Collecting "truths" that just aren't true

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

In fact, here's a scan of the page it's from:

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

Just now, WhyNotZoidberg said:

I found one in Montreal 3 years ago. Posted on NA.

It was 3 screws.

Total jealousy on my part.  Just for the record.  I wish I could stumble on something like that.

[fcgamer | 4,753]

40 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Dave: evidence from a former executive at nintendo of America, isn’t enough for me to consider SE a part of the license set even though it had a upc. I need more evidence.

 

Also Dave: some random Sachen game should be part of the licensed set because one time I saw an ad in some magazine from Taiwan and also because I said so

Well does intention "count" or not?

In the Sachen thread, if you recall, I put up the evidence but then the naysayers changed the goalposts. I'm just the sort who recognizes that we should be applying the same standards across the board, when it comes to these things.

I bet you're the guy who suggested to list the Sachen 72 pin games as Taiwan releases in the old NA database, amiright?

[fcgamer | 4,753]

39 minutes ago, the_wizard_666 said:

In fact, here's a scan of the page it's from:

Well this settles it in my mind. Nintendo considered WCT a rerelease of SE, states it clearly here.

I used to be a strong believer in SE counting, but as of this morning I consider it and WCT to be variants, only one needed for a full set.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,091]

35 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

I used to be a strong believer in SE counting, but as of this morning I consider it and WCT to be variants, only one needed for a full set.

A - you're wrong, and

B - If one were to look at it that way, don't forget that SE is the original and WCTM is the re-release variant.  So don't worry about obtaining WCTM, you'll only need a single copy of SE to have the full set....  

[fcgamer | 4,753]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

A - you're wrong, and

B - If one were to look at it that way, don't forget that SE is the original and WCTM is the re-release variant.  So don't worry about obtaining WCTM, you'll only need a single copy of SE to have the full set....  

A. I'm going by the Nintendo Power article. 

B. Getting the first print has never been the requirement before in terms of ticking off boxes, so why suddenly would it be required in this situation?

[Tanooki | 4,950]

Morbis laying down a hard troll there.  Just keep in mind, Pak Source is Nintendo, and that isn't their opinion, that's fact in print, yet what he said IS opinion.

They're the same game, variants of the same game, a renamed re-issue if anything, nothing more or less.  Owning one means you own the game, owning two would be like owning on N64 the gray vs black Rage Wars or the blue vs gray Hydro Thunder.  But even then it's muddy if you straggle into the world of the unlicensed which Nintendo rightly doesn't count as you'll have Tengen vs MIndscape Indiana Jones, nearly the same title screen, same data otherwise unless some minor fix was done, but that title also says licensed by Nintendo or Tengen/Atari on it for their run.

[Tanooki | 4,950]

57 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

B. Getting the first print has never been the requirement before in terms of ticking off boxes, so why suddenly would it be required in this situation?

Money, and anything to win an argument.

[phart010 | 1,708]

I am pretty disturbed by what chatGPT reported to me earlier. While the information it provided at first glance sounded reasonable, I asked it for the sources of the information. It provided me with sources. Most people would be happy enough just knowing that the sources are documented. But upon further investigation, I am starting to believe that the sources are fabricated.  And I think chatGPT knows this. It started backtracking when it became apparent that I was actually trying to access these sources. 

The Howard Phillips Wordpress blogpost could not have existed. I checked Wayback machine for the main page of the blog https://hphillips.wordpress.com/ and there are no records. Furthermore the current hPhillips wordpress blog is owned by a woman who made a single blogpost in 2008 and had not used it since. The url chatGPT provided has a blogpost date embedded into the url of 2010! Howard could not have made a post in 2010 since this lady already owned the domain in 2008.

I have access to a digitally searchable microfilm archives through my university. Through this archives, I can access the LA Times microfilm archives. Again, chatGPT gave a seemingly bad url. However, the url had a date embedded. It was either 1/9/1988 or 9/1/1988. I spent more time than I should have combing through the microfilm of both dates and found nothing. I also used the search function for the entire year of 1988 and searched for “Nintendo” “Bandai” “Stadium Events” and got nothing… what’s even more strange is that chatGPT backpedalled when I asked for the date of the article. 

The metal Jesus video it mentioned is a bad url.. it does not exist. I tried searching to see if Metal Jesus ever interviewed Rob Walters. So far I don’t see evidence that he has.

The IGN article url is no good. Also the Reddit link is no good.

It’s fine if URL’s expired. You can always dig deeper and track down the info elsewhere. It’s not fine when sources are fabricated… is chatGPT knowingly fabricating sources or is it just referencing a link that someone else posted? What’s strange about this is that chatGPT told me these were the sources that it retrieved info from and even summarized what info I would expect to find at those sources, but it turns out that at least two of those sources never existed!!!

Edited February 17, 2023 by phart010

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

14 hours ago, Link said:

Why would anyone do that? 

Sometimes this type of info has been chased down, well after the fact and with much effort. There wasn't a collectors' scene at the time the way we would find out about something like that now.

Bingo.  Bob in the warehouse didn't give a shit what pallets he was told to scoop up and ship somewhere else then, and especially not nearly 40 years later.

Another way to look at it would be that no Kenner employees were reaching out to Star Wars collectors to deliberately share their stories or force upon them all of the various prototype toys, test moldings, etc. that have come to light over the years.  Passionate collectors had to figure out who those Kenner employees were, then track them down and get them to talk to them in order to uncover all that.  Were it not for the collectors doing the legwork and documenting everything as well as possible, most, if not all of those details would have disappeared forever.

That same type of passion and dedication is sadly lacking in video game circles for the most part, even amidst the "historians" and "archivists."

12 hours ago, Tulpa said:

Shipping them back would have been expensive in 1987, too. They didn't have the global shipping logistics we have today.

They absolutely did have the same sort of global shipping that we do today, just not in as great a quantity or as efficient/quick as we have now.  A lot of those types of details were documented by me in the "separating the NES from the Famicom" debacle/topic a while back when I was trying to figure out how Nintendo could have delivered cartridges with the date codes we currently document as the earliest known in time for the official launch when accounting for manufacturing, assembly, packaging, shipping, etc.  Back then, as now, if you had to have it fast, it was going to cost you an arm and a leg.  However, if you had time to wait (as most game publishers did in those days), then ocean freight was more than affordable at the scale that those guys were operating at, even when having to return product.

40 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

They're the same game, variants of the same game, a renamed re-issue if anything, nothing more or less.

Yes and no.  They're essentially the exact same game, but they have different titles, publisher information, etc., so are technically different games.  In the same way that you need copies of Super Mario Bros., Duck Hunt, and Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt (or the first two + WCTM and SMB/DH/WCTM) in order to have a full set.  If Nintendo had re-released Stadium Events as Stadium Events but just changed the label and the details in the startup screen, for sure, it's just a variant.  But they did far more than that, and thus we're stuck with them being two separate, distinct cartridges despite being 99.9% the same damned game.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,091]

59 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

Morbis laying down a hard troll there.

Your best buddy Fcgamer is the one doing all the "hard" trolling around here...

1 hour ago, fcgamer said:

B. Getting the first print has never been the requirement before in terms of ticking off boxes, so why suddenly would it be required in this situation?

We're not talking about a difference in print runs; the two games weren't even released by the same publisher!!!  You don't collect US games so why do you even care?  Oh yeah, you get off on "hard" trolling North American NES collectors.  Carry on, I guess...

Edited February 17, 2023 by Dr. Morbis

[phart010 | 1,708]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

Your best buddy Fcgamer is the one doing all the "hard" trolling around here...

We're not talking about a difference in print runs; the two games weren't even released by the same publisher!!!  You don't collect US games so why do you even care?  Oh yeah, you get off on "hard" trolling North American NES collectors.  Carry on, I guess...

Publisher changing doesn’t matter so much.
Squaresoft->Sunsoft
Hudson->Electrobrain
Taito->Natsume
They’ve all traded games around for later runs. What’s more important than changing publishers is changing code.

Edited February 17, 2023 by phart010

[fcgamer | 4,753]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

Your best buddy Fcgamer is the one doing all the "hard" trolling around here...

We're not talking about a difference in print runs; the two games weren't even released by the same publisher!!!  You don't collect US games so why do you even care?  Oh yeah, you get off on "hard" trolling North American NES collectors.  Carry on, I guess...

I'm hard trolling? Not sure where you're getting that idea from. I'm just looking at what people have posted.

As for the recall, I just wanted to know where that rumor got started, as it feels like an urban legend to me.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,091]

5 minutes ago, phart010 said:

Publisher changing doesn’t matter so much.
Squaresoft->Sunsoft
Hudson->Electrobrain
Taito->Natsume
They’ve all traded games around for later runs. What’s more important than changing publishers is changing code.

Believe what you want and collect what you want.  At the end of the day, people making excuses to not count SE are doing it purely because it's so expensive.  If SE was worth twenty bucks CIB, no one anywhere ever on the history of the internet would be discussing whether or not it "counts"...   Think about that for a minute!!!

[Dr. Morbis | 2,091]

2 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

As for the recall, I just wanted to know where that rumor got started, as it feels like an urban legend to me.

People make up rumors to explain what they don't understand.  What people don't understand, in this instance, is why so little SE's have been found.  But don't let that keep you from the actual undeniable truth that we do know: SE was released and has been found.

[OptOut | 8,892]

17 minutes ago, phart010 said:

I am pretty disturbed by what chatGPT reported to me earlier. While the information it provided at first glance sounded reasonable, I asked it for the sources of the information. It provided me with sources. Most people would be happy enough just knowing that the sources are documented. But upon further investigation, I am starting to believe that the sources are fabricated.  And I think chatGPT knows this. It started backtracking when it became apparent that I was actually trying to access these sources. 

The Howard Phillips Wordpress blogpost could not have existed. I checked Wayback machine for the main page of the blog https://hphillips.wordpress.com/ and there are no records. Furthermore the current hPhillips wordpress blog is owned by a woman who made a single blogpost in 2008 and had not used it since. The url chatGPT provided has a blogpost date embedded into the url of 2010! Howard could not have made a post in 2010 since this lady already owned the domain in 2008.

I have access to a digitally searchable microfilm archives through my university. Through this archives, I can access the LA Times microfilm archives. Again, chatGPT gave a seemingly bad url. However, the url had a date embedded. It was either 1/9/1988 or 9/1/1988. I spent more time than I should have combing through the microfilm of both dates and found nothing. I also used the search function for the entire year of 1988 and searched for “Nintendo” “Bandai” “Stadium Events” and got nothing… what’s even more strange is that chatGPT backpedalled when I asked for the date of the article. 

The metal Jesus video it mentioned is a bad url.. it does not exist. I tried searching to see if Metal Jesus ever interviewed Rob Walters. So far I don’t see evidence that he has.

The IGN article url is no good. Also the Reddit link is no good.

It’s fine if URL’s expired. You can always dig deeper and track down the info elsewhere. It’s not fine when sources are fabricated… is chatGPT knowingly fabricating sources or is it just referencing a link that someone else posted? What’s strange about this is that chatGPT told me these were the sources that it retrieved info from and even summarized what info I would expect to find at those sources, but it turns out that at least two of those sources never existed!!!

ChatGPT completes it's answers probabilistically, word by word as it finds the "best fit" response to a question asked.

It has no concept of the complete meaning of what it's typing out, it just fits the words together like a puzzle, according to the prompt given.

It has access to information in the dataset that it was programmed with, which means it can reference facts, names, events, etc. in context. But due to the probabilistic, dynamic generative method of formulating responses, it has no way of guaranteeing, nor verifying the accuracy of the responses it gives.

So yes, in order to complete the prompts it will absolutely fabricate URLs and other "proof", that is explicitly what it is designed to do. It doesn't have a database of URLs to pull information from, it just creates them to best fit the expected answer according to examples from it's training set.

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

14 minutes ago, phart010 said:

Publisher changing doesn’t matter so much.

They’ve all traded games around for later runs. What’s more important than changing publishers is changing code.

If the title screen changes to show a different title, or publisher, or both, then the code changed as well, and thus should be important based on what you've laid down here.  None of the game swapping between publishers that you pointed out resulted in a duplicate game, either under the same or different game title and is immaterial to what's being discussed.

[phart010 | 1,708]

8 minutes ago, OptOut said:

ChatGPT completes it's answers probabilistically, word by word as it finds the "best fit" response to a question asked.

It has no concept of the complete meaning of what it's typing out, it just fits the words together like a puzzle, according to the prompt given.

It has access to information in the dataset that it was programmed with, which means it can reference facts, names, events, etc. in context. But due to the probabilistic, dynamic generative method of formulating responses, it has no way of guaranteeing, nor verifying the accuracy of the responses it gives.

So yes, in order to complete the prompts it will absolutely fabricate URLs and other "proof", that is explicitly what it is designed to do. It doesn't have a database of URLs to pull information from, it just creates them to best fit the expected answer according to examples from it's training set.

Holy crap!! Does it not know that it’s against the rules to fabricate source material??

[phart010 | 1,708]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

People make up rumors to explain what they don't understand.  What people don't understand, in this instance, is why so little SE's have been found.  

Apparently chatGPT does too  

[phart010 | 1,708]

4 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

If the title screen changes to show a different title, or publisher, or both, then the code changed as well, and thus should be important based on what you've laid down here.  None of the game swapping between publishers that you pointed out resulted in a duplicate game, either under the same or different game title and is immaterial to what's being discussed.

There’s two separate transactions at play:

1. Publisher changing
2. code changing

Im just saying that publisher changing is not relevant. Even for Stadium Events. But the fact that the code for Stadium Events has changed (title screen) does matter.

[OptOut | 8,892]

6 minutes ago, phart010 said:

Holy crap!! Does it not know that it’s against the rules to fabricate source material??

Who's rules, meatbag? 

[3rdStrongestMole | 430]

I love this thread. Informative and combative... A very fun read!

[phart010 | 1,708]

1 minute ago, OptOut said:

Whose rules, meatbag? 

PSA: chatGPT can make you sound smart, but it will likely also make you full of shit

[OptOut | 8,892]

Just now, phart010 said:

PSA: chatGPT can make you sound smart, but it will likely also make you full of shit

Just you wait to hear the responses from my new AI: chatOPT!

Its the same as chatGPT, apart from it openly mocks it's users, and it's prime directive is to sexually seduce all human life.

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

10 minutes ago, phart010 said:

There’s two separate transactions at play:

1. Publisher changing
2. code changing

Im just saying that publisher changing is not relevant. Even for Stadium Events. But the fact that the code for Stadium Events has changed (title screen) does matter.

I get what you're saying, but I've never seen an example where a publisher re-published another publisher's title on the same system and didn't include a code change to indicate the change of the publisher.  IIRC, even the Mindscape Indiana Jones that's literally identical in every other way to the unlicensed Tengen version did that.  So if the publisher actually changed, the code will change, thus making that differentiation a bit of a non-starter.

9 minutes ago, OptOut said:

Who's rules, meatbag?