Talk:List of Star Wars video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chronological order[edit]

I propose sorting the names in chronological order, not alphabetical. If someone wants to see it in alphabetical he would as well click on the 'Star Wars games' category. -Anonymous

I'm going to try to do this myself. As with all things in the Star Wars canon, this should be in a chronological order. The Wookieepedian 02:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Night Shift?[edit]

Does Night Shift (computer game) count as a Star Wars game? Siyavash 02:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

maybe? 62.172.127.69 (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3D Beat-em-up?[edit]

I was watching G4 the other day and they had a special on Star Wars games. They showed a clip of a Tekken-esque 3D beat-em-up with Star Wars characters a few times and I was wondering if anyone knew what game that was because I don't think I see it anywhere on this list. Glitch13 20:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Masters of Teräs Käsi. Jedi6-(need help?) 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

List of LucasArts Star Wars games → List of Star Wars video games – {The current title is too limiting, especially since we don't have a actual List of Star Wars video games. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support per myself. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Considering this page talks about every single Star Wars games, the new name would be more proper. Tutmosis 03:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All Star Wars video games are made by LucasArts, right? -- wacko2 06:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, all official Star Wars games have some level of LucasArts involvement. Dark Forces and Jedi Knight, as I recall, were developed internally and also published by LA. Jedi Outcast, Jedi Academy, and Galaxies, to name a few, were developed by outside companies but were published by LA. Besides, this article does not list every single Star Wars game, rather "only the games that have been developed and/or published by LucasArts." (emphasis mine) — EagleOne\Talk 23:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is several flaws with your logic. If every Star Wars game has Lucasart involvement why don't we just call it list of Star Wars video games and get rid of the redundant part. Also this list is for video games but it isn't in the title. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments
  • All Star Wars games are published by LucasArts except for a few cases like Lego Star Wars. Jedi6-(need help?) 06:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

After the name change[edit]

Now that this page no loger mention LucasArts in the title, shouldn't it include all officially licensed games, such as the Parker Bros. titles and the arcade games? Rhindle The Red 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological order[edit]

Don't forget people, these games need to be in chronological order. In order of year, and if two games were released in the same year, in order of released date (you can check the release date by visiting the page for the actual game itself). And for unreleased games, try to put it where it "would" have come out, there aren't enough known unreleased starwars games for them to warrent their own section at the moment JayKeaton 07:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent conversion to a table[edit]

Does anyone think that format works? It seemed really too bloated for a table. This list could certainly work as a table (or, more likely, series of tables), but it needs to be better thought out than that one. Rhindle The Red 02:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it was a series of tables. Do you have any suggestions more specific than "it seemed really too bloated"? If it could work as a table, why not fix it, modify it or make constructive suggestions instead of reverting my work? The table format has several advantages to the hodge-podge format: It presents data in a standard way, making it easier to read. It makes it easy to determine what games were produced for what systems. It also makes it easier to determine what data is missing (since this list is incomplete). For these reasons, reverting my changes was counter-productive to the development of this article. For other editors to compare, here are the versions before and after my changes. Jaksmata 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-productive is making a massive change like that without discussion. There was no mention of a desire to make this list to a table and I think it needs to be hashed out before such a massive change is implemented. What was wrong with your tables? The "Nintendo/Sony/etc." columns waste tons of space and added nothing. A simple "platform" column would suffice. The series and film sections no longer stand out as they did, making them harder to find, not easier. And the way it was formatted (with the series in the first column) actually made it look less like a list. So, while I stated that this list *could* work as a table, I fail to see a strong argument why it should be one. Just because other lists are is not good enough. The information in this list is too disparate for a table, in my opinion (see here) and works better as a series of straightforward lists. Rhindle The Red 13:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback, I understand your concerns now. I'm going to wait for other editors to comment before addressing anything specific. Jaksmata 14:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

total number?[edit]

should there be a total? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.175.102 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: No. Long answer: There's a lot of problems with putting a total number. First, it's a moving target that can be out of date as new games come out. This page already admits that it is incomplete, so counting the ones here won't help. Then there's issues with what qualifies: would an expansion to another game count as one? Would a special edition with additional features count? Would same-named games that differ by platform be counted individually? So, having a number would imply a certainty that can't be. Jaksmata 20:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


new categories[edit]

