Talk:Call of Duty 2/Archive 1

Release date
How can an October 2005 release be scheduled for the Xbox 360 if the latter is only coming out in November? &mdash; Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 17:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, that is for the PC version. I'll go and fix it. Thunderbrand 17:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

i changed the release date to nov 22 for the 360, it was originally the 15.Tik 15:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

i was wrong,apparently microsoft is releasing there games early, i bought NFS:MW for 360 and the system isnt even out yet. guess ill change it back unless it already has been. Tik 15:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Wording issues
This whole article reads like an advertisement. It's terrible! I'm going to rewrite it tomorrow. &mdash; Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  05:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind looks like someone else got to it :) &mdash; Ilyanep  (Talk)  01:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

4 games for every xbox 360 is incorrect. it is three fourths of poeple who bought an xbox 360 bought call of duty according to the ign.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.126.254.184 (talk • contribs).

Reviews?
Why does this have a review section? Is it needed? Userpie 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No...wikipedia is not a link repository. Tomorrow morning (unless someone else wants to do it) I'll make it a realy reaction section with references, etc. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did it (i guess you forgot or something) I did the same think to the Perfect Dark Zero article a couple days ago and threw in a Game Rankings link to the reviews. I know a reaction section can be put in instead of just a link repository, but I'll leave that to you. Thunderbrand 16:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh why do I keep forgetting these things. I'll do it right now. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  16:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Requestion Minimum Requirements
I really think this page, like most game pages, should have a minimum requirements listed on it. Or at least a link to the new windows game advisor in which people can check themselves which games will run on they're PC's. - Razorwave 10:43pm Feb 06 2006

Call of Duty 3 redirects here, why?209.71.221.235 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no clue :\ Perhaps someone can do some research and write a stub on it? &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  02:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Reading, I'm not sure how to parse the following: "Activision said that they never set out to make the best WWII FPS to date, a statement many didn’t see as reasonable." Is this the intended statement? 70.35.26.16 06:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Multiplayer section makes me cry
Can someone please swoop in and make the multiplayer section less about glitches/errors and more about how the multiplayer experience is? Unless you're telling me that 99% of multiplayer games experience a glitch or problem which is hard to believe. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  18:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say about 90% of games suffered a problem pre-patch, but this was depending on all the participants. Since the patch it's very rare to experience it. Jay 20:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * how about, instead of making it an article about XBOX 360 gamplay, we could make it about PC gameplay, seeing as this is the PC version of the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.102.215 (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Merging
The article has a merging tag but no discussion of it, so here goes: The article shouldn't be merged with the Weapons in Call of Duty 2 article, as the long list of weapons would appear clumsy. As fore example Half-Life 2, it functions well with a small section outlining the weapons in short prose with a link to the more specific list. Poulsen 07:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, do not merge. AndyZ t 01:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, taking precedent from other CVG articles. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  01:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also agree, I will remove the merge tag from the articles. It's already there for longer than a month. Garion96 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that i am now flogging a dead horse but i also agree, do not merge. --Boris Johnson VC 10:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360 Update & Other Info Removal
Ilyanep, I posted this on your talk page, but I'm putting it here too just to make sure you do see it, and possibly to get comments from others on the issue. Basically, I've no idea why you've removed my edit to the COD2 page and would like an explanation please. I updated the page with current information, seeing as the patch for the XBox 360 was released several days ago. Your re-edit completely removes this and makes the article stale again, anyone reading it would think that the patch has still to come out and still being worked on. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a resource like this when fresh information can't be updated. The glitch again was a big thing to the Xbox version, check out the Xbox forums, almost every other thread was relating to the glitch in some manner before the patch was released. In fact, the only problem with COD2 was the online problems and the glitch sorted it. So why have no mention to it at all? Should we pretend it was never there? What about map glitches? Some people like myself are interested in things like this because when we see people doing dodgy stuff (like entering buildings they're not supposed to be able to) we like to research it to see what's going on.

So, all in all, I'm completely confused as to why you reverted my edits and would like an explanation please - if not only to educate myself as to what is an acceptable edit.

Weapons
I've included a section about weapons, please discuss if you find it inappropriante or useless, or make the changes you want. Afonso Silva 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

- I believe weapons should be a totally different article. There is a large variety of weapons, and making a large stub about them would be a good idea. --- Bennyah

Small Doctrinal Correction on StG 44 Assault Rifle
In the weapons section of the article, the StG 44 is referred as a "German support gun". That may be true in the American military doctrine. However, in the Blitzkrieg doctrine, the machine gun (by the way, the MG42 is a universal machine gun, not a HMG) is the main weapon, the one that produces the greatest volume of fire. Rifles are support guns, guns that support the machine gun by providing accurate, long-ranged firepower.

