Talk:Warlords (video game series)/Archive 1

XP issues
"To fix this issue, right-click the desktop or start menu shortcut, go to properties dialogue box from the menu that appears, and change the target to "c:\(your Darklords folder)\darklord.exe" /WINCURSOR. This will replace the problematic color cursors with funtional, black and white ones."

This didn't work. I found a site which stated that you needed to do (including the quotation marks) "c:\(your Darklords folder)\darklord.exe" -WINCURSOR

then click apply, then change it so that it runs in WIN98 compatibility mode. The game will run.

UNFORTUNATELY, when I run the game this way, I can't start any of the scenarios or campaigns, as clicking on the new campaign or new scenario button causes the game to freeze. The workaround I've found is to run the game first without using the compatibility mode, start a campaign or scenario, and then quickly save before the game crashes or hangs. Then, exit the game, do the -WINCURSOR thing, and use the WIN98 compatibility mode, and load up the save game. --80.47.254.8 17:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This page isn't all that great, but I couldn't access the I2 site to get a lot of the good official background stuff, and a lot of the good old fansites don't seem to be up except for Woog's.

Missing sequel
The article is devoid of info on Warlords III: Darklords Rising, which was a sequel/expansion to Reign of Heroes. Since it's a pretty big lapse, I'm placing a stub tag. Canonblack 11:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

C

The original game was available for the Mac. I played it a lot under System 7 and OS 8 for years. If they Carbonized and re-released it, I'd still play it under OS X! It's a classic gem! Anyway, some mention should be made of support platforms. The original for Mac is the only one I know. Evidently 1-4 were made for Windows too. &mdash; ChristTrekker 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Warlords (plus an update) and Warlords II were DOS rather than Windows. I think Warlords II has problems running under Windows (the sound drivers, from memory). I think there was a version of the original for the ST too, but I can't find any of my old catalogues. The first one is certainly my favourite - the sequels have too many kitchen sinks thrown at them (like the magic system) and some of the graphics are less than clear. Lovingboth 17:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

About release date of the first game
Message from the author of this game (Steve Fawkner).

> Hi M0d3M,

> Warlords 1 was released on PC in Australia on December 6, 1989 (I remember the date because it was exactly one week before my birthday!)

> The US version hit the shelves about 1 week later. The UK version made it out just before Christmas.

> The Amiga versions came out in Jan/Feb 1990.

> Cheers > -Steve

M0d3M (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Warlordsgame1.png
Image:Warlordsgame1.png 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) 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lordsawar software redirects here
but I can't find the word lordsawar in the article. Why does it redirect here? Logictheo (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It redirects here because LordsAWar! is based off of Warlords II. This should either be mentioned here, a new article created in its name, or both.  I'll trash the redirect put up a stub at least when I can play the game and cite some rudimentary information from the webpage, unless someone beats me to it. LtDonny (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The LordsaWar! article no longer exists, leaving only the redlink in the otherwise vacant "See also" section. I'm deleting it and the section.  If someone has an external link to the publisher's website or if the article reappears, feel free to replace the section and link. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Full games
"An average game with eight real people playing would take nearly twelve hours or more to play, but not many such games have probably been played: individual turns can become over fifteen minutes long, and so the 'downtime' between one player's turns can be over an hour."

WTF? Who's idea was this statement? Sounds like opinion. Most of the games I personally took part in back in the day were completed eight person games. 61.69.1.78 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Expansion or Gold version?
It says in this wikipedia article that this is a stand alone expansion (DIFFERENT campaign/scenarios, same engine). However mobi games claims that it is an improved aka "gold edition" (Same stuff, but more of it, aka, there is no reason to get the old version as everything is contain in the new one.). Clarification on this issue is needed: http://www.mobygames.com/game/warlords-iii-darklords-rising

"Warlords III: Darklords Rising is an improved or "gold" version of the 1997 release Warlords III: Reign of Heroes. It has the same graphics and interface but has more campaigns, scenarios, units, spells and heroes. Darklords Rising also includes all the campaigns and scenarios from Reign of Heroes. Best of all, Darklords Rising has a map/scenario editor. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.43.47 (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Apotheosis"?
Means rising something to divine levels. Then a
 * Thanks to the publication of the editor, Warlords II Deluxe was the apotheosis of the series in terms of user-created content.

