Talk:Warhammer: Mark of Chaos

Images in gallery
I rearranged the images to have those displaying specific gameplay aspects first. The first pictures, as of writing this, displays the regimental ordering of troops, terrain elevation and type, hero duels, and siege warfare. The other images are of more illustrative function. Mikademus 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Items removed pending official confirmation
I have moved the blow items here until we get official confirmation through releases, previews or developer's statements supporting them. Wikipedia articles are not allowed to contain rumours or speculations, only facts that can be substantiated.

Tactics
 * Each village will contain a shrine where units will be able to restore their morale.
 * Some villages may even have shops, such as an alchemist or weapon store, where you can obtain items.

Special hero units
 * Hero specific missions, the rewards will vary from experience to items.

Mikademus 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That can be found in the hexus exclusive, same goes for the multiplayer modes. --Xander 22:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, found the source. However, it is wrong to place those bullets under "tactics" as we don't know how they will work. I interpret the quote from where they are taken as to indicate that you can do this (visit shoppes etc) between battles, therefore it is not a tactical (battle) action. Mikademus 08:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

unnecessary?
Is this unnecessary?

"At the release of the 7th edition Games Workshop was to provide a limited edition "Gamers Pack" which included a hard bound rule book, and other items for a $75 retail price. The Gamers Pack could only be pre-ordered through Games Workshop, and pre-paid at the time of pre-order. On the 7th edition release date Games Workshop failed to produce many of these Gamers Pack items to those who pre-paid. Statements made by Josh Wimberly, Games Workshops Midwest US sales manager that those who pre-paid for this item would receive a collector’s edition (retail price of $90) of the 7th edition rules in addition to their original purchase. It is yet to be determined if these statements come true."

It's not even in the Warhammer Fantasy Battle article. Xander 22:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's pretty irellevant, yes. Mikademus 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

requirements
could fit nice. Just a though :) ---Done. I tried my best with the Wiki formatting, but I'm kind of new to this.  71.243.156.189 21:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

reception
Seeing as the game is out I think that we have need for a section reguarding the reception of the game. Xander 09:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Crew listing
Looking at a few other popular game articles, I'm a bit unsure if this one should really have a crew listing / credits section. -- 213.114.118.27 22:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
The controversy section is interesting but it looks pretty POV'ed. Is this a genuine controversy or is this the opinion of the author? If it is a controversy, there should be sources and something from the other side of the issue. Jordansc 14:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As written it's just POV screed, but in light of the fact that all of it is obviously true from playing the game (alas) I would be surprised if a random Google for reviews didn't turn up a bunch of good refs. Chris Cunningham 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a good review - I feel less inclined to buy it now - but I think we should model the page on something like the reception segment of Half Life 2: what are the major gaming industry publications saying about the game, what awards has it received, how many copies is it selling, etc. The goal should be a cross-section of how the game's generally received rather than a particular viewpoint backed up by sources after the fact.  I'm going to be bold and delete this section. Jordansc 18:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Such data would be good, please add if you can find it! I restored some (most) of the controvercy section but rewrote some for increased POV as well as provided some sources. The controvercy has been one of Mark of Chaos' most distinguishing features and probably of more encyclopaedic interest than then game itself. However, the controvercy section is not intended to dissuade anyone from purchasing the title -Wikipedia is not a review farm- but to document important or salient facts and circumstances of the subject matter; as such a controvercy section is neccessary for this article. Also, if anything, the controvercy section as it is right now is actually astonishingly mild and lenient compared to the scathing hatred poured on the game at the official forum, the beta testers forum and discussion threads/fora at larger gaming sites. 130.243.176.176 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should stick to professional reviews of the game unless there's something remarkable about these discussion threads. It would be difficult to gauge the size \  significance of a public outcry on discussion boards.  A small number of posters could easily create the appearance of a massive controversy.  Jordansc 19:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think the controversy section should be taken down and reworked. It doesn't reflect the game's actual reception: Metacritic suggests that the game has had "average or mixed reviews". Just glancing at the capsule summaries, it looks like reviewers generally said that it's not a great game but it's not a terrible game. As it is, however, the controversy section makes it sound like a resounding flop. And, as far as pre-game expectations \ hype vs the actual product, that could be said of most anything. Jordansc 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than "controversy" it should just be "criticism". I don't see anything that's really controversial about it. Also, whoever is responsible for writing/keeping the text needs to edit it, as it is full of typos, bad grammar, and inappropriate shorthand. If nobody is willing to do that, then let the section be deleted. I agree with Jordansc's comments. VanishingUser 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Call it "criticism", it might be a better title. I removed some of the ungrammatical rambling, it now reads somewhat better. About metacritic, if you scan the range of reviews you'll see that they span from the low 30s to the high 80s. The average is ~72 or something, but the metacritic category text corresponding to the average is not a relevant indicator. As for removing the section, then you might as well delete the article, the "criticism" surrounding it is the only thing noteworthy about the game. The game was in fact a resounding flop with high development and huge marketing expenses and very low sales; Namco subsequently fired the developer Black Hole in late February or early March and has quietly cancelled all support for the title. Miqademus 17:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But was the game a resounding flop because it wasn't just like the original tabletop game? The criticism section reads like one person's criticism, not a summary of the game's reception.  I suggest we decide on who the most important game magazines \ reviewers are and then summarize their views rather than taking POV'ed criticisms and sourcing them.  And 72ish is not a terrible score.  Jordansc 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It probably reads like one persons criticism because the text has been copyedited for presentational consistency. Being interested in Warhammer computer games I've read the official forum since the beta and most, if not all, of the online reviews (those found in metacritic and more still) and to me the criticism section seems to sum up the negativity surrounding the game quite succinctly. It is noteworthy that among gamers there has in fact been very little positive said about the game. Quite interesting is that the top scors were given by early reviews before the game was completed, and some reviews even laude features not present in the released game; the point is that reviews tend to be positive for well-known (commercial/marketing) reasons, and should not automatically be taken as reliable sources. Anyway, rather than pruning the section it would rather be a question of adding sources, and that wouldn't be very difficult, only time-consuming. Miqademus 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots
Some of the screenshots contain pre-release speculation like: "Buildings will likely be of tactical use only since the game will not feature base building or in-battle unit production." Can someone who owns the game update these? Jordansc 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. XJDenton 14:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On further consideration these screenshots aren't really representive of the game anymore. I've removed the section for the timebeing and tried to replace them with more relevant pictures. The article doesn't really need a screenshot section anyway. Its an encyclopedia, not a review site. XJDenton 08:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Story
What is this a quote from? Jordansc 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's from the introductory FMV Sequence in game. Personally I think it only really tells you the setting as opposed to the story, and this section needs a description of the factions involved in both campaigns. XJDenton 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Skirmish mode?
I've played this game a few times and noticed that there is no skirmish mode. Multiplayer is limited to online or LAN. There is not option for fighting computer-controlled opponents. Unless, of course there's a magical button I can't find. (75.74.202.143 05:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
 * You set up a multiplayer game with only one human player. XJDenton 20:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Warhammer-Old world map.jpg
Image:Warhammer-Old world map.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 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 22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Empire Campaign
I was just messing around on wikipedia and came across this gem. Someone seriously needs to make that "The Empire Campaign" thing not horrible. It reads like fanfiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.229.149 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, I think the bigger issue is having a two thousand word paragraph in any work ever done. -Signed, America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.96.160 (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Currently not working in Windows 8.1
Trying to get a PC Gaming Wiki page started, with links to the patches and how to get it working. Compatibility modes currently no go. Oathed (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)