I managed to find Xardion for about $15 earlier this year, suffice it to say I couldn't pass it up. It's a fun, challenging title with a rather simple design. Nothing super special, but it has it's charm.
I think the title that's actually wowed me alot surprisingly might be Pinocchio. I picked it up for the first time a few weeks ago, that game has some really stunning vibrant colors and animation for a SNES title, it's gotta be up there as having some of the best on the console (it looks a crap ton like the animated cartoon movie).
this is what im talking about. Please excuse yourself and quit derailing this shit. You are impossible.
I asked nicely
If you want to contribute. Make your own list
If you just here to do^^^^^^^^ that shit, then Im just ignoring you. Please be productive.
If you go back and look at the original posts, Sinnbox posted his opinion on the matter, to which I agree bears merit. Then you quoted it disagreeing, and also stated that a rarity list should reflect something other than rarity (i.e. current markets), to which a few folks had disagreed. So I was not the one derailing this thread at all, to be quite frank about it. If having an opinion that is different from yours equates to "derailing shit", then I am not sure what the point is about even having a discussion to begin with.
With that said, I hope you think about other views than just your own, as in the end, everyone (including me) just wants to have an accurate rarity list to use. Thanks.
It is looking to me like we may need 2 rarity lists, one of "True rarity", and one of current market rarity. When I started here most people cared more about total copies in circulation than what the market looked like at the time. My question is: Why call a game a R8 because there are 3 copies on ebay, but 500 in collections, and call a game a R1 because there are 100 copies on ebay, but only 300 collectors have the game.
Every other hobby I'm involved in people care more about true rarity than market rarity. Market rarity is something that really only helps resellers. True rarity is what gamers should care about. Im my opinion, finding a R8-10 is a cool feat, and should not change just beacause the free market is shrinking. Many of the newer hipster collectors are usually only in it for afew years, and many "Collections" will cycle back on to the market. In my area I know very few collectors that hold onto things, many collect items for a short time, then sell or trade that collection to focus on another collection. If we do not have a rarity scale based on true rarity there is really no reason to have one because it changes monthly.
this is what im talking about. Please excuse yourself and quit derailing this shit. You are impossible.
I asked nicely
If you want to contribute. Make your own list
If you just here to do^^^^^^^^ that shit, then Im just ignoring you. Please be productive.
If you go back and look at the original posts, Sinnbox posted his opinion on the matter, to which I agree bears merit. Then you quoted it disagreeing, and also stated that a rarity list should reflect something other than rarity (i.e. current markets), to which a few folks had disagreed. So I was not the one derailing this thread at all, to be quite frank about it. If having an opinion that is different from yours equates to "derailing shit", then I am not sure what the point is about even having a discussion to begin with.
With that said, I hope you think about other views than just your own, as in the end, everyone (including me) just wants to have an accurate rarity list to use. Thanks.
It is looking to me like we may need 2 rarity lists, one of "True rarity", and one of current market rarity. When I started here most people cared more about total copies in circulation than what the market looked like at the time. My question is: Why call a game a R8 because there are 3 copies on ebay, but 500 in collections, and call a game a R1 because there are 100 copies on ebay, but only 300 collectors have the game.
Every other hobby I'm involved in people care more about true rarity than market rarity. Market rarity is something that really only helps resellers. True rarity is what gamers should care about. Im my opinion, finding a R8-10 is a cool feat, and should not change just beacause the free market is shrinking. Many of the newer hipster collectors are usually only in it for afew years, and many "Collections" will cycle back on to the market. In my area I know very few collectors that hold onto things, many collect items for a short time, then sell or trade that collection to focus on another collection. If we do not have a rarity scale based on true rarity there is really no reason to have one because it changes monthly.
I completely understand what you are saying, but how exactly would we even begin to go about determining the true rarity of games? I understand even the current system isn't perfect and doesn't reflect actual numbers, and does change from time to time. But there are so many unknowns here that it seems extremely difficult to determine rarity other than by using online sales and anecdotal experiences of what people see. We don't know how many copies of any given title were produced. We don't know how many are in collectors' hands versus on the market. We don't know how many have been destroyed or hidden. And in general - for the most part - there will be a correlation with the rarity numbers we have using this method versus 'true rarity.' It won't be perfect and won't always agree, but from a relative standpoint, common games are going to be exchanged more often, and thus seen more often and sold online. I realize there are other variables here, such as how popular or how good a game is, and price, and many other variables, but it's kind of the best we have.
I think most people here would acknowledge that there are flaws with the current system and there is no way to achieve perfection. And clearly people have different views of what the rarity system should even be, which is understandable. And I'm not trying to argue with you here - you actually bring up some good points, I just don't know that there's an easy answer.
this is what im talking about. Please excuse yourself and quit derailing this shit. You are impossible.
I asked nicely
If you want to contribute. Make your own list
If you just here to do^^^^^^^^ that shit, then Im just ignoring you. Please be productive.
If you go back and look at the original posts, Sinnbox posted his opinion on the matter, to which I agree bears merit. Then you quoted it disagreeing, and also stated that a rarity list should reflect something other than rarity (i.e. current markets), to which a few folks had disagreed. So I was not the one derailing this thread at all, to be quite frank about it. If having an opinion that is different from yours equates to "derailing shit", then I am not sure what the point is about even having a discussion to begin with.
With that said, I hope you think about other views than just your own, as in the end, everyone (including me) just wants to have an accurate rarity list to use. Thanks.
It is looking to me like we may need 2 rarity lists, one of "True rarity", and one of current market rarity. When I started here most people cared more about total copies in circulation than what the market looked like at the time. My question is: Why call a game a R8 because there are 3 copies on ebay, but 500 in collections, and call a game a R1 because there are 100 copies on ebay, but only 300 collectors have the game.
Every other hobby I'm involved in people care more about true rarity than market rarity. Market rarity is something that really only helps resellers. True rarity is what gamers should care about. Im my opinion, finding a R8-10 is a cool feat, and should not change just beacause the free market is shrinking. Many of the newer hipster collectors are usually only in it for afew years, and many "Collections" will cycle back on to the market. In my area I know very few collectors that hold onto things, many collect items for a short time, then sell or trade that collection to focus on another collection. If we do not have a rarity scale based on true rarity there is really no reason to have one because it changes monthly.
I completely understand what you are saying, but how exactly would we even begin to go about determining the true rarity of games? I understand even the current system isn't perfect and doesn't reflect actual numbers, and does change from time to time. But there are so many unknowns here that it seems extremely difficult to determine rarity other than by using online sales and anecdotal experiences of what people see. We don't know how many copies of any given title were produced. We don't know how many are in collectors' hands versus on the market. We don't know how many have been destroyed or hidden. And in general - for the most part - there will be a correlation with the rarity numbers we have using this method versus 'true rarity.' It won't be perfect and won't always agree, but from a relative standpoint, common games are going to be exchanged more often, and thus seen more often and sold online. I realize there are other variables here, such as how popular or how good a game is, and price, and many other variables, but it's kind of the best we have.
I think the best thing to do, is not completely rewrite the book. Simply changing it from what we thought it was back in the day, to what it is today is just creating another false list. I think comparing the two, and working them together would be best. for true rairty we have to acknowledge that at a time with less collectors there was a better idea of rarity, but we also have to think of all the games that have come out of attics and basements since then. At the time I joined there were several stores with $1 games within an hour drive of my house, and more games than I could buy at garage sales each week. Those games have slowly gone the way of the collector, and many of the harder to find ones have gone the way of the investor(Sadly.) Some games you can actually find sales numbers on, but for the rest we have to guess, and compare old rarity charts.
I think a lot of people throwing out suggestions for rarity numbers here are kind of already doing what you're suggesting. I would imagine people are considering some of those factors when proposing values. I don't think anyone here is using a strict, formulaic approach using just the number of carts sold on ebay and available now. I think subconsciously people are taking some of these notions into consideration. I guess I can't say this with certainty, but I imagine it is the case. I think if Brock for example knows that everyone on NA has 20 copies of a game yet there are 5 available online, that it shouldn't be rated an 8 or 9. I don't know how much weight people are placing on these particular components but I don't think it's completely lost on them either.
And in terms of the list before --- I'm not 100% sure, but I don't even think that was any kind of agreed-upon rarity list, at least not here. I don't know where those numbers came from. Someone suggested they all pretty much came from DP - I don't know if this is even the case or if so, what criteria was used in implementing them originally. So it's not necessarily that we are drastically changing all the numbers from what we thought they were several years ago.
Again, you do bring up some good points though - so if you or others do have specific ideas about what some of the games' numbers should be based on some of those factors and many having them, I absolutely think it is relevant.
To be honest, I don't really have much concern over this personally. I'm not too concerned with the rarity list and I personally wouldn't care if it was gone completely from NA or if it was a simpler scale (common, uncommon, rare, extra rare, unique). People have stated clearly they like using the 1-10 system and that is the current system, so I'm not gonna argue too much there. I'm just trying to help with implementation and ideas.
this is what im talking about. Please excuse yourself and quit derailing this shit. You are impossible.
I asked nicely
If you want to contribute. Make your own list
If you just here to do^^^^^^^^ that shit, then Im just ignoring you. Please be productive.
If you go back and look at the original posts, Sinnbox posted his opinion on the matter, to which I agree bears merit. Then you quoted it disagreeing, and also stated that a rarity list should reflect something other than rarity (i.e. current markets), to which a few folks had disagreed. So I was not the one derailing this thread at all, to be quite frank about it. If having an opinion that is different from yours equates to "derailing shit", then I am not sure what the point is about even having a discussion to begin with.
With that said, I hope you think about other views than just your own, as in the end, everyone (including me) just wants to have an accurate rarity list to use. Thanks.
It is looking to me like we may need 2 rarity lists, one of "True rarity", and one of current market rarity. When I started here most people cared more about total copies in circulation than what the market looked like at the time. My question is: Why call a game a R8 because there are 3 copies on ebay, but 500 in collections, and call a game a R1 because there are 100 copies on ebay, but only 300 collectors have the game.
Every other hobby I'm involved in people care more about true rarity than market rarity. Market rarity is something that really only helps resellers. True rarity is what gamers should care about. Im my opinion, finding a R8-10 is a cool feat, and should not change just beacause the free market is shrinking. Many of the newer hipster collectors are usually only in it for afew years, and many "Collections" will cycle back on to the market. In my area I know very few collectors that hold onto things, many collect items for a short time, then sell or trade that collection to focus on another collection. If we do not have a rarity scale based on true rarity there is really no reason to have one because it changes monthly.
I completely understand what you are saying, but how exactly would we even begin to go about determining the true rarity of games? I understand even the current system isn't perfect and doesn't reflect actual numbers, and does change from time to time. But there are so many unknowns here that it seems extremely difficult to determine rarity other than by using online sales and anecdotal experiences of what people see. We don't know how many copies of any given title were produced. We don't know how many are in collectors' hands versus on the market. We don't know how many have been destroyed or hidden. And in general - for the most part - there will be a correlation with the rarity numbers we have using this method versus 'true rarity.' It won't be perfect and won't always agree, but from a relative standpoint, common games are going to be exchanged more often, and thus seen more often and sold online. I realize there are other variables here, such as how popular or how good a game is, and price, and many other variables, but it's kind of the best we have.
I think the best thing to do, is not completely rewrite the book. Simply changing it from what we thought it was back in the day, to what it is today is just creating another false list. I think comparing the two, and working them together would be best. for true rairty we have to acknowledge that at a time with less collectors there was a better idea of rarity, but we also have to think of all the games that have come out of attics and basements since then. At the time I joined there were several stores with $1 games within an hour drive of my house, and more games than I could buy at garage sales each week. Those games have slowly gone the way of the collector, and many of the harder to find ones have gone the way of the investor(Sadly.) Some games you can actually find sales numbers on, but for the rest we have to guess, and compare old rarity charts.
The first list was utterly terrible. Should not be averaged in imo. By getting input from a wide variety of active hunters/collectors shows more of a true rarity
The list in the database now is useless. Needed a complete overhaul. The debate for this is kind of over already. Your way their is no way of even really guessing. By looking at the current market and recent experience we can get a much better gauge of rarity numbers. Rarity changes over time whether you like it or not. The way we are doing it seems just fine, and a majority of all are along with it. If you dont agree them simply make your own rarity database and follow that one instead.
Im weighing several factors when coming up with a number. A mixture of current online availability/sold history and what Ive experienced with hunting over several years. When a game is borderline one number or another I think about things like players choice million sellers/ majesco re releases that might knock it down a peg.
There is no strict formula people are using. Its different peoples experiences coming together to improve the database. Dont see why there needs to be a fight about it since the database is horrible as is.
this is what im talking about. Please excuse yourself and quit derailing this shit. You are impossible.
I asked nicely
If you want to contribute. Make your own list
If you just here to do^^^^^^^^ that shit, then Im just ignoring you. Please be productive.
If you go back and look at the original posts, Sinnbox posted his opinion on the matter, to which I agree bears merit. Then you quoted it disagreeing, and also stated that a rarity list should reflect something other than rarity (i.e. current markets), to which a few folks had disagreed. So I was not the one derailing this thread at all, to be quite frank about it. If having an opinion that is different from yours equates to "derailing shit", then I am not sure what the point is about even having a discussion to begin with.
With that said, I hope you think about other views than just your own, as in the end, everyone (including me) just wants to have an accurate rarity list to use. Thanks.
It is looking to me like we may need 2 rarity lists, one of "True rarity", and one of current market rarity. When I started here most people cared more about total copies in circulation than what the market looked like at the time. My question is: Why call a game a R8 because there are 3 copies on ebay, but 500 in collections, and call a game a R1 because there are 100 copies on ebay, but only 300 collectors have the game.
Every other hobby I'm involved in people care more about true rarity than market rarity. Market rarity is something that really only helps resellers. True rarity is what gamers should care about. Im my opinion, finding a R8-10 is a cool feat, and should not change just beacause the free market is shrinking. Many of the newer hipster collectors are usually only in it for afew years, and many "Collections" will cycle back on to the market. In my area I know very few collectors that hold onto things, many collect items for a short time, then sell or trade that collection to focus on another collection. If we do not have a rarity scale based on true rarity there is really no reason to have one because it changes monthly.
Could you provide examples of which games would not accurately reflect "true" rarity by some great margin? As in off by more than just one number. I'm geniunely asking.
The old list was never accurate to begin with, I don't have any idea why anyone would even try to defend it at this point other than not wanting a more accurate list to get out there (I think this is actually a big reason why there is pushback). Like 50% of the library is labelled a 1 or 2, and many of them are legitimate rares for the system.
this is what im talking about. Please excuse yourself and quit derailing this shit. You are impossible.
I asked nicely
If you want to contribute. Make your own list
If you just here to do^^^^^^^^ that shit, then Im just ignoring you. Please be productive.
If you go back and look at the original posts, Sinnbox posted his opinion on the matter, to which I agree bears merit. Then you quoted it disagreeing, and also stated that a rarity list should reflect something other than rarity (i.e. current markets), to which a few folks had disagreed. So I was not the one derailing this thread at all, to be quite frank about it. If having an opinion that is different from yours equates to "derailing shit", then I am not sure what the point is about even having a discussion to begin with.
With that said, I hope you think about other views than just your own, as in the end, everyone (including me) just wants to have an accurate rarity list to use. Thanks.
It is looking to me like we may need 2 rarity lists, one of "True rarity", and one of current market rarity. When I started here most people cared more about total copies in circulation than what the market looked like at the time. My question is: Why call a game a R8 because there are 3 copies on ebay, but 500 in collections, and call a game a R1 because there are 100 copies on ebay, but only 300 collectors have the game.
Every other hobby I'm involved in people care more about true rarity than market rarity. Market rarity is something that really only helps resellers. True rarity is what gamers should care about. Im my opinion, finding a R8-10 is a cool feat, and should not change just beacause the free market is shrinking. Many of the newer hipster collectors are usually only in it for afew years, and many "Collections" will cycle back on to the market. In my area I know very few collectors that hold onto things, many collect items for a short time, then sell or trade that collection to focus on another collection. If we do not have a rarity scale based on true rarity there is really no reason to have one because it changes monthly.
I completely understand what you are saying, but how exactly would we even begin to go about determining the true rarity of games? I understand even the current system isn't perfect and doesn't reflect actual numbers, and does change from time to time. But there are so many unknowns here that it seems extremely difficult to determine rarity other than by using online sales and anecdotal experiences of what people see. We don't know how many copies of any given title were produced. We don't know how many are in collectors' hands versus on the market. We don't know how many have been destroyed or hidden. And in general - for the most part - there will be a correlation with the rarity numbers we have using this method versus 'true rarity.' It won't be perfect and won't always agree, but from a relative standpoint, common games are going to be exchanged more often, and thus seen more often and sold online. I realize there are other variables here, such as how popular or how good a game is, and price, and many other variables, but it's kind of the best we have.
I think the best thing to do, is not completely rewrite the book. Simply changing it from what we thought it was back in the day, to what it is today is just creating another false list. I think comparing the two, and working them together would be best. for true rairty we have to acknowledge that at a time with less collectors there was a better idea of rarity, but we also have to think of all the games that have come out of attics and basements since then. At the time I joined there were several stores with $1 games within an hour drive of my house, and more games than I could buy at garage sales each week. Those games have slowly gone the way of the collector, and many of the harder to find ones have gone the way of the investor(Sadly.) Some games you can actually find sales numbers on, but for the rest we have to guess, and compare old rarity charts.
The first list was utterly terrible. Should not be averaged in imo. By getting input from a wide variety of active hunters/collectors shows more of a true rarity
The list in the database now is useless. Needed a complete overhaul. The debate for this is kind of over already. Your way their is no way of even really guessing. By looking at the current market and recent experience we can get a much better gauge of rarity numbers. Rarity changes over time whether you like it or not. The way we are doing it seems just fine, and a majority of all are along with it. If you dont agree them simply make your own rarity database and follow that one instead.
Im weighing several factors when coming up with a number. A mixture of current online availability/sold history and what Ive experienced with hunting over several years. When a game is borderline one number or another I think about things like players choice million sellers/ majesco re releases that might knock it down a peg.
There is no strict formula people are using. Its different peoples experiences coming together to improve the database. Dont see why there needs to be a fight about it since the database is horrible as is.
No offense mate, but I feel that there is nothing wrong with having a discussion about it. Just because the majority feel one way on the topic doesn't mean that it is necessarily the "correct" way - is it not better to hear the thoughts and feelings of anyone that has opinions? There is nothing that makes your opinion better than Sinnbox' opinion, just because he stands in the minority on the matter and you don't. Not stirring up an argument here, not going to be posting more replies to this particular post either. I do agree with Sinnbox though that basing the rarity off of market availability doesn't reflect true rarity though. And I think that there are plenty of collectors (not resellers) that appreciate true rarity over resell values. Now calculating those values, that is a different story altogether, though it is a valid point and something that should be thought about when creating what is being advertised as a rarity list.
Maybe I missed something in the thread, but how can one say the current list is based on 'True Rarity'? As far as I have always understood things, rarity with video games has always been based on a games current market availability since we do not have any hard figures on production runs. Every list I have ever seen has been based off of market availability.... Etler's, DP's, NA's .... etc.
Every list I have ever seen has been based off of market availability.... Etler's, DP's, NA's .... etc.
Right, and I think that's the point that is going over a few peoples' heads in this thread.
The market changes and isn't in a vacuum, and unless someone can magically get some actual concrete production #'s from when the games were the current generation and sold in stores, the best we can hope to do (if we're going to have any kind of rarity list), is to make it reflective of the current collecting environment.
So, after giving the list a good looking through, I agree that the old one was bad, even compared to the past. I have always paid much more attention to the NES list, and did not notice how terrible the SNES list was. Aside from some games that may just be over/under populated in my area, the new list seems pretty solid.
After all the Kawasaki superbike talk these past weeks and personally searching for years in the wild, I came across a CIB for $7 at a local flea market today. Needless to say I was rather excited!
Every list I have ever seen has been based off of market availability.... Etler's, DP's, NA's .... etc.
Right, and I think that's the point that is going over a few peoples' heads in this thread.
The market changes and isn't in a vacuum, and unless someone can magically get some actual concrete production #'s from when the games were the current generation and sold in stores, the best we can hope to do (if we're going to have any kind of rarity list), is to make it reflective of the current collecting environment.
I put a suggestion some time back in suggestion and feedback sub forum saying that NA could in itself be a basis for #'s rarity by using the collection tool to actually track the number of copies of a game. Everytime somone adds a game ro their collection it gets added to the total that is shown next to the game listing in the database. Its not perfect nothing is but this used in addition too the standard rarity guide now present would help make better determinatuons of hard to find games.
Put the current database to the left and put a quick guide on the right to if I corrected it or not for quick glance.
I tried to pm you brock but I guess its too big for a pm. If you need the excel sheet I can save it read only I guess and link you.
Nice list Quest. Of course I disagree on a few but overall it seems very solid. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge of the sports titles to make a full list, but I can throw out some suggestions based on my opinion if need be (or if it would actually help)
Put the current database to the left and put a quick guide on the right to if I corrected it or not for quick glance.
I tried to pm you brock but I guess its too big for a pm. If you need the excel sheet I can save it read only I guess and link you.
Nice list Quest. Of course I disagree on a few but overall it seems very solid. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge of the sports titles to make a full list, but I can throw out some suggestions based on my opinion if need be (or if it would actually help)
I don't like Aerofighters being at the same level as MBR/SR. If Aero is a 9, then MBR/SR should be a 10. It's on an entirely different level than anything else (licensed) on the system. MBR/SR is an unplayable game, it's value is based on rarity alone, unlike Aero fighters.
Quest your list was well done, but is king of the monsters 1 really more common than king of the monsters 2? I havent found that to be the case but i collect cib so i dont follow loose availability, also I think ardy lightfoot is an 8 if oscar is an 8.
Put the current database to the left and put a quick guide on the right to if I corrected it or not for quick glance.
I tried to pm you brock but I guess its too big for a pm. If you need the excel sheet I can save it read only I guess and link you.
Nice list Quest. Of course I disagree on a few but overall it seems very solid. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge of the sports titles to make a full list, but I can throw out some suggestions based on my opinion if need be (or if it would actually help)
tell me the few.... maybe you can convince me
Well, this really seems like nitpicking to me but here are some off of the top of my head (mainly due to my experience over the years locally and at conventions and also by comparision to other games that you've marked at certain levels)
Legend - 6/7 (I very rarely see this and compared to other 5's that you have, it's definitely more uncommon than those)
Incantation - 8 (there is a south american/mexican print or something that is different than the "normal" release right? I'm just thinking in terms of the "normal" release. I've never seen one in person)
Ghoul Patrol - 7 (I've only seen this a few times, once CIB)
Joe & Mac - 4 (seems more common than a 5, especially compared to other 5's - see Legend)
Lufia - 4 (same deal with Joe & Mac)
Metal Marines - 8 (took me a very long time to track this down and it was from one vendor at a convention)
Out to Lunch - 5/6 (don't see this all the time and nobody talks about it)
Rival Turf - 3/4 (not as uncommon as the rest of the trilogy, but I don't see it as often as I'd consider other 2's)
SOS - 7 (another game I don't see. I've seen maybe two over the last few years and bought one of them)
I totally appreciate everyone's work on this and these are obviously my opinions and in no way discredit anyone elses.
For the record, I know I'm probably not known as an expert on any given subject around here (maybe Silent Hill ) but I've been collecting SNES for about 5-6 years and have 198 titles, but since I'm not going for the set, I don't know much about some of the sports titles like you, Brock and other full set fellers.
Comments
I think the title that's actually wowed me alot surprisingly might be Pinocchio. I picked it up for the first time a few weeks ago, that game has some really stunning vibrant colors and animation for a SNES title, it's gotta be up there as having some of the best on the console (it looks a crap ton like the animated cartoon movie).
quest, ETA on your list? Anyone else?
this is what im talking about. Please excuse yourself and quit derailing this shit. You are impossible.
I asked nicely
If you want to contribute. Make your own list
If you just here to do^^^^^^^^ that shit, then Im just ignoring you. Please be productive.
If you go back and look at the original posts, Sinnbox posted his opinion on the matter, to which I agree bears merit. Then you quoted it disagreeing, and also stated that a rarity list should reflect something other than rarity (i.e. current markets), to which a few folks had disagreed. So I was not the one derailing this thread at all, to be quite frank about it. If having an opinion that is different from yours equates to "derailing shit", then I am not sure what the point is about even having a discussion to begin with.
With that said, I hope you think about other views than just your own, as in the end, everyone (including me) just wants to have an accurate rarity list to use. Thanks.
It is looking to me like we may need 2 rarity lists, one of "True rarity", and one of current market rarity. When I started here most people cared more about total copies in circulation than what the market looked like at the time. My question is: Why call a game a R8 because there are 3 copies on ebay, but 500 in collections, and call a game a R1 because there are 100 copies on ebay, but only 300 collectors have the game.
Every other hobby I'm involved in people care more about true rarity than market rarity. Market rarity is something that really only helps resellers. True rarity is what gamers should care about. Im my opinion, finding a R8-10 is a cool feat, and should not change just beacause the free market is shrinking. Many of the newer hipster collectors are usually only in it for afew years, and many "Collections" will cycle back on to the market. In my area I know very few collectors that hold onto things, many collect items for a short time, then sell or trade that collection to focus on another collection. If we do not have a rarity scale based on true rarity there is really no reason to have one because it changes monthly.
How many copies of dream tv have any of you seen? I dont think ive ever seen one. Doesnt seem like ebay sees many either.
I've only seen one locally that I remember. That was a couple of years ago too. Same with Big Sky Trooper.
I've seen tons of Big Sky Trooper, but mostly because of the McVans sale, around 50-100 Sealed copies hit the market here at that time.
this is what im talking about. Please excuse yourself and quit derailing this shit. You are impossible.
I asked nicely
If you want to contribute. Make your own list
If you just here to do^^^^^^^^ that shit, then Im just ignoring you. Please be productive.
If you go back and look at the original posts, Sinnbox posted his opinion on the matter, to which I agree bears merit. Then you quoted it disagreeing, and also stated that a rarity list should reflect something other than rarity (i.e. current markets), to which a few folks had disagreed. So I was not the one derailing this thread at all, to be quite frank about it. If having an opinion that is different from yours equates to "derailing shit", then I am not sure what the point is about even having a discussion to begin with.
With that said, I hope you think about other views than just your own, as in the end, everyone (including me) just wants to have an accurate rarity list to use. Thanks.
It is looking to me like we may need 2 rarity lists, one of "True rarity", and one of current market rarity. When I started here most people cared more about total copies in circulation than what the market looked like at the time. My question is: Why call a game a R8 because there are 3 copies on ebay, but 500 in collections, and call a game a R1 because there are 100 copies on ebay, but only 300 collectors have the game.
Every other hobby I'm involved in people care more about true rarity than market rarity. Market rarity is something that really only helps resellers. True rarity is what gamers should care about. Im my opinion, finding a R8-10 is a cool feat, and should not change just beacause the free market is shrinking. Many of the newer hipster collectors are usually only in it for afew years, and many "Collections" will cycle back on to the market. In my area I know very few collectors that hold onto things, many collect items for a short time, then sell or trade that collection to focus on another collection. If we do not have a rarity scale based on true rarity there is really no reason to have one because it changes monthly.
I completely understand what you are saying, but how exactly would we even begin to go about determining the true rarity of games? I understand even the current system isn't perfect and doesn't reflect actual numbers, and does change from time to time. But there are so many unknowns here that it seems extremely difficult to determine rarity other than by using online sales and anecdotal experiences of what people see. We don't know how many copies of any given title were produced. We don't know how many are in collectors' hands versus on the market. We don't know how many have been destroyed or hidden. And in general - for the most part - there will be a correlation with the rarity numbers we have using this method versus 'true rarity.' It won't be perfect and won't always agree, but from a relative standpoint, common games are going to be exchanged more often, and thus seen more often and sold online. I realize there are other variables here, such as how popular or how good a game is, and price, and many other variables, but it's kind of the best we have.
I think most people here would acknowledge that there are flaws with the current system and there is no way to achieve perfection. And clearly people have different views of what the rarity system should even be, which is understandable. And I'm not trying to argue with you here - you actually bring up some good points, I just don't know that there's an easy answer.
Alright, well let's give it another week, and then I'm going to try and get an admin to make our bulk updates
quest, ETA on your list? Anyone else?
Took longer than i thiught. About 75 percent finished. Youll have it soon
this is what im talking about. Please excuse yourself and quit derailing this shit. You are impossible.
I asked nicely
If you want to contribute. Make your own list
If you just here to do^^^^^^^^ that shit, then Im just ignoring you. Please be productive.
If you go back and look at the original posts, Sinnbox posted his opinion on the matter, to which I agree bears merit. Then you quoted it disagreeing, and also stated that a rarity list should reflect something other than rarity (i.e. current markets), to which a few folks had disagreed. So I was not the one derailing this thread at all, to be quite frank about it. If having an opinion that is different from yours equates to "derailing shit", then I am not sure what the point is about even having a discussion to begin with.
With that said, I hope you think about other views than just your own, as in the end, everyone (including me) just wants to have an accurate rarity list to use. Thanks.
It is looking to me like we may need 2 rarity lists, one of "True rarity", and one of current market rarity. When I started here most people cared more about total copies in circulation than what the market looked like at the time. My question is: Why call a game a R8 because there are 3 copies on ebay, but 500 in collections, and call a game a R1 because there are 100 copies on ebay, but only 300 collectors have the game.
Every other hobby I'm involved in people care more about true rarity than market rarity. Market rarity is something that really only helps resellers. True rarity is what gamers should care about. Im my opinion, finding a R8-10 is a cool feat, and should not change just beacause the free market is shrinking. Many of the newer hipster collectors are usually only in it for afew years, and many "Collections" will cycle back on to the market. In my area I know very few collectors that hold onto things, many collect items for a short time, then sell or trade that collection to focus on another collection. If we do not have a rarity scale based on true rarity there is really no reason to have one because it changes monthly.
I completely understand what you are saying, but how exactly would we even begin to go about determining the true rarity of games? I understand even the current system isn't perfect and doesn't reflect actual numbers, and does change from time to time. But there are so many unknowns here that it seems extremely difficult to determine rarity other than by using online sales and anecdotal experiences of what people see. We don't know how many copies of any given title were produced. We don't know how many are in collectors' hands versus on the market. We don't know how many have been destroyed or hidden. And in general - for the most part - there will be a correlation with the rarity numbers we have using this method versus 'true rarity.' It won't be perfect and won't always agree, but from a relative standpoint, common games are going to be exchanged more often, and thus seen more often and sold online. I realize there are other variables here, such as how popular or how good a game is, and price, and many other variables, but it's kind of the best we have.
I think the best thing to do, is not completely rewrite the book. Simply changing it from what we thought it was back in the day, to what it is today is just creating another false list. I think comparing the two, and working them together would be best. for true rairty we have to acknowledge that at a time with less collectors there was a better idea of rarity, but we also have to think of all the games that have come out of attics and basements since then. At the time I joined there were several stores with $1 games within an hour drive of my house, and more games than I could buy at garage sales each week. Those games have slowly gone the way of the collector, and many of the harder to find ones have gone the way of the investor(Sadly.) Some games you can actually find sales numbers on, but for the rest we have to guess, and compare old rarity charts.
And in terms of the list before --- I'm not 100% sure, but I don't even think that was any kind of agreed-upon rarity list, at least not here. I don't know where those numbers came from. Someone suggested they all pretty much came from DP - I don't know if this is even the case or if so, what criteria was used in implementing them originally. So it's not necessarily that we are drastically changing all the numbers from what we thought they were several years ago.
Again, you do bring up some good points though - so if you or others do have specific ideas about what some of the games' numbers should be based on some of those factors and many having them, I absolutely think it is relevant.
To be honest, I don't really have much concern over this personally. I'm not too concerned with the rarity list and I personally wouldn't care if it was gone completely from NA or if it was a simpler scale (common, uncommon, rare, extra rare, unique). People have stated clearly they like using the 1-10 system and that is the current system, so I'm not gonna argue too much there. I'm just trying to help with implementation and ideas.
this is what im talking about. Please excuse yourself and quit derailing this shit. You are impossible.
I asked nicely
If you want to contribute. Make your own list
If you just here to do^^^^^^^^ that shit, then Im just ignoring you. Please be productive.
If you go back and look at the original posts, Sinnbox posted his opinion on the matter, to which I agree bears merit. Then you quoted it disagreeing, and also stated that a rarity list should reflect something other than rarity (i.e. current markets), to which a few folks had disagreed. So I was not the one derailing this thread at all, to be quite frank about it. If having an opinion that is different from yours equates to "derailing shit", then I am not sure what the point is about even having a discussion to begin with.
With that said, I hope you think about other views than just your own, as in the end, everyone (including me) just wants to have an accurate rarity list to use. Thanks.
It is looking to me like we may need 2 rarity lists, one of "True rarity", and one of current market rarity. When I started here most people cared more about total copies in circulation than what the market looked like at the time. My question is: Why call a game a R8 because there are 3 copies on ebay, but 500 in collections, and call a game a R1 because there are 100 copies on ebay, but only 300 collectors have the game.
Every other hobby I'm involved in people care more about true rarity than market rarity. Market rarity is something that really only helps resellers. True rarity is what gamers should care about. Im my opinion, finding a R8-10 is a cool feat, and should not change just beacause the free market is shrinking. Many of the newer hipster collectors are usually only in it for afew years, and many "Collections" will cycle back on to the market. In my area I know very few collectors that hold onto things, many collect items for a short time, then sell or trade that collection to focus on another collection. If we do not have a rarity scale based on true rarity there is really no reason to have one because it changes monthly.
I completely understand what you are saying, but how exactly would we even begin to go about determining the true rarity of games? I understand even the current system isn't perfect and doesn't reflect actual numbers, and does change from time to time. But there are so many unknowns here that it seems extremely difficult to determine rarity other than by using online sales and anecdotal experiences of what people see. We don't know how many copies of any given title were produced. We don't know how many are in collectors' hands versus on the market. We don't know how many have been destroyed or hidden. And in general - for the most part - there will be a correlation with the rarity numbers we have using this method versus 'true rarity.' It won't be perfect and won't always agree, but from a relative standpoint, common games are going to be exchanged more often, and thus seen more often and sold online. I realize there are other variables here, such as how popular or how good a game is, and price, and many other variables, but it's kind of the best we have.
