Talk:Call of Duty 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Call of Duty 2 article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Good article Call of Duty 2 has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
June 2005 - April 2007
May 2007 - Current


Contents

[edit] Game Engine Debate

  • First of all, I don't think there's any point to debate against the facts, but it looks like we'll going towards this route anyways, so let me start by making this a more formal discusssion process. I'll start digesting the long paragraph and list out the points and counter-points, and I'm hoping this could be a more constructive way to resolve this. I'm trying to fix down the format, if any of you are interested you are welcome to modify as it goes. We'lll use 2 types of supports, one is the evidence which is referring to a fact, and we'll also using logical argument as well, we'll call this arguement for the time being.

Claim: COD2 is a Quake 3 engine game

Evidence 1: COD2 uses very similar file structures as Quake 3.

Counter: WinRAR can unzip .zip files, that doesn't make WinRAR owned by WinZip. Kenimaru 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence 2: COD2 uses the same editor for making the maps as Quake 3.

Counter: OGRE reads Quake 3 BSP maps, it's not based off Quake 3 engine. Kenimaru 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Counter: IW's Radiant is NOT even compatible with any other Radiant out there.IWslothy 03:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence 3: Answers.com says it's based on a heavily modified Quake 3 engine.

Counter: That is because Answer.com uses the information from Wikipedia, which is false to began with. Kenimaru 23:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguement 1: Xbox 360 version is proprietary, PC version is Quake 3.

Counter: There's no advantage of maintaing 2 code bases, and there is no evidence that they are as some claimed. Kenimaru 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Counter: Do you have any factual evidence that the engine is totally different for the two platforms? Why are people making wild claims on an Encylopedia page?03:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Argument 2: Quake 3 is GPL, if IW admit that they use Quake 3, the COD2 engine has to be GPL as well.

Counter: Completely false, you can still license Quake 3 engine with $10,000 to avoid GPL. Kenimaru 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguemtn 3: IW can't license the COD2 engine because it's a Quake 3 engine.

Counter: Just because IW chose not to, doesn't mean that they can't, and there is no evidence of the above claim. Kenimaru 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Claim: COD2 uses proprietary engine

Evidence 1: IW employees stated that COD2 engine is their own engine. Kenimaru 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence 2: The reference (FireSquad) used actually says it's not using Quake 3 engien. Kenimaru 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguement 1: Calling COD2 engine a heavily modified Quake 3 engine is like calling Valve's Source engine a heavily modified Quake engine. Kenimaru 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I read the ref and acknowledge my mistake. The article is currently in the correct state, and I won't be changing it again. The last thing a GAC needs is edit warring, so it's good to agree on things. Thanks for the clarification. Giggy UCP 23:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Look on the official game box, it clearly states a reference to Id software in the smallprint. 210.5.36.1 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

CoD2 does INFACT use a modified QUAKE3 engine. Fact:

CoD2 can and does respond to the following server admin program.

"Crow Kings Autokick"

This program was writen "specificly" for the quake3 engine based games, more specificly Medal of Honor Allied Assult. This very same program ( quake3 based ) will and does infact control CoD2 servers and can also manage said servers. The CoD2 servers does also infact respond to quake3 specific command sets. How can anyone say its NOT quake3 based when the facts are there to prove and say it does and is quake3 based ( modified ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.171.67 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Frankly, this is so completely insane my head is going to explode. This site is supposed to operate only on facts, yet this is full of non-technical people who do not have access to the source code arguing about wild conjecture of what is in the source code. I _DO_ have access to the facts and I've posted that it is a proprietary engine. All of the arguments to the contrary are not rooted in any sort of engineering knowledge and don't hold water. WTF is going on? Let me state for the record that CoD2's engine is a proprietary in-house engine. I work for IW. Can this stupid thing please end so I don't have to keep correcting false information on this page?IWslothy 03:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If that is true IWSlothy, explain this paragraph from the server manual.

" Usage is very similar to Call of Duty™ and United Offensive™... many of the console commands, command lines, and cvars are identical, so if you are comfortable maintaining dedicated servers for those games, you will find this process familiar. There are a LOT of knobs you can tweak to customize and automate your server, but it is beyond the scope of this documentation. Please refer to the admin manuals for any Quake 3™ based Multiplayer game (including Quake 3 Arena™, Return to Castle Wolfenstein™, the original Call of Duty™ and United Offensive™, etc) for specifics."

Why would it refer to the manuals of other Quake3 games if it is NOT based off of the Quake3 engine? amstacey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.26.181 (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It says it's similar to Quake3 games to make it easier for those who haven't used this engine before (which should be everyone, since it's a unique in house job) to get the feel of how it works. You're contradicting yourself! May I also point out a quote from this source (emphasis mine):
“ The venerable Quake III engine has been retired in favor of an in-house custom job, featuring pixel shaders, bump maps and much-improved shadows and lighting. ”

 — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. I have protected the page until a compromise is made. bibliomaniac15 23:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A compromise had been reached. The original edit, way back in time, said Quake3 engine. Finally, it was sort of agreed that Heavily modified Quake3 engine held the best description. I still believe that to be correct. It is NOT a new engine. If it were, they would not tell server admins to use the manuals from other Quake3 games. You do not need to be some sort of programming expert to know that. You also have had a number of technical experts also call it a Quake3 engine. Such as Bullet Worm, who created the "IW Sum mismatch" fix that IW said couldn't be done. Also, Garetjax, creator of CoDTV and other programes. One of the other contributers to this discussion, is Wizard220, creator of the Extreme mod for AWE, so please don't say there is no techincal expertise here. - amstacey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.26.181 (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

How can you claim that there is a compromise? You're simply trying to steamroll your viewpoint through, and that's just crap. My position is still that if you want Wikipedia to claim that this is heavily modified Quake 3, then we need consistency and we should change the Source Engine page to say heavily modified Quake 1. It's simply a question of whether we want to favor historical trivia over everything else. The engine IS prietary, it IS in-house, and people here haven't listed any technology in it that is a holdover from Quake 3. All we have are crazy "well this app works with it so it MUST be quake 3!" statements.IWslothy 12:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Amstacey, I'm saying YOU have no technical expertise, not other people. YOU thought Direct3D was a renderer, that only Quake 3 could read zip files, that our Radiant was the same as other Radiants, that we used the MD4 model format, that our d3dbsp format is the same as Quake 3 bsp files, that we use different engines on 360 and PC, and other wild totally false claims that I've grown really tired of correcting over and over. You obviously aren't familiar with the details of the CoD2 engine at all. And now we're in this silly state where you agree that the "360 engine" is proprietary but the PC one isn't? It's the same engine.IWslothy 12:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to go back see who said what. Most of the items there are not attributable to me, but that is besides the point. You are the one that is arrogant enough to say that your interpretation of the word proprietry is more correct than that of the dictionary. Anyone who cannot accept a dictionary explanation must have their whole argument looked at with suspicion. I have pasted a copy of instructions straight from your own server guide, telling people to use the Quake3 server guide in order to make tweakes etc in CoD2. ALL the bugs from CoD1 were in CoD2. There are just too many similarities for it to be called a new engine "built from the ground up" as quoted by Eric Riley. Remember, technology has moved on since Quake3 was first bought out, and what could be acheived by that engine on the processors of the day, has no doubt been expanded upon, simply because of the additional processing power that is now available. Just because greater processing power enables you to do much more with the engine, doesn't make it a new engine

With respect to the compromise, I had been insisting on calling it a Quake3 engine. Someone else used the compromise term of heavily modified Quake3 engine. I accepted that, so I moved my position. You, however, seem intent on calling it an engine developed by Infinity Ward, as though it is a totally new engine and it is not! It is heavily based off the Quake3 engine, into which you have integrated DirectX capabilities and I accept IW made a good job of doing that.

