Talk:Puzzle Quest: Challenge of the Warlords

Mac version out now

Being distributed by GameTree, who I hear are a spinoff from Transgaming. - http://www.gametreeonline.com/product.php?productid=16147 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.55.181 (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Puzzle Pirates

What relevance does the Puzzle Pirates link have with this game? 128.196.208.1 (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Update request

This pages needs an gigantic update. The game is out now, and its great Captain duck 17:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo Power review

Anyone know what is going on with Nintendo Power's 4/10 rating for the DS version of this game? It is seriously slandering the game's otherwise good name and bringing down it's average rating at gamerankings. http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/934598.asp?q=puzzle%20quest JyL 17:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo Power believes in writing reviews based not on the opinions of the reviewer, nor on objective logic concerning the game but rather their prediction for the game's sales. The interesting thing is that by writing a review score so low, they partially fulfill their own prophecy. Most gamers are upset by the NP's failure to review a game properly due to this latest mistake. BlackVegetable 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If I had only played the game for 5 minutes, I probably would have given it a low score too. The game doesn't look very polished (awkward dialogue, boring sprites, no graphical flair), there are some moderately serious UI issues (not giving you all the info on spells from the selection menu; how am I supposed to make a good choice if I don't know how much mana I need to cast it?), and the controls make it very easy to shoot yourself in the foot (accidentally touching the wrong thing will give you damage and skip your turn). On top of that, it's essentially just an extension of a puzzle game that's been around for years and already has several iterations on the DS.

Now, I *have* played it for more than 5 minutes so I know that the magic and skill mechanics are enough to distinguish it from other Bejeweled clones. Still, I think the above flaws are serious enough that the current reviews are a bit high. On the other hand, NP's review is far too low, I think it deserves something around 6 or 7 out of 10; a 4 is the equivalent of saying "this game is total crap." 63.102.70.70 19:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Anyone else find it amusing that you have to battle Rodents of Unusual Size in a place called Gildor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.86.83.196 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Original story?

An "original story"? Although I have never played the game, I can assure you that if I had, the chances of me calling the story "original" would be very slim. Due to my lack of expertise, I am leaving the article be for the moment.

I've played some of it. It's cliché paradise. 70.53.49.187 18:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that in this sense, "original" means that it isn't based on one of the existing RPG franchises or settings.--MythicFox 14:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wii version

There's no official confirmation, so I haven't added anything to the article, but Amazon has this listed for the Wii, complete with cover art -- fueling speculation that this will be released for the console. Some links about it: [1][2][3][4] -- MisterHand 16:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I think it will be announced at E3 next week if this is real, but even at Amazon, I'll wait for official word from D3 Publishing on it. --Masem 17:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Puzzle quest PSP.jpg

Image:Puzzle quest PSP.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 00:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This has now been addressed by adding the appropriate rationale. No further action should be needed. --Slordak 12:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Xbox 360 Co-op

Price: 1200 Microsoft Points Availability: Not available in Korea Dash Text: [ESRB: E10+ (EVERYONE 10+) Suggestive Themes] Single Player, Xbox LIVE Multiplayer 1-2, Local Multiplayer 1-2, HD (High Definition). Classic puzzle game action meets an epic RPG story of good vs. evil. Features enhanced graphics, HD support, and Co-op multiplayer over Xbox LIVE. There are no refunds for this item. For more information, see www.xbox.com/Live/accounts.

Anyone know about how this is implemented? JAF1970 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I'll find out through playing, but haven't seen any reports of this yet. I know it's supposed to include competitive play, maybe Major Nelson messed up? --MASEM 15:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no Co-op. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.74.225 (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Release dates paragraph

The release dates paragraph sure seems like it would do better as a table, or could perhaps be eliminated in favor of the material in the infobox. A prose list of "Was released on X on Y. was released on P on Q. ..." doesn't seem appropriate.

I don't know what the usual style is for video games, so I'm not just doing it myself. Jordan Brown (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mobile Version is Out, and it's quite different

Mobile Version for NA is out, and I've playing it since 3/APR/08 (and it was released before that).

