Jump to content

Talk:Driver 2

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

Official Site Mirrors

[edit]

The site no longer exists of course because the game is so old, however I have some mirror links which contain the sites from the game, back in the days when the game was released.

Non Shocked Shocked News Page

PS2 Port Discussion

[edit]

Driver 2 was NOT released for the PS2. It is a Psx title that never ported over onto the PS2 (no games did this, I think). I still have my copy of Driver 2 for the Ps1.

What I attempted to say, but failed to submit, was that I had also noticed this and was planning to correct it later tonight when I updated the infobox. Anyway I have done that now. Also, to be extremly pedantic, PSX is no longer the correct designation for that console. In future if you see such an error, feel free to make the correction yourself. Ian Moody 15:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Driver 2 title

[edit]

I dont know about anyone else, but isn't the correct gmae title for Driver 2: Driver 2: Back on the streets? I do of course have the British version of the game. --Kilo-Lima 17:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Ų[reply]

Well, my copy (and the Amazon.com copy) has Driver 2: the Wheelman Is Back. I think it's best to leave the page at Driver 2, but I'll put a note about the full titles.—thegreentrilby 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The correct title is Driver 2: The Wheelman Is Back. i only know this cause im a big video game freak and i played that game enough to beat it 100%.the juggreserection 16:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the correct title is Driver 2: Back on the Streets as it is a British developed game and this is the original European title. However the spine of the UK PS1 game simply says Driver 2. Dell9300 (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glitches

[edit]

When I drive in Havana, it sometimes appers several sylinders up in the road that I crash into. Perhaps that can be taken in to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jørgen88 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glitches section

[edit]

I've removed the glitches section. It reads a LOT like a game-guide rather than an encyclopedia article. I'm looking for reliable sources that state that there were numerous glitches present in the game so we can mention glitches in the article, but I haven't found any yet. If anyone has some, please do add them :) Grayda (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This section just keeps coming back. It definitely reads like a game-guide or a personal website. I've removed it again, but if it comes back, I suggest we semi-protect this to prevent unregistered users adding their own glitch information again.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayda (talk • contribs) 01:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glitches section

[edit]

Shit, Why can't ya all leave the ****ing glitches section alone, 213.213.129.166 (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ah **** i will stop this ****ing vandalism as you ****ing call it ****ing shit 213.213.129.166 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open World?

[edit]

The category "open world games" was removed as unsourced. Here are the sources, reliable and otherwise I can find calling this an open world game

Pretty clear this game is sourced as open world. SPACKlick (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First isn't reliable as per Wikipedia regarding retailers: "Retailers are only considered reliable sources for games that have already been released, and even then, only for information regarding release dates and the existence of games on a particular platform. However other secondary or primary sources should be used if available. Retailers posting future dates for games not yet released raise a red flag as to the legitimacy of the statement, and should not be used unless confirmed by a more reliable source". The second one is a website I've never even heard of, and looking at the Google Search engine for reliable sources for games, that website doesn't come up when entered. The book is reliable. So that's one. Iso Zone isn't reliable because that's a Forum, and forums don't have editorial insight that articles do. Freezenet I don't know if that's a reliable sources, as its not listed on either checklist on here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games. Needs at least one more reliable source if Freezenet.ca isn't.Dohvahkiin (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only found this as a source: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/driver-2-advance-review/1900-2895730/. I'm really looking hard, but none of them say it's open world or has one, none say it's free-roaming besides GameSpot, and none says it's a sandbox game either. it's difficult to make a case for this.Dohvahkiin (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Giantbomb describes it as "Free-roaming" and describes the whole series as Open World. NowGamer implies it's sandbox by saying it expands on Driver which it describes as sandbox. unseen64 has it in the sandbox category. Again not saying any of these are the best sources, just the ones we have. SPACKlick (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only Giant Bomb staff reviews can be used as official sources. Giant Bomb is a wiki site, which means it's edited by people. For instance, I was able to add Dragon Age II to open world there, and wasn't able to remove it. NowGamer isn't working right now. That should be acceptable along with GameSpot to keep it in the category. NowGamer is owned by Imagine Publishing which also owns gamesTM, which is a verified source on Wikipedia. I can't check it though because the page doesn't load.Dohvahkiin (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now Gamer is working for me, the relevant quotes are Driver was also the first game to really stir imaginations as to what could be achieved when you combine polygons with a virtual sandbox. ... Driver was unarguably a watershed sandbox title, one that sits shotgun beside the Grand Theft Auto series and classics like Turbo Esprit and Elite. And it still remains the best selling episode in the series to this day. ... One thing separating Driver from its sequels was the fact that Tanner stayed…well, pretty much undercover, and inside a car for the entire duration of the game – save for cut-scenes. But Reflections would later add on-foot sections in Driver 2. ... Given the success of Driver, the game saw a sequel the following year. Larger than the previous game, Driver 2: Back On The Streets added a two-player split-screen mode and allowed Tanner the freedom to explore the city on foot and commandeer other vehicles. Not definitive really however this is all pretty academic. Given how widely, admittedly in nonRS, it's referred to as open world or sandbox and how clearly the gameplay, as described in the article fits the definition of open world, WP:Blue could well apply. SPACKlick (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, a lot of the games I took out may be in the case of WP:Blue. I'm generally new at this, though. So a lot of the games I took out, I've never played before, and since I've never played them before, and they don't have sources to cite backing up some info, even though a lot of people would agree that games like GTA and Driver are open world, I've got nothing to base that off of. Therefore, being that I'm literally going through each game and checking to see if it has verifiable sources, I'm more likely to remove those as unsourced unless proved otherwise. Games I've played before, such as Morrowind, and even Arena and Daggerfall, I'm more likely to leave in even though there aren't many sources supporting those because I've seen first hand what they are. I think that's a problem though, especially as we get more and more away from those older games, is that there's less info on the webs regarding them, so there are more likely to be editors who revert them (like me). Granted that I started getting in to games during the PS2 era, GTA: Vice City was the game I remember my dad playing the most on that, and because I've seen how it's played and its playing style, I'm more likely to leave it be. Wikipedia is eventually going to have to evolve with the times, as I doubt any of the nine or ten year olds who will eventually become editors here, have ever even heard of the original Driver and Grand Theft Auto. It's a sign of the times is all I'm saying. Common sense knowledge changes with the time.Dohvahkiin (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Driver 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) 04:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Driver_2&oldid=1198912738"