Definition of a "Complete Set"?

[Tulpa | 3,488]

1 hour ago, cartman said:

If it's a prototype it shouldn't count since either the full game is already released or it never was meant to be. But either way it was never circulated.

That applies to the retail set, but prototypes are still NES games (many are complete games), and for the "true full set," they'd count. You also have prototype sets for those type of collectors.

1 hour ago, cartman said:

But usually a set is counted as something official because it doesn't make much sense that everything that someone creates is part of it.

But who makes it official? Certainly not Nintendo, their list of NES games isn't complete. They took six games off, including Mike Tyson's Punch Out. Try telling a collector that game doesn't count.

The only "official" list is one agreed upon by collectors, and again, they're putting on their arbitrary limits. Licensed, region, retail release, etc.

I understand the limits, because otherwise collecting wouldn't have achievable goals, but the word "full" is meaningless unless you specify what you're actually after.

 

1 hour ago, cartman said:

The outlier definition is to include homebrews and everything that runs while the norm is only the licensed. So yes you can have any possible definition but those are the ones that should be qualified not the other way around.

Keep in mind the collecting of licensed games exclusively being in vogue is more recent. Collectors from the early days didn't slap on that distinction to exclude the unlicensed games. Many still don't.

So the idea of the "full set = licensed" is not universal, and was not always the historical set.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Tulpa

[cartman | 195]

47 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Quote

That applies to the retail set, but prototypes are still NES games (many are complete games), and for the "true full set," they'd count. You also have prototype sets for those type of collectors.

By that definition you can take any amount of progress in programming and call it a game prematurely. Since prototype denotes a sample, something unfinished, something that may or may not be circulated for sale, it doesn't make sense counting it as part of a set. 

 

Quote

 

But who makes it official? Certainly not Nintendo, their list of NES games isn't complete. They took six games off, including Mike Tyson's Punch Out. Try telling a collector that game doesn't count.

The only "official" list is one agreed upon by collectors, and again, they're putting on their arbitrary limits. Licensed, region, retail release, etc.

I understand the limits, because otherwise collecting wouldn't have achievable goals, but the word "full" is meaningless unless you specify what you're actually after.

 

They're the authors of the console so naturally it is they who make it official. In lack of an universal authority they're still the 2nd closest to it and the vast majority of companies wanted to align themselves with the licensing anyway so like 95% of games will have been licensed by them.

If they take games off it doesn't neccessarily mean that they aren't the authority. It can mean that they fucked up, or that they wanted a licensed game to lose it for whatever reason. A company might be causing fuckery in some way and their game gets pulled - doesn't mean Nintendo stops being the authority on the issue.

 

 

47 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Keep in mind the collecting of licensed games exclusively being in vogue is more recent. Collectors from the early days didn't slap on that distinction to exclude the unlicensed games. Many still don't.

So the idea of the "full set = licensed" is not universal, and was not always the historical set.

Yes it remains subjective but license is a more reasonable measuring stick than "anything goes". Regardless of who collected what.

[Tulpa | 3,488]

23 minutes ago, cartman said:

They're the authors of the console so naturally it is they who make it official. In lack of an universal authority they're still the 2nd closest to it and the vast majority of companies wanted to align themselves with the licensing anyway so like 95% of games will have been licensed by them.

If they take games off it doesn't neccessarily mean that they aren't the authority. It can mean that they fucked up, or that they wanted a licensed game to lose it for whatever reason. A company might be causing fuckery in some way and their game gets pulled - doesn't mean Nintendo stops being the authority on the issue.

But it ignores hundreds of games that were developed for the system. Good games. Games that were often better than the licensed ones. So their "authority" is already suspect.

Just because a licensing mechanism was in place doesn't necessarily define the "set." It can define a set, the licensed set, but it's clearly ignoring games that came out during the lifespan, not to mention the other games developed after.

It's a licensed set, but not the "full set."

And let's not forget that Nintendo is not interested in who collects for a system they've declared dead over twenty five years ago. It's just a historical list for their own history, not the history of games for that console (because other games outside the licensed set exist.) So their authority over what constitutes the "set" means very little.

 

23 minutes ago, cartman said:

Yes it remains subjective but license is a more reasonable measuring stick than "anything goes". Regardless of who collected what.

Licensed game collecting fine unless it is used as an easy, lazy way to get a "set" and try to call it a "full set." Those collectors who call it "full" don't want to deal with stuff like the Sachens, the Gluk games, or the American unlicensed games. Hell, many ignore great European licensed games like Mr. Gimmick.

It's fine to collect the licensed set. Just don't be calling the "full set," because it isn't.

BTW, a trend lately is to try to ignore Stadium Events because of the cost.

So already the definition of the licensed set is eroding.

People's definition of the "full set" is hardly authoritive, unless they mean EVERYTHING.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Tulpa

[cartman | 195]

1 minute ago, Tulpa said:

But it ignores hundreds of games that were developed for the system. Good games. Games that were often better than the licensed ones.

Just because a licensing mechanism was in place doesn't necessarily define the "set." It can define a set, the licensed set, but it's clearly ignoring games that came out during the lifespan, not to mention the other games developed after.

It's a licensed set, but not the "full set."

And let's not forget that Nintendo is not interested in who collects for a system they've declared dead over twenty five years ago. So their authority over what constitutes the "set" means very little.

 

Licensed game collecting is just an easy, lazy way to get a "set." They don't want to deal with stuff like the Sachens, the Gluk games, or the American unlicensed games. Hell, many ignore great European licensed games like Mr. Gimmick.

It's fine to collect the licensed set. Just don't be calling the "full set," because it isn't.

Maybe but that's another topic. Wether a game is good has no bearing on whether a game is "authentic".

A licensing isn't the end all be all if you don't want it to be but even on a subjective note i'd say the bias favours something Nintendo greenlighted over an array of garage joe's, chinese market knockoffs, games being released 30 years after the consoles lifespan and whatnot.

We all atleast agree that Nintendo's seal absolutely constitutes part of a set while we don't agree whether the unlicensed games do or don't - that too is indicative of something. 

Ultimately the burden of proof is on the objectors of license being the measuring stick to argue their case and to me that's an innately weaker position to make. But since there is no right or wrong, it can always be made and insisted upon.

I think there is a place for unlicensed games regardless of their categorization.

[Tulpa | 3,488]

6 minutes ago, cartman said:

Maybe but that's another topic. Wether a game is good has no bearing on whether a game is "authentic".

 

The unlicensed game exists, though. I can put it in an NES and it'll play. It may not be licensed, but it works as an NES game.

That's something that licensed collectors (who insist on the full set being licensed) cannot deny, no matter how much they want to.

6 minutes ago, cartman said:

A licensing isn't the end all be all if you don't want it to be but even on a subjective note i'd say the bias favours something Nintendo greenlighted over an array of garage joe's, chinese market knockoffs, games being released 30 years after the consoles lifespan and whatnot.

The only thing that would get a game greenlit is paying Nintendo money.

They didn't look at quality (THQ is proof of that) or anything else, really.

Hardly a standard to say that a game exists in the full set or not.

6 minutes ago, cartman said:

 

We all atleast agree that Nintendo's seal absolutely constitutes part of a set while we don't agree whether the unlicensed games do or don't - that too is indicative of something. 

It's only really indicative that some people just don't want to collect unlicensed games.

Which is fine.

But calling your licensed set full, I'll laugh my ass off at you.

6 minutes ago, cartman said:

Ultimately the burden of proof is on the objectors of license being the measuring stick to argue their case and to me that's an innately weaker position to make. But since there is no right or wrong, it can always be made and insisted upon.

Again, though, the games exist and work in an NES.

That's an objective standard, and a pretty damn good one.

6 minutes ago, cartman said:

I think there is a place for unlicensed games regardless of their categorization.

Sure. They fit in various sets, and ultimately the full set, however big that may ultimately be.

 

Again, I have nothing against collecting only licensed.

Just that you're fooling yourself if you call it a full set.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Tulpa

[avatar! | 1,807]

1 hour ago, cartman said:

They're the authors of the console so naturally it is they who make it official.

Nintendo is a corporate entity, much like Disney. And much like Disney, they only like things that are related to their products. Ultimately things that can make them $$$. I definitely do NOT view them as the official source for video games (including NES games), much like I don't see Disney as the official source for cartoons. The fact that they took out Mike Tyson's Punch-Out kinda says it all

Tulpa, what other games did Nintendo remove?

[Tulpa | 3,488]

9 minutes ago, avatar! said:

Tulpa, what other games did Nintendo remove?

If I remember right, Miracle Piano, Cyberball, RBI Baseball, Gauntlet, and Pacman.

The last three were the Tengen licensed games. Okay, they had a beef with Tengen.

Cyberball was published by Jaleco, but is a port of an Atari arcade game. Atari was also Tengen, so I can kind of see that, but Nintendo left on other Atari developed games, like Paperboy, Roadblasters, Gauntlet II(!) and Rampart (also a Jaleco published game.)

Miracle Piano I guess because it was software instead of a game (even though there are piano based games on it,) but Videomation, Tiny Toons Cartoon Workshop, and Taboo the Sixth Sense remained on the list.

So their consistency was a little out of whack.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Tulpa

[cartman | 195]

16 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Quote

 

The unlicensed game exists, though. I can put it in an NES and it'll play. It may not be licensed, but it works as an NES game.

That's something that licensed collectors (who insist on the full set being licensed) cannot deny, no matter how much they want to.

 

If your definition is set = everything playable then that's what it is.

Quote

Quote

 

The only thing that would get a game greenlit is paying Nintendo money.

They didn't look at quality (THQ is proof of that) or anything else, really.

Hardly a standard to say that a game exists in the full set or not.

 

Regardless. There is a legitimate authority that has given it an approval.

 

Quote

 

It's only really indicative that some people just don't want to collect unlicensed games.

Which is fine.

But calling your licensed set full, I'll laugh my ass off at you.

 

It's indicative that Nintendo's license is a recognized authority while the unlicensed games are debatable. The licensed ones aren't up for debate whether they belong to a full set or not.

So it's more fitting calling a licensed set full than saying that it isn't.

Quote

 

Again, though, the games exist and work in an NES.

That's an objective standard, and a pretty damn good one.

 

I wouldn't say it's a good one really seems too arbitrary and unfitting. But it is one.

 

Quote

Sure. They fit in various sets, and ultimately the full set, however big that may ultimately be.

They fit in as a sidenote type of collection i would say.

Quote

 

Again, I have nothing against collecting only licensed.

Just that you're fooling yourself if you call it a full set.

 

That's the general definition and the one Nintendo would go by aswell.

 

[cartman | 195]

19 minutes ago, avatar! said:

Nintendo is a corporate entity, much like Disney. And much like Disney, they only like things that are related to their products. Ultimately things that can make them $$$. I definitely do NOT view them as the official source for video games (including NES games), much like I don't see Disney as the official source for cartoons. The fact that they took out Mike Tyson's Punch-Out kinda says it all

Tulpa, what other games did Nintendo remove?

But Disney is the official source for their cartoons and what will be shown on their channel. And Nintendo is the closest to a source for their platform.

[Tulpa | 3,488]

12 minutes ago, cartman said:

If your definition is set = everything playable then that's what it is.

Not just set, "full set." All others are subsets.

12 minutes ago, cartman said:

Regardless. There is a legitimate authority that has given it an approval.

It gave approval for marketing back in the day.

They have ZERO authority on collecting.

12 minutes ago, cartman said:

It's indicative that Nintendo's license is a recognized authority while the unlicensed games are debatable. The licensed ones aren't up for debate whether they belong to a full set or not.

So it's more fitting calling a licensed set full than saying that it isn't.

Licensed games can be IN the set.

They alone are not THE full set. They're a set within the full set.

12 minutes ago, cartman said:

I wouldn't say it's a good one really seems too arbitrary and unfitting. But it is one.

How is it arbitrary? It is literally defining a game that works in an NES.

Arbitrary is drawing the line of a full set at licensed just because they have a gray shell and a fancy seal when there is literally hundreds of games that are out there that work just as well as those gray ones.

12 minutes ago, cartman said:

They fit in as a sidenote type of collection i would say.

For you, sure, but that's never been the popular view. Only recently have a certain group of collectors gone for licensed only and then try to claim that their set is "full."

Admit it, they just don't want to collect more than they have to, and yet they still want to brag that they got a full set.

It's lazy and cheap.

And again, many of them are trying to say Stadium Events doesn't belong.

So licensed collectors who try to say the full set is a licensed set carry very little weight with me, and with many of the old guard who created the lists that collectors today use, including the licensed list.

12 minutes ago, cartman said:

That's the general definition and the one Nintendo would go by aswell.

It is by no means the general definition, just the definition of a vocal minority who don't want to spend time looking for the unlicensed games and yet want to say they have a full set.

Nintendo doesn't even go by the full 677 licensed games that licensed collectors go by, so their opinion on this is dogshit, too.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Tulpa

[Tulpa | 3,488]

4 minutes ago, cartman said:

But Disney is the official source for their cartoons and what will be shown on their channel. And Nintendo is the closest to a source for their platform.

It's not even their platform anymore. The patents ran out in 2003. That's why clones exist.

And again, they don't give two shits about collecting. Just about what they narrowly define as their "history."

Just because they created it doesn't mean they get to dictate what is an NES game.

[cartman | 195]

4 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Not just set, "full set." All others are subsets.

It gave approval for marketing back in the day.

They have ZERO authority on collecting.

Licensed games can be IN the set.

They alone are not THE full set. They're a set within the full set.

How is it arbitrary? It is literally defining a game that works in an NES.

Arbitrary is drawing the line of a full set at licensed just because they have a gray shell and a fancy seal when there is literally hundreds of games that are out there that work just as well as those gray ones.

For you, sure, but that's never been the popular view. Only recently have a certain group of collectors gone for licensed only and then try to claim that their set is "full."

Admit it, they just don't want to collect more than they have to, and brag that they got a full set.

It's lazy and cheap.

And again, many of them are trying to say Stadium Events doesn't belong.

So licensed collectors who try to say the full set is a licensed set carry very little weight with me, and many of the old guard who created the lists that collectors today use, including the licensed list.

It is by no means the general definition, just the definition of a vocal minority who don't want to spend time looking for the unlicensed games and yet want to say they have a full set.

Nintendo doesn't even go by the full 677 licensed games that licensed collectors go by, so their opinion on this is dogshit, too.

 

4 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Quote

Not just set, "full set." All others are subsets.

Either way if it's your personal definition then that's what it is.

Quote

 

It gave approval for marketing back in the day.

They have ZERO authority on collecting.

 

They considered it part of their console. 

Quote

 

Licensed games can be IN the set.

They alone are not THE full set. They're a set within the full set.

 

If something is considered an illegitimate entry then it's not part of the full set. Despite exiting. That's where the confusion seems to stem from. 

 

Quote

 

How is it arbitrary? It is literally defining a game that works in an NES.

Arbitrary is drawing the line of a full set at licensed just because they have a gray shell and a fancy seal when there is literally hundreds of games that are out there that work just as well as those gray ones.

 

Because it opens the door wide for everything.

A Chinese bootleg can be a game.

A demo.

A screen that i program and release on a cart that only blinks black and white. I read about some PC game programmer that created a program like that, basically just to prove to himself that he can code something. Is that part of a "full set" to you if being released for the NES and called a game?

There's no type of standard with your definition, nothing.

Quote

 

For you, sure, but that's never been the popular view. Only recently have a certain group of collectors gone for licensed only and then try to claim that their set is "full."

Admit it, they just don't want to collect more than they have to, and brag that they got a full set.

It's lazy and cheap.

And again, many of them are trying to say Stadium Events doesn't belong.

So licensed collectors who try to say the full set is a licensed set carry very little weight with me, and many of the old guard who created the lists that collectors today use, including the licensed list.

 

That's the view i've mostly stumbled across altough admittedly i don't delve all that deep into full set collecting. 

There's nothing to admit. Just as people differentiate between real and fake brands of clothes, you might say "the fake's are great still" but others won't see it that way. Now maybe unlicensed games are not fair to be labelled as outright fake but you gotta realize that there IS a case to be made that they're not legitimate entries for a completionist. Doesn't have to be out of laziness.

Quote

 

It is by no means the general definition, just the definition of a vocal minority who don't want to spend time looking for the unlicensed games and yet want to say they have a full set.

Nintendo doesn't even go by the full 677 licensed games that licensed collectors go by, so their opinion on this is dogshit, too.

 

 

If Nintendo isn't the authority anyone else is even further away. It doesn't really change anything.

[cartman | 195]

Man this quoting shit is a mess but hopefully it's clear what i wrote.

[Tulpa | 3,488]

10 minutes ago, cartman said:

They considered it part of their console. 

Which they don't even make anymore and thy don't concern themselves with collecting for it.

10 minutes ago, cartman said:

If something is considered an illegitimate entry then it's not part of the full set. Despite exiting. That's where the confusion seems to stem from. 

Again, though you're giving Nintendo sole authority when event they're not consistent with what a licensed game is.

Only Nintendo thought it was illegitimate. Back in the day, unlicensed games were NES games. People happily bought them and played them and collected them just fine.

10 minutes ago, cartman said:

Because it opens the door wide for everything.

A Chinese bootleg can be a game.

A demo.

A screen that i program and release on a cart that only blinks black and white. I read about some PC game programmer that created a program like that, basically just to prove to himself that he can code something. Is that part of a "full set" to you if being released for the NES and called a game?

There's no type of standard with your definition, nothing.

Game cartridge works in an NES = NES game.

Pretty easy standard.

Yes, the full set is constantly expanding.

It should, because some great homebrew games are out there.

 

AGAIN, THIS IS ONLY A CONCERN TO YOU IF YOU HAVE TO USE THE WORD "FULL" IN YOUR COLLECTING.

Just admit you're only going for a licensed set, and don't use the word "full" at all.

 

10 minutes ago, cartman said:

That's the view i've mostly stumbled across altough admittedly i don't delve all that deep into full set collecting. 

Then you're seeing a view from a very biased collector base. They have every interest in de-legitimizing the unlicensed games, because they want to say their set is the "full NES set." They just can't accept that a licensed set, while impressive, isn't the full set.

10 minutes ago, cartman said:

There's nothing to admit. Just as people differentiate between real and fake brands of clothes, you might say "the fake's are great still" but others won't see it that way. Now maybe unlicensed games are not fair to be labelled as outright fake but you gotta realize that there IS a case to be made that they're not legitimate entries for a completionist. Doesn't have to be out of laziness.

Yes, it is.

Back in the collecting beginnings, NO ONE tried to say the licensed set was the full set. No one.

Now we have a new group of collectors rising that want a "full set" but don't want to put the effort into it, so they glommed onto licensed collecting.

AND MANY DON'T EVEN WANT STADIUM EVENTS!

It's laziness. Or cheapness.

Again, for the tenth time. I don't have anything against someone who collects licensed only.

Only that they're calling their set full when it isn't.

10 minutes ago, cartman said:

If Nintendo isn't the authority anyone else is even further away. It doesn't really change anything.

Nintendo has no interest in the collecting scene. So their authority is meaningless.

Collectors have vested interest, and were the ones who put the lists together. They have everything to do with collecting to this day.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Tulpa

[Splain | 2,560]

I can appreciate the desire for specificity, and I already agree that people should qualify these things about their NES sets, (licensed, minus SE, etc) but if someone says "I own a fullset," then what do you assume they mean? Obviously they don't own a full set of every NES rom ever coded.

If someone says they own every Harry Potter book, can anyone say "no, I wrote my own Harry Potter book and you don't have a copy of it" with a straight face? And demand that they say they own every Harry Potter book that was written and published by JK Rowling? It doesn't matter how much or how little the original author "cares" about collecting, it doesn't matter how "good" the fanfiction is, and it doesn't matter if Harry Potter fans used to happily read the fanfics.

[Tulpa | 3,488]

3 minutes ago, Splain said:

but if someone says "I own a fullset," then what do you assume they mean?

I don't assume anything. I wait for further clarification.

If they say they have a full licensed set, I generally* know what they mean.

In general, it'd be better if people just say they have whatever specific set they have and not bring "full" into it.

 

 

*I may ask if that includes Stadium Events (because somehow that game got delicensed in the minds of some.)

Edited October 17, 2020 by Tulpa

[Splain | 2,560]

Just now, Tulpa said:

*I may ask if that includes Stadium Events (because somehow that game got delicensed in the minds of some.)

Yeah I agree that SE can't just be tossed aside because of its price. As much of a thorn as it is.

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,011]

My question is, if a game is pre order only, does that mean it was available at retail? Or is that the modern day equivalent of a game being available only through QVC or some other send away process.

[cartman | 195]

9 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Quote

Which they don't even make anymore and thy don't concern themselves with collecting for it.

They don't have to make it they still remain the source of that era. And they don't have to care about collecting either they just have to have sold an object.

Quote

 

Again, though you're giving Nintendo sole authority when event they're not consistent with what a licensed game is.

Only Nintendo thought it was illegitimate. Back in the day, unlicensed games were NES games. People happily bought them and played them and collected them just fine.

 

Well then they should've been more consistent. Yes i'm giving them sole authority - because they're the closest thing to be considered one being the original authors and biggest licensers aswell.

It's not an "only" issue they are the source around wich the collecting revolves. It's a Nintendo collection.

 

Quote

 

Game cartridge works in an NES = NES game.

Pretty easy standard.

Yes, the full set is constantly expanding.

It should, because some great homebrew games are out there.

 

AGAIN, THIS IS ONLY A CONCERN TO YOU IF YOU HAVE TO USE THE WORD "FULL" IN YOUR COLLECTING.

Just admit you're only going for a licensed set, and don't use the word "full" at all.

 

Ok you can define it like that but that is no type of collection to me. The idea that everything that exists is part of a full set without any overhead definition is off to me, it's closer to something counterfit than authentic.

Quote

Then you're seeing a view from a very biased collector base. They have every interest in de-legitimizing the unlicensed games, because they want to say their set is the "full NES set." They just can't accept that a licensed set, while impressive, isn't the full set.

I don't believe that it's just different perspectives.

Quote

 

Yes, it is.

