State of the Nintendo Handheld games (GB, GBC, GBA, NDS) with TOSEC

[shakeyourbunny]

It is a bit odd that there is not much love for the line of the Nintendo Handheld Consoles... or are there some reasons why a complete system (GB Advance) is missing? I do know that the most recent release is some sort of "hello, we aren't dead yet" but I'd know if there are some updates planned..

As of TOSEC 2009-12-27 the current state is:

- Nintendo Gameboy (2009-12-24): 63 games
- Nintendo Gameboy Color (2009-12-24): 35 games
- Nintentdo Gameboy Advance: does not exist in TOSEC (yet)
- Nintentdo Gameboy DS: does not exist in TOSEC (yet)

I dont know if this would be a problem if somebody would import the no-intro (NDS) / GoodTools database (GB, GBC, GBA) into TOSEC and do some cleanup. This would speed up the process of cataloging the games and such import was already done (eg for Nintendo 64, Wonderswan, NeoGeo Pocket ... at least I had the impression that the GoodTools and TOSEC datas are very similar).

What are your thoughts about this?

[Cassiel]

I personally started the GB/GBC DATs with the intention of adding a lot more later on. Recently I've been concentrating on all the Sega DATs much more (in particular the MD/Genesis DATs) as well as adding proper language codes to existing Sega/Nintendo/Misc DATs (as well as LOTS of verifying/correcting here-and-there before the last 'proper' release) so this has been delayed somewhat.

My plan is, once MD is more complete to concentrate on GB/GBC next so expect a lot more activity on these hand-held DATs soon.

GBA has not been started yet, but will be added in time (though could be considered a bit to 'new' still, so may concentrate on other stuff first).

IMO NDS/NDSi is too recent/current to be included in TOSEC yet, and since there's so many other systems to concentrate on and a finite amount of time to dedicate, I don't really see it worth debating that point to much yet (though could be interesting in the future).... ;-)

Again, NDS/NDSi/new-cool-handheld-system will obviously be included going forward though..... just might not be today/tomorrow.

In regards to Non-Good/No-Intro/GoodTools, whilst these projects are valuable in themselves (and indeed contribute in a non-direct manner to this project) no one project contains all the file/ROM info (and frequently the range of images) that we include.

We will get there though, promise  

[Maddog]

Bumping a year old topic.
I actually indulged for my own fun in some DS and GBA dumping recently and also shared my dumps info with No Intro.

I was wondering if it's about time to
1) add DS dats to TOSEC, since the system is on the way out and 3DS is already in the market for several months.
2) mark some GBA stuff as [!], when my personal dump and the scene dump have the same crc. I feel it's a completely legit [!] dump in this case. Same applies for the DS of course, but we need first to take a decision if we want DS stuff now or wait a while longer.

[PandMonium]

Hey Maddog,

Don't know what the others might think about it but NDS stuff is probably too recent (at least IMHO) to be added right now to TOSEC.
As for the GBA dumps, i guess if the dumping method is the same and you get matches from different media dumps it could be marked. It is a similar situation to what happens with isos, right?

[Cassiel]

Agreed – it’s far too early for the NDS/NDSi/3DS range. This platform is still being manufactured and sold commercially. I will be added in time, but definitely not yet.

Regarding, the [!] flag I’m so sure about this either - this is why it’s limited to TOSEC-ISO. Originally this was a (misguided IMO) hold over of Matt Cowering’s (prevalent at the time) GoodTools and frequently misused.

I think [!] works (worked    ) very well in TOSEC-ISO, just due to the nature of the ‘variable’ results you can get when ripping tracks. Having a proper, structured (and specific) ‘verification’ process for TOSEC-ISO was a must. This is less of an issue in TOSEC (main), and would obviously be a more complex issue with many different types of image and file formats to take into account.

Additionally, it’s also a bit of a pain in the arse politically. Who do you ‘trust’ for example? Why x and not y? What if x makes a couple of errors regarding verifying, does that invalidate all their previous validations too? I known this is something Cowering still struggles with, and he has a much smaller focus than we do.

The main TOSEC branch of renamers all seem to work together quite well (though obviously don’t always agree!) and would hate to see any bad feelings over who’s ‘good enough’ to verify dumps or accusations over technical competency. You of all people know how quickly a project (TOSEC-ISO) can implode when elitist people start acting like dicks…..

Sorry to sound so negative to both…. 

[Maddog]

NP, just thought I'd offer my most recent work to my first allegiance. It still finds a good home at No Intro.
Needless to say, if you ever change your mind about DS (time passes...) give me a shout.

[PandMonium]

They will be added someday and your work in it is valuable even atm (NDS, GBA shouldn't be a problem).
IMHO i just think that adding these dats in tosec official releases and hosting them for such a recent system can bad for the project.