Talk:Dark Castle

Rewrite

I have done a rewrite to correct some misconceptions, and to expand information on the original release Dark Castle. Images and more categories - I changed the icon to the original mac too for consistency (and because it's cooler ;-) Arru 12:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor Changes

The Dark Castle description was originally described as "a trilogy" - it's not. The second game was called "Beyond Dark Castle" and the third version has not been released yet.

I am also unsure if the "easy" mode omits a few rooms and think this is unlikely - I'll have to play the game again to check. Clockwise music 05:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• It is a trilogy, from one point of view, I say keep your change anyway because Dark Castle is also the name of the first game which 85% of the article is about

The three Dark Castles:

1. Dark Castle
2. Beyond Dark Castle
3. Return to Dark Castle (planned)

Also, there are extra rooms depending on skill level in Fireball (certain) and probably in others - I suspect Black Knight. It's a thing players very well may not notice. But please check! Arru 16:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• I see you were the one adding info on the DOS version. There is a possibility that the extra rooms (or omission) is only in the mac version? Arru 16:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've played the game and have two conclusions this far:

1. there is no additional Fireball 3 at the Intermediate level
2. I do suck at Dark Castle nowadays ;-)

The levels I remember having added rooms are Fireball and Trouble, in both cases rooms inbetween the start and end. I will check back with a definitive answer soon! Arru 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have played the game all the way to the end on Advanced, got to the final level (and the final switch, but died!), and there was definitely no extra levels. Yes, this was played on the original Mac version. I also have my suspicions about the "ending" as explained on the page, so I'm going to remove that until I see proof. Clockwise music 13:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Great work! I managed to get through "Trouble 1" at beginner and advanced, and there was no extra Trouble 2 as I remembered. I guess we can consider the extra rooms case closed then.

Just remember, the ending part is about Beyond Dark Castle. And I think that should be dealt with in the same way. Unless you remember playing through the game at Advanced without this special ending, there is no evidence to the contrary either. In fact the irony of such an ending goes along with the embedded humor in the Dark Castle games, IMO. Arru 22:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure that it's really a "trilogy." Return to Dark Castle is, as far as I can tell, a remake and major expansion to Beyond Dark Castle. I don't believe it was ever intended to be the "third part" of any "trilogy." --Joe Sewell 16:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In the delta tao remake mini-FAQthey mentioned something about a secret room. Anyone ever find it? Also, Return to Dark Castle will be a remake of the first two titles, Dark Castle, Beyond Dark Castle AND a whole new game complete with a level editor. The Delta Tao remake skipped rooms on different difficulty settings and the Silicon Beach version added more bats, rats, guards and shortened the time it takes for the guards to stand up after getting hit with a rock. Gruz 23:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Finishing

-- Spoiler below --

Alrighty, I've finally worked up the skills to finish DC on all difficulty levels. The endings are all the same! Finishing it on advanced just drops you down into Dungeon 3 and keeps the difficulty on Advanced. My high score was 118,470 - though I could do better if I started the game on Beginner and worked my way up. Quite a challenge and was lots of fun :)

I have posted a very quick walk-through on my site (http://www.metaltheater.com/DarkCastle) to help anyone out. I was going to post it here but didn't think it was the right place. Clockwise music 06:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Icon fair use

The icon was recently removed for not fulfilling the fair use criteria. I disagree: the fair use of game icons includes "identification and critical commentary", and identification is the purpose of its inclusion in this article. As with all mac software (and surely some of Windows, Amiga and the like as well), the icon is - if not an important - at least notable part of the software's identity as a product.

Furthermore, if the use in an article like this is not supported, I can't really think of any place where a computer game icon is justified for inclusion. I do not support the previous use of multiple icon versions however (borders on decoration), and thus did not replace the remake icon. Arru 23:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• The icon was removed again, by the same editor. In response I will now exactly quote the fair use licensing box for computer game icons: "for identification and critical commentary on * the computer game in question * the character(s), game elements or scenario depicted on the icon in question". Since the icon is for the game itself, both of these apply. Unless some novel conditions arise that override the fair use rules for game icons, this case is clear-cut. Arru 15:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

For identification purposes we use cover art in the infobox, and that's it, WP:CVG follows the same lines as other projects such as films, books etc. And as I stated in the edit summary, fair use images/icons are not for identification without critical commentary. See WP:FUC for criteria. Combination 19:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Does this article not contain critical commentary of the game? If so, won't that be the real problem? I think the reason you are looking for is 3: The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Yet, any player of Dark Castle (and other mac games) will have come in contact with the icon, while they may not have with the box art for various reasons (particularly playing the game as abandonware). The comparison with other media (including retro games for most other platforms) is flawed because those never had icons in the first place.

