Talk:Castle Adventure

Roguelike?

I remember this game - it's a classic. However, I'd have to disagree that Castle Adventure is a roguelike for the following reasons (based on the list of common Roguelike features listed in the Roguelike article):

• User types (short) words to perform most actions other than moving
• The game world is not randomly generated. The treasure locations might be (I don't remember) but for the most part there isn't really any replay value
• The game is real-time, at least as far as combat goes

There's also no real character development (as far as I remember) - it's a lot more like Adventure (Atari 2600) and Haunted House (video game), and possibly Kingdom of Kroz and ZZT.

Also, here's a link to the MobyGames info on the game: http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/castle-adventure

--HunterZ 02:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be right. I remembered the game being similar to nethack, but now that I've actually played it again I realized it isn't. I'll fix this up when I get the chance, or anyone else can that feels like it. What would be a good genre for the game?

--Uselesswarrior

That's a tough one - it's kind of unique. I want to say action-adventure but that's really vague. Maybe action-adventure with interactive fiction elements, in the same vein as Atari 2600 Adventure? --HunterZ 14:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I updated the article to say it was a text game/dungeon crawl because I think thats a little closer than rougelike but its not perfect. It reminds me of early Sierra games: Kings quest, Space quest etc. Those games are later but they all share that "get item", "use item" game play. Is "get item", "use item" a genre?

G5reynol 03:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Sierra games helped to define the graphical adventure games genre. They were inspired by Interactive fiction but took advantage of PCs ability to communicate what is happening graphically as opposed to purely using text. By comparison, Castle Adventure is similar in its use of a parser interface and visual representation of the game world, but it is much simpler both in terms of graphics (ASCII instead of pixel-based) and story (I don't recall it really having one).

The article on adventure games might be helpful (note that the link goes to the types of adventure games section).

--HunterZ 16:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler

From Wikipedia:Spoiler: Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editors proposing them have compelling arguments for their insertion.

It is the duty of the editor who includes the {{spoiler}} template to justify its use. WODUP 04:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seed7 Clone (External Link)

The following external link has been removed numerous times (by myself and other editors), but keeps popping back:

• Castle - a modernized open source version written in Seed7

The reason for its removal is simple: the link supplied points to three screenshots of this purported clone. There are no evident means to retrieve said clone from the supplied link, though I suspect that one must download the entirety of Seed7 to access the sample program (which in turn requires Java). I should think that for the typical WikiPedia reader, it's a bit much to ask that they sleuth out where this clone may reside from the supplied EL. If the link doesn't provide more than sample screenshots of a clone labeled as an example implementation of a programming language, it should not be added back in. D. Brodale 19:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been removing it as well. It's linkspam, pure and simple. Xihr 22:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything has a simple solution which is wrong. The link popped back for two times and not numerous times. May be there are reasons for the link to pop back. The original version of the castle adventure requires DOS and a slowed down PC to be playable. The modern clone available under Castle Adventure contains a link to a Win32 binary which is not useable under UNIX/Linux (except with wine. But wine still has not reached version 1.0). The source version of the modern clone (Castle Adventure) requires a C compiler and the Allegro library (which is available elsewhere). May be for you there are no evident means to retrieve said clone (Castle) from the supplied link. Normal people would just click the link named "Download" (this link can be found at the left side of the page). IMHO the typical WikiPedia reader is capable of doing that. It is right that the Seed7 package must be downloaded to run this version of the castle adventure. But I guess that people capable of slowing down the PC to play the original version can also compile the Seed7 package. You wrote that Seed7 requires Java. This is just wrong: Seed7 does not require Java. It is an independend programming language and its implementation has nothing to do with Java (see Seed7). It seems that the only acceptable links for games are the ones which contain downloads of windows executables. For UNIX/Linux users this message is just sad. I hope that the maintainer of the Seed7 page sees this discussion and adds a link to a windows binary. Hopefully this would make people like you happy. Hans Bauer 09:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hans, this has nothing to do with the *nix platform or a preference for Windows. Removing this particular EL sends no "sad" message to users of Unix-alike systems. Don't presume motivation that isn't there. D. Brodale 14:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I just compared Castle Adventure and Castle. The only difference seems to be that the first one has links to download the source code (which needs a C compiler and the Allegro library) and the Win32 binary. Just to make it clear: Would it be okay if Castle contained links to download the source code (which needs the Seed7 interpreter/compiler) and the Win32 binary? Or the other way round: What should a linked page contain to be acceptable? Hans Bauer 08:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What validity do you think the comparison has. That other site is a dedicated fan page. This is an encyclopedia. Xihr 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Castle Adventure link leads to a page with the headline "My Games and Programs". This page contains information about a "Castle Adventure" clone, three screenshots and two links (to the source code and the Win32 binary). There are also links to other games and applications and to the Allegro library. It is by far not a dedicated fan site of the "Castle Adventure". There is only one page describing a clone of the "Castle Adventure". Everything else has nothing to do with the "Castle Adventure". OTOH the Castle link leads to a page which contains information about another "Castle Adventure" clone and three screenshots. The only difference is that there are no direct links to download the source code or executable (although there is a link named "Download" which leads to a download). IMHO the comparison is valid. Therefore I repeat my questions: What should a linked page contain to be acceptable? Would it be okay if there are links to download the source code and an executable? Hans Bauer 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The source of the original Castle Adventure is not available. There are two clones which provide a source. I think that both of them should be linked. Georg Peter 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I will add the link to the modernized open source version back for the following reasons:

• The source of the original Castle Adventure is not available. There are two clones which provide a source (Castle Adventure and Castle). I think that both of them should be linked.
• The Castle page seems to be at the same level of detail as the Castle Adventure clone (when the link was removed there was less information, which was criticized).
• Castle is 100% open source released under the GPL and the page does not contain any commercial advertisement as the page of the Castle Adventure clone does.
• The Castle page contains a direct link to the Source Code of the game (this missling link was one of the criticized points).
• The people who delete the link don't answer to the arguments of Mr. Bauer.

IMHO deleting is easy and people who are incapable to add valuable information just remove the work of other people. This undesired behaviour should be stopped. Georg Peter (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus in this very discussion was that the link should have been removed. Please follow consensus. Xihr (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus in this discussion. There were two people who wanted to remove this link and two people who wanted to keep it. So I think that there was no consensus whatsoever. Additionally you are the only person talking about linkspam which is totally wrong. There are new arguments why the link should be kept (see above) and you just ignore this arguments to reach your goal to remove information. As I saw elsewere you are making a Crusade aggainst the programming language this game is written in. Such a reason to remove something is totally unacceptable and could be seen as Vandalism. Would you please stop to remove valuable information and start to add information to Wikipedia instead. Georg Peter (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is vastly overstated. Note that these links have been added almost exclusively by one person in many articles. They're spam; that they're spam that you happen to think is useful doesn't change the fact that they violate WP:EL. I'm not engaged in a crusade against a programming language, I'm engaged in an attempt to stop a spammer. Which is what all Wikipedians should be doing. Xihr (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I vote to keep the link, since it is valid. And who cares if it doesn't work under Linux? Most things probably don't. Dream Focus (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I also vote to keep the link. I am sure that the link does not violate WP:EL, but probably people like Xihr don't care about votes and real reasons. Now even someone trys to delete the whole article... Adding information to Wikipedia seems to be unimportant this days. Deletion decisions are enforced by persons which are judges and executors at the same time. I think that all Wikipedians should stop this deletion madness because of notability and other arbitrary reasons. Zron (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think theres a compelling argument that it may violate WP:EL in at least some way. But I think this is an exceptional case. We are talking about an article of a video-game that existed well in advance of the games our wikipedia policies and standards are built on. So at times like these, I ask myself: Does the link add to this articles usefulness as an encyclopedia article? When I've seen this done on other articles, I generally feel it has. And given that this is an exceptional case, my vote would be for keeping the link. Remember, consensus can change. Icemotoboy (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus has changed. The Castle link now looks much better than the last time I saw it. BTW. There are several links which have been removed by the person who started the AfD (Probably to prepare the deletion). I don't think that any of this links do violate WP:EL. Therefore I put them all back. Hans Bauer (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)