Talk:Battlefield: Bad Company 2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Release year confusion.

To prevent violating 3RR. Let me make this clear Bad Company 2 is not releasing Winter 2009 it is coming on year 2010 Q1. The official site makes it very clear "To get ready for assault this winter, players can prepare for action in Battlefield 1943." Nowhere it states Bad Company 2 is coming this winter it is talking about Battlefield 1943.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Gamestop marked it as September, 2009, but it isn't particularly reliable at all. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No Battlefield 1943 is being released this summer , Bad company 2 is released this winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.109.201 (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No release date has been confirmed. Retailer pages or gamefaqs are not valid sources. Wait until press release. Wiki Werbelwind (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this link: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3175624 a valid enough resource for release date? It appears to be from the EA GameCon press conference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.33.199 (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Redundant information?

where is the wins/loses section and streaks for consecutive wins? what kind of game would not have wins and loses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.138.192 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, pardon me if I'm wrong, but the entire dog tag system was in Bad Company 1. Should the article mention, then, "an as of yet undisclosed dog tag system"? Also, the points displaying on the screen was also in Bad Co. 1. Should this be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.211.8 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. They were also available in BF2142. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.34.29 (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think more game information should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.83.142 (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Rated: Mature

Everyone knows that if there is blood involved, the game will get an M rating. The first Bad Company didn't have blood and was rated T. So im guess since this has blood, it's going to be rated M.--70.247.73.252 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)--70.247.73.252 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)--70.247.73.252 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. It's not Wikipedia's place to decide or guess. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

plenty of games have blood and a t rating, its all about how much and how gratuitous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.183.151 (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Uncharted 2: Among Thieves", and even "Uncharted: Drake's Fortune" had blood, and those game are still rated Teen. In my opinion, it would be extremely stupid on their part to make this a Mature rated game. This could be the game that proves, "Just because it's rated Mature means it must be better", is a false statement. And if you really think about it, the first game was rated teen, so to make the second game Mature, they would probably lose a good number of players. The first game got great reviews, and it was Teen. I don't know about everyone else, but when I play a game, if my character is shot, or there is a cut scene, I don't want them dropping the F-bomb every second or in that case, cursing at all. A few minor curse words here and there are fine, just look at the first Bad Company game. So come on! Great games CAN be rated Teen. And in all honesty, the PEGI (Pan European Game Information)rating is 16, which is what it was for the first game, so I don't think it will be rated M.--Walking Target13 (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research. Since when have censors had brains? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I still think it would be ridiculously stupid of them to make this game rated Mature. If they play this off right, and make it Teen, I can foresee this game getting great ratings and praise. Probably better ratings than Modern Warfare 2, not that I'm saying that game was bad. I quite enjoy it. But I still liked Bad Company 1 better. The story hooked me right from the beginning, plus it was rated Teen, not to mention...I don't think that Bad Company 2 will be banned from Russia. Good games can be Teen.--Walking Target13 (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No Battlefield game has ever been rated Mature. Battlefield: Vietnam had blood in it, too, and it was still rated T. I think that the rating should stay RP for now, personally. Link 486 (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did we find that Battlefield Bad Company 2 is rated mature. I went on the ESRB website and searched and nothing showed yet, I went on the Battlefield Bad Company 2 official blog, still says RP-T and a couple of other sites, and they all say RP. The only site that I was on that said it was M was GameStop, and they told people that Mercenaries 2: world in flames was going to be M. I don't know about everyone else, but I think that until one of the official sites says otherwise, it should remain RP on this page.

