Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

change wiki entry to mega drive

as the console was know as the mega drive pretty much world wide shouldnt that be the name its referred to? for example "the Sega MegaDrive, known as the Genesis in North America.... etc" 2A00:23C4:A051:D701:90CD:A67:BF82:E045 (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ mentioned at the top of this talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it's pathetic but despite the fact it took 6 attempts to get it moved to Genesis, it's now apparently set forever and nothing can possibly change it. Duds 2k (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not really it. Please read the FAQ too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If we changed it to Mega Drive, we'd have people complaining forever that it should be Genesis instead. There is no option here that is going to please everyone or is more correct than the other, unfortunately. Popcornfud (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ll note as a long-time Wikipedian, that that’s not just a hypothetical because for sure was the case when the article’s title was Mega Drive all the way back in 2008. There were new requests to change the title quite often to Sega Genesis. It really does go both ways. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I've read the FAQ, it's bollocks. Basically somes Americans bitched until they finally succeeded after the 6th official review and now piss and moan about it anytime it comes up so there can never be another discussion, it should have been done after the first one. The creators call it Mega Drive, the vast majority of the world knows it as such. If this were really an encyclopaedia it's not even a discussion. Regardless of the "reasoning" in the FAQ, Genesis is an alternate region name for the machine, titling the article that is simply factually wrong and always will be. Duds 2k (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a very bad-faith (and inaccurate) read of the discussions. Don't baselessly cast aspersions like that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Reception

Why is the "reception" section quoting articles from 1997? The Sega Genesis came out in 1989. By 1997 Sega had released the Saturn and was two years from the Dreamcast. Was the person responsible for this even alive then, let alone playing games?

This seems like a Nintendo Homer being weird and trying to change reality. Please be more honest. I know you won't. 2600:8804:2000:CDE0:0:0:0:38CE (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Critics and journalists continue to write about things decades after they're released, and this is fair game for coverage on Wikipedia, when they come from reliable sources. Popcornfud (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm failing to see the issue here. The Genesis was actively getting new games released for it through 1996 (Sonic 3D Blast, Vectorman 2) so I don't see what the issue would be from getting evaluations shortly after it became inactive. That's actually an ideal time to reflect on it, just as a publication could write a pretty good evaluation of the Playstation 4 this year too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

They are not reflective reviews though, they are 'should I buy it now' reviews. After giving it a read, the reception section is indeed very poor as it stands. All it has is recommendations on whether it should have been bought well after the _Saturn_ came out. --SubSeven (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Still not seeing the problem here. This sort of coverage comes out from reliable sources after a platform's prime and it's completely valid. There's nothing wrong with adding more, but there's nothing wrong with what's already there. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I also don't really see the problem, but there's always room for expansion. Ten years have passed since this article was brought to FA status, and I could see more reliable sources being made available in that time to flesh out the picture. Give me a couple of weeks and I'll have a look Red Phoenix ^talk 02:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

So it's taken a while (yay me and not having free time for much anymore), but I at least got a start on this tonight. Plenty more to do, but there are sources available to expand. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

As you can see, it really hasn't been an ongoing point of contention, though as you say, there's certainly nothing wrong with further expansion either. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Demo tune

I made this random tune for the Genesis in VGM Music Maker in early June, and decided why not upload it to commons and put it in the article for the console as a sort of demo for both of its sound chips. This was rejected by User:Ferret on the grounds that it runs on software imitation of the console, rather than an actual Genesis. I put it back up a while later on the grounds that while it does run on emulation, it can indeed be played on a real console. This was once again removed, for two reasons: 1. it still isn't actually recorded from real hardware and 2. it isn't from any released Sega Genesis game

I'll tackle the second point first. This upload and addition to the article in the first place was largely inspired by the article on the Yamaha OPL series (I believe it was once a separate article for the OPL2). That article uses a random, modern tracker tune created for the OPL2, not featured in any released game (to my knowledge). This isn't necessary as there is a solid handful of games that showcase the sound chip wonderfully, though it's indeed extra safe to use an original track uploaded under a license by its creator, rather than anything from a game. For this reason, it must either be argued that the use of this tune to showcase the OPL2 is improper as well, or the point about my tune for Sega is invalid.

As for the first point, I would say that it seems valid, as that aforementioned OPL tune is recorded from a real chip. In this case, I will say that I a friend of mine has a real Genesis Model 1 (YM2612, not YM3438), and I could borrow that console, invest in something like a Teensy 3.6 board, and record the VGM on real hardware.

All things aside, it certainly isn't necessary to include a demo music track in the article. I just thought something like that would be a nice addition -- Troopersho (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

On a second note, the OPL article also uses another tracker tune as a showcase of the peculiarities of different versions of the later OPL3. Troopersho (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I share ferret's concerns that it's not a particularly good example of it wasn't made on a Genesis or is ever played on a commercial Genesis game... Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an article about the Sega Genesis though, not an article about the OPL series or the chips. As such, any music here needs to be representative of music actually found and released on the Sega Genesis. That, unfortunately, is likely to not happen due to copyright and not being a strong enough NFCC case. "Here's a track you could play on these chips" is not representative of the Sega Genesis though. -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I would think there'd be a few homebrew games with the proper license to feature here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

While I understand your concerns, I think that both of you are sort of misinterpreting why I had the idea of a demo track. You're definitely viewing this from a very game-based perspective, which is generally adequate, but here's where the current point of contention is shown. It's my position that "Here's a track you could play on these chips" is indeed exactly what I'm going for, not a representation of the console as a whole (though something recorded from authentic hardware would be much better). A representative of the console's technical sound capabilities, IE something that uses both of its sound chips was the whole point of me wanting to add something like that in the first place. Notice the section of the article I added it to.

Frankly I think that any piece of audio that makes notable use of both the console's sound chips would work for this purpose, be it a piece of music or a bunch of random noises, be it from an actual game of the era, an unknown unreleased mystery sound from the time, something from a modern homebrew game or something that some rando like me just decided to piece together.

But anyway I don't really want to push this too much... very little need to. But anyway you know why I had this idea, added to the section Technical Specifications for a reason. Troopersho (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Their perspective was Wikipedia-based. Drmies (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps superficially it was "wikipedia-based"? I've certainly elaborated a fair bit on my position here, and I still stand by it. Troopersho (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Demonstrating the machine's technical capabilities is not necessarily a bad idea. (Although, I believe that's secondary to illustrating how it was actually used during its lifespan.) I think part of the problem with a demo track is that it's hard for the layperson to understand what's notable about it. It seems just like audio decoration.

A few much shorter tracks that demonstrate specific notable capabilities that could be described in text and the reader could listen for would be better, IMHO. Done well, that could be an interesting addition to most gaming retro-hardware articles.

Don't take my word for it though. This is obviously controversial, so wait for at least a weak consensus before putting much work into it.ApLundell (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

At some point that's taking on the flavor of WP:OR. "Here's some sounds people made and uploaded which we, completely independent of reliable secondary coverage, will describe." -- ferret (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be OR. It's normal to create illustrations of referenced facts. And it's normal to caption the images so that the reader knows what he's looking at.

ApLundell (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Where it will steer into OR from there is that yes, you can create an illustration of referenced facts. You can’t create referenced audio to say here’s where it’s from unless it’s something presented in a reference itself, such as an audio recording on a reliable website. Otherwise, where’s the data to say this is what it sounds like, cited to a secondary source? If you make an original tune in the same vein, who’s to say there isn’t an addition the hardware isn’t actually capable of? Images don’t have this problem, but audio does. Especially when you’re trying to say “this is exactly what it’s capable of, with nothing it isn’t.” Red Phoenix ^talk 19:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with the distinction you're drawing between creating a visual illustration and an audio illustration. I don't believe changing the medium changes the rule.

In both cases the technical capabilities are well defined and well documented. I don't see why the difficulties you mentioned would be uniquely audio problems. ApLundell (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me clarify a bit: if someone created a graphic that had the style of Genesis graphics to display its video output, that would have the same issues as those I bring up with the audio recording. That’s why a screenshot from an actual Genesis game is used with a proper fair use rationale. An “illustration of referenced facts” that would be acceptable would be something like a chart or graph displaying numerical data trends, or a subject that can be easier generalized. It’s one thing to have a depiction of the water cycle, it’s another to emulate the precise output of a piece of hardware with something that was never played on that hardware without being in a reliable source or confirmed software for that hardware. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

If it were the article for the sound chip itself, sure, but I just don't see the value in creating a sample that doesn't actually replicate an experience the reader would never actually have on a Sega Genesis. Just like I wouldn't chose an image of a homebrew game to be representative of its graphics. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2023

Can you please give me edit request, there is just one thing I should add 44naytions (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not how an edit request works.Youre not asking to edit the article yourself. You're supposed to propose the change you'd like to make, and if it's valid, an experienced editor will do it for you. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to make changes to the iamges, more specifically, add the North American Genesis Model 1 and the European Mega Drive Model 1 in the infobox 2600:1700:3680:8B70:181D:340F:FC2A:9209 (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The infobox already has two different versions of the console, as well as the two different logos. Anything more would be excessive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

perhaps, replace the second Genesis model on the bottom with the first model 2600:1700:3680:8B70:181D:340F:FC2A:9209 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

And I'm against this as well. The current infobox images cover v1 and v2 of the console, regardless of origin - it's enough as it is. More pertinent to the conversation - why do you want to change or add to the infobox? You haven't given a rationale for your request, so you're unlikely to gain any support so far. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The reason is to bassically let others know what he OG American Model is, Genesis Model 1 (NA) and Mega Drive Model 1 (JP) are pretty different, due to changes from region to region. 2600:1700:3680:8B70:181D:340F:FC2A:9209 (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Does the development section of text not do that already? I mean; it’s a nice idea but I’d be very wary of image bombing the article. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)