Fake or Rare Zelda or What?

[L___E___T]

 


Great pic Jay   But I don't like the personal judgement - I've never 'shitted' on your finds, always congratulated those, so don't be salty on false pretenses.  www.goo.gl/ayR3um

But for the record, that cart is not official, as nice as it is.  It will not be classified on the site as official either I should note.  It is, as heavily discussed, a contested 'pirate'.

FCgamer I did not try to make a generalisation on this either - (and there was no 'calling out' only objection) please don't paint things black and white like that, with heroes and villain types.

By the way are we 100% sure this cart is 20 years old?  It looks old, but HVC man is making similar looking carts for example with Nintendo chips, we just know that they are made today.

Jay having worked with Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Europe, I think your understanding is not quite correct on that statement about how much influence there is.

Lastly - I didn't delete your pics because they looked too good - I deleted them (and explained nicely to you at the time) because they are were high quality scans - there are none online for a reason, so that owners like yourself can protect that investment from direct reprints in this way.  Believe me that it affect you way more than me, I was simply trying to be nice.

FCgamer there's no rush, there's just an imbalance of evidence.  If it was 50/50, we wouldn't be calling it a pirate in the first place but it's fair to say it's a contested classification.

Jay there's no jealousy from my side (I reiterated this already) - I don't want this particular cart (just Zelda 2 on a Fami cart) even for a low price, as nice as it is.  I have no idea of value on it either way, that's not the topic.  I've been looking to get this instead in a higher quality repro:  http://www.romhacking.net/hacks/1084/  FCgamer also also mistook this.

I would ask everyone to cool their heads on this topic though.  We don't need to shout and swear, or be unpleasant about it, I shouldn't even have to remind on this point, this isn't NA.

FCgamer I just read your longer point and I think we feel the same way, but from opposite sides.  I do think calling it official is a huge stretch (pushing a square peg through a circular hole).



Post Merge: June 11, 2016, 01:08:13 pm



Let's List everything out - for and against so we can remain objective.

Below are all the unofficial telltale signs and why I think it's an unofficial pirate, and I would even say obviously so, based on the actual evidence in front of us, no theories:

Anything not actual evidence as such but what I would say is a supported argument I've marked as 'NOTE'.

- A Link To The Past artwork on the label is incorrect, and this didn't even exist when Zelda 2 was released for the Comboy version.

- A Link To The Past character artwork colours are wrong, or at least look to be poor quality printing.

- Cheap looking, generic plastic cart shell of incorrect colour, clearly not an official Famicom cart shell.

- Rough, unofficial looking Printed Circuit Board.

- Front label has incorrect or poor spacing placement on cart.

- Back label is created in a different font to the NES release, has the same poor quality spacing and no official branding at all.

- The Zelda 2 game logo on the label is red instead of blue (top portion).

- The back of box packaging uses the same photos that look copied from the Comboy box packaging (print image quality depreciates with every direct copy of a copy made).

- The back of box text has been edited, it does not match the Comboy NES box is spacing, font or title.

- The front of box has even more problems - mixed fonts, incorrect title, incorrect artwork from A Link To The Past again poorly cutout and reproduced from a small print, you can see the print color separation (i.e dots) on this image even.  Note - I would suggest that this has been ripped from the ALTTP manual, along with the label artwork.

- The Zelda 2 game logo on box (red ZELDA part) is incorrect itself, and the logo is from A Link To The Past, it didn't even exist when Zelda 2 was originally released.  

- Front label uses the incorrect product code (code is from the Famicom Zelda 1 cart - not released until '94).

- Nintendo logo, legals are also ripped from the Zelda Famicom re-release, are wonky and appear to be poor quality printing.  

- Comboy games were made in Japan, as marked on the back of their box.  NOTE - this suggests Hyundai did not manufacture in Korea at all.

- Front and back labels nor box have any official branding on them (neither Hyundai nor Nintendo), where as the official Comboy NES versions do.

- Game manual is akin to the Comboy NES version, hard to tell much more without better pictures.

- The big one - the Korean Zelda 2 NES version was sold in '89 (dated on the back of box), but this cart could not have existed before '94 (Zelda re-release came out in '94).


Now the points for, based on actual evidence in front of us, not theories:

- chips appear to be legitimate chips.  Notes - have these been 100% confirmed to be real NES chips?  Could they be potentially be unofficial chips with an imitation labelling?


Overall:

I would propose based on the above evidence that the cart was therefore not made before '94.  The Comboy was marketed in Korea from between '87 and '92 from what I have read.  So if the Comboy was supported with official releases from '89 to '92, why does this cart have markings on from items that released in '94?

My objective argument based on this evidence:

So that also strongly suggests to me that this cart came out several years after the Korean NES release.  Hyundai had stopped even supporting the Comboy by that time.
However, ALTTP was released for the Super Comboy, which also had bootlegs produced for it in Korea.  So we know that ALTTP had awareness in Korea round that time.
I think the signs point to a bootleg outfit wanting to take advantage of this to release another Zelda title.  There are numerous telltale signs that this cart was made by a bootleg outfit.  The high quality Korean Super Comboy releases (I have one - Yoshi's Island) are high quality printing and production carts as you'd expect from an official release.

So the one piece of evidence that could suggest this was an official release is said to be the chips.  However, this is still debatable - it's not dealbreaker evidence.

What would stop them just lifting the NES chips from a NES cart? By then they were in the used market and several years old.  It seems tedious, but if there were cheap NES copies available, we can't rule that out.  That is just one 'theory' of why it has Nintendo chips on and the point in that theory is that the existence of chips isn't enough.
Please tell me if this is straight out technically not possible so that we can rule that possibility out.  I mention it not because I am saying that's exactly what happened, but because it could have been a route to getting the Nintendo chips themselves and my point is that's why just HAVING the chips isn't enough to say it's official.

All in, I'd also say it is unlikely that Hyundai held on to these chips for years just waiting to make a deal.  I think it's plausible they sold a bunch of chips on to someone else, or they ended up in the hands of a bootleg outfit somehow, but that is just a theory.  We do know (at least it is widely accepted) that the Comboy was a failure as the Famicom had already taken hold.  So while these chips are present - how do we know they came straight from a factory?  Comboy games were made in Japan, not in Korea.  What says Hyundai even had chips in the first place?  Why would they have stand alone chips when a license / distribution deal suggests they just would receive a box of games to sell in that market.  I don't think they had a factory assembling chips onto boards myself, but that is just theory, in the same track is there evidence that they did and would have a batch of chips straight up?  


I would propose based on all the above evidence that the cart was therefore not made before '94.  The Comboy was marketed in Korea from between '87 and '92 from what I have read from Comboy historians.  So if the Comboy was supported with official releases from '89 to '92, why does this cart have markings on from items that released in '94?

The verdict I came to based on that argument, supported by the evidence I can see:

Now, the Super Comboy was in Korea from '92.  They used the US ROM set as a rule, but official Super Comboy games were apparently made in Japan.  
There was bootleg company called Game Line (GL) that made games in Korea.  perhaps Hyundai could have sold the chips to Game Line when they closed all of this.  
Even if that were true, with only chips deemed official and the rest of the board, shell and packaging unofficial I don't think that constitutes an official release at all.
This is because the manufacturing process is mostly bootleg/pirate/unofficial, there was no official packaging and no suggestion of any official marketing.  
The Famicom was not even officially endorsed in Korea.  So if the chips are indeed from Hyundai through a back door, that's only small piece that makes up an official release.

It seems daft to say that because there is one sign that appears official, that the numerous unofficial signs should be put to one side.  If there were more official signs, I'd be more open.

On me and any personal bias:
I have worked in the video game industry, in brand management, working with Japanese, American, Asian and European companies for the last ten years.  So that experience probably plays a part.
You could say I'm biased because this is part of my day to day job, designing packaging, working with official branding guidelines, understanding artwork and correct usage.
We have seen those on the official NES releases, so why are they not here on this Famicom cart?  I would say the evidence strongly shows it is not an official release. BUT, the real chips (if they are 100% real, I'm not an expert on those) demand a second look, with open discussion, and fundamentally while the case is not closed per se, the open question is not enough to declassify it just yet.  It's a footnote.


I think this is a thorough and fair assessment, but would invite further arguments based on evidence we can all see in front of us, that contradict this.  I will update with sources.  Is there any new evidence?  

[Flying_Phoenix]

(Edit: This was posted right after L___E___T posted his message.)

I agree that this game could be legit, why not, I'm just repeating that it looks far more like a pirate than an official release. I think that's what L___E___T thinks too. We did provide points as to why it looks like a pirate, it's just that you keep on telling us they're "subjective" opinions, when they're not. How can you say "a few wrong artworks" aren't a good point, seriously? You mean using a custom text font, wrong ™ and missing ©, as well as artworks from a completely different game is subjective opinion, and not serious clues? Then yes, let's all believe this is grey-area and could as well be real, while ignoring the visual clues that point the other way. I don't mind.

It has been well-noted that the chips are genuine, nobody's arguing that anymore. Yet, even looking at that board which isn't cut straight adds a clue to the pirate argument.

Nobody's also arguing that a lot of official games/items aren't super high-quality, while a few pirates/unofficials are top-notch. Yet, there is large gap between a low-quality official and something where everything is off, copyrights, text, box format, artworks, no manual etc., no matter how thick the cardboard is or how sharp the printing on the label is.

If this is official, surely it has its own manual, not a NES Hyundai manual that can't fit inside the box. Unless they printed Hyundai on the manual, but not on the cart/box, they probably forgot, whatever. When we have time, we'll make a list. Speculation is great, but what we can look at and analyse is the best we can go by right now, because we have nothing else.

And what I said before in this thread still holds - that the few "grey-area" items that you have shown to be (probably) official, are a lot more believable, and that is why I've never questioned them (Taiwan F-1 Race, Taiwan Kiddie Sun...). This game though, isn't very believable.

[BonBon]

Hey flying Phoenix you're a piece of shit GO BACK TO NINTENDO AGE.

[Flying_Phoenix]

Nevermind, hope next time you won't have to be so rude.

[fcgamer]

Well that above message from Jay-Ray I think is a bit harsh, tbh.  Despite any potential hard feelings caused by opinions the contrasting beliefs, I still like you Flying Phoenix. 
Post Merge: June 11, 2016, 10:33:11 pm

But for the record, that cart is not official, as nice as it is.  It will not be classified on the site as official either I should note.  It is, as heavily discussed, a contested 'pirate'.

See L___E___T, that is the problem that many people have regarding this cart.  Did I ever say the cart was official?  No, I don't think I did.  For all you or the others know, I might also believe it to be a pirate, or less than official.    But that isn't my point here. 

Throughout the discussion, from the start, you have been acting as judge and jury regarding this game, stating in broad generalizations how everyone feels it to be a pirate, common belief is that it is a pirate, it is a "contested pirate", etc.  You act as though everyone is in agreement to the game being 100% a pirate, without perhaps having some backstory behind it.  You act as though you somehow have the authority to generalize and say whether the game is a pirate or not.  Sadly though, with all due respect, you don't.  And that is my point.

Some people feel the game is a pirate, others believe there is more to the story than it just being a pirate.  Who knows, maybe some of those folks don't believe the game is 100% legit, but don't believe it is 100% pirate either.  But you automatically fall into the trap of assuming that if they don't agree with your stance, then they must hold the polar opposite.  And that is what I don't like, and have been trying to say countless times over the past several pages, something that you just don't seem to understand.

[Flying_Phoenix]

@Jay-ray: Harsh and constructive would have been welcome, unfortunately it's not even harsh and unconstructive, it's silly. Besides, I've been registered here longer than you, so I'm not "going back to NA". I follow both forums, which are both full of interesting stuff to read and learn (and contribute to).

@fcgamer: This thread is absolutely nothing personal to me, I have the same opinion of you as I had before. We share a lot of interests and even more, so there is no point getting personal and lose a good mate over this. You'll always be free to think of me whatever you like, and this won't change the way I speak out what I think is right or wrong.

I also think L___E___T may have misunderstood some folks here (as I did), as they did not *say* or *believe* it is official. We've been slightly driven apart throughout the thread by our initial position. He did make a great comprehensive list up there, although some points aren't as strong as others. I think we can all help to improve/complete that list, waiting for the day of confirmation (who knows, it might come).

[L___E___T]

 



FCgamer please let me clarify again, I DO NOT consider myself any kind of final authority on the bootleg universe.  I said most people consider this a pirate (albeit should have said bootleg) as that was my understanding.  Digging into it, I still consider this a bootleg based on the evidence in front of us.  I don't rule out any other evidence not seen, either new or old, or new findings - I invite them.  I also previously said I use the label 'pirate' as an umbrella term for unlicensed/bootleg/unofficial games so will adjust that.

FCgamer you also quoted a sentence where I said I considered a 'pirate' personally, but didn't include the extra where I said I used the label 'pirate' as an interchangeable.  the point I was making in that sentence you quoted is that the classification on FW won't change from current, as UglyJoe said.  For what it's worth, I don't have any technical control over that, I am not 'the judge' of it.

It seems clear that there is some story behind this cart - however the makers got the chips.  I would love to find some development on that story and history.  That is interesting, but still unkown.  It's also been said that the chips ARE official chips, so if that is definitely the case, I should go back and edit my question mark on that - but I don't know enough about that part to be certain myself, hence why I'd asked about that bit.  

I want to build out the list of evidence FOR this game being somewhat toward official.  To me, everything from the chips out is transparently unofficial, so it's a straightforward conclusion at present.  But there must be more - we have the chips and that demands more investigation.  Theories can be considered, but they always need some physical evidence to back them up.

- Jay-ray, please read the rules.

[fcgamer]

To date I have found three or four of the Konami game Astroboy, bootleg cases stamped "TPITA" / "TOITO Corpatatian" and also today found one Saint Seiya Ougon Densetsu Kanketsu Hen, fake case and legit Nintendo PCB  and chips inside.  I am sure that I have other bootleg games in my collection, containing official PCBs inside, but I will never know since I have no desire or great means of opening hundreds of bootleg carts, without risk of damaging the cases.

When everything is said and done, I feel in the following manner:

edit:

I was rushed a bit earlier today while I was writing, so here is better what I was trying to convey, I think:

Given the fact that so many cartridges for other games have been found, with licensed boards but clearly bootleg shells/labels*, it makes things seem more and more clear
that just having official chips =/= official game.  Although I disagree with tyree's stance of dubbing the game a pirate right off the bat just due to things being off (I have seen so many shoddy products that seemed "off", which turned out to be legit), seeing so many other games that clearly were pirated / meant to deceive in everything except the boards / chips themselves, it strengthens the case that these games are totally unauthorized by Nintendo, but we basically knew that to begin with.

To label the carts as 100% pirates is a bit strange to me, as I could just throw away the case to my Astro Boys or Saint Seiyas, and people would just think it a legit, loose PCB of the game (and technically, they'd be correct).  With Zelda II it is a slightly different story, as the game never had a 60 pins release.  On the other hand, I doubt any of these games were licensed by Nintendo themselves.  I think the best guess would be a bootleg company somehow obtained legit pcbs / chips for certain games.  Maybe overproduced pcbs and chips, liquidated by the original publishers?  Items made on the fourth shift?  Components that fell / were stolen off of a truck?  We'll never know the answer, I'm sure, but I feel that the items are in a gray area, dipping a toe into the pirate waters, but I feel they can't be 100% classified as pirates either, since their stories are much more complex than that.

