[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Jagged Alliance 2

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

Article Created

[edit]

I know it's a little bit basic at the moment, but I hope we can improve it in pretty short order, and keep it free of game advice and POV into the bargain. This game really does deserve its own article, and a good one at that. Geoff B 12:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a Section about the different mods released, also the critical acclaim it received. Needs to talk about its general open ended gameplay and random item location which gives it tons of replay value. Needs to be known that even after 8 years it is still available for purchase on Steam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedalus779 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and contribute! Geoff B 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

[edit]

Someone needs to add a stub tag to this article. I would, but I don't know how. 63.215.29.111 02:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for trimming v1.13 features and info on linux port =

[edit]

K, I basically extended the info on v1.13 stating its features and providing infos on v1.13 linux port, both from official sources, when my post got trimmed by Mr T (Based) (talk).

Please note the reason for trimmering. A) V1.13 Wiki is not a reliable source. B) JA2 Linux-port author words, that were published on Bearpit forum among with the CVS links to the source, are not reliable.


A) 1.13 wiki is official web page to 1.13 and hence all news and modification stats are put there by the original devs. Hence its reliable and your trim is NOT legal and should be reversed.

B) JA2v1.13 linux port author has published the links to CVS containing the code that runs on linux, on the Bearpit forum. For the proof it exists, look at the follow-up posts. What is not reliable on that? Port exists, it runs, its opensource and you can get the source and see that yourself. Forums are not reliable sources, but CVS links, containted on that forum ARE the proof. Hence not the forum, but CVS should be seem as a proof. The link to the forum was solely used because its is the official place where the author posts changes and communicates with other parties. As of here, electronical media CAN be a reliable source. If you further insist on clearing the situation, I urge you to contact the author of the port.

Moreover, A contains a direct link to B; that means BearPit is OFFICIAL forum for A. Since the link was only to the post of the author of the port, it does NOT include other members fantasies, wishes, etc etc; that can be considered to be "unreliable source". If you(Mr.T) doubt that author lies, get source and see it yourself.

In the case anyone can find better source to prove the stated information, please include it. 213.196.221.21 (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the answer I recieved and my reaction:

Forums are not reliable sources, okay? So provide sources that are A) reliable and B) not forum posts, please. BTW, edits on Wikipedia are neither legal nor illegal.Mr T (Based) (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Follow the link to SVN, if you need dead straight fact. Contact the author to ensure authenticity. BTW, edits are illegal if they violate the rules. Wikipedia is an open encyclopaedia, so by preventing the access to knowledge, you violate its main codex. Sorry, I don't understand the line you follow.213.196.221.21 (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


What would be a reliable source for the source code? From here "Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources.... 1)An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online. 2)In cases where self-published material has been published by a professional researcher or other expert in the field, a source published in one of these media may be considered reliable in some cases." This forum is heavily moderated as in (1) and the developer is a professional researcher(programmer) that publishes exclusively online(2). Additinally link to SVN, containing the subject in question proves it existance.

So these are reliable sources by the means of Wikipedia Standarts. ShinobiTeno (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this would actually qualify as self-published material. Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves would apply to both the forum post and the v1.13 wiki, regarding the existence of the Linux version and v1.13 and as sources for the authors' statements regarding both versions - keep in mind that this doesn't make those statements automatically true. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I added an external link to a page I created, twice. It has been undone twice (by SharkD). My page is very informative, relevant to the game, and has no advertising whatever. Are additions of external links completely unwelcome? Fadden0 15:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have an external links policy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links, however I think Shark D may have been a bit hasty in removing the link to your page. It looks like it's a decent resource. Even if it's not a reliable source per Wikipedia's criteria, it's still informative and useful and is acceptable, I think. Geoff B 15:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that external links are more suitable to be placed on DMOZ or an external wiki than the Wikipedia article itself. SharkD 01:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if i'm misstaken on this to begin with, but this article held lots of external links previously, right? It was what got me on the ja galaxy forums where a lot of the actual acitvity of the community is at nowadays, and even more, hooked me up with the v.1.13 mod. I'm not sure i'd still be playing it if it wasn't for that, months later. It's relevant and even more so USEFUL to anyone already familiar with the game looking for ways back in, or people getting to know it. I go to wikipedia to find these sorts of things, if i'd come to this article back then, i'd just closed the window. One small little stack of extra links, how does that hurt anyone when it's true to the purpose and extremely, again, useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.80.22 (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article never had many external links listed. SharkD (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta disagree with you SharkD. Many articles on Wiki will have links to the community for the game in question and I don't believe it should be any different for Jagged Alliance 2. Given the age of the game and that many of the related community sites may have already folded, it's important to have at least one link to the active elements of the community. IMHO (Bobbo9000 (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia has a policy in this regard, WP:EL. Generally, links need to be of an encyclopdic nature that provide further information on the topic. Discussion forums don't count. The site formerly listed, but removed (and discussed at top), is rather encyclopedic, which I overlooked at first glance. However, it doesn't meet the criteria of "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.", as the material itself would violate WP:GAMEGUIDE, which leaves me confused as to whether it should be included. Generally, I think these sorts of links should be reserved for DMOZ (as users could easily pollute the list with lots of similar links). This site in particular could easily be integrated into JA Galaxy's database. If you have trouble getting these sites listed at DMOZ, then that's a strike against its usefulness. SharkD (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that GameFaqs (which offers similar information) isn't linked to in many articles. I distinctly remember GameFaqs links being removed from several articles. Here is an example of a GameFaqs link being removed from a featured article candidate. SharkD (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a discussion on this topic here at WikiProject Video games. Make sure and check back on it once the discussion has continued for a bit. SharkD (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least some mention of the Bear's Pit Forum should be added to this article if not a direct link. This site is by far the most informative on the subject (as far as English language sites go) so it would be shortsighted not to at least mention Bear's Pit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khor1255 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay Section

[edit]

The gameplay section of the article could really use a concise summary at the top of the section. Arguably, it's too detailed at the moment. Indisputably, it needs copy editing really badly.

There is also nothing in the gameplay section that suggests this game is in the spirit of 4X (Where are the expand or exploit mechanics?). It seems to fit squarely in the Tactical role-playing game genre, so I've tweaked the intro paragraph to reflect that. --Daeval (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as for the Expand and Exploit mechanics:
1) Expand: you start in Omerta and gradually take over sectors until you reach Meduna and complete the game.
2) Exploit: you conquer mines that periodically infuse your account with funds, as well as providing a two-time bonus of silver ore. SharkD (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenary Section

[edit]

Due to how different the mercenary characters are, I could put in all of them and a brief note on each, but not if it were to be removed at a later point. Any words on that before I start writing would be great. I already added in the different traits/etc of the mercs. Gomoker (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Though all the mercs are very fleshed out in terms of personality, I think that's a bit too much info to include the 100+ characters and mercenaries available in the game. This is an encyclopedia, not a game guide. EdenMaster (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Citation

[edit]

I don't believe Steam has every released an actual statement concerning the busted nature of the version of JA2 they sell, it just simply does not work and contains the bugs mentioned in the article. What sort of citation would you even need for that? Any forum that has a topic about the game warns about the well know errors, even Steam's own forum concerning the game.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=197667&topic=42540464

Just curious as to what sort of citation something of this nature requires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeej (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It was just updated to the Gold edition: "Jagged Alliance 2 has been replaced with Jagged Alliance 2 Gold. The new version of the game has numerous bug fixes, and has been updated to run correctly on Vista. There is a known issue with a crash on exit, this should not affect gameplay." http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7974967&postcount=8 67.87.67.56 (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point (no purpose) - in my opinion - of keeping the info about the bugs of the Steam version.
  • Firstly, this does not describe the current state of the game - the bugs had no consequences
  • Secondly, this is not an essential piece of info about the game's history - this happened ONLY with Steam release and was fixed
  • Lastly, there has never been and will never be any reliable (according to wiki standards) citation/reference for this - Steam has not released official statement about these bugs
As these bugs will never be cited, the article will never lose the refimprove tag. (Unless someone really wants to rewrite this into "bugs unannounced by steam but later fixed" and cite enough forums/blogs/sites to suggest this as a broad issue)
I am suggesting to simply remove the information about the bugs altogether. --H3llkn0wz (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last/Latest Version?

