Talk:Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars

Locations and plot summary

I reverted the page to an earlier version because all the additions to the location section were in the form of detailing what happens in the game. This falls foul of WP:NOT by being an excessive summary of the game and unencyclopedic. H. Carver 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You're a monster. This game deserves an actual summary of the whole plot , not just a back of the box description. This is the one unique thing Wikipedia could offer for, chrissakes. Someone who's played the game, please fix this. 86.25.126.136 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with H. Carver. Lists of locations are trivia and should be taken outside and shot. The game deserves a full but concise plot section. Geoff B (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

GA

Do you think this could be a Good article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.221.60 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

At the moment? No. There are prose issues, some original research issues ("Judging by the likes of the surroundings"), tone issues ("like many other ideas, over a dinner with plenty of wine"), source issues (IMDB for example is not reliable), irrelevances ("Tragically Mike, who was in his 20s, died a few months later", to), copyright violations (development mostly copied from the "Director's Message" source) the plot is in need of trimming and summarising and gamecruft issues. It generally needs a very thorough copy edit and clean up. Яehevkor ✉ 21:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've had to restore the original development section as it's basically copied directly (copyright violations are not acceptable) from the given source. Also, the Marketing and release section was very problematic as it was focused on telling people where to buy the games (as an advertisement, not relevant to an encyclopaedia article) and trivia sourced only to primary sources (what and when stuff is released on Youtube isn't really notable). Яehevkor ✉ 21:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, with some work put into it (some reliable references, changing the "Director's Message", fixing the tone etc.), I think we could make this a Good article..... I mean, it has a few problems, but the kind of ones that can be easily fixed..... : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.221.60 (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, now I think that I have fixed the article enough to niminate it...:-)--193.111.221.60 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody fix the plot?

Most of the admins/users say that the mail issue in this article is the >over-detailed< article, and I don't have much experience, so, can someone take some time and fix it?

As I allready fixed most of the issues, the only >big< one left is the Plot issue. Maybe the prose could just a little >tincy wincy< fixing, but otherwise, the Article is pretty much fixed.

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.221.60 (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cuts and Edits in Director's Cut

Why was the list of omissions from the Director's Cut version removed? I think it's quite notable how they toned down the violence in the new version. Never mind removing, editing, cropping and censoring cutscenes. --TheHande (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. All the Best, -Khanassassin ☪ 13:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A-Class Assessment

• After reviewing the article, its sources, the GAN and the issues raised there, I Support this A-Class nom. Good work! :) Salvidrim! 19:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks :) --Khanassassin ☪ 20:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I am withdrawing this in light of the recent changes I haven't had a chance to review; I am not saying they would not pass A-class, merely that I do not assert they do. Salvidrim! 21:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment #1

• First of all, your referencing is pretty solid, in general, but there are a few things you can do to improve it:
  • You shouldn't need to source anything in the lead itself, unless it's extremely controversial. The release dates and sales figures are probably fine to only source in the body.
  • One thing you'll need to do to get to FA status is go through and double check all your cite templates. Add authors, dates, and publishers to as many as you can. You'll have to do some digging to find publishers, but it is possible. One I can think of off the top of my head is GameSpot, whose publisher is CNET.
  • Another thing I'm thinking would help would be to merge some of your references, and perhaps trim all the quoting back some. There are a few options for that. Check History of Western role-playing video games#References for one pretty handy way to do it. You can list the source fully at the top, then link to it with each individual citation, as is done with the Barton citations in that article.
• I wonder if you could expand the Gameplay section a little. Specifically, and I know this is ironic considering I just advocated for removing the "censorship" stuff, but if you can get some sources explaining the changes in the new version, like the elimination of character death, that could help flesh it out.
• I see a minor continuity problem in the Plot section. You describe the entire new story like for Nico, but then the section with George begins, "The next day..." when a few of Nico's sequences happen after the explosion at the Café. You'll need to rewrite that; you might be able to get away with just pulling that part I quoted.
• In the Director's Cut section, second paragraph, more than half of it appears to be unsourced. Is it all supposed to be sourced to that GameSpot video? You'll need to source practically every sentence in the article except for the really obvious stuff.
• I'm noticing a fair number of grammar mistakes, especially in the Reception section, which is otherwise quite good. Perhaps submit a copy edit request here. There's another backlog elimination drive starting in ten days, so your article will probably get fixed up relatively soon.

If you deal with everything above, I'd be willing to call this A-class. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Glancing over the issues brought up by Torchiest, it seems that most, if not all, have been taken care of. As such, I Support A-Class. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it look everything except a gameplay difference in the director's cut has been taken care of. I see some discussion of changes in the plot and development sections, but they don't quite cover everything. It's very close though. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your (near-)Supports. Torchiest, I've added the gameplay differences part in the Gameplay section now, and will add sources soon. - In fact, the reviews and articles already listed as sources probably contain all the info needed, so I'm pretty much done. Oh, and, I noticed that I've forgotten to add authors on many of the top lists in the Legacy section, my mistake. :) Anyway, just 0,1% more and we're good to go! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK; I think I'm done now. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, after making some copy edits, I'm calling it good. Congrats! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Khanassassin ☪ 19:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Director's Cut Edits and Changes... AGAIN!

Why has the section not been (re-)included yet? Unless people are playing a very different version of the game from the one I bought for my Wii, the censorship and edits are notable and should be included, listed or mentioned at least in some manner. Sourcing shouldn't be an issue, the principle source is the game itself. --TheHande (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that section needs some sourcing, because it's making a serious assertion of censorship. If it's notable, someone out there should be talking about it. As it reads, I don't know that it's really necessary to include, as it seems a bit on the WP:GAMEGUIDE side of things. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to the censorship section there's serious WP:OR/SYNTH issues too. Яehevkor ✉ 14:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Right now, there is no way the article would be accepted as class A, as has been requested in an assessment, much less featured status, with that text. I'd say it really shouldn't even be in a good article. I was going to remove it, but since you've already tagged it, I'll leave it like that for now. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your doubt in this being a GA; I've promoted this article while I was on "the Wiki" for only a few months, still an IP editor, I had yet to learn. I do plan to come back to this article and "Wiki-GA-fy" it. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Just glancing at it, it looks fine for GA status without that section. I may do a more in-depth review over the weekend for A-class. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hardware vs OS changes

Can we get a discussion going on the talk page as to what the contention is here? Why is one way or the other superior? Is there a standard format that is or is not being correctly applied to this article? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have left a message on the ip talk pages to try and get a response. I have no opinion on most of the edits, but surely instances of "PC" should be changed to the relevant platform (i.e. Windows)? "PC" isn't a platform as such, just the hardware. Macs are personal computers too. Яehevkor ✉ 17:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I was incorrectly thinking of a platform as the actual hardware. I changed the section heading. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the current state good? -My problem was really something about Palm OS, but that doesn't matter now. I believe it's the best option. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

FA?

As the article's already nominated, how close are we to Featured article status? - Leave comments here! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 18:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty good, but I'd still recommend getting a fresh copy edit from an outsider by making a request here. There's a drive in progress right now so it could get picked up and edited in short order. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Games Nostalgia source

I see there is a back and forth about including this link. I've looked at the source, and there is no need to include it, because all it does is reference the original Génération 4 source (item 15), which we are already sourcing directly in this article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't only the link to the Génération article. The complete section (from "In a September" ... to "through the project") is based on the GN feature, text content including all notes for the section. Same happened with the even more extensive recent edit to the Wiki entry of Steel Sky (no reference at all, just an old external link). The issue at hand is a copyright protection issue. One can't use (intensive) research done by someone else on Wiki this way, presenting it as research done by the editor without a reference to the original source (Moreover, for this feature I consulted various team members and emails are available). The content of GN is copy protected, so I proceed with this issue as a violation (of Wiki rules as well). Rather disappointing I have to mention this, but I won't undo your comment and proceed as said. Gamnos (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely accurate. The edit where the G4 sources were added did add some information from 1992 and 1993, but chunks of that paragraph had already been in the article for months. If the G4 sources say what they say, there is no copyright violation in referencing them, even if someone else referenced them for similar information. I would like Khanassassin to make a statement about the issue here though, to hopefully clarify things a bit. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not entirely, but it is for the most part I believe. Some important – and some new - info wasn't on Wiki before I added the features to GN (e.g. origin of game in 1992, visit to the catacombs, Ince working on the game in 1993, attending a film course, Drury's involvement). See the revision on September 18/17:50. I noticed that the info was added after extensive visits to GN by the contributor (statcounter info available). The same case happened with the much more substantial recent Wiki edit by the same contributor of Beneath a Steel Sky (revision October 14, 2012/13:04). On request I supplied the original text on GN (Flash) in word to the contributor (mails available), but under the proviso that a reference to the original research/sources would be added. A single or double use of the same reference source isn't a violation of course, but using a part of someone's else text with new info and all of most references is, and that is the case here for both entries (Broken Sword and Steel Sky), and it constitutes a clear violation. But as said, let's follow the official Wiki procedure for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamnos (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm more sympathetic to your position now that I understand the background a little more. I've undone my last reversion of you for now, until we get this settled. When you say "official Wiki procedure", did you have something specific in mind, or did you mean that as a question about what the procedure would be? This is a bit of an odd situation, so I'm not entirely sure myself. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Khanassassin here. Yes, before reading the Game Nostalgia Broken Sword article, I didn't know anything about the game actually being concieved in 1992, or that Steve Ince worked on Broken Sword before Beneath a Steel Sky, or the film course info. And yes, the Beneath a Steel Sky development section is entirely based on research from GN (not copypaste), and I am thankful to Gamnos for supplying me with the text. The problem is that if I'd add it as a reference, it would surely be deleted during a GAN or a FAC, because it's not considered reliable. About the Beneath a Steel Sky article, there's still a lot of work to be done - Plot, Reception and Legacy need a lot of work to be done. I was planning to give a "shout-out" to GN on the talk page (make a section thanking GN and complimenting their great work with a link to the site etc.) after I'm done with the article/when it's ready for GAN. If the GN website would be considered reliable, I'd surely add it as a reference. But as it isn't, this would only cause problems at GAN/FAC. But I didn't think that it would come to this... --Khanassassin ☪ 10:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion here to hopefully get some more input on the matter. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yayyyy, adventures.

