Talk:Anno 1404

Information

I will adding links for all sites which has information regarding the game and if anyone is interested they can add the info into the article. GC 2008: Anno 1404 First Impressions--SkyWalker (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How about checking your facts first?

Instead of reading a single ill-informed article on some random gaming website, how about having a look at the official developer site? Or what about the official publisher site? This game is still named 1404! --84.178.66.56 (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't worry about it, you did the right thing I think. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wii and DS versions

Anno: Create a New World for Wii and DS is a different game with different name, graphic style, gameplay and story, I guess. Why are they listed as versions of Anno 1404? Shouldn't there be a separate article? --80.80.124.77 (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, they should be listed as two seperate entities. Gameplay, option and storyline is drastically different between the two. They are not just two incarnations of the same thing.Jack Masamune (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

DRM Controversy

I posted this thing trying to be as objective as possible. I thought that : - mentionning the excellent critics the game has obtained - linking to reviews from amazon stating large concerns about drm - citing as many sources as possible for those problemsthis would ensure that this writing was as objective as possible. I haven't invented the reviews on amazon.com, amazon.de, amazon.co.uk and amazon.fr, neither have I written all posts on various forums about this problem. I thought it would be fair to mention them, as it is fair to say that this game is otherwise acclaimed by majors game reviewers. If you think that parts of my edit are biased, despite my will to make it objective, then fine, just modify them. But I really think that there are too many negative reviews on amazon&co, contrasting with the general excellent critics this game obtained, to simply delete this point. It would be another kind of unobjectivity to just delete this paragraph, as it is FACTUAL that the game obtain really bad reviews on commercial websites from angry customers. I'm personnaly a fan of the serie, and have already bought the game, so I don't think that I should be accused of beeing partial/boycott prone.

Neon White thinks that Metacritic, Forums and amazon aren't a reliable source. I would say that metacritic is one, as it aggregates critics from various reliable information sources, such as gaming websites and magazines. Amazon is here just to mention the fact, and account for a non negligible part of games sales. As for forum, thinking that they aren't worth mentionning is just ... wrong. But if they really aren't, then why don't we just remove the part about lagging (as those informations aren't "reliable" enough). Just looking at customer reactions on any gaming forum will confirm how strong the reaction against those drm is.

i take it the drm thing is only on the pc version? if so, can someone update the article to reflect this... 77.97.110.57 (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

MetaCritic is a reliable source but forums and amazons are not reliable sources. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic is user created and user comments have no moderation so it cannot be reliable. If you are referring to the professional reviews listed then they are the source not metacritic and they should be referenced directly. However i cannot find one that sources any controversy. To be honest i'd be very suprised if game protection would cause any real controversy in 2009, it been around for so long now it's pretty commonplace. --neon white talk 23:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Iam not talking about usercreated comments. Iam talking about reviews. --SkyWalker (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Then they are considered the source rather than metacritic. --neon white talk 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic adds one critical piece of information that matches with Wiki policies, which is that it compiles a composite score of sources it considers reliable. There's no other place to get this information, and for a Wiki editor to do it would be synthesis (i.e., original research). Therefore Metacritic is unique and essential -- at least at this juncture. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You should see the cases of Spore and Bioshock for modern copy protection controversies. As for metacritic, it is referenced in many wikipedia articles - why make this an exception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.27.180 (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There was massive uproar for Bioshock and Spore DRM it had lot of RELIABLE sources from many gaming sites. As for Anno 1401 there is hardly single uproar. I have no idea why PC gamer tends to make a big fuzz of it. As for metacritic it is been referenced for the reviews not for user created comments. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is still currently no source cited for this so-called "controversy". If one isn't found soon to substantiate this claim then the section should be removed. --Bilge [TC] 13:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Gamplay section

I did some major revamp to the whole article, but as I do not own the game yet, I am unable to complete the Gameplay section. I hope someone can do it! :)

MadK3 (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiplayer section

Bias? Sources/references?

Needs deleting or improving... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.20.94 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel there needs to be an entire section about Multiplayer for a game that has none. A small, brief sentience under gameplay should be fine. 67.165.242.219 (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)