Talk:The Sentinel (video game)

Untitled
Article says that IBM PC version has the best graphics, but I could not find any screenshots from the web. Mobygames screenshot from DOS version looks rather EGA than VGA for me. --128.214.205.6 11:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Mobygames screenshots are indeed EGA, but the PC version is capable of VGA graphics, as shown by these screenshots:


 * http://devilmaster.supereva.it/sentvga1.gif
 * http://devilmaster.supereva.it/sentvga2.gif
 * http://devilmaster.supereva.it/sentvga3.gif

--Devil Master 20:11, 25 April 2006 (MET)

New link added
...2 Flow, Sentinel-inspired turn-based strategy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.31.92 (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Frame rate?
The article says that the frame rate on a C64 was only 0.3fps. This suggests that the movement on the screen was very jerky. However, I seem to remember that while the C64 indeed took some time to precompute the next view, the actual scrolling ran quite smoothly.

I would doubt that 'frame rate' is the correct term in this context.

134.176.25.80 08:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. I corrected that part. Devil Master 15:46, 04 March 2007 (MET)

Game code list
I've linked to my list of game codes, which constitutes about 4% of the total list. I was wondering if an actual page should be created for them, so others can add more codes as new ones are discovered.

124.197.47.78 11:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Clones - All or none please!
Up-front disclosure of interest: I wrote the 'Zenith' version of this game.

I've noticed that over the years, clones have been added and removed from the article. I do not think it right that commercial titles (including paid-for mobile content) should be given a stage here - I didn't charge for my version because I thought it wrong to exploit the original game commercially. I suggest that any commercial plugs that appear in this article be removed (or be given equal status among all such derivative works), because the commercial works use others' IP for monetary gain (though strictly speaking they do not violate copyright, because they are an _expression_ of an idea, rather than a reproduction of media).

To be encyclopedic, we should offer an unbiased presentation of facts. With this in mind, we should have an 'all or nothing' policy whereby we don't allow opportunists a particular advantage. So, I recommend one of these options: 89.145.218.248 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove all references to clones, or
 * 2) List all currently-available clones (as history), and declare their commercial status.
 * 3) Create a new article about clones (caveat: I'm unaware of the Wikipedia policy on this).


 * Hear hear! The current rules are not being enforced evenly, with random luck on which editor sees the edit and whether they spent any time checking it. I guess it's easier just to reject anything with 3rd party links. SimonOwen (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)