Talk:Star Wars: X-Wing (video game)

Improved the Collector Editions section

I rewrote the Collector Editions section with a clearer distinction between the two editions, so as too alleviate any confusion.

Plenk 10:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming Convention

Should not the name be spelled "X-Wing" instead of "X-wing?" LucasArts spells it this way. I recommend that this entry is moved accordingly to Star Wars: X-Wing. Anyone object? --Sprintabm 23:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

•  Done, awhile ago, but not by me. KDS4444 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The Farlander Papers

According to the introduction in the strategy guide, only parts of the Farlander Papers were included because it originally was a limited edition thing. I changed this and also added that the strategy guide could only be bought separately. Also included info about the golden CD-ROM version.

Links to X-Wing Book Series

My written word is far to conversational to make this edit, but:

Many years ago, I read the the first book of the X-Wing Series (Rogue Squadron), and it includes an amusing direct reference to X-Wing the game-

One of my least favorite X-Wing Game missions was one where the pilot had to defend a Rebel cruiser evacuating wounded from wave after wave of Tie Bombers... This mission was largely viewed as impossible by myself and many of my friends, all of us managing to beat it only out of pure luck and _MANY_ tries.

In the Book series, which came out several years later, they directly discuss this mission. I forget the details, but essentially they discussed how how the pilots who had managed to pull it off had defeated all odds, and it was now the most difficult and most feared simulator training missions in the X-wing program, or something to that effect.

Fun cross-genre trivia, I'd need to go back to the source material to get the details, but its probably something that should be in the artical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.34.140 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Full title

Is there a cite for this one? I can't find it on the game box nor at Lucasarts' site. Davhorn (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

SharkD told me the original box has the title (see this box image at MobyGames ), so I guess it is pretty much an official part of the name. Jappalang (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a tagline more than a subtitle? Similar to Fallout: A Post Nuclear Role-Playing Game. As taglines aren't part of the title, I think it should be dropped. --Mika1h (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I think too. "Space Combat Simulator" was dropped from the CD-ROM version of the game and if you look at the complete game list over at Lucasarts' own site, it's just called Star Wars: X-Wing. Same with Totally Games' list. Davhorn (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sooo, could anyone move it back? I can't move over redirects. Davhorn (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Developer: LucasArts (not Totally Games)

There is a mistake on this page, which keeps being propagated around. The developer of this game was not Totally Games. The developer of this game was LucasArts. (Cf. http://www.mobygames.com/game/star-wars-x-wing) True, Lawrence Holland and others from LucasArts later split off to form Totally Games (and worked on later games in the series), but at the time this first game was created, it was developed by LucasArts, and there is no mention of "Totally Games" on the box or in the in-game credits. (I suspect that Totally Games has essentially "re-written history" to claim to have been the developer of this game even though that company didn't actually exist yet at the time, and I suspect it is them who are changing the Wikipedia pages, etc.) I have changed the sidebar that says "Developer" back to LucasArts. I don't think it should be reverted without some kind of solid reference/proof/discussion here. Can anyone prove it was not developed by LucasArts? If Totally Games must be mentioned, it should be in some other place on the page, noting that some of the developers of this game later formed Totally Games. -- Mecandes (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the publisher is LucasArts, NOT "Disney interactive since 2012". Disney did NOT publish these games, why edit the articles retroactively to show that a new company owns LA when that fact is unrelated to who published the game? Disney didn't develop these games, or publish them. If this game was put on shelves in 1993 how could Disney be a publisher ""(in 2012)"". Do you see the fallacy? Stop falsely editing articles This game was published by, and developed by LucasArts; any mention of a company that acquires rights to LA still has nothing to do with who actually developed at the time. Last time I checked Disney's logo was not on the box of this game. If Disney must be mentioned in ownership of this software it should be noted SEPERATELY from the actual publisher at the time.

Cody-7 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You are aware that the games have been re-released in recent years, and are currently published by Disney Interactive? -- ferret (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Factual error

"During missions, the player can send orders to friendly craft. In the original floppy disk version, the player can assign other saved pilot profiles to be his or her wingman; the higher the rank of the saved profile, the better the computer-controlled wingman would perform. This was removed from subsequent releases."

On the 'collector's edition' CD-ROM version, which also features all expansions, this function is still present. So, it was clearly not removed in *all* subsequent releases. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)