Talk:Battlezone II: Combat Commander

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Confused Names

alot fo the names have been confused,

i often see Braddock and Manson confused with eachother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.227.47 (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed Re: Multiple Endings? Really

Can't we just cite the primary source and maybe give a level name? --Gigitrix (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Citation Taken care of." Lucky Foot (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Version

My impression was that the consensus from the last debate was that if the unofficial 1.3 patch could be added verifibly, then it should be. Did you guys take the same thing I did out of that?. Sabrebattletank (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was "That being said, the press and even the programmer of the patches has referred to them as "unofficial patches". I believe the last Pandemic-released version should be listed in the infobox. To do otherwise could be construed as misrepresenting the facts. In reality though, I believe it is best to avoid confusing the reader. But with the information in the sources above, I believe the patches can be adequately covered in the article." To spell it out, the infobox should only include the last Pandemic released version (i.e. the "official patch"), while mention of the unofficial patch's existence can be covered in the article itself, which it already is - in the section on Modifications. What this gamespot reference provides is a verifiable backup that the patch exists, and can be used to support the statement in the Modifications section. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. It does seem odd to me though, that the Modifications section says that "hey guys, the game was expanded with this [unofficial] patch version", but if you follow that up with a look at the infobox, it doesn't reflect that. Does that make sense? The way it is now, there seems, to me at least, a disconnect between the Modifications section and the infobox. Sabrebattletank (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. The infobox is for official material related to the game. Hence it has info on the publisher, developer, rating, system requirements, etc. Unofficial material has no place there. Unofficial material (when notable) is a part of the aftermarket history, hence it's included in the Modifications section here in relation to the overall expandability of the game. That's how it's routinely done here, and makes perfect sense for it to be there. This isn't a support site, it's an encyclopedic article on a game - which tend to focus on the main proper product itself. If this were a fanbase support site, of course it would make perfect sense to have the latest material, whether unofficial or not, front and center. However this is not, which is why such things are treated as an "also", why we don't allow links to forums and very rarely to fan sites, and why the external links area has a specific purpose that does not include becoming an index to all material related to the game. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. It seems that I misunderstood the fundamental purpose of the infobox as to reflect the article. Just out of curiosity, though, the closest thing I found for a purpose statement for infoboxes was at Help:infobox, and that seems to suggest that the infobox should primarily reflect the article. Is there something I'm missing that's maybe video-game specific somewhere else? Also, most of the guidelines I've come across are in the "how do I make the infobox work/looks pretty/what should be included in an infobox template". Is there a discussion on this specific one that I could read? You know, trust but verify. Thanks, Sabrebattletank (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the projects on Wikipedia have their own style and content guidelines, the video game project is no different, look there. Likewise, what I stated is the established consensus on game templates and their purpose - and gets used every single day here. Guyinblack is a well respected and very active member of the project that has taken many articles to GA and FA status (the actual goals of articles here). So he's very familiar with current consensus on matters regarding content, as am I. Consensus is established at the project through debate and ultimate agreement (consensus). I know the game being played by the above request, fans do it all the time - try everything in their power to get a piece of content they want in, including looking for some verbatim rule so they can say "see, it's not so, so I should be able to do it", or try and lay their own interpretation to go against consensus. That's not how it works - again, this is the established way of doing the video game infobox template, used in articles across the board including in those already taken to FA status (which also sets precedence). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "trying everything in my power to get a piece of content I want in". I've been a Wikipedia member for years, and I am aware with the limits and goals of the encyclopedia. I may not be the most respected one, or one with grand aspirations for adminship or super-vandal-fighting status, but when you suggest that I'm just a fan "doing everything in my power to get a piece of content I want in," I'm not sure how constructive that accusation is. While I do not deny that I think the 1.3 section deserves to be in the infobox (after all, I did revert it there, so I think that's pretty clear), I'll have a look at the Video Games project page. Thanks for pointing me there, by the way. That's exactly what I was looking for. When you said "that's how it's done here", I wasn't sure which "here" you meant. Sabrebattletank (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just throwing in my two cents. Help:Infobox states that "an infobox is ... designed to be added to the top right-hand corner of articles to consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and to improve navigation to other interrelated articles." The key factor in this is the "facts and statistics that are common to related articles" part.
The "version" parameter in {{Infobox VG}} is intended for official releases as designated by the developer/publisher of the game. Many games have unofficial patches, some which may be verifiable via a reliable source. However, drawing the line at official releases makes the criteria clear cut and easy to interpret. While BZII is a special case, it is still a modification that is not endorsed by Activision or Pandemic Studios.
Sabrebattletank- I suspect the confusion you're concerned about for readers could be be remedied by copy editing the necessary section. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
If you're using the "official version only" argument, you will have to remove 1.2 from the list as both Activision and Pandemic have stated this is not an official version. The latest official version of BZ2 is 1.1. Proof of this can be seen in 1.3's splash screens and on Nathan Mates' own webspace, though I don't know how these can be cited as sources. Unfortunately, many websites around the internet claim 1.2 to be official, which is a very common misconception. ~AHadley 16:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A - J - Hadley (talk • contribs)
The best way might it to put 1.1 in the infobox and mention 1.2 and 1.3 in the article. If nobody else does I probably extend the gameplay and modification sections a bit, where the information about the different pages could be integrated.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did that once. Somebody reverted it. ~AHadley 07:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A - J - Hadley (talk • contribs
Well probably needs to be redone. I realize that this article a bit of a contentious part ("fans" versus "quality assurance"), however that's no reason for not getting it right and blocking some common sense improvements. My current understanding is that 1.1 was the last supported official patch and that pandemic offered 1.2 as unsupported download download and 1.3 was finally realeased by 2 former deveopers (Miller, Nathes) only.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Might add a citation if that gets reverted again. ~AHadley 07:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A - J - Hadley (talk • contribs)
1.3 got removed again. Will add it back unless instructed specifically otherwise by a Sysops.~AHadley 10:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Imho it is rather ridiculous to fight a single entry in the infobox. Moreover it doesn't really matter much which version is displayed in the infobox, what matters is that information about the various patches is in the article.

