Talk:Video game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
A Wikipedian removed Video game from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Removal date: September 10, 2006
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article has an archived CVG peer review that may contain ideas for improvement.
CVG To-do:
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

(add a new section)

Contents

[edit] Regional

I was wondering if there is like a regional section for videogames, eg. American Video Games, Japanese Video Games, British Video Games, Middle Eastern Video Games.... Well you get my idea. Richardkselby 01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean in the article? Well, I guess if it has any relevance you are free to add information. There is a section about computer games in the broader culture though, maybe that's a suitable place to add some information about regional differences, for instance which countries tend to make which kind of games, and what games are popular in which countries. That is: if anything sensible can be answerred to these questions: one should watch out for subjectivity and over-generalization. But maybe such an approach is more interesting than making a list of countries and saying what games they made, because for a lot of games, it doesn't really matter where they're made. I mean, well, okay if you're playing DDR it's pretty hard to NOT notice the fact that the game was made in Japan. But if I'm playing UT2004, I have no idea who made it and where, and it doesn't really matter I guess. Also, in the article about video game controversy there's a section with cultural aspects in different regions. You might want look there, if it were only for some inspiration. Greetings, (RagingR2 09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

I don't mean to be a noob (yes,I have heard of NEO-GEO),can you tell me what ut2004 is about thanks.

[edit] Classification Disputes

Everything related to merging video games and computer games, and the proper naming and classification of computerized games has been moved to Moved to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and Video Games/Definition dispute — Slike | Talk | 02:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Over at Category talk:Computer and video games we're holding a vote to determine if Video games should, from here on out, be an umbrella term for Arcade games, Computer games / PC games and Console games. Head on over and vote! Oberiko 21:51, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moved publisher text

Moved this text to here:

Key Video Game Corporations
  • Nintendo -- Creator of numerous console systems and several long-running franchises (such as Mario and the Donkey Kong series).
  • Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. -- Online home to Sony's entertainment division.

This text refers to video game publishers, which is not what this article is about. Nintendo is listed on the video game developer article, which is where it belongs. I'll add Sony to the list there. —Frecklefoot 13:36 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Kudos

Kudos to Ajbperc for his edit to the General section. It now reads much better and gives a clear description of the distinction between computer games and video games. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:51, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Removing external links - adding ODP links

Wikipedia is not a links repository, correct, but I don't understand how deleting quality external links and adding a link to a directory of 42919 sites (95% of them suck...), is going to make this category more useful to its readers. I come here and read the articles, then I want to find good sites to download games. If you point me to a directory of 42919 (!!) sites, where only very few are worthy of my attention, then I wasted my time coming to Wikipedia.

Why not delete the "News, reviews, downloads" links and add a link to http://www.dmoz.org/Games/Video_Games/News_and_Reviews/ Why not delete all useful external links from Wikipedia and just add a link to ODP?

The problem I have with that section in particular is that it's not very encyclopedic (IMO of course) and that it's the subject of many reversions of inserted ads (see the history). In the whole hour and 9 minutes since you restored that section it has already been added to and reverted once. It was a bold edit to see if removing the "specific downloads" section would significantly reduce the pointless back-and-forthing going on.
I linked to the ODP because it covers the topic at hand more generally and also because it lists 37, not 42 000, Windows games download sites which seem to be about on par quality-wise (and the ODP actually includes Linux and Mac games for example). Not all of our links are clearly described (such as this "freeware download" site). Don't worry, I'm not going to remove those links again, but I am interested in the debate. :-) (BTW, you can sign/date your posts here with four tildes ~~~~.) --Mrwojo 23:46, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I totally agree with you when you say "it's the subject of many reversions of inserted ads" but it's up to us to delete those ads, I know it's a lot of work (I'm new with this editing thing, but I can help) but we don't have any other alternative. Deleting all useful links is not the answer.
The "freeware" site you posted is a good example of what we should delete, the description is wrong (flash games, not downloadable games) and I hate sites that keep trying to install weird things on my computer.
PC Gaming and Windows Games Download are so-so... bad design, lots of text and not enough screenshots, plus the games are boring, but I like all the others, they are clean, without lots of ads, and they all have good games. As a reader of this category I find them useful.
ODP lists a lot of outdated sites, some of the links don't work and some descriptions don't match the site's content, it's a good idea to link to the ODP but we should have a few quality external links as well. It makes it easier for the readers/gamers, like me :) (thanks for the tip about the four tildes) Camden town 14:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to editing! Anyway, you're right that removing all the links isn't helpful to readers. I'm a bit harsh on open-ended lists in the Wikipedia (since they seem to invite continuous growth or reversions). I'm satisfied that there are editors watching over it. --Mrwojo 17:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I believe that potential abuse (as seen in the next heading) is another good reason to be careful about the types of list wikipedia allows. I'd like to state that while convinient, these links are more distraction than helpful pointers. This is not a link repository :) if I was a user researching computer games, sites that host games or give reviews of specific games would be of very little related interest. Internal links marked "examples", which lead to articles such as MMORPG, Tetris, Grand Theft Auto, however, would be much appreciated. There are better ways to encourage growth than by 'appealing to all users, be the appeal encyclopedic or not".
A link to an example site with game downloads should be under free games sites a link to which would be under this article's "see also". Game news, game reviews, etc. sites should likewise be under their respective articles. Outgoing links should supply the user with supplemental information, not "you may now have an interest, here are some sites that usually interest those with an interest". While a sample of a typical computer game (I strongly recommend a neutral, interesting "classic" game, on a site without advertisement), links to random sites that one user may appreciate and another may not are subject to wikipedias accepted form, and not the preferance of a user. There are other sites that may act as a collection of "your reccomended games related sites", like a personal blog.
If I have not refuted the argument "I come here and read the articles, then [for reasons seemingly unrelated to my original scholarly endeavors :)] I want to find good sites to download games", please state so. If nothing arises, I'll be removing the links on my next pass. — Slike | Talk |

[edit] More on extern links

Hm, this has cropped up again. An anon user, 208.253.250.114, removed some extern links which were most likely superfluous. I breathed a sigh of releif when I saw this. "Finally, someone has gotten rid of some of the junk," I thought. However, Camden town came along and restored them. Personally, I beleive that, in some cases, less is more.

Case in point: A recent study showed that when given more choices, rather than fewer, consumers are more likely to buy nothing at all. Researchers found that when customers were presented with 20 brands and types of jams, the majority bought none at all. When given a choice of just 2, most purchased some.

I think the same holds true for Wikipedia: let's just give a few high-quality links rather than 500 crappy ones. I think we should actively trim the extern links that provide little quality content and keep just the ones that are great. If a subject is small and there are only two links that have anything to do with it, it's okay if they're not super-great. But for a subject as huge as this one, I think it's our duty to distill what is good and what isn't and just keep the A+ ones. Just MHO... — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Hello Frecklefoot :)
If you check that user's contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=208.253.250.114 you'll understand why he/she removed some external links...he'd probably remove all in a few days time. He keeps adding his sites (http://www.GreenAppleGames.com and http://www.play-casual-games.com ) to Wikipedia, and they are quickly deleted by other users. As you can see they have the same content and layout, they seem to be some kind of mirror of http://www.reflexive.com. I think he was so angry he decided to delete all "download sites" links. He deleted 2, but I bet he'd do the same to the others. This is why I restored them, it was pure vandalism. Camden town 21:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Camden town. Though I concur that the deletions were probably vandalism, I still would like to see the list trimmed down to just quality sites for the reasons I mention above. Just my POV. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:52, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Closer inspection

Most of the "download sites" are roughly the same. Given equal links, we should prefer the (actual) freeware sites over those trying to sell games (especially if they only offer crippleware downloads). These links should be removed:

--Mrwojo 16:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should remove all the links to download sites. Links to specific product sites for products we have specific articles on are OK, but there are simply way too many freeware and shareware sites for computer games in general. Given equal links, by the principle of NPOV we must either include all or none. There should be no problem filling the external links section in this article with links to information sites, articles and the like instead.
If on the other hand someone creates computer game freeware download site... - Fredrik | talk 17:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you for the most part, but was hoping to add a clear guideline to define which links are appropriate. My "given equal links" implied "all else being equal", not that I thought they were entirely equal. Just now I found the same idea in the proposed external links guidelines. --Mrwojo 18:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removal and explanation

People have a tendancy to add games sites they frequent to this article, which I think does nothing to aid the reader. I propose that the following rules/points be considered when adding a site:

  • please seek approval on this talk page before adding an external link, and provide good proven reason to link
  • this is not a site for personal reccomendation. I found that most links had no clear intent other than to let the user know about "this cool site"
  • non critical sites with slow load times, abundant flash, etc are not accessable
  • was the major topic of a game site mentioned in this article?

The following is a list of sites that have been removed, and my reasons:

(is it just me, or do (did) the link descriptions all sound like unprovable sales pitches?)

News, reviews, and downloads

  • ShackNews.com: random news bits. Users reading 2004 in video gaming would be barley more interested?
  • CyberLore.net: a site with opinions on the greatest games
  • EuroGamer: why this one over others?
  • GameRankings: not removed. seems to give real statistics - how accurate are they, and yrom what sources?
  • Gamersreborn: why this one over others?
  • GameSpot: not removed. google searches for "computer gaming news" "gaming" and "computer gaming" return this site as #1
  • GameSpy: why this one over others?
  • IGN PC: why this one over others?
  • Linux Games: needs to be moved to pc games?
  • MobyGames: why this one over others?

Specific download sites replaced with a link to google. (no, not really, but I hope you see my point :)

Directories

— Slike | Talk | 04:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dislike "corporate" gaming sites like GameSpy, IGN (which is really low-quality and ad-filled). I think from those and ShackNews / EuroGamer / GamersReborn (crap), only GameSpot should be kept. GameRankings' rankings are based on the reviews from other sites, so it is objective in a way, it's the reviews themselves that aren't. I say keep that too. I'd keep CyberLore too, it's useful, even if not that "big". I don't know about linux games so I can't say how good LinuxGames is. MobyGames I'd defintelly keep, as it's an useful (and open-content) database of games, probably the gaming website I use the most. I think there are some other websites that could be added, like The-Underdogs.org - the king of abandoned and under-rated games. --82.76.81.56 10:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
what are mobygames and cpberlore chiefly good for? The underdogs should be linked by abandonware. — Slike | Talk | 16:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've never heard of CyberLore, but MobyGames is to computer and video games as IMDb is to movies and television. I'm mostly neutral on them though: They have many games and the developer's entries are unique, but I've found many small errors there (notably in release dates and genres). --Mrwojo 17:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've replaced the directory site with a link to MobyGames. I'm pretty neutral so far, but am opposed to having more than 3 links. A review site, a 'news' site, and catalog site, all having a good reputation are a good trio. A user created walkthroughs/guides site wouldn't be so bad either. — Slike | Talk | 20:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

This section discusses the current structure of of this article. Since the subject is of importance and a major point of contention, please keep this section at the top. If you would like to propose changes to the current implementation, please add comments under the below Comments section.

Computer and video games is currently the umbrella article of the entire subject of computer gaming, be it on pc, console, handheld, arcade, or otherwise. This umbrella article sees a game as "a virtual universe, particular instances ("new game"/"load game") of which are controlled and enforced by a computer".

The goals of this article are to direct the user to what they're looking for in regards to games, and to describe what a game is (see computer and video games#Description).

Computer game and video game both direct to this article. People clicking on the two will likley want to know what a "game" truly is (as per the description above), what to expect of it, and so on.

However, this umbrella article recognizes the fact that video game commonly refers to console game, and that computer game refers to games played on the home computer. Some disambiguation must exist. The article provides links at the top, if applicable, to pages detailing console games, and (there is no page for personal computer games).

One problem is that these specialized articles tend to degrade into "a console game is different from a computer game because...". An attempt to resolve this problem must be made in this umbrella article, by providing a concise overview of various platforms on which "computerized games" are played.

The specialzed articles should/may include:

  • a brief overview
  • a brief history, and a link to the long history (e.g. History of video games).
  • technology involved
  • social and economic points of interest and concerns.

The arcade games article is a good starting example of what a personal computer games and console games article should look like.

[edit] Comments

First, I'd like to apologize for going ahead with all of this. I did not find many parts of the discussion until I had already started (though I admit I may have gone ahead anyways), and many parts of the discussion were stagnant. If I'm doing something you disagree with (or agree with), please, let me know, as I'd really appreciate any form of feedback. --Slike 09:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] To do

(when tasks are done they should be removed, and the comments under them)

personal computer games and console games need cleanup.

Thanks to those that cleaned up the split — Slike | Talk | 02:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trends and attitudes is currently small, but is really a rather large subject, and needs expansion.

Popularity is too large, the few points could be given in fewer words. Halving it may help?

Game modification should be merged into game mods?

[edit] Complete 'See Also' List

Now at List of gaming topics, comments at Talk:List of gaming topics

[edit] Tennis for Two

It is incorrect to say that this is not a computer game. It is, it is just not a digital computer game. So it is certain, without exceptions, that all video games are computer games. Fredrik | talk 01:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A digital computer is "a computer that represents information by numerical (binary) digits". [1]
An analogue computer is "a computer that represents information by variable quantities (e.g., positions or voltages)". [2]
There aren't many, if not any, analogue computers in existence as COTS products. Using the term "digital" is simply marketing since all modern computer appliances are digital computers. Adraeus 07:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The intro

I favor Fredrik's version of the intro (see both). Leaving out the vid sentance and replacing it with "also called video games" fails to define video game on it's own. I think that the way to interact is not contained within the game. "Electronic" is redundant, since 'computer' is mentioned. Setting refers to the same thing as universe, but is not mentioned beforehand, may be confusing. The linked personal computer entry is not about the IBM PC, so macs need no mention. I do appreciate your work though, and don't mean to discourage you by being so rabid about definitions.— Slike | Talk | 05:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I prefer my version too. - Fredrik | talk 15:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I too preferred Fredrik's version. --Mrwojo 15:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I'm afraid I disagree very much with one paragraph of Adraeus' edits (the top one). See changes. A 'game' is not a simulation, though some games are (but are more than just a sim). Only some games, typically MMOs, use a relational database, the rest persist info in other ways - in either case, persistance is irrelevant at this point. And "[...] client and/or server-side software required for player interaction with the traditional business rules layer replaced by a gameplay rules layer" will be, I think, veeeeery confusing for those unfamiliar with 'business rules' and the like. Also, it implies that game development/etc is a child of business applications, but that's minor. — Slike | Talk | 07:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Definition was from GameDev.net. By the way, you're using a limited interpretation of "simulation". See [3]. Adraeus 07:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would hope that that defenition is geared towards seasoned developers as a kind of "well, just think of it as...". You must agree that it would seem very confusing to the average reader? As for sim, yes, however, that limited interpretation is the one a reader will likely hold: [4]. — Slike | Talk | 07:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
GameDev.net's dictionary is created by contributions from visitors, like the Wikipedia, so our own definition is as credible (or more so, since we're having this discussion). Also, the definition is almost word-for-word the same as the one at GameDev.net, which is bad.
Is our "virtual universe that players interact with in order to achieve some goal" based on some other work not referenced (it seems at least inspired by the definition of game in "I Have No Words & I Must Design")?
I also question WordNet's definitions. For example, it defines computer game as a "game played against a computer" and video game as a computer game. So Battlefield 1942 played against bots is a c-v game, but multiplayer is neither a computer nor video game? --Mrwojo 15:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(I think I wrote most of that part). The last thing I read that would have helped with that definition is The Art of Computer Game Design, and I believe that for the most part, it's very similar to I Have No Words & I Must Design (as both have a very nice discussion of what a game is), but that was 4+ months ago, and I don't think they go into definitions of computer games that much (or at all?), so I think we're plenty safe.
Any definition we make is just as good as any we find, as long as we go about making it the right way, which I believe we are. — Slike | Talk | 20:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is almost a year old and the intro still reads very awkwardly. There's a request for an expert so I'm going ahead with some intro changes that bring it back in line with the stuff under Structure on this talk page that says it should be about things common to both types of game. Starting a sentence with "Technically" is confrontational. Also, the terms aren't interchangable since "computer games" encompasses games that don't include video. If they were, we should call this computer games or video games, not computer AND video games. Weefz 12:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Computer

If I'm correct, the term personal computer refers, or technically refers, to a computer running a running Windows, Linux, or several other operating systems, but it does not refer to Macs. Would the term home computer, perhaps, be more correct? ✏ OvenFresh☺ 17:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

while no conflict exists with the mac (standard def of personal computer includes macs), it seems slightly more approriate. However, two points - "personal computer" is a much more popular term (PC, not HC, etc.) and also, there'd be quite a lot to change for dubious clarity. — Slike | Talk | 06:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I prefer "desktop workstation", but I'd settle with "desktop computer". Be aware that both "personal computer" and "desktop computer" mean slightly similar things and include console game systems. [5] [6] Adraeus 07:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
According to WordNet, "personal computer" does not include console game systems because console game systems are designed for multiple simultaneous users. (See my caveat on WordNet above though.) --Mrwojo 15:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In normal UK usage, 'PC' doesn't include Macs (its what used to be referred to as 'IBM-compatible', I think), but its a moot point - as far as I'm aware all Mac games are ports of PC games. --Dolphan
"Home computer" refers to the various computers popular during the 1980s and early 1990s (AppleII, Commodore 64, Atari 400/800, Amiga, Atari ST, etc.). It's not used much anymore, but could still refer to various home models of computers. "PC" refers to IBM PC compatibles, which could run DOS, Windows, Linux or various other operating systems. But it does not refer to the Apple Macintosh since it uses specialized hardware.
BTW, not all Mac games are ports of PC games! Many are, but it is not universal. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite tag

I've added the cleanup-rewrite tag because this article is somewhat confusing and ununderstandable. It also inaccurately describes what video games are. Also, video games are not computer games, even if that is what the name implies, and the articles should be separated as this just causes confusion. "Bushwhacked" does not mean getting whacked by a bush. We should treat these terms as what they mean. ✏ OvenFresh² 00:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Video games were accuratley described, first in one sense of the word (the technical dictionary definition of "game with a video screen"), and then in the second sense (the "a video game is a console game" definition). Your view seems to be absolutely grounded in the second. If you are going to suggest that video games are not computer games, "even if that is what the name implies", you better have a good reason for supressing the first.
Read what this article is about, as in "A computer game is a game composed of a computer-controlled virtual universe that players interact with in order to achieve a defined goal or set of goals". Console and PC games are definitely moreso similar than they are different. The difference between the two is the method of player control (keyboard&mouse vs handheld) and the resolution and size of the screen. And that's all. This does lead to some genres of game being more appropriate for one or the other - that's genre, and does not change the "game"ness of either in any way.
I think you see some vast distinction between a game on your computer and one on your console and are completely missing out on how absolutely similar they are. This article is about the similarities, the things that make this type of gaming distinct. There are two articles about two different implementations of this "...game composed of a computer-controlled virtual universe..." concept.
I strongly suggest that you share your views in the talk page before calling for a complete rewrite. I don't know what others think, but I think how your view of the article as "confusing and ununderstandable" stems from you, and not from the article. Explain what you think is wrong with it. —Slike2 18:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I dont see absolutly nothing wrong with the article. I myself wrote a nice chunk of it, specially in the History part and someone deleted the whole thing. You bettr talk about things before you cange them. Its not your encyclopedia alone; its everyone's.--SalomonMuriel 01:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
'ome Compyooter wood nae work cos wot aboot the pooor sod ee werks at 'offis? wot wood ee doo den, ee? ee? Ees nae at 'ome, is ee? ah jus' thin' wi shud stik wi' personal compyooter
I think the problem might be use of the term "computer games" which, at least in the gaming community, is somewhat obsolete and among some people can conjure up images of older games like the text-based Infocom adventures which most certainly are NOT video games. Neither are MUDs which are still played on PCs and Macs by a lot of people. I would agree that PC games (the common term these days) should have their own category since there are lots of games playable on a computer that aren't video games and hence would only be included in this article due to the word "computer" in the title. Visual does not equal video. The discussion page on PC games is much quieter, so I'm off to make some changes there that back up my point. Weefz 21:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links, yet again

Kmg90, please refrain from reverting my reverts :) You may have noticed the attempt at a sign directing you to the talk page. While rel="nofollow" prevents people from using wikipedia to spam (boost the pagerank of) their (favorite) sites, the addition of "whichever links anyone would like" should still not be allowed. I would not like to see, for example, a list of 10 or 30 links to relatively random "helpful" sites. I think that 3 is a very reasonable number, especially considering that each one of the links that we have now offer the user virtually zero information to supplement this encyclopedic material. So please, before changing that clearly marked section, propose why your link is better than those given, or why we should have more than three. I'd be more than happy to agree with some good reasoning. Slike2 02:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I seem to have missed your comment. I changed my own writing back to what I had originally wrote, your generous edit was: "IGN: because IGN UPDATES THERE NEWS and other things than any other SITE!"[sic]. My response to this is: why not make an artice about gaming news sites, or better yet, a list of gaming news sites and attempt to add it there? Gaming news offers the novice reader nothing except confusion. You state that the IGN updates their site more than others, which makes it better - that's your opinion. But does pagerank agree with you? No, it does not. I searched for "gaming news", "game news", "video game news", "computer game news" (etc.), and I did not see the IGN returned as a top hit for any of those. On top of that, it's a corporate site. Further on top of that, this isn't an article about gaming news, it's an article about c/v games. You don't learn about china by watching chinese news, just as you don't learn about america by watching american news. If you pointed the reader to a forum or a singe article on gaming, I think that that would be better (though still inappropriate). IGN is entertainment, and not a learning resource. Slike2 21:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about adding a link to MobyGames [7]? It's a non-commercial site--all they do is catalog electronic games. They also have reviews, but it's totally free--they don't sell anything. Many of our computer and video game articles link to it. Thoughts? — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:08, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_and_video_games&diff=9925708&oldid=9913453 was the (my) edit that dropped it. I have nothing against it. I don't really think that any of the links help with "what is a video game", so I'd prefer 0 and a note and link to a gaming sites article, but hey. I think that three is a good number, if you think that we should add a fourth, I'd ask if we can get rid of one of the ones we have - if no, then by all means add it. I'm editing based on a hazy notion of what contributers/readers want to see (as opposed to people that can click an edit button). Slike2 04:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not many articles' external links directly relate to the question "what is a [article topic]?". Most are about the topic in general. Major, broad-focused sites like MobyGames are useful links here in that regard. -Sean Curtin 20:36, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
Right. I see nothing wrong with MobyGames, but I'd rather it be excluded than 10 random, redundant, and equally pointless (this last one is my POV) be included. If we allow any link at all, what's to stop any link at all from being posted? A second argument is what is the intent of external links? I don't think that it's to allow us to suggest favorite sites to each other. I can find plenty of fun sites to add [8], but should I? A third argument is: would you place CNN's national news section under the US article? Just because the article and the site share the same subject matter (and so is likely to be interesting to the enthusiast) does not mean that we have to link to it. Summary: I wouldn't like a list of 10+ redundant sites to be at the end of this article. Slike2 02:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How is posting a GAMING RELATED WEB SITE SPAM!
Definition of spam: Unsolicited "junk" e-mail sent to large numbers of people to promote products or services. Sexually explicit unsolicited e-mail is called "porn spam." Also refers to inappropriate promotional or commercial postings to discussion groups or bulletin boards.
And the site is not inappropriate User:Kmg90
You feel that it is not inappropriate, I feel that it is. You won't be able to convince me otherwise unless you do more than flatly state your opinion. My points above outline why I feel the way I do. As for spam - on wikipedia, spam is what an editor feels is intended to promote something to the reader as opposed to trying to help the reader. When you ignore a clearly marked message that asks you to show some consideration by talking things over before adding something to a touchy section, I tend to think that you may not be all that helpful. Slike2 02:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm against "spam links" too. I didn't think MobyGames qualified as a spam link, but if adding it will encourage others to enter spam links, then it doesn't need to be added. I only brought it up here because of the comment in the section.
How about stating in the comment that all additions will be reverted unless discussed here first? Then we can add the MobyGames link and feel justified when we revert all other links that others add? :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and I've modified the comment. I vote yes on MobyGames, and no on any corporate site. Slike2 21:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think I agree; to this end, I think we should remove gamespot and add metacritic. Tempshill 18:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about this. I don't like corporate sites mainly because I don't think they're deserving of attention. Gamespot is however the leading site (says google), and I don't think that should be ignored only because it's corporate. Thanks for your rewrite, by the way. Slike2 20:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goals

