Talk:Rome: Total War

Archives

1 2

Gameguide

I added the {{gameguide}} tag. There's way too much stuff about in-game and gameplay minutiae. It really has to be trimmed down. The Factions, Family, Agents and Mercenaries sections need to be reduced to a single section. SharkD (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove Historical Inaccuracies section

As a casual reader of the article I would expect the "Historical Inaccuracies" section to contain a description of various specific inaccuracies in the game, but instead find it's a quick paragraph stating the fact that it's not historically accurate (with a lot of non-neutral negative qualities applied and surrounded by quotation marks) with a sourced statement only acknowledging that "it could have been better."

An actual list of inaccuracies is on this page but for some mundane WP/rules reason it isn't in the article?? The way it is now, the section should just be deleted outright or merged into a reception section. --64.149.45.154 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It should not be deleted. Some time ago the entire list was voted out of the article since I found sources but my attempt was overruled because I used sources given by Wikipedia articles. It is the archives somewhere. However, I see that the section is already deleted. There are sources that Rome: Total War is historically inaccurate. Just google. Mallerd (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the section is really needed, while yes the game does contain many historical inaccuracies, the game never stated that it was made to be fully historically accurate. If there are reviewers that have mentioned historical inaccuracies then their comments should be added to the Reception section. QueenCake (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

See archive. Mallerd (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Mallerd is talking about Talk:Rome:_Total_War/Archive2#Remove_Historical_Inaccuracies_section (which Mallerd pasted back here in case QueenCake hadn't read it, but we can just link to it). --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I read it, I did not see any reason the discussion should be brought up again. The section is not needed. QueenCake (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Factions

Ok, the guidelines for video game articles clearly state in WP:VGSCOPE that Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts, which includes faction lists, are unnecessary in a wikipedia article and should be concisely presented in prose form. They also state that a video game article should not be either a Strategy guides and walkthroughs, as Wikipedia is not a guide. Other Total War articles that include factions lists are poorly written and breaking policies, if in doubt look at the discussion on the Empire: Total war talk page. Cheers QueenCake (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If the goal of an article is to provide information then information should be thorough. The factions section was not providing a pointless list of factions it was provided information about the different factions in the game. The section did not include anything other then a brief informational description of the factions in the game. You may interperet the guidlines anyway you want but just because one person doesnt like something doesnt mean that the section should be changed. There is no point in downgrading the information provided by an article. I do agree that the section is largely uneccessary and i am working on a revision.LegendLiver (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say there, the information on the factions was far too detailed, even including information on what the factions would likely do in a campaign. Though if you decided that information was largely unnecessary then feel free to work on a better revision of the article. QueenCake (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Im going to post the edited version. If you want to edit the new version you can but i think i removed most of the unnecessary information. LegendLiver (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The revision you posted still contains info not required in an article for a video game, a brief description of factions and how they operate is all that's needed, video game articles should include more information on different game play features, the campaign mode and the battle map in this case. Faction lists are just too in detail and violate the guidelines, clearly shown on the Article guidelines. QueenCake (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As a kind of comparison, if you look at the Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings featured article, the game to has many different civilisations to choose from but the article focuses on a brief overview of their abilities and purpose, concentrating on the overall gameplay. Being a featured article, that article is an example of what all video games should ultimately be. Also I think its best if any further reversions are discussed here, rather than starting a possible edit war. QueenCake (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I reversed previous changes and supplied an exhaustive list of factions, as, after all, the purpose of the article is to inform. To the extent of my knowledge, the previous list wasn;t even entirely correct. DRAC250 (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This section was often edited by history freaks who can't seperate game from history. They were constantly editing Egypt into the Greek section which, yes was historically true, but the game states otherwise. I think the article is better of without such a list just for such reasons. Mallerd (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What if someone added links for addition information in a Additional Information section? At the TWCenter, for example, there is more information on the factions, and other things such as mods. If we posted links, we could at least redirect researchers to a place that allows a more detailed overview of factions. Chorrol07 (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that a lot these days. I believe there is a BioShock wiki as well. That's a featured article as well. There you go :) Mallerd (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tell users to go wherever you want, as long as they know where to get the info no one will complain they can not read about it here. QueenCake (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the section entitled Factions, at the time of this edit, offers only a limited information (a listing of the factions, whether they are playable or unlock-able and a little hack) I have added a link to the twcenter which offers more detailed information regarding the factions (including starting position, victory conditions and available units). Although another user mentioned this possibility I didn't saw any existing twcenter links. Amon Koth (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unneeded information

Seems to me the historical battles and the modifications sections aren't really needed? Maybe I'm wrong. Muskeato 22:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, i'm removing the mod list, and adding a little more to the historical battles part; it's quite a big part of the game to be able to replay historical and famous battles. -Evaristé93 (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

picture

got a nice noob-box on this screenshot: File:Hellenicphalanx.JPG lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.240.73 (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"game guide"

Personally I feel we could remove the game guide tag on this article. Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskeato (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea, i agree.-Evaristé93 (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, it's been like 3 weeks, no one's had any input, so i've removed it. -Evaristé93 (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hellenicphalanx.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hellenicphalanx.JPG I don't think it's a very good picture for demonstrating gameplay, nor the large unit scale. Anyone think it should be replaced with a better picture? By "better", i reckon something with a large amount of units on the field with some variety, not all crammed into one space (who even plays like that?)-Evaristé93 (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC) lol I play like that, it's a perfectly fine picture. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Family Traits.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Family Traits.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 19 May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Family Traits.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Indented line

Unplayable factions

It lists factions that are unplayable but all of these with the exception of the S.P.Q.R are available if they are moved under the 'playable' section in the faction file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintus Petronius Augustus (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That's covered in the article's "modifications" section. Huon (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)