Star Wars: Dark Forces has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Wikipedia is not a strategy guide or instruction manual. Wikipedia articles should focus on the games themselves, not on how to play them; they should not contain tips, tricks, or cheat codes. That information is available elsewhere (such as on our sister project, Wikibooks), in printed guides and online, and does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. Please do not add your own hints or opinions of the game. Verifiable content about the history, design, and overall description of the game is welcome. If you have questions about whether specific information should be added, ask here first. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Star Wars: Dark Forces article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Star Wars: Dark Forces" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1 |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
|
|
Is it just me, or does this edit make no sense? You can't "assemble" a human trooper; you can only assemble a droid. -- DocumentN ( talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned this before but only got one response... how many gameplay staples did Dark Forces add to the first-person shooter genre? I originally thought DF added the ability to look up and down, jump, crouch, and use a headlamp (flashlight precursor) and "nightvision) (I.R. Goggles). I can't remember if I thought it was the first game with secondary fire, but I did recently remove a long-unsourced claim to this effect from the article.
According to free look (thank DocumentN), Marathon was the first FPS to have the ability to look up and down (though this is not mentioned in Marathon article and is unsourced in the free look article, and Wikipedia is not a valid source anyway...). I am pretty sure that Marathon and Rise of the Triad are tied for the distinction of the first alternate-fire in an FPS (according to WP, they were released on the same day, but again I am using WP as a source which would not be valid in the actual article).
In addition to being immediately relevant to this article, this information would also go well on the first-person shooter and Duke Nukem 3D pages, which largely exist in an alternate universe where Doom was the first FPS game and Duke Nukem 3D was the second, and all features of DN3D were revolutionary new features never before seen in the genre. Some guy ( talk) 01:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Bill, I have noticed that you have totally rewritten this article. I want to make you aware that the article is the product of effort from numerous editors so I don't think it is helpful for a single editor to initiate a total rewrite without any discussion and consensus.
I have saved your rewrite here: [1]
Can you please discuss large-scale changes here on the talk page before making them. Your input is appreciated, however it would be preferable if you merged your work in with the existing work, instead of totally replacing it. Thanks. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 09:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I am restoring Bill's rewrite. Tonic's reversion and addition of a single source does not seem a sufficient "alternate direction" in improving the article than what Bill put together, and it seems silly to have an excellent rewrite sitting in the edit history but not visible. Tonic, the earlier version of course is accessible via the edit history; you can easily find text to restore (and cite) if you want, or use it as a starting point for more involved work in user space. However, I'd encourage to use the rewrite I've restored as the starting place for any further work. -- EEMIV ( talk) 17:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. In my defence I had been watching this article for over 12 months and it hasn't changed very much, so I interpreted this as a consensus. It surprised me to see such a large rewrite occur so suddenly. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 08:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I mostly like the new version, it is a bit sterile for my tastes but it is more encycopledic. However, gameplay section is childish and horrible. We do not need to explain the most basic of core first-person shooter mechanics. The gameplay section would be much better off going into more detail about the gameplay, and what makes it unique, not 'things shoot projectiles which subtract health'. I think the gameplay section is perhaps the most important section of an article about a game, and it is far too common for these sections to be neglected and poorly detailed. Since all my previous content has been removed, I am somewhat relunctant to write anything new, but I hope someone can expand the gameplay section and remove the trivialities. Also, I am surprised that someone would write Dark Troopers as "darktroopers" - this suggests to me a serious lack of familiary with the game's content. This rewrite seems like a cookie-cutter article by someone who has never played the game... Some guy ( talk) 06:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
(←outdent) I've sorted those. I think the article's in pretty good shape now so unless anybody thinks there's still more to do/fix then I'm going to submit it for WP:GAN soon. -- Bill ( talk| contribs) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone add in the GOG release from today on the sidebar?
http://www.gog.com/news/release_star_wars_dark_forces
I am having difficulty figuring out the formatting. 50.79.0.254 ( talk) 16:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I found this piece of reference material for Dark Forces in an old MacWorld archive: [2]. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 03:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Star Wars: Dark Forces. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Star Wars: Dark Forces. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
the chapter about the Mac version hypotheses that it is worse than the DOS version. The opposite is right. Mac version has higher resolution (full 640x480) and better sound.
Everybody can test this with e.g. DosBox and QEMU.
2003:E6:2F1B:9D76:D7A:ADD4:F237:A979 ( talk) 19:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Greetings everyone. I just amended the release date for the game to say March 10, 1995, instead of February 28, 1995. The new date was taken from the June 1995 issue of Games World: The Magazine, [1] which states (in response to a reader letter):
Dark Forces is already on sale matey, it was released on 10th March and retails at around £49.99. As for the leather-clad Full Throttle, that will see the light of day on 1st May and will also cost £49.99.
(emphasis added)
The former date was sourced solely to GameRankings, which we know is not reliable for dates (just like Metacritic). I've been trawling through a few old game sites for additional clues but results were mixed.
Any help figuring out whether the release date as stated in Games World is correct, such as by finding an additional source, would be greatly appreciated.
References
Regards, IceWelder [ ✉] 16:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Star Wars: Dark Forces has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Wikipedia is not a strategy guide or instruction manual. Wikipedia articles should focus on the games themselves, not on how to play them; they should not contain tips, tricks, or cheat codes. That information is available elsewhere (such as on our sister project, Wikibooks), in printed guides and online, and does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. Please do not add your own hints or opinions of the game. Verifiable content about the history, design, and overall description of the game is welcome. If you have questions about whether specific information should be added, ask here first. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Star Wars: Dark Forces article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Star Wars: Dark Forces" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
|
|
Is it just me, or does this edit make no sense? You can't "assemble" a human trooper; you can only assemble a droid. -- DocumentN ( talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned this before but only got one response... how many gameplay staples did Dark Forces add to the first-person shooter genre? I originally thought DF added the ability to look up and down, jump, crouch, and use a headlamp (flashlight precursor) and "nightvision) (I.R. Goggles). I can't remember if I thought it was the first game with secondary fire, but I did recently remove a long-unsourced claim to this effect from the article.
According to free look (thank DocumentN), Marathon was the first FPS to have the ability to look up and down (though this is not mentioned in Marathon article and is unsourced in the free look article, and Wikipedia is not a valid source anyway...). I am pretty sure that Marathon and Rise of the Triad are tied for the distinction of the first alternate-fire in an FPS (according to WP, they were released on the same day, but again I am using WP as a source which would not be valid in the actual article).
In addition to being immediately relevant to this article, this information would also go well on the first-person shooter and Duke Nukem 3D pages, which largely exist in an alternate universe where Doom was the first FPS game and Duke Nukem 3D was the second, and all features of DN3D were revolutionary new features never before seen in the genre. Some guy ( talk) 01:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Bill, I have noticed that you have totally rewritten this article. I want to make you aware that the article is the product of effort from numerous editors so I don't think it is helpful for a single editor to initiate a total rewrite without any discussion and consensus.
I have saved your rewrite here: [1]
Can you please discuss large-scale changes here on the talk page before making them. Your input is appreciated, however it would be preferable if you merged your work in with the existing work, instead of totally replacing it. Thanks. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 09:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I am restoring Bill's rewrite. Tonic's reversion and addition of a single source does not seem a sufficient "alternate direction" in improving the article than what Bill put together, and it seems silly to have an excellent rewrite sitting in the edit history but not visible. Tonic, the earlier version of course is accessible via the edit history; you can easily find text to restore (and cite) if you want, or use it as a starting point for more involved work in user space. However, I'd encourage to use the rewrite I've restored as the starting place for any further work. -- EEMIV ( talk) 17:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. In my defence I had been watching this article for over 12 months and it hasn't changed very much, so I interpreted this as a consensus. It surprised me to see such a large rewrite occur so suddenly. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 08:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I mostly like the new version, it is a bit sterile for my tastes but it is more encycopledic. However, gameplay section is childish and horrible. We do not need to explain the most basic of core first-person shooter mechanics. The gameplay section would be much better off going into more detail about the gameplay, and what makes it unique, not 'things shoot projectiles which subtract health'. I think the gameplay section is perhaps the most important section of an article about a game, and it is far too common for these sections to be neglected and poorly detailed. Since all my previous content has been removed, I am somewhat relunctant to write anything new, but I hope someone can expand the gameplay section and remove the trivialities. Also, I am surprised that someone would write Dark Troopers as "darktroopers" - this suggests to me a serious lack of familiary with the game's content. This rewrite seems like a cookie-cutter article by someone who has never played the game... Some guy ( talk) 06:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
(←outdent) I've sorted those. I think the article's in pretty good shape now so unless anybody thinks there's still more to do/fix then I'm going to submit it for WP:GAN soon. -- Bill ( talk| contribs) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone add in the GOG release from today on the sidebar?
http://www.gog.com/news/release_star_wars_dark_forces
I am having difficulty figuring out the formatting. 50.79.0.254 ( talk) 16:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I found this piece of reference material for Dark Forces in an old MacWorld archive: [2]. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 03:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Star Wars: Dark Forces. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Star Wars: Dark Forces. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
the chapter about the Mac version hypotheses that it is worse than the DOS version. The opposite is right. Mac version has higher resolution (full 640x480) and better sound.
Everybody can test this with e.g. DosBox and QEMU.
2003:E6:2F1B:9D76:D7A:ADD4:F237:A979 ( talk) 19:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Greetings everyone. I just amended the release date for the game to say March 10, 1995, instead of February 28, 1995. The new date was taken from the June 1995 issue of Games World: The Magazine, [1] which states (in response to a reader letter):
Dark Forces is already on sale matey, it was released on 10th March and retails at around £49.99. As for the leather-clad Full Throttle, that will see the light of day on 1st May and will also cost £49.99.
(emphasis added)
The former date was sourced solely to GameRankings, which we know is not reliable for dates (just like Metacritic). I've been trawling through a few old game sites for additional clues but results were mixed.
Any help figuring out whether the release date as stated in Games World is correct, such as by finding an additional source, would be greatly appreciated.
References
Regards, IceWelder [ ✉] 16:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)