. I also reorganised the article a bit; I took the article structure from Final Fantasy VII (let's copycat the structure of a real bona-fide Featured Article, shall we?) There are still a lot of stuff to do:

1. Needs sources for the background/development section
2. Some summary of the plot. I never beat the game (last year I restarted my game like 10th time already) and it's been a while since I read the book.
3. Needs some summary of the player characters [2]
4. Definitely some press references to the reception.

If I ever get struck by Boredom, this is what I'll focus on. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

...and there's now a box that lists Stuff to Do up there. Yay. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I just re-worked the introductory text; I like your changes to cjwright79's garbage. Looks like this article may make it to FA status one day afterall! Mathiemood 20:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviews from dead-tree magazines needed

As incredible as it may sound, great big magazines aren't really keen in getting their 1993 articles online. So I'd appreciate if people would dig out some old reviews from big magazines.

I did find a review from Pelit online archive (subscriber-only); it's particularly memorable for me because May 1993 issue was the first one that I when I subscribed the magazine. I've found a couple of reviews from smaller sites too. But here, we'd really need some reviews from dead trees editions.

I hope Pelit has some weight; after all, Niko Nirvi was one of the reviewers and he's always right what comes to RPGs, for sure. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember Compute had a good review of BaK, right before it folded. Unfortuntely, I trashed that issue about a decade ago. Vranak

Character bios and plot summary

I had to cut down the character bios; most of that stuff was copied from game and/or manual, and we can't have direct copies of stuff here. Plus, that wasn't really helpful in understanding the context anyway and what role they play in the game. (Okay, my stubs don't do that that well either...)

The plot stuff is good, but I guess it's a tad bit too extensive right now. It could be summarised further. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be done, according to MagicKnight0233 who deleted this section. I restored it for the sake of talk page history. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon user's claims...

Here's what some IP user added:

Among computer game players age 25-35, Betrayal at Krondor is lauded for having possibly the best plot in any RPG from the '90s.

Another important note is it's abundance of items and spells, a fact which went unappreciated up until a few years later, when other games reached the same depth in these particular areas.

...that's pretty much OR and a bit fan-glow, and can't really be put here, unless we find someone with even a modicum of authority who has claimed this.

For all it's popularity among mature players, however, few young players have ever heard of it, and Raymond Feist have long claimed he wants Midkemia available through this type of media again.

This could possibly happen in an upcoming MMO text-based game set for release sometime in the near future by IronLore Entertainment.

This can potentially be added, however, if these are sourced somehow. Does anyone have press references? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So what's the deal with the freewaring?

I distinctly remember the Betrayal at Antara-related freeware release of BaK, but I can't remember the Return to Krondor one. I could be wrong, though. So, the question becomes this: What freeware releases were there, what games did these releases promote, etc? Sources would be nice, even archive.org links to the Sierra site... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops! My bad. Vranak 15:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Praiseworthy quotes etc...

This was being added...

The game had, for its time, a vast assortment of weapons, armor, unique items, characters, and thoughtfully-constructed subquests. The game world was also extremely expansive for a game released in 1993, with the player able to travel across much of a massive continent at numerous instances in the game's labyrinthian story arc. Finally, the games mix of 2D and 3D graphics and its strong emphasis on story set it further apart from contemporary games and ensured that it would become an instant classic.

This is not, in my opinion, a particularly neutral phrasing. If this would be left as is, the comments would have to be sourced somehow to someone who has stated this sort of things. We can't also start just comparing the game randomly to other contemporary games randomly or we'd risk this turning into original research. If there's an actual article that compared the game to some other games of the era, that would be a mighty great addition to the article.

Another bit that was being added that I removed:

Unfortunately this allowed the system to be abused, as players could briefly emphasize a specific skill to make it grow faster, and deemphasize it immediately afterward.

This is a relatively minor technicality of the game system. We're supposed to give an overview of the topic, but I feel this goes beyond overview level. Further, it's not exactly unique to this game and it's a feature of the system that people figure out on their own anyway. Is the system notorious for this? If it were, it'd also justify explaining other warts of the system or literary flubs, like combat/trap rest abuse, delicate and careful application of poison in thick of combat... Let's not overwhelm the reader with the smallest of the little trivia. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

1. BaK was loved, but it is also largely forgotten. I don't know of any sites offhand that might mention it. You're right, it's not neutral, but neither are many of the opening statements dealing with works of art. The intro to Bohemian Rhapsody, for example, on this site. BaK was an achievement for it's time; trust me, I know: I was there. And it was totally different from many contemporary games. The things listed there are the reasons that it stood out and made it great, and to not mention them, does the game a disservice. Someone who didn't know much would read this article and not really understand how different it was. I understand neutrality, but you shouldn't take it too far. BaK was a great game and should be hailed as such, and I think as long as the people who worked on this article don't have a problem with it, we should leave it there.

