Talk:Candy Crush Saga/Archive 1

Archive 1

DO NOT add overly detailed information to the Candy Crush wiki page!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not will tell you that the wikipedia is not the place for overly detailed information. The overly detailed information was removed for a reason! Do not attempt to add it back. Mumbogumbo (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Like Komalsekhawat (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No section

Anyone else see a very strong resemblance to Bejewelled?

• Of course! Bejewelled has spun off a lot of similar styled games. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Also, Bejewelled is actually a spin-off of Panel de Pon.Mumbogumbo (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Cameo?

A cameo is a brief appearance of a prominent, well known actor. I would think this appearance instead would be called "product placement" for advertising purposes, instead of "cameo". Apteva (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention I fixed this semi-recently. It is true that cameos are people. Mumbogumbo (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Julian Oxborough and Thupten Namgyal

In the Popularity section, they are mentioned. However, googling either name with "Candy Crush Saga" doesn't give any article for the corresponding citation. Anyone can confirm these facts (or prove that they are incorrect)? Chaotic iak (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a fact tag to the paragraph, but feel fr ee to remove it entirely as it cannot seem to be proven. 64.134.196.89 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just for future reference, within a few days of a new release, there will always be multiple people that have beaten all the levels. This can be verified by the "Yay, I completed level ### in Candy Crush Saga!" messages on those users' Facebook pages, that are created by the Candy Crush game itself. Mumbogumbo (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Overly detailed

This page, as it currently stands, is too detailed for Wikipedia. This kind of detail better fits a wiki specialized for the game. Any thoughts?

Also, the reason that I don't use the overly detailed tag is because I have used it before but it gets removed the next day. :/ — chaotic_iak (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of completion, it should be noted the "overly detailed" remark referred to a previous version of the wiki page. This wiki page has been fixed, and is no longer the overly detailed mess that it used to be. Mumbogumbo (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is the real information about Candy Crush Saga ?

I'm a bit surprised there is no information about "Candy Crush Saga"'s economic model. How do these people finance all the promotion (TV spots, etc.) ? Where do the money come from to maintain this "free" video game ? Wikipedia is a media for information, not a users guide ! Drlivingstone (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This page seems to be written by obsessed players, not people thinking about business issues, but you may find this link informative: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/194933/The_Top_F2P_Monetization_Tricks.php

This is an informational page. Notice this page is not allowed to have any tips or strategies posted on it. The reason why this page has more game information than the average puzzle game, is because this game has a lot more things in it than the average puzzle game. 24.128.113.225 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No, this page is definitely far too detailed for Wikipedia. It tells you what every single special is, what every single special combo is, what every single F2P cash shop item is, what level each of these things unlocks at - for your information, 24.148.*, to be encyclopedic, the page ought to mention that these features exist, and nothing more. The extremely excessive detail present here is a textbook example of what the WP project terms 'fan cruft' - I invite you to go find out what that is before posting any more. It's been my experience that most members of this project are much, much less polite than I have been to you here. You are welcome. Take care 66.225.176.36 (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of what 'fan cruft' means. I do agree that some of the information here is a bit excessive (e.g. does anyone really need to know there are 102 ingredient levels?) However, the information about what each special is, and what they do, is not fan cruft in my opinion. There are millions of people playing this game, and I think a lot of people are interested in information regarding game features, because king.com literally does not have any documentation for many of these game features. Most games have a game manual, or explain new features as they happen. This game does not have either. This game literally throws new features at you, with no actual clue or indication of how they work. In any event, if you do wish to make major changes to this wiki page, I would appreciate it if there could be an official discussion about it. I would also appreciate it if this discussion could happen without any more condescending or obnoxious remarks. Mumbogumbo (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ISNOT a strategy guide, even if one is needed. The fact that this game needs documentation is not WP's problem, nor will King's failure to provide it influence the actions of this project. Wikipedia is not the place for content of this detail level. It is unencyclopedic and inappropriate. Again, I have no problem with the fact that this information is available somewhere. That somewhere is not WP. There are wikis hosted by the for-profit Wikia Inc. that will gladly host and place ads all over this content, for example. May I suggest moving it there? As for making major changes... You must be fairly new here. This IS the official discussion. 66.225.176.36 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I will make revisions to the Candy Crush wiki page, in an attempt to have it retain as much usefulness as possible. Mumbogumbo (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made major revisions to the Candy Crush wiki page. I hope these changes are enough to satisfy the wikipedia requirements. Mumbogumbo (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) OK, this is just about perfect. It's still highly detailed, but no longer contains those unnecessary technical details that were bogging the article down. Before it was a great example of how bad a WP article could get - now it's quite good. Nice work. I hope anyone who intends to revert these changes blindly, comes to the talk page to discuss it first. This is a unilateral improvement. 66.225.176.36 (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I realized that the vast majority of Candy Crush players are at the lower levels, they are the most likely people that need information, and they are the most likely people that won't read a wikpedia page if it's bogged down with technical information. Also, I read "what wikipedia is not," and found out this page wasn't following the mission of wikipedia. Mumbogumbo (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou Tenaborek (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Charms

