Talk:Retribution (StarCraft)

Inclusion in Blizzard Entertainment footer

I really don't think this belongs in the footer box at the bottom of other Blizzard game articles - it's not even found on Blizzard's page. It's a third party lacklustre expansion, not unlike D!Zone and the like for Doom. I am going to cut it from those things along with Insurrection unless someone has a good reason they should stay. Deusfaux 23:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they are part of the Blizzard footer, they are officially part of the StarCraft universe - as said in the Insurrection discussion page, they are given official recognition in the Battlenet FAQ. I've added this and Insurrection into a new "Games" part of the StarCraft universe footer, which (naturally) includes StarCraft, Brood War and Ghost. S@bre 17:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That means they are endorsed by Blizzard but still neither Retribution or Insurrection has been developed by Blizzard and thus has no place in the Blizzard footer. It can be included in the StarCraft footer. Also, even if Blizzard made these add-ons, the footer only lists the main games, no expansions or add-ons. --Fogeltje 21:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Links/sources

There any links or sources for this? I'm a pretty big Starcraft fan, and this is the first I've heard of this. Kuralyov 23:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they can be bought anymore (perhaps not even eBay). You should be able to find them on the ed2k network. Tzarius 03:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Please do not suggest such things here. Please remember that this is still copyrighted material. Thank you. --- Randilyn 10:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Blizzard?

so did blizzard make starcraft: retribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzarious (talk • contribs) 23:23, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

No. The article says so. Blizzard only authorized it. Please sign entries with four Tildes (~). Zirka 07:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sys Req's

Has anyone been able to find any paperwork on this? I'm higly speculative that the game requires a Pentium III to run, even though a minimum of 16 MB of RAM and 50 MB of HDD space will do the trick. Further doubt is cast when the article mentions that the game engine isn't changed, and the expansion only adds campaign and multi-player maps. I plan to edit the article to reflect that. Zirka 07:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The system requirements are exactly the same as the original StarCraft, except that 50 megs of additional disk space is required. This can probably be actively seen on the high resolution box shots over at MobyGames, although I haven't taken the time to check them myself. --- Randilyn 10:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The system requirements box was ridiculously large. I've cut it down a bit S@bre 17:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The above statement (sys reqs same as Starcraft) probably means the game can also be run on a Mac. Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.151.85 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

StarCraft: Retribution

The name of the expansion pack is Retribution, not StarCraft: Retribution. StarCraft: Retribution is only an informal name used by review sites, etc. when talking about the game. Nowhere is it ever stated that the game uses Blizzard's StarCraft trademark in the name, except for the presense of the logo on the box shot, in which case it doesn't even appear before Retribution in the title, but rather afterwards, and as more of an addendum to the title. Retribution (StarCraft) is probably more correct. --- Randilyn 10:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it would seem that the (formally) accepted full title for the game is Retribution: Authorized Add-On for StarCraft, which matches the box art exactly. I've fixed the article to reflect this, but only in one occurence, as any more would be superfluous. --- Randilyn 12:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Release date

All evidence (including the MobyGames page) seems to point to this actually being released in 1998, not 2001. This makes since primarily because it does not use any of the Brood War content, which was either still under development at the time, or had just hit the shelves. Further evidence is provided by the fact that the game was developed by Stardock back when they were still known as Stardock Systems, which was long before they became known as just Stardock (considering that there were other name change(s), such as Stardock.net, during that time). I'm changing the release date until someone presents evidence that the game was in fact released in 2001. --- Randilyn 12:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Improved AI?

I am a seasoned StarCraft modder (modification builder) for many years and I know for a fact that you cannot improve the StarCraft AI beyond the basic trigger abilities of StarEdit without a game data (MPQ) patch. I also noticed on certain game review sites that people complained of missing music and cinematics. These also require game data patches. Is it possible that they were accidentally just playing the missions from the game using the Single Player Custom Game feature, and the CD actually came with a game data patch, or is this all hogwash? If it is, then the improved AI claim needs to be removed, or, at the very least, cited. --- Randilyn 12:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

New Stuff

Are there any new units? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.235.10 (talk • contribs) February 26, 2007

No. --M.A. 10:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed?

"Argus crystals are used by Dark Templar as a powerup[citation needed]." Can't someone simply play the game and see if that's true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.73.129 (talk • contribs) March 6, 2007

I've finally managed to aquire the game, so I can do that. However, its a bit difficult to cite that fact from anotherpage -- S@bre 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Argus talisman[1] and Argus jewel[2] upgrades listed, if you need sources :) Better point to Brood War's page than those directly, though. --M.A. 10:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Never noticed that it was part of Brood War. I'll expand the rest of the plot section later. -- S@bre 12:02 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RetributionBox.jpg

Image:RetributionBox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge of article

As per: Wikipedia:RfC#Prior_to_requesting_comment

Re: The merge of Insurrection (StarCraft) and Retribution (StarCraft) to Starcraft. My biggest concern is a significant amount of information was deleted in this merge.

Reason for merge of Insurrection (StarCraft)

Reason 1:

"...due to how little reception the game has got, it is highly difficult to find sources for most of it. The only source I could find was that Gamespot review, copied over and over onto other websites - as I said, other established reviewers don't seem to have reviewed it."

Reason 2:

"Aztech New Media's site and company no longer exist, so there is no help there either."[3]

Reason for merge of Retribution (StarCraft)

"Merging as full notability for a separate article cannot be established"[4]

Since WizardWorks website does exist (redirected to Atari), unlike Aztech New Media, does this help the notability?

Retribution references

1. Computer Games Magazine[5]
2. The Advocate - NewsBank - Jan 22, 1999: "GT Interactive Software pays homage to StarCraft with its new add-on disc, Retribution. In its story, the argus stone, an ancient artifact of great power..."[6][7]
3. mobygames.com[8]

Insurrection references

1. Gamespot review, already on the Insurrection page.
2. Absolute Games (AG.ru),[9]
3. Computer Gaming World Magazine (CGW),[10]
4. PC Player magazine (Germany)[11] and
5. mobygames.com all which have wikipedia sites., includes all credits.[12]
6. Business Wire November 4, 1998, Aztech New Media Signs Contract With Microsoft Corp. for Urban Assault Enhancement Package - November 4, 1998 "Aztech's Insurrection(TM), Campaigns for StarCraft(TM), based on Blizzard Entertainment's bestselling game, has sold 75,000 copies across North America since June 1, 1998." [13][14]
7. Avault review by Pete Hines June 28, 1998 [15]

Retribution and Insurrection references

Blizzard Frequently ask questions:

• Insurrection is an add-on pack with new single-player campaigns and additional maps for single and multiplayer play. It is currently available from Aztech New Media.

• Retribution is an add-on pack by WizardWorks, creators of W!Zone and other add-on packs. It will include entirely new single-player campaigns and an assortment of new maps. [16]

Merge tag

There was no tag added to Retribution (StarCraft) before the merge.

There was a merge tag added to Insurrection (StarCraft), the comments on Talk:StarCraft_(series)#Merging_of_Insurrection_and_Retribution were, other than the nominator, one to keep, and one to merge. The merge happened on 21:29, 26 August 2008.

travb (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited from the company that produced the product. If you want to restore these articles, please present solid sources that would allow for concrete reception and development sections to be built. A merge discussion was open for thirteen days on the location specified on the merge tag, WP:VG was informed of the discussion and no opposition was voiced. These articles were were merged as sources do not exist—believe me, I wanted to properly write these articles, I spent long enough looking but this is the extent of it:[17] [18]. Only one reliable source, a GameSpot review, is available for Insurrection, whilst Retribution has no real reliable sources giving significant coverage, thus they are covered in the StarCraft and StarCraft series articles. Reverting these merges without any sources and on mere technicalities is entirely counter-productive to the StarCraft coverage on Wikipedia, as they simply cannot be improved in-line with WP:N or WP:V. As for the alleged loss of information, WP:V kicks in here, the information cannot be confirmed in reliable secondary sources, so it is covered as sufficiently as sources allow in other articles. -- Sabre (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I will try to address them all. travb (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've alerted WP:VG to this discussion, for further outside opinion. -- Sabre (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[19] is a fleeting mention, it is not even vaguely useful as either reception of development information. The article there focuses on the series in relation to StarCraft and StarCraft II, not Insurrection or Retribution. Significant coverage is vital, you can't write a good article on a mere couple of words like this. -- Sabre (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please understand, I am not writing this to convince you, as your opinion seems already made up, I am writing this for others. travb (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't stop him from commenting on your attempts to provide sources. Everything you've turned up so far is incredibly trivial coverage. This is a fleeting mention, as is this, a Google News search turns up zilch, and the Wikia article is entirely in-universe. There's nothing here to create a GA from these articles. You go as far as your sources can take you, and in this case, there's nothing to write a substantial article on. Merge both. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your right, it doesn't stop the merger from commenting.

Maybe you missed:

• Absolute Games (AG.ru),
• Computer Gaming World Magazine (CGW),
• PC Player magazine (Germany) and
• mobygames.com all which have wikipedia sites.

This meets and exceeds notability guidelines. travb (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

These aren't sources. The only ones with significant coverage are userbuilt sites, inherently unreliable. The rest are fleeting mentions or supposed articles you can't actually show - how can one create a proper article from vague references, unreliable sources and articles that cannot be easily accessed to determine if they are even significant coverage? This discussion is rapidly turning futile. -- Sabre (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Having a page on Wikipedia is not the same as being a reliable source. Case in point VGChartz which is notable for its unreliability. The VG project avoids mobygames in the same way we avoid IMDB for reliable information since there's not quality control of the user-submitted information. --MASEM 23:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MobyGames isn't reliable. The fact that a website has a page on Wikipedia does not equate with it being a reliable source for usage in articles. And tone down the condescending rhetoric. That you're insulting Sabre for not trying hard enough here after all the work he's done on the StarCraft articles here is utterly pathetic. The rest of your stuff is all incredibly minor mentions of both. Notability isn't really the question you should be searching for. It's whether you can actually make a substantial article on the subject with your sources, and you can't with what you have here. Given that you likely have no idea what actually constitutes a GA-quality article on the subject, I'm not surprised at this point. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

These references are notable enough to have their own wikipedia pages on them. All four magazines and sites have significant articles on Wikipedia.

This is a common tactic: Focus on the weakest source (mobygames) and blatantly ignore the rest. There is no argument here about Computer Gaming World Magazine and PC Player magazine. Both magazines are not notable? Please don't disregard notability (sources) simply because it is now inconvenient to your argument, this was the central reason that the pages were redicted. Now that notability is no longer an issue, editors are now creating other reasons why these articles should be merged. A full article in Computer Gaming World Magazine and PC Player magazine is not "substantial" enough? Please. Notability guidelines state an article should have multiple reliable sources. As the only editor who is contributing substantial material in the form of references to this article I have exceeded this bar. travb (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please leave your inclusionist rubbish behind, extremist views of either side are entirely unhelpful. As already pointed out, we have absolutely no clue to how substantive those magazine articles are, we can't look at them and actually see if anything in them is usable. The mere fact they might exist is not helpful for dealing with this subject's coverage. You're arguing technicalities versus reality here: you can't write an article based on something you can't see and a bunch of sources that don't say anything beyond acknowledging their existance. And coverage of a work on Wikipedia does not, as already stated, make it a reliable source. -- Sabre (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Again, there are sources out there that have Wikipedia pages but you would never use them as a reliable source (VGChartz is known for questionable sales data, and 4chan would be the last place I'd go for a reliable source. That's the distinction we are trying to make with some of the sites you've listed, in particular Mobygames which is based on solely user contributions and no editoral insight as needed by WP:RS.

Now, we're not saying CGW and the PC Player magazines are not notable in of themselves, nor are they unreliable. Unfortunately, it is impossible to judge what those articles are from both sources, but based on the segment provided at Mobygames, it looks like a review. Ok, fine, there are at least 3 reviews of the game. However, VG articles that cannot be expanded with development information and without more significant reviews are generally merged of the necessary information (including those critical reviews) into an appropriate parent article, as generally happens with mods, third-party expansions, and the like. Or to put it this way: while the notability bar is barely passed and thus there could be separate articles for these, a better quality article is obtained by merging these into the Starcraft series article where we don't have to repeat the gameplay and fundamental basis of the in-universe aspects of the game, and yet still provide the needed coverage of the game. Not every notable topic needs its own article. --MASEM 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets be honest, no matter how many sources I provide, it will never change the opinions here. The editor above states that the notability bar is passed, then voices his own opinion, another hurdle to jump, which is not supported by wikipedia guidelines.

Here is a challenge: I provide the full Computer Gaming World Magazine article and the editors here agree to the merge. But then again, I know the answer to this. travb (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The only policy here in play is that for an article on a topic to exist, there needs to be secondary sources per WP:N. That seems to be shown (CGW and PC Player mag reviews, but as we can't tell if that's the only line about them or a small section, it's impossible to judge). However, there is no requirement that a topic shown to be notable to need its own article - sometimes a better quality article can be obtained by merging notable topics into the body of a larger one. This appears to be what Sabre's trying to do, so all that could basically be said about these games would leave this article very stubby with no potential for growth in light of the current sources (and given their age, we shouldn't be expecting new sources to be appear). It is not meant to say neither game is not notable, only that covering the games as part of the series article makes their coverage much better as part of an article that can likely be featured, instead of two stubs floating around indefinitely. --MASEM 00:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally would support a stubby article, over a merged one. As this discussion seems to have evolved into a Wikipedia:Manual of Style discussion.

I want to apologize to everyone here about how I have acted, especially S@bre, who I apologized on his talk page. travb (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, I'm presuming that the two aforementioned reviews are substantial to state that the games are notable - that needs to be merited. The thing to remember here is that 1) it's a merge, no information has been lost, as that leads to 2) if new information that does make a better article appears, we can pull from the history to create the better article. In the meantime, while stubs are great for a start of an article, the case here is that Sabre and others have worked to try to expand this without success, so it's likely bound to stay stubby forever, which is not appropriate for a WP article - all WP articles should be written with the aim to be as good as any other featured article (save that we've no timeline to reach that). By good faith, even with your sources presented, I cannot see this article getting much better than a stub, and thus we should consider how to cover it better. The merge is the best way to do that in case we change our minds n the future, and we don't lose coverage of either topic since the redirection is still searchable and the sources presented can be described in the series article. --MASEM 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points! :) Your first point it the reason why I have decided to abandon this for now. Best wishes. travb (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)