I can't believe this thread is still going on... haven't read the whole thing but the ironic thing is I think people care less now about full sets than they have in the past.

I just saw it for the first time as I do not frequent this board as much as others. Didn't even read past the first few posts, so, sorry to bump it if it's annoying people.

Nintendo can't even agree with itself how many games are in their sets. There are old official Nintendo PDFs that say in the US there were 671 NES games and 291 N64 games. Then a report from this year says 679 NES games and 297 N64 games.

I don't understand what is so crazy about "not released in NA = not a part of the NA set". If it wasn't released here, it doesn't belong to the North American full set. Same goes for the PAL areas and all others.

I think this thread is still going on because it was specifically made to stir up unnecessary shit (the racial metaphors is quite explicit to this objective) about something pinned as a problem by OP when it is not.

Just look at the OP, he starts by saying that 'the now-popular "have it your way" Burger King-style collecting (totally pejorative to begin with BTW), that many NES collectors of today support' is 'harmful' to the hobby, and then goes on with a bunch of bogus (sorry Dave but that's true) arguments. Then, he concludes that 'people should be encouraged and can collect however they want' (which makes no sense with his arguments since his point was that this way of collecting is harmful) and finish by stating that 'full set fakers (broad generalization of collectors that are not him)' cause trouble to 'actual full set enthusiasts (him)'.

The real point of the thread is that Dave is a full NES set collector (so he assumes he got the right definition, and maybe he has BTW), and that any other collecting pratices was harmful to the way he collects. I think it is reasonable to disagree with this.

Well, yeah, with respect to Dave, there really is no problem... Dave you seem to care way too much about this one brah   That's why I'm amazing the the thread is this long.

This thread was bound to be a dumpster fire from the beginning. And IMO just a way to ruffle feathers.

These "disingenuous collectors" are a non issue to the hobby and anyone in it. Not only are they not harmful as stated in the OP for those bogus reasons, but they are not even that common to even consider worrying about in the first place.

Just seems like a non issue to even be worried about.

Let people call their collections whatever they want, and you are free to roll your eyes if you must. Caring any more than that for what people call their collections or what they consider a full set is just silly. 

My guess is that it's in reaction to the fact that most collectors don't include the Sachen games, and this is a way to somehow delegitimize the "fullness" of their collections.

 

well yeah and its counter-productive... ranting will only make people tune out any legitimate arguments behind the rant

Personally I only have malicious intentions when telling others about my collection.

Where are all "these" people?

The "disengenous collectors"?
The "no SE,LS,F2 but I have a full set collectors"?
The "I HAVE AN ENTIRE SET OF EVERY NES GAME EVER MADE (but no unlicensed) collectors?"
The "sachens are part of the NTSC US set because one magazine kind of said so" [found him]

Do they not post here?

Sachens are part of the set because 3 people said so.  Beat em and Eat em LE by Vectrex is also part of the set, because I have one of 30 and technically they sort of released in the US.  If you don't have it, you can worship me for the chance to buy it.  $49,999 OBO  
 

Looks to me like someone's sitting on a pile of Aladdin Deck Enhancer games that they can't sell.

I have one too   mine is only 39,995  

Dude you got me, trying to hype the ADE and corner the market!
 

I've faked it before. Sometimes I'm tired and have had enough. What's the big deal?

This is exactly why NA needs a like button.  Spit my hot chocolate all over the desk!

If we're going to talk "full set" fakes then we can post some great pics to go with it...

I would but I can't from this computer!  

 

What about minor variants like updated or fixed instruction manuals and/or boxes? Sometimes they're not even indicated by a new revision (-1, -2, etc.)? Yet they are different.
I consider each variant part of the "set", whether you are collecting a series, a platform, a genre or whatever.

"Fullset", "full-set" or "full set" is one of the most stupid concepts in game collecting. We're still finding new variants for games we thought we had covered 100% so really, it's just the concept that's wrong. Call it something else   Maybe in 50 years we can sort of confirm all that's been released for a certain platform or series or even for single titles. Certainly not now, with people claiming to have them all when they obviously don't. This does harm the historical research and mindset of collectors, as it shifts people away from truly discovering the real "full set". Not that I care a lot, just saying.

So I skimmed this thread, but this confusion is exactly why I created my book into US-released licensed first, then had a second book with all the uniquely released games from every other category. Of course the NES Oddities doesn't include game repeats, which if you are "completing the entire set of every variant", you would need. I was much more interested myself in uniquely playable experiences, such as Famicom that don't require heavy Japanese knowledge to enjoy and every Homebrew game. To me having every version of a Unlicensed/Bootleg game wasn't my goal.

 

Don't worry, mine was just an example. I think many people already nailed the issue long before me as being "In which way is your full set full?". If you specify what your goal is, then people will know if you are right or not. Something like "Any version or revision of every official/licensed NA NES game, CIB or better". That's specific, maybe not enough, but certainly more correct than what I've seen being thrown around the web.

I just don't like how the term is used, because it creates a whole lot of confusion. If I tell my dad I have a NA NES full set he will think I have everything that was ever made, as in 100%, because he will take my word on it, he has no idea how rich the market was and how many variants were produced. The reality is, I may be missing revisions, I may be missing Canadian versions, I may be missing extras included in the box, and so on. To say that you have a full set of something requires an immense time and cross-checking and purchasing and trading and discussing and takes a very long time. Then, you can always find a missing revision 10 years after you thought you were done.

I also notice how some of those who claim to have a full set of something or close to a full set of something usually ignore comments when someone points out that they are missing this or that. As in, they don't care about the real full set, they just want to own what is loosely considered a full set by the "community" in order to, I don't know, feel more alive or important. Many do not seem to care what "full" really means. "Full" is a scary concept that will drain most of your free time and a lot of money, if you are truly going for the full set of something. We're still discovering new versions and revisions of NES and GB games... in 2017.

Not saying this toward NES or NintedoAge in particular, just a general comment from all my browsing and discussing over the years.

I'm sad that I missed this!
 

I like games. Please, sell me all of your NES games that I don't have. ALL. OF. THEM.!