From the paragraph that you wrote then removed yourself: "Dissatisfaction with poor AI" – yup, in the reception section, "Game glitches, bugs and crashes" – covered in both reception and release sections, "game support" – already in the release section. Yes, we have to convey a positive tone because of the overall critical consensus, but there's plenty of criticism in the article. Properly read the release and reception sections, they aren't "overwhelmingly positive" despite the high Metacritic score the release section in particular deals with user complaints that can be adequately cited. Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.155.210 ( talk) 04:53, (UTC) Thanks for the polemic, though at least you aren't going "conspiracy!" like some others have. What is published is what is "officially" true, not what IS true. It is an inherent flaw in the, "Verifiability, not truth" standard of wikipedia. It is an inconsistency that can't be addressed because of the rules, and an injustice, because what is posted here is not a reflection of the reality of the game. The disparity between the "expert" reviews and user reviews is striking 90% to 67%. Almost all official reviews rave about the game, while the game was almost universally dissatisfying to most consumers. Ironically, thanks to wikipedia standards, we can only post official reviews and not user reviews. How incredibly frustrating it is that this page gives the the incorrect impression that this game was overwhelmingly positively received. Wjousts ( talk) 17:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I'd just like to comment But since I don't have this particular game, I was looking for clarification on whether it really was needed or not. I feel the thing here with Steam is different since you can either install Steam or not play at all. But you didn't need to install it and lost nothing by skipping it. For example, a lot of games (use to) incorporate GameSpy, as in it was on the disc and it asked you if you wanted to install it. Incorporate doesn't necessarily mean you have to use it. Sabre ( talk) 16:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Okay, I think I'll tweak incorporate to requires. The requirements field is for hardware, not software. That's how our articles deal with it for when a game requires Steam, such as Half-Life 2 etc: mention in distribution field, and be more precise in development. Feel free to tweak the wording for that sentence if you think thats not unequivocal. Wjousts ( talk) 15:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Its pretty specific in the development section: "The game incorporates Valve's Steamworks programme for both retail and electronic versions". I read the development section and it is far from clear whether Steam is required or not. Lots of games are distributed via Steam and retail, and the retail version doesn't require steam or maybe only requires it for multiplayer. That's not the same as being required, which it is. That's the usual way of dealing with Steam annotations. Wjousts ( talk) 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Steam is already noted in the development section and under the "distribution" field of the infobox. It's the primary reason I won't buy the game. Should Steam be added to the requirements? AFAIK it is required that you install Steam to run the game. Here is a link to all of his posts as listed on his user profile. He created an account on those fan forums on the 19th of January under the handle TW Rehab. I figured I'd post this for anyone who is interested in the latest kieran brigden (creative assembly public relations representative) has to say to the ETW community on the total war center forums. Sabre ( talk) 21:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC) More information on ETW from CA If you wish to make or view comments regarding Napoleon: Total War, the appropriate venue is the respective talk page rather than here. In any case, this talk page and article aren't relevant for the release of Napoleon: Total War, beyond the one-sentence mention of the sequel in the release section. As Escape said, all previous threads are still accessible from theheader. Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC) See WP:ARCHIVE, this is standard practice for Wikipedia talk pages. See the Archive section in the above header. 76.182.121.69 ( talk) 20:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Previous discussion has be archived, not removed. I propose the talk page be reverted to the way it was if nobody has a problem with that. I don't understand why all the entries from the talk page were removed? especially so close to the release of the next installment of the game, when the comments on the talk page are even more relevant.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |