Forums > Game Forums > Rogue > Game port listing needs to be removed?

user avatar

LepricahnsGold (142748) on 11/24/2008 10:47 PM · Permalink · Report

Corn Popper requested I post this here. I feel that the Game Boy Advance version of Rogue: The Adventure Game should be deleted. It is distributed as a file and not on cartridge, therefore it is not playable on the original hardware unless someone else creates a cartridge for it. MobyGames standards state that to be listed, a game must be playable on the original hardware and not just an emulator. If Donnie Russel was selling/distributing it on a cartridge, that would be different. http://www.mobygames.com/info/standards#Focus

user avatar

Sciere (927263) on 11/24/2008 11:06 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

If it is only a ROM, it should be removed to remain consistent in this regard. A trivia item about it is perfectly valid. It reminds me of Motocross Challenge, which was first released as a ROM and only later as a limited cartridge. If no further comments come, bump again to have it removed.

user avatar

shon willer on 12/6/2008 9:46 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

spam

user avatar

Pseudo_Intellectual (66274) on 11/24/2008 11:12 PM · Permalink · Report

Once again our policy hobbles the documentation of interesting porting projects. Clearly it's time for the policy to be changed! 8)

user avatar

Foxhack (32102) on 11/24/2008 11:51 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]Once again our policy hobbles the documentation of interesting porting projects. Clearly it's time for the policy to be changed! 8) [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]This same policy allows the inclusion of AtariAge's romhacks in the site, which is something I highly disagree with.

We do need change. :P

user avatar

Sciere (927263) on 11/25/2008 10:22 AM · Permalink · Report

But those are released on a cartridge that can be played on any system.

user avatar

LepricahnsGold (142748) on 11/25/2008 12:05 PM · Permalink · Report

If we allow games like this, we are allowing inclusion of games like Yahtzee for Atari 2600 or Mondo Pong for Atari 2600 that were only released as ROMs and can only be played on an Atari 2600 via the Cuttle Cart.

user avatar

GAMEBOY COLOR! (1990) on 11/25/2008 2:56 PM · Permalink · Report

Why don't we just add a emulator platform to put this whole debate to rest ? 8)

user avatar

Foxhack (32102) on 11/25/2008 3:16 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Sciere wrote--]But those are released on a cartridge that can be played on any system. [/Q --end Sciere wrote--]They're also unlicensed game hacks. My problem is the unlicensed bit - they did this without the permission of the original copyright owners, and are making money out of the carts. I don't like that.

If we're going to have stuff like that here, we might as well accept all those Chinese bootleg carts that replace characters with Mario, too - or game translations that have been put on carts by repro creators (though they aren't making money out of that).

user avatar

Indra was here (20756) on 11/27/2008 6:04 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Kit Silva wrote--] They're also unlicensed game hacks. My problem is the unlicensed bit - they did this without the permission of the original copyright owners, and are making money out of the carts. I don't like that. [/Q --end Kit Silva wrote--]

Seconded, thirded und fourth-ded. This shouldn't even be a debate.

user avatar

chirinea (47500) on 11/27/2008 6:07 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Indra Depari of 'da Clan Depari wrote--] [Q2 --start Kit Silva wrote--] They're also unlicensed game hacks. My problem is the unlicensed bit - they did this without the permission of the original copyright owners, and are making money out of the carts. I don't like that. [/Q2 --end Kit Silva wrote--]

Seconded, thirded und fourth-ded. This shouldn't even be a debate. [/Q --end Indra Depari of 'da Clan Depari wrote--] =D

user avatar

Indra was here (20756) on 11/27/2008 6:09 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

Depends on the mask I wear, mate. :)

edit: You gotta get me all these psychology links in wiki. I find this knowledge extremely fascinating.

user avatar

Pseudo_Intellectual (66274) on 11/27/2008 7:06 PM · Permalink · Report

As someone whose primary beat is traditionally unlicensed shareware clones distributed through dial-up BBSes, all the emphasis on authorization and physical media is a bit baffling.

user avatar

Foxhack (32102) on 11/28/2008 10:49 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]As someone whose primary beat is traditionally unlicensed shareware clones distributed through dial-up BBSes, all the emphasis on authorization and physical media is a bit baffling. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]The physical media thing is... something I'm not 100% in agreement with either. I mean, people make homebrew games for anything these days. And you can just get a flash cart for several systems and play them on original hardware that way.

My problem stems from the fact that these are just unauthorized hacks that don't really do much of anything. Shareware clones are one thing. Altered versions of games... are not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnexa2dJXgs (Contains crude pixelated nudity.)

You want all those games in the site?

user avatar

Pseudo_Intellectual (66274) on 11/28/2008 11:19 PM · Permalink · Report

You want all those games in the site?

I didn't check out the link, but if someone played it once, I don't see why not. Some of our approvers may recall my early rejected submission of the X-rated Gauntlet 2 hack "Cuntlet 2".

user avatar

Foxhack (32102) on 11/28/2008 11:43 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]You want all those games in the site?

I didn't check out the link, but if someone played it once, I don't see why not. Some of our approvers may recall my early rejected submission of the X-rated Gauntlet 2 hack "Cuntlet 2". [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]So you're saying that if two versions of a game have one byte of difference, you'll allow them on the site?

A lot of these hacks remove the copyright or change some data around and offer nothing but that. They're hacks. There's sites for them, they shouldn't even be allowed in here.

Edit: Guess what? They could be considered MODS, and we don't like mods unless they're commercial. :P

user avatar

Pseudo_Intellectual (66274) on 11/29/2008 12:02 AM · Permalink · Report

So you're saying that if two versions of a game have one byte of difference, you'll allow them on the site?

By and large, I think that the feeling of futility this joyless task would engender in a submitter will self-police and ensure that these abuses don't happen on any kind of mass scale. But if the byte subtly changes the name displayed on the title screen, then sure -- track the name as an alternate name at least, if not necessarily giving the minor hack the benefit of a full new entry.

A lot of these hacks remove the copyright or change some data around and offer nothing but that. They're hacks.

Yes, we only document identical games with sprite switches if they're authorized 8) I can see reasonable grounds on which to exclude obvious abuses, but as we know following this example, even our apparently overly strict policy against hacks doesn't actually keep out worthless hacks, just unlicensed worthless amateur ones (while undoubtedly keeping out some worthwhile amateur work and total conversions.) A system that enshrines Taz/Asterix and discards Lazarus is to my mind more than a little at odds with its actual intent.

user avatar

Foxhack (32102) on 11/29/2008 12:04 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

I'm sorry, but adding crap hacks to the site should NEVER BE DONE. 99% of those hacks are done by brainless morons that think giving characters a penis is the funniest thing ever. Very few of these hacks would be considered worthy of mentioning, but they're basically non-commercial and unauthorized game mods.

[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]Yes, we only document identical games with sprite switches if they're authorized 8) I can see reasonable grounds on which to exclude obvious abuses, but as we know following this example, even our apparently overly strict policy against hacks doesn't actually keep out worthless hacks, just unlicensed worthless amateur ones (while undoubtedly keeping out some worthwhile amateur work and total conversions.) A system that enshrines Taz/Asterix and discards Lazarus is to my mind more than a little at odds with its actual intent. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]...

http://www.mobygames.com/game/renegade
http://www.mobygames.com/game/nintendo-world-cup

I tried to have Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-Kun added to the site and it got rejected. Nintendo World Cup and the Japanese version are two completely different games and that got rejected too. And I remember seeing a game that was very different between regions, but it got merged for some reason.

Explain that to me.

user avatar

Pseudo_Intellectual (66274) on 11/29/2008 12:14 AM · Permalink · Report

I'm sorry, but adding crap hacks to the site should NEVER BE DONE.

I don't see anywhere that anyone is advocating this. (Well, barring Cuntlet 2 8)

And I remember seeing a game that was very different between regions, but it got merged for some reason. Explain that to me.

The obvious explanation to me is that we're too darned strict 8)

user avatar

Foxhack (32102) on 11/29/2008 12:25 AM · Permalink · Report

Now I remember the game.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/commander-keen-combo-cd

The CD version doesn't have DOSBox, the Steam version does. They shouldn't even have been merged to begin with.

user avatar

Xoleras (66143) on 12/5/2008 1:21 AM · Permalink · Report

Does the presence/absence of an unrelated unsupported application software on different media really warrant a game split? :)

The game is distributed over Steam using Windows, but the files are plain DOS game files - they aren't even integrated into Steam, the DOSBox environment is. You can even copy the Keen games out of your Steam directory and it works fine - try this with any other (non-DOS) game. ;)

So you have one media (Apogee's CD) with just the DOS Keen files and another media (the Steam download) with the DOS Keen files and a file which "cannot run in DOS mode". :p

Note: the game entry as of now wasn't created by merging the Apogee DOS version with the Steam Windows version, but by adding the Apogee AKA to the DOS/Windows Steam game entry. (The titles were just later swapped because the CD is older then the download version.)

user avatar

Foxhack (32102) on 12/5/2008 1:57 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Xoleras wrote--]Does the presence/absence of an unrelated unsupported application software on different media really warrant a game split? :)

The game is distributed over Steam using Windows, but the files are plain DOS game files - they aren't even integrated into Steam, the DOSBox environment is. You can even copy the Keen games out of your Steam directory and it works fine - try this with any other (non-DOS) game. ;)

So you have one media (Apogee's CD) with just the DOS Keen files and another media (the Steam download) with the DOS Keen files and a file which "cannot run in DOS mode". :p

Note: the game entry as of now wasn't created by merging the Apogee DOS version with the Steam Windows version, but by adding the Apogee AKA to the DOS/Windows Steam game entry. (The titles were just later swapped because the CD is older then the download version.) [/Q --end Xoleras wrote--]The presence of a GUI (Steam, in this case) and DOSBox -does- warrant a split. Both games have different publishers, different distribution methods (CD Vs Electronic, but this isn't very important unless you count being able to get your games back if you delete them), and most importantly, one will run on a Windows machine without issue because it includes an emulator, while the other will not. Otherwise, we'll have to merge Space Quest Collection Series (Dos binaries only) and Space Quest Collection (Dos binaries with DOSBox). The same could be said of the Leisure Suit Larry and Police Quest collections.

Also, DOSBox isn't integrated into Steam. All Steam does is execute a batch file. :P

user avatar

shon willer on 12/6/2008 9:47 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

*** Hello kind sirs, I thought it would be nice to steer this discussion arbitrarily towards the gold farming business I operate, but the size of my manhood was terribly humbled by the mods of this board. ***

user avatar

DJP Mom (11333) on 12/6/2008 12:44 PM · Permalink · Report

Sciere, you made my day!

user avatar

Depeche Mike (17455) on 12/10/2008 10:36 PM · Permalink · Report

lmao holy shit stijn.... :D

user avatar

Xoleras (66143) on 12/12/2008 8:17 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

So if a CD of any game has an autorun, but another one not, those two should be split too?

As you said yourself All Steam does is execute a batch file, therefore Steam is totally irrelevant for the game. Starting it directly from the EXE, the link on the desktop, the CD autorun or the "link collection" in Steam is - for release info - all the same.

Publishers and distribution methods are for game entries unimportant, just for the release info.

And I don't see your point with the "without issue" comment. Of course the DOS version runs in DOS without issues, so do the Windows version in Windows. Running Windows in DOS and DOS in Windows has of course some issues. But this is the whole point of a multi-platform-game-entry. With this I could also suggest that GTA4 should be split into a Windows, a PS3 and a XB360 game entry because neither do PS3/XB360 work on Windows without an emulator, nor does the PS3 bluray work on the XB360 and vice versa.

And yes, by all means, merge the DOS SQ collection with the Windows one. ;) (Though I wonder why the "DOS binaries only" actually has DOS/Windows/Windows 3.x)

<hr />

And even if I repeat myself:

We have a Steam release (DOS executables + Windows through DOSbox). We have the Apogee release (DOS executables).

