Talk:Wing Commander (computer game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wing Commander (computer game) article.
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Articles on Ships

Do we absolutely need a separate entry for every type of ship in this computer game? DJ Clayworth 20:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Absolutely. Wiki is not paper. Iceberg3k 23:36, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I thought this was excessive at first, too, and maybe it is, but as long as someone's willing to maintain it, it's not un-worth having. Might be worth considering moving to a separate page though. Tkrajcar 00:30, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, Ice & I are willing to maintain it and the data, once entered, is more or less static, anyways. There haven't been new Wing Commander games in some time (and EA is unlikely to resurrect the series). Phongn

I do think some of the spaceship articles need disambiguation. Phantom, Banshee, Thunderbolt, Bearcat are all names of real-world aircraft and might be confusing. Could we put a "(Wing Commander)" suffix on them? DJ Clayworth 16:26, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seconded, DJ. Also, Ice/Phongn: Are you sure that wikipedia needs all of this information? I'm sure more than one external Wing Commander site (like the CIC) has this already; it seems like a lot of work to go through just to mirror what someone else may have already done when you could just put a link to the site on the WC page. Tkrajcar 18:43, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

CIC has the raw stats of the fighters, but they don't really have a lot of the history or real-world links. Iceberg3k 19:11, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

I really believe that there also needs to be some sort of seperation between official and speculative stuff (or at least some kind of disclaimer), since maybe 40% of all the ship history is non-canon.

Of course, it'd be my preference if most of the non-canon stuff was expurgated entirely, as I don't really feel it's appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia as Wikipedia.


Agreed with Bob. Tkrajcar 18:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Where does the "non-canon" stuff come from? Are randoms just making it up or what? Stan 19:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's two parts, basically: the stuff that isn't official but makes sense considering what we've seen (i.e., the Bearcat being obsolete and phased out of front-line service by WCP), and the purely "speculative" things ("monster"-type fighters, the Drakhri being merged with the Dralthi VI, etc.) - if someone wants to put their speculation on it, that's fine, but it's misleading to list it as fact, especially in an encyclopedia entry.

I'm not against the fluff text in general, since it adds a measure of realism and the entries would be pretty dry without it, but a line needs to be drawn between what follows directly and what doesn't. BobMcDob

On a related note, I've submitted a proposal to have the WC box covers included on this page under the Fair Use agreement. In retrospect, it may have been better to submit a screencap rather than all 20-something game and novel covers, but oh well. Bob McDob 09:31, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whoever's at 160.253.13.170:

It's generally polite to discuss major changes to an article on its associated discussion page BEFORE making them, thank you. Just a heads-up, plzthxmchkbye.

Iceberg3k 21:40, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize if I've violated some sort of community rule. I was asked here by Mr. McDob to fix various minor errors (incorrect dates, fandom references, etc.). For the most part I've tried to leave entries as they originally were and replace only incorrect points of information, as I don't really feel its my place to entirely replace someone elses writeup. If that's a problem, please let me know.

- TVL

The hacksaw editing is what I mainly object to. Major edits are OK as long as you ADD THINGS. Removing chunks of articles wholesale and adding snarky comments is NOT HELPFUL. Commentary goes in the talk page, that's what the talk page is there for.

Iceberg3k 12:53, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean - the "snarky comment" was replacing something someone else posted about how the WC1 Rapier was the same as the movie Rapier and wasn't the Rapier II. I just replaced the wrong information with the right fact - it certainly wasn't intended as something negative

I'm happy to add some entries if you'd like - or I can do wholesale rewrites of existing things.

LOAF

Looking over the page, I'm increasingly convinced that it's grown unwieldy and is desperately in need of organization. Moving the characters and ships to their own page seems to have only mitigated it slightly. To that end, I have posted an ultra-condensed version of the Characters list to the main page. I'd do the same for ships, but I can't say I know what ships would be most representative.

Perhaps a reorganization along the lines of the Star Wars page would be approprite, or possibly Star Trek? (both of which are featured articles, I believe) Please post your thoughts on this - I'm not interested in doing this alone. I'll give you my word that I won't edit pages without proper discussion first. 66.91.24.218 12:21, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Wing Commander "pioneered" cinematics in games. That honor goes to Karateka, which had cinematic cutscenes (and other features like cross-cutting, which is still unusual) way back in 1984. How should we reword the statement? - Furrykef 19:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As the person who wrote that statement, note that I didn't write that WC pioneered "cinematics", but a "style of cinematic storytelling". I know of course that there were cinematics before (even though I was not aware of them in Karateka, not having played it extensively.) What I mean by that statement in the WC context are the epic storyline, cast of colorful characters, stories about loyalty, betrayal, love, redemption, etc. and the general feeling of being the star in a movie while playing the game. And I think it's generally agreed upon that WC pioneered that style. TerokNor 09:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Karateka definitely pioneered the specific aspect of being like a star in a movie... it even says "THE END" if you die instead of "GAME OVER". It's no epic, though, having only three levels and three significant characters... - Furrykef 07:55, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] To TerokNor, re Latest Edit

Okay, you obviously know the mission I'm talking about. I even ran the mission using the FOG cannon cheat, and the cruiser still dies, even after you one-shot all of the attackers from extreme range. It's possible that I inadvertently FOGGED the cruiser, but I don't think so. So, I have to ask: How in the fudge did you beat this mission? Even on full afterburners, you're nowhere close to the cruiser before it goes up.

IIRC, there are only four Grathas attacking the cruiser. With the cheat, it shouldn't be too much of a problem to get them all before they destroy it. However, you must not go to the cruiser by autopilot, you have to fly around the asteroid field on full afterburners or your speed will be too low when you get close to the cruiser. I think one problem with this mission is that it only counts as a success when the Ralari has arrived at the Tiger's Claw and has entered into formation with the Claw. If you land too early, you will lose the mission even if you saved the Ralari. When I beat this mission (only twice on dozens of attempts), I think I came in on full afterburners, destroyed one Gratha by ramming it while destroying the other by cannons, then quickly destroyed the other ones. I think the time for doing this is only something like 10 seconds or the Ralari will be toast. It's incredibly difficult, probably only managable with some luck. It's the hardest mission in any WC game, no doubt (IMHO). TerokNor 00:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Man, that's a lot of hoops to go through. Guess I just gave up too easily. :) Still, that mission got a well-deserved rep as a "Kobayashi Maru" scenario, and, truth be told, I really didn't mind playing through the extra star system to reach the end. Just thought it might not have been the best design decision, is all.

[edit] Continuity

Continuity and Canon Validity of the Movie and Subsequent Movie Based Novels: Deleted - this subject only exists because it is argued by fans interested in nitpicking - it is not a serious treatment of how the series works; both creator Chris Roberts' and (now former) Origin president Neil Young have maintained that the movie is part of the same continuity as the games. In that light, debating inaccuracies is an interesting passtime but moves no closer to "removing" an unpopular entry in the series from its canon. LOAF 03:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wing Commander (1990) Edits:

  • Kurasawa 2 involves a Ralari-class destroyer captured by Confederation marines -- not a defecting cruiser. The last editor is, presumably, confusing it with a mission in The Secret Missions 2: Crusade which involves a defecting Fralthi-class cruiser. This later mission is famous because it introduces the character of Hobbes, but it is not the same as the famously difficult 'Ralari mission'.

I also edited out the assertion that the developers intended for the mission to 'change' the way the game is played (ie, throw users off the winning track). The Ralari mission appears on some of the final bug lists as being too hard - the problem, which they did not fix in time, was that the Kilrathi destroyer retained its 'enemy' stats. Human ships in the game were given stronger shields and armor to make them easier to defend - Kilrathi ships had weaker armor and shields to make them easier to blow up. Later ports of the game, including the SNES version, the 3DO/Mac Super Wing Commander, the FM Towns release and the segaCD port all make the mission easier in a variety of different ways (from artificially improving the armor fo the Ralari to limiting the number of enemy fighters attacking.)

Change "a large number of" to 'four', as... well, four doesn't really constitute a large number of enemy fighters. Mission specifics are available at wcnews.com/guides/. 03:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krant medium fighter

Editors may be interested to know that Krant medium fighter is on AFD at them moment. Kappa 05:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wing Commander Episode IV: A New Organization

(Oh wait, that was Star Wars. Sorry, I see Mark Hamill and I just... Well.)

I've noticed that we have pages on individual fighters, on technology, on characters... But none on the games themselves. What if we were to create one page per game / book / cartoon series / movie / etc (Wing Commander I, Wing Commander: Fleet Action, so on) and merge all appropriate content onto them? Some major articles we should keep (IE Blair, Angel, the Tarawa) because their scope exceeds a single game, but the rest... I mean, you know? The point is, I think we really ought to be organizing things on a game-to-game basis, instead of the rather haphazard structure we have now. Marblespire 06:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Marblespire. Although it may take a while, the overall layout will be better, newcomers may find it easier. For example, if they wanted to find Wing Commander 4 because there sibling played it ten years ago, it will be easier than sifting through tons of information on allthe games.A hearty agreement towards Marblespire--Peidu 12:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Could not agree more. The current wiki is horribly backwards - 90% of the data is about the technical aspects of the universe that maybe 10% of people care about, and there's so little of it (with such a majority of it wrong) it's basically worthless. When I started out working on this page I had hoped that eventually the game entries would blossom and we'd see fun facts about the development and gameplay of the various games, but nobody ventured anything, and eventually everyone (admittedly, myself included) ended up creating the mess we have now. I'll volunteer my time and resources to help fixing things if anyone wants to get together. Bob McDob 01:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wing Commander V: The Disorganized Mess Strikes Back

This is a space to discuss policy and ask questions.

  • 1) The Expansion Packs. Do we give these separate articles, or give them subsections on their parent pages? I think we should splice, but the only add-on I've ever played is WCP:SO, so I have no idea how much content we'd be talking about adding. The point is, I can't write/add that content, someone else has to, so I'm asking what they think. Also, The Novelizations, IE the WC3, WC4 and WCMovie books--those should not have their own pages IMO. End Run, Freedom Flight, Pilgrim Stars, etc do get their own pages, because they are separate narratives.
  • 2) Pages. In my opinion, we should shoot for an absolute minimum of pages: one per game, one per book, one per movie, one per television show, and nothing more. No seperate articles on any ship or characters... Unless it appears in more than one narrative.

Taking charge,
Marblespire 05:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For the expansion packs, I think they should be a part of the main articles that they are 'expanding' on. SM1 and SM2(Wing Commander 1 Expansions), are not really big enough to warrant their own pages, but should should have a sizeable mention on the main pages. Novelizations should also have info on their games articles, and not a seperate one.

For the pages on characters, ships etc.... Should an expansion pack be counted as a 'narrative' or is WC:SO included as WC:P for example. I was thinking, is the TCS Tiger's Claw important enough(First ship you fly on) to be included as it's own seperate article. It appears in WC1 and obviously SM1 and SM2 expansions packs, but also at the very begining of WC2 - Albeit getting blown up.

I'm not sure, you probably think thats a bad point!--Peidu 22:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's a bad point, I just wonder if the Claw isn't still marginal. It moved the plot forward but didn't do much else, especially since so many important characters survived it. There's no hard-and-fast rule; I included the Excalibur on that initial list b/c it won the war, but that's the only reason I think we should have an article on it. Marblespire 00:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 3) WCMovie novel, Pilgrim Stars, Pilgrim Truth (added 02/07/06). Should we combine these into one article, or have a separate one for each?
  • 4) Super Wing Commander (added 02/07/06). Separate article, or merge into WC1?


I'd treat as a seperate game that simply uses the WCP Visionengine, and not an expansion pack; the movie novels the same way as the game ones (that is, WCM novel gets a section on the movie page, and the other novels get their own pages). Super Wing Commander can be part of the main WC page, since it's basically WC reimagined, though to such an extreme extent it deserves to be a major part of the page.

I also think the Claw is pretty significant, not only because it was your first ship, but because it was the Claw's destruction that *made* the storyline for WCII. If the Claw hadn't been destroyed, Blair would't have been considered a traitor, K'tithrak Mang would have gone boom a lot sooner, and the war might have consequently ended as such. I guess you could evade this by claiming that "any ship could have taken its place", but I think WC fans in community would object to it because of the emotional attatchment they still have with the ship after all these years. Just my thoughts. Bob McDob 23:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wing Commander VI: Return of the Game Articles

(Such as it is. I mean, they can hardly "return" if they never existed in the first place. But then, should I just say "--turn of the"... Goddammit!)

Here's links to all the articles we should eventually have, listed in series chronology a list of all the articles we still need to have. Basically this is the "Work In Progress" section. If you see a redlink, don't hesitate to jump in and fill it.

