Talk:Medieval II: Total War

Moors - Which dynasty?

I'm aware of the fact that the game states that the Moors are Almoravids in this, but the article shows a picture of the Almohad flag. When I roll-over it tells me that it's the Almoravid flag, but the link even calls itself an Almohad one. Is this a mistake on the article-writers part? --78.16.89.200 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Faction Lists

Wikipedia guidelines for video games state in the inappropriate content section that Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts are not needed in an article and should be summed up in a concise summary. The factions in Medieval II are a gameplay concept, so do not require a large table outlining each and every faction. Additional wikipedia policies state that wikipedia is not a guide, which the explanation of each faction breaks. I have removed the table, please do not re-add it. QueenCake (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of this guideline. Factions are not specifically mentioned as things not to bring up. Game concepts are, but you seem to interpret "game concept" as pretty much anything that is in a game. Using that logic you cannot have an article at all about games. What factions or character types you can play in a game and their relative strengths and weaknesses are highly relevant information to understanding how an assymetrical game (a game in which players are not identical -such as they are in chess) works. Most wikipedia articles on notable games have descriptions of factions or character types. I support the guy that keeps re-adding this text. -Sensemaker

I agree with Sensemaker, at least partly. Listing the factions is comparable with listing the main characters of a fictional work (a game or a book or a film or anything), which we usually do. It also gives an important impression of how the game portrays history (focusing on conflicts between kingdoms/empires rather than internal conflicts between kings & lords, focusing on medieval states that still exist in some form, etc). Not so sure about strengths, weaknesses, starting settlements, etc, they may or may not fail the Wikipedia is not a guide policy. And I don't think the flags should be there, as they are taken from real history, not from the game. 96T (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps deleting the table without replacement in text is not sufficient, and yes strengths, weaknesses, starting settlements, etc, do fail the not a guide policy; the flags also should not be included in a game article. The best thing to do is to write the factions into the gameplay section text - essentially explaining factions purposes, differences and giving several examples of factions from the game. The other Total War articles approach factions in this way, I suggest they are used to base this article upon. QueenCake (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have written up the section into text, although it may seem like a large amount of information has now been removed from the article, the summary of the factions I have now written is much more useful to the general audience of Wikipedia, rather than just players of the game. Much of the information previously contained in the section, as well as breaking the policies and guidelines above, is blatant Original Research, which can never be included in any article. QueenCake (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with pretty much everything you say. The new text is in my opinion definitely a lot less useful. We are told how many factions there are but not any information as to how (or even if) they are different. Writing information about the game that is actually written in the game cannot possibly be considered original research and I do not think it is breaking any guidelines. We need to either add something about how the factions are different (not necessarily that this specific faction has stronger infantry etc, but perhaps that some factions are strong in certain troop types and weak in others) or revert to older version. -Sensemaker

What use would the general reader of Wikipedia find in information describing in-depth how each faction differentiates from the others? A short overview provides plenty enough information without boring the reader, the Gameplay section of video game articles are designed to briefly explain the game, in-depth information can discovered through playing the game. And yes describing what a faction is likely to do based upon your experience of the game is original research. The information before did break guidelines, there was discussion about why this very topic is breaking guidelines on the Empire: Total War talk page, (for your convenience several sections here in the archives) which as a good article is a good model to ultimately base this article upon. QueenCake (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You claim that "summary of the factions I have now written is much more useful to the general audience of Wikipedia, rather than just players of the game". I believe your current summary is not sufficent for covering what may be of general interest. As I wrote above, an exact list of which factions appear in the game gives an impression of how Creative Assembly have chosen to portray history (an additionally, from a pragmatic view, many readers will be curious about if their country is represented in the game or not). And the article's current claim that "the factions represent the important historical powers of the era" isn't entirely correct. For example, Spain and Russia didn't even exist as states during most of the time Medieval II takes place, medieval major powers like Burgundy and Florence are left out, and the Holy Roman Empire (which for most of the Medieval era was more of a symbolic union than a major power) is very incorrectly portrayed. I would suggest that we either use a simple list, with the names of the factions and perhaps a specification if they're playable from the beginning, unlockable or unplayable, or keeping the current form of integrating the factions into the text, but listing all the factions. Also, there is little point in diving them into "the west", "the east", and "Africa", as no such division exists in the game. Dividing them into religious groups would be better. I would suggest something like this:

Alongside the five original factions - England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, and Venice - twelve additional factions can be made playable through the successful completion of the main campaign. These include Catholic factions Denmark, Hungary, Milan, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, and Sicily; Muslim factions Egypt, the Moors, and the Turks; and Orthodox factions Russia and the Byzantine Empire. The Papal States, the Mongols, the Timurids, and the Aztecs also appear in the main campaign, but are only playable in custom and multiplayer battles. The game also contains rebels, representing independent provinces, brigands and rebellious armies, which are not available to the player and do not appear outside the main campaign. 96T (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok you have a much better idea there, I have re-written the section to organise examples by religion. I also made a note regarding the historical powers accuracy, to clear up that issue. I did not list every one in the text, the examples are generally good enough to get the idea of how the Creative Assembly is representing history without having to read long lists of links, which holds back the article should it push for a higher quality rating. QueenCake (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not responding until now, but I still have to disagree with you. If appropriately separated by semicolons, the list as I've suggested it to be above will IMHO not be unreadably long, and the current list still doesn't completely satisfy those who's curious of whether their own country is represented or not. I'm also skeptical to the following sentence: "The factions represent most of the important historical powers of the era, with other powers being portrayed as independent states or included within other factions such as the Holy Roman Empire." Which powers are "portrayed as independent states"? One can for example argue that Castille (a major power during the Middle Ages) is simply renamed Spain (a state that didn't exist before 1479/1516), or that Novgorod and Kiev are merged into "Russia", an entity that didn't exist at all during the Middle Ages, rather than Spain and Russia being "portrayed as independent states." I don't think any state that wasn't independent back then is portrayed as independent in the game (with the possible exception of Venice and Milan, which were only de facto independent if I remember correctly), so the claim that "other powers [are] portrayed as independent states" is incorrect as far as I can see. The current wording also ignores the fact that some medieval powers, like Lithuania and Sweden, are neither presented as part of other factions nor renamed or merged into states with modern names like Castille and Novgorod, rather, they don't appear at all. In any case, too much speculation on this doesn't belong in the article, as it would be original research, which is one of the reasons why I wanted and still want a complete list, so that the reader can make up their own mind. And I still believe that listing playable factions is the same thing as listing playable characters in other games, and that such information is basic gameplay information that should be in any game article. In any case, I'll keep the current wording (except the final sentence) and list all the playable factions. 96T (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to complain Queenscake, but because of what you constantly insist on doing, the article is now insufficiently short and messy in content; as well as being far more shallow and uninformative than the previous revisions. The faction list didn't make the article overly long; and it tells of their roles and traits in the game; afterall; a faction is barely merely a 'game feature' or 'gameplay item'; and you are either completely ignorant of the fact that this is a history game, or you are unaware.

While it may not occur to you, by removing the information regarding the factions and the flags; you have taken away valuable information regarding the real life historical-political factions that the in-game factions represent. The original list was perfect in that it provided detailed, factual, accurate, organised, but mostly un-opinion-based information, as well as their unique characteristics that distinguishes them from each other. The table even show which factions represent which real-life entity; for example; Russia was not a unified state at that time; and the table conveyed that it represents Kievan Rus' and later The Republic of Novgorod in real life. While including information regarding 'The Egyptian' faction or any other factions may not serve Wikipedia's purpose; it actually represents the Egyptian Fatimid Caliphate (909-1171) in real life. Through this article, I also learned about the interesting history of the divided Republic of Novgorod which is represented by Russia in the game.

So according to your comment that "flags should not be included"; I take it that you imply that historical political entitites such as The Papal States, Republic of Venice, The Holy Roman Empire, House of Capet of the Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Denmark, The Piast Dynasty of the Kingdom of Poland, The Almoravid dynasty of the Moorish Empire et cetera are all 'gameplay concepts' and nothing more?

They are not fictional factions unique to the game, and even then fictional factions are detaily conveyed in other game articles. For example; all the fictional gangs in all the GTA games. In that case, Why aren't those gangs listed in paragraphs in their respective articles like here? Should we go delete that entire article then?

I certainly don't see why the flags representing these real-life political entities shouldn't be presented, since they represent the flags of the various real-life factions before you came along and trashed all of them. And then you ironically wrote a summary of the in-game factions which includes links to non-specific articles such as France, England, Venice, Spain etc.

You've bascially made a faction list that is not as specific. Afterall, the Spain article would provide far more information including all aspects concering "Spain", with info like its "geography", "flora and fauna", "climate" and most importantly her entire history; which makes it completely ambiguous in relevance to the historical faction in this article!

As a result of you removal; readers are now unable to discover new knowledge and learn as all users of wikipedia typically do; wiki-ing articles unbeknownst to them that link to articles they are reading. I enjoy learning everyday through wikipedia; but now you have deprived me and everyone else of this luxury in this article. I was fortunate enough to have looked through the different historical dynasties that linked to this article; but now; new readers no longer have the luxury of checking them out, despite wikipedia's original goal of weaving elaborate knowledge and educating the world.

And unless you are unaware; the strengths and weaknesses of factions in the game actually represents the historical strengths and weaknesses of their real-life counterparts. Historical units such as Turcopoles and Mamluks that are unique to each historical faction was included in the list, and the text relfects each faction's strength and weaknesses in real-life; but ironically the list is considered uninformative, irrelevant and removed. It wouldn't have been a problem if articles of the factions that these units belonged to mention or link to the articles of these units. But the fact is that most do not.'

As for your notion that the "listing of starting settlements is inappropriate", I agree to a certain extent that it is not entirely necessary or useful to readers. However, their settlements also represent the region that they occupy- yet another historical fact; thus still bearing some degree of relevancy. And even if this was excessive it still doesn't justify removing the entire section and rewriting an insufficient and lacking summary.

And you say these are not 'useful to the 'general audience' '? What are these audiences? Non english-speaking aliens? Are readers supposed to know all of the stuff that they are about to read in an article? If so what is the point of looking at an article in the first place? And since the faction list only describes the nature and background of each faction; how is it not useful to non-gamers? If some of these non-gamers hypothetically would not find it useful; doesn't that mean they couldn't care less? Then why would they want to browse this article in the first place?

You said: "What use would the general reader of Wikipedia find in information describing in-depth how each faction differentiates from the others?" This view is wholesomely subjective, totally disregarding the posssibility of 'readers who does not fully understand the subject but are interested in history, in this case; of the time-period the game is set in, the natures, backgrounds and characteristics of the said historical factions. Besides, "the in-depth diffferences" are historically factual in any way; bearing relevance not only to the game, but also to history itself. Why would it be more informative and useful if it was a long list of factions squeezed into a tight paragraph?

Articles in wikipedia are supposed to be 'portals' to other articles. That is why there are things called "See Also". If you create an article of a subject matter that some people are aware of but doesn't know the name of, then how is anyone supposed to go read it in the first place?

For example, if someone who knows of the HRE remembers its rough geographical location and the cities that comprised it but forgot that it's called "HRE" and they only see "The Holy Roman Empire is a playable faction" then they've missed an opportunity to rediscover this knowledge! Not even mentioning that if unique military units are mentioned and their articles linked, readers unfamiliar to the game could learn of these historical units.

You say that the information is mostly guideline-breaking Original Research?! The text information that described each faction was actually originally depicted within the game itself in the educational introductory history to each faction. Unless you want the authors to reference a particular menu in the game, which I'm sure you don't, it is fairly hard to show it's not. I respect the fact that you are oblivious to this, but please do not assume it to be Original Research in the future without sufficient obvious evidence.However, I respect and recognise that the information in the list could be modified and improved-upon to make it more convincing and useful.

If you consider aspects of Medieval Euro-asian history to be gameplay concepts you are spitting on history's face itself, and I suggest you actually get down to playing the game itself so you can understand better what I mean, if you haven't already done so. However judging by what you've said, you've most likely not played it. At the end of the day, I do not see any problem seeing that the original list serves the purpose of providing relevant historically-accurate information regarding the said time period.

I understand that typical wikipedia guidelines try to avoid lists, but to be honest I still have no idea why you even removed the faction table at all, concluding all the aspects that I mentioned above. If there was ever any such 'original research', all you had to do was remove those. Yet, you decided to take it all out. But then of course, you assumed the entire table to be either "Original Research", "Opinion", "Gameplay Aspects", "Guide" or "A load of irrelevant crap that is not useful to the general audience" replacing it with a paragraph list. Need I say anymore? Methinks 'Nuff Said.

So in accordance with wikipedia's original goal of enriching intellectual knowledge and for a better, more historical-informative article; I'm reinstating the faction list.

--WiKID Daryl (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Queenscake or anyone else, I have now restored the list with the Original Research/Opinion based stuff out, so please reason before you change it.

--WiKID Daryl (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the same answers as on Talk:Empire: Total War, we're not a game guide, a concise summary of the gameplay makes a quality article and Medieval 2 is a game; just because it's set in the past doesn't mean we need to write about the period its based upon. QueenCake (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand and respect the aim of wikipedia to offer quality, concise, digestable and accessible material. However, regardless of what you've said, there're still nothing here that oppose the existence of a more elaborate (but not too in-depth) overview of the factions excluding Original Research and Gameplay Aspects; which I have almost completely omitted. In the above passages, I have also shown the worth, relevancy and advantages to the article and to the accessibility to its related articles. If you still think there are gameplay aspects in the overview list, I am willing to further omit these 'unnecessary' information out if reasonable.

