Talk:Transfer Pak

Details still in need of reliable sourcing

• Pokémon Stadium's emulation is based on the Super Game Boy, including using the same borders.
• Perfect Dark's Transfer Pak cheats are unlocked by default on Nintendo Switch Online.
• The Japanese version of Mickey's Speedway USA can still unlock Huey without needing the Transfer Pak.
• Mention of the Transfer Pak appears in the code of Doraemon 3: Nobita no Machi SOS!, The New Tetris, Hydro Thunder, and Rugrats in Paris.
• 64GB Cable support was dummied out of Mario Artist: Paint Studio and Communication Kit; it can be restored through hacking, and indicates it would have connected to a special cartridge specifically to allow images to be printed on Game Boy Printer, as well as an unreleased color printer.
• An unofficial fan translation of Densha de Go! 64 actually added Transfer Pak support to the game.

If anyone can find reliable sources that mention these facts, it would be greatly appreciated. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Transfer Pak/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cyberlink420 (talk · contribs) 15:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 00:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

1. Is there a citation for NUS-019? If not, it may be worthwhile to just not mention it.
   1.  Done
2. The dates in the infobox are only in the infobox and not cited
   1.  Done They're actually the dates for the Pokémon Stadium games since it was originally bundled with those before getting a standalone release. (Sadly haven't been able to track down a source saying when that standalone version launched.)

Lead

1. A couple instances of Game Boy Color instead of GBC outside the lead
   1.  Done
2. Honestly, I never realized that the Pokémon games were emulated. Wild stuff
   1. Right? I've been kicking around the idea of including a screenshot of the games being emulated through Stadium for illustrative purposes. Probably something like this since it otherwise uses the Super Game Boy borders and you can't tell it's Stadium at a glance. Or maybe one of the games' transfer menus would be better. Would welcome the input!
3. It might be worthwhile to mention the existence of the 64 GB Cable and its cancellation in the lead
   1.  Done
4. "As a result, while recognized as one of the first examples of connectivity between Nintendo's home consoles and handhelds, the Transfer Pak has come to be retrospectively regarded as largely unnecessary by members of the gaming press." -> "As a result, while recognized as one of the first examples of connectivity between Nintendo's home consoles and handhelds, retrospective coverage of the Transfer Pak has found it largely unnecessary."
   1.  Done

History

1. I feel that the Cabbage mention and the paragraph of cancelled support would work better as a subsection of Supported games, i.e. "Cancelled support". Also, Cabbage IMO should be the second paragraph.
   1.  Done
2. Made minor improvements (hyphenated two words and changed "a N64" to "an N64")

Supported games

1. I'm not sure what this means: "use transferred Pokémon in its minigames" How are they used?
   1. For example, let's say you're playing the Clear Cut Challenge minigame, where you can play as Scyther, Scizor, or Pinsir. If you have one of those three Pokémon in your connected Game Boy game, that same Pokémon in the minigame can appear with your GB Pokémon's nickname and (if it's a shiny) color scheme. EDIT: I replaced "use" with "play as" to make it more clear.
      1. Huh, that's actually pretty neat.
2. Referring to the characters from the Mario sports games as "player characters" could be confusing since a "player character" doesn't make super clear that these original characters are distinct from Mario characters.
   1. I wrote "created character" originally, but it didn't feel like the right word at the time since you don't really create the character beyond picking one of four designs and giving it a name. Maybe it would be better to specify it further as "the player characters from the corresponding GBC games' story modes" instead? EDIT: Just did that.
3. Is there a Nintendo Classics version of Mario Golf? If so, were any Transfer Pak features included? Same for Tennis and Golf on N64.
   1. The 64 versions of Golf and Tennis on Classics lack Transfer Pak support, as does GBC Golf.
4. Changed one instance of "mini-game" to "minigame"
5. Made some changes, particularly with semicolons, as some were better served by making new sentences instead.
6. Be sure to be consistent with player vs. players when applicable
   1.  Done, mostly. I've changed most instances to "players", but stuck with "the player" for Choro-Q and Beast Wars. Since those games give stat boosts that only affect whichever specific player has the Transfer Pak plugged into their controller, the use of the singular "player" for those games made more sense IMO.
7. Do the Doduo/Dodrio modes need to be unlocked? I thought they were available at the start, but I may be misremembering. Either way, it may be worthwhile to just say something like "These games can be played at double or triple speed."
   1. They are unlockable, yes, per the cited source.
8. Calling the second generation of Pokémon games "Game Boy" game might be misleading, since Crystal is GBC-exclusive.
   1. I had assumed at the time that it would be okay and that the reader would grasp the general meaning, but would "portable games" be a better substitute instead? EDIT: Actually, I'm just scrapping "Game Boy" so it's "second generation of Pokémon games".

Reception

1. Is there any reception re: the Nintendo Switch release of Mario Tennis and Golf?
   1. Not really, far as I can find, or at least none that mention the Transfer Pak. The only review I can find that does is the one I cited confirming the minigames being unlocked, but it doesn't really express an opinion on them beyond "These used to be locked; fortunately they're unlocked now."

Spotcheck

1. Checked; looks good
2. Checked; I see it mentioned that there is a surfing Pikachu in Yellow, but doesn't seem to specify it as a mini-game. Do you have a better source that is more explicit?
   1.  Done. I already had it cited for Stadium '99 since that's what the article was focused on, so I just moved that citation for JP Stadium as well..
3. Checked; looks good
4. Checked; looks good

All right, I'm pretty happy with the article now. Good job - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks much. This article has been my pet project for the last few years, so it's nice to know the hard work has paid off. Only other questions I have are...

1. Does it need an image of the Transfer Pak being used in a game for illustration?
2. Should the supported section be converted to a table (see mockup) or left as prose?

I've basically done this all solo up until now, so feedback even beyond the GA review would much appreciated, especially if I decide to pursue FA down the line. (Though that seems unlikely since there's *no* development information as far as I can find.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe that the images are fine as is; I asked others what they thought and they agreed. As for the table, I think that would be an improvement. I considered suggesting it, but the way it's structured isn't bad either. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Transfer Pak

Previous peer review

I'm preparing to submit this article for FAC, and I'd like to have a final peer review conducted before submitting it, to make sure there aren't any significant issues remaining. All feedback is welcome.

Thanks, Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments by AdaCiccone

• Do you think it's possible to create a prose for or around the lengthy supported games list to tell the readers what it means as a whole? That would be better instead of leaving the entire list to carry all of the explanatory weight.
• Also, some sections feel like its purpose is only listing stuff, like 'Cancelled support'. It has a similar structure repeated several times: name of the game > reason for cancellation. I think it could be made better with interpretive points added to it, that is, not just listing stuff but also what do those cancellations mean within the broader context of the subject.
• These are the most visible from my eyes at least. Based on FA-level articles I read, one thing they have in common is that they integrate the parts well, so well that it feels effortless to read. So my overall take for now is that this article lists stuff more than it tells the readers what do those lists mean within the context. AdaCiccone (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

An older version of the article actually did have the list as prose, but the GA review I received felt that table formatting would be an improvement; is this closer to what you had in mind? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, if the content isn't too much, then yes a prose like that would be better. That's what I would normally do (and want to revise) when encountering such things, not only tables but also list-like directories. Now I understand why someone at the GA review proposed the table format because, that way, the prose would be tiring to read.

The particular form I was suggesting is, the prose before the table begins by saying 'here's the complete list of all.... games that are compatible with the Transfer Pak...'. As a reader, I think it could be better if there's more than that, something that helps the readers prepare of what's next, something like a transition. My rationale is simply because the table is extensive, and perhaps the transition could be a mini summary of what the features have in common and what that means as seen from the bigger POV. After the table ends, I'd prefer if there's a transition too to the next section 'Cancelled support' but it could be considered optional. I think the beginning is more important. AdaCiccone (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. I'm just having trouble figuring out the proper way to frame that.

• Most of the retrospective sources used in reception all have the same general conclusion of "it was innovative, but most games didn't use it and the ones that did generally didn't use it for much", and it's hard to figure out how that works for the list without coming off as redundant next to the reception section.
• Looking at the List of Nintendo 64 games article, I can tell you that about 120 games were released before the Transfer Pak existed and another 280 or so (including 64DD games) were released after it, so the 20 games that support it represent only 5% of the full library and only 7% of the games that could have possibly implemented it; obviously, that concurs with reception saying it was underutilized and undersupported, but no sources include those hard numbers, so I worry that trying to frame that in the article approaches OR or SYNTH territory.
• The functionality of the device varies fairly significantly. Both Mario sports games, all three Pokemon games, Robopon, and Super Robot Wars all (roughly) let you share progress between games. Both Power Pro games and B-Daman sort of do the same thing, but only going one way. Mario Tennis, Mickey, Perfect Dark, and Transformers trigger unlock flags. Both Nushi Tsuri games, Mario Golf, and Puyo Puyo let you view data from one system on the other. Ultraman, Robopon, and Transformers generate random effects based on the connected game. The Mario Artist games basically just use it as a pass-through to access the Game Boy Camera. And Choro Q just gets a temporary power up. Trying to figure out how to keep that concise is a bit tricky.

The best I can come up with is "Only 20 of the roughly 400 N64 and 64DD games released worldwide feature support for the Transfer Pak, the majority of which were not released outside Japan. Games use the device for different purposes, including transferring progress between games, unlocking hidden content, and triggering random effects based on the connected Game Boy game. The following is a complete list of all compatible N64 and 64DD games, along with the corresponding Game Boy and GBC games." Is that sufficient, or does there need to be more? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is much better than letting the entire table speaks for itself. One little suggestion from me would be to start the narration with a descriptive tone, like 'The Transfer Pak was supported by 20 N64...' I'm not sure how to put it to words but starting with 'Only 20 of the roughly 400 N64 and 64DD games' is a bit awkward. But yeah, the rest is fine as an introductory prose. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Got it. I've adapted it to sound more descriptive and added it to the article, while still trying to emphasize the miniscule number of compatible games. If there's anything else, please let me know. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, maybe you could move on to the second point I raised, about the Cancelled support. AdaCiccone (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The Cancelled support feels like a list with the same pattern repeated several times. My suggestion is, instead of having the section read mainly as a sequence of "game X planned support, then support was removed," it could be better to begin with a sentence or two that speaks about the broader pattern. And then after that, the individual examples can follow as evidence rather than feeling like a bare list. AdaCiccone (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that the provided examples all removed support for different reasons. Pokémon Snap removed it because they needed a better quality printer; WWF removed it because the GBC game got cancelled; 007 removed it because they changed how the game's save structure works; and the last two went fully unreleased. It's less of a pattern and more just "a lot of extenuating circumstances that contributed to a larger problem", which I've done my best to try and make clear in the slightly revised first sentence. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks fine. My suggestion would be something like: "Several games were planned to include Transfer Pak support, but this was removed before release for differing reasons. It helps explain why the accessory’s already limited library remained small." That’s just my take, though. Honestly, the way it's written now already addresses my point. AdaCiccone (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Cool, I think that's everything. Thanks so much for your help. I'll probably get this submitted to FAC later this week. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Glad to be of help! And good luck at the FAC. AdaCiccone (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)