Talk:Transport Tycoon

Merger proposal

I have proposed that the OpenTTD article be merged into the Transport Tycoon article. A large part of the OpenTTD article, namely the History and Gameplay sections, are common to both articles and hold little specific relevance to OpenTTD alone. Also, it seems odd that OpenTTD needs to have its own page while TTDPatch is combined in the main article. Adding to this point is the fact that Transport Tycoon Deluxe and Locomotion also have sections within the main article, not stand-alone pages (except Locomotion, but that is a completely seperate game). The OpenTTD article has been previously tagged as having failed the notability requirements and so, based on the above points, I believe that the commonsense course of action is to merge the two articles and give OpenTTD a section within Transport Tycoon.

If there are no posts objecting to the Merge, I shall undertake the Merger in 5 Days on 14 December 2009. If there are significant objections with well supported reasons for keeping the pages seperate, I shall not Merge the pages for approximately 2 weeks from now, or 23 December 2009, assuming a Consensus is reached.

PookeyMaster (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I support this merge as it seems like the sensible approach to take. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• A discussion for deletion of the article has lead to the consensus that OpenTTD is notable and Ludvig Strigeus deletion discussion did the same. However, I have to agree that there is duplication between the pages. Furhermore the page seriously needs some updates because some information is heavily outdated, so if it is going to be merged it is likely better to write something from scratch than take in all the outdated information. Note that any information that is found in the 'third party' articles is outdated, so it 'proves' notability but using it as a source that is assumed to be more valuable than the official developers would cause the page to be outdated. That brings me to the fact I'm not very happy with the 'attitude' that the list of officially supported architectures must come from some random third party; they must get their information from the official developers/website which means that you are indirectly using the official website as a source, but not allowing it to be use directly as the source, even though the offical developers/website will be more correct/up-to-date about what is officially supported. That makes me think that things like officially supported platforms is something that does not belong in Wikipedia. Thus the whole page contains either duplicates from the Transport Tycoon page or contains information that is not allowed by Wikipedia because of it not being "proven" by a third party like the last released version or the officially supported platforms. As such it is probably better to mention that OpenTTD exists in the Transport Tycoon page and get rid of the OpenTTD page. TTDPatch does not have its own page because it is not notable. 85.149.88.77 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I too think the rule about primary sources is not ideal, however the only way for the encyclopedia to work is for there to be strict standards about how things are laid out. If I merge the page, I was going to create a OpenTTD Section within the Transport Tycoon page and re-write the section so that it removes duplication and updates the facts that are used. Also, the Ludvig Strigeus reference is incorrect. The discussion found that he was Non-Notable and the article was subsequently Deleted. As well, notability has nothing to do with the number of search engine hits (see WP:GOOGLE) and has everything to do with the quality of the sources used. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, but if OpenTTD is not notable, why should it be mentioned in the Transport Tycoon section? After all there are no Wikipedia-approved sources to corroborate what OpenTTD is, otherwise it could have its own section. Either you strictly apply the rules or you do not; anyhow, looking at the Transport Tycoon sections there are absolutely no secondary sources (Chris Sawyer (Transport Tycoon's developer) is a primary source that is as credible about Transport Tycoon as the OpenTTD developers are about OpenTTD), so is Transport Tycoon actually notable? So I think for being a Encyclopedia it is better to remove any traces of OpenTTD because there are no Wikipedia-approved sources to prove what it is and what the differences are, probably also remove the references to TTDPatch. Now for Ludvig; I think I linked the wrong one: this says keep and seems to be the newer of the two. As well, notability for OpenTTD has been proven and thus is still notable (see WP:NTEMP). 85.149.88.77 (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• If you read WP:GNG the OpenTTD article fails the tests as there are only primary sources used and any that are secondary sources are not independent of the subject. Also, a section in the Transport Tycoon article would be much shorter and as such WP:GNG says that The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources so it can be assumed that fewer and less reliable sources are needed for the section compared to the article as a whole. Taking what you have said onboard, I think it would be appropriate to simply say something along the lines of Two spin-offs of Transport Tycoon Deluxe have been created, TTDPatch which patches the original executable and OpenTTD which is an Open-Source clone of the original game written in C++ somewhere in the article. PookeyMaster (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why is it odd that OpenTTD needs to have it's own page? It's a completely different game and although it can use the original graphics it can also be played without any original transport tycoon files. I wonder why Simcity for example would need a separate page for each version, and OpenTTD, which is a different game, should have it's page merged with Transport Tycoon. The fact that there has been discussion about the notability requirements in the past doesn't prove anything, especially in the light that the outcome of that discussion was that it is notable enough. 