Talk:Star Wars: Republic Commando

Scorch took it the hardest

Aww... what a cry baby... but seriously proof? Jackchen123 (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The statement was probably true, but should not be included. I removed it. Blackngold29 (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed a paragraph

"In the game you will face many different challenges. Even though the droids look like they can be mowed down instantly, they still can deal damage. This game is nothing about balance, therefore let's say you play Star Wars Battlefront 2. The Super Battle Droids are relatively easy to kill. In Republic Commando however, it takes much more time and effort into destroying them."

This paragraph seems very badly written and strays from the topic too much. If you want to keep it go ahead and put it back in, but I suggest it be edited first.

Gaming Clans

I removed the clans. See talk:Star Wars: Empire at War#Gaming clans for reasons why, since they are the much same as here- it seems it's already a problem here- looking at the past 50 edits, at least half have been people messing with the clans section.... --DarthBinky 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Biased section

The "critique" section seems quite biased to me. I will remove it. Someone can re-write it more professionally if they choose.

Response to others

For one, what parts of the "critique" section seem biased? If you can bring up a biased point, you can surely edit it out, but taking out the entire section is disrespectful to the people who put time into writing it.

After reading it, I didn't seem to notice any biased opinions, although there were parts that were written in a very satirical voice.

The section on clans, i added back since clans are the biggest part of the Republic Commando online community.

When I say major, I mean, these are the 3 clans that are ALWAYS in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in ALL Republic Commando tournaments, and I personally know for one that the MOTR site (Mercenaries of the Republic) gets around 1.5 million unique hits per month. I'd say thats a pretty significant number.

Lets just take a quick look at the past 9 Republic Commando tournaments and evaluate the results:

MOTR:

• Bactaweek 2: MOTR - 2nd place
• Bactaweek 3: MOTR - 1st place
• Bactaweek 4: MOTR - 2nd place
• Bactaweek 5: MOTR - 2nd place
• Bactaweek 6: MOTR - 2nd place
• Bactaweek 7: MOTR - 1st place
• Bactaweek 8: MOTR - 1st place
• Bactaweek 9: MOTR - 3rd place

REDCELL:

• Bactaweek 4: Redcell - 3rd place
• Bactaweek 5: Redcell - 3rd place
• Bactaweek 6: Redcell - 1st place
• Bactaweek 7: Redcell - 4th place
• Bactaweek 8: Redcell - 3rd place
• Bactaweek 9: Redcell - 4th place

DS:

• Bactaweek 1: DS - 1st place
• Bactaweek 2: DS - 1st place
• Bactaweek 3: DS - 2nd place
• Bactaweek 4: DS - 1st place
• Bactaweek 5: DS - 1st place
• Bactaweek 6: DS - 6th place
• Bactaweek 7: DS - 2nd place
• Bactaweek 8: DS - 2nd place
• Bactaweek 9: DS - 1st place

There are around 61 clans that are involved with this tournament and for these 3 to come out on top every time is an extrodinary accomplishment.

I think these three are worthy enough to be included with the section.

Ways to improve this article

I think this article is in need of some improvement, and I think there are some clear-cut ways to do so.

1. "Plot synopsis" section needs to be simplified and consoldiated. Look at the Perfect Dark (featured) article - the Storyline section is at least half as long as Republic Commando's Plot synopsis. I don't think we need to include specific details like Ominous sounds of metal straining and flickering lighting only test the Commando's courage more when they begin to lose contact with each other one by one. In particular, that line sounds really contrived for what's supposed to be an encyclopedia article. It's a synopsis, not a review of a novel.

2. Speaking of which... the "Critique" section needs a complete overhaul. I'm not sure if I'd say the problem with it is that it's biased (as a previous poster said); the real issue is that it's not written in the tone of an encyclopedia article. It sounds like a fan overview. Perfect example:
The AI is superb.
This is a statement of opinion - I think the AI is superb, you probably think the AI is superb, and I'd bet 90% of the people who played this think the AI is superb. But it's an opinion, and it's not NPOV, so we need to change it. I'll improvise a solution:
Critics lauded the game for its superb AI.
This brings me to another major problem with the "Critique" section... where are the comments by actual critics? For that matter, why is it called "Critique"? Critical Response or Reception would be much better. We could easily include footnotes or external links from several professional review sites and magazines, to flesh out the critical evaluation of the game. Here are a few I found:

• Game Informer
• EGM
• 1UP
• Computer Gaming World
• X-Play
• IGN (PC review is the same)
• GameSpot (PC review is the same)
• Gamespy (Xbox)
• Gamespy (PC)
• GameRankings synopsis (Xbox)
• GameRankings synopsis (PC)

By no means do we need to include ALL of these, but a lot of them could have useful citations and footnotes to reinforce the article, giving it an objective critical evaluation of the game - from skimming these reviews, I know that most of them praise the game's superb AI, easy squad controls, and gritty atmosphere, whilst criticising the weak multiplayer and linear level design.

3. The Weapons section needs to go - we don't need a summary of each individual weapon in the game. It just looks like a lot of unnecessary space to me. All we need is:

• A brief summary of the DC-17m, and its modular nature
• A note about the DC-15s as an emergency sidearm
• A few sentences about the player having a slot to carry an enemy/ally weapon
• A mention of four different grenade types with different tactical uses

And that's all. This is something that could easily be merged into the "Gameplay" section. I also think the Squad section could be trimmed a bit and integrated into "Gameplay", though the need for it is not as dire as it is for the Weapons section.

Other notes...

• The statement about being able to carry "2-3 weapons" is a bit of a misonomer, due to the aforementioned modular nature of the DC-17m. I think we should change that to accomodate it.
• "It should be noted that the Super Battle Droids are very hard to kill." Should it? I think this little passage should be removed, so I did with my edit to this article.
• As I mentioned before - Perfect Dark is a featured article, AND it's a featured article on a first-person shooter to boot. If you're looking for ways to improve this article, studying or at least skimming that article is bound to provide some inspiration or guidance. Halo: Combat_Evolved is another fantastic FA to look at - it has a ton of citations from a hundred Notes and References, for nearly every purpose necessary (they use two footnotes just to describe the game's health system). If you can think of any other FAs on video games (e.g. Starcraft), take a gander at those as well.

I'll be spending some time trying to improve this article myself - but, I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia's editing system as I'd like to be yet, and I don't consider myself the most intricate writer when it comes to Wikipedia articles. So, I'm hoping a few others will aid me in improving this article.
TheInvisMan 13:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd take a look at the game's article at Wookieepedia. The two are quite similar, and I think that that's part of the problem -- Wookieepedia is an encyclopedia on Star Wars, and thus is written in an in-universe view, while Wikipedia has a policy against that. We should take that under consideration as well. May the Edit be with you, always. T-borg (drop me a line) 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fan site

Is Brothers All notable enough to be mentioned? May the Edit be with you, always. T-borg (drop me a line) 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Critique section

I've gone ahead and removed this section from the article. It sounded like a review ripped off of GameFAQs, to be honest. From what I've seen in other gaming articles, "critical response" sections usually include reviews and opinions from published online sources or magazines like IGN or GamePro. I realize this article should have a criticisms section, I just don't think it should have a biased one.--DethFromAbove 17:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sequel?

Has anybody heard anything new about a possible sequel to this game? We all know about the cancelled "Strom Commando". I would even go for a game that details the other missions that Delta Squad goes on. Becuase in the game each "world" is set at least one year apart. Again just looking for anything about a sequel.

Although Oh-seven was reported as "missing in action", which could imply a planned sequel, Wikipedia is hardly the place for such discussion and even less for unconfirmed speculations. Sorry. --May the Edit be with you, always. T-borg (drop me a line) 19:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not much to be revealed yet, but Karen Traviss, author of the Republic Commando book series is writing a sequel to the Republic Commando game, Imperial Commando, which will support the sequel to he game, Imperial Commando the game when it is release within the next year or so. No point mentioning anything yet as nothing else to say, such as plot, screens, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.68.48 (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment

I think the article is finally suitable enough to be GA class atleast. What do you think? --May the Edit be with you, always. T-borg ^{(drop me a line)} 16:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

unrealed.exe

I was exploring the program files, and I found the Unreal Editor for the game! But the Republic Commando UnrealEd is not compatible with Unreal UnrealEd files and vice versa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.197.54.136 (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Who redirected the Republic Commando team member profiles?

Okay, RC-1140 and RC-1207 are redirected to a page listing Star Wars commandos, but those characters are NOT to be found in that page. These characters had their own pages dedicated to them, just like RC-1262 currently is. Right now, they are useless links. Is there anyway to bring back the previous pages? UrbenLegend 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there wasn't, this wouldn't be Wikipedia now, would it? ;) —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 09:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind telling me how? Sorry I am still getting the hang of this. UrbenLegend 02:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a simple revert, actually. You go through the page history, edit the version before, in this case the redirect was made, and after the edit box shows, click "Save", with an edit summary of "revert", "rv", or anything like that and a reason why. I reverted the redirectings, because the new article was for "commanders," and I personally don't recall any of the commandoes being called that. Just when reverting, don't forget the three revert rule. Hope I didn't leave anything unsaid. Anyway, I'm not the most experienced user, so if you need more help, I suggest turning to the Help desk. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 11:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. But if I revert something, would I delete all subsequent edits? UrbenLegend 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a relatively new feature called Undo, with which the software will try to remove changes made in one version, while preserving subsequent edits, but if that fails, it's better to just edit the article directly, and change it the way it should be, thus avoiding information loss. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link

I will remove the broken link to the official site for Republic Commando. Cheers. Mypizzaisburnt 03:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing section

Shouldn't we have something like a Development section? For example, I specifically remember in one of the extras (unlockable videos) a commentary on how a Navy SEAL instructor was called in to help, that I think is notable enough to be mentioned. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardware Notes

Since game won't run on new 8x00 series from nVidia, and i found a workaround (after half an hour), I added hardware notes section, since one of the first pages for google search "repbublic commando" is Wikipedia... CooLa.M (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm running it on an 8600 with windows vista with no issues —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.64.34 (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me as well, 8800GT. Should be removed. --84.163.155.81 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The bumpmapping needs to be set to low on ATI HD3870s as well.. not sure about other 3xxx or 4xxx cards. 64.180.167.130 (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Reduntant Refrences

There are 4 or so refrences to the "Rainbow Six" games", this is rather repetive

Xbox Live

I believe that the Xbox Live service for old Xbox games has been shut down. Should it be noted in the paragraph "The game features a multiplayer mode for Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, Assault, and Capture the Flag gameplay, with Xbox Live support for 16 players on the Xbox, and 32 for PC over the Internet."--172.129.139.164 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference material

While digging through the online print archive, I located the following print preview material for this game:

• GMR Feature
• Game Informer Preview
• Game Informer Preview

One or more print reviews for this game may also be found in the archive. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing Studio attribution?

Where is the name of the studio that developed this? Should be Pandemic from what I see on the logos on my CD case. Interestingly neither the Pandemic Studios article nor this one list it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.55.235 (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2021

Change all instances of "RC-1338" (or any other "misspellings" of the main character) to "RC-1138" JediVahGilns (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it was just the one typo. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)