Oregami Forum

Of course, there's no hope of all this becoming reality at MobyGames, but I tried. Let's see what discussion evolves.

MZ per X wrote:Of course, there's no hope of all this becoming reality at MobyGames, but I tried. Let's see what discussion evolves.

Yeah I saw that. If they do even half of it it'll be a huge step forward. Honestly though, at this point I'd rather build a database from scratch, What gets me rooting for oregami is the RG - R model, even if it still has a few issues...

igdb.com sent an email to all beta users.
The mail contains infos about their new "crowdfunding" page.
Take a look at the webpage screenshot below.

Wow, they really do have immense server costs! They are using mostly pais services from heroku, but one item on their list is also a closed (#fail) guthub account.

MZ per X wrote:Of course, there's no hope of all this becoming reality at MobyGames, but I tried.

Simon Carless wrote:our longer-term plan is definitely to allow non-commercial use of the database by researchers and others. I don't think we have grand plans to make millions from Moby - I'm doing it in my sparetime and Reed is hoping to fit it in to his contracting - and in fact we're not even sure if the site is _BREAKEVEN_ after hosting costs yet.

But we're committed to working with the community and also in finding some way to protect the data in the case of company changes in the future. That is very important.

The Oregami data model should prevent issues such as this: http://www.mobygames.com/forums/dga,2/d ... 50/#185950 right?

Ultyzarus wrote:The Oregami data model should prevent issues such as this: http://www.mobygames.com/forums/dga,2/d ... 50/#185950 right?

Could you explain the case you tried to link?

One contributor insists of marking his cover scans as Finland release. While he has bought it there, we argue that it is the UK release. What we do know is that it is an English version European release. Now having the possibility to link covers and R would make this more easier, and as I understand it, the plan is to have 'Europe' as a selectable release region, without the need to choose a specific Country.

Ultyzarus wrote:Now having the possibility to link covers and R would make this more easier, and as I understand it, the plan is to have 'Europe' as a selectable release region, without the need to choose a specific Country.

Yes that's how it's gonna be. I always found it difficult selecting all the different countries at MobyGames, when one parent region seemed sufficient. So we will have the possibility for customizable regions consisting of more than one country, like continents, or all German-speaking countries, or someting like that.

The pace is getting better at MG, we are going through the backlog and adding a lot of new info. Unfortunately, even with all the good will of the new owners, there seem to be some things that will never get fixed. The code has been stagnant for too long, and it would take a while to get all those new features we need. The correction and escalated queues are also quite big. There is too many wrong info, and we can't verify the original sources or quickly edit the information.

It shouldn't be so complicated to just remove or add a company for a release info, no?

Speaking of which, how will the company info linked to the releases here? I believe having only the publisher and distributor at R level, the Ported by info (and some additional development by for console-specific cases) at RG level, and the rest at G level would be the best

Ultyzarus wrote:Speaking of which, how will the company info linked to the releases here? I believe having only the publisher and distributor at R level, the Ported by info (and some additional development by for console-specific cases) at RG level, and the rest at G level would be the best

That's precisely the question. Right now, it's all linked at R level, just like the people credits, but you are right in that the separation would be much more logical.

If we put the developing company at G level, we would need a wider definition of a "port", because otherwise we would end up with many G entries just because of a different developer company. But I generally like the idea of the developer being mandatory at G level. Maybe this (combined with a sane connection model between game entries) would solve the Tetris case, too.

In an unexpected move, MobyGames started a test phase of Arcade (coin-operated machines) platform. After years of hearing the same thing ("too complex hardware specs" etc.), it's like the announcement of sequel trilogy of Star Wars ("what? they said they won't ever make it?").

So far I haven't seen any guidelines as to how to add games etc. (especially if there are conversions already on file).

I'd say it's a bit too soon (I hoped to see few fixes first), but some would say it's old super-cautious me... I'd say "make up good guidelines first, to avoid confusion, and only then start adding stuff", but some would say I'm starting to sound like those Germans from Oregami project...

EDIT: OK, some guidelines are added:
http://www.mobygames.com/forums/dga,2/d ... 21/#187421

MZ per X wrote:

Ultyzarus wrote:Speaking of which, how will the company info linked to the releases here? I believe having only the publisher and distributor at R level, the Ported by info (and some additional development by for console-specific cases) at RG level, and the rest at G level would be the best

That's precisely the question. Right now, it's all linked at R level, just like the people credits, but you are right in that the separation would be much more logical.

If we put the developing company at G level, we would need a wider definition of a "port", because otherwise we would end up with many G entries just because of a different developer company. But I generally like the idea of the developer being mandatory at G level. Maybe this (combined with a sane connection model between game entries) would solve the Tetris case, too.

Maybe RG level would make more sense, but normally, if it is the same game, the RG should be a port or have an additional developer. For instance, the DS version of Final Fantasy IV has been completely redone in 3D, and by a third party company and the original company with a different name (originally Square Co., Ltd., then Square Enix Co., Ltd.)

Ultyzarus wrote:Maybe RG level would make more sense, but normally, if it is the same game, the RG should be a port or have an additional developer.

Yeah, I fully agree.

Ultyzarus wrote:For instance, the DS version of Final Fantasy IV has been completely redone in 3D, and by a third party company and the original company with a different name (originally Square Co., Ltd., then Square Enix Co., Ltd.)

That's exactly what I meant with a "wider definition of a port". The 3D remake, to me, is still a port, and therefore should get only a new RG.

MZ per X wrote:

Ultyzarus wrote:Maybe RG level would make more sense, but normally, if it is the same game, the RG should be a port or have an additional developer.

Yeah, I fully agree.

Ultyzarus wrote:For instance, the DS version of Final Fantasy IV has been completely redone in 3D, and by a third party company and the original company with a different name (originally Square Co., Ltd., then Square Enix Co., Ltd.)

That's exactly what I meant with a "wider definition of a port". The 3D remake, to me, is still a port, and therefore should get only a new RG.

Then developer (and sound by, graphics by, etc.) info in the RG, publisher, distributor and other release specifics in the R?

Ultyzarus wrote:Then developer (and sound by, graphics by, etc.) info in the RG, publisher, distributor and other release specifics in the R?

Basically, yes. But I'm still unsure about where to put the (original) developers, G or RG.