Talk:Barbarian: The Ultimate Warrior

Survey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fair use rationale for Image:Barbarian 2.jpg

Image:Barbarian 2.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 04:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Barbarian the Ultimate Warrior - box.jpg

Image:Barbarian the Ultimate Warrior - box.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 05:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Barbarian (computer game) → Barbarian (Palace Software) — For the reason that two other videogames sharing the same name —Willirennen (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Barbarian I & II split

Regarding the proposal to split this article into two - the second entitled Barbarian II (computer game). At present there is not enough detail for the sequel to support its own page and, unless someone gets a good hold of the article and starts contributing to it, doesn't look like improving any. As per article splitting it should remain the way it is. -- Nreive (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that Barbarian II was such a different game to the first it should really have its own article, however I agree that there's not much info on it at the moment. Cpc464 (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I created an article for it. Barbarian_II:_Dungeons_of_Drax Dream Focus 20:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Women in skimpy bikinis

If it's the skimpy bikinis that are the problem with the controversy, they should just have left them out. JIP | Talk 17:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Undid edits for the following reasons, november 12 2009

[1] Listing that two other games called Barbarian were released, and linking to them to avoid confusion, is important. Don't remove that. The name of the two models for the cover is important, since they both have Wikipedia articles to link to, they quite notable, rather famous back in those days. Dream Focus 15:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The infobox should list what the US title was as well. title = Barbarian / Death Sword (US title) is perfectly reasonable. Dream Focus 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes are explicitly not required on articles whose titles are not ambiguous, per WP:NAMB. There is only one game called Barbarian by Palace Software. As such, it is not possible for a user to end up on this article unless they have either specifically searched for a game called Barbarian by Palace Software, or followed a link in an article which goes to the game called Barbarian by Palace Software. While we're at it, hatnotes go above infobox templates, per WP:HAT. The models section was not removed, but added to the history section as part of a planned expansion into a real "production" section. In the process of reverting you removed the {{fact}} tag on the models. This is obviously required, as visual inspection of the box art is not an adequate reference. As for the infobox title, while WP:IBX does not give specific advise on how to title infoboxes for subjects with alternative titles, in practice video game articles go with whatever the article title is in cases of composites. A good example of this, with exhaustive discussion, is Mega Drive.

I'll leave this for comment for a couple of days before restoring the new version. I do actually plan on working on this more in the future, but that obviously depends on motivation levels (which aren't helped by being told what to do by editors who haven't done their homework). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, now that Barbarian II a separate article now (thanks to Dream Focus for that) it shouldn't be bolded in the lede here. But I'll catch that when I go back to the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 Rewrite

I have gone ahead and boldly rewritten the article to comply with the policies and guidelines of this project (primarily WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:VG/GL, WP:EL).[2] We should never link to copyviolations. Palace Software has been subsumed into Titus, so the game's copyrights are to them , not any anonymous uploader of a Youtube video. Chris's above points are valid, and have been implemented. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barbarian: The Ultimate Warrior/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Overall, a very good article. I do have some minor things that I would like to see cleared up before passing, however:

• I'm concerned about over-generalization of critical consensus in the reception section. Rather than, for example, "Equally pleasing to reviewers was the simplicity of the game; they found that almost anyone could quickly familiarise themselves with the game mechanics, making the two-player mode a fun and quick pastime", sourced to two reviews, having the two critics explicitly mentioned. Also, I appended "Reviewers such as Richard Eddy and Robin Candy of Crash" to the sentence used, but I'm not sure if the quotes are theirs or not; any quoted material should be specifically cited, especially there where it is difficult to determine from which source the quotes came from.
  • Clarified the quoters, are there any more quotes that are of concern? Jappalang (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The statement I feel needs some disclaimers are "Equally pleasing to reviewers was the simplicity of the game; they found that almost anyone could quickly familiarise themselves with the game mechanics, making the two-player mode a fun and quick pastime". Also, "Reviewers such as Computer and Video Games's Paul Boughton and Crash's Richard Eddy wrote that it was the little touches like the "hypnotically gruesome" aftermath of a decapitation that "[makes] the game worthwhile."—who said "hypnotically gruesome" and "the game worthwhile"? It's still not clear. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Righto, and  Done Jappalang (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Does the single-player story mode need a subheader, considering its only 3-4 lines long?
  • It proved rather cumbersome to plop it in the middle or simply without a header at the end of the Gameplay section. The header helps to delineate a sub-section that is too small to qualify for a section (Plot) found in most other game articles, but quite notable (its where Whittaker, one of the two remembered characteristics of the game, is evoked ito memory) part of the game. Jappalang (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• I performed some proofreading and copyediting changes, and reorganized the lead to (what I think) is a more simplified and logical progression. You should check the diff to make sure I didn't introduce dastardly AmEng spelling or any factual errors :)
  •  Done Jappalang (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• There appear to be some redirect issues according to dispenser. Links check out and no dabs were found.
  • I have no idea what is with the redirect tool since none of the Guitar Hero Rock Band talk pages have any links that redirect to any Barbarian-related page. I suspect it is a bug. Of the other three redirects, they are perfectly correct. Jappalang (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Images non-free, but are low-resolution and have complete and reasonable rationales. References look good, there's alt text, and there appear to be no obvious neutrality/layout issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, with the updates, the article looks good. I'm passing it as GA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A-class assessment

I am requesting for an assessment of this article against A-class requirements; the aim is also to succor for review on whether this article could be an FAC. Jappalang (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Jinnai's comments

As there are only 2 issues, assuming a second impartial reviewer does not have the same or other major concerns I won't hold it up.

Resolved issues 1

I know its a bit late, but I'll give an A-class assement (still need to find at least 1 other person). Since you asked about an FAC eventuality, I will also comment on that when appropriate. Lead a 1-2 sentance plot summary would be nice. Would be required for FAC. I believe it is already in there—"a single-player mode, in which the player's barbarian braves a series of challenges set by an evil wizard to rescue a princess. Jappalang (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Do any of them have names? I realize the storyline is generic, but anything that can give it a sense of making the storyline stand out is a plus. I wouldn't require it for an A-class review, but some FAC reviewers might not look too kindly on that if there are names. In addition, some expansion on the type of challenges, even if it is still rather generic, might be warranted.陣内Jinnai 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC) On "names", the game does not name the characters, although the princess and antagonist are named in magazine articles. The American version names the protagonist Gorth. All these are mentioned in the main text. No one or later article, however, remembers their names; the game is remembered as "the sword fighting game where you can chop off the head and have this goblin thing drag it off, and oh yes Maria Whittaker", which is what is given in the lede. I find it pointless to detail something in the lede that the game is not really known for (and I believe this can be filed under WP:WEIGHT or more like how to handle trivia). On "... some expansion on the type of challenges ...": the challenges are one-to-one swordfights—there is nothing else to them. Jappalang (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Why is Death Sword bolded? As stated in the article, it is the North American name of the release. VG articles typically have the product names bolded (usually country of origin and North American), such as those for Japanese games. Jappalang (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Really? I don't remember that being in our guideline and I haven't done that on the few articles I've worked on. The exception is the first instance, which is usually the first word(s) in an article. NM. I was just unused to the formatting. I expected it to be closer to the original name.陣内Jinnai 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Gameplay
  • The second paragraph starts to creep towards getting a bit too WP:GAMEGUIDE issues.
    • Not really, no explicit directions (D, DF, F + B) were given. The general directions were necessary since later critical content (reviewers' remarks for the joystick controls) are based on them, and tells readers how the game is played. Jappalang (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Well if the commentary was problematic, then its fine, but it should be (re)stated here. It does feel a bit gameguide-like otherwise.陣内_Jinnai 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Try to remove the one-paragraph subsection here.
    • See the GA review up above for my comments. Jappalang (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
      • It doesn't need a seperate section. I have had similar issues with games (see Popotan#Gameplay which has different types of gameplay modes. I do not separate them. There is no reason to separate them here.陣内_Jinnai 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
        • See below. Jappalang (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues 2

