|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battlefield 2142 article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|Battlefield 2142 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|WikiProject Video games||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Apple Inc. / Macintosh||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 American English spellings
- 2 Updates section
- 3 Bug section
- 4 Add to game info below its picture
- 5 Planes?
- 6 No Australian Advertisments?
- 7 "Wake Island" Statement
- 8 GA Sweeps (on hold)
- 9 Voice Actors?
- 10 Maps
- 11 Copyvio?
- 12 GA removed
- 13 Patch 1.40
- 14 handphone
- 15 Australia: Spyware Bill 2005 is NOT law
- 16 Vehicles
- 17 Glitches and Bugs
- 18 Mod Projects
- 19 Concerning the Maps section
- 20 Factions
- 21 Problems, Crashes, Solutions to them and tweaks
- 22 Patch 1.51
- 23 Camp Gibraltar - Location
- 24 How popular is this game?
American English spellings
- Agreed. Normally I wouldn't but considering the game is made by a eurpoean developer and has no coverage of North America as a location or a faction, it might as well maintain the Eurpoean English.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well the first one would be more correct term (I doubt there's much lovin' goin on in 2142 ;) ) Riffraffselbow 23:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the Updates section, as the prior version was utter shit.
I added: bullets, consistency in certain punctuation (hyphens, colons, periods), and added headings to make it more navigable. tildetildetildetilde
Addendum: Whether the whole Updates section kind of bloats the article and is unneeded is not my concern; I merely cleaned it up. tildetildetildetilde
Nice work, it was pretty much a piece of cr*p. Please try to sign your posts, please. --Putmalk 23:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It was removed because not a single piece of information in it was sourced, and some claims aren't even actual bugs. If any of it can be sourced then it probably belongs back in but ONLY if that is done.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 04:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Add to game info below its picture
You know the info below the picture could you please add something to let people know this game has in-game streaming advertisements? Doesn't have to be much just more of a warning then EA/DICE gave us outside the box. (customers only find out about the in-game streaming ad's after they open the product)
More and more games these days are adding in-game streaming advertisements on billboards, it would be nice to see the info about it below the system spec's. The software thats built into this game monitors how long you play and how long you look at the billboards, it also logs your ip#, it reports that info each time you play.
6:11pm CST 8-13-2007
Really? Has this game planes or jets? I could not find anywhere a refference about this. I use this sentence "Try before buy". 188.8.131.52 12:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- It has two aircraft. The first is a fast VTOL Gunship with heat seeking missiles, a gattling gun and TV guided missiles. The second is a troop transporter carries 6 troops and has two side mounted gattling guns. You musn't have been looking to hard. If you want more choice, get BF2, which has lots more aircraft. --Simpsons fan 66 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No Australian Advertisments?
I think your wrong, I live in Australia and recently bought BF2142 from JB HIFI. And it has advertising, as shown in a screenshot i took here. This was in single player by the way. andrewrox424 Bleep 00:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if our connected to the internet, whether you are playing online or offline, you will get ads. Playing with the internet disconnected should make those ads undisplayable, which will make the regular billboards appear, because the advertising system cannot find the streaming servers (I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure. I'll check it out.). INFORMTION CENTER 02:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
"Wake Island" Statement
Someone claimed that BF2142 was the first game in the series, NOT to feature the "Wake Island" Map, even though i've never played it, i'm pretty sure that "Battlefield Vietnam" didn't have Wake Island as a map.
There was an official mod for BFV that redid the BF1942 maps Iwo Jima and Wake Island. Poss 23:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
GA Sweeps (on hold)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
- The lede is a) non-compelling, b) does not give a good overview of the subject as a whole (aka, its reception, development, et al), and c) appears to be have some errors (a Mac version was announced in 2007 and released in 2006?)
- Generally, unsourced. Game manuals are a good place to find info, or even looking in the reviews for the game, but from Story to Expansion packs, there are only six refs, tops, for nearly 30KB of straight prose.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, David Fuchs (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Who did the voices for 2142? The Pan Asian Coalition Titan's security computer sounds a lot like 'Ellen McLain' the voice for Portal's psychopathic computer. ~ Swanston —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There was some talk around March (from the date stamps) about adding descriptions to the maps section for each map. While I do support this I would suggest focusing on the story elements and how the locations in the game are different from the current layout of the areas. For example the current addendum about camp Gibraltar having no relation to the real life location of Gibraltar or something about the massive ice sheet that makes up the edge of maps like Fall of Berlin and Verdun.
Also I propose that the current maps section under Northern Strike be merged with the general maps section, the Northern Strike maps be removed from the general section, or the Northern Strike maps section be refocused on differences between Northern Strike maps in general and the previous maps.
Lastly should the "All maps are playable in Conquest." note at the top of the general Maps section be removed? To the best of my knowledge Assault Lines is its own distinct game type and not a new type of Conquest. I do not have any definitive information one way of the other and due to events in real life I do not have the time to go out and research the matter myself. Also could someone provide a citation for the different types of conquest. As far as I know there are just different maps with their own spawn point arrangements.--EpicWizard 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I found this page on the 2142 website that lists Assault Lines as a sub type of Conquest as "Conquest: Assault Lines". It however makes no mention of other types on conquest.--EpicWizard 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the story section from the article, as it appeared to be a direct quotation from the game. Such a long quotation is a copyright violation and does not qualify as fair use. The story should be paraphrased, not quoted. Geometry guy 12:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually the only portion of the story section that came from the game (manual), which says that it can't be reprinted without permission by the way so good catch, is the following:
"As snow and storms swept down from the north, the encroaching ice swallowed living spaces and resources and a frantic battle for survival began across the globe. Small-scale conflicts bloomed into major confrontations, as desperate nations united to form new superpowers-- the European-led EU forces and the Russo-Asian army otherwise known as the Pan Asian Coalition (PAC). With the formation of these coalitions came the consolidation of brains and resources needed to develop deadly new battlefront technologies: the Titans, vast airbourne dreadnoughts with the colossal destructive power to dominate the skies, and lethal, armored Battlewalkers, designed to outpace and outgun infantry."
The first line and everything after this appears to be original. If you have proof to the contrary please lets us all know. In the mean time someone (I don't have time, sorry) should re-write that first paragraph in a non-copyright violation manner and repost it.--EpicWizard 16:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I only spotted it because an anon put the section in quotes here. Unfortunately the crucial information that this is taken from the EA website was deleted on the grounds that it was not properly formatted inside ref tags! I cannot stress this enough: supplying sources and deleting copyright violations is much much much more important than formatting the references correctly! In fact the entire section is a copyvio: the rest can be found here.
- If the material had not been a quote, it would have been too in-universe anyway. Good luck rewriting it. Geometry guy 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree that the paragraph should be properly cited if any part of it is to be included in the article I feel that because the information in that paragraph outside of what I pointed out earlier is printed online, where anyone can view it, that reprinting it here does no damage to the Battlefield 2142 Copyright and can only serve to increase interest in their IP. The support for this is from the "Fair use on the Internet" section in the Fair Use article:
A US court case in 2003, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails, inline linking and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment, Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba's image search engine. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that it is clearly covered under fair use.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement.
However, since the block of text I mentioned earlier is not printed online (to the best of my knowledge) it should not be reproduced here. It might be better substituted with this:
The year is 2142, and the dawn of a new Ice age has thrown the world into a panic. The soil not covered by ice can only feed a fraction of the Earth's population. The math is simple and brutal: some will live, most will die.
- The first paragraph was also available, in full, on line when I checked earlier this afternoon (UTC), but the site appears to have been changed in the last few hours and I haven't found the link: it may only be available on the internet archive now.
- However, this is irrelevant, because Wikipedia fair use requirements are much stronger than those required by law. This is because of Wikipedia's goal to be freely available for all to use its content as they wish, and fair use is a compromise of these principles.
- Also, really, the direct quotes are too in-universe: the story should really be phrased "The game is set in..." kind of language. This is an encyclopedia! Geometry guy 23:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- "the story should really be phrased "The game is set in..." kind of language. This is an encyclopedia!" and that ends that. Points for Geometry Guy for ending this with a purely logical argument and one that is fairly airtight. Now we just need someone with more time on their hands to rewrite the opening paragraph in just such a way... why do I feel like this is going to be me even if it isn't right now? --EpicWizard 03:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have to say I have been very impressed by the "Good point - lets fix it" attitude. When a new editor comes along to an article and deletes a chunk of material, or makes some other criticism, the response is often defensive or hostile. In this case it was the opposite, thank you!
- I'm afraid it is quite likely that the article will be delisted from GA, as it doesn't meet the criteria at the moment, but with your positive "lets fix it" attitude, I am completely confident that (once you get the time ;-) it will easily pass a renomination. Good luck once more, and thank you for brightening my wikiday. Geometry guy 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well this was going to talk about the impending release of 1.40 and Highway Tampa... Since I just checked and both of these are now out it seemed stupid to talk about them in the future tense. We now need to do a major overhaul of the Updates section of this article and decide how the 1.40 beta stuff and the final release are going to be merged. We may want to just not mention things from the time leading up to the 1.40 final release beyond dates of testing phases and any important changes made during this time. We also need to update the Maps section and the Game Modes references to reflect Dual Assault Lines. I really don't have time right now to do more than make this post and link to the patch let alone play it or make serious and detailed revisions to this article. Here is a link to the official news for your enjoyment.--EpicWizard 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
In the "Collectors' Edition" paragraph, it mentions a "handphone strap". Is this meant to be a headphone strap? Although this would be an actual word, it wouldn't make sense, since headphones don't need straps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huey45 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Handphone is an actual word too altho I'm not sure if it is what was meant Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Australia: Spyware Bill 2005 is NOT law
Although it has been mentioned in many places, the Spyware Bill 2005 is actually still before the senate, and as such, has not been passed as Australian law yet. Also, there is actually no such bill as the 'Australian Spyware Act' which is mentioned in the BF2142 article. Spik3balloon (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a blurb in the section on Northern Strike describing new vehicles added, but no section about the actual vehicles in the original game. There should be one. siafu (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Glitches and Bugs
Its worth noting in the article that, much like its predecessor Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142 is laden with little glitches, bugs, and querks. For instance, the sentry guns can shoot you through walls. While thats realistic, that still seems like they didnt want it to do that. Or being able to see everyone through the titan ship walls when you die, that is definately a glitch. There are too many to list there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here are some of the major playable BF2142 massive mod projects, that independent game developers have invested years in developing for BF2142. As far as I know, all of them are free, though donations are requested by their authors, in lieu of the massive amounts of time and effort involved in developing them. "Client Side" Mods require a modpack installed, downloadable from developer; "Server Side" Mods do not:
- Choppergirl's AIRWAR - Server Side Mod - Gunship Brutal Aerial Combat Theme
- First Strike - Client Side Mod - Star Wars Theme
- / HER Battlefield 2142 - Client Side Mod - Adds Bots to the Titan, Blood, and many Weapons and Vehicle Tweaks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Redzone - Client Side Mod - 1980's Russian / American Conflict Theme
- Tactical Ballistics Mod - Client & Server Side Mod - experimental weapons & physics
Concerning the Maps section
I think we should reorganize the Maps chart into:
Column 1: Theatre
Column 2: Map Name
Column 3: Conquest Mode Type
Column 4: Titan Mode Availability (Yes/No)
Column 5: No Vehicles Option Availability (Yes/No)
I think we can cut down on columns and make it a little neater if we combine the Conquest sections, instead of giving each type of conquest mode its own column, as we are doing with Conquest Assault and Assualt Lines. Plus, it'd give more information on each map about what type of conquest mode each of the other maps use, since all the maps have some form of conquest anyway.