Major differences:

• shorter title: it's now just "Puzzle Quest: Warlords"
• 8 starting choices (of 4 starting professions, one of each gender)
• no armors, weapons, or accessories at all. Instead, you gain random "runes". You have to "attune" the rune to your "hammer of the elements" by playing a game where you need to grab "potions" by eliminating whole rows with 4-of-a-kind or 5-of-a-kind. Different runes require rathering different number of potions (3-7). Should you reach an impasse (no moves left) the attunement is a failure. No spells are allowed during attunement. You can have max of 3 runes active on the weapon at a time.
• some profession gets a LOT of runes, others get very few, but more spells. Some are better at creating skulls, and thus, doing direct damage
• there are no mounts, thus no mount spells
• if you defeat an opponent three times or more, you can choose to "learn a spell" from the opponent instead of just fighting it. You must fill your mana (two or three types) to 30 each by collecting mana before your opponent. Skulls can reduce the opponent's mana if collected. No spells are allowed during "learn a spell" battles.
• one can have a maximum of 6 spells. As one learns more spells, one must pick and choose the best combination. No cool-off period
• no companions
• no citadel actions
• gold earned goes toward towns, where one can choose "increase skill", where each attribute can be raised by paying an ever-increasing price per level
• xp earned goes levels. Once level is gained, you get 4 character points that you can allocate to your attributes. However, some attributes cost up to 3 character points to raise by 1, while others are 1 to 1 ratio.

Let me know if you need more details about the mobile version. This was on Verizon V.CAST network, played on LG VX8300 --Kschang77 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest making a new section ("Mobile version") and include a brief overview of these details, if you have such information. Puzzle Quest: Warlords should be redirected to point to that section. --MASEM 01:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

European PSP Version

I added the line saying that the french/german release has fixed the companion bugs because I personally own said version (French box, booklet, game in English) and the companions DO work. I have not found this discussed anywhere else on the net though, so I can't provide a link 194.154.200.108 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Modred

Other version differences

I own the PSP and XBox 360 versions, and it was a shock for me the first time I discovered that all of the opponent-misses-a-turn spells have a recharge time on the XBox. The very powerful ones that make your opponent miss three or more turns can take as many turns to recharge. This feature is not present on the PSP version - apart from mana requirements, there are no restirctions on how often you can cast spells. Is this noteworthy, do you think?165.142.249.81 (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?

It seem there is a lot of criticism concerning that in this game you're shown a rather large map but only about 1/3 is actually used creating the illusion that there is more to the game after defeating Lord Bane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.75.110 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed from App Store

Seems the iPhone/iPad/iPod versions got pulled for whatever reason and are no longer available for purchase. (Puzzle Quest 2 is still available.) 174.55.184.14 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Merging the remake article into the original article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As the remake has very similar gameplay to the original and not that much content on its own development (I was able to find this), it might be better to put the remake's reception as a subsection of the main article's Reception section and have the remake title redirect to the original title. We can add any additional development information about the remake to the original article.

Pinging User:Zxcvbnm, the creator of the remake article. QuietCicada - Talk 13:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support I figured someone would try to merge the article eventually, as it was made before I had realized the typical consensus on remasters and that they hardly ever get their own articles. If someone is willing to merge the content rather than just delete it, I am fine with it being merged, as it's pretty much the same game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spelling

Masem, you've reverted my change of "armor" to "armour" here with the reason Dont switch spelling variants without good reason (article was written in US spelling). The reason I switched it was because this article has the template {{Use Australian English}}, and given that this was made in Australia, this is good reasoning per MOS:TIES. What do you think? —Panamitsu (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The article was originally created with MDY dates and US-based spellings prior to this one diff [5] which unilaterly changed them based on simply the devs being Australian. While MOS:TIES may apply, that generally requires it to be a topic specifically dealing with something fully Australian, such as an article on the developers. at the VG project, we have long since determined that the country of the developer doesn't really implore national ties to a game, though other reasons may exist (for example, games with first release in Japan from Japanese developers will follow dates appropriate for Japan). So those tags at the top of the article violated MOS:RETAIN (as well as MOS:DATERET) when they were added, and I didn't catch that until now (given how infrequent this has been updated) — Masem (t) 01:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

However, in thinking it over, its probably better to just undo my revert, as to keep it Australian since enough time had passed. Just that I know when I worked on this way back, it was definitely not treated as Australian, hence why the change looked odd. — Masem (t) 01:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)