RF Generation Message Board

Announcements and Feedback => The Thinktank => Topic started by: Magewout on June 28, 2007, 07:20:50 AM



Title: Question on N64 games
Post by: Magewout on June 28, 2007, 07:20:50 AM
I don't know if this is the correct board, but recently I've been looking through my N64 games, and noticed that a lot of them state on the box front that they require a Controller Pak to save, or that they're compatible with a Transfer or Rumble Pak.

So I was thinking, is it possible to add these properties to N64 games?

And now I come to think of it, GameCube and PS1/2 use memory cards as well, right? Is it possible to add it so we can describe how many blocks/pages are needed for each game?


Title: Re: Question on N64 games
Post by: Marriott_Guy on June 30, 2007, 11:48:14 AM
This is a good point that you make.  To piggyback off of your initial suggestion, maybe we could add a field that was simply entitled "Game Save Type", with a selectable list to include the following:
  • Internal Hardware Memory
  • External Memory Card\Device
  • Manual Password Save\Continue

Including the file/block size required for each game would be an quite an undertaking.  Would something like I proposed above meet your needs?


Title: Re: Question on N64 games
Post by: Magewout on July 01, 2007, 05:01:57 AM
A system like you described would be great IMO.

Maybe add 2 fields, one for 'game save type', and when controller pak or memory card is selected, you can fill in how many pages/blocks it needs by yourself. That way it doesn't have to be included in the dropdown list. I don't know whether this is hard to implement though, what you proposed alraedy sounds like a huge step forward.

And an other field to include hardware like the rumble pak. Like a checkbox asking 'rumble pak supported' or 'expansion pak supported' for N64 games.


Title: Re: Question on N64 games
Post by: Marriott_Guy on July 01, 2007, 11:14:52 AM
I'll pass this suggestion on to the DB administrators.  I know they have a number of items already in the works, so I really can't say when something like this could be implemented.  You are right - my guess as well is that this addition would take some time to work through, since it is adding a completely separate field to the DB that affects all other existing records. 

I'll request to move this topic to The Thinktank forum to gather some more opinions on this suggestion.

Good thoughts/suggestions on this topic Magewout - thanks for your ideas and contributions.