Jump to content

Talk:Wii/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Wii

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.217.44.35 (talk) at 10:05, 4 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games B‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
BThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Template:NESproj

Archive
Archives

July archive

I've created the July archive and removed any discussions not posted to in the last week. Hope I didn't cut out anything too important. --Stratadrake 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean "Nintendo Wii"?

If anyone is going to ask this question, don't even bother -- the answer is no and we've discussed this aspect of the article countless times and time again. times. See the Talk archives (pages 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) and the "Move to Nintendo Wii" survey for all the gory details. It is just "Wii", and "Wii" alone. --Stratadrake 06:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)




Specs You're missing

The Revolution runs on an extension of the Gekko and Flipper architectures that also power the GameCube. The Revolution’s IBM “Broadway” CPU is clocked at 729MHz (the GameCube Gekko CPU ran at 485MHz). The Revolution GPU, the ATI “Hollywood” chip, clocks in at 243MHz (the GameCube GPU ran at 162MHz), and will feature 3MB of texture memory. IGN says it is unlikely the GPU will feature any added shaders. The Rev uses 24MB of “main” 1T-SRAM with an additional 64MB of “external” 1T-SRAM (total system RAM is 88MBs not including the 3MB GPU texture buffer). GameCube featured 40MBs of RAM (again, not counting the GPU’s on-board 3MB). This “external” RAM can be accessed just as quickly as the main RAM. [1]

Renegadeviking 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The origin of that information is this IGN article, the veracity of which is has been disputed before here. As for whether the specs were posted at wii.nintendo.com, I can find no evidence of that. I'm sure that if that is true, a reliable source can be found reporting it. Concerning your other claims, whether you were right or not, you have yet to demonstrate that the information is both relevant and directly attributable to a reputable external source, and that it is not a personal analysis of disparate information (original research, which is not allowed). Dancter 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Lets use the specs from IGN, people will love Wikipedia more, and lets use the specs from IGN! Three reasons to use the specs from IGN! Look, the fact anyone puts 729 MHz CPU/243 MHz GPU in the article won't make the gfx look any worst than they already are. Be a man and tell the world the specs. It's all over the net and Wikipedia is the last place to have the information. Renegadeviking
And let's publish rumours about the Wii being able to interface directly with a person's brain. That will make the Wikipedia more popular as well! Did you read that talk page archive? Half of the rumours IGN distributes are BS, and there's no particular reason that we should blindly trust these, especially when no other semi-reliable sources collaborate it (though many sits simply copy and redistribute those specs). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Any opinions on the Maxconsole specs that have been added recently? I've looked them over, and they seem technically sound, and consistent with what we know. I'm not saying we state it as fact, but I'm wondering if this is a rumor worth mentioning. I certainly trust this more than I did IGN, or any of the sources Renegadeviking provided. Dancter 16:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
All the sources claiming the clock speed to be 729 MHz are from rumor mills! Once IGN claimed that the Nintendo DS was going to be faster than the PSP. Even though 729 may be the real clock speed of the nintendo - this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip page! We need hard evidence before saying something is a fact. It might be ok to write that 'some sources speculate the speed is this...'. but no one outside Nintendo or IBM circles will really know for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.44.35 (talk • contribs)
Agreed. There was a discussion previously on the IGN one, and this was agreed on. Generally, specs are incredibly touchy and I don't think that any should be added to the article without confirmation from multiple solid sources or one very solid one. Maxconsole is not a very solid source. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Then that's that. I declare the Maxconsole rumor officially discussed and settled. Just point anyone who tries to add those specs again right here. Better yet, point them here. Dancter 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about Wee (urine) refrence

