Talk:Warhammer: Mark of Chaos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Warhammer: Mark of Chaos article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	SG Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Strategy games To-do: edit  Create: Close Combat: The Russian Front • Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge • Close Combat: Invasion Normandy • List of units and buildings in StarCraft Expand: HeroQuest (board game) • Boku (game) • Qubic • Death Stacks • Entropy (board game) • Fitchneal • Five Field Kono Copyedit: Crossings (game) • Gonnect • Quoridor • Company of Heroes • Dark Reign • Myth (computer game) Cleanup: Abalone (board game) • Age of Mythology • Battle Realms • Outlive • Stronghold (2001 game) • Fleet Command • Combat Mission (computer game series) Cite Sources: Colonization (computer game) • MacHack (chess) Update: List of strategy video games More...

Contents 1 Still under development 2 Images in gallery 3 Items removed pending official confirmation 4 unnecessary? 5 requirements 6 reception 7 Crew listing 8 Controversy 9 Screenshots 10 Story

[edit] Still under development

Mark of Chaos is still under development. We should be careful to only include conformed data here, keep the article to what we know and avoid all speculation and including rumours. Mikademus 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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"[1]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Story

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