Talk:Battlefield 2142/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New section: Criticism

I added this "It has recently been announced that the game will ship with Massive Streaming Ad support This system, featured in games such as Splinter Cell Chaos Theory and SWAT 4 means (most likely) changing adverts on objects such as billboards and trucks in-game." and have a reference here: http://pc.ign.com/articles/729/729661p1.html but no idea how to add it, could someone please do it for me, or point me to a place that tells me how? --Gunrun 01:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Done.--ᎠᏢ462090 02:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


I added a second paragraph describing system instability, bugs, and hacking. However, the citation I provided is to an Internet discussion thread started by me. I fully realize that my impartiality on this matter is in question and request that the complaints be verified by other sources. The video showing the hack, however, seems to stand on its own. Sofa King 04:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a forum isn't really a source we should have, and your thread is about what's wrong with BF2, and why you won't buy BF2142; your post, atleast that I see, doesn't even meantion, problems in the beta. We'll need a better source, but it'll be hard to find a source because of the NDA. Also, it should be mentioned that a beta is to fix these kinds problems, and is not the final product, for sake of NPOV. Not to insult you, or anything.--ᎠᏢ462090 04:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Here at least is a professional site which mentions some of that which was mentioned anecdotally in that discussion thread. "Before we start, our experiences with the multiplayer beta made it clear that it really is a beta client. We have had times when we lost connections or had desktop crashes or couldn’t even load the game at all. That’s to be expected of a game that is not complete yet; we just wanted to make it clear that we are giving our impressions of the game as it stands right now and not making a full judgment." Source: http://www.firingsquad.com/games/battlefield_2142_preview/default.asp While politiely stated, the experienced BF2 player will realize that a) BF2142 is heavily based upon the BF2 engine; b) the current version of BF2 (patch 1.3) is also plagued by connection problems and crashes to desktop (and server crashes); and c) many of those problems were introduced into the completed version of the game via the 1.3 patch on May 23, 2006 and have not been fixed to date, over one hundred days later. BF2142 is also scheduled for release in less than six weeks, or less time than they've already had to fix the problems with BF2. Another, less valuable source may be this opinion piece, which gives dates and descriptions of the problems introduced by the BF2 1.3 patch: http://www.ngohq.com/home.php?page=articles&go=read&arc_id=109 Hey, at least I didn't write that one! User:Sofa King Monday, 2006-09-04 T10:59 UTC

Well golly, who would want to go and just delete that whole paragraph, I wonder?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sofa King (talk • contribs) 09:55, September 5, 2006 (UTC)

Me. — Mütze 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed the part of the paragraph that BF2142 is just a Mod of BF2 with titans and diffrint named weapons.

Swedish in Press Release?

I see that the press release (http://www.ea.com/official/battlefield/battlefield2/us/editorial.jsp?src=communityupdate_032106) contains a sentence at the end that reads: 

    P.S. Snoken - vi har sett fram emot Mine 2 och kan lugnt säga att vi inte blev besvikna!

I assumed it was Swedish since DICE is a Swedish company, and I translated it online. The best I could do is: 

    A grass snake- we've seen forward/there opposite Mine 2 and can calmly say that we not became disappointed.

It should be noted that Snoken means 'grass snake', but it is the name of the producer of the Mine 2 movie. If there is anyone proficient in Swedish, could you please translate it better so it can be posted?

--AnthonyA7 08:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


It's something to the effect of "We were looking foward to Mine 2 and weren't disappointed." - Rudykog 21:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"It should be noted that Snoken means 'grass snake', but it is the name of the producer of the :Mine 2 movie."



Wrong, 'Snoken Productions' is the team that makes the movies. Noken is the founder of the team who does most, if not all, of the editing and directing. ~ Swanston

To ShadowMan1od

Where did you get any information about the engine that will be used? I couldn't find any credible source stating that the retraction 3 engine will be used.

--85.124.38.56 06:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What engine does BF2 use? Because I'm almost 100% sure that's what they'd use .--Dp462090 20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It does use BF2's engine, it was mentioned during one of the movies I watched. Plus the resemblance is uncanny. --69.130.184.6 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at the edits, it says that CommunistHamster added that, not me. :P ShadowMan1od 01:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Stub Removal

What do you all think, is that enough to remove the stub tag?--Dp462090 03:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we've about exhausted the amount of information released so far, so I doubt there's much more anyone could add anyway, so yes. Also, as a side note, we could probably merge the two notes on the EU and PAC into one? Trjn 09:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, and done.--Dp462090 11:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Post Release Article

I've made an article for what, I believe, the 2142 article should be once released: User:Trjn/BF2142. Feel free to edit it/discuss it. Most of the article is taken straight from the BF2 article, but I assume that would be for the best to achieve decent consistency. -Trjn 07:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a great goal, but I think that, maybe there should be a section, about the rumors. But, then again, that's just me.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 18:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

M-714-38.PK

A bunch of screenshots have pictures of a gun with the tag M-714-38.PK [1] [2] printed on the side. This looks like nothing seen in any of the PCGamer weapon screenshots[3]. I assume this will be a part of the game, the problem exists however that I am unsure as to whether it is an EU or PAC weapon. My best guess would be that it is an EU assault weapon, as all the known PAC weapons start with NK- (Which im also guessing stands for North Korea, but thats only a guesstimation). I tried to compare uniforms but couldnt come to a conclusion. Also, some screenshots of the unit holding that have an emblem, along with some other vehicles and objects.(See: [4], 1, and 2). I believe that the Griffon looking mark is that of the EU, for no other reason that the soldiers do not look of Eastern decent and they hold a weapon that does not appear to be employed by the PAC. That the stranger looking curved vertex mark(see 6) is that of either the PAC, or a company who builds that model of mech (the '806'). Im asking anyone who has any more information to kindly shead some light here, thanks -Trjn 07:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll guess that PC Gamer just didn't get a picture of it, or that it has changed since the screen-shot was taken. And, as for the MECH I'm almost 100% sure that it's the EU MECH, because of this video [5](Watched the fullscreen version), which shows a MECH called "Stella", moving with, what appers to be a EU soldier, but not shooting him, although the number is 808.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 18:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Also I've found this screen [6]--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 05:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

BF-2142Template

I've made a BF-2142 template, for those who are intrested and contribute in the BF 2142 article. Just copy this to the userbox area of your user page.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 19:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

{{User Battlfield 2142}}

BF2142This user is interested, and/or contributes in Battlefield 2142


Wrong information

Im afraid there is a failure in the article: You are writing about Euro-American union. That is wrong. I believe the official version is only EU.

I concur. The official site says the Western faction is called 'European Union'. I can't find anywhere where it says it's called 'American-European Alliance'. I request that we correct this information. Seriphyn 18:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The PC Gamer acticle (sourced at the bottom of the article) mentions that the two fighting superpowers are the PAC and an European-American Alliance, but the official site does say it is the EU. So, really, Im not sure what to think. It might be worth mentioning at this time that the EU side is made up of most Western Europe and America? (edit: forgot to tag :() -Trjn 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
See my change. Though, personally, I think what the official site says goes. As far as I'm concerned, PC Gamer has wrong information. The actual people who are making the game say whatever, and it's what's going to be. I think PC Gamer had it as 'American/European Alliance' just to please Americans, rather then making them feel alienated by just 'European Union'.

Well who knows, maybe America did loose after all. Hence the Armored Fury Booster Pack for Battlefield 2, which those maps are of the americains defeding their homeland from the invasion of MEC and Chinese forces.

I don't know, but I think the comment, was from an interview. But, maybe it has changed, or wrong in first place, but we won't know for sure until it comes out.--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 16:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
IGN says in it's hands-on that 'the US is sitting out of this one'. Basically, it's Europe and Asia fighting, no Americans. Seriphyn 16:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly...there is no America anywhere in this game. It is the EU and the PAC squaring off. America has been in all the former BFs...ain't it enough? It is time for the rest of the world to be recognized, and people should not take offense to it! ARBIH 23:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Weapons

The weapons section needs to be updated as they now have alot more info on them from E3.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathieu983 (talk • contribs) 19:58, May 22, 2006

Could you give us sources? Because I haven't seen anything.--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Some of the information (the pistol info for example) has been copy and pasted off this site http://battlefield2142.ea.com/battlefield/bf2142/eu_vehicles.aspx (not by me) I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia editing yet so is that acceptable?


Also, it would be extremely convenient to have pictures of weapons, items, and unlocks alongside the descriptions of them. I also have zero Wikipedia experience, so I'm hoping someone dedicated to the game will help out. Pictures can also be taken from the above site. Thanks!

Engine?

In the article is says the engine is a "Modified Refraction 3 Engine", but I thought it was the same engine as Battlefield 2? If the BF2 engine is the Refraction 3 engine, that the BF2 article needs updating because it says the engine is just the "Battlefield 2 Engine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorian (talk • contribs) 14:59, May 27, 2006

It's the same engine as the engine BF2 uses. I've found a cached page that says the engine BF2 uses has no name. --ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 19:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
So, that would mean that the BF2142 page is wrong...? By the way, please excuse my needless tidying of your comment... --Lorian 19:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess so, but I think we should get a second source, just incase that's wrong, because it maybe that engine with no name, is a "Modified Refraction 3 Engine".--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I will do some searching. --Lorian 19:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well EA finally responded to my email. Here's what they had to say:

The Battlefield 2 engine is original technology built by the team in Stockholm, Sweden. At this time, we have not released any details as to what engine Battlefield 2142 will use. Please keep watching the site for information about the game as it becomes available. If you have any additional questions, please let us know. Take care.

I have changed the engine to "Unknown (Modified Battlefield 2 engine suspected)" --Lorian 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good.--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 17:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No United States in the game

The US or any other American nations are NOT in the game. People are going to have to deal with that fact. According to IGN...

Removing the United States from the equation, the game focuses on the conflict between Europe and its neighbors of the East.

Can someone have one of those little number thingies that links to that quote? Stops people from reverting it. Seriphyn 13:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the link to the article? I'll do it. --Lorian 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, found it. --Lorian 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

K why did my comment get deleted? In Armored Fury it plainly showed America getting there homeland invaded, did the germans win against the soviets in world war II? No exacly. Now dont delete this.

Uh, so? The Americans didnt win against Vietnam on their home soil, infact, most land wars on home soil are generally won by the invadees(?), I wont go into WWII history and why the germans lost, but its a pretty unfounded and, well, stupid, chain of reasoning. Youre comment probably got deleted because it added nothing to the discussion, was full of spelling errors, and was untagged to boot -Trjn 04:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is a link between 2142 and Armoured Fury. It's a theory, yes, but I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. It's not supposed to be a long-running story. Two seperate games. Even if the US was defeated, it wouldn't have been 'absorbed' into the PRC or MEC. Besides, there is a heckuva long gap between 2007 and 2142. About the Soviet/German thingy, Germany invaded the USSR and were eventually pushed back, so they resisted the invasion. Pah, that's unrelated. The fact remains is that there is no United States because the developer's don't want them in it. Simple. Seriphyn 13:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Really it doesn't matter, if you think Armored Fury is why America, and countries of the rest Americas aren't in BF2142 then email DICE. Also they may put America an expantion/booster pack(I know EA would be more likely to push for thi$, and since they own the majority share), I mean that's how the EU got in the BF series in the first place.--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 17:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Its because you are americains and you hate not being in the world`s hyperpower all the time. End of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathieu121 (talk • contribs)

I don't even know wht you are replying to... and I'm afraid you don't get to call the end of an open discussion, which, by the way, you are not contributing to in any way. --LorianTC 19:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Im also Australian, so go figure. And who exactly is the worlds hyperpower? Im sick of being stuck in these backwater hypopower countries! Trjn 01:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


I got a reply from EA: 

Thank you for contacting EA Support. All information regarding battlefield 2142 that 
has been released is available at http://www.ea.com/official/battlefield/battlefield2/us/ . 
If the information that you are asking for is not there, then it has not been released yet. 
We are unable to answer questions pertainig to infomration not yet released because that 
information is subject to change prior to the launch of the game.

So, its not, because the main website doesnt say it is, for now. But we rely on facts, if the fact should change then so do we. For now, no America, it might be safer not to mention them at all Trjn 01:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In a recent(June 22, 2006) Gamespot interview, Gamespot asked: 

"Tell us about the two new factions in the game, the American-European Alliance and the Pan-Asian
Coalition. Do they each have special traits or abilities that are unique to them? Why only two   
factions?"

I decided to tried to email DICE after I saw this, but I got a automatic reply saying, that their office is closed until the July 17, and to try back then. I'll try back then to see if I can get a reponse.--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 08:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


If anyone's putting in screenshots can you please turn the details to high? I mean the billboard one looks likes its in low detail.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.215.120.157 (talk • contribs) .

I posted the screen, and yes it's on low(And I can't turn it up my GPU is a XFX 6600, it can't do it), but that doesn't matter, the point is it illustrates the billboard just fine, it's not meant to be pretty just to show the billboard.--ᎠᏢ462090 02:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As the article already says there will be no communist nation in the game, I have added the currently understood fact that the United States will also not feature. If this fact changes (which, knowing DICE, we might not know until we see the Stars and Stripes in the game on launch day), obviously it should be edited out - Meadow

Nobody is right in this argument, and nobody is wrong.

DICE has just created two factions, the EU and the PAC.

Saying that the US is in fact with the EU may rid some sense from the story. Why is the US fighting for Africa instead of South America? If the PAC and EU can't fit into Africa, why can the EU and US? Also, it gets rid of the possiblity of a future expansion/booster pack.

Saying that the US is not with the EU will detract from sales. It's simple, some people in the US are afraid of the world's other megapowers and want to support the US (even in a fictional video game). You know, those guys who always choose USMC in BF2. The over-patriotics.

The good thing about making a futuristic game is that you don't have to be specific about what nations you're talking about. So people are less likely to take sides about what nation they're "with," and more likely to buy the game. 

--Coolbho3000 00:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

BF2142: 4th or 5th game?

I know this seems like a minor detail, but it should be factually correct if we are to include it. It all comes down to whether Modern Combat is to be considered a standalone installment of the series, or simply a 'mod' or addition to BF2. The template considers modern combat to be an addition (of sorts) to bf2, and the name of it is Battlefield 2: Modern Combat. Personally, I consider it to be a part of the BF2 franchise, and not a unique installment of the series, which makes 2142 the 4th installment. --Trjn 11:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a full game, it's not a mod, or addition. It may have the name BF2:MC, but it's not an addition to BF2. And, since we're talking about games, the name doesn't matter(even it is part of BF2 franchise), it's still a full game. Look at the Battlefield series article, MC is listed as a full game. Battlefield 2142 is the 5th game.--ᎠᏢ462090 14:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Lorian to it upon himself to remove it : (→Trivia - It's not even interesting). I agree with him on this due to it shouldn't be part of the triva, it should actually however be moved up toward the description. I consider Modern Combat not an installement however, since it is related to much towards BF2 --William Pembroke 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest if we add something, it should go something like, "BF2142 is the 4th, or 5th, game of the franchise, depending on whether BF2:MC is counted as full game." That way it's correct either way, and we have no problem.--ᎠᏢ462090 22:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I honestly can't see how Modern Combat can be considered a game in its own right. It is clearly a modification of Battlefield 2, not a new game. It has simply been altered too much for the publishers to be able to market it under the exact same name without the fans demanding a more accurate port. In my humble view, the situation is clear: There have been four major Battlefield games in the past. — Mütze 09:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not a mod, it doesn't even use the same engine, and it's not a port("...the term used when a computer game designed to run on one platform, be it a personal computer or video game console, is converted to run on another platform."). Also, if "It has simply been altered too much for the publishers to be able to market it under the exact same name," then should Battlefield: Vietnam, which uses the same engine as Battlefield 1942, not be considered a full game(even though it’s set in Vietnam)? Meaning that there are only three Battlefield games(including Battlefield 2142(which uses the BF2 engine so it could be excluded as well, but for now), and excluding Bad Company). --ᎠᏢ462090 04:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, BF2:MC wasn't released on PC, right? That way, we can say "BF2142 is the 4th Battlefield game released on the PC."Slinky317 15:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Combine?

Was it not rumored that the Combine would become a playable faction? One free man?

User:Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 04:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply: I would highly doubt that, because surely the rights to the Combine copyright wise belong to Valve, and ths is the Battlefield universe, not the HL/HL2 one.
No it has not been rumored, at least not on major BF2142 sites. And it's unlikely that EA(/DICE), and Valve, would ever make a deal like that. Also, even if they did make a deal, DICE has said on more that one occasion that they would like to keep the BF series within the realm of reality(that is to say, possible reality).--ᎠᏢ462090 13:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. User:Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 00:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Satellite Articles

I've thrown up a bunch of satellite articles, figured people watching BF2142 with keen intrest would want to know:

Also, just for future reference, I expect these to show up soon after the games release, as more content is added we will need to move these to their own main articles (a la the BF2 article)

-Trjn 03:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'm guessing we're also going to need/want:

I've split the Weapons section into List of weapons in Battlefield 2142. The Vehicles section will have to go soon, it's huge. kollision 14:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll start working on the awards in a couple of days, since I have made/started the ranks page. Bygeorge2512 19:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Demo

I was thinking about a section for the demo, though there isn't much to say about it, just the fact that it will be released, most likely about a week before the game is released, and that buying and downloading the game off the EA website will give you the demo a day early... think theres any point??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.187.252 (talk • contribs)

the demo came out yesterday, you can download it at gamespot ((superchad))

Maybe include it with the Beta section, as you have said, there isn't much to say about it. But im sure its worth the mention - Asbad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.237.9 (talk • contribs) 16:57, October 8, 2006

Release Date

while I understand not trusting a release date on GameStop or EBGames or WalMart, I think that GameSpot as a news organization can be trusted. In fact, not only can it be trusted, it is one of the official guidelines of wikipedia. I'm reverting the removal. Questions? McKay 04:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Asteroid?

Yeah, I'm removing the comment about the asteroid, no need to get that technical about a video game plotline, don't you think?

Also, I changed the Current Version from Beta 2 to 1.0, now that BF2142 has officially gone gold.

And then I removed that line entirely, for the same reason. :-D — Mütze 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculation on future expansion packs?

There has been a lot of controversy about the reasons the US was not in the game (even though there is an official explanation: the US is frozen over). Still, despite the official explanation some say this or that, from the "the US wouldnt just fall" to "hah, the US is finally no longer the hyperpower" blah blah blah.

I just did notice something though that is highly relevant to our goings on here at Wikipedia: in the History of the Cold War (of 2142), it mentions that there are 6 remaining world factions, not two. At the launch of 2142, we will only see (we know for sure) the EU and PAC, with the Union of African States assisting the EU.

However, this means that at least 3 factions (UAS, as not an playable faction, is still up to speculation) that are not in the launch title. This gives some credit to the questions: "what happened to South America?" "what about the Middle East? Is it in the PAC?" "the US co-developed the SCAR 11, is it entirely gone or did it go like the EU to the south?"

Remember Battlefield 2, where the EU was not originally in the game, but was added in an "booster" pack, aka small expansion?

Due to the large amount of controversy generated about these 3 to 4 yet unnamed factions, and given EA's history of adding factions with expansion packs, we here at wikipedia need to consider a few things: 1. Should there be an article on future expected expansion packs, even before the first installment game is released, due to the controversy surrounding the factions? We do have articles on wikipedia about future expected events, be they controversial or not. 2. If such an article is created, what content should be included?

I personally vote "yes" for number 1, but as to number 2 I think we need to write most of it in sandbox first, and edit it to prose before officially creating the article.

Oh uh, this is Scryer_360 posting this. Yah, too lazy to sign in (playing BF2142 demo actually).

There is no requirement for such an article at present - it would just be vague musing - I'll AFD such an article. --Charlesknight 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be left until EA actually confirm an expansion pack. Vanguard 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
And even then there should be something to report about. An article with nothing more than "There is going to be an expansion pack to awesome computer game Battlefield 2142" Doesn't seem to be incredibly useful. This can be integrated here, just like it has been done with the Battlefield 2 addon. — Mütze 11:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I meant when EA actually confirm a name and a few details. Obviously we have to have some substantial material before it can even qualify to become a Wikipedia article. Vanguard 22:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Your right, we should have an official note from a reputable source before starting the article on future expansions. Oh well. I just thought it'd be appropriate due to the controversy (the link no longer works, but I had a 63 page forum and and article on why South America was not part of the game considering its geography). Oh, Scryer_360 again.

Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Unless EA hints of a new army entering the war (booster pack), or an expansion pack, let's just write about what is known. There is much more that can be done to this article than speculation over story plot, info, and possible new additions.

I will tell you that the SCAR-11, which obviously gets it's name from the SCAR-L/H, is NOT American made. It's made by FN, a Belgian company, which also makes the M249 SAW LMG.

A number of factions that I can come up with is a North American entity consisting of Canada (or what people remain), the United States, and Mexico. North America, for the most part, is closer to the equator. Europe should be completely covered if Dice said the US was, because they are more North than we are! But never mind that, I can still see remnants for the North moving south into whatever remains of the US and Mexico. The next would be the South American Coalition. That's 2, unless you want to bag the NAA (North American Alliance). The other two or one, w/e you want, would be Oceana and the rest of Asia. You could even say the MEC is still alive and well, or maybe it has assimilated into the UAS, which may be a super power (it would obviously thrive compared to everyone else).

Dice, for the most part, hasn't been able to make a plausible story beginning with Battlefield 2. If you look at what vehicles are being used, and how well trained and advanced the MEC is, you would wonder how it got like that from late 2005 to 2007. I could see this happening in 2012, or around that, but the story is a little too far fetched. And if you look at Middle Eastern armies and the PRC, you can tell their navies are so small and are not trained enough to make any large scale amphibious assault. I bring this up because of Armored Fury, in which both invade the US, and from some map descriptions, seem to be beating the hell out of the US. Even with China's funding into it's armed forces, it's considered to have short arms and legs, meaning it can barely extend it's forces. You expect them to make a full scale assault on the US, and live without being torn to pieces by the US navy, which is larger than the all the worlds navy combined?

But this is where we just say, "Yea, so what? It doesn't make sense, it's just war man. Fight the good fight after a long day on the PAC or EU." *Edit* Forgot to sign!--Hellogoodsir 05:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Player limits in Titan mode.

