Only one DAT has Enhanced Roms?

[TheShadowRunner]

To be honest, I never thought about it - I just assumed that games in the GBC dat are GBC exclusive games!

That's what I instinctively thought at first too ^^;

If a game works on the Classic Gameboy, it definitely doesn't belong to the GBC dat! Who cares what the publisher etc. writes on the box - of course, Nintendo wants to promote their latest consoles!

It was my reasoning as well, but not everyone seems to agree xD

BTW: Is there a "connection" between GBC enhanced and Super Gameboy enhanced?

Yes this is the last mystery here: are there any games that are GBC-exclusive and also SGB-enhanced? Or are all SGB-enhanced tagged games in the GBC DAT actually retro-compatible with GB?
(I would assume the latter, after all the SGB is just a GB in an SNES cart?)
If it's the 2nd case, it would make sense to also move "SGB-enhanced" games to the GB DAT (and tag them GBC-enhanced)..

I wrote a little script and if I didn't mess it up, the following "GBC" games also work on the Classic GB but don't have an appropriate tag (only 220 games! :p):

It makes a lot of sense to me that these would be moved to the GB DAT, with a GBC-enhanced tag, but apparently the "marketed as" way was decided already, so again I would ask: who has the power of decision in this matter?

[KingMike]

GBC-EXCLUSIVE games would not be SGB-enhanced, because the SGB contains an original GB chip set.
(I'm assuming we can exclude something like Pokemon Crystal, which has some remains of SGB support because while Crystal is GBC-exclusive, Gold and Silver were not.)

From that list, there are some that would definitely need renaming, such as "Looney Tunes" for which the GBC version was an enhanced re-release of the monochrome game of the same title.

Space Invaders, however, the GBC game is clearly an independent game from the GB version.

[TheShadowRunner]

Thanks for your input KingMike but we're not only talking about renaming files, most importantly it's about moving them from the GBC DAT to the GB DAT as well..

[Densetsu]

Okay, trying to sum some things up:

1. There are Classic GB games with no enhancements at all.

2. There are Classic GB games which are SGB enhanced.
-> Is there any way to check the ROM for that kind of enhancement?

3. There are "GBC" games that play on the Classic GB, the SGB and with enhancements on the GBC ("dual carts"). The box says "Gameboy Color" on the front.
-> Are those GBC enhanced games always SGB enhanced, too?

4. There are GBC exclusive games. They obviously don't play on the Classic GB and don't on the SGB, either. The game carts are transparent.
-> If naming was consistent in the GBC dat, only games with no enhancement tags would be GBC exclusive games, right?

[KingMike]

3) I have the EU GBC Konami GB Collection Vol. 2 and 3 (which are "GBC-enhanced" games, unlike the Japanese versions which are non-GBC, but SGB-enhanced). I recall playing at least Vol. 2 and not getting SGB enhancement, it just ran as a normal GB game (though on my US Super Game Boy, don't know if it would be different with a PAL Super Game Boy, being a PAL-region release)

[TheShadowRunner]

Yes Densetsu, category 1) & 2) are in the GB DAT, logic, all good.

Category 3) is the problematic one.

Category 4) is in the GBC DAT, and indeed they shouldn't bear any tag there if naming was consistent (they just cannot be 'SGB-enhanced').

About Category 3) the 2 games from KingMike are a perfect exemple. GBC-enhanced but still retro comptible with GB.
Currently they're in the GBC DAT as "Konami GB Collection Vol.3/4 (Europe).gbc" which indeed is "wrong" because they're not GBC-exclusive.
I contend these ones should be:
- Either moved to the GB DAT and tagged "CGB-enhanced, SGB-enhanced when applicable" (most logic, their base IS GB after all)
- or kept in the GBC DAT and tagged "CGB-enhanced", which can be understood as well (marketed as) but at least there would be a distinction with pure CGB-exclusive games which bear no tag.

[Tauwasser]

Well, I'm going to present the minority opinion here: I would actually like to see DMG and CGB merged.

Why? A) The platforms are mostly compatible: sure, double the VRAM, double WRAM, colors... aaand that's pretty much it. Oh, CGB got a fancy double speed mode, too.
B) parent/clone tagging doesn't work across DATs and that's a real gripe for instance with games that were re-released as CGB-only.
C) Tagging is kind of messy right now anyway. So why not have one DAT and tags for CGB-enhanced (i.e. uses CGB-features if in CGB, but works on DMG, SGB) and CGB exclusive in addition to the SGB-enhanced tag and merge them?

[TheShadowRunner]

Well, I'm going to present the minority opinion here: I would actually like to see DMG and CGB merged.

Why? A) The platforms are mostly compatible: sure, double the VRAM, double WRAM, colors... aaand that's pretty much it. Oh, CGB got a fancy double speed mode, too.
B) parent/clone tagging doesn't work across DATs and that's a real gripe for instance with games that were re-released as CGB-only.
C) Tagging is kind of messy right now anyway. So why not have one DAT and tags for CGB-enhanced (i.e. uses CGB-features if in CGB, but works on DMG, SGB) and CGB exclusive in addition to the SGB-enhanced tag and merge them?

Well just my 2 cents but it doesn't make sense to me for CGB-exclusive games to be in the GB DAT.. all the rest, yeah!

[Densetsu]

Basically, I'm not against having one dat for Classic GB (DMG) and GBC (CGB) games if there's an advantage like having a "better"/more comprehensive way of creating parent-clone lists.

However, to me it's very important that a release name (game title) clearly indicates compatibility (CGB-exclusive? dual cart?) and features (CGB enhanced? SGB enhanced? both? none?).

How could such a "combined" dat be named?

[TheShadowRunner]

How could such a "combined" dat be named?

It just couldn't.. CGB-exclusive games have nothing to do along with DMG games, in the same DAT.
It's 2 different / incompatible systems, that's why there are 2 DATs in the first place. xD

Imho the proper course of action is just to tag 'CGB-enhanced' games. Then either keep them in the GBC DAT ('marketed as' argument) or move them to the GB DAT (retro-compatibility argument). I don't favor either ways really, the most important, I agree, is the tag.

[C. V. Reynolds]

I disagree about moving GBC games to the GB dat. No-Intro has always relied on the boxes. It should stay consistent.

Some people like to distinguish the GBC games that play on the DMG Game Boy by using the .gbb extension, if I recall right.

[hydr0x]

Yeah, I'm sorry, but this whole discussion is nonsense. No-Intro separates DAT by marketed platform, nothing else. Backwards-compatible GBC games are still GBC games and should be tracked in that DAT. If you want a way to tell them apart from GBC exclusives (except for the serial, after all, all DMG games are GB compatible, all CGB games are not), request a new "GB compatible" tag.

[hydr0x]

Imho the proper course of action is just to tag 'CGB-enhanced' games. Then either keep them in the GBC DAT ('marketed as' argument) or move them to the GB DAT (retro-compatibility argument). I don't favor either ways really, the most important, I agree, is the tag.

The games are not CGB-enhanced, they are backwards-compatible, that's a difference.

[TheShadowRunner]

The games are not CGB-enhanced, they are backwards-compatible, that's a difference.

I disagree, they're developed as GB games and then an added layer of SGB/GBC enhancements is eventually built-in.
That's majorly different from GBC (exclusive) games which are deved from the ground up for that hardware.
But regardless, what concerns me most is that there should be a way to differentiate them. Keep them in the GBC DAT, move them to the GB DAT, tag them "GBC-enhanced" or "GB-retrocompatible", I don't have any authority in the matter or much preference really.
I just believe they should be differentiated.

[Densetsu]

Yeah, I'm sorry, but this whole discussion is nonsense.

Not at all! Multiple "approaches" have been suggested. Fact is, tagging is not accurate at the moment. Why wouldn't you want to differentiate between CGB-exclusive and DMG-compatible GBC games?

I just believe they should be differentiated.

^This.