Talk:Battlefield 2142/Archive 1

message: Where did you get any information about the engine that will be used? I couldn't find any credible source stating that the retraction 3 engine will be used.
--85.124.38.56 06:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To ShadowMan1od 

message: What do you all think, is that enough to remove the stub tag?--Dp462090 03:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've about exhausted the amount of information released so far, so I doubt there's much more anyone could add anyway, so yes. Also, as a side note, we could probably merge the two notes on the EU and PAC into one? Trjn 09:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub Removal

message: I've made an article for what, I believe, the 2142 article should be once released: User:Trjn/BF2142. Feel free to edit it/discuss it. Most of the article is taken straight from the BF2 article, but I assume that would be for the best to achieve decent consistency. -Trjn 07:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Post Release Article

message: A bunch of screenshots have pictures of a gun with the tag M-714-38.PK 
 printed on the side. This looks like nothing seen in any of the PCGamer weapon screenshots. I assume this will be a part of the game, the problem exists however that I am unsure as to whether it is an EU or PAC weapon. My best guess would be that it is an EU assault weapon, as all the known PAC weapons start with NK- (Which im also guessing stands for North Korea, but thats only a guesstimation). I tried to compare uniforms but couldnt come to a conclusion. Also, some screenshots of the unit holding that have an emblem, along with some other vehicles and objects.(See: , 1, and 2). I believe that the Griffon looking mark is that of the EU, for no other reason that the soldiers do not look of Eastern decent and they hold a weapon that does not appear to be employed by the PAC. That the stranger looking curved vertex mark(see 6) is that of either the PAC, or a company who builds that model of mech (the '806'). Im asking anyone who has any more information to kindly shead some light here, thanks -Trjn 07:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: M-714-38.PK

message: I've made a BF-2142 template, for those who are intrested and contribute in the BF 2142 article. Just copy this to the userbox area of your user page.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib |  19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BF-2142Template

message: The weapons section needs to be updated as they now have alot more info on them from E3.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathieu983 (talk • contribs) 19:58, May 22, 2006
Could you give us sources? Because I haven't seen anything.--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weapons

message: In the article is says the engine is a "Modified Refraction 3 Engine", but I thought it was the same engine as Battlefield 2? If the BF2 engine is the Refraction 3 engine, that the BF2 article needs updating because it says the engine is just the "Battlefield 2 Engine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorian (talk • contribs) 14:59, May 27, 2006
:It's the same engine as the engine BF2 uses. I've found a cached page that says the engine BF2 uses has no name. --ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 19:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, that would mean that the BF2142 page is wrong...? By the way, please excuse my needless tidying of your comment... --Lorian 19:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess so, but I think we should get a second source, just incase that's wrong, because it maybe that engine with no name, is a "Modified Refraction 3 Engine".--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do some searching. --Lorian 19:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The Battlefield 2 engine is original technology built by the team in Stockholm, Sweden.  At this time, we have not released any details as to what engine Battlefield 2142 will use.  Please keep watching the site for information about the game as it becomes available.  If you have any additional questions, please let us know. Take care.
I have changed the engine to "Unknown (Modified Battlefield 2 engine suspected)" --Lorian 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good.--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 17:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine? 