Individual ship / fighter / person articles:

  • Hunter
  • Doomsday (thank you Koensayr05
  • Sparks
  • Baron Jukaga
  • Adm/Comm. Wilford
  • Melek (Wing Commander)
  • Vance Richards (this is currently a redir to Fleet Action but really should be its own article)

[edit] Prequel Trilogy: Wing Commander Episode I: The Redirect Menace

Please note that as of March 14, 2006 I have turned almost all of the individual-fighter and capship articles into redirs. Survivors include: the Rapier, the Strakha, the Arrow, the Excalibur, the Vaktoth, the Dralthi, the Tarawa and the Claw. Two rules of judgment: 1) how many separate times it appears in the franchise, and 2) notability. With that in mind, User:Sjakkalle wants to know if the Hellcat and Longbow are notable enough to have their own pages. ~Mbsp

All the Confed fighters in WC3 turn up in WC4, although it is only the Hellcat and Longbow the player can fly in WC4. The trouble is not neccesarily one of notability here, but that it is that it is difficult to find a really suitable target for a redirect when it features in both games. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
We could always have a disambig tag at the top--you know, "All WC3 fighters redir here. For info on their WC4 versions, pls see etc." ~Mbsp

As of March 15, 2006 many character pages have been turned into redirects as well. There are a lot more survivors of this process: basically anyone from Wing2 and its expansions (except Shadow and Stingray), Jukaga, Melek, Vagabond, Eisen, Hawk, Rachel Coriolis, Wilford, Vance Richards, maybe Banbridge, probably Kruger... Berserker79 wants to know what the policy is for expanding on non-article characters or re-instituting their articles, pointing out (rightly) that the existing capsule bios are somewhat insufficient. ~Mbsp

Conferming the above from Marblespire. The problem arises for the bios of "minor" characters (e.g. Flint, Panther, etc...) who don't fully deserve a separate article: however expanding each entry in the related game (WC3, WC4, etc...) may lead to these articles get too large in size. What about creating articles such as: "List of WC3 characters", "List of WC3 ships" and so on to put the complete info? It may still help reduce the number of WC related articles and keep the game articles size manageable. Berserker79 10:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
That is a reasonable suggestion, but we again get trouble with putting the Hellcat and Longbow which appear in both games. I think we might be better off with a List of Terran Confederation fighters, List of Kilrathi fighters, List of Border Worlds fighters and so on. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prequel Trilogy: Wing Commander Episode II: Attack of the Proposals

Maybe this is just a repetition, but it seems to be we don't have a clear cut set of guidelines for the reorganization of the WC articles. Here's my try at providing them: if we get some consensus on it then we might get to complete the reorganization.

  • Start point: this should be the Wing Commander (computer game) article, where a general description of the game goes, along with influences, game background, and the list of all exising franchise.
  • Game articles: most of these are already up and mostly complete. I'd like to propose the following scheme for them: infobox, intro with basic data (release dates, a bit of background info, special data), story section, list of characters appearing, list of fighters/capships, eventually list of weapons. Original proposal by Marblespire called for entering here info on characters/ships, but then pages get too large (see the WCP page). Expansions should be included here however.
  • Characters: we have a plain list in the game articles, possibly divided upon faction (Confed, Kilrathi, etc...) with each character linking to a specific article or the appropriate section of a list article. Important characters, such as protagonists and those who get to appear more than once (Tolwyn, Angel, Thrakhath, etc...) get their own private article. We should then work on List of WC1 charactes, List of WC2 characters and so on: charactes that have their own article simply get a "see main article link", for the others full bio and data is entered there. Luckily these articles might not get too large, since the "minor" characters don't have that much background data.
  • Weapons: as before, we might just place a plain list in the game articles, then beams and missiles weapons might be inserted in one single article. Each weapon could be described in general terms, also reflecting changes seen across the various games. Ideally no technical data should be inseted (range, damage, power consumption, etc...).
  • Fighters/capships: this is the most difficult part. Here's my proposal; we have a simple faction organized list in the game articles, then we might create List of WC1 ships and so on with full data of each vessel (again I think no technical data should appear). Sjakkalle correcly pointed out this would lead to "duplicate" entries (Hellcat, Longbow, etc...), but having articles such as List of Terran Confederation fighters and so on would lead to other problems: excessive lenght for some (Confed) and extreme shortness of others (Black Lance ships). I deem "duplication" a lesser problem, but other users might supply better ideas. Also, I don't think we should have ship specific articles, except for important capships (Tiger's Claw, Concordia, etc...).

That's all I think. Looking forward to hear your opinions/comments/suggestions. Berserker79 09:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Wing Commander Universe

In the fan projects section, Wing Commander Unvierse is made out to be an extension to the Wing Commander Privateer remake. This is incorrect.

Directly from the WCU FAQ:

Q: What is the Wing Commander Universe?

