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

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)

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)

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)

Is this legitimate?

http://www.virtualconsole.info/

67.188.172.165 17:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)