@Eik Corell: There was no consensus on the talk page (not now nor in the archive), so kindly refrain from reverting until get one rather than citing a non existent one. If you are referring to the "video portal consensus" regarding only official(ly supported) patches, then the entry needs to be 1.1 as has been pointed out repeatedly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC) --Kmhkmh (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Why is it not disputed? This is obviously written by a fan with little restraint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.30.114 (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where and what exactly? Are you afraid of biased plot or (technical) game play description? The reception part is "sourced" and as far as i can tell correct and not really that favourable of the game (mostly negative reviews).--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patch Numbers and Versioning

The current official patch previously listed on this page was 1.2. This is erronous, as 1.2 is neither an official patch nor the latest. The only patch sanctioned by Activision (and thus official) is 1.1, so this has been listed. The most recent patch is 1.3 Public Beta 6, so that has also been listed (as unofficial).

I am aware that there is some confusion around this issue in the past, with 1.3 being called a mod and 1.2 being labelled as official, but 1.3 is being developed by two of the original three developers and it is technically (in software terms) a patch. 1.2 is not sanctioned by the game's original publisher, which makes it unofficial. 1.1 is sanctioned by Activision (the only patch that is) and thus *only* it is official.

EDIT: I am aware that the mention of the unofficial patch may violate a WP: condition. If it is to be removed, so be it; but I would like to stress that the ONLY official patch to this game is v1.1.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.127.245 (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had a big debate about mentioning the unofficial patch above. The consensus was that it should not be mentioned. As for the 1.2, it's listed on fileplanet and a few other places as "official beta". Other than that, I'm not very knowledgeable on this particular subject. Eik Corell (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im aware of the discussion above, but I felt that this is a valid point and that it would not be noticed if mentioned above. I am aware that it is listed on various sites as an "official beta", but the classes "official" and "beta" are mutually exclusive when it comes to video game development. In order to be official, the program must be released and supported, and though BZ2v1.2 was released through the official channels, its developers and publishers stated that it was released "as is", with no support provided whatsoever. This fact alone is enough to count it as an official patch, never mind the fact that it was released with a beta label. I understand that the issue is somewhat confused, but bear in mind that 1.2 is no more official than 1.3 is. There is much confusion around these matters in many games. It would be nice if everybody actually understood the parameters for mods and patches, and officiality.
-Mods are made by outside developers and not endorsed by the original developer and/or publisher.
-Patches are made by the original developer(s), change gameplay mechanics and fix bugs.
-Official content is made by the original developer(s), endorsed and supported by both developers and publishers
-Unofficial content is neither endorsed nor supported by developer or publisher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.8.90 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Activision and Pandemic have stated themselves that the 1.2 version is unofficial. At least two Pandemic employees at the time will corroborate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A - J - Hadley (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation not required

