Talk:Master of Orion II/Game Overview
From StrategyWiki, the free strategy guide and walkthrough wiki
[edit] Proposed merger with Master of Orion II/Getting Started
It has been suggested that Master of Orion II/Game Overview be merged with Master of Orion II/Getting Started.
Oppose. In just about every game manual the "Getting Started" section (if there's one with that name) covers installation and / or the mechanics of starting a new game, not the basic concepts of gameplay (many don't cover the concepts well or at all, which is why guides like StrategyWiki are needed). Using the title "Getting Started" in a different way here would be likely to confuse readers. "Game overview" tells readers what the content is, a summary of the main aspects of gameplay. Philcha 17:33, 3 March 2008 (CST)
- The Getting Started term is chosen to be as broad as possible, otherwise we get into trouble with things like the walkthrough word not being the best for multiplayer games. Just because some manuals follow a standard doesn't mean we have to. Also, we don't really have installation instructions because most are "Plug the game into the console". Our Getting Started tends to base around gameplay, and our interests are staying consistent within our site, not with game manuals. ie. I don't think we'll have any trouble with confused readers. -- Prod (Talk) 18:04, 3 March 2008 (CST)
- I've had some strife for expressing this view before, but I think StrategyWiki risks painting itself into a corner if it imposes site standards that are too much based on 1 type of game - I guess you're aware of that, from your phrase "the walkthrough word". The odds are that most readers will have read manuals, online FAQs and forums, etc. before visiting StrategyWiki, and these other sources will have determined what visitors expect words to mean. MOO II is a great game, but was developed at just the wrong time , so it needs installation instructions, and what I've seen suggests there are many others that needs them (forums have many stories about it's easier to get early 1990s games to run on XP / Vista than it is for mid-1990s games). I won't re-start the "walkthrough" debate here as you seem well aware of it already. Philcha 08:51, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
- An installation subpage should suffice. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:40, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
- I've had some strife for expressing this view before, but I think StrategyWiki risks painting itself into a corner if it imposes site standards that are too much based on 1 type of game - I guess you're aware of that, from your phrase "the walkthrough word". The odds are that most readers will have read manuals, online FAQs and forums, etc. before visiting StrategyWiki, and these other sources will have determined what visitors expect words to mean. MOO II is a great game, but was developed at just the wrong time , so it needs installation instructions, and what I've seen suggests there are many others that needs them (forums have many stories about it's easier to get early 1990s games to run on XP / Vista than it is for mid-1990s games). I won't re-start the "walkthrough" debate here as you seem well aware of it already. Philcha 08:51, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