I think it is best to discuss if there should be a reference to urine in the critisim section. Can people please share their thoughts on this issue. 67.71.78.172 06:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Build a Criticism section and post it here, if it is good and neutral enough, it could be inserted. Just remember not linking to urine, as it is not correct per WP:CONTEXT. -- ReyBrujo 06:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There is one already. I remember refrences to urine were removed in the past so my goal is find out what the current consensus on the issue is. Sorry for not making that clear. To clearify I do not plan to do anything to the section until a consensus if formed. 67.71.78.172 07:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It is my opinion this section should be removed completely. Yeah people didnt like the name very much, but oh woopty doo. Unless there is a solid reference stating lots of critisims that were received, not just what people observed themselves.Sir hugo 11:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't just "what people observed." There were quite a few articles within the gaming community bemoaning the choice of name. Ladlergo 17:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The urine reference was removed a long time ago, after someone who had also added a toilet (or was it urinal) as an image to this article had tried to keep it there by reverting people's removal of the reference all the time. Who added it back, and why is it still there? --Ritarri 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It was added back in a few days ago, people who have more time in this article edited that section around it and left it so until today I left it as well. But today I commented it out for the time being.Sir hugo 13:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If people are divided over whether to explain why it was considered an unfortunate choice of name, I suggest adding a selection of references (IGN, Gamespot, etc) that elaborate. Ladlergo 17:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but i always thught Wii sounded like a euphemism for penis, not urine... hence the "playing with your Wii" jokes. 69.19.14.38 03:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Strange association to make. Is that everyone's or just your's?

New press Release had release date hidden?

Did anyone figure it out from the press release?

link:http://games.ign.com/articles/720/720863p1.html

Superway25 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

October 2? November 20? 27? FullMetal Falcon 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I did!!! The improper use of the word "pore" suggests something to it. After a bit of calander searching, I found that Yom Kippur is on Octobor 2nd this year. JONJONAUG 02:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1) That's original research and thus cannot be included.
2) "Pore over" is indeed the right phrase.
Just FYI. Ladlergo 02:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

GAH!!! Never mind...I need to improve my vocabulary again...and stop shooting the gun before a bullet is loaded. Now if you excuse me *goes to commit seppuku* JONJONAUG 02:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo already said before thanksgiving so that rules out Nov 27

Nov 20 is the estimated PS3 launch and Nintendo wants Wii out before then.

The only day left is Oct 2 right the the 4th fiscal quarter begins. Superway25 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all original research. You can't assume that one interpretation is correct. The link to an article attempting to explain the release should therefore be removed. Oh, and nothing so far has dealth with the capitalization of FINAL FANTASY V. This could hint at a release date of the fifth of one month or another. Or it could just be Nintendo claiming to have concealed the launch date in the message to create pre-launch hype, as they themselves suggested.
Oh and not to be pedantic, but try to follow some sort of posting format. It makes reading through the archives easier.--Super Genus 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You could use http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060725-7349.html, as it is a reputable source, however I would not include this kind of speculation. At least until other reliable sources publish a similar research. -- ReyBrujo 04:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too keen on including this speculation either, but I don't really get what all the debate has been about. Except for the "pore"→Yom Kippur bit, everything mentioned here was already in the article or the cited references. Dancter 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Superway, Nintendo usually releases their systems on Sunday(N64,GCN,GBASP,DS) and October 2nd is a Monday. Besides, in that same press release Nintendo says that it could just be a joke to get people to look at their release schedule for other games(which is what I believe). TJ Spyke 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, do you think you could kindly add an image gallery if the pictures of the wii? I do not know how nor posses the time to do so. So please, if you have time, put an image gallery. Thanks penubag (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.55.64 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but we don't really need an image gallery of the pictures of the Wii. There are enough images already.--the ninth bright shiner talk 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Then could you change the picture of the wii on the front page? that picture isn't professional looking. I'd like it to be changed to: http://www.britishgaming.co.uk/wp-content/wallpapers/wii.jpg please. thanks again penubag (UTC)

This can't be done because the current image is free, whereas the image you're proposing to use is copyrighted. Wikipedia is about free content and free access to information, so using a copyrighted picture instead of a free one is unacceptable. Mushroom (Talk) 23:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the current image better. It looks more realistic to me.--roger6106 04:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that Revo-Europe.com, TheWiire.com and Cubed3.com should be removed since they are blogs, and blogs are never accepted as reliable sources. Sorry if I removed them without discussion but keeping them is against the policy, so I didn't think someone would put them back. I read those sites and find them interesting, but then why not add Nintendo Wii Fanboy or all those other Wii blogs out there? Answer: "because they aren't reliable sources". I think GameSpot and IGN could stay, though. Mushroom (Talk) 15:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to Talk:Wii/archive10#External_Links for the reasons behind their inclusion. Sir hugo 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so there is a consensus about TheWiire.com and Cubed3.com (even if I don't agree). Can I remove Revo-Europe.com? Mushroom (Talk) 15:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
That discussion is in Talk:Wii/archive11, I dont know if there was a full concensus or not but we have left it on there since that discussion and Dancter and Comsumed Crustacean are pretty adiment about only including things that should be there. --Sir hugo 15:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. There doesn't seem to be a full consensus, and the article about Revo-Europe is getting deleted because it's not notable enough. Furthermore, the site is currently down. (back online now) For the record, neither TheWiire nor Cubed3 have articles on Wikipedia, but consensus is consensus, so I won't remove them again. I will instead remove the link to Revo-Europe, if no one objects in the next 24 hours. Mushroom (Talk) 16:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and I generally remove new links when they are added, and then I add a message at the talk page of the user who added it, asking them to bring up the link here. Sometimes they do, but they usually get rejected. --Maxamegalon2000 16:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I would not lament the removal of Revo-Europe from the list. --Maxamegalon2000 17:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
My edit restoring those external links was less about whether the links belonged, and more about reverting a slew of seemingly well-intentioned but misguided edits by an anon. And if I remember correctly, I stayed out of the Revo-Europe.com debate. Dancter 16:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I was also against the Revo-Europe addition, I just know it was discussed and then it stayed up. I personally would love to see it gone to clean up that part of the article. Like I stated in that discussion unless the unofficial links are of good status then I dont like including them and this one seems to be declining from what it used to be anyway.--Sir hugo 16:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think some unofficial links would be appropriate, but not every site that comes along. And, as long as we don't use them as sources, blogs too. Jaxad0127 16:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are not just unacceptable as sources, they are not acceptable as external links as well. See WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, number 9. However, there may be exceptions in cases where the website is of a particularly high standard. Mushroom (Talk) 16:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Should Revolution-Europe.com be removed from the Unofficial Coverage External Links section.

Removed

Since no one wants to keep it, I have removed the link to Revo-Europe. Mushroom (Talk) 23:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rayman Raving Rabbids

I noticed that this game's exclusivity status in the table of launch titles has been changed back to "Yes". This game is NOT an outright Wii exclusive; it is a timed exclusive, ie. it is being released on Wii first, and on other consoles later. As Ubisoft's Xavier Poix stated,

"The more we heard about the Wii, the more interested we became. Then when we got our development kits, we knew that everything we dreamed of doing on this was possible. That’s why we changed our minds. We decided, ‘Ok let’s just focus on Wii’. That’s it. The other versions can come later."

Source: [2] --Lumina83 00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I just voice my opposition to having an "exclusive" column at all again? Kthxbye and all that stuff. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Lets remove it then. It has only cropped up in the last month or so and I dont care that much for it either. If a game is made by Nintendo it will be for only Nintendo if it is made by 3rd party it will probably not be only for Nintendo. Time for that column to make a graceful exit.--Sir hugo 11:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I strongly object. Exclusivity is useful information readers will want to know about. MrVoluntarist 16:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then. How abotu some new categories for games like Raving Rabits (first on Wii, second on others) and TP (Wii exculsive content)? Jaxad0127 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Exclusive Column

Since this has taken over a topic with a completely different name I figured I would start our official Exclusivity Column discussion.--Sir hugo 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Survey #2

  • Remove Column is not worthwhile to readers, if this was a list of all games on the Wii I could understand, but this is the launch titles only. Leave this to the article about all the games.--Sir hugo 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove I have never understood its relevance to information about the Wii. It seems more like fanboy preference than encyclopedic material. Add the info to the Wii game list article if it's really that important, not here. Danny 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe keeping the column helps to organize some information. Since the DS and Wii differ diversely from the typical system I find it necessary to point out whether the title is or is not exclusive. WatashiNoAiken 18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Information on exclusivity should be easily obtained through individual game articles, I don't think it really adds anything to the list other than extra trouble.  HeartofGold  (Searching) 18:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per two above. DrSatan 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. I've stated that I dislike this many times before. It creates confusion and isn't particularily useful. As with the example in the section above, Exclusivity is not always a permanent thing, but it also might become permanent even if a developer expresses interest in developing a title for another console. Therefore we're predicting the future somewhat. More importantly, many titles are largely reworked for the Wii because of its novel control scheme. Madden for the Wii might be an almost completely different game than Madden for the PS3 or for the DS or the PSP, and on and on. However, by judging how exclusive a game is by the title alone (as we pretty much have to in a lot of cases right now, since we don't know everything), we're completely disregarding this fact. It makes the list fairly useless at conveying information, honestly. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Not particularly useful and, as per Consumed Crustacean, too open to interpretation. Mushroom (Talk) 23:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Only really useful if done with master game list. --DivineShadow218 00:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed

Since only one fourth of the replies are listed as "Keep", and there is an obvious trend, I have removed the "Exclusive" column.WatashiNoAiken 00:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Stand?

So, the Wii sits on a stand right? It doesn't look like the Wii would lie very well on its side with the stand. And the stand gives it a tilt? Does the stand add any functionality to the console? It probably wouldn't hurt to add these things to the article.70.66.9.162 08:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is on a stand (fairly sure it's been shown being held off the stand), but the fuction of the stand is completely unknown from what I've seen. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The stand's function is just that, to stand the console up. An article from Nintendo of Europe actually stated that the stand would double as the system's power supply, but later turned it down saying that it was an error. Months later, the actual power supply was shown (and also proven to be much smaller than the Xbox 360 Power "Brick") and all the battery speculation was put to an end.WatashiNoAiken 18:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That could possibly be useful article material then. Do you have linkses? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed/Contradictory statements

I was skimming the article when I happened to stumble upon a certain line which bothered me.

"Nintendo has stated that the Wii will have a standard interface for Wi-Fi".
Where and when? I recall, at no point, Nintendo saying this; in fact, if I remember correctly, Nintendo said that there would be no standard interface. The article is here[3].

Then another line I noticed seems to contain another oversight.

"On July 18, 2006, it was discovered that a page was posted on Nintendo's official website indicating that Wii would use the Nintendo Wi-Fi connection in much the same way as the Nintendo DS does, with a Friend Code system and no charge to play".
The DS lacks a standard interface, and should the Wii have one, in which case the previous statement is incorrect, this statement is misleading. An edit is needed.--Super Genus 03:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. It is generally good etiquette to star ta title bar with 2 equals signs (the level one (one equal sign) is usually reserved for the title.
  2. If you find something ewrong with the article, then fix it! I would reccomend deleting both of these statements! 69.19.14.26 15:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)This post was made by -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) when he was unable to log in
Or just click the "+" button at the top of all talk pages. Jaxad0127 15:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, a minor syntax error. And also, I wanted to mention it in the talk page so that
a) any revisions I may (in the future) make will have been rationalised
b) somebody could take the initiative, improving the article better than I myself could and
b) if I was mistaking in my logic, for whatever reason, namely a lack of sleep in this case, then no adverse action would be taken in regards to this article based on faulty reasoning.

I do know that you're trying to help, but I just felt the need to justify the posting of it in the 'Talk' section. Oh, and if the statements haven't been removed allready, then I'll do it now.--Super Genus 19:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Backward compatability

An anony brought this up. Should the Wii be said to be backward compatible with the consoles listed? Or should the consoles be shortened and a mention to the Virtual Console given, only? Or should the virtual console not be mentioned at all? The point is that the virtual console is emulation, and not actual binary compatability. The PS2, for instance, has actual PS1 hardware in it that lets it do the compatibility.

Unfortunately, we have two other pages that seem to be at odds on this issue, so using precedence may be difficult. Playstation 3 has both the PS1 and PS2 listed as compatible, while it seems likely that the PS1 is emulated and the PS2 is not but will be in the future. The Xbox 360 article on the other hand does not list backward compatbility, though it plays Xbox games through emulation. This may just be because the editors there have not thought of including it in the infobox, or because of talks in the talk page on the topic (they're in the archive somewhere).

