Talk:Call of Duty 2/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 Suggestbot 2 Idea 3 Game Engine - Once and for all 4 Gameplay section 5 GA review 6 Campaign section 7 Moving of mapmaker info 8 GA Pass

Suggestbot

This appeared on my suggestbot, under "add refs", so I've added some more reviews, and info about the patch, etc. Just tell me if there's anything else you'd like me to do. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 00:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Idea

Well since the Mapmaker section (which I added) is only 3 lines, I'm gonna put it toward the introduction to the article, just as a small add-on. It's a worthless section anyway. --Putmalk 20:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work, it looks better this way. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 00:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I try :) --Putmalk 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Game Engine - Once and for all

The game engine is NOT proprietary on the PC version. It is on the XBOX version, but that's different article. Ref here. The PC engine is unique engine developed by Infinity, based loosely on the Quake 3 engine. Ref here. Please do NOT change this info unless new data comes up. I have added a ref to the article. G1ggy! 01:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on the same ref and it says, "The venerable Quake III engine has been retired in favor of an in-house custom job, featuring pixel shaders, bump maps and much-improved shadows and lighting. " That pretty much says it there that it is not using the Quake 3 engine. Just because you can load Quake 3 maps doesn't make it a Quake 3 engine, I thought this is pretty obvious? I'll give an example, ORGE loads Quake 3 maps as well, does that make it a Quake 3 engine? Kenimaru 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the Xbox 360 version is highly likely to share 100% of the core codes and contents, with minor differences other than the specific DX rendering and enhancement for the console version. Kenimaru 18:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the Xbox 360 version, specifically. In any case, I've added information for both cases (per my refs above), hopefully this will end the rv wars for now. Giggy _U^CP 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE READ THE REFERENCE ITSELF FIRST, it states clearly Quake III engine has been retired in favor of an in-house custom job, this is directly contradicting what you are claiming, go find a better ref before making the argument that it is Quake 3 because that reference says it's NOT. Kenimaru 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

              Unfortunately, Kenimaru, the ref source is not an unbiased engineering code site.  It's a gaming site that does nothing more than repeat what IW tell them.  Too many qualified coders and programmers have dissected this game and agree that there is far too much Quake3 code still in it for it to be called a new engine.  Even IW themselves have since acknowledged that they didn't mean to call it a new engine, "built from the ground up."  Perhaps IWSloth should read the post at IWN.

here is a cut and paste from the server files:

" Usage is very similar to Call of Duty™ and United Offensive™... many of the console commands, command lines, and cvars are identical, so if you are comfortable maintaining dedicated servers for those games, you will find this process familiar. There are a LOT of knobs you can tweak to customize and automate your server, but it is beyond the scope of this documentation. Please refer to the admin manuals for any Quake 3™ based Multiplayer game (including Quake 3 Arena™, Return to Castle Wolfenstein™, the original Call of Duty™ and United Offensive™, etc) for specifics."

(AMStacey, who has lost his password lol)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.26.181 (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 

Gameplay section

Would somebody be able to write up something, anything, about the gameplay? I don't own the game, so have only a very vague idea, but this is a necessity. I'd be happy to clean it up and reference it if someone wrote it. Giggy _U^CP 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Done (there's not much to it once you spell out it being a FPS, but I put in a few additional variations on the FPS theme that COD2 has.) --Masem 16:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I have an FAC that I'm currently working on (ish), but I'll do my best to clean it up to GA standard. Giggy _U^CP 22:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review

Some comments:

• The lead contains a few statistics (77% of XBox owners, 250k sales in first month) which aren't referred to or developed in the main body. I'd advise summarising the claims (i.e. best selling launch title) in the lead and quantifying and citing the claim in the main body of the article.
  • Still think there's too much detail in the lead, just state it's the best selling launch title and quantify it (as you have) further in. The Rambling Man 07:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Why is Mobile Phones capitalised?
• Recommend an intelligent wikilink for "Allied".
• Expand HUD.
• First para of Gameplay is a bit choppy, prose could be better flowed, e.g. "The player is limited to two different choices of weapons, and fragmentation and smoke grenades. Weapons can be swapped with those left on the battlefield." could be made a single sentence, such as "The player is limited to two different choices of weapons, along with fragmentation and smoke grenades but these can be swapped with those left on the battlefield." (just a quick stab at flowing it...)
• I tend to suggest writing numbers ten or less in words (e.g. three instead of 3).
• Multiplayer section has good opportunities for good wikilinking, e.g. Normandy, Axis forces etc.
• "On April, 2006..." - surely In?
• Campaign section could be flowed into two or so bigger paragraphs, and no need to wikilink those individual years.

  I don't think shrinking it into two paragraphs would be appropriate, as it discusses 3 different campaigns. It doesn't read well to have multiple campaigns discussed in the same paragraph (I think so, anyway). Giggy _U^CP 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  I agree here - the only thing that may help better is to give each "campaign" a standout title based on the key battle name at the start of each paragraph to make it clear there's 4 individual, unconnected subcampaigns (as not true in COD3). --Masem 23:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think we need a subheading (if that's what you mean). The start of each paragraph already mentions which campaign it is, and I think that's enough (personally). Giggy _U^CP 23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  No, definitely not a subheading, but I would consider a definition list approach, and if not that, starting each para with the campaign name hilighted as such. --Masem 23:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  Aah, ok, go for it! Giggy _U^CP 00:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  Current edit shows what I mean - because's there's history there, wikilinking as much as possible is a good thing here, and it clearly identifies the 4 stories as being 4 key battles/campaigns. --Masem 00:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  OK, I've called in The Rambling Man again. Everything seems to be ok. Giggy _U^CP 01:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  I like what you've (collectively) done here. Good work. The Rambling Man 07:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Capt. Price should probably be Captain Price for clarity.
• Ref [20] needs moving in accordance with WP:CITE - quite simply the other side of the full stop.
• Final sentence of reception is unreferenced.
• External links shouldn't appear in the main body of text, per WP:EL - move the youtube link to External links section.

Some of these probably extend beyond the GA boundary, but the WP:MOS, prose and grammar issues are unavoidable. I'll place the review on hold, let me know as soon as you'd like me to review the situation. All the best. The Rambling Man 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed some of the problems (stuck-through). Sdornan 21:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

More stuff done. Giggy _U^CP 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Just commenting on the work done so far: this is fabulous. Keep it up; the article is looking much better! --Scottie_theNerd 07:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Promoting it based on all the mods I've suggested, plus a few small changes I made myself. Well done all concerned. The Rambling Man 22:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Campaign section

I don't believe the new edits saying that the game is broken into four stories, three campaigns. for example, the british missions take place in both the tunisia campaign AND the battle of normandy. i'll be rewording this section if nobody objects. --Philip Laurence 08:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, must object. This was discussed in some detail in the GA review above, please see that first. Giggy _U^CP 08:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving of mapmaker info

This paragraph:

"In April 2006, Infinity Ward released the Call of Duty 2 Radiant, which allows a player to create their own multiplayer or single player maps. Along with Radiant, the mapmaker includes Maya plug-in support, an effects editor, and an asset manager which allows custom models to be made and imported into the game, as well as custom effects."

was moved to the Multiplayer section, but it can also pertain to singleplayer maps. It shouldn't belong in the Multiplayer section because it isn't exclusive the MP. --Putmalk 02:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't own the game, so I had no idea where to put it when cleaning that up. Thanks for the note, I've moved it to the gameplay section. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 04:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, T Rex | talk 18:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)