Development Pretty good, but again try and remove the 1-paragraph section. You might possibly need to rename the section to Development and Release or something. I believe the Release sub-section, despite written as a single paragraph, is meaty enough (more than 1 or 2 sentences of distinct content) to warrant its sub-heading. Jappalang (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC) If it were its own section, possibly, but as a subsection, more than one paragraph is generally needed. Quality articles don't divide sections without justifiable reason.陣内Jinnai 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC) See below. Jappalang (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Reception The last paragraph may be better off in its own section about sequals, such as in Chrono Trigger. Not really needed since it has only one realised sequel and one unrealised. They have much less than commentary to warrant significant mention (section) in an article about the first game. Jappalang (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Well its not reception. Reception is crictism, reviews and analysis of the product. Maybe impact?陣内Jinnai 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC) "Maybe impact?" No, there is no big legacy—just the spawning of a series from one successful game and which the series did not even last. That is really not much to say of the consequences this game had on its line or on others; no merchandises, no movies, no series, no spin-offs, nothing except one sequel and another left in its concepts. If there are reliably sourced commentary on what this game had done to others, then maybe yes, but right now, no. Jappalang (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC) But again, that is not "reception". Having a separate section (not subsection) is fine for something like this because it cannot fit elsewhere.陣内Jinnai 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC) The header is "Reception and legacy", not Reception alone. Jappalang (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC) General commentary try to avoid hyphenated words outside quotes like "Players assume the roles of sword-wielding barbarians" and instead "Players assume the roles of barbarians wielding swords." This will be nitpicked a lot and minor stuff like this (and more) will cause this to fail an FAC. I know from experience. Correctly hyphenated phrases are acceptable. "Players assume the roles of barbarians wielding swords." is a noun-plus-gerund construct that earns the wrath of User:Tony1, who is a frequent and respected FAC prose critique. Jappalang (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Hyphenated words, especially in the amount this article have, will also get a lot of wrath. I know this from experience.陣内Jinnai 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Then I say we shall handle the problems when we get to that bridge (or when it is pointed out exactly what is wrong—grammatically or prose-wise—with the hyphenated words that are used in the article now). Jappalang (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Lack of any External Links section is a bit issue. Are there truly no external links that may be appropriate. If there truly ins't, that's fine. Just remember to note than in an FAC review. Unfortunately, for this classic game, the links are usually copy violations (fan-remakes), or lacking in any encylopaedic material that is not here. Jappalang (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Okay. I wasn't sure. Images are fine. This article just needs some serious copyediting in addition to the hyphenated words mentioned above.陣内Jinnai 09:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Um, I noticed only mention about hyphenated words above; were commentaries/critiques on the prose forgotten? Jappalang (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you for taking a look. Hopefully, I have addressed your concerns above. Jappalang (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Made some more comments. I really believe those subsections need to be dropped. 1 pa graph subsections are looked upon very poorly. More the single-player than the release subsection though. As for the copyediting I fogot. But after a check, I noticed there are some inapprorpiate quotes, specifically #25. I would check the others.陣内Jinnai 00:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC) "... some inapprorpiate quotes, specifically #25.": "... Antic's reviewer called it the "best sword fight game" on the Atari ST.", and what is inappropriate with that? It is a quote that demands attribution and left alone in its original wording (if grammar is the issue); it is not promotional and is encyclopaedic in the context presented (a gaming magazine's opinion of the game). "Quality articles don't divide sections without justifiable reason.": I fail to see how subsections for a one-paragraph story (a subset of gameplay) and releases (subset of development) are not justifiable? Can the "Postcranial skeleton" of a rat not be integrated with the rest of the text? Is the "commercial failure" of this boat really needed on its own? Should the single paragraphs of Wife-selling's "legal background" be amalgated as a whole? Those single sections can be merged with the other text in some form or the other, but on their own, they can exist and make it easier to read. The point is there is no rule for single paragraph (sub)sections. This is different from having single-sentence paragraphs or one with very few short sentences, which is an anathema on the grounds of encyclopaedic prose and editing (although acceptable in journalism). As long as content are split into sections that has a theme and is "meaty" enough (of substance and length), I do not see a reason not to do so. Jappalang (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I find it ironic you argue against this but cannot see how my point of dividing the sequel from reception is somehow wrong. And no, the quote does not say "best sword fight game". I says "this sword fight game is the best available on the ST". That is not the same. What you have is a paraphrase, not a quote.陣内Jinnai 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Then let us disagree on the header segregation; I am unable to see what you are pointing out, and vice versa. Whether the current structure is detrimental to its quality via WP:WIAGA or WP:WIAFA, a violation of WP:MOS#Section headings, or more pertinently a failure of A-class ("Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed") would then best be evidenced through a wider concensus rather than an argument between us two. As for the mis-quote, indeed it was. Thank you for spotting that. I have corrected it. Jappalang (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Well I'd say the short subsection is in violation of WP:LAY#Headings and sections which is listed under the criteria for WP:WIAGA as one of the guidelines it must meet. I still disagree with the long section at the bottom, but it is at least better with the current header.陣内Jinnai 05:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Second review -- after looking this over and seeing fixed reviews and rationales for things remaining as is, I'm posting my support for promotion to A-Class, and am assessing it as such. Nice work! --Teancum (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Cover models