[edit]

I am wondering what was the last/latest version of Jagged Alliance 2, Jagged Alliance 2: Unfinished Business, Jagged Alliance 2 Gold, Jagged Alliance 2 Gold: Unfinished Business, Jagged Alliance 2: Wildfire 5, and Jagged Alliance 2: Wildfire 6, or if there is a later version (and/or patch) available.

Most software articles (even other games) show what version is the last/latest, so this will help the article as well.

Also note that it is shown on the first Jagged Alliance's Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.145.31 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay section edit

[edit]

I think the gamplay section was way to brief and casually described. Brief because the game is very immersive with loads of features, much of which are unique or original to the game and should be mentioned as defining characteristics of JA2. Casual because of the lack of categorization, sectioning and clear flow of features. WP is not a game manual, so obviously the section shouldn't be crammed with every character's profile, every weapon/armor ingame, every city description, what every attribute does and what are the numbers... I took the liberty to expand the section significantly. Corrections welcome. H3llkn0wz (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good clean up. And welcome to Wikipedia. Geoff B (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game manual

[edit]

Not sure about citing the game manual, using general reference guideline for this. This makes both numbered and bulleted list in references which is a tad weird, but I guess it serves the purpose well. Also, not sure about italics in the name of the manual, cannot really place this among any of the titles. --H3llkn0wz (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, added individual page references for every significant feature. --H3llkn0wz (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UB Sir-tech financial state

[edit]

"This can be[clarification needed] related to the Sir-Tech being financially in dire straits at the time of release.[citation needed]" I have couple rhetorical questions on this?

  • Is this verifiable? - I doubt it, where is a source with such financial data in comparisons with previous company state? I know such yearly reports exist, but are they public and will anyone bother to find one and link it?
  • Is this significant to UB section? - This has impacted game quality (or has it?); one might argue UB game was never meant to be long or expansive.
  • Is this the reason for poor quality? - UB is short and linear; most likely because Sir-Tech needed to milk a quick buck; But Sir-Tech isn't going to announce that, and will/have some other source speculate(d) on this? —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  16:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a citable review of UB on the net somewhere that mentions Sir-Tech's state. Apart from that, I'm not sure. Geoff B (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this is for my personal and future edit reference
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] no mention
[13] "JA2:UB looks like Sir-Tech Canada's last gasp, with the demise of its parent company, Sir-Tech, in 1998 leaving both the Jagged Alliance and Wizardry series without support."
[14] "..the company couldn't even find a publisher for Unfinished Business for quite some time"
[15] not related to UB
[16] some interesting company info
[17] some basic news info
[18]"JA2 was something of a last hurrah for Sir Tech, .., which closed up shop shortly after the game's release (at least partially because they struggled to achieve distribution for this game despite virtually universally glowing reviews.."
I guess a bit of re-write (without conclusions and speculations) will suffice with these —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement

[edit]

I want this article to be assessed into at least B-class. Here is a to-do check-list.

"The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary."

✓ All sections have references for major points.
✘ Some small facts are not referenced.
✘ Some references are missing authors, work, dates.

"The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

✓ Plot, Gameplay, Version (mods), Reception sections.
✓ Lead, Plot, Gameplay, Version, Mods are sufficient.
✘ Receptions section needs expansion, also with individual game (UB, Wildfire) reception.
✘ There is no development/history section.

"The article has a defined structure."

✓ All relevant section except development are included, sub-sectioned and formatted

"The article is reasonably well-written."

✓ Adherance to MoS.
✓ Neutral and concise.
✓ No apparent grammar/spelling problems.

"The article contains supporting materials where appropriate."

✓ VG infobox, score infobox and a screenshot (may need another in time).

"The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way."

✓ Technical terms are linked to their articles

First edit. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  11:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Edited. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love that IGN quote. Obviously he's a merc on his days off. Geoff B (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian spellings

[edit]

The article's been edited to use "troups", arguing that this is a Canadian spelling; both Canadian_English#Spelling_and_dictionaries and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English have been referred to, but I can't find any reference to this odd use on those pages. The Canadian Forces themselves seem to use "troops" almost invariably - 170 google hits on forces.gc.ca for "troups", and 39,000 for "troops", for example. The CBC likewise; 14,000 hits on their internal search for "troops", 37 for "troups".

