Talk:Starlancer

Untitled

I removed the note that 'wingmen go through the game without firing a shot' as it is both non-NPOV and also factually in error. In fact, I'd rank Starlancer as one of the better space sims in that wingmen actually do engage the enemy properly, moreso than any of the X-Wing games but not as much as Freespace 2. --Werthead 20:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to read more like a review than a factual entry. Anybody else think so? -- Matt, 12:13pm (GMT), 18th May 2006

Indeed, and it totally fails to mention that player performance throughout the game can change the storyline, future missions, the ending, and so on. I'd add it if I had the time, but some basics include the way the reliant can be destroyed early in the game or late, resulting in a different carrier assignment, the last mission can be a raid or a defense of colony ships, and so forth.

You can continue after the Reliant is destroyed? The only time I let that happen, Admiral Mushai sent me to fly a desk! Anyway, the point I originally wanted to make was, should the link from "45th Volunteers" to the Flying Tigers be removed? I know that the connection obvious to anyone who's played the game, but not to anyone else. D J L 19:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes and a "truly insufficient navigation system". Ouch! NPOV!!!11 Seriphyn 10:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Improvment needed...

Could use more actual data about the game. Plot summary as sploilers, list of vessels, basic backstory, etc...and a little bit less 1:1 comparison with Wing Commander, even if the game is extremely similar to said series.

I feel this article is in need of serious improvement. It is a good foundation, but it reads too much like a review, it is biased, and presents opinion along side of fact. Also, some information presented is incorrect.

Clear examples are:

"all fighters are designed to provide daunting barrages of rapid-fire weapons" - biased, fighters vary in strengths, speeds, and power.

"the player is held responsible for accomplishing any and all mission objectives by themselves, often several at once, and without assistance from wingmen." - incorrect, wing-mates can provide considerable help dealing with enemy fighters when the player calls upon them to do so using the in-game request/communication system.

"a truly insufficient targeting/navigation system" - incorrect, as with the one above, proper use of the targeting and radar systems is more then sufficient to make your way around and succeed in dogfights.

"Starlancer does not feature branching mission paths." - biased, some key elements in the game are altered by mission successes or failures.

As a final comment, the article completely ignores the positive review that abound on the internet:

Gamecenter "StarLancer is a space combat sim that promises to knock your socks off with its imaginatively applied high-end graphics and über-intense space combat."

Gamespot UK "Starlancer is pure space combat... Visually, Starlancer looks absolutely cutting-edge, flying remarkably smoothly even on a medium spec PC and packed with special effects and detail." "Starlancer has looks and it has charm."

StarLancer Vault "Clearly, StarLancer could reinvent a somewhat stale genre with its history-supported gameplay and cooperative multiplayer capabilities, plus the fact that its storyline is tied into Chris Roberts' greatly anticipated Freelancer which is scheduled to follow this title."

The Wargamer Described in one sentence, StarLancer has almost all the elements that made the original Wing Commander such an incredible game, while updating graphics, sound, and technology, and it places the player in a new setting against a new enemy.

(all reviews pulled directly form <http://www.microsoft.com/games/da/starlancer/community.asp>)

XXAlmightyBobXx 05:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of the quotes about the game such as non branching missions, and wingmen not firing a shot are totally incorrect and indeed are one man's POV rather than encyclopedic content. I would normally delve in, however on this occasion I have a certain level of bias that would be render my changes inappropriate - I worked on the game! Paulie 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Foremost authority turning this down?

Listen Paulie, you really should dive in, I can make what you say seem less biased--I'm an english teacher. We need all the help we can get. (and if you hadn't noticed, I love the game to a great extent, all my names on everything I ever signed up for on the internet have starlancer in it)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sl logo.jpg

Image:Sl logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Microsoft in its press releases clearly uses the current capitalization, as can be seen at the game's official homepage. However, the game's logo uses a capital "L" for "Lancer" (as can also be seen at the above webpage). Which spelling should we use? SharkD (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)