Talk:Empire: Total War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Editing on the faction list

I keep adding Sweden, France and The Ottoman empire as playable factions in the aricle, but someone keeps deleting the edit. As i've said, they H A V E been confirmed as playable on the empipre website! I support the removal of a list of factions as a section of the article, but surely it would be improper not to include information on the factions that ARE DEFINITELY playable? After all, there is much speculation among fans exactly what factions can be played as, surely it's good practice to remove this speculation by stating exactly what the total war website have confirmed?. I'm mentioning these 3 factions in the article, could the person who doesn't approve of it please state why before deleting it this time. I understand if there is objection to France and the Ottoman empire being included on the list, but Total War directly refers to Sweden as a playable faction on the website (check below section for links). There seems to be no reason why Sweden shouldn't be in the article as playable, and considering that the other 2 are derived from the same list as Sweden is, it should be safe to consider these playable as well. It's pretty much a given that Britain and others are definitely playable as well, but until there is confirmation we should not add them in my view. Video footage and such is pretty strong evidence I agree, but it's not a confirmation in my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.12.49 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've integrated mention of Sweden and the Ottomans into the existing prose, replacing the example of Spain. France is already mentioned, so there's no need to put it down twice. However, adding more factions as they are confirmed is really not advisable, as then we're back to the exact same problem with the list, only in prose, listing the factions for the sake of it. This page and site are here for people who have not and may never play the game, not the fans of the game who are speculating over the factions. Killing that speculation is the Creative Assembly's job, not ours.-- Sabre (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't really understand why a list of possible factions which are playable is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia with virtually unlimited space. I suppose the arguement is that it clogs the article with "unnecessary" information, but really--its a video game. If other video games include lists of protagonists/antagonists, and movies include lists of actors/actresses--why not a strategy game include playable factions? Its not like they're trying to list all 50 factions included in the game, or every province. I think the inclusion of each playable faction is most analogous to the inclusion of a list of credited actors in a movie.

Faction list

I don't know who deleted it from the page, but Total war HAVE confirmed both Sweden and France as playable Factions. If you check on the news list of the TW site(http://www.sega.co.uk/empire/), it says "sweden confirmed as playable faction", A link in the article then goes to the faction list, showing both Sweden and France. In all technicality, there is no direct mention that confiirms France as a faction, but the list seems to exist to cofirm the playable factions in the game. I think there should at least be SOME mention of these 2 factions being playable in the wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.164.36 (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Interview on Rock Paper Shotgun

Since discussion here seems active thought this might be of interest: [1] Someoneanother 23:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncertain about Faction list

The total war team seem to be revealing very little about the playable factions in the game, so where the hell is the info from the lists coming from? France is listed as a faction in the Total War Website (http://www.sega.co.uk/empire/gameinfo/factions.php?id=13), suggesting it is playable, and a video on the site shows, i think, Britain and Poland being used in the campaign map. THe Liepzig games convention showed Prussia being played as in the battle but this does NOT confirm them as a faction! Only campaign map images or reasonable information from game devellopers siffices for adding a faction to this list.

Box art exists showing a soldier with Polish, British or American flags in the background, but I don't know about any other box art images for other countries. In a Leipzig interview with a game develloper on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbdqbCuqBMI) the develloper said they had not yet released the playable list, but said that "Poland was a major presence of the time. We've represented all the major presences of the time" Could someone find out where the info suggesting all these other factions listed actually comes from (if anywhere)? So far it seems only the US, Britain, France and Poland should be on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.155.141 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I recently been to the website and found out that the added the faction Swedan, and i've come up with a list of the major factions that might come to be in the game. We all know about Britain, France, and possibly Poland. While I was searching youtube I came across a few more on a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjqhvi_4aQg), Spain, Netherlands, and what I believe to be the Ottoman Empire are sure to come next. I was trying to make out the factions on the mini map but all I could come up with were Portugal, Prussia, Norway, Germany, Italy, and Russia. When I did some research, I found some potential factions that might also show up, considering that this game takes on a worldly scale; Thai/Siamese Empire, Indian Empire, and quite possibibly and hopefully the Chinese Empire and Japanese Shogunate. There might also be the major native american tribes also, but if they are playable factions is debateble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.215.25 (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Download?