2. That was a fairly big flaw in the system that left it wide open to exploitation, much bigger than any of the other glitches. One sentence isn't overwhelming. When I wrote the article that was the basis for everything you see written here, I intended that to be highlighted, and I don't see any reason to get rid of it.

GrimmC 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Yeah, "I was there" too, BaK was the first "real" PC game I got (if we ignore, erm, Colossus Chess X =). I remember the good reception from the magazines and that's what I cited in the article (Pelit magazine quote in the "Reception" section). I know the present recollection of the game is very regrettable. Which is exactly why I personally want this article to be improved and fit the Wikipedia standards: I don't want the game to be forgotten. But if we want to explain how much of a breakthrough the game was at time, we really should look at the contemporary reviews or game press retrospectives that discuss it as such. Just because some articles slip into that doesn't mean this thing should; those articles should be fixed too, it's not like there's a shortage of music reporting and research!
Okay, let's resolve this thing in another way: The quote above is problematic also because it makes authoritative assertions: "THIS is why it was so remarkable, believe me". That is why this is bad: That is review material, and we're not a game critique site. Neutral articles should say "The game had features that were very advanced/infrequently seen at time, such as THIS and THIS and THIS and introduced an entirely new concept THAT", highly preferrably with some sort of comparison to contemporary games and/or some additional references.

2. Yes, the flaw was big, but it's still somewhat debatable whether it needs to be added. It's a minor gameplay detail. I'm only worried about proportion here: We have a bunch of stuff about a very unique game system, then just as much stuff about how this very unique game system completely sucks because of one tiny minor oversight from the part of the designers... Or was it just a tiny problem that some gamers could exploit, while many didn't elect to? I mean, I didn't... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I understand what you're saying but I don't know how else to word it. Why don't you go for it? At least until we find some articles. I really don't think we'll have any luck though. I'll see what Google gives me. And I dunno, personally I abused the hell out of that system. It seemed like the obvious thing to do, heh. GrimmC (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"A silly skill selection system. You can pick three skills for each character that will develop faster, and change them any time. Needless to say you will always pick the skills you are going to use next. It's a completely useless flaw in the otherwise very good skill system." http://members.chello.at/theodor.lauppert/games/bak.htm

Somewhat contemporary review: http://www.quandaryland.com/jsp/dispArticle.jsp?index=83

Gamespot mentions it in the beginning of this review: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/returntokrondor/review.html

IMDB?: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375599/

probably useless: http://games.toptenreviews.com/reviews/g3125.htm

possibly useful: http://www.elecplay.com/reviews_article.php?article=8333

http://www.allgame.com/cg/agg.dll?p=agg&sql=1:2759

That's all I got, man. GrimmC (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not having time to look here for a while =) Okay, let's consider this from another angle: reviewers might have noticed this, so it might be worth mentioning in this article. However, nothing takes away from the fact that it is still essentially a tiny little fact that one might find in a game guide, not in an encyclopaedia article. Do we need to cover glitches? In my opinion, there are famous game glitches that would need encyclopedic coverage and covering them is also warranted if people turn them into a lifestyle, but I don't think BaK's glitches are notorious enough as such. In similar vein, I just removed one bit from the article about keyboard/mouse double-command glitch. People come to Wikipedia to read about the general features, story, etc. If they want to play the game, they'll probably hit the BaK Help Web. So, let's not worry about glitches? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mouse/Keyboard Glitch

This glitch is not a "minor technicality" like the skill emphasis thing. I agree that almost anyone can figure out tricks like skill emphasis, resting in battle, skin of the dragon for traps etc. (although i myself do not use skin of the dragon in traps bcoz solving them is much more fun.) Now the mouse/keyboard thing isn't such a thing since i myself discovered it only after finishing the game once (which involved several months trying to find Ugyne and a few weeks trying to find the way to Elvandar (you might call me a bad RPG gamer at this point)) and starting to play it again years later. I'm pretty sure that not many people have discovered this themselves (including the person who deleted my addition.) I haven't seen this in any guide or faq. Definitely not in ones linked from this site. I want to see it somewhere on the web where many web surfers who are playing the game for the 1st time (that might be like 1 per billion people, but that doesn't matter) will see it. I'm not into blogging yet so i can't create a whole blog about Krondor worth giving a link from Wikipedia just so people can know this little detail. So until a person with a blog/guide that's LINKED FROM HERE adds this VERY IMPORTANT detail to their site please don't delete it.

Besides, the article reveals everything from the characters to the entire story. I'm sure no one who's playing the 2nd chapter would want to know that Pug is a player character (i myself discovered it trying to edit a save file while struggling in chapter 3). I see no harm in putting this little (but very important) detail there.

Now for why it's "very important":

It lets you play combats much more comfortably and gain the upper hand in battles. There's no part of the game without combats and this "glitch" is useful in every part. And it's not even cheating because i've seen many trolls move forward and defend in the same turn. If they can do it, why can't we, in outnumbered and outpowered situations? It's especially useful at the very start of the game when Owyn can use his only useful spell without losing any health and reduce the enemy's combat skills by 20%.

So please don't delete the information until there's a link to a site with the information. --Karunyan (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use

This article is using far too many fair use images. I'm placing a note here so that any of the regular article editors can remove the unnecessary ones if they are so interested. If not, I'll be back in a few days to do it myself. Naerii (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the screenshots that show various parts of the user interface and gameplay features are okay, but the ones that just show plot stuff aren't necessarily justifiable (textual summaries are just as good). They seem to have been deleted as lacking rationale, anyway... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dragon

The dragon magazine is mentioned twice, with the same content. Could be merged --Trickstar (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Purpose of this Article

Hello Wikipedians,

I think it's time we took a serious look at this question: What is the purpose of this article? As it stands, it's a fantastic descriptive article. But Wikipedia article, it is not. It's way denser than it needs to be, and smacks a little of fanboyism.

Now I don't make these comments without merit. In fact, I was the first person to do any real work on the article. Heck, it's why I registered for wikipedia. This is what it looked like when I first found it: [[3]] And here is what I added: here Of course it was written when I was 6 years younger, and I mostly wrote it a review-ish tone. But now we have a professional-looking, much better article. Cheers to progress.

Nonetheless, because of the initial way I wrote it, I feel somewhat responsible for the fanboy-ish undercurrent in the present article. The fact is simple: an encyclopedia article does not need all of this in-depth information about game mechanics, nor about the plot. Sympathetic as I am, this site is not about BaK veterans. So we have two options:

1) Transfer the existing article to a fan-based site, wikia or something, and clean this one up to Wikipedia standard, maybe even getting featured article status. 2) Leave it as it is.

Have no doubt, achieving choice #1 would require a major overhaul and deletion of much of the present information. Please respond soon--as a community of contributors, we need to decide what the real purpose of this article is, and I would like to take decisive action as soon as possible.

Cheers! GrimmC (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Your complaints are rather broad -- right now you say it smacks of fanboyism. Could you perhaps give us a few examples, a few sentences, that you object to, so we can understand where you're coming from a little better? Thanks. Vranak (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with GrimmC. As entertained as I am by things like placing a heavy object on the keyboard I think those things could be included in a comprehensive guide and submitted to ign or a similar website and a single external link could be left here. --Dhatsavan 09:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you know maybe you have a point. It's like giving away too much to someone who might be a new player. If you want to remove those two things you removed before, I won't revert again. Vranak (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's simply not an encyclopedia/wikipedia article. It reads more like a how-to guide. We don't need a chapter-by-chapter plot summary, nor do we need a list of every location in the game. Or any locations, really. Don't need a dramatis personae, nor do we need tips & tricks. If whatever community is involved here is ok with it, I'd like to start cleaning this article up. There is a Midkemia wiki here which we could port the existing article to. Then we could work on increasing this one's real-world relevance. GrimmC (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like the purpose of the article is to gratify people who know a lot about the game, and I say this as a great fan. Actually using it as an encyclopedia, I want to know the general data like what the patch version is, what kind of a game it is, and maybe some reviews. As historic a game it is, it's difficult and perhaps vain to try to convey that here. 75.111.41.2 (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Betrayal at Krondor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215140510/http://www.pelit.fi/index.php?id=60360 to http://www.pelit.fi/index.php?id=60360

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Betrayal at Krondor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004160035/http://www.liberatedgames.com/forums/index.php?t=msg&th=7&start=0&rid=3 to http://www.liberatedgames.com/forums/index.php?t=msg&th=7&start=0&rid=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Source

• https://archive.org/stream/UneditedPCGamer_marktrade/PC_Gamer_022u#page/n163/mode/2up
• https://imgur.com/a/Uf3XB