A: The Wing Commander Universe is a Blanket Project that covers ALL Wing Commander Projects, Including the Privateer Remake, Wing Commander: The Wasteland Incident, Gemini Gold and any other remakes or mods of the related to the Wing Commander universe. Wing Commander Universe's ultimate goal is to be able to play from the very first game all the way to the last game and beyond, in anyway you want. IT IS, NOT, AND I repeat NOT a Privateer Remake Extension. Do not confuse the two.


So what is WCU?

Wing Commander Universe is really two things;

1. Development Suite for all Wing Commander projects using the Vegastrike Engine.
2. Blank package name for all Wing Commander games using the Vegastrike Engnie, Past, Present and Future. This includes, but is not limited to:
Wing Commander I (Remake)
Wing Commander II: Vengeance of the Kilrathi (Remake)<br Privateer (Remake)
Privateer - Righteous Fire (Remake)
Privateer: Part 3 (Original: Colloquially referred to as "the WCU storyline")
Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger (Remake)
Wing Commander IV: Price of Freedom (Remake)
Wing Commander Prophecy (Remake)
Wing Commander: The Wasteland Incident (Original)
Wing Commander: Future (Original outline)

- Privateer Ferrius, WCU artist 14:18, 27 March 2006 (EST-5)

[edit] Longbow debuted in Wing Commander III ?!

Under "Television Series: Wing Commander Academy", there reads: "(such as the presence of the Longbow, a bomber that made its debut in Wing Commander III)". That cannot be true, there is Longbow in Wing Commander II (Secret Operations 1 or 2 at least)..


Firstly, please sign your posts. Secondly, wasn't it the Crossbow which debuted in Secret Ops 1 or 2?--Peidu 17:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was the Crossbow who debuted in WC2 - Secret Ops 1. The Longbow was featured first in WC3. Likely the name similarity might account for the confusion. Berserker79 09:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


This is probably the best place to mention that I've deleted the phrase in question. There really isn't anything anachronistic about the Longbow's appearance ... the fact that we don't see it during the original Wing Commander doesn't mean it's not in service. Bob McDob 01:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

Oppose: just noticed it was proposed to merge this article with Wing Commander game series. I seem to recall the "series" article was created to split "Wing Commander (computer game)" into smaller subpages or anyway to keep its size in check, so I think it would be quite pointless to merge. Berserker79 08:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree. Assuming good faith in that Wing Commander is not important to everyone, if it was merged out for size concerns it's pointless to merge it back in. I think Wikipedia should start a policy of marking what pages have been merged out from what, so that stuff like this doesn't happen as much. (I saw a similar AfD proposal regarding the "Changes between Harry Potter movies and books" articles.) ~Marblespire 07:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would help to clarify in the two articles how they are supposed to be different. I believe that this one, Wing Commander (computer game), is intended to be the umbrella article for not just the computer game, but also everything else in the same universe (books, movies, fan developments, and elucidation of the universe). The other one, Wing Commander game series, is just for the official games. Right?

So how about this:

  1. Rename "Wing Commander (computer game)" to something broader. "Wing Commander series", perhaps, following the Tomb Raider series example.
  2. Lead off the article with a statement of scope. Again Tomb Raider series, although much smaller, offers a nice example.
  • Prune the individual game articles so that they don't repeat detailed information from the "Wing Commander series" article. The game articles mostly need to provide the information that is specific to that game, not to the entire Wing Commander universe. (I'm sure yall knew that already, just including it for completeness.)

Does that sound like a plan? I'm happy to implement the first two steps. Lisamh 02:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in terms of contents this sounds like a good suggestion so that no further confusion about the contents of the two separate articles is made. As for the article renaming I think that's fine, provided someone will update all the links to Wing Commander (computer game). BTW, the name change might also resolve a minor issue I've just thought about: WC was born as computer game, but it was also ported to several consoles, thus making it a "computer and video game". Berserker79 12:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renegade Legion

I've deleted the sentence under Technology and Vehicles on similarities with Renegade Legion: Interceptor weapons and spacecraft, particularly the claim that "the use of latin names for -in WC- missiles [are intended] as a homage to RL." As far as I know, this has *never* been implied by any of the developers and this is the first time I've even seen it brought up by anyone; Latin names are very common in science fiction. The only weapons similarities I can find are that both titles feature mass drivers and particle guns (the latter which don't even function the same way). As for ships, the Confederation Epee does bear a resemblance to the Commonwealth Cheetah, but that's it.

While it's true that there are similarities between the two games. they're most likely coincidental, seeing as the developers of both intended them originally as Star Wars games but were unable to obtain the license. Bob McDob 01:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/n/Talk%7EWing_Commander_%28computer_game%29_4626.html"