Jump to content

Talk:Star Wars: Battlefront (2004 video game)

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

Infobox

[edit]

In the Infobox, the "Platform(s)" field includes "Macintosh". I think that the "Platform(s)" field should specify a value or values from the "Supported platforms" section of the Vgclegend template. For example, if Star Wars: Battlefront only runs on Mac OS X, then Star Wars: Battlefront's Infobox should specify "OSX" in the "Platform(s)" field.
ProResearcher (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update v1.3?

[edit]

While the current official update is version 1.2, there is also some update version 1.3. Can somebody cover this? --Masterius (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Content

[edit]

I have entered some content about the special units in the game it would be useful if anyone could check over it to make sure it is satisfactory. delete this text when someone has checked over it and has mentioned that they have here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ------ (talk • contribs) 13:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of a problem with that list - It's way too detailed. I'm gonna merge the basics into the Gameplay section. Eik Corell (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think thats a problem after all the more detail there is the better overview people get about the game.------ (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article would be better off without the detailed description of the sides' special units per WP:GAMECRUFT #6 because it doesn't contribute anything to mention these units in anything else than the gameplay section, in a concise summery as I did. Eik Corell (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what you mean. -------- (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the problem here is that lists of units, weapons, and other such concepts within the game are to be avoided per WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE. This is stuff you would normally find in a game guide, not in an encyclopedic article. For example, the "special units" section: The Droideka is mentioned. Wikipedia has an entry on this concept in the context of the Star Wars universe, and yet the article goes on to describe how this unit looks, works, and so on -- In an article about a game that just features it. This makes the article bloated and less appealing to third parties reading about the game for whatever reason. It's not this article's job to explain how unit weapons work, such as the wookie smuggler mortar, and it serves no real purpose on the article. Eik Corell (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh all right then i understand now, the thing is i love this game so much what else can i add to the article that follows the guidelines?------ (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo 64

[edit]

Isn't there also a game called Star Wars: Battlefront for the Nintendo 64? I remember playing it once, but I'm not sure if it was called Battlefront. GOLD FIVE 19:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there's Star Wars: Rogue Squadron - that's probably what you're thinking of. --Teancum (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits...

[edit]

I see someone has edited this since I last saw it. I'm making some little edits, for example, the article names the heroes in the game twice. I'm also going to fix some grammar and edit my own changes. ~Logiwan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logiwan-Kenobiquiet (talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future references

[edit]

For future expansion. --Teancum (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gamespy Server Shutdown

[edit]

For additional sources see the Gamespy Facebook page here. Powered By Gamespy Facebook Page Look at the comments about Star Wars Battlefront, then at Gamespy's response. I don't know if you can link to Facebook comments, but if you can they would be a better source than the one I have added. SleepKiller (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the best source as of now since it's directly from GameSpy. --Teancum (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes so we have a source now directly from Gamespy. Can we update the article then? I would have used that in the first place but as you see I did not know how to link to specific comments. Or is it against the rules to link to Facebook as well? SleepKiller (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I updated the Development section of the article (which covers more the 'lifespan' of the game, rather than Gameplay, which covers 'how to'). THanks for pointing me to the Facebook page. --Teancum (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of The Engine

[edit]

There is a difference between level editing software and the actual engine. While yes it does seem to imply that the engines name is Zero it does not mean it actually is. So I went a head and asked a developer about it. The response I got stated that the engine had no name and Zero Edit was just the level editing software. Now since I don't actually have any source other than the E-mail itself by Wikipedia's rules I don't think I can just go and change it. So I marked it as citation needed, which I think was a perfectly reasonable course of action. Also since when you can cite the modtools as a reliable source? SleepKiller (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tools would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source. I think I know the developer (individual) of which you speak, yet the in the "making of" video for the game prior to Battlefront it's specifically referred to as Zero, and Battlefront uses the same engine, as US-based Pandemic games did. That being said, as Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth, I can only use the "making of" video to cite the engine, even if a developer states otherwise. Since he is not a published author his words cannot be used to verify/debunk the name of the engine. --Teancum (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is interesting, you say all US Pandemic games used the engine. Now I am not questioning that, I am sure it is true. But do you have a verifiable source for that yourself? If not, can you actually make the claim on Wikipedia of SWBF using the engine? SleepKiller (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you really have this much of an issue with it we can just pull the engine link altogether. Truthfully the engine doesn't have enough third party, reliable coverage to warrant its own article and I don't feel like arguing this point. --Teancum (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I'm sorry if I come across as some knows-it-better-than-you idiot. I just don't like the concept of misinformation being spread. For all I know the engine is called Zero, it may or may not be. But the lack of sources bugged me. And I've seen people quote Wikipedia as their source for SWBF's engine being called Zero, even though the article doesn't actually list a source. SleepKiller (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dudes chill all you have to do is send an email to them and they'll reply in a few working day ok!? oq lets calm down and talk it out --101.190.7.178 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

privately owned servers?

[edit]

I don't remember where I it but I saw it a while back on a modding community somewhere that they have there own multiplayer server's after the game spy server's turn off,I don't know so don't get angry at me. I don't know to look for something like that if someone could do this as I stuck with a lot studies at the moment and probably going to be for a while,PS.If someone could get back to me on that I would very thankful as it's a game I loved since childhood and it's sad to see it slowly die, it would good if there was a release of the game--Piegunman (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Wikipedia is the wrong place for this plea for help - they are all grammar Nazis and don't like any information not verified by scholars. Post this on forums rather than WP. In either case WP won't publish 3rd party community information.

Cody-7 (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic

[edit]

Given that we also have Star Wars: Battlefront (series) and Star Wars Battlefront (2015 video game), this article on the original game would appear not to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the name anymore. Unless there are objections I'll move the article to Star Wars: Battlefront (2004 video game) and move Star Wars: Battlefront (disambiguation) to the base name. At some point we should probably put the series title at the base name, though, per WP:CONCEPTDAB.--Cúchullain t/c 13:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 April 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 16:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Considering that we now have two other articles of this title, Star Wars: Battlefront (series) and Star Wars Battlefront (2015 video game), it appears the original game is no longer the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It does not get a majority of page views, despite being at the base name. ([1] vs. [2][3]). However, everyone using the search term "Star Wars: Battlefront" is looking for something to do with this series, and Star Wars: Battlefront (series) covers all the entries. It should take over the base name as a WP:CONCEPTDAB. Of the man comparable articles, a few include Star Wars itself, Call of Duty, Crash Bandicoot, and The Legend of Zelda. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Cúchullain t/c 16:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to close as moved, but it is protected. @NawlinWiki: since you protected it, do you think this is reasonable? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Star Wars: Battlefront (2004 video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Why do you write Star Wars: Battlefront with a colon? Doesn't it mean Star Wars Battlefront as it's seen on the box art work? Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars:_Battlefront_(2004_video_game)&oldid=1210542679"