Talk:Spear of Destiny (video game)

Fair use rationale for Image:4375.png

Image:4375.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Save_Us_229 19:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Q4 spear.jpg

Image:Q4 spear.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Save_Us_229 21:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

In the Infobox, the "Platform(s)" field specifies "PC". I think that the "Platform(s)" field should specify a value or values from the " Supported platforms" section of the Vgclegend template. For example, if Spear of Destiny (video game) only runs on MS-DOS, then Spear of Destiny (video game)'s Infobox should specify "DOS" in the "Platform(s)" field. ProResearcher (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Lost Episodes "palette swaps"?

"The Lost Episodes contain new level textures and new palette swaps of old enemies.[1]"

I was the one who originally changed it to claim it was not a palette swap. It has since been reverted. The statement, however, is false- it is not a palette swap.

Let me make concessions:

1. yes, the source does say "These add-ons have some new level graphics and some differently colored actors", and that could be interpreted to mean it is a palette swap
2. yes, the games Spear of Destiny and its episodes Return to Danger and Ultimate Challenge are extremely similar, to the point of using the same executable file
3. yes, the Guards in the games are functionally identical as a result of using the same executable, as well as visibly similar
4. yes, my edit was not very eloquently worded...

However, I maintain that it is not a palette swap. The Apogee FAQ hardly seems like an end-of-everything source. They didn't even have anything to do with the release of the Lost Episodes, they didn't even sell them at any point I don't think. They were just making a FAQ for Wolfenstein 3D and Spear of Destiny.

Furthermore, visibly, it is clear that the two guards' frames are not palette swaps of one another. Compare:

• an animated GIF of the Guard from Wolfenstein 3D (identical to that from the original Spear)
• an animated GIF of the Guard as he appears in the Lost Episodes.

(Both GIFS were made by me in days past from extracted game files and uploaded to the Wikia Wolfenstein Wiki, of which I am the chief contributor and administrator.)

The movements are completely different, beyond the definition of a "palette swap", though yes, they are similar. "Differently colored" just refers to the obvious fact that one is brown, one is green. As such, I shall remove the offending language and replace it with neutral language that makes no assertions either way, at least until we can seek some resolution.

− Elecbullet (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, the chief problem is that you were using the Apogee FAQ as a source for a statement that is not supported by the FAQ, and in fact directly contradicts it. I'm surprised that anybody needs to be told this, but this is totally unacceptable under Wikipedia's policies. The wording of the statement as a response to the article's previous claim ("more than a palette swap" is a random and meaningless statement to anyone who isn't actively editing the article) is also an obvious no-no.

The wording as you have it in the article now looks perfectly fine to me, but again, it's not supported by the Apogee FAQ, so that citation should be removed. In the interest of not instigating a potential edit conflict in the midst of a discussion, I'll leave removing it to you (though of course if there's no response from you in the next several days, I'll assume you have no objection and will remove it myself).--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was some pretty piss-poor wording on my part, but I'm going to admit that I'm a big noob at Wikipedia. The majority of edits I make, I think, are simply to correct problems like grammar issues that I spot in articles, rather than adding content and such.

I'll admit that I didn't really think about the citation. I was aware of what the citation said, but I understood that it was poorly utilized in this instance. I was just interested in fixing the incorrect statement and didn't intend to be using the citation itself to back my assertion. So I just left it as it was.

I recognize now my fault and I shall fix it. − Elecbullet (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)