Talk:Battlefield 2142

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articles Battlefield 2142 has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Maintained The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Information Center (talk), William Pembroke (talk), Echo.brian (talk)
Peer review Battlefield 2142 has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive
Archives
  • Q4 2006 1

Contents

[edit] System Requirements

Are these system requirements correct? To me, it just looks like a copy-paste from that of BF2. rohith 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they? — Mütze 20:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a citation to the System Requirements, look at footnote #6 and its respective link. --Voidvector 00:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They are the same requirements because it uses the same engine, not that much has changed from battlefield 2 in terms of things that would require better hardware. - 58.104.30.128 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this article should NOT have the system requirements. The box at the top of the page says "See System Requirements Section" but there is NO SUCH SECTION, it was deleted by Axem Titanium. When I tried to restore it he deleted it again. --DTWATKINS 21:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the amount necessary for the infobox. What I meant was that there's no precedent to devote a section of the article to system requirements. Axem Titanium 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I still find that the system requirements are still lacking, so I'll add some stuff into the info box, but not start up a new section. --Mr. Accessory 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rank Nomenclature

Corrected rank listing (as collected from player profiles and other official information at EA.com) --NCC-1701 (USS Enterprise) 13:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the ranks were correctly named. See these links for information: http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/View.php?view=GameInfo.Detail&id=248&game=8 http://battlefield.ea.com/battlefield/bf2142/PlayerSummary.aspx?Lang=us&PID=81209964&SrchName=&Profiles=Echo.brian 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So where does Lieutenant Commander come into play? --NCC-1701 (USS Enterprise) 08:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know...It must not be a rank. Bf2142fever.com (linked on main article page) says the same thing as gamespy. Are you saying you saw somebody (or are yourself) who was a lieutenant commander?Echo.brian 14:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is there a list of ranks?RSido 03:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Cleanup tag

Since I last visited this article, it has changed poorly. Copy edit seems to be a BIG issue. I tried to do as much as I could, but it still needs to be fixed. William Pembroke(talk) 01:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Which parts in particular are you talking about? It would be much more helpful to give specifics (as the majority of the article has cited its sources). Also your edit comment about changing the last unamed guy's comment about the AED into something more factual is slightly inccorect. I wrote almost the entire weapons section and reorganized it (and to be precise, you didn't change it to be more factual, you just added additional content). Echo.brian 00:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay pheasant. You're edit was not much of a change of mine, it just mainly added one slightly insignificant fact and removed a different fact. But kept the same combat unfavorable system the same. And, the section that needs clean up IS the weapon system. So now I know where all these terrible and poor quality spelling and grammar came from. Some notes are: It's EU not Eu and PAC not Pac (check 2142's main page for that). It's shield, not sheild, etc. Please review the section before you add poor quality sections. There are other parts of the article that need improvement in general, but the weapon section is the worst. --William Pembroke(talk) 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps instead of attacking me you'd care to actually do something about the grammar and spelling. Excuse me for relying on others to catch my typos. And if the weapons section is the one that needs cleanup, then why did you add the tag over the entire article? By the way, I edited your addition becuase it had poor grammar (perhaps the reason you feel the need to criticize my own grammar is because yours is not much better). Look, I'll go back today and try to clean up the spelling and other mistakes. Let's try to stop this from escalating into a flamewar.Echo.brian 15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the first few paragraphs, I found only 1 or 2 minor grammatical mistakes, mainly from the use of parentheses. Although, I do not feel that going through the entire section to correct a few inconsistencies is worth my time, so I added a tag for someone else to do the work (if they really feel that it needs cleanup). I also removed the overall cleanup tag.Echo.brian 15:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I mainly refer to [1] as the problem. I thought I got most, but didn't know so I added the tag on the whole section. I was a bit tired after spending a long on the article switching the problems. --William Pembroke(talk) 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Addition: I reviewed my grammar on the AED and it was very easy to understand, "in that it" is a very acceptable form of grammar and there is nothing wrong with it. --William Pembroke(talk) 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been numerous problems with spelling and grammar in the weapons section. I fixed some that I came across, but I simply couldn't go through the whole section at once. The problems have been there from early on, I'm guessing. Silence(water) 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, many spelling, grammer, and punctuation problems keep appearing. I'm trying to fix them all as soon as I catch them. This article could use some major spelling and grammer checking. INFORMATION CENTER© talk contribs 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all I asked for and it is very helpful.Echo.brian 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the Clan Section

I removed the Clan section because it pretty much serves no purpose except to advertise for clans. Clans are not unique to BF2142, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox designed for advertisement of your clan. The only thing that could be put in this page in reference to clans is the clan tag box, but that clearly doesn't need its own section. Slinky317 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with your statement. I don't know who thought of putting it there. --William Pembroke(talk) 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Order Rifle Screenshot

Would it be possible to include a screenshot of the special assault rifle available to those who pre-ordered the game. The article makes mention how it blocks a good portion of the screen. Perhaps a screenshot could be included to illustrate this? PowderedToastMan

Yes, there is a picture on Bf2142fever.com. You'd have to ask the owner's permission though.Echo.brian 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the screenshot Echo brian was talking about: http://bf2142fever.com/content/Image:Bofors_dmg.jpg Helwer7

[edit] Is the 'Ranks' section complete?

I've never played 2142, but in the section describing player ranks, the last two ranks, General Special, and Commander Special, don't have a point value next to them. Shold there be one?

No, the "special" is not supposed to be part of the name (I can see where that is confusing). Those ranks are not based on points, a player needs to meet special requirements in order to acheive those ranks. I'll try to make it more clear.Echo.brian 20:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait...nevermind, I forgot they had been removed.Echo.brian 20:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game guide

This article reads way too much like a game guide and not enough like an encyclopedia article. I propose the following changes:

  • Create a heading called "Criticisms" and make subheadings for "In-game advertising", "Widescreen support", and "Bugs".
  • Shorten the "Bugs" subheading to be a summary - an exhaustive description of complaints about the game is unwarranted. People can go read the forum if they care that much.
  • Shorten the heading on pre-order bonuses and place it under Criticisms.
  • Expand Gameplay heading to more thoroughly describe conquest and titan modes, contrast them.
  • Make a new heading called Player tracking or similar to describe how the servers keep track of all of your stats.

What do you think? --Mus Musculus 19:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I also propose a very brief section titled "weapons, equipment and vehicles' that gives a brief summary of the weapons and vehicles (similar to the one in the bf2 article). Also, there should be atleast a mention of the difference in the 2 sets of maps, in the European and African theaters. I'm not saying there should be another page of information, maybe just a paragraph to describe in game content briefly.Echo.brian 23:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Booster Packs

Why are 2 booster packs listed? the source link provided only states that there is one booster pack (Nothern Strike). Basically I'm asking where the information for "Infantry Storm" came from (excuse me if I'm wrong).Echo.brian 01:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been posted to the EA forums and the author links back to another Battlefield-related forum. I don't see any "official" announcement, so I guess it's up in the air whether this can be considered an reliable source. Mus Musculus 03:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider it a reliable source, being it is a forum and all. I can't even view any of the things cited there. Mawfive 04:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, for now, I will remove it. If an actual reliable source comes, I will repost it. --William Pembroke(talk) 20:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
EA has now released a lot of info about Northern Strike I think we should add it to the article. DTWATKINS 17:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Infantry storm was a working title for Northern Strike, which was left in one press release by mistake. There is only one booster pack, and no further reference need be made to Infantry Storm.

For instance the new vehicles, maps, and the new trailer could be summarized. Perhaps the picture in the Dice interview should be added (of the new IFV goliath). By the way, nice job on the kit section.Echo.brian 03:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I might add an image of the new vehicle later today, but for now I can't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William Pembroke (talk • contribs) 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

I have temporarily added a picture of the Hachimoto Hover Vehicle. The quality is less than desirable, so a replacement should be found (and perhaps an official one since I took the screenshot of the trailer myself). For now it will demonstrate some of the new expansion content.Echo.brian 01:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infantry Storm Refutation Section?

