Talk:Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares

message: The Pax Humanica and new dark age sound suspiciously like MOO3 contamination. The relationship between backstory and gameplay can often be strained, but this breaks it entirely: it would mean each race regressing from a galaxy-wide republic to pre-spaceflight technology on the exact same worlds as before, the spontaneous reappearance of the Guardian, not to mention that the setting starts off unexplored. Someone who owns the manual should check. --Kizor 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background story

message: I think Evil Egg's recent edits are a mixed bunch, some good and some bad:
*Backstory: "simply to destroy" is accurate but probably needs to be extended to "... destroy rather than invade." "Players with little territory should be wary" is just an opinion and does not reflect how the game plays - the Antarans apparently select targets at random, so the largest empire is most likely to be hit; and the effect is to make it risky to colonise / conquer more systems than you can defend, especially as the Antarans can strike behind the lines. I would prefer to delete that comment.
*Victory conditions: The shorter description of defeating the Antarans is an improvement. But "getting elected requires some combination of power and diplomacy" is wrong - the point is that to get elected you need more votes than you can generate just by colonising, so you need to gain supporters and / or conquer / annihilate other empires' colonies.
*Combat map image: The new caption omits the vital point that the full map is quite large, and scrollable. The fact that the planet is of the Terran type is irrelevant.
*Main screen image: I deliberately kept captions of screen shots brief, to minimise the risk that the images would be longer than the associated text. "The main screen: the pop-up window displays information about a specific star system, while the large window under it displays the galaxy as a whole" is accurate, and brief enough. "The icons down the right displays information concerning the player's empire" is IMO less important than the fact that the bottom row of the screen contains menu buttons.
I have not changed any of these items yet because I'd like to know what others think. Any comments?Philcha 19:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Philcha 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evil Egg's recent edits

message: I did not notice a source for the claim that "most users" have difficulty running MoO2 under XP. I realize I am only one example, but I never had difficulty running it under XP using the final official patch. Similarly, it worked fine under Win95 and Win98. Frankly, the claim surprised me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.129.136 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen lots of forum threads which started with "How to run MOO2 under XP?" and ended with "Use DOSbox".Philcha 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Having just got XP(!), I tried running the Windows version of MOO2 without adjustments, and it crashed so badly (when I ALT-TABbed) that I had to restart XP. So I searched the Web and found the compatibility-mode tips which I've incorporated into the article.Philcha 00:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Worked a bit in this section the last days. Will add references to the most common 2k/Vista issues in the next days.McLar eng 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done!Philcha 11:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further experience on my machine is that the screen colours go horribly wrong after about 20 turns, and quitting then restarting the game does not help. DOSBox is AFAIK the only reliable solution. Philcha (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulties under XP 

message: Skuczera mentioned November 22 1996 as release date. Any source except MobyGames? I found Oct 31 mentioned on GameSpot, IGN, metacritics etc. McLar eng (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, both dates are wrong. (This is first-hand knowledge, not citing a reference.) This game was released (in North America) while I was working at Egghead Software - I still have some of the promotional posters for it packed away somewhere. I left that job in June of 1996, so the date given in the referenced article is not possible. I believe the game actually came out sometime between mid-March to early-May of 1996. Perhaps the confusion of the date in the article was due to the game release date originally scheduled for October 1995, then pushed back to November 1995, then pushed back again to Winter 1996, and then finally released in early Spring of 1996. It was a very long and frustrating wait for me and I badgered the reps every time they came by the store. I was so excited when it finally did come out that I actually bought two copies with my employee discount, one to play and one to keep sealed. :-) For me, it was bigger than the Windows 95 release several months earlier.  Hope this information helps. Rob Reinhard 71.93.99.23 (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

text: November 22 1996 was indeed the date that the game was available in stores in NA. The Microprose press release can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/19980120114738/http://www.microprose.com/corporatedesign/press/moo2.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocco.40 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOO2 release date 

message: Props to whoever added a disambiguation link to molybdenum oxide. It made me grin. Maxgleeson (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos 

message: 67.170.104.151 changed "sending food in freighters, but using these costs money" to "sending food in freighters, but building these costs money". "using" is correct, see manual. -- Philcha (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Freighters

