Talk:Culpa Innata

The Longest Journey
First, if the connection between the two games is pointed out in a single review, it belongs to the according section, otherwise, the relevance of a link to TLJ article will not be clear. Secondly, TLJ is not "comaried" to CI: exact quotations are "And, from out of nowhere, rises Momentum DMT to show the way with one of the most brilliant adventure games to have ever graced the genre’s entire history. So gather round lovers of the adventure. And you too disillusioned Longest Journey fans who were expecting one of the greatest adventure sagas ever created" and "Now, you may have wondered while reading the first paragraph of this review why I mentioned The Longest Journey. That is because I was among the people expecting a wonderful adventure game saga but sadly saw it deteriorate to a casual console-oriented hybrid." I think seeing a "comarriage" in these would be too much reading between the lines. ^^ Compare this to what is said about Schroedinger's Cat to see what I mean. :) --Koveras ☭ 09:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter. A "See also" just means "For another article about a similar subject". It's not a reference, just a "Hey, if you liked THIS, check out THAT." "See also" doesn't require explicit connections, period. For example, in Switchball, See also has Ballance, Marble Madness, Geon and Marble Blast Ultra. None of those games are connected to Switchball - they're just other games in which you control a marble through abstract levels. The fact that The Longest Journey was similar enough to Culpa Innata to garner a mention is enough. They're both about female adventure game protagonists of a similar age in a futuristic world dealing with a mystery. JAF1970 16:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, then you won't mind me adding Syberia, Syberia II, Still Life, Paradise, and, say, Beyond Good & Evil (which is not point-and-click, but similar thematically), right? :) I also recall reading this in the manual of style: "Topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article. Topics that could not reasonably be made into article text probably do not belong in a see also section. A good practice is to treat subjects in a 'See also' section as topics that could be worked into the article (and then the 'See also' section deprecated and removed). [...] Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent..." Now I don't see how any of this can be applied to that link, unless we add it to the reception section the way I mentioned before. --Koveras ☭ 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If they're a lot like Culpa Innata, then go ahead. Beyond Good & Evil? No. Has to be in the same genre. JAF1970 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You have completely ignored my second point, so please make a suggestion how The Longest Journey link can be eventually integrated into the main article text. :) --Koveras ☭ 18:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You missed my point: See also is where The Longest Journey will be, and remain. Check the usage of See also in many other articles. JAF1970 18:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This argument was getting us nowhere, so I started a discussion on adventure project talk page. :) --Koveras ☭ 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I decided to check the use of See also in a few articles, including Monkey Island 1 and The Longest Journey. I couldn't find any instances where, say, in a Monkey Island article there would have been a link to Broken Sword in the See also -section because they are similar. And if there would have been any cases like that, I think it would have warranted removing those superfluous links. Culpa Innata has nothing to do with the Longest Journey, they are merely games in the same genre.--Wormsie 14:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Skewed logic there. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because they're not there doesn't mean they're not allowed. JAF1970 16:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, youre the one who recommended checking out the See also -section in other articles, I was just commenting on what you said earlier. I never ever claimed that because they are not there they are not allowed, I have other reasons for not wating the link of the Longest Journey in the See also -section. And when it comes to flawed argumentation... you say thing like "If they're a lot like Culpa Innata, then go ahead. 'Beyond Good & Evil'? No. Has to be in the same genre." Why would they have to be in the same genre? There are many ways a game can be similar with other games, not just the genre, and Beyond Good & Evil is very adventurous. This is, of course, only my opinion (well, actually the opinion of quite a few people), but there was no really good reason for you to want TLJ to be mentioned in the See also -section either, other than "I just wanna".--Wormsie 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Wormsie, don't get this started, please. :) JAF already agreed to our arguments and the matter is settled with this. This page is there for reaching a consensus not exchanging opinions. Once a consensus is reached, there is no use in punching each other any longer. --Koveras ☭ 07:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, also read Burns flipper's argumentation on the project talk page. :) --Koveras ☭ 19:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, am playing and it's not like The Longest Journey at all anyway. JAF1970 01:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you agree. ^^; --Koveras ☭ 08:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Review copy
I'm getting a review copy of Culpa Innata, so I'll be able to fill in more after I've played it. JAF1970 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Layout
The guide to layout states following preferred order of sections: See also -> References -> External links. And it doesn't state that "see also always follows links", only that it "is okay to change the sequence of these appendices". Still, for example, the only GA-class article within the scope of adventure project that has a See also section (FA-class ones don't have it, as such, btw), Inform, follows that sequence. If you find a GA or above article with See also section at the bottom, please, let me know. :) --Koveras ☭ 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, then a ton of articles have the sequence wrong. But "See also" is used in a ton of GA class articles in the way I prescribed - I'm not going to list them all. JAF1970 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, list the first ten (in alphabetical order) GAs about video games that use this sequence, then. I'll be cool with that. :) --Koveras ☭ 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn it, you are quick. You made the edits while I was still typing this reply. Slow me. %) --Koveras ☭ 20:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See also JAF1970 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrevelent information
Discussion of Rand vs. Huxley is not relevent to Culpa Innata. This is not an open forum for philosophy, much less the game itself. JAF1970 22:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not a notability problem but an original research one. Which is even worse. :) --Koveras ☭ 22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, what's worse is that it has nothing to do with the game itself. >:) JAF1970 22:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't even bothered reading it (were there spoilers in it?), so I wouldn't know even that much. ^^; --Koveras ☭ 09:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No,t was just a diatribe defending Objectivism. heh JAF1970 14:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Misleading information
There are not multiple endings in this game in the traditional sense. There is a pass/fail system and a grading system at the end. Unfortunatly this is from personal experience but if someone can find a credible review this misleading information could be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.32.236 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Uncut" version?
The Adventure Shop is selling an "exclusive" new version of the game here - http://us-adventureshop.gamesplanet.com/pc-games/buy-download-Culpa-Innata-:-Uncut-Version-.html. It doesn't elaborate on what is changed but if anyone has it and knows the differences, I would think that would be notable for inclusion in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Number3son (talk • contribs) 00:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Original Sin
The title literally translates to "inherent guilt" or something very similar, as specified at the start of the article, but it's clearly a play on Original Sin, one of the precepts of Christianity. I couldn't find any articles online verifying this, so I hesitate to include the connection, however obvious. (I know we're supposed to be bold when making changes, but I'm hesitant to inflict my limited version of "knowledge" on a public encyclopedia.) Perhaps a wiser mind can make the call… or perhaps mentioning it in this talk page is sufficient? Thatfield977 (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)