Talk:Tower defense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was delete.

Contents

[edit] DTD first in genre

Interesting redirect, is Desktop Tower Defence the first game of the genre? If not, I think this needs to be a short article about the genre as a whole. LukeSurl t c 13:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It was redirected because this was a deleted article that was continually being created with no reliable sources. The redirect itself should be deleted if people don't want it point there, but it was as good as place as any.--Crossmr (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this talk page gets wiped when the article gets deleted, but the gist of it was that no one could find any sources that met Wikipedia's standards. --Pdeq (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've added a note above about the old afd. It survives the deletion.--Crossmr (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I cleaned up the article so that it now properly describes the genre. The only issue now is that links are now being added which are possibly spam. My inclination is to remove these unless there is a source establishing notability and safety. Please comment. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • They're spam and invitation for edit-warring over who's game gets to spam up the article the most, blech. There are at the very least three notable TD games, Desktop Tower Defense, Garden Defense and Monster Mash; though I expect there are several others who qualify. They're getting more attention, reliable sources are at the very least covering individual games, so it should be possible to at least hammer out a functional stub for the time being. Someoneanother 08:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't delete! I promise I'll help look after it. TD is an important Genre, not something to be deleted. I am the RockReader... I will answer all of your problems. 15:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SPAM concerns

This statement in the header strikes me as worrisome:

There are many tower defense games like Onslaught, Flash Element and Vector TD but probably most famous is Tower Defence By Roman Saine.

If the game isn't notable to be in wikipedia, then it's probably spam to start listing it in this article. I'm going to wait to see other people put in their thoughts. But if I don't hear anything, this stuff is getting cut. Randomran (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, it's obvious spamming. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do I get so excited about removing bad edits? Watch how fast I go. Randomran (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps spam could be cut down by linking to a site that lists tower defense games rather than to individual ones? I found this one: http://www.towerdefence.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.25.46 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best way to avoid spam would be to avoid posting any external links at all. But if there are any notable tower defense games out there, I'd encourage people to try to make some new wikipedia articles for individual games. That would help people get their research fix if they wanted to learn more about specific tower defence games. Right now, the only article that appears to meet that standard is Desktop Tower Defense. Although even that article seems to be in some trouble. Randomran (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
How about Immortal Defense? It got independent strategy game of the year, and has been reviewed in many print game magazines and online game review sites. I'm not sure it's that notable because it's just an independent game (like Darwinia), but as independent games go it's fairly notable. 67.84.25.46 (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, welcome to wikipedia. Wikipedia actually has pretty clear standards on this if you check out the general notability guideline. Independent games can be notable. The key is if it's covered by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That means more than just the developer's website, or press releases that get spread around the net. If you have two reviews in a reputable source like gamespy, IGN, or some print magazine, that would be enough. You'd want to find those sources, though, so you can do a proper citation. Randomran (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dont say "First made popular by WC3"

A few hundred people were in Age of Empires II Tower Defense games at any moment on zone.com back in the days before WC3. I don't want to amke a big argument, just cite whatever you add on the subject or its going to get removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.63.178 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a citation for WC3 but we don't have one for Age of Empires II. Your confused point seems to be that we should remove your unsourced addition but I'm inclined to let it stand for now to see how this might be improved. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] strategy game?

Of course TDs derivated from big realtime strategy titles like Starcraft and WC3, but although they definitely involve much stratetic gameplay and often also teamwork, but I always classyfied them as puzzle games, especially in their flash and mobile form... 78.50.6.57 (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Desktop tower defense games that qualify as notable

I know a lot of people want to spam their favorite desktop tower defense game. That's not allowed. What is allowed, however, is adding a tower defense game that has become the topic of reliable journalists. For example, this gamasutra article mentions a game called "Protector"[1] ... if someone wanted to add this with a proper reference, I would support it. I might do it myself when I find some time. Randomran (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Pixeljunk Monsters, the PS3 game. It was popular enough for an expansion to get released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.249.149 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I have no idea. Notability on wikipedia isn't determined by a popularity contest, but based on anything that gets covered by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GNG. If the only coverage of the game is from the game's website, instruction manuals, and some blogs and forums, then it's not notable. If it's covered by even 2 game news sites, then it IS notable. Randomran (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the Tower Defense

First, let me introduce myself - I am the first person who has ported a TD on a computer, through the Starcraft editor. I am not notable, and do not want my name included (it would look like pure vanity/egocentrism anyway), what matters is that I can accurately tell you the early history of Tower Defenses (that is, if you believe me, as I have no reliable sources or proofs).

It all started in 1992, with a Gameboy game called Rampart, to which I was quite addicted. Years passed, and, with the help of two other friends, we did the first PC port of it by adapting it as Turret Defense on Starcraft in precisely november 1999. To be honest, this was really a crappy map, and I left it as is.

One of the two other people who made it with me thought this had a future, and continued working on the map, alone. Around 2000/2001, Battle.net became flooded with tower defenses (it was notable WAY before Warcraft III and AoE II btw, you need to fix that).

I am sorry that I cannot have any reliable sources (though I still have the unprotected version of the original starcraft scenario which was the very first tower defense), but at least I hope my comment will help you look back at Rampart as the origin of it all and have a better idea of when to date the beginning of the TD web-epidemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.118.63 (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your account makes good sense to me - thanks for the input. We have good evidence for Rampart and, as this is a recognisable ancestor of the genre, I have updated the article accordingly. It may be that Rampart has progenitors - I recognise some affinity with Space Invaders. As we accumulate evidence, we shall improve the article accordingly - this is the Wiki way. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad that my input, even unsourced, could be of some slight use :) --81.64.118.63 (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. Makes sense. It's kind of a shame that no reliable sources can confirm it. But I figure it's good to put this info in there until we have anything that seriously contradicts it. (Or, hopefully, confirms it.) Randomran (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
We have reliable sources for the existence of Rampart, its dates and its other details. We could use some verification of the linkage between that and later games/mods but that's not a big claim. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? I checked the references here really quick and couldn't find a mention of Rampart. Randomran (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the separate article on Rampart. But I've added a ref here to nail it. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Thanks. Randomran (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
We really, really need a better source for the claim that the genre descends from Rampart than an anonymous Wikipedia comment. As-is it looks like total speculation in the article itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could have provided some sources to back me up, but sadly there are none other than my own anonymous word, which I realize has no credibility/reliability whatsoever, sorry (but then, anyone can write whatever they want on their website, there are topics such as this that can not be completely reliable regardless of whether it's sourced or not) --81.64.118.63 (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Random websites wouldn't be reliable research anyway. Randomran (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)