Okay, first of all, what is a pre-download; is it similar to a demo version? And secondly I do not believe there is anyhing of the sort available yeet, I checked the SEGA, Total War, Total War Blog and Total War Centre websites and there is nothing saying that it is available. Unitl we can prove it is out I think it should be removed from the article, anyone agree? Winnie412ii (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A pre-download is a full version. Once it is purchased it is not playable. Once the game the gets released it will be unlocked and customers can play the game. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This was not possible for this release - to prevent possible pirating of the software. Incidently the purpose of pre-loading is to prevent a massive load on the steam servers immediately after release. Innevitably the steam servers went down for around 15 minutes immediately after release preventing people from beginning to download the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.44.143 (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Large scale update and rewrite

I've conducted a full rewrite of the article, in an attempt to bring the article up-to-date and give it some workable structure for when the game is released. All gameplay information and the "features" list has been moved to a gameplay section and a development section has been added describing the game's history and development processes of note. References have been bolstered as a consequence. The faction list has been eradicated, replaced instead with a quick concise summary of the type of factions in the game. Now, I know fans will object to this, but we have quality standards to bare in mind. Firstly, none of the factions have been solidly confirmed, Creative Assembly has said that they're subject to change and haven't been finalised. Secondly, such lists are inappropriate to Wikipedia, under WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:VGSCOPE. Discussion at WP:VG was pretty definitive on the issue, backing up established overall consensus on Wikipedia represented in guidelines and policies. I know all the other Total War articles have similar lists, but they are all in need of a large-scale cleanup to be brought up to quality standards at some point. I've also removed the mention of an earlier release date for the US as I cannot confirm it in reliable sources such as IGN and GameSpot and forum messages, even if posted by a developer, are not reliable under WP:SPS. All reliable sources seem to point to an international release date on 6 February. I'll get some images up soon, to show off the various elements of the game. Please also note that the article is written in British English under WP:ENGVAR as Creative Assembly is an English developer. If anyone can add information for a multiplayer subheading for the gameplay section that would be great, I couldn't find any sources for it. Of course, that just might be because Creative Assembly haven't discussed multiplayer yet, beyond the integration of Steamworks. -- Sabre (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am very happy that someone is doing a re-write of this page however I disagree with some of changes, i.e. I feel that a faction list is both appropreate (could some one my spelling on that) for the article because factions have been confirmed/hinted to/obvious and you really do need the basic information (which this is) in the article. Also my edit about the box art, the special edition and also the bit about the pre-download should (perhaps not in full, i.e. without my list) should perhaps be included in a section called Release, any comments? Winnie412ii (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A list of the factions is the equivalent of listing all the weapons in a FPS article, as Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, such lists are inappropriate and better covered concisely in prose. The second paragraph of the gameplay section does just that, providing the basic information for the reader. As for what's officially been confirmed, France is the only faction solidly confirmed on the official site. Stuff that's "hinted to/obvious" is technically original research and should be avoided. In any case, its easy to get lured into the idea that as these are real factions, it would be ok to list them, but they're not depictions of the real factions: they're fictional corruptions based on the real factions. In regards to the box art, I only noticed that your edits there after I uploaded the rewrite. Its not worth a dedicated section at present, but if properly referenced, the special edition "special forces" thing and the box art would be worth a sentence or two in the "development" section. As for the pre-download, I can't find any evidence of one. I can find a pre-order on the official site which isn't related, and Steam often offers pre-downloads, but it hasn't been activated yet and there's no news on when it will. -- Sabre (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences on the Special Forces edition and the box art to the development section. -- Sabre (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of points

• France, GB and Spain have been shown playable on the videos, should they be included?
• The pre-download can be found on the pre-order section of the website.
• I think that the info on the box and special edition should be in another section which could be expanded upon as we near the release.
• I still think the factions should be listed; for example in section about a family of animals it would list the species but not each anotomical features (like listing the weapons and it would not have a vague paragraph alluding what may or may not be in it.

