User talk:Procyon

I welcome any and all feedback here, so please post your thoughts. Thank you.

Archived discussions: 2006·2007·2008·2009·2010·2011·2012·2013·2014

Thanks
Thanks for deleting File:Ultima iv moongates diagram.png. I was not sure how to request deletion. The svg version looks much better. HighInBC (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Virtual console vs system category
Hi Proc, I'm just looking for some logistical support. So on main game pages where a retro game has been re-released for the Wii U Virtual Console, we have also been categorizing it under the Wii U. However, now I am re-thinking this. I feel like the Wii U category should be reserved for non-Virtual Console games only (i.e. modern physical releases and their digital counterparts). Because right now we have retro games appearing in the Wii U category, when I think they should only appear in the Wii U Virtual Console category. That way, the two lists of games are separate. I can see how someone might argue that the Wii U VC games are on the Wii U, but if we split it out there won't be redundancy. Thoughts? Before I do more RodKimble cleanup I would like to have a firm strategy. -- 18:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I completely agree with you that VC games are not Wii U games, and having them in a separate category would be the best approach. The problem I have, however, is what happens when Nintendo makes a new system, say the Wii U Me, or the 4DS, and they start re-releasing all these same games for the new system.  Do we have to constantly update the info boxes with more and more release info?  I wish it were sufficient to label all VC games under one category, but then I realize that, for example, some VC games only appeared on one device, and not others, so we need to have some way to make it clear to the user which system they're available on.  It's kind of a mess.  Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent to your original question.  I definitely say no to the general Wii U category, and yes to something else, I just wish it didn't have to be a separate VC category for every system a game was ever released on...   Pro  cyon  04:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, I can continue working on the cleanup. Good point about the common category. That brings up another category that I've been using to compliment the virtual console categories and hopefully fix that problem in the future. Category:Nintendo eShop is the distribution service common to 3DS and Wii U VC.
 * So we have three categories: one for each virtual 'console', and one for the common service. Why have the virtual console categories for 3DS and Wii U VC at all then? Well - they do not have 100% of the same games. Most of the time they do, and it's hard to verify this just through Wikipedia links or online text resources, but there are exceptions. I think mobile games (GB/GBA) are less likely to end up on the Wii U VC. But who knows, they could unify their platform completely (a smart strategy for the future of game companies) so that both lists are the same.
 * Honestly, without comparing two active lists of what can be downloaded from both consoles (3DS and Wii U), we won't know when the lists match each other. Also, the Wii U often had access to the Nintendo eShop releases a few years later than the 3DS. Obviously, this is because the Wii U was released later. One thing we should compare are the release dates shown for Wii U VC - if every game was released on the same day, then no work was involved in the 'release' - the Wii U just had access to the eShop library all at the same time. -- 16:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On second thought, it may be best to do away with the Nintendo eShop category (however, we should have some description of it, right? Or maybe just WP: link it to the Wikipedia article?). Nintendo may never unify their home console with their portable. I figure that their strategy is to keep the two markets separate so that mobile gamers have an incentive to keep buying new consoles. If they put the mobile games on the Wii U, they may be less inclined to buy the mobile console. I mean, at this point it sounds like a dumb strategy to me. What I would do is make the next mobile console the controller for the Wii 3, since the tablet they included has great functionality but would be even better if you could take it on the road (and not have battery problems). Unified platforms are what I'm looking forward to. I might actually buy a modern console then. It will also keep the game industry alive, since high end PCs are superior to consoles and services like Steam are making console unnecessary - until Windows/Mac OS adds remote tablet functionality (unlikely). -- 17:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of arcade cabinet 'multi-carts'
Hi Proc, just found out about cabinets that were collections of games from other platforms but not exclusive to arcades, e.g. wp:PlayChoice-10. Can we add these under the same criteria as multi-carts and compilations? -- 05:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry, the thoughts that follow are kind of jumbled because this is a weird topic. The way I see these kinds of cabinets is more like Category:MAME, in that the games primarily belong to one category, but can also be subcategorized under another.  Take PlayChoice-10 (PC10) specifically.  Some NES cartridges were converted and made available for play on PC10, but only a small percentage.  (In fact, the very first time I played Super Mario Bros. 3 was on a PC10, I was so excited to find it on one I nearly peed my pants...)  Compare PC10 to Nintendo's VS system; Vs. Super Mario Bros. is specifically an arcade game, not an NES game.  Whereas Super Mario Bros. was made available for play on PC10.  So SMB could receive the category of "PlayChoice-10" in addition to "NES", but not, I would argue, "Arcade".  (PC10 itself could have the NES and Arcade categories.)  So if a game was published in PC10 format (or Mega-Tech or wp:Nintendo Super System) it certainly deserves to have a category indicating that, but those systems themselves are not necessarily multi-carts or compilations.  The games which appeared in each PC10 was up to the individual owner's discretion, much like the Neo-Geo MVS cabinets.  See what I mean?   Pro  cyon  13:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok so you're saying Vs. Duck Hunt may have unique features to Duck Hunt (this is the page that brought up the PC10), although at this point I have no evidence, or content, that we should split it from Duck Hunt. -- 14:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I haven't heavily explored the difference between Duck Hunt and Vs. Duck Hunt, but what little investigation I've done suggests that the changes are mostly cosmetic, so I would definitely keep them together. Pro cyon  15:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're also saying that the PC10 is actually a 'console' with NES games published to it. With that in mind, then I am ok with using a system category for the PC10. Thanks! -- 14:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Kind of, the PC10 was basically a 'console' (NES) stuffed inside an arcade cabinet. The typical indication of this is when your money buys time instead of lives or a single run of a game.  The ROMs weren't programmed with the notion of credits, or ceasing to read player input when one game was over.  So the manufacturer limits the time you get to play since the game would otherwise allow the player to play indefinitely, as if they were playing at home.
 * Just to hammer the point home, Vs. Duck Hunt lets you play for as long as you can, and ends when the game is officially over, while Duck Hunt on the PC10 let you play as many games as you could within the allotted time, and ended the game as soon as the time was over, regardless of how well you were doing (although I believe they gave you ten seconds to insert more coins for more time... something like that). All this talk about PC10 is making me think of doing something I shouldn't do...  Pro  cyon  15:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)