For the DOS environment (platform), where is the difference? One release has an unsupported (Win32-EXE) application software (DOSbox) on the media, the other not. What's the implication for the DOS platform here? (With DOS & Windows using the same file format, there is no need - or even reason - to separate the files on the media.)

<hr />

By the way, "CD Vs Electronic, but this isn't very important unless you count being able to get your games back if you delete them":

Its all the same. If you loose "access" to your games (loosing or damaged disc, Steam goes offline forever), your games are gone. Otherwise you can re-install it. And yes, even those non-"DRM"ed DOSbox games are still available for re-download and re-install.

user avatar

Foxhack (32102) on 12/12/2008 11:11 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Xoleras wrote--]So if a CD of any game has an autorun, but another one not, those two should be split too?

As you said yourself All Steam does is execute a batch file, therefore Steam is totally irrelevant for the game. Starting it directly from the EXE, the link on the desktop, the CD autorun or the "link collection" in Steam is - for release info - all the same.

Publishers and distribution methods are for game entries unimportant, just for the release info.

And I don't see your point with the "without issue" comment. Of course the DOS version runs in DOS without issues, so do the Windows version in Windows. Running Windows in DOS and DOS in Windows has of course some issues. But this is the whole point of a multi-platform-game-entry. With this I could also suggest that GTA4 should be split into a Windows, a PS3 and a XB360 game entry because neither do PS3/XB360 work on Windows without an emulator, nor does the PS3 bluray work on the XB360 and vice versa.

And yes, by all means, merge the DOS SQ collection with the Windows one. ;) (Though I wonder why the "DOS binaries only" actually has DOS/Windows/Windows 3.x)

<hr />

And even if I repeat myself:

We have a Steam release (DOS executables + Windows through DOSbox). We have the Apogee release (DOS executables).

For the DOS environment (platform), where is the difference? One release has an unsupported (Win32-EXE) application software (DOSbox) on the media, the other not. What's the implication for the DOS platform here? (With DOS & Windows using the same file format, there is no need - or even reason - to separate the files on the media.)

<hr />

By the way, "CD Vs Electronic, but this isn't very important unless you count being able to get your games back if you delete them":

Its all the same. If you loose "access" to your games (loosing or damaged disc, Steam goes offline forever), your games are gone. Otherwise you can re-install it. And yes, even those non-"DRM"ed DOSbox games are still available for re-download and re-install. [/Q --end Xoleras wrote--]The issue isn't Steam, it's DOSBox. Steam is just a distribution method - but the games will not work very well (if at all) under Windows without DOSBox. My argument is that DOSBox essentially works both as a new platform and as new content. 3D Realms's original Combo CD distribution included the games, and just the games. You still have to get them to run.

While I'm sure that the game data files and core executables are the same between versions, the Windows (Steam) version will not work without DOSBox. The DOS versions need to be configured (you know how finicky old computers were), while the DOSBox versions are already preconfigured to run from the start. Just click on the game in the Steam window (or on a batch file in your game folder) and that's it.

The -addition- of DOSBox is what matters.

In regards to the other Space Quest thing, the newer Sierra releases don't have any manuals or bonus content, while the older compilations do. So NO MERGE FOR YOU. :P (The game should probably have Dos/Win3x, but the box was rarely clear on how compatible they were.)

user avatar

Xoleras (66143) on 12/13/2008 12:55 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

Okay, one last time...

If you buy the Keen collection (or any of the other DOS bundles) with Steam, you get a directory filled with the native DOS Keen files and the DOSbox files all jumbled up in it.

With the presence of this pre-configured DOSbox, the game entry get its Windows platform. This platform is here because the emulator runs in Windows to emulate DOS (with all its features; better then Windows own DOS emulator can do it).

If you boot using DOS, you can run the game by simply executing i.e. the keen1.exe in the steamapps directory. You just have a bunch of useless files in the directory (the DOSbox EXE and the SDL libraries; all files from the other platform).

Or you install/copy/whatever your files from the Apogee CD to the harddisk and start the keen1.exe from there. You just miss the useless files to begin with.

In either of the three cases, you have to configure the game and/or OS to get the game working properly. Yes, even Windows. If you have a misconfigured sound device setting (yellow or red exclamation mark in the Device Driver tab of the Control Panel), it doesn't matter if you have a fully pre-configured DOSbox, you won't hear anything - the same way as if you misconfigured your sound driver settings in MS-DOS.

There are now three possibilities:

1) Let all stay as it is; one DOS release and one DOS/Windows release in one game entry. (as explained above)
2) Split Windows Steam and let DOS Steam & DOS Apogee remain; as DOS can't execute DOSbox.
and 3) doesn't make sense IMHO, splitting DOS Apogee off Windows/DOS Steam, because one has a useless application software bundled (again, you can't execute DOSbox in DOS) and the other not.

Whatever DOSbox is in Windows, in DOS it's useless - the same way as an autorun.exe or an acrobat reader.

The main issue however is that Valve isn't using a proprietary emulator (i.e. one Win32 EXE with emulator and native files packed together), but using the DOSbox plus separate native files.

If it would be proprietary, it would be easier to handle this. You wouldn't be able to execute the game in DOS, it wouldn't had a DOS platform, you could argue with the different content (native DOS binaries vs. a Win32-EXE).

However, as it uses DOSbox, you already have a platform mixture for just the Steam release. And arguing that DOS shouldn't be part of the Steam release because it's designed for Windows (bundled with DOSbox as someone who runs Steam has no MS-DOS any more), but using not just the game files but also the native DOS binaries would contradict itself.

user avatar

Sciere (927263) on 12/13/2008 9:01 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

Let's see this from a consumer's point of view. Commander Keen Combo CD is available for two platforms, originally for DOS and more recently for Windows. Whether the game files were altered to be Windows compatible or DOSBox is used to emulate the environment - the fact remains that it is sold as a Windows game. The technical implementation should have no influence in this. Do the files of the "Windows" release also happen to run in DOS? Then that's coincidence, but not primarily how it was intended as Steam is clearly a Windows-only platform and the inclusion of DOSBox means it is intended to run in a Windows environment. So if the basic content of both "games" is the same, they should be together under a single entry. A split (but not two DOS versions!) would be possible when different kind of content is included in both releases (but not the absence of a physical manual for instance).

user avatar

Indra was here (20756) on 12/13/2008 7:46 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Sciere wrote--]Whether the game files were altered to be Windows compatible or DOSBox is used to emulate the environment - the fact remains that it is sold as a Windows game. The technical implementation should have no influence in this. [/Q --end Sciere wrote--] Well, yes and no. More inclined to yes...the no part has too many loopholes.
First thing's first. MG by policy focuses on the commercial aspects of the game first, technical aspects later. Favorite example is that we don't accept hacks or unofficial reproduction of games (despite half of the database originating from such sources :p).

Thus, this over-rides the technical differences quite obvious for games commerically released with emulation. To be honest, we don't have a definite policy when dealing with "Commerically released emulated games" and the "Must be released on Native Platform" doctrine.

Regardless, for the sake of the nerds...there must be a definite way to differinciate that commercially released emulated games...as to remind users that "the game actually wasn't originally released for X platform." Which is probably benefitial for users like myself who once hadn't the foggiest what Steam was...until Germans expert in Swedish mating rituals filled in the gaps. :)

Based on MG policy, commerically emulated games should remain in the platform the publisher/distributer commerically intended it to be, regardless (now you know why people hate policy). But honestly...that just doesn't feel right. :p

user avatar

Indra was here (20756) on 12/13/2008 9:08 PM · Permalink · Report

Nevermind my previous post. Oliver tried to explain the Mexican Conspiracy to me for the past hour...and I still don't see the problem. Stupid IQ.

user avatar

Corn Popper (69030) on 11/28/2008 12:59 AM · Permalink · Report

game removed