Talk:Worms (series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Worms (series) article.
Article policies
Peer review Worms (series) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Worms (series) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 7, 2006

Contents

[edit] Author of music website

http://www.lynnemusic.com/ This is the website of the author of the wormsongs. He has posted downloads that include worms based mp3 files of his creation. !paradigm! 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)!paradigm!

[edit] Microsoft Worms

Could someone please add info of Microsoft Worms, the "centepede" like game from the Windows Entertainment Packs. --TEG24601

---Why would anybody do that? It has absolutely nothing to do with Team17's "Worms" Series 66.82.9.42 00:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controls

Do we really need a controls section? IMHO, this goes way off an encyclopedia's scope. --Kamek 19:33, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

I also think listing the controls is over the top. I've moved the section here for now. — Matt 14:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Controls

The controls for Worms Armageddon are as follows:

Arrow Keys 
Move your worm around;
Aim current weapon up and down
Space bar 
Fire currently selected weapon or utility;
Activate Skip Go, Surrender, or Worm Select
Tab 
Select a different worm for use (not enabled in all game schemes)
Backspace 
Jump straight up a short distance
Double Backspace 
Backflip a good distance up, and a little bit backwards
Enter 
Jump forwards;
Send a chat message (only if chat window open)
Fire currently selected weapon or utility if you are using the rope
Double Enter
Jump backwards
Backspace, followed quickly by Enter 
Short backflip
Page Down 
Activate or deactive the in-game chat window
Shift+Del 
Keep up the score screen, useful to avoid abl or leader cowing in several game schemes (see Wormnet Acronyms for definition of these terms)

[edit] KTC

The shopper section mentions KTC but doesn't explain what the acronym stands for, or what it is. Could someone who knows please fix this? KeithD (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Done.  Run! 

KTC stands for "Kill The Cow".

A 'cow' is NOT to be confused with "Mad Cows" - a weapon in the game [Not know if this weapon is in all versions of worms or just Worms Armageddon].

In fact, a 'cow' is a player that does not abide by the rules (as stated in the article, the rules are not enforced by the game - but instead agreed upon by the players). The rules are actually standardised by popularity, for each scheme within the game, the rules have altered over time.

The most common usage of the term 'cow' applies to attacking another player(s) when the rules of the scheme forbid it.

If this happens, KTC is enforced. KTC means, simply, that all players in the game must attack the 'cow'. The host of the game is usually the person that must enforce the rule, and will declare "KTC" if he believes it was not an accidental attack. --NeF 18:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good but vague

this article is good but it dosn't really cover the indervidgual games very well and it doesn't say much about cheats or game boy

  • Wikipedia is not a gamingwebsite, it doesn't need cheats in articles. -- SoothingR(pour) 15:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If this article aims to have everything about Worms, then why shouldn't there be any cheats (I don't use them, but still...)? Keaze 20:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • People will look at this article to find out about the game itself. It's our job to inform readers about the subject, not to tell them how to play the game. Cheats are irrelevant, and simply take up space and get in the way of people who just want to know what 'Worms' was, which is what this site is meant for, and what any encyclopedia is for. -- Haridan 16:02, 11 July 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Split the article

I feel that this article should be splitted so that every game in the series gets its own article. I think all of the games are notable enough to deserve an own article. -- SoothingR(pour) 15:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a major need for a split at present, but if we did, perhaps a better scheme would be to split up the article into an article on each "generation" of games; one on the classic pixely 2D games, one on the cartoony 2D games, and one on the recent 3D games? — Matt Crypto 15:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I assume the weapons and schemes articles will continue to cover all games, and be linked from each separate generation article? It seems a bit much to also split those articles into their separate games. see below for change of mind -  Run!  19:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. I can see the logic behind that..so basically, what about this:

  • Worms (first generation)
  • Worms (second generation)
  • Worms (third generation)
  • Weapons from Worms (nvm article does already exist) ?

-- SoothingR(pour) 09:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Question: will there be a main article on the Worms series in general? In an encyclopedia, there should be, but I'm beginning to think this will end up with far too many articles for just one game.  Run! 

