Talk:Blaster Master 2

message: Most of the descriptions on this page appear to be direct rips from the Blaster Master Undreground site, without any citations.  (See: http://bmunderground.chaosr.com/04_sarc_history05.html) Did the site owner of BMUG approve/submit this article?  --Apgrau 04:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the site owner (chaostheorem) did approve of this, and gave me full permission to submit his work in the encyclopedia. (PS - "plagiarism" ;)  just to point out...) Hucz 02:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagurism?  

message: Please refer to the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)" for more information on white lines and so on and so forth. Thanks. Hucz 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't follow. Which revert? Kil (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on the "revert" 

message: I don't think the fanart is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I'm going to remove it, pending some discussion on the topic. Thoughts? Andre (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Galleries of such things don't belong, especially since they aren't really illustrating anything that isn't already dealt with by another image. Kil (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan artwork 

message: :Image:Bm2gamefan.gif 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 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bm2gamefan.gif

message: :Image:Bm2 jason large trans.gif 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 04:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bm2 jason large trans.gif

message: I worked at Sunsoft where I QA tested this game. This write-up is full of inaccuracies, naive assumptions, and therefore is highly unreliable.
Examples:
First paragraph: "The game was produced as a supposed sequel to the original Blaster Master, made specifically for the North American market following the success of the first NES game in the same region, but later exported into Europe. However, the staff of the original Japanese version of Blaster Master titled Chô Wakusei Senki Metafight, weren't aware of Blaster Master 2, and decided not to develop their own sequel after being informed of the game's creation."
The game industry doesn't work like this. Sunsoft, a division of Sun Corporation of Japan, created the first Blaster Master for NES, and OWNS THE RIGHTS to the game, title, trademarks, etc. Therefore, Blaster Master 2 is not a "supposed sequel". It is official and was funded/published by Sunsoft of America, Sun Corp's USA office. By the time BM2 was being developed, most of the original BM japanese developers had gone off to work for other companies, and Sunsoft Japan never had an interest in developing a sequel. I think what the original writer is trying to say is that Sunsoft Japan had no interest in publishing the US/UK-made sequel.
Next problem:
The article says "Like many 16-bit titles, it went widely unrecognized and fell to the wayside, becoming increasingly rare shortly after its 1993 release." This is a very strange way of saying what actually happened: The game was not manufactured in high numbers, having received rather mediocre reviews and poor sales.
Next troublesome statement:
Article says the game has "no credits" other than the Sega logo and copyright notice. The writer must have had their eyes closed during the "SUNSOFT" logo, or they were playing a ripped ROM of a beta version, or a ripped ROM modified by a pirate. FULL CREDITS of all relevant staff at Sunsoft and Software Creations are displayed upon completion of all game levels (something added near the end of development, so someone with an illegal rip of an earlier version would not see these credits).
Under GAMEPLAY:
"several things were altered in the new Blaster Master 2 game, such as the name of the vehicle (now "S.O.P.H.I.A.")". The vehicle was always named SOPHIA. The article itself calls it SOPHIA/S.O.P.H.I.A. earlier on.
At the end, reviews are mentioned under the category "SOUND". There is mention of a 2012 score rating by some unknown called "HonestGamers". Ratings of games made in 1994 and then rated by people accustomed to 2012 gaming standards are not relevant. Only reviews and ratings from reputed media of the era should be consulted and cited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.177.38 (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full of inaccuracies