Sounds like boasting so hard that the pants falls off. Said: Rursus (☻) 14:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I CANT GET TO THE 3RD LEVEL, IT WONT LET ME PASS THRU WHAT AM I DOING WRONG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.193.252.201 (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Warlords (online game)
People should beware of a squad MMORPG by 91.com - The Warlords. It is NOT relevant to Warlords series - and therefore, must be avoided or forced to rename. :(

Always raging, Yura87 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What about Puzzle Quest?
I read in the article about the game "Puzzle Quest" here on Wikipedia that it is set in the Warlords universe. I don't know anything about the the "Warlord" games and wanted to ask if it should be added to this article as a spin-off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.48.82 (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

For editors who can't google on their own
The main community site about Warlords series (which is the only source of patches for the game series, actually) has a list of spin-off projects right on the main page. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That a community/fan site (not a reliable source) lists something is no reason to list it here. - MrOllie (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did You read this? WP:NNC says You're plain wrong, and the due weight question is being addressed by extending the coverage of the official games of the series, as everybody can see in page history. Furthermore, WP:DUE deals with WP:RS only on POVs, so here it's not applicable. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S.: Per WP:NSOFT this source is reliable. And otherwise is, what's wrong with community sites? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. As I have pointed out to you before, NSOFT can only be read to mean that if you ignore the text 'if significance can be shown.' - MrOllie (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And significance is shown by warlorders.com, which are the most reputable source on the topic. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Self published sources do not show significance. - MrOllie (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did You get the idea that this is SPS? It's a community site, the totally different thing. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please describe how it is not a self published site. Who is the publisher? Who has editorial control? - MrOllie (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As for every other non-blog and non-wiki site in the internet, the editorial control belongs to administrator of the site. Just the same way as the editorial control for the sources You considered reliable here. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense to me. Let's try this a different way: What do you think a self published site is? - MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most blogs and wikis, with several exceptions. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think only blogs and wikis qualify, that explains a lot of things you've said that didn't make sense to me. A self published site is any site in which the authorship and the publishing authority rest in the same person (or small group of people). 'Community sites' in which the administrators and/or users post whatever they like are just as self published as any blog. - MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All mass media matches this definition. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Newspapers, for example, have editors who direct content and fact checkers that ensure it is correct. - MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did You get that idealistic view? Several of my closest friends work in mass media, and I help them on occasions. The mass media fact checking is close to absent. Anyway, You reading of the policy doesn't appear to be based on the policy You read. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I got that view from Identifying reliable sources. Example quotations: 'the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.' 'For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth' 'Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.' and so on. - MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, if self-published sources like blogs, wikis and alike are only largely not acceptable, then [http:\\warlorders.com\ Warlorders] should be considered acceptable, as it is not user-generated. Instead, it is a community site with admin fact-checking. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in any guideline that supports the idea that a 'community site' is a reliable source. I suggest you ask about that at the sourcing noticeboard. - MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That could be needed in case You actually provide a reference to the policy that states that community sites are considered unreliable. As I've shown above, WP:IRS doesn't. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your reading is incorrect, you think mine is. We seem to be at an impasse. I suggest we wait for the third opinion, if you are unwilling to bring this to the noticeboard. Or perhaps I'll bring it to the noticeboard myself in a while, we'll see. - MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Open source clones
This is an article about the games in the Warlords game series. nonnotable clones of those games which are not themselves part of the series do not belong here. Listing them here is undue weight. - MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As is written above, the major resource and the only source of patches, maps and other goodies for Warlords &mdash; [warlorders.com] lists LordsAWar and FreeLords as spin-off projects in the series, so they are notable enough to be included in this article.
 * Furthermore, each game was reviewed several times. They are not included to avoid undue weight.
 * Yet again, as You might note on this talk page, there is a consensus on including this material.
 * Any more objections to inclusion of the material? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I continue to object. They are not games in the Warlords series, they are clones. As such their inclusion here is off topic. Since they are not mentioned in reliable sources at all, per WP:UNDUE they should not be mentioned here at all. - MrOllie (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't belong to the same franchise, but they certanly belong to the series, as all clones do.
 * And even regardless of this they are the clones of the game of the series, so they do belong here until they are notable on their own.
 * Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. By that reasoning we would have links to the dozens of nonnotable tetris clones on the android and itunes markets on the Tetris article. You'll notice that we do not. - MrOllie (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly why we do have them. BTW, why did You remove the game by the current copyright holder? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The tetris variants listed are either official games or have independent reliable sources, unlike this page. As to the other, can you please be more specific? I'm looking at the text I removed and I don't see anything about a 'game by the current copyright holder'. Was that information actually in the article? - MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Many (if not most) of those tetris clones have only links to their primary sources and are yet less notable. In fact, unlike the two remakes covered in the article before Your "corrections", those were even never reviewed in third-party sources! The game by the current copyright holder is Warlords Classic for iPhone, they bought the copyright of the original Warlords game. As it is simply ported, I had to expand this game coverage after severl more important topics would be covered. The information about the copyright deal is not relevant here as this article is about the games, not about the copyright. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All I can reply is that I'm looking at List of Tetris variants and what you have written here does not match what I see at all. - MrOllie (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Frac4D - the reference points to a flash presentation about 12 separate events, no way WP:RS
 * EMACS tetris - a paper by EMACS developper.
 * Quadrapassel - a link to a parent project's wiki.
 * KBlocks - a link to a parent project wiki.
 * Wordtris - wikilink to a page with developer's page and indiscriminate commercial games directory.
 * La Bastille - a link to a 100 words article on CNET news which only mentions the game in one paragraph.
 * tetris 1d - a link to the home sita backed up by no-ip hosted long article mentioning the game in 10 words alongside the other one in one of several dozens of paragraphs.
 * Tetris Grand Master 3 - a link to a blog mentioning the game among several others.
 * Rectangle Tetris - a link to a page about several unrelated pieces of software on the site which has articles on every App in AppStore.
 * NullpoMino - a link to another wikipedia article with no mention of the word "tetris".
 * They are there because they are no-trivial tetris deviations. As were the projects You removed notice of in this article. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Several of those have wiki articles where the sources are located - that is standard on list articles. Let's try a concrete example. here is a link to a tetris clone. Should that be linked on the list of tetris variants? Why or why not? - MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which of those I've listed have its own page with substantial coverage by reliable sources? The one You've linked doesn't, as it is no way substantially different form others on this list. Please note, that this is a list of a genre where there are millions of games and the official games are not still discontinued. I made the coverage for 2 games and briefly mentioned another two for the game which was discontinued 6 years ago and is still widely played. Don't feel the difference? And what about the Warlords Classic game by copyright holder? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