I hope that I have helped. Winnie412ii (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what I was getting at: don't confuse it with real-world articles. Anatomical details of animals are a completely different and real-world concept from gameplay features like factions. Quality standards for video game articles should be met. The box art and special edition is still development information and all subject to change, and there's no reason to create a really short section of a few sentences when a existing section can provide the exact same information in better presentation. Short paragraphs and sections are not good for prose or presentation. Looking closer, this "pre-download" is just the Steam version, and doesn't actually exist. People are confusing the fact that Steam is a download service and the fact that the game can be pre-purchased. No download is available yet. -- Sabre (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you completely. Listing factions would be more like listing playable characters in a fighting game. Your analogy to listing weapons in a FPS would be more appropriate if we were talking about listing the individual units (ie. musketeer, etc.) in the game.

Also, if factions weren't important to list then why is there a faction list in every other Total War article? Hamza883 (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Because all the other Total War articles are terribly written and are utter Wikipedia guideline failures at present. Articles at GA and FA don't list comparable gameplay elements. I realise all the fans aren't going to like this, but once again, we have quality standards to meet. -- Sabre (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Sabre hit it on the head. You mention fighting games. Street Fighter II doesn't have a list of characters; it's dealt with in prose, exactly as Sabre has done here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think all faction list from Total War series should be removed asap and to be rewritten from beginning. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, specifically for the Empire aticle, if you check the official ETW site, very few factions are listed. We should wait for the full list to be released there and then, using it as a source, write tha faction list. Till then, we could mention that the factions are not yet entirely known. Anyway, it is true that most TW articles are faction-centred--Michael X the White (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that we should hold off on a faction list until we have more accurate information, I still have to disagree with you on presentation. Prose is a terrible way to convey that information and I would counter that the Street Fighter article presented offers a great example of of what I'm talking about. In the Mortal_Kombat_3 article, for instance, I am able to be quickly informed of the playable characters. The Street fighter article on the other hand seems cluttered and confusing. Honestly, you're trading in simplicity for a jumble of useless information that adds nothing to what you're explaining (ie. the list of playable characters). Simply put, a list is way more explanatory and is easier to follow.

It seems to me you need to review the quality guidelines again. Hamza883 (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry." I fail to see how that could be any clearer. A list of fifty factions after "we have more accurate info" is just going to make an utter mess of it, especially when aiming for GA or FA status. -- Sabre (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Listing the factions would just be using the least effective way of conveying the information when the most effective (examples in prose) has already been done. They're an aspect of gameplay and as such they need to be touched upon, but listing each one does not convey any information about the game itself, it's just listing for the sake of listing. That's what WP:VGSCOPE is there to prevent. Someoneanother 20:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That quote from the video game guidelines isn't applicable since since as playable factions they are neither items, weapons, nor concepts. They, as I have argued earlier, are more akin to playable characters and should be dealt with accordingly. Also, this business about listing 50 factions is ridiculous as no where near that number of factions are going to be playable in the campaign and thus a majority of them wouldn't necessarily need to be mentioned at all in this article.

For the record, I'm confident that by the time the game actually comes out there will be a playable faction list (even if it is in prose). Hamza883 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You cannot dress them up as characters. They are clearly gameplay concepts, created for gameplay purposes (specifying the units a player has access to, and the area of the game world they are active in) and are being treated accordingly. Even if they were characters, the appropriate way to deal with them is still prose. There are established guidelines and policies with global project consensus involved here meant precisely to prevent exactly this sort of approach. This is not a Prima Games guide or the game's instruction manual meant to state all the factions involved in the game. -- Sabre (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't tend to edit Wikipedia except in obvious cases, this whole article looks like it was prepared as an advertisement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.69.66 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you it wasn't in anyway intended as such, it conforms with Wikipedia policy in most aspects and its structure follows the conventional approach for video games on Wikipedia. However, as the game is currently unreleased, we can only build the article based on what the developers want to tell the press, and obviously the developers want to promote the game at this point. This tends to be a problem with most unreleased games on Wikipedia. After release, reliable sources go more indepth and critical, its then that the article can be taken away from what information the developers release to what the secondary sources themselves say. If there's any specific wording you feel is a bit too close to advertising, please don't hesistate to reword it to get a more neutral perspective. -- Sabre (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi new here to the E:TW page. I agree with the idea that for now the playable factions should be left out until a complete list or release of the game becomes available because topics such as factions in total war always end up with the "can my country be added because" and then people start adding and adding and adding. I would like to see a list after release since everything will be confirmed and no one can complain about any omissions to the list. A side note not related to factions, but I don't think it needs a seperate discussion page yet is the preorder bonuses etc. An example is GAME selling the collectors edition with the death's head hussars unit as a bonus exclusive to them. Is it worth making a list of what retailers will offer what and where?--ThadiusCole (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether the game's released or not is irrelevant, that information shouldn't be presented in a direct list format. At most, it could get a couple of paragraphs on the types of factions with examples. See the recently redone Medieval: Total War#Factions, it provides the general reader—the target reader of Wikipedia—with a far more informative view of the factions (albeit unsourced at present) than listing them. Listing every faction is the job of the instruction manual or the fan site, not an encyclopedia article. Currently, Empire doesn't have that level of faction information available, but when it does a respectable section can be created on the factions, rather than purposelessly listing them. As for this retail exclusive unit bonuses, same thing applies: we shouldn't list them, we aren't a buyer's guide. Commentary on it yes (good sort of information for the development section), exhaustive list no. In any case, such a thing would need referencing, where did you learn of these retail deals? -- Sabre (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The details on the exclusive units are from game.uk.com if you look at the collectors edition it notes that it comes with some additional units as standard for a collectors set, but also a GAME exclusive unit (deaths head hussars)http://www.game.co.uk/PC/Strategy/RealTime/~r338359/Empire-Total-War-Special-Forces-Edition/?s=Empire:%20Total%20War That link will go directly to it on their site, I don't know if any other shops will have exclusive units as preorder bonuses, but chances are at least one or two others will offer different units since exclusivity is a big seller for game shops.. I agree with the idea of the factions being left off, but I can also understand where people are coming from with the complaints since numerous games listed on wikipedia do a similar job of stating RTS factions, characters, units etc. The official does have all that though anyway so there isn't any real reason to list them I agree.--ThadiusCole (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Had a look round a few sites and found that a few shops are offering different deals with E:TW special forces sets:

GAME - Deaths head Hussars Amazon.co.uk - Dahomey Amazons Play.com - USS Constitution

These are the ones I can find at the moment, I checked US sites like bestbuy and the like but they offered nothing unique like unlock codes for these units. I am not sure what european sites I could check. I would reference these but I am not sure where they would or even should be put. Since people will look here for information on these things.--ThadiusCole (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can get the right sort of sources, it is worth mentioning in a sentence or two in the development section. Look for sources in the media: places like IGN, 1UP or GameSpot may have made (or will make) comments on this. Primary sources direct from the companies involved aren't ideal for this sort of coverage. -- Sabre (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Right oh, will keep an eye out close to release to see if they mention them.--ThadiusCole (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Release Date

Total war have moved the release date forwards to March 2009 ([[2]]) in order to integrate a highly demanded multiplayer campaign into the game. Someone needs to change the date on the page, please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.28.149 (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, official word is always best for these sorts of things.  Done -- Sabre (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Actual release date was 5pm on the 3rd March GMT and was a simultaneous worldwide release (since copies were distributed prior to this and only required Steam to Authorize them for install. Incidently the game will be unusable if steam ever stops being supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.44.143 (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Faction list argument

Look, I think we should add a faction list because on the official website they have confirmed 7, count them 7 factions that are playable so I think this justifies the need for a faction list because their are so many factions and we need all the info we can get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.167.175 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't need all the information we can get, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lists of gameplay concepts, such as factions, are discouraged; we're here for the general reader, not the gamer. Please also refrain from strategically inserting your comments to make it seem like other editors have commented on it like that, its rather impolite. That comment related only to the topic above this, not this. -- Sabre (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Who gives a damn what the wikipedia guidelines are. I go to wikipedia to check up on games I'm gonna bye all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.238.51 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines are there for a reason, to promote quality control. If you want to check up that sort of information, that's why Creative Assembly created an official website. -- Sabre (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The medieval 2 article has a faction list, since the different factions are so important to the total war games I think it would be a good idea to add it to this article, as it is, the article is a bit dry for the casual reader.--217.44.103.224 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines are meant to be followed, but still... /Poxnar (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Medieval II only has a faction list because it hasn't been properly dealt with yet, the article's not brilliantly put together; its hardly the best example to go by. (but better than other examples. Medieval: Total War has the best post-release example of how to approach factions, it explains the factions in a lot better terms than any list will. -- Sabre (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

