Jump to content

Talk:Battlefield: Bad Company

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

Vehicles Picture

[edit]

I took the vehicles picture off. We have no right to use an image that is clearly IGNs. Orracle107 (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline

[edit]

I've read on the PSU forums, a user posted information he/she recently read in the latest issue of Game Informer. Such information included: - Will be released in spring 2007. - It's for both the XBox 360 and Playstation 3. - There will be more focus on single-player. There will be a proper storyline and will have four main characters, no more playing as a no-name soldier. - It will have fully destructible environments. - The game is set approximately 10 years in the future. Whether or not this could be posted because of eligibility, it'll float around the Discussion until someone sees fit to put it into the actual article-- My IP's Already Listed

Trivia

[edit]

The trivia section is incorrect, Battlefield Bad Company is not the only un-numbered game. There is Battlefield: Vietnam.

Platforms

[edit]

It says in all sources I have read "It's for both the XBox 360 and Playstation 3." Confirmed. However PSP and PC are still speculation. And yet PC is clearly stated on the wiki article... Here is the original Source of the news which stated that it will be for PSP and PC also: [1] For Now I am going to remove the PC and PSP links on the Wiki until there is more information not speculation on the platforms.

Game Informer stated that one of the for-sure platforms was PsP (I will soon be able to quote this), and so does the Wiki-Article! SupaSoldier 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

[edit]

Anyone know of any confirmation of the March 1st release date. I don't see it on GameFly, and theres been no online hype recently about it. If it were a week away I would think there would be alot more talk about it on Kotaku and PS3Fanboy, etc... --Cmsjustin 15:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted an inconsistency. The first paragraph states, "It is expected to be released in 2007. [2]", whereas on the top-right, it states, "Release date(s) 2008 TBA". Would someone please update this with the latest info (I only just found out about this game). If not, I'll be glad to research the answer. Modul8r 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is June 23. I have seen it in a few places now.Sargent York

Either way, the release date should never be "tomorrow", even more on a Wiki page. Added [citation needed] to that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.133.32.138 (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 24th, tomorrow. I just went and asked a guy working at Gamestop, the shipping date is today. I felt like an idiot trying to pick up my preorder. The source for the release date specifically says "ships on June 23 in North America." Shipping is different from the release date. 69.125.120.10 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

[edit]

Is all this info about the characters based solely on the trailer? if so, i really think we're reading too far into it, you cant make deductions on a characters personality based on a few words. If i said "i like chocolate" it wouldnt mean i eat chocolate to the exclusion of all other food-stuffs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.4.74.65 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Vehicles and weapons.

[edit]

that part is more than uncomplete, look at these pics from GameSpot:

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

201.233.37.171 17:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I can name a few of the vehicles:
Helicopters (from top to bottom) :
Mi-24
Kamov Ka-50
AH-64 Apache
UH-60 Black Hawk
Vehicles (in no particular order):
M1 Abrams
M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle
Others:
MIM-104 Patriot
possibly a patriot?
If I'm wrong please correct me. lol
--Therealmat 15:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed they look fairly correct. Plus most are similar to battlefield 2. Keep it up! andrewrox424 Bleep 12:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to add them to the page, I also suspect another of the vehicles to be a Leopard 2, I'm not quite sure though. --Therealmat (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try, but don't blame me if it ain't great. andrewrox424 Bleep 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There, done, someone please change the layout of it. Thanks, andrewrox424 Bleep 06:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Weapons in the beta

Unlocked: AEK971 Saiga12 SV98 9A91 PKM M416 870MCS M24 SCAR M249 AUG T194 GOL AKS74u QJU88 DLC or Gold edition: AN94 SPAS15 VSS XM8C MG3 F2000 USAS12 QBU88 UZI M60 Unlockables: M16 SPAS12 SVU UMP XM8 LMG XM8 NS2000 M95 PP2000 MG36

200.84.167.21 (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a note about Battlefield 3

[edit]

I suggest adding a note that Bad company is referred to as Battlefield 3 more often than not, but that is just plain wrong. EA has mentioned this officially that neither Battlefield Heroes nor Bad company is Battlefield 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Moon (talk • contribs) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Designator section?

[edit]

I'd do it myself but I'm not too good at the editing process yet, but I think that the Laser Designator section should be deleted, but the information should be merged with the weapons section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenis360 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another section merge

[edit]

anyone else think the Multiplayer section should be merged with the Gameplay modes section? since multiplayer is a type of gameplay mode.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenis360 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contraversy

[edit]

There is a huge amount of stuff going around about having to pay for guns. I think its worth mentioning

  • EA has now stated that there will be no 'mini-transactions' in the game. However special guns may be achieved by preordering the game, but these will be available after playtime in the game, just not immediately available. So the mention isn't that worthy. andrewrox424 Bleep 09:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct, in fact the following was included in the article!!

The Battlefield Bad Company Beta contains 20 locked guns, 10 can be unlocked through playing the game, while 5 of the other 10 will be unlocked in free promotions before and after release. The remaining 5 unlockable weapons will only be made available through purchase of the Gold Edition of the game or by achieving the final rank (level 25) in the game.

TheL1berat3r (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Ω[reply]

I'm curious. What's so distinctly bad about EA 'charging' for guns? WarRock's been doing the same thing for a long time now. I'm no fan of EA and I take what they say with a grain of salt as until it happens, they'll do what ever they want, to hell with what they've told their customers (see EA & Feedback). I just don't get how this case was any different. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Biased POV

[edit]

Claim without citation: "It has been reported that the demo suffers from a lot of lag and renders the game unplayable in most cases." If it really did render the game unplayable there would be some valid citation of it.

The whole Criticisms section is ridiculously ambiguous. The citation is offers actually praises the game. I personally don't think a criticisms section should be included in this game if it's only from some disgruntled gamers. I'm sure the same editors want to put a section in the Halo 3 page saying how they can't kill anyone so the game sucks. 207.255.62.9 (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove that, and off the record I haven't recieved any lag while playing the game online...and if I did it was minor. The person that wrote that must have had a really bad ocnnection. Thanks for bringing it up. --APShinobi My Contribs 14:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got quite a lot of lag in the past few days (as have the other players in each game) - EA/DICE have actually commented on it, but I dunno if it's really notable enough for inclusion. Fin©™ 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that lag tends to get a little heavy around 6:00 here in New York, but it certainly doesn't render the game unplayable. As Falcon said, EA has commented on it in the BF: BC News section. I think it's a good idea to scrap the whole contreversy section and redo it with more details, including those identified by EA/DICE Seanpnoot (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lag is indeed a much-criticised problem and is unbearable at times. I can also recall way too many times where the servers were down. It should simply be stated without much emphasis. I would put this either in criticism or in reception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.6.203 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few proofreads and the deletion of the maps section.

[edit]

I recently worked a little bit on this article to give a better appearence. I believe the maps section was wholly worthless as I haven't seen this on any other game page. It just adds way to much length to the overall article and doesn't provide that much detailed information. This is an encyclopedia and not a game manual. Also, I added a citation to the date of release that links to the official page of the game. If someone would be willing to clean up the post in the citations section, that would be well appreciated. If you have anything that you want to say about my edits, feel free... just, the old page got on my nerves. I could make a few more and probably will. Seanpnoot (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplayer modes (or lack thereof)

[edit]

Purchased the game yesterday, to my knowledge there is only one game mode available at the moment and that is Gold Rush, I've edited the multiplayer section to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.77.26 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know if this was true but i herd that the find all five was going to be release sometime in the future months or so like the sniper rifle that people preorder and who did not preorder will be getting it becauces of the crap they pull on i quess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.82.201 (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Story question

[edit]

I've finished the single player campaign on easy, and there is a little thing at the end of the game that I would like to suggest adding.

SPOILERS

In a cutscene just before the credits, it shows the burning wreckage of the Legionnaire's helicopter. It then slowly zooms in and shows the Legionnaire rise among the ashes. It ends with a zoom in of the Legionnaire's rage-filled face.

END SPOILERS

Now I think that this would be a good thing to add to the article's story section. I would do it, but I don't know how to do all that "sourcing" stuff.--71.162.16.153 (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unfinished story section

[edit]

i read through the article and it looks like the story section only covers about half the game..someone should add every mission from 'air force one' on, because it is written like the mission where you save the president is the last...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jboice35 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding every mission will make the plot far too long, only the basic plot is needed. Moccamonster Talk 10:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is updated, time to celebrate!

[edit]

I tried to update and simplify the article the best that I could today. I removed all beta references in sections where they were not appropriate. The weapons and vehicles sections also warrented a little simplification. I used Planet Battlefield as a reliable source as they detail each weapon in the game. The games been out for a few weeks now and it finally seems like it with this article. Seanpnoot (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Legionnaire

[edit]

JMWhiteIV (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)I'd just like to offer the following suggestion, and I'll change this myself if need be.[reply]

but from playing the Game's Campaign, it is fairly obvious that "The Legionnaire" in reference to the Man himself(as opposed to referring to his soldiers) is a title/nickname/codename, whatever you want to call it.

I think when referring to him, it should be stated as such. I don't recall any point in the game where he is referred to as anything other than The Legionnaire(i.e. not "legionnaire" w/ parentheses), his name is stated pretty matter-of-factly without much mystery as to what he is called. And imo, his name should be presented in that manner. "The Legionnaire" (properly capitalized and without the parentheses). This would lend more importance to the name, imo.

consider it done! I also added the fact that he was a former French Foreign Legion merc before he took of and created his own organization. BTW it was a good recomendation! Seanpnoot (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed needs to stop!

[edit]

As I said before, The Legionnaire being French Foreign Legion is a fact. It is taken directly from game dialogue from the end of the mission Acta Non Verba. Please stop editing without discussion or I will resort to semi protection. If you disagree with me please comment. Seanpnoot (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the part where the trucks leave the harbor? I can't remember hearing it from the cutscenes. Unless it's from dialogue during gameplay, I probably will check that again. Ominae (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, I can't seem to find it. Tried checking the cutscenes, but not there. Is that part in the in-game dialogue? I need some help here. Because if not, I'm getting a feeling that it shouldn't be mentioned. Ominae (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The game makes absolutely no mention of it being the French Foreign Legion. The game even states it's a private army/mercenary group. RoyalOrleans 04:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Ok. I'll check my facts again and have removed the disputed statement untiil I can back it up more.Seanpnoot (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more edits to make it top notch.

[edit]

I sharpened up a few more noticeable issues and removed unnesecary links in the article. Seanpnoot (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the voice actors section really necessary?

[edit]

I have never seen this in a good game article if any. Please vote to keep this soon or else it is gone. :) Seanpnoot (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single Player section

[edit]

In the single player section, we have a paragraph about respawns. I really don't see it as necessary, and removed it, as it's no different from spawning in other fps games.

"Upon the player's death, they are able to respawn without much penalty. They will respawn from the last checkpoint, with a new vehicle if the last checkpoint is saved in a vehicle, and full health, also the enemies already killed will not respawn. However in missions where the player can fail an objective (for example preventing the enemy crossing a bridge), if the player fails then they must restart from the last checkpoint, rather than respawning" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.159 (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is worthy of mention, as while reloading the most recent checkpoint when the player dies is nothing new, respawning them (effectively removing the challenge, as there's no penalty for player death) is something that hasn't been done in a single-player FPS before. It does need rewording though. Fin©™ 00:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was BioShock. We could use a review that actually mentions this, though. --McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section is too biased

[edit]

The reception section only lists what people liked about the game, but doesn't state any criticism. Obviously, this game isn't perfect, just by looking at the scores. A citation is needed for the praise list.

There has to be some amount of criticism for this game. Let's try to stay neutral. 24.18.240.159 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well needed copy edit.

[edit]

I copied the whole page into MS word and worked out the kinks in spelling and grammar and I feel it reads a little better. Think of it as a brand new page! It is very refined compared to before. Seanpnoot (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror's Edge

[edit]

I'm not sure that this is right to put in, but the Serderistan War is referenced in a news report in Mirror's Edge. If that's relevant, add away. --Roeas (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New subsection under Multiplayer Ranks: Skill

[edit]

This is my first post, so I apologize in advance. I was curious about what exactly the "skill" score revealed after reaching the General rank consisted of, or reflected. This was the first place I looked and it's not in the article so I looked elsewhere and this is the best of what I found:

"Skill Level: The following explination is for users who are rank lvl 25 ONLY! You will notice that when you reach rank lvl 25 you will recive a new feature called 'Skill Level'. 1-50 are the skill lvls...1 being the most skilled and 50 being the lowest skilled. Only 1 person in the world can have skill lvl 1 and 50 while multipule people can have 2-49. There are 4 colors that the numbers are. (Green,Yellow,Orange, and Red) Green meaning that you are very close to moving up in skill and red meaning you are very close to going down in skill. Skill level rank is based off of your SPM (Score Per Minute) and your k/d ratio and how it changes. Keep in mind that even if you dont play for a couple of days and your skill level has gone down, its not you...its just that SPM is recorded even when you are not playing. It drops about 15 SPM per week. (about 2.5 SPM per day)"

From http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?message.uid=36727696

It's the best explanation I've found, and it also happened to coincide pretty much exactly with my own theory based off of the information the game gives you when it tells you your form direction after a match. I couldn't find a really solid or "official" source in the time I looked, but I figured I'd put it out there. I really want to know.

Also as a kind of tangent knowing what kind of curve the numbers are on, if they're on some kind of curve. I'm just really surprised I can't find this all laid out in convincingly reliable detail anywhere.

Sardanis (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classes section

[edit]

I added a short description of each class to the Classes section of the article. I listed the general type of weapon, an example of one such weapon, and the unlockable secondary weapon for each class. Similar data can be found for other Battlefield games on their pages (e.g. Battlefield 2142, Battlefield 2). Without this information, one unknowledgeable of the game would not be able to distinguish between the classes, and the article would not be encyclopedic. The paragraph is not a "list of weapons". While it does focus primarily on weaponry, the weapons and gadgets used by each class are the only factor that individualizes them. Therefore, brief examples must be provided, which is what I have done. 24.15.197.87 (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it isn't wikipedia's place to inform the reader of every detail of a game - saying there are five classes is five, giving descriptions of each weapon and unlockable weapon for each class is not. The Battlefield 2 section just briefly gives an account of three classes (of seven), the paragraph you added to this article describes all five. Also, you say it's "not a list of weapons", yet in your second sentence: "I listed...", so I'd argue that it is (though maybe a list of weapons and gadgets or something instead). Thanks! Fin©™ 10:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. 24.15.197.87 (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just marked this section as unclear. What is a class? I can't access the article it links to now. But the section needs to be rewritten. Ikip (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

[edit]

Didn't there use to be a section about the game's rather... creative promotional campaign? -- 83.13.234.242 (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who tends to delete a lot of editors contributions, deleted it in October 2008.[6] i will restore. Ikip (talk)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battlefield: Bad Company. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battlefield:_Bad_Company&oldid=1198547628"