Charms are NOT PURCHASABLE in the current version of Candy Crush Saga! Please do not tell people on the wiki that you can purchase charms! Mumbogumbo (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, you can't purchase charms right now. I just had to remove yet another comment about charms being purchasable. Mumbogumbo (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any evidence of whether or not people can still use charms they already purchased? Mumbogumbo (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Charms/Boosters in relation to cheating

I don't care if you think charms and/or boosters are cheating, and/or if your friends also think it's cheating. That information is subjective and biased, and should not be on the wiki. There are plenty of people that are completely fine with using boosters and/or charms. Mumbogumbo (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Unless we get an article from a reliable source talking about people complaining that charms or boosters constitute cheating, it's just not useful to write that "many people" think so. —tktktk 18:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Gameplay section

Since the 'Gameplay' section needs more references, do you want if I add Candy Crush Saga Wiki pages references there? I am an administrator there. Jianhui67 Talk 23:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Candy crush IS NOT Candy Crush Saga!!

Candy Crush is the mini game which is on King (website) ( http://king.com/ ), while Candy Crush Saga is the Facebook/mobile game. Candy Crush allows you to crush candies within 4 minutes to get as high score as possible, while Candy Crush Saga has levels and lives and needs to complete different tasks to pass a level.

However Candy Crush (the mini game) doesn't really deserve a page in Wikipedia.

user670839245 (talk · contribs · block log) 21:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Candy Crush Saga for PC

Now a days there are some of the games people likes to play on PC and Candy Crush Saga for PC is one of the most searched terms right now what people are looking for its information so can we add a details tutorials on how to Download Candy Crush Saga for PC, Guys do you think its worth to be on Wiki Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jastech (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. Please see WP:NOTHOWTO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ohh Thanks Neil, and appreciated for the Reply, had login today and saw your reply.. and thought to say hello.

Candy Jam

Shouldn't the King (website)#Controversy be covered in more detail on this page? It's got reliable sources (1: "Devs: We'll bury Candy Crush King under HEAPS of candy apps – Indie game-makers protest against CANDY trademark" by Brid-Aine Parnell, The Register, 31 January 2014. 2: "Game Developers Are Trolling the Makers of Candy Crush With Other 'Candy' Games" by Lily Hay Newman, Slate, 30 January 2014. 3: "Stealing 'Candy' From Babies: King Embrace The Aristocracy" by John Walker, Rock, Paper, Shotgun, 21 January 2014), a dedicated website, http://thecandyjam.com/, and a Twitter hashtag, <redacted by Eostrix as search on Twitter is blacklisted> . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Obvious is obvious

Crossing the t's but it's pretty obvious this is completely unsuitable for the opening sentence. WP:RS, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and all that... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And now we have this. Manntis, anyone can put up a web page claiming anything. For it to be notable enough to appear in the article, we need independent sources covering the claims. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, Fixed, thanks. 3rd party links verified. --Manntis

Manntis, thanks for adding the Gamezebo source. Not sure the USPTO source can be used as it might fall afoul of WP:PRIMARY but I'll wait to see what other editors say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic

The mention of Metacritic should say how many reviews were used to create the score, in this case the score of that the score of 79% is based on 9 reviews. This context is important since it is a relatively small number (by comparison Grand Theft Auto 5 for PS3 got 97% from 50 reviews, or Angry Birds iOS getting 88% based on 22 reviews). -- 109.79.77.231 (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

IDIS-497 Interdisciplinary Studies Portfolio – Wikipedia Project

“Candy Crush Creator Won’t Trademark the Word ‘Candy’ Anymore in the U.S.” International Business Times. 27 Feb. 2014.

“Candy Crush Saga Celebrates One Year Anniversary and Half a Billion Downloads.” PR Newswire. 15 Nov. 2013.

Chayka, Kyle. “Candy Crush Just Trademarked Candy.” Time.com. 22 Jan. 2014.

Denver, Nicks. “Candy Crush Maker’s Profits Swelled 7,000 Percent on Game’s Success.” Time.com. 18 Feb 2014.

Dockterman, Eliana. “Candy Crush Saga: The Science Behind Our Addiction.” Time.com. 15 Nov. 2013.

Faircloth, Kelly. “Last Night Candy Crush Launched a Line of Real Candy at Dylan’s Candy Bar.” New York Observer. 31 Oct. 2013.

“Global Candy Crush Addiction Earns Game Maker $670,000 a Day.” International Business Times. 11 May 2013.

“King Launches First Ever Candy Crush Candies.” PR Newswire. 01 Nov. 2013.

“King.com’s Top 10 Facebook Game Candy Crush Saga Now Available on Mobile.” PR Newswire. 15 Nov. 2912.

“King’s Candy Crush Saga Wins the International Mobile Gaming Award’s 2013 ‘Best Social Game’ Award.” PR Newswire. 29 Mar. 2013.

Ninan, Reena. “Candy Crush.” World News Sunday (ABC). Transcript. 20 Oct. 2013.

Roy, Jessica. “People Spend Almost $650,000 a Day on the Insanely Addictive Game Candy Crush Saga.” Time.com. 21 Oct. 2013.

Stephanopoulous, George and Reena Ninan. “Candy Crush Confessions.” Good Morning America (ABC). Transcript. 18 Oct. 2013.

Stock, Kyle. “Highlights From the Candy Crush IPO Filing: 500 Million Downloads and Counting.” BuisnessWeek.com. 18 Feb. 2014.

--MikeyIDIS (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2014

"Candy Crush Saga" (along with many other similar match three games) were proven to be NP-hard.

60.242.19.23 (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added the sentence to the Gameplay section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

References

CandySweep controversy is outdated

Albert Ransom says "CandySwipe VS. Candy Crush Saga Trademark Update. I am happy to announce that I have amicably resolved my dispute with King over my CandySwipe trademark and that I am withdrawing my opposition to their mark and they are withdrawing their counterclaim against mine. I have learned that they picked the CANDY CRUSH name before I released my game and that they were never trying to take my game away. Both our games can continue to coexist without confusing players." could be read at http://www.candyswipe.com/ The article is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.91.110 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

So, we remove sections when a controversy is resolved by a settlement between the parties? Vertisis (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, because it's an unimportant blip.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

oreagile 197.185.96.218 (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The critiscm section

The criticism section is a complete mess, I don't understand any of it and it looks horribly written compared to the typical wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.124.173 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Removed until it can be rewritten properly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Heavily trimmed

I have heavily trimmed the article per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. This isn't the place to have specific details on how to play the game. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2014

candy crush saga 39.32.19.194 (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Game mechanics" section

This section was just a giant list of a bunch of unrelated news articles from a bunch of British papers that were going "this game is addictive you shouldn't play it anymore". In in fact just appears to be a resurrection of the deleted "controversy"/"criticism" section that had been removed from the article last month.

Proxima Centauri seems intent on having this falsely labeled section to be prominent in the article, and fill it with a bunch of pseudoscientific sources or sources that vaguely mention Candy Crush Saga and addiction or pretty much anything negative about the game. We get it. It's addictive. But this section, full of poorly written, poorly formatted, and poorly thought out arguments about the negative impact of the game has no place on the article.

• Section added here
• Expanded here (note edit summary)
• Another odd expansion or two
• And then these in the past week

Proxima Centauri clearly has a grudge against this game and has not been contributing to the article neutrally. All of his edits to the page have been to add this bunk scientific content by a bunch of tech or business journalists who are decrying the game as he wants it to be.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I have a grudge against this game. There is a great deal of criticism, some form sources like The Guardian newspaper with a high reputation for reliability. This criticism should be in the article or the article isn't neutral. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

All of the "criticism" you've been posting is a bunch of faux science articles on why video games like Candy Crush are addictive and not at all a "game mechanic". There are only so many times you can post something that's a blanket statement for all free-to-play facebook/phone games that just happens to use Candy Crush as an example before you show some sort of bias against discussing the game neutrally, particularly when several cited sources are not reliable or they don't even mention Candy Crush Saga.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You have misrepresented me, this is a typical example of a Straw man argument. I never wrote that people should stop playing Candy Crush or that players should stop buying add on features. I can prove this is not my opinion, here is what I wrote elsewhere. Moreover I wrote that before July and wrote the main points on the 20th June 2014. Proxima Centauri (talk) 9:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, don't radically change your reply after someone else responds to it. I've moved your comment so I can actually respond to it. Second, whatever you wrote on some other wbsite has no bearing on what should be done here. You have been filling this article on this website with poorly sourced statements on the vague medical shit written in the Guardian on Candy Crush Saga and addiction which are just blanket statements and not actually about the game itself. Stop adding this crap to the article here. What you definitely did write was "Once I reach level 35 I must pay or stop. If I'd known that yesterday I doubt if I'd have started but I'm pleased I can warn others." This sounds like you have a definite non-neutral point of view in mind in writing these pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian is reliable. At the moment the article is unbalanced because it has only praise for Candy Crush Saga. This gives the false impression that praise for this game is universal. The article should point out that not all commentators agree without reservation with the good things that are written. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't reliable. I just said it wasn't relevant. And no, this article doesn't praise it. It just describes the game and explains that it is popular with two very short sentences pointing to positive reviews. Your proposed additions to the article are just wave after wave of "a scientist said this game was addictive and let's talk about addiction and video games" or that one that just throws Candy Crush in the title but just goes onto talk about how people have spent a lot of money in freemium games. Find actual legitimate criticism of the video game and not "we have vague sources saying that the company is being investigated by the fair business bureau" or "ZOMG Candy Crush is addictive".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Should Candy Crush Saga be regulated