I've asked someone with access to a copy of the Gage Canadian Dictionary - I don't have access to one myself - and apparently the same "troops" vs. "troupe" distinction is made as in British English; apparently no mention of "troups" for "troops". Pending any clear evidence this is in fact a preferred Canadian English spelling, I'm changing it back. Shimgray | talk | 22:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few mistakes

[edit]

In my oppinion this things are not correct or missing in the article, but it could be just my misinterpretation, so its up for debate:

  • Jagged Alliance 2 takes place in the fictional country of Arulco
  • Mercs can "practice" a skill by themselves or work as a "trainer" or "student"
  • Would be nice to also mention that Militia has diffrent levels of experience...
  • For aerial vehicles you also need a pilot and airspace not covered by enemy SAM sites
  • The game also features weapons that do not cause loud noise, silencers and camouflage kits...
  • Characters have an energy level, restored by sleep, rest, fluids or injections
  • Items can be traded between mercs, picked up, dropped or thrown
  • The player needs enough support in the town for convincing the miners to work for him (not only this sector is needed)
  • Every sector does not have two entry points (like the last sector in the mines)
  • The game doesnt include Treasure chests especialy not containing Power-ups, but items....

If you agree or disagree to some of the above, change the article or leave a comment. Luka666 (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see
  • Nation seems to apply here more than country.
  • 'or' works, yep.
  • Seems a bit trivial, but if we can work it in, not a problem.
  • True, but mentioning everything you need to get something is game-guidish.
  • Suppressors are mentioned in the weapons section.
  • Agreed
  • Agreed
  • True, but you can get enough support by capturing just one sector, depending upon the strategic situation. Popularity in towns is affected by the things you do outside them too.
  • True.
  • That redirect is a bit silly.

Geoff B (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed:

  • Mercs can "practice" a skill by themselves or work as a "trainer" or "student"
  • Characters have an energy level, restored by sleep, rest, fluids or injections
  • Items can be traded between mercs, picked up, dropped or thrown
  • Every sector does not have two entry points (like the last sector in the mines)

Luka666 (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire: Game engine improvements

[edit]

The article states the game 'has not altered the game engine or controls'. however, I can clearly see higher resolution, more mercs per team. I have also read of a few more minor improvements (game physics tweaks, AI). — Vano 23:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of primary sources

[edit]

The majority of the article's references are presently taken either from the game or its documentation. It's certainly true that it's nice to have individual points sourced properly, but it raises the question of whether we need quite so much detail on topics which haven't been covered by secondary sources. For instance, the gameplay section should really be based around the game as presented by reviews and such rather than just explaining things out of the manual. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much trivia in guides that manual was used to make sure article includes only the stuff that manual writer thought was important to mention. Gameplay is rarely described with npov in reviews, it is instead evaluated, pointing good and bad points, skipping most features. And that's reception section not gameplay. As far as I'm concerned gameplay section currently details all the major features without actual trivia. Plot is indeed from primary source, then again most games' plots are primary and unsourced on WP. I suppose one could quote some guide for plot.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  20:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The gameplay section may be overly long, but I don't see why we would want to turn to reviews (opinion pieces) to describe it. Is there much purview for reviews outside of a 'Reception' section (or material that would fit in one)? SharkD  Talk  19:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference material

[edit]

While digging through the online print archive, I located the following print preview material for this game:

One or more print reviews for this game may also be found in the archive. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They look like good finds, nicely done. Geoff B (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source code on Wildfire CD-ROM?

[edit]

I have got the old iDeal / StrategyFirst Wildfire disc (without the higher resolutions etc.), but source code is nowhere to be found. Is there any proof of published versions with it? -{Markus Moll (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)}-[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jagged Alliance 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jagged Alliance 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Jagged Alliance 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

PC Player sales analysis

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jagged_Alliance_2&oldid=1207778818"