I hope my humble contribution improves the quality of the article, as I do not consider myself in the right to make direct corrections to the article since I am not a registered Wikipedian.

Rui Ferreira ruiferreira89@hotmail.com

Where did you find information like this? bibliomaniac15 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: You're doing great. I encourage you to sign up as a Wikipedian and be bold!

About the tops saying of doctrine i no this is correct fro i have seen it man times on the history channel.— —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esskater11 (talk • contribs)


 * As the section has already been removed, this is a moot point. However, the weapons are categorised as such in the game, and while not historically accurate, the game uses the term "support weapon" for the non-submachine gun automatic weapons. -- Scottie_theNerd  03:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's getting worse and worse and worse by the second
n/m &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Glitches
I found no glitches in CoD2 for multiplayer for X360...are these for PC only? --Aditya Gune 03:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. And if they are they need to be cited and stated as such. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They are there, but unfortunately the official Xbox forum (where these issues are discussed) is not considered to be an decent source. Suffice to say I've witnessed them, they are there, and some basic research will reveal other games who will have acknowledged to have witnessed them as well. Fortunately, not many people know how to do it, nor have the skills necessary to be able to execute them. Jay 20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute...
The article mentions COD2 uses the Quake 3 engine, but I thought Infinity Ward created a brand new engine for the game.


 * According to http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/call-of-duty-2/664101p2.html it's indeed not the quake 3 engine. Garion96 (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It says on the back of the box that it uses code licensed from id software. Examination of the game's data files reveal that they are stored in the exact same way as Call of Duty: Quake-style .pak files (except with .iwd as the extension) with the same names for the directories inside. The game also carries many things over from Call of Duty such as death animations (instead of ragdoll), and has some multiplayer maps which are ported over 100% intact from Call of Duty. The only thing Infinity Ward wrote from scratch is the rendering engine, though they won't admit this.--Pkaulf 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the Call of Duty 2 mod tools have been available for a while now, and the map editor is a custom version of GtkRadiant. CoD2 also uses roq video files, which only appear in games with id engines. I hope this conclusively proves that Call of Duty 2 is indeed based on the Call of Duty engine, which was a modification of the Q3A engine.--Pkaulf 21:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because it reads the same types of files doesn't not make it the same engine. If Firefox and IE both read HTML, does that make Microsoft own Firefox? Kenimaru 02:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My attention has recently been bought to this article and it is widely accepted throughout the Call of Duty community that this game is heavily reliant obn Quake 3 code. It is generally accepted that Infinity Ward created their own graphics rendering engine, utilizing DX7 and 10 as opposed to the earlier versions that used openGL, but that only controls the graphics and not the main constituant parts of what makes the game run, that is Quake3. A strong discussion has taken place on a number of occassions here http://www.infinityward.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,313.0.html. Infinity Ward have not entered into the argument and their silence on the matter pretty much proves the point. - AMStacey


 * Silence proves no point. -- Scottie_theNerd  02:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case it did Scottie, [IW]Avatar has finally made it clear, to quote, "The new engine aspect was a major selling point because it accurately represented the amount of new features in CoD2. The term "brand new engine" was never intended to be used, as it implies starting over from scratch." See the comment in this thread and note that [IW]Avatar is one of the developers, http://www.iwnation.com/Forums/index.php?showtopic=27100&pid=256852&st=50&#entry256852 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amstacey (talk • contribs)


 * That obviously wasn't silence, was it? -- Scottie_theNerd  09:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly Scottie! I have previously pointed out to AMStacey that using an argument from slience (argumentum ex silento) is one of the great howlers in the world of analytical philosophy. As Bertrum Russell once said "Its an argument of the insane for the inane". Tally


 * Please note the date of [IW]Avatars post and comment. It was a very long period of silence before the final admission that it is not a totally new engine.  The engine cannot be classed as proprietry as Infinity Ward do NOT own the engine.  This is evidenced by the fact that the copy right notice from ID remains on the box.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amstacey (talk • contribs)

Alex921225 says: I've read that the engine is quake 3 code reliant, which means that it uses the quake 3 engine code, my only doubt is that how can it be a "heavily modified engine" if it's not heavily modifying the original COD graphics, what i mean is that the engine uses the same extensions but it is a new engine by infinity ward (but not propietary as the back of the box says) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex921225  (talk • contribs)


 * It depends upon your definition of "new". Infinity Ward have added to the engine with things like lean and iron sights (although these were in CoD1 too).  The major jump was the use of DirectX for graphics in CoD2, but that is effectively a bolt on, rather than being part of the main game engine.Amstacey 00:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The DirectX graphics controller is a Microsoft development that is also used by other games. Infinity Ward have never claimed this as proprietry and I'm sure that there would be a conflict with MS if they tried to call it as such.  Amstacey 10:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * DirectX/Direct3D is not a graphics controller, as you are making it out to be. That statement is about as wrong as you can get. =Tally=

The amount of speculation and misinformation here is shameful. First off, .pak files are renamed .zip files so I don't think that's a real smoking gun. Radiant is also used for other games that don't use the Quake 3 engine - an editor produces standard data, and writing a parser is trivial. On top of that, the data that our Radiant produces will not work in other games, so I guess you're basing it off the file extension? Secondly, how do you guys even know what was changed? Could you tell that the animation system was rewritten? How about the AI? Scripting language? How about the basic logic for running a server? Input handling? Collision and tracing code? How about the sound engine? Image file format? FX system and FX editor? Localization systems? How about the code to make it run with 6 threads on 360? Controller code? Xbox Live support? How about map preferences, the lobby system, support for map packs, and anti-lag? The truth is that you guys don't have any idea what's new and this "some data files have a similar file extension" argument is pretty silly. All the junior detectives should relax. The engine is a proprietary one that IW owns. IWslothy 10:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But it's still derived from the Quake 3 engine, isn't it? Take Enemy Territory: Quake Wars - they stripped down the Doom 3 engine and heavily modified it, but they don't claim it's a proprietary engine. --Pkaulf 18:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would expect it's not proprietary because id owns the changes :) How about the Half Life 2 engine?  It's credited as the Source engine here on wikipedia, yet long long ago before they changed all the bits of it, it was the Quake engine.IWslothy 11:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * let me rephrase that, then - they don't claim it's a new engine. Source probably contains about as much Quake code as the Doom 3 engine. ie barely any. --Pkaulf 18:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So what evidence is there that there is more than "barely any" q3 code in Cod2? Looking at the "consensus" on this page it looks like... Radiant, which I pointed out how silly that is.  The id copyright notice logic is silly - there's also a copyright notice for the Bink code.  Does that mean Bink owns the engine?  Does Havok own HL2?  To be perfectly blunt, proprietary is a word that describes ownership, and id does not own the Cod2 engine.  IW/Activision does.  Therefore, the engine is proprietary.IWslothy 11:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, I am pleased to see an IW person here. Now, the term proprietry.  To own the something, you must be able to sell it.  I do not believe that IW could "sell" rights to what they call the CoD2 engine.  If that is the case, it cannot be called proprietry.  Also, what if ID had not released the source for Quake3, would the copyright notice still be there, or would it be licensed?  if the latter, than it is still correctly labeled as a heavily modified Quake3 engine.  I don't understand the need to call it anything other than what it is.  It's a great game and doesn't need mis-leading hype.


 * As for the comment about Doom3, remember that both engines were developed by the same company, ID. They therefore have the right to say that they have remodelled it and to rename it if they so choose.  IW do not own the Quake engine and have no right to call it by a different name without paying ID for the privilidge to do so.Amstacey 01:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The HL2/CoD2 situation here seems to be at odds with each other. As for rights to sell, naming rights, etc., those are governed by contracts that you do not have access to and your conjecture is simply without any supporting evidence.  You "don't believe" IW could sell the engine?  Based on what?  I don't believe wikipedia should be run by uninformed consensus and wild conjecture. IWslothy 7:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Based upon the legal need for the ID copyright notice to appear on the box!!!!! It means IW do not have a licence to sell it on as their own.  Simple legalities.  You are quite right about the contracts.  Thats why there is a contractual agreement to carry the ID notice, because it is NOT IW's own engine.  Yes, IW did a supurb job in adding bits to it, but they have not changed the core processes, otherwise all the old Quake exploits and bugs would not be in the game. Amstacey 02:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As was pointed out before, the notice on CoD1 said: "This product contains software technology licensed from id Software". For CoD2 it says, "This product contains software code from Id Software".  It's a significantly different notice, and I think you guys are off base. IWslothy 03:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Release the source code then. How about a TRUE SDK then lets see if its quake3 or not. As for facts why is IW to this day refusing to put out a TRUE SDK for the game.


