Fake or Rare Zelda or What?

[L___E___T]

 



Masterdisk and Jay have both posted in the thread - but haven't debated so much.  But I wasn't necessarily referring to Jay and MS, it's more a feeling I get, which I did say was just an impression.

I don't think it's irresponsible.  You have to go on the signs of what's in front of you.  If a blue car has red paint under one of the wheelarches I would still say it's blue, just make it a talking point.

So that's how I see this - it is a pirate* cart, with a caveat.  I.e. (*the legitimacy of this cart is currently contested).  Wikipedia does this and it seems easy and clear enough.

I am going to post all of the evidence that points to this being a pirate, and at the least, unofficial.  

But classifying this as a pirate doesn't put "a stain" on it - we've already said pirate carts are not 'dirty items' that should scoffed and spat at.  In fact, you made a strong point about that some time back in this thread, that you dislike when people assume pirates are looked down on.  But to overlook the signs and say it isn't a pirate because you're concerned of the effects of that, is not being objective.  People interested in the history and background of this cart should need a little more reason that just investment value, IMO.  To me that approach is actually the same thing you are complaining about, but the other side.  It's like saying it's only worth researching and investigating if there's a widely accepted public domain value and sentiment slapped on it.  Historians are not shy of rejecting previous given truths and facts.  

TLDR; an investigative case should be that - investigation, not a pursual of a desired outcome.  Until some real evidence is there - we're discussing a pirate cart with legit chips.  The chips alone don't declassify.

[fcgamer]

Well L___E___T, here is the problem with what you propose.  I will put your quotes in bold, and then discuss the problems with each point:

L___E___T:  "Masterdisk and Jay have both posted in the thread - but haven't debated so much."


Yes, MasterDisk even stated that he didn't want to debate or argue about the cart.  If anyone has a horse in the race, it would be those who either (a) own the cart or (b) those who are hoping the price will drop so that they can get one for a cheaper price. 

L___E___T:  But I wasn't necessarily referring to Jay and MS, it's more a feeling I get, which I did say was just an impression.


We have two main vocal people that are against the idea of it being anything other than a pirate, two cart owners that haven't said much of anything, and one guy that feels the cart should be left with a "not enough information to determine either way" status; exactly who would you be referring to, with this feeling?


L___E___T:  I don't think it's irresponsible.  You have to go on the signs of what's in front of you.  If a blue car has red paint under one of the wheelarches I would still say it's blue, just make it a talking point.

Yes, I agree, you *do* need to examine the signs in front of you.


L___E___T:  So that's how I see this - it is a pirate* cart, with a caveat.  I.e. (*the legitimacy of this cart is currently contested).  Wikipedia does this and it seems easy and clear enough.


Yes, you've made your opinion known many times on here, from the start.  You were the first to say that the collectors had determined / decided it was a fake...


L___E___T:  I am going to post all of the evidence that points to this being a pirate, and at the least, unofficial.  


You do that.  But I also hope you will be looking for signs, in general.  Are we looking for the truth, or for evidence to support the outcome you already feel is the correct one?  ...


L___E___T:  But classifying this as a pirate doesn't put "a stain" on it - we've already said pirate carts are not 'dirty items' that should scoffed and spat at.  In fact, you made a strong point about that some time back in this thread, that you dislike when people assume pirates are looked down on.

Please refer me to the page and post number, so I can reread what I wrote in context.  I've always felt that the term "pirate" stains the cart, in collectors' minds, and I know a lot of others feel the same way.



L___E___T:  But to overlook the signs and say it isn't a pirate because you're concerned of the effects of that, is not being objective. 


Stating back on page one that the game is nothing more than a pirate, and then stating the same over and over again, furthermore trying to get it labeled hastily as a pirate.  Is THAT being objective?  I've stated dozens of times that if there is not enough evidence to draw a proper conclusion on what the item is, be it pirate or legit, then it should be classified as undetermined or something of the like.  That is looking at the evidence and trying to be objective.  And then you accuse me of not being objective here...


L___E___T:  People interested in the history and background of this cart should need a little more reason that just investment value, IMO.  To me that approach is actually the same thing you are complaining about, but the other side.  It's like saying it's only worth researching and investigating if there's a widely accepted public domain value and sentiment slapped on it.  Historians are not shy of rejecting previous given truths and facts.  


Historians aren't shy of rejecting previous truths and facts; however,  in this case, there just isn't enough evidence to state either of them as being fact.  And that's the issue, right there.  You want the game to be labeled as a pirate (maybe even hoping to lower the value so you can get one on the cheap, who knows if this or something else is your motivation) yet there is evidence suggesting the game might be more than just a flavor of the day pirate.  So in reality, maybe the game is a pirate, maybe it is not.  In the end, neither of us knows. 


L___E___T:  an investigative case should be that - investigation, not a pursual of a desired outcome.  Until some real evidence is there - we're looking at a pirate cart some legit chips.


Touche.  You are trying to pursue a desired outcome, that the game is a pirate. 

What we are looking at here are some legit rom chips, a generic game case of high quality, a box that was based off of the legit box, a label with some pictures / naming errors, etc.  Doesn't mean it's a pirate.

[UglyJoe]

How exactly are they the same?

The games that they made are both for the FC/NES, both original creations, and neither of them were sanctioned by Nintendo.  If you're looking for original games to play on your Famicom, they both fit the bill, and that's largely what the FW game list is about.

If you want to further categorize games by means of production, financial intent (or lack thereof), timeframe, development procedures, and general motivation, go right on ahead.  That's totally valid.  

[fcgamer]

Right, they both aren't sanctioned by Nintendo.  But this has been discussed time and time again, as well.  But the problem (as with everything in life), it isn't so black and white.

Take Time Diver Avenger / Time Diver Eon Man.  I just viewed the database two minutes ago, and the game will only appear with the unlicensed box being checked.  Houston, we have a problem though!  The NES version of the game (although ultimately unreleased) was licensed by Nintendo.  The same *would* be the case if you updated the database to include the NES Videomation (why the alias is titled Paint, never ever heard that name for it, but whatever).  But that is the problem.

Even games that are licensed / sanctioned by Nintendo in one region, weren't in others.  So it screws up the database to reference NES licensed games, when the license agreements are not always the same, 1:1 NES and Famicom. 

Ultimately it is your FW list, but do we want to paint accurate depictions or misleading ones?  I personally hate misleading lists, but that may just be me.

The games that they made are both for the FC/NES, both original creations, and neither of them were sanctioned by Nintendo.  If you're looking for original games to play on your Famicom, they both fit the bill, and that's largely what the FW game list is about.

[UglyJoe]

Right, they both aren't sanctioned by Nintendo.  But this has been discussed time and time again, as well.  But the problem (as with everything in life), it isn't so black and white.

Take Time Diver Avenger / Time Diver Eon Man.  I just viewed the database two minutes ago, and the game will only appear with the unlicensed box being checked.  Houston, we have a problem though!  The NES version of the game (although ultimately unreleased) was licensed by Nintendo.  The same *would* be the case if you updated the database to include the NES Videomation (why the alias is titled Paint, never ever heard that name for it, but whatever).  But that is the problem.

Even games that are licensed / sanctioned by Nintendo in one region, weren't in others.  So it screws up the database to reference NES licensed games, when the license agreements are not always the same, 1:1 NES and Famicom. 

I'm pretty sure the game page says that it was an unreleased NES game called Eon Man: http://famicomworld.com/game/1134/

It's also a list of Famicom games, not a list of NES games.  If there was an NES version of a Famicom game (licensed or not), then we try to include it on the list as an alternate title to the Famicom game's entry, but not as its own entry.

The Videomation page needs updating, though, so thanks for pointing that one out.

