Talk:Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares

Background story

The Pax Humanica and new dark age sound suspiciously like MOO3 contamination. The relationship between backstory and gameplay can often be strained, but this breaks it entirely: it would mean each race regressing from a galaxy-wide republic to pre-spaceflight technology on the exact same worlds as before, the spontaneous reappearance of the Guardian, not to mention that the setting starts off unexplored. Someone who owns the manual should check. --Kizor 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. All of that stuff is from MOO3, and was never mentioned in the manual (or the game). I've rewritten this section to reflect MOO2 better. Vivisector9999 08:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem right about the MOO3 contamination. Here is a quote from the MOO2 manual (introduction) AFAIK the whole background:

"ORIONS AND ANTARANS

(Excerpted from "Pre-Psilonic Galactic Civilizations" Vol. II, by Ectron Victor, retired Master Adjudicator, Psilon Central History Institute.) As a story is told and retold over the course of generations, no matter the attention paid to detail and no matter the importance of the tale, the truth is gradually nibbled away by little mistakes and innocent exaggerations. Carried off on these well-intentioned, tiny feet, the facts deteriorate softly and painlessly into a condition generally referred to as "shrouded by time."

The legends concerning the Orions and Antarans are shrouded by time. What is certain is that at one time both races coexisted in the galaxy. The scope of their power and technical advancement has surely been enhanced by hyperbole, but that they were far superior to anything now known is indisputable. Perhaps it was inevitable that two such behemoths meet in violence. The legends paint the Antarans as ruthless, xenophobic killers, but we all know that history is written by the victors. The Orion-Antaran war was a protracted holocaust of galactic proportions. While we can never know if they truly flung entire star systems across deep space as weapons (as the storytellers claim), our astrophysicists have uncovered evidence of directed energy bursts the power of which staggers the imagination. That both races had the ability to raze planets no one contests. The Orions eventually defeated the Antarans. Rather than exterminating the race, as the stories claim the Antarans would certainly have done, the Orions chose to imprison their enemies in a "pocket dimension" a volume the size of a single star system, formed and carved somehow out of the fabric of space-time. Physicists to this day puzzle over the theory and the technique, but the result was obvious; the Antarans were banished one and all from this dimension.

At this point, even the storytellers admit that the legends become vague. Some time after the war, the Orion race inexplicably disappeared. They left only two legacies for the galaxy's future inhabitants. One was the tales of their power and legends of the Antaran war; the other is the Orion system itself. One planet circles this star, and it is reputed to be the original home world of the Orion race. Despite the incredible potential this abandoned world must hold, no one has yet plundered or colonized it. The reason for this is that the system is only uninhabited, not undefended. The Orions left a single Guardian to protect their home. Perhaps they intend to return some day.

Perhaps the Antarans intend to return, too."

Cthulhu Mythos

This is just a random point, so I don't know if people will feel like including it, but MOO2 (and MOO1/3 for all I know) has a surprising number of references to the Call of Cthulhu mythology. Star systems Rlyeh and Dunwhich are directly copied from important places in HP Lovecraft's stories and the Trilarians are pretty much modeled on Cthulhu himself, at least in terms of appearance (and racial attributes to a certain extent).

Your observation is right. It was verified by Russ Williams in this small interview: http://masteroforion2.blogspot.com/2006/09/moo2-devs-10-years-later-russ-williams.html Various of us developers contributed names to the list of random starsystem names; I took a lot of place names from the Cthulhu mythos of H.P. Lovecraft.

Rewrite needed

The article currently gives too much emphasis to superficial changes from the original Master of Orion and says nothing about major changes in gameplay, e.g.: food is an important part of the economy (except for Lithovores); one tiny combat ship can blockade a system, and possibly cause population declines due to starvation; you can only research 1 tech per level, except that Creative races get all of that level's techs in one go; you can only research one tech at a time; the economy works completely differently (more like Civilization); while you can only use 6 ship classes as a basis for design, you can have an indefinite number in operation, and you can re-fit ships; upgrades to ships' speed are free; ships don't stack in combat; invasions require special ships, so they don't reduce the population of your existing colonies; if you conquer an enemy planet, the previous population survives and retains all racial advantages / handicaps which are "genetic" rather government-based; different government types; custom races; while the pre-defined races are true to the spirit of the original game's, the details are very different because of the other differences mentioned above. It should also mention that the game is still played online, and one group of fans has developed a patch (fixes some bugs, adds game set-up options) and a few mods (changes to game balance).Philcha 00:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

An earlier version contained information about the unfinished 1.4 patch project. Someone just denied its notability.McLar eng 23:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The patch has been in use by the players on Kali for quite a long time [1]. The rest of that site contains news, forums, strategy guides, links to other fan sites - that should be enough for notability.Philcha 19:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Very nice effort! Just 2 cents: (a) My impression is that almost no MOO2 fan uses Kali any longer. DOSBox made Kali ($20 for serial) simply obsolete. They meet on Quakenet (irc.quakenet.org#moo2) now. (b) And you start with 10 positive picks and can invest in 10 negative picks to get 20 positive picks. Maybe you already fixed these parts. (I am a slow reader and you are still in progress.)McLar eng 20:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - you may have noticed that I like the game!

The source I quoted (AFAIK the MOO 2 web site) recommends DOSbox for technical reasons but did not go so far as to say Kali's obsolete.

You're right about the race design picks, I'll fix that.

Please suggest or implement any other improvements you can think of. I'm concerned about the length of "Playable races" but can't think how to shorten it without omitting important information or making it less intelligible.Philcha 23:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. One further thing I noticed. I think that MOO2 DOS version can run under XP when there is no hardware trouble (but DOS version won't run under Windows 2000 in any case). It doesn't run on my XP but regarding this site it should be possible: http://www.pixelexiq.com/moo2/DOSSetup.asp McLar eng 08:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment. What I've read suggests problems are so common that it's hardly worth trying run MOO2 under Win XP w/o DOSbox, but a few people manage it. I'll edit.Philcha 10:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Evil Egg's recent edits

I think Evil Egg's recent edits are a mixed bunch, some good and some bad:

• Backstory: "simply to destroy" is accurate but probably needs to be extended to "... destroy rather than invade." "Players with little territory should be wary" is just an opinion and does not reflect how the game plays - the Antarans apparently select targets at random, so the largest empire is most likely to be hit; and the effect is to make it risky to colonise / conquer more systems than you can defend, especially as the Antarans can strike behind the lines. I would prefer to delete that comment.
• Victory conditions: The shorter description of defeating the Antarans is an improvement. But "getting elected requires some combination of power and diplomacy" is wrong - the point is that to get elected you need more votes than you can generate just by colonising, so you need to gain supporters and / or conquer / annihilate other empires' colonies.
• Combat map image: The new caption omits the vital point that the full map is quite large, and scrollable. The fact that the planet is of the Terran type is irrelevant.
• Main screen image: I deliberately kept captions of screen shots brief, to minimise the risk that the images would be longer than the associated text. "The main screen: the pop-up window displays information about a specific star system, while the large window under it displays the galaxy as a whole" is accurate, and brief enough. "The icons down the right displays information concerning the player's empire" is IMO less important than the fact that the bottom row of the screen contains menu buttons.

I have not changed any of these items yet because I'd like to know what others think. Any comments?Philcha 19:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. How about adding Barcia and Burd in the introduction? McLar eng 00:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.Philcha 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes listed at the start of this thread.Philcha 15:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Difficulties under XP

I did not notice a source for the claim that "most users" have difficulty running MoO2 under XP. I realize I am only one example, but I never had difficulty running it under XP using the final official patch. Similarly, it worked fine under Win95 and Win98. Frankly, the claim surprised me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.129.136 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen lots of forum threads which started with "How to run MOO2 under XP?" and ended with "Use DOSbox".Philcha 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Having just got XP(!), I tried running the Windows version of MOO2 without adjustments, and it crashed so badly (when I ALT-TABbed) that I had to restart XP. So I searched the Web and found the compatibility-mode tips which I've incorporated into the article.Philcha 00:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Worked a bit in this section the last days. Will add references to the most common 2k/Vista issues in the next days.McLar eng 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done!Philcha 11:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Further experience on my machine is that the screen colours go horribly wrong after about 20 turns, and quitting then restarting the game does not help. DOSBox is AFAIK the only reliable solution. Philcha (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

MOO2 release date

Skuczera mentioned November 22 1996 as release date. Any source except MobyGames? I found Oct 31 mentioned on GameSpot, IGN, metacritics etc. McLar eng (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both dates are wrong. (This is first-hand knowledge, not citing a reference.) This game was released (in North America) while I was working at Egghead Software - I still have some of the promotional posters for it packed away somewhere. I left that job in June of 1996, so the date given in the referenced article is not possible. I believe the game actually came out sometime between mid-March to early-May of 1996. Perhaps the confusion of the date in the article was due to the game release date originally scheduled for October 1995, then pushed back to November 1995, then pushed back again to Winter 1996, and then finally released in early Spring of 1996. It was a very long and frustrating wait for me and I badgered the reps every time they came by the store. I was so excited when it finally did come out that I actually bought two copies with my employee discount, one to play and one to keep sealed. :-) For me, it was bigger than the Windows 95 release several months earlier. Hope this information helps. Rob Reinhard 71.93.99.23 (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

November 22 1996 was indeed the date that the game was available in stores in NA. The Microprose press release can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/19980120114738/http://www.microprose.com/corporatedesign/press/moo2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocco.40 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Kudos

Props to whoever added a disambiguation link to molybdenum oxide. It made me grin. Maxgleeson (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Freighters

67.170.104.151 changed "sending food in freighters, but using these costs money" to "sending food in freighters, but building these costs money". "using" is correct, see manual. -- Philcha (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup

There were a lot of references in this article to blogspot, wordpress and various other self-published sources. I cleaned them out (per WP:V and WP:RS) and did some general format cleaning. The article could still stand to be trimmed down quite a bit more imo. DP76764 (Talk) 21:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This an area where WP:RS breaks down. Gaming mags don't write about games published in 1996, except in the occasional "retroview" or "hall of fame" article - and the only retroview I can think of right now (IGN) has at least 1 serious factual error. The blogspot source you grumble about is actually the top centre of MOO II expertise in the world - they've even developed patches to fix bugs and provide additional start-up options, and mods to redress some imbalances in the out-of-the-box version. But you've replaced that citation with . I dare say the game will be at AfD soon - and I'm so disillusioned with WP's handling of games that I won't bother. --Philcha (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good point on RS being tougher on these older games, but it can be done. I doubt this will be AfD though =P So if these blogspot people are the 'top experts' in the game, I would think that if there was a ref from Atari or some other official source acknowledging them, that might make them a RS. Any idea if something like that exists? DP76764 (Talk) 23:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your phrase "official source" summarises what's wrong with WP:RS. Peer-reviewed journals hardly ever write about games. WP:RS favours big-name mags because it assumes that they have effective quality control processes. That assumption is very questionable because most articles in mags are game reviews written under tight deadlines and subject to commercial pressures by advertisers. As a result they pull their punches on reviews of poor games and commit errors like the one I mentioned, which could have been avoided by reading the manual. WP:RS is just about OK for academic subjects but for little else.

Atari is only interested in wringing a few $$$ more out of the game at minimum cost to itself - this is not a criticism of Atari, it's how commercial companies are supposed to work. So they are not going to make the effort to find and link to any non-Atari sources of information, in fact the download page does not even have the wit to link to relevant "retroview" or "hall of fame" articles. Its list of system requirements is ridiculous - most modern computers can't run Windows 95; my previous PC (bought in 2003) needed a technical trick to get it to run Win 98. They're not going to link to a site that offers patches for some bugs that have not been fixed in the "official" version, or mods to remedy game-play imbalances, or advice on how to set up DOSBox because MOO II seldom runs natively on Win XP or later (and AFAIK no chance at all on Win NT or 2000).