I will agree, I am not a programmer and I personally would not be able to tell the difference by looking at the code, but I do understand English and I can read and understand what other "experianced" programmers have to say on the subject. Only one that I know of, took the stance that it was a new engine and even he agree's that Eric Riley's statement was wrong and that CoD2 is heavily based off of the Quake3 engine. Only IW claim it to be totally new and they have a vested interest in doing so. Then again, some of IW's own employee's (IWAvatar) have now explained that Eric Riley's statement was wrong. (amstacey) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.26.181 (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, who are these "experienced" programmers you are referring to? bibliomaniac15 02:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so you say it's based heavily on Quake 3, which is something I can verify or disprove if I know what parts you're talking about. Could you list specifics of what parts of the engine are Quake 3? If you have experienced programmers who have quotes about this, could you cite them? I'd definitely like to see what they have to say. IWslothy 04:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already named several people above;- "Such as Bullet Worm, who created the "IW Sum mismatch" fix that IW said couldn't be done. Also, Garetjax, creator of CoDTV and other programes. One of the other contributers to this discussion, is Wizard220, creator of the Extreme mod for AWE, so please don't say there is no techincal expertise here" There are many posts by these people at www.iwnation.com. Search for COD2 engine, you will even find a quote by your own IWAvatar agreeing that IW never intended to give the impression it was brand new, built from the ground up, more like they rebuilt the quake3 engine. (amstacey) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.26.181 (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you be specific in what you think "based heavily on Quake 3" means? You are throwing that line out there without backing it up with any examples. What is your evidence that it's based heavily on Quake 3? Something that someone else could verify themselves. Could you show me where Bullet Worm is backing up your statement? Same for Garet Jax - I actually helped him with CoDTV back on CoD1 by working on the C# app and made our engine work with it by adding new features to the engine. Could you cite the wizard20 bit? I've been madly trying to google all of these things you're talking about and coming up empty. I'd be interested in seeing what he has to say. I think you're mischaracterizing IWAvatar's post - and it appears that you agree that we rebuilt the engine?IWslothy 15:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the Quake3 engine has been rebuilt, thats why so much of stock Quake3 commands work. The whole point of this, is that it is NOT a brand new engine and it would seem that you are also now saying that the QUAKE3 engine has been rebuilt. So it IS a heavily modified Quake3 engine, NOT a new engine totally developed by Infinity Ward, which is why you still carry the ID logo and why it is NOT a proprietry engine as defined by the dictionary. You tell people to read other Quake3 manuals to learn the commands available. All the original CoD1 bugs were in the CoD2 game at launch and you are trying to say that this is a new engine not based on Quake3? As for finding the various quotes, man that'd be a long job. Just read some of the threads about it at IWNation.com or raidersmerciless.com, fpsadmin.com and many many other CoD related sites. Very few people that have modded the game agree that it's new, if any - (amstacey)

Out of curiosity, would you call the Source engine a "heavily modified Quake engine"? bibliomaniac15 04:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just as a heads up, previous debates about this can be found in the talk archives, here and here. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've not followed the Source game or engine, so would not call myself knowledgable on that matter. I do know that Half Life has rag doll physics, something missing from Quake based games. How much more is different, I don't know. (amstacey) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.26.181 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ragdoll is a pretty arbitrary measure of a new engine though. You can actually license Havok or some other physics system that comes with a ragdoll system to add it to any engine (even stock Quake 3). In the case of CoD4 we wrote our own ragdoll system. Does that mean CoD4 is an in-house proprietary engine but CoD2 is not? In the end, FPS engines are a collection of systems (animation, rendering, collision, networking, gameplay mechanics, etc.). Nobody has been able to come up with a system that is in CoD2 that is from Quake 3. Calling it Quake 3 is neither helpful nor correct. I will reiterate that it's DEFINITELY in-house, it's DEFINITELY proprietary. IWslothy 07:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I refer back to the paragraph starting with, "I'm not disputing that the Quake3 engine has been rebuilt." Also, your very own comment, "and it appears that you agree that we rebuilt the engine?" which in itself is an admission that the quake engine has been re-built. It is therefore not a brand new engine designed entirely by Infinityward. Now if someone from ID was to say that IW had so completely changed the engine that it was no longer a derivitive of the Quake engine and IW no longer needed to carry the ID notice (in respect of CoD2), I may THEN be persuaded to change my mind. But, if my memory servers me right, ID actually stated something along the lines of, "they (IW) call it their own CoD2 engine, but when you look inside it, you will find lots of the Quake3 code," intimating that that it is not truely a new engine(amstacey) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.26.181 (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty strong quote you're claiming. Can you cite that so we can see it? With regards to the rebuilt thing, maybe your definition of rebuilt is different from mine? In my mind, pointing out that we rebuilt the engine seems to make it obvious that the engine is proprietary and in-house. I'm not sure where the "new engine" thing is coming in, that was never the argument. Wikipedia isn't claiming it's an old engine, it's claiming it's a modified quake 3 engine. In fact, just like the Source engine, it's a proprietary in-house engine. I guess my main question is: how come Source isn't called Modified Quake 1, how come Quake 3 isn't called modified Quake 2? This system seems completely flawed and inconsistent. IWslothy 07:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

First, apologies for the previous revert with no comment. I had made one, but obviously forgot to save it.

Pretty strong quote you say, well, here is the link http://www.quakeunity.com/article=3 It's in paragraph 3 just below the Doom picture. For those too lazy to follow the link, lol, here is the salient part, in full. Reporting on comments made by Marty Stratton, id's director of business development. You will note that the writer, Roger LaMarca, had also been "sucked in" by the claims of a "new engine."

"He (Marty Stratton) was very courteous, offering us drinks in the id kitchen and even gave me a t-shirt and CoD2, after I (Roger LaMarca) told him I wasn't going to buy the game since it didn't use an id engine. After I said that, he explained to me that even though Infinity Ward promoted CoD2 as using a new engine, much of code in in the game was from previous engines made by id. If you look closely at the bottom of CoD2 box, you will see a id Software copyright notice." (sic)

If you rebuild a car engine, it becomes reconditioned, not new and not proprietry. Metorphorically speaking, you may have changed the carburetter for a fuel injection system, but it's still running on Petrol (Gas).

With respect to Quake and Source, are they not both owned by ID? If a product owner makes cosmetic changes to their product and re-names it, this is re-branding, but you can only re-brand your own product. Hence there is logic to the fact that they can re-name their own product

Now, if that ID quoted comment isn't enough with everything else that has been said, I give up. I really cannot see how an engine can be called proprietry when the copywrite notice on the box belongs to the originator of the engine. (amstacey) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.26.181 (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha! found my password (Amstacey 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the lack of response indicate that this matter is finally put to rest? (Amstacey 11:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

Nope, I was on vacation for a week. So are you BACK to trying to argue that since it has a notice saying that it contains copyrighted code mean that it's not proprietary? This rehashing of old wrong arguments is tiresome. As I said before (I think 3 times now?) it also has copyright notices from Bink, Groupvoice, etc. Other proprietary engines also have copyright notices for Havok, Bink, etc. So that line of reasoning is wrong and old and already settled.IWslothy 19:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So I've been really good about answering every question you have asked, and you haven't done me the same courtesy - carefully dodging any questions you don't have an answer for. My question remains (you can even find it above): Could you list specifics of what parts of the engine are Quake 3? Please do this before changing it back. Also, please explain why the Source engine IS NOT heavily modified Quake 1. Also, explain why Quake 3 is not heavily modified Quake 2. These are important technical discussions, so let's keep it technical, not secondhand internet quotes.IWslothy 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope you had a nice holiday, I can't say you guys don't deserve one.

As you know, I am not a coder, I can't personally show you any differences in code, but tell me this, could IW SELL the engine for use by other gaming companies without seeking permission from ID?

As for the source engine, I have already answered that - it's called re-branding of one's own proprietary software.

As for avoiding questions and comments, you have neatly side stepped the ID comment and while that is there, I think it is you that shouldn't change the software comment up and until there is a verifiable statement from ID stating that this is indeed IW's own engine and that the quoted comment is wrong.