This article has an entirely unnecessary [Citation Needed] flag. Evidence for the statement in question can be found in various game files (including missions.odf) and through playing the game itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.8.90 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not signing ~AHadley 16:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A - J - Hadley (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but that's not a valid reason for removing the citation tag. Statements that have been tagged need to be either a) Backed up by a reference that satisfies Wikipedia's policies on WP:Reliable and WP:Notable, b) removed (statement and all). Saying "Trust me, it's in the game", which is what "through playing the game" is akin to, does not satisfy either. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Viewable game file Missions.odf provides evidence for this split. Equally, certain files contain the commands "play ISDF" and "play Scion", marked as allowing the player to play as the respective side "after mission 14". WP:Reliable states that a source can be "the piece of work itself". As an aside, I see you are a software developer; what is your view on the issue above?~AHadley 21:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A - J - Hadley (talk • contribs)
One idea is to just cite the game files. As in actually write a citation for them. How do you cite a game file? I'm not really sure, but if it does pass muster as citable, then you could probably just do it.Sabrebattletank (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: It really depends on the content in question. The mere (neutral) functional game description (plot,gameplay) usually doesn't require citations as the game itself is a sufficient (and obvious) source for that. However (evaluating) descriptions, ratings, classifications, opinions, quotes from game developers,designers, critics of course need citations.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a Source that is in game?

I had a question somebody may answer. In the section that deals with the two possible endings, how do you cite a source since it won't be in the game manual (as it is something that happens in the storyline). I'm not sure how we would cite this. Lucky Foot (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you're looking for. Eik Corell (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks, sir! That's exactly what I was looking for. Much appreciated." Lucky Foot (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Engine

I would like to point out that the engine classification is incorrect. BZ2 was written on a modified version of Interstate 76's engine, not the Zero engine later used by Pandemic. (A-J-Hadley, really can't be bothered to sign in right now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.37.86 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battlezone 1 used i76. Battlezone II used Zero, which was a proprietary engine owned by Pandemic. --Teancum (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source by any chance? The information seems to be contradicting the WP article on Zero (game engine).--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the making of featurette found in the Gamecube version of Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2002 video game) states the engine is Zero, based on Pandemic's Battlezone engine (BZ2). The making of clip can be found here. Since Zero was owned by Pandemic it stands to reason that they're referring to BZ2 as "the engine we used for Battlezone" - also due to the fact that they didn't work on BZ1. This source states "We took the BZ1 1.31 code base with us when we split off in June 1998. The first thing I did after that was perform an engine transplant onto the Dark Reign 2 libraries." So they clearly state that they transplanted the necessary BZ1 code over their Dark Reign 2 engine which was a work in progress. --Teancum (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it should be corrected and sourced in the article on zero then as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources prove this incorrect - Nathan Mates' own words, and the use of i76 code in the engine itself. I've been dismantling BZ2's engine for nearly three years now. ~AHadley 18:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the two citations for Zero: The second is not proof, and Miller even goes as far in the first as to say that the code from BZ1 was carried over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A - J - Hadley (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a chance to get a direct quote from Mates? Or some article that states the engine for BZII (not BZ) explicitly? --Kmhkmh (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thread he told me that in was lost when BZUniverse was pulled down by its owner, but I can ask him to say it again. Where would be a good place? 217.43.125.108 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if Mates doesn't mind, he could include the information into personal BII page (on his home page), where he has other technical info as well. That would be citable in WP by WP:SPS. If he simply states it again in the new forum nzuniverse.net, that might be acceptable as well, but it is borderline, as in general forum postings are not suited as sources. Although an exception could be argued in this particular case, it will still be controversial and not sit well with other authors. Hence if he could put it on his homepage that would be clearly the preferred solution.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that he cannot be used as a source per WP:OR. Eik Corell (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course can a direct quote of the developer regarding technical aspects be used as a source. WP:OR only matters if the primary source or quote requires some form of interpretation or if a combination of primary sources is used to draw a conclusion (WP:SYNTH), but if we have a direct quote of the developer saying something like "for BZII the engine XY was used" then it is unproblematic--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Clone Wars was based on Battlezone 2 and the Zero Engine but Battlezone 2 itself used the Dark Reign 2 engine. That seems to be the source of the confusion.Kdmiller3 (talk)
Here's the long version of the history. Battlezone started with the Interstate '76 engine and built up a C++-based application on top of it. Battlezone 2 started with the Battlezone 1 code base but transplanted its application layer onto the Dark Reign 2 engine; it underwent extensive changes over the course of development but remained architecturally similar. Star Wars: the Clone Wars started with the Battlezone 2 code base but transplanted its application layer onto the Ground Zero engine; it underwent even more extensive changes during development, including the removal of all BZ-specific game logic and RTS features. Clone Wars was the last game using that code base, but the in-game world editor lived on as the Zero Editor for several years before it was finally supplanted by the Infinity Editor. Kdmiller3 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BZUNIVERSE link

