devin
Yoshi
i'm mima irl
Level: 112
   
Posts: 3221/3519
EXP: 14931825
For next: 406380
Since: 04-29-08
Pronouns: any
From: FL
Since last post: 306 days
Last activity: 3 days
|
|
This came up the other day when discussing the Satellaview version of SimCity, which is not currently dumped, but has some screenshots (and possibly footage?) available.
I'm in favor of having it and other Satellaview editions of games in the mainspace article for the original game (see BS Panel de Pon which I wrote about in the Tetris Attack article), but in this case, said version of the game isn't actually available. The article right now uses the "defunct game" template, but that doesn't really seem appropriate here (and we do have a "don't write about stuff that isn't publicly available" rule for prototypes, etc. but this is something that was available for a limited time but is currently considered lost).
Should there be a template/category for cases like this (i.e. special versions of normal commercial games that were released to the public but no longer available/existent)? There are probably a number of other Satellaview releases like this I'd like to document as such, if possible.
____________________
Photo by Luc Viatour |
ReyVGM
Member
Level: 17
Posts: 48/52
EXP: 22494
For next: 2249
Since: 06-25-12
Since last post: 5.7 years
Last activity: 1.2 years
|
|
I don't agree with having it on the Sim City page, because that will open the door for more people to add content that isn't about what the site is about.
However, I do agree with having a separate section for it. The game might not be dumped, but that doesn't mean it will be lost forever (hopefully). So having a section where you can 'document' games that haven't been dumped is okay with me. It's still unavailable/inaccessible content, right? |
divingkataetheweirdo
Bandit
TCRF Super Editor
Level: 57
Posts: 617/822
EXP: 1481367
For next: 4561
Since: 07-09-11
Since last post: 1.7 years
Last activity: 262 days
|
|
As I said on the IRC, this would be a better fit on the Lost Media Wiki than TCRF. Yes, it is technically a lost game, but I have no idea if it does fit on the wiki.
We don't have the ROM for it and it's very unlikely we will find one soon. We could have categories for lost variants of games (which the BSX version of Sim City is) and DLC, though.
____________________
 |
devin
Yoshi
i'm mima irl
Level: 112
Posts: 3223/3519
EXP: 14931825
For next: 406380
Since: 04-29-08
Pronouns: any
From: FL
Since last post: 306 days
Last activity: 3 days
|
| Posted on 08-13-16 05:01:45 AM (last edited by devin at 08-13-16 05:11:05 AM) |
Link | Quote
| |
Originally posted by ReyVGM
I don't agree with having it on the Sim City page, because that will open the door for more people to add content that isn't about what the site is about.
I don't really see it is being that different from what we already document - "revisional dfferences" are already a decent chunk of content on the site, but this is an unusual case where the "normal" version of the game is available to the public but the revision (currently) isn't.
Originally posted by ReyVGM
The game might not be dumped, but that doesn't mean it will be lost forever (hopefully). So having a section where you can 'document' games that haven't been dumped is okay with me. It's still unavailable/inaccessible content, right?
In contrast, I think documenting all undumped games already sort of goes against what the site is about for the same reason we specifically don't cover unreleased prototypes - that is, we only want to cover stuff that any user could potentially see for themselves in an actual (or downloaded) copy of a game.
I feel like the idea of a "lost" (public, non-prototype) version of a commonly-available game sort of falls into a weird place between the easy definitions of the stuff we do want to cover and stuff we don't, which is why I'm curious what anyone else thinks.
____________________
Photo by Luc Viatour |
MooMilk
Member
Level: 11
Posts: 9/25
EXP: 5733
For next: 252
Since: 07-29-16
Since last post: 4.1 years
Last activity: 2.7 years
|
| Posted on 08-13-16 05:51:51 AM (last edited by MooMilk at 08-13-16 01:27:48 PM) |
Link | Quote
| |
DRX has a prototype wiki that such a article would work on I think:
http://hiddenpalace.org/ |
ICEknight
Member
Level: 26
Posts: 123/135
EXP: 97233
For next: 5042
Since: 10-25-11
Since last post: 4.1 years
Last activity: 4.0 years
|
|
Originally posted by MooMilk
DRX has a prototype wiki that such a article would work on I think:
http://hiddenpalace.org/
How so? This is not a prototype. |
MooMilk
Member
Level: 11
Posts: 10/25
EXP: 5733
For next: 252
Since: 07-29-16
Since last post: 4.1 years
Last activity: 2.7 years
|
|
| Yeah you're right. It isn't. Nevermind. |
ReyVGM
Member
Level: 17
Posts: 49/52
EXP: 22494
For next: 2249
Since: 06-25-12
Since last post: 5.7 years
Last activity: 1.2 years
|
|
Originally posted by devin
Originally posted by ReyVGM
I don't agree with having it on the Sim City page, because that will open the door for more people to add content that isn't about what the site is about.
