Talk:Star Wars: Battlefront II (2005 video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sequel

• Will they ever come out with (or announce) Star Wars: Battlefront 3. I mean, if they don't, I will be made, but I don't see why they wouldn't because it is a best-selling series- User:Cjpwes
  • Star Wars: Battlefront III is in the works, developed by Free Radical. KdogDS 00:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If they dont come out with one will they make a different game? by: --Cheetoman5 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Battlefront is the best selling starwars game of all time as of November 1 2005. It would be financial idiocy to not make this a long running series. J-stan ^Talk 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiplayer Server Hosting

Can you host a server and play on the same one like all FPS games? I host a Ut2004 server on my T1 with max players 32 and no one has any slow-downs. I was just curious if you can host in this game too, the requirements are lower than that game, but I just hope you can host your own, play on it via the same machine. Anyone confirm? Nope.

Yes you can host and play at the same time. However, dedicated servers (ones whose the host does not play on), tend to have better performance. 67.169.118.149 03:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Missions

Who put the extra missions and why?

What extra missions?

Before I deleted them, someone put false missions, like:

• Battle of Endor

• Twilight on Dagobah

• Mos Eisley Ambush

This has got nothing to do with the subject at hand but can someone add more pictures to this article? It'll look more... attractive.

Spell Check

I spell check and did everything else to the article, so I removed the copyediting tag. Your welcome!

Mike15 21:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for spell-checking the article. There are a few minor problems, and I'll clean them up - but thanks.

--Tokakeke 00:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! Who the crap took out the info box?! --72.1.205.79 15:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned Up:P

I did some clean ups, which i will still do more later:)

I cleaned up the "System Requirements": Direct X was said twice, another case, at the top it states Direct X 9C is needed 100%, when at the bottom it stated, the disc comes with a Direct X installion

I also cleaned up/deleted the "Demo Disc": all information were like GameFaqs. there were nothing based on Demo Disc, like if the Graphics wasn;t improved that time, if the storyline was different or if some weapons looks better than final version/released version >x<ino 10:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

MY DAYS! This article is packed with unuseful information, IT NEEDS CLEAN UP NOW!

Cleanup

• Took out the long description of the Utapau board; it's out of place, it's unnecessary, and it's a spoiler.

• The purpose of heavy weapons troops is not solely to attack vehicles from afar. They have small arms and land mines, too.

• I am requesting that several small articles be merged with this one (such as "Rebel Marksman" and "Clone Sharpshooter") but have left the internal links for now. Aside from that, I've cleaned up a lot of the internal links, un-linking links to nothing and removing some redirects. I'm sure I missed a few, but at least the article isn't filled with broken links.

• I’m not sure that it’s really necessary to list exactly how many rounds of ammo each character starts out with; seems like excessive detail. But I’m leaving it in for now – anyone have an opinion on this?

• I also tend to think it’s unnecessary to show every costume variant of every character for every board. What’s the value of that information? It really bogs the article down. I ‘’am’’ going to take that out; if someone really thinks it’s a terrible article without it, feel free to put it back in.

• Is the 501st actually called “Vader’s fist” at any point in the original trilogy? I know he has stormtroopers that hang around him, but is that nickname actually used in either the original movies or novelizations?

• I suggest removing the section on clone armor, but it’s evident that someone put some effort into finding out where the armor styles came from. So I’m leaving it in, but I think it at least needs to be pared down.

• I removed the section on “anti-troopers” from the neutral sides section. They are not a third party; they are the main enemy of the Empire on Kamino, at least as far as the campaign mode goes. Plus, I believe the quote on there, listed in its entirety, would be copyvio. This same info is summed up in “Cross-era story missions”.

• I merged the “creatures” section into the “neutral sides” section. Mostly redundant information.

I hope this all makes the article a bit more reasonable. Kafziel 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am also removing the "cleanup" tag; the article is significantly improved. That doesn't mean that there still isn't work to be done (including some of the points I mentioned above) but it is at least cleaned up. Kafziel 21:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

501st section

The 501st section is mostly useless information, feels extremely out of place, and much of it is in the story missions section. I took the liberty to get rid of it, since this articles has so many problems right now. I hope this doesn't upset anyone too much, and if it just kills someone inside for it to be gone, discuss your reasoning here, I guess. I don't feel it should be there, though. CountCrazy007 16:18, 27 December 2005

Vehicles section

I added the vehicles section. At this moment it's a skeleton, but I will finish it up tomorrow. Please don't delete it or anything in the meantime. Thanks. CountCrazy007 00:43, 28 December 2005

I reformatted the outline of the section to match the rest of the article. Rather than 25 huge headings and individual edit points, it is one consolidated section with bullets. Kafziel 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

STAP section filled in, more to come. Someone look at how I did the section. Is the use of the dash okay, or is there a better way to do that? CountCrazy007

Great work, but I hadn't realized there were separate articles for almost every vehicle on the list. I think the best thing to do here is to link to the existing articles. I set up working links to almost all of them; that way you can just click on the name and it will take you to the article, rather than having redundant information here. If you want to write descriptions of the three I couldn't find links to (or if you can find the links) please feel free to update them. Kafziel 22:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

someone plz insert the addition of the new maps on this WIKI. thanks, Darf-raider

thanks for editing

thx for adding my thread to this page:-) i'm still mad that PS2 owners get no downloadable content though. Wow, whats Lucasarts thinking when they decided to exclude PS2 users from the new maps/Heroes. It makes me sick.

