Talk:The Castle Doctrine

The Castle Doctrine has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 24, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 17, 2014.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Russ Pitts, an editor at Polygon, described The Castle Doctrine as the most disturbing video game he'd ever played?

Video games: Indie Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the indie task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Gilman Louie (1 participant)
Yoshimitsu (1 participant)
Dr. Wily (2 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (2 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Train simulator (disambiguation) (8 participants)
Preston Arsement (4 participants)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)
Melee (game terminology) (6 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (7 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Main genre

What do you think should be the main genre? I'm trying to decide on one for the lead, such that we can write "is a X video game". Tempted to go with strategy over the others personally. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say strategy. I'm also poring over various screenshots; how does this one look? Tezero (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good choice! I'll do the reception section later today I think :) Samwalton9 (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GamerPro64 (talk · contribs) 17:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna prepare a review for this soon so I'll just mark my claim for now. GamerPro64 17:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I was getting antsy. Tezero (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right. This article seems to be pretty well made. However, I do have some issues that should be addressed before promoting.

"These intruders are really other players of the game" This sentences wording bothers me. Maybe change it from "really" to "actually".
- Fixed. Tezero (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When listing off how to protect the vault, it includes "Setting traps" and then mentions "rigging electrified floors, digging bottomless pits". Isn't the latter two considered setting up traps? Comes off as a bit redundant.
- Fixed. Tezero (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Objects to defend the vault with are purchased with money that the player starts with[3] ($2,000)[1] and steals more of from others' vaults." What does that mean? Are there objects that can steal from other people's vault?
- The player steals more money from other people's vaults. Reworded. Tezero (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the Rock,Paper,Shotgun interview, Jason Rohrer stated that the game is set in 1993 while the lead says 1991.
- I know some other source said 1991, but I can't remember which. May look through them later, but for now I've just left it as "early 1990s". Tezero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been thinking about this. Is there any significance to this game being set in the early 90s? Does the reasoning for that have to do with the message the creator was trying to convey? GamerPro64 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, he mentions that the game is "pre-apocalyptic" due to its setting. Tezero (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the "Release" section is too small to have its own section. Maybe be a sub-section for "Development"?
- Yeah, I folded it and the alpha testing stuff into their own Development subsection. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also the third paragraph's first sentence in "Development" and the first sentence in "Release" both start out the same.
- Fixed. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So in the game, the character has to set out their own trap to see if its possible? Wouldn't that be good to mention in the "Gameplay" section?
- Done. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Being caught in one's own traps has the same consequence as any other trap in the game, permadeath." Is that a feature in the game too or was that something they also took out? If it is a feature in the game, shouldn't that be in the "Gameplay" section instead?
- Done. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"During alpha the game was half the release price" You mention this twice before about it being half priced in alpha. Gets redundant the third time.
- Done. Tezero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably check again to see if there are anymore issues I have but there's are the ones that popped up at me for right now. GamerPro64 16:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any other issues that this article has. As such, I am promoting this to Good Article status. If anyone objects to this decision, you can start a review at WP:GAR. GamerPro64 01:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of images

The game is listed in Rohrer's version of the public domain on Sourceforge (link), but I cannot confirm whether these are all game files and whether all art (including the its logo for the Steam store) is included. Either someone needs to confirm with Rohrer or show where the assets are in the Sourceforge package if we're not using them as fair use. czar 17:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to add this quote:

The Castle Doctrine is entirely the work of me, Jason Rohrer, and I hereby place it in the public domain with absolutely no restrictions on use or modification for any purpose. Access to the central game server, which I run, is restricted to those that have purchased such access, but the server code is in the public domain also, so you are free to run or modify your own server with absolutely no restrictions.
— http://store.steampowered.com/app/249570/

So the game's license is not in question but whether the separate assets in the Steam store are available under the same license. czar 17:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohrer confirmed by email that the art assets (logos, etc.) are indeed under the same PD license (VRTS ticket # 2016120910025281) czar 00:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]