Talk:Wizardry IV: The Return of Werdna

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants)
Purple Francis (8 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (9 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Untitled

I think the game should be listed as being a PC-Booter, not DOS. Considering #5 is listed as booter, as are 1,2 and 3, it seems odd that this one is different, and well, it's not! ;)

I have bootable disk images of all of them, and none of them use DOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.141.191 (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor and Werdna

Hi, would it be worth mentioning that Trebor and Werdna are Robert and Andrew written backwards? --Kjoonlee 01:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re The 'Mordor Charge Card' protection, some lucky customers actually obtained 'mordor charge cards with a 'membership number' that tied into their protection, mine happens to be 045738. It is a jet black card with an embossed green dragon and the words 'Wizardry' in red cut through by a sword, on the reverse are the words: 'Don't leave Boltacs Without It!' and the Sir-Tech details. Twobells 09:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Protection Method

As mentioned, "Adding three numbers modulo 9000" is, while close, not quite the copy protection method used. What it actually is is that three numbers are added, and then 9000 is continually subtracted from the sum until a 4-digit number is arrived at. The crucial difference between that and "modulo 9000" is that 9000-9999 would theoretically be valid answers in the former (And indeed, there's at least one combination that leads to a 9XXX answer).

Of course, the larger problem here is that I'm pretty sure this would constitute "original research" by Wikipedia standards. Nonetheless, I took the half-measure of removing the "modulo 9000" portion on grounds of being unsourced. Emptyeye2112 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]