Jump to content

Talk:Lucasfilm Games

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

Question

[edit]

Why are Lucasarts succesful Non-Starwars games like Gladius and Secret Weapons Over Normandy not mentioned?

This is a wiki - go ahead and mention them :) --HappyDog 19:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Those were "successful" titles? -- JH

What section should Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction go? It seems to be Lucasarts only action game.

I would hardly call Mercenaries their *only* action game. -- JH

What about the mortimer and the riddles of the medallion game? that's a lucas arts one

The article needs cleaning and restructuring. The product history of the company should IMHO be categorized either by genre or in chronological order, not a mix of the two as in the current version. I'll do my best to help when I get a chance. - Jopo 08:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have thought about how this would best be organized for some time. I think we should retain the Origins section - maybe rename it History and add the organizational and name changes there. Maybe the early games could also stay there, as they are hard to categorize (Ballblazer, Fractalus, etc.). Other obvious article sections would be one for the Adventure games and one for the Star Wars games. And maybe one more for "other games". Maybe subsections for that category, for the military simulations, for example. TerokNor 11:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on the origins of the company and the early games - the history of the company up until 1987 (and the release of Maniac Mansion) could easily be fit into one section. However, I don't feel that adventure and Star Wars sections would be logical, as the former is based on genre and the latter on subject matter. Besides, the scope of Star Wars games has expanded - games based on the movie series can be found in nearly every major genre.
I would personally go with genre-specific sections. Besides, as there are separate articles for e.g. LucasArts adventure games and the X-Wing series, the main LucasArts article could work as a summary page for the progress of each genre and then link to the main articles for more specific information.
--Jopo 07:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really appropriate to classify Mixnmojo as a LucasArts fanpage at this point? For now, they seem to be mostly derisive of the company, and Ward in particular (with good reason, IMO, but I won't get into that)71.234.69.238 18:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Galaxies is having lots of problems, I won't call it successful. Subscriber numbers are falling and the NGE rework changed the face of the game in its core totally

I may be wrong about this, but the article says "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, for instance, was accompanied by a 224-page historical manual." But my copy of the manual is only 89 pages (plus 4 pages of index at the front) and while it contains historical information (about what the planes looked like), over half is in-game controls so this does not qualify as a 'historical manual' in my opinion.99.236.149.189 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MobyGames features an ad blurb from the time of the game's release which mentions the page count of the manual. Do you have the original release or perhaps a re-release which are usually trimmed down in content? --Jopo 06:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the "First-person shooters" header, a blurb of text states that "The Dark Forces Strategy guide claims that development was well underway before Doom was released and that the game was pushed back once Doom hit shelves so that it could be polished." I haven't found a single source to back this up, including looking through the development chapter of the Official Guide for Star Wars: Dark Forces by Jeff Hoff.

Under the "First Star Wars games" header, Broderbund is listed as the sole holder of the Star Wars video games license at first. Even after checking the sources, I can't find anything that denotes them as the sole holder. Especially when several other companies made Star Wars games in the 80s (Atari, Parker Brothers, etc.) Unless I'm mistaken, I think this needs to be reworded to state that a few other companies had the license to make games before Lucasfilm was established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.99.116 (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template?

[edit]

How come there's no Lucasarts template? Would such a template be too large? Or has no one considered one yet? --Thaddius 13:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful. I could create it if no one objects. --Mika1h 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more information hopefully

[edit]

Next Generation released an article about LucasArts. You can find it at http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3703&Itemid=2 -- ReyBrujo 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Haven't there been other logos similar to LucasArts' guy? I think I've seen some that also reminded me of LA, although now I can't remember any. I also just happened upon a site called Softonic which has a logo which is pretty similar if you ask me. I suppose there's no reason to mention this in the actual article though. Retodon8 11:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-PC/Nintendo, Anti-Adventure policy

[edit]

Something I miss in the Wiki are some of the 'bad' decisions LucasArts is making lately. The most well known is the Anti-Adventure games policy started by president Jim Ward. I don't have his literaly quote, but it was something like "There will be no more adventure-games till either I leave or 2017." Should be easy to find. It really pissed off a lot of old LucasArts fans and adventure-game lovers, resulting in internetprotests en boycotting of LucasArts games. It seemed to go in the right direction again with the announcement of Full Throttle 2 and Sam & Max, but they were inevitably cancelled. Many of the old, hardcore LucasArts fans went on to support company's like Tell Tale Games (Sam & Max) and Tim Schafer's Double Fine Productions (Grim Fandango -> Psychonauts).

