Talk:Call of Duty (video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Videogame?

A video game is a game that was released for a console. This game though was also released for Windows, hence it's also a computer game. Can the title be changed to "Call of Duty (game)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.242.70 (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Engine

which uses the Wolfenstein-3D/Quake engine

That's really the Quake 3 engine, isn't it? Evercat 22:07, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It uses the Return to Castle Wolfenstien Engine which is the Quake III engine with the updates and additions which Id added for RTCW.

I guess if you still want to call it the Quake III engine, but by that same logic you could say Half-life 2 uses the Quake 1 engine, since it still has some of the code left. Pretty much the only main things that remains Quake 3 in the Cod Engine is the netcode and GUI, along with some very basic rendering code.

It's still "based" on the Q3 engine though. K1Bond007 03:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I guess to get nit-picky... id didn't add anything to the Q3 engine for RTCW, Xatrix/Gray Matter did. And a significant amount. Referring to the COD engine as based on the RTCW engine recognizes the work done by GMI. To simply say COD's engine is "Q3 engine" belittles the significant modifications/additions to the RTCW engine by GMI, which were then taken advantage of by COD. Likewise, it would only be fair to credit the COD engine if it were used for another derivitive title along this branch.

As loosely mentioned above, note that a Half-Life engine based game (DOD) credit their engine as "GoldSrc", which then credits it's origins ("GoldSrc, or Goldsource, is the retronym used internally by Valve Software to refer to the heavily modified Quake engine that powers their science-fiction first-person shooter Half-Life (1998).") So it is consistent, and with proper respect to credit the engine that is directly the source of the game in question.

In fact, saying the HL engine is "GoldSrc" is even further off than the COD/Wolfenstein relationship. Using their lead, RTCW should have credited their engine to "RTCW engine" rather than Q3, and certainly a derivitive game shouldn't completely jump over them. But that's a topic for another page...

Realism?

Why is the article saying that Call of Duty is realistic? It clearly isn't realistic, it's an advanced arcade shooter. dmakatra 10:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Compared to many other games, Call of Duty is pretty realistic, and as far as World at War, historically accurate to an extent.

I am truly Appaled by this statmentyou are making, Call of duty was as close to realism in 2001, Ive been playing for about 7 years and its one of the most advanced games that Ive seen, Through what has been produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.156.80 (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Call Of Duty is "an advanced arcade shooter", like Dmakatra perfectly said, this game is not realistic : HUD, endurance and health of the player and the ennemy ("today, I'm feeling like I have 30% hp" :D), skins of weapons (toys), vehicles, weapons characteristics, historical events (infantry weapons and troops ratio, battles), one-way-only gameplay, etc... All these things are not realistic but are interesting in game because it is a game (=> fun).

Of course CoD is more realistic than Quake 3 : Arena ! :D

But CoD is less realistic than Operation Flashpoint, Armed Assault, Red Orchestra (still a bit "arcadish") or Vietcong (vietcong mode). In 1990 it could be "realistic", in 200X, it's "an advanced arcade shooter". :) (Klem, 193.49.48.244 (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, CoD is nothing compared to Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45. 76.16.188.239 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiplayer Modes

Is conquest really a mode? I've never seen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

It's a custom mode and should be moved to "List of Call of Duty Mods". I'm tired and don't feel like it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

On "Team Deathmatch" are the teams different civilizations? 76.16.188.239 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Call of Duty

I've been having problems with my copy of CoD. When I try to use the colour prefixes, (^1-0) hen the game should "delete" the prefixes and let me type in the appropriate colour, it completely screws up the placing, forcing me to mentally spell while typing. (the letters are shown at the wrong time while typing, but turn out right when entered. Can someone help me?70.25.138.179 01:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a page for discussing how to improve the wikipedia article on Call of Duty, not for solving technical issues people may have with the game. 64.230.64.7 23:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with the guy above, might as well try to help him since he posted it here anyway. It happens to everyone, there is no real solution. - FireForEffect

You do realise that it's been well over a year since the initial problem report? --Scottie_theNerd 04:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable Players

I dont think that the players from 1.3 listed for "Notable Players" should be listed. Although Hutt(Xeon) is a very good player, he isn't very liked among many of the 1.3 players and plays more on 1.5 than on 1.3. Some1 is also a good player but he hasn't been seen for a long time in 1.3. And Solo is more of an average player, there is a long list of players who are better than Solo. Some people worth mentioning would be Kidglove and Lithium. The 'Unreal' clan from 1.3 has many notable players, some of the best in 1.3. They include Unreal's leader Caleb, MK, God, Masta, and aZn.

I agree, however for a somewhat different reason. I have been playing CoD since it first came out and have never heard of these guys. Furthermore I think it is hard to categorize 'notable' players in a popular MP game - I admit I have never seen these guys play however something tells me that they wouldn't stand out on a server full of experienced players either.

• removed "Certain players, such as SvS Tikibarber and Oken, gained great fame through out the version 1.1 multiplayer community for repeatedly breaking numerous servers' records for kills per map." from article for lack of citations. Upholder 05:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey any of u guys seen Pvt. Martin in Call of Duty: United Offensive? Ive seemed to have spot him in the Battle of the Bulge mission (1st mission)and he is being carried off by a medic. He most likely took a direct hit with a mortar and is "red" in health. ANyways i just wanted to pint taht out if u guys wanted to put a Trivia section to teh article. Like the Medal of Honor Series Articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.125.166 (talk)

The character in the Battle of the Bulge is Private Matrin, not Private Martin. Additionally, we are trying to avoid including needless trivia, as it adds nothing to the article (see WP:TRIVIA). --Scottie theNerd 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism: The MP44

Also, as the Modern Firearms & Ammunition website says: "Initial development [of the MP44] took place under the designation of MKb.42 - MachinenKarabine, 1942."

I removed this part because it showed in the article that there was a debate about this subject. I chose not to change it into something that would fit in better because I feel that the source contradicts the argument. The source says that the first field tests were made first in 1943 (while the Battle of Stalingrad was in 1942) and only on the western front. Should it however be a test model, the game clearly states that the weapon is in fact an MP44 and not an MKb.42. Even more, I have a hard time believing that German troops (especially under-supplied as they were during the Battle of Stalingrad) can field such an amount of experimental MKb.42's. The MP44 in Call of Duty suffers from historical inaccuriaces. Agreed?--dmakatra 16:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Demolition

What about the demolition game type? It was the same as S&D except that you could respawn. The Germans won under 2 conditions: The allies ran out of charges ("bombs") or the allies failed to destroy both objectives before time ran out. I don't see any mention of it on here.

German Weapons

The article states that "German weapons are always more powerful than any Allied weapon, whereas in reality, all the main battle cartridges of WWII were essentially identical ballistically." I don't feel that this is true. 24.222.225.198 07:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It may not "feel" true but alas, it is(ForeverDEAD 00:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Whether or not it is true would require accurate, third party testing per Wikipedia's policies. Somebody ought to hire a company to test the parameters of various WWII-era weapons from both Allied and Axis forces and then compare this against the game's code to determine how the amount of damage inflicted by a weapon compares to its real life equivalent. That would allow any such statement as that quoted here to be confirmed or disproven and made accurate.71.74.228.230 (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots

The in-game screenshots currently placed in the Multiplayer section are misleading, as they are all taken from the single player campaign. The images should be relocated elsewhere in the article. --Scottie theNerd 14:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Verification?

Which sections need sourcing? --Scottie theNerd 03:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

2 New Pistols Added

The M1895 Nagant revolver and the Webley revolver were not on the list. I must also add the Tokarev. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

• None of the afore mentioned pistols were in the original release of Call of Duty. Removed those pistols from the list. --ARandomHeretic 03:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The TT33 and Webley revolver were added in Call of Duty: United Offensive and were not included in the original game. The M1895 Nagant Revolver has not been included in any COD game. --Scottie theNerd 07:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Weapons section

Despite the work I just put in to create the weapons table in place of the lengthy list, a good article should not contain GameFAQs-style information such as this. The weapons section should be kept to a minimum of essential information rather than listing everything in the game. The weapons should therefore be removed and/or summarised. --Scottie theNerd 05:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Band of Brothers

It should be mentioned that mp_carentan is EXACTLY the same as in Band of Brothers. You know what part? The building with holes exploded.. the first site of Carentan they see in Band of Brothers, the Germans make a hole into the building, the version exactly seen in the game, opposite of the "Cafe de Normandie" or something. Damn, it looks soo identical, it probably is! There's also the gated yards that I can recall easily, hah. Great memories from that map. --84.249.253.201 22:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• They look same because that's what Carentan looked like in World War II. ::rolls eyes:: -ARandomHeretic 18:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. The Carentan in Band of Brothers was just a couple of streets, and Call of Duty replicated those streets to form a small map. Carentan was far bigger than two streets. --Scottie theNerd 01:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly the entire village of Carentan cannot be shown in a 10-15 minute shot in which the majority of camera-work is focused on soldiers firing weapons and the like. -ARandomHeretic 04:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Photographs from the Band of Brothers book do show at least the front of the town to resemble that shown in the miniseries, which is copied from the game. The game, however, only replicates several notable sections of the Carentan set in BoB; it's not an exact replica of either the set or the real town. --Scottie theNerd 04:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

weapons

Could someone more experienced please add a list of weapons and thier pictures? I would but I don't have time, I will later if I can. Thank you --Robin63 20:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The weapon list was removed. Please see WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a game guide and should not contain indiscriminate lists. If you are looking for game-specific information or would like to contribute such content, you might be interested in StrategyWiki. --Scottie theNerd 06:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I am going to change the pictures in the multiplayer section to screenshots from actual multiplayer. The ones posted in the multiplayer section are from the single player campaign.

||FrozenFood|| 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Updates

Ok, I made some minor changes. Feel free to change back the pictures to the originals if you do not like them.

||FrozenFood|| 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your pictures need upload tags, pronto. --Scottie_theNerd 06:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Multiplayer modes section

The multiplayer section along with its screenshots are over half the size of the entire article. The section as it stands violates WP:NOT in that it reads like an instruction manual, outlining the rules of each mode. This is clearly worthless information to readers who do not play the game, and the entire section can be summarised in one section with one reference. I will remove the images and replace the multiplayer modes if there are no disagreements or suggestions. --Scottie_theNerd 10:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cod3.JPG

Image:Cod3.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

COD Multiplayer Clan Pages

I'm apart of a gaming clan called Happy-Penguin (look at the HP in my name) for Call of Duty, UO, and Return to Castle Wolfstein. I would like to start a wikipedia page for my clan, but could use some HUGE help, if anyone is willing. I just registered about an hour ago, so I don't know much about the features of different kinds of text, adding pictures, etc. --HPJoker 03:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own gaming community. Creating an article to promote your clan will result in it being deleted speedily. --Scottie_theNerd 09:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude Ive seen your clan Before, Im in a clan Called The Dogg Pound, Hence, =TDP=, I used to be in <FuZo> Which was made By my dad and A few others from the Earlier clan that we Sprung off of called Area51. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.156.80 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of both of your clans, but none of them satisfy Wikipedia guidelines for notability. bibliomaniac15 05:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 10 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 1(c) highly recommends.
• The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) (Drought) 02:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tdm4.jpg

maybe an image that doesn't say "a dirty white boy" might be a good idea.