Slike2 said: player forms their own goals

In that case, we may as well say:

  • An automobile is a wheeled vehicle that carries its own motor and allows the driver to achieve some goal
  • Mathematics is studied by mathematicians in order to achieve some goal

and so on.

People always do things with some goal in mind. This phenomenon is not intrinsic to computer and video games, and therefore irrelevant. Fredrik | talk 03:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The defining aspect of games is that they include a goal as part of their definition. A game is a world, and things that you must clearly do in that world. 'Mathematics' and 'an autmobile' are just means to an end, they don't actually include goals as part of their definition (the goals are, respectively, "satisfy curiosity" and "move from one place to another"). Yes, it's clear that you use them for those goals, but the point is that the goals, or ends, were known before the means to achieve them. Not so in games. Games define both goals and the world at the same time. If you'd like, "achieve a goal" could become "achieve a defined goal", but I don't see a need.
Now, you're obviously referring to "software toys" when you remove the mention of goals - software toys have their own article. My add on to that was that even with toys, it's still important to mention defined, or objective goals. Take the new WoW. Clearly, it's a software toy, as there are no "winning conditions" (something meaningless as far as games go that the phrase "software toy" convolutes into existance, but that's my opinion). But, there are clear goals: level up. And there are clear goals in sim city: build a big city. Sure, they're a lot less linear, but the goals are still there. Winning conditions are not, but winning conditions are not mentioned here. Slike2 04:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the term "software toy". The distinction is vague, though. Fredrik | talk 05:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
It is, vague and kind of useless. Personally, I think they're the same thing (toys and games) - goals exist in both. Unfortunately, the sim city guy got confused and thought that not providing a winning condition somehow means you aren't providing implied goals. And I don't see any regular person calling the sims a toy. Slike2 09:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

Anon editor 209.164.32.131 (talk • contribs) added the following external link, http://games.consumerelectronicsnet.com/, which looks like it is possibly borderline spam, or at least a low quality link. Could someone more knowledgable about computer games please investigate. BlankVerse ∅ 13:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, per the warning in that section, we can just revert it since they didn't bother bringing it up on this talk page first. I see someone's already done it, but if that happens again--someone adds an extern link without discussing it here first--just revert it. The comment in that section says that will happen if they don't discuss it first.
I know the warning sounds un-wiki, but this article is a huge target for spam links, so we added the warning to help curb the spam links. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Video games create violence

I think there should be some reference to video gaming considered to make kids violent (I don't think so), there should be some info on that controversy. vaceituno | Talk | 00:00, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

That discussion, covered in an entire article, is located at Video game controversy. Its linked to via the List of gaming topics page. So it's covered, just not in this article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:49, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Created a paragraph mentioning the controversy with a link to the main page. — Wikipedical | Talk | 20:53, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I propose adding MobyGames to the external links. It's a 100% non-profit website, unlike some of the other sites which are there, like GameSpot. Since it's a standard site to link to for articles about console or computer games, I think it's pertinent and should be added to the list. I'm bringing it up here per the note in the External links section. Any objections? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, for the exact reasons Frecklefoot stated. Coll7 05:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
MobyGames is not 100% non-profit. It is a 100% doesn't earn a profit. There is a difference. In the seven or so years of its existance MobyGames has not earned anything you would call profit nor has it paid the founders any real money. Revenue from ads and the buy button go to paying for bandwidth and buying servers etc.--Flipkin 19:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External Link request

I'd like to add a link to my site at the end of the video game article. It is a history of video games, and I feel it would add some historical perspective to your entry:

The Dot Eaters: Videogame History 101 http://www.thedoteaters.com

Is that okay?

Thanks for asking. Most articles you can add extern links to as you like, but this one has become a big target for people spamming their own sites. There is a History of computer and video games article where your link might be more appropriate. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


How about http://www.la-arcada.com ?

Why? What does it have that is impartial and pertinent to this article? Does it have ads? Does it have pop-ups? Do we really need it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


I recently added a summary of an interesting concept I came across the other day: the current and future progression of gameplay trends. I'd like to reference the short article and its writer that pointed it out:

Av4rice (2006). "Obsolescing the horse". Warbucket. URL accessed 16 May 2006.

Relevant? --Roy Laurie 09:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "See also" section edits

Added internal link to cfg category page and edited labels of all three links for clarity. Glad to discuss! Checked likely link paths from Wikipedia Main to this article and they seem good. -- Sitearm | Talk 02:40, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

[edit] Magazine disambiguation line shortened

I removed the dates from the magazine disambiguation line. The shortened text fits on one line. The dates were unnecessary (they're in the magazine article). The links distracted attention from the magazine link which is the important item in the line. Glad to discuss! -- Sitearm | Talk 02:49, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Hello. I noticed there were many pages linking to this article via a redirect from video game. I've edited over 150 pages so far, correcting links to point directly to Computer and video games. I ask that if anyone has the time, to help do this. You can see what pages link to video game here: Special:Whatlinkshere/Video game. --Daniel Lawrence 09:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer games and console games, not "video games", term used only in the USA

The term "video game" is used only in the USA and the majority of people in the world are not American. --Chaosfeary 13:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Guess what? I'm not American. I'm Canadian. I use the term video game. I know lots of people who call them video games. I don't like being referred to as an American when I'm not. Maybe there's a better wording that actually includes people not living in the US, because I know the term video game is widely used up here. Not sure about other places that use the term. Can we get a source for other locations? Optichan 14:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that you may be Canadian, but you are also American. America is a continent, not a country.-70.130.138.210 05:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, nix that to "the continent known as North America". Pretty sure it's only the US and possible some associated islands like American Samoa and so on, Canada and possibly Quebec (when they speak English) who use the term "video game". Nowhere else, I'm pretty sure, but if anyone from countries excluding those defined under the previous sentence wants to comment it would be great. --Chaosfeary 18:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
My friends in the UK use the term video game, and my friends in France say "jeux de vidéo" (games of video). Besides, you didn't have consensus for the huge amount of page moves. Please get it first. Andre (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, I should point out that American English speakers are a supermajority of English speakers (see English language), and the whole idea of playing games written as computer programs was pioneered in the United States.
We have other Wikipedias for other languages for other parts of the world. In the meantime, the English Wikipedia is supposed to reflect how people use English (which is why we have an article on California and not Kalifornien or however people in other countries spell it). --Coolcaesar 04:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm from Colombia and I use the term video games. I talk with americans and british people on a daily basis and I dont think I've heard the term computer games or console games come up in any conversation. (English is not my native language tho).

The phenomenal inaccuracy of that Naming section annoyed me so I changed it without consensus. I was bad. At least it's accurate now. See here if you need to see natural writing from UK gamers. Or Kotaku for Japan and/or the US, I'm not sure where they're all based. I have never heard a gamer use the term "interactive entertainment media" and I doubt I ever will unless they're being ironic. Weefz 00:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My friend from Mexico says 'Video Games'. I could understand computer games but I haven't heard console games unless it is directly speaking between computer and console games. I go for video games. Xsaii 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "video games" is popular in the UK, and if the magazine Computer and Video Games is anything to go by, it has been since at least 1981. :) --Nick RTalk 19:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty dumb. I don't have any statistics, but "video games" must surely be the more widely used.
In most Spanish speaking countries the common term is videojuego (also, juego de vídeo), literally "video game". My friends in Ireland, Britain, and Australia all use "video game". Anecdotal evidence would seem to disagree with your assertion. -- mattb @ 2007-02-26T06:24Z

The Platforms section does a decent job of addressing the naming convention's, but it could be improved slightly. First of all, a "computer game" is NOT a "video game," "PC Games" are NOT video games. "Console" and "arcade" games (as well as single game pseudo-consoles and cell-phone type platform games) are all video games, however, "PC/Computer games" simply are not. This misnomer is most likely a result of the mainstream culture not understanding the gaming culture, and the casual gaming culture not understanding itself. I have NO source for this so won't edit it in without discussion, I only know what I have been taught and what I have assimilated on my own as an amateur game developer and game design student. Personnally, I would like to see seperate articles, however this would be highly redundant as video games and computer games are extremely similar subjects-70.130.138.210 06:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but you've offered no significant criteria for distinction of computer games and video games. Your comments aren't particularly helpful if you yourself can't identify concrete differentiation points. -- mattb @ 2007-03-13T06:14Z
Agree. A video game is a game that uses some sort of video display as its main form of feedback. Computer games absolutely fit this description. They are types of video games. So are console games and arcade games. Often console games are referred to as just video games (which they are), but this doesn't exclude computer games from being video games as well. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History Section

The history section was highly POV and rehashed info that's just a click away elsewhere in the History of computer and video games and Console wars articles. I trimmed it way down to give a thumbnail of our roots and made the links to the other articles prominent. If in so doing I cut something others feel deserved to be covered here as well please edit it back in. Coll7 01:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Why dont we merge those articles into this one. After all they are part of the topic.--SalomonMuriel 05:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Although it's good information, the problem is that the resulting article would be too long. For me this article is already 9 printed pages and the history article is 15. Although the topics are inextricably related, they can each stand on their own, which proves best organizationally. --Duozmo 13:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that what was there should stay there. The articles you linked are far more complete; but are too large for someone who is only looking for a short-to-medium detailed information. What do you think? --SalomonMuriel 04:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I think 3 paragraphs (where it is now) is just about the right length for a summary. It's definitely a tough call as to what to include / exclude, but personally I think it's at its sweet spot. --Duozmo 01:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The history section keeps expanding. On first blush I didn't want to just rv it because the writing would be a good start if the issues weren't already covered. Is there any reason others see not to revert and direct the author(s) to contribute to the main game history article? Coll7 21:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

British people tend to say games That was an accident. sorry (Moonrunner)

[edit] What?

