Talk:Spider-Man 2 (2004 video game)

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

Several versions[edit]

The several versions are quite different, but should all probably be covered in this article with emphasis on the console version (as it was the most successful). Confusingly, the one for the PC was apparently designed for children. --Mrwojo 16:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

YEAH! EXACTLY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.82.4, 09:12, 15 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, i should have put some work by showing the differences of the versions, they are different. Yes the pc version was for children...so...what?

Spider-Man2 pc version, is the same has the console, but different controls and mad by different people.
Spiderman 2 pc : we was the childrens version..so! Atleast it is still spiderman 2, they they broke down the facts, so children can enjoy this game better!

>x<ino 08:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Warehouse[edit]

At the end of the game, you can unlock a warehouse at the spidey-stores that lets you fight in timed, endurance, and boss rounds (unlocked in that order). The Boss rounds include a boss called Calypso (article needs serious work) so I thought it notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Lewk (talk • contribs) 18:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What warehouse? i checked every cheats, i didn't see any unlocking warehouse.

Article needs serouis work, yes it does...and what work have you done to it?
I will do some research on that "Warehouse unlock" and you give me some link that says you can
And i will put some efforts to this article

>x<ino 08:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After beating the game, you can go to the shops and unlock the movie theater and the battle arena. The battle arena is in the warehouse that you previously fought Shocker in. Neum 06:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes i know there was an unlock for unlocking the movies. I didnt know that battle arena was there? link please to where it says you can unlock battle arena:D >x<ino 18:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i remember that, its just a series of waves of enemies from the game that you have fought. It keeps on going until you lose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.44.145 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderman 2 video game article[edit]

  • Spiderman movie article are quit BIG
  • Spiderman video game are also BIG aswell
  • So i am thinking we should make this Spiderman 2 videogame BIG aswell

What we must do,

    • Make a spiderman 2 video game (console version) article: which we have done now!
    • Make a spiderman 2 VG GBA version
    • Make a Spiderman 2 VG PC version
    • Make a Spiderman 2 VG DS version
    • Make a Spiderman 2 VG PSP version
the DS and PSP can be merged! PSP and DS are rivals, which one is better
or GBA and DS can be merged because they are both for Nintendo, so Nintendo articles can be linked together

All atricle must be linked to this main article!

what do you think?

i will be starting a article on one of em, but the problem is the name >x<ino 08:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CLEAN UP[edit]

I did some major clean up's on this article, which was badly edited.

  • Information were packed inside it, like Gamefaqs. for example how to perform glitches..!? what is that
  • Missions, i deleted the Green Missions & Purple Missions, because it is not grammaized, it is using the word "You" instead of talking about the character "Spiderman" and it is just like Gamefaqs.

This article will be "stub" for more informtion, and also more strong trivia, the other ones were weak

And it will need more clean up's

>x<ino 11:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Also, this article mentions the ability to explore all of NYC, which simply isn't true. One can explore Manhatten, Ellis Island, Liberty Island, and Roosevelt Island, not the rest of the city (Queens, etc). User:MUSpud2 19 December 2005

It was so stupid fool that edited it, thinking he knows all >x<ino 21:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderman video game articles[edit]

well i have decided to make a

It have a link to the new articles i will make for Spiderman 2 games( It's like a man article with disam...link to spidy games) >x<ino 21:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception[edit]

Critical reception The game was released to generally positive reviews. The most popular aspect of the game was the web-swinging mechanic. However, parts of the game were highly criticized, such as the dullness of the side missions and the linearity of the story objectives (which many saw to be contrary to the developers' idea of creating a free-form game).

How do we know there is a critic to the game!?

Do you have any link for it

But anyway, it might be:P

>x<ino 16:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC:younger audience?[edit]

I can't see that this game is particularly aimed towards children. If it was, I think the statement in the article needs expansion to explain how this was so (ie: in what way would the console versions have been more adult oriented?). The titles have been confusing though. I seem to remember that there was a game released for the PS1 or PS2 that looked great, but there was a version of the game released on the PC which was specifically marked on the box as being geared towards children.

I would suggest that, if the game on the PC had a slightly different (more simple) format, then there could have been any number of reasons for that - including technical reasons or a basic re-design for the platform. In other words, if it was in any way more 'simple' in layout or whatever, then stating that the game was aimed at a younger audience could be seen as POV. --Mal 05:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCREENSHOT![edit]

I object to the screen shot by IGN as it is not a screenshot of this game! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.73.56 (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours[edit]

Wikipedia does not allow Original Research, so why are they here? If you can get some sources for them, they can stay, but currently they must be removed. J.J.Sagnella 11:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover they're poorly written in addition to being wrong, too (I was the lead programmer on the game). Removing them now. MKV 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead programmer! We're very privileged to see you here on Wikipedia, Just so you know the game's great nad I've been playing it for months still without 100% completetion. Just one question, how hard is it to complete the game with 100%? Is it possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.J.Sagnella (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliments. In regards to completiong, yes, it's hard, but it's doable. MKV 15:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also extremely obnoxious that 69.165.66.220 would add them back. Thanks for removing again J.J. MKV 04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you need more information on wikipedia's rule on this, type WP:OR into the search button. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella(Happy first wiki-anniversary to me)]] 06:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what was wrong with what I've written? I said they were "rumors" for a reason. I have heard of no one completing this game entirely. If neither of those are true, then what does happen when you reach 100% completion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.66.220 (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You get the Game Master Award and/or realise you've just wasted monthes of your life. No seriously, people have said on forums that they have completed and every person I've talked to who says has completed says nothing happens. J.J.Sagnella 19:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Can you show me these forums? I'd kind of like to see them, because I'm currently at 99.32%, and some proof would be really helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.66.220 (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This Line should start you off J.J.Sagnella 22:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how was I supposed to know that? I looked everywhere for anyone who completed it and found no one. And besides, that thread quoted what I said here. That was made after I wrote that here. Calling what I wrote "poorly written" and saying, "It's also extremely obnoxious that 69.165.66.220 would add them back. Thanks for removing again J.J." was completely uncalled for. Someone else from another site told me about this discussion and what you two said. I didn't even know you deleted it. I thought it was some jerk thinking it'd be funny, so I added it back.
You two could've been nicer about it instead of being completely rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.66.220 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From an objective sense it was poorly written, and it was impossible to understand your intention in adding the text back given no discussion or comment thereof. However, it was not my intent to be rude to anything well-meant and I apologize if that was your impression. MKV 01:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And We have both been as proffessional nad polite as we can in this discussion. J.J.Sagnella 07:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I didn't know it was you guys deleting it. It was obviously a misunderstanding of my intentions and your intentions. I just thought that saying "poorly written," and me being, "exremely annoying," for adding it back was rude on your part. I didn't add it back to be annoying, I added it because I thought someone trying to be mean deleted it. There were people who kept adding things to it that I didn't write. The only parts I wrote were the "Governor's Island" and the "Mysterious Triangle" rumors. Any other rumors written in the section were written by someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.66.220 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to take it out on yourself, you did what you though what was right and had good intentions and Wikipedia commends that. J.J.Sagnella 20:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Thank you for clearing that up for me. And yes, I was trying to help and had good intentions, I just didn't realize that things that aren't facts were not permitted on Wikipedia. Thanks again. =] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.66.220 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The distillers sprays[edit]

In the garment district, in the outside walls of the warehouse where you fight the robot suits and other goon with black cat, are sprays that say "The distillers" and "Coral Fang". Obviously a reference to the band, but has anyone else noticed this, and is there a story behind it? I'm not sure if they appear only in the night or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puffe (talk • contribs) 11:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Clarification?[edit]

In the main entry, it says:

Places in Manhattan, though smaller, are roughly accurate. The old White House is seen in the right spot. The United Nations are seen, the Stock Building, several hotels, and the two parks: Battery Park and Inwood Hill Park are shown and mentioned in the game.

What "old White House" and what hotels? I suppose it doesn't have to be in the article itself, but I'm sure there would be enough people who are curious about it to at least warrant a small list here on the discussion page.