In your own terms, just because it's set in the past, doesn't mean we can't write briefly about the period it's based upon (in fact how can a media-related article not have a degree of background); especially when the general opinion is a NO to omitting it. Afterall, wikipedia is for the people; albeit edited by a few.

--WiKID Daryl (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been argued to death many times, the fact is the level of information you want is beyond the article guidelines, any information about the background of a game should be referenced in the development section, not the gameplay section. Look at the good articles Medieval: Total War and Empire: Total War, how do you think they got to that level if they did not contain the information you think should be included? Because consensus from the community, right here has decided the right level of detail - a brief overview of the factions. Sorry to be blunt but those are the guidelines we all must stick to. QueenCake (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand your point; I'm fully aware of how overly-long lists with not-so-necessary micro-descriptions can put a reader off and ruin a good article. However, when you go off summarising it into prose you should ensure that the more-relevant information are not lost. When the list already showed effectively the real-life political entities and characteristics each faction represented is removed you came along and replaced it with a paragraph-list of faction names which link to their respective geographical locations that is ambiguous enough to make the already-dissatisfied communities (of the entire Total War Series) even more dissatisfied. Not to mention that the "community" that voiced out and reached a "consensus" in Project Video Games: here are merely those of 4 users.

But don't get me wrong, I am hardly rebuking just for the stubborn sake of keeping the list as it was; I am also on the side of making this article a better one; and I've learned from what you said, I hope you respect, consider and try to understand my point here. And my point was that your rendering made the article even less amiable; and no more useful; than one with a long list of factions with an excess of unnecessary and original information. I am not simply making a stand, if a prose summary is sufficient enough and not lacking; I am willing to happily accept it, if not write one in the first place myself. Perhaps I need to find a way to do this.

--WiKID Daryl (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes a prose summary is sufficient, Wikipedia only needs a concise summary of the gameplay elements. I know what your point is, but that information just is not needed here, we're here to describe an overview of the whole product, not concentrate on the individual gameplay parts, like the factions. 17:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as the factions listed in the prose are correctly linked to the specific historic period/entity that it represents it is sufficient enough; something the previous Prose failed to do. What even better would be sentences like "France representing the Direct Capetians", although this could make the prose too long.

--WiKID Daryl (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A random post: I don't agree with QueenCake at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.33.75 (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

i will not tell how but i have discovered how to play the papecy and rebels in mid 2, as well as everybody in the expansions. as for this, just make a list with name in game, religion, and classification as a millitary power. the game is not perfect, france is quite too easy sometimes, but it works. did i mention i can change money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.147.40 (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Error

Please change :

The Spanish kingdom of Castile and Leon has access to powerful cavalry in all periods, strong infanry and missile units, and good late period technology and has professional armies, but lacks spearmen in the early period. The Spanish are Catholic with Toledo as their capital.

With:

The Spanish kingdom of Castile and Leon has access to powerful cavalry in all periods, strong infanry and missile units, and good late period technology and has professional armies, but lacks spearmen in the early period. The Spanish are Catholic with Leon as their capital.

Article Rewrite

Previous thread was getting far too long, I'll write down here that I am currently working on a new version of this article in my space, with factions summarised as they need to be. Hopefully once it's done and pulled across that will sort everything out. QueenCake (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have had problems downloading the Kingdoms expansion pack it says that i have the 1.00.00 and i need the 1.03.00 version of the game how can i get this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.253.51 (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.233.146.130 (talk)

download or just buy expansion, version should come with it.-someone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.147.40 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Patch

The Patch thing is wrong!--DOMIPS (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Christians with Moors?

The idea of christian guards forming a military uinit for the moors is intresting to me. but i cant find anywhere if thats based on fact. Did chrisyian knights fight for the moors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.55.151 (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Advertising?

External links:

   * The Warboard: Guide to Medieval II: Total War

This seems to be third party commercial software. Does a link to it really belong on this page? FSBDavy (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy new years

Today, the game's output 5 year . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.119.34.158 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

About voices of characters in the game

I think the game makers of this game, they are so racist and segregationist. All of characters of Islam religion, their voices like a killer, like a terrorist, not normal voice. I think they wanted to show that "Islam was a terrorist religion from very deep". How pathetic... For example, Turks never talk like that, in the game "imam" character says "Sallaaamallakoom" but it's actually "Selamünaleyküm" in Turkish and there is so many different pronunciations between Arabic and Turkish languages too. But they did it for Christians anyhow, they had not to focus on Islamic countries. They make them like terrorists all their job it is. Karak1lc1k (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)