Talk:Call of Duty 2/Archive 3

Campaign section

I think the campaign section is far too comprehensive, and that more focus should be put on the gameplay. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not sure we need more gameplay discussion, but I would like to see the campaign bit shortened a little. — H₂O —  02:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to add the section abut what fighting division they are back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.87.168 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Call of Duty 2 GAR

Due to my concerns about this article not meeting Good Article Quality I have asked for a reassessment. You can read it here. Thanks, David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Article has been archived with no further action being taken. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 34. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought provoking..

Thought I might bring this to your attention:

http://www.gamesradar.com/f/the-wtf-world-of-wikipedia/a-2008062510326553058

--Broadbandmink (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Call of Duty 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am reassessing this article. It has several issues:

• There is no development section. Without it, there is important information missing.
• Some references are formatted incorrectly and lack several fields, including a publisher.

Please keep this page updated on the article's status. Gary King (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Because these issues have not been resolved in the past seven days, the article has lost its good article status. Gary King (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Weapons Section

This section has become a real mess...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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.125.224 (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Response

What is wrong with listing all the weapons and vehicles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.116 (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) If you don't understand why? Then why are editing on this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.121.136 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Vista Problem

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. 94.69.232.241 (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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. Eik Corell (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Graphics engine

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 [...]" [1]. Saemikneu (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

May I direct you first to this massive debate that we had a while ago on this subject? bibliomaniac15 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

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amstacey (talk • contribs) 23:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

IW engine and IW 4.0 are both based on id Tech 3. UnknownThing (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Lists of weapons, vehicles, etc

...should be avoided per WP:GAMECRUFT because they don't actually contribute to the article, but rather just work as bloat. Eik Corell (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Call of Duty 2/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khanassassin (talk · contribs) 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing the article Things that need to be done:

• Campaign:
  • should be a subsection to gameplay
    • No, it should be treated as a plot/synopsis section-SCB '92 (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
      • In theCoD4 article, the campaign is a sub-section to gameplay, and Synopisis contains Plot and Setting and Characters. So, I'm correct. --Khanassassin ☪ 13:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Plot and gameplay are most commonly separate. And in this case there is no editorial reason to put "campaign" as a subsection. Just because it works better for CoD 4, doesn't mean it must be done that way here too. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• So, since both of you, Mr. '92 and Mr. Hell think it's not necessary, it's a pass.

**it is almost completly unreferenced

• • • It's generally accepted that since a work's plot sections are referencing the work itself, plot citations aren't necessary; see the plot subsection in the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare article (an FA)-SCB '92 (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
      • They are not necessary but are highly recommended; atleast one in each paragraph (in-game references are often used). --Khanassassin ☪ 13:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Where is it highly recommended? Most recent VG discussion on this was here and it's generally accepted that plot does not require citations if it isn't contentious. Not even for FA, let alone GA. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Allright, allright --Khanassassin ☪ 15:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll add more issues once spoted. --Khanassassin 16:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems like they're no major issues left (atleast not for GA Class). So, when the issues above are fixed, we're cool. --Khanassassin ☪ 17:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

PASS --Khanassassin ☪ 15:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Pass/Fail?: