Talk:Battlefield 2/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Archived.

I archived everything becuase it was getting too long please do not revert it back. --Riconoen 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Good deal, it was hard to communicate and reply to an issue since it all looked old.--Hellogoodsir 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mods

From my point of view, some of these mods linked need to be removed. Shouldn't the mod section be for mods that are done or have some actual meat to preview? Stagnant mods need to be removed, as well as these upcoming mods plans. This isn't a place to advertise new mods in progess. Does anyone agree that some need to be removed? If in favor, state what mods you believe don't belong and cull them.--Hellogoodsir 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a separate page for BF2 mods similar to the list of half-life 2 mods? Useless Fodder 00:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of a separate article - I dont think there is a single notable mod out yet for Battlefield 2, so I would rather see the task of taking on all the mod fans who want notoriety for their obscure mod done somewhere else. Remy B 07:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I second that. Let us create an article and put all mods, no matter the interest or progress, into a spiffy place.--Hellogoodsir 19:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, shall we copy the form of the previously wikilink or forge a new list style? Useless Fodder 04:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking a new list as follows: Completed mods, mods in progress, and maybe canceled or halted mods.--Hellogoodsir 15:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend against making a list in the style of 'every BF2 mod ever conceived', like List of Battlefield 1942 mods. Articles like that are largely unverifiable (without scrupulous referencing), and just tempt people into adding non-notable material. My advice is to stick solely to mods which have active websites, and split that up into released mods and mods in progress. Remy B 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
What would we qualify as an active mod? Perhaps we could do it by downloads? Or maybe how active its forums are? I'm not quite sure how we will judge them as some are not as obvious as others. Useless Fodder 16:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I would just go by whether or not they have a website with its own domain name. Any serious mod would have that, and if they didnt then its too premature to add them no matter how active they appear to be. Remy B 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well if group of modders are very serious, determined, and ambitious enough, why shouldn't they get some recognition in upcoming mods? Mods have the start somewhere. The problem is, as stated, that people will want notoriety for their lame-duck projects, and this isn’t a billboard for that. This is more of a moderation issue to me, as the users here will need to remove such ambiguous advertisement. As long as they announce their mod with some meat, including weekly updates, then I’ll support their cause for placing their mod in the mod section.
I agree with Remy B about a mod team having their own domain and website, and not in some section of a BF2 fansite forum. I also think that a mod with at least one update a week is sufficiently in progress, such as a media update. If a site were not to have an update (media or comment) in weeks, then the site seriously needs to be considered for removal. If someone thinks a mod shouldn't be listed with good judgment, they have by my approval to remove it. Those who posted their site can argue in the discussion for it back, or just revert it, plain and simple.--Hellogoodsir 19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that we should list mods simply to help them gain recognition. The point of Wikipedia is to write about notable things, not help things become notable. An encyclopedia is not a public service to people who want publicity or notoriety. Remy B 07:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe a current mods section is ungainly, because mods can die or start quickly, and in a few years people might stop updating most of them. Therefore making an article like List of Battlefield 1942 mods would be hard to maintain.--Zxcvbnm 01:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose, but BF2 hasn't been around as long so no one is going to be overwhelmed by that many mods. In my opinion, a majority of people are still into the ranked play over unranked play, bf2 or mods. A new format is definitely good idea though, but it all dwindles down to keeping the mod section clean, spiffy, up-to-date, and monitored for abuse. Can we also keep the replies in an orderly fashion, from left to right, and right to left and so forth?--Hellogoodsir 03:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Remy, I understand, but we shouldn't go Gestapo like with the mods. I know wikipedia is not a billboard, but if we must, we can take down all mods because it is advertising. The fact that I can find a well written and detailed article about a game on the internet is excellent. The fact when I want to find popular mods from the same site is even greater. Now I don't think anyone here is being liberal on letting all mods be posted here. They should be checked first to see if they will meet our standards. Let us please define these standards. I've already suggested mine, but not in the greatest of detail.--Hellogoodsir 19:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well guys not to be offensive to everyone out their but the following mods seem to have the biggest impact on the game in my opinion and pretty sure the general opinion of the battlefield 2 community. -Desert Conflict -First Strike -Forgotten Hope 2 -Point of Existence -Rising Conflicts -Project Reality -Operation Peacekeeper -Battlefield Pirates

So lets ruin this like everything else in the world and give the little guys no show....Yeah keep up with the corporate big boy world attitude.

Are you joking me? The "corporate big boy world" attitude? Do you realize these mods are not owned by any "big boy" corporations and there is no money involved here? Also, mods are generally considered to be popular because they're good, not because they've spent the most advertising dollars ($0?). Go find an argument with some substance, please.
Back to the discussion, I think the standards we place on mods to be on wikipedia could be defined well enough as to avoid the never ending mod death/life cycle as most decently popular mods don't die off that way.Useless Fodder 23:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe that we should only post the "top 5" mods, thereby eliminating all of the minor ones which can die off quickly. That way they can stay up-to-date.--Zxcvbnm 00:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Argument, excuse me mister I bet you have just recently hoped on the BF2 band wagon...Most full mods for BF2 are far from being released and the game has been our for over a year...This game was started on a community one that developed DC for BF42 and thus spawned what we have today. The big boy world attitude is how you think only the biggest and most bad mods should get recognition...You clearly know nothing of the modding world because some of those big mods are sponsored by certain groups in the online gaming community, like game server providers...A lot of the reason some of the smaller mods are stagnate is because they don’t have the exposure and thus the resources available to them as some of the bigger mods have...These one would think should be focused on in a FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA, BF2 is as much about the community as it is about the game itself...I was also using the term "big boy corporate world" loosely...mostly in reference to sites like Totalbf2.com (which yes is owned by big boy corporate world)...Oh, btw basically ever site you have listed in the external links is a commercial entity...
Fine then, to make it fair I will delete the "mods" section. I will put the ones that have articles under "see also." You can go to a gaming website to see an up to date list, this is unencyclopedic.--Zxcvbnm 16:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
One recent editor has seen fit to restore the Mods section. I agree that we should refrain from including this section, which is basically linkspam. Bfelite, I'm removing the mods because they provide no information apart from links to external sites. However, if you can find wikipedia entries for these mod projects, go ahead and restore the section. Link to the articles instead, and remove the mods that aren't notable (and don't have wikipedia entries) from the list. ~ Flooch 00:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
there is a new mod section up, it seems a rather poorly writen, and only covers two mods, no link spam though, i am of the opinion that it should be removed, but i am leaving this open for community opinion--Manwithbrisk 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
We already discussed not to add in such section. The article is poorly written to begin with, has slight non-neutral perspective, and is not general enough. --BirdKr 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Awards

I know there is a seperate talk page for it, but it isn't geting any attention. I thought it would be best to bring this to everyone's attention. My request is that the Euro awards be added, as well as the Special Forces awards. If you have any suggestions, please state them here.--Hellogoodsir 03:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)'

They arent their? Proposterous! Add them, I agree with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathieu983 (talk • contribs)

Bugs

Should(n't) there be a section about bugs? I only know the major ones (Red tag, AT missile through tanks/APCs, etc.), but I'm sure that someone knows some, and could contribute to the article.--Reed9277 00:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We had a section on bugs in the past but nobody provided any reliable sources, so it was removed. Remy B 10:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be some criticism added that points out that many bugs remain in the game while expansion after expansion is released. Bugs are nothing new for BF2 -- the community has complained about it:
Brianmcgee17 05:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can dance around this issue or pretend it doesn't exist. One of the worst things about BF2 is that serious bugs are known to its user, the user's hopes get raised when a patch is announced, only to be dashed when it comes out and the users find out that the bug is STILL not fixed. One of the worst is where a fellow teammate appears in the enemy's colors which leads to him being shot and the shooter being punished for a team kill. This is also annoying for the fellow being shot at. Either this bug was very difficult to find or fix, or EA was out of touch with the user community and didn't consider the bug to be important. Perhaps the most serious bugs could be listed. Regarding needing a source for the bugs... is the collective word of the user community not enough? Does a bug need to be officially recognized by EA to be listed? If so, we'll be waiting a long time for some of them. Also, in case anyone is wondering, I love the game and play it everyday, despite the bugs.

Actually, a section or different article listing all the major bugs and problems unique to battlefield 2(such as the Commander Hack)would be a very good idea, helping to educate the average gamer. If you think its a good idea then someone else or I will add a new section for it, and then possibly give it its own article. - Blehm 06:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I added a line of text to the "Patches" section of this article, including a link to one such wikidocument today (12/11/2006), which was set up to record any/all bugs reported to it by the community. But for some reason it was removed and I would really like to know why. As to comments regarding the need for "reliable sources", the community is not only the most reliable source, but is in fact just about the only source as they represent the largest sample size. Where else does such information come from? Sure there are beta testers, but they are typically made up of small groups amd can't possibly be expected to find everything. And they haven't in the case of BF2, that much is certain (reference major issues created by the BF2 v1.30 update). Game publishers have received and used bug reports directly from their communities for many, many years now. If it's good enough and reliable enough for them, so it should be for any wikidocument as well. But in cases such as this, saying that it is not simply because it lacks some official stamp of approval is (and pardon me for saying so) absurd. Moreover, a section devoted to or links referring to a list of commonly reported bugs would provide a convenient, centralized place for bugs to be defined and for BF2's development team to read about them. Wikipedia is about disseminating information, correct? So let’s give it to them! Braidedheadman 11:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

BF2AL

I recently started playing BF2 again and had a hell of a time finding a good server browser. The built in one is of course terrible. TASE hasn't been updated since Yahoo bought it years ago. Xfire is lame and overbearing. Qtracker doesn't work very well. Neither does kQuery. And Gamespy/Gamespy Arcade of course sucks. Then I found BF2AL! http://www.bf2al.com/
I added it to the link section to save people like me some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.209.7 (talk • contribs)
Does it still take forever to query the servers? That's the main problem witht he built in one for me. Useless Fodder 00:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
NO. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BILLBOARD. --Riconoen 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
People that edit this site and take things down for the "billboard" effect need to remove the stick from their arse.
Not only that but they have no concept of the vast community that is BF2, furthermore I think most the people need to lighten up a little and realize that life is more than wikipedia.
Consider the situation we had before editors started cracking down on links - there was an enormous list of links, most of them totally irrelevant, which made the article look tacky and totally unencyclopedic. If you just want to promote the vast community of BF2, an encyclopedia is not the place to do it. Remy B 05:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not if people getting into this game want to know where they can go to be part of the community that is behind the game I feel that this site would be great for that...Instead of just pointing them to the places that are mainstream and owned by coporations, like oh say totalbf2.com
Can't people just go onto one of the sites on the list (such as totalbf2.com), from there they can go onto any other site they want. This is an encyclopedia, but not a list of all Battlefield 2 mods. When I got into the game, the first thing I did was start playing, I didn't try and join a community or download loads of mods, or even get advice. I just played like a noob... Keep it like that for everybody else.--Peidu 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this is that it adds another layer between the user and getting to cool stuff!--Kapn Korea 14 May 2006 (UTC)


I am with the people who want the admins to chillout. It would be nice to see more of the smaller sites instead of just the corporate-owned ones.--Kapn Korea 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Story

I just wondered how in the world a US vs. China scenario could in any way be somewhat realistic. I don't see why they didn't just pick north korea. It would be so much more believable.

The nukes would definitely prevent the US from entering China, and on top of that I guess the international community (most noticably Russia) would protest, preventing anything like this from ever happening.

Also, what is the reason for US aggression against China? "Holy cow, the evil communists are annoying me! Let's get'em!" I don't think so. Something to do about oil? Why invade China then?

And why doesn't China and MEC cross swords in any map what so ever? Are they allied? Or doesn't the oil interest China at all? If so, again, what does the US do in China?

Does the US really think that they're tough enough to take on two (or more when you consider that MEC is a coalition) countries at the same time? (Chirst, they can barely hold their own in Iraq! Maybe the two conflicts take place in two different dimensions? Who knows...

While I do realize that Battlefield never have been much when it comes to historical accuracy, I would appreciate any attempt at explaining how this could at all be possible.

China's burgeoning economic strength is seen as something of a threat in the US, so it's a logical choice. China is frequently said to be "the next superpower", and, if the Cold War is any indication, superpowers generally butt heads. A dispute over Taiwan (like Berlin during the Cold War) could serve as a casus belli. The scenario is pure fiction, of course: in my opinion, it's farfetched enough to be interesting, but not so farfetched as to be ridiculous. An invasion of England, for example, would be more difficult to understand. bcasterline t 21:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can understand your argument, but I really don't think just being a country with a strong economy warrants a US attack, especially so if you consider the nuclear weapons possessed by both sides. There's a reason the cold war never got hot. MAD [1] is still the main reason why we haven't had any major wars between industrialized countries in the last few decades. Besides, didn't the US just sell a truckload of planes to China? Wouldn't that suggest friendly relations between the two? The story IS ridiculous but to be frank it doesn't really ruin the game.
"Besides, didn't the US just sell a truckload of planes to China?" - Must have been a pretty darn big truck. :) Canderra 01:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I think China don't battle the MEC simply because the game is made primarily for the US market and therefor they have put the US in every map. As far as I know, there isn't any information on why there are no China vs MEC maps (or 3 way battle maps, that would be cool, but would probably need a whole heap of new coding), just that there arn't. Canderra 21:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
(Chirst, they can barely hold their own in Iraq! Actually, the war was over in record time, it was the insurgency that is hurting the US.--Zxcvbnm 22:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Umm, unless I've been caught in a time warp since watching the news earlier this evening, I think the war in Iraq is still going on and doesn't look life finishing anytime soon. Not that this has anything to do with anything. The reality is that the official story to Battlefield 2 does not specify the reasons behind the US - China, US - MEC wars (or if the MEC - China are even at war or not). Therefor any talk regarding such a story is purely speculative. Heck, the US could be invading China because China nuked half the US for all we know. I don't think the developers intended the game to be story based, rather for whatever reason, the US (along with the EU army in the add-on pack) are currently at war with the MEC and China, and you (the player) are on the front line. Canderra 00:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Didn't you see that "Mission Accompished" thing on the aircraft carrier? That was the end of the war. Now, it's just an insurgency, the Iraqi Army lost and is helping the US. And although MAD might guarantee we won't go to war with China, it could be an alternate universe for all we know.--Zxcvbnm 02:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats silly though. By that rationale World War 2 (in Europe) must have been 2 seperate wars. The first one being won by Germany when they conquered France, Poland, Denmark, etc. (and only insurgencies remained) and the second being a few years later when the allies invaded and conquered Germany. Besides, all the newspapers and TV news programs refer to the conflict as the "War in Iraq". Surely a war is over when fighting stops and the vast majority of troops get to go home. Btw, I'm not sure what you mean as "over in record time", the shortest ever war is generally considered to be the Anglo-Zanzibar War which lasted for 45 minutes, pretty hard to beat really. (p.s. I really don't mean to insult anyone if they have strong feelings on this subject, as it means nothing to me either way, I've just never heard of the Iraq war (the 2nd one) as being refered to as "over" before). Canderra 03:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
...so in the end we can all just agree on that the story in BF2 is nonexistant? BTW, I didn't really refer to the conflict in Iraq as a war. I didn't specify it as so. I only said that "the US can barely hold their own in Iraq." It would be rather hard to take on a superpower and a coalition of countries at the same time when they can't even handle the little "conflict" with "mopping up pockets of insurgents" in Iraq. Lastly, I don't really care about why they didn't include China vs. MEC from a gameplay point of view. Game mechanics aside, I just wonder how they can justify their imaginary conflict, since so many players feel that BF2 appeals to them because of it's "sense of realism", and this is kind of annoying me. Surely a North Korea vs. US and Iraqi Insurgents vs. US scenario would be more reasonable, and wouldn't had that big an impact on the actual gameplay anyway. Though I'm a bit unsure of this, North Korea probably has the same kind of weapons and vehicles as China, and to be honest, MEC just seems like a bad case of political correctness to me. They could've just called them "Iraqi insurgents" or Iran for that matter.
And just one more thing: I don't buy that "alternate universe" crap. I mean, come on! If this was an feasible way of explaining anomalies in movies and games, then you could say that to practically any and all mistakes done by anyone at any time during any phase of development! "Why was it a car in the middle of that field in Lord of the rings: Fellowship of the ring? Ah, well I guess it was just teleported in from a parallel dimension where they had invented cars already, and Frodo and Sam just didn't notice it." (Now that I think of it, this example is rather crude, as it IS in fact happening in a sort of alternate universe. Still, you get the point, don't you? Why don't we see any other cars in LOTR? Why isn't it mentioned in the books? Why is there no explanation for these strange irregularities. You can't just chalk it up to the old "writers intent"/"artists liberty" thing, especially when the developers are so proud of that near mythical realism that everyone seems so be so obsessed with.)


Pardon my french but what the fuck does this have to do with anything? --Riconoen 22:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It was just an honest question, that's all.
The fact that this conflict will not take place in 2007 (I hope) makes it an alternate universe.--Zxcvbnm 23:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Why must this happen in 2007? Maybe it's supposed to happen in a few years, who knows. Anyway, China in this "alternate universe" have the same weapons as China in real life, so I suppose they also have their nukes and then the problem is still the same: Why wouldn't MAD prevent a China vs. US conflict. I don't see why the nukes would disappear when everything else remains the same. To be honest, you're just proving my point here. The story IS nonexistant as we have to make up all kinds of theories about alternate universes and that nukes don't exist and stuff, which is VERY unlikey. At least the US wouldn't be the superpower it is portrayed as in the game without nukes. Your comment implies that the sitation is grossly unrealistic in any case, so can we just agree that BF2 is not a story-driven game in any way and that the "realism" the community seems so proud of is highly overrated? CrackerMonkey 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, would Mathieu983 please stop deleting my comments here on the talk page? It's just so stupid to think that you can silence me when I can just look it up in the history. If you disagree with my views on the subject at hand then do as Zxcvbnm here and tell me. CrackerMonkey 23:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This game is supposed to demonstrate how fighting WOULD be had we gone to war without nukes. However, the real-life circumstances are almost impossible. The same goes for Battlefield 2142. This game has realism within itself, but the story is almost non-existent and impossible--Zxcvbnm 23:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. CrackerMonkey 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
One could argue that even the game itself is unrealistic. As far as I'm aware, in a real battle, if you get killed you don't reappear 15 seconds later at a nearby flag. A bit of an oversight by the developer's really :). Canderra 17:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
True... Not to mention the how skilled the medics are with their shock-thingies. Man, they can revive you in less than a second even if you have a dozen bullets lodged in your head. They don't even need bandages to stop potential bleeding. The medkits they drop are kind of cool too. It's so easy to use that even untrained soldiers can practically gather up any lost entrails and sew up any fatal wound in a matter of seconds without any help at all. Of course, this is due to the extensive training these troops have undergone. Every soldier can drive any vehicle (though their skills at this are rather lacking), operate any plane, swim like an olympic master, repair any machine they might come across and even parachute like a professional. Their marksmanship is neither lacking in any way, as they can take the head of an enemy soldier several hundred meters away with a regular handgun, however, because of lackluster sniper rifles that lack the neccessary power to put a man down in one shot and the visual impairment that some soldiers complain about dubbed "draw distance syndrome". This latter problem might also be related to the thick fog the troops are encountering all over the world. Especially pilots are susceptible to this problem, as they can rarely see their targets. Even so, again due to the extreme skills of the soldier/pilot-hybrids, our troops deal with this by flying at a jaw-dropping 300 feet! Even though the cost of a joint strike fighter is a bit high, roughly around 55 million US dollars, and their estimated time on the battlefield is about one to two minutes, they are steadily supplied at the frontlines to cater the needs adrenaline addicted soldiers. A commander is always present to guide his fellow soldiers and he is elected in a very rewarding way purely based on time spent at the front lines, regardless of his skill. Many grunts with a quick triggerfinger have risen to become some of our times greatest leaders and idols, showing passion and knowledge at every turn. Some have complained about the lack of an office in a safe location away from the battlefield, with the neccessary tools and gadgets like all-seeing radars and pinpoint-accuracy artillery, but this is largely ignored as mutiny is quite common, and the dissent in the ranks often are followed with the commander being booted from his post and sent out in the field. Although as previously stated our troops training regimen produce superior soldiers, some critics argue that the troops teamworking skills are a bit inadequate. Many conspiracists have considered the possibility of our soldiers actually being clones, as they seem to come in batches of 300 and all look alike as long as they're equipped with the same gear. This would also explain why these super soldiers perform so well. Regardless, discipline and sense of duty is somewhat lacking, but no one can say that our troops aren't doing a great job, because they are. By raising our beloved flag on strategic locations of great import, the enemy is disheartened and forced to send fewer reinforcments instead of the traditional response which is to send more. CrackerMonkey 19:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL! You should go look at Computer and video game cliches--Zxcvbnm 23:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"TV news programs refer to the conflict as the "War in Iraq"." Wait unless i am mistaken congress didn't and hasn't ever declared war on Iraq so basically the news is wrong and so are you. For your information it is considered a conflict. Anyways bf2 has the US fighting the chinese is because as was stated earlier that superpowers crash. Not only that but the dispute over tiawan is a huge issue we have pledged that we would protect them from any chinese invasion and we all know that china would love to have it back.


Well first off, the US isn't in this fictional war alone. The EU is seen fighting against China and the MEC in Euro Forces. The British SAS is also seen fighting off the MEC insurgency in Special Forces. As to why they choose the sides they did, this one is fairly obvious. They choose China because, as others have stated, China is an emerging superpower and superpowers do indeed clash. Also, from a gameplay standpoint it would be far more interesting to see a fight between the US and China as opposed to the US and North Korea, MAD be damned. It's also not impossible for the US and China to declare war on eachother. China could seek to gain control of Taiwan in the future, or they could even decide to declare war on Japan since China and Japan dont really like eachother all that much. As for the MEC, they were made up to mirror the recent wars in the Middle East. And the reason they formed a fictional middle east alliance is to make it more interesting and give them an excuse to have the MEC military be well trained and equiped with more state-of-the-art weaponry. Now, as to the question of whether or not China and the MEC are allied, they most certainly are. You don't think it's a coincidence that both China and the MEC tried to invade US soil at the same time, do you? As an aside to the whole "the US can barely hold their own in Iraq," thing. You're right, we are just barely holding out in Iraq. But you got to put it into prespective. Right now, the US military is fighting an unconventional war against guerrilla fighters, not a conventional military. It took us weeks to oust Iraq's conventional military forces. The guerrillas blend in with the civilian population which means you cant just drop bombs left and right. Civilian casualties, although a sad part of war, are very taboo these days. This is why it's taking us so long to stabilize. I highly doubt any other military could do a much better job in our position. Please understand, this isn't an insult towards the military forces of other nations. Im just saying that in general, a war against guerrilla forces is very very hard to fight for ANY Military Force.--Mooshu 14 December 2006

Actual Lowest Specs

Some sites have shown the game capable of running on a bare minimum of;

-1.6GHz Celeron -384MB RAM -5200

just FYI..

