> I find you wouldn't really collect one without the other. It the cases of Wario and Yoshi, most often than not you'll collect these because you like or collect Mario games
Yeah, perhaps; I was simply pointing out that any rule system cannot cover any non-trivial series easily. It demonstrates the difficulty with fine-grained division, where it becomes difficult to determine which series a game belongs to. Super Mario Land 2 stars Yoshi, but plays fundamentally like a Mario game. But Tetris Attack is just the US release of Panel de Pon with a Super Mario World 2 skin; it plays nothing like any other Mario game. So is it a Mario game? But then, is it a Yoshi game? If you don't like puzzle games, then what to you do about Yoshi's Cookie? Dr. Mario?
> Personally I don't count Marioland II: Six Golden Coins as a Wario game, as he is Mario's nemesis, although the Warioland games are the beginning of his franchise as he is the anti-hero. As I said above though, most of the time it's irrelevant because you'll most likely be collecting Mario games as well, and there's plenty of room for cross-overs
The Wario distinction was also just an offhand demonstration, but certainly: the Wario Land games play very much like classic Mario games, so would you count them as such? Super Mario Land 2 co-stars (a non-playable) Wario; Super Mario Land 3 stars only Wario. Does staring Wario make Super Mario Land 3 a Wario title, or does having the words "Super Mario Land" in the title make it a Mario Game? Since you're likely to enjoy Super Mario Land 3 if you enjoyed Super Mario Land 2, this is an unimportant distinction for the most part, except that, what do you do about, say, Wario Land 2? If you included the previous games as Mario games because you liked them, and you like Mario games, then how do you justify a non-Mario-staring, non-Mario-titular game that plays exactly like a classic Mario game? But if all Wario games are a subset of Mario games, then you get things like Wario Ware that play nothing at all like Mario games. You might head this off by splitting Wario games in "Wario Land" and "Wario Ware" franchises, but then, what about Mario & Wario, a game that stars Mario, but has Wario in the title and as the only significant non-playable character (in most respects more important in the game than Mario, who actually doesn't have to be played at all, and isn't the main star in any case), and has a gameplay style that is completely unlike any other Mario or Wario game. What about Wario Blast Featuring Bomberman, which plays exactly like Bomberman, but has Wario in the game, on the cover and in the title? Then there's Wario's Woods
Also, if you try some sort of chain of custody, arguing that Wario and Yoshi are spin-offs from Mario because they were first guest-stars in Mario games, you get nonsense logic, such as Mario being a subset of Donkey Kong, or if you do it by in-game universe, almost everything by Nintendo becomes a spin-off of Super Smash Bros., etc.
No to discount your opinion, at all; almost everyone agrees as you say, that Super Mario Land 2 is a Mario game, Super Mario Land 3 is a Wario game, who cares about the games' title or non-playable characters? It's just that if the rule is arbitrary (this game yes, that game no, there is no pattern; it's just because I say so), then the question "What Makes a Complete Collection?" is meaningless because it is implicitly complete simply by the collector saying that it is. I was simply pointing out the two facts I raised; 1) careful logic, consistently applied, makes almost every puzzle simple, and 2) every non-trivial practical application will have an exception, where applying the previous logic will have you off on a tangent collection games you don't like or will never play, unless you put your foot down and (paradoxically) make an arbitrary determination, but in the form of a new, consistent rule.
At the end of the day, it's your collection, so it's your rules. "I like this game; I don't like that game" is a perfectly valid reason to exclude something from a collection. So is "This is part of the franchise, but that is part of another franchise, because
" is also perfectly valid, if you are consistent. You'll always find people that will disagree with your determination; that's fine, it's *your* collection.
bassman8866, the ruleset you probably want is something like:
To be a Legend Of Zelda title, a game must:
1) The "The Legend Of Zelda" in the title
2) Appear on a Nintendo system
3) Be available for purchase at retail
4) Not be on a self-contained system/not be a non-removable game
This works like so:
1) excludes Super Smash Bros. and Soul Calibur 2., and Link's Crossbow Training (and the Tingle spin-offs, if you would otherwise include them)
2) excludes the CD-i abominations
3) excludes the SatelliView-X games
4) Excludes the LCD Game & Watch and wristwatch games.
I cannot detect any collateral damage with that ruleset (unless you want Link's Crossbow Training, in which case, modify Rule 1 to: Has "The Legend Of Zelda" in the title, or stars Link as the *main* protagonist)
Few people would reasonably argue with that ruleset, and you're now armed with logic if anyone does. The argument shifts from "your collection is/isn't complete" to "what is/isn't considered a Zelda game?", which should be more interesting and less depressing, and perhaps even enlightening.
