Talk:List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Request for Comments: Table Layout

There seems to be roughly two sides that appear to be locked in disagreement about the best layout of the tables on the Virtual Console games pages. I very much would like to resolve our disagreement. Please bear with me while I try to focus us.

As far as I can tell, we all are at least in agreement about the fact that all pages (Australia, Europe, Japan and America should be layed out the same. I also get the impression that both sides like the sortable concept currently employed on all tables except the Japanese (which is still in the original format).

Remains, the table layout itself to be resolved. To summarize:

• One group would like to have four different tables; one for each platform ( as used here ).
• The other group prefers to have one table, in which one of the columns reflects the platform ( as used here ).
• Prior discussions have been held: here, here, here and here. All resulting in a stalemate.

My views (in favor of a single table) are as follows:

1. A single table (including a column that mentions the platform) is easy to sort by the platform, thus allowing the reader to find the games available for a certain platform.
2. Looking toward the future, I expect that the page will stretch a long scroll down.
3. In the case of four separate tables, I fear that the information will become fragmented as the page grows.
4. The casual reader will find the top table easily. However, my fear is that as that reader scrolls down the page, he might miss the transition from one table to the next (when scrolling quickly). That might lead to confusion as to which platform a listed game might belong, requiring the reader to scroll up and down to find the additional information.
5. A casual reader, unaware of the different platforms or interested in cross-platform information (such as e.g. release date), may need to search all four tables to find the information being sought.

Your views are welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mausy5043 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC). Mausy5043 12:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I in no way am arguing for the sake of arguing, you made some great points. However, I find that it seems easier the way it's laid out at this point because... well, like you said, the page will stretch a long scroll down, and you have less information to look over if you're focusing on one platform; stick it all together and it's hard to find the games for the platforms you want. Platform, in most case, indicates price, and, for example, I know quite a few people who don't find NES titles with the money and wouldn't want to have to pick through them for the newer titles. If they scrolled down too fast... well, are we to compensate for their speediness? As it stands right now, it's easy to pick out the information, and I don't think we should change if just as many people are in disagreement. I do understand your points, though; you make a valid argument. Shadow31 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shadow31, it looks way too cluttered and unorganised, it would be better to have a table for each platform. yamiiguy 16:48, 15 February 2007 (GMT)

Every other region has it listed by original console (NES, SNES, N64, TurboGrax, Mega Drive/Genesis), and the 'Future Releases' table on the Europe page is even listed by original console! I see no pro to the current style of the list on the European page. It is one long stream of words, very unclear and very unnecessary. The way it used to be, and still is on the pages of the other regions, was fine. It just seems as if someone has changed it for the sake of changing. Uber HW 00:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Closed: I've adjusted the layout of the European page to the current consensus. I've made seperate tables for each platform. Similar to the American page. I've taken the liberty to also pull the Australian and Japanes pages inline with current consensus. Thanks for your comments Mausy5043 09:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Add publishers to table

We already have developers why not publishers?Marioman12 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think because publishers generally don't affect the gameplay, quality, etc... they have less of an influence on it, at least. Generally, people will pay more attention to the developer since that's where a company gets its reputation. At least, that's they way it seems. Someone can add the publishers if they want, I see no reason against it, it's just a matter of whether people care enough that time should be spent to add that in. Shadow31 21:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think one should be in the table, but not the other. If both are there, the table gets cluttered and redundant. I might be alone in this, but I actually prefer the publishers being on the list instead of the developers. The names of the publisher are typically more recognizable, and it gives the reader a better idea of which game publishers are supporting the Virtual Console. Thores 23:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

But would we add the original publisher or the current? I do think maybe listing the publisher would be better since people will be more familiar with the publisher. TJ Spyke 23:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The original publisher would be more informative, as it'd indicate that said publisher is at least having its works licensed. However, the current publisher would be more up-to-date and easier to verify via the Wii Shop Channel. In either case, let's switch to publisher. While we're at it, I'd like to see the controller columns dropped, as they're highly redundant, cause clutter, and contain no info not already on the top VC page. I'd also be in favor of adding a column for the 4-character VC server code for each game (e.g. JAAE for Super Mario World), if only for our reference. Not to derail. --Cheesemeister3k 00:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the server code, since it doesn't really do anything to help the article. We should wait and discuss this further before making any of these changes (see what others think, agree about whether to use the original publisher or current, etc.). TJ Spyke 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no issue with adding a publisher column and removing both of the controller columns. However, regardless of what's on the top VC page, I think that the information should be found on this page as well. Should it also be noted if a title has received an update? For instance, Military Madness was updated today due to scrolling glitches that it had. http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/newsArt.cfm?artid=12894 Ryuzx 03:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say no, since it's basically just a patch. Maybe in the future if it's a realy update rather than just fixing a glitch. TJ Spyke 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it was a good Idea since like Nintendo owns kirby and we just have hal. labs up their where even miyamoto worked on the first kirby adventureMarioman12 02:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My "no" was about the patch. I agree about publishers, but we should first decide whether to do the original publisher or the current one (for example, Galaga would be either Namco or Namco Bandai). TJ Spyke 02:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be no preference between current or original publisher, but all seem to agree that the column should be switched. Somebody got a coin? --Cheesemeister3k 00:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Controller compatibility