An editor added bzuniverse.net to the external links. This article has seen its fair share of controversy regarding this, and the consensus has been not to add it and not to list the patch hosted at the website. To see this debate, check the archive link at the top of this talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I must admit I didn't see the archived discussion and I see your battle with community members there. However I do not see any reason not add this link. Pandemics work on the game ceased around 2000, the 11 years the game is community driven and community developed, so it is rather natural to add a link which provides up-to-date information. Moreover half of the article's content and all citations are taken material published through the community sites, so citing but actively blocking the links allowing their verification seems to be completely nonsensensical.
Now as far as far WP:ELNO is concerned, the emphasis there is normally and there is goal (prevent spam, link farms, generally undesired links, etc.) and tool to achieve that goal (WP:ELNO). And as with any tool it should be used for a purpose/goal and not for its own sake. As explained above a link to an authoritative community site is vital here, because it gives readers access to the last 10 years of development and more (the game has significantly changed) and to provide online copies of the cited sources. And adding 1 or 2 individual links is hardly turning this article into a link farm or a spam fest.
The original revert on based onthe WP:ELNO #11 was unjustified, as the original game developer's site (host/maintainer) is indeed a "recognized authority" on the game.
You may argue that bzuniverse.net is not (fornally) not suited to be being in the form of a forum, but then again, I'd like to explicitly states normally to be avoided and that the whole thing is a guideline and not a policy. This is one of the anormal cases as a link to community/developer site or forum does not represent an fan site reeking of unreliable information, but instead it is essential for any complete and up-to-date-information on the game.
It is true that bzuniverse.net is not the official website of the original game (that would be Pandemic Studios/Actvision) but just a site of one of the game developer. However such a site is nevertheless a "authoritative site" on the game itself, moreover you can see still see it as a somewhat "official" site for the game extensions that have been developed over the last 10 years after pandemic studios' work on the game ceased and again the game has seen significant changes since then.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S: I'm not sure whether this just temporary or not, but current the official pandemic studios link is down or not existing anymore. If the latter is the case, that would be an additional reason to add a link to the developer/community site as they would represent the only "somewhat official" link remaining on the net.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
bzuniverse is not run by the developers. It hosts a project by some of the former developers, but those are not the ones running the website as far as I know. In light of that,
I'm still concerned about WP:ELNO, because not only is it a fansite, it's also a barely-active forum, which has just been completely reset as far as I see -- That is to say the forum as it was during the last debate, is no more, so any claim that it contains up-to-date info is even less true now. I'll go out on a limb with this one -- It is not an active community as much as it's a place for a handful of very zealous players of the game, most of which are represented in the archived debates (Nielk1, vsmit to name a few). These kinds of sites exist for a whole lot of older games, and in most cases, they make the same argument -- We are the biggest site, we have news, etc. I'm not seeing anything unique that they have to offer here. The biggest thing this site has going for it is the fact that it's a sub-section for debates regarding the the unofficial patch, and that was discussed in great lengths too, as I mentioned. Now this project, with its separate page, was not deemed notable, so notability by proxy for BZuniverse for being affiliated with it doesn't hold up.
I feel like I'm failing a bit at elaborating, so I'll nutshell it:
  • The community is tiny, and not growing.
  • The forum is barely active.
  • I don't see any value here for the general reader; what news/information do they provide that is important?
  • This community isn't really producing much. That's not to trivialize the few things they have going, but the activity level is very low.
  • The entire forum seems to have been erased and built back up, removing any claim of complete information. Eik Corell (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Eik Corell:

First of all I can understand that anything looking an arbitrary fan site or forum can normally removed. I also see that zealous players can cause problem in various video game articles. Having that however we arguing here about this article in particular and problems with links and zealous players in general and the request for link here doesn't come from some zealous player or random IP but seasoned wikipedian.

I originally added the bzuniverse.net because it was set up and is managed by a former developer and probably the best authority on the last 10 years for the game. It is true that it was just recently created or rebuild, but this due to bzuniverse.com going offline, which a few years back seemed to be the central site for battlezone players containing links/info to all the development since 2000.

I researched the issue regarding the community and available sites a bit more and aside from general reason (given already in my first posting above), why such a link is needed here, I'll address the points you've raised individually further down. But first I'd like to list some other sites, which offer similar information and could be used as well. Also there don't seem to be that many different sites (anymore?) that are suited for our purpose (providing up-to-date info on the game), so that I don't think we have to worry about zealous players starting an edit war about the best site. During the research I came across:

imho suited
  • http://www.bzuniverse.net/ the originally acted link, forum maintained & moderated by one of the original developers of the game, who is still developing major upgrades/patches for it, contains recent information on most sequels/mods, likely to be a central place for the community
  • http://www.bz2md.com/ mainly a forum for mod development, but it contains descriptions of many of the mods/sequels development by the community and seems to to have very recent information.
  • http://www.bzscrap.org/ contains most sequels, mods and patches of the last 10 years, but little verbal description of them, but it has links to other sites (bzuniverse.net,bzcomplex.com) containing the verbal information
  • http://www.bzcomplex.com a wiki which seems to have compiled extensive information on the various sequels, patches and mods of the game, contains links to other sites, might overall be the best choice.
imho not suited (due to being outdated, of very restricted in scope/information)

Now to address the points you've raised above:

  • The community is tiny, and not growing.
Yes it seems so, but actually so what? The link/community is not used to establish notability, just to provide access to the extensive development after 2000. Speaking of with that section of the article could be extended anyhow and after all we have WP:NOTPAPER and the article is currently not particularly large anyway.
  • The forum [bzuniverse.net] is barely active.
Actually it is active somewhat, at least for what you might expect from a small community
  • I don't see any value here for the general reader; what news/information do they provide that is important?
Well first of all we do not write for the general reader only, though he is usually the primary target of an article (see WP:MANYTHINGS). However the development of the last 10 years and community developed sequels are of interest for the general reader as well anyway. Information of interest for the general reader are the sequels developed and the shift from a single player to multiplayer (networked) game. And of course the general notion that the game development apparently hasn't ceased 10 years later. For the specialized reader information on legal downloads/technical information on the sequels/extension would be of interest as well.
  • This community isn't really producing much.
That's actually plain wrong. The community has developed several large sequels to the original game which more or less match it in size and scope and extend the original story line (in particular forgotten enemies, fleshstorm and uler). Aside from full sequels there a quite number of large or midsized mods providing new graphics, greatly improved AI and new maps for multiplayer scenarios (G66, Evil Empire, QF Mod, XMod, Epic,Zeta, flesstorm 2,...). Also the various patches since 2000 have shifted the character of the original game, that was primarily a single player game (which only possessed a small and rather buggy network option as an addon) to a game, that is primarily multiplayer network game now.
  • The entire forum seems to have been erased and built back up, removing any claim of complete information.
Yes the forum was recently rebuild as the original central forum (bzuniverse.com) apparently went offline (some more detailed info regarding that can be found in bzuniverse.net as well as the other suited links). Why you link to WP:NOT here and what's that got to do with complete information is not clear to me. I don't see how this would apply here.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no further objections, I'm going to add the bzuniverse.net and bzcomplex.com under external links and remove the current official link (pandemicstudios.com) since it has been offline for day nows. Since Pandemic Studios have been closed down anyhow, I suspect the link is gone for good. I probably extend the article a bit with vaious info I've surveyed now in particular regarding the later patches and sequels.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the links you listed as suitable, starting from top to bottom -- Bzuniverse is still not appropriate; it doesn't matter if there are some people who once worked on the game there, making stuff. As I mentioned - No notability by proxy. The second one, as mentioned, is a mod site. Mods, and their history, are not really notable here. The third one second one is but a collection of files and sites. The third one -- In this sense, it's I don't think the Wiki's appropriate - When adding links to other wikis, one of the requirements is that it have sufficient activity, which I think this one lacks. I can't say I see any of them as important, big enough, or inclusive enough in the sense that any of them are actually full-fledged fansites, but rather a mish-mash of different kinds of forums(some mod-oriented, some both mod-oriented and general), collections of links, and a wiki that doesn't see much activity. Note that there's overlap at all these sites -- It's a lot of the same people, so it's not as if one will be radically different from the other. WP:LINKFARM states that it is acceptable to have, for example, one link to a major fansite. None of the sites are big enough per that guideline, inclusive enough as I mentioned, or stable enough for that matter(BZScrap and BZUniverse). I don't really see a reason to make any exception for any of these sites. Eik Corell (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand your notability argument here. There is no argument regarding the notability of the article itself and as far as the article content is concerned we have WP:NOTPAPER. You haven't given any real reason why a currently a rather short article cannot be extended to contain information about the time after 2000, in particular about (community driven) full sequels, mods and patches. Such information is part of a complete article on the game and naturally of interest for readers. Artificially blocking such information is just a disservice to readers and serves no encyclopedic purpose.
I don't understand your link farm argumets here either. Adding 1 or 2 external links (giving a total of 3) is not creating a linkfarm. The goal of that policy is to avoid that people add a large number of links (in particular fansites), which clearly isn't the case here to begin with. As far as the "major" fansite is concerned, this means it may be appropriate to pick well suited fansite as representative for all the fansites on the subject. "major" is a relative term, meaning it is major compared to the other fansites, i.e. out of the 10-20 fansites or bz sites still out there we should pick the best one. It doesn't mean it needs to be "full fledged" or have this or that particular feature or format. Again the primary motivation to include one link from WP's perspective is to provide information on the game for the last 10 years. If you think another link is better then my suggestions above we go with that one. I don't care about the particular link, what I care about is that the article provides a comprehensive and complete article and that we provide some link with additional information on the game (in particular about the developments of the last 10 years).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Underconstruction

Instead of bickering about the exact version number in the infobox it might be more productive and better for the article, if we figure out how to integrate the patch informations into the article rather than the infobox. Moreover I think several sections and their content should be reorganized and extended anyway.

Additional information (yet missing) I'd personally like to see in the article are:

  • Information on version(patches): 1.0,1.1,1.2,1.3 and there most important differences (graphics enhancements, networking, multiplayer gameplays (MPI,ST,FFA), ai improvements, ingame voice chat, ...)
  • reviews from various game sites/blogs and game journals on Battlezone (there are plenty), there is actually even one for 1.3 [1]
  • a short description of the large (community) sequels, in particular forgotten enemies and fleshstorm

As far as the current sections are concerned, the Plot section can remain as it is, but the Gameplay, reception and Modifications sections need to be a part of the reorganization and overhaul. Potentially we need to create additional new sections (like one for sequels with short subsections for the sequels we plan to include)--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorming & Comments