I don't really see it is being that different from what we already document - "revisional dfferences" are already a decent chunk of content on the site, but this is an unusual case where the "normal" version of the game is available to the public but the revision (currently) isn't.
Originally posted by ReyVGM
The game might not be dumped, but that doesn't mean it will be lost forever (hopefully). So having a section where you can 'document' games that haven't been dumped is okay with me. It's still unavailable/inaccessible content, right?
In contrast, I think documenting all undumped games already sort of goes against what the site is about for the same reason we specifically don't cover unreleased prototypes - that is, we only want to cover stuff that any user could potentially see for themselves in an actual (or downloaded) copy of a game.
I feel like the idea of a "lost" (public, non-prototype) version of a commonly-available game sort of falls into a weird place between the easy definitions of the stuff we do want to cover and stuff we don't, which is why I'm curious what anyone else thinks.
Well, in my opinion it should not be on the Sim City page. Isn't there already a site that covers lost games? Lostlevels.org I believe.
The user that posted the BS Sim City stuff could keep the info in his profile, or it could be added to the talk page of the game until one day the game is dumped.
And games that have the "BS" subtitle are soundlink games, and while they might look like the original cart releases, they are in fact different. So if BS Sim City ever gets dumped, it would probably get its own page just like BS F-Zero and BS Zelda (both of them) have their own pages. |
devin
Yoshi
i'm mima irl
Level: 112
Posts: 3226/3519
EXP: 14931825
For next: 406380
Since: 04-29-08
Pronouns: any
From: FL
Since last post: 306 days
Last activity: 3 days
|
| Posted on 08-13-16 03:25:30 PM (last edited by devin at 08-13-16 03:27:20 PM) |
Link | Quote
| |
Originally posted by ReyVGM
And games that have the "BS" subtitle are soundlink games
This isn't actually always the case (in fact, the BS F-Zero article is specificially about the non-Soundlink edition), and I personally think releases like BS F-Zero, BS Super Mario USA, etc. could eventually be part of their respective "original" games' pages. The BS Zelda games are a different case since they're completely Satellaview-exclusive, not altered versions of cartridge games.
(edit: I guess the non-soundlink F-Zero being a "sequel" to the previous Satellaview one probably qualifies it for its own page after all, but you get the idea)
____________________
Photo by Luc Viatour |
ReyVGM
Member
Level: 17
Posts: 50/52
EXP: 22494
For next: 2249
Since: 06-25-12
Since last post: 5.7 years
Last activity: 1.2 years
|
|
Originally posted by devin
Originally posted by ReyVGM
And games that have the "BS" subtitle are soundlink games
This isn't actually always the case (in fact, the BS F-Zero article is specificially about the non-Soundlink edition), and I personally think releases like BS F-Zero, BS Super Mario USA, etc. could eventually be part of their respective "original" games' pages. The BS Zelda games are a different case since they're completely Satellaview-exclusive, not altered versions of cartridge games.
(edit: I guess the non-soundlink F-Zero being a "sequel" to the previous Satellaview one probably qualifies it for its own page after all, but you get the idea)
In the case of the non-soundlink (Practice) version of BS Fzero GP 2, that practice version should be part of an eventual soundlink BS Fzero GP2 page (which doesn't exist right now), and not the original F-Zero page. In my opinion.
BS Zelda 1 is indeed made for the ground up for the BSX, but Zelda Ancient Stone Tablets is pretty much a romhack of ALttP, so shouldn't that be absorbed into the ALttP page (please don't!  ).
For example, if the BS version of ALttP contained differences, then it should be absorbed into the regular ALttP page. But BS Zelda Ancient Stone Tablets, should not. BS Super Mario USA should not be absorbed either because it has a lot of differences (even if most were streamed and are now lost).
Anyway, you have more say and weight as to how the site should run, but if it was me I would always keep pages separate if the other version of the game has new content and it's named differently.
|
ICEknight
Member
Level: 26
Posts: 124/135
EXP: 97233
For next: 5042
Since: 10-25-11
Since last post: 4.1 years
Last activity: 4.0 years
|
| Posted on 08-14-16 01:54:32 PM (last edited by ICEknight at 08-14-16 03:07:34 PM) |
Link | Quote
| |
Originally posted by ReyVGM
Well, in my opinion it should not be on the Sim City page. Isn't there already a site that covers lost games? Lostlevels.org I believe.
No. That site covers unreleased games.
This game was released. It's a regular variation of a game that's already on the wiki, which we just happen not to have a dump of, yet.
I'd say these cases should be treated as any other similar games that are already included on the wiki but using the non-emulator pictures while it's still not dumped, just because we don't have anything else.
For example: If somebody owned an extremely protected arcade version of, say, Street Fighter III, the lack of emulatable ROMs shouldn't stop us from documenting it on the wiki. |
