Jump to content

Talk:Battlefield 2/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Errors

there are factual errors: 1. Eryx is NOT a Soviet weapon. 2. The Chinese in Battlefield two do NOT use Soviet style weapons. 3. AK-101 is NOT a Soviet era weapon.

This page needs to rolled back to some previous good version. It seems to have been vandalized --rasmusdf 20:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The demo is actually 10 mins long, not 12.

Trauma Studios

Anyone else get a bad taste from the news that Trauma Studios were axed by Dice? Tzarius 10:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Trauma got quite a lot of money when Dice bought them, and all employees have been offered jobs in Stockholm. After all, Dice had no obligation to buy Trauma in the first place. Dice is a private company, and therefore needs to be driven by profit. abelson 16:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

F keys

I took out the "F keys change vehicle position" section from New Features since it is in Battlefield: Vietnam. --167.181.12.201 30 June 2005 12:53 (UTC)

Game reviews

Seems to me like a lot of the best parts of what made Battlefield 1942 (and also Vietnam) fun were excised for this sequel. You can't have a small number of players on a huge map anymore. Extras that added to the sandbox feel, like jet packs and other arcade style power-ups are gone, replaced with an Enemy Territory sort of system. The function key menu is gone, replaced with a console style radial menu. You can't honk the horns of the cars, or use the radios to play music as in BF:V.

The backstory is also far less immersive, and even creepy. It was already somewhat disturbing to reenact actual battles of history. The near-future scenario that Battlefield 2 posits is many times more unsettling.

There is not enough fun to weigh against the competitive elements, and it seems to have been designed for the hard core pro gamer and a league play environment. You could never say that about Battlefield 1942, which was both easy to learn for newcomers and fun for experts.


  • You can, in fact, honk the horn of light vehicles. And personally, I never played BF1942 or BFV, and I think BF2 was quite easy to learn. /Wik-E
    • That and...You can too have a small amount of player (you set the player limit in the server options), and the sandbox feel wasn't what they were going for [more realisitc]. I like the radial menu more, you can honk the horns of cars, and why would you want to annoy your teammates with music?

gameplay

Is anyone going to write a section on gameplay? And the bad taste the current TK system leaves in players minds?

  • The textbook response to that statement is to "be bold", go ahead and do it! I've started it off, perhaps some people will add to it later.--inks 05:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Does anyone find it annoying that you get punished for TKs that other players caused (aside from blatant bugs)? Such as,
    • running in front of a moving tank or vehicle,
    • running under a landing helocopter,
    • walking into claymores or driving over AT mines,
    • two vehicles colliding (team-team or enemy-team, e.g. if you crash you can get a TK for a passenger),
    • sprinting Rambo-style into an enemy group while teammates are firing at the enemy group? -- BeastRHIT 16:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


Do we need so many links to so many mods? Couldnt we trim that huge list down to several popular mods? Seems like blatant advertising to me. Anouymous 05:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Im gonna begin trimming links one week for now if noone objects; primarily, Im gonna remove most of the fansites and most of the mods, probably taking out all mods except for Shattered Faith. If anyone has objections post here. Anouymous 03:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Not so much advertising, as it's nothing more than a link, plus it illustrates the point that the game is very moddable, plus indicative of the games large following. I would not have found out about many of those mods if they were not listed here. I'd be strongly in favour of keeping them all for now, and perhaps removing only those that have clearly stagnated, say in a few months time. What think you, Anouymous?--inks 03:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd rather have an additional page with the mod listing than removing then. For one thing it is a good source for information at the moment and second it is not possible to say which mod will become popular because nothing has yet been released (setting aside mini mods like the night thingy). User:JeanJoswig


  • Sure, its just that its looking a bit cluttered. How do you feel about the external links? No need to have links to some of those such as that fan discussion one regardeing expansions and such. But soon, at least by expansion time we should clear out some of these mod links. But how do you feel about those external links? Ill put the ones I disagree with 04:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Why I support the idea of an expansion boycott - The Battlefield 2 community weighs in on the timing of EA's expansion announcement
  1. PC Gamer Blog - Battlefield 2 First Impressions
    1. Battlefield 2 Demo Review
  1. Battlefield 2 Benchmark Tests
    1. AusBattlefield
  1. Finnish Battlefield site, Battlefield.fi
  • The Sir Community - Sir. SashDaMan

Heh, so I agree with what you said about the mods, we will have to clear it out soon though, its rather expansive Anouymous 04:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree that those links can probably be removed now (excepting AusBattlefield, it's quite popular down under). We could revisit the mod links when the expansion pack comes out.--inks 04:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • actually looking at some of the links, they justify removing. Some dont even exist anymore, and some latest works date 6 months ago
  • So I deleted most of the links. Here was my reasoning. Some sites did not even exist anymore. Others had news dating from back in May and such. My criteria for deleting was that if a update was not dated to at least september, and the forum was not active, I would remove it from the list. Of course, it created a formatting nightmare, so someone needs to do that. Also, I removed some links to dead websites and such. Anouymous 02:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


Picture is not a screenshot

The picture is a promotional image, created artificially and probably touched up. Why not get a couple gameplay screenshots? Combat, vehicles, and commander mode seem worth highlighting. Twinxor t 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think there is some touch but the most on picture is real gameplay screenshot. By the way, why did you think that that was created artificially? (Sorry for editing some lower character) Izumi5 18:00, 30 September 2005 (JST)


Black Hawk

Uh, my edit that there are Black Hawk(UH-60) in Battlefield 2 was deleted. But I think there were Black Hawk in Gulf of Oman Map. When I kill someone by that transport helicopter, it surely shows that I killed by Black Hawk like Izumi5[Black Hawk]XXX. Is there a mistake, isn't it? Official Site in US shows there are Sea Hawk, but in JPN, there are Black Hawk, not Sea Hawk. You can see it by clicking the same position that ARMIES is located in US official site. Next, click Stars and Stripes, Jet-shaped silhouette, and click Right Arrow for a few times. Then you'll see the picture of Transport Helicopter, and you also see that the top of descripition shows Helicopter is UH-60(Black Hawk). Izumi5 17:53, 30 September 2005 (JST)

  • I put the Black Hawk in the artical a while back and it was removed. While playing the game says that the US transport helo is a Black Hawk. The EA website says Sea Hawk as the title, but in the artical it uses Black Hawk. The Sea Hawk is a special Black Hawk packaged for the Marines. From the pictures that I have seen, the helo in the game more closely resembles a Black Hawk. --BeastRHIT 21:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think USN(United States Navy) is using Sea Hawk, but USMC(United States Marine Corps) is NOT USN, so it is using Black Hawk. Izumi5 16:23, 10 October 2005 (JST)
    • USMC is technically a division of the US Navy. There's a joke that goes around: Must Accept Ride In Naval Equipment.

I've reverted the page after a deletion by User:Abelson. Specifically, an external link to a large and heavily-debated PlanetBattlefield forum post entitled "Why I support the idea of an expansion boycott" which discusses the community's reaction to Electronic Art's announcement of an expansion pack despite many outstanding technical and gameplay balance issues currently plaguing the game. I don't believe this link violates NPOV -- since many, many articles on Wikipedia feature sections listing criticism or opposing positions of the topic at hand -- and given the amount of participation in said discussion it isn't just "junk" as the previous article editor claimed.

If we're going to list a multitude of external commercial sites as well as softball interviews with the development team, we should include links to something that better reflects the attitude of the player community as well. Selectively cropping out unflattering material is simply fanboyism and is not NPOV.--cdjaco 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - I have not got the game, nor played it. But linking to specific posts in forums is not encyclopedic in the slightest. If it were say a published opinion piece in a magazine/major gaming site/newspaper, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with including it. But forum posts? They're a mess. - Hahnchen 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. abelson 16:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Argument is argument, and has equal merit regardless of medium. I have no problem to linking to that forum post - Wikipedia is not paper. The main problem here is that the forum may not be around forever, so the posts should really be sumamrized and added to our article. Perhaps restore the link, summarise the posts, then remove it? Also in future, perhaps debate before making changes, not after, it helps prevent revert wars.--inks 00:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


New additions

I added the Stinger and the TOW to the vehicles list. Also I added a list of the unlocks (with descriptions of my own. Not that I have used them all.) --Spark.1.4 09:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ranks

Hi, I have added the ranks for the time being

I think changing it into a table as the article is now over 33kb.

A table like:

Preferably, the new-style table markup should be used: 

 |-
  | [[Monaco]] || 16000 || 2 || 31987


Reedy Boy 12:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


Looking at the article there is a seperate article for maps, which i have added a other wiki link section for.

would it be worth moving stuff like the ranks to their own pages?

Vehicles would be a good candidate - enough info to stand by itself


Reedy Boy 18:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


Controls

What are the controls for the game? I would like to know.

Mike15 15:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


http://www.shackbattles.com/wiki/index.php/BF2:Keys

All are there

Reedy Boy 10:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Multiple edits

I have done a number of minor edits to the page to clean it up and make it more encylopaedic:

  • removed commentary on the unfairness of teamkill punishing. opinions are unnecessary.
  • fixed links in exploits section to remove self-reference to own article.
  • moved link to external BF2 wiki to external links section where it belongs.
  • removed reference to Trauma Studios closing from opening paragraph as it was off-topic.
  • moved screenshot to right hand side to make the page more vertically fluid.
  • removed Oman link from within Gulf of Oman, which was unnecessary and detracting.
  • fixed unlock links which had somehow got messed up.
  • removed GeForce Ti mod section, this article is not the place for talking about third party hacks.
  • removed bold from vehicle names to make it more visually acceptable.
  • removed bold from ranks, and added links to rank articles.
  • fixed sexist language in ranked servers, its inappropriate to assume a BF2 player is male.
  • fixed emotive language in ranked servers (ie. 'crying out') to be more objective.
  • summarised system requirements more accurately.

Remy B 12:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

BF2 and 1942 Confusion

It seems some of the mods are BF1942 mods, and really shouldn't be in this list.

Anyone else agree?

Reedy Boy 14:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Just looking at a few in the list that I knew of from BF1942, they seem to be porting them to BF2. I suspect many of the others are the same. Go ahead and delete the ones that are definitely BF1942-only, but it's worth keeping in mind that some can be both. Remy B 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Article length

This article is 34 kilobyte long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.

Should the 'List of Battlefield 2 vehicles' article be reopened to redirect the information on vehicles in this article to that article? - yxTay 06:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably yeah it would help


Reedy Boy 20:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Awards

There is not information on the awards in Battlefield 2. Are there any reasons that the awards section is missing? - yxTay 06:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


A stub would be a good idea, with pics, as it would be rahter large, and prevent file size going huge!


Reedy Boy 20:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


It may be worth asking ShackBattles BF2 wiki, if we could put a copy here, as the article is releavnt and would do the job

Reedy Boy 20:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Awards - new page

I'll start a new page for awards. It won't have pictures as of yet, but will have instead just some description and requirements (from bf2s.com) It will be at Battlefield 2 Awards. However, i'll need some help from the more experienced members of the community. Spark.1.4 04:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There is now a link to the awards page in the main article Spark.1.4 04:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ranks

"Sergeant Major of the Corps" is no longer a rank in the game -- it was removed in the 1.03 patch. 2nd Lieutenant is the last rank. Also, the in-game Black Hawk is only capable of carrying 6 people (pilot, two gunners, three passengers), so I have changed this figure (previously 7). Juice 14:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


http://www.paradroid.net/bf2stats/bf2stats.cgi?pid=44567178 http://www.paradroid.net/bf2stats/bf2stats.cgi?pid=44652121 Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps

So, yes, only 2 players as it, but yes, it exists


Reedy Boy 16:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The rank appears to exist, under rank, both players have 'Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps' written. However, the appearence show that of 2nd Lieutenant. So is it actually valid? I believe only 1 player can hold the rank 'Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps' at any one time. Why are 2 players holding that rank? - yxTay 03:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


Im not sure, it seems not. Maybe a change in 1.03??


11:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


There is now a 3rd person: http://www.paradroid.net/bf2stats/bf2stats.cgi?pid=44708151


Reedy Boy 18:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Odd. I based my edit on the fact that the rank had disappeared with from the BF2S ranks page (http://ubar.bf2s.com/ranks.php) but it seems to have returned, although doesn't seem to have any solid requirements. All the above linked profiles are 2nd Lieutenant, this can be found by viewing their profile in-game (so I reckon the reason they displayed on Paradroid as SMOTC was because Paradroid had not updated correctly), so I am not sure if there are any players who currently hold this rank. If any of the above players did have this rank it would have been for an extremely short time before advancing to 2nd Lieutenant which kind of defeats the purpose of it. - Juice 05:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Overview

The critism of the clans mentioned appears to be a personal issue with whoever wrote it and has no place in an encycolpedia article. Also an isolated problem like that shouldnt be portayed as common as there are around many official servers to play on if u are banned.

Platform Support

Would someone care to do a section on cross-platform support? Like is there a native Linux client? Does it run under WINE? Cedega? Crossover Office? Do Linux-based Windows API implementations conflict with Punkbuster? I'd put it in, but I don't have the resources to test it. (Namely, a computer fast enough to run BF2 in the first place; I go to a cyber cafe.)

Mig 29

The SU-27 and later SU variants were designed the counter the F-15. The Mig 29 is frequently compared to the American F-16.


Cleanup

I think this article needs a serious overhaul, there are sections that seem random and out of place, the bugs list is way too short, And some sections are just unnessacary, like the demo section.

That wouldn't be cleanup, but "article improvement." You could do it yourself because I doubt people would rewrite a perfectly good article.--Zxcvbnm 13:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
If there is anything specific that you think neads overhauling, list them so people can work on it. I think the demo section is warranted, as it is quite short, and is a commonly used part of the game by people who want to try it out before they purchase it. As for the bugs, I recently cut it down because most of them were just pet peeves of people (eg. teamkilling). If you know of actually verified bugs in the game that are worth noting, then add them. Remy B 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Bugs

The 'Bugs' Section in the article states "Battlefield 2 suffered from several serious bugs at release", with the partial exception of the last bug, no mention is made of whether these bugs still exist in the game at its current version (1.03 I believe). Does the past tense signify that these bugs have been resolved?

Also, no mention of the approximate frequency of these bugs is mentioned.

  • The list is also frightfully short. There are numerous bugs still present (as of patch 1.03) in-game, using the server browser, and even during installation of the patch. The most prevalent and annoying of the bugs I've encountered thus far is the "unmodified content" error received when joining servers (requires a complete reinstall of the game! even if you don't in fact have modified content!). It should definitely be included in the list. --Criftus 21:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The list of bugs is very subjective and informal, and needs to be rewritten. Also, punishing is not a bug in itself, even if people disagree with it. Remy B 12:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. Another bug that is a major problem is the 'Debug assertion failed', generally because a file cannot be found, even though the game has not been modified in any way (other than patching). Also there could be a similar section for network bugs, such as crashes with the stats server. --Spark.1.4 05:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for the bug talking about the server bumping people off to say "The server will sometimes break your connection for seemingly no reason whatsoever. Whether this is actually a bug or just bad netcode is unknown to the editor." Because to me, it doesnt seem like this is verifiable and i want to delete it. THoughts? --Herzog 20:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You can probably delete that addition, as it is still unknown to be a bug, and without proof, it can't be added. It is probably just bad netcode. On the other hand, I have noticed that Rem120 has put a comment in the Bugs section to those who will be editing in the future. He says that we must have proof and verifiable sources. From what I have seen, 4 of the bugs do not have a link to proof or any list of verifiable sources, so if what he is saying is true, all of them should be removed except the one that has a link. I am just slightly annoyed at this since he removed 2 of my additions to the bugs section supposedly because they had no proof. One of them did not at all yet, so he did have justification to remove it, although the 2nd one I added has been witnessed as many times (if not more) than most of the other bugs, and should not need proof, especially considering 4 of them do not have any at all (in case any of you noticed it, it is the bug about players being pushed off rooftops). Any thoughts on this? Dudewheresmypizz4 15:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it wasnt very consistent of me to leave in the bugs that have been listed for a long time, since they also do not have sources. I am seriously considering removing the section if I am not reasonably easily able to find verifiable sources for the bugs that are on there. The whole section reeks of original research (WP:NOR) and takes up way more proportion of the article than seems justifiable. If every little BF2 bug should have a place on Wikipedia, I would probably suggest making a separate article for it, in a similar way to what has already been done with ranks and vehicles. Remy B 08:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Player Complaints

Do to the overwhelming fact that many gamers have been turned away from the game, it is appropriate to list general complaints users have. The major initial complaints have been addressed by Electronic Arts in patches, but many other still remain.

The worst of which is the now infamous "Punish" system. All players can excersize a form of "control" where they can choose to punish or not to punish another player after being tked (team killed) by them. Note: players do not have to have administrative priveledges to do this. This system, which is a great thought, has become an abusive way for players to seek revenge, or be inconsiderate to other players. (e.g. Player1 and Player2 run to an airplane to pilot it. Player1 gets there first. Player2 then stands underneath the airplane so he/she is team killed by Player1 and can therefore punish them. This results in -4 points for P1 and if P1 is punished a few more times they will be kick/banned from the server.) This irrational way of hurting others is not at all rare, and is most likely the greatest complaint players still have with this game.

Other complaints include server specific rules. Remeber that Battlefield 2 and the Special Forces expansion are rated T for teen by the ESRB. The most common complaint from users is that their first amendment right to self-expression is denied on most servers. Some players have yet to find a server that follows the principal of constitutional rights (this is based off of the US constitution). While servers are under no obligation to allow these rights because they do not fall under any legal jurisdiction with them, it is still a common complaint in that little to no servers allow them.

Common server rules include: Respect the Admins. No stats padding, team killing, fowl/abusive language, threats/harrassment, or racism.

Many other complaints are of the objectivity of these rules. Correction, lack of objectivity in these rules. It is impossible to know when one violates a rule because there are no standards, and many players have complaints about this. (e.g. The server message says, "mature players only", but then you are kicked or banned for the use of fowl language) This example would be referred to as deception, but most server administrators and hosts do not seem to care.

Other complaints include those universal to gaming, such as admin abuse, "smack-tards", and lag. The afformentioned complaints appear to be greater for Battlefield 2 and the Special Forces expansion then other games in the First Person Shooter genre.

Nitros 05:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally the talk page for an article is meant to be used to discuss the article itself, rather than its topic. Also, when adding sections to the talk page, it is expected to be added to the bottom of the page so that other users can easily find new additions. I would suggest adding this content into the article, but in this case it is both POV and original research, both of which are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Remy B 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
If you teamkill on a punish system server or not, you are punished with a -4 score penalty. If the player punishes you, all it does is gets you closer to a kick/ban. The server sets how many punishes you need in order to be kicked. Being punished by another play does not mean you recieve a score penalty, or else if it did, stat padders would TK friends and revieve them and get away scott free from the score penalty if the friend didn't punish.
Some servers auto-kick players who punish too much, and forgive too little. Everytime you punish, it is broadcasted in the top-left hand corner in green text. If the server isn't on auto-kick, then an Admin can kick you for punishing too much. It's a good way to get rid of smacktards to punish for accidents or force other players to TK them ie. run your jeep into a friendly tank and die, lay in front of a jet taking off, walking into friendly fire, grenades, etc.--Hellogoodsir 05:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign sorry)

The External Links section seems to have grown considerably, and is starting to list websites that are really not noteable. Does anyone agree that this section needs a cleanup to reflect sites that are widely recognised as significant to the BF2 community? Remy B 06:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Definately Agree

Reedy Boy 15:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have cut the External Links down after an anonymous user posted a totally non-notable link. Wikipedia articles are not the place to advertise sites that are not largely relevant to the community of people related to the article. Remy B 16:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me but http://bf2lag.b0x.com is not a totally unnotable link, don't say what you don't know. It has over 2000 unique visitors a day, and has been reccomended on over a hundred forums so...I thought wikipedia was about making information availible to the world, and this site has a lot of very good information on trying to fix the problem. If you don't believe me go on some of the big forums like ea and totalbf2 and search for bf2lag.b0x.com OR type "bf2lag.b0x.com" into google. Really, you guys slag off sites when you do no research into them.