Kaziel: U need to research the if theyre releasing extra maps for PS2: also include prices! why would u exclude prices for DOWNloadable content! plz include it

This is not an advertisement for Xbox Live, just an article about the game itself. It's important to mention the upgrades but the article shouldn't have anything about how cool the boards are, how "buff" the characters are, or how much the upgrades cost. If anyone needs to know the price, or more about the features, they can find out from Xbox or any number of other gaming sites.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely that they will release the boards for PS2; the Xbox version of the first Battlefront game had a downloadable Jabba's Palace board (the same as the one on Battlefront 2) and it was never released for PS2. These will probably be the same way, as the upgrades require more space than a memory card has available and most PS2 users do not have hard drives. Kafziel 19:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the price from the download section (again) and my reason for doing so is stated in the above paragraph. The article doesn't say how much the game itself is, and there is no reason (besides the obvious advertising reason) to say how much the upgrades cost. Once xbox.com has a page on the upgrade, an external link can directed interested readers to the information (including pricing). Kafziel 03:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have inserted an external link to xbox.com's page related to the Kashyyyk upgrade. Kafziel 01:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

STOP SCREWING UP MY DOWNLOADABLE CONTENT SECTION!!!!!!

Kafziel: I'll admit ur good at coding and stuff but take it from a real Star Wars fan, THEY want to know the price and that its improbable that Lucasarts will release new maps for the PS2 version of the game. So stop screwing it please. I'm not a vandal; I just want the articule done with more detail!!!!

I'm a Star Wars fan, too, my friend. If you look at my edit history, you'll see quite a lot of Star Wars articles. But if someone wants to know the price, they can click on the link I put in at the bottom of the page. This is not a price guide, and it's not a forum for video game reviews. The information on here needs to be unbiased; in other words, we don't say it's cool, we don't say the characters are awesome, and we don't say what a great deal the prices are. Besides being obviously plagiarized, your sections have the tone of an advertisement and that is not permitted.

If they're not going to release PS2 maps (which believe me, I think sucks too because that's what I play on) then it's not news. There's nothing to say about it, because it's not going to happen. Even the fact that it's not going to happen is not worth mentioning. Obviously if it was going to happen, we would have included it on the page. The fact that it is not there should make it clear enough.

I suggest you create a user page to make conversations easier, and try to keep from getting too upset about my changes. They are in line with the rules of Wikipedia. Kafziel 19:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Kaf, Wikipedia is not a game review site, forum or a place to hock your stuff.--Kross^Talk 19:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

well fine. If its wikipedia's rules, then I should shut my uneducated mouth. I'm sorry for being an idiot. I'm just mad at Lucasarts beyond the point of anger.

Commanding Troops

I don't know if this is the right forum to ask this question, but I am a relative newbie at Battlefront II and was reading through and saw this:

Private - Default rank- 1 soldier Sergeant - 20 medals- 2 soldiers Captain - 100 medals- 3 soldiers General - 300 medals- 4 soldiers

I have General status in my single player mode but see no way of "commanding" troops... is this a useable bonus or something that happens in the background and AI works around it? Murmur 14:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been meaning to put something in the article about this. Commanding troops isn't like in the original. It's much more basic, and you have less options about the commands you can give. I use PS2, so I don't know what you have to press on the PC or Xbox version, but for PS2 you aim at one of your guys and push the "up" button on the directional pad (not the knobs). You pretty much have the choice between "follow me" and "go away". That's it. The first time you push "up" the system will automatically give the order for him to follow you. If you push it again, it will tell him to get lost. If you do it at a vehicle, the system will give the order for it to stop. When you're driving a vehicle and aim at one of your guys, it will give the order for him to get in.

That's about all you can do, and they really don't listen well at all. I think this is probably the biggest flaw in BFII. The last parts of the Death Star and Hoth boards on Rise of the Empire are ridiculously hard when you can't get anyone to follow you. The command features are definitely not what they were in the first one, but you can get them to work sometimes when you really need it.

Hope that clears it up. Kafziel 17:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lots for that, that kind of info would be useful on the main page Murmur 08:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It is now explained in the "gameplay" section. Kafziel 00:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are still wondering use the d-pad to command troops. Not sure what side but it will show once you press it. Nice job getting to general tried so hard on that( 19, March 2007 joemama remember the name

This page needs to be gone through with a fine tooth comb

A lot of this article is poorly written, almost like a 10 or 11 year old did it. Not to be mean or anything, just saying that there's a lot of punctuation/grammatical errors that need to be fixed up. I'm still new, so I suggest someone experienced swing in and neaten it up a bit.

That's the nature of Wikipedia, particularly articles about video games and Star Wars. Parts of it probably have been written by 10 year-olds. I cleaned it up a couple of months ago, and maybe I'll do it again if I get a few minutes today. Kafziel 13:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, all video game related articles are always vandal. Especially, video games that are so popular and giving a great ratings
I say we inform the elder wiki members, to allow more watchful eyes on video game related articles!

>x<ino 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As Raul654 points out in his third law, it's impossible to make people fix pages they don't care about. Of all the editors on Wikipedia, I'm probably the one who tends to take the most care of Battlefront II. But it's not "my" article, and to keep from coming off as a dictator, I try to give other editors some leeway with what they contribute. I'm quick to remove vandalism, commercial links, and POV, but I let others contribute whatever information they feel is important. Every once in a while, I go through and clean up the entries. Doing it that way helps to avoid edit wars by changing or removing content immediately. But by all means, if anyone sees an error or typo, or something that just plain looks wrong, please feel free to be bold and edit the article. Kafziel 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yop...that is what I also do haswell. Let the editors edit the hell out of the article, later cleaned the heavens up!
But I still say...all vidoe game related articles needs focusing on!
Because that is the most section that gets vandal in Wikipedia!

>x<ino 18:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This is extremely unrelated and extremely late, and I don't want to whinge, but I don't like condemning 10 to 11 year olds. I was editing this when I was 12. No-one complained. (Actually, they did, but that was just because I couldn't code very well). Perhaps we should just judge on the maturity of the writers and not the actual age? Because it could be found offensive.

Cheats

There is no need for holding L2 and R2 while entering the cheats. All you have to do is enter them. I edited that out.

(Space): Marine/Pilot

I'm not sure about this, but are the "Hints" shown in line with an encyclopedia? Emmanovi 19:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say not. According to #8 here, video game articles should not include tips or walk-throughs. I've taken them out. Kafziel 13:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think they were, but I'm new and don't want to make mistakes...

Your thoughtfulness is appreciated. Thanks for the suggestion, and for discussing the proposal. Kafziel 17:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Content

The whole medals/rewards thing kinda falls into the category of gaming paraphernalia (that cheats and tips do as well) that doesn't belong in articles. I'm removing it, just to be sure. If anyone can bring up a justified reason to keep it, you're more than welcome to bring it back.--DethFromAbove 19:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the level of detail was too much, but medals are an important part of the game so I've put this short summary in instead: By accomplishing certain objectives, players will be awarded medals that can earn bonus power-ups during gameplay, including more powerful weapons and increased stamina. The bonuses are usually temporaray but can become permanent if enough medals are earned. That explains the concept without actually becoming a how-to. Kafziel 12:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging of Battle articles

I totally disagree with any merging of the battles into this article. (The notes at the bottom). If that is what is meant. Cvene64 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia or a faq?

The majority of this article feels like a slopily written walkthrough and includes unnecesary information. I suggest that a vetern Wikipedian rewrites the entire entry. --MafiaCapo 21:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not generally how it works. A lot of different people have put time and effort into this; it's not up to one person to completely rewrite it. Anything specific you have in mind? Kafziel 22:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For example, the bits about the various units seem bulky and go into unnecessary detail and the enviromental dangers section feels completely unwarranted. But I may be wrong as I am new to being a Wikipedian. MafiaCapo 02:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree it needs tidying up. I don't like the Environmental Dangers section either, but I wasn't sure whether to completely get rid of it, although it is quite obvious. The unit descriptions could be toned down as well. Emmanovi 12:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Both suggestions sound good to me. I wouldn't have a problem with getting rid of the environmental dangers section completely, and a lot of the detail on the clone troopers and their armor and all that could certainly be trimmed down. Kafziel 14:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed then? Shall we remove all the info on armour or shall we just say "The armour of the clone troopers has changed from Battlefront, yet these changes do not show on Geonosis." Emmanovi 16:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Faq? I do not see any frequently asked questions. Dudtz 6/30/06 3:05 PM EST

Mod

The "PC content" section of this article speaks of a mod released for the game. Was this mod released by LucasArts? Is there some reason that it is more notable than any of the other hundreds of Battlefront II mods out there? -- authraw 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I play Battlefront II on PS2 so I don't know first-hand, but yes, I believe it was put out by LucasArts. If that's the case, though, the "downloadable content" and "mod" sections should probably be lumped together. Kafziel 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really? Where would I find this mod? I've looked all over lucasarts.com and I can't seem to find it anywhere. :-/ -- authraw 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as I haven't been able to find this mod anywhere, and nobody can produce the link, I'm going to cut that part of this article out and put it right here until it's verified. :)

"A mod has been released for the PC version that changes the Capture-The-Flag mode of Coruscant to Jedi vs. Clones, and another which changes the Rebels into Anti-Troopers on Kamino. As with most independently made mods, there are some bugs in the program – including the possibility of a system crash – but most users reported excellent results with the Coruscant mod."

