Talk:The Age of Decadence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tactical role-playing game?[edit]

Would you consider AoD a Tactical role-playing game? If not, please remove the game from the category. SharkD 17:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the category. SharkD 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oooops, thought I did that but I had only removed it from turn-based tactics. My mistake. -- Solberg 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
"Removing turn-based tactics because it doesn't seem to be the main focus"
The second item listed in the game's feature list is turn-based, tactical combat. Therefore, I think the game's genre should reflect this. SharkD 00:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that. However, there is a difference between a game having tactics, and being a turn-based tactics game. Considering especially that AoD is not party-based, I would not be sure if it could be considered turn-based tactics. Perhaps you could ask VD what genres he considers the game. -- Solberg 01:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
On second thought, I agree. Nevermind. SharkD 03:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isometric[edit]

This game is not isometric. It should not be listed as such. SharkD 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it's listed as isometric by most websites I've examined eg [1] [2] [3] and iirc the creator has referred to it as isometric before. However this might have been only with respect to the initial version of the game. -- Solberg 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
I started a thread in the AoD discussion forum. We're waiting for the developer to change the website. SharkD 00:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hrrrm. There seems to be strong resistence against the idea. The wait may be a long one. SharkD 01:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, early iterations of the game were isometric. That is, before they switched to 3D. SharkD 16:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's as I already noted. Do you want to call the game "3/4 top down" as a poster suggested? Btw, I'm not sure a gallery is a good idea. Virtually no other game pages have galleries. It's a bad idea because you can always link to pages dedicated specifically to this purpose. Putting it on Wikipedia is kind of pointless. On the other hand, the picture currently uploaded could make a useful thumbnail next to the introduction. Thoughts? -- Solberg 09:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
"3/4 top down" is pretty close, except I'm not sure whether the camera is rotatable in AoD (like in Silent Storm). "Pseudo-isometric" should be fine, as the perspective AoD uses does resemble isometric perspective. Definition: "[The word "Pseudo"] also identifies something as superficially resembling the original subject; a pseudopod resembles a foot, and pseudorandom numbers simulate numbers generated by truly random events, but are in fact produced by an algorithm."
Though there are other instances of articles about video games that contain galleries of screenshots, I prefer it when images are placed within some sort of context. Since the article is so short, there's nowhere to squeeze them in. But, go ahead and remove the gallery if you think it's inappropriate.SharkD 01:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the question on what policy exists regarding image galleries to the videogames wikiproject. Not much of a response so far. Unless I get any directions otherwise, I guess there is no harm leaving the gallery for now. Presumably once the game is released there can be more shots, carefully selected (any regular bunch of images would be inappropriate IMHO, since then we could direct it to IGN etc) to be illustrative of various unique features and aspects of the game. -- Solberg 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Solberg[reply]

I bought FATE this week and noticed that in their docs they call the perspective they use (the same as is used in AoD) "asymmetric overhead perspective". I think it's a pretty good term to use and is easy to remember. SharkD (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mainguimarbleun9.jpg[edit]

Image:Mainguimarbleun9.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Maybe the article should be semi-protected? The game seems to have a large and enthusiastic fanbase who want to 'improve' the article. SharkD 16:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems my comments are being vandalized, as well. To vandal: just because my favorite game is Oblivion (as well as its vastly superior sequel, Oblivion xTreme!!), doesn't mean it has any bearing on this discussion. SharkD 02:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Lacks NPOV[edit]

