Talk:Call of Duty 2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 465096836 by PeerReviewBot (talk) no pr comments yet |
Cat's Tuxedo (talk | contribs) Assessment: banner shell (Rater) |
||
| (37 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{Article history |
|||
{{Peer review|archive=1}} |
|||
|action1=WPR |
|||
{{ArticleHistory |
|||
|action1date=02:48, 15 April 2006 |
|||
|action1=GAN |
|||
|action1link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Call of Duty 2 |
|||
|action1date=18:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|action1result=reviewed |
|||
|action1link=Talk:Call_of_Duty_2/Archive_2#GA_review |
|||
|action1oldid=48513736 |
|||
|action1result=Listed |
|||
|action1oldid=146015332 |
|||
|action2=GAR |
|action2=GAR |
||
|action2date=17 July 2007 |
|action2date=17 July 2007 |
||
|action2link=Talk: |
|action2link=Talk:Call of Duty 2/Archive 2#GA Pass |
||
|action2result=Kept |
|action2result=Kept |
||
|action2oldid= |
|action2oldid=145318680 |
||
|action3= |
|action3=GAN |
||
|action3date= |
|action3date=18:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
|action3link=Talk: |
|action3link=Talk:Call of Duty 2/Archive 2#GA review |
||
|action3result= |
|action3result=Listed |
||
|action3oldid= |
|action3oldid=159295256 |
||
|action4=GAR |
|||
|currentstatus=DGA |
|||
|action4date=26 November 2008 |
|||
|topic=Everydaylife |
|||
|action4link=Talk:Call of Duty 2/GA1 |
|||
}} |
|||
|action4result=Delisted |
|||
{{WikiProject Video games|class=B|importance=Mid|old-peer=yes}} |
|||
|action4oldid=253922086 |
|||
{{WikiProject Xbox|class=B|importance=High}} |
|||
{{archive box|[[Talk:Call of Duty 2/Archive 1|June 2005 – April 2007]]<br />[[Talk:Call of Duty 2/Archive 2|May 2007 – October 2007]]}} |
|||
|action5=PR |
|||
== Campaign section == |
|||
|action5date=16:39, 16 December 2011 |
|||
|action5link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Call of Duty 2/archive1 |
|||
|action5result=reviewed |
|||
|action5oldid=466180210 |
|||
|action6=GAN |
|||
I think the campaign section is far too comprehensive, and that more focus should be put on the gameplay. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>[[User:Bibliomaniac15/Straw poll on straw polls|A straw poll on straw polls]]</small> 01:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|action6date=15:59, 20 February 2012 |
|||
:Hmm...I'm not sure we need more gameplay discussion, but I would like to see the campaign bit shortened a little. — [[User:Dihydrogen Monoxide|H]][[User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide|<span style="color:#2E82F4"><sub>2</sub>O</span>]] — 02:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|action6link=Talk:Call of Duty 2/GA2 |
|||
You need to add the section abut what fighting division they are back! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.162.87.168|142.162.87.168]] ([[User talk:142.162.87.168|talk]]) 02:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
|action6result=listed |
|||
|action6oldid=476874876 |
|||
|action7=PR |
|||
== ''Call of Duty 2'' GAR == |
|||
|action7date=20:18, 13 April 2012 |
|||
|action7link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Call of Duty 2/archive2 |
|||
|action7result=reviewed |
|||
|action7oldid=487228710 |
|||
|topic=video games |
|||
Due to my concerns about this article not meeting [[WP:WIAGA|Good Article Quality]] I have asked for a [[WP:GAR|reassessment]]. You can read it [[WP:GAR#Call_of_Duty_2|here]]. Thanks, <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|David Fuchs]]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|action8 = GAR |
|||
:Article has been archived with no further action being taken. See [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 34]]. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|action8date = 13:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
|action8link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Call of Duty 2/2 |
|||
== Thought provoking.. == |
|||
|action8result = delisted |
|||
|action8oldid = 1205740791 |
|||
Thought I might bring this to your attention: |
|||
|currentstatus = DGA |
|||
}} |
|||
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/the-wtf-world-of-wikipedia/a-2008062510326553058 |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Video games|class=|importance=Mid|old-peer=yes}} |
|||
--[[User:Broadbandmink|Broadbandmink]] ([[User talk:Broadbandmink|talk]]) 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Archive box|[[Talk:Call of Duty 2/Archive 1|June 2005 – April 2007]]<br />[[Talk:Call of Duty 2/Archive 2|May 2007 – October 2007]]<br />[[Talk:Call of Duty 2/Archive 2|October 2007 – February 2012]]}} |
|||
{{Talk:Call of Duty 2/GA1}} |
|||
{{refideas |
|||
|1=[https://archive.org/details/call-of-duty-2-articles 102 articles from American, British, and Australian gaming magazines about Call of Duty 2] |
|||
== Weapons Section == |
|||
}} |
|||
This section has become a real mess...[[User:72.234.223.125|72.234.223.125]] has just put a load of weapons in it, and weapons that are seen but not used. |
|||
Many of the new additions are not used in general game play but are there in the story or are multi-player add ons. |
|||
These edits have destroyed the section as it is meant to be only weapons made available for use by a single player during a single player game. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.130.125.224|86.130.125.224]] ([[User talk:86.130.125.224|talk]]) 12:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
===Response=== |
|||
What is wrong with listing '''all''' the weapons and vehicles? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[72.234.223.116]] ([[User talk:72.234.223.116|talk]]) 08:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