The genres section is retarded. I don't think a game has ever been refered to as "Goth" and if it has the term being used as a video game genre is absolutely ridiculous. The author didn't even mention FPS's in the genres section and it was right next to a pic of Halo, what's up with that?

I agree. We should change it to the commonly accepted genres (FPS, TPS, RPGs, MMORPGs, Survival Horror, Racers, Fighters, Adventure, Action, Simulators and Strategy(both RT and Turned)

[edit] Sections with main articles

I noticed the removal of text in the sections that also have a main article. I think even though a main article is present, a section should always have a brief description. The main article refs. are IMHO there in case I want to know more about a specific subsection. The article is less readable now. What do you think? Felsir 12:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like to create the descriptions, be my guest. You'll have to do it for "Game play" as well, though. Kyle key 07:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Games

I've not noticed anything about indie gaming anywhere on the article about independently developed games. Considering the size of the indie/hobbyist game development crowd, and pundits (such as the people of The Escapist) stating that these people will become increasingly important, I find that this is quite the oversight. On the other hand, I can't really think of any way of adequately expressing indie gaming in this article. Help, anyone? --coldacid 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Throw in a quick mention that not all games are developed by mainstream companies with large teams. There's a section devoted to indie development in Game development that you could expand or link to indie gaming. Weefz 13:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Jobs

Uh..... I really don't know how to say this, but, the article really still needs to be edited, whoever thought to put "mobile phone gaming" in the article was totally crazy. Also, the whole "too many links" thing needs to be taken care of because someone put it back in.

I also think more examples games of the genres need to be put in. I thought of that just the other day. I don't meen to be bossy sounding, but this article needs to be finished, or we'll have some idiot come and erase the entire thing, then we'll be right back where we started from, crap!! fatherdontdance 14 jan, 2006

[edit] What major revamping?

Can I know why this article is marked as going through an "expansion or major revamping"? There isn't any mention of it on this talk page, let alone a Todo list. --82.7.125.142 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I suspect the insertion of that template was a very subtle form of vandalism. The article has minor problems but nothing requiring that template! --Coolcaesar 18:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Well put. Removed. The cleanup tag does it's job just fine without it. --82.7.125.142 18:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm getting rid of the merge template

It's obvious to me that the article in question should be merged into computer and video game industry, not this one. --82.7.125.142 20:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Game Wiki City

I am trying to start a Wiki city but need support and would like to know who would join --Dr. Mahongany 16:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are the any video game companies in australia?

well?

Pece Kocovski 08:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne House springs to mind. Olaan 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Google "Australian Game Developers Conference" and you'll get all sorts of good links and names. Coll7 18:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page disruption

This page has been vandalised. I'm new to this and don't know what to do about it so just thought I would flag it up here.

Happens quite a bit see Wikipedia:Vandalism for further information. Normally, unless its particularly large in frequency, we just revert to the previous version of the article. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Computer Game History

I'd just like to point out that there is no history of computer games, only consoles. Patheros 23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sales

Are there any confirmations/sources for the last part of the article concerning sales (consoles + console games + computer games)?

"Sales
The four largest markets for computer and video games are the United States, Japan, Australia and the United Kingdom. Other :significant markets include Spain, Germany, South Korea, France, and Italy. Both India and China are considered emerging markets in :the video game industry and sales are expected to rise significantly in the coming years.
Sales of different types of games vary widely between these markets"

It seems very anglocentric. I highly doubt Australia is a bigger market than South Korea, France or Germany.

[edit] History re-write

Somebody changed the first three subsections of the History section to show statements that aren't very helpful. Someone needs to change this back. 12.64.152.170 20:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Correctly reverted the article to remove vandalism. Mysterius 21:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pong

pong was the first video game, so shouldn't a picture of pong be on this article? dposse 18:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you can get one. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
actually Naughts and crosses was the first video game. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
That's true, but pong was the first game to be widely available to consumers. --Coolcaesar 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
That can be said, but that doesn't change the fact, that pong is NOT the first videogame nor the origin of videogames. ;) In fact many consider 1958's "Tennis for Two" to be the first one. Ap2000 03:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, many do not - including the courts. Tennis for Two used an oscilliscope for display, there was no video or video signal, hence it was not considered a "video" game. Same goes for Nauts and Crosses, which used a lit panel for a display. --Marty Goldberg 03:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game Innovation Database

New videogame wiki, maintained by Carnegie Mellon University: [9] Article by BBC: [10] Not on list of wikis yet. Shawnc 18:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bias

This article is biased. An entire section is dedicated to the benefits of gaming, but there is considerable research to the contrary. The positive aspects are not verified, and the negative effects (beyond the whole violence issue) aren't mentioned at all. There is research that video games might have a negative effect on cognitive development and on social behavior. Beyond that, a habit of gaming for hours at a time must be somehow correlated to physical health problems such as obesity. These issues must be addressed to make the article a fair and valid one.

There is an entire page dedicated to the Video game controversy. I think the intention of that small paragraph is to simply highlight some of the more outspoken views on it. --Roy Laurie 21:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Look mister anonymous editor, while I agree that certain video games can have negative effects the whole idea of video games in general is not bad. Playing them for hours on end is not a good idea, but gaming does have positive aspects and I don't see why we have to always be perseverating on the negative aspects. Board games like checkers were once thought about negatively too, you know, but no longer. Scorpionman 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messy - needs a fix

I've read through this article and I think that it's a bit messy in places and unencyclopaedic in others. Examples such as "Some research[6] suggests videogames may even increase players attentional capacities..." or "Nintendo's choice to use cartridges instead of CD-ROMs for the Nintendo 64, unique among the consoles of this period, proved to have negative consequences. In particular, SquareSoft, which had released all previous games in its Final Fantasy series for Nintendo consoles, now turned to the PlayStation; Final Fantasy VII (1997) was a huge success, establishing the popular"...

The article doesn't flow well, has some akward sentence construction amongst other things, and I think is in general need of a cleanup. Mouse Nightshirt 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the Player Gains

This section has been bothering me for a while; I finally sat down and really went to work on it. In my opinion I improved it big time, so I have removed the "improve and expand" it was tagged with. I have high hopes for this article. :-) LearningKnight 03:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More disambiguation

I'm trying to remove links to the perspective disambiguation page. A few video games link to it, as they refer to "first person perspective" or "third person perspective" (so far I have changed Hang on). Sadly none of the items from the disambiguation page deal with the thing properly, and I can't find a suitable video game link to sort it out. I have, for the moment, opted for a wholly inadequate perspective (graphical) (literary perspective is another good bet for this, but I am still not convinced) but was wondering if there is space here, or elsewhere for a quick "third person, first person" style of game section, then I could clean things up to point to that bit of the article. Otherwise suggestions for the disambiguation are welcome (including delete it!)LeeG 00:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Watch for pointless offsite linking in the "see also"

I removed a link that went to a forum that was 'all bout games'. It had maybe twenty topics. You might want to watch for it in the future.

[edit] Random Vandalism

What the Heck is up with all this random vandalism that's been going on with this article? I mean, thats entirely all I want to ask here. I fail to understand why this article has had so much vandalism befall it. It's nothing most of us can't handle, but still... --Joseph Collins 02:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No open source video game screens?

I think we should use screens of open source games rather than proprietary ones- then we won't have to use fair use screen shots. In terms of demonstration of video game concepts, I think they would do just as well. Borisblue 23:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your point here. Any screenshot of a game we use is fair use, as long as it is used for informational purposes (as opposed to decorative uses, for example). Any screenshot we include is fair use, no matter who takes that shot. It's not like we're getting them from some "fair use archive" provided by the publisher.
All game screenshots should be from the game covered in the article. Otherwise, it's misleading. And most open source copies of game I've seen don't look much like the commercial versions of the games they are copying (e.g. Freeciv). Plus numerous commercial games don't have open-source implementations. Screen shots of open source games are fine for their own articles, however (of course). :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the Pong screenshot deserves to be there for instance, due to historical significance- but if an open source image can serve the same purpose, they should be used. I'm thinking about the "Gamers are becoming more demanding when it comes to graphics and physics, as demonstrated by Half-Life 2."- Can't an open source shooter game demonstrate the same thing? Also, an open source pacman clone will do just as well for the first image IMHO Borisblue 04:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
for instance, replacing the halflife image- if you want to demonstrate sophisticated graphics and physics in video games.Borisblue 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Changed it. The HalfLife pic had no fair use rationale for being in this page anyway.

[edit] Tone?

Seems unencyclopedic (particularly in the History section) and sometimes POV (pro-enthusiast, anti-business). For example: "Another factor that led to the demise of the home gaming market was the fact that many of these games that were being produced were just ill produced games with no play value whatsoever, all in order to take advantage of the game craze." 68.9.116.26 03:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that sentence is very POV. From what I've read, everyone has a different opinion of what led to the demise of the home gaming market. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Games as art

I'm surprised I couldn't find anything other than a single sentence on "Art's" page referring to this concept. The other major mediums (film, music, etc.) have sections involving their artistic merit. I realize finding scholarly sources for games is far more difficult, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be at least some mention of the debate over whether or not games are art. If gaming sites can be listed as sources for facts, is there a reason why they cannot be listed as sources referring to editorial commentary on this subject? What about discussions inside these sites reviews about what the game's creators are trying to convey through their work? Yes, keeping such a thing NPOV would be difficult, but so is anything involving the subjective inference of artistic merit. This is from "Film:"

"Film is considered by many to be an important art form; films entertain, educate, enlighten and inspire audiences. [...] Films are also artifacts created by specific cultures, which reflect those cultures, and, in turn, affect them."

If this is the standard by which a medium is judged, then games obviously meet the criteria for consideration, and that consideration should be mentioned.Varmintx 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Video games can be considered an art. Take into account the amount of time and effort that goes into just designing the landscape. Great example is "Shadow of the Colossus". The amount of detail that went into detailing the landscape almost made me want to cry b/c it was so pure. Also, you can take into account fighting games. Dead or Alive is wonderful in the fluidity of the motions and movements of the attacks. The connectivity between the motions is amazing. posted by Die-Hard Gamer 7 Oct. 2006
Of course video games can be considered an art form. But the reason it's not mentioned in this article is because it was mostly written by gamers, who play games not for their artistic merit, but for their entertainment value. Few gamers, I suspect, would even know how to approach writing about them as an "art."
We probably need someone with some background in art and experience with games to write such a section. But, of course, it would need to be copiously referenced. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, games can be considered as art, but as has been said, most gamers don't play for the artistic value. This would have to be noted in any section that we were to create as not to get too superfluous to the topic at hand. Mouse Nightshirt 16:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Vogel

Being considered for deletion due to lack of sources. Either someone should find sources or it should be deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Vogel http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,3327/ http://register.imdb.com/name/nm0900917/ DGMurdockIII

[edit] DirectX 10 cross platform?

How will DirectX 10 help making cross platform games? Like between Xbox and Windows? But what about Mac OS X, Linux and stuff? Microsoft will never make anything really cross platform.