However since you insist that the most accurate source is not WP:RS, I guess this article will wind up saying that the game runs on Win 95, and citing Atari's site for that. Readers who know that Win 95 is no longer an option will laugh scornfully and walk away. --Philcha (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, I completely see your points here and agree with you on most of them. It's unfortunate that 'support' for the game has degraded to this level (heck, Blizzard is still supporting DiabloII and that's almost as old as this is). But I think honoring the policies of Wikipedia is more important than giving technical advice and how-to's (leave that to the fan sites and forums). That's my $0.02 anyway. DP76764 (Talk) 02:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice if the Masters of Unusable Cleanup had at least kept one link to that blogspot page that could be found without major contortions. i had to go back to before Dp76764's cleanup in the history page to find that priceless treasure. I wish some people would get over themselves and not let principles interfere with providing information. SIGH! --99.11.160.111 (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on sources

The items flagged "?RS" in these edits are presented as the opinions of their authors, not as unqualified truth. For that purpose they are totally valid sources. I',m removing the tags. BTW I'ce sumbitted this article for GA review. It might be sensible to let the reviewer have a say. --Philcha (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Overall, this latest work seems good. But to me, it still feels like it's straying a little from 'presenting opinions of the authors' to 'disguising a fact as an opinion' (and/or Game Guide-ish material), which would obviously not be ideal. The majority of the last paragraph of the 'Publication and reception' section seems a little dubious to me still. Maybe it needs re-phrasing. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong ;) Let's see what the reviewer thinks. DP76764 (Talk) 18:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The point of the last para is that MOO II is still alive, which is remarkable for a 1996 game, considering the hundreds of more recent PC games and the dominance of OSs on which the developers could not test. The presence of fans who put that much work into it speaks for itself. The only other game of that vintage that does as well, that I'm aware of, is Total Annihilation, which runs totally smoothly^© on Win XP and adapts automatically to wide screens. OTOH I've read that the other giant of the time, Starcraft, does not run happily on XP (see this search), and this search suggests that Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge also has serious probles with Win XP. If you can think of ways to re-phrase the para to retain that point with less risk of being seen as 'disguising a fact as an opinion' or as Game Guide-ish, I'd be very interested. --Philcha (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, a more reliable source would obviously make that easier. Question for you: how is whether or not a game has problems with modern OS's important enough to be mentioned here? (side note: I'm not all that surprised of the longevity of games; I think there are certain sets of people that find 'their game' and keep playing it regardless of newer offerings. see: CounterStrike, Diablo2, etc. I, for one, would still play Moria on a daily basis if I could (1 specific version that is unavailable))DP76764 (Talk) 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that you asked how is whether or not a game has problems with modern OS's important enough to be mentioned here?" but wikilinked to WP:Notability. I'm not at all sure that importance and WP:notability are the same thing - are you?

I'm half-inclined to agree with your "there are certain sets of people that find 'their game' and keep playing it regardless of newer offerings" - but only half. For example the MOO II enthusiasts I mentioned are generally pretty aware of more recent space-based and other 4X games, and can sensibly compare these games with each other and with MOO II. The same is true of RTS enthusiasts, particularly when the debate turns to Actions per minute and other aspects of micromanagement. There's a difference between know-nothing conservatism and informed, reasoned preferences. BTW thanks for the link to Moria, which led me to Secret Sauce The Rise of Blizzard. You may get no further replies for a while :-)

I think that with any old game (or old anything?) it's only fair to let readers know whether the subject is a museum piece or a viable part of the present-day world. I also think it would be A Bad Thing if WP became a museum piece. --Philcha (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, I mixed Notability up with the various content policies (it must be Monday). I believe I was thinking of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information' (ie: not a trivia list). Which brings me to the question of 'is something important enough to merit inclusion in an article?'. Sources (reliable of course) (or lack thereof) are usually fairly telling for this question.

I'm not suggesting that these (theorized) people sticking with 'their game' are uninformed; my theory is that they 'just like' whatever game it is best (and usually a community of other players) and don't have the desire to start over, as it were. I'm fine with mentioning the game's longevity here, briefly ("there are still people playing this game today"), but we shouldn't be giving people directions on how to run the game here (ie: you have to use DOSbox, version x, with OS y and hold a chicken in the air to get it to run). There may be some good direction to take from: WP:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, from the project article: "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." DP76764 (Talk) 21:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who really thinks "the same enthusiasts recommend running the MS-DOS version under the control of the emulator DOSBox" is giving people directions on how to run the game doesn't know DOSBox. The cited site (groan) gives a whole page of instructions. That whole page of instructions only has value to people actually playing the game. "the same enthusiasts recommend running the MS-DOS version under the control of the emulator DOSBox" simply reports that some enthusiasts say its possible - not much different from reporting a port (I must stop this!) to a different platform. --Philcha (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the source was reliable in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue ;) And, yes, I am QUITE familiar with DOSbox. I think we could lose the entire last sentence, but why don't we cut it short? The bit about the quality of running on Linux and Mac is unnecessary. As is the 'advice' 2 paragraphs above about running a full install to improve performance. "..only of value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." DP76764 (Talk) 02:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The source is reliable, it's WP:RS that's unreliable. --Philcha (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Section order