I wonder why we have columns for Wii remote compatibility and GC controller compatibility. If you look at the lists all the games of a specific platform have the same compatibility. I propose to remove both columns and refer to the Virtual Console article for controller compatibility issues. Alternatively we could copy the table there and put it at the top of the article. Mausy5043 18:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would prefer putting a copy of the small compatibility table here instead of just referring people to the VC article. According to the table, the GC controller and Wii Remote may not be compatible with all future Genesis or TG-16 games, but when that happens we can put the compatibilty columns back in for those systems only. However, for the NES, SNES, and N64 those columns just take up space when a single universal statement could be made. TomTheHand 18:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than waiting for those Genesis or TG-16 games, you might as well leave the columns up for them. But yeah, the NES, SNES, and N64 ones should be taken out. Waste of space.Shadow31 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I say scrap 'em all. This information is already covered in the top VC article, as previously stated. There's no use in having the columns there for the TG16 or Genesis until some unforeseen date at which point an asterisk might even suffice. --70.118.86.206 01:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

i say we at least keep them for the TG16 and Genesis. johnny's pizza 03:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't like how the tables look now. They look too small and they are no longer all the same size. Plus, just because we all know the controller compatibility, it doesn't mean that someone new to Wii will. I vote for re-adding them. Zomic_13 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a note to the top of the article to point outt these issues to the casual reader Mausy5043 08:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The TG16 and Genesis controller compatibility columns should go too. There's no added value at the moment. The occasional game that may have differences can be tagged with a footnote or whatever. Mausy5043 11:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there's no need for the Turbografx-16 and Genesis tables to have these columns. Exceptions to the rule seem to be few and far between. --Cheesemeister3k 23:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be easier just to update it this way IMO. TJ Spyke 23:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Which way? The controller columns wouldn't have to be maintained for new releases at all until such a time an asterisk is needed. --Cheesemeister3k 00:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The updates on games...

Should we say anything about the updates that have been released for two of the games on the Shop Channel (Military Madness and Mario Kart 64)? Its probably worth noting somewhere, either here or on the Virtual Console article. 121.208.68.212 06:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already mentioned on the Virtual Console page. Lrrr IV 10:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so it is... 121.208.68.212 10:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to include it somehow on this page because I know several people that just go to this page for all of their Virtual Console news. We could even just say that there are updates to a few games that are listed on the Virtual Console page and I think that would help. Jogg 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody fix it?

I am new here, so I can't edit the page yet (it's semi-protected), so can somebody please revert the page back to this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Virtual_Console_games_%28North_America%29&oldid=108477899 ? Those 2 non-retro games are just confirmed for the Wii, it's not confirmed for the VC. Also, none of those dates are official (IGN is guessing about the 2007 dates, and just appearing on the VC servers does not mean a game will be available this Monday). Lrrr IV 10:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion page Clean-up

I was wondering if there was a reason why so much old news is still on the discussion page? Some topics cover games that have already been released or ideas that have been implemented. Is there a way to have a old news section so it doesn't clutter up the current news? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.151.110 (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Yep. Scroll up to the archive box near the top. -Arcanelore 05:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Add number of blocks to the tables