88.159.88.38 (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• By the same token, the fact that a previous discussion found it to be notable then doesn't prove that it is notable now. Also, OpenTTD is not a completly different game. When you play OTTD you are playing Transport Tycoon Deluxe written in C++ instead of x86 Assembly with extra features and bug fixes added. The fact that it is in a different language does not make it a different game (check out Windows Server; it has x64 and Itanium versions of the same product). PookeyMaster (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Lets use Windows to compare Transport Tycoon and OpenTTD and I'm totally ignoring sources/notability here just to show that the reasoning seems flawed. Windows Server 2008 is nothing more than Windows Server 2003 with extra features and bug fixes added. Your OpenTTD vs Transport Tycoon comparison is similar to this yet articles for the different Windows Server versions is 'good' but for OpenTTD/Transport Tycoon it is not? I have to confess that this comparison does not hold when looking at the supported architecture; both Windows Server versions support 3, Transport Tycoon supports 1 whereas OpenTTD supports about a dozen. Windows 9x and Windows NT are vastly different because the internals from Windows NT as mostly rewritten (from scratch), the same holds for Transport Tycoon and OpenTTD; most code is rewritten (from scratch) to behave mostly the same for the end user, but on the other hand support a huge number of new features/improvements that were not possible with the old code. Anyhow, the question is where the line is between a simple extension of the original or something that warrants a separate article; Ubuntu is nothing more than Debian in a different skin with different objectives, OpenTTD vs Transport Tycoon Deluxe is not that much different. But I digress. The reasoning for mentioning OpenTTD in Wikipedia should be purely based upon credible secondary sources (and thus notability). If those are not found mentioning OpenTTD at all is against Wikipedia policy, otherwise OpenTTD would basically be notable and merging because of it being unnotable is wrong. 85.149.88.77 (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The x64 and Itanium versions of Server 2008 R2 have to be written in entirely different languages as they are different architectures not different platforms. Also, Server 2008 was almost a complete rewrite of Server 2003. If you have a look through Microsoft's security Avisories, there are no linked bugs which indicates that they're coding structure is completly different. The fact that OTTD runs on 12 platforms has nothing to do with notability. Another example is Firefox, where there are major code overhauls between versions so each version deserves its own page. However, as the OTTD article contains no secondary references, and basing the decision purely on this fact would result in Merge or Delete. PookeyMaster (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Can you explain why you are still reasoning that OpenTTD is not notable while in the latest discussion (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OpenTTD) it was agreed upon that OpenTTD was (and as such is) notable? 88.159.88.38 (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Where in my previous post do I say that OpenTTD is not notable? I said that the fact that it (OTTD) runs on 12 platforms has nothing to do with notability but I never said it is not notable, only that the reason given is invalid. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly appose the merge of OpenTTD's page into the Transport Tycoon page. As of the last two days, OpenGFX and OpenSFX have been completed, meaning that OpenTTD is it's own game. The reasons you have specified for merging such as "duplication of text" are no reason to merge the pages. The OpenTTD page contains many differences between the Transport Tycoon page. If fact, I think it would be easier to give TTDPatch it's own page, information is easier to organize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterTarkoy (talk • contribs) 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Duplification of Text is a reason for merging articles. Read WP:MERGE and the first point says Duplicate. Wikipedia does not need two articles which say exactly the same thing. OpenTTD is also not ists own game. Its code and even the OpenGFX and OpenSFX, from what I have read, are all derived from the original graphics, sound and code base. If I was to start up a business in Australia (where I reside) and try to sell OpenTTD I would be shut down regardless of whether it ever had a license agreement. Australian law sees reverse engineering of copyrighted contents that results in the creation of a similar game or program as copyright infringement. PookeyMaster (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• How is the legal status of OpenTTD relevant? Also OpenGFX and OpenSFX are truly free, after all, that was the whole point of these sets. Quote from the OpenGFX readme: "The main goal of OpenGFX therefore is to provide a set of free base graphics which make it possible to play OpenTTD without requiring the (copyrighted) files from the TTD cd. This potentially increases the OpenTTD fanbase and makes it a true free game (with "free" as in both "free beer" and "open source")." 88.159.88.38 (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• I have been an artist on the OpenGFX project and I can say I did not use any TTD graphics, and they were drawn only in a similar style. OpenSFX uses open sound databases. To say they are derived from TTD's original graphics and sounds is an insult to the many people who have worked hard on the respective projects. Born Acorn (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've done an almost complete rewrite of the OpenTTD page. The overlap in both the History and Gameplay sections are, as far as I'm concerned, completely gone. I've also added quite a few references, a number of them are quite notable; 2 papers, 3 articles from printed magazines and 2 Reader's Choice awards (articles). The biggest part of the rest of the references are primary sources, but simply the best source for the claims. Who is more authoritive about the officially supported operating systems than the people that officially support those platforms? Anyhow, I think this removes all the non-subjective reasons why the OpenTTD article should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.88.77 (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent work. I shall leave the tags on the pages for another week in case anyone else comes along and wishes to comment, but the reworked page is a lot better, especially references 1-3,6,9 and 11 which are truly independent of the subject. It needs a slight re-wording to comply with grammer policies, but otherwise it is a vast improvement over the previous version. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Brilliant, the changes you have made are fantastic. --TheJosh (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm strongly disagree with the merger. OpenTTD is far more than a C++ TTD port. The changes consists not just the graphics, there are a lot of improvements in game behaviour, which tending to creating more and more realistical situations in the game.