You should make your own lists of "games with screwed up licensing around the world".  You seem to know every single game that doesn't fit neatly into the usual categories

[L___E___T]

 


FCgamer I do want to clarify that I personally am not after this cart.  I don't want to say it's ugly because I don't think it is, but I don't desire it.  I think I have it somewhere on NES but am aiming to get a Famicom repro made at some point as well.  Ironically that would be quite similar to this cart, in build at least.  So I don't "have a horse in the race" basically.

The other stuff I will have to dig through, but this was never any kind of attack on the game or persons from me - I simply think the evidence balance of pirate to legit is 90%:10% and that is the point where I think there's disagreement in this thread.  For some it is 50/50, some it's 60/40 either side but if it wasn't for the chips raising one element of doubt I'd say it's 100% a pirate and I will explain why in time, maybe even this evening.  I do not think packaging, label and outer elements are high quality, and the other raised points support both arguments (text/chips) depending on how you look at it, so I tend to disregard those factors from my own internal appraisal.  I'm not trying to prove the cart is a pirate, as it really is OK with me whether it's a pirate or legit, that part doesn't change my feelings about the cart.  

What I do object to is the constructive 'proving' of a theory based on other theories or ascertains and peer opinion.

I know you feel strongly about pirates, unlicensed, and official import games and I respect that - but you do tend to take disagreements with offence for some reason, none is intended.

I don't feel so strongly about those games.  I mean, I like them and find them interesting sure, I even have a few, but they don't rock my boat as such.  I do like rare games though, I think they're great.

But what I really don't like and what I calmly object to - is the acclamation that something is something it's not, so that's why I like to discuss in this thread.  I have no strong feelings on the cart, only the topic...

[Great Hierophant]

Would the value of this cart be greater if you could definitively prove :

1.  That Hyundai actually authorized this cart and had it manufactured, despite it looking like a pirate, or

2.  That Nintendo allowed Hyundai to make Famicom carts out of unsold NES carts on condition they look pirated so Nintendo would not look like it encouraging other distribution partners and third party game makers to do the same?

Unfortunately labeling a game as a pirate release does put something of a black spot on the cartridge's value.  If you label it like that, it becomes harder to segregate it from the modern reproduction, easy enough to do with both Zelda games.  But if it was an approved yet unofficial product, suddenly the interest in it and the money willing to acquire it becomes much, much higher.

Is there such a thing as a company still making unlicensed games?   Individual homebrew authors typically do not make games as their primary occupation, unless they are independently wealthy.  RetroUSB is run by one guy.  However, some companies on the Asian rim still manufacture Famicom cartridges.  Are any of them actually not trying to steal another company's IP?

[fcgamer]

@L___E___T:  I don't take offense to the things you say; however, I am just pointing out the dangers of what you propose everyone to do with the classification of this game.  Now before we get properly started here:

FCgamer I do want to clarify that I personally am not after this cart.  I don't want to say it's ugly because I don't think it is, but I don't desire it.  I think I have it somewhere on NES but am aiming to get a Famicom repro made at some point as well.  Ironically that would be quite similar to this cart, in build at least.  So I don't "have a horse in the race" basically.

You initially said the following, just a few pages back:

 
Just to chime in - the Zelda II cart is generally considered a pirate and not an 'official' release regardless of chips.  There is a giveaway on the label given that it uses A Link to the Past artwork.

Beautiful item though, I'd like to grab one one day, as well as a cart version of this:  http://www.romhacking.net/translations/2317/

So you first say that you wanted this game, now you say you don't.  Just thought I would mention this before we carry on.

Also, I just want to make a public disclaimer that I am not attacking you or your person on any level here, L___E___T, you are a mod here and have contributed tons towards the community, and that is something I can respect.  With that said, I also feel that we, as a community, need to discuss the best way in classifying this game (and possibly other games) as unity helps a lot when it comes to people collecting, selling, buying, etc.  But I think people need to be a bit more open-minded when looking at these games, instead of just trying to force square cartridges into round holes.  That is my point.