Maybe so, but I think its best to just use the official system requirements. Remy B 06:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"We're running low on reinforcements"

This is totally unrelated to the article, but out of interest, does anyone know what the in-game phrases "We're running low on reinforcements" and "Enemy weakening key positions" means? They seem to be automatically generated a couple of times a round but I can't figure out why or what they actually mean. Does anyone have any idea? Thanks. Canderra 21:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"We're running low on reinforcements" is pretty obvious, and means you have a low number of tickets left. "Enemy weakening key positions" is a bit harder, and it might mean that the enemy is capturing flags and stuff. "Start fighting or I'll find someone who can" might be totally random.--Zxcvbnm 22:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Both "We're running low on reinforcements" and "Enemy weakening key positions" occur when you have thirty tickets. "Start Fighting" is when the enemy bases are 75%(?) and after that, if no more enemies capture, and you neutralize a point, "We've regained control" plays. --unsigned

"Start Fighting" happens when you are on a map without uncapturable flags, and lose control of half the control points. Essentially, it happens right when your team goes into a "bleed" because you don't have enough flags. On a map with uncapturable flags it happens when either team controls all the flags. It happens when your team goes into a bleed basically. When you get out of the bleed (or perhaps put the other team into a bleed, I can't quite remember), they play "We've regained control". --Ubiq 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"New page For Euro and Armored Fury"

This is just a suggestion, but what if like the special forces page, when armoed fury comes out, we can make a page for the two booster packs?

It's been a while now since the Special Forces article was merged into this one. The old article Battlefield 2: Special Forces is now just a redirect to Battlefield 2. Remy B 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Like the Battlefield 2: Special Forces, I believe it's best that the information for the two booster packs initially should also be within Battlefield 2 page until or unless somehow the articles are comprehensive and long. One good example would be Starcraft: Brood War. --BirdKr 08:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

De-listify Gameplay section

The gameplay section needs to be converted into paragraph form; this article is not a list.--Zxcvbnm 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I rather like the list format as it is easy to read and comprehend. A paragraph will get messy. I will, however, write a short paragraph to begin the list as it will probably seem more encyclopedic that way. Useless Fodder 23:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree simply placing all that information in paragraphs as is would be messy but Zxcvbnm is right that the section shouldn't be just a long list, even with a short paragraph at the top. Maybe a more general combination of the two could work well, with some of the lesser gameplay details being disgarded or relocated to other sections (e.g. the Battlefield Recorder sub-list - surely this is a feature of the game itself rather than part of the gameplay). Canderra 00:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I dont like the list format either, it would be good to see the content paragraphed (that may or may not be a real word). Remy B 09:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Done, need backup in expanding the rest of it. ~ Flooch 06:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has noticed the subheading titled "The "Assasin"" seemed to glorify TK'ing. I took the liberty of renaming the subheading "The "Tk'er"" and explaining what it is and that it's not all intentional. --Trav230 02:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

although the entry of blatant selfpromotion about the teamkillers and who had the lowest score was improper and unarticle-like, i think it is i good idea to include something in there about teamkilling if it isnt already stated--Norton112200 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done!

I'd like to congratulate everyone on the hard work. The page is now tidy and clean, very professional. Keep up the good work.

One thing that would make my day is if this were a featured article. I don't see anything wrong with the article that would prevent it to ensue. Anyone's thoughts?--Hellogoodsir 17:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

One thing from my experience with video game FA's — you need to focus on the game's impact and notability. Information on its development cycle, critical reaction, reviews, sales figures and other notable phenomenon, as well as trimming down any unnecessary "fancrufty" details. See Final Fantasy X for a good example of what to include. ~ Flooch 08:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Perfect Dark was also just featured. Perhaps we should get a peer review done? Useless Fodder 08:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I looked into the criteria, and this article meets it. Personaly, I thought the Perfect Dark article was a little to over-done, but it still made Feature Article. So yes, you have my vote for a peer edit. Applying for it would do no harm.--Hellogoodsir 18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Starting it now. Let's slow down the editing until we have some comments. Useless Fodder 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, added it here. Good luck, all. Be ready to address the critisisms given so that this can be as quick as needed. Useless Fodder 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I worked on the Booster intro (could be better, edit to make it more, how you say, elegant?) and I'm thinking about how to explain 'classes' into a more general role. I don't understand, classes are classes, I think we've already did a good job at explaining it. Anyways, good job at getting the foot notes down. Still need more, but good job. Someone want to get the images into fair use?--Hellogoodsir 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll tackle "elegantizing" the booster intro, though you did do a good job. Useless Fodder 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Awards and Unlockables

In the Awards and Unlockables section, it says that special access to "forums/downloads" is granted to people with higher ranks, is this true, as I've never seen it. Can someone please clear this up for me? --69.120.63.107 20:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


I've never heard of this

Im going to remove it with the fact there is no evidence to this is true.

Cheers

Reedy Boy 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Reactions and Critisisms?

I'm not sure if this section is even needed as the problems with BF2 are basically the problems with FPS in general. There are some BF2 specific problems, but I've not seen a similar place in other game articles. They all have actual published reactions, so if we were to change it to a sourcable section, I think it'd be better. Useless Fodder 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The current content in the section may be questionable, but the section itself is worth keeping for later expansion. ~ Flooch 05:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it. We have had sections like this in the past, where people would just list every little gripe they could think of about the game's performance or lack of realism. There is no need for a bloated list of non-notable tidbits without sources when the article is already big enough as it is. Remy B 07:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
If someone were to find published reviews and put the consensus up, I'd fully support that. They did something similar at Perfect Dark. Useless Fodder 14:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
As long as there was a proper balance of respectable reviews then I would support it. My concern is that people will put reviews up just to serve the purpose of pushing the view that they really like/dislike the game. Remy B 14:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This section has returned in the new section labelled "Reactions." I think this is a fair and balanced view with reviews cited from both sides. Look good to you all? Useless Fodder 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is balanced. It doesn't really go in-depth at all with the real problems. Whilst saying that problems the game faces are common for all FPS games; BF2 most certainly does have it's fair share of problems specific to it, and I have thus created a criticism section directly below reactions to reflect these - I know that negativity isn't overly required but I really do feel as a player of the game that paving over them with only minor mentions of the problems isn't good enough. Now I know a lot of what I've posted isn't sourced but having experienced the ea uk forums for over a year I can vouch for all of it being 100% accurate (in as much as what was complained about, not so much if what was complained about is actually fact or exaggeration, if you catch my drift). Feel free to do some searching on that forum for the many thousands of posts that are full of whining complaints but they all covered everything I mention in that part, and a lot more. It's not just central to EAUKF either, totalBF2 has it's fair share on their forums. You might also find some things to do with the alternative ranking things and how 1.3 apparently 'blocked' it. I didn't mention that but it caused a stir as well.

As a member of the EAUKF as well, I too can vouch for the veracity of the comments made by this author. The comments he made are precisely in line with those made on the EAUK and other BF2-related community forums. If links to specific posts as sources are required, they can be given provided someone adds tags to where they feel citations are required. Braidedheadman 01:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I seriously believe published sources are required for the criticism section. Although I believe many of these details are valid, I also believe an article that seems to be very "opinionated" such as this needs credibility. I do not believe simply linking to a thread in which a person or group rants or points out the problem is enough; It's a source, but I wouldn't call it a credible source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 11:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

So just because some dead-end gaming websites didn't give a flying fuck about any of this and didn't report on the issue you're saying that everything the community complained about is completely irrelevant. Bullshit. The game was made popular by us, the community, and if wasn't for us there'd be no game. We put up with enough crap and got ignored so much by EA and still there's bitterness. We play the game in hope of an update that will cater to our requests and what happens? We get landed with rubbish yet again because they wer eonly interested in milking us dry rather than actually supporting us.

And because of this close minded opinion that we don't matter, all the idiots who have the job of bringing this to the mass media by actually writing about it on their gaming websites and sites like this just thought everyone was complaining for nothing and they did nothing. No wonder EA continues to make and shift millions of copies of it games even though it has put hardly any effort into making them quality products. As long as this kind of information suppression goes on they'll always get clean away with it.

If anything, Wiki is being biased here, biased towards EA and is dirty business tactics by pretending a communities voice doesn't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.246.246.197 (talk)

If you have beef with developers and gaming media, take it to them. This Talk page is for discussion of the article, not about EA or whatever practices they might have. If you have verifiable sources to back your claims of criticisms and controversies, by all means include them in the article and reference them properly. Wikipedia is not the place to state your own opinion, and if you are making statements based on what the "community" thinks, you are performing original research. The community matters, but you alone are not the community. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of verifiable information, not a soapbox. --Scottie theNerd 00:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Table of Maps

Is it me, or should Armoured Fury be on a seperate line to Euro Forces? As it would look better Reedy Boy 14:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've rearranged the map table to make it easier to read. Splitting the table up into factions just complicates things for little benefit. Remy B 06:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm proposing to upmerge the Maps section into Features. Removing the table of maps as this is redundant — there is already a link to List of Battlefield 2 maps. Comments? ~ Flooch 11:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I rather like the table. I think it looks nice and is easy to read. Useless Fodder 16:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks Loads Better! Reedy Boy 18:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, it's clearer and more compact. Canderra 19:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I've kept the table for now. Upmerged the section in this edit. ~ Flooch 01:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've alphabetized the list of maps, uncommented the Road to Jalalabad map, and added "coming soon" message to that map. RussellKent 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Article for every map

I propose we create an article for every map in BF2 using the Songhua Stalemate article as a template. Thoughts? --Lorian 18:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Songhua Stalemate article needs a lot of work. It's bordering on being a game guide. It isn't notable (impacts on other games? Developer notes? Is it popular worldwide?) Seeing 20+ pages based on it would be horrible. I think we should concentrate on List of Battlefield 2 maps, for now. ~ Flooch 22:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, such information would be great on a Wikipedia 'guide' sister project but articles for individual maps don't belong on Wikipedia. Canderra 01:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I made the Songhua Stalemate article some time ago after seeing a number of articles for the Counter-strike maps (eg. de_dust, which just survived a deletion vote). Now I'm not so sure of its notability. Remy B 02:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
What if we included more information, like Flooch said? Make it more, encyclopedic. --Lorian 07:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I really dont know, its such a grey area. My only advice would be not to be surprised if any of these map articles get put up for deletion at some point in the future. Editors rightly go after fancruft because if it isnt kept under control then it gets way way out of hand (as the history of this article perfectly demonstrates) by, how should I put it, not-of-the-highest-maturity contributors. If you can demonstrate notability with content like Flooch suggested then it will help a lot with avoiding the fancruft chopping block. Remy B 08:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see a point to it, and its not really encylcopedia articles. I mean, there isn't really that much information about it. We could end up with people discussing good places for spawn camping and such. Specific articles for each ones is a bit over the top IMHO. Maybe if this was wanted, articles for USMC vs MEC, USMC vs China etc.... Reedy Boy 08:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I will give that a shot once I finish the Dalian Plant page. --Lorian 08:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I have added more information to the Dalian Plant article, to take the focus off of the flags section which is more like a guide like Flooch said. --Lorian 14:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
A Category for all the Map pages would be useful! Reedy Boy 08:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. Remy B 09:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Lorian - Looking good! IF they could be done for every map, i think those would stand on their own! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedy Boy (talk • contribs)
Great :) It's gonna takes ages, but I'm sure someone will help me... *cough* By the way, you forgot to sign your comment Remy. --Lorian 15:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually that was User:Reedy Boy :) Remy B 16:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
¬_¬ See what happens when you don't sign you corrents... --Lorian 16:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, where do you get pictures like this from? --Lorian 16:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to help make the pages, I have made a sort of template to follow, if you need a screenshot, ask me, I take good ones ;)
User:Lorian/BF2_map_template --Lorian 22:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, I try to sign them, but i do forget sometimes. I'm only human! Reedy Boy 12:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this!!! Lets make them all!! So it can help figure out the story line to Battlefield 2.

Alright, I'll tackle the Euro maps, and if I have time, the AF maps. I've already worked on the Great Wall map, but it needs pictures. Tell me what you folks think so far.--Hellogoodsir 01:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, I will make a screenshot for it. --Lorian 07:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It isn't done, but does anyone think it's going in the right direction? Feel free to edit, but it would be best if Great Wall vets helped out. Great Wall (Battlefield 2 map).--Hellogoodsir 19:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup, it's going in the right direction :) Maybe when you're done you could expand the details on some of the other maps, I couldn't think of what to write on most of the flags, but you're writing a frickin' essay for each one! :D
Anyway, I will go through and do a little clean up when you;re finished. --Lorian 19:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Armored Fury

It says in the Armored Fury section that it(the booster pack)is coming out today, but I have yet to see anything about it on the Official BF2 website. Any ideas on why this was added in? It really got my hopes up, since I use Wikipedia as a kind of first source for some things. --Reed9277 20:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Nevermind about the website part. I hadn't looked there first. It does indeed have information about the xpack itself, but none on the release date.--Reed9277 20:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

1.3 Patch

It seems a new version has come out (1.3, according to xfire), perhaps it is time to update this wiki? I noticed one of the items in the update log was commander dropped vehicles. Anyone tried that yet? ---Idiot with a gun 00:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried it, it's pretty fun to drop it on a carrier and just drive around on there, and also on a roof, like the hotel on Oman. And it's been updated in Wiki.--69.120.63.107 01:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

sorry bout that--69.120.63.107 01:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC) oh, and why do my posts keep on getting put into boxes? Grrr! I'm really sorry about all of this, but the above two posts are mine--Reed9277 01:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's all the spaces. If you want to indent, use colons. I edited it for you, to see if it worked. What vehicles can be dropped by the way? ---Idiot with a gun 03:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Only Humvees, DPVs, and Vodniks can be dropped. I was afraid the patch would allow tanks to drop which would have destroyed the game. Useless Fodder 17:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Humvees? Where's the option for that? I thought it was DPVs, FAVs and Vodniks... --Lorian 17:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is all the spaces you put in front of your comments. Put a : in front of your sentences to indent them, instead of spaces. ---Idiot with a gun 03:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Patch information change

I added in information and reference of these patches:

1.01 1.02 1.03 1.12

I also took the liberty of changing the previous article of BF2 patches so each information of a patch uses the same format. I also realize I need a source for a sentence in Patch 1.12 which I have claimed "undocumented changes." Despite most BF2 players knowing these changes, I feel the sentence needs a reference/source for it to exist in the article. I tried to find one but came empty; If no one else provides one, I'll gladly delete it :) --BirdKr 09:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Patch 1.22 -- 84.175.95.59 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

1.30 seriously needs to be condensed, the information is out of porportion compared to information about other patches. --BirdKr 07:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Patch Update Version 1.41 (officially released on November 16, 2006). The patch includes only one documented bug fix: "Fixed an extremely intermittent server crash bug." In reality, this patch did nothing except shut down internet play for those not willing to download it. Evidence of this is in the "Custom Games" tab, where the Battlefield 2 game tab still reads "1.4". However, the fix is not false as the rebooting of internet servers to fit this new patch automatically eliminates at least one bug. There is no incremental version of this patch, in order to induce people into choosing to purchase Battlefield 2142 instead of downloading the patch. This patch would be the only patch for BF2 that was made by the original development team[citation needed].

Questionable point of view and claims that just screams for citations. I believe it's better to delete it altogether except for the first sentence.--BirdKr 11:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

Per the request for review, I have read this article and cited its merits for meeting the GA prerequsites. I've passed it as appropriate and did a clean-up on the patches section, which simply required some bulleting and speaking in the third person. Editors should take care in the future to follow this as well and always use the context of "the player" rather than "you" or "he/she". -ZeroTalk 19:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Point of Existence

I have heavily updated and added to the Point of Existence mod for Battlefield 2. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Mathieu121 10:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rising Conflict

I have created the Rising Conflict mod section. I need help with the Riding Conflict page were it describes Rising COnflict. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Mathieu121 10:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Links

I'd like to add Battlefield 2 Common Fixes link. It just describes a couple of common and very significant fixes ie. widescreen support and coop support. --FlameHead 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just asking one last time before I add it... --FlameHead 13:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
You probably havent got any replies because you put the message at the top of the page, so I've moved it to the bottom. The standard convention is to put new sections at the bottom, which is where most people look for new comments. On topic... I dont think the link belongs in the article. The external links section of the article is meant to be for official links and more in depth information that is probably too detailed for an encyclopedia article. A directory of helpful hints for how to get it to work on your machine is something that people will find through Google rather than an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Remy B 10:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

May I add bf2s.com to the sites list? I think it deserves to be there -- as it is the official battlefield 2 stats site

No, bf2s.com is already mentioned in the appropriate section, whether it "deserves" to be is subjective, and it is not the official BF2 stats site - EA has its own system.--BirdKr 17:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Patches and Easter Eggs

This article has mostly good quality content but I think the Patches and Easter Eggs sections are holding it back. My view is that they contain pointless material that is taking up valuable space in an already too long article. Would anyone have a problem with me removing those sections? Remy B 12:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

     I find them interesting enough. I suggest leaving them. Arrowhead2006 24:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There is one thing that is incorrect though - you can drive the muscle car in Armored Fury and the liscense plate number is 2142

Awards and unlockable weapons

"Indeed, it has spawned a whole cross section of players obsessed with immaterial, practically worthless awards; players can be seen TKing for helicopters and explain it away by saying they want their Helicopter Service badge. Camping of jets and armour is also common. Humvees and Vodniks can often be seen parked in remote areas of the map simply sitting idle, so the player can have the requisite time in the seat to get their transport badge."

I'm not really very sure whether this should be in the article.

I know its what happens, but it isn't very relevant IMHO

Anyone else? Reedy Boy 13:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is part of the battlefield 2 game, and I have seen what you have said but I also have seen MUCH more people working to get these awards, badges and medals. And my second point is that it is one of the primary objectives in the battlefield 2 game. And also therefore should stay in the article, without the badges, medals and awards, the gaming community would have already died by now. Mathieu121 15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That text should be removed immediately. An encyclopedia (why do people forget thats what this is?) isnt the place to vent or whinge about your pet peeve. The text violates all 3 basic policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Whoever wrote it would be advised to read those policies to get a better understanding of what this site is about, and not about. Remy B 08:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent ABC news video

A video about BF2 on ABC about BF2 and the 'killing of Coalition forces' in the game and that its going to train Insurgents to kill U.S. soldiers (Oh no, terrorists gonna prone spam!) is located at http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2105341 I'm way too biased about the silliness of it to write about it, so watch the video and get writing if you aren't biased and won't use weasel words. Userpie 15:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC) (Even this talk section is biased! I could barely write this!)

I agree that this controversy should be given at least a brief mention on the page. People who hear about BF2 only in the context of this Pentagon controversy may want to look up more info about BF2, and this page should clarify its role in that controversy. It's also very relevant to the topic: it's relatively rare for a computer game to become part of a public Pentagon controversy. --IQpierce 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This is horrible! Now the terrorists will learn the secret art of Bunny Hopping and avoid all the Coalition Forces' bullets! Or maybe they will start Dolphin Diving instead....--Zxcvbnm 21:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ranked Servers

I think there should a External Link Section for Ranked battlefield 2 servers as they are almost needed as much as anything to do with the game. Without them there wouldn't be any ranks or any of that. So I started a Ranked Servers portion in the external links section, hope everyone is cool with that...

I put two server companies that I know up there I am in no way associated with them but I figured this would be a good place to have a list of EA Ranked Servers....

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - links like that just dont belong here. If people want to find a list of links about a topic they use search engines, not encyclopedias. Remy B 08:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Links to a place where you can get ranked servers have no place on an encyclopedia, they provide no useful information. --LorianTC 19:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks for your time.

System Requirements

Since this has lead to disagreements, we need a solution on whether or not the "unofficial" system requirements belong here.

From my point of view, wikipedia exists for providing usefull information; not for companies to have their product descriptions just cloned here. Many professionals are still using Windows 2000 so it is interesting for them to know that EA is obviously trying to force the gaming community to upgrade.

The Xeon processors are "official" in some way, I have found them listed in some .txt file that came with the installation.

I see your point with the "official system requirements" though and therefore changed it to just "system requriements". The wiki user will want to know the *real* system requirements, not what EA wants you to use. User:LoneWolfJack

Please sign your posts

I think it should be there, but ti seems we are only listing the official - ie what EA say are the specs Reedy Boy 20:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it qualify as WP:OR? --LorianTC 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It absolutely would. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - why do people forget that? You cant just write in any information you think might be true. Personal experience is not acceptable grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia, as you can see at WP:NOR. If people want to find 'useful information' that isnt properly verified from a reliable source, then they can use Google. Otherwise Wikipedia just becomes a dumping ground for unverified information like this and it no longer resembles an encyclopedia. Remy B 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not think so.

The whole point of a good encyclopedia is that it provides information that goes beyond what has been made official. The best ones even have their own staff of people who do research on their own. Also, we are not talking about some statement that can not be verified. Go get a dual xeon machine, put windows 2000 on it and it will work. Everyone can verify that. If we are just going to use information approved by EA, why not just link to the EA website? You can be sure they have everything on there they want you to know, not a bit more.

However, I can see that this is not going to be a honest discussion about what is best for the wiki, it is about some people just wanting to be right. Why listen to reason? After all, you are right anyway. Get a life. I will not waste any more time in this part of wikipedia. LoneWolfJack 13:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the WP:NOR policy, you can discuss it there. There is no point abusing me about it. Remy B 21:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Place an "offical" and "unofficial" information. They are both right.--sin-man 10:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than the fact that "unofficial" information would obviously violate the No Original Research policy, but allowing it will then allow other users to post their own configurations if their computer hardware specifications are lower than the current "unofficial" requirement to a point of this requirement specification being useless. I also sense that there will be bias in someway:

  • EA is obviously trying to force the gaming community to upgrade.

I don't want the requirement section to change simply because you have a minor conspiracy theory with a belief of what Wikipedia articles should achieve. Keep the way it is: Official requirements only, the argument being it goes against "No Original Research" policy. --BirdKr 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nominating the linked 'Cartillery' article for deletion

I have placed a 'nomination for deletion' template on the Cartillery article which is exclusivly linked from the 'patches' section of this page. A slang term for a hack - which according to EA has now been fixed - hardly warrants its own article, particularly as almost all the info in that article already appears in this article. Any objections? Canderra 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the hack is fixed now in 1.4. If it is fixed, it will likely be forgotten. Such article is more suitable for UrbanDictionary, not Wikipedia. Voidvector 19:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Booster packs

Since User:Swatjester insists on keeping the loaded word "significant", can somebody at the very least remove the word "do" in the second sentence of this section? It is not appropriate for the sentence. I am obviously be watched since I am anonymous user, so I would much appreciate some help from a logged-in user. Thank you. 69.124.143.230 22:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Extreme amount of bugs in patch 1.4

I know this is kind of off-topic, but has anyone else noticed the seemingly extreme amount of bugs since patch 1.4. I know Battlefield 2 has always had a reputation for being one of the buggiest games of all time but some of the new bugs are just funny. My favorite is the one where your c4 mysteriously self-detonates, but rather than killing you it sends you and your teammates flying (unhurt) across the map, a bit of research and this could be really used to some effect!

Thankfully server crashes seem to have decreased a little. On a more serious note, I hope BF2142 actually gets some people who know how to program working on it though. Canderra 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's mostly because most of the bugs in 1.3 and previous versions were never fixed in 1.4. Most of the bugfixes were for engine and server stability, because it will be the same engine used for BF2142, which is what EA and Dice are now working on. So basically, you don't have to worry about BF2142, since the bugfixes they are implementing for BF2 now are all intended for BF2142. Oh and another thing, the Dice team working on BF2 right now is Dice Canada, while Dice Sweden is the one working on BF2142. The Sweden team is notably less incompetent. Of course I won't be adding any of this to the article because I don't have any references, but it should at least explain to you why every patch of BF2 has slowly made it a buggier and buggier game. 69.124.143.230 17:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Squad Hopping

We should probably add a section for squad hopping pre-1.3, right? I don't think it should get its own page, but it probably deserves a mention. 69.124.143.230 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I really dont think so. I would much rather stick to what the game is than the nuances of how people have played it in certain versions. Remy B 01:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking some tiny sub-section since I believe there is a reference to the term once or twice in the article itself. 69.124.143.230 23:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
How about we remove the reference to squad hopping or, instead of using the term, give its definition instead? I think it's used only once in the article. Does that sound agreeable? 69.124.143.230 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Repair Pads

I didn't even see this at first, but is

Unlike Battlefield 1942, there are no ground vehicle repair pads. This means that the only methods of repair are via engineer, or the comparatively slow supply drop. This is to necessitate a stronger, more urgent team dynamic, and in a way breaks the sense of dominance tanks had in previous games in the series.

technically original research? I don't recall EA or Dice even mentioning the lack of vehicle repair pads, or why they chose to drop them. I'd be interested in seeing a source. 69.124.143.230 23:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like original research, or at least it looks like an unverified assumption. Feel free to remove it. Remy B 09:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Unofficial Story

I moved the following section here because it is a fan-fiction and does not have enough notoriety, so not reference worthy. --Voidvector 20:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Unofficial Story

The following unofficial story was created by Talon1579. Please do not copy this story withou the permission of Talon1579 or bf2s.com.

Chapter One: MEC

November, 2006. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, finally declares that the country has made nuclear weapons. He states that he will not use them unless pushed, as the US and other countries possess them and it is his right.

The UN meetings begin, but nothing is resolved. The threat of nuclear war is too high, and eventually they cut trade with Iran.

Oil prices go up, and Bush faces more criticism then ever. With Prime Minister Blair of the UK now handed over power to Gordon Brown, the UK is far less eager to go to war than ever before. The US is on its own, but for once has support of the most of the public, with the increasing costs of car and air travel.


February, 2007: While the army is mobilized, the Marines are sent to invade Iran, to capture vitally needed olfields and prepare the way for the full-scale invasion. When the landing ships near the Persian Gulf, the full extent of Iran's plans come into play. They've formed the Middle Eastern Coalition. The main members are Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Palastinian Territories, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Oman, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE are forced to join or face invasion, and do. Egypt remains neutral.

India, fearing a destructive conflict, signs a neutrality pact with the MEC to prevent another war with Pakistan.

President Bush can't back down now. He continues with his invasion plan of Iran. The Marines begin the invasion of Iran at the Gulf of Oman, while the MEC armies are still massing. They capture a key airbase, to provide cover for the landing craft. Operation Clean Sweep, the destruction of forces guarding the entrance to the Gulf, swiftly follows, and succeeds, granting the USMC access to the whole Gulf, and a landfall in the UAE. They quickly push into Saudi Arabia.

Sharqi Peninusla provides a second foothold in Iran for the USMC. The MEC counterattacks, but is driven back after fierce city fighting.

Under pressure to capture oil, elements of the marines are routed through the Gulf of Aden, to capture the oil rich wetlands of Zatar, in Yemen.

With footholds secured in Iran and Saudia Arabia, The US push both east and west, to capture the large city of Mashtuur in Iran, and the strategic point of Kubra Dam in Saudi Arabia. Both places will be used as bases for further incursions into the countries. Then, elements fom both forces will coverge to capture the city of Karkand, on the Iran/Iraq border.

Chapter Two: China

August, 2007: President Hu Jintao, of the PRC, seizes the oppurtunity. With US oil prices higher than ever and the country heading towards economic chaos, he cuts trade with the US completely. Now facing a huge lack of oil and many other goods, Bush is forced to attack China to secure the extra oil he needs, and to prevent the US from falling of its throne as the world's most powerful nation. The US navy, mostly unused in the Middle East, sails to Manchuria with the USMC.

A treaty with Russia allows the US to attack Manchuria from East Siberia. They immidately head for the crossing point of the Songhua River, the mining area of Fu She and the Oilfields at Daqing. A seaborned landing in the bay of Po Hai alllows the US to take the Dalian Nuclear Facility. They attempt to capture the mouth of the Yellow River at Dragon valley, but are repelled.

Gradually a stalemate builds, with the dominance of the US navy allowing them to land more and more troops, and China moving more and more troops to Manchuria and Bejing.

Chapter 3: Wake Island

December, 2007: In a move reminiscent of Pearl Harbour, the Chinese equivalent of the Marines destroys the small garrison at Wake Island and captures the airstrip there. Bringing in highly advanced J-10 fighters, they bgein destroying supply ships bound for Manchuria. USMC reinforcements for Manchuria divert to Wake Island to destroy the chinese planes there and recapture the airstrip. However, it will not be easy. The first landing ship sent there is decimated by the Chinese artillery and air power set up on the island. A stronger force is sent almost immidiately. The USS Essex, leading the assault, is bombed continuously by J-10s, suffering heay damage. But many marines launching in RIBs and hovercrafts capture both the North and South beachheads. A large squadron of F-35Bs eventually destroys the PLA air power, and the PLA forces, pushed back by both sides, retreat to the airfield The USMC land tanks, which decimate the PLA infantry. Finally, the airstrip is bombed to smithereens. The base is destroyed, but useless as an airbase without major repair work. However, with US reinforcements sent here instead of Manchuria, the Chinese are gradually pushing the US back on the mainland.

Chapter Four: Special Forces

Meanwhile...

Behind every war there are the Special Forces. The less publicised battles that were fought in many countries.

July, 2007: British occupation forces in Fallujah, Iraq, left over from the Iraq War, have sustained attacks by an Insurgent Warlord, a fromer member of Saddam's army. Any attempt to counterattack is met with the deaths of Iraqi civilians. This became unnaceptable to the British government, who sent in the SAS to capture the Warlord's compund and take out the Warlord himself. The compound was taken after fierce city fighting, but the Warlord himself escaped.

The same Warlord is discovered by MI6 in Syria, reactivating an abandoned airport. His purpose is unlcear, but it is possibly going to be used to airdrop terrorist cells into Europe. The SAS are sent under the cover of night, by parachute, to try and eliminate him once again and stop the Warlord. This time, they are succesful, capturing the Warlord and "convincing" him to reveal information about the new MEC Special Forces, who he had been working in co-operation with.

With this new intel, US intelligence sends the SEALs to Devil's Perch, a former sanitarium off the coast of Lebanon, where MEC Special Forces are constructing a base for European operations. The US attack by submarine, seeing it as a way to gain the support of Europe and start another front in Lebanon. The site is effectively captured, but while the battle raged, MEC Special Forces launch two, simultaneous attacks.

In an attempt to cripple the US forces, and gain valuble technology, the MEC attack the new Nuclear Submarine pens in Oman, and the USS Essex, docked off the coast of Dubai. The sub pens fall, but after the evacuation of the submarines themselves. The MEC SF are forced to retreat, as they lack the forces to hold the base. The USS Essex is occupied, but a swift counterattack by SEALs, who know the inside of the ship well, eliminates all the MEC SF onboard.

August, 2007: The MEC high command, seeking to gain allies and money in the war, secretly does deals with both Russia and the Chechnyan Rebels. They supply the Rebels with the tools to reactivate a Chemical Weapons factory and to build a missile capable of delivering the deadly payload. In return the MEC gets vast amounts of money, and stolen plans for newer Russian jets, tanks and weapons, allowing to build a newer military for their future grand plan...

Russia has close links with the EU, and has already allowed the US to use Siberia as a staging point. To help prevent them joining the war against the MEC, the MEC informed them of the Rebels' plans, double-crossing their allies.

The Russians, grateful to the MEC, secretly sent blueprints of their new APC design to the MEC via the Caspian sea. A rogue Ukranian independence faction had "somehow" found out about this convoy, and rigged a ghost town with anti-vehicle mines purchased secretly from Britain.

The SAS then sent in a team to capture the remains of the plans. The Spetznaz were sent in to do the same job, but the Ukranians had overdone it and nothing remained but burning hulks. After fierce fighting, both sides retreated.

Meanwhile, thanks to the MEC, the Russians now knew about the Rebel operations in Kazakhstan and Chechnya. Sending large, well-armed Spetznaz teams, the Chemical factory and missile launch site where quickly captured.

Chapter Five: Euro Force

January, 2008: On the First of January the European Union signs a pact to creat a joint military, the Euro Force. Although it only comprises around a third of each country's military, the combined force is very large. The most modern technology such as the Eurofighter, Challenger Tanks and the best weapons are given to this new force. With the creation of the EF, Europe becomes the fourth Superpower, joining the ranks of the USA, China and the MEC.

