Talk:Call of Duty 2

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PeerReviewBot (talk | contribs) at 10:00, 28 April 2012 (Archiving peer review (bot task 1)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 12 years ago by Khanassassin in topic GA Review
Good articleCall of Duty 2 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 15, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
July 17, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
September 22, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 26, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 16, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
February 20, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject iconVideo games GA‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Template:WikiProject Xbox

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Article has been archived with no further action being taken.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)Reply

Thought provoking..

Thought I might bring this to your attention:

http://www.gamesradar.com/f/the-wtf-world-of-wikipedia/a-2008062510326553058

--Broadbandmink (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Call of Duty 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am reassessing this article. It has several issues:

  • There is no development section. Without it, there is important information missing.
  • Some references are formatted incorrectly and lack several fields, including a publisher.

Please keep this page updated on the article's status. Gary King (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because these issues have not been resolved in the past seven days, the article has lost its good article status. Gary King (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Weapons Section

This section has become a real mess...72.234.223.125 has just put a load of weapons in it, and weapons that are seen but not used.

Many of the new additions are not used in general game play but are there in the story or are multi-player add ons.

These edits have destroyed the section as it is meant to be only weapons made available for use by a single player during a single player game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.125.224 (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Response

What is wrong with listing all the weapons and vehicles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.116 (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) If you don't understand why? Then why are editing on this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.121.136 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Vista Problem

I had tons of trouble and spent lots of time finding out the solution. Thereby, I am sure it will help a lot of people. 94.69.232.241 (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The purpose of video-game articles on Wikipedia isn't to offer help or advice on how to make it work properly or how to solve incompatibility issues, though. The article's job is to summarize and define the game. Take a look at Wikipedia:NOTAMANUAL. Eik Corell (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Graphics engine

In the box (see ref 1) it is stated, the game uses id tech 3 (aka Quake 3-Engine) in a heavily modified version. This is not true. It's the new IW Engine which had no name at this point. In ref 1 it is stated that "id tech 3 is retired [...]" [1]. Saemikneu (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

May I direct you first to this massive debate that we had a while ago on this subject? bibliomaniac15 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I also read the debate, but the source contradicts the entry, so another source shoul be used, or even the information ommited

I'm back into this conversation. Even MW2 uses Quake3 engine at it's heart, just like every other Call of Duty game. A rose is a rose, by whatever name you call it. Ref this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quake_-_family_tree.svg and see that ALL versions of Call of Duty are included. Yes, it is highly modified and yes, there are bolt on's. One of the arguments presented by the developers, is that you couldn't do with Quake3 what they have done with the game and on it's own, that statement appears to be true. However, what you have to look at, is "Why couldn't you do those things with the Quake3 engine?" The answer is quite simple - Computing Power. In the days of Quake3, you were limited, not so much by the game engine, but the computing power available. With the increase of computer power, comes the increase in the coding capability, this is as obvious as the fact that night follows day. All iterations of the CoD game, are based off the Quake3 engine, hence the ID disclaimer on the box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amstacey (talkcontribs) 23:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

IW engine and IW 4.0 are both based on id Tech 3. UnknownThing (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lists of weapons, vehicles, etc

...should be avoided per WP:GAMECRUFT because they don't actually contribute to the article, but rather just work as bloat. Eik Corell (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Call of Duty 2/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khanassassin (talk · contribs) 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll be reviewing the article Things that need to be done:

  • So, since both of you, Mr. '92 and Mr. Hell think it's not necessary, it's a pass.

**it is almost completly unreferenced

I'll add more issues once spoted. --Khanassassin   16:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

It seems like they're no major issues left (atleast not for GA Class). So, when the issues above are fixed, we're cool. --Khanassassin 17:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
PASS --Khanassassin 15:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Pass/Fail?: