# Talk:Dungeon Keeper 2

Is it not possible to be able to get another publisher to develop Dungeon Keeper III? Or am i the only one that find its pretty stupid that it was givien up, even with all of the petitions online for another game? - Neutralle (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

EA bought out Bullfrog, so it's their IP and their call on making another game. Nifboy (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the creatures page to try and make it a little easier to read. Still not 100% sure on the formatting, and don't have time to look at it now... --206.195.19.43 (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
yeah get the third one goin!

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dungeon Keeper 2. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edge-online.co.uk/edgedb/search.php?gamename=Dungeon+Keeper+2&x=0&y=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dungeon Keeper 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 17:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take this one on as well in the next day or two. If the last one was any indication, this should be pretty close to ready. Canadian Paul 17:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good for the most part, just two things worth mentioning:

The first two sentences of the lead read "Dungeon Keeper 2 is a strategy game developed by Bullfrog Productions and published by Electronic Arts in 1999 for Microsoft Windows. It was released in Europe and North America in June 1999." Other than the release date of June 1999, none of this (type of game, developer, publisher, platform, release locations) is mentioned in the body of the article proper (some items are noted in the infobox and some are implied, but they should be explicit). Since per WP:LEAD, the lead cannot mention material that is not present in the body of the article, this should be mentioned explicitly within the body. I also note that nowhere in the main article does it state explicitly that Dungeon Keeper 2 is a sequel to the Dungeon Keeper or part of a series. It's worth stating (doesn't need a citation) in a sentence or two, because a reader coming here with no idea what Dungeon Keeper is would be very confused, especially if they skipped the lead.
In terms of focus (criteria 3b), as well as WP:VGSCOPE, I'm a bit concerned that the gameplay section contains excessive detail. I find this to be most notable in the various "examples" of gameplay concepts that are provided, which leave me wondering what the justification was for choosing those particular examples (it may be in the references, which would be fine, but since I can't see them, I don't know) or whether omitting them would harm the reader's general understanding (it might even help by making things less complicated/detailed). For example, I think that the "rooms" section strikes a good balance, but is it necessary to describe all four different types of combat behaviors or would simply saying "monsters follow one of several different combat strategies/roles" be sufficient? I'm somewhat on the fence about this, so I want to hear what you think, but I can provide additional examples if necessary.
Other than that, I think that this is pretty much good to go, so I'll go ahead and put it on hold for a period of up to seven days. Canadian Paul 18:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul: To which examples are you referring? All the info is in the sources (a lot of it is in the manual, you do have the manual? Also, I'm not sure if the "How to attract your creatures" is separate or not, as I have it on PDF which includes the reference card), but I think I just picked the examples. I think simply mentioning that creatures use one of four battle strategies is sufficient for general understanding, though I imagine some may disagree. I think I need to put this in the context of the sequel to Dungeon Keeper, because that's what it is. Much is the same and yet there are also a lot of differences (I should probably also mention that mana is a vital life force for the dungeon too). I'm not sure how I can say the game is a real-time strategy game in the body.
One nitpick (and might be outside GA's scope but I'm going to raise it anyway) I have is the use of American English. This game was developed in the UK by a British company with British people. Just about everything about this game is British. Although that's probably not enough for WP:TIES, I can still see that being an argument (in my experience, the "nationality" of TV programmes is determined by their production, and I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to video games). The article about the first game uses British and its situation is no different. It just feels strange that two very closely related articles use different Engvars. Or should I not worry about it and leave it as it is? Adam9007 (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding ENGVAR, it probably should be in British English given what you've raised, but I agree that the ties aren't strong enough to overcome WP:DATERET. I think if someone went through all the trouble to change the variety of English, I probably wouldn't revert/contest them, but I wouldn't go out of my way personally to change them. I'd say leave it for now. Of course, if you ever end up taking these to WP:FAC, you might get told something different, but I wouldn't worry about it otherwise. As for VGSCOPE, I think for GA you're fine with criteria 3b for now, but it's something to keep in mind in case you do ever take this further... it might be the first thing that ends up getting mentioned. Anyways, I think that your edits have satisfied any concerns that I had about this article, so I am going to go ahead and pass it as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian Paul 20:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Canadian Paul: Fortunately, there are scripts that can do it quickly and easily. If I were to boldly change it, I'd probably use Oxford Spelling, as I see no need to change ize to ise. Should I RFC this? As for FAC, you think there's a chance this (and the article about the first game) could become a FA? Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Personally I don't have an opinion on the ENGVAR - I don't think it needs to be changed but it could be and I would have no objection to it because it makes sense. I think that unless there's an active dispute, an RFC isn't a good use of everyone's time. If you think it should be changed, then go for it. If you're not sure, wait until someone else comments and go from there... better to do nothing and end up having to do the same work anyways later than to put the work into changing it only to have it reverted (even if it is quick and easy). As for FAC, I'm not very familiar with the process, but it would probably take some work and at least one peer review (two if WP:VG is interested in doing one to match their standards) before it could be nominated. FA has much higher, stricter, and nit-pickier standards than GA and it's designed for (usually constructive) criticism, not praise, so you've got to be ready for it. All I meant by my comment was that I suspect the depth of gameplay would be a concern at that forum, even though by GA standards it passes. Canadian Paul 13:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that this game was cancelled, I would suggest that its notability is questionable. It may best be covered as a section of its predecessor. Izno (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Not all cancelled games are non-notable. I don't see any reason to believe that this one isn't notable. Besides, if this is to be merged anywhere, I'd suggest Dungeon Keeper (series). Adam9007 (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Adam9007: Even were it notable, the content we can write about the cancellation is minimal (we're lacking reception, detailed gameplay, full development and release details). I have no objection to merging it elsewhere; my experience is that cancelled sequels typically end up on the prequel's page first with the typical summary at any applicable series page. Given there are only 2 games, we also probably are not past the threshold where we should have a series article, so that also should probably be merged/redirected/deleted. --Izno (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I think there's already enough mention of DK3 in this article, which after all is about DK2. Also, there are actually 4 DK games (5 if you count DK3), so I think the article about the series should stay (MediEvil (series), a GA, has only 3 games), and the DK3 article should be merged there instead. Adam9007 (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/19980204093356/http://www.next-generation.com:80/news/111397b.chtml
https://archive.org/details/MicromaniaTerceraEpocaSpanishIssue53/page/n41