message: The US or any other American nations are NOT in the game. People are going to have to deal with that fact. According to IGN...
Removing the United States from the equation, the game focuses on the conflict between Europe and its neighbors of the East.
Can someone have one of those little number thingies that links to that quote? Stops people from reverting it. Seriphyn 13:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the link to the article? I'll do it. --Lorian 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind, found it. --Lorian 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, so? The Americans didnt win against Vietnam on their home soil, infact, most land wars on home soil are generally won by the invadees(?), I wont go into WWII history and why the germans lost, but its a pretty unfounded and, well, stupid, chain of reasoning. Youre comment probably got deleted because it added nothing to the discussion, was full of spelling errors, and was untagged to boot -Trjn 04:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is a link between 2142 and Armoured Fury. It's a theory, yes, but I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. It's not supposed to be a long-running story. Two seperate games. Even if the US was defeated, it wouldn't have been 'absorbed' into the PRC or MEC. Besides, there is a heckuva long gap between 2007 and 2142. About the Soviet/German thingy, Germany invaded the USSR and were eventually pushed back, so they resisted the invasion. Pah, that's unrelated. The fact remains is that there is no United States because the developer's don't want them in it. Simple. Seriphyn 13:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Really it doesn't matter, if you think Armored Fury is why America, and countries of the rest Americas aren't in BF2142 then email DICE. Also they may put  America an expantion/booster pack(I know EA would be more likely to push for thi$, and since they own the majority share), I mean that's how the EU got in the BF series in the first place.--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 17:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't even know wht you are replying to... and I'm afraid you don't get to call the end of an open discussion, which, by the way, you are not contributing to in any way. --LorianTC 19:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Im also Australian, so go figure. And who exactly is the worlds hyperpower? Im sick of being stuck in these backwater hypopower countries! Trjn 01:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I posted the screen, and yes it's on low(And I can't turn it up my GPU is a XFX 6600, it can't do it), but that doesn't matter, the point is it illustrates the billboard just fine, it's not meant to be pretty just to show the billboard.--ᎠᏢ462090 02:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No United States in the game 

message: I know this seems like a minor detail, but it should be factually correct if we are to include it. It all comes down to whether Modern Combat is to be considered a standalone installment of the series, or simply a 'mod' or addition to BF2. The template considers modern combat to be an addition (of sorts) to bf2, and the name of it is Battlefield 2: Modern Combat. Personally, I consider it to be a part of the BF2 franchise, and not a unique installment of the series, which makes 2142 the 4th installment. --Trjn 11:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a full game, it's not a mod, or addition. It may have the name BF2:MC, but it's not an addition to BF2. And, since we're talking about games, the name doesn't matter(even it is part of BF2 franchise), it's still a full game. Look at the Battlefield series article, MC is listed as a full game. Battlefield 2142 is the 5th game.--ᎠᏢ462090 14:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lorian to it upon himself to remove it : (→Trivia - It's not even interesting). I agree with him on this due to it shouldn't be part of the triva, it should actually however be moved up toward the description. I consider Modern Combat not an installement however, since it is related to much towards BF2 --William Pembroke 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest if we add something, it should go something like, "BF2142 is the 4th, or 5th, game of the franchise, depending on whether BF2:MC is counted as full game." That way it's correct either way, and we have no problem.--ᎠᏢ462090 22:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I honestly can't see how Modern Combat can be considered a game in its own right. It is clearly a modification of Battlefield 2, not a new game. It has simply been altered too much for the publishers to be able to market it under the exact same name without the fans demanding a more accurate port. In my humble view, the situation is clear: There have been four major Battlefield games in the past. — Mütze 09:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a mod, it doesn't even use the same engine, and it's not a port("...the term used when a computer game designed to run on one platform, be it a personal computer or video game console, is converted to run on another platform."). Also, if "It has simply been altered too much for the publishers to be able to market it under the exact same name," then should Battlefield: Vietnam, which uses the same engine as Battlefield 1942, not be considered a full game(even though it’s set in Vietnam)? Meaning that there are only three Battlefield games(including Battlefield 2142(which uses the BF2 engine so it  could be excluded as well, but for now), and excluding Bad Company). --ᎠᏢ462090 04:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, BF2:MC wasn't released on PC, right?  That way, we can say "BF2142 is the 4th Battlefield game released on the PC."Slinky317 15:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BF2142: 4th or 5th game? 

message: while I understand not trusting a release date on GameStop or EBGames or WalMart, I think that GameSpot as a news organization can be trusted. In fact, not only can it be trusted, it is one of the official guidelines of wikipedia. I'm reverting the removal. Questions? McKay 04:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: Yeah, I'm removing the comment about the asteroid, no need to get that technical about a video game plotline, don't you think?
Also, I changed the Current Version from Beta 2 to 1.0, now that BF2142 has officially gone gold.
:And then I removed that line entirely, for the same reason. :-D — Mütze 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asteroid? 