Now I'll go through what I said before, I'll say it one last time, but then if you still don't want to try to see any other viewpoint than "IMO it's a pirate, so I want to classify it as such" then I don't know what to say, no point in discussing things with someone who already has their mind made up and is not willing to listen to other points.

We've previously discussed the packaging and what not, sure it looks pirate-ish in nature.  So does that make the game a pirate?  It possibly does.  But then we have things like the Samurai games in India.  The craftsmanship there is not the best either, judging from appearances.  And then there was the "South African Version" NES game I found.  Maybe official, maybe not, just one of those great oddities. 

You mentioned the quality of the box, well unless you had touched this in person, I don't think we can judge too easily.  And then on the flip side, we know that the chips are official chips, and we know that an official NES version of the game was released in Korea. 

Now let's look if the situation were reversed.  If we saw a cart that looked fabulous on the outside with packaging, but then the inside did not deliver (i.e. fake chips), we would conclude that it was a bootleg / pirate.  And in reality, this happens daily, in the form of modern "reproductions".  So which part of the product carries the heavier weight on whether the game is legit or not?  If the chips carry such little weight, then a nice-looking label and nice box with wrong chips inside surely shouldn't be classified as a modern repro, right?  That is, unless the chips themselves carry a lot of weight in determining whether the product is legit or not.  Are you with me so far?

Now let's look at motivation:

The Luxembourg collector expressed that he doesn't want items like this to be considered legit if their is doubt, since he is afraid collectors (i.e. himself) could be "taken" or "duped" by a scammer making a one-off product and calling it rare. 

MasterDisk would have a motivation to say that the game is legit, but he has stayed mum.  Jay-Ray didn't say much either, yet would also have a motivation to say the game is legit.

So it feels confusing to me as it seems the only motivation for having this game marked as a "pirate" is from someone with an agenda to protect their own hobbyist habits.

And there comes the problem, and the area where there is disagreement in this thread.  Several people have pointed out the dangers of calling this game a pirate, and then later finding out that it is not.  One person mentioned the danger of calling this legit, and having it turn out to be a fake.  Both situations could lead to serious issues for collectors down the line.  So why the need to label it as anything to begin with?  Why the need to try to force this square cart into a round hole?  That is what I don't understand, and will not understand.

Why is it such a big problem to agree that there is evidence to support this game as being a pirate, as well as evidence to support the game as being legit or maybe grey area, and let users make their own judgements until such time where more evidence comes to light?  Why the need to impose your viewpoint on others, like you were trying to do in the beginning namely with the following words:  "Just to chime in - the Zelda II cart is generally considered a pirate".  None of us knows the story, taking either stance raises doubt elsewhere.  Why not just say that there is not enough evidence to make a proper conclusion?  What is so bad about doing that?

L___E___T:  "But what I really don't like and what I calmly object to - is the acclamation that something is something it's not, so that's why I like to discuss in this thread.  I have no strong feelings on the cart, only the topic..."

Well I feel the same way.  Hence why saying it is a pirate when there is evidence to suggest it is not necessarily one, doesn't float my boat very well.  As I said before, why not just leave it open, why the need to push it into either category? 

[BonBon]

Ok ok ok im gonna chime really? Ive never beat my head against the wall over this. Here is my opinion i love my zelda 2 pink cart i think its awesome and im going to the grave with this cart. Dont give A shit about the value cause im never gonna sell it. I personally think its a legitimate deal they made with hundyi with left over chips. Wheather or not nintendo ok'ed it doesnt not matter cause THEY ARE OFFICAL NINTENDO NES CHIPS AND ZELDA WAS RELEASED IN KOREA AS THE NES VERSION AND THE CART IS 20+ years old. I highly doubt pirates would go though this much trouble.  And that my friends is history in it self. We can piss in moan all day about this or we can be happy it exists not jealous. Listen nintendo of America (UK AS etc.) doesnt have to run things by japan with every move they make so why couldn't this be legit. L__E__T I understand your a mod but for fuck sakes you seem to only shit on things you dont own. Like deleteing my ann smb pics beacuse they looked to good. Ann has been being pirated for some time. My pics wont have hurt this fourm or the value cause i dont care about the value im a hardcore collecter.