-- authraw 21:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

{Posted by Anonymous.) [Those are hex edit mods from the stone-age of bf2 modding. Lucasarts released an SDK (created by Pandemic)in march (finall y, along with a patch that was a joke. They even left in that thing iwth the super battle droid exploding into battledroid pieces-which any fool with the SDK could fix in 10 minutes flat.) for creating new maps altogether. Official link on their website. The modding community, cebtrally located at gametoast.comm has used it to convert all the old swbf 1 maps and release them as a pack. Unfortunately. No console hackers et al have joined the site to figure out how to create content for xbox or ps2.

I was the anonomous user who added gametoast.com to the external links. It is the only major modding site for bf2. Though some discussion is held on certain clan sites, and since gt is primarily anglaphone, on some other language sites (primarily german) even these modders have accounts on Gametoast.com which they frequent. Being an ad-less and unbiased out of the owners pocket website, I see no harm in posting a link for it.

Get all those newbies to download the mods, as it is currently somewhat difficult to play them online becuase they are only in the hands of about 20% of players.]

I'm a bit confused (sorry, I'm not a modder myself, so I'm a little bit rusty on the terminology.) The mod itself--is it an official mod released by Lucasarts? Or was it just created with the modding tools released by Lucasarts? The modding tools should probably be mentioned. This mod--well, it depends on whether or not it's an official mod. -- authraw 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"A mod has been released for the PC version that changes the Capture-The-Flag mode of Coruscant to Jedi vs. Clones, and another which changes the Rebels into Anti-Troopers on Kamino. As with most independently made mods, there are some bugs in the program – including the possibility of a system crash – but most users reported excellent results with the Coruscant mod."

Read the bold part. Wizrdwarts 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

someone find out if they are going to make battlefront III. i think it would be pretty cool to be able to play birth of the rebellion or something about the rebellion in campaign mode. Ted 08:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC) {Posted by Anonymous.) [Sorry for disappearing, but I wasn't refering to a specific mod, I was refering to the tools released through LucasArts by Pandemic(called the Software Development Kit). They allow the creation of entirely new levels using new models or the archive of all source files the models, vehicles, and characters featured in battlefront 2. Source files are the files and picture/texture files that the people working at pandemic edited and changed to creat the different units maps etc, before they were 'compiled' or 'munged' into a form that battlefront.exe or the console can understand. If you want to learn more visit the LA website, and for examples of new maps, you can visit gametoast.com]

Inconsistencies section

I think this section should be removed. First of all, as someone else previously stated, every Star Wars videogame ever made has inconsistencies with the films. They always will. Secondly, as can be seen in recent history, it's an open invitation for original research. Finally, it simply doesn't belong here. Trivia sections in articles about videogames are redundant; videogames themselves are entirely trivial, so any relevant content should be merged where appropriate or deleted.

I've been working on this page for a long time, and it has been a real battle keeping the fancruft out of it and satisfying those who like to slap cleanup tags on everything related to Star Wars. I ask those of you who would ordinarily balk at my request to reconsider your usual position and let this one go. The content in that section is indefensibly unencyclopedic, and the article will be much more credible without it. Kafziel 03:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I had deleted that section previously but reverted immediately because frankly I was afraid people would revert my delete and bring up some gray area in wikipolicy that I couldn't get around. See, I'm a weak, weak guy. I also figured someone put in a whole assload of hard work into researching that; I never once thought of bringing up NOR. I really should learn to be bold in future edits.--DethFromAbove 23:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I'm suggesting they be at the very least merged into this article and prosified into like one paragraph each. — Deckiller 17:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I proposed the merge of three minor battles that take place as missions during the game. That stuff should be merged into a 3-4 paragraph story section that covers things in a concise and non-flowery manner. This will essensially morph the bulleted mission list into a prose story summary. — Deckiller 18:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would support deleting the three minor battle articles, if you want to propose that. I don't think they should be merged, because they are basically fancruft anyway. They're mentioned here as missions, along with all the others, and I think that's enough.

I would also support redirecting the list of maps here, because each location is already listed here. It's completely redundant.

I guess the list of heroes could be merged here, although it led to an awful lot of junk when it was here before. You can't just mention a handful in the context of the paragraphs; other editors will insist on adding their favorites, until we're back to having a list again.

I definitely think merging the lists of units and vehicles is a bad idea. First of all, they were already split from this article because it was too long. Secondly, there's plenty of precedent for lists of that sort; I'm not crazy about them myself, but they are notable enough by any standard. Converting them to prose would make them much less organized, and clutter up this already cluttered article. Kafziel 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, although eventually people may want to delete the units and vehicle lists/sections anyway. Look at the featured article Final Fantasy X — there is not a list of spells or abilities, but there is a brief mention of their usage in the gameplay section. — Deckiller 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'll put the missions up for deletion, but I do think that creating a story section will help round out this article and give it a boost if you're going for GA or FA in the future. But then again, this isn't a story based game. — Deckiller 18:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a section ("Story missions") that summarizes the 501st legion storyline and each mission therein. It used to be longer, but people complained that it was too much of a how-to so I cut the summaries down by a lot. Kafziel 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh that's perfect! I must've overlooked it. — Deckiller 18:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I wash my hands of this.

