Talk:List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Developer --> Publisher

Per the update to the Wii Shop Channel, shouldn't this list go by the publishers that are bringing these titles back to market? This would be more informational for readers as it would give a better indication of which publishers are more dedicated to the VC, would then match the Shop Channel publisher category, and also be easier to maintain. Maintainers of this article typically know publisher and title pairings, not needing to research more detailed info available on articles for each title. Does anyone but the uber-hardcore really know what Novotrade International is? Without objection, I'd like to go ahead and make this change. --Cheesemeister3k 06:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the new update (really nice!) gives it by Publisher. I say go ahead and make any changes needed to keep the list as close to the Shop Channel's format as possible. LN3000 07:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Cheesemeister3k 06:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of publishers, could sombody make a fix? It should be "Namco Bandai" and "Square Enix", not "Namco-Bandai" and "Square-Enix". Also, maybe it should list the original publisher? Namco Bandai didn't exist when any of these games came out. Jeremy Unity 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That is true, but on the Wii Shop Channel it shows the current publisher. Since Namco and Bandai merged back in 2005 or 2006 all the rights to Namco games and Bandai games are under the Namco Bandai label. Neo Samus 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario 3 and Sonic 3

I just noticed that Super Mario 3 and Sonic 3 are on the "coming soon" list for Europe and Australia. Why are they not on the North American list? 67.188.172.165 19:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Because there has not yet been any official announcement (or ESRB listing) for those titles in NA yet. -Arcanelore 04:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The New Server Screenshot Thread

Super Metroid is here. Metroid and Shining in the Darkness are apparently also up. --Cheesemeister3k 20:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Metroid and Shining in the Darkness for NA. --MrDrake 21:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It was decided before: this thread doesn't need to exist. Read the archived version of this talk page. RobJ1981 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If NOA is going to post screenshots of upcoming titles as before, it may once again be useful in maintaining the article if titles are previously unannounced. --Cheesemeister3k 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it was 'decided' that this wasn't needed anymore. If we are able to find games to go in the upcomming games using this, then there is no harm having this. Back off, Rob. LN3000

You back off. I have the right to say what I want, without being harassed by you. RobJ1981 00:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be harassing people more than I am. LN3000 01:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Don't make up lies just to make me look bad. Leave me the hell alone. I should be able to post where I want, without you making rude remarks just about every time. RobJ1981 05:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but I've created a program to check the server for newly-posted screenshots across an entire range of values that I can specify. No tedious guessing in manipulating HTML in Notepad is required. When NOA was posting screenshots prior to Monday updates, this method has proven to be a reliable way to find information about unannounced titles on the VC, as it is in fact an official source. --Cheesemeister3k 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo announces games way before the screenshots are found, thus the screenshots being posted here isn't useful or relevant much. The games listed above are recent examples of my point. RobJ1981 20:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo only announces games a few hours before they go live. If the screenshots are posted beforehand, then we should have this to keep track of everything. That is one of the main points of this article. LN3000 20:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By "live", you mean released? If that's the case: look at the future releases section, it's full of many games and they certainly aren't coming out this week. In either event: unless the screenshots actually show new things (unlike the ones listed at the top of this section) this section doesn't serve a useful purpose here. RobJ1981 20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I happen to find this thread informative. Games with screenshots uploaded on the Wii Shop servers, with very few exceptions, always have the actual games put up for sale less than a month later. So it's definitely good to know, even if it's not solid enough proof to put a release date on the article. Besides, why are you trying to regulate what we discuss on the talk page? We're discussing valuable information on the subject, so we're not "using the talk page as a chat room", and it's not like we're messing with the actual article. Why is this even being argued about? -Thores 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As the talkheader clearly states: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Virtual Console games (North America) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Frankly, this isn't discussing changes to the article: it's discussing links people found (of ALREADY announced information), which isn't relevant, as the future games are sourced already. The talk page shouldn't be abused with this type of content. RobJ1981 05:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We could always add a new column to the tables for Upcoming Releases indicating whether the games are on the server yet or not. In lieu of that, please be patient, Rob; this thread may prove useful in bringing unannounced titles to light. ;) --Cheesemeister3k 05:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Making up excuses I see. A new column to justify a talk page section: not needed. Also: the previous thread on this didn't come up with any unannounced games to my knowledge, so I doubt it's going to happen ever. Don't crystal ball just to justify this section. I guess I will start a discussion elsewhere asking for input, and if needed: RFC, as people refuse to let this section go. A RFC (request for comment) over something this small, seems a bit pointless... but if it needs to come to that, I wouldn't be against making one. RobJ1981 05:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This IS about the article. Nintendo doesn't announce games/release dates until the day they are released. Nintendo Power has listed some games, but they don't really help with definitive release dates. Having the game up on the server is more reliable than any possible "announcements" you are talking about, Rob. LN3000 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Rob, for something this small, as you say, I might recommend that you pick your battles. How many hours of debate is this worth, especially after the whole Wii Points column issue? --Cheesemeister3k 06:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The original reason why we stopped the Wii Shop Server Topic was because Nintendo stopped uploading the games to the server untill only hours (if not less) before they are available to download, Like LN3000 said. But Nintendo has decided to upload the games earlier again (maybe because we stopped checking?). Another note, Super Metroid was "supposedly" announced on the ESRB site back in Nov. 2006. But it then disappeared from the site and hasn't been seen since. Now it's actually showing up on the server. This is "proof" that it will be released sometime in the near future. Weither it's next week or the following we do not know, but it show that it will become available soon. I, for one, am glad to see this topic back because it gives us more sources to help with the future releases section. Does my explanation help this discussion? Neo Samus 20:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