If you don't understand why? Then why are editing on this article? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.130.121.136|86.130.121.136]] ([[User talk:86.130.121.136|talk]]) 16:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== |
== Xbox 360 Release Date == |
||
Call of Duty 2 was released on Nov 22 in North America, and not on Nov 17. |
|||
I had tons of trouble and spent lots of time finding out the solution. Thereby, I am sure it will help a lot of people. |
|||
http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Games/Xbox360Games?page=34&sortby=ReleaseDate |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/94.69.232.241|94.69.232.241]] ([[User talk:94.69.232.241|talk]]) 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
{{Help me-helped}} |
|||
:The purpose of video-game articles on Wikipedia isn't to offer help or advice on how to make it work properly or how to solve incompatibility issues, though. The article's job is to summarize and define the game. Take a look at [[Wikipedia:NOTAMANUAL]]. [[User:Eik Corell|Eik Corell]] ([[User talk:Eik Corell|talk]]) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Pls correct this. Thanks |
|||
== Graphics engine == |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/112.209.142.226|112.209.142.226]] ([[User talk:112.209.142.226|talk]]) 16:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
In the box (see ref 1) it is stated, the game uses id tech 3 (aka Quake 3-Engine) in a heavily modified version. This is not true. It's the new IW Engine which had no name at this point. In ref 1 it is stated that "id tech 3 is retired [...]" [http://www.firingsquad.com/games/call_of_duty_2_preview/]. [[User:Saemikneu|Saemikneu]] ([[User talk:Saemikneu|talk]]) 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:May I direct you first to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Call_of_Duty_2/Archive_2#Game_Engine_Debate this massive debate] that we had a while ago on this subject? '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I also read the debate, but the source contradicts the entry, so another source shoul be used, or even the information ommited |
|||
:Done. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 19:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
I'm back into this conversation. Even MW2 uses Quake3 engine at it's heart, just like every other Call of Duty game. A rose is a rose, by whatever name you call it. Ref this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quake_-_family_tree.svg and see that ALL versions of Call of Duty are included. Yes, it is highly modified and yes, there are bolt on's. One of the arguments presented by the developers, is that you couldn't do with Quake3 what they have done with the game and on it's own, that statement appears to be true. However, what you have to look at, is "Why couldn't you do those things with the Quake3 engine?" The answer is quite simple - Computing Power. In the days of Quake3, you were limited, not so much by the game engine, but the computing power available. With the increase of computer power, comes the increase in the coding capability, this is as obvious as the fact that night follows day. All iterations of the CoD game, are based off the Quake3 engine, hence the ID disclaimer on the box. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Amstacey|Amstacey]] ([[User talk:Amstacey|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amstacey|contribs]]) 23:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:[[IW engine]] and [[IW 4.0]] are both based on [[id Tech 3]]. [[User:UnknownThing|UnknownThing]] ([[User talk:UnknownThing|talk]]) 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==GA Reassessment== |
|||
==Lists of weapons, vehicles, etc== |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Call of Duty 2/2}} |
|||
...should be avoided per [[WP:GAMECRUFT]] because they don't actually contribute to the article, but rather just work as bloat. [[User:Eik Corell|Eik Corell]] ([[User talk:Eik Corell|talk]]) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 23:50, 17 February 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Call of Duty 2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "Call of Duty 2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
 | Call of Duty 2 was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
June 2005 – April 2007 |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Xbox 360 Release Date
[edit]Call of Duty 2 was released on Nov 22 in North America, and not on Nov 17. http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Games/Xbox360Games?page=34&sortby=ReleaseDate
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Pls correct this. Thanks
112.209.142.226 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Huon (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
While this article isn't in the worst state ever, I've questioned the GA status on it for a while now. My issues with the article include the Gameplay section consisting of some pretty faulty sourcing, the Plot section having weird writing, a completely separate section for a seemingly trivial advertisement controversy, and several smaller bits of the article not having any sourcing at all (ex. nothing in the article verifies the game as being considered one of the best of all time, and sourcing the Wikipedia list isn't an acceptable means of verification.)
I personally feel this article to fall more in line with a C-Class article than a GA at this current point in time, though I do think that if someone were to really put in the effort, it could be whipped into shape. λ NegativeMP1 05:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.