User talk:69.252.176.70

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Battlefield 2

I undid your additions because it contained original research and everything said there was uncited. You must cite your additions to a reliable source. Please do not readd without addressing these issues. Corpx 21:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I will add to to the above comment and ask that you please discuss adding any patch section in the talk page first, even if you have found full citations for your text. The reason I say this is that we have had patch sections in the past, and they have been removed for being non-notable. My experience is that editors do not have much patience with those who have an agenda about barely notable topics like patches and balance issues. Remy B 22:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Corpx 02:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


The existence of the bugs has been extensively documented in the BF2 forums, which EA owns, controls and censors. There is no place to cite to that would have particularly great authority. Short of getting access to EA's bug tracking database, there is simply no way to document bugs in software than by using it and sharing knowledge of bugs with others. All of these bugs were widely

reported for months or years at a time.

Every other factual issue is readily verifiable by looking at the game files. Hitboxes? Locations of heat sources? Weapon accuracy? All of it is right there in plain text, usually as a single number.
The way it currently stands, the BF2 page looks like an advertisement for the game. It reads like a mixture of marketing fluff and game manual. Even the screen shots are publicity stills released by EA. With one minor execption, none of the images are from the actual game. Note the lack of HUD.
Why does corporate sponsored praise for the game have a place while widely voiced criticism not have a place? 69.252.176.70 03:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The basic fact is that this is an encyclopedia, and if you can not find reliable sources then the text is considered original research. The aim is not to perfectly balance praise with criticism. If you can find a reliable, notable source that the game has been considerably more buggy than other games, then by all means make a small mention of it in the Reception section. If no reliable, notable sources have made that claim, it might well mean that it isn't even true. Regarding images - promotional images are considered fair use to include in an article, while screenshots are much less so - it's a copyright issue really. Remy B 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
How do you qualify something this obvious? I'm a retired software engineer (now in law school), so describing and classifying bugs is something I am fairly proficient at. I can tell you that the entire Battlefield series is horrifically buggy by any programming or testing standard. Programs shouldn't behave like BF2 does. Here are some of the obvious examples and my difficulties in understanding what you want in terms of "notable sources."
Everyone who has ever used BF2 knows that the server browser is incredibly clunky. It is written in such a way that pressing any button locks up the entire computer until the function activated by that button is complete. This can last for minutes at a time if this function involves the internet. Press the "Play Now" button on the lower right hand corner of the screen for a demo of this behavior. A single threaded GUI is a basic design error that someone in high school should not have made. This behavior is triggered by any function in the client- once you press a button, the game just goes into autistic mode until it finishes. Go make a sandwich.
What would satisfy your need for "notable sources" here? Should I make a video of myself waiting for 5 minutes in front of my frozen computer? Anyone who has used the game and accidentally pressed that button knows that they might as well just shut off their computer rather than wait to regain control. This has been broken since before the game shipped and it remains broken to this day. There were non-buggy server browsers back in the mid-late 90s in quake 1 and starcraft so I know it can be done. Populating a list and letting the user select elements isn't a difficult programming problem to solve. This is kindergarten stuff. I'm not exaggerating.
How do you suggest I document the well known bugs from previous patches? For a famous example, the "red-names bug" was very common from the beta (where many game reviewers commented on how annoying it was) until patch 1.40, about 2 years. Each patch claimed to fix the bug but did not. It still happens to this day, only more rarely.
There are videos on youtube of some really egregious bugs in the netcode, shall I link to those? Basically the game tries to predict the effect of lag on your bullets but it doesn't calculate right- at close range you have to shoot behind someone to hit them (really far behind) and at far range you have to lead them. Somewhere in the middle, you more or less hit where you are aiming.
How do I document gameplay/balance bugs? In all fairness, a lot of gameplay "bugs" are intentional game balance decisions, so I only picked the examples that were obviously broken. The LMG accuracy upgrade was definitely a bug, since it made the support class nearly invincible against anything but vehicles. The average game during this bug period was 60-80 percent support players, this in a period before the existence of "infantry only." The jet problem is difficult to prove to someone who has never played, but obvious to anyone that has ever played a map with both J-10s and F35Bs. I know that "obvious" is a sloppy word to use, but it really is amazing how easily you can knock well flown F35s out of the sky with the J10 and how utterly useless the F35 is against even inexperienced J10 pilots. Smash your controller in anger as half a dozen missles fly through a J-10 and do nothing.
I admit the blackhawk nerf and the jump/prone alterations were done intentionally for certain reasons, but these alterations ended up having significant effects in other areas. Like all the other patches, it was poorly planned, poorly implemented and not tested thoroughly enough. As supposedly expert game programmers, you would think they would instinctively realize that removing a very powerful and very common vehicle from the game would have widespread repercussions for game balance. Similar with jumping/firing at the same time; it was aimed at weakening the minor annoyance of people who used the grenade launcher at point blank range but ended up nerfing all the classes that relied on the use of jump-firing. Again, the problem is with fixing one small problem by making a change to a pervasive game element. It's like raising the cost of snickers bars by printing a trillion dollars- you will get more expensive snickers as part of a giant surge of inflation.