[MasterDisk]

...

Why can't people just take a SIMPLE pictures of their games?

This really pisses me off.

[BonBon]

...

Why can't people just take a SIMPLE pictures of their games?

This really pisses me off.

i've taking many very simple

[fcgamer]

I thought the pic was funny. 

[BonBon]

Guess we cant even bust chops around here anymore

[Flying_Phoenix]

Take Kiddie Sun in Fantasia for example, the Adventure Island hack.  It definitely seems to have been a promo of some sort officially produced by Hudson for the Taiwan region.  Sure, the game is worth three figures probably, but seldom do people message me about wanting to buy mine.  Why is that?  For years, everyone wrote it off as a pirate hack, and now there is a stigma or mark on that cart, and it will never be seen as anything other than a bastard step-brother to the other licensed games.  And to me, this sort of thing sucks.

1- See your words above. You're the one protecting your agenda, as you call it. You'd like people to stop calling "grey-area" games pirates because you can't sell them for three grands. Why do you keep pointing fingers at me, calling me a dirty collector (versus you, the illuminated benevolent historian who loses money with his sales) with a shady agenda of lowering the value of people's items? I have no plans doing that, and I have no special interest in this game either. I have many games in my search list, this one just isn't part of it. You're being an asshole, mostly to me, in this thread, for no good reason.

2- You'd sound a lot less patronising and condescending if you called me by my nickname, I have one too you know. Do you have a problem with me? Is it because I asked 100$ for an HKGC Mah Jong? Please let me know.

3- That South African game is a Hong Kong version Soccer with a sticker. Could be a real sticker, could be a fake sticker, the game underneath is still an official Hong Kong version, and either way it has absolutely no relation with the kind of item we're dealing with in this thread.

I want to believe you're just getting a bit heated up from all the discussion and strong points of view from both sides, because you're starting to be rather displeasant with your repeated personal attacks.

[fcgamer]

1.  Mine is not for sale and neither are the other carts in my collection.  If I were concerned about money, I wouldn't be buying games.  It's not an investment for me, it never was.  What exactly is the agenda I am trying to push?  Having a game be listed for what it actually is?  What is so wrong with that? 

Oh, and I'm not point fingers at you per se, I just mentioned your stance on the cart as well as your reasoning behind the stance that you took.  Did I somehow misinterpret your words there?  If so, please by all means correct me and say what you meant. 


2.  I don't mind to call you by your nickname, but the problem is you have two different nicknames on here and Nintendo Age, a third name for your ebay account, and I personally think of you by your real name E***** when I think about you, as we have talked on NA and here before, done several transactions before, even some emails from way back in the day.  I am sorry if you take it as me being condenscending as it is not my intentions; however if I am in the middle of a post, I don't want to be bothered to go back and find the exact way you write your username.  Is it lazy, yes, but is it a crime, maybe not.  I don't think you would appreciate if I used your real name, hence why I referred to you by the other name.  If you posted here more often, perhaps I would remember your exact username here as I do with L___E___T, MasterDisk, and Jay-Ray.

3.  Yes, we both know it is a Hong Kong version Soccer with a sticker.  Of course the HK version game is legit; but is the South African version legit?  We don't know, there isn't enough information to tell.

You say that I am starting to be rather displeasant;  this is fair as you are allowed your own opinions.  With that said, I find it a bit off-putting how no one has offered any good reason as to the benefits of viewing this game as a pirate and nothing else, when there is not enough information to draw that conclusion. 

At the beginning of the thread, L___E___T tried to make a generalization about how most people felt about this particular game, I called him out on it, since there isn't an agreement like that. 

I've asked before, and I'll ask again:  What is the harm of just leaving this one be, just leaving it as a game where there is evidence on both sides?  Why try to push the square cart into the round hole?  Why the need?