--Viller

[edit] Colossal Cave Adventure

An important game that made the rounds at colleges with DEC video workstations was the "Colossal Cave Adventure". Unless there is serious objection, I'll include this "Beginnings" section of this wiki. YORD-the-unknown 19:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted as a good article

Articles fails criterion 2a of the good article criteria. Once this has been addressed, you can renominate it for good article status. If you disagree with this, you can seek a review. Thanks, JimmyBlackwing 13:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Criterion 2a" ...or in other words, needs better references or sources. -- Buuneko 08:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the article's title

Electronic game redirects here, but would Simon (game) qualify as a computer or video game? We either need a split or we need to more broadly define the scope of computer and video games. --Tristam 15:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not all electronic games qualify as video games. Electronic games needs its own article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MT soil MN roots I need help finding the title of a game...

there is a game that came out in the early to mid 90s that i wanted to get but i dont know the name. I know bits and pieces about it but not the name. It is a role playing game set in the future. Its about a guy who gets on a cruise ship and gets captured by a pirate ship which he joins. On the cruise ship he talks to the captain and meets her daughter which i think he ends up saving i think later. The cool thing about this game is that you can type in your requests. At the beginning i know you can go to a bar where there is an alien dancing and you can type in what you want to drink. I know that there is an alien cab driver and if you dont pay him he shoots you and the game is over. Any info on this would be appreciated. MT soil MN roots 02:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You might try poking around on MobyGames or Home of the Underdogs. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Systems that allow for multiplayer gaming

This section should be removed. It is terribly incomplete. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of ANY system that doesn't allow for multiplayer gaming! Certainly, the preceeding paragraph mentions systems that didn't get included in the list. Bulbous 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(Even pong had multiplayer gaming, just like the original Atari's. Its really not a standout feature. Maybe if its changed from simply multiplayer to online multiplayer capabilities, it will make more sense. Tauraunt 21:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

If no one has any defense for the inclusion of this section, it should be removed. As almost all systems allow for multiplayer gaming, the relevance of this section is negligable. The same is also true of the "History of Multiplayer video games", which skips from 1958 to 1972 to 1985 and onward. Bulbous 02:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have re-written the "Multiplayer Gaming" section with links and a footote. Bulbous 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Games for Windows

We should probably include something on Microsoft's initiative to promote pc as a gaming platform. If it works, it can have a huge effect on the views people have of the pc. It has the chance of revolutionizing the pc as a gaming platform in the views of people, and can change everything.

  • The PC is the main platform for certain games, eg real time strategy is predominant on PCs, as are FPS (although common on consoles, i remember a figure showing that PCs had the vast majority of FPS players.) and obviously MMORPGs. I thus think revolutionised is far too strong a word. Mouse Nightshirt 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheat codes page

I think someone should make a new topic of video game cheats for the hell of it.Naruto editor 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean like some of these? :> Marasmusine 19:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eating away!

The truth of the matter about video games is that they are truly eating away at the brain. People who spend hours on end on video games are more likely to get lower grades. Video games, in my opinion , are one of the many (and I say many meaning more than I can name) reasons for bad grades. They cause people (children more specifically) to turn away from studying. Then the parents get report cards and ask their kids why, the kids tend to say "I don't know". Does this not give a reason to dislike video games? Miapowell 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Miapowell

"Video games" don't cause "bad grades". If we accepted that logic, then all students would have "bad grades", not just those who play video games. I wouldn't necessarily disagree that spending too much time playing video games might detract from study time... but then again, spending too much time doing pretty much anything might detract from study time! If a child is spending too much time on video games, I would dislike the parent who permitted it more than the games. Bulbous 01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a talk page to discuss the article. This is not an open forum on how video games rotcha brain. This section should be deleted. Danny Lilithborne 02:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Replayability

"Replayability" is a term coined by the gaming press, very familiar to gamers; but it's a bit of an odd one, not sure if you'd see it in any dictionaries. Should the term be clarified, or Playability have its own cvg article? Marasmusine 07:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a definition, though. Marasmusine 07:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed merge

it has been proposed that multiplayer game be merged into this page. add your vote with support or oppose. feel free to leave extra comments in the comments section. Scepia 02:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] voting

  • Oppose — The Multiplayer Game article needs serious re-writing. Adding it here just makes more work. Bulbous 21:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose — I concur with Bulbous. --Coolcaesar 01:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for same reasons. Danny Lilithborne 02:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Although the section on multiplay could be expanded here, the multiplayer games article in itself is too large a topic to bring completely under the umbrella of this article. Mouse Nightshirt 18:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Multiplaying is one of the most important reason why gamers play games in the modern world. Merging the two articles will make the idea of video gaming more complete. User:Guitarhamster 21:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose — Seeing as not all games are multiplayer, and..well..everything...it makes no sense to merge..alas..i oppose this with every cell of my body Fethroesforia 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose — I think both pages are fine as they are now, and both have their place (one a high level overview and the other as detailed informaiton on the subject. Although, both of them do need alot of work.BcRIPster 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: this should be discussed in the main CVG article, but this is here to go into details. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comments

[edit] Help needed..or joint help..

The page Jurassic Park (video game) is both..unconcise and..makes it hard to find info on a certain game..making a disambig page would be rather difficult. Maybe take information off each and make a stub for each game to be expanded? I am making an article for just one of these and It would be hard to incorporate it into this messy article....Help needed on the section in general..many thanks Fethroesforia 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video games ARE NOT computer games!!!

I have come up with a few key considerations to factor in when distinguishing what is a "computer/PC game" and a "video/console game". Using logical statements I have determined that Console/Video games are NOT computer games.

Is a console a type of computer? Yes, I will give it that but other than that a PC and a console game bear very few similarities. As you can tell I have a slanted (PC gamer) but realistic view on how Computer/PC games and Video/Console games are different things.

  • Console Games
    • Typically Written for RISC microprocessors that have tighter control loops and aren’t as adept at branch prediction
    • Do not run on a computer unless software emulation is implemented
    • The host consoles are not PCs!
    • The host consoles are not designed to run a computer operating system unless the operating system is modified to do such
    • Console games are written for one platform ONLY which means the code and the console are proprietary technology and are limited heavily as far as upgrade options and do not typically require neither upgrades nor knowledge of how the console hardware operates, future platforms may grandfather backwards compatibility but this is not always true. In order to aquire an upgrade for a console you have to wait for an entirely new platform to come out before you can upgrade where as a computer can be upgraded for smaller amounts of money over an extended period of time and typically surpass consoles in computing power shortly after the consoles are released. The new NVIDIA Geforce 8800 GT already nukes the PS3 for video performance, and put em’ in SLI mode there really is no comparison. Given time a pair of those cards will be cheaper than the PS3 and surpass the entire system in performance and also allow you to run almost all the same great PC games as you always have been able too only that computer games using CRT PC monitors usually achieve higher frame rates at high definition than HD TVs do. Plus a cheap $150 CRT PC monitor is much cheaper than a $1000 HD monitor of the same size capped out at 60 FPS interlaced.
    • The biggest difference is that console games are marketed differently. Console/video games are perceived as easy to use, require no installation, very little knowledge about the console systems internal operation, no drivers, no operating troubleshooting, are portable, you can easily bring a game from one console to the next of the like type and expect it to play exactly the same everywhere, the consoles themselves are lightweight portable, and easy to set up. All these things said the console is designed to appeal to the mass market. That's why you can find the PS3 and Xbox360 in Wal-Mart, but not the hottest PC hardware such as RAM, hard disks, or video cards at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart's Marketing strategy is to sell products that will appeal to the mass market rather than offer products that appeal to a particular niche.


  • Computer/PC Games
    • Written specifically for the X86 platform also known as PC, hence Personal COMPUTER
    • A majority of PC games are written specifically to run on Microsoft Windows but are also compatible on other platforms that offer the API and driver support by software emulation or native support
    • Games for the PC are designed to run on many different varieties of hardware making them more versatile than console games but run into problems with compatibility at times due to hardware, driver, or host operating system support issues. Computer games are able to run for the budget gamer and for the high end gamer with nearly the same level of entertainment.
    • Computer/PC Games designed for the PC are able to take advantage of the enormous amounts of RAM and hard disk space that even the base line models of the typical home PC even surpass the latest console. The usage of Hard Disk drives may require an initial install that takes longer than a console to load the first time, but once installed computer games are able to load the games themselves, maps and levels much more quickly than console gamers simply because optical storage is nowhere near as fast as HDD storage. Another benefit is that a computer can cache and stream larger amounts of 3D textures which allows for a computer to render games in a greater graphical detail than consoles can. Compare final fantasy for PC to a console and the game play will be better on the PC.
    • PC games allow you to spend what you would like to on computer hardware to meet your performance expectations of a particular game or adjust the game to run at an optimum setting based on your hardware platform
    • Computer Games are often able to be modified freely(which is sometimes promoted by the game designer), that's something that console games simply can't do unless the game is placed on a PC and then modified afterwards or the modifications are designed on a computer and then patched in to the consoles hard disk drive. Meaning you can’t really create maps for the console game on the console, you can’t modify the user interface of games more than what the rigid options allow, you can’t use trainers, ect.
    • Computer Games use a keyboard and mouse as the primary means of input. The typical computer mouse allows its user to move 3-6 inches in any direction (based on the mouse pointer sample speed and sensitivity) and accomplish more accurate and precise movements than and analog stick controller that moves only an inch or less in any direction. The more movement it takes to move a control interface the more precise a human can be. I have played plenty of console First person shooters with the dinky analog stick controllers is not fun. A few millimeters equate to moving halfway across the screen, I simply don't have the patience for that when every millisecond counts down to the frame refresh rate, it is easier to flick my wrist and snipe someone out of a few million pixels in less then a second with a computer mouse in UT2k3 or BFII than waiting for the console to catch up with my control inputs from a console controller. Textual data entered into a console takes much longer to do using a console controller so most console games limit the amount of text you enter in or use headsets in lue of text comm. Computer games take advantage of the use of a keyboard for text entries and often incorporate chat systems in most multiplayer games as well as allowing for free voice chat.
    • Playing multiplayer PC games online usually don’t require an online subscription fee. Although this is changing for consoles for quite awhile console games required subscription services to use server hosts whereas computers can act as the MP host server at the same time as allowing the player to play the game.
    • Computer games play on something most of us already have. IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOU CAN PLAY COMPUTER GAMES. No console needed. There you have it, if you can read that then you most likely are reading it on a computer although some consoles have the internet.


  • Microsoft has acknowledged that computer games and console/video games are two different things. Hence “Games for Windows: The Official Magazine” and “Xbox360 the official magazine”. Not Computer and video games from Microsoft. There is a clear separation between the two types of games and markets and therefore we should split this article into Computer/PC games and Console/Video games because really they are two totally different animals altogether. To make such a generalization as such has been in this article by merging these topics would be like merging Arcade game, Pinball machine, Personal Computer, and Video game console into one article as computers and asdserting that they are all computers. Yes they are computers but they most certainly are not the same thing - M jurrens 14:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
But, to give things a historical perspective, ZX Spectrum games for example are 'computer games' rather than console games but all the points you have made under 'computer games' don't apply to them. Marasmusine 15:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you're trying to make an artificial distinction. Videogame consoles are all computers, and microcomputers comprised of (typically) common components at that. The fact that the software development cycle may differ slightly from a PC game doesn't make console games substantially different. On that topic, I have a friend who works for a videogame development house who writes low-level libraries and does all kinds of optimization for platforms. According to him, most of the games they develop start out on a PC and get ported to various platforms. It shouldn't be a huge surprise that most of the code is transferrable (with some tweaking and optimization) since high level programming languages are standard fare. Some of your comments regarding the "differences" in the way videogames are developed for PCs versus consoles are small distinctions at best, trivial at worst. Differences in sales models don't comprise fundamental differences in the games. -- mattb @ 2007-01-13T15:37Z
Though I don't agree with all of your points, I agree that computer games and video games are two different beasts. But the last time I tried to convince the Computer and video games WikiProject of this, I got shot down. You can give it a try if you like. You can (join the project and) post your comments on the WikiProject Talk page. I'd seriously trim your comments first, however. Being addicted to video games, most of the members have ADD and won't bother reading a long post. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with one point M jurrens has, on marketing issues. If we were trapped, living exclusively in the late 90's early 2000's, some of his console points MIGHT have some validity, but really not.