February, 2008: US forces in Manchuria are forced into full retreat. The US concedes that it has lost the war and begins to fortify the Pacific islands, fearing that the Chinese will retaliate. However, in the Middle East, things have been going very well for the US. After Mashtuur City in Iran was conquered, the US had a stable base. From there the country was occupied, and the MEC army pushed back to Afghanistan. The other wing of the army was pushed back from Kubra Dam and Saudi Arabia into Iraq. The city of Karkand is now the main base of the Western MEC army. So far it's been holding out, but the continued assaults will soon make it fall.

Resources are desperately needed in the Pacific to prevent a Chinese invasion. To help finish off the MEC, the US ask the EU to help in the war. Seeking to gain extra oilfields, the EU agree.

Invading Northern Iraq through Turkey, the latest EU member, the Euro Force begins Operation Smoke Screen. They plan to destroy MEC oil reserves and capture the oilfields for themselves. In the open deserts, large tank battles are the order of the day.

Trying to prevent the US from encircling Karkand, MEC tank brigades are slow to respond, and most of the oil reserves are destroyed. They make it in time to battle the EF, leaving scorching tank wrecks littered over Northern Iraq.

With the main MEC armour protecting the oilfields, the US finally storms Karkand, wiping out the last remnants of the Western MEC army. The EU forces, being driven back by the MEC armour, were eventually saved by the US army advancing north from Karkand.

In Iran, a US brigade turns north to assist the EU in Iraq. However, MEC forces in Northern Iran were larger than expected, and the US brigade was cut off. Now that the EF's mission was accomplished, part of the EF turned east from Turkey into Iran, to assist the US and eliminate the resistance in northern Iran. The MEC, fearful of being surrounded, fortify the only crossing point of the Taraba river, stopping the EF getting through. The US brigade was eliminated, but the MEC was weakened enough to be finished off by the EF forces. Leaving the assault in the east to the US, the EF occupied Iraq against local resistance.

However, the US once again pleaded for EF help, their retreat in Manchuria was being slowed by frequent PLA attacks. The EF was asked to attack from the north to ease the pressure on the US forces, and eventully link up, with the hope of stopping the PLA forces and remaining in China. MI6, using caputed intel from the ruined MEC base in Karkand, informed the Russians of the MEC's double deal with the Chechnyan Rebels and Russia. Russia agrees to let the EU march through Russia and to Mongolia to assist the US forces there.

July, 2008: The US holds the Manchurian coast, but not much more. The EF finally arrives after a long journey across Russia and attacks the Great Wall. While it may have stopped the Mongols, its no match for the EF, and they quickly overrun it, spearing into China. However, their supply lines are very thin, and a linkup with the US proves impossible. The US eventually abandon China completely, and the EU follows.

Chapter Six: Armoured Fury

September, 2008: Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, armed with brand new Russian-style tanks and planes, set sail into the Mediterranean. The US navy is completely comitted in the Pacific and cannot respond. The target is thought to be Europe, and the EU countries act individually. Instead of attacking the MEC Navy as a whole, they protect their own coasts. However, the MEC Navy heads past Spain and goes towards the US East Coast. The true target is now realised. Britain sends ships in pursuit, but all of its aircraft carriers are in the Persian Gulf, and it hasn't got the forces.

The US army is also mostly commited in the Pacific. Marines, National Guard and US Army Reserve units are sent to the East coast, but the exact landing place is unknown. The MEC make a successful landing in Delaware Bay. The Canadian Army, so far uncommited in the war, marches south from Toronto combined with US Armour. The MEC attack and take a key freeway junction, allowing them access for their tanks to most of the East Coast. From here, half move south to siege Washinton D.C, and the other half head north to meet the oncoming US-Canadian armour. The main battle ranges in the farmland of Lancaster County, where the peaceful civilians flee, leaving empty barns and cottages which are occupied and used for temporary bases. Thanks to the help of the Canadians and the MEC's lack of a real supply line, the MEC are defeated, although not without cost to the allied force.


The DC National Guard finally fall, as does Washington. The White House and the Capitol are triumphantly destroyed. But even the MEC know that the large armies pincering them from north and south are unstoppable. The MEC swiftly follow the fate of the capital and are destroyed.


November, 2008: With the US forces driven form their soil, the Chinese finally retaliate. Skipping the target of Hawaii, they head North and make landfall at Valdez, Alaska, near the Canadian Border. The US have stationed forces there, but they aren't enough. While the US Navy races north, the PLA's tanks and APCs steamroller over the American forces in Alaska, capturing Valdez, Anchorage, and Juneau, effectively controlling the state. Canada, with no forces even remotely in the area, eagerly accepts China's proposition of a neutrality pact. China, apparently satisfied with its conquest, begins peace talks with the US.


Chapter Seven: The Road to Jalalabad


October, 2008: Throughout the year, the MEC army has been battling the US in Afghanistan. For months they've been gradually pushed back towards the east fo their country. Both sides have taken huge losses, but the war shows no sign of ending. The EF occupies the Middle East and is unwilling to aid. Kabul, capital of Afghanistan, eventually falls. The only city left, before the Pakistani border, is Jalalabad. Here, the MEC plan to make their final stand. The US forces make an all out attack, decimating the city. But their supply lines stretch across the Middle East, and the MEC hold their ground.


Chapter Eight: Endgame


November, 2008: China and the US finally agree on a peace treaty. The Chinese will be allowed to keep Alaska, in return for not attacking the rest of the USA and the resumption of trade. In a surprise move, the Chinese declare alliance with the MEC, and state that any further action against them will have dire consequences for the US. Militarily crippled, the US knows it cannot hold all its conquests, and retreats to the Iran/Iraq border.


Chapter Nine: Age of the Superpowers

2009: With MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) no longer a way to avoid world war, the nations of the Earth begin to form superpowers. Everyon witnessed the countries of Kuwait, Oman, the UAE and others get dragged into a war, as they were too weak to resist.

The PRC and the MEC become full allies, creating the Pan Asian Coalition. Russia, despite aiding the EU army, is invited to join and accepts. India, geographically seperated from Europe and America, also joins rather than become isolated.

The EU invites the crippled USA and Canada into the EU, and combines all their militaries to create a much larger Euro Force.

The nations of Africa, protecting their oil and mining rights, create the highly unstable UAS, the Union of African States.

Although historically safe in WW1 and 2, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Veneuzuela combine to form the SAC, the South American Confederacy. Most of the other nations swiftly join them.

Australia and New Zealand, traditionally allies of Britian, declare themselves allied to each other, but neutral to any future conflicts. This agreement is called the Neutrality Pact.


The borders of the World have changed. Eurasia is now split by the Steel Curtain. Alaska is occupied by the PAC. Religious barriers begin to be cast aside as countries ally simply for protection. It is the beginning fo the Second Cold War, but that war is about to get even colder...

Wikipedia is not a game guide stop making battlefield 2 guide articles

The articles on the ranks and awards is a gameguide article I tagged both of them for deletion. If and when they are deleted don't recreate.--M8v2 22:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

make me :P
I think you are confused about what a game guide is. A game guide is where there are tips and hints and instructions and non-objective things like that. Simply having information on a game is not a game guide. If that is what you think a game guide is, then why dont you put the main game articles up for deletion as well? Remy B 03:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


The easter egg section of this article DOES read like a games guide to me. --Charlesknight 09:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps can we remove it?--M8v2 23:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
wtf why do you want to delete everything battlefield 2?


I really don't think you know what you are talking about. These are expansions to sections in an article that has become huge. This is what is happening in all articles when they get to a certain size. What is this obsession with game guides?

I ask the same question of User:Daveydweeb. --WikiCats 01:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How is Dead Fish: If a TOW is fired into the water on Dragon Valley, sometimes dead fish (of the same model as the ones in the crates) will rise to the surface. NOT an instruction? It tells you how and where - If there is confused about what a games guide is, it's on your part. --Charlesknight 06:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Oh and if I may further comment, it's not like it's a single "rogue" editor out madly slashing articles. All of the recent AFDs have shown that the community consensus was that those articles were clearly games-guide chuff. Feel free to expand the articles but make sure the context is of a nature in keeping with an encyclopedia - otherwise, it's a swift road to AFD. --Charlesknight 06:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What's "chuff"? --WikiCats 07:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're done with the crusade, now, M8v2 and Charlesknight. Time to give it a rest. Easter egg section will not go. 69.124.143.230 05:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to say I put those articles up for deletion because they were against policy I have nothing agaisnt Battlefield 2 (I play battlefield 2 look up m8v2) So putting up those articles was just enforcement of policy. And from the looks of the deletions it seems like other editors agree.--M8v2 02:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the obsession?

What is the obsession with deleting sub-articles? When articles reach a certain size, sections are broken off into new articles. This is common in Wikipedia across all large articles.

This article is 47 kilobytes long, well over the 32 kilobyte recommended maximum. Sections had been broken off into new sub-articles.

Now we have certain editors with an obsession with deleting those sub-articles. The reasons given are some of the most irrational possible. They reason they gave was that the articles contained game guide information. The other reason was that they were cruft. Cruft means old or decrepit.

Battlefield 2 is played by over a million people. Do they regard it as old and decrepit? Instead of removing any game guide contributions their solution was to delete the whole sub-articles. Absurdity to the extreme!

All the information contained in the deleted articles can not go back into this article because it is already too big. The sub-articles have to be recreated. --WikiCats 12:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


at this time I have made 2717 edits of various sorts on wikipedia. Of those, @7 have been connected to Battlefield 2 - that means that Battlefield edits account for about 0.25% of my edits. Clearly a dangerous obession on my part... if you feel that those articles need to be recreated, you need to take it to here. If you atttempt to just recreate them, they will be speedy deleted. ( BTW cruft in the wikipedia sense does not relate to old and decrepit but generally to material that is of little or no value to the general reader). --Charlesknight 13:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So you have little interest in Battlefield 2 and you are too lazy to re-edit game guide contributions. You just vote to delete the whole article. Would that be a fair assessment? --WikiCats 14:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have NO interest in Battlefield 2, however you can say the same about 75% of the articles I edit. My interest is making sure what is there is of a standard that is suitable for an encyclopedia and suitable for the general reader. Why would I re-write games guide contributions - what's the point? We are not a gamesguide - such contributions should be deleted. I'm not sure what needs to be said. If you want the articles back take it to review - otherwise you are just whining. --Charlesknight 14:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
You could try rewriting the "game guide" articles so they are less of a game guide but still contain the information pertinent to the main Battlefield 2 article. There was a lot of work put into this pages, and now it's all gone. 69.124.143.230 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Here, a present for you Charlesknight: {{gameguide}} 69.124.143.230 17:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
69.124.143.230 why are you trying to make the sitaution worse by sending none working tampletes--M8v2 02:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your digging a bigger hole for your self. You have no interest in Battlefield 2. Most probably you don't play the game. Your only interest is trolling Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Are you aware that the correct procedure, if an article contains game guide contributions is to place this tag: {gameguide}, not to delete the whole article. --WikiCats 02:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Next time your playing battlefield 2 and your at the BFHQ look up user m8v2. I have much interest in battlefield 2 but my interest in wikipedia is far greater that I choose what is best for wikipedia and not for battlefield --M8v2 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I did look you up Stf Sgt. Check out aust123 . It's all about the game nothing else. But BF2 is finished. Now its 2142. --WikiCats 11:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Like BF:V was the finish of BF1942? :) (couldnt help myself) Remy B 11:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I looked you up. Your pretty good must have been playing a while. Anyway I never played any of the other Battlefields but from what I hear BF:V was pretty bad huh.--M8v2 01:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Easter egg section

I was looking over the peer review archive for this article and it is agreed up in thye peer review that the easter egg section needs to be rrmoved in order for the article to become featured.--67.81.85.50 22:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. --Charlesknight 22:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
If you recall, the peer review only contained the opinion of a few users who thought the easter egg section would restrain the page from reaching FA status, but not giving much reasoning for this opinion other than "it has no real relevance to anything" but I completely disagree with this sentiment. I wholeheartedly disagree with the removal of the Easter Egg section, though I DO agree that a big cleanup of the section needed to occur. I would have agreed with removal of all the easter egg pictures (one of the peer reviewers mentioned the fact that there were more pics illustrating the easter eggs than the actual game itself, and I agree with him that this is a bad idea) and condensing of the actual info, featuring at most one or two lines describing each easter egg. Easter eggs are a notable feature of any game that contains them (and it's not like editors can have difficulty providing verifiability) and, especially considering the multitude of these eggs in BF2, I believe they are worthwhile additions to any video or computer game article. 69.124.143.230 00:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with a line or two but no more. Remy B 08:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Patch section

That really needs to be no more than a paragraph - mentioning multiple patches were released and that the most upto date was...

--Charlesknight 22:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a few changes, it's still far from done but I think it helped condense the section quite a bit. I think it's important for the section to have information for when new content like maps and weapons were added, and how the patches relate to the expansion and booster packs. 69.124.143.230 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I condensed details of many patches. I decided to only list specifics such as maps, weapons, and gameplay mode while others as "various gameplay additions/tweaks and changes"--BirdKr 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Euro Forces

I've compiled some interesting things about this booster here: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=45866

It's nothing much, but if you want to check it out and think it contains anything useful, go for it!--Hellogoodsir 03:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also, this here statement has me feeling uneasy. "It was scheduled for release in February, but was delayed due to a substantial amount of new bugs caused by the release of patch 1.2." While it was true there was some bugs along the way, I believe the main concern with it's delay was staff being laid off and being shifted around. I can find you something that can hint that, but I think a source from EA explaining the above statement. It just sounds like someone is assuming since Dice has programmed pretty shity patches, that this was the sole reason.--Hellogoodsir 03:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi protect?

Can we semi protect the page theres been alot of vandalism lately?--M8v2 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

mag-taping

I don't know if anybody cares, but some of the arab soldiers have taped together two magazines and just flipp it when they reload. does anyone know it this happens in real life and where one can read more about that, and perhaps other "solider tricks" like that?

See Magazine (firearms)#Box and Magazine clamp for a little bit more info about joining amunition magazines together. I'm sure you can find more information outside of Wikipedia if you care to look. Try Google. BlckKnght 04:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Gameplay section update

I hope the editting I added to the Gameplay section is acceptable. I had noticed, when reading it that it could use some extra explanation (such as "ticket bleed") and so I added said material with a ref/cite. (Yes, I am a new Wikipedian, but hopefully I've not gone outside community standards in this update.) As a second part -- is there any way I can add a link to the +GRID+ clan website (who is responsible for the tutorial I used as a reference... but does not host said tutorial themselves at the moment, due to their personal clan website being overhauled)?

Best regards to the community! JDBarnhart 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Global stats

Why were the following links removed?

I think these were a good contribution to the article so wikireaders can see BF2 rankings work with actual players 69.92.59.9 23:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Weapons

Wasn't there a list of weapons sub-article for Battlefield 2? Can someone explain to me what happened? Waffle77 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It got deleted but it wasn't considered notable enough information for Wikipedia. Remy B 11:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No it was deleted because it wasn't useful--M8v2 02:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Links and other additions

Theres been alot of activity on the article lately and I want to see what some of the other editors think about more additions and reformatting.

  • Mentions of stat inflation on the ranking section.
  • Mentions and maybe a sub section dealing with hacking and game glitching like the in Counter Strike article.
  • How about some mentions or links to some unsupported battlefield 2 tournaments.
  • Move the system requirements up or remove them.
  • Move the map list down.
  • Add more pictures especially to the booster pack section

any thoughts?--M8v2 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Mentions of stat inflation on the ranking section.

What do you mean by this? From the way it's worded and vaguely described, I feel this will be more from original research based on bias and opinion.

  • Mentions and maybe a sub section dealing with hacking and game glitching like the in Counter Strike article.

I believe that the existence of the article about Counterstrike's cheats and hacks is justified because it is comprehensive. However, for Battlefield 2, reliable and neutral information about cheats/hacks for this game will most likely be limited. Then there's the chance that this section would become a summary of cheating/hacking in PC games in general.

  • How about some mentions or links to some unsupported battlefield 2 tournaments.

Directly in the article of Battlefield 2? No, as of right now, the article is clean of any mentions of 3rd party programs or additions. However, you could link and create a Wikipedia article about these tournaments, similar to how the list of Battlefield 2 mods has its own article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battlefield_2_mods) linked under the "See Also" section.

  • Move the system requirements up or remove them.

This I have to agree of moving it up, possibly before the Reception section so that the quote "but added a disclaimer that the gaming experience is best if your machine is up to it'" in that section will have more sense to the readers.

  • Move the map list down.

It's part of the features of Battlefield 2, that section as a whole seems to be appropriately placed. It would seem a bit awkward for a branch of this section (maplist) to be inbetween or within the miscellaneous and expansion/booster sections of Battlefield 2.

  • Add more pictures especially to the booster pack section

Nothing wrong with that so long as it's only maybe 2 or 3 more, most showing the expansion/booster packs.

--BirdKr 12:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Mass Deletion

wtf happened from the System Requirements down? its all gone.--Fissionfox 09:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Fixed it--M8v2 04:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the Criticism section

At first, I was "cropping" out statements and paragraphs of the criticism section due to biased opinionated perspective, speculation, and no citations. It appears the whole section should either be erased or reformed. If I remember correctly, this section was more appropriate than it is now. I'm simply going to revert this section to what it was (if there was). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Seems there isn't, who here also favors deleting the article until it is written in a more appropriate manner? To be more specific, I feel this:

If one were to take a passing glance at the amount of complaining that went on about various aspects of BF2, it is quite possible that one reason for problems was EA's apparent lack of communication with fans; whether it was communication to fans about which problems were being addressed and why, or communication from fans about what problems existed. This seemed only to cause more aggravation and uproar. Seemingly in response to these issued, DICE at one point introduced a community manager charged with the task of collecting information on issues that were common among the community, as well as relaying the information back to those working on the patch...

and the rest of the paragraph that follows needs to cite sources, clean up on perspective, and cut the speculation.

The whole section is written in slight POV and is totally unsourced. That's why I had the "OR" tag on it, but it was removed. I will put it back until there are sources or if the entire section is removed. Blacklist 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In a few days, I'll be deleting this section, I believe this article is the work of one user's opinion; I seriously doubt the claims could ever be directly cited.BirdKr 05:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the above section titled \'Reactions and criticisms\' of this discussion page. I specifically put in that area my reasoning for why I added this piece to the article and it also explains the lack of sources. You\'ve all obviously either ignored it or simply not realised that is where I explained my reasoning for putting criticism in the article and why more importantly I did not cite any sources. It was not simply because I didn\'t have any, it\'s because of the sheer number that exist in the forums. If you\'re so hungry for source then I gladly point you in the direction of the EAUK forums and the TotalBF2 forums, and even the EAUS forums where you\'ll find posts on every subject mentioned in my part of the article over the last year indicating none of it was \'biased\' or formed on \'my opinion alone\'.

First, I am aware of these forums and I frequently do browse these forums, especially TotalBF2. In most of these threads, they are mere speculation and accusations that have no reference or citation. Even if you add in these references, the article will be referencing a reference that has no reference/reliable source nor any credibility. I wouldn't mind if you created an article that pointed out flaws referenced by reliable sources than conspiracy theories from fellow BF2 members. If you believe these threads and posts are credible, then it shouldn't be too difficult to pinpoint the essence that supports these claims as fact. And by essence, I do not mean the opinion of users and its popularity (popular opinion =/= fact). Finally, just because there are "supposedly" sheer number of threads relating to these claims does not excuse the fact that you must cite your sources. --BirdKr 14:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
As BirdKr pointed out, forum posts are not reliable sources, and often the result of original research. Criticisms need to be documented and identified as important by credible sources, not by players. --Scottie theNerd 22:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
If not members of the community, who then is qualified to provide "credible" information? Who is qualified to be cited as "a credible source"? Do you really expect that EA or Dice are going to come here and fill out a Wiki report on issues like these? Or that one of the gaming magazines, on or offline, are going to do it?
Think again! EA has companies like these in its pockets. They need EA to provide them with the all important "exclusive first look" at upcoming titles in order to "report" (if it can be called such, dependant as they are on EA’s good graces) back to the community what they "thought" of the game. They need EA to provide them with the means by which they stay in business; keeping viewership high. Without these exclusives, they would simply fade away.
Do you really believe that they are going to do the community justice by ratting on EA's flag-ship titles? No, indeed what we see is them falling over themselves to assign high marks to products that are clearly and indeed have proven to be deeply flawed. I point out that the vast majority of these flaws are well documented by the community while gaming mags hardly say a word about them.
Reporting on hundreds of voices all yelling the same thing has to count for a little more than some people around here are willing to give credit for. Some people here assert that the community is an important though unreliable, incredible source. I tell you the gaming magazines are just as bad, if not worse, showing a particular bias toward publishers in order to maintain their own livelihoods rather than do any true journalism.
When journalistic sources cannot be trusted, the community is all that is left. And while citing community opinion does involve original research, it has to start somewhere. I am dismayed to see this section was removed, yet again and I have to wonder if those who persist in removing it aren’t themselves either biased or perhaps in some way themselves connected with EA; employees or shareholders perhaps. Braidedheadman 15:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I do support readding it in some sence but policy is against it. If we could somehow source it the section would pass WP:V but fail WP:RS a much less 'important' policy but still policy. BJTalk 15:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "truth", regardless of whether it the community's perspective of truth or the developers. While you are entitled to your opinion, do not forget that there are other opinions out there. If you do wish to include a section for criticisms, be aware that they must abide by WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Also, be warned that you should not use Wikipedia as your soapbox. --Scottie theNerd 15:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
*rolling eyes* Here is just a seed of thought to start with: EA acknowledges criticism of poor support. Braidedheadman 16:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
And? If you want to include that and reference it in the article, do so. Be aware that the article only mentions an ambiguous patching process and the support services are being provided for Battlefield 2142, not Battlefield 2. Nonetheless, if you can milk the official announcement for something you would like to include, provided you don't go out on a limb to make your own statements based on the announcement, it is a credible citation. --Scottie theNerd 04:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
"And while citing community opinion does involve original research, it has to start somewhere". It's better to not start somewhere that will inject in original research into this article. Although I too have some grudge against EA, I know that I cannot vent or support any unreliable claims that have no verifiable proof; we have the forums for that. Wikipedia however, is not a forum nor a mouthpiece of the community, it's an article where only facts are told. Furthermore, this, the discussion page, is also not the place to vent against EA, but more to improve the article. Some of the claims and mentions you (Braidedheaman) made feel more of a monologue than an input to discuss how to improve or revise this article...I think that's what a "soapbox" is I guess.
If not members of the community, who then is qualified to provide "credible" information? Who is qualified to be cited as "a credible source"? Do you really expect that EA or Dice are going to come here and fill out a Wiki report on issues like these? Or that one of the gaming magazines, on or offline, are going to do it?
If there are no credible sources that mentions many of these claims that were in the now erased criticism section, shouldn't that indicate whether those were facts or not? Regardless of what the community has to say, if they cannot provide a reliable source, then those claims are merely claims, not facts. As I said before, if these claims are popular and widely believed, then it shouldn't be too hard to find the evidence that proves those are facts.
Think again! EA has companies like these in its pockets. They need EA to provide them with the all important "exclusive first look" at upcoming titles in order to "report" (if it can be called such, dependant as they are on EA’s good graces) back to the community what they "thought" of the game. They need EA to provide them with the means by which they stay in business; keeping viewership high. Without these exclusives, they would simply fade away.
This argument is weak since it seems more of an opinion than a fact. If you truly believe in this hypothesis, please give me a reference. This reply also goes to other comments that mentions journalism. This argument won't justify the inclusion of criticism section that would have poor unreliable references since it's also original research, the italicized text that is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 08:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

