Jump to content

Talk:Age of Mythology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleAge of Mythology is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 20, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 8, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
June 3, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
June 5, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
June 24, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 27, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 14, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
January 7, 2014Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Campaign

[edit]

I was wondering if someone with more memory than I could exlplain the campaign section why Poseidon favors Garagrensis. I think it had something to do with being his son? If someone doesnt, Ill go and play it again, but I'd rather not.I  (said) (did) 21:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the last response here. I don't think it's because of a relation of any kind, if I recall correctly it was just because Poseiden didn't like Atlantis, and kinda defaulted towards its enemy; Gargarensis. But by all means, play it again anyway :D Giggy UCP 06:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Poseidon was the principal god of Atlantis in AoM's storyline. Gargarensis's great-grandmother was "seduced" (raped?) by Poseidon, which angered Gargarensis, and rather than seeking revenge he only wanted Poseidon to help him become a god. Since Poseidon had already been tempted by Kronos into betraying the Olympians, Kronos promised Gargarensis that he would become a god if the Titan was freed by him, and that Poseidon would help him along the way as their goals were the same. Poseidon couldn't just free Kronos by himself, BTW, since the gods were prevented from opening the gates that sealed the Titans in Tartarus. Hope this helps. :) 70.146.31.251 18:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I knew it was something like that! Thanks much. Feel free to add that into the campaign portion of the article. i said 18:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do it, I, it was your question :P Giggy Talk 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the campaign several times, and I heard nothing of Gargarensis's great-grandmother. Where did you learn this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.141.13.187 (talk) 04:31:58, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

It is in the description. Click on Gargarensis, then right-click his icon. In the infobox, you will find all your answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.180.114 (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted track listing

[edit]

I deleted the soundtrack's track listing because I thought it was non-notable information, and only people who already have the soundtrack will even know which songs are which. Not very useful. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Track listings are maintained for all soundtracks and album pages, as they are considered notable to the soundtrack/album. I'll try and find some policy or something concerning that. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The soundtrack received many great reviews and a lot of different artists featured on it. Just for the record, notability only applies to article topics, and not the content itself. I suggest you re-read WP:N. Sebi [talk] 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sebi -- point taken. Dihydrogen Monoxide -- there's the saying "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". In other words, just because other soundtracks do it doesn't mean it's the right choice here. What does the track listing bring to the article? What does it tell the reader? I still don't think the track listing has any use at all unless you already have the album, in which case you don't need it. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Age of Mythology Heaven

[edit]

Added link to Age of Mythology heaven. It has loads more info than can ever be described on one wiki page. Also, is a place to go for support for the game, as developers have abandoned it. James 02:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it. Per WP:EL, links to fansites are rarely needed, especially when the article is well referenced in its own right. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Mythology experiment

[edit]

Some Austrian scientists have used Age of Mythology in an AI experiment (slides, summary). Perhaps it could be mentioned in the article. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-9 18:00

Ooh, nice find. Thanks Jacoplane :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Congratulations to Dihydrogen Monoxide, and everyone else who helped with this article. :) · AndonicO Talk 12:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks mate. You didn't do too bad yourself. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. · AndonicO Talk 11:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lazer Bear, Bella, Flying Purple Hippo, Fork Boy, etc.

[edit]

There is nothing concerning the cheat units of AoM anywhere on Wikipedia. They are notable, and some of them (Lazer Bear in particular) have very interesting descriptions.

As Wikipedia is not a game guide, we don't cover cheats etc. around here. Sorry, Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 08:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said the cheat UNITS, not the codes used to obtain them. Also, under further research, I have found that Wikipedia does not cover the AOEIII cheat units either. 67.42.180.114 03:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Units, cheats, same diff. We don't cover any of them - we're not a game guide, with the broadest possible definition. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Is it perhaps worth menioning that the civilisation in the picture (the one with the town centre, three villagers etc) is the Greek civilisation as people who have never played the game would not know. TheTrojanHought (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. [1] Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Board Game

[edit]

This article needs something (or maybe it deserves it's own article) on the Board game version: [[2]] Just found it today, never knew it existed! --dotDarkCloud (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can create a new article if you like...the board game isn't that notable though. Not sure if it's worth mentioning (can you find more than one source?) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it Tony, I hav no objections. —Giggy 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign detail?

[edit]

Given the FA status of this article, mant of course would not support any major edits per say but I was wondering whether the campaign plot section could use somewhat more detail. By no means do I think we should go over board, more like 4 paragraphs like most other FA articles that would take up slightly more if not the same space the current one does as the current one is mostly spaced out by spaces between sentances. Any thoughts? Stabby Joe (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no objection to you making edits to that section (or any other!). I wrote that section a while back and haven't played the game in ages, but anyone with a good knowledge of the campaign is welcome to fiddle around with it. —Giggy 08:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, theres AN attempt at a more detailed campaign section. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remake?