Console Games

1) Not typically written for RISC. Most are written in C++ and assembly language for a large variety of microprocessors!

2) Some arcade games are built on PC architecture and copy-protection schemes aside can could run on a PC with no emulation. Also many early European console games were ports of European computer games, in fact in Japan and Europe PC/Console was in many cases the same thing. In the US, the Intelevision PC/Console existed.

3) An X-Box is a PC, the Amiga CD-32 was a PC, etc... etc... there are examples.

4) Host consoles are designed to run an operating system, it's just usually a proprietary OS for that platform, for early consoles it was burned into firmware, modern systems it's on the media.

5) Console games are not "only written" for one platform. Console games are tuned to work with one system sometimes, or in many cases, they are written for multiple consoles so that ports can be easily accomplished, and they are frequently written for Windows first.

6) Yes, console games are marketed differently, this is the only point I will consede and it is not enough of a point to say console games are special in some way.

Computer/PC Games

1) Oh please, PC games have been written for every kind of PC you can imagine with every kind of CPU architecture you can think of. Do I need to list the hundreds of PC platforms here?

2) Oh, you're talking about windows games. I see, how about console games that are written and tested on Windows and then compiled with #defines so that they run on the console.

Some other highlights, FarCry on the Xbox allows you to make new level maps to freely share with others. A keyboard was shipped for the GameCube for playing an on-line RPG. Playing online games on the Wii requires no subscription fee for anything... do I need to counter every single one of these points as invalid?

If someone invented a console tomorrow that allowed programmers to be pigs, then they would replicate all of these behaviors to their console development. As it is, we already now have patch/repair cycles in console games which 10 years ago was a chief argument point for people trying to segregate them. If tomorrow every console came with a super high resolution mouse, the games would use it. Games are written to make use of what is commonly available for the platform.

Look, face it guys, video games are video games regardless the platform. Just because you want to belive you're platform of choice is special, doesn't make it special. It's just another platform. BcRIPster 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with all of M jurrens points, and have a few he didn't mention, but I still contend that computer games and console games are different. And by "computer games" I don't just mean Windows games. And I also agree with some of your points. But they really are different beasts, just like arcade games are different than handheld games. But what I'm really concerned about is why we're discussing this here, instead of on the Computer and video games WikiProject, where it is more appropriate? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to see one convincing line of reasoning that points out the fundamental difference in "computer games" and "video games", historical or otherwise. All I've seen so far is insistance to the effect "they are just different, they really ARE different." Video game consoles are very much embedded computers (as are the vast majority of arcade--but not necessarily pinball--machines), and what's more computer and video games are often developed simultaneously and derived from the same code base. I see neither the fundamental distinction nor the content distinction necessary to justify splitting this article. -- mattb @ 2007-01-17T02:24Z
I concur with BcRIPster's well-reasoned rebuttal. The key difference between PCs and consoles in the past was that consoles were special-purpose computers and PCs are general purpose computers, but that is changing rapidly as more and more consoles get Internet browsers and the ability to run a wider range of software and hardware. From the programmer's view nowadays, the PC is just another platform to compile to, along with XBox, PS2, PS3, PSP, etc. That's why there are so many games (the Grand Theft Auto franchise comes to mind) that are available on XBox, PS2, and PC. Yes, the display hardware is slightly different, particularly on the display side, but practically all computer and video games today come on some kind of optical disc (or can be downloaded online); they are loaded into random access memory and are executed by a microprocessor; and store data to a hard disk or flash memory equivalent. There were significant differences in the past, but the two types of games are converging so rapidly that there is no need to break this article in two.--Coolcaesar 05:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so why havent they merged console with computer? Or just simply call consoles, "gaming computers"? Granted they are similar, but I dont see putting an computer game into a console and having it work.68.1.145.121 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Computers are a much broader than gaming consoles and cover an entire class of logic machines. You're just setting up a straw man argument here... There is much to be said about computers that is of little regard to game consoles in particular, and vice versa. Inasmuch as I can tell, the same is not true about "computer games" and "video games". Other than some trivia that can be noted in a few sentences, there is little you can say about one that cannot be said about the other, therefore they do not merit individual articles. -- mattb @ 2007-01-17T06:25Z
And for what it's worth, these platforms do have their own high-level descriptive pages already, see Video game console, Dedicated console, Personal computer, etc... and I believe that these pages are appropriate for their respective overviews. Videogames are about the software that runs on these platforms which is what I believe this page is all about. Sometimes you've just got to step back and look at things from a bigger picture. BcRIPster 09:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree. You make it sound like a game played on a console is equivalent to the same game on a PC (here I mean "personal computer"—such as a Mac, Linux box or IBM PC compatible running Windows). I've played too many games to say that both give the user the same experience. X-COM on Windows was great, on the PlayStation it sucked and was almost unplayable. The same is true for The Sims and other games. The biggest difference between computer games and console games are the controls: on the PC, the mouse and KB are the most common input mechanisms, on the console, it a gamepad (or "control pad"). This distinction eliminates a whole host of types of games that can be played on a console, and vice-versa.
There are a slew of games that cannot be released on console(s) because of the difference in controls. Trying to release Heroes of Might and Magic V on a console, for example, would be a disaster.
There are other hardware differences to take into consideration. A developer for a console can know that any two users will be using the exact same hardware. A developer for a PC game doesn't have that luxury—users could be using a number of different pieces of esoteric hardware and needs to account for them all.
Related to this is resolution. A console game will only be played in one resolution. Most modern PC games allow the user to change the resolution and disable or enable different effects based on what gives them the best playing experience. Besides a few options such as sound and music volume, console games have no such options since the developers have determined ahead of time how their game will look for all players.
Now to handle BcRIPster's points 1 & 5 above. And I am speaking as a professional game developer, not a casual observer making guesses:
"Not typically written for RISC. Most are written in C++ and assembly language for a large variety of microprocessors!" & "Console games are not "only written" for one platform. Console games are tuned to work with one system sometimes, or in many cases, they are written for multiple consoles so that ports can be easily accomplished, and they are frequently written for Windows first."
A great deal of game logic is written in C++, which is fairly portable. Most game code is in C++ these days. However, most consoles still require some assembly, but targeting the host system's CPU, whether it be RISC or CISC or whatever (assembly written for an Intel CPU won't work for a PowerPC—assembly language is not portable). But most common operations have C wrappers that developers can just call. Almost no modern PC games use assembly anymore, though they may use shaders that used to resemble assembly, but now more often resemble C.
Whenever a developer is writing something that deals with a system's hardware, and the game is being developed for multiple platforms, he has to go through some sort of HAL so that each system's idiosynchrosies are taken into account. The HAL is provided by some sort of game engine, whether commercial or in-house, but it isn't free—it has to be taken into account and planned for. Many effects available on one system aren't available on another, so the resulting game will not always be identical from system to system. Sometimes extra code has to be written just for one system to get the same effect that is far easier on another system. Cross-platform programming is far easier than it used to be and it still isn't free. Trivializing it hides the complexities involved.
Many games are written for Windows first, even if there are no plans to ship a Windows version. This is because developing on Windows—with its rich array of high-quality software development tools—is much easier than developing on a console from the get-go. So I concede this point, though there isn't much argument here. If the prototype is written with the cross-platform library, some of the porting is already taken care of. The use of gamepads versus KB & moust have to be tuned once the other game code is finished on the Windows version (or some developers may have "hacked" console controls connected to their PCs, but I won't go there...). — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
First off, my wife, her brother, myself and several friends have been involved in the game industry in some capacity or another for going on 15 years now. Just my wife alone has done PC games, console games for several platforms, and her company is working on it's third Arcade Game title as well as two Casual Game projects. I am intimately familiar with the industry as more than just a "casual observer making guesses". So while I appreciate that you are a game developer yourself I don't see how that is a qualification in this discussion. That's like saying a crack manufacture by default is an all knowing expert on the subject of all types of crack.
To your points. Playing a videogame involves user interaction with an interface of some sort in order to generate visual feedback on a screen (and can also include audio, haptic, ect... feedback) and generally has some system of reward presented to the user in return for meeting certain accomplishments within the framework of a given rules set. Yes, Windows Solitaire is a video game, and while it's not as sophisticated as WOW, that is irrelevant.
To your point about console developers know what to expect. Not true, Can you expect XBOX360 and PS2 users to have a harddrive? Can you expect al N64 users to have an expanded memory module? etc... etc...
Just because your platform is heavily encumbered with interface options does not make it a special kind of video game. But, that encumberment allows you to sub-classify your video game in its appropriate niche. Gee, by that definition we better not classify Dance Dance Revolution Extreme and its successors as a video game because it uses a webcam, and footpad and allows for d-pad use as well, that's what tones of physical button options especially if you have two players (not counting virtual contact zones via the camera), and if they add multi-player networked/chat support to a later release, then it's networked. But let's see, or right a "video game" has what, one button and a joystick? Oh, two buttons and a d-pad? Oh, 6 buttons and a d-pad? OH! 8 buttons a d-pad and two analog joysticks? OH!!! whatever.
While I appreciate your desperate attempt to introduce a segregation where there is none (as time passes the distinction blurs more and more just as it did with Arcade Games and does with Casual Games), your first set of distinctions all focus on game interface and your second distinctions revolve around how the game is created. Neither of these are relevant to the higher level definition of what is a video game. I'm sorry, that's just how it is. I mean this is like people who say that Akira, Toy Story and Steamboat Willie can't be compared. Well yes they can, they are all purely animated features. It doesn't matter how they were created, or how you watched them. Or, how about a bad porn movie? It's still a movie no matter how much you want to denigrate it. etc... etc... Sigh... BcRIPster 22:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You know what? You are absolutely correct: computer games are video games when video game is defined as "a game that uses a video device as it's primary form of feedback." Computer games and console games are definately both video games (as are handheld games, arcade games, etc.). What computer games are not, however, are console games. My response was tainted by the 'pedia's current use of the term "video game" to mean "console game." Console games, computer games, and arcade games are all types of video games. But they are not the same. That is what I'm disputing. If we agree on that, we don't have a dispute at all. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem, we are agreed (shakes hand). I think the big issue here is that people keep confusing terms. Really the terms "computer game" and "video game" should never be presented at a peer level. Any editors want to go sweep through all of the Wiki and fix this (cough). Maybe we can get a new page that expands the relationships of the terms in a branched tree form? :) BcRIPster 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think this is what M jurrens was trying to say in the first place, but I'm not going to put words in his mouth. This is exactly what I proposed on the Project: changing the use of video game to "a game that uses a video device as it's primary form of feedback", but got shot down. One big problem is that the industry usually refers to console games as "video games." If we can't get the members of the project to agree to this, it's hopeless. But, yeah, count me in as one in favor of fixing the definitions and heirarchy. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I must be missing something. If "video games" are those that use a video device as primary feedback, then isn't the industry correct in referring to console games as "video games"? That is, if "video games" is the tree, and both console games and PC games are branches, they can still both legitimately be called video games... So where's the disagreement? Bulbous 04:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You're not missing anything. It sounds like you understand everything perfectly well. The disagreement is mostly between a lot of people misusing terminology. eg, Console Games == Video Games and Video Games are "for kids", and since PC Games are "for adults" then they can't possibly be video games. =D :p BcRIPster 05:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I aggree with all of you, but there should be two distinctions of the term in the same article 8if you chose to keep it as one. Compare and contrast the too. Compare how they are allike mabey in the same sub article and contrast in the same article. I just hate how over generalized this all is in it's current state. M jurrens 18:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article requires cleanup. It needs to be written with a NPOV. Spell check is needed as well. Pac-man image needs fixing. Jacroe | Talk 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've mopped up some recent poor edits; were there any other particular sections with bias? Marasmusine 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED, and then moved again to Video games, per discussion below, and per "video game" not being a proper noun. Wish I'd caught that before fixing 10 double-redirects. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Computer and video games → Video Games — Title currently confuses a Platform with a Genre, misusing the term "video games" BcRIPster 05:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support and am willing to help do some of the work involved. A video game is "a game that uses a video device as its primary form of feedback" which includes computer games. This term has been misused on Wikipedia for much too long now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support with the condition that this move isn't intended to draw an artificial distinction between "computer games" and "video games". There isn't enough distinction between the two to have a separate "computer game" and "video game" article, but I don't oppose renaming this one. -- mattb @ 2007-01-18T17:04Z
  3. Support: The two terms are synonyms and can be used interchangeably. Even consoles are technically computers when you think about it.--SeizureDog 17:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support, as long as the article indicates that both "computer game" and "video game" are used interchangably by many people. --ADeveria 17:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support the move to video game. The title has always been too unwieldy in its length, and as mentioned: they commonly refer to the same thing. – Quoth 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support it should be Video games, though. JuJube 01:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support but considering the differing history in Computer games vs Video games, it seems that they should be two separate articles. Looking at this current article, a breakway article could already be made but would need to be expanded. Just something to think about. 205.157.110.11 01:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    Note, Personal computer game already exists. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-19 13:40