- Do it! Besides, I've looked at the code and Conquest Assault (that only Wake uses) has the exact same code as ordinary Conquest.. SBIT (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I've changed it. However, I'm not entirely sure about what maps have the 'No Vehicles' option; I based it on what the table said before (which for some reason was broken when I started to work on it....). Feel free to change the 'No Vehicles' section if you guys find something contrary.Breaker475 (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What mean vehicles mode? Conquest: No Vehicles map? If yes then only first 11 maps (all in Europe and Africa) have this mode.
There is little mention of the factions playable in this game. I think somebody should do something about that; missing such an important aspect of the game makes this article seem very incomplete. --SaintDaveUK (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Problems, Crashes, Solutions to them and tweaks
I didn't know where to post this information when I found this out. Most BF2142 forums are jammed with loads of faults, but some are more common than others and instead of just trawling through them all to fish out the most frequent ones, and thought I'd compile them here. I hope to progressively update as I find more. Hope no-one minds.
|Fuzzy/hazy screen, occasional artifacts, screen going black when using cloaking device||Nvidia drivers 180.48, AA problem, currently being fixed by Nvidia||turn off AA|
|Can't get resolution I want (usually 1280 x 1024)||not supported, unknown reason||right click on BF2142 shortcut, go to properties, in target box, type after the other commands:
+szx 1280 +sxy 1024
can be applied to other resolutions as well. eg: 1920x1200
If you wish to look into some tweaks to get the game running more smoothly, then visit here at tweaksguides.com
Hardware performance guides
You can find some troubleshooting tips:
I hope this helps ease some frustration.
We have a 2142 fixes guide on our forums where we have "pooled" the most common problems our members came across and their solutions as we all got tired of trawling the net for solutions and found that most of us had come across the same problems over and over so a single reference for fixes would save us all time and effort. We sought permission to take direct quotes from another forum and they said it was all free information that no one could hold a right not to allow others to freely distribute. It its just a list of faults followed by their fix. If people see it as worth including in the Wiki page then it might save people time. http://www.bloodworks.org/MonkeyGamers/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=133
12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickTheMonkey (talk • contribs)
Camp Gibraltar - Location
Hello, I am a long-time fan of the 2142 universe. In the "Maps" table on Battlefield 2142, the map "Camp Gibraltar" is linked to Gibraltar when it is said to be within the African theatre. This is a typical mistake, Camp Gibraltar is named after the location of Gibraltar, but it doesn't mean that it really is in Gibraltar. May I remind you that the location of Gibraltar is not a part of the African continent anyway, it is a part of the European continent. So therefore Camp Gibraltar (if it was really in Gibraltar) wouldn't be within the African theatre, it would be within the European theatre. But as I said, Camp Gibraltar is not in Gibraltar itself.
There are several points that prove that Camp Gibraltar is not within the location of Gibraltar:
- The geography of Camp Gibraltar's map does not reflect the real life Gibraltar.
- Camp Gibraltar's coastline is on the northern section of the map, meaning that players will be facing north when they are looking directly at the coast from land. In Gibraltar, there is no northern coastline, only coastlines if you face the east, south or west.
- There is no Gibraltar rock (it is possible that the developers of Battlefield 2142, if they were actually making a real location of Gibraltar, could have not bothered to add the rock of Gibraltar because players wouldn't be able to clearly see the rock anyway due to the map having a low draw-distance (the map is very foggy). However, the topography in all Battlefield games is shown on the mini-map and because the rock of Gibraltar is a recognisable land feature, they might have added an inaccurate version of the rock of Gibraltar just for the topographic mini-map, like an easter egg perhaps.