NOW Metroid and Super Metroid have been announced. NOW it's confirmed. This is why this discussion 'thread' is so important.LN3000 22:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Excatly, this thread was always important, but when Nintendo didn't upload images untill the day of, it bacame pointless. But now it looks like they may update the server early again. At least I hope so. Neo Samus 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, looks like Nintendo isn't post images again untill the day of their release. I still say to keep this thread active in case anything changes. Neo Samus 20:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If nothing changes, this will be archived. We can't just crystal ball and think things will change. When things change: make a new discussion if this is indeed in the archive. RobJ1981 06:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. No reason to keep a dormat thread if there is nothing to update it. Neo Samus 18:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Update Time

Time for the August 13 update. 67.188.172.165 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand why legitimate updates are being reverted, just because it isn't 9am yet. Seems really overly picky. LN3000 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

People shouldn't jump the gun, just because they want to update the article early. Until things are officially out, we don't need to list them. I don't see what the big deal is. It's not hard to wait a little bit. RobJ1981 21:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The inverse is also true, it is not against any wiki-standards or any moral law to add in the update as soon as Nintendo officially updates it. There's already mention that the updates don't go live until 9am, why should someone have to wait by the Wii, and check every 5 minutes to see if the new games are up before they submit the changes? I think it's stupid to have to do that. There is NO reasonable argument for that. LN3000 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about adding games to the availability list before they are available, you should wait until after 9:00 to add them.Aj2008 17:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is silly to have to wait until 9am. We have the information, it'd take some catastrophic event to stop them from happening, we should be able to add them into the article once the information is released. For example, before the Harry Potter book was released, people who had read the book already added the spoilers to the Deathly Hallows topic. They weren't removed just because the book hadn't been officially released yet. So again, regardless of my lame example, I think it is bad article management to expect people to wait until 9am to update the article. I also think it is silly to revert people who update early. What's wrong with their information? It's based on fact, it's based on reliable information, it's not vandalism.... what is the reason for the revert? Timing? That is silly. LN3000 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but its the fact that its an "availability" list, not a "games we know for certain are coming out soon" list. it would be dumb to add games to the list when they aren't available.Aj2008 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's DUMBER to REMOVE them from the list just because of an extra hour. LN3000 03:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, who cares? Just wait a couple of hours! It's not the end of the world. Besides, there have been very, very occasional cases where the press release says x games are coming out at 12 PM EST, but then that time comes and one of the games mentioned isn't there. You could say we're playing it safe if you really need a reason. But the fact that the section says "Available Titles", and the titles aren't actually available when you make the update early... that should be reason enough. -Thores 03:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about, since every game that has ever been in that press release has been released as stated. LN3000 06:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

its not dumb to remove a false post. its DUMB to not be able to wait one little hour before updating the page. quit crying.Aj2008 04:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a false post, so your argument is invalid. No one is crying, I am saying that you don't revert information that has an indisputable source. I really don't understand why every week I see people reverting VALID edits to the article based only on time. What gives you the right to revert those valid edits? If you are able to revert them, then there's nothing to stop me from reverting it back. LN3000 06:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me add my thoughts to the discussion argument. The page is split between two types of lists. We have the Available Titles and Future Releases. Until the clock hits 9am PST / 12pm EST, a game is still technically a Future Release, and thus shouldn't be moved to the Available Titles list. This isn't the same as (referring to the example above) someone posting spoilers about an unreleased book. The spoilers are part of a plot section, and thus irrelevant to the time when the book is released. That is unlike here where time is an issue, as it is the factor that separates Future Releases from Available Titles. Zomic_13 07:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you zomic for making the situation as clear as possible. It is an INVALID update when you move an UNAVAILABLE game to the AVAILABLE section.Aj2008 17:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still have to disagree. Nintendo's Press Release says "WII-KLY UPDATE: THREE NEW CLASSIC GAMES ADDED TO WII SHOP CHANNEL" meaning present tense, not future tense. LN3000 19:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is true. The Press Release is titled that. However, it also says "Three new classic games go live at 9 a.m. Pacific time" within the article itself. I think we should try to hold off until 9am PST to update it, but we shouldn't start edit wars because people update before hand. Also, if someone reverts an edit because it isn't time yet, they should make sure to actually add the games in when it does become time. Today an edit was reverted 22 minutes before, but then no one added the games until 16 minutes after the games were released. Its better to be a little early than late. Zomic_13 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say to Zomic and the like, you are being anal to the extreme. No matter what the article gets the edit in the end. So what if it's there early, it's really not a big deal. MysticGohan 20:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