After You didn't reply for a week (including 3 days of Your activity) I thought that the consensus is established. So, please have a look on a game series article done right, and say, why can't we follow the well-established practice? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought we had reached a compromise when you added back the official games and left out the others. Restricting the listing to only notable games as Civilization (series) does is exactly what I would like to see happen here. But that is not what you have been adding to the article. - MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Those games are also notable enough for inclusion in the series article (per [warlorders.com]), though not notable enough for the separate article. So, why did You revert the addition? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I do not accept that listing on warlorders.com is evidence of notability - it is not a reliable source. - MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

3rd Opinion on Open Source Clones
Hello, I am responding to the request for a 3rd opinion on this article. I will be taking some time to research the details of this content dispute before I offer an opinion. Thank you for taking this first step in dispute resolution, and I look forward to discussing the article with both of you. Mishlai (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. This doesn't seem clear cut to me either, but let's see what we can work out. First, I agree with MrOllie that LordsAWar is not wp:notable and therefore would not qualify for it's own article, as was also determined at AFD. It is not clear to me that this means that any mention would then violate wp:undue. It is common for articles to contain information that, by itself, would not be notable enough for an entire article. wp:merge uses the phrasing "minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic." The AFD also explicitly said that there was no problem with a redirect from LordsAWar to this article.

wp:gamecruft does not seem to specifically address mention of clones. Item #11 in wp:gamecruft discusses unofficial translations:

"Unofficial translations: Unless they are mentioned by independent reliable sources, unofficial translations should not be mentioned. If they are mentioned by such sources, they can be mentioned, although one should try to avoid linking to the website's page if at all possible in order to reduce any potential copyright violations"

wp:gamecruft, in the section on inappropriate external links, states that: "Links to modern remakes (homebrew clones) - these are generally included for self-promotion and may infringe on copyrighted works". This is only addressing external linking, however, and not mention in the article. Plainly we cannot link to pages for these clones unless we are certain that there is no copyright vio involved.