I disagree...Ever seen how many articles The Legend of Zelda has? Way more than I propose to make for the Worms-series. -- SoothingR(pour) 13:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. So the title of this page needs to be Worms (computer game series) with a general overview of the series (i.e. first four chapters*) and what makes it different, and the sub-topic* pages being:
*Worms (first generation) (computer game)
*Worms (second generation) (computer game)
*Worms (third generation) (computer game)
And, in my opinion, since the weapons act quite differently between generations it might be a good idea to trash the Worms weapons and tools and Worms schemes pages and have their content gleaned and merged into the separate articles. So there would be four pages to cover the series and all content in any sub-topic* page relevant to one particular generation. What do we think?
*excuse my awful lingo, I don't know what the wikipedia terms are.  Run!  19:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would swap the 'computer game' and 'generation'.. since 'Worms (first generation)' is not a computer game. Plain 'Worms' on the other hand, is.

  • Worms (computer game) (first generation)
  • Worms (computer game) (second generation)
  • Worms (computer game) (third generation)

The weapons are not THAT different, the second generation introduces some secret weapons, and the third generation doesn't really add a lot of new weapons..they can stay in one article I'd say. -- SoothingR(pour) 08:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Good points. Sounds good to me, then. I don't know how articles go get split so I'll sit and watch.  Run!  16:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
IMHO a split like this is a bad idea. Basically, no one would ever think of looking for Worms (computer game) (second generation) - it's an abstract concept that has no real meaning in the real world. Secondly - they're all basically the same game. If it must be split, give each game its own page - like Doom 1, Doom 2 etc. Any other grouping is just artificial.
In any case the '(third generation)' etc is wrong, as the () brackets are supposed to be for disambiguation, not for hierarchies. You would really want 'Worms first generation (computer game)' etc. --Stevage 21:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What about: Worms (Computer Game) For the Original Worms 2 Worms Armageddon Like all the games split into seperate articles? Not just the generations. DINOMAN 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split proposal No. 2

My advise is that the article should be split, not into different generations, but by each individual game. We can still have a main article for Worms which can perhaps be called Worms series (similar to articles such as Mario Party series or The Legend of Zelda series)--☆TBC☆ 09:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The trouble with that is that there's virtually nothing to say about each individual game. There's no storyline, no characters, and the gameplay is the same for pretty much all of the games. You say that each game should have its own article. What would you say in the Worms World Party article then? "Oh, it's basically just Worms Armageddon with three more options" ;) I don't think turning one well-structured article into a plethora of stubs is appropriate.  -- Run!  10:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Why can't we both have an article for each game and a main article for Worms? Thats the method they use for Mario, Legend of Zelda, and Rayman, so why not Worms? By the way, I'll also have to disagree with your statement about there being "virtually nothing to say about each individual game", as we could also include information about critical reaction, development history, etc.--☆TBC☆ 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
In answer to those questions: Because Worms isn't as big a game as the Legend of Zelda or Mario. Just look at their respective categories; they're enormous. Putting their content into a single page would be insane. But with Worms, which doesn't have or need a category, the content fits quite nicely into one article that reads perfectly fine as it is. Notice that the wikisoftware isn't complaining about this article being too long - that's because it isn't. Why not put the critical reaction and development history in this article instead? (as is already the case)  -- Run!  13:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Understood, but what about franchises like Tenchu or Ace Combat? They aren't relatively well known and most of the articles on each of the individual games are short. By the way, I'm moving this discussion to the CVG talk page to get some more community consensus. --☆TBC☆ 15:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Worms Armageddon, Worms 2, Worms World Party etc. should have their own pages. --AAA! (AAAA • AAAAAAAA) 02:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll agree with the split proposal. I came here looking for specific information and details regarding Worms 4: Mayhem, only to find a tiny section that informs me of nothing that I didn't already know. Each release should receive an individual, detailed article. I don't understand why allowing them would be an issue. Gamer Junkie 06:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the split proposal. It is not appropriate for some worms games to have their own page while others rd here. It appears that people are not too willing to write properly as can be seen with Worms_Forts:_Under_Siege... anger2headshot 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Worms 1?

