Jump to content

Talk:Crush the Castle

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

Angry Birds legacy bit

[edit]

I put into the article

"Crush the Castle has been called a free alternative for a popular game of the same type, Angry Birds. They further say that "It is not as fun as Angry Birds", but "someone who is desperate to play [...] can try this out."".
  • Rakesh Narang (2010-12-18). "Like Angry Birds iPhone Game, Wanna play Online? Check this out!". Wizard Journal. Retrieved 2011-03-06.

Tris23 (talk · contribs) has removed this, replacing it with

"Crush the Castle has become extremely popular, becoming an ongoing series. It has an overall rating of 9 of 10 on Armor Games, and has over 20 million plays on that site alone."

Tris states that I am simply promoting Angry Birds, and that it doesn't help the article to have it in there. I think that it does help display the subject's legacy, in that there are popular games based off of it. What do you think? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to Angry Birds is more about the game's reception, not legacy. (It is a fact of legacy for Angry Birds, however, that freely available clones like CtC exist). The second statement, using #s from Armor's website, is not appropriate, however, since those are user-generated figures (if a second source noted those figures, then it would be appropriate) --MASEM (t) 15:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that it's jumping the gun to make that "legacy" material. Masem is correct that Armor Games' own rankings are worthless for our purposes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, it is a fact that Angry Birds was released after Crush the Castle. If anything the former can be said to have been influenced by the latter. The article is better now that most references to a different game have been removed. I'm still not convinced it is very informative though. The popularity of user created levels is not discussed; hundreds of thousands have been submitted online and on various forums. This is a large part of the game's legacy.--Tris23 (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by the fact that these games are so similar, and this game was released over half a year earlier, yet neither article makes any reference to this fact. I suppose if no publication anywhere refers to or speculates about the fact that Angry Birds was influenced by this game, we can't talk about it because it'd be original research, but it just seems... odd. In any case, I'm bothered by the quote; it's a bit misleading, in that it implies that this game is a clone of that one, which as noted isn't possible given their listed release dates. --Aquillion (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone looking for a citation about which came first, see the GamaSutra article "Threes, clones and cornflakes: A view on 'casual games", which includes the following: Even Angry Birds owes a debt, [editorial director of Nickelodeon's Addicting Games] says, to the "flinger" mechanic from one of her favorite browser game series, Crush the Castle. --Replysixty (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I played CtC before Angry Birds even showed up. Mobile Ports may be a different matter, but Angry Birds DEFINITELY ripped off CtC's Armor Games. Tallaussiebloke (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's Wikipedia for you!

[edit]

You have to be an absolute moron to not see the bias in this article. It doesn't even mention the fact that this game predates "Angry Birds", instead it talks as if this game is a cheap rip off. Once again Wikipedia is here to misinform the masses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.155.153 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say it is a "cheap rip off", it says "a free alternative", which are words taken from the referenced source. The fact that this game predates Angry Birds is irrelevant, and can be learned by looking at the release dates on both articles. It would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to mention it here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely true. It's relevant because even if a quote exists, it's still wrong to use it in a way that could lead a reader to make an incorrect assumption about the subject. In other words, if we're going to use a quote describing that it's "a free alternative", I think it's important to make it clear that it came first, because otherwise a reader is naturally going to get the impression that it didn't. Though I think a better option is to just not use the quote at all, since it's problematic for the reason I mentioned -- it gives the reader an impression that just isn't true. --Aquillion (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crush the Castle. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crush the Castle. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crush_the_Castle&oldid=1200495515"