The "other titles" section has gotten quite large. Any objection to my splitting some of them out into "other eras", a place for games that take place during a common timetable (such as "The Clone Wars") but are not tied to a movie or a series? Rhindle The Red (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look too big to me. I think the real problem is that the categorization scheme is flawed. Right now, everything is grouped as "movie-related" "series" or "other", but these categories are not mutually exclusive. Plenty of games in the series section are clearly movie-related (e.g. "Episode I Racer"), yet not mentioned in the "movie-related" section. Most of the games in the "series" and "other" lists are related to one or more of the movies, but many are related to more than one movie (e.g. "Lego Star Wars"). This list would make more sense if it were ordered by something more useful like the year of release or the game system. Even an alphabetical list would make more sense. It can also be done in a user-sortable list, as I've mentioned before. Check out these video game lists: By system, Chronological, Alphabetical, Sortable list. – jaksmata 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much the format that the list has always had. There has been no indication by others that it should be changed to a straight list. And there are reasons for that.
Given the fact that the vast majority of Star Wars games are multi-platform (all the way back to the first, The Empire Strikes Back for the 2600 & INTV), sorting by system makes no sense. Chronological is valid, but would be better served as a separate list (you'll note Mario has three different lists, so there is precedent). Alphabetical wouldn't be very useful, as most games start with "Star Wars" anyway and naming schemes are not universal, so finding a particular title might prove difficult. Most lists are not sortable and given this one's unique character, I don't see much value there.
Star Wars is usually viewed by "era", which is why the movie sections are useful and more eras would be of use. I *do* agree that there is a bit of confusion due to titles being *both* movie-related and part of a series (like Racer). So we could rename "Movie-related titles" to "By era" and "Series titles" to "By series". We can just list titles like Racer twice; in the appropriate movie/era and in the appropriate series. Most of the "series" titles don't fall into a specific era anyway. If the list gets too long, we just split it up like Mario. I would be okay with integrating the Flash and Lucas Learning titles, although they are not generally considered to be proper games. Cameos should remain separate, of course. Rhindle The Red (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there's something fundamentally wrong with the categorizations currently used in the list.
In addition to the current mutual-exclusivity problem I mentioned earlier, the idea of using eras has problems too, namely, many games span multiple eras (e.g. "Lego Star Wars"), but that doesn't mean it should be left off the era list. Lego Star Wars: The Video Game clearly parodies Episodes I, II and III, thus it falls within each of those three movie "eras", thus it doesn't make sense to omit it from each of those eras (it doesn't make sense to list it three times either). I think that since this article is called "List of Star Wars video games" it should be just that - a single list with one entry per video game. By era and by series could be separate articles in the same way that by year could be.
Just because it's always been this way doesn't mean it's right - it just means nobody's fixed it yet, and I am indicating that it should be a straight list. – jaksmata 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I said that there has been no indication from "others" (meaning besides you) to change the layout of this article.
If you want to split the article into three, that's a viable route, I suppose, but with little push to do so, it seems extraneous. If you feel this strongly about the list, why not try to gather some opinions from others, either from the Star Wars project or the Video Game project? This list can be organized many different ways, but we obviously aren't going to settle this between just you and me. Gather more points of view. That may help us proceed. Rhindle The Red (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True on all counts :) It's not going to break my heart if this list stays as-is, or if you break up the Other titles section as you originally proposed. (Go ahead if you want) I might look for more support sometime, but I'm not going to hold my breath. In the year or so that this has been on my watchlist, I haven't seen anyone besides you and me that has demonstrated any real interest in it. However it goes, thanks for taking the time to consider my opinion. – jaksmata 02:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Old Republic[edit]

Shouldn't Star Wars: The Old Republic be on the list? And if so, where?Noneofyour (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Probably the "Other titles" section. – jaksmata 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

Who of all of you changed my changes? I'm very angry with him/her. Gantonis...

The fact that you felt the need to ask this question indicates that perhaps you should take some time to learn a little more about how Wikipedia works and what is a good edit and what is a bad one. I have added a welcome message to your talk page. Please take a few moments to read the pages listed there.
List of Star Wars video games is meant to include only authorized Star Wars games, not fan-made games like that Rogue Squadron Flash game you listed. I could find no link to a valid Star Wars Flash pinball game, nor any indication of this "Hasbro 21 flash games pack" you've listed. If you can provide a link (and it is a valid, authorized title), feel free to add it back in.
Also, you have removed navigation headings for no reason. Again, a better familiarity with the workings of Wikipedia would lead to fewer issues with your edits. Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Star Wars[edit]

Shouldn't the Super Star Wars be listed in their respective Episode categories?--67.222.226.156 (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Republic Commando[edit]

It seems to be under "Other Titles" twice, once for 2005 and again at the bottom of the list for 2004, is there any reason for this or just somebody got confused? (Cerebriac (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The Clone Wars[edit]

There was a recent edit to add "The Clone Wars" to the series titles. While I get the idea (these are the games based on The Clone Wars movie and TV show), they are not actually connected in *quite* the same way as the other series or the episode-based games. If we want to break these out of the "other" category, can we somehow indicate their connection (and thereby exclude the earlier "Clone Wars" game) or do we put all Clone Wars-era games together (including the earlier ones)? Alternatively, since "The Clone Wars" is bigger in its scope than any other "series", we could change the "Episode" section to "Eras" and move "Clone Wars" and possibly "The Old Republic" there. Thoughts? Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your suggestion of changing "Episode" grouping to "Era" grouping sounds like the best way to handle it. – jaksmata 21:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going astray[edit]

I believe that this article is losing its purpose. Its very first sentence states:

"This is a list of Star Wars video games. Though there have been many hobbyist-made and freeware games based on the Star Wars movie series and brand, this page lists only the games that have been developed and/or published by LucasArts or officially licensed by Lucasfilm."

