" 

 == Ports == 

 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?    "