I think the tables could be improved if the number of blocks each VC game takes up were to be listed. Fdgfds 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's really needed, to be honest. TJ Spyke 22:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No. This isn't a gaming site. That type of information doesn't belong here. Memory size for games aren't listed on any regular game articles, this is no exception. If people want to find it, they can go to a game site. RobJ1981 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a cool column to add. However, I don't know of any place where that information can be easily found (other than actually downloading each game). Zomic_13 01:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's one reason. It also seems like something better suited for a gaming wiki. TJ Spyke 02:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This was already suggested, but I'll repeat myself. Pretty much the only reason someone would need to know that is if they were actually considering downloading a game, which, even then, it seems unlikely that in most cases it would affect whether they want to download it. And they are notified how much it will take before then finish the transaction when buying the games. I agree with some people that it would be better suited for a gaming site, because the casual person wouldn't care for that knowledge as much; most people download games because they seems interesting or the person liked the game previously, not because it takes 10 less blocks than some other game. Shadow31 04:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In case people didnt know: Virtual Console games memory size had an article. It went in AFD and was deleted. RobJ1981 05:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Extra Space

Well, since the columns are obviously a lot less cluttered with the removal of controller compatibility, who finds it a good idea to add Publishers in? The columns look a little lacking, and there was a whole discussion of adding Publishers... this way, we can keep Developers and not have too cluttered tables. Everyone wins, hm? Shadow31 04:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you'll see a lot of self-published games with redundant company names. Let's just switch to the current publishers already. I'll do so tomorrow night if no other decision has been made by then. --Cheesemeister3k 05:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You should wait, it still hasn't been decided if we should use the current or original publishers. TJ Spyke 05:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The disparity is minimal to the point of it not really mattering, IMHO. --Cheesemeister3k 06:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, every game from Namco or Bandai would benow be Namco Bandai, for one. Games released by Tengen would be Midway Games (since Midway bought their games in the mid-90s), etc. TJ Spyke 06:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the Wiki article on Tengen, they published all of 3 licensed titles. Namco-Bandai encompasses the original company names. If anyone feels strongly one way over another, we can go that way, but nobody's expressed such a presence as of yet, nearly a week later. --70.118.86.206 07:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Those were just examples. IMO, I think we should use the original publisher. TJ Spyke 07:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see the merit behind using the original publisher, but in this case I think listing the current publisher is more informative and makes more sense. Thores 08:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is why I wanted Cheesemeister to wait. We need to decide this issue before adding a publisher list. TJ Spyke 08:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see two votes for current and one for original publishers. I'll hold off 'til next Monday. --Cheesemeister3k 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not do both? I set up a test page to show off what I mean: User:TJ Spyke/Test. TJ Spyke 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it'd be extremely redundant and a waste of space. --Cheesemeister3k 22:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? We would only list 2 publishers if it's not the same company. You are welcome to make suggestions. TJ Spyke 22:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

New Adventure Island link

New Adventure Island's link directs to the Adventure Island (video game) page, but they are actually different games, and there is already a New Adventure Island page). 201.230.136.19 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the link was fixed a few hours ago. TJ Spyke 00:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

New ESRB Games

There are new games from the ESRB (which have been already added), but one of them is Zombies ate my Neighbors. This game was multi-platform (SNES, Genesis) so it could be either. We can't really just presume, so what to do?121.208.68.212 07:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The SNES was the main version (based on sales and which was Konami advertised more). Yes I know the ZAMN article uses the Genesis box, I tried putting the SNES box in but it was reverted. Besides, if it ends up being the Genesis version (which I doubt), we can always change it. TJ Spyke 07:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Chew Man Fu Release Date

Marketing rep John Master Lee from Hudson claims that it'll be out Monday "If all goes well." The 2/26 date can stay until the Monday press release. --Cheesemeister3k 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Donkey Kong Country added later?

In the North American Virtual Console, Donkey Kong Country wasn't available at the same times as the other games. I checked at 12:18p.m. Monday, and saw that Donkey Kong Country wasn't there. Later, around 6:00p.m. I checked the Wii Shop Channel for no reason and saw that Donkey Kong Country was there. Is this worth noticing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyle2day (talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

No, this has happened before. There's no rule that games HAVE to appear at noon, and the game was still released that day. TJ Spyke 03:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

They could also have messed up and didn't put it on that list right away, although it was available for download. Happened with Dungeon Explorer anyway. Eusis 03:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unreleased Game Sources

I am proposing adding a new column to the unreleased games tables. This column would simply contain a link to the source that confirms the future release of this game on the Virtual Console. I know many of the unreleased games (particularly TG16 games) can be found on their respective company's website, however, there are also many that are unclear as to where they came from. Thoughts? Zomic_13 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Support - see above Zomic_13 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Support - it will be easier to see which games are referenced, there would be a central place for keeping the info and newbie editors would be more easily triggered to include the info without the need for TJ Spyke to revert things time and time again ;-) Again same would apply to the pages of the other regions. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 11:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not add TMNT to the Future Releases section