Gameplay in Battlefield 2142 includes the classic conquest mode of play with up to 64 players, but it will additionally introduce a new 48-player game mode called "Titan" mode

On the demo I've seen Titan servers with 64 players, is this just an override on the servers behalf? Is 48 players the recomended amount of players EA has set? I'd like to clarify this so the statement can possibly be re-worded. Vanguard 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According to what I read so far from the ticker inside the game, it's possible to make a Titan game with more than 48 players, but can lead to massive lag and/or instability. Those who played will have already noticed there's lag problems whenever you are on board a Titan while it's moving. --Shurikane 16:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Release date in NA changed

I've downloaded the game with EA Downloader, and it is reflecting Oct. 18th as the release date. EB Games also stated as such in a phonecall to the local EB. Best Buy also lists the 18th as the release date here: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7983774&st=battlefield+2142&type=product&id=1153999681935

Pdboddy 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dynamic advertisement vs. Spyware controversy

There seems to be some discontentment regarding newly released information about the intrusive nature of the game's dynamic advertisement system. Anyone better informed care to mention this in the article? 201.45.39.221 16:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I ran into a small piece about it here: http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/centipedes/battlefield-2142-with-a-dash-of-spyware-207955.php Not much credibility to it but the word has been going on around several forums as of late. I assume serious articles about it will pop up in the next few days. --Shurikane 16:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Here, I ran into something with a little more substance: http://www.bf2142.se where DICE says there is no spyware inside the game. Here is the quote:
Here is an image LINKY68.190.230.4 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

De senaste dagarna har det gått rykten om att det skall ha funnits spyware i spelet Battlefield 2142. Man har sagt att programmet skall skicka information om dina surfvanor samt vilka reklamer du mest tittar på.

Dice har nu dementerat att detta är falska rykten och att det inte finns något spywareprogram i Battlefield 2142.

Jag har samtalat med John Hargelid från DICE, läs mer.

Slashdot has a discussion up about it HERE, and apparently in the EULA, you see THIS. Pdboddy 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add a DICE representative has said there is no spyware. http://www.totalbf2142.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4180&page=2 At the bottom of page two and midway down page 3. The whole spyware issue comes from misinterpretation of the EULA. It mentions nothing about browsing habits/cookies or any of that other nonsense currently flying about. There is also this article which states what exactly is being monitored: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11300 It's all pretty innocuous, really.

SweetCuppinCakes 08:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

^I wouldnt trust anyone who comes on a forum claiming to be from DICE, It could be but still not reliable. A lot of forums if not all the bf2142 forums have a topic about this issue and many Game-news Sites are reporting it, There must be some truth

As what SweetcuppinCakes said, the Syware affair is just mis-information as none of the data collected comes from sources outside the game itself.

You cannot trust the DICE rep., admitting that they install that stuff would be terrible for buisness. According to the EULA, they do install something. --Rake 14:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does install something, but if you read through the links, all it does it track whether you view the ads, for how long, and at what angle you view them from. I note that so far, none of the billboards contain ads. Pdboddy 14:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As the case with Australia shows, if it is Spyware or not depends on that countries laws regarding what is Spyware, and how it is treated. Individual consumers obviously have their own views on what's spyware and what's not. The company representative is perfectly correct in saying no spyware is included... because he must only meet the legal definition. That being said if you don't like something on your computer reading what you do, and sending it off for people to know, then you have the choice of not signing the EULA, and returning the game to EA for that reason. However if you sign the EULA, you were informed and consented to it. Always read legal documents before you sign them. [Saturday, 2006-11-04 T 12:30 UTC]

Spyware

Apparently Kotaku is reporting LINK that this game will include a spyware that tracks browsing habits and displays relevant ingame ads. Someone may want to update this article. OOPS I DIDNT SEE THE THIS IS ALREADY DISCUSSED, SORRY :) 68.190.230.4 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing "reliable" sources?

Wilester, you comment about citing a reliable source such as Gamespot. Really? Gamespot has, linked from their main page, stated Battlefield 2142 releases today. When it's not... A commercial site is probably one of the more reliable sources for release dates, especially as the dates go from vague to more exact (It'll be out Q3 2007 as compared to November 11th, 2007). They *have* to be reliable, else they risk false advertising lawsuits, no? Pdboddy 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

They do not risk a false advertising law suit for having an erroneous release date. False advertising requires proof of malice or illicit gain, and requires the source to be the one being sued. More importantly commercial sites are routinely incorrect on their release dates, as they are allowed to use the most optomistic figures of the releasing company, thus increasing their presales, and are at no fault if the company later has to push it back. As no company is legal held to the consumer for a release date (though they may be held accountable to retailers they have sales arrangements with) a commercial site is no more or little more likely to be accurate then a informative website or game fan site. [Saturday, 2006-11-04 T 12:30 UTC]

Should the Pre-order flash drive be mentioned?

