Talk:Overlord II

Overlord's real mistress

in Overlord:Raising Hell there's the option to choose Rose or Velvet,right? well in Overlord 2 the ruins of the Dark Tower have the upgrades that only Velvet offers but yet Gnarl says 'she's your mother derp' the ruins is the proof that Velvet is the real mother there's even a screenshot in the Overlord wikia that i posted showing that. why the developers want to confuse us like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.113.238 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

New info?

Ok, now that we've got some info new on a sequel, any links on the matter and future development/info should be posted here to prevent future edits becoming cluttered. Anything new? Stabby Joe (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=212623

This article has a lot of good information on the game. I would add in more stuff, but I am not very good with wikis. 72.83.138.90 (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Ok, well I've got plenty of new sources, both online and printed that all give a little bit of new info on the game so I'll be expanding the gameplay section and eventual development section soon enough. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Isn't Nordberg also German for "North Mountain"? I'm pretty sure it is, but I have somewhat limited experience with German. KillTheToy (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

release date

Amazon.com had this game listed as coming out June 23rd. Is there any way to verify this and/or include it in this article? I'm not familiar with the types of sources that are reliable for release dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.25.29 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The game was released on Steam on 23rd in North America and 25th in Europe (though for some it was probably 26th already), 23rd is listed as actual initial release date supplied by the publisher. --Enmoku (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass expansion

Like I did with the original Overlord article, when I get this game (next week) I'll begin swiftly expanding and improving it. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Overlad?

The protagonist is referred only as Witch-boy besides (Evil) Overlord and Master. Humans (including the first mistress you encounter) usually call him Witch-boy, even when he's adult, with the minions calling him Overlord and Master. There's also no indication of him being the previous Overlord's son (I've played it only for ~5 hours though, so maybe this is revealed later on?) I was going to rewrite the bit myself, but couldn't figure out how to preserve the info from Raising Hell which seems interesting enough. --82.128.197.85 (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC) (actually by me: Enmoku (talk); dunno what happened to my login when I hit submit)

Recent edits have added citation to the x360 manual about Overlad in the story section, but if you check the PC/Windows manual available through Steam, you can see there's no mention of Overlad. --Enmoku (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got the Euro 360 manual with me here, there's a portrait of the Overlord as a child (the witch boy) labelled 'Overlad', so it hasn't been made up, but unless it's repeated elsewhere in the game/manual/misc. media then it seems like little more than a pun (particularly as the character is only a 'lad' for the game's tutorial level). As far as him being the son of the original overlord, this is kind-of hinted at on page 2 (which represents a letter to the new overlord from Gnarl), which begins: "Welcome to your first day of Overlording! We'd almost given up hope of finding you. But now the evil within you has surfaced, we're overjoyed to return you to the dark and slightly scabby depths of your true family. True evil can never be held back, it's in the blood." This was also hinted at when exploring the remnants of the original Dark Tower, though the words elude me. However, it's one of those things that needs clarifying properly and a source explicitly stating the fact will be necessary to put it to bed. Someoneanother 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my PDF reader finally managed to show images in that and saw the Overlad image now. But so far that's the only instance of it in Overlord 2 for me. --Enmoku (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

iirc, the comment while exploring the Dark Tower is in regards to it not being a good location to raise a child (i.e. why the first Overlord's Mistress left with the child). And assuming that the "mysterious" (explicitly identified as such within the game) character is who I think it is, I wouldn't be surprised if there was even more confirmation by the time the game ends. --Junior612 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"The main difference is that you're playing the offspring of the armour-suited mischief-maker" [1] - the first review I read states it in black and white, and having looked at the Raising Hell article this is all part of an unsurprising ongoing plot. So that's easily dealt with, it's the 'Overlad' thing which is left. Someoneanother 01:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Parents confirmed towards the end of the game (dunno if the mother is chosen based on your alignment, though). However, you never get to visit the old tower (part of the land surrounding it only). Still, the only instance he's ever called "Overlad" is that picture in the manual (unless I missed something, but that seems unlikely). --Enmoku (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides the manual which itself is already a good enough citation, theres God knows how many game previews from the developers themselves that called him that. But I don't understand why this has caused so much debate, hes only a lad in the prologue/tutorial of the game, the rest of course being the OverLORD. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. As for the mother, it's always "Rose", the "good" mistress from Overlord 1 who is the mother, no matter the alignment iirc. Regards SoWhy 13:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

i don't agree the real mistress is Velvet because the ruins is what remains of Velvet's upgrades --79.6.113.238 (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

Stabby requested an assessment at my talk page, so here goes nothing. This article is shaping up pretty nicely - it's definitely in better shape than Overlord (2007 video game) was in when I gave the assessment. I've taken a long break from assessing and in that time the C-class has been introduced, and I think B-class is basically now reserved for articles which just fall short of GA. As such I think the article is definitely beyond Start-class, but probably C-class. (In my day, we would've classified it B-class!)

• A couple of points related to the Gameplay section. I think it's roughly the right length, but some of the details are unnecessary for an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure it's critically important for the reader to know the colours of the various minions and their various abilities: to list them as has been done here disrupts the flow of the section and may serve only to confuse the reader. Simply to say that different minions with different abilities are unlocked as the game progresses would be enough. Done.
• The game's manual has been used an awful lot to source the article - as a primary source it should only be used as a last resort. Citing individual pages of the manual highlights how much you've used it. Anything which counts as a reliable source can be used to source this section: if a review describes the gameplay, you can use that review as a source; if a preview or interview describes the gameplay, you can use that too. Done.
• File:Overlord II.jpg has a watermark in it - these are usually not allowed. Try and take a screenshot yourself - if you're just showing this aspect of the game, you can crop the screenshot as necessary. The caption is also quite brief - if someone who has no idea what the game is about reads the caption they will ask themselves 1) What are minions, and 2) What's so important about them now having mounts? I'm not sure this one difference needs a whole image to itself - remember that this article is about Overlord II, it's not a comparison between it and the first Overlord game. Been removed, the image in question was uploaded from the start by another user but now there are more images without the said watermarks.
• "Mount" is not a very commonly-used word - when you first use it I would link it to Riding animal. Done.
• While we're on the subject of screenshots, there isn't a general gameplay screenshot, showing what the game typically looks like. This is probably the most important screenshot to have in the article. Done.
• Not enough refs in the Story section. There are usually enough details in walkthroughs at sites like IGN and GameSpot - you can use snippets of in-game dialogue if you can't find plot-critical info anywhere else. Done, unless there is any part of the plot that may need citation.
• Development section seems a bit light - any interviews with the developers which could yield more details about the game's development? Done.
• Reception section also seems a bit short - any comments made on the game's story, graphics or audio (which, aside from the game's camera, hasn't really been mentioned yet). Also, review websites like GameSpot and IGN are usually italicised. Done.
• A minor note, but unless there's a very good reason it's usually best to list the references using {{reflist|2}} to save space. Done.

When all those are sorted the article will definitely be ready for GAN. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Una Laguna^Talk 13:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent removals

I'm puzzled by Stabby Joe's recent removals (before we go too far, let it be made clear that it was content I had added). These edits removed the list of Minion types (with the edit summary "listing of all minion types not required"), removed sources other than the game manual, and reintroduced errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling (mainly US English vs Brit English).

I think that the minion types should be listed, because using the minions is the main gameplay mechanic, and as the acquisition of each type is described in the "Plot" section, they need to be introduced and identified. I'd prefer a variety of sources...at the moment, everything in the "Gameplay" section is reliant on the game manual, which is not an independant source. Use of secondary sources in the section also opens the way for commentary on the improvements made to the gameplay since the original game and its expansion.

What are other peoples' opinions? -- saberwyn 09:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game guide: an encyclopedia article should give someone unfamiliar with Overlord II (or video games in general) an idea of how the game works. Devoting time to describing each minion's ability does not help give an overall view of how the game works - it just bogs the article down in unnecessary detail. I'll agree that the section would benefit from use of secondary sources rather than just relying on the manual, but overall I think the Gameplay section is better as it is now. Una Laguna^Talk 09:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that WP:NOT#GUIDE is to avoid the kind of heavy detail you'd find in, say, a Gamefaqs guide...things like resource costs, unit customisation options, or step-by-step play guides. I thought that a description of the main gameplay feature, and the four aspects thereof, would be closer to the "idea of how it works" than the "details of how it works" we need to avoid. 'My' version appears to be slightly smaller in character count, and only takes up an extra line of screen-space, and the current version already describes two of the four Minion types, while providing no context for the other two types when they are mentioned later in the article. -- saberwyn 10:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I will apologize for any errors brought back through the recent reversion and of course any new references, it wasn't my intention to solely rely on the manual. However the edit seems like an unnecessary restructuring on info already present, with the prime change as we are discussing now being the list of minion types. When I first added the gameplay section, all were listed but this was later changed as such info is already covered in the first game's article which this one claims to be intact, so going into too much detail over what is still in the sequel seems unnecessary. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair call. It looks like consensus is against me, so I'm going to let it lie. -- saberwyn 07:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Still, I have included sme other sources in gameplay and fixed a couple of errors. Stabby Joe (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Overlord II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090627110326/http://www.gameinformer.com:80/NR/exeres/AC71B297-1C8D-413D-A4C4-838A892C2D63.htm to http://gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/AC71B297-1C8D-413D-A4C4-838A892C2D63.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)