That link you provided reminded me of several community updates that could be used to as a source and citation for a criticism section:

http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79895

http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76980

http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77025

http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67277

Even though these are forum posts, these posts provided a reliable source: EA, to post this information. It certainly won't let you type powerful yet highly questionable claims, but now you at least have some sources to write the section. More could be found if you search totalbf2's news archive: http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2 --BirdKr 09:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Use the official announcements the posts are reporting; don't use the forum posts themselves. --Scottie theNerd 10:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Breaking WP:NOT

Am I the only one who thinks this article breaks the WP:NOT Criteria? It is writen too much like a game guide. It goes into great detail about diferent classes, deatails of weapons, patches and everything else you expect to see in a game guide. This definately needs a clean up and should be removed from the good articles list untill this has been done. Mattyatty 12:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to condense, edit, and rewerite some of the sections, specifically about infantry classes. I believe it's far too detailed than it's needed. I'll also try to add in the picture of a boxart of a retail booster pack which would replace the current boxart of AF...if I ever figure out how to post it
--BirdKr 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE- I condensed the entire infantry class article as I believe it was too detailed and bloated--BirdKr 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Boxshots?

Where did all the boxshot's go? I've addded them all back but get rid of them if there is something i don't know.

--Sam Green 13:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The person who deleted them cited the previous boxshots did not provide proper authorization for use.
--BirdKr 16:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 08:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok

--Kai81123 13:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I added one that's properly cited, one of the Deluxe Edition. If you guys want, I can get the Complete Edition picture and add that.--Surfaced 19:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

RPG???

Can someone explain to me how BF2 contains a single RPG element, as the lead's decided to inform us? My mind's boggled. Seegoon 02:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it refers to the leveling system it uses Mattyatty 19:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well due to the fact that you level up and can only get some things when you get enough points is classed as roleplaying.

--Kai81123 12:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

This article has been opened for discussion over possible delisting as a good article. Please add comments at the review page here: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Battlefield_2. --Scottie theNerd 09:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Article has been delisted from the Good Article list. The article looks significantly improved since the review, but it still contains too many elements pf game guides or technical lists, and still looks bloated. Once enough fixes have been made, we can put this article up for another GA review. --Scottie theNerd 21:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in case anyone's interested i've archived the dispute, it was 4-0 to delist, at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 13. Homestarmy 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article

I reworded, deleted, and added more general statements in the Gameplay article so that it won't to too big as it was before while removing unnecessary details. If you have any issues or comments on this revision, post here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 04:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I also deleted two sections from the Features section: Mini-map and commo rose. To me, these are not notable nor important to mention for Battlefield 2. These two especially reads like more of a guide to people who bought the game already. Had it been important, I've would've rewritten it but as I said before, it's not important to be written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I think it might be necessary to lock this article due to constant posts of "so and so is the best at this game." and such. This is defenetly not an advertising site, therefore these comments should not be here. Please take this into consideration. -lex_21

I'll be working on fixing the references and citations this weekend. Would be nice if someone provided the link how to appropriately cite references.--BirdKr 06:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Justification to add in citation for the statement that BF2 (PC) is different to BF2:MC

Regular BF fans will no doubt know the difference between these two, but not regular readers. After all, both games have the same name "Battlefield 2". Saying that these two games are different may raise some questions and doubts, such is the reason why I linked to Gamespot's review of BF2:MC because in its very first paragraph, it states BF2:MC is nothing like BF2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 10:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Patches

While a list of patches and updates is not considered to be a game guide (as it does not provide instructions on how to play a game), a list of patches is an indiscriminate list which provides little useful information to readers outside of the game's userbase (as per WP:NOT). Wikipedia does not need to repeat every snippet of information released; readers looking for patch history can look it up on the official site or other download sites. If patches are to be kept in this article, only keep the most notable changes and incorporate them into the article, else they may fail both WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. --Scottie theNerd 17:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop re-adding the patch list without discussing it here. Please heed to the three revert rule and avoid a pointless edit war. --Scottie theNerd 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the patch list needs to go. It is an unneeded part of the Wiki. If it is to stay then the beta patches will be removed from the list since they are not offical patches. Planb11 08:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If no one posts anything regard to this section, I will remove the patch list according to the points above. The patch list does not record history, and if it does it does not belong on Wikipedia as raw data. Anything notable in the patches should be incorporated into the article; the patch info itself can be seen from official download sites. --Scottie theNerd 03:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of the users that heavily added and revised the patch section. I didn't realize that non BF2 readers would not get much out of this section and the fact that it is about to cross the line of a game guide. I'll be content if you indeed remove them. However, if you do not delete them, I will still update it and soon add references to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
I support a patch list for both BF2 and BF2142. I think a brief overview of patch contents is not going to add large amounts of text to the article. At the same time Battlefield games have often been regarded as being buggy, having a patch overview gives readers a good indication of how they were patched and what the main issues were. In general patch lists for games on a wiki page is unneeded but for Battlefield 2 and 2142 I think patches are a very important part of the games and indicate the level of support after the release. Having said that the majority don't seem to agree so I didn't bother re adding the small patch overview to the 2142 article.nutcrackr 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You've gone around in a circle. Why would a patch list be unacceptable for other games, but acceptable for the Battlefield series? There are far buggier games out there. As I said above, if there are notable patches that fix major gameplay elements, mention them in the article. There isn't a need to include a list of patches as raw data. --Scottie theNerd 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say they were unacceptable, I just said they were unneeded. There are far buggier games yes but BF series has been particularly criticized for it's lack of support post release, a patch list is a good quick reference to show more than just the fixes. I'm really unsure why there isn't a need to include a very brief overview of patches released. Just about all the other information on this wiki can be gathered from other sites, map list for example. Patch list with the major fixes is not something that is easy to acquire without trawling through individual links at download sites. nutcrackr 08:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the map list also violates WP:NOT. Including a patch list is raw data and therefore not encyclopedic. If there is a reliable source that acknowledges that online support for BF2, then you can include that. You can't use a patch list as a way to communicate online support. --Scottie theNerd 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
First, I would be against patch list solely being there just to indicate the bugginess of BF2. The patch list is there just to inform readers about the patches themselves. Previously, there were mentions of bugs and glitches but were cleaned out since it bloated the section and few crossed the line of original research and non-neutral perspective if I remember correctly. About the map list, I would prefer it to be in place since it informs the readers of what maps are available in BF2...albeit not informative nor useful after that (maybe a link to one of BF2's info sites will be acceptable)? Another alternative could be creating a section that talks about the maps in general, referencing some of the maps, and mentioning the map scaling feature which I think is an important feature of BF2 as commander mode and squad structures are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 14:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Why is the patch list *still* in the article? BJTalk 18:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Infantry Classes

I removed all the unneeded info about them. Remember guys this is not Stratagy Wiki, talking about what types of weapons will can be subsituted for whitch and carrying on into so much detail that no one who does not play the game will read is not good for Wikipedia. Planb11 01:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Replaced the list. A brief description of how the class system works is far more useful than a list of classes --Scottie theNerd 03:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

List of things to do about this article

Assuming that I have time to spare, I guess I should compile a list to improve the article:

-Add in citations and references for the Gameplay and Features section. There's a huge gap of citations between the section before these two mentioned sections and the section after them.

  • My priority

-Add in more screenshots in the Gameplay/Features section

  • My priority

*I do not yet know how to upload/post images in Wikipedia however.

-Change the map section: removing the table of maps, informing about the maps in general, and mentioning the map scaling feature.

  • Revised and posted
  • Needs improvement in writing

*Need to add in a single image that displays 3 variations of the selected map

-See if the expansion pack / booster pack section could be improved. There were one or two editors who noted that it seemed to be more of an advertisement than being neutral.

Thoughts? Objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Agreed with changes, especially the map list. A list of map names by itself isn't particular helpful to readers who don't play the game; a paragraph outlining the variety of maps is more accessible and appropriate. --Scottie theNerd 12:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Drafting the map article

Here's my rough draft of the map section. This is clearly not written well that it itself should not be presented into the article. I will also make corrections and revisions to this draft:


Battlefield 2 offers 14 maps for the players to play. These maps are diverse which ranges from jungles such as Shongua Stalemate, urban areas such as Strike at Karkand, to an unfinished Dam known as Kubra Dam. The USMC is present in all maps and faces against either against the MEC or the PLA depending on the map. PLA is present in Far East theaters such as Dragon Valley and Daqing Oilfields. MEC is present in Middle East theaters such as Gulf of Oman and Zatar Wetlands.

The unique feature about BF2 maps is that each map has 3 variations that is suited for certain number of players. Each map has 16, 32, and 64 player-suggested variations in which the area of battlefield or playing field is relatively small, medium, and large, respectively. Other contrasts between these variations other than the size is the difference in the number and position of control points and the availability and number of certain vehicles. As a result, the gameplay of the map is different depending on the variation.[1][2]

Last revised on 3-11-07


For starters, the second last sentence needs to be rewritten. I presented this rough draft so that any interested editors will have an idea of what is to be said about BF2 maps. Finding sources should be relatively easy, especially if I look in the past interviews.

--BirdKr 16:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been updating the article- time's a bit too short for me to contribute a large update right now --BirdKr 10:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The map section has been revised to what is written above. If you have any concerns or ideas, please respond here and be sure to improve it if you can.--BirdKr 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


MEC - define acronym on first use

Whenever an acronym is encountered the first time, it should be spelled out and the acronym put in brackets (IIRC, or is it the other way around?) Don't look at me, it's what I was taught! Anyone want to fix this? Otherwise I'll come back in a few days after I've discovered the answer and fix it myself. :) CraigWyllie 04:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle Eastern Coallition?

This has been addressed, thanks for pointing it out --BirdKr 13:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dead reference link.

Reference link #8 is dead, I was unable to find a suitable mirror, or updated figures. I'm hoping that someone else might have something suitable.

Tyler 08:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)