Collecting "truths" that just aren't true

[goldenpp72 | 1,235]

I know this won't be a popular remark, but I've always found it interesting that you apparently 'need' Stadium Events to have a full NES set when it's simply retitled later. While It's kind of endearing, I don't think any console outside of the NES has such rigid requirements for some, unlicensed games, games that weren't ever released, games that aren't even games, or games retitled, all count to some. Today if Too Human on 360 had been rebranded as Human Too, no one would say 'you need both, or the first one' to have it count.

Not that I have a horse in this race as I don't collect full sets generally, but the fact some consider even titles like NWC required is a bit silly to me, but I suppose in the end, it all comes down to what you're talking about. One could be anal and say to have a true set, that you also need every possible variant, insert, or even the original seals as well. Every 'set' is really a subset of some kind in my mind, which is usually why I just put a 'some version of a game, and it was released at retail' as a personal qualifier, thankfully, I only own a few full US sets and those wouldn't be disputed I'm sure, aside the fact they are only US sets of course. 

I think a lot of it just comes from how NES was kind of the birth of the super enthusiast collector base though, everyone cared about oddities with that, but if someone tells you a 360 release has a 2 disc version versus a 1 disc version, or a disc pressed on a gold disc, or something, no one will care.

Edited February 17, 2023 by goldenpp72

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

27 minutes ago, phart010 said:

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

I don't think that's what it's doing.  I have a feeling those links were referenced in the sources it found, so it quoted them without actually knowing the links were fake or no longer usable.

 

10 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

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.

Myriad 6-in-1 had no changes from Caltron 6-in-1 aside from the packaging and shitty new label.  The carts are identical at the code level.  Granted, it's a unique circumstance, but it's still a publisher change that didn't change the code.

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

1 minute ago, goldenpp72 said:

I know this won't be a popular remark, but I've always found it interesting that you apparently 'need' Stadium Events to have a full NES set when it's simply retitled later. While It's kind of endearing, I don't think any console outside of the NES has such rigid requirements for some, unlicensed games, games that weren't ever released, games that aren't even games, or games retitled, all count to some. Today if Too Human on 360 had been rebranded as Human Too, no one would say 'you need both, or the first one' to have it count.

Not that I have a horse in this race as I don't collect full sets, but the fact some consider even titles like NWC required is a bit silly to me, but I suppose in the end, it all comes down to what you're talking about. One could be anal and say to have a true set, that you also need every possible variant, insert, or even the original seals as well. Every 'set' is really a subset of some kind in my mind, which is usually why I just put a 'some version of a game, and it was released at retail' as a personal qualifier, thankfully, I only own a few full US sets and those wouldn't be disputed I'm sure, so easy winds over here in contrast.

I think a lot of it just comes from how NES was kind of the birth of the super enthusiast collector base though, everyone cared about oddities with that, but if someone tells you a 360 release has a 2 disc version versus a 1 disc version, or a disc pressed on a gold disc, or something, no one will care.

If you think NES collectors are bad, you should see Atari 2600 collectors.  It's literally impossible to have a complete set because of the metrics they use...basically, if it exists in any form, it counts.  

[Gloves | 11,830]

Just now, the_wizard_666 said:

If you think NES collectors are bad, you should see Atari 2600 collectors.  It's literally impossible to have a complete set because of the metrics they use...basically, if it exists in any form, it counts.  

@Code Monkey thinks he's going for a full set!

[goldenpp72 | 1,235]

Just now, the_wizard_666 said:

If you think NES collectors are bad, you should see Atari 2600 collectors.  It's literally impossible to have a complete set because of the metrics they use...basically, if it exists in any form, it counts.  

Yeah I've seen some of that stuff as well, and I think that's why it's important to just define what matters to you and to make peace with it being some kind of subset, because really, anyone can come along and poke holes in your method, but anyone who would require a variant be purchased for a set, is kind of focusing too much on the 'collecting' part and not the reason you collect most of the time, which is to have a thing. It's why I for example don't consider GBA double packs as part of a set, they are the equivalent of 2 movie's being sold in a DVD case to me, I'd rather have them individually, and have that be the set.

