Alex

Okay, we need some European help. I'm scanning a bunch of PAL carts and in the process learning a bit more about them. Can anyone give some insight into Funvision? Like a list of what games you own? We have seven titles currently listed for Funvision here: http://www.atariage.com/company_page.html?...0&CompanyID=139 There are already scans online for Galactic, Pac Kong, and Time Race if you click on the title. However, I have quite a few carts in that style, which I have been calling "V Case" after the "V" molded into the top of the cart. But I don't know if they're actually Funvision or just some bootleg in the same case style, can anyone help? Here are the other titles I have: Frogger Duck Fighting Donkey Kong Ocean City Fire Burg Fortress Defense Super-Man 128 Game 16 Game And a bunch of 8-in-1 multicarts So, does anyone have a collection of Funvision boxes to verify any of these? Actually, the only boxes I can recall right now are Spider Monster and Space Monster at GameReset. One other thing I noticed - Galactic, Pac Kong, and Time Race all have the name on the front of the case, while the other carts listed above do not. However, GameReset also lists Ski, and it does not have the title on the front label. Anyone have boxes to these games, or more information? Galactic: Ski:

We have Laser Base online, is the resolution not high enough? http://www.atariage.com/cart_page.html?Sof...ItemTypeID=CART And here is Hell Driver, it just hasn't made it into the database yet: http://www.atariage.com/2600/carts/c_HellD...r_ITT_front.jpg http://www.atariage.com/2600/carts/c_HellD...ver_ITT_end.jpg

Thanks, fixed.

I'm not stating my opinion, just trying to clarify what the idea is behind answer #2. It seemed from your previous post that you weren't clear on what we meant, so I was giving an example. It seems then that you would choose answer #1.

Surely, saying that unique titles should be given a single rarity would also collapse all label variations down to a single rarity, which would be too low for some variants and too high for others. I don't know how managable or unmanagable the database is at the moment, but surely we should be breaking things down into finer and finer detail as time goes by, not merging records and losing data. No, nobody is saying that unique titles should be given a single rarity. Only that unique titles from predominately bootleg companies should also have a rarity, in addition to the official releases and label variations. For example, unknown Taiwan company releases their version of Frogger. It's simply Frogger with their bootleg label on it. They don't own the rights to the game, and it's sold on the gray market. This game would not hav a rarity. Then, same Taiwan company also releases "Space Varmints", a game that is totally new to the market. This game would then have a rarity.

I can see how that's confusing. That's really an option for people who think that all unique games should be given a rarity, regardless of the company that produced it. For example, if a company that normally produces bootlegs also produces a single unique game, then that game should be given a rarity but that same company's bootlegs should not. The reason that's different from saying that "only unique games" should be given rarity, is because that would eliminate companies like Froggo (who were a legitimate company, but just published previously existing games).

Okay, I tried to make the question a little more clear. Also, Leonard and Cassidy, I removed your votes so you should be able to vote again if you want. If anyone else was confused either way, let me know and I'll clear you from the voting record so you can vote again. I hope the question is clear now.

The question has recently come up about whether or not bootleg games (all those Taiwanese games for example) should be assigned a rarity or not. Please tell us your thoughts in the poll and feel free to add comments to this thread.

Actually when I dropped them off, the attendent said he collects 'them Atari tapes'. But when I told him about the prototypes he said he didn't like unfinished games so he through them in the garbage. Maybe you can dumpster dive tonight. Be sure and tell me what you find!

I'll do that. I didn't know ours was PAL, but sure enough I just checked it and you're right...

Umm, subject edited! Smitty, I just dropped off all your carts at Goodwill, hope you don't mind.

We need to update the information, it is out of date. However keep in mind that just because it doesn't roll doesn't mean it's NTSC.

The plan is to publish it on the web. It takes time to put it all together though, please bear with us.

Oops, spoke too soon. Damn fast posters.

Jeffy, nobody is attacking anyone's grammar. RangerG was just pointing out that moot really means something different and I chimed in with the full definition. I thought it was interesting.

Interesting, I didn't actually know that. But it does also mean "of no practical importance; irrelevant". So it can be used here depending on your opinion of the relevancy of the debate. I think it is being used properly, it's a matter of context. Note the "of no practical importance, irrelevant" below: ---- moot Pronunciation Key (mt) n. Law. A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire. tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate. To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1. Law. To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court. adj. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Middle English, meeting, from Old English mt, gemt.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mootness n. Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean “of no significance or relevance.” Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant.

Just sent you the ROM, Ben. Also, here are some screenshots taken from Time Race 2: http://www.atariage.com/screenshot_page.ht...wareLabelID=761

That is a moot point Mathew.

I'm not sure what to make of this. I downloaded Time Warp CCE, and that is what we had on the site. Based on Thomas' information, I downloaded Time Race 2, and that looked very close but some of the colors were slighly different from your screenshot. The helicpoters are more yellow than green like yours. I downloaded UFO Patrol, and the colors were totally wrong (blue cavern wall as opposed to red). Ben, how did you take that screenshot?

I don't know.

Yes, if someone can send us the ROM of the game pictured in Pitfall Harry's screenshot, we will replace the ROM and shot.

He made an addendum to the auction earlier today stating that it had already been dumped and that it was going to be published. There shouldn't be any issue now. I think the initial auction was handled awkwardly, but the intention is good. Now I hope everyone is happy.

Anyone know what font this is on the end label? http://www.atariage.com/cart_page.html?Sof...areLabelID=2183

Not exactly. The original post was attacking Curt for auctioning the proto and requiring that it be shared. It was not a question of whether it had been dumped. The fact that it has already been dumped doesn't change the stipulations in the auction, it just sounded a little odd.

You have GOT to be kidding me. This is bad for the hobby?? I'm going to lose it, I swear. Here we have a prototype owner who is insisting that it be shared with everyone. Normally people complain when prototype owners *don't* share. He is totally clear in the auction the the binary is going to be shared. Anyone who buys this is clearly doing so for the historical value. In this case, everybody wins except for any potential prototype hoarders. Some happy bidder gets a piece of history, and everyone else gets a peek at it. I simply don't understand how someone is being screwed when they know *exactly* what they're getting. Knowing Curt, he will make doubly sure that the winner understands before accepting payment.