It would be nice to have a screenshot of Worms 1 to integrate into the description of the 'first generation' of games. --Stevage 15:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added one. -- SoothingR(pour) 07:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Generations

Here's a question: Worms Open Warfare will be coming out soon enough and it will use a new engine. But it's 2D. So which generation will that fit into? It might be worth pointing out here that Team17 don't actually catagorise their games into generations... it's a community thing. So it's open to adjustment.  Run!  19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit: Since there's been no response for some time now I've gone ahead and made some changes, let's see if there's any objection.  Run!  9 days later

Yeah, I'd put it as a 3rd Gen 2D game. The style of graphics is not as "bubbly" as the 2nd Gen and overall, the style of the game is closer to Worms 3/4, with explosions and smoke resembling the effects used in those 3D games (also lacking the FOAM! and BOOM! onomatopoeia from 2nd Gen Worms). Also, the weapon icons are the same as the ones used in the 3D games, and the jetpack has only a vertical thrust, like the jetpack in Worms 3D. The crosshairs are also more similar to the Worms 3/4 crosshairs than the 2nd Gen aimers. All these little changes make the game feel quite different, but still very similar.

Personally, I liked the 2nd Gen style, with onomatopoeia and simple icons, but that's nothing to do with the article itself. 81.109.94.62 18:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addiction Pinball

Team17's Addiction Pinball [1] featured a Worms-themed pinball table. Is this interesting enough to be mentioned in the article? Ma.rkus.nl 15:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps in the form of a small note in the Trivia-section, but the game as a whole - if it is going to be included in Wikipedia - should get its own article.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 20:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I actually used to have a game entitled Worms Pinball, which came in a box-set of worms games. It was the best and most complex pinball game I've ever played. 80.41.91.29 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds: Worms & Reinforcements United

Custom/regional voice sets were available before Worms 2. I know they were in at least Worms United, and possibly Worms Reinforcements too. — Matt Crypto 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'll have to investigate. Edit: Actually yes, I think you're right. There was definitely a Scots speech set in W:U&R, so there must have been choice.  Run!  15:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inspired by Lemmings?

"The game, whose concept was devised by Andy Davidson[1], is thought to have been inspired by Lemmings, with which it shares many similarities."

Can someone cite a source on this statement? The article on Lemmings mentioned something along this line, and I've seen some occasional objections to that statement in that article. It would be really helpful if a source can be cited. Thanks. 67.160.10.87 05:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The first generation Worms games were reminiscent of Lemmings because of the graphics (i.e. tiny sprites doing comical & cute things, then dying), although the gameplay is pretty different. I think I remember an Amiga Format review making the comparison, but I don't have access to my collection at present. Proving inspiration might be harder. I agree that we need to cite a source, though. — Matt Crypto 07:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There are quite a few statements in the article that still need sources, I've been meaning to get around to them. Having said that, I did poke around the internet for various reviews of the first Worms games and none that I looked at suggested what the article says.  Run!  10:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I went to the same school as Andy where he developed the game on the art department computers. In 1991/1992 it was called Lemmartillery, with sprites captured from Lemmings. Andy (who was 18 at the time) approached Psygnosis about publishing the game, but they didn't want it & made him change, hence worms. If you look at the info in the original game menu, it refers to "****artillery" as a previous name, an obvious reference to the name. It was written in AMOS before recoding in Blitz too. Teriyaki 23:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! Psygnosis missed a trick there. (We can't, sadly, use your info in the article directly, as we can only use published accounts). — Matt Crypto 06:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I've found a source from an old AP issue I had, so I've added it to the article. Alexj2002 18:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. — Matt Crypto 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better Worms 1 Image

The screenshot of the first Worms game would be more useful if it showed what the effects looked like, like the Worms: Armegeddon screenshot. I'm requesting a better image since I don't have the first Worms game at my disposal. M2K 01:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worms: Open Warfare merge

Worms: Open Warfare seems to have slipped away with its own article at some point. Since there's so little to say about it without repeating information in this article, I don't see any reason for it being separate when all the other Worms games are included here. Might be worth integrating the infobox here, though.  -- Run!  08:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose, as seperate games merit seperate articles. In fact, I believe this page should be splitted up as well. Also, please note that the title of the article refers to Worms, the computer game, whereas Worms:Open Warfare is on both the DS and PSP, not the PC.--☆TBC☆ 09:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well technically the DS and PSP are computers too ;) Just not personal computers. But technicalities aside, the title should be renamed to Worms (series) or something like that, then.  -- Run!  10:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Separate games merit separate articles if they are notable. An article about a remake of a previous game with a few screenshots does not offer enough to justify its own article. The argument about the PSP/DS being different than the PC is nothing more than semantics. They are all computer systems. Resolute 02:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per Resolute. If enough can be written in this one article about each game to warrant splitting them then, and only then, should they be split. --JimmyTheWig 16:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose,same reasons as TBC Julz
  • If we can say all we need to about something with one page, then we should do so. We give computer games their own page if they're needed, not just because "computer games merit their own article". At the moment we have a quite decent article about this series, which covers the games quite well; why ruin it by splitting it into half a dozen different things? 210.10.240.16 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support if the page is not going to be split into 1st Gen Worms, 2nd Gen Worms and 3rd Gen Worms, but if the page is going to be split up, I'd Oppose --81.109.94.62 18:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. — Matt Crypto 15:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose each game should have its own article to be expanded. I support splitting the page and oppose the merger (not a strong opposition though).--Húsönd 22:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per reasons stated Born Acorn 23:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As stated above, each game is notable enough to have its own article Jebus0 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meanwhile, two months later...

So are we going to reach a consensus or not? The templates can't hang around on the articles forever. Shall I make a Request for Comment?  -- Run!  19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue there was enough support to merge the articles. 210.10.240.16 looks like a support to me. Assuming Run! is supporting too, that gives 5 supports and 2 opposes. --JimmyTheWig 08:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's around 5 supports and 3 opposes, or 3 supports and 3 opposes if you discount the anon votes, so there's no consensus on either merging or splitting.--TBCTaLk?!? 07:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
JimmyTheWig was correct at the time of his comment. But yes, more time is needed.  -- Run!  12:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roping, Shopping, BnG, & BR

{The most important aspect of worms happens to be it's various schemes and online play, which isn't mentioned in the main article once.}

The online play is the reason worm has remained a cult game for this long.

Unlike death matches, there are some unique and strangely bizarre schemes:

Roping:

Commonly called a Roper or Proper (Pro Roper - although Noobs would tend to join pro ropers, which defeated the purpose of Proper. So now Roper and Proper are synonymous).

This involves the Ninja Rope weapon, the Parachute, and the Bazooka, Grenade, and Mine. [Note: It is commonly considered a 'cow' to attack with the grenade; this is typically only used to be used to "buy" retreat time.]

The general concept of the scheme is to move around a map using only the Ninja Rope, and attacking enemies, whilst keeping to the strict rules:

For roping the standard rules are:

[AFR] Attack From Rope: When this rule is used, any player that wishes to attack an enemy must attack from the Ninja Rope, as opposed to firing a weapon from the ground. Although, this does not stop players from firing a weapon when not on the rope in order to strategically "buy" time in order to retreat. (These shots must not hit another player).

[CBA] Crate Before Attack: The player must collect a Health Crate/Medic Kit, before making any attack. Although, this does not stop players from firing a weapon before collecting a crate in order to "buy" time in order to retreat.

[KTC] [Already mentioned under KTC in talk page]

Shopping Commonly called a Shopper or Shoppa (synonymous).

This involves the Ninja Rope, the Parachute and the majority of "Cavern allowed weapons".

Similar to the Proper, with some major differences:

Instead of the standard 15 seconds turn time in Roper; Shopper can have 30 to 45 seconds depending on the host.

