Talk:List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America)/Archives/2008/October

Question about future releases section

I was wondering about the criteria for listing a game in the Future releases section. For many of them, the "source" seems to be that the ESRB have given the game a rating. How does this mean that the game will be released? It doesn't seem like a logical connection.

Of the 26 games in the section, 12 have been in the list for at least 6 months, and 4 have been in the list for at least a year. All but 4 of them have a release date as "Unknown." --Bando26 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Only games that get rated by the ESRB are eligible for release on the Virtual Console. It's one of the requirements of a game's release. While that doesn't necessarily mean a game will be eventually released (it is ultimately up to the game's publisher(s)), it is a strong indication that it will be. A majority of the games revealed on the ESRB's website have eventually been released. The ones you mention are just the few stragglers. -Zomic13 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There should be something in place: if the game has been listed for at least 6 months and no release date or year has been mentioned: remove the game. It doesn't do harm to the article. Being rated by the ESRB isn't a 100 percent guarantee that the game will come out. Just because several games listed on ESRB's website came out: doesn't instantly mean all will be. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Being rated by the ESRB means that a VC version is ready and planned. We don't change Duke Nuke Forever to being cancelled even though it was supposed to come out back in 1997 (and the developers continue saying it will come out). TJ Spyke 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ready and planned? I don't think so, considering many of the titles have been on the future list a while (as Bando stated in the start of this discussion). If they were ready: Nintendo would've put them on the Virtual Console by now. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

TJ Skype, do you have any evidence to support that a game being given an ESRB rating means that it's "ready and planned"? I never thought of an ESRB rating as being the "final stamp" put on a game before distribution.

I think I'll also point out that the ESRB web site is not a a reliable secondary source, which is what Wikipedia policy best suggests citing. Primary sources are acceptable to cite in Wikipedia (and the ESRB would be a primary source), but there are warnings against original research, especially with regard to the use of primary sources. I believe that using the ESRB's web site to support the idea that a game will be released soon is original research. Just because games must have a rating to be released doesn't automatically mean that a game will be released simply because it has a rating. --Bando26 (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the only evidence anyone has that ESRB is reliable: games that have been rated in the past have came out for the Virtual Console. Just based on that simply isn't enough in my view. If there is no other sources provided in a week or so, I will be removing the games that have been listed for a while. This issue was brought up in the past (at least once, if not more), and people never solved the problem. Just assuming that "ESRB = game sometime" isn't the way to go. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

By that measure, the Turrican games and many others would've dropped off the radar long before their releases. An extremely reliable precedent has been set by dozens and dozens of classic titles first appearing as ESRB ratings for the Wii, with subsequent VC releases. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've brought this matter up at the Video Game project. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea of if its been there for six months and hasn't got a release date then rip it off, is a good way to tackle this. The above logic about duke nukem game is flawed, i think that the developers saying its coming out and the ESRB rating a "future" game is on completely different wavelengths. So yeh get rid of them if they have been there to long. Salavat (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty arbitrary cutoff date. This article lists facts, and picking and choosing which facts to list or leave off seems very odd. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to draw the line somewhere, 6 months is just an idea put foward. Salavat (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You really don't have to. There's no compelling reason to disavow knowledge of classic games that have been ESRB rated for Wii. If you arbitrarily draw a line somewhere, titles will be removed that will still eventually be released, leaving no indication that they're still on the way. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You act like Wikipedia is the only place to get video game news, which isn't even close to being true. If people want to read about ESRB rated games (with no other sourcing) they can do it elsewhere. This encyclopedia shouldn't be the place for it. 6 months (or longer) is a good idea, which I will be putting in place once I look through the history and figure out which games have been on the list that long. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem unwilling to listen to others' points of view, insistent upon being the ultimate authority. You always get your way, and know how to win every argument. If you really think fewer facts is better -- even though it'd be more cumbersome to maintain -- then by all means. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you all forgotten Vectorman? That game was on the Future release list for OVER a year and a half, and guess what? It saw release. The reason for such a massive delay, we may never find out, but all that matters is that it did get released. Just because a game has been on the list for 6 months or more does not mean it will never come out. Why even go through the trouble of getting the game rated if they (the publisher) have no intention of releasing it? Think about it. Neo Samus (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheesemeister, knock it off. That was very uncivil and not needed. As the old saying goes: if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all. Getting rated isn't a trouble. You don't work for Nintendo and you can't predict the future, Neo Samus. I don't think you can guarantee all rated games will come out. Nintendo could've cancelled games, and never said anything. So you "think about it" when it comes to that. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a publisher have to pay the ESRB in order to have a game rated. I doubt one would invest the money and then not release the game. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just remove all (or almost all) the games that have only been posted/announced by ESRB? That will only leave a few games from IGN and in a Nintendo Power issue. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, those games have a right to be on the page. They have a source. Rob, I really think you are over analyzing the issue. Please calm down. I'm asking this in the nice possible way I can over the internet. I never said that I work for Nintendo, and no one here ever said that they can predict the future. Please understand that I'm not attacking you. I'm responding to your "comments" to me, which if I wanted to, could also say are somewhat uncivil as well. Anyway, of course no one can guarantee anything. But if we have a source, it's only logical to use it if is a trustworthy. Neo Samus (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. If a game hasn't come out within 6 months of it being ESRB rated, it's not coming out at all. That's a fact. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheesemeister, STOP already. If you don't like the discussion: don't post in it, problem solved. Your sarcasm isn't helping. Neo Samus, don't tell me to calm down. You two editors are a big reason that changes never seem to happen to the article. Anytime someone suggests something, or brings up an issue, or whatever: you instantly reply and turn it down in most cases. I think if you had your way, the article would never change, except for on the days games come out, and days games are announced. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's be logical and rational, then. What is the purpose of this article? To inform people of facts regarding current and future VC titles. Who would read it? People who want to be informed of these facts. Aren't there other places that have similar lists? Sure, but what purpose does this article serve if not to deliver the facts available? How do we know ESRB-rated classic titles in the Wii category will be released as VC titles? We have hundreds of examples of this listed: a publisher wishes to re-release a classic title for the VC, and as a part of the process of doing so, has the title rated by the ESRB. The title is later released on the VC. But what if a particular title is canceled? Titles like Zombies Ate My Neighbors have been removed from the ESRB website, and as such, have also been removed here. But what if it's been a long time since a particular title has been listed? Some titles are held in the release queue longer than others for marketing, licensing, strategic, or other reasons; NOA is not very transparent about it.

However, given that it costs publishers actual money to pay for a title to be rated by the ESRB, and there isn't a title synonymous with a classic in the works (i.e. Sonic the Hedgehog), we can then conclude based on the ESRB rating that a classic title is due to be released on the VC. One might complain that the ESRB isn't a primary source, and that this is all speculation. The ESRB was established by the video game industry itself, and as such, can be considered a primary source. Ratings that appear in its database are there at the behest of publishers preparing titles for release. To say that a game is not slated for future release with facts from a game industry-established entity saying otherwise is, in fact, a contradiction. Vectorman and Super Turrican 1 & 2 are just a couple obvious examples of games that were ESRB-rated for over 6 months before VC release. Denying the facts listed on the ESRB website would only serve to confuse readers and prompt them to re-add titles missing on the article. If this article does not list some upcoming titles that are supported by the evidence, it does the readers of this article a disservice. Bottom line: list the facts, don't hide them. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you nailed it Cheese, but wait, we hate change. I'm sorry Rob, but that is far from the truth. I love change. Change is what helps us, as a race, evolve. But this change that we are argu...."ahem"....discussing about is, I truly believe, not for the better. Actually I agreed with you on a couple of different occasions. The one I can really remember is about what time the new releases get added to the available list. That was a change that was "better" for the article. So please don't assume that I'm anti change. Neo Samus (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

All Nintendo 64 games are rated by the ESRB currently (due to their original releases), so by your logic: all of those should be in the future releases section. Past games or not: they have ESRB ratings, and that's the only source for many of the future releases listed in the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

All VC games have to be re-rated for release on Wii. Look it up. Any game that was rated previously on their past system has to be rated again and will show for the Wii. For example; do a search on F-Zero X and you will see the game pop-up twice, one for N64 and one for the Wii. Neo Samus (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Two ratings for F-Zero X. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)