Talk:Myth (video game series)

Hotline Servers

I removed the hl.udogs.net link since a better explanation is needed. A short entry could be put in about the role HL played on Myth - it has had much greater use of hotline servers than most games. hl.udogs.net and hotline.clanplaid.net also both work as hotline servers, not just web-pages - this neede detailing.

Someone write it up please

(The Elfoid 17:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Small Addition

I added a mention of Homeland under the listing of maps made by the group Creation. This is more for consistency's sake for anything else, as it had been mentioned twice before in the article - once at the begining and another time under "notable creations" - alongside other Creation Games projects but not mentioned with them underneath the mapmaking group's description. Thus, it's more or less for a reader who looks at those listings and says "Hrm, I wonder who made that..." Now that reader can find the answer underneath the mapmaking group descriptions.

That said, if it sounds like I'm harping the map itself, it's because I probably am. I was the project leader of the Homeland map and would very much like it to recieve proper credit/documentation (it has been denied it before). That, and I think it's pretty cool. :)

Imakjak 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Much love - haere e hoki, Jack

onyx warlords?

Never heard of this, and google isn't much help. Are these guys actually notable? Do they have a website or any releases more noteworthy than the thousands of releases that have not been mentioned? I mean heck, lots of groups formed and promised to release stuff. I've been out of touch for a while so just wondering. Argyrios 20:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Things like this are exactly why I was against making a groups section in the first place... the level of detail into which it is possible to go here is a serious threat to the coherence and readability and balance of the article. I think a Community of Myth sub-article needs to be started ASAP so we have a place to dump all this info about mapmaking and whatnot. Argyrios 20:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Their site's down right now - they've had HUGE troubles maintaining it but I believe they'll be sorted out. TFV has been in development since 2003, its gonna be bigger (in terms of units, and solo OR multiplayer maps, complex scripts) than TSG we are told. Its been heralded as the closest we'll get to Myth IV. Other than Magma they're the only current team, and they're far more active - just a shedload of work to do. I can see why you might not want it up, but I feel its useful.

E-mail me (theelfoid_TFS@hotmail.com) Ares, I forget your e-mail adress. We can get working on a Community section as soon as. I've got a basic plan of paragraphs to put in:

• Brief history
• Noteable tournaments (e.g. oPoP series, 7 Phoenix Rising (cuz it was official) and MWC - paragraph each - can later expand into having an MWC page with a little data on winning teams)
• Myth Development (summary of work by Bungie, Mumbo Jumbo, Myth Dev, Flying Flip and Magma in VERY brief text) history
• Map-making teams/individuals
• Community centres (servers, information on sites like The Mill, general community hubs)
• The Galleria Mythica (call it me PR plugging but I'd at least like to see how it goes down...my Galleria had over 3000 hits on PlayMyth.net since October 2005 and has been a real hit)
• Community language (e.g. definitions/origins of 'hillus', 'care factor' or 'rank h00r')
• Community icons (e.g. HoHo Goldfish, Flying Flip, Anna The Bot, that question-answerer from Bungie's old site [before my time...])
• In-game language (unit names, what 'D our N' means)
• Noteable community figures (this can be determined by me nosing around the community, I don't think this'll be worth implimenting but we can have a look into it)
• Many more links than the main Myth page, removing less important ones from there

I'm pretty sure this stuff'll get so long it'll be seperated into several pages - lets see how it goes and start small. Get in touch. Might be worth us making a small forum somewhere where we can discuss in more detail than we can here? I can host one on mine (www.visionalgraphics.net/tfs) if you care - just an idea.

(The Elfoid 19:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

Myth gaming community

I have started a page for this entry Myth gaming community. It is intended to discuss all the notable contributions of both editors of Myth and gamers, as well as to give a general history of Myth editing (mostly from a technical and not creative viewpoint) as well as the community's somewhat notable accomplishment of literally prolonging the franchise on their own, without a commercial backer. FieryProphet 20:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm really happy with the latest changes. I feel the main article is much more readable and coherent now. I took the liberty of moving a lot of community-related content and re-naming the new article to Community of Myth (computer game) Argyrios 06:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And look at that, the WikiNazi's have deleted the page from probably a "lack of Notability". We need to keep the Community content on the main page... Also, perhaps some commentary on how the community has fallen apart? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.116.71.226 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Awards Section

Upon reading the Total Codex Edition box, it seems some of the Myth games gained some recognition in so it should be list on this page...

Yes the Myth games have won several GOTY awards, as well as all sorts of other awards. GameSpot even labelled Myth:TFL/ The Myth Series, as one of the greatest games of all Time.164.116.71.226 18:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Myth IV

I deleted the entire section on Myth IV because there were no citations and I'm pretty certain it was false. Take 2 owned a 19.9% share of Bungie. When Bungie sold to Microsoft, Take 2 got the Myth and Oni IPs in exchange for their ownership. Any future Myth projects would not be tied to Bungie unless Microsoft buys the rights back. Ace of Sevens 17:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Myth Units

The list lacks many units from ALL the series (mainly the Wolf Age) and could do with its own article, as the above has proposed with others, with alittle more depth to it. User:Stabby Joe

I'm not sure how much detail is really required for units, really what we need once the games are split into separate articles is a summary of noteable units for each game. For example, a summary of basic units for each side, and maybe a few that are particularly original. A page with every single unit ever might be okay for someone who really wants to do it, but unit summaries on each page is a must, so long as it's within reason! Haravikk 11:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Myth screenshot.jpg

Image:Myth screenshot.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 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) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Split

I have tagged the article for splitting off into four seperate articles. Three will cover each individual game, and one will cover the general series and overflow information. It is standard practice for each game in a series to have its own article. Check any game series and see for yourself. As well, the page relies too heavily on lists that could be converted to prose, and needs references sometime in the future. Green451 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose What the article needs is a complete rewrite with sources, not to be split up into 3 more horrible articles --WakingJohn 03:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I Support rohith 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Support. This article is cluttered. AKismet 10:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is not long, and would only merit splitting if considerable additional text were to be added. Gimmetrow 17:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Support At one point these articles were seperate and they should be again. Alyeska

And they were merged for a reason. Unless someone is going to add a few thousand words of quality content, there is no good reason to split the article apart. A fair amount of the content currently in the article should be deleted. Gimmetrow 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Each is a seperate entity and thus deserving of a seperate entry. Some articles are naturaly larger then others, some smaller. Alyeska 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all separate entities get separate articles. Small articles are often merged into related articles. Splitting would probably result in a lot of unnecessary duplication of material, and probably make the resulting articles further away from the "broad" and "comprehensive" requirements of WP:GA and WP:FA. Gimmetrow 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Very little material would need to be duplicated. Alyeska 23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Support if someone can make the separate articles good. I know nothing about the series, so I couldn't help. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Support I think each game deserves its own article.Blackkrash 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - someone just had to do it, and do it well. 65.94.13.65 04:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Only thing I might see as needing a separate page is the Myth Community which is a huge chunk of this article right now. The vast majority of the content in the article applies to both Myth TFL and Myth II (and few people will have much to say about Myth III except to compare it to the original games). Definitely shorten the Gameplay-General section and remove or severely shorten the Units section.--Every name is taken12345 08:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A seperate page on the community existed, got removed. Map-making, development history, Myth World Cup and Myth II tournaments already cover pretty much all of that.

I doubt separate articles would work. Why? Because we used to have them and merged it for a reason. Myth III just turned into an essay on why no one bought it and had little information on the game, and Myth II was a list of minor changes from the first one. Those changes were more than the sum of their parts, which was not made clear. (The Elfoid 12:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