- The climate of Gibraltar is not desert-like. In Camp Gibraltar, the environment seems to be very deserty, outside the walls of the camp itself, there seems to be a very barren, yet rocky, desert (you could say that this relates to the game's story as the world in under-going a massive climate-shift due to the Ice Age. However I doubt, since that the real Gibraltar is based on the European continent and that Europe is within the northern hemisphere; where the Ice Age is cooling Europe down, that Gibraltar would get hotter rather than colder than it is today. So, I highly doubt it would become barren.
- It is mentioned within the map's description in the game that it is a "staging point for refugees from the western Mediterranean territories", meaning that refugees are coming from the western Mediterranean, not going from the western Mediterranean which is where the real location of Gibraltar is roughly located. Also, within the game's story, Europeans are travelling from Europe to Africa in search of habitable land, why would there be a staging point for refugees in Europe when nobody is travelling to Europe? Europe hardly needs staging points for refugees because there are no refugees coming to Europe, refugees are coming to Africa.
- Another point about the story, it mentions that "The attack on Camp Gibraltar was the first deception attack used by the PAC to draw EU forces out of position." The story in Battlefield 2142 mentions that the Pan Asian Coalition forces launched "deception attacks" in Africa in order to make European Union forces think that the PAC's primary goal was to invade and occupy Africa when, what they really wanted to do, was make the EU send more protection to Africa so that the PAC could trample over the EU in Europe. However, when they finally do make the entirety of EU retreat to Africa when they occupy most of Europe, the PAC find out that now the EU have the most habitable land (Africa) because the climate shift is changing Africa into better land than the land in Europe (there is an ice sheet in the northern hemisphere gradually consuming the continent of Europe, and therefore rendering most of the land there uninhabitable). So, since this was a "deception attack", and the deception attacks in the Battlefield 2142 story were in Africa, that means Camp Gibraltar is not in Gibraltar but rather on the continent of Africa. Where in Africa exactly? I do not know, there is no information other than that it is a staging area for refugees from the western Mediterranean.
So, where should Camp Gibraltar be linked to? I would guess it is on the northern coastline of a northern or north-western African country, such as Morocco or Libya since it is a "staging area for refugees from the western Mediterranean". It would make sense that refugees are in the western Mediterranean of southern Europe are diverted to a closer staging area somewhere in the northern or north-western part of Africa if the refugees are coming from the western Mediterranean.
Thank you for reading and I hope that the location link for Camp Gibraltar is changed to a location on the northern or north-western part of the African continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinzor (talk • contribs) 13:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is all original research. All the maps are fictional locations, some refer to real places, some refer to World War II battles. There isn't really any reason for any of them to be linked. If this link bugs you, there is no reason to make a huge case on the talk page, just remove it, don't link it to some other place based on your own speculation about where this map might be fictionally located. --Daniel 16:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I tried getting rid of the links, but someone thought I was sabotaging the article by doing so and put them back in (don't know who, I did it about 9 months ago on another account, long time ago). If people don't want these links gone, I thought "why not come up with better speculation than these people have put in"? I made a case here in the talk page so that if I do edit it, I have backed up my speculation with a good case so that people don't bloody change it. The other map links are speculation anyway, that's why I tried to delete it 9 months ago, but what do you know, it pops up there again. Who knows if Shuhia Taiba really is in southern Egypt? Did they have any evidence to back that up? No they didn't, it doesn't say anywhere that it was located in southern Egypt (quite the opposite, it said the map was located in northern Egypt). So, if this person who added in these links can get away with speculation, why can't my case replace that speculation with better speculation? (NOTE: Well, I wouldn't say I'm extremely bothered by this, I was just bored today so I decided to write an argument for something to pass the time. I was also bored when I decided to edit those links 9 months ago, I hardly go on Wikipedia to edit stuff) --Jinzor 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I say just get rid of all the links. They are all speculation. --Daniel 21:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
How popular is this game?
Maybe it achieved mediocre sales figures, but how many thousands of people bought it when it was sold for $20 years later? Is it popular enough for a sequel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)