I think the best thing to do, is not completely rewrite the book. Simply changing it from what we thought it was back in the day, to what it is today is just creating another false list. I think comparing the two, and working them together would be best. for true rairty we have to acknowledge that at a time with less collectors there was a better idea of rarity, but we also have to think of all the games that have come out of attics and basements since then. At the time I joined there were several stores with $1 games within an hour drive of my house, and more games than I could buy at garage sales each week. Those games have slowly gone the way of the collector, and many of the harder to find ones have gone the way of the investor(Sadly.) Some games you can actually find sales numbers on, but for the rest we have to guess, and compare old rarity charts.
The first list was utterly terrible. Should not be averaged in imo. By getting input from a wide variety of active hunters/collectors shows more of a true rarity
The list in the database now is useless. Needed a complete overhaul. The debate for this is kind of over already. Your way their is no way of even really guessing. By looking at the current market and recent experience we can get a much better gauge of rarity numbers. Rarity changes over time whether you like it or not. The way we are doing it seems just fine, and a majority of all are along with it. If you dont agree them simply make your own rarity database and follow that one instead.
Im weighing several factors when coming up with a number. A mixture of current online availability/sold history and what Ive experienced with hunting over several years. When a game is borderline one number or another I think about things like players choice million sellers/ majesco re releases that might knock it down a peg.
There is no strict formula people are using. Its different peoples experiences coming together to improve the database. Dont see why there needs to be a fight about it since the database is horrible as is.
this is what im talking about. Please excuse yourself and quit derailing this shit. You are impossible.
I asked nicely
If you want to contribute. Make your own list
If you just here to do^^^^^^^^ that shit, then Im just ignoring you. Please be productive.
If you go back and look at the original posts, Sinnbox posted his opinion on the matter, to which I agree bears merit. Then you quoted it disagreeing, and also stated that a rarity list should reflect something other than rarity (i.e. current markets), to which a few folks had disagreed. So I was not the one derailing this thread at all, to be quite frank about it. If having an opinion that is different from yours equates to "derailing shit", then I am not sure what the point is about even having a discussion to begin with.
With that said, I hope you think about other views than just your own, as in the end, everyone (including me) just wants to have an accurate rarity list to use. Thanks.
It is looking to me like we may need 2 rarity lists, one of "True rarity", and one of current market rarity. When I started here most people cared more about total copies in circulation than what the market looked like at the time. My question is: Why call a game a R8 because there are 3 copies on ebay, but 500 in collections, and call a game a R1 because there are 100 copies on ebay, but only 300 collectors have the game.
Every other hobby I'm involved in people care more about true rarity than market rarity. Market rarity is something that really only helps resellers. True rarity is what gamers should care about. Im my opinion, finding a R8-10 is a cool feat, and should not change just beacause the free market is shrinking. Many of the newer hipster collectors are usually only in it for afew years, and many "Collections" will cycle back on to the market. In my area I know very few collectors that hold onto things, many collect items for a short time, then sell or trade that collection to focus on another collection. If we do not have a rarity scale based on true rarity there is really no reason to have one because it changes monthly.
Could you provide examples of which games would not accurately reflect "true" rarity by some great margin? As in off by more than just one number. I'm geniunely asking.
this is what im talking about. Please excuse yourself and quit derailing this shit. You are impossible.
I asked nicely
If you want to contribute. Make your own list
If you just here to do^^^^^^^^ that shit, then Im just ignoring you. Please be productive.
If you go back and look at the original posts, Sinnbox posted his opinion on the matter, to which I agree bears merit. Then you quoted it disagreeing, and also stated that a rarity list should reflect something other than rarity (i.e. current markets), to which a few folks had disagreed. So I was not the one derailing this thread at all, to be quite frank about it. If having an opinion that is different from yours equates to "derailing shit", then I am not sure what the point is about even having a discussion to begin with.
With that said, I hope you think about other views than just your own, as in the end, everyone (including me) just wants to have an accurate rarity list to use. Thanks.
It is looking to me like we may need 2 rarity lists, one of "True rarity", and one of current market rarity. When I started here most people cared more about total copies in circulation than what the market looked like at the time. My question is: Why call a game a R8 because there are 3 copies on ebay, but 500 in collections, and call a game a R1 because there are 100 copies on ebay, but only 300 collectors have the game.
Every other hobby I'm involved in people care more about true rarity than market rarity. Market rarity is something that really only helps resellers. True rarity is what gamers should care about. Im my opinion, finding a R8-10 is a cool feat, and should not change just beacause the free market is shrinking. Many of the newer hipster collectors are usually only in it for afew years, and many "Collections" will cycle back on to the market. In my area I know very few collectors that hold onto things, many collect items for a short time, then sell or trade that collection to focus on another collection. If we do not have a rarity scale based on true rarity there is really no reason to have one because it changes monthly.
I completely understand what you are saying, but how exactly would we even begin to go about determining the true rarity of games? I understand even the current system isn't perfect and doesn't reflect actual numbers, and does change from time to time. But there are so many unknowns here that it seems extremely difficult to determine rarity other than by using online sales and anecdotal experiences of what people see. We don't know how many copies of any given title were produced. We don't know how many are in collectors' hands versus on the market. We don't know how many have been destroyed or hidden. And in general - for the most part - there will be a correlation with the rarity numbers we have using this method versus 'true rarity.' It won't be perfect and won't always agree, but from a relative standpoint, common games are going to be exchanged more often, and thus seen more often and sold online. I realize there are other variables here, such as how popular or how good a game is, and price, and many other variables, but it's kind of the best we have.
I think the best thing to do, is not completely rewrite the book. Simply changing it from what we thought it was back in the day, to what it is today is just creating another false list. I think comparing the two, and working them together would be best. for true rairty we have to acknowledge that at a time with less collectors there was a better idea of rarity, but we also have to think of all the games that have come out of attics and basements since then. At the time I joined there were several stores with $1 games within an hour drive of my house, and more games than I could buy at garage sales each week. Those games have slowly gone the way of the collector, and many of the harder to find ones have gone the way of the investor(Sadly.) Some games you can actually find sales numbers on, but for the rest we have to guess, and compare old rarity charts.
