Talk:Total Annihilation: Kingdoms

message: I created the article List of places in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms by merging content from 14 separate articles (12 of which were up for deletion).  I will perform as much cleanup and improvement as I can, but my knowledge of the game is at present limited to what I've read in this article.  So, any assistance would be appreciated.  Thank you, Black Falcon 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of places and characters in TA:K 

message: The article states that the game was a dismal failure, everyone hating it, and it leading to the destruction of Cavedog.  I thought Cavedog ended because Chris Taylor made enough money to start his own company, and then created Dungeon Siege, etc.  Anyway, I enjoyed the game, played it constantly when it came out online with a lot of other players, all of which seemed to enjoy it.  It is far superior to TA, since the four factions all have their unique characteristics and style of play required to master them.  TA just had Core and Arm, and most of their units were exactly the same, only with a different name and different artwork.  Does anyone have the sales figures?  I think a lot of this article may be Original Research, as they call it, just one guy's opinion. Dream Focus 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I played TA and TAK when they came out and was active on the newsgroups and forums. TAK was almost universally hated by TA players. It had very high system requirements (it was the Crysis of its time), and just didn't match TA in gameplay. Chris Taylor, the genius behind TA, had left Cavedog before development of TAK began. For the true sequel to TA, check out Supreme Commander. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm a fan of the game, and really liked it.  Any referances for most fans hating it? 

message: I continue to play it still on GameSpy every once in awhile. I believe Chris Taylor did get enough money to leave, and this article had the tone of intense dislike of the game, it seems to be a little cleaned up more but a few more tweaks should be added. I especially disagree with the "failure" remark. Anyone who had played the game during the Boneyards era knows full well there were tons of users and always an open room for those looking for a game. UltraFanatic (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am also a fan of the game 

message: a me nn funzionano, penso valgano solo x quello cn i robot di total annihilation, mentre io ho quello fantasy
Iniziate una partita skirmish o multiplayer, premete Enter per far apparire il box dei messaggi, poi "+", e in seguito... 
...uno di questi codici seguiti nuovamente da un Enter. Da notare che il numero di quelli che ti funzioneranno dipenderà dalla versione che hai.
Atm -mana al massimo 
Bigbrother -passa tra le unità della CPU
Cdstart -musica on/off
Clock -orologio 
Combustion -Nemici muoiono
Dither - Dithering invece della Line of Sight 
Doubleshot -armi che fanno il doppio del danno
f2menu -display menu 
fogcolor [1 -256] -cambia nebbia 
Halfshot -armi che fanno la metà del danno 
Ilose -perdita instantanea 
Infrared -Fog of War On/Off 
Iwin -vincita istantanea 
Kill # -uccide giocatore # (0 -4)
lightrange [1 -20] -cambia fulmine 
logo [1 -9] -alterna colore della razza 
lotsablood -più sangue
Lushee -aumento del limite delle risorse
makeposter -foto della schermata attuale 
Meteor -pioggia di meteore casuale
nameunit [unit] -rinomina unità 
Nanolathing -utilizzo raddoppiato del Nanolathing
Noenergy -niente energia
Nometal -niente metallo 
nowisee -mappa 
quit -indovinate?
Radar -100% di copertura radar
Rollingfog -effetto omonimo on/off (solo 3Dfx)
Selectunits -deseleziona le unità
Shareradar -informazioni radar condivise
Shootall -unità che sparano a tutti i nemici
Sing -unità canterine
Tilt -massimo munero di unità
Vidmode -risoluzioni varie
View # -vedere metallo ed energia del giocatore # (0 -4) 
Wackyfog -effetti movimento nebbia on/off (solo 3Dfx)
Wackywater -effetto acqua on/off (solo 3Dfx)
Zipper -Costruzione rapida di edifici
Iniziate una partita skirmish o multiplayer, premete Enter per far apparire il box dei messaggi, poi "+", e in seguito...
...uno di questi codici seguiti nuovamente da un Enter. Da notare che il numero di quelli che ti funzioneranno dipenderà dalla versione che hai.
Atm -mana al massimo
Bigbrother -passa tra le unità della CPU
Cdstart -musica on/off
Clock -orologio
Combustion -Nemici muoiono
Dither - Dithering invece della Line of Sight
Doubleshot -armi che fanno il doppio del danno
f2menu -display menu
fogcolor [1 -256] -cambia nebbia
Halfshot -armi che fanno la metà del danno
Ilose -perdita instantanea
Infrared -Fog of War On/Off
Iwin -vincita istantanea
Kill # -uccide giocatore # (0 -4)
lightrange [1 -20] -cambia fulmine
logo [1 -9] -alterna colore della razza
lotsablood -più sangue
Lushee -aumento del limite delle risorse
makeposter -foto della schermata attuale
Meteor -pioggia di meteore casuale
nameunit [unit] -rinomina unità
Nanolathing -utilizzo raddoppiato del Nanolathing
Noenergy -niente energia
Nometal -niente metallo
nowisee -mappa
quit -indovinate?
Radar -100% di copertura radar
Rollingfog -effetto omonimo on/off (solo 3Dfx)
Selectunits -deseleziona le unità
Shareradar -informazioni radar condivise
Shootall -unità che sparano a tutti i nemici
Sing -unità canterine
Tilt -massimo munero di unità
Vidmode -risoluzioni varie
View # -vedere metallo ed energia del giocatore # (0 -4)
Wackyfog -effetti movimento nebbia on/off (solo 3Dfx)
Wackywater -effetto acqua on/off (solo 3Dfx)
Zipper -Costruzione rapida di edifici  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.164.13 (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  trucchi 

message: It currently reads: "In spite of this, the game continues to be seen as a failure and is often regarded as the reason for Cavedog's demise."
::How exactly can a bestselling game lead to a company's demise?  It says in the article that it was in the top 10 sales figures one week, so surely it made a profit.  And you can't say fans of the original hated it, because many fans did in fact enjoy both, and even preferred it to the original.  I'm erasing that bit too. Dream Focus (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was active on the TA forums and newsgroup when TAK was released. Many TA fans hated TAK for various reasons. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: This entire argument is moot. Whether or not the game led to the company closing down, until someone brings up hard proof that it was responsible, this is all a matter of what constitutes OR and what doesn't. "I was active on the forums" is not a valid reason for keeping in what is a major accusation. Perhaps if Cavedog had released a press release blaming the game for its closing we could leave that statement in. As it is, all we have are some fans saying that it was a good game and some saying it was bad. There should be no statements in the article about whether this game was successful or not, or whether it was responsible for Cavedog's collapse or not until they can be cited with facts, not with speculation and hearsay. Cheers, Davidovic 07:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, having just read the Cavedog Entertainment article, it claims that Cavedog closed down as sales declined industry-wide. Even if this particular game did do poorly, you have to remember that there are tons of other factors that may contribute to a company's survival. Davidovic 07:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  erasing conflicting information now 

message: To be frank, this article is fairly poor quality. I came here looking for information about the game itself, and instead found out how it compares to the other TA games - which I have no interest in. This is hardly how all articles about spin-off games are written. I'll be cleaning up the language and the irrelevant bits when I can, but really I think it needs the following structure: Introduction, TOC, Overview, Differences (from TA), Features (multiplayer, communities, so forth), Expansion. Davidovic 07:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: A lot of people still play it.  How many count as a "large" fanbase?  Do you check how many people are on warzone, or other places?  If so, you could say thousands of people still play it online.  No way to tell how many of us still play it single player mode sometimes.  In the first years after its release, there were a lot of sites for it, and people kept releasing their own units, factions, and maps.  Of course, you sometimes have just one person doing all the artwork and adding in a new faction, and all their units, etc.  So that isn't a large fanbase, just one dedicated fan.  So, how do we determine if something has a large fanbase today?  Perhaps Google its name, followed by "2008" and see how many post have been made about it this year on blogs, websites, and in forum post? Dream Focus (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Annihilation: Kingdom's large fanbase... someone tagged it dubious and discuss 

message: I clicked on the War God link to see why a link to an EZboard was included, and found that link dead.  I clicked on another link, which was also dead.  So I went ahead and undid the edit that added them back again.  The first time these links were added, it was by the same IP address which the records show never contributed anything to any wikipedia article before.  This time they were added back by a different IP address, which also had no other wikipedia history.
If you are going to post links in the article make certain of the following things:
1. The links are to a website that still exist.
2. The links are relevant to the article, and aren't just a fansite with a small active population.
3. If there is mention in the article of player made add-ons, then a reference can be added for people to click on, to go to these popular add-ons.
That's just all I can think of right now.  Feel free to discuss it.  This is what I consider common sense, but I'm sure there is probably a long list of official wikipedia rules out there if anyone wants to bother looking it up. Dream Focus (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The links that keep getting added 

message: Suggestion: Next time you have a vote to delete a page like that, post something about it in the main subject page, so that those of us who care about the series can know what's going on.
And you can't merge something like that, it just useless information.  I don't know of any TA:K fan that played the game for its storyline.  And one day, a guy said hey, instead of making flat boats, I'll make one that is deep in the middle!  And thus he created a massive trading empire, his ships just so wonderful.  He went to an exotic land, found some stuff, became all powerful and united the area, then split it up between his four children and vanished, they then warring against each other, that how the series started.
As for the various houses and other factions, they were mentioned briefly at times, in the scenarios, and in the manual, but never really made any difference.  The units were still the same, it just an excuse to have you fighting out members of your own faction, they a rebelling house or faction.  Never once in playing the game, would you need to know any of that information.  And you can't move around on a map or anything, so you can't navigate to these places.  So if it comes up again, I vote to delete that page if you have to(I see no reason why you couldn't just ignore it since it isn't harming anything), but don't try copying over so much useless information that you double the size of this article. Dream Focus (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this merge crap? 

message: I hope that isn't too much detail.  If it makes the article seem too long or unpleasant for some to look at, I can place it in a fold down.
  Differences in factions that make this game so unique to most other real time strategy games
  
    And then place all the information here.
  
Opinions please.  Most games then and now have different factions which are exactly the same, except artwork.  This game actually managed several different ones, and had them all playable.  I've seen games which have variations, but then people complain that certain races aren't playable, too weak compared to the others.  I think that notable enough to mention in the article, showing what sets this game apart from the rest.  Dream Focus 00:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  To understand what makes this game different than the rest, mentioning the units is necessary 

message: 81.231.55.179 I have reverted your section deletions.  If you believe something shouldn't be in the article, discuss it here.  I have already stated why I believe information about the units in the game should be included.  If you feel otherwise, discuss it.  And if you don't like how a section is worded, then talk about fixing it, don't just delete everything, because a sentence or two in it might need fixing.  Dream Focus 11:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you have a problem with the article, discuss it here, don't mass delete entire sections 

message: The factions created by fans have had large numbers of people download them, and were well known at the time of the game's popularity.  I believe the official website for Total Annihilation: Kingdoms linked to it, or its staff mentioned some on its forums.  Its been awhile.  Mentioning these exists is a relevant bit of information for the article, just as mentioning popular mods for other games is, in their articles.  They are quite complete, and well played.  The statement at the start of this section, saying that many had expectations based on it having the Total Annihilation name, I believe is fair.  I believe its common sense, people would think of it as a sequel.  Dream Focus 11:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community section 

message: This article is obviously the "pet" of an editor (in this case, "Dream Focus").
It is way to detailed in non-important areas (i.e. units, building etc - Wikipedia ain't a "Strategy guide"), has alot of information that shouldn't even be in an article of this kind ( i.e. loads of comparsion to the original Total Annihilation).
It is written in a very personal and ridiculously biased style, has only 2 reference sites (of which one (the .pdf-link) is dead) and alot of unverified claims, uncited statements, heavy usage of weasel terms and sentences (i.e. "Like Total Annihilation, Kingdoms still has a large fanbase.") and it is clearly  filled with personal opinion and original research. It not only requires cleanup, it pretty much requires re-writing by someone less biased (and with at least rudimentary knowledge of how to make a decent Wikipedia article).
This article should be completely re-written, or extremely cleaned.
81.231.55.179 (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not write any of the community section.  It was like that when I got here.  And at the time it was written, there were still sites where a large number of people still played the game.  And instead of mass deleting the section, why not just erase those parts?  Mentioning the player made mods should be done.  Dream Focus 03:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: What makes it different than most other real time strategy games, the reason the list is so important.  You had five different factions, all of them greatly different from one another, with different ways of fighting, and it all still very well balanced.  In most real time strategy games, they make just token chances in appearances and that's it, they still basically all the same.  And why haven't you registered a user name yet?  Dream Focus 00:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

text: It was notable, it sold well, plenty of people played it, and loved it, there always a lot of people at the Boneyards playing it and posting on the official forums back in the day.  And if you had played the game, you'd know the factions were quite different, such as Taros not having artillery able to shoot over walls, unlike the others.  You are the same guy from before aren't you?  Why don't you register a name already?  If you don't like the information, then you don't have to read it.  Some who are interested in the topic, will want to know more about it.  Dream Focus 02:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal style and repulsive writing 

message: *Google news archive search shows many places talked about the game.   Dream Focus 16:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone wants reviews 

message: 1999 Humongous Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  Total Annihilation and Total Annihilation: Kingdoms are trademarks of Humongous Entertainment, Inc.  Cavedog Entertainment and the Cavedog Entertainment logo are registered trademarks of Humongous Entertainment, Inc.  Created and published by Cavedog Entertainment, a division of Humongous Entertainment Inc. Distributed by GT Interactive Software Corps.  All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.  Dream Focus 05:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the box says 

message: *More negative reviews were added about this game.  Many of the problems mentioned though were fixed with the patches.  CNET says that anyway.  Did the other places updated their reviews?  Can we say "Most" reviews were negative?  How many places reviewed it, and did more than half of them give it negative reviews without any update after they patched most of the problems out?  Dream Focus 22:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  was all the negative reviews from the original version, not the patched version? 

message: Come on, I've been watching this page for a while now, even added a couple of reviews back in the day, and really, Wikipedia? Really?
Dreamfocus is a VERY apparent fanboy, and while there's nothing wrong with liking a game (heck, besides the horrible and broken pathfinding, I enjoyed TA:K a lot more than the original TA ((probably for many of the same reasons that most orignial TA players hated Kingdoms), he is very apparently skewing this article in it's favour, for several reasons.
Firstly, and most apparently, by removing the posted "Reception" section. This is not OK on ANY level, as no matter how much I or him or anyone else enjoyed the game, the fact is that it got a negative reception (and as a sidenote never had more than a cult-following in it's fanbase), pretty much exclusively negative to mixed reviews, and that's really all there is to it. It was not positively received, no matter how much Dreamfocus, or I, or anyone wishes it was.
Secondly, saying that "it got fixed with patches" changes NOTHING; it still got a negative reception. It's not good practice in the games industry to release a half-finished game, and it makes the community very upset, as we can see e.g. in the recent EA-debates. And even besides all that the fact remains; no matter how many patches were released,  how much of the "bad stuff" it fixed, the game STILL got a bad reception, which should be in the article. More so, I have yet to see any review that states that the game got better from the patches; the closest I have come to seeing anything of the sort is the CNET review who admitted that it made the game smoother and optimized the engine. But the complaints that were leveled against the game by e.g. Gamespot and the gang, the sore spots that made them mark it down, was not only that it was broken and unfinished upon release; they thought that it, genuinely, was not too good a game, as anyone could see form reading them; i.e., the complaint about it being samey and not revitalizing the genre, not bringing anything new to the table, having a generic run-of-the-mill fantasy setting etcetera, these are "faults" that  no patch could "fix" as it would mean changing the entire game to something else; that (fantasy run-of-the-mill etcetera) is what the game was, even if it got patched to a shiny sparkling piece of gold. This should be reflected in the article, rather than some sore fanboys wish to make it out like the best RTS to ever hit shelves. -incassum, 16:36 GMT, Sunday the 1st of July 2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.38.198 (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not remove the reception section.  I even reverted its removal once, adding it back in minus one sentence which was wrong.  It got 6.6 out of 10, 6.9 out of 10, 3 out of 5, 3 and a half out of 5.  Not really that negative.  Upon consideration, I don't see any reason for the reception section, if most of the reviews are from the initial release, and only one covers it after its first major patch.  Dream Focus 00:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, all Wikipedia articles have to have reliable sources covering the subject of the article to prevent them from being deleted.  So I did add back in the Reception section.  Please stop deleting it.  If you want additional reviews, then find some reliable sources and mention what they said.  Dream Focus 03:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampant Fanboism and Skewed and Biased page