Talk:Prince of Persia 2: The Shadow and the Flame
Screenshot[edit]
Are you sure that illustration isn't a copyright violation? -- Jmabel 04:59, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Game screenshots are fair use. It would be tough to illustrate a game review otherwise, eh? :-) Stan 08:32, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to me, but shouldn't we be indicating copyright on the image? Fair use of a screenshot usually involves explicit attribution and acknowledgment of copyright, no? -- Jmabel 10:01, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- It would be the right thing to do. Stan 14:04, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Savegames[edit]
In PC version, you can't save your game whatever you want. In fact, you can save a game everywhere but when you reload it, it brings you to the last "checkpoint" passed. At least, there are several checkpoints on every level instead of his predecessor, who had chekpoints only in some levels.
By the way, I'm not sure if the Hidden Palace external link really needs to be explained in the main article. I believe it fits better only in the links section. --81.35.70.143 19:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ports[edit]
OK, I just don't want more unsourced crap to sort through later. This article is already shoddy, poorly-written, poorly-organized, and poorly-sourced. Why don't we try fixing it instead of adding more poorly-source, poorly-written, and poorly-organized crap? Ports don't deserve their own section. Ports belong in a development section. Granted, this article doesn't have such a section, but why don't we try making one instead of contributing more spam? Also, for that matter, what makes ports noteworthy? If it's a port released a decade later with new features as a tenth-anniversary edition or something (Tomb Raider: Anniversary, Resident Evil: Deadly Silence), then I can see why we would add information. "Titus Software ported the game to the Super NES and released it in 1996. It has some missing features and lacks several stages, including the last one." How does this add significant understanding of the topic to the article? How does it significantly enhance the readers understanding? It doesn't look like it does, to me, it just looks like something that could be tossed into a trivia section. What makes this a reliable source? The over-arching question: How does any of this constitute anything more than poorly-written, organized, and sourced crap that could be tossed into a useless "Trivia" section, which fails to enhance the readers' understanding? --The Guy complain edits 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I emphatically disagree that the ports information is unnecessary. Obviously knowing what platforms/systems a game is available on is vital to any encyclopedia article on a game. The ports information not only notes what the systems are, but also gives information about the differences between ports. —Lowellian (reply) 04:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Sources[edit]
I found this bit of reference material for Prince of Persia 2 in an old MacWorld archive: [1]. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)