Talk:Acquire

Disambiguation page

we need an 'acquire' disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.185.100.152 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sure. All we need is a few more articles on subjects that also have the name 'Acquire'. If you can find them, go ahead and make the disambig-article SoothingR 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Knock off

In the early 80's there was a knock off version of this game for Apple computers where the theme was outer space trading companies (such as Betelgeuse, Ltd. and Antares Trading Co.) rather than hotel chains. Does anyone know anymore about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.20 (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Game length

I removed the phrase about each game taking only an hour and a quarter. I've played dozens of times with my family, and I don't know about anyone else, but our games have come in anywhere between about sixty minutes and almost three hours. They definitely last longer than an hour and a quarter on average. Propaniac 13:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Most the games I've played with family and friends takes between 40 minutes to an hour (usually 3-4 people). I don't think I've ever had a game go three hours, even with 7 people. swaq 16:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Abstract or not?

If a game has a theme, it is, by definition, not abstract. Of course, all games have a level of abstractness. That's what makes them games and not real life. But it's not clear to me on what basis this game is deemed "abstract" as opposed to, say any other game. Go is abstract. Blokus and Take it Easy are abstract. They have no theme. That's not the case here, no matter how "painted on" the theme may be. I think that to say otherwise is to bring POV and OR into the equasion. -Chunky Rice 17:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say whether a game is abstract or not depending on whether the mechanics have any relation to the theme. A game is is less abstract as its rules are harnessed to replicating things outside the game itself. Hmm, that's not coming out right, and is more confusing than I intend....

Anyway, you have a good point that it would be a problem to apply the brush of abstractness too liberally (or liberally at all). In this case, however, despite having a theme, the game is still very stark. The main board/grid has no function with the theme at all. The tiles are presumably individual hotels, but why would two adjacent ones be a chain (of hotels - of tiles is obvious)?

I dunno... I'm probably wrong.... --Rindis 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Acquire is quite abstract with a pasted on theme. The issue is that that is my personal judgment. Where is the clear NPOV line in the sand that we can draw that says "This theme is too flimsy, so it's abstract" and "This theme is good enough to say that it's themed." In my opinion, there really isn't one. Judging whether or not the mechanics relate to the theme is pretty full on original research. Barring reliable sources saying otherwise, I think that if a game has a stated theme, we have to assume that it's sufficient. -Chunky Rice 17:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

I removed the tag indicating that the article needed verifiable information. I didn't see any info that wasn't improperly sourced. ---Axios023 (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Link removal

I noticed that the link to the unpublished GBA version of Acquire was removed. http://www.iwestdev.com/projects/acquire/acquiregba.php Can anyone explain why this was removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.253.35.171 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

external link

I have removed the following link from the article as the site requires registration and I do not think that it complies with WP:EL. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Licensed online version at GameTable Online

I agree that it shouldn't be used as an external link, but perhaps the existence of this online version should be mentioned in the article? It appears that GameTable Online was given the rights to develop the online version of Acquire (in addition to Robo Rally, Axis & Allies, and others), see here. swaq 16:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Avalon Hill

Avalon Hill doesn't really exist any more. They're just a brand under which Habro publishes certain titles. I'm changing the lead accordingly. If anyone has better or more detailed info, please feel free to correct me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acquire. 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/20110113092140/http://www.gametableonline.com:80/index.php/ to http://www.gametableonline.com/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Rules section game trivia

This article is yet another where the rules pamphlet has been transliterated almost in whole into the article. That is not the intent of the Rules section. The encyclopedia is not a primary source for game rules. The rules section describes what is interesting or significant about the gameplay, and what distinguishes it from other similar games. Particularly, listing numeric quantities or evaluation of plays, positions, or configurations in the game is usually an inappropriate level of detail, and renders the article incorrect when new editions of the game come out with trivial rule changes. There's an appropriate tag on the section; the text needs to shrink considerably, omitting details. Sbalfour (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I've revamped the Rules section (now called Gameplay) in line with the board games style guide here. We don't need to specify in the encyclopedia about orphan tiles, what happens when the bank runs out of shares or can't make change, how 1/2 a share is handled, or which survives when two equal size chains merge(rare). (In Monopoly, when there isn't enough money, we cut up a sheet of paper and print more money. Similarly, the bank needn't be allowed to run short of shares, and fractional shares can be paid or redeemed in cash, just like in real life). Wikipedia isn't a reference manual for games, see WP:GAMEGUIDE.

So, where does the article go from here?

• Don't add to the Gameplay section - this is not a scholarship-oriented section; adding to it won't enhance the article
• Don't create a Strategy section - don't need. It's actually refreshing to have a game article without a Strategy section to deal with. Gamers tend to write original research into this section in violation of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. More than a few paragraphs here (~5, if you need a number) in any case violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. In the final analysis, strategy is not fact but opinion (usually a single player's opinion), and opinion is deprecated anywhere in the encyclopedia. When the article is GA and vying for FA, we'll reconsider this proscription, when there are games-wise senior review editors overlooking it to keep it in line.

Sbalfour (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acquire. 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/20100417062722/http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/hallofame.html to http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/hallofame.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)