Talk:Personal computer game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Personal computer game has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-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 VG peer review that may contain ideas for improvement.
This article was previously selected for Gaming Collaboration of the week.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Differences

See Talk:Computer and video games.

I ask that editors please keep this article about games on the PC, and not about how pc and console games differ. A new article can be made for that. — Slike | Talk | 12:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would be difficult to not say how PC games are different from all others, now that we have an article on the large overlapping area of all these games. Perhaps the recommendation would be better as "not just how PC and console games differ." By its nature, it must focus on the areas that make PC games unique among console, arcade, and handheld games. --Mrwojo 17:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be possible to describe pc games very well without any mention of console games (not that this is the ideal solution). It's not as if one does not exist without the other. Something like "a console is not as good for shooters, while a pc is not as good for fighters" can be changed to "the benefits of a keyboard are ___ therefore ___, but it's not good for fighters because ___. Mice have fine control, which makes them good for shooters" and so on - and the same sort of thing on the other side. Of course, you're right, it can't be avoided, but it can definitley be reduced. — Slike | Talk | 01:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Sounds good. --Mrwojo 14:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. The name of the article would make me think that I would find information on computer video games. However, outside of the early history bit, this article seems to focus solely on IBM compatible PC's and Windows OS computers - completely ignoring the incredible explosion of games and computers to play them on throughout the 80's. What's the story here? Dxco 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The story is that this article is written by Americans from an American perspective, completely ignoring the fact that computer games on non-PC platforms were huge in 1980s Europe and Japan (the Commodore 64, MSX, Sinclair Spectrum etc).

I was redirected to this article after searching computer games. In the UK (I'm not sure about the USA) most people use the term computer game to refer to any software based game (pc or console) so I do not think the automatic redirect to PC games is justified. People explicitly say PC game, not computer game. I think computer game should be redirected to the main video game article. Bibalasvegas 19:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of PC games?

The link that I clicked onto is a bit complex. Why not just have either an aphabetical or chronological list similar to the lists for console games? Sincerely, --164.107.92.120 01:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major changes

In the absence of real guidance as to what this article entails I went ahead with some shuffling and rewrites. I have left in some stuff about differences between console and PC games because frankly, most things about modern PC games are generic to all video games and should be covered in the Computer and video games article - genres, developers, publishers, etc. are common to both PC and console games. Some references can be easily removed but I think it's important to mention the non-parallel development, though I don't think many people are going to look for an article called "Non-parallel development of PC and console games technology"

Apologies for the many minor edits - it's been a while since I made edits in Wikipedia. Explaining major changes here:

  • A rudimenary list of PC hardware is not an overview of games.
  • I've seen several sources cite 1976 as the year for Colossal Cave Adventure, but never 1978. If anyone knows of a definitive source, please share. I would be interested.
  • The "first generation" section went far beyond the first generation of games so I changed it to History, though forgot to make it a proper header.
  • MS Windows Solitaire came out some 10 years after the first generation of games or text adventures. Not fair to group them together.
  • Text adventures did not all pause when you left them alone. The Hobbit was one text adventure with a "heartbeat" where if you left it alone without pausing it would automatically run "Wait" and pass game time. Doing that would kill you in some areas. I don't think it was unique to that game, though ICBW.
  • Loads of adventure games don't have elves or trolls at all. See the Lost Treasures of Infocom, or Spellcasting 101 and above.
  • The last paragraph about 16-bit systems is a bit random and needs more direction. I clarified some bits but it still needs a lot more work. Weefz 23:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History, Spacewar! and Adventures

I think the the question on history and the Spacewar! paragraph from the History (formerly: first generation) section should be removed. The invention of Spacewar! was not unique to PC games and the original wasn't played on a PC. Maybe it should be moved to Computer and Video games. Oh and I removed the paragraph on adventure games because that's all documented in better detail under interactive fiction. Weefz 12:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is PC Gaming? A few comments

I've come here from the COTW. Could we please define PC Gaming? When did it start? Do we include things like the BBC Micro? I agree with Weefz, that the history should first be pruned to omit non PC gaming, and then elaborated upon and expanded. Also, does anyone else here feel that PC gaming or Personal computer gaming to be a more valid title for the article? I'm also going to change the screenshot gallery around, I think I can better convey a sense of PC gaming and its history through screenshots of different games, and I think we should artificially impose a limit of 12 screenshots in the gallery to keep the quality of them high. - Hahnchen 00:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. PC gaming would usually cover games that run on computers that run other software or perform other unrelated tasks besides computer gaming, so it certainly covers BBC Micro. The history of personal computer games may be trace back to the introduction of microcomputers, but doesn't cover older models because they are not considered "personal" or affordable for that matter. If we intend to cover computer games in full, we would have to include games running on old mainframes as well, and I understand that this may trace back to the 1950s.
  2. Such an article move may not be advisory. Other relevant articles are currently named as nouns (Console game, Arcade game, Mobile game, Internet game, Handheld video game, etc.). I would, however, approve somewhat of a move to Computer game, so that it would cover games running on non-personal computers (such as Spacewar! and Baseball) as well, although currently, this page is a redirect to Computer and video games.
  3. As for the gallery, it was actually created entirely by one user, including the uploading of the screenshots, which doesn't seem intended to properly portray the development of PC games and provide a balance of genres. I previously took the liberty to replace a few of them with those from notable games, but it's obvious that it needs more improvements; feel free to change it. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 10:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ╫
As a fun side project id like to make a Gallery of PC game screenshots --Larsinio 15:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend this Larsinio, take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots to find out why. Anyway, I've replaced the screenshots with some which display the various facets of computer gaming and its history. I said we should limit it to 12 screenshots above, but maybe it would be an idea to increase it to 16, there are some things which could be added. Four extra screenshots I can think of could include, a sports game, sports management game, racing game, rainbow6 type squad game. - Hahnchen 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, yeah I don't mind Stunts being in the screenshots, I had left farcry in because I thought it would be nice to have a modern game in there. This is a random question, but was Stunts available for the arcade. I remember a game in the arcade when I was a kid which looked very similar to stunts, even in terms of graphics, and it did feature things like a few jumps and loop the loops. But I have no idea what it was called. - Hahnchen 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure youre thinking of Hard Drivin by atari --00:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emulation

There should be a short paragraph on emulation since it's a sizeable part of PC Gaming. Theres an article at console emulator too, which could be used. I've not got the time to write anything significant right now. - Hahnchen 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll write a paragraph tomorrow --Larsinio 00:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Take note that emulation is defined as trying to reproduce the behaivor of system being hardware and/or software. The definition you got up defines it as "Emulators are softwares developed for PC to play Console games." That right there is a generalized and false statement for two reasons. Number one, the PC isn't the only one to use emulation software. The Xbox 360 as an example uses downloadable emulators to make select Xbox 1 titles backwards compatible, which doesn't make it exclusive to the PC. Second of all, not all emulators on the PC emulate the hardware and software of a console but some emulate older and sometimes different PC OSes and sometimes the hardware that ran them such as the MS-DOS emulators VDMSound, DodGE, and DosBox; and Virtual PC is a software program that allows for high-level emulation of various OSes including MS-DOS 6.22, OS/2, and Windows 95/98/98SE/ME/NT4.0/2000/XP which in that case requires an installation of those operating systems withing Virtual PC allowing for the use of say Windows 95 within Windows XP. It isn't just emulation of consoles but also PCs and not just for games but many other operations of another system as well, and I find it rather hard to believe that these details were missed in this article. I'll edit this detail in. Also, if any of you fellow Wikipedians see this, do you think that I should create an article listing notable emulation software or not? Vgamer101 17:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We've already got a List of emulators. It's pretty horrible. --Nydas 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the section titled "Operating systems" has a final paragraph that talks about emulation. Although certain types of emulation relate to a PCs operating systems, that section is supposed to be about the operating systems themselves, not really so much the emulation of them. So shouldn't that content be moved to the emulation section, due to the detal it goes into, and instead something else goes in it's place? The emulation section is still rather small and undetailed and could use the expansion a little bit. If any of you thinks this sounds stupid, please say so. And if you think it's a good idea, then I could try something myself and the rest of you could clean it up a little bit. How does this all sound? Vgamer101 04:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Generes

Some of the games listed in there so far might not fit, Civilisation, for example, isnt really a God-Game, perhaps this could be replaced with another game more strict to the genere, like Populous or Black and White. We should also add in a heirachy, perhaps? Like that RTS and TBS are both members of the Strategy genere, or that Tactical Shooters are offshoots of FPS'? Trjn 03:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A heirachy is good for clarity. Go for it. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 17:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ╫

[edit] Influential PC Game Developers

Perhaps a short list with a brief discription of some of the more influential gaming companies throughout the history of PC Gaming would benefit this article. It would be hard to 'define' influential, but perhaps companies that made some of the best selling games, the first of a certian genre, popular games and so on. My list would be: iD Software, Valve, Bullfrog, Lionhead, Firaxis, MicroProse, Blizzard, Epic Games and perhaps some others. Perhaps we could also expand this to influential PC Game developer indivduals like; John Carmack, Gabe Newel, Sid Meier, John Romero, Will Wright, Tim Sweeney et al. Trjn 03:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you do this please include Warren Spector as he did have a hand in the creation of Ultima Underworld, Ultima Underworld II, Deus Ex and System Shock. Also as for influental companies I would also say, on top of those you gave, 3D Realms, Looking Glass Studios, Ion Storm, and Origin Systems. Vgamer101 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Features unique to PC gaming

"===Rich user experience=== Through the availability of peripherals exclusive to PC gaming, many gamers are able to receive a richer experience than available on other platforms. Such examples are… Some gamers today go to great lengths to achieve realism or the best experience possible; several people hook up 4 to 12 LCD panel displays in order to see a cockpit, in Microsoft Flight Simulator, for example citation needed. Thrustmaster has long supported PC's with its creation of authentic flight joysticks, throttles, and peddles which allow gamers to control their plane/tank/car in a more realistic manner."

Removed this segment. 'Richer' is completely POV, and there's plenty of weasel words in there as well. The dubious and arbitary use of peripherals to justify the 'richness' has no basis - it's not as if consoles lack for add-ons as well. --Nydas 14:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucasarts as significant?

I think Lucasarts should be listed under Notable developers for theur amazing work with the SCUMM drivers.

[edit] Cleanup

I went ahead and totally rewrote some sections of this page, while generally cleaning up language where I thought it was necessary - the differences can be found here. I'd like to know what people think of these edits, since some of them were total section-rewrites. RandyWang (raves/rants) 03:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the external links, apart from the Linux guide. None of these sites are relevant. Gamespun [1] has not been updated for months. Gamers 2.0 [2] has only 69 members. 'Cyber Games' [3] appears just to be an empty shell.--Nydas 11:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed a spam link or two earlier, but didn't think to check the others out. Thanks for cleaning that up. :) RandyWang (raves/rants) 11:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I removed quite abit of information that weren't directly related to this article, such as notable individuals who contributed to some notable games. I also moved some info that were displaced, such as Warcraft III been under 1980's. Tell me what to add / remove further. Thanks



Isn't it interesting how this article seems to end with the idea of death? Might someone find it better to move around the subjects of the article so it doesn't have such negative connotation. I about fell out of my chair laughing about it. However, it's probably not a funny matter! :-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.58.18 (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popular and notable genres of PC gaming

This section is in an unacceptable condition for a potentially featured article, and needs to be gutted in order to conform with higher standards. Rather than just providing a list of genres, then listing some notable examples, this section needs to live up to the introduction provided in its leading paragraph and explain, with reference to specific genres, some of the differences between console genres and PC genres. So, with that in mind, I propose the following major changes:

  1. Completely remove the dot-point list of genres, and their notable examples, for the following reasons:
    • It's ill-formatted and consequently difficult to read.
    • It adds nothing of consequence to the article as a whole, and is redundant; all this information is at Computer and video game genres, and presented in a substanially better form.
    • The section's assertion that "Personal computers... have been the home of genres that have never proved popular on video game consoles." is never explored, explained or proven by the text provided, because it can't be in the current format.
    • Some of the genres provided, such as FPSs and Sports games, have arguably achieved the same (or greater) popularity on consoles as they have on PCs. The wild success of Halo is a tidy example.
  2. Replace the above list with a relatively small section of prose. This should:
    • Pick just a few genres, including one or two examples of each (such as Starcraft 64 for the RPG genre), and explain their history on both the PC and the console - including the degree to which they were successful on each.
    • Explain the reasons for their relative success, preferably using sourced statements.
    • Describe the current state of each of those selected genres, and their adoption among next-generation consoles (such as Oblivion on the Xbox 360 in the above RPG example). We'd do well to mention such differentiating factors as the moddability of PC games versus their console versions, as in the case of Oblivion.

This is a very major change to the section, and I wanted to give some prior warning of my intentions here. I'll give it a few days, to see what people think. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 05:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

In an attempt to get this article up to GA-class, I suggest we entirely remove the gallery for the following reasons:

  1. It's a collection of fair use images, none of which have been released to the public domain.
  2. None of them are used specifically for identification.
  3. They add nothing of value to the article: they're eye candy, and not used in such a way that the reader gains anything from having seen them.

I have nothing against using them in the text of the article, where they can be used to specifically identify and explain the importance of their subjects, but they should not be presented in the form of a gallery. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 11:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. The code has been retained at my sandbox, for future reference. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 06:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On RW totally rewriting the article

I say, go ahead and do it, full blast with the boldness. It doesn't even hit the 32k mark, yet it reads impossibly long due to all the unnecessary sections. I mean, just looking at this, I don't even want to touch it beause it looks so huge and unwieldy. The suggestions you've made so far seem fine, the gallery was badly selected and generally unnecessary. My observations and suggestions are...

  • History section mysteriously ends at 1995. Damn that PlayStation for destroying the PC market!
  • Game development section is... weird. It's mostly a list, besides that I'm not really sure what the focus of it should even be.
  • The distribution section needs severe cutting. "Service-delivery platforms" don't deserve more than a paragraph or two, total.
  • Genres, you've already explained it pretty well.

The main problem is that it's such a huge topic, yet the organization for this is all over the place, and personally I don't know how it should be either - it just reads in weird little pockets as it is now. --SevereTireDamage 11:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks a lot for that - it's very nice to know I haven't ballsed anything up too severely. I hadn't noticed a couple of the things you'd pointed out (most importantly, that the history section ends at 1995: I knew it ended eary, but hadn't really paid much attention to it at all). I'll keep working on it as time permits, and probably ask for some kind of review in a week or two's time. Thanks again! RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 11:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the list of notable developers - we really don't need an unexplained list of developers without any explanation of their importance. The information would be better presented as prose, in the section before it. I'll get right onto that. Just in case, the previous version is archived here. RandyWang (chat/patch) 08:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural impact

I've removed the information related to the cultural impact of PC games on specific countries. My reasoning:

  1. Most of this infomation is not specific to personal computer games.
  2. The information that is specific to those games, such as the comment "Many Japanese gamers view personal computers as a business tool, and that games are best played on dedicated hardware" are unsourced and almost certainly unverifiable. Either way, they're not really a "cultural impact", are they?

-- Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 12:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Sources

After finding this article on the peer review, I noticed that it was tagged for being unreferenced back in mid August, and at the time there was only one citied reference. Although this article may need more references if the aim is to get this to at least GA status, and it looks like that it is the eventual goal, (as said on the peer review) it seems to me that there is enough citied references in the article that removing the unreferenced tag is justified, so I'm going to go ahead and do it. --Clyde Miller 21:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The most curious offender was the part about Mac/Linux gaming, using phrases like "very few". That part at least should be backed up and made more specific; it should be very easy to find good sources that talk about the lack of Mac/Linux gaming. As a top-level article, there is definitely a need for a lot of sources on each sub-topic. Nifboy 03:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Gah! I'd missed that bit completely! >_< I've since stripped out as much of the POV commentary as I thought necessary, and replaced it with more reasonable information. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 10:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-FPS screenshots

It seems like all the screenshots, except Spacewar, are of FPS games. I think a more diverse representation of game screenshots would help this for GA status. -Hyad 02:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, very good point. I'll look around for something suitable. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor tweaks

  • Changed 'most' to 'virtually all' PCs having a keyboard and mouse.
  • Cleaned up some typos.
  • Removed excessive adjectives and adverbs which rendered certain sections more like advertising.
  • Trimmed the online delivery section.

Generally speaking, I think that this article has an excess of technical information - the nitty-gritty of internet connections, processor speeds, storage media, etc. On the other hand, there's little to nothing on the shift from DOS to Windows. --Nydas 19:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved some information from the "Operating System" section on DOS incompatbilities to the history, but it's now just a very basic note. Would you be able to expand this into something more meaningful? Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 22:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know that much about it. It just struck me as a technical aspect which was strangely overlooked. I still think that there's probably too much technical info and not enough stuff about actual games. A paragraph on physics systems, for example, with two games mentioned in passing. --Nydas 06:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

After reviewing the article, I'm going to decline GA status for the time being. Overall the article is well done, I just had a little bit of problem with possible OR in a few cases. See my full comments below.

