Divide stuff into just three categories first, common, uncommon, and rare. There will be clear discrepancies allowing you to fit in another few ranks, maybe you can keep doing that up to point that you get 10 ranks like NA.
It's all subjective and since NA has a 1-10 scale then the ultimate goal is to get there, but for starters I think doing a smaller scale would be easier to generalize things and then work your way between the categories.
As far as keeping every simple out of the gate, I'm on board with this idea, PROVIDED we can all agree to what the definitions of common, uncommon and rare are.
I hate NA database labels on the 1-10. I feel it should be more weighted to the common side. Uncommon should be 5. Should all be moved back 1 on the labels of the numbers. I dont understand why you have to gave wudespread, very common. Tgose are tge same tging. I dont see tge difference. Eliminate widespread.
I hate NA database labels on the 1-10. I feel it should be more weighted to the common side. Uncommon should be 5. Should all be moved back 1 on the labels of the numbers. I dont understand why you have to gave wudespread, very common. Tgose are tge same tging. I dont see tge difference. Eliminate widespread.
I think it may be easier for everyone to use that 5 as a gauge initially. Place all games that classify above that, then the rest below and we can start dissecting from there?
Uh oh...a revolution is beginning! And doner's trying to nip it in the bud! Hahaha
I think what Joseph was suggesting in his most recent post - is that internally as the rarity numbers are being evaluated and discussed, that it may be easier to group them all into main groups and then subdivide further into 1-10, just as a matter of process in trying to define values to all of them, before updating the database.
I do think a simpler system could be beneficial at some point, but I know that wasn't the initial purpose here and also understand that the existing database and structure is setup for the 1-10 system it has always been. There are pros and cons to any type of system, and different people are going to want different things.
The ultimate goal is to get it into NA and since we use 1-10 here then that's what needs be done. Perfection is the absolute enemy of good like said above, and any improvement for SNES DB is better than what we've got now.
Again sorry for the derail. I'll see what I can contribute later since I've got heavy into SNES a few months ago.
For our purposes here, let's just stick with 1-10. I can't offer an admin data with a 1-5 system and say "load this"
Alternatively, if you really want to do a 1-5 system, I can call those scores 1,3,5,7, and 9 (with 10 being reserved for something like MACS) and convert them for you. Though really the unofficial cutoff for retail releases here seems to be an 8
Personally why does it have to be 1-10? 1-5 would be easier overall.
no shrinking it actually makes it harder and lumps games into rarity levels together that dont make sense.
1-10 is fine
The whole point of this is to fix the NA database. We cant change the way the database is. So lets keep it simple. Propose your 1-10 and changes and brock will help group peoples opinions up
For what it's worth here is a quick list I put together of possible adjustments to the guide I could find. (They don't include your recommendations which I pretty much agree with as well)
Games that could be raised:
Cacoma Knight 3 >5
Captain Commando 6>7
Combatribes 5>6
Earth Defense Force 2>3
Imperium 6>7
Joe & Mac 2 5>6
Operation Logic Bomb 5>6
Pinocchio 1>3
Rampart 1>3
Ren & Stimpy Buckeroo$ 6>8
Tin Star 1>2
Turtles Tournament Fighters 1>2
Games that could be lowered:
Kirby Super Star 5>3
Math Blaster 7>5
Ren & Stimpy Fire Dogs 7>6
TMNT IV 2>1
Wizard of Oz 7>5
I'll incorporate those in the next couple hours
I also think that if a person want to object to a change, we can discuss it in the thread and decide how to proceed
I disagree about lowering some games to 1 like TMNT IV. Its not rare, but people cmon. 1s are the games you see in every lot. Top Gear, Vegas Stakes, Caesers Palace, Mario World, NHLPA 93, zoop, george foreman boxing, madden 92-96, fifa international soccer, wheel of fortune deluxe edition, etc. 2s and 3s are common games too . save the 1s for the annoying games that you cant give away that are in every lot. Alot of popular stuff is on the common side, but its not in every single lot and sitting on the shelf in multiple copies at every single store. Thats what a 1 is. Popular games that are more likely 1s are DKC and mario world. TMNT IV's and Super Metroids are more 2s and 3s level commons. While you see them. They arent in every snes lot or game store.
cacoma knight is also rarer than a 5. I think some of you are too nervous to have a bold suggestion and looking at barely ticking these up. The snes database is a mess and almost needs to be thrown out all together. Dont use the number listed as a starting spot. Scrap it and come up with a number on your own.
In a formula I'm thinking of, Common & Inexpensive games would deserve a 1. Common/Semi-Common & Expensive (Like TMNT IV) would get something like a 3-4.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
In a formula I'm thinking of, Common & Inexpensive games would deserve a 1. Common/Semi-Common & Expensive (Like TMNT IV) would get something like a 3-4.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
Price shouldn't be a factor since it will fluctuate. It should all be about availabilty imo
In a formula I'm thinking of, Common & Inexpensive games would deserve a 1. Common/Semi-Common & Expensive (Like TMNT IV) would get something like a 3-4.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
Price shouldn't be a factor since it will fluctuate. It should all be about availabilty imo
and availability has to be weighed. IMO just because it has mutliple online doesnt mean its common. It usually just means its pricey. Have to weigh online availability with finding it in the wild at a gamestore or craigslist lot etc.
In a formula I'm thinking of, Common & Inexpensive games would deserve a 1. Common/Semi-Common & Expensive (Like TMNT IV) would get something like a 3-4.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
Price shouldn't be a factor since it will fluctuate. It should all be about availabilty imo
and availability has to be weighed. IMO just because it has mutliple online doesnt mean its common. It usually just means its pricey. Have to weigh online availability with finding it in the wild at a gamestore or craigslist lot etc.
Turtles in Time had 2 Made in Japan print runs and an Assembled in Mexico Majesco print too, so it isn't rare at all. lol
In a formula I'm thinking of, Common & Inexpensive games would deserve a 1. Common/Semi-Common & Expensive (Like TMNT IV) would get something like a 3-4.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
Price shouldn't be a factor since it will fluctuate. It should all be about availabilty imo
and availability has to be weighed. IMO just because it has mutliple online doesnt mean its common. It usually just means its pricey. Have to weigh online availability with finding it in the wild at a gamestore or craigslist lot etc.
Turtles in Time had 2 Made in Japan print runs and an Assembled in Mexico Majesco print too, so it isn't rare at all. lol
did you not see my previous post? 2s and 3s are commons too. TMNT IV is not a 1 like the other guy was suggesting. I explained my opinion in the last post on the previous page if you missed it. I view TMNT IV at like a 2.5 ish
In a formula I'm thinking of, Common & Inexpensive games would deserve a 1. Common/Semi-Common & Expensive (Like TMNT IV) would get something like a 3-4.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
Price shouldn't be a factor since it will fluctuate. It should all be about availabilty imo
and availability has to be weighed. IMO just because it has mutliple online doesnt mean its common. It usually just means its pricey. Have to weigh online availability with finding it in the wild at a gamestore or craigslist lot etc.
Turtles in Time had 2 Made in Japan print runs and an Assembled in Mexico Majesco print too, so it isn't rare at all. lol
did you not see my previous post? 2s and 3s are commons too. TMNT IV is not a 1 like the other guy was suggesting. I explained my opinion in the last post on the previous page if you missed it. I view TMNT IV at like a 2.5 ish
I actually agree with Quest. A 1 should be reserved for stuff that is virtually ubiquitous, and I think that applies to very few SNES games in practice. Super Mario World, Donkey Kong Country, Zelda etc are legit 1. I don't think TMNT falls into that same category, just look at the online availability of the games I listed versus TMNT, there is a huge difference.
I actually agree with Quest. A 1 should be reserved for stuff that is virtually ubiquitous, and I think that applies to very few SNES games in practice. Super Mario World, Donkey Kong Country, Zelda etc are legit 1. I don't think TMNT falls into that same category, just look at the online availability of the games I listed versus TMNT, there is a huge difference.
He said 2.5. Do you round that down to a 2 or bump it up to a 3?
It's not a 3 when you compare it to the rest of 3s on the list or you would need to bump most of those up a few points too.
In a formula I'm thinking of, Common & Inexpensive games would deserve a 1. Common/Semi-Common & Expensive (Like TMNT IV) would get something like a 3-4.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
Price shouldn't be a factor since it will fluctuate. It should all be about availabilty imo
and availability has to be weighed. IMO just because it has mutliple online doesnt mean its common. It usually just means its pricey. Have to weigh online availability with finding it in the wild at a gamestore or craigslist lot etc.
Turtles in Time had 2 Made in Japan print runs and an Assembled in Mexico Majesco print too, so it isn't rare at all. lol
did you not see my previous post? 2s and 3s are commons too. TMNT IV is not a 1 like the other guy was suggesting. I explained my opinion in the last post on the previous page if you missed it. I view TMNT IV at like a 2.5 ish
How can a game with 3 print runs be a "2.5 ish" ?
I dont know about you, but i see far fewer tmnt IVs than all the other shit thats a 1. In my mind its more a 3, but understanding how well it sold and that I do see it often enough, I gave it a 2. Donkey Kong Country is an example of a snes popular game that is a 1. Turtles in Time isnt near as common as donkey kong country. I cant lump those together. It just doesnt make sense. I dont think Ive purchased a reasonable size snes lot and not had dkc in it lol. mario world is also the popular game example of an R1. Id put link to the past in as an R1 as well. But other common popular stuff like TMNT IV, Contra III, Castlevania IV, Super Metroid. That stuff is R2 and R3 imo. Turtles and contra I lean towards a 2 while metroid and castlevania I lean more to 3
R1 is for dirt commons you basically trip over in the wild. While some are more popular and they might not be stacked up at a gamestore you know what im talking about
R1 is the lowest it goes. TMNT IV is not the lowest rarity level of the system. period
Comments
Any improvement will be a good start.
Originally posted by: Stryphos
Originally posted by: JosephLeo
It's a moot point since NA is 1-10.
But I can see how stuff falls between numbers.
Divide stuff into just three categories first, common, uncommon, and rare. There will be clear discrepancies allowing you to fit in another few ranks, maybe you can keep doing that up to point that you get 10 ranks like NA.
It's all subjective and since NA has a 1-10 scale then the ultimate goal is to get there, but for starters I think doing a smaller scale would be easier to generalize things and then work your way between the categories.
As far as keeping every simple out of the gate, I'm on board with this idea, PROVIDED we can all agree to what the definitions of common, uncommon and rare are.
Yeah, im for it.
Originally posted by: quest4nes
I hate NA database labels on the 1-10. I feel it should be more weighted to the common side. Uncommon should be 5. Should all be moved back 1 on the labels of the numbers. I dont understand why you have to gave wudespread, very common. Tgose are tge same tging. I dont see tge difference. Eliminate widespread.
I think it may be easier for everyone to use that 5 as a gauge initially. Place all games that classify above that, then the rest below and we can start dissecting from there?
I think what Joseph was suggesting in his most recent post - is that internally as the rarity numbers are being evaluated and discussed, that it may be easier to group them all into main groups and then subdivide further into 1-10, just as a matter of process in trying to define values to all of them, before updating the database.
I do think a simpler system could be beneficial at some point, but I know that wasn't the initial purpose here and also understand that the existing database and structure is setup for the 1-10 system it has always been. There are pros and cons to any type of system, and different people are going to want different things.
Sorry for derailing.
.
The ultimate goal is to get it into NA and since we use 1-10 here then that's what needs be done. Perfection is the absolute enemy of good like said above, and any improvement for SNES DB is better than what we've got now.
Again sorry for the derail. I'll see what I can contribute later since I've got heavy into SNES a few months ago.
Everyone carry on. I suggest a complete overhaul after multiple people post their opinions and some deliberation
1 & 2 = 1
3 & 4 = 2
5 & 6 = 3
7 & 8 = 4
9 & 10 = 5
Or...
1 - 3 = 1
4 - 6 = 2
7 - 10 = 3
Alternatively, if you really want to do a 1-5 system, I can call those scores 1,3,5,7, and 9 (with 10 being reserved for something like MACS) and convert them for you. Though really the unofficial cutoff for retail releases here seems to be an 8
Personally why does it have to be 1-10? 1-5 would be easier overall.
no shrinking it actually makes it harder and lumps games into rarity levels together that dont make sense.
1-10 is fine
The whole point of this is to fix the NA database. We cant change the way the database is. So lets keep it simple. Propose your 1-10 and changes and brock will help group peoples opinions up
And I agree 1-10 is fine. 1-5 just compromises the definition of what is considered rare.
For what it's worth here is a quick list I put together of possible adjustments to the guide I could find. (They don't include your recommendations which I pretty much agree with as well)
Games that could be raised:
Cacoma Knight 3 >5
Captain Commando 6>7
Combatribes 5>6
Earth Defense Force 2>3
Imperium 6>7
Joe & Mac 2 5>6
Operation Logic Bomb 5>6
Pinocchio 1>3
Rampart 1>3
Ren & Stimpy Buckeroo$ 6>8
Tin Star 1>2
Turtles Tournament Fighters 1>2
Games that could be lowered:
Kirby Super Star 5>3
Math Blaster 7>5
Ren & Stimpy Fire Dogs 7>6
TMNT IV 2>1
Wizard of Oz 7>5
I'll incorporate those in the next couple hours
I also think that if a person want to object to a change, we can discuss it in the thread and decide how to proceed
cacoma knight is also rarer than a 5. I think some of you are too nervous to have a bold suggestion and looking at barely ticking these up. The snes database is a mess and almost needs to be thrown out all together. Dont use the number listed as a starting spot. Scrap it and come up with a number on your own.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
Originally posted by: ULTRACASTLE00
In a formula I'm thinking of, Common & Inexpensive games would deserve a 1. Common/Semi-Common & Expensive (Like TMNT IV) would get something like a 3-4.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
Price shouldn't be a factor since it will fluctuate. It should all be about availabilty imo
Axelay: 4
Bassin Black Bass: 6
Brainies: 6/7
Chavez II: 6
D-Force: 4
DK Comp: 8/9
International Superstar Soccer Deluxe: 6/7
Ignition Factor: 5
Jimmy Connors Tennis: 6
Jimmy Houston Fishing: 7
Kawasaki Superbike: 8
Mark Davis Fishing: 7
Math Blaster: 5
Moving Target Simulator: 10
MACS (both label variants): 9/10
Nosferatu: 6
Phalanx: 4
Pushover: 7
Road to Glory 94: 7
Super Buster Bros: 6
Sink Or Swim: 8
Super EDF: 3/4
Star Fox Super Weekend: 8
Street Racer: 7
Stone Protectors: 7
Zero Kamikaze: 6
In a formula I'm thinking of, Common & Inexpensive games would deserve a 1. Common/Semi-Common & Expensive (Like TMNT IV) would get something like a 3-4.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
Price shouldn't be a factor since it will fluctuate. It should all be about availabilty imo
and availability has to be weighed. IMO just because it has mutliple online doesnt mean its common. It usually just means its pricey. Have to weigh online availability with finding it in the wild at a gamestore or craigslist lot etc.
In a formula I'm thinking of, Common & Inexpensive games would deserve a 1. Common/Semi-Common & Expensive (Like TMNT IV) would get something like a 3-4.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
Price shouldn't be a factor since it will fluctuate. It should all be about availabilty imo
and availability has to be weighed. IMO just because it has mutliple online doesnt mean its common. It usually just means its pricey. Have to weigh online availability with finding it in the wild at a gamestore or craigslist lot etc.
Turtles in Time had 2 Made in Japan print runs and an Assembled in Mexico Majesco print too, so it isn't rare at all. lol
In a formula I'm thinking of, Common & Inexpensive games would deserve a 1. Common/Semi-Common & Expensive (Like TMNT IV) would get something like a 3-4.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
Price shouldn't be a factor since it will fluctuate. It should all be about availabilty imo
and availability has to be weighed. IMO just because it has mutliple online doesnt mean its common. It usually just means its pricey. Have to weigh online availability with finding it in the wild at a gamestore or craigslist lot etc.
Turtles in Time had 2 Made in Japan print runs and an Assembled in Mexico Majesco print too, so it isn't rare at all. lol
did you not see my previous post? 2s and 3s are commons too. TMNT IV is not a 1 like the other guy was suggesting. I explained my opinion in the last post on the previous page if you missed it. I view TMNT IV at like a 2.5 ish
In a formula I'm thinking of, Common & Inexpensive games would deserve a 1. Common/Semi-Common & Expensive (Like TMNT IV) would get something like a 3-4.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
Price shouldn't be a factor since it will fluctuate. It should all be about availabilty imo
and availability has to be weighed. IMO just because it has mutliple online doesnt mean its common. It usually just means its pricey. Have to weigh online availability with finding it in the wild at a gamestore or craigslist lot etc.
Turtles in Time had 2 Made in Japan print runs and an Assembled in Mexico Majesco print too, so it isn't rare at all. lol
did you not see my previous post? 2s and 3s are commons too. TMNT IV is not a 1 like the other guy was suggesting. I explained my opinion in the last post on the previous page if you missed it. I view TMNT IV at like a 2.5 ish
How can a game with 3 print runs be a "2.5 ish" ?
Chubby Cherub on the NES
Rarity (cart): 4
Price: 7 ($75+)
It's also flagged as a 9 (Box) and a 7 (Manual)
I actually agree with Quest. A 1 should be reserved for stuff that is virtually ubiquitous, and I think that applies to very few SNES games in practice. Super Mario World, Donkey Kong Country, Zelda etc are legit 1. I don't think TMNT falls into that same category, just look at the online availability of the games I listed versus TMNT, there is a huge difference.
He said 2.5. Do you round that down to a 2 or bump it up to a 3?
It's not a 3 when you compare it to the rest of 3s on the list or you would need to bump most of those up a few points too.
In a formula I'm thinking of, Common & Inexpensive games would deserve a 1. Common/Semi-Common & Expensive (Like TMNT IV) would get something like a 3-4.
Does anyone know of a good formula that combines rarity & price?
Price shouldn't be a factor since it will fluctuate. It should all be about availabilty imo
and availability has to be weighed. IMO just because it has mutliple online doesnt mean its common. It usually just means its pricey. Have to weigh online availability with finding it in the wild at a gamestore or craigslist lot etc.
Turtles in Time had 2 Made in Japan print runs and an Assembled in Mexico Majesco print too, so it isn't rare at all. lol
did you not see my previous post? 2s and 3s are commons too. TMNT IV is not a 1 like the other guy was suggesting. I explained my opinion in the last post on the previous page if you missed it. I view TMNT IV at like a 2.5 ish
How can a game with 3 print runs be a "2.5 ish" ?
I dont know about you, but i see far fewer tmnt IVs than all the other shit thats a 1. In my mind its more a 3, but understanding how well it sold and that I do see it often enough, I gave it a 2. Donkey Kong Country is an example of a snes popular game that is a 1. Turtles in Time isnt near as common as donkey kong country. I cant lump those together. It just doesnt make sense. I dont think Ive purchased a reasonable size snes lot and not had dkc in it lol. mario world is also the popular game example of an R1. Id put link to the past in as an R1 as well. But other common popular stuff like TMNT IV, Contra III, Castlevania IV, Super Metroid. That stuff is R2 and R3 imo. Turtles and contra I lean towards a 2 while metroid and castlevania I lean more to 3
R1 is for dirt commons you basically trip over in the wild. While some are more popular and they might not be stacked up at a gamestore you know what im talking about
R1 is the lowest it goes. TMNT IV is not the lowest rarity level of the system. period
I'll flag 1 example...
Chubby Cherub on the NES
Rarity (cart): 4
Price: 7 ($75+)
It's also flagged as a 9 (Box) and a 7 (Manual)
its rarer than a 4. Its more like a 6. All the databases need work. That box though is every bit the 9
SNES currently has 222 R1s...
Should I even mention the Sega consoles and the Playstation 1; those which dont even have a rarity rank?
Most expertise here is in NES, SNES and N64. Later stuff gets sketchier. Gamecube and on have unfilled ranks as well.