People shouldn't be editing early, period. If the game isn't available for download: then it's false to list it as an "available title". It's clearly not available if you can't download it. Nintendo announcing the games will go live is one thing: them being on the server to download is another. Stop being impatient, it doesn't do any harm to wait. RobJ1981 04:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I STILL disagree. Talk to Nintendo if you disagree. As long as they say "GAMES ADDED TO WII SHOP CHANNEL" if I am around, I will make the needed changed to the article. You guys are the one making a big deal about it, everyone else is just trying to keep the article updated with present information. LN3000 05:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The regular editors don't control the article (which I believe I've stated here before). Anyone can edit and anyone can discuss things. Words like "you guys" and "everyone else" is a bit point of view. This discussion has edits from a few people: that doesn't mean it should be ignored. RobJ1981 05:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

On the movie articles, do they change the "will be released" to "released", the day before? No. Why would they? And why should we?DurinsBane87 05:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If a game is RELEASED, it doesn't mean it's instantly available to buy, but it doesn't mean the game has NOT been released.LN3000 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just stop. It's not a big deal. Perhaps you need a WikiBreak, if this is bothering you so much? RobJ1981 10:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you guys are now saying "Wait 2 hours" again.... you didn't for a month, but you are starting again.. If it's not a big deal, then stop reverting people's legitimate updates. LN3000 20:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Neo Geo section

I see a Neo Geo section has been added--albeit with no games. Does anybody else think we should hold off on adding that section until we know of at least one officially announced Neo Geo VC release? Jeff Silvers 20:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much what was decided last time this came up. -Arcanelore 21:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I went ahead and just deleted the section. Jeff Silvers 23:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

instead of having a Neo Geo section, someone could write in the paragraph above the fuure releases that there will eventually be a Neo Geo section. This is just a suggestion.Aj2008 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That kind of info is best left to the general Virtual Console article. --Cheesemeister3k 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

SNES

The SNES section is out of order. I tried fixing it, but messed up. 67.188.172.165 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's in order now. 67.188.172.165 19:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Super Contra

Why does it keep being listed as Super C? 67.188.172.165 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As you'd notice if you actually read the article, when the game was shipped to America, it was renamed Super C. DurinsBane87 16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do NOT change the title to Super Contra again. --Cheesemeister3k 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

ghouls 'n ghosts's publisher

Someone keeps on chaging the publisher of ghouls 'n ghosts to capcom when the esrb info site clearly states that Sega of America is the publisher. The publisher section should say Sega or Sega of America, not Capcom.Aj2008 01:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

nevermind, the game is developed by Capcom, the esrb site is wrong.Aj2008 02:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The developer is irrelevant, as the column is now for the publisher. Leave it as Sega. --Cheesemeister3k 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wii Shop channel itself lists the publisher as Capcom, so I think we should go with that (even if Sega was the original publisher way back when.) I can't get to the ESRB from work to verify that it's claiming Sega as the publisher, but even if it is... well, I believe the ESRB's penchant for screwing up has been well documented on this talk page over the past year or so. :) -A not logged in Arcanelore 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ghouls 'N Ghosts is labeled as Sega for Publisher on ESRB. Technically they are both right. Should we just put both Sega and Capcom as publisher? Unless Capcom bought back the rights from Sega to publish the game on the VC? Neo Samus 15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me, the developer point makes it tip over to Capcom. They developed it and are credited with publisher on the VC, which this is for in the first place, and Sega only published it back in the day and is credited on the ESRB rather than Capcom for some reason. Eusis 21:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing to point, this version was programed by Sega. It you look at the copyright on the main title screen it says Capcom 1989 Reprogrammed Sega 1989. But I do agree we should just keep it as Capcom since VC shows them as publisher. Neo Samus 01:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Closed on Labor Day?

IS NoA closed today because I don't see any VC games added yet?69.121.96.140 13:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yoshi's Story

I see it's in the coming soon section, but with no source. Is there a source anywhere? --Evildevil 03:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it never did have a source, but somehow people knew it was coming. I wonder why we didn't have a source... LN3000 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It came out: so no source doesn't matter now. Move on. RobJ1981 00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you always have to be a jerk, Rob? Don't you think I KNEW that we don't need a source now? However, I removed Yoshi's Story from the upcoming list at least once, because there was no source. LN3000 04:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Watch the personal attacks. DurinsBane87 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm just sick and tired of Rob's attitude all the time. LN3000 08:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My attitude is just fine. Resurrecting old discussions isn't useful, especially when sourcing doesn't matter at this point. Any further personal attacks will lead to me reporting you, I've dealt with your poor attitude for long enough. RobJ1981 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, please. There is no need to report anyone. I was suprised about there not being a source as well. We're all human, just remember that. ;) Neo Samus 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this legitimate?

http://www.virtualconsole.info/

67.188.172.165 17:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No. --Cheesemeister3k 17:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Addition, not sure on refrences

According to the following Article, Crackdown and ESWAT for Genesis will be added to the VC soon. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to add the reference to the list, as none of the existing references are valid. If someone could, I'd appreciate it.

The article is at http://www.n-philes.com/index.php?id=3939 Tkrausse 19:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It was also mentioned on IGN and I think all other major sites. So I don't think there is a need for a reference. Neo Samus 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Any news on Master System or 7800?

Since the 16-bit generation will be done when they start Neo-Geo, there's a good chance they'll start finishing the 8-bit generation. Let's just hope they don't get carried away and do the first two generations. Please look for news on the SMS and Atari 7800. If you find anything on the Saturn, let me know as well. 67.188.172.165 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a message board for general VC discussion. Try here. --Cheesemeister3k 20:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

TurboGraphix CD (Not sure on placement)

This morning, it was announced that, starting in October, the TurboGrafx 16 CD and Super CD will be added to the Virtual Console in all regions, for the base price of 800 points. The article doesn't mention any specific games, so I'm not creating a "coming soon" table for it yet, but this should probably be mentioned.

The really long link to the article is http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Frelease.nikkei.co.jp%2Fdetail.cfm%3FrelID%3D170238%26lindID%3D1&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

Another site adds that Cho Aniki and Ys Book 1 and 2 are confirmed, but I lack info on regions, so I'm still holding off on adding the table. The link for the second article is http://www.siliconera.com/2007/09/14/turboduo-games-heading-to-the-virtual-console/ Tkrausse 15:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My vote is to add it right into the TG-16 list (especially since they are just expansions of the base system).

Then again, I'm curious to see how Nintendo handles it. Are they just going to throw up a new system section for them? I find that a poor move. So I guess if Nintendo lists them all separate, we'll do the same. I'd wait until we get closer to the release before adding anything to the article. LN3000 17:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

They are being given a seperate price level, so I think that they'll be a seperate system on

the server, but I agree, wait until they actually go up. 208.39.181.178 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo will most likely add seperate section considering it has a different logo. Either that, or the will make a section marked "TubroGrafx" and then have sub-sections. Neo Samus 20:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit, TG-CD games are 800? I could've swore they were 700. I read it at IGN. I'd post the article, but I'm at work (as usual!!! :P) Also, could this mean that Sega might release Sega/Mega-CD games as well? Neo Samus 23:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That was probably just IGN speculating on what they thought the price would be. It is a seperate system (just like Sega CD is different than the Genesis even though it's just a add-on). I think we should also wait until the first game is announced. 23:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, this has to be some kind of joke; I can see Turbo CD games on the Virtual Console, but Cho Aniki is hardly something I'd expect Nintendo to release! PeanutCheeseBar 22:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are trying to be more open???? Neo Samus 03:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So I was right, they added the CD games right into the TG16. Smart move, like I said a month ago! LN3000 18:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why TGCD games should be listed in the TG16 table. Why was this split back out? --Cheesemeister3k 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If we do list them together (which I am not sure we should), there should be an indication that it's a TurboGrafx-CD game (maybe the same way we indicate when a game is priced differently). TJ Spyke 20:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should it have it's own section? It's not in it's own section on the Shop Channel, and technically, it IS for the TurboGrafx-16, just because it's CD-Rom based doesn't change that. LN3000 07:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If support for the 32X and Sega CD were added, would you insist that they be listed with Genesis games? I don't feel very strongly about this, but do think we should make it clear that they are TurboGrax-CD games and not TurboGrafx-16 games. TJ Spyke 23:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you. In the press release, they are referred to as a "CD-ROM game for the TurboGrafx16" LN3000 06:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Lamename, I am trying to compromise with you but you won't listen (it's like arguing with Rob all over again). We have to make it clear which games are TurboGrafx-CD games and which are TurboGrafx-16 games. You seem to be the only want wanting to pretend that they are all TurboGrafx-16 games. I have no problem with them being on the same table, but we have to make it clear (which both I and another user did, but you reverted both times). TJ Spyke 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have to make it clear? There is no CD-ROM device being employed on the VC. The only differences are largely transparent to the end-user: they take up more blocks and may have different Wii Point values. Furthermore, when you go to play a TGCD game from the Wii menu or download one in the Wii Shop Channel, the logo shown is TG16. --Cheesemeister3k 17:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

They are still TurboGrax-CD games though. Yes they are listed with the TurboGrafx-16 games (which is why I don't have a problem with them sharing the same table), but they are still different games. I am not going to let this misleading info stay in the article, but I won't revert it yet because I want others to weigh in on it. I don't get why you don't even want to accept the compromise. TJ Spyke 22:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking. The Shop Channel does not say anything about "Turbografx-CD." And the TG-CD was merely an add-on peripheral for the TG-16. If you search wikipedia for Turbografx-CD, it redirects you to the TG-16 page, with a very small paragraph on it. What is the problem that you are trying to address? If both Nintendo and Hudson only refer to these games on the Virtual Console as TG-16 games, (http://vc-pce.com/usa/e/index.html) wouldn't YOU be giving misleading info adding the label when the official sources do not? LN3000 05:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If Nintendo decided to add Nintendo 64 Disk Drive games or Sega added Sega CD games, wouldn't it make sense to mark them? I am just trying to make it as accurate as possible. All I am asking is to mark which games were TurboGrafx-CD games, i'm not asking for a separate table. TJ Spyke 07:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't forget the Famicom Disk System. If games from the N64DD are ever released (Doshin the Giant and Sim City64... that's it?) they will still most likely be labeled as N64. I don't know what would be done for the Sega CD/Sega Mega Drive CD, but if precedent is any indication, then they will probably label them as Sega Genesis (or Sega Mega Drive in Japan), unless Sega has some issue with that. But right now, we are not here to crystal ball or anything. If you want the article to be as accurate as possible, then you'd know that marking something special where it is not marked as such elsewhere is NOT being accurate. Are you really going to keep making this an issue? You seem to be the only one who cares. LN3000 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

New Systems

I don't understand why we have the two empty sections in the "Titles Available" area for those two new systems, when we don't have any solid upcoming dates. For now, I think it'd be best to leave those sections off until we get any actual titles. LN3000 07:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

True. I would understand temporally remove TG-CD but not Neo-Geo. Fatal Fury has been rated by the ESRB. So I can see that game being release very soon. I know that kinda of crystal balling, but it's a hint that it will be released soon. Neo Samus 13:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say keep both. Neo-Geo has ratings we know about, and according to the Press Release, TG-CD is starting October (aka a week from now). So I'd recommend just leaving them up. Tkrausse 14:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't know they had a time frame on the press release. I just it was announced. I must missed that part. Neo Samus 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

wii points?

What the heck are wii points and do they belong in an encyclopedia??--Sonjaaa 12:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wii Points are what you use to buy Virtual Console games. Zomic_13 15:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue caused lots of problems, but people threw enough stink about it... that a compromise was forced. I'll leave it at that, as I could say more: but it certainly wouldn't be nice. I still strongly feel Wikipedia isn't a price guide. RobJ1981 16:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is unneeded, Rob. If you weren't going to say something because it wouldn't be nice, don't say anything at all. LN3000 03:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That comment by you wasn't needed. Don't start with me again. RobJ1981 04:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was saying. I'm glad you understand something, finally. LN3000 04:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wii Points are encyclopedic. They are not a true form of currency. It is virtual. Also if XBLA can keep their points listing so can Virtual Console. Neo Samus 04:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.LN3000 04:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys. Stop. Before this gets out of hand. No more comments, just end it now. DurinsBane87 04:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just giving my opinion on the topic. Neo Samus 05:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sorry. And now, there are 4 games that have different prices than the normal. If a few more games with different prices pop up in the near future, I will suggest we re-add the Wii Points to the article, after they were foolishly removed. LN3000 20:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And if import prices are static? It's worth keeping an eye on this, but if imports are always a set price higher (Battle Lode Runner aside), then maybe there can be some marker or something to indicate such instead. A * or, to copy the VC, the Japanese flag. Ofcourse that's assuming all imports we get are Japanese in origin and it probably doesn't fit with Wikipedia or whatever. Eusis 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just "Sin & Punishment."

The imported N64 game that we (North America) got on October 1 is "Sin & Punishment" as shown in the Wii Shop Channel. "Successor of the Earth" is not in the title. Mmark089 05:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is. We go by the actual name of the game, not what is listed in the Wii Shop Channel (like how Nintendo decided to call the VC version of "Punch-Out!!" as "Punch-Out!! Featuring Mr. Dream". TJ Spyke 05:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, and, why? What does this accomplish? This is a list of games that appear on the Virtual Console, shouldn't it be as they appear on the Virtual Console? The T 02:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

TJ Spyke, if not from the Wii Shop Channel, ie Nintendo, by who or what source do you suggest we use as the standard for referring to the "actual" name for games in general? --Trakon 01:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sin & Punishment probably does qualify as an official localized name. Punch Out!! is a bit weirder though. Technically it probably should have 'Featuring Mr. Dream', but the original US release of that version didn't say that, the title screen doesn't say that, and ultimately was probably just put there to show no, no Mike Tyson involvement HERE. Title Screen might be best then except when necessary to distingush - case in point, SMB2 and SMB:TLL. Eusis 08:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to relent on "Sin and Punishment" (the way it is shown on the title screen), but only because this is the first time the game has been officially released outside of Japan. TJ Spyke 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If not from the mouths of Nintendo, I agree that the title screen is a good place to look for the title of a game. But I disagree that where or the number of times a game has been released necessarily dictates the title. For example, if they, Nintendo, release the game a second time outside of Japan does that mean you will push for the title "Successor of the Earth" again? I don't really think (I hope) that is what you meant to say. --Trakon 02:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Famicom Disk System and Import Titles

I suggest making two changes:

1. Making a note that Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels was originally released on the Famicom Disk System, not the NES. If Turbografx-CD games get a whole other section, this seems reasonable.

2. Adding the little Japanese flag symbol next to import titles, or making a note of them, including Battle Lode Runner. Dartheyegouger 19:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the FDS thing is really necessary. It's lumped under NES on the VC, isn't it? Plus there's at least a few games already on that, technically, are FDS games - Zelda, Metroid, and I believe Castlevania come to mind immediately. Besides, it'd be misleading and lead people to look for a category that doesn't in fact exist. Eusis 21:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, all of those FDS games were released on the NES at some point and Nintendo considers them NES games (even on the Japanese VC). TurboGrafx-16 and TurboGrafx-CD are different. TJ Spyke 00:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is... the article should show the name as is displayed in the Shop Channel. The links can point to whatever 'official' article it needs to. LN3000 08:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

NeoGeo

Well, later today NeoGeo games will be added to the Virtual Console. I don't plan on getting any of them. Since there are three NeoGeo games being added, I'm not going to assume that there will be any games for the existing systems. I also removed the Turbo-CD from the Available list. There are no dates set for the games, so I think that it'd be better. LN3000 08:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming releases

Because of the unpredictable nature of the games released on the Virtual Console, I think the upcoming releases list needs to be pruned. There are MANY titles on the list that have been there for a LONG time, and have not yet been released. I am not so sure that using the ESRB is a good source for this. Is there a way we can remove games that all we have for them is an ESRB? I just don't think that ESRB = guaranteed VC release. Please correct me if I'm overlooking something. LN3000 08:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it's been going on a year now, and while some of those games have received an ESRB rating, there's been plenty of times when some unexpected title that wasn't on the ESRB website or any of our lists was released. My only question is, how to we discern what to keep and what to remove? PeanutCheeseBar 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How about Any game that is listed with an Unknown release date and there is no source other than the ESRB, be removed? If we don't take care of this problem now, the 'upcoming' games list can grow, and grow, and grow. LN3000 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We could do that; the only thing is that we'll pretty much blow away all the sections except for the Turbografx sections, since the site that lists those games has all the releases for the month, while none of the other sections have nothing at all. PeanutCheeseBar 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And that would be a problem, why? :P LN3000 18:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there wouldn't even be a point to the upcoming releases section at all if we did.Tkrausse 20:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think that the ESRB site has been a good indicator of what is coming out for the VC in the future. But the list definetly needs some pruning. Stuff that shows up on the ESRB site with the Wii label (and not the nebulous "Nintendo" label) should be included on the Upcoming Releases list. Looking through the lists, the following games should be deleted: Duck Hunt, Hogan's Alley, TMNT 2: The Arcade Game, and Wild Gunman from the NES list; Kirby Super Star, Kirby's Dream Land 3, Super Mario RPG, and Zombies Ate My Neighbors from the SNES list. In the case of TMNT 2 and ZAMN, they were once on the ESRB site, but have since disappeared, so it should be assumed that for whatever reason, they are no longer scheduled for a VC release. A few other problem titles remain. Pro Wrestling, Pilotwings, and Vectorman have all been on the ESRB site since March or earlier, but don't seem to be coming out any time soon (in Vectorman's case, it was even announced by Sega in March that it would be released soon). While questionable, I think they should still remain since they probably would have been removed if the companies no longer intended to release them. Ys 1&2 and Cho Aniki were announced as a part of the original Turbo CD announcement, but it was unclear if the announcement only confirmed them for Japan, or suggested they would also come to the US. I'm unsure as to whether they should still be included (Ys 1&2 is inevitable for the US, but Cho Aniki is questionable), but I'd keep them on there for now. Basically, I think the only games that should be included on the Upcoming Releases list should be games rated by the ESRB, or games confirmed by the companies releasing them (Hudson's monthly schedules, SNK mentioning Magician Lord would be released in the US). As for games that just come out of nowhere (Yoshi's Story), well, we can't really predict those, and the ESRB's use as a reliable indicator of what's coming in the future should not be affected by them. The Crimson Shoe 21:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Since so much is nebulous, I suggest ditching the platform distinction and only put up those with very solid confirmation. There'd probably only be 0-5 at a time that way, so it doesn't really need to divided by platform like it is now, just make that another category like was being tried a few months back for the whole page. Eusis 10:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It'd be easier to prune the list if we required a source link next to each title. That way the source could be checked occasionally to see if the entry is still valid. Games that are no longer listed on the ESRB site should probably be removed. Ys 1 & 2 and Cho Aniki weren't confirmed for the US in the Japanese press release, IIRC. --Cheesemeister3k 12:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, removing platform distinction or requiring source links are both kind of unecessary, plus making any format changes to the list would probably require more debate than it would be worth. Really, what we have now is fine, we just need to remove anything that isn't confirmed by the ESRB or other reliable sources. The Crimson Shoe 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I made an offical list of games that, I believe, can be removed because they no longer have a valid source; Duck Hunt, Hogan's Alley, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game, Wild Gunman, Pilotwings, Kirby Super Star, Kirby's Dream Land 3, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, and Zombies Ate My Neighbors. We can always re-add them if they get another source. I, myself, would love to seen these games come out for the VC in the future. Neo Samus 18:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Pilotwings is still on the ESRB site. Much like Pro Wrestling and Vectorman, it's been there for ages and there's no way to tell when it's actually coming, but as long as it's on the ESRB site we should keep it listed. The rest you listed should be removed, though, along with Ys 1&2 and Cho Aniki since it doesn't look like the initial Turbo CD press release intended to announce them for anywhere besides Japan. The Crimson Shoe 21:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of just wiping out the whole section. This page should not contribute to speculation in any form - it should only list the titles that HAVE been released. On a one-off basis, we could list "upcoming games" as those that have been given definite release dates, like Nintendo did with Metroid and Super Metroid a couple weeks before those games were released on VC. Otherwise, if it's not currently downloadable, it shouldn't be on here.

If we want another place to list unreleased games that have been rated by the ESRB, we should start a list specifically for that purpose. But it's misleading to have those show up on the current list, even if they have their own section. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not misleading to list games rated by the ESRB since it means that the publsiher intends to release it on the VC. If a game has been confirmed, it should stay listed unless it is confirmed to not be coming out anymore. Creating a list just for upcoming games would not make sense. The only games we know the dates for ar TurboGrafx-16/TurboGrafx-CD games (the only time Nintendo did it ahead of time was the two Metroid games and the week that they released the 100th NA VC game, Sega sometimes did it early on). TJ Spyke 21:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the point, though. Having a game receive a rating by the ESRB doesn't confirm that the title will actually be released on the VC or any other modern platform, much less confirm a date for release. The game companies themselves will usually announce a release date for an upcoming title if they intend for it to be noteworthy, so I'd argue that having a game receive an ESRB rating without any other supplemental information fails notability criteria. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It costs money and takes time to have a game get rated (the publisher has to provide a video and fill out a long survey, then wait for the ESRB to rate it).To me, that means they are seriously thinking about it. If a title get rated, then pulled, that is a different story. TJ Spyke 22:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it help to change the title or description of this section, then, to something that better indicates "Rated by the ESRB but not released"? "Future/Upcoming releases" sounds speculatory. I still don't think they need to be listed here at all, but I can live with something that calls this situation out more effectively. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Maybe "Upcoming/Rated games" though since sometimes we do get confirmed games before they get rated (like the Metroid games). TJ Spyke 22:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, Metroid and Super Metroid were both ESRB-rated before being officially announced. (I believe Metroid had to get rated anyway, since it was previously released on the GBA, and as part of Metroid Prime and Zero Mission as well.) As for the section title: Let's see if we can come to a consensus on what to call it and how to describe it, so that it's clearer. Also keep in mind that we need to make similar changes on the Europe, Australia and Japan lists, though their rating systems are different. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, very good conversation going on. Ok, from what I read in the discussion so far, I think the absolute BEST thing to do would be to remove all the games in the "Future Releases" section except for games with a reliable source that it will come out on the Virtual Console (Hudsen, Nintendo, Sega, etc). ESRB should not count given the vagueness of using it as a source. I also think getting rid of the platform split of the "future release" is a great idea. Especially after we remove the unsourced games, the list will be much more manageable. I REALLY wish they would release Super Mario RPG.... Maybe they will for Super Mario Galaxy? LN3000