Organization

This article needs to be better structured and more collected, if someone could do that who is much better at editing than me that would be nice. Littlefatmonkey (talk)

I agree, the "gameplay" section seems more like a random dump for information, and should focus on the core gameplay mechanics. I would do this, but I don't want to completely delete all of the unrelated stuff outright. Jayrossss (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the gameplay section is a bit of a mess and needs some cleaning. I'd get around to it myself, but I'm afraid I'll mess things up. 24.67.177.162 (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to keep as much as possible from the original gameplay section but it need much improvement. Tried to create an opening specifically about core gameplay (that didn't require knowledge about the previous titles) Flimsyq (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits

"The online multiplayer demo for the Xbox 360 version of the game was released on January 28, 2010, and will run untill Febuary 24th. It contains one multiplayer map called "Port Valdez" in the "Rush" mode only." that much should be sufficient.

"Each class has one weapon upgrade unique to the class, with other multi-class upgrades in various class's including primary weapons, secondary weapons and accessories. The highest rank achievable (in demo) is rank 3 with three rockers that looks like the Army rank of Seargent. Veterans of Bad Company will find "Rush" mode similar to "Gold Rush" with the exception of the "Gold Crates". They look similar except the name "M-COM" is now what your attacking or defending. Another noticable difference is that you can no longer cause damage to the crate or "M-COM" causing it to be destroyed, it must be armed to destroy it. Upgrades are not chosen after ranking up anymore, they are achieved by points scored with the character class you are using. If you want to upgrade the "Engineer" weapons, you must use that class and score points as an "Engineer" in order to gain upgrades for that class. This makes you have to become proficient in each class in order to upgrade each class. Major change in the "Recon" class, being that bullets now drop based on distance traveled. This means you now have to aim half a click, a click or more above your target depending on how far away your target is. Combine that with the travel time needed to lead a target, this makes headshots a challenge to some and greatly increases the realisticness of actually sniping somone vs. real life. The button layouts have changed quite a bit, but you do have the option to switch the buttons to a near similar "Bad Company 1" layout, regardless though, the "D Pad" is now used in any button layout. "Left stick click" no longer changes your view in vehicles, that has sadly been replaces with the "D Pad" as well, making flying helocopters much more chalenging, amung other changes with the controls, for both land and air (including UAV). No sea vehicles in this demo."

I wanna remove this section because it poorly written, it addresses the reader directly (you), and it's basically just some guy's analysis of the demo. Policy concerns: WP:OR, WP:GAMEGUIDE, and WP:GAMECRUFT. The section is like a gaping, bleeding hole and I'm not the only one who had the decency to remove it.

Next, "Limited Edition" section - Should be cut down as I did in my recent edit. Mentioning that it provides bonuses such as weapons should be enough, instead of going into every single detail.

Next, the "additional information" section: Inappropriate since it's not wikipedia's job to provide tech support.

Eik Corell (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC) E

Good job on removing that large section, words like 'unfortunately' don't fit an article on wikipedia. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No reception section yet

I am aware that GameInformer reviewed this game in their latest issue, giving it a 9.5 out of 10. Still, I think we should hold off on making a "Reception" section until more critics get their hands on a review copy. Link 486 (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC) The reception section could mention the 3.5 million demo downloads it got, or the response to the betas or demos. Jayrossss (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone format a reception section? Once the layout is set I can add all of the info, thanks, Jayrossss (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Demo

Even though it's just a demo..doesn't battlefield work with this EA account and all? Does that mean that progress in the demo carries over through such an EA account to the full game? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Prologue takes place in WWII

According to the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) Bad Company 2's prologue takes place in WWII. "In single-player mode, players conduct missions on an unnamed Japanese island during World War II and then move into the modern day through jungles, deserts, and snowy terrain."

I have edited the single-player section to represent this. If you do not believe this should be included in the article, please discuss, instead of just editing and inserting false information. Jayrossss (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

TBH I think that we should wait until the game comes out before we put that info in. i'm not going to edit but I'll just put in Citation needed. LtFury (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jayrossss (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Granted, what counts is verifiability, but I don't think the ESRB qualify as a reliable source in this case. Eik Corell (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the ESRB article, and I am certain that they constitute a reliable source, more so than a videogame website or the likes. I encourage you to find a source that discusses the game's prologue so that we can edit that section with "accurate" information. Jayrossss (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Received the game this morning, and I can verify that the prologue is set on an unnamed island during some sort of failed operation. You can take my word for it, or you can wait for a reliable source to confirm. Ericleb01 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Engine

I am fairly sure this game uses Frostbite 1.5 for consoles and PC. Someone changed it to Frostbite 1.5 for PC, and Frostbite 2.0 for consoles, which is fairly illogical and is not cited. Jayrossss (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

your thinking about 1943 LtFury♣(talk) 03:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I am thinking about Bad Company 2. I cited a source that says BC2 uses Frostbite 1.5, that source was actually an official blog post by the lead programmer from DICE.Jayrossss (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok well the game is running on a highly modified version of that engine my ref calls it 1.x maybe they is the 1.5 engine but then again I maybe think of Destruction 2.0 LtFury♣(talk) 19:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

if anyone bothered to play the demo. if a building collapsed on someone it'll say destruction 2.0. and in a interview with one of the developers it says its running on frostbite 2.0 it was battlefield 1943 running on 1.5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.253.160 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken, it is frostbite 1.5. Please cite your source that it is frostbite 2.0... Jayrossss (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

now thinking about it maybe Bf1943 was running on a lower version of 1.5. still needs to be looked in to LtFury♣(talk) 01:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This game does make use of DirectX 11 so it could possibly be Frostbite 2.0 although I read on the Frostbite Wikipedia page that this game uses 1.5. ToxicWasteGrounds 09:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Along with Battlefield Vietnam, Bad Company 2 is one of only two games in the Battlefield series to have blood

didn't battlefield 2 have blood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.230.131 (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it did not. I just played to check. Ericleb01 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Bad Company 1? // User talk:Laughing Man 03:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

BC2 has visable blood when somebody gets shot but it doesn't fall to the ground like in COD or Bioshock. ToxicWasteGrounds 09:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

South African Release

EA South Africa was apparently shocked to find that two major retailers, CNA and BT Games, had broken the international release date by one day. Due to this most South Africans actually got the game on the 4th March and local game server providers SGS and iGame launched their servers on the 4th too. The Do gaming article [1] - werner_ghost —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.51.104 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Time travelling

"On March 30, 2010, Electronic Arts announced the first downloadable content for Battlefield Bad Company 2."

That date has not occured yet. 69.120.147.64 (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

start up "troubles"

should there not a be a section detailing the troubles the game haves ?? like not able to connect and just now the punkbuster problems ????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goakiller900 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not unless this problem is covered by a reliable source. All the attempts to add it have been either unsourced or just stupid rantings from angry players. Eik Corell (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dont you think the sheer number of people complaining of this problem makes it a reliable source? Its no secret that for most of the game's first weekend it was unplayable why do we need someone "official" to say so? And even if we do I think EA's blogs and tweets on the subject would serve as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupidknowledge24 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Admins on the official Battlefield BC2 forum have made posts concerning these problems, which I believe should serve as a reliable source. Moreover, the ticker that scrolls at the bottom of the main menu addresses the Punkblocker issues (also a reliable source). As for how wide spread the problems are; the main server which verifies a player's account information went down for the Xbox 360, PS3 and PC on March 6, 2010. This means that everyone attempting to play the game at this time was affected. (That's about as widespread a bug concerning the online component of a video game can get) Regards -BOB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.195.191 (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

after reading this you can bet your sweet ass there is a problems and its official —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goakiller900 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't matter how many people are complaining. In the general scope of the article, it is not relevant unless reliable sources have covered it. Even then, the question is whether it's actually important to mention it -- The article is about the game, meaning info on the plot, the gameplay, development, and any other notable details. A lot of games have problems with multiplayer on launch, and detailing every such occurrence would just serve as bloat in articles. Now, as far as sources go, forum posts are self-published sources, and are generally to be avoided whether it's admins or normal users' posts. Unless they're by a recognized authority, like the developers themselves, or websites like IGN or other such websites. Eik Corell (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

