Talk:Prince of Persia: Warrior Within

Too much criticism

The game had it's flaws, sure, but I feel like the criticism section has overgrown to be way too big. Third of the article is just criticism! The game was quite enjoyable and received 83 average from reviews. I don't think it deserves an article like this. Matonen 12:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

More criticism

Someone should put something in about the deviations from the past game, such as no witty narration from the prince, and a loss of the storybook atmosphere, perhap under a "criticism" heading of some sort.

I added a Criticisms heading, but I think someone should expand it, as I really enjoyed the game's mood (except the music). :-) Jehoshaphat 11:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

A major criticism of this game is that is one of the most glitched games released recently. There are many glitches that distract from the game experience, and more often than not, even prevent one from finishing the game! I've seen this happen across all the platforms. Save files can become so easily corrupted that I wonder what the game testers were smoking. I'll try to find how many people get these glitches and add some to the criticism section. --Chris16447 22:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism - Necessity

On one side I don't feel that the "Criticism" section is needed. As Wikis are supposed to be fact based.

On the other hand, it is important to note because of what Ubisoft did with the game. It was a remarked change from the SoT game, mostly stemming from poor sales (and glorious praise).

It should be noted the "why" about the changes. Which were meant to appeal to a broader audience. These should be noted without opinions. TotalTommyTerror 19:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm combining the "Praise" and "Criticism" (criticism isn't always bad). And I'll edit opinions out, keeping in mind the importance of the criticism of the changes. TotalTommyTerror 20:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, made some changes, cleaned up some grammar, and I'm still uncomfortable with a "criticism" section. I do feel it's important to note as it did cause a big stir when Ubisoft mentioned why they were changing so much. But if someone else felt inclined to remove the whole section altogether I wouldn't fault them. TotalTommyTerror 20:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I bet some of the younger kids who own SoT would agree with the critisism part because they want WW and T2T to be rated T so they can get it, but I don't think a whole artical on critisism is necessary. Maybe a little paragraph, but not a whole article.

"The Prince, who was charming and cheerful yet unsure of himself and his abilities in The Sands of Time, has become a generic tough guy or anti-hero." The word "generic", and possibly a few others, should definitely be taken out of that quote -- it's not neutral. There are other problems here too. Sir Lemming 19:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely way too much criticism here, especially since the game was so popular and was very well received amongst the players (as both other games it averaged out at about 9.0 on gamespot for player reviews and votes). It were mostly reviewers who didn't like the change of atmosphere, but games are made for gamers, not for a bunch of idiots who play and review games for money instead of fun.Feyre 11:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The critsism part

I'll ask you this, tell me your not going to yell, "You Bitch!" if someone slashed your face?

-Probably we will, and we might even use broader words & expressions, but the fact that the Prince used the word "Bitch", which is a Profanity word, changes many things about the game and it's attitude.

If someone slashed me across the face, the first thing I would do is scream, then I would probably chase them, but I didn't even know the word "bitch" was used as an insult back then. --Gundor Twintle Fluffy 13:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The game isn't really as swear-laden as many people would have you think (he only really swears twice, and he definitely earns both of them), but the 'You Bitch!' part deserves mention purely because it's the example that heaps of reviewers/writers used to illustrate the difference between the game and its predecessor. --Gwilym 19:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This definitely needs to be covered. I read a whole bunch of reviews and the one from Official Xbox Magazine is the only one that didn't complain about the Prince's attitude change and even they mentioned it. Ace of Sevens 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate that the prince yells out stuff during fights, and because he does this, I personally like his personality better in SoT just because of that.

I hate the life bar

I think that the life bar in WW is slightly harder to read than in SoT. How come the sand tanks are in the life bar instead of out of it? I eventually got used to it during the gameplay, but died several times on the first level due to my inability to understand the life bar. I can understand what's happening with it now really well, but I was so mad when I first got the game and the life bar was a circle with more circles inside that circle. --Gundor Twintle Fluffy 13:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing they wanted to clean up the HUD a bit. Games now are even going to the extent of removing the HUD altogether.147.144.66.150 20:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh... Thanks. --Gundor Twintle Fluffy 13:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The main change

The main change between SoT and WW wasn't because the prince was several years older and tormented. No, no, no my friends, it actually took place during the production. Read closely: In SoT, Jordan Mechner, who was the original creator of prince of persia, helped the Montreal Studios team produce the Sands of Time. Well, Ubisoft did not tell him they were making a sequel, and if you look closely, you will see that the prince does move differently. For example, when the prince lands from a wall jump he does not land gracefully like in SoT, but kind of just sticks his land. This is because Jordan Mechner did not assist in the design in WW. Also, the darker tone is a result of Mechner not assisting in the process of design. And the reason it is rated M because Ubisoft wanted to create a more adult oriented game. In 1989, Mechner wanted the game to stun people, and I think he would be slightly disappointed when another development team did another game that he invented in the first place. This is mainly why I was dissapointed, but in my opinion it is still a very awesome game.

Do you (or anyone reading this) have a cite that verifies this? If not, it should be removed from the article, then. Spartan198 (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Title

It refers to what it means to be a hero right? Fight for the service of others and not for the sake of violence? They refer to that a bit in SoT and much more later in T2T.

No, it means Wikipedia isn't a forum. Spartan198 (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Merge from Kaileena

Please merge relevant content, if any, from Kaileena per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaileena. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:20Z

Critcism/bugs

IMHO this section can be useful when it states which platform is affected by a certain bug, and if there's a workaround and/or fix available. 194.109.22.149 16:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't say how much better the Gamecube version is to the others, since I only have that one, but I know it does one glitch/bug mentioned.Sometimes the audio doesn't sync, perhaps it was just gamespots copy that didn't(I mean, howmany did they try it out on).72.94.109.8 01:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Inon Zur contradiction?

The Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones article states that "Stuart Chatwood, the composer from The Sands of Time and Inon Zur, the composers from Warrior Within, both returned to compose the game's score..." However, this is contradicted by the article Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, which states "The Persian-influenced music from The Sands of Time is replaced by a Hard Rock oriented soundtrack, although both composed by Stuart Chatwood." So which is correct? Who composed the soundtrack for Warrior Within: Stuart Chatwood or Inon Zur? —Lowellian (reply) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The cutscenes were done by Inon Zur, the rest is all Stuart Chatwood and seperate person doing the drums. Credits are all in game and on the manual. Also, that paragraph is ridiculous - it is a contradiction in and of itself saying it has "consisting of a fusion of Arabic- and Indian-influenced melodies with hard rock", then going on to state "the soundtrack lost most of the Arabic and Indian influences and became almost purely guitar-oriented, featuring Godsmack's "I Stand Alone" (as the Dahaka's "theme") and "Straight Out of Line" (over the closing credits)". The latter is just plain wrong - the only non-influenced themes were the 2 Godsmack tunes, which aren't even in the game unless you're being chased by the dahaka (there's even no singing...) or doing the credits, and they even made an alternate chasing theme that was inspired for the soundtrack. To this article's credit, it's a lot better since it's incarnation, but that paragraph irks me... RN 22:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:VG Assessment

Some suggestions to improve this article:

• Expand Gameplay
• Convert the list in Reception to prose.
• Wikify the article, very few links to non-video game articles are in there now.
• Include references in the plot section.

User:Krator (t c) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

XBox Content

Should the exclusive XBox content be mentioned? I used to have the Xbox version, and I remember it having some extra modes (a kind of survival mode against a bunch of enemies, and a platforming mode that timed a run through some new areas), as well as some downloadable content to increase the amount of arenas for each of those modes. However, now I can't seem to find any information about those modes anywhere (not here, GameFAQs, Gamespot, etc.). I have the PS2 version now, and those modes definately aren't in it, and I would assume they are absent from the Gamecube version as well (or at least the DLC parts would have to be). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.7.213.31 (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias in Reception

I noticed some biased parts in reception. I when ahead and made one neutral and deleted the other all together.

The GameCube version seems to suffer fewer of these glitches, as stated by Gamespot: "Some technical flaws in the Xbox and PlayStation 2 versions of the game also mar the experience somewhat. The Xbox version is prone to audio glitches. Certain sound effects get stuck, and, at other times, scenes that should have voice in them are cut off completely. This is a shame, because the sound effects in the game, aside from some ham-handed voice acting from the prince, are excellent and impactful. Meanwhile, the PlayStation 2 version's flaws are graphical. As a result, the game has a slightly choppier frame rate than the other versions. While it's not enough to hinder gameplay or combat, it does detract a bit from an otherwise beautiful-looking game. We didn't notice any sound or frame rate issues with the GameCube version of Warrior Within, however."

I changed the "We didn't notice..." line to "There was no notice of..." so it didn't sound like everyone who ever played the game had made a point to find the flaws. I trashed the one about the sound effects in the game because as it states earlier in the article it was not received well by everyone.--Suprboy772 (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I think the criticism section it`s too big! Look at the article Prince of Persia: The Sands of time , the criticism is much smaller, and I don`t think it is a better game. It is in Babylon and it has a beautiful story, but I think the orientation to the darkness and the construction of a happy end it`s more exciting at a video game. People change sometimes, and Ubisoft tried to make the prince more tough. I agree that the reply (excuse the expression) you bitch! is a little unbecoming, but the rest ..... this article isn`t neutral! You made this game to look the worst ever, and it is enjoyable! I hope that you will remove a part of the stuffing criticism, like this: 1. Another time as the Sandwraith when the Dahaka chases the Wraith out of the library the Wraith slashes one of the Dhakha's tendrils. He yelled out "Die, You Bastard!". During certain attacks the Prince will roar, not an awful insult but it does give clues as to how much the Prince has changed. He will also yell out thoughts during combat such as "Is that the best you have to offer?" (How I said, people change .....) 2. The music can`t be placed at criticism, only the costumers can rate it. 3. The bugs can have a separate article cause they are rarely found! (I had this game from three sources, and no bugs. I also know more than 10 people who played this game and no bugs.)

I hope I helped you a lot with the article. Rocket speed (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason why SoT has a much smaller crit section is that there wasn't as much to critism. WW had alot a glitches and many (critics and gamers alike) found the story and characters lacking. Now you my not agree with these critisms but its still noteworthy and should remain.FSAB (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge release dates?

If the GameCube and PC have the same release dates as the PS2 and X-Box versions, why are we keeping them separate?

Merge release dates?

If the GameCube and PC have the same release dates as the PS2 and X-Box versions, why are we keeping them separate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioFanaticXV (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

God of War comparison

Maybe it wouldn't fit into the article itself, but it's worth noting that Ubisoft's tone change from the first game had a lot to do with Sony's parallel development of God of War, which heavily borrowed gameplay mechanics from the Prince of Persia series only with a much darker tone. Warrior Within was released first (a bit too early, hence all the bugs) to preempt God of War's release date a few months later, but a lot of the story and style came later in the development once Ubisoft saw what Sony was offering. Ubisoft then immediately began development on the third one, The Two Thrones. The third game continued the trend, only since God of War had been already released Ubisoft had some time to parody it a little bit. Notice how the transformation of the main villain (The Vizier) looks similar to Kratos; white skin with red lines of paint. When he first shows up in his final form, the Two Thrones score even hits the iconic notes of the God of War theme. Like I said it might not fit into the article, but it's some interesting trivia about the games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.87.210 (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, but it'd be very difficult to add that to the article without crossing into speculation. Readers would only have our word on the matter, and the word of an open wiki isn't worth much. If we averted speculation by sticking to readily apparent facts, the addition would add up to "hey, POP:WW looks an awful lot like God of War!" which doesn't need saying. Now, if we can get quotes from critics, developer interviews or the like, then we can fairly say that "According to X, whom you should listen to because of Y, the tonal shift was..." That'd be great. --Kizor 06:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's likely a combination of this and the fact that initial reviewers for sands of time stated the game was great but the prince wasn't "edgy enough". So, they went all-out - remember, in the high-end game development world like this you don't have much time to do stuff. Finding REAL sources for this would be tough but they are probably out there someplace in print material from the time. RN 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of image in reception section

Regarding this edit of mine, if you are looking for a place where that picture belongs, try this page. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And regarding my addition of that same image, I've given my reasons before. In short, it's true (check the game's intro on YouTube if you don't believe me), it's accurate, and it is valuable to the article by describing a central part of the game (its GRIMDARK design) in a way that we're not likely to achieve through text. Just saying that it belongs in Uncyclopedia doesn't address any of these points.