Now it is time for the moderators here to draw a conclusion, one that I will respect, whatever their decision and I feel you should do the same. (Amstacey 23:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Re: The iD quote

How the heck can Marty Stratton, iD's Director of Business Development, know "much of code in in the game [CoD2] was from previous engines made by id"? He probably couldn't look at the source. And he obviously has a conflict of interest in making that claim. If potential customers believe that iD's software is running a top quality game generations later, wouldn't that make it a much better investment? It seems to me that this needs to be treated exactly as it was: an off-hand comment to some college students, aiming to impress them further (even though they were already fawning over the company).

On the other hand, you have an actual IW developer, one who HAS seen the code, claiming that the product is a proprietary engine. I'm not going to say that there isn't a conflict of interest, but the burden of evidence lies with you, Amstacey. And most of the arguments for "modified Quake 3" seem to be unqualified conjecture.

As for the "could IW sell the engine?" Probably not in full. Software licenses are pretty draconian. For that reason, I don't think the argument "Could they legally sell it" carries much weight. To put this in perspective, if you were to take something protected by the GPL license, and change 99% of the code, you couldn't legally sell it (it would still be under GPL). It's an example where "derived works" are very, very strictly enforced.

71.229.171.161 (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to 3O request

I'm not a very proficient programmer. Nor am I particularly a Quake enthusiast. I am, however, pretty well-versed in WP:V and WP:OR. What you guys need to solve this dispute is solid sourcing.

IGN and Gamespy both claim that the CoD2 runs on a "new" and "proprietary" engine that was "developed by Infinity Ward". Any claims to the contrary need to be sourced with reliable sources. This, in my opinion, would mean one of the following:

  1. a published admission from IW saying that the engine is "borrowed"; or
  2. an independent source which can be considered an authority on both games from a programming point of view attesting to this in a reliable and credible source.

amstacey, the source you provided, QuakeUnity.com, is most certainly not a credible source. It is simply a website -- albeit a tightly developed one -- run by a quake enthusiast and amateur journalist with no apparent credentials in programming or journalism. The conversation he relates is not necessarily credible in any way, as it cannot be verified, there is no editorial review, and, even if the rep really did say that, it's not a credible statement because it was clearly a sales pitch.

In order to avoid original research, the only way that Wikipedia can say that CoD2 uses a Quake engine is if that can be credibly and reliably sourced. Otherwise, not only is it against Wikipedia policy, but it is also potentially libelous.

I would like to point out, though, to IWslothy, that we can't actually take your word for it simply because you work for IW, for obvious reasons. The burden of sourcing falls just as heavily on you. The sources, however, seem to agree with you.

Cheers. - Che Nuevara 11:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Here are some more cited references to the Call of Duty 2 engine being new and proprietary:

Activision.com: "Call of Duty 2 offers more immense, more intense, more realistic battles than ever before, thanks to the stunning visuals of the new COD™2 engine."

Xbox.com: same text as above

Yahoo: "United Offensive pushed the Quake 3 engine probably as far as it could be pushed, so Call of Duty 2 is built entirely from a new proprietary engine. It looks great and is obviously tailored to the game's needs. Namely, lots of erratic geometry, lots of superbly animated character models, and long drawing distances. This ain't no Quake 3 engine." IWslothy 13:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If we don't have any more rebuttals and such going on, I'd have to say from our third opinion (thank you, Che Nuevara, for the well-thought-out statement) and the reliable sources we have that Call of Duty 2's engine is indeed a proprietary, in-house engine. Consensus, I believe, has determined this now. This doesn't mean that it's over forever, there is no double jeopardy. If new reliable sources turn up, we might have this debate all over again, but for right now we should stick to this version that consensus has chosen. Now I hope we'll all work together to get this article to A-class or even FA status. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 20:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am stunned, to say the least, but I will keep to my word and not re-edit the engine, but for CheNuevara, who I thank for an independant opinion, I repeat a section from the CoD2 manual below. This effectively refutes all that has been said about a new engine. Activision are no more relible than Infinity Ward, as they own Infinity Ward, Xbox simply repeated Activions claim and game review sites are rarely unbiased, they want to keep in the good books of gaming companies, so you rarely see anything contentious in their reviews. They want to remain on the list to receive advance copies of the next game. Now, the quote from Quake city may well have been a sales pitch, but it was also truthful, even IWSlothy cannot deny that Quake code is in CoD2, in fact, he admits to it being "rebuilt." Rebuilt means that it is NOT and CANNOT therefore, be new or proprietary.

Please refer to the admin manuals for any Quake 3™ based Multiplayer game (including Quake 3 Arena™, Return to Castle Wolfenstein™, the original Call of Duty™ and United Offensive™, etc) for specifics." (Amstacey 22:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Che Nuevara's Law of Laziness: "Never assume intentions -- good or bad -- where laziness will suffice as an explanation."
The admin manual referencing Quake 3 might seem to indicate that it uses Quake 3 code, but it might also just indicate that they're lazy and didn't feel like writing a manual. As I said, any conclusions drawn from the manual or from looking at the code is original research. And to claim that there is Quake 3 code in the engine (and thus that their claim of a new engine is false) would, without sourcing, be potentially libelous. - Che Nuevara 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Good to see a consensus. Thanks for your understanding, Stacey, and thanks for your help Che. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good law Che, but, if there were no Quake3 code the "so-called" CoD2 engine, why have the ID copywrite notice on the box? That is clear evidence that there is indeed Quake3 code in the engine and makes the manual reference more illuminating. Also, if there was no Quake3 code in the engine, none of the Quake commands would work. There is absolutely no doubt that there is Quake3 code in the engine, even IWSlothy has effectively agreed with that. (Amstacey 00:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC))


Just as a matter of interest, you may wish to check this thread http://www.iwnation.com/Forums/index.php?showtopic=27100&st=0 where two modders discuss the merits of the engine. Pay particular note to post 59. (Amstacey 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes, it is an interesting thread, but it really is not a reliable source. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 02:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's disappointing you say that, especially when there is another IW employee admiting that it is not a new engine (did you actually check who made post 59 on page three?). As for Bullet Worm, he is a very experienced modder who has modded both games. When you take what is said and couple it with all the evidence here, I really cannot fathom why it's agreed to allow the phrase to remain in it's current state.(Amstacey 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

"When you take what is said and couple it with all the evidence here ..." ... you have original research. Which is not allowed.
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. ( - WP:OR)
You have not provided any reliable sources which demonstrate your point. As such, it cannot go in the article.
Please note that the article does not say that the engine is "brand-new", as in your post 59 -- it says that it is in-house, which it undeniably is. Even if they borrowed code, the fact that it is the end product of their in-house coders (as opposed to licensed or contracted from someone else) makes it in-house. - Che Nuevara 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're now not making sense. This is post 59; "The new engine aspect was a major selling point because it accurately represented the amount of new features in CoD2. The term "brand new engine" was never intended to be used, as it implies starting over from scratch." Note that it is written by IW_Avatar, another IW employee. This should carry just as much weight as IWSlothy and IS therefore, a credible source. This makes it quite clear that this is not a brand new engine built from scratch, therefore, it is Quake3 based. It is no longer licensed in the sense that a licence is paid for, because ID have freely offered the source files, but their copywrite notice still has to appear on the box if their code is used. You will note that it is no secret that CoD2 still carries the ID copywrite notice. These are clearly indisbutable facts. Perhaps the description should be Infinity Ward engine based off of Quake3, or Infinity Ward Engine based off of ID Code(Amstacey 01:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

"Proprietary" and "starting from scratch" do not mean the same thing. 71.229.171.161 (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game engine dispute redux

  • I'm refactoring the below debate between 92fs and myself here. I didn't even know the above was here, and I didn't get a good chance to review it yet. Was there ever clear consensus? xenocidic (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add that it is 'based on' the Quake III engine without an appropriate,, verifiable,, reliable 3rd party source. Thanks. xenocidic (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The same goes for Call of Duty 2. Find reliable sources, please. Forums won't cut it. xenocidic (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you doing changing the CoD2 page? I provided the correct source to prove that the engine was originally based on Quake 3, and I'll be doing so for CoD4 too (since it is itself slightly based on CoD2). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92fs (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:SPS forums are inappropriate sources. If you can find a reliable, published, 3rd party source, then I would welcome the inclusion. xenocidic (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't some random forum post. It is the word of a member of Infinity Ward on their community forum. It doesn't get better than that, and obviously the people in the discussion realized that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92fs (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it still doesn't qualify as a reliable and verifiable source. You must find something that is published. Please don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Also note those are not the "official" Infinity Ward forums. xenocidic (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Forums *can be* acceptable sources: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves"
Since the post was made by a member of IW, then it is reliable. It is naive to think that you'll find a source in a major publication stating that it was based on Quake 3. They admit it right there that for PR reasons they simply call it "new" even though there is a slight relation to Quake 3! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92fs (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but only when they are official forums - these are not. We have no proof that the member posting there is actually from IW. I was actually try to find an official source to support your changes but all I found was this:
“ United Offensive pushed the Quake 3 engine probably as far as it could be pushed, so Call of Duty 2 is built entirely from a new proprietary engine. ”
xenocidic (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I truly hope this minor dispute will not discourage you from editing Wikipedia in the future. Having reviewed in depth the forum posting you are trying to reference, I agree that COD2 (and by extension, COD4) are probably distant relatives of the Q3 engine. However, without an appropriate source to reference, we simply cannot include this in the article. Anyhow, have you considered joining the VideoGames WikiProject? Best regards, xenocidic (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look on the back of the CoD4 box, and the CoD2 box, you can read:
"This product contains software technology licensed from id software".
That is official proof (can be used as an official confirmation to what was already admitted by the developers on a community forum) that the game contains tech from the ID Tech 3 engine.
Here's a publication I found shortly thereafter, BTW:
http://www.quakeunity.com/article=3
"He was very courteous, offering us drinks in the id kitchen and even gave me a t-shirt and CoD2, after I told him I wasn't going to buy the game since it didn't use an id engine. After I said that, he explained to me that even though Infinity Ward promoted CoD2 as using a new engine, much of code in in the game was from previous engines made by id. If you look closely at the bottom of CoD2 box, you will see a id Software copyright notice."
Surely the word of the game box itself and that of a person from ID Software is finally enough?


92fs (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the quakeunity thing would qualify either, but what I'll do is refactor this entire discussion onto the COD2 talk page for a third-opinon, ok? Cheers. xenocidic (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ref 1 is broken....

{{editprotected}} The current version (not endorsing the wrong version of anything) uses a non existant template - Template:Cite game box. Could we at least display the article with a version that has the correct template, such as this one? Thanks, — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done bibliomaniac15 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would make the point that the firingsquad link is only re-iterating what they have been told by IW. It is not an independant comment insofar as they don't say that they have ripped the code apart and compared it to Quake3. If anything, the link should either refer to my link above or to this discussion, and readers can make up their own minds. (Amstacey 12:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Oh dear, I mean, we couldn't trust what IW told us since they made the game. Detect my sarcasm? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 09:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Given everything else that has been said here, unfortunately, it would appear not (IMHO) :) {Amstacey 13:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)}

[edit] 2nd paragraph needs work

from the article - "The game was met with a positive public reception, receiving largely positive reviews from critics.[2][3] It sold a large number of copies within weeks of its release, with the Xbox 360 version, a launch title, selling in large numbers.[4][5]"

First of all, "large" is used as a descriptor 3 times in 2 sentences, and sounds repetative. Secondly, the 2nd sentence is partially redundant - it says the game sold in "large numbers", and then notes 360 version sold in "large numbers". It could be improved by different word choice, or better yet some specific sales numbers.Audrina 06:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I tried to do both of the things you suggested - how's this? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign section

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

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

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

[edit] Call of Duty 2 GAR

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

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