The first list was utterly terrible. Should not be averaged in imo. By getting input from a wide variety of active hunters/collectors shows more of a true rarity
The list in the database now is useless. Needed a complete overhaul. The debate for this is kind of over already. Your way their is no way of even really guessing. By looking at the current market and recent experience we can get a much better gauge of rarity numbers. Rarity changes over time whether you like it or not. The way we are doing it seems just fine, and a majority of all are along with it. If you dont agree them simply make your own rarity database and follow that one instead.
Im weighing several factors when coming up with a number. A mixture of current online availability/sold history and what Ive experienced with hunting over several years. When a game is borderline one number or another I think about things like players choice million sellers/ majesco re releases that might knock it down a peg.
There is no strict formula people are using. Its different peoples experiences coming together to improve the database. Dont see why there needs to be a fight about it since the database is horrible as is.
No offense mate, but I feel that there is nothing wrong with having a discussion about it. Just because the majority feel one way on the topic doesn't mean that it is necessarily the "correct" way - is it not better to hear the thoughts and feelings of anyone that has opinions? There is nothing that makes your opinion better than Sinnbox' opinion, just because he stands in the minority on the matter and you don't. Not stirring up an argument here, not going to be posting more replies to this particular post either. I do agree with Sinnbox though that basing the rarity off of market availability doesn't reflect true rarity though. And I think that there are plenty of collectors (not resellers) that appreciate true rarity over resell values. Now calculating those values, that is a different story altogether, though it is a valid point and something that should be thought about when creating what is being advertised as a rarity list.
Every list I have ever seen has been based off of market availability.... Etler's, DP's, NA's .... etc.
Right, and I think that's the point that is going over a few peoples' heads in this thread.
The market changes and isn't in a vacuum, and unless someone can magically get some actual concrete production #'s from when the games were the current generation and sold in stores, the best we can hope to do (if we're going to have any kind of rarity list), is to make it reflective of the current collecting environment.
Every list I have ever seen has been based off of market availability.... Etler's, DP's, NA's .... etc.
Right, and I think that's the point that is going over a few peoples' heads in this thread.
The market changes and isn't in a vacuum, and unless someone can magically get some actual concrete production #'s from when the games were the current generation and sold in stores, the best we can hope to do (if we're going to have any kind of rarity list), is to make it reflective of the current collecting environment.
I put a suggestion some time back in suggestion and feedback sub forum saying that NA could in itself be a basis for #'s rarity by using the collection tool to actually track the number of copies of a game. Everytime somone adds a game ro their collection it gets added to the total that is shown next to the game listing in the database. Its not perfect nothing is but this used in addition too the standard rarity guide now present would help make better determinatuons of hard to find games.
I tried to pm you brock but I guess its too big for a pm. If you need the excel sheet I can save it read only I guess and link you.
I'll post an updated table tomorrow afternoon
lets us know the finalized presented list so we can discuss it and give it a once over before final submission
Originally posted by: quest4nes
Put the current database to the left and put a quick guide on the right to if I corrected it or not for quick glance.
I tried to pm you brock but I guess its too big for a pm. If you need the excel sheet I can save it read only I guess and link you.
Nice list Quest. Of course I disagree on a few but overall it seems very solid. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge of the sports titles to make a full list, but I can throw out some suggestions based on my opinion if need be (or if it would actually help)
<td height="20" style="height:20px
Originally posted by: Silent Hill
Originally posted by: quest4nes
Put the current database to the left and put a quick guide on the right to if I corrected it or not for quick glance.
I tried to pm you brock but I guess its too big for a pm. If you need the excel sheet I can save it read only I guess and link you.
Nice list Quest. Of course I disagree on a few but overall it seems very solid. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge of the sports titles to make a full list, but I can throw out some suggestions based on my opinion if need be (or if it would actually help)
tell me the few.... maybe you can convince me
Kawaski Superbike should be an 8.
Originally posted by: quest4nes
Originally posted by: Silent Hill
Originally posted by: quest4nes
Put the current database to the left and put a quick guide on the right to if I corrected it or not for quick glance.
I tried to pm you brock but I guess its too big for a pm. If you need the excel sheet I can save it read only I guess and link you.
Nice list Quest. Of course I disagree on a few but overall it seems very solid. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge of the sports titles to make a full list, but I can throw out some suggestions based on my opinion if need be (or if it would actually help)
tell me the few.... maybe you can convince me
Well, this really seems like nitpicking to me but here are some off of the top of my head (mainly due to my experience over the years locally and at conventions and also by comparision to other games that you've marked at certain levels)
Legend - 6/7 (I very rarely see this and compared to other 5's that you have, it's definitely more uncommon than those)
Incantation - 8 (there is a south american/mexican print or something that is different than the "normal" release right? I'm just thinking in terms of the "normal" release. I've never seen one in person)
Ghoul Patrol - 7 (I've only seen this a few times, once CIB)
Joe & Mac - 4 (seems more common than a 5, especially compared to other 5's - see Legend)
Lufia - 4 (same deal with Joe & Mac)
Metal Marines - 8 (took me a very long time to track this down and it was from one vendor at a convention)
Out to Lunch - 5/6 (don't see this all the time and nobody talks about it)
Rival Turf - 3/4 (not as uncommon as the rest of the trilogy, but I don't see it as often as I'd consider other 2's)
SOS - 7 (another game I don't see. I've seen maybe two over the last few years and bought one of them)
I totally appreciate everyone's work on this and these are obviously my opinions and in no way discredit anyone elses.
For the record, I know I'm probably not known as an expert on any given subject around here (maybe Silent Hill ) but I've been collecting SNES for about 5-6 years and have 198 titles, but since I'm not going for the set, I don't know much about some of the sports titles like you, Brock and other full set fellers.