Talk:Age of Empires III/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New game box picture

After our very very excellent picture of the AOE3 gamebox was deleted (I think it was speedy-deleted, too), I've decided that the lack of colour at the top of the page needed to be remedied.

I uploaded a new game box image (scanned, instead of a picture). Direct comments here, or upload a new version if you like. Kareeser|^Talk! 23:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Much better, and it does indeed remedy the lack of colour. Photos=out! ;) Ck lostsword 09:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

ESO keys

(Text removed from article)
ESO only supports one account per CD key, thus forcing every player to share one account given a single copy of the game. The reason given is that this solves the problem of smurfing. However as a consequence in ladder games, a weaker player can severely damage the ratings of a stronger player. In addition, once an online account has been created, it can not be deleted or altered. This makes reselling the game difficult because the buyer would not be able to play online with the used game unless the seller also provides the account user name and password.

There have been comments about whether this violates NPOV. Discussion about this topic can be found here. Please do not change the article until this discussion is resolved. Ck lostsword 13:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Non-NPOV - Design feature (partly) for security as opposed to bug. Could be included in a different section on article page, eg. a controversy section. Ck lostsword 13:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Non-NPOV — Known issues is for bugs and glitches. This is a game feature, and while it may be changed in the future, it is not an issue in an of itself. I believe that it violates the NPOV-agreement because it has hints of "blaming" ES and ESO for this. While ESO is the host of the service, and ES made the game, it is not their "fault" that they included this security feature. You may take a look at the official forum for archived discussion.

The original post on one account per CD key also included notes on how the policy precludes a weaker and stronger player from sharing the same game copy in ladder games, and how one can not resell their used game without giving out the original account name and password. I think just stating the consequences of one account per CD key is unbiased and helps prospective buyers in making better consumer decision. I welcome any rewording to make it sound more neutral, perhaps even place it in a different section. However I insist that the points be made, as most user assumes multiple account per game copy and that they would have no trouble trading used games. No one is trying to blame ES for their security feature, but I believe the consumers should learn what this feature means for them. Nolowfat 03:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Granted, the fact remains that it isn't too biased, in which case I may have abused the "NPOV" agreement a bit too much. On the other hand, we could perhaps place a shorter version of it into section 9 of the aoe3 article ("Ensemble Studios Online"). I have done so from when I created the section recently. Is that to your satisfaction? Kareeser|^Talk! 15:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Very true - overzeal for the rules (particularly amongst newer users such as myself ;)) can lead to problems. This should be commented on. However, the wording gives us another topic for discussion, as does the location for the comment. Discuss as required! Ck lostsword 16:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad we have agreement on that. However, the revised passage under Section 9 still does not mention the two points I believe is important: 1) that given a single game copy, all players, weak and strong, must share the same game account. 2) trading used games also mean trading original account names and passwords. While these two points may seem obvious implications to veteran online gamers once they know of one account per CD key, a lot of more amateur gamers may overlook them. Nolowfat 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather sensitive issue, actually. Saying that "all players, weak and strong, share the same account", is a "warning" to prospective buyers of the game. That, in my opinion, does express your own opinion, not that of the game designers. Kareeser|^Talk! 18:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So NPOV means the viewpoint of the people selling the game? No wonder this article reads like an advertisement! 204.186.210.163 19:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, a fair point. We shouldn't comment on players' abilities as this DOES violate NPOV. We could say that all users of one copy of the game must share an account, but further comments are not necessary although I see where you get this from, ladders are not strictly necessary to Multiplayer gaming, and so this is not the most crucial part of the problem. However, what is of great interest to all users is the implications for rental/resale copies of the game. This should be the main issue commented on. Ck lostsword 18:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I beg to differ here. Information is biased only if it expresses opinions of certain groups that may not ring true to others. The fact that all players, regardless of their skill level, must share one account is the consequence of one account per CD key policy. Even the game designers will acknowledge that in ladder games with shared account, a weaker player can bring down the ratings of a stronger player (or if you wish to be completely neutral, a stronger player can bring up the ratings of a weaker player). I am not trying to comment on players' abilities, but it would be naive to assume everyone playing the game would have similar skill level, even within the same household. You could call it a warning, though I would call it an advice or a reminder. Of course ladder games are not crucial part of multiplayer games. Yet you could also argue multiplayer mode is not crucial for this game either since there is already a campaign and skirmish mode. Some players are not even interested in multiplayer when buying this game. However, I also understand that some players are competitive who takes pride in maintaining their ladder ratings. To them, this reminder becomes invaluable. If the prospective buyer does not care for his/her own ratings in the ladder, then this advice is irrelevant (though by no means false) to him/her, hence no harm done. The point in question may not be relevant to everyone, but nevertheless it is a FACT that even unconcerned players and game developers will agree to. On another note, if there is agreement on the implications for rental/resale copies of the game, maybe we can add that part now. Nolowfat 18:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I tend to not want your original wording on the article was simply that saying "the game forces all players onto the same account" seems like an opinion, or what we think, which is a sensitive issue. Perhaps we can expand on what we have already in section 9, to be written in section 9? Kareeser|^Talk! 15:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how sensitive this issue is, but I believe that as long as it is an indisputable fact it has the right to be noted here. I am presuming you think that the word "force" sounds hostile? As I wrote before, I welcome any rewording to make it sound more neutral as long as the point is made. Perhaps something like, "The player is advised that with shared account under ladder games, the ladder rating will not be wholy representative of any single player." Nolowfat 23:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Nolowfat, I love jargon... sounds good... =) Kareeser|^Talk! 00:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Alas - up to now, I have always thought that the reason why one does not stand under ladders is because it breaks a sacred triangle; now I know that if one is under a ladder, "the ladder rating will not be wholy representative of any single player." That is so much worse. my 'not-standing-under-ladders rules is now confirmed! ;). Other than that, it does just about cover it. :). Ck lostsword 22:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Reception

This article badly needs a section on critical reception, reception by hardcore gamers and sales numbers/profit info. JDG 02:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to look up and add information on AOE3's initial sales, but I believe critical reviews from hardcore gamers should fall under the responsibility of fan pages and such. But that's just my opinion. You can go ahead and add the release info if you wish, just remember to cite! =) Kareeser|^Talk! 03:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Units" being marked as a definition list

While I feel that it was a nice gesture to mark up the entire units list as a definiton list (see article page history), I feel that it basically made the page much longer than it should be. The article, in my opinion, is no longer concise. While each unit definately does not merit an article of its own, perhaps we can revert the defintion list back to what it was before? I just feel bad because I hate reverting work done with good intentions... Kareeser|^Talk! 15:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and split the long list off as the seperate article Age of Empires III military units, a short section on the units (historical accuracy, use of land/sea and so on) would be perfect for the main page, though I'm in no position of writing that up myself. Poulsen 13:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the new revision does tidy the layout up somewhat, I feel we still need some sort of comment on the units in the game. I do, however agree with Poulson that perhaps a short summary for each of the unit types with a brief description of their uses, as well as a summary for AoE III units (ie. "All of the units in AoE III are based on actual military classes in the 18th and 19th centuries; please see [[Age of Empires III military units] for a full list. Ck lostsword 16:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Nice job, guys, it looks much better now. I agree with CK in that we should write a paragraph about actual unit representations in the game, and in history. I haven't the time now, but I'll contribute if somebody gets it started =) Kareeser|^Talk! 06:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just an idle observation here... we have a duplicate of the Military Unit list. One from the subpage, and one on the main page itself. Personally, I'd rather have the internal link to Age of Empires III military units instead of the definition list as before. What's the concensus? Kareeser|^Talk! 02:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, User:195.198.196.174 re-instated the entire units list. My view on this is to remove the list of units from the main AoE3 page, and maybe have a few lines summarizing the units in the game instead: something about the factual accuracy of the units (if anybody know) and something about the each different branch (infantry/cavalry/artillery/navy). But overall the size needs to be cut down, so the long list should go/be written into prose. Poulsen 08:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well, actually... and Ck_lostsword already did that, except, like you said, it was indirectly reverted... I'll delete the list on the Age of Empires III page now, since we already have an internal link to the real list. Kareeser|^Talk! 14:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll put a hidden alert saying not to reinstate the list - and if it appears again, we should delte without further discussion. The editor should put their comments on this page if they disagree with this. (Wow! That sounded kinda harsh!) Ck lostsword|^Talk! 17:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Seemed alright to me, but then again, I wasn't the editor, =P... Nice signature, by the way... took me while to realize that all of the O's pointed to Esperanza... =) Kareeser|^Talk! 17:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did the unit list, with names and brief discriptions go?