Bzforum is not an acceptable resource by Wikipedia standards. Likewise for Wikis and other community editable content sites, such as bzcomplex. This has already been covered. Additionally, any expansion of plot and other areas has to follow standards set up by the video game project guidelines, those sections here were already greatly trimmed down for a reason. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is not to extend the current plot but to cover further extension and modifications. As far as the the policy is you are citing i concerned, I suggest to read the unless part after the bold print carefully and furthermore note that the entire section refers to "opinions". It is also worthwhile to note that I entitled the section "sources/information" for a reason. While it is true that the forum (bzuniverse.net) and the wiki (bzcomplex) cannot be used as sources (possibly for external links though), they can actually be used for personal information of the people editing here. For instance the complete plot and maybe even some technical information can simply be sourced by the game itsself, however that requires authors to own a copy and to have played the (whole) game, whereas wikicomplex and bzuniverse provide much of that infomation informally to other editors not owning a copy of the game or playing it.
Imho in the past the article was affected by 2 problems. One of them were fans, who were treating this article like their personal fan wiki ignoring various conventions of the WP project/community and that it is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. But the other were WP editors being strong on formal standards but possibly ignoring somewhat the (original) intentions for those standards and that they have to be applied in context, but most importantly not being that well informed about the game itself. In other words neither of those groups was particularly well equipped for writing a proper encyclopedic article on Battlezone II. This wouldn't have been much of a problem if both groups had cooperated to combine their knowledge, but instead they seem to have chosen to fight each other for the most part. As result the article stayed in this not overly appealing or informative state.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources/information

  • [2] already in the article but not used, contains review snippets from various journals
  • [3] info on the 1.3 patch
  • [4] another full review
  • [5] a review at cnn tech
  • [6] article on pandemic with some commentary on battlezone
  • [7] review at Chip (German IT journal)
  • [8] review at gamespot
  • battlezone complex a wiki, could be used for the plot description of sequels
  • bzuniverse seems to the main forum of small community still playing the game
  • Battlezone Magazines: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
  • [9] home page of the (still active) developer, contains technical information on the 1.3 patch (including hardware requirements) and some general explanation regarding the game

Getting this article up to scratch

Right. Here's what we need to do to make sure this article is correct and properly readable.

  • Correct any part of the article stating it uses the Zero Engine. See kdmiller's comments above and on Talk:Dark Reign 2 for why.
  • Correct the references to "fan-made" patches, particularly at the end of the article. These are referring to 1.3, which is most certainly not fan made.

~AHadley 14:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A - J - Hadley (talk • contribs)

I still have the overhaul on my list (but not on the top), but in the man time I might able to help out/assist if somebody else wants to start the overhaul. What the general overhaul should look like I've stated above already, as far as the question of the engine is concerned, this should be changed with an explanatory footnote as the answer is somewhat complicated.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Forgotten Enemies", and why is there a Start Menu group on my PC?

I just noticed that there was a start menu group on my PC marked "BZ2 - Forgotten Enemies", with only a weblink going to what I assume is a defunct website (I got a "Server Not Found" error when examining it) inside. I'd never even heard of Battlezone before I saw this folder, nor it's sequel. Pandemic I know of, so I can only assume that another Pandemic game I installed also installed this Start Menu folder with just the link (the way some games used to include demos and stuff). The most recent (as in most recently installed, not most recently developed) Pandemic game I've put on my PC would be The Saboteur, but it's ten years older than BZ2, so that doesn't make sense.

Does anyone know what this folder is and where it would have come from? predcon (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a (non commercial) sequel developed by the battlezone community. Up to date code and information can be found at bzuniverse.net--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my post, or just the subject line? Where did this start menu group come from? Why is there a link to a mod for a game I've never heard of before on my computer? And the bzuniverse boards are a mess. I can't find anything with the search term 'forgotten enemies'. predcon (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to speculate about details your installation and this is not the technical helpdesk but a discussion page on the article on battlezone. I already told you a forum where it is appropriate to ask such a question and where may get better expertise on that subject anyway, so let me repeat that one: http:/bzuniverse.net --Kmhkmh (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox display defect?

Cuurently almost half of the data in the source text of infobox are not displayed. Is there display bug or an issue with the source of the infobox?--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Battlezone_II:_Combat_Commander"