Talk:Exile (1995 video game series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion[edit]

This article appears to be pure advertisement. Anyone think it's salvageable, or want to salvage it? Bryan 02:19 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

I'd vote to delete - it doesn't even qualify as an advertorial! Someone's just typed in the game jacket blurb and called it an 'article'. KJ
I disagree. It is linked with Spiderweb Software and their Acernum and the Avernum series. It also enjoys some (albeit moderate) popularity.Reply to David Latapie 16:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree. The game is very popular among Indie fringe game enthusiasts and deserves a small mention in Wikipedia. It's no more an "advertisement" than any of the other game pages. - Solberg 04:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
I'll third that disagreement. As an avid player of the Exile games, I feel they are shining examples of the adventure game genre - no next-gen graphics, no cumbersome interface - just point-and-click, creamy goodness that deserves some recognition. Xeon25 16:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he's also won awards for the game in the past, which has it pass notability. Its also been mentioned in PC Gamer. Spiderweb software was part of a write up they did on shareware games that were still kicking a few months ago.--Crossmr 17:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree for the deletion of this article. This game is very popular, and there ae plenty of other articles on games on Wikipedia, so why not this one too? This game has won awards, and even if it isn't next-generation quality, who cares? It's one of the best games I've ever played. --Vampire pixie (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I've cleaned it up a bit, made it look nicer, added some screenshots. The descriptions probably need to be rewritten to be a bit less "advertisement" sounding, I'll get to that as soon as I can.--Crossmr 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Avernum article?[edit]

Having separate articles for an original work and its remake by the same author seems a bit unusual, especially with two articles that are so small. Aside from that, both the separation and content of the articles give too great an impression that Avernum differs greatly from Exile, and neither article clearly illustrates the evolution of the series even within the two aegises (no mention of the addition of graphics shared with Realmz 5.0 in Exile III and subsequent updates of the first two games, no mention of the switch from Nethergate to Genoforge-derived engines in later Avernum games).

While a merger is my top priority due to the superfluity of the two pages and a vote would probably be a good idea, I feel that the merger should go to this article rather than the Avernum one (with appropriate redirects), as Exile is the earlier title for the eponymous caverns. 67.180.206.34 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that a merge is probably a good idea. I feel that Avernum should be the title since that is the current name of the series and it now has more entries than the original Exile. The best bet would be to find independent sources (I.e. not Spiderweb software) and see which name is more common. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to merge them, as the Avernum series was a significant reworking of the Exile games, and also continued on after them with Avernum 4 and Avernum 5, not based on Exile games.

If a merge were to happen, however, I'm not sure where it would be best to go. Exile would for me be the obvious choice, as it was the original, and probably better known than the remakes - the Exile games were very popular for years in the early years of shareware. However, this raises the question of what would happen to material on Avernum 4 and Avernum 5. Rebecca (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also disgree with the merger proposal; Avernum 4 & 5 are entirely new and do not relate to any previous Exile games. There is also the matter that Avernum 4 outsold all previous Spiderweb games, so moving its content to a subsection of the Exile page would be perverse. Argoreham (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think merging the two would be a good idea. Even though Exile was the original version and Avernum is based on it, they do have their differences and Exile was not continued, unlike Avernum, as Avernum 4 & 5 were not based on an Exile 4 & 5 as it was discontnued. Vampire pixie (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound like a broken record, but I also believe the articles should remain separated, had the Avernum series not continued beyond the scope of the Exile series, I would support a merge, however, as others have stated, Avernum 4&5 are not remakes of any exile material, and do not deserve to be placed under the Exile series page.Shinyhunter (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, merging the articles is not a good idea in my opinion. I agree in the statements that Avernum 4 and 5 are different than Exile ones and that Avernum was a significant remake in many ways are enough to keep the articles separate. Not to mention that Avernum had very much different skill and magic systems than Exile. Nyme (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any merge should come from the result of both articles receiving attention and it becoming clear that it's needed or not. I don't like the idea of a merge (particularly if Avernum is going to disappear from the article title), many players of Avernum will have had nothing to do with Exile. There's 5 Avernums at the minute, Vogel is working on the 6th and last right now, along with Geneforge 5, which will be the last in that series. Compare that with 3 Exiles. Perhaps the fact that Avernum's games are contained within a single article is adding weight to this idea of a merge. It's worth pointing out that Spiderweb games can accomodate an article each and achieve good article standard (see Geneforge), at some point the individual Avernum games are going to be popped out of the series article and expanded. Out of interest, how long do merge tags have to lie around? There's no consensus for this merge and the tag has been there for months. Someoneanother 05:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Exile shot.gif[edit]

Image:Exile shot.gif 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Exile2 shot.gif[edit]

Image:Exile2 shot.gif 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Exile3 shot7.gif[edit]

Image:Exile3 shot7.gif 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publication dates?[edit]

Anyone know the original publication dates for these games? SharkD  Talk  04:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I - [1]; [2]; [3]
II - [4]; [5]; [6]
III - [7]; [8]; [9]
Blades - [10]; [11]; [12]
Some of these contradict. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  12:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exile (1995 video game series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exile_(1995_video_game_series)&oldid=1207160513"