Since even the European Union is considering regulation I believe this is significant. if the article says only good stuff about Candy Crush Saga people will wonder if Wikipedia is truly neutral here. When a business like King that runs CCS has financial clout and might have a motive to place supporters in Wikipedia extra care should be taken to ensure articles are neutral.

The free-to-play video game business model depends on the deep addiction of people like Chris, who spent his entire savings playing a game that most people play for zero dollars. These people also known as "whales" single handedly support the business model of games

Those who finance Candy Crush Saga and similar games aren't even respected, the industry calls them whales and milks them for as much as they can get.

The addictive nature of such games and the costs associated with giving in to them is now starting to make some waves. The European Union released a statement earlier this month which called for better protection for consumers in online games.

Do you, the reader feel a bit uncomfortable knowing a few people are getting into financial trouble supporting the game you enjoy? I do but I also know understanding Candy Crush Saga from the inside helps me campaign more effectively to protect those few Candy Crush Saga victims.

Some people feel there should be laws preventing promoters of Candy Crush Saga and similar video games exploiting consumers.

• I feel there is a strong case for regulating spending on video games. The Gold that users buy to pay for add ons makes it harder for gamers to keep track of spending.
• I feel at the very least Candy Crush Company should be forced legally to tell gamers in plain English how much they are spending in their own currency. I feel before each and every purchase gamers should get a clear statement of how much that purchase will cost them in £ $ Euros whatever is relevant, gamers should also get a clear statement of how much they personally have spent on Candy Crush Saga over the week before and over the month before.

This wouldn't restrict the freedom of gamers to buy whatever cool stuff they like. It would make it harder for Candy Crush Company to take advantage of customers and would help customers make informed choice.

References

Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from expounding on your own personal views on the topic. Please state the exact wording you want to put in the article and the sources that support it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Also a nice unfounded accusation of conflict of interest. Proxima Centauri, you've already extensively established that you cannot edit this article with a neutral point of view because all you've been adding is a section that falsely promotes some sort of danger that this game, unlike all other free-to-play games on the market, presents because, in your own words, you want to warn others. There's nothing that makes Candy Crush any different from anything else out there other than its popularity. None of your original research, particularly any of the research you made in going to these business newspapers that go "how is Candy Crush making so much money it must be like cocaine", is going onto this article, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, last time I told you that this barely mentions Candy Crush (the research it's citing is also not even about Candy Crush) and this is more about the video game industry having to react to the more lucrative market that apps like Candy Crush bring.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Solution to the over-detailed problem

Well, the detailedness seems good, but this article should have more other reception and significance stuff.

I saw the article Minecraft and it has got a lot of in-game information but is still rated Good-article. The article has history of how the game was developed, a good amount of appropriate detailed reception of Minecraft, and a good amount of appropriate detail about the platforms supported.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Shapes

...and it would be nice if you gave this page a list of shapes from the Candy Crush Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.71.122.12 (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Candy Crush Soda

The article states that Soda will be released as a mobile app in December 2014. I downloaded it a couple weeks ago and I don't think I'm a time traveler, so perhaps that should be amended? Ipsissima Verba (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You can fix it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Scientifically researched

This game has been scientifically researched

• Toby Walsh (8 March 2014). "Candy Crush is NP-hard". arXiv:1403.1911. Bibcode:2014arXiv1403.1911W. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Luciano Gualà, Stefano Leucci, Emanuele Natale (24 March 2014). "Bejeweled, Candy Crush and other Match-Three Games are (NP-)Hard". arXiv:1403.5830. Bibcode:2014arXiv1403.5830G. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Which may provide more material for this article. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Level update

There is no reason to keep updating the number of playable levels every time the game has a new version update. No one coming to this page needs to know that there are exactly 830 levels in one version. Just more than X00 is sufficient.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

Sadly, the section on Gameplay is completely incomprehensible gibberish for someone who does not already have an idea how this game is played.  --Lambiam 20:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Basic context (played in a rectangular grid by swapping two adjacent pieces) is missing. Tagged now. GregorB (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Candy Crush Saga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150906021332/http://www.games.com/game/king/candy-crush to http://www.games.com/game/king/candy-crush

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)