The article rightly discusses Maria Whittingham featuring on the box cover art, but doesn't say anything about the male model playing the eponymous Barbarian - it's Michael Van Wijk, later to become famous as "Wolf" from Gladiators. Is that not worth at least a passing mention? 90.201.136.12 (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Doesn't say anything" is incorrect; the Development section (and the caption of the box cover) already mentions him. If you are talking about mentioning him in the lede, the truth is the game is not notable because of him; his fame, as Wolf, was a later achievement and did nothing to affect the performance or development of Barbarian. Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Superior Software

I recently (re?)added "Superior Software games" as a category and it was removed with the reason that porting a game doesn't make it theirs and when I pointed out that it already had the category "Epyx games" (when Epyx only published the game in the US), that category was also removed citing Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - now it could be argued that removing both categories is indeed disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point... should it not be discussed?

Personally I don't see how having these categories in any way degrades this very good article but it does greatly improve the category and coverage of Superior Software (and to a lesser extent Epyx, as they released it under a different title) and it means anyone clicking on the link to that category expecting to find one of Superior's biggest games will find it. I would agree that Superior, as porter and publisher of the game to minor systems, are not as important to the article as Palace or even Epyx so for example I would argue that the Superior template shouldn't be added here but Superior possibly should be in the publishers section of the infobox. Again, I wouldn't want anyone to go around undoing the many other examples of this (WP:POINT), but generally these boxes do contain all original publishers. Similarly, Barbarian and Barbarian II are the only ported Superior games with articles that are not included in the category.

Barbarian is an important game in the history of Superior - it was the first of a string of highly successful conversions of games carried out by Peter Scott in the late 80s and early 90s that virtually single handedly kept the market for BBC Micro and Acorn Electron games viable. Superior licensed, developed, published and heavily marketed the Acorn versions of the game (indeed the article opens the reception section with a reference to an Acorn magazine based on Superior's advertising). I plan to rewrite the Superior article (which currently is little more than an advertisement for their current PC remakes) which will make all this clearer and will be properly sourced. For now though, I would argue that Barbarian is very much a Superior Software game... although I would agree it is of less importance to this article, that doesn't make it entirely irrelevant. I would appreciate a discussion or being pointed to some kind of policy or consensus of what constitutes a game becoming a particular company's game.Retro junkie (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how "it could be argued that removing both categories is indeed disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point"; if one category is wrong, why should it be left in (or another inserted). However, a consistent attempt to knowingly introduce an error would be pointy. It is my fault I let the Epyx games category slip in (I deliberately excluded such categories in my rewrite[3]); that does not mean I cannot correct such errors.

