Talk:KingsRoad

Untitled

• This article has a lot of marketing phrases, such as "allows players to get the fun of a real-time RPG", and extolling the virtules of the management team. It was clearly written by an insider right at the time of launch and hasn't really been edited since, so I flagged it as an advertisement. dtype 15:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtype (talk • contribs)

Totally agree. It's pretty obvious. It reads like a press release. 20:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvblair (talk • contribs)

I made enough changes that I think we can remove the advertisement flag. Feel free to stick it back on if you think it's still needed. Mvblair (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reception

Pivotal Gamers awarded it a score of 8.2 out of 10 based on its overall performance across the WEB, categorizing it as a great game to play.

Pivotal Gamers (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pivotal Gamers, and thank you for your suggestion. I am declining this edit request for a similar reason to your other request on World of Warships. The review your website provides just calls this game "great" and gives it a score of 8.2. Ideally, reviews listed in the reception section should provide some justification behind the rating scale, because a game that is ranked as an 8.2 on Pivotal Gamers might be a 55 on Metacritic, or 7.0/10.0 on IGN, so an explanation of methodology of the rating scale is in order. Altamel (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Altamel, our short game review is located at http://www.pivotalgamers.com/kingsroad/kingsroad-review/ so we are not just calling the game "great". Thus If you believe that this review justifies a link back to Pivotal Gamers please use the review page URL rather than the main page URL as a reference.Pivotal Gamers (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KingsRoad. 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/20140319000447/http://www.zam.com/story.html?story=31696&storypage=1 to http://www.zam.com/story.html?story=31696&storypage=1

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) 10:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)