Last Thylacine 17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Promotion[edit]

I know that there was a promotion on Cheeze-It boxes that stated if you turned in x-amount of barcode things, that you would get a PC Demo, which I have. (I also have the real game.) Would this belong anywhere in the artical? (66.190.139.140 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Zero Wing Reference?[edit]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=KO1yPSvuQeo
What does Wikipedia think? -- Snip3rNife (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Ock[edit]

Is it really appropriate to call the character Doc Ock or Ock over and over rather than Dr. Octopus? I mean, for an encyclopedia it seems a little off, like if an article calling Queen Elizabeth "Liz" over and over. 76.226.100.253 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have made such changes. I used search and replace to change Doc Ock and Ock to Doctor Octopus. If anyone notices anything that was accidentally improperly changed by this, please correct.69.212.228.109 (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay section[edit]

I think a gameplay section in the article is in order rather than simply mentioning a few details in the heading about gameplay. This game has more points to be mentioned about the gameplay, such as the games counter system incorporating Spider-Man's Spider-sense during combat and subsequent attacks following a counter that are purchased in the "Spidey-stores" throughout the city. Also, a few of the various side missions found in the city should probably be addressed, among more content not mentioned thus far. This video game article is the first I have encountered that does not have a section reserved for gameplay, a game like this could use one? ––45.30.153.24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.30.153.24 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations about the PC version[edit]

I realize this is a very old page and a very old game, but obviously interest in Spider-Man games is high right now. I noticed the page says that people were unhappy that the PC game was advertised as being the same as the console game. I have found trailers that list the PC and console versions as if they're the same:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcZSKvnFZRM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYoewjl5Yd8

Is that enough to add a citation for that statement, or do we need to find one that suggests this actually confused people? Sorry, it's been years since I've done anything on Wikipedia; I just happened to see this and figured I'd be able to find some sources. --Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel's Spider-Man 2 release[edit]

Does this page need to be renamed? Marvel's Spider-Man 2 was announced today. Matthew Cenance (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, has been moved. — ChannelSpider (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KMFDM[edit]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMFDM_discography KMFDM did the music for the game, now considering there is no info about this on the Spiderman page, I thought it was a joke (or a mistake at the very least). But just in case I checked youtube and there is a score by KMFDM for the game How come this is not mentioned anywhere in the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriDeadMort (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 2 hatnote[edit]

Moved from User talk:Indagate
 – — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you removed my "about" hatnote on the 2004 Spider-Man 2 game article. But I have seen the use of a hatnote like this on many other articles that have a disambiguator in the title too, such as Ratchet & Clank (2002 video game). If the 'this article is about the 2004 video game' text is redundant, then how about making it simply 'for the 2023 video game, see Spider-Man 2 (2023 video game)'? I think it'd be great to have at least some sort of hatnote link to the 2023 game article, as there is no link or mention of the 2023 game anywhere else in the article, thus making navigation/searching more difficult.

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Example like that might've been left over from a page move where 2002 wasn't in page title. If people are searching then they can see 2002 in article title and not click on that one if they're looking for 2016 version. Indagate (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indagate Sorry about that, I have moved it to article talk.
The reason why I added the hatnote in the first place, is because, I was doing a google search for the Spider-Man 2 game, and I was brought with the 2004 game as the result on the search page. I could not find the 2023 game at all, even though I didn't write 2004 in the google search. So I figured, a hatnote linking to the 2023 game may be helpful to readers, in situations like this when they land on the 2004 game's page due to search ranking oddities and whatnot. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So any oppositions to adding a "for the 2023 game, ..." hatnote template to the top of this article?
I'll make it a "for" hatnote rather than an "about" one, so it doesn't say the redundant "this article is about the 2004 game" text.
I feel like this would benefit readers greatly, as they simply only have to click one button to go to the 2023 game article, rather than having to type it into the search carefully and look for it.
The advantages of it far outweigh the disadvantages in my opinion, it only takes up negligible amount of space on top of the article and is in small italic text, thus not distractive / an eyesore. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article title says "(2004 video game)" which is clear and not ambiguous. Why would a reader search for the 2004 game looking for the one released in 2023? Chase (talk | contributions) 23:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See what I wrote in my first reply above (there are two).
So should the Ratchet & Clank (2002 video game), Ratchet & Clank (2016 video game) and Ratchet & Clank (film) pages all have their hatnotes removed as well?
(edit) I just noticed the hatnotes have been removed from those pages as well. Thanks for citing the guideline, I guess I should've read through it more thoroughly. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spider-Man_2_(2004_video_game)&oldid=1205394370"