69.252.176.70 08:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I have played the game before - I know about the bugs. But that isn't really the point :) A reliable source is a well-known and reliable publication (can be online) - see WP:RS. YouTube videos, forums and other unreliable sources are not suitable for citing in an encyclopedia. A reliable source might be an article in a reliable, notable gaming magazine or website, where the article specifically said that the game was notably buggy. Even then, we have to keep this in proportion, and not make too big of a deal about it. Sure it's annoying when you play but an encyclopedia entry doesn't need paragraphs about it, or even details about the individual bugs. One or two sentences in the Reception section about the general problem would suffice. Again, only if it was reliably sourced and didn't reek of pushing a point of view. Remy B 08:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I too play the game (My stats) and I agree with you on several of the points, but Wikipedia is [WP:NOT#SOAPBOX|not a soapbox] to complain about those aspects of the game. Many of those bugs you mentioned are only relevant in the game and would likely fall under "game guide" information, which is also prohibited here. Corpx 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Rhetorical: what is the purpose of a "well-known and reliable publication"? When the article writer is not knowledable on a particular subject, they designate an expert in the field. Correct? So what happens when there are no reliable publications? The problem here is that a "reliable publication" in the gaming industry is particularly good at journalism and evaluating the enjoyment and aesthetics of video games but typically weak in terms of understanding the technical and business underpinnings of software development. These guys can run an install program and install a video card, but they are typically dabblers on the technical side of things.
The problem here is that these bugs continue to be a significant part of the game experience, but few people have the ability to write coherently about them- the journalists lack the technical knowledge and the technical crowd lacks an audience or a publication. The remainder are 13 year old boys who lack either skillset and come on to wikipedia to vent by writing "this game sucks."
Seriously, this is aggravating. If you won't accept proof in the form of youtube, how am I supposed to document the truth of my claims beyond describing them? Unfortunately you have also indicated description as unacceptable. There is no scholarly or other publication where I can publish proof. What is the reasoning behind accepting one source as "relaible" versus another source being "unreliable?" Everyone knows the game is buggy as hell. The entire series has been buggy. EA advertised the number one feature of BF2142 as "no more bugs." There were bugs in 2142, but why did EA/Dice make that announcement? *drum roll* Because everyone was expecting it to be just as bug-ridden as the previous games. 69.252.176.70 18:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple - you can use a reliable source to demonstrate that it is verifiable, or you can't include it in Wikipedia. If you don't have a reliable source, and want to get the message out, you will have to take it to another site. You can read the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Remy B 09:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow for "experts" to write content that otherwise requires citations. If that were the case, we'd have to verify your "expert-ship" to make sure you are what you say you are. I dont think very many people would want to post their personal information here to be verified. Corpx 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)