--82.15.233.238 21:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This image seems to feature several graphical glitches (as well as being dark overall), and seems like an extremely poor image to illustrate it's topic. Not to mention the racism in the fading chat lines. I'm removing it from the article.--CannedLizard 03:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a fine thing to be bold. However, Dirty White Boy isn't what I would consider racist given its connotation in popular usage. the_undertow ^talk 03:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and it was actually a nick rather than in the chat window. However, that wasn't my #1 reason for removing it, the #1 reason was the rather poor quality of the screen shot, seen here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Tdm4.jpg --CannedLizard 03:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you. It could be replaced by a better capture. the_undertow ^talk 05:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One sided view

I think that it should be noted that allot of people don't like the potrayal of the war from an allied perpective only, the game clearly makes axis look as the robotic bad people without emotions. In all the mission you fight against germans and there is not one battle that you can play wich is lost...It only shows the winning battles and makes it feel as though Germans had no succes whatsoever during the whole war. Also allot of things that the allied forces shout would be unexpictable if it was used in any other situations...for example, when they say "Germans!" in an insolating way or "you can heil hitler in hell" it makes it the it seems acceptable to be downtalk Germans...If they had a game where you would only kill black people and they would shout "Niggers!" and then open fire, they would severly boycott it, however, discriminating Germans is allright..that's how it seems. I myself am not German but I do think the game (along with allot of others actually) gives a bad potrayal of Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.145.187 (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to discuss this. Try a forum or someplace else. bibliomaniac15 02:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I also feel "Call of Duty" shows a clearly one-sided view, also the way Western Allies and Red Army are equally portrayed as fighters for freedom is a bad joke. I can't imagine this is a very widely spread opinion in the US since they were fighting against communist forces for decades onwards. Why are the main allied forces portrayed but no single axis force? I think this is a political and ideological statement and it should be noted.--MacX85 (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Character names

Just wondering: when do we ever see the British and American characters referred to by their first names? The game only calls them 'Pvt. Martin' or 'Sgt. Evans' in the briefing screens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.250.84 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought provoking..

Thought I might bring this to your attention:

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

--Broadbandmink (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By my count, the article is 1300 words, not 13000. Even if it were, that link doesn't take into consideration sub-articles for which WWII has dozens or hundreds if u count biographies. --Ephilei (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they were referring to every single article regarding Call of Duty-games taking place during ww2. Or it might have been a typing error. However, I think you've got a point there with all the sub-articles. But I also think that the editors who brought this up is onto something when it comes to certain priorities that are taking place in the wikipedia-community. --Broadbandmink (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to entire series

Does anyone agree with me that typing in Call of Duty should lead you to the series? peanutbutter685 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Its already got the This article is about the first game in the series. For the series as a whole, see Call of Duty (series)... at the top of the article so there's really no need. Ace blazer (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sorry bout my last edit to discussion page. Thought i was reverting the article itself. BTW whenever i looked to this article it was vandalised. Maybe it needs a protection of some sort?--81.213.176.56 (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are not enough vandal edits to justify the page for protection i will keep a eye on it thought. Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

alright thanks. btw the poster above you is me. forgot to login :P --Raijithetroll (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Continues. Will be watching this page --Raijithedarkspear (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just fixed the "Infobox VG" whose opening {{ were lost. Another vandalism? I wonder why someone should vandalize this page... --Lykos It (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"The game finishes with one more mission for each character. First, Private Martin's unit is northeast of Bastogne, Belgium on 15 January 1945. The unit clears out two bunkers and takes documents from them. The next mission has Sergeant Evans' unit near Burgsteinfurt, Germany on 2 February 1945. The unit destroys some mobile V-2 rockets and anti-aircraft guns. In the final mission, on 30 April 1945, Sergeant Voronin is returned to the 150th Rifle Division. His unit battles in Berlin to reach the Reichstag building, and they raise the Victory Banner atop the building.hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" The last sentence isn't showing up when I try to edit the article. Any suggestions on how to remove it? 64.56.53.2 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Steam

Do we need a piece stating the game is available on Steam? I mean it reads more like a piece of advertising than anything else. It makes sense to have a Steam reference where a game is integrated with Steam (e.g. Race 07, Red Orchestra, Valve games etc), but otherwise it's not relevant, and should be covered anyway by publisher in the boxout for each game individually. 217.43.22.74 (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Online

I've looked many places, but have not found if the new "port" will have online multiplayer. Or if Microsoft will just port it like the original xbox DLC without updates. Can anyone confirm or deny this.--Flynn M Taggart (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)