Talk:Age of Empires

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Age of Empires is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article was previously selected for Gaming Collaboration of the week.
CVG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Article Name

Shouldn't the title of this be Age of Empires (computer game)? Or even just Age of Empires? -- Zoe

I see no reason why not... so now it is --Camembert
Thanks.  :-) -- Zoe

[edit] Removed Lists

I removed these lists from the article, since the expansions and sequels should have their own articles. These lists can be incorporated into those articles. —Frecklefoot 18:47, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Four more civilizations were added in RoR:
In AoK, 13 civilizations were available:
Five more civilizations were added in AoC:

[edit] Gates

Are you sure that there are no gates in the original Age of Empires? I own Age of Empires and none of the expansions and yet I recall them. I've also played Age of Mythology so I might be thinking of that. K1Bond007 00:17, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I cannot recall gates in the original. AOEII has them. The original always used a set of walls that leave just a little pathway in between. The best defence was to make the entrance a winding entrance and setup some towers around it. I think you are thinking of AOM--Will2k 00:21, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I've done a search on the AOE help file, and I can't find any references to gates apart from in the history section, which isn't about the game at all. In particular, gates are not mentioned in the list of non-technology buildings, and I can't see a mention in the sections about each type of wall either.Silverfish 00:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay. I must have gotten confused between it and another similar game. K1Bond007 06:18, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
There are no gates in the game (only on AoK). I have the manual right next to me, and also installed the game on other computer to check for any errors. \ wolfenSilva / 00:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] contents list too large

Shouldn't we cut a bit on the sections/subsections, or take out the TOC ?it is too large, and the article still does not any justice to it. Also, some info on units would be welcome, instead of just the name. \ wolfenSilva / 01:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Holy men vs Priests

From Expansions subsection:

In a sop to such sensibilities, holy men can be generated who are in effect employing persuasion technology to convert followers of other traditions to itself.

Are these holymen the same as the "priest" unit mentioned elsewhere in the article. Nomenclature shoudl be consistent if this is so.--ZayZayEM 02:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IIRC, in both game and expansion there are only three priests (other than heroes) : The regular priest, a lame priest (who can't move) and in RoR a cheat unit called st. francis, who does not act like any priest, but attacks with thunderbolts from the sky. Now that you mention it, tomorrow I'll add a section about cheat units, some of them were quite funny. \ wolfenSilva / 05:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Empires for the Mac OS

This article seems to be POV towards the PC - as in the fact that there is no mention that a Mac version exists. For the record, the AoE expansion, I believe, did not come out for the Mac, but for AoK, you can't get it without the expansion.

[edit] Ages

Ages seem to be appropriate here, considering the title of the game! Brianjd 08:49, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

I missed it:

A major research goal is progress between the ages, from stone age to tool age, for example. This allows new units and building to be built, as well as opening up new technologies to develop. To advance from one age to the next two building are needed from the current age, and some resources are needed. The research takes place at a Town Center.

This doesn't make much sense! I will improve it. Brianjd 08:51, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)


[edit] unnecessary details

I think the article has fare too manz unnecessary details, all the units for example. 80.200.235.78

The problem is giving each unit a different header, where most of them are upgrades over older units. I'm going to change that now. \ wolfenSilva / 04:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] possible merge

maybe the sequels should be combined with this article to create one big one.

  • No, all other articles are too well developed to be merged. It might be a good time to create a Age of Empires series overview article, 'to wS 23:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansions

Do we really need the information about "militarism" and "persuasion technology" in the Expansions section? The information is inaccurate (e.g. priests were actually in the game before the expansion pack), and was explicitly first posted as an effort to put anti-Microsoft material into the article. With the Rise of Rome article already linked in the heading, I think this section should be as small as possible. I'd edit it myself if it didn't have such a long pedigree on such a frequently-edited page. Article6 15:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I've made a revision of the article, and rewrote the expansion part. I don't see it as anto-MS material, but a remark with little interest - I'd be more concerned about the lack of proper attacking formations. wS;✉ 18:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheat Units

I deleted a whole block - related discussion is common with Talk:Age_of_Mythology. Greenleaf 06:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference from mentioning map/resource cheats ("Pepperoni Pizza" or "no fog", which is of no interest unless the result is strange enough to be notable) and units created or modified by cheats. If they aren't worth mentioning, go ahead and delete all unit information - they can also be checked on any FAQ. wS;✉ 09:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
If you read the list I deleted, you would have noticed that almost half of it is of "no interest" nature. Anyway, I'm afraid I cannot still agree with your argument, because normal units are regularly used in game play, while cheat units are not. Not that I'm much fond of keeping detailed information of individual units - it would have been sufficient to describe what type of units the game has, and what types of resources/technologies were supposed to be acquired for game advance. Cheat uniits can be fun for the people who have played the game and want to explore at a time they are bored, but "an outsider" who wants to know about the game would not care much about what type of cheats are available, unless they stand out in some way in computer games in general. True, cheat units are different from game-variable tweaking cheats, but does that fact alone make them significant?
If you really feel like that cheat units must be mentioned, I guess just listing and describing those units who are really interesting to a non-AoM player would be ok. My argument here is, an AoM player won't most probably consult Wikipedia to see what kind of cheats are out there. So, listing cheat codes won't be of much use either. We can put a link to the most complete cheat site instead, in case anyone want's to know. Greenleaf 09:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Half, not all. Still, you are missing the point: the cheat units in AoE are quite a novelty of the game - with the exception of super beefed-up regular units, no other RTS I know about has units that use different sprites and are completely anachronic with the setting of the game - a corvette with a rocket launcher and a trooper with a laser in this case. This is the ground for notability in this case. wS;✉ 02:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoever took the cheats off the wikipedia article "Age of Empires" can you please put them back on? The reason why is this: I have a friend who asked me to give him the name of a website where he could find cheats for Age of Empires. I gave him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_ of_Empires and told him that it was the best website I could think of, but when he went on to it on his computer the cheats weren't there and the next day he got really mad at me. Please put the cheats back on!

Please read the foregoing discussion (and sign your comments, dammit!). You will see that this issue is currently in contention. There are other sites with cheat information for the game. Try any search engine.
I agree with Greenleaf on this issue, but WolfenSilva makes an interesting point. Perhaps a subsection discussing the cheats would sufficiently cover the issue without requiring an exhaustive list of all known cheats. I agree that there are external sites in droves that already carry this information. Canonblack 23:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoever put the "Trade Workshop" in the article could you please say how to build it because it isn't in the scenario editor, and if it's a download or something please put up the name of the site the download's on!

Whoever took the cheats out put them back in already! I'm really starting to lose my patience! Did I also mention that it has been two months since wrote:

Whoever took the cheats off the wikipedia article "Age of Empires" can you please put them back on? The reason why is this: I have a friend who asked me to give him the name of a website where he could find cheats for Age of Empires. I gave him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires and told him that it was the best website I could think of, but when he went on to it on his computer the cheats weren't there and the next day he got really mad at me. Please put the cheats back on!

You heard me! Two months! Put the cheats back in now!

The cheat units are remarkable enough to be mentioned- put them back in!!!!

[edit] Good article nomination

I am not going to evaluate this article, but I would suggest more improvement before it is promoted. - Eagletalk 23:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to evaluate this article either (having already put down Age of Mythology), but here's a Peer Review for your pleasure:
  • Absolutely no references. Usually this is enough to fail a GAC outright.
  • WP:LEAD: In a bizarre twist of fate it has too much blue text (links). You do not need to link to every game in the series. You have templates and series articles and sections in the main article for that.
  • Starting the main article off with a list is bad form, imo. It's better than the AoM article as list to prose ratio goes, but it's still too much. Move it somewhere out of the way, prosify it, or get rid of it altogether.
  • The first real paragraph talks about how the Shang are overpowered. That's definitely not an "overview", that a detail. Move it elsewhere and cite sources for it, please.
  • Fold the "technology" section into the overview; both are short sections and tech is a huge part of RTS gameplay.
  • Units - Ugh. I despise unit lists. My ideal is entirely prose: A paragraph or two on basic units (infantry, archers, cavalry, priests, villagers), a paragraph on seige machines, and a paragraph on ships. I wouldn't bother listing every variation on each type; just say there are different types and leave it at that.
  • Buildings: Again, prosify and generalize. You don't need to list small walls, big walls, and fortifications (as an example).
  • Scenario Builder: Ugh again. I basically don't like this entire section. Too many weasel words, too much fancruft, and too much OR: "Restrictions can also be good for creativity"? WTF?
  • What's missing: The real-world importance of the game. Sales, reviews, public reaction. Find interviews with the developers and see if they say anything worth putting in. What made this game so popular that Ensemble Studios decided to make an expansion and sequels?

Hope that helps a bit. Nifboy 04:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Having nominated an article myself (Brøndby IF) I was a little surprised to see AoE on there, but I've tried to improve it a little, incidently that's taken care of some of the bad points listed above, I think:
Improvements: 3), 4) & 5) - I've rearranged the Overview section, dragging the general gameplay info on top, and made a "Civilization" subsection, while moving "Technology" up as a subsection too. As for the rest - I've formatted the lists cosmetically, but I agree prose is better, and I prefer lists in seperate articles.
What's missing: I find the expansion really underrepresented, and the Sequels and See also sections are kinda superfluous. Also, the AoE games template could need some work too. Apart from the sections Nifboy missed, a section on historical accuracy (might be difficult) would be a great thing to have as well. Poulsen 11:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I want to thank Nifboy especially for giving a peer review of how to improve this article. I'll admit, I was rather overzealous when I nominated this article for being a Good Article. However, I've been working to make this article better so that it's worthy of that title. The changes I've made so far are:
  • Removed the "Sequels" section and any references to the other games, since it is in the template and, as Nifboy pointed out, is redundant.
  • Condensed the units section into a few paragraphs.
  • Condensed the buildings section into a few paragraphs.
I hope that what I've done so far has brought it closer to being a Good Article. Thunderforge 22:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This article gets a thumbs-up from me now. There are still technical issues (size of the lead, lack of sources, minor spelling errors, etc) but the core is GA quality. Nifboy 00:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been using the article for StarCraft as a model since it became a featured article. I noticed that it didn't have any section in the article about the expansion (since it has its own page), so I did likewise on this page. I renamed the "Scenario Builder" section to "Custom Scenarios" and cleaned it up. I also ran the page through a spell checker and fixed everything there. It seems like the only section missing is a section on the real-world importance and how it turned out. References are pretty sparse on the StarCraft page. One of them is the manual and the other two seem to be articles from a magazine. My point is that if a featured article about a similar game has hardly any references, should this game be trashed for that reason? Also, I'd love to include the manual for Age of Empires (and it should be included, in my opinion), but I can't find an author and therefore don't know how to cite it. Any help?Thunderforge 21:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
But Starcraft also has eight "notes" in addition to those three references: According to WP:CITE notes are basically references that aren't full citations, although this is the first time I've seen both on the same article. Super Mario 64 got in with two references, but when it went on FARC the number went up to eleven. Nifboy 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

poorly written (eg "followingly"), not comprehensive enough, what makes this one notable and different from all other games of its type? not enough about development history, microsoft involvement etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs).

Thanks for your feedback. I've got to say, the article has been greatly improved over the last few days and although the article isn't Good Article material yet, it's certainly a lot closer. Let's keep working on this article so that it can one day achieve that status. Thunderforge 00:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

I see the article has been edited a bit recently. It's good to see it's moving towards being a 'good article', and the unit lists were a bit much, but I'm concerned that some of the editors seem to know a lot more about 'good article writing' then the game itself. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to receive constructive criticism and see the article tidied up a bit, but in the 'Custom Scenario' section there were some comments that make it clear that the author simple doesn't have any idea what he or she is talking about. If they don’t know the game, how can they make comments or edit out what they think is or isn’t important?

With regards to the review of the section ‘Custom Scenarios’, ‘’"Restrictions can also be good for creativity"? WTF?"’’ - This is a rather amateurish comment to make and shows little understanding of creativity. Jack White recently said that the simple combination of guitar and drums helps a lot with being creative. If you have no restrictions, you have nowhere to start, and it becomes to complex. That’s what has happened with scenario editors, and the results are less designers, fewer good campaigns, many ‘noobish’ campaigns by authors who can’t understand the complexity of the editor, and ultimately a general decline in designing as a whole. I’m not going to put the comment back in though, as it would surely be too “ORish”, even if accurate. Richard001 08:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add a picture from a custom scenario

Words can't really explain the beauty of some of the best map design we have in custom AoE scenarios. I'd love to upload a picture, though I don't understand all the copyright stuff involved - technically it's both the intellectual property of the design and ES/MS, and if I upload one it will probably be deleted. I think it's very important that we have one in the custom scenarios sections though, so people can see just what is possible. Richard001 08:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the matter, but since it is a screenshot of the game itself, I'd say it's okay since the other screenshots in this article are fine. First, you should make sure that you have the permission of the scenario author. If that's yourself, then I'd say go for it. Otherwise, ask them first before posting it. If anybody else knows more about this than me, please weigh in. Thunderforge 20:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've uploaded the picture now. The problem last time was that I tried to upload it to commons, which doesn't accept fair use images. The help page for images proved very useful, and covered everything I needed to know. Richard001 07:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I've moved external link related topics into this common area. Regarding cheats, I think we can agree that there shouldn't be an external link to cheats for the game - these can be found easily on google, and the fansite listed has them as well. I'm sure if anyone wants cheats they can be resourceful enough to find them by themselves, besides, I see no point to encourage cheating. Richard001 00:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding RoF Expansion

The section on the campaign/expansion ‘Rise of Fiji’ has been taken out (not by me, but presumably a fellow AoEHer). This hardly belongs in the ‘expansions’ section, as it is far from a true expansion of the game. The external link has been left, but this doesn’t warrant a mention in article; the campaign scored poorly, and though the mod had some creative features, it only modified the game in a superficial way, without really changing the appearance of units or anything like that. If this deserves a mention in the article, then to be fair, so do many other campaigns, utilities etc. I would like to make some showcases of the best campaigns, like Martial Emperor, Memories of the Gupta Dynasty, Budonian Tales etc, but given the obscurity of the scenario design area, it would hardly Richard001warrant the space it would take up.