Another thing is the choice of platform the company is choosing to release their games on. LucasArts used to be the 'PC and Nintendo' developer, releasing numerous quality games on the NES, SNES, N64 and old PC's. Yet in the GameCube period, they suddenly switched over to PS2 and Xbox, despite the record-sellings of GameCube launchtitle Rogue Squadron. And in the same period, the PC started to get a lot of mediocre (star wars) games, often direct ports from the 'inferior' consoles. Despite some successes like Knights of the Old Republic, the PC fanbase didn't get the top notch games like they used to. Both platforms suffered quite a blow with the announcement that the next-gen Indiana Jones and Force Unleashed won't get a release on the PC or Wii. PC-users on a lot of fora started to complain about the lack of a good lightsaber-shooter for so long, eventhough LucasArts used to make the very popular Jedi Knight-series. And since the beginning of the Wii concept, people wanted, and LucasArts promised, a Wii-Lightsaber game, which is still hasn't even been officially acknowledged by the company.

I'm not much of a writer, but someone should definitely add it to the Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.160.35 (talk) 16:40, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I think sourcing much of what you're saying would be difficult even if I partially agree with some of it. Personally I also don't get why they didn't buy BioWare, seemed like a good fit given their history of successfully working together which appears to be ongoing but it wasn't to be and BioWare became another EA company. However as with your comments, I haven't actually read any of this discussed in RS. Nil Einne (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LFGames.jpg

[edit]

Image:LFGames.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) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Old Remedy logo.gif

[edit]

Image:Old Remedy logo.gif 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 ensure 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) 15:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Zak McKracken Screenshot.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is out of date

[edit]

There seems to be no new information as of this date (Feb 2011). The future section in particular contains only information about past releases. If new information about LucasArts could be found and added it would be much better than this articles current state. Dynex811 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat

[edit]

Their invention of the MMORPG genre in the '80s on the C64 probably rates a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.69.208 (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they keep lucasarts open

[edit]

Disney already owns star wars IP so they themselves can license stuff out... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.227.163 (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Games

[edit]

Why does Totally Games redirect to the LucasArts page? They developed games for multiple publishers and weren't part of LucasArts. Their page (which has seemingly been deleted) contained information that isn't on the LucasArts page. -- DJcube1701 (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LucasArts. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a publisher and now called Lucasfilm Games Team

[edit]

Lucasfilm no longer publishes games and it's now referred to as the Lucasfilm Games Team. Just check the credits for the various games. Or here: https://www.facebook.com/lucasfilm/photos/rpp.361102587281113/1602985976426095/?type=3&theater

Brayden96 (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status

[edit]

It would appear that LucasArts is dead, given that its closure was announced way back in 2013, and it has not been active since. All newer Star Wars games do not credit LucasArts is licensor, merely Lucasfilm or Disney itself. Should the article be changed to reflect this? Courtesy ping to @JenniBee:, who fought for the live status six years ago. Lordtobi (✉) 14:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's still open, although these days it goes by Lucasfilm Games as @Brayden96: mentioned above. They just hired people for a bunch of positions last year: [1]. The article should be changed to reflect that (I'll make an edit after this and link the above source). The article could also possibly be moved to Lucasfilm Games, but I'm not sure if that is the right move, as LucasArts is the name that most people associate with the company, even if they used to be, and are now currently, known as Lucasfilm Games. JenniBee (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JenniBee: Are you sure that those are still the same companies? Seems to me as though LucasArts fully closed back in 2013 (and we have a heap of reliable sources for that), with Lucasfilm now (like six years later) moving back into video game production. To say that they are the same based on the type of industry they are in would be WP:OR at least. Moreover, this reliable source cites a Disney statement saying that they are two vastly different businesses, with the shared name being coincidental. Lordtobi (✉) 21:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LucasArts didn't close in 2013, though. Stating as such is not original research, as the sources don't support the conclusion that LucasArts ever fully closed. LucasArts remained open with a staff of less than ten so that it could retain its function as a video game licensor ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323916304578400962825215302 ). The same articles at the time also stated that they were evaluating whether to keep the LucasArts brand name. After 2013 (the release of Tiny Death Star was the last with the LucasArts name), the games division began using the Lucasfilm Games name to license games and publish titles to digital storefronts, as the sources at the time stated that they might do.

It's also important to note that the Gamasutra article said they weren't reviving the Lucasfilm Games brand, and that they didn't mention 'which' existing division the Lucasfilm Games jobs were related to. It's entirely possible that they're referring to the LLC that this article covers as it is a different division than the original Lucasfilm Games (more info below).

Most importantly, it should be noted that Lucasfilm retained the LucasArts LLC (which was incorporated in Delaware after a studio merger in 1997 ( https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/199725410005 ), and remains active after the Disney merger: https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_de/2788143 ). This is the best indication that the games division remained open, as the LLC would be listed as inactive or closed otherwise. JenniBee (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ source only says that

Fewer than 10 LucasArts employees have been retained to coordinate such external production.

While at the same time repeating that

... Lucasfilm said it closed LucasArts ...

(emphasis mine)
That it retained 10 people that previously worked for LucasArts is not sufficient evidence that they kept working for LucasArts or any dedicated games division. It looks more like they just moved on to Lucasfilm's general licensing department.
Either way, the source is very firm that LucasArts as such is defunct, as are the many other sources. The modern licensing business is not related to the formerly Sanfran-based entity and should not be presented as the same. This also goes for corporate entities, which often remain active on paper for legal reasons (cf. Take-Two Interactive annual reports, where they have lots of dead studios still incorporated and listed under subsidiaries). I have no problem with separately mentioning the new VG division, but the defuncture of LucasArts needs to be made clear and presented without any speculation. I can dig more into this problem should I find the time. Lordtobi (✉) 17:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, they closed the LucasArts development studio. That's not in question. It's the reason why this article states that it remained open as a licensor. The articles very clearly state that fewer than 10 LucasArts employees were kept on. That and the fact that Tim Shafer worked with LucasArts in 2015 to create Grim Fandango Remastered, and that Polygon spoke with "LucasArts representatives" that year shows that it remained open as a licensor, in San Francisco (with an LLC registered in Delaware since 1997) well after the closure of the development studio - https://www.polygon.com/2015/1/27/7921837/grim-fandango-remastered-interview-double-fine-disney-lucasfilm-sony JenniBee (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 1997-incorporated Delware LLC was merged into a Lucasfilm subsidiary called "Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd." back in 2003 and does no longer exist. I stated before that arguing around paper-based entities is pointless as it rarely reflections real-world corporate statuses. The Polygon article is ambiguous as to whether those were former or present representatives, or if they just used LucasArts and Lucasfilm interchangeably. The "LucasArts" name was no longer in use at this time. The thing with the 10 employees was already addresses: 10 LucasArts employees were kept, but it was not stated in what occupation or that they stayed with any LucasArts-branded entity. This discussion always loops back to either of us using original research and I currently cannot see it going anywhere. Consider the central point that the present licensing business is unrelated to the former LucasArts/Lucasfilm Games is only "a segment of an existing business that coincidentally shares the name" (verified above) so that we could work together to cleanse the article of original research. Lordtobi (✉) 20:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LucasArts existed as a licensor long before the Disney purchase. Many projects were licensed by LucasArts and not Lucasfilm (Tales from Monkey Island and Angry Birds Star Wars for example). As the WSJ article states, LucasArts retained a skeleton crew of less than ten to coordinate such external production. That's exactly what they have been doing for decades. Only the development portion ended with the Disney purchase.

The fact of the matter is that the staff were retained (meaning those staff members involved in licensing existed before the merger) and that they continued to be referred to in interviews as LucasArts staff long after the development portion of the company closed (in the audio interviews with Polygon, they are referred to as LucasArts staff. The staff members would not have allowed themselves to be addressed as such if they weren't from that division).

Yes, it sucks that the development portion of the studio closed and that they remain open with only a small staff. I hate it too. But, there's nothing that suggests the licensing arm is somehow a different entity. That goes against the evidence shown in reliable sources that state that the licensing staff was retained while the development staff was let go. The new development team might "be a segment of an existing business that coincidentally shares the name", but the licensing team definitely is the same staff. There's no reliable sources that state that the licensing arm of the original LucasArts was ever disbanded. JenniBee (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Missing Games

[edit]

I miss the nice platformer "Metal Warriors" from 1995. A little unusual at the time for Lucas and a little gem. Higly playable and with Multiplayer for SNES! https://www.mobygames.com/game/snes/metal-warriors --Chromaxx (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the title to Lucasfilms Games

[edit]

LucasArts changed its name to Lucasfilms Games, so the page will change its name into Lucasfilms Games too.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucasfilm_Games&oldid=1208611159"