message: There has been a lot of controversy about the reasons the US was not in the game (even though there is an official explanation: the US is frozen over). Still, despite the official explanation some say this or that, from the "the US wouldnt just fall" to "hah, the US is finally no longer the hyperpower" blah blah blah.
I just did notice something though that is highly relevant to our goings on here at Wikipedia: in the History of the Cold War (of 2142), it mentions that there are 6 remaining world factions, not two. At the launch of 2142, we will only see (we know for sure) the EU and PAC, with the Union of African States assisting the EU.
However, this means that at least 3 factions (UAS, as not an playable faction, is still up to speculation) that are not in the launch title. This gives some credit to the questions: "what happened to South America?" "what about the Middle East? Is it in the PAC?" "the US co-developed the SCAR 11, is it entirely gone or did it go like the EU to the south?"
Remember Battlefield 2, where the EU was not originally in the game, but was added in an "booster" pack, aka small expansion?
Due to the large amount of controversy generated about these 3 to 4 yet unnamed factions, and given EA's history of adding factions with expansion packs, we here at wikipedia need to consider a few things:
1. Should there be an article on future expected expansion packs, even before the first installment game is released, due to the controversy surrounding the factions? We do have articles on wikipedia about future expected events, be they controversial or not.
2. If such an article is created, what content should be included?
I personally vote "yes" for number 1, but as to number 2 I think we need to write most of it in sandbox first, and edit it to prose before officially creating the article.
Oh uh, this is Scryer_360 posting this. Yah, too lazy to sign in (playing BF2142 demo actually).
:: There is no requirement for such an article at present - it would just be vague musing - I'll AFD such an article. --Charlesknight 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it should be left until EA actually confirm an expansion pack. Vanguard 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And even then there should be something to report about. An article with nothing more than "There is going to be an expansion pack to awesome computer game Battlefield 2142" Doesn't seem to be incredibly useful. This can be integrated here, just like it has been done with the Battlefield 2 addon. — Mütze 11:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant when EA actually confirm a name and a few details. Obviously we have to have some substantial material before it can even qualify to become a Wikipedia article. Vanguard 22:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right, we should have an official note from a reputable source before starting the article on future expansions. Oh well. I just thought it'd be appropriate due to the controversy (the link no longer works, but I had a 63 page forum and and article on why South America was not part of the game considering its geography). Oh, Scryer_360 again.
Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Unless EA hints of a new army entering the war (booster pack), or an expansion pack, let's just write about what is known. There is much more that can be done to this article than speculation over story plot, info, and possible new additions.
I will tell you that the SCAR-11, which obviously gets it's name from the SCAR-L/H, is NOT American made. It's made by FN, a Belgian company, which also makes the M249 SAW LMG. 
A number of factions that I can come up with is a North American entity consisting of Canada (or what people remain), the United States, and Mexico. North America, for the most part, is closer to the equator. Europe should be completely covered if Dice said the US was, because they are more North than we are! But never mind that, I can still see remnants for the North moving south into whatever remains of the US and Mexico. The next would be the South American Coalition. That's 2, unless you want to bag the NAA (North American Alliance). The other two or one, w/e you want, would be Oceana and the rest of Asia. You could even say the MEC is still alive and well, or maybe it has assimilated into the UAS, which may be a super power (it would obviously thrive compared to everyone else).
Dice, for the most part, hasn't been able to make a plausible story beginning with Battlefield 2. If you look at what vehicles are being used, and how well trained and advanced the MEC is, you would wonder how it got like that from late 2005 to 2007. I could see this happening in 2012, or around that, but the story is a little too far fetched. And if you look at Middle Eastern armies and the PRC, you can tell their navies are so small and are not trained enough to make any large scale amphibious assault. I bring this up because of Armored Fury, in which both invade the US, and from some map descriptions, seem to be beating the hell out of the US. Even with China's funding into it's armed forces, it's considered to have short arms and legs, meaning it can barely extend it's forces. You expect them to make a full scale assault on the US, and live without being torn to pieces by the US navy, which is larger than the all the worlds navy combined? 
But this is where we just say, "Yea, so what? It doesn't make sense, it's just war man. Fight the good fight after a long day on the PAC or EU." *Edit* Forgot to sign!--Hellogoodsir 05:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation on future expansion packs? 