There is a Wii version of this game that comes out in March. ESRB rated that version of the game. Do NOT add it to the NES releases section. WikiLoco 01:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, there are two TMNT games listed for the Wii on the ESRB. The one published by Ubisoft is the new one. The other is published by Konami. This is most likely the NES title. At worst it could be a Wii version of the PS2/GC/Xbox titles from earlier this decade when Konami still had the license, but I really doubt this. -Arcanelore 01:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There's only one listed for Wii now.CardinalFangZERO 01:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I see two. At any rate, I don't think the gun should be jumped on something like that, Given the fact it's not like, say, a rating for Earthbound surfacing. Eusis 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Two TMNTs, ah ah ah. -Arcanelore 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That it's listed for the Wii doesn't mean it's not the NES game. All the other VC titles are listed for Wii, not their original consoles. --Billdorr 02:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Konami TMNT for the Wii being rated means it should be added back. --Cheesemeister3k 04:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bildorr, the TMNT game being made for the Wii is an Ubisoft game. The TMNT games for the NES were made by Konami. It's very clearly a VC release, and should be put back on the Future Releases page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thores (talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

All of the above is true. This is VC game, in fact it even appeared on news sites like IGN as such. It needs to be put back on the list.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishop2 (talk • contribs)

New TG-16 games.

Splatterhouse and Double Dungeons have both been added to TG-16's upcoming list. Strangely, Chew Man Fu has been taken off, but they most likely just forgot to put it on Released games or something. Chew Man Fu is still on Hudson's website as "Coming Soon", and Splatterhouse and Double Dungeons are listed as coming in March. 121.208.68.212 12:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Article updated. -Arcanelore 12:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Splatterhouse coming out on the 19th according to Hudson's site.

http://vc-pce.com/usa/e/index.html

Zelda OoT coming out Monday for US

According to Nintendo Press release.

http://press.nintendo.com/articles.jsp?id=11505

I am sure someone here already knows this but just in case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.150.104 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh, well that's good news to hear. WikiLoco 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone just removed the reference claiming that press.nintendo.com isn't publically accessible, which is news to me. I can still read the releases without logging in (I don't even have a Nintendo press account) or anything. Anyone else having trouble? -Arcanelore 02:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That is visible to me too, so I put it back in as the ref (although it will be removed on Monday when the game is up). Lrrr IV 02:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sega Genesis VC release times

Both 1up and IGN ( http://wii.ign.com/articles/766/766746p1.html ) say that the four games in the press release would be out 'in the coming weeks'. Shouldn't that be taken as evidence that they will be in Q1? Eusis 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Coming weeks" is a very vague term, that could also mean April (which would be Q2). We should stick to official release dates (since IGN, among others, tend to guess certain release dates). Lrrr IV 02:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd think they'd have said coming over the next month or something then. It could be marked first half of 2007 as a place holder though, as they're obviously not planning to release something in, say, July if everyone's saying next few weeks and near future and they're announce these /now/. Might be better actually, as GameSpot has the tentative date of Q2 2007 for Sonic Spinball. Eusis 03:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Click here for the PR release from Sega: [1] . Sega never actually mentions a date for the games, it is just something 1UP/IGN came up with. Lrrr IV 03:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Glanced at the top. It DOES say soon, so... Eh. I think it qualifies 'first half of 2007' based on that. Dunno a good abbreviation for that though ala the quarters. Early 2007? Eusis 04:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would just stick with 2007 for now. Lrrr IV 04:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I guess it really is as good as anything else. Sega will probably unveil specific dates whenever they put a March page up. Eusis 01:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

ESRB Ratings for NES Games?

