Earthbound Zero--original proto a fake?

[rbudrick]

Hi Folks,

Some of you may remember the controversy that surrounded this game when it was discovered as a translated proto. There was ample evidence for and against this thing being a real prototype (or a homebrew), but the simple fact was that it existed and was indeed in English. Today, I came across this:

http://starmen.net/mother12/diff/

Now, with all those things in in EB0 ending up in the GBA re-release of Mother 1 + 2, it is interesting to see that whoever made this (or whoever helped) possible homebrew "proto" did not likely alter the rom in any way, be it translation, sprite hacking, the infamous error message crash glitch, etc. I didn't realize before that link that there were any major differences in the Japanese version of Mother 1 and EB0. Now with it's rerelease, we have a second official source to see these differences, indicating that all those EB0 differences were indeed done by Nintendo.

Can someone shed any details on why this proto was considered a fake by many? I pretty much forgot over the years. Does this info above shed any light on that?

-Rob

[Blackjax]

What it came down to, quite honestly, was just a few people declaring it fake. The most commonly used arguments are the label on the back and the timing of the discovery(Neo Demiforce was translating Mother at the time)

Lost Levels (http://www.lostlevels.org) has recently posted an article, in which one of the original programmers states the cart is the genuine deal, and if not the cart itself, the data itself IS his work.[/url]

[Aussie2B]

I absolutely do not see any possible way that it could be fake.

If you take a look at old Nintendo Power issues from back around that time, you can see that many of the Game Play Counselors talk about "Earthbound". They had a short article about it coming out in the US, and some counselors listed it as their favorite game or their "biggest gaming accomplishment" (such as saying they were the first Nintendo counselor to beat the game). This was BEFORE the existence of Mother 2 AKA the real "Earthbound" for the US. One could suggest that they were playing the Famicom version in Japanese, but more likely I think they were playing an English prototype a few months prior to the planned release date as they often did. Unfortunately it was canned at the last minute, but I do fully believe that the prototype is legit as well as the translation.

[Ninja Blacksox]

Lost Levels (http://www.lostlevels.org) has recently posted an article, in which one of the original programmers states the cart is the genuine deal, and if not the cart itself, the data itself IS his work.

That Lost Levels article is an excellent read. It leaves no doubt in my mind that the cartridge is 100% real. Damn shame I wasn't into collecting in 1998...

-A Boy

[rbudrick]

Yeah, that Lost Levels article really was great. Here's what I've been waiting to see:


As for the physical evidence of the cart, Sandhop replies, "While I didn't prepare this one myself, it looks fairly consistent with prototypes of that era. It is my belief that the game pak was prepared by an official source within Nintendo of America, an unofficial source within NoA, or someone copycatting in a pretty authentic manner."

I always had a good inkling tha the DATA was real, but I didn't know about the cart....I've seen a few 1st party NES protos, but I don't recall them looking like that...but if Sandhop says so, then yeah, that's good enough for me.

That whole revision version thing he mentions makes a lot of sense.

-Rob

[fennec fox]

Well, what's your definition of "real" when it comes to the cart? Anyone at any of these companies could burn off the ROM of their choice -- perhaps when they left the company and wanted a souvnir -- and it would be "real", wouldn't it?

The 2600 collecting community went through the same issue when woss-name company started selling Aquaventure, didn't they?

[Ed Oscuro]

Well, what's your definition of "real" when it comes to the cart? Anyone at any of these companies could burn off the ROM of their choice -- perhaps when they left the company and wanted a souvnir -- and it would be "real", wouldn't it?
Does that make the game code any less "real," or lessen the value of having seen the game years before the GBA compilation was released? I think not. In any case, the name on the cart label DOES check out.

[TRM]

It's real. I had my own reasons for believing so, even before the Lost Levels article was posted. It just made things check even more, imo.

[JWKobayashi]

Great article on the Lost Levels.

It's just cool to read (and relive) all of the history. :)

[Li Wang]

Well, what's your definition of "real" when it comes to the cart? Anyone at any of these companies could burn off the ROM of their choice -- perhaps when they left the company and wanted a souvnir -- and it would be "real", wouldn't it?

Common logic coupled with the information we've now been given on first party prototypes pretty much rules out this possibility. If you're still convinced the Earthbound cart might be a fake, you might as well declare that conclusion valid for every other prototype that's ever been found. Ever.

[rbudrick]

Frank,

When were those EB articles posted? Seriously, those are great. It's so good to finally see that issue put to rest. THANK YOU!

-Rob

[Buyatari]

Well, what's your definition of "real" when it comes to the cart? Anyone at any of these companies could burn off the ROM of their choice -- perhaps when they left the company and wanted a souvnir -- and it would be "real", wouldn't it?

In my eyes if a company employee produces a prototype during his tenure at said company it is by definition "legitimate". Wether he was instructed to do so by company policy or not is irrelevent.[/quote]

[TheRedEye]

Frank,

When were those EB articles posted? Seriously, those are great. It's so good to finally see that issue put to rest. THANK YOU!

-Rob

July 31, so a little over two weeks ago. Glad you liked! Li Wang, about three replies up, wrote it.