Someone else have fun policing all the shit that's going to pour into this article after all the sub pages are deleted. Enjoy removing the tips, cheat codes, fan fiction, original research, and lists of all sorts that poured in on a daily basis before we split those off. I don't even like Battlefront II, so I'm done trying to make this into a decent page. Have at it, kids. Kafziel 20:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you. This article is going to be completely unmanageable when all the other stuff gets added into it. Teh tennisman 02:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I might be able to work my magic, we'll see. It could go either way. When users see a well-established article without bulleted lists and the like, it will usually turn them around. We shall see. — Deckiller 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this still sux. I am getting sick of Star Wars here, it all sucks. --teh tennisman ^{Speak your piece!}_{People person!}FREE OWNAGE CLICK HERE 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Communications Array and Sensors Relay

Okay, I was playing Battlefront and I noticed that my target said Communications Array and Sensors Relay. But the narrarator guy says "Their Communications Relay has been destroyed" and "Their Sensors Array has been destroyed. Which is right, the Narrarator guy or the targeting?--Sidious1701^(messages) 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought it's just two names for the same thing - I'll check the game manual....

Right. It doesn't mention anything. I'll see if I can find an offical website...

Nope. This offical website just has a small intro and some pictures, no names that I can find. Sorry. I'd pick either. Emmanovi 12:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's because "array" and "relay" are two words with similar meanings... Whenver he says Communications he is talking about your target that has the word communications in it, and same with sensor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.21.91 (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does this really matter? Can't Lucasarts make a mistake? QHand (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rigged Levels

Who here thinks most of the levels are rigged so that one side wins. especially kashyyk to the droids.

The olny one where one side almost always wins is Polis Massa. Besides, this is for discussing the article, not the game. Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 16:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Mos Eisley(Assault) seems to be rigged for the heroes. Endor seems to be rigged for The Rebel Allience. Dudtz 8/8/06 6:06 PM EST

I don't think "rigged" is quite the right word. Unbalanced, perhaps, but that's beyond the point--it's my experience that most of the levels are quite balanced, but of course they can't all be perfect. In any case, our discussing it here isn't really appropriate, as it can't be added to the article anyway. May I suggest taking up your grievances with the games on a forum somewhere? :-) --authraw 00:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Everytime I play online, it could go either way. (usually to my team. Surprising, since I suck. I would be a HUGE liability...I accidenly killed five teammates at once) 70.111.177.30 21:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This game sucks. Kamino is just about the only fair level. (A Proud Star Wars Geek)

In Kashyyyk, the clones get an infinite number of Wookiees as long as they have the main base. That balances the level out. As for unbalanced, try Hunt in Mos Eisley. The Jawas always beat the Tuskans, no matter what side you're on. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 05:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Polis Massa is the only one that seems unwinable for the Empire/Republic, although I know it can be done. Endor as the empire is doable. Most of the Hunt levels are unbalanced, though. Kashyyyk is easy as Empire/CIS but is easily winnable as the other side if you know what you're doing. All the Clone Wars space battles are biased to the Droids because of the homing rockets and the lumbering ARC-170s. But really, a relatively experienced player can beat most battles even if they are unbalanced to the other side.

The droids do seem to win a lot on Kashyyyk and Death Star, but I have won both on Republic side. And yes, all the hunt battles the humans or droids always lose. And I agree with space battles, somehow my brother ends up with 30 more points than me even though I kill things a lot faster, but I have beat those before.71.63.21.91 (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that the game makes the AI on the side with more human players automatically stupider, don't you? QHand (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Taunts and War Chatter

once on dagobah, as a stormtrooper, a rebel killed me. He then started to continue shooting at me with his pistol (even though I'm dead, like all rebels do) and muttered "Son of a b****". Could some one get that into the Taunts and War Chatter section? I have moral values against writing or saying cuss words. KdogDS 22:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I've never heard something like that, and most Star Wars games are pretty free of bad language (except for the occasional use of the word "damn".) Is it possible you misheard? --authraw 16:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The moral question of dubiously making someone else do your dirty work aside... I have a feeling it was a 'mishear'- I've never heard anything of that sort, and I almost always play as the Empire. Earlier this week, someone mistakenly heard "the battle is ours to win" as "the battle is ours, dude". So strange things happen. That said- I'm not really sure that section belongs in an encyclopedia article to begin with. Cheers --DarthBinky 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I feel the same way about the section. I've come really close to removing it several times but I'm never quite sure. --authraw 17:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sure.KdogDS 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone say "sunuvabitc*", but they do shoot you when you're dead. Annoying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.53.216.186 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

View

Would it be worth mentioning that in Battlefront, you can switch to an "in cockpit" view, while in Battlefront 2 you can't?

you can still go to a first-person view, but if your thinking about buttons and glowy lights and such, then you are correct. QHand (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

game system

Bear in mind that this game was not just released for console- it's also released for Windows.