Back in the collecting beginnings, NO ONE tried to say the licensed set was the full set. No one.

Now we have a new group of collectors rising that want a "full set" but don't want to put the effort into it, so they glommed onto licensed collecting.

AND MANY DON'T EVEN WANT STADIUM EVENTS!

It's laziness. Or cheapness.

Again, for the tenth time. I don't have anything against someone who collects licensed only.

Only that they're calling their set full when it isn't.

 

But are you sure they counted Sachen/Tengen just because they didn't outright say "licensed and unlicensed"? To me it kinda goes without saying that all licensed is enought for a full set.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Nintendo has no interest in the collecting scene. So their authority is meaningless.

Collectors have vested interest, and were the ones who put the lists together. They have everything to do with collecting to this day.

 

No it isn't. They're the source of the collecting object. Just like baseball cards or whatever that company doesn't have to collect themselves but they remain none the less the blueprint of what the collecting is.

If they release 1 golden card out of 100 regular ones then that has impact.

If it's a League, year, team that makes up the full series and it has 1000 individual cards too then that means something.

 

 

[Tulpa | 3,488]

31 minutes ago, cartman said:

They don't have to make it they still remain the source of that era. And they don't have to care about collecting either they just have to have sold an object.

But that doesn't make them the arbiter of what the full set is. They just made and sold a console and some of the games for them. That alone doesn't make them the authority, because plenty of people made games without their authorization, plenty of people bought those games, and plenty of people collect those games.

A snazzy seal doesn't make Tengen's library disappear.

31 minutes ago, cartman said:

Well then they should've been more consistent. Yes i'm giving them sole authority - because they're the closest thing to be considered one being the original authors and biggest licensers aswell.

It's not an "only" issue they are the source around wich the collecting revolves. It's a Nintendo collection.

They don't concern themselves with collecting, though. They're not "the source."

Collectors created the collecting scene. They compiled the lists. They painstakingly documented everything. They don't arbitrarily remove games, either.

They did WAY more for modern collecting than anything Nintendo ever did in that regard. Nintendo just made a very flawed list that has no authority in defining the full set.

31 minutes ago, cartman said:

Ok you can define it like that but that is no type of collection to me. The idea that everything that exists is part of a full set without any overhead definition is off to me, it's closer to something counterfit than authentic.

The overhead definition is "works in an NES = NES game." You don't get more overhead than that.

"Authentic" to you just means someone paid Nintendo some money. That doesn't make a game authentic. It's just a marketing tool. It has no real meaning in modern collecting except to define the licensed set. That's all.

If you want to call it the Licensed Set, I have no issue with that. If you call it a full set, I know you're only full of shit.

31 minutes ago, cartman said:

I don't believe that it's just different perspectives.

It's true. Ask the old guard.

Putting the full set at licensed started happening when NES game prices took off. Before then, no one made a distinction as to what the full set was in regards to licensed and unlicensed. All NES games discovered were in the set.

Low and behold, a new group of collectors didn't want to add the unlicensed games to their collecting goals.

That's fine, but they lost any privilege of calling their sets "full."

31 minutes ago, cartman said:

But are you sure they counted Sachen/Tengen just because they didn't outright say "licensed and unlicensed"? To me it kinda goes without saying that all licensed is enought for a full set.

Sachen was discovered later, and many collectors added those games to the list of the full set.

Yes, Tengen, Color Dreams, Camerica and the others all counted back in the day. Every list had them. Everyone wanted them. You can find old Usenet posts, or old posts on NintendoAge. Licensed, unlicensed, it was all in the full set. No one tried to say the licensed set was the only set.

It's only a recent trend to limit the collecting to the licensed set.

31 minutes ago, cartman said:

No it isn't. They're the source of the collecting object. Just like baseball cards or whatever that company doesn't have to collect themselves but they remain none the less the blueprint of what the collecting is.

Nintendo didn't produce every game. They're by no means the only source. So the card analogy falls flat.

They made the console, but that alone doesn't grant them some divine authority to what constitutes an NES game. Licensed games, yes. But they don't have a say in all NES games.

Because NES games were made without Nintendo's authorization and no one back in the day gave two shits about whether it was licensed or unlicensed.

You really need to look into how things were back then.

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Tulpa

[LeatherRebel5150 | 1,055]

3 hours ago, Tulpa said:

The unlicensed game exists, though. I can put it in an NES and it'll play. It may not be licensed, but it works as an NES game.

That's something that licensed collectors (who insist on the full set being licensed) cannot deny, no matter how much they want to.

 

 

Just because something works as a NES game means nothing. The unlicensed games then and now use methods to circumvent the lockout chip that were/are either potentially damaging (voltage spike) or outright illegal (Tengen lying to acquire Nintendo's CIC code).  

2 hours ago, Tulpa said:

It gave approval for marketing back in the day.

How is it arbitrary? It is literally defining a game that works in an NES.

Arbitrary is drawing the line of a full set at licensed just because they have a gray shell and a fancy seal when there is literally hundreds of games that are out there that work just as well as those gray ones.

For you, sure, but that's never been the popular view. Only recently have a certain group of collectors gone for licensed only and then try to claim that their set is "full."

 

It also gave them access to the proper components to work with the machine as intended from my previous comment. I'd argue arbitrarily saying someone found a way for something to work on this machine and illicitly found a way to circumvent the technology creators copyrights (CIC code) is reason for it not to be considered. The other problem I find with statement is these games your talking about DON'T work just as well. If they did then there would be no need to circumvent the security chip at all. The mere act of stunning the CIC is proof that it does not work correctly at all. No electronics would need to be hit like that if these games "worked just as well as those gray ones."

What are you calling recent? I been around 10yrs doing this now and when I first came in their were posts of people completing their NES set, they clearly meant licensed and there wasn't a flurry of people attacking them for the terminology. It wasn't until a few years later did I see a person or two bumming on the threads with "Umm well actually, that's not full, 'cause you don't have that one game some dude made once, so yea"

2 hours ago, Tulpa said:

It's not even their platform anymore. The patents ran out in 2003. That's why clones exist.

 

Patents may have ran out but copyrights last a stupid amount of time. The CIC code is still copyrighted. The clone chips that may use their code are doing so illegally even if Nintendo don't care to act on it. Clones don't contain the lockout chips as far as I'm aware, barring maybe the AVS since they had the said CIC clone. 

1 hour ago, Tulpa said:

 

Only Nintendo thought it was illegitimate. Back in the day, unlicensed games were NES games. People happily bought them and played them and collected them just fine.

Game cartridge works in an NES = NES game.

Pretty easy standard.

Just admit you're only going for a licensed set, and don't use the word "full" at all.

 

They quite literally were illegitimate they did not work with the machine as they were supposed to. See above comments about the lockout chip. Just because I can force a Mustang 302 engine to work in my Firebird doesn't suddenly make the 302 a Pontiac engine. 

Personally I'm still going to refer to it as a full set anyway. It's common vernacular at this point, people know what I mean. If they don't they can use their brains to figure it out from the context.

Edited October 17, 2020 by LeatherRebel5150

[Tulpa | 3,488]

18 minutes ago, LeatherRebel5150 said:

Just because something works as a NES game means nothing. The unlicensed games then and now use methods to circumvent the lockout chip that were/are either potentially damaging (voltage spike) or outright illegal (Tengen lying to acquire Nintendo's CIC code).  

Right, but if we're talking about a classification, they're still NES games that work in NES. The method is irrelevant.

They're just not licensed.

18 minutes ago, LeatherRebel5150 said:

It also gave them access to the proper components to work with the machine as intended from my previous comment. I'd argue arbitrarily saying someone found a way for something to work on this machine and illicitly found a way to circumvent the technology creators copyrights (CIC code) is reason for it not to be considered. The other problem I find with statement is these games your talking about DON'T work just as well. If they did then there would be no need to circumvent the security chip at all. The mere act of stunning the CIC is proof that it does not work correctly at all. No electronics would need to be hit like that if these games "worked just as well as those gray ones."

Plenty of licensed games didn't work if the pin connector was dirty. The CIC chip was problematic for a variety of reasons. But to me, that isn't the arbitor of what is an actual NES game. Just the licensed ones.

And plenty of homebrews use actual lockout chips borrowed from donors.

18 minutes ago, LeatherRebel5150 said:

 

What are you calling recent? I been around 10yrs doing this now and when I first came in their were posts of people completing their NES set, they clearly meant licensed and there wasn't a flurry of people attacking them for the terminology. It wasn't until a few years later did I see a person or two bumming on the threads with "Umm well actually, that's not full, 'cause you don't have that one game some dude made once, so yea"

Around that time compared to the early 90s. No one differentiated licensed and unlicensed in terms of the full set back then.

Licensed = full set is comparatively recent.

Again, though, it's only in using the term full set. You say full licensed set, as long as it's 677 games including SE, we're good. If you say full set, I'm wondering if you have the NA unlicensed, the European games, the Sachens, etc. Yes, it does matter, as collectors out there do collect those as well.

18 minutes ago, LeatherRebel5150 said:

Patents may have ran out but copyrights last a stupid amount of time. The CIC code is still copyrighted. The clone chips that may use their code are doing so illegally even if Nintendo don't care to act on it. Clones don't contain the lockout chips as far as I'm aware, barring maybe the AVS since they had the said CIC clone. 

Clone consoles don't need the lockout chips since the original NES console is the one who initiates the lockout (it resets in a loop if the chip isn't communicated with or bypassed.) The lockout was for games not authorized by Nintendo to not play in a Nintendo-built NES (whether that worked or not is another story), not the other way around. That's why licensed games will play in everything from the AVS down to the cheapo Reto-Bit clones. The CIC in the cartridge sits unused.

But at any rate, Nintendo's methods aren't geared towards collecting in any way, shape, or form. It was just a marketing and manufacturing decision made back in the 80s that they have no stake in today.

18 minutes ago, LeatherRebel5150 said:

They quite literally were illegitimate they did not work with the machine as they were supposed to. See above comments about the lockout chip. Just because I can force a Mustang 302 engine to work in my Firebird doesn't suddenly make the 302 a Pontiac engine. 

That didn't mean anything to consumers, though, and didn't mean anything to collectors until, well, recently. Plently of collectors still go after unlicensed.

Again, it's just the full set with no qualifications that's at issue.

18 minutes ago, LeatherRebel5150 said:

Personally I'm still going to refer to it as a full set anyway. It's common vernacular at this point, people know what I mean. If they don't they can use their brains to figure it out from the context.

I'll still grill you about whether you have a full licensed set or a full NA retail set, or, a worldwide retail set...

And if you show me your collection, call it a full set, and I only see the licensed games, I'll still give you some shit. Then we can play SMB 3 or something.

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Tulpa

[LeatherRebel5150 | 1,055]

4 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

 

And if you show me your collection, call it a full set, and I only see the licensed games, I'll still give you some shit. Then we can play SMB 3 or something.

 

Deal!

[Tulpa | 3,488]

Super Mario 3 party at Leatherrebels!

I just think it's a bit of disservice to ignore the unlicensed library if anything. I mean, a full set without Ms. Pac-Man* or Micro Machines is a full set I want no part of.

 

*Tengen. Namco Ms. P can go blow goats.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Tulpa

[cartman | 195]

48 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

But that doesn't make them the arbiter of what the full set is. They just made and sold a console and some of the games for them. That alone doesn't make them the authority, because plenty of people made games without their authorization, plenty of people bought those games, and plenty of people collect those games.

A snazzy seal doesn't make Tengen's library disappear.

They don't concern themselves with collecting, though. They're not "the source."

Collectors created the collecting scene. They compiled the lists. They painstakingly documented everything. They don't arbitrarily remove games, either.

They did WAY more for modern collecting than anything Nintendo ever did in that regard. Nintendo just made a very flawed list that has no authority in defining the full set.

The overhead definition is "works in an NES = NES game." You don't get more overhead than that.

"Authentic" to you just means someone paid Nintendo some money. That doesn't make a game authentic. It's just a marketing tool. It has no real meaning in modern collecting except to define the licensed set. That's all.

If you want to call it the Licensed Set, I have no issue with that. If you call it a full set, I know you're only full of shit.

It's true. Ask the old guard.

Putting the full set at licensed started happening when NES game prices took off. Before then, no one made a distinction as to what the full set was in regards to licensed and unlicensed. All NES games discovered were in the set.

Low and behold, a new group of collectors didn't want to add the unlicensed games to their collecting goals.

That's fine, but they lost any privilege of calling their sets "full."

Sachen was discovered later, and many collectors added those games to the list of the full set.

Yes, Tengen, Color Dreams, Camerica and the others all counted back in the day. Every list had them. Everyone wanted them. You can find old Usenet posts, or old posts on NintendoAge. Licensed, unlicensed, it was all in the full set. No one tried to say the licensed set was the only set.

It's only a recent trend to limit the collecting to the licensed set.

Nintendo didn't produce every game. They're by no means the only source. So the card analogy falls flat.

They made the console, but that alone doesn't grant them some divine authority to what constitutes an NES game. Licensed games, yes. But they don't have a say in all NES games.

Because NES games were made without Nintendo's authorization and no one back in the day gave two shits about whether it was licensed or unlicensed.

You really need to look into how things were back then.

 

It seems we're just not on the same page and there's really not much else to it. Your view is that any programmed junk on a cart is part of a "full set" while for me there's really no point in a definition wich doesn't exclude anything.