Talk:Black & White (video game)

populous
doesnt mention populous. inconceivable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.240.25.160 (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Name?
Should Black and White be renamed to Black & White? This appears to be the corrent title on the official EA Games Website


 * Quite so... seems to be all correct now. (Darric, 06 Sept 2005)

Unplayable on Windows XP
It may or may not be notable that there is no way to play this game on a PC with Windows XP.

Yes it can, after downloading the patches, and following the advice on the offical forums http://allboards.lionhead.com Check out the sticky thread in the "Black And White" forum. Grymsqueaker 13:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just installed an original 2001 release version of this onto a PC with Windows XP SP2 and DirectX 9c; It installed and ran fine (well, all of Land 1 and a bit of Land 2), with no patching required. Jaruzel 12:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have Windows XP: Media Center Edition 2005, don't install the patch i've tried it countless times and it totally stopped the Black and white 1 Game from working, it works without the patch fine. Fire Monkey (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok after some heavy modification to the games patch, I have made it work on XP!! Please pm for more info! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.104.117 (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Article has too much opinion
Speaking as a good god, I think it's actually not too hard to be a good god. One way to build influence is to build up villages, which takes wood. Casting "Miracle Wood" is a "good" action.

Not Unplayable upon release
It was possible to play through and win with the original release. There were a couple of really annoying bugs, though.

Your worshippers would sometimes consume all the food at the worship site in one gulp. Fixed by patch.

The longer you played a level, the longer the load and save times become. Still a problem, although improved by patch. (Opinion: this game has the absolute worst load/save game feature of any I've ever seen).

Creature poop never decays, which means a level will become covered with creature poop unless you fireball it. Still a problem... and never fireball poop while your creature is watching, because that's a behavior he'll emulate, without regard for the fact that the poop is next to your temple or within one of your villages.

Original Giant
I've been sorted though old magazines to throw out... just opened PC Gamer UK, issue 59 (August 1998). It's got a scoop on page 19, with a large picture of a giant. Not a monkey, or a cow, or anything like that. It's a humonoid creature with no mouth, wearing a loincloth! According to the article, it's appearance would still change according to your actions. Should probably be mentioned somewhere.91.105.6.48 (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That picture is probably the Ogre mentioned in the list of Creatures - all the creatures   change as you play them. Any material added to the article needs more sourcing than a picture or it is original research and not allowed. PC Gamer publishes a LOT of pre-release hype from design teams that never actually makes it in playable form in the actual release.--  The Red Pen of Doom  12:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unplayable upon release
Shouldn't there be some sort of mention about the fact that the game was unplayable upon release as it wouldn't let you complete one of the later levels?

I'd write it myself but I don't have enough information about it. I just remember Peter Molyneux being all hype-happy about it, and then turning around and saying 'well yeah, we need to fix that'. That one experience completely let down my faith in him and Lionhead. Only for it to be compounded by Fable's complete failure.

Didn't Peter Molyneux say that Fable would enable you to build your own teleporter using common household materials? Probably, since he generally over-hypes his games to the heavens. --Dan 16:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

When black and white was released, there was a bug on the last level. What was meant to happen is that a curse on your creature was removed, but the bug prevented that curse from being removed. You could still complete the game, but you would just end up with a completly useless creature. Thats what i remember about it, anyway.


 * Also, it's not playable if you have Windows XP and I think 2000, not to mention others the game it's self mentions. It think someone should add an entire Technical Difficulties section. Gopherbassist 12:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing style
This article is of a slightly below mediocre standard and needs to be written in a less informal tone. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ape not Orangutan?
According to this Prima guide here, the initial monkey creature is an 'Ape' and there is another darker monkey creature called a 'Chimp'. How should we edit this? Seriphyn 09:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an Ape and a Chimpanzee and A Mandrill IIRC,I've not played for AGES!However,I've not played in full,IMHO,just get the Lion if you're a player,the best Creature...Ever.121.7.56.203 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Zipcode for weather?
I just seen that in weather section, I had never heard of that, what is it talking about?

Dancing Pets
I heard that the animals could dance to arbitrary music.
 * Does an in-game Winamp interface count? Nifboy 08:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:B&wbox.jpg
Image:B&wbox.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 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Creature surprise
Wasn't there a test in the A.I. where the creature did something that surprised the developers? If so, this should be included. P.S. I don't have the time but there a lot of typos in the article, such as periods after )). Lots42 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but according to the article on Richard Evans: "The artificial creature in Black & White holds the Guinness World Record for most intelligent being in a game.[5] Black and White is Number 1 in AIGameDev's most influential AI games.[6]" Surprised that that's not mentioned anywhere on the page.Stoopdapoop (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference material
While digging through the online print archive, I located the following print preview material for this game: One or more print reviews for this game may also be found in the archive. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Computer Games Magazine Preview
 * Computer Gaming World Preview
 * Computer Games Magazine Preview
 * Computer Games Magazine Preview
 * Computer Games Magazine Preview
 * Next Generation Magazine Preview

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black & White (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zdnet.com/cgw/stories/main/0%2C11529%2C2607679%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.techtv.com/extendedplay/reviews/story/0%2C24330%2C3320151%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103063554/http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html to http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Mediaeval
Hi Adam9007. I was wondering what your logic was regarding the use of the less common spelling here, which you reverted. What's the benefit of using an archaic spelling instead of one that people are more familiar with? (see how many universities offer courses in Mediaeval studies versus Medieval studies). Apologies for the behavior/behaviour thing btw, my spell checked keeps slipping into US mode. Scribolt (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Mediaeval" isn't archaic, at least not according to the major dictionaries I've checked: Oxford, MacMillan, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, and Collins. Perhaps you're thinking of "mediæval"? As for familiarity, it's not like the difference between "Jail" and "Gaol". It's kind of like the difference between "Realize" and "Realise": if you understand one, you understand the other (and I can't see any reason why most would not understand "mediaeval"). Also, surely the same is true for words like Encyclopedia/Encyclopaedia? I definitely have seen "Encyclopaedia" used in articles. I also notice you haven't made the same archaic and familiarity/commonality arguments for "connexion" and "reflexion", both of which are used in the article too. There's no particular benefit to using either spelling: I just don't see why the change was necessary. I know we should use the most common terminology or terminology that's common to all English varieties if possible, but I'm not aware of any such rule that applies to spelling. Adam9007 (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Archaic in the context of words means old and now uncommonly used, so I think this fits (see []). All of your examples seem to fall into that category. I would have used the same argument for connexion if I'd noticed it and in all honesty when I saw reflexion, I didn't know what it meant and assumed it was a technical term related to the rendering process. After quickly googling, I see it's the same as reflection? So, an example of why these things can lead to confusion, even for British English speakers (although maybe just ignorant ones in my case). I disagree with your statement that there's no benefit in using the common spelling of words instead of unusual alternatives, it reduces the possibility of confusion and makes the article easier to read and understand. Do you believe that the use of the spellings mentioned above provide additional information or improve the readability of the article? BTW, there's no rule I'm aware of either relating to spellings althought I haven't searched for one. Scribolt (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, after having asked around, MOS:COMMONALITY seems relevant if you believe it doesn't make difference either way Scribolt (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:COMMONALITY applies to vocabulary, not spelling. By that logic, we should scrap -ise spellings and force the use of Oxford spelling in all BrE articles, as -ize spellings are common to both BrE and AmE. Adam9007 (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that both ise and ize are both commonly used forms, while mediaeval, reflexion and connexion are not in either British or American, so I don't think that argument really holds. Sorry to come back to this, but you've still not really answered my question, which I've asked twice now in different ways. What's the benefit of using the spelling that you reverted rather than the commonly used version? Seeing as you bought them up, please address this for reflexion and connexion too. You've mentioned in passing that there's no benefit in either way, so in that case I would suggest that the common form in both British and American English would be better for the readability of the article. However, maybe there is a semantic difference that I'm not aware of, so I'd like to get your thoughts. Scribolt (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither you or have explained how "connection" and "medieval" are better than "connexion" and "mediaeval" (which were used in the article first I might add; given the way I've been treated, you could be forgiven for thinking that "connection" and "medieval" were used and I changed them) respectively. The only argument I've heard is that they're more common. More common does not equal more correct. I have used "mediaeval" in 3 other articles that passed GAN, so either the reviewers didn't notice (which I doubt), or they didn't care. "Connexion" and "reflexion" are simpler and closer to their pronunciation (in addition to being more "etymologically correct" (the Latin used xion for those words, and the same goes for "mediaeval"), a key feature (as I understand it anyway) in Oxford Spelling (although this article doesn't use it), and theoretically less confusing. As for "mediaeval", I imagine it's the same with "encyclopaedia", and I know for a fact "encyclopaedia" is not archaic. Adam9007 (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

See my responses below:
 * . This isn't true, please see: and.
 * . This is completely irrelevant, you reverted the edits that removed these terms, so it's not unreasonable to ask you why or to assume that you believe that they improve the article. Or to ask you provide specifics as to your reasoning.
 * . This is completely irrelevant, no one claimed that the words less correct, only that they're not commonly used in any form of English and therefore introduce reduce readability and increase the risk of confusion for the reader.
 * . In what way are they simpler? They aren't commonly used. In what way are they closer to the pronunciation of these words? I don't pronounce them in that way.
 * . Could you please explain in what way these are more 'etymologically correct', and why that's relevant to a Wikipedia article? Scribolt (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the terms are the same: "connection" and "connexion" are the same word, as are "medieval" and "mediaeval". There were already perfectly valid spellings.
 * That's not the impression I got from Oknazevad's edits How so? I can't see any reason "connexion" is less readable than "connection", or that "mediaeval" is harder to understand than "medieval".
 * They have 1 less letter. I've always pronounced "connection" kon-ek-shun. Seems that "connexion" is a perfectly reasonable representation of the pronunciation.
 * I thought I had, but I'll explain again. "connection" comes from the Latin word "connexio", not "connectio" (there's no such word as far as I'm aware). Same with "reflection", which comes from "reflexio". "Medieval" is a blend of "Medium" and "aevum", hence "Mediaeval". It's relevant because some articles use Oxford spelling, which, as I understand it, prefers "etymologically correct" spellings. That's why -ize spellings are preferred there; they're closer to the Greek root. But we don't have to be using Oxford spelling to use "etymologically correct" spellings. Adam9007 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, but in all honesty (and I'm open to the possibility that I might not be making myself clear) you again appear to be answering different questions to those I've asked.
 * I wasn't arguing that they weren't valid spellings. You appeared to be upset that you were being treated in a certain way here even though you didn't introduce all of the spellings under discussion. If you revert edits that others regard as improvements, you should expect to be asked to discuss why you did it, and this is why I stated that it was irrelevant that you didn't introduce all of the terms yourself.
 * Where did he say it was actually incorrect? Besides, I was addressing you, not them.
 * I've explained this multiple time above and again below, which you seem to keep missing.
 * Shorter words are not always simpler to read. Reflexion is very rarely used in comparison to reflection. At the risk of calling myself uneducated yet again, I personally have never seen it before and interpreted it wrongly. Non-native speakers will almost certainly not have seen it before. Therefore, someone who has never seen this commonly used term has to stop and think, does this mean what it looks like and should I substitute it with another word that I do understand? This process is completely unnecessary in this case because there's absolutely in the article that means that reflexion imparts anything to the reader other than making them stop to think and in my case leading them to the wrong conclusion. For zero benefit.
 * even if you don't pronounce the t (which I do, but I appreciate accents vary), I still don't think that ek is closer to ex than it is to ect. The -exion pronunciation doesn't have the hard 'c' in at all. Even if it did, I see the phonetic closeness of a spelling to be irrelevant to whether we choose it for inclusion in a written encyclopedia.
 * . OK, I phrased the first part this question badly and you missed the important bit. Even if your original research here is correct, which it may be, the most important part which you didn't address at all, is why is any of this relevant to Wikipedia? I don't understand your preference for wanting to use these particular spellings, but put yourself in the place of the reader? Do they want something that they are more likely to understand and is consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia? Or something that's closer to the greek or latin root?
 * This may all be moot bearing the discussions taking place at MOS, but I'm not going over all of this to try and kick you when you're down, I'm trying to show you that you're being asked good faith questions and you give the appearance of trying to avoid answering them. Scribolt (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here