LIKE THERE OWN DEVBLOG maybe come man check this http://twitter.com/OfficialBFBC2 (yes its twitter but its official)

http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2010/03/07/battlefield-bad-company-2-server-update-2010-03-07.aspx ( then we have there own blog (also Official) and then we have the news real in side the game itself who else could change that only EA/Devs/

regard's me Goakiller900 (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As a player I can agree that perhaps in such a high profile game such as this, where the developers had hyped up the game years previously, had months of beta testing and had extensive launch history data available from games of the same series past, the issues encountered does seem significant. As it seems that users are split between reporting every detail of every bug in the game and those who remove it for their own reasons such as it being insignificant and unnecessary. I suggest there be a compromise, start a new page wiki "Launch issues of Bad Company 2" where factual issues that have been sourced can be listed and on the flip side let a link to that wiki page be listed as related topics which should not be removed. Deal? Hbk2818 (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The significance of something like this is very small and a few months from now would seem like an irrelevant detail.Jayrossss (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

[Rick:]The signifigance of a game billing itself as "defining online warfare" failing to allow players online is anything but insignifigant. I personally have spent 50 US and 8.5 hours of my leisure time, and tried everything including dmz and still cannot play online. As a gamer, I can promise you nothing like this has occured on such a massive scale and for such an extended period of time. It is also notable that forums dating back two months before the release of the game mention this problem for some beta users, although most people agree it was playable online in the demo. It has been 9 days so far and counting, and the issue remains unresolved. EA themselves acknowlege this, so you're "unreliable source" theory fails. - [\Rick]

[Rick:] Whoever keeps deleting my entry, please stop. The entry is true, and is properly written and sourced. It does not make any unsubstantiated claims, nor does it stretch the truth even slightly. PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW. Corporate trolls keep away from the truth please.[/Rick] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.85.88 (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As a player and as someone who has played most of the Battlefield franchise games, this is my opinion, ALAS, it is not only mine. Should you go into the trouble of searching the web, you will find posts in the millions of the many problems with this title. This alone is substantial reliable evidence. People reading about the game, should also know about the current criticism revolving around it. This could be temporary, but it is FACT, and will remain fact should or shouldn't those errors and bugs be fixed in the future. It is NOT acceptable that a game which has this much criticism will not have it mentioned on its wiki page. Besides, my edit has stated nothing of personal flavor, nor claims with no basis. It is all phrased subtly and is informative. It serves to notify of the FACT there is public criticism. Whoever is reading now is aware of this, and can find out for himself by searching the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upsetup (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I should also sharpen this point: claims such as "the significance of something like this [the bugs upon release] is very small and a few months from now would seem like an irrelevant detail" are concealing important facts about the game and are are insignificant themselves. It is irrelevant if a few months from now there will be no more issues with the game. The whole purpose of a public beta is to discover bugs and fix them, so that the official release will be polished. EA fails to do this every single time with Battlefield titles. This is ridiculing to the consumers. A piece of software should be 100% operational from day 1 of its release. Errors are very acceptable during pre-alpha, alpha and even beta releases, but not in an official release. There can be temporary downtimes and such, but not things that effect the basic ability to play, and not things that remain weeks after the release, especially when they were reported during the Beta and in previous Battlefield titles. People should be informed that they ought to expect this kind of treatment from EA during the first WEEKS(!) of maybe the next Battlefield title as well - that is why it is significant, and will remain significant even after the bugs will be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upsetup (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Trolls at EA are constantly deleting a whole section about the criticism that exists amongst a large part of the consumers of this game, without adding anything to this talk.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Upsetup (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 April 2010

Please assume good faith of other editors, rather than describing them as trolls with a corporate agenda.

