Darius Plus (Japan) isn't a TurboGrafx-16 game.

[KingHanco]

Put into wrong dat

http://board.zsnes.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... 266#194266

[gigadeath]

http://www.geocities.com/sgextreme/darius_plus.html

Darius Plus has the distinction of being a game that will run on a normal PC Engine but enjoys improvements in performance when run on the SuperGrafx

Technically it's a plain old Pc-Engine game, as clearly seen on the box artwork. Might be emulation problems when run in plain Turbografx mode.

[KingHanco]

Ok I post this info over there.

[gigadeath]

Here a few more info http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8966

I believe it adds an extra layer of scrolling and reduces the flicker (due to it being able to handle more sprites). Nothing too interesting

In any case, the box logo indicates the game was released as plain Hu-Card, with a little eye candy available for those who run it through a Supergrafx. Supergrafx games proper had their own logo, and couldn't run on plain systems. (see http://www.geocities.com/sgextreme/daimakaimura.html)

[hydr0x]

But apart from the packaging this technically isn't different than the Game Boy Color games which also have Mono compatibility mode. And those aren't in the GB but in the GBC DAT.

[gigadeath]

Here it's the other way around, it's a Turbografx game that has Supergrafx compatibility. There's no Supergrafx logo on the artwork, the game was a full-fledged Turbografx release with some compatibility bonus thrown in to make the Supergrafx owners feel less bad about having an useless system. It's not our problem that some emulator fails in its duty of showing the bullet sprites. I think it's in the right dat.

[hydr0x]

What I'm saying is: This and the GBC games are both games compatible with two systems. Why do we handle them differently by putting one in the DAT of the newer system and one in the DAT of the older system? There's the packaging, I'll give you that. But it is debatable if and why we should just follow that.

[gigadeath]

We already follow the packaging for a number of things, including basic naming. And I could understand if there was a Turbografx logo AND a Supergrafx logo, but Supergrafx isn't cited at all there, why should a game go in the Supergrafx dat when it was never marketed as such and works perfectly in a normal Turbografx too?

I understand the will to give the Supergrafx dat some love, but the Supergrafx dat mirrors what the Supergrafx was. The Supergrafx dat is a small and ugly library because the real Supergrafx was just that, a useless system with a ridicolously tiny library. I don't see what's the point in trying to artificially force more games in there. Not No-Intro's fault NEC came out with that disaster of a hardware.

[hydr0x]

The problem is, with it being part of the inferior system's DAT no one knows it can be improved on a better system.

[gigadeath]

First, I'm not sure a system with five games can be called superior to anything

Seriously speaking, there are plenty of NEC fansites, emulation sites, retrogaming communities that can spread this kind of info about games and their peculiarities.

Forcing the game in another dat is wrong, at most we can put a tag in the "Additional" field, something like (Supergrafx compatible).

[Connie]

.....

Forcing the game in another dat is wrong, at most we can put a tag in the "Additional" field, something like (Supergrafx compatible).

That seems the best/most logical solution considering we accept the use of (AGA) for the enhanced graphics versions of the Amiga games.

However, what do we then do about the enhanced GB games that give better 'colours' when played on a GBC?

[Tori]

.....
However, what do we then do about the enhanced GB games that give better 'colours' when played on a GBC?

And about super Game boy enhanced versions ? as there's no SGB dat...
(I don't seem to see a "SGB" field in GB file names...)

Tori.

[ReyVGM]

Some GBC games give you additional content if you play them on the GBA, for example: the Zelda Oracle games. That doesn't make them GBA games.