I thought that the last game officially released for the NES, Wario's Woods, was also the first game to get an ESRB rating because the Board was just established. Are these games being rated again by the ESRB when they are rereleased on the VC? I'm just not sure the ratings in the ESRB column for the NES are supposed to be there--and even if the games are being rated upon rerelease, the ratings shouldn't be present in the "Future Releases" section, right? --pie4all88 14:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No because the games have already been rated before they came out if you haven't noticed on the vc page they all have scores70.225.145.209 15:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that most NES games (as well as early SNES games) need to be rated (for the first time) by the ESRB as they were not originally given a rating since the ESRB did not exist. According to Wikipedia articles, Wario's Woods and the ESRB were formed in the same year. However I do not know the situation involving that particular game. The ESRB column for NES titles should remain as it is te ESRB rating for the Wii VC version and not the original game. The column should also remain for Future Releases as these are the ratngs found on the ESRB's website. Zomic_13 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is true games must be re-rated. Some ratings have disappeared (I have a handful of old SNES games that are rated K-A, or Kids through Adults), and some have been added (if you haven't realized, E10+ is relatively new). Also, the degree to which they rate has changed distinctly (Super Smash Bros was E while Super Smash Bros Melee was T, when it didn't have much that made it any more mature than the first one), and, compared to games released now, the more violent games might be considered tame because, face it, video game violence was a lot less realistic a decade or more ago. There are enough factors, and people are having issues with ESRB as it is, so ESRB is sorta in a position where they should re-rate the games to be safe. All ratings in the future releases are after the games have been re-rated by ESRB for Virtual Console.66.67.9.170 17:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sproink and Jewel Quest II

These are PC puzzle games apparently coming to the Wii. Will they be on the Virtual Console, a seperate channel meant for recent games, or possibly retail SKU's?Tehw1k1 19:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. Aren't they web games ? WikiLoco 19:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

They are sold Popcap style on the web-DL the trial version, or pay to DL the full version. I'm curious about how they might be integrated into the existing VC or whatever they plan to do.Tehw1k1 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Source? I don't think you're making this up, just curious as to where this info was obtained.Shadow31 21:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

They are listed on the ESRB site with "Wii" as one of the platforms. However we don't know if it will be on the Virtual Console or at retail or what. TJ Spyke 23:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I've played the trial versions of them both, don't see how they could be retailed. I do remember Nintendo saying that the Virtual Console could also be home to smaller games that companies could release rather than actually selling them retail, so it seems likely. Keep in mind Nintendo of Japan was going to have MSX games and now announced Neo Geo games coming this summer, so Virtual Console definitely isn't limited to the current five legacy systems. Of course, until we have solid confirmation of the plans, we can't jump to assumptions. Just have to keep our eyes open, I guess.66.67.9.170 17:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Beetle Racing

why is it not on the list70.225.145.209 15:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

...why should it be? Seriously, SOURCES.Shadow31 21:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he means Beetle Adventure Racing, which I think was listed for Wii on the ESRB site before being removed. TJ Spyke 23:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's one of the ambiguous "Nintendo" listings, actually. -Arcanelore 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen it on lists, but I haven't seen any real sourcing. Unless you can find some actual source (I know we count ESRB listings, but I don't know if anyone actually saw it there, I never did), it should stay off. Despite it being one of my favorite N64 racers.66.67.9.170 17:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Excitebike release date

I request that people stop putting up next week as the date. It is logical to assume it is this month since it was the April issue saying that and all the other games listed as coming soon by the magazine were already downloads, but they did not give a date, we just know it's this month. We therefore cannot assume it is coming next Monday, so stop editing it. It was edited last week saying it'd be out this week (which I also took down), and to be honest, I thought it'd be this week too (due to the Europe release) but lo and beyond! It wasn't! We can't predict the exact future dates unless we're told them. Evan1109 23:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ghouls 'n Ghosts to be sold at retail?

Anyone have a source for that? The fact that ESRB has it listed for all three systems doesn't mean it won't be a VC game; all three systems have download services and Super Ghouls 'n' Ghosts was (and is) listed the same way. -Arcanelore 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not the games shown at E3 in 2005?

I think the only ones that haven't already been announced are Super Mario Kart and Waverace 64. Nintendo have shown that they are going to release them, so why not add them to the Upcoming Games list? 60.226.175.68 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither have been confirmed. Reggie just used those as examples. They most likely will get added eventually, but have not been confirmed yet. BTW, it's Wave Race 64. TJ Spyke 08:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

M'alright, and thanks for telling me about the name. >_> Btw, Iwata presented the Virtual Console section of Nintendo's press conference... 60.226.175.68 08:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

2005...That's when Iwata initially presented the idea and put some game box arts up on the screen. He also mentioned Earthbound. At E3 2006, they had demos running of SMB, SMW, Mario 64, Bonk, and Sonic, which have all been released. Here's a video Tehw1k1 19:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Link Column

May I assume that we are in agreement about the inclusion of a column to put the reference links of upcoming games? ʍαμ$ʏ5043 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no real need, you can include the ref next to the game name. TJ Spyke 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)