Talk:Worms (1995 video game)

Importance
Why is this classic game a low priority inclusion? --172.206.232.17 22:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Mika1h 17:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Previous similar works
Perhaps refrence to gorilla.bas, scorched earth, and whatever some other games that laid the framework for this game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.119.213.227 (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Platform List
I'm not 100% sure about the other platforms listed, but I know for a fact that the original Worms this article is based upon has not been ported to the XBox 360. The one on the 360 is based off of the Worms 2 series.


 * I notice that the PlayStation is also mentioned, which I'm fairly certain never featured this game... again, not certain enough to remove it, but the XBox 360 needs to be removed. - Louis 167.1.143.100 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * EDIT: Went ahead and removed the 360 tag from the table, and did some search for the Playstation version(s)... so far found Worms: Armageddon was out for the PS1, and I believe World Party may have been available as well. I'll leave it for the time being, but pretty sure the original Worms was not ported to the PS1. Have some reservations about the other systems listed, but again I'll leave that in someone else's hands ☺ - Louis 167.1.143.100 01:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Worms, the original, was definitely available on the PSX - I've played it. Cover scan here: http://www.freecovers.net/view/0/ed94174a2361878639918a1a4b69d0f3/front.html --Cooper-42 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Worms definitely came out for the PSone. I have it, and I've played it recently. Additionally, it's listed as such on both Dream17's entry for Worms and on Team17 Software's website. Hullubulloo (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Listing weapons
Should the list of weapons stay in the article? Articles aren't supposed to be lists of things within the game, or like a strategy guide.Nitre (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Article update
Extended the article a fair bit. could use some editing by anyone with layout/formating ability? --Cooper-42 (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Worms: The Directors Cut
The section for WormsDC should ideally be expanded out and separated into its own article. WormsDC added a lot of new features and weapons to the game, most of which resonated throughout the series. If Worms World Party gets its own article, when it's essentially just Worms Armageddon with a few minor additions, then surely WormsDC is deserving of its own article too. Hullubulloo (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It originally had its own page, which I merged because it only had two lines (and I was under the impression it was an add-on). If there's anyone out there who could write a bit for an article/stub (maybe the differences between the worms and wormsdc engines, graphics, gameplay?) It'd be a good idea to give it its own article. --Cooper-42 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, voilà--Cooper-42 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Worms as a Strategy game
I removed the strategy genre mainly because the reference was not useful in defining why it was a strategy game. The sentence "All in all, though, Worms is an inexpensive game that offers an exciting strategy competition, a lot of laughs, and fantastic replay value" from the gamespot review simply uses strategy as a term used to describe the planning involved throughout the game (a.k.a. action taken as defined by multiple changing aspects). This is not representative of the strategy genre - considering that with the same definition you could give ANY game the genre strategy (solitaire has probability strategy involved for success - does it fit the bill?).

Anyways, worms is just a more complicated artillery game. --Notmyhandle (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Worms scrapyardscreenshot.png
Image:Worms scrapyardscreenshot.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) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Release date
Was it released in 1994 or 1995? WP articles contradict each other. 2fort5r (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IGN.com writes about February 2, 1994 release date - Worms - Amiga, Sir Lothar (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, if it's release date is 1994, then why there is 1995 in all articles?
 * So, that should be changed :D Sir Lothar (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GameSpot lists Amiga version as a 1995 game, Amiga databases Lemon Amiga and HOL Amiga both list it as a 1995 game , . At the Amiga Magazine Rack , you can see that several Amiga magazines reviewed Worms at the end of 1995 or beginning of 1996, suggesting that the game was released in 1995. MobyGames also lists the game as 1995. I would change it back to 1995 if the only site to list it as 1994 is IGN. --Mika1h (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, although the official site lists it at 1994, the original Amiga diskette has a copyright of 1995 --Mika1h (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the official site tells us: Worms (1994), then there should be such date in article. And the official site is usually a primary source :). Sir Lothar (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The game was released in the Christmas period in 1995. The 1994 date comes from Team17's website which has erroneously listed the game as coming out in 1994 for several years. The first previews of the game didn't appear in gaming magazines until early 1995, and the final reviews appeared around the Christmas period. Here's a review in Amiga Format, and another in The One. --Squirminator2k (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The 1994 release is indeed entirely incorrect, as the above said. I've edited the article to reflect this, but I can't change the title. -@KieranD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.124.186 (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Worms (1995 video game) redirects here. Would it not be possible to simply copy-paste the article there, and then edit this one into a redirect? --204.128.192.4 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Page moved. --Bill (talk 21:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Source

 * https://web.archive.org/web/19970419214440/http://www.next-generation.com:80/news/030896d.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/19970419213753/http://www.next-generation.com:80/news/032796e.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/19970419210746/http://www.next-generation.com:80/news/052896b.html
 * https://archive.org/details/pclife005/page/n115

5 million units
In response a failed-verification tag that suggested Retro Gamer's sales figures for Worms (published in its March 2006 issue) were being misquoted:
 * "By 1995 Worms' five-year gestation was over and it was ready for public consumption. Though the original Total Wormage had become a cult hit in Bournemouth, nobody predicted just how popular the final game wuld be. Worms received rave reviews, was converted to ten other platforms (including an aborted Virtual Boy port) and accumulated sales in excess of five million units." link to the issue

The source is very clearly talking about the original Worms, rather than the Worms series. Sequels aren't mentioned here at all—only ports. As for the tag's complaint that the source doesn't mention 2006: the figures were published in 2006, therefore they happened by 2006. It's important to date claims like these because sales numbers are subject to change. (For example, it's likely that the original Worms has sold even more than 5 million units by now.) JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)