Everywhere I go I keep running into people who still think there is going to be an infantry storm booster pack. Can we please set up a section specifically refuting this? It was a working title for Northern Strike, which was accidentally left in the first press release/leak. People keep speculating about what will happen in Infantry Storm, a pack which will NEVER exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.125.5.102 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Unlocks section

I'm going to propose that the unlock table be removed. I have nothing against it, but it makes the article into a game guide again. A neutral bystander who has no idea what Bf2142 is would not know what that equipment table means, and therefore it is only useful to players of the game, making it a game guide (excuse the run on sentence). I know this makes me a hypocrit, but since this was found to be superflous before, it probably will still be considered excess. Instead, I suggest that the unlocks table be removed and the information should be more clearly stated in the kit section (since the items are already listed there but with short descriptions). perhaps the unlocks for the kits should be removed from the kit section, the table should be removed, and the information shuld be summarized in 5 or less sentences udner the unlocks heading.Echo.brian 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I keep removing the table, but some random people keep putting it on. It's removed...for now. William Pembroke(talk) 21:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed on the picture caption for the PAC BattleWalker that it uses the phrase "A PAC Bogatyr", which is correct, however in the context it seems that "A PAC BattleWalker" would be less confusing (since the Bogatyr is not mentioned in the section). Perhaps "A PAC Bogatyr BattleWalker" would fit best. The picture could also be moved to the vehicles section to fit the context better and another picture could be placed in its stead?Echo.brian 23:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and and moved the picture of the Bogatyr into the vehicle section (and added another picture as well). I couldn't integrate into the text very well, so the section probably needs reformatting to make it fit (or revert the page if there are too many pictures). I left the text caption the way it was since it fits in the context.Echo.brian 00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vehicles section

Is this truly necessary? I'm seriously contemplating on whether or not to remove it, it seems to add more of a game guide then an actual article. William Pembroke(talk) 03:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure. It's not really a gameguide in that it doesn't help players play the game, yet the info technically isn't necessary. I guess it just shows the types of vehicles in the game and attempts to describe them. People who don't know about the game might be curious about the types of vehicles though (maybe the section should be changed to paragraph form?). In comparing the section to the BF2 equivalent article, it seems like it is less game guide like (the bf2 describes the ways to destroy vehicles and health bars etc.).Echo.brian 04:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note: The official site ( http://battlefield.ea.com/battlefield/bf2142/eu_vehicles.aspx?Lang=us&PID=&SrchName=&Profiles= ) lists the APC as Assault Personnel Carrier, rather than Armored personnel carrier.Echo.brian 14:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Widescreen Support

If using a LCD monitor, this only seems to work with the native resolution of the display. Can anyone confirm that? --Rainynight65 12:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think BF2142 supports true widescreen -ever-. You can only trick it into cropping top/bottom. There was a huge debate on the EA forums asking for it, but EA just said "No." and closed down the 10-20 page thread begging for widescreen --70.171.27.13 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The BF2 engine only natively supports 4:3 resolution, not widescreen, despite people clamouring for it day in day out all across the community. Oh well - forced widescreen in BF2142 seems better than it is in BF2.--JavaJawaUK 18:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paving a New Road

Okay guys, we have worked to improve this article, please continue to find more references and fix any grammar or improper format you find. I want this to be a Good Article and I think we are in range of making it so. I added a peer review to see what needs to be done and thereafter I will improve what is necessary and nominate it for a Good Article candidate. Pembroke 03:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom on hold

Okay, here are a few things I see that need to be addressed before this can become a GA (not to mention an FA):

[edit] Infobox

*Release dates are supposed to use Template:Vgrelease instead of flags now.

[edit] Lead

*Why is the game's engine the first thing mentioned after the intro? I would instead mention that 2142 is the 5th game in the Battlefield series, and move the engine mention further down the article. *"It is the first Battlefield game to not feature the United States of America as a playable military faction." So what? That's doesn't strike me as important enough to mention in the lead. Instead, shift the sentence down to either the Story or Gameplay section. *"It has its own ranking system to keep track of the user's stats similar to the one used in its predecessors, Battlefield 2." Predecessor should not be pluralized.

[edit] Story

*There is no mention of the seemingly crucial ice age here, even though it is mentioned in the lead.

[edit] Gameplay

  • "During the beta release of the game, there was an award for those who managed to escape the destroyed Titan before the 20-second timer ends. In the retail game, the round ends when the Titan is destroyed, and because player deaths triggered by the end of a round do not count, the evacuation is entirely for inducing a rush in the player. The Titan escape award, sometimes known as the "Titan Survival Pin", has been re-introduced by the 1.05 patch as a receivable award." This needs multiple citations.

[edit] Soldier Kits

*This entire section still reads too much like a game guide. The section should be prosified, be less specific when referring to weapons and stats, and possibly merged into the gameplay section.

[edit] Vehicles

  • Same comment as the Soldier Kits section.

[edit] Northern Strike

*"The expansion will add two new vehicles, the Hachimoto". Replace the comma with a semicolon. *The numbers "2 badge sets", "4 ribbons" should be spelled out (e.g. two, four). *"The booster pack will additionally contain three new maps and a new game mode called Assault Lines." Reword to say, "Additionally, the booster pack will contain three new maps and a new game mode called Assault Lines."

  • Provide a citation to the "developer interview".

*The booster pack will additionally contain three new maps and a new game mode called Assault Lines." Multiple past tense/present tense conflicts.

[edit] Rumors of Development

*The heading should not have any non-proper words capitalized after the first, as per WP:MSH ("Development" should not be capitalized). *"To further show proof of the game's existence, at Multiplay i27, a LAN party which EA sponsors regularly, Battlefield 2142 merchandise was given out, along with further details on a release date." Citation needed. *"BF2142 was officially announced and was playable at E3." Reword to say, "Battlefield 2142 was officially announced and playable at E3." *"Several trailers and previews are available on major gaming websites from this event." Remove this sentence, and instead provide multiple citations for the previous one. *"Though, EA and DICE only commented in a video that "If the community demand is high enough, everything is possible."" Citation needed.

[edit] Beta release

*Citations. More citations.

[edit] Advertising components

*"However, DICE employees have claimed on the game's forums that the game only reports what in-game advertisements you look at, and for how long." Instead of "you", it should be "the player" *"EA/DICE are currently holding a contest to find the best player in-game ad ideas (futuristic ads) to put into the empty billboards in the game. Additionally, recently much of the "advertising space" has been used to show propaganda for new in game features and helping to feed rumors of a new game type in the works. Intel has advertised in the game, and recently the Discovery Channel has placed advertising in the game for their series "Future Weapons."" Citations. *Wikilink Discovery Channel.

[edit] Retail bonuses

*More citations, and the "Citation needed" tag should be replaced with a citation.

[edit] Reception

  • This section is much too short. Look at the reception section of the Final Fantasy VII article. It's huge! Although this game doesn't have much of a "legacy", it would be a good idea to include some quotes from major critics. As well, the GameRankings and Metacritic ratings should be included. All of this with citations, of course.

[edit] References

  • The reference formatting is inconsistent. Some of them have publication dates, some don't, even though a lot of the articles, such as article #17, do have a publication date.

[edit] Images

  • I deleted the artistic shot of Belgrade, it seems of poor quality and not very artistic. Cpunk7 March 2, 2007
  • There are far too many promotional images. At the very least, the gameplay section should have a screenshot of a typical gameplay session, with the GUI showing on the screen.
  • The fair use rationales are somewhat lacking in quality. Again, I direct you to the Final Fantasy VII article, which has excellent fair use rationales and image descriptions.
  • I would remove the "missile launching on target to the enemy Titan" image, as we already have an image of titan mode (the image above it).

A lot of stuff, I know. Hopefully, it will be worth it, and I believe that the article will look pretty good once these changes are made.

Thanks and hope this helps, Green451 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Did most of it. Also, I know small numbers need to be spelled out and know not to use second person, but these IP's people keep added more useless crap. Will do more later. Pembroke 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, but I've been busy. I see that David has gone over a few things I missed (thanks David!). Here are some other things that I noticed:
  • I still think that It is the first Battlefield game not to feature the United States of America as a playable military faction is not nearly notable enough to merit a mention in the lead. Move it to gameplay if you so wish.
  • As for the images, I think they could be rearranged to better match the sections they appear in. I would move the GUI image up to where the "Titan assault scenario" image is currently, and move the latter down to where the "support soldier crouching behind a shield" image is now. That image could be moved down a bit.
  • As of January 18, 2007, Electronic Arts has announced that it will release the Northern Strike booster pack for the Battlefield 2142 game. Revise this to say: "On January 18, 2007, Electronic Arts announced that it will release a booster pack titled Northern Strike for Battlefield 2142.
  • In the public beta release of v1.20, the BFHQ page is updated with Northern Strike unlocks and awards, and the pin mentioned is the Assault Lines Pin. Can you clarify this? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
  • All of the image captions should end with a period. As well, the Hachimoto image caption should be reworded to identify that it's from the booster pack, and the billboard image should be reworded to identify that it's from Armored Fury.
  • Amazon.com also offered the free 64MB dog tag styled flash drive with a pre-order. Citation needed.
  • Players who pre-ordered Battlefield 2142 from Game Stop received a free in-game rank. This rank was stackable with the Battlefield 2 Veteran's Program promotion, allowing players to receive two ranks upon release of the retail game. Citation needed here as well.
  • The expansion will add three new vehicles: the FAV Hachimoto for the PAC, the IFV Goliath for the EU, and the Mk.7 Titan for both coalitions, set to be announced in early February. What is set to be announced in February? I thought the booster pack was announced on Janurary 17th. As an additional note, the vehicles probably don't need to be wikilinked, as it's pretty unlikely that they'll ever have their own articles.
  • There is a gap of white space between the "Titan" and "Statistics tracking" sections. Remove this.
  • Battlefield 2142 was officially announced and playable at E3. Reword again (sorry) to say: "Battlefield 2142 was officially announced and playable at that year's E3 convention." (and wikilink E3.)
  • When the hull of the Titan fails, a 20-second abandon ship timer is triggered, allowing players to evacuate the Titan before it is completely destroyed and avoid dying in the ensuing explosion. During the beta release of the game, there was an award for those who managed to escape the destroyed Titan before the 20-second timer ends. In the retail game, the round ends when the Titan is destroyed, and because player deaths triggered by the end of a round do not count, the evacuation is entirely for inducing a rush in the player. Citations needed here as well (it's a running theme, I know.)
  • The PAC has set up strongholds in the urban areas left abandoned because of the war. The EU launches an offensive to take back its land from PAC. Reword to "The PAC has set up strongholds in the urban areas left abandoned because of the war, and the EU launches an offensive to take back its land from the PAC."
  • I think what David meant about fair use rationales is that this article needs more detailed ones. As David said, look at the rationales on the Halo 2 article, and you'll find that they have more detail and are more properly worded.
I think (and hope) that that's it, and I look forward to hearing from you again. Green451 17:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to say that whoever improved the Northern Strike section just recently, you've done a good job, soldier. *Commend* --Wunderbear 08:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination on hold

Ok, I have a few concerns with this article:

  • First, the lead. Battlefield 2142 is a first-person shooter computer game designed by Digital Illusions CE and is the fifth game in the series. It is set in the 22nd century, during a new ice age. Currently, there have been over one million rounds played since its release.[1] It is the first Battlefield game not to feature the United States of America as a playable military faction. et al. Ok, first, the beginning paragraph seems kind of clumsy, with It is... It is... repetition. The second paragraph seems to just talk about multiplayer, not giving much info on what the game is about, interesting features, etc.
  • "Battlefield 2142 uses a modified, critically acclaimed, engine of Battlefield 2 and is the first game in the series to not include the United States as a playable faction." - source needed for both parts of that sentence.
  • Soldier Kits section- merge into gameplay and expand; right now it has little context.
  • Some dates need to be linked. See WP:DATE. (ex: expansion packs section.)
  • Rumors of development- it's been released, so why are they rumors?
  • All images need fair use rationale. See the images of Halo 2 for an example of what I mean.
  • Image captions: lots of the captions don't have any context. What the hell is a Hachimoto? I can assume its some type of vehicle, but point is its pointless there if you've never played BF2142.
  • Beta release: fold into development.
  • Perhaps fold the advertising into reception?

Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Did most of your request, but the fair use was already on the images and the beginning paragraph is fine in my opinion as well as the advertising. Good suggestions however, I did about seventy percent of what you suggested. Pembroke 23:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph describes what a Hachimoto is (the picture is merely labeled so as to reference the paragraph). What should be put in its place? A paragraph description? (that's what the section is for) I took out the part about it carrying a squad (there are only 2 soldiers, and "squad" may be misleading to think that there are more).Echo.brian 20:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Image captions should be for the most part completely self-contained, i.e. not relying on the article prose to fill in the blanks. Green451 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to second that you integrate the section on advertising into Reception; it'd make the flow more logical. Seegoon 14:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Did it. Shall it be passed now? Pembroke 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
How 'bout my second round of comments above? This has gotten complicated, as technically I am the one responsible for passing the article, because I took up GA reviewing it first. The article should not have been "un-held" until I either passed or failed the article (although David caught a lot of things that I missed and probably wouldn't have noticed, which is always nice). Anywho, that's in the past, and I await the implementation of my other comments. Hope this works for you. Green451 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, never mind, I see that David already passed the article. No worries, I'll just implement some of the comments myself. Green451 03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Rank Area

I have Added the ranks section, this contains all ranks in the game and where the more unusual ranks come from

Feeblezak 21:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting, however for space requirements I recommend that it be compressed.Echo.brian 17:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone think the giant list of ranks is not appropriate for the article, or at least deserves a cleanup? I said that last night, but an IP vandal deleted it. GOLAASTL24 18:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters Section

I think this section should be removed because the characters have absolutely nothing to do with the game (they are merely mentioned on the map loading screens). They play no role in the game, and are not seen by the player even once.Echo.brian 17:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patches

I can't find the mention of any patches on the site. The latest one is patch 1.20. And word of warning: THe new patch takes about 3 hours to download even with ADSL. Chessmanlau 22:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes someone should add a page about the patches. But no it doesn't take like 3 hours.Bygeorge2512 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol...mine must be slow or something. Haha. It took 3 hours on mine. How long DOES it take? Chessmanlau 04:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe on the day you downloaded it, the server was busy with downloads by thousands of gamers. By the way, it only took me 30min or so to download. INFORMATION CENTER© (T • C) 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nortern Strike Release

Can someone tell me where to find the release dates for northern strike on the EA website, i couldnt find it and it seems odd to me that they would release it on the 16/3 as stated in this article when the anniversary of the battle for the bridge at remagen is on the 7/3.

The preload is on March 1st. No release date has been announced, and I highly doubt it is the 16th. The announced Rolling Thunder tourney by EA is set for the 18th which is only two days after the 16th.--Arrowhead2006 04:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
March 8th is the release [2]GOLAASTL24 04:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern strike is out

I'm not good at writing, so I won't do this myself, but NS has been out since 11:30am PST. Vixwald 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addware Laws in Australia

I'm from Melbourne, Australia, and as such i never had the in-game billboards...but i was shocked to come across an add for Intel in Northern Strike, i was under the impression that there were laws preventing this in Australia. I assume this has something to do with the fact that i downloaded it from EA Link rather then bought it locally, but wouldnt the laws still cover this? if anyone has an answer for this i'd love to hear it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.4.74.65 (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

They should, technically, but if EA was confident enough to stick in-game ads in with Northern Strike, then they may have found a way around that law. I'd hate to try your luck in court though.--JavaJawaUK 11:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Its all good, i found my answer in section 4 of the adware bill attached to this article.

[edit] Requesting Permission

To add a one sentence description of each map [excluding Titan maps] to the maps section. It wouldn't consume much space and would help expand on some of the settings, eg:

Belgrade - Constricted, close-quarters combat set in a conurbation of the Serbian capital. Battles in the central park can be intense and shifting

or

Shuhia Taiba - Vehicle dominated combat on an EU farming project. A mountain complex in the center of the map makes for a heated battle.

If I get two backings, I'll go ahead with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JavaJawaUK (talk • contribs) 09:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Why don't you wait until we get more people to agree on this. I am OK with it, but let's wait for 2-3 more votes. GOLAASTL24 03:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, so it isnt just a list of seemingly random names to some people Bob Plano 00:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote yes. Just dont make it too long. Laconia 00:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I second the yes votes. Some short summaries of each map would be nice. You'd have to indicate which maps are part of the Northern Strike Expansion, though (You're doing those as well, I assume?) --Wunderbear 08:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is a good idea, but one warning... It would be ill considered to attempt to describe strategy or combat regarding these maps. Phrases like "vehicle dominated" and "heated battle" are not generally objective and could be construed as violations of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 09:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So I say go with it, with respect to Oni Ookami Alfador's comments GOLAASTL24 03:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "buddies" aspect of the game.

Unlike in Battlefield 2, 2142 has a buddies section where you can send messages to each other and join on each others servers.

I dont think it has that added in the article. Perhaps we could? Laconia 00:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddy List

I agree with you. That probably would be a good idea. But we have to be careful to make sure it doesn't turn into a game guide. (I might be too lazy to do it...and I want to hear other's opinions.) Redoctober240 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the long download time for patch...

The patch download link from the oficial EA website at [[3]] takes a long time. Instead, places like [[4]] have faster download times (20-30min!). Hope this helps. Redoctober240 01:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

pfft, downloaded for me in like 7 minutes. Must be your connection.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 03:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No it's just EA's website. On the day the patch was released it took well over 20 minutes to download it so I decided to try EA link instead and it downloaded in about 2 minutes.Echo.brian 22:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear war?

I know we cant add this to the article without sources, but does anyone else think that the opening clip suggests a nuclear war? after you see the earth freeze from the north down, you see bright flashes scattered around europe and africa, almost like nuclear weapons simultaneously detonating. Also, there is that billboard from armoured fury with the watch and the mushroom cloud. (and, yes i know a mushroom cloud doesnt have to be from a nuclear weapon). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.4.74.65 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Maybe, maybe not. The point is there is no assertion by EA or DICE in or out of game as to the likelihood of that so it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. As a result, it's not even worth discussing.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If its not worth discussing, then why did you discuss it despite the fact i wrote in the first sentence "i know we cant add this to the article..."?

If you look closely, you'll see that the little flashes are where the maps are taking place

Xaritix 01:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unlocks Section

Someone added a giant unlocks section. I removed it because Wikipedia is not a game guide/Internet guide, it is not encyclopedic in any form, and people using Wikipedia as a source of research will not care about the names of futuristic weapons and items. GOLAASTL24 17:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image under "Titan"

The image of the support class behind the IPS is completely unrelated to the section on titan mode. Someone should probably take that out. ZenSaohu 00:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone should put it under Unlocks and put the Titan assualt scenario picture under Titan. --Putmalk 13:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Feel free to use it, 2142 fans!

This user just destroyed the enemy titan.



{{User:Mawfive/Titan destroyed}}

GOLAASTL24 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattlefield_2142_60c2.html"