Candidates for deletion

Posted in

#3826 by historyeraser
2021-06-21 at 14:19
< report >I was totally crossposting. I'm sorry.Last modified on 2021-06-21 at 14:19
#3827 by beliar
2021-06-21 at 14:56
< report >
which I would hope made it clear from context that I hadn't played it, and was just citing my sources
That was perfectly clear. I was acting, based on vndbreview blog post.

@lucumo:
link - I have seen that video, but it's just an intro, so not really relevant to the inclusion or removal.
link - some screens, but most of them do look like those of a dungeon-crawler
link - the most telling video. This, coupled with link makes me relieved, because now I feel I didn't err when I removed the game. With the exception of some short conversations with the characters when you switch the party members, it seems to play like a first person dungeon crawler. From that I don't believe the game really belongs here.
#3828 by tester
2021-06-21 at 16:59
< report >Okay, I did clear most of questionable data. I think I have mistook 2008 re-releases with official ports. Other should be mostly fine.

And yes, I did not set System3.0-based modifications as different engines.Last modified on 2021-06-21 at 16:59
#3829 by lucumo
2021-06-21 at 18:38
< report >@tester: Either use it properly like System3.0, System3.5, System3.6, System 3.8, System3.9 (the information is there or can be retrieved) or use 3.X. Mixing it like that makes no sense.
What I said here is still relevant: "First, wrong edits with no sources then wrong edits with a source linking to a blog post from RottenBlock (who I know has actual knowledge) where he doesn't seem to understand the differences between System, TTSystem and EngSystem and how RottenBlock uses what, including System0." RottenBlock is THE guy in the English-speaking community knowledgable about the technical aspects. I've written with him a lot and what he says or writes is definitely credible. However, that still requires understanding about the engine and the offsprings as the blog post you cite refers to everything and certainly doesn't list the older games with their official engine (or lack thereof).
Good that you have some knowledge of your own but that still doesn't mean you didn't make mistakes, like mislabeling the engine (I think it was 3.5 instead of 3.9 or the other way around)...but you just used 3.X, so that didn't matter in the end at the example I looked at.
Regarding Atlach-Nacha, I saw that blog post. However, this still stands: "[...]"here" linking to some mention only tangentially related to the PC version of the game...the edit is for an android download version some ~15 years later". Some SDK which is on some random CD with a mention that it was "apparently" used for the original release of Atlach-Nacha (but obviously very unlikely in that specific version, especially because Atlach-Nacha only exists as 3.5 and 3.8 release on PC)...and now we get to the actual version you all attributed this to: The android release some 15 years after the original, at a time when other versions of the engine are being used. So, how do you know it uses the old ones? Have you taken a look at the android version and seen that they have not updated the engine specifically?

Definitely too liberate and questionable. Considering it's a public database, at least I think we should value quality over quantity (as there is a rather large number of wrong information in this database, especially when it comes to older games). Not nowing something as well as not knowing something for sure don't make for good additions, even if one is "hot" for it and wants to get it added for all the games of a developer.

I may take a look tomorrow....too many notifications -_-


@beliar: I basically just linked you the different parts, so you could get the best impression of what the game is about (that's why the intro too; the gameplay part was too limited though - but no real alternatives), without spending too much time on it. But like I said, I initially added it because it's an Alicesoft game (and I think the only one missing now) and in a vacuum it really wouldn't have belonged here.
As for vndbreview, wasn't it established that whatever he writes is mostly bollocks? At least that's what people who actually played the VNs without some machine translation program said (I always just ignored his descriptions, so I never cared anyway). As such, basing a decision on that seems somewhat questionable.
#3830 by tester
2021-06-21 at 19:05
< report >
Either use it properly like System3.0, System3.5, System3.6, System 3.8, System3.9 (the information is there or can be retrieved) or use 3.X. Mixing it like that makes no sense.

System3.5, System3.6 and such aren't different enough to be considered a different engine, while 3.0 certainly is. So it makes a perfect sense.
As a compromise, I'll rename it to "AliceSoft System 3".

It's necessary to differenciate between close 3.X (3.5+) and 3 (3.0). Because they are too different to be considered a 1 engine.

you didn't make mistakes, like mislabeling the engine (I think it was 3.5 instead of 3.9 or the other way around)

Actually, I did only say that it may be 3.5 (of 3.X). It was just a conjecture, that, as you said next, wasn't important.

So, how do you know it uses the old ones? Have you taken a look at the android version and seen that they have not updated the engine specifically?

True, it was too questionable edit. I did revert it.

not knowing something for sure don't make for good additions, even if one is "hot" for it and wants to get it added for all the games of a developer.

True. But not all data I have added was so questionable.

refers to everything and certainly doesn't list the older games with their official engine (or lack thereof).

Hmm, so this seems to be either a misunderstanding or a lack of understanding of the oldest AliceSoft engines from my part. Why I did think about that blog post as legit game's engines originally?

First, title. "System 1-3 Games Playability Status". So it contain games on some engines and data of their playability, using different builds.

Second. There are sections "System 1", "System 2", "System 3.0". And that sections contain games and data of them. Some has working TTSys or SysEng builds (which, as I remember correctly, are from System 3).

So, if I really am mistaken, why games are in these sections, if they are not on that engines?Last modified on 2021-06-21 at 19:19
#3831 by lucumo
2021-06-21 at 19:43
< report >@tester: It makes no sense because you are either precise or you aren't and use blanket descriptions like 3.X. There is nothing against being precise even because, like I said, information is available and/or can be retrieved. The people responsible for the database have to decide which route to take but yorhel hasn't replied to that question when I asked last page.

Doesn't matter if not _all_ data was questionable. It matters that there is wrong/questionable data in the first place.

First, why ask me that question? I didn't write the blog post. Second, I already wrote that you don't seem to get RottenBlock as you lack knowledge of the different system variations. Third, RottenBlock even writes: "I'm not so sure about the first few titles being System 2, since TTSys is so incomplete on the Sys2 front that sometimes, all I have to tell me that something belongs to System 2 is the fact that it doesn't work in 1 or 3!" So in that overview, he is working not with hands-on data but with information from another non-first-party source.
#3832 by naiohoras
2021-06-22 at 12:15
< report >r73025.2 is different name a valid reason to divide a release entry?
#3833 by username15903
2021-06-22 at 13:01
< report >If my edit is wrong then savagetiger's separate release for the English android/ios release needs removed too. r45257.1
#3834 by naiohoras
2021-06-22 at 13:12
< report >I'm genuinely confused. that means r78576 should be devided into several enties since link said that the release have several localized names? I've seen some releases with similar case but they are usually combined as one release.
#3835 by trickzzter
2021-06-22 at 13:15
< report >^ It's the same release, the aliases can be added as aliases to the vn entry.
I'm not even sure if it's a visual novel, it doesn't look like one to me. It's a point and click adventure with dialogues. linkLast modified on 2021-06-22 at 13:17
#3836 by naiohoras
2021-06-22 at 13:38
< report >is not r73025.2 also the same release? then the english release probably shouldn't be separated if that the case.Last modified on 2021-06-22 at 13:41
#3837 by beliar
2021-06-22 at 17:26
< report >
r73025.2 is different name a valid reason to divide a release entry?
In this case I totally do not see a valid reason to split the releases. The JP store reads: 日本語,英語,中国語 (簡体字), the English store reads: Japanese, English, Chinese. The publisher and even the date is the same. The versions of the games on these stores seem identical. You cannot even say anything about region coding, as Switch does not have regions.

And yes, Saber's edit r45257.1 doesn't seem to be correct either.
#3838 by username15903
2021-06-23 at 02:42
< report >Please delete these releases too for the same reason. English and Japanese were released on the same date, same app. The second one has a wrong release date.
link
linkLast modified on 2021-06-23 at 02:48
#3839 by trickzzter
2021-06-23 at 16:23
< report >r61093 is a dupe of r50276
2016-12-24 is most likely a correct release date. According to data from appannie.com it's been released on Google Play on 2016-12-24.
#3840 by eacil
2021-06-23 at 20:27
< report >#3838 btw on Appannie there are a boatload of releases:
Ninja Love Jan 24, 2012 (android)
Ninja Love / Education Feb 7, 2012 (android)
Ninja Love+ Nov 28, 2013 (ios)
Ninja Love+ Nov 28, 2013 (android)
Shall we date?: Ninja Love Aug 25, 2011 (ios)
Shall we date?: 恋忍者戦国絵巻+ Feb 10, 2014 (ios)
Shall we date?: 恋忍者戦国絵巻+ 恋愛ゲーム Feb 3, 2014 (android)
Shall we date?: 닌자의유혹 Feb 14, 2014 (ios)
Shall we date?: 닌자의유혹 Feb 9, 2014 (android)
Shall we date?:Ninja Love FREE Jul 17, 2012 (ios)
Shall we date?:Ninja Love HD Sep 13, 2011 (ios)
Shall we date?:Ninja Love HD FREE Jul 17, 2012 (ios)
Shall we date?:Ninja Love for GREE Jul 9, 2012 (ios)
ShallWeDate?:NinjaLove forGREE Jul 9, 2012 (android)

God, I HATE mobages.
#3841 by username15903
2021-06-24 at 06:43
< report >I've added all those releases except for these two I couldn't find anything about:
Ninja Love Jan 24, 2012 (android)
Ninja Love / Education Feb 7, 2012 (android)


r19085 is the same as r19084 and r80647. I realize I should have just changed the old release, sorry.

All these should be combined because Japanese/English/Chinese were all released together as one app:
r45254
r45255
r40977
r40978
#3842 by vario
2021-06-24 at 09:37
< report >Daresora is back thanks to Sayori link
#3843 by eacil
2021-06-24 at 10:37
< report >I undeleted the next volume but like they said they will announce later the new release format and schedule, I feel we should wait until then in case they change something as it would prevent me from having to redelete stuff.
#3844 by mario3573
2021-06-24 at 12:17
< report >do we really need 3 entries for each patch update link link, link, 2.5 is the only one needed. chaotic;head is fine since it's a different developer.Last modified on 2021-06-24 at 12:18
#3845 by eacil
2021-06-25 at 05:56
< report >Username15903, merge them and report the ones which should be deleted. After all, you are the best suited for the job.
Also, I noticed a mistake you made with Koi Ninja Sengoku Emaki. NTT Solmare Corporation is the original developer. You added Interspace Co., Ltd. on two releases. I assume they ported the game on GREE, whatever that means. However, according to d3#4: "Keep in mind that producers that have made modifications to a game but have not made the game itself should NOT be listed as developers."
The way it is now, it looks like this game was created by NTT Solmare Corporation, Interspace Co., Ltd. and GREE, Inc. when only NTT Solmare Corporation deserves this role. Yes, GREE, Inc. should be removed too as a dev. Just saying.
#3846 by username15903
2021-06-25 at 08:45
< report >I merged them, you can delete these ones:
r40978
r45255

And I removed Interspace Co., Ltd and GREE, Inc. as devs on Koi Ninja Sengoku Emaki's releases.
#3847 by naiohoras
2021-06-25 at 12:19
< report >r80717 is the same release as r80010.6
#3848 by mutsuki
2021-06-25 at 12:44
< report >r78772 same as r80716
#3849 by 707
2021-06-26 at 03:49
< report >are we deleting same releases of app with multiple languages?

Tamashii, Kaitorimasu

r80130
r80133
r80134
r80135
r80137
r80139Last modified on 2021-06-26 at 03:50
#3850 by ezezin
2021-06-26 at 04:06
< report >#3849 Those releases have a different official website (or more like different "Country code top-level domain", according to Wikipedia: link). I don't mind their deletion if that is not enough for having different releases, since you can change the website language anyway (Stating that in the notes just in case).Last modified on 2021-06-26 at 04:11