Going astray from that purpose, someone added the following game to this article, below "Episode IV: A New Hope":

- Star Battle (1977) - Shooter, Bally Astrocade.

This game has clearly not been developed and/or published by LucasArts, nor officially licensed by Lucasfilm. There is even another mistake to this addition: it classifies it as a "shooter", where there shouldn't be such classification. There should be only a list of platforms on which the game was played.

Another example of mistakes to this article: The game "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1982) Atari 2600" is listed twice.

Please, keep it together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.93.207.6 (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Series Column/Headers & Multiple Tables[edit]

Hi all, Wondering if we actually need series headers as well as the series column? The headers break when sorting the table by any of the data columns and are even more arbitrary and inaccurate than the series column. E.G. Super Bombad Racing & Racer Arcade are both under the 'Racing' header, yet neither are part of the 'official' Racer series.

As for the multiple tables; they make it more difficult to sort and use the data for the sake of canonicity divisions. A use example would be wanting to see a complete list of Star Wars games in release order, with the page in it's current state you'd need to manually consolidate the data from four different tables and then sort them elsewhere. If you're concerned about being able to separate the data via canonicity I'd suggest adding an additional column to the existing table, however as the table is already quite wide we should maybe consider merging some of the platform columns. Handheld & Mobile for example.

I'll keep adding & updating the games in the main table as I was doing before the holidays but the multiple tables is going to make checking I haven't missed anything more difficult than it should be.

TLDR: Series headers are unnecessary and inaccurate. Multiple tables is bad for representing the data the page is named for: "List of Star Wars Video Games".

Thanks, BadWiidTino (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to emphasize storytelling in the table.

  • The list of Star Wars books and list of Star Wars canon is split between Legends and Canon. So video-games should also be organized like that. The thing is that unlike with books and novels, we have video-games like LEGO and Angry Birds are not part of the non-canon Legends story-line so, we need three tables.
  • For now I'm manually trying to integrate all the text into the table, so we can remove all the repeated text information and then move everything back into three tables, so lets leave it like this until all text is removed.
  • I wanted to eventually move all the direct film adaptations to the canon row, listing them as canon except for anything that could contradict the films.
  • Also as very few games are Arcade, should we remove the Arcade row? And turn into a bullet point in the articles? Which I was meaning to do.Rosvel92 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92[reply]
That is compeletely wrong headed Rosvel. For the fifteenth time, read WP:INUNIVERSE. This list is utter crap because you insist on organizing it based on "canon", which is utterly in violation of guidelines and policy. Despite being told repeatedly by multiple editors that Wikipedia doesn't organize Star Wars content based on canon. I'm reverting tonbeforw you made a single edit to this list. oknazevad (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with oknazevad, it was clearly against WP:INUNIVERSE. I also feel we should dump the "chronological order" table completely, it just duplicates the information below, but with considerably less structure and logic to it, and much less clarity. Having a table for the list is in my opinion far inferior than the original structures. Why is chronological order even necessary? Far better to order it by series, as this reflects the actual articles. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chronological order is undoubtedly the wrong title for the table but I do feel that this format is a superior and more appropriate method for displaying this information than in the individual sections below: It provides sort-able columns for release date, platform and series and as such is much more useful as a reference. It's also considerably easier to update with new releases rather than having to decide if a new section needs to be created for a series/decade/publisher/etc.
My end goal with the table is to eventually replace the bottom sections entirely and as much as I'd like to do it all in one big update I regrettably don't have the time to do so. For now I was planning to leave the bottom sections as-is so they can be used to double check the table isn't missing anything and then to remove them once the table contains the data for all Star Wars games published to date.
I do think there's a conversation to be had regarding the format of the table, namely the addition/removal of columns, but I was hoping to get the data complete in the current format before making any additional changes. After taking one look at Wikipedia's various Video Game Lists it's clear there isn't a single site-wide accepted template for these but I'm hoping the consistency of formatting and usability of the Wii/Wii U/3DS tables inspires similar practical designs across the other lists. BadWiidTino (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One big hulking table is a pretty poor idea. It mixes up all the series of games, and mixes all the different formats. It takes up considerably more room to look through, and doesn't reflect article structure. It is unneeded and unwelcome. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, it certainly is hulking, and although I still believe there's a use-case for -some- kind of table (even one consisting of just release date and title) I think I'm the only person that feels particularly strongly about it. If no one else chime in I'd suggest it's removal sooner rather than later to prevent any wasted effort on well intentioned updates. BadWiidTino (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Star Wars video games. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Star Wars video games and List of Star Wars video games[edit]

Merging both articles would make it easier to list and describe all Star Wars videogames without loosing track, also as it is now both articles are lacking merging both would make a better article all-around, and there's really no point in having the same article twice. For everyone and forget the canon we are listing them by video games console generation. On the other page someone agreed with the discussed topic, and no one has objected against the merging.Rosvel92 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Rosvel92 (talk • contribs)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Star_Wars_video_games&oldid=1205430062"