Talk:Legacy of the Wizard

Unused Graphics

See: https://www.reddit.com/r/nes/comments/c7rp42/4_unused_monsters_of_legacy_of_the_wizard_dragon/ And: https://www.reddit.com/r/nes/comments/c929y4/a_lot_of_worzen_familys_unused_sprites_in_legacy/

Perhaps this should be looked into and see if it's legit? the submitter in question seems to be a huge Dragon Slayer fan from Japan, so it's plausible that his claims hold weight.

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reaper man (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 July 2019‎

Both of those look legitimate to me. I did not see any of those 4 creatures in the game, and the unused family sprites make sense because only the boy is seen climbing the ladder in the ending, so the rest of them are not given an opportunity to show their back side or other sprites indicated there. - Rainwarrior (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's legit. Also I see more tiles, such as a portrait of Mario with a helmet, along with some unfamiliar tiles? It's in the set with the word INN on the left and the surface / background castle tiles. Brad Smith wrote a map editor (github) that has basically dissected the game and shows most things listed here, just need the ROM for it.--PlNG (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That's me. I'm Brad. :) Maybe I should modify it to exhaustively search for which tiles are used in the game data. That mario portrait is interesting, it's present in the Inn's metatile page... there's also all the empty tiles with the ア character on them. Would probably turn up a few more with an automated search. - Rainwarrior (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if its there but it gets covered up by that chat bubble. If you can figure out how to replace the chat bubble tiles with transparent tiles maybe it will show up? Also, HI BRAD! --PlNG (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The chat bubble is actually built into the background, so there's nothing underneath it. Maybe there's a remote chance there is some hidden code that would add it to the room after loading, but probably not. - Rainwarrior (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate place for comparison with MSX and MSX2 versions?

Earlier I wrote a detailed comparison of all the differences between the NES, Famicom, MSX, and MSX2 versions of this game. These were deleted in this edit: https://tcrf.net/index.php?title=Legacy_of_the_Wizard&diff=1140688&oldid=1117393

ReyVGM suggests the MSX and MSX2 versions should have their own page, but this is a comparison between these versions, not an account of separate material for separate MSX and MSX2 articles. ReyVGM did not move this material to such an article, merely deleted it.

Are comparisons like this not worthwhile material for this TCRF page? There are a lot of articles here that give version differences. Final Fantasy VI for example covers multiple platforms. This stuff seems relevant to me, and best kept on one page.

In particular I thought the progression from the MSX2 original, some minor design revisions for the Famicom version, and finally the later MSX version which includes all the design changes from the Famicom version, is interesting, and I don't see how that information can be expressed with a series of articles separated by platform. These aren't fundamentally different games at all.

So, I've provisionally restored the comparison. I've got no intent to fight for it if consensus is against it, but given the edit comment deleting it, it felt like a mistake to me. I welcome other input on this. -- Rainwarrior (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The FF4 page is shared between consoles because it's the same build of the game. Notice how it only includes the SNES and PS1 versions of the game, and not the GBA version. The MSX1 version of Dragon Slayer 4 is pretty much a remake/demake using a completely different code from the rest. If you have unused content, then by all means create their own MSX pages. You can have a "Regional Differences" section between the Famicom and NES versions though, since they are the same code. It's very rare for games from such old consoles to share the same page since their code is so vastly different.
The only way you could "prove" that all 3 games belong together is if they all share the same unused graphics, unused text, unused music, cheats, etc. That's usually enough evidence that they share the same code and the unused stuff transferred in the porting process. But I don't think there's a single MSX/NES game that shares code. Even the NES and MSX2 Dragon Quest (which look almost identical) are in separate pages. ReyVGM (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

One time I spent hours detailing the differences between the Arcade, N64 and PS1 versions of Gauntlet Legends and they all got deleted for the same reasons as above. It's not personal. ReyVGM (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

They can't possibly share code, as they are different CPU types, and all of the graphics are redrawn in each version. That's not my point at all. My point is that the differences between these versions are interesting, in the exact same way that differences between a prototype and release or different revisions of a game that happens to be on the same platform. The comparison tells the history of this game through its different revisions, which to me is the kind of knowledge I've always thought that TCRF exists to share.

So, if comparison between these versions is valid content for TCRF, I don't see how it can go in a separate article, it belongs to all 4 versions of the game being compared. If this kind of comparison isn't valid content for TCRF, then OK, withdraw it, but I think it's valuable to keep. I couldn't find a relevant guideline in the rules and editing help section of this site, but it feels very worthwhile to me.