OpenTTD has a big,- and even growing - OWN society of developers, contributors, players and fans. Why should we hide this game in it's anchestors page? We will find ourselves in an "OpenTTD - Further information: [OpenTTD]" subtitle. OpenTTD is standing on its own legs. Madacs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC).

• Transport Tycoon is a game from 1994 sold commercially. OpenTTD is a project started ten years later that is free and now stands alone from any dependencies. Born Acorn (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Works in Vista

Just Added that the patch makes TTD work on vista aswell--91.111.61.251 (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it me or is this article not written from a neutral PoV? GoneWacko 00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Investigating. I think you may add something about your worries. Patrickov 16:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just take a look at

• "One major minus of the game is the woeful artificial intelligence"
• "but during development he changed his mind"
• "It was released in September 2004 and was critically panned, despite being touted by Sawyer as the 'Spiritual successor to Transport Tycoon'."
• "but was overshadowed by the Deluxe version"

The article seems positively jubilant when discussing the "new uni-directional signals" -- Ec5618 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Example 3 is just a description like "Somebody said this", not "It is this". Example 2 can be NPOV if Sawyer himself said so, but a reference is necessary.

Agree changes to the others, and I'd like to put some more disputable sentences for discussion once I found any. Patrickov 18:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Couple of points about the article

I think it bears mentioning that Locomotion is not a spiritual successor although am not confident to judge how the wording should be fixed Cratuki

One major thing that's been left out is mention of the music. This game had far and away the best use of music in any computer game I've played. John Broomhall's jazzy compositions are a fantastic enhancement to the atmosphere as well as being distinctly good tunes in their own right. By comparisson, the themes in Locomotion were limp. Cratuki

Interchange Stations

Are interchange stations between two train lines allowed?

Yes, just have two lines meet in the same station... smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A little inaccuracy

Near the end of the article there is a line near the end about vehicle renaming and town renaming the inaccuracy is that you can rename towns regardless of ratings.

