# Talk:Xenon 2: Megablast

Good game! Thanks for writing it up --Mmartins 11:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that the sourceless paragraph about dance music and Amiga must be inaccurate. OCS Amigas do not support CD-quality sound thus professionals would have never used it to make the actual piece of music. But they used Amiga (and ST) as a midi controlling device (for composing, while sound came from other sources). Of course for casual listener Xenon II may prove that Amiga can produce music that sounds virtually same as what you hear on radio but that's a different thing. --88.195.104.180 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. It's mostly wrong. Xenon 2 was not the first product to include release-quality music. Many demos did that already. Xenon 2 was one of those products that demonstrated the ability of the Amiga to produce decent music. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the best Amiga game for non-AGA machines. Fantastic graphics and sound, awesome gameplay and even more visually impressive when you consider it was realised before the 1990s! Christopedia (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

When I ran this, Xenon 2000 would not take any keyboard controls nor did the mouse work. However, I found out how to get the keyboard to work. If you have ZoneAlarm, it will say this program is trying to monitor the keyboard, don't press Allow too quickly, give it a good few seconds before allowing Allow. 
I have not yet tried it with a Joystick - connected to Game Port or Joystick - connected to USB. 
Sorry, to put this here, but I hunted around on Google for ages and I could not find a solution, so decide to put the tip here!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.169.69 (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 

when i finish the dos version of Xenon 2 it's not disappointing as said in the article - in fact after the shop dude tells me that i finished the game, the screen goes black with a white dot in the midddle and when i push fire it starts from the beginning with most enemies having double health (hit them 2x instead of 1x) and i think that's a pretty cool addition! you can spend even more time with playing. hehe so maybe that should be mentioned?! i'll add it, if someone does not like it, correct it! greetings -- 195.14.207.39 (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Some seriously shit-tier POV pushing going on in this article. --86.152.199.158 (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What is this dispute about? 2fort5r (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Err.. I've removed the POV template as the initiator did not name any specific concern. --hydrox (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a monkfish on the picture? Is this one of the bosses? 2fort5r (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Xenon 2: Megablast/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 12:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one.  I first heard of this game while doing research for United Game Artists, and it seems like an interesting game.  Comments to come soon. Red Phoenix talk 12:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, on review I don't have much.  Nice job with this article!  Here's what I do have for you:

Take a look at the fair use rationale for File:Xenon II Megablast in-game screenshot (Atari ST).png .  Specifically I'm looking at the "low resolution" parameter where it's stated it's of a low resolution inherently - and then a bot had to go back and reduce it because it wasn't low resolution enough.  I would put in that the resolution has been reduced from the original.
In the last paragraph of Development and release, we have a very abrupt shift from a story about a release contest into a listing paragraph of all the other releases.  Can this be smoothed out to read easier?  Maybe some transitional wording or separating the paragraph.  I'll let you decide how you want to handle it.
Be careful what you link in references.  Links to magazine copies on archive.org are likely okay, but one of your magazine sources is linked to http://www.atarimania.com/.  I grant you it's tough to know for sure without contacting the administrators of the website, but I'm almost positive their copy of the magazine source is posted without permission and therefore we've linked to a copyright violation.  That's not something we want to do, and I'd just remove the URL from the reference.  The source is no less valid for not having a URL.
While I'm okay with it, be advised that if you took this to FAC eventually you would probably get some challenges on the inclusion of the music file, simply because it's not a standard in video game articles.
This article looks fantastic, and that's really all the gripe I have.  I look forward to passing this article very soon.  Red Phoenix talk 13:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, all points have been addressed! Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks good.  I will pass the article.  Nicely done. Red Phoenix talk 17:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that User:Cat's_Tuxedo would like to get reliable sources for the Japanese X86K and PC-98 release by Epic/Sony Records since recording company was involved in game publishing before the establishment of SCEI. 
I did not include the Game Boy release since it is published by a different company which is PCM Complete and the sources are quite few. 
The only sources that I can get apart from gameplay videos, ROMs, and pictures from auctions are posts which are complete in box and posts in Japanese websites. 
One thing is that I don't get why a Japanese release of a Western game is considered irrelevant to the topic? The game was also released on systems that are unique in Japan which unusual and it should not be considered irrelevant.
I thought that when posting on Wiki, we can provide more details to an article.  136.158.11.209 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:VG/RELEASE, release information for non-English versions is only relevant if the game was originally released in a non-English country, such as any JRPG. Otherwise, such information should be excluded. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
You've also repeatedly reverted edits mentioning the DOS version of the game, despite the existing references noting its existence. In particular, the archive of the Bitmap Brothers website mentions the PC release, and provides a patch download to fix some missing graphics in that version of the game. James (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The DOS version is the only one I've ever played. The Bitmap Brothers website, besides mentioning a PC version was released, also includes a patched .exe for DOS: https://web.archive.org/web/20191126081727/http://www.bitmap-brothers.co.uk/downloads/patches/xenon2/index.htm I checked it out in DOSBox and confirmed it is for DOS, not for PC-98. Also, the page for the original Xenon, https://web.archive.org/web/20191126081725/http://www.bitmap-brothers.co.uk/our-games/past/xenon.htm, mentions a PC release, and Xenon 1 was never released for PC-98, while it was released for PC, so it seems highly unlikely that "PC" would be referring to a PC release in one instance and a PC-98 release on two sister pages of the same site.
If Mobygames isn't an acceptable source despite it containing numerous screenshots from the DOS version, as well as scans of the box cover from 3 different regions, photos of the floppy disks, scans of the manual front and back and a reference card, then what sort of source should I be looking for instead? An advertisement or review from a scanned magazine? I can link some reviews in Archive.org scanned magazines, but they're not in English. And it seems like Archive.org would be an even less reliable source since it's unmoderated. As opposed to Mobygames, where every piece of data added goes through review by moderators before being allowed to go live on the site.
Personally I think the source we should be evaluating is not on what website something is hosted, but the source of the material. Physical packaging is a strong source. Contents of a physical package such as manuals are a strong source. Photos of professionally labelled floppy disks are a strong source. Screenshots that fit the specific characteristic graphics modes of a system, taken together with accompanying physical evidence of a release, are a strong source.
There are of course many gameplays of Xenon 2 for DOS on Youtube, which I imagine cannot be included as sources. Not to mention there are ripped images of the floppies and a later CD compilation on Archive.org that also testify to the release of the DOS version, but would be inadvisable to link to due to copyright infringement.
There has to be something among all these many pieces which would allow updating an incomplete Wiki entry to be more complete. 2601:152:4C7E:B8A1:481F:7524:AC42:DF86 (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:VG/S has a list of reliable sources you may refer to when searching for information on this subject. Scanned magazines posted on Archive.org are indeed reliable sources and have been used in several high-quality articles, whereas MobyGames, as you can see in the listing, is regarded as unreliable. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Many, many games have actual endings, but I cannot think of a single one where the all-lives-lost scenario is subsequently described as a premature ending.
It's unnecessary to say this, and also slightly misleading, because it's not a premature ending - you've lost your lives and it's time for the game to end.  It would be premature if you got a game over and still had a life left.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

"Game over" is by definition a premature ending to the game at hand. In many cases (especially ones without a save function), the loss of all lives entails the end of the game before the proper ending is reached, forcing the player back to the beginning of the game (or the last save point), hence premature. I've used the same description in a number of other articles that've been promoted to Good status and there had been until this point no complaints from those who've reviewed them. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, I disagree - "Game over" by definition is the end of the game, regardless of circumstances.  The situation  so called because the game is over.  Just because something has been included in a Good article doesn't mean that it can't be challenged or changed - otherwise a good article would stagnate and never change.  I mean - do you think that removal of "prematurely" will reduce the article to less than Good article?
To be more precise - I disagree that it's necessary to point out and include in the article that the game has ended prematurely when all lives are lost, to when it would end if the game had been completed.
It seems perfectly adequate just to say that the game is over when all lives are lost.  The Game over article makes no mention of "premature game over", even when discussing premature game over - it's just not necessary.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)