message: Gameplay in Battlefield 2142 includes the classic conquest mode of play with up to 64 players, but it will additionally introduce a new 48-player game mode called "Titan" mode
On the demo I've seen Titan servers with 64 players, is this just an override on the servers behalf? Is 48 players the recomended amount of players EA has set? I'd like to clarify this so the statement can possibly be re-worded. Vanguard 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to what I read so far from the ticker inside the game, it's possible to make a Titan game with more than 48 players, but can lead to massive lag and/or instability.  Those who played will have already noticed there's lag problems whenever you are on board a Titan while it's moving.  --Shurikane 16:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player limits in Titan mode.

message: I've downloaded the game with EA Downloader, and it is reflecting Oct. 18th as the release date.  EB Games also stated as such in a phonecall to the local EB.  Best Buy also lists the 18th as the release date here: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7983774&st=battlefield+2142&type=product&id=1153999681935
Pdboddy 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date in NA changed 

message: Apparently Kotaku is reporting LINK that this game will include a spyware that tracks browsing habits and displays relevant ingame ads. Someone may want to update this article. OOPS I DIDNT SEE THE THIS IS ALREADY DISCUSSED, SORRY :)
68.190.230.4 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spyware 

message: Wilester, you comment about citing a reliable source such as Gamespot.  Really? Gamespot has, linked from their main page, stated Battlefield 2142 releases today.  When it's not... A commercial site is probably one of the more reliable sources for release dates, especially as the dates go from vague to more exact (It'll be out Q3 2007 as compared to November 11th, 2007).  They *have* to be reliable, else they risk false advertising lawsuits, no? Pdboddy 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing "reliable" sources? 

message: See subject
Flashn00b 23:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already has been in the Criticism section, and that's about all that needs to be mentioned (that it exists). --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 18:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the Pre-order flash drive be mentioned? 

message: So... does the expansion gag going around count as criticism? :P Pdboddy 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion? 

message: I got rid of some of the external links that did not seem important. If any were, please tell me so i or someone else can put them back up. ARBIH 17:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some external links 

message: I was surprised no one has noted that the game requires a DVD in the drive to play. I noted it, but it could be worded and placed better. the cheat 02:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CD Required for Play

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: When i click on the European Union link to this article, it redirects me to the official EU profile article. 
Isnt there an article of the game version of the European Union, or is it implied in the game that the EU that exists in the present is the same one in BF 2142 ? Im confused ! X'D
please fix this conundrum and remove this entry once it's done =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.182.156 (talk • contribs) 
: This in-game faction is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. There is no comprehensive story behind it. The only information available are battle briefings, armored vehicles, and weapons. For example, the PAC article that previously existed was deleted. So the contemporary real-life organization is used as a link instead. --Voidvector 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Union 

message: The bf2142.com page has a wiki and has actually content in it, that is genuine. The BF2142wiki.com page blatently copied from basically two sources, bf2142.com and totalbf2142.com. This can even be proven, as they have certain data only bf2142 so far shows,
but some of that data is wrong, and to be changed soon there. They did not get it from the original source, otherwise the data would be different. Most of the pages are stubs.
:: It is true that bf2142wiki.com is incomplete, but what wiki is complete? It does contain much original content. For example, its guides section contains completely original articles with information that has been added by many users and distilled in a form which cannot be found elsewhere. As an example, this section of the guide is completely original content which has been created by several bf2142wiki.com users. Additionally, let it be known that blatant copying of Battlefield 2142 content is not isolated to bf2142wiki.com, both bf2142fever.com and totalbf2142.com completely copy a great deal of content directly from the official website. For example: this page at bf2142fever and totbf2142 are near exact copies of one another, both of which come from the official EA site. There are many other examples of directly copied content between these two sites and many other fan sites: this is a common practice amongst game sites. I do not feel that the reasons given by the above editor are sufficient to remove bf2142wiki.com from the links' fan websites list, since the two sites currently listed remain listed, yet both appear guilty of the infractions cited as the reason for removal of bf2142wiki.com 71.135.5.86 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. bf2142wiki.com does contain a good amount of original content, and its format as a wiki is uniquely useful. I agree to keep the link.Thelo 05:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link seems appropriate, since much of the wiki does seem to contain valuable guides, information, and links in a different form from other venues. It would certainly seem sensible for the complaintant to add attribution to those articles on the bf2142wiki that he or she feels require it. --WillJeck 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the links in order to comply with the Wikipedia external links guidelines. Number 12 on the list of links to be avoided: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I don't believe that the bf2142wiki has a substantial history at all. Perhaps after some time after the site improves it can be linked to again. Bgold4 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the bf2142wiki founder and I think this editorial decision is quite acceptable. The two sites currently linked, fevergaming and totalgaming, are both well-established and have been active since the beta. BF2142wiki, sadly, has not been active for nearly this long. We shall strive to mature and improve! :) W33t 01:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to remember to register later and do my best to help out :) Bgold4 02:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of BF2142wiki.com 

message: I have three major issues before I can consider passing this, thus it's on hold.
# See WP:MOS, specifically WP:TRIVIA.  That section needs to be cleaner.
# Citations have got to be more consistent in presentation.  There are three in particular which are simply blind links.  See WP:CITE for suggestions.
# It's way too listy in a lot of places.  Perhaps some tables or better prose paragraphs will help.
I'll keep this watchlisted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Failing for now.  The basic issues haven't been addressed, and citations in particular are even more necessary.  Feel free to resubmit once the issues are addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: This section needs to be cleaned up or restructured. There is commentary that doesn't always state what it is referring to, along with other issues. Perhaps it can be redone and combined with the "class" section. Each class can have a simple description, followed by the weapons, and then the other equipment unlocks?? Bgold4 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'd say it's fine now thanks to Dragor66 :) Bgold4 02:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a very good idea. All of it should be moved into an article like that. I don't think it belongs in the main article anyways. --William Pembroke(talk) 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, some notes are: the article should be in third person not second (I suspect this was copied from some other site.) Also, if the number is less than 10, it should be written out, like two but not 2, unless if it is a gun name like T20 or the game name like Battlefield 2. --William Pembroke(talk) 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. INFORMATION CENTER© talk contribs 06:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are there a certain number a supports required to allow this article to be split? If so, I support. --William Pembroke(talk) 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  voting is evil. Can anyone explain to me what is interesting or innovative about the weapons or framework in which they operate that requires a seperate article in a general readers encylopedia? The current move had been to delete such articles unless there is so evidence that something of that nature is being presented. As far as I can work out, it's just the bog-standard Machineguns, sniper-rifles, pistols (plus upgrades) that you would find in 100s of games like this. --Charlesknight 00:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons/equip section, and possibly more 

message: This isn't a bug, EA clearly and blatantly stated on the 2142 page that it needed to be downloaded separately, and even provided a download link for the file on the same page.  cacophony ◄► 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing DirectX DLL

message: I think the patch list should be re-added in a reduced form. Battlefield 2 has a patch list and one of the biggest criticisms about the battlefield series is bugs and bug fixing. I don't think every fix should be listed for each patch, it should be like the bf2 list - the number of the patch and the major fixes or summary of the fixes in each patch (one or two lines max). Wikipedia should provide this as a quick reference with a link to details of each patch. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nutcrackr (talk • contribs) 10:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Patch List

message: 2142 doesn't need the DVD in the drive for the whole time you are using it, you just need it for the initial CD check.
68.252.195.3 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD needed in drive

message: I added to the beginning that 1 million rounds have taken place since the games release. I added it to the intro paragraph since I couldn't find a more appropriate place to put it. If there is a more appropriate place, please feel free to move it there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.59.83 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 million rounds played