I refer specifically to the Gameplay section which talks about hitting "up" on the directional pad- there's not necessarily a gamepad involved, and on PC it's F1, F2, F3, etc by default.

I'd fix that section myself (it's a bit long, and a little more indepth than really necessary), but I'm not familiar with the console side of it. --DarthBinky 15:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Level descriptions

Some anon IPs keep changing them to these overly florid descriptions, and I keep changing them back. The reasons I do this are that the florid descriptions are unencyclopedic, and they don't really help understand the material better, not to mention that they're incorrect in some ways because Tantive IV isn't a planet, nor is the Death Star (I've been keeping those separate since they don't appear in the Galactic Conquest campaigns).

For example, describing Polis Massa's map as "a hospital facility on an asteroid" could mean anything and doesn't give the reader much of an idea of what it's about. But saying it's the "asteroid facility seen in Revenge of the Sith" gives a frame of reference- that's what it's actually based on, so anyone who has seen the film will have an understanding of what it looks like.

So I stand by the current descriptions (with the "..seen in X" bits). If anyone has a good reason to go to the florid descriptions, let's hear it. I'm always open to suggestions if it'll make the article better. Cheers! --DarthBinky 03:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I didn't know you felt that way. I thought I could just tidy it up and put a better description than the "seen in X" explanations. You're completely right. Maybe I could stick with your format, but put my own description as well? I'm sure we can work something out. From insomniac_dog.

well, for combining them, what are you thinking? Bear in mind that the descriptions should be short- this isn't a game guide, after all. Also remember that descriptions should be neutral in tone- so things shouldn't be described as "mighty", "dreaded" or "beautiful". Cheers --DarthBinky 03:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making up an extra name and sticking it between the planet and the description? And why do you keep removing the wikifications of the films? They should be wikified the first time they appear... --DarthBinky 04:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed a few things. Note that Mustafar isn't a factory, it's a bunker (it says so in the novelization for Revenge of the Sith), Mos Eisley only actually appears in A New Hope (and the celebration thing at the very end of Return of the Jedi), and I see no evidence that Felucia is a marsh. There's a river and some hills- marshes don't have hills. There may have been other things, but those come to mind immediately. --DarthBinky 04:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have put the description word after the palnet because if you highlight the planet in Instant Action it shows the planet name and its description. It says Felucia: Marshland. Thanks for the Mustafar fact, I'll keep that in mind. I'll also try to keep the neutrality intact in this article, I forgot about that law of Wikipedia editing. insomniac dog.

Frigate information

I changed "Frigates of the Clone War era are larger than those of the Galactic Civil War era." into "These frigates are an additional objective in space maps, as a source of points towards a victory. They also are armed with autoturrets, which many players find a nuisance." I felt the second statement was more encyclopedic and relevant. There's a reason the Clone Wars frigates are bigger (because they're not actually frigates in canon), but I felt that going into that was unecessary.

Also, after I changed it, for some reason, the entire article went nuts. Could someone fix it? I don't know what happened, didn't mean to do it, and I don't know how to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.231.106.113 (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I see it happen all the time

Unfortunately when it comes to game articles, users are always in an uproar. Let it be noted, that according to the Wikipedia users, this is an encyclopedia without any limits. Not that I'm suggesting you vandalize the page. I just think anything that has some value to the article should be added. I've seen entire articles become stubified just because its a game article and it isn't encyclopedic. Then again, I don't think World of Warcraft is an article anyone would want to stubify due to its huge impact on popular culture. So please, just as another reminder from a Wikipedian who is too lazy to log in anymore, keep a cool head. Try to implement any beneficial contributions. After all, it's not like the Wikipedia doesn't like contributions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.28.155 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Hunt Mode

There was an error in the hunt mode description. It said that one side must kill fifty of the other side's units in order to win. In truth, the player can set the number anywhere from fifty to one hundred and fifty. I have corrected this mistake. Now I understand that not all versions go up to 150 so I fixed it with a general statement that will apply to all.--Doncroft 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked over more thoroughly, and I found the same error in the Assault mode description as well. I fixed it in likewise manner that will apply to all and not be falsely specific.--Doncroft 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on the PS2 I believe the score can be set up to 1000 instead of 150 like on the PC.--Baejung92 22:41, 13 April 2007

BattleFront III?

Somewhere I heard they're making a BF3. Is this true? I'm all over it. I heard the too check out my Will they make starwars battlefront 3. --Cheetoman5 05:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

unsigned comment was added by 66.53.216.186 (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Its not exactly called Battlefront 3, its Battlefront Rogue Squadron and it has already come out.Gunnerdevil4 19:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah, but that is spefically for the PSP. He is talking about the sequel to Star Wars Battlefront II, which would most likely be for most game systems. QHand (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PC Version of the game

I have noticed that in the article a chapter is about the PSP version. But can a thought also be spared for the PC version?