Deleted... see "Age of Empires III Military Units" at the bottom.

Campaigns

I appreciate that a brief description of the campaigns should be included, and assume that the author of the section is not fluent in English. I have completed a brief copyedit, but hope that the facts can be checked by someone else (Kareeser, for example ;)). I am also unhappy by the importance given to some campaigns. Any changes to this one are almost certainly improvements. Go nuts! :D Ck lostsword 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed the interesting rendition of the campaign. I'm giving it about half an hour before I read it over. I don't approve of the rather long narration of the AOE3 campaign, but I suppose if somebody adds it, I can't exactly complain. Kareeser|^Talk! 21:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Very true, and probably a good idea. However, if its there.... :D. Ah well. I have copyedited it, but havent checked the facts, so that is hopefully all that needs doing (although I have a horrible feeling that I've spelt Kanyenke wrong - I'd better fix that). Ck lostsword 21:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And a different IP writing equally badly - hmmm: mysterious! Ck lostsword 22:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Good bit of work there by Poulsen - well done! Ck lostsword 22:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) I actually haven't played through mission one of Act I yet, so I used a few walkthroughs, which means I can't guarantee its 100% correctness! [[[ser:Poulsen|Poulsen]] 22:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Campaign has been moved to its own page to avoid clutter on the AOEIII Page.

Thanks for that Rlk - you seem to be doing good work here. However, it might be regarded as better practice if you mentions moves like this before doing, and also checking the page name nomenclature help pages (campaigns shouldn't have been plural). In the meantime, I think it was a good call to move to other pages - although perhaps a subpage would be more appropriate. Comments? Ck lostsword|^queta! 15:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

An Anon IP reverted the changes without checking the talk page/wiki links. I've reverted those changes, and added a "Main article" link to the campaign page. There's much less clutter now, good work! Kareeser|^Talk! 04:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Gameplay edits/rewrites

I have made a number of edits to this section, and if they are well received am prepared to make further edits to other parts of the article.

• "The Home City Concept"
• Trading posts - not outposts
• With the advent of railroutes, a trading route doesn't automatically become a network as it does not link to other trading routes.
• Stockpiles
• Emdash to colon for resources
• Minor revision of facts regarding stone
  

Ck lostsword 10:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten most of the wording in the "Buildings" section, as they were written rather hastily. Kareeser|^Talk! 03:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"You/Your" to "Players/Player's"

A recent anonymous IP edited the Age of Empires III article, and changed some (or all) instances of "your" to "players", and so on.

A good intentioned user then reverted those edits, so I'm placing that issue to be discussed here:

Encyclopaedically, the article should not have first or second person pronouns (me, you), and third person pronouns only when referring to somebody else. Therefore, I believe the anonymous IP was right in changing "you" and "your" to "player" and "player's".

The difference can be found here. Kareeser|^Talk! 03:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but it should be "the player's" rather than "a player's". Ck lostsword|^queta! 10:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Known Issues NPOV Violation

It always seems to be this section... I've removed the following text:

"Age of Empires 3 has been plagued with bugs and other more serious connection and gameplay errors since the game was released in October of 2005. Along with a myriad of gameplay issues resulting in frequent game crashes and unplayable scenarios the multiplayer aspect of Age of Empires III was unavailable to most gamers for several weeks. Ensemble Studios has released a series of patches, now up to 1.04, and has addressed many of the game crash issues. However for a majority of people who have purchased Age of Empires III the multiplayer system is still unavaible. Ensemble Studios has been slow to address the multiplayer gaming problems and has not made public any further fixes that will make Age of Empires III playable over the internet."