Apologies if this is incoherent, I'm off to bed. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be listed, even as Virtual Console. Listing them makes it seem like you can use their cartridges, controllers, etc, when that is not how it's done. Thats how Gamecube compatibility is done. Listing them would be like listing NES compatibility on the GBA because several games have been redone (in a series no less) for that hardware. Even though the Wii won't require the games to be redone (as far as we know), their original hardware will have to be emulated to run on the Wii's new hardware. This is a very sticky subject. Jaxad0127 07:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can use the original media in the new console, nevertheless if the compatibility layer is software or hardware, it is backwards compatible. Otherwise, I could say my PC is backwards compatible with NES, SNES, Megadrive, Saturn, PlayStation, N64, GB, GBA... and I could continue. -- ReyBrujo 07:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
But we're not using the original media. The original media is on cartridges, while the Virtual Console will be distributing them via the Internet, hence my second sentance. Its the same with emulation on a personal computer, you're not using the original hardware (media), but instead something different to work on your system. Even though the games' program is identical, it's not being used the same way. The Gamecube compatibility is there because it will be done with Gamecube discs, controllers, etc, not with new peripherals (unless you want to use them). Repackaging and emulation are not the same as backward compatibility. Jaxad0127 07:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jax on this one. Backwards compatable to me means that I can take the game I own from X console and use it in Y console. Paying no fee and being able to use atleast most of the external equipment that that game requires whether it was remade for the new console or still uses the old hardware. The Wii will allow me to use my bongos to play Jungle Beat and will allow me to use the Double Dash disk without having to pay for it. The virtual console, while worth its own section, is not backwards compatability. First of all not all games will be available, second I will have to buy these games that I might have already paid for years ago and lastly I dont forsee a running mat being made for the Wii right now, though it would be the ultimate in nostalgic.--Sir hugo 11:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I daresay this definition ought to apply to the Xbox 360 article as well. --69.154.199.166 12:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Having looked in on the Xbox360 article and the Backward compatibility article I found that there seems to be a clear definition that is not being used correctly. In the article about being compatable it states that:

"In technology, especially computing, a product is said to be backward compatible (or downward compatible) when it is able to take the place of an older product, by interoperating with other products that were designed for the older product." It then explains an example. The list of examples though is a bit confusing as some of the examples, including the Wii, dont really fit the bill for this. The way I see it for a system to be backward compatable the original media has to be used, me as the client needs to not feel a difference except possibly an upgraded interface to an upgraded server. Yes Emulation is a large part of this, when I put an original Game Boy game into a a Game Boy Advance the GBA doesnt have the exact hardware of the GB inside it that it switches over too, it uses emulation instead.--Sir hugo 13:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with ReyBrujo, Jax, Sir Hugo. (I had written more, until I finished reading everything. --Stratadrake 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

All makes sense, I agree with, what, everything said here? It's not compatible with original console discs or cartridges, and therefore isn't truly "backward compatible", going by the proper definition. Even if the PS3 does use emulation, it is using original discs. The Xbox 360 article should show as being (at least partially) backward compatible with the Xbox though. I'll raise it in the talk page there. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was already in there, just using the wrong word to show it in the infobox. :) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget that the Wii can use original media when it comes to Gamecube games. In fact it basically has to beacuse the included drive doesn't have space for a full Gamecube game. Because my current PC can play games that were designed when current hardware wasn't even in development, and it's not generally considered emulation, for me the defining line is whether or not you're using the original media. It's backwards compatible with the Gamecube because it takes the old media and the hardware isn't terribly different, and the virtual console stuff is emulation because the hardware is considerably more advanced/different than the consoles (it's more emulation than a step up, as it is with Gamecube hardware), and the media is different. Just my take on it. --Twile 21:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, thats what most of us are saying, becuase Wii can take gamecube discs and peripherals, it's backwards compatible with Gamecube, but not with the virtual console because only the game programs are the same. Jaxad0127 22:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Need for Speed: Carbon

Shouldn't this be included in the list of games around launch. (November 10) 74.137.230.39 13:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a list of games to be available around launch. --Maxamegalon2000 13:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The list of expected titles is here, the second subsection of the first section. Jaxad0127 20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but those are games to be available at launch, not around launch, and certainly not by November 10th. --Maxamegalon2000 20:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That depends on when launch is. Jaxad0127 20:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Right. We should only be listing games available "at launch" in the list of games available at launch, not games with dates independent of launch. I think we might be in agreement here. --Maxamegalon2000 20:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Games that come out after the launch should not be listed with launch games. Even if a game comes out 1 day after the system it is not a launch game(and I HATE the term "launch window", either a game is a launch game or it comes out after the launch). TJ Spyke 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles Release

I don't see any source for the launch release of FF:CC. I looked around, and the suggested source on FF:CC's page is just a link to media, as far as I know. I do not think it is a launch title. I'll do some more searching, though, and if I find anything that points to it's release at launch, I'll put up the source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.207.255.146 (talk • contribs) .

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wii/Archive_13&oldid=67611024"