To the matter at hand, Wikipedia:Categorization#Defining characteristics state categorization should be "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". Practically every source I know of refers to the Barbarian games as Palace Software works, not Superior. "Barbarian is an important game in the history of Superior ... that virtually single handedly kept the market for BBC Micro and Acorn Electron games viable" would be your personal belief unless backed up by reliable secondary sources. Even then, it does not quite make the software a Superior Software game in terms of actual development. Superior ported the algorithms and designs over to another platform; its team did not conceive the idea, draw up the graphics, integrate and test out the concept, published and marketed the initial product that proved to be a hit.

If the categories added had been "Category:Video games published by XXXXXX (Epyx or Superior Software)" or "Category:Video games ported by XXXXXX" (and the game was indeed such), such issues would not have arose in the first place. Jappalang (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My point was not that removing 'wrong' categories was disrupting but if the categories are not 'wrong' than it could equally be argued that removing both was just proving a point. While virtually all references to the game do refer to it as a Palace game (which of course it is), none of the Acorn press would have done so in Electron User, A&B Computing, The Micro User etc it was always referred to as a Superior game. I still don't really see how the category doesn't fit - it is not "Category:Video games designed by XXXXXX" either. I totally understand where you are coming from but I don't see how it harms this article at all.Retro junkie (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"My point was not that removing 'wrong' categories was disrupting but if the categories are not 'wrong' than it could equally be argued that removing both was just proving a point.": The categories are wrong, and how am I suppose to interpret that summary of yours then? If you are trying for sarcasm, then it backfired on you. Defining characteristics state "commonly and consistently define". Niche magazines do not apply (and I suspect they refer to it in a manner that acknowledges the publishers, not as the game designers). The world does not refer to Barbarian as that Superior Software game, or that Epyx game, that Kixx game. Even in the computer industry, common parlance does not refer to the game as such. Barbarian (and its sequel) to the world at large is simply that Palace Software game. That the categories are wrongly defined and other articles include them so is not my problem. As per above, if any categorization with relation to those other companies are to be done, then creating/renaming existing categories to "Category:Video games published by XXXXX" is the more constructive first step to move on with. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely that would be overkill and lead to a ridiculous number of pointless categories. Are you saying if there was a category "Games published by Superior Software", that would be left here? Incidentally, Electron User isn't that 'niche' of a publication and it is cited here as the first quote in the reception section but that's beside the point. I can see you are not likely to change your mind but would appreciate a wider discussion to see other people's opinions.Retro junkie (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What overkill? What pointless categories? Precise, unambiguous categories are much better than vague and ambiguous categories that mislead. Category:Video games published by Superior Software, Category:Video games published by Epyx, and even Category:Video games published by Kixx would be more applicable here than a category that leaves one wondering if this game was developed by Palace or Superior. Not all video game companies do publishing, some just develop the games, some just do graphics, some distribute certain games but develop others, others just port games without creative input in its making. To class a game as their product without considering the context is failing the "defining characteristics" demanded here of categories. If you want a wider discussion, then I think this is the not the venue since the crux of the matter is about "defining characteristics". Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbarian: The Ultimate Warrior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303203536/http://www.dazeland.com/Amiga_Games/Barbarian-Palace-English.html to http://www.dazeland.com/Amiga_Games/Barbarian-Palace-English.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Source

• https://archive.org/details/marcaplayer026/page/n37
• https://archive.org/details/edgeuk221/page/n105