If you check the article's edit history, you'll see specific edit comments about your material being unsourced. We should be quoting actual reviewers and critics on this, rather than making sweeping statements about how there is "much criticism about the game circulating the web" and that technical issues "are largely expected to be resolved by the time of the official release" - without attributing these facts to a source, they sound like your own personal observations and opinions, which aren't appropriate for an encyclopaedia.

Has there been any coverage of this in the games press? --McGeddon (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just tried to source this, but since your paragraph boils down to the vague assertion that "technical issues make it difficult to play the game", I haven't been able to find anything, and can't see anything obvious in the press reviews. What ongoing bugs that make it "difficult to play the game" are you talking about?

I'm cutting "technical issues make it difficult to play the game" for being unhelpfully vague and unsourced to the reader. If there's a review or article that writes about these issues in some detail, it can go straight into the "Reception" section. --McGeddon (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I take back my "trolls" comment. There have been deletions with no reply for days. I don't know what kind of search you performed on your way to discover the problems that all or at least most of the users encounter. They are known and acknowledged problems (by the game's developers and distributer). The unsolved problems are: 1) Online play is unavailable because the user is unable to connect to the EA master server - this is caused by great loads on the EA master servers - this is caused by the many users who bought the game and are trying to play it. So far this has not been fixed, instead we see official statements saying that they haven't anticipated the amount of success .http://www.platformnation.com/2010/03/08/28813/ This article is one of many. You just need to search for "Bad Company 2" Connection Error, or search for: connection to the game server has been lost. please check your network connection and try again. Also search for "bad company 2" +"updating your stats" These are all unresolved bugs such as the ones I've talked about, that still persist well over a month after the release of the game. I personally know of a few people who just gave up on the game because they haven't been able to play it online not even once. These are just people I know in person. You will find more on the game's different forums. What I will do, since you keep deleting what I think is important information, is find what you refer to as "official sources". These will be hard to find since nobody thinks they are important in this kind of field. It's not like we are talking about history or about genocide in Africa, that you need official sources. Most of the information that you can expect to find on topics about bugs in games will be on blogs and on support forums. As someone already wrote "the sheer number of people complaining of this problem makes it a reliable source". The rest of the information about the game on the wiki page is from experiences of people who played the game. You don't seem to demand the same level of officialness from the whole article. EA disconnects and Unable to login problems on: http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-bad-company-2-pc/978641-reported-issues-noted-dice.html problems #3.3, #3.5 on: http://www.mpgh.net/forum/214-battlefield-bad-company-2-hack-hacks/127204-battlefield-bad-company-2-connection-error-problems.html Problems described here still persist well over a month after the release. I hope these are legitimate enough source for you. I will not start reading through developers' tweeter blogs. I do not need to prove that bugs on this scale are expected to be resolved at official releases of software. It is a well known and established common sense fact in the world of software development. Read about software development cycles. Upsetup (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Forums and blogs are generally to be avoided per WP:SPS, because they're not reliable. To put this into perspective, you'll always see loads of people complaining on support forums; that's what they're there for. The existance of so many complaints can mean a lot of things, like for example the game being extremely popular, in light of that, the claim that the enormous amount of complaints becomes moot because it be explained by the popularity of the title. It can be spun a lot of ways. Again, the number of complaints doesn't matter; None of them are experts. Experts is to be understood in the sense that none of them are game reviewers, or run big, reputable websites dedicated to this. If something like this is actually important to mention, reliable sources will most likely have picked up on it. Something you might want to remember: The way you're presenting this, as has been mentioned, is also problematic