 * You want IW to release the source code to our games in order to fix errors on Wikipedia? Would that be extortion or just plain old lack of credibility? IWslothy 08:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

@AMStacey - Ritual Entertainment OWN the rights to their MD4 model format Quake 3 engine. How can that be if ID own the rights to all Quake 3 engines? Answer: If you make such significant changes to the Quake 3 engine that it becomes "new", ID grants the rights to you. This was part of the GNU free software licence agreement attached to the Quake 3 source code.

A GNU is a free software licence agreement:

"A free software licence is a software licence which grants recipients rights to modify and redistribute the software which would otherwise be prohibited by copyright law. A free software licence grants, to the recipients, freedoms in the form of permissions to modify or distribute copyrighted work"

The Quake 3 source GNU goes further:

"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. "

Ergo: Ritual Entertainment and IW have made "identifiable sections" which are "reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves" to the original Q3 source, and are now no longer bound by copyright to ID - Ritual Entertainment and IW both own their "identifiable sections" - in IW's case, the whole damn engine itself.

Tally


 * Didn't Ritual Entertainment actually purchase the rights to the engine in order to make their changes and to be able to call it their own? This is rather different to purchasing a usuage licence.  I agree that IW may well own "parts of the engine" but would argue that they have not altered the base code in the same manner as Ritual Entertainment.  Take note, and to quote from your text, "do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."  Please pay particular attention to the word distribute and the final two words in the quote.  Can the parts created by IW be identified as works that can be sold on in their own right?  If not, then my argument stands and holds water. Amstacey 12:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, they didnt purchase the rights. They didnt need to, as no copyright from ID covered their additons to the MD3 Quake 3 engine. When the Quake 3 source was released, ID had negelected to include a full skelatal animation libary. It was left to a community member by the username of Gongo that completed the work. Ritual got the MD4 method from him, and copyrighted it. =Tally=


 * If IW had used the GPL Quake 3, then we should've seen their source released. The fact is that even though Quake 3 engine is released under GPL, it doesn't make any games that use Quake 3 engine automatically GPL unless they are licensed under the GPL terms which they are simply not. Kenimaru 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling COD2 a "Quake 3" engine game is exactly like saying Quake 3 is really Quake 2 with fancy graphics. Its just absurd. The COD2 engine doesnt even use the MD4 model format, so how can it be Quake 3?

Technically incorrect sections removed because it held no value and lots of misinformed claims Kenimaru 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ask yourself this imperitive question: if COD2 is "Quake 3" in disguise, why is the notice on the COD2 box not exactly the same as on the COD1 box? (And before you say it AMStacey, I know it is on the Activision website at the moment, but as I was informed by a member of Activision web staff, its a mistake and will be removed and updated shortly) Why does it not say "licensed to ID"?

Answer: because its not licensed to ID; ID do not own the engine. IW do.

The argument that the "code" of COD2 is Quake 3 code (AMStacey), and that "they [IW] have not changed the core processes" of the Quake 3 engine (AMStacey), displays staggering ignorance of the nature of a game engine, and indeed, ignorance of the very use of the word "code". I wont address this point in particular, as that can be seen at length in this thread:

http://www.iwnation.com/Forums/index.php?showtopic=27100&st=0

Here, I will lay out that it isnt only a new 3D renderer in COD2 that makes the engine "new"; that its the "core processes" of the engine that have changed.

Eric Riley (IW staff) gave a list of the most important new features in the COD2 engine. Here they are:

"we have normal and specular maps" - not found in any Quake engine before.

"feathered particles that allow us to get a real volumetric effect from our explosions and smoke grenades" - not found in any Quake engine before.

"soft shadows" - not found in any Quake engine before.

"heat shimmers" - not found in any Quake engine before.

"screen blur" - not found in any Quake engine before.

"dynamics for the gear on characters" - '''not found in any Quake engine before. '''

"improved facial animation and higher polygon counts all around" - not found in any Quake engine before.

I'll add to this:

the proprietary AI engine in COD2 - - not found in any Quake engine before.

The new model and animation format - - not found in any Quake engine before.

The new net code - not found in any Quake engine before.

So, not "just" the 3D renderer, but just about every major functionality to a game engine is new.

In Conclusion:

The COD2 engine is "new" and deserves to be recognised as such. However, it is not a new, never before seen engine in the way that the Crysis engine was "new". This is simply a matter of where the English language can let us down by not having 2 different words for these 2 different usages of the word "new".

The definition of the word "new" in this case would have to be gathered by the way its used, by its context. IWAvatar has made it abundantly clear that the COD2 engine is not "new" in one usage of the word, but is in the other: It is new compared to Quake 3; it is not "new" in the sense of a "never before seen, and completely built from scratch" engine. COD2 is related to the Quake family of engines in that the COD1 engine was the starting point, but it now contains so many new features to have completely morphed into a "new" engine.

Tally


 * Unfortunately, it would appear that you are wrong. Most of what you list is due to directx![quote]


 * Call of Duty 2


 * http://www.answers.com/call%20of%20duty%202


 * The game engine is based on the modified Quake III engine used in Call of Duty [4], with a new renderer written from scratch by Infinity Ward. This replaces the Quake 3 engine's standard OpenGL renderer with support for Direct3D 7.0 and 9.0 paths. The latter features pixel shader effects such as bump mapping, dynamic lighting and bloom.[/quote]


 * So it is indeed DirectX that produces the amazing effects!


 * THAT IS BECAUSE THOSE PAGES REFERENCED HERE ARE ORIGINATED FROM WIKIPEDIA, read the bottom of the pages it says This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer) Kenimaru 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * [quote]http://www.answers.com/call%20of%20duty


 * Call of Duty uses an enhanced version of the Quake III engine, previously implemented in Activision's own Return to Castle Wolfenstein. ~ Scott Alan Marriott, All Game Guide[/quote]


 * Yet another incidence of someone totally unconnected with this discussion disputing the origins of this "new" engine.


 * Yes, but that's for Call of Duty ONE.Kenimaru 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

DirectX/Direct3D is not a game engine, it is a 3D hardware interface. OpenGL, on the other hand, is designed to be a 3D rendering system.

The above line alone makes me remove the following sections containing technically incorrect information from the same author Kenimaru 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As for quoting some anonymous internet article writer as if they were the final authority on the "true" nature of the engine, I'll give you one back to teach you the absurdity of doing it:

"The venerable Quake III engine has been retired in favor of an in-house custom job, featuring pixel shaders, bump maps and much-improved shadows and lighting"

http://www.firingsquad.com/games/call_of_duty_2_preview/

Here's another:

"The revolutionary Call of Duty® 2 engine makes this the most intense and cinematic WWII first person action title ever."

http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/games/c/callofduty2/

For every quote you can produce from some anonymous internet writer, giving their opinion that the engine is Quake 3, I can find a counter one. Ultimately, they prove NOTHING on their own. You need someone with a bit of authority in the matter to give a definitive answer - that can only come from the game professionals themselves: IW

Tally

removal of useless flaming in the following section Kenimaru 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now lets look at the use of the word "Proprietary." The Oxford English Dictionary quotes, "Proprietary (adj) - made and sold by a particular firm usu. under a patent: of an owner or ownership."


 * Alternatively;- source = http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=proprietary


 * [quote]5.	manufactured and sold only by the owner of the patent, formula, brand name, or trademark associated with the product: proprietary medicine.[/quote]


 * IW have been noted to call it a CoD2 engine, has this been trademarked? If not, it is not proprietary.


 * The ignorance is not mine, but belongs to the usuage of lengthy, inaccurate explanations trying to explain away truth and to the use of "smoke and mirrors" to cloud the issue. Amstacey 12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No inaccurate things stated here by either myself or IWSloth, fella. Quite the reverse, in fact, as your statements are breath-takingly ignorant and misleading in the extreme. Fact of the matter is: for nearly 12 months, your group of people have been calling IW liars, when it is patently obvious to anyone else that there are no lies being told, just your group failing to understand what IW have been claiming about their engine. =Tally=


 * Once again you return to insulting language to bolster your argument and totally ignore the point in question ie the use of the term proprietary. I have no desire to enter into another war of words on this matter and will leave it to those that run this site to make up their own minds.  For now, I am happy with the current description "Customised Quake3 engine, enhanced by Infinity Ward." Amstacey 15:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As for "ignoring" your point about "proprietary", I didnt see any cause to respond to it, as it doesnt actually make any point further than, if IW havent copyrighted their engine, it cant be proprietary. Its what's technically called a "truism" - given the dicionary definition, it cannot be false. But it begs the question: have they copyrighted the engine or not? Unless you answer that question in the negative, the point is moot. =Tally=


 * Good lord people. A few important points to set out - IW is not bound by the GPL license.  Quake 3 was released under the GPL after CoD1 was released, and as you can see by the statement on the back of the box we licensed the Quake 3 engine.  So you shouldn't worry about clauses in the GPL - that's not the license that we signed.  ALSO, _EVERYTHING_ is copyrighted automatically, Tally.  If you write a poem on a napkin, voila, it's copyrighted.  So yes, all of our code is of course copyrighted, just like the my text right here (hence my statements about IW owning our engine).  Oh, and you're confusing copyrights and trademarks.  Do a search on trademarks, trademarks have nothing to do with copyrights.  Finally, saying Direct3D does your rendering for you is really funny, that's like saying C does engines for you.  Direct3D is an API to draw graphics.  It's not D3d->SetModel( ally );  D3d->DrawModel;  Oh, and our XMODEL system is very different from any of the quake md3/4/5 model formats.  Amstacey, I think the best point I can make is: look through the data files and find data formats that you can also find in a Quake 3.  We don't use QuakeC, we don't use .bsp files (we did .d3dbsp), we don't use .md files, etc. IWslothy 15:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * However, I take issue/clarification with a couple of comments you make Sloth: the COD2 xmodel format is not THAT different from the MD5 model format (which is not Quake btw - its Doom 3); there are plenty of "standard" data formats still in COD2 that you can find in Q3 games - .CFG, .GSC, .TGA, .ROC, .JPG, etc, even the xmodel format itself was first implimented in MOH games.


 * Its been this that has lead in the COD community to a lot of false "confirmation" that COD2 was an upgraded COD1 engine - the familarity of some of the data formats, the folder structure, etc, have lead people to wrongly, but understandably, conclude that its the COD1 engine all over again. This is a trick of logic, I know: to suppose similarity proves origin. But its one that is easy to fall into.


 * That's been the biggest upset about the way the new engine was rolled out: IW/AVTI should have anticipated that the "average" player in the community wont understand the niceties of the construction of game engines, and so be lead astray by this trick of logic. They should have headed this misunderstanding off at the pass, and prevented it from happening in the first place by explaining things a little better. =Tally=


 * How am I confusing copyright with trademarks? It's IW using the term proprietary, not me!  All I did was produce the dictionary explanation, or are you saying that the dictionary is wrong?  Or am I missing the point? Amstacey 16:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I will say that the dictionary is wrong there, it should say copyright. Drugs are patented, software is copyrighted.  You can patent algorithms, but you can't patent a game engine.  Patents are for ideas, copyrights are for creative works. IWslothy 18:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point I'm done. I've made a reasoned argument why the engine should not be called modified Quake 3, but it seems that on Wikipedia people who don't know what a .bik file is and think Direct3D is a renderer will decide the content.  I note my disagreement, but discussing it any more is pointless. IWslothy 18:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Tally's last comment, starting, "That's been the biggest upset..." is something that I have to agree with 100% Amstacey 19:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha, _THIS_ is consensus? That's hilarious. IWslothy 08:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Im confused on many many many levels of how this is being argued, its seems someone from IW wouuld know alot more and probaly devolped the program that would make it a sealed deal right then and there.(ForeverDEAD 00:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

ForeverDEAD, you are beating a dead horse, IW have now come clean and admitted that this is NOT a brand newe Engine "built from the ground up." A search on www.infinitywardnation.com or —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.26.181 (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Gap in wiki page
Why is there such a gap between the singleplayer title and where the text starts |? i have tryed fixing it but to know prevail.--Paul 11:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the images Image:COD2screen2.jpg and Image:COD2Screenshot5.jpg which causes the gap. I guess if they are removed or replaced it will be fixed. I will look at it later of no one hasn't done it yet by then. Garion96 (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it could be altered by reducing the size of the images ? --Paul 11:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert, but I don't think see. Btw, with replaced I meant move the images to another part of the article. There probably is another way, but I wouldn't know how. Garion96 (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed two images and it looks a lot better now. IMO they were too many (fair use) images in that section anyway. Garion96 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks a lot better a lot more fresh and cleaner and a lot less clutered, good work mate. --Paul 15:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Release the source code then. How about a TRUE SDK then lets see if its quake3 or not.

Vasili
It says that Vasili Ivanovitch Koslov was referenced in United Offensive. I ercently bought and completed it, the character referenced is another Vasili who isn't Koslov. I'll edit it.
 * I didn't think that the last name of Vasili was ever mentioned in that game. It could well be since it said vasili did fight at Stalingrad. 70.49.33.120 16:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It could have been Vasili Zietsev, the famous Russian sniper at Stalingrad, but I kind of doubt it. Phreakuency 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would definitely not have been Vasili Zaitsev; COD2 is based around and infantry squad, not a sniper. --Scottie theNerd 06:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok release this is abit out of date now but the Vasili in United Offensive is a corporal who fights alongside the Russian player, and as the events in United Offensive take place after those in Call of Duty 2, its possible they are one and the same person (it is implied in U.O. that Vasili has seen action before). Bluechincilla 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Captain Price
The article mentions that Captain Price of CoD2 was also in the original Call of Duty. Thought this might be nice to imagine, it is impossible. CoD2s British campaign centers around the 7th Armored Division. The unit that captured Pegasus Bridge (the first missions in the British campaign of CoD were about Pegasus Bridge over the Caen Canal) was the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire regiment of the British 1st Airborne Division. Though both Captains Price fought in and around Caen during Overlord, they can not be the same person. I'm editing that bit out. (USMA2010 20:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Good idear, one person cannot be in two places at the same time --Boris Johnson VC 10:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * While it is impossible, Captain Price is COD2 is the same character as the original, even down to the red beret. The article should reflect this fact and not your opinion on what is and is not possible, remember that this is a game and certain liberties are taken to preserve enjoyment. It is worth mentioning, however, that Price's appearance in COD2 would not be consistent in COD1. --Scottie theNerd 16:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that he could have transfered between Africa and D-Day... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.37.230 (talk • contribs).


 * That isn't logical. If he was transferred from Africa, he wouldn't be wearing his D-Day outfit in Africa a year earlier. --Scottie theNerd 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As best I can tell in Call of Duty history, Price fought in Africa with the 7th Armored Division, was transferred to the 1st Airborne for the actual landings and was transferred back to the 7th after the 6th June. His where abouts doesn't overlap in anyway between the two games so he could have been in the places he's depicted in. Personally speaking I think they'd have been better creating a new charactor for COD2 to fill the Price roll but it is very clear they are the same person. Bluechincilla 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we leave it at this: Capt. Price was in the original game, and he was very popular, so the developers kept him in the game, this time in Africa. It doesn't have to make sense. It's just a game... Oh well. Bluechinchilla, you had a good explanation but I don't think it fits...just my opinion. --Putmalk 01:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Weapons
I'm removing some comments that do not respect the NPOV and also some falicious information.

Thompson: and is slow to reload. (It is not considered as a weapon slow to reload) BAR: 20 round clip that suppresses its usefulness. (Its usefulness is not reduced by its clip size)

Please correct me if I was wrong for removing those parts. --24.37.160.221 02:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after looking again, I did not find anything not respecting the NPOV, the Thompson does have awkward sights to some. =P --24.37.160.221 02:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That seciton probaly been removed to lazy to check but also a "clip" and a magizine are comnpletly differnt.(ForeverDEAD 00:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

"Reaction" section
I reckon the "Reaction" section needs a major rewrite. The distinction between Xbox and PC versions/features isn't always clear, the language is quite awkward toward the end and any comparison with reality needs citing. The biggest example of this would be the very last sentence:

''Another thing is, that both British and German tanks can shoot their cannons while moving. Only Russian T-45 was first tank ever to have that ability, all other tanks during WWII had to come to complete stop before shooting their cannons.''

That would make it sound as if due to some kind of mechanical feature it was impossible to actually fire them during transit. I assume these tanks' main guns can definitely be fired while moving, but at great cost of accuracy and range - making it of course a very unusual practice in times of scarce supply, but not physically impossible. So what I'd like to see is a proper source on this subject. Anyway, I'm elaborating on this bit but there are a number of other examples within that section. Lots of comma's, 'therefore,' 'however,' 'interestingly,' 'also,' etc make the text generally feel a bit clumsy.

-- MiG 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the section contains far too much NPOV and Original research. Also, I don't consider the reviews from 1up, IGN and Gamespy to be definitive sources, especially as there isn't much consensus between them. --Scottie theNerd 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies?
The article says that the Russians shouting "Potato Masher" is erroneous. Wouldn't this be wrong, considering that the Russians probably didn't speak English? bibliomaniac15 00:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In the game, the Russians speak English. As the game was primarily marketed toward English speaking audiences, this makes sense. --Far Beyond 08:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As the section in question was removed a few months ago, the reply is a bit redundant but I'm not clear as to whether you agree it is an error or it isn't. As the Russians do speak English in the game, referring to German grenades as "Potato Mashers" cannot be a historical error to do the game being a hypothetical transliteration of English concepts. --Scottie theNerd 08:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, I saw an unanswered question and I answered it. Your reply to me was redundant. --Far Beyond 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I found another mistake. Real life humans have more pixels, more definition in their faces, which this game doesn't accurately potray. No, wait. The Ruskies speak English because when you fight with comrades, you understand what they are saying and hearing what people say in the heat of combat is critical to the game. Most enemies speak their own language, but it is vitally important to the experience that you can understand your own team mates. They do have Russian accents at least though JayKeaton 05:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Multiplayer Maps?
Does anyone have a list of the multiplayer maps they can include here? iaingleslie 09:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A list of multiplayer maps would be an unnecessary detail. --Scottie theNerd 16:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that POW Camp level, is not in the 360 version, but only on the PC.

Easter Egg?
Has anybody noticed all of those yellow teddy bears that have showed up throughout the Call of Duty series? Would that be considered an easter egg? I'm not sure if it should be put here because i have noticed the yellow teddy bear in Finest Hour also I'm not sure about the rest of the games. To find a few in CoD2 go to D-Day: The Silo one is in the stone farm house in one of the upper rooms on a chest by the broken bed, another is in the German field HQ in one of the upper rooms on a bed. --Jt_200075 17:30, 14 October 2006

I have never seen it but it could be an easter egg --Putmalk 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I seen it in call of duty 2 i shot it wool came out. Wrv451nlp i lost my password -_-

Removed controversy caen comments
I removed a section from the above area, as it was woefully innacurate. Caen was liberated under operation goodwood. Which used British troops and most of the fighting around caen was by british troops. Panzer 2's were also still in use until 1945(under various versions) not all had 20mm canonns. Lastly it depends entirly on which version of the crusdaer and mark 3-4 you are talking about. The frist mk 3-4's had only 13mm of armour and amred with guns with ap performences worse than the 2 pounder. and the crusader was upgunned to the 6 pounder which was better than any gun the mk 3 mounted and on par with the mk 4's. which in turn only got thicker armour than the crusader after it was disbanded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.201.10 (talk • contribs).

Removal of Weapons section
I sense an edit war happening here, so let's sort this out now. I've directed editors to WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a game guide and should only contain information useful to readers in general and not to the game's players. A full list of weapons is something that belongs on StrategyWiki rather than Wikipedia, as it is in-depth minutiae and adds nothing to the article. Considering the weapons section is continually being changed, especially by the one anonymous editor who is tweaking all the entries, it is best that the weapons list be removed and a general statement included in gameplay. A weapons section would only be beneficial if the game's equipment stood out in some way, which would require proper referencing. The anonymous editor might be more interested in contributing to the above two sites if he or she feels that they want to contribute game details.

Certain articles with notable equipment do have weapon lists, such as List of Half-Life 2 weapons. However, the weapons in Call of Duty 2 are all historical and do not need their own weapon list. Anyone interested in finding out about the weapons can search for them through Wikipedia with little effort. --Scottie theNerd 03:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you would like to contribute, I stongly suggest that you head over to the StrategyWiki page for COD2 weapons. It could use some expansion, and is an excellent place to get wiki experience and impart your gameplaying wisdom at the same time.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is not a game guide and should only contain information useful to readers in general and not to the game's players." Quite the oxymoronic policy. Besides people who have or want to play the game, who on Earth is going to read an article about a game? --Far Beyond 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a moot argument: that's like saying who's going read an article about ________. Everyone has their reasons, and some people do look up Wikipedia to find out information on games to find out what they're about instead of digging through reviews. Even people who "want to play the game" would be more interested in what the game is about rather than how to play it, which they can access elsewhere. Again, Wikipedia is not a source of game information and it is not within Wikipedia's interests to cater for gamers when there are plenty of specialised sites that do so. --Scottie theNerd 00:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I LOVE THIS GAME!!!! Ace Fighter 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mapmaker Details?
Do you think that a seperate article on this page should include the mapmaker that Infinity Ward released, Radiant. If so, some facts could be included like it used the Quake 3 Engine and maybe there could be an article on list of best produced maps? Good to see anyone's comments. --Putmalk 00:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Needed
This article needs MAJOR cleanup. It has too many sections with information that is not properly sourced.PowderedToastMan 06:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where most of the sections have sprung up from. Most of the content violates WP:NOT and WP:OR. I've removed the patch details and comparisons to previous games, the brief map list and summarised the game types into the multiplayer section. I removed the list of missions - the single player section already covers the game's events. I removed the unverified criticisms section, and also removed the link to Medal of Honor (series) as it isn't directly relevant - we shouldn't need to MoH to every WWII game. -- Scottie_theNerd  10:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)