Talk:SpellForce 2: Shadow Wars

Video games Low‑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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-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

Plot needs elaboration

The plot could still use a bit of work. I'll get to it when I get a chance, unless someone else gets to it first. Dr Aaron 03:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

"While the Spellforce game series has been one of the few attempts to fuse role-playing game (RPG) and real-time strategy (RTS) elements, Spellforce 2 contains very little else in the way of innovation." is not a neutral sentence and should be edited.

Also, in the reactions section - the original Spellforce was met with pretty equal reactions. I've read several reviews of the game:

GameSpot: 8.2/10 GameZone: 8.4/10 IGN: 8.2/10

Those are just a few and they're actually pretty favorable reviews.

There are several other areas of the article which I also feel are lacking in neutrality, but I'm new at this, so I'm not sure how to word my opinion on why they are. I'm also not comfortable editing the article, so if someone would like to respond to this, or edit the article, it would be appreciated.--IndigoAK 06:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the offending statements. I'd argue that they weren't "biased" but rather "incorrect". Dr Aaron 15:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can cite that quote as being said from another site, then yes, it needs to be changed. Tell me what parts are lacking in neutrality and I will offer my services to help you.Salvadoradi (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point out that the phrase "one of the few" is both technically incorrect (there have been hundreds, and Spellforce is not an unusually notable example) and can be read as containing a value judgement. 94.193.221.42 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the link

Spellforce: The Order of Dawn should be a link to Spellforce: 'The Order of Dawn' not the 'spellforce' series User:Tikai 14:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Spellforce page does refer to the Spellforce: the Order of the Dawn release. It is poorly named and mostly a stubb, but I don't have enough experience with the original game to do a good page. I've been thinking about moving it, but I don't feel comfortable doing that until I have the time to fix it properly. Dr Aaron 00:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created Dragon Storm Page?

Hey, I've done the Dragon storm page, i hope it's alright, although it's my first time doing it, if you want you could improve it. SKYNET X3000 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release date?

I like steam as much as the next guy but quoting the steam release date in the intro paragraph makes no sense. Either put all the dates or leave them out. I am going to wait a few days for comments before doing any changes. Almogo (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the release date should be date when it shows in the malls/shops/markets. Steam is just Internet platform. Sir Lothar (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universe Edtion Problems

Is the keycode problem big enough for a mention or is it now gone?Darkside2000 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Merging - Dragon Storm and Faith in Destiny with Shadows Wars

I would like to propose that these two articles are merged with this one, as the information on these expansions is quite low in content and doesn't warrant them having separate articles. GUtt01 (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]