 * eks sounds similar to ex, but not ect.
 * I can't read the minds of our readers, but I imagine that, for any given article, they just want something that's understandable. There's no consistency throughout the encyclopaedia, as some articles use American English, others British etc. Some articles use "color", others "colour". Adam9007 (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So you were referring to a comment he made in the future that still didn't say it was incorrect, merely that anyone who didn't think it was obscure and archaic was wrong. You might disagree with that, I certainly don't, but you've ben reading things into what people have written that haven't been there. You seem unwilling to even entertain the notion that for many readers, the obscure spellings you added or attempted to retain might not be as understandable and you again failed to propose a benefit for your version. There's certainly limited consistency between British and American English articles, but as the terms here have commonly used and consistent spellings in both forms, again, that's not really relevant. Colour and color are different because each is uncommon in one version. Scribolt (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't read the minds of our readers, but I imagine that, for any given article, they just want something that's understandable. There's no consistency throughout the encyclopaedia, as some articles use American English, others British etc. Some articles use "color", others "colour". Adam9007 (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So you were referring to a comment he made in the future that still didn't say it was incorrect, merely that anyone who didn't think it was obscure and archaic was wrong. You might disagree with that, I certainly don't, but you've ben reading things into what people have written that haven't been there. You seem unwilling to even entertain the notion that for many readers, the obscure spellings you added or attempted to retain might not be as understandable and you again failed to propose a benefit for your version. There's certainly limited consistency between British and American English articles, but as the terms here have commonly used and consistent spellings in both forms, again, that's not really relevant. Colour and color are different because each is uncommon in one version. Scribolt (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Awards section
I'm not sure if it's just on my end, but the awards section seems somewhat randomly ordered. At the moment it shows awards in 2001, then 2002, then 1999 and so on. Would it be ok to organise that section by the year? I may have missed something for why it's organised like that though.--Stikman (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks as though it's grouped by the awarding organisation (Bafta etc) although I had to stop and work it out. No objections from me, your way sounds clearer, although an alternative would be the existing order with some more intelligent formatting so the year isn't emphasised first. Scribolt (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I can see how it's set out now. I'm thinking if the table template used is changed (i.e. from 'awards table3' to 'awards table2') it would let people sort it by year, result etc, which could make it a bit clearer depending on what the individual was looking for. If there's no problems with that, then I'll just change it. --Stikman (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

PlayStation version; did it really not exist?
I was reading the article and it says (pretty clearly) that the Playstation version of the game never existed. But I distinctly remember having had friends that owned that version of the game as well as even playing it (briefly) myself. So what gives? Is this a matter of article vandalism, or did I somehow end up in an alternate reality or something? Because I'm 100% certain the PSX/PS1 version did in fact exist, or at least it did in Sweden (games being available in Swedish was a pretty big thing/draw at the time.) Captain Seasick (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You'll have to find some credible evidence. It would be interesting if it really was available for PlayStation in Sweden, but I haven't been able to find anything about it (but I'm also searching in English). --  Primium  (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)