See subject Flashn00b 23:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Already has been in the Criticism section, and that's about all that needs to be mentioned (that it exists). --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 18:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Expansion?

So... does the expansion gag going around count as criticism? :P Pdboddy 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed some external links

I got rid of some of the external links that did not seem important. If any were, please tell me so i or someone else can put them back up. ARBIH 17:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a link under Ranks labeled "List of ranks in Battlefield 2142" that redirects to the same page, i guess the original page was removed? maybe the link should be replaced with useful info or maybe the topic removed completely? either that or the original page be put back up. Your choice. - SmoKey 12:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I never touched the ranks section, nor was there a rank link in the external links. If there should be a link, it should be under the Ranks section. I did not see one...

ARBIH 00:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

CD Required for Play

I was surprised no one has noted that the game requires a DVD in the drive to play. I noted it, but it could be worded and placed better. the cheat 02:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Bugs

hey, just watched some gootube videos and there seems to be some bugs being exploited thru 'spawn beacons placed next to crates' cheating. maybe you'd wanna update your main page with some of the more serious issues and stuff.

delete this once its done for I don't care about being credited for these words.

European Union

When i click on the European Union link to this article, it redirects me to the official EU profile article.

Isnt there an article of the game version of the European Union, or is it implied in the game that the EU that exists in the present is the same one in BF 2142 ? Im confused ! X'D

please fix this conundrum and remove this entry once it's done =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.182.156 (talk • contribs)

This in-game faction is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. There is no comprehensive story behind it. The only information available are battle briefings, armored vehicles, and weapons. For example, the PAC article that previously existed was deleted. So the contemporary real-life organization is used as a link instead. --Voidvector 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of BF2142wiki.com

The bf2142.com page has a wiki and has actually content in it, that is genuine. The BF2142wiki.com page blatently copied from basically two sources, bf2142.com and totalbf2142.com. This can even be proven, as they have certain data only bf2142 so far shows, but some of that data is wrong, and to be changed soon there. They did not get it from the original source, otherwise the data would be different. Most of the pages are stubs.

It is true that bf2142wiki.com is incomplete, but what wiki is complete? It does contain much original content. For example, its guides section contains completely original articles with information that has been added by many users and distilled in a form which cannot be found elsewhere. As an example, this section of the guide is completely original content which has been created by several bf2142wiki.com users. Additionally, let it be known that blatant copying of Battlefield 2142 content is not isolated to bf2142wiki.com, both bf2142fever.com and totalbf2142.com completely copy a great deal of content directly from the official website. For example: this page at bf2142fever and totbf2142 are near exact copies of one another, both of which come from the official EA site. There are many other examples of directly copied content between these two sites and many other fan sites: this is a common practice amongst game sites. I do not feel that the reasons given by the above editor are sufficient to remove bf2142wiki.com from the links' fan websites list, since the two sites currently listed remain listed, yet both appear guilty of the infractions cited as the reason for removal of bf2142wiki.com 71.135.5.86 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. bf2142wiki.com does contain a good amount of original content, and its format as a wiki is uniquely useful. I agree to keep the link.Thelo 05:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The link seems appropriate, since much of the wiki does seem to contain valuable guides, information, and links in a different form from other venues. It would certainly seem sensible for the complaintant to add attribution to those articles on the bf2142wiki that he or she feels require it. --WillJeck 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the links in order to comply with the Wikipedia external links guidelines. Number 12 on the list of links to be avoided: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I don't believe that the bf2142wiki has a substantial history at all. Perhaps after some time after the site improves it can be linked to again. Bgold4 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I am the bf2142wiki founder and I think this editorial decision is quite acceptable. The two sites currently linked, fevergaming and totalgaming, are both well-established and have been active since the beta. BF2142wiki, sadly, has not been active for nearly this long. We shall strive to mature and improve! :) W33t 01:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to remember to register later and do my best to help out :) Bgold4 02:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

New Patch

The 1.06 has been released.

list incomplete

The list of weapons is incomplete, missing such weapons as the lambert carbine.

GA on hold

I have three major issues before I can consider passing this, thus it's on hold.

  1. See WP:MOS, specifically WP:TRIVIA. That section needs to be cleaner.
  2. Citations have got to be more consistent in presentation. There are three in particular which are simply blind links. See WP:CITE for suggestions.
  3. It's way too listy in a lot of places. Perhaps some tables or better prose paragraphs will help.

I'll keep this watchlisted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Failing for now. The basic issues haven't been addressed, and citations in particular are even more necessary. Feel free to resubmit once the issues are addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Weapons/equip section, and possibly more

This section needs to be cleaned up or restructured. There is commentary that doesn't always state what it is referring to, along with other issues. Perhaps it can be redone and combined with the "class" section. Each class can have a simple description, followed by the weapons, and then the other equipment unlocks?? Bgold4 00:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I say it should be split- it takes up a lot of space. Mawfive 01:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'd say it's fine now thanks to Dragor66 :) Bgold4 02:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I was just thinking that, subheadings for each class...I just cleaned up a lot of poor wording and typos in the weapons section, definitely too complex. Silence(water) 15:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time we move the weapons back to a separate page, who agrees? DTWATKINS 23:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No we need to slash it in length - it does not require a seperate page - there is nothing innovate or novel about the weapons in this. I'll be upfront and say I'll AFD any seperate weapons page. --Charlesknight 00:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not split then...but definitely reformatted. It looks like and is a mess. I still think it would be ideal to have a subsection for each class, lesser use of lists, and compression. Silence(water) 23:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm trying to clean it up at the moment. I'm splitting the weapons up into their respective classes by unlock tier (and the general weapons will have their own section). I'll try to cut down on their lengths tommorow.Echo.brian 01:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Very nice job. I was doing a similar thing in OpenOffice, but I didn't bother to cut down the length, which made things difficult.Silence(water) 20:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've finished the reorganization. All that's left is to limit the amount of content (and grammatical and spelling checks).Echo.brian 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be fixed to oblivion, so I agree. I believe it should be moved to a separate article due to its size. However, if it stays in poor condition, it should be slashed per to Charlesknight. --William Pembroke(talk) 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If we move the weapons/equips, we might as well move the infantry classes as well. No point in leaving the classes behind, don't you agree? We might call it "Battlefield 2142 Gameplay Information" or something, if we move it. I rearranged the headers to the right places. INFORMATION CENTER© talk contribs 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. All of it should be moved into an article like that. I don't think it belongs in the main article anyways. --William Pembroke(talk) 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, some notes are: the article should be in third person not second (I suspect this was copied from some other site.) Also, if the number is less than 10, it should be written out, like two but not 2, unless if it is a gun name like T20 or the game name like Battlefield 2. --William Pembroke(talk) 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. INFORMATION CENTER© talk contribs 06:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Are there a certain number a supports required to allow this article to be split? If so, I support. --William Pembroke(talk) 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
voting is evil. Can anyone explain to me what is interesting or innovative about the weapons or framework in which they operate that requires a seperate article in a general readers encylopedia? The current move had been to delete such articles unless there is so evidence that something of that nature is being presented. As far as I can work out, it's just the bog-standard Machineguns, sniper-rifles, pistols (plus upgrades) that you would find in 100s of games like this. --Charlesknight 00:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"I suspect this was copied from some other site." I'm serious, I wrote about 90% of the weapons section (the rest was either already there or written by other users such as yourself). But are you saying you wouldn't suspect copying from anotehr site if it were written in thrid person? Because it seems sort of odd that other sites would only use second person. Also, all the bf2142 sites I've been too either just have pictures of the weapons or tell you which order to unlock them in. Either way, the section's gone now so it doesn't matter. I'm just curious though, for the future, am I allowed to write sections, or do I have to try and piece together quotes from websites that have some sort of distant relation to one another?Echo.brian 04:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing DirectX DLL

This isn't a bug, EA clearly and blatantly stated on the 2142 page that it needed to be downloaded separately, and even provided a download link for the file on the same page. cacophony ◄► 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Patch List

I think the patch list should be re-added in a reduced form. Battlefield 2 has a patch list and one of the biggest criticisms about the battlefield series is bugs and bug fixing. I don't think every fix should be listed for each patch, it should be like the bf2 list - the number of the patch and the major fixes or summary of the fixes in each patch (one or two lines max). Wikipedia should provide this as a quick reference with a link to details of each patch. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nutcrackr (talk • contribs) 10:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

DVD needed in drive

2142 doesn't need the DVD in the drive for the whole time you are using it, you just need it for the initial CD check. 68.252.195.3 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Elfuego

1 million rounds played

I added to the beginning that 1 million rounds have taken place since the games release. I added it to the intro paragraph since I couldn't find a more appropriate place to put it. If there is a more appropriate place, please feel free to move it there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.59.83 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Gunship Descriptions

Added an accurate and more detailed description on the two gunships, their differences, and other information, much like there is for the other vehicles source for gunship stats - http://www.2142-stats.com/BF2142+Info/Vehicles/air.html additional info directly apparent from gameplay

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battlefield_2142/Archive_1&oldid=1046154853"