1. Is it well written? -- Pass

Although there are a couple minor awkward phrases ("have becoming popular"), and the occasional phrase that seems out of place in an encyclopedia ("knocked proprietary interfaces out of the market"), it is well written, and more importantly understandable to someone who doesn't really know much about the world of PC games.

2.It is factually accurate and verifiable?" -- Needs Improvement

This is the only major area that I feel that needs work to bring the article up to GA status. Although much of the article is well-sourced (especially the Controversies section), I couldn't help but notice things that I would have liked to see cite for. These include:

  • The increased competition from fifth and sixth generation consoles resulted in most publishers providing such extras only in Special Edition versions of their games, such as Battlechests from Blizzard. (evidence that it was the competition that did this)
  • PC games are usually built around a central piece of software, known as a game engine, that simplifies the development process and enables developers to easily port their projects between platforms (I don't question this, but without a cite this is OR)
  • However, shareware has largely fallen out of favor among established game companies due to its risky nature and traditionally low margins (Again, a cite that this is the reason is required)

Also, "Many of today's popular games originated on the Commodore Amiga computer platform..." the cite associated with this sentence has to do with the hardware of the Amiga, not that "many of today's popular games" originated there. There is also a "citation needed tag", that also needs to be dealt with.

3.It is broad in its coverage --- Pass

This is the most impressive part of the article. The subject is really broad, and the article does a good job of giving just enough information about the various subjects to make it focused. This is especially true of the sections where there is a "Main Section". The summery is generally very well done.

In the area on shareware, it might be useful to mention the casual game industry as well. It mentions Pop Cap in particular, but other makers of these type of games do seem to make use of a model that resembles shareware.

4.It follows the neutral point of view policy --- Pass

The overall tone is NPOV. The Controversy section, where it would be very easy to stray into POV, stays on topic and remains NPOV.

5.It is stable --- Pass

The core of the article has remained stable for some time.

6. It contains images --- Pass

The images are well placed and appropriate to the article.

Again, with the exception of the citations in some areas, the article is very well done. However, with a number of items that do feel like WP:OR, I don't think the article is yet ready to be added as a good article. Though, after making changes, do feel free to resubmit it. ---- The Bethling(Talk) 01:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


At the suggestion of another GA reviewer, I went through and added "citation needed" tags to the areas that I feel need a cite. Again, the article is really well done, especially for the scope. I think the addition of citations in these places will help improve verifiability of the article. --- The Bethling(Talk) 01:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't confident that this article would succeed in its nomination, so I'm pleasantly surprised to hear that it was better than I thought. Thank you very much for the comments, and particularly for placing fact tags on specific clauses - I've gone through and stripped out a few unsourceable claims, and sourced a couple of others. I'll keep at this, and we'll see where we're at in a few days. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-review

Having looked at the changes, I've decided to pass the article for GA status. I'm not going to go into as much detail this time around, because, with the exception of the refrences, my other comments are still valid.

The article has done a better job eliminating the areas that I felt were lacking proper citations, adding them where needed, or removing the subject matter that was questionable. It's definintly taken a step forward in quality. You've done a good job. --- The Bethling(Talk) 23:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. :) I'll see if I can address other comments that were made too (particularly related to writing style, and appropriate coverage), but this is very encouraging. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I have removed all three external links, for the following reasons (per Wikipedia:External links):

  • Linux Gamers' How-to
    • This page is useful only to a very specific portion of readers (ie, only Linux gamers), and provides no information that expands on that which is already in this article. Thus, it fails "Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community" (by my interpretation - esoteric content like this is inaccessible and unreadable to the vast majority of readers) and "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article".
  • NVIDIA nZone: PC Gaming and Game Demos
    • "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services": The page provides only game demos - which themselves exist solely to sell the full versions of the game - and no substantive information about personal computer games in general. In this respect, it also fails "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article".
  • NVIDIA SLI Technology: Multi-Graphics Card PC's
    • Per the nzone page above, this is a product page that does not provide "a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article".

--Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 02:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer re-review - comments on history organization

(In response to this post): the history section does seem rather awkwardly organized. I'm not sure how closely you're planning to associate this with the other articles on the subject, but one difficulty in finding a good organization might be the fact that History of computer and video games is very listy and unorganized, so it doesn't really suggest a structure for the summary here. The existing sectioning seems arbitrary but no sectioning at all would result in a large and difficult-to-read text blob. At the moment the text reminds me of JPEG artifacts; it's been so over-compressed it's losing its meaning. I can't say I'm sure how to resolve this either, since almost nothing I write has a history section; might be worth asking the opinion of someone who works more on popular phenomena.

As a couple of more specific comments, the screenshot from F.E.A.R. doesn't strike me as the best possible illustration of modern graphics - it's too dark on the right, and in the thumbnail I wasn't even sure what was going on exactly. I know it's a bit old but the outdoor scenes from Half-Life 2 are much more visually appealing. Sorry that wasn't more useful. Opabinia regalis 07:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that was very useful indeed. I fully agree that the history is overly compressed and arbitrarily organise, but I also have no idea what to do. Perhaps we could split it off into History of personal computer games, and either compress it a little more (to make it a very general summary), or expand it a little but remove unnecessary specifics... I don't know. This will take some thinking about. Thanks again. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 07:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamasutra -- history of computer RPGs

Gamasutra has posted an exhaustive history of computer role playing games online, found two two parts. This would probably be very useful for fleshing out the history section -- I'll work on that if I ever find some time. -- Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 06:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is already a history of computer role-playing games, if you'd rather contribute there. SharkD 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forums?

The section title "Forums" at the end strikes me as...weird, and not really at the same level of the rest of the article.

Take a look:

"Online computer games have led to the rise of many forums. A lot of games have their own forums, but often people create and manage their own for their friends and other people. One such forum is www.gamereplays.org, specially for Real Time Strategy games. Forums give people a chance to discuss their favorite games as well as learn and meet new people."

Nothing here strikes me as overtly wrong (although it seems to be a bit of advertising, so I don't know) but it doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the article, which struck me as being quite effective. What do you guys think?

ManicParroT 13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't add anything to the article; lots of things have led to the rise of forums. The advertising doesn't help either. I say remove it.--Nydas(Talk) 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur, and removed it a moment ago. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 03:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hhh

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.90.224 (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consolitis

There should be a section (or article) on consolitis. SharkD 22:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

The introductory paragraph contains duplicate information covered better elsewhere in the article. Is there a reason it is presented twice? SharkD 04:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.B. Funkeys

Should we mention U.B._Funkeys? It seems to be a big seller, and it's different from their other products. --MahaPanta 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect from computer game is a bad idea

I'm revising some articles on mainframe computer games, and at least one of them points to computer game, which currently redirects here. That's bad. There should be an article there that points here, and to consoles, coin-ops, interactive fiction/text adventures, describes genres, etc. -- Akb4 (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sorry

I sorry for destroyind this article, i only checked if i can to do this.

[edit] Section 1.2 ("Industry crash") is confusing.

This section needs to be rewritten a bit. In paragraphs 1 and 2 it talks about the demise of the console market circa 1983, then in paragraph 3 makes an about-face and says the console market had a resurgence (date unspecified). Also, the footnote referenced in paragraph 3 does not even mention Nintendo and is therefor a non-valid citation. Low Sea (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Letter to the people that made Oregon Trail

I don't know how to play the game. It doesn't have a start button so how will people play if there's not a start button.Sincerly,

                            Alison Dugger  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.7.34 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut keys; the keyboard is full of them. MECC went out of business over a decade ago. & which version of the Oregon Trail? & shouldn;t you be asking a game forum instead of posting this here?

[edit] Sales.

How about a little something on sales of PC gaming? Reports only ever seem to include store purchaces, but never online purchaces. & since most PC games are purchaced online & those statistics aren't included, peaople tend to claim that PC sales get lower & lower when it can be quite the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like any info on why Japan basicly shrinks on making or porting their games to PC, outside of Novel Games like animamundi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] effects of computer games

is there any pysical effects in the body caused by just playing computer games? vahn_dinio 10:30, 14 May 2008

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cod4 game engine.jpg

The image Image:Cod4 game engine.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)