That's why I just do my thing though, and don't worry much about the tiny details. If someone wants to say a greatest hits copy of Final Fantasy VII doesn't count, then that's them I guess.

[OptOut | 8,892]

5 minutes ago, Gloves said:

@Code Monkey thinks he's going for a full set!

I'm still not convinced that @Code Monkey isn't some sort of rogue AI chatbot! 

[fcgamer | 4,753]

22 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

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

I have. I think some of the Korean titles were identical albeit under different publishers.

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

18 minutes ago, the_wizard_666 said:

Myriad 6-in-1 had no changes from Caltron 6-in-1 aside from the packaging and shitty new label.  The carts are identical at the code level.  Granted, it's a unique circumstance, but it's still a publisher change that didn't change the code.

I don't know that that counts, as Myriad not only didn't change any code, but they literally didn't even produce anything beyond their own labels and packaging materials.  Every Myriad 6-in-1 is just a Caltron 6-in-1 with a Myriad label slapped on top of the Caltron one, then shoved into a Myriad box, with a Myriad manual.  If it counts, I think it's the sole case in the entire vintage-era NES library, but I think it's really just its own weird situation due to the total lack of game manufacturing/publishing on Myriad's part.  At best, they're a distributor with their own branding, really.

14 minutes ago, Gloves said:

@Code Monkey thinks he's going for a full set!

Hey, the way he spends money on rare games, me might just get to that point!  (After spending even more money in the classified ads of Guns & Ammo, of course.)

12 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

I have. I think some of the Korean titles were identical albeit under different publishers.

Legit stuff or bootleg/pirate stuff?  We were talking about the NES library, but I'm not opposed to expanding it into other libraries as well so long as we're sticking with actual publishers and not dealing with the 150,000,00 whack-a-mole, pop-up Asian pirate companies, because of course those pirate companies straight up copied other people's shit and put it out under their own banner.

[Ankos | 463]

40 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

Legit stuff or bootleg/pirate stuff?  We were talking about the NES library, but I'm not opposed to expanding it into other libraries as well so long as we're sticking with actual publishers and not dealing with the 150,000,00 whack-a-mole, pop-up Asian pirate companies, because of course those pirate companies straight up copied other people's shit and put it out under their own banner.

If I remember correctly, some official Gameboy stuff would sort of fall into that category, since I don't think Nintendo could sell their games directly in South Korea. Those would still say Nintendo on them, but they'd also have Hyundai branding

[Ankos | 463]

Here is a TCRF page on Tetris for Gameboy. It lists Tetris as a game published by Hyundai. Under the revisional differences section it does not mention there being a different version for South Korea, which is something that would normally be put on the page if it exists

[Code Monkey | 2,013]

1 hour ago, Gloves said:

@Code Monkey thinks he's going for a full set!

Cogito, ergo sum.

1 hour ago, OptOut said:

I'm still not convinced that @Code Monkey isn't some sort of rogue AI chatbot! 

I'm made up from parts of Skynet, ChatGPT and that electric thing from Gremlins.

[Gloves | 11,830]

5 minutes ago, Code Monkey said:

Cogito, ergo sum.

Yea, verily.

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

50 minutes ago, Ankos said:

If I remember correctly, some official Gameboy stuff would sort of fall into that category, since I don't think Nintendo could sell their games directly in South Korea. Those would still say Nintendo on them, but they'd also have Hyundai branding

I don't think that counts, as there's not two games under the same name with two different publishers but no code change in Korea.  If Nintendo had released one and then Hyndai had released one too, there'd be more to talk about, but as-is it's just a partnership versus two publishers publishing the exact same game in the same region/set with no differences.

[Ankos | 463]

It is a fringe case, but considering that Hyundai also released games that did have differences, I think it can be argued either way. Regardless, it is more of just a weird quirk that arose due to a legal situation, and probably wouldn't have happened if Nintendo was able to just publish it on their own

[the_wizard_666 | 1,325]

2 hours ago, OptOut said:

I'm still not convinced that @Code Monkey isn't some sort of rogue AI chatbot! 

I've met him in person.  He's either a human or an extremely convincing android.

1 hour ago, Ankos said:

If I remember correctly, some official Gameboy stuff would sort of fall into that category, since I don't think Nintendo could sell their games directly in South Korea. Those would still say Nintendo on them, but they'd also have Hyundai branding

By that logic, every black box Canadian release was published by Mattel and not Nintendo.  Hyundai didn't publish anything, they were a regional distributor, like Mattel was in Canada.

[Ankos | 463]

27 minutes ago, the_wizard_666 said:

I've met him in person.  He's either a human or an extremely convincing android.

By that logic, every black box Canadian release was published by Mattel and not Nintendo.  Hyundai didn't publish anything, they were a regional distributor, like Mattel was in Canada.

What exactly would set a publisher apart from a distributor? This chain of discussion started with the idea on whether or not there were any games published by multiple companies on a single system with no code differences. If we get too strict with the definition of publisher then the conversation dead ends really fast, and does not make for a very interesting discussion

[fcgamer | 4,753]

26 minutes ago, Ankos said:

What exactly would set a publisher apart from a distributor? This chain of discussion started with the idea on whether or not there were any games published by multiple companies on a single system with no code differences. If we get too strict with the definition of publisher then the conversation dead ends really fast, and does not make for a very interesting discussion

I've got a few lined up with pics, I'll be off work and home to post in about fifty minutes

[YOURTURN | 1,257]

2 hours ago, goldenpp72 said:

I know this won't be a popular remark, but I've always found it interesting that you apparently 'need' Stadium Events to have a full NES set when it's simply retitled later. While It's kind of endearing, I don't think any console outside of the NES has such rigid requirements for some, unlicensed games, games that weren't ever released, games that aren't even games, or games retitled, all count to some. Today if Too Human on 360 had been rebranded as Human Too, no one would say 'you need both, or the first one' to have it count.

That is one of the few issues I had with the "full set" debate. I mean my old findings had somebody say that Bandai's Family Fitness set was a "test market" run. Which makes the argument delve into what variants should be added, etc. With me feeling that if SE is indeed a 'test market' title, it should be part of the same titles that were exclusive to other test markets. Even if that becomes a hyperbole in itself. But it is like what you said, games today have numerous title differences and nobody says you need this or that to complete any sets.

2 hours ago, goldenpp72 said:

Not that I have a horse in this race as I don't collect full sets generally, but the fact some consider even titles like NWC required is a bit silly to me, but I suppose in the end, it all comes down to what you're talking about. One could be anal and say to have a true set, that you also need every possible variant, insert, or even the original seals as well. Every 'set' is really a subset of some kind in my mind, which is usually why I just put a 'some version of a game, and it was released at retail' as a personal qualifier, thankfully, I only own a few full US sets and those wouldn't be disputed I'm sure, aside the fact they are only US sets of course. 

My argument has always been "If it was a standard retail release, it is part of the full set. But if there was a special condition to get it, such as a test market, it is part of that category's set." Which is why I am not treating my current focus as one where I need to go out of my way to get [insert Final Fantasy title here] if it is a "limited to these online stores" kind of release. And yet will hunt down a "early purchase" sticker variant if it is tied to a standard retail release.

It is just that way for me since the rules people put on these things is insane. And I do mean "Trial Edition" releases should be considered part of a "full" PS1 set if SE and NWC is part of a "full" NES set.

2 hours ago, goldenpp72 said:

I think a lot of it just comes from how NES was kind of the birth of the super enthusiast collector base though, everyone cared about oddities with that, but if someone tells you a 360 release has a 2 disc version versus a 1 disc version, or a disc pressed on a gold disc, or something, no one will care.

Which is one of those reasons why I quit the need to collect Transformers. One group I found talked about how it is impossible to truly build a full Transformers collection. And yet the group I was invited to had an "expert" tell me that TakaraTomy did not expand one of the sub-sets the other group talked about. Where as a Japanese PS4 collector is considered to have a full set even if they have one copy of every title, even if they do not have the deluxe, etc. variants.

[goldenpp72 | 1,235]

54 minutes ago, FenrirZero said:

That is one of the few issues I had with the "full set" debate. I mean my old findings had somebody say that Bandai's Family Fitness set was a "test market" run. Which makes the argument delve into what variants should be added, etc. With me feeling that if SE is indeed a 'test market' title, it should be part of the same titles that were exclusive to other test markets. Even if that becomes a hyperbole in itself. But it is like what you said, games today have numerous title differences and nobody says you need this or that to complete any sets.

My argument has always been "If it was a standard retail release, it is part of the full set. But if there was a special condition to get it, such as a test market, it is part of that category's set." Which is why I am not treating my current focus as one where I need to go out of my way to get [insert Final Fantasy title here] if it is a "limited to these online stores" kind of release. And yet will hunt down a "early purchase" sticker variant if it is tied to a standard retail release.

It is just that way for me since the rules people put on these things is insane. And I do mean "Trial Edition" releases should be considered part of a "full" PS1 set if SE and NWC is part of a "full" NES set.

Which is one of those reasons why I quit the need to collect Transformers. One group I found talked about how it is impossible to truly build a full Transformers collection. And yet the group I was invited to had an "expert" tell me that TakaraTomy did not expand one of the sub-sets the other group talked about. Where as a Japanese PS4 collector is considered to have a full set even if they have one copy of every title, even if they do not have the deluxe, etc. variants.

If you had seen my Vita topic before, you would see many define that 4 titles that never actually released, but only leaked and only possibly few existing, count towards the full US set towards that library. To me the idea of that is pretty insane to imagine, but that happened. Meanwhile other people don't count LRG or other limited releases because they were never retail releases, etc. That's kind of the issue when there really isn't an official authority on the matter, personally, if it was never able to be purchased in a normal distribution fashion, then it doesn't count. Anything outside of that is an interesting, potentially valuable anomaly. Much like I don't consider new fan games made in 2023 for the NES to be part of a set, it just doesn't make sense to me or fall into the spirit of the purpose.

Edited February 17, 2023 by goldenpp72

[fcgamer | 4,753]

5 hours ago, darkchylde28 said:

Legit stuff or bootleg/pirate stuff?  We were talking about the NES library, but I'm not opposed to expanding it into other libraries as well so long as we're sticking with actual publishers and not dealing with the 150,000,00 whack-a-mole, pop-up Asian pirate companies, because of course those pirate companies straight up copied other people's shit and put it out under their own banner.

I'm not really a fan of the gross generalizations you are stating in the above paragraph; ironically enough, your above post would fall into the realm of this very thread itself (i.e. the idea that the Asian non-Japanese companies are not legit, and are just pirate / bootleg outfits stealing IP without discretion and what not. 

The items I'm going to reference are of course legit items from legit companies.

Let's first take a look at Klax on Famicom. It was developed by Tengen, then licensed and published in Korea by the company Daou Infosys. The game is identical to the US release on the NES. I also have Road Runner from them (forgot to take a picture, it's around here somewhere), also identical to the US release. 

Daou Infosys also released Skull n Crossbones and Toobin', developed by Tengen, but they updated the splash screens and copyright screens.

Daou Infosys and Color Dreams would ink a similar deal together. The Color Dreams games would all have updated title screens though.

Finally, American Game Cartridges, Inc would ink a deal with Daou Infosys to license out their game Shockwave. Once again, it is indentical to the US release.

IIRC, BIC did something similar when they inked a deal to license and  publish the Codemasters NES catalogue to be published on the Famicom. The game data has not been changed at all, and even more interesting, some games (such as Ultimate Stuntman, Mig 29, Micro Motions IIRC) even had TWO DIFFERENT PUBLICATIONS; one version used NES boxes / manuals and is credited to BIC as the publisher, whereas the other used clamshell boxes which credits the game publisher to Realtec. Now, Realtec and BIC are more or less the same company, but technically if one wanted to get anal about it, they should be considered as two different companies.

Then there were also the Tiger releases of the Codemasters games - once again, no altered title screens.

EDIT: Forgot to mention AV Mahjong

Developed by C&E, the same company that did some games such as Bubble Bath Babes / Mermaids of Atlantis and Ultimate Soccer (they later even did an authorized PS game IIRC, as well as a Baseball game that licensed stats from the baseball teams here in Taiwan, so this isn't just some fly-by-night bootleg outfit).

They develoeped AV Mahjong for Hacker International in Japan, but also released their own version of the game in Taiwan, and the two games are identical. For those who are wondering, yes the C&E-published version has the naked chicks, the idea that it didn't was another one of those rumors that gained life but isn't true.

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by fcgamer

[fcgamer | 4,753]

5 hours ago, the_wizard_666 said:

If you think NES collectors are bad, you should see Atari 2600 collectors.  It's literally impossible to have a complete set because of the metrics they use...basically, if it exists in any form, it counts.  

I like this sort of style of collecting and documentation - throw everything that exists on a list, then people can decide for themselves what "counts" for their own personal collecting goals. People could collect subsets and exclude variants, collect by publisher, ignore imports, collect only the "key" titles, etc.

On the NES side of things though, it always feels as though it's butt-hurt folks who want the set without paying the cash versus the "have-it" elites. When the Sachens first appeared in the DP guide, tons of people went snake, as suddenly their sets weren't "complete" anymore, and later the set wasn't just kicked to the curb, it was mutilated and thrown in a metaphorical bin bag first.

Such attitudes aren't really useful when trying to establish what does and does not actually exist; this is why a method of "they all count and no one can get a true full set, so we document all of the discoveries and then people just decide to collect in their own defined parameters" works so much better for everyone.

 

[fcgamer | 4,753]

1 hour ago, goldenpp72 said:

If you had seen my Vita topic before, you would see many define that 4 titles that never actually released, but only leaked and only possibly few existing, count towards the full US set towards that library. To me the idea of that is pretty insane to imagine, but that happened. Meanwhile other people don't count LRG or other limited releases because they were never retail releases, etc. That's kind of the issue when there really isn't an official authority on the matter, personally, if it was never able to be purchased in a normal distribution fashion, then it doesn't count. Anything outside of that is an interesting, potentially valuable anomaly. Much like I don't consider new fan games made in 2023 for the NES to be part of a set, it just doesn't make sense to me or fall into the spirit of the purpose.

As in the message I posted above, this exact reason is why I enjoy the Atari 2600 format of throwing everything on the list as "counting".

There's so many different items that I personally wouldn't count on my list of Famicom / Famiclone collecting, but I still find it worthy to be researched and documented, even if I don't personally have the interest to do so.

Stuff like the LRG games, or the Vita stuff from that thread you mentioned - I'd definitely be tracking them and putting them on a master list if I were collecting for those machines, but those entries would have notes afterwards and would be items that I personally wouldn't both collecting to obtain my own goals.

[phart010 | 1,708]

3 hours ago, Ankos said:

What exactly would set a publisher apart from a distributor? This chain of discussion started with the idea on whether or not there were any games published by multiple companies on a single system with no code differences. If we get too strict with the definition of publisher then the conversation dead ends really fast, and does not make for a very interesting discussion

The publisher is the entity that places the manufacturing order directly with Nintendo. They are the one responsible for paying the bill to manufacture the games. The distributor is the company that sells the game to the consumer. The distributor sources their games from the publisher 

[phart010 | 1,708]

5 hours ago, darkchylde28 said:

I don't think that counts, as there's not two games under the same name with two different publishers but no code change in Korea.  If Nintendo had released one and then Hyndai had released one too, there'd be more to talk about, but as-is it's just a partnership versus two publishers publishing the exact same game in the same region/set with no differences.

Gameboy has a bunch of examples. Adventure Island and Felix the cat were both Hudsonsoft games. They were reprinted by Electrobrain. All they did was replace the Hudson logo with Electrobrain logo on the printed materials… the game code was not changed.

Also Bubble Bobble On Gameboy. The Taito logo was replaced with the Natsume logo on printed materials only. Game code did not change.

Same with the Gameboy Final Fantasy Adventure games.

Edited February 17, 2023 by phart010

[Link | 2,727]

9 hours ago, phart010 said:

 

I am pretty disturbed by what chatGPT reported to me earlier.

Call it out. See if you can make it mad  
https://www.techspot.com/news/97621-microsoft-gpt-powered-bing-chat-call-you-liar.html