I just reverted this edit, which placed section "Gameplay" above "Reception". Perhaps the editor's motivation was that most other videogame articles have "Gameplay" before "Reception". AFAIK most other videogame articles on WP are about point-and-click adventures, FPS and RTS. However MOO II is a TBS, and therefore has much more complex rules, mechanics and UI. If I were a reader with zero or minimal prior knowledge, my first question would be "Why should I be interested enough to read all the gameplay material?" The "Reception" section hopefully answers that by showing that MOO II is still regarded as one of the greats of its genre, and is playable on modern platforms. --Philcha (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that was the reason I placed the Gameplay section above Reception. Pretty much every videogame article I have seen (that has a reception section) places it underneath the gameplay section, including other Turn-based strategy games such as the Civilization (series) and the partial TBS Total War (series). While some of these aren't the best examples, it is the standard approach recommended for all games in the guidelines. QueenCake (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Cleaned out a couple of the external links, per WP:ELNO. Blogspot link already used as a source, youtube demo video is trivial and an open wiki site. DP76764 (Talk) 19:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

:Hello, the article looks pretty good. Check in here for the review. Thanks.--Next-Genn-Gamer 23:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Usually the lead section in a video game is: First paragraph=Intro information including publishers, developers, release dates and such. Second paragraph=Gameplay and short plot information. The stuff in the backstory section could be moved to the second paragraph but we'll get in to that later. Third paragraph=Reception and sequels or new versions Post-Release.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The publication and reception needs to be split into a "Reception" and then a "Development" section. And there needs to be a lot more on Reception. See Lost Planet's section for help. Plus, there needs to be a full plot section. Not just a backstory.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Though the gameplay section is very good, it also is very long. The whole article is based on the gameplay section. The section need to be MAJORLY condenced.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   You have a week to work on this article. After that, the article will either be passed on failed.--Next-Genn-Gamer 23:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial response

• To some extent we'll have to work out the rules for this genre during this review - up front, as far as possible. As far as I can see the video games GAs include no turn-based or 4X games, nor do the video games FAs. In particular the articles on more recent space-based 4X games are in poor shape (Galactic Civilizations and its descendants; the members of the Space Empires series; Master of Orion III; and Sword of the Stars), as are those on the Civilization (series) and on Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which are planet-based 4X; and those on the Heroes of Might and Magic series, which are TBS but generally not considered 4X, are also poor. --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• As 4X points out, this genre is very different, with much more complex gameplay and UI. For example StarCraft, an FA, and Age of Empires (video game), a Jan 2009 GA, give similar coverage of gameplay in % terms, but their "Gameplay" sections are much shorter simply because these games are simpler - success in these largely depends on reflexes, manual dexterity and multi-tasking ability, while a TBS is more like Chess (the TBS genre originated from board games). The "gameplay" aspects of Chess are quite long but even so quite sketchy, and rely on daughter articles for the details. However I think that would be over-the-top for MOO II, which doesn't have 300 years of theoretical literature and over 1,000 years of development history behind it. :-) --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• There is no plot. MOO II maps are randomly-generated, and there are no pre-defined missions. --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'll see what I can do about "Development", but it will be a lot less elaborate than Lost Planet's section, for a bunch of historical reasons. I think Age of Empires (video game) is a better guide to what to expect, as it was released only a year later than MOO II - and the development section of Age of Empires (video game) is fairly short. AFAIK game genres and mechanics haven't changed much since 2000, so competition in a crowded marketplace is largely about finding cooler themes and flashier graphics, and then promoting like crazy long before launch. In addition computer tech has moved on, with players using much more powerful systems and developers using very clever software, e.g. to analyse movies of actors and abstracts them into wireframes that anatomical models can then animate, and "colouring" programs that can work out what parts of an game object's cours are visible from the current viewpoint and in the current lighting. In the mid-1990s game development was still emerging from its "cottage industry" phase, game genres had emerged but were less defined than they are to-day, and game mechanics still varied a lot within genres. And the amount of artwork MOO II carried (about 350MB, according to one review, IIRC) was far too much for contemporary consoles, so PC was the only sensible platform - there was no need for a debate about platforms, as there was with [[Lost Planet: Extreme Condition. --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Re "Reception":
  • I'm not sure whether sales figures were ever available, and hold out little hope that they're available now - I'll recheck the Atari web site (the current owner), but it's a forlorn hope. I note that Age of Empires (video game), a recent GA about a game released a year later, has no sales figures. --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I deliberately cut back on quotes from specific reviews, because IMO what matters is: the overall response; the variation in reviewers' opinions of specific aspects; the fact that MOO II is still the gold standard for space-based 4X games. I could get URLs of reviews from Metacritic and then try Internet Archive, and then quote a few, but I'm not sure how much that would help readers.
  • I can add Moby's ranking of the DOS version (7 reviews). But I'm not sure about the usefulness of adding other aggregators. Gamerankings' score is based on only 5 reviews, and Gamestats' score for the PC version is based on only 1. Moby's pages on the Win version the Mac version give no score, nor does Gamestats' page about the Mac version. --Philcha (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay so I can understand about the gameplay section but I'm still sure it can be condenced, next as far as Development it can be short. But even with Age of Empires, though there may not be sales numbers but you could still add review boxes. Like you said, theres only a year difference.--Next-Genn-Gamer 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at condensing "Gameplay" in a draft at User:Philcha/Sandbox/MOO_II#Game_play_.28v2.29. As far as I can see removing further info causes the Gameplay section to unravel. Please let me know of any places where you think the phrasing can be more concise. --Philcha (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Added review box. BTW between my edits of the review box, someone moved the publication & reception stuff below gameplay. I think that's a reasonable idea: the lead makes the point about the reception, and fiction artciles start with plot summary. --Philcha (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Artichoker

Hi, just had a look at the article, and it's pretty good. There are a couple points I have which you could perhaps address.

• Firstly, I did a little bit of reorganization to allow this article to fit more into a conventional video game article format. I hope you agree with my edits.
• I agree with NGG that the "Gameplay" section indeed needs to be reduced. I think an easy way to condense it would be to cut down on the listcruft. Not every single item on a particular aspect of the game needs to be mentioned (i.e. colonizable planet factors, technology types, playable races.) Once that has been complete, I think the "User interface" section should be merged into "Gameplay", as the UI is part of the gameplay.
• I'm concerned that this article uses too many copyrighted images. I count six (6) which is almost unheard of. I'm not sure of any other video game/media article that even comes close using that amount of non-free images. Perhaps several of the less-important images could be removed.