Wikipedia articles are not link repositories for sites that are related to the topic. This is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. Remy B 05:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Then please explain why you have 10 links or so most of them for sites with no relevance to THE GENERAL USER, i mean who's gonna go on ausbattlefield? its useless to the average gamer! why do you need TWO stats trackers??

I agree, they are mostly redundant too. Its very hard to find a balance between everyone just putting any old link on they want to promote and listing sites that are genuinely unique and contain a lot of additional material. Add that b0x site back on if you really think it meets the qualifications of WP:EL. Remy B 11:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Also note that WP:EL strongly discourages against links to sites with heavy advertising, and that b0x site certainly has that. That is considered spamming for advertising dollars, and usually means the external link is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. Remy B 11:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

ok, cool, i just wanna help work with you guys to make this bit top notch

I'd like to add; http://battlefield2.filefront.com/ (Battlefield Files) to the external links list. It's one of the biggest and longest-serving Battlefield 2 (and 1942 and vietnam) sites on the web.

Calm down Remy you've edited ANYTHING that you deem offensive and off-topic, not eveyrone shares the same point of veiw. Riconoen 2:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think a good link to add would be www.bf2s.com Not only is it a significant Battlefield 2 community, but it is designed so that you can look up your stats while outside of the game itself. It also provides many stats that are not available in-game at the "BFHQ", such as how many times you have been kicked/banned, teamkills, damages, and one of it's most unique features is that it calculates an estimated time until your next rank, award, etc. Additionally, www.bf2s.com boasts an impressive "wiki" (Which actually isn't a wiki because it's not open-source) where you can see the exact accuracy, damage, etc. of any weapon straight from the BF2 editor. It also shows similar statistics for vehicles. It has very little advertising. Check it out yourself, I think it's a very valuable site. Be sure to check out your stats and the wiki.

Huh?

What's the difference between an expansion pack and a booster pack? — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


It all depends on what the publisher deems it to be. In this case, EA decided to call it an expansion pack.69.137.201.70 15:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Form what EA has said the booster pack is alot smaller and less expensive than the expansion adding just a few new weapons and vehicles, I am not sure if it adds any new maps.


It does add maps.

Expansion packs with EA (in BF2 case) seems to add a lot more functionality and change.

Booster packs are like add-on maps that a lot of suppliers would send for free


Reedy Boy 11:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

expanspacks are full big changes to the game wheras booster packs appear to be 3 maps and some new content for the regular bf2. also booster packs are cheaper and are only avalible through download. Thejakeman 03:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Bugs" deletion

I think the bugs section needs to be deleted, there are no sources to anything that can verify any of these claims and they all seem to be just something that annoyed the person who added it that day. This isn't the place to complain about glitches in games that may not even be glitches and hope the patch team of EA just happens to take a break form thier work to look at the wikipedia article to see if someone has a complaint. Wikipedia is nuetral, the place to complain about this is a forum. Riconoen 2:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Remy B 08:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You may have a point, however, that was a stub article made, not to complain about various problems associated with the game, but simply to make those problems or bugs known and to inform others. My geuss is that you both are simply more annoyed users who believe that the game should be left entirely unexposed, but that's just me. When I originally made the article, its purpose was to expose the bugs and glitches in the game, not to complain about them. If someone DID make a change that attempted to complain about a problem, or if you believed my original input had the purpose of complaint, next time please attempt to fix it so that it can be read as a neutral view-point, instead of deleting it. I may or may not attempt to remake a stub article related to the one that was deleted, and if I do, I will try even harder to keep it as neutral as possible for informative purposes, as well as to include more supportive proof and evidence. As for much of the Battlefield 2 article, many things in it do not have links to evidence or supporting information, especially the Easter Eggs section, so perhaps we should delete that too? I do not condone the deletion of that section, as I'm sure all of it is true, however the same can be said for the Bugs and Exploits article that was deleted. Much of it is not proven, but many know that the bugs mentioned in it existed, therefore it is not "Original Research", and that should have worked, considering it was accepted for the Easter Eggs section. If you are worried about the sources of the input, then when I get around to remaking this article, I will be sure to include screenshots, links to other valid sites that may have screenshots or other valid proof that these bugs and "secrets" existed, or I will try to make other evidence more readily available. Yes, many of these problems have been fixed in the recent patch of the game, but if I find any more bugs, I will be sure to take a screenshot, or a movie, and include it in the article, if and when I get around to making it. I originally made the article simply to be interesting and informative, not to complain about the items I mentioned. Sorry if this comment was over the top, but I have the right to defend my work don't I? I agree, whoever deleted this is a fool. Dudewheresmypizz4 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bugs Deletion, or "This Is Pure Lunacy!"

Pure idiocy. Have you played the game? They are real, and whoever deleted them was a fool.

I agree they are real, but thats not good enough for Wikipedia. You have to have real sources, as outlined in WP:NOR. If you find legitimate sources for the material, there is no problem with adding it back in with those references. Remy B 10:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider TotalBF2 a credible source? --Hellogoodsir 20:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Two things.

First I want to submit www.bf2combat.net as one of the major leagues for BF2, and one that has official support from DICE and EA (it's advertised on the www.battlefield2.com website, and was featured in a multipage spread of CGW magazine.)

I dont see any problem with that one based on what you have said. Remy B 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Second, I want to point out that automatically deleting any external link is wrong. It's a violation of the policy WP:AGF, and that section needs to be removed. Assume good faith with the links. If there is a problem, revert the edit. If there are further problems, take it up through normal channels. But, automatically deleting every link that is added is against Wikipedia policy, and I'm considering removing that comment on the article page. Swatjester 09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason I do it is because the external links section is heavily abused by people simply wanting publicity. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that external links are not meant to be a web directory on the topic. The warning message comes from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#Regular_clean-out_of_undiscussed_links. I know it seems anal but if people dont follow WP:BB on here then articles on popular topics turn into large piles of cruft. Remy B 11:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone consider BF2E for deletion? The site has only been up for 7 days and claims to give you a battlefield 2 'experience'! It doesn’t even work for me (using firefox and IE, anyone else not getting this site working?) This is blatant advertising for a site trying to emerge in the BF2 community. Wikipedia is not the place to get the word around, so I'm asking for a second opinion to delete the link. If you have any objections, you can always rebuttal, but this just stinks advertisement.--Hellogoodsir 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • edit* Someone got to it before I did. Well, good job at deleting BF2E. It was a duplicate copy of BF2S.com, which is obvious copyright and I'm not sure about Wikipedia's guideline on that so I'll delete it if it reappears. I encourage everyone else to do so.--Hellogoodsir 05:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed BF2E again, seems the site owner has added it three times so far. It is in complete copyright violation of the bf2s.com site, the owner of which is currently trying to get it shut down. Should the owner of bf2e be warned? Can someone else do it I'm new here ;) Badgrs 17:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been deleting it from the external links too. Some site owners just don't know when to quit. But I'll be glad when it gets shut down for copyright infringement. Riconoen 02:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • EDIT* I am the owner of bf2e.com, and we are not going anywhere. I get lots of positive feedback on my site and it serves a fundamentally different purpose than bf2s.com. This is why I have kept on adding it back.

I would like to submit bf2.org for a place on the external link list. There is very little advertising on the site, with the emphasis being the site forums with over 10,000 members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.97.165.193 (talk • contribs) .

I second. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to just go ahead and add it.... should I wait a while longer for more consensus? 81.97.165.193 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, just do it. If they revert it, we'll talk about it here. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. - pdboddy

Good link. Remy B 05:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Patch 1.2

Does anyone agree/disagree that the 1.2 patch section is disproportionally long and unnecessary? Remy B 11:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a little long, and should probably be merged with the main article. It is very informative however, and that is what Wikipedia's goal is isn't it, to inform others with neutral, truthful information? In my humble opinion, I think it does it very well. Dudewheresmypizz4 15:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So..yeah.

Where does this information come from? Remy B 07:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That place seems to be totally wrong. The medium settings are actually the minimum while the minimum there seems to be a messed up version of the minimum 16 player dedicated server requirements.

This is quoting the readme file: System Requirements

- Operating System 

 Windows XP (32 Bit Version)

- CPU 

 Battlefield 2 supports the following processors:
 Intel Pentium 4
 Intel Xeon
 Intel Pentium Extreme Edition
 Intel Celeron D
 AMD Athlon XP
 AMD Athlon 64
 AMD Athlon 64-FX
 AMD Sempron processor

- Minimum Specification: 

 CPU: 1.7 Ghz
 RAM: 512 Mb
 Video Card: NVidia GeForce FX 5700, ATI Radeon 8500 or ATI Radeon 9500
             with 128 Mb of RAM

- Recommended Specification: 

 CPU: 2.4 Ghz
 RAM: 1 Gb
 Video Card with at least 256 Mb of RAM

- Video Cards 

 Battlefield 2 only supports the following video cards:
 Radeon X700 (PCIe)
 Radeon X600 (PCIe)
 GeForce 6600 (PCIe)
 GeForce PCX 5900 (PCIe)
 GeForce 5800 Series (AGP) 
 ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition
 ATI Radeon X800 PRO
 ATI Radeon 9800 Series
 ATI Radeon 9600 Series
 ATI Radeon 9550 (RV350LX)
 ATI Radeon 9500 / 9700 Series
 ATI Radeon 8500 Series
 ATI Radeon X300 Series 
 NVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra
 NVidia GeForce 6800 GT
 NVidia GeForce 6800
 NVidia GeForce FX 5950 Series
 NVidia GeForce FX 5900 Series
 NVidia GeForce FX 5700 Series
 Nvidia GeForce 7800 Series (added by SavNout)
 And Nvidia Cards running in SLI (2 Cards running at one time)

And that's what it should be.--ZuljinRaynor 04:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that since the three sets of requirements were first placed in, they have been constantly edited to various values. It is now at the point where it cant be verified, also because no source is listed on the page. I also think the section was disproportionally large, considering it is just a list of machine specs. So... I have removed it all and replaced it with the system requirements found on the official BF2 website. Remy B 13:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Bugs and glitches

Regarding the reintroduction of a 'bugs and glitches' section - this new text is heavily POV and considered original research. Two articles have already been made including such material (Battlefield 2 Bugs and Exploits and Secrets and glitches in Battlefield 2) and since been deleted for the same reason as above. Does anyone think this new text on the subject should be treated any differently? Remy B 08:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The section should either be removed or substantially reworded to remove POV and original research. References also need to be added for each of the statements if the section is kept. Canderra 04:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the content, its just like all previous attempts to discuss bugs - POV and almost exclusively original research. Remy B 10:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to link to BFCentral Biggest Battlefiled Community of Latin America.

Here is another, BF2S.com, you can look up your Battlefield 2 Statistics...

That one has been on there for months now :) Remy B 08:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Here's a translated version.It's only the front page.Dp462090 20:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why not, what does everyone else think?--Dp462090 22:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are the link to the forum page of BFCentral Forum.

Real life innacuracies.

Is it just me or is that section completely unnessicary? It's an arcadey online shooter not a combat simulator. Who's for deleting it?

depends what's put in there I believe. Like the tea-brewing system, although it's apparently true, it's not really necessary for a game comparison. th1rt3en 04:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I think its ridiculous. This is a arcade-style computer game - its not even a simulation computer game! The full list of "inaccuracies" would be thousands of entries long. I think it has got to go. Remy B 05:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I've taken it out. I re-read the entries more carefully and its purely original research, which is something we have to constantly fight in this article (if anyone remembers the now-defunct bugs section). You cant just list things you think are correct without any sources, that goes against everything that an encyclopedia is about. See WP:NOR and WP:V for the official policies on the issue. Remy B 05:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's my fault, I probably should have deleted it when I saw it there. It was originally a list of opinions that another editor had put down (see the revision before mine), although it did need to go all-together nonetheless. Dudewheresmypizz4 14:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
What the heck? Onboard tea-brewing system? I know its the Euro Force pack and the Challenger 2 is a British tank but expecting the in-game version to actually brew tea is just plain ridiculous. Canderra 14:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's absolutley ridicolous. This article seems to attract the most vandals out of any article I've seen in awhile. --Riconoen 09:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

HEY! Dont delete it, its helped me alot on stuff. Like if it dosent affect you then it dont matter to you dont it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathieu983 (talk • contribs)

It does matter... Wikipedia has a credibility to uphold, and cruft like that only diminishes that credibility. There are official policies on what sort of material belongs on Wikipedia (see WP:NOR and WP:V), needless to say its not a site where you just post *everything* related to a topic. Im also curious - in what way did the list help you a lot? By the way, you can sign off your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so we know who has said it. Remy B 11:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well how about I wont show my title because you dont need to know. I am allowed that right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathieu983 (talk • contribs)

If you want to stay anonymous, I would recommend logging out first. Even if you dont sign on the talk page, your username still comes up in the history. Remy B 01:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge the booster packs

Aside from the new weapons, vehicles and maps (Which all can be merged into general series pages), the booster packs use the same backstory as Battlefield 2 and have no information to include in their own article that can't be merged here.--Zxcvbnm 23:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont see how that cant be fixed. Anyone disagree?

I like the way they are now, good job.--Hellogoodsir 07:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Mods list

To avoid messing up the nice formatting on the article's Mods list, I'm suggesting the addition of the following mod that was covered in Total Battlefield 2 today by those who know how to avoid messing it up.  :) Lachrym 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

IDF - Fight for Independence

External links, again.

It seems the external links section is just a billboard for webmasters to advertize thier fansites. I'm for trimming the list down a bit to only include the offical sites and the most popular fansite(s). --Riconoen 09:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, be bold. The external links in this article can quickly turn to a list of cruft. People are clearly ignoring the notice in the code to not just put in any old link. Remy B 11:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, since wikipedia is telling me to be bold :) I went ahead and removed everything except the official sites, the demo, and the two most high traffic fansites, Totalbf2 and PlanetBattlefield.--Riconoen 04:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You removed bf2combat.net, which I've readded. They're one of the largest BF2 leagues (12,000 players), receive special treatment from EA and DICE (such as beta-testing patches....anyone notice the shoutout in the patch notes to "Combat Studios"? That's bf2combat.net). The insertion of the link was discussed and approved on the talk page further above this. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The link to the BF2 Tech Info wiki (http://bf2.fun-o-matic.org) was removed; if there is no objection, I'd like to add it back in again. EA/DICE built a Python engine into the game specifically so the game community could use it to develop mods and new game play modes, but then they never released any documentation on how it worked or the relevent APIs. The community at the Tech Info Wiki has worked all the details out, and as far as I know, this is the only place information on programming the BF2 Python engine is available anywhere on the internet, and gets heavy use from mod developers. I think it's relevent to the Wikipedia article--indeed, I'd like to add some comments to the main article regarding how BF2 is one of the very few games that is controllable using a very high level language like Python--but I don't then want the supporting external link to get deleted again. Any objections? --Fthiess 00:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Easter eggs