So please elaborate. What's up? If you find the image inappropriate, that's a can of worms. If it's below our station, that's a huge can of worms. It's my firm belief that destroying content to preserve our respectability, pride or any of those things is a sure way to lose them. If you deem it ridiculous or juvenile, that may not be a fault of the image as much as the article's subject. The image is also quite representative of the game. --Kizor 11:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that the image was included in jest. And in your message on my talk page, you did admit that you found it amusing. Your rationale is that the image indicates a more "mature" style change in the game. If you were indeed sincere about indicating this using an image, you would have done two things:

• Chosen a descriptive file name, not one that's clearly a gag.
• Chosen a completely different screenshot. There are any number of screenshots you could have chosen to indicate the game's mature theme, like an enemy being decapitated or something. But no, you chose an image of someone's rear end that's in the intro for all of less than one second.

So it appears that your inclusion of the screenshot is for amusement, under the pretense of a legitimate edit. That's why that picture shouldn't be in the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. We've arrived at the heart of the problem: I think the image is both amusing and legitimate, and the latter came across badly enough for you to take it for a front. Thankfully I'm seldom complex enough to have pretenses. Let me try to clear up my motives.

• The file name is a gag because it's irrelevant to the image's presentation in the article. It's no big thing, we can change it if you want.
• The image is very much not there for less than a second. Were it that insignificant, I'd agree with you. If you'll look back, you'll find an extended shot where the camera follows the rear in question as it sways from side to side. In fact that's the first we see of her, the main antagonist is introduced through her backside. It's quite a defining moment, not on par with the various decapitations and taunts (not to mention that those can feasibly occur in mature works and even light-hearted works as well as "mature" works, they don't demonstrate the "maturity." Close-ups of gratuitous thongs, on the other hand, are exclusively "mature.") --Kizor 22:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It comes across as original research: Soulcalibur has an extended sequence focusing on Sophitia's backside. Is the game instantly meant to be taken for more mature audiences? Nope. Yeah it just doesn't work and truth be told feels rather silly. And I'm a guy that's written on stuff of that kind. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The reception section says nothing about the "sex-ification" of female characters, just that the Prince became more brooding and aggressive. Also, if this image were to be placed in the context of female objectification, it would also be CONTRIBUTING to that by offering an image clearly sexually slanted towards men rather than women. We're talking about the entire character design amd personality rather than the sexual parts of their body. There is currently no reason to put the image there, unless there is a reliable source discussing it specifically, and by "it" I mean "the character's rear end".--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. You can add however many pictures of rear ends you wish to this article, Sir Mix-a-Lot. I'm all for being civil and you all can debate this (seriously?) all you want. But I refuse to waste any more of my time discussing pictures of butts like this is a United Nations security council meeting. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Obligatory Penny Arcade link. (Yes, I'm aware I'm not being useful; zxcvbnm has already said what I wanted to say). Nifboy (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty curious as to how much discussion of this game's possible sexual gratuity exists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can find some (and the admittedly hilarious Penny Arcade comic could even qualify, though not by itself), then including an image of the entire character would not "depict" anything less than the gag image.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is all I've found so far, and at most it's an allusion to this character's metal thong. D: - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there's plenty! A proper response will have to wait until I get home to my notes, but the Gamespy review mentions "embarrassingly juvenile T&A", "breasts poking eyes out" and that "she catches a lot of colds." At the moment, a Google search for '"Warrior+Within"+thong "Warrior within thong' produces more than ten thousand results. --Kizor, not logged in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.232.115.126 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Kinda old discussion, but it was mostly just trailer hype - the time apparentice's backside is "censored" more in the actual game, even on PC. There's some really minor and juvenile sexual.... uh... one-worders (?) that come out of some enemies. Even the unlockable concept art and such is pretty tame for a mature, heck even teen, rated game. It's the violence and tone that got it it's M rating, and to be honest even that is somewhat tame, as most decapitations are done disney-style ;p.

In fact, from playing the game it's almost too obvious that they put in a bunch of stuff to TRY to make it look like a mature rated game, while basically failing at it (enemy one-liners etc.); this in itself is somewhat sad but amusing. RN 15:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)