Talk:Action 52

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

Reception[edit]

Should Cheetahmen II have a reception blurb if it was never released to be critiqued at all? The article notes it was incomplete.

"Farmed out?"[edit]

Can we avoid the MMO slang when we're writing articles? I've changed it to sound more professional. 68.118.221.243 (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Price[edit]

$200?! I have an old american video game magazine that advertised it as $99 for the Genesis version and $79 for the NES version. Maybe it was a Christmas discount, but that's the only official price I saw quoted for Action 52. Unfortunately I no longer have the magazine with me. It was either Video Games & Computer Entertainment or GamePro. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.53.95.31 (talk • contribs) .

$200 was the original price at the release, but they obviously lowered it a lot when the game wasn't selling. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mess of images[edit]

Currently, there is not enough text and too many images, in the The Games section. IMO, the images titled Silver Sword, Star Evil, Ooze, G-Force, Jupiter Scope are boring and uninformative. If people take screenies from some of the other 37 games, there's room for them. Just not every game.

Rob Base?[edit]

The "Yeah! Woo" sample loop is not necessarily from the Rob Base song, but was a common sound sample used in many songs. Even some Nintendo produced songs used it.--Dwedit 04:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


It is actually a sample from the band Alien Sex Fiend, the song it's sampled from is called Haunted House.

Unauthorized?[edit]

I assume this game was not authorized by nintendo or Sega. I doubt they would have approved something so buggy. Can soomeone confirm so it can go in the article? Ace of Sevens 01:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so.
  1. The cartridge was nonstandard and wasn't manufactured by Nintendo, which is a big dead giveaway.
  2. I can't find it from Nintendo's master gamelist, which supposedly has all games licensed for US.
  3. And hey, this is what Nintendo foamed about: Can you find the Nintendo Seal of Quality from the box and cartridge scan? I sure can't. =)
Would be pretty much indicative if you ask me... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sega version explicitly states on the startup screen that Sega had nothing to do with them ;) Teh Pogo 11:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you look very carefully in the lower left corner of the game case in the image, the white box finishes with the sentence "This product is not designed, manufactured, sponsored, or endorsed by Nintendo." So, I'm guessing no. 70.44.146.95 04:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetahmen Image Screenshot[edit]

Does anyone else notice something odd about the right cheetahman, or is that just me? RoseTech 21:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be the same as in the game itself. Why? (Yes, the artwork is wonky. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA[edit]

"... While many of the games are unbeatable, Storm Over the Desert is interminable if the player does not make stupid moves." Nice edit. Wikifan21century (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements[edit]

I got a couple of ideas for this article.

  • In the Genesis list, we could color the games' names just like in the game. (I know this won't work, but it would be nice)
  • Just like with we did with "First Game (Pong)" we should list what games are paradies of others, such as "Bonkers (Diamonds)".

These are only suggestions. We don't need these that much, but it would be nice if these changes existed in the article. Thanks. Superjustinbros. (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate References[edit]

I noticed that references 5 and 6 were the exact same web page. Should they be merged? mechamind90 19:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, check out WP:REFNAME if you want a quick guide on how to do this for the future. Thanks, --Taelus (Talk) 16:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Video Game Nerd is given credit all the time?[edit]

Why are people always refering to James Rolfe's Angry Video Game Nerd show? It seems too convenient just to add his perspective on every bad game he reviews in the corresponding "bad game" articles. Can we have more constructive information like what every game is supposed to be about? Doug Walker's Nostalgia Critic doesn't get credit for every movie he reviews in the "bad movie" articles, so can we please keep the balance? There were people who reviewed before AVGN, and they should be credited. I don't care if AVGN makes money or was "there first", this is not about him. It's about the game itself. Please someone do something about it.

No. Stop complaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.4.197 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the tigsource remake should be mentioned in this article after it's finished., as it plans to remake all of it's games remade, but as a good version. Madlobster (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Just because AVGN says this game is bad doesn't mean it is. It's always debatable. (Unless it's Action 52.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittergamer1886 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a non-issue. AVGN is not allowed as a reference for video game articles in anything but articles on him. His reviews are for comedy/intertainment purposes only, and therefore deemed to fail WP:RELIABLE as a reliable editorially oversighted source. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetahmen 2 is going to be fixed by the same person who released the fixed ROM.[edit]

I think it'd be interesting to mention PacoChan, the author of the fixed ROM of cheetahmen 2, will be responsible to fix the game for the (re-)release. This means the ROM in the cartridge might be identical to the one he released and after his fixed ROM being found may have been the motivation to start the project of (re-)release Cheetahmen 2. PacoChan is mentioned in the cheetahmen 2 fundraiser promotional video — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.143.193 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree. A rom hack shouldn't belong on the page of an entry. You don't see that on other entries and next thing you know more and more rom hacks will show up on other entries. Maybe a note about the existence of inaccessible levels if it isn't there already. Construct21 (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Construct21[reply]

new page for the cheetahmen in general[edit]

Cheetamen should gets own page for general reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.51.163 (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Active Enterprises[edit]

The company is only notable for releasing Action 52 which is the proper article for all this information. The two articles will inevitably simply repeat the same information Ridernyc (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Action 53 Avicennasis @ 10:48, 10 Tishrei 5776 / 10:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done czar 05:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Action 52. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Action 52. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Action 52. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with sourcing[edit]

Hello all,

I'm trying to find a source for the claim that even if Ooze was beatable, the contest would have likely been immposible to win, due to the fact that the "personal code" provided is the same across all copies of the game. Naturally, i'll need to back this up with a source. Problem is, all the sources i've found are wikis such as tcrf.net, which are unreliable, and Youtube videos, which are unreliable. Can someone help me? --185.73.65.98 (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Action_52&oldid=1204497857"