[edit]

I dont think that AOM: Mythologys can be condsiderd a remake, i'd call it more of a spin-of

Merger

[edit]

I think we should merge these to article because Roman Legion barely has any refs holding it up and is not very notable outside the topic of Age of Mythology.--(NGG) 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it even qualifies as notable. I'd nominate it for deletion, if I were you. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - nominate for deletion instead. Homebrew games, 3rd party or fan-made expacks have no business here. Fanx (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Higher res photo

[edit]

We need a slightly higher res photo of the meteor photo. It looks FAR too pixelated. Bahahs 00:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)

Where's the gold edition section ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.22.163 (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compatibility issues

[edit]

The compatibility section may be a bit misleading as AOM:The Titans works with no problems at all on both 32 and 64 bit versions of Windows 7 without any patches or "hacks". I'll try to find some more info regarding this besides a single Microsoft page that most likely has not nor will ever be updated, but as a long time player who currently runs AOM on Windows 7x64 I personally would say delete that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.57.19 (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian Units

[edit]

In the Buildings section, it states that all civilian units are trained at the Town Centre but the trading units i.e the donkey thingy that I cannot recall the name of that is trained at the market. Also, only villagers and gathering animals are trained at the Town Centre. Jbhf1 (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Patch

[edit]

A community attempt to re-balance the game, and provide further maps, fix bugs and generally enhance the multiplayer experience. This could probably make it into the main article. Fan patch topic : http://www.rts-sanctuary.com/The-Titans/showtopic=213812&st=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.149.158 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice

[edit]

I plan on placing this article for FAR soon. But before I do that, I am saying the issues the article have here. The main issue it has is its sources. I do not believe that sources like "Age of Mythology Heaven", "ToTheGame", nor "MobyGames" are reliable sources. GamerPro64 03:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HD Remake for steam teased

[edit]

The developers released a teaser for an HD remake on steam.

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1z7rrz/age_of_mythology_is_coming_to_steam_finally

This should be included in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.215.188 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ageofempires.com/aom.aspx 173.27.58.224 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dates, expansion, features of expansion, and circumstances of the expansion

[edit]

These things should be added to the page. Be sure to use sources!

You can find or ask about news from devs on the steam forum or on http://www.reddit.com/r/AgeofMythology/

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Age of Mythology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 02:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Age of Mythology. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Age of Mythology. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

"List of units in the Age of Mythology series" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of units in the Age of Mythology series. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 18#List of units in the Age of Mythology series until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jontesta (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

[edit]

I was updating the article adding that there is no mentions of chinese civ in Retold (with Steam page as a source), then it's been reverted. What the sense in all of this? The same way about Tale of the Dragon user score in Steam statistics. It's only 33% positive. Very low critics opinion. Yet, I cannot contrib it to wikipedia, why? Orange-kun (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tale of the Dragon Steam page look at 33% rating, it's not a single-user generated content, it's the objective aggregator counts. Steam is the only platform where it ever has been published, so these reviews are most clear reflection that yes, critics thrashed this addon out! You may rephrase it whatever you want, call my English unproper, but you can't ignore the fact. It should be mentioned in Wikipedia that this addon regarded as a mistake by the community.
  • AOM Retold Steam Page Egypt, Greece, Atlantis, no China! And what we see currently in the article? 'will include all content up to Tale'. What a nonsense. --Orange-kun (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Orange-kun: - Steam user reviews are unreliable per WP:USERGENERATED - this includes aggregated user reviews. Waxworker (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah like Waxworker said Steam reviews are not critic reviews, they are user reviews. A website like IGN or Metacritic would need to be cited for any claims about critic views. Also regarding Retold you could just simply state it will include the original three civilizations and the Atlanteans. Directly mentioning the Steam page is unnecessary, best to keep things simple and concise. Also, the portion where it is stated how "you" the reader will be be able to "command" those civilizations is not generally how information is conveyed in Wikipedia articles, with the reader rarely if ever being directly addressed. You could instead say something like "the Greek, Egyptian, Norse, and Atlantean civilizations will be playable at launch." MrGoldenfold007 (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, whats wrong with the Retold edit? I asked several times not to remove all of my edits.--Orange-kun (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your reverting was based on stylistic of the text? and instead of editing and improving it you just choose to simply revert it and leave outdated data because you don't like the style of my edit. Also there are no any sign that Chinese culture will or won't be added in this edition and it's important to point on that because previous addon was fully about Chinese civ. No screenshots, no description on steam page, nothing. It's logical taking into account that this addon had poor reviews. But ok, reviews cannot be included, then we need just to indicate that no Chinese currently.--Orange-kun (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting again

[edit]

And here we go again. The main goal is to show that there is content from vanilla and 1st expansion by Ensemble. But no any mention of 2nd expansion Tale of the Dragon, like it never existed. Instead, now it only sais that Tale is not included. But what's included? Orange-kun (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Age_of_Mythology&oldid=1215870684"