The fact remains that a "majority" of people who've purchased aoe3 CAN play multiplayer. Simply because the forum is flooded with posts about connectivity issues doesn't constitute a majority. If the game worked fine for you, would YOU go and complain about how it doesn't work? Didn't think so. Secondly, the section was written poorly (with bias), and contained no real factual information. I have since revised it, providing information regarding routers and NAT's, which seem to be the cause of the problem. Please don't revert the changes unless discussed here. Kareeser|^Talk! 16:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Limited Edition vs. Collector's Edition

user:62.66.194.63 has just replaced the title of Limited Edition section with Collector's Edition. I was just wondering which most people thought preferable. Personally, I think it should be Collector's Edition, as this is what it was marketed in the UK as, but I'm not sure about the US. Other comments? Ck lostsword|^queta! 20:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep — I believe it was also marketed as the collector's edition. Personally, when I think of "Limited Edition", I think of a toned-down or scaled-down version, which this clearly is not. (Like the AfD reminescent reply?) Kareeser|^Talk! 20:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep — (see above). lol - I thought about doing that, but I've seen loads of negative comments about straw polls, so I didn't like to start it. I bet it's just us that vote though (again)! Ck lostsword|^queta! 20:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Right then, I see the concensus is Keep. Another hard days work ;) Kareeser|^Talk! 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler NPOV violation

The following text was added by Computergeinus:
This Spoiler rating should be excluded from knowledge and use of being any help to wikipedia members, IP users, researchers and any other personnel on this site. It is not a spoiler because any of this information can be looked up on the Internat, encyclopedia, or other reseach device. Therefore this Spoiler Warning is obsolete because it is HISTORY and can easily be accesed via other means.

I have removed it, as it is a personal opinion. The inclusion of the spoiler tags is to inform readers that what follows is a spoiler. Television show synopses have spoiler tags on them, yet they are also history, and can be accessed via other means. Please direct personal opinions and objections here. Thanks! Kareeser|^Talk! 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - that is the purpose of spoiler warnings - just because it can be looked up on the internet doesn't mean that it isn't a spoiler. Also the spoiler warning only refers to the game storyline, which is FICTION, not HISTORY. Ck lostsword|^queta! 19:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no end spoiler tag. Where is it supposed to go?Nintendonien 02:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that an end spoiler tag exists. As it is used, the spoiler tag refers to the sectio it is placed in. Any other section isn't covered by it, unless otherwise stated. Kareeser|^Talk! 03:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There are these {{endspoiler}} tags that might be useful. Poulsen 12:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I think that an {{endspoiler}} tag would be unnecessary: it is unlikely that someone would scroll through looking for an 'end spoiler' comment - they would just skip to the next section. Also, far less than 1000 pages make use of the end spoiler tag, whereas several thousand pages make use of the {{spoiler}} tag. Ck lostsword|^queta! 17:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Imperial Age Fort Information...

... as I believe it is incorrect. All civilizations with the exception of the French can only get one fort. The French can get two with their second HC card.

Upon reaching imperial age, ALL unit shipments, and ALL Resource shipments become available again, but the Fort and Factory wagons, I believe, are exempt from this.

If I am wrong, please reply here. Kareeser|^Talk! 22:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

When I reached the Imperial Age DIDN'T get all the Resource and Unit shipments (you are right about the forts and factories). KENSAI FEON. 12:45, 5 April 2006

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The opening paragraph uses the term conquest incorrectly.

The term conquest implies the outcome between two sovereign nations. The Americas were undeveloped socially and had no such sovereign identity. In Greek the no-madon = no omada = no team/nation, implying and applyed to the people of America at the time of teh carnage. The Western European Carnage of the Americas is more correct as it implies the barborous slaughter and mass genocide of the American Indians. This can be applied to several historical incidents not merely USA. Places such as USA, Australia and South America as well as Canada faced similar carnage by Western European Barbarian kingdoms. The Sovereign Kingdoms of Western Europe such as Russia and France who were still in lineage of Constantinople and the Rite of the ROman empire settled these places through missionary works that differed greatly from the carnage imposed by other nations at the time. Orthods missions to teh USA and South Americas differed to papal and protestant heretics that imposed both martial and theocratical rule.

