Talk:Virtual Boy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikitendo logo This article is part of WikiProject Nintendo, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Nintendo To-do:


Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Disputed

"The Nintendo Virtual Boy, released in 1995, was a video game console that used a twin eyeglass style projector to display the games in "true" 3-D (though monochromatic)."

This makes it look as though it was released worldwide in 1995, which it wasn't. We need to make this clearer.

Was it only ever released in Japan and the US? And was it 1995 in both countries? -- Smjg 11:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was released in 1995 for both North America and Japan, althuogh at different times. Gamefaqs says that it was released in NA on 08/14/95, while there is not entry for Japan. The Japan released was clearly a few months earlier. I'm uncertain about the Europe release (if any). I'll check out another site later. --Thaddius 12:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Japan release date: 21.07.1995, US release date14.08.1995. I found no evidence of a European release. --Thaddius 14:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
As a child in the UK I remember them releasing the Virtual Boy here - but there was something about a recall over an epilepsy warning or something... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.106.180 (talk • contribs) .
Hmm... all video games come with epilespy warnings so I can't see how the VB would stand out. Maybe what you heard was a rumour? I don't know. If you came up with some kind of source that would be perfect, but for now, vague recollections don't really prove that it was released there. If it was, then it shows that Nintendo can really bounce back from a huge, almost worldwide flop, which would be great. --Thaddius 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio?

The sections titled "Technical information" and "Monochrome display" look an aweful lot similar to the same thing on this page. The hardware specifications also look very similar, but I'm sure that's fine since those are facts not prose. This should be looked into immediately, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility that they copied us. -Frazzydee|✍ 30 June 2005 18:21 (UTC)

I always assumed that when something like that happens WE coppied THEM. It doesn't matter if they did copy us. It's perfectly legal. As it says on the very bottom of every page, "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License". — Daniel 02:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Units sold

I removed the 40 million claim, because according to gametunnel.com the Nintendo 64 sold about 33 million. I can't even believe the virtual boy outselling the saturn (about 9 million units according to the same source). --R.H. 18:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My big revert

I just reverted a bunch of changes to this article. Rather than cram it all into the edit summary, here's what I reverted:

  • [1] - redundant with "cult following".
  • [2] - Looks like speculation; if another source believes that the headaches were psychosomatic, please provide a citation.
  • [3] - 1D does indeed exist, and this is it; conspiracy speculation does not belong here unless it is documented by another source, in which case it should be attributed to that source.
  • [4] - linkspam
  • [5],[6] - more conspiracy speculation

I think that's it. — mendel ☎ _ * _ 02:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Since all of these changes were reverted outright by Doom127 (talk • contribs) including the linkspam, I'll explain more:
Here's a two-dimensional grid of stars:
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * X * *
* * * * * *
A particular star is identified by two values, its X- and Y- position in the grid. The letter X is at position (4,2) with the origin at bottom left. The X position and the Y position are one dimension each. Here's a one-dimensional line of stars:
* * * X * *
A particular star is identified by one value, its position from the origin. The letter X is at position 4. Since its position can be identified with one value, it is one-dimensional.
That's how the LED array and mirror in the Virtual Boy work; there's a single row of LEDs (addressable by a single value), and that row is reflected into lots of rows by a mirror. The single row provides a single dimension, and the mirror provides the second dimension.
Obviously the physical LEDs themselves are all three-dimensional, but that's not what the article is talking about; it's saying that the mirrors take a 1xN row of LEDs and turn them into an MxN grid. If you think that "1-D" in the article does not make that clear, {{sofixit}}, but re-introducing linkspam into the article is not a good way to do so.
As for the conspiracy theories, you're right, I know nothing about it, because searching the Web I was unable to find any authoritative references to it. Do you have them? If so, great! Re-add the theory to the article attributed to the authority. Wikipedia can't come up with conspiracy theories on its own; that's original research. To avoid this, simply cite the authorities that the article is reporting on in that section so that someone other than the author of that section can verify it.
As for the rest of the reverted changes, I don't think User:Doom127 wanted them re-introduced, or at least didn't suggest so in his edit summary. — mendel ☎ _ * _ 15:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mendel version

Look, I agree with your edition and make a revert today. Looks like Jedi6 revert to Doom127 POV push again and I revert again. Let's make consensus in wikipedia. --Quackshot 16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
How is it against POV? Jedi6 16:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
mendel already explain, I simply agree with their edition. I think is mopre neutral than Doom127 conspiracies. --Quackshot 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Mendel doesn't talk about those changes at all. Mendel was refering to the Conspiracy section that used to be there. Jedi6 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
actually the section you are getting rid of was made after Mendel's edit so Mendel wasn't talking about it. In fact Doom127 never even made that it was an IP user. Jedi6 17:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I simply agree edition of mendel is much better and POV-free. Nothing wrong. --Quackshot 17:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
How is this against NPOV
  • The base of the system could not be adjusted vertically. This meant that most players had to lean over to play games resulting in back-pains after a short time of play.
  • Due to the nature of the Virtual Boy system, the system was not only single player, but other players could not watch, taking away the social aspect of gaming. While Mario's Dream Tennis could be played between two Virtual Boy units, the system never achieved the popularity necessary for most to use this feature.

Jedi6 17:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UNLOCK THE ARTICLE

You will REMOVE the lock. Just because you don't agree with the changes on a page DOES NOT give you the right to vandalize the page by locking it.

Your lock is inappropriate and constitutes (as was said before) vandalism. If the lock is not removed, you will be reported to the appropriate authorities where they will remove your moderator abilities.

In short, I'm being completely serious here.

As for the discussion, the previous editor is in error, as was said before. His conception about a line of dots does not affect it's dimension. Here's the deal. Regardless of whether it's in a single line, regardless of whether its referenced by the game or not, the aforementioned line of dots still HAS height, thus it remains two dimensional. If it was one dimensional, it would be invisible, ie: not having height. Thus, to continue to assert that the line is 1 dimensional is nonfactual.

As for the conspiracy, the Virtual Boy is widely regarded as having been the catalyst that set the events in motion, therefore it should have a mention within the page.

These, of course, are all common sense things that anyone could have seen a while ago, but it didn't seem neccesary until a single moderator abused his discretion regarding this topic. Wikipedia is (at least it was assumed to be) a FACTUAL site that relies on the contribution of those with knowledge concerning topics at hand. The removal of editing capabilities of this topic goes against EVERYTHING that Wikipedia stands for. --—preceding unsigned comment by Doom127 (talk • contribs)

Maybe some guidelines from Wikipedia:Resolving disputes would help. Doom127, I read the explanation that Mendel left on your talk page and his explanation from above, and they seem pretty reasonable. Let's try not to get so heated about this. --RobbyPrather (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Doom127, please cite some sources for your conspiracy theory. Ashibaka (tock) 01:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

Reviewing the dispute, it seems to be ineffably silly, so I don't think it's necessary to protect the article. Please don't clutter Wikipedia with unsourced speculation about conspiracies; it's contrary to our policy against original research. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with mendel. Edits from Doom127 needs revert for extensive POV Pushing. --Quackshot 16:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
What edits? Hey, Quackshot, the dispute on this page that I was involved with was concerning ONLY TWO THINGS: the Gumpei conspiracy and whether or not the system was capable of 1D lines. You think you're reverting things I did (when in reality, I felt that the conspiracy thing really wasn't the best place here, AFTER THE USERS HERE HAD DISCUSSED IT), when in fact I haven't edited this page in a long, long time. You need to stop this; you're going around into every page I've ever edited and calling anything I did there "vandalism". You need to stop. Daniel Davis 01:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

[edit] The Virtual Boy's Base

Hi Quackshot! I noticed your reverts. Would you care to explain what's wrong with the facts on this piece of the article? I owned a Virtual Boy myself, and I don't see anything wrong with it, myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.5.177.98 (talk • contribs) 08:46, December 18, 2005 (UTC)

Quakeshot isn't removing it because it's wrong, but because he has a vendetta against Doom127 Jedi6 19:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Console or handheld?

On the Template:Mario Tennis series page, a user merged them all into one, saying that the VB was supposed to be portable. I had previously listed Mario's Tennis for the Virtual Boy as a console game. As this article states, it probably was supposed to be portable, but the unit couldn't be moved while it was in motion. So do we go with the official listing, or the one that eventaully came about? - Hbdragon88 23:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Handheld I guess it was "portable" since you could pick it up from one spot and then paly somewhere else without needing cables or a t.v. I say if it has a built in projector it should be classified as a portable. Jedi6 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The definition of a handheld is "Handheld consoles act as their own controllers, which the player uses to interact with the game, as well as having in-built display and audio output devices" which the virtual boy is. Jedi6 06:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Handheld console defines handeld "...the controls, screen and speakers are all part of a single unit."

The Virtual Boy, is not a single piece unit. The controller, although wired is a seperate part of the sistem. The same thing goes for the power supply, unlike traditional handhelds. I would however consider it portable, since it is easy to transport. Netmaster5k 12:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Other people create their own distinction for the system. It is dubiously placed as a 'portable console' on most places, putting it up there with the treamcast. --Thaddius 12:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why was Virtual Boy not popular?

Why was Virtual Boy not popular?

Because, like the N-gage, the general public made up their minds about the system before trying it and in reality the system was not practical at all. These two, combined with the fact that this was rushed to be put out before the N64, led to its failure. --Thaddius 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
hey, they also couldn't market it because of the two screans. they couldn't show the visual effects. -brad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.55.95 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Better explanation?

It took me 10 minutes of reading this article to figure out what the virtual boy actually is (to someone who has hardly even heard of the thing). "twin eyeglass-style projector, could display games in "true 3-D"" explains how it functions rather badly.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/r/Talk%7EVirtual_Boy_2dbb.html"