That's all for now. Artichoker^[talk] 23:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Artichoker, thanks for commenting. Re the points you raised:

• Your headings structure is fine for this article, thanks - with 1 exception: "Backstory" was more accurate as it describes prior events in-universe; most of this is presented in the manual as an excerpt from a history article by some galactic institute, see refs. --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• See draft of "Gameplay" at User:Philcha/Sandbox/MOO_II#Game_play_.28v2.29. Best to comment here, as I'll get the draft deleted some time. As I mentioned above, there are no precedents for articles about 4X games, and their gameplay is much more complex than in the shooters and adventure games that account for most VG GAs and FAs, and a lot more complex than that of RTSs such as Starcraft or even the mutli-epoch Age of Empires (video game). --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• The selection of images is based on the complexity of the gameplay. I don't think Atari will object, their product is getting a good write-up in one of the world's busiest sites (I saw a discussion in the last 2 days about it being the top ten for hits from Google). If you really want to scrap an image, I suggest cutting the box art, as it's way out of date (now sold only as download!) and uninformative - in that case I would not move one of the others into its place in the infobox, as they are needed to illustrate points in the text. --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw the rewrite in your sandbox, and it's a start, although I would say more of the listcruft could be cut (e.g. the types of technologies, and the planets) Also, what do you say about my suggestion to merge the "User interface" section into "Gameplay"? Artichoker^[talk] 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Artichoker - I didn't notice your comment about the UI - I'm doing 2 GA reviews myself at present, my Talk page keeps shouting at me, etc. Whingeing apart, I don't think merging "Gameplay" and "UI" is a good idea. Apart from the size of the combined section, the gameplay is a set of rules, rather like those of chess, while the UI is part of a computer implementation of the rules - remember that 4X games partly grew out of and still trade ideas with board games. TBS are fundamentally different from RTS, FPS, adventure, etc. in that respect. You could play most 4X games on a board with dice, apart from one thing: boards show the entire map and all enemy forces. --Philcha (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've cut the names of techs as they're now just names, and combined the resulting short first para w the next. --Philcha (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cutting the few remaining planet details would be bad, as these illustrate the need to think about what you colonise. --Philcha (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand about you wanting to keep the Gameplay and UI sections separate; however, most video game articles integrate the control mechanics and UI into the gameplay section. But I won't object further if you would like to keep the sections separate. And I suppose if you think the Gameplay section in your sandbox can't be reduced further without losing valuable information, then go ahead and use that one in the article, as it is a lot better than the current version. Artichoker^[talk] 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Philcha (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the lead I noticed you have not yet addressed NGG's suggestions for improving the lead. As he said, generally the first paragraph is for "[i]ntro information including publishers, developers, release dates and such", the second paragraph should address gameplay and plot, and the third should be for reception. The stub paragraph in the lead that mentions the sequel should be outright removed, as it is not important. Artichoker^[talk] 20:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Both as an editor and as a reviewer I leave the lead until last, when all the content it's supposed to summarise is stable.

I confess that as a reader I'd find the lead less interesting if it started with all the "bibliographical" information - in just the same way as I don't care about a library book's Dewey decimal number, I care about its content. The potential audience for this article is gamers, most of whom are not also librarians. As a gamer I want to know: its genre (if it's one I don't care for, I go elsewhere); whether it's any good; and whether I can play it, which is a significant point in the case of MOO II. --Philcha (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the first paragraph should certainly mention the basic info about the game, including its genre and system. Artichoker^[talk] 23:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Coldmachine

I see that a pass has been issues for the 2nd criteria ("Factually accurate and verifiable") but noticed that ~42 of the first 50 references are from the game manual which is not a third party reliable source. Are there any other sources which could be used? Coldmachine^Talk 22:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The refs to the manual all support factual statements about elements of the game play, rather than commentary on the game's quality or importance. There are no complaints about the accuracy of the manual in any review I've seen nor anywhere else that I've seen. Hence for description of the game play the manual is a reliable source as well as the most comprehensive. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Philcha may be off WP from 23 June to 3 July

I'm moving house on Friday 26 June, and may be off WP from 23 June to 3 July. --Philcha (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if you could address the lead by that time, that would be great. Have fun moving, Artichoker^[talk] 17:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just re-read the lead and it still works for me. As far as I can see the main issue is over the order of the 2nd & 3rd paras. To me the publication info in the first para (published 1996, still played online), raises the question "is it any good by modern standards?" The fact that it's still played online suggests it is but is not conclusive, as some mediocre games have retained long-term followings - for example IIRC there was an active forum (strategies, favourite / most powerful races and techs, etc.) for Ascendancy (video game) (published 1996) until some time in 2007. So the 2nd para (reception) gives the answer, "it's still the gold standard in its genre". In general I try to anticipate a potential reader's questions in the lead, to encourage them to read further, and give that priority over following a pattern for its own sake. If the lead were long and fairly complex (as at some biology articles I've improved), I'd see a stronger reason for standardisation, but Master of Orion II's lead is pretty short. --Philcha (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as that goes, I agree. What I propose is simply that you switch paragraphs 2 and 3, and remove paragraph 4. Artichoker^[talk] 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You say, "As far as that goes, I agree" and then suggest I switch paragraphs 2 and 3. Is that a self-contradiction or am I missing something? --Philcha (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why cut para 4? --Philcha (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh whoops sorry I misspoke. I meant to say you didn't need to switch the paragraphs. However, I do think that paragraph 4 should be cut because, as I said before, it's a stub paragraph and not important enough to the topic to be mentioned in the lead. (or if you have to, merge it into paragraph 1) Artichoker^[talk] 20:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, removed para 4 - MOO 3 was the black sheep any way. --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd say barring any other concerns, the article can be passed once NGG returns from his wikibreak. Artichoker^[talk] 02:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Fan version # in infobox?

How is this acceptable? From what I've seen of infobox formatting, only official elements of the game should be listed (the template doesn't directly state 'official', but I believe that is the intent of field). Are there any other articles that actually have a 'fan version' listing in the infobox? I was unable to locate any. I'm still a bit skeptical about the whole fan version mentions in the article, though it does seem to meet the guidelines for an exception, but that shouldn't apply to the infobox. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 00:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"what you've seen of infobox formatting" is not a guideline or policy. This is not a typical game situation - see the "Publication" section and w-linked articles for the troubled history of the developers and publishers. The last offical patch, v 1.31, left some remaining bugs. The 1.4x patches now fix a bit over half. --Philcha (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the history of this title. My point is, an unofficial, fan patch can hardly be considered appropriate. Just because some unaffiliated third party fixed a bunch of residual issues doesn't make that an official 'version' of the game (infobox info seems to be intended to be official). "not a typical game situation" - indeed, but I suggest that "exceptional claims demand exceptional sources". Perhaps we could get a RFC from WP:WikiProject_Video_games? DP76764 (Talk) 06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument appears to be based entirely on your preconception of what is "appropriate". If accepted, it would make the article misleading by omitting significant info. Mine is based on providing accurate, useful information to readers. --Philcha (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You both seem to have opposite points of view. I think you should take DP's suggestion and get some views from the Gaming project.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some additional opinions would definitely be valuable. I believe that putting this info in the infobox (it's fine in the body of the article) gives the 'fan version' undue weight by placing it prominently and on equal footing with the official version. Keeping the infobox in-line with official information is not 'misleading' either; the owner of the game says that version X is the official, final version, so that's what should be listed there. I am sorry if I have not elucidated my 'perception of appropriateness' adequately; my goal is to help the article meet and comply with the standards of quality here. DP76764 (Talk) 15:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested more input here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Requesting_comments_and_input. DP76764 (Talk) 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why a "fan patch" can't be mentioned, but this is the infobox for the GAME. Dp76764 is right.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fan numbers are fine if the works have been commented on by independant reliable sources. However, official version numbers should still be used as well.陣内_Jinnai 16:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest putting the official patch in the infobox, while mentioning a notable fan version in the reception section. QueenCake (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Dp76764 could not find other articles that have a 'fan version' listing in the infobox simply because patches by fans are very rare. In this Google the top hit was for another fan-produced patch of another game (makes a Wii game usable by English-speakers) and no other hits in the next 5 pages of search listing. The Wii game patch, announced at Fan-made Fatal Frame IV translation patch incoming, should perhaps be noted at Fatal Frame IV if and when it arrives and proves usable, since Sorry guys, Fatal Frame IV isn't coming to Europe either and Fatal Frame Never Coming to America? report that Nintendo has decided to not to release the game outside Japan. --Philcha (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dp76764's comment (17:02, 12 June 2009), "gives the 'fan version' undue weight by placing it prominently and on equal footing with the official version", either is unclear or is mistaken because the official 1.31 patch is a prerequisite for the fan-made 1.40 patch. --Philcha (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that fanmade patches might not be as the developer intended, for example, say someone makes their own video game story and patches Chrono Trigger, do we still include it in the infobox about the original game? It would definitely be undue weight.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the game or even genre to which you're referring. I also suspect you don't know the game or genre to which I'm referring, but won't bore you with the internals of a typical 4X game. The bottom line is that the 1.40 patch: fixes some bugs; provides additional game start-up options; does not change the game's rules, balance or mechanics; buts a prerequisite for some mods that do aim to adjust the game's balance in various ways. The background is that: most of Simtex's games were buggy and needed multiple patches; Microprose took over Simtext in 1995; Microprose was already unprofitable and was running out of cash when Hasbro took it over in 1998. So the last "official" version, patch 1.31, left the game with some loose ends, some of which patch 1.40 fixes. --Philcha (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Freighters

User:TaintedMustard's changes on 18:15, 15 October 2010, 18:21, 15 October 2010 and 18:54, 15 October 2010 show confusion about how freighters work. The problem is that the Manual's comments about freighters at pp. 136-137 are part of an overview of various aspects of managing an empire, and do not give the whole details.

The details about freighters are in page 74, under the "Cold Fusion (General)" technology, and the section "Freighters (Ship)" gives full information but in a very terse presentation:

• Freighters can food or population from one system to another. Each unit of food requires 1 freighter, and 1 unit of population requires 5 freighter. Each freighter transporting from one system to another costs 0.5BC per turn (p.74). Like other ships, freighters fly faster if the player acquires a more advanced drive technology.
• Moving food or population within the same system shows a inconsistency in the game. Moving food within the same system is just like moving food to another system - each freighter takes 1 turn, and this costs 0.5BC.
• But moving population within the same system is controlled by another subsystem of the game, which controls how population is employed in farming, industry and research - and this moves population instantaneously to another job on the same planet or another in the same system. Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares#How_planets' economies work gives an overview, and the Colony List at pp. 35-38 shows how to move population instantaneously to another job on the same planet or another in the same system. IMO the Colony List can managing your economy from this one control point. --Philcha (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete GAR request

I request a community reassessment for these reasons:

• On August 23, 2010 Teancum started Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/1 ofMaster of Orion II: Battle at Antares, said at 11:51, 11 August 2010, 14:12, 9 August, "Not throwing in my final opinion yet, but given Philca's focus on updating the article I see no reason as of now that this won't remain GA class" and at 11:51, 11 August 2010 "Keep GA listing - article issues have been sufficiently resolved". However, placed at the top of the GAR and dated 12:09, 5 August 2010, Teancum wrote, Recommendation - immediate delist to C-Class and place the article under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review to help it to comply with both Wikipedia's and Wikiproject Video Games' standards. - but "Recommendation - immediate delist" is not visible on 24 August 2010
• Finally on 22:49, 15 August 2010 Geometry guy wrote "Delist, with regret. I wanted to close this reassessment as keep, but am unable to do so, as the huge imbalance between the long Backstory-Gameplay-UserInterface part (primary sourced material on how to play the game) and the community reassessment short Development-Reception-PostPublication part (secondary sourced material on responses to the game) suggests to me that the article fails criterion 3, and indeed possibly also WP:NOT: this is not an encyclopedia article at present, but a gameguide with reviews." Geometry guy then gave a "Fail" with no chance to discuss. I do not see how "possibly also WP:NOT" is justified, as the article has many good citations, inclunding several game reviews from good sources - some about just this games, and some about its use as the "gold standard" for reviews of other games. --Philcha (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 23:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by revier(s).

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Discussion

Regarding the failing points:

1. 1(a): the Reception section features many disconnected sentences. It should be refactored in order to connect the phrases logically, so that the reviewers' opinions would form an image of game's reception.
2. 1(b): several formatting errors. Eg. last words in Victory conditions section. The article requires copy edit.
3. 1(b): the layout of Gameplay section doesn't make sense: the subsections should come in order that allows the previously uninformed reading them consequently (eg., the Victory conditions should come in the end).
4. 1(b): the {{sfn}} is misused, the links in the Notes section don't resolve to references.
5. 1(b): references are insufficiently formatted: the publishers that have their articles (eg., IGN) should be linked, the templates should not be broken.
6. 1(b): the Notes section would be better renamed to Footnotes. Not only this title is more accurate, but it also avoids confusion when the need for actual notes arises.  Done
7. 1(b): the Reception section discusses what one of the reviewers thought. This should be rephrased.
8. 2(a): some material is unreferenced; I'v indicated it with {{cn}}.
9. 2(a): the article relies on the single source in 66 of 118 citations. Though it doesn't violate anything on its own, I would like to receive a comment on the reasons of such weight given to the "Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares". Chipping Sodbury, South Gloucestershire, England: MicroProse. 1996. reference.  Done
10. 2(a): the game's manual qualifies as primary source per WP:PRIMARY. This policy requires that primary sources should be backed up with secondary sources.
11. 2(a): the article suffers from inline citation clutter. The editors with access to the printed source (game manual) should look into possibility to join several footnotes in order to unclutter. See this example.
12. 2(b): the article relies on a user-submitted review.
13. 2(b): some sources are referenced with {{sfn}}, but still are absent from References section.
14. 6(a): two images were hidden by bot. This issue should be addressed.
15. 6(b): the images should not wrap text from both sides.

As the amount of issues is great enough, I'm not sure I've already spotted all of them. But those in the list above should be addressed first. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Responses from Philcha

1. 1(a): the Reception section features many disconnected sentences. It should be refactored in order to connect the phrases logically, so that the reviewers' opinions would form an image of game's reception. --Philcha (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
   • The current sections "Backstory" (the history of Orion) and "Victory conditions" (mainly to control the largest population). Gamers are generally interested in how to win. --Philcha (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
   • To win, a gamer must understand how to build up their economy and technology. --Philcha (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
2. 1(b): the {{sfn}} is misused, the links in the Notes section don't resolve to references.
   • I've unlinks and removed the Notes section. The "Development" section gives similar information. --Philcha (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
   • I use the games manual as accurate, unless a profesion commentator (e.g. Chick) disagrees. --Philcha (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
   • Re weasal words, I now use Geryk's "compared" Space Empires: IV with Master of Orion: Battle at Antares. --Philcha (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
3. 2(a): some material is unreferenced; I'll indicate it with later.
   • Some material is unreferenced, in 3 paras of section "Stars and planets". The info comes from the game manual. --Philcha (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

--Philcha (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

1. 6(a): two images were hidden by bot. There's no lead image, as Atari silenty removed the games from it's menu. --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
2. 6(b): the images should not wrap text from both sides.

As the amount of issues is great enough, I'm not sure I've already spotted all of them. But those in the list above should be addressed first. --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

1. 6(b): two images were hidden by bot. At present there's also no "technology" image, to explain the prominence --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
2. 6(b): I'll look later at using Internet Archivenet in hope of saving some info. --Philcha (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A Few points

1. I see no external references regarding the receptions of the game. All are {{sfn}}. The links for Metacrtics and IGN can be found regarding reception.
2. There is no cover art or the image give to the infobox.
3. The third para of Lead seems like being written just to expand the lead in a hasty way, as it feels disconnected from the other lead paras.
4. Incomplete image tag in The technology tree as well as in Playable races.
5. Gameplay is all but confusing.
6. No external links section stating its official website. 1

My suggestion:-Article still needs improvement. ASHU^IND 07:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The nominator (or other editors) failed to address any single point I draw above. I just didn't check deeper, as the evident issues like the lack of references are still present. I don't think this article has a chance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

This article needs a lot of work in order to pass Good article criteria. As nobody stepped up to address those first sight problems I noted, I'm failing the nomination. I would encourage the interested editors to address these issues (and also those noted by ASHU^IND) and renominate the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Article improvement drive

Malleus Fatuorum, myself, and others have begun an effort to improve this article up to GA standard. As is my way, I've begun at the end with the references. I believe I have now found and linked most of the sources used: they are almost all available online. This raises an immediate question:

Which of the current references are considered to be reliable secondary sources?

I'm not an expert on games articles, so am unfamiliar with the some of the sites. For instance, I believe the article could make more use of some of the reviews, and the "history" by Geryk (2001), but is "GameSpot" considered a reliable source? There are a few other sources that I am unsure about: "Lord Brazen", for example, is a blog.

