Talk:Just Cause 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tone/Style[edit]

The tone of this article is too informal and sounds more like an advertisement for the game than a source of information. It may be that the middle paragraph is a quote, and if so should be in quotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.50.194 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the page slightly so it sounds less like an advertisement but still contains the same information 219.89.232.21 (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DLC Packs[edit]

I'm having a really hard time finding anywhere that lists all of the DLC Packs w/ prices. It seems like there must be quite a few, and I'd like to get some, but I don't know what it's gonna cost me. Can anyone point me in the right direction? A list in this article would be very helpful.

Loonybin0 24.136.248.79 (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release date[edit]

I don't see any other confirmation of that the game's going to be released in March in Europe, I actually don't see mention of a release date anywhere else. Removing it until a source is found. Rabarber (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North American Boxart[edit]

The 'North American boxart' picture is clearly fake. Note the 'Only for Xbox 360' sign just above the main picture. This is because Just Cause is being released on Playstation 3 and PC platforms as well. I suggest it is removed before confusions start. --HalfLife-105 (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)HalfLife[reply]

This IS the official boxart, It is the North American art therefore it might only be on the 360 in North America, The boxart has been confirmed by gamespot --Casket56 (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's some guideline which forbids putting the console logo on the boxart image. I dont remember what it's called though. I dont have a problem with it, but every other multiplatform game does not have a console-specific boxart image on the article. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has NOT been 'confirmed' by gamespot it is just simply on their site. Gamesites frequently use false info on the pages for upcomming games. Proof it's an unofficial fan creation is here: http://www.vgboxart.com/view/13580/just.cause.2/?replies=6
Well, gamespot have been notified by Avalanche that this is not a "final" box art, meaning its not even confirmed it by then, until you can find a better source by avalanche CONFIRMING ITS NOT REAL then we will take it from their, im not going to argue --Casket56 (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to argue here but isn't saying that it's 'not the final boxart' the confirmation that is needed? I've done some researching and everywhere i've found points back to the link I posted where 'vidboy' says, and iscredited, for creating the boxart from a stock xbox cover and an old artwork from the game. Though I know I need confirmation. I've sent Avalanche emails before asking a few questions around the first Just Cause and got real answers back. Would an E-mail be confirmation enough? Because it just doesn't seem right to me that the box says "only on xbox 360" when it's NOT only on 360. Wikipedia is supposed to have factual info. 12.199.45.142 (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all very well if it is the official boxart, and it might be messed up with the 'only on 360' bit, but isn't everyone missing the point that Ffgamera said? "There's some guideline which forbids putting the console logo on the boxart image. I dont remember what it's called though. I dont have a problem with it, but every other multiplatform game does not have a console-specific boxart image on the article" Think you should stop arguing and pay attention to this? Another point - the artwork must be fake or the age rating would be TBA, would it not? how could it possibly be rated mature before even the beta stage of development? Finally, this was in an IGN interview:
IGN: Can we expect multiplayer modes alongside the single-player game in Just Cause 2?
Peter Johansson: You know, Rico's ego is pretty big. Even though Panau is a large place we found it wasn't big enough for two Ricos.
So, how could it have Xbox Live on the boxart if this is the case?
It's not the official boxart. I posted a link earlier to a page that says it's unofficial and lists the creator as just a fan of the game. It was wrongfully put on this wikipedia page for Just Cause 2 but now that it's here rock solid proof that it's not real to be removed. Makes no sence to me. Besides it's obviously fake. 1- The game is NOT rated yet...but the box lists it as M. 2-The picture used is from an old artwork for the game. 3-it is badly placed. Rico's upper body is cut off by the xbox band which brings me to 4-it is listed as "only on xbox" which it is not and "xbox live" which, as someone pointed out it is not. 5-when a boxart is commissioned it is typically announced and not just randomly put up on a couple gaming websites. So is there ANYWAY it could be put to a vote weather or not to remove it? 12.199.45.142 (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Cropping doesn't make it any more real.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.199.45.110 (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some unknown person claims it is fake, and that is good enough for you to think it is fake? Sorry, but you need a reliable source. A unknown person on a small fan site isn't reliable. TJ Spyke 23:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair enough. I don't have a source for it being fake. But do you have a source saying it's real? So far all we've heard from Avalanche is that it's 'not the final boxart'. Why do I need proof that it's fake to get it removed when there was no proof that it was real to begin with? I'm not trying to argue here I'm just trying to understand. I just don't understand this "when in doubt, assume it's real" logic... 12.199.45.110 (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this discussion has gone on so long. The boxart was fake, only verified boxart should be used. That the boxart is used on GameSpot does not make it "verified". Thanks! Fin©™ 15:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should just leave it out of the article until we get a proper source that it is either real or fake, for the sake of people arguing --Casket56 (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed both amazon and gamespot about the boxart and got emails back from both sites agreeing that it was fake. It has now been removed from both sites. --F4M ☎ 18:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda silly things mentioned...[edit]

I would edit this, but I am not sure I should do it. It says that the protagonist gets new weapons, such as remote triggered C4, and new vehicles, like a jumbo jet, but both of these were in Just Cause 1, so haw are they in any way new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.21.31 (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the article doesn't mention the grappling hook that appears to be the primary selling point. Doceirias (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panau[edit]

Although the name indeed sounds Melayu-ish (I also saw 'Selatan archipelago' or soutern archipelago, it was in fact on a southern portion of the map), I've seen in the preview trailers etc. a script on a road sign very similar to Tamil or Malayalam (in any case, a Brahmic one)1:15. So, what does Avalanche say about Panau..other than it's purely fictional? I don't see a source of it being in the Malay archipelago. Sampai Mallerd (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's just hints here and there, such as some of the locals speaking tagalog. And I think they mention the island being around there during the beginning of the game... I'll go pop the disc in soon and see if there's any solid proof that the island of Panau is part of the Malay archipelago (in the game, that is). 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.185.61 (talk)