As for unused data, I'm sure the MSX2 and MSX versions do have some, but I haven't had time to investigate them yet. I do know that all 3 versions (treating NES and Famicom as the same) have the same two unused monsters (reference), for example. I think that information would be better presented with all 3 side-by-side in one article, rather than spread across 3 different ones. Even if we have to only talk about unused content for some reason, I don't feel that the 3 versions are going to be unique enough to warrant splitting into 3 articles. It's more informative together than apart. - Rainwarrior (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If the content would clutter the page, and is too interesting to drop, I'd advise creating a sub-page. The GameCube and Dreamcast differences of Sonic Adventure 2 are an entire article in itself.Theclaw (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

From ReyVGM (diff 23:17, 14 April 2022): "Again? This is from one of the admins: "differences in home ports on different hardware are not covered here". Add it to your user page or the talk page if you don't want the changes documentation to go to waste."

You didn't respond at all on the talk page, and the last reply there shows an article where that kind of stuff is clearly being covered, so as far as I could tell the objection was merely that it shouldn't be within the main article. Apparently you object to more than that. Apparently an anonymous admin does too? Do they object to the other article? - Rainwarrior (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Judging by the comparisons you've done and looking at the game maps, each version has enough differences between one another to not be considered "the same game". Old games that are on different hardware are normally compared when they are pretty much the same game but with minor differences, and those comparisons are usually done within the same base hardware. For example, NES/FDS, Genesis/Sega CD, Neogeo/Neogeo CD, but not NES/SNES, MSX/NES, SNES/Genesis, GameGear/Genesis, etc.). With modern games and with the advent of game engines, it's "easier" to copy/paste the code from one machine to another, which is why you see pages like Grand Theft Auto 5 covering all of the releases on PS3, PS4, PC, Xbox, etc.
If you don't want your list of changes to go to waste, add it to this talk page, or add it to your user page (literally create a page called "User:Rainwarrior/Dragon Slayer 4 Version Differences" and add the changes there). If in the future the rules change, or an admin decides the Legacy of the Wizard page should cover all 3 games, then the info will be there ready for the plucking. But as of right now, such a thing would be going against the precedent, such as the aforementioned Dragon Quest 2 MSX and NES pages being separate and not together, and those two games share more similarities than Dragon Slayer 4. ReyVGM (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't have any desire to keep information on a personal talk page that nobody will ever read. I added it to TCRF because I think it would be valuable to others, not myself. I created that page today, thinking it might be an acceptable alternative presentation based on what had been said on this talk page, and after waiting a month for either you to clarify or more editors to comment. Your subsequent action does make it clear that you are not OK with the information being added in any form. I'm not here to have an edit war. Obviously there is no point in adding something you will just delete. If the alternative of putting it in a separate article still puts us in a deadlock, then it stays out. I don't agree with your interpretation of what makes comparison of some versions valid and some not, and I still think it's useful information, relevant to TCRF. So, nothing for me to do but leave the matter to other editors. Your edit comment claims to speak for an admin, but I'd welcome an actual clarifying comment from an admin. - Rainwarrior (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

That comment came from Rachel Mae, the site's admin. Other moderators have recently made a similar comment, such as "A better rule of thumb [for having multiple games in one page] is that if the articles have mostly the same content." This is not the case with Dragon Slayer 4.
If no moderator/admin has chimed in all this time, it's because what I have said is the general consensus. I've had comparison like yours deleted before for the same reasons I'm stating. Documenting things is important, it doesn't matter if it's in the public page, the public talk page, or your public user page. If you only want it in a place where people will see it, then you're welcomed to add it to wikipedia or to the Dragon Slayer wikia. ReyVGM (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, my argument for relevance is this: TCRF, as I see it, is for learning about a game's history by observing changes made, either between prototypes/versions or by finding left-over material within the releases. In this particular case, the MSX2 version is functionally a "prototype" version of the Famicom game. The changes from one to another are of that same nature, not made for hardware-technical reasons, but as part of the iterative discovery of the game's later design as it appears in the Famicom version, and kept in the later MSX version. Almost everything in the MSX2 version could have been faithfully duplicated in the later Famicom or MSX versions, but deliberately wasn't, in a way that isn't about the change of platform. If, hypothetically, a prototype Famicom version existed with all of the MSX2 content, it would be unquestionably relevant to compare, but because it was on a different platform you're arguing it must be excluded. I don't care about documenting the minutiae of how every single sprite changes between MSX2/Famicom/MSX versions, like you would see in any port, but e.g. the choice to completely recompose Pochi's music indicates a more substantial design decision. That's the kind of thing I think fits in with TCRF's usual content.
So you don't like my list of changes. Is it acceptable to mention that the MSX2 version was earlier and has significant design changes like this in any way here? Is this entire topic completely taboo from mentioning even briefly somewhere? I feel that it's very important to state in the article that the MSX2 version exists, and that it came first, and that there were differences, even if for some arbitrary reason we can't accept any description of those differences.
Re: "This is not the case with Dragon Slayer 4", we don't have articles about the MSX2 or MSX versions yet so I don't know how to demonstrate that it is the case. I know a few things already (e.g. the map data formats in all 3 versions are identical, they have identical enemy sets including identical unused enemies, etc... with very few and notable exceptions there is a 1:1 correspondence in content between the 3 versions). I've put off doing more reverse engineering of them because of your previous resistance to me turning this into a combined article. There's some things I think would be interesting in this article, but has no place in an individual one. For one instance, is it really worth creating 3 articles to point out the exact same unused enemies in all 3 versions? For another instance, neither the MSX2 or MSX title screen has an alternative version on its own platform, but they both are significantly different than the Famicom or NES version and each-other. Wouldn't it make sense to put all 4 of these side by side here? On this very article someone left a stray note saying we should document the trivially different title screen from the Namco collection re-release... surely that's far less important and far less interesting than the rather large title screen changes from MSX2? Am I allowed to add anything at all about the MSX or MSX2 versions here, or will you summarily delete everything? - Rainwarrior (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you are acting as if this personal, it's not. Second of all, the rules are set by the site's owners, not me. All the points you've made fit for a TON of multi-platform ports/remakes and you don't see the site littered with that kind of content. I've already over-explained the reasons why, and I've suggested to save the information somewhere in case the rules change in the future. This site didn't accept pre-release or regional differences when it started, but now it does. So of course, this rule can change in the future and you'll be able to add it then.
And by the way, the map between the games is NOT completely the same, so either you are unaware or are lying to get your way. The fact that there are so many differences actually proves the point that the rules make of not comparing multi-platform ports from different consoles (when talking about the pre-engine era of games). All three games are superficially similar, but each contain a myriad of differences, from the intro, to debug codes, to music cheats, map differences, layout differences, ending differences, and more. The game's entire page would be just covering the differences between all 3 versions.
I've had comparisons deleted too, I tried to make my point just as you are and was denied. There's nothing more I can say about this. Admins read all the updates if none have stepped in to give you the green light, then there's nothing more to do.
If awareness is what you're trying to achieve, then you can submit those comparisons to lots of places: wikipedia, dragon slayer wikia, gamefaqs, stretegywiki, your own site. ReyVGM (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it was not a lie. I'm sorry, I think this is a miscommunication. I said map data format, not the map itself. All 3 ports use the exact same data format for their maps, a 1 kilobyte block for each room, with the same variables in all the same places (though I haven't reverse engineered the MSX2/MSX versions as extensively yet, all comparisons I've made so far showed identical structure of map format). All 3 games have the same set of enemies. The pixels of their sprites are different, but they have the same number, order, and configuration of animation. I'm obviously not suddenly claiming the games are identical, after what began this entire discussion.
Is it personal? I don't know. It's kind of a moot question because you're the only one responding or blocking my attempt to add this information. I'm making an argument for the thing I feel should be included. I'd be quite happy if others besides just you and me comment, but until then I am only responding to you, I guess?
And again, I don't want to list every single difference, but I definitely want to at least point out that the MSX2 version exists and there are differences. Can we do that much? You didn't answer my question about whether you will block any mention of it at all here, or if it was just that my list was too much? I would like to know. - Rainwarrior (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not blocking you from doing anything, I'm just reverting your changes. This is not wikipedia, you don't have to mention a game is based off another or write about its history. But yeah, it's okay to mention in the page's intro that LotW is a port of the MSX2 version. I'm just curious if you're going to use that as an opening to sneak in MSX2/NES/MSX differences once more. ReyVGM (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added that. I see that you've started an MSX2 article. I'll try to contribute to that when I can do more research. I still think the lack of direct comparison is a missed opportunity but no, I'm not going to "sneak" it in. Unless you change your mind or a larger consensus approves, doing so would be unproductive. - Rainwarrior (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not about me, it's about what the admins say. I'm all for version comparisons. I did many myself before they got deleted, as I've mentioned before. ReyVGM (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Shops and Boss Rooms