This section of the article has gone out of control with claims that have no sources or citations. I also think that the definition of an 'easter egg' is being stretched very wide - some of them are clearly just novelty parts of the game (like Stalin's face) or just normal parts (like the bunkers that happen to be the same model as in BF1942), rather than hidden parts (like the fish and bear boxes). Personally these are the ones I would like to keep (if I can find sources): fish boxes, bear boxes, crop circles and Dice cream. What are other peoples thoughts on this section? Remy B 05:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: many of the items listed as easter eggs are just details, assuming they exist in the first place. The Dice references (dice cream, T-shirts, headsets) aren't hidden, and therefore in my opinion they don't qualify as easter eggs either. I suggest deleting them all except the fish boxes, bear boxes, crop circles, and maybe the coins. bcasterline t 05:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I added that explosives such as C4 will kill fish and bring them to the surface in any of the murky waters in Songhua Stalemate. It might not be considered an easter egg, even if so, it is meaningless as it doesn't seem to work no more. Maybe I'm not doing it right. If anyone can provide a source proving it can still be done, please do, otherwise you can remove it as well.--Hellogoodsir 07:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If it doesnt work, why did you add it? Remy B 07:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It did work, but after one of the new patches it didn't seem to work. Maybe when I did it, it was a freak accident or needed to be done in a certain location. And opps, I always seem to put discussion in the wrong place, so I'm moving this up.--Hellogoodsir 08:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a serious overhaul.

A "gameplay" section should be put in place of the features section to actually describe the gameplay, instead of advertising most of its features. Also, most the easter eggs in this game are not so significant. Also, the "maps" section should clearly divide themselves between Special Forces maps, EF maps, and vanilla maps. Also, system requirements needs to be moved back towards the beginning of the article, as placing towards the end seems rather odd. Among other things. I don't have this game yet, and I won't be getting this game till at least June, so, thus. - XX55XX 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the 'New features' section needs to be rewritten, starting with the name of the section. Remy B 05:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
As a qualification, I dont agree that the article is entirely structurally broken and needs a concerted cleanup. The article has had many many edits, and it has taken a lot of revising to get it where it is now. For that reason I dont agree that we need the cleanup tag on the full article - I realise it is far from perfect, but that is the nature of a wiki, where there is always room for improvement. I would ask that the cleanup tag not be placed back into the article until there is an obvious consensus of editors that it really does need a proper overhaul. Remy B 10:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It's fine the way it is, but this article is quite not as polished as other game articles. The information is there, but it needs to be reorganized into a more orderly way. That was what I was merely saying. - XX55XX 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

There are too many, and Armored Fury will clog up the article. Should the expansion pack ones be deleted?--Zxcvbnm 23:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with you, maybe they should be made into links. —This unsigned comment was added by Mathieu983 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 March 2006.

They are not games, but expansions, and would be cruft.--Zxcvbnm 04:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the booster pack infoboxes. We may keep the AddOn one (Special Forces) but special boxes for booster packs are too much. --W++ 18:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The bugs are real and verifiable. Not only that but both the EA(US) and EA(EU) feedback sites have them listed by the players ad nauseum. Some of the bugs have been present since the first release, and some have popped up since the latest patches. 24.253.250.92 13:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)sybredeth

I dont think that personal experiences listed on a forum (official or not) counts as verified information. If EA/DICE have acknowledged particular bugs, and they are notable, it would be fine to have a small section in the article about that. Anything short of those standards really doesnt belong in Wikipedia. Remy B 14:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there are way too many infoboxes and it's clogging up the article. --Riconoen 08:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


New Features and article in general

Is it me or does that list seem redundant, way too long, and is merely trying to advertise the game? It's just yet another peice of filler you have to skip over to get to the actual content. And also, these is no reason why everything is now a seperate article. When I read a wikipedia article I want to read actual content not a page of 1 line summaries and links to other pages. --Riconoen 16:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The 'New features' list certainly needs an overhaul. The name itself is fairly misleading, as it doesnt say what the features are new compared to (although I assume it is BF1942), and the fact that the game might not even be considered new anymore. The features list should really just be a paragraph or two of text, without sounding so marketing-like. The separate articles are a problem, but then again so is having an enormous main article. I would prefer it all in the one article, but the content would have to be cut down a lot. For example, the list of awards and ranks could be put in the main article if it was a concise table of smaller images with just the name of the award (the award requirements are quite unnecessary). I would rather not see an exhaustive list of weapons and vehicles in the main article because the information is barely notable, and takes up a hell of a lot of space. I think the ordering of the sections needs reconsidering, as there are heaps of specific details on the expansion packs before there is barely any information on the main game itself. The article also lacks sources for pretty much any of its claims, which means there is no way for people to trust the information that is presented. I would like to see [citation needed] tags placed on the unsourced claims (made with {{fact}} template tags), even if that means they are all throughout the article. Remy B 16:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battlefield_2/Archive_1&oldid=1136555537"