Talk:Age of Empires/Archive 2

Some questions about accuracy and completeness...

1. Deathmatch is a variation on standard game in AOE2. Calling it one of three main game modes throughout the series is a stretch at best, as each game has multiple game modes which include amongst them death match and others. I'd think just random map and campaign worth note here unless someone wants to cite some notable sources who specifically divide the age of empire series into offering these three options - perhaps read it as "citation needed" on the death match inclusion.

   I have reworded it to make it more clear that it's not a game mode in itself...silly me, memory going bad. :( dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

2. The AI actually does cheat, at least in AOE2 and AOE3. In AOE2, the AI grants itself free resources every time it advances an age (that's how they sustain such a rapid advancement at the start of the game. Try watching a computer on expert replay as the computer advances to feudal age.). In AOE3, they gather resources at an accelerated rate compared to the human on the highest difficulty. They don't make use of maphacks unlike Starcraft and other contemporaries, but they certainly do cheat. They also could be considered to "cheat" in the sense of sending commands faster than it is humanly possible - try charging a clustered group of archers with some knights in the Barbarossa campaign.

   I've felt the same way when playing, even in AoE1 (my preference). However, I'm going by what the sources; both in AoE1 and AoE3 discussions, they call the AI fair game, etc. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

3. I'm concerned about simply stating that "critics have panned the notion of unhistorical skirmishes such as "Japanese vs. Vikings, Franks vs. Persians, and Britons vs. Chinese", none of whom ever fought in history." Some critics did so. Other critics liked the options of holding grossly historically inaccurate battles and seeing the outcome. To simply state that critics didn't like it seems to imply a consensus amongst critics that the supremacy option was a bad decision.

   I believe the general consensus is as such...I've added the word "generally" in, if you find a source praising the whacked out history, feel free to add it in or list it here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Star Wars Galactic Battleground and the Clone Wars expansion probably should count as spin-off games. Galactic Battlegrounds has several units that are essentially renamed copies of AOE2 units; if released by an indie developer it'd probably have been called a large "mod" instead of a game. If we're looking at "spin-off" in the sense of games released by Ensemble with the name "Age" in the title, it doesn't work, but spiritually it certainly is.

   It wasn't made by ES or M$, so I haven't listed it as a spin off, however I have mentioned it in the legacy area. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

5. The AI in AOE2 also could be edited - while the game wasn't exactly welcoming, some basic AI changes could be implemented with simply triggers from the scenario editor. More complex AIs required using outside software, but AOE2 encouraged this and made it easy to import those AIs. See [1]. There was a small community that developed on writing good AOE2 AI; they had regular competitions for a while. I don't know about AOE3 or others, but the Titan's wasn't the first time they had editor-friendly AI use.

   Mentioned. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just my thoughts; I was looking it over because it's up for FA status. Coanda-1910 (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The games table

I'm still not convinced on the usefulness of this table (original addition, my revert, since re-added so we now discuss!). {{Age of Empires series}} at the bottom of the article already contains links to all the games, and they are all (I believe) linked in the opening paragraph of the games section anyway. The table looks (IMO) bulky and out of place, and doesn't really add much. (Plus the overlinking, but that can be fixed if we keep it.)

Could we have a discussion on its pros and cons, please? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right about the table. I just thought it would be easier to link to the games in a table rather than having to go right at the bottom, or search in the text. If you wish to remove it, I have no further objections. But thanks for your views. Cheers, --EclipseSSD (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've gone ahead and removed it, thanks for being cool with it. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 13:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats.

On the main page date. Too bad there aren't any non-fair use images. · AndonicO ^Engage. 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay nonetheless! :) giggy _(:O) 10:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

yay - featured article of the day! Hard Mouth (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Poor use of aggregate review scores

I think this article is way too focused on the average scores from Game Rankings and Metacritic. A few specific points:

• Presenting scores within the prose itself in every paragraph is annoying - they feel totally out of place.
• There are many novel interpretations of what the average review scores actually mean:
  • 87% and 83% = "positive reception"
  • 80% = "not as popular"
  • 92% = "bigger critical success"
  • 88% = "positive"
  • 82% and 81% = "good"
  • 80% = "poorer"
• The significance of the aggregate scores is never explained to the reader - why do these numbers matter at all?