The ESRB is definetly a reliable source. Think about it: nearly every single game that's been released on the VC in 2007 showed up first on the ESRB site. The ones that don't generally show up soon after release. The only games that have shown up on the ESRB site and were not released soon afterwards are the aforementioned Pro Wrestling, Pilotwings, and Vectorman. It would be silly to ignore the ESRB site. I also still think removing the platform split would just make things more confusing, people who check this list would just wonder what system the games were on. As for changing the list's title, there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't know that it's necessary. If Upcoming Releases sounds less speculative to you than Future Releases, then go for it. We should just keep things simple, and removing the currently unsourced games from the list is enough to do that. The Crimson Shoe 02:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The list on the article needs to be shortened, since it doesn't really help having games on the list indefinitely. And removing the platform split wouldn't be confusing if... you added a platform column. I'm going to try to implement this right now. We can see how that looks. LN3000 05:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies about Pilotwings. I did a search earlier and it came up with nothing when I searched "Pilotwings". But then I searched by publisher and it was listed as "PilotWings". My mistake. Neo Samus 05:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. I think that looks a LOT better, but it still needs some formatting work... If there's any games that have been announced from non-ESRB sources that I removed, please re-add them and provide a source. LN3000 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel that ESRB is still a valid source. Yes, not all games posted to the site come out right away. But at least 80% of the time, if not more, are released with in a month or two. I know there are three games that have been on the site since the beginning of the year. But maybe they have something planned for them. Having it condensed is not bad (just viewed it). Neo Samus 06:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I will never understand why some Wikipedia moderators feel that having less information is better. Taking away the possibility games takes away from a major reason random people, such as myself, view this page as often as we do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.86.219 (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to get the subsections to work like this: ===Nintendo Entertainment System=== (500 Wii Points) ? That way the Contents looks better?LN3000 19:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. That's why I just put the Wii Points on the line between the header and the table. I thought it looked better that way than the way it does now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess the condensed table looks okay. I still think it looks better separated by system, but the extra column showing the systems on the condensed table is a good compromise. I do think the ESRB confirmed titles should be restored, though. It is a reliable source, and it's going to look silly in the coming weeks when half the stuff we had on there before starts coming out. You can leave off Pro Wrestling, Pilotwings, and Vectorman if you're afraid of them clogging up the table, but I do think they should be included as well. At any rate, the ESRB games certainly have more basis to be listed than Ys 1&2 and Cho Aniki do. The Crimson Shoe 01:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. However, the ESRB list is neither a definitive nor an absolute source for upcoming games. First, there is no dates assigned to them, so theoretically, they could be on the list for a few years before coming onto the Virtual Console. We should not assume (no matter how 'sure' we are) that those games will be released, or as I said, when. There were 30 games listed as "Future Releases", which were mostly based on mysterious and vague ESRB listings. Now, we have 8 games listed as "Upcoming Releases", and they have all been confirmed by some source as coming this year (Not sure about Magician Lord, but all the other regions got it), or "soon" in the Genesis games' case (IGN Report. 8 games that we can be sure are 'on their way' makes for a better article than 30 'eventually, possibly' games... LN3000 07:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't forget that Vectorman was also announced by Sega in that way, and it's still not out. As far as I'm concerned, the only source that can be trusted for "on their way" games would be Hudson's site (as well as any press releases like Nintendo's Month of Metroid announcement). I just don't mind having games in the "eventually" category as long as they don't linger for more than a few months (which none of the current ESRB stuff has done, besides the aforementioned three). I think it's a waste to not take advantage of a reliable source like the ESRB, but I guess it just comes down to what we feel like we need to list. The Crimson Shoe 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ESRB is reliable, gosh people, others come here to find out things, and why would Nintendo, Sega or anybody else rate a game but not release it? If it doesn't have a defenent date, too bad, it's still UPCOMING. Bring it back! Claycrow 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Neo Geo games' publisher

The three Neo Geo games added to the Wii Shop Channel have "D4 Enterprise" as the publisher. Should we change this in the article? Mmark089 05:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should list the original publisher of each game (for all VC games, not just these Neo Geo games). This means there won't be a "Namco Bandai" on this list since the company didn't exist when any of the VC games were originally released. TJ Spyke 05:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we somewhere decided that we'd base it off of the Wii Shop Channel Data. LN3000 07:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I recall as well. It makes sense, given that this is a list of modern releases. --Cheesemeister3k 07:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was never agreed. Someone just unilaterally changed it. See #Developer --> Publisher. I think it should be the original publisher, or maybe both the original and VC publisher. TJ Spyke 23:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

From that section, it looked like everyone agreed (except for one random person who had/has never made any other edit ever). There is no need to list the "original" publisher, when all the information is listed in the linked article. It's really hard to argue that the Wii Shop Channel is wrong the way it labels the publishers. LN3000 05:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not even following what you are saying. You are saying we should list only the VC publisher, yet you just reverted someone who did that (it's D4 Publishing who is "publishing" those Neo Geo games, not SNK). That is another reason I think we should list both the original publisher and the VC publisher. TJ Spyke 05:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right. But that has nothing to do with the argument. Everyone make mistakes. LN3000 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Since I can't revert his second edit without getting it trouble, I am bringing the issue here. Do we really need to show Japanese flags next to games that used to be Japan-exclusive? They don't really add anything to the article and could be violating WP:FU. TJ Spyke 20:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No need. Reverted. --Cheesemeister3k 20:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)