Talk:Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleArcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 24, 2009Good article nomineeListed
April 15, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Unofficial patch[edit]

Readded info about the unofficial patch. Nobody disputes the fact that it exists and it is documented on several relatively known gamesites. If we don't accept anything that isn't mentioned in the New York Times then we'll have to delete most of this wiki Jarwulf (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether or not it exists, it's whether it's notable. And without coverage by reliable, third-party sources, that criteria has not yet been met. What gaming sites have mentioned it? I wanna see if any of them are mentioned here[1]. Eik Corell (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Type in arcanum unofficial patch and you'll see it mentioned by several sites like filefront and gamershell. Sure they're not Vanity Fair but they're not exactly shitkicker websites run out of some 17 year old's basement and they're relatively well known as far as PC gamers are concerned. Arcanum's many bugs and the unofficial fix was big news for Arcanum's fanbase so it would be remiss to not mention it if we're going to be writing about a game as obscure as Arcanum anyway. Besides there is plenty of precedent for mentioning unofficial mods that have made a big impact on the game's community such as Freespace and Bloodlines. Also there is no hard rule I'm aware of that all information that is ever written about games on wikipedia must come from that small list you presented. Jarwulf (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking through the sources now - Gamershell is listed as a reliable source, so that would do fine. I'm not sure about filefront, though, so I took a look at the name of the guy who wrote the article on there - Shawn Sines. He's a video-game writer who writes for 1UP as well as some other sites if I'm not totally mistaken. I think these two sources will do just fine, actually. Eik Corell (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout references[edit]

Firstly i must say that this article is very well made. Good work to the creator. A couple of things though- I know the game was made by some people who previously made fallout but i think there a few too many references to fallout in the normal text. The references to fallout should be put in the trivia section with the other fallout references.

For example -

"While firearms are plentiful in the game, the situation is reversed from Fallout: the system seems to favor fast, light attacks from melee weapons over any other mode of attack. This has led to user-created patches to enhance the other weapons in the game.

The combat can become very violent as more powerful weapons are employed, resulting in graphic wounds, but it's a far cry from Fallout's melting skeletons, decapitated torsos and flaming corpses."

Obviously the creator of the article has a good knowledge of fallout, but the article should be for people who havnt played fallout aswell.

One thing i must comment about the combat system is that it is so fast. Although its been a while since I have played arcanum (i only visited this article because i recently bought it for old times sake) i remember that classes that involve melee combat with high armour seem to fare comabt better as the combat is so quick. Especally when you have characters attacking 3 times a second or other fast rates. This is just my opinion and probably has no place in the article unless several other players or critics have noticed this aswell.

What you say is true about melee being overpowered, but it has nothing to do really with how "combat is so quick"-- melee is still just as overpowered on the other slower (read: less crazy, easier to see) options (turnbased and fast turnbased). The problem is that Arcanum is an excellent game but because of all the interacting divisions (eg magic v.s. tech pointers, bow v.s. thrown weapon v.s. guns v.s. etc, magic armor v.s. tech armor, etc), there are a huge number of imbalances, the chief being melee-related, though there are others...

Playing again[edit]

Good coverage of the history and places of arcanum. Got me in the mood to play it again (except im annoyed because i stopped at the city or magic or someone pretty near the end of the game and starting a new character again will mean doing the same old quests but starting the old one will be bad because i have forgotten the story, pointless story...)

If anyone is up for a multiplayer game of this email me! Jesus On Wheels 15:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tech specialists get weapons like the tranquilizer gun, Tesla gun and concussion grenade. They get a few handy utility and healing items, too, like the Miracle Cure and, my personal favorite, the "Anesthetizer". They also get automatons. If you've got enough money, you can go camp outside the smith at the Wheel Clan tunnels buying dwarven steel and create an army of automatons - they don't take up party slots. A big ogre in a tin can with a gigantic two-handed sword might be able to deal and take a lot of damage, but he's nothing against a machined-plated dwarf toting a tranquilizer gun, a bandolier of concussion grenades and a platoon of automatons.
Charisma characters are also a lot of fun, and very viable.. Who needs muscles or pretty light shows when I have two very large men with huge swords and thick armor, two immensely powerful mages and a machine gun-wielding big game hunter at my beck and call? My elven persuasion specialist had a hard time starting out, but once I started adding party members, I found his niche. He rarely ever directly engaged the enemy - he'd just stay back and cast the few offensive and utility spells he knew while his many allies pummeled the baddies to the ground.
There are a lot of options - half-ogres with long-swords and full plate will take you through the game, but so will a pistoleer-chemist or a silver-tongued gambler. Troika did a good job. It's too bad there is unlikely to be a sequel. TaintedMustard 16:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It suffered from Troika's trademark "LOTS OF BUGS" feature. CABAL 10:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To which bugs are you referring? ToEE and Bloodlines were MUCH worse. Arcanum is by far their cleanest game. The automaton army is really the worst game balance bug I've seen. TaintedMustard 19:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The bug which prevents the medical arachnid from deploying correctly; the bug which prevents the Explosive Decoy from working properly; the bug that causes the machined platemail to not give you a STR bonus; the bug that prevents Nasrudin from explanining that his son destroyed Vendigroth; among other things. But yes, it is by far their cleanest game. CABAL 19:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP connections[edit]

