Talk:Crazy Kong

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Actual reliable source for Crazy Kong's non bootleg status[edit]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14413211357527714092&q=564+F.+Supp.+937&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5

This court case explains the actual licensing. To wit, for a limited time, Nintendo did in fact grant a license to Falcon to distribute the game in Japan, and was collecting royalties for it, and gave them stickers to place on their mask roms. However they were NOT licensed for export. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.59.65 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 74.211.59.65 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon company[edit]

There isn't an article for this company - if there is, it's not on this page - and all links for "Falcon" on this article go to the page for the bird. Vyran 02:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"This title went to have far more popularity in the arcades than the original that it is based on." In what universe?

This was in one of my sources, but I dont trust it either. I have removed this statement --larsinio ^\----^(poke)–/\^–^(prod)----/ 22:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License[edit]

I am unsure if this ever was a legitimate licensed release. For one, Falcon specialised in bootleg boards as KLOV reveals. Also, if it were a geniune license, why would the licensor go to great pains to rewrite the core Donkey Kong code in such a way that the game looks, sounds and feels significantly different. Wouldn't they have just been better either manufacturing the boards themselves or reselling them, without having to go through the coding and playtesting process again that Nintendo had already performed?

Another tell tale sign is that the copyright is missing and both Crazy Kong games feature glitches in graphics.

I am of the persuasion that this game was based upon an early leaked beta version of Donkey Kong that was subsequently decompiled and re-engineered by bootleggers in order to run on established existing hardware such as Scramble and Crazy Climber.

Does anyone know for sure?

However, hats off to whoever did the write up for this game as it is very comprehensive. 28th Dec 2005 (SMD)

Thanks. I found a really comprehensive japanese page, with the help of googole translate that. I was really suprised there was no mention of crazy kong/article at all, especially in [[Donkey Kong (arcade game). --Larsinio 16:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A different Crazy Kong?[edit]

According to this page, there's a different Crazy Kong which runs on Scramble hardware and features a gorilla with a single frame of animation. They also review "Monkey Donkey", which is more like the Crazy Kong described here on Wikipedia. Part I in fact. - NES Boy 19:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"GIVE UP!!"[edit]

After completing the 100m mark, Mario shouts "GIVE UP!!" at Crazy Kong.

It's not clear whether Mario is saying "Give up!", or if it's intended that Kong is saying "I give up!" (remember, the people who made this probably didn't speak English natively). I changed it so that it says "the text 'GIVE UP!!' appears". - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Crazykong 02.png[edit]

Image:Crazykong 02.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]