technical issues make it difficult to play the game

That is a point of view, not to mention an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. Forum postings, blogs, and personal experience are not sufficient to support such a generalization. Eik Corell (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Official game sites reported: http://www.softsailor.com/news/19457-battlefield-bad-company-2-disconnects-pc-multiplayer-with-problems.html http://www.incgamers.com/News/21327/ http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2010/03/15/battlefield-bad-company-2-q-amp-a.aspx Note: game launched March 2; articles published early to mid March, however, though EA claims all is peachy, problems aren't completely solved yet. If this is not enough official proof for you, then I don't know what is. Yes, the game is excellent, but the numerous bugs cause playing to be a burden. People have a right to know this. Developers/distributors must face the consequences of a poorly released software by having people know about their fault, in order for learning to occur (on both consumers and developers/distributors). If you shut the criticism down, there will be no consequence for faulty actions. Upsetup (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Incgamers and Softsailor are relatively minor websites - haven't heard of them until now. However, the official EA blog entry is perfect for mentioning the connection issues. Eik Corell (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned somewhere above, I would think this would be a good reference as it is from DICE themselves. http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-bad-company-2-pc/978641-reported-issues-noted-dice.html It lists all the problem DICE themselves have confirmed. Davie247 (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the verdict then? Upsetup (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The reports of connection and login problems with the blog post as a source. The forum post shouldn't be needed as it's essentially the same list, updated with more minor issues added. Eik Corell (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1943 doesn't have a dogtag system.

The game falsely states that Battlefield 1943 has a similar dogtag system. This is wrong. Someone please edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.38.30 (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC) some was putting in 1942 and i can't remember that having a dogtag system. LtFury♣(talk) 03:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

First Battlefield game that had the dog tag system was 2142 (if I remember correctly).Halofanatic333 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias

We do not need to put that is having problems online(at the time) in the introduction, reception is where it goes, also under the Multi-player tab: putting at the beginning "if you can connect to ea online" is not relevant to the overall multi-player game player information. That is is bias, most likely towards someone who likes a competitive game better, all games have issues, this is temporary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer1157 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

needs story synopsis

a story synopsis needs to be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.170.172 (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ill add it when i get finish my second run of it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.224.28 (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 

Server downtime

It would be most appreciated if someone could find a reliable source describing the numerous and rather constant downtime issues the EA servers have been having so that we can include that in the article. It's severely affecting the online playability of the game at the moment, so it seems rather odd that the reception section makes no mention of this. --85.81.86.44 (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, I`ve heard of people losing their stats, not to mention the server browser problems they are having! There was a review on a French Canadian network called Musique Plus earlier this week which can be found here that criticized the game. They definitely need to have more neutral reviews... and Wikipedia should take of the `reception` and `criticism` sections, per WP:NPOV. SweetNightmares (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

found: http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2010/03/15/battlefield-bad-company-2-q-amp-a.aspx http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-bad-company-2-pc/978641-reported-issues-noted-dice.html http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=down+site:twitter.com/OfficialBFBC2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2010/03/07/battlefield-bad-company-2-server-update-2010-03-07.aspx Upsetup (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring-vs-actual discussion

I'd like to remind everyone that the only exception to Wikipedia policy on editing warring is reverting blatant vandalism. For everything else, pursue page protection and/or dispute resolution as needed, or expect to be blocked. Make bold revert, discuss your mantra and you will be just fine.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Kynogon AI

The game uses it. You can verify in the install directory < Output < Win32 < AI < Levels < anylevel and open up the files. The first line refers to the middleware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.138.201 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

DLC

Can someone from the US or something write something about the Dr. Pepper promotion? The new outfits and camos etc? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Done! Jayrossss (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Scalar Weapon, not Aurora

Why do people call the Scalar Weapon, they name is Aurora? I've played through the game, and they always refer to it as the Scalar Weapon, never do they call it Aurora. Peter Griffen Boy (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Gone through the plot, done my best to correct the parts discussing the weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskeato (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Updates

There seems to be some confusion over updates, such as the date and which actual update it was. Also, only 1 update is mentioned, for 1 platform. I'm thinking either the section be removed or someone should seriously edit it. Muskeato 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskeato (talk • contribs)