Does Arcanum support direct IP connections? CABAL 15:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it's strictly single player in any event.Zebulin (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy[edit]

This is a nice looking article, it's almost shame that I went and tacked that section on on the end.

Unfortunately, it's been a while since I played, so the conspiracy details aren't complete.

The conspiracy section could probably be cleaned-up/merged into another section, I just wanted to provide those base details.

Adding such a great deal of information on one sub-plot is excessive for an article of this type. I'm not going to remove it (yet), but it should be trimmed down if it's included at all, and it shouldn't be given its own section. For now, I'm going to add a spoiler warning, which should have been included in the first place. TaintedMustard 09:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any way of including it as part of some kind of section on "notable quests"? It is one of the more well-known quests in the game and I think it'd be a pity to lose it. I suppose one could create another page listing all the quests in the game and include it there but I'm not sure if that's an appropriate article to have in wikipedia. 203.166.27.228 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should stay there. It's one of Arcanum's most distinguishing(and controversial) features from other RPG games, a disturbing quest that ends unresolvable.


Good article[edit]

I remember playing this brilliant game a number of times some years ago, the article is quite detailed unlike alot of other game entries. Like alot of critically acclaimed games it would have to have sold more to make a sequel realistic.


Missing Locations[edit]

I have looked at the list of the different towns and cities and have noticed that Shrowded Hills and Still Water is missing. Please sort this out. Kensai Feon, 10:12, 26 April 2006

Monty Python?[edit]

"You can encounter the white rabbit that can only be killed by "The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch" from Monty Python and the Holy Grail when you travel outside cities."

I don't remember meeting this creature, nor has it been mentioned. Same goes to the grenade.

I do remember the "Vorpal Bunny" which was super-powerful, and the Stillwater Giant which was a purple bunny that changed into a giant monster.

I've not deleted it (yet), but methinks someone should explain this entry.Crimson Shadow 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered one or to bunnys but nothing like the white rabbit or the grenade either. Kensai Feon 10:30 12 May 2006

I've removed the point then. Crimson Shadow 23:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Right[edit]

I have noticed that this article has been copied from a licensed website, which does technicaly mean that it is in breach of the 'Copy Right Act' since I see no owners consent on this page. Kensai Feon 15:52 12 May 2006

Which licensed website is this article a copy from? Given the content and the number of edits, I also highly doubt it's a complete copy. In that case, can you point out which parts of the article you feel violate copyright? Yay unto the Chicken 09:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More trivia...[edit]

The story of Gilbert Bates's "inventing" the 1st steam engine is similar to the story of Bill Gate's "inventing" the MS-DOS operation system, which was actually reworked from CP/M operation system for 8-bit computers (Digital Research company product).

Gil Bates <=> Bill Gates... chrisboote (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be quite a few quirks like this laced throughout the game. Gil(bert) Bates obviously refers to Bill Gates. There is also Bates' rival, whose exact name I forget, but has "Apple" somewhere in it, an obvious reference to Apple Macintosh. The primary industrialized city is called "Tarant" and the primary magic city is called "Tula." Put them together and you have "Tarantula." I'm pretty sure there's a boat-load of pop culture references that I'm forgetting or that I missed. --TrevorBabcock (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible rewrite[edit]

I might have a go at rejigging some of this. It needs major revision. I dislike most of the Trivia section, and the game world/plot summary/politics stuff needs to be better ordered. On top of all that, there's the g/p brush-up.

I'll see what I can do in the next few weeks. I owe it to this ripper of a game to help get its page to GA/FA. Hide&Reason 13:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! I personally recommend cutting the half-ogre conspiracy way down. Rarr 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll see if I can knock a third or more outta that. Hide&Reason 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Hope everyone likes what I've done so far. I'm still looking for references to verify the Races info, among other stuff. Hide&Reason 12:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sceencap requests[edit]

I was wondering: would anyone be able to get me a cap of the breeding ward interior, on Half-orge Island? I'd do it myself but the hard drive I had Arcanum installed on crashed a week back. Thanks in advance! Hide&Reason 08:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack[edit]

The link to the bonus track for the Arcanum Sountrack was dead. I found a replacement in this forum, which links to a file in the Megaupload site. I downloaded the file and it is, in fact, the bonus track. Hopefully linking to sites like Megaupload is OK. If not, my apologies. Drakestail (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite, 4 realz[edit]

The article is in really bad shape right now, with lots of weirdly-phrased sentences, few sources, two Setting sections :)) and an almost complete lack of screenshots, and some of the stuff is written in a really in-universe perspective. I've started rewriting the article to try and fix these problems. I want to give it close to the same structure as the article on Morrowind because that article is FA-class, so if anything, it should be a role-model for how this article should look. A few pointers were taken from the Fallout article, but only a few because it's only a C-class.

I've already done the lead and the gameplay section, and in the next couple of weeks I'll probably get the whole thing done. It might be hard finding enough sources, but at least this thing will look a lot better to anyone reading it. Reject 666 6 (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic vs Magick[edit]

In the article the discussion about the in game phenomenon magick is always referred to as magick. This is what we usually talk about as magic and referring to it by its in-game name all the time is ugly and confusing to people that have not played the game. I've personally not played it and to me it just looked like a lot of spelling errors until I started looking into it.

I'm going to change all instances of magick to magic at least in the Setting section, and add an explanation on what magick is. That should look a lot cleaner. Valar (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring and sourcing[edit]

So I'm back at rewriting the article. I've already done some work on it, the only thing I haven't touched yet is the big, ugly Setting section. I'll try to improve it soon; I really don't know where to start with it, though. The thing could really use a couple of screenshots, but I don't have the game installed right now so any help with a few screenshots would be appreciated.

I'm trying to base the structure off the Morrowind article, seeing as it was a featured article. Reject 666 6 (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I rewrote the Setting section and added sources, and I fixed up the soundtrack section as well. I'll put it up for re-assessment and in the meantime I might install it and take some screenshots. Reject 666 6 (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment as of 2009-07-03[edit]

Remaining C-class. Not a bad article by any means, but there's some major issues. -First, sourcing structure. None of the ones listed really show the author (if it's listed as "Staff", "IGN Staff" etc just put "Staff" as the author) nor the date the referenced text was written. -Secondly, a lot of questionable sources in here, as well as a forum or two (which you should try to avoid using as sources). -All around you need to look at other B-class articles for insight. That and you can't go through that format to get GA for an article (that's a separate process).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've started restructuring the sources to meet the requirements. So far I've done only the lead, so if you read this let me know if it's correct this time. About the questionable sources, which ones besides the forums are questionable so I can look into them? The majority are from reviews, from the Gamerankings page that shows review scores for various sites and the ones from terra-arcanum.com are from a repository of interviews by developers, not from the forums themselves. The actual forum links are more problematic, though. I'll try to replace them as soon as I find something acceptable. Reject 666 6 (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best Seller?[edit]

I noticed the article very early on declares Arcanum to be Troika's "best seller." However, I believe this is erroneous. The link below contains a forum discussion with Leonard Boyarsky claiming Temple of Elemental Evil was the Troika's "best seller," though Arcanum had been out longer and might have sold more copies by virtue of time. Similarly, their title Bloodlines has been on sale on Direct2Drive and Steam for some time now, and may very well have surpassed both of the earlier games. Long story short, I'm removing the "best seller" descriptor, but I'll leave the sales number and what have you up.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6612&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.246.84 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews table[edit]

There's a template just for this purpose: {{VG reviews}}. SharkD (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern about the game is its overfocus on the in-fiction elements and underfocus on out-of-game elements—for instance the who development and reception is crammed into a single section. Without addition information about the development and reception, it is difficult to allow the article to meet the good article criteria.

Some comments:

  1. Avoid abbreviations like "aka".
  2. "Developed" should link to "video game developer", not "game development".
  3. When there is only a month and a year, there is never a comma between them.
  4. Dates are to be in the format January 1, 2009, or 1 January 2009. It seems that most of the dates in this article are incorrectly formatted (remove the comma).
  5. The first instance of $ needs to use either "US$" or "USD" and of course still be wikilinked.
  6. First instance of "experience point" should be wikilinked.
  7. The sentence "Every five levels one additional character point is awarded, (every 5 levels 6 character points are awarded) the leveling is capped at level 50; since the character starts at level one with five free character points this makes for a total of 64 character points." is very difficult to follow, and seems a bit trivial. The idea here is not to make a comprehensive description of the game mechanics, but to describe the basic.s
  8. The phrase "balanced and frantic[18] and overly simplified" needs at least one comma or an "and" removed.
  9. It is not really that good to describe something as the same as another game. If a person has not played the now aging games of Diablo or Fallout, they will not understand the references. Both these games are ten years old now, and although popular then, it is unreasonable to have expected people to have played them.
  10. If writing about a continuum, don't use a slash, but instead an endash (–), which is not to be confused with a hyphen (-). Therefore there is magic–technology and good–evil.
  11. Never use contractions in mainspace on Wikipedia. Instead of "they've", use "they have". This is not necessary on talk pages or similar, where a more informal tone is often used.
  12. The first sentence of the second paragraph under "setting" is very long and awkward.
  13. Don't wikilink the proper name "Mountain Ranges" to "mountain range", as it gives the impression that the link goes to the place in question.
  14. In the whole section, there are numerous capitalization errors with the word "the", which should not be capitalized unless at the beginning of a sentence.
  15. The "setting" section seems unbalanced as part of the whole. The amount of detail the world is described in is at the verge of trivial, and a thinning of the content would probably make it more encyclopedic. There are several discussions and examples that go way beyond the detail expected in an encyclopedia, particularly when taking into consideration the fairly small development and reception section[s].
  16. Perhaps a bit beyond the GA criteria, but the word "utilizing" will almost always (and certainly in this instance) read better if replaced with "use". The word should only be used when in context of efficiency (e.g. high utilization).
  17. "Tesla Gun" should be de-caplitalized, unless there is one particular gun (and only one) that is called that in the game.
  18. The word "modernized" should be "modern" and please remove the wikilink, which goes to an article on a sociological concept.
  19. There is a certain about of overlinking in the "setting" section, in particular the repeated link to some of the races.
  20. Never, ever use an ampersand (&) in prose or headers. Use the word "and".
  21. Development and receptions should be two separate sections.
  22. I expect more information on development, such as when it started, perhaps some initial ideas and background.
  23. I would have expected more from the review section (which is barely a paragraph), in particular individual comments (either paraphrased or quoted) to look at the array of reviews. What is important is to see if there are elements that the reviewers agreed were good, agreed were not good and if applicable, what they disagreed on. The prose used by reviewers is just as important as the scores, because this is where more subjective parts of the game can be discussed. Look at some of the reviews that gave bad scores, and try to find the essence of why the reviewer didn't like the game, and similarly with the good scores. All games have a trade-off, and this is often the cause of the disputes between reviewers.
  24. I would have though a different location would be better to decribe the editor, probably in the "gameplay" section.
  25. The section "unofficial patch" is rather confusion, because it starts off with talking about an official patch. It gives the immediate impression that there were no official patches.
  26. What is meant by "...large portion of game content unused"?
  27. The "sequel" section is rather short, and can lead the reader to actually believe there is a sequel. Instead, stick it in the "development" section.
  28. The stray sentence "All music composed by Ben Houge." seems to be redundant to the previous paragraph. Also, please avid single-sentence paragraphs, they look hideously unprofessional.
  29. Remove all "see also" entries. An ideal article has no such. Instead, they should be linked in appropriate places in the prose. It is also a bit difficult to understand why three of these are in the "see also" section at all.
  30. "Conductivity", "hybrid", "spells", "stealth" and "Tesla" all link to disambiguation pages.
  31. Ref 40 is dead.
  32. While the map image is okay, there is not screenshot of a "typical" screen during normal play, making it very difficult to understand how the game is played. Please add such an image.

I am placing the article on hold. Arsenikk (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

  1.  Done
  2.  Done
  3.  Done
  4.  Done
  5.  Done
  6.  Done
  7.  Done
  8.  Done
  9.  Done
  10.  Done
  11.  Done
  12. Which sentence? They all seem to be fine to me. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Done
  14. More specifically? “The” used in the context of a pronoun (The United States) is capitalised. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Done
  16.  Done
  17.  Done
  18.  Done
  19.  Done
  20.  Done
  21.  Done
  22.  Not done There seems to be very little development info about, given this was 2001 and the internet was a newfangled thing there are probably a lot in printed magazines, but unfortunately I don't have much access to them, IGN has a series of Behind the scenes stuff but that doesn't give us anything practical to go on. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Done
  24.  Done
  25.  Done Changed to Patch Sanguis Sanies (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Done The rest of the paragraph explains it; "including endings, audio, artwork and animations, as well as adding higher quality versions of location maps, and higher bit rate music files" and others Sanguis Sanies (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Done
  28. The stray sentence is part of the template.
  29. Really? Most articles; including GA and FA articles, have See Also. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30.  Done
  31.  Done
  32.  Done

The sentence has now been moved and is "The Unified Kingdom — a rapidly industrialising and technologically the most advanced kingdom; the Kingdom of Cumbria — a deteriorated kingdom ruled by an old conservative king and the Kingdom of Arland — a small but thriving monarchy west of the Stonewall range." This is too long, and need to be broken into smaller parts. Also, never use more than a single instance of punctuation dashes in a single sentence (either one dash or a double used in lieu of a commma). Emdashes are never to be spaced. Regarding the capitalization of "the", this is incorrect if used in the middle of a sentence. For instance, one would write "...in the United States...". However, for works (such as "while reading The Lord of the Rings...", this may be acceptable. The length of the development section is now sufficient, particularly since the other development-related information has been packaged into a single section. If the stray sentence is part of the template, I suggest either modifying the template, the input parameters or manually creating the table. In the way it is now, it cannot be used in a GA article.

See WP:See also. There is a common misunderstanding among many Wikipedia editors that a "see also" section is a good thing. The best place to put wikilinks is in the prose and subsequently in a navbox; only when these two instances have been exhausted should a "see also" section be used. Such a section is okay for the early stages of an article, when relevant links may not have the necessary prose to be included. There are also some links that just cannot be put into the main prose or a navbox—and for these a "see also" section in a mature article is allowed. Although usually a good guide, be aware of using the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument with other GA and FA articles. All GA articles are flawed (the criteria allow less-than perfect articles, and allow large amounts of MOS-noncompliances to be overlooked). Also look at how old the FA article is; for instance most FA articles passed in 2006 would quick-fail todays GA criteria.

Nice work :) There are still some issues and I am placing the article on hold, but it is looking much better now. Arsenikk (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sanguis Sanies (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will pass the article. However, there is one thing I seem to have overlooked, and that is that three refers (26, 27 and 29) are missing access dates, and that there is an inconsistency in the formatting of the access dates. I'll ask you to fix it up, but assume good faith that you'll do that even if I pass the article right now (so we don't spend another three days here). Nice work; I hope to see more classic RPGs (or any other game) here at GAN in the future :) Arsenikk (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Use of questionable and self-published sources[edit]

The article references many questionable and self-published sources. Reviews from GameFAQs users, MobyGames users, and self-published pages like metzomagic.com should not be used. Mimir (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I recommend an immediate delist. I have no idea how this ever could have passed. --Teancum (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I do not believe this article was scrutinised closely enough when it became GA.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted due to the lack of additional comments and the concerns given above, which I can also verify. It can be re-nominated for GA if these issues are addressed. Re-assessing as C-Class. –MuZemike 01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference material[edit]

While digging through the online print archive, I located the following print preview material for this game:

One or more print reviews for this game may also be found in the archive. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General gameplay and Story sections[edit]

I believe that description: "Many quests offer multiple solutions for the player...", which appears on two places on the page, is not sufficiently accurate. Personally I would say that all of the quests in the game offer at least two solutions. In every single case you can simply kill the NPC and you will still be able to finish every quest. Small exception to this is killing Nasrudin before you obtain the device. If this is enough to make "all of the quests" incorrect I would still suggest a word or phrase that represents "more" than many. Sorry for the expression, English is not my first language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daexx (talk • contribs) 10:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does have multiple gameplay options solutions to quests. Blow them up with dynamite or use your sword to hack them away.

but yes you are correct. I agree a change like that should be made. not sure how to phrase it thoughWitsBlomstein (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura. 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) 18:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arcanum:_Of_Steamworks_and_Magick_Obscura&oldid=1198911891"