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

[edit] Discussion

This move would require a complete re-write of the opening paragraphs, which should then help clear up alot of the confusion and misuse of terminology. BcRIPster 05:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This would be about the same issue discussed a while back, correct? Or just one part of it? --ADeveria 17:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with the reasons behind the nomination, but the suggestion for the new name is wrong. "Video Games" is not a proper noun, so "Games" should not be capitalized. It might also need to be at the singular "Video game" instead of the plural, but that is more debatable. Recury 18:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Later tonight I will post (here I guess) a suggested revision for the opening paragraphs for the renamed page. BcRIPster 19:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I missed that. Yes, according to Wikipedia standards, it should be moved to Video game, singular, lower-case "g". — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if the phrase 'computer and video games' came about because of this magazine? Marasmusine 10:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it didn't. It came about because "video game" was being used to describe "console game." — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I just realized something. Shouldn't we be moving to "video game" (singular) and not "video games"?--SeizureDog 09:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, noted above in previous comments. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Suggested new opening for this article if moved

See the rewrite for the suggested new opening text. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a copyedit on BcRIPster's original version. Please take a look and discuss any changes here. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of the language I used in the first paragraph that you struck was very specifically worded for a reason, for instance I wrote "typically involves user interaction with an interface of some sort in order to generate visual feedback on a video screen at a minimum." in order to accomodate early mainframe games played remotely over a teletype (no video screen per se, it is a paper "screen". Also I used "interface" as opposed to "a control" or "controller" because of the plural nauture of controls and controllers and because controller usually denotes for most people something that is physcially manipulated and this leaves out other types of interaction systems for video game platforms. While I think the wording could be worked on, I think this paragraph went in the wrong direction. The rest of the edits looked pretty good though. BcRIPster 23:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the first few paragraphs will be the hardest to get just right. I did away with "interface" because I, personally, found it confusing. When I hear interface, I think UI. I also found the wording awkward. I thought short and to the point would be easier to digest. I agree we need to work on it to get something everyone agrees on. But I think shorter and succinct is preferable. We can clarify in sentences that follow the opening one.
One weakness I found in the current version is that we don't define "user" or "player"--we just assume the reader knows what we're talking about, which won't always be the case. Want to suggest a new opening sentence? Anything else? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Good comment. Keep in mind there are computers and animals that play video games, so we can't limit the term to strictly humans.BcRIPster 06:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I suggest this structure

Video Game/s

  • (Article intro about mabey programming. development. popularity, effects on society, ect.)


  • Production and development
    • Artwork(how the models are created, for example doom creatures whewre originally molded in clay before they drew a design on paper then rendered the concept art digitally)
    • Rendering Technologies
    • Coding
    • Debugging
    • Cross-platform Porting
    • Manufacture and Distribution and media formats(Ei. CD, DVD, Catridge, ect.)
    • Marketing and Advertising


  • Platforms
    • PC game
      • Intro(Overview of the platform and interface operating systems ect.)
      • Similarities to all platforms and how they are becoming more like the others
      • Differences
        • Benefits
        • Drawbacks
      • Associated hardware and peripherals
      • Conclusion
    • Console Game
      • Intro(Overview of the platform and interface)
      • Similarities to all platforms and how they are becoming more like the others
      • Differences
        • Benefits
        • Drawbacks
      • Associated hardware and peripherals
      • Conclusion
    • Handheld
      • Intro(Overview of the platform and interface)
      • Similarities to all platforms and how they are becoming more like the others
      • Differences
        • Benefits
        • Drawbacks
      • Associated hardware and peripherals
      • Conclusion
    • PDA
      • Intro(Overview of the platform and interface)
      • Similarities to all platforms and how they are becoming more like the others
      • Differences
        • Benefits
        • Drawbacks
      • Associated hardware and peripherals
      • Conclusion
    • Cellphone
      • Intro(Overview of the platform and interface)
      • Similarities to all platforms and how they are becoming more like the others
      • Differences
        • Benefits
        • Drawbacks
      • Associated hardware and peripherals
      • Conclusion


  • Genres
    • RPG
      • Decription
    • MMORPG
      • Decription
    • FPS
      • Decription
    • Strategy
      • Decription
    • Puzzle
      • Decription
    • Platformer
      • Decription
    • ect.

Apples and oranges are fruit, but not the same. I agree with digital convergance statements these are true. But these industries, console gaming and pc gaming, apparently want these games to have distinct identities. The structure I propose provides an unbiased way of looking at all video games, and then drills down the specifics. Any gamer, programmer, 3d artist, developer, producer, on any platform with any operating system would be happy to contribute and have a place to add thier perspective evenly and fairly.M jurrens 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting diagram, although I'm concerned about just how much content you're suggesting for a single page. I guess in my mind I see this page as a very high-level overview of the subject matter where it introduces the many elements. Drill down on specifics of a platform, genre or information on detailed development practices and methods would be stand alone articles. Exposition on the finer differences of what currently (and historically) has defined a platform might better be left to the individual pages for each grouping. Especially when you consider how technology continues to change and these platforms evolve and transform. BcRIPster 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well then that suggests that "Video games" and "production and development" and "Genres" should be the main aticle under video games and these different game types would be justified as being seperate articles, based on platform, of thier own. There are communities of gamers that have specific knowledge about each gaming platform. To say computer doesent always emply gaming, as well as PDA or cellphone. Computer games, PDA games, and cellphone games, have a different set of interfaces, capabilities, and limitations. M jurrens 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You could either have an article that pertains to each in great detail. Or a section under each device platform that specifically addresses gaming. So a vote about what goes where would problably solve this delimma. M jurrens 19:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Add  # '''Support'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please provide an explanation for your recommendation.


[edit] Vote - in support of: "Descrete sections addressing games specific to the device, under that devices page, Ex. Cellphone, PC, Video game console, Personal digital assistant would have a gaming section, with Video Games as the main article."

[edit] Vote - in support of: "One large article with a little bit about all games of all platforms, under Video Games"

[edit] Vote - in support of: "Seperate Pages for each game type, Ex. Personal computer game, Console game, PDA game, Cellphone game, with Video games as the main article."
  1. Support I believe this is the way to go. Option 4 seems close to what I believe is an ideal configuration, but isent very different from what we have now. I still think that having a straight shot "Overview then, specifics links" would be optimum IMO. M jurrens 20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote - in support of: "three parts 1) Descrete pages covering each platform at length (each summarizes the genres common to the platform), 2) descrete pages covering each genre (each summarizes the platforms they are most commonly found on and/or how they are implemented differently between platforms), and 3) with Video games as the main article feeding from above."

[edit] Vote - in support of: "None of the above, or leave it the way it is."

[edit] No vote

A consensus is fairly clear in the discussion you started above. You should continue that discussion rather than essentially bringing it up again in another form. This vote is a waste of time. -- mattb @ 2007-01-19T20:35Z

Agreed, thank-you.BcRIPster 20:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok we all agree that computer and video games, should be merged into video games and the individual genres should also recieve attention, but how much detail and how these articles are composed is what I am trying to get at now. How will the information be cross referenced, what about the devices too, they need some mention of games too, so they should have links to thier perspective game types. Linking, distribution, and structure of article content is my debate. I would like to know the best way to present the information as a collection of articles. What should be included where.... and how much of it? That question makes the vote valid.M jurrens 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I would have to say that the #4 item addresses that foundation of that structure. If we can agree on that, then something such as developing templates or other such business becomes a secondary conversation.BcRIPster 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, lets rock, We just need to work on exorbing the perspective parts from this article into video games.M jurrens 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then we are closer to the goal. First we need to get the page renamed/moved. What is the durration normally expected for something like that vote to play out, or if it's quickly appearing to be a consensus can that wait be short circuited? Also did anyone have any feedback on my alternate opening for the page that I posted above under "Suggested new opening for this article if moved"? BcRIPster 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The vote I proposed above was intended to satatisfy the verdict asnd initiate the transfer of materials to video games, I was hoping other people would be involved.

You apear to be a leader in this community so your opinion would be most qualified IMO. Therefor I think for the most part we can all procede with the consesus from the vote before mine as well, that yes we should move elements that are general to video games, elements pertaining to PC gaming to PC gaming, console gaming elements to Video game console, or create an article about Console gaming platform. Then I think we should do as you have said and break out and add to the genre article series, then link it all to Video games and mention in the genre articles which platforms they are commanly written for. We should use supporting information contained in this article in the video game article that gives a decent overview of platforms and genres and deal with the specifics it the perspective, platform and genre articles. Unless there are aany objections we would just mention the changes as we go and everyone can contribute and work at it. It is wikipededia so we are all free to contribute and modify as long as we remain within the consesus of what is believed to be the ideal way of going about it.M jurrens 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move gone wrong

This page was moved from computer and video games to here, video games. But this is incorrect, it should be video game (singular) per Wikipedia standards! Can someone please fix this?

Also, the opening text was not replaced with the rewrite, which we haven't even finished yet! Please chime in here with any further comments. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I'll have suggested changes tonight and I'll go ahead and start integrating with the main page so that we can get term consistancy fixed. Someone appears to have jumped the gun on the move. :/ BcRIPster 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it should be at Video game. I'll fix that; it was my mistake. As for "jumping the gun" on the move, I completed the move because the request had been listed at WP:RM for more than five days, and was in the backlog section. I didn't realize the move was to be delayed until some rewriting had occurred, and I'm not sure what harm there is in going ahead and completing the move while rewrites are still in progress. If there's something I'm still missing, please feel free to let me know. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the pages in question, I note there is a rather non-trivial edit history at Video game. I'll probably just swap the histories of these two pages (Video games and video game), because there seems to be no reasonable way to merge them. (One has non-trivial content from 11/01 to 12/04, and the other from 3/03 to the present). If you see these articles disappearing and reappearing over the next few minutes, don't be alarmed. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
All done now. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
No worries. We'll get it all sorted out. Thanks! BcRIPster 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I think we should replace (at least part of) the current text with the re-write. It's much clearer than the mess that's there now (though I didn't read all of it). My eyes started bleeding after the first sentence. — Frecklefoot | Talk 02:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Whew... that's about all I had in me tonight to work on this. The remainder of the article still needs work but we're quite a bit along now.BcRIPster 06:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, another thought, what does anyone think of the notion of adding one or two high profile examples next to each genre?BcRIPster 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video game migration... next steps...