The term History based is an act of vanadalism to historians teh term pseudohistory applies as was stated by Ensemble the game does not reflect history but uses aspects of history therefroe it is not based on history it is fantasy with inspiration from history hence teh term pseudohirtorical applies.

However, most of that is your personal opinion. Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopaedic, and while personal opinions are vital, they are not always good for the article in question. The link to European colonization of the Americas is used because it is the basis for the game. Also, your link was red, meaning that there was no article there. At the time of the game, USA was not an independant nation, hence the use of the New World, as opposed to the USA. Your other edits were mostly personal opinion and mildly malacious. I don't want to scare you away from Wikipedia, but please try not to express too much personal opinion and bias, please! Kareeser|^Talk! 15:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Changelog

I have to agree, once again, with Kareeser. Conquest does not require two sovereign nations: it is merely 'victory gained by combat' (Wiktionary) or 'overcome and take control of by military force' (OED). Ck lostsword|^queta! 18:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong on the topic of Conquest. Legislation passed in America regarding Indian Native Land Rights is a vivd example that the land was not infact taken by conquest. The genocide of the American Indians is far too well documented to consider it my personal opinion. And as for the term New World this is only topo-centric opinionated term, Australia for example was the New World also. Therfore since your comments are all from a BPOV im reverting the post back.

Your edits are very personal, and no matter how you feel, the Americas were "colonized". There was no "conquest", according to the article on Wikipedia. If you have a problem against Colonization of the Americas, direct your frustrations there, and not here. Please do not revert the change back until this discussion has concluded.\

I also hate to point out flaws, but your revert was sloppy. Please try not to remove legitimate edits from the article. Reverting is a large-scale process, please watch what you're doing. Thanks. Kareeser|^Talk! 01:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Another quick note: Australia never was "the New World". It was always known as "terra australis incognita", meaning "the Unknown Land of the South". This is of course where Australia's name was derived from. Still, it was never "the New World". Taylor 10:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot's edits

It removed about 15 pictures from the article. I've re-added the pictures, and fixed the images' licencing info. Kareeser|^Talk! 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you did wrong. It's greatly stretching the truth to say that individual game icons are "screenshots", and they're being used in a purely decorative role, which is not an allowed fair use; the precise appearance of the icons is only of interest to someone who has actually bought the game, and that person already has the manual in hand. So the icons all have to come out. Stan 12:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. Sorry 'bout it. The images were originally from ZH Wiki, so if you intend to carry that rule over there as well, I'm sure they wouldn't mind. Kareeser|^Talk! 17:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheat Codes

Somebody should put all the cheat codes for the game, if that's aloud. Otherwise at least put that the 'Musketeer'd Cheat Code' is a refference to Homestar Runner

Bluepaladin

I don't see any cheat codes on the page... perhaps you're referring to another page? Kareeser|^Talk! 05:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I forgot to include the word "should" there. I edited that now. Bluepaladin

As far as I know, there used to be a list of cheat codes on this page. However, that was removed because Wikipedia isn't a strategy guide (or something to that effect). So I believe it shouldn't be put onto the article... but that's my opinion. Kareeser|^Talk! 01:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange, the cheat codes are on the Age of Empires 2 page, why shouldn't they be here? Either way put the refference to Homestar Runner in the Musketeere'd code. If you don't know what the refference is, read about the past participle by adding the suffix "D" in the Homestar Runner page. Bluepaladin

The 'Cheat codes' (and possibly 'Secrets' too?) section should be removed... Wikipedia is online encyclopedia, not a place for cheats and .xml-file hackery guides... [[1]]

Easter Eggs

In Part III Steel, In the episode "Never Trust a Frenchman" A treasure you can find is teh Legendary Eye of Ornlu, and it is guarded by White Wolves In Age of Empires 2, in the Genghis Khan Campaign, in the first Map, You are tasked to fight a White Wolf with 400HP called Ornlu. This is my frist time on Wikipedia with an account, and I do not know how to post on main Page, it says that I should consult here first.

You're right, this could be an Easter Egg, and I think the "Eye of Ornolu" was also mentioned in Age of Mythology (see relics, and look for Eye of Ornolu). Bluepaladin 23:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)