*Since there is no Famicom version of this game other than these Korean carts, the art on the labels is not a 1:! pirate, unlike those of the Astro Boy and Saint Seiyas I have.  A wonky, yet original label (imo) should not be dubbed pirated on that fact alone.

[L___E___T]

 



Interesting post FCgamer - I think we share the same view of this cart as your summary rationale echoes what I said in my post a bit earlier (in time and the thread).  But what do you mean when you say the label is not a 1:1 pirate?

I think that point needs some elaboration / clarification before I mention something.  For me, the label is the focus.

[fcgamer]

Interesting post FCgamer - I think we share the same view of this cart as your summary rationale echoes what I said in my post a bit earlier (in time and the thread).  But what do you mean when you say the label is not a 1:1 pirate?

I think that point needs some elaboration / clarification before I mention something.  For me, the label is the focus.

It cannot be a 1:1 pirate when the label is unique, since there never was another version of this game out there.  Something cannot be a 1:1 copy if there is no original source material, and unlike my Astro Boy and Saint Seiya carts, where the labels were directly taken from the originals, just maybe slighly cropped or whatever, the Zelda 2 label was made from scratch. Elements may have been stolen from other sources, true, but it is not a 1:1 copy of this label.

[Flying_Phoenix]

Some HKGC releases had their own unique (and extremely bad) cover art but I think you'll agree with me they're still "1:1 pirates", since they basically steal someone else's ROM, repackage it and resell it. Even if they modify the ROM by removing, fixing or modifying this or that, they're still pirates of an existing work. Adding an in-house drawing doesn't involve a lot of work and is actually a way to try to hide the source material, which in fact makes the whole process even more disrespectful toward the source (granted, this is probably more true of the HKGC games than for many unboxed, super cheap FC pirates from the same years).

Unofficial stuff that I don't consider "1:1 pirate" must have required extensive work, even though it was initially stolen from someone else. A great example are unofficial guidebooks in Chinese, where no official ones exist. The cover and the content has been copied/stolen from another guidebook (usually a Japanese one), but there was extensive work done (translation, proofreading, text alignment, screenshot alignment...).

[P]

Depends on how you define "1:1 pirate"? Even if the mask ROM software is identical there's still the board hardware and the packaging.

[L___E___T]

 



Yes a lot of this discussion comes down to semantics and what you define various terms to be.  For me - "pirate" means something different to how you use that term.

What you call "pirate" I tend to see referred to as "bootleg" and I would say "pirate" is more of an umbrella term for 'not legit' so I still think it's fair to call this a pirate.

Now I accept that it's still a point of discussion, I don't pretend to set any rules when it comes to terminology and definition, to be honest I don't think there are any.

But I wouldn't downplay the packaging and aesthetic components either. Those are as much what make up 'the game' as the chip set is for many people I'd say.

[P]

Only somewhat reasonable way to check the chips that I could think of, is to desolder the MMC1 chip and put it on another board with an MMC1 test program that thoroughly tests all features of the MMC1. If it's a clone they might not have cloned all features of the mapper chip.

Still I doubt bootleggers would bother labeling the chips like the original.

[Great Hierophant]

If you compare the Zelda 1 cartridge PCB from this page : http://www.famicomworld.com/forum/index.php?topic=12677.msg171465#msg171465

with the official PCB of Zelda 1 from here : http://bootgod.dyndns.org:7777/profile.php?id=3948

You can see that the tracing is essentially identical.  The board is cut in a different way to match the cartridge's plastic inlays.  But the unofficial board definitely came off the same lines as the official board.  Hyundai would have access to Nintendo's PCB art, pirates probably would not.  This would lend support to the theory that this was not a pirate knockoff but product that Hyundai allowed to come into existence. 

By the time of Zelda 2, I think Hyundai got wise to using a bit more effort to disguise the cartridge's origins by not using the exact same PCB art as a Famicom SKROM board and using a differently shaped cartridge shell and artwork from another game.