A related question is the use of primary source material and the gameplay section. In my view, the gameplay goes into far too much detail; furthermore, it is almost entirely sourced to the manual. A reader who has the game will have the manual, so we only need to provide a level of detail appropriate for readers who are interested in the game, perhaps for historical reasons, or as a potential purchase. At such a level of detail, descriptions of the gameplay in reviews could be integrated with the primary source material, making the article more informative. Geometry guy 00:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In this instance of reviewing a video game, I'd say the GameSpot reference is a reliable source. Looking at the "Lord Brazen" reference, I wouldn't really say the same of it. It appears that there's an IGN reference supporting the same sentence as this "Lord Brazen" blog, is the blog necessary? - SudoGhost 15:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Geometry guy about the level of gameplay detail, it does seem rather excessive in places. So far as sourcing to the manual, I'd have thought that was analogous to the plot section in a novel article, which even at FA level isn't usually sourced at all, as the novel itself is its own source. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Passer-by's opinion- the usual analogue is the "Plot" section of a video game article, which as you say is generally not sourced even at the FA level, except optionally to quotes from the game. Gameplay sections are generally sourced to reviews, stretegy guides, and manuals. As far as sources go, GameSpot is a reliable source, but I'm unsure of several others- I haven't heard of them, but is that because they are unreliable or because they are older (in internet terms) and have died out? I'd recommend talking to User:JimmyBlackwing, if you haven't already- he's gotten several early-to-mid-90's video game articles featured, and set up/runs the video game project reference library, so he'd be the best expert for what internet sources were reliable for the time period. --PresN 19:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a small review Macworld that gave the game 4 notches(?). maclean (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for comments, especially on sources: I want to expand the reception section, so need to be confident in the reviews I use.

I agree that gameplay is akin to plot, and only needs primary sources (but a game is not text, so some sources, such as the manual, are needed for all but the most generic observations). At the same time, plot sections are normally highly constrained in length, so I was tying the two issues together. The more secondary sources comment on the gameplay (as a distinctive feature of the game), the more we can say about it. Geometry guy 00:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, is it OK that of total 116 inline citation 62 (53%) are to primary sources? Given that several sections are referenced mainly to primary sources, this is nowhere close to meeting WP:OR. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Before this article can be promoted to Good Article, the referencing needs to be fixed. The conversion to short reference format was extremely sloppy, as it is now very difficult to determine what footnote links to what reference. I don't think the online non-book sources should not be using the Harvard citation style. The inline/Harvard hybrid style (i.e. the style used in the Microsoft article) would probably work better. I'll try and address this issue. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Put some references in the intro, too. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, citations in the lead section are not required. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's interesting. Thanks for the heads up. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the style used in Microsoft article doesn't have the right to exist at all. All footnotes should be either short or long. If hybrid solution is absolutely needed, the {{rp}} should be used instead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yunshui (talk · contribs) 09:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Interesting and well-written article, but still needs a small amount of work to get to GA standard.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Overall grammar, spelling and prose seem fine. Lead summarise content accurately, At times the tone veers towards that of an instruction manual, but this is almost certainly due to large sections being sourced to... an instruction manual. The Backstory section may benefit from being re-written from a real-world perspective.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some potentially contraversial information still requires citations. For example, the statement in the lead that Atari silently removed the game from their online store is not sourced either in the lead itself or later in the article. The game itself, which constitutes a primary source, is used to cite a large amount of the article content (about 22%). Where sources were given, they were represented correctly and not subjected to interpretation. Some, however, do not meet the guidelines for reliable sources (for example, Meinfelder's "Rule the Galaxy for $50" is a Worldvillage.com article, Cybersaber's "Master of Orion II Online: Strategy Guide" is a blog post).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The Gameplay section is overly specific and detailed, and is sourced almost exclusively to the game itself.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There are a few of unsourced and slightly hyperbolic statements (It is still used as a yardstick in reviews of more recent space-based 4X games, The Master of Orion series set a new standard for space-based 4X games) which should be sourced, rephrased or removed, but these are very minor and easily fixed. The reviews are balanced and multiple perspectives are provided.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Aside from a brief spate of redlink additions by User:77.96.224.36 last month, there has been no edit-warring or instability for the last two years.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are copyrighted but acceptable under fair use (comprehensive rationales provided) and correctly tagged.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Damn close to passing, but not quite there yet, so placing on hold to allow for improvements. The main things needed are a review of the sources, and a careful copyedit of the lengthy game description. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Failed after no improvement in four weeks. No objection to seeing it relisted at GA in the near future. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

One additional point

While I won't bring up Wikiproject Video games-based concerns, there is one glaring issue with Manual of Style compliance. WP:BODY states that "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." There are several one sentence paragraphs in the article, and also several subheadings that are extremely short. These should be addressed per WP:WIAGA item 1. --Teancum (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Deadline for improvement

There's been no activity to address the issues raised above after three weeks. I'm going to give it one more week; if no improvements have been made by May 28th, I'll close the review as a fail. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Philcha doesn't appear to have edited at all last month. I've sent him an email, so hopefully he'll reply to this soon. -- クラウド６６８ 08:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

See this link for the (sad) reason. Geometry guy 23:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://au.gamespot.com/master-of-orion-ii-battle-at-antares/reviews/master-of-orion-ii-battle-at-antares-review-2542439/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205053233/http://dailygame.net/Articles/Reviews/moo3.html to http://www.dailygame.net/Articles/Reviews/moo3.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) 05:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/19961220125301/http://www.cdmag.com:80/news/1121961.html
• https://archive.org/stream/boot-magazine-issue07-the-in-crowd-mar-1997/Boot%20Magazine%20-%20Issue%20007%20-%20The%20In%20Crowd%20-%20March%201997#page/n91/mode/2up
• https://archive.org/stream/UneditedPCGamer_marktrade/PC_Gamer_023u#page/n65/mode/2up
• https://web.archive.org/web/19970419220431/http://www.next-generation.com:80/news/011896e.html