I don't know if it's worth mentioning, but it seems like the boss room layer is "somewhere else" in memory. Using the noclip code I tested in many places and it appears the only way to the boss layer is via the crown. Once there all the bosses are left and right of each other. The shop room layer is above the boss layer. With noclip and no data, they act like normal rooms rather than something you can walk around it. I guess that with provided shop data, the floor becomes walking noclip-solid, and probably where the noclip code came from. Be careful exiting the shops as it sends you back to the surface with the boss bar up. Be careful about clipping through the bottom as if there's no room below there's no way back up short of flying or rewinding the game in emulation.--PlNG (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

In the ROM data, the shops/inn+home/inventory/surface are the next 4 rooms underneath the dungeon, and the boss rooms are the next 4 after that, it's all contiguous. My LotWTool editor displays it this way just because it was naturally arranged like that. I don't know what the "noclip" code is or does, but normally in-game if you enter a shop, one of the 4 screens is chosen based on which of the 4 dungeon columns you're in, and the regular game state is suspended so you move differently and don't attack and there are no monsters in effect. There's only 1 inn screen but it is a similar special state like the shop. The inventory screen is accessed via inns or leaving the house, or there's a separate paused inventory state which doesn't let you move around. Every room has 9 monster slots, and there is no such thing as an "empty" monster, so every room in the dungeon has all 9 active. The surface room is another special case where monsters are not active, and no matter where you exit the bottom of this room (you can place a ladder down anywhere with my editor) you end up at the starting ladder at the top of the dungeon. The boss rooms have their first 4 monsters assigned to be the 4 sprites of the boss, and the remaining 5 assigned to be their projectiles, but otherwise the control of the boss and the HP meter etc. are a special game state activated via touching a crown.

So... with all that described, I'm not sure if any of that is really worth mentioning for TCRF? I don't see any cut content here. Whatever you did to get no-clip reveals that you could maybe reach the shops/inn+home/inventory/surface in a broken state if there were a way down at the bottom of the dungeon, but I don't know if that's really significant? - Rainwarrior (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

With LotWtool I tried adding ladders connecting the bottom 3 rows and my results don't seem to fully match what you described with noclip. I note the following:

1. The bottom row of the dungeon cannot proceed down one floor, if I place a ladder here it will stop my character at the bottom of the screen. This seems to be different than what you got with noclip? I cannot go down into the shop/inn/inventory/surface layer from any of the 4 bottom dungeon rooms. It seems that row 15 of the dungeon cannot exit downward by design.
2. If I modify the starting point of the dungeon to the shops, I can "play" in the shop room, but I cannot go up (blocked where the character reaches the status bar at the top) but I can go down. However, going down just teleports me to the starting point of the dungeon, which I guess is exactly how the surface room normally acts (i.e. going down from row 16 always teleports to the start of the dungeon). The monsters are not active either. Same result for all 4 rooms in this room, so I guess this means that when starting at the surface, it's not a special game state except that row 16 disables monsters, can't exit upward, and exiting downward always teleports to the dungeon start. (Similarly I think any ladder up in row 0 of the dungeon will teleport to the surface ladder).
3. If I modify the starting point of the dungeon to the boss rooms, it seems that the boss fight begins and if I defeat it I return to the start. The bottom is blocked, but the top will actually go up to row 15 (shops layer), which is interesting, and the boss HP meter remains active here. It seems that the crown is collected when you touch it rather than when you defeat the boss. So I guess row 17 special rules: can go up to row 16, can't go down, will activate the boss fight, killing the boss returns home.

So... that's what I can determine about that, the dungeon of rows 0-15 is "sealed", the bottom is blocked, and the top teleports to the ladder going home. Row 16 acts special to be the surface, where the top is blocked and the bottom teleports to the start of the dungeon, and monsters are disabled. The other 3 rooms of row 16 are only ever entered by special means (shop/inn/home/inventory) and don't run as normal gameplay. Row 17 activates the boss HP meter and killing the boss will teleport you to the ladder going home, down is blocked, but strangely up is not blocked and you can escape to the shop layer, but won't be able to return from there (since down from row 16 is a teleport), and the boss HP meter doesn't deactivate either. This confirms some of what you said, but it sounds like your noclip thing alters the code or something in a way that lets you bypass the down-teleport in row 16? - Rainwarrior (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)