Now that this step is moving along, I would say we need help in propagating this restructure out across all of the "CVG" space. Any thoughts?BcRIPster 22:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat related to the subject, I just changed the redirect for Computer game to Personal computer game (instead of video game). I hope everyone will agree this makes more sense? --ADeveria 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted it. Computer games and video games are interchangeable phrases describing the same thing. For an example, see [11]. Computer games normally refer to the same thing as video games, things referring specically to "Personal computer games" normally stress so, as you can see with magazine titles such as PC Gamer etc. - hahnchen 19:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the plan to rename all the "...computer and video game" categories as well? That would be a big job :> Marasmusine 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in fact that is being discussed here. It is being suggested that a project page be set up to cover the work. Also to hahnchen's comment. In common use they are interchangeable, but technically they are not. Rather than start this whole row up again, please look above for the original discussion on this subject that triggered current events. BcRIPster 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I started to day from the top down working on catagories and other pages fixing CVG->VG... any help would be appriciated.BcRIPster 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

...I don't know if anyone's doing a project page yet (I can try and set one up later tonight when I have chance), but I've finished correcting: "Category:Lists of computer and video game characters" to-> "Category:Lists of video game characters" and all of the pages that point to it. Whew... BcRIPster 22:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, I've been helping out with a few category renames but User:Caerwine has reverted some redirects, saying that The name should not be changed without going through CFD. So I don't know if I should continue or not. Marasmusine 23:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what to do on filing the CfD, but since this has already been talked about quite a bit here and on the WP:CVG talk page, I personally I think we should keep working on this. This is a correction of terminology issue from my perspective.BcRIPster 01:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In regards to Teggles edits

  • Humans are not the only things that play videogames
  • All video games DO NOT have machine code
  • Not all video games have an objective or goal
  • Not all video games have a "high score" or "game over" screen

You keep revising this so that it is full of definitive statements on things that are not true. Also, you keep expanding this header. The introduction to this article is intended to be succinct as you would find in a summary as there are extend expansions in the lower parts of the article... followed by longer expansions on each topics own stand alone page. Loading up the top is redundant and verbose.BcRIPster 01:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree partially, but what you are reverting it to is a much worse lead. Improve, don't revert. --Teggles 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You have added way to much text to this lead though. If anything it should be much shorter. In all fairness I tried to integrate some of you ideas into the text, but this is just making it longer.BcRIPster 01:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, the opening was much clearer when it simply stated: "A video game is a game which uses a video display as its primary form of feedback."
Everything else (controllers, input, computers, etc.) can be expanded on later in the article, probably in the same paragraph (for example, not all video games use computers—and, no, I'm not saying the electronics in a video game console are not computers). I think based on the number of disagreements, and the high profile of this article, an opening revision should be worked on and agreed upon here (or a child page) before reposted on the main article. Sound reasonable? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there needs to be an agreement. But the previous opening was in no way clearer. We need to get right down to basics and think - if the reader needs to know it all, but doesn't know anything, what do we write? "A video game is a game" sounds utterly confusing, but "A video game is a form of amusement" explains itsself well. "involves the interaction between a player and an electronic device" explains what a video game is, but the previous one fails to do this at all. Remember, an "electronic device" entails everything that can be electronically powered. The text "via built-in or external controller interface" sums how exactly these games are played, while the previous opening doesn't mention any way this is done.--Teggles 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I would elect to make the opening sentence as concise as possible, leaving out confusing constructs. A video game is a type of game, there is no way of getting around that. Redefining "game" as "a form of amusement" doesn't really help, it just adds verbage. It's a game that uses a video display as its primary form of feedback. That is the number one feature of a video game: it uses video. What is so difficult about about understanding "A video game is a game that uses a video display..."? I don't see your argument.
Next, I elect we leave out the part about controllers in the opening sentence. Once again, including it makes the sentence awkward. It can (and should be included) in the opening paragraph, but not stating (right off the bat) that video games use controllers doesn't make it incorrect. It is a feature of video games, but not the defining one. The opening sentece should be something my mother or an 8 year-old can understand and "built-in or external controller interface" isn't readily understood by a great many people. We need to appeal to the greatest possible audience. We can do this without alienating the gamer audience.
Anyway, my preferred approach to the opening was overwritten long ago. But it was simple, clear and approachable, but apparently not endorsed by some editor. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
"Controller" may be a misnomer anyway; consider the many alternate input methods and take the example of very early games like lunar lander that ran on the PDP-10/11 and used the GT40 terminal's light pen for input. The first few sentences in an article are crucial and should be as general, undertandable, and simply phrased as possible. On these criteria, the original verbiage was highly preferable to the overly wordy rendition currently in the article.
"A video game is a game which uses a video display as its primary form of feedback."
It's simple, to the point, clear, and fully defines the scope of the article without becoming unnecessarily verbose and cluttered (though I would change that link to point away from "computer monitor", since that's not the only type of display device that is likely to be used with a video game). -- mattb @ 2007-02-01T22:02Z
Glad to have someone in my camp. :-) Yeah, I don't like that link to "computer monitor" either, but I think "video display" should be linked to something. But linking it to "CRT" or "television set" isn't really appropriate either. I'm sure we can find something... — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't HAVE to link to anything if there isn't a suitable article. Display device comes close; perhaps it could be linked as "electronic display". I think that classifying video games as "electronic" is a safe generalization; I can think of no counterexample. "Digital electronic" may also be correct, but I'm a little more wary of it (again, I can think of no counterexample). The problem with general statements is, of course, that it only takes one example to render them totally incorrect, so you need to be darn sure that they apply in all cases before haphazardly using them. That video games use video displays is certainly a correct general statement. I'm fairly certain that it is also correct to say that all video games are electronic (for you would have a hard time defending any non-electronic device as a "video display"). I'm pretty sure that every device that could be used to play video games included some form of digital logic, but this would require some research before I'd be confident enough to state it in the article. -- mattb @ 2007-02-01T22:24Z
Thanks for the sanity check. You never know how people are going to react around here and that's why I tried to blend some of his edits into the original text even though it was killing me. Would someone like to revert it back to what it was so it's not just me pushing it back every time?BcRIPster 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Clearly my edits are widely against, so I'll back down. However, I'm uncertain why the "interactive entertainment" paragraph is there, it's useless - it isn't even mentioned in the article. --Teggles 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a legacy of the previous(x2) version of the article, I'll have to agree with you that it sticks out like a sore thumb. BcRIPster 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Frecklefoot, I went ahead and took the article back to the version before this series of events but I tried to incorporate a few of the suggestions that have come out of the talks such as cutting down the info about controllers and dropping the "interactive entertaiment" bit (which could go someplace else that expands on industry terminology).BcRIPster 04:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The opening

In regards to BcRIPster's statement above, thanks. I still think it could be better and simpler (as mattb and I prefer), but I'm not going to edit right now. Let's discuss here what the opening paragraph should state. Then, when we are all in agreement, we can go ahead and change it on the article.

No, this is not the normal wiki-way. But since this game is so high profile and so many editors want a say in what goes into the opening, I think this is the way we should handle it. Otherwise, we'll just go on reverting and stepping on each other's fingers.

My vote for the first sentence in the opening is what I stated above, namely:

A video game is a game which uses a video display as its primary form of feedback.

Please add your comments on this opening sentence below. I think we can move onto the rest of the paragraph (which can discuss things such as controllers, etc.) after we have this hammered out. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First comment: "video display" needs to link to something pertinent and general (as mattb pointed out). Any suggestions? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it really looks like Display device may actually be the most top relevant item we could link to.BcRIPster 08:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then, to revive this topic, how's:

A video game is a game which uses a video display as its primary form of feedback.

Are we ready to tackle the second sentence? Does everyone agree on this version? — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with it, although I still think it useful to have the (or "videogame") qualifier in there to avoid the 1-billion spelling fights that will ensue. FWIW, I've been swamped with the CVG->VG Catagory rename issue and haven't had the time to dedicate on this page rework over the last week. BcRIPster 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so we're up to:

A video game (or videogame) is a game which uses a video display as its primary form of feedback.

I understand you being occupied with other stuff. Personally, I'm taking off in a couple of days and would like to see this resolved before then. If not, s'okay, life goes on... — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FWIW thoughts on analogy to Video Game vs Console Game naming issue

FWIW, I've been working to come up with a good analogy to this whole situation, and I think the best comparison is the efforts to get people to quit labeling all animated programs as "cartoons". A cartoon is generally considered to be something comical or exaggerated. Programs like Lain, or the movie Ghost in the Shell 2 are not comical by any stretch of the imagination, but that doesn't stop U.S. readers from calling them cartoons because they are animated. Calling them cartoons confuses people and then you get parents taking their kids to watch Spirited Away as a "Disney cartoon" and not getting what they expected. Should we still call them cartoons? I don't think so, and slowly but surely the terminology is getting corrected in common usage. But, there will always be people spitting fire that if it's animated it's a cartoon, or whatever... or if it's not a cartoon then it can only be anime, but anime is considered to be the label for all Japanese animation (including comical), so where does U.S. based, adult (not porn) themed animation go for a label?!? But, that's another fight for another day, on another page =) BcRIPster 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the definition of Cartoon changed behind our backs. I call both cartoons and animae cartoons. I think animae are cartoons, like a subcategory.--Can Not 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video games are bad for you...

There have been many studies where they have compared a "Video game brain" to a Non video game brained person has actually been catscaned, and the results are astonishing! Does game http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/ (posted by 205.123.123.204 on 18:19, 14 February 2007)

You are way over reaching, and your statement is wrong. The article did not say video games are bad for you. The implication of the article is that violent video games may be bad in that they reward violent thinking (and it goes on to speculate that this might apply to all media). There are many studies to show that video games in general also help stimulate higher reason skills and co-ordination (positive). There are also studies yet that show that intense, extended play within simulated 3-D environments has an impact on depth perception (possible negative?). What's your point other than attacking games in general? BcRIPster 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negative aspects of playing video games

This article should include the claimed hazards of playing video games that some psychologists have widely lectured, just like the concerns of the overuse of television. For example: violent video games teaches kids that the only solution to a problem is to destroy it without personal investigation, patience etc. and that it takes their sensitivity away from real life violence/suffering.

So this article should include it too if it wishes to be complete, informative and neutral. Or maybe it should be split in two sections: the positive and negative impacts of playing video games.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.146.236.11 (talk • contribs).

This information is in the article already. McKay 18:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the user has a point. There is an entire large section on the "Benefits of Video Games"; there could be a balancing section, even if most of the information is horse-poop. If it's WP:RS, then it can go in. Bulbous 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well even if some of the information is exaggerated, you guys know what to do: note it as a popular claim that has not been proven/confirmed. It still should be included in this article, the "benefits of playing video games" section is significantly larger than its opponent.

[edit] Vandalism

-- Search for the word "gay" and "your mom" Spixels 20:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I made the correct change. If it's not right, let us know. McKay 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks right to me. –Pomte 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/d/Talk%7EVideo_game_5ef5.html"