"The Age of Decadence promises to bring players back to the Golden Age of computer RPGs" - this is not proper for my vision of a wikipedia article. Second paragraph is described primarily in an in-world style as well. The creator of the game is well-known for his personally vindictive attacks on games and on me personally, that do not conform to his backwards POS vision of gaming from the neolithic - see the Rock Paper Shotgun interview linked at the bottom of the article. It's hard to believe that this sentence wasn't written by someone promoting similar views. Edited for my own version of neutrality.66.26.82.58 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your bias against the game dev is distorting your reading a bit. "X promises to bring Y" is not an endorsement. NPOV applies to interpretation of the whole sentence, not an arbitrary piece you choose. "George Bush promised to bring taxes under control" would not be a violation of NPOV even though there is an implicit opinion that taxation needs to be controlled, because the policy applies to whether or not Dubya actually said it, not whether or not he actually brought taxes under control or whether they need to be brought under control at all. That said, I have left "golden age" out because in retrospect there are in fact 2 periods (1985-1993; 1997-2001) commonly referred to as golden ages in CRPGs (see for example the Gamasutra article on the 1st age), and it's not clear that the dev himself would necessarily say he wanted to return to that age, but rather borrow inspiration from specific games that epitomized that period (eg Fallout for the 2nd golden age). -- Solberg (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
"I think your bias against the game dev is distorting your reading a bit."
Assume good faith, please.
The WP you linked to doesn't apply here. The writer openly admits he doesn't like the developer.
"X promises to bring Y" is not an endorsement. NPOV applies to interpretation of the whole sentence, not an arbitrary piece you choose. "George Bush promised to bring taxes under control" would not be a violation of NPOV even though there is an implicit opinion that taxation needs to be controlled, because the policy applies to whether or not Dubya actually said it, not whether or not he actually brought taxes under control or whether they need to be brought under control at all."
George Bush is a person, who can be cited and whose claim can be evaluated. No person or source is mentioned in the introduction, which makes it sound as though Wikipedia is asserting it as fact. In my opinion, I think the claim can be left in with additional qualification: i.e., "The official website claims that The Age of Decadence will return to the golden era of RPGs emphasizing choices and consequences."
This is an instance of metonymy that is pretty apparent on an unbiased reading. A game, not being a person, cannot 'promise' anything and so it is clear that the game name is used as a stand in for the creators. (e.g. Compare 'The Pentagon promised', where the pentagon obviously does not refer to the building but rather the occupants.)
"That said, I have left "golden age" out because in retrospect there are in fact 2 periods (1985-1993; 1997-2001) commonly referred to as golden ages in CRPGs (see for example the Gamasutra article on the 1st age), and it's not clear that the dev himself would necessarily say he wanted to return to that age, but rather borrow inspiration from specific games that epitomized that period (eg Fallout for the 2nd golden age)."
The "golden age" claim remains in the intro as of this post. Kagredon (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it; someone else re-added it. It honestly doesn't bother me so I've ignored it. If you want to remove it again though, be my guest. -- Solberg (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
I did not see any of your edits remove that phrase, but given that there seems to be a rather dedicated cadre of users willing to revert any edit that makes the article less than glowing, I don't know that further discussion is worth the effort.Kagredon (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to comment that Golden Era Games makes much the same claim, but they instead refer to earlier games like Wizardry. SharkD  Talk  06:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this SharkD (aka assnuggets) fellow has been hard on this article since its dawn. i suspect that there is, infact a NPOV breach with his continued editing of this, when he seems to be affiliated with the bethesda-forums crowd, who are known for their hate of this game. But i leave it to you, Wiki-people to sort this stuff out, just noting how it looks to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.221.254 (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Something must be done. This SharkD guy just won't let you catch a break! SharkD (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is it?[edit]

This wikipedia article os just as unhelpful as the official site in telling the reader what kind of an rpg this is. Is it developed by a community? Is it an indie title? Developed by a studio? (read: who the hell is black tower?) Is it released? Is it free / open source? How much does it cost? The article mentions "older versions", yet the release date is "TBA", how should I interpret this? I still don't know anything about this game! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.105.216.14 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a lot like a troll, but it's much too fun to resist this particular one.
Is it developed by a community?
Why would you think that?
Is it an indie title?
It's listed under Category:Indie video games. What could does this mean?
Developed by a studio?
The developer is mentioned at least twice on the webpage. Read it.
who the hell is black tower?
Reading fail.
Is it released?
It's listed under Category:Upcoming video games. The article states that only a (combat) beta is out. What could this mean?
The article mentions "older versions", yet the release date is "TBA", how should I interpret this?
Wait, didn't you just ask whether or not it was released yet?
I still don't know anything about this game!
There's a useful webpage here. Enjoy!
-- Solberg (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Solberg[reply]

[edit]

I've tagged the article as sounding like an advertisement; there's some good information here, but a lot of it is obscured by lists of features, and the article lacks a solid, neutral description. Kagredon (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kagredon, I disagree that the article looks like an advertisement, but I agree that it's not all that great. It hasn't seen that many changes since I first drafted out a small stub for it 1 or 2 years ago, when there was much less information. (Hence the vague laundry list of 'features.') Now, however, the game is getting near release (a combat demo just came out) so I should probably make some long needed revisions. Can you suggest a list of concrete changes that you feel are necessary? Thanks. -- Solberg (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
Since no feedback came, I have removed the advert tag and made some much needed changes to the page. -- Solberg (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Solberg[reply]

Gallery[edit]

The gallery should probably be removed. Please re-purpose the images for something else or get rid of them. SharkD  Talk  21:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (Removed). --Solberg (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Solberg[reply]

demo[edit]

The combat demo sure sucks - are there reviews of it around that could be added to the article? --92.202.4.80 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Reports[edit]

Here's a section to record the progress reports the team posts to the AoD forums, plus related changes to this article. Cheers, CWC 13:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Vince D Weller"[edit]

The guy leading this project is not really named "Vince D Weller" (=VDWeller, as in "Vault Dweller"). He says in this informative 2008 interview that he is "a Vice President, Sales & Marketing of a well-known Canadian company" who has to use a pseudonym "because my contract doesn’t allow me to manage other businesses openly".

User 88.193.83.246 (talk · contribs) keeps changing the article to say that Brian Mitsoda is leading the project. But (1) Mr Mitsoda is not a VP (Sales & Marketing) of any company and (2) Mr Mitsoda is presumably busy with Dead State.

I've edited the lede para to say that Vince D Weller is a pseudonym, citing that RockPaperShotgun.com interview. I'll leave a message for the anon asking him to provide any evidence for his assertion. Cheers, CWC 07:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Age_of_Decadence&oldid=1198944425"