I believe this article would be greatly improved by limiting the mentions of the aggregate review scores to the table in the reception section only. --- RockMFR 04:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Rock, thanks for your comments... I just noticed them and am going to be popping out soon, so I'll do what I can... if you (or anyone else watching) wants to pitch in it'd be great. Cheers, giggy _(:O) 11:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous Screenshot

The Iron Age screenshot was taken from the AoE official website; it represents the beta version and is markedly different from the released game. I can take a real screenie and post it.... --JQ (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome to. I was meaning to take my own and never got around to it. giggy _(:O) 04:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Accurate as every civilization trebutchets in the AoE 2: Age of Kings

The article reads "However, in The WarChiefs, the design team did take great care to ensure they portrayed Native Americans as accurately as possible, and relied on expert historians for assistance". But isn't that the game where the Native Americans could use their magic nature powers to control animals? Not exactly accurate I'd say. Dream Focus (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't (and refuse to) play AoE 3, so I don't know for sure how it worked... that said, the source for that statement ([2]) says (and I quote) "The [design] team brought in a number of expert historians to help make sure that the Native American portrayals were as accurate as possible, down to clothing they wore, the types of housing they lived in, and even the weapons they used." Make of that what you will... I think it's more describing the graphics, the language they spoke, etc., as opposed to their magic powers, but your interpretation may vary and you're welcome to try and reword it, or add some (sourced) info, if you wish. giggy _(:O) 04:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's kinda like the "scientific advisors" they had on Star Trek shows. They can tell the writers how black holes really work, or that a galaxy is different from a universe, but ultimately if the writers want to tell a story about reversing the polarity of inverse tachyon beams then the scientific advisors can't say "that's not how it works!" because those things don't even *exist* in the real world for science to have any information on them. --86.135.120.224 (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to suggest that perhaps you need to play the game to make such comments here. No, the Native Americans do not control their animals with "magic". The Explorer of each civilization gets a special power that seems to have to do with what people believed about a group. So, yes, some of the Native American explorers could use their special power to get a protector of a treasure (not just animals) to become one with them (part of their team). In the Asian Dynasties the Explorer has many special powers including stunning the protector. Other Explorers can kill with one shot. And, so on. Basically the Explorers get special powers. I haven't done any research but this is my experience on playing the game. PopularOutcast ^talk2me! 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The explorer/WarChief abilities are a gameplay element, I don't think we should be concerned with saying it isn't historically accurate. · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. But the original comment here is still funny. 12.192.132.130 (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Online Play

The article lacks any real mention of online (multiplayer) games. This is a serious gap and omission. Some coverage of ESO support for AOE 3 should be discussed. Additionally, the current state of support for the AOE 2 series would be helpful. To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft Zone used to be the most popular Internet server for The Conquerors, but the Zone pulled its support of the game in 2006. Does anyone know if there are still venues for AOE 2?Kruseje (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. You've made a good point, and once this article is off the Main Page, I'll add some information about online play (ESO etc.). AoE/AoK support on Zone ended a while back, and there is no longer anything official (though some websites host stuff still). Thanks for your comments, giggy _(:O) 00:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Age of Empires III's game engine is not Havok

In the citation given, it is clearly stated that Havok is just its physics engine, and not the game engine, so speaks rohith. 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

' Okayed' - Changed the sentence to Age of Empires III, released on 18 October 2005, was built on an improved version of the Age of Mythology game engine with the most significant changes being the updated graphics engine and the inclusion of the Havok physics middleware engine with appropriate citations. --, so speaks rohith. 18:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing! :) giggy _(:O) 00:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just undid a blatent vandalism (the one about batman) - should we consider locking editing of the page if vandalism reoccurs, for the duration of today's Featured Article?

Nacbrie (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the ksy things about demonstrating that WP is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is to leave the Main Page article unprotected so that users can do just that. Yes, it also gets vandalised, but there are several people watching it, so it all works out in the end :) Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why so unspecific

Am the only one bothered by the introduction and its 'The games' approach. Shouldn't we outline exactly what these titles are, so: Age of Empires: Age of Kings: Conquerors Expansion etc., as is done later with Age of Mythology? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I wrote it like that because I found the prose got chunky when written as you suggest. The lead was also filled with links that way and became a sea of blue which was hard to read (and edit). You're welcome to try and reword it as you see fit, though. —Giggy 23:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Go for it Tony, I hav no objections. —Giggy 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)