Support however this would mean that the story section would also have to be broken down and put into these new seperate articles. Stabby Joe 12:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point it seems to be not so much a question of "are there enough votes" as "who's actually going to sit down and do it". Not me! --68.44.13.236 22:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - which would be better; several crappy articles or one good one? I suggest the later. Improve the series article up to GA or whatnot, and then see if there's enough pertinent info to split. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You commented above, DF, some six months ago. It doesn't look like anything is going to be done, so does anyone object to removing the "split" template? Gimmetrow 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to be editing, can't you remove the template *and* split the article? --68.44.13.236 03:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I believe that the articles should be kept as a whole for the Myth universe as it is easier to deliver the story of all three games in chronological order this way. I love the Myth games and would love to see them each receive there own articles, but at the moment I believe that there is not enough content above the storyline. Also thing like the bestiary ( that is very good at describing the various uses of the unit on multiplayer, but should also contain the lore behind the units in relation to the myth world) would relate to all of the games, as the units are all pretty much in every game so this should be kept as a whole. I also believe there could be different sections for things like races, artifacts, places, and a map of the world, which is located within the game. I will probably go about collecting the required info and adding it to the page when I have some free time, (3rd year uni student). I believe most of the info on units can be found within the myth 3 manual which I have and also on various sites. Beef246 14:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

First, how is it easier? The (four, counting Chimera) games' plots don't really overlap. Second, lore about the game's world isn't really of general interest, and might belong better on Bungiepedia. Third, Myth III was made by different developers, so it seems misleading to treat it as a source of information about the original games' world. --DocumentN 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, there could still be a main Myth series article in addition to the individual game articles. Still not going to split it myself, though. --DocumentN 04:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Support SharkD 13:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Support In keeping with other series/titles, each game should have a summary of plot specific to that game, as well as highlights in changes to game-engine/units, notes on things like map-making tools and so-on. There is far more to Myth than can be captured in a single page, even what we have already is too much. Haravikk 11:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Support This article IS long, horrible looking and against the policy that exists with all the other game articles, treating them as seperate but related articles. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to explain the story to people, it is to provide people with information on what they're looking for, if I'm looking for World of Warcraft I don't want to go looking thru Warcraft 1 2 or even 3 stuff. 3 crappy articles are better than 1, they are smaller and easier to read, they create clear boundaries where people can say "I'm not interested in this part". And it seems very unlikely that your going to have 1 crappy article, which means people will have to read through 3 piles a crap mixed together. In addition, as I understood it when I was more active, these discussions are not to discuss your feelings or opinions on the subject but to decide on how to conform and standardize it the best.

Support: (1) the wikipedia convention for game series is an article for the series discussing the background, history and development of the series at large, and separate in-depth articles for each separate title, with expansions within the article of its parent game (unless better off in its own article). See the Total War series article for an example. (2) The article as it is, though exhaustive, is winding and un-pedagogic. Miqademus (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to keep thing stable, I propose that when/if we do split these, leave all the info currently on this page while we build the others. When they're established enough, then we crop this one to as mentioned a Total War series style. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Support: I'd be happy to do the editing work should a split go ahead. A bit reluctant to start work on it when I don't know whether it will be used, however. User:CWBush 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC +9)

I Support the split 75.67.239.158 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• OPPOSE What this article needs is to be cut down to size, not split into four even more useless articles. I mean, come on, think about this. This is a 15-page (or whatever) article about a ten year old computer game. A computer game that never was particularly successful, especially compared to other franchises that are as old or even older (Command & Conquer, Final Fantasy, Warcraft etc...). This article does not need to be split, it needs to be reduced to one or two pages (and that's generous). Don't support the nerd rage! --84.186.250.112 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Splitting this article would be useless and a disaster. The anonymous user above me is correct. This information needs to be heavily trimmed to be more encyclopedic. The article doesn't read like something from an encyclopedia but instead looks like a promotional pamphlet, advertisement, or gaming guide. I still play this game today (my handle is "Welly") but my enjoyment of the game doesn't cloud my vision on the purpose of Wikipedia. This article must be trimmed, certainly not split up or expanded. Blue Danube (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Stub articles in place. Editing is open and on!

I have created stub pages for Myth and Myth II under this article, and added basic structure and infoboxes. Please help move contents and add relvenat additional information. I have not created a page for Myth III due to a spontaneous urge to in stead clean my apartment. When the articles are in good enough shape we can shunt their contents to replace the redirects in their proper articles.

• Myth (computer game series)/Myth: The Fallen Lords
• Myth (computer game series)/Myth II: Soulblighter

Miqademus (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm redirecting those back to here, as no one has worked on them and they are nothing more than a infobox. If you want to work like that, use a sandbox in your user space instead. Pagrashtak 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Older Myth game

If Wikipedia has an article on "Myth: History in the Making" (an unrelated game by System 3 from around 1990, usually just known as "Myth") then a disambig on this page would be good. 86.142.150.182 (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, seriously...

Now, as an ancient gamer (don't ask how old I am, please) I like Myst as much as the next guy. But this article is about ten times as long as the articles on Theory of Relativity and I just wonder... Is this really justifiable? I mean, seriously, does ANYONE need to know this much about a mediocre real-time strategy game that never really took off? I don't think so. I think a bunch of no-life gaming geeks got their hands on this and the article really need to be sized down to what is proper. Please cut where cutting is possible, remove what can be removed, paraphase what is paraphraseable and do it before someone else does it and makes it worse. --84.186.250.112 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it does. I love coming to wikipedia just for the very reason that it has a lot of information about a lot of things that are not found elsewhere. Blackfeathor (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

@anonymous - Besides, if you knew more about this game, you'd have gotten the name right, and you'd know that it was neither mediocre, and it was commercially successful. Calydon (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget pointing out him mistaking the genre :) Also, while "Theory of Relativity" is terse, it is because it is a glorified redirect page, have you checked out the main article on General relativity? Tried to be disenginious but fell flat on your face... :D Still, I think the articles for the specific games should be split from the main, and this article should focus on the common themes. Miqademus (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Split

I am up for writting a base article for further edits (usually C class) but only for Myth II given I know more about it than the first, the only thing preveting me is how to write the gameplay section as it would be similar to this one and an future Fallan Lords article. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Casualties...

Hi gaming geeks :D Does anyone remember if this is the game where the voiceover said "casualties, Casualties, CASUALTIES" louder and louder as more of your forces died? I really thought it was this game, but I see no reference to the awesome voiceover in the main article... and sadly Myth really won't work on Vista... no surprises there!--Linguistliz (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is that game, though I don't know that that really warrants mention on the article page. Also, plenty of people play Myth on Vista... make sure you're running the current version. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Speculated" names from "unofficial sources"

Will whoever keeps adding "speculated" names of unknown characters, cited to "unofficial sources", please stop. Unofficial sources are unencyclopedic sources, and speculation doesn't belong in an encyclopedia either.

Further, Googling for these names (the four unknown Avatara "Nelarn", "Numeril", "Phexios" and "Orlino"; the two unknown Fallen Lords "Rathras the Lord of Wars" and "Hrungunir the Rune Master"; and "Athla-Dahox" The Summoner) reveals nothing that's not a copy or cache of this very wikipedia article, so as far as I can tell they don't even come from some published mod or fan fiction; they're only being inserted into this article, which tempts me to call that deliberate vandalism and not just misaimed enthusiasm for some noncanon source.

--Pfhorrest (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Second split

I'm planning to do another split, this time with Myth: The Fallen Lords so of course do jump in and help and of course trim any information in this article that might only be unique to this planned one. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lore

Hey, guys. I dearly love the Myth's plot and I'm glad to see that many people do so as well. But I've found many controversies and misinterpretations in the article. Does anyone really respect the reference rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.93.198 (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If by "respect the reference rule" you mean Wikipedia's policy about reliable sources... it's hard to say what counts as a reliable source for a plot synopsis from a video game. The game's own journal texts (as hosted on Myth@Borg, like you've linked to) seem to be the best option, but I don't know. I'm as big a Myth story fan as you can get (I am "Forrest of B.org" who maintains the site you've been linking to) but I imagine anyone not such would call the extent of in-universe information we have here "fan wank".

As for the inaccuracy of things here, their notability aside, I've tried to trim out blatant falsehoods when I've come across them. A complication is how to treat the canonicity of Take Two's Myth 3, which "reveals" things that are not true within the canon of the original Bungie games; this article treating the Myth universe like a single coherent story of unified authorship is just inviting controversies like that. But please, keep tagging things like you have been and when I get a chance I'll look things over and see if I can't rewrite or redact things to be more neutral on issues like that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)