The PC version is the only platform which can handle more than 16 AI. In a battle you can have up to 32. Also the following maps are available in XL. (A extremely large battle. Similar to conquest but the CPs will no longer be capturable) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.209.7.153 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

You can actually have up to 64 units... anyway, it might be a good idea.--Baejung92 22:43, 13 April 2007

64 units is the max people that can join a server, not the number of AI. QHand (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiplayer/Admin section

Should we add a section related to multiplayer mode and the special Admin Commands. I know a few commands so I could contribute. But I wasnt sure if it was worthy of feature.Magikarcher 07:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the whole page?

This page used to have loads of information but now it only has 2 sections whats up with that? I think we need to put back all the information and make the page what it used to be. RiseDarthVader 10:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a gameguide; information about levels and bosses and guns and heroes and whatever belongs at gamespot, not here. --EEMeltonIV 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well how come Star Wars: Battlefront shows gameguide like information? and how come this page is showing information about renegade squadran? shouldnt it be saved for that page? RiseDarthVader 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't. It shouldn't. Yes. Showers 00:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The page is perfectly fine. Yes, I now that your all going to say that it has way too much info. But when I buy a game I usually look at the wikipedia article and get some reviews. It's like the old saying, If you dress nice people will treat you nice. Oh, and I'm the one who did the complete overhaul. RC-0722 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not fine. Wikipedia is not a game strategy website. It's an encyclopedia. Look at the Halo: Combat Evolved article for an example of what a game article should look like. Almost the entire article needs to be rewritten. Showers 05:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Before I edited it, the game mode section had those stupid texting abbreviations. Now you can't tell me that this isn't better than that. Are you going to tell me now that we don't need a complete rundown of the 2006 Rose Bowl just because were aren't ESPN.com? RC-0722 15:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It just needs to be rewritten into an encyclopedic manner instead of a game guide. It doesn't matter if it used to be worse or not. I'm talking about what it should be. The Halo: Combat Evolved or Half-Life 2 articles are examples of what a video game article should look like. Showers 23:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Then how come this discussion is taking place after I fixed the article. This game is best selling game in star wars history and it deserves a good article. RC-0722 02:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It still has a long way to go. It may have alot of content but alot of it is content that shouldn't be there. Take a look at WP:NOT#GUIDE as well as WP:CVG/GL. There should not be info on class costs or how much ammo a weapon has etc. Mission lists should be deleted. Class lists should be rewritten into a couple of paragraphs on basic info. References need to be added. Etc, etc, etc. Most of it needs to be rewritten in order to be encyclopedic. A good chunk of it needs to be deleted. Most of this stuff belongs on a gaming site not an encyclopedia. Showers 03:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Showers let me ask you something, do you own Star Wars: Battlefront 2? RC-0722 02:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I do Showers 03:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I tell you what, leave me a list of what you think needs fixing on my talk page, and we'll see if we can reach an agreement. RC-0722 05:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I mention the word compromise and suddenly everybody loses interest. Wow. RC-0722 18:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Holliday weekend here you know. Ill get started working on something. Showers 07:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

what did you have in mind? RC-0722 03:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I really like how the article looks now, I just want us to keep it in line with WP:NOT#GUIDE. That was the reason why it was so short in the first place. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So what do we need to do? RC-0722 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We just need to be careful. While Halo:Combat Evolved is a good reference point, I don't think using it benefits us as we have a less popular subject. I let the video game wikiproject know about this discussion, and have asked them to take a look at it. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw your post on the main project talk page and thought I'd come by and take a look. I agree, the place does read a lot like a guide. I can give you some suggestions though on improving it.

• Condense a lot of what you have into a gameplay section. This section can cover how it plays out (you're new features section can forgo the list format and have actual sentances by comparing it to the previous game), the new modes section can be included here as well.
• Just scrap the mission section. That definately reads like a guide. People coming to read the article don't want to know about every level, that's what guides are for.
• Troop classes, etc. can be put into either the gameplay section or a characters section (which could encompass some of what you have near the bottom of the page).
• Award weapons are don't need to be mentioned in that much detail. You could mention in one simple sentance in the gameplay section that they exist. No more needs to be stated. Same goes for the hero's section, etc.
• Live patch section should be renamed and made into paragraph format.
• Behind the scenes section is really just trivia. Either incorporate it into the article, or get rid of it.