I'm unable to find any policy that give game icons lower priority than box art for identification (or says that they are mutually exclusive). In fact, I'm unable to find much at all beyond {{Game-icon}} and WP:FUC - the latter of which depends largely on interpretation in this case. This argument does not only affect Dark Castle, but any use of game program icons, meaning that it has to be resolved with care.

This is my view on what is a 1-1 disagreement at the moment, it would be nice if some other CVG editors stepped in with their opinions. Arru 20:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, how does the icon help identify the game? Seeing as the game is already adequately identified by its name and box cover, the icon is merely decorative. ed g2s • talk 19:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just saying it identifies the game is not good enough. The barcode identifies the game, but when it comes to unfree media we need a damn good reason to use it, considering we're primarily a free project. Now the box cover is of historical significance to the game, and a fairly important part of the game's identity. Such could not be said for the icons. If they were free images, then we could do what we liked, but as they are not, they're contribution is not significant enough to warrant their inclusion. ed g2s • talk 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As above, the game icon is seen by 100% of players, the box art by less (and less frequently). The icon could be said to be historically significant to the game, and a fairly important part of the game's identity just as well. Hard to determine because not all games even have an icon. Arru 20:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

But the game has already been identified, so using it is just excessive, unless you're using it for critical commentary. ed g2s • talk 20:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• How is it excessive when it allows better identification than box art? Arru 20:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We only require to show readers the graphic the product in question can be identified in the marketplace. Those not familiar with the subject may not understand the significance of the icon (as you do) as it is not being discussed. Furthermore, we've already established concensus that strongly favours cover art above all else for identification.Combination 20:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, a very informative page.

While trying not to be a nag, however, where is the strong consensus favoring box art? There seemed to be quite a heated argument from the screenshot side at least. And the discussion is only about boxart vs. screenshots (icons and screenshots have different license templates and hence are not considered equivalent - not to mention that icons and screenshots simply are not the same). A recurring argument in favor of box art in that discussion is that the screenshots can be used elsewhere in the article - if icons cannot, then that pro argument does not apply either. Furthermore, is there a "marketplace" criterion written down? It's not on WP:FUC.

I've notified the WikiProject CVG and WikiProject Macintosh, if editors familiar with those subjects disagree, then it's just me. Arru 20:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In this instance I wouldn't say the boxart does a better job of identifying than the icon (the boxart is too low rez to adequately read). Icons are typycally designed to be identifiable at a small size and are often based on the game's logo. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the boxart should be included is another matter. If you are claiming that we need the icon to identify the game, that is not true, as the whole article is about the game so if we haven't identified it already, we've written a really bad article. So what signficant contribution does the icon bring to the article? It's certainly not discussed. ed g2s • talk 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• So now no images are needed to identify the game? Arru 10:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I would rather simply use the game's logo or title screen, if it's available. I still prefer boxart, mind you, but icons sit towards the bottom of a identification heirarchy, just above "Random screenshot" (although screenshots typically have other purposes, such as to comment on actual gameplay). Nifboy 01:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see icons like logos, especially in computer games, they often come to be a form of primary or secondary identification. As long as they are used sparingly, and they are always properly low-resolution, I don't see that much of a problem with using them. I don't really see it as an either/or problem as it was with title screenshots vs. box art. --SevereTireDamage 05:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So far, the question of necessity of icons has been only opinions. No accepted policy (or even consensus) on the value of icons has been provided. Neither in themselves, nor versus other game imagery. Not surprisingly, it seems as CVG editors have quite a different stance on this matter. I can only conclude this far that the icons are warranted since they add value to the article by identifying the game in question better than the rarely seen box art. But those two do not exclude each other, IMO. Arru 10:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Box art is an image of the actual product. The icon is a small, (and possibly if you've played the game, identifying) feature of the product. But like I said, whether or not we need box art to identify the game is another debate. As it stands, the article without the icons has more than adequately identifies the game, and as such, is an adequate free alternative, so FUC#1 applies. ed g2s • talk 20:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• How would that be an adequate "free" alternative? You do know the box art is fair use too, don't you?. The game is the actual product, which is never disjointed from its icon in use. Unlike the game's box. The game is not adequately identified just because only one image would be nice from a copyright law viewpoint, and the FUC say that image use should be minimized, not that one image is enough by definition. Failing unambiguous criteria, that would be what editors familiar with the subject think is adequate. As you can easily see (or could before the icons were removed), the icon and box art are not the same, not even similar. Arru 19:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole reason there are icons in the representation of a filesystem is to facilitate the rapid identification of an application, filetype or specific document. Boxes matter with console games because we tend to keep our discs in them and fetch them on a regular basis. With computer software, I find that we tend to store the discs separate from the boxes (often tossing them). But the matter remains that for most applications, when we want to use/see/do something with them we look for the icon. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I completely agree with CyberSkull. An application icon is used to facilitate the identification of an application. Whenever I launch a program it's what I search for on my desktop - and I have no doubt that's what most other users do. Just having the title "Dark Castle" is not really enough - we could be refering to any type (or kind) of castle that isn't very bright. The icon shows exactly what we are talking about. Not including it on the page (and others) seems petty. Clockwise music 05:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Valid points, but the product has already been identified so item #1 of WP:FUC still applies, as well as item #3: "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately". Combination 13:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Except that there does not seem to be a consensus on whether the product is adequately identified. And again, the FUC does not resolve this, just tells us what to do in case the subject is more than adequately identified. Arru 18:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Good. One image does not serve the purpose adequately, as the box art does not really help identify the subject. I myself have never even seen the box art and did not recognise it. The only way to make sure that it was the right game was to scroll down and see the actual in-game screenshot.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.120.11 (talk • contribs)

