Talk:Bandit Kings of Ancient China

message: I don't know much about the game, but as a suggestion, it might be a good idea to split the description into Overview and Plot sections, and remove or alter the references to RTK. For example "...can be described as a more difficult RTK..." could be changed to "The game is similar in setting and gameplay to RTK, but is generally viewed as being more difficult, as the player starts in exile and must fight many stronger opponents".
I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but so long as nobody objects I'll go ahead and make the changes later --Lucian Gregory 17:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested changes 

message: I have removed this category link, as Water Margin is not a licensed property --Lucian Gregory 12:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category – Video games based on licensed properties 

message: What would be suitable levels of notability for this article.  It is indeed a game, published by a major publisher, based upon a piece of classical Chinese literature.  It is not as popular perhaps as other games Koei published, but how much more would be needed to count for notability.  Wikipedia is full of articles with less.
I will grant that this article is horrendously written, if and when I find time I would be willing to edit it.  As well, what level of refrences would be needed to describe a game objectively.  I happen to have owned this game since maybe 1989, and could describe it objectively but there would be no refrences.  But by the same token, what is the limit on observed versus reported sources.  It would seem a bit worthless if even the simplest descriptions would have to be refrences to someone's elses observation.  Woulden't that make this article nothing more than paraphrasing and plagerism of someone else's work?
--Saul T (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ALL articles in WP are supposed to be based on  reliable tertiary sources, without original research. In principle, without sources, an article should be deleted, no matter how notable the subject. Of course, if a subject is really notable, there are always sources. I agree that there are many articles on WP that do not adhere to these guidelines, but that is irrelevant, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps "only moderately successful in Asia" and "almost unheard of in the West" translates to "not enough notability"..... Perhaps there could be one article on Koei's games (perhaps the few available sources together would be enough to source one articvle, not multiple ones). --Crusio (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you're suggesting that I merge all Koei game articles or simply delete this one entirely. Neither option sounds particularly useful to anybody, in my opinion. Besides, I'm not the authority on video game notability for Wikipedia. It would be incredibly arrogant of me to take these actions based on my own personal perspective and nothing more. The Cake is a Lie T / C 16:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: *I have no problems with being bold. --Crusio (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a problem with removing information (particularly notable information) from an encyclopedia because it's entirely detrimental to Jimbo Wales' philosophy of a website containing the sum of all knowledge. If you want to take this to AfD, that's your choice, although I'm afraid I won't be supporting your request. I prefer articles be brought up to par rather than simply deleted entirely. The Cake is a Lie T / C 01:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The philosophy is indeed the sum of all knowledge, as long as it is sourced and verifiable. This stuff has been around a long time, has been tagged for lacking sources for a long time, and nothing has been forthcoming. At some point one has to pull the plug. If there are no sources, if the information is unverifiable, chances are that there is no notability either. However, regardless of notability, lack of sources IS a reason to delete an article. The text is not lost (contrary to what would happen after AfD), it is still in the article history. If someone can come up with WP:RS, it is easy to revert and add the sources. Until then though, this stuff should go. --Crusio (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, for a good example on what an article on a (much older) pre-Internet computer game could be, have a look at Pong, which is detailed and abundantly sourced. I don't think people play it much any more, but there still are plenty of sources. Pong clearly is notable, the lack of sources here indicates that it is different for BKoAC. --Crusio (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pong was the first video game ever made, so of course there's probably more information overall on Pong than any other video game released since then simply because of that fact. As for this article, like I said: submit it to AfD if you wish, although I would probably at least attempt to find some sources before taking such a measure. The Cake is a Lie T / C 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, if your read the article, you'll see that Pong was NOT the first video game. --Crusio (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: There are four press reviews in the MobyGames link alone. I think it is more constructive to try to help than to enforce your BLP-like philosophy. _dk (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are fan websites, are you sure these are reliable sources? --Crusio (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nintendo Power is a fan website? Do you even know what you are talking about? _dk (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Crusio, the very same paragraph which states that Pong was not the first video game still also states the reason why it would have so many sources available. The actual first game is really only a technicality since most people aren't even aware of the existence of Computer Space. Also, redirecting is not a good idea. I think you should at the very least take this to AfD to allow for proper consensus and judgement to be passed on the matter. Simply redirecting will not go down well with your fellow editors. The Cake is a Lie T / C 13:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I played the Amiga version of this game (first-hand experience), and it came with a very detailed manual.
I thoroughly enjoyed playing his game and didn't find it overly difficult or complicated.
It may be due to the fact that I had military board game experience and had read The Water Margin (70 or 72 chapter version) and Outlaws of the Marsh (108 chapter version) before playing this game.
In fact, when I saw there was a game for Water Margin I bought it immediately.
The complication that some people may experience from playing this game is due to the interpersonal relationships between characters which directly influence your chance of gaining allies in this game. It is much similar to Dynasty Warriors Tactics in that regards.
Basically, there are 108 heroes. These are divided into to 36 Heavenly Spirits and 72 Earthly Demons. Each is related to a star in the Heavens, and the ones that are part of the same constellations are friends.
It is fairly outlined in the stories who hangs out with whom. Based on the character you start with, track down their allies. Once you have all those allies, you will have gained someone that knows someone outside of that circle. Expand to the next circle and accumulate allies.
The game is relatively simple at that point as long as you have a good strategic sense.
As in the Water Margin, avoid conflicts with the central government until you can amass a stronghold at Liang Shan Po (basically a mountain in the middle of a lake surrounded my marshes).
This game is truly remarkable. It is in-depth and actually sticks to the source material.WereTech (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Play Difficulty, Game Manual, Knowledge of "Water Margin"