"Downloadable Content"

I feel that calling it Downloadable Content is actually pretty misleading, considering one never downloads anything. Joystiq ran an article about how the VIP maps were already on the disc at launch. I will be changing the term from Downloadable Content to Disc-locked Content unless anyone have any objections. Jayrossss (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well the updates, onslaught and the different kit downloads aren't on the disc as far as I know, and any new maps or map types will also be downloaded, so they should definitely stay under the current heading. At most I'd suggest making a separate section on disc-locked content for the VIP maps. --Muskeato 11:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskeato (talk • contribs)

DLC

Considering a serious restructure of the DLC section of the page 'cause it's really quite poor at the moment. Probably do it early next week. If someone more experienced wants to do it first and better, feel free. If you've any suggestions, then comment, otherwise I'll just do what I feel is most appropriate. Of course, if you really hate it that much, you can always just revert what I do (but please comment why). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskeato (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot

So no one really seems to check this talk page, but someone should probably tidy up the plot a bit and make it more concise. Muskeato 12:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

June 3rd update

The June 3rd update was also for PC, and it had similar effects. Also, it added a few objects to Arica Harbor, however I have no source for that. --Kris159 (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

having trouble with alternative fire

not sure if it is my controller or the game, but I'm having trouble with my alternative for the tanks and helicopters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.179.226 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

not really the place to ask, but ive never had trouble and never heard of it on forums or websites so I assume it's just you. Muskeato 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe Alternative Fire is a vehicle perk, like High Explosive Warheads, Heavy Tank Armor, or Fiber Optics for Aiming. If you select another perk, then you lose the Alternative Fire weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.208.10 (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

cleanup

Who actually think this article currently deserves the cleanup tag? And if so, why? Muskeato 16:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Does the multiplayer section still need a cleanup tag?

Does the multiplayer section still need a cleanup? Xfyre99 (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam be merged into Battlefield: Bad Company 2. I think that the content in the Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam article can easily be explained in the context of Battlefield: Bad Company 2, and the Battlefield: Bad Company 2' article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠ ♠ 13:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. Didn't even realise there was a separate Vietnam page. Muskeato 15:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Just made it earlier this morning. Thought it would be beneficial for their to be a separate article from Battlefield: Bad Company 2, but you guys probably know more than I. My first article so I just wanted to see how it would go. Rayne117 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. - PkedU2Fast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.18.221 (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy merge - this is hardly an article; just a couple of lines of information which belong in the main article. CR4ZE (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge the pages. The Vietnam article is poorly written - this is especially noticeable in the second "paragraph". 90.193.206.201 (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with the merge proposal. Page should redirect to Battlefield bad company 2#Expansion pack. --87.79.119.252 (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy merge - 3 lines for an expansion doesn't require its own article ScottSteiner (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy merge - the expansion can very well go under its parent game.--201.230.237.19 (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge 'em. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.161.244 (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

BFBC2:Vietnam is not a game, it is an expansion pack, it doesn't deserve it's own article. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh ok nothing happened for ages so I did it. First time I've ever merged an article so if something's wrong I'm sorry Muskeato 23:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Turn off swearing options

So can we put in the article that this game allows decent people to turn off the foul, vulgar swearing? 58.179.137.124 (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Does it? Didn't even know there was any swearing in the game. Find me a source and sure I'll put it in. Muskeato 16:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad sourcing

At the end of the article, in the sales section, the sources were used quite poorly and the information was entirely incorrect. I have fixed this.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers bro :) Muskeato 16:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battlefield: Bad Company 2. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130710202414/http://ps3.cheathost.com/news/battlefield-bad-company-2-dlc-dates/105/ to http://ps3.cheathost.com/news/battlefield-bad-company-2-dlc-dates/105/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130914203902/https://help.ea.com/article/online-pass-has-been-discontinued to https://help.ea.com/article/online-pass-has-been-discontinued

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)