• As suspected, a number of editors familiar with the subject support the use of icons for identification, while they are opposed only by a few who feel very strongly about minimizing fair use. Since the question is not the FUC but whether icons fill a purpose in the article, I'd say this case is resolved. Let's wait a few days for any comments before restoring the article. Arru 09:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We've already established consensus that cover art is adequate for illustration throughout the project and if we were to accomodate the wishes of every single user in this respect, we could end up with an absurd amount of images readers and editors personally identify the game with. As it stands, any additional fair use material will have to be part of discussion within the text as per policy. If readers wishes to see the icons, they can install the game themselves. Combination 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Then I'm sure you could provide a link to where that consensus is indicated. Again, the discussion referenced earlier only said that cover art should be in the infobox (and I wouldn't call it a consensus either), because, among other things, other visuals (screenshots were the only alternative discussed) could be used elsewhere in the article. Lacking explicit policy for game icons their merit must be assessed individually for each article. In the case of Dark Castle, we have found that the icon is necessary for adequate identification. In some other game, it might have been just an adaptation of the cover art and hence redundant. Arru 12:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've now ready through the infobox picture discussion, not minding that the discussion is not about or even mentions icons, as far as I can see not one single person in that discussion claims that box art is the only image needed to accurately identify a game. I'd agree that a good place for any box art is in the infobox, but a game is not adequately indentified by it alone. It's just too disjoint from the actual game. Whether a game is adequately identified is nothing less than a matter of opinion, unfortunately. Arru 12:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So it's down to loopholes now, is it? It was agreed that covers are adequate for identification and that is why they're used throughout the project. I hadn't seen the box either until now, but now I know what it looks like and how to identify Dark Castle in the marketplace in case I'd like to obtain a copy. A computer icon certainly wouldn't have helped me there, nor does it now as its supposed significance isn't explained in the article. Combination 01:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

An additional point I forgot to make about boxart is that it requires mid to high resolution copy for visibility. Publishers often try to cram as much as they can into the boxart to grab/inform/advertise. This makes it sometimes very hard to read on computer screens where there is considerably less space to look at it (in an article, not on the image page). Where as the file icons where made for small spaces (if the designer did the job right). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of arguments are being made to the effect that the icon is better for identification than the box cover. That seems like a compelling point. Why have the box art, then? If the icon is more important for identification, then clearly we don't need the box cover for identification. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Though my view is that both are warranted in the article, yes, if they can be shown to be mutually exclusive the icon would provide the best identification and illustration of the software program as a product. Arru 17:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  Ah, I didn't say the icon and the boxart, I just said the icon. We need the image most associated with identifying this game. We're not here to illustrate the game, use images that illuminate the prose. You get one image to illuminate the name "Dark Castle"; which image is most closely associated with that game? Once you've got one image to illustrate the name, you don't need a second. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody's going to say it

Since nobody's going to say it, I'm going to say it. We don't need two images to identify any single game, ever. Either pick the boxart or pick the icon, I don't care, but we don't need two images. We barely need one; anyone who has come in contact with the icon has certainly also come in contact with the name.

• Well I'm not going to say it simply because that is your interpretation of the FUC and game icon license, from your POV. This matter isn't resolved until we have produced criteria that apply to all use of game icons; the policy suggested by fair use opponents here contradicts the game icon license. Or do I have to put the icon back in to get a response? Arru 10:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUC boils down to "Don't use two fair-use images when you can use one, and don't use one when you can use none." This is a case where we have two images that could be replaced with one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• One does not necessarily remember the game's name and might yet remember its icon, and both of those most likely stick better than the box cover. This is nit-picky and I wouldn't put nearly as much effort into this debate if it wasn't a matter of principle affecting many other games, mostly vintage Mac ones.

Citing the FUC to show that we don't need both images is a non sequitur: whether the game is adequately identified seems to be more dependent on whether you are familiar with it or not - one actual consensus from the CVG infobox picture discussion was that cover art alone does a poor job of identifying a game. So maybe the desire to minimize fair use images weighs higher when one is not particularly interested in the article's subject? Arru 10:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an issue on which the law needs to be laid down. You can argue that two images help identify a game, or that three issues will be even better (hey, why not the title screen, too?), or four, or five...

We need to keep the number of images down to a minimum. Pick an image to identify this game and stick with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Keep the icons in as identifying images. Most here seem to agree it does a much better job of identifying the game than the box art, which fewer people have actually seen or will see in the future, as the game lives on primarily in electronic form as opposed to the original box and disks. If you want to keep the box art in (and the way we have standardized Infoboxes, they always lean toward bigger images, not 32x32 icons) use the new caption field in the Infobox, and write a sentence about it, about how it was sold that way and for that platform as published by whom, which of his historical interest, and that should cover the critical commentary aspect.

All of these images are suitably fair-use, low-resolution, do not impede the original owner's ability to sell (not that they've been on sale anywhere for a decade, anyway, so that would be impossible), and the images are minute portions of the work involved. How does that sound? --SevereTireDamage 07:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A one-sentence caption does not qualify as substantial critical commentary. Pick an identifying image and stick with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Icon identifies original game (which is the gameplay discussed in the article), box art identifies varying multi-platform releases (Note: stemming from the obvious flaws of box art as identification, it is not the same across all platforms. The fair use impact of the icon is really minimal (see below) and considering the actual subject of the article for just a moment, it is a a game of multiple incarnations on multiple platforms. I'll get right to it. Arru 10:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And why not? The image itself is substantially informative, describing it as the retail version published for the Apple II should be fine - even if the image itself is not quite as good at being used for identification as the icons are. You don't need to write an entire paragraph about the box alone - it supports the text about the game being published. I don't believe there's a policy or guideline about how how much text needs to be used for critical commentary, as legally, it's not very clear. But even so, it's possible more can be discussed about the box art that I don't know about, since I don't really know this game.

I think the barrier for fair-use "critical commentary" with images, in law, is actually pretty low. Especially considering the heated debate going on at WP:FUC about Fair Use in lists, which is grinding down to a no consensus, about using dozens of screenshots on TV shows on the air today, complaining about using a single screenshot for box art and tiny icons for products that aren't even available for sale anymore as a violation of fair use policies seems unrealistic. Likewise, if you can't fairly use a 32x32px icon for the risk of being sued... that's a very sad day in this country.