[edit] Age of Empires Heaven?

Recently, the user "Aaron Brenneman" deleted all of the links to Age of Empires Heaven. I'm not exactly sure if that is the right action or not. For example, the StarCraft article has four community sites listed as external links. Since modding communities are important pieces of games such as these, should links to them really be deleted? Thunderforge 14:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Heavengames in a disgusting morass of idiocy and ignorance. That being said, there's nothing wrong with linking to fansites for major products, and, HG being as big as it is, I think linking to it is definitely acceptable. Stilgar135 01:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the insulting generalization... Anyway, the edit that removed it cited Wikipedia:External links. However, I find nothing there that supports this removal.

Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such.

Age of Empires Heaven isn't a fansite for the game, it's the fansite for the game, period. The link has been added back, if you want to remove it please discuss changes here first.

The user also removed the link to the MobyGames article, which has some insightful reviews, both positive and negative. Both of these links are very appropriate and useful to the reader, so I have added them both back. Richard001 00:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki

Some fans of the game have been working on a wiki for AoE, as well as AoK and SWGB - it's called GenieWiki. I'd like to hear if people think it should be added as an external link, or if not, what would be required before it could be added. I've done a bit of work on the project myself, and it is the only real wiki out there for any of the games, but I don't want to just add it without any consoltation - if it is deemed worthy of a link someone else can add it, if not I'll continue working with it and try to gain the respect needed for it to be placed in the article. Please consider that the games only have a small community though, so making a comprehensive wiki isn't easy, and any support we can get is very helpful. Richard001 21:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

The See also section has been removed because AoK and AoEIII are already linked in the article and at the template on the bottom, so we don't really need this section at all. Please keep this in mind for future edits. Richard001 23:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

How do I add a new game to the template "Age of Empires Series"? | AndonicO 10:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Once you're on the template page, just click "edit this page" as normal. Go to the main page and hid the section edit link. You see the {{AOE}} where the template is being transcluded. I'm lazy so I just put {{tl|AOE}} in and hit preview. Now instead of the transclusion, I've got {{AOE}}. Click on that and you're at the template page. - brenneman {L} 11:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links (October)

Moved from User talk:Aaron Brenneman#Age of Empires external links

I see the external links have been cut down again - please refer to the discussion on the talk page Talk:Age of Empires, before making further edits to this section. We've decided that AoEH link is fine, and I believe Moby games is useful too. I haven't reverted your changes at this stage, rather I'd like you to discuss why you think they should be removed. I feel they're both valuable links, one being the major fansite, the only really active one left, with a current MP ladder and massive scenario design archive and forums, and Moby games being a well known site with some links to useful and varied reviews on the subject. Thanks, Richard001 23:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, fanlistings are not appropriate. I've just removed one today, and made a note in the section to warn future editors that fanlistings and fansites will probably be removed. Please don't confuse a fanlisting with a fansite though, they are very different things, and the policy reflects this if you carefully read it. As per the consensus above, and Wikipedia policy, I'm going to add Age of Empires Heaven back again. Please discuss with us if you intend to remove it again.
Thanks for the input, Richard001 07:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Goodness. That's a fantastically condescending and hairsplitting post you've just made. If I may be so bold as to suggest that the differentiation between "a fansite or fan site, is a website created and maintained by a fan(s)" and "A fanlisting is a website created by a fan of a particular subject" is important mostly when trying to avoid the spirit of the guideline. I'd also ask, with eyebrows raised, whom "us" consists of in "discuss with us?" I'd finally suggest that the "consensus" you're claiming consists of a very few posts involving very few people, spaced over a few months. You do notice that there are only two names in this thread?
brenneman {L} 11:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The difference is very big - a fanlisting is a site where a bunch of people say that they like something - it's basically a contentless list. The article I've linked to explains this clearly. A fansite can have a lot of useful information and content such as forums, downloads etc. There was several approvals of the site (at least 3 people agreed above) and you're the only person trying to trim the links down to two sites, neither of which have a great deal of content. AoEH is the last major active fansite for AoE and serves as a place for the community of the game to get together and enjoy it. I really can't understand why you're so intent on removing the link, it's there for the good of the article and fans of the game. As quoted, the words (not the spirit) of the policy clearly say that one major fansite (as is the case here) is perfectly fine.
Hopefully my attempts to explain the issue have resolved any dispute. I don't see why there should be any further disagreement between us as it seems to me an extremely straight foward issue. If you're still intent on removing the link I ask that you find some other editors to support your case, or cite some policy explicitly stating that it should not be there. Richard001 04:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/g/e/Talk%7EAge_of_Empires_9532.html"