System requirements

I've looked about and I can't find anything to confirm the system requirements listed. Is this just somebodys estimation? (And if so, is this standard practice or grounds for removal?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Where are all the monkeys??? (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

They're referenced in the infobox to footnote number 3, which is a primary source direct from Sega. See here. -- Sabre (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

PC Gamer review

A kind soul has uploaded a few details from PC Gamer's first review. Add them to the article at your discretion: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=223984 Autonova (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be having my version of that delivered soon, I'll be able to verify it all. -- Sabre (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Awse. 81.153.45.194 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Faction List

It is entirely appropriate to have a faction list on this page. It provides the audience with more information on the scope and texture of the game, as well as being generally informative. I have also responded to a previous request that has been issued on the discussion. Furthermore, I have referenced my list with a link to website. In the light of this evidence it is both necessary, as it does provide information before general release, for a faction list to exist, and desirable, as it has been expressed by this discussion page's community. I will remove the list as soon as the game is on sale in both the USA and Europe. Thank You. --Emishi (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because it can be referenced, doesn't mean it is appropriate. See WP:VGSCOPE, no reason to override that has been taken. We are not the official website or the game's instruction manual, nor are we here to advertise features of the game; this is why articles use external links. General Wikipedia guidelines and consensus at WP:VG put that concise summary describing the types of factions, rather than a straight list is far preferable. -- Sabre (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am now in the process of describing the factions within a section of the campaign heading. I fully understand your point but I did believe, without consultation of other similar articles and the stylebook that it would be appropriate. My point was not that it was necessary because it was referenced but because it provided information. --92.13.213.214 (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Merely stating what the factions are isn't particularly useful for the general reader, but describing what types of factions there are and using examples to illustrate that is. Take a look at Medieval: Total War to see what I mean; although unreferenced, it provides a clear overview of the types of factions without simply listing them. However, we can't properly do that until after release. For the moment, I've tried to reword it that so its not merely a straight list in prose, but gives some idea as to region, influence and culture of factions. -- Sabre (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This may however, appear rather confusing. I think that the way you have structured this paragraph is exemplary but the way that it is phrased may confuse the reader. Stating that some of the powers were of greater importance in previous times may pose more questions than it answers, for example: Why are they in the game, then? If you can find a way to phrase so as not to make this particular flaw highlighted it would be extremely welcome. You should however keep both the pieces on contemporary powers and eastern powers as it is. I thank you for your contributions. --92.13.213.214 (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I did not mention this in the above post. The official website does state the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth as being titled Poland-Lithuania. Whilst this may be historically incorrect it is the title used within the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.213.214 (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really make much a difference, both names are valid. Its the same as choosing between "Kingdom of Great Britain" and "Great Britain". -- Sabre (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the discussion is off point. To me, the debate shouldn't be over whether or not writing down/listing factions is most analogous to other gaming concepts, but whether such information is of the nature which is important in the context of the article. For example: its clear that if you have a wikipedia article about a movie, a listing of characters and roles that they play would e entirely appropriate to include. This is because an understanding of the dynamics of the movie and the story wouldn't be possible without inclusion details like who are hte characters in the movie.

Now compare that to a game like Street Fighter II. While the characters have storylines and such, the focus of the game is on the fighting. While context is provided nominally, the focus is not on the storytelling, thus the backgrounds to the characters are not overly important. Similar to why a listing of characters from say, the original Prince of Persia would seem superfluous.

Now compare this to a Total War game. In these games, each faction which participates, PARTICULARLY the player controlled factions serve as participants in a pseudo-historical simulation. This is more analogous to a movie, where the major participants in the story are crucial to an understanding of a description of the game--this is particularly so in a Total war game where there is no script. Every game plays out differently, especially based on whom the player chose to play. Therefore, a narrative or listing of playable factions is entirely appropriate, because without such notation, the article fails to provide the important context around which the game operates, making the article uninformative in a crucial way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.201.90 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

All twelve playable factions are currently already presented, they're in the gameplay section. Lists are no-nos, and the prose approach has to attempt to provide proper context for the general reader. We have something along those lines now, but a proper analysis can't be added until after the game is released. -- Sabre (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Demo

The demo will be realeased tommorow on febuary 20, 2009.

IGN Review

FYI IGN (UK?) has come out with a review for ETW. 9.5/10, editor's choice award.

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/957/957883p1.html Ace blazer (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)