I added the OpenTTD website to External Links, because it seems odd to me that TTDpatch is mentioned and OpenTTD isn't. I accidentally submitted the change before I wrote my 'Edit Summary' completely, so I thought I'd mention my change here. Didero 09:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I notived that under platforms it doesnt list windows 98 and 98 SE. It infact works under both. (Robotboy2008 05:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

I just changed that (Robotboy2008 08:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Deluxe Transport Tycoon vs Transport Tycoon Deluxe

When I was trying to get a replacement for a TTD cd I damaged, I found a game in a bargain bin labeled "Deluxe Transport Tycoon". Turns out this was actually the original Transport Tycoon with some extra content (landscape/scenery as I recall). It did not have any of the game enhancements of TTD, such as improved signaling & monorails.

Is this version worth mentioning in this article?

--208.204.155.241 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the "World Editor" version, with Martian landscape (IIRC). It's mentioned in one sentence, (A "World Editor" expansion pack was also released for the original Transport Tycoon, but was overshadowed by the Deluxe version released shortly afterward). Perhaps it'd be worth expanding on what the pack provided. --user:Qviri 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Copytheft?

The Overview section copies vertabim this page. --CCFreak2K 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is straight opposite. This section in wikipedia is from 10 February 2004 [1], mentioned page is presumably from 2006. Page is using wikipedia content without attribution and thus breach of GNU Free Documentation License. --Jklamo 00:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Coppyright holder

I feel strongly that something should be mentioned about the current owner of the name and the actual game. There have been many discussions about it on the internet. I shall try and find out more soon and write a section. Robotboy2008 10:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

gm MIDI files

Isn't the part about

                    (as such, the user is only required to rename the extension of the music files from ".gm" to ".mid" or ".midi" in order to render them playable in a MIDI player).

irrelevant? For example, in a linux OS, and with certain players, they couldn't care less about the midi extention. Also, it has hardly anything to do with the game.

Isometric view

I think that this game (and all its sequels and other similar games) should be mentioned in Category:Isometric_video_games and Isometric_projection. --orionsyndrome 77.105.59.191 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Current Owner

The current owner of the game I think was Atari. Should have mentioned that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.20.101 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Atari does not own Transport Tycoon Deluxe. Chris Sawyer licenses the IP to atari I believe for Locomotion and Roller Coaster tycoon. "The 31X team includes Jacqui Lyons, who has represented Sawyer for over 20 years; John Hurlbut, the general marketing manger on Sawyer's original RollerCoaster Tycoon; and Guy Herbert of Marjacq Micro, who negotiated the reversion of the MicroProse licence in Transport Tycoon."

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/196526/Chris_Sawyer_on_his_reentry_back_into_video_games.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voss749 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

3D version

I stumbled upon some rare 3D version of the game in YouTube, it could be included in the article too? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=668-USF1uZ8 91.156.5.14 (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

humble opinion

article did not mention it is rated as a "must see" game by any who've tried it, for the day simply fantastic and still more fun than city simulators - though it is a simulator. the best of it's day.

it (II) came out (my area) later much than sc2000 and few heard of it (no advertising but box, and back then boxes lied outrageously in usa)

it was far better than sc2000 and exciting multiplayer - and excellent music. should have won awards if it didn't

it's only overlook was it was not childs play so excluded those players, it was for advanced users (knew what it was) or users who could read a manual. it has no relaxed mode (is competitive) so it is a fairly a realtime strategy city simulator, rather than just a state of the city simulator where no one is trying to take your icecream?

summary: the article should mention it as "everyone that likes realtime strategy that tried it rates it as a must see game" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.25 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Source

• https://archive.org/stream/UneditedPCGamer_marktrade/PC_Gamer_008u#page/n49/mode/2up

I don't think the game ends in 2030

As I recall, the game's calendar doesn't end on the year 2030 but 2050. When you get to 2030 a newspaper front page pops up to celebrate your centennial. After that you can keep playing for as long as you want (I think) but it's not until 2050 that the year stops changing. 75.161.56.124 (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sure of it. It doesn't end in 2030.75.161.56.124 (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)