What is acceptable fair use is larger that some here seem to realize. A company recently won a case for using Grateful Dead album artwork thumbnails to describe a timeline under the same reasons above, and this was quite delibately against the copyright holders' permission.[1] ( More detail on this - [2]) Consider many other legally deemed fair-use decisions - 41 seconds of footage from a Muhammad Ali boxing match, the Kelly v. Ariba case that said low-resolution thumbnails were acceptable fair use for their commercial image search and others listed here. [3] (Although this didn't apply to Google, since a porn company was suing them, and even the thumbnails could arguably hurt their sales - how sales are impacted being the key in most FU decisions.) These things, you might think would be far more infringing than what we're talking about here, but it turns out they're completely fair use. --SevereTireDamage 08:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

One image is substantially informative. Two are not. Wikipedia uses its fair-use policy, which is intentionally exceedingly narrow, moreso than copyright law specifies, to allow Wikipedia to be freely redistributable. Pick one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That was a pretty fast response for all of that. Anyway, which particular criteria of the FUC do you think either the box art or the icon would fail on? --SevereTireDamage 08:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

#1, #3, #8. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

For #1, free equivalents are not available for either the box art or the icon, since they're directly representational of a commercial product and free images cannot be created or found of them. If I understand that correctly.

For #3, as said before, "little as possible" quite specifically does not automatically read "1 box shot OR 1 icon OR less" and for good reason, it is highly subjective. The images are adequately low-resolution, and the two images have different purposes and communicate and transform different information, as in..

#8 - It has been argued here that both images can contribute significantly to the article. I would personally prefer it the way I suggested, though, with the icon as stictly identifying, and the box art transforming text discussion of the game's retail multiplatform release over time, but arguments can be made both ways (per earlier discussion). Especially considering the multiple game versions, a second icon that identifies a remake, or the PC or Genesis titles not being represented here by image at all. --SevereTireDamage 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

At little as possible does not include an image about which there can be no significant commentary, and #3 counsels as little as possible. Pick one image and be done with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Little as possible" remains a question of individual judgement. Not about what's little (no images at all is as low as one can go) but what's minimal without sacrificing article quality. Game icons are a blank spot in Wikipedia's policy, and the decisions made here have to make sense in the bigger context. Arru 10:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Altered ending to Dark Castle

I read years ago that later versions of Dark Castle released after Beyond Dark Castle included a scene at the end of Advanced where Duncan is dropped into Beyond Dark Castle's great hall. The version I had was not one of those versions so I can't verify this. (And I like the icons and wish luck to everyone fighting for them.) —pfahlstrom 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Pfahlstrom, this might be in the colour remake released by Delta Tao.

Maybe the PC version of Dark Castle? can someone check? Jon God 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Nope, the PC version has the same ending as the mac version on advanced... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon God (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Created Beyond Dark Castle page

I have created a new Beyond Dark Castle page and linked to it - it's my first attempt so no laughter please. (See that discussion page for more info...) Clockwise music 05:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a Color Dark Castle Page, any help improving is welcome

It's linked to on the dark castle page, go check it out and help it out if you can. Jon God 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I Created A Return To Dark Castle Page

Go have a look, and if possible help. Jon God 22:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dark Castle Forum

There is a Dark Castle forum that has been active for about a month now, check it out here:

Dark Castle fans can discuss *all* of the Dark Castle games here, including Return to Dark Castle and even the new port of Dark Castle for cell phones. Hope to see you there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbone922 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

James Rolfe's review notability

I'm not so sure James Rolfe's review is really notable enough to be mentioned in the "Reception" section. It's not getting any more attention in media than his 100+ other reviews, and his show is mostly entertainment, so I don't think it fits. Onpon4 (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. AVGN is a lot of modern gamer's connection to older games and although he injects a high level of humour into his reviews, he has reviewed two versions of this game that are not referred to currently in the article. Further, the Video Game Critic is equally as scathing about the CD-I version.

http://videogamecritic.com/cdiad.htm?e=45384#rev2216

The Wikipedia article in failing to note the criticisms of the Sega Genesis and CD-I versions is currently coming off as a puff piece and not an even-handed evaluation.

Sega Retro notes the Sega adaptation has an average score of 42 from magazines and the like from its own day.

http://segaretro.org/Dark_Castle

Kbbbb (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

AVGN notwithstanding, when you start googling "Dark Castle Review", you will get only non notable sources (agreed), which however all give blatantly negative impressions (34%, 23% and so on in a business where everything below 70% is probably considered a major disappointment). Yet this article only mentions positive, indeed gleaming reviews. Criticism has been deleted in the history with the argument of "non notable" or "AVGN is mostly comedy", yet we get an emulator walkthrough linked? The article gives the impression that this is one of the video game classics, which it certainly is not, while the history seems like fan boys defending their favorite. Instead of criticism we get strategy hints. This needs a major rewrite and restructuring. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)