(Not so) newbie questions to proper renaming following TOSEC naming convention

[VG8020]

Hello,

After a few "warm-up" posts, this is my first one with doubts I have now after renaming about 200 videogame translations. I expect to relase a TOSEC dat in due time. First, I need your expertise to advice me on how to deal with issues I have had to face.

Given a videogame released in a disk

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Disk).zip

whose (amateur) translation has been released in rom format (for whatever reason, it does happen). How should we go about it? I thought maybe the [more info] field is the only chance for those details to be registered eg.

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Disk)[tr fi ABC][ROM].zip
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Disk)[tr fi ABC][translation in ROM].zip

Suggestions?


In the case, most commonly, that the translation of a catridge videogame is relased in disk format, I think it should look like

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Disc)[tr fi ABC][ROM].zip
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Disc)[tr fi ABC][ROM translation].zip
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Disc)[tr fi ABC][Disk converted to ROM].zip

Suggestions?


If the file is not the videogame but the patch to apply to the videogame, I've thought using [more info] could be the solution

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Disk)[tr fi ABC][ips patch].zip

Then maybe I should use

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Disk)[tr fi ABC][patched ROM].zip

instead of

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Disk)[tr fi ABC][ROM].zip

since [patched ROM] is more informative. Suggestions?


For an original cartridge release that was patched for a translation, I think it should look like

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Catridge)[tr fi ABC][patched ROM].zip

or maybe

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(ROM)[tr fi ABC][patched ROM].zip

But I think (Catridge) defines better the media type. Suggestions?


When there's several versions of a translation by the same author I think I should rename like

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Catridge)[tr fi ABC][patched ROM][v1].zip
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Catridge)[tr fi ABC][patched ROM][v2].zip

or maybe

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Catridge)[tr fi ABC, v1][patched ROM].zip
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Catridge)[tr fi ABC, v2][patched ROM].zip

in order to make it clear that v1 and v2 refer to the translation to fi by author ABC. Suggestions?


In the case, rarer but I have had to face it, that there are two versions of the same patched rom containing a translation of a cartridge videogame, I think the [a] flag should be used. However, that [a] should be understood to reflect the alternative is the translation, not the original videogame. It should be obvious but just so. Maybe the filename should be renamed to

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Cartridge)[tr fi ABC][patched ROM].zip
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)(Cartridge)[tr fi ABC][patched ROM][a].zip


Well, that's it so far. I appreciate your reading time and look forward to your wise expert comments

Greetins,

[TKaos]

We make different folders for different file formats, no need to but that info in the name as it would make it just much longer, also try to not make the naming over complicated, it is already complicated and imo every name should be read by a user without the need to ask here what it means.
So what it means is IPS patches would go into an own DAT called "Addons & Patches" for example so the filename for it would be just:
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)[tr fi ABC].ips

"For an original cartridge release that was patched for a translation, I think it should look like"
Would be in the [ROM] folder as:
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)[tr fi ABC][patched].rom
and for several versions:
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)[tr fi ABC][patched][v1].rom or [v1 patch]
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)[tr fi ABC][patched][v2].rom or [v2 patch]
for the last case:
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)[tr fi ABC][patched].rom
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)[tr fi ABC][a][patched].rom

Hope I understood all your cases correct, had not really much to do yet with IPS patches and btw the media type is only used when there is more than 1 file of the same game for example (Disk 1 of 2) & (Disk 2 of 2) etc..

[Diaboł]

Why would you use [patched]? I just checked all of the Nintendo TOSEC sets, there's about 2600 translated ROMs and not even one set uses (any sort of) [patched]. If a game (ROM) was translated by a third party team or person it's obvious it had to be patched some way. If it was translated by the original dev team / publisher than we have the language flag.

[VG8020]

Hello,

Thanks to both for your suggestions. Useful indeed. I agree with the idea of sorting stuff into folders according to eg. system flag or as TKaos suggests "Addons & Patches". Actually, that's the way I'll go over it with 99% or my renaming.

However, in the very specific case of translations, I had in mind collecting them in a single folder named "Translations" and include there patched roms and dsks, and ips patches. Just in this very particular case, as I said.

Now, Diabol's view is enlightening and the logic gives no room to doubt. So yes, I think that is the way to go about it. Thanks!

I think I will follow Diabol's advice as well as TKaos concerning removing [patched] but keeping [v1] and so on.

Could you possibly give your views about the first two questions concerning disk released converted to rom and vice versa? They are at the top of my post and yes, they are giving me a headache  

and btw the media type is only used when there is more than 1 file of the same game for example (Disk 1 of 2) & (Disk 2 of 2) etc..

But then we must assume that a translation in ROM format must come from a ROM image (cartridge). However, there may be the case, and there are indeed, that the translation is in ROM format but the original release in DISK format (and vice versa, DISK release but ROM translation) so unless we state the media type the user will not be able to guess what the original media type was. Of course, I'm talking about the very specific case of a "Translations" folder in order to make it clear for the user to know what the original media type was. In any other case (99%) adding that media type would be redundant as the file extension .dsk or .rom or folder sorting according to say system type/media type would make it obvious. Any views?

One more question, what about adding a [more info] field showing original media physical features in disk releases (medium) eg. [2dd], [5x2dd] or sonnd features eg [PSG] and so on? I think that would make the information provided much richer.

eg. in the case videogames are sorted in system type/media type folders:

zyx system type/wvu media type

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)[tr fi ABC][3x2dd][PSG].zip

Yes, it would make filenames a bit longer but I think it'd be worth the few more characters.

Please, anyone join the discussion

Greetings,

[Diaboł]

I'm not very experienced renamer but I can give you the same advice that was given to me. Look at the other's people work. If you have the Nintendo sets it would be a good example. There's a lot of translated and well renamed sets. In TOSEC we basically sort files by extensions and as long as you deal with media (cartridge, floppy, tape, etc.) images I would stick to that. If you have files in .abc format, they all should go to [abc] folder. If you have files in .xyz format they should be placed in [xyz] folder. There's a lot of the same soft in TOSEC in different formats and it's all separated. As far as I know there's no flag in TNC for describing original media type. If you are 100% sure about it you can use the More Info flag if you feel it's essential. Can you give us an example set originaly released as a read/write media then translated and converted to a ROM?

If you want to maintain translation patches do it as we do with other type of software. Keep them in [Translations] or whatever you name it. If your patches are in different formats separate them:

[Translations]
 |
 |-[IPS]
 |-[XPS]

[TKaos]

Well I don't really see a need for the info of the original media type, if you do it in MSX we would have to do it in all DATs that got different file formats.
Also DSK for example is no media type it's just a image type of a disk, same goes for TD0, IMG, IMA and many more just to name a few, so you can't really say "Original release was a DSK file" because someone could also make a TD0 disk image from same release and say that the TD0 is the original file.
For the translations, I'd also just put them in the same folder as the games are, we have the translation flag to show that this is a translated version, no need to put it in an extra DATfile.

[Diaboł]

I thought MSXfreak was talking about translation patches not translated ROMs. As you said there's no need to separate translated ROMs from the rest.

[TKaos]

Heh, yea might have gotten that wrong, did somehow sound like also putting the translated game roms there.

[VG8020]

Hello,

Thank you for your replies.

Can you give us an example set originaly released as a read/write media then translated and converted to a ROM?

Well,if you don't mind, I'll give you an example of a catridge release whose rom image was translated as rom and dsk images: originally released in catridge format/media type:

catridge dump (original dump unknown so no [!])
Parodius - Tako Saves Earth (1988)(Konami)(MSX1)(JP).rom

rom format translation
Parodius - Tako Saves Earth (1988)(Konami)(MSX1)(JP)[tr en A&L Soft][ROM version].rom

flasROM format translation
Parodius - Tako Saves Earth (1988)(Konami)(MSX1)(JP)[tr en A&L Soft][flashROM version].rom

disk translation
Parodius - Tako Saves Earth (1988)(Konami)(MSX1)(JP)[tr en A&L Soft][dsk].zip
zipped files:
PARODIUS.0
PARODIUS.1
PARODIUS.2
PARODIUS.3
PARODIUS.4
PARODIUS.5
PARODIUS.6
PARODIUS.7
PARODIUS.8
PARODIUS.BAS

As you suggested I've been giving a close look at Nintendo Famicom & Entertainment System - Games TOSEC dat lists all videogames according to extension and places original as well translations together so...

Options I can think of:

1.- Place all MSX1 videogames, translations, patches, whatever in the same say TOSEC MSX/VARIOUS/ROMS folder so then...

Parodius - Tako Saves Earth (1988)(Konami)(JP).rom
Parodius - Tako Saves Earth (1988)(Konami)(JP)[tr en A&L Soft][ROM version].rom
Parodius - Tako Saves Earth (1988)(Konami)(JP)[tr en A&L Soft][flashROM version].rom
Parodius - Tako Saves Earth (1988)(Konami)(JP)[tr en A&L Soft][dsk].zip

However, can any user learn from the filenaming in the above 4 filenames what media type the videogame was released as? Definitely not. A rename like say:

Parodius - Tako Saves Earth (1988)(Konami)(JP)(Cartridge)[tr en A&L Soft][dsk].zip

would be definitely more informative. That's my point in say lobbying for the importance of the original media type. Please, observe, I do respect and highly appreciate the work you all have been doing here in TOSEC. So no angry views at all.

Take one more example from current TOSEC MSX/MSX/VARIOUS/DSK

Camelot Warriors (1986)(Dinamic Software)(es).dsk

Two issues about this filename: one, missing country code instead of language code so...

Camelot Warriors (1986)(Dinamic Software)(ES).dsk

second, from that filenaming and folder sorting you might think this videogame was released in disc format when it was actually released as a tape.

If I follow my criterium, I'd rename it to

Camelot Warriors (1986)(Dinamic Software)(ES)(Tape).dsk

That way, we know that even this videogame in this example is a .dsk image, the original one was released as a tape. I hope I made myself clear this time

Please, correct me if I'm wrong but maybe not so much importance has been given to an original media type since in systems such as NES, SNES, MASTER SYSTEM, NDS to name four that come to my mind now, software was/(is?) released in catridge format. So there is no doubt about original media type format in those systems. However, there was more variety in 8-bit computing and in the case of MSX I can think right now of the following media type formats:

tape
disc
catridge
soft cards, hardware by Electric Software, Reisware
beecards, hardware by Hudson Soft
laser disc

As I pointed to PandMonium I guess I'm casting a view of myself as being "more royalist than the king" as the saying goes but the issue is keeping record of original media type as being useful even for historical reasons, not trying to be pretemptious, if we want forthcoming generations to learn more about a particular piece of software by reading the filename, out of context, on its own.


In other order of things, I've seen in the TOSEC dats filenames like...

Code: [Select]

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)[o].zip
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)[o2].zip
TOSEC NC only mentions

Code: [Select]

[o]. However, that unofficial [o2] is shorter than

Code: [Select]

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)[o].zip
Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US)[o][v2].zip
I've seen the same with with [h2]. Any opinions? I think it's unofficial but character-saving.Yes, I'm interested too in character-economy

Well I don't really see a need for the info of the original media type, if you do it in MSX we would have to do it in all DATs that got different file formats.

Well, please observe I don't want you to feel with me it's like "loosing a bull in a china shop". My view is definitely positive and constructive.

And yes, I should have made a difference between disk and .dsk .img .ima and so on. Your reasoning is sound Tkaos, no objections

As far as I know there's no flag in TNC for describing original media type. If you are 100% sure about it you can use the More Info flag if you feel it's essential.

Well, that's a a key issue from my viewpoint. Nothing that cannot be solved with current TOSEC specs, though. Maybe anyone feels that could be added as a new feature to TOSEC NC? After all, I don't think it'd be that difficult. Look:

Legend of TOSEC, The (1986)(Devstudio)(US).zip

Use your preferred bulk filerenamer and rename (US) to (US)(Tape). How many countries in a dat? Then, that many renames. No need to go one by one at all. Just a thought, tough.

Greetings,

[TKaos]

What you are saying is that you would need a TNC change because for now the original media that the software is released is not given in the filename which makes your:
Camelot Warriors (1986)(Dinamic Software)(ES)(Tape).dsk
suggestion wrong.
As I said before, this change would give us a huge problem because we would need to change almost every DAT & find out what the original media of the game was, so I doubt that a change like that will happen.
Also what happens if the orignal release was made on Cartridge/Disk/Tape or Disk/Tape, this often happens in my Atari 8bit DAT, so how would I need to change the filename ?

Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Bram)(US)[req OSb].atx (disk image)
Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Bram)(US)(Side A)[req OSb].cas (tape image)
Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Romox)(US)[req OSb].rom (cartridge by other publisher)
Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Romox)(US)[req OSb][k-file].atr (disk image made from cartridge)
Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Romox)(US)[req OSb].xex (executable from cartridge)

The Bram disk and tape release is original media type, same goes for the Romox cartridge release.
The changes we all would have to do in our DATs would imo be too huge to implent that change and to me it doesn't really look like a very important information, ok it can be nice to know wether a game was released originally as disk or not but is it really that important to make such a huge change in our TNC?


As for the overdump flag, I think it was implented for the Amiga DATs because if you transfered disks it could happen that the program transfered 880kb to the PC + some garbage which made the file bigger (e.g. ~882kb), the file then isn't useless, still works in emulator so the file gets an overdump flag flag.
If you have another file with same filename it simply gets [o2], [o3], [o4] etc.

Btw don't take the SNES / NES DATs as an example how to do hacks, it's really ugly with it's [h212] or something like that.
We discussed that before but came to no real decision, the idea was to write a name "Hack title (release)(publisher)[game title hack]" instead of "Game title (release)(publisher)[h21]", it'll be much nicer like that cause you could for example give all Super Mario World hacks a name instead of numbering each hack without knowing the real name the hack was called.

[VG8020]

Hello,

As I said before, this change would give us a huge problem because we would need to change almost every DAT & find

out what the original media of the game was, so I doubt that a change like that will happen.

No problem, anyway. As I said, I'm much fond of TOSEC NC and I think the support in this forum is fantastic.

Also what happens if the orignal release was made on Cartridge/Disk/Tape or Disk/Tape, this often happens in my

Atari 8bit DAT, so how would I need to change the filename ?

Yeah, I had thought about that possibility too as a number of MSX videogames were released in tape and disc formats, or

catridge and tape formats. So for your filenames I would propose adding a compound original media type field eg. (tape-disc)

or (catridge-tape) following the country field (or language field if there were such) for the two cases I've

mentioned.

In the case of your Atari disc/tape releases they would look...

Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Bram)(US)(tape-disc)[req OSb].atx (disk image)
Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Bram)(US)(tape-disc)(Side A)[req OSb].cas (tape image)
Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Romox)(US)(tape-disc)[req OSb].rom (cartridge by other publisher)
Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Romox)(US)(tape-disc)[req OSb][k-file].atr (disk image made from cartridge)
Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Romox)(US)(tape-disc)[req OSb].xex (executable from cartridge)

Easy bulk filename renaming. And now you could ask, and how could an end-user know whether the Atari .atx disc image was made from a tape or a

disc? Well, since it's a disc image it should come from a disc, but we shouldn't take that assumption for granted. Easy. If the .atx is known to come from a disc then we could use the Known Good Dump flag [!] eg.

Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Bram)(US)(tape-disc[!])[req OSb].atx (disk image)

If it came from a tape the flag would be attached to disc (that'd mean that the original videogame was released in tape and disc formats, that this copy is a dump from the tape and that that dump was converted to .atx disc format):

Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Bram)(US)(tape[!]-disc)[req OSb].atx (disk image)

The case above is very similar to the one I showed about MSX videogames released in format A but a copy is in format B).

And if we could not trace the origin of the .atx, no Known Good Dump flag would be attached any media type:

Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Bram)(US)(tape-disc)[req OSb].atx (disk image)

If you feel [!] might be misleading because it's already in use for the Known Good Dump flag, a different flag might be made use of, eg.

Code: [Select]

[#]
(tape-disc[!]) means the original media type is a disc
[!] on its own means Known Good Dump

Code: [Select]

(tape-disc[#]) means the original media type is a disc too
Eg. if...

Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Bram)(US)(tape[!]-disc)[req OSb].atx (disk image)

might be misleading because it seems like a contradiction: a tape Known Good Dump in .atx disk image format?! Then...

Code: [Select]

Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Bram)(US)(tape[#]-disc)[req OSb].atx (disk image)
would erase any doubt as one flag would be for known good dumps and the other flag to mean original media type.

Code: [Select]

[#] could be productive... Let's see...

Code: [Select]

Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Bram)(US)(tape-disc[#])[req OSb].atx (disk image)
That is a videogame originally released in disc format and this .atx copy is a disk image

Code: [Select]

Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Bram)(US)(tape-disc[#])[req OSb][!].atx (disk image)
That is a videogame originally released in disc format and this .atx copy is a known good dump disk image

Code: [Select]

Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Bram)(US)(tape[#]-disc)[req OSb].atx (disk image)
That is a videogame originally released in tape format and this .atx copy is a disk image (for whatever reason the videogame was converted from tape format to disc format)

So that'd be my proposal. I think it works properly within the TOSEC NC framework, it does not imply a need to create new flags or fields (Known Good Dump flag and media type fields have already been devised, unless we want further clarity and use

Code: [Select]

[#]) (which I personally prefer) and it is already comprehensible by current TOSEC NC standard.

The changes we all would have to do in our DATs would imo be too huge to implent that change and to me it doesn't really look like a very important information,

Yes, TKaos, I see your point perfectly. It's logical and sensible too.

ok it can be nice to know wether a game was released originally as disk or not but is it really that important to make such a huge change in our TNC?

Well, from my viewpoint that's the key issue but it DOES NOT mean any change must be made to TNC unless you agree to it. That's something that depends on you and it's allright. As I see it, it's not just a matter of extending TOSEC NC for the sake of it. It's a different positioning concerning what TOSEC could really achieve:

One: as of now, a well-thought filenaming convention that may be applied to as many systems as there may be, which is already brilliant!

And two: same as one plus: by providing richer info in the filename TOSEC could be turned into a naming convention that might allow researchers/users/gamers/forthcoming generations/... to learn a good deal more from a filename than TOSEC probably ever was meant to be. That'd mean extending TOSEC's horizon: "to boldly go..." you know if you've seen Star Trek  

I think both options are perfectly valid. I'm still thinking about how I'll go about it: either stick to TOSEC NC 100% or maybe go on my own with an unofficial TOSEC NC-based filenaming system closer to the proposals I've put forward. Or maybe just something in the middle.

In any case, I do appreciate your reading time and replies. It's really supportive and I'm glad I've joined this forum!

Greetings,

[TKaos]

I think both options are perfectly valid. I'm still thinking about how I'll go about it: either stick to TOSEC NC 100% or maybe go on my own with an unofficial TOSEC NC-based filenaming system closer to the proposals I've put forward. Or maybe just something in the middle.

You're missing one thing here, all DATs we have follow TNC 99% (there are known errors from old renamers that are being fixed atm) and a DAT that doesn't follow it can't be released, we have to stick to these TNC rules, else the project would just be a big mess of filenames without any logic behind the names.
You can always discuss stuff here but in my opinion the original media label as you do it in your example will only cause a huge confusion + alot of work because all current DATs would have to be rechecked over the time.

And in the end you have to face the truth that most people just collect TOSEC because it's one of the huge collections out on the net without even being interested in how specific the names are.
Then we also have to think about what is wanted/usefull for the people that collect TOSEC and care about our naming, for sure there will be people out there that appreciate the details of the original media label but I think it's too few that would actually care about it to do such a huge TNC change.




About your example:
Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Romox)(US)(tape-disc)[req OSb].rom (cartridge by other publisher)
Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Romox)(US)(tape-disc)[req OSb][k-file].atr (disk image made from cartridge)
Attack at EP-CYG-4 (1982)(Romox)(US)(tape-disc)[req OSb].xex (executable from cartridge)
I wouldn't agree with it because the tape version was not released by Romox, so in that case the Romox releases shouldn't have the (tape-disc) but the (disk) label inside.

[VG8020]

Hello,

TKaos, thank you once more for writing back. Great support!

I think both options are perfectly valid. I'm still thinking about how I'll go about it: either stick to TOSEC NC 100% or maybe go on my own with an unofficial TOSEC NC-based filenaming system closer to the proposals I've put forward. Or maybe just something in the middle.

I see your point. No problem. I'm sticking to TOSEC NC for the greater benefit of mankind

I wouldn't agree with it because the tape version was not released by Romox, so in that case the Romox releases shouldn't have the (tape-disc) but the (disk) label inside.

Ah! But I had no idea about that so I was only guessing. That's not a system I'm familiar with.

BTW, I have a couple more questions that I'd like to discuss:

1.- Developer vs. Publisher
Sometimes they are the same, sometimes they are different, sometimes one or the other is unknown, sometimes the save videogame has different welcome screens for different publishers. How to deal with that? Tosec Naming Convention (2009-12-24) - Publisher offers useful info. However, I think I don't think the picture I propose can be fully covered with current TOSEC specification. Maybe two fields (Publisher)(Developer) in case both are known and that issue makes a difference in say the welcome screen? I'd like to hear anyone's view.

2.- What are the steps to follow once I've updated the current TOSEC MSX database? I've updated only those dats in which there's been changes (additions, filename corrections and so on). Should the list be published in a new post?

Greetings,

[VG8020]

Hello,

May I just ask for your attention concerning two further items:

1.- developer and publisher issue in my previous post

2.- MSX system: concerning system flags, yes, they should be edited to reflect:

MSX
MSX2
MSX2+
MSX TurboR

instead of current

MSX MSX - Firmware
MSX System v4.0 + MSX BASIC (1990)(Microsoft)(TURBO-R ST)[MSXTR.ROM]
MSX System v4.1 + MSX BASIC (1990)(Microsoft)(TURBO-R GT)[MSXTR.ROM]

These (MSX, MSX2, MSX2+, MSX TurboR) are independent systems with backwards compatibility, but no forward compatibility (obviously) so eg. an MSX videogame can be played in MSX2+ but not vice versa.

Your current MSX system flags are of no use really since there's no videogames for the
e.g MSX System v4.0 + MSX BASIC (1990)(Microsoft)(TURBO-R ST)[MSXTR.ROM]

Please, note MSX System v4.0 + MSX BASIC (1990) makes reference to the operating system used by turboR computers, nothing else. It's not a system on itw own. Same for ST.

I'd be glad to add a description for each MSX system so that it can fill the Description field.

TKaos, I'd like to hear from you too, of course.

Greetings,

[TKaos]

Well the only thing we need is publisher info, there may be sometimes ~3 different publishers for one game but all should have same developer, I think that earlier it was decided to use Publisher only because they are different sometimes and it would be easier to show with the publisher flag that 2 games for example are different.
Of course it may be nice to know the developer too but TNC says publisher only and to be honest, I don't want to be the one that adds a developer to all the sets in my DATs, so I don't think that this will ever be changed in TNC.


In Atari 8bit & Apple II I'm also using system flags but not that many yet, still need to check files out more.
Anyway I use system flags when I know that the game only runs for a specific Atari computer or Apple II (for example IIE / II+), I know that MSX uses alot of different descriptions but I'm not that familiar with them to help you.