Talk:GameShark
Corrected an inaccuracy with models
[edit]"Interestingly, there is also a newer hybrid hardware unit for the Nintendo DS and the GBA Micro and SP models which work with both DS and GBA games as appropriate." is incorrect. The model referred to here is the GameShark Duo. In actuality it's a GBA Gameshark and a DS Gamesaves device. It's two separate devices.
I corrected with
"There is also a GameShark duo product. This package comes with a GBA GameShark, and a GameShark Game Saves device for the Nintendo DS which allows you to backup and restore saved games from a Windows computer." Trel 04:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Trel
Damage with SNES carts
[edit]I made a statement under my own observations, I'm not quite sure if someone else can avoid this though: Putting an SNES cartridge into my N64 destroyed my N64 and Gameshark cartridge permanently. I stupidly thought it could emulate it. My Simcity SNES cartridge was fine however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.239.122 (talk • contribs)
I'm removing it until a site is made. Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. Alvis 04:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Hah, I did that too! Oh... so much wasted money. I used Final Fantasy III too, and it wasn't quite so lucky... Incidentally, the GameShark still sorta-worked at friends' houses. Out of curiosity, there isn't any sort of simple replacement part that could fix the N64, is there? It seemed like doing that shorted out something power-wise, since the power light never lit up after that.--69.153.245.162 05:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Man, I thought I was the only one dumb enough to have done that. My N64 and Gameshark survived (though wouldn't turn on for half an hour afterward), but Super Mario Kart didn't. :-( 205.206.207.250 05:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Removed external link
[edit]I removed the link to www.cmgsccc.com/, since it is an Action Replay site that has nothing to do with Gameshark. --137.164.237.73 21:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
At least as of the PS1/N64 generation, weren't they the same thing rebranded?--69.153.245.162 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. But the IP user was wrong. CMGSCCC is for codebreaker, though he was right about it being irrelevant to this article. Dlong 06:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
GMGSCCC used to be about Gameshark, a few years ago. How old is this article? ;-) 205.206.207.250 05:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I was just at my local EB Games and they has a Gameshark for the DS
[edit]I just came back frok my local EB Games,and they had a Gameshark for the DS, yet the article states it is rumoured that there is one in the making. 207.161.34.175 15:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're probably confusing it with the AR DS. You'll notice that it's not listed on gameshark.com. Dlong 15:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
So is there a GameShark DS, or not? Because the article says their is in the list of available platforms. Browner87 03:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I just went to Amazon.com and I did not find a Nintendo ds gameshark. Taco khan 5000] 3:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Moving information to new GameShark Pro article
[edit]This ariticle contained alot of information that's really about the GameShark Pro and I would like to expand on that GameShark Pro information. I can say here that I am a huge fan of the Pro versions. This article didn't contain alot of current information about the GameShark products available now which is what I was interested in when I looked it up. Also it had that incorrect tone warning at the top so I've re drafted the article which hopefully takes care of both problems. I've cited the source for the new product information and I rewrote the history based on the old article but we still need to find references for the information. If you are looking for information that seems to have been deleted, please check the GameShark Pro article.
How does that secrets of professional hacking fit into this article?
[edit]The front of the article consists of spam thanking various people. And later on in the article : 'About Most GameShark Hackers
Most hackers use more than one way to hack. Most know programming languages such as binary/hex/octal, HTML and Perl, scripting languages, R300 Instruction sets, etc. HTML and Perl is included here because many hackers want to use this language to create a website that has all their codes displayed. You don't need to learn many of the things other than binary and hexadecimal to hack better than the Pros.'
- That is not true either. Gameshark hackers don't usually study html, and all that stuff. Most don't reach this level of hacking.
- Further in the article it teaches you to use PC trainers. And then to hack with emulators, that stuff don't relate to Gameshark at all. I don't think this article would be endorsed by the gameshark makers and the references to emulators which creates the nessisity for ROM's makes this thing borderline illegal. I think this link should be deleted unless the article is revised or someone proves it should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamstillhiro1112 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
- "binary/hex/octal" and HTML are not programming languages. 84.182.125.170 19:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Action Replay section is awful
[edit]Almost seems like it's a viral marketing ploy by someone who works for Action Replay. It makes non-neutral claims without any citation.
Maddogz???
[edit]In the Brand History section it says that the rights to GameShark is owned by Maddogz, but it says in all other sections of the article that it is owned by MadCatz, Inc. I'm confused... I'm going to edit this out. 13375p34k3r 04:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The disputed tag
[edit]I noticed that GameShark-branded PS2 cheat devices are still listed on the GameShark website. I am in the middle of a project, so I do not have the time to fix this. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Any New GameShark Products for PS2?
[edit]Is there supposed to be a GameShark 2 Version 4.0 available for Playstation 2? I've tried looking everywhere for it, but I can't find it. Mr. Brain (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly enough
[edit]It says "interestingly enough" last sentence of almost every paragraph. Am I the only one bothered by this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.175.193 (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
InterAct
[edit]I try to go to InterAct and I get redirected here. The gameshark is NOT the only product InterAct made, and that's what this is implying. --Gamerdog6482 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.197.55 (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Caveats
[edit]"One example is the Nintendo 64 Expansion Pack cannot be detected properly while a Gameshark is in the system, when using the cheat engine to make your own codes."
Kind of misleading. It was 'detected properly' by the cheat device but the game wasn't allowed to touch it. This was by design. It copied the entire contents of RAM into the expansion cartridge in order to later do the comparison when searching for cheats. This also meant that some games required an emulator and a PC in order for people without hardware debuggers (developer version of the system for example) to find cheats. For a reference, just look in the manual or any of the code-hacking sites.71.196.246.113 (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
POV
[edit]Some of this article reads like a review of the product, and POV heavy. For instance the word "better" is used to describe the Gameshark compared to GameGenie and it goes on to compare the Gameshark to other products. It needs to all be cleaned up. Is there anyone looking after this article? Dancindazed (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Given that the Shark was released after the Genie, one would expect it to be better. However, the answer to your question is "you are". Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Was this article attacked?
[edit]On April 12, 2013 a user by the name "Some Guy" deleted almost all the of sections of the GameShark article. My question is should we restore it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadATchaos (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Restored to last nonstub version. Someone start finding some sources so this doesn't happen again76.226.115.62 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on GameShark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019010812/http://www.gameshark.com/products.htm to http://www.gameshark.com/products.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810084151/http://www.madcatzstore.com:80/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=2609&idCategory=13 to http://www.madcatzstore.com/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=2609&idCategory=13
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)