In practice, there seem to be game articles with mention of their clones. I took a small sampling of game articles mentioned in List_of_open-source_video_games and similar lists and found this:
 * Super_Mario_Bros does not list any unofficial ports, even though there was a legal case surrounding a clone.
 * Civilization_(series) does not mention clones.
 * Elite_(video_game) lists the notable clone Oolite in the See Also section, but does not mention it in the text.
 * Worms_(series) explicitly mentions a list of notable clones.
 * Quake_III mentions the notable OpenArena
 * Quake_(series) has a whole list, but their nature is not clear to me.
 * Star_Control_II has substantial discussion of Ur-Quan Masters, which is redirect back to the StarControl II article. Presumably this was merged at some point in the past, I'm not sure how to check that.
 * Asteroids_(computer_game) lists notable and non-notable "ports and bootlegs"

So actual practice in game articles seems to be all over the map. My personal take on this would be that the existence of an open-source clone (that is not trivial) of an old game is something that the reader might be interested in, and bears mentioning. There is a real danger of opening up game articles to self-promotion and clutter from insignificant homebrew projects, and that is something that we would not want. Obviously a notable clone does not fall afoul of this. Somewhere between clones that are notable themselves and clones that are not worth mentioning at all are clones that are non-notable but meet some minimum threshold of relevance. I think LordsAWar is in this middle category. LinuxProMagazine lists it as a recommended strategy game. Also, as discussed in the AFD, LordsAWar is part of several major Linux distributions. This doesn't meet the criteria for notability, but it does establish that we're not giving free press to some unworthy homebrew project that is simply trying to use Wikipedia as promotion, but mentioning something that we have reason to believe the reader might want to know.

LordsAWar seems to be non-trivial within the context of the Warlords series, and I would suggest making some brief mention of it. I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong, and may change my mind if pointed to policy or guideline wording that disagrees. I look forward to hearing from you both. Mishlai (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was the author of now deleted LordsAWar! article and of the Remakes section here. My motivation in both cases was the one You've stated above: the game series is effectively abandoned, and the only way to play Warlords on PC without struggle is to install LordsAWar!. After MrOllie's objection based on WP:UNDUE I've rewritten the section (and extended coverage of the original games, though I'm not yet done with that). It can be further shrinked by omitting the development-related details. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding Dmitrij, it looks like we may need to give MrOllie some time to get back with us. Mishlai (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been more than long enough for a response, and I also asked on his talk page. Go ahead and make the edit. Mishlai (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MrOllie is inactive now, so I'll better wait a bit longer. Feel free to unwatch this page; I'll notify You if this dispute starts over again. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Differnces in graphics (Warlords 1)
I Remeber that the verison I played years ago had slightli differnet look that versions' which can be downloaded from abandonware sites. Those differences were in look of the Temples - the y looked like a skull-shaped caves. In versions found on net they look like greek columned buildings. Also instead of ruins there were some kind of caves or huts ( i dont remember very well) to explore. Anybody has any idea about those differences? It duisturbs my mind from quite a long time, I searched in internet but no success. 83.19.74.186 (talk) 18:43, 8 March, 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, can anybody second that? I also heard of version of Warlords II (original, not deluxe) that featured Warlords III-like graphics in the unit info (the one you get right-clicking on the unit in the Production view of city report), though I never came across such version. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Material discouraged by the guidelines for video game subjects
Could you please help identify the discouraged material? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. On first reading there appeared to be a significant amount of general game-content information not tied to sources, but after a more thorough read it all appears to be drawn from reviews and doesn't overburden the article. It's at about the appropriate length to consider splitting it per game, at least for the latter titles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Most part of "Gameplay" section was written by me, and I had hard time defining balance between fancruft/instruction creep and distinguishing the game from the generic TBS of that time. That's why I am genuinely interested in opinion of uninvolved editor.
 * Regarding length: it is difficult to describe the changes in individual games without much duplication and reiteration over the same gameplay concepts. To make matters worse, the separate notability of these games is actually reverse to their version history, with first two games being most notable, and last game nerly completely unnoticed by media. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)