I think the script on the road signs closely resembles Laotian--it is possible the language the population speaks, the language on signs, and the topography of the island were all modeled after different countries. 24.29.168.237 (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite likely based on Palau. It's obvious they didn't want to use a real country in order to not offend anyone. TFighterPilot (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that it's based on anything specific. What name they mangled to get it, if any, is speculative. As for the writing on the signs, it's a combination of glyphs from several real scripts, including Thai, Lao, and Myanmar. It's been a while since I looked, but there might have been glyphs from Tibetan, Sinhala, and/or Tamil, as well.  Xihr  21:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not XP ?[edit]

Putting aside the expected moronic, unhelpful comments, what are the technical reasons behind not supporting XP32/64 ? Is it purely because the game only supports DirectX10 and 11, and not DirectX9 ?? Nevertheless, it seems a strange decision considering that XP is still the most widely used Windows OS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.40.208.31 (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it purely because the game only supports DirectX10 and 11, and not DirectX9 ??
Yes. That, and possibly an agreement with Microsoft (but that's purely speculative). --King Öomie 13:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's well known fact that it takes time to port over to other DX versions. The market for dx9 is not there anymore. all true gamers went for W7 dx11/openCL as soon as it came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.174.95 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, especially since Win 7 is $200 even for students. What with that and all the compatibility issues, many people still use XP. More than twice as many people use XP than 7. Darktangent (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC) fckk[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum, guys.  Xihr  18:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gunz[edit]

i think that there should be a list of gunz in the game like so you can know which gunz to go for when playing just cause 2 lolz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.169.18 (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want GameFAQS, we don't provide lists of weapons, vehicles etc on Wikipedia. Geoff B (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Size of Map[edit]

I have updated the size of the map from 400 square miles (1035.55 square kilometre) to 1,000 square kilometres as that is what it shows up in game as if you use the way-point system. It comes up as around 31.6-31.7 kilometres north to south, and about the same going east to west which comes to around 1,000 square kilometres (385 square miles). The reference used to back up the old value of 400 square miles was an article commenting on a comparison image of in-game maps the author of aforementioned article found on the internet -- in short, the valitity of that as a reference was flawed from the beginning.


Pinothyj (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)...[reply]

Although the source may be/is flawed, unfortunately a flawed source is considered more reliable than an editor working something like this out for themselves (see original research), so I've reverted your edits. You'd need to find a reliable source that can verify what you've worked out before it can be included. BulbaThor (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about a screen shot of the waypoint telling me that it is 31.6 km from point A to point B??


118.208.186.3 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)...[reply]
That would still be considered unreliable because by the wiki rule book it would still be seen as saying "I found this...". As this is essentially a matter of miles vs km, and as the official Just Cause website has the area of the island listed at 400 square miles, it should probably stay as it is anyway. BulbaThor (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I kept 400 square miles as the primary size, but provided a metric conversion. 2TonyTony (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Just Cause 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 18:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna take a shower and then start on this. Cognissonance (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • "developed by Swedish developer" — Minimize repetition, remove "Swedish developer".
  • "destroy government property on Panau for Chaos points. These Chaos points" — Minimize repetition, remove second "Chaos".
  • "They worked with" — Clarify: "Avalanche Studios worked with".
  • "generally-positive" — Remove the hymen--I mean, hyphen.

Gameplay[edit]

Development[edit]

  • "According to Johansson" — Clarify: "According to Peter Johansson".
  • "The team also refined parachute" — Fix grammar: "The team also refined the parachute".
  • "an island with a variety landscapes" — Fix grammar: "an island with a variety of landscapes".
  • IGN (source 22) is dead. Archive or replace it.
  • PRNewswire (source 23) does not seem to connect.
  • "allows the user to capture gameplay video and export it to the XMB or upload it to YouTube from the game" — "from the game" is unnecessary when gameplay recording is already established.

Marketing and release[edit]

  • "A sequel to Just Cause was announced" can be simplified with "Just Cause 2 was announced".

Multiplayer mod[edit]

  • Cinema Blend (source 40) is unreliable. Use the source it's quoting, GameSpy.
  • Would be nice to have source 42 with the website=IGN parameter.

Reception[edit]

  • "generally-positive" — There it is, again.
  • "the game was widely regarded as a significant improvement of its predecessor" — Fix grammar: "the game was widely regarded as a significant improvement to its predecessor".
  • Add website=VG247 to source 52.
  • "The explosion was praised for its visual effects" — I think what is meant is "The explosions were praised for their visual effects".
  • Source 51 should be updated with this and put website=IGN instead of "Pc.ign.com".
  • "Kevin VanOrd of GameSpot and Ryan Clements of IGN noted a number of gameplay problems" — Keep it short, but establish what the gameplay problems were.
  • "and travelling between locations was so enjoyable that players would rarely use the black marketeer" — If this is what VanOrd said, just prefix the sentence with "and stated that".
  • "The game's difficulty and artificial intelligence were criticized as frustrating, sometimes spawning in front of the player" — What spawns in front of the player?
  • "the standard and presentation of its cutscene was not on a par with the game world" — Fix grammar: "the standard and presentation of its cutscenes were not on par with the game world".

Legacy[edit]

Overall[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall: The article has minor, but noticeable problems with references, grammar and prose.
    Pass/Fail:
    Cognissonance (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cognissonance: Thanks for the review! I have addressed all the issues. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Pass/Fail:
    @AdrianGamer: Cognissonance (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Just Cause 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Just_Cause_2&oldid=1207882420"