Good to see them on the front page. Check out also Sanitarium, I'm playing it now, it's great, even if it's graphics aren't spectacular. --89.210.3.234 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a question, but was the European release of this game meant to coincide with the anniversary of the raids performed by the King of France against the Knights of the Templar, or is it just coincidence? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Dinner with Brennan

"In 1992, Cecil and Noirin Carmody met with Sean Brennan, then-head of publishing at Virgin Interactive, and spoke about how the Knights Templar would make an ideal subject to base a game on. Later, Virgin agreed to issue the game.[4] " (change date March 16, 1992).

The dinner with SB took place in 1994. The quoted source (Director's Message) states 1994 (not 1992), as do several other ones (meeting took place after the publication of Steel Sky, see e.g. gog.com and Joystiq).

Note that in the same year (1994) Virgin took a stake of 25% in Revolution (the development costs for BS1 were over 1 million pounds) and that early 1992 Revolution was an unknown start-up company with no published titles. The meeting with Brennan in 1992 was about the deal to publish Lure of the Temptress (almost finished) and Steel Sky (just in development, pub. in 1994) (another issue - perhaps cause of the mix-up - concerns the different accounts in interviews about the year in which the idea for the game was conceived). Gamnos (talk)

Thanks, Gamnos. Of course, you are the person who provided the article with various references, including the 1992 interview. But I asked Charles through Facebook about the dates. He said that they conceived the idea of a Templar game at the dinner and that research followed afterwards, and blamed himself for often getting the dates wrong. Not that Broken Sword - Official's discription says 1993 was when the dinner takes place. So the date was confirmed by Cecil himself. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There's indeed some confusion about the dates (I noticed already the Facebook timeline date 1993) and about conception and deal. So we have now 1992, 1993, 1994. But there's a difference between conception of the game and the deal with the publisher to publish the game and to finance its production. As said the deal with Virgin for 1 milion pounds wasn't made in 1992 but in 1994, and 1992 is very unlikely. Revolution was just a startup early 1992 with no games published, and a deal for that sum would be amazing, and moreover the deal made it possible to hire later on all those – mostly Irish - outside artists (Eoghan Cahill etc.), which caused that the earlier art style (Steve Ince was working on it in 1993) was replaced and that Revolution's team expanded with a lot of new members. Note too that - as far as I know - no mention is made anywhere in the press (or by Revolution or Virgin) that Revolution made such an enormous deal with its publisher already in 1992. And as mentioned, there was a reason of course Virgin took a stake in Revolution in 1994 (re-purchased in 1998 after the two BS games). Also - according to Virgin (PC Format presents Virgin Interactive Entertainment: The inside Story, by M. Higham and R. Longhurst, Future Publishing Ltd, 1994, p. 17) in 1992 a deal (with Brennan) was made to publish Lure (1992) and Steel Sky (1994), and again, they don't mention anything about a Broken Sword game. But it is a fact that (see the quoted French magazine) that Cecil got the "idea" for a Templar game in 1992. But then, some mystification isn't surprising when we are dealing with a Templar game. Gamnos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)