Instead of a few strategic weapons in Roper, Shopper allows weapons that can kill a player or an entire team. (Such as the Banana Bomb)

Shopper typically uses the PACK rules: Piles Afr Cba Ktc - Piles simply means a player has the ability to Rope Knock worms into Piles and then attack that Pile.

Shopper is considered a Noob game by the majority of elite/expert players.

BnG Which stands for, Bazookas 'n' Grenades.

This involves simply the Bazooka, Grenade, Blowtorch, Girder and teleport.

The worms are anchored down and therefore can not walk.

The game is played on an island, and the players will try to either shoot the enemy to death (health) or shoot them into the surrounding water.

The teleports are limited, as are the girders.

The strategy of this scheme is the fact that players must either use the wind to help their shot hit the enemy (Zook), or bounce a grenade into hard to reach enemies.

The girder may be used to create a wall to help bounce a grenade into a difficult place.

RR Rope Race: Using the Ninja rope players must race between a designated start and finish marker. What makes this scheme challenging is some players are capable of doing entire maps in a single turn. There are many ways to shave off seconds using bounces of walls to launch the worm into strategic moves to increase speed.

BR This acronym actually can be used for 3 schemes.

- Battle Race Typically a map that mainly consists of Pixels (small bits of land strategically placed by the map maker to be used as stepping stones). In Worms Armageddon there 4 types of jump, the number of jumps combined with a worm’s position on a pixel and the direction the worm is facing makes each jump challenging. The players must race between a designated start and finish marker.

- Bungee Race Using the Bungee Rope players must race between a designated start and finish marker. The Bungee Rope is even more challenging to control that the Ninja Rope.

- Boom race Using Anchored worms and infinite health, players must fire into a wall or the ground to launch their worms around the map. --NeF 19:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the variety of online schemes is mentioned in the article (Worms computer game#Schemes), and this has already been discussed, with the conclusion that descriptions of schemes is fancruft and therefore unsuitable material for the article.  -- Run!  21:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

Decent start so far, and this is one of my all-time favortie computer games but there is some problems

  1. Nothing on crticism of the game
  2. Images lack fair use rationales
  3. I don't think forums are valid refs

Jaranda wat's sup 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Describe online schemes that people play on worms?

If anyone doesnt mind, may I add an online schemes section? It will contain a brief description of:

Shopper
Roper
Fly Shopper
BnG
All the different types of Races (Rope, Battle, Bungee, etc.)
Walk for Weapons
Team17 (not to be confused with the company of the same name)
Any others that I might have missed

This can work like STUFF to kep it simple. --Triforce1215 04:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not appropriate; tt's fancruft. See past discussion. 82.46.44.59 20:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a project to do this, however, on the Worms Knowledge Base Wiki. --The CyberShadow 10:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turn-based strategy or turn-based tactics?

Would you consider this a turn-based strategy or turn-based tactics series? SharkD 19:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither. Worms is a turn based artillery game.The Goat 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is bull

All the games in the Worms Series are notable. Why don't we have a page about each game? 58.178.9.58 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with you. I don't see why there shouldn't be at least separate articles for the 2d and 3d games because they were completely different and were notable games and I don't see why it is taking so long for people to make up their minds. What is even more pointless is having links to pages for each Worms game but all they are are redirects back to the the main article. What is the point of leading people on to believe that there is separate pages. Xtreme racer 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Custom Weapons

For the custom weapons in Worms 4: Mayhem, in the bit at the bottom of the back of the box (where it is mentioned) it has what looks like an Old Woman/Inflatable Scouse combo, which led me to believe you could merge weapons. I was thinking of a Holy Hand Banana Bomb. Was anyone else confused by the "Old Scouse" picture? --Indie.Bones 14:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Indie.Bones

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WormsOpenWarfarePSP.jpg

Image:WormsOpenWarfarePSP.jpg 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 Wikipedia: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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3D Second Generation?

Should Worms4 be put as the second generation of 3D games, as it's made using a different engine to Worms3D and Worms Forts? 87.232.1.50 09:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worms: A Space Oddity

A new Worms game exclusively for the Wii. Would someone add something about it? Source: http://www.n-europe.com/news.php?nid=11005 Loghete 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)