Talk:Star Wars: Dark Forces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleStar 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.
Article milestones
January 26, 2009Good article nomineeListed
August 31, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Nature of Dark Troopers[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure why you're having so much difficulty understanding the entire point of the edit, which is that the game never DIRECTLY states that they are droids. Using the word assemble is at best an implication, obviously not a direct statement. Furthermore, it in theory one might need to "assemble" a complex exosuit that is not a droid. Additionally, on the topic of "making sense," how much sense does it make that a man "obsessed with the honor of personal combat" would create an army of droids as his ultimate weapon? Regardless, I'm not arguing that the Dark Troopers are not droids, merely stating that the game never explicitly calls them droids. Some guy (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) It's because I misread the text I was correcting. Still, I don't see how it's useful for the article to discuss the distinction when it amounts to the same thing (that DTs being droids is canon). (2) An exosuit on its own couldn't be referred to as a trooper. (3) Enough, but that's irrelevant to the edit in question. (4) Acknowledged. --DocumentN (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

All that comes to mind for me is that 1993's Pathways Into Darkness had a flashlight and night vision, although the latter was basically a flashlight that turned your display red. The Colony was another early FPS that had light and darkness, but only after a fashion (edit: meaning black lines on white versus white lines on black, IIRC). --DocumentN (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Total rewrite[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Thanks for providing an explanation of your revert here. I've had my eye on the original article for a while now and I had noted that it was massively unsourced, there were multiple unreliable sources, A whole section of original research, and many WP:MOS violations. I understand that this is the product of multiple editor's work, which is why during my rewrite I used the topics already on the page as a starting place so really the work has already been "merged" and not been totally replaced.
The resulting rewrite was completely sourced by reliable sources while still covering the major points that existed in the article. The only significantly shorter section is the plot section, which doesn't have all the characters in a bulleted list and could use some slight expansion of the story. Apart from that, the new version was near Good Article quality, and along with the other games in the Dark Forces/Jedi Knight series which are Good Articles (Apart from Star Wars: Jedi Knight (series) which is getting there), it could end up being part of a good topic. Is there anything you want to keep from the old version that is not present in the new version? (Btw, sadly doesn't satisfy the self published sources section of the reliable sources policy so it cannot be used as a source) Bill (talk|contribs) 15:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am floored that Bill's rewrite was reverted, and the cludge of uncited original research and trivia restored. I think Bill quite aptly followed WP:BOLD -- the follow-up reversion and discussion, too, align with our civility guidelines...but, really, seems wholly unnecessary. (I took this article off my watchlist after I saw that it was so effectively overhauled; I didn't think my minor, passing contributions would be necessary any more.) Let's please restore Bill's rewrite; if there are sore feelings about removed or changed content, they're welcome to cite sources are toss 'em in. But to leave in place now the awkward uncited OR and summary (and even technically weird -- why is there a citation in a section header? -- is just silly.
Also, Tonic, please request speedy deletion of the "saved" rewrite. While a good-faith effort, the rewrite is more aptly accessiblhe here. The talk sub-page fails to retain editing history, and even the use of non-free images doesn't meet the WP:NFCC. --EEMIV (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do not need consensus to rewrite or copy edit an article. Besides, Bill's rewrite makes the article match the guidelines set by WikiProject Video games and removes original research and unverified claims. The revert removed citations and even a fully sourced and presented reception section. I am definitely in favour of Bill's rewrite. This looks to be a case of WP:OWN to me. --.:Alex:. 17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above users are correct - consensus is not needed for a bold change, especially one that gets rid of so much irrelevant trivia and original research like Bill's did. Tonic, who else aside from yourself disagreed with the change? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 17:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Bill's new version is without a doubt much, much better. It will almost always be the case on Wikipedia that a number of different editors have contributed to an article, but if one person goes ahead and rewrites the whole article while the other editors occasionally make a relatively minor edit, then that one person should be applauded for taking initiative and being WP:BOLD. Their improvements shouldn't be removed because such a large amount work has come so unexpectedly. As mentioned above, beware of WP:OWN! Una LagunaTalk 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support Bill's version. It certainly looks better and has gotten rid of much of the policy- and guideline-violations that were in the previous revision. Jappalang (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