message: I just reverted this edit, which placed section "Gameplay" above "Reception". Perhaps the editor's motivation was that most other videogame articles have "Gameplay" before "Reception". AFAIK most other videogame articles on WP are about point-and-click adventures, FPS and RTS. However MOO II is a TBS, and therefore has much more complex rules, mechanics and UI. If I were a reader with zero or minimal prior knowledge, my first question would be "Why should I be interested enough to read all the gameplay material?" The "Reception" section hopefully answers that by showing that MOO II is still regarded as one of the greats of its genre, and is playable on modern platforms. --Philcha (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, that was the reason I placed the Gameplay section above Reception. Pretty much every videogame article I have seen (that has a reception section) places it underneath the gameplay section, including other Turn-based strategy games such as the Civilization (series) and the partial TBS Total War (series). While some of these aren't the best examples, it is the standard approach recommended for all games in the guidelines. QueenCake (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Section order

message: Cleaned out a couple of the external links, per WP:ELNO.  Blogspot link already used as a source, youtube demo video is trivial and an open wiki site. DP76764 (Talk) 19:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: How is this acceptable?  From what I've seen of infobox formatting, only official elements of the game should be listed (the template doesn't directly state 'official', but I believe that is the intent of field).  Are there any other articles that actually have a 'fan version' listing in the infobox?  I was unable to locate any.  I'm still a bit skeptical about the whole fan version mentions in the article, though it does seem to meet the guidelines for an exception, but that shouldn't apply to the infobox. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 00:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "what you've seen of infobox formatting" is not a guideline or policy. This is not a typical game situation - see the "Publication" section and w-linked articles for the troubled history of the developers and publishers. The last offical patch, v 1.31, left some remaining bugs. The 1.4x patches now fix a bit over half. --Philcha (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm familiar with the history of this title.  My point is, an unofficial, fan patch can hardly be considered appropriate.  Just because some unaffiliated third party fixed a bunch of residual issues doesn't make that an official 'version' of the game (infobox info seems to be intended to be official).  "not a typical game situation" - indeed, but I suggest that "exceptional claims demand exceptional sources". Perhaps we could get a RFC from WP:WikiProject_Video_games? DP76764 (Talk) 06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument appears to be based entirely on your preconception of what is "appropriate". If accepted, it would make the article misleading by omitting significant info. Mine is based on providing accurate, useful information to readers. --Philcha (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You both seem to have opposite points of view. I think you should take DP's suggestion and get some views from the Gaming project.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some additional opinions would definitely be valuable.  I believe that putting this info in the infobox (it's fine in the body of the article) gives the 'fan version' undue weight by placing it prominently and on equal footing with the official version. Keeping the infobox in-line with official information is not 'misleading' either; the owner of the game says that version X is the official, final version, so that's what should be listed there. I am sorry if I have not elucidated my 'perception of appropriateness' adequately; my goal is to help the article meet and comply with the standards of quality here.  DP76764 (Talk) 15:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Requested more input here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Requesting_comments_and_input. DP76764 (Talk) 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why a "fan patch" can't be mentioned, but this is the infobox for the GAME. Dp76764 is right.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Fan numbers are fine if the works have been commented on by independant reliable sources. However, official version numbers should still be used as well.陣内Jinnai 16:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest putting the official patch in the infobox, while mentioning a notable fan version in the reception section. QueenCake (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps  Dp76764 could not find other articles that have a 'fan version' listing in the infobox simply because patches by fans are very rare. In this Google the top hit was for another fan-produced patch of another game (makes a Wii game usable by English-speakers) and no other hits in the next 5 pages of search listing. The Wii game patch, announced at Fan-made Fatal Frame IV translation patch incoming, should perhaps be noted at Fatal Frame IV if and when it arrives and proves usable, since Sorry guys, Fatal Frame IV isn't coming to Europe either and Fatal Frame Never Coming to America? report that Nintendo has decided to not to release the game outside Japan. --Philcha (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  Dp76764's comment (17:02, 12 June 2009), "gives the 'fan version' undue weight by placing it prominently and on equal footing with the official version", either is unclear or is mistaken because the official 1.31 patch is a prerequisite for the fan-made 1.40 patch. --Philcha (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that fanmade patches might not be as the developer intended, for example, say someone makes their own video game story and patches Chrono Trigger, do we still include it in the infobox about the original game? It would definitely be undue weight.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the game or even genre to which you're referring. I also suspect you don't know the game or genre to which I'm referring, but won't bore you with the internals of a typical 4X game. The bottom line is that the 1.40 patch: fixes some bugs; provides additional game start-up options; does not change the game's rules, balance or mechanics; buts a prerequisite for some mods that do aim to adjust the game's balance in various ways. The background is that: most of Simtex's games were buggy and needed multiple patches; Microprose took over Simtext in 1995; Microprose was already unprofitable and was running out of cash when Hasbro took it over in 1998. So the last "official" version, patch 1.31, left the game with some loose ends, some of which patch 1.40 fixes. --Philcha (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan version # in infobox?

message: User:TaintedMustard's changes on 18:15, 15 October 2010, 18:21, 15 October 2010 and 18:54, 15 October 2010 show confusion about how freighters work. The problem is that the Manual's comments about freighters at pp. 136-137 are part of an overview of various aspects of managing an empire, and do not give the whole details.
The details about freighters are in page 74, under the "Cold Fusion (General)" technology, and the section "Freighters (Ship)" gives full information but in a very terse presentation:
* Freighters can food or population from one system to another. Each unit of food requires 1 freighter, and 1 unit of population requires 5 freighter. Each freighter transporting from one system to another costs 0.5BC per turn (p.74). Like other ships, freighters fly faster if the player acquires a more advanced drive technology.
* Moving food or population within the same system shows a inconsistency in the game. Moving food within the same system is just like moving food to another system - each freighter takes 1 turn, and this costs 0.5BC.
* But moving  population within the same system is controlled by another subsystem of the game, which controls how population is employed in farming, industry and research - and this moves population instantaneously to another job on the same planet or another in the same system. Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares#How_planets' economies work gives an overview, and the Colony List at pp. 35-38 shows how to move population instantaneously to another job on the same planet or another in the same system. IMO the Colony List can managing your economy from this one control point. --Philcha (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Freighters

message: I request a community reassessment for these reasons:
* On August 23, 2010  Teancum started Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/1 ofMaster of Orion II: Battle at Antares, said at 11:51, 11 August 2010, 14:12, 9 August, "Not throwing in my final opinion yet, but given Philca's focus on updating the article I see no reason as of now that this won't remain GA class" and at 11:51, 11 August 2010 "Keep GA listing - article issues have been sufficiently resolved". However, placed at the top of the GAR and dated 12:09, 5 August 2010, Teancum wrote, Recommendation - immediate delist to C-Class and place the article under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review to help it to comply with both Wikipedia's and Wikiproject Video Games' standards. - but "Recommendation - immediate delist" is not visible on 24 August 2010
* Finally on 22:49, 15 August 2010 Geometry guy wrote "Delist, with regret. I wanted to close this reassessment as keep, but am unable to do so, as the huge imbalance between the long Backstory-Gameplay-UserInterface part (primary sourced material on how to play the game) and the community reassessment short Development-Reception-PostPublication part (secondary sourced material on responses to the game) suggests to me that the article fails criterion 3, and indeed possibly also WP:NOT: this is not an encyclopedia article at present, but a gameguide with reviews." Geometry guy then gave a "Fail" with no chance to discuss. I do not see how "possibly also WP:NOT" is justified, as the article has many good citations, inclunding several game reviews from good sources - some about just this games, and some about its use as the "gold standard" for reviews of other games. --Philcha (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete GAR request

message: Before this article can be promoted to Good Article, the referencing needs to be fixed. The conversion to short reference format was extremely sloppy, as it is now very difficult to determine what footnote links to what reference. I don't think the online non-book sources should not be using the Harvard citation style. The inline/Harvard hybrid style (i.e. the style used in the Microsoft article) would probably work better. I'll try and address this issue. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Put some references in the intro, too. --Fang Aili talk 20:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:LEADCITE, citations in the lead section are not required. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's interesting. Thanks for the heads up. --Fang Aili talk 20:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I think the style used in Microsoft article doesn't have the right to exist at all. All footnotes should be either short or long. If hybrid solution is absolutely needed, the  should be used instead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares. 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:
*Added  tag to http://au.gamespot.com/master-of-orion-ii-battle-at-antares/reviews/master-of-orion-ii-battle-at-antares-review-2542439/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205053233/http://dailygame.net/Articles/Reviews/moo3.html to http://www.dailygame.net/Articles/Reviews/moo3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)