Wow, that was more than I thought it was. You could also use a reception section, development (if you can find any research), and lots of citations. That should keep you guys busy for a while. I didn't mean to be so harsh, but I hope you take the contrustive critisim well. Zemalia 18:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. This page is way too detailed. A good rule of thumb—if something is only interesting to a person actually playing the game, it should be removed. Zemalia has some great comments above. Pagrashtak 20:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As requested on WT:VG, I'm throwing in my observations. Firstly, the article doesn't follow the guidelines set in WP:VG/GL. It currently reads as a list of features and differences from the previous game, Star Wars: Battlegrounds. The problem with this format is that the information is difficult to understand for the casual reader and does not put forward enough information about the game as a whole. Because all the features (or differences) are listed out in one section, all the following game information is very abrupt and out of place. For example, there is no section on the gameplay or plot, but subsections spring into information regarding cross-era campaigns and heroes. There needs to be more cohesion within the article, which means reorganising the article into the standard "Plot", "Gameplay", "Reception" and possibly "Development" section. This will also open the research field to incorporate press releases and reviews, thereby fulfilling the citation requirements.

Basically, the article in its current form is too disorganised for someone unfamiliar with the game, and should be restructured and compressed to form more helpful, relevant and sourced prose. --Scottie_theNerd 14:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do about a development section, and maybe some trivia? RC-0722 14:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TRIVIA. Generally speaking, it is unwise to include trivia, as the information can either by incorporated into the main article, or is irrelevant. For the time being, I suggest that priority be given to Plot and Gameplay, as the information is already present in the article and needs reorganising. --Scottie_theNerd 14:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Temuera Morrison

There's a disparity between this article and the Temuera Morrison article: this article states that Morrison did not voice all of the ingame Clone Troopers, but the latter article states that he did. Can anyone identify exactly which voices he does deserve credit for? I'm having trouble finding that info.24.8.20.66 00:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Battlefront II game manual has David Boat listed as the voice of Republic Infantry. Lists Temuera as having done Boba Fett, Jango Fett, Republic Officer 1, and Retired Clone Trooper. Showers 05:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Past Tense

I noticed that a lot of this article is written poorly and in past tense for some reason. Instead something being "is", it's "was"

"Thermal Detonator: The standard explosive for soldiers, these were grenade-like weapons that could stick to or bounce off surfaces. They were thrown by the hand and were effective for clearing away or damaging small groups of enemies."

And there's a lot more, I just don't get it. And other times it says a weapon "could" fire a blast or beam. I'm pretty sure it "does"

They were thrown by the hand and were effective for clearing away or damaging small groups of enemies."

71.238.255.214 03:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It says it like that because star wars happened "a long, long time ago," Hence the past tense :). RC-0722 03:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The content of the article refers specifically to the game and not the in-universe timeline. The usage of tense should consider that, and not the setting of Star Wars unless it is a specific plot-related item. --Scottie_theNerd 15:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sequel Edit

I noticed that the "Sequel" section hasn't been edited since the release, i have fixed it to show the release date for Star Wars: Battlefront: Renegade Squadron. -- Alec92 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. RC-0722 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

i ani't getting' it

I beat the campain and thought "that Kamino level was fun, I'll play it again" buuuuuuuuuut, when i tried to find it, I couldn't. could someone shead some light here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Leader (talk • contribs) 05:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] RC-0722 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd have to play rise of the empire the whole way again. Or you could just play an instant action Kamino battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.21.91 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have heard that when hosting a game online for the PC, you can type in "admin/ addmap/ kam1c_c" and the next map will be the conquest mode. I have not tried this though, but the only bad thing that could happen would be it gives you a fatal error and exits out of the game. (also, you realize that this isn't encyclopedia material, so someone WILL delete it) QHand (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this cool thing...

I saw a video on YouTube, which had this guy who had modded BF2 so he could use the Republic Commando.

Here's the link: (enter this in the address bar) http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=3lcPeIaGgac&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.253.147 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have that mod. It's cool. RC-0722 (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

GA

someone want to nominate this article to be a good article? I would but I don't have the time. Kimu (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I will once it's properly sourced and formatted. It's close, but not there yet. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Well, as I would say; Lets kick this pig! Lets Kick This Pig! (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking to expand the reception with reviews from more sources, cite the plot, and develop and 'Development' section. Then it should be comprehensive enough for GA. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Glitch?

On Battlefront II for Xbox, if you are force choking with Count Dooku or the Emperor, and while you are doing that switch to force lightning, you are still choking the other person but he dies faster and you never run out of force energy because you are using lighting. Could this be considered a glitch worth writing on this article?Stevv (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, especially since it might just be your game. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 14:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Its a glitch on all platforms.92.3.43.68 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if others report that it happens, should we add it to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevv (talk • contribs) 02:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

it does that on my game also, it IS a glitch. QHand (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheat Section Imperfections

Alright, first of all, there are code sections of random parts of the text on the cheat section, which is wierd. Then, someone posted that the whole Mos Eisley Assault is a cheat, which it is not. Then, we need to specify which platforms and give better info on the cheats listed, maybe get affirmation from others that these work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevv (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, technically we aren't supposed to have cheats, so I removed them. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 03:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Does that also mean we shouldnt post the glitch that I mentioned just above this thing?Stevv (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1