There does need to be some explanation of how the game works per WP:VG/GL, we shouldn't let the reader assume too much about the details of the gameplay. The section is a little short so please don't feel reluctant to add to it. The issues the section had before were that it was unsourced and described the game with comparisons to Doom and other games. Technical developments like that are now covered in the development section. I'll have a look in the history and see what I can find and source. But again, please don't feel reluctant to edit, change, move around stuff, because we're all looking to improve the article here. By the way, this series of games is one of my favourites but I'll admit I haven't played Dark Forces for a very long time. I had forgotten how "Dark Troopers" was spelt so I checked the article with the interview with Daron Stinnet and Justin Chin that I was reading at the time, which had the single word spelling. Upon checking the official LucasArts page on Dark Troopers and the Essential Guide to Droids, you are right and it is two words. Thanks for the feedback. Bill (talk|contribs) 13:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Sorry I was harsh. The new content is a little better but I still don't like the wording (for example heavy use of passive voice), so I guess I'll try to fix it later. However, I think we should assume people know how an FPS works - that's why we have interlinking, so if they somehow have no idea, they can go read the first-person shooter article. I don't think there's anything wrong with comparing it to Doom - Doom was practically the single standard used to judge FPS games until Half-Life came out. First-person shooters used to be referred to as "Doom clones" and pretty much all games of the Dark Forces era were and are heavily compared to Doom. Some guy (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've had a go on fixing the article based on your comments. I've gone ahead and summarised the description of the gameplay elements. I read through it a few times and I suppose you're right, it is sort of redundant saying getting hit reduces health lol. I've also added a paragraph about how DF expands on the Doom gameplay to the gameplay section. However I've added more of the Doom clone viewpoint in the development section as I believe that's the most appropriate place for it. It's basically talking about developments as opposed to purely describing the gameplay. Bill (talk|contribs) 08:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I rewrote most of the gameplay section as it still suffered from awkward structure and wording. I hope the new version is satisfactory. Some guy (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me, nice work. Is there anything else in the article you feel needs some serious attention? If the rest of the article is up to scratch we can start polishing it, fixing typos, rewording dodgy sentences, etc. before submitting it for a Good Article review. Bill (talk|contribs) 11:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not good with the ref system, it's confusing to me and I think properly formatted ref tags use way too much space in the raw text and make it a huge chore to edit. I used the game as a reference several times but since I don't know how to reuse refs, it is listed as four or five separate entries in the reflist. If someone wants to fix that, that would be good I guess. Some guy (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(←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)Reply[reply]

GOG release[edit]

Can someone add in the GOG release from today on the sidebar?

I am having difficulty figuring out the formatting. (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may be wrong on this point, but to the best of my knowledge, we don't usually note the release date of games on GOG unless it's a remastered version. Although, like I say, I'm not 100% sure. I'll ask over at the Video Game WikiProject. Bertaut (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I checked on the project page. We don't note GOG releases. Bertaut (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MacWorld reference[edit]

I found this piece of reference material for Dark Forces in an old MacWorld archive: [2]. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 01:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Mac version[edit]


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)Reply[reply]

Could you point us to the particular sentence that is incorrect? I couldn't find anything that would suggest the Mac version is worse than the DOS one. --Krótki (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"...meaning the Macintosh version has less RAM available for Dark Forces to use. Aaron Giles, who was the Macintosh programmer for Dark Forces, explained that to resolve this problem the memory had to be managed more efficiently."
I would think with less memory you will get less details. I have not written that one sentence is incorrect. But if one cannot compare the versions and has only the information from this chapter one would come to the conclusion the DOS version is better because of more memory available.
2003:E6:2F1B:9D55:C00C:8DF1:A52B:A865 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for answering. The assumption that less memory leads to less details is basically wrong, especially when discussing mid-1990s games. A game would require a specified amount of RAM, and if a computer did not met that requirement, the game would simply not run; but adding more RAM that required would not improve details. Besides, the same sentence you've cited, states that the Mac developers went to great lengths to overcome the low RAM problem. So, for me, the sentence suggests the opposite, i.e. that the Mac version does not lack any detail, because the developers put additional work to avoid that.
I think though, that a statement about improved screen resolution and sound is valuable and should be directly put into the article. Could you find some reliable sources to support such statement? --Krótki (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Release date[edit]

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.

  • GameSpot's initial site for the game (1996) states the release date as "03/95". However, this was changed to "02/28/1995" around 2001 (five years later) for no discernible reason.
  • This FAQ by Karsten A. Loepelmann (which was endorsed by IGN) claims that the game was "first released for MPC (MS-DOS CD-ROM) systems on March 7, 1995".
  • "Available now" advertisements only started in the March 1995 issue of Computer Gaming World.
  • The earliest known review (per MobyGames) is from March 1995.
  • the current Steam page states the date to be February 15, 1995. Of course, this page was set up decades after the fact, likely by uninvolved people, but it's strange to see yet another release date.
  • A newspaper clipping from March 10, 1995, declares that "Babbage's Software at Lakeview Square got it's [sic] first shipment of the game Wednesday", Wednesday being March 8.
  • At the same time, the game had been "just released" on March 4, according to another clipping.

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.


  1. ^ "The Game Brain". Games World: The Magazine. No. 12. Paragon Publishing. June 1995. p. 93. Retrieved October 24, 2023 – via Internet Archive.

Regards, IceWelder [] 16:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Didn't found anything about March 95 date but the game was scheduled to come out in December 94 and was delayed to January 95 (and then was delayed again to March, I assume):
  • PC Zone said in October that the game was going to be released in two months: [3]
  • Announcement of the delay to January 1995 in PC Gamer: [4]
  • The last time the game was listed on CGW's Pipeline section, the release date was estimated as January 1995: [5]. --Mika1h (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PC Zone also, in the March 1995 issue, listed the release date as "March"; note that magazines come out weeks before the cover date. Also note that it's really hard to get a street date for games from the mid-90s and earlier, because they didn't really have them- the publisher often just shipped out stuff starting on a date, and whenever stores got them they stuck